Tell us why you are prepared to trust Apple AND its partners and licensees (whom you may never know) not to abuse the information it has been collecting on you?
I don't trust Apple. When I was about to get an iPhone in January I indeed read the TOS and especially the letter Apple has sent to Congress last year, explaining its mechanisms and privacy policies. And I came to the conclusion that I don't need to trust Apple to be reasonably sure they will respect my privacy. Because the way they gather data seems to make invading my privacy quite impossible. Believe it or not, technical solutions to technical problems instead of "trust me!". Unheard of!
Really, I found their mechanisms to be surprisingly sophisticated (in a good way) and considerate. Random IDs generated on the iPhone twice daily for sending location data are so much better than Google sending the Unique Device ID and Carrier User ID to its servers that no amount of trusting Google could compensate for that.
And yes, I was surprised, I did not expect that. So: I don't trust Apple, but I think I don't have to trust them.
Don't know if this answers your question. But personally I think if you're looking for a company (or government for that matter) you can trust, you will be shafted sooner or later. Make sure you don't have to trust them. Technical details matter.
WRT to this location database on the iPhone: Well. If storing the locations of the cell towers means the iPhone don't has to ask the databases of Google or SkyHook over and over again for these coordinates, I rather have them on my iPhone. Because every time your phone asks SkyHook where a cell tower with a certain ID is, it neccessarily tells SkyHook where you are. Either you have a local DB for that or you connect to an external one. Tough choice. Either your phone tracks you or Google/SkyHook tracks your phone. I know what to prefer.
But just too many people have no idea how aGPS works and believe they can have their cake and eat it, too.
Could we please stop talking about which company to trust and instead insist in implementations of privacy-related technology that make sure that we don't HAVE to trust them in the first place? Can we start to look at details instead of waging opinion wars and spreading FUD?
To describe what I mean let's compare the location-aware ad systems of Apple (iAd) and Google (AdMob). iAd works by sending your location when viewing an iAd ad along with a random ID generated twice daily on the iPhone to Apple's servers. This ID is anonymous (because it's just a random number) and even the now anonymous user can't be tracked (because the ID changes twice a day). I would call this a clean and rather sophisticated implementation. I don't trust Apple and the advertizing industry, but with this implementation I don't have to. I'm anonymous with iAd and can't be tracked with this. Apple can be evil or not evil, I don't fucking care. They can do with my anonymous and untrackable location data whatever they fucking want to.
Now, Admob. Admob sends the location data along with the Unique Device ID and the Carrier User ID. Both never change, so I can be tracked; the Unique Device ID is fixed to my phone and the Carrier User ID is fixed to my carrier contract, so I'm not anonymous. I *have* to trust Google and the companies Google works with, since this data can be abused. I do NOT want Google to do with that data whatever they want because there is a myriad of things possible with it that would invade my privacy. So I have to trust them. I don't like having to trust them.
If you have RTFA you'll have read that sentence "But he added that the information is collected anonymously and the devices give users controls for disabling the location features." This refers to the random-ID mechanism described above. Isn't this enough? All the other sentences is this article are FUD, it never even describes the mechanism Apple uses. Because if it did, everybody would say "So what? They get my location with a random ID that is in no way connected to my device or to me and that changes twice daily, so why the hell should I care for whatever someone does with it?"
So why the hell do we fight about Apple being evil or Google not being evil? I don't care, in the end corporations can't and shouldn't be trusted, none of them. I don't trust Apple and neither do I trust Google. I want implementations of such mechanisms that DO NOT REQUIRE ME TO TRUST THEM.
Let's talk about the fucking details and stop fighting about whom to trust and whom not. Don't trust them and make sure you don't have to.
This file does *not* track you. It tracks WiFi access points (and maybe cellphone towers). The data is used both by the OS for location services and for random users at random intervals by Apple to optimize their WiFi landmark databases. In this case iTunes asks you to transfer the file back to Apple (which you can accept or deny).
