Clive At Five
Sep 26, 09:18 AM
Hoboy....
Let me just say that even though I am a cingular customer, I don't like the sound of this.
1) Previous reports told us that Apple relinquished developing the "hardware" and settled for common components
2) This report tells us that Apple has settled for a carrier.
What is left for Apple to do? The body and the interface (and let me tell you, only one of those two is really important). And even though Apple will control the interface, they will not control any sort of mobile -> internet interaction, i.e. iTunes. Remember when Apple wanted to allow pseudo-iPhone mobile users to be able to d/l from the iT(M)S for identical prices but carriers wouldn't allow that because it severely undercut their pricing structure (download premiums). I would only assume that mobile downloading from iTS (if possible w/ the iPhone) will be more expensive than d/l-ing from home due to the carrier's resrictions.
*sigh* I guess I'm very skeptical, suddenly, that this iPhone will be worth all the attention it's getting. Maybe the interface will be so outstanding that it'll blow everyone's mind... but I'm not holding my breath.
-Clive
Let me just say that even though I am a cingular customer, I don't like the sound of this.
1) Previous reports told us that Apple relinquished developing the "hardware" and settled for common components
2) This report tells us that Apple has settled for a carrier.
What is left for Apple to do? The body and the interface (and let me tell you, only one of those two is really important). And even though Apple will control the interface, they will not control any sort of mobile -> internet interaction, i.e. iTunes. Remember when Apple wanted to allow pseudo-iPhone mobile users to be able to d/l from the iT(M)S for identical prices but carriers wouldn't allow that because it severely undercut their pricing structure (download premiums). I would only assume that mobile downloading from iTS (if possible w/ the iPhone) will be more expensive than d/l-ing from home due to the carrier's resrictions.
*sigh* I guess I'm very skeptical, suddenly, that this iPhone will be worth all the attention it's getting. Maybe the interface will be so outstanding that it'll blow everyone's mind... but I'm not holding my breath.
-Clive
LanPhantom
Mar 23, 06:03 PM
Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.
Because an App is pointless does not mean it should be pulled. If that was the case Apple better pull like 30% of the BS apps on the app store now (fart app, pull my finger, lighter).
I think they should leave it and explain that while they control the applications that could directly harm someone (ie porn in the hands of a child) they don't limit ones right to put together a public knowledge app. The pedifiles of this world are probably mad because they are listed in the ChiMo apps and you can look them up on your phone at any time. This app only notifies someone of a possible problem. The Cop's drunk traps aren't secret. I agree that if that person knew about this "trap" they could attempt to navigate around, however if the cops are smarter then the average drunk person, they could post cruisers at different points of potential alternate routes and pick them off like flies. Most people do something wrong while driving drunk, they are lucky that no one is around when they do it.
This app doesn't help or hurt anyone.
-LanPhantom
Because an App is pointless does not mean it should be pulled. If that was the case Apple better pull like 30% of the BS apps on the app store now (fart app, pull my finger, lighter).
I think they should leave it and explain that while they control the applications that could directly harm someone (ie porn in the hands of a child) they don't limit ones right to put together a public knowledge app. The pedifiles of this world are probably mad because they are listed in the ChiMo apps and you can look them up on your phone at any time. This app only notifies someone of a possible problem. The Cop's drunk traps aren't secret. I agree that if that person knew about this "trap" they could attempt to navigate around, however if the cops are smarter then the average drunk person, they could post cruisers at different points of potential alternate routes and pick them off like flies. Most people do something wrong while driving drunk, they are lucky that no one is around when they do it.
This app doesn't help or hurt anyone.
-LanPhantom
mdriftmeyer
Apr 19, 06:52 AM
Strongly? I mean, ``We're talkin' fierce! Here us Roarrrr!''
yellowballoon
Mar 29, 12:11 PM
Apple still doesn't have upload to a cloud or wireless syncing, and Windows Phone does. 25 GB free sky drive, as well as a beautiful hub where you choose what to access at a glance. In iOS, you have to flick and flick, especially if you have many apps. The wireless syncing is slick. Facebook integration flawless. WP7 also now has cut, copy, and paste and HTML5 before the end of the year. I'm sorry, but hooking up with the largest mobile phone manufacture is a no brainer.
xlii
Apr 14, 11:52 AM
Now that it's part of the platform Apple has no excuse for not including it. However, it wouldn't surprise me to see a MBP with this platform that still only has 2.0 connectors.
Well, it would surprise me. USB3.0 and Thunderbolt will come included in Intel''s Ivy Bridge. Apple would have to add more hardware and disable USB 3.0 to make it 2.0 only. Makes zero cents.
Well, it would surprise me. USB3.0 and Thunderbolt will come included in Intel''s Ivy Bridge. Apple would have to add more hardware and disable USB 3.0 to make it 2.0 only. Makes zero cents.
retrorichie
Apr 22, 11:55 AM
maybe i can get a 500gb ssd in there by the time it's released, then i'll have all i want (for now).
+1
+1
cmaier
Nov 13, 11:51 PM
Which law firm please. We'd all like to know for future reference, who to not trust our cases with. While most law has to do with the letter of the law, jury trials often are won or lost based on what the jury believes to be the intent or spirit of the law.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
MacNewsFix
Apr 19, 09:39 AM
http://www.palminfocenter.com/images/Treo-680-review-1a.jpg
Looks like Apple copied palm just changed the background to white and the icons to a square!
:rolleyes:
As someone that owned a new Palm or Handspring device since 1997 until I can assure you the similarities are far and few between.
You know, the Palm does remind me of something I remember from the 80's. Hmmmmm.
Looks like Apple copied palm just changed the background to white and the icons to a square!
:rolleyes:
As someone that owned a new Palm or Handspring device since 1997 until I can assure you the similarities are far and few between.
You know, the Palm does remind me of something I remember from the 80's. Hmmmmm.
CalBoy
Mar 30, 11:49 AM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/app
278891
I think this is enough to show that Microsoft is unequivocally correct. The term has been in use for much longer than Apple's launching of the store and it has been ubiquitous in the computer industry for a long time.
The way to distinguish (if it needs to be done) between app stores is by saying the name of the app store before hand, ie the Apple App Store, the Amazon App Store, or the Microsoft App Store.
278891
I think this is enough to show that Microsoft is unequivocally correct. The term has been in use for much longer than Apple's launching of the store and it has been ubiquitous in the computer industry for a long time.
The way to distinguish (if it needs to be done) between app stores is by saying the name of the app store before hand, ie the Apple App Store, the Amazon App Store, or the Microsoft App Store.
bedifferent
May 3, 10:48 PM
... which is a better display in any way you care to name, except vertical resolution with the 30", than the 23" or 30" ACDs.
Just like every other vendor, they realized it was pretty much impossible to implement. Use Windows at 150% mode and you'll see what I mean; *everything* is horribly broken. There will be pixel-doubled Macs within the next year.
The prosumer market is tiny. Everyone in the country who is not dirt-poor or a Luddite has a phone. There are a few hundred thousand prosumers at most. You don't make money engineering expensive, cutting-edge products just for that market.
Merging? Some iOS interface features are being added to Lion. They are not "merging." Lion is not losing any capabilities (other than Rosetta).
You are saying Final Cut X is meh before anyone has even seen it? :
MY FRIEND JACKEE WHO WORKS ON THE DESIGN TEAM
There is no margin whatsoever in commodity desktop hardware; it's THE most price-sensitive part of the PC market. Apple doesn't do things where it can't generate high margins. It's not a charity, it's a business.
What capabilities are missing from Lion as a result of iOS interface influence?
How is the Magic Trackpad "painful?" Mine is my favorite input device ever by a huge margin. My only problem with it is that Apple took about 3 years too long to release it. What would you do to make it not "painful?"
WORKING 12 HOUR DAYS WITH A TRACKPAD TAKES A TOLL ON YOUR WRISTS AS IT IS CURRENTLY DESIGNED
What benefits would 64-bit provide to the user, other than a very small performance improvement? iLife applications' GUI threads are not using more than 4 GB of RAM.
Are you in favor of the prosumer, or the elitist "pro" who thinks their app is debased by a consumer feature? Prosumers use Facebook and (especially) Flickr. Since Apple already built the feature for iPhoto, it costs them nothing to throw it into Aperture.
How is easier app installation hurting you?
