@frank ly Now you just have to hope El Reg doesn't get hacked because seeing as you've just 'fessed up on here !
824 posts • joined 5 Jan 2011
@frank ly Now you just have to hope El Reg doesn't get hacked because seeing as you've just 'fessed up on here !
"There is only one meaningful use case for IoT - preventative maintenance"
We live in a world where power tools and lawn mowers can be purchased for like 2p (ok I exaggerate a little, but cummon' prices are now ridiculously low), and you think the ONLY meaningful use case is "preventative maintenance." Nonsense. Soon pretty much every household mechanism will be WiFi enabled and computer controllable and at an extremely cheap price. Even for Apple users. Light bulbs, blinds, curtains, thermostats, locks, music systems, heating. Heating when you leave the house. Off. As you approach home. On. Front door lock as you approach the front door from outside; unlocked. Fridgeswith image recognition, barcode recognition and mould detection, connected directly to your online food shop order. Robotic vacuum cleaner that activates only when you leave the property. Remote unlock will allow you to things like let your kids friend in the house who has arrived early before you have got back. And that's just what I can think of doing a 30 second brainstorm.
The point is these are small conveniences, but once there is a standard where doing these thing "just works" and the price is low (which it will be), sure as eggs are eggs we will all be IoT users.
Doesn't have a regional breakdown, but for Q1 this year the following is estimated but with some justification -
Top 5 vendor Android handset sales:
Combined Operating Profit (top 5 combined) $2.09 bn
Apple handset sales 61.17m
Apple Operating Profit $11.27 bn
Source: Charles Arthur
*see the footnotes in the linked article
@AC You are reading the wrong websites then. The most scientific of the technical review websites are Anandtech (these guys are serious silicon boffins and have always given the most detailed breakdown of silicon capabilities of any site out there).
The reality is these measures mean increasingly little to real world use, however Samsung are still beaten by Apple in almost every category. Pretty impressive For Apple, since they have been out for the better part of a year now and showing that when systems need to be tuned for lower power consumption, a greater number of cores is not a synonym for better performance.
@werdsmith, great answer
"Is Apple's influence such a good thing when thinking about corporate tax laws, the 100+ billion they're hiding in tax heavens?"
It's interesting how erroneous memes start with loose thinking. Apple are frequently cited in articles on tax avoidance (perfectly legal) these days, so it seems reasonable to make the sweeping statement they are hiding 100+ billions in tax havens. Except they aren't. They are keeping their money in the jurisdictions where they earned it and not moving it to the U.S. because when you move money doing so attracts tax. When no tax is due, there's no point in moving money back to the U.S. or any other place in the world, until you need it there for a reason. Otherwise if you later need to move your money elsewhere in the world you will have needlessly paid tax where it simply wasn't owed in the first place.
Indeed Tim Cook is on record as stating Apple do not use financial instruments for side-ways effects on tax (do not use instruments for effects other than their intended purpose - so no loans from one Apple subsidiary company to another to reduce profit margins in higher tax jurisdictions ) and they do not move money to to jurisdictions it isn't needed other than for the purpose of tax reduction. Those are actually pretty strong statements and deserve to be acknowledged. Especially when certain competitors who are trying to claim the moral high ground and do make use of financial instruments purely for their sideways tax effects and do move money to tax havens when it is not required there to cover any genuine operational costs. Google I'm looking at you.
If they won't play nice providing a hack we can always send Clarkson round to punch a few engineers.
Often written I know, but my bank First Direct, started phoning me and then asking ME to provide my security id details to them - an anonymous person calling out of the blue - to prove who I am !!!
Whenever they have done this I ask - are you seriously asking customer to divulge security details to an anonymous caller? Adding "Really ?" At this point to compound the stupidity, they display a complete lack of understanding as to how authentication works, by suggested a number I can phone them back on !!!
Of course I could do a search to check the number belonged to them, but most customers won't be doing that.
I notice they no longer do this, but still, the fact a bank adopted this policy in the first place is beyond belief.
In this case, I think your analysis is entirely correct. People are so up in arms about software patents, these days they very often jump the gun where criticism of hardware patents is concerned, but in this case it very much appears to be an obvious combination of existing techniques. Indeed techniques that have already been combined with different fuel cell technologies a few times over. All tech companies file patents for everything they can however. Unfortunately the US Patent Office tends to approve far too many of them.
I predict the Pope is going to say a prayer sometime in the coming week.
