"Is there any reason Apple can force Amazon to sell an item in their store? "
1: Amazon wants access to Apple's captive audience, ergo 2: They want to build an app for said platform, ergo 3: They need access to said platform, ergo 4: They need approval from Apple, ergo 5: They need to lube up (optional), then bend over for the ass-reaming with the Apple telephone pole, and afterward, proclaim how MUCH they LOVED getting their colon plundered (non-optional).
Okay, I'm a big fan of good engineering and all, but you gotta have some SERIOUSLY heavy-metal nards to be the first guy on the table for your own device for something like this!
Talk about putting your money where your mouth is!
Heh. Had this happen at a hacker get-together a couple years back. This somewhat older lady comes to the meeting and promptly starts asking about drugs, and using the computers on site to research psylocybin and the like. Stood out like a sore thumb that'd been dipped in pitch and naptha and set alight.
Cheap and simple * 1000 = Not so cheap and not so simple.
And it's still cheaper and simpler to lock down and control all my endpoints with company-owned equipment. This way I have a known hardware and a software config I can easily clone.
Number of machines I have to troubleshoot to make sure everything works? ONE.
Time to deploy? As fast as I can load the image on there.
Now, if we're talking about SOLELY running through Terminal Services, Citrix, Go-Global or some other app publishing/desktop sharing medium that changes things a bit.
But somehow I double many situations are quite this clean-cut.
Anyone with any sort of managed IT infrastructure should shit a brick at this.
Sure, it SOUNDS nice, until the first time you have a non-compliant user. How do you enforce your security policies on hardware that your company does not own?
What's more, you now are taking up responsibility for a massive heterogeneous environment. While EQUIPMENT costs may go down, support costs for a huge variety of systems, operating systems, and compatibility issues with various OEM/VAR add-ins would shoot through the roof.
Office Drone's Schlibovitz 9000C has one of the company's important apps continually crashing. No logs. No error messages. Just BOOM. Back to desktop.
Why? Dunno. Is it hardware issues? Dunno. Is it software issues? Dunno. Can we reproduce it on an identical machine? No. Why not? No identical machines. Can we reproduce it on another machine? No. Why not? Other systems, like the HappyPuppy 3407 run it just fine with no errors. As does the HugeHonkinHeatsink 2600.
If it's a software issue, what do you do? Tell the owner they have to buy another computer or different software/OS? Good luck! If it's a hardware issue, who foots the bill for replacing the hardware? Who foots the bill for discovering what the hell the issue actually is in the first place?
How do you get backups from someone's personal machine that may get shut down every night?
How would you retain any moderately sane IT management personnel when you're asking them to essentially asspull the entire environment and "wing it" when problems crop up. You certainly couldn't pay ME enough to oversee that kind of mess.
Trying to divvy it up so "Murder with X" is segregated from "Murder with Y" is pointless.
And, again, your argument about a gun providing better opportunity still applies to my point.
And you also specified one other thing. A great number of murders are committed "in the heat of the moment". This is one of the things that makes said potential murderer LESS likely to consider the difficulty of the murder.
But please, keep trying to ban kitchen knives because you could hurt someone with them if you get pissed enough.
Again, the crime is in the intent and execution. Not the tool. Stop trying to control intent and execution by attacking the tool.
Fists make it easier to kill people than thinking them to death. Boots make it easier to kick people to death without breaking toes. Knives make it easier to kill people than bare fists. Bats make it easier to kill people than knives, boots or fists. Cars make it easier to kill people than any of the above.
If someone wants to kill you, they're going to try to kill you. Period.
The fact that a tool makes it "easier" is irrelevant.
The crime is in the intent and the actions, not in the tool.
We will be enhancing your privacy and security.
By making you more uniquely identifiable and creating a single point of failure for the security method.
Or "What's dumbshit for "HELL FUCKING NO" you asshole?"
Or "What kinda goddamn drugs are YOU on?"
Seriously. What sort of intellectual cripple actually thinks (and I use the term forgivingly) using a known privacy offender and security whipping boy like Facebook as a single-sign-on?
Fuck Single Sign-On. It's single point of failure.
"Nope, it's the fact that as I said consumers have no support staff. Otherwise you are correct, which reenforces my point."
No, actually it doesn't. The same people who make up the nebulous "consumers" in your argument are the same people who inflict themselves on IT staffers in the corporate world. As for "no support staff", this is what technical support hotlines, the local Nerd Herd tech, etc are. Are they as proficient as paid IT staffers in a company? Maybe, maybe not.
