tenly

tezgno said:

While I can understand bashing the competition... unfortunately, this issue can't be blamed on the Microsoft Surface (or Microsoft at all). As has been reported on (and confirmed by) the NFL before, the issue has nothing to do with the Surface. Rather, it's the NFL's servers and application that went down (hence why it goes down across multiple teams at the same time). The tablet runs an application that connects to NFL servers and pulls in data including pictures, replay information, etc. It is that system that has been going down recently. To be honest, while Microsoft has paid a large sum of money for their tablets to be shown and used, the entire process is technically platform agnostic. They can run the application on anything. Unfortunately, it wouldn't matter which tablet they chose in these cases... if their servers are down, then there is nothing that can be done.

This article clearly states that the problem only affected one of the teams so that makes it unlikely that this particular issue was a backend issue - and if it was a network issue, I would also think that it would affect both teams - unless they used different wifi access points.  But it doesn't matter - even if it was a back-end problem - that doesn't excuse Microsoft at all!  If they are going to take credit for the entire system during all of those weeks that it works, and intentionally mislead people into thinking that the Surface is what makes all of the functionality possible - then they've also got to take the blame when the backend breaks down - unless their position all along has been - "hey!  All the cool functionality is running on backend servers and we're just one of many screens that can be used to look at it!!!".  LOL!  I say it serves them right for trying to imply the Surface added significant value on the sidelines by taking credit for the work of a backend system.

rhinotuff said:

Just another DED article.  I laugh regularly at the Suface placement within the NFL, it's disgusting.  But the clips he linked in the article are due to the players frustrations with themselves, not the tablet.  Stop the slant articles and get a real job DED, it's getting sad.  I'm betting this will be deleted by "corrections" (DED), comments that make him sad tend to disappear quickly...

Go away and troll somewhere else.  You've been here less than 4 months and posted 8 messages.  Many of us enjoy DED's articles because they refute rhe FUD that is posted daily about Apple, with evidence, facts and citations.  If you don't like his articles, don't read them.  If he makes a claim that is incorrect - by all
means call him on it.  But don't act like you're better than him and attack him in the comments or demand that he change *his* writing style because you don't like the facts that he's chosen to share.

Keep up the good work Daniel.  The vast majority of us are silent fans of your work.  Trolls like this definitely do not speak for us.

techlover said:

The WiFi on my iPad fails about once a week or so and needs to be restarted. Which means rebooting the iPad. Toggling WiFi in settings does not work. Everything else I own on the WiFi network chugs right along.

Shit happens.

Try upgrading the firmware on your router.  It's possible the iPhone is using a protocol your other devices don't use and your router firmware doesn't respond properly after x number of packets have flowed through or after one of the buffers fills x number of times or after some sort of malformed packet is received (or some other handshake error) - and however the router reacts to that condition could be sending a weird response that makes the networking on your device go wonky.

What you describe is not a known issue with the iPad.  Most of us that own iPads do not experience the issue you describe - even after remaining connected for months at a time.  My money is on an environmental conflict in your network setup - and if I were you, I'd start by looking at the router and flashing it (if possible).  Good luck!

As a consultant I've had opportunities to spend time at dozens of companies from pretty much every devote for consulting gigs lasting from 6 weeks to 2 years.  I always worked with the IT department but very few of my engagements have been with IT companies.

Some companies do offer a free lunch and if you're working overtime - a free dinner too.  I was surprised to find there was good quality, healthy choices available for free.  Other companies run a subsidized cafeteria where the food is not free but it's a lot cheaper than going out for fast food.  A company I worked for in Italy actually had wine available for free in the cafeteria and there were no restrictions against having a glass with your meal!

My point is that, as a consultant,  I've had the opportunity to observe the corporate cultures at more companies than most people would have and there are vast differences in the ways that employees are treated, compensated and rewarded - but one thing is constant - and that is that top talent - those employees that work hard and go the extra mile regularly - without complaints are treated well.  Of course you'll always run into the off problem where there are personal issues between a manager and employee - but I've found those to rarely involve "good" employees.  Feedback such as is reported in this ariticle would never come from one of the "good" employees.  Something like this is the type of complaints I hear from the lazy, incompetent or jaded employees.  The type that watch the clock and won't do anything "extra" unless they are paid for it.   The type that file HR grievances over the smallest technicality - and sadly these people exist in all companies.  I'm certain that the information in this article comes form one or more of that type of employee and I really wish they had included contrasting views of a few employees who are hard-working and happy with their jobs.  It's hard to take such a one-sided article seriously.  I'm sure that some of what it reported is true - but I'm equally sure that some of it has been exaggerated.  For example - I haven't seen very many managers that walk around the office yelling at people - and the few times I've witnessed something  similar - it was a raised voice - but far from yelling - and very much deserved.  

