Posts by doublelayer 11430 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Feb 2018
Yes, the situations are different. I don't like either, but one which Apple did because China required it of them is different from Xiaomi doing it despite there being no legal requirement to do so. In Apple's case, they're distressingly willing to do what China says, but if China stopped saying it, Apple would turn it off.
Instead of banning a specific manufacturer or just asking people to throw away equipment that they're not going to trash, make software like this illegal, big fines for selling it. Then they will either remove it or your government gets a big fine and they stop selling it. That also helps when you find some other manufacturer has started to include that.
His approach is not the only thing that's flawed. His idea is also flawed, as the program isn't sentient and he knows it. In some ways, I'd like him to win if only for the law to now conclude that his not-a-person program, having been declared a person to own a patent, has been illegally enslaved for which he will now be charged. Until that aspect makes sense, the other ones don't either.
"It's somewhat stupid, yes, but far more stupid patents have been granted."
That is if we're all ignoring whatever a "neural flame" is and why it's in here. With my astute understanding of none of this, it sounds to me as if this feature is a light which you notice as particularly associated with this container, so that if you forget that the container with the light on is the one sending the signal, you will remember that the one that flashes three times a second is the third from the left. Why a container that doesn't, according to its patent, contain any sensors or other technology to register events needs to send a signal to the user is an exercise left to the patent examiner.
Calling a LED anything with "neural" in it is one of those things that instantly tells me that the person who wrote it is scamming me, clueless, or both. I'll give this guy a special exemption as it's his software who wrote it, but that doesn't help the case at all.
From the article, they started testing it over a year ago, so <-1 years.
Did you mean "How long until this becomes a GDPR issue that someone with the power is actually looking at"? That might be a higher number as Ireland is in control and doesn't run fast on these things. It could be worth checking if you're in the "small number of users" and filing complaints.
There is, but I'm guessing you won't like it. There is a surprisingly active Linux-on-mobile experiment going on. The PinePhone from Pine64 costs $150-$200 and can run your choice of mobile Linux distros. However, it's all very new and experimental, so you're not going to see the ease of use you find on Android. If you're serious about wanting to try the Pi solution, then this is probably a better option as it's done the hardware assembly for you and is a lot more phone-shaped than you would likely achieve.
Correct bit:
"The one itsy bitsy witsy little difference being that Apple’s implementation *forces* all apps to [use the same engine] which is the complete and total opposite of what Google is doing."
Incorrect bit:
"respect the user’s browser preferences, which is a huge plus for user privacy."
No, because the user doesn't get any preferences. The apps are forced to use Apple's browser preferences. As for privacy, the requirement to use WebKit does not in any way restrict the app's data collection method. A browser can use WebKit to render a page, log the page, scrape data off the page, take action automatically on the page, and send all collected information to the app's developers. That violates a different privacy standard Apple has (though doesn't enforce), but nothing about the browser engine prevents it. Apple's choice benefits Apple, and while it doesn't intrinsically do anything against user privacy, it also doesn't do anything to help it either. It is also restricting user choice, just in a different way with different goals.
No, it would just put a dent in the cryptocurrency industry. Which isn't really a problem for me, but since you're proposing it with a stated goal you will not get, perhaps not the best argument for it.
Ransomware operators use cryptocurrency for three reasons: it's easy to move large chunks, they can exchange it for actual money more easily, and it can't be taken away from them. For the avoidance of doubt, they don't do it because it's untrackable (it's not), easy for the victims to hide (it's not), or effectively anonymous (it can be but they're not). The most successful ransomware operations have also moved to attacking a smaller number of big targets, looking for payouts in the millions. The result of this is that it's now easier to handle small costs in convenience to receive a ransom. If the ransom is for a personal computer and paid for by an individual, requesting the user take extra steps to get the payment could be so expensive for the user that they won't be paid. If a business is going to pay millions, they can ask for that. If they find themselves miraculously unable to exchange cryptocurrency for something they want, they'll do that.
