In this case don't judge him a pedophile because he kissed a kid. If he has a record then yes there is just cause. Otherwise it's just bad judgement. I'm not saying what he did was right and if a stranger touched my daughter I'd be worried but if he really was a pedo why did he return the kid back to his parents. The mother kinda brought this on herself allthough there's no arguing the neighbor was a bit crazy.
A complete stranger kisses her kid on the lips, and she brought it on herself? Yeah, next we'll learn the kid was dressed provocatively so he wasn't helping the situation either.
Incompatible systems between manufacturers? What could be incompatible?
They had 3D movies on tv over 50 years ago. With the free glasses in the newspaper. Now you need a special tv and expensive glasses? What's wrong with this picture.
When they come out with a set with a set you don't need glasses with, then you'll have something. For now... and expensive fad for the rich and foolish.
Passive 3D sets are hardly expensive. I paid under $700 for a 1080p set from Vizio that uses passive glasses that are about $20 on Amazon, or free if you forget to return a pair from your movie theater. It's 42", 1080P, came with two pairs of glasses, I bought a $89 3D BluRay player to pair with it, and DirecTV has 3-4 channels for no extra charge already. Not sure about "compatibility", but while active glasses may not be cross-brand compatible, the polarized passive ones are, and the discs and TV channels work with either. XBMC may not "support" 3D yet, but 3D-SBS downloads work just fine. And while 3D on a passive set may technically be "less than full resolution", so are most of my HD broadcasts anyway, which are in 720P.
Larger businesses tend not to use POTS anymore, even for "landline" phones that present themselves as such. Certainly within a building, bigger companies are almost all on some kind of soft-PBX setup these days, not running copper wires to every desk. Increasingly they're doing the backlink with the phone company directly as some sort of VoIP as well.
Just checked. My desk's VoIP phone still has a copper cable coming into the back of it. And it still connects to a switch that connects to a PBX that connects to a PRI (well... several actually) that pretty much puts me on the PSTN.
Speaking from experience: I had a less-than-a-year-old iPhone 3g, which got semi-bricked when I installed the iOS 4 update last summer (stated as compatible, as in Vista-compatible).
At the time, I was able to downgrade back to a previous iOS release; but, being unable to call even emergency numbers for minutes (oh, if the phone didn't crash entirely) until they fixed their memory-hogging, badly written OS months later (iOS 4.2), would be a very bad thing.
If you had a less than a year old iPhone 3G, then you had a warranty. I can't imagine what you had to worry about. Oh, wait, I just saw the thing about being unable to call emergency numbers for MINUTES. This is good advice, and should be in the disclaimer in iTunes. Never start an iOS upgrade in the middle of a house robbery, or other event that might require you calling 911, unless you have another phone handy.
Nobody is talking about broadcasting the game. Superbowl parties, Superbowl sales, contests to win trips to the Superbowl, etc. They cannot use the name "Superbowl". That's the precedent.
I know that that rule is in effect now, I was asking for a reference to the "never" part.
That's why I linked to the article I linked to - "Apple’s made no change to its App Store guidelines–it’s simply enforcing a rule that’s been in them all along: Apps that allow their users to purchase content, functionality or services must use Apple’s In App Purchase API. “We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines,” company spokesperson Trudy Muller told me. “We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase.”
11.2 is not new. You were never allowed to have your own in-app purchasing system, even BEFORE there was an in-app purchasing system. The only change wasn't in adding 11.2, it was interpreting it from allowing outside sales to requiring in-app sales if there are any sales at all.
It remains to be seen what happens with the Kindle app, but I suspect there will be a deal, since whether or not they are friends or competitors, Apple knows they don't want the uproar. When this app disappeared, generally speaking, the tens of millions of iOS users couldn't have cared less. If Kindle was pulled, you'd hear from them.
Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected.
This is why Amazon didn't let you buy books in the Kindle app, but only through Mobile Safari. It was a way around the 30% rule on IAP.
The change that people are screaming about now addresses that loophole: "We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase." - See All Things Digital for more.
Why am I feeding you, you're just going to try and bite my hand... anyway:
$10 eBook from a major publisher (or any publisher using the Agency Model). You get 30% of the sale price, in this case, $3. You sold a book for $10, Apple gets a 30% cut, or $3. Let's see, three dollars to me, and I have to pay Apple three dollars. I get $0.
Let's raise the price to $12 then. That's now $3.60 for me. Apple's cut... $3.60. I get $0.
