Every single year, OSX loses the Pwn2Own competition first. Windows and Linux always go down on the same day. No matter what version has been current, OSX has always been less secure than Windows when both are up to date on patches. If Apple changes its security culture, it could mean big things for Apple in corporate environments.
So in a competition that is basically set up for Apple to lose, Apple loses ('cos no-one gets publicity for breaking the broken)
Seriously, did you really just use pose2own as evidence?
Those who don't know their history are condemned to get it wrong. Simply making a statement like that doesn't make it true.
The most important question back then was "Is it IBM compatible?" because back then the people who approved computer expenditure were the biggest buyers by a mile and they never got fired for buying IBM (compatible). These days "Will it work with my iDevice" is much more likely, as even MS realises.
Back then Jobs was fired. He might die any time soon, but he is a lot less likely to get fired that Ballmer.
Back then Apple tried to set its own standards, now it actively pushes industry standards (CUPS, Webkit etc etc)
Back then the world was a place of geeks and nerds, now it is a place of consumers who can't even remember what an autoexec.bat or config.sys is and don't fucking care. They just want it to work, so a curated garden that keeps the weeds out looks pretty fucking cool as they try to clear conficker off their PC yet again..
I wonder what Jobs would think if Google decides to take Apple off their search engine.
Probably "Fuck me, they really have taken leave of their senses, cutting off such a valuable revenue stream", while watching Google's share price collapse.
The US patent system does, indeed, appear to be fucked up beyond belief. But the fact remains that the ultimate sanction is there and has been used (didn't RIM come close to having its US email system shut down?). To assume that it will all end in a cross-licensing deal is very dangerous.
Any appearance of civility is caused by the inherent wiki problem: arguments are won by those who just won't give up. Those with better things to do, give up, go and never look back.
Yes, it is. First, the "amateurs" who wrote the Wikipedia article are almost certainly people trained in its field, in the same way that the physics and computer articles are generally edited by physicists and computer people. Second, the Wikipedia editors have not been paid to testify on behalf of either party and are completely unbiased authorities with respect to this particular case.
Um, the SDK had limits - they evolved over time, as did WebApp scope, because Apple tends to be extremely cautious in what it permits, rather than risk the platform being wrecked.
None of which alters the *fact* that WebApps were always permitted and fully supported on iPhone and are in no way a super-clever swerve-around.
Er,Web Apps were Apple's original vision for iPhone Apps, but everyone whined about them and hence the SKD. Web Apps are fully supported, not a swerve-around.
But still, let's not let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy adventure.
I'd rather amend and update a policy / document, as needed, with the aim of maximising clarity and relevance for any given time,
Actually it is far from clear that Apple is doing anything different, but either way it strikes me as quite a high risk approach in a common law system.
Longer documents, or documents using longer words, are not necessarily any more protective or beneficial to a company than shorter documents ***snip*** I am in favour of reducing documentation put before consumers (and suppliers, for that matter) to that which is absolutely necessary in a given situation.
True enough, but Apple is in a market that is rapidly evolving and what is "absolutely necessary" is far from settled.
Slashdot Mirror
...it could be Sophos trying to drum up trade...
Every single year, OSX loses the Pwn2Own competition first. Windows and Linux always go down on the same day. No matter what version has been current, OSX has always been less secure than Windows when both are up to date on patches. If Apple changes its security culture, it could mean big things for Apple in corporate environments.
So in a competition that is basically set up for Apple to lose, Apple loses ('cos no-one gets publicity for breaking the broken)
Seriously, did you really just use pose2own as evidence?
The key word was "credible", not "hit-whoring".
Those who don't know their history are condemned to get it wrong. Simply making a statement like that doesn't make it true.
The most important question back then was "Is it IBM compatible?" because back then the people who approved computer expenditure were the biggest buyers by a mile and they never got fired for buying IBM (compatible). These days "Will it work with my iDevice" is much more likely, as even MS realises.
Back then Jobs was fired. He might die any time soon, but he is a lot less likely to get fired that Ballmer.
Back then Apple tried to set its own standards, now it actively pushes industry standards (CUPS, Webkit etc etc)
Back then the world was a place of geeks and nerds, now it is a place of consumers who can't even remember what an autoexec.bat or config.sys is and don't fucking care. They just want it to work, so a curated garden that keeps the weeds out looks pretty fucking cool as they try to clear conficker off their PC yet again..
I wonder what Jobs would think if Google decides to take Apple off their search engine.
Probably "Fuck me, they really have taken leave of their senses, cutting off such a valuable revenue stream", while watching Google's share price collapse.
how many times will apple learn this lesson? .
When it stops them growing into the second largest company in the world?
the nerd mindset truly is a joy to behold.
Most companies dont care to cater to their competition, its not fear its logic.
Most companies don't try and control what you can see and do with their products after you've bought them. Apple do.
How so?
The US patent system does, indeed, appear to be fucked up beyond belief. But the fact remains that the ultimate sanction is there and has been used (didn't RIM come close to having its US email system shut down?). To assume that it will all end in a cross-licensing deal is very dangerous.
When was the last time some major company was sued to stop production of a product, and they were actually stopped? Never, of course;
Kodak by Polaroid over instant film.
Any appearance of civility is caused by the inherent wiki problem: arguments are won by those who just won't give up. Those with better things to do, give up, go and never look back.
So truth is a lie?
It is probably getting pulled up as a similar item to the "largest chocolate bar" story, which is current.
A company trying to get people to buy stuff? In a capitalist economy? Whatever will they think of next!
It must have been too subtle for me.
Got a citation for that "almost certainly"?
When did you start working as Wikipedia's PR?
Whoooooooosh!
Of course, Microsoft could do the same thing, but Apple is certainly more likely to make those decisions.
Trusted Computing...?
None of which alters the *fact* that WebApps were always permitted and fully supported on iPhone and are in no way a super-clever swerve-around.
But still, let's not let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy adventure.
"Embrace, extend, extinguish"
Actually it is far from clear that Apple is doing anything different, but either way it strikes me as quite a high risk approach in a common law system.
I'll order you some new brake discs ;).
True enough, but Apple is in a market that is rapidly evolving and what is "absolutely necessary" is far from settled.
Er, yes. And then....?
It a litigious society, how exactly do you propose that Apple (or any company) protects themselves?