Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So, basically, you admit that you were wrong? There are no viruses that have infected iOS devices. Your claim was about curated apps from the App Store, not jailbreak apps.

As far as your Malware app, maybe you should read the description. It's for detecting malware on remote servers. It's primary purpose is to prevent you from downloading malware that could infect your PC.

So the heck what if its just merely scanning your files for malware. So if the app doesn't actually remove the malware, then no malware exists in the entire iOS ecosystem? laughable. You can still get malware by downloading certain files from an email attachment, for example, regardless of what operating system you are on. I just cringe when folks talk in absolutes and assume that iOS can't have viruses/malware at all, when that is clearly not the case. The mere fact that my iTunes account was hacked, should demonstrate the fact that my account was compromised somehow through Apple's platform via iTunes/iOS. And yes, I change my password every few months with a strong password logic. And no, this is not an isolated event. Its occurred to many Apple users, so much so that it was featured on macrumors frontpage.


I assumed you were purposely using hyperbole and would realize your mistake. The only thing you need to pay Apple for in using iTunes is to purchase stuff from the iTunes Store (Duh!) and to use the built in sync engine. You can easily sync your iTunes library with non-Apple devices using third party software.


'using 3rd party software' is key with what you said. You cannot sync a non iDevice onto iTunes, obviously. But thats not the point. The features of 'syncing, buying music, movies, books, apps' is only available for iDevices only. Thats not considered free, as you are required to have an iDevice synced to it. Yes, iTunes is free. But the only thing you can do with it (if you don't have a iDevice) is to play 30 second song clips, and movie trailers. Yay.


Yes, he did. He made the claim. If he would have said that Safari is the fastest browser on the Mac, you would have a point. But he didn't.

He made the claim that FF is faster than Safari, even when the benchmarks I provided show that FF is 'running circles' around Safari.
 
No, especially not considering that the "copy machine" machine has existed for what now? Gutenberg lived in the 13th century, right?

Xerox should be able to patent one specific way of doing copies, not copying per se. Similarly, Apple should be able to patent one way of doing multi-touch, not multi-touch interaction per se. As for gestures and all that crap it first of all shouldnt be patentable, and secondly there is a ton of prior art in the area; the field of touch and gesture-based interaction dates back almost as far as computing itself (and further than the pc).

The broad claims that you describe are not how the system currently works. Xerox did patent one specific way of doing copies, not copying per se. Apple didn't patent multi-touch, just specific ways to detect and process specific actions.

iOS and Android share the same core: *nix.

That's not really true. UNIX is not Linux, Linux is not UNIX. Completely different kernels. OS X is certified compatible with the UNIX spec. Linux is simply UNIX-like.
 
It's that time in the thread (if it hasn't been done already) to point out that Xerox WAS compensated by Apple - but NOT by Microsoft around all of this (and that MS raided the team for talent as well).

Xerox - a copying company dabbling in computing - lacked either the vision or the business acumen to follow up on what they'd developed, so not to feel sorry for them (and they - unlike many "titans" of the time - have survived as an independent company to this day, so no tears to shed all in all.)

Even though you are right that Xerox (just like Kodak) ****ed up completely with regards to managing their innovation, it is plain wrong to characterize the work done at parc as "dabbling". The things they did at parc (and xrcc+xrce) are even today quite amazing. It will take a very long time until someone will make a contribution as grand as theirs in the field of technology research.

Compared to guys like Weiser, Jobs is a flat out joke. And given the fact that Jobs is a true genius in his own right that says quite a lot. Its a damn shame he had to die.
 
'using 3rd party software' is key with what you said. You cannot sync a non iDevice onto iTunes, obviously. But thats not the point. The features of 'syncing, buying music, movies, books, apps' is only available for iDevices only. Thats not considered free, as you are required to have an iDevice synced to it. Yes, iTunes is free. But the only thing you can do with it (if you don't have a iDevice) is to play 30 second song clips, and movie trailers. Yay.

I'm confused, so feel free to correct me. Can you sync non-Android devices with the Android market?
 
