don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Apple shouldn't fix the design issue here, they should. But this is a UI design problem more than it is really a security problem. A wisely designed app that needs this functionality can ask for user authorization, but only after it has been launched and put in the foreground. Apple should generalize the integration they use in their own apps to a system-level feature that asks the user for authorization before switching apps whenever an OpenURL is sent that would switch apps. Let apps request quiet switching in their Info.plist and let users toggle that on a per-scheme basis. In the interim, they should go through the app store and remove every app that registers an URL scheme which it handles to do something risky without user authorization.
So, in your recommended solution, the user would click a "skype://" link and Safari would prompt him with a necessarily generic message such as "You are about to launch Skype, are you sure?" And when the user confirms this, then Skype would launch and prompt the user with a domain-specific message such as "Call: 1-900-xxx-xxxx - This call may incur additional costs. Are you sure?"
Two clicks for the price of one. Yes, that's the kind of Apple human-computer interface we all know and love.
No, this is not a iOS security vulnerability. Safari, nor the operating system, has any way to know whether the resource offered to the external application is exploitable. Except of course when the external application is provided by the OS itself or by an application included in the built-in suite; such as the example of the "tel://" protocol scheme.
For the confirmation message to be meaningful, it must be presented by the target application--which has intimate domain and context knowledge of the resource. That, or Apple would need to keep track of the context and semantics of each and every protocol scheme and how they can be used.
However, this last one still would not be perfect, for each application is free to use the submitted resource in any way it wants to. There is nothing that prevents Skype from receiving a "skype://" URL and deciding to, say, delete your Skype address book, or initiate an HTTP download.
Recipes that just list ingredients, no. However, recipes that describe how to put those ingredients together into a final consumable product, yes. The former is an enumeration of items, presumably existing already; the latter is the product of creative effort--when described by the original author of the recipe, of course.
Notice something curious in one of those links you offered: ".../android_outsells_the_iphone_no_big_surprise.html"
Do you see it? It's the comparison of the iPhone--a selling product which customers can pick up online and at a store and ask by name--versus Android--a free operating systems that smart-phone manufacturers choose to include with their kit.
That is very telling, indeed. It means that manufacturers (the ones actually selling products containing Android) are going to have a hard time differentiating between each other in order to compete and make money. After all, their products are mere generic Android phones, no? If so, and they have trouble making money, how are they going to invest in innovating new features to stand above the competition?
>> And if iOS is the best platform ever, but no developers are developing for it... consumers (eventually) won't buy it, because they can get all the cool apps and features they want on Android.
Right, like when no customers were buying it when it came out--a whole year of which went without custom native apps.
By the same token, the bee will not crash into the floor as a result of an exception if the algorithm fails to be optimal by say, re-visiting the same flower twice, crossing paths with another bee, or skipping a flower.
No worries, I did not take it personal at all. I disagree with your comments regarding Jobs and so your comment seemed like any other Apple/Jobs bashing. (Really, let's be honest, do you really think that the millions upon millions of sales of iPhones and iPads are fueled strictly by "cultists" or purely by Steve Jobs' charisma?)
I read the article, and although I wouldn't consider myself a Steve Jobs' fan, I can see how the Sculley's description of Jobs' methodology fit within the reality of the current success of Apple, and why other competitors are struggling to catch up or imitate.
I disagree. In countless fora, including Slashdot, what I see is trolls insulting every single thing that Apple does, and claiming at every opportunity that absolutely nothing Apple does is any good, and that they only sell crap that's "shiny". When Mac users naturally retort with "it works for me" they get accused of being stupid or brainwashed "sheeple" that will buy anything Jobs sells them (which is only crap, remember?).
These same Apple-bashers then turn around and preemptively (and it is always preemptively) announce the forthcoming gushing of a million Apple-apologists that somehow never seem to rise up to or above the anti-Apple tirades.
Your comment seemed to follow this pattern.
-dZ.
