Without jailbreaking there would be very little or no piracy of App store Apps.
Therefore legitimate App users would have less ads to put up with as developers have to cover their losses.
There is that simple enough for you?
You seem to have a habit of taking things the wrong way.
In theory it seems this could all be avoided by every developer offering a free version of their app that is then a front end for purchasing the paid version. Correct me if I'm wrong but couldn't this effectively eliminate most casual piracy?
I'm not a Developer so I'm just throwing stuff out here.
In theory it seems this could all be avoided by every developer offering a free version of their app that is then a front end for purchasing the paid version. Correct me if I'm wrong but couldn't this effectively eliminate most casual piracy?
I'm not a Developer so I'm just throwing stuff out here.
Apple has effectively allowed this by enabling In-App purchases and allowing them for free apps. It allows devs to release a free or cheap app and then offer the users additional functionality through an in app purchase. I have never jail broken, but I don't think this would eliminate the problem of piracy, but it might help.
Piracy is a legitimate problem. But it is very foolish to blame the problem entirely on the jailbreaking teams or process. Just as other tools allow for other types of piracy, the tools themselves are not the problem and often become a mainstay of our daily lives.
If everyone was as naive as some here, we would never have have VCR, CD players, CD burners, legal digital content, DRM-free iTunes media. All of these can be used to further piracy. All are legal now.
Jailbeaking itself exploded because of the restriction put in place in the iPhone and legitimate functionality that was missing or prohibited...Not because of piracy. Apple has done a lot to address those limitations, by adding many missing features that used to be available only through jailbreaks. Tethering, CnP, video are a few. People wanted these and they were not available. Apple obviously realized this and has now added them. Others are still missing. Piracy or not, the tools are now out there, the demand has increased because piracy has become a real problem and because there are still legitimate things jailbreaks allow you to do. Once the genie is out of the bottle it doesn't go back in.
I'd be enormously obliged to you, if you cared to point out real cases of apps (and not updates) which were found being nonconformant to Apple's set of APIs only after apps had been sitting in the store and we begun to use them. I can indeed see the task may turn out to be a bit difficult provided your level of understanding of software industry. So I'd like to clue you once more on what I'm expecting you to do. Please do not bring thrilling stories of abused promotion tickets or phone applications duplicating Apple functionality by using third-party APIs. It's not what I mean. Please do not try to impress me by making apparent you've heard about C64 emulator app either. You do not understand the case and obviously fail to see, that it delivers the perfect proof of what I've desperately been trying to explain to you. You do understand the difference between API and "policy", Tulkassey? You still hope that hack may be revealed by code review within the reasonable timeframe?
As for code review as a panacea for any harm, which an app may cause in the future, I have to admit, my precious Tulkas, that I'm a bit tired of repetitive demonstrations of how far away you are from modern software industry. Not only you have never heard a slightest whisper about code obfuscating existence, but you obviously never saw before a single line of code, having been done by a guy who really mastered programming language. Please trust it takes much higher level of expertise than yours, for one, to say for sure how that code works; not to mention the amount of code modern programs require. Sorry to say it to you, Tulkas, code review serves nowadays the set of needs in software development being completely different from what you figured out for yourself.
As for understanding of the fact software safety enforcement must rely on administrative measures as well, it's common place; congrats, nevertheless, for your knowing at least that.
Sandboxing. Congrats, Tulkas, again for knowing yet another word a la mode. But sadly enough the era of programming masterpieces, which solely gained the right to be strictly called "viruses", came to its end before you probably saw computer the first time. Nothing but emails with enclosed worms remains anymore, Tulkassey, nothing more...
Ubuntu... It's my grief, Tulkas, my sorrow, which is crying. Upon having come on Apple related board I was looking forward to see the community being somewhat aware of Apple products and events. In vain, Tulkas, in vain.
Ough, Tulkas. That was my longest post on AI. We the techies are generally accustomed to exchanging much shorter notes, you know. But I did feel strong necessity to enlighten you a bit on what is actually happening in IT industry and more precisely in its Apple branch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
We've seen apps released that were subsequently pulled because the violated the terms of the SDK...how is it you think that happened? Did the apps developers use black magic to counter the spells used in the analyzers to get their easter eggs through the approval process? (C64 emulator for one i can think of off the top of my head). Some make use of prohibited Apple API's....again, how is it you think that happens?
They got through the because review apps, without code, can never reveal all there is to the app. Things can be hidden.
Now, as to why no malicious apps have been seen, there are numerous reasons. Sandboxing of the apps on the iPhone is a biggy. Ban hammer is a biggie. Law suits are a biggie.
AV scans are not. binary scans might be a small part.
Please make an effort to understand what you post, before you post it. Perhaps you are being overly emotional. A lack of understanding is OK. Just admit to it and move on.
WTF is with the ubuntu comments? As with many of your comments, they seem decidedly confused.
Oh, and what words were put into your mouth? Just because you write something, are shown it is blatantly wrong, doesn't then mean you didn't write it. Yuo could, as you have done here earlier, admit to the error. But claiming to not to have written it is silly...especially without pointing it out.
Yuo have so many strawmen and fallacies in your post, but I will try to educate and correct you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
Mio caro Tulkasio,
I'd be enormously obliged to you, if you cared to point out real cases of apps (and not updates) which were found being nonconformant to Apple's set of APIs only after apps had been sitting in the store and we begun to use them. I can indeed see the task may turn out to be a bit difficult provided your level of understanding of software industry. So I'd like to clue you once more on what I'm expecting you to do. Please do not bring thrilling stories of abused promotion tickets or phone applications duplicating Apple functionality by using third-party APIs. It's not what I mean. Please do not try to impress me by making apparent you've heard about C64 emulator app either. You do not understand the case and obviously fail to see, that it delivers the perfect proof of what I've desperately been trying to explain to you. You do understand the difference between API and "policy", Tulkassey? You still hope that hack may be revealed by code review within the reasonable timeframe?
Where did I say they could do a code review in a reasonable about of time? I simply said that without this, they cannot fully guarantee the 'safety' of the apps. You were the one that brought up virus scanners as an important part of Apple's app vetting process.
you have tried to explain nothing but your own lack of knowldge and experience. I brought up the C64 emulator because it was a perfect example of an app that was released that had hidden functionality. Hell, they slipped the BASIC interpretter in there and Apple had NO idea, since that was an explicit condition for approval....and yeah, it made it onto the App store in that form. I guess the magic tools Apple used didn't pick it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
As for code review as a panacea for any harm, which an app may cause in the future, I have to admit, my precious Tulkas, that I'm a bit tired of repetitive demonstrations of how far away you are from modern software industry. Not only you have never heard a slightest whisper about code obfuscating existence, but you obviously never saw before a single line of code, having been done by a guy who really mastered programming language. Please trust it takes much higher level of expertise than yours, for one, to say for sure how that code works; not to mention the amount of code modern programs require. Sorry to say it to you, Tulkas, code review serves nowadays the set of needs in software development being completely different from what you figured out for yourself.
You keep making claims that show your own ignorance. I have been a developer for many years. Who claim a code review was a cure all? There you go with your strawmen again....you should be old enough to know that strawmen just make you look more foolish. Would source access given the a better understanding of the app? yes. Is it reasonable for 100,000 app? As has been repeatedly mentioned to you, but that you repeatedly fail to conprehend, no it is not reasonable. But reasonable or not, it is more effective than external inspection...always will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
As for understanding of the fact software safety enforcement must rely on administrative measures as well, it's common place; congrats, nevertheless, for your knowing at least that.
And yet still does not provide a guarantee. But something you seemed unaware of until I mentioned it....but still not a guarantee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
Sandboxing. Congrats, Tulkas, again for knowing yet another word a la mode. But sadly enough the era of programming masterpieces, which solely gained the right to be strictly called "viruses", came to its end before you probably saw computer the first time. Nothing but emails with enclosed worms remains anymore, Tulkassey, nothing more...
...funny how you have to use my examples of how Apple works to minimize the risk of apps, as your own are so....lacking.
But yes, sandboxing and the architecture of the OS are key to minimizing the effects of rogue apps. There are lots of things Apple has put in place to increase the safety of apps. Still no guarantee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
Ubuntu... It's my grief, Tulkas, my sorrow, which is crying. Upon having come on Apple related board I was looking forward to see the community being somewhat aware of Apple products and events. In vain, Tulkas, in vain.
You perhaps thought AppleInsider was an ubuntu forum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
Ough, Tulkas. That was my longest post on AI. We the techies are generally accustomed to exchanging much shorter notes, you know. But I did feel strong necessity to enlighten you a bit on what is actually happening in IT industry and more precisely in its Apple branch.
Yes, I am sure you are quite techie. Perhaps as much as our wnurse. He was also an IT technician that needed to pretend to be a developer. You might know him.
Given apps being released and later pulled for containing code, prohibited API usage, etc, you still have not explained how this has happened with the magic powers Apple has brought out. I have kept it simple for you, but you cannot. You seem to be becoming more and more confused. Perhaps english is not your native language. It would seem so. I would suggest not using google translate as it seems to be confusing you further. Maybe find an english language speaker, preferrably one with some development experience, who can explain the big words and difficult subject to you.
There is no guarantee that you will ever understand. There is no guarantee on the safety of the apps. There is a pledge to do their best to ensure the safety. You seem very confused as to difference. Perhaps you could look up 'limitation of liability' to see what sort of 'guarantees' Apple is willing to make for third party apps. Please do this before you post again. I hate having to explain things twice and you seem intent of forcing 3, 4 and 5 times.
Oh, Tulkas, you're real piece of work when it comes to ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Where did I say they could do a code review in a reasonable about of time? I simply said that without this, they cannot fully guarantee the 'safety' of the apps. You were the one that brought up virus scanners as an important part of Apple's app vetting process.
Whichever on earth they can guarantee, can be guaranteed without source code review. Nobody can guarantee absolute sanity of an application, but source code review does not improve a damn jot of that. Read it again: not in the least.
I beg you to do as kindly as you only could and try to wrap all of your brain, which you can get working, around this.
Remember the thread of reasoning: Apple employs binary code analysis, that's the fact --- the allusion to how AV works (no, it's not about AV, it's allusion to AV) --- there are zillions of ways to code one and the same thing in high-level programming language; being new to all that,eh? --- it's damn costly (tooling alone is proposed at $1000+ and not to self-employed "developer") to develop in ARM low-level assembly language
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
you have tried to explain nothing but your own lack of knowldge and experience. I brought up the C64 emulator because it was a perfect example of an app that was released that had hidden functionality. Hell, they slipped the BASIC interpretter in there and Apple had NO idea, since that was an explicit condition for approval....and yeah, it made it onto the App store in that form. I guess the magic tools Apple used didn't pick it up.
