Remembering a few years ago, in the PC vs Mac debate, that PC fans argued that their platform was superior because there was much more software available.
And they were right. That is the primary selling point of Windows, and in that regard, Windows is superior.
To what Mac fans replied that it was quality, not quantity that mattered, and that it was better, for a given application type, to have one good program rather than ten mediocre ones.
And they were right too. Provided the particular app category was served by a Mac app developer, then the app on Mac was probably better than any of the apps on Windows. In that way Mac was superior.
The difference here is that iOS has both the app quantity AND quality. It's superior in both ways.
I didn't say all Androids were cheaper. Just that there are many people on a budget, and those people can more easily afford a cheap Android than an iOS device. And when they've done so, they are less likely to be prepared to pay for apps.
It's not that either. It's that Android users have much more resistance to paying for things. Either because they are on a budget and that's why they bought a cheap Android in the first place, or because they share the OSS ethos that software should be free in both meanings of the word.
So you're saying the lack of surface buttons is not significant, and that Apple should lose claims to that as a reason to sue?... iPad wasn't announced until this flat, capacitive-touchscreen device, with no surface buttons and a relatively uniform bezel was announced, with an emphasis on being as thin and lightweight as possible.
iPad doesn't have no buttons on the front, it has one. The iPad doesn't have a bezel, this does. The iPad has a flat front, this one is curved (you can see it better on the rear grey device as it's at an angle). The iPad has wide borders around the screen on all four sides to give somewhere to grip without gripping the touch sensitive screen, this device doesn't. And most obviously the iPad is black, this device is red.
Theoretically they can do anything they want with your device remotely.
No, they can only do those things for which there is a mechanism.
But they just do not use this "feature" at the moment:)
As I said: because the system they use, that you disdain has been very successful in keeping malware off the device so they haven't had to use it. Unlike the far more open Android, which has had plenty of malware.
Well, may be RMS, other GPL-centric people and I are insane
If you're grouping yourself in with him, I'm even more convinced.
Why compare announce dates to release dates? Are you trying to distort the truth?
That was my question of the GP poster. It was he that did it, not I.
The JooJoo was released before the iPad, and was prototyped way before the iPad.
Which I pointed out before you did. What I also pointed out and you missed is that the final exterior look of the Joojoo only came after the iPad had been demoed.
I've had an iOS device for 3 years. During that time, Apple have had the ability to remove serious malware should it ever get onto my device. However they've never used it as their security measures have prevented any malware getting that far.
And somehow this means I don't own my iOS device?
Your message would be better finished with "I'm insane." than "Period."
Nor has anyone else... yet. The kill switch is a feature that is there for the situation that some serious malware gets into the store and on to people's iOS devices. And as yet no such serious malware has got through.
Rational people are glad that Apple has in place an as yet unused means to deal with malware should it ever appear. Most slashdot commenters appear to be more hysterical libertarians than rational people.
The answer to the question in the title of that article is "No, Apple didn't flip the kill switch".
See the comments at the bottom from several people who can verify that the app did not disappear from their devices. It was only pulled from the store, which is a different thing entirely.
You're an imbecile. iCloud doesn't back applications up, only data. There wouldn't be any point them backing them up, given that Apple already has copies of every app in the store, which can be re-downloaded.
You finding holes in your jailbreaking is to be expected. You're using a hack. Its nothing to do with an Apple kill switch.
The first article title ends with a "?". The second article uses the term "may have". The reported symptoms in the two articles are completely different.
The first appears to me to more likely be the removal of functionality at the publisher's server. It's certainly isn't the "kill switch", because the app itself is still there.
The second report is contradicted by several of the commenters underneath it, who say that the app is still on their machines. It appears the app was removed from the store for licensing issues - a fairly common occurrence. But not from people's devices.
These are the digital equivalent of sightings of a yeti or bigfoot. It would be BIG news if and when Apple use the kill switch for the first time. It hasn't happened yet.
The kill switch is there for if and when there is some serious malware that made it through to people's devices. And up to now, no serious malware has got through.
It's that the patents expired. Domestic applianced used to come in all sorts of shapes, with the words "patented" and "pat-pending" sprinkled liberally about. But once something's been around for 20 years, it's open for everyone to adopt, and the entire market converges around the designs of the popular models.
Not quite. Joo Joo was released March 25th 2010, whereas iPad was announced January 27th 2010.
Joojoo was announced before the iPad. And it was released before the iPad. But it wasn't released before the iPad was announced.
Note also that there's a qualitative difference between the Joojoo announcement and the iPad one. With the Joojoo announcement, there wasn't even a final look to the device for which they could show a picture. With the iPad announcement, the actual device was demonstrated live on stage.
