What is Digg?177 Comments
- poorbusker, on 08/11/2008, -13/+148where's my video camera function Steve??
- automate, on 08/11/2008, -4/+78whose developers paid $99 to be online in the App Store. :D
- yaosio, on 08/11/2008, -17/+78When apple builds in a kill switch, it's cool. When Microsoft does it, this place turns into slashdot.
- alphadog, on 08/11/2008, -29/+73The kill switch goes beyond what a cell phone manufacturer should have control over.
I think that Steve Jobs and Apple have gone too far. I truly want to purchase the iphone, but Apple keeps putting up these roadblocks. !st it is AT&T, and now it is this kill switch. It sounds to me that it is just another form of DRM. How much time do you think it will take Apple to put this kill switch into OSX and have it on every MAC?
What gives Apple or any other company the right to tell me what I can use on a computer that I paid for? Remember it is not free. - fuxxx, on 08/11/2008, -4/+44COPY AND PASSSSSSTTTTTEEEEEEEEE
- sdimm, on 08/11/2008, -3/+33Holy crap, thats alot of money even if just a sixth is payed for.
- alexmuller, on 08/11/2008, -0/+28You mean the one that says "READ" in the bottom left?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121842341491928977 ... - KevInTx, on 08/11/2008, -7/+30Dugg for "Steve Jobs, presumably speaking from a hyperbaric chamber where he's being nourished with an infusion of liquified developers-souls before his next public appearance". Made me LOL
- Falldog, on 08/11/2008, -5/+26On my BlackBerry ;p
- znicket, on 08/11/2008, -20/+40I don't get this paranoia. What are you afraid of? That Apple will deactivate your phone arbitrarily?
That it will scan your device for stolen software and brick the phone?
Hey, if that happens I'm with you - but right now none of this has happened. Chill down and see it for what it is. A protection against run-amok software that is designed with evil intent. - kotatsu, on 08/11/2008, -6/+25Ever heard of actually paying developers for their work? Or is that a foreign concept to you?
- bovox, on 08/11/2008, -4/+21"What gives Apple or any other company the right to tell me what I can use on a computer that I paid for?"
Ummm, how about the Terms of Service that you signed when you booted up for the first time? - inactive, on 08/11/2008, -6/+23for what exactly?
- bovox, on 08/11/2008, -2/+18Yeah so. If you bothered to read the article you would've seen that they've made about $30 million in sales.
- Kyan, on 08/11/2008, -2/+17So, where is the link to the WSJ article?
- flashback99, on 08/11/2008, -1/+15You mean like paying musicians for music? or filmmakers for films?
double standards anyone? - 11oops, on 08/11/2008, -1/+15Most people on Digg can't even pay $0.99 for a song.
- dafragsta, on 08/11/2008, -0/+13Actually, it almost sounded like it was written by someone who isn't as familiar with his health, but rather his infrequent public appearances.
- DelMonte, on 08/11/2008, -5/+18People that don't seem to mind this kill switch don't mind because:
1. It is meant to be used against malicious apps only. If they wanted to use it to remove apps they simply don't like they would've used it for netshare, and they didn't. Until proven otherwise, we have to assume that they'll only use it for malicious apps.
2. It doesn't send any information to Apple, no ID, no list of your applications, nothing. It only reads a blacklist and the iPhone itself compares it locally to your applications.
3. It doesn't use some custom encrypted protocol, the blacklist is publicly accessible by anyone so it's easy to see which apps are blacklisted.
The "If it was MS the same people would be angry" thing is a straw-man argument. If MS was to implement the same mechanism with the same intent my reaction would be the same. If anything, I'm angry at Microsoft for having been extremely lax when it came to malware in XP, and NOT implementing features like this that could've reduced the problem.
But if MS were doing a kill switch by making the OS send the list of your application to their server (which I repeat, the iPhone kill switch doesn't do), or if they were using it to kill apps that are not malicious, I would be angry at them, just as I would be angry at Apple if they did the same, but this is not what they're doing. - bjornski, on 08/11/2008, -10/+23It's no more far out than the "OMG, Microsoft is tracking all of your messages and websites, tapping into your microphones and activating your webcams!" crap that I heard for years, and STILL hear.
But when Apple does it, it's peachy. - Weip, on 08/11/2008, -0/+128 of them bought the "I'm Rich" apps -_-
- jamesdew, on 08/11/2008, -1/+12I've never read so many words without recieving any information before.
- sjmulder, on 08/11/2008, -2/+13I don't know who dugg you down but that person is an ass.
- bjornski, on 08/11/2008, -0/+11Watch the "State of the Union" speech sometime....
- remccain, on 08/11/2008, -0/+10and you voted for it by forking over your cash.
- DesdinovaEL, on 08/11/2008, -1/+11By rumor sites, yes
- BrendanSheehan, on 08/11/2008, -0/+10Most devs made one or two free ones, along with a paid one. They have made their $99 back. Some self-employed devs are making $2,000 a day.
- aliguana, on 08/11/2008, -6/+16granted, but that still means 10 million apps sold. Quite impressive, even for someone who isn't an iPhone fan (me)
- EmperorPsiblade, on 08/11/2008, -7/+16Wait a sec, wasn't this shown to only be for restricting app usage of CoreLocation?