If you could eliminate cryptocurrency's value entirely, which you can't, ransomware has several other methods to move money. They would be better at ranking the options as I'm sure they've already made plans, but they would include making transfers to international banks and quickly withdrawing money (more complex, easier for victims), physical movement of cash (bulky), and physical movement of something more compact like gold (victim must exchange for it). These aren't simple, but for a payout in the millions, it is worth figuring out how to do it. In addition, as most ransomware operators are insulated from legal consequences by corrupt countries, they can use that to their advantage--receiving the ransom physically in a country where the police want to catch you is risky, but if the police don't care, it's fine.
"If you turned on an iPhone a decade from now, it wouldn't be able to talk with the different services at Apple's end and would probably be pretty useless as anything other than a simple phone... that's if it could still verify with the mothership if it's stolen or not. If your iPhone decided to release magic smoke, there's little you could do to fix it."
I said much the same myself, but in fact, you're not entirely correct. I have an 11-year-old iPhone here. It doesn't even have the benefit of having been preserved as it's one that a friend discarded five years ago and I couldn't find anyone who wanted it. It's not very useful, but it does actually connect with Apple's services. I can get apps still. I can use their messaging service on it. I can sync with it. It all still works as well as things can when you only have 256 MB of RAM trying to run an app written for much more.
You're broadly correct, but the specifics aren't:
"80s computers may be obsolete, but many of them still work."
In the sense that they turn on, maybe. But that's if you kept them in relatively good condition and kept the boot disks as well. If you didn't have all the parts in storage, they wouldn't work very well, and there are lots of pieces that wouldn't work. Try getting a computer to display anything if you didn't also keep a compatible analog TV, with either the right RF or analog input. Or to produce a disk if you didn't already have one.
"How many iPhone 13s will still work in 20, 30 years, even if it's just as an iPod because the phone functionality has moved on (for which Apple can't be blamed)?"
Basically the same amount. If you put it in storage, you can take it out in decades and turn it on and it will be sort of fine. The battery is the only part that is likely to die, and in twenty years it won't be in great condition, but it will still boot up. You will certainly have lots of problems with it, but they parallel the problems you would have with an 80s computer. You probably couldn't access Apple's app store, so you couldn't install things that weren't already installed, similar to how you couldn't easily load new software on an 80s computer without rebuilding the hardware to load it onto media. You could get the old XCode to run so you could build from source, but only if you're willing to virtualize the old Mac OS, just like you still can write in Z80 assembly and have that work. You probably couldn't buy replacement parts for your old phone, just like how you couldn't replace a chip on your 80s computer should it decide to release the magic smoke. In fact, if there's any difference that jumps out at me, it is that you have a greater chance of the magnetic storage from the 80s computer degrading without external damage than the flash in the relatively sealed phone, making the phone more likely to have the software it started with.
Phones don't last very long, and they're not designed to, but they would keep working if you preserved one. For the same reason, a lot of old computers didn't get preserved and ran their last halt instruction back in the decade when they were bought. Your preservation of 80s equipment doesn't make it particularly resilient.
I'm sure they would like that, but if a telco buys some banned equipment because it's cheaper than buying everything directly from them, then they still might want to support that country in order to get repeat business as that equipment becomes broken or obsolete. If they're only open to all-or-nothing deals, they have competition who might have a package that could be more convincing, but the other competitors are unlikely to compete with equipment sold at a low price by places who just want to get rid of it.
I'd imagine that the companies who originally bought it had those contracts, and if they're not transferable, they're negotiating that as well. If Huawei is to lose another customer for ongoing support payments, they could be receptive to having that customer find them new telcos to pay for that support and become loyal Huawei customers in future.