"You just totally ignored the cost of loss of data to a consumer which is far, far higher to them than to a business losing one server. Sure a company can lose millions if a server goes down - if they are making billions. A consumer can lose pictures they can never replace."
REAL monetary costs here. "Darn! Lost that picture of cousin Joan puking on the stripper at the bachelorette party" costs exactly ZERO.
"Exactly, because as I stated they must be more robust."
You keep using that word. But I do not think it means what you think it does. -- Inigo Montoya
How exactly do you equate a device that's been castrated down until it has just enough functionality to be mildly useful with "robustness".
"No, I've worked in different positions around a fortune 500 company, and also smaller companies. So you see I have a better field of view than you do as to what actually happens with corporate systems than you do from a full range of company sizes."
Okay. Now say that again. With some truth in it.
"You seem to think that only the very largest companies matter, and don't seem to understand how things sometimes are at smaller companies where lack of money to throw around leads to lots more compromise."
Thanks for attempting (and failing) to put words in my mouth.
"I've seen it thanks. Try seeing what a TEENAGER does to equipment. I assure you there are far worse things than drunken salespeople as far as danger to equipment goes."
Then you obviously haven't had the breadth and depth of experience you thought you had.
Yes, I've seen what teenagers do to systems. On the whole, it's less problematical than members of business corn-holing their systems (and acting as proxies for attacks into the corporate network).
A teenager blows up a machine, he blows up ONE machine. I've seen instances of compromise so extreme that clean-wiping and restarting the entire network environment from scratch was the only thing to do. Because even backups weren't "clean".
Wow. That teenager and his couple hundred bucks of repair work really compares quite well to thwapping a network infrastructure worth more (just in hardware) than his parents will SEE in a lifetime (let alone earn) and the thousands upon thousands of dollars it will take to restore and recovery.
But please. Spin me some more fantasies.
"iPads being used all over by medium sized businesses does."
Yeah. Same thing that happened with the iPhone. A nice, heavily screened security segment will be created for these non-standard devices (if they're allowed) and the rest of the network will ignore their presence as they do with other useless toys.
"Just because you have no visibility into what companies that have to really chose how to most effectively spend money are doing, doesn't mean you know the whole story of what is going on today."
Unlike you I never pretended to "know the whole story". Of course, unlike you, I've never pretended that having a clout-heavy owner/vp buy an iPhone and then wanting his IT guys to support it was "massive adoption by enterprise".
"That is true. But that is also irrelevant."
Like fucking hell it is!
"You only need a level of support like that for things that are prone to break a lot. For something like an iPad you just buy several extra."
Pfft! Thanks. You just proved you have no idea what you're attempting to argue about.
"Your inability to read is even more so. My main claim is that consumers NEED more robust software a
"If you mull it over, you'll realize that consumers actually require a HIGHER level of security than do enterprises."
Bullshit. All that separates corporate users from consumers is one commute period.
As such the requirements are the same for security. It's just that enterprise has the financial and technical backing to actually make it happen.
"Enterprises can afford to be a little lax because they have full-time people dealing with security issues that arise, and maintain boxes."
Come back and talk when you actually know what the fuck you're talking about.
A consumer can afford to be lax with their box because it'll only cost them a couple hundred bucks to replace or reformat if they blow it up.
The costs of a downed system in enterprise are significantly greater. Not only is there the cost of repairing/replacing the unit, but every minute it's down is a minute it's NOT being used to make the company more money. On mission-critical multi-user systems, this can multiply costs RAPIDLY.
"Computing devices aimed at them must be FAR more solid and robust than any product targeting an enterprise, if they are to work well for any length of time."
Bullshit. Consumer devices (not computers) survive by only being as complex as they need to be. They're limited in such ways that there are fewer things to break. This reduces repair times and brings down the cost of an item, making it more trivial to replace.
"Furthermore employees are a lot easier on equipment than a home user, a home user moves stuff around and takes it with them. Office equipment generally vegetates in one location, and is handled with more care."
You've obviously never seen any business outside a cube farm. And the notion that employees are easier on their office equipment than they are on their home equipment is laughable. Try doing IT for a company with a mobile salesforce. Watch all the horrific things these fine specimens of humanity do to their machines. Then come talk about the situation when you actually know something.
"And that is why the enterprise is starting to adopt Apple gear, because Apple has had to build software and hardware secure and robust enough for real world use, not coddled managed enterprise land. In the end business people want solutions to work and it simply cannot be overlooked anymore that Apple gear is providing real solutions that work for everyone."
