noivad

When iTunes Match was first released, I signed up. A bug a few months later (January timeframe) deleted about 10 albums, and many lossless files were replaced with 256AAC files. Luckily, I still had the CDs for most of them so I had to painstakingly rerip many CDs (about 50 I think) and track down which albums were gone. I permanently lost a handful irreplaceable albums (due to it being original music or the fact that the CDs are so rare they’d would cost over $50 a piece unless you get lucky). Some I no longer had the CD for so I had to repurchase them. I’ve since replaced everything I could for about the retailer cost of the 2 Apple lightning connectors Apple send me as a way to compensate me. I think this bug goes further back then they think, and it is very rare. Unfortunately, for the few it strikes (those with very large DBs it seems—my iTunes library was about 400GB lossless then AFAIR) it can be anywhere from a major headache (spending hours reripping) to devastating (never hearing a memorable performance that was erased). Because of this clusterF, I decided to ditch iTunes Match after the first year, and no longer trust Apple’s sync service since it often overwrote my updated tag data & would take hours to sync sometimes.

Their music sync service violates one of the first tenets of software: “user input/data is sacred.” Of course that was written long before a good number of Apple Employees were born (~1984). So I can see why something like that is overlooked.

Anyway, if there’s a class action lawsuit over this, I will probably opt-in since I did lose irreplaceable audio files of my friends’ performances that can never be recreated.

It’s about time Apple realizes what a mess their UI designers have made of what was once a straight forward app. Trying to describe how to navigate the UI to a person so they can reach the right pane for iOS management is frustrating because there are no labels for the icons. Add to that there’s only one way to reveal certain features because “consistency” is not a word their UI designers understand the importance of, and learning/teaching the features of the app slows to a frustrating crawl. I’m not sure where the pinnacle of iTunes UI was, but it’s been sliding downhill with each release for at least 2–3 major versions.

It’s clear Apple’s categories are not sufficiently defined to handle these border cases, like most amateur* category systems. Had Apple actually thought about all potential categories of 3rd party content app, they would’ve differentiated between applications where adult content was the whole point and where content is uncensored. This “either it’s ‘adult’ or it’s not” view is disgustingly myopic.

*amateur because any first year library sciences student could’ve spotted this potential issue before they implemented any categories (the same is true for their app categories that lump too many different types of apps together).So, it’s obvious they didn’t consult one.

@volcan’s summary is more concise & clearer than this article. It took until the third paragraph to reveal that it’s only active in China right now, and the explanation of requiring a Windows app was inverted—trailing instead of leading. Maybe volcan should write up security notes instead of this author.

john673 said:

i find it insensitive for the victims of the families involved in the tragedy that apple are such jerks to capitalize on the situation to advocate for free speech..
Just take the freakin' iPhone from FBI unlock it and give it back to them 

This power play is meant to erode privacy & privacy rights by winning over a gullible public that isn’t qualified to consider the risks nor even read what the actual facts* are, and your comment proves it. There’s no guarantee there’s anything on this guy’s work phone. In fact, if asked what is on the phone that they need, that they can’t get elsewhere, they’d have to answer: I don’t know. Which is what 2 year-olds say when you catch them doing something they know is wrong.

And since you played the “insensitive” card. (1) Citizens do not have the right to not have their feelings hurt. and (2) Actually, some relatives of victims are siding with Apple because they understand the implications & realize public security— thus public safety—is also at risk.

*read the news: Apple cannot unlock it. If you read the posts from Apple & other security firms, encryption cannot be unlocked without the key. The person who had the key is dead. The phone’s iCloud account had its password reset while in FBI custody. (If Apple had been consulted before they did that they would have known it would mean they locked the only route into the phone because changing your iCloud password means to reconnect a device you have to unlock the device and enter the new password to enable iCloud access). The iCloud backup was turned it off weeks before the crime, but they have backup from (?)6 weeks ago. Apple does not currently have the means to unlock or get to the data on the phone thanks to full device encryption. The order is demanding that Apple create something which undermines their entire security architecture meant to protect customers.

“Those who would give up essential liberty** to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

**If you look up what the founding fathers considered “essential liberty” a few things that would pop up are “security” & “privacy.”