Actually, it's even worse than what you might have presumed. Cydia distributes crackers. Cydia sells apps rejected by Apple at AppStore; nobody can guarantee these apps are harmless.
They are unlawful.
I don't pirate apps BUT Who cares if they may be harmful. Smoking is deadly, drinking is harmful, driving your car is harmful. Windows is the most harmful piece of software on the planet. What isn't harmful? Plus cracked apps aren't harmful like "ouch ouch".
Actually, it's even worse than what you might have presumed. Cydia distributes crackers. Cydia sells apps rejected by Apple at AppStore; nobody can guarantee these apps are harmless.
They are unlawful.
1) So, just because Apple didn't approve them, they are unlawful?
2) Nobody can guarantee that the apps available through the App Store are harmless either. Apple vets them but does not review the source.
and kindly explain how you reached the conclusion that it states that all jailbreakers are pirates based on these three simple words?
All pirates are jailbreakers is the obvious conclusion.
See, that's the problem with your short, hit and run, little value posts. You generally argue against JBing. You back this up with little one liners like "JAILBREAKING ENABLES PIRATES" with the obvious implication that is is justification for your belief that it is wrong. You can try to feebly re-parse it and say that is not what you meant, but it obvious to all that read that is exactly what you meant.
Now, are all pirate's jailbreakers? sure. You can even try to make that your new line of argument. And all music pirates use computers and DVD drives. All movie pirates use DVD drives and computers as well. What's you point? That they use tools to perpetuate their piracy and that those tools are therefore wrong? Weak, weak argument. No surprise though. Almost as weak as you other arguments in other threads...like your insistence that VOIP not being available on the iPhone over 3G was somehow related to Skype being slow with their Nokia hardware...just barely worth reading but certainly worth responding to to prevent that sort of 'thinking' from spreading.
You used to write way too much emotionally and without real knowing what you write about.
Wow....dude, do you miss the irony of accusing me of exactly what you are doing in the very post you accuse me of it?
Let's review so you can catch up to reality:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01
Clarifications? The answers to your questions are as follows:
1) Yes; 2a) Apple guarantees; 2b) Untrue.
let's start with 2B. You are completely wrong here. Apple does not review the source code of submitted apps. They do not have the time or resources that would require that sort of undertaking. I will assume you have never programmed and so are unfamiliar with how time consuming a review of source from 100,000 apps might be.
Once that fallacy is removed, your 2A response become equally untrue. Apple cannot guarantee the safety of the apps because Apple does not know exactly what is happening under the hood of these apps. If they did, you wouldn't see the easter-eggs that have been known to appear from time to time. Generally, they have been harmless, but there is nothing but the honour system and app store bannings from preventing a unscrupulous developer from slipping something in.
Your answer to 1 is simply telling of your attitude. That something is right or wrong simply because Apple approves or disapproves of it shows a willingness to bend to whatever Apple says. That line of thinking is one I just cannot agree with. Leads to koolaid parties.
Anyhoo, when you catch up with facts, perhaps you won't continue to post "without real knowing what you write about."
What was that 2b of yours? "Apple vets them but does not review the source."
Umm... No, I didn't pay much attention. I couldn't imagine someone might view source code review as the only way of detecting flaws. I don't really know what to say... Apple reviewing code of 100K applications? No, no, no.
You did hear something about how antivirus software works?
What was that 2b of yours? "Apple vets them but does not review the source."
Umm... No, I didn't pay much attention. I couldn't imagine someone might view source code review as the only way of detecting flaws. I don't really know what to say... Apple reviewing code of 100K applications? No, no, no.
You did hear something about how antivirus software works?
2A holds. And Apple does guarantee.
Umm, yeah. I said they do not review the source. You said this was untrue. You were wrong.
Perhaps they do run AV software (but no to find 'flaws'). That is not the same as reviewing the source. They most likely run it though some custom automation QA systems too. Again, not the same as a source code review.
