And I believe I CAN trust the Android Market to (at least try to) make the right decisions. Because, if they don't, then people (including me) will stop using them.
So, pray tell, why doesn't the same logic extend to Apple and the App Store?
The only applications that Google can remotely pull from an Android device are applications that were installed via the Android Market. Applications that are installed via alternate application stores or directly via an.apk on the device are out of Google's control.
Google can only throw a remote kill switch on apps installed through their store. Because Android apps can be downloaded and installed from other vendors, or even directly to the phone, they are safe from Google's killswitch.
Funny that not ONE slashdotter that has CLAIMED this has been able to PROVE it.
TFA and the blog doesn't mention this, however several comments pointed this out: your apps won't get automatically nuked if you download them from alternate sources or directly install the apk - only apps installed via the android marketplace are subject to this.
Prove it. In fact, I'd be really surprised if the API worked that way. I'll bet it just remote-wipes any app that has the right app name and/or checksum.
Maybe THAT's why Google's blog "didn't mention this", eh?
It is in Google's best interest to use this power responsibly. For that reason, it is not unreasonable to trust them with it - for now.
The exact same thing can be said of Apple's veto power on the App Store. Remember, the only way they maintain their immense lead in number of available apps is if they KEEP developers developing for the platform. And they can't do that if they start rejecting apps willy-nilly. 5% of submitted apps is a pretty frickin' small "rejection" percentage, and, IMHO, somewhat LOWER than what you'd expect with any kind of Quality Control system that has completely UNCONTROLLED "suppliers" (developers), that are free to submit ANY-FRICKIN'-THING they can dream up.
Besides, what are they supposed to do if there are malicious applications on Android Market? Pull them and leave affected users with crap on their devices?
If you read the comments to this article, that's exactly what the typical slashdotter would expect. Afterall, you (the Android user) are presented with a list of RESOURCES that the app will (somehow) use (or so the DEVELOPER says...). So, at that point (before you ever even run the app), it is the USER's decision.
Perhaps, having a "curated" repository (like Apple's App Store) where people are actually PAID to review apps BEFORE they HAVE to be ripped bodily from (potentially) MILLIONS of devices (worldwide!), isn't such a bad idea, eh?
And really, aren't all those Booby apps the App Store equivalent to Dick-Size email ads? Seriously, how many people REALLY miss that shit on their phones, when there is an internet FULL of all the free pr0n one could masturbate to?
And yes, that IS the point. Apple hasn't been ridiculous, and has even reversed a few questionable App Store "bannings". The booby apps were seriously taking over the App Store. They somehow got themselves insinuated into nearly EVERY category, ruining pretty much all attempts to actually SEARCH for an app you actually WANTED.
And I'm pretty sure the timing of Apple's mass-banning of "sex" in the App Store actually had a LOT to do with Apple wanting to market the iPad (which of course runs iPhone apps, too) to two important (for that product) market segments, i.e., Seniors and Education (and particularly Primary School education). Do you REALLY want your Mom to have to wade through Booby app after Booby app, just to find a frickin' RECIPE app???
This isn't the Constitution. This is not a First Amendment issue. Stand down from Red Alert.
But... actually REACHING INTO MY PHONE AND DELETING AN APP???? Now THAT's Big Brother Writ HUGE!
And that did NOT come from Apple. And Apple has been in the App Store business a LOT longer than the Google Marketplace.
If Google removes an app you like from the market, or even does a remote-uninstall, you can just re-install it yourself, and it is then un-nukeable.
First off, citation, please? Do you REALLY know that Google can ONLY remote-wipe apps that are purchased on THEIR app store? You made the statement, now prove it.
And how do you know that it doesn't have a "safety" provision that RE-SENDS the "remote-app-wipe" repeatedly, over several weeks or even months. Afterall, how else could you catch the off-network stragglers? Or does every single Android phone "phone home" to Google periodically? In fact, I'd really like to know exactly who IS authorized to send such a command to MILLIONS of phones, potentially worldwide? Sounds pretty scary to me, actually...
