To Apple, OS X is dead. Lion is the first push towards killing it.
Citation, please?
You DO realize that Apple has floated, and subsequently REMOVED, a few iOS-like features in Lion?
If they ever even thought that, they certainly got the message from their developers that Lion was NOT to become "iOS-Pro", but was rather to remain much as it has been. See the dialog "Tabs" and scroll-bar changes that were in, then back out, of Developer Previews. (Actually, the scroll-bar thing might still be there as a switchable option). Heck, I can STILL decide whether I want my scroll arrows together at one end of scroll bars, or at each end, and that change was made AGES ago!
Will there be UI changes? Sure. Every major revision of OS X has had some. Some welcomed, some not so much (Translucent Menu Bar, I'm looking at you!). But in Lion, those UI changes seem to be coming mostly in the form of toned-down "Aquafication" of the UI (less blatant eye-candy), and (IMHO, as a result of requests from Windows-switchers who insist on running everything "full-screen", and who can't fathom the difference between Windows' full-screen button and OS X's "Zoom To Content" button) a "single-window mode". But the user is in NO WAY being relegated to the "app-runner" status that they are in iOS.
From everything I'm seeing so far from Apple, They will be betting on iOS in the future for their OS offerings. It's got a huge userbase, has much more apps available, and has proven to scale very well to large format screens and processors.
But the iOS apps are, by and large, not really "desktop quality". Some are certainly getting there; but, in order to make iOS apps run on the Mac, they would either have to: 1)Give up the Intel archtecture. Suicide, and they know it. 2)Make a Classic-Like Virtualization layer for iOS apps. Frankly, I'm not exactly sure why they haven't done that; but I would bet a fair amount that the real reason is that Apple is, first and foremost, a hardware company. There are a certain percentage of Mac-owners who would NOT buy an iOS device if they could simply run iOS apps in a window on their Mac. Plus, there is the fact that, unless they artificially crippled the iOS emulator, the iOS apps would run SO much faster on the typical multi-core Mac (even under a JIT-powered emulation), that those people owning both would start (wrongly) thinking that their iOS devices were "slow". And Apple knows full well what the "pundits" would do with THAT...
And all of this conveniently ignores the fact that iOS and OS X are, in many ways, already much the same under the hood. But, Apple cannot give up the Cocoa API (which is mouse-oriented) for CocoaTouch (which is not). To do so would instantly relegate nearly ALL of the OS X applications to the "non-useable" status. Do you REALLY think Apple is suicidal?
I mean, when's the last time you saw a Steve Jobs E-mail that said "Sent from my iMac" instead of his iPad?
So, you really think that SJ doesn't use his Macs every single day? The reason that you see these emails is that SJ probably DOES use his iPad for email (and likely browsing), because he can kick-back in his armchair and do so; rather than being chained to a desk (as I am right now)... But I would imagine that he spends as much, if not more, time on his MacBook Pro and his Mac Pro (do you really think he messes with an iMac?) when he needs his desktop apps and/or huge amounts of screen real estate.
Yeah, this story is complete bullshit. Apple is not going to lock down Mac OS X Lion. There's no way they can use this current trojan as an excuse to do something which makes no damned sense in the first place.
It would be suicide to do so. Apple did not climb to having the second-highest market cap of ANY corporation by being stupid.
The only remotely possible thing is that 10.8 could have a security model that defaults to only allowing signed apps, but the user can toggle a System Preference to enable it. However, even this is of extremely low likelihood.
And even if they do move to a "signed-only" app model, I would bet my bottom-dollar that the only requirement to get a "signature" would be to package your app with XCode (which would then generate and transmit back to Apple a valid signature for the app), after signing-into your Apple Developer account. IMHO, as a Mac user since they were called Lisas, THAT sounds like an "Apple Approach". Minimally intrusive to the user, maximally-tied to the Developer. Could such an approach be circumvented? Sure. But not often enough to be anything more than a minor annoyance to Mac-users. And, I would be willing to bet that even THAT would do nothing more than throw an Alert on first-run; just like the Internet Downloaded Apps do right now. And in fact, I bet that Apple believes that what they are doing right now, combined with additional things like sandboxing, EX-bit control, and ASLR (which are all much more robust in Lion), is going to obviate the need for draconian app-signing systems.
You seem to have made the god awful mistake of adding up iOS device sales to date (and even there appear to have overshot the mark by about 50mill, possibly more) without taking into account the fact that many iOS devices replaced other iOS devices taking many of those out of the loop as "active" devices. iPod touches, replaced by iPhones, iPhones replaced by iPhone 3G, iPhone 3G replaced by iPhone 3GS and so on. Many people will have the old devices out of use in a cupboard somewhere or in many cases simply binned them, because the lack of easily replaceable battery and the cost of getting it replaced regardless leaves it little more than a brick.
Don't let facts ruin your fanboy jerkoff session though, I've know you've been working very hard to look even more of an irrational, nonsensical Apple zealot than SuperKendall so I guess you wouldn't want to spoil that.
And so, Android devices don't get replaced in the same manner?
So, what was your point, again?
BTW, given the fact that a lot of Android devices are cheap, and cheaply-made, I would submit there are a LOT more of them in the trash than there are iOS devices.
But don't let facts despoil your nonsensical Android fanboi rant. Both platforms have a "replacement" cycle. But you conveniently ignore that fact when it comes to Android. That's what makes your argument nonsensical, and thus you appear to be ignorant, and/or disingenuous. Exactly the qualities you ascribe to "the other side".