Nonsense. Apple detected interpreter presence right out of there. They did know it's in there. Developers negotiated to have it disabled, not removed. Apple knew it was still in there even after partly political decision to let that in the store. Then they saw, devs didn't disable it forever.
Not to mention you've switched the context. The thing complied with API usage guidelines, but not with Apple's policies at functional level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
You keep making claims that show your own ignorance. I have been a developer for many years. Who claim a code review was a cure all? There you go with your strawmen again....you should be old enough to know that strawmen just make you look more foolish. Would source access given the a better understanding of the app? yes. Is it reasonable for 100,000 app? As has been repeatedly mentioned to you, but that you repeatedly fail to conprehend, no it is not reasonable. But reasonable or not, it is more effective than external inspection...always will be.
And yet still does not provide a guarantee. But something you seemed unaware of until I mentioned it....but still not a guarantee.
...funny how you have to use my examples of how Apple works to minimize the risk of apps, as your own are so....lacking.
But yes, sandboxing and the architecture of the OS are key to minimizing the effects of rogue apps. There are lots of things Apple has put in place to increase the safety of apps. Still no guarantee.
You perhaps thought AppleInsider was an ubuntu forum?
Yes, I am sure you are quite techie. Perhaps as much as our wnurse. He was also an IT technician that needed to pretend to be a developer. You might know him.
Given apps being released and later pulled for containing code, prohibited API usage, etc, you still have not explained how this has happened with the magic powers Apple has brought out. I have kept it simple for you, but you cannot. You seem to be becoming more and more confused. Perhaps english is not your native language. It would seem so. I would suggest not using google translate as it seems to be confusing you further. Maybe find an english language speaker, preferrably one with some development experience, who can explain the big words and difficult subject to you.
There is no guarantee that you will ever understand. There is no guarantee on the safety of the apps. There is a pledge to do their best to ensure the safety. You seem very confused as to difference. Perhaps you could look up 'limitation of liability' to see what sort of 'guarantees' Apple is willing to make for third party apps. Please do this before you post again. I hate having to explain things twice and you seem intent of forcing 3, 4 and 5 times.
Laughing bag...
Kind advice, mate: don't try to cheat someone having been being in the business for the time span, which you would call eternity. "Many years" 'my ass. Spend another one to be easy with how SDK is different from API.
Yes, yes, you got it right. This board is full of just regular Ubuntu users, who've got nothing to do with Apple except that they own iPod or iPhone (that's what they call guru). Not so big secret vast majority of windows and linux users are just thieves. Apple world was always proud of having almost zero piracy until Apple with the gang of their telcos let that proletariat in by subsidizing iPhones.
To my English now. He-he. You must be living genius as you've guessed that right. English is not my first language. Neither is it the only foreign language, which I speak and write in.
But the problem is not what you think it is! See how it could be?
My English is proven to be understandable by readers (true, it's not perfect, alas, it will never be). Moreover, I seldom write openly what I mean, I prefer to allude. And believe me my allusions are always taken exact! No real problem with me. My offline everyday life is no place for English at all.
The problem is there're people on the board who speak English at the level of an uneducated person. Alas! They barely understand what I write. It does not mean they don't speak English, it's most probably their first language. Want me to expand on that?
Oh, Tulkas, you're real piece of work when it comes to ignorance.
Whichever on earth they can guarantee, can be guaranteed without source code review. Nobody can guarantee absolute sanity of an application, but source code review does not improve a damn jot of that. Read it again: not in the least.
I beg you to do as kindly as you only could and try to wrap all of your brain, which you can get working, around this.
Remember the thread of reasoning: Apple employs binary code analysis, that's the fact --- the allusion to how AV works (no, it's not about AV, it's allusion to AV) --- there are zillions of ways to code one and the same thing in high-level programming language; being new to all that,eh? --- it's damn costly (tooling alone is proposed at $1000+ and not to self-employed "developer") to develop in ARM low-level assembly language
This is what I have been trying, in vain to explain to you. They have procedures, policies and tools in place to minimize the risk of apps. I have mentioned, where you could not, some of the policies and OS architecture in place that they employee to this effect. You could only think of scanners. Nor did I claim a source review was 100% perfect either, but source always gives you more. Always.
None of which provide an guarantee...hence the disclaimer of no liability, or for those language impaired, no guarantee, legal or functional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
Nonsense. Apple detected interpreter presence right out of there. They did know it's in there. Developers negotiated to have it disabled, not removed. Apple knew it was still in there even after partly political decision to let that in the store. Then they saw, devs didn't disable it forever.
Not to mention you've switched the context. The thing complied with API usage guidelines, but not with Apple's policies at functional level.
Please don't feel the need to make up your 'facts'. The developer, Manomio, was very clear to Apple when they first submitted the app that it included an interpretter. For this it was rejected and the requirement was for it to be removed not hidden. They resubmitted the app with the interpretter still there, Apple accepted it, as it was hidden and Apple did not 'detect' it, and it was made available on the App Store. Since users discovered it was present and could be activated, Apple was alerted and they subsequently pulled the app.
From the developers:
Quote:
Unfortunately Apple this night pulled the C64 App from the App Store. We had agreed with Apple to remove basic from the application, but as we believed it would be possible to convince Apple to let it in later on, we left it in the app to be activated remotely by us when we had “go” from Apple.
In one paragraph, you have so many inaccuracies, misunderstandings and make belief 'facts' it is difficult to continue a conversation with you. I guess if I dropped to your level and simply made things up, we could go on like this forever. But, unfortunately, I prefer honesty.
You present a better argument when you stick to actual facts. All of your arguments seems to be of similar 'quality'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
Laughing bag...
Kind advice, mate: don't try to cheat someone having been being in the business for the time span, which you would call eternity. "Many years" 'my ass. Spend another one to be easy with how SDK is different from API.
Yes, yes, you got it right. This board is full of just regular Ubuntu users, who've got nothing to do with Apple except that they own iPod or iPhone (that's what they call guru). Not so big secret vast majority of windows and linux users are just thieves. Apple world was always proud of having almost zero piracy until Apple with the gang of their telcos let that proletariat in by subsidizing iPhones.
The only reason they had low rates of piracy was their OS only ran on their hardware. Most people did not have PPC or Moto's 68k at home or work, so there was little to no way they were going to pirate the OS. Once the jump was made to intel, they started to see their OS pirated. No gangs of carriers involved.
It is a fantasy to believe the Apple community was pure and pirate free at any point. Hell, they started with involved in the homebrew club, which today would be considered a band of pirates by most neuveau Apple fans here.
Perhaps you could back up your assertion that most Windows and Linus users are thieves. Seems a pretty bold statement with no facts to back it up. or you could explain how you think subsidizing iPhones led to piracy in the Apple world (that existed previously anyway).
Maybe you are new to the 'Apple world' and were simply unaware of the history.
I am sorry, what was your point here? Seems, again, very muddled and confused.
As for how long I have been a developer and you....I guess we could get into a contest to see who has the bigger d***, but I usually win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
To my English now. He-he. You must be living genius as you've guessed that right. English is not my first language. Neither is it the only foreign language, which I speak and write in.
But the problem is not what you think it is! See how it could be?
My English is proven to be understandable by readers (true, it's not perfect, alas, it will never be). Moreover, I seldom write openly what I mean, I prefer to allude. And believe me my allusions are always taken exact! No real problem with me. My offline everyday life is no place for English at all.
The problem is there're people on the board who speak English at the level of an uneducated person. Alas! They barely understand what I write. It does not mean they don't speak English, it's most probably their first language. Want me to expand on that?
That is great. I have great admiration for those that speak multiple languages. I think it allows for a broader sense of being and often a more open view of the world.
I will then accept that it is not a difficulty with the langauge that has caused the problems in your posts.
This is what I have been trying, in vain to explain to you. They have procedures, policies and tools in place to minimize the risk of apps. I have mentioned, where you could not, some of the policies and OS architecture in place that they employee to this effect. You could only think of scanners. Nor did I claim a source review was 100% perfect either, but source always gives you more. Always.
I already told you that what you tried to explain is always commonplace and no one would waste the time to verify you'd managed to learn that.
What you do not understand, is the source code review can not yield more information about potentially dangerous functionality, than binary scan. It is just reviewer effort hog of utility close to zero. I gave you tons of clues to it, but unfortunately you're absolutely unfamiliar with software development process and can't pick it up. Think it over again. Review the source of our conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
None of which provide an guarantee...hence the disclaimer of no liability, or for those language impaired, no guarantee, legal or functional.
Oh, Tulkas, please. That's janitor's English. Consult a dictionary. Everything Apple put in place in approval process was to guarantee the relative safety of their customers, and not to decline their liability. It's not Ubuntu world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Please don't feel the need to make up your 'facts'. The developer, Manomio, was very clear to Apple when they first submitted the app that it included an interpretter. For this it was rejected and the requirement was for it to be removed not hidden. They resubmitted the app with the interpretter still there, Apple accepted it, as it was hidden and Apple did not 'detect' it, and it was made available on the App Store. Since users discovered it was present and could be activated, Apple was alerted and they subsequently pulled the app.
From the developers:
In one paragraph, you have so many inaccuracies, misunderstandings and make belief 'facts' it is difficult to continue a conversation with you. I guess if I dropped to your level and simply made things up, we could go on like this forever. But, unfortunately, I prefer honesty.
You don't provide any links. Hence the credibility of your posts and your honesty are both bouncing near the level zero. Check out this link first then this one.
Brian said:
Quote:
Brian: We got in touch with the App Store management, who helped us through the process. We had to disable BASIC, and all use of the word “emulator” had to be removed.
He might not have been native English speaker either. But that guy and me we both see the difference between two required actions better, than Tulkas does.
Tulkas, after all those errors, you ought to be ashamed of having tried to lecture me on what to undertake to improve my understanding of written English.
I might have pointed out to exact modifications Apple asked them to make, but it's too technical for you.