Second off, don't you think that only a genuinely STOOPID person would even WANT to re-install an app that Google felt strongly enough about to actually REACH INTO YOUR PHONE and delete?
Third off, at least Apple doesn't reach into their customer's phones and delete stuff. Not one single time. Not even with jailbroken phones and "unapproved" apps.
If the Android Market business model does not suit your needs, you can go to a third party marketplace. You can find one that has the tradeoff of security and flexibility that matches your own. You can't do that with Apple.
Of course not. Everybody knows there are ZEROiOSappsavailable outside of the App Store.
And any time anything is said about Android, Apple fanboi's will latch onto and exaggerate it so that their precious Apple looks better.
Name one instance of Apple reaching onto mass iPhones and deleting an app.
Well?
For one, this really has no bearing on the Android OS.
Sure it does. It is their APIs that allow this level of intrusive control. I am not sure that iOS4 does allow the remote nuking of a particular app, and in any event, Apple sure hasn't done it in the over 3 years of iPhone OSes.
For one, this really has no bearing on the Android OS. Why are you saying that this "proves" that Android is controlled or restricted?
See above.
You are probably used to using the iPhone where Apple has COMPLETE CONTROL over which applications you can install (unless you jailbreak, but that might actually be illegal by the DMCA).
Strawman alert: I MIGHT have brought my arrowhead collection. But I DIDN'T (apologies to George Carlin, R.I.P.).
With an Android phone, you can install whatever applications you want. Google can't stop you.
No, but they sure can be Indian-givers (sorry for the racial slur)!
Apple is controlled and restrictive in general.
Yeah, like the many, many standards and software packages they have created, not the least of which is the core of OS X itself, and then turned over to the Open Source community. Right.
would personally never buy an iPhone because I like to have freedom to do what I want with my hardware.
You do. Start writing...
That is why the iPhone is so popular.
No, it is so popular because it was the first phone not to suck absolute ASS, and now because it has about 10 times the apps of the nearest competitor.
But, the people who like having control of their hardware are very vocal in their reasons.
Vocal, yes. Sensical, not so much.
So, they generally use Android instead (because you actually do have all of the control you want.
Apparently not... Who had control over the deletion process? The user? Or Google?
If you want any further control, you can always dive into the source and change it yourself).
Assuming, of course, that the particular app is OSS. Many Android apps are apparently NOT Open Source. So, now what? How are THOSE apps "audited"?
But, when you try to say that Apple is just as open as Android you prove that you are just arguing from emotions and not from facts.
And, conversely, when you try to say that Google deleting apps from a USER's phone is ok, but Apple's app approval process is somehow too controlling, you are not arguing from a factual basis, either.
It makes your whole argument sound kinda foolish.
Yes, come to think of it, you do sound kinda foolish. Why am I even arguing with you?
No-one can really expect total control over all aspects of a device that operates on someone else's network,
As much as I agree with Apple's App Store process, I have to wonder if your statement extends to YOUR personal computer, which, every time you connect to the internet, is a "device that operates on someone else's network".
So, you think that no one can really expect total control over their personal computer, right?
OTOH, the marketplace is a "trusted content provider" in control and under the responsability of google. In that regard, I think they have the right and obligation to "keep the market clean"
So, when Google wants to have a "walled garden", it's "responsible" and their "right and obligation", and when Apple has the same type of review process, it's somehow EVIL?
Right. Keep on sucking Eric Schmidt's cock. (See how juvenile that harangue is?)
BTW, I'm not at all sure that the iOS4 API set even has the CAPABILITY to nuke an APP remotely. Zapping an entire phone with a special packet isn't the same thing, but I believe that is all that iOS4 can do remotely. At least, I can't find any reference to that effect, save a non-attributed mention to the POSSIBILITY that remote-app-wipe is available in iOS4 in a Wikipedia article. And in any event, Apple hasn't exercised that ability, even if they do have it. For example, Apple didn't reach out an delete everybody's Booby apps when they banned them from the App Store. They simply stopped selling them, and removed them from THE STORE (big difference!).
So, NOW who's the control freak? Apple, or Google?
