Dammit. See what you made me do? You made me type "Paris Hilton" into Google. Now I've got to look for pr0n to feel clean again.
Re:Why some of us are excited about iPhone
on
All Things iPhone
·
· Score: 1
If you are worried about "ringtones" then you probably aren't on Apple's demographic radar anyway.
I would assume that their demographic cares very much about ringtones, it's the sort of mindless fashion that appeals Apple zealots.
Actually, I point that out because it is the most ridiculous feature to surface about the iPhone. For a computer running Mac OS X, this is as absurd as Microsoft charging you money to change desktop background or the startup sound.
Re:Why some of us are excited about iPhone
on
All Things iPhone
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No, iPhone is not the cure for cancer, but it is making the cell manufacturers and networks change the way they do their business.
A device you can't run third-party software on, which must be purchased with an overpriced plan on a two year contract, and despite the gigs of music you may have installed on it, you'll have to pay a separate fee to turn each one into a ringtone?
Young'un, I've been reading this "blog" ever since Hamster Havoc lead me to Chips 'n' Dips. Fanatical religious strife should only involve open source software, science fiction franchises, and evolution. That's the way it used to be, and THAT'S THE WAY WE LIKED IT!
But seriously, religious fanaticism over corporate allegiance is like arguing over which Old One you'd prefer to be consumed by.
The problem is that outrage fatigue has long set in. The only way to limit the abuse of their power is to neuter them completely by creating blanket distrust in government.
Wait, we're talking about the FBI? Crap, I thought it was the EPA.
Jesus Christ, why are you still giving this shill a platform? I mean, I know flamewars create ad impressions, but come on. This isn't global warming or terrorism. This is people treating a corporation like a religion! You're better than this, slashdot!
I guess it is also safe to assume that the iPhone *might* come with midget porn, a garage door opener, a marital aid setting for the vibrator alert, and an anti-bacterial surface treatment.
And people think calling them a cult is unfair, but they're using religious reasoning to protect a corporation's marketing hype - "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
If you would allow me to speculate fo' realz, supposing Apple did decide to implement that missing third-party functionality themselves, it would be next to useless because it would require IT departments to use their software in addition to the multiplatform solutions on which they've already standardized. Again, it would simply be cheaper and easier to not support the iPhone.
There is a class of software called "device management" that functions like the provisioning software you'll find on most corporate PCs. It does things like
Automatic deployment (or revocation) of software and configuration settings. Encryption of sensitive data. Remote kill switch if it is lost or stolen, and "self-destruct" if there are repeated failed access attempts.
The iPhone, due to its lack of support for third-party software, has none of this.
1. At what point does one sell an enterprise application to the end-user? I doubt you can further lock down an iPhone, either.
2. Why the outcry now, then? Why have Mac developers called the latest WWDC the worst ever?
3. Why do you think the BlackBerry, the clunkiest device on the market, is so successful? Encryption, automatic push, and automatic revocation built-in. The network is in the background. You don't have to go hunting for a signal every time you want to do something.
4. The single greatest failure of mobile applications is the assumption that a desktop application can easily be ported to a mobile device. Apple's "real internet" marketing demonstrates that they understand this, and yet, they want to pull the wool over your eyes and make you believe zooming into a desktop web app is a reasonable solution.
I was once in SEDS, I know exactly who the article is targeted towards. Why do you think it is pointless? It obviously touched a nerve with the slashdot audience, and yes, the ignorance and religious-like faith in technology evident in this thread seriously bothers me. It isn't worth my time to reason with them, so I chose to insult them by responding to the one who dismisses the author himself. And now you're defending him?
I find it amusing that people are knocking this article, not realizing that Stross, like Egan, writes "post-human" fiction where space exploration is accomplished by simulations of human minds in software, running in "smart matter" computers attached to relatively enormous propulsion systems.
There is no economic incentive until you remove the useless mass and expect to live long enough to see a return. The "magic" technology these don't realize they're pining for is the complete obsolescence of biological life.
