Posts by SuccessCase

'Who knew in 1984 that Steve Jobs would be Big Brother?'

The Free software foundation are talking without knowledge, the Fingerprint sensor may be network accessible or it may not be. Typically a secure subsystem like that will be designed to store the print data securely and locally. The question is, is there a path in terms of data bus layout or data-bus layout in combination with security chip design whereby the CPU can access the print. There are three distinct likely possibilities which match Phil Schiller's statement on the security (more unlikely ones but I won't touch on those)

1. No, the security chip and firmware are entirely discrete and non upgradable and have a small amount of local storage with a simple CPU side interface which allows new "prints" to be taken and confirms or denies when a scan has passed.

2. The security chip firmware can be upgraded such that a modification could direct the "print" data to the CPU. But the firmware will be protected by a locked bootloader and only those with the key can access it. The "print" data is not accessible by the CPU unless subverting firmware is installed.

3. The data is accessible directly by the CPU, but isn't as a matter of policy.

1. Is obviously the strongest but is bad if a weakness is later discovered and hackers with physical access to the phone can exploit it. My money is on 2. in which case if Apple state clearly and publicly the firmware is secured, then that is quite a big commitment to break and would destroy the brand if they made the claim now, after recent revelations but got caught out at a later date. Note however this doesn't entirely rule out the NSA being able to subvert individual phones on a case by case basis. If they had that capability or there is any weakness they have an exploit for in the secure bootloader, (or backdoor, which may even not be known to Apple - yes that's the weird subverted security world we now find ourselves in, 4 months ago such a consideration would not have been taken terribly seriously) they wouldn't want to be doing that on a mass basis (though not so sure about pre-Snowden NSA) or if they can legally force Apple's hand to target individual handsets with a firmware change that too remains a problem. 3. Clearly 3 Should raise the most alarm bells

Unless we know which is the case it's premature to comment. Unfortunately Apple are taking the road if security by obscurity which, as a phrase, should be re-written as "security if you believe us, possibly."

I think they should issue more details, with at the very least informing if the system is 1, 2 or 3 above.

Storage rage: Like getting a nice steak and being told to only eat 80% of it

Re: Hear hear

"Hey, vendors, slice a bit off the bill if I'm not supposed to use every byte"

Absolutely, but I'll just put my prices up by 25% first.

BR, Mr Storage Vendor.

Apple’s iOS 64-bit iUpgrade: Don't expect a 2x performance leap

Re: One wonders

There is a difference between saying "our new 64 bit processor delivers twice the performance" and "the 64 bit architecture of our new processor delivers twice the performance as 32 bit," so I still think this piece is intended to denigrate the design choice of Apple opting for a 64 bit processor by implying the 2X performance claims are bogus by attributing a false claim to Apple.

To be fair there are very, very many ways to measure processor performance and Apple, like most other manufacturers, will most surely have picked those measures that show it to it's best advantage (though unlike a certain other rival manufacturer, I suspect Apple would stop short of cheating by writing code to implement custom profiles when certain benchmark tests are detected and change the processor configuration to suite). So some of your points could turn out have some validity (though for reasons given above not to the degree you imply). My point is simply that you can't know without testing it out. Those who are close to Apple and know about their processor design chops know - despite the received "wisdom" of the ya-boo crowd - are becoming very, very good at it (they are one of the world's largest employers of chip designers).

Re: One wonders

"So I expect the average app, as soon as it is compiled for 64 bit, could well be faster even if we were taking about a theoretical device where everything is the same as the iPhone 5 except that required to make it 64 bit."

I'm not entirely happy with my statement there, because I should have made it clear there would also need to be compensation for the conditions where byte size reduces memory usage efficiency through increased cache sizes so read the statement "except that required to make it 64 bit" to also imply increased cache sizes too.

Re: One wonders

Agreed, Tony Smith has made all sorts of assertions about performance without even waiting to check the device. Its disingenuous to pretend Apple were claiming a 2x performance leap based on moving to 64 bit. 64 bit is in the mix but they are different statements. So equally this comes across as a cheap attempt to trash the 2x performance claim by pointing out why simply a change to 64 bit architecture wouldn't bring it.

Many most of the points Tony Smith has made are correct (apart from the il informed point made about duplicate libraries being required), but it is a very selective reading. As there are general performance increases distinct from the 64 bit-ness of the device, and the effort of delivering a 64 bit versions of apps is extremely low on OSX (and will also be on iOS - in many cases will be little more than hitting compile and testing), I find it highly doubtful the user will find apps slower as compared with the iPhone 5 but the piece seems to be written as though trying to leave the impression that will be the case.

Additionally, on the selectivity of the arguments given, most memory is taken up with graphics/video data, and 64 bit does provide a significant performance benefit when dealing with such. So memory access and graphics processing, the things that are the most often encountered culprits hitting the main thread and affecting performance as perceived by the user, will be much sped up. On an average, only a comparatively small percentage of data loaded in memory is going to be inefficient as compared with 32 bit apps (which as I have said will in all probability be overtaken by clock-spead increase and other improvements in cache etc. anyway). So I expect the average app, as soon as it is compiled for 64 bit, could well be faster even if we were taking about a theoretical device where everything is the same as the iPhone 5 except that required to make it 64 bit.

To assert Apple will have coordinated the effort to make the change to 64 bit for marketing reasons (when their marketing doesn't emphasise under the hood technology anyway) and that they would undergo the upheaval of such a major shift just for a bullet point, is taking Apple cynicism to an (all too often encountered) ill justified level.

The reality is iOS has to a very large extent a shared code base with OSX (it isn't too much of a simplification to say it is basically OSX with some extrenuous stuff stripped out and the Cocoa Touch UI library added in). To make all code 64 bit too would be a healthy consolidation for Apple as well as being a good preparation for the future. There are also many other subtle considerations. One important one, it isn't just finger print scanner security that this will help, but full encrypted file system security. With 64bit it is much more feasible to ensure the whole schebang is encrypted and will have a lower impact on performance.

It's true the benefit of 64 bit is a subtle case and not in and of itself something most users should consider a feature, but there are many many strategic reasons it is good to make the move.

One thing I have noticed with Mavericks (hate the name) is that the system is far more aggressive in managing background processes to conserve battery. I suspect Apple are very much moving OSX towards the iOS appliance model. I expect we will see a RISC only version of the MacBook Air constrained to the App Store. This is something I have been worrying about because it will be a next step to sealed appliance PC's.

I very much doubt Apple will be moving entirely away from PC architecture for the pro and developer market for the foreseeable future, but I do think there will be a very big market for users who would love a MacBook Air where they can't screw it up in the same way as they find it difficult to screw up their iPads. For many people the benefits of having an to all intents and purposes virus free, virtually un-screw-uppable computing appliance, where if you drop and break it, like the iPad everything is simply restored* will be immense.

