You just don't get it. Apple made Palm Pilots with Cell phones built in, they copied their predecessor. The reason you have to keep repeating yourself is because you are wrong. Just because you willfully ignore all that came before your precious Apple, doesn't make it not exist.
So I guess you can point right at that and say, Apple copied it.
Really? You really think those PDAs are anything like the iPhone, just because they have some limited touch capability? I owned a Tungsten T5, and the touchscreen was an abysmal piece of shit, the OS was an abysmal piece of shit, the syncing software was an abysmal piece of shit, and the "software" was, well, best left unmentioned.
Pretty annoying, too, considering the amount of ex-Apple engineering talent that originally started Palm.
The general rule of thumb is, if you're not an app dev (iphone or android) then don't buy macs. Period. The same money will get you a x3 more powerful republic of gamers or a lenovo or an xps notebook.
If the source code for the OS in old Apple hardware were made public those old machines might become a magnet for hackers. Also, how much of the current software contains much of the old code? I wonder if the latest Mac OS is 90% the stuff that's five to seven years old.
I don't know anything about your Telecaster but my guess it's not connected to the Internet since it was born in 1967, long before the Internet existed, so public information about it is not likely to result in any hacking of its usefulness.
That Fender Telecaster not only doesn't run any code; but it doesn't even have one transistor, let along the millions that are in something like a MacBook Air.
Even Guitars/Basses with "Active Electronics" are not even 1/4 as sophisticated inside as a 1960 battery-operated AM transistor radio...
I've got a 1967 Fender Telecaster. It's a beauty. Plays a treat. Fender probably don't support it any more but my local guitar tech can fix it as he's got wiring diagrams etc.
Bit of a difference there. Like dozens of orders of magnitude.
The "electronics" in a 1967 Fender Telecaster (like most "electric" guitars/basses) is laughably primitive. A couple of Potentiometers, a Capacitor, a 1/4" Jack, a pickup-switch (if needed) and one or more inductive pickups. We're done now.
Now, let's compare that with the electronics in a Macbook Air...
Since you don't have the source code and tool chain to build the proprietary software, you'll have to disassemble/decompile the software. And that, dear naive friend, is illegal under the DMCA. It doesn't matter if you do this for the greater good or just for your own use.
It's quite absurd really. If you fix a broken proprietary program you bought^W licensed then you are breaking the law.
Name one person ever prosecuted for that, without "distribution" being made of the patched code.
But what's curious, is that iOS has absolutely allowed full-on "Sideloading" for a couple of YEARS now, (in fact, there is a Mac/Windows Application called "Cydia Impactor" that doesn't require Jailbreaking, nor a Mac with XCode) and yet, other than that old Bootleg iLife installation (IIRC, that happened long BEFORE the legit Sideloading), you don't hear about the Exploit du Jour with iOS like you do with Android. Why? Surely there are enough people taking advantage of that "Freedom" that there would have been at least SOME exploits by now. But the only one that comes to mind is that short-lived tainted version of XCode that circulated in China a couple of years ago. And that was actually OS X being Trojaned, not iOS, per se. The difference being that OS X (macOS) has always allowed Applications from anywhere (plus it's not iOS); so that doesn't "count".
So, what is fundamentally different between the two platforms that would cause this huge difference? Not marketshare: There are PLENTY of iOS devices (and their typically higher-income owners) to make it worthwhile, especially in the identity-theft arena. Not user-IQ: No matter the platform, there's a Seeker born every minute. So what? Did Apple (who most Slashdotters think are all about "restricting access") actually figure out how to allow full-on Sideloading in a SAFE manner, or is iOS somehow immune-by-design to Trojans (really, how could that be?), or what?
I am not trolling. It's a serious question. Does anyone with deep insight into BOTH platforms know why the ability to Sideload Apps hasn't caused rampant malware on iOS like it undeniably has on Android?
iOS jails applications. That's why breaking out is called "jailbreaking".
Every app runs in a sandbox that's really limited in what it can do - if Apple hasn't blessed it and you can't find a private API to do it, you can't do it.