Their estimate is 1% of the smartphone market in the first year. You dictate nothing at one percent. Even pretending that it will be as popular as the iPod (by ignoring the millions of smartphones, and billions of feature phones already out there), the carrier lock-in will still put a hard upper bound on its acceptance. If I thought they'd have even 5% in two years, I'd put my savings in Apple stock, but I still wouldn't bother caring about the iPhone as a unique platform.
In three years, Microsoft will have the mobile IE be as functional as the desktop, Minimo won't be the bloated pig it is now, Opera and Nokia's browser will still be best browsers you've never used, and there will undoubtedly be open source newcomers based on the improvements to KHTML.
So I'd bet on c.) mobile browsing looks just like it does now, only sucks less.
The user base? People with money; and lots of it. So tell me; who do you aim for as a market?
Mac developers: the butlers, the chauffeurs, the concierges, the maids of computerdom.
The real money is in selling to those who control install-bases of thousands of computers and devices. You can't even manage a device you can't put your own applications on. The iPhone will have zero presence in the enterprise market, and without third-party support, it never will.
You're establishing trading system for what is essentially a black market. The goods you're selling aren't legal property, and the users have almost no recourse against fraud. Any attempt to bring issues into real courts would identify the the people involved to the game companies, and both perpetrator and victim would have their virtual wealth disappear.
Since you're so dependent on secrecy, how do you expect to protect yourselves against vigilantes who would engage in real-life griefing of those who damage in-game economies?
And, as you are trying to legitimize what is against the terms of service of nearly every game out there, how do you possibly hope to avoid the lawsuits if you become successful? Being a third party didn't help the file sharing companies, and you're actively helping users violate their service agreement.
Yet, by bitching about it now, you actually have a chance at influencing Apple and AT&T's policies before the phone is released.
Oh, geez, I kill me. But seriously, if you don't like people assuming the worst about Apple, then maybe Apple should give out real information instead of iPhone commercials on television every 15 minutes. They want our attention, they got it, but they don't get to choose the kind of attention they elicit.
Good job, you managed to find the three year old Cabir virus, which is really a trojan, requiring the user's cooperation to install. OH NOES, IT'S GOING TO BRING THE NETWORK DOWN... not. There were a few proof of concept viruses written back in the day, see if you can find those.
And BTW, you can't even buy a phone that would execute that trojan anymore. That entire class of attack was neutered by the capabilities model introduced in Symbian 9. An application must be signed with a trusted certificate and declare that it uses the Bluetooth stack before it can even be installed on the device. The carrier can even use this feature to lock the phone down, denying third party applications, or denying those that use Bluetooth, the network, etc.
Do you think this FUD is new, or that the industry has been sitting on its ass all these years?
Apple could've taken that route - code signing is supposedly in Leopard. If the iPhone lacks it, then it isn't really the same OS X, now is it? And in terms of security, it is vastly inferior to Symbian, Windows Mobile, and BlackBerry. Jobs should be chastising his engineers rather than frightening the noobs with stories of rampant viruses and network meltdown.
AT&T and Cingular already sell smartphones running Windows Mobile, Palm OS, and Series 60, and BlackBerry, and those all provide SDKs for anyone who wants one.
So, either you're full of shit, or Apple is too incompetent too implement the security features that would make AT&T comfortable.
It doesn't take a satellite picture to see that the parent poster is a moron, troll, or both. Manipulation at its finest, indeed.
Evidence is evidence; no one bases anything on a single piece of information. Our military has the most sophisticated satellite imagery in the world, do you think they plan entire missions over a single photo?
You know the image in that article more likely than not is a village murdered. It's more than enough evidence to go look for the bodies.
Why do I suspect the parent poster supported the Iraq war based on its "evidence"?
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't the phone that was "hacked".
Dammit. See what you made me do? You made me type "Paris Hilton" into Google. Now I've got to look for pr0n to feel clean again.
If you are worried about "ringtones" then you probably aren't on Apple's demographic radar anyway.
I would assume that their demographic cares very much about ringtones, it's the sort of mindless fashion that appeals Apple zealots.