Also, Manomio acknowledged, that the sequence of user actions could only re-enable basic interpreter due to the error in their implementation of requested features.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
The only reason they had low rates of piracy was their OS only ran on their hardware. Most people did not have PPC or Moto's 68k at home or work, so there was little to no way they were going to pirate the OS. Once the jump was made to intel, they started to see their OS pirated. No gangs of carriers involved.
You rock man, you rock. iPhone hardware is no more theirs? Everyone can pick Samsung ARM processor at StarBucks.
I was rather speaking about the Moral Code, which old day Mac fans followed. Ubuntu world ethics, which is made perfectly apparent by your reasoning, simply can not comprehend things like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
It is a fantasy to believe the Apple community was pure and pirate free at any point. Hell, they started with involved in the homebrew club, which today would be considered a band of pirates by most neuveau Apple fans here.
Your lite version of English just doesn't allow for clear understanding what exactly "piracy" means. Yet, you might as well have heard that heroic tale about how exactly Mr. Gates accidentally came into possession of dirty operating system and then sold zillions of copies as the author and solely rightful creator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Perhaps you could back up your assertion that most Windows and Linus users are thieves. Seems a pretty bold statement with no facts to back it up. or you could explain how you think subsidizing iPhones led to piracy in the Apple world (that existed previously anyway). Maybe you are new to the 'Apple world' and were simply unaware of the history.
Oh, just to do you a small favor in the form of yet another chance for you to show your pretendedly deep knowledge of the history of computing, I can point you out to two lawsuits, which were finaly settled back in 1997 by mutual agreement, which you would undoubtedly recall right out of here. The corporation, which evidently owns all your love and passion, was officially found by Federal judges to be a thief. So all users of its products are just complices.
And because that crowd of users constitutes the majority in joined set of users of Windows and Ubuntu, I believe that you nevertheless would be able to understand what is backing up my statements.
Sure, I can't speak all local dialects and argos, which can be found in godforsaken outskirts of american cities. I can't say anything about mysterious Linus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
As for how long I have been a developer and you....I guess we could get into a contest to see who has the bigger d***, but I usually win.
Your problem is that it's the first time you see a guy who can kick the s..t out of you right online, while your number on my list is greater than two hundred.
Oh, Tulkas, please. That's janitor's English. Consult a dictionary. Everything Apple put in place in approval process was to guarantee the relative safety of their customers, and not to decline their liability. It's not Ubuntu world.
let me correct your english for you:
Everything Apple put in place in approval process was to improve the relative safety of their customers, and not to decline their liability.
But who said anything about reducing their liability? Simply, they claim limited liability or no liability because they cannot guarantee third party apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
You don't provide any links. Hence the credibility of your posts and your honesty are both bouncing near the level zero. Check out this link first then this one.
He might not have been native English speaker either. But that guy and me we both see the difference between two required actions better, than Tulkas does.
Tulkas, after all those errors, you ought to be ashamed of having tried to lecture me on what to undertake to improve my understanding of written English.
I might have pointed out to exact modifications Apple asked them to make, but it's too technical for you.
Also, Manomio acknowledged, that the sequence of user actions could only re-enable basic interpreter due to the error in their implementation of requested features.
Seems like your 'quote' is fairly out of date. They corrected it for the language impaired:
". We had agreed with Apple to remove basic from the application, but as we believed it would be possible to convince Apple to let it in later on, we left it in the app to be activated remotely by us when we had “go” from Apple."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
You rock man, you rock. iPhone hardware is no more theirs? Everyone can pick Samsung ARM processor at StarBucks.
I was rather speaking about the Moral Code, which old day Mac fans followed. Ubuntu world ethics, which is made perfectly apparent by your reasoning, simply can not comprehend things like that.
You claimed there was almost no piracy in 'the Apple World'. I see you need to correct youself again and imply you meant the iPhone world.
With you new qualification on your statement (seems to happen a lot with your posts), you now mean 'moral code' in the 'iphone world'
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
Your lite version of English just doesn't allow for clear understanding what exactly "piracy" means. Yet, you might as well have heard that heroic tale about how exactly Mr. Gates accidentally came into possession of dirty operating system and then sold zillions of copies as the author and solely rightful creator.
So, because Gates 'stole' QD-DOS, this diminishes the fact that Apple also was started in the wild west of the homebrew club? Your logic is...masterful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
Oh, just to do you a small favor in the form of yet another chance for you to show your pretendedly deep knowledge of the history of computing, I can point you out to two lawsuits, which were finaly settled back in 1997 by mutual agreement, which you would undoubtedly recall right out of here. The corporation, which evidently owns all your love and passion, was officially found by Federal judges to be a thief. So all users of its products are just complices.
And because that crowd of users constitutes the majority in joined set of users of Windows and Ubuntu, I believe that you nevertheless would be able to understand what is backing up my statements.
Sure, I can't speak all local dialects and argos, which can be found in godforsaken outskirts of american cities. I can't say anything about mysterious Linus.
So, your only real argument is that I must be a Windows or Ubuntu user? Sorry 'mate', but I have been an Apple user longer that likely have been alive. As with your other arguments, it has no real value, one way or the other.
Actually, court cases involving MS really don't make Windows users all thieves....except perhaps to you. Seriously, that is what you are using to back up you claim that all Windows and Linux users are thieves? Seriously?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
Your problem is that it's the first time you see a guy who can kick the s..t out of you right online, while your number on my list is greater than two hundred.
Ivan, my son, you haven't even shown you could wipe my ass, let alone kick the shit out of anyone. Come on, you posts are full of faulty logic, outright fabrications and misunderstanding of the conversation. Some of that could be contributed to your language barriers, but certainly most needs to be put squarely on your own limitations.
Everything Apple put in place in approval process was to improve the relative safety of their customers, and not to decline their liability.
Who needs your corrections, Tulkas?
Search for the phrase "guarantee safety": Results 1 - 10 of about 94,900,000 for guarantee safety. (0.08 seconds); the search for "improve safety" yields: Results 1 - 10 of about 82,500,000 for improve safety. (0.12 seconds).
No single harmful app has been seen in the App Strore so far. So, Apple indeed guarantees our safety and manages to fulfill that guarantee.
Seems like your 'quote' is fairly out of date. They corrected it for the language impaired:
". We had agreed with Apple to remove basic from the application, but as we believed it would be possible to convince Apple to let it in later on, we left it in the app to be activated remotely by us when we had “go” from Apple."
Tulkas, please... You either don't understand English or have absolutely know idea of what you're talking about. They removed basic only after the app had been pulled from the store. They disabled basic interpreter to get "go" from Apple. Well, we really lost you right in the middle of the story, I regret to say. I feel I really really can't help it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
You claimed there was almost no piracy in 'the Apple World'. I see you need to correct youself again and imply you meant the iPhone world.
Absolutely not. iPhone world is just too much young to absorb all my interests. Still, it's now a remarkable part of Apple world. And as such it contradicts what you've been saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
So, because Gates 'stole' QD-DOS, this diminishes the fact that Apple also was started in the wild west of the homebrew club? Your logic is...masterful.
No, no, `mate'. I've just alluded to the story, which'd got much more to do with piracy, than simple being a homebrew club.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
So, your only real argument is that I must be a Windows or Ubuntu user? Sorry 'mate', but I have been an Apple user longer that likely have been alive.
You are yet to prove it `mate'. The best thing to do is to post something meaningful, which will make me believe that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Actually, court cases involving MS really don't make Windows users all thieves....except perhaps to you. Seriously, that is what you are using to back up you claim that all Windows and Linux users are thieves? Seriously?
Why? That one was good enough to catch you by surprise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Ivan, my son, you haven't even shown you could wipe my ass, let alone kick the shit out of anyone. Come on, you posts are full of faulty logic, outright fabrications and misunderstanding of the conversation. Some of that could be contributed to your language barriers, but certainly most needs to be put squarely on your own limitations.
Oh, Tulkas. Now that's what we call being absolutely uninteresting. I'm not your son. And you keep saying things which you've got no idea of... *yawn*
Search for the phrase "guarantee safety": Results 1 - 10 of about 94,900,000 for guarantee safety. (0.08 seconds); the search for "improve safety" yields: Results 1 - 10 of about 82,500,000 for improve safety. (0.12 seconds).
No single harmful app has been seen in the App Strore so far. So, Apple indeed guarantees our safety and manages to fulfill that guarantee.
Again, as I have said, no harmful apps have been released. That has not been the question, though you occasionaly try to redirect it there. The fact that there has not been does not imply any sort of guarantee, no matter how you try to muddle through your fuzzy logic.
You have yet to explain how apps have been released with prohibited functionality and/or unpublished APIs and/or other SDK rules violations, only to be yanked later when it was discovered. Surely their magic scanners would have caught them.
Simply denying they exist doesn't make them disappear. Denying they exist doesn't help you explain how they occurred. Many posts in and you seem as lost as when you first claimed Apple had access to the source code of submitted apps... at least you admitted to that mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
Tulkas, please... You either don't understand English or have absolutely know idea of what you're talking about. They removed basic only after the app had been pulled from the store. They disabled basic interpreter to get "go" from Apple. Well, we really lost you right in the middle of the story, I regret to say. I feel I really really can't help it.
Correct. That is exactly what I said, thanks for playing. They did indeed disable it to get the go ahead from Apple, but only by telling Apple it had been removed. And so it did make it to the App Store. Then when it was discovered that it was still there, Apple yanked it.
" We had agreed with Apple to remove basic from the application, but as we believed it would be possible to convince Apple to let it in later on, we left it in the app to be activated remotely by us when we had “go” from Apple."
(Tip for the language impaired: I have again bolded the pertinent part of Manomio's comment, as reported by 9to5mac.)
See, they are very clear, that they agree to remove it and that they instead disabled it. And that this caused it to be yanked again from the App Store. I am not sure how much simpler we can make this for you. It is pretty elementary, regardless of language barriers. Intellectual barrier cannot be helped, I suppose.
Your problem here is simple. Regardless of how often you try to ague the other direction, facts always get in your way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
Absolutely not. iPhone world is just too much young to absorb all my interests. Still, it's now a remarkable part of Apple world. And as such it contradicts what you've been saying.
Actually, the age of the 'iPhone world' is what directly contradicts your statements. You argued that it was the 'gang of telcos' that introduced piracy to the Apple (later qualified as meaning only the iPhone) world through subsidies. An educated person might instead say that it was the introduction of the SDK and native apps and restrictions on usage that introduced piracy to the iPhone world (since it was common in the 'Apple world' for so long). Since, you know, it would have been difficult to pirate a 3rd party app when there were no 3rd party apps. It seems you are confused, again. Perhaps it is because the subsidies were introduced at the same time the App store was introduced. It would be a difficult mistake to make, but I am sure you are capable.