Without source review, they cannot guarantee what take place under the hood. So, no, you 2B and 2A are of no value. Apple does not access the source and so Apple cannot guarantee the 'safety' of the app. They can test an app all they like, but without source, it can be doing almost anything, just requiring a trigger which will never be tested...perhaps a specific date or event.
I honestly hope you don't think AV software if going to tell them anything but the most basic attempts to insert a virus into a submitted app. But virus really are the least of the concerns they would have when vetting the apps. And I really, really hope you don't think they are running AV software to detect 'flaws'...that goes beyond basic misunderstanding and should like mean never posting on a tech related forum again, simply out of shame.
Umm, yeah. I said they do not review the source. You said this was untrue. You were wrong.
Perhaps they do run AV software (but no to find 'flaws'). That is not the same as reviewing the source. They most likely run it though some custom automation QA systems too. Again, not the same as a source code review.
Without source review, they cannot guarantee what take place under the hood. So, no, you 2B and 2A are of no value. Apple does not access the source and so Apple cannot guarantee the 'safety' of the app. They can test an app all they like, but without source, it can be doing almost anything, just requiring a trigger which will never be tested...perhaps a specific date or event.
I honestly hope you don't think AV software if going to tell them anything but the most basic attempts to insert a virus into a submitted app. But virus really are the least of the concerns they would have when vetting the apps. And I really, really hope you don't think they are running AV software to detect 'flaws'...that goes beyond basic misunderstanding and should like mean never posting on a tech related forum again, simply out of shame.
Yes, I said "untrue". Yes, it was wrong. I just didn't pay attention and couldn't imagine someone still believed the only way to detect the flaws and exploits implemented in the code was source code review. We're no more cavemen, you know.
Your specific date or event is unlikely to ever happen because of strictly controlled multitasking and alarming mechanism being available only to Apple. Still, examining applications with some binary code analyzer is a must.
No, it doesn't make much sense to implant a virus in the app. I gave you a clue as to how their analyzer may work. Sure, being frozen at the level of code review in the 21st century you haven't picked it up...
Gotta love the asshat logic by some in this thread. [“iTunes] is unlawful because it enables the piracy of [music].” Sometimes the lack of common sense and criticial thinking in this world is amazing.
Yes, I said "untrue". Yes, it was wrong. I just didn't pay attention and couldn't imagine someone still believed the only way to detect the flaws and exploits implemented in the code was source code review. We're no more cavemen, you know.
Your specific date or event is unlikely to ever happen because of strictly controlled multitasking and alarming mechanism being available only to Apple. Still, examining applications with some binary code analyzer is a must.
No, it doesn't make much sense to implant a virus in the app. I gave you a clue as to how their analyzer may work. Sure, being frozen at the level of code review in the 21st century you haven't picked it up...
You may live in a magical fantasy world where Apple can guarantee the 'safety' of third party apps, without source code, by vetting them with AV scanners and binary tools. In the real world this is not possible. Hell, it isn't always possible to completely ensure the 'safety' or lack of flaws with source access. Otherwise, there wouldn't be exploits to, well, exploit.
Putting words in counterpart's mouth doesn't change facts much, my dear Tulkas. Apple does use code analyzers in approve process. It's well known in the community of iPhone developers. Surprising as it is, yet there's life beyond source code reviews. So is that beyond Ubuntu.
In our sad world Apple approval process detects reliably all exploits, flaws (sorry, we've got used to that language on tech forums; it may not be first one in the community of general tech bloggers and journalists) and API non-conformances.
We're yet to see any harmful behavior of apps sold by Apple via their App Store.
Hope it helped to deepen your expertise in Apple realm. It's amazing world, being by no means worse than that of Ubuntu.
Putting words in counterpart's mouth doesn't change facts much, my dear Tulkas. Apple does use code analyzers in approve process. It's well known in the community of iPhone developers. Surprising as it is, yet there's life beyond source code reviews. So is that beyond Ubuntu.
In our sad world Apple approval process detects reliably all exploits, flaws (sorry, we've got used to that language on tech forums; it may not be first one in the community of general tech bloggers and journalists) and API non-conformances.