BTW, I'm totally disgusted by the witchhunt reflex here. Is this "News for Nerds" or "Lynchmob United"?
So the question comes down to: what's the purpose of the file? Does it exist for a legitimate reason? Or something more sinister? Since the file is never sent anywhere, it's hard to see how Apple directly benefit here.
"To provide location-based services on Apple products, Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. This location data is collected anonymously in a form that does not personally identify you and is used by Apple and our partners and licensees to provide and improve location-based products and services. For example, we may share geographic location with application providers when you opt in to their location services."
Now compare this with Google (AdMob):
"AdMob also collects certain information about visitors to publishers' sites that connect to the AdMob Mobile Services. AdMob will automatically collect and receive information about those visitors such as, but not limited to, browser identifiers, session information, browser cookies, device type, carrier provider, IP addresses, unique device ID, carrier user ID, geo-location information, sites visited and clicks on advertisements we display."
Note the "unique device ID" and "carrier user ID" parts.
The witchhunt against Apple is just disgusting. If you look into the details Apple may have a healthy interest in data collection but they also are (meanwhile) almost examplary cautious when it comes to anonymizing and minimizing individual user data. iAd for example transmits the location data with a random ID that is generated twice daily on the device and then the data is converted to rough zip codes, so that there is no way to track users.
Some people seem to hail Google whatever they do and at the same time just love to stamp Apple in the ground even when Apple is much more careful with what it does. Heil Google! Burn the Jews^WApple! Disgusting, really.
valuable/confidential data on servers you don't personally fully control, you're deserving whatever you get.
And by this I don't mean you shouldn't use things like DropBox. DropBox is great and cheap and easy to use for what it does. Just don't use it for things you don't want to get into the wrong hands or at least encrypt your data beforehand. What's so hard to understand here? And this of course is not limited to DropBox. If you have a rented server out there it may be "yours" but what do you think will the company you're renting it from do when push comes to shove?
While I totally agree that Samsung tried very, very hard to have the Galaxy phone and its UI look as much as an iPhone as possible, it's totally hopeless to sue them.
I mean, they're black rectangles with rounded corners and colorful icons in a grid on the screen. Still, others managed to give their phone a design that doesn't cry "iPhone!" to everyone, asking or not. What Samsung did was totally uncreative and somewhat shameless, but not illegal.
Anyway: This is in no way subtle or random chance.
Disable in-app purchases across the board. Then your kid will ask you if they can buy something, and you can evaluate each request on its merits.
Parents thought they would be doing exactly this by not giving their kids the passwords, so the kids had to come and ask their parents to type in the password for them. And then had to learn that for 15 minutes the kids could buy things without being presented with a password prompt.
Having to enable and disable in-app purchases over and over just to avoid to be run over by the 15 minute password caching is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. What about just DISABLING password caching, so that you have to type the password for each and every purchase?
But maybe you don't want to prevent all in-app purchases? Maybe you only want to make sure that your kids don't buy things without your oversight? By keeping the password to yourself and having them ask you to buy things for them?
The trouble is the password caching for 15 minutes. Many parents thought (and still think) that by not giving the password to their kids and requiring them to come and ask to type in the password they would be safe against the kids buying things on their own. What's a password good for if you have to disable in-app purchases altogether just to make sure that your kids can't buy whatever they want for 15 minutes if you have typed in the password once for one purchase? This is like having an ATM give out free money to everyone asking for it out of your account for 15 minutes after you've removed your card.
Not giving your kids your password and typing it in for them if they want to buy something is totally reasonable and surely in no way bad parenting. Being bitten by "convenient" password caching is infuriating. I would sue Apple to hell and back if this would have happened to me. Password caching should be optional and default to off.
Until the password handling changed it was a bit of an issue. Having a "live" password for 15 minutes was like holding a ticking grenade. i.e. once you'd entered your password to download the free game (fine) it was also valid for in app purchases until the cooldown wore off. That I think was the major source of this issue, as you've said, now fixed (I think?).
