All Forum Comments
Comment by Shaky posted on iPhone or Google Nexus? at 26/06/2010 - 22:20
johnriley wrote:
John, the situation is much more complex and nuanced.Quote:
If you mean along the lines of PC based - and typically browsing delivered - malware then the answer is probably no – at least for now.
That was what I meant. I suspected that was the case, and it is an advantage to those who don't want to mess about with computers but just want a device to use.If you mean along the lines of PC based - and typically browsing delivered - malware then the answer is probably no – at least for now.
First of all there is the issue of multitasking; if that is not enabled intuitively you can not run malicious code at the same time as a legit app.
However, it is not yet clear the extent to which the new iPhone OS delivers true multitasking, but you should never underestimate the fiendish ingenuity of the criminal malware industry.
Secondly there are already proof of concept trojans out there for non-jailbroken iPhones. And there are strong grounds to believe that Apple is ambivalent about addressing this since they appear anxious to perpetuate the myth that their systems are invulnerable to attack across the board. For example in the case of the iPhone, they have made noises that they would not view favourably the submission of antivirus apps.
Comment by Shaky posted on iPhone or Google Nexus? at 26/06/2010 - 09:03
johnriley wrote:
I wonder, are we aware of any rogue iPhone Apps slipping through? Or is the system working very nicely?
If by rogue you understand apps that acquire personal data and transmit that on without your express permission then the answer is yes.I wonder, are we aware of any rogue iPhone Apps slipping through? Or is the system working very nicely?
If you mean along the lines of PC based - and typically browsing delivered - malware then the answer is probably no – at least for now.
But the fact that the current iPhone OS generation is not multitasking enabled generally makes installing malicious code much harder, and with a flavour of this enabled in the new version, it undoubtedly significantly opens up attack options.
Comment by Shaky posted on iPhone or Google Nexus? at 26/06/2010 - 08:42
MrCynical wrote:
software. . .approved by Apple
I honestly hate to break this news to faithful here but the spiel about the app approval process guaranteeing some sort of superior and pure user experience is just another line of Steve Jobs’ patented bullshit.software. . .approved by Apple
In response to the iTunes store rejection of the Google voice app last year on the most flimsy and spurious grounds, the FTC demanded from Apple details of their hitherto utterly mysterious and esoteric approval process.
Based on Apple’s grudging provision of staffing numbers for the team it was easy to calculate that if everybody so employed spent all of their working time, without holidays, lunch/toilet/ciggie breaks, and without spending even a millisecond on internal meetings, emails, etc, then based on the number of apps submitted each one receives fully 6 man minutes of undivided scrutiny and attention.
What a joke.
Comment by Shaky posted on iPhone or Google Nexus? at 17/06/2010 - 17:45
thoughton wrote:
it's their platform to do what they want with. Despite what Shaky believes
It doesn't matter what any of us believe; the question is are they breaking the law.it's their platform to do what they want with. Despite what Shaky believes
Quote:
US Regulators May Probe Apple Over Ad Rules -FT
Last update: 6/10/2010 7:26:08 AM
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
Apple Inc. (AAPL) faces a possible investigation by U.S. antitrust regulators over the company's rules that could bar rivals from selling ads carried on the iPhone, iPad and iPod, the Financial Times reported late Wednesday on its website, citing people familiar with the situation.
Regulators have taken an interest in Apple's move, according to two people close to the situation, although it is unclear whether the Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Justice would lead such an investigation. Google Inc. (GOOG) Wednesday complained that Apple's rule would have the effect of barring its AdMob advertising service from applications in Apple's system.
Apple didn't respond to a request for comment.
-Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-2900 (END)
Dow Jones NewswiresJune 10, 2010 07:26 ET (11:26 GMT)
On the question of Apple's merits as an investment I like to try to buy low and sell high. And on that basis I feel fairly comfortable taking the other side of your long trade.US Regulators May Probe Apple Over Ad Rules -FT
Last update: 6/10/2010 7:26:08 AM
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
Apple Inc. (AAPL) faces a possible investigation by U.S. antitrust regulators over the company's rules that could bar rivals from selling ads carried on the iPhone, iPad and iPod, the Financial Times reported late Wednesday on its website, citing people familiar with the situation.