In this case, "clean room" refers to writing code where you never look at the code someone else wrote to do the task. That means that you don't run the risk of accidentally copying someone else's algorithm or less accidentally copying their source chunks. This helps both with licensing and with preventing a monoculture. For licensing, it means that you don't run the risk of having to adhere to someone else's license terms because you used something that requires it; for proprietary licenses, this is a virtual requirement to avoid copyright or reverse-engineering EULA violation charges. For monoculture, it avoids having a certain implementation become an effective standard merely because everybody did it that way, and therefore strengthens the limited public standard over the arbitrary whatever the Chromium dev thought of.
Data is such a broad term that you're talking about different things. Data in the sense of existing facts without additions isn't copyrightable. Data in the sense of a digital representation of something which would qualify is copyrightable.
Also, you may want to check the outcome of the Google V. Oracle thing. Oracle could copyright their API, but Google was allowed free use of the part they wanted without having to ask for permission or provide payment.
Trademarks do work for shorter things, but, for two reasons, neither street signs nor a compilation of street signs can be trademarked.
Trademarks are for things which are associated with products, companies, or brands. They must be actively used for a stated purpose. For example, Apple (company) owns a trademark for the word apple when used to name a computer product, streaming video services, watch, or other products they use the name with. They do not own the word apple when used to talk about a fruit, or for that matter a product they don't make. I could probably start a company making something unrelated to their products and use the word apple to name it. Street signs are not limited to a business purpose, so they don't come under trademark protection.
A compilation of street signs can't itself be trademarked or copyrighted. It is too long to trademark and in any case its contents would be someone else's work (the government who decided on the street names). The list of street names wouldn't be copyrightable because they weren't the creative effort of the compiler. The compiler could easily attach original work to their list, which would be copyrightable, but if it was just a list, they are out of luck.
Your view is interesting as I saw the Ashley Madison data as a perfect example of an inappropriate use.
In the case of cold water immersion, it's data which can never be obtained legitimately--people who accidentally fell into water are not common or detailed enough to use only data collected during their treatment, and there is no safe way of exposing subjects to that in controlled circumstances. It's also data which can help others by improving the treatments for those who end up in cold water nowadays. It's difficult for me to accept the use of results obtained by torture, but the preceding points make it a little easier.
Neither point is true of the data researchers might use from Ashley Madison. It's extremely personal data which the subjects did not want released, but if researchers wanted to collect it, they have the option of getting subjects to agree to provide that kind of information. If nobody agrees to do so, that only accentuates the fact that people are not comfortable having their private lives scrutinized to that level. In addition, nobody is having their life saved from research done on sexual habits. Its benefit to people other than the researchers is minimal, an interesting article to read at best. One more point: if the researchers wanted to use the data, they could contact the very real people involved in the breech to ask for permission, as they would have to do for any other experimental subject. They didn't do that, likely because they know most or all would refuse, but that doesn't remove their ethical responsibility. They are using stolen data for personal gain with no consent whatsoever, and I see no convincing argument that doing this benefits anybody else.
"Circumstances will determine whether the data is truly stolen or if there is a usurious paywall blocking its access."
You are not talking about the same thing we are. Stolen data does not mean pirated data, but rather the result of clearly illegal theft of that data, whether that is a breech, GDPR violation, or anything else that is clear but can't be reversed. This isn't about data that's in a paid-for journal. Incidentally, if someone did get a copy of that data without payment, one couldn't figure out whether they had or not, so the stolen label couldn't be reliably assigned.
Crimes committed against an enemy in wartime are very different than crimes committed against the public. In the second world war, soldiers were killing each other, which is how war works. Theft is not really relevant here. The theft of cryptographic equipment is therefore not at all a useful example of what the article is talking about.
"Why do the NSA, GCHQ (both aka STASI) get a free pass in this discussion?"
Because they're not in the discussion. The discussion is about the use of data in research, and whatever those institutions are doing with the data they've stolen, they're not writing research papers. So we tend to reserve our complaints about them, of which believe me I have hundreds, for topics in which their actions are relevant.
