Well, *any* data can be planted into computer records. That doesn't address the actual ID technology, itself. (Of course, it is a valid concern across the board).
As for comfort- a DNA ID verification could probably be a lot more invasive and uncomfortable (cheek swap, blood draw) at least by today's standards. A fast retinal scan design would be to simple look into eyepiece for a second. Done. I think a modern system could be almost as fast as a fingerprint scan.
I don't think laser surgery for vision correction or contacts would make any difference, because that doesn't alter the retinal pattern. You do have a point for retinal surgery, though... but I am not sure it would alter enough of the retina to matter for most purposes.
Oh, I have been awake for a long time. I was pointing out the "irony" in the summary/article wording- as if Apple rejected it because of lack of "standards", which is ludicrous.
I just still can't believe it is 2011 and we STILL can't get PIN codes attached to credit cards! I hope this "contactless" type concept requires their use (and can't be stored on the device, obviously)...
1) Only on an iPad- no other tablet, brand, or type of machine. 2) Which means you probably also have to have a computer and one that can run iTunes (since that is used for install and updates). 3) And you have to have Time Warner cable TV service. 4) And only Time Warner Internet service. 5) And be on the IP address registered to you. 6) And only 30 channels.
How incredibly thoughtful, open, and flexible that is! What next? Require they watch all the commercials too... ooops....
Well, at least it is a step in the right direction and it sounds like they might add additional features and such.
And today's 100% of the children become 100% of the adults in several years. It is more like a grandfather clause. There is no way any government will ever delete data once it is collected. Not gonna happen.
In any case, it is interesting that they would collect an iris scan. I *hate* the idea of a government collecting any "latent"-able biometrics from anyone not *convicted* of a serious crime (see below). If one method HAD to be chosen, however, a retinal scan would be the best (iris might be second best). Best from an ID standpoint, and best from a civil liberties standpoint.
Why? Because you can't be framed using retinal data (unless you regularly leave your eyes lying around). It can't be stolen nor "planted". You can't be covertly scanned without your knowledge. It's data can't be easily forced from you. It is incredibly hard to fake. It is incredibly hard to alter. Trying to eradicate it from your body would have a serious negative impact. You don't go around unintentionally leaving your retina signature all over the place like fingerprints or DNA. And DNA can reveal more about you than just identity.
Google doesn't seem to be having problems with the concept and is pushing it (with manufacturers' buy-in) into current Android phones now. Perhaps Apple is having the "not invented here" syndrome??
From the article: "But Apple isn't completely abandoning the idea of mobile payments. Instead, the company plans to implement its own contactless payment technology,"
Oh! So Apple just wants to find another revenue stream from their own proprietary "solution"..... got it! It has nothing to do with "industry standards", it has to do with trying to create and force a "standard".
There was only one Xoom benchmark done against the yet-to-be-released ipad2. It was from anandtech, it was graphics performance only, and it has been re-quoted over and over again as if it is meaningful, which it is not really. It was not even adjusted for screen resolution! It is not objective, verifiable, repeatable, concrete data to draw any good conclusions. They listed the DETAILED results for the iPad and iPad2, but only pulled out three tests to compare to the Xoom. Does that seem reasonable? And it certainly says nothing about any other aspects of real-world performance.
Once the iPad2 is released, I am sure more comprehensive and complete benchmarks will give a real picture.
I told you it was extreme. And the Nook Color is not Eink. I just used a Xoom yesterday for the first time and the only problem I had with the screen was that there was a LOT of glare.
And if you simply must compare the 16GB iPad2 to the 32GB Xoom- then assuming the Sam's price of $550 holds, you would be paying 10% more than the iPad2 but get something with twice the storage, twice the memory, faster processing, an SD slot for expansion, HDMI out, more sensors, a larger screen, a replaceable battery, much higher resolution screen, higher resolution cameras, and a standard USB port!
Although I like the idea of being able to convert Flash to HTML5, on many machines I *intentionally* block Flash because I do not want parts of normal websites having: animation, sound, movement, sucking down tons of bandwidth, CPU usage, battery use, etc.
I hope the browser designers will PLEASE give users some type of control to prevent/lower/stop animations. And before anyone mentions it: no, existing Firefox script-controlling addons (like No-Script) simply do not work for most people. They require way too much manual intervention and often leave websites relying on Javascript interactions completely broken.
So it is "comparable" between a $45,000 Infiniti and a $13,000 Kia because those are the two cheapest in each of their respective company's respective lineups? (Yes that is extreme, but it makes the point)
The *comparable* Xoom (32GB WiFi, $600) to an iPad is the 32GB WiFi $600 iPad not the 16GB iPad.