Basically, under this model, booksellers will make 30% profit when selling from their websites, but also have to offer the same content via in-app purchasing. Any user who chooses to do it that way will be buying books at the same price, but 100% of the profit shifted away from the developer and towards Apple.
If Apple amended their policy to allow eBook sales to be 30% of the profit, not the gross, the system would work better. Then Apple would get 90 cents on a $3 profit. But right now, it's 30% of the gross, 100% of the net.
I wonder if it would be allowable to do this:
Click on "browse book store", you get a choice of purchasing in-app, or transfering to the web. Your web interface is beautiful. You can browse by categories, search for content, search by author, browse bestsellers, etc. In-app you just list the entire catalog, 10 items at a time with a more button, unsorted, of course. Users would certainly either dump the app for iBooks, or do their shopping via the web.
No, the Apple cut was initially only for Apps, not for purchases within Apps before Apple changed the rules in February.
No, in-app purchases always had the 70%/30% split. Before the rules were updated, you could sell content on your website to sync into an app and NOT sell through in-app purchasing.
You were never able to have your OWN in-app purchasing system. That's why in the Kindle app, when you go to browse for books, it takes you to Mobile Safari and an Amazon web storefront.
The rules now state that if you sell content that works in an app, you have to ALSO offer that content through in-app purchasing. And also, you can't charge MORE in-app, so an eBook developer couldn't have a $10 book on their website, but sell it for $15 in-app to overcome the 30%.
I'm not disagreeing with the premise... this is specifically a problem for booksellers, since they already have a 30% royalty to deal with to the publishers. They weren't going to have it easy anyway. Between Google, Apple, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Sony and Kobo, I'm not sure there was ever going to be a huge market for small eBook retailers
Another factor: Credit card transaction fees can be ridiculously high.
Ever gone to a Chinese restaurant and seen "minimum credit card purchase: $20" on a sign? Guess why - they're being charged $4 or more per transaction, if you buy a $10 lunch, they just lost money after the credit card company takes their bite.
So you can understand why Microsoft, Steam, et al would want to do it similarly. They may have negotiated a lower transaction fee through large-house power, but the Visa/Monstercard monopoly is a monopoly even worse than MS, and even if they got the fee down to $1 per transaction, $1 times millions of transactions still = Millions of Dollars.
$10 is a more common minimum where I go, but no, they are not charged $4 or more per transaction. There's a small (usually 25 cents or less in America) transaction fee, plus a percentage of the total bill. Specifically, restaurants get a lower percentage, by nature of the lower number of chargebacks, and the fact that every card is typically swiped, not keyed in. That's why in urban areas, restaurant deliverymen typically bring a carbon receipt and swipe your card, it's because of the agreement between restaurant owners and the merchant banks to swipe cards.
The reverse is true too. Online adult sites (which have limited choices for merchant banks in the first place) pay MUCH higher percentage rates, because they neither swipe cards, nor celebrate a very low chargeback rate.
I typically buy a $50 (4000MP) card at my local brick & mortar store and the throw the points on my console... I don't see how that would really help MS gain interest on my purchase.
Did Microsoft give your local store the card for free, and say "If you sell it, just keep the $50?" That's how they get interest even from you. If something costs $10, and you pay $10 on the spot for it via credit card, then they get the money as you need to spend it. By selling pre-paid cards to stores and pre-selling others points they collect the money earlier in the process, which yes, could earn interest.
They would accordingly earn less interest if they just sold you stuff on "credit", and mailed you a paper bill after the fact and waited for you to mail a check. It has nothing to do with it being a virtual purchase, or whether or not what you buy has any physical properties or cost to create, the sooner they get money from you, the sooner that income can be banked.
Blue screened ATMs... I can honestly say I've seen an ATM out of order once that I can recall. Many times have I seen one being filled with cash, but just once down for actual maintenance. With the exception of post-9/11 when I think the ATM machines themselves were not the reason. And large deposits? I deposit checks. I rarely deposit cash, but I would do that at a teller anyway, not for fear of the OS, but for more concern over the scanning mechanism, the thing getting jammed, etc. Security? I've had my card frozen several times due to worries about fraud. In each case, the bank was either incorrect (and unfroze the card after a call), or had discovered something far before I might have. In no case did I ever spend a cent. No really, I don't care about the OS. I give it no thought. My bank's fraud policies benefit me greatly, and I assume has enough potential liability to the banks, either directly, or indirectly (insurance rates going up after too many claims against their insurer) that I leave that to their security folks. PS: My Mac hasn't crashed in years. PPS: My Windows 7 box hasn't crashed ONCE since I upgraded it.
I've diddled with OS2 and eCommstation - I'm not thrilled with them, but they are alright. They might be a better alternative than Microsoft though. Personally, I would prefer a Unix-like OS.
Personally, as long as it reads my card, provides access to my account, and returns my card when finished, why on earth would I care what OS it ran?
The article I was reading read "Spotify Challenges iTunes With iPod Support, Playlist Synching". So while it might be new to Spotify, I didn't think it was particularly new as a concept. But it's not a thread about new functionality, it's a thread about new features leading to a presumed new attempt to compete with Apple's music ecosystem. There are things Spotify does that iTunes does not, but this wasn't one of them. It's nice to have, sure.
Being able to buy an entire playlist, instead of one tune at a time, is though. Just to clarify.
You've been able to publish playlists on iTunes for years, and each one can be purchased in it's entirety with a single button click. In addition to people's playlists, iTunes also publishes "Celebrity Playlists" from famous people.
that's 140 million dollars in sales in the most recent quarter on iPads alone (nevermind iphones or ipods).
You may call that drop in the bucket if you want, but I don't Samsung is going to.
Sure, but they sold over 10 million of the Android phones Apple is pissed about (Galaxy S), at what, 400 bucks each? So that's over twice as much, for one model alone.
When Samsung sells a part for $X to a supplier, they get $X. When a Samsung phone is sold for $Y, they do not collect $Y. The phone is sold through other entities, who also choose to profit.
Apple is reported to be buying 7.8 billion from Samsung this year alone through existing contracts. This makes them their largest customer. So yeah, it's a big deal. Probably worth settling lawsuits and licensing patents over. Time will tell.
"Peter Norvig, Google's director of research, has told New Scientist that one of the reasons the search engine launched Google Voice is that it needs more human voice data to perfect the sort of 'big data, simple algorithm' probabilistic approach to translating voices to text that drives Google Translate. Norvig says that no one is listening to your calls on Google Voice — it is simply their servers trying to the translation right."
I think Google Voice translated the last part of that sentence.
iOS 4.01: Fixed ActiveSync bugs, signal strength calculation issues, FaceTime identification.
iOS 4.02: Fixed two security vulnerabilities.
iOS 4.1: Added support for the newly released iPod Touch, several bug fixes, added GameCenter, added AVRCP next/previous support, security fixes, HDR photography, HD video upload via WiFi to YouTube and others, iPhone 3G performance fixes, adds Ping support.
iOS 4.2/4.2.1: Adds AirPlay (replaces audio only with video support), AirPrint,.ICS support, updated battery performance, text search in web pages, new fonts, CoreMIDI, bug fixes, security fixes and was the first release of 4.X for the iPad, adding things like multitasking, folder support, and quite a bit more.
iOS 4.2.5: Verizon release, supports CDMA
iOS 4.2.6: Verizon fix for Personal Hotspot Bugs
iOS 4.2.7: Security fixes
iOS 4.3: ASLR support, AirPlay 3rd party support, HTTP Live streaming, new Nitro JavaScript engine, enhanced Parental Control, improved video scrubbing, iTunes Home Sharing support, in-app purchases require password regardless of time since last purchase, personal HotSpot added to GSM phones, bunch more.
iOS 4.3.1: NTLM authentication fixes, gyroscope issues on iPad 2, image flicker fixes using AV adapter and TVs, fixed memory hang leading to corruption
iOS 4.3.2: fixed 3G connectivity on iPad, improved battery performance, fix for blank or frozen FaceTime video.
About the most annoying thing in any of those releases would be baseband updates which certainly may have other legitimate uses, but also cause havoc with unlockers, but according to WikiPedia most of those releases didn't change the baseband, just a couple of them.
Which update seemed like it provided no benefits to users?
Slashdot Mirror
In this case don't judge him a pedophile because he kissed a kid. If he has a record then yes there is just cause. Otherwise it's just bad judgement. I'm not saying what he did was right and if a stranger touched my daughter I'd be worried but if he really was a pedo why did he return the kid back to his parents. The mother kinda brought this on herself allthough there's no arguing the neighbor was a bit crazy.
A complete stranger kisses her kid on the lips, and she brought it on herself? Yeah, next we'll learn the kid was dressed provocatively so he wasn't helping the situation either.