Dude! Step out of the reality distortion field! Simply because people carry an iPod to work and some of the sheeple are sporting snazzy iPhones does NOT mean enterprise is adopting Apple gear.
Apple and enterprise are nearly mutually exclusive terms (outside of a few content production markets) for two reasons.
1: Apple does not know HOW to support enterprise. Their support essentially consists of "buy this, try it, and hope it works" recommendations that simply do NOT take into account the actual business needs of the company.
2: Apple does not WANT to support enterprise. They don't have the infrastructure for it. The margins for such support suck balls. And they quite simply don't have the durability to deal with large, pushy customers who're willing to return multi-million dollar orders, intiate their own chargebacks, AND sue shit out of Apple for breach of contract.
Your assertion that Apple's software is both robust and secure is kinda laughable. It's a stretch to describe a software/hardware platform that's been castrated to the point that you have to buy all your apps through a single vendor as "robust". In light of some of the e-mail and encryption issues experienced by the same platform, using "secure" is QUITE out of place.
And those disdained IT managers you speak of are attempting to stay as far away from Apple products as they can. Because they CANNOT MANAGE THEM directly in most cases. They have to set up all sorts of Rube Goldberg apparatus simply to do with they do every day with real enterprise systems.
But hey. Don't worry. Your post had at least one redeeming value. It made me laugh harder than I have in a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
"Is there any reason Apple can force Amazon to sell an item in their store? "
1: Amazon wants access to Apple's captive audience, ergo
2: They want to build an app for said platform, ergo
3: They need access to said platform, ergo
4: They need approval from Apple, ergo
5: They need to lube up (optional), then bend over for the ass-reaming with the Apple telephone pole, and afterward, proclaim how MUCH they LOVED getting their colon plundered (non-optional).
Okay, I'm a big fan of good engineering and all, but you gotta have some SERIOUSLY heavy-metal nards to be the first guy on the table for your own device for something like this!
Talk about putting your money where your mouth is!
Kudos and major man points!
Just kidding!
Hopefully this interface will not be quite as "quirky" as the last iteration was.
Did I happen to mention the temporal framework for my little missive?
Nope. Which means I wasn't necessarily placing it in modern-day ANYPLACE.
Not even in the slightest.
Heh. Had this happen at a hacker get-together a couple years back. This somewhat older lady comes to the meeting and promptly starts asking about drugs, and using the computers on site to research psylocybin and the like. Stood out like a sore thumb that'd been dipped in pitch and naptha and set alight.
Two explorers stumble upon a primitive tribe and somehow manage to offend them.
They're taken before the chief and he gives them the choice of death or "unga-bunga".
The first chooses unga-bunga. He is promptly raped by all the men in the tribe.
When given his choice, the second chooses death.
The chief smiles and pronounces sentence "Death by unga-bunga!"
Nuke China back to the Pre-Cambrian era.
That'll cut anthropogenic methane emissions by roughly 25-30%.
That should buy us at least a century.
Are glad they invested in that $10 CD library from the vendor on the street corner.
Isn't that kinda the meaning behind CEASE and DESIST?
Repeat after me.
Until it ships, it is still VAPORWARE!
Uhm. News flash, even MS Office doesn't fully support said "standard"!
AND IT'S THEIR FUCKING "STANDARD"!
Does this mean we'll start seeing pink mammoths too?
Literally, 1 second on my SSD RAID-0.
Not sure how much faster it's going to be and it won't really make any difference.
Cheap and simple * 1 = Cheap and simple.
Cheap and simple * 1000 = Not so cheap and not so simple.
And it's still cheaper and simpler to lock down and control all my endpoints with company-owned equipment. This way I have a known hardware and a software config I can easily clone.
Number of machines I have to troubleshoot to make sure everything works? ONE.
Time to deploy? As fast as I can load the image on there.
Now, if we're talking about SOLELY running through Terminal Services, Citrix, Go-Global or some other app publishing/desktop sharing medium that changes things a bit.
But somehow I double many situations are quite this clean-cut.
Anyone with any sort of managed IT infrastructure should shit a brick at this.
Sure, it SOUNDS nice, until the first time you have a non-compliant user. How do you enforce your security policies on hardware that your company does not own?
What's more, you now are taking up responsibility for a massive heterogeneous environment. While EQUIPMENT costs may go down, support costs for a huge variety of systems, operating systems, and compatibility issues with various OEM/VAR add-ins would shoot through the roof.
Office Drone's Schlibovitz 9000C has one of the company's important apps continually crashing. No logs. No error messages. Just BOOM. Back to desktop.
Why? Dunno.
Is it hardware issues? Dunno.
