There was no issue with iPads and iPhones, since they got fixed first. And Chrome and Firefox on Mac OS X use their own library, so they were safe.
3439 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
Well there is the fact that internal documents of the NSA reveal they found a way to get any information they wanted from iPhones about a month after this bug was introduced. If the NSA had been monitoring changes in the published code (which would be the logical thing to do for them, considering this is a security library for a large target), it is quite likely they found the bug right away and have used it ever since.
Of course, "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"... Right?
It's starting to be hard to add bells and whistles that are "must haves". And so, battery life and familiarity become the important part. The good news for alternate systems like Blackberry (how the world has changed) is that they can catch up to iPhones and Androids simply because there isn't much more that can be added to smartphones. Or at least, anything that users are actually interested in.
Indeed. It seems like someone didn't get that the entire point of shopping is to try clothes in a changing room.
Believing that the point of shopping is to buy something is like believing that reinstalling a different Linux distro for the nth time is to actually have the computer working better, as opposed to simply mucking about for the fun of it.
Let's say, I'll try the coat with the big red buttons… And the small black one… And the one which really does not fit my style, but I want to see how I look inside… And this one just to check if the size is right… And… And…
Ramon Tremosa has urged Almunia in the past to promptly send a Statement of Objections to Google, so it's pretty much clear how he thinks this should go. On the other hand, Almunia is visibly quite convinced that this solution is just fine.
I'm not sure how much pressure Tremosa can apply on Almunia to change his mind. Technically, I guess that politics should not enter in such a debate, but considering the importance of Google, it's pretty inevitable…
Need a popcorn icon, so beer will have to do.
It's a better legacy than working four years on a solution you touted as better and more efficient than litigation, just to end up saying "Sorry, we do need ten years of litigation in the end; I have wasted four years without anything to show up for it."
Google puts constraints on phones that use the Google Play app store, and have Google apps like Google Maps or YouTube. Android has nothing to do with it. Amazon distributes Android phones with a different app store, and they can do whatever they want.
Call it Google Play lock-in, or Google Apps lock-in, but this is not Android lock-in.
I am curious to see if we will end up in the slightly insane situation where most governments make virtual currencies illegal, which should not be enough to stop the underground trade.
I look forward to explaining my children why it's illegal to exchange messages consisting in large numbers.
Netherlands manages with low taxes by taxing the many rich companies that are attracted by its low tax rate. If everybody had such low rates, Netherlands would not be competitive any more, and wouldn't manage.
Nevertheless, the reason Google does not pay much taxes in France is not related to licensing deals. The reason is that Google France does not do much business in France. It is Google Ireland which does a lot of business in France, and has no reason whatsoever to pay taxes in France, since it is an Irish company.
If Europe does not want to abolish the rules which make it possible to earn money in the whole continent and pay income taxes in a single country, they should consider having country to country payments to cover transborder earnings. Thus, companies still pay taxes in a single country, France gets some money from Ireland, and countries like Ireland and Netherlands have less incentive to undercut other countries on income taxes.
Just look at the news today about Google and the European Union, and I think you will have a pretty good idea of what he did for the company. He seems to be the one who has been in contact with Almunia.
When you think of it, Schmidt fits quite well in the role of diplomatic envoy to bureaucrats and politicians.
"The firm is still wedded to extracting royalties"
Wait, what? Are you confusing them with Microsoft or what? Google did continue the lawsuits started by Motorola, but you can hardly say they make it a business model...
By and large, Google is on the receiving end of those suits.
Obviously, the only way for the data to be completely anonymous is to contain no data at all. This is why these rules contain sentences like "by exercising reasonable effort" and "disproportionate amount of time, expense and effort".
Ultimately, the limits are blurry, and you can fully expect people to get too close, get sued, and receive a half-random decision from the courts.
But it's good that governments are getting in the business of deciding what is privacy, and what companies can do. Currently, T&Cs are designed to be as vague as possible, in order to protect companies from lawsuits. The only way to get sane limits is to have them be set by the law. (Though obviously, this is not going to stop governments from spying on us…)
Having a smartphone allows me to read the Reg during my commute. I used to hate public transportation because I would be forced to wait at the stop, then wait in the bus; to the point I would drive just to be less bored. Now, commuting is actually enjoyable free time.
Almunia is an accomplished politician, and knows how to play both sides. Last time there was also a claim that there would be no market test, and there was one in the end. He is playing a brinkmanship game, if only to avoid complaints from politics that he is not trying hard enough.
But in the end, his goal is to extract a settlement; and he will leave office soon…
I'm really curious what the new propositions are. I really wonder how they can be "much better" than the previous ones…
The fact that their bank balance has climbed was expected. The stock market is not a place where you can buy today for $1 something which everybody knows will be worth $2 tomorrow.
In other words, the value of Apple in September was already taking into account the fact that their bank balance was going to grow. If this was not the case, the market cap of companies would always be exactly the sum of their bank balance and what you could get by selling everything it owns.
AAPL is at the same level as last September, just before the new iPhones were announced. At that time, the stock went down on uncertainty whether people would like the new phones. Then, investors realized the new phones were selling well, and the stock came back up. There was some exuberance which brought the stock higher, and when the numbers got released, the stock went back to its September level.
Fact is, there is nothing at this point which makes Apple a more valuable company than in September. They had a record-breaking quarter as expected, but since it was expected, there is no reason for the stock to be higher than September.
I'm not desperate; I'm just showing numbers and explaining that people find them disappointing. If anything, your post shows a lot more angst than mine.
If you have Apple stock, don't worry and wait for summer; it will go back up. However, I wouldn't expect Apple to double next year like it did so often in the past decade (to my personal benefit, I might add).
A peak happens when the numbers are at their highest, not when they are going down. Consider the evolution of the number of iPhones sold in Q1 of the past years:
2011 Q1: +82% YoY
2012 Q1: +128% YoY
2013 Q1: +29% YoY
2014 Q1: +5% YoY
No matter how you cut it, investors are disappointed that Apple beat its own record by so little.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019