chaz72

If you believe that arbitrary browser code running arbitrary website code doesn't weaken security, then I don't know what to say except I disagree.

To my mind, iOS security is where it needs to be for that device. I respect your opinion, but we're not going to agree on that. I've considered your argument and I don't see anything that changes the fundamental "so don't buy an iOS device, they do not have a monopoly and there are other fish in the sea". For my part, I'll keep buying them because I follow a similar philosophy that security changes are preeminent and should be allowed to break and constrain other software.

Thing is, if I believed the Mac was going to be ratcheted down to iOS levels of paternalistic control, I would be upset too. My conclusion is it'll never happen. I don't think they'll ever break their general purpose computer. If they did, you'd see a massive exodus of former Mac users looking for a new UNIX desktop. Maybe a big enough exodus to finally make The Year of the UNIX desktop happen. :)

As far as free developer tools, I again don't know what is different from before. I hear you, but haven't experienced the nirvana you describe: I've been on Windows, where development tools have very often been free to play with and require payment to use them for real work.

The way I look at it is that Apple's gatekeeper role is appropriately minimal on OS X and appropriately strict on iOS, and for my part I trust the twain will never meet because of exactly that "general purpose computer" difference, but you have added some thought-provoking perspective.

I wasn't sure how to answer this yesterday. I never experienced Apple's "better days" as I've been developing in Windows for the last 20 years. Apple's current days, well, they seem pretty good for my needs, but I wasn't paying attention during the times you're talking about.

I suppose when I need real control I would look to, say, OpenBSD instead, which I prefer to use remotely from a very pleasant and very predictable - but not super-powerful - Apple machine. Our needs, I'm sure, are not the same.

Well, I agree with you there (in general I mean, I don't know the miPhone). I would love to see a truly open source handheld computer. I've thought about picking up a Firefox OS phone. I just don't think it's Apple's job to create it. That's not what they do.

Unless you are trying to argue that iOS is replacing desktop operating systems, I don't see why the presence of a locked-down device is a threat to a general purpose computer. I find general purpose computers are not expensive at all and I don't particularly expect that to change.

I've been spending some time trying to understand this today, and I don't understand why such users don't just go buy a device they can root and take full control that way. Why blame a vendor that doesn't ship what you want? Why not just... buy what you do want?

Separately: The DMCA needs to be dismantled, absolutely.

The naive outnumber the skilled by so very many... perhaps the skilled need different devices and different operating systems?

Outlawed? Just because one vendor sells a non-general-purpose computer, you feel like general-purpose computers have been outlawed? I don't understand.

It would be ridiculous for a bad swimmer to blame the creator of his or her swimwear.

On the other hand, a bad swimmer might be pretty upset with the creators of his or her boat, if hypothetically the goal is to stay out of the water.

It's just possible that it depends on what you expect from the device when you buy it.

Responding to your edit, "We certainly won't win this battle by trying to teach them information theory (good luck! :) )":

I think your goalposts are shifting here. A simple example that is easy to spread and easy to demonstrate sounds at least plausible. It certainly doesn't sound to me like teaching them information theory, it sounds more like a challenge: "How will your laws prevent me doing this?" Perhaps they'll block Twitter too?

I don't agree at all, I would even think that you are missing the point by saying "they don't see it that way". Well, they don't see it that way because they are ignorant. I agree with the author: Finding a way to communicate this, to educate the ignorant (politicians and voters both) is in fact the crucial battle right now.

Whether this little technical demonstration does that or not... well, we'll see. But I absolutely can't fault the effort.

For me, "locked down" is a choice I make when I buy an iOS device. It's not something I look for in servers or desktops, but in tablets and phones it is very much something I appreciate. Many people have other philosophies from mine: fortunately, so do many other computer vendors.

Apple doesn't blindly extend trust to app vendors - neither do I, particularly. Apple doesn't trust most folks to decide whether to trust an app vendor - neither do I, particularly.

For some reason, this surprises me. I have seen countless calls for Apple to be more open in general (do not want), but your suggestion would only open it up to other browsers. I'm intrigued and torn: I feel like Mozilla might have something to contribute there, but I feel like Chrome would follow on by wanting their own App Store.

I think I agree that Mozilla Firefox using its own engine and extensions would be a valuable app. I'm not convinced I would want to let anybody else in.

Possibly uncertainty inside Google... but like as not the uncertainty is from the outside and the rumor mill got it wrong.

Certainly it's confusing. :)

Nonsense. The author still has a right to call him out in public and say "this jerk lied and claimed my work as his own". He did not give that right away when he used a permissive license.

Legal is the default state for devices that don't use public roads, public airwaves, etc.

It'd be completely accurate, you would just need to keep every single human on Earth in controlled conditions. Good luck!

Anecdote.

The issue is not the 20 characters, but the underlying reason for it. There's no technical reason they would need it unless they were storing it insecurely.

Granted it's possible they're limiting it to 20 for a nontechnical reason, but I have some 40-character passwords in a password manager. Long passwords are not only reasonable, but this is a giant alarm bell if they even imply they might be storing them insecurely.

That too can be queued up, with a list of functions to call to free those resources.

Yeah, I'm not sure the signs will help people, it's kind of out of their hands - but I like the idea of airport staff being able to spot bottlenecks more easily and shift resources where they can.

Nonsense. They're selling them as fast as they can make them. Perhaps it will flop, but I don't think we know that yet.

Personally, I find hands-free Siri very useful, it's a nice piece of jewelry, and I'm surprised by how much just having the time, date, calendar, weather, messages on my wrist means I don't need to look things up on a larger screen.

It doesn't do everything, it does the most common things almost instantly. Not everyone will want to pay for that, but I don't think you can call it a flop until they can keep it in stock.

Well, to be fair, I have no idea. I saw some reference here in the comments that there was not enough data for someone to replicate it. I saw some other reference here in the comments that they are going to sell diet packs and have a commercial interest. That's not really enough to draw a conclusion, is it?

Thing is, it isn't my intent to draw a conclusion. Merely to say that if they do not make it reproducible and testable by another team, then all the studies and data in the world do not qualify as science.

Exactly so.

If it can't be independently verified, it can't be called science, no matter how promising the study is when they run it.

Well, they don't have to sign then... Sign up after most people's three months run out. Or negotiate for better terms. Or walk away from the table.

It's not like their fate is entirely in Apple's hands.

Okay. Go ahead, look around, let us know if "possibly conspiring" turns up any "evidence".

In the absence of evidence: Their description that freemium might have an upside for artists seems... very optimistic, and one-sided in that they don't address the other half of the equation, which is that if freemium doesn't have the expected upside, Spotify is profiting at artists' expense.

If artists at this point are nervous about that untested theory and looking for non-freemium options, who can blame them? And why does it have to be a conspiracy if somebody launches a new service without freemium? You think you can compete, go ahead, compete!

And a small number of tools for composing JSON.

Yeah, I saw that conclusion, and I've seen several like it before. :)

The question was my way of suggesting that the comment I was referencing was probably unsubstantiated - while still giving him a chance to come up with data if he happened to have any.