That's why certain apps are just not possible on iOS by default - Apple doesn't provide an API to do it. iOS also limits what can be done - apps can share very little except through very narrow pathways (they can hand off complete files, so Safari can hand off a PDF to a PDF viewer, but once it does, it loses all access to it), and a few other pathways including ad blocking, It's also why multitasking is limited to certain conditions and scenarios.
In Android, an app pretty much has full access to the system, within the permissions it requests. The only protections is via the permissions system. For Apple, the APIs themselves enforce protections - if you try to access the contacts list, the API will pop up the model dialog. Ditto with location services, photos (which can be a way to get location), make a phone call (the dialer will pop up) and text messages.
When you sideload on iOS, all you're doing is installing an app. That app has the same restrictions regular apps do.
Jailbreaking is a technique on iOS meant to break out of the app jail, and thus allow any application to be installed. Like firewall applications, apps that re-skin the interface etc. Jailbroken apps have full access to the system and in this case you really don't have any app protections. It's the reason why jailbroken iPhones are a security risk because even regular apps can access stuff they shouldn't.
Yes, iOS implements Sandboxing for ALL applications. You talk about that like it's a Bad Thing. iOS' non-record of identity theft, vs. Android's long and storied history of Identity Theft, nicely proves that Apple made the right decision, sorry.
It is not "Blocking" a Service or "Jailing" an Application to require User Permission at the time of Attempted Accessing of certain sensitive Services/Data. Again, I point to the fact that Apple has a pretty-much PRISTINE record for NOT having some random App stealing User Data; plus I note that with Marshmallow, it looks like Android is (finally!) adopting some, if not all, of iOS' Security and Permissions models. So now what?
If there's accelerometers in the AirPods, this is a huge opportunity. Seems like a program that detects when your AirPods fall out and hit the floor, then directs you to find them, would be worth gold.
The AirPods actually use their built-in IR sensors to determine when you take one of them out. It will automatically pause music, and some other possibilities depending on whether you are making a call, etc. It was kinda cool, but I don't have time to run down the article that mentioned that right now.
I don't believe Apple is so stupid as to think AR should replace the fundamental iOS UI paradigm
The UI continuity between MacOS 1.0 and macOS Seirra, and iPhone OS 1.0 and iOS 10 should allay any fears that Apple will completely change its UI paradigm, FFS!
Not trolling; I'm genuinely interested in how big ol' palm-buttons and a single-windowing (yes, I know, TWO windows!) UI is an "ok enough idea", ESPECIALLY for Desktops and Servers. Really.
Apple has a real opportunity here. If they can put all of this together (which is their strong suit) then we could really see a revolution in tech. VR has no appeal to me and I suspect most others. Its really only useful for gaming. AR on the other hand has so many possibilities that it is really incredible if we can truly get there. In a sense AR will do for us what internet searches originally did. Truly AR feels like the logical extension of todays technology.
An iphone7 with "dual cameras" is not capable of producing depth maps, just like none of the Android phones with two cameras, side by side, less than 1cm apart, can produce depth maps. These are two different cameras with different lenses, which are used to give 2D images greater dynamic range and resolution.
Stereo cameras, which are capable of producing depth maps and creating 3D images and environments, are two identical cameras that are placed at minimum one to two inches apart, as seen in the HTC Evo 3D, the Amazon Fire Phone, and the Lenovo Phab 2. They are fundamentally different.
Hey dumbass. Apple never claimed they were used for stereoscopic imaging. Their miniscule parallax is being used ONLY to create a pseudo-depth-map, for use with a software-simulated "narrow depth of field" effect that is often used in portrait (and other) photography with "real" cameras. The effect is so popular that it was actually worth the effort and expense in software and hardware, apparently. The fact that they were able to get additional utility out of the 2nd camera by fitting it with a "telephoto" lens zoom-range was just bonus.
Or maybe it was the other-way around. Maybe they wanted the optical telephoto, and someone said "Hey! I bet we can generate a fake narrow-focus effect with that!". Either way, the idea was NEVER "3D photos".
That is true of every smartphone in existence. So what that means is that Apple copied my Nexus phone, so they are more guilty of copying.
They look nothing alike, you are just too pro Apple to even see the differences.
They all look alike, because they have been copying the iPhone (which was quite different from every other phone, and especially every other Android phone when it debuted) since the original iPhone in 2007. You are just too anti-Apple to see that. But maybe this will jog your memory. Or maybe this.