*Except for photo's, where inexplicably one of the most valued data assets people have are badly served by the otherwise excellent "1 login" restore process Apple have implemented. How can they have done such a good job for everything EXCEPT photos !!!

"Given that you can have 32 and 64 bit binaries in the distribution, that isn't worrying at all. Developers will provide both as long as the toolchain will create them."

Your thinking is a bit old fashioned there. Since all the apps are delivered from an App Store, I expect the 5S will only receive the 64 bit versions when there is a 64 bit version available. There's no need to keep 32 bit version of apps that will never be run on a 64 bit device.

iPhone 5S: Apple, you're BORING us to DEATH (And you too, Samsung)

Peak Register

Apple sales have not been declining. The rate of growth has declined.

It does seem The Register don't really understand this. Though to be fair, many don't. The simple point is that in a growth market, market share can decline while sales continue to grow. Android sales have been growing on an S curve, shot past Apple but are now slowing down. Apple sales have continued to grow at a slower but more consistent rate, though they too are now slowing (less of a curve at the top of the S). Interestingly, they are not slowing at the same rate as Android, which is attributable too the high customer satisfaction rates leading to fewer customers being prepared to switch away, whereas more Android customers are prepared to switch too Apple. This has lead to iOS starting to take market share off Android in two developed markets, the US and the UK, with the trends indicating the same will start to happen in other developed markets soon.

New iPhones: C certainly DOESN'T stand for 'Cheap'

Re: Did anyone expect affordability?

"Release builds tend to be hugely faster"

Yes that's been my experience in the past and what I'm hoping now, because on the iPad it's currently really Janky (for scrolling blurred translucent table cells in most places).

Yes, and I'm confident I'll be proven right. Same as I was proven right about the iPad being a success when almost everyone everyone commenting at The Register was saying it would be a failure, same as I was proven right about the market dynamic and high satisfaction ratings leading to Apple's market share starting to expand again in wealthy markets once those markets reached smartphone purchase saturation (you will see that effect accelerating BTW). So down vote if you wish and I'll chuckle when looking back at this comment in the new year !

The company that is best set to reverse Apple's fortunes isn't here yet. That will most likely be Xiaomi (not Samsung). They are impacting Apple in China now and could start to impact them internationally from late next year, but most likely not until 2015.

Re: Did anyone expect affordability?

"IOS 7 on my iPhone 5 suffers low scrolling frame rate" sorry, not on the iPhone 5, it's ok on that, but is bad on the iPad third gen (slower processor, larger retina display).

Re: Did anyone expect affordability?

I understand the 64 bit architecture helps with translucency and blurs. Android has now pretty much caught up in terms of smooth scrolling and animations. Apple always like to have an edge in graphical slickness and push the boundaries. Smooth animation with translucency and blurs is one of the ways of implementing a differentiator which makes systems that can't do it so we'll look somehow old hat (most people don't even identify just what it is they like).

There is a down side to this though. IOS 7 on my iPhone 5 suffers low scrolling frame rate on the many translucent table elements. There may well be improvements before release, but if this is as good as it will get I'm a little surprised Apple will have allowed it (I'm sure there will be some retarded yah-boo Apple types who will comment "deliberate in obsolescence" but anyone who has used Apple kit for a while will know they have always in the past proven very careful to preserve/maintain the user experience)

The other thing I understand 64 bit it helps for is fast encryption and decryption, so running an encrypted file system will be higher performance.

"They aren't likely to lure many customers who otherwise have their eyes on cut-rate Android handsets or the low end of Nokia's Lumia line."

I be to differ. I predict you will be surprised by just how much of a difference the iPhone 5C makes to Apple sales. There is a "desire to spend" distortion field that comes into effect when people walk into Apple stores and this will mean people who previously couldn't make the stretch, will be able to.

Apple market share is increasing in the US and the UK and on trend to increase in the five wealthiest EU countries. This will help Apple in China in percentage terms a bit (but a bit being rather a lot in absolute terms when talking of China) but it will make even bigger gains for them in the West. I don't think they are targeting emerging markets at all, rather happy to see improvements in emerging markets (without abandoning their business focus and strategy targeting the high end). Why would they want to compete with all the Android vendors competing downwards on price and who are making almost exactly no profit? Samsung occupy the middle ground but also are wise enough to avoid competing downwards on price. They too maintain their margins.

David Attenborough warns that humans have stopped evolving

Er, actually most animals are on a plateau with regard to evolution driven by natural selection. It is not a process which is happening all the time. Evolution tends to occur in fits and starts when there is great population pressure or competition for scarce resources. We, Homo Sapiens, have been on an evolutionary plateau for over 8,000 years. This report makes it sound like David Attenbrorough is suggesting we have recently stopped evolving and this is something only just realised realised, which is not the case (and I'm sure he is aware). Though in relative terms, measured against when life first emerged, I guess you could say 8,000 years is recent.

Xiaomi plans global domination with fast smartphones and software

Re: Ecosystem, Ecosystem, Ecosystem

"Android is no longer "catching up", this system is clearly the leader now. At least 70% of the market compared to the iOS of nearly 17% and dropping. Apple has had its day and needs to give up the"

This is unanalysed wishfulness.

Android is the leader in Global device sales/activations and that's about the only figure it does lead with. However there is now a trend in mature markets for iOS market share growing in relation to Android (US and UK with the top 5 EU economies all on a similar trend). Developers still make considerably more money developing for iOS. Additionally, it would seem a large proportion of Android devices have been purchased by disinterested users who have gone for a cheap smartphone because it has reached price levels previously occupied by feature phones. These devices are being used less and, also, it would seem, binned earlier (or not being used for Internet). Flurry analytics reports are showing an estimated 510 million active app-using iOS devices worldwide versus 564 million active app-using Android devices (hardly reflective of the worldwide sales figures).

This will change with Xiaomi, who I have been following for some time and seem to be doing some outstanding work. They are run by a guy who is, probably for quite fair reasons, being hailed as the new Steve Job's. Their latest handsets, which are due to be lower cost than the iPhone 5c, in my opinion based on the images I've seen (always a little dangerous) have a higher quality appearance and better hardware design aesthetic. Additionally Google and Google's flavour of Android *are unlikely to be the beneficiary over the longer term.* Xiaomi, of course, are not using Google official Android, they are pushing non-Google services hardest in China such as Baidu and Sina Weibo and it is likely based on the size/strength of the Chinese market alone, they will make very different strategic partnerships that will, over time, sideline Google even in the West, because they have a very big prize indeed within reach, ownership of the globally pre-eminent hardware/software stack from top to bottom (starting from a base of ownership of the same in the Chinese market - which they are already on course to achieve).

In my opinion, and this is just opinion which I know will be contentious, Google investing the billions in Android as Open Source software could very well turn out to be one of the biggest ever strategic blunders in tech. There is the very real danger they have given China the power to overturn America's Global domination of Operating System software far earlier than it might otherwise have been achieved. You can count the number of globally pre-eminent OS's on the fingers of one Hand and they have all originated from the US. Establishing an OS is an extremely hard thing to do and the US had every opportunity to hold on to that advantage for years to come. But then Android changed all that. Android has been very aptly described as an unguided missile. It could very well, and in my opinion is highly likely to, end up striking at the heat of Silicon Valley.

The REAL winner of Microsoft's Nokia buy: GOOGLE

Re: Billion Android Phones.

"Any developer not targeting Android as their primary device is a fool."

If that is the case, the vast majority of developers are fools (or driven by money, most developers still earn considerably more targeting iOS).

iPhone rises, Android slips in US, UK

Re: Peak Register

"it could even be the case that Android has risen faster (in absolute numbers) than iphone, even if Apple's share increases whilst Android's falls!"

Yes that could definitely have been the case earlier in the cycle and can happen in a rapidly expanding market. It's very unlikely to be the case now though, if not impossible, because the market has reached maturity. There is still some expansion but it is a low percentage. From now on the smartphone replacement/upgrade cycle for exiting users is becoming an ever more significant metric.

Peak Register

"My guess is that the counterpoint to a market share increase is therefore that Apple have had to cut the price per unit on their currently available models."

"I like Bernard's free market interpretation: Apple is managing to respond to competition.”

Nope and nope.

Apple have never cut the price of the iPhone. What they have done *and have always done*, is kept older models available at lower cost.

The second point, Apple haven’t changed their business model to compete - especially not on price. The model has always been competitive on the basis in which they are interested in competing (which excludes price). I have written a comment about this pattern as it has been evident from those who have checked the data for some time now. In fact, sales for both Apple and Android are slowing as the smartphone market reaches saturation.

Android has made massive sales since smartphones have been available at price points only previously available to feature phone customers. When Android started doing fantastically well in comparison with the iPhone, iPhone sales weren’t slowing one bit, they were continuing to accelerate. But just not as fast as Android. This can be explained by the fact smartphones have until recently been the biggest growth market the world has ever seen.

But many Android phones have been bought by users who have no interest in a smart-phone per se. They would have bought a feature phone, but found a smartphone was available at the same price as they were planning on paying. This is why Android per user usage figures are so much lower than for iOS.

Additionally, it has always been the case a greater percentage of users of Android (and more users of Samsung Android devices) have wanted to switch to iOS than vice versa. There is plenty of data showing this.

The result was that it was inevitable that once the “flash" in-filling of the cheap feature phone market with smartphones had completed, iOS would start to take users off Android. This won't happen in every market, but it is happening in the more wealthy markets.

I have stated this very clearly, with full referencing to relevant reports, in past comments and have always a large number of down-votes for saying it!

Here is one such comment with references to the data:

http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2013/08/14/peak_apple_samsung_has_double_market_share_of_iphone/#c_1925461

Microsoft - do you really think you can take on Google with Nokia?

Re: Some Apples and some Oranges

Can't judge on other platforms, but Here maps on iOS is crap. I was really disappointed after hearing about how good it is on Nokia phones. Partially this judgement is due to the user interface being crap. Apple maps (which have significantly improved, with the best yet to come on iOS 7 which I have in beta) is significantly better. The biggest problem for Apple maps was simple but a large one, the indexing and aliasing of place names / points of interest was crap. It's still not as good as Google maps, but it is probably now about as good as Google maps was just before Apple maps was released (for the UK at least - can't comment for elsewhere). Even when struggling with the Interface and trying to ignore the negative feel it brings Here maps place names and points of interest seemed to be no better than Apple maps.

Apple to accept iPhone trade-ins at US Retail Stores

Re: AC Condition

"It also props up the secondhand value of older iPhones, which is slipping. Apple can't have their older products being perceived as only worth as much as the average Android phone, so they will want to keep the secondhand value up."

1. The second hand value of iPhones isn't slipping - you've just made that up. See priceonomics.com for data.

2. Apple will almost certainly buy them for less than if you simply sell you phone on priceonomics, so to claim that Apple's initiative is to "prop up the second hand value" of iPhones is a fantasy statement - we will have to wait and see how prices compare. Undoubtedly the initiative is to minimise churn from the Apple ecosystem so it continues to grow.

3. A greater percentage of owners of Samsung devices want to move to iOS devices than iOS owners want to move to Android or Samsung - this is true even in South Korea - so it appears Apple are having no problem keeping the fanbois onboard.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/19/apple-samsung-survey-cirp/

Indeed in mature markets where Android has infilled the price points previously occupied by feature phones (which explains why Android per user usage figures are so dire as compared with iOS), due to these customer loyalty stats, growth of Android relative to iOS is slowing and in the US it now even appears to have reversed. iOS is growing faster than Android.

http://www.asymco.com/2013/08/08/android-net-user-decline/

Google cripples Chromecast third party replay

"Open always wins"

Which company said that?

Apple's Siri 'hurls insults' at Google Glass

Petty? For a website that dishes out snark and likes to teach lessons to fanboys who take themselves too seriously, to find offence in something that is minor and quite amusing, is well, revealing.

'You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back'

A wife suspects her husband Frank of having an affair with Jill. The man goes on a business trip promising his wife he won't be with Jill. You are a work colleague who sits next to frank's desk. Unbeknown to you Frank's wife is phoning the office to check up on him. You can see his schedule and innocently remark "he's on a business trip to x, He and Jill have a meeting with the chief executive." See why context matters and why, when you lack it, problems can be caused? But no you don't see that, because you're "f***ing sick of this bulls**t being regurgitated by the government and security services." and because of that you're happy to proclaim because there is several container loads of bathwater that need to be thrown out, there can be no baby in there. Only problem is, if a secret document detailing x met with y is released, you don't have the context so don't have a f**king clue if that screws an international supply agreement, throws distrust into the advancement of a peace treaty or endangers the life of an agent (they do exist and they are sometimes risking their lives). You seem to be assuming all stored secret intelligence is bullshit the government is using to control the people (otherwise how can you claim to sufficiently understand the totality of context)

"Citizens have a right to know what governments are doing in their name, and they have a right to privacy. And if that results in a world where the chance of dying in a terror attack is 1 in a million instead of 1 in 20 million*, then bring it on."