"The last thing they want is apps from bad actors attempting to report back data that informs the author what has been tested by the App Store team - or worse, tries to report back on their test centre network configuration."
Indeed most likely, the app is run first on a simulator on a VM, then on a device attached to a VM with no outside connections to anything including other simulators/apps under test.
@wolftone You have submitted an app without testing it on a device. OK we will let that pass as its' your risk.
You seem to think the lack of a callback email from your app indicates Apple didn't test it. I can assure you they are not going to test app submissions of never seen before code whist connected to the Internet. Not a chance. The last thing they want is apps from bad actors attempting to report back data that informs the author what has been tested by the App Store team - or worse, tries to report back on their test centre network configuration. I'm sure you understand why. Especially if such data involves a secure link they can't see inside of. They will run the app first on a closed intranet and check if it attempts connections to the right kind of services before testing on a connected network, if indeed they feel they need to ever bother with the latter.
They will also be scanning for conditional code that might change the purpose of the App at a later date, though it can be difficult to find such if it is well disguised.
You seem to be implying Apple should have done your testing for you and their testing is somehow deficient because they didn't and you released a broken app ! I would suggest it's not a good idea to advertise your approach to QA and app release to the public at large on the Internet.
Apple are perfectly prepared to let an App developer hang himself with his own code. They learned some time ago when to intercede and when not to. Their testing will check for system compromising crashes (crashes can interrupt file write operations and can in certain circumstances lead to filesystem corruption), unreasonable resource usage, will check your app doesn't probe the sandbox in unreasonable ways. If your app is simply badly coded and untested on the device, that's your lookout and though they reserve the right not to, they are perfectly prepared to let such apps through - especially since they so often get flack when they reject apps if the submitter thinks the bugs are minor. Indeed it's easier for them to release all apps that do no harm to the system, and avoid the impression they are taking any responsibility for App QA.
So their testing is there to protect Apple, the iOS system and the user. Not you, your app or it's functionality or even your business - that's your lookout.
"Lovely job" and "Antivirus" are words that should not be seen together in a single sentence with a single subject and no negative clauses.
Nice try on the spin, except what you stated you have made up without any knowledge of the facts and simply isn't true. Chris De Salvo was very senior on the Android project, working across the whole thing. He had no problem saying what he said because he's a straightforward guy who has no particular axe to grind. He was simply fairly (and creditably) acknowledging the iPhone for the influence it had on their work. Talk about Fanboi, the quote comes from the horses mouth and your reaction is to try to demote the guy that said it so you can preserve a little preferred fantasy account of history in your head.
"Firmly believing that Google had ripped off Apple's OS"
They did rip-off Apple's OS. Chris De Salvo, a senior engineer in Android is quoted as saying, when the IPhone is released "we are going to have to start over." at that point Android looked like Blackberry OS. They quickly changed it to incorporate mutli-touch navigation paradigms similar to the iPhone.
Now whether they criminally ripped off Apple's OS. That's another matter and no, despite Steve Job's ire, they did not.
"I'd not bother reading El Reg if it was the arse kissing fawning fanboi you want it to be."
I'd settle for critical but authentic. Anything less and you are just fooling yourself. Of course some people like to fool themselves and paint the world with disaster. Misery likes company.
Funny, and if you need your snark even at the cost of pretend drama or melodrama, I can see your point.
So Tim Cook stated the MacBook Pro, shipping as of Monday, has a force touch trackpad. Has the iFixit Teardown contradicted this? No. Is there any indication it's inferior to the MacBook trackpad internals? No. Should it be the same internal design? Well the MacBook Pro has more space, so why should it be. Does this story amount to anything of note? If it performs the same, which I'm willing to bet it does, especially as it's on the Pro machine, no not a bit.
The Register as always doing the best hatchet job they can with the minimum of justification, which let's face it, is a rather poor hatchet job.
"I have been trying on and off for four hours and nothing happens."
It's Microsoft. You have to re-install your OS first. If you're lucky it will "take."
Oh and don't forget to delete/edit a few keys in your registry. I know it's a Mac, but they are bound to have installed one somewhere.