The broad claims that you describe are not how the system currently works. Xerox did patent one specific way of doing copies, not copying per se. Apple didn't patent multi-touch, just specific ways to detect and process specific actions.

Sir, please learn to first study the context of a post before wasting other peoples time. Thank you.

p.s. I did not make any claims regarding "how the system currently works". I did not make any claims regarding "Xerox patents". I did not make any claims regarding Apple patents for multi-touch. What i did was answer a question, and expanding on said answer.

Further, there is no such thing as "the system". In fact, patents some of you* take as completely necessary and super-duper-important would be thrown out of court with a laugh in countries like Sweden. And yes, innovation takes place in these countries too, and yes, the level is without doubt comparable.

* not necessarily including you personally.
 
Real world testing shows Chrome outperforming Safari by a landslide. So far you have your own presonal little anecdote, compared to my reference-heavy links I provided. ok then.

I have always felt that Chrome was faster than Safari but in real world usage, Safari:

- doesn't lag/hang like chrome does
- when loading heavy pages, scrolls properly unlike chrome

A 1s gain is useless where other normal functionality is in reality discarded and not given any consideration. That's just my personal opinion.

Oh yeah without a doubt. Apple makes their products work out of the box. And thats wonderful. Personally I see a lot of innovation happening on the Android side right now, and less from iOS. This doesn't make me hate Apple, btw.

I'd like to know what. And if you could just replace Android with Google in the impression and enlighten the same, I would be highly obliged.
 
I'm confused, so feel free to correct me. Can you sync non-Android devices with the Android market?

soon, yes.

Blackberry Playbook will allow Android apps to run on their platform.

Also, Android OS is huge. When we are talking Android OS, we're talking about Sony, Amazon, HTC, Motorola, Samsung, LG, Huawei, and the list goes on.

I'd like to know what. And if you could just replace Android with Google in the impression and enlighten the same, I would be highly obliged.

True multitasking from the ground up. Meaning, with Android OS, it does not matter how many applications you have running in the background, it will not eat up your memory, due to the inherent nature of how the kernel was built from the ground up. Thats innovative. Compare that with BlackBerry OS, or Windows for example, where, the more tasks you have opened, the more it would clog your memory and therefore slow down your device.

Innovations coming from the Android hardware makers like 3D support, overclocking capabilities, and new SoC iterations from Qualcomm, NVIDIA, Texas Instruments, and Marvell, etc.

Android was innovative in that it was the first mainstream mobile OS that allowed Flash capabilities.

Theres plenty plenty more, and it makes sense why the pace of innovation is high on Android. When you involve the entire mobile industry (essentially what Android OS did), you will see a lot of innovations coming from all sorts of players (from hardware makers to Android developers).

Android OTA updates comes at a much faster pace than say iOS. Apple tends to just patch jailbreak holes, as they are more concerned with the bottom line ($$$) than anything else, and do major iOS upgrades maybe once or twice a year.
 
Last edited:
So the heck what if its just merely scanning your files for malware. So if the app doesn't actually remove the malware, then no malware exists in the entire iOS ecosystem? laughable. You can still get malware by downloading certain files from an email attachment, for example, regardless of what operating system you are on. I just cringe when folks talk in absolutes and assume that iOS can't have viruses/malware at all, when that is clearly not the case. The mere fact that my iTunes account was hacked, should demonstrate the fact that my account was compromised somehow through Apple's platform via iTunes/iOS. And yes, I change my password every few months with a strong password logic. And no, this is not an isolated event. Its occurred to many Apple users, so much so that it was featured on macrumors frontpage.

Lucky for me, I didn't talk in absolutes. You offered the app as proof that viruses have infected iOS devices. You were wrong. The claim that your iTunes account has been hacked has nothing to do with iOS security or its vulnerability to viruses.

'using 3rd party software' is key with what you said. You cannot sync a non iDevice onto iTunes, obviously. But thats not the point. The features of 'syncing, buying music, movies, books, apps' is only available for iDevices only. Thats not considered free, as you are required to have an iDevice synced to it. Yes, iTunes is free. But the only thing you can do with it (if you don't have a iDevice) is to play 30 second song clips, and movie trailers. Yay.