Joojoo was released 5 days before the iPad, but the look of it dated from after the iPad was demoed.
In fact (this is still on-subject): a way was recently discovered to get root access on the new iOS without jailbreaking the phone. So people could still run other apps
The definition of jailbreaking is putting a device into a state in which it can run unapproved software. If people can run other apps it's jailbroken, not just rooted. If they can't run other apps, it's not jailbroken and is irrelevant to this discussion.
Considering that the best jailbreaks would not register, and the fact users of Flurry are, at best, a self-selected group, I am not convinced even a little that those statistics are an accurate reflection of iPhone users in general.
It's not perfect, but flurry are rounding up by saying less than 10% rather than the very small percentage they do measure.
What better have you got to go on? You're pitting a hunch against some actual stats? It's a bad hunch if you'r really suggesting more than 10%. It suggests you really don't know who normal consumers are. There's a tendency for people to overestimate the number of people who are similar to themselves. And you've fallen into it.
Conclusions you can draw from this study: people who ride transit... I'm not certain that this group is representative of the general population, however.
And yes, people who care enough to double-check all their possessions lose less than people who don't.
How exactly does one double-check, and in what way is it superior to single-checking?
What about those with zipped pockets or bags versus open pockets or bags. Do you think that might be a factor? And how exactly do you imagine that relates to "carelessness".
Do you imagine the use of zips correlates with computer literacy?
Is it unreasonable to assume there might be some correlation between those people who are less careful with possessions and those who are less careful about encryption/malware, etc.?
It's not an unreasonable hypothesis to raise. It is unreasonable to assume it's true.
Slashdot Mirror
In a few days, or maybe already. They were on 18 billion in October, and increasing at about a billion a month.
i.e. iIn the last year there have been as many iOS app downloads as in the entire life of Android.
Remembering a few years ago, in the PC vs Mac debate, that PC fans argued that their platform was superior because there was much more software available.
And they were right. That is the primary selling point of Windows, and in that regard, Windows is superior.
To what Mac fans replied that it was quality, not quantity that mattered, and that it was better, for a given application type, to have one good program rather than ten mediocre ones.
And they were right too. Provided the particular app category was served by a Mac app developer, then the app on Mac was probably better than any of the apps on Windows. In that way Mac was superior.
The difference here is that iOS has both the app quantity AND quality. It's superior in both ways.
I didn't say all Androids were cheaper. Just that there are many people on a budget, and those people can more easily afford a cheap Android than an iOS device. And when they've done so, they are less likely to be prepared to pay for apps.
It's not that either. It's that Android users have much more resistance to paying for things. Either because they are on a budget and that's why they bought a cheap Android in the first place, or because they share the OSS ethos that software should be free in both meanings of the word.
So you're saying the lack of surface buttons is not significant, and that Apple should lose claims to that as a reason to sue? ... iPad wasn't announced until this flat, capacitive-touchscreen device, with no surface buttons and a relatively uniform bezel was announced, with an emphasis on being as thin and lightweight as possible.
iPad doesn't have no buttons on the front, it has one. The iPad doesn't have a bezel, this does. The iPad has a flat front, this one is curved (you can see it better on the rear grey device as it's at an angle). The iPad has wide borders around the screen on all four sides to give somewhere to grip without gripping the touch sensitive screen, this device doesn't. And most obviously the iPad is black, this device is red.
In the final release, Joojoo was changed in all these factors apart from the single button to copy the iPad. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JooJoo_01.jpg
Of course it looks nothing like an iPad, because iPads didn't exist when this prototype was displayed.
Exactly my point. And after the iPad was demoed they did copy it. Same with most other manufacturers of tablets and phones.
(Oh, and falsifying legal documents.)
Oh, I haven't heard this one. Go ahead, I could do with a laugh.
Theoretically they can do anything they want with your device remotely.
No, they can only do those things for which there is a mechanism.
But they just do not use this "feature" at the moment :)
As I said: because the system they use, that you disdain has been very successful in keeping malware off the device so they haven't had to use it. Unlike the far more open Android, which has had plenty of malware.
Well, may be RMS, other GPL-centric people and I are insane
If you're grouping yourself in with him, I'm even more convinced.
Why compare announce dates to release dates? Are you trying to distort the truth?
That was my question of the GP poster. It was he that did it, not I.
The JooJoo was released before the iPad, and was prototyped way before the iPad.
Which I pointed out before you did. What I also pointed out and you missed is that the final exterior look of the Joojoo only came after the iPad had been demoed.
Huh? Your link proves my point.
The pictured prototype looks nothing like an iPad. The only thing in common is that it's a device containing a rectangular screen.