Or are you are now backing down on your claim that it was the 'gang of telcos' that helped bring piracy to the 'Apple world'? Now, what is that, 6 or 7 times you have contradicted your own arguments in this thread?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
No, no, `mate'. I've just alluded to the story, which'd got much more to do with piracy, than simple being a homebrew club.
You didn't allude to anything. You brought it up. It added nothing, didn't prove your point in the slightest, and wasn't an interesting story. Anything else you want to try to use to prove 'all Windows and linux users are thieves?
The homebrew club is directly relevant, as you stated that all Windows users were pirates and that the 'Apple world' prided itself on having almost zero piracy before the 'gang of telcos' caused it. Piracy has long existed in the 'Apple world', right from the beginning. Perhaps you simply haven't been part of the 'Apple world' long enough to know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
You are yet to prove it `mate'. The best thing to do is to post something meaningful, which will make me believe that.
Why would I prove I have been an Apple user longer than you? It is a simple fact. You could claim to be a developer, but you can't prove it.
I think what you are trying to get at, with your comments about Windows and Linux and allusions to me being from the Ubuntu world, is that I must be a nouveau Apple user who joined the 'family' only after getting an iPod.
Simply looking at your join date of just over a year ago, compared to mine of 2001 (which is actually off by ~5 years as the db was wiped after the last big crash), I would say that we can only see you as the newbie to these boards at least. Given the date of 2008, I would guess that perhaps your mom bought you an iPhone and you got all Apple crazy. It is good to see. After so long in the Apple community during the dark times, it is good to see it growing again. But it is disconcerting to see some of the newbies so overly eager to prove their fanhood. They get so into being a devoted fan they actually become caricatures of a real Apple fan.
However, the fact is that I have been an Apple user for fully 3 decades. I am not some trespassing Gypsy user, going unwelcome from community to community, looking for a home. I have been here (Apple community and these forums) for a long, long time.
But keep writing that I am a Windows/Linux user. That really goes a long way to make your vacant posts have some real value. It shows the real value of your arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
Why? That one was good enough to catch you by surprise.
The idiocy of it did indeed surprise me. I mean, in an intelligent conversation about iPhone piracy, who would bring up Microsoft court cases or Apple and MS settling their cases? It was indeed surprising. It is sad that that is the best you can offer, as your inaccuracies and fallacies haven't helped your case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
Oh, Tulkas. Now that's what we call being absolutely uninteresting. I'm not your son. And you keep saying things which you've got no idea of... *yawn*
Oh Ivan, my son, it is a term of endearment. You seem so utter confused and out of your depth, you evoke the paternal instinct in me to help and assist you as you continue to learn. You commented that you could 'kick my ass online'. Yet all I see from you is a lot of uninformed drivel from someone who doesn't understand the conversation. If that is 'kicking my ass', then son, you have succeeded. If however, you thought you were presenting an intelligent conversation, well son, you have missed the boat again.
Wake me up when you start kicking my ass again...I want to be sure I don't miss it this time.
You have yet to explain how apps have been released with prohibited functionality and/or unpublished APIs
You owe me something else, Tulkas. Since my first post in our conversation I've been begging you to answer the simple question: "What app and what API"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Correct. That is exactly what I said, thanks for playing. They did indeed disable it to get the go ahead from Apple, but only by telling Apple it had been removed.
No, no, you're still getting it wrong. After first rejection they tried hard to comply exactly with what Apple asked them to do. And Apple's requirement was to disable interpreter. They failed to implement that requirement and Apple pulled the app from the store. Only then they started actually to remove interpreter.
Well, Tulkas, you've perfectly shown how far you are from problems of IT industry and of Apple world, in particular. Trying to educate you is actually more work than it's worth.
So, I believe you really ought to polish your English --- yup, you need it for food, not for a mockery at ubuntists --- and to read something informative about that problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Actually, the age of the 'iPhone world' is what directly contradicts your statements. You argued that it was the 'gang of telcos' that introduced piracy to the Apple (later qualified as meaning only the iPhone) world through subsidies.
Polish your English, Tulkas, you do need that. I couldn't argue my own point. While I absolutely reasonably disagreed on your nonsense, that Apple's proprietary hardware and software had the only hand in keeping the level of piracy low.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Why would I prove I have been an Apple user longer than you? It is a simple fact. You could claim to be a developer, but you can't prove it.
You --- in person --- gave us an example of some acquaintance of yours, who pretended to be a "developer" but was not. (BTW, You're quite fortunate forum poster, Tulkas. You are conversing with the foreigner, who can understand you. Guess, what would native English speaker ask you? What branch of construction does that "developer" work in? )
And so did you, Tulkas. I mean you can't stand the temptation to claim aloud you're a developer.
Tulkas. Please listen attentively to someone, who invested the whole life in that business. It's a small stretch to say that only humble technicians and office automation personnel (system administrators for persons unfamiliar with modern IT vocabulary) are used to seize each opportunity to proclaim they're "developers".
So, you've explained to me pretty much everything about what you are right out of there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Simply looking at your join date of just over a year ago, compared to mine of 2001 (which is actually off by ~5 years as the db was wiped after the last big crash), I would say that we can only see you as the newbie to these boards at least.
Having promised to kick asses I meant, Tulkas, in particular, I was going to control in person how exactly you would see me. It's not about your likes and dislikes, Tulkas.
You owe me something else, Tulkas. Since my first post in our conversation I've been begging you to answer the simple question: "What app and what API"?
Oh Ivan, my son. I have given you two clear examples. You simply cannot understand them.
App: the c64 emulator was one.
API: Google Mobile accessing the proximity sensor through a private API.
Both got on the App Store, though strangely the Google app was never removed. Go figure. Safari Bookbag made it but was using the private CoverFlow API, while Peeps was banned for using the same private API calls, even though it wasn't. Both now use Plausible Labs API instead of Apple's. But Bookbag did make it. A source review might have shown Peeps was not using Apple's private APIs and that Bookbag was. Guess their scanner were broken that day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
No, no, you're still getting it wrong. After first rejection they tried hard to comply exactly with what Apple asked them to do. And Apple's requirement was to disable interpreter. They failed to implement that requirement and Apple pulled the app from the store. Only then they started actually to remove interpreter.
I won't post the quote again. The developer clearly stated the requirement was not to disable but to remove. They submitted with it disabled and told Apple it was removed. When this was discovered, it resulted in it being yanked.
Really, it isn't difficult. They openly admitted that they were supposed to removed and only disabled it. Time to move on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
Well, Tulkas, you've perfectly shown how far you are from problems of IT industry and of Apple world, in particular. Trying to educate you is actually more work than it's worth.
You are right. I don't work in IT. Using my comp sci degree to work in IT would be a bit of a waste, I think. Better to use it, as I do, as a developer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
So, I believe you really ought to polish your English --- yup, you need it for food, not for a mockery at ubuntists --- and to read something informative about that problem.
Polish your English, Tulkas, you do need that. I couldn't argue my own point. While I absolutely reasonable disagreed on your nonsense, that Apple's proprietary hardware and software has the only hand in keeping the level of piracy low.
True, you really couldn't argue your own point. Thanks for admitting that finally.
It is a simple and accepted fact that Apple's proprietary model helped keep piracy level low of their OS, since you could only run them on their hardware. Once they went Intel, even you might have heard of hackintoshes suddenly becoming popular. Their first party apps and third party apps on the Mac were pirated. Yuo may disagree with this, but that is simply ignorance. You instead want to blame the 'gang of telcos' and the influx of Windows and Linux users, who you claim are all thieves. Now, that is simply nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
You --- in person --- gave us an example of some acquaintance of yours, who pretended to be a "developer" but was not. (BTW, You're quite fortunate forum poster, Tulkas. You are conversing with the foreigner, who can understand you. Guess, what would native English speaker ask you? What branch of construction does that "developer" works in? )
Yup, I did mention wnurse. He is also a relative newbie on these boards (3 pr 4 years I think) and he also claimed to be a developer and had many disparaging remarks for IT people. Turns out he was actually an IT Specialist with IBM. I see similarities between his posts and yours, though he was took the opposite tact...he was more of an anti-apple zealot. And I am indeed conversing with a 'foreigner', though the level of understanding is questionable at best.
Most english speakers around here understand when I say developer, no need to explain. But then, my town is crowded with top developmemt companies, so it is common. You may not have heard of some of them, but 'those in the industry' will know them. Perhaps in your area most 'developers' are in contruction and real estate, but that is not a point of confusion here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
And so did you, Tulkas. I mean you can't stand the temptation to claim aloud you're a developer.
Tulkas. Please listen attentively to someone, who invested the whole life in that business. It's a small stretch to say that only humble technicians and office automation personnel (system administrators for persons unfamiliar with modern IT vocabulary) are used to seize each opportunity to proclaim they're "developers".
So, you've explained to me pretty much everything about what you are right out of there.
You first had to claim to be a developer (sorry, you 'alluded' to being a developer, so perhaps you are not). I simply brought it up since you seemed to think it of value. My being a developer doesn't change your inaccuraies and fallacies. If you would like to believe I am not, please feel free. I could be an an English speaking janitor, a roma gypsy in a circus, an American pool boy or a figment of your imagination. None of which would make your arguments any less ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
Having promised to kick asses I meant, Tulkas, in particular, I was going to control in person how exactly you would see me. It's not about your likes and dislikes, Tulkas.
oh son, you didn't promise to kick my ass. You said I finally found, in you, someone who could kick the shit out of me online. I was just wondering when the kicking might start.
Great job, Tulkas! You're finishing by having understood almost everything what I tried to explain to you. We settled almost all points and I see you agree with what I was saying. You see, my English appears to be not that bad at all.
You still fail to understand which APIs are concerned by SDK terms (I warned you already to not bring the example of GV) and how is API different from SDK, but you don't need that to pretend you're a developer while being some office automator. Forget, Tulkas, forget on it.
Great job, Tulkas! You're finishing by having understood almost everything what I tried to explain to you. We settled almost all points and I see you agree with what I was saying. You see, my English appears to be not that bad at all.
You still fail to understand which APIs are concerned by SDK terms (I warned you already to not bring the example of GV) and how is API different from SDK, but you don't need that to pretend you're a developer while being some office automator. Forget, Tulkas, forget on it.