Incompatible systems between manufacturers? What could be incompatible? They had 3D movies on tv over 50 years ago. With the free glasses in the newspaper. Now you need a special tv and expensive glasses? What's wrong with this picture. When they come out with a set with a set you don't need glasses with, then you'll have something. For now... and expensive fad for the rich and foolish.
Passive 3D sets are hardly expensive. I paid under $700 for a 1080p set from Vizio that uses passive glasses that are about $20 on Amazon, or free if you forget to return a pair from your movie theater. It's 42", 1080P, came with two pairs of glasses, I bought a $89 3D BluRay player to pair with it, and DirecTV has 3-4 channels for no extra charge already. Not sure about "compatibility", but while active glasses may not be cross-brand compatible, the polarized passive ones are, and the discs and TV channels work with either. XBMC may not "support" 3D yet, but 3D-SBS downloads work just fine. And while 3D on a passive set may technically be "less than full resolution", so are most of my HD broadcasts anyway, which are in 720P.
Are you agreeing with me, or missing that CAT5 = copper?
Larger businesses tend not to use POTS anymore, even for "landline" phones that present themselves as such. Certainly within a building, bigger companies are almost all on some kind of soft-PBX setup these days, not running copper wires to every desk. Increasingly they're doing the backlink with the phone company directly as some sort of VoIP as well.
Just checked. My desk's VoIP phone still has a copper cable coming into the back of it. And it still connects to a switch that connects to a PBX that connects to a PRI (well... several actually) that pretty much puts me on the PSTN.
Wish I had mod points. Great post! BTW... does OP not recall ever hearing of "a Killer App"?
That was the NY Post. Don't get me wrong... their paywall is a big, giant mess... but that specific action wasn't them.
Oh come on... you listed software to connect to a remote desktop in defending iPad against a Cisco tablet... and forgot the free Citrix Receiver app?
Speaking from experience: I had a less-than-a-year-old iPhone 3g, which got semi-bricked when I installed the iOS 4 update last summer (stated as compatible, as in Vista-compatible).
At the time, I was able to downgrade back to a previous iOS release; but, being unable to call even emergency numbers for minutes (oh, if the phone didn't crash entirely) until they fixed their memory-hogging, badly written OS months later (iOS 4.2), would be a very bad thing.
If you had a less than a year old iPhone 3G, then you had a warranty. I can't imagine what you had to worry about. Oh, wait, I just saw the thing about being unable to call emergency numbers for MINUTES. This is good advice, and should be in the disclaimer in iTunes. Never start an iOS upgrade in the middle of a house robbery, or other event that might require you calling 911, unless you have another phone handy.
Nobody is talking about broadcasting the game. Superbowl parties, Superbowl sales, contests to win trips to the Superbowl, etc. They cannot use the name "Superbowl". That's the precedent.
The precedence for this is well established. Businesses can't have Superbowl Parties, but they can celebrate "The Big Game".
This stops my AT&T 150gb bandwidth cap from being a concern how?
I know that that rule is in effect now, I was asking for a reference to the "never" part.
That's why I linked to the article I linked to - "Apple’s made no change to its App Store guidelines–it’s simply enforcing a rule that’s been in them all along: Apps that allow their users to purchase content, functionality or services must use Apple’s In App Purchase API. “We have not changed our developer terms or guidelines,” company spokesperson Trudy Muller told me. “We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase.”
11.2 is not new. You were never allowed to have your own in-app purchasing system, even BEFORE there was an in-app purchasing system. The only change wasn't in adding 11.2, it was interpreting it from allowing outside sales to requiring in-app sales if there are any sales at all.
It remains to be seen what happens with the Kindle app, but I suspect there will be a deal, since whether or not they are friends or competitors, Apple knows they don't want the uproar. When this app disappeared, generally speaking, the tens of millions of iOS users couldn't have cared less. If Kindle was pulled, you'd hear from them.
Apple Developer guidelines section 11.2:
Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API (IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be rejected.
This is why Amazon didn't let you buy books in the Kindle app, but only through Mobile Safari. It was a way around the 30% rule on IAP.
The change that people are screaming about now addresses that loophole: "We are now requiring that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, that the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase." - See All Things Digital for more.
Why am I feeding you, you're just going to try and bite my hand... anyway:
$10 eBook from a major publisher (or any publisher using the Agency Model). You get 30% of the sale price, in this case, $3. You sold a book for $10, Apple gets a 30% cut, or $3. Let's see, three dollars to me, and I have to pay Apple three dollars. I get $0.