Why must I re-litigate this every other WEEK on Slashdot, when the evidence, dated nearly a YEAR after the iPhone debut and nearly 6 months after its RELEASE, regarding who-copied-who is right there in black and white? Heck, Android didn't even HAVE touch-input capabilities AT ALL until more than a YEAR after the first iPhone debuted!
So please, just stop. You're just embarrassing yourself.
The phones are excellent, it's the batteries that are shit. Get an alternative power source and it'd be fine. There's absolutely no reason to destroy the hardware.
No, Samsung already tried that.
Samsung not only declared their own GN7 design shit; they decided the entire S7 LINE was shit.
Pretty much everything on the market is a fairly significant downgrade
The iPhone 7 mops the floor with the S7 series, performance-wise, doesn't catch on fire in droves, and gets almost the same battery-life with half the battery capacity.
I don't think that's a downgrade. Quite the opposite in fact.
Maybe that's why a significant percentage of S7 users are switching to the iPhone 7. In fact, some statistics show that the iPhone 7 (rather than another Samsung, or other Android phone) is leading the pack when it comes to what former S7 users are turning-to as an alternative.
Not much talk on what exactly is causing these fires. My first impression was something was getting hot and compromising the battery. Since battery failures are actually rare. Which meant something was either physically compromising them or it was happening electrically. Because nothing else in a phone can create that much heat than a Lithium battery. With these phones cramming all the technology into a thin and small device. That also is getting faster hardware which typically results in more heat. One has to wonder going forward if other devices could have this problem. It certainly got past quality testing.
Samsung is simply charging their huge battery too quickly, permanently damaging it, and in some cases, causing thermal runaway. But they didn't want to admit that it would take FOUR HOURS to charge their phone, when the iPhone charges in TWO HOURS; so Samsung gambled with an inappropriate "Fast Charge" profile, and lost.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Bring a second, crappy phone. 2. Lock the crappy phone in the pouch. 3. PROFIT!
I like the way you think! Can I subscribe to your newsletter?
So, Apple copied the Palm Pilots?
You just don't get it. Apple made Palm Pilots with Cell phones built in, they copied their predecessor. The reason you have to keep repeating yourself is because you are wrong. Just because you willfully ignore all that came before your precious Apple, doesn't make it not exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Oh wait, someone else beat Apple to the Palm Pilot with a cell phone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So I guess you can point right at that and say, Apple copied it.
Really? You really think those PDAs are anything like the iPhone, just because they have some limited touch capability? I owned a Tungsten T5, and the touchscreen was an abysmal piece of shit, the OS was an abysmal piece of shit, the syncing software was an abysmal piece of shit, and the "software" was, well, best left unmentioned.
Pretty annoying, too, considering the amount of ex-Apple engineering talent that originally started Palm.
The general rule of thumb is, if you're not an app dev (iphone or android) then don't buy macs. Period. The same money will get you a x3 more powerful republic of gamers or a lenovo or an xps notebook.
So sez an ANONYMOUS, COWARD.
You are arguing 'security through obscurity'. I thought we killed that line of thought years ago...
No doubt. Since Linux has by far the smallest desktop marketshare of any OS and yet has many more times the malware than does macOS (OS X).
If the source code for the OS in old Apple hardware were made public those old machines might become a magnet for hackers. Also, how much of the current software contains much of the old code? I wonder if the latest Mac OS is 90% the stuff that's five to seven years old. I don't know anything about your Telecaster but my guess it's not connected to the Internet since it was born in 1967, long before the Internet existed, so public information about it is not likely to result in any hacking of its usefulness.
That Fender Telecaster not only doesn't run any code; but it doesn't even have one transistor, let along the millions that are in something like a MacBook Air.
Even Guitars/Basses with "Active Electronics" are not even 1/4 as sophisticated inside as a 1960 battery-operated AM transistor radio...
I've got a 1967 Fender Telecaster. It's a beauty. Plays a treat. Fender probably don't support it any more but my local guitar tech can fix it as he's got wiring diagrams etc.
Bit of a difference there. Like dozens of orders of magnitude.
