- We have nasty nit-pickers posting under assumed names about writing mistakes and then posting three more times about how their posts have been removed (hint, this is almost entirely irrelevant to the thrust of the article.)
If AI is going to present themselves to be journalists and they don't live up to basic language standards, I don't see the problem exposing that.
Aren't you posting under an assumed name too? Your handle looks like something I might have read in a sci-fi novel, not something related to a real name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
- We have the usual collection of selfish fools, whose first thoughts concern whether Apple is going to pay them for this (perceived) slight. (again, extreme irrelevance)
I don't think you understand their angle at all. I do think it's quite relevant and not necessarily selfish, regardless of your declaration. I don't have any problem with Apple disabling apps that turn out to be malicious. But if that it is paid software that they disable, then Apple should refund the money paid for those apps. They are, after all, apps that Apple supposedly prescreened and sold to the user as safe. It would be selfish of Apple if Apple kept that money after nuking the app.
My first thought is is it legal? Do they have the right to tell me I can't have an app on my phone? If I legally bought it and installed it on my phone, what right do they have? I am not leasing the phone from them.
This is the uncomfortable question. I suspect that licensing agreements, the ones that we tend not to read, cover this. As for the paid apps that might get pulled, caveat emptor would likely be the argument.
This is where difficult choices must be made, I suppose: as much as I love Apple, I'd have to vote with my dollars if I don't agree with the way they're handling something, no matter how sexy the product. :-P. For those who have the iPhone, I do agree that if Apple lets someone qualify for the apps store and later reconsiders, they should offer credits or something as compensation to consumers. If you buy outside the apps store (is that possible? I don't have an iPhone yet), then I suspect they'd argue that you're on your own re: refunds.
The first thing that popped in my head, was that tethering app, that is on/off again on the App Store.
Now, say Apple kills a paid for app, will they also refund the purchase price to the consumer?
If they didn't then they'd likely face a slew of lawsuits from people who find the application suddenly deleted. I personally will consider filing a small claims suit against Apple if they remotely delete/disable the NetShare app that I legally purchased and they charged me for.
LOL, the things Apple fans allow Apple to get away with. I just bought my GF a iPhone for her birthday, and I have no plans on getting her to return it, but this is still a bullshit practice, if it's true.
In all fairness, they haven't remotely nuked any app store apps yet. They do have access to that tool, but I can imagine that other phone platforms have a similar feature too, and the same goes for game platforms that offer online app stores. So far, I haven't heard of it being abused yet.
I'm sorry but didn't Steve Jobs (or one of the others) allude to this during the iPhone 2.0 presentation? He mentioned something about being able to "deactivate" malicious applications remotely.
LOL, the things Apple fans allow Apple to get away with. I just bought my GF a iPhone for her birthday, and I have no plans on getting her to return it, but this is still a bullshit practice, if it's true.
They haven't gotten away with anything. This is just a mechanism put in place to protect users from malicious applications that get through the screening process. Please tell me what is wrong with that? Wouldn't you rather have Apple disable the application immediately to keep it from continuing on with whatever it is doing, or would you rather wait for an email telling you that this particular app has been snooping your LAN and passing the information on.
This is not any different then keeping a list of phishing sites, malware, or trojans, etc. There's always a possibility of any security feature being abused. Until it is though, there shouldn't be anything to be concerned about.
nasty nit-pickers posting under assumed names about writing mistakes and then posting three more times about how their posts have been removed
If a publication with journalistic pretensions posts material that's both poorly written and factually inaccurate, betraying its author's lack of technical knowledge in the domain the publication ostensibly reports, it should expect to be called on it. In this case, the comments discussing the errors were removed without notice or explanation, and the article was silently updated, removing the erroneous references to code signing.
Using your readers as unpaid editors is a sign that your own editorial staff/process are sorely lacking. Doing so while silently deleting the evidence: not classy. It's AI's sandbox, so they can do what they want, but if they want to be treated like the professionals they play at being, there need to be a clearly stated editorial policy and forum policy about stuff like this.
I buy something from party A, the ISV, and party B, Apple kills it, apperantly giving no refund or even explanation...that is criminal theft.
This would be no different than buying something from the store, and someone from the trucking company that delivered it to the store walks into your home and takes it.
This sounds too shady for any huge company to risk
-- Jobs was up front that Apple would be able to kill misbehaving apps remotely; Apple has no reason to try to hide this.
--The mystery file is in the Core Location framework
--Gruber says a source at Apple confirms that "CLBL", which is in the call home URL, stands for "Core Location Black List."
He concludes, reasonably I think, that this is for forbidding apps to access core location services, and not killing apps remotely.
Of course, everyone can remain outraged, if they wish, because Apple flat out told us that one of the up-sides of signed apps, from their perspective, is that they can kill apps remotely.
They haven't gotten away with anything. This is just a mechanism put in place to protect users from malicious applications that get through the screening process. Please tell me what is wrong with that? Wouldn't you rather have Apple disable the application immediately to keep it from continuing on with whatever it is doing, or would you rather wait for an email telling you that this particular app has been snooping your LAN and passing the information on.
That's the same either-or fallacy Slewis committed earlier on this thread. Read my reply to that.
Quote:
This is not any different then keeping a list of phishing sites, malware, or trojans, etc. There's always a possibility of any security feature being abused. Until it is though, there shouldn't be anything to be concerned about.
Err, no. It's a cause for immediate concern when a security measure is deliberately built in such a fashion that it can be abused, when it could just as easily be built without that possibility.
If this was any other OS or any other handset manufacturer, people in this forum would be "outraged" and talk about how Apple would never do something like this. Apple doesn't have this in OS X (I hope) I have no clue why there should be something like this on my phone. If you purchase a malicious program, that is your own fault - just like it is on your computer.