Yea that would make sense if there were actually a large number of viruses in the phone market. Compared to traditional viruses mobile viruses are still in the "Hello World!" stage.
Boy, and they call Apple fans "apologists".
They got nothin' on Android fanbois!
Face it: Android's "security" is as broken as iOS' is robust.
That's not flamebait; it's simply a fact. And even a lot of Android owners admit it, right here on slashdot, and as recently as yesterday.
Not your fault; you didn't design the OS. But please don't insult our collective intelligence by claiming that Android isn't the Windows XP (SP 0) of the mobile world, security-wise.
And here's a clue from the clue-box: It ain't got nothin' to do with "marketshare".
People use Safari on the Mac? I haven't used Safari on any of my Mac machines in YEARS. Last time I've used Safari was to download Firefox or Chrome. Not to mention, Safari isn't integrated into the OS like IE, so the attack isn't going to get you nearly as much. The user will still end up being prompted to enter their password if anything tries to cross that threshold. That kind of thing sets off a MUCH bigger bell in someone's head than "click yes to get awesome ringtones". Next straw man please!
I use Safari. In fact, the only time I use Firefox is when some dumbass website refuses to work with Safari (about once or twice a year, and always having something to do with a "form").
Firefox for Mac sucks. It's my preferred browser when I am forced to use Windows; but Safari rocks on OS X. You need to give it another try.
That point is only true if the software uses a builtin installer package. There is nothing that prevents me from creating a piece of malware that is just a.app instead.
Except for that whole "This application was downloaded from the Internet..." Alert on first-run.
Plus, I'm not so sure you could even FORCE an "app" (or ANYTHING) to download through Safari, JUST by visiting a website. PwnwOwn aside.
I truely wish that were true. But if it were, there would be no malware for Windows Vista and Windows 7, since they also require that the user acknowledge a prompt before installation. And there would be no malware for Windows XP either (since it prompts users because a program downloaded from the internet might be dangerous).
Unfortunately a UAC prompt (or sudo prompt) doesn't stop the "I really want to see the dancing bunnies" problem - people will bypass any dialog box you put up to run their application. Consider the Bagle family of malware. They use a password protected Zip file for their payload and even though the user needs to enter the zip file's password, they *still* manage to propogate.
But propagate at what rate?
One thing about the Mac community: Since there are zero, or nearly zero, malware threats of ANY sort, even the slowest-to-propagate Trojans INSTANTLY make headlines. That means, that within HOURS, the threat is effectively neutralized, because a critical mass of Mac owners are "clued-in" to the threat, and know to avoid it, and to tell their friends and family to avoid it, too.
Couple that with the fact that self-propagating malware seems, so far, impossible on OS X, and there is very little chance that the pleasant situation that Mac users enjoy will be changing anytime soon.
Um, isn't that the direction Apple has been going lately? First they take the buttons, then they take most of the ability to install apps, all they need to do is require a password to turn the thing on and not give it out for the vision to be complete.
WTF are you talking about?
Are we back to the "one-button-mouse" meme?
For the (hopefully) last time: Macs have NATIVELY supported multi-button mice since MacOS 8.5. That's getting to be nearly TWO DECADES AGO. Don'tcha think it's time to fucking stop that ridiculous bullshit claim?
Taking WHAT ability to Install apps? Are we conflating OS X and iOS here? I think the topic was Malware on the MACINTOSH (OS X) platform, not... Oh, never mind! Facts aren't entering your little rant, anyway.
Password? You're just fucking insane. Or a twelve-year-old. Or both.
Now, if you want to have an intelligent discourse on this subject, I'm all ears. Until then, STFU.
Safari browser exploits and other app exploits can still lead to installing malware on a machine.
Curiously enough, however; I have never had that dubious "pleasure". And me and my Safari have been to some pretty nefarious sites in the past six or seven years since Safari debuted.
Having said that, I did install ClickToFlash after that hideous Flash exploit scare several months ago. Adobe (IIRC) patched the vulnerability; but I leave ClickToFlash enabled, simply because I thoroughly enjoy not having Flash suck down massive amounts of CPU just to constantly annoy me with advertisements. When I want to see particular Flash content, I simply click on the area that the Flash wants to execute in, and voila!
But that is the only "anti-malware" I have EVER run on my Mac. And it sits bare-nekkid on the internet, 24/7/365, running an ftp server with (read-only) anonymous access (on the standard port), a streaming video server (on port 80), and ssh (on the standard port). So far, lots and lots and LOTS of attempts (some probably being mounted as I type), but, all the time I've had it set up that way, none have successfully broken in.
So, I am just a little smug at this point. But I am not so smug as to not keep an eye out for that situation to eventually change...
Yeah, I don't see Adobe giving up 30% of their income to get PS on the mac app store. I also don't see users perceiving Photoshop as dangerous to install. The app store is a vehicle to rape developers. If developers are free to go around it, they will.
They don't have to. They are free to post where/how they please. And that ain't gonna change. The genie is out of that bottle, and has been for decades, and Apple is simply not stupid enough to even attempt to put it back in. And besides, that isn't their goal.
The Mac App Store is simply a way to give the hordes of NEW Mac-Users, many of who's initial exposure to Apple was through the iPod or an iOS device, a "One-Stop-Shop" for applications for their new Macs, in a format that they are familiar with.
Afterall, considering the still-much-higher marketshare of Windows, the average non-computer-savvy user is much more likely to be able to ask a family member, neighbor, or friend where they might go on the internet to find "safe" applications; but, the percentage of Mac users is still low enough that that kind of "word of mouth" advertising doesn't so much drive a NEW Mac user to the likes of Macupdate.com, et al.