Apple just did a PR stunt with the changes they did. Now you have two independent 15 minute windows, one for app purchases and one for in-app purchases. So you can still keep the password for yourself, type in the password for your kid to buy a game for a buck, give the iPod/iPhone/iPad back to your kid and the brat can continue to spend a fortune by buying a dozen more expensive games without ever seeing a password prompt. Same with in-app purchases: Type the password once for an in-app purchase, allow 15 minutes of password-free smurfberry buying. So you still have to wait 15 minutes after buying anything until you can give the thing back to your kids. Insane.
The more simple and more sane solution would have been a simple option to disable password caching altogether, so that each and every purchase requires the password no matter what. This way things would be clear and easy: Keep the password to yourself and your kids can't buy anything without asking you to type the password. As it should be.
This has perplexed me since I first bought an IPod 4th gen. Why on earth are you required to attach a credit card to an account? I fail to see the need for it. As far as kids racking up bills...That would immediately solve the problem. All the kids would have access to are the free apps.
Well, Apple requires a CC to set up an accout so that you can buy things. If you don't like that you can easily remove your CC data after the accout setup is finished. You can still buy things with ITMS gift cards then.
Still: If you have an iPod/iPhone/iPad and give it to your kids now and then it's actually a quite reasonable thing to have CC data on file and just keep the password for yourself. If your kids want to buy/download an app you can still type the password for them if you allow them this app. This is totally wrecked though by the fact that your password is now cached by iOS for 15 minutes and your kid can buy happily app after app and smurfberry after smurfberry for 15 minutes without any password prompt popping up and as such even without knowing that money is being spent.
These parents aren't idiots. They were lured into a trap, that's all. Relying on the fact that buying requires a password typed in and NOT giving your kids that password is totally reasonable and in no way bad parenting. Caching that password for 15 minutes is a very bad idea and Apple had this idea.
So when you purchase something inside an iOS app, that app has the ability to use your current iTunes login to charge money to your iTunes account?
No. You have to put in your password.
Once you have put in your password to buy an app (even a free one) you can now buy things for 15 minutes without having to type your password.
Many people here don't seem to understand that exactly this is/was the problem for many parents: They did not give the password to their kids. They required their kids to ask nicely to buy/download an app and the parents then typed the password for them. And THEN the kids tapped around in the newly bought app and could spend huge sums of money without even knowing that they were spending money -- the app didn't ask for a password after all.
Password caching is evil. There's no point in acting reasonably and not giving the password to your kids when they then still can buy things just because the password YOU typed in to buy ONE app is cached for 15 minutes and for all purchases a kid may try now. Evil.
So, neglectful parents are suing Apple because they can't be fucked with to watch what their children are doing?
How about this: don't give your kid the iTunes account password?
The point is THEY WEREN'T GIVING THEIR KIDS THE PASSWORD. They typed it in for them to "buy" a free app and then the kids bought things from within that app in the 15 minute window you can buy things without having to re-type the password.
I would VERY much prefer an option to disable that password caching altogether. When I buy something I want the device to require the password each and every time I spend money.
Keep in mind, to keep the device 'listening' all the time, searching for speech to recognize would consume a tremendous amount of battery.
The push/tap/haptic input to talk thing is a good thing, esp with today's battery tech.
It would also mean that everything you say would need to be sent to Google in real-time (because the Android speech recognition doesn't run on the phone but on Google's servers).
here are exceptions in certain dysfunctional communities, but usually true madness sinks to the bottom. Describing Jobs as a sociopath just because he has very clear (and obviously very correct) ideas how devices for the masses should work is, well, mad.
By your logic, the more haters, the more right they are, correct?
The world is not just the/. crowd. And it's not just about some Apple products. The idea of simple and streamlined software and hardware being preferred by most "normal" people seems to be something that infuriates insecure power-users and still the rest of the population doesn't hate this, they very much like it and willingly even pay more for something that does less (but better, easier and more elegant).
