BeOS was designed as a replacement for MacOS, unfortunately, Steve one-uped Jean-Louise with NeXT and stole that crown with a superior product. I still prefer BeOS over NeXT though
The last efforts of Be Inc. was to bundle the lightweight BeOS into Internet Appliances, a concept not dissimilar to Tablet-based computers. They even had a Tactile UI called BeIA, (which although completely unrelated to) could be considered a precursor to modern tablets.
PalmSource bought Be Inc.'s IP and planned to integrate components of BeOS into the new version of PalmOS "Cobalt". Meanwhile Palm's Hardware division decided that Windows Mobile 5 was a better option for their hardware. Palm and PalmSource merged shortly after that before fading into obscurity
Following the announcement of iPhoneOS, the desiccated remains of Palm realised that they were going to be killed outright and decided to emulate Apple, and bought on Jon Rubenstein. Poorly spec'ed Hardware, as well as misguided attempts to leech off the success of iTunes allowed Apple to steamroll WebOS, which was designed to compete with a Web-App only iPhoneOS. The release of the iPhone SDK bought iPhoneOS way ahead of WebOS.
I'd like to think that WebOS still had some of the legacy of BeOS. Probably none of the code, a little bit of the IP and a whole lot of Spirit.
BeOS, I do remember you. WebOS, I will remember you.
PictBridge eliminated Drivers years ago. If it hadn't Camera Firmware would have been bloated and would have needed updating constantly as new Printers came available.
HP ePrint (which AirPrint uses) is based on PCL5 which is Page Description Language like PostScript and PDF. Rendering a Word or Pages document to a ePrint Printer still requires a driver to convert the RAW GDI of Windows, the PDF of Mac OS X or the PS of Linux to PCL5.
I may be corrected, but either all ePrint-compatible devices (iOS, WebOS) have native PDF-PCL5 drivers, creating the illusion that the printers are driverless or ePrint Printers can also receive native PDF code, resulting in a pure driverless printing system.
That said, iOS renders non-PDF content as PDF's natively; The Word Document you see on your iPhone has already been converted to Display-PDF for the iPhone Screen. I assume WebOS devices behave the same, but would like clarification from anyone more familiar with the second-best Mobile OS.
Just about all Consumer Printers now support PictBridge, which is practically a Driverless Printing Protocol (or a common-driver Printing Protocol).
HP's ePrint Printers already Behave similar to this, and most of HP's non-ePrint Printers support PCL3 too.
The main reason Drivers are required for printers currently is to gain mindshare on users computer. Snow Leopard's excellent native Driver Support and Windows 7's Device Stage reduce the annoying Product Ads the User is exposed to. Nowadays, the only reason a user needs to know what brand of printer they are printing to is so they know where to find their documents.
The Cables used to extend USB Cables, which were bundled with hundreds of Consumer Devices were illegal too, according to USB 1.1 That didn't stop manufacturers like Logitech and Apple including them with Peripherals. (Apple's extension cables were slotted to prevent anything but Apple Keyboards to connect to them)
The USB-IF amended this clause in later versions once they realized that they couldn't do anything about the thousands of products already on the market that violated the license. Hopefully, either HDMI LLC wise up too, or Display manufacturers start including Royalty-free Display Ports on their devices. Display Port supports the xvYYC colourspace and even CEC now, which almost makes HDMI redundant.
The Information exposed by LulzSec was mainly just proof that these organisations security was too lax. The only dirty laundry they wanted to expose was that these systems weren't secure.
The Paydirt for LulzSec was getting in in the first place, not any information they found.
People running XP aren't interested in Apple Products.
Apple aren't interested in people who insist on running XP.
I don't see the problem
If you do insist on running XP and are interested in Apple Products, maybe you should reassess your life choices. I'm not being snarky, in fact, I'm currently guiding someone through upgrading from XP to Windows 7. It's opening up a new world for her and she is finding that most of her workflows can be much more efficient with a liberal helping of new technologies.
Even if it isn't actually MalWare, the name "Safety Scanner" is as suspect as "Windows Recovery" or "MAC Defender". I would have thought Microsoft's marketing department (arguably one of the greatest marketing departments in Info Tech), could have come up with something less dodgy than "Safety Scanner".