The tablet finally released as a Joojoo looked just like the iPad.
I've had an iOS device for 3 years. During that time, Apple have had the ability to remove serious malware should it ever get onto my device. However they've never used it as their security measures have prevented any malware getting that far.
And somehow this means I don't own my iOS device?
Your message would be better finished with "I'm insane." than "Period."
yet.
Nor has anyone else... yet. The kill switch is a feature that is there for the situation that some serious malware gets into the store and on to people's iOS devices. And as yet no such serious malware has got through.
Rational people are glad that Apple has in place an as yet unused means to deal with malware should it ever appear. Most slashdot commenters appear to be more hysterical libertarians than rational people.
No, Apple has never used the kill switch. I've already debunked these two links the first time you posted them. See my posting history.
The answer to the question in the title of that article is "No, Apple didn't flip the kill switch".
See the comments at the bottom from several people who can verify that the app did not disappear from their devices. It was only pulled from the store, which is a different thing entirely.
You're an imbecile. iCloud doesn't back applications up, only data. There wouldn't be any point them backing them up, given that Apple already has copies of every app in the store, which can be re-downloaded.
You finding holes in your jailbreaking is to be expected. You're using a hack. Its nothing to do with an Apple kill switch.
The first article title ends with a "?". The second article uses the term "may have". The reported symptoms in the two articles are completely different.
The first appears to me to more likely be the removal of functionality at the publisher's server. It's certainly isn't the "kill switch", because the app itself is still there.
The second report is contradicted by several of the commenters underneath it, who say that the app is still on their machines. It appears the app was removed from the store for licensing issues - a fairly common occurrence. But not from people's devices.
These are the digital equivalent of sightings of a yeti or bigfoot. It would be BIG news if and when Apple use the kill switch for the first time. It hasn't happened yet.
The kill switch is there for if and when there is some serious malware that made it through to people's devices. And up to now, no serious malware has got through.
Chalk and cheese.
The policy on Windows Mobile wouldn't kill the point on VS Express either. But the policy on Windows would.
It's that the patents expired. Domestic applianced used to come in all sorts of shapes, with the words "patented" and "pat-pending" sprinkled liberally about. But once something's been around for 20 years, it's open for everyone to adopt, and the entire market converges around the designs of the popular models.
Not quite. Joo Joo was released March 25th 2010, whereas iPad was announced January 27th 2010.
Joojoo was announced before the iPad. And it was released before the iPad. But it wasn't released before the iPad was announced.
Note also that there's a qualitative difference between the Joojoo announcement and the iPad one. With the Joojoo announcement, there wasn't even a final look to the device for which they could show a picture. With the iPad announcement, the actual device was demonstrated live on stage.
Joojoo was released 5 days before the iPad, but the look of it dated from after the iPad was demoed.
In fact (this is still on-subject): a way was recently discovered to get root access on the new iOS without jailbreaking the phone. So people could still run other apps
The definition of jailbreaking is putting a device into a state in which it can run unapproved software. If people can run other apps it's jailbroken, not just rooted. If they can't run other apps, it's not jailbroken and is irrelevant to this discussion.
Considering that the best jailbreaks would not register, and the fact users of Flurry are, at best, a self-selected group, I am not convinced even a little that those statistics are an accurate reflection of iPhone users in general.
It's not perfect, but flurry are rounding up by saying less than 10% rather than the very small percentage they do measure.
What better have you got to go on? You're pitting a hunch against some actual stats? It's a bad hunch if you'r really suggesting more than 10%. It suggests you really don't know who normal consumers are. There's a tendency for people to overestimate the number of people who are similar to themselves. And you've fallen into it.
I wouldn't be surprised at all. I know jailbroken iPhones account for less than 10%. Flurry analytics.
Conclusions you can draw from this study: people who ride transit...
I'm not certain that this group is representative of the general population, however.
You must be American.
We have a winner!
And yes, people who care enough to double-check all their possessions lose less than people who don't.
How exactly does one double-check, and in what way is it superior to single-checking?
What about those with zipped pockets or bags versus open pockets or bags. Do you think that might be a factor? And how exactly do you imagine that relates to "carelessness".
Do you imagine the use of zips correlates with computer literacy?
Is it unreasonable to assume there might be some correlation between those people who are less careful with possessions and those who are less careful about encryption/malware, etc.?
It's not an unreasonable hypothesis to raise. It is unreasonable to assume it's true.
It doesn't matter whether that will require jailbreaking the phones. People will do it. They always have.
Some geeks do it. Some kids that think it's worth pirating apps to save 99c do it. People in general don't.
People claiming that iPads are going to replace computers
Who are those people? Sounds like a straw man.