Now, if you want cheap *entry price* into a tablet, then look at the $250 Nook Color (which can run Android 3.0, but is missing a lot of features, and is smaller). Rest assured, there will be a LOT more Android 3.0 tablets coming out that will have an entry price far below the 16GB iPad.
From a iOS standpoint- some people simply don't want to be forced to use iTunes. Which, by the way, also doesn't run on Linux, BSD, or Solaris. Others don't like the iApp situation.
Not trying to be obtuse, but it is still a bit nefarious. There are numerous business sites that we have been requested or required to use that require ActiveX. Sites which:
1) Sit on the Internet 2) Not developed by us 3) Not developed for us 4) Are available to any company that uses their services 5) Do require logins 6) None of which have anything to do with Flash for Silverlight
None of which if I listed would mean anything to you. So they are probably "private" by your definition. That makes it no less damaging to us, however. My point still holds- If more businesses used cross-platform browsers, it would be far more difficult for such sites (just like public sites) to get away with "extending" the browser with proprietary, single-platform "enhancements".
The SD slot isn't broken, it is just problematic with the fast release of Android 3.0. It will be "fixed" pretty soon, I am sure.
Flash will be available in a few weeks according to pretty reliable sources. Apple doesn't have Flash anyway, so that is a poor comparison point.
4G modem only matters on the overpriced non-WiFi-only model, which few people want.
Not that I am defending Motorola... they pushed the product out a little too quickly. They were desperate to beat Apple's release of the iPad2. And they made it, but so what? Since they didn't release the WiFi-only version, which is what 90% (?) of prospective customers want, it is a hollow "victory". I just wouldn't characterize the Xoom as "crippled" like you did.
You haven't given it much time. Come back in a year and then complain:)
At launch, Android tablet devices will have access to the vast majority of what the ipads had access to last year. That is pretty impressive if you ask me.
And since Android has now surpassed Apple on smartphones, and it's use is still accelerating rapidly, there will be a HUGE market for Android tablets. People will Android phones are more likely to want Android tablets than iPads.
>"I hate to bring it up, but that's what everyone said *last year* when the iPad 1 launched"
Not that *I* remember, and I follow this stuff pretty closely. People did NOT expect any good iPad competition until AFTER Google optimized Android for tablet use, which is what 3.0 (Honeycomb) is all about.
As an aside, Apple went through the same thing with necessary changes to iOS for tablet use.
Now that 3.0 is released, Android tablets will, indeed, take off. Samsung ridiculously overpriced their pre 3.0 tablets, just because they could get away with it. That will certainly end this year. Even the $600 price tag on the Xoom will probably fall significantly within this launch year. (People have spotted reliable intel that it will even be at Sam' s Club for $539 when first released, placing it below the iPad price). Even so, I am not sure if reasonable (powerful, complete) 10" 3.0 tablets will hit the $300 price point this year, though. $500? Certainly. $450? Probably. Anything else might be pushing it. The point is they will be priced lower than the respective iPad model (they HAVE to if they want to compete).
Competition is a great thing... Samsung is just greedy and will (thankfully) have to stand aside if they can't play the game:)
I never said they were "public" web sites. And nowhere in the article does it say the scope of the issue or the comments is limited to public sites.
You might also want to define "public"... there are lots and lots of Internet-accessible sites that use ActiveX but require logins and are for specific services and were not designed nor managed by the company that needs to use them. Are those "public"? (Keep in mind that just having a login doesn't mean it isn't public..)
But you are correct in that few home-user or non-login type sites require Active-X (thankfully).
>"The simplest would be to distribute it proportional to their conventional music sales"
There won't BE any conventional music sales if it is suddenly legal and encouraged that people just download it all; and when people are FORCED to pay for music whether they want it or not.
Or what is left of conventional music sales would be horribly skewed by really old and/or lower-tech people that have no idea how to deal with digital media.
I don't disagree with your posting. I just have to point out that business use of IE-only and Active-X is much, much higher that most home users realize. So while it might not be TECHNICALLY a "web standard", the end result is that MS uses their browser *with* Active-X. So no matter how standards-compliant IE is, as long as developers have the opportunity to use things like Active-X, and do so, they have contaminated the concept of a "web browser" and used that power to (intentionally or not) force a single-platform, single-browser site/environment.
Just today I had to fight yet another such site that left us completely unable to do anything because it was not IE+MS-Windows and it is infuriating. And reading others' posts like "well, I just refuse to do business with such sites" is not always practical or even possible (I know your's is not one of those, but you get the idea).