Actually, I point that out because it is the most ridiculous feature to surface about the iPhone. For a computer running Mac OS X, this is as absurd as Microsoft charging you money to change desktop background or the startup sound.
No, iPhone is not the cure for cancer, but it is making the cell manufacturers and networks change the way they do their business.
A device you can't run third-party software on, which must be purchased with an overpriced plan on a two year contract, and despite the gigs of music you may have installed on it, you'll have to pay a separate fee to turn each one into a ringtone?
They're changing who with the what now?
Aye, and it's the storage and PMP functionality as well.
I mean, we can't have a WiFi-enabled portable device actually share eight gigs of music and movies to anyone and everyone, can we?
Also remains to be seen how "hackable" the phone is in general. Here's to hoping.
You want to steal from Apple? Or embarrass them by using an iPhone to damage AT&T's precious network? Isn't that counterrevolutionary?
You must be new here, welcome to slashdot.
Young'un, I've been reading this "blog" ever since Hamster Havoc lead me to Chips 'n' Dips. Fanatical religious strife should only involve open source software, science fiction franchises, and evolution. That's the way it used to be, and THAT'S THE WAY WE LIKED IT!
But seriously, religious fanaticism over corporate allegiance is like arguing over which Old One you'd prefer to be consumed by.
The problem is that outrage fatigue has long set in. The only way to limit the abuse of their power is to neuter them completely by creating blanket distrust in government.
Wait, we're talking about the FBI? Crap, I thought it was the EPA.
Jesus Christ, why are you still giving this shill a platform? I mean, I know flamewars create ad impressions, but come on. This isn't global warming or terrorism. This is people treating a corporation like a religion! You're better than this, slashdot!
He was caught gaming Digg, you know.
I guess it is also safe to assume that the iPhone *might* come with midget porn, a garage door opener, a marital aid setting for the vibrator alert, and an anti-bacterial surface treatment.
And people think calling them a cult is unfair, but they're using religious reasoning to protect a corporation's marketing hype - "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
If you would allow me to speculate fo' realz, supposing Apple did decide to implement that missing third-party functionality themselves, it would be next to useless because it would require IT departments to use their software in addition to the multiplatform solutions on which they've already standardized. Again, it would simply be cheaper and easier to not support the iPhone.
There is a class of software called "device management" that functions like the provisioning software you'll find on most corporate PCs. It does things like
Automatic deployment (or revocation) of software and configuration settings.
Encryption of sensitive data.
Remote kill switch if it is lost or stolen, and "self-destruct" if there are repeated failed access attempts.
The iPhone, due to its lack of support for third-party software, has none of this.
Forgetting GPS? The original image lied about the N95's WiFi capabilities.
1. At what point does one sell an enterprise application to the end-user? I doubt you can further lock down an iPhone, either.
2. Why the outcry now, then? Why have Mac developers called the latest WWDC the worst ever?
3. Why do you think the BlackBerry, the clunkiest device on the market, is so successful? Encryption, automatic push, and automatic revocation built-in. The network is in the background. You don't have to go hunting for a signal every time you want to do something.
4. The single greatest failure of mobile applications is the assumption that a desktop application can easily be ported to a mobile device. Apple's "real internet" marketing demonstrates that they understand this, and yet, they want to pull the wool over your eyes and make you believe zooming into a desktop web app is a reasonable solution.
I was once in SEDS, I know exactly who the article is targeted towards. Why do you think it is pointless? It obviously touched a nerve with the slashdot audience, and yes, the ignorance and religious-like faith in technology evident in this thread seriously bothers me. It isn't worth my time to reason with them, so I chose to insult them by responding to the one who dismisses the author himself. And now you're defending him?
I find it amusing that people are knocking this article, not realizing that Stross, like Egan, writes "post-human" fiction where space exploration is accomplished by simulations of human minds in software, running in "smart matter" computers attached to relatively enormous propulsion systems.
There is no economic incentive until you remove the useless mass and expect to live long enough to see a return. The "magic" technology these don't realize they're pining for is the complete obsolescence of biological life.
What is he trying to prove?
That the people who favor manned space exploration are fucking morons?