Regulators have taken an interest in Apple's move, according to two people close to the situation, although it is unclear whether the Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Justice would lead such an investigation. Google Inc. (GOOG) Wednesday complained that Apple's rule would have the effect of barring its AdMob advertising service from applications in Apple's system.
Apple didn't respond to a request for comment.
-Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-2900 (END)
Dow Jones NewswiresJune 10, 2010 07:26 ET (11:26 GMT)
Comment by Shaky posted on Freedom of choice at 10/06/2010 - 13:09
Apple does it again:
Quote:
Google Blasts Apple's New iPhone Advertising Terms
Last update: 6/9/2010 1:33:26 PM
By Scott Morrison and Ian Sherr Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones)--Google Inc. (GOOG) has blasted Apple Inc.'s (AAPL) new rules for its iPhone and iPad operating system, saying the changes would prohibit application developers from using Google's advertising technology on the devices.
Apple's new terms, posted to developers on Monday, target companies with competitive mobile technologies, such as Google, as well as any company whose primary business is not serving mobile ads, said Omar Hamoui, founder of Google's recently acquired AdMob mobile advertising unit.
Apple's terms hurt both large and small developers by severely limiting their choice of how best to make money, Hamoui said. And because advertising funds a huge number of free and low cost apps, these terms are bad for consumers as well, he added.
"This change is not in the best interests of users or developers," Hamoui said in a blog post.
Apple wasn't immediately available for comment.
Earlier this year, Apple unveiled an upgrade to the iPhone operating system that included its new advertising network, dubbed iAd. Billed as a more elegant alternative to current advertising options, Apple said applications developers for its mobile platforms would benefit from the choice. U.S. regulators agreed, clearing Google to buy rival mobile advertising firm AdMob in May and noting that Apple's entry into the market would provide sufficient competition.
However, Apple's terms appear to exclude competing networks such as AdMob from collecting critical information about the devices to which their ads are served.
Apple later said that it wasn't interested in banning rivals from its platform but rather simply wanted to prevent abuse.
At issue is a clause in Apple's new terms that states developers may not use third-party analytics software in their applications to collect and send device data to a third party for aggregation, processing, or analysis.
The new agreement also says developers must request Apple's permission to collect specific types information about their users and may only disclose user data to independent advertising service providers whose primary business is serving mobile ads.
That would exclude advertising service providers owned by or affiliated with a developer or distributor of mobile devices, mobile operating systems or development environments other than Apple.
People familiar with the situation said Apple's terms of service could impact Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), AOL Inc. (AOL) and Yahoo Inc. (YHOO), as well as Google. The changes do not appear to affect smaller competitors such as Jumptap Inc., Greystripe Inc. and Millennial Media Inc., although they could make them less attractive to prospective acquirers.
Hamoui said in his post that he will be speaking to Apple to express his concerns about the impact of the company's new terms.
Google Blasts Apple's New iPhone Advertising Terms
Last update: 6/9/2010 1:33:26 PM
By Scott Morrison and Ian Sherr Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones)--Google Inc. (GOOG) has blasted Apple Inc.'s (AAPL) new rules for its iPhone and iPad operating system, saying the changes would prohibit application developers from using Google's advertising technology on the devices.
Apple's new terms, posted to developers on Monday, target companies with competitive mobile technologies, such as Google, as well as any company whose primary business is not serving mobile ads, said Omar Hamoui, founder of Google's recently acquired AdMob mobile advertising unit.
Apple's terms hurt both large and small developers by severely limiting their choice of how best to make money, Hamoui said. And because advertising funds a huge number of free and low cost apps, these terms are bad for consumers as well, he added.
"This change is not in the best interests of users or developers," Hamoui said in a blog post.
Apple wasn't immediately available for comment.
Earlier this year, Apple unveiled an upgrade to the iPhone operating system that included its new advertising network, dubbed iAd. Billed as a more elegant alternative to current advertising options, Apple said applications developers for its mobile platforms would benefit from the choice. U.S. regulators agreed, clearing Google to buy rival mobile advertising firm AdMob in May and noting that Apple's entry into the market would provide sufficient competition.
However, Apple's terms appear to exclude competing networks such as AdMob from collecting critical information about the devices to which their ads are served.
Apple later said that it wasn't interested in banning rivals from its platform but rather simply wanted to prevent abuse.