Remember, one of the major whines of Windows users were "There's no software for the Mac!" Everyone on slashdot knows that is patently false, as does everyone who has owned a Mac for more than a few months. But in that critical "Did I make a mistake?" period, the Mac App Store helps the NEW Mac User to realize that there is an (often better) equivalent, or even a direct OS X version of, their favorite app(s). The likes of Adobe and Microsoft will never need that kind of marketing help; and so will not be in the App Store. But for every one of those mega-publishers, there are ten-thousand independent software publishers who have (up until now) only two choices: 1) Put up a website, and hope they can drive potential customers to it; and/or, 2) Get listed on a software-aggregator site, like MacUpdate, C|Net, where there is a fairly poor organization, and even poor-er search facilities (the dear, departed VersionTracker.com being particularly bad in that regard). Instead, anyone familiar with the iOS App Store (and that is a LOT of people) now has a familiar-looking (and acting) place to look for their Mac software, too.
It isn't evil. It's just an extension of Apple's former (and very poorly advertised) "MadeForMac" database. As to your ridiculous claim of Apple "raping the developers", the fact that Apple is charging a fee for the VOLUNTARY listing (which is in line with EVERY. SINGLE. CATALOG.) should not be surprising, and is not at all unusual. For example, to be listed in a large U.S. industrial distributor catalog, like Grainger's, McMaster-Carr, etc. typically costs $10,000 PER YEAR, PER PAGE. Apple's deal of 30% of gross sales is quite fair by comparison; particularly because, if YOU price your application at zero dollars; then that is what your fee is... FOREVER, and REGARDLESS OF SALES VOLUME. Even hosting a free app on your own website isn't going to be a better deal. And if you're sales are so massive (think Angry Birds) that that 30% becomes a big number, your remaining 70% is a correspondingly bigger number. So AGAIN it doesn't really matter.
Let's look at a brick-and-mortar distributor for comparison: Most, if not all, b&m distribution chains have a 100% markup PER TIER. In other words, each "hand" that that product falls into along the way from you to the end customer basically DOUBLES the price to that consumer. And what that ends up meaning, is that you have to DEPRESS your "wholesale" price, so that the end product will still sell for what you think the consumer will pay.
In contrast, Apple's deal is pretty sweet. And remember, for the Mac, it is NOT a requirement. And is likely never to be. There are already far too many other ways to acquire Mac software. Apple is in no way stupid enough to think that they wouldn't be in court until the end of time if t
4. You do a full patent review for this and any other silly little feature that your app uses, digging through hundreds of thousands of patents or paying some company tens of thousands of dollars to do this for you, fully aware that you are STILL not sure you aren't violating any unpublished patents.
5. You decide not to release the software since there are way too many applicable patents about the simplest and most obvious little features that really shouldn't be patentable but have been patented nevertheless.
So basically, what you are saying is that everybody should just stop developing software. That's just ordinary diligence.
So, instead, you want Apple to do all that due diligence for you, and if they cannot forsee every single future occurrence, then THEY get to assume ALL of YOUR risk (even though you are the one the one that:
1. Made the decision to develop for iOS.
2. Made the decision what software to develop.
3. Get the Lion's Share (no pun) of the profits.
So, if you do not wish to accept any personal responsibility for the consequences of your decisions, then yes: You should not be developing software. For anyone.
BTW, would you expect that Google would indemnify you for writing an Android app? Do you expect that Microsoft would indemnify you for writing a WinMobile (or whatever it's called today) app? If the answer to those questions is "No" (and it should be), then why would you expect Apple to be any different? And if your answer would be "Yes", then you are as delusional as the EFF...
Since Apple is a major user of patent litigation, there's nothing unforseen about it.
And Google never files or participates in patent litigation?
What's more, since Apple forces tools and platforms on anyone wanting to submit apps to its store, unlike, say, PC development, it has created this risky environment.
And of course, all developers are REQUIRED BY LAW to develop for iOS, right?
Since the App Store is a major source of revenue to Apple via taking a cut from developers, it seems ethical and fair that it provide the indemnity to developers.
First: The App Store is not a major source of revenue for Apple. It does a little better than break-even; but it is not like this huge money-maker. Read some Quarterly Reports. Apple by far makes the vast majority of their billions from hardware; not software or services. Plus, you DO realize, of course, that FREE apps are downloaded three times as much as paid apps, right? Where does Apple monetize that "revenue stream", since 30% of zero is...
So, it may seem "ethical" and "fair", to you, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to be an iOS developer.
Failing the abolishment of software patents, the lesson here is that the entire iOS development model spelled trouble. You are required to write your software in a particular way, using particular languages and technologies, and you have to distribute it through the App Store and give Apple a cut of your revenue. Developers should have refused such an agreement, and in the future developers should refuse similar agreements (I have no doubt that we will continue to see companies trying to exert such control over developers).
And, like all other adults, YOU are responsible for exercising ordinary diligence BEFORE you decide to develop for a particular way.
Android needs something more like a sandbox environment for each application and a reasonable system where the user is asked for permission before accessing sensitive information.
You have just described the iOS security model. But I assume you knew that.
Until recently, Apple users were quite proud of the relative lack of threats to their MacBooks. This past week seems to have wiped the smirk off their faces, but that will be shortlived.
Since the most recent threat was but a Trojan, it is already back off the RADAR. All the smart Mac owners already warned all the gullible ones. Problem solved. Smirk restored.
And since we're talking about mobile devices, the smirk is firmly in place as far as iOS users go, too.