P.S. Notice how I never defended Apple nor Steve Jobs. Think about that for a second while you ponder whether to call me an apologist or cult follower.
But that's the job of the designer, not the customer. Do you go to the back kitchen of a restaurant and tell the chef how you imagine the food should be presented or cooked?
It's fine if the client has comments or suggestions, but frankly he may not necessarily have the skills to define all the requirements and specifications--especially if you are attempting to bring a brand new product to market, for which there may be no analogy.
Of course, the designer, like the chef, is not there to please himself, but to serve the client; so if the end result is not good, the client will and should reject it.
In my experience, Apple is doing just that: they listen to their clients' feedback, and they make decisions. But ultimately, they define what they believe will address the users' needs. The users, in turn, respond by purchasing their products and enjoying them. So far, it seems to work out fine for all of them.
You didn't read the article did you? As Sculley said when discussing Jobs' methodology (and I paraphrase), "how can I ask the customer what a personal computer should look like or how it should work, when they have never seen or used one, nor conceived of the very idea? How can I expect that, when shown a calculator, they should extrapolate the functions of a completely different machine?"
It is the job of the designer to figure out the needs of customer rather than ask the customer to design for him. The designer should strive to understand and solve the problems of the customer.
PC's as the center for general consumer computing, yes. I don't think Jobs nor anybody ever suggested that Personal Computers would cease to exist any time soon.
Now, if you are suggesting that playing video games, browsing the web, and checking out FaceBook are the primary functions of a PC then... wait, weren't you talking about geek-rage against walled-gardens?
There are two HTML5, if you will. First, there's the 5th revision to the Hyper-Text Mark-up Language, which includes extended mark-up for semantic organization of HTML documents, among other things. Second, there's HTML 5, the concept/phenomenon. The latter, just like the "Web 2.0" is a catch-all phrase encompassing various new features, technologies, and concepts used on modern web applications.
Just like "Web 2.0" meant AJAX, CSS 2, pastel colors, and round corners; "HTML 5" means a heavy reliance on JavaScript and CSS 3 to support rich multimedia clients, more AJAX, and rounder corners.
You're making it sound like it's such an onerous requirement. Apple computers come with iTunes and there is a downloadable version for Windows. The iPod is a very popular device, so either either everybody who buys it owns a Mac, or perhaps installing iTunes on Windows is not much of a problem to a large percentage of users.
My point is that the iPod does not require any of those things. You are trying to do something with the iPod that was not part of its core functionality. The iPod's video feature is to watch videos in the iPod. You want to watch them on your TV? Well, I guess you can do that too, but you're on your own.
I don't watch iPod videos on my TV and I'm perfectly happy with the functionality that it brings in the box--the one mentioned in all its marketing material.
Maybe it's just me, but my computer came with iTunes pre-installed. And ripping my CDs into iTunes was something that I would have done with any other music player. It works fine for me, but to each his own.
I own an iPod Touch and a second generation iPod Nano and neither required me to purchase $50 worth any sort of cable. As a matter of fact, they didn't require me to purchase anything at all, and I never have; I used them right off the box. But whatever.
That wasn't a rhetorical question, but a legitimate inquiry. It wasn't clear to me what you meant by "they won't pay for TV". I didn't know if it referred to not wanting to pay per show, or not wanting to pay for renting movies or for Netflix, or for CableTV.
I understand if they are not willing or able to pay a buck for each TV show. I wouldn't either, if I was following an entire series. But as an on-demand, one-off occurrence, to catch up with a show I missed, or to view a documentary or mini-series, I find it reasonable and convenient.
My intention wasn't to convince you to go and buy an AppleTV for your parents. You asked three specific questions and I gave you answers trying to clear up some misinformation offered elsewhere in this forum.
It appears that you forgot to ask what evidently is your most important question, "would AppleTV play hundreds/thousands/millions of TV channels for free, or hook up to the WWW"? The answer is, no.
