Posts by doublelayer 10571 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Feb 2018
"If Epic is so big, how come they haven't negotiated a better deal with Apple?"
Apple doesn't offer any deals. They recently changed from one option to two options to avoid more legal scrutiny. It didn't work. They feel that, because they have a platform and can prevent people from posting, that they have enough leverage to demand whatever price they want and the other side will have to pay.
What free stuff would they be giving you or anyone in that case? They would be allowing you to run code made by someone else, paid for by you, retrieved from the developers directly. Apple wouldn't be required to give you anything. If you chose to use third-party apps, only you and the developer would have value transferred.
You made an excellent example:
"Imagine what would happen if MS banned the Epic store app from Windows..."
This is great. Because MS can't ban them from Windows because they want money. Microsoft does not charge them for the right to have a Windows binary. They don't collect their transactions. They don't restrict who can run code on Windows. That's what Apple thinks it should have the right to do.
"That 30% also gets your product marketed to hundreds of millions of potential punters;"
I don't think it really does. Unless coming up when people search for the name counts as marketing. They don't include advertising with App Store publishing, so unless you show up in one of their lists of nice apps, then you don't really get anything related to marketing. I don't know if anyone ever reads those lists, nor do I know if Epic has ever appeared in them. I'd be curious whether people would take a deal which is "You may use other payment providers and you will never appear in any of our suggested app lists". I expect most would take that contract.
Apple's services are in providing a CDN for downloading the base package, and that's it. They don't host any of the other app-related services. That certainly doesn't cost 30%, and that isn't even used when doing in-app purchases.
This is tough for me, because you're partly right and partly wrong, each to a large degree.
You're absolutely right that he was not forced to concede anything of the kind. His statements about malware were made as part of his argument. Epic didn't need him to say that and he volunteered the statements.
You're wrong though because you're assuming the statements misconstrued here were about fraudulent payments. He made those statements too, but that's not what they were talking about. This is what they were talking about:
"There are multiple stores on the Mac," Judge Rogers told the exec according to reports. "So, if that can happen on the Mac, why should we not allow the same stores to exist on the phone?"
"It’s certainly how we’ve done it on the Mac," replied Federighi, "and it’s regularly exploited on the Mac. iOS has established a dramatically higher bar for customer protection. The Mac is not meeting that bar today.
[...]
"And as I say, today, we have a level of malware on the Mac that we don’t find acceptable and is much worse than iOS. Put that same situation in place for iOS and it would be a very bad situation for our customers."
Well, in my opinion, which has no legal value, Epic made the thing that someone wants to buy, meaning they're providing the value to the other side. Apple provided that value when the user wanted to buy an iPhone, so they keep that profit. Epic provide the value when a gamer wants to buy whatever useless thing they're selling (I don't know what they sell), so Epic should keep that profit. I don't think Apple should have the universal right to demand the exclusive right to payments their users make.
It depends how often you want to thrash those bits. If you flip them randomly every 0.5 seconds, that means the channel is corrupted once in every 512 KB transferred. If the applications use packets and checksum them, they can figure that out and retransmit. You would probably have to flip them a lot more often to block the channel, but then you might see some performance degradation.
Using two vaccines and the most dangerous variant makes sense. If you protect enough for a less dangerous variant, it will not be enough for the most dangerous one. So do the math on the most dangerous one both from vaccine resistance and health outcomes unless one of these situations apply:
1. There are so many different dangerous variants that protecting against the most dangerous will still result in a large risk from other ones, in which case the numbers are even worse.
2. The plan is to prevent that most dangerous variant from getting in at all. If that succeeds, then you don't need to create immunity to it, but that opportunity has already passed for the UK.
No, they have to do what would actually happen. The person writes the script to brute force the password and outputs a mostly useless progress indicator which only serves to prove that the program is still running. I'd like to see them have a single terminal which looks like this (at least if I'm the one who wrote it).
Please wait...
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
That would be realistic, although if they're going for maximum realism, they have to throw in some useless warning output as well:
Please wait...
10000
20000
Password "z0\x94F%": Partially valid header, best candidate so far.