Clearly you like trolling. Go walk in yourself.
i agree the once a day charging issue, is far from ideal. It is in fact why bluetooth headsets threatened, but never quite made it to mainstream. There is the wireless headset dream, and then the reality of having another device to charge when worrying about ensuring one is charged is already more than enough (in my own experience things like laptops and tablets are far less of a worry because most of the time I use/need my laptop I'm at an outlet or on a planned trip where charging is part of the routine). This is why I'm predicting tepid success for the Apple Watch (a similar "adoption level" to bluetooth headsets with a significant dolop extra from the sports activity market - so say 4% of iPhone users after two years). For any normal company that will represent huge and successful revenue stream. But Apple that's going to represent a lot of management overhead for little extra gain. They are doing it because wearables are strategic, the category won't go away (a bit like Bluetooth headsets) and they will raise the bar at launch (but on a device where non sports activity users will find the marginal value entirely undermined by the inconvenience of a need for daily charging). Fail the value test, find power reliability an issue, and the thing will end up being left at home.
There will be a set of core users that love it of course (probably me included because I tend to like Apple kit). I was extrememly bullish when the iPad came out. But on this, far less so, but simply because of the battery charging issue.
Johnny Ive had come up with the ideal design when thinking about the need for charging, using the Milanese loop strap, or simple pressure-from-the-sides, clasp for ease and convenience in taking it off to recharge, but my worry is then a secondary one. It will be super easy to theive. I predict a return of pickpockets with the skill to take watches without the user knowing (invariably involves a distraction). This will be great for them. Almost like a pickpockets trainer bike with stabilisers. Hopefully Apple will already at launch have extended the device disabling tech that is reducing iPhone theft rates or that will very quickly become a big negative story for this thing.
No what you read somewhere was a clickbait peice written to sound like Apple are dropping some of the health measurement features when they in fact haven't done so and the watch contains the identical feature set as it had at announcement.
The peice was commenting on past features that were already dropped before the watch was announced and seemed to somewhat deliberately make an ambiguous use of tense to make it sound like there is a doubt over the watch feature set as it is now.
The Register might want to study how it was done, since their Apple bad-light machine seems to have become a bit patchy since they have so spectacularly crashed and burned with their oft cited Peak Apple fail.
I presume The Register want candidates to state their fact checking predilections so any who are too conscientous can be filtered out; as on the evidence to date, if facts get in the way of an opportunity for a good bit of snark, drop them.
This is extremely bad reporting. Really, do some fact checking El Reg. This is a "report" (it in fact isn't a report), its a badly disguised press release by a security firm who sell services to the PC industry. The database they have trawled is the US National Vulnerabilities database, which lists fixed reported vulnerabilities voluntarily reported by companies. There is no equivalence or assurance in terms of how comprehensive vendor reporting is, nor does the database try to pretend there is, all the reporting is voluntary. If a vulnerability isn't reported by the company it isn't reported. If a company reports more fixed vulnerabilities, it will have a higher count on the database, if a company has a ton of vulnerabilities and fails to fix them, it will have a low count on the database. If a company reports vulnerabilities on a precautionary basis but that were never exploited, they will appear on the database. In other words the database can tell you nothing about the relative state of security of OS A versus OS B.
The company that prepared this report, works for PC industry vendors. It provides a nice bullet point for PC marketing. There is nothing, nothing, objective or professional about it. Your half-hearted disclaimer in the last paragraph is hardly sufficient to claim objective reporting on this one.
Sorry selected the fail icon by accident. Though I don't agree with your comment it wasn't intended to be a reference to it.
There's plenty of money in apps. The iOS Appstore alone in the US raked in more money than the U.S. box office. Additionally, very many apps are not made to bring in independent revenues, such as e.g. Starbucks/Costa loyalty apps, so any figures that divide revenues by number of apps published are somewhat misleading. Bennedict Evans, with some justification last year, estimated the iOS Appstore economy to be worth about 14 billion dollars per anum Google Play store about 6 billion.
Nothing unintelligent about buying healthy products with a healthy margin. The alternative is what so often results in the kind of race to the bottom price competition that drives companies like Lenovo to think Superfish is a good idea,
I was a little worried once when catching a Lufthansa flight, to see a flyer sticking out of the seat pouch titled "Die First Class"
This is a stealth patent. The diagram is but one, probably quite deliberately crap, embodiment. The claims are the important part and will be as broad as possible covering other uses such as VR. The point of a stealth patent is precisely that it covers a whole range of possibilities whilst not obviously pointing competitors to the possibilities. Indeed Google Cardboard provides the perfect example of how such a patent can be valuable. I think stealth patents are pretty underhand, because the point of the patent system is to make an invention obvious and documented as part exchange for the protection of the court, but The Register, always seeking to find the most negative angle has lead them to miss the fact that this stealth patent is precisely about VR. All companies engage in filing stealth patents by the way. It is simply to a companies advantage to do so. So by all means be negative, but the real negative angle story here is about the use of stealth patents. This is in fact far from a "crap" patent as the Register wish to suggest (though many would like to suggest all patents are crap, this view even seems to be spreading to hardware patents).
