82 posts • joined 2 Dec 2012
"The problem is that current fines are puny. Google will not change its way unless a fine really hurts, but simply write it off as the cost of doing business.."
Indeed, 10% of their money each year is not much. They make more profit than that...
Re: Colour me surprised? No.
"If they are right, the law wouldn't apply to any French online company or indeed any company on the planet until the French updated the laws."
Updating the law is not difficult. What would Google do then?
First, about the "news": Apple mobile devices already charge over USB only. Apple actually provides an (whatever) to USB cable with each and every device. In Europe, Apple bundles their (whatever) to micorUSB adapter with the iPhone (might be, not in every country, or via every unofficial sales channel - but that's the channel's fault in not complying with EU regulations). Their "wall charger" outputs only USB and can be used with any other device that is charging off USB. Therefore, Apple has fulfilled whatever requirement the EU has invented for phone chargers.
Now, the funniest thing of all is that each and every new phone comes with: an USB cable for charging and an USB wall charger. Therefore, nothing was done for the electronic waste. We still do have plenty of USB chargers and USB cables lying around!
The ever funniest thing is that for these devices to pass (whatever) mandatory electromagnetic compatibility certification, they must provide a sample of the charger they will be used with and (in theory) must be charged with only that charger during use.
Has the EU bureaucrats considered forcing the compatible certification change on their (many) regulators?
Some other day...
Re: an Apple Tax non-standard cable
That costs a whooping 1 UKP on Amazon.co.uk?
Apple must be selling billions of those to collect enough cash to survive...
Re: Imagine getting that approved by Apple.
Did you ever know, that all Apple mobile devices, except some very early iPods charge via USB only?
They also implement all the current regulating techniques you described.
So go ahead, charge your iPhone with the solar cell and a zener diode (that must be pretty powerful and big diode, by the way -- or it will blow out at dawn).
Re: Standardised connector
> Including a microchip in the lightning charging cable to prevent cheap cables being made
Of course, there are no chips in the lightning to USB charging cable. Lightning to USB cables are sold at prices about 1 UKP on Amazon and elsewhere.
There are chips in the (say) Lightning to audio or video cables, because the interface is an all digital bus, and you need some digital to analog conversion to get out these formats. Such chips would exist on USB interfaces in devices that support it.
Funny enough, all of Apple's devices do charge over USB only so why are they picked up in stories like this? Perhaps because mentioning Apple generates more clicks...
Re: The cloud
Now, substitute 'China' with a country name of your choice and you begin to see the bigger picture.
People will be well to remember the Ten Commandments.
Re: The real problem is getting it there.
Especially from an iOS or Android device...
10TB data... that you need to get to the device and then from the device to the cloud. Smart people, those Chinese!
Re: Is this more political than technical?
It is technical.
The Samsung's chip (Exynos 5410) has severe design bug in that it contains a non-working CCI. That means, that it
- cannot run all the 8 cores at the same time;
- cannot run the big.LITTLE cores, as intended by the architecture (each big core has a LITTLE pair);
- when switching from "low power" to "high power" (A7 to A15 cores) it has to flush/reload cache which makes for abysmal performance.
All this means that it's "performance" is severely impacted and way under the promised values. About the only way to "fix" this is to lock all CPU cores running at the maximum frequency, no power management, no gating, no big.LITTLE switching. In short: a big lie.
It is as if you were offered an car engine, with "exceptionally high elasticity and dynamics, low fuel consumption, high power etc"... only to find out that under normal usage, it becomes unresponsive for a while when switching from low power to high power more, the low power and high power modes are very distinguishable and boringly not smooth and you can never, ever reach the promised performance. But, when the engine detects it is being performance tested, it would run full throttle, maximum power and no consideration whatsoever on fuel consumption -- with the risk of burning in flames. Would anyone buy such a car? I doubt very much.
Re: Posting it twice won't make it happen...
"And, if I was a Sammy guy, I'd be inclined to tell the techs to write a better resource scheduling thingy that responds to system load instead of specific known signatures.... and to stop hiding incriminating-looking crap in the binary blob. ;-)"
Those poor tech employed by Samsung were obviously asked "Guys, what can we do to have our stuff perform better", and the folk likely answered:
- we could do proper research, better design, implementation and testing: this will take X years;
- we could attempt to write better scheduling software to make our product perform better (*): this will take X months;
- we could write a small utility, that detects when a benchmark is being run and push up the limits of our stuff. That could fry the thing, but we know people typically run benchmarks for a short time and observe their things during that times: this will take X weeks.