I mean, have you read the responses in this thread already?
Their estimate is 1% of the smartphone market in the first year. You dictate nothing at one percent. Even pretending that it will be as popular as the iPod (by ignoring the millions of smartphones, and billions of feature phones already out there), the carrier lock-in will still put a hard upper bound on its acceptance. If I thought they'd have even 5% in two years, I'd put my savings in Apple stock, but I still wouldn't bother caring about the iPhone as a unique platform.
In three years, Microsoft will have the mobile IE be as functional as the desktop, Minimo won't be the bloated pig it is now, Opera and Nokia's browser will still be best browsers you've never used, and there will undoubtedly be open source newcomers based on the improvements to KHTML.
So I'd bet on c.) mobile browsing looks just like it does now, only sucks less.
The user base? People with money; and lots of it. So tell me; who do you aim for as a market?
Mac developers: the butlers, the chauffeurs, the concierges, the maids of computerdom.
The real money is in selling to those who control install-bases of thousands of computers and devices. You can't even manage a device you can't put your own applications on. The iPhone will have zero presence in the enterprise market, and without third-party support, it never will.
It's called tortious interference. You can be sued, and you can lose, for helping someone breach a contract.
You're establishing trading system for what is essentially a black market. The goods you're selling aren't legal property, and the users have almost no recourse against fraud. Any attempt to bring issues into real courts would identify the the people involved to the game companies, and both perpetrator and victim would have their virtual wealth disappear.
Since you're so dependent on secrecy, how do you expect to protect yourselves against vigilantes who would engage in real-life griefing of those who damage in-game economies?
And, as you are trying to legitimize what is against the terms of service of nearly every game out there, how do you possibly hope to avoid the lawsuits if you become successful? Being a third party didn't help the file sharing companies, and you're actively helping users violate their service agreement.
Yet, by bitching about it now, you actually have a chance at influencing Apple and AT&T's policies before the phone is released.
Oh, geez, I kill me. But seriously, if you don't like people assuming the worst about Apple, then maybe Apple should give out real information instead of iPhone commercials on television every 15 minutes. They want our attention, they got it, but they don't get to choose the kind of attention they elicit.
Good job, you managed to find the three year old Cabir virus, which is really a trojan, requiring the user's cooperation to install. OH NOES, IT'S GOING TO BRING THE NETWORK DOWN... not. There were a few proof of concept viruses written back in the day, see if you can find those.
And BTW, you can't even buy a phone that would execute that trojan anymore. That entire class of attack was neutered by the capabilities model introduced in Symbian 9. An application must be signed with a trusted certificate and declare that it uses the Bluetooth stack before it can even be installed on the device. The carrier can even use this feature to lock the phone down, denying third party applications, or denying those that use Bluetooth, the network, etc.
Do you think this FUD is new, or that the industry has been sitting on its ass all these years?
Apple could've taken that route - code signing is supposedly in Leopard. If the iPhone lacks it, then it isn't really the same OS X, now is it? And in terms of security, it is vastly inferior to Symbian, Windows Mobile, and BlackBerry. Jobs should be chastising his engineers rather than frightening the noobs with stories of rampant viruses and network meltdown.
A prize for repeating ignorant FUD?
AT&T and Cingular already sell smartphones running Windows Mobile, Palm OS, and Series 60, and BlackBerry, and those all provide SDKs for anyone who wants one.
So, either you're full of shit, or Apple is too incompetent too implement the security features that would make AT&T comfortable.
LOLZ! We are teh revolution and they is teh establishamenent! - Randall Stephenson, CEO of AT&T
*single tear* - Woz
What's expected of us by Ted Chiang
It doesn't take a satellite picture to see that the parent poster is a moron, troll, or both. Manipulation at its finest, indeed.
Evidence is evidence; no one bases anything on a single piece of information. Our military has the most sophisticated satellite imagery in the world, do you think they plan entire missions over a single photo?
You know the image in that article more likely than not is a village murdered. It's more than enough evidence to go look for the bodies.
Why do I suspect the parent poster supported the Iraq war based on its "evidence"?