We're yet to see any harmful behavior of apps sold by Apple via their App Store.
Hope it helped to deepen your expertise in Apple realm. It's amazing world, being by no means worse than that of Ubuntu.
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.
Way to play up the "jailbreaking is for piracy" line. That's just what Apple wants people to think. My phone is jailbroken mostly because the unlocking software also jailbreaks at the same time. All the apps I have that didn't come from the App Store are utilities that aren't on the App Store.
Justify it however you want you contribute to the problem. Go get yourself a google phone & let the rest of us who are happy with the features of iPhone live in peace.
You read way to much into things, you take a simple statement of fact and use it as a shaky foundation to build a castle of bulls**t.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
See, that's the problem with your short, hit and run, little value posts. You generally argue against JBing. You back this up with little one liners like "JAILBREAKING ENABLES PIRATES" with the obvious implication that is is justification for your belief that it is wrong. You can try to feebly re-parse it and say that is not what you meant, but it obvious to all that read that is exactly what you meant.
Now, are all pirate's jailbreakers? sure. You can even try to make that your new line of argument. And all music pirates use computers and DVD drives. All movie pirates use DVD drives and computers as well. What's you point? That they use tools to perpetuate their piracy and that those tools are therefore wrong? Weak, weak argument. No surprise though. Almost as weak as you other arguments in other threads...like your insistence that VOIP not being available on the iPhone over 3G was somehow related to Skype being slow with their Nokia hardware...just barely worth reading but certainly worth responding to to prevent that sort of 'thinking' from spreading.
Comments
Well I guess that came about by the noble, holier than thou, "it's about the freedom to use my hardware as I see fit"
Oh, you can't really settle things about multitasking with those folks.
Actually, it's even worse than what you might have presumed. Cydia distributes crackers. Cydia sells apps rejected by Apple at AppStore; nobody can guarantee these apps are harmless.
They are unlawful.
I don't pirate apps BUT Who cares if they may be harmful. Smoking is deadly, drinking is harmful, driving your car is harmful. Windows is the most harmful piece of software on the planet. What isn't harmful? Plus cracked apps aren't harmful like "ouch ouch".
Cydia sells apps rejected by Apple at AppStore.
Indie labels sell bands rejected by Warner.
Actually, it's even worse than what you might have presumed. Cydia distributes crackers. Cydia sells apps rejected by Apple at AppStore; nobody can guarantee these apps are harmless.
They are unlawful.
1) So, just because Apple didn't approve them, they are unlawful?
2) Nobody can guarantee that the apps available through the App Store are harmless either. Apple vets them but does not review the source.
Like you have done, you mean?
Examine the statement:-
JAILBREAKING ENABLES PIRATES
and kindly explain how you reached the conclusion that it states that all jailbreakers are pirates based on these three simple words?
All pirates are jailbreakers is the obvious conclusion.
See, that's the problem with your short, hit and run, little value posts. You generally argue against JBing. You back this up with little one liners like "JAILBREAKING ENABLES PIRATES" with the obvious implication that is is justification for your belief that it is wrong. You can try to feebly re-parse it and say that is not what you meant, but it obvious to all that read that is exactly what you meant.
Now, are all pirate's jailbreakers? sure. You can even try to make that your new line of argument. And all music pirates use computers and DVD drives. All movie pirates use DVD drives and computers as well. What's you point? That they use tools to perpetuate their piracy and that those tools are therefore wrong? Weak, weak argument. No surprise though. Almost as weak as you other arguments in other threads...like your insistence that VOIP not being available on the iPhone over 3G was somehow related to Skype being slow with their Nokia hardware...just barely worth reading but certainly worth responding to to prevent that sort of 'thinking' from spreading.
Much to your surprise, Tulkas? You pretty much got it right this time....
*yawn*
Much to your surprise, Tulkas? You pretty much got it right this time....
Tired? Perhaps a repost when you wake up to clarify...I don't speak nonsensical.
Tired? Perhaps a repost when you wake up to clarify...I don't speak nonsensical.
