Sure, there's probably encryption and hashing and verifying and all that supposedly going on,
So, IOW, you have no idea as to what the security measures are that Apple has put into place, and you are simply speculating that it would be insecure is ridiculous.
This is the bit that makes me wonder about the "Update Cache" functionality on Apple devices where you can have a server on your local network that ALL devices behind that IP get their updates redirected to as soon as it's turned on.
Basically, Apple Macs and iPads will do "WSUS-like" updates automatically from any local Mac server that appears to come from the same IP as the Mac/iPad in question. Without asking. Without the clients knowing. And with its own local cache of updates.
Then I guess most of us are safe; because there are virtually no "Apple Mac Servers" in use, anyway.
And are you talking about "Net Boot" stuff? Because that is even more rare.
And what do you mean by "comes from the same IP?" By definition, that is essentially impossible.
I would need to question closed sourced software makers, are they intentionally leaving holes in their software for this very reason? I find it very odd how simple yet stupid, one could leave a wide open exploit like this unchecked.
Yeah, that's right. Now go put another layer on that tinfoil hat.
Hey fucktard! Apple isn't doing this for free. Use your brain!
Apple is in NO WAY involved on a per-transaction-basis; so, other than a (really small) setup fee charged to the bank, and a (thousandths-of-a-percent) AGGREGATED transaction fee charged to the bank (the reporting and paying of which is essentially voluntary; since Apple has NO WAY of verifying nor reinforcing what the bank reports/pays to Apple), yes, Apple is essentially doing this "for free".
Apple doesn't charge Merchants; it charges BANKS.
Oh, and I'm sure the banks are doing it for free and won't change the rate on Apple Pay payments like they constantly raise the rates on regular cards. I love how banks are always giving away free things!!
IIRC, the fees are in the thousandths-of-a-percent world, are aggregated (no per-transaction reporting by the banks), and are essentially voluntary, since Apple does not have any way to verify what the Banks report/pay to Apple.
You're confusing Apple Pay with Google Wallet and Current-C.
By design, Apple is specifically not in the CC processing business. Once set up, Apple has absolutely zero visibility into individual transactions. That remains strictly the purview of the Banks and Merchants. Apple simply isn't involved, period.
. They just pay it from their profits, and the customer doesn't have to worry.
No, they charge the merchant all different rates based on the risk of that particular transaction. There are hundreds of categories of cards, swiped vs non-swiped, address info vs no address info, etc. Apple Pay is going to be absurdly expensive for the merchants dumb enough to take it.
Anything Apple might charge will be a rounding error compared to the 3-5% the credit card companies charge merchants. Furthermore those fees get passed on to the customers so merchants only give a shit if their competition doesn't have to pay the same fees.
Apple doesn't charge Merchants; it charges BANKS. And the fees are "aggregated" and VERY small (like around a thousandth of a percent). So "rounding error", indeed.
I know they did it so that they could skim profits off the top...
You claim to be an "Apple fan"; yet you make a tell-tale comment like that?
Apple supposedly receives something like.00018% of aggregate transaction fees from each member bank (sorry, I can't find where I read that right now); but, according to what I read, has no way of checking nor enforcing such fees; so it doesn't look like they designed the system with that as an important monetization feature; but rather as a general-purpose fund to help offset the administration costs of the setup procedure, of which Apple is a participant.
What I am saying is that, if Apple was so interested in those "profits", they would have demanded that the banks report exactly what each "account" was "charging", rather than accepting what is essentially a voluntary, aggregated amount.
In most scenarios, unless you have an NSA mole in your home/business, Isn't that basically the same as requiring direct access to the machine? Or are we just talking about "on the same planet" type of access?
Having to move the mouse to particular corners of the screen is a crap idea too
OS X has had the concept of "Hot Corners" for years
The difference there is that if you didn't know about the hot corners, the Mac was a perfectly usable system. On Windows 8, you had no way of getting to the start screen or charms without knowing about them. Without that knowledge, Windows 8 was an unusable system.
I should have been more clear that having the ability to do this is fine, but requiring the user does it as the main interface is not.
Me too. I drive a 2004 Mercedes-Benz S55 AMG. It's got a supercharged 5.5L V8 that makes 491 horsepower and will go from 0-60 in 4.7 seconds, with an electronically-limited top speed of 155 mph. It's scary fast and I fall in love with it every time I drive it.