Breaking free of the geek mindset is something that Apple did very thoroughly and successfully. Think about Jobs and Apple and iOS what you want but don't pretend people generally hate them. People generally hate computers and the less computer-like something looks and works, the less they hate it.
I always felt that those people who insist in demonizing Jobs and Gates look much more psychopathic than Jobs and Gates. They are surely less grounded and in touch with reality, even if just because they did *not* manage to get large companies up and running from nothing. They're purely negative and destructive, just reacting to something they don't understand or don't like, with no means to do something successful on their own.
I'm not saying there are no psychopaths in the industry but mostly you find them in meager positions of power that cater to their special "talent". The "captains" mostly are bright and realistic guys, even if often with an iron will and/or personal quirks. Like it or not but success is the most clear indicator for psychological health we have. There are exceptions in certain dysfunctional communities, but usually true madness sinks to the bottom. Describing Jobs as a sociopath just because he has very clear (and obviously very correct) ideas how devices for the masses should work is, well, mad.
The only thing that saves us from all-powerful Google is its sheer incompetence in appealing to non-geeks. Imagine Google knowing how to make things truly popular, easy to use, and fun! The world would wriggle in Google hands. We would be lost, freedom and privacy gone forever.
Apple and Google in competition is perfect: Apple will always be too expensive and greedy to be really dangerous, preferring profits over power. Google will always be too geeky and inept to be dangerous, even if Google could be the next worst thing after a Big Brother style government.
First, Apple isn't "intentionally slowing down web apps to make their native apps more favorable." They have added a new JS interpreter (actually a just-in-time JS compiler) to Safari, but not to the "normal" web views that other apps can embed. This means only Safari is faster now, others are as fast as before.
Second, this test is flawed since it does not use Safari. It uses a custom app which uses neither the new JS engine nor the better caching of Safari or asynchronous multithreading.
Face it: Free Software has totally failed. Use *only* Free Software (with no closed source drivers and BIOS) and do not use popular Web services (they're closed source, too) and the people actually able to be happy with what is left now are down to a single digit percentage of all people using computers and software and cellphones and the net.
Why? Because the Free Software movement just did not manage to get something really new and usable out of the door. It failed big time, it fucked up, it gambled away whatever advantages it had for a while. There's no Linux and no GNU/Linux and no Hurd on the desktops and laptops and tablets and mobile phones today. And it's more than just ironic that the only system where Linux really got into the hands of the masses is Android with which Google inserts its tentacles in every single of your digital orifices. And people get Android phones not because it is based on Linux but because of the closed source apps.
So: Yeah, Stallman is right and has ever been. But he failed and all the developers and evangelists and idle talkers failed too. It's really that simple. It's an epic, tragic failure. Stallman and all those who fought and bickered about Qt/Gtk and Gnome/KDE and top quoting in email while Linux lost the battle for the desktop and email lost against Facebook are just losers. I hate to say this, but others were better. They delivered. OS X is better than Linux in all practical terms and MeeGo is a sad joke against iOS.
This cace is "near the moon's equator". The only places where we could find water are on the poles. So, what to do there? Sitting in a cave doing nothing may be fine, but why go to the moon for that?
This "Internet" thing was getting out of hand anyway. Consumers will be happy to stay behind a safe and cheap NAT and everything else will be tightly controlled and expensive.
Seriously, I can't see this being fixed in any clean and fussless way soon (or at all). All have been sitting on their hands far too long. It's pathetic, really.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell us why you are prepared to trust Apple AND its partners and licensees (whom you may never know) not to abuse the information it has been collecting on you?
I don't trust Apple. When I was about to get an iPhone in January I indeed read the TOS and especially the letter Apple has sent to Congress last year, explaining its mechanisms and privacy policies. And I came to the conclusion that I don't need to trust Apple to be reasonably sure they will respect my privacy. Because the way they gather data seems to make invading my privacy quite impossible. Believe it or not, technical solutions to technical problems instead of "trust me!". Unheard of!
