Posts by PC1512 86 publicly visible posts • joined 25 May 2010
Pretty typical fandroid response there - millions of Android phones potentially compromised and the first thing you can say is "ah, but the evil iPhone must be MUCH worse.."
Of course it must. Google is your best pal after all, I'm sure this is all just some misunderstanding... Just thank god you don't have one of those AWFUL iPhones eh..
British Airways made the necessary modifications to its fleet after the Paris crash cause was clear, lining the fuel tanks with Kevlar - they then relaunched the Concorde service to much fanfare. What eventually stopped it was not safety concerns or any enforced grounding, but the terrorist attacks of 911, which not only massively increased costs and suppressed air travel generally, but killed off several of concorde's most loyal transatlantic customers.
So in short, a wholly commercial decision on the part of BA, which had little to do with the Paris crash in the end.
In fact you can see it quite clearly in the underside picture on page 2. One internal fan.
Despite that, I too would have some concerns about the heat... I'm not a big fan of Apple's preference for building in the PSU, I think there's a lot to be said for a separate power brick that (a) keeps its own heat to itself rather than the unit, and (b) can be replaced cheaply and easily when it inevitably fails. And Apple's internal PSUs do fail, unfortunately - just ask the owners of Time Machines of a certain age.
At £649 I'm just not convinced by these. A small, cheap Mac where you provide your own screen and keyboard is one thing, but this now isn't particularly cheap, and the crammed-in PSU creates an unwelcome point of failure.
As claimed by Jobs and others, the iPad *is* intended to replace netbooks. It fits the gap between smartphone and (full blown) laptop, quite literally in Apple's lineup, and is the company's answer to the stripped down cheap laptop that everyone else has been selling in that space - aka the netbook.
Seriously, isn't it about time Nokia stopped reeling from the appearance of the *2007* iPhone and actually produced something with a decent UI? From this review it's obvious that after all the excuses, this is just another stopgap phone with an inconsistent mess of old patched-up S60 still flopping all over the place. How much longer do they expect anyone to care?
One of the posters above tried to justify S60 on the basis that people put up with XP on their desktop. Here's a newsflash - XP is obsolete. People use it because they have to, but nobody *has* to use S60 on a new smartphone. There's simply nothing that it does that isn't done better, more easily, and more productively on other platforms.
"Either way, surely even the most hardened fanboi will eventually get fed up of being either manipulated or simply forced to wait to order the phone of this year's dreams."
Or they'll, you know, try again later. Because they're normal.
Hands up who's tired of the Register's relentlessly bitter, self-defeating, reality-distorted and immensely boring coverage of every single iota of anything Apple related? For a company you profess (repeatedly, endlessly, in every preachy opinion piece and snarky comment) to dislike, you really are slavish in your attentions.
I don't know if you've noticed yet, but all the negative coverage you've been heaping on Apple for the last few years hasn't actually hurt Apple. They're doing fine and quite enjoying all the endless free publicity thanks very much. Meanwhile, I've no idea who the Register are anymore, or what point you serve.
As I understand it, although the Safari app itself isn't part of the Mac OS foundations (in the same way that IE is to Windows), the Webkit web rendering engine is, and updates to that generally come bundled with updates to Safari.
For the most part reboots are rare in Mac OS as the OS has the ability to safely overwrite files that are in use - something that Windows lacks. Safari (or more specifically Webkit) updates are one of the few exceptions to that.
The thing is, before you spout on even more about blind ideology getting in the way of the "truth" and the "facts" you really might want to take a gander at that Guardian article, the screenshots, think about how users downloading these screensavers are actually being expressly told that the screensavers come courtesy of them installing separate software called "PremierOpinion", and that said PremierOpinion is expressly designed to monitor and collect information about them and their habits, and that it won't be installed unless they say yes, and PremierOpinion (not the screensaver) would like your admin password please... and then tell me again that common sense won't protect you from this "trojan".
One of us is letting our personal bias colour our understanding of the actual story here, and it ain't me.
I'm not a sysadmin so I don't generally assume that all my fellow human beings are stupid. For those that are, yes, anti-virus can help - and it's even suggested by Apple on their security pages now, which I'm sure will have you positively frothing with delight. However, in this case I don't believe any competent computer user would have benefited from it at all since they would have seen this dodginess coming a mile off - in fact it announces itself quite clearly, which is probably why "reputable" download sites and software vendors didn't have a problem with its inclusion. By contrast, the lesser able user with anti-virus installed is probably far more likely to OK everything on the assumption that the anti-virus would stop anything bad, when in reality there's always a distinct possibility that it won't at all.
Speaking personally - and my Mac is my personal computer after all - I know that PremierOpinion would never have gotten on my computer since Mac OS X would have given me more than enough warning that it, and not some screensaver, was the app trying to gain admin rights.