FUD or not, I see Apple using this as an ipso facto defence of their walled-garden app store model.
As well they should.
This question always reminds me of an adage from one of our wisest founding fathers here, state-side of the pond, Ben Franklin(paraphrased; exact quote is unknown): "Those who would trade their freedom for security deserve neither."
Ben Franklin never had to read a EULA that was longer than the U.S. Constitution and more legally obsfucated than a Credit Card agreement, nor try to audit someone else's uncommented application code. He might have had a different quote for that occasion...
Android's permission model isn't perfect and could use some clarification and simplification, but it's much better than the other mainstream desktop OSes or phone OSes.
You give each application access to the resources it needs. If you don't trust the application to use these resources properly, then you don't trust the application developer and you shouldn't install the application.
So, you're saying that the preferred model of Android's allegedly "very fine grained" permission system is that, you give access to an ENTIRE RESOURCE (say, WiFi access), FOREVER, and then TRUST that EVERY-SINGLE-TIME the app is actually USING that resource is A-OK, right?!?!?
Are you beginning to see the fundamental FLAW in that system?
It would be TRIVIAL for the NON-REVIEWED code (c'mon; just how many USERS of OSS can actually (or DO actually!) REVIEW every single line of every single app they run?) to slip in a WiFi transaction or two with NEFARIOUS purposes in amongst the hundreds of other "legit" packets?
So, the "very fine grained" permission really ISN'T "fine grained" at all. Nor is it effective, unless you BOTH read every single line of every single app BEFORE you install it, and ALSO compile that app from scratch. Afterall, there is NO guarantee that a pre-compiled binary contains the same code as the "source" files.
The real story here is that if Apple did this, the comments would be full of Apple-haters having a field day about how Steve Jobs thinks he has control over your phone. But it's Google, so it's full of defenders telling us how gracious and loving Google is for remotely deleting an app for us.
Mods: If the Parent isn't a +5 INSIGHTFUL, I don't know what is...
The Kindle users with copies of 1984 *paid* for those copies - the apps that were removed were free apps. And, the apps did not do what they had claimed and had a hidden, although non-malicious purpose.
Are you fucking kidding me?!?
WTF does the PRICE of the app have ANYTHING to do with the completely indefensible and morally unconscionable act of actually REMOVING an app, ANY app, from a USER's device WITHOUT THE USER'S CONSENT?!?!?
The main sources of my video are television and NetFlix. The Mac Mini helps me with neither. The only source of video that I get with the Mini is the iTunes store.
For TV there are a few tuner options, depending on what type of broadcast standard(s) you want to "tune". This is the same with any PC or Mac (you need a tuner card or external tuner dongle). Or, depending again on the type of broadcast standard, you may be able to use the tuner in your cable box, TV, DTV convertor, VCR, etc, and just send video and audio over to the 'mini' via any one of a number of USB or FireWire video capture devices.
Since you don't do torrents, I assume you don't rip copyrighted DVDs or BluRay discs you don't own, right?... So, for Netflix, you can stream movies (requires downloading Silverlight for Mac (free) from Microsoft; but that's Netflix's requirement, and is the same on any PC or Mac).
So, again, HOW is iTunes a requirement, or involved with this in ANY way?
So with the current mini you're looking at doubling the ram like you always have to for a stock machine and it's a proprietary case not meant for user fiddling so you have to pay the mac store to install the ram, then you have to get the mouse and keyboard which will be wireless and thus more expensive, plus any other accessories you might pick up. Over $1000 easy. Oh, and let's no forget the mandatory service plan since Apple gives you a flat one month warranty, that's it.
HEY MODS! Why is the parent modded "Interesting"? It is a TROLL, and a stoooopid one at that!
2GB is not necessary to double, necessarily. OS X is a lot more frugal with RAM than SOME OSes (Windows).
They actually made the RAM MUCH easier to upgrade. You'd know that if you bothered to check your facts.
Wireless keyboard and mouse necessary? So, I guess those 4 USB ports on the back won't accept a keyboard or mouse input?
One MONTH warranty? Apple's standard warranty is one YEAR (same as Dell's on the Zino, BTW).