You used to write way too much emotionally and without real knowing what you write about.
Clarifications? The answers to your questions are as follows:
1) Yes; 2a) Apple guarantees; 2b) Untrue.
You used to write way too much emotionally and without real knowing what you write about.
Wow....dude, do you miss the irony of accusing me of exactly what you are doing in the very post you accuse me of it?
Let's review so you can catch up to reality:
Clarifications? The answers to your questions are as follows:
1) Yes; 2a) Apple guarantees; 2b) Untrue.
let's start with 2B. You are completely wrong here. Apple does not review the source code of submitted apps. They do not have the time or resources that would require that sort of undertaking. I will assume you have never programmed and so are unfamiliar with how time consuming a review of source from 100,000 apps might be.
Once that fallacy is removed, your 2A response become equally untrue. Apple cannot guarantee the safety of the apps because Apple does not know exactly what is happening under the hood of these apps. If they did, you wouldn't see the easter-eggs that have been known to appear from time to time. Generally, they have been harmless, but there is nothing but the honour system and app store bannings from preventing a unscrupulous developer from slipping something in.
Your answer to 1 is simply telling of your attitude. That something is right or wrong simply because Apple approves or disapproves of it shows a willingness to bend to whatever Apple says. That line of thinking is one I just cannot agree with. Leads to koolaid parties.
Anyhoo, when you catch up with facts, perhaps you won't continue to post "without real knowing what you write about."
Umm... No, I didn't pay much attention. I couldn't imagine someone might view source code review as the only way of detecting flaws.
You did hear something about how antivirus software works?
2A holds. And Apple does guarantee.
What was that 2b of yours? "Apple vets them but does not review the source."
Umm... No, I didn't pay much attention. I couldn't imagine someone might view source code review as the only way of detecting flaws.
You did hear something about how antivirus software works?
2A holds. And Apple does guarantee.
Umm, yeah. I said they do not review the source. You said this was untrue. You were wrong.
Perhaps they do run AV software (but no to find 'flaws'). That is not the same as reviewing the source. They most likely run it though some custom automation QA systems too. Again, not the same as a source code review.
Without source review, they cannot guarantee what take place under the hood. So, no, you 2B and 2A are of no value. Apple does not access the source and so Apple cannot guarantee the 'safety' of the app. They can test an app all they like, but without source, it can be doing almost anything, just requiring a trigger which will never be tested...perhaps a specific date or event.
I honestly hope you don't think AV software if going to tell them anything but the most basic attempts to insert a virus into a submitted app. But virus really are the least of the concerns they would have when vetting the apps. And I really, really hope you don't think they are running AV software to detect 'flaws'...that goes beyond basic misunderstanding and should like mean never posting on a tech related forum again, simply out of shame.
Umm, yeah. I said they do not review the source. You said this was untrue. You were wrong.
Perhaps they do run AV software (but no to find 'flaws'). That is not the same as reviewing the source. They most likely run it though some custom automation QA systems too. Again, not the same as a source code review.
Without source review, they cannot guarantee what take place under the hood. So, no, you 2B and 2A are of no value. Apple does not access the source and so Apple cannot guarantee the 'safety' of the app. They can test an app all they like, but without source, it can be doing almost anything, just requiring a trigger which will never be tested...perhaps a specific date or event.
I honestly hope you don't think AV software if going to tell them anything but the most basic attempts to insert a virus into a submitted app. But virus really are the least of the concerns they would have when vetting the apps. And I really, really hope you don't think they are running AV software to detect 'flaws'...that goes beyond basic misunderstanding and should like mean never posting on a tech related forum again, simply out of shame.
Yes, I said "untrue". Yes, it was wrong. I just didn't pay attention and couldn't imagine someone still believed the only way to detect the flaws and exploits implemented in the code was source code review. We're no more cavemen, you know.
Your specific date or event is unlikely to ever happen because of strictly controlled multitasking and alarming mechanism being available only to Apple. Still, examining applications with some binary code analyzer is a must.