Comments
- We have nasty nit-pickers posting under assumed names about writing mistakes and then posting three more times about how their posts have been removed (hint, this is almost entirely irrelevant to the thrust of the article.)
If AI is going to present themselves to be journalists and they don't live up to basic language standards, I don't see the problem exposing that.
Aren't you posting under an assumed name too? Your handle looks like something I might have read in a sci-fi novel, not something related to a real name.
- We have the usual collection of selfish fools, whose first thoughts concern whether Apple is going to pay them for this (perceived) slight. (again, extreme irrelevance)
I don't think you understand their angle at all. I do think it's quite relevant and not necessarily selfish, regardless of your declaration. I don't have any problem with Apple disabling apps that turn out to be malicious. But if that it is paid software that they disable, then Apple should refund the money paid for those apps. They are, after all, apps that Apple supposedly prescreened and sold to the user as safe. It would be selfish of Apple if Apple kept that money after nuking the app.
My first thought is is it legal? Do they have the right to tell me I can't have an app on my phone? If I legally bought it and installed it on my phone, what right do they have? I am not leasing the phone from them.
This is the uncomfortable question. I suspect that licensing agreements, the ones that we tend not to read, cover this. As for the paid apps that might get pulled, caveat emptor would likely be the argument.
This is where difficult choices must be made, I suppose: as much as I love Apple, I'd have to vote with my dollars if I don't agree with the way they're handling something, no matter how sexy the product. :-P. For those who have the iPhone, I do agree that if Apple lets someone qualify for the apps store and later reconsiders, they should offer credits or something as compensation to consumers. If you buy outside the apps store (is that possible? I don't have an iPhone yet), then I suspect they'd argue that you're on your own re: refunds.
The first thing that popped in my head, was that tethering app, that is on/off again on the App Store.
Now, say Apple kills a paid for app, will they also refund the purchase price to the consumer?
If they didn't then they'd likely face a slew of lawsuits from people who find the application suddenly deleted. I personally will consider filing a small claims suit against Apple if they remotely delete/disable the NetShare app that I legally purchased and they charged me for.
LOL, the things Apple fans allow Apple to get away with. I just bought my GF a iPhone for her birthday, and I have no plans on getting her to return it, but this is still a bullshit practice, if it's true.
In all fairness, they haven't remotely nuked any app store apps yet. They do have access to that tool, but I can imagine that other phone platforms have a similar feature too, and the same goes for game platforms that offer online app stores. So far, I haven't heard of it being abused yet.
LOL, the things Apple fans allow Apple to get away with. I just bought my GF a iPhone for her birthday, and I have no plans on getting her to return it, but this is still a bullshit practice, if it's true.
They haven't gotten away with anything. This is just a mechanism put in place to protect users from malicious applications that get through the screening process. Please tell me what is wrong with that? Wouldn't you rather have Apple disable the application immediately to keep it from continuing on with whatever it is doing, or would you rather wait for an email telling you that this particular app has been snooping your LAN and passing the information on.
This is not any different then keeping a list of phishing sites, malware, or trojans, etc. There's always a possibility of any security feature being abused. Until it is though, there shouldn't be anything to be concerned about.
nasty nit-pickers posting under assumed names about writing mistakes and then posting three more times about how their posts have been removed
If a publication with journalistic pretensions posts material that's both poorly written and factually inaccurate, betraying its author's lack of technical knowledge in the domain the publication ostensibly reports, it should expect to be called on it. In this case, the comments discussing the errors were removed without notice or explanation, and the article was silently updated, removing the erroneous references to code signing.
Using your readers as unpaid editors is a sign that your own editorial staff/process are sorely lacking. Doing so while silently deleting the evidence: not classy. It's AI's sandbox, so they can do what they want, but if they want to be treated like the professionals they play at being, there need to be a clearly stated editorial policy and forum policy about stuff like this.
As I believe that governance is part of the equation, I say hurrah!
In fact, I just posted on this aspect of the topic:
iPhone Universe: Network Borders, Kill Switches and The Core Location
http://thenetworkgarden.blogs.com/we...-universe.html
Check it out if interested.
Cheers,
Mark
I buy something from party A, the ISV, and party B, Apple kills it, apperantly giving no refund or even explanation...that is criminal theft.
This would be no different than buying something from the store, and someone from the trucking company that delivered it to the store walks into your home and takes it.
This sounds too shady for any huge company to risk
-- Jobs was up front that Apple would be able to kill misbehaving apps remotely; Apple has no reason to try to hide this.
--The mystery file is in the Core Location framework
--Gruber says a source at Apple confirms that "CLBL", which is in the call home URL, stands for "Core Location Black List."
He concludes, reasonably I think, that this is for forbidding apps to access core location services, and not killing apps remotely.
Of course, everyone can remain outraged, if they wish, because Apple flat out told us that one of the up-sides of signed apps, from their perspective, is that they can kill apps remotely.
But that wasn't all super seekret eval and shit.
They haven't gotten away with anything. This is just a mechanism put in place to protect users from malicious applications that get through the screening process. Please tell me what is wrong with that? Wouldn't you rather have Apple disable the application immediately to keep it from continuing on with whatever it is doing, or would you rather wait for an email telling you that this particular app has been snooping your LAN and passing the information on.
That's the same either-or fallacy Slewis committed earlier on this thread. Read my reply to that.
This is not any different then keeping a list of phishing sites, malware, or trojans, etc. There's always a possibility of any security feature being abused. Until it is though, there shouldn't be anything to be concerned about.
Err, no. It's a cause for immediate concern when a security measure is deliberately built in such a fashion that it can be abused, when it could just as easily be built without that possibility.