It's worth mentioning that you can enter your password once on an ipad and then it won't ask again,
Bzzt! Wrong! Thanks for Playing...
There are two settings:
1. Require a Password each time you make even a FREE "Purchase" from the App Store.
2. Allow a Grace Period of 15 mins. before Re-Requiring a Password.
This is in addition to several other Purchasing controls, such as "Ask To Buy", which requires Authorization from the (presumably Parent) BEFORE allowing EACH AND EVERY App Store Purchase (even Free ones).
Can iOS do multiple users yet? On Android you can create a kids account that can't spend money.
iOS, per se, it still Single-User (although I wonder if the iPad Pro will change that); but that has nothing to do with the App Store, which requires a Login with an Apple ID. And Apple allows you (the Parent) to control that Account in several ways. See "Manage your Child's Account", and links therein.
Oh, and APPLE is the one with the rules allowing one to enter the password once for one purchase and then allowing 15 minutes of continuing purchases without reauthorization.
Or, even more easily, they could just email you a receipt every time a purchase is made.
They do. But the internal batch-jobs that try to consolidate charges to the banks introduce a usually several-hour delay in that process.
But Apple has made it even easier, allowing the Parent to Require PERMISSION for EVERY In-App Purchase, with the "Ask To Buy" Setting. This catches the Purchase BEFORE it happens.
The default could easily be something sane like $10.
Which is why Apple also allows you (the Parent) to set up a separate Account, in which you (the Parent) can deposit money that will form a hard-limit on the user's (the Child) In-App purchases. See "Managing your Child's Account". Heck, they even provide an "Ask to Buy" feature, in case you want to individually approve Purchases at the time.
But that's not going to happen while Apple (and others) get to take advantage of unwary parents, and smart kids with no money sense.
It's about time the law stopped this shit.
It looks to me like Apple has done a pretty responsible job of managing the two edges of the sword: Draconian Helicopter-ism, vs. Unfettered Capitalism; and, considering the tools already in-place, Apple would be perfectly within their rights to point to the above article and say "We gave you the tools to manage this, sorry!" But obviously, the PR backlash from such an attitude would be horrible.
Case in point: Just look at the number of people on the normally "Well, the User Asked For It" Slashdot that are ranting that Apple "Should have prevented this", EVEN THOUGH THEY REFUNDED THE MONEY.
Apple is responsible for the user interface and just because the user "could have navigated the user interface"
ORLY?
Unless Apple actually published the game, my (albeit limited) understanding of iOS development would have me believe that the actual author/publisher of the game is responsible for every single pixel of the "user interface" (beyond the fact that the author probably used some standard controls here and there), and for every single "page" in the game App.
So how exactly did Apple create this so-called "Dark Pattern"?
Also, do not tell CanadianMacFan, macs4all, or Noah Haders that I said any of this. I reserve the right to retract the above statement if a desire to go trolling should come along. If they found out that I'd admitted such (though I have before) they might not let me live it down.
Too late, LOL!
I've already saved your post to disk for future bashing sessions! [j/k]
That's not *Android* being insecure, that's the vendors' products being insecure. Those of us with Nexus devices get patches as they're released by Google, which happens quite quickly.
Apple releases iOS when they feel like it. Google releases Android semi-annually (until recently, which I'm sure the security updates are exactly that -- fixing vulnerabilities). The fact that the release process was such a PITA has no relation to how much Android devs were hardening their system.
In case you haven't noticed, iOS pretty much gets updated continuously, or at least several times per year, with a major new release every September, when the new iOS hardware debuts.
So, although you can mischaracterize this as "when they feel like it"; the reality is that iOS is updated ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE USERS far more frequently than Android.
I thought the way CVE worked is that it was a thing the US Government did to track vulnerabilities across multiple reporting sites. So there's no need for Microsoft or Google to self-submit a bug, as long as it gets reported somewhere, it ends up in CVE.
