Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
but Apple is being a lot nicer about it than most companies where they release 5 versions of a software package with minor differences and charge a lot more for a few features in the "Ultimate" or "Enterprise" version

That is ONLY because Apple makes the vast lion share of their profits from selling you HARDWARE, not software (unlike Microsoft). Thus, it is in Apple's best interest to both keep software costs low (promotional/advertising point against Windows) AND *NOT* give you certain key newer features UNLESS you buy their newer hardware. This "encourages" you to buy hardware from them more often than you would otherwise. This boosts Apple's profits big time. And since you have no alternatives for Mac hardware than from Apple, they get away with it. Your only alternative (other than hacking ala Hackintosh) is to abandon the Mac platform entirely and that means all your Mac software you've purchased over the years with it. This is because Steve will allow Windows to run on Macs (including virtualization) so that you can bring your Windows software library with you to ease transition to a Mac and run all that software that is unavailable for Macs, but Steve will NOT allow the same in reverse (i.e. to run Mac virtualization software in Windows so you could take your expensive copy of Photoshop CS4 with you to the Windows plaform; no you must buy a NEW copy of CS4 FOR Windows, etc. And forget about Final Cut Pro. It's not available for Windows and so to get out of Steve's scheme, you must abandon it entirely. Unfortunately, no company has been willing thus far to challenge Apple's "right" to not let you virtualize the OS on Windows. Well, Psystar has challenged similar licensing rights and the fanboys on here have demonized them to no end for it.

Personally, I'm a consumer advocate. I don't care about corporate rights. I'm for consumer rights. The greedy corporations have had their way for far too long as it is. Just look how the insurance companies (and also from their bribed political buddies, the Republicans) are demonizing Obama's health care plan before it's even finished. They state outright LIES and seem to get away with it. The public just eats fear up for breakfast. That also speaks to the knowledge and/or intelligence level of the average citizen that they don't immediately recognize that propaganda and fear mongering for what it is. No one likes the greedy self-serving insurance companies and yet somehow the Republicans have managed to get half of America to side with them. It's unbelievable. So I guess in a similar vein, I shouldn't be too shocked at how many Mac users side with Apple on issues where Apple is screwing the consumer (which includes them) over in the name of pure profit also. Most people are lemmings, IMO. They'd let the right person lead them straight off a cliff and never think twice about jumping. So sadly, getting reform in this country that favors the consumer (be it regarding anything from the one-sided DMCA that erased fair use for digital media to a company's right to tell you where and HOW you can use their product...say like with OS X) will require VERY charismatic individuals that can lead the lemmings to safety instead of off the cliff. Obama is pretty charismatic, but even he can't manage to dissuade people from the Republican mirage of hypocritical false piety and BS lies and that's on something that's really important like affordable and available health care. What hope is there to get consumer reform for something like "tying" violations by companies that just shout that they're too small to violate anti-trust agreements? Nobody cares. So unfortunately, your ONLY option is to either leave or keep paying Steve.
 
was this encryption thing part of the shipping version of Exchange 2007 or did Microsoft add it in an update?

Can't remember offhand but I think it might have been part of SP1 for Microsoft Exchange 2007 which is an update.

Why?
 
I understand the issue, but WTF was Apple thinking not implementing proper enterprise-level encryption on the original iPhone? That oversight is bad enough, but to not have it correct a year later in the 3G model??? Seriously ?

Couple this with the 2 years and 3 models it took just to get a decent camera, video recording, and A2DP, and it's like amateur hour in Cupertino. At least when they get it right, they REALLY get it right.

I don't understand why Apple is so schizophrenic with technology. At certain times, they will be in the lead in technology adoption and other times they will be so far behind it's laughable.
For example, in the case of 1.8" HDDs (ipod), first CD burners then later on DVD burners, Firewire 400 and 800, USB, Intel's Core 2 Duo processors, LED-backlit displays, environmentally friendly PC construction, Internal hardware design, ARM Cortex-A8 and PowerVR SGX based smartphone chips, Displayport, Nvidia 9400, etc, Apple was and is WAY out in front. likewise, OSX's software features are always way out in front of the industry
But then in other cases, with iPhone features like autofocus/flash camera, video recording, cut and paste, hardware encryption --- not to mention PC features like modern GPUs (although they have gotten better recently), fast SSDs, Blu-ray drives, etc, they are way behind. And I'm sure there are dozens of more examples..
 
but Apple is being a lot nicer about it than most companies where they release 5 versions of a software package with minor differences and charge a lot more for a few features in the "Ultimate" or "Enterprise" version

Interesting how so many using Apple's products seem to think that it is wrong to release five versions of one base software with only minor differences, but it's ok to do it with hardware?!