Couldn't agree more, though do you think that means we should have no intelligence services, or that they can have no secrets? Do you think they are never tracking actual terrorists? And if they are, how exactly are they to operate if they can keep nothing secret? (Again is there no baby in that bathwater?)

"In the world of blogs and Twitter it is less and less relevant to have 'officially designated' journalists."

True, but does that then mean you just pick whoever you want to share "working in the public interest secret data with?" And if it turns out someone you share data with isn't working in the public interest, do you just shrug your shoulders and say "f**k it, I wasn't to know." How do you responsibly look after the data if you are a news organisation, by sharing it wives, boyfriend's girlfriend's? Do confidentiality agreements signed as part of your employment mean nothing?

Look none if this is to say Miranda was bad, to be distrusted or should have been harassed, but it is to say by not adhering to highest professional standards, the Guardian have dropped what would otherwise have been a clear catch, which is a shame. They have also screwed up around the story on the HDD destruction, revising it several times.

The more I have read about the Miranda case, the more I think the Guardian have badly fumbled the ball on this one. I'm wholly onside re: the grave dangers from mass surveillance and I think these have not yet been understood by the general public. There was a major opportunity to ace the government. But it is very much looking as though Miranda was carrying the classified information. We need to keep a sense of proportion and stay attuned to the subtleties here. If Miranda was carrying the information it was a grave misstep. He is not a journalist. As much as mass surveillance is a danger, there is still such a thing as sensitive classified data. It is not necessarily possible for journalists, who lack context to understand what is sensitive or even life threatening and what is not. Seemingly innocuous information might be of great interest to a foreign power or enemy and context is required to judge this. But for a journalist with access to such data who is holding government accountable, to allow a non-newspaper-employee, no mater how trusted, to have access to that information, is a grave misstep and highly irresponsible. The Guardian and Greenwald need to think about the meaning of the name on their masthead.

'Symbolic' Grauniad drive-smash was not just a storage fail

Re: thuggery isnt it?

Unfortunately, as much as I disagree with the Government's position, it seems the Guardian has been a little melodramatic in their reporting of this. It turns out there was no pressure from the government for the Guardian to destroy the data. The Guardian destroyed it of their own volition. They have also somewhat confused things in their reporting of the number of computers in the UK carrying the data and that they have destroyed. This story deserves reporting with forensic precision, otherwise there is a danger the Guardian will trip themselves up and give ammo to the Government.

The Guardian act may have taken this action for quasi-symbolic legal reasons, eg to visibly proclaim there are no copies now available in the UK to UK employees, though there are copies available to employees outside UK and US jurisdiction. But this still doesn't make up for sloppy reporting on this extremely important subject. I hope the Guardian up their game on this front as it would be a shame for them to taint the massive win they can score for the common UK and US citizen.

Apple sucking triple the phone switchers as Samsung – report

Re: Insufficient data?

@T.F.M. Reader

You're right to pick that up. But The Register simply copied it wrong. The source for this was originally from a Fortune magazine article and actually says:

"Among buyers who switched brands, Apple took three times as many from Samsung (33%) as Samsung took from Apple (11%)"

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/19/apple-samsung-survey-cirp/

@Ben 54

You mean Samsung are the fab plant for Apple processors, which are custom design ARM chips, designed by Apple, which is one of the largest employers of chip designers int he world. You are referring to the Apple chips Samsung aren't allowed to use in their phones if they wanted to; For which Samsung have no knowledge of the Logic design and for which the contract for fabrication will forbid them from reverse engineering and which Apple can take to another fabricator if they wish.

You mean Samsung, who are using off-the-shelf ARM chip designs, and who realising Apple are pulling ahead in chip design (because chip design for mobile devices is all about the blend of many factors which apple are tailoring specifically to their OS so they get speed/power advantages when and where needed), are only now beginning to up their game, copy the Apple playbook, and talk produce their own custom build chips for future generations of phones.

Oh those two companies the Apple tarts are ignorant about.

Re: And more "smart" people use Samsung

@mutatedwombat

No, there were 4 surveys with over 500 people surveyed by each. Of course there can be bad survey methodology, but there is nothing to indicate there is anything wrong with the methodology. Anything over 100 people will give statistically significant results.

@Mark

No, just because there has been a survey you disagree with, it isn't then OK to re-interpret (and misinterpret) the data based on a secondary source. You're just making it up. Look at the last chart from the report on this page:

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/08/19/apple-samsung-survey-cirp/

The reality is Apple iPhone buyers are on average, higher educated, more engaged with their smartphones, have higher disposable income, are prepared to spend more money through their smartphones. Funny to watch the Fandroid's pirouette 180 degrees now the evidence contradicts the Samsung advertisement claims about only old people buying Apple devices. Suddenly it's only stupid young teenagers buying Apple. Except it isn't, it's affluent highly educated people from a range of ages.

It is becoming clear as can be, the reason a higher proportion of older people are buying Samsung is because a large proportion of Android devices are being bought by older people who don't give a hoot about Smartphones but are buying them because the prices have now reached price points previously occupied by feature phones. This is why engagement/usage figures for Android are so dire (though they have been improving over the past year).

People look at the total market figure and see this steadily increasing "mass of water," of which Apple seems to be an ever smaller percentage, without understanding there are some very strong currents/dynamics within the water and that the Apple user base continues to expand at a rate of knots. They don't understand Android has seen faster expansion through in-filling of the market as smartphones reached feature phone price points but that that trend and the relative sales of the two companies will change as the market matures. Surveys left right and centre are showing users prefer iPhone. Even in Korea more Samsung owners want to switch to iPhone than iPhone owners want to switch to Samsung! ( though, to be fair, the preference gap has been narrowing). The logical result of these dynamics is that as various markets mature we will see more of what is now occurring in the US occurring elsewhere. Android in decline.

http://www.asymco.com/2013/08/08/android-net-user-decline/

Look at the trajectories of the third graph on the page. It says everything about the dynamic I'm referring to.

Apple to replace wonky iMac graphics cards

It's fantastic on any device where they think there is a real problem. The fact the iPhone 4 - unmodified from the original design, is still selling well and outside of a couple of months when the story broke, there have been no increased returns due to the "grip of death" "issue" says it all really.

