NEWS: 'World-mode' iPhone due next year, says fanboi rumor
John Navas
tapping both CDMA and GSM/UMTS wireless networks, according to the
fanboi rumor mill.
MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/08/worldmode_iphone_rumor/>
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
Larry
news:9iqdf5dd21hr81vml...@4ax.com:
> The Jobsian cult is hard at work on a "world-mode" iPhone capable of
> tapping both CDMA and GSM/UMTS wireless networks, according to the
> fanboi rumor mill.
>
Let's start a rumor about true multitasking, external memory slot, swapable
battery packs, slideout keyboard, open source OS that will run anything,
800 x 400 display with high res touchpad/stylus, Flash, WMx,
Realvideo/audio, OGG, FLAC, DivX and all the other video codecs........etc.
Should be fun.....(c;]
Oh, wait, that'll be out soon, the Nokia N900....
--
Larry
alexd
chose the tried and tested strategy of:
> The Jobsian cult
I assume you intend cult as an insult, but surely spraying these messages across
usenet only serves to further the aims of the 'cult'?
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)
11:08:00 up 22 days, 11:19, 4 users, load average: 0.13, 0.17, 0.17
"Stupid is a condition. Ignorance is a choice" -- Wiley Miller
Not Me
> Meanwhile, at the alt.internet.wireless Job Justification Hearings, John Navas
> chose the tried and tested strategy of:
>
>> The Jobsian cult
>
> I assume you intend cult as an insult, but surely spraying these messages across
> usenet only serves to further the aims of the 'cult'?
>
As did your reply...
George Kerby
On 11/9/09 6:17 AM, in article
4eSdnQFxFP7FlWXX...@speakeasy.net, "Not Me" <Not...@Home.Base>
wrote:
As yours.
And mine...
News
Bingo.
John Navas
worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
Antivirus products for Symbian smartphones have been available for
years, but not one antivirus product is available for the iPhone, from
any vendor. Releasing such tools would require the help of Apple, which
tightly controls what applications are licensed to run on the devices
via its successful AppStore marketplace.
But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/iphone_anti_malware/>
Kurt Ullman
John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>
> But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
> jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
>
> MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/iphone_anti_malware/>
Let me get this straight. You are taking Apple to task because they
are not saving people from themselves? I would agree from Apple's
standpoint. They wanna screw with the phones, it is hardly Apple's
responsibility to save them from their own idiocy.
--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
nospam
> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
why would apple have an inclination for anti-malware software? out of
the box, it's basically impossible for an iphone to have any malware.
malware can only run on the iphone *if* the user jailbreaks their phone
*and* installs ssh *and* leaves it open with the default password. none
of that is supported by apple, and, apple has been continually making
it more difficult to jailbreak.
> Antivirus products for Symbian smartphones have been available for
> years,
admitting that a platform is open to attack and needing anti-virus
software is not something about which to be proud.
> but not one antivirus product is available for the iPhone, from
> any vendor. Releasing such tools would require the help of Apple, which
> tightly controls what applications are licensed to run on the devices
> via its successful AppStore marketplace.
which also means that the malware would require approval, so in effect,
there is no problem unless the user jailbreaks the phone, which is
something beyond apple's control.
> But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
> jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
and apple is correct.
George Kerby
On 11/25/09 9:54 AM, in article dmkqg5po1p78fahab...@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>
Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
Try again, NavASS, to find something to bitch about. You have already worn
out DSLRs and Apple products.
Moron.
Troll.
David Moyer
> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
yes, there is never a need for that on iphones since all developers have
signed contracts disallowing that type of behavior, they'd be liable and
sued into oblivion. plus they are all unix based phones so nothing can
spread unless a default password/username was known.
Rick
> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>
> Antivirus products for Symbian smartphones have been available for
> years, but not one antivirus product is available for the iPhone, from
> any vendor. Releasing such tools would require the help of Apple, which
> tightly controls what applications are licensed to run on the devices
> via its successful AppStore marketplace.