You are right. We have settled it. I have been demonstrably correct and you have been shown to be demonstrably, repeatedly and sometimes admittedly wrong.
I have pointed out two examples of API usage violations that got through to the App Store (though I must have missed your 'warning', I mentioned Google Mobile not Google Voice...perhaps you don't know the difference) and an clear example of an SDK rule violation that also made it to the App Store (though you seem incapable of actually understanding the violation). I cannot help your limitations.
Also, what is an 'office automator'? And you are right on one other point, I certainly don't need to pretend to be a developer. Can we say the same about you?
Glad to have you convinced, Tulkas. In time, you'll also understand that correctness and its antipode look different when seen through the time tunnel. You'd do me a huge favor by coming tell me how true was everything I said.
Comments
Without jailbreaking there would be very little or no piracy of App store Apps.
Therefore legitimate App users would have less ads to put up with as developers have to cover their losses.
There is that simple enough for you?
You seem to have a habit of taking things the wrong way.
In theory it seems this could all be avoided by every developer offering a free version of their app that is then a front end for purchasing the paid version. Correct me if I'm wrong but couldn't this effectively eliminate most casual piracy?
I'm not a Developer so I'm just throwing stuff out here.
In theory it seems this could all be avoided by every developer offering a free version of their app that is then a front end for purchasing the paid version. Correct me if I'm wrong but couldn't this effectively eliminate most casual piracy?
I'm not a Developer so I'm just throwing stuff out here.
Apple has effectively allowed this by enabling In-App purchases and allowing them for free apps. It allows devs to release a free or cheap app and then offer the users additional functionality through an in app purchase. I have never jail broken, but I don't think this would eliminate the problem of piracy, but it might help.
Piracy is a legitimate problem. But it is very foolish to blame the problem entirely on the jailbreaking teams or process. Just as other tools allow for other types of piracy, the tools themselves are not the problem and often become a mainstay of our daily lives.
If everyone was as naive as some here, we would never have have VCR, CD players, CD burners, legal digital content, DRM-free iTunes media. All of these can be used to further piracy. All are legal now.
Jailbeaking itself exploded because of the restriction put in place in the iPhone and legitimate functionality that was missing or prohibited...Not because of piracy. Apple has done a lot to address those limitations, by adding many missing features that used to be available only through jailbreaks. Tethering, CnP, video are a few. People wanted these and they were not available. Apple obviously realized this and has now added them. Others are still missing. Piracy or not, the tools are now out there, the demand has increased because piracy has become a real problem and because there are still legitimate things jailbreaks allow you to do. Once the genie is out of the bottle it doesn't go back in.
I'd be enormously obliged to you, if you cared to point out real cases of apps (and not updates) which were found being nonconformant to Apple's set of APIs only after apps had been sitting in the store and we begun to use them. I can indeed see the task may turn out to be a bit difficult provided your level of understanding of software industry. So I'd like to clue you once more on what I'm expecting you to do. Please do not bring thrilling stories of abused promotion tickets or phone applications duplicating Apple functionality by using third-party APIs. It's not what I mean. Please do not try to impress me by making apparent you've heard about C64 emulator app either. You do not understand the case and obviously fail to see, that it delivers the perfect proof of what I've desperately been trying to explain to you. You do understand the difference between API and "policy", Tulkassey? You still hope that hack may be revealed by code review within the reasonable timeframe?
As for code review as a panacea for any harm, which an app may cause in the future, I have to admit, my precious Tulkas, that I'm a bit tired of repetitive demonstrations of how far away you are from modern software industry. Not only you have never heard a slightest whisper about code obfuscating existence, but you obviously never saw before a single line of code, having been done by a guy who really mastered programming language. Please trust it takes much higher level of expertise than yours, for one, to say for sure how that code works; not to mention the amount of code modern programs require. Sorry to say it to you, Tulkas, code review serves nowadays the set of needs in software development being completely different from what you figured out for yourself.
As for understanding of the fact software safety enforcement must rely on administrative measures as well, it's common place; congrats, nevertheless, for your knowing at least that.
Sandboxing. Congrats, Tulkas, again for knowing yet another word a la mode. But sadly enough the era of programming masterpieces, which solely gained the right to be strictly called "viruses", came to its end before you probably saw computer the first time. Nothing but emails with enclosed worms remains anymore, Tulkassey, nothing more...
Ubuntu... It's my grief, Tulkas, my sorrow, which is crying. Upon having come on Apple related board I was looking forward to see the community being somewhat aware of Apple products and events. In vain, Tulkas, in vain.
Ough, Tulkas. That was my longest post on AI. We the techies are generally accustomed to exchanging much shorter notes, you know. But I did feel strong necessity to enlighten you a bit on what is actually happening in IT industry and more precisely in its Apple branch.
We've seen apps released that were subsequently pulled because the violated the terms of the SDK...how is it you think that happened? Did the apps developers use black magic to counter the spells used in the analyzers to get their easter eggs through the approval process? (C64 emulator for one i can think of off the top of my head). Some make use of prohibited Apple API's....again, how is it you think that happens?
They got through the because review apps, without code, can never reveal all there is to the app. Things can be hidden.
Now, as to why no malicious apps have been seen, there are numerous reasons. Sandboxing of the apps on the iPhone is a biggy. Ban hammer is a biggie. Law suits are a biggie.
AV scans are not. binary scans might be a small part.
Please make an effort to understand what you post, before you post it. Perhaps you are being overly emotional. A lack of understanding is OK. Just admit to it and move on.
WTF is with the ubuntu comments? As with many of your comments, they seem decidedly confused.
Oh, and what words were put into your mouth? Just because you write something, are shown it is blatantly wrong, doesn't then mean you didn't write it. Yuo could, as you have done here earlier, admit to the error. But claiming to not to have written it is silly...especially without pointing it out.
Mio caro Tulkasio,
I'd be enormously obliged to you, if you cared to point out real cases of apps (and not updates) which were found being nonconformant to Apple's set of APIs only after apps had been sitting in the store and we begun to use them. I can indeed see the task may turn out to be a bit difficult provided your level of understanding of software industry. So I'd like to clue you once more on what I'm expecting you to do. Please do not bring thrilling stories of abused promotion tickets or phone applications duplicating Apple functionality by using third-party APIs. It's not what I mean. Please do not try to impress me by making apparent you've heard about C64 emulator app either. You do not understand the case and obviously fail to see, that it delivers the perfect proof of what I've desperately been trying to explain to you. You do understand the difference between API and "policy", Tulkassey? You still hope that hack may be revealed by code review within the reasonable timeframe?
Where did I say they could do a code review in a reasonable about of time? I simply said that without this, they cannot fully guarantee the 'safety' of the apps. You were the one that brought up virus scanners as an important part of Apple's app vetting process.
you have tried to explain nothing but your own lack of knowldge and experience. I brought up the C64 emulator because it was a perfect example of an app that was released that had hidden functionality. Hell, they slipped the BASIC interpretter in there and Apple had NO idea, since that was an explicit condition for approval....and yeah, it made it onto the App store in that form. I guess the magic tools Apple used didn't pick it up.
As for code review as a panacea for any harm, which an app may cause in the future, I have to admit, my precious Tulkas, that I'm a bit tired of repetitive demonstrations of how far away you are from modern software industry. Not only you have never heard a slightest whisper about code obfuscating existence, but you obviously never saw before a single line of code, having been done by a guy who really mastered programming language. Please trust it takes much higher level of expertise than yours, for one, to say for sure how that code works; not to mention the amount of code modern programs require. Sorry to say it to you, Tulkas, code review serves nowadays the set of needs in software development being completely different from what you figured out for yourself.
You keep making claims that show your own ignorance. I have been a developer for many years. Who claim a code review was a cure all? There you go with your strawmen again....you should be old enough to know that strawmen just make you look more foolish. Would source access given the a better understanding of the app? yes. Is it reasonable for 100,000 app? As has been repeatedly mentioned to you, but that you repeatedly fail to conprehend, no it is not reasonable. But reasonable or not, it is more effective than external inspection...always will be.
As for understanding of the fact software safety enforcement must rely on administrative measures as well, it's common place; congrats, nevertheless, for your knowing at least that.
And yet still does not provide a guarantee. But something you seemed unaware of until I mentioned it....but still not a guarantee.
Sandboxing. Congrats, Tulkas, again for knowing yet another word a la mode. But sadly enough the era of programming masterpieces, which solely gained the right to be strictly called "viruses", came to its end before you probably saw computer the first time. Nothing but emails with enclosed worms remains anymore, Tulkassey, nothing more...
...funny how you have to use my examples of how Apple works to minimize the risk of apps, as your own are so....lacking.
But yes, sandboxing and the architecture of the OS are key to minimizing the effects of rogue apps. There are lots of things Apple has put in place to increase the safety of apps. Still no guarantee.
Ubuntu... It's my grief, Tulkas, my sorrow, which is crying. Upon having come on Apple related board I was looking forward to see the community being somewhat aware of Apple products and events. In vain, Tulkas, in vain.
You perhaps thought AppleInsider was an ubuntu forum?
Ough, Tulkas. That was my longest post on AI. We the techies are generally accustomed to exchanging much shorter notes, you know. But I did feel strong necessity to enlighten you a bit on what is actually happening in IT industry and more precisely in its Apple branch.
Yes, I am sure you are quite techie. Perhaps as much as our wnurse. He was also an IT technician that needed to pretend to be a developer. You might know him.
Given apps being released and later pulled for containing code, prohibited API usage, etc, you still have not explained how this has happened with the magic powers Apple has brought out. I have kept it simple for you, but you cannot. You seem to be becoming more and more confused. Perhaps english is not your native language. It would seem so. I would suggest not using google translate as it seems to be confusing you further. Maybe find an english language speaker, preferrably one with some development experience, who can explain the big words and difficult subject to you.
There is no guarantee that you will ever understand. There is no guarantee on the safety of the apps. There is a pledge to do their best to ensure the safety. You seem very confused as to difference. Perhaps you could look up 'limitation of liability' to see what sort of 'guarantees' Apple is willing to make for third party apps. Please do this before you post again. I hate having to explain things twice and you seem intent of forcing 3, 4 and 5 times.
Where did I say they could do a code review in a reasonable about of time? I simply said that without this, they cannot fully guarantee the 'safety' of the apps. You were the one that brought up virus scanners as an important part of Apple's app vetting process.