>"Cross platform doesn't matter as long as the different pieces of platform-specific software all obey the same standard"
Agreed! So what part of Active-X is standards based?
There are still TONS of sites still require the use of IE. I have to deal with three on a regular basis and it is especially true with hosted, supposedly "web based" business services. IE6 is not the root problem there. The modern root problem is Active-X (and to a much lesser degree, Silverlight). It turns what COULD be a standards-based browser setup into a completely proprietary, MS-Windows, IE-ONLY environment.
If most people chose a cross-platform browser, it would ensure that sites can't pull non-standard stuff and end up dictating which browser AND operating system is used.
>"Why should the cross-platformness of the browser make a difference to how the site works? If the browser is standards compliant, it shouldn't matter if it's platform agnostic or no"
Spoken like an MS-Windows-only user.
Answer: Because there are craploads of sites still require the use of IE to do ANYTHING. Trust me, I know. I have to deal with three on a regular basis. It is especially true with hosted, supposedly "web based" business services.
Why? Because of Active-X. And since that is proprietary, not standards based, and not cross-platform, it forces the use of IE under MS-Windows and excludes all other browsers AND operating systems. No Firefox. No Opera. No Chrome. No Safari. No Linux. No BSD. No MacOS. No Android. No WebOS. No Wii. Etc.
If most people chose a cross-platform browser, it would ensure that sites can't pull non-standard stuff and end up dictating which browser AND operating system is used.
>"Of course they want you to upgrade to a newer Internet Explorer."
And I want you to upgrade to a cross-platform web browser, like Firefox, Opera, or Chrome. Then maybe we can have all sites work on all browsers and on most all operating systems. But we can't always get what we want, can we?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, *any* data can be planted into computer records. That doesn't address the actual ID technology, itself. (Of course, it is a valid concern across the board).
As for comfort- a DNA ID verification could probably be a lot more invasive and uncomfortable (cheek swap, blood draw) at least by today's standards. A fast retinal scan design would be to simple look into eyepiece for a second. Done. I think a modern system could be almost as fast as a fingerprint scan.
I don't think laser surgery for vision correction or contacts would make any difference, because that doesn't alter the retinal pattern. You do have a point for retinal surgery, though... but I am not sure it would alter enough of the retina to matter for most purposes.
>"the new credit card terminals will have a 30 pin connector"
OMG!!! Too funny! I nearly fell out of my chair :)
+100 funny
Oh, I have been awake for a long time. I was pointing out the "irony" in the summary/article wording- as if Apple rejected it because of lack of "standards", which is ludicrous.
I just still can't believe it is 2011 and we STILL can't get PIN codes attached to credit cards! I hope this "contactless" type concept requires their use (and can't be stored on the device, obviously)...
1) Only on an iPad- no other tablet, brand, or type of machine.
2) Which means you probably also have to have a computer and one that can run iTunes (since that is used for install and updates).
3) And you have to have Time Warner cable TV service.
4) And only Time Warner Internet service.
5) And be on the IP address registered to you.
6) And only 30 channels.
How incredibly thoughtful, open, and flexible that is! What next? Require they watch all the commercials too... ooops....
Well, at least it is a step in the right direction and it sounds like they might add additional features and such.
And today's 100% of the children become 100% of the adults in several years. It is more like a grandfather clause. There is no way any government will ever delete data once it is collected. Not gonna happen.
In any case, it is interesting that they would collect an iris scan. I *hate* the idea of a government collecting any "latent"-able biometrics from anyone not *convicted* of a serious crime (see below). If one method HAD to be chosen, however, a retinal scan would be the best (iris might be second best). Best from an ID standpoint, and best from a civil liberties standpoint.
Why? Because you can't be framed using retinal data (unless you regularly leave your eyes lying around). It can't be stolen nor "planted". You can't be covertly scanned without your knowledge. It's data can't be easily forced from you. It is incredibly hard to fake. It is incredibly hard to alter. Trying to eradicate it from your body would have a serious negative impact. You don't go around unintentionally leaving your retina signature all over the place like fingerprints or DNA. And DNA can reveal more about you than just identity.
Google doesn't seem to be having problems with the concept and is pushing it (with manufacturers' buy-in) into current Android phones now. Perhaps Apple is having the "not invented here" syndrome??
From the article: "But Apple isn't completely abandoning the idea of mobile payments. Instead, the company plans to implement its own contactless payment technology,"
Oh! So Apple just wants to find another revenue stream from their own proprietary "solution"..... got it! It has nothing to do with "industry standards", it has to do with trying to create and force a "standard".