At issue is a clause in Apple's new terms that states developers may not use third-party analytics software in their applications to collect and send device data to a third party for aggregation, processing, or analysis.
The new agreement also says developers must request Apple's permission to collect specific types information about their users and may only disclose user data to independent advertising service providers whose primary business is serving mobile ads.
That would exclude advertising service providers owned by or affiliated with a developer or distributor of mobile devices, mobile operating systems or development environments other than Apple.
People familiar with the situation said Apple's terms of service could impact Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), AOL Inc. (AOL) and Yahoo Inc. (YHOO), as well as Google. The changes do not appear to affect smaller competitors such as Jumptap Inc., Greystripe Inc. and Millennial Media Inc., although they could make them less attractive to prospective acquirers.
Hamoui said in his post that he will be speaking to Apple to express his concerns about the impact of the company's new terms.
Comment by Shaky posted on Freedom of choice at 09/06/2010 - 19:48
doingthebobs wrote:
I think in most walks of life some people want to conform all the time and expect everyone else to do the same! Your 'Nikon man' was just one of these. I have a friend who complains about which end I open a banana from! Why it upsets him I do not know but he seems to think that I should do what he does and is , strangely, affronted when I don't.
I think in most walks of life some people want to conform all the time and expect everyone else to do the same! Your 'Nikon man' was just one of these. I have a friend who complains about which end I open a banana from! Why it upsets him I do not know but he seems to think that I should do what he does and is , strangely, affronted when I don't.
Quote:
Fanboyism and Brand Loyalty
The Misconception: We prefer the things we own over the things we don't because we made rational choices when we bought them. The Truth?
The truth is that you prefer the things you own because you rationalize your past choices to protect your sense of self.
. . .brand loyalty – that nebulous emotional connection people have with certain companies which turns them into defenders and advocates for corporations who don't give a shit.
Full story at Gizmodo
Fanboyism and Brand Loyalty
The Misconception: We prefer the things we own over the things we don't because we made rational choices when we bought them. The Truth?
The truth is that you prefer the things you own because you rationalize your past choices to protect your sense of self.
. . .brand loyalty – that nebulous emotional connection people have with certain companies which turns them into defenders and advocates for corporations who don't give a shit.
Full story at Gizmodo
Comment by Shaky posted on "Why Pentax and not Nikon?" at 06/06/2010 - 16:30
Get real.
I have no idea who the EFF are but the FSF is basically a one man band. More pertinently to the discussion regarding litigating against Apple, privity of contract prevents them from doing so since they are not the licensor of the open source code Apple have appropriated.
However, you don’t need to hire a team of litigators at a combined fee of tens of millions of dollars to be able to understand this:
I have no idea who the EFF are but the FSF is basically a one man band. More pertinently to the discussion regarding litigating against Apple, privity of contract prevents them from doing so since they are not the licensor of the open source code Apple have appropriated.
However, you don’t need to hire a team of litigators at a combined fee of tens of millions of dollars to be able to understand this:
Quote:
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
Give me a straight answer as to whether that principle is compatible with Apple’s software license. Then kindly cut the morality crap.10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
Comment by Shaky posted on Photoshop alternatives at 28/05/2010 - 20:04
thoughton wrote:
Bwaaahahahahahaha.techno-terminator wrote:
Tim
IIRC on a thread a while back - possibly re the iPad [ certainly it was a Mac v Windows thing ] Stefan said he was thinking of doing a 'Hackintosh ' system .
That is ethically and morally wrong, and probably illegal (although this has yet to be verified by an EU court). Tim
IIRC on a thread a while back - possibly re the iPad [ certainly it was a Mac v Windows thing ] Stefan said he was thinking of doing a 'Hackintosh ' system .
Did you ever read the open source software licensing principles I linked for you?
http://opensource.org/docs/osd
Here’s a few bits relevant to your position:
Quote:
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.
. . .
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.
. . .
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
Comment by Shaky posted on Photoshop alternatives at 28/05/2010 - 19:26
FWIW:
Quote:
Apple Is Said to Face Inquiry About Online Music
SAN FRANCISCO — The Justice Department is examining Apple’s tactics in the market for digital music, and its staff members have talked to major music labels and Internet music companies, according to several people briefed on the conversations.
The antitrust inquiry is in the early stages, these people say, and the conversations have revolved broadly around the dynamics of selling music online.
