davidw

gatorguy said:

davidw said:

hackintoisier said:

Without the existence of other app stores, it sure sounds like the security model of the iPhone is already gravely threatened by this device.  

You need to get your hearing check. You're going deaf. 

First of all, this device probably cost in the 10's of 1000's of dollars and not that easily available. Second, in order for hackers to use this device to access the data in an iPhone, they need to physically have possession of the iPhone. And third, it works by trying to guess the pass code using "brute force". An iPhone with a random 10 alphanumeric pass code will probably take over 1M years for this device to guess it.  

https://www.password-depot.de/en/know-how/brute-force-attacks.htm

On the other hand, if a hacker can convince an iPhone owner to unknowingly download malware, by clicking on a link, the hacker can have access to the iPhone data without even being in the same country where the iPhone is or having to know the passcode.    

A hacker can easily send out millions of phishing e-mail, knowing that more than a few will click on the link that will download the malware. This device can only try to access the data on an iPhone the is plugged into it, one iPhone at a time. Do the math.

As long as the iPhone owners still have possession of their iPhone and they use a strong passcode, this device in not a security threat at all.  

FWIW I get far more fishing expeditions targeting my iPhone and AppleID than I do for my Pixels. Heck, I get phone calls on my Android phone purportedly from Apple security teams telling me my Apple account has been hacked and they're here to help. LOL

 Another fun fact: In over 11 years of using Android devices for hours a day I've encountered exactly the same number of malware events as I have on my Apple gear. ZERO.

Here's a fun fact. That stays on the subject. 

https://www.wired.com/story/smartphone-encryption-law-enforcement-tools/

>The researchers found that Android has a similar setup to iOS with one crucial difference. Android has a version of “Complete Protection” that applies before the first unlock. After that, the phone data is essentially in the AFU state. But where Apple provides the option for developers to keep some data under the more stringent Complete Protection locks all the time—something a banking app, say, might take them up on—Android doesn't have that mechanism after first unlock. Forensic tools exploiting the right vulnerability can grab even more decryption keys, and ultimately access even more data, on an Android phone.<

The thing about the"Pixel" is that Google keeps that up to date, nearly all the time. I think even older "Pixels" keeps getting updated, as far as the hardware permits. Just like an iPhone. The same can't be said about the other 99% of Android devices. The majority of Android devices do not have the latest updates nor are using the latest, most secure version of Android. Over 50% of Android users are on a 2 years or old version of Android. Number wise, that's a lot of Android users.     

techrider said:

I wonder what would inspire a researcher to come up with ‘let’s try %p%s%s%s%s%n‘?

It seems that "%p%s%s%s%s%n" was the actual name of a WiFi hotspot he set up. Not something he randomly entered into his iPhone, on the whim. And it would seem that any WiFi name that starts with a "%" would have triggered the bug. So he would had gotten the same result with something like "%MyHotspot"

What i'm wondering is whether the WiFi name showed up under the list of WiFi available to join or did he have to manually enter that WiFi name under "join other network"?  If I set up a WiFi network named "%FreeWiFi", would it disable the iPhone  WiFi of unsuspecting iPhone users that tried to join because they were tempted by the name to select it from the list of available WiFi networks in the area?  

avon b7 said:

Beats said:

Wait a minute… 5G “Late” Apple is #1 in market share??  Aaahahahahaha!!!!

Late? Most definitely!

Q3 2020 saw Apple with zero in units shipped and of course marketshare.

Fast forward to Q1 of 2021 and, according to Strategy Analytics, Apple is seeing massive QoQ losses already both in unit shipments and marketshare.

And you may be surprised (shocked even!) to know that even in Q1 2021, Apple is not the #1 company for 5G handset marketshare or units shipped. The devil is in the details. 

And all this with Huawei being unable to compete. 

Well, at least we now know you are not the Devil. Your post is lacking in a lot of detail. 

Every report I've seen, Apple is the "5G" leader in 1st Q 2021 market share with about 40% of the 5G units sold, (in the 1st Q of 2021). 

You may be surprise (shock even), to know that there is usually a massive loss of sales (with nearly every company dealing in retail) every 1st Q of the year, when comparing QoQ. That's because the 1st Q of the year comes after the Holiday Q of the last year. The Holiday Q is usually the Q with the highest sales of the year for any company dealing in retail. This is why investors compare year to year Q. Apple is up 100% in units sold when compared to 1st Q of 2020. But it's down 23% when compared to 4th Q of 2020. Which is expected coming off a good Holiday Q.  No real bad news there. Nor a surprise for the knowledgable investors. And hold on to your hat, this might come as even a bigger shock to you. Apple's 2nd Q of the year is usually their slowest Q. So Apple might even report more loses QoQ. But still maintain a sizable gain when comparing YoY Q.  (Even that might not be a fair comparison as in the 2nd Q of 2020, we were in the middle of the pandemic and sales were exceptionally down for everyone, everywhere.)

Then you got it wrong about claiming that  Apple was not the 5G handset leader in Q1 2021. Apple for sure was the 5G leader in marketshare in Q1 of 2021. What Apple wasn't, was the leader in all smartphones sold. As usual, that belongs to Samsung with 22%. Apple was second with 17%. In case you are unaware (and might even be shocked), not all smartphones sold in 1st Q of 2021 were 5G. (I'm pretty sure Apple discontinued all non 5G iPhones by the end of 2020, but not sure. Maybe they still sold old inventory in 1st Q)      

https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share/

cropr said:

AppleZulu said:

cropr said:

sdw2001 said:

The problem with all of this is Apple does not have a monopoly.  There are plenty of viable alternatives to using Apple products, namely Android.  A user is making a choice to be in Apple's walled garden.  Developers are making a choice to access that market.  This is the problem with the EU's initial conclusion as well. They claim Apple has a monopoly for "iPhones and iPads."   That's like saying Toyota has a monopoly on Camrys and Rav4s.  Their reasoning...that people won't change devices just because things are more expensive, blows their entire conclusion out of the water.  The consumer is actively making a choice.  Moreover, the notion that Apple's system has somehow harmed consumers, developers or innovation is comical.  The entire ecosystem (including GooglePlay) wouldn't even exist without Apple.  Apple literally created the entire market.  

Form an end user perspective this is correct. But from an app developer point of view the App store is a monopoly: it is the only allowed way an app developer can distribute his iOS app.  

Making an app only for Android is in most case commercially not an option.  A lot of apps only make sense if they run on all popular platforms.   

That's not how monopolies work. App developers can choose not to put their app on iOS, and they can choose to sell on other platforms. Certainly there are some that don't sell on iOS, just as there are some that only create apps for iOS. There are millions of potential customers available via Android, Windows, X-Box, or other game platforms. Just because a developer doesn't like the terms at any given one of those does not mean that the platform represents a monopoly. 

I am an app developer and my most successful app is an e-voting system used during general assemblies of large organizations and companies.  The customers (the organizations) are requesting that the app must support all eligible voters, independent of the device of the voters.  This means that my app must be available on iOS, Android, Windows, Mac (and some require also Linux).  An IOS only or an Android only e-voting app is commercially seen suicide:  I would have $0 sales .

I assume that Spotify can only attract artists to its platform if Spotify  can guarantee that all people can listen to these artists and not the IOS users only or the Android users only.  It might even be that this is the main reason that Apple Music is available on Android.

 

But with Spotify, not in your case, they have a FREE app from which iOS users can listen to music with their Spotify account. Apple only charges a commission if an iOS user pays for their subscription on their iOS platform using the iOS app. All the Spotify customers that pays for their subscription on Android or on Spotify website or through automatic CC charge every month, can still use iOS to listen to their music while not incurring a charge to themselves or to Spotify. How in the name of Hell, do Spotify not have access to iOS users? 

Let me ask you this, with your app that must support many platforms, ..... What is the difference between you having to pay a commission in the Google Play Store and having to pay a commission in the Apple App Store? Or are you going to say that with your Android customers, you have a choice of having your customers side load your app from your website? LOL, good luck with that.

Not even Epic was happy with he amount of profit they were making by allowing Fortnight to be side loaded on Android through their website or installed from their party Epic Game Store on Android. After a year and a half, they put "Fortnight" in the Google Play Store and made more profit, even after paying Google the commission and not charging any more for the game  V-Bucks. And even after having several ways to access Android users, Epic is still suing Google for a "monopoly" they have with the Google Play Store. Epic knows less about what a "monopoly" is, than you do. 


https://bgr.com/tech/fortnite-for-android-download-no-google-play-security-risks-5643156/

https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/21/21229943/epic-games-fortnite-google-play-store-available-third-party-software

 https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fortnite-lawsuit-antitrust-app-play-store-apple-removal

DAalseth said:

IANAL so I don't know the ins and outs of these things.
But hasn't Wozniak been doing all sorts of tech educational things over the decades? Then how would this be infringement? Sounds more like one of many initiatives Wozniak has done.
The guy says his idea was for it to use Wozniak's name, but it's Wozniak's name. How can he sue Wozniak for infringing on the use of his own name? Woz should have the copyright on his own name.
Ok so there was an attempt to start this sort of thing, but it died ten years ago. Doing something similar a decade later infringes on a completely defunct and moribund idea how?
Sounds like if this guy really thought he had a case he should have sued Wozniak a decade ago for breach of contract. It just seems like  he thinks that because the deal fell apart a decade ago he has first refusal rights on anything similar Wozniak ever does for the rest of his life. 
Or am I misreading this?

The copyright yes, but not the trademark. Even if your real name is "Ronald McDonald", you could not open a diner and call it "McDonalds". Not even if all you serve was sushi. 

To me, it sounds like this guy only got a contract that Woz would get paid (or compensated in some other way) for endorsing the institute that this guy was to set up. Woz was to have nothing to do with its set up. Kind of like how celebrities would lend their names to products they had nothing to do with, other than getting paid for endorsing it. If this guy never set up his "Woz School of Technology" then it's not on Woz, as his agreement only pertains to the use of his name and an endorsement. 

Sound like this guy only suit would pertain to trademark infringement, providing he trademarked "Woz School of Technology". If not, then he's out of luck. And even if he did trademarked the name, it would be hard to prove that consumers would confuse "Woz U" with "Woz School of Technology", when no one ever heard of 'Woz School of Technology" because it never existed. Which to me, this was why he set up a mock website using that name. And then was told to take it down by Woz team. Most likely  because he was not paying Woz for the use of his name.  

In order to retain a trademark, one has to be using it or marketing a product or service with that trademark. This was how Cisco lost their trademark to "iPhone". Even though Apple and Cisco came to some sort of agreement over the trademark, Cisco probably knew they would not win, when they sued Apple for trademark infringement.

https://macdailynews.com/2007/01/12/experts_cisco_lost_rights_to_iphone_trademark_last_year/comment-page-2/  ;