All the vulnerable machines were wiped. So now there are no vulnerable machines anymore. Second attack will be much harder. And the percentage of Korean users doing proper backups will probably be growing:-) (Not that I'm saying people in Korea are more negligent with backups than others).
Except they have no other means to put applications on your device than their "their store"..
But this is not an app, it is content. And there are plenty of ways to get content onto your device. Even the article itself says that you can still purchase the content and put it onto an iOS device, you just can't buy it through Apple.
Read the article... they had issues in the past, over-came them and believed to be in good standing, then they got pulled again.
It seems quite obvious that their app was very borderline, so getting pulled should not come as a surprise to them or anyone. There's also a small point in the guidelines that says "complaining about a rejection in public doesn't improve your chances of getting allowed back". In the end, iOS users will be able to survive without an app that makes purchase suggestions according to how much money they were paid.
Google is both legally and morally correct in my opinion. They are employing people to cook, buy the raw materials legally and offer food to their employees. How would you like paying taxes for food you prepare at home?
You do. If you purchased goods for $10 that you turn into a meal, you probably used up $15 of your before tax income, of which you paid $5.
That means means Apple won't help you. They could, but they would compromise the added benefit of the two factor service. It's not a technical limitation.
Apple have your registered device ID's. Apple have that 16 digit key they gave you that you stash away. The only thing they may not have is your password. But they might, you don't know that.
Apple wouldn't need the 16 digit key. Obviously they _might_ have it since they sent it to you in the first place. Apple has enough info to send things to your registered devices, but that doesn't necessarily mean they actually have the code that your registered device is going to display. Again, they _might_ have it.
The website about two factor authentication says that Apple _cannot_ help you when you lose two of your three items. Not "won't", but "cannot". If they "won't" help you, then they would probably have to help the police if there is a subpoena, and then things will come out. If they "cannot" help you, then they cannot help the police either.
It is of course quite possible as some people mentioned that it is harder, but not impossible, for the police to get access to iMessage messages than they like, and they interpret this as "we can't read iMessage" (whenever we like). It is also quite possible that they are just lying and want all the drug dealers to use iMessage because they have complete access.
It is also possible that Apple has absolutely no way to read your iMessages. I would think that making iMessage safe against hacker attacks would be harder if there is already a way to access iMessage that is open only to Apple, and I can't see how buying able to read iMessages would be in Apple's interest.
Yes, that COULD be. In reality there are password reset methods and no company will ever tell a customer that they have just lost all their messages, photos, etc. because they forgot their password. Wake the fuck up.
Actually, if you turn on two factor authentication then that is exactly what Apple will do. For authentication, there are three items that can be used: Your password, a 16 digit key that you should stash away in a secret place, and a device (iOS or Mac) that you registered with Apple. Any two of these, and you can do anything. With only one thing, there is nothing you can do, and nothing that Apple can do to help you.
Like Apple? They can't seem to puzzle out this whole time and date thing.
What's in the operating system is actually pretty well thought out and has no problems whatsoever. The problem is programmers writing applications.
Example: If you, as a user, set an alarm to wake you up 8am every morning, and the programmer tells the OS "every 24 hours", both MacOS X and iOS will do that perfectly fine. Except that "every 24 hours" is _not_ what the user wants twice a year. What they want is "same hour on the next day".
Apple is also making more money than MS. As for Xbox, it is MS but not Windows per se. Even if we count it, the total lifetime units sold is easily six month's worth of iOS sales.
Currently, sales rates of XBox 360 are less than Apple TV. Which probably nobody remembered to add to iOS sales.
An interesting number is that in the smartphone market, Apple and Samsung together had 102% of all profits in the last year, and 101% of all profits in the last quarter. Which means all other vendors combined are actually losing money.
You do realize that Jobs was the one who said "people don't know what they want"? Apple is the #1 perpetrator of dictating to users what they "should" want.
Non sequitur. "People don't know what they want" doesn't mean you dictate to them what they _should_ want. It means you figure out _for them_ what they will like when they see it. You give them _exactly_ what they want, even when they don't know what they want themselves.
Its not my hypothesis, its the biasing way of saying most consumers would prefer a significantly cheaper product that can still do the job, and that this hurts the options for people buying expensive computers.
That's not what "race to the bottom" usually means. The problem is that your average consumer (and even your above average consumer) going to a store has no way to figure out the _value_ of various computers that are offered. Of course they can check the prices. They can buy one that is cheap, then at least they know it didn't cost much. Or they can buy one that is more expensive, but since they can't judge the _value_, they don't know whether they buy a low value computer with high markup, or a better value computer. And since they don't want to be ripped off, they buy cheap.
The manufacturers know that, so they figure out that building better goods actually doesn't sell more, so they lower the quality. And everything goes downhill.
I don't doubt that the $1000 laptop that you mention is worth twice as much as a $500 laptop, but as long as you can't demonstrate that to the customer and can't _convince_ them of the value, they are not going to spend $1000.
Uh what? no. he should be able to say whatever he wants on his own twitter account regardless of his employer's position.
In my company, and probably many others, they do performance reviews. The guidelines how you are measured depend on your position. The higher up you are, the higher the expectations of you. From some level upward, you _always_ represent the company, even on your private twitter account, and whatever you say is part of your job.
Not just "some Microsoft guy". He's creative director at Microsoft's video game division. If you think his opinion is irrelevant or atypical, you're delusional.
He's just got a major telling off from his company. He may be creative director now, but that's not a position that you have for a lifetime. And being a creative director and somewhere higher up in the food chain means that making statements contrary to the official company line is a major problem for the man and his career.
Now here is where your choice affects me: if the internet-dependent console is successful, others will probably copy the model. In addition, the attention of game developers will be drawn towards it instead of competing consoles. Therefore, it is completely rational and logical for me to advocate my preference and try to get persuade you to see the merit in it. Your choice can indeed be a problem for me.
Meanwhile, iPads and other tablets that often have WiFi only and have no internet connection in many places, will be getting more and more graphics power and console sales are going to drop. It's so bad, Apple has sold more Apple TVs!!!! in several quarters than Microsoft sold XBox 360s.
If you go with the cheapest options Apple provides for these when you order a Mac Mini, you'll balloon the price up to $1700. No, seriously, because the only monitor they offer bundled with the Mini is the $1000 27-inch Thunderbolt display.
I don't understand why 1st sale doctrine can't be applied to digital content. The easily copied argument applies to CDs which only take a few minutes to copy. 1st sale doctrine applies to CDs. It seems that now that Capitol Records is on the digital media bandwagon, they want to change the rules. When will the insanity stop. Is the US going to take a step back into prosecuting people for witchcraft again?
Someone said that people get more and more intelligent. I strongly disagree. First sale doctrine applies to the exact item that you buy. That's the basic and essential thing about the First Sale doctrine: It allows you to resell the exact item that you bought. But you cannot possibly sell the exact music file that you purchased. You can only sell a copy. That's why the first sale doctrine cannot possibly apply.
I'm fairly sure the licences say you're not allowed to transfer them. However, the question is, is this an enforcable term - you're not allowed to put just anything in a licence, some terms are not legal. Why should a licence be allowed a "nontransferrable" clause, but a book, loaf of bread, chocolate bar, etc. not?
First, because there is copying involved and therefore copyright law applies and can make all the difference. Second, because there can be different laws for different things.
Doesn't Apple charge a developers license fee of ~$100USD/year?
Who cares? I mean, seriously, who gives a damn? That's less than a good meal with your girlfriend or boyfriend. That's a third of what many people spend on going to a football matched and getting pissed out of their head. It's a third of what you pay to listen to Barbara Streisand in a concert, and much more enjoyable for any normal person. Do you know how much it costs to join a golf club? And Apple lets you join something that is ten time more exclusive for a mere pittance of $100 per year.
Doesn't the fact that you need a developer 'license' tweak something in your mind about the DynaBook ideals?
Who gives a damn about "DynaBook ideals"? I mean seriously, who gives a damn? It's similar to "free" software: A few people are strongly for it, the huge majority doesn't care one bit, and very few people are against it, because who cares? But because of this distribution, the people who care and open their mouths are all for it, which then gives a totally wrong impression of the actual situation. And the real situation is that very, very few people care. And my grandchildren as well as my computer-phobic friends and relatives are very happy indeed with their iPads, and they don't care about "DynaBook ideals" one bit. Alan Kaye can play with whatever he wants to play with according to them, but he better not dare taking their iPads away.
To be completely fair to history, he didn't start Pixar he acquired them. And, their management said that they succeeded in spite of him, because they ignored everything that he told them to do. The only time he ever really shined was at Apple. And, the only time Apple ever shined was when he was there.
1. He started Apple 1 and made hundreds of millions.
2. He started Next and made hundreds of millions.
3. He bought a small company named Pixar and made several billions.
4. He went back to Apple 2 and made hundred of billions.
Once is luck. Four times, the man has something, and if people can't see what it is, they don't have it.
Quite the opposite. A lousy boss is someone who says "sorry, we have to let you go. Nothing wrong with the work you were doing, but the company is running out of money". Did Steve Jobs ever tell that to anyone?
Time machine requires about zero maintenance and will help me recover quickly if my main hard drive dies. Of course, if a fire or theft results in the simultaneous loss of the backup drive as well, I'm out of luck. So for data that's worth spending a little extra time securing, checking it in to an SVN server works for me.
I wonder if an arrangement with the neighbours would help: "I put my Time Capsule in your loft, and you put yours in my loft". Now you would need a fire that destroys two houses for permanent data loss, and at that point you won't cry about the data loss, but celebrate that you are both still alive.
Apple didn't lose the "iPad Mini" trademark. They applied for the iPad Mini trademark, and it wasn't granted on the very first attempt. Nothing unusual there.
Slashdot Mirror
All the vulnerable machines were wiped. So now there are no vulnerable machines anymore. Second attack will be much harder. And the percentage of Korean users doing proper backups will probably be growing :-) (Not that I'm saying people in Korea are more negligent with backups than others).
Except they have no other means to put applications on your device than their "their store"..
But this is not an app, it is content. And there are plenty of ways to get content onto your device. Even the article itself says that you can still purchase the content and put it onto an iOS device, you just can't buy it through Apple.
Read the article... they had issues in the past, over-came them and believed to be in good standing, then they got pulled again.
It seems quite obvious that their app was very borderline, so getting pulled should not come as a surprise to them or anyone. There's also a small point in the guidelines that says "complaining about a rejection in public doesn't improve your chances of getting allowed back". In the end, iOS users will be able to survive without an app that makes purchase suggestions according to how much money they were paid.
Google is both legally and morally correct in my opinion. They are employing people to cook, buy the raw materials legally and offer food to their employees. How would you like paying taxes for food you prepare at home?
You do. If you purchased goods for $10 that you turn into a meal, you probably used up $15 of your before tax income, of which you paid $5.
That means means Apple won't help you. They could, but they would compromise the added benefit of the two factor service. It's not a technical limitation. Apple have your registered device ID's. Apple have that 16 digit key they gave you that you stash away. The only thing they may not have is your password. But they might, you don't know that.
Apple wouldn't need the 16 digit key. Obviously they _might_ have it since they sent it to you in the first place. Apple has enough info to send things to your registered devices, but that doesn't necessarily mean they actually have the code that your registered device is going to display. Again, they _might_ have it.
The website about two factor authentication says that Apple _cannot_ help you when you lose two of your three items. Not "won't", but "cannot". If they "won't" help you, then they would probably have to help the police if there is a subpoena, and then things will come out. If they "cannot" help you, then they cannot help the police either.
It is of course quite possible as some people mentioned that it is harder, but not impossible, for the police to get access to iMessage messages than they like, and they interpret this as "we can't read iMessage" (whenever we like). It is also quite possible that they are just lying and want all the drug dealers to use iMessage because they have complete access.
It is also possible that Apple has absolutely no way to read your iMessages. I would think that making iMessage safe against hacker attacks would be harder if there is already a way to access iMessage that is open only to Apple, and I can't see how buying able to read iMessages would be in Apple's interest.
Yes, that COULD be. In reality there are password reset methods and no company will ever tell a customer that they have just lost all their messages, photos, etc. because they forgot their password. Wake the fuck up.
Actually, if you turn on two factor authentication then that is exactly what Apple will do. For authentication, there are three items that can be used: Your password, a 16 digit key that you should stash away in a secret place, and a device (iOS or Mac) that you registered with Apple. Any two of these, and you can do anything. With only one thing, there is nothing you can do, and nothing that Apple can do to help you.
Like Apple? They can't seem to puzzle out this whole time and date thing.
What's in the operating system is actually pretty well thought out and has no problems whatsoever. The problem is programmers writing applications.
Example: If you, as a user, set an alarm to wake you up 8am every morning, and the programmer tells the OS "every 24 hours", both MacOS X and iOS will do that perfectly fine. Except that "every 24 hours" is _not_ what the user wants twice a year. What they want is "same hour on the next day".
Apple is also making more money than MS. As for Xbox, it is MS but not Windows per se. Even if we count it, the total lifetime units sold is easily six month's worth of iOS sales.
Currently, sales rates of XBox 360 are less than Apple TV. Which probably nobody remembered to add to iOS sales.
85% of the profits.
An interesting number is that in the smartphone market, Apple and Samsung together had 102% of all profits in the last year, and 101% of all profits in the last quarter. Which means all other vendors combined are actually losing money.
You do realize that Jobs was the one who said "people don't know what they want"? Apple is the #1 perpetrator of dictating to users what they "should" want.
Non sequitur. "People don't know what they want" doesn't mean you dictate to them what they _should_ want. It means you figure out _for them_ what they will like when they see it. You give them _exactly_ what they want, even when they don't know what they want themselves.
Its not my hypothesis, its the biasing way of saying most consumers would prefer a significantly cheaper product that can still do the job, and that this hurts the options for people buying expensive computers.
That's not what "race to the bottom" usually means. The problem is that your average consumer (and even your above average consumer) going to a store has no way to figure out the _value_ of various computers that are offered. Of course they can check the prices. They can buy one that is cheap, then at least they know it didn't cost much. Or they can buy one that is more expensive, but since they can't judge the _value_, they don't know whether they buy a low value computer with high markup, or a better value computer. And since they don't want to be ripped off, they buy cheap.
The manufacturers know that, so they figure out that building better goods actually doesn't sell more, so they lower the quality. And everything goes downhill.
I don't doubt that the $1000 laptop that you mention is worth twice as much as a $500 laptop, but as long as you can't demonstrate that to the customer and can't _convince_ them of the value, they are not going to spend $1000.
Uh what? no. he should be able to say whatever he wants on his own twitter account regardless of his employer's position.
In my company, and probably many others, they do performance reviews. The guidelines how you are measured depend on your position. The higher up you are, the higher the expectations of you. From some level upward, you _always_ represent the company, even on your private twitter account, and whatever you say is part of your job.
Not just "some Microsoft guy". He's creative director at Microsoft's video game division. If you think his opinion is irrelevant or atypical, you're delusional.
He's just got a major telling off from his company. He may be creative director now, but that's not a position that you have for a lifetime. And being a creative director and somewhere higher up in the food chain means that making statements contrary to the official company line is a major problem for the man and his career.
Now here is where your choice affects me: if the internet-dependent console is successful, others will probably copy the model. In addition, the attention of game developers will be drawn towards it instead of competing consoles. Therefore, it is completely rational and logical for me to advocate my preference and try to get persuade you to see the merit in it. Your choice can indeed be a problem for me.
Meanwhile, iPads and other tablets that often have WiFi only and have no internet connection in many places, will be getting more and more graphics power and console sales are going to drop. It's so bad, Apple has sold more Apple TVs!!!! in several quarters than Microsoft sold XBox 360s.