From the claims:
"The device of claim 1, wherein the optical subassembly is operative to adjust a resolution of the at least one image frame to compensate for how close the user's eyes are to the display screen of the portable electronic device. "
So one of the dependent claims, refers to an optical sub-assembly, precisely as you have in VR goggles. It refers to the assembly adjusting "at least one" image. That is the patent attorney making the claim as broad as possible whilst firmly ensuring it covers optical assemblies that can adjust TWO images - e.g. one for each eye, e.g. precisely what is done by project Cardboard.
That's how you need to read Patents. Don't read the words, they are frequently deliberately obtuse. Read the logic.
When The Register talk of Apple following Google, that is only from the point of view of what the public see (another thing The Register consistently fail to appreciate). The fact this patent was filed in 2008, if Google or Samsung haven't filed one earlier, it pretty surely means Apple R&D are already looking at this. Companies like Apple, Google and Samsung have teams of patent attorneys ensuring all patentable material the R&D dept are working on is patented. If this patent is passed by the examiner, then you can be pretty sure Google/Samsung submitted no earlier filings or they will be able to block it.
And in any case, even though Cook didn't say that, it would be ok to imply an activity monitor can help prevent cancer, because it appears sitting on your arse all day is a major contributing factor in the cause of prostate cancer, which actually is a major killer. Can't see it's too controversial or difficult to understand why that might be the case. Take the piss all you like El Reg, but getting up and moving around every 20 or so mins is a very good thing to do indeed.
Anonymous Coward has rarely been such an appropriate term.
Well seeing as I have for most of my adult life worked as a consultant in the Digital TV industry and have deliver VOD services to millions of customers for a living, I think I know the meaning of the terms I am using and I most certainly and specifically mean OTT.
VOD refers to on demand service that includes programming delivered by dedicated closed TV networks; the economics of which are very different from OTT. The new world order in television is being driven by the fact service is OTT (which of course includes VOD service). The fact of VOD being available was not the key point. VOD service has been available for years and made no difference to the cosy relationships between the TV networks and the content providers. OTT is blowing the relationship wide open and is what enabled the likes of Netflix to deliver the service they have.
"Just because the next generation are not using it now, does not mean that their tastes, preferences and watching / listening habits will stay the same as they get older."
True, but what perhaps you don't appreciate is that it is literally dead in colleges. Many younger adults are getting out of the habit of watching it entirely and that has never before been the case. They will grow used to an almost exclusively OTT world. I've been monitoring this because it is my industry. I deliver TV services and software solutions. New habits are being formed and IMO they are unlikely to ever come back.
And when they come back to it, they find it patronising and dumbed down. The next time the BBC News is on, stand back from it and check the tone and level of the discourse. Intelligent people have been suffering from boil a frog syndrome. It is actually dumbed down to an almost unbelievable level. They speak with a tone of voice if someone were to speak to you like that in the street, you would find it hard not to punch them.
It is for good reasons with good intentions. Due to the public service remit, they strive to provide service meeting all needs, including viewers with low IQ and developmental challenges. But really the dumbed down one size fits all approach is no longer necessary. OTT can meet these needs more directly and in way that are more efficient or satisfying for the end user. Really next time you are watching the news back up and check this out for yourself and you will realise the extent to which what I am saying is true.
There is a huge degree of lock-in within the TV industry, with many projects funded through subscription rather than a-la-cart pricing. One of the big resource drains has been the need to keep TV channels filled up daily with content. With OTT, that requirement is simply going away.
The controversial point (in the UK anyway), is that this also removes the need for the BBC license fee model. The truth is the cost of the the high-quality (but increasingly rare) content we enjoy (costume-drama, news and nature) can can comfortably be covered by a-la-cart pricing when we are paying on a program by program basis, but don’t have to pay for the likes of Eastenders and day-time TV. It will simply be cheaper to buy just what we want than to pay the license fee. In my household we are already paying for higher quality production and choosing other, often higher quality, sources. I’ve been, in the past, happy to pay the license fee, but not now that it is less efficient and protecting lower quality production. Everyone will be different but I personally have not interest in it and it's clear this is true for many others as well. Especially not now my Netflix subscription got me Breaking Bad, Damages, The Good Wife, Dexter, House of Cards, Marco Polo, Archer etc.