Street signs are not copyrightable because they were created by the government for public use and in any case are probably too short to qualify. Folk songs were probably not copyrighted because they have no identifiable creators and are old enough that any copyright would have expired. If they were commonly known but the writer was still living, then compiling would have been illegal. In each case, neither piece of information was stolen.
Neither analogy is at all connected.
"whether it is legal and ethical for someone interviewing you about your driving experience and then publishing the findings" is clear, it is legal. Because they tell you at the beginning that they want to interview you and they will publish the findings and they tell you how much of your personal data is going out. Not telling people that either leads to no data (don't tell people you want to interview them) or is illegal (disclose information you haven't obtained consent to disclose). Research review boards have the responsibility to maintain such regulations.
I can't think of many car-related analogies, but the closest is someone creepy puts a tracking device on your car to track you, someone who isn't the attacker gets the data, and they intend to use it for whatever they wanted without your consent and despite the fact that, if asked, you would probably refuse.
That's storing the data and allowing you to see if you're in it, not using it for other goals that you never agreed to. In addition, there should be restrictions on services like that to prevent them from storing certain types of data. Don't keep the name-to-email stuff, for example. And definitely don't share it. It's unclear, but that is designed to protect user's privacy and security rather than obtain someone else's goal with tenuous if any benefit to the person whose data was taken.
"Error handling is definitely a concern. Especially when the entire stack from software to hardware works on exceptions, which may leave undefined state left and right."
So you would prefer what, precisely? Exceptions are a lot less undefined than hoping the user remembers to check the return value every time for something indicating a deviation from the golden path. A function that calls a utility, checks that it returned correctly, and runs it with a different parameter if it receives a certain error is no different than one that catches an exception for the same result. It also means that, should my code be badly written and fail to catch the exception, it will either signal you in a way you can recover from anyway or at least you'll see what the problem is rather than dealing with my flawed attempt at recovery.
Since implementing multiple interfaces is the same concept that works in exactly the same way with a different name, yes they do. You've probably seen it because you primarily see code in a language using interfaces instead of inheritance for it, but those using C++ will still use multiple inheritance if that's the most convenient way of setting up the architecture.
Currently, there's nothing preventing them from doing that, although in both cases it's a bit of a mess if you've installed apps in your real region which you want to keep while set to another one. However, that's a pretty easy regulation to institute: "All devices sold inside the Russian Federation must have the region locked to Russia if applicable with an unlock code to be issued by the manufacturer or service provider in the case of verifiable international sale. This regulation is intended to prevent phone theft, because we have an objection to writing laws that state their real purpose."
Whereas allowing sideloading for Apple and reducing the power of Google's store would be much harder to criminalize.
No, not necessarily. They can change the votes and still want to restrict any opposition tactics. Having an app which tells you that Putin is bad and suggests a path to getting rid of him is an advertisement against him, so he may want to have it taken down even if it can't work. As long as he keeps the wealthy and the military on his side, he could do many damaging things to the country and his own image, but he isn't going to change the policy of praise he has going on now even though he and his power would survive it.
Rubbish. If you run a drug trial, you state at the start that you're trying a drug, here's what you think it does, you're collecting lots of information about their medical progress, and you're going to be publishing the data you find. The participants are told this at the start and agree to it, or they don't end up in the trial. That is informed and specific consent, something most of the other examples don't have.
"If your employees are scared to speak up, then you have bigger problems."
No, if they're scared to speak up, then this is your bigger problem. Which is why you often need some method for them to report. If they know of something unethical or worse going on, do you think they're going to be happy to go announce that? They're not, and they're right to be worried. The incidents of punishment against those reporting misconduct are many, so it can be useful to have some method to send the information without putting an immediate target on your head should it turn out that the person who received it wants to blame you for causing a problem.
Even then, it's hard to do it, as there's usually a small set of people who could know the thing you're disclosing, but at least you have some protection. Forcing everybody to be identified at all times is just forcing them to stay quiet and leave as their only remedy, which harms everybody except those who create the original problem. By the way, this works the same way for complaints about a bad employee as it does for larger ethical or legal issues, just shifted down a little.