Maybe the people who were inclined to download and install "Safety Scanner" are the same people who are inclined to download and install "Windows Recovery". Making the estimate of 5% high.
Conversely, maybe the people using "Safety Scanner" were more conscientious about Computer Security and were seeking out extra protection. Making the estimate of 5% low.
So Apple, Google and Microsoft have already payed Licensing fees for integrating the Technology into their OS and System APIs? Whenever this technology is integrated into a Third-Party App, they access it using System APIs.
If App developers use System APIs to playback h.264, MP3s and other Licensed Technolgies, they aren't expected to pay licensing to MPEG-LA or Fraunhaufer Institute. The Licensing has already been payed by the OS Vendor.
If you don't have an AppleStore nearby, print off the page and take it to your local Electronics Megamart. Showing it to a Sales Drone usually shames them into selling their overpriced cable at cost.
Even "Bleeding Edge Types" are prone to MalWare. While we won't fall for WinTech Phone Scams and "Windows Inspection Utility" and "MAC Defender" Trojans, we still perform high-risk activities like disabling UAC or logging in as root. Sometimes we find UAC and sudo annoying, but they are there for a reason. They should never be disabled, unless you have the time and inclination to Restore from Backup. Anonymous got into HBGary using the oldest tricks in the book. Just because we make the rules doesn't give us the right to ignore the rules.
I think user education may play a big role in reducing MalWare in your situation. The software has to make it into the system somehow, Worms and Viruses aren't as affective in Windows 6.x as in Windows 5.x. Trojans are the only way Malware can make it into the system.
The worst are the "Power Users" who disable UAC, and run everything as Administrator. "I've been using computers for 10 years" is not a good enough reason to let your users do this. Even the best of us make mistakes.
Multiple Desktops are handy in X-Windows, when your system is powerful enough or use use a lightweight WM. Unfortunately, Programs need to be written to deal with Multiple Desktops too.
When Mac OS X introduced Spaces in Leopard, I thought "Cool, just like in BeOS and X-Windows before that." Unfortunately, not all programs behaved correctly with Multiple Desktops. Part of the Mac OS X HIG suggests that Alerts are Modal, not all alerts are modal; sometimes an alert would appear on one Desktop while the program locks up in another window and is inaccessible. Sometimes even Modal Alerts would appear on the Current Screen, orphaned from the original App. In these cases, Exposé, Switcher and Spaces were of no use whatsoever. You would have to kill the App. Many Full Screen Apps didn't behave well with Spaces either. Spaces in Snow Leopard were better and most Apps were fixed to use Modal Alerts (just like in the HIG). Apple aren't advertising Spaces as part of Lion, but I have heard rumours that it will be there.
Can you imagine what Win8 UAC would be like with Multiple Desktops? UAC is bad enough when an Installer stops for no reason. Add Multiple Desktops to the mix and you will never be able to get any Administrative Tasks finished.
Google; You shouldn't have to manage your computer, you should let us do it for you. The iPad is too closed. Users can't manage their own computer. It should be Open like Android so Users can manage their own computer.
It fucks up under most modern Browsers. It's finicky under Safari on both Mac and Windows, as well as Chrome and FF4 too. It is completely unusable on Mobile Safari.
The problem with UAC is that it is s pervasive in Third Party Software. Insert a USB Thumb Drive? UAC Alert. Run a Third-Party Software Update? UAC Alert. Delete a File? UAC Alert. Edit HOSTS using Notepad.exe as Administrator? UAC Alert. Install MalWare that will render you computer unusable and obfusticate your data until you enter a CC? UAC Alert.
Users get conditioned to just Click Though UAC Alerts. Mac OS X and Linux only require Admin/Root access to do things users shouldn't be doing. Windows requires UAC confirmation for the most mundane day-to-day tasks.
I am a self confessed Apple Fan and personally avoid MS, but I still recommend Microsoft Security Essentials to anyone who needs AV for their Windows Computer.