An employee had brought their 5 year old into the "operations room" and at 4:30pm on the Friday of a long weekend, that 5 year old climbed up on a box and hit the big red button that initiates the fire extinguishing system.  45 servers went offline and were covered in Halon and othe chemicals!  Visitors to Ope were not allowed under any circumstance - and this employee got yelled at - but unbelievably not fired - and I heard that 2 years later - almost to the day - the same employee was responsible for a repeat performance (and did get fired that time)

Wow.  What a tangent.  Sorry to bore you all.  My point is simple.  If you are a hard worker and good at your job - you will rarely (if ever) have your manager or VP yell at you for no reason - or otherwise be treated badly at work.

Edit:  just re-read the article and noticed the first 4 words are "A one sided report".  I guess I shouldn't have been surprised.  Please ignore this entire post and accept my apologies for wasting your time by writing a lot without really saying anything new.

This is worse than ridiculous.  

It's just another attempt at fear-mongering and getting the less-intelligent segment of the general population on board with giving up their rights.  It would be completely laughable if that particular segment of the general population weren't so large...

A third co-conspirator?  What?  One that only got involved in the last 4 weeks since the iPhone was last backed up?  One that figured it was better to communicate on a work phone instead of the personal phone?  One which exclusively texted with iMessage - so there are no records of any phone calls available from the provider - or emails available from his ISP?

It sounds like something fabricated entirely in fantasy-land.  It wouldn't surprise me if this DA suggested the virus could be loaded into the the iPhone via its SD card or USB port.  (If he's going to make shit up - he may as well give the phone capabilities it doesn't have too!)

Seriousliy.  This idiot should be forced to produce reasonable cause for the asinine intimations or be relieved of his position.  Someone in his position should definitely not be allowed to make shut up out of thin air and then communicate it to the media.  His job title gives his ridiculous claims an air of credibility that they most certainly do NOT deserve.

If Apple detects this vulnerability, they should shut down the computer and force the user to buy a new one!  Anything short of that is a security risk!!!  They could display something on the screen which clearly communicates the issue and the options a user has available to them - something clear and concise - like "Error 54" maybe...

/s

Badstroller said:

slurpy said:

Do you have a SHRED of evidence for anything you've just said? Selling like hotcakes you say? Ok, provide us some sales figures for this "resounding commercial success". Cause I haven't seen any. I know you're a microsoft shill, but stop being full of shit. 

There you go. http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/23/8484267/microsoft-earnings-report-q3-2015. They recorded 713M in revenue for the surface line in Q3 2015. Sure, they aren't "apple" revenue numbers, but no one has "apple" revenue numbers besides apple. The surface line might not sell as well as iPad, but it definitely isn't struggling. Quit flinging around insults, I find it very hard to take you seriously if you have to result to calling me a "shill" and "full of shit". 

Badstroller said:

slurpy said:

Do you have a SHRED of evidence for anything you've just said? Selling like hotcakes you say? Ok, provide us some sales figures for this "resounding commercial success". Cause I haven't seen any. I know you're a microsoft shill, but stop being full of shit. 

There you go. http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/23/8484267/microsoft-earnings-report-q3-2015. They recorded 713M in revenue for the surface line in Q3 2015. Sure, they aren't "apple" revenue numbers, but no one has "apple" revenue numbers besides apple. The surface line might not sell as well as iPad, but it definitely isn't struggling. Quit flinging around insults, I find it very hard to take you seriously if you have to result to calling me a "shill" and "full of shit". 

Revenue does not equal profit.  You know that, right?
Sales are up 44% over last year?  Wow!  That's not very impressive if they lose $5 per unit.  And even if they break even or make 10% profit per unit.  That's only about 70 million in profit.
If the IPad Pro made 70 million in profit over a full year - do you think people would call it "a resounding success"?  LOL!

In any case - I'm just making up numbers.  I read the article you linked and I couldn't see any information that even suggested that the Surface is profitable.  Revenue itself is not an indicator of success.  Can you provide any evidence that MS is making a profit off of Surface sales?

Although annoying, I think all the new posters reflects that this article has been picked up and spread across many other websites.  DED deserves a bonus for this article.  It's eloquent (as usual), on target and although it's far from "clickbait" - it has obviously brought in many new "clicks" for AI.

For every new moron that posts their disagreement here, I have to assume that there are 50 new intelligent people that silently agree with and support the issues that Daniel brings to light.  They don't create an account and post anything because they have nothing new to add to the discussion.

Kudos Daniel!

wood1208 said:

While fixing this bug, Apple can also add able to create/save multiple draft text/message before send option in iMessage App. Missing since it’s inception against android stock message app. iPhone users say create multiple draft using Notes App and cut/paste into imessage when ready to send your text. I say why ? why not build into imessage/text app like android stock text app. Even every email app on every platform does it when you leave draft, it automatically saves.

I can't imagine a common use case that this feature would enable.  Already it saves multiple drafts - 1 per user.  Type it up now - and it will stay in the send buffer until you hit the send button.  If I want to create one for a user and then NOT send it immediately - but send that user other messages - I could temporarily copy the draft to the clipboard or to a note - and then paste it back in when I'm ready - but so far in 7 years, I've never had that need, nor have I heard anybody complain that they can't save a draft in iMessage.  For the number of people that might be able to use this feature - Notes is the best option.  Adding draft managent to the messages app would complicate and confuse more people than it would help.  I'm sure there's a messaging app in the App Store that would meet your needs.

JeffA2 said:

OttoReverse said:

No Jeff that is not the case at all.  The FBI are asking Apple to create a version of iOS that allows infinite attempts at the password.  If such a version were created and subsequently stolen/leaked it could be used on any other iPhone.  Hence the "skeleton key" that opens all the locks analogy.

The other issue Apple has is where does this end?  At first the FBI said this is just for this one phone but them Comey (spelling?) admitted they would want to use such a compromised version many many times.  So that would compel Apple to constantly maintain a compromised version of iOS in perpetuity.  

Why do people keep saying this as if it were true? The 'version of iOS that allows infinite attempts at the password' is to loaded onto the phone in question via DFU mode. An iPhone will not load arbitrary software that way. It must have a valid signature and only  Apple can do that. Furthermore, the software can (and by court order must) include the specific UUID of the target phone. Therefore even if this patch got out of Apple's hands, was disassembled and the UUID changed, it would fail to load on any iPhone because it would fail the signature check. To further ensure security the phone is allowed to remain in Apple's possession for the entire time it is running the altered software. As a final condition of the court order, the entire patch must be RAM resident. No flash memory on the phone can be altered. Therefore the patch will be erased from memory as soon as the target phone is unpowered. 

What we have here is a procedure for producing a key for any specific phone, not a skeleton key. The difference is fundamental.

Your second point that Apple will be asked to do this over and over is probably correct. However, even the FBI admits that the utility of this approach is short-lived. All Apple has to do render it obsolete is require a PIN during DFU. I would expect them to add this to upcoming iOS update very soon.

Your first paragraph is absolutely correct - but you'll get flamed for posting anything that even gives the slightest appearance that you're adding legitimacy to the FBI's position - no matter how true it might be.

I don't think that a PIN during DFU can be done - or that any mechanism can be created that would render it impossible for Apple to replace the boot firmware.  The code that boots up the phone, displays your wallpaper, prompts you for your passcode, keeps track of the number of failed attempts and the software that actually wipes your phone all has to be unencrypted in order for it to run.  Sure - all of your data is safely encrypted and can't be unlocked until the correct passcode is entered - but all of that pre-login stuff I just listed HAS to run PRIOR to the user logging in and therefore cannot be made secure.  It's protected by Apple signing the code - so it can't be replaced by just any old hacker - but I think that Apple will always have the capability to replace or update that code - if they had physical access to the device.  What I don't quite understand though is - *IF* Apple created the modified code that disables the auto-wipe - and codes it in such a way that it ONLY will execute on the phone with this exact UUID - and signs it (because they have to sign it for the phone to execute it)..,,  Why wouldn't they just be able to invalidate the signature after a couple of days pass rendering that code useless forever after - even on that one phone it was written for?

I think that both sides are lying and exaggerating.  The pro-FBI side is claiming that it's only one phone - which we all know is bullshit.... But the pro-Apple side is exaggerating the risk of this code escaping into the wild.  It may not be possible to keep it from escaping - but it is possible to make it completely useless to anyone that does manage to steal a copy of it.

I'm definitely pro-Apple in this argument - but not because I'm scared of this one little piece of code.  I'm scared about the precedent it sets and all the future little bits of code the FBI demands be written with ever increasing scopes and durations of validity!