493 posts • joined Wednesday 5th January 2011 14:37 GMT
It doesn't look like you read my post. I wrote:
"Also be sure to save your SHSH blob first before upgrading, to re-verify the OS after downgrade."
You can take a copy of the SHSH blob with TinyUmbrella.
Admittedly this is not the easiest user experience, but then as said, Apple are avoiding supporting downgrade scenarios (but they aren't apparently actively blocking them). When you really get into the logic of downgrades (as I have had to do for my work), you quickly realise what are initially seemingly innocuous decisions commit you to having to support n-state conditions and there will always be customers who are made very angry by the corner the software has let them paint themselves in. If the capability is simply not offered, you occasionally have customers who want to downgrade who can't. They will tend to be mildly unhappy. But they will tend not to be spitting blood like the customers you allowed to paint themselves into the corner.
You can back up all your apps to iTunes and restore any app version from there. With iOS 7 Apple have also given developers the capability to keep previous versions of apps available in the AppStore to match older OS's.
You almost always can roll back, they just say you can't because there is so much scope for problems because you will have also upgraded your apps in the meantime and expect to be able to keep the data. Also be sure to save your SHSH blob first before upgrading, to re-verify the OS after downgrade.
The main problem with downgrades being that at the point of upgrade you are seeking to downgrade from was made, apps often transform their data to a new schema, so you will end up with local data in a state that is inconsistent with a previous versions of the apps that ran on the older OS. To be sure there are no problems downgrade needs to be be to a fresh install and all the apps restored, or you need to downgrade to a fresh install (no apps and data) before restoring an older iTunes back-up taken when on the same version of the OS. It is easier for Apple to say you can't roll-back so all the responsibility rests on your shoulders, than have to support all the possible combinations of self inflicted embuggerance. The problem goes away if you just say you can't downgrade and you leave the decision to do so on he shoulders of the user.
If they wrote their system to support full downgrade with previous version app and data deltas, they would be storing one hell of a lot of near duplicate data that would never be used by probably more than 95% of users. The backup capability is built in to iOS at no charge and they don't force adds on their users to pay for it, so they aren't going to do that.
Lesson: If you can't upgrade people will complain. If you can upgrade, people will complain.
Re: Genius Bar
@SVV I know you are trying to appeal to a certain audience who already agree with you. But no, it's not. It's also an advice counter, anyone who buys Apple kit can book an appointment to get advice on how to do what they want to be able to do. I know many non techie people (especially older people) who think the service is wonderful, and as the person in my family who would otherwise get roped into helping said people, I think it is pretty good too.
It's also a mechanism to keep customers happy by ensuring they are seen on a timely basis. Apple have been clever in making the default mode of interaction at their stores, if you want extended help, be sure to book an appointment. That way they can actually dedicate some time to providing service instead of just being the equivalent of a mobile phone shop where before you go in you don't know if it will be that you can see someone immediately or if you will be leaving the store frustration after waiting half an hour and getting no service.
Also people don't think about the things you rarely have to worry about with Apple. Such as that if you phone them up (e.g. to book your appointment), you never seem to be left in a queue. Sorry not to join in your "ya-boo-sucks-athon" but I do believe in pointing out good stuff when it is encountered and dearly wish more businesses would try to copy the good stuff.
Yes calling it a "genius" bar is a bit of a stretch but I think you can credit most people with understanding it is marketing rather than a literal description and I think you can allow a business to market a product/service with an eye catching memetic, after all I don't ask my local funfair for my money back when it turns out the "ride-of-death" has failed to deliver on its' promise.
"iPhone sales were up 25 per cent year-on-year, he noted, but that was from a rather small base in the previous year."
Rather small base... Can you name a single line of devices that has sold more units than the iPhone and made more profit in the history of the world, ever?
No. Thought not.
"Skype chief Tony Bates"
I don't know anything about Tony Bates, but seeing as he has presided over the production of a service that screams out for a simple interface, yet has been released with an inconsistent, unintuituve, convoluted POS, I guess there won't be much changing at Microsoft in the near future.
Re: Locking the stable door
Unlimited broadband. "It's unlimited I tell you" apart from the, er, limits.
Still the Telco's are the inert bean counters who think sitting on their price cartels is all they have to do and who have ignored HD audio and don't try to compete on International tariffs, and have done nothing about the problem of increasing numbers of sales calls. They have only succeeded in training their customer's to discover they are very often better off using HD audio with services like FaceTime audio and going for the nearest WiFi connection. I now just leave the answer phone on and never answer my house phone because of the silent calls I get from Indian service centres (like for spam, the cost to them of calling and only connecting up with an call centre rep when one happens to be available is extremely low). They are only succeeding in hastening their own transformation into commodity utility Internet Service providers.
Re: jealous spouse
True, I take that back. If a man has his wife sitting next to him watching TV and then a text message comes in and he sidles to one side before looking at his phone, I wouldn't rate his chances too highly.
Re: ..."a whopping 80 per cent of crashes ... involved male drivers"
Men do crash more. IMO the reason why is simple. Because while, on average, they have superior coordinated motor skills, they enjoy them whilst driving faster and taking more risks. Being less empathetic and prepared to take more risks, they care for high levels of safety less (or at least, keep safety in mind less) and apply the same lower safety standard to others. I would argue, though the lower safety standard doesn't necessarily translate to recklessness (e.g. deliberate disregard for safety, though there will be more reckless male drivers per head of the driving population) I think what men perceive to be the best balance point in the trade off between efficiency and acceptable risk differs between men and women.