My 27" iMac is one of the affected units :(

They are collecting from me and returning too me. :)

It was subject to a previous recall, due to faulty HDD. :(

They replaced that one, but the service engineer managed to strip the thread on the small baseplate screws under the mac :(

I phoned and complained the base plate was loose. In all honesty a bit of blue tack would have been fine and apart from being annoyed, it wasn't really a significant problem (the base plate would never have dislodged and the blue tack would never have been visible). A manager called me back and said "Sir, that level of service is unacceptable from us, no Mac owner should have a baseplate held in place by blue-tack." They replaced the iMac with a new model but since the model I had was out of stock they gave me an upgraded, more powerful iMac with more memory. :)

Now as far as I'm concerned, you can't ask for better than that. There are always going to be occasional problems and human error. I've been unlucky that two supplier components have been bad on one machine and subject to recalls. But if, when there are problems, the company actively seeks to fully sorts them out promptly and without complaint, that is fine by me. It's especially reassuring that they actively seek out customers who need a HDD recall. That is obviously very important.

Oh also, on the same machine, I took it back early in its life-time for the screen to be replaced, because it developed "blotches" down the right hand side. It was only after they returned with an entirely new LED LCD display (which on a 27" iMac is not going to be cheap) that I realised I have it stationed almost directly next to a radiator where I often dry clothes. I'm now pretty certain the display blotches were caused by the continual "ingestion" of evaporating water and I no longer dry clothes next to it (and don't have the blotches problem). So this kind of illustrates the difficulty of offering good customer service to customers - often there will be faults that are the customers fault. I genuinely didn't make the connection until after it was returned and I was about to put out some more damp washing and a "light bulb switch on," but often customers will be making warranty claims in full knowledge they are at fault.

When you factor in the human cost of the customer services I have received, all the van rolls, the support agent time and the repair time ( the replacement display I probably didn't deserve), the fact is a thin margin PC manufacturer could never afford to provide that level of service. Consequently they don't.

My experience has led me to be very happy to pay the Apple premium because, in my experience, it isn't really a premium at all. To me it appears to be simply the cost of proper service. Then I remember back to my days of dealing with PC World where the staff would try to make you feel like a criminal if you needed to return anything faulty, and I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to change brand.

Just add creepiness: Google Search gets even more personal

Re: Privacy? Oh that was something they had in olden times

And more people need to remember privacy is not secrecy (@JDX). When with friends, if I leave the dinner table enter the WC and lock the door, everyone knows what I'm doing. It's no secret. But it is private.

People need to remember, with Google, you are the product, and they will always be tempted to want to sell your private data.

Check their privacy terms and they say:

"We do not share personal information with companies, organisations and individuals outside Google unless one of the following circumstances applies:

- With your consent

[...]

- With domain administrators

[...]

- For external processing

[...]

- For legal reasons

[...] "

And give an explanation of each of those things (I have omitted for brevity) under each heading.

But the explanation under "for external processing" is as follows:

"We provide personal information to our affiliates or other trusted businesses or persons to process it for us, based on our instructions and in compliance with our Privacy Policy and any other appropriate confidentiality and security measures. "

Ask any lawyer; That wording is a get out that overrides the apparent self imposed restrictions of the other bullet points. They can define "affiliate" how they want (they don't provide a legal glossary definition in the doc as you normally would for key terms). So if they simply email data to another company with a confidentiality notice, they could claim that is sufficient by their definition to define that company as an affiliate! They can define "processing for us" as broadly as they like and they can make "based on our instructions" as limited (and near meaningless) as they like. so even the request "tell me how it goes." In an email could be argued sufficient as to establish the company who have been sent the data are processing it for Google (that company processing it for themselves is NOT excluded). I'm not saying they would interpret the doc to this extreme (though if pushed in a legal corner they might), I'm pointing out, it is defined to protect them, whilst charading as self imposed limits protecting the user.

Lastly "in compliance with our Privacy Policy" actually, logically, is an entirely circular argument that is not some independent doc limiting of these permissions - this is their privacy policy!

For me this is the very definition of disingenuous. They have allowed themselves to do pretty much what they want with your private data while dressing it up as a user privacy protection document.

Peak Apple: Samsung hits DOUBLE the market share of iPhones

Re: re: ALL FACTS ARE GOOD.

"Auto-realizable" should of course have been "auto resizable." Happy to admit Android has better auto correct .

Re: re: ALL FACTS ARE GOOD.

Thanks for placing actual arguments rather than just slinging mud.

First the source you asked about for the 95% profit claim?there really are many verifying sources for this.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/15/apple-bagged-57-of-12-5b-in-smartphone-profits-in-q1-android-43-samsung-95-share-of-that-more-than-google/

"As another poster has already noted, it is much harder to develop iOS applications efficiently for multiple resolutions compared to Android where this requirement and the supporting toolkit has been in place from the start."

I let that poster's comment pass. Firstly I would take issue with the claim it is easier to develop for multiple resolutions on Android because I can see it's an opinion. One I can justify well, but one that will just lead to a religious war over what is the right way to do graphics. I will leave my answer as - just compare tablet apps between iOS and Android to see my point and why Apple's approach results in highest quality.

But on a technical note, iOS has implemented layout constraints for a couple of versions now, which make layout as flexible and auto-realizable as it is possible to be and can be expressed in many developer friendly ways including a visual string syntax, so you're out of date re the power of iOS layout constraints and their ease of implementation. It can all be done in the visual layout editor as well.

But on the point regarding fragmentation. It's a huge problem and developer cost. These charts give solid data which puts some perspective on the problem:

http://opensignal.com/reports/fragmentation-2013/.

Re: re: ALL FACTS ARE GOOD.

Yes it's a fact. Granted the degree of difference in costs depends on your size and objectives. I know why the BBC has to have a 3 times larger team for Android than iOS. My career has been spent managing the integration of TV software services on STB's as well as developing mobile apps. I'm well aware of the issues that crop up when porting to a new STB. In theory your OS abstracts you from the hardware, but in reality it never fully does. Do you really want me to enumerate all the ways an app can fail due to differences above the abstraction layer? It's always trivial, marginal, stuff that you feel should be of no consequence. But an exception is an exception, a null pointer relating to some hardware feature, a null pointer, a skin peculiarity that isn't Google's fault, a peculiarity, or maybe a simple human failing to apply the well worn defensive programming pattern properly when dealing with possible hardware or OS version API differences. And those things can stop your app dead or be responsible for horrible graphical glitches.

The main cost is encountered during testing. If you don't care to do full and comprehensive testing, then yes you can choose to deliver a lower quality assured app that will, in all probability, have unknown glitches on (many) devices. But then you don't have full quality assurance. You know it will run great on the S3 and S4 and other handsets with a larger share, but you don't know it will run great on everything else. You just hope it will.

Maybe that's good enough for you. It's not good enough for me, the BBC and other blue chip companies and it's really crap for users of the many, many marginal devices that are rarely tested (and which nevertheless make up a large part of the Android market). But they are a part of the Android user base. Or maybe we should reduce the market size to a subset that provides for comparable QA effort and therefore comparable costs? Then we can say it costs the same. However it will be a very large restriction to be sure the effort is no more than for iOS.