Once again, you are just wrong. You can use iTunes for managing and playing music, videos, podcasts, and internet radio. Syncing isn't it's only feature.

He made the claim that FF is faster than Safari, even when the benchmarks I provided show that FF is 'running circles' around Safari.

And, as he said, three benchmarks aren't everything. The only measure specific things. He only claimed his perception of performance on his personal Mac. I can vouch that Safari is definitely faster in one are that's important to me. Application startup.
 
Since no phones LOOKED like the iPhone before the iPhone and most phones look like the iPhone after the iPhone, I am not sure your point stands. Same goes for the iPad. That tablets did not look like the iPad until the iPad came along and now they all look like the iPad...
Are you referring to the lack of a physical keyboard? Because I don't see a whole lot other than that that would differentiate the iPhone from earlier competition. Unless you're trying to get into sharp vs soft corners or something minute like that.
You try to claim that these designs were obvious and anyone would have made them, yet NOBODY made them before Apple, but since Apple made them everyone copies them. That is pretty much the definition of innovation.
You still haven't said WHAT about the design isn't obvious. Its a rectangle. Phones were rectangles before most people even had cell phones. Be more specific in what about the aesthetic design is unique.

And concerning the iPad, old tablets were made with physical keyboards. They were similar shapes, maybe different sizes, and certainly different thicknesses. Apple basically enlarged the iphone design which means it ditched the physical keyboard, so of course it will be thinner. Given the success of it, should competitors continue to create products with features the consumer does not want simply to not copy Apple?
It is so obvious NOW what these devices should have looked like but it was NEVER obvious before Apple made it obvious.
I suspect you won't give details about what youre referring to about the iphone design that made it so revolutionary, because it seems like a rectangular design was always the most obvious choice for a phone.
Lots of designs and products come about that way or change in that way. That does not lessen the actual innovation accomplished by the person who actually brought the change or design to market.
Making minor changes is great. Improving existing products is great. Trying to claim Apple invented the smartphone or every other phone is now trying to copy the iphone is not so great.


Actually the iPhone did help push a lot of changes in the smartphone market especially in the cell networks. the iPhone era actually caused people to use data on their cell phones thus changing how the cell networks were being used thus changing how they were built out and how they grew their networks and coverage.
The success of the iphone caused providers to upgrade their networks. This doesn't really have anything to do with Apple's technological innovation. They convinced regular people that they NEED smartphones and they NEED to use data on their cell phones. Its their excellent marketing that made it a must have gadget, not the technical specs.
Anyone who throws up the Prada as proof that Apple did not revolutionize the smart phone should be summarily dismissed. If it is not even a laughable argument. It is such a poor and lacking argument that laughing at a person who used it would be cruel and unusual. Just ignore them and dismiss them because it is a clear sign they have nothing to offer the discussion or debate.
I'm surprised you could write so much in such a condescending manner without offering any supports for your assertion that the Prada phone is irrelevant to the discussion.
It is hard to take anyone seriously who does not admit that Apple revolutionized both the Smartphone and Tablet markets with the iPhone and iPad.
They revolutionized the markets by popularizing the products.
If Apple did not make the iPhone the previous industry MAY have gotten somewhere close to it, but it would have taken ten years to approach the level of the original iPhone.
Baseless assumption.
 
Google Bad

Google is VERY bad :

1) Take sites contents to make money and you can't say no who would not want to be listed on Google BUT can you take Google content NO, its in the public domain, why not because their TOS say not.

Its all one way.

2) They copied RIM phone then Apple phone

3) They went to bid on the Nortel patents for around $4 bn

4) Read people wi fi data.

STOP CRYING

One day this world will wake up and see what Google as done will all that data, I just can't see why person defend Google - what have they done, its just a search engine :)
 

? 1398 is the very, very end of the 14th century.