Face it: Android sucks at security. Top to bottom; left to right; inside to outside.
I'm not saying that OS X or its baby-brother, iOS, is 100% impervious to attack. But in the case of iOS, at least, the "marketshare" argument falls completely apart. And since iOS and OS X share a lot of architecture, I would submit that they also share a lot of robustness, too. Eleven years and counting, and still no self-propagating OS X malware. "Marketshare" simply doesn't explain all of that. Period.
I'm honestly not trolling; just pointing out undeniable facts.
Singlehandedly saved USB from oblivion. (vs. PS/2. A proprietary IBM standard created by the same proprietary mindset that created Microchannel Architecture)
*sigh...* No, it was Microsoft who did since they made it
Sigh.
If you are talking about USB, it was created by a combination of seven companies, of which Microsoft was but one. Intel was the one who actually created the first USB interface ICs, though. And as I have pointed out, USB connectors languished for several years on Windows PC motherboards. It wasn't until the popularity of the original CRT iMac that USB "caught on". That's why so many early USB peripherals mimicked the original iMac's color assortment.
BTW, Windows support for USB didn't even appear until what called Windows 95, OSR2. And it was widely considered to be nearly uselessly buggy until Windows 98. In fact, in Windows 95, USB isn't even enabled by default.
But don't let your lack of historical knowledge stop you from acting the fool.
And, BTW, I said "popularized" the USB interface; not "created" it. As I said above, many, many PC motherboards had USB connectors before the iMac; but it took the iMac's popularity to create that all-important "tipping point" for USB device availability. Which curiously enough, brings us back on-topic regarding Thunderbolt.
Now, if you were referring to MCA, MS had NOTHING to do with that; it was ALL IBM.
For the record, that's NIH "Not Invented Here," describing Apple's tendency to insistently go their own way even when other workable standards exist. Nothing to do with the National Institutes of Health.
You DO realize that Apple historically has a better track record of actually FOLLOWING (rather than subverting) published standards, right?
A few examples, in no particular order (I know there are more; but my brain isn't working this evening) :
OpenGL (vs. ActiveX)
First Deskop OS to integrate a TCP/IP stack
First laptops to offer Ethernet
First company to make WiFi usable
SCSI (Invented by Shugart, not Apple. Still an industry standard)
IDE/ATA (industry standard adopted by Apple)
NuBus (Standard invented by Texas Instruments and somebody else I can't remember)
EFI (vs. BIOS, a "standard" only because it was reverse-engineered and copied to death)
OpenFirmware (created by a standards committee, not Apple) (vs. BIOS)
First Browser to score 100% on ACID2 test. br>
Native Java Support (now sadly given up to Oracle) (vs. whatever that MS thing was called J#?)
Singlehandedly saved USB from oblivion. (vs. PS/2. A proprietary IBM standard created by the same proprietary mindset that created Microchannel Architecture)
PCI, PCI-X and PCIExpress (all standards-body creatures)
Now, when it comes to video connectors, throughout the years, Apple certainly has gone its own way, I'll give you that! But, they seem to be settling into using DisplayPort, and now Thunderbolt, which is backwards-compatible in the display realm with DisplayPort (oh, and Apple didn't invent DisplayPort, and was only an advisor to the Intel-created Thundebolt).
And as far was the departed Apple Desktop Bus goes, that was actually a cost-saving measure: Apple was able to save ONE CONDUCTOR in the keyboard and mouse cables by using ADB. And while Windows users were restricted to one pointing device, ADB and MacOS (classic) (and now OS X) can handle up to NINE simultaneous "HID"-style devices (keyboards, mice, tablets, etc), with zero configuration needed.
And as far as FireWire goes; Apple and Sony developed that together. There was nothing even remotely like it for handling massive amounts of streaming data at the desktop level. And it eventually became an IEEE standard, so...
So, it would seem that Apple has a pretty damned good track record (if we ignore the zillions of video connectors, and even those came down to just a proprietary connector combining VGA and/or DVI with other functions (USB, I2C, Power, "monitor size bits", etc).
o Massive Gender Imbalance - 55% male to 45% female birth ratio [bbc.co.uk] - that means crime, revolution or possibly war is coming, because when young men can't get laid, they take their frustration out in violence
Um, just because there are less women than men, doesn't mean that men can't get laid. Wyoming has nearly a 2:1 ratio of men to women. Have they started any wars?
Stop thinking like a raging heterosexual.
However, the rest of your post is quite insightful!
That's a good one. Yes, let's forget all the people in that "golden age" that only made it into colleges due to their parent's wealth.
Which is why the next generation is doomed.
Not only does college cost a ridiculous amount of money in the U.S., but consumer debt and other economic factors (economics isn't my strong suit) keeps the average parent so cash-strapped that they find it nearly impossible to "pay for the kids' college" like our grandparents did for our parents (and to a somewhat lesser extent, our parents did for us).
Slashdot Mirror
To Apple, OS X is dead. Lion is the first push towards killing it.
Citation, please?
You DO realize that Apple has floated, and subsequently REMOVED, a few iOS-like features in Lion?
If they ever even thought that, they certainly got the message from their developers that Lion was NOT to become "iOS-Pro", but was rather to remain much as it has been. See the dialog "Tabs" and scroll-bar changes that were in, then back out, of Developer Previews. (Actually, the scroll-bar thing might still be there as a switchable option). Heck, I can STILL decide whether I want my scroll arrows together at one end of scroll bars, or at each end, and that change was made AGES ago!