But people briefed on the inquiries also said investigators had asked in particular about recent allegations that Apple used its dominant market position to persuade music labels to refuse to give the online retailer Amazon.com exclusive access to music about to be released.
. . .In March, Billboard magazine reported that Amazon was asking music labels to give it the exclusive right to sell certain forthcoming songs for one day before they went on sale more widely. In exchange, Amazon promised to include those songs in a promotion called the “MP3 Daily Deal” on its Web site.
The magazine reported that representatives of Apple’s iTunes music service were asking the labels not to participate in Amazon’s promotion, adding that Apple punished those that did by withdrawing marketing support for those songs on iTunes.
Apple is by far the largest seller of online music in the United States, with 69 percent of the market, according to data from the NPD Group, a marketing consultancy. Amazon’s MP3 store was in second place, with an 8 percent share. Apple is also the largest seller of music, with 26.7 percent of the overall market, up from 12 percent in 2007.
Though the Justice Department’s inquiry is preliminary, it represents additional evidence that Apple, once the perennial underdog in high tech, is now viewed by government regulators as a dominant company with considerable market power.
“Certainly if the Justice Department is getting involved, it raises the possibility of potential serious problems down the road for Apple,” said Daniel L. Brown, an antitrust lawyer at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.
. . .The inquiry is one of several by the federal government involving Apple. The Federal Trade Commission is moving ahead with a separate investigation of Apple’s rules for developers who create applications for the iPhone operating system, according to a person familiar with that discussion.
That inquiry, initiated by complaint from Adobe Systems, the maker of the Flash format for Internet video, is said to be in its early stages as well.
. . .The music investigation signals the elevated scrutiny of technology companies under the antitrust agencies of the Obama administration.
Source: NY Times
Apple Is Said to Face Inquiry About Online Music
SAN FRANCISCO — The Justice Department is examining Apple’s tactics in the market for digital music, and its staff members have talked to major music labels and Internet music companies, according to several people briefed on the conversations.
The antitrust inquiry is in the early stages, these people say, and the conversations have revolved broadly around the dynamics of selling music online.
But people briefed on the inquiries also said investigators had asked in particular about recent allegations that Apple used its dominant market position to persuade music labels to refuse to give the online retailer Amazon.com exclusive access to music about to be released.
. . .In March, Billboard magazine reported that Amazon was asking music labels to give it the exclusive right to sell certain forthcoming songs for one day before they went on sale more widely. In exchange, Amazon promised to include those songs in a promotion called the “MP3 Daily Deal” on its Web site.
The magazine reported that representatives of Apple’s iTunes music service were asking the labels not to participate in Amazon’s promotion, adding that Apple punished those that did by withdrawing marketing support for those songs on iTunes.
Apple is by far the largest seller of online music in the United States, with 69 percent of the market, according to data from the NPD Group, a marketing consultancy. Amazon’s MP3 store was in second place, with an 8 percent share. Apple is also the largest seller of music, with 26.7 percent of the overall market, up from 12 percent in 2007.
Though the Justice Department’s inquiry is preliminary, it represents additional evidence that Apple, once the perennial underdog in high tech, is now viewed by government regulators as a dominant company with considerable market power.
“Certainly if the Justice Department is getting involved, it raises the possibility of potential serious problems down the road for Apple,” said Daniel L. Brown, an antitrust lawyer at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.
. . .The inquiry is one of several by the federal government involving Apple. The Federal Trade Commission is moving ahead with a separate investigation of Apple’s rules for developers who create applications for the iPhone operating system, according to a person familiar with that discussion.
That inquiry, initiated by complaint from Adobe Systems, the maker of the Flash format for Internet video, is said to be in its early stages as well.
. . .The music investigation signals the elevated scrutiny of technology companies under the antitrust agencies of the Obama administration.
Source: NY Times
Comment by Shaky posted on Freedom of choice at 27/05/2010 - 11:11
The iPhone already has multitasking and has had it since version 1. It just isn't available via an API to third party developers. I'm not sure the lack of an API would stop malware producers
As I said this line of discussion is both complex and nuanced, but before you go spouting off again you had better get googling and find out what multitasking actually is, and why what Apple does ain’t it.
Talking without knowing again, eh Shaky?