True multitasking from the ground up. Meaning, with Android OS, it does not matter how many applications you have running in the background, it will not eat up your memory, due to the inherent nature of how the kernel was built from the ground up. Thats innovative. Compare that with BlackBerry OS, or Windows for example, where, the more tasks you have opened, the more it would clog your memory and therefore slow down your device.

I gotta be honest I hate when people say "true" multi-tasking. Android's multi-tasking is probably the least efficient feature I've ever seen in a device. In theory it shouldn't eat up your memory, but it does. There's no way you can have "many" applications running in the background and see the same performance as you would without them.

Apple may not have "true" multi-tasking but their method is far more practical and efficient and there is no loss of performance. My android devices have all slowed to a crawl when there's too much stuff open...and I know i'm not the only one

Doh! Sorry abut the double post, mods...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

:confused:

please learn to first study the context of a post before wasting other peoples time. Thank you.

I was aware of the context. Did you agree with what I wrote or not?

p.s. I did not make any claims regarding "how the system currently works". I did not make any claims regarding "Xerox patents". I did not make any claims regarding Apple patents for multi-touch. What i did was answer a question, and expanding on said answer.

Further, there is no such thing as "the system". In fact, patents some of you* take as completely necessary and super-duper-important would be thrown out of court with a laugh in countries like Sweden. And yes, innovation takes place in these countries too, and yes, the level is without doubt comparable.

* not necessarily including you personally.

I never claimed that you made those claims that you claimed that you did not make. ;)

soon, yes.

Blackberry Playbook will allow Android apps to run on their platform.

And yet, Android Market is not going to be on the Playbook, despite your efforts to shift goalposts.
 
Lucky for me, I didn't talk in absolutes. You offered the app as proof that viruses have infected iOS devices. You were wrong. The claim that your iTunes account has been hacked has nothing to do with iOS security or its vulnerability to viruses.



Once again, you are just wrong. You can use iTunes for managing and playing music, videos, podcasts, and internet radio. Syncing isn't it's only feature.

actually, i didn't use it as proof. I'm merely questioning your logic, because you're still essentially saying that NO viruses/malware exists on the iOS platform at all, when a) you have no idea b) i have no idea.

if Apple were so confident in a 100% clean ecosystem/platform, why approve an app that scans your iPhone/iPad for malware? Just because I personally did not see any viruses on my 1st gen iPhone/iPad2 doesn't mean that the possibility exists.

As for iTunes, you can't play music if it requires a credit card # You'd have to buy music for that to work, whereas, for example, Spotify can do what iTunes + much more with a MUCH lighter footprint than iTunes, and its free. Theres no point in having iTunes if you DON'T OWN AN iDEVICE. Simple as that.



And, as he said, three benchmarks aren't everything. The only measure specific things. He only claimed his perception of performance on his personal Mac. I can vouch that Safari is definitely faster in one are that's important to me. Application startup.

I'd rather go with hard statistics. I can also personally vouch that Safari is miles slower than Chrome on Lion Mac OSX. I have my MBP 13 inch in front of me now. Yep. confirmed.
 
This is a very easy argument to solve...

Google's starting bid on these patents were 900 million, they upped to 3.2billion before bowing out. Microsoft, Apple and etc. Invited them to join in. But Google didn't want to (for unknown reasons.)

Now that Google lost these 4000 patents they want to cry about how they're being undermined... What a joke, they had the opportunity to join, they chose not to. Google made their bed now they must lay in it.
 
As for iTunes, you can't play music if it requires a credit card # You'd have to buy music for that to work, whereas, for example, Spotify can do what iTunes + much more with a MUCH lighter footprint than iTunes, and its free. Theres no point in having iTunes if you DON'T OWN AN iDEVICE. Simple as that.

I play music through iTunes all the time...it's a music player. I don't have an iPod or an iPhone.

I thinks you've never used iTunes and are just regurgitating the whole "prisoner to iTunes" crap that many fandroids do...
 
'using 3rd party software' is key with what you said. You cannot sync a non iDevice onto iTunes, obviously. But thats not the point. The features of 'syncing, buying music, movies, books, apps' is only available for iDevices only. Thats not considered free, as you are required to have an iDevice synced to it. Yes, iTunes is free. But the only thing you can do with it (if you don't have a iDevice) is to play 30 second song clips, and movie trailers. Yay.