Whichever on earth they can guarantee, can be guaranteed without source code review. Nobody can guarantee absolute sanity of an application, but source code review does not improve a damn jot of that. Read it again: not in the least.
I beg you to do as kindly as you only could and try to wrap all of your brain, which you can get working, around this.
Remember the thread of reasoning: Apple employs binary code analysis, that's the fact --- the allusion to how AV works (no, it's not about AV, it's allusion to AV) --- there are zillions of ways to code one and the same thing in high-level programming language; being new to all that,eh? --- it's damn costly (tooling alone is proposed at $1000+ and not to self-employed "developer") to develop in ARM low-level assembly language
you have tried to explain nothing but your own lack of knowldge and experience. I brought up the C64 emulator because it was a perfect example of an app that was released that had hidden functionality. Hell, they slipped the BASIC interpretter in there and Apple had NO idea, since that was an explicit condition for approval....and yeah, it made it onto the App store in that form. I guess the magic tools Apple used didn't pick it up.
Nonsense. Apple detected interpreter presence right out of there. They did know it's in there. Developers negotiated to have it disabled, not removed. Apple knew it was still in there even after partly political decision to let that in the store. Then they saw, devs didn't disable it forever.
Not to mention you've switched the context. The thing complied with API usage guidelines, but not with Apple's policies at functional level.
You keep making claims that show your own ignorance. I have been a developer for many years. Who claim a code review was a cure all? There you go with your strawmen again....you should be old enough to know that strawmen just make you look more foolish. Would source access given the a better understanding of the app? yes. Is it reasonable for 100,000 app? As has been repeatedly mentioned to you, but that you repeatedly fail to conprehend, no it is not reasonable. But reasonable or not, it is more effective than external inspection...always will be.
And yet still does not provide a guarantee. But something you seemed unaware of until I mentioned it....but still not a guarantee.
...funny how you have to use my examples of how Apple works to minimize the risk of apps, as your own are so....lacking.
But yes, sandboxing and the architecture of the OS are key to minimizing the effects of rogue apps. There are lots of things Apple has put in place to increase the safety of apps. Still no guarantee.
You perhaps thought AppleInsider was an ubuntu forum?
Yes, I am sure you are quite techie. Perhaps as much as our wnurse. He was also an IT technician that needed to pretend to be a developer. You might know him.
Given apps being released and later pulled for containing code, prohibited API usage, etc, you still have not explained how this has happened with the magic powers Apple has brought out. I have kept it simple for you, but you cannot. You seem to be becoming more and more confused. Perhaps english is not your native language. It would seem so. I would suggest not using google translate as it seems to be confusing you further. Maybe find an english language speaker, preferrably one with some development experience, who can explain the big words and difficult subject to you.
There is no guarantee that you will ever understand. There is no guarantee on the safety of the apps. There is a pledge to do their best to ensure the safety. You seem very confused as to difference. Perhaps you could look up 'limitation of liability' to see what sort of 'guarantees' Apple is willing to make for third party apps. Please do this before you post again. I hate having to explain things twice and you seem intent of forcing 3, 4 and 5 times.
Kind advice, mate: don't try to cheat someone having been being in the business for the time span, which you would call eternity. "Many years" 'my ass. Spend another one to be easy with how SDK is different from API.
Yes, yes, you got it right. This board is full of just regular Ubuntu users, who've got nothing to do with Apple except that they own iPod or iPhone (that's what they call guru). Not so big secret vast majority of windows and linux users are just thieves. Apple world was always proud of having almost zero piracy until Apple with the gang of their telcos let that proletariat in by subsidizing iPhones.
To my English now. He-he. You must be living genius as you've guessed that right.
But the problem is not what you think it is! See how it could be?
My English is proven to be understandable by readers (true, it's not perfect, alas, it will never be). Moreover, I seldom write openly what I mean, I prefer to allude. And believe me my allusions are always taken exact! No real problem with me. My offline everyday life is no place for English at all.
The problem is there're people on the board who speak English at the level of an uneducated person. Alas! They barely understand what I write. It does not mean they don't speak English, it's most probably their first language. Want me to expand on that?
Oh, Tulkas, you're real piece of work when it comes to ignorance.
Whichever on earth they can guarantee, can be guaranteed without source code review. Nobody can guarantee absolute sanity of an application, but source code review does not improve a damn jot of that. Read it again: not in the least.
I beg you to do as kindly as you only could and try to wrap all of your brain, which you can get working, around this.
Remember the thread of reasoning: Apple employs binary code analysis, that's the fact --- the allusion to how AV works (no, it's not about AV, it's allusion to AV) --- there are zillions of ways to code one and the same thing in high-level programming language; being new to all that,eh? --- it's damn costly (tooling alone is proposed at $1000+ and not to self-employed "developer") to develop in ARM low-level assembly language
This is what I have been trying, in vain to explain to you. They have procedures, policies and tools in place to minimize the risk of apps. I have mentioned, where you could not, some of the policies and OS architecture in place that they employee to this effect. You could only think of scanners. Nor did I claim a source review was 100% perfect either, but source always gives you more. Always.
None of which provide an guarantee...hence the disclaimer of no liability, or for those language impaired, no guarantee, legal or functional.
Nonsense. Apple detected interpreter presence right out of there. They did know it's in there. Developers negotiated to have it disabled, not removed. Apple knew it was still in there even after partly political decision to let that in the store. Then they saw, devs didn't disable it forever.
Not to mention you've switched the context. The thing complied with API usage guidelines, but not with Apple's policies at functional level.
Please don't feel the need to make up your 'facts'. The developer, Manomio, was very clear to Apple when they first submitted the app that it included an interpretter. For this it was rejected and the requirement was for it to be removed not hidden. They resubmitted the app with the interpretter still there, Apple accepted it, as it was hidden and Apple did not 'detect' it, and it was made available on the App Store. Since users discovered it was present and could be activated, Apple was alerted and they subsequently pulled the app.
From the developers:
Unfortunately Apple this night pulled the C64 App from the App Store. We had agreed with Apple to remove basic from the application, but as we believed it would be possible to convince Apple to let it in later on, we left it in the app to be activated remotely by us when we had “go” from Apple.
In one paragraph, you have so many inaccuracies, misunderstandings and make belief 'facts' it is difficult to continue a conversation with you. I guess if I dropped to your level and simply made things up, we could go on like this forever. But, unfortunately, I prefer honesty.
You present a better argument when you stick to actual facts. All of your arguments seems to be of similar 'quality'.
Kind advice, mate: don't try to cheat someone having been being in the business for the time span, which you would call eternity. "Many years" 'my ass. Spend another one to be easy with how SDK is different from API.
Yes, yes, you got it right. This board is full of just regular Ubuntu users, who've got nothing to do with Apple except that they own iPod or iPhone (that's what they call guru). Not so big secret vast majority of windows and linux users are just thieves. Apple world was always proud of having almost zero piracy until Apple with the gang of their telcos let that proletariat in by subsidizing iPhones.
The only reason they had low rates of piracy was their OS only ran on their hardware. Most people did not have PPC or Moto's 68k at home or work, so there was little to no way they were going to pirate the OS. Once the jump was made to intel, they started to see their OS pirated. No gangs of carriers involved.
It is a fantasy to believe the Apple community was pure and pirate free at any point. Hell, they started with involved in the homebrew club, which today would be considered a band of pirates by most neuveau Apple fans here.
Perhaps you could back up your assertion that most Windows and Linus users are thieves. Seems a pretty bold statement with no facts to back it up. or you could explain how you think subsidizing iPhones led to piracy in the Apple world (that existed previously anyway).
Maybe you are new to the 'Apple world' and were simply unaware of the history.
I am sorry, what was your point here? Seems, again, very muddled and confused.
As for how long I have been a developer and you....I guess we could get into a contest to see who has the bigger d***, but I usually win.
To my English now. He-he. You must be living genius as you've guessed that right.
But the problem is not what you think it is! See how it could be?
My English is proven to be understandable by readers (true, it's not perfect, alas, it will never be). Moreover, I seldom write openly what I mean, I prefer to allude. And believe me my allusions are always taken exact! No real problem with me. My offline everyday life is no place for English at all.
The problem is there're people on the board who speak English at the level of an uneducated person. Alas! They barely understand what I write. It does not mean they don't speak English, it's most probably their first language. Want me to expand on that?
That is great. I have great admiration for those that speak multiple languages. I think it allows for a broader sense of being and often a more open view of the world.
I will then accept that it is not a difficulty with the langauge that has caused the problems in your posts.
This is what I have been trying, in vain to explain to you. They have procedures, policies and tools in place to minimize the risk of apps. I have mentioned, where you could not, some of the policies and OS architecture in place that they employee to this effect. You could only think of scanners. Nor did I claim a source review was 100% perfect either, but source always gives you more. Always.
I already told you that what you tried to explain is always commonplace and no one would waste the time to verify you'd managed to learn that.
What you do not understand, is the source code review can not yield more information about potentially dangerous functionality, than binary scan. It is just reviewer effort hog of utility close to zero. I gave you tons of clues to it, but unfortunately you're absolutely unfamiliar with software development process and can't pick it up. Think it over again. Review the source of our conversation.
None of which provide an guarantee...hence the disclaimer of no liability, or for those language impaired, no guarantee, legal or functional.
Oh, Tulkas, please. That's janitor's English.
Please don't feel the need to make up your 'facts'. The developer, Manomio, was very clear to Apple when they first submitted the app that it included an interpretter. For this it was rejected and the requirement was for it to be removed not hidden. They resubmitted the app with the interpretter still there, Apple accepted it, as it was hidden and Apple did not 'detect' it, and it was made available on the App Store. Since users discovered it was present and could be activated, Apple was alerted and they subsequently pulled the app.
From the developers:
In one paragraph, you have so many inaccuracies, misunderstandings and make belief 'facts' it is difficult to continue a conversation with you. I guess if I dropped to your level and simply made things up, we could go on like this forever. But, unfortunately, I prefer honesty.
You don't provide any links. Hence the credibility of your posts and your honesty are both bouncing near the level zero. Check out this link first then this one.
Brian said:
Brian: We got in touch with the App Store management, who helped us through the process. We had to disable BASIC, and all use of the word “emulator” had to be removed.
He might not have been native English speaker either. But that guy and me we both see the difference between two required actions better, than Tulkas does.
Tulkas, after all those errors, you ought to be ashamed of having tried to lecture me on what to undertake to improve my understanding of written English.