AI rights are not property rights. For one thing, there is currently no such thing as AI rights. By most definitions, AI rights would be the rights given to an artificial entity acting on its own, which likely requires consciousness. For now, we can skip the debate about whether sentience/sapience/consciousness (all different, not important) are possible in an artificial entity, because at least we know there isn't one now. Hence, it's more appropriate to describe them as AI regulations, or even better, regulations on the use of AI, or even better, regulations on the use of technology affecting the public, because some of this stuff doesn't use AI by either common definition. I think the headline writer was taking a few liberties to get to "AI rights".
Even in that case, the regulations on the use of something are not property rights--after all, I can own a hammer but be restricted from using it to break your windows. I can own a computer but be restricted from using it to hack yours. I can own a camera, but it's illegal to use it to stalk you. Hence, they are entirely different legal things and can be treated differently.
You are not thick, or at least if you are this occasion does not prove it. The post that started this thread was written by a prolific bot which has become a fixture in these forums. The posts sometimes make sense, occasionally by plagiarizing others' posts, but most of the time, they're complete nonsense based on a sentence from a replied comment or the article. You will probably see more examples of the same on other topics as well.
It depends on what resources you have and what risks you're willing to adopt. Nothing can make your system impervious to attack, but some things can make it better. If you are successfully attacked, it doesn't automatically mean it's your fault. There are very determined attackers who can get through anything you could put in place and there are places with so little to spend on resources that they can't have the resillience they need.
That said, there are some steps which mean you don't have to go to 200-day old data. Having incremental backups of various files can allow you to roll forward files which cannot contain executables. If ransomware encrypts them, the incremental gets a lot bigger since every file has changed entirely, so you get a warning about it. Recovery from that can be a long process, but it brings you a lot closer. Some backup companies provide services like this, which of course cost more as they're storing data in the cloud, but it's an option. It all comes down to your willingness to take risks, which for the moment includes ransomware. If you don't do anything on the assumption that, if you're attacked, you can just pay them off and get your data back, what is your plan if they ask for more than you can afford, are the type who just asks for money but doesn't give your data back, or come back in a bit to ask for a renewal subscription? That's not including the ethical objections against funding criminals, even ones who can hurt you, when you have an alternative.
That's the job of management. Assuming you manage the various departments, you have to figure out if IT is correctly using the money you give them to protect you from the various threats to your business, not limited to ransomware. They might be incompetent and taking your money for a shoddy system, able to achieve a better backup setup with the resources they have, or they could also be doing their job well and really require extra resources. It's simplistic to assume one without checking on the details, which is why IT doesn't rule the company.
That said, IT equipment and those who manage it are expensive. People unfamiliar with it may have many incorrect assumptions about its actual value. In order to ensure that you have backups of everything, going back a long time, in different places to deal with local risk (building fire, for example), online for easy access, offline for more resilliance against deliberate attack, takes a lot of equipment. Getting the system to back up everything takes proper configuration, I.E. a lot of time. Ensuring that each stage of that is secure from external risk is another place where a lot of work is needed. So it's quite possible that the money that IT is asking for is being used toward those goals in a reasonably efficient manner (or if you have a professional staff, incredibly efficiently). If for some reason you don't care about the goals, then by all means tell them not to bother with them. But then be aware that you're increasing your risk.
"hundreds of floor workers actually making widgets. All of those folks "deserve" to be out of a job because the IT guy is an idiot?"
None of those people deserve anything, as they didn't do anything wrong. However, they are likely to lose their jobs due to the incompetence of others, which is the problem. It's not new, and it's not limited to IT.