>
> But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
> jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
>
> MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/iphone_anti_malware/>
>
They are totally unreliable in hot climates; Furthermore, Apple has
about the worst support of any hardware/software company that I have
ever dealt with. I got rid of my iPod when I discovered the support was
basically non existent. I think that Apple's support sucks Donkeys and
if I never see another Apple product in my life I will have missed nothing
--
Rick
Fargo, ND
N 46�53'251"
W 096�48'279"
Remember the USS Liberty
http://www.ussliberty.org/
Not Me
Interesting. Fargo, ND isn't exactly tropical...
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>
> Antivirus products for Symbian smartphones have been available for
> years, but not one antivirus product is available for the iPhone, from
> any vendor. Releasing such tools would require the help of Apple, which
> tightly controls what applications are licensed to run on the devices
> via its successful AppStore marketplace.
>
> But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
> jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
>
> MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/iphone_anti_malware/>
>
C'mon John, everyone knows there's no such thing as a McIntosh virus....
--
.
Well, it was important enough for several folks to
comment on. Fortunately, they were not burdened
by Microsoft shitware which fails to properly
implement a decade-old standard. - Sam
WindsorFox<[SS]>
>
>
> On 11/25/09 9:54 AM, in article dmkqg5po1p78fahab...@4ax.com,
> "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
>> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
>> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
>> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>>
> Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
> those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
>
Are you willing to bet everything you have that you are correct on
that?
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
> > those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
>
> Are you willing to bet everything you have that you are correct on
> that?
it is virtually impossible for malware to run on iphone out of the box
because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. jailbreaking removes
that protection, and when someone installs sshd and doesn't change the
default password, they're vulnerable to pretty much anything.
George Kerby
On 11/30/09 2:14 PM, in article hf193p$c7n$2...@posting2.glorb.com,
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
>> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
>> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
>> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>>
>> Antivirus products for Symbian smartphones have been available for
>> years, but not one antivirus product is available for the iPhone, from
>> any vendor. Releasing such tools would require the help of Apple, which
>> tightly controls what applications are licensed to run on the devices
>> via its successful AppStore marketplace.
>>
>> But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
>> jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
>> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
>>
>> MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/iphone_anti_malware/>
>>
>
> C'mon John, everyone knows there's no such thing as a McIntosh virus....
I really did not believe that audio high fidelity equipment was prone to
computer viri!
Well, goes to show you that one can learn something every day from the
geniuses on Usenet, doesn't it?
George Kerby
On 11/30/09 2:17 PM, in article hf198j$c7n$3...@posting2.glorb.com,
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> George Kerby wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/25/09 9:54 AM, in article dmkqg5po1p78fahab...@4ax.com,
>> "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
>>> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
>>> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
>>> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>>>
>> Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
>> those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
>>
>
> Are you willing to bet everything you have that you are correct on
> that?
A cite, please, to the contrary.
BTW:Whatever that is - is more than you have...
WindsorFox<[SS]>
Which of course was neither a yes or a no to a yes no question.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
Just shows where my interests lie doesn't it...
WindsorFox<[SS]>
A cite for what? You want me to cite you proof for my question?
Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
You could not possibly know about what I do or do not have, You are
welcome to your assumptions as you wish because IDGAF what you think I
do or don't have and it is totally inconsequential to the point at hand.
But then since you didn't understand a simple yes/no question it's not
hard to believe you dredged up that thought either. Care to try again?
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
nothing is impossible so your question is basically a straw man.
the point is that the risk of iphone malware is effectively zero
because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. someone would have to
find an exploit and then figure out how to turn it into something evil.
not that simple.
Kurt Ullman
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
And after all that sneak it past the iTunes store approval process.
Even less simple.
George Kerby
On 12/1/09 10:13 AM, in article hf3fbn$kam$3...@posting2.glorb.com,
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> George Kerby wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/30/09 2:14 PM, in article hf193p$c7n$2...@posting2.glorb.com,
>> "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
>>>> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
>>>> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
>>>> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>>>>
>>>> Antivirus products for Symbian smartphones have been available for
>>>> years, but not one antivirus product is available for the iPhone, from
>>>> any vendor. Releasing such tools would require the help of Apple, which
>>>> tightly controls what applications are licensed to run on the devices
>>>> via its successful AppStore marketplace.
>>>>
>>>> But since both the ikee (Rickrolling) and Duh worms affect only
>>>> jailbroken iPhones (with SSH open and default passwords) the line from
>>>> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
>>>>
>>>> MORE: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/25/iphone_anti_malware/>
>>>>
>>> C'mon John, everyone knows there's no such thing as a McIntosh virus....
>>
>> I really did not believe that audio high fidelity equipment was prone to
>> computer viri!
>>
>> Well, goes to show you that one can learn something every day from the
>> geniuses on Usenet, doesn't it?
>>
>
> Just shows where my interests lie doesn't it...
English is not your primary language?
George Kerby
On 12/1/09 10:23 AM, in article hf3fv5$kd1$1...@posting2.glorb.com,
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> George Kerby wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/30/09 2:17 PM, in article hf198j$c7n$3...@posting2.glorb.com,
>> "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> George Kerby wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/25/09 9:54 AM, in article dmkqg5po1p78fahab...@4ax.com,
>>>> "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The blaze of publicity that accompanied the release of the first iPhone
>>>>> worms this month has sparked interest in selling anti-malware products
>>>>> for the device. However no such security products currently exist and
>>>>> Apple shows little inclination in licensing any that do get developed.
>>>>>
>>>> Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
>>>> those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
>>>>
>>> Are you willing to bet everything you have that you are correct on
>>> that?
>>
>> A cite, please, to the contrary.
>>
>> BTW:Whatever that is - is more than you have...
>>
>
>
> A cite for what? You want me to cite you proof for my question?
> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
>
<straw snipped>
I thought that English was your problem. Now I see that it is of an organic
nature.
Carry on. You ARE special...
George Kerby
On 12/1/09 12:22 PM, in article 011220091322446617%nos...@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
By asking others to "put everything on" their "belief" reveals an almost
theological neurosis. When he carries on with the "you don't know who I am"
diatribe, it is almost certain that he is somewhat unstable.
Our game-boy "Fox" has a biological disorder, so I am cutting him some
slack. When one has flawed logic, it is cruel and futile to engage them in a
rational discussion.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> In article <hf3fv5$kd1$1...@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
> <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
>> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
>
> nothing is impossible so your question is basically a straw man.
>
It was not I that said it, but it still does not negate the question
> the point is that the risk of iphone malware is effectively zero
> because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. someone would have to
> find an exploit and then figure out how to turn it into something evil.
> not that simple.
You just said it again, "effectively zero." ARE you or not willing
to risk everything that you own on that fact? Simple.
--
.
"A smorgasbord of tomfoolery" - L0afy
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> In article <011220091322446617%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <hf3fv5$kd1$1...@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
>> <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
>>> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
>> nothing is impossible so your question is basically a straw man.
>>
>> the point is that the risk of iphone malware is effectively zero
>> because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. someone would have to
>> find an exploit and then figure out how to turn it into something evil.
>> not that simple.
>
> And after all that sneak it past the iTunes store approval process.
> Even less simple.
>
Or in email or a website through wifi, even simpler.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
>>>>> Why should they? They have no reason to care about jailbroken phones and
>>>>> those are the ONLY ones that need such crap.
>>>>>
>>>> Are you willing to bet everything you have that you are correct on
>>>> that?
>>> A cite, please, to the contrary.
>>>
>>> BTW:Whatever that is - is more than you have...
>>>
>>
>> A cite for what? You want me to cite you proof for my question?
>> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
>> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
>>
> <straw snipped>
>
> I thought that English was your problem. Now I see that it is of an organic
> nature.