If the only way they expect me to get content onto the device is to go through iTunes, then I'm not buying.
Strawman, nice to see you (again!).
There is this thing you may not have heard about, called "File Transfer". Using this extraordinary feature of OS X, you can load media content directly into directories that are on the mac 'mini's hard drive. No iTunes needed!
But wait, there's more!
Using another recent innovation, "Networking", you can actually play media files stored on external hard drives, network attached storage devices, file servers, or even other computers, and all without having to "transfer" those files to the 'mini's internal hard drive! Again, no iTunes needed!
So, strawman, since the 'mini is a REAL computer, running a REAL OS, you don't really have to use iTunes for ANYTHING (unless you want to).
I assume you know about things like Plex and XBMC, too. Those provide complete and utter freedom from the "tyranny" of iTunes.
A Mac Mini sized Dell Zino with HDMI starts at $249.99.
Let's compare that $249 Dell with the $699 'mini, shall we? (I have intentionally skipped a few of the features that are roughly equivalent) :
Dell
Single-Core AMD CPU 1.6GHz 512K L2 Cache ?FSB speed
2GB DDR2 RAM @ 800MHz
250GB 7200RPM 3.5" HD (SATA)
8X DVD +/-RW Drive ?Dual Layer?
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3200 ?VRAM
HDMI port with ?resolution + 1 VGA (only!!!) connector
No Firewire
No Bluetooth
No optical audio (on a "home theatre" PC!!!!)
2 eSATA connectors
Windows Vista Home Basic SP2, 64-bit (try finding drivers!), and Oh, the DRM!!!!
HOW much adware and crapware??? Doesn't mention one single USEFUL included app!
3.4" high
FUGLY!!!! Cheap-ass looking plastic case
Mac
2.4GHz Intel Core2Duo w/3MB L2 Cache and 1066MHz FSB
2GB DDR3 RAM @ 1066MHz
320GB SATA HD (?RPM)
8X DVD+/-R DL/DVD+/-RW/CD-RW
NVidia GeForce 320M with 256MB Shared DDR3 RAM
HDMI port with 1920 x 1200 resolution, + MiniDisplayPort with 2560 x 1600 res (and VGA compatibility) and support for extended and mirrored desktop
FireWire 800 port
Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR
Analog and Optical Audio In and Out (BTW, optical output should support multichannel pass-through, AFAIK)
No eSATA (I do wish they'd add this!)
OS X Snow Leopard, 64-bit (but 32 bit apps/drivers work fine)
iChat, DVD Player, Photo Booth, Front Row, iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, iWeb and more, not to mention XCode IDE
1.4" high (roughly half the overall volume of the Zino)
Gorgeous, milled aluminum case
Personally, I'd say there are enough question-marks on the Zino's spec page to make me really nervous. Also, it seems from the customer comments that the Zino has some reliability problems. The 'mini, however, has an excellent reliability record so far (ask MacCoLo).
So, once again, you get what you pay for.
BTW, even going up to the most expensive Zino, which is only $100 cheaper than the Mac mini, only gets you a 1.8GHz AMD Dual Core Athon Neo X2 with 1MB of L2 (with the same memory bus speed and type as the $250 Zino), and 4GB of RAM and a 750GB HD. Everything else, video, optical drive, etc. remains the same across all Zino models. Oh, and it comes with W7 Home Premium, 64-bit (yawn).
But the Zino DOES come with something the 'mini just doesn't have: McAfee SecurityCenter...
Slashdot Mirror
But WHERE does it say "REMOVE FROM A USER'S PHONE"??? This looks like they can remove it from the APP STORE.
Oh, and in over 3 years, Apple HASN'T removed a single app from a single phone.
Google just removed TWO apps from (potentially) MILLIONS of phones.
BIG difference between "maybe could" and "did".
If Google remote nukes it, you can just go get the program directly and install it, and then they can't nuke it anymore.
I assume you are ready to prove that?
And I believe I CAN trust the Android Market to (at least try to) make the right decisions. Because, if they don't, then people (including me) will stop using them.
So, pray tell, why doesn't the same logic extend to Apple and the App Store?
The only applications that Google can remotely pull from an Android device are applications that were installed via the Android Market. Applications that are installed via alternate application stores or directly via an .apk on the device are out of Google's control.
Prove it or STFU.
Google can only throw a remote kill switch on apps installed through their store. Because Android apps can be downloaded and installed from other vendors, or even directly to the phone, they are safe from Google's killswitch.
Funny that not ONE slashdotter that has CLAIMED this has been able to PROVE it.
TFA and the blog doesn't mention this, however several comments pointed this out: your apps won't get automatically nuked if you download them from alternate sources or directly install the apk - only apps installed via the android marketplace are subject to this.
Prove it. In fact, I'd be really surprised if the API worked that way. I'll bet it just remote-wipes any app that has the right app name and/or checksum.
Maybe THAT's why Google's blog "didn't mention this", eh?
It is in Google's best interest to use this power responsibly. For that reason, it is not unreasonable to trust them with it - for now.
The exact same thing can be said of Apple's veto power on the App Store. Remember, the only way they maintain their immense lead in number of available apps is if they KEEP developers developing for the platform. And they can't do that if they start rejecting apps willy-nilly. 5% of submitted apps is a pretty frickin' small "rejection" percentage, and, IMHO, somewhat LOWER than what you'd expect with any kind of Quality Control system that has completely UNCONTROLLED "suppliers" (developers), that are free to submit ANY-FRICKIN'-THING they can dream up.
Now I find that Google can throw a remote kill switch?!
You actually would have found out sooner if you had read the TOS.
What's that I hear? The sound of millions of Android users listing their phones on eBay?
Besides, what are they supposed to do if there are malicious applications on Android Market? Pull them and leave affected users with crap on their devices?
If you read the comments to this article, that's exactly what the typical slashdotter would expect. Afterall, you (the Android user) are presented with a list of RESOURCES that the app will (somehow) use (or so the DEVELOPER says...). So, at that point (before you ever even run the app), it is the USER's decision.
Perhaps, having a "curated" repository (like Apple's App Store) where people are actually PAID to review apps BEFORE they HAVE to be ripped bodily from (potentially) MILLIONS of devices (worldwide!), isn't such a bad idea, eh?
And really, aren't all those Booby apps the App Store equivalent to Dick-Size email ads? Seriously, how many people REALLY miss that shit on their phones, when there is an internet FULL of all the free pr0n one could masturbate to?
And yes, that IS the point. Apple hasn't been ridiculous, and has even reversed a few questionable App Store "bannings". The booby apps were seriously taking over the App Store. They somehow got themselves insinuated into nearly EVERY category, ruining pretty much all attempts to actually SEARCH for an app you actually WANTED.
And I'm pretty sure the timing of Apple's mass-banning of "sex" in the App Store actually had a LOT to do with Apple wanting to market the iPad (which of course runs iPhone apps, too) to two important (for that product) market segments, i.e., Seniors and Education (and particularly Primary School education). Do you REALLY want your Mom to have to wade through Booby app after Booby app, just to find a frickin' RECIPE app???
This isn't the Constitution. This is not a First Amendment issue. Stand down from Red Alert.
But... actually REACHING INTO MY PHONE AND DELETING AN APP???? Now THAT's Big Brother Writ HUGE!
And that did NOT come from Apple. And Apple has been in the App Store business a LOT longer than the Google Marketplace.
If Google removes an app you like from the market, or even does a remote-uninstall, you can just re-install it yourself, and it is then un-nukeable.
First off, citation, please? Do you REALLY know that Google can ONLY remote-wipe apps that are purchased on THEIR app store? You made the statement, now prove it.
And how do you know that it doesn't have a "safety" provision that RE-SENDS the "remote-app-wipe" repeatedly, over several weeks or even months. Afterall, how else could you catch the off-network stragglers? Or does every single Android phone "phone home" to Google periodically? In fact, I'd really like to know exactly who IS authorized to send such a command to MILLIONS of phones, potentially worldwide? Sounds pretty scary to me, actually...
