She cannot ask us questions. She cannot tell us that she's tired, or that she wants yogurt for lunch. She cannot tell her daddy that she loves him.
This partial quote is extremely misleading. Apple simply removing something from the App Store does not delete it from devices it is already installed on. They can still use the application. That is part of a hypothetical "What if Apple remote wiped it from our device" which has not happened.
They were, but the real problems were that this was an obvious, foreseeable consequence of the release management, and that the developers steadfastly refused to acknowledge any problem other than users expecting too much.
I'd been using KDE since the 1.0 betas, and that's why I jumped ship.
Security and best practices are an academic concepts that are not taught in school.
Best practices aren't academic concepts, they are industry concepts. It's true that there are a lot of cowboys in any industry that don't follow best practices, but that doesn't mean they are "academic".
If groups like Facebook and LinkedIn simply wanted you to access the service remotely, they would just stick to HTML5.
That's a ridiculous thing to say. There are a lot of factors that go into deciding between a native and a mobile web app, and it certainly doesn't simply boil down to "they want to steal your data".
apps give them unfettered access to your contacts, calendar, location, and everything else on your personal device, regardless of platform.
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Android has a fine-grained permission system, not all applications have access to these things. On iOS, accessing the person's location prompts the user and Apple are expanding this to contacts as well.
Just remember, it has never been about convenience to the user, and always profitability to the provider.
That's funny, I've worked on several apps that simply wouldn't work at all as mobile web apps (e.g. offline access to gigabytes of data) and almost all of the decisions to go with a native application I am aware of were made with regard to functionality and user experience.
One of my clients attempted to use Good for secure email on iOS last year. They were entirely unresponsive to even the slightest technical queries and their stuff was incompatible with other apps. Also, parent comment sounds like spam.
So what are VanRoekel and Park looking for? 'Bad a** innovators â" the baddest a** of the bad a**es out there,' Park explained (video), 'to design, create, and kick a** for America.'
They sound like teenagers.
Also, good job fucking up Unicode yet again, Slashdot. It's been how many years?
You don't know the exact dialogue between the journalist and the rep. I've been quoted in print in similarly stupid ways when what I said made absolute sense in context to what was asked. "Pressed if disks are accepted" could have been something like the rep telling them about a new CSV import tool they had built, the journalist saying "So if I mailed you a 5TB database on a disk, could you import that?", and the rep replying "Sure, but you'd need to export the data first...".
I have to chime in here. I think there's a lot of money to be made with outsourcing. I've seen a staggering amount of money spent on contractors who come in to rescue projects that have been outsourced.
Some of it probably went towards building Facebook apps. I've seen a lot of big brands build pointless Facebook apps to promote things via games, competitions, etc. They've got big advertising budgets and not much imagination, so they throw a tonne of it at digital agencies to come up with this crap. The agencies are more than happy to keep quiet and take their money instead of telling them they shouldn't be doing that.
I can't think of any company that has blown a lead as huge as Microsoft's in as short a time, or has missed so thoroughly a major trend (mobile computing) in the consumer portion of it's market.
I can think of a company that's done a lot worse than Microsoft missing the boat on mobile. Microsoft missing the boat on the Internet. They thought they could compete by providing their own network instead. Except it wasn't Ballmer in charge back then, it was Bill Gates. Was he a terrible CEO too?
The very last DVD I bought, years ago, had unstoppable trailers. I haven't bought a DVD since, on principle.
Good job, movie execs. You've made your products even less palatable compared to your black market competitors. Not only do the people downloading illegally not have to pay, they also get a better product that doesn't force them to sit through this crap. I'm sure this plan won't backfire at all.
So how the F%^& is FB going to be allowed to put an App store on iOS unless its jail broken?
Facebook aren't launching an App Center to sell iOS applications, they are launching an App Center to sell Facebook applications. Facebook applications are basically web applications that are presented through Facebook's interface. The only hurdles Facebook face with iOS are a) making sure their app developers present interfaces suitable for small screens and b) making sure there's no link to buy the apps from within their native application (or else give Apple a 30% cut).