Are you really going to form your opinion based on the summary of an article posted on Slashdot?
The device does work, and it does not come bundled with "shenanigans" (whatever that is). It works for its intended purpose, to wit: for streaming content from iTunes, iTMS, and now Netflix.
If your content is in your iTunes library or you have a Netflix account or enjoy renting movies online, then you're good to go. If you have a bunch of files in formats which are not compatible with iTunes, then purchasing an AppleTV will still allow you to view content from Netflix and rent from the iTMS online store. It does not require you to encode your files into iTunes, though you are free to do so if you wish, at your own expense and effort.
What?? The AppleTV allows you to stream from Netflix too. Moreover, you do not have to pay anything extra to use Netflix through an AppleTV, so your $8.00 a month still buys you that.
All things being equal, the AppleTV implementation of the Netflix UI is superior than even the Netflix site itself, so there's that.
But all things are not equal. The AppleTV will allow you to stream new movies and TV shows before they are available in Netflix, and it allows you to stream content from your computer or any other iOS device.
What do you mean by "they won't pay for TV"? Their TV will play TV shows for free (or CableTV if they have it). What the AppleTV offers regarding television shows is the ability to view a show the day after it first aired, commercial free, for a buck.
Hulu.com gives you TV free but with commercials; or commercial-free with a paid subscription. The television set already has a TV tuner, why do they need to access it through the web, and at 1 Mbit/s?
With the AppleTV they don't have to rent TV shows, they can just tune with their own TV and watch the shows with commercials. Alternatively, they can see whatever videos are available in YouTube for free.
Slashdot Mirror
So, in your recommended solution, the user would click a "skype://" link and Safari would prompt him with a necessarily generic message such as "You are about to launch Skype, are you sure?" And when the user confirms this, then Skype would launch and prompt the user with a domain-specific message such as "Call: 1-900-xxx-xxxx - This call may incur additional costs. Are you sure?"
Two clicks for the price of one. Yes, that's the kind of Apple human-computer interface we all know and love.
No, this is not a iOS security vulnerability. Safari, nor the operating system, has any way to know whether the resource offered to the external application is exploitable. Except of course when the external application is provided by the OS itself or by an application included in the built-in suite; such as the example of the "tel://" protocol scheme.
For the confirmation message to be meaningful, it must be presented by the target application--which has intimate domain and context knowledge of the resource. That, or Apple would need to keep track of the context and semantics of each and every protocol scheme and how they can be used.
However, this last one still would not be perfect, for each application is free to use the submitted resource in any way it wants to. There is nothing that prevents Skype from receiving a "skype://" URL and deciding to, say, delete your Skype address book, or initiate an HTTP download.
-dZ.
You have arrived at an intersection in town. There is a button.
> Press button
You press the button and... Nothing happens.
> Press button
You press the button again and still nothing happens.
> Smash button a few more times!
I do not understand "Smash".
> Press button
You press the button and this time something happens.
You have been eaten by a grue.
[r]etry / [q]uit?
Recipes that just list ingredients, no. However, recipes that describe how to put those ingredients together into a final consumable product, yes. The former is an enumeration of items, presumably existing already; the latter is the product of creative effort--when described by the original author of the recipe, of course.
-dZ.
Notice something curious in one of those links you offered:
".../android_outsells_the_iphone_no_big_surprise.html"
Do you see it? It's the comparison of the iPhone--a selling product which customers can pick up online and at a store and ask by name--versus Android--a free operating systems that smart-phone manufacturers choose to include with their kit.
That is very telling, indeed. It means that manufacturers (the ones actually selling products containing Android) are going to have a hard time differentiating between each other in order to compete and make money. After all, their products are mere generic Android phones, no? If so, and they have trouble making money, how are they going to invest in innovating new features to stand above the competition?
-dZ.
>> And if iOS is the best platform ever, but no developers are developing for it... consumers (eventually) won't buy it, because they can get all the cool apps and features they want on Android.