If these people worked in a manufacturing plant as your example suggests, that plant likely has safety risks and equipment to deal with them. If the management decided not to include fire protection and the plant caught fire, the workers would probably lose their jobs. In that case too, the workers did not deserve any bad consequences. That is why negligence related to safety is in most cases a crime and sufficient penalties assessed to prevent it from happening frequently (void in some countries or particularly negligent operators).
I do not like saying that someone deserved a bad outcome happening to them, and in this case I don't think that's the best word for the situation. However, in many cases, I don't have sympathy for the management who didn't try for backups. If it was very small or the attackers very good at their job, there would be some. If a business is large enough to employ a hundred widget-makers and still doesn't bother to invest in their survival, I do think the management needs to take some blame for that as they would in many similar circumstances where computers are not involved.
I don't see that argument in either post. They're objecting to the term "real books", and in neither case do they say there is a problem with standard printed text on paper. They simply argue that other methods of getting that text into the brain are just as real as other books. Perhaps you could clarify where you're seeing the judgement against them, rather than just expanding the set? The closest I can see is the negative description of paper from the first post, but that's not really a judgement on those who use it.
I've wondered that since Monday, and based on the articles so far, I think that's what the poll means and you've linked the for/against labels correctly. However, the articles aren't really arguing much like that, with each basically saying that there is a tech divide and it could be a problem or not. Nobody's stated an absolute opinion that tech is good or bad for education--they're all basically in the middle with slightly different viewpoints. Nor do they appear to be arguing a different specific point. I would find it hard to come up with a statement that one side agrees with and the other side disagrees with.
You could do that, but that makes the whole sleep tracking feature kind of pointless. Certainly people have reasons to use the more power-hungry aspects of the Apple watch, but focusing on making it last if it can't be charged one night would help more than speeding it up even more.
"there must surely be a sweet spot somewhere where you can have greater power efficiency and battery life lasting for at least a long weekend, no?"
There are a lot of those, and people who want step counting and heart rate tracking often use watches with batteries lasting from a week to a month.
"What exactly does a smartwatch do that sucks battery life quite so insanely hard?"
It's the much faster processor in there working on smartphone-style tasks. The watches that last longer are usually a microcontroler that logs some fitness data and sends it to a phone via Bluetooth, maybe getting information about notifications, but that's it. The Apple watch has a two-core CPU running a limited version of IOS in order to present the user with many tiny apps, some of which use GPS monitoring (from the watch itself if you want to kill the battery even faster). They've also got WiFi and 4G radios in there, the latter for when you are out and didn't bring your phone, which I'm sure for many iPhone users is never. All that takes a lot more power for those who want such things. I have only seen a couple watch-based apps which strike me as a little useful, but there are many things I don't do, so there are likely better reasons that I don't know about.
They patched that. Everyone with an iPhone released in 2015 or later can get that patch. When you think about the ones that Android has and how many can patch them, there's reason to wonder which is better.
The only thing that Apple has that weakens them in the comparison is their reporting thing, and I hate that just as a lot of people do. If they're convinced to never launch it, that will go a long way to helping their case, though some trust has been lost irretrievably.
I don't think Xi minds capitalism as long as the companies concerned only compete for money. When they start to compete with the government, or if they should ever say no to the government, that's when Xi and the rest of the CCP wants to push them down a bit. I predict that they won't dramatically change companies' operations except to keep them somewhat small and therefore easier to kill should anything catastrophic happen.
China has always wanted and mostly gotten widespread control of their internet. These regulations, suggestions, or whatever word they're using are not even new--it's always been forbidden to say something against the party. They have had reporting systems for that for a long time. As such, this is an announcement which merely restates what they have been attempting for two decades and what we all know they'll continue to do as long as they can.
I referred to 2007 in response to this original sentence:
"When Apple first started their service there were only apple apps so your argument is false."
I assumed you were referring to the original iPhone, which did only include Apple-written apps. I assumed you were not referring to the Apple I, which had no apps and wouldn't be relevant. Hence when Apple started having a mobile device which ran apps, it was 2007. In either case, 2007 and 1976 are very different from 2021 so the argument still holds.