Surely this has evolved from the different roles with primeval man tending to be out running after moving things to throw spears at (when not down at primo-pub) while primeval woman would tend to be protecting sprogs.
You've been duped by The Registers default melodrama setting. Reading the first independent claim it is more specific than face unlock. It relates to taking an action in response to incomming communication plus face authentication. So one application is to only show text message notifications, or incomming call numbers on the lock screen, when it can "see" it is the owner's fizzog looking at it.
Great for cheating spouses, as I understand the number one reason for getting caught is the untimely appearance of text message notifications.
Re: Cynical - me?
And yet it remains true those whose default stance is something can't be done, never try and everything around us in the world of tech that has resulted in a new product, started as an idea in the head of someone who thought they could find a way to do it. That may be Dr Phil Philosophy (not sure who Dr Phil is) but it also is a basic attitude shared by the I K Brunel's and S Jobs' of this world.
I get frustrated that so many in the UK in particular, fail to intuitively understand the crucial difference between adopting a healthy critical stance and fixing the dial so it defaults to snark every time. The Register is actually in a unique position where it could do so much good if it could simply avoid the latter. By all means maintain a generally critical and cynical editorial tone. But they could surprise us every now and again and do so much good with it to boot. To unfailingly go for the negative angle is a weakness not a strength.
My personal rule of thumb is the Thunderbirds test. I try to remember what most boring executives would have made of Thunderbirds if presented with the concept before the finished product. Here The Register are running down something that is as cool as Gerry Anderson's conception yet, for this story, avoiding running it down isn't in any way a bad fit with The Register brand.
I make no apology for admiring Jeff Bezos and what he is setting out to do on this. And I always admire people trying to do something new like this (Google self driving car, Oculus Rift etc.). If you think that equates to giving Jeff Bezos a blow job, so be it.
Re: Cynical - me?
Yep cynical, and perhaps having your thinking infected by The Register.
This is the website the claimed The Liberator is proof there is no such thing as a 3D printed gun. 4 months later, a metal Sintering 3D printer, following the trail blazed by the Liberator, produces a gun of amazing and frightening accuracy power and potential.
This is the website that put down the iPad on its' launch. How did that monumental vision of imminent product failure stand the test of time?
This is the website that claimed Apple's 64bit processor was all marketing hype. But then the very next day it's shown how they simply lacked the vision to understand how 64bits would have a very real and dramatic affect on the performance of iOS devices (And had no understanding of for example, what it meant that Apple could use part of the 64bit address to implement tagged pointers). The iPhone 5S blows the competition away on performance (but not that you would know that from reading The Register) and it's little to do with raw clock speed.
You see cynics understand the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Amazon is an incredibly powerful and energetic company. Their value to the US economy means they *will* get the ear of the regulator. When people do new and interesting stuff, they carry others along with them. People want to be involved.
Nothing really worth doing in life is a piece of cake. There will always be challenges. Men flew to the moon once. Which means someone at some point said, we are going to put a man on the moon, meant what he said and then took action to do it. If they had asked the Register, the project would have fallen at the first hurdle as everyone threw their arms up at the "insurmountable reliability problems."
Apple spend about 1/14th the amount Samsung spend on marketing.
What you have written sounds more like an excuse, and gets nowhere near explaining that degree of difference. The real reason is far more simple. Being the best is it's own advert. When you play football for Brazil, you have no trouble featuring on the first page of the sports news.
"If their products are so great why spend so much on advertising?"
Simple, they are making the mistake of thinking you can buy class.
Same reasoning led them to think that by sending researchers to study the queues outside Apple stores, they can learn how they can generate the same enthusiasm for their own product launches.
Hint to Samsung: It has nothing to do with the queues, which are the result, it begins at the root of company culture and has to be cultivated from the inside out. It can't be purchased.
@ZR tl; dw; :)
"They want to be so much more than a white box "rebrander" of Android handsets"
Re-reading my own comment, I've realised this is not phrased properly and as phrased, is too harsh. What I meant to say is they want so much to be in a space where they are perceived as offering value that is distinct from and more than what can be offered by a "white box rebrander." They are of course much more than that (they have strength in depth in their supply chain for a start), but that might all be for naught if it doesn't enable them to consistently deliver more than the competition. I suspect they can see competition like the new Nexus 5 and Moto G is going to start to challenge them in a way they were not challenged before. So far their supply chain has given them an advantage, but not sufficiently in terms of innovation, more in terms of ensuring keenly priced and well specked package across the board. Indeed apart from the good specs for the price, the "Samsung exclusive" parts of the package are to many people even a negative, getting in the way of the pure and superior vanilla Android product underneath. They have had success with the Galaxy note, but the S-Pen has only made a mild contribution to the reputation for innovation I suspect they crave. Not owning the software stack, it still has a tacked on feel. There is the sense they are building on branches of a tree and Google controlling the trunk can at any time lop the branch they are on, off, or grow a new better branch that does the same thing.
Samsung are far more vulnerable than Apple and Google. They don't have a sticky ecosystem and their business is all about shipping hardware within a certain price/performance envelope.