Really, I found their mechanisms to be surprisingly sophisticated (in a good way) and considerate. Random IDs generated on the iPhone twice daily for sending location data are so much better than Google sending the Unique Device ID and Carrier User ID to its servers that no amount of trusting Google could compensate for that.
And yes, I was surprised, I did not expect that. So: I don't trust Apple, but I think I don't have to trust them.
Don't know if this answers your question. But personally I think if you're looking for a company (or government for that matter) you can trust, you will be shafted sooner or later. Make sure you don't have to trust them. Technical details matter.
WRT to this location database on the iPhone: Well. If storing the locations of the cell towers means the iPhone don't has to ask the databases of Google or SkyHook over and over again for these coordinates, I rather have them on my iPhone. Because every time your phone asks SkyHook where a cell tower with a certain ID is, it neccessarily tells SkyHook where you are. Either you have a local DB for that or you connect to an external one. Tough choice. Either your phone tracks you or Google/SkyHook tracks your phone. I know what to prefer.
But just too many people have no idea how aGPS works and believe they can have their cake and eat it, too.
Could we please stop talking about which company to trust and instead insist in implementations of privacy-related technology that make sure that we don't HAVE to trust them in the first place? Can we start to look at details instead of waging opinion wars and spreading FUD?
To describe what I mean let's compare the location-aware ad systems of Apple (iAd) and Google (AdMob). iAd works by sending your location when viewing an iAd ad along with a random ID generated twice daily on the iPhone to Apple's servers. This ID is anonymous (because it's just a random number) and even the now anonymous user can't be tracked (because the ID changes twice a day). I would call this a clean and rather sophisticated implementation. I don't trust Apple and the advertizing industry, but with this implementation I don't have to. I'm anonymous with iAd and can't be tracked with this. Apple can be evil or not evil, I don't fucking care. They can do with my anonymous and untrackable location data whatever they fucking want to.
Now, Admob. Admob sends the location data along with the Unique Device ID and the Carrier User ID. Both never change, so I can be tracked; the Unique Device ID is fixed to my phone and the Carrier User ID is fixed to my carrier contract, so I'm not anonymous. I *have* to trust Google and the companies Google works with, since this data can be abused. I do NOT want Google to do with that data whatever they want because there is a myriad of things possible with it that would invade my privacy. So I have to trust them. I don't like having to trust them.
If you have RTFA you'll have read that sentence "But he added that the information is collected anonymously and the devices give users controls for disabling the location features." This refers to the random-ID mechanism described above. Isn't this enough? All the other sentences is this article are FUD, it never even describes the mechanism Apple uses. Because if it did, everybody would say "So what? They get my location with a random ID that is in no way connected to my device or to me and that changes twice daily, so why the hell should I care for whatever someone does with it?"
So why the hell do we fight about Apple being evil or Google not being evil? I don't care, in the end corporations can't and shouldn't be trusted, none of them. I don't trust Apple and neither do I trust Google. I want implementations of such mechanisms that DO NOT REQUIRE ME TO TRUST THEM.
Let's talk about the fucking details and stop fighting about whom to trust and whom not. Don't trust them and make sure you don't have to.
http://markey.house.gov/docs/applemarkeybarton7-12-10.pdf (around page 6)
This file does *not* track you. It tracks WiFi access points (and maybe cellphone towers). The data is used both by the OS for location services and for random users at random intervals by Apple to optimize their WiFi landmark databases. In this case iTunes asks you to transfer the file back to Apple (which you can accept or deny).
BTW, I'm totally disgusted by the witchhunt reflex here. Is this "News for Nerds" or "Lynchmob United"?
So the question comes down to: what's the purpose of the file? Does it exist for a legitimate reason? Or something more sinister? Since the file is never sent anywhere, it's hard to see how Apple directly benefit here.
http://markey.house.gov/docs/applemarkeybarton7-12-10.pdf
Page 6. Nothing new, really. And nothing evil either.