My main argument is to follow the money: Microsoft make no money from AV; it call comes down to reputation. MalWare and Resource-intensive Security Software degrade peoples impression of Windows; Microsoft want people to use Windows. It is in Microsofts interest to eradicate MalWare. Symantec, McAfee, Norton, etc make all their money from AV Subscriptions. The more Viruses out there, the more people will buy their product. They also need to advertise. That is why their Software is so intrusive. If people forget they have their software installed, they aren't going to pay the protection money.
A Major side Argument is Windows Update. With Third Party Product, users need to rely on multiple different update channels. Symantec need their own updater. McAfee needs their own updater. Java needs it's own updater, Adobe Flash needs its own updater, as does Adobe Reader. Microsoft Security Essentials uses the standard updater that comes with Windows. Every Tuesday, new Definitions are downloaded and updated without the users intervention, along with all other Microsoft Patches.
The fact that Windows needs MalWare protection is pretty pathetic. MSE brings a future without MalWare one step closer. (The fact that Mac OS X is getting MalWare is also pretty pathetic; hopefully Apple will closes the hole quickly.)
People act aggressively towards Google for a variety of reasons.
They are hypocritical about extolling Open Technologies while embracing Flash. They extract user data and onsell it without the users permission. They "embrace and extend" technologies in similar ways to Microsoft did in the 1990s.
All while saying "We don't do Evil" (for significantly large values of Evil).
They may not be kicking my dog, but they did come around and take photos of him and Pen-Test my WiFi without permission.
I'm not saying that any Senators could possibly be corrupt, but the banking industry can fund an awful lot of "Lobbyists".
Apple could too, but by sending a Senior Engineer to rationally and logically explain how Apple are doing everything they can to protect user privacy, they are putting forward the idea that Commercial Interests and Customer Privacy can coexist.
It's said the the iPhone is Apple's Product and the User is Apple's Customer, while Users are Google Product and Advertisers are Google's Customer. When the User can no longer be sold, Google's business model collapses.
Maybe that is why Google followed the Banking Industry's lead and sent a Lobbyist
Gowalla, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Foursquare, Latitude are all opt-in location tracking services. They may need to be dragged out over how easy it is to opt-in, but in the end, it's user choice. Users can refuse these Apps and Services access to the location APIs in iOS.
Android, however would need to reassess their Quasi-Open, Wild-West-style Android Marketplace to combat User Privacy issues. Apps aren't sandboxed away from the Location APIs like in iOS, so Google have no control over whether a users location is being tracked or not. Malware could be installed on an Android that tracks location and the User wouldn't know. Google haven't even come out and stated that they aren't tracking devices.
Apple's crowdsourced location data ends up in a big pool. The data can not only not "be tied back to an individual person", but also can't be tied back to a unique dataset either (which further degrades it's usefulness for data-mining).
The only way you have been track an iPhone is if the device is configured to use MS Exchange or MobileMe.
The Device records location data (not your precise location), and uploads location data (without any unique identifiers), but doesn't track your location (unless you tell it too with Apps like Gowalla and Google Latitude).
If Law Enforcement went to Apple and said "I want to know UncleTogie's movements for the last week", and you don't have MobileMe, Apple would have nothing to give them. They may however use Google Latitude, Gowalla, Foursquare to track you with Public information you posted on purpose, or use Cree.py to track you by Twitter or Flickr pictures. They could also contact your phone company and triangulate you via Cell Towers, as they did to Mitnick in 1995.
The Conventional Conservative Corporate Gaming Industry is moving online too quickly, but smaller, more Progressive Companies exist Online almost exclusively. iD and Blizzard made their money, and retained their independence online, while Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo can't seem to make the move to online content without screwing up royally.
Meanwhile, the App Store, Android Market Place, Ovi Store and have blown away other Portable Gaming Device due to their exclusive, convenient online presence while the only DS/PSP games available online were from Torrents, which generated no revenue.
Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo fought against online distribution (just like the Record Industry Behemoth) for so long that when they realised it was a good idea, they dove straight in and crashed-and-burned. They tried to sell brick-and-mortar product online, instead of adapting their product to the new medium.
This sounds like it would be more trouble that it's worth.
[Bad Analogy] It would be like using a Sledgehammer to hammer in a nail when you have a claw hammer in your other hand. The Claw Hammer may not be as easy to use as your Trusty Old Nailgun, but it's better than using the wrong tool completely. [/Bad Analogy]
I wouldn't rely on Adobe for any workflow, the more vendors you get involved in your solution, the more likely you are to introduce incompatibilities and security holes.