Before I go, have a bit of perspective - here's the Guardian's report on this yesterday, which helpfully includes a screenshot of the agreement required to install this spyware - http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/jun/02/apple-spyware-intego-discovery - as nasty as this all may be, that screenshot does explicitly state that "PremierOpinion" will be installed if the user agrees, and - if you read the blurb in full - explains that the software "monitors and collects" information on browsing, purchasing, hardware etc. And this is all presumably *before* you're subsequently asked for your admin password in order the software to install as root.
It may be a litlle sneaky, but it's not exactly a drive-by attack, is it?
You can even read all about PremierOpinion on their site here - http://www.premieropinion.com/FAQ.aspx
Oh, and it turns out that the complicated way you remove this evil malware from your compromised Mac is... by running the uninstaller provided. Or dragging and dropping the PremierOpinion folder in the trash (yes, it installs as a perfectly visible application in your applications folder - how sneaky is that?)
Forgive me for not being wrong, but the clear inference in your previous post is that anti-virus will save us all from this terrible threat - when actually in this instance, as in most instances of a Trojan, it's actually a little common sense on the user's behalf that's key, and in fact the only certain way to avoid getting stung.
Ironically, you're busily perpetuating the myth of dumb, helpless Mac fanbois whilst pushing a failed security model that encourages users to absolve themselves of responsibility and put all their faith in a third party (antivirus vendors) that can and do get it wrong on a regular basis, and whose whole business case relies on the continued proliferation of these threats. Meanwhile, the level of "outbreaks" amongst those oh-so-dumb Mac users is infinitessemally small, while malware is practically pre-installed on the average Windows machine.
If you'd bothered to read anything I'm saying, you'd know that like most Mac users I'm well aware that my computer isn't "invulnerable", because like any computer it's at the mercy of its user - but without the entirely false sense of security provided by the likes of Norton peering over my shoulder and eating up my processor cycles 24/7, I actually take care over what I allow onto the system and pay attention to what the system's telling me, all of which would prevent this trojan and any others like it. Mac OS X certainly does alert me and ask permission about any applications asking for network access for the first time, and that alone would set off enough alarm bells over a screensaver.
Now I suggest you try balancing that massive chip on your other shoulder for a while, while I take my leave of your timewasting nonsense.
So it's ok to give a screensaver admin priviledges on your system, despite warnings from the system itself, as long as you've got antivirus to protect you right?
As long as the antivirus says it's ok, you'll just go ahead and run it. Yeah, that's security. Because antivirus is never wrong, and antivirus always knows how to recognise the latest malware before you install it, doesn't it.
Yup, must be a sweet deal running Windows. I guess that's why so few windows machines have malware installed, and Macs are so notoriously riddled with it.
One thing though - Mac OS X would not allow a screensaver to download anything by default (and I don't think that's what the report is suggesting happens either) - if it is, then that's just one more permission that the user has to expressly grant before this oh-so-dangerous attack gets to have it's wicked way with us defenceless fanbois.
So once again, it's not a virus, or a worm, but a trojan. In other words, the one form of malware that could infect ANY system, as it relies on user error in order to circumvent any and every check and balance that could possibly be built into the OS.
In order to infect a Mac it requires an admin to enter their password (and not as some are inferring to steal that password, which it cannot do, but simply because OS X will identify it as potentially harmful and prevent it from installing until that password is entered). Heavy duty installation for a simple screensaver. I'm almost tempted to download and attempt to install one of these just to see exactly what warnings are given - I suspect they're ample.
The wintards leaping on this as proof of some form of vulnerability in Macs should ask themselves - what flaw needs patching? What security update is needed? What should Apple "fix" here? The truth is, there's nothing to fix in the system, since this "issue" is completely user-related. Unless you lockdown the computer entirely and "whitelist" apps, as per the iPhone and iPad, there's no defence against a *user* of any machine choosing to install a Trojan.
There's something hilarious about this article, which is full of incredulity about how this app could possibly be described as "widgety" or as a "desktop", and is then capped off with a screenshot of the most widgety, desktop-like app you can imagine.
I mean seriously, it's a "photo frame" (because obviously neither the iPhone or iPad have a means of viewing a full screen photo built in) which just happens to overlay said photo (or "wallpaper" if I might coin that term) with a bunch of "layers". Only those layers are actually, very obviously, all the usual widgets you'd expect on a desktop replacement - which is exactly what this is.
How mysterious!
You posted "proof" that Admob allowed some dodgy advertising through and that clicking on said advert could cost you money - the thing is, that's not malware, it's advertising. Advertising that could be inserted at anytime into any advert-supported app, regardless of the platform or appstore/vetting process (if any). Advertising that was in contravention of Admob's own rules, but was still not going to cost anyone anything if they didn't click on it.
You've proved that iAds might actualy be a great idea, but you haven't come up with any proof of malware being distributed by an appstore.
Those that repeat a senseless mantra over and over without justifying it, look stupid. And a little paranoid if you don't mind me saying.
