The best you could do was log out of the app store after the app downloaded and installed.
No, the best you could do was not link your credit card to an Apple ID that is on the device your kid uses. There has never been anything stopping you from using iTunes gift cards for running an account.
Essentially if the guy was ignorant of how the iOS device was treating his CC credentials then it's his own fault - it *was* an insecure system that had too much convenience built into it with that time window (hence all the changes in response to that). Not researching or experimenting with the device before linking it to a no-limit credit card is not smart though.
Given that all you need is the apple ID and the password to spend, I only charge my Apple ID up with gift cards for that very reason. Even if someone guesses my password (unlikely) or steals it from some DB (again, unlikely but look at Sony), the most I'll lose is whatever was in the account at the time.
Well, given that the walled garden has controls that stop someone getting at the tools, and have separate controls that prevent purchases in the first place (parental controls on iOS devices, password to AppleID needed to make purchases in the first place) then I'm not sure what the problem is?
That Apple didn't tell this guy he should have maybe enabled parental controls for in app/any purchases? That maybe he shouldn't have linked his credit card to the Apple ID his kid uses?
How is this different to some guy suing Mastercard because his kid ran up a giant bill during a spending spree if you have authorised him to make purchases on your account with no limit?
I see you stopped reading his comment at the first line you reached that caused your neckbeard to chafe in rage because you don't think reading comprehension is important.
Although you could keep renewing if you really wanted, I see your point. You could also jailbreak if there is one available at the time, but for this discussion I was keeping it strictly what's available officially.
You can - you can put anything onto it that you like. The restriction is in what apps you can put onto iOS via the store, not on what the device can do. You can install a development environment on it if you really want as someone with a developer account (publish to own phone only) or an enterprise account (publish to any number of phones under your control). Then you can add a keyboard and so on - those work with iOS devices without any additional modification.
If those are your criteria, then with a developer account ($99) or an enterprise account ($Call for details) then iOS devices are also personal computers.
All I had to go on was your initial two sentence post. You can get all indignant about me "not understanding" the nuances of your argument all you like, but there actually has to *be* some argument there first. Adding it after the fact and then complaining that I simply don't understand what you meant is cheap.
Well, then you followed up with a line about how Apple "holds onto those codes with an iron fist" which is a peculiar statement given that iPhones are being legally unlocked by hundreds of other carriers except AT&T.
So they hold onto them with an iron fist... from AT&T only?
Just to check my understanding of your posts, you see.
Such software for the iPhone does not exist, in any official capacity that would allow AT&T to use it legally, on the open market.
Which really is nonsense, given that iPhones can be legally unlocked on hundreds of different carriers. AT&T may not have anything in their official channels, but to claim that the software/method simply is not accessible to them is nonsense.
Whether the current situation was down to the legacy of the exclusivity agreement with Apple when the first iPhone came along (although this doesn't seem to have affected other formerly-exclusive carriers in other countries) or some other reason, it really does stand out as an anomaly - especially since AT&T very trivially unlock all other handsets that they support, with minimal hassle.
The stick 'you' get beaten with? No, you get criticised for so heavily identifying yourself with the corporation whose gadgets you prefer, as you just demonstrated with your revealing choice of words.
And why is that exactly? I don't "heavily criticise" people for identifying with Android or Windows or Linux. Is there something about people who identify with other platforms that requires them to define themselves by hating and criticising people who don't use the same computers as they do?
You forgot to log in. Is that also an Android feature?;)
Actually, I read it as just the opposite - it's a piece designed to show how Apple "overcharges" for iPhones and how it's the 800 lb gorilla beating down the humble Google, "struggling along" making only $2 per phone and yet still managing to compete.
Wait, isn't Android the top dog in marketshare? At least that's the stick we get beaten with on slashdot all the time, so that would make the iPhone the underdog "alternative" phone to have?
So your argument is that Android's strength is that you can buy a refurbished, second hand device? If you really want a cheap iPhone you can get a 3GS for free, or buy a cheap one with no contract. Or even a refurb iPhone 4 if you're willing to hunt around a bit.
The reason these numbers in the article are so different is because they're completely incomparable. The $575 figure is a combination of all the factors that go into the phone, from marketing, subsidies from carriers, manufacturing, etc.
Google's number is just the total they've made divided by the number of handsets (it notably DOES NOT include the cost of the handsets themselves - money that is going into Samsung's, HTC's and Motorola's pockets).
There are plenty of Android users who are "spending $600" on apps and markup for the really good Android phones like the Galaxy IIS. It's just that that the bulk of that dollar amount ends up in Samsung's pocket, not Google's.
Nonsense. The USA is not the world. Non-US carriers have been legally unlocking the iPhone for years. This is just AT&T finally catching up with the rest of the world due to a lot of complaining to Apple HQ by customers who are rightly pissed off that their out of contract (and thus free from subsidy) phone was forever locked to AT&T for no good reason.
