NotoriousDEV

lkrupp said:

So much for theory that there is a large market for small phones. Just because a few squawkers on tech blogs said there was doesn’t mean there is. Tech blogs are about as far away from reality as it gets. 

Agree. Fine if you only text, talk, email. But anyone who watches videos, surfs Safari, plays games,  etc - welcomes the larger screen. And as a Dev, more screen means more room for objects (w/o forcing the user to have to scroll).

Hard to believe the Apple lawyers would make such silly, hysterical claims that gave the judge an easy reason to rule against. You’d think there would be peer review and that ‘dangerous’ statement would have been taken out. By that logic Apple should bet every iPhone buyer to make sure they’re not ‘dangerous’. 

Copy/Paste country doing what Copy/Paste country does. 

It’s the proverbial Slippery Slope. Today terrorists; tomorrow kidnappers; two weeks from now it’s a guy being accused of anything by an ex-wife.....

goofy1958 said:

sflocal said:

What they find out today may be completely irrelevant in six months or a year.  As attack vectors are constantly being created, old holes closed only for new ones to be discovered, what the ACLU discovers now will be irrelevant after the next OS upgrade.

I'm a little mixed about this.  I demand privacy, yet if the FBI has some way of breaking into a terrorist's phone using some temporary exploit, I dunno... ugh.

Why ugh?  The FBI still has to obtain a court order to unlock the phone.  They cannot simply willy nilly unlock whatever they please whenever they please.

Very unlikely. Many regulatory hurdles - crash test certifications, etc - must be met before the cars could be licensed for road use. Apple’s attempts to pass these would have certainly leaked by now. Not to mention test cars spotted on roads.