Guess which option the Samsung management chose?
(*) By now we know, that the original 5410 "Octacore" has defective CCI and that better scheduling was in fact impossible. Samsung engineers might or might not have known this at the time. Most likely they did.
In any case, I believe the stupidest thing Samsung can do is to attempt suing Anandtech. Going to court might force Samsung to reveal things they better keep secret.
Re: What cheating?
The difference is, if Samsung chose to let their CPU run at these speeds all the time, battery life would be severely impacted (up to unusable), the handset temperature would increase (up to frying or catching fire), the chips inside would melt etc. Most chips have limited lifetime if exposed to high temperatures, so do most of the other components.
Also, you erroneously assume that the benchmark has any control over what cores it runs on. This is all done "transparently" by the OS. Samsung obviously decided to do this trick, because otherwise if left to the default core scheduling they would reveal just how bad the real-world performance is.
They were however not smart enough to account for newer versions of the same benchmarks.....
The morale: never agree to buy an reviewer's (Samsung) phone second hand, it's CPU might have not much life left.
There is a reason why the 24 hours of Le Mans race is so important for car manufacturers.
Yet, Samsung stays mum... that has to tell us something.
But you are correct. If Apple were caught to do something like this, that would enrage a lot of people -- for no other reason, than the fact that Apple does not have to make such tricks to sell their stuff. Nor do Samsung, but for some reason they don't seem to understand it.
Re: Unfair Commercial Practices Directive
This is an interesting idea. However, Samsung are not *that* stupid...
What Samsung did was to trick the reviewers and it was the reviewers who outright "lied" to the public, in part by not actually checking the "facts" of their findings. Will these reviewers be punished? I doubt that very much.
If Samsung were stupid enough to actually refer to those benchmarks in their advertising materials and thus directly deluded consumers, that would merit punishment. Otherwise, they are safe.
Let's hope this story will actually make the reviewers more wary and less prone to praise whoever vendor gives them new gadgets to play with.
Re: Too bad
"If people could use their existing Office app "
None of the existing desktop software is fun to operate with touch. What is the point to be able to run an piece of legacy software on a tablet, when that will only inflict pain on you?
Microsoft have attempted to run full blown classic Windows on tablets for more than a decade already. Didn't attract anyone.
Re: Too bad
"Windows RT is the same full multitasking OS"
It is exactly the opposite.
iOS and OS X use the same base OS (Darwin/XNU) with different UI and API layers. Apple further keeps both products and remove the inclination for developers/users to bridge the gap by keeping OS X on Intel only and iOS on ARM only.
Windows RT however contain only a (small) subset of the other Windows APIs and UIs, namely only WinRT and Metro -- and most interesting, the WinRT in Windows RT and the WinRT in Windows 8 are different. The "desktop" in Windows RT contains an crippled and incomplete win32 implementation as well.
Re: The purpose of Surface
"Secure Boot on RT still hasn't been hacked."
How you know that?
Re: The purpose of Surface
I believe, nobody was paying attention to the real purpose of the Surface.
It's probably the highest-tech skateboard around! :)
Re: The network latency will overwhelm any possible gain
True.. to some extent.
The early HTTP servers were written in Perl. A language that is utterly slower than "native" code, for almost anything related to an network service. That made some sense at the time, when the prevalent connectivity was up to 9600 bps dial-up.
Not much later, the most popular web server, Apache was written in C.
Anyway, for a prototyping task, implementing a new protocol in any language is ok. For demonstrating that it is "better" to the non-scientific community however, this approach is an very bad idea.
Re: censorship in the UK
"Nor are they asking ISPs to implement a new technology."
This is exactly what is asked. They also ask the ISPs to bear all the enormous costs to implement this useless filtering. Trivial to bypass, by the way.
Re: "... as simple as DNS nobbling ..."
"Lots of boring, rhytmic to-and-fro movement, lots of fleshtone areas, very little dialogue."
Like most dances?
Re: All censorship is political
Hint: GCHQ needs budget money. Everyone knows content filtering requires expensive gear. The UK has lots of Internet users, hence lots of very expensive gear is necessary.
Expensive gear: higher commission.
Money, lots of money...
Re: All censorship is political
'"Hmm, someone's at the door ...."