30000
40000
Really? Why? I get comparing Apple computers to others and not liking Apple's structure. Computers from others are usually more repairable and likely to last longer. Also they're sometimes less expensive. I don't view that as the only factor, but it definitely is one where Apple loses. But I don't see that factor applying to their phones. Android phones have much shorter software support lifetimes and are usually similarly unrepairable. There are only a few ones out there which are designed for users to repair them. For the vast majority of devices which weren't intended in that way, iPhones score in the middle whereas a lot of others score very low. So what argument do you have for disliking iPhones so much that you look down on those who use them?
The article suggests that it doesn't. Developers didn't have as much problem with those questions, and I think I would feel the same had I gotten questions like that. They're short, probably can wait until I want to click over and answer them, and they imply that the system asking them actually cares about what I'm feeling. Also, it's the chance to put more data behind the call for fewer meetings. So I think I wouldn't mind that kind of question popping up from time to time.
It's obviously a series of jokes. In my opinion, none of those jokes are funny, but they're clearly intended as such. The problem is that jokes which aren't funny and do sound like bragging can be interpreted as either just bragging or trying to hide bragging under a veneer of self-deprecation. He can do whatever he wants, but I wouldn't recommend such an attempt unless you want some people to express views as seen above.
"it is true that Win10 in a well-maintained enterprise environment is no more inherently vulnerable than Apple or Linux would be, were that ever to happen. But all three are the wrong answer to 21st century general business computing needs."
This argument is not a good one. Of course the complexity of a desktop OS means there's more work to do when a bunch of people are using them, but the reason that's still the case is that simpler mobile devices frequently come up short. Whether IOS, Android, or Chrome OS, these things will not be suitable for some users and some companies. You could still segregate the business into those people who can use something simple and those who can't, but that means you have twice the variety of systems to support for your users.
There are a few things that basically every desktop OS can do which basically every simple OS can't well. Multi-user is one thing. If you have a computer that multiple people may use, you can do that with Windows, Mac, or Linux but just try to do that well with an Android tablet. Yes, they do multiple users, but they don't easily handle the authentication process or sync preferences. Try that with an iPad and you'll find it's not capable of the task at all. How about using a full set of peripherals for someone who works better with some large screens, keyboard, mouse, etc. Some devices won't support multiple displays. Some weren't designed with mouse use in mind and will be painful.
Mobile devices can be used in some places, and they can even be superior for some tasks than a desktop. For most use cases, though, they'll be much worse than a desktop. If you have to have one standard, it should be a desktop.
No, it's true. It's not intended to replace the dollar. It isn't capable. It's designed to provide China with the ability to know what any citizen has purchased and to cut all money off at the push of a button in case they don't like someone. Also can plug into the social credit score system. It's a tool for maintaining their domestic dictatorship, not impinging on international money transfers.
Their plan for changing international money transfers already started last year. It hasn't started very quickly, but it's their tool for the job. This is unrelated.
Epic are arguing that the contract is illegal due to existing anti-monopoly law. That is a legitimate argument, and if the courts agree with it, then it is Apple who committed a violation. I don't like that Epic chose to break the contract, but the complexity of the legal system often requires a breech of contract in order to establish standing for a case that the contract violates the law. They could always change that to make such actions easier, but they haven't yet done so.
More importantly, the arguments for Epic and for Apple have a strange asymmetry. The argument for Epic is that Apple is using large market power, which they have, to constrain their customers in a way which has been seen repeatedly, whereas the argument for Apple is that Apple are owed things for [insert something Apple developed]. The law does not agree with you that Apple is owed merely for having decided to develop something, whereas it does have a place for recognizing abuse of market power. In that respect, Epic's argument makes more legal sense. Apple and those who think they are in the right would do well to counter that argument on its merits, namely whether they are actually constraining their customers and whether alternatives to their market exist to a reasonable extent. Sadly, they have also taken to throwing irrelevant arguments at the wall, including the argument that they are great people with an unusual right to get automatic rights of rent collection on anything at all related to their platform or its users. It is not helping their point.
The software developer does not owe the hardware developer anything. The user buys the hardware, paying what the company charges for it. The user buys the software, paying what the software developer charges. If the software developer has to license something from the hardware developer, they've already done that.
If Microsoft spends a bunch of money developing something interesting, and you write a program which runs on Windows, it is not your responsibility to pay for their development time. If they want you to, they can charge you a license fee to use their interesting thing and you can decide whether to pay it or not use their thing. If it has nothing to do with you, then you don't pay for it and they'll have to get their revenue from somewhere else. If they choose to give it away for free, then you still have no responsibility to pay for it. The same applies to Apple. They choose to do R&D based on their own interests: selling new devices and keeping people on their platform. If it works for them, that's where the money comes from to pay for the work. If it fails, too bad for them. They choose to spend the money, they have to make the money. You cannot force software developers to pay for anything Apple does.
"As to obtaining customer details how can you make a financial transaction without giving personal details away,"
They get payment information from the customer, just like every other time you buy something. They would ask for that information from those who want to buy things, not from Apple. They are thus not demanding any of Apple's records and the original point is still wrong.
Most of this is wrong.
"For saying how many middle men have been removed during this period the price for softwarestrangely has not gone down, suggesting that software houses are taking that cut for themselves rather than passing on via lower purchase cost on to the customer."
This would be hard to get a study on, but anecdotally, I think prices have come down quite a lot. Software purchases in the 1990s were often more expensive for relatively simple software, whereas a lot of software today is free or cheap. I also remember the purchases of software upgrades, which were often rather expensive when you consider that they were usually fixing bugs in the thing I already bought. That still happens on occasion, but a lot of places now view that as maintenance of a product they've already sold and include bugfix updates. Is that because the commissions came down, maybe, but probably not. Is it because there are more people writing it, probably. Is it because they've expanded their business models so less comes via the original purchase price, definitely. But still, if you asked me, I would say that there is a lot more cheap software out there.
"I could talk about book publishing or the music and movie industry and say that they too have not dropped their prices even though they are now distributing direct to the customer."
Well, they're usually not distributing direct to the customer. Also, I think prices have come down. For example, you can watch a lot of movies on a streaming service for a price which would have gotten a small number of rentals, and rentals for a short period. Whether that's the way you choose to spend your movie budget is another story, but it is a price and it is lower.
"I would suggest that the price that people are willing to pay for these products is far in excess of what the products costs to make and that even after all the middle men have been remove the software houses continue to charge the same and keep the profits rather than reward their customer for their loyality."
Doesn't matter to me. I don't need to be rewarded for my loyalty. If I still want the product, I will still buy it. If they cut their prices, so much the better for me. If a competitor creates an alternative which is cheaper, I might go over to them to take advantage of those. You seem to expect that companies will just cut their prices for no reason and somehow you feel you are entitled to this whereas Apple don't have to cut their prices. I don't get it.
"Add in that Apple need money to keep their production going where EPIC have already paid all their costs for making this product and are still not satisfied and demand a reduction in overhead on their micro transactions."
Apple do not need money to pay for their production. They get that from sales. The product concerned is not theirs. It is Epic's, and the value to the customer comes from what Epic provides those who choose to pay. Also, they don't demand that Apple gives them more money on their transactions, since they're more than willing to use their own transaction system and relieve Apple both of the commission and the required labor in managing the transaction.
This is wrong:
"Instead EPIC has demanded that Apple give away access to their customers for free, name me one company willing to give up their client list and so their business because that is what EPIC is demanding."
No, they are not demanding anything of the kind. They have not requested Apple's customer list. They are demanding that they have the option to reach customers of Apple who choose to reach them without Apple interceding. The customers bought the devices, they're no longer Apple's property, and the customers already know Epic's existence and want to use their software. You act as if they want Apple's list of accounts, which they have never requested, and you act like Apple owns the iPhone owners and should have the exclusive right to control and sell access to them. Apple does not have that right.
"Which begs the question - if these now-rejected commits are bad enough to need removing now, what went wrong with the review process originally to allow them to be accepted? Which begs the follow-up question - what *else* has slipped through the review net and made it into the release branch?"
These are important questions, but not really new ones. We know that bad code gets into Linux all the time. They have to keep fixing bugs and security holes and each of those got in at some point. They have decided that speed takes precedence over a very long review sometimes. A useful study would look at the largest bugs and track back to the review which should have caught them. They could identify patterns where the reviews are insufficient. That would have made a lot of sense, but it would also have been a lot more work than committing buggy code to see if the process which has let in errors before lets in errors for the 2684th time.
You may have a few misconceptions about what happened.
"So the Linux patch validation infrastructure was so bad that a bunch of dippy college students was able to upload bad patches into the kernel."