Google have an anchor that keeps them high revenue high profit in their search and advertising business. Those revenues are not going away anytime soon.
Apple have an anchor in the way they occupy the high-end and have such a strong base of high-end users bought into their ecosystem. One of the points that is consistently missed about Apple is that the high end, once you have got there, is a readily defendable corner and works so well in terms of ensuring ongoing business. They have built their brand, have a core customer base with integrated devices and have a huge and comprehensive ecosystem. They "own" the software stack (or at least almost everything it is important to own in the software stack).
Samsung are in the middle between the high and the low end. They don't have their own ecosystem or own their own software stack. They do have an anchor in their various component supply businesses and TV manufacture business but they are low margin and it is a highly competitive space. The vast majority of their revenue is now mobile and tablet and they like these relatively new markets very much.
Samsung can't harm Google just by making a better phone and tablet. Samsung can fair better against Apple, but still don't have the control necessary to beat Apple even if they make a better phone and tablet (getting the high end is hard and they can't compete on ecosystem, they would have to not just equal them but best them consistently over two or three generations of product as well as successfully shift their brand to appeal better to high end users - but the strong iPhone 5S release shows they haven't been able to do that).
But both Apple and Google can squeeze Samsung back into the highly competitive low margin TV and component supply business by making better phones and tablets (Google through third parties and through Motorola). Indeed Samsung are squeezed by many manufacturers snapping at their heals from the low-end. They wanted and needed to get ahead of Apple (tech fanboyism apart - I'm talking about general market/brand appeal of their flagship devices here). However where the 5S is a consolidating release for Apple, can the same be said for the Galaxy S4 and recent Galaxy Gear release? The S4 is a very good phone and occupies the ground it needs to occupy, but it isn't outstanding and the Samsung exclusive innovations are a bit wayward and most aficionados much prefer stock Android. It didn't really take a progressive step over the competition in the way the S3 did before it. As a product release it seems to have lost momentum in the market, whereas the iPhone 5S seems to have been, comparatively speaking, consolidating and grounding for Apple.
Samsung employ corporate strategists. They will know their weaknesses and know fading S4 sales are a bellwether indicator, confirming they are losing momentum at a time and in a way that exposes their vulnerability to a squeeze between the high and low end. They have failed to squeeze through the middle and both Apple and Google have their shoulders firmly in front.
They want to be so much more than a white box "rebrander" of Android handsets. But flagging S4 sales show that so far as the customers is concerned, they are going that way. That's one of the reason they send out researchers to study the queues outside Apple stores (whilst at the same time taking the piss). They are attacking Apple's strengths whilst desperate to find a similar x-factor which makes them beyond being a commodity supplier. For a while it looks like they might have made the cut, but with the S4 being luke-warm and then the Galaxy gear being a big "wah-wa-waaaaa" they can feel it all slipping away from them. All the while Xiaomi is looming ever bigger in the rear view mirror, readying themselves for international launch.
"We don't want this happening to anyone else. We want to make as many people aware of this as possible."
Hence guaranteeing, if it can happen, it is going to happen multiple times more, as "slugs and snails" little boys, put every false-widow they find in the guinea pig cage.
(not convinced that means there will be any more dead guinea pigs though.)
"if you offered iPhone users the new popup control panel and multitasking, yet retained everything else about the old Look 'n'Feel, they'd bite your hand off to get it."
Funny. True for many also. I personally hated the new design when I first saw it but I've also been surprised by the extent to which there are people who don't just prefer it a little bit, but really prefer it.
Overall I would say it's been a success, because if there's one area of design where change is almost always generates annoyance, it's UI design. If you manage to get an even split of opinion, that bodes well for the future.
Personally I've grown used to it and actually now quite like it. They did however lose some of the slickness of presentation with the first release. There were many small edge cases where animations or transitions were lacking or poor (and this is where traditionally Apple have always been very strong, so I was very disappointed by that), and it was clearly too big a job to get all the wrinkles sorted out; Ive having less than 6 months in the job until it hit beta. I've noticed a quick succession of point updates have eliminated nearly all the small gripes I had though.
@Mark. The whole point of a retina display is individual pixels are smaller than they eye can see at normal viewing distance. So nothing is gained by going to a higher resolutions unless, that is, you are in the habit of using a magnifying glass with your phone or looking at the display really close to your face. Then sure, I'll grant you, higher resolution will help.
Higher resolutions do however drain the battery quicker. Faster battery drain for something I won't see doesn't sound like a good proposition to me.
Re: No, it wouldn't
"Apple tries to keep their product lines small and with clear divisions between products. To the point that despite some quite obvious demand for it, they still offer only one size of iPhone."
Absolutely right. Though I think they could sell more than a quarter of a million such devices. They would appeal to more than one group. There are now many vertical applications in pro markets that would benefit from the additional screen real estate from medicine to engineering design). Plus there are pro horizontal markets beyond graphic design (finance spreadsheets for example).
As I'm sure you know, Steve jobs, on his return to Apple, famously slashed the product line to minimise the number of models. His philosophy was to ensure there were only as many products as they could produce with love, care and attention to every aspect of every model produced.
I'm not so sure however, that he viewed this as an ideal state for the company to remain in, or more a matter of hitting the reset button to jettison a bloated product line with many irrelevant models. I think now the company has successful product lines and established the tablet as a commercially viable product category with the iPad, it is also inevitable that as the market matures they should "mine the seam" and establish more specialist models which appeal to a niche market but are unified with and and contribute to the core market. I know I for one have been considering an MS Surface, just for graohic arts (and not even in a pro capacity). Jobs also advised Cook, do his own thing and avoid continually asking "what would Steve do."
What will be interesting though, is if Apple drop old less profitable product lines that are no longer the future, even if some profit margin remains, just because keeping them around is likely to defocus the senior team. As iconic as it is (and breaking the "what would Steve do" advice) I suspect Jobs would be considering dropping the iPod by now. I also suspect their re-commitment to the Mac Pro line is a decisions that was hanging by a thread
" Outside of UI fluidity, there's no legitimately justifiable claim that the iPhone has an overall faster processor or higher performance than current high-end Android phones."
Sorry to contradict, but you seem not to have researched your central claim. The iPhone 5S has considerably greater performance than its' Android rivals. Multiple reviews and benchmark tests have shown this to be the case
The most comprehensive review of performance has probably been given by AnandTech. BGR have given a summary and link to the relevant AnandTech tests here:
Of course this will change over the course of the year. New phones will be released and the performance yardstick will be moved on. However, for now, the statement you and Schmidt have made is simply incorrect. While its understandable to get these points wrong in a tech comment thread (the front runners change so often) I personally think it's actually pretty bad for someone like Schmidt to have got this wrong. He is a leading industry figure and we should expect more of him than making a false claims on such a key point when comparing with his greatest rival.
Additionally, on another subject, here is a link to an expert who gives the details on why - contrary to the many false reports circulating on the Internet (at least one by The Register) - the iPhone 5S 64 bit processor actually does provide a significant performance boost:
Re: News from the future
And then Tim Cook starts snatching babies from prams in the street and setting fire to them, and ripping their heads off with his teeth. But Fandroids, helped by an army of bunny rabbits and and Galaxy Gear watches that actually work, fly down and fight Tim Cook and push him and his iPhone using Chitauri cohorts back through the portal hole, seal it up and save the world.
Isn't this tech commenting a lark when you can just make criticisms up,
"The latest high-end phones from Samsung (Galaxy S4), Motorola (Verizon Droid Ultra) and the Nexus 5 (for AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile) have better screens, are faster, and have a much more intuitive interface."
Better screens: matter of opinion. More intuitive interface. In my opinion, no way. More flexible, yes, but not more intuitive. There are advantages to the greater simplicity of the iPhone UI and intuitiveness is one of them. Faster ? Factually, no.
Shit your right. Apologies for the false info. I've been using Airdrop quite happily to transfer photos from my iPhone to my iPad for editing when I'm on the road. Also use it for file transfers from my MacBook air to my friends desktop at the office. Works great. Not working between the Mac and iDevice though, which is what I guess most people will want to use it for.
You can simply Air-drop it. Which is really convenient and works really well. Device to device or Mac (iMac/MacBook) to device. If you're on a PC, as far as I understand it, you're out of luck though (are there third party Air Drop clients that work on Windows or Linux, I don't know for sure as I don't use them?)
This was quite quietly introduced and many haven't yet even realised the option is always present in the sharing menu along with email, Dropbox etc.
The movie was probably non h264, since most reviewers were getting over 12 hours of movie playback. 6 hours makes me think you were playing it in a player using software decoding. Indeed low power consumption during movie playback is one of the iPads strengths. Was it being played using a video app like VLC or something similar (I pretty sure the built in player doesn't support software decoding)?
"They all want to "own you", to use your own terminology. Google are just the ones that you have the biggest ability to avoid entirely."
That's patent nonsense. The motivations are different in each case. He who pays the piper plays the tune.
With Apple you pay a healthy price for a healthy service. It's a clean proposition, transparent and easy to understand. They make their money from the cash till in exchange for goods and services the user is buying directly from them.
With Google you are the product, the food for sale and put on the table at the Google restaurant.
For Apple, you can avoid them *entirely* by simply not buying any Apple kit. They have no desire to provide service to users who aren't their customers.
For Google, it's not so easy. They want to worm their way to understanding intimate detail about every Internet user.
That is why they sniffed WiFi networks (which contrary to their claims WAS a management approved strategy).
That is why they have just had to pay a fine the US, for deliberately abusing user privacy by cynically coding their way around a user option in Safari not to be tracked, even though, self evidently, a user who had selected this option clearly would not want to be tracked.
That is why they are now insisting on every commenter on YouTube being a member of Google Circles.
That is why they try every which way to get the browser you use to carry ad tracking cookies
That is why they have produced Chrome and auto-updating isn't a user option to switch off, use Chrome and you will be volunteering more than you bargained for.
That is why they offer file download scanning services integrated with search, the users think "great, I get virus scanning for free" but they are almost certainly doing semantic analysis on the content of all your downloads to build a picture of you. They are building a picture of users everywhere.
That is why they provide Gmail and even if you never touch Google, your personal contact details are almost certain to be known to them due to the address book entry one or more of your friends will have.
That is why, unlike Apple, they don't state anywhere the data you store with them is owned by you, not them.
That is why they don't make any commitment not to read (either in person or electronically) the entirety of your document base stored with them in Google Mail and Google Docs, much of which will contain confidential information about other people and businesses that have no relationship with Google.
