titantiger
About
- Username
- titantiger
- Joined
- Visits
- 65
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 584
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 305
Reactions
-
Hands on with Apple's FaceTime Attention Correction feature in iOS 13
It's really cool and I was all excited until I realized it had to have the camera/sensor array from the XS and XS Max. Guess I'll just have to wait until it makes sense money wise to upgrade from my 8 Plus.
-
Cellebrite says it can pull data from any iOS device ever made
Again, you are ignoring the fact that Cellebrite's cracking tools were leaked and found for sale on the dark web for anyone to get use if they ponied up the money. When things like this are available to criminals, then the incentive to steal devices goes up exponentially because instead of having an iCloud locked device they can't sell, they can crack it, wipe it and resell it easy as pie. And that's assuming they don't extract the data first and build a huge database of user data to later comb through looking for passwords and such for identify theft.MplsP said:
And you seem prone to hyperbole and slippery slopes. Issues like this are not black and white. The fact that one company [claims it] has figured out how to access locked devices doesn't suddenly mean that the sky has fallen and passcodes are useless on our phones.redraider11 said:
You’re such a sheep. You’ve been brainwashed not to even care about you’re own privacy. Let me guess, you also believe don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment because it’s impossible for governments to get out of control and the police are there to protect you.Macsplosion said:
I have to agree with this statement. The chances of a non-VIP like 99.8% of IPhone users having his phone compromised by a Cellebrite hacking process is virtually zero.gatorguy said:It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on 99.8% of users IMO. TBH there's almost certainly going to be those rare instances where an already illegal activity and being able to access that person's a data may actually save lives and property. Personally it would be nothing I'd have even a second's concern about. I'm also sure that there's that segment who has so little to worry about in their lives that they'll create a mountain of hand-wringing concern over it for lack of anything else.
Most folks really do have far more important issues to deal with, things that personally affect their lives. This isn't one of them.
Just my 2 cents.
Just because politicians have convinced you that you don’t need privacy or individual liberty doesn’t mean the rest of us are going to believe that BS.
I’m fine with this technology, but Apple should do anything and everything to make it null and void to protect its customers.
The right to privacy is not absolute and there are very legitimate cases in which government agencies should have access to devices. People seem to have a hard time distinguishing the difference between that and no privacy whatsoever. The fact that I recognize this fact doesn't mean I don't care about privacy, rather it means I understand that there are no absolutes.
@gatorguy is correct - this doesn't affect vast majority of people and the degree of consternation far exceeds that. My main concern is not that they can break the encryption. My concern is that in the past they have sold devices which are completely unlocked, meaning they can be used by anyone who gets their hands on the Requiring them to 'phone home' and get authorization before use would be far preferable. If a device gets lost, it could simply be deactivated and rendered useless.
It is still the same as it was when this issue first came up: there is no such thing as a backdoor you can make available only for "legitimate" purposes. If it's there for the good guys, it's there for the bad guys too and it will be found by them.
-
Developers sue Apple over $99 annual fee, mandatory pricing increments of $0.99
Yes. And any hard goods seller selling their goods through Apple stores or other retailers would kill for that deal. The devs are whining over a sweetheart arrangement.BxBorn said:
Isn't Apple doing both to developers? Aren't they taking the $99 and 30%?titantiger said:
Incase sells their items to Apple at wholesale, which is likely somewhere around 50% off the retail price. Ask any software or accessory vendor if they'd rather pay Apple $99 a year and give only a 30% discount off MSRP and see if they don't jump at it.BxBorn said:I think the point is more around Apple abusing the fact that iOS apps can not be distributed anywhere else. It would be different if there were one or two other places an app developer could go but they can't and because of that Apple is charging a 'where else are you going to go tax". Does Apple charge 3rd party vendors who's products are sold in-stores on online a similar fee? Does Incase have to pay a shelf fee and a percentage of its sales to Apple? (honest question, I really don't know) -
Developers sue Apple over $99 annual fee, mandatory pricing increments of $0.99
Incase sells their items to Apple at wholesale, which is likely somewhere around 50% off the retail price. Ask any software or accessory vendor if they'd rather pay Apple $99 a year and give only a 30% discount off MSRP and see if they don't jump at it.BxBorn said:I think the point is more around Apple abusing the fact that iOS apps can not be distributed anywhere else. It would be different if there were one or two other places an app developer could go but they can't and because of that Apple is charging a 'where else are you going to go tax". Does Apple charge 3rd party vendors who's products are sold in-stores on online a similar fee? Does Incase have to pay a shelf fee and a percentage of its sales to Apple? (honest question, I really don't know) -
Developers sue Apple over $99 annual fee, mandatory pricing increments of $0.99
If you sell your items through Walmart, Target, or other big retailers, they take a cut. It's called "selling it to them wholesale" and it typically adds up to more than 30% of the retail price.deminsd said:
Not the point. Apple has a monopoly over app distribution and the 30% piece of the pie is what is the "profit killer". Not many businesses can take a 30% cut on profit.larryjw said:If you can't afford $99 developer fee, you're not in the business of making a profit. At best, you have a hobby not a profession.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly over app distribution. You can offer your app on Android only, but Google will take its cut too. Yes, you can sell it on your own website without their App Store if people are willing to side load apps, but your volume won't be anywhere near what it would have been if it was in Google Play store. There are tradeoffs to using someone else's store front, someone else's easy pay structure and so on. The devs want all the benefits and none of the tradeoffs and it's bullshit.
And finally, the quoted post is right. If you can't make more than $99 in profit a year, you have a cute past time, not a serious business worthy of the claims in this lawsuit.