>
> Carry on. You ARE special...
>
It is quite obvious to me that it is you who has the defect, but I
believe it more emotional in nature. You can not possibly provide any
tangible answers so you run amok in your reply, or you are incapable of
following the threaded view provided by your Microsoft reader and are
attributing words to me that I did not type. You who are running around
referring to people as morons and idiots can not even muster a simple
yes or no. Care to try again?
Are you willing to bet everything you have on the idea that it is
impossible or almost impossible for malware to run on an iPhone? Very
simple, yes or no. Now show us all the magnitude of your intelligence.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
>
>
> On 12/1/09 12:22 PM, in article 011220091322446617%nos...@nospam.invalid,
> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <hf3fv5$kd1$1...@posting2.glorb.com>, WindsorFox
>> <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Someone said it's impossible to get malware on an iPhone, my question
>>> was are you willing to bet everything you have on that belief?
>> nothing is impossible so your question is basically a straw man.
>>
>> the point is that the risk of iphone malware is effectively zero
>> because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. someone would have to
>> find an exploit and then figure out how to turn it into something evil.
>> not that simple.
>
> By asking others to "put everything on" their "belief" reveals an almost
> theological neurosis. When he carries on with the "you don't know who I am"
> diatribe, it is almost certain that he is somewhat unstable.
By refusing to provide an answer you are showing that you are
embarrassed by said answer. Or that you do not understand the concept.
By telling someone on Usenet whom you do not know and know nothing about
that you are "monetarily worth more" you are obviously presumptuous.
narcissistic and rather short sighted. It is almost certain that you are
unstable and have delusions of grandeur desiring to be a great
psychotherapist.
>
> Our game-boy "Fox" has a biological disorder, so I am cutting him some
> slack. When one has flawed logic, it is cruel and futile to engage them in a
> rational discussion.
>
Which you are apparently incapable of doing. I believe the
biological disorder is between your ears.
Kurt Ullman
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you willing to bet everything you have on the idea that it is
> impossible or almost impossible for malware to run on an iPhone? Very
> simple, yes or no. Now show us all the magnitude of your intelligence.
Yes. Now dazzle us with your intelligence and tell us why you don't.
Richard B. Gilbert
Take it to E-mail!!! The rest of us are not interested in or amused by
whatever it is that you think you are doing!
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> the point is that the risk of iphone malware is effectively zero
> >> because everything is codesigned and sandboxed. someone would have to
> >> find an exploit and then figure out how to turn it into something evil.
> >> not that simple.
> >
> > And after all that sneak it past the iTunes store approval process.
> > Even less simple.
>
> Or in email or a website through wifi, even simpler.
and how exactly can malware propagate on an iphone via email or a web
site??
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You just said it again, "effectively zero." ARE you or not willing
> to risk everything that you own on that fact? Simple.
straw man. *nothing* is 100% fail safe, but i'm not at all worried
about malware on an iphone or a mac. it's *far* more likely that
something *else* will go wrong, like a hard drive failure, theft, etc.
and even that is relatively rare.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
> In article <hf619n$tpf$1...@posting2.glorb.com>,
> "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Are you willing to bet everything you have on the idea that it is
>> impossible or almost impossible for malware to run on an iPhone? Very
>> simple, yes or no. Now show us all the magnitude of your intelligence.
>
> Yes. Now dazzle us with your intelligence and tell us why you don't.
>
I use neither anti-malware apps nor and iPhone/Mac. I guess I live
on the ragged edge....
WindsorFox<[SS]>
Then I would suggest you skip over the thread, or mark the thread
as "ignore" in your news reader. What are you new here?
WindsorFox<[SS]>
And *I* am not worried about it on Windows. That doesn't mean
everyone is that good.
WindsorFox<[SS]>
The same way it does on any other connected device.
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > and how exactly can malware propagate on an iphone via email or a web
> > site??
>
> The same way it does on any other connected device.
nonsense.
the operating system is entirely different, the holes aren't there and
on the iphone, everything is code signed & sandboxed. email attachments
are not executed, you can't download anything from a web page and
nothing has access to the operating system even if they did.
nospam
<windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And *I* am not worried about it on Windows. That doesn't mean
> everyone is that good.
it doesn't matter how good you are, windows is an easy target, macs and
iphones are not.
here's one example:
<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090208/1333453687.shtml>
First, Houston police have stopped arresting people with outstanding
traffic warrants and shut down the municipal court system for a few
days to try to deal with their computer systems being overrun by the
virus. Then, across the Atlantic, the French Navy is dealing with a
similar problem, forcing them to ground many of their fighter planes.
Todd Allcock
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:021220091751261967%nos...@nospam.invalid...
> on the iphone, everything is code signed & sandboxed. email attachments
> are not executed, you can't download anything from a web page and
> nothing has access to the operating system even if they did.
Only in the Reality Distortion Field would any of those bullet points be
considered "features!" ;)
WindsorFox<[SS]>
Ehh-huh....
Todd Allcock
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.f...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hf8t64$7k4$2...@posting2.glorb.com...
nospam is right. A phone, like the iPhone, that is intentionally unable to
download any executable code from the web or email is pretty "safe" as
connected devices go. No one seriously expects a SlingBox, for example, to
get a virus, and it's a "connected device." It's safe because it doesn't
download and execute code from the web. Well, neither does an iPhone,
except in very limited "approved" circumstances!
The sandboxing of apps even makes "stealth" code hard to execute (dressing
up malware as a YouTube video, .jpeg photo, Word doc, etc.) since those
files will only open in their pre-selected applications, will not launch
other applications (like an installer!), and can't be saved to the device's
OS' file structure.
The biggest (non jailbroken) iPhone security threat seems to be, at least to
me, a rogue application, like a game, that has personal data-stealing code
built in that is disguised well enough to sneak by Apple's approval process
and can lift user data an send it back to a server somewhere, but that
possibility seems pretty remote to me, and probably wouldn't last long in
the wild before someone figured it out, allowing Apple to finally test out
the app "retrieval" process and wipe it from all iPhones OTA.
I certainly pick on the iPhone enough for its designed limitations, but in
this case, device security is the advantage reaped by some of those
limitations. (Personally, I don't feel it's worth the tradeoff, but that's
just my opinion. I'm sure others see it as an admirable tradeoff.
Different strokes, etc.)
Larry
$Sw5....@newsfe16.iad:
> you can't download anything from a web page
This is true. So, why are iPhones so much "load" on the ATT system? What
is Apple doing that sucks up so much data on a WAP phone?
nospam
<no...@home.com> wrote:
> > you can't download anything from a web page
>
> This is true. So, why are iPhones so much "load" on the ATT system? What
> is Apple doing that sucks up so much data on a WAP phone?
it's not a wap phone, not by a long shot.
nospam
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> The biggest (non jailbroken) iPhone security threat seems to be, at least to
> me, a rogue application, like a game, that has personal data-stealing code
> built in that is disguised well enough to sneak by Apple's approval process
> and can lift user data an send it back to a server somewhere, but that
> possibility seems pretty remote to me, and probably wouldn't last long in
> the wild before someone figured it out, allowing Apple to finally test out
> the app "retrieval" process and wipe it from all iPhones OTA.
it's happened already. there was some app, i forget which one, where it
uploaded the user's phone number and the company then called the user
to upsell them. not only is that not cool, but getting their phone
number required a non-public call so even if they never called anyone,
it broke the rules.
once the news broke, it was pulled from the store, but existing copies
remained. as far as i know, apple has never activated the kill switch.
Todd Allcock
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <oUURm.59233$%j4.2...@newsfe18.iad>, Todd Allcock
> <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>> The biggest (non jailbroken) iPhone security threat seems to be, at least
>> to
>> me, a rogue application, like a game, that has personal data-stealing
>> code
>> built in that is disguised well enough to sneak by Apple's approval
>> process
>> and can lift user data an send it back to a server somewhere, but that
>> possibility seems pretty remote to me, and probably wouldn't last long in
>> the wild before someone figured it out, allowing Apple to finally test
>> out
>> the app "retrieval" process and wipe it from all iPhones OTA.
>
> it's happened already. there was some app, i forget which one, where it
> uploaded the user's phone number and the company then called the user
> to upsell them. not only is that not cool, but getting their phone
> number required a non-public call so even if they never called anyone,
> it broke the rules.
That's "amateur hour" data mining though. Using legal calls, one could pop
all Contacts data, and probably get the text of all the notepad files,
which, if the user was dumb enough, might contain all manner of financial
data (credit card numbers, checking account numbers, etc. that users might
want to keep "handy.") Even so, as threats go, this is still pretty minor
stuff compared to hacking someone's computer, so where's the payoff to
justify the investment in time and resources?
> once the news broke, it was pulled from the store, but existing copies
> remained. as far as i know, apple has never activated the kill switch.
I suspect Apple will reservethe kill switch for a major FUBAR situation.
The Cold War taught us that most of the power of The Bomb is in the threat
of using it.
Todd Allcock
"Larry" <no...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CD6AD62E5B...@74.209.131.13...
Nothing. The harsh reality simply was, as you've said many times, the
business model is predicated on selling the same (largely unused) bandwidth
over and over. What floored me was the "average data" figures one of the
analyst firms put out a few months ago (Gartner maybe?) that said the
average iPhone uses 400MB/month, and other smartphones average 80MB.
That seems to tell us, in congested areas at least, all it takes to bring a
cellular network to its knees is for a significant number of users to have
the audacity to use a dozen or so MBs of data per day out of their
"unlimited" internet.
It's the guys like you, pulling 25GB/month that are the problem (and I don't
blame the guys like you- if they sell the service as unlimited, you should
be able to use what you want. They need to reign in the marketing folks or
enforce limits. The cellcos want their cake and eat it too. They want to
market the service as "unlimited" then don't want anyone to actually use
it!) At CTIA AT&T's CEO said 3% of AT&T smartphone customers use 40% of the
smartphone data.
nospam
<elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
> > it's happened already. there was some app, i forget which one, where it
> > uploaded the user's phone number and the company then called the user
> > to upsell them. not only is that not cool, but getting their phone
> > number required a non-public call so even if they never called anyone,
> > it broke the rules.
>
> That's "amateur hour" data mining though.
it's actually a bit more than amateur. getting the phone number is a
little tricky, but not impossible.
> Using legal calls, one could pop
> all Contacts data, and probably get the text of all the notepad files,
> which, if the user was dumb enough, might contain all manner of financial
> data (credit card numbers, checking account numbers, etc. that users might
> want to keep "handy.") Even so, as threats go, this is still pretty minor
> stuff compared to hacking someone's computer, so where's the payoff to
> justify the investment in time and resources?
other than the address book, there's no direct access to any of that.
there was some game a year or so ago that used the address book to find
other players nearby, and apple didn't like that one either. i don't
remember the exact details, but i think in that case it had more to do
with not telling anyone that it was combing through their address book,
rather than just simply accessing it.
> > once the news broke, it was pulled from the store, but existing copies
> > remained. as far as i know, apple has never activated the kill switch.
>
> I suspect Apple will reservethe kill switch for a major FUBAR situation.
> The Cold War taught us that most of the power of The Bomb is in the threat
> of using it.
they said it's for a last ditch effort. so far, anything that breaks
the rules gets pulled from the store and not eradicated. if you were
lucky enough to buy it before they pulled it, you can keep using it and
that includes the tethering app which violates the term of service for
at&t (and probably other carriers).
Larry
news:031220091741570819%nos...@nospam.invalid:
What I meant was, what does a phone that doesn't play Flash, Real,
Windows Media, etc., and can't "download anything from a webpage" need
with all the bandwidth the reports say they are using from ATT? I've
seen its Safari and it's a pretty simple browser, both in form and
function. I think it does normal frames. It looked like it did the hour
that I played with it connected to my Cricket broadband through my
Cradlepoint mobile router's wifi LAN. I got annoyed with the narrow
width of it not rendering a normal webpage's width. It never looked like
it was too busy just downloading the pictures it would render, leaving
blank the codecs it doesn't support, especially Flash widely used all
over by content and spammers.
I just wonder what it's doing with all that data transfers loading up ATT
so much....??? Is Apple collecting data from its proprietary nonsense?
Are they using where you go and what you do for market research, snooping
as you browse? That would seem kinda stupid if someone found out, but
it's happened before, many times in many companies.
Very few of the apps I've seen on them are very demanding of system
bandwidth. Without removable storage, what would be the point of
stuffing it with data? Its owner (a new 3GS phone) did take advantage of
the opportunity to download quite a few apps from the app store over my
free link he said was much faster than ATT, though I'm not really
impressed with Cricket's bandwidth, being a mediocre EVDO-A system. I
don't like to call any of them "broadband" until more data comes down
than you can get on a T1 at 1.5Mbps. The app store didn't seem to use a
bunch of data as I could see the lights blinking away on the Cricket A600
aircard over on the router.
What's it doing with all that downloading/uploading that's loading ATT??
nospam
<no...@home.com> wrote:
> >> This is true. So, why are iPhones so much "load" on the ATT system?
> >> What is Apple doing that sucks up so much data on a WAP phone?
> >
> > it's not a wap phone, not by a long shot.
>
> What I meant was,
what you meant was that instead of citing actual shortcomings, you make
up stupid shit, just to slam the iphone and apple.
> what does a phone that doesn't play Flash, Real,
> Windows Media, etc., and can't "download anything from a webpage" need
> with all the bandwidth the reports say they are using from ATT?
there's a big world out there, beyond flash, real and windows media,
which you seem to be fixated on. perhaps you should venture out into it
one day.
people upload and download photos to facebook, flickr, etc., they
download maps and stream audio, including the stations you like to
listen to that you claim can't be heard on an iphone. there are all
sorts of apps that use quite a bit of data.
> I've
> seen its Safari and it's a pretty simple browser, both in form and
> function. I think it does normal frames.
yes of course it does 'normal frames.' it's basically the same as the
desktop safari.
> It looked like it did the hour
> that I played with it connected to my Cricket broadband through my
> Cradlepoint mobile router's wifi LAN.
you spent a whole hour using it? that much?
> I got annoyed with the narrow
> width of it not rendering a normal webpage's width.
it renders the full webpage and you can zoom in or out as necessary.
obviously, one hour was not enough to figure out how it works.
> It never looked like
> it was too busy just downloading the pictures it would render, leaving
> blank the codecs it doesn't support, especially Flash widely used all
> over by content and spammers.
it will skip flash, but it will download all photos and other content.
however, i'm not sure why you want a browser to download content
supplied by spammers. there are even plugins to *block* flash on the
desktop.
> I just wonder what it's doing with all that data transfers loading up ATT
> so much....??? Is Apple collecting data from its proprietary nonsense?
> Are they using where you go and what you do for market research, snooping
> as you browse? That would seem kinda stupid if someone found out, but
> it's happened before, many times in many companies.
tin foil is on sale this week. i think you might be running low.
> Very few of the apps I've seen on them are very demanding of system
> bandwidth.
how many of the 100,000+ apps did you look at in the one hour you
played with it?
> Without removable storage, what would be the point of
> stuffing it with data?
32 gig is not enough? 64 gig on an ipod touch?
Larry
>
> "Larry" <no...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CD6AD62E5B...@74.209.131.13...
>> "Todd Allcock" <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote in news:hpRRm.34593
>> $Sw5....@newsfe16.iad:
>>
>>> you can't download anything from a web page
>>
>> This is true. So, why are iPhones so much "load" on the ATT system?
>> What is Apple doing that sucks up so much data on a WAP phone?
>
> Nothing. The harsh reality simply was, as you've said many times, the
> business model is predicated on selling the same (largely unused)
> bandwidth over and over. What floored me was the "average data"
> figures one of the analyst firms put out a few months ago (Gartner
> maybe?) that said the average iPhone uses 400MB/month, and other
> smartphones average 80MB.
Like I said over in the defensive other reply about the WAP smartphone, I
can't figure out why it uses so much more than any other smartphone.
It's browser is a little better than a pure WAP browser. It shows
pictures but won't really play anything unless the webpage provider has a
special iPhone webpage that supports its horrible nest of goofy codecs.
If there's a special iPhone webpage, that page is always LOTS simpler
than the real webpage so the iphoner can see the whole page on such a
narrow pixel width as iphone displays with bigger fonts, smaller
pictures, less complex frames (or no frames at all). All that uses LESS
bandwidth, not more!
I'm shocked at the 400MB/month you quoted. From the news reports of
"high usage", I thought the thing was downloading several
gigabytes/month, not just 400MB. 400MB isn't much data on today's spam-
loaded-up webpages. Open up a byte counter and go to cnn.com or any
commercial webpage and see how just one spam-soaked webpage calling in
250 other objects in the process just eats up the data! Some single
webpages can load up 20MB on ONE PAGE! It wouldn't take much browsing to
hit 400MB these days....400MB is nothing!
>
> That seems to tell us, in congested areas at least, all it takes to
> bring a cellular network to its knees is for a significant number of
> users to have the audacity to use a dozen or so MBs of data per day
> out of their "unlimited" internet.
I don't think so. I think we're being fed bullshit to try to shame the
users into using less data and staying off it with the thinly veiled
threat of increasing rates planted in the back of the users' minds.
Typical comm company scare tactics.
>
> It's the guys like you, pulling 25GB/month that are the problem (and I
> don't blame the guys like you- if they sell the service as unlimited,
> you should be able to use what you want. They need to reign in the
> marketing folks or enforce limits. The cellcos want their cake and
> eat it too. They want to market the service as "unlimited" then don't
> want anyone to actually use it!) At CTIA AT&T's CEO said 3% of AT&T
> smartphone customers use 40% of the smartphone data.
>
Lucky for all of you I'm on the lightly-loaded, independent Cricket
system with my little aircard! Very rarely do I see any effects of
overloading slowing down the data. Cricket is, however dispite their
denials to the contrary, THROTTLED at 600Kbps, after an initial SURGE
above 1.8Mbps to spice up the webpage download times. They're using one
of those data surge gadgets that sprays data in hard for the first 3
seconds, then drops it back to the THROTTLED level, which here, even at
4AM when they're all asleep, is 600Kbps. But, it runs that fast all day.
My problem is it doesn't video stream very well unless I pick the low
resolution streams that make the video look like shit. Wimax will solve
all this, of course. God that's FAST!
Telling someone with an untetherable smartphone that doesn't render
normal streaming video codecs and doesn't play media unless some special
app or webpage Apple/ATT can control to do it very slowly, is
"unlimited" is no danger at all to the system. A 16Kbps audio stream
isn't going to threaten anything. Using special apps allows them to
throttle down the streams from, say, Shoutcast's 128Kbps streams to
something much less demanding that won't eat the little CPU decoding it
makes good business sense for both companies. Decoding 16Kbps audio is
also MUCH easier on that irreplaceable battery they're stuck with than a
full-speed streamer, say 128Kbps MP3 or 300Kbps video.
Larry
nos...@nospam.invalid:
> they said it's for a last ditch effort. so far, anything that breