Even if it did self-destruct, that wouldn't help. You wouldn't bruteforce on a live device, you do it offline.
You would, if you could. But the unlocking requires the presence of the particular processor on that phone, it doesn't work offline. Even with iOS7 devices, Apple could never unlock without the actual complete device.
The summary is bs as usual. The story says apps are going from 1.29 to 1.49 which in US dollars comes to.79 and 1.09. 10% more than the us, not 50%. I'm guessing they anticipate a further slide in the near future.
It's Australian maths. $1.49 (Australian) is clearly 50 percent more than $0.99 (US).
Does violating Apple, in any way, automatically get you booted from the AppStore? It's good that Apple is displaying this now, before they get too powerful for people to realize their true nature.
Apple's "true nature" is that they enter into contracts with developers, and assume that these developers act according to those contracts. iFixit is not a private person, but a company. As a company, they have no excuses when they enter a contract; they have to read it, make sure they understand it, and make sure that they can afford to uphold their side of the contract. They have publicly admitted that they read and understood the contract and deliberately decided to break it.
And guess what, since iFixit blatantly violated their side of the contract, Apple cancels the whole contract. Yes, that's their true nature. If you enter a contract with Apple, and then are in breach of the contract, the contract is cancelled. Behaving just like every other company in the world would behave.
Regardless of legal standing why is Apple dispatching justice? Isn't this what the legal system is for?
Apple isn't dispatching justice. Apple has decided that it doesn't want a business relationship with iFixit anymore. Just like I can cancel my contract with Apple about me getting tools and support for writing iOS software, and Apple publishing my software on the app store, at any time, so can Apple.
Not all contracts can be enforced. The court system can deem a contract or portions of a contract as invalid or unreasonable.
The point is that Apple has _cancelled_ the contract between Apple and iFixit regarding development and publication of iOS applications. There is no contract to be enforced, the contract has been cancelled.
Yes it's useful. But what happens when you're sitting at home, watching Netflix or Youtube on your phone, and your wifi router craps out? I'm thinking it might automatically switch to cellular without me knowing about it, and there goes my 4 GB for the month.
An application can set a flag for each request whether using mobile data is allowed or not. It's really simple. If Youtube doesn't do this and doesn't ask you for permission to use mobile data, complain to them.
I wonder if Apple would ever consider moving OS/X away from Intel and over to ARM, allowing them to use their A series CPUs? If not, why not?
Other people have asked whether Apple will switch Macs to an ARM processor...
But at this point an iPhone 6s is powerful enough that with a bluetooth keyboard and video output it could be turned into a reasonably powerful desktop computer at minimal cost. Or they could build a laptop shell with keyboard, trackpad and display and a slot to push in your iPhone to power it; no idea how much this could be built for.
Google's huge problem with their software collecting locations of routers (legal) also collecting data transmitted by these routers (illegal) was apparently due to an engineer who thought it was a good idea. Cost them many millions plus a huge amount of reputation.
That would only prevent developers from unknowingly submitting malware to the app store. It would to nothing for purposeful malware that simply remained dormant until some time had passed. The only solution for that is to increase the amount of testing/screening time allotted to each app. A month ought to do it.
A simple way for preventing developers from submitting malware is to make sure you know the developer's identity, and make sure they pay for all the damages and get thrown into jail if they submit malware. And _that_ is what doesn't work against clueless devs.
As noted elsewhere, the authorities in Irving, Texas, didn't act in a way that was consistent with a potential bomb threat.
Absolutely right, genius. They did never think it was a bomb threat. They thought it was a bomb hoax. Not the same thing, less damaging (although if it's done right, it can cause an expensive and disrupting evacuation), and punishable. The question is not: Was this a bomb? The question is: Was this a bomb hoax?
Um, 9/11? You should try flying on an airplane these days, and going through the security checks. Shoe bombers, underwear bombers, etc, etc. Ask the security folks who they are looking for. It's not Presbyterian grandmothers. Or Hindus. Or Bahai's. Or a thousand other religions anyone could name. It's Muslim terrorists . . . that's it. Nobody else in the world is try to kill innocent people.
In Britain, muslim terrorists killed 50 people. A harmless looking white GP named Harold Shipman killed about 200 over the course of many years. To be rational, clearly we should watch out for white GPs, especially harmless looking ones. Or Timothy McVeigh, who surely wasn't a muslim. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, they all weren't muslims.
While I generally support him, the media has been TERRIBLE at reporting this story. The LA Times had a very popular article that kept comparing him to Steve Jobs. JOBS!??! Don't they mean Woz?!
I don't think Woz did take radios apart and put the parts into pencil boxes when he was 14. Jobs? I don't think, but he might have:-)
If the teachers/cops thought the box was a credible threat, the school would have been evacuated and the bomb squad called in,...
Apparently they didn't believe that it might be a bomb, but they did believe that it was a bomb hoax. A bomb hoax is illegal, because a good bomb hoax would lead to a costly evacuation. A bad bomb hoax wouldn't.
Now you can argue whether this was a bomb hoax or not, but if it was a bomb hoax and they figured out it wasn't actually a bomb, then the bomb hoax is itself still punishable.
Case 1: I work every day in an office 20 miles away (or 100 yards away) from my home. I pay for the journey out of my own pocket and don't get paid as working (in some countries, like Germany, the cost of travel is tax deductible).
Case 2: My office is 20 miles away (or 100 yards away) from my home. When I get there, my boss sends me to a client anywhere in the country (within reason). I pay the journey to the office out of my own pocket and don't get paid for working for the time. The company pays for my journey to the client and pays the driving time as work time.
Case 3: There is no office. I drive from home to a client and back. This ruling effectively says that this situation is handled exactly the same as if my office was in the home next door, which is entirely logical.
That's fine. The fees double each year. In 120 years the renewals will be $1M, $2M, $4M... each period. And a company like Disney has 10's of thousands works to protect.
And you give up even the pretence of appearing to want a solution that is fair. What you want is expropriation. Now I'm curious whether you (a) suggest this only applies to corporations and not individuals, whether you (b) are stupid and never thought about the consequences, or whether (c) you have never created that anyone would want.
Under your concept, I'm screwed. All my code and photography would end up in the public domain, because I'm too small to afford the fees. But you protected Disney, RIAA, and MPAA.
Simple. You fill out a form, where you declare the value (what you think it is worth currently) and pay 1% of the value as tax. If someone wants to buy it, they need to offer 200% of the value and then the IP is auctioned. The auction winner gets your IP, pays 5% or 10% tax on the auction price, and for the next year the value (and tax) is set to the higher value.
If you set the value of your IP to $10,000 and pay $100 tax a year, you either keep your IP because nobody wants it, or you get at least $20,000 for it.
You would also set a price for a non-exclusive license, in case someone wants to use the IP, but not buy the copyright. So if you pay $100 tax a year, then I might be allowed to use your IP for a year for $1,000.
Employees are allowed to form unions to collectively bargain, but when employers get together to improve their bargaining position you think it should be illegal? This smacks of a double standard. $6k is peanuts to keep runaway salaries down and I expect this will be standard practice moving forward.
One employee = one person with virtually no power. One employer = one multi-billion company with massive power. Complaining about double standards here is truly idiotic.
There have been cases where EULAs that were not presented before the product was purchased were declared grounds for returning the product for a full refund.
Most EULAs will actually _tell_ you that acceptance of the EULA is necessary to finalize the sale of some software, and that you should return the software for a full refund if you don't wish to agree with the EULA.
So the logic is that you either accept the EULA and are bound by it, or you don't accept the EULA and return the software without using it, or you don't accept the EULA, don't return the software, in which case there was no sale, you have no right to use the software, and the fact that you didn't get your money back is your own fault.
I asked you to consider the question: "What can Apple to do make jailbreaking less attractive?" The answer should be obvious by now, so why hasn't Apple reacted? In that way, Apple encourages jailbreaking. Some blame is justified.
Ask yourself: What's in it for Apple? If you buy an iPhone with the intent of jailbreaking, Apple has made a sale. Convincing people to not jailbreak doesn't give much benefit to Apple. And frankly, your claim that Apple encourages jailbreaking is ridiculous: They do their hardest to prevent jailbreaking from happening.
But what Apple is really interested in is any improvement that makes more people buy an iPhone. And things that people jailbreak for are usually things that affect suitability of the iPhone for everyone, and would eventually reduce sales.
"We aren't going to pretend this didn't happen." Except that is exactly what they did. You cannot even learn about the Nazis in Germany, as they ban all content the mentions them. America and the rest of the world gets Nazi and holocaust documentaries and novels, German citizens don't.
That is news to me. Just go to amazon.de and search for "Hitler", "das dritte Reich", or whatever else you want to look for. And the last time I was in Berlin, there are plenty of exhibitions showing you more than you ever wanted to know.
Great with quotes, and the correct quote is "you're holding it wrong". The difference was that if you were holding your phone wrong, all you had to do was to hold it in a different way. If you insert this pen the wrong way, the damage is permanent.
Buy the way, both non-Apple phones I owned at that time had instructions in their manual (I'm a very curious person and often read manuals) telling you that your phone reception would be bad if you hold it wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if it did self-destruct, that wouldn't help. You wouldn't bruteforce on a live device, you do it offline.
You would, if you could. But the unlocking requires the presence of the particular processor on that phone, it doesn't work offline. Even with iOS7 devices, Apple could never unlock without the actual complete device.
The summary is bs as usual. The story says apps are going from 1.29 to 1.49 which in US dollars comes to .79 and 1.09. 10% more than the us, not 50%. I'm guessing they anticipate a further slide in the near future.
It's Australian maths. $1.49 (Australian) is clearly 50 percent more than $0.99 (US).
Marriott got fined over half a million dollars for jamming guests' Wi-Fi.
And you can't afford the same lawyers as Marriott.
So make a new developer account and resubmit the same app to the store? Why would they need to rewrite it?
It's likely not just the developer account that is closed, but Apple will not be willing to let them open another developer account.
Does violating Apple, in any way, automatically get you booted from the AppStore? It's good that Apple is displaying this now, before they get too powerful for people to realize their true nature.
Apple's "true nature" is that they enter into contracts with developers, and assume that these developers act according to those contracts. iFixit is not a private person, but a company. As a company, they have no excuses when they enter a contract; they have to read it, make sure they understand it, and make sure that they can afford to uphold their side of the contract. They have publicly admitted that they read and understood the contract and deliberately decided to break it.
And guess what, since iFixit blatantly violated their side of the contract, Apple cancels the whole contract. Yes, that's their true nature. If you enter a contract with Apple, and then are in breach of the contract, the contract is cancelled. Behaving just like every other company in the world would behave.
Regardless of legal standing why is Apple dispatching justice? Isn't this what the legal system is for?
Apple isn't dispatching justice. Apple has decided that it doesn't want a business relationship with iFixit anymore. Just like I can cancel my contract with Apple about me getting tools and support for writing iOS software, and Apple publishing my software on the app store, at any time, so can Apple.
Not all contracts can be enforced. The court system can deem a contract or portions of a contract as invalid or unreasonable.
The point is that Apple has _cancelled_ the contract between Apple and iFixit regarding development and publication of iOS applications. There is no contract to be enforced, the contract has been cancelled.
Yes it's useful. But what happens when you're sitting at home, watching Netflix or Youtube on your phone, and your wifi router craps out? I'm thinking it might automatically switch to cellular without me knowing about it, and there goes my 4 GB for the month.
An application can set a flag for each request whether using mobile data is allowed or not. It's really simple. If Youtube doesn't do this and doesn't ask you for permission to use mobile data, complain to them.
I wonder if Apple would ever consider moving OS/X away from Intel and over to ARM, allowing them to use their A series CPUs? If not, why not?
Other people have asked whether Apple will switch Macs to an ARM processor...
But at this point an iPhone 6s is powerful enough that with a bluetooth keyboard and video output it could be turned into a reasonably powerful desktop computer at minimal cost. Or they could build a laptop shell with keyboard, trackpad and display and a slot to push in your iPhone to power it; no idea how much this could be built for.
Google's huge problem with their software collecting locations of routers (legal) also collecting data transmitted by these routers (illegal) was apparently due to an engineer who thought it was a good idea. Cost them many millions plus a huge amount of reputation.
That would only prevent developers from unknowingly submitting malware to the app store. It would to nothing for purposeful malware that simply remained dormant until some time had passed. The only solution for that is to increase the amount of testing/screening time allotted to each app. A month ought to do it.
A simple way for preventing developers from submitting malware is to make sure you know the developer's identity, and make sure they pay for all the damages and get thrown into jail if they submit malware. And _that_ is what doesn't work against clueless devs.
Interesting message from Safari after pasting the URL:
"Safari can't open the page "a/%25%30%30" because Safari can't find the server "a". "
So it translates % to %25, then %30 to %30 and %30 to %30. Interesting.
As noted elsewhere, the authorities in Irving, Texas, didn't act in a way that was consistent with a potential bomb threat.
Absolutely right, genius. They did never think it was a bomb threat. They thought it was a bomb hoax. Not the same thing, less damaging (although if it's done right, it can cause an expensive and disrupting evacuation), and punishable. The question is not: Was this a bomb? The question is: Was this a bomb hoax?
Um, 9/11? You should try flying on an airplane these days, and going through the security checks. Shoe bombers, underwear bombers, etc, etc. Ask the security folks who they are looking for. It's not Presbyterian grandmothers. Or Hindus. Or Bahai's. Or a thousand other religions anyone could name. It's Muslim terrorists . . . that's it. Nobody else in the world is try to kill innocent people.
In Britain, muslim terrorists killed 50 people. A harmless looking white GP named Harold Shipman killed about 200 over the course of many years. To be rational, clearly we should watch out for white GPs, especially harmless looking ones. Or Timothy McVeigh, who surely wasn't a muslim. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, they all weren't muslims.
While I generally support him, the media has been TERRIBLE at reporting this story. The LA Times had a very popular article that kept comparing him to Steve Jobs. JOBS!??! Don't they mean Woz?!
I don't think Woz did take radios apart and put the parts into pencil boxes when he was 14. Jobs? I don't think, but he might have :-)
If the teachers/cops thought the box was a credible threat, the school would have been evacuated and the bomb squad called in, ...
Apparently they didn't believe that it might be a bomb, but they did believe that it was a bomb hoax. A bomb hoax is illegal, because a good bomb hoax would lead to a costly evacuation. A bad bomb hoax wouldn't.
Now you can argue whether this was a bomb hoax or not, but if it was a bomb hoax and they figured out it wasn't actually a bomb, then the bomb hoax is itself still punishable.
Case 1: I work every day in an office 20 miles away (or 100 yards away) from my home. I pay for the journey out of my own pocket and don't get paid as working (in some countries, like Germany, the cost of travel is tax deductible).
Case 2: My office is 20 miles away (or 100 yards away) from my home. When I get there, my boss sends me to a client anywhere in the country (within reason). I pay the journey to the office out of my own pocket and don't get paid for working for the time. The company pays for my journey to the client and pays the driving time as work time.
Case 3: There is no office. I drive from home to a client and back. This ruling effectively says that this situation is handled exactly the same as if my office was in the home next door, which is entirely logical.
That's fine. The fees double each year. In 120 years the renewals will be $1M, $2M, $4M... each period. And a company like Disney has 10's of thousands works to protect.
And you give up even the pretence of appearing to want a solution that is fair. What you want is expropriation. Now I'm curious whether you (a) suggest this only applies to corporations and not individuals, whether you (b) are stupid and never thought about the consequences, or whether (c) you have never created that anyone would want.
Under your concept, I'm screwed. All my code and photography would end up in the public domain, because I'm too small to afford the fees. But you protected Disney, RIAA, and MPAA.
Simple. You fill out a form, where you declare the value (what you think it is worth currently) and pay 1% of the value as tax. If someone wants to buy it, they need to offer 200% of the value and then the IP is auctioned. The auction winner gets your IP, pays 5% or 10% tax on the auction price, and for the next year the value (and tax) is set to the higher value.
If you set the value of your IP to $10,000 and pay $100 tax a year, you either keep your IP because nobody wants it, or you get at least $20,000 for it.
You would also set a price for a non-exclusive license, in case someone wants to use the IP, but not buy the copyright. So if you pay $100 tax a year, then I might be allowed to use your IP for a year for $1,000.
Employees are allowed to form unions to collectively bargain, but when employers get together to improve their bargaining position you think it should be illegal? This smacks of a double standard. $6k is peanuts to keep runaway salaries down and I expect this will be standard practice moving forward.
One employee = one person with virtually no power. One employer = one multi-billion company with massive power. Complaining about double standards here is truly idiotic.
There have been cases where EULAs that were not presented before the product was purchased were declared grounds for returning the product for a full refund.
Most EULAs will actually _tell_ you that acceptance of the EULA is necessary to finalize the sale of some software, and that you should return the software for a full refund if you don't wish to agree with the EULA.
So the logic is that you either accept the EULA and are bound by it, or you don't accept the EULA and return the software without using it, or you don't accept the EULA, don't return the software, in which case there was no sale, you have no right to use the software, and the fact that you didn't get your money back is your own fault.
I asked you to consider the question: "What can Apple to do make jailbreaking less attractive?" The answer should be obvious by now, so why hasn't Apple reacted? In that way, Apple encourages jailbreaking. Some blame is justified.
Ask yourself: What's in it for Apple? If you buy an iPhone with the intent of jailbreaking, Apple has made a sale. Convincing people to not jailbreak doesn't give much benefit to Apple. And frankly, your claim that Apple encourages jailbreaking is ridiculous: They do their hardest to prevent jailbreaking from happening.
But what Apple is really interested in is any improvement that makes more people buy an iPhone. And things that people jailbreak for are usually things that affect suitability of the iPhone for everyone, and would eventually reduce sales.
"We aren't going to pretend this didn't happen." Except that is exactly what they did. You cannot even learn about the Nazis in Germany, as they ban all content the mentions them. America and the rest of the world gets Nazi and holocaust documentaries and novels, German citizens don't.
That is news to me. Just go to amazon.de and search for "Hitler", "das dritte Reich", or whatever else you want to look for. And the last time I was in Berlin, there are plenty of exhibitions showing you more than you ever wanted to know.
In Google/Motorola vs. Microsoft, I surely didn't root for the patent troll, but for Microsoft.
... "Just don't hold it that way."
Great with quotes, and the correct quote is "you're holding it wrong". The difference was that if you were holding your phone wrong, all you had to do was to hold it in a different way. If you insert this pen the wrong way, the damage is permanent.
Buy the way, both non-Apple phones I owned at that time had instructions in their manual (I'm a very curious person and often read manuals) telling you that your phone reception would be bad if you hold it wrong.