The BBC model is out of date. The BBC is also dying. In schools and colleges up and down the country, students, the next generation, hardly touch it, preferring Netflix, Amazon Prime, iTunes and illegal downloads. The BBC are living in the past and think they are providing a world class service. The still do in very limited silos. But mostly they aren't. My investigation shows students are hardly ever watching BBC iPlayer in preference to other streaming services.
It would be more honest if The Register had reported the real news, that Tim Cook did anything but endorse Obama's agenda. He declined politely I'd course, but quite firmly. He stated how history has taught that to compromise personal privacy even a bit is a bad move. He pointedly referred to how the right to personal privacy trumps the desire for government to know. But of course, this is the Register writing about Apple, so we get anything than objective reporting.
"It just seems strange that they're jumping into this."
It's bold, but it doesn't seem strange at all. Apple made greater revenue last quarter than any other company in history (indeed they more revenue last quarter due to price fluctuations in the dollar, than Google made revenue last quarter full stop). Other world record revenue quarters have been held by companies from only a handful of other sectors; Oil, automotive and finance.
There is no other foreseeable tech product that will bring the scale of revenues Apple are realising with the iPhone. Watches certainly won't do it.
Automotive is undergoing a revolution where car production - as advanced as it is - has become commoditised. For years, the Ford Focus has been as good or a better vehicle than the Volkswagen Golf and the differences between manufacturers has been reducing, but the Ford brand has meant they aren't able to realise the Margin Volkswagen can. Now most of the innovation in automotive is focused on computing and navigation. Apple have so much cash-piling up they don't know what to do with it. They like to control the user experience top to bottom. With physical car production commoditised, they can do that, in a similar way to the way they control the experience on the Mac top to bottom.
So huge revenues: check
Capacity to control the experience top to bottom: check
Brand margin: check
Huge cash reserves to be able to move into an entirely new sector: check
To me it's obvious why they are jumping into this.
Tim Cook has of course just made a speech on this very subject which firmly didn't meet Barak Obama's agenda. Cook stated how history has taught that to compromise personal privacy even a bit is a bad move. He pointedly referred to how the right to personal privacy trumps the desire for governments to know and cited how being gay remains a life/career threatening private matter in some countries.
Also the Apple pay system stands out for the fact it doesn't track your purchase transactions, or even pass the details onto the retailer. Only the bank retain the record. Buy something using Apple pay, and you will have to separately provide your email address if you want the receipt emailed to you. None of the other contactless payment systems proposed by big Silicon Valley companies are the same in that regard
"I've been using a desktop with 4K monitor and I can tell you we aren't even ready for 4K let alone 8K!"
PC's no. 5k iMac, absolutely fantastic right now today.
Together with the right dodgy OS skin/theme from China, the ability to pretend you have an Apple machine
"Why not run along and try and add say an int to a struct then and see what happens."
Sheesh, exactly the same as will happen in OBJECTIVE C dumbass, y'know that pure superset of C, in which you use C ints and structs all the time and where your objects are dereferenced using pure C pointers and that you were just criticising for being weakly typed.
"Specifically it cannot be guaranteed that equality comparisons between the same apparent values will always work"
Yes you can if you use the same normalisation scheme before comparison. You do normalise your floats before comparison don't you? When dealing with colour of course, the loss of precision normalising floating point values (e.g. doubles in this case) is no problem whatsoever as as the imprecision of any output device you care to mention will be several orders of magnitude less than the the precision of a double (unless you are using scientific spectrogrophic equipment, but then you would be writing your own high precision software to run it). As for the reversibility of operations using floats, yes that can be a problem,... if you're the kind of dumb-arse who treats his views/display-output devices like they are the input source for the data-model data you are using for tracking app state.
So your thought process was "damn, C is weakly typed and that's a what those grown up people use. He's got me there, I know I'll pretend his commenting on my basically wrong statement and not explicitly stating why it is so wrong, means he is presenting it as correct and therefore he is saying C is a dynamic like a scripting language just so I can throw a brickbat and an insult, because after all I am basically a bell-end."
"Expecting RGB values as floats rather than hex"
Criticism is fine. Criticism from ignorance is not.
Tell me which CIE calibrated colour value is #ff292728 ?
That's why iOS and MacOS use floats and not absolute natural numbers. The system has been design to ensure firstly the specification of common calibrated colour values.
The extent of contrivance you have had to go to to come up with such a bad example, is laughable and actually yes, using selectors like:
- (void)updateGridViewCellAtCoordinates:(Coords)coords withStatus:(Status)currentStatus
is reasonably self documenting so what on earth is wrong with that? You're so narrow minded you seem to think Objective C developers suddenly lose the ability to think "maybe adding some more comments here will help more" Or perhaps you think the same opportunities for considering how much commenting is useful as any programmer anywhere has simply don't exist for Objective C developers?
"Sorry, loose/weak typing is for scripting languages and amateurs" - and that statement sweeps in all those C "amateurs" programming OS kernel code then.
It rather seems you think there is a disruption in the space time continuum where "not my programming language" is on the cosmic hell side of the rift, and "my programming language" is on the side of sun and butterflies. Personally I think we live in a fairly normal world.
@dogged. Slagging off mature and capable languages is a child's game. Plus, of course, any language is just a tool, and if Turing complete and moderately efficient, can be used to build pretty much anything. The end user neither knows nor cares which language was used, so language choice is usually far less important than geeks like to think.
Objective C is quirky, I'll grant you that, but there are two well known sayings about development that illustrate the nature of the problem to be addressed:
1) software engineering is a constant struggle against naming
2) premature optimisation is the root of all evil
The first objective C addresses head on, with long descriptive selectors. In this age of auto-complete gone are the days of short cryptic names; and good riddance too.
The second objective-C addresses orthogonally (as indeed do all languages) by being now (through maturity and due to recent language additions) an excellent prototyping language. Loosely typed with dynamic selectors extensible at runtime, but where low level c is available if needed/warranted in a tight loop when it is time to optimise. Very very efficient for embedded devices due to the excellent use of ARC, it's evolved into being something slightly odd but remarkably effective and efficient for programming a mobile devices. More efficient than garbage collected languages or languages that compile to a CIL (though this last distinction becomes less and less significant and can bring other advantages). Structurally, in purist terms, odd and disjointed, but practically and pragmatically very mature and practical; quite possibly judged by most who use it and other languages, better than anything else out there for getting the job done (including SWIFT until it has more time to mature).
Seeing as last quarter, Apple made more in profit simply due to the fluctuations in the price of the dollar, than the entirety of Google's profit over the same quarter, and had an operating profit about eight times that of Samsung over the same quarter, and raked in greater revenues over a quarter than any company in history, it is pretty clear this is a company that can ride along with the view green renewables are cost effective, whether they believe the science or not. Whatever, it's a nice line for PR and politicians.
"Their normal tactic is to demand the right to be the one who writes the press release in which they trumpet how they've been "vindicated""
Only when up against a small player. When up against a company the size of Samsung, the dynamic is very different. Just as likely to be Samsung who requested the settlement be anonymous and Microsft agreed for getting the terms they wanted and avoiding further argument. We don't know because it's private and that's how they wanted it.
"So... no physical access required."
Sorry no banana. You've fallen for The Register's default setting of melodrama.
Read the next sentence after this one:
""we have seen one instance wherein a lure involving XAgent simply says 'tap here to install the application"
"That attack relied on Cupertino's ad hoc provisioning used by app developers to enable installation with a link."
So the attackers need to set you up in developer mode with an ad-hoc provisioning profile. They need access to your device to get the device ID and set-up a provisioning profile for the app.
1. Physical access is required (unless you go round emailing out your device ID, which you have no reason to do and, indeed, Apple have made it impossible to find by accident)
2. Provisioning profiles are for developers and are limited to 100 device ID's so, this is hardly a threat that can be scaled
3. Even if you write scripts to set up multiple provisioning profiles, you would need multiple Apple Developer accounts to do so. So it would cost a fair amount, again meaning it can't be scaled to a general purpose attack.
4. Assuming you have the scripts and the money to target many users, presumably as soon as compromised devices surface using your developer account Apple would disable it, so you would have to spend a lot of money and have sophisticated shadow credit card accounts
Conclusion. This is only relevant for professional targeted hacks where you can gain access to the device and only then iOS7. Yet again The Register's security reporting sensationalises instead of trying to present the truth.
So let's be clear about the magnitude of this threat. You have to have physical access to the device, and it has to be running a version of iOS before iOS 8 to be practically effective.
My assumption is already that a pro funded hacker with physical access to your device, is always, likely to be able to gain access to it. So for me, against that assumption, this registers a zero uptick on the personal threat-o-meter.