Right, like when no customers were buying it when it came out--a whole year of which went without custom native apps.
-dZ.
By the same token, the bee will not crash into the floor as a result of an exception if the algorithm fails to be optimal by say, re-visiting the same flower twice, crossing paths with another bee, or skipping a flower.
-dZ.
Did you mean making the would a better place?
No worries, I did not take it personal at all. I disagree with your comments regarding Jobs and so your comment seemed like any other Apple/Jobs bashing. (Really, let's be honest, do you really think that the millions upon millions of sales of iPhones and iPads are fueled strictly by "cultists" or purely by Steve Jobs' charisma?)
I read the article, and although I wouldn't consider myself a Steve Jobs' fan, I can see how the Sculley's description of Jobs' methodology fit within the reality of the current success of Apple, and why other competitors are struggling to catch up or imitate.
Cheers!
-dZ.
I disagree. In countless fora, including Slashdot, what I see is trolls insulting every single thing that Apple does, and claiming at every opportunity that absolutely nothing Apple does is any good, and that they only sell crap that's "shiny". When Mac users naturally retort with "it works for me" they get accused of being stupid or brainwashed "sheeple" that will buy anything Jobs sells them (which is only crap, remember?).
These same Apple-bashers then turn around and preemptively (and it is always preemptively) announce the forthcoming gushing of a million Apple-apologists that somehow never seem to rise up to or above the anti-Apple tirades.
Your comment seemed to follow this pattern.
-dZ.
P.S. Notice how I never defended Apple nor Steve Jobs. Think about that for a second while you ponder whether to call me an apologist or cult follower.
But that's the job of the designer, not the customer. Do you go to the back kitchen of a restaurant and tell the chef how you imagine the food should be presented or cooked?
It's fine if the client has comments or suggestions, but frankly he may not necessarily have the skills to define all the requirements and specifications--especially if you are attempting to bring a brand new product to market, for which there may be no analogy.
Of course, the designer, like the chef, is not there to please himself, but to serve the client; so if the end result is not good, the client will and should reject it.
In my experience, Apple is doing just that: they listen to their clients' feedback, and they make decisions. But ultimately, they define what they believe will address the users' needs. The users, in turn, respond by purchasing their products and enjoying them. So far, it seems to work out fine for all of them.
-dZ.
Pssst! Didn't you get the memo? That battle was fought and lost already, the iPhone 4 is selling like gangbusters. It's over, go home.
-dZ.
You didn't read the article did you? As Sculley said when discussing Jobs' methodology (and I paraphrase), "how can I ask the customer what a personal computer should look like or how it should work, when they have never seen or used one, nor conceived of the very idea? How can I expect that, when shown a calculator, they should extrapolate the functions of a completely different machine?"
It is the job of the designer to figure out the needs of customer rather than ask the customer to design for him. The designer should strive to understand and solve the problems of the customer.
-dZ.
PC's as the center for general consumer computing, yes. I don't think Jobs nor anybody ever suggested that Personal Computers would cease to exist any time soon.
Now, if you are suggesting that playing video games, browsing the web, and checking out FaceBook are the primary functions of a PC then... wait, weren't you talking about geek-rage against walled-gardens?
-dZ.
>> Perhaps you should just try a modern Linux distribution.
Or perhaps he can continue being happy with his choice of system, like you; you know, the one that works for each.
-dZ.
Wow, just... wow.
Did Jobs sleep with your wife or killed your dog? or did widdle Stevie took widdle Jeffie's Pop-Tarts back in Kindergarten?
So much hatred. Just realize that each person makes their own decisions--for good or ill--then let it go and be happy.
-dZ.
There are two HTML5, if you will. First, there's the 5th revision to the Hyper-Text Mark-up Language, which includes extended mark-up for semantic organization of HTML documents, among other things. Second, there's HTML 5, the concept/phenomenon. The latter, just like the "Web 2.0" is a catch-all phrase encompassing various new features, technologies, and concepts used on modern web applications.