Second off, don't you think that only a genuinely STOOPID person would even WANT to re-install an app that Google felt strongly enough about to actually REACH INTO YOUR PHONE and delete?
Third off, at least Apple doesn't reach into their customer's phones and delete stuff. Not one single time. Not even with jailbroken phones and "unapproved" apps.
If the Android Market business model does not suit your needs, you can go to a third party marketplace. You can find one that has the tradeoff of security and flexibility that matches your own. You can't do that with Apple.
Of course not. Everybody knows there are ZERO iOS apps available outside of the App Store.
Who are you kidding, fucktard?
And any time anything is said about Android, Apple fanboi's will latch onto and exaggerate it so that their precious Apple looks better.
Name one instance of Apple reaching onto mass iPhones and deleting an app.
Well?
For one, this really has no bearing on the Android OS.
Sure it does. It is their APIs that allow this level of intrusive control. I am not sure that iOS4 does allow the remote nuking of a particular app, and in any event, Apple sure hasn't done it in the over 3 years of iPhone OSes.
For one, this really has no bearing on the Android OS. Why are you saying that this "proves" that Android is controlled or restricted?
See above.
You are probably used to using the iPhone where Apple has COMPLETE CONTROL over which applications you can install (unless you jailbreak, but that might actually be illegal by the DMCA).
Strawman alert: I MIGHT have brought my arrowhead collection. But I DIDN'T (apologies to George Carlin, R.I.P.).
With an Android phone, you can install whatever applications you want. Google can't stop you.
No, but they sure can be Indian-givers (sorry for the racial slur)!
Apple is controlled and restrictive in general.
Yeah, like the many, many standards and software packages they have created, not the least of which is the core of OS X itself, and then turned over to the Open Source community. Right.
would personally never buy an iPhone because I like to have freedom to do what I want with my hardware.
You do. Start writing...
That is why the iPhone is so popular.
No, it is so popular because it was the first phone not to suck absolute ASS, and now because it has about 10 times the apps of the nearest competitor.
But, the people who like having control of their hardware are very vocal in their reasons.
Vocal, yes. Sensical, not so much.
So, they generally use Android instead (because you actually do have all of the control you want.
Apparently not... Who had control over the deletion process? The user? Or Google?
If you want any further control, you can always dive into the source and change it yourself).
Assuming, of course, that the particular app is OSS. Many Android apps are apparently NOT Open Source. So, now what? How are THOSE apps "audited"?
But, when you try to say that Apple is just as open as Android you prove that you are just arguing from emotions and not from facts.
And, conversely, when you try to say that Google deleting apps from a USER's phone is ok, but Apple's app approval process is somehow too controlling, you are not arguing from a factual basis, either.
It makes your whole argument sound kinda foolish.
Yes, come to think of it, you do sound kinda foolish. Why am I even arguing with you?
No-one can really expect total control over all aspects of a device that operates on someone else's network,
As much as I agree with Apple's App Store process, I have to wonder if your statement extends to YOUR personal computer, which, every time you connect to the internet, is a "device that operates on someone else's network".
So, you think that no one can really expect total control over their personal computer, right?
OTOH, the marketplace is a "trusted content provider" in control and under the responsability of google. In that regard, I think they have the right and obligation to "keep the market clean"
So, when Google wants to have a "walled garden", it's "responsible" and their "right and obligation", and when Apple has the same type of review process, it's somehow EVIL?
Right. Keep on sucking Eric Schmidt's cock. (See how juvenile that harangue is?)
BTW, I'm not at all sure that the iOS4 API set even has the CAPABILITY to nuke an APP remotely. Zapping an entire phone with a special packet isn't the same thing, but I believe that is all that iOS4 can do remotely. At least, I can't find any reference to that effect, save a non-attributed mention to the POSSIBILITY that remote-app-wipe is available in iOS4 in a Wikipedia article. And in any event, Apple hasn't exercised that ability, even if they do have it. For example, Apple didn't reach out an delete everybody's Booby apps when they banned them from the App Store. They simply stopped selling them, and removed them from THE STORE (big difference!).