"To provide location-based services on Apple products, Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. This location data is collected anonymously in a form that does not personally identify you and is used by Apple and our partners and licensees to provide and improve location-based products and services. For example, we may share geographic location with application providers when you opt in to their location services."
Now compare this with Google (AdMob):
"AdMob also collects certain information about visitors to publishers' sites that connect to the AdMob Mobile Services. AdMob will automatically collect and receive information about those visitors such as, but not limited to, browser identifiers, session information, browser cookies, device type, carrier provider, IP addresses, unique device ID, carrier user ID, geo-location information, sites visited and clicks on advertisements we display."
Note the "unique device ID" and "carrier user ID" parts.
The witchhunt against Apple is just disgusting. If you look into the details Apple may have a healthy interest in data collection but they also are (meanwhile) almost examplary cautious when it comes to anonymizing and minimizing individual user data. iAd for example transmits the location data with a random ID that is generated twice daily on the device and then the data is converted to rough zip codes, so that there is no way to track users.
Some people seem to hail Google whatever they do and at the same time just love to stamp Apple in the ground even when Apple is much more careful with what it does. Heil Google! Burn the Jews^WApple! Disgusting, really.
valuable/confidential data on servers you don't personally fully control, you're deserving whatever you get.
And by this I don't mean you shouldn't use things like DropBox. DropBox is great and cheap and easy to use for what it does. Just don't use it for things you don't want to get into the wrong hands or at least encrypt your data beforehand. What's so hard to understand here? And this of course is not limited to DropBox. If you have a rented server out there it may be "yours" but what do you think will the company you're renting it from do when push comes to shove?
While I totally agree that Samsung tried very, very hard to have the Galaxy phone and its UI look as much as an iPhone as possible, it's totally hopeless to sue them.
I mean, they're black rectangles with rounded corners and colorful icons in a grid on the screen. Still, others managed to give their phone a design that doesn't cry "iPhone!" to everyone, asking or not. What Samsung did was totally uncreative and somewhat shameless, but not illegal.
Anyway: This is in no way subtle or random chance.
Disable in-app purchases across the board. Then your kid will ask you if they can buy something, and you can evaluate each request on its merits.
Parents thought they would be doing exactly this by not giving their kids the passwords, so the kids had to come and ask their parents to type in the password for them. And then had to learn that for 15 minutes the kids could buy things without being presented with a password prompt.
Having to enable and disable in-app purchases over and over just to avoid to be run over by the 15 minute password caching is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. What about just DISABLING password caching, so that you have to type the password for each and every purchase?
Funny, there's a pretty simple way to prevent in-app purchases built right in.
But maybe you don't want to prevent all in-app purchases? Maybe you only want to make sure that your kids don't buy things without your oversight? By keeping the password to yourself and having them ask you to buy things for them?
The trouble is the password caching for 15 minutes. Many parents thought (and still think) that by not giving the password to their kids and requiring them to come and ask to type in the password they would be safe against the kids buying things on their own. What's a password good for if you have to disable in-app purchases altogether just to make sure that your kids can't buy whatever they want for 15 minutes if you have typed in the password once for one purchase? This is like having an ATM give out free money to everyone asking for it out of your account for 15 minutes after you've removed your card.
Not giving your kids your password and typing it in for them if they want to buy something is totally reasonable and surely in no way bad parenting. Being bitten by "convenient" password caching is infuriating. I would sue Apple to hell and back if this would have happened to me. Password caching should be optional and default to off.
Until the password handling changed it was a bit of an issue. Having a "live" password for 15 minutes was like holding a ticking grenade. i.e. once you'd entered your password to download the free game (fine) it was also valid for in app purchases until the cooldown wore off. That I think was the major source of this issue, as you've said, now fixed (I think?).