So the CD I listened to on the way into work, purchased from iTunes Store, and burned to CD from iTunes application isn't real?

My Mercedes isn't an iDevice last time I checked.

You do realize that here and now in 2011, most music on iTunes is non DRM, and that you can convert it to MP3 or other formats from within iTunes? Right?

While I agree with many of the points your pointing out in various posts, many of your other arguments seem to be desperate gasps for air with little or no factual backing.
 
This is a very easy argument to solve...

Google's starting bid on these patents were 900 million, they upped to 3.2billion before bowing out. Microsoft, Apple and etc. Invited them to join in. But Google didn't want to (for unknown reasons.)

Now that Google lost these 4000 patents they want to cry about how they're being undermined... What a joke, they had the opportunity to join, they chose not to. Google made their bed now they must lay in it.

The blog post update is a logical one explaining why joining the consortium was useless.

UPDATE August 4, 2011 - 12:25pm PT

It's not surprising that Microsoft would want to divert attention by pushing a false "gotcha!" while failing to address the substance of the issues we raised. If you think about it, it's obvious why we turned down Microsoft’s offer. Microsoft's objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a license would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners. Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android — and having us pay for the privilege — must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn't fall for it.

Ultimately, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened, forcing Microsoft to sell the patents it bought and demanding that the winning group (Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, EMC) give a license to the open-source community, changes the DoJ said were “necessary to protect competition and innovation in the open source software community.” This only reaffirms our point: Our competitors are waging a patent war on Android and working together to keep us from getting patents that would help balance the scales.

Make of that what you will.
 
actually, i didn't use it as proof. I'm merely questioning your logic, because you're still essentially saying that NO viruses/malware exists on the iOS platform at all, when a) you have no idea b) i have no idea.

I'm not "essentially saying" any of that. You made the definitive claim. You were wrong.

if Apple were so confident in a 100% clean ecosystem/platform, why approve an app that scans your iPhone/iPad for malware? Just because I personally did not see any viruses on my 1st gen iPhone/iPad2 doesn't mean that the possibility exists.

If you would have read what I said or the link you provided, you would find out that you are wrong again. The app doesn't scan iOS devices for malware. As I said, it is designed to scan software on remote servers, so you don't accidentally download malware and transfer it to a PC.

As for iTunes, you can't play music if it requires a credit card # You'd have to buy music for that to work, whereas, for example, Spotify can do what iTunes + much more with a MUCH lighter footprint than iTunes, and its free. Theres no point in having iTunes if you DON'T OWN AN iDEVICE. Simple as that.

Have you ever used iTunes? You seem to not be aware of it's capabilities. You do not need an iPod or iOS device to use it. It existed before they did.

I'd rather go with hard statistics. I can also personally vouch that Safari is miles slower than Chrome on Lion Mac OSX. I have my MBP 13 inch in front of me now. Yep. confirmed.

Super. No one is arguing with that. But I suppose it's much easier to "win" an argument if you just change what the other person said.
 
The blog post update is a logical one explaining why joining the consortium was useless.

Google was given the offer to join it nonetheless... They failed to mention that when trying to give Microsoft, Apple, etc a "black-eye" It may not be useful to them to join, however acting like a whimpering baby having their pacifier taken from them is just as useless.
 
The blog post update is a logical one explaining why joining the consortium was useless.



Make of that what you will.

What I make of that honestly, is that Google sounds more whiny then ever. Now they're like the kid who is caught for doing something wrong, and still trying to deflect responsibility. Now it's "we were too smart for Microsoft and their evil plans and we didn't fall for it!" Gimme a break.

Google is looking more stupid by the minute...
 
The blog post update is a logical one explaining why joining the consortium was useless.



Make of that what you will.



LOL why do people always think Google is so good and telling you the truth, they are after MONEY full stop, don't care about you or anything, but money.


The reason why Google picked Java because there are 8million Java coders.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.