Let's raise the price to $12 then. That's now $3.60 for me. Apple's cut... $3.60. I get $0.
Basically, under this model, booksellers will make 30% profit when selling from their websites, but also have to offer the same content via in-app purchasing. Any user who chooses to do it that way will be buying books at the same price, but 100% of the profit shifted away from the developer and towards Apple.
If Apple amended their policy to allow eBook sales to be 30% of the profit, not the gross, the system would work better. Then Apple would get 90 cents on a $3 profit. But right now, it's 30% of the gross, 100% of the net.
I wonder if it would be allowable to do this:
Click on "browse book store", you get a choice of purchasing in-app, or transfering to the web. Your web interface is beautiful. You can browse by categories, search for content, search by author, browse bestsellers, etc. In-app you just list the entire catalog, 10 items at a time with a more button, unsorted, of course. Users would certainly either dump the app for iBooks, or do their shopping via the web.
The Apple cut has been pretty well known
No, the Apple cut was initially only for Apps, not for purchases within Apps before Apple changed the rules in February.
No, in-app purchases always had the 70%/30% split. Before the rules were updated, you could sell content on your website to sync into an app and NOT sell through in-app purchasing.
You were never able to have your OWN in-app purchasing system. That's why in the Kindle app, when you go to browse for books, it takes you to Mobile Safari and an Amazon web storefront.
The rules now state that if you sell content that works in an app, you have to ALSO offer that content through in-app purchasing. And also, you can't charge MORE in-app, so an eBook developer couldn't have a $10 book on their website, but sell it for $15 in-app to overcome the 30%.
I'm not disagreeing with the premise... this is specifically a problem for booksellers, since they already have a 30% royalty to deal with to the publishers. They weren't going to have it easy anyway. Between Google, Apple, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Sony and Kobo, I'm not sure there was ever going to be a huge market for small eBook retailers
I asked ViewSonic why the boot menu didn't match the actual buttons and was told that the company used a Linux boot loader.
If only they used a product whose source code was available, rather than Linux, maybe they could have changed the text to line up with the buttons.
Another factor: Credit card transaction fees can be ridiculously high.
Ever gone to a Chinese restaurant and seen "minimum credit card purchase: $20" on a sign? Guess why - they're being charged $4 or more per transaction, if you buy a $10 lunch, they just lost money after the credit card company takes their bite.
So you can understand why Microsoft, Steam, et al would want to do it similarly. They may have negotiated a lower transaction fee through large-house power, but the Visa/Monstercard monopoly is a monopoly even worse than MS, and even if they got the fee down to $1 per transaction, $1 times millions of transactions still = Millions of Dollars.
$10 is a more common minimum where I go, but no, they are not charged $4 or more per transaction. There's a small (usually 25 cents or less in America) transaction fee, plus a percentage of the total bill. Specifically, restaurants get a lower percentage, by nature of the lower number of chargebacks, and the fact that every card is typically swiped, not keyed in. That's why in urban areas, restaurant deliverymen typically bring a carbon receipt and swipe your card, it's because of the agreement between restaurant owners and the merchant banks to swipe cards.
The reverse is true too. Online adult sites (which have limited choices for merchant banks in the first place) pay MUCH higher percentage rates, because they neither swipe cards, nor celebrate a very low chargeback rate.
I typically buy a $50 (4000MP) card at my local brick & mortar store and the throw the points on my console... I don't see how that would really help MS gain interest on my purchase.
Did Microsoft give your local store the card for free, and say "If you sell it, just keep the $50?" That's how they get interest even from you. If something costs $10, and you pay $10 on the spot for it via credit card, then they get the money as you need to spend it. By selling pre-paid cards to stores and pre-selling others points they collect the money earlier in the process, which yes, could earn interest.
They would accordingly earn less interest if they just sold you stuff on "credit", and mailed you a paper bill after the fact and waited for you to mail a check. It has nothing to do with it being a virtual purchase, or whether or not what you buy has any physical properties or cost to create, the sooner they get money from you, the sooner that income can be banked.