Is it software issues? Dunno.
Can we reproduce it on an identical machine? No.
Why not? No identical machines.
Can we reproduce it on another machine? No.
Why not? Other systems, like the HappyPuppy 3407 run it just fine with no errors. As does the HugeHonkinHeatsink 2600.
If it's a software issue, what do you do? Tell the owner they have to buy another computer or different software/OS? Good luck!
If it's a hardware issue, who foots the bill for replacing the hardware?
Who foots the bill for discovering what the hell the issue actually is in the first place?
How do you get backups from someone's personal machine that may get shut down every night?
How would you retain any moderately sane IT management personnel when you're asking them to essentially asspull the entire environment and "wing it" when problems crop up. You certainly couldn't pay ME enough to oversee that kind of mess.
Sorry, but murder is already illegal.
Trying to divvy it up so "Murder with X" is segregated from "Murder with Y" is pointless.
And, again, your argument about a gun providing better opportunity still applies to my point.
And you also specified one other thing. A great number of murders are committed "in the heat of the moment".
This is one of the things that makes said potential murderer LESS likely to consider the difficulty of the murder.
But please, keep trying to ban kitchen knives because you could hurt someone with them if you get pissed enough.
Again, the crime is in the intent and execution. Not the tool. Stop trying to control intent and execution by attacking the tool.
Fists make it easier to kill people than thinking them to death.
Boots make it easier to kick people to death without breaking toes.
Knives make it easier to kill people than bare fists.
Bats make it easier to kill people than knives, boots or fists.
Cars make it easier to kill people than any of the above.
If someone wants to kill you, they're going to try to kill you. Period.
The fact that a tool makes it "easier" is irrelevant.
The crime is in the intent and the actions, not in the tool.
"So do you use different names, and different email addresses with every party you deal with over the Internet?"
No. However, I have my offline identity fairly carefully segregated from my online identities in all but a few specific cases.
"Do you have a P.O. box for accepting deliveries too?"
Me personally? No. My company does however.
"At some point you have to face the reality that to do business on the Internet you need security, and you'll need to use your real name."
But I want that to be at MY discretion. Not subject to the whims and vagaries of some government-mandated identity scheme.
"You say "security", but I don't think you really know what that means."
Feel free to think what you want. It doesn't matter to me in the slightest.
We will be enhancing your privacy and security.
By making you more uniquely identifiable and creating a single point of failure for the security method.
*HEADDESK*
How about "My Ass!"
Or "What's dumbshit for "HELL FUCKING NO" you asshole?"
Or "What kinda goddamn drugs are YOU on?"
Seriously. What sort of intellectual cripple actually thinks (and I use the term forgivingly) using a known privacy offender and security whipping boy like Facebook as a single-sign-on?
Fuck Single Sign-On. It's single point of failure.
"Nope, it's the fact that as I said consumers have no support staff. Otherwise you are correct, which reenforces my point."
No, actually it doesn't. The same people who make up the nebulous "consumers" in your argument are the same people who inflict themselves on IT staffers in the corporate world.
As for "no support staff", this is what technical support hotlines, the local Nerd Herd tech, etc are. Are they as proficient as paid IT staffers in a company? Maybe, maybe not.
"You just totally ignored the cost of loss of data to a consumer which is far, far higher to them than to a business losing one server. Sure a company can lose millions if a server goes down - if they are making billions. A consumer can lose pictures they can never replace."
REAL monetary costs here. "Darn! Lost that picture of cousin Joan puking on the stripper at the bachelorette party" costs exactly ZERO.
"Exactly, because as I stated they must be more robust."
You keep using that word. But I do not think it means what you think it does. -- Inigo Montoya
How exactly do you equate a device that's been castrated down until it has just enough functionality to be mildly useful with "robustness".
"No, I've worked in different positions around a fortune 500 company, and also smaller companies. So you see I have a better field of view than you do as to what actually happens with corporate systems than you do from a full range of company sizes."
Okay. Now say that again. With some truth in it.
"You seem to think that only the very largest companies matter, and don't seem to understand how things sometimes are at smaller companies where lack of money to throw around leads to lots more compromise."
Thanks for attempting (and failing) to put words in my mouth.
"I've seen it thanks. Try seeing what a TEENAGER does to equipment. I assure you there are far worse things than drunken salespeople as far as danger to equipment goes."
Then you obviously haven't had the breadth and depth of experience you thought you had.
Yes, I've seen what teenagers do to systems. On the whole, it's less problematical than members of business corn-holing their systems (and acting as proxies for attacks into the corporate network).