Apple just did a PR stunt with the changes they did. Now you have two independent 15 minute windows, one for app purchases and one for in-app purchases. So you can still keep the password for yourself, type in the password for your kid to buy a game for a buck, give the iPod/iPhone/iPad back to your kid and the brat can continue to spend a fortune by buying a dozen more expensive games without ever seeing a password prompt. Same with in-app purchases: Type the password once for an in-app purchase, allow 15 minutes of password-free smurfberry buying. So you still have to wait 15 minutes after buying anything until you can give the thing back to your kids. Insane.
The more simple and more sane solution would have been a simple option to disable password caching altogether, so that each and every purchase requires the password no matter what. This way things would be clear and easy: Keep the password to yourself and your kids can't buy anything without asking you to type the password. As it should be.
This has perplexed me since I first bought an IPod 4th gen. Why on earth are you required to attach a credit card to an account? I fail to see the need for it. As far as kids racking up bills...That would immediately solve the problem. All the kids would have access to are the free apps.
Well, Apple requires a CC to set up an accout so that you can buy things. If you don't like that you can easily remove your CC data after the accout setup is finished. You can still buy things with ITMS gift cards then.
Still: If you have an iPod/iPhone/iPad and give it to your kids now and then it's actually a quite reasonable thing to have CC data on file and just keep the password for yourself. If your kids want to buy/download an app you can still type the password for them if you allow them this app. This is totally wrecked though by the fact that your password is now cached by iOS for 15 minutes and your kid can buy happily app after app and smurfberry after smurfberry for 15 minutes without any password prompt popping up and as such even without knowing that money is being spent.
These parents aren't idiots. They were lured into a trap, that's all. Relying on the fact that buying requires a password typed in and NOT giving your kids that password is totally reasonable and in no way bad parenting. Caching that password for 15 minutes is a very bad idea and Apple had this idea.
So when you purchase something inside an iOS app, that app has the ability to use your current iTunes login to charge money to your iTunes account?
No. You have to put in your password.
Once you have put in your password to buy an app (even a free one) you can now buy things for 15 minutes without having to type your password.
Many people here don't seem to understand that exactly this is/was the problem for many parents: They did not give the password to their kids. They required their kids to ask nicely to buy/download an app and the parents then typed the password for them. And THEN the kids tapped around in the newly bought app and could spend huge sums of money without even knowing that they were spending money -- the app didn't ask for a password after all.
Password caching is evil. There's no point in acting reasonably and not giving the password to your kids when they then still can buy things just because the password YOU typed in to buy ONE app is cached for 15 minutes and for all purchases a kid may try now. Evil.
So, neglectful parents are suing Apple because they can't be fucked with to watch what their children are doing?
How about this: don't give your kid the iTunes account password?
The point is THEY WEREN'T GIVING THEIR KIDS THE PASSWORD. They typed it in for them to "buy" a free app and then the kids bought things from within that app in the 15 minute window you can buy things without having to re-type the password.
I would VERY much prefer an option to disable that password caching altogether. When I buy something I want the device to require the password each and every time I spend money.
Keep in mind, to keep the device 'listening' all the time, searching for speech to recognize would consume a tremendous amount of battery.
The push/tap/haptic input to talk thing is a good thing, esp with today's battery tech.
It would also mean that everything you say would need to be sent to Google in real-time (because the Android speech recognition doesn't run on the phone but on Google's servers).
here are exceptions in certain dysfunctional communities, but usually true madness sinks to the bottom. Describing Jobs as a sociopath just because he has very clear (and obviously very correct) ideas how devices for the masses should work is, well, mad.
By your logic, the more haters, the more right they are, correct?
The world is not just the /. crowd. And it's not just about some Apple products. The idea of simple and streamlined software and hardware being preferred by most "normal" people seems to be something that infuriates insecure power-users and still the rest of the population doesn't hate this, they very much like it and willingly even pay more for something that does less (but better, easier and more elegant).
Breaking free of the geek mindset is something that Apple did very thoroughly and successfully. Think about Jobs and Apple and iOS what you want but don't pretend people generally hate them. People generally hate computers and the less computer-like something looks and works, the less they hate it.