- neonfunk, on 08/11/2008, -3/+12but they aren't just a cellphone manufacturer. they also run the App Store, which is a completely different model of distribution than what we're used to with desktop software. apple is going to take much more heat if something goes wrong with an iPhone app than if someone downloads some random desktop app that ***** up their PC. they are essentially lending their name to any company they allow on the store, making them much more responsible if something goes wrong. to me, this is just like mccain attacking obama on "not visiting the troops"-- apple would have been attacked all the harsher if some app was stealing location data and there was no kill switch, just as obama would also have been attacked for "politicizing the military" had he visited the troops. damned if you do or don't.
- WarezAppz, on 08/11/2008, -3/+12For all that long winded Horse ***** you just wrote I can sum up what you said in 10 words: "I am an idiot and I like hearing myself talk!".
You did a right good job of saying much of nothing above, at least much of nothing that the average person with a little common sense cares to hear . . . . - Zippo, on 08/11/2008, -5/+13They can't kill anything you added yourself. Even if you jailbroke your iPhone and added 3rd-party apps - Apple can't do anything. Apple doesn't give a ***** what Jim or Sally does individually with their iPhones. There are far too many iPhone users out there for it to be actually possible for Apple to monitor what one person does with their phone.
What the kill switch does is deactivate (and probably delete) any known app that came from the official App Store that has been found to be malicious.
I imagine it works like this. Apple finds out that an App is malicious and blacklists it. When an iPhone logs into the App Store and scans for updates, it references apps installed to the server. The server has the malicious app flagged and the iPhone's "kill switch" flags the app as malicious, therefore deactivating and/or deleting it. - znicket, on 08/11/2008, -4/+12Well..
Being able to have pirated software is hardly an _essential liberty_ .
Ben Franklin would say: "Dude, I meant freedoms such as free assembly and free speech. Not if you could have malicious software on your iPhone". - yabos, on 08/11/2008, -2/+10Good job you cheap *****. You can't even pay $10 for a game?
- Ziggy7273, on 08/11/2008, -6/+14We are in new territory with these mobile applications and the threat of malicious software is a real one. Apple takes a long time to approve new applications because they are responsible for them. It would be big news if a trojan got through and they couldn't kill it from the very start. This will allow applications and updates to be deployed more rapidly.
That's it. - digjam, on 08/11/2008, -5/+13Verizon/Motorola was sued for not providing a full fledged Bluetooth device after advertising its a bluetooth phone. Verizon had to pay millions back to the buyers... and the cost of the phone at that time was less than $100, with iphone at $200, I think Apples in big trouble, if and when the fanboys get up from the deep slumber.
A dominant apple is not good for the consumer market!!! PERIOD! - spidoman, on 08/11/2008, -0/+7If he insists that he is in fine health then we should be able to make all the cracks we like.
- WiseWeasel, on 08/11/2008, -2/+9The info it calls home with is simply an information request for blacklisted app names. There's no personal info being sent out, and there are many security researchers with hacked iPhones out there checking for privacy violations. That's how this kill-switch was discovered in the first place. If Apple is sending out any actual private information about you, then we WILL find out about it. Until then, you're just speculating.
- Kyan, on 08/11/2008, -0/+7Yes, that's the one.
- josepablos, on 08/11/2008, -1/+8Steve when my iphone will run Crysis!
- 80hd, on 08/11/2008, -2/+9The intention could be to disable any rogue application that gains popularity but turns out to have a massive fault or becomes malicious.
What if some free game becomes massively popular and it turns out to have some hidden spyware function or worse? Many people even when told that they are being spied on, won't react when told that they need to get rid of their favorite game/screensaver etc..... - sewollef, on 08/11/2008, -1/+8How wonderful it this kind of fantasy could be true. It probably is in your head, but in the real world things are a little different.
It's a lame response to a claim that has to be supported by actual sales. And those actual sales have to be verified or the markets would crucify him and the SEC would have something to say. In other words, you can't openly lie in a publicly-listed company, or you get to go to jail.
If you're going to comment, try and sound intelligent, or just stay away from the keyboard and go back to school. - PMartinez527, on 08/11/2008, -1/+8well, they did create it.
- hx219, on 08/11/2008, -6/+12When ***** builds a kill switch, it's to ***** you over; when Apple builds a kill switch, it's to make sure your iphone doesn't get ***** over...
- MacParrot, on 08/11/2008, -7/+13Hey that's great! And when one of those "free" Russian games turns your phone into slag, I'm sure you'll be back here blaming Apple.
- WiseWeasel, on 08/11/2008, -0/+6They're not triggering the kill switch for Netshare, as it's not malicious. People who downloaded that app can still use it.
- inactive, on 08/11/2008, -0/+6http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8crcXYh7EuY&feature ... (streaming video from iPhone beeeeotch!!)
- CokeBear, on 08/11/2008, -7/+13To those complaining about the kill switch: For a cell phone with the capabilities of the iPhone it would be irresponsible not to have one. The risk of a cell phone virus getting out in the wild is too great and the damage that it could do could be catastrophic (think... virus that dials 911 repeatedly, as a bad case scenario, I'm sure you can think of worse).
- WiseWeasel, on 08/11/2008, -1/+7If you're worried, you can jailbreak your iPhone, and then you have complete control over its functionality, including disabling the blacklist check, installing whatever you want, and modifying any of the OS's settings, installing network sniffers, etc. Once jailbroken, an iPhone is pretty much a mini Mac OS X box, under your complete control. If you're truly paranoid, there are options out there to mitigate the problem while still having access to its advantages.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 182 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is