Umm... Apple never quite succeeded in that "changing the living room" promise not because of any real failure on their own part, but because of the content industry's stubbornness.
Actually, it's because they never promised that in the first place. Apple's only product aimed specifically at the living room is AppleTV, which they have consistently referred to as a "hobby".
This is yet another case of people speculating about Apple's plans to give free puppy-pony-unicorn hybrids to everybody for free, and then turning around a year later and complaining that Apple didn't live up to the speculation.
Why would so many people buy free pay-to-play games?
What's confusing about this? It's just like a demo. You get some stuff for free to try it out, and if you like it, you pay for the rest. Or you can just keep playing the free version.
There should be an easy way in settings to ban all in-ap purchases
Settings > General > Restrictions > In-App Purchases > Off.
identify the in-ap enabled games on the ap browser so you'll never accidentally get one
If you look at an application in the App Store, you'll see "Top In App Purchases" for applications that have in-app purchases.
you could still end up buying based solely on the picture
The game does not have to tell you that it is going to charge your account. It simply asks for a password.
That's not true. When a developer implements in-app purchases, he has to call out to Apple's code, which does the purchase. Apple's code prompts you for the purchase and tells you the cost at that point. Developers can't bypass that. Furthermore, Apple place restrictions on what developers can do leading up to that moment - you can't even hard-code the price, you have to retrieve the price from Apple and display that.
Then you would be forced to use safari, something that would be a bit monopolistic.
I said:
They should just integrate it with Safari and provide extensions/specifications for other browsers.
...specifically for this reason.
Secondary issue (or primary if you already use safari as your main browser) is that now Safari would be bloated.
Not really. The vast majority of memory and CPU usage for browsers is accounted for by the pages themselves. You could probably implement a web-based app store with a couple of pseudo-protocols and calling out to a system component, which isn't too far off how links to apps open in iTunes from your browser already. The "bloat" needed for something like that would be negligible.
I'd like to drop most of the applications altogether. The stores are just a dumb shell over WebKit. I've lost count of the number of times I've wanted to use a Safari feature in an app store like opening a bunch of apps in new tabs. They should just integrate it with Safari and provide extensions/specifications for other browsers. Same goes for Steam. Christ Adobe Air is terrible. You're only surfing a website under the hood, might as well not do a completely shitty job of it.
Who is to say this isn't a program of desensitisation
Sounds like a good thing, people are far too sensitive at the moment.
Anyway, what would the point of desensitisation be? If you want to blow someplace up and you don't want people to evacuate, you don't conduct a protracted campaign of desensitisation so that they'll ignore your bomb threat, you just don't issue the bomb threat.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this was an unfortunate effect of the most dangerous drug in Britain.
In iTunes, ready to be synced with your new device.
This partial quote is extremely misleading. Apple simply removing something from the App Store does not delete it from devices it is already installed on. They can still use the application. That is part of a hypothetical "What if Apple remote wiped it from our device" which has not happened.
They were, but the real problems were that this was an obvious, foreseeable consequence of the release management, and that the developers steadfastly refused to acknowledge any problem other than users expecting too much.
I'd been using KDE since the 1.0 betas, and that's why I jumped ship.
Best practices aren't academic concepts, they are industry concepts. It's true that there are a lot of cowboys in any industry that don't follow best practices, but that doesn't mean they are "academic".
Doctors aren't underpaid, and that's one of the most noble professions there is.
That's a ridiculous thing to say. There are a lot of factors that go into deciding between a native and a mobile web app, and it certainly doesn't simply boil down to "they want to steal your data".
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Android has a fine-grained permission system, not all applications have access to these things. On iOS, accessing the person's location prompts the user and Apple are expanding this to contacts as well.
That's funny, I've worked on several apps that simply wouldn't work at all as mobile web apps (e.g. offline access to gigabytes of data) and almost all of the decisions to go with a native application I am aware of were made with regard to functionality and user experience.
Use a can opener.
One of my clients attempted to use Good for secure email on iOS last year. They were entirely unresponsive to even the slightest technical queries and their stuff was incompatible with other apps. Also, parent comment sounds like spam.