I didn't say and don't think that Apple is greedy because their hardware is pricey. I don't really care what they choose to charge--if it's too high which it often is, I'll just not buy it. For that reason, I still use an old iPhone which was the cheapest model when I bought it. I think Apple is illegitimately placing itself in a monopoly decision over software written by others and using that to extract money to which they don't have a right. It is something they did not do with the Mac, for that matter something they didn't do with any product other than IOS ones.
"You say that EPIC had no choice but no one forced them to push their product in the Apple market."
Apple shouldn't have a right to a monopoly market, and thus it shouldn't be theirs to set a price on. That's the reason. They had a Hobson's choice because the other party was abusing a position of power.
"EPIC were fully aware how much they would have to pay for the privilege but they still signed up . Clearly they thought they would still make enough money to pay off their costs and still make a profit or they had already thought about breaking their agreement with apple in light of the perception that their products were overpriced."
Possibly, and they're not the company I'd like to see make this challenge, but in most legal cases, you can't sue a company and say "They are anti-competitive, so make them stop so I can compete with them in the future". The law usually requires you to say "They are anti-competitive and have already hurt my business, so make them stop." In order to prove their point, they had to suffer harm.
"Someone has to pay for the R&D and profit from innovation, for a long time now in computing it has been different people doing the work and getting the reward. You want more of the same and I am saying that it just is not sustainable, there has to be someone along the line that invests in R&D and that means higher costs."
I'm all for R&D. If Apple does R&D, they integrate it into new products. Newer iPhones with lots of modern cameras on the back, neural chips in the middle, and software which my old one can't run. If I want that, I'll buy a new iPhone. This is how R&D works--you make a product and sell it for as much as you want. You're trying to make the case that they should fund their R&D by taking money from others for things they didn't make, forcing them to comply by restricting how software can be received. That's illegal for a reason, and I'm hoping it will be recognized eventually by a court.
I'm afraid that, while your previous comment was opinion based and subject to debate, you're either wrong or nearly so about a lot of the facts alleged in this one. Some of them are not relevant, but I will address them anyway.
"Apple did not start in 2007."
Original iPhone: Announced January 2007, released June 2007. If you're counting the partnership to have a phone with a music player, that was a commercial failure and they also didn't build it.
"Only after Apple's iphone was there an "apps" market."
Not technically, but basically true. Because phones sped up and now could run more complex apps. Hence my point that apps are very important to the viability of a mobile OS in the current age, as proven by Windows Phone, Firefox OS, and Ubuntu Touch (though that one is getting a bit of a revival).
"Apple created the home micro computer market long before the Apple II, one which other hardware vendors copied, the Apple II was an upgrade in that market rather than a new start."
Not really relevant to the point, but basically wrong. They built the Apple I before that, but they sold two hundred of them. That's not creating a market. That's producing an admirable technical achievement. They were instrumental to the market with the millions of Apple IIs that got released and others created it along with them.
"For a long time hardware vendors offered only an OS and a BASIC interpreter and that was what people wanted to buy not ready build software but VisiCalc changed the perception of microcomputing from "only for hobbists" to a business tool."
Exactly my point. VisiCalc, not Apple, was the reason the Apple II was so successful outside the hobbyist computing market. That and other software written for the platform because businesses had already purchased them to run VisiCalc. This is why the viability of a platform depends so heavily on the writers of applications for it, and therefore why it makes as much sense to ask Apple to pay their app devs as to go the other way (in each case, no sense).
"Apple have lead if not created a lot of the innovation of computing that the smartphone market relies upon, it was this that allowed Apple to change the the mobile telephone market away from the complete dominance of the cellular companies to one where not supporting Smart phone's was no longer an option."
They made a smartphone that people wanted, and that's basically it. You could give Android the same credit. That involved a lot of work, and I commend them for the product they made, but they got paid for that every time I and others bought an iPhone.