No. They wanted to do that, but realized the risks before getting that far. From the original article on the subject, here's a statement from one of the researchers describing how far they actually got:
The buggy patches, he explained, were sent via email and did not ever become a Git commit in any Linux branch because maintainers were informed after the fact so they would not move forward with the bad code.
Who knows what would have happened if the code was in a real PR and got through the full review. It might have gotten through, but we don't know that. It also could have been detected and thrown out.
People here are assuming that it got into the next release and subsequently pulled (it didn't) that the Linux kernel devs used to accept anything as long as it came from a umn.edu address (they didn't), that the changes got the full review that others would (they didn't), and that blocking the umn.edu domains is intended as a security feature (it isn't).
"If this had been Microsoft that had punished the University everyone would be screaming bloody murder."
No. If this had in some way happened to Microsoft, the students involved would be facing criminal charges of computer misuse. It's open source, and thus not criminal, but if it was Windows source, that would be illegal. It would have been significantly worse for the students and I would not be taking their side. As it is, the students wanted to test the Linux kernel, and the test isn't exactly useless, but A) they didn't actually run a useful test and B) if you test on people you don't know without informing them, you can expect them not to like it.
There are not many people who will even know this happened, and most who do are smart enough to realize that you can still learn a bunch of valuable computer science stuff without having anything to do with the project. The really smart ones will just check if the applicants were on the paper, which they're almost certainly not, and treat the university as they would have already.
They didn't do this for security. They do review all the PRs that get merged, so it's not a case of blindly trusting someone from a domain name. This is a method of indicating displeasure with the university. The university approved the study which they consider offensive, and they're hoping that the block on it will indicate to the interested parts of the university that the Linux kernel developers aren't pleased with what they did. Anyone at the university can still contribute by using a different email address. It's not in any way intended to be a security feature.
"Go for an asset backed cryptocurrency and you're more of an investor but still high risk because those cryptocurrencies are still pretty niche and volatile."
If you want to invest in an asset, buy a fund that reflects that asset. They're regulated and have to verify they actually have that asset. Crypto doesn't add any benefits there. Crypto only has benefits in theory as a method of exchange, and an asset-backed one usually lacks that fluidity without doing much about the volatility problem.
Now we just have to study which approach is the more useful when building Lego structures. My brother preferred to follow the plans and build exactly what was on the kit. I constructed less sophisticated structures, usually some variation on large box which has to hold various items together, but that meant I had to pay more attention to the strength of my structures which were holding up other things. I wonder which of us was learning more from the experience. My brother's creations held together for years, whereas I would usually scrap mine for parts quickly, so he definitely gets the endurance advantage.
Most of this is misleading or wrong.
"Apple has stated that not every company is charged 30%"
Now, but that's very recent. There's now a 15% category for small businesses, but until that, everyone was charged 30%. Now, pretty much everyone is still charged 30% but there's a second option. Not incorrect per se, but misleading.
"and not every transaction is the same."
It is, though. Every transaction goes through the same systems that Apple set up.
"An in-app purchase for $1 that costs Apple $.20 to process means they net $.10 or 10%."
It doesn't cost them 20 cents to process a transaction. They've processed small transactions for a long time. Their costs are very low.
"That's assuming that there are no problems such as when a parent rings up to nullify the $300 that little Johnny charged up in a game $1 at a time. It's Apple that has to deal with that, not Epic."
They have recently changed that to let developers handle it. It was their choice when it was only them who could do that.
"Epic also doesn't have a big cost in AR. Apple sends them a payment with a detailed accounting that can be merged into Epic account software rather than having their own people/systems to do it for them."
This is not true. They get receipt information, but it is Epic's responsibility to track who bought what and make that work on their system. They would already have all the necessary data to add to their accounting system because otherwise their in-app items wouldn't work. Their app decides how much the user is charged, their servers receive notification that the purchase was made. Only payment is handled by Apple.
This is not a problem for you. Lots of OSes have a walled garden mode which you can activate or not as you choose. Mac OS has one. Windows has one. Android has one. If IOS had to allow app sideloading, you just have to turn that off (or likely just not turn it on), and you have the situation you have now. Just as you can ask Windows not to install things unless from the Windows store. Nobody does that, but it's right there in the settings.
About that ... no. You can't do that unless you have a bunch of knowledge and also bought a Mac. Compared to Android, where you can do it on any platform and you don't need to figure out the build process for every tool, or to a desktop OS, where you can compile it directly on your platform if you need to and can use it without restriction. It's not at all comparable and it's difficult for most people.
It's not the restrictions on apps that I mind. If Apple decides that apps should live in their own sandboxes and have no access to each others' files or system files, that's a security decision that makes sense. It's not always convenient, but it's definitely a feature. There is no reason they can't allow people to add apps that live in such sandboxes but didn't come through their store. Security by having security precautions, not security by hoping they'll catch things.
"Out of curiosity, how much does it cost to publish a free app with no revenue generating potential?"
All developers who want to publish apps must pay an annual fee to be part of the developer program. This fee is $99 US or its local equivalent. They also need to give Apple a reasonably good revenue stream by buying Macs, as you can't use any other OS to use their developer tools or publish things.
Your core points are disputable. I'm taking them out of order.
"What governments can do is make it more difficult to move between fiat and crypto. That means it is important to get your share of crypto today because tomorrow the door may not be open to you."
No, that's not what that means, assuming for the moment that they're going to do that. If they're going to cut the transfer mechanisms between crypto and fiat, then a lot of people who use crypto as an investment are going to sell then. Crypto will be much cheaper for me, as someone who wants to use it as a currency, once the investors get out. It would do me well to wait. In addition, having some crypto if I had to start using it as a currency will do me little good if I'm still being paid in fiat and can't convert them easily. Only if everyone agrees to use crypto would I get a lot of value from it, in which case I will get crypto in my paycheck. Under your system where the government is running a full-on assault on crypto, that seems unlikely.
"Cryptocurrencies are inherently a better store of wealth than any fiat currency. They are even better than precious metals."
On what basis? Current attempts are hideously volatile, which most fiat currencies and precious commodities avoid. They're also a lot harder to spend. Until those things get fixed, crypto is failing at both the store of value and medium of exchange parts. This isn't an intrinsic defect of the system, and I think a more stable cryptocurrency is possible, but that doesn't mean it exists now or that it ever will.
"it is rather difficult to _prove_ that it is the mechanism by which it occurred without a time machine."
It's a good thing we have a time machine, then. It's called genetic paleontology unless you want to use the specific terms for each time period. Lots of preserved genetic material and the products thereof have been disinterred, sequenced, and compared both to other historical material and modern material. It tells us a lot.
I agree that connecting more people is an important benefit to them, but I don't think fixed broadband is the answer to that question just yet. At the moment, more basic lacks are probably hampering it more often. For example, people without any or consistent access to electricity. Statistics on how many people are covered are unclear, but a report from the Council on Energy, Environment and Water says that about 30 million people are entirely without electricity access and that the average person has 18-20 hours of access per day and has a power cut at least once a day. Given the large number of people in cities where electricity supply is likely better, that probably means the rural areas have very bad coverage and frequent long blackouts. Reports from other sources have higher numbers. The World Bank, for example, cites about 60 million people with no access.
If I was in either category, I might have a laptop but I certainly wouldn't have broadband. If my power dies for six hours each day, then it's likely my internet will not be available when I need it. If I use a phone, I can tether my laptop if it's urgent or just use the phone's browser. Why pay for something if it's going to be unavailable a lot and there's an alternative which you also need and doesn't go down as much?
"Microsoft uses a different model called "the first shot is free". They encourage you to develop on a platform you will not be able to walk away from once you've sunk enough into development"
What? Isn't that basically everybody? Unless you develop your program in a platform-independent way, then you might find that you have high sunk costs if you want to abandon a platform but keep the program. Windows is no more like that than Mac OS or Android; it's not a Microsoft decision or plot.
The solution to that is to develop in a platform-independent way. Most of the time, you can do that as long as you planned to do so at the beginning. There are only a few platforms which make it harder, and Windows isn't one of them. You can quite easily use cross-platform utilities for your program which will run perfectly well on Windows. It's often harder to use those on IOS. I think your complaint is not only almost meaningless, but also applies better to Apple than it does to Microsoft. Not that it's a problem with Apple either.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming this wasn't made up a month ago, I wonder what money they're assuming people will launder? The only thing I can think of is that someone buys a gift card with stolen cash, then uses it on their account to buy a bunch of in-app items and collects the proceeds. That's not going to happen. What they do with the gift cards after stealing or scamming people out of the money for them is sell them to other people who assume they're legitimate. That way, there's no spike on specific accounts or purchases and they still get their money.