The real problem with Microsoft's Windows is support for Legacy Hardware and Software.
Microsoft Windows wan't designed to be secure in the first place. Even Windows NT-based OS's reintroduced legacy support for backward compatibility; a strategic blunder to pander the ultra-conservative developer base.
The Application Developer Base is refusing to adapt to new, secure API's like.NET, especially in the corporate sector, and is sticking to legacy API's like Win64, Win32 and even Win16. Plugin Developers still program insecure ActiveX and NS-Plugins, as well as Toolbars.
Hardware Manufacturers are refusing to write drivers that adhere to the new security models.
The only way MS can make Windows secure is to do what it should have done with the introduction of WIndows NT and removed Legacy Support. It worked for Apple with Mac OS X and the "Classic" and "Rosetta" virtual machines. Microsoft are trying to do it with the Windows Ultimate "XP Mode", but failing.
They need to make the commitment and tell developers "If you don't do it our way, it won't work in Windows 8, or Windows 9, or whatever." They need to tell their Corporate customers, "If you're still running XP because of some stupid Legacy software, we're going to cut you loose next year. We won't be supporting you." They don't think they can do this incase their customer base jumps ship to Mac or Linux. Even though it is a risk, they can because the majority of their user-base want Cheap Hardware and Easy-to-use Software, which rules out both Mac and LInux. They are locked into whatever Microsoft dictates.
So when are Google going to fix their OS and also stop sending data with a unique identifier back to HQ? yes, iOS seemed like it was tracking you, but the data in the database file on the device is a cache of location assistance data received.
What? Are you Crazy? That's the reason why Google released Android in the first place! What incentive would Google have to release Android, gMail and Google Docs if they didn't mine their users Data?
Slashdot Mirror
How appropriate.
BeOS was designed as a replacement for MacOS, unfortunately, Steve one-uped Jean-Louise with NeXT and stole that crown with a superior product. I still prefer
BeOS over NeXT though
The last efforts of Be Inc. was to bundle the lightweight BeOS into Internet Appliances, a concept not dissimilar to Tablet-based computers. They even had a Tactile UI called BeIA, (which although completely unrelated to) could be considered a precursor to modern tablets.
PalmSource bought Be Inc.'s IP and planned to integrate components of BeOS into the new version of PalmOS "Cobalt". Meanwhile Palm's Hardware division decided that Windows Mobile 5 was a better option for their hardware. Palm and PalmSource merged shortly after that before fading into obscurity
Following the announcement of iPhoneOS, the desiccated remains of Palm realised that they were going to be killed outright and decided to emulate Apple, and bought on Jon Rubenstein. Poorly spec'ed Hardware, as well as misguided attempts to leech off the success of iTunes allowed Apple to steamroll WebOS, which was designed to compete with a Web-App only iPhoneOS. The release of the iPhone SDK bought iPhoneOS way ahead of WebOS.
I'd like to think that WebOS still had some of the legacy of BeOS. Probably none of the code, a little bit of the IP and a whole lot of Spirit.
BeOS, I do remember you.
WebOS, I will remember you.
PictBridge eliminated Drivers years ago. If it hadn't Camera Firmware would have been bloated and would have needed updating constantly as new Printers came available.
HP ePrint (which AirPrint uses) is based on PCL5 which is Page Description Language like PostScript and PDF.
Rendering a Word or Pages document to a ePrint Printer still requires a driver to convert the RAW GDI of Windows, the PDF of Mac OS X or the PS of Linux to PCL5.
I may be corrected, but either all ePrint-compatible devices (iOS, WebOS) have native PDF-PCL5 drivers, creating the illusion that the printers are driverless or ePrint Printers can also receive native PDF code, resulting in a pure driverless printing system.
That said, iOS renders non-PDF content as PDF's natively; The Word Document you see on your iPhone has already been converted to Display-PDF for the iPhone Screen. I assume WebOS devices behave the same, but would like clarification from anyone more familiar with the second-best Mobile OS.
Just about all Consumer Printers now support PictBridge, which is practically a Driverless Printing Protocol (or a common-driver Printing Protocol).
HP's ePrint Printers already Behave similar to this, and most of HP's non-ePrint Printers support PCL3 too.
The main reason Drivers are required for printers currently is to gain mindshare on users computer. Snow Leopard's excellent native Driver Support and Windows 7's Device Stage reduce the annoying Product Ads the User is exposed to. Nowadays, the only reason a user needs to know what brand of printer they are printing to is so they know where to find their documents.
The Cables used to extend USB Cables, which were bundled with hundreds of Consumer Devices were illegal too, according to USB 1.1
That didn't stop manufacturers like Logitech and Apple including them with Peripherals. (Apple's extension cables were slotted to prevent anything but Apple Keyboards to connect to them)
The USB-IF amended this clause in later versions once they realized that they couldn't do anything about the thousands of products already on the market that violated the license.
Hopefully, either HDMI LLC wise up too, or Display manufacturers start including Royalty-free Display Ports on their devices. Display Port supports the xvYYC colourspace and even CEC now, which almost makes HDMI redundant.
The Information exposed by LulzSec was mainly just proof that these organisations security was too lax.
The only dirty laundry they wanted to expose was that these systems weren't secure.
The Paydirt for LulzSec was getting in in the first place, not any information they found.
People running XP aren't interested in Apple Products.
Apple aren't interested in people who insist on running XP.
I don't see the problem
If you do insist on running XP and are interested in Apple Products, maybe you should reassess your life choices.
I'm not being snarky, in fact, I'm currently guiding someone through upgrading from XP to Windows 7. It's opening up a new world for her and she is finding that most of her workflows can be much more efficient with a liberal helping of new technologies.
Even if it isn't actually MalWare, the name "Safety Scanner" is as suspect as "Windows Recovery" or "MAC Defender".
I would have thought Microsoft's marketing department (arguably one of the greatest marketing departments in Info Tech), could have come up with something less dodgy than "Safety Scanner".
Maybe the people who were inclined to download and install "Safety Scanner" are the same people who are inclined to download and install "Windows Recovery". Making the estimate of 5% high.
Conversely, maybe the people using "Safety Scanner" were more conscientious about Computer Security and were seeking out extra protection. Making the estimate of 5% low.
So Apple, Google and Microsoft have already payed Licensing fees for integrating the Technology into their OS and System APIs?
Whenever this technology is integrated into a Third-Party App, they access it using System APIs.
If App developers use System APIs to playback h.264, MP3s and other Licensed Technolgies, they aren't expected to pay licensing to MPEG-LA or Fraunhaufer Institute. The Licensing has already been payed by the OS Vendor.
How is this any different?
I generally purchase these;
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC838ZM/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY for $20 retail.
They have a tiny plug footprint compared to most HDMI cables out there and like Apple's Firewire 400 Cables, are very pretty too.
If you don't have an AppleStore nearby, print off the page and take it to your local Electronics Megamart. Showing it to a Sales Drone usually shames them into selling their overpriced cable at cost.
H.264 in Flash is still Flash.
You still need to add Fallback code for the Flash OBJECT inside the HTML5 VIDEO.
Even "Bleeding Edge Types" are prone to MalWare.
While we won't fall for WinTech Phone Scams and "Windows Inspection Utility" and "MAC Defender" Trojans, we still perform high-risk activities like disabling UAC or logging in as root.
Sometimes we find UAC and sudo annoying, but they are there for a reason. They should never be disabled, unless you have the time and inclination to Restore from Backup.
Anonymous got into HBGary using the oldest tricks in the book. Just because we make the rules doesn't give us the right to ignore the rules.
I think user education may play a big role in reducing MalWare in your situation. The software has to make it into the system somehow, Worms and Viruses aren't as affective in Windows 6.x as in Windows 5.x. Trojans are the only way Malware can make it into the system.
The worst are the "Power Users" who disable UAC, and run everything as Administrator. "I've been using computers for 10 years" is not a good enough reason to let your users do this. Even the best of us make mistakes.
Multiple Desktops are handy in X-Windows, when your system is powerful enough or use use a lightweight WM.
Unfortunately, Programs need to be written to deal with Multiple Desktops too.