I'm not talking about you, of course.
I always felt that those people who insist in demonizing Jobs and Gates look much more psychopathic than Jobs and Gates. They are surely less grounded and in touch with reality, even if just because they did *not* manage to get large companies up and running from nothing. They're purely negative and destructive, just reacting to something they don't understand or don't like, with no means to do something successful on their own.
I'm not saying there are no psychopaths in the industry but mostly you find them in meager positions of power that cater to their special "talent". The "captains" mostly are bright and realistic guys, even if often with an iron will and/or personal quirks. Like it or not but success is the most clear indicator for psychological health we have. There are exceptions in certain dysfunctional communities, but usually true madness sinks to the bottom. Describing Jobs as a sociopath just because he has very clear (and obviously very correct) ideas how devices for the masses should work is, well, mad.
"Don't be evil" could not have been the motto with that douChEO in charge
Youtube wouldn't be using Flash right now, though.
And Google Apps would be a joy to use instead of the total mess it is.
The only thing that saves us from all-powerful Google is its sheer incompetence in appealing to non-geeks. Imagine Google knowing how to make things truly popular, easy to use, and fun! The world would wriggle in Google hands. We would be lost, freedom and privacy gone forever.
Apple and Google in competition is perfect: Apple will always be too expensive and greedy to be really dangerous, preferring profits over power. Google will always be too geeky and inept to be dangerous, even if Google could be the next worst thing after a Big Brother style government.
First, Apple isn't "intentionally slowing down web apps to make their native apps more favorable." They have added a new JS interpreter (actually a just-in-time JS compiler) to Safari, but not to the "normal" web views that other apps can embed. This means only Safari is faster now, others are as fast as before.
Second, this test is flawed since it does not use Safari. It uses a custom app which uses neither the new JS engine nor the better caching of Safari or asynchronous multithreading.
Japan are a strong people. These things are an inconvenience, but they will pull through. It's in their nature.
It's not "nature". It's culture. Which is quite the opposite.
Face it: Free Software has totally failed. Use *only* Free Software (with no closed source drivers and BIOS) and do not use popular Web services (they're closed source, too) and the people actually able to be happy with what is left now are down to a single digit percentage of all people using computers and software and cellphones and the net.
Why? Because the Free Software movement just did not manage to get something really new and usable out of the door. It failed big time, it fucked up, it gambled away whatever advantages it had for a while. There's no Linux and no GNU/Linux and no Hurd on the desktops and laptops and tablets and mobile phones today. And it's more than just ironic that the only system where Linux really got into the hands of the masses is Android with which Google inserts its tentacles in every single of your digital orifices. And people get Android phones not because it is based on Linux but because of the closed source apps.
So: Yeah, Stallman is right and has ever been. But he failed and all the developers and evangelists and idle talkers failed too. It's really that simple. It's an epic, tragic failure. Stallman and all those who fought and bickered about Qt/Gtk and Gnome/KDE and top quoting in email while Linux lost the battle for the desktop and email lost against Facebook are just losers. I hate to say this, but others were better. They delivered. OS X is better than Linux in all practical terms and MeeGo is a sad joke against iOS.
This cace is "near the moon's equator". The only places where we could find water are on the poles. So, what to do there? Sitting in a cave doing nothing may be fine, but why go to the moon for that?
This "Internet" thing was getting out of hand anyway. Consumers will be happy to stay behind a safe and cheap NAT and everything else will be tightly controlled and expensive.
Seriously, I can't see this being fixed in any clean and fussless way soon (or at all). All have been sitting on their hands far too long. It's pathetic, really.
Actually Facetime is an open spec, anyone can implement a device that supports it...
Now how you find them from an iOS to non-IOS device, that part I'm not sure how easy it is to implement.
Well, you can still use Skype for video calls to everyone.
This is just because otherwise people would use the bin as a directory/folder as any other.