"As to software developers having impact upon sales, as I said this is all relatively new. The move away from bespoke system designers who would create both the hardware and software to only meet the customers requirements, to programmers who relied upon existing hardware platforms all happened after Apple's creation of the home computer market and before the Apple II."
No, it's relatively old. Bespoke systems you could argue was a lot of the 50s, 60s, and 70s, but that's still less time than we've had personal computers on which software written by others was loaded. That's if I concede the bespoke thing at all, because even in the 60s, people loaded their own code on mainframes and could purchase someone's program even though it only ran on a single type of machine. VisiCalc was selling Apple IIs by 1979. It has worked like this through all the decades following. Publishing software sold a lot of Apple's GUI-capable machines in the 80s and 90s, for example. Office sold a lot of Windows boxes. Custom tools which only run on Windows sell them now.
"Accessible hardware had to come first and independent software houses came much much later."
As in two years later, forty years ago. We've reached that point.
"As to gouging, this is what happens when the consumer has no choice, EPIC here are not the consumer and they always had a choice."
Wrong. Epic has no choice to get people to install their applications on IOS and users of IOS devices have no choice for where to get their applications.
"They chose the safer option of selling their software for other vendors hardware"
That's the normal choice. Few software companies sell software which could run on a computer on a single-purpose device. It's called a general-purpose computer because it can run most software, and it can. Microsoft does not charge you for having a Windows binary. Apple doesn't charge for having a Mac OS binary. Google doesn't charge for having an Android binary. In some cases, they may charge for the use of their stores, but in each of the named cases, you have the choice to eschew the stores and let users install the code anyway. Here is where IOS differs and causes the problem.
"and then tried to use political manipulation to improve their income against what they had agreed."
They didn't agree, they were given no choice. This was not a negotiation because Apple doesn't do those, and they had no other choice.
"For my part both sides are guilty of greed and stupidity,"
I agree here. Epic is not at all altruistic; they just want money. However, they want Apple not to take their money for purposes that have no legitimacy, so I am still reluctantly on their side.
"both chose to play dirty but for my part I still remember what Apple did for computing and that gives them much more leeway than what EPIC have done."
I disagree. Being nice once (for lots of money) doesn't mean you can be nasty later without consequences.
"Despite Epic trying to push for no commissions, the app store they've set up for third party game extracts a fee (12% IIRC) so they are themselves doing what they were suing Apple over doing!"
But it doesn't make people use it, so if you don't want to pay them, you can still distribute your software and pay them nothing. If Apple had multiple methods of getting apps onto their devices, then they could charge whatever they wanted (assuming they didn't cheat to advance their option) because they could be competed downward. It is the combination of charging an arbitrary fee and not having any competition which causes the problem.
This type of argument always confuses me. It's as if you don't understand how anyone could want something to tell you how to go somewhere. First, you might have trouble memorizing a longer route. Second, if the route changes, for example your map had you going through a road which has been closed, you might like something which can quickly calculate a new route rather than stumbling on it yourself. Third, if you change your plans while out, you might have a destination you didn't have when you left and hence can't look up the route in order to memorize it. For example, if you've really gotten lost and you now want to go home quickly or if someone asked you to meet them in a place you're unfamiliar with.
Perhaps you've never needed one, but there are plenty of reasons that others do.
There are only a few mobile OS options. There are lots of mobile hardware options. Since we're talking about hardware damage from vibration, we're clearly referring to hardware options. I can think of at least fifteen brands, though a few are owned by the same company.
Backups are protected from external access by Apple's encryption, but since Apple have the keys, they can access the file for their own reasons, to give to someone else, or if their backup system is penetrated in such a way that the keys are available (guessed the iCloud password is the easiest way but other attacks could work).
This encrypts the file before putting it in there, meaning that someone who can get Apple to decrypt the file still doesn't have the data unless they can get the key the user set.
Insert boiler plate about Facebook holding a lot of other data and not being trustworthy here.