The change came after Apple contacted AT&T about it, so I assume they threatened to offer free unlocks to any customer directly unless AT&T started offering it after contract end, or something like that - neither company wants to threaten its own revenue stream, and Apple values its image above almost all else.
I'll always use a PC and will never use a mobile phone or tablet or whatever else it is that I'm supposed to have...
And I'm supposed to do serious work and study on a tablet? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
No, obviously not, but it's clear you don't do much "study" either way.
The phrase talks about the computing landscape as a whole, not on an individual basis. A large potion of the computing population have found that tablets and phones work very well for them for almost all of their daily computing needs. This is what's meant by that phrase "Post-PC computing".
What are you talking about? Apple's "efforts" to exclude Google? By using Google as the built in search engine, shipping a dedicated Google Maps app that comes built in, and a built in YouTube application since the introduction of the iPhone and on every version of iOS since before it was even called that?
I guess "competing with Google" = "trying to exclude them".
Corporations don't pay tax unless most of their customers are foreigners. What you're demanding is that Amazon raise prices, collect more money from their British customers, and give it to the British government.
Why do you think the world would be a better place if ordinary Britons had to pay even more tax than they currently do?
Well, perhaps then their competitors - like brick and mortar bookstores and even other online retailers might actually *stay in business*, thus creating jobs, healthier economy, more money going back into the economy (instead of being siphoned away to a tax haven).
Amazon's prices are artificially low - they don't need to raise them, they need to be brought into line with where they would be if they were playing fairly.
Slashdot Mirror
The best you could do was log out of the app store after the app downloaded and installed.
No, the best you could do was not link your credit card to an Apple ID that is on the device your kid uses. There has never been anything stopping you from using iTunes gift cards for running an account.
Essentially if the guy was ignorant of how the iOS device was treating his CC credentials then it's his own fault - it *was* an insecure system that had too much convenience built into it with that time window (hence all the changes in response to that). Not researching or experimenting with the device before linking it to a no-limit credit card is not smart though.
Given that all you need is the apple ID and the password to spend, I only charge my Apple ID up with gift cards for that very reason. Even if someone guesses my password (unlikely) or steals it from some DB (again, unlikely but look at Sony), the most I'll lose is whatever was in the account at the time.
Well, given that the walled garden has controls that stop someone getting at the tools, and have separate controls that prevent purchases in the first place (parental controls on iOS devices, password to AppleID needed to make purchases in the first place) then I'm not sure what the problem is?
That Apple didn't tell this guy he should have maybe enabled parental controls for in app/any purchases? That maybe he shouldn't have linked his credit card to the Apple ID his kid uses?
How is this different to some guy suing Mastercard because his kid ran up a giant bill during a spending spree if you have authorised him to make purchases on your account with no limit?
The early 2000's called and want their joke back. You're trying too hard.
I see you stopped reading his comment at the first line you reached that caused your neckbeard to chafe in rage because you don't think reading comprehension is important.
Maybe you should *keep reading* the comment.
By "everyone" I assume you mean "Samsung".
How does this relate to Motorola, the FRAND abuser? At least this patent isn't covered by FRAND - I guess they got lucky and picked one that wasn't.
Icons in a grid and rounded corners really must have been "brilliant ideas" though, given that they sell the top 3 smartphones. Just a thought.
DISCLAIMER: Apple's lawsuit over slide to unlock and other nonsense are stupid. Some of this post may be facetious. YMMV.
Ah, that makes more sense.
Although you could keep renewing if you really wanted, I see your point. You could also jailbreak if there is one available at the time, but for this discussion I was keeping it strictly what's available officially.
Why would it stop working after 4 years?
Oh, the battery. Come on, you're better at arguing than that, I've seen it!
You can - you can put anything onto it that you like. The restriction is in what apps you can put onto iOS via the store, not on what the device can do. You can install a development environment on it if you really want as someone with a developer account (publish to own phone only) or an enterprise account (publish to any number of phones under your control). Then you can add a keyboard and so on - those work with iOS devices without any additional modification.
If those are your criteria, then with a developer account ($99) or an enterprise account ($Call for details) then iOS devices are also personal computers.
That was my point - you were getting angsty with with in your first reply that actually contained the meat of your (well reasoned) argument.
It was what you signed off with dismissively.
Forgive me for being somewhat facetious in my own replies to that.
All I had to go on was your initial two sentence post. You can get all indignant about me "not understanding" the nuances of your argument all you like, but there actually has to *be* some argument there first. Adding it after the fact and then complaining that I simply don't understand what you meant is cheap.
Well, then you followed up with a line about how Apple "holds onto those codes with an iron fist" which is a peculiar statement given that iPhones are being legally unlocked by hundreds of other carriers except AT&T.
So they hold onto them with an iron fist... from AT&T only?
Just to check my understanding of your posts, you see.
I answered "nonsense" (with a typo) to this:
Such software for the iPhone does not exist, in any official capacity that would allow AT&T to use it legally, on the open market.
Which really is nonsense, given that iPhones can be legally unlocked on hundreds of different carriers. AT&T may not have anything in their official channels, but to claim that the software/method simply is not accessible to them is nonsense.
Whether the current situation was down to the legacy of the exclusivity agreement with Apple when the first iPhone came along (although this doesn't seem to have affected other formerly-exclusive carriers in other countries) or some other reason, it really does stand out as an anomaly - especially since AT&T very trivially unlock all other handsets that they support, with minimal hassle.
(note: I have nothing against AT&T)
The stick 'you' get beaten with? No, you get criticised for so heavily identifying yourself with the corporation whose gadgets you prefer, as you just demonstrated with your revealing choice of words.
And why is that exactly? I don't "heavily criticise" people for identifying with Android or Windows or Linux. Is there something about people who identify with other platforms that requires them to define themselves by hating and criticising people who don't use the same computers as they do?
You forgot to log in. Is that also an Android feature? ;)
Wow, I must say... I really *do* look like a fool being insulted by someone too chickenshit to log in!
Well played sir!
I'm still struggling to determine what your point is, or how you are refuting mine? I'm all ears.
Actually, I read it as just the opposite - it's a piece designed to show how Apple "overcharges" for iPhones and how it's the 800 lb gorilla beating down the humble Google, "struggling along" making only $2 per phone and yet still managing to compete.
They are on iOS too.
Wait, isn't Android the top dog in marketshare? At least that's the stick we get beaten with on slashdot all the time, so that would make the iPhone the underdog "alternative" phone to have?
DISCLAIMER: this is a joke.
So your argument is that Android's strength is that you can buy a refurbished, second hand device? If you really want a cheap iPhone you can get a 3GS for free, or buy a cheap one with no contract. Or even a refurb iPhone 4 if you're willing to hunt around a bit.
The reason these numbers in the article are so different is because they're completely incomparable. The $575 figure is a combination of all the factors that go into the phone, from marketing, subsidies from carriers, manufacturing, etc.
Google's number is just the total they've made divided by the number of handsets (it notably DOES NOT include the cost of the handsets themselves - money that is going into Samsung's, HTC's and Motorola's pockets).
There are plenty of Android users who are "spending $600" on apps and markup for the really good Android phones like the Galaxy IIS. It's just that that the bulk of that dollar amount ends up in Samsung's pocket, not Google's.
Nonsense. The USA is not the world. Non-US carriers have been legally unlocking the iPhone for years. This is just AT&T finally catching up with the rest of the world due to a lot of complaining to Apple HQ by customers who are rightly pissed off that their out of contract (and thus free from subsidy) phone was forever locked to AT&T for no good reason.
The change came after Apple contacted AT&T about it, so I assume they threatened to offer free unlocks to any customer directly unless AT&T started offering it after contract end, or something like that - neither company wants to threaten its own revenue stream, and Apple values its image above almost all else.
Me too.
I'll always use a PC and will never use a mobile phone or tablet or whatever else it is that I'm supposed to have...
And I'm supposed to do serious work and study on a tablet? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
No, obviously not, but it's clear you don't do much "study" either way.
The phrase talks about the computing landscape as a whole, not on an individual basis. A large potion of the computing population have found that tablets and phones work very well for them for almost all of their daily computing needs. This is what's meant by that phrase "Post-PC computing".
It does not mean that PCs are going away.
What are you talking about? Apple's "efforts" to exclude Google? By using Google as the built in search engine, shipping a dedicated Google Maps app that comes built in, and a built in YouTube application since the introduction of the iPhone and on every version of iOS since before it was even called that?
I guess "competing with Google" = "trying to exclude them".
Sigh. Stay classy slashdot.
"-1 Troll" does not mean "I disagree".
Corporations don't pay tax unless most of their customers are foreigners. What you're demanding is that Amazon raise prices, collect more money from their British customers, and give it to the British government.
Why do you think the world would be a better place if ordinary Britons had to pay even more tax than they currently do?
Well, perhaps then their competitors - like brick and mortar bookstores and even other online retailers might actually *stay in business*, thus creating jobs, healthier economy, more money going back into the economy (instead of being siphoned away to a tax haven).
Amazon's prices are artificially low - they don't need to raise them, they need to be brought into line with where they would be if they were playing fairly.
Why would they do that? This isn't the United States you know.
I have a 50Mb connection right now with no caps. It's perfect for a multiple-occupancy household.