Kelley Blue Book value in very good condition? $8,941
Can't you chip that to remove the speed-limit? Afterall, 155mph is hardly even interesting. I've driven a Cosworth VEGA at 160mph.
If any variables are set at all in the program's initial load (and some almost certainly are), then yes, the flash memory is worn down. It has a finite number of writes.
Do you mean like "preferences?" Maybe.
I know Flash has a finite number of writes; but it is usually pretty high (usually around a million writes or more for recent NAND Flash). That means you could open the same app, loaded into exactly the same memory locations, 100 times a day for over 27 YEARS before there MIGHT be a failure.
Having to move the mouse to particular corners of the screen is a crap idea too
OS X has had the concept of "Hot Corners" for years (something that actually started back in the MacOS (Classic) days, where you could Invoke or temporarily Disable the Screen Saver from the Upper-left and Upper-right corners); and even though the Hot Corners are Configurable as to what they do (and yes, you can shut them off individually, too), the ONLY thing I ever set mine up to do is the old Screensaver actions I talked about above. Why? Because, more often than not, I end up invoking them by accident, instead of on-purpose, and it gets really annoying.
However, some of my Mac-using friends simply love them, and have all 4 corners set to do various and sundry things. So I hope that at least the "Hot Corners" (Mac term) are CONFIGURABLE (including "OFF") in Windows 10, without having to resort to Registry-Hacking or the like.
Before I get into this, know that I understand that it will take time for Microsoft to develop their new interface paradigm, and I know that it will get better as they do so.
From the screenshots I have seen, it looks completely like a grotesque and schizophrenic mashup between Windows 8 Metro and OS X Yosemite.
Loading apps drains the battery more and wears out memory faster in mobile devices than just leaving them running.
Boy, the technical proficiency of the average Slashdotter is certainly going down the drain.
While "Loading" Apps might drain the battery, it certainly does NOT "wear out" the RAM memory (where the RUNNING Apps load!).
Also, there is a LOT to be said for "familiarity" in an OS. I can take someone who hasn't touched a Mac since System 1.0 in 1984, and put them in front of Yosemite, and in a matter of an hour they would be almost completely at-home. Why? Because MOST of the UI elements (Menu Bar, Windows, etc.) are relatively familiar. Now, I will admit that making this claim across the first version of "Classic" MacOS and OS X Yosemite might be a bit of a stretch; but it is not at all unbelievable.
However, if you take a Windows user from even the Windows 7 era and dump them into Windows 8 and above, most users will feel COMPLETELY lost, and that "lost" feeling WON'T be going away in just a few hours.
"Flattening" the UI is one thing; but throwing essentially EVERY UI element and paradigm out at the same time is just insane.
I'm not defending Microsoft's complete paradigm change of a user interface but I also won't defend people who don't take a second to try to learn new things.
The first time I launched that POS Metro web-browser (is that a flavor of IE, or what?) (by invoking "Help" somewhere), I was nearly in TEARS I was so mad by the time I STUMBLED UPON the way "out"!
This is exactly how IOS and Android work so it's no big paradigm shift to simply hide apps rather than close them. The only catch with Windows is that it behaves the same on a desktop as a tablet, which is shit. Hopefully this fixes that issue.
I don't know about Android; but on iOS you simply double-click the Home Button, then a "list" of thumbnail-screenshots of the running Applications appears. Simply Swipe Up on one or more Apps to actually Close them, or Tap on one to bring out of Suspend.
Windows Phone's multitasking implementation for iOS
Quick settings (from both WP and Android)
And it continues still:
Keyboard typing suggestions
Third party keyboards
"Flattened" UI design
"OK, Google", "Hey Siri"
Although I shouldn't be responding to a pusillanimous AC, I'll bite. And I will counter with only one thing stolen from Apple, and unlike you, I will back mine up with documentation. But, my one stolen thing neatly trumps ALL of your supposed "stolen features". Ready? Here we go. The thing that was stolen from Apple is simple:
Slashdot Mirror
That's what they may be now. Credit card Interchange rates change monthly.
Hey, DogTurd: Start READING, not just BAYING.
Apple is NOT involved directly in ANY "per-transaction" fees (nor procedures).
Well, I think it was along the lines of "We have to pass it to find out what's in it..."
And that demonstration of abject laziness on the part of the Congresscritters voting on the bill is the fault of Obama, how?
Sure, there's probably encryption and hashing and verifying and all that supposedly going on,
So, IOW, you have no idea as to what the security measures are that Apple has put into place, and you are simply speculating that it would be insecure is ridiculous.