>"You'll just have to decide for yourself..."
Funny, it won't load on any of my systems (hint: they are all Linux. One even has an XP virtual machine and it won't load in that either).
Guess I will have to stick with one of the other major browsers, all of which are cross-platform (Firefox, Opera, Chrome).
There was only one Xoom benchmark done against the yet-to-be-released ipad2. It was from anandtech, it was graphics performance only, and it has been re-quoted over and over again as if it is meaningful, which it is not really. It was not even adjusted for screen resolution! It is not objective, verifiable, repeatable, concrete data to draw any good conclusions. They listed the DETAILED results for the iPad and iPad2, but only pulled out three tests to compare to the Xoom. Does that seem reasonable? And it certainly says nothing about any other aspects of real-world performance.
Once the iPad2 is released, I am sure more comprehensive and complete benchmarks will give a real picture.
Case in point- we all know the Xoom was rushed out the door too quickly, and Android 3.0 is very new. But Motorola just pushed an update out that (reportedly) increased OVERALL performance of the Xoom by 28% in the Quadrant benchmark! http://forum.androidcentral.com/motorola-xoom/67196-xoom-hri66-hri39-raises-quadrant-benchmark-23-a.html
I told you it was extreme. And the Nook Color is not Eink. I just used a Xoom yesterday for the first time and the only problem I had with the screen was that there was a LOT of glare.
And if you simply must compare the 16GB iPad2 to the 32GB Xoom- then assuming the Sam's price of $550 holds, you would be paying 10% more than the iPad2 but get something with twice the storage, twice the memory, faster processing, an SD slot for expansion, HDMI out, more sensors, a larger screen, a replaceable battery, much higher resolution screen, higher resolution cameras, and a standard USB port!
Although I like the idea of being able to convert Flash to HTML5, on many machines I *intentionally* block Flash because I do not want parts of normal websites having: animation, sound, movement, sucking down tons of bandwidth, CPU usage, battery use, etc.
I hope the browser designers will PLEASE give users some type of control to prevent/lower/stop animations. And before anyone mentions it: no, existing Firefox script-controlling addons (like No-Script) simply do not work for most people. They require way too much manual intervention and often leave websites relying on Javascript interactions completely broken.
So it is "comparable" between a $45,000 Infiniti and a $13,000 Kia because those are the two cheapest in each of their respective company's respective lineups? (Yes that is extreme, but it makes the point)
The *comparable* Xoom (32GB WiFi, $600) to an iPad is the 32GB WiFi $600 iPad not the 16GB iPad.
Now, if you want cheap *entry price* into a tablet, then look at the $250 Nook Color (which can run Android 3.0, but is missing a lot of features, and is smaller). Rest assured, there will be a LOT more Android 3.0 tablets coming out that will have an entry price far below the 16GB iPad.
From a iOS standpoint- some people simply don't want to be forced to use iTunes. Which, by the way, also doesn't run on Linux, BSD, or Solaris. Others don't like the iApp situation.
>The comparable iPad costs $499. The $600 Xoom is Wifi only.
No, the comparable 32GB iPad is $599.
Not trying to be obtuse, but it is still a bit nefarious. There are numerous business sites that we have been requested or required to use that require ActiveX. Sites which:
1) Sit on the Internet
2) Not developed by us
3) Not developed for us
4) Are available to any company that uses their services
5) Do require logins
6) None of which have anything to do with Flash for Silverlight
None of which if I listed would mean anything to you. So they are probably "private" by your definition. That makes it no less damaging to us, however. My point still holds- If more businesses used cross-platform browsers, it would be far more difficult for such sites (just like public sites) to get away with "extending" the browser with proprietary, single-platform "enhancements".
By that logic, no company can ever compete with any other!
The SD slot isn't broken, it is just problematic with the fast release of Android 3.0. It will be "fixed" pretty soon, I am sure.
Flash will be available in a few weeks according to pretty reliable sources. Apple doesn't have Flash anyway, so that is a poor comparison point.
4G modem only matters on the overpriced non-WiFi-only model, which few people want.
Not that I am defending Motorola... they pushed the product out a little too quickly. They were desperate to beat Apple's release of the iPad2. And they made it, but so what? Since they didn't release the WiFi-only version, which is what 90% (?) of prospective customers want, it is a hollow "victory". I just wouldn't characterize the Xoom as "crippled" like you did.
You haven't given it much time. Come back in a year and then complain :)
At launch, Android tablet devices will have access to the vast majority of what the ipads had access to last year. That is pretty impressive if you ask me.
And since Android has now surpassed Apple on smartphones, and it's use is still accelerating rapidly, there will be a HUGE market for Android tablets. People will Android phones are more likely to want Android tablets than iPads.
>"I hate to bring it up, but that's what everyone said *last year* when the iPad 1 launched"
Not that *I* remember, and I follow this stuff pretty closely. People did NOT expect any good iPad competition until AFTER Google optimized Android for tablet use, which is what 3.0 (Honeycomb) is all about.
As an aside, Apple went through the same thing with necessary changes to iOS for tablet use.
Now that 3.0 is released, Android tablets will, indeed, take off. Samsung ridiculously overpriced their pre 3.0 tablets, just because they could get away with it. That will certainly end this year. Even the $600 price tag on the Xoom will probably fall significantly within this launch year. (People have spotted reliable intel that it will even be at Sam' s Club for $539 when first released, placing it below the iPad price). Even so, I am not sure if reasonable (powerful, complete) 10" 3.0 tablets will hit the $300 price point this year, though. $500? Certainly. $450? Probably. Anything else might be pushing it. The point is they will be priced lower than the respective iPad model (they HAVE to if they want to compete).
Competition is a great thing... Samsung is just greedy and will (thankfully) have to stand aside if they can't play the game :)
I never said they were "public" web sites. And nowhere in the article does it say the scope of the issue or the comments is limited to public sites.
You might also want to define "public"... there are lots and lots of Internet-accessible sites that use ActiveX but require logins and are for specific services and were not designed nor managed by the company that needs to use them. Are those "public"? (Keep in mind that just having a login doesn't mean it isn't public..)
But you are correct in that few home-user or non-login type sites require Active-X (thankfully).
>"The simplest would be to distribute it proportional to their conventional music sales"
There won't BE any conventional music sales if it is suddenly legal and encouraged that people just download it all; and when people are FORCED to pay for music whether they want it or not.
Or what is left of conventional music sales would be horribly skewed by really old and/or lower-tech people that have no idea how to deal with digital media.
I don't disagree with your posting. I just have to point out that business use of IE-only and Active-X is much, much higher that most home users realize. So while it might not be TECHNICALLY a "web standard", the end result is that MS uses their browser *with* Active-X. So no matter how standards-compliant IE is, as long as developers have the opportunity to use things like Active-X, and do so, they have contaminated the concept of a "web browser" and used that power to (intentionally or not) force a single-platform, single-browser site/environment.
Just today I had to fight yet another such site that left us completely unable to do anything because it was not IE+MS-Windows and it is infuriating. And reading others' posts like "well, I just refuse to do business with such sites" is not always practical or even possible (I know your's is not one of those, but you get the idea).
Perhaps there *is* more to cross-platform than fishing for meaningless "insightful" mods on Slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2023324&cid=35385012
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2023324&cid=35384960
>"Cross platform doesn't matter as long as the different pieces of platform-specific software all obey the same standard"
Agreed! So what part of Active-X is standards based?
There are still TONS of sites still require the use of IE. I have to deal with three on a regular basis and it is especially true with hosted, supposedly "web based" business services. IE6 is not the root problem there. The modern root problem is Active-X (and to a much lesser degree, Silverlight). It turns what COULD be a standards-based browser setup into a completely proprietary, MS-Windows, IE-ONLY environment.
If most people chose a cross-platform browser, it would ensure that sites can't pull non-standard stuff and end up dictating which browser AND operating system is used.
>"Why should the cross-platformness of the browser make a difference to how the site works? If the browser is standards compliant, it shouldn't matter if it's platform agnostic or no"
Spoken like an MS-Windows-only user.
Answer: Because there are craploads of sites still require the use of IE to do ANYTHING. Trust me, I know. I have to deal with three on a regular basis. It is especially true with hosted, supposedly "web based" business services.
Why? Because of Active-X. And since that is proprietary, not standards based, and not cross-platform, it forces the use of IE under MS-Windows and excludes all other browsers AND operating systems. No Firefox. No Opera. No Chrome. No Safari. No Linux. No BSD. No MacOS. No Android. No WebOS. No Wii. Etc.
If most people chose a cross-platform browser, it would ensure that sites can't pull non-standard stuff and end up dictating which browser AND operating system is used.
>"Of course they want you to upgrade to a newer Internet Explorer."
And I want you to upgrade to a cross-platform web browser, like Firefox, Opera, or Chrome. Then maybe we can have all sites work on all browsers and on most all operating systems. But we can't always get what we want, can we?