Just like "Web 2.0" meant AJAX, CSS 2, pastel colors, and round corners; "HTML 5" means a heavy reliance on JavaScript and CSS 3 to support rich multimedia clients, more AJAX, and rounder corners.
-dZ.
You're making it sound like it's such an onerous requirement. Apple computers come with iTunes and there is a downloadable version for Windows. The iPod is a very popular device, so either either everybody who buys it owns a Mac, or perhaps installing iTunes on Windows is not much of a problem to a large percentage of users.
In other words, yes, maybe it's just you.
-dZ.
I use a program called RipIt to extract the DVD information and then Handbreak to transcode it.
-dZ.
My point is that the iPod does not require any of those things. You are trying to do something with the iPod that was not part of its core functionality. The iPod's video feature is to watch videos in the iPod. You want to watch them on your TV? Well, I guess you can do that too, but you're on your own.
I don't watch iPod videos on my TV and I'm perfectly happy with the functionality that it brings in the box--the one mentioned in all its marketing material.
-dZ.
Maybe it's just me, but my computer came with iTunes pre-installed. And ripping my CDs into iTunes was something that I would have done with any other music player. It works fine for me, but to each his own.
-dZ.
I own an iPod Touch and a second generation iPod Nano and neither required me to purchase $50 worth any sort of cable. As a matter of fact, they didn't require me to purchase anything at all, and I never have; I used them right off the box. But whatever.
-dZ.
That wasn't a rhetorical question, but a legitimate inquiry. It wasn't clear to me what you meant by "they won't pay for TV". I didn't know if it referred to not wanting to pay per show, or not wanting to pay for renting movies or for Netflix, or for CableTV.
I understand if they are not willing or able to pay a buck for each TV show. I wouldn't either, if I was following an entire series. But as an on-demand, one-off occurrence, to catch up with a show I missed, or to view a documentary or mini-series, I find it reasonable and convenient.
My intention wasn't to convince you to go and buy an AppleTV for your parents. You asked three specific questions and I gave you answers trying to clear up some misinformation offered elsewhere in this forum.
It appears that you forgot to ask what evidently is your most important question, "would AppleTV play hundreds/thousands/millions of TV channels for free, or hook up to the WWW"? The answer is, no.
-dZ.
Are you really going to form your opinion based on the summary of an article posted on Slashdot?
The device does work, and it does not come bundled with "shenanigans" (whatever that is). It works for its intended purpose, to wit: for streaming content from iTunes, iTMS, and now Netflix.
If your content is in your iTunes library or you have a Netflix account or enjoy renting movies online, then you're good to go. If you have a bunch of files in formats which are not compatible with iTunes, then purchasing an AppleTV will still allow you to view content from Netflix and rent from the iTMS online store. It does not require you to encode your files into iTunes, though you are free to do so if you wish, at your own expense and effort.
-dZ.
What?? The AppleTV allows you to stream from Netflix too. Moreover, you do not have to pay anything extra to use Netflix through an AppleTV, so your $8.00 a month still buys you that.
All things being equal, the AppleTV implementation of the Netflix UI is superior than even the Netflix site itself, so there's that.
But all things are not equal. The AppleTV will allow you to stream new movies and TV shows before they are available in Netflix, and it allows you to stream content from your computer or any other iOS device.
-dZ.
What do you mean by "they won't pay for TV"? Their TV will play TV shows for free (or CableTV if they have it). What the AppleTV offers regarding television shows is the ability to view a show the day after it first aired, commercial free, for a buck.
Hulu.com gives you TV free but with commercials; or commercial-free with a paid subscription. The television set already has a TV tuner, why do they need to access it through the web, and at 1 Mbit/s?
With the AppleTV they don't have to rent TV shows, they can just tune with their own TV and watch the shows with commercials. Alternatively, they can see whatever videos are available in YouTube for free.
-dZ.