The "electronics" in a 1967 Fender Telecaster (like most "electric" guitars/basses) is laughably primitive. A couple of Potentiometers, a Capacitor, a 1/4" Jack, a pickup-switch (if needed) and one or more inductive pickups. We're done now.
Now, let's compare that with the electronics in a Macbook Air...
Since you don't have the source code and tool chain to build the proprietary software, you'll have to disassemble/decompile the software. And that, dear naive friend, is illegal under the DMCA. It doesn't matter if you do this for the greater good or just for your own use.
It's quite absurd really. If you fix a broken proprietary program you bought^W licensed then you are breaking the law.
Name one person ever prosecuted for that, without "distribution" being made of the patched code.
How many other computer companies are currently selling new hardware that's pretty much the same as their 6 yr old consumer hardware?
Um, all of them?
iOS jails applications. That's why breaking out is called "jailbreaking".
Every app runs in a sandbox that's really limited in what it can do - if Apple hasn't blessed it and you can't find a private API to do it, you can't do it.
That's why certain apps are just not possible on iOS by default - Apple doesn't provide an API to do it. iOS also limits what can be done - apps can share very little except through very narrow pathways (they can hand off complete files, so Safari can hand off a PDF to a PDF viewer, but once it does, it loses all access to it), and a few other pathways including ad blocking, It's also why multitasking is limited to certain conditions and scenarios.
In Android, an app pretty much has full access to the system, within the permissions it requests. The only protections is via the permissions system. For Apple, the APIs themselves enforce protections - if you try to access the contacts list, the API will pop up the model dialog. Ditto with location services, photos (which can be a way to get location), make a phone call (the dialer will pop up) and text messages.
When you sideload on iOS, all you're doing is installing an app. That app has the same restrictions regular apps do.
Jailbreaking is a technique on iOS meant to break out of the app jail, and thus allow any application to be installed. Like firewall applications, apps that re-skin the interface etc. Jailbroken apps have full access to the system and in this case you really don't have any app protections. It's the reason why jailbroken iPhones are a security risk because even regular apps can access stuff they shouldn't.
Yes, iOS implements Sandboxing for ALL applications. You talk about that like it's a Bad Thing. iOS' non-record of identity theft, vs. Android's long and storied history of Identity Theft, nicely proves that Apple made the right decision, sorry.
It is not "Blocking" a Service or "Jailing" an Application to require User Permission at the time of Attempted Accessing of certain sensitive Services/Data. Again, I point to the fact that Apple has a pretty-much PRISTINE record for NOT having some random App stealing User Data; plus I note that with Marshmallow, it looks like Android is (finally!) adopting some, if not all, of iOS' Security and Permissions models. So now what?
As I said,
If there's accelerometers in the AirPods, this is a huge opportunity. Seems like a program that detects when your AirPods fall out and hit the floor, then directs you to find them, would be worth gold.
The AirPods actually use their built-in IR sensors to determine when you take one of them out. It will automatically pause music, and some other possibilities depending on whether you are making a call, etc. It was kinda cool, but I don't have time to run down the article that mentioned that right now.
I don't believe Apple is so stupid as to think AR should replace the fundamental iOS UI paradigm
The UI continuity between MacOS 1.0 and macOS Seirra, and iPhone OS 1.0 and iOS 10 should allay any fears that Apple will completely change its UI paradigm, FFS!
Metro was an OK enough idea
Compared to WHAT, exactly?
Not trolling; I'm genuinely interested in how big ol' palm-buttons and a single-windowing (yes, I know, TWO windows!) UI is an "ok enough idea", ESPECIALLY for Desktops and Servers. Really.
The real question is: will this be the year we get wireless charging?
I suspect as much. It will allow the iPhone 8 to be totally sealed, which is my prediction.
Also, Apple has been hiring Wireless Charging talent for about the past 9 months.
Apple has a real opportunity here. If they can put all of this together (which is their strong suit) then we could really see a revolution in tech. VR has no appeal to me and I suspect most others. Its really only useful for gaming. AR on the other hand has so many possibilities that it is really incredible if we can truly get there. In a sense AR will do for us what internet searches originally did. Truly AR feels like the logical extension of todays technology.
Exactly. Well said!
Magic Window!
I'm old enough to get that joke!
just please dear god bring back SWIPE TO UNLOCK!! :'(
Yeah, I'm kinda with you on that one...
An iphone7 with "dual cameras" is not capable of producing depth maps, just like none of the Android phones with two cameras, side by side, less than 1cm apart, can produce depth maps. These are two different cameras with different lenses, which are used to give 2D images greater dynamic range and resolution.
Stereo cameras, which are capable of producing depth maps and creating 3D images and environments, are two identical cameras that are placed at minimum one to two inches apart, as seen in the HTC Evo 3D, the Amazon Fire Phone, and the Lenovo Phab 2. They are fundamentally different.
Hey dumbass. Apple never claimed they were used for stereoscopic imaging. Their miniscule parallax is being used ONLY to create a pseudo-depth-map, for use with a software-simulated "narrow depth of field" effect that is often used in portrait (and other) photography with "real" cameras. The effect is so popular that it was actually worth the effort and expense in software and hardware, apparently. The fact that they were able to get additional utility out of the 2nd camera by fitting it with a "telephoto" lens zoom-range was just bonus.
Or maybe it was the other-way around. Maybe they wanted the optical telephoto, and someone said "Hey! I bet we can generate a fake narrow-focus effect with that!". Either way, the idea was NEVER "3D photos".
An iphone7 with "dual cameras" is not capable of producing depth maps
And yet it does.
What's with the scare quotes around "dual cameras", anyway? Do you not believe that the 7 Plus has two cameras?
Scare quotes. I love that!
I read somewhere a few months ago, that Apple was snapping-up AR (and VR?) talent. They don't do that for no reason.
Ah, here's an article...
"Pros: You can also manage and manipulate other files inside your entire Hard Disk, even those outside of your Linux home directory."
I see a whole new round of Windows/Linux cross-exploits coming...
That is true of every smartphone in existence. So what that means is that Apple copied my Nexus phone, so they are more guilty of copying.
They look nothing alike, you are just too pro Apple to even see the differences.
They all look alike, because they have been copying the iPhone (which was quite different from every other phone, and especially every other Android phone when it debuted) since the original iPhone in 2007. You are just too anti-Apple to see that. But maybe this will jog your memory. Or maybe this.
Why must I re-litigate this every other WEEK on Slashdot, when the evidence, dated nearly a YEAR after the iPhone debut and nearly 6 months after its RELEASE, regarding who-copied-who is right there in black and white? Heck, Android didn't even HAVE touch-input capabilities AT ALL until more than a YEAR after the first iPhone debuted!
So please, just stop. You're just embarrassing yourself.
The phones are excellent, it's the batteries that are shit. Get an alternative power source and it'd be fine. There's absolutely no reason to destroy the hardware.
No, Samsung already tried that.
Samsung not only declared their own GN7 design shit; they decided the entire S7 LINE was shit.
Pretty much everything on the market is a fairly significant downgrade
The iPhone 7 mops the floor with the S7 series, performance-wise, doesn't catch on fire in droves, and gets almost the same battery-life with half the battery capacity.
I don't think that's a downgrade. Quite the opposite in fact.
Maybe that's why a significant percentage of S7 users are switching to the iPhone 7. In fact, some statistics show that the iPhone 7 (rather than another Samsung, or other Android phone) is leading the pack when it comes to what former S7 users are turning-to as an alternative.
Samsung took a novel approach to power regulation so the 7 could be charged more quickly than other smartphones.
"Novel" approach? That's choice!
More like, "Dangerously Inadvisable" by all industry standards.
And that's what I have been saying since this story broke almost a month ago.
Not much talk on what exactly is causing these fires. My first impression was something was getting hot and compromising the battery. Since battery failures are actually rare. Which meant something was either physically compromising them or it was happening electrically. Because nothing else in a phone can create that much heat than a Lithium battery. With these phones cramming all the technology into a thin and small device. That also is getting faster hardware which typically results in more heat. One has to wonder going forward if other devices could have this problem. It certainly got past quality testing.
Samsung is simply charging their huge battery too quickly, permanently damaging it, and in some cases, causing thermal runaway. But they didn't want to admit that it would take FOUR HOURS to charge their phone, when the iPhone charges in TWO HOURS; so Samsung gambled with an inappropriate "Fast Charge" profile, and lost.