So, NOW who's the control freak? Apple, or Google?
FUD or not, I see Apple using this as an ipso facto defence of their walled-garden app store model.
As well they should.
This question always reminds me of an adage from one of our wisest founding fathers here, state-side of the pond, Ben Franklin(paraphrased; exact quote is unknown): "Those who would trade their freedom for security deserve neither."
Ben Franklin never had to read a EULA that was longer than the U.S. Constitution and more legally obsfucated than a Credit Card agreement, nor try to audit someone else's uncommented application code. He might have had a different quote for that occasion...
Android's permission model isn't perfect and could use some clarification and simplification, but it's much better than the other mainstream desktop OSes or phone OSes.
Sez you. Prove it.
You give each application access to the resources it needs. If you don't trust the application to use these resources properly, then you don't trust the application developer and you shouldn't install the application.
So, you're saying that the preferred model of Android's allegedly "very fine grained" permission system is that, you give access to an ENTIRE RESOURCE (say, WiFi access), FOREVER, and then TRUST that EVERY-SINGLE-TIME the app is actually USING that resource is A-OK, right?!?!?
Are you beginning to see the fundamental FLAW in that system?
It would be TRIVIAL for the NON-REVIEWED code (c'mon; just how many USERS of OSS can actually (or DO actually!) REVIEW every single line of every single app they run?) to slip in a WiFi transaction or two with NEFARIOUS purposes in amongst the hundreds of other "legit" packets?
So, the "very fine grained" permission really ISN'T "fine grained" at all. Nor is it effective, unless you BOTH read every single line of every single app BEFORE you install it, and ALSO compile that app from scratch. Afterall, there is NO guarantee that a pre-compiled binary contains the same code as the "source" files.
Seriously, this really is a non story. Now if they pulled an Amazon [io9.com] that would be news.
REALLY?!?
Your level of Google Fanboiism disturbs me.
The real story here is that if Apple did this, the comments would be full of Apple-haters having a field day about how Steve Jobs thinks he has control over your phone. But it's Google, so it's full of defenders telling us how gracious and loving Google is for remotely deleting an app for us.
Mods: If the Parent isn't a +5 INSIGHTFUL, I don't know what is...
The Kindle users with copies of 1984 *paid* for those copies - the apps that were removed were free apps. And, the apps did not do what they had claimed and had a hidden, although non-malicious purpose.
Are you fucking kidding me?!?
WTF does the PRICE of the app have ANYTHING to do with the completely indefensible and morally unconscionable act of actually REMOVING an app, ANY app, from a USER's device WITHOUT THE USER'S CONSENT?!?!?
The main sources of my video are television and NetFlix. The Mac Mini helps me with neither. The only source of video that I get with the Mini is the iTunes store.
For TV there are a few tuner options, depending on what type of broadcast standard(s) you want to "tune". This is the same with any PC or Mac (you need a tuner card or external tuner dongle). Or, depending again on the type of broadcast standard, you may be able to use the tuner in your cable box, TV, DTV convertor, VCR, etc, and just send video and audio over to the 'mini' via any one of a number of USB or FireWire video capture devices.
Since you don't do torrents, I assume you don't rip copyrighted DVDs or BluRay discs you don't own, right?... So, for Netflix, you can stream movies (requires downloading Silverlight for Mac (free) from Microsoft; but that's Netflix's requirement, and is the same on any PC or Mac).
So, again, HOW is iTunes a requirement, or involved with this in ANY way?
So with the current mini you're looking at doubling the ram like you always have to for a stock machine and it's a proprietary case not meant for user fiddling so you have to pay the mac store to install the ram, then you have to get the mouse and keyboard which will be wireless and thus more expensive, plus any other accessories you might pick up. Over $1000 easy. Oh, and let's no forget the mandatory service plan since Apple gives you a flat one month warranty, that's it.
HEY MODS! Why is the parent modded "Interesting"? It is a TROLL, and a stoooopid one at that!
2GB is not necessary to double, necessarily. OS X is a lot more frugal with RAM than SOME OSes (Windows).