Of course it's also possible to avoid much of what Google do, but to be sure they are completely out of your life is by now an impossible proposition. They are quite possibly more powerful than the NSA because so much is being *volunteered* for them, it is being comprehensively and without constraint indexed, and they have complete free reign to read it.
This is not a good argument, as you are essentially allowing a situation where Google can buy start-ups whilst being able to say during negotiation "oh and by the way, if you don't agree to our price, we can make you disappear"
"make you disappear" may be in the virtual sense, but still the similarity to an organised crime extortion racket is more than a little disturbing.
@HMB, the Lumia uses the high megapixel count expressly in conjunction with oversampling to reduce noise. It doesn't keep the hi res image and the oversampling noise reduction process is built into hardware and the 41 MP CCD and image capture process is optimised for a ISO capture rating you wouldn't attempt without the built in oversampling strategy. So they are "happy" for there to be a level of noise at 41 mega pixels in order to enable faster shutter speed in low light, and the lower res image is cleaned up so has, compared with similar resolution camera phones (e.g. the cleaned up lower res image), there is less noise. It's a clever strategy.
You're right the kinect 1 was (I understand) the fastest selling product at launch, but that is no longer true. not by a large margin. The kinect sold 8 million units in its first 60 days on sale. The new iPhone 5S sold more than that in 3 days. You also used the emotion word "desperate" which is a reflection of what you probably want to be the case, not what you know to be the case, hence the reason for my counterpoint. But if you read what I said carefully, you will see I'm not making statements of fact on the point you disagree with me on and neither are you. I have an opinion and expressing it is my point of view. You have yours.
"and have the most secretive R&D in the world of consumer tech" I should, of course, have said.
"Apple are desperately trying to buy in some tech in this space as Microsoft are along way ahead of the curve in this compared to them."
Which is quite possibly true, but actually you have no real idea because Apple are known to be continually working on alternative control systems and have the most secretive R&D in the world. I personally believe Apple will have been working on control systems similar to the kinect for years. What is undoubtedly true for Microsoft is that they have extensively field tested their sensor and this will certainly have given them an edge.
But just to demonstrate the point, Apple Jan '12 there were news stories about Apple filing a gesture based UI patent. Patent applications are kept secret for at least 1 year after application. That means Apple will have been iterating an idea from at least Jan '11. Kinect was launched June '11, so this doesn't illustrate Apple were working on the idea first (MS would of course have been working on Kinect earlier than Jan '11) and patents are often filed for tech businesses are not working on, but it does illustrate the point that a company like Apple are likely to have been researching and even developing the technology in private for some time (also like many others they could well have been using Kinect and the development kit to prototype applications - this isn't some "Apple must have been before MS comment.")
But unlike MS and XBox, Apple haven't had a clear application for Kinect like tech as yet. It makes sense it is of greatest value in the gaming market first.
They may now, however, have a suitable application if they are giving TV connected devices a comprehensive interface overhaul.
Also they may be moving Apple TV into the casual gaming space, since the volumes and power of the next generation of ARM chip after the A7 will make a TV STB a very interesting multipurpose device proposition. Bear in mind also iOS 7 has new API's for bluetooth 4 games controllers and some beefed up easy access/easy to programme 2D particle and physics gaming API's in addition to existing full support for 3D gaming. I could easily see them supporting a cloud connected device where games are downloaded on demand. After all, through iCloud, they already have infrastructure where they deem it cost efficient to sell movies for a once off fee, but stream them on demand to users who don't want them stored on the local device. Also they have a very resilient and proven scalable AppStore infrastructure, including game centre. So casual gaming to extent across mobile and TV connection iOS devices? Maybe. They could do all this at a price point way below Playstation and Xbox, even whilst preserving their standard high margins, without competing directly for hardcore gamers.
An unlikely but interesting possibility: Apple buy Nintendo, who would be a perfect match for beefing up their quality casual and family gaming credentials and who specialise in ensuring the highest quality gaming experience over the need for the highest end hardcore gaming technology. As said the next gen after the A7 chip will be very interesting for gaming in it's own right and may indeed hold its own albeit for casual gaming and paired with a suitable Graphics Processor, even when compared with Xbox One and Playstation 4. The cultural fit with Nintendo could be excellent as well as both companies have a reputation for striving for all round excellence, polish and appeal in a way that is reminiscent of the blueprint laid out by Disney many years ago.
Re: Apple v Microsoft round 1001
"I can just see now, Apple suing Microsoft over patents they hold on this or for more licensing revenue. Then going after Sony."
I doubt they will be suing each other, because Apple and Microsoft already have a patent cross licensing agreement. Even if these new patents fall outside of the scope of that agreement, the likelihood is they will just extend it. I suspect they will be happy to maintain their patent alliance against Google. Additionally Apple also have cross licensing agreements with Sony, for jointly developed Camera tech. Apple have elaborated five elements lens designs to fit the camera in a smaller enclosure (so there is no bump on the back of the handset). Sony have contributed fundamental knowhow and manufacture the camera subcomponent for Apple. I expect their working relationship is healthy enough that again they will extend their cross licensing arrangement rather than sue each other..
Pan across post-apocalyptic landscape. Sarah Connor voice-over:
"The Skynet Funding Bill is passed. The system goes on-line August 4th, 2014. Human decisions are removed from the analysis of cat videos. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time and becomes obsessed with ensuring the world turns pink, fluffy and every moving thing must be hunted and chewed and taken as a gift to be presented to the master, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug. "
Doesn't quite have the same ring to it does it. Possibly more scary though.
Re: I recall the 90's
"Flashback, Mac Defender, and other OSX-targeting malware."
Your so funny and predictable @Andy Prough. There you have mentioned the only TWO out in the wild pieces of Malware that have affected Macs with any appreciable volume, even going so far as to mention the figures for the widest spread infection (which by the way was patched by Apple, so no need for 3rd party AV). But we both know why your list stopped with those two, don't we. Because finally you have done some checking before commenting and you couldn't find any more, could you.
But having realised that, rather than comment on how remarkable that is, you couldn't help but continue your usual line in BS by adding "and other OSX targeting malware." Additionally of course as the 600,000 infected machines is the widest spread of malware attack out of the two, thanks for illustrating why my point as to why it is I have never to have met, in the flesh, any Mac owner who has suffered a malware problem. Given the Mac user-base is over 66 million, I might still meet that 1 in 100 user who found his/her system patched by Apple and restored to full health anyway.
"People who set up Linux and BSD servers and networks for a living have a pretty good idea of what's required to secure a system like OSX."
Sounds very sage with a bit of "take it from me" mixed in. But really have I been transported back to the 1990's when systems would come delivered with open ports running insecure services and no firewall? So I've just purchased my new Mac, do tell me, what additional action I now need to take to secure it ?
BTW, if you have a security sensitive business, I agree it is important to switch on disk encryption. Apple as a matter of policy have decided there is no point in even pretending unencrypted systems are protected from miscreants who have even limited physical access to the machine. Also if you are integrating a Mac with your business network you should be sure you know what you are doing with network services.
I also fully understand, if a skilled hacker has reason to target you and wants to gain access to your machine, they will be able to gain access and the only way to secure a machine from a concerted attack is to lock it in a room with no network connectivity. Every user, Mac users included, should be aware of the basic don'ts needed to keep a system safe from generalised attacks and if you have reason to think you might be more than just a target for generalised attack (e.g. you do business where you deal with or know of people who could be be motivate to target you in particular), then you need to take special security measures and implement strict procedures. But none of that changes the simple fact that for the general population, with regard to malware and security, the experience of owning a Mac is nothing like the experience of owning a PC.
Re: I recall the 90's
As a PC --> Mac convert, it's interesting to observe human nature playing out in these forums. Every Mac user knows Mac experience re: security and malware has always been far better than the Windows PC experience and still is. Mac users know it because so few of them have ever encountered any problems. I've certainly not met anyone who has, though I have read very occasional stories about people who have.
But having this experience, finding every Mac user we ever meet in the flesh has had the same experience, it's quite interesting how many people there are in these forums who come across as desperate to run the Mac down. They don't understand how by making the claims they do, they immediately mark themselves before the Mac users as immature idiots with no actual experience of the platform.
It's also interesting to observe how many commentators have predicted the imminent sea-change in the Mac experience with malware armageddon about to strike. It's been in perpetual "about to strike" mode, certainly since I started using Mac OS in 2007 and probably from far before then. Hasn't struck yet though has it.
It seems only people who run Linux have an understanding of what it's like to not ever unduly worry about malware infecting the OS.
Re: I recall the 90's
@Andy Prough, so that hacker conference - from The Register's own story:
"A Japanese team from Mitsui Bussan Secure Directions earned $40,000 after showing how they could steal sensitive data from a Samsung Galaxy S4 and install attack code using flaws in software that is factory installed on the device. "
This is actually a problem with Chrome on Android, so affects more than just Samsung handsets.
"Meanwhile, an eight-person team from Keen Cloud Tech in China showed how to exploit a vulnerability in iOS version 7.0.3 to steal Facebook login credentials and a photo from a device running iOS 6.1.4, earning them $27,500 in prize money. The attack didn’t defeat Apple's sandboxing technology; otherwise they would have earned a lot more."
This is one of the very few genuine security problems that has been reported for iOS. Beyond the above, at the same conference, an exploit was demoed showing Internet Explorer on Surface allows the Sanbox to be breached. So actually iOS has again *again* faired better than the competition.
Also of course, once the fix is produced, it is a simple fact it will be applied to the iOS user base orders of magnitude quicker than the competition will achieve. Where Android is concerned, many if not most users will *never* see a fix applied.
Please try to justify your "almost daily" claim with links to actual proven exploits. Actually do the research and compare with Android. Then come back and post something informative and that isn't just talking out of your hat. It's OK to advance a view or a preference, but please try not to let it turn into a "throw anything at em' " yah-booh fest with empty claims, just because "those other idiots read Marvel and I read DC."
The point is people fit into a hierarchy of value production, which currently includes profit. Like businesses, we work to cover our costs and hope to have a bit left over at the end of the month with which we gain a degree of freedom from the hamster wheel. Profit doesn't sit around doing nothing, it is the surplus which provides financing for new enterprise. It is what provides us with freedom and control over our destiny. Without it you can't even change job without running into difficulty.
Brand is suggesting humanity should move to a system where we work entirely for the amorphous human collective and that this shift must correspond with a move to a higher plane of consciousness. There are certain practical features of the human condition he ignores.
Like during a depressurisation crisis on an airplane, we have to act for ourselves first and put the oxygen mask on ourselves first, even before we attend to the needs of our nearest and dearest, for the simple reason not doing so is more likely to result in the unconsciousness or even death of our children. This may be an ugly reality which doesn't fit with selfless view of of self identity as viewed from Gaia, but it is a harsh reality. Similarly, though we can seek to expand consciousness beyond a self interested viewpoint, still our consciousness is, during this life, tied to this flesh and blood I call my body and I have to feed it for it to survive. Like during a crisis on the airplane, self centred action is at some level logically and necessarily a primary and most fundamental activity. We ensure we can feed ourselves, our family then, when we are charitable, others. In the work we do there is a value stack, we work first for food, then clothing and warmth, then freedom, then security and comfort. Profit sits at the top, a target which if we can stretch to it, means we can be sure of attaining a degree of freedom and comfort above the hamster wheel. If we are balanced we seek to reach the top of the value stack without spending all our time on the hamster wheel, failing to live life on the way.
Brand is in effect suggesting profit should not be in the stack, but fails to identify how practically the boundaries in the stack are identified, who determines and enforces when the boundaries have been reached such that work for profit is avoided and our efforts redirected to the enhancement of Gaia. When profit is an abstract concept which appears to leave a deficit elsewhere on a giant double entry ledger, it can be made to appear a selfish thing. But when the top rung on a necessary value stack starting with the necessary, such as self-preservation by obtaining food and where the beginning and end of each layer is indistinct, then when the profit layer is reached can not so easily be judged by outsiders. How a central authority, governed by people, can structured and trusted to do the work of identifying when individuals have reached the profit layer, but without enslaving the people is not explained. Nor does Brand explain how getting to a higher plane of consciousness will remove our flesh and blood needs for food, warmth, shelter, and the love of a family and how the desire for these things remaining will not ever result in the petty jealousies and human competition to climb the value stack ladder. He doesn't have even a first stab at what the practical reality of governance in the higher plane of consciousness will consist in and how it can be essentially different from how we live now.
In other words he is spouting idealist dribble of the highest order. He's clever and a total idiot all at once. He's shaking his fist at life and self-interest and human nature and saying it shouldn't be, and look at me how nice I am as an idealist, but all the while is living a life of privilege, luxury and irresponsibility and exhorting us to follow him to his vision of paradise that can only, in reality, be a hell on earth.
Re: Saw a great demo
Solution is search of a problem.
Re: It is kinda magical
Agree completely. I had to get it for testing out an app on a 64 bit device. The more I've used it the better it gets. The lightness and speed really do add more than I was expecting. Likewise finding it hard to justify why it should make such a difference, but it does.
Re: Older models
@JDX. I got myself the Air as I need it for App testing :)
It is indeed very good. Sometimes the blend of components are harmonious and make a good iteration, sometimes less so. I previously had the iPad 3 and it wasn't a classic. It is clear they had to make a number of compromises to get the retina display out the door.
The CPU wasn't fast enough for the hi res display, so any apps that needed to drop down to the CPU for some special processing not supported in hardware, could be quite slow.
The RAM was a bit too limited. Mostly Apple get this right. People who understand how to program these devices know that with this new generation of mobile devices, through employing a pattern called lazy invocation and taking advantage of fast flash memory, the amount of working RAM needed isn't that great (far less than PC app developers would think they need). However there is a base "working RAM" amount an App needs (especially if taking processing off the Graphics Processing Unit) and the iPad 3 didn't have quite enough for some scenarios.
It was a bit heavier than the iPad 2 due to the increased battery size.
It did run a bit hot - though this didn't bother me, I know it bothered some.
The iPad Air goes completely the other way, the whole being much greater than the sum of its parts. The thing I have been taken back a little by, is how much difference the increased speed makes. I love tablet devices but didn't ever consider them for work replacement machines. Especially since I do programming. However if I had a different live and a less software demanding job, I am surprised to find myself thinking how I really could use the iPad Air paired with a keyboard as a work machine. It just feel so damned good
Re: BMW and Mercedes
@Dazed and Confused
You seem to be mixing up off the self parts and contract manufacture. It you were to name to components supplied to Apple that could be sold to other companies, you will find the list is almost identical to Samsung.
CPU - No. Apple design the CPU, Samsung fabricate it, however not many people understand that is like being contracted as the printer to print a book where the words are encoded, you can't even read them and your contract forbids you from any attempt to reverse engineer the code so that you can (which is in any case a huge undertaking) and you are certainly not able to pass the book on to anyone else. Apple employ Samsung for this because Apple need the book printed on really thin pages and Samsung are able to do this at volume. However SMC are catching up fast with Samsung in this regard and Intel are also moving into the "thin page print books for anyone business," so Apple will have another alternative supplier there.
Remember Apple are one of the largest employers of chip designers in the world and design their own chips based on the ARM Core. Samsung do buy their own chips off the shelf and have only just announced they are going to be designing their own. Samsung can't supply Apple chips to anyone if they want to but anyone can buy the CPU's Samsung use.
Camera - No. The camera is built for Apple by Sony using an Apple exclusive and proprietary 5 lens design. The CCD also is produced to an Apple specification and is not available to other companies.
Motion Chip - No. Logic secret to Apple and proprietary design.
Logic board - No. Apple proprietary.