If you go with the cheapest options Apple provides for these when you order a Mac Mini, you'll balloon the price up to $1700. No, seriously, because the only monitor they offer bundled with the Mini is the $1000 27-inch Thunderbolt display.
"Bring your own mouse, keyboard, and monitor".
I don't understand why 1st sale doctrine can't be applied to digital content. The easily copied argument applies to CDs which only take a few minutes to copy. 1st sale doctrine applies to CDs. It seems that now that Capitol Records is on the digital media bandwagon, they want to change the rules. When will the insanity stop. Is the US going to take a step back into prosecuting people for witchcraft again?
Someone said that people get more and more intelligent. I strongly disagree. First sale doctrine applies to the exact item that you buy. That's the basic and essential thing about the First Sale doctrine: It allows you to resell the exact item that you bought. But you cannot possibly sell the exact music file that you purchased. You can only sell a copy. That's why the first sale doctrine cannot possibly apply.
I'm fairly sure the licences say you're not allowed to transfer them. However, the question is, is this an enforcable term - you're not allowed to put just anything in a licence, some terms are not legal. Why should a licence be allowed a "nontransferrable" clause, but a book, loaf of bread, chocolate bar, etc. not?
First, because there is copying involved and therefore copyright law applies and can make all the difference. Second, because there can be different laws for different things.
Doesn't Apple charge a developers license fee of ~$100USD/year?
Who cares? I mean, seriously, who gives a damn? That's less than a good meal with your girlfriend or boyfriend. That's a third of what many people spend on going to a football matched and getting pissed out of their head. It's a third of what you pay to listen to Barbara Streisand in a concert, and much more enjoyable for any normal person. Do you know how much it costs to join a golf club? And Apple lets you join something that is ten time more exclusive for a mere pittance of $100 per year.
Doesn't the fact that you need a developer 'license' tweak something in your mind about the DynaBook ideals?
Who gives a damn about "DynaBook ideals"? I mean seriously, who gives a damn? It's similar to "free" software: A few people are strongly for it, the huge majority doesn't care one bit, and very few people are against it, because who cares? But because of this distribution, the people who care and open their mouths are all for it, which then gives a totally wrong impression of the actual situation. And the real situation is that very, very few people care. And my grandchildren as well as my computer-phobic friends and relatives are very happy indeed with their iPads, and they don't care about "DynaBook ideals" one bit. Alan Kaye can play with whatever he wants to play with according to them, but he better not dare taking their iPads away.
After reading a few details of this initial rejection on the MacRumors site, I can only think that the examiner wanted to show himself as an ass.
To be completely fair to history, he didn't start Pixar he acquired them. And, their management said that they succeeded in spite of him, because they ignored everything that he told them to do. The only time he ever really shined was at Apple. And, the only time Apple ever shined was when he was there.
1. He started Apple 1 and made hundreds of millions.
2. He started Next and made hundreds of millions.
3. He bought a small company named Pixar and made several billions.
4. He went back to Apple 2 and made hundred of billions.
Once is luck. Four times, the man has something, and if people can't see what it is, they don't have it.
Apparently, he also made a lousy boss...
Quite the opposite. A lousy boss is someone who says "sorry, we have to let you go. Nothing wrong with the work you were doing, but the company is running out of money". Did Steve Jobs ever tell that to anyone?
Time machine requires about zero maintenance and will help me recover quickly if my main hard drive dies. Of course, if a fire or theft results in the simultaneous loss of the backup drive as well, I'm out of luck. So for data that's worth spending a little extra time securing, checking it in to an SVN server works for me.
I wonder if an arrangement with the neighbours would help: "I put my Time Capsule in your loft, and you put yours in my loft". Now you would need a fire that destroys two houses for permanent data loss, and at that point you won't cry about the data loss, but celebrate that you are both still alive.
Apple didn't lose the "iPad Mini" trademark. They applied for the iPad Mini trademark, and it wasn't granted on the very first attempt. Nothing unusual there.