FileMakerFeller

command_f said:

Alex_V said:

williamlondon said:

Love the extra screen space with the new tab bar, but learning new things can be difficult. ;-)

Agreed. I was happily able to “revert” to the new design after the latest update. I always thought that there was wasted space and duplication in the existing Safari toolbar and tabs layout: address bar at top and tabs below. Apple’s software is exemplary at utilising the screen real estate to the maximum, which is very welcome for using laptops.

The problem I have with these 'compact' layouts is that they leave very little handle space on the window. That makes it hard to move windows around without first thinking about where you can safely place the pointer.

It's particularly noticeable if you sometimes use a second display (eg with a MacBook). When you return to the second display, macOS's lamentable multi-display handling often leaves only a small sliver of a window visible as it tries and fails to move it back onto the second display. You can end up with just a button and a thin margin visible and have to grab that thin margin to move the window.

I'm old enough to remember when multiple displays were handled brilliantly by the Mac, and we all laughed at Windows users for what they had to put up with. Now it seems like the shoe is on the other foot. Worse, I can't remember when it changed... Maybe around 10.9?

AppleInsider said:

Apple, for its part, characterizes the bug bounty program as a "runaway success." It noted that it works to correct any mistakes that it makes quickly.

Hmm. This sounds a lot like the App Store Review appeals "process." Perhaps it's not surprising that there are similar outcomes.

Is it possible that the flaws were reported together and Apple is waiting until all are fixed before closing the report and issuing credit and payment to the reporting developer?

Just trying really hard to find a reason for this approach from Apple. It's much more likely that the whole bug bounty system is mismanaged and under-funded because someone at Apple has decided it doesn't matter, and that someone is not getting heat from upper management about it.

Time for an email to Tim!

chadbag said:

beowulfschmidt said:

chadbag said:

The fact that Apple got back to him and asked for more time and he basically gave them the finger puts this guy in the d*ck category.  If Apple was totally ignoring him then maybe his protest disclosure would make sense.  But he just put a mark on his forehead that he is a d*ck and not to be worked with. 

You saw the part where Apple responded five days after the 90 days had expired, did you not?

You saw the part where he asked Apple for a few reasonable details and they told him to sod off, did you not?

Interesting way to interpret what happened.   I  think it was a d*ck move and he definitely put a mark on his forehead as someone not to work with.  

If I want to participate in a bug  bounty program I work with the company and within the boundaries of the program.  I don't go making unilateral demands and expect them to kowtow to them.   If Apple had totally ignored him it would have been different.  Big companies have institutional inertia and don't always or are not able to always respond at the time we want.  But  they did respond.   I only have what was reported here to go on and the "researcher" should have held back to see what apples next move was.  Not  petulantly just release everything to show Apple who the boss is. 

90 days is industry standard time for security researchers to wait until disclosure. Apple knows this, Microsoft knows this, Google knows this, ... everyone in the software industry knows this. You have a responsibility to patch bugs, especially when millions of people are affected and even more so when you tout your company's commitment to privacy and security. Scrambling to respond AFTER this period has expired, and offering only a poor "we're looking into it" message is NOT professional - and professional courtesy is one of the things that security researchers deserve. Apple clearly does not have a proper set of procedures for responding to security notifications as and when they come in, and the only way those of us outside the company can influence that is to make all failures as damaging as possible to the reputation of the company.

Once again, Apple has shipped software that doesn't sanitise the inputs. This is yet another sign of institutional dysfunction, and increasing the profile of its mistakes is absolutely warranted so that this process can be improved.

Please consider that if someone owed you money, promised when they borrowed it to get it back to you in 90 days and then contacted you in 95 days to explain that they might need more time and did not mention that payment might not happen, your response might be similar to that of this security researcher.

waveparticle said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

genovelle said:

Everyone seems to forget that Apple’s Macs Had Voice recognition built into the OS to control functions going back to 2001 and was even used on iPods. Siri is new, talking to Apple products is 20 years old. 

We didn't forget. The suit as spelled out by the Chinese company is less about just a voice-induced command function, and more of a call and respond with intelligent response voice assistant, which is why I brought up the Knowledge Navigator in the piece.

Voice recognition started in one of the Quadra AV models in 1993-ish, if I'm recalling correctly. This suit is not about that.

Mac OS introduced voice recognition capability in the 90s. The project was led by Kai-Fu Lee, who is a CMU graduated computer scientist. 
From a user point of view, the function of Siri is simple and natural. You activate Sir. It listens to your question then take action. I cannot see any difficulty of iOS in handling this task and requires a patent. I guess the Chinese patent is granted too carelessly. Apple could invalidate it on this ground. Unless this company has evidence that Apple stole its code. lol

As per the article, Apple has already tried and failed to invalidate this patent. It is valid and has teeth.