Um, there was zero debate on Obamacare before it was voted on.
And even less on the USAPATRIOTACT and the BANK/CAR-MAKER BAILOUT.
And how about that Prescription Drug Bill that was passed in the dead of night?
Or, or...
This is the bit that makes me wonder about the "Update Cache" functionality on Apple devices where you can have a server on your local network that ALL devices behind that IP get their updates redirected to as soon as it's turned on.
Basically, Apple Macs and iPads will do "WSUS-like" updates automatically from any local Mac server that appears to come from the same IP as the Mac/iPad in question. Without asking. Without the clients knowing. And with its own local cache of updates.
Then I guess most of us are safe; because there are virtually no "Apple Mac Servers" in use, anyway.
And are you talking about "Net Boot" stuff? Because that is even more rare.
And what do you mean by "comes from the same IP?" By definition, that is essentially impossible.
I would need to question closed sourced software makers, are they intentionally leaving holes in their software for this very reason? I find it very odd how simple yet stupid, one could leave a wide open exploit like this unchecked.
Yeah, that's right. Now go put another layer on that tinfoil hat.
Hey fucktard! Apple isn't doing this for free. Use your brain!
Apple is in NO WAY involved on a per-transaction-basis; so, other than a (really small) setup fee charged to the bank, and a (thousandths-of-a-percent) AGGREGATED transaction fee charged to the bank (the reporting and paying of which is essentially voluntary; since Apple has NO WAY of verifying nor reinforcing what the bank reports/pays to Apple), yes, Apple is essentially doing this "for free".
Apple doesn't charge Merchants; it charges BANKS. Oh, and I'm sure the banks are doing it for free and won't change the rate on Apple Pay payments like they constantly raise the rates on regular cards. I love how banks are always giving away free things!!
IIRC, the fees are in the thousandths-of-a-percent world, are aggregated (no per-transaction reporting by the banks), and are essentially voluntary, since Apple does not have any way to verify what the Banks report/pay to Apple.
So no.
Have you ever connected to a network that wasn't yours?
Yes, but there is a limit to my mis-trust.
Apple is acting as a credit card processor
You're confusing Apple Pay with Google Wallet and Current-C.
.
By design, Apple is specifically not in the CC processing business. Once set up, Apple has absolutely zero visibility into individual transactions. That remains strictly the purview of the Banks and Merchants. Apple simply isn't involved, period
Got it?
. They just pay it from their profits, and the customer doesn't have to worry. No, they charge the merchant all different rates based on the risk of that particular transaction. There are hundreds of categories of cards, swiped vs non-swiped, address info vs no address info, etc. Apple Pay is going to be absurdly expensive for the merchants dumb enough to take it.
Hey fucktard! APPLE DOESN'T CHARGE MERCHANTS
Learn to READ.
Anything Apple might charge will be a rounding error compared to the 3-5% the credit card companies charge merchants. Furthermore those fees get passed on to the customers so merchants only give a shit if their competition doesn't have to pay the same fees.
Apple doesn't charge Merchants; it charges BANKS. And the fees are "aggregated" and VERY small (like around a thousandth of a percent). So "rounding error", indeed.
I know they did it so that they could skim profits off the top...
You claim to be an "Apple fan"; yet you make a tell-tale comment like that?
.00018% of aggregate transaction fees from each member bank (sorry, I can't find where I read that right now); but, according to what I read, has no way of checking nor enforcing such fees; so it doesn't look like they designed the system with that as an important monetization feature; but rather as a general-purpose fund to help offset the administration costs of the setup procedure, of which Apple is a participant.
Apple supposedly receives something like
What I am saying is that, if Apple was so interested in those "profits", they would have demanded that the banks report exactly what each "account" was "charging", rather than accepting what is essentially a voluntary, aggregated amount.
...an attacker on the same network...
In most scenarios, unless you have an NSA mole in your home/business, Isn't that basically the same as requiring direct access to the machine? Or are we just talking about "on the same planet" type of access?
Having to move the mouse to particular corners of the screen is a crap idea too
OS X has had the concept of "Hot Corners" for years
The difference there is that if you didn't know about the hot corners, the Mac was a perfectly usable system. On Windows 8, you had no way of getting to the start screen or charms without knowing about them. Without that knowledge, Windows 8 was an unusable system.
I should have been more clear that having the ability to do this is fine, but requiring the user does it as the main interface is not.
