Last Active
  • Apple patched an iOS lock screen bypass without crediting its discovery

    So what if it was reported earlier by some else as a bug or vulnerability?

     "The researcher did not disclose the vulnerability to Apple prior to going public, saying at the time that he was "giving away" the exploit in hopes of shedding light on problems related to the tech giant's Bug Bounty Program." 

    My reading of this: he tried to report, but was not the first and therefore could not claim the bounty. Not every "researcher" is running their own YouTube channel. Most will be working for companies which do not allow their staff to run to the media to claim publicity.

    Even if he was the first to discover, the problem for Rodriguez was that the moment he placed it on Youtube, he lost any IP rights. The video itself is copyrighted but the knowledge inside is now made public. Everyone can use it without needing to credit and this includes Apple.
  • Google says user choice makes DOJ antitrust lawsuit 'deeply flawed'

    Hmm Google’s response ignores their other and more significant efforts to keep users entwined without their knowledge, eg users don’t actively opt for AMP or tracking via ad placement, analytics and other means, all of which are also features that disproportionately benefit Google. Similarly Google Chrome is a good example of their dominance: it is neither faster nor more efficient than any of the default web browsers, yet widely installed by people who believe google’s false claim that it is faster/better.

    The other issue is that Google don’t operate a closed ecosystem that people opt into (unlike say purchasing into Apple’s ecosystem of devices and services). The web is open, but it’s impossible to use it without interfacing with Google on some level. The ubiquity of their territory extends well beyond their domain. This is an often forgotten point when comparing large tech companies such as Apple, Amazon and Google. The former two require an active choice by the user, the latter does not and is factually unavoidable - and thus requires deeper scrutiny. 

    There is a second even bigger problem: Search engines improve based on training. Once you are the biggest search engine and have a good deep learning implementation, you will always stay ahead and the gap will only get bigger no matter how much others invest. With every single search, your search engine gets better. If you have 10x more searches than your competitor, then you learn much faster than your smaller competitor. The only viable alternative to Google is at the moment Baidu in certain parts of the world, due to the fact that they are in the same position as Google, but then for China only. Try Bing once and you immediately close your tab, and open a new one with Google, because the search is so bad. And no matter how much Microsoft will invest, due to its existing user base it will never be able to catch up with Google.

    Then because of the dominant position, for financial reasons, as a business you have to advertise on Google, and place trackers all over the place and that in turns improves Google search even more so that everyone including me keeps on using it. Then this giant cashflow of advertising funds everything else: Google makes a huge profit on search and loses money on almost everything else.

  • LG reneges on AirPlay 2 and HomeKit for 2018 TVs

    entropys said:
    Did LG actually promise these features for 2018 models at release, or was that a more recent thing they should have kept mum about? 

    I have a 2018 LG TV and it was never advertised, promised or anything else. Nowhere in the documentation, website or press releases it was listed and I never expected it.

    I have never seen a promise until about a month ago when some sites claimed out of nowhere that it was now available.

    If they found a way to add it it would have been nice and appreciated, but not having it does not bother me because it was never supposed to be able to do so in the first place.
  • Disney+ to offer 'Mulan' as $30 in-app purchase on iOS, Apple TV

    Pay-per-view has been around for a long time. You pay a lot more for a boxing match than for this movie. I would not pay it for this movie, but there will be movies I am willing to pay for.
  • Epic skirts Apple's 30% commission fee by implementing 'direct' payments

    Get any distributor and they take 30%-40% at least and probably even more. If you think 30% is high, I have many other examples. I give training through a training provider to make my training official and eligible for government subsidy. They take 40% for running the web site and registering attendance and they take care of government subsidies. Out of $20k income for a single training course, they take $8k and and I get $12k. Problem is that without them I have less than half the attendance, am not eligible for subsidy therefore can not charge as much per person, have to collect payment myself and have other trouble. I earn at best $7k. So should I go alone, save the 40% agent fee and earn $7k, or get ripped off by the agent and earn $12k?

    EPIC believes that they have the power to absorb the extra cost, avoid loss in number of sales and still be better off. Being a big player they might me right, but 99% of all companies will have less money coming in doing this and are better off paying Apple 30%.