Still doesn't make "number of bugs" a really useful metric, especially given that Apple tends to dump all their vulnerabilities into a single report. (So they're probably undercounted if anything - yeah, OS X is that insecure.)
If OS X and iOS are "that insecure", why is it that we are at SIXTEEN YEARS for OS X, and EIGHT YEARS for iOS without a SINGLE actual self-replicating, self-distributing piece of Malware on either platform?
that apple cheats on taxes is not surprising, current apple is built on deception.
it charges for products well in excess of their costs( all costs, including design and development) and gets away with it due to marketing hype, and idiocy of the consumers, and failure of the media to check and reveal facts
Amazing isn't it? CEO's claim they deserve the big bucks because they are responsible for how the company is run and the buck stops with them but as soon as the shit hits the ran "its nothing to do with me gov" somebody else was responsible.
I'm sorry, but my copy of the article must not have had the quote where Tim Cook denied personal knowledge of this. And the general quote regarding taxes on the 60 Minutes interview wasn't a denial of personal knowledge.
Oh, and did you notice that TFS mentioned that Apple was one of "numerous multinational companies" involved in the Italian probe. Doesn't make it right; but this article would never grace these pages if Apple wasn't one of the "numerous" companies, amirite?
I suggest we set the "freedom dial" to the setting that has provided people with the highest level of economic security, economic mobility, standard of living and lowest level of poverty. I think you see where this is going. See you in Gothenburg, comrade. Bernie 2016.
So, your idea of "free" is that Apple's Lightning connector should be OUTLAWED, even though the people who enjoy the many demonstrable benefits of same, and their power to choose same, are overridden by those who only want to have one AC adapter.
So, while we're at it, howabout mandating that all electronics MUST run on 5V, with microUSB for EVERYTHING? Afterall, it, and only it, is the One True Charging Standard. Everything from your Electric Car to your Television would HAVE to use a 5V microUSB AC Adapter, and draw no more than 2A.
Government mandated standards may or may not be a good idea, but they are certainly not "the basis of a free market" because they represent an intervention by government in the forces of supply and demand.
This is nonsense. The parent was right.
The underlying supply, mor important, demand, does not change, just because the suppliers need to meet a certain standard. And by all being forced to adhere to the same standard, a single supplier can not abuse his artificial monopoly.
So you trade a "Yoke Of Oppression" that you can "throw off" by simply CHOOSING not to purchase certain goods, based on their use of "proprietary" standards (e.g., Lightning), for a "yoke" that you CANNOT "throw off" no matter how oppressive or wrong-thinking; because it is now GOVERNMENT-MANDATED.
Yeah, I don't know about anyone else; but the second scenario sure sounds like anything BUT a "free market" to me.
For a site that supposedly caters to those who would fancy themselves as having "superior intellect", Slashdot has some of the most bone-headed participants on the internet.
...it just mandates a USB-Plug *on the charger*, so even for the crap from Cuppertino it does not change anything...
No, it actually does. The new MacBook charger uses USB-C, as will the new iPhone 7. Lightning (connector) is dead. Even if Apple were to release it as a royalty free open standard today, the industry momentum is already in motion. That ship sailed.
You say that Apple is all about USB-C. Well, they have it on exactly ONE product. And even after recent product refreshes on the MacBook Pro line, we still haven't seen USB-C used even as an adjunct to the Thunderbolt connector (yes, I know we're talking most about Lightning, but...).
So, unless you have some serious insider knowledge that the rest of us aren't privy to, you are pulling that "information" regarding USB-C on the iPhone 7 and the "demise of Lightning" straight out of your ass.
For one thing, USB-C is a MUCH larger connector than Lightning, and that simply doesn't fit well with Apple's penchant for making the iPhone and iPad thinner and thinner.
If Apple would do anything, it would be to add a couple of pins to the Lightning cable and make it into a Thunderbolt interface. The additional signal bandwidth would be much appreciated by the rest of Apple's engineering teams, especially the video adapter people.