Blue screened ATMs... I can honestly say I've seen an ATM out of order once that I can recall. Many times have I seen one being filled with cash, but just once down for actual maintenance. With the exception of post-9/11 when I think the ATM machines themselves were not the reason. And large deposits? I deposit checks. I rarely deposit cash, but I would do that at a teller anyway, not for fear of the OS, but for more concern over the scanning mechanism, the thing getting jammed, etc. Security? I've had my card frozen several times due to worries about fraud. In each case, the bank was either incorrect (and unfroze the card after a call), or had discovered something far before I might have. In no case did I ever spend a cent. No really, I don't care about the OS. I give it no thought. My bank's fraud policies benefit me greatly, and I assume has enough potential liability to the banks, either directly, or indirectly (insurance rates going up after too many claims against their insurer) that I leave that to their security folks. PS: My Mac hasn't crashed in years. PPS: My Windows 7 box hasn't crashed ONCE since I upgraded it.
I've diddled with OS2 and eCommstation - I'm not thrilled with them, but they are alright. They might be a better alternative than Microsoft though. Personally, I would prefer a Unix-like OS.
Personally, as long as it reads my card, provides access to my account, and returns my card when finished, why on earth would I care what OS it ran?
The article I was reading read "Spotify Challenges iTunes With iPod Support, Playlist Synching". So while it might be new to Spotify, I didn't think it was particularly new as a concept. But it's not a thread about new functionality, it's a thread about new features leading to a presumed new attempt to compete with Apple's music ecosystem. There are things Spotify does that iTunes does not, but this wasn't one of them. It's nice to have, sure.
Being able to buy an entire playlist, instead of one tune at a time, is though. Just to clarify.
You've been able to publish playlists on iTunes for years, and each one can be purchased in it's entirety with a single button click. In addition to people's playlists, iTunes also publishes "Celebrity Playlists" from famous people.
that's 140 million dollars in sales in the most recent quarter on iPads alone (nevermind iphones or ipods). You may call that drop in the bucket if you want, but I don't Samsung is going to.
Sure, but they sold over 10 million of the Android phones Apple is pissed about (Galaxy S), at what, 400 bucks each? So that's over twice as much, for one model alone.
When Samsung sells a part for $X to a supplier, they get $X. When a Samsung phone is sold for $Y, they do not collect $Y. The phone is sold through other entities, who also choose to profit.
Apple is reported to be buying 7.8 billion from Samsung this year alone through existing contracts. This makes them their largest customer. So yeah, it's a big deal. Probably worth settling lawsuits and licensing patents over. Time will tell.
"Peter Norvig, Google's director of research, has told New Scientist that one of the reasons the search engine launched Google Voice is that it needs more human voice data to perfect the sort of 'big data, simple algorithm' probabilistic approach to translating voices to text that drives Google Translate. Norvig says that no one is listening to your calls on Google Voice — it is simply their servers trying to the translation right."
I think Google Voice translated the last part of that sentence.
Nice try. Let's see then...
.ICS support, updated battery performance, text search in web pages, new fonts, CoreMIDI, bug fixes, security fixes and was the first release of 4.X for the iPad, adding things like multitasking, folder support, and quite a bit more.
iOS 4.01: Fixed ActiveSync bugs, signal strength calculation issues, FaceTime identification.
iOS 4.02: Fixed two security vulnerabilities.
iOS 4.1: Added support for the newly released iPod Touch, several bug fixes, added GameCenter, added AVRCP next/previous support, security fixes, HDR photography, HD video upload via WiFi to YouTube and others, iPhone 3G performance fixes, adds Ping support.
iOS 4.2/4.2.1: Adds AirPlay (replaces audio only with video support), AirPrint,
iOS 4.2.5: Verizon release, supports CDMA
iOS 4.2.6: Verizon fix for Personal Hotspot Bugs
iOS 4.2.7: Security fixes
iOS 4.3: ASLR support, AirPlay 3rd party support, HTTP Live streaming, new Nitro JavaScript engine, enhanced Parental Control, improved video scrubbing, iTunes Home Sharing support, in-app purchases require password regardless of time since last purchase, personal HotSpot added to GSM phones, bunch more.
iOS 4.3.1: NTLM authentication fixes, gyroscope issues on iPad 2, image flicker fixes using AV adapter and TVs, fixed memory hang leading to corruption
iOS 4.3.2: fixed 3G connectivity on iPad, improved battery performance, fix for blank or frozen FaceTime video.
About the most annoying thing in any of those releases would be baseband updates which certainly may have other legitimate uses, but also cause havoc with unlockers, but according to WikiPedia most of those releases didn't change the baseband, just a couple of them.
Which update seemed like it provided no benefits to users?