Will there be UI changes? Sure. Every major revision of OS X has had some. Some welcomed, some not so much (Translucent Menu Bar, I'm looking at you!). But in Lion, those UI changes seem to be coming mostly in the form of toned-down "Aquafication" of the UI (less blatant eye-candy), and (IMHO, as a result of requests from Windows-switchers who insist on running everything "full-screen", and who can't fathom the difference between Windows' full-screen button and OS X's "Zoom To Content" button) a "single-window mode". But the user is in NO WAY being relegated to the "app-runner" status that they are in iOS.
From everything I'm seeing so far from Apple, They will be betting on iOS in the future for their OS offerings. It's got a huge userbase, has much more apps available, and has proven to scale very well to large format screens and processors.
But the iOS apps are, by and large, not really "desktop quality". Some are certainly getting there; but, in order to make iOS apps run on the Mac, they would either have to: 1)Give up the Intel archtecture. Suicide, and they know it. 2)Make a Classic-Like Virtualization layer for iOS apps. Frankly, I'm not exactly sure why they haven't done that; but I would bet a fair amount that the real reason is that Apple is, first and foremost, a hardware company. There are a certain percentage of Mac-owners who would NOT buy an iOS device if they could simply run iOS apps in a window on their Mac. Plus, there is the fact that, unless they artificially crippled the iOS emulator, the iOS apps would run SO much faster on the typical multi-core Mac (even under a JIT-powered emulation), that those people owning both would start (wrongly) thinking that their iOS devices were "slow". And Apple knows full well what the "pundits" would do with THAT...
And all of this conveniently ignores the fact that iOS and OS X are, in many ways, already much the same under the hood. But, Apple cannot give up the Cocoa API (which is mouse-oriented) for CocoaTouch (which is not). To do so would instantly relegate nearly ALL of the OS X applications to the "non-useable" status. Do you REALLY think Apple is suicidal?
I mean, when's the last time you saw a Steve Jobs E-mail that said "Sent from my iMac" instead of his iPad?
So, you really think that SJ doesn't use his Macs every single day? The reason that you see these emails is that SJ probably DOES use his iPad for email (and likely browsing), because he can kick-back in his armchair and do so; rather than being chained to a desk (as I am right now)... But I would imagine that he spends as much, if not more, time on his MacBook Pro and his Mac Pro (do you really think he messes with an iMac?) when he needs his desktop apps and/or huge amounts of screen real estate.
Yeah, this story is complete bullshit. Apple is not going to lock down Mac OS X Lion. There's no way they can use this current trojan as an excuse to do something which makes no damned sense in the first place.
It would be suicide to do so. Apple did not climb to having the second-highest market cap of ANY corporation by being stupid.
The only remotely possible thing is that 10.8 could have a security model that defaults to only allowing signed apps, but the user can toggle a System Preference to enable it. However, even this is of extremely low likelihood.
And even if they do move to a "signed-only" app model, I would bet my bottom-dollar that the only requirement to get a "signature" would be to package your app with XCode (which would then generate and transmit back to Apple a valid signature for the app), after signing-into your Apple Developer account. IMHO, as a Mac user since they were called Lisas, THAT sounds like an "Apple Approach". Minimally intrusive to the user, maximally-tied to the Developer. Could such an approach be circumvented? Sure. But not often enough to be anything more than a minor annoyance to Mac-users. And, I would be willing to bet that even THAT would do nothing more than throw an Alert on first-run; just like the Internet Downloaded Apps do right now. And in fact, I bet that Apple believes that what they are doing right now, combined with additional things like sandboxing, EX-bit control, and ASLR (which are all much more robust in Lion), is going to obviate the need for draconian app-signing systems.
I don't like it but it is positive for many other users. However I doubt this one is true in any way.
and I have the impression that it drives the price down
Many apps, especially the numerous simple games are free on every other platform.
Citation, please?
You seem to have made the god awful mistake of adding up iOS device sales to date (and even there appear to have overshot the mark by about 50mill, possibly more) without taking into account the fact that many iOS devices replaced other iOS devices taking many of those out of the loop as "active" devices. iPod touches, replaced by iPhones, iPhones replaced by iPhone 3G, iPhone 3G replaced by iPhone 3GS and so on. Many people will have the old devices out of use in a cupboard somewhere or in many cases simply binned them, because the lack of easily replaceable battery and the cost of getting it replaced regardless leaves it little more than a brick.
Don't let facts ruin your fanboy jerkoff session though, I've know you've been working very hard to look even more of an irrational, nonsensical Apple zealot than SuperKendall so I guess you wouldn't want to spoil that.
And so, Android devices don't get replaced in the same manner?
So, what was your point, again?
BTW, given the fact that a lot of Android devices are cheap, and cheaply-made, I would submit there are a LOT more of them in the trash than there are iOS devices.
But don't let facts despoil your nonsensical Android fanboi rant. Both platforms have a "replacement" cycle. But you conveniently ignore that fact when it comes to Android. That's what makes your argument nonsensical, and thus you appear to be ignorant, and/or disingenuous. Exactly the qualities you ascribe to "the other side".
Yea that would make sense if there were actually a large number of viruses in the phone market. Compared to traditional viruses mobile viruses are still in the "Hello World!" stage.
Boy, and they call Apple fans "apologists".
They got nothin' on Android fanbois!
Face it: Android's "security" is as broken as iOS' is robust.
That's not flamebait; it's simply a fact. And even a lot of Android owners admit it, right here on slashdot, and as recently as yesterday.
Not your fault; you didn't design the OS. But please don't insult our collective intelligence by claiming that Android isn't the Windows XP (SP 0) of the mobile world, security-wise.