Apple is using the lightning connectors (and the associated data transfer standards) to lock customers in to only purchasing from Apple. Letting the USB committee standardize on Lightning would defeat the purpose
Of COURSE that would be the ONLY reason Apple went to the considerable time and expense to develop the Lightning cable and connector.
It COULDN'T have had anything to do with the fact that ALL of the micro/mini whatever USB connectors suck a seriously big dick; nor could it have anything to do with the fact that the frustration of figuring out the orientation of both the micro/mini USB as well as Apple's 30 pin connector was a ridiculous state of affairs; nor could it have had anything to do with the fact that Apple's 30 pin connector was both large and expensive.
No. of course not. Had to be "Lock In". That's the ONLY rational explanation...
It's not the same though. If your enemy knows what your intelligence capabilities are, they will adapt their behavior to cut you off from the information. This isn't an endless cycle of "if we know that they know that we know", it's just keeping your enemy ignorant, which is a good thing.
Spoilsport!!!
I just wanted an excuse to watch that clip again, LOL!
That the President's authority supercedes any law? No, there isn't really an argument.
Technically, there is always an argument for any premise; but most rational people automatically disregard the ones that are patently false.
For example, you technically could make an argument that, on a planet with a positive gravity, a hammer that is dropped will not fall downward; but there is no point to making that argment; since it is fails prima facie.
Slashdot Mirror
It's worth mentioning that you can enter your password once on an ipad and then it won't ask again,
Bzzt! Wrong! Thanks for Playing...
There are two settings:
1. Require a Password each time you make even a FREE "Purchase" from the App Store.
2. Allow a Grace Period of 15 mins. before Re-Requiring a Password.
This is in addition to several other Purchasing controls, such as "Ask To Buy", which requires Authorization from the (presumably Parent) BEFORE allowing EACH AND EVERY App Store Purchase (even Free ones).
Easy for someone without kids and ample time to delve into minutiae to say
Bullshit.
It took me 10 seconds (literally) on Google to find out how to setup the Parental Controls in iOS.
If you don't have 10 seconds to parent your kids, then perhaps you should just drop them off at the nearest fire station.
Can iOS do multiple users yet? On Android you can create a kids account that can't spend money.
iOS, per se, it still Single-User (although I wonder if the iPad Pro will change that); but that has nothing to do with the App Store, which requires a Login with an Apple ID. And Apple allows you (the Parent) to control that Account in several ways. See "Manage your Child's Account", and links therein.
Oh, and APPLE is the one with the rules allowing one to enter the password once for one purchase and then allowing 15 minutes of continuing purchases without reauthorization.
That timeout is User-Settable.
Or, even more easily, they could just email you a receipt every time a purchase is made.
They do. But the internal batch-jobs that try to consolidate charges to the banks introduce a usually several-hour delay in that process.
But Apple has made it even easier, allowing the Parent to Require PERMISSION for EVERY In-App Purchase, with the "Ask To Buy" Setting. This catches the Purchase BEFORE it happens.
Now what?
Which is exactly what Apple (and others) want. They could trivially add a config UI element to set purchase limits.
Well, Apple allows you to set Restrictions on whether to allow in-App (game) Purchases.
The default could easily be something sane like $10.
Which is why Apple also allows you (the Parent) to set up a separate Account, in which you (the Parent) can deposit money that will form a hard-limit on the user's (the Child) In-App purchases. See "Managing your Child's Account". Heck, they even provide an "Ask to Buy" feature, in case you want to individually approve Purchases at the time.
But that's not going to happen while Apple (and others) get to take advantage of unwary parents, and smart kids with no money sense.
It's about time the law stopped this shit.
It looks to me like Apple has done a pretty responsible job of managing the two edges of the sword: Draconian Helicopter-ism, vs. Unfettered Capitalism; and, considering the tools already in-place, Apple would be perfectly within their rights to point to the above article and say "We gave you the tools to manage this, sorry!" But obviously, the PR backlash from such an attitude would be horrible.
Case in point: Just look at the number of people on the normally "Well, the User Asked For It" Slashdot that are ranting that Apple "Should have prevented this", EVEN THOUGH THEY REFUNDED THE MONEY.
But, Haters Gotta Hate, I guess.
Apple is responsible for the user interface and just because the user "could have navigated the user interface"
ORLY?
Unless Apple actually published the game, my (albeit limited) understanding of iOS development would have me believe that the actual author/publisher of the game is responsible for every single pixel of the "user interface" (beyond the fact that the author probably used some standard controls here and there), and for every single "page" in the game App.
So how exactly did Apple create this so-called "Dark Pattern"?
Also, do not tell CanadianMacFan, macs4all, or Noah Haders that I said any of this. I reserve the right to retract the above statement if a desire to go trolling should come along. If they found out that I'd admitted such (though I have before) they might not let me live it down.
Too late, LOL!
I've already saved your post to disk for future bashing sessions! [j/k]
And you're a dumb little shit.
That's why I keep coming back to Slashdot: The erudite intellectual discourse.
That's not *Android* being insecure, that's the vendors' products being insecure. Those of us with Nexus devices get patches as they're released by Google, which happens quite quickly.
So do those of us with iOS devices.
Jus' sayin'...
Apple releases iOS when they feel like it. Google releases Android semi-annually (until recently, which I'm sure the security updates are exactly that -- fixing vulnerabilities). The fact that the release process was such a PITA has no relation to how much Android devs were hardening their system.
In case you haven't noticed, iOS pretty much gets updated continuously, or at least several times per year, with a major new release every September, when the new iOS hardware debuts.
So, although you can mischaracterize this as "when they feel like it"; the reality is that iOS is updated ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE USERS far more frequently than Android.
I thought the way CVE worked is that it was a thing the US Government did to track vulnerabilities across multiple reporting sites. So there's no need for Microsoft or Google to self-submit a bug, as long as it gets reported somewhere, it ends up in CVE.
Still doesn't make "number of bugs" a really useful metric, especially given that Apple tends to dump all their vulnerabilities into a single report. (So they're probably undercounted if anything - yeah, OS X is that insecure.)
If OS X and iOS are "that insecure", why is it that we are at SIXTEEN YEARS for OS X, and EIGHT YEARS for iOS without a SINGLE actual self-replicating, self-distributing piece of Malware on either platform?
So I'm not the only one randomly being logged out on Slashdot? FYI, Chrome on Windows 7.
Nope. Happened to me repeatedly yesterday.
I thought some Linux fanboi hacked my user account, because this is the first I have seen anyone else whine about it.
Glad to see that wasn't the case, and that it seems to be ok today.
And how much bonus do you give to the Mac for not having to deal with Windows 10?
On Slashdot? None at all. Haven't you noticed?
that apple cheats on taxes is not surprising, current apple is built on deception. it charges for products well in excess of their costs( all costs, including design and development) and gets away with it due to marketing hype, and idiocy of the consumers, and failure of the media to check and reveal facts
Interesting, Really?
More like Offtopic and Troll.
Get with it, mods. Damn!
Amazing isn't it? CEO's claim they deserve the big bucks because they are responsible for how the company is run and the buck stops with them but as soon as the shit hits the ran "its nothing to do with me gov" somebody else was responsible.
I'm sorry, but my copy of the article must not have had the quote where Tim Cook denied personal knowledge of this. And the general quote regarding taxes on the 60 Minutes interview wasn't a denial of personal knowledge.
Oh, and did you notice that TFS mentioned that Apple was one of "numerous multinational companies" involved in the Italian probe. Doesn't make it right; but this article would never grace these pages if Apple wasn't one of the "numerous" companies, amirite?
You think that Apple doesn't do that too?
Prove that it does.
I suggest we set the "freedom dial" to the setting that has provided people with the highest level of economic security, economic mobility, standard of living and lowest level of poverty. I think you see where this is going. See you in Gothenburg, comrade. Bernie 2016.
So, your idea of "free" is that Apple's Lightning connector should be OUTLAWED, even though the people who enjoy the many demonstrable benefits of same, and their power to choose same, are overridden by those who only want to have one AC adapter.
So, while we're at it, howabout mandating that all electronics MUST run on 5V, with microUSB for EVERYTHING? Afterall, it, and only it, is the One True Charging Standard. Everything from your Electric Car to your Television would HAVE to use a 5V microUSB AC Adapter, and draw no more than 2A.
Government mandated standards may or may not be a good idea, but they are certainly not "the basis of a free market" because they represent an intervention by government in the forces of supply and demand. This is nonsense. The parent was right. The underlying supply, mor important, demand, does not change, just because the suppliers need to meet a certain standard. And by all being forced to adhere to the same standard, a single supplier can not abuse his artificial monopoly.
So you trade a "Yoke Of Oppression" that you can "throw off" by simply CHOOSING not to purchase certain goods, based on their use of "proprietary" standards (e.g., Lightning), for a "yoke" that you CANNOT "throw off" no matter how oppressive or wrong-thinking; because it is now GOVERNMENT-MANDATED.
Yeah, I don't know about anyone else; but the second scenario sure sounds like anything BUT a "free market" to me.
For a site that supposedly caters to those who would fancy themselves as having "superior intellect", Slashdot has some of the most bone-headed participants on the internet.
No, it actually does. The new MacBook charger uses USB-C, as will the new iPhone 7. Lightning (connector) is dead. Even if Apple were to release it as a royalty free open standard today, the industry momentum is already in motion. That ship sailed.
You say that Apple is all about USB-C. Well, they have it on exactly ONE product. And even after recent product refreshes on the MacBook Pro line, we still haven't seen USB-C used even as an adjunct to the Thunderbolt connector (yes, I know we're talking most about Lightning, but...).
So, unless you have some serious insider knowledge that the rest of us aren't privy to, you are pulling that "information" regarding USB-C on the iPhone 7 and the "demise of Lightning" straight out of your ass.
For one thing, USB-C is a MUCH larger connector than Lightning, and that simply doesn't fit well with Apple's penchant for making the iPhone and iPad thinner and thinner.
If Apple would do anything, it would be to add a couple of pins to the Lightning cable and make it into a Thunderbolt interface. The additional signal bandwidth would be much appreciated by the rest of Apple's engineering teams, especially the video adapter people.
Apple is using the lightning connectors (and the associated data transfer standards) to lock customers in to only purchasing from Apple. Letting the USB committee standardize on Lightning would defeat the purpose
Of COURSE that would be the ONLY reason Apple went to the considerable time and expense to develop the Lightning cable and connector.
It COULDN'T have had anything to do with the fact that ALL of the micro/mini whatever USB connectors suck a seriously big dick; nor could it have anything to do with the fact that the frustration of figuring out the orientation of both the micro/mini USB as well as Apple's 30 pin connector was a ridiculous state of affairs; nor could it have had anything to do with the fact that Apple's 30 pin connector was both large and expensive.
No. of course not. Had to be "Lock In". That's the ONLY rational explanation...
Unfortunately, many rational people disregard arguments that they disagree with.
But usually, they just post as AC... (J/k)
Great clip, I love Data.
It's not the same though. If your enemy knows what your intelligence capabilities are, they will adapt their behavior to cut you off from the information. This isn't an endless cycle of "if we know that they know that we know", it's just keeping your enemy ignorant, which is a good thing.
Spoilsport!!!
I just wanted an excuse to watch that clip again, LOL!
Are you saying there's not an argument?
That the President's authority supercedes any law? No, there isn't really an argument.
Technically, there is always an argument for any premise; but most rational people automatically disregard the ones that are patently false.
For example, you technically could make an argument that, on a planet with a positive gravity, a hammer that is dropped will not fall downward; but there is no point to making that argment; since it is fails prima facie.
Right, That's why I said the United States, instead of Congress or the President.
Upon re-reading, you're right.