When Mac OS X introduced Spaces in Leopard, I thought "Cool, just like in BeOS and X-Windows before that." Unfortunately, not all programs behaved correctly with Multiple Desktops. Part of the Mac OS X HIG suggests that Alerts are Modal, not all alerts are modal; sometimes an alert would appear on one Desktop while the program locks up in another window and is inaccessible. Sometimes even Modal Alerts would appear on the Current Screen, orphaned from the original App. In these cases, Exposé, Switcher and Spaces were of no use whatsoever. You would have to kill the App. Many Full Screen Apps didn't behave well with Spaces either.
Spaces in Snow Leopard were better and most Apps were fixed to use Modal Alerts (just like in the HIG). Apple aren't advertising Spaces as part of Lion, but I have heard rumours that it will be there.
Can you imagine what Win8 UAC would be like with Multiple Desktops? UAC is bad enough when an Installer stops for no reason. Add Multiple Desktops to the mix and you will never be able to get any Administrative Tasks finished.
Google;
You shouldn't have to manage your computer, you should let us do it for you.
The iPad is too closed. Users can't manage their own computer. It should be Open like Android so Users can manage their own computer.
Hypocrites.
It fucks up under most modern Browsers. It's finicky under Safari on both Mac and Windows, as well as Chrome and FF4 too. It is completely unusable on Mobile Safari.
The problem with UAC is that it is s pervasive in Third Party Software. Insert a USB Thumb Drive? UAC Alert. Run a Third-Party Software Update? UAC Alert. Delete a File? UAC Alert. Edit HOSTS using Notepad.exe as Administrator? UAC Alert. Install MalWare that will render you computer unusable and obfusticate your data until you enter a CC? UAC Alert.
Users get conditioned to just Click Though UAC Alerts. Mac OS X and Linux only require Admin/Root access to do things users shouldn't be doing. Windows requires UAC confirmation for the most mundane day-to-day tasks.
I am a self confessed Apple Fan and personally avoid MS, but I still recommend Microsoft Security Essentials to anyone who needs AV for their Windows Computer.
My main argument is to follow the money:
Microsoft make no money from AV; it call comes down to reputation. MalWare and Resource-intensive Security Software degrade peoples impression of Windows; Microsoft want people to use Windows. It is in Microsofts interest to eradicate MalWare.
Symantec, McAfee, Norton, etc make all their money from AV Subscriptions. The more Viruses out there, the more people will buy their product.
They also need to advertise. That is why their Software is so intrusive. If people forget they have their software installed, they aren't going to pay the protection money.
A Major side Argument is Windows Update. With Third Party Product, users need to rely on multiple different update channels. Symantec need their own updater. McAfee needs their own updater. Java needs it's own updater, Adobe Flash needs its own updater, as does Adobe Reader.
Microsoft Security Essentials uses the standard updater that comes with Windows. Every Tuesday, new Definitions are downloaded and updated without the users intervention, along with all other Microsoft Patches.
The fact that Windows needs MalWare protection is pretty pathetic. MSE brings a future without MalWare one step closer.
(The fact that Mac OS X is getting MalWare is also pretty pathetic; hopefully Apple will closes the hole quickly.)
People act aggressively towards Google for a variety of reasons.
They are hypocritical about extolling Open Technologies while embracing Flash.
They extract user data and onsell it without the users permission.
They "embrace and extend" technologies in similar ways to Microsoft did in the 1990s.
All while saying "We don't do Evil" (for significantly large values of Evil).
They may not be kicking my dog, but they did come around and take photos of him and Pen-Test my WiFi without permission.
I'm not saying that any Senators could possibly be corrupt, but the banking industry can fund an awful lot of "Lobbyists".
Apple could too, but by sending a Senior Engineer to rationally and logically explain how Apple are doing everything they can to protect user privacy, they are putting forward the idea that Commercial Interests and Customer Privacy can coexist.
It's said the the iPhone is Apple's Product and the User is Apple's Customer, while Users are Google Product and Advertisers are Google's Customer. When the User can no longer be sold, Google's business model collapses.