Seaward Barcode Scanner, bluetooth
Model: Barcode Scanner Wand. Manufacturer: Metrel
arcode scanner nokiajun
Testing and maintaining test
Ikon Barcode Scanner Intermec
arcode reader icon.
with arcode scanner app,
Electrical amp; Test Equipment
Bar Code Scanner,
Just like every other vendor, they realized it was pretty much impossible to implement. Use Windows at 150% mode and you'll see what I mean; *everything* is horribly broken. There will be pixel-doubled Macs within the next year.
The prosumer market is tiny. Everyone in the country who is not dirt-poor or a Luddite has a phone. There are a few hundred thousand prosumers at most. You don't make money engineering expensive, cutting-edge products just for that market.
Merging? Some iOS interface features are being added to Lion. They are not "merging." Lion is not losing any capabilities (other than Rosetta).
You are saying Final Cut X is meh before anyone has even seen it? :
MY FRIEND JACKEE WHO WORKS ON THE DESIGN TEAM
There is no margin whatsoever in commodity desktop hardware; it's THE most price-sensitive part of the PC market. Apple doesn't do things where it can't generate high margins. It's not a charity, it's a business.
What capabilities are missing from Lion as a result of iOS interface influence?
How is the Magic Trackpad "painful?" Mine is my favorite input device ever by a huge margin. My only problem with it is that Apple took about 3 years too long to release it. What would you do to make it not "painful?"
WORKING 12 HOUR DAYS WITH A TRACKPAD TAKES A TOLL ON YOUR WRISTS AS IT IS CURRENTLY DESIGNED
What benefits would 64-bit provide to the user, other than a very small performance improvement? iLife applications' GUI threads are not using more than 4 GB of RAM.
Are you in favor of the prosumer, or the elitist "pro" who thinks their app is debased by a consumer feature? Prosumers use Facebook and (especially) Flickr. Since Apple already built the feature for iPhoto, it costs them nothing to throw it into Aperture.
How is easier app installation hurting you?
Object-X
Sep 12, 03:52 PM
The real question is when will the true video ipod be released? Christmas?
I just watched the stream. Not before Christmas. Jobs made it pretty clear that these updates and new iPods are the holiday product line up.
I just watched the stream. Not before Christmas. Jobs made it pretty clear that these updates and new iPods are the holiday product line up.
samiwas
Apr 20, 02:47 PM
The free market would suck if it were run in the way your brain imagines it. But imagine if you ran a company, and your chief goal is to make a profit. Having happy employees who are payed fairly and receive vacation days, benefits, etc, is definitely a better business model than working your employees like slaves.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
WestonHarvey1
Mar 23, 06:07 PM
show me the law that says it'l illegal to notify other drivers of a cop checking speeds, or to notify the position of a DUI check point.
Most state courts have come down on the side of motorists who flash headlights as a signal, arguing that it is protected speech.
Where illegal, like Washington State, it's typically flashing high beams itself that isn't legal (safety reasons or whatever), and not the sharing of information about a speed trap.
Most state courts have come down on the side of motorists who flash headlights as a signal, arguing that it is protected speech.
Where illegal, like Washington State, it's typically flashing high beams itself that isn't legal (safety reasons or whatever), and not the sharing of information about a speed trap.
Proud Liberal
Sep 12, 02:57 PM
Updated my 5G iPod to 1.2, loaded Quadrophenia, and yes, there is FINALLY gapless. :D
so you have to re-rip any albums that are affected by the gapless feature?
so you have to re-rip any albums that are affected by the gapless feature?
nospleen
Sep 10, 08:52 AM
My computers will of course not be slower. But the apps, on the other hand, will become more and more demanding. For example, I cant run Aperture on my MDD (2*1.25/2GB RAM/128MB VRAM). Hell, I cant even run Civ IV on it...lol
I think this fact will be more and more emphasized as the "core-war" replaces the "GHz war".
Gotcha! That would get old quick, at least the old apps would work. It is kind of cool now that a G3 can still run Tiger. Oh well, can't have everything! :)
I think this fact will be more and more emphasized as the "core-war" replaces the "GHz war".
Gotcha! That would get old quick, at least the old apps would work. It is kind of cool now that a G3 can still run Tiger. Oh well, can't have everything! :)
Kashchei
Aug 31, 11:47 AM
Merom MacBook Pro + Conroe iMac + speedbumped Mac mini + iTunes movie downloads + widescreen video iPod
You took the words right out of my mouth!