The truth is that in any and every civillised society we *do* sacrifice some liberty and *do* gain some security from that - it's called having government, and police, and a judicial system. Maybe you're not keen on them, but I think most people are probably generally in support of those concepts.
From where I'm sitting, those that give up their "liberty" by having an iPhone are perfectly secure, while those that insist on their "liberty" by jailbreaking their iPhones are less secure, and have been known to fall foul of malware. I don't really care who deserves what by your definition, I can only go by what I see
I realise you're desperate to draw some kind of parallel, but if you read to the end of that blog post from *2007* -
"UPDATE: Apple has since added the ability to switch off "Data Roaming" for International travelers. See Settings -> General -> Network -> Data Roaming."
So basically we're talking about a missing feature that (a) has nothing whatever to do with appstores or third party apps, and (b) got fixed within months of the phone's release three years ago. Call the feds!
You know, it's a shame nobody's come up with a way of validating apps before they can be run on a mobile phone - perhaps limiting access to them through one central "store" perhaps. That way the user could feel safe in the knowledge that those apps aren't going to do anything bad like this, and legitimate developers wouldn't have their good name tarnished by rogue apps like these.
Just a thought.
So you bought an incompatible device thinking it was 50% larger than it is, despite the copious amounts of information available from Apple and elsewhere, numerous reviews, and the fact that where you are (in America) it's been available to view and play with in shops for a month or two already.
Yeah, that's Apple's fault. Stupid Apple.
As I said above, I haven't bought one because I can't afford it, so I'm neither "buying shit I don't need" nor spending "money I don't have".
If I spent the money I don't have on a netbook I don't really need instead, as I'm sure many have, presumably that would praised as a "wise" purchase?
Why does the Register persist in articles like this? In a few years time, when iPads are everywhere and the very name has become the generic term for a ubiquitous class of device, passers by will be mystified by exactly what point you thought you were making here. I'm pretty flummoxed by it even now.
No the iPad doesn't do anything that you can't do with a netbook or a smartphone, let alone a "proper" computer. Yes a netbook can technically do "more", should you have the patience and wish to use one in that way. None of this changes the fact that for its principal functions, the iPad is *nicer* to use than either. Far more versatile than an e-book reader, more comfortable for prolonged use than a smartphone, quicker and easier to pick up and use than a netbook - the question isn't why buy an iPad, but why not?
Of course the answer for that for many people is they can't justify the cost, and that's fine. I'm one of those that *wants* one but can't say that I need one, since I have a decent phone and decent laptop already - I can't justify the price of an iPad in the middle, but then crucially I couldn't justify a netbook either - and to me the iPad makes a lot more sense than buying another smaller, fiddlier, crappier laptop to put next to the much better laptop I already own. If I wasn't so strapped for cash, and if I could convince the wife it was something we needed (and unlike a lot of over-technical gadgets I think the iPad's probably jazzy enough to catch her eye too), then I'd definitely take one, and I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy it too.
You know, enjoyment - linked to joy - something a lot of people look for in consumer devices. Remember that?
No it didn't, the first Spectrum had a rubber keypad with "proper" buttons, not touch sensitive by any description.
It's much more basic forerunner the ZX81 (and ZX80 before that) had "flat" keyboards using membranes for keys. Not really touch sensitive either by any definition we'd recognise now - they were physical buttons that you pressed, just not very hard.
It's always talked about PC viruses, at least as far as I remember over the last few years anyway. They'd be fools to guarantee no viruses whatsoever, but the fact that an Apple computer *is* immune to the millions of Windows viruses circulating the web is a major selling point, whether you accept that as a "design feature" or not.
For many years people have been saying that Macs are only secure through obscurity, and that a Mac virus will rip through OS X any day now, and yet somehow it just hasn't happened. It very obviously isn't an easy target.
It's a well executed and unique gadget, the first of its kind, and already the first purebred tablet computer to get anywhere close to mass-market appeal, despite countless attempts in the past. The antipathy and willingness for it to fail in places like this only goes to show what a mountain it's up against, and what an ultimately brave move it was for Apple to even attempt this rather than just stick to traditional macs and non-giant iphones - this is what innovation is all about at the end of the day, surprising people and challenging them on what it is they think they want.
If Apple had simply brought out a Mac-styled netbook, they might have sold a few, but they wouldn't really have added to anything that wasn't already out there on the market. That may have been what some potential customers would have expected if asked what Apple should build, but it's like the old Henry Ford quote - "If I’d asked people what they wanted, they would have asked for faster horses"
The iPad is already a success, and deservedly so.
So, Farewell then, iPhone 3G.
It's done sterling service and should be remembered fondly - remember this was the iPhone that ushered in the Appstore and was also subsidised by networks for the first time, making much more of a meaningful impact on the phone biz than it's predecessor.
Even the most fervent Apple basher should thank this phone for the fact that their latest and greatest Android smartphone even exists.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