Maybe that is why Google followed the Banking Industry's lead and sent a Lobbyist
Gowalla, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, Foursquare, Latitude are all opt-in location tracking services. They may need to be dragged out over how easy it is to opt-in, but in the end, it's user choice. Users can refuse these Apps and Services access to the location APIs in iOS.
Android, however would need to reassess their Quasi-Open, Wild-West-style Android Marketplace to combat User Privacy issues. Apps aren't sandboxed away from the Location APIs like in iOS, so Google have no control over whether a users location is being tracked or not. Malware could be installed on an Android that tracks location and the User wouldn't know. Google haven't even come out and stated that they aren't tracking devices.
Apple's crowdsourced location data ends up in a big pool. The data can not only not "be tied back to an individual person", but also can't be tied back to a unique dataset either (which further degrades it's usefulness for data-mining).
The only way you have been track an iPhone is if the device is configured to use MS Exchange or MobileMe.
The Device records location data (not your precise location), and uploads location data (without any unique identifiers), but doesn't track your location (unless you tell it too with Apps like Gowalla and Google Latitude).
If Law Enforcement went to Apple and said "I want to know UncleTogie's movements for the last week", and you don't have MobileMe, Apple would have nothing to give them.
They may however use Google Latitude, Gowalla, Foursquare to track you with Public information you posted on purpose, or use Cree.py to track you by Twitter or Flickr pictures. They could also contact your phone company and triangulate you via Cell Towers, as they did to Mitnick in 1995.
The Conventional Conservative Corporate Gaming Industry is moving online too quickly, but smaller, more Progressive Companies exist Online almost exclusively. iD and Blizzard made their money, and retained their independence online, while Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo can't seem to make the move to online content without screwing up royally.
Meanwhile, the App Store, Android Market Place, Ovi Store and have blown away other Portable Gaming Device due to their exclusive, convenient online presence while the only DS/PSP games available online were from Torrents, which generated no revenue.
Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo fought against online distribution (just like the Record Industry Behemoth) for so long that when they realised it was a good idea, they dove straight in and crashed-and-burned. They tried to sell brick-and-mortar product online, instead of adapting their product to the new medium.
This sounds like it would be more trouble that it's worth.
[Bad Analogy]
It would be like using a Sledgehammer to hammer in a nail when you have a claw hammer in your other hand.
The Claw Hammer may not be as easy to use as your Trusty Old Nailgun, but it's better than using the wrong tool completely.
[/Bad Analogy]
I wouldn't rely on Adobe for any workflow, the more vendors you get involved in your solution, the more likely you are to introduce incompatibilities and security holes.
The real problem with Microsoft's Windows is support for Legacy Hardware and Software.
Microsoft Windows wan't designed to be secure in the first place. Even Windows NT-based OS's reintroduced legacy support for backward compatibility; a strategic blunder to pander the ultra-conservative developer base.
The Application Developer Base is refusing to adapt to new, secure API's like .NET, especially in the corporate sector, and is sticking to legacy API's like Win64, Win32 and even Win16.
Plugin Developers still program insecure ActiveX and NS-Plugins, as well as Toolbars.
Hardware Manufacturers are refusing to write drivers that adhere to the new security models.
The only way MS can make Windows secure is to do what it should have done with the introduction of WIndows NT and removed Legacy Support. It worked for Apple with Mac OS X and the "Classic" and "Rosetta" virtual machines. Microsoft are trying to do it with the Windows Ultimate "XP Mode", but failing.
They need to make the commitment and tell developers "If you don't do it our way, it won't work in Windows 8, or Windows 9, or whatever." They need to tell their Corporate customers, "If you're still running XP because of some stupid Legacy software, we're going to cut you loose next year. We won't be supporting you."
They don't think they can do this incase their customer base jumps ship to Mac or Linux. Even though it is a risk, they can because the majority of their user-base want Cheap Hardware and Easy-to-use Software, which rules out both Mac and LInux. They are locked into whatever Microsoft dictates.
So when are Google going to fix their OS and also stop sending data with a unique identifier back to HQ? yes, iOS seemed like it was tracking you, but the data in the database file on the device is a cache of location assistance data received.
What? Are you Crazy?
That's the reason why Google released Android in the first place! What incentive would Google have to release Android, gMail and Google Docs if they didn't mine their users Data?