A teenager blows up a machine, he blows up ONE machine. I've seen instances of compromise so extreme that clean-wiping and restarting the entire network environment from scratch was the only thing to do. Because even backups weren't "clean".
Wow. That teenager and his couple hundred bucks of repair work really compares quite well to thwapping a network infrastructure worth more (just in hardware) than his parents will SEE in a lifetime (let alone earn) and the thousands upon thousands of dollars it will take to restore and recovery.
But please. Spin me some more fantasies.
"iPads being used all over by medium sized businesses does."
Yeah. Same thing that happened with the iPhone. A nice, heavily screened security segment will be created for these non-standard devices (if they're allowed) and the rest of the network will ignore their presence as they do with other useless toys.
"Just because you have no visibility into what companies that have to really chose how to most effectively spend money are doing, doesn't mean you know the whole story of what is going on today."
Unlike you I never pretended to "know the whole story". Of course, unlike you, I've never pretended that having a clout-heavy owner/vp buy an iPhone and then wanting his IT guys to support it was "massive adoption by enterprise".
"That is true. But that is also irrelevant."
Like fucking hell it is!
"You only need a level of support like that for things that are prone to break a lot. For something like an iPad you just buy several extra."
Pfft! Thanks. You just proved you have no idea what you're attempting to argue about.
"Your inability to read is even more so. My main claim is that consumers NEED more robust software a
"If you mull it over, you'll realize that consumers actually require a HIGHER level of security than do enterprises."
Bullshit. All that separates corporate users from consumers is one commute period.
As such the requirements are the same for security. It's just that enterprise has the financial and technical backing to actually make it happen.
"Enterprises can afford to be a little lax because they have full-time people dealing with security issues that arise, and maintain boxes."
Come back and talk when you actually know what the fuck you're talking about.
A consumer can afford to be lax with their box because it'll only cost them a couple hundred bucks to replace or reformat if they blow it up.
The costs of a downed system in enterprise are significantly greater. Not only is there the cost of repairing/replacing the unit, but every minute it's down is a minute it's NOT being used to make the company more money. On mission-critical multi-user systems, this can multiply costs RAPIDLY.
"Computing devices aimed at them must be FAR more solid and robust than any product targeting an enterprise, if they are to work well for any length of time."
Bullshit. Consumer devices (not computers) survive by only being as complex as they need to be. They're limited in such ways that there are fewer things to break. This reduces repair times and brings down the cost of an item, making it more trivial to replace.
"Furthermore employees are a lot easier on equipment than a home user, a home user moves stuff around and takes it with them. Office equipment generally vegetates in one location, and is handled with more care."
You've obviously never seen any business outside a cube farm. And the notion that employees are easier on their office equipment than they are on their home equipment is laughable. Try doing IT for a company with a mobile salesforce. Watch all the horrific things these fine specimens of humanity do to their machines. Then come talk about the situation when you actually know something.
"And that is why the enterprise is starting to adopt Apple gear, because Apple has had to build software and hardware secure and robust enough for real world use, not coddled managed enterprise land. In the end business people want solutions to work and it simply cannot be overlooked anymore that Apple gear is providing real solutions that work for everyone."
Dude! Step out of the reality distortion field! Simply because people carry an iPod to work and some of the sheeple are sporting snazzy iPhones does NOT mean enterprise is adopting Apple gear.
Apple and enterprise are nearly mutually exclusive terms (outside of a few content production markets) for two reasons.
1: Apple does not know HOW to support enterprise. Their support essentially consists of "buy this, try it, and hope it works" recommendations that simply do NOT take into account the actual business needs of the company.
2: Apple does not WANT to support enterprise. They don't have the infrastructure for it. The margins for such support suck balls. And they quite simply don't have the durability to deal with large, pushy customers who're willing to return multi-million dollar orders, intiate their own chargebacks, AND sue shit out of Apple for breach of contract.
Your assertion that Apple's software is both robust and secure is kinda laughable. It's a stretch to describe a software/hardware platform that's been castrated to the point that you have to buy all your apps through a single vendor as "robust". In light of some of the e-mail and encryption issues experienced by the same platform, using "secure" is QUITE out of place.
And those disdained IT managers you speak of are attempting to stay as far away from Apple products as they can. Because they CANNOT MANAGE THEM directly in most cases. They have to set up all sorts of Rube Goldberg apparatus simply to do with they do every day with real enterprise systems.
But hey. Don't worry. Your post had at least one redeeming value. It made me laugh harder than I have in a long time.
And in another few years, Anna will retire and another will come along.
They should think about franchising...