It's to prevent money laundering. Definitely. They said not to go lower but I suggested it. This proves I'm a good guy. And that we didn't need to take that high commission to equal costs I mean no, not that, actually we lose money on it and we need that income. But also it's to prevent low-quality apps because developers would make and sell them to the money laundering people and have a nice time at WWDC having paid us only a couple grand because that's what we charged them. And also there are chips in our phones, very good chips, that we built and that needed money which we got from all the people we sold phones to because most of the expensive stuff is hardware-dependent. But people used it, so this means developers should pay us for their user's hardware, and all this has to do with the App Store payment percentage, trust me.
Comparable platforms, not devices. There are basically two. IOS and Android. The market share of IOS is sufficient to make it an oligopoly situation by any definition and a monopoly under the terms of some competition laws. On that basis, it is large enough to have restrictions on how it can profit from its power.
"I have it on good authority that Microsoft, Google AND Apple are about to block common Wallet apps via mandatory firmware update."
Nice try. This is the wrong place to make up stuff. We know how firmware updates work. If all three companies wanted to do that (they don't), only Apple has a chance of actually doing it. Windows and Android firmware updates aren't reliable enough to be made mandatory. Manufacturers would have to assist and they wouldn't bother. Nor would they somehow block access to the files used by the apps. You want to appeal to nonexistent authority, find people who don't know those things and try to bluff them.
If they can still find someone outside the country who will buy it, then they can get money from it. I don't expect they will stop mining now since they've already incurred most of the fixed costs. I would expect them to stop investing in more mining hardware though. China could easily prevent mining, but they probably care a lot more about large groups of people having crypto which they could try to use for exchange than a few large places having a lot of it.
That depends on the quality of the software and what you want to run the macros on. Two differences come to mind. First, if you want to use the keyboard to issue macros on something on which the software won't run, then this keyboard can do it but others can't. Second, most macros I've seen are rather basic, taking a (usually finite) sequence of key presses only. With the ability to write custom code, you could create macros which take parameters and act accordingly. Again, not sure why you would want to, but it's an option.
The only benefit I can see is that you could write macros which would automatically press keys in order. You can't easily use it to add new symbols since it's still just reporting key states, but if the keys you want to press are already available, it can issue them without you having to do so yourself. That would allow you to establish a bunch of custom keystrokes. This sounded interesting when I first thought of it, but now I'm having trouble trying to figure out why as I've never had an interest in doing that before.
"For open source to survive and thrive people have to be able to make money and earn a living from it"
This is going to depend on your definition of open and your proposal for how they're going to make money via license changes. If they change the license such that they can make a user pay or deny them the right to use the software, then I don't consider it open anymore. It would prohibit most of the things that can be done with open source today. It doesn't matter much whether the license used is old or new; it matters what is in it.
I do have one already. They're great, as you've said, for authentication. Very key word, authentication. Where I wish to prove my identity to a service so they can identify that I'm me. That's their use case.
I don't want to authenticate to a bunch of random sites with a unique key which identifies me particularly. I can access them anonymously now. Most don't even have captchas, but since it's Cloudflare suggesting this and they provide hosting for a lot of sites, it's not unreasonable to expect they'll expand the use of it. Also, the key I have doesn't work with a phone, because I don't tend to log into sensitive pages on it, but I do browse from it so I'd have to buy another key for that. So the general complaints apply to my situation without my having to have any problem with the keys themselves.
"OK, I need to check I'm not misunderstanding something here. Their proposal for humans to identify themselves as human and not a computer, is to get a computer to do it for them automatically. I'm really not clear on how this is supposed to help."
It's supposed to help because it's an expensive computer that does it for them. If users all have to buy these, then it is more expensive to run automated attacks through them. Also, individual users won't buy multiples so they won't have multiple identities, meaning it's really easy to track their activity. This works until somebody gets their devices trusted and sells a block of keys to a botfarm, which should take a long time, maybe even a whole month. But if that ever happens, the company that did it gets delisted from the service, which cuts off the botfarm. Oh and also the people who legitimately bought and used that company's devices, too bad for them. Now we just have to find a new provider of keys so there's sufficient supply. I'm sure they won't do the same.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