They actually made the RAM MUCH easier to upgrade. You'd know that if you bothered to check your facts.
Wireless keyboard and mouse necessary? So, I guess those 4 USB ports on the back won't accept a keyboard or mouse input?
One MONTH warranty? Apple's standard warranty is one YEAR (same as Dell's on the Zino, BTW).
Troll much? Try READING next time, fucktard.
Where's the i5 or at least i3?
Hey stupid! Where's the space for the heatsink? The i5 draws twice as much power at IDLE (~145W) than the Core2Duo does running balls-out (~65W)!!!
2GB of memory? Who puts less than 4GB in anything anymore?
Dell, HP...
'Tard.
If the only way they expect me to get content onto the device is to go through iTunes, then I'm not buying.
Strawman, nice to see you (again!).
There is this thing you may not have heard about, called "File Transfer". Using this extraordinary feature of OS X, you can load media content directly into directories that are on the mac 'mini's hard drive. No iTunes needed!
But wait, there's more!
Using another recent innovation, "Networking", you can actually play media files stored on external hard drives, network attached storage devices, file servers, or even other computers, and all without having to "transfer" those files to the 'mini's internal hard drive! Again, no iTunes needed!
So, strawman, since the 'mini is a REAL computer, running a REAL OS, you don't really have to use iTunes for ANYTHING (unless you want to).
I assume you know about things like Plex and XBMC, too. Those provide complete and utter freedom from the "tyranny" of iTunes.
What an idiot.
A Mac Mini sized Dell Zino with HDMI starts at $249.99.
Let's compare that $249 Dell with the $699 'mini, shall we? (I have intentionally skipped a few of the features that are roughly equivalent) :
Dell
Single-Core AMD CPU 1.6GHz 512K L2 Cache ?FSB speed
2GB DDR2 RAM @ 800MHz
250GB 7200RPM 3.5" HD (SATA)
8X DVD +/-RW Drive ?Dual Layer?
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3200 ?VRAM
HDMI port with ?resolution + 1 VGA (only!!!) connector
No Firewire
No Bluetooth
No optical audio (on a "home theatre" PC!!!!)
2 eSATA connectors
Windows Vista Home Basic SP2, 64-bit (try finding drivers!), and Oh, the DRM!!!!
HOW much adware and crapware??? Doesn't mention one single USEFUL included app!
3.4" high
FUGLY!!!! Cheap-ass looking plastic case
Mac
2.4GHz Intel Core2Duo w/3MB L2 Cache and 1066MHz FSB
2GB DDR3 RAM @ 1066MHz
320GB SATA HD (?RPM)
8X DVD+/-R DL/DVD+/-RW/CD-RW
NVidia GeForce 320M with 256MB Shared DDR3 RAM
HDMI port with 1920 x 1200 resolution, + MiniDisplayPort with 2560 x 1600 res (and VGA compatibility) and support for extended and mirrored desktop
FireWire 800 port
Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR
Analog and Optical Audio In and Out (BTW, optical output should support multichannel pass-through, AFAIK)
No eSATA (I do wish they'd add this!)
OS X Snow Leopard, 64-bit (but 32 bit apps/drivers work fine)
iChat, DVD Player, Photo Booth, Front Row, iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, iWeb and more, not to mention XCode IDE
1.4" high (roughly half the overall volume of the Zino)
Gorgeous, milled aluminum case
Personally, I'd say there are enough question-marks on the Zino's spec page to make me really nervous. Also, it seems from the customer comments that the Zino has some reliability problems. The 'mini, however, has an excellent reliability record so far (ask MacCoLo).
So, once again, you get what you pay for.
BTW, even going up to the most expensive Zino, which is only $100 cheaper than the Mac mini, only gets you a 1.8GHz AMD Dual Core Athon Neo X2 with 1MB of L2 (with the same memory bus speed and type as the $250 Zino), and 4GB of RAM and a 750GB HD. Everything else, video, optical drive, etc. remains the same across all Zino models. Oh, and it comes with W7 Home Premium, 64-bit (yawn).
But the Zino DOES come with something the 'mini just doesn't have: McAfee SecurityCenter...