No, it doesn't make much sense to implant a virus in the app. I gave you a clue as to how their analyzer may work. Sure, being frozen at the level of code review in the 21st century you haven't picked it up...
Yes, I said "untrue". Yes, it was wrong. I just didn't pay attention and couldn't imagine someone still believed the only way to detect the flaws and exploits implemented in the code was source code review. We're no more cavemen, you know.
Your specific date or event is unlikely to ever happen because of strictly controlled multitasking and alarming mechanism being available only to Apple. Still, examining applications with some binary code analyzer is a must.
No, it doesn't make much sense to implant a virus in the app. I gave you a clue as to how their analyzer may work. Sure, being frozen at the level of code review in the 21st century you haven't picked it up...
You may live in a magical fantasy world where Apple can guarantee the 'safety' of third party apps, without source code, by vetting them with AV scanners and binary tools. In the real world this is not possible. Hell, it isn't always possible to completely ensure the 'safety' or lack of flaws with source access. Otherwise, there wouldn't be exploits to, well, exploit.
Putting words in counterpart's mouth doesn't change facts much, my dear Tulkas. Apple does use code analyzers in approve process. It's well known in the community of iPhone developers. Surprising as it is, yet there's life beyond source code reviews. So is that beyond Ubuntu.
In our sad world Apple approval process detects reliably all exploits, flaws (sorry, we've got used to that language on tech forums; it may not be first one in the community of general tech bloggers and journalists) and API non-conformances.
We're yet to see any harmful behavior of apps sold by Apple via their App Store.
Hope it helped to deepen your expertise in Apple realm. It's amazing world, being by no means worse than that of Ubuntu.
*yawn*
Putting words in counterpart's mouth doesn't change facts much, my dear Tulkas. Apple does use code analyzers in approve process. It's well known in the community of iPhone developers. Surprising as it is, yet there's life beyond source code reviews. So is that beyond Ubuntu.
In our sad world Apple approval process detects reliably all exploits, flaws (sorry, we've got used to that language on tech forums; it may not be first one in the community of general tech bloggers and journalists) and API non-conformances.
We're yet to see any harmful behavior of apps sold by Apple via their App Store.
Hope it helped to deepen your expertise in Apple realm. It's amazing world, being by no means worse than that of Ubuntu.
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.
Way to play up the "jailbreaking is for piracy" line. That's just what Apple wants people to think. My phone is jailbroken mostly because the unlocking software also jailbreaks at the same time. All the apps I have that didn't come from the App Store are utilities that aren't on the App Store.
Justify it however you want you contribute to the problem. Go get yourself a google phone & let the rest of us who are happy with the features of iPhone live in peace.
See, that's the problem with your short, hit and run, little value posts. You generally argue against JBing. You back this up with little one liners like "JAILBREAKING ENABLES PIRATES" with the obvious implication that is is justification for your belief that it is wrong. You can try to feebly re-parse it and say that is not what you meant, but it obvious to all that read that is exactly what you meant.
Now, are all pirate's jailbreakers? sure. You can even try to make that your new line of argument. And all music pirates use computers and DVD drives. All movie pirates use DVD drives and computers as well. What's you point? That they use tools to perpetuate their piracy and that those tools are therefore wrong? Weak, weak argument. No surprise though. Almost as weak as you other arguments in other threads...like your insistence that VOIP not being available on the iPhone over 3G was somehow related to Skype being slow with their Nokia hardware...just barely worth reading but certainly worth responding to to prevent that sort of 'thinking' from spreading.
You read way to much into things, you take a simple statement of fact and use it as a shaky foundation to build a castle of bulls**t.
please.
Too late now.
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.
please.
Too late now.
Without [CD ripper like iTunes from Apple] there would be very little or no piracy.
Therefore legitimate [consumers] would have less [price increases] to put up with as [record companies] have to cover their losses.
There is that simple enough for you?
Simple is so the right word.
It is very clear what you meant. It just had little value.
You seem to have a habit of taking things the wrong way.
Nope. Just some people don't like it when it point out the problems of their thought process.