Slightly off-topic but I find this hard to resist.. weren't they the least words in Bin Laden's diary before they found him?'
It was all according to the screenplay.
Re: Gesture politics at its worst @Peter Gathercole
That would pretty much turn off most of the Internet for you.
Re: Nanny State ? @Titus
Correct. You are heading here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat
Re: Nanny State ?
"In cinemas they don’t let you watch it until you are 18, in newsagents again 18 and it is on the top shelf, and on the TV there is the 9 PM watershed."
Then a few questions about you:
1. Do cinema gear stop projecting the porn for you if you are under age while others keep watching? Besides, watching cinema is public activity, using Internet is private matter.
2. Do porn magazines turn white pages when an under are person looks at them?
3. Does your TV switch off after 9pm, to protect you from watching porn?
This stuff has nothing to do with port. It's just testing waters for centralized censorship and manipulation setup.
Re: rather than fighting it.
It is cheaper. Plus, the ISPs will pay for it.
I feel real sorry for the British ISPs anyway... to end up in a hole like that...
The Internet, unlike all other (government controlled) networks has been designed in such a way, that the network itself is "dumb" and the end-nodes are where all the smarts are. Trying to "smart" part of the network to filter traffic does not remove the smarts from the end-nodes...
What this proposes is to turn the Britain's Internet into walled garden intranet.
In a normal society, censure like this will result in customers switching ISPs. Or just moving to live in a country free freedom means something.
Re: Who would want a 13" tablet?
That would be niche. Apple doesn't aim at niches, no matter how much we would like them to..
The books comparison is not a good one. Books are 'single purpose devices' and much cheaper to produce.
One day, when producing electronic paper devices becomes much cheaper, we could see them produced in all possible sizes. But this day is not today.
Why destroy both the iPad and the Macbook Air?
It could be done technically, but does not make much sense.
Re: Call us back when they order a few million
"Went into some detail about how the idea of a 7" tablet was fundamentally broken."
... at the time.
Why do people need to always interpret someone's words out of context?
You need to take into account two things.
First, if you want secrecy, using public service networks is a big no-no.
Second, the SIM has it's own OS and only that OS could be (potentially, depends on the SIM maker) reprogrammed. Your handset's OS lives outside the SIM and therefore can't be changed this way. Reprogramming your device OS is done via other channels... and in fact not required at all in order to spy on you.
Re: 100,000 users
Even if the guy acted "in good faith", the mere fact he is stupid enough to admit he has this data in his hands now surely has turned few heads. If the NSA, MI[5,6], KGB etc haven't visited him to make an offer he could not refuse, they will, soon.
The "best" of it for him is that he could "sell" the same data to everyone -- in exchange of his life, that is. Or... in addition to that.
One has to be extremely stupid to admit such things in public!
Indeed, this is the difference between the "white" and the "black" hats. The white hat guys just know when not to be dumb.
"An London based, Turkish researcher"...
Wow! Did they occupy London already? Or is the Kingdom an wilayah now.. or just an sanjak? :-)
Sorry, couldn't resist!
Re: Seems there are several problems...
Please, AC. It has nothing to do with following the instructions in the manual. Also "very easy, flexible and powerful" has nothing to do with "secure".
If you were so confident in what you say, you would not be a Coward, too.
Re: @ Nicho - @ AC 2241h GMT - The main question, I think, is:
You got it all wrong, pal.
It's the "Social services" to blame, after all. The same who make sure lots of people believe they live happy lives on social support and do not need to get to hard work to earn some money. Just as those "bad capitalists" do.
As for that girl of yours, don't you think, she does the right investment, buying herself a shiny Galaxy IV in order to sell (herself) better? Or hang on with better friends? Because, after all, this is all she can afford to do. Isn't it so?
Or you would prefer her stay out of the way, buy a cheap junk phone and weep alone in misery?
Re: So to summarise...
Who cares when it doesn't work for the consumer?
Besides, most of these pros exist only in Microsoft and their religion followers wishful thinking... or prayers.
Re: If I follow the logic of this
When they swallow the poison Microsoft is, who will ever buy them?
Re: Windows RT
In 21st century more people see trough the Microsoft FUD and don't particularly look for "Windows" on their computers.
Re: Windows RT
"He means that it supports over 430 million USB devices out of the box....unlike Android or IOS."
"Android and iOS", as well as any other sane OS does not count how many devices they support, because support for devices is provided based on the interfaces, APIs and protocols these devices provide. It is therefore enough to support one USB mass storage device, in order to support them all (of course, provided you account for the quirks each device class, generation etc, presents).
With any non-Microsoft OS, the need to support individual devices with individual drivers is very much reduced.
Microsoft however wants everything to be proprietary, controlled and "certified". This is how they make their money.
But, this is not necessarily what the consumer desires and while as long as it all works "seamlessly" consumers don't care, they do care the moment two seemingly identical devices don't work the same way, because the maker of one has paid the "Microsoft tax", while the other did not.
Re: I think I've spotted..
"They created a perception amongst punters that Microsoft Windows = boring business stuff which is going to be a hard thing to reverse."
Perhaps this explains the Microsoft Surface ads with those dancing people who click in, click in, click in...
Dancers in an office?
Re: I think I've spotted..
"Helpdesk? What helpdesk is that, then?"
Virtual. Calls terminate somewhere in India.
Re: Where the Surface RT absolutely shined was a thin client
Probably, that should rephrased as "where Surface RT ever made sense was a thin client". However, they are priced out of this market. A Chromebook is much better choice for that purpose and more ergonomically fit.
Otherwise... a thin client with built-in Office? :)
Re: If Surface ran a version of Windows 7
No, it would not.
Remember, before the Surface there were lots of tablets running Windows 7. Not very successful, except in the small niche they filled (mostly for fanboys).
As for Office, nobody wants it. At least, nobody wants "full Office" (whatever that pipe dream means) in a portable mobile device, because using portable mobile device and what "full Office" is used for are incompatible. Including any version of Office with Surface RT and claiming this is a "deal" was another mistake Microsoft made.
Surface RT should not have had a "desktop" at all.
Re: Some kind of support for x86 binaries would have
No, it would not.
No x86 software is/was written that can be properly operated by touch. Whether the old code could be executed on the device is pretty much irrelevant.
Microsoft should have created a new platform, without the "Windows" name and eventually kept APIs and technologies they developed over the years and their developers understand --- and start from the beginning. That could have took few years to reach some kind of parity with iOS/Android/Others and the new Microsoft platform would never dominate, but Microsoft would have had a pie in this new exiting mobile world... as opposed to today, when they got nothing, but negative feelings from users.
Re: Xbox just overtook
I have yet to see one Xbox in the wild. Connected to a TV that is, not sitting on the shelves and collecting dust.
The only time I saw Xbox promotion, was a bundle with an 40" LG HDTV for 400 EUR. Impressive.
In mean time, plenty of other gaming consoles around.
Re: Surface RT not a bad product - distribution was the let down
"Microsoft gets upset that it's partners aren't able to effectively compete with Apple"
Microsoft is not Apple. Nor is any of Microsoft's partners Apple. Even mighty Intel understood they are no Apple.
Apple, as it stands, are the only of the Personal Computer manufacturers left. They know one fact and don't let anything make them forget: you must pay for all your mistakes, up front, not live on credit.
I believe more will be created now, history repeats itself. But none of these will be in any way connected to Microsoft.
Re: and the Surface Pro is better than pretty much any other
Any other... skateboard?
Re: Windows 8 isn't that bad
Yes. It is not that bad, if you don't pretend it is "Windows", because it clearly is not. The user interface is designed in such a way as to *prevent* windows being used.
But, it is too late now. Microsoft should have used the occasion with a new runtime (WinRT) and a new interface (Metro) to let the Windows legacy go.
Re: I would have gladly paid top dollar for a Courier.
You prefer to apply some logic and instead resort to wishful thinking? What you think the Courier could do, that current tablets can't? Why you think Microsoft would not insist on putting Windows and all their software bloat there?
Truth is, nobody *wants* Windows. People do not *want* iOS or Android either. However, for many, Windows brings bad memories (crashes, malware, poor performance, frustration), while iOS and Android at least bring either satisfaction or hope. Doesn't matter which is "better".
Microsoft could have been successful with Surface RT, if they:
- refrained from calling the OS "Windows"
- priced it adequately as an first attempt and an mass market product
- never, ever try to claim they compete with the iPad (hint: Apple never claimed they compete with anything Microsoft with the iPod, iPhone and iPad).
Further, the primary reason for Microsoft's failure is their assumption that they deserve to win.
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Did Apple's iOS make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets using glowing KILL RAY
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked