]
As someone who didn't need to read 90% of the paper because it's already well-known to me, yes, thank you, agreed. This is a non-issue if the device in question goes away for 15 minutes. Which is the problem RPAs solve in the first place.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bluetooth Vulnerability Could Allow iOS and macOS Devices Be Tracked and Identified
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As someone who didn't need to read 90% of the paper because it's already well-known to me, yes, thank you, agreed. This is a non-issue if the device in question goes away for 15 minutes. Which is the problem RPAs solve in the first place.
For real? Of all the info that could be displayed up there (maybe besides the time), that's pretty important.
To each their own, I suppose. But, then there should be the option to set the controls to work one way or the other. Or, maybe have it turn green, yellow, red or something on each press.
Clippy (the dancing paperclip) come to mind.
Why do you need a button at all, then?
If I could count how many times Excel crashed on my windows laptops, desktops and workstation, I’d be well into the thousands.
Googling and finding randos complaining about stuff like always doesn't prove anything.
I chose an apartment with bad reviews on purpose cause all the reviews were from idiots who didn't pay rent and got evicted.
[doublepost=1563748320][/doublepost]
Android has had lots of serious Bluetooth vulnerabilities. I mean, Bluetooth itself sucks too, and it's bound to have vulnerabilities. I just leave it off.
No doubt. I have it off all the time except when I'm specifically needing to use an accessory (which would be a BT headset when I'm biking, or a keyboard with my iPad when I'm out and about typing a lot, or a gaming controller). But, I think the amount of time I have BT turned on is like 20% or less.
I'm surprised at the number of things that require it to be on, though... like those door locks. Which is why I think they are useless, as by the time I got my phone out and turned BT on, and got in, a key is just way faster and easier.
A large number of tier-1 technology publications have written extensively about Apple's significant decline in software quality over the last several years. This is a matter of record.
As a person who deploys Apple in enterprise, this is confirmed in anecdote. They are saving money on development and testing (and security) to keep the stock price high. What could possibly go wrong.
#FIRETHEACCOUNTANT
Well, I'd actually trust the anecdote more than the tech publications. Only, tbh, your username makes me suspicious.
Yet you glossed over:
It's true.
People see what they want to see.
Plenty of other issues affect Android. They aren’t exactly ahead of the curve here.
This allows tracking. Everything still stays on your phone. Two separate issues
It’s literally not harder. You’re just complaining to complain because they changed something it seems.
Then don’t turn off WiFi and the VPN. What’s the point of doing that anyway? Battery? Charge it.
Tedious? Really? So you’re walking down the street, oh no, I’m being tracked, and know to turn Bluetooth off? When exactly is it the right time to be secure in your use of Bluetooth. When you pull into your neighborhood?
This research is good but it’s so far beyond a concern for 99.999999999% of the population.
You mean when they opened up OS X to be more Windows like? When they made it easier to download apps that could jack up your computer etc? Apple simply got lucky no one was buying their stuff because that list of vulnerabilities woulda been 10 times that size on those days. Quite simply, no one cared but now they do as Apple tops the game.
Anyway, Catalina is taking Mac OS back to the days when Apple computer actually cared about security.
You mean Steve Jobs the visionary who copied virtually everything he brought to market besides, maybe, a touch screen phone? Hell the iPod wasn’t even his. You’re deluded. Your list is full of Apple stuff that’s been there since the Faux deity Jobs held the reins.
It literally is harder... depends on how one defines that. It takes more steps/time, which sucks if you got used to using CC. If you mean harder, as in might not have the mental/physical capability to do it, then no.
What if they want to turn it off? If you're familiar with how VPNs work, you'd understand the concern being expressed. Some people don't want the WiFi on, just disconnected from a particular connection. They actually want it, off.
So, a BWM isn't a good car because they copied the 4-wheel idea?
Also, there were touch phones prior to the iPhone. They were just junk.
Around, as in alive? Yeah. I wasn't following Apple too closely at that point, but I was aware of it. I didn't start following Apple closely until the late-80s. But, I'm not sure what that has to do with the point I was making.
What are you on about?
It should be simple and quick to enable and disable Bluetooth and WiFi entirely on the go as needed. Somehow this was obvious with the introduction of CC, but not anymore.
Apple is paying the price for wasting a decade coasting on old ideas, and they know it.
I have a friend who works in management at an apple store. For the first time ever, the iPhone isn't selling. They are having to find new ways to push people to buy it. This has never happened before.
#FIRETHEACCOUNTANT
I somewhat disagree. They've done lots of stuff. The problem is that about half of it involved bad decisions (that they are now, hopefully, somewhat course correcting from).
That's how I see it. I can't say Apple's done nothing.
But at the same time, many of the decisions Apple has made in the last half dozen years or so have been based on (at least apparently) on financially motivated cost cutting and min/maxing and not purely product decisions to make those products better.
Hence why with prices where they are, the trend of volume of their product sales is now starting to feel the lag of the diminishing good will. People will "swallow" certain issues if the price and everything else they want is matched. Start delivering less of that, but asking for more money, while also turning around and showboating how you're the most profitable company in the world, rubs people really the wrong way.
Very well said, and I agree.
I'm a bit hopeful lately though, as the Mac Pro seems pretty good, along with a couple products I bought recently (and not reluctantly) like the Mac mini and 6th gen iPad. Both bring a lot of value for the price and are good designs. (There is still a huge hole - though the mini helped - in the Mac desktop line.)
I'm not sure how many people have a base understanding of business and economics, so as to see the negative impacts of that min/maxing profits stuff that pretty much get forced on most public companies (and willingly undertaken by most non-public ones). Steve was somehow able to ignore those forces, which contributed to their great products (as the this is the reason so many products get ruined).
Most people seem of the attitude that 'it is just the way it is' and how business works. Well, it isn't, or at least doesn't have to be (& shouldn't be) that way. Even so far as to often hear that fallacy of public companies having to legally maximize profits to their shareholders.
I'm afraid Apple will become like other public companies (which isn't a good thing). But, as I mentioned, a few more recent moves give me hope some of the old Apple is still around, just not quite as well directed (in terms of vision... better directed in terms of operations) as Steve's Apple.
Steve had a different factor that helped. He was a cult of personality. A lot of good will he earned was due to that personality and his charisma.
There was also a much different sense from him. He was genuinely proud of the products. When he charged a premium for that product, it wasn't because it was some min/maxing of profit (though, i'm sure there was accountants in his ears) but fair value for the product he believed offered a premium experience to everything else.
Often, he wasn't terribly wrong either. During his tenures, stuff released tended to be slightly more expensive than his competition. But at the same vein had some differentiating factor that would wow us to accepting that premium price tag.
When the Air was at the top of the game, there really was no competition for the Air till the Ultrabook platform came out. The idea of stomaching a slightly more expensive price for the Mac vs other laptops was reasonable, since you weren't getting an ultrabook at the time from anyone else. Same with the unibody macbook pros. Even the iMac when launched.
Today, Apples lineup isn't bad from a technical standpoint. But that ridiculously high premium is still there, without offering any real significant or compelling differentiation to warrant that price. The overall markets in the industry Apple is competing in is very mature and almost everyone is offering parity accross the board. The difference is, you get more for the same price with competition. Meaning that the premium you're paying now for Apple's products is for the logo and not the tech inside. The very defition of what we used to call "The Apple Tax" back during the old days (pre jobs return). Apple's current pricing scheme is "we charge this cause we're Apple".
Jobs got away with it because of his attention to product details and quality. His anger when things went wrong was often more because he felt personally slighted when people didn't like something (The you're holding it wrong moment). Where Tim doesn't seem to care about the products themselves, more about the money. Tim's "you're holding it wrong" is not because he feels the product is being insults, but because it means less sales. And without the cult of personality and charisma that Jobs had, it comes off as sleezy profiteering and not just a ceo being ceo
edit:
just to add, you're right with the "ceo's job is to maximize profits" mentality of today. People who repeat this don't have a clue what CEO's job is. While maximizing profits is an aspect of it, it's the CEO's job to navigate emergenging and changing markets and environments and to navigate through the quagmire of everyday life in order to ensure the long term sustainability of the company. The job of mazimizing profit is that of the CFO and accounting. They are to find the maximization of profits and provide those recommendations to the CEO who then is to take into consideration what the accounting portions say in order to make business decisions.
Anyone who claims that CEO's should only answer to maximization of profits and nothing else have no business running a company. There is so SO much more to running a company than just profit maximization. Health and safety. long term sustainability. employee retention. navigation of the legal environment the company works with. Dealing with governemnts and regulatory bodies (depending on industry) and ensuring that the companies best interests are considered and weighed.
Last edited: