djsherly

nunzy said:

crowley said:

applemagic said:

elijahg said:

nunzy said:

It looks like they learned a valuable lesson. If you mess with Apple, you get hammered.

The one that's going to get hammered is Apple, if they continue with this anticompetitive behaviour. The new rule that "transactions taking place within mirrored software do not need to use in-app purchase, provided the transactions are processed on the host device." is probably a way to skirt this.

The part I don't get about people calling Apple's actions as anti-competitive is this - Steam clearly tried to use the iOS app as the doorway to sneak in a method for their users to then purchase their games on external store fronts. So, Steam gets to use the iOS ecosystem, where users are known to be more willing to spend and spend heavily, to then bypass that system and deny Apple their cut of the in-app purchases. If this isn't a shady business practice, I am not sure what is.

Why does Apple deserve a cut for a purchase that they are not processing, for software they are not hosting? Especially when the software that is actually doing the real work of rendering the store and payment interface is on a completely different Apple platform, and for which Apple does not take a cut?

Very befuddling why there are so many Apple cheerleaders for an issue which deprives users of functionality for arbitrary rules.

Because they are Apple's customers and Apple's neighborhood. If you want to do business in Apple's territory, you need to kick up to Apple. It has always been like that, ever since the old days

nunzy said:

New Zealand is being unfair to Apple. If anybody knows how to take care of its customers, it is Apple.

franklinjackcon said:

shev said:

How about readjusting the product price in line with current exchange rates apple you ****S. Were quick enough to hike them after the Brexit fallout but seem to be dragging your feet now it's the other way around. the 15" is currently coming in at $3,300 dollars including tax. YAY

If the UK drops some of the consumer protection laws once they exit the EU, you might find the prices drop. Currently, Apple has to guarantee the product for two years in Europe but only one in the US (AFAIK).

Soli said:

djsherly said:

Soli said:

djsherly said:

If the truth of it is that the FaceID was trained to the kids face somehow, then whatever rules are being set to adapt recognition over time must be adjusted. Apple claimed 1:1000000 false positives, there are enough videos out there to put that in question. 

They said nothing about "1:1000000 false positives." Their statement is about a statistical average based on randomness due to the sophistication of the HW and SW. Think of it like having a 4-digit PIN. You have 10,000 possibilities, or a 1:10,000 chance, but if that PIN is '0000' or the 4-digit house number of your address, it's probably going to be cracked much sooner because someone will look for common patterns. With Face ID the common pattern is a close DNA match.

This is also partially true for fingerprints in that the various aspects of a fingerprint are inherited. However, the actually print pattern tends to be very unique, even amongst identical twins, which is why it can be 1:50,000 and potentially be more secure than Face ID with 1:1,000,000.

Ok, you focused on the 1:1000000 claim, but my real assertion is that the training rules are not right if this kind of thing can happen. I would understand totally the case of identical twins but this kind of abuse case seems like an obvious one to guard against. Kids are always trying to mess with parents stuff. 

What's your solution? Children are often very close to one parent's skull structure and it's not suppose to be used for children under 13yo, so what is Apple to do that they haven't stated already?

I guess Apple could offer a Face ID+passcode option for the first week so that it will both keep her son out as well as let the device know not to record any Face ID training that doesn't accompany a passcode immediately after. And while that week of training may prevent her son from getting into iPhone X it's certainly not guaranteed.

While I'm glad that the limits of the technology and implementation are being explored, I also don't think it's a big deal.

Soli said:

djsherly said:

Soli said:

djsherly said:

If the truth of it is that the FaceID was trained to the kids face somehow, then whatever rules are being set to adapt recognition over time must be adjusted. Apple claimed 1:1000000 false positives, there are enough videos out there to put that in question. 

They said nothing about "1:1000000 false positives." Their statement is about a statistical average based on randomness due to the sophistication of the HW and SW. Think of it like having a 4-digit PIN. You have 10,000 possibilities, or a 1:10,000 chance, but if that PIN is '0000' or the 4-digit house number of your address, it's probably going to be cracked much sooner because someone will look for common patterns. With Face ID the common pattern is a close DNA match.

This is also partially true for fingerprints in that the various aspects of a fingerprint are inherited. However, the actually print pattern tends to be very unique, even amongst identical twins, which is why it can be 1:50,000 and potentially be more secure than Face ID with 1:1,000,000.

Ok, you focused on the 1:1000000 claim, but my real assertion is that the training rules are not right if this kind of thing can happen. I would understand totally the case of identical twins but this kind of abuse case seems like an obvious one to guard against. Kids are always trying to mess with parents stuff. 

What's your solution? Children are often very close to one parent's skull structure and it's not suppose to be used for children under 13yo, so what is Apple to do that they haven't stated already?

I guess Apple could offer a Face ID+passcode option for the first week so that it will both keep her son out as well as let the device know not to record any Face ID training that doesn't accompany a passcode immediately after. And while that week of training may prevent her son from getting into iPhone X it's certainly not guaranteed.

While I'm glad that the limits of the technology and implementation are being explored, I also don't think it's a big deal.