And here's a clue from the clue-box: It ain't got nothin' to do with "marketshare".
People use Safari on the Mac? I haven't used Safari on any of my Mac machines in YEARS. Last time I've used Safari was to download Firefox or Chrome. Not to mention, Safari isn't integrated into the OS like IE, so the attack isn't going to get you nearly as much. The user will still end up being prompted to enter their password if anything tries to cross that threshold. That kind of thing sets off a MUCH bigger bell in someone's head than "click yes to get awesome ringtones". Next straw man please!
I use Safari. In fact, the only time I use Firefox is when some dumbass website refuses to work with Safari (about once or twice a year, and always having something to do with a "form").
Firefox for Mac sucks. It's my preferred browser when I am forced to use Windows; but Safari rocks on OS X. You need to give it another try.
That point is only true if the software uses a builtin installer package. There is nothing that prevents me from creating a piece of malware that is just a .app instead.
Except for that whole "This application was downloaded from the Internet..." Alert on first-run.
Plus, I'm not so sure you could even FORCE an "app" (or ANYTHING) to download through Safari, JUST by visiting a website. PwnwOwn aside.
I truely wish that were true. But if it were, there would be no malware for Windows Vista and Windows 7, since they also require that the user acknowledge a prompt before installation. And there would be no malware for Windows XP either (since it prompts users because a program downloaded from the internet might be dangerous).
Unfortunately a UAC prompt (or sudo prompt) doesn't stop the "I really want to see the dancing bunnies" problem - people will bypass any dialog box you put up to run their application. Consider the Bagle family of malware. They use a password protected Zip file for their payload and even though the user needs to enter the zip file's password, they *still* manage to propogate.
But propagate at what rate?
One thing about the Mac community: Since there are zero, or nearly zero, malware threats of ANY sort, even the slowest-to-propagate Trojans INSTANTLY make headlines. That means, that within HOURS, the threat is effectively neutralized, because a critical mass of Mac owners are "clued-in" to the threat, and know to avoid it, and to tell their friends and family to avoid it, too.
Couple that with the fact that self-propagating malware seems, so far, impossible on OS X, and there is very little chance that the pleasant situation that Mac users enjoy will be changing anytime soon.
Um, isn't that the direction Apple has been going lately? First they take the buttons, then they take most of the ability to install apps, all they need to do is require a password to turn the thing on and not give it out for the vision to be complete.
WTF are you talking about?
Are we back to the "one-button-mouse" meme?
For the (hopefully) last time: Macs have NATIVELY supported multi-button mice since MacOS 8.5. That's getting to be nearly TWO DECADES AGO. Don'tcha think it's time to fucking stop that ridiculous bullshit claim?
Taking WHAT ability to Install apps? Are we conflating OS X and iOS here? I think the topic was Malware on the MACINTOSH (OS X) platform, not... Oh, never mind! Facts aren't entering your little rant, anyway.
Password? You're just fucking insane. Or a twelve-year-old. Or both.
Now, if you want to have an intelligent discourse on this subject, I'm all ears. Until then, STFU.
Ethernet? On a modern MacBook? Think again.
WTF are you talking about?
Only the Macbook Air doesn't have a terrestrial Ethernet port.
Safari browser exploits and other app exploits can still lead to installing malware on a machine.
Curiously enough, however; I have never had that dubious "pleasure". And me and my Safari have been to some pretty nefarious sites in the past six or seven years since Safari debuted.
Having said that, I did install ClickToFlash after that hideous Flash exploit scare several months ago. Adobe (IIRC) patched the vulnerability; but I leave ClickToFlash enabled, simply because I thoroughly enjoy not having Flash suck down massive amounts of CPU just to constantly annoy me with advertisements. When I want to see particular Flash content, I simply click on the area that the Flash wants to execute in, and voila!
But that is the only "anti-malware" I have EVER run on my Mac. And it sits bare-nekkid on the internet, 24/7/365, running an ftp server with (read-only) anonymous access (on the standard port), a streaming video server (on port 80), and ssh (on the standard port). So far, lots and lots and LOTS of attempts (some probably being mounted as I type), but, all the time I've had it set up that way, none have successfully broken in.
So, I am just a little smug at this point. But I am not so smug as to not keep an eye out for that situation to eventually change...
Yeah, I don't see Adobe giving up 30% of their income to get PS on the mac app store. I also don't see users perceiving Photoshop as dangerous to install. The app store is a vehicle to rape developers. If developers are free to go around it, they will.
They don't have to. They are free to post where/how they please. And that ain't gonna change. The genie is out of that bottle, and has been for decades, and Apple is simply not stupid enough to even attempt to put it back in. And besides, that isn't their goal.
The Mac App Store is simply a way to give the hordes of NEW Mac-Users, many of who's initial exposure to Apple was through the iPod or an iOS device, a "One-Stop-Shop" for applications for their new Macs, in a format that they are familiar with.
Afterall, considering the still-much-higher marketshare of Windows, the average non-computer-savvy user is much more likely to be able to ask a family member, neighbor, or friend where they might go on the internet to find "safe" applications; but, the percentage of Mac users is still low enough that that kind of "word of mouth" advertising doesn't so much drive a NEW Mac user to the likes of Macupdate.com, et al.