I might have pointed out to exact modifications Apple asked them to make, but it's too technical for you.
Also, Manomio acknowledged, that the sequence of user actions could only re-enable basic interpreter due to the error in their implementation of requested features.
The only reason they had low rates of piracy was their OS only ran on their hardware. Most people did not have PPC or Moto's 68k at home or work, so there was little to no way they were going to pirate the OS. Once the jump was made to intel, they started to see their OS pirated. No gangs of carriers involved.
You rock man, you rock. iPhone hardware is no more theirs?
I was rather speaking about the Moral Code, which old day Mac fans followed. Ubuntu world ethics, which is made perfectly apparent by your reasoning, simply can not comprehend things like that.
It is a fantasy to believe the Apple community was pure and pirate free at any point. Hell, they started with involved in the homebrew club, which today would be considered a band of pirates by most neuveau Apple fans here.
Your lite version of English just doesn't allow for clear understanding what exactly "piracy" means. Yet, you might as well have heard that heroic tale about how exactly Mr. Gates accidentally came into possession of dirty operating system and then sold zillions of copies as the author and solely rightful creator.
Perhaps you could back up your assertion that most Windows and Linus users are thieves. Seems a pretty bold statement with no facts to back it up. or you could explain how you think subsidizing iPhones led to piracy in the Apple world (that existed previously anyway). Maybe you are new to the 'Apple world' and were simply unaware of the history.
Oh, just to do you a small favor in the form of yet another chance for you to show your pretendedly deep knowledge of the history of computing, I can point you out to two lawsuits, which were finaly settled back in 1997 by mutual agreement, which you would undoubtedly recall right out of here. The corporation, which evidently owns all your love and passion, was officially found by Federal judges to be a thief. So all users of its products are just complices.
And because that crowd of users constitutes the majority in joined set of users of Windows and Ubuntu, I believe that you nevertheless would be able to understand what is backing up my statements.
Sure, I can't speak all local dialects and argos, which can be found in godforsaken outskirts of american cities. I can't say anything about mysterious Linus.
As for how long I have been a developer and you....I guess we could get into a contest to see who has the bigger d***, but I usually win.
Your problem is that it's the first time you see a guy who can kick the s..t out of you right online, while your number on my list is greater than two hundred.
Oh, Tulkas, please. That's janitor's English.
let me correct your english for you:
Everything Apple put in place in approval process was to improve the relative safety of their customers, and not to decline their liability.
But who said anything about reducing their liability? Simply, they claim limited liability or no liability because they cannot guarantee third party apps.
You don't provide any links. Hence the credibility of your posts and your honesty are both bouncing near the level zero. Check out this link first then this one.
Brian said:
try this one
He might not have been native English speaker either. But that guy and me we both see the difference between two required actions better, than Tulkas does.
Tulkas, after all those errors, you ought to be ashamed of having tried to lecture me on what to undertake to improve my understanding of written English.
I might have pointed out to exact modifications Apple asked them to make, but it's too technical for you.
Also, Manomio acknowledged, that the sequence of user actions could only re-enable basic interpreter due to the error in their implementation of requested features.
Seems like your 'quote' is fairly out of date. They corrected it for the language impaired:
". We had agreed with Apple to remove basic from the application, but as we believed it would be possible to convince Apple to let it in later on, we left it in the app to be activated remotely by us when we had “go” from Apple."
You rock man, you rock. iPhone hardware is no more theirs?
I was rather speaking about the Moral Code, which old day Mac fans followed. Ubuntu world ethics, which is made perfectly apparent by your reasoning, simply can not comprehend things like that.
You claimed there was almost no piracy in 'the Apple World'. I see you need to correct youself again and imply you meant the iPhone world.
With you new qualification on your statement (seems to happen a lot with your posts), you now mean 'moral code' in the 'iphone world'
Your lite version of English just doesn't allow for clear understanding what exactly "piracy" means. Yet, you might as well have heard that heroic tale about how exactly Mr. Gates accidentally came into possession of dirty operating system and then sold zillions of copies as the author and solely rightful creator.
So, because Gates 'stole' QD-DOS, this diminishes the fact that Apple also was started in the wild west of the homebrew club? Your logic is...masterful.
Oh, just to do you a small favor in the form of yet another chance for you to show your pretendedly deep knowledge of the history of computing, I can point you out to two lawsuits, which were finaly settled back in 1997 by mutual agreement, which you would undoubtedly recall right out of here. The corporation, which evidently owns all your love and passion, was officially found by Federal judges to be a thief. So all users of its products are just complices.
And because that crowd of users constitutes the majority in joined set of users of Windows and Ubuntu, I believe that you nevertheless would be able to understand what is backing up my statements.
Sure, I can't speak all local dialects and argos, which can be found in godforsaken outskirts of american cities. I can't say anything about mysterious Linus.
So, your only real argument is that I must be a Windows or Ubuntu user? Sorry 'mate', but I have been an Apple user longer that likely have been alive. As with your other arguments, it has no real value, one way or the other.
Actually, court cases involving MS really don't make Windows users all thieves....except perhaps to you. Seriously, that is what you are using to back up you claim that all Windows and Linux users are thieves? Seriously?
Your problem is that it's the first time you see a guy who can kick the s..t out of you right online, while your number on my list is greater than two hundred.
Ivan, my son, you haven't even shown you could wipe my ass, let alone kick the shit out of anyone. Come on, you posts are full of faulty logic, outright fabrications and misunderstanding of the conversation. Some of that could be contributed to your language barriers, but certainly most needs to be put squarely on your own limitations.
let me correct your english for you:
Everything Apple put in place in approval process was to improve the relative safety of their customers, and not to decline their liability.
Who needs your corrections, Tulkas?
Search for the phrase "guarantee safety": Results 1 - 10 of about 94,900,000 for guarantee safety. (0.08 seconds); the search for "improve safety" yields: Results 1 - 10 of about 82,500,000 for improve safety. (0.12 seconds).
No single harmful app has been seen in the App Strore so far. So, Apple indeed guarantees our safety and manages to fulfill that guarantee.
try this one
Seems like your 'quote' is fairly out of date. They corrected it for the language impaired:
". We had agreed with Apple to remove basic from the application, but as we believed it would be possible to convince Apple to let it in later on, we left it in the app to be activated remotely by us when we had “go” from Apple."
Tulkas, please... You either don't understand English or have absolutely know idea of what you're talking about. They removed basic only after the app had been pulled from the store. They disabled basic interpreter to get "go" from Apple. Well, we really lost you right in the middle of the story, I regret to say. I feel I really really can't help it.
You claimed there was almost no piracy in 'the Apple World'. I see you need to correct youself again and imply you meant the iPhone world.
Absolutely not. iPhone world is just too much young to absorb all my interests. Still, it's now a remarkable part of Apple world. And as such it contradicts what you've been saying.
So, because Gates 'stole' QD-DOS, this diminishes the fact that Apple also was started in the wild west of the homebrew club? Your logic is...masterful.
No, no, `mate'. I've just alluded to the story, which'd got much more to do with piracy, than simple being a homebrew club.
So, your only real argument is that I must be a Windows or Ubuntu user? Sorry 'mate', but I have been an Apple user longer that likely have been alive.
You are yet to prove it `mate'.
Actually, court cases involving MS really don't make Windows users all thieves....except perhaps to you. Seriously, that is what you are using to back up you claim that all Windows and Linux users are thieves? Seriously?
Why? That one was good enough to catch you by surprise.
Ivan, my son, you haven't even shown you could wipe my ass, let alone kick the shit out of anyone. Come on, you posts are full of faulty logic, outright fabrications and misunderstanding of the conversation. Some of that could be contributed to your language barriers, but certainly most needs to be put squarely on your own limitations.
Oh, Tulkas. Now that's what we call being absolutely uninteresting. I'm not your son. And you keep saying things which you've got no idea of... *yawn*
Who needs your corrections, Tulkas?
Search for the phrase "guarantee safety": Results 1 - 10 of about 94,900,000 for guarantee safety. (0.08 seconds); the search for "improve safety" yields: Results 1 - 10 of about 82,500,000 for improve safety. (0.12 seconds).
No single harmful app has been seen in the App Strore so far. So, Apple indeed guarantees our safety and manages to fulfill that guarantee.
Again, as I have said, no harmful apps have been released. That has not been the question, though you occasionaly try to redirect it there. The fact that there has not been does not imply any sort of guarantee, no matter how you try to muddle through your fuzzy logic.
You have yet to explain how apps have been released with prohibited functionality and/or unpublished APIs and/or other SDK rules violations, only to be yanked later when it was discovered. Surely their magic scanners would have caught them.
Simply denying they exist doesn't make them disappear. Denying they exist doesn't help you explain how they occurred. Many posts in and you seem as lost as when you first claimed Apple had access to the source code of submitted apps... at least you admitted to that mistake.
Tulkas, please... You either don't understand English or have absolutely know idea of what you're talking about. They removed basic only after the app had been pulled from the store. They disabled basic interpreter to get "go" from Apple. Well, we really lost you right in the middle of the story, I regret to say. I feel I really really can't help it.
Correct. That is exactly what I said, thanks for playing. They did indeed disable it to get the go ahead from Apple, but only by telling Apple it had been removed. And so it did make it to the App Store. Then when it was discovered that it was still there, Apple yanked it.
" We had agreed with Apple to remove basic from the application, but as we believed it would be possible to convince Apple to let it in later on, we left it in the app to be activated remotely by us when we had “go” from Apple."
(Tip for the language impaired: I have again bolded the pertinent part of Manomio's comment, as reported by 9to5mac.)
See, they are very clear, that they agree to remove it and that they instead disabled it. And that this caused it to be yanked again from the App Store. I am not sure how much simpler we can make this for you. It is pretty elementary, regardless of language barriers. Intellectual barrier cannot be helped, I suppose.
Your problem here is simple. Regardless of how often you try to ague the other direction, facts always get in your way.
Absolutely not. iPhone world is just too much young to absorb all my interests. Still, it's now a remarkable part of Apple world. And as such it contradicts what you've been saying.
Actually, the age of the 'iPhone world' is what directly contradicts your statements. You argued that it was the 'gang of telcos' that introduced piracy to the Apple (later qualified as meaning only the iPhone) world through subsidies. An educated person might instead say that it was the introduction of the SDK and native apps and restrictions on usage that introduced piracy to the iPhone world (since it was common in the 'Apple world' for so long). Since, you know, it would have been difficult to pirate a 3rd party app when there were no 3rd party apps.
