It was clear to anyone in the mobile industry that someone would come up with a touch screen spanning the whole mobile phone in the years before the iPhone was introduced, in fact there were other attempts. The main reason Apple was the first to be successful, was the willingness of its customers to pay top dollars for its products, allowing for a product with an expensive touchscreen before others. The technical aspects were in no respects a revolution, see for example SonyEricsson (matrix menu system) and Nokia devices (GPS, 5MP camera, video recorder) from the time. No magic there, just marketing power - pushing the consumer.
The other success factor, with the apple app store, or rather horizontal control over app creation and distribution, was a natural consequence of the dysfunctional approach of assigning distribution right to mobile phone operators (where were all the mobile applications for 2G? They were sitting on developer's machines without the correct signatures - mobile phone operators were incompetent). No magic there, just marketing power - pushing the operators.
Of course Apple have been good, in fact they have been great, but (almost) first does mean they can or should bully others from making products with the same specifications, order of icons included, that is simply without merit. BTW: I have been programming JME (+Blackberry), Symbian, iOS and Android apps in order of appearance from 2003.
A short summery of the issue at hand: An application is divided into multiple files for over-the-air install. Each files is signed individually and might require signatures from more than one server, all depending on what APIs are in use. So at the moment I need 15-20 signatures per application per build, even a fairly low chance of an unserved request still makes the system fail as a whole. And if one type of server is down, 100% of builds fail.
I'm sorry I do not care to double check my english and get everything 100% for you. And please, asking other people for their credentials and then making your own claims without, is lame.
You'll be happy to know that this magic is very much about the frequency and not so much about the 'watt'.
As a electronical engineer, I think that it is the hospital equipment that is clearly faulty.
As a software engineer I would say that you cannot expect people not to do stupid things.
And infinitesimal risks, thats like getting up in the morning - at small values one cannot argue that it is 'more' safe. However I agree that rules are for everyone.
I dont see how the hell the use of windows as an arrow sign is worst then usage in medical equipment. But maybe I'm biased:
I had an laser eye operation 3 years ago, in a dedicated laser shop. The curgen bragged about this 0,5M euro machine and said experts from Germany frequently came to adjustments and service the thing, keeping it in peak condition.
I notice its gui is windows.
So between shooting the first and second eye the darn things stops to respond and he has to reboot it. Being an engineer, and user of windows, I knew the chance of the thing crashing in the 20 seconds it takes to do the laser shot is minimal, so no need to panic, but still this is not the sort of bad sign thing you want with your eyes slashed on an operation table.
I my opinion anyone putting windows, with its lifecycle history, on medical equipment is utterly incompetent.
As an identical twin myself, I have been included in several national studies. These studies typically address the differences between identical and non-identical twins. It was actually determined through conventional means that it was > 99% certain that we were identical twins, even after living apart for several years. I.e. you would not need DNA testing for determining who's identical i most if not all cases.
I really do not think this new information will affect previous studies much, because the loss in precition is probably much higher due to non-genetical, i.e. external, factors. However this new insight opens the door for new identical-only studies, where external factors also are kept to a bare minimum.
I would also like to point out that to a twin, it is clear that identical twins are in fact not equal. I my case we looked very alike untill about 20 years, however now (at 29 years) it is clear to everyone to see that there are clear (visual) differences. This should, in terms, tell all you non-twins that your current physical apperance (++) is actually one within a possible range you could have become, for better or worse.
Could not this wild speculaton by the record companies be turned around?
Or in other words, where is the spreadsheet which says: Of the 10000 downloads, 500 actually went and bougth the song, and 200 bougth the whole CD/DVD? Another 1000 bought concert ticket at 50 times the iTunes price.
If you're gonna come up with mad estimates, at least do it right!!
It is not like creating a security model for 3rd party applications is very difficult, the real issue here is the distribution of rights.
It seems that Apple have done the next best thing here, or the next worst thing, depending on your viewpoint. They could have
1. Created a certificate framework for distribution of rights adequetely
2. Wait, and implement 1 later
3. Created a certificate framework for distribution of rights inadequetely.
As a long-time Java ME developer I have seen first hand the major shortcomings of the distribution of rights. All but one telco I know of do not have a clue what is going on. They have millions and millions of customers but still do not know enough to care about adding the proper certificates to their devices. Thus the value of the programmable platform is severely reduced due lost user friendlyness (25 security confirmations for file access [phone default certificates], anyone?).
People here in Norway are wondering where the hyped 3G services did go; I know where some of the services went. Down the drain with the security model.
Apple is right to fear that whatever security model implemented will be very hard to make work proporly. Hence waiting is a good alternative in case some fool-proof (literaly) solution could not be realized at the time.
Image the outcry if they first presented one security model and then another? I don't even want to think about it.
Slashdot Mirror
It was clear to anyone in the mobile industry that someone would come up with a touch screen spanning the whole mobile phone in the years before the iPhone was introduced, in fact there were other attempts. The main reason Apple was the first to be successful, was the willingness of its customers to pay top dollars for its products, allowing for a product with an expensive touchscreen before others. The technical aspects were in no respects a revolution, see for example SonyEricsson (matrix menu system) and Nokia devices (GPS, 5MP camera, video recorder) from the time. No magic there, just marketing power - pushing the consumer.