Please point out the other opinion pieces presented as fact.

Re: anyone know the breakdown

Of course "Of course the same pattern is unlikely to develop anytime soon in maturing markets - if ever" should have said "developing markets" - as in regions of the world not yet at developed nation economic and infrastructure levels.

Re: anyone know the breakdown

@mutatedwombat

Decline of Apple. No.

Yes Android is doing very well. It is a very capable mobile operating system. However I'm getting a bit sick of this The Register "Peak Apple" bullshit, mostly because their coverage is so partisan and well, ignorant (I'm not referring to your comment BTW, which is quite reasonable).

The Register's trolling for responses from iOS users and continual playing to the gallery of Android toting sys-admin centric Register audience has left many of the more closed minded Fandroids without any real understanding of what's going on and the very real and significant subtleties in the market dynamic and as a self confessed iOS obsessive that's just well, annoying.

What follows is an unashamedly one sided a list of facts to get some reality into the Register's extremely smelly bowels with regard to Apple reporting. By all means post the counter facts. Facts are good, they help people understand things like the world, the market, how they can make money with their businesses or start-ups or whatever.

If reading any of the following really makes you feel uncomfortable, I suggest you either a) Post the salient facts which flatter Android (please, facts are good) or b) re-evaluate your life priorities, it's only a phone FFS (then again I have written this post, so, oh shit) or c) say something insulting, but make it funny. Insulting-funny is OK because everyone can have a laugh. Just please don't make it insulting-idiot :

Facts:

Only two international manufacturers profit from smartphones. Apple and Samsung. Apple make quite a lot more by way of profit. All the other international Android device manufacturers - about 5% of total market profits ! (though note: there are some new and very exciting Chinese manufacturers, who have taken a fork of Android and will probably market internationally soon).

Apple recently returned to being the largest company in the world when measured by market cap.

Once seasonal adjustments are taken into account, Apple have sold more handsets year-on-year every year since 2007. Their market share has gone down because of the the rapidity of the growth of Android, not because their (seasonally adjusted) sales have decreased. Quarterly results indicate sales will have softened this year, though it is clear sales dip between major releases and this year is exceptional for there having been no major Apple mobile product releases.

Profits are softening (e.g. the rate of increase has slowed) for both Apple and Samsung, both companies have warned the market is maturing. The fact Samsung has also issued this warning indicates many if not most of their increased sales are based on low-profit non-premium handsets - though this can't be confirmed because Samsung won't break down the sales figures (which in a way of course, confirms the case because the only reason not to provide the breakdown is if it is not so impressive).

Despite softening sales, the number of users for both platforms' continues to grow at a rate of knots.

Android user engagement is far, far lower than for iOS. (Non-fact/theory for why this is: The most excepted explanation is that this is because most Android purchases are for non-premium handsets at prices that were previously only touched feature phones. User's in these segments, buy the phone, probably like it very much, but are not so engaged so use the apps, Internet and services like email, IP video telephony etc. far less and no it isn't because hundreds of millions of Fandroids have been fiddling with user agent strings > sigh <).

Apple iPhones and iPads have higher overall satisfaction ratings than the handsets by any Android phone/tablet manufacturer - there is a recent report that contradicts this, but really it is one straw in a field of contradictory data and for many years the most respected standard for customer satisfaction in the US is the JD Power survey, which still has the iPhone out in front by a clear margin.

iPhones retain their value better than all Android devices - they lose a lower percentage of their initial retail purchase price (because users like them, want to keep them and younger users are prepared to pay more to get one back, even if it is second hand, should they have dropped and broken one), just check priceonomics.com to see

Revenues from Android remains lower for app developers - there are some exceptions of course, but they are few and far between.

Cost of development for Android, for those wishing to address the "full and larger market" is much higher than for iOS - for example the BBC has to spend approximately 3 times the amount developing for Android as for iOS.

More teenagers in the US express the desire to buy iPhones than Android phones, even though more are now purchasing Android phones because they can't afford iPhones.

There is more malware on Android and the Google Play store and zip on iOS

Significantly more Android users plan to switch to using iOS than iOS users want to switch to using Android (even Android Authority ran a piece detailing this is the case). This is one the more innumerate Fandroids can't get their heads round ("nah that can't be right - iOS market share is decreasing !)

There is a logical conclusion to this and that is after the initial flash growth due to Android in-filling the feature phone market by hitting feature phone price points, iOS market share will start to grow in relation to Android. NO shout the Fandroids. That simply can't happen ! I won't let the thought enter my mind. No, No, NOOOOO! But hang on what's this… Yes the latest data shows Android is starting to lose ground to iOS in what is now the most mature market - the US. Of course the same pattern is unlikely to develop anytime soon in maturing markets - if ever. But it is clearly a highly significant fact that the data is moving this way and (my extrapolation) other maturing markets in developed nations could soon be following suite. see http://www.asymco.com/2013/08/08/android-net-user-decline/ for more info

Now please post a lot of counter facts. ALL FACTS ARE GOOD. But also please understand, if The Register is the only place you get your data points about Apple (they've peaked I tell you!), you don't know the half of it.

NORKS prepping glorious People's Smartmobe

Re: This is propaganda.

"Their assembly 'factory' is just DPRK spin on 'sweat shop'."

Not sure it's even that. If you see the photo's they released with this story, There is a table with a few boxes lined up on it. Kim has his usual comical entourage, each standing in proscribed butt-monkey style holding a pen, brow furrowed in concentration, ready to record every globule of divine guidance Kim expresses.

You can be sure if the factory was really operational, they would get a shot with stacked up pallets of product and not just a few lined up on a table. It really is sad and pathetic.

Boffins: We have FOOLED APPLE with malware app

Re: @Success Case (was: Apple's variation of BSD ...)

"also the password must be changed" - should really say "the password will necessarily be changed - because they won't know the original password"

Re: @Success Case (was: Apple's variation of BSD ...)

I expect you are referring to the single user mode password reset use-case allowing someone with physical access to the machine and who knows how to access single user mode to reset a forgotten password - but only if the disk is not encrypted.

It's a deliberate use-case and is a policy trade-off between ease of use and security with a more secure option (disk encryption) available for those who need it.

I happen to agree it's not the best policy choice, but Apple disagree and deliberately configure OSX this way. They are in effect saying all the while a disk is unencrypted and someone with ill-intent has physical access, you already have one open door onto the machine, so allowing a second door makes no difference and it is positively helpful if users who have forgotten their passwords can get them reset them (also the password must be changed which presents a soft social barrier to more casual "family", or "staff" member compromise because it will be clear to the user password has been reset).