Or are you are now backing down on your claim that it was the 'gang of telcos' that helped bring piracy to the 'Apple world'? Now, what is that, 6 or 7 times you have contradicted your own arguments in this thread?
No, no, `mate'. I've just alluded to the story, which'd got much more to do with piracy, than simple being a homebrew club.
You didn't allude to anything. You brought it up. It added nothing, didn't prove your point in the slightest, and wasn't an interesting story. Anything else you want to try to use to prove 'all Windows and linux users are thieves?
The homebrew club is directly relevant, as you stated that all Windows users were pirates and that the 'Apple world' prided itself on having almost zero piracy before the 'gang of telcos' caused it. Piracy has long existed in the 'Apple world', right from the beginning. Perhaps you simply haven't been part of the 'Apple world' long enough to know that.
You are yet to prove it `mate'.
Why would I prove I have been an Apple user longer than you? It is a simple fact. You could claim to be a developer, but you can't prove it.
I think what you are trying to get at, with your comments about Windows and Linux and allusions to me being from the Ubuntu world, is that I must be a nouveau Apple user who joined the 'family' only after getting an iPod.
Simply looking at your join date of just over a year ago, compared to mine of 2001 (which is actually off by ~5 years as the db was wiped after the last big crash), I would say that we can only see you as the newbie to these boards at least. Given the date of 2008, I would guess that perhaps your mom bought you an iPhone and you got all Apple crazy. It is good to see. After so long in the Apple community during the dark times, it is good to see it growing again. But it is disconcerting to see some of the newbies so overly eager to prove their fanhood. They get so into being a devoted fan they actually become caricatures of a real Apple fan.
However, the fact is that I have been an Apple user for fully 3 decades. I am not some trespassing Gypsy user, going unwelcome from community to community, looking for a home. I have been here (Apple community and these forums) for a long, long time.
But keep writing that I am a Windows/Linux user. That really goes a long way to make your vacant posts have some real value. It shows the real value of your arguments.
Why? That one was good enough to catch you by surprise.
The idiocy of it did indeed surprise me. I mean, in an intelligent conversation about iPhone piracy, who would bring up Microsoft court cases or Apple and MS settling their cases? It was indeed surprising. It is sad that that is the best you can offer, as your inaccuracies and fallacies haven't helped your case.
Oh, Tulkas. Now that's what we call being absolutely uninteresting. I'm not your son. And you keep saying things which you've got no idea of... *yawn*
Oh Ivan, my son, it is a term of endearment. You seem so utter confused and out of your depth, you evoke the paternal instinct in me to help and assist you as you continue to learn. You commented that you could 'kick my ass online'. Yet all I see from you is a lot of uninformed drivel from someone who doesn't understand the conversation. If that is 'kicking my ass', then son, you have succeeded. If however, you thought you were presenting an intelligent conversation, well son, you have missed the boat again.
Wake me up when you start kicking my ass again...I want to be sure I don't miss it this time.
You have yet to explain how apps have been released with prohibited functionality and/or unpublished APIs
You owe me something else, Tulkas. Since my first post in our conversation I've been begging you to answer the simple question: "What app and what API"?
Correct. That is exactly what I said, thanks for playing. They did indeed disable it to get the go ahead from Apple, but only by telling Apple it had been removed.
No, no, you're still getting it wrong. After first rejection they tried hard to comply exactly with what Apple asked them to do. And Apple's requirement was to disable interpreter. They failed to implement that requirement and Apple pulled the app from the store. Only then they started actually to remove interpreter.
Well, Tulkas, you've perfectly shown how far you are from problems of IT industry and of Apple world, in particular. Trying to educate you is actually more work than it's worth.
So, I believe you really ought to polish your English --- yup, you need it for food, not for a mockery at ubuntists --- and to read something informative about that problem.
Actually, the age of the 'iPhone world' is what directly contradicts your statements. You argued that it was the 'gang of telcos' that introduced piracy to the Apple (later qualified as meaning only the iPhone) world through subsidies.
Polish your English, Tulkas, you do need that.
Why would I prove I have been an Apple user longer than you? It is a simple fact. You could claim to be a developer, but you can't prove it.
You --- in person --- gave us an example of some acquaintance of yours, who pretended to be a "developer" but was not. (BTW, You're quite fortunate forum poster, Tulkas. You are conversing with the foreigner, who can understand you. Guess, what would native English speaker ask you? What branch of construction does that "developer" work in?
And so did you, Tulkas. I mean you can't stand the temptation to claim aloud you're a developer.
Tulkas. Please listen attentively to someone, who invested the whole life in that business. It's a small stretch to say that only humble technicians and office automation personnel (system administrators for persons unfamiliar with modern IT vocabulary) are used to seize each opportunity to proclaim they're "developers".
So, you've explained to me pretty much everything about what you are right out of there.
Simply looking at your join date of just over a year ago, compared to mine of 2001 (which is actually off by ~5 years as the db was wiped after the last big crash), I would say that we can only see you as the newbie to these boards at least.
Having promised to kick asses I meant, Tulkas, in particular, I was going to control in person how exactly you would see me. It's not about your likes and dislikes, Tulkas.
You owe me something else, Tulkas. Since my first post in our conversation I've been begging you to answer the simple question: "What app and what API"?
Oh Ivan, my son. I have given you two clear examples. You simply cannot understand them.
App: the c64 emulator was one.
API: Google Mobile accessing the proximity sensor through a private API.
Both got on the App Store, though strangely the Google app was never removed. Go figure. Safari Bookbag made it but was using the private CoverFlow API, while Peeps was banned for using the same private API calls, even though it wasn't. Both now use Plausible Labs API instead of Apple's. But Bookbag did make it. A source review might have shown Peeps was not using Apple's private APIs and that Bookbag was. Guess their scanner were broken that day.
No, no, you're still getting it wrong. After first rejection they tried hard to comply exactly with what Apple asked them to do. And Apple's requirement was to disable interpreter. They failed to implement that requirement and Apple pulled the app from the store. Only then they started actually to remove interpreter.
I won't post the quote again. The developer clearly stated the requirement was not to disable but to remove. They submitted with it disabled and told Apple it was removed. When this was discovered, it resulted in it being yanked.
Really, it isn't difficult. They openly admitted that they were supposed to removed and only disabled it. Time to move on.
Well, Tulkas, you've perfectly shown how far you are from problems of IT industry and of Apple world, in particular. Trying to educate you is actually more work than it's worth.
You are right. I don't work in IT. Using my comp sci degree to work in IT would be a bit of a waste, I think. Better to use it, as I do, as a developer.
So, I believe you really ought to polish your English --- yup, you need it for food, not for a mockery at ubuntists --- and to read something informative about that problem.
Polish your English, Tulkas, you do need that.
True, you really couldn't argue your own point. Thanks for admitting that finally.
It is a simple and accepted fact that Apple's proprietary model helped keep piracy level low of their OS, since you could only run them on their hardware. Once they went Intel, even you might have heard of hackintoshes suddenly becoming popular. Their first party apps and third party apps on the Mac were pirated. Yuo may disagree with this, but that is simply ignorance. You instead want to blame the 'gang of telcos' and the influx of Windows and Linux users, who you claim are all thieves. Now, that is simply nonsense.
You --- in person --- gave us an example of some acquaintance of yours, who pretended to be a "developer" but was not. (BTW, You're quite fortunate forum poster, Tulkas. You are conversing with the foreigner, who can understand you. Guess, what would native English speaker ask you? What branch of construction does that "developer" works in?
Yup, I did mention wnurse. He is also a relative newbie on these boards (3 pr 4 years I think) and he also claimed to be a developer and had many disparaging remarks for IT people. Turns out he was actually an IT Specialist with IBM. I see similarities between his posts and yours, though he was took the opposite tact...he was more of an anti-apple zealot. And I am indeed conversing with a 'foreigner', though the level of understanding is questionable at best.
Most english speakers around here understand when I say developer, no need to explain. But then, my town is crowded with top developmemt companies, so it is common. You may not have heard of some of them, but 'those in the industry' will know them. Perhaps in your area most 'developers' are in contruction and real estate, but that is not a point of confusion here.
And so did you, Tulkas. I mean you can't stand the temptation to claim aloud you're a developer.
Tulkas. Please listen attentively to someone, who invested the whole life in that business. It's a small stretch to say that only humble technicians and office automation personnel (system administrators for persons unfamiliar with modern IT vocabulary) are used to seize each opportunity to proclaim they're "developers".
So, you've explained to me pretty much everything about what you are right out of there.
You first had to claim to be a developer (sorry, you 'alluded' to being a developer, so perhaps you are not). I simply brought it up since you seemed to think it of value. My being a developer doesn't change your inaccuraies and fallacies. If you would like to believe I am not, please feel free. I could be an an English speaking janitor, a roma gypsy in a circus, an American pool boy or a figment of your imagination. None of which would make your arguments any less ridiculous.
Having promised to kick asses I meant, Tulkas, in particular, I was going to control in person how exactly you would see me. It's not about your likes and dislikes, Tulkas.
oh son, you didn't promise to kick my ass. You said I finally found, in you, someone who could kick the shit out of me online. I was just wondering when the kicking might start.
You still fail to understand which APIs are concerned by SDK terms (I warned you already to not bring the example of GV) and how is API different from SDK, but you don't need that to pretend you're a developer while being some office automator.
Great job, Tulkas! You're finishing by having understood almost everything what I tried to explain to you. We settled almost all points and I see you agree with what I was saying. You see, my English appears to be not that bad at all.
You still fail to understand which APIs are concerned by SDK terms (I warned you already to not bring the example of GV) and how is API different from SDK, but you don't need that to pretend you're a developer while being some office automator.
You are right. We have settled it. I have been demonstrably correct and you have been shown to be demonstrably, repeatedly and sometimes admittedly wrong.
I have pointed out two examples of API usage violations that got through to the App Store (though I must have missed your 'warning', I mentioned Google Mobile not Google Voice...perhaps you don't know the difference) and an clear example of an SDK rule violation that also made it to the App Store (though you seem incapable of actually understanding the violation). I cannot help your limitations.
Also, what is an 'office automator'? And you are right on one other point, I certainly don't need to pretend to be a developer. Can we say the same about you?
You are right. We have settled it.
Glad to have you convinced, Tulkas.