How can it ever be 'nicer' of Apple to limit their customers to buy whole new hardware just to get access to i.e. cheap video features? Features that could and would, work fine with a software upgrade etc, etc. Selling old hardware and buying new is a process that makes you loose a lot more money compared to buying a single, if even, expensive software. And it leaves behind a lot more trash as well as it is pure consumer ideology.

Because in environmental terms and in terms of sustainablility, Apple solution of limiting (forcing if you will) people to buy new hardware just to get access to contemporary features is a very real, effed up failure!

OS X sure is nice and I wish they would make it more accessible on 'other platforms'. Apple themselves isn't, they're a corporation with more greed than ever these days. They don't thrive on your conviction and admiration alone, they only want your money. Wake up and open your eyes!
 
.. Because in environmental terms and in terms of sustainablility, Apple solution of limiting (forcing if you will) people to buy new hardware just to get access to contemporary features is a very real, effed up failure!

That's an important point that is sorely missed by most people considering Apple's environmental cred.

Whether their excuses about hardware capabilities are factual or not (with autofocus being the sole exception I think the others are BS) the features that are present on the iPhone 3GS and not on the earlier model(s) are NOT novel features that were just created yesterday. All of these things should have been planned for and implemented on the first iPhone. I mean, MMS not being available on iPhone v1?? come on, that is total BS. Likewise, things like video recording, autofocus, a decent camera sensor should have been in first iphone as well. Other software-based features like proper encryption, MMS, stereo bluetooth, voice dial, etc shoudl be offered as part of the newest OS on all earlier models.

Making people buy new units to get functionality that is easily implemented in software and is standard on most cellphones (ahem.. MMS, etc) is a terrible way of being environmentally friendly, although at least the older devices are being sold or given away and don't go directly to the landfill.
 
Can't remember offhand but I think it might have been part of SP1 for Microsoft Exchange 2007 which is an update.

Why?

because if SP1 shipped after the 3G was introduced then Apple is not at fault here for having a major security issue. I support MS products and have done so for years, but the whole 2007 collection including Vista has been pretty bad. Seems like MS rewrote huge parts of the product in patches. Almost as bad as 2001 - 2005 or so when they would introduce a server product and kill it or roll it into another product in a year or two
 
Interesting how so many using Apple's products seem to think that it is wrong to release five versions of one base software with only minor differences, but it's ok to do it with hardware?!

How can it ever be 'nicer' of Apple to limit their customers to buy whole new hardware just to get access to i.e. cheap video features? Features that could and would, work fine with a software upgrade etc, etc. Selling old hardware and buying new is a process that makes you loose a lot more money compared to buying a single, if even, expensive software. And it leaves behind a lot more trash as well as it is pure consumer ideology.

Because in environmental terms and in terms of sustainablility, Apple solution of limiting (forcing if you will) people to buy new hardware just to get access to contemporary features is a very real, effed up failure!

OS X sure is nice and I wish they would make it more accessible on 'other platforms'. Apple themselves isn't, they're a corporation with more greed than ever these days. They don't thrive on your conviction and admiration alone, they only want your money. Wake up and open your eyes!

everyone expects new product releases to have new features not available on older products. but when you ship a product like Vista or Windows 7 with only minor differences then you know it's a money grab. MS does this with it's server products. The "Enterprise" version will have one or two more features for double the price
 
because if SP1 shipped after the 3G was introduced then Apple is not at fault here for having a major security issue. I support MS products and have done so for years, but the whole 2007 collection including Vista has been pretty bad. Seems like MS rewrote huge parts of the product in patches. Almost as bad as 2001 - 2005 or so when they would introduce a server product and kill it or roll it into another product in a year or two

Exchange SP1 was released in 2007.

It isn't the first time MS has changed things in a service pack (XP SP2 Firewall anyone?). Microsoft still split things up (SMS -> CM).
 
the FW was just a minor add on

in Vista they changed the entire kernel. Vista SP2 is the same file as Windows Server 2008 SP2. they finally unified the kernels in all their products. and in RTM Vista they shipped SMB that was the original protocol from 1993. in SP1 or SP2 they changed it to SMB v2 which was completely rewritten. It's a lot faster but introduced a lot of incompatibilities. Vista SP2 is almost an entirely new OS from the shipping version. still boggles my mind why they did this

not even going to list all the serve products they introduced and then killed off or rolled into other products over the last decade
 
the FW was just a minor add on

in Vista they changed the entire kernel. Vista SP2 is the same file as Windows Server 2008 SP2. they finally unified the kernels in all their products. and in RTM Vista they shipped SMB that was the original protocol from 1993. in SP1 or SP2 they changed it to SMB v2 which was completely rewritten. It's a lot faster but introduced a lot of incompatibilities. Vista SP2 is almost an entirely new OS from the shipping version. still boggles my mind why they did this

not even going to list all the serve products they introduced and then killed off or rolled into other products over the last decade

They felt that it wasn't enough of a change to warrant a new OS, I guess. Also, Vista SP1 is supposed to share the 2008 kernel as well. Note how there is no pre-SP1 version of 2008.
What I do find odd is no mention of 2008 R2 from MS (based on Windows 7).
EDIT: seems that it is out, man no major press release or nothing :confused:
 
Because Cheap is the new Business Model

Is it your personal iPhone? If so and if your employer requires hardware encryption on portable phones, why would you be allowed to use your personal iPhone for work email in the first place?

Because many employers in a way to cut costs even further will often require
their employees to BUY their own phone. They do not pick up the cost, you do.

It is possible your monthly bill may be reimbursed.

It is a requirement at my workplace to BUY your own phone to use on corporate
systems.

This is the new economic reality. Get used to it.
 
Yes.

because if SP1 shipped after the 3G was introduced then Apple is not at fault here for having a major security issue. I support MS products and have done so for years, but the whole 2007 collection including Vista has been pretty bad. Seems like MS rewrote huge parts of the product in patches. Almost as bad as 2001 - 2005 or so when they would introduce a server product and kill it or roll it into another product in a year or two

Totally agreed.

This coming from an MCP / MCSE 2003 / MCSA 2003 / CompTIA Security+
 
Yes!

the FW was just a minor add on

in Vista they changed the entire kernel. Vista SP2 is the same file as Windows Server 2008 SP2. they finally unified the kernels in all their products. and in RTM Vista they shipped SMB that was the original protocol from 1993. in SP1 or SP2 they changed it to SMB v2 which was completely rewritten. It's a lot faster but introduced a lot of incompatibilities. Vista SP2 is almost an entirely new OS from the shipping version. still boggles my mind why they did this

not even going to list all the serve products they introduced and then killed off or rolled into other products over the last decade

Not to mention I nearly had to sacrifice a chicken to get Vista SP2 on my corporate laptop, I seriously went thru so much pain developing a deployable image for the system administrators at my work that we eventually bailed on the idea and had the sysadmins make their own just because the licensing schemes were protecting the thing like it was better than gold but honestly, everyone, even end users with the merest knowledge of computers at my workplace were dogging Vista like the dog it truly is.

Even then, with SP2 the continued bugs (wireless inadequacy among others) that should have been caught well before SP1 was released just showed that nobody was steering the ship at M$.

I'm told that 5000 developers worked for five years on Vista. The problem: Too many cooks and not enough master chefs so to speak. They were so hot on making it a gee whiz operating system that they lost basic functionality in many cases.
 
everyone expects new product releases to have new features not available on older products. but when you ship a product like Vista or Windows 7 with only minor differences then you know it's a money grab. MS does this with it's server products. The "Enterprise" version will have one or two more features for double the price

Gee, you mean like how Snow Leopard only had minor differences??? (well other than ditching 1/3 of all Mac users in an attempt to force them to buy new hardware from Apple) You don't call that strategy a money grab? Most of those features could have been included a Leopard update and without ditching PPC for another year or two so that their track record remained consistent. Yet for all their talk of a bug fix and efficiency release (what Snow Leopard was coined as originally), it's not really any faster than Leopard and there's still plenty of bugs and irritating behaviors to go around. OpenCL and Grand Central seems to be its only real advantages and those need specialized software to really take advantage of them.

I think Apple is out of ideas for OS X, which is a pity given how many things could be improved in it, from actual gaming library support (ala Direct X and Direct 3D) without solely depending on OpenGL (which is also out of date in Snow Leopard on Day 1) and yet people wonder why gaming is slow to come to OS X, other than Cider ports (which are ALWAYS SLOWER). Apple cannot even see that the Finder could be improved greatly by providing a dual-pane option. How many times do you need to move files around and find yourself opening multiple windows? Actually, a better question is how many times a DAY do you have to do that for the lack of a simple dual-pane window? Frankly, that would be a huge improvement over Windows. Yeah, there's a 3rd party option out there, but it's expensive for something so basic that Apple should have had from day 1 in OS X. I could go on, but it's pointless since Apple couldn't give a flying rat's hind-end about user opinions or desires. If Steve cannot come up with it on his own, forget about ever seeing it.
 
i'm a windows user but from reading about SL it sounds like it should be a new OS product and not a patch. MS does this every other OS release. you'll have a big release like WIndows 2000 or Vista/server 2008 and a patch release like 2003/XP/WIn 7/2008 R2 which is just a big update. A few major features but mostly just ironing out issues from a major release.

Personally i think there is no more innovation in the OS in Windows and OS X except for UI improvements and the usual support for new technologies. MS fixed SMB in Vista SP1 but that was expected.

For gaming Apple's biggest problem is they use laptop parts in all their computers except Mac Pro's. I can buy a Dell PC for less than $1000 including a monitor with a nice discrete graphics adapter that will smoke anything Apple puts in their computers these days. the 9400M and 9600 are old and obsolete. But funny thing is that Dell just came out with a new laptop model that uses the 9400M and is overpriced just like MBP's.
 
Not to mention I nearly had to sacrifice a chicken to get Vista SP2 on my corporate laptop, I seriously went thru so much pain developing a deployable image for the system administrators at my work that we eventually bailed on the idea and had the sysadmins make their own just because the licensing schemes were protecting the thing like it was better than gold but honestly, everyone, even end users with the merest knowledge of computers at my workplace were dogging Vista like the dog it truly is.

Even then, with SP2 the continued bugs (wireless inadequacy among others) that should have been caught well before SP1 was released just showed that nobody was steering the ship at M$.

I'm told that 5000 developers worked for five years on Vista. The problem: Too many cooks and not enough master chefs so to speak. They were so hot on making it a gee whiz operating system that they lost basic functionality in many cases.

I have an HP Compaq 8510p Business Desktop and have run Vista and XP on it over the last 2 years. now i run Windows 7 x64 Ultimate and it's pretty good. Even the virtual XP Mode is nice for my checkpoint VPN client.

The biggest problem i had was with the crap HP software like Protect Manager or whatever it's called. Haven't bothered to install it over the last 18 months and everything works like a charm. when i had it running the whole PC was slow, took 5 minutes to log on, etc.

i read it was something like 15000 devs. few years ago i read a blog by one of the Vista devs and he said that from the time he submitted his code to the time it made it into a build was something like 4-6 weeks. it took that long to test it at different levels and MS had to write a lot of software just to develop Vista and that probably turned into the server versions of Visual Studio
 
because if SP1 shipped after the 3G was introduced then Apple is not at fault here for having a major security issue.

Whose fault is it then? Apple chose to offer support for this function, then didn't support it properly. It's Apple's product, and their own code too. Whose fault is it exactly? Do you think Steve Ballmer or the CEOs of Palm or RIM came in through the chimney in a ninja suit to introduce bugs while everyone at Apple was sleeping?

I support MS products and have done so for years, but the whole 2007 collection including Vista has been pretty bad. Seems like MS rewrote huge parts of the product in patches. Almost as bad as 2001 - 2005 or so when they would introduce a server product and kill it or roll it into another product in a year or two

I think its a little disingenious to drag vista and its woes into a discussion about Exchange to say the least. I agree with your comments on Vista but I'm not sure you can stretch that comparison to other things.

As for them introducing and killing products - most people moan that MS never innovate, you seem to be moaning because they did try.
 
Hmm confused

Ok as far as I have read it just seems like everybody is complaining about it but I'm only going to say this if u are using exchange sure be a lil mad about it but dam if ur not don't complain about it doesn't affect u in any way so y even bring it up....mostly ppl in here are talking in third party which means u don't use it u speak for other so y don't you let the ones that do use it tell us what they feel and don't speak for them ..
 
Can I get confirmation that there are no plans for a fix and the only way my original iphone and 3G users are able to talk to exchange is if I disable the encryption?

My boss is going to love this answer :rolleyes:
 
Wow, way to misunderstand the problem completely.

This is not a stunt. If an administrator has enabled device encryption, it's because they expect the sensitive data to be stored in an encrypted manner on the device. The iPhone 3G CANNOT STORE DATA IN THIS ENCRYPTED MANNER.

If any "corporate customer" is going to get pissed off at Apple for disabling this (they're not), then they should simply disable device encryption because IT WAS NOT BEING USED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Sigh.

its funny how corporate security doesnt matter or mean anything to apple fans or even apple and their non functional pin code pad on the iphone (which is now fixed)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.