If you are someone who worries about security and physical machine access, you can switch on disk encryption in which case neither single user mode password reset nor direct access to unencrypted data on the disk drive are possible.

Evidently the policy isn't causing real-world problems and will undoubtedly be solving quite a few lost password user headaches also, so though I happen to agree it's the wrong policy, it seems, on a practical level to be working.

Re: Apple's variation of BSD ...

Oh pur-lees, we've been hearing "it's just about to get ugly for Apple security", and "Apple know nothing about security" claims for the last 11 years for OSX and the last 5 years for iOS. Really, continually. Most commenters gave up after making their second "please believe me, this time it's really going to happen." claim. The world is still waiting for that particular much portended cataclysm to strike.

Microsoft biz heads slash makes Ballmer look like dead STEVE JOBS

Re: makes Ballmer look like dead STEVE JOBS

"That might seem a little cynical"

No not cynical enough. I've heard whenever the buck-stop algorithm gets close to the top, it triggers the Prism diversion flow control step, delivers the current executives identity to the NSA and then to the Pentagon and the executive the cursor is currently on is hit by a drone strike. The bald bloke escapes unscathed.

EU competition inspectors RAID European telcos

Why not add UK mobile companies as well. Charging exorbitant sums for overseas data, when there are no interconnection costs and you are simply connected to the net directly via a local point of presence, is in my book profiteering plain and simple. It's like hotel mini-bar prices, but with no option buy drinks from the bar (with the exception that I now swap my SIM for one from a local provider out, but this doesn't excuse the Telecoms firms because a) you lose your number if you do this b) many punters can't do that because the phone is locked).

If they want us Brits to look a little more favourably on the EU than we currently seem to, perhaps they should be adding UK Mobile Telecoms firms to the charge sheet.

Dubya: I introduced PRISM and I think it's pretty swell

Re: First political dissident

@Bleu. Odd, I would have thought if you were "extremely well read, history to philosopy and lit" you would know you are attempting the argument from authority, one of the logical fallacies. That is an argument along the lines "I'm an authority, therefore my argument is correct." (There is no "therefore" and your arguments stand or fall on their own logic which you have failed to provide).

I'm looking forward to your proof I have done little reading. From my standpoint it will involve a spectacular event where you reveal, after all, I am only a mind in a vat or some other equally phantasmic reality. Perhaps I will be struck by a bolt of lightening and realise, in the manner of Descartes, the tower that looks round in the distance is in fact square and all those books I have read on philosophy, art and history were in fact mere hallucinations and the knowledge I thought they had imparted akin to wisps of smoke that will vanish the moment I try to refer back to them.

Perhaps.

Re: First political dissident

@Bleu I have made a clear and logical point justified in its own terms but also backed up with a reference to a seminal academic work. You on the other hand have replied with a barely intelligible insult claiming I require remedial reading without including even an ounce of reasoned argument and without any knowledge of who I am or what books I have read. I suggest you are in more than a little need of remedial everything.

Re: Come on you lot...

"Either of committing a criminal offense in one country or indeed in this case committing a criminal offense against your country and then dodging out before you can be charged doesn't qualify for Asylum."

1. That's a legalistic view of how countries decide if asylum applies but if a word has a strict legal definition as well as a general use correct use of a word is not determined by strict legal definition.

2. Even if we accept a strictly legal definition of the word, it can be argued Snowden is the US of A's first political dissident.

By definition a dissident is someone who challenges, doctrines or policies of a state that are (most usually) perceived to be against the interest of the people. For this reason, it should not be possible for democracies to have dissidents and (on this basis) it can be argued Snowden is simply a criminal. However taking the logical conclusion presented by Lawrence Lessig in his book Republic Lost, there is now a strong and forensically documented argument the US Democratic process has been so far corrupted, it no longer adequately represents the tone of the American people - especially in matters of military and national security.

Snowden's actions directly talk to the kind of corruption Lessig documents. So on this basis Snowden is the US of A's first political dissident, cannot expect a fair trial, and such should be eligible for Asylum.

For a fascinating abridged version of Lessig's argument, see his TED talk on Lesterville. The points he raises are not party political and should be a concern for all people of all colours on the political spectrum.

Can Microsoft's U-turn stop the Xbox 360 becoming another XP?

Re: No.

Betteridge's Law of Headlines is broken in this case because the headline contains too many clauses and negatives to parse easily. If the reg had actual newspaper hacks writing the headlines, they would likely have simplified the headline to the point where Betteridge's Law would apply, so his law remains a good one I think.

I'm not a hack, but I would think something like the following would have been more likely for the Mail or the Sun:

Is XBox still on the Road to Vista?

NSA: We COULD track you by your phone ... if we WANTED to

Re: Saying _we_ don't track you doesn't mean you aren't tracked

Journalists have really missed the ball on this subject for years. Probably this is because for many years, even for inquisitive journalists, a background sense of civic responsibility and general national pride (which is not necessarily a bad thing) has meant that for much of the time few were actively looking for the ball.

Some 10 years ago the EU published a paper on Echelon, which was far more revealing and detailed about NSA and GCHQ "listening" capabilities than most of the recent stories on this have grasped. Indeed it is sad so many (mostly US) based journalists have been denigrating Snowden's claims without first checking existing public documents and research. Snowden is hardly revealing anything new or that was not known to those who cared to look. Indeed I think the EU paper on Echelon is still available and worth a read and I promise you will be left thinking "shit if they could do that then, imagine what they could do now."

The real difference is Snowden has put the face of an intelligent and concerned young man on the assertions of malfeasance. As another aside, Ars Techinca called his claim he might be assassinated, "hyperbolic." Seriously have these journalists read anything in the history of the CIA before putting pen to paper? The claim can only now appear remotely hyperbolic because the CIA are astutely attuned to public perception and Snowden has made himself a well known figure. That is the best protection he can hope for and it will now probably protect him. But given his place of work and the level of knowledge he will have had about what goes on, to call his fear "hyperbolic" or to paint his (highly understandable) paranoia as melodrama is severely naive, not to mention retarded.

Additionally these are SPY AGENCIES we are taking about. They feel entirely justified in lying in order to hide their capability from public view (though, I once read a very interesting and convincing article by an ex CIA director on why, generally, they try very hard to avoid lying. The CIA World Fact Book and the unvarnished story it brings the citizens of authoritarian states the world over provides a great example of the power of truth telling - you could read it for a week and the needle on your innate bullshit-o-meter, won't have come off zero even once. nor will you have encountered any if the phraseology if the propagandist, but that's another interesting discussion).