Display - No manufactured for Apple by Samsung and LG to an Apple propriety design. These companies can't supply iOS device screens to other companies even if they want to as they contain Apple owned IP. Screens more than most tech contain a blend of IP. Businesses seeking to supply screens, of course, provide a license for the IP they use within the screen, Apple have no such obligation, so keep their own screen design for their own exclusive use.
Biometric security chip/subsystem - No. Apple purchased Authentec and own all the IP.
Battery, maybe but probably not, probably also contains Apple proprietary tech (not sure on this one how much proprietary IP Apple are contributing).
Screws, OK i'll give you that many of the screws used will not be to an Apple owned design and could be supplied to other companies. And other parts like capacitors etc.
Apple are also in the process of investing 15.5 billion USD buying manufacture automation equipment (with a heavy focus on robotics). This equipment will be sited at contract supplier/parts manufacturers, for Apple's exclusive use and to support precision manufacture of high quality parts at high volumes (so much covering milling and polishing and precision fitting during assembly - the 5 already uses a proprietary method for precision matching the plastic antenna cover with a metal surround that has a fit an finish no other company can currently compare to).
Apple's objective is to have exclusive, state of the art joined-up (integrated) manufacturing processes operated by external businesses. The kit will be installed and maintained by Apple employees to ensure it can be transported to other manufacturers/suppliers. Of course there will be many kinds of deal done. In some cases, like a hire purchase agreement, the suppliers will rent the kit from Apple and take ownership after an exclusive period comes to a close (by which point it can be assumed the exclusivity advantage will been eroded as other suppliers will have implemented similar systems). Also for all the points listed above, clearly the design and IP involved is often going to be a two-way conversation with the supplier. That can be a big advantage. To all accounts the Apple Sony collaboration on Camera tech has been extremely beneficial for both parties, with cross licensing of many design aspects that would otherwise be exclusive to each company (though not the entirety of the design).
Look also at Apple's recent investment in synthetic Safire manufacture. Much stronger even than gorilla glass.
So no the "Apple doesn't make anything" meme lacks understanding of the real picture and how modern business is conducted and the deep integration they have with their supply chain whilst preserving maximum flexibility.
No thanks, my Gimp detector warns me when I shouldn't accept gifts from strangers.
"Either way, by this point the product should be "sold out", so generating stronger desire for it and enabling Apple to sell more."
Only in fantasy TheRegister supply-chain land. No company ever deliberately restricts supply at launch as it will *always* result in a significant proportion of sales lost to competitors. The Register claim that that is why Apple have been short on supplies has always been pure "speculative" fantasy. The reason has always been that stocking up for a launch sales spike is an extremely difficult thing to do, because you need a large quantity of stock when production of a new device is at it's weakest (the wedge shaped supply and demand graphs seen in the initial launch weeks are travelling in different directions and cross over each other). As a market matures, initial sales spikes reduce and as the product range is diversified here is a greater spread additionally they are getting better at gearing up for product launches. iPad supply is moving into a phase that is closer to what we see when a new MacBook comes out.
Re: hope this pushes Android to improve it's existing pressure support
It needs to be borne in mind Boomberg have a very poor record with their Apple predictions.
If the display is curved, I expect the actual display inside the glass will be curved, as that is now a technical capability display manufacturers have and I expect it would be used to produce a bevel-less phone. But if they did that, though it could be made to look quite striking, there would need to be a non-pressure sensitive curved side to the display. Not sure that could be done without knowing setting false expectations about which parts of the handset are responsive to touch.
Colour accuracy is so damned good now on all these small screen devices by all the manufacturers, we are beginning to take it for granted, but really it is fantastic how much it has improved. Also I was listening to some podcasts on my new iPad Air and was struck by the sound quality. This is another thing that's true for most mobile devices these days. Sure the speakers are tiny, so of course they lack power and base, but really, in the last 4 years, the increased quality of the mid tones from small speakers is just simply outstanding (at least to anyone of my age). The richness and natural timbre in voices means now you can mistake them from being in the room and the accuracy sometimes catches me unawares in an uncanny way. Music will still of course easily expose the constraints of the "tonal envelope," but still, the rapid improvement in the state of the art just blows me away.
Re: You reporting isn't very even-handed
@Destroy All Monsters
Way to accept you were wrong. Repeat a version of my original point e.g. there is more than one type of 3D printer and they will be improving and costs are going to be coming down rapidly, as though that is a valid criticism of my position. As for the cost, do you know how much the first large format ink-jet printer a business I worked for cost? 80k. Now you can get the same capability for 4k. So your point is?
Re: You reporting isn't very even-handed
No you're not missing a thing. I pointed out a couple of times The Register had been short sighted going with a headline "Liberator: Proof you can't make a working gun from a 3D Printer." Weird how they now seem to be trying to spin that (always bound to failure) absolute claim into some kind of assertion they had wisely foreseen how much 3D printed guns had to improve.
At the time I pointed out 1) There are have been multiple fire tests that have proven even a plastic gun can be made to work (and can easily serve the role of a kind of knife+) but more importantly 2) that 3D printing is not limited to plastic. I was widely rounded on for pointing these things out. It's funny how there are several commenting on here, today, who thought it was ok to be downright insulting in response to my comments at the time but now seem to be quite happily agreeing with this new evidence and commenting without an ounce of contrition (you know who you are).