The other success factor, with the apple app store, or rather horizontal control over app creation and distribution, was a natural consequence of the dysfunctional approach of assigning distribution right to mobile phone operators (where were all the mobile applications for 2G? They were sitting on developer's machines without the correct signatures - mobile phone operators were incompetent). No magic there, just marketing power - pushing the operators.
Of course Apple have been good, in fact they have been great, but (almost) first does mean they can or should bully others from making products with the same specifications, order of icons included, that is simply without merit. BTW: I have been programming JME (+Blackberry), Symbian, iOS and Android apps in order of appearance from 2003.
I must say that although I like Blackberry, but other FAILS and now this really disappoints me. And my customers. When people create sites like this:
http://isthesigningserverdown.com/beta/
then something is seriously wrong.
A short summery of the issue at hand: An application is divided into multiple files for over-the-air install. Each files is signed individually and might require signatures from more than one server, all depending on what APIs are in use. So at the moment I need 15-20 signatures per application per build, even a fairly low chance of an unserved request still makes the system fail as a whole. And if one type of server is down, 100% of builds fail.
Wait for it? =)
I'm sorry I do not care to double check my english and get everything 100% for you. And please, asking other people for their credentials and then making your own claims without, is lame.
You'll be happy to know that this magic is very much about the frequency and not so much about the 'watt'.
As a electronical engineer, I think that it is the hospital equipment that is clearly faulty.
As a software engineer I would say that you cannot expect people not to do stupid things.
And infinitesimal risks, thats like getting up in the morning - at small values one cannot argue that it is 'more' safe. However I agree that rules are for everyone.
As a telecommunications engineer, I do not understand what is new with this.
If you want to check out something that will have a real impact on such video/radio applications, have a look at SVC.
I have some printet material here from this year's IBC where it seems NTT actually already have a software implementation of it.
Add injury to insult: SMS messages are not required to arrive in-sequence... and you cannot use that many multipart sms ;)
I, for one, welcome our new protoculture overlords.
I dont see how the hell the use of windows as an arrow sign is worst then usage in medical equipment. But maybe I'm biased:
I had an laser eye operation 3 years ago, in a dedicated laser shop. The curgen bragged about this 0,5M euro machine and said experts from Germany frequently came to adjustments and service the thing, keeping it in peak condition. I notice its gui is windows.
So between shooting the first and second eye the darn things stops to respond and he has to reboot it. Being an engineer, and user of windows, I knew the chance of the thing crashing in the 20 seconds it takes to do the laser shot is minimal, so no need to panic, but still this is not the sort of bad sign thing you want with your eyes slashed on an operation table.
I my opinion anyone putting windows, with its lifecycle history, on medical equipment is utterly incompetent.
As an identical twin myself, I have been included in several national studies. These studies typically address the differences between identical and non-identical twins. It was actually determined through conventional means that it was > 99% certain that we were identical twins, even after living apart for several years. I.e. you would not need DNA testing for determining who's identical i most if not all cases.
I really do not think this new information will affect previous studies much, because the loss in precition is probably much higher due to non-genetical, i.e. external, factors. However this new insight opens the door for new identical-only studies, where external factors also are kept to a bare minimum.
I would also like to point out that to a twin, it is clear that identical twins are in fact not equal. I my case we looked very alike untill about 20 years, however now (at 29 years) it is clear to everyone to see that there are clear (visual) differences. This should, in terms, tell all you non-twins that your current physical apperance (++) is actually one within a possible range you could have become, for better or worse.
--
Two for the price of one
This sounds strangely familiar.
Scene 5:
BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from earth?
VILLAGER #1: More planets!
Could not this wild speculaton by the record companies be turned around? Or in other words, where is the spreadsheet which says: Of the 10000 downloads, 500 actually went and bougth the song, and 200 bougth the whole CD/DVD? Another 1000 bought concert ticket at 50 times the iTunes price.
If you're gonna come up with mad estimates, at least do it right!!
It is not like creating a security model for 3rd party applications is very difficult, the real issue here is the distribution of rights.
It seems that Apple have done the next best thing here, or the next worst thing, depending on your viewpoint. They could have1. Created a certificate framework for distribution of rights adequetely
2. Wait, and implement 1 later
3. Created a certificate framework for distribution of rights inadequetely.
As a long-time Java ME developer I have seen first hand the major shortcomings of the distribution of rights. All but one telco I know of do not have a clue what is going on. They have millions and millions of customers but still do not know enough to care about adding the proper certificates to their devices. Thus the value of the programmable platform is severely reduced due lost user friendlyness (25 security confirmations for file access [phone default certificates], anyone?).
People here in Norway are wondering where the hyped 3G services did go; I know where some of the services went. Down the drain with the security model.
Apple is right to fear that whatever security model implemented will be very hard to make work proporly. Hence waiting is a good alternative in case some fool-proof (literaly) solution could not be realized at the time.
Image the outcry if they first presented one security model and then another? I don't even want to think about it.