So this brings us to the point of dissembling, where what is said is not necessarily technically a lie but it is a lie in spirit. The classic example of dissembling is Bill Clinton, when the accusation surfaced he was having an affair with Monica Lewinsky and he was asked about the affair. Knowing what the question was about, knowing what the concerns "of the country" were he famously replied "I did not have sex with that woman" He felt a tenuous thread justified what he was saying because, (presumably when he was 14 years old and excitedly discussed such things with his mates), a blow job wasn't sex. It was just a blow job.

When it comes to fussing up surveillance capabilities, it is already well established the spy agencies are dissemblers with form and these current statements should be read with this in mind.

Which links us back to the 10 year old paper on Echelon I mentioned. Even back then sources claimed the very tight integration between the NSA and GCHQ helped avoid problems with the constitution and UK privacy laws. Two organisations, it is said, have an agreement and work on a quid-pro-quo basis. The Americans process our intelligence raw domestic data feeds and we do the same for them for theirs.

Not anonymous because there's no fucking point.

'BadNews is malware' says outfit that found it

Google are showing signs of complacency. Many things could be said of Google, but complacency was never one of them. It's still to early to properly judge, but Sundar Pichai's agenda does not seem to be aligned with Google's Android Fanbase. The lack of sessions on Android at the Google dev conference and low responsiveness like this may be starting to paint a picture. Are Google growing bored with Android as a business, because it isn't one for them? Certainly it is easy to see their business prospects are best with services.

Badger bloodbath brouhaha brings 'bodge' bumpkin bank burgle bluster

@Ru. Yes this report is a very interesting piece of political theatre in its own terms.

The report is commissioned by Ed Milliband and was contradicted by other reports, but we don't even need to look at the other reports to understand why it reached a "the jury's out" conclusion.

1. From the very report you have quoted, "As expected, proactive culling reduced TB incidence in cattle in culled areas."

In other words culling works where it is done.

2. The next sentence "this beneficial effect on cattle breakdowns was offset by an increased incidence of the disease in surrounding un-culled areas."

In other words badgers wanting a bit if hanky-panky, relocated to where the opposite sex were less likely to have been shot resulting in an increase in the disease in areas where badger culling wasn't done.

3. Then here is the "reveal" as to Ed Milliband's influence on this report. In the report, when explaining why they had drawn *a different conclusion to the report commissioned by the Republic of Ireland* (also based on scientific study and which concluded culling works) the report states:

"while the medium term culling strategy in the Republic is to eliminate, or virtually eliminate, badgers from 30% of the land mass, the ISG was directed by Ministers [read Ed Milliband] at the outset of the RBCT that the elimination of badgers from large tracts of the countryside was politically unacceptable, and that badger welfare issues must be taken into account."

In other words this report does in fact prove Badger culling works, but as Farmers themselves (who really do know a thing or two about animal husbandry) have said all along, it has to be done comprehensively as a nationwide program.

Ed Milliband's terms imposed on the report production were akin to the request "what is the conclusion if we don't let you have a nationwide program?"

The scientist, confronted by a government minister holding the keys to his funding chest, wrote the above conclusion, but - not quite able to wholly abandon his profession - left in the detail to show he is after all a scientist. And so we see the conclusion of this report was rendered political bollocks by the very terms if its production on behalf of the party that banned fox hunting and whose voter constituency is urban. We can re-write the conclusion thusly:

"Since I am being leant on to show Badger Culling doesn't work, and it really doesn't work if there are political constraints in place such that it can't be done comprehensively and I'm being told those political constraints ARE in place, I can maintain a thread like link to scientific credibility if I simply agree if Farmers aren't allowed to do the job properly we can't conclude that it works."

This sort of thing really does depress me. But i nevertheless find it fascinating. So though this post is long enough, for those still interested in the minutiae of political spin read on.

It's so there in our faces for those who bother to look read and think for themselves.

Here is some more detail which really shows spin in full flow:

"The results of the RBCT are consistent with those from similar studies carried out elsewhere, notably in the Republic of Ireland. While the ‘Four Areas Trial’ in the Republic has received particular attention for having reported greater reductions in cattle TB incidence than were apparent in the RBCT, we have advised Ministers that the claim that these findings could be replicated in GB are unsubstantiated and must be treated with considerable caution. The Four Areas Trial differed from the RBCT in a multitude of ways, including trial objectives, trial design, farming practice, environmental conditions, badger ecology, capture methods, and social attitudes (particularly towards badger welfare); these differences help to explain the differing conclusions drawn from the two studies and mean that conclusions drawn from the Four Areas Trial cannot be extrapolated to Britain."

E.g. They provide a list of reasons the conclusions from the Northern Ireland trial cannot be extrapolated to the UK all of which, really, any sane scientifically aware person will know are going going to make virtually no difference to the basic mechanic and effect of the policy "see Badger, shoot it" but include last in the list the real differentiating factor.

"social attitudes (particularly towards badger welfare)"

But before talking about this last factor. Stop. Stand back. Engage brain - especially scientific brain. Are "farming practice, environmental conditions, badger ecology" really going to encompass significant differences in the face of the raw mechanic of "see Badger, shoot it" which justify a different conclusion to the trial from the conclusions reached in the Republic if Ireland? Do badger's over here meet and have TB spreading Samba parties on a Friday night? Does water on our farms flow uphill? Are there differences that list that will make a real substantive difference. Really?

Or is this obfuscation and pseudo science babble designed to distract attention from the real significant factor on the list "social attitudes (particularly towards badger welfare)"

We have already seen is what really let the DEFRA scientist off the hook and allowed him to include (then current) government policy where the fact they had already made it clear they would not allow a nationwide cull, as one of the factors in the study!!!

Good boy, here are the keys to that funding chest.

Meet your new martyr: Edward Snowden

I disagree. I think he has made a tactically brilliant move. He has shown bravery. He clearly isn't a nutter. He will be difficult to persecute without a high degree of suspicion as to what is going on. It is clear already he has won over the common man. He would have been outed soon enough anyway. The CIA would have enjoyed the opportunity to prepare the backstory to vilify him first. He has denied them that opportunity. Now of course the CIA * may * try to attack his credibility with everything in their arsenal. I say *may* because I think there is now a reasonable chnace Obama will see the danger in trying too hard and too overtly to discredit this one. They will of course employ many subtle tricks to undermine him, and they will work where a good number of the population are concerned, but fortune favours the brave and the mood is already such that Obama may realise that to begin persecuting him, is the worst move of all. I think, therefore, there is a good chance their response will therefore be more measured than it was for say, Bradley Manning.

Time will tell.