You took the words right out of my mouth!
MacMan86
Apr 12, 06:21 AM
Unless, as mentioned earlier in this thread, that 3rd party hardware includes the ability to upgrade its firmware. In that case, all customers will be required to install a mandatory "security" bug fix which installs support for a new private key, and everything proceeds as normal.
Heck, it's even possible that Apple might already have planned for this contingency, and instead of just having one private key, they may have come up with a set of many private keys to choose from, and also preprogrammed support for all of those keys into every properly licensed accessory. Maybe they just planned to use the first key up until it was compromised, and then move on to another.
Now, they might just push a new iTunes upgrade that blacklists the compromised key and moves on to another one -- and at the same time, instruct all licensed equipment to also add that key to their own blacklist (while continuing to maintain seamless support for all the remainder of the preprogrammed keys) the next time the licensed equipment connects to an authorized audio source.
(Unless, maybe the reverse engineer in this case already anticipated such an eventuality, and actually extracted all of the keys -- assuming, of course, that there really are multiple keys. If that were the case, then the reverse engineer hypothetically might have defeated the entire benefit that Apple might have derived from hypothetically having multiple keys to choose from in the first place...)
What's a little crazy with that is you start to believe your own hypothetical, made-up engineering. Now, no one here knows anything for sure, but, I think we can say with some certainty that Apple won't be changing the key in iTunes.
3rd party hardware includes the ability to upgrade its firmware
Sweeping generalisation. Those simple iHome AirPlay speakers can be connected to a computer and then firmware upgraded? Very unlikely. Not every AirPlay licensed hardware is an expensive Hi-Fi amp with upgradable firmware.
Heck, it's even possible that Apple might already have planned for this contingency, and instead of just having one private key, they may have come up with a set of many private keys to choose from
Near enough pointless. If someone is able to get hold of one private key, they're in a position to get hold of any others. This guy dumped the ROM after all.
The biggest reason for Apple not to change the key is it would break everything. A "mandatory "security" bug fix" isn't feasible for hardware, it would be like trying to organise a product recall - you could never tell everyone, and everyone would be wondering why their product suddenly broke - the companies behind these products would be swamped with support calls. You simply can't just bring out an update that breaks everything, hoping that customers will somehow update hardware that might not even be up-dateable.
tl;dr - However Apple engineered this, it's almost certainly not like that ^
Heck, it's even possible that Apple might already have planned for this contingency, and instead of just having one private key, they may have come up with a set of many private keys to choose from, and also preprogrammed support for all of those keys into every properly licensed accessory. Maybe they just planned to use the first key up until it was compromised, and then move on to another.
Now, they might just push a new iTunes upgrade that blacklists the compromised key and moves on to another one -- and at the same time, instruct all licensed equipment to also add that key to their own blacklist (while continuing to maintain seamless support for all the remainder of the preprogrammed keys) the next time the licensed equipment connects to an authorized audio source.
(Unless, maybe the reverse engineer in this case already anticipated such an eventuality, and actually extracted all of the keys -- assuming, of course, that there really are multiple keys. If that were the case, then the reverse engineer hypothetically might have defeated the entire benefit that Apple might have derived from hypothetically having multiple keys to choose from in the first place...)
What's a little crazy with that is you start to believe your own hypothetical, made-up engineering. Now, no one here knows anything for sure, but, I think we can say with some certainty that Apple won't be changing the key in iTunes.
3rd party hardware includes the ability to upgrade its firmware
Sweeping generalisation. Those simple iHome AirPlay speakers can be connected to a computer and then firmware upgraded? Very unlikely. Not every AirPlay licensed hardware is an expensive Hi-Fi amp with upgradable firmware.
Heck, it's even possible that Apple might already have planned for this contingency, and instead of just having one private key, they may have come up with a set of many private keys to choose from
Near enough pointless. If someone is able to get hold of one private key, they're in a position to get hold of any others. This guy dumped the ROM after all.
The biggest reason for Apple not to change the key is it would break everything. A "mandatory "security" bug fix" isn't feasible for hardware, it would be like trying to organise a product recall - you could never tell everyone, and everyone would be wondering why their product suddenly broke - the companies behind these products would be swamped with support calls. You simply can't just bring out an update that breaks everything, hoping that customers will somehow update hardware that might not even be up-dateable.
tl;dr - However Apple engineered this, it's almost certainly not like that ^
dagger01
Mar 29, 12:40 PM
"IDC Projects Windows Phone to Top iPhone in Market Share by 2015"
ROFLMFAO...hahahahahahahahaha....wait....wait.....hahahahahahahaha
And donkey's might fly out of my butt. To say that MS would overtake anything in the smartphone market at this point is utterly ludicrous. I want some of what that IDC person is smoking!
ROFLMFAO...hahahahahahahahaha....wait....wait.....hahahahahahahaha
And donkey's might fly out of my butt. To say that MS would overtake anything in the smartphone market at this point is utterly ludicrous. I want some of what that IDC person is smoking!
revfife
Sep 12, 02:35 PM
lol!
And so the cries of disappointment begin...
Thats the best part of these forums is watching the buildup until it reaches some ungodly device that is not probable or even possible and then sheer disappointment when Apple announces a decent upgrade to a great product. :rolleyes:
And so the cries of disappointment begin...
Thats the best part of these forums is watching the buildup until it reaches some ungodly device that is not probable or even possible and then sheer disappointment when Apple announces a decent upgrade to a great product. :rolleyes:
peharri
Sep 18, 07:33 AM
OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
deconstruct60
May 3, 07:57 PM
My iMacs have 2 Firewire ports (a 27" and a 24") which I use for TM and a SD clone external. The new iMacs only have one FW port - with 4 USB connections. Seems like a slower way to have to back up, and I see no externals out there that run Thunderbolt.
Am I missing something? :confused:
Am I missing something? :confused:
centauratlas
Apr 4, 12:24 PM
The San Diego news says the robbers were shooting at him, so I think his life was in danger. :-) 40 rounds of exchanged fire.
Chula Vista is NOT La Jolla.
If you don't want to be shot, don't rob a store and better yet don't rob a store carrying a gun with other people carrying guns.
I'm as pro gun rights as anyone, but this sounds like a problem for the security guard. Unless that guard's life was in danger, there was no reason to shoot anyone, especially in the head. The placement of that shot was no accident.
That being said, I'm sure there are a lot of facts we don't know. Innocent until proven guilty, of course.
Chula Vista is NOT La Jolla.
If you don't want to be shot, don't rob a store and better yet don't rob a store carrying a gun with other people carrying guns.
I'm as pro gun rights as anyone, but this sounds like a problem for the security guard. Unless that guard's life was in danger, there was no reason to shoot anyone, especially in the head. The placement of that shot was no accident.
That being said, I'm sure there are a lot of facts we don't know. Innocent until proven guilty, of course.
Rafterman
Apr 22, 06:53 AM
A great point, it's kind of funny how consumers have let the media lead us into believing we need clouded services out of everything. I can understand streaming television and films, but what is so hard about syncing your music at home once or twice a week?
True. There are also a bunch of products that allow you to set up your own streaming services, like StreamtoMe, which even supports encrypted iTunes files now. And not just music, but video too, and best of all, you have complete control over everything. Its not for everyone, like people without the necessary hardware or great technical skills. But if set up properly, its just as good as anything Apple or Google can provide.
True. There are also a bunch of products that allow you to set up your own streaming services, like StreamtoMe, which even supports encrypted iTunes files now. And not just music, but video too, and best of all, you have complete control over everything. Its not for everyone, like people without the necessary hardware or great technical skills. But if set up properly, its just as good as anything Apple or Google can provide.
settledown
Sep 26, 11:05 AM
Apple and Cingular go way back.
Who says that Apple WONT be a Mobile Virtual Network Operator like Virgin Mobile, Helio, Amp'd, mobile ESPN
ESPN is Sprint
Helio is Sprint
Amp'd is Verizon
Virgin is Sprint in the US, but T Mobile in the UK
I say Apple iPhone IS MVNO
Who says that Apple WONT be a Mobile Virtual Network Operator like Virgin Mobile, Helio, Amp'd, mobile ESPN
ESPN is Sprint
Helio is Sprint
Amp'd is Verizon
Virgin is Sprint in the US, but T Mobile in the UK
I say Apple iPhone IS MVNO
No comments:
Post a Comment