I absolutely agree on both points
Me too. I drive a 2004 Mercedes-Benz S55 AMG. It's got a supercharged 5.5L V8 that makes 491 horsepower and will go from 0-60 in 4.7 seconds, with an electronically-limited top speed of 155 mph. It's scary fast and I fall in love with it every time I drive it. Kelley Blue Book value in very good condition? $8,941
Can't you chip that to remove the speed-limit? Afterall, 155mph is hardly even interesting. I've driven a Cosworth VEGA at 160mph.
Auf den Autobahn!
Great! Now I can't get that song out of my head... You owe me one day's Internetz.
If any variables are set at all in the program's initial load (and some almost certainly are), then yes, the flash memory is worn down. It has a finite number of writes.
Do you mean like "preferences?" Maybe.
I know Flash has a finite number of writes; but it is usually pretty high (usually around a million writes or more for recent NAND Flash). That means you could open the same app, loaded into exactly the same memory locations, 100 times a day for over 27 YEARS before there MIGHT be a failure.
Having to move the mouse to particular corners of the screen is a crap idea too
OS X has had the concept of "Hot Corners" for years (something that actually started back in the MacOS (Classic) days, where you could Invoke or temporarily Disable the Screen Saver from the Upper-left and Upper-right corners); and even though the Hot Corners are Configurable as to what they do (and yes, you can shut them off individually, too), the ONLY thing I ever set mine up to do is the old Screensaver actions I talked about above. Why? Because, more often than not, I end up invoking them by accident, instead of on-purpose, and it gets really annoying.
However, some of my Mac-using friends simply love them, and have all 4 corners set to do various and sundry things. So I hope that at least the "Hot Corners" (Mac term) are CONFIGURABLE (including "OFF") in Windows 10, without having to resort to Registry-Hacking or the like.
Before I get into this, know that I understand that it will take time for Microsoft to develop their new interface paradigm, and I know that it will get better as they do so.
From the screenshots I have seen, it looks completely like a grotesque and schizophrenic mashup between Windows 8 Metro and OS X Yosemite.
Loading apps drains the battery more and wears out memory faster in mobile devices than just leaving them running.
Boy, the technical proficiency of the average Slashdotter is certainly going down the drain.
While "Loading" Apps might drain the battery, it certainly does NOT "wear out" the RAM memory (where the RUNNING Apps load!).
Also, there is a LOT to be said for "familiarity" in an OS. I can take someone who hasn't touched a Mac since System 1.0 in 1984, and put them in front of Yosemite, and in a matter of an hour they would be almost completely at-home. Why? Because MOST of the UI elements (Menu Bar, Windows, etc.) are relatively familiar. Now, I will admit that making this claim across the first version of "Classic" MacOS and OS X Yosemite might be a bit of a stretch; but it is not at all unbelievable.
However, if you take a Windows user from even the Windows 7 era and dump them into Windows 8 and above, most users will feel COMPLETELY lost, and that "lost" feeling WON'T be going away in just a few hours.
"Flattening" the UI is one thing; but throwing essentially EVERY UI element and paradigm out at the same time is just insane.
Why do you type like this...
Did you learn English... from pull-down menus...
Because you certainly haven't retained... any writing skills... past the first grade...
You learned elipses in the first grade?
Dick.
I'm not defending Microsoft's complete paradigm change of a user interface but I also won't defend people who don't take a second to try to learn new things.
The first time I launched that POS Metro web-browser (is that a flavor of IE, or what?) (by invoking "Help" somewhere), I was nearly in TEARS I was so mad by the time I STUMBLED UPON the way "out"!
A UI should NEVER be an Easter-Egg hunt!
This is exactly how IOS and Android work so it's no big paradigm shift to simply hide apps rather than close them. The only catch with Windows is that it behaves the same on a desktop as a tablet, which is shit. Hopefully this fixes that issue.
I don't know about Android; but on iOS you simply double-click the Home Button, then a "list" of thumbnail-screenshots of the running Applications appears. Simply Swipe Up on one or more Apps to actually Close them, or Tap on one to bring out of Suspend.
And it continues still:
Although I shouldn't be responding to a pusillanimous AC, I'll bite. And I will counter with only one thing stolen from Apple, and unlike you, I will back mine up with documentation. But, my one stolen thing neatly trumps ALL of your supposed "stolen features". Ready? Here we go. The thing that was stolen from Apple is simple:
iPhone.
Now what, bitch?