Remember, one of the major whines of Windows users were "There's no software for the Mac!" Everyone on slashdot knows that is patently false, as does everyone who has owned a Mac for more than a few months. But in that critical "Did I make a mistake?" period, the Mac App Store helps the NEW Mac User to realize that there is an (often better) equivalent, or even a direct OS X version of, their favorite app(s). The likes of Adobe and Microsoft will never need that kind of marketing help; and so will not be in the App Store. But for every one of those mega-publishers, there are ten-thousand independent software publishers who have (up until now) only two choices: 1) Put up a website, and hope they can drive potential customers to it; and/or, 2) Get listed on a software-aggregator site, like MacUpdate, C|Net, where there is a fairly poor organization, and even poor-er search facilities (the dear, departed VersionTracker.com being particularly bad in that regard). Instead, anyone familiar with the iOS App Store (and that is a LOT of people) now has a familiar-looking (and acting) place to look for their Mac software, too.
It isn't evil. It's just an extension of Apple's former (and very poorly advertised) "MadeForMac" database. As to your ridiculous claim of Apple "raping the developers", the fact that Apple is charging a fee for the VOLUNTARY listing (which is in line with EVERY. SINGLE. CATALOG.) should not be surprising, and is not at all unusual. For example, to be listed in a large U.S. industrial distributor catalog, like Grainger's, McMaster-Carr, etc. typically costs $10,000 PER YEAR, PER PAGE. Apple's deal of 30% of gross sales is quite fair by comparison; particularly because, if YOU price your application at zero dollars; then that is what your fee is... FOREVER, and REGARDLESS OF SALES VOLUME. Even hosting a free app on your own website isn't going to be a better deal. And if you're sales are so massive (think Angry Birds) that that 30% becomes a big number, your remaining 70% is a correspondingly bigger number. So AGAIN it doesn't really matter.
Let's look at a brick-and-mortar distributor for comparison: Most, if not all, b&m distribution chains have a 100% markup PER TIER. In other words, each "hand" that that product falls into along the way from you to the end customer basically DOUBLES the price to that consumer. And what that ends up meaning, is that you have to DEPRESS your "wholesale" price, so that the end product will still sell for what you think the consumer will pay.
In contrast, Apple's deal is pretty sweet. And remember, for the Mac, it is NOT a requirement. And is likely never to be. There are already far too many other ways to acquire Mac software. Apple is in no way stupid enough to think that they wouldn't be in court until the end of time if t
4. You do a full patent review for this and any other silly little feature that your app uses, digging through hundreds of thousands of patents or paying some company tens of thousands of dollars to do this for you, fully aware that you are STILL not sure you aren't violating any unpublished patents.
5. You decide not to release the software since there are way too many applicable patents about the simplest and most obvious little features that really shouldn't be patentable but have been patented nevertheless.
So basically, what you are saying is that everybody should just stop developing software. That's just ordinary diligence.
So, instead, you want Apple to do all that due diligence for you, and if they cannot forsee every single future occurrence, then THEY get to assume ALL of YOUR risk (even though you are the one the one that:
1. Made the decision to develop for iOS.
2. Made the decision what software to develop.
3. Get the Lion's Share (no pun) of the profits.
So, if you do not wish to accept any personal responsibility for the consequences of your decisions, then yes: You should not be developing software. For anyone.
BTW, would you expect that Google would indemnify you for writing an Android app? Do you expect that Microsoft would indemnify you for writing a WinMobile (or whatever it's called today) app? If the answer to those questions is "No" (and it should be), then why would you expect Apple to be any different? And if your answer would be "Yes", then you are as delusional as the EFF...
Since Apple is a major user of patent litigation, there's nothing unforseen about it.
And Google never files or participates in patent litigation?
What's more, since Apple forces tools and platforms on anyone wanting to submit apps to its store, unlike, say, PC development, it has created this risky environment.
And of course, all developers are REQUIRED BY LAW to develop for iOS, right?
Since the App Store is a major source of revenue to Apple via taking a cut from developers, it seems ethical and fair that it provide the indemnity to developers.
First: The App Store is not a major source of revenue for Apple. It does a little better than break-even; but it is not like this huge money-maker. Read some Quarterly Reports. Apple by far makes the vast majority of their billions from hardware; not software or services. Plus, you DO realize, of course, that FREE apps are downloaded three times as much as paid apps, right? Where does Apple monetize that "revenue stream", since 30% of zero is...
So, it may seem "ethical" and "fair", to you, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to be an iOS developer.
Grow up.
The EFF doesn't need Apple's help, the developers who write the apps that make the iP* platforms a success do.
But maybe when they lose and developers at large start being afraid of writing apps for their platforms maybe Apple will notice.
First they came for the iOS developers, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an iOS developer... [apologies to Pastor Martin Neimoller]
Failing the abolishment of software patents, the lesson here is that the entire iOS development model spelled trouble. You are required to write your software in a particular way, using particular languages and technologies, and you have to distribute it through the App Store and give Apple a cut of your revenue. Developers should have refused such an agreement, and in the future developers should refuse similar agreements (I have no doubt that we will continue to see companies trying to exert such control over developers).
And, like all other adults, YOU are responsible for exercising ordinary diligence BEFORE you decide to develop for a particular way.
Apple is not your parent. Grow up.
Apple owes app developers a swift response. Period. Apple mandates all of this and not at least giving some assurances is ludicrous
So, Apple is responsible for UNFORSEEN consequences, now?
Stupid shit.
The real lesson here is for developers: don't let someone else dictate to you how you should write your software.
Name an OS who's APIs won't POTENTIALLY fall victim to patent trolls.
[crickets]
Android needs something more like a sandbox environment for each application and a reasonable system where the user is asked for permission before accessing sensitive information.
You have just described the iOS security model. But I assume you knew that.
Until recently, Apple users were quite proud of the relative lack of threats to their MacBooks. This past week seems to have wiped the smirk off their faces, but that will be shortlived.
Since the most recent threat was but a Trojan, it is already back off the RADAR. All the smart Mac owners already warned all the gullible ones. Problem solved. Smirk restored.
And since we're talking about mobile devices, the smirk is firmly in place as far as iOS users go, too.
Face it: Android sucks at security. Top to bottom; left to right; inside to outside.
I'm not saying that OS X or its baby-brother, iOS, is 100% impervious to attack. But in the case of iOS, at least, the "marketshare" argument falls completely apart. And since iOS and OS X share a lot of architecture, I would submit that they also share a lot of robustness, too. Eleven years and counting, and still no self-propagating OS X malware. "Marketshare" simply doesn't explain all of that. Period.
I'm honestly not trolling; just pointing out undeniable facts.
Where's the "Marketshare" argument now, regarding iOS vs. Android, as far as "security" goes?
Honestly, I don't think that anyone (or nearly anyone) runs any kind of A/V on iOS devices; and yet...
So, can anyone please address this question like an adult; or is that too much to ask on Slashdot these days?
Singlehandedly saved USB from oblivion. (vs. PS/2. A proprietary IBM standard created by the same proprietary mindset that created Microchannel Architecture)
*sigh...* No, it was Microsoft who did since they made it
Sigh.
If you are talking about USB, it was created by a combination of seven companies, of which Microsoft was but one. Intel was the one who actually created the first USB interface ICs, though. And as I have pointed out, USB connectors languished for several years on Windows PC motherboards. It wasn't until the popularity of the original CRT iMac that USB "caught on". That's why so many early USB peripherals mimicked the original iMac's color assortment.
BTW, Windows support for USB didn't even appear until what called Windows 95, OSR2. And it was widely considered to be nearly uselessly buggy until Windows 98. In fact, in Windows 95, USB isn't even enabled by default.
But don't let your lack of historical knowledge stop you from acting the fool.
And, BTW, I said "popularized" the USB interface; not "created" it. As I said above, many, many PC motherboards had USB connectors before the iMac; but it took the iMac's popularity to create that all-important "tipping point" for USB device availability. Which curiously enough, brings us back on-topic regarding Thunderbolt.
Now, if you were referring to MCA, MS had NOTHING to do with that; it was ALL IBM.
For the record, that's NIH "Not Invented Here," describing Apple's tendency to insistently go their own way even when other workable standards exist. Nothing to do with the National Institutes of Health.
You DO realize that Apple historically has a better track record of actually FOLLOWING (rather than subverting) published standards, right?
A few examples, in no particular order (I know there are more; but my brain isn't working this evening) : OpenGL (vs. ActiveX)
First Deskop OS to integrate a TCP/IP stack
First laptops to offer Ethernet
First company to make WiFi usable
SCSI (Invented by Shugart, not Apple. Still an industry standard)
IDE/ATA (industry standard adopted by Apple)
NuBus (Standard invented by Texas Instruments and somebody else I can't remember)
EFI (vs. BIOS, a "standard" only because it was reverse-engineered and copied to death)
OpenFirmware (created by a standards committee, not Apple) (vs. BIOS) First Browser to score 100% on ACID2 test.
br> Native Java Support (now sadly given up to Oracle) (vs. whatever that MS thing was called J#?)
Singlehandedly saved USB from oblivion. (vs. PS/2. A proprietary IBM standard created by the same proprietary mindset that created Microchannel Architecture)
PCI, PCI-X and PCIExpress (all standards-body creatures)
Now, when it comes to video connectors, throughout the years, Apple certainly has gone its own way, I'll give you that! But, they seem to be settling into using DisplayPort, and now Thunderbolt, which is backwards-compatible in the display realm with DisplayPort (oh, and Apple didn't invent DisplayPort, and was only an advisor to the Intel-created Thundebolt).
And as far was the departed Apple Desktop Bus goes, that was actually a cost-saving measure: Apple was able to save ONE CONDUCTOR in the keyboard and mouse cables by using ADB. And while Windows users were restricted to one pointing device, ADB and MacOS (classic) (and now OS X) can handle up to NINE simultaneous "HID"-style devices (keyboards, mice, tablets, etc), with zero configuration needed.
And as far as FireWire goes; Apple and Sony developed that together. There was nothing even remotely like it for handling massive amounts of streaming data at the desktop level. And it eventually became an IEEE standard, so...
So, it would seem that Apple has a pretty damned good track record (if we ignore the zillions of video connectors, and even those came down to just a proprietary connector combining VGA and/or DVI with other functions (USB, I2C, Power, "monitor size bits", etc).
o Massive Gender Imbalance - 55% male to 45% female birth ratio [bbc.co.uk] - that means crime, revolution or possibly war is coming, because when young men can't get laid, they take their frustration out in violence
Um, just because there are less women than men, doesn't mean that men can't get laid. Wyoming has nearly a 2:1 ratio of men to women. Have they started any wars?
Stop thinking like a raging heterosexual.
However, the rest of your post is quite insightful!
That's a good one. Yes, let's forget all the people in that "golden age" that only made it into colleges due to their parent's wealth.
Which is why the next generation is doomed.
Not only does college cost a ridiculous amount of money in the U.S., but consumer debt and other economic factors (economics isn't my strong suit) keeps the average parent so cash-strapped that they find it nearly impossible to "pay for the kids' college" like our grandparents did for our parents (and to a somewhat lesser extent, our parents did for us).