They sound like teenagers.
Also, good job fucking up Unicode yet again, Slashdot. It's been how many years?
You don't know the exact dialogue between the journalist and the rep. I've been quoted in print in similarly stupid ways when what I said made absolute sense in context to what was asked. "Pressed if disks are accepted" could have been something like the rep telling them about a new CSV import tool they had built, the journalist saying "So if I mailed you a 5TB database on a disk, could you import that?", and the rep replying "Sure, but you'd need to export the data first...".
I have to chime in here. I think there's a lot of money to be made with outsourcing. I've seen a staggering amount of money spent on contractors who come in to rescue projects that have been outsourced.
It's okay, when they add the 101st station, the whole thing will spontaneously evolve to match the structure they describe.
Some of it probably went towards building Facebook apps. I've seen a lot of big brands build pointless Facebook apps to promote things via games, competitions, etc. They've got big advertising budgets and not much imagination, so they throw a tonne of it at digital agencies to come up with this crap. The agencies are more than happy to keep quiet and take their money instead of telling them they shouldn't be doing that.
I can think of a company that's done a lot worse than Microsoft missing the boat on mobile. Microsoft missing the boat on the Internet. They thought they could compete by providing their own network instead. Except it wasn't Ballmer in charge back then, it was Bill Gates. Was he a terrible CEO too?
The very last DVD I bought, years ago, had unstoppable trailers. I haven't bought a DVD since, on principle.
Good job, movie execs. You've made your products even less palatable compared to your black market competitors. Not only do the people downloading illegally not have to pay, they also get a better product that doesn't force them to sit through this crap. I'm sure this plan won't backfire at all.
Facebook aren't launching an App Center to sell iOS applications, they are launching an App Center to sell Facebook applications. Facebook applications are basically web applications that are presented through Facebook's interface. The only hurdles Facebook face with iOS are a) making sure their app developers present interfaces suitable for small screens and b) making sure there's no link to buy the apps from within their native application (or else give Apple a 30% cut).
Actually, it's because they never promised that in the first place. Apple's only product aimed specifically at the living room is AppleTV, which they have consistently referred to as a "hobby".
This is yet another case of people speculating about Apple's plans to give free puppy-pony-unicorn hybrids to everybody for free, and then turning around a year later and complaining that Apple didn't live up to the speculation.
No, Apple are the ones selling the applications. You download them from Apple, and you have to pay Apple. They act as a publisher.
What's confusing about this? It's just like a demo. You get some stuff for free to try it out, and if you like it, you pay for the rest. Or you can just keep playing the free version.
Settings > General > Restrictions > In-App Purchases > Off.
If you look at an application in the App Store, you'll see "Top In App Purchases" for applications that have in-app purchases.
That's your own damn fault then.
That's not true. When a developer implements in-app purchases, he has to call out to Apple's code, which does the purchase. Apple's code prompts you for the purchase and tells you the cost at that point. Developers can't bypass that. Furthermore, Apple place restrictions on what developers can do leading up to that moment - you can't even hard-code the price, you have to retrieve the price from Apple and display that.
I said:
Not really. The vast majority of memory and CPU usage for browsers is accounted for by the pages themselves. You could probably implement a web-based app store with a couple of pseudo-protocols and calling out to a system component, which isn't too far off how links to apps open in iTunes from your browser already. The "bloat" needed for something like that would be negligible.
I'd like to drop most of the applications altogether. The stores are just a dumb shell over WebKit. I've lost count of the number of times I've wanted to use a Safari feature in an app store like opening a bunch of apps in new tabs. They should just integrate it with Safari and provide extensions/specifications for other browsers. Same goes for Steam. Christ Adobe Air is terrible. You're only surfing a website under the hood, might as well not do a completely shitty job of it.
Sounds like a good thing, people are far too sensitive at the moment.
Anyway, what would the point of desensitisation be? If you want to blow someplace up and you don't want people to evacuate, you don't conduct a protracted campaign of desensitisation so that they'll ignore your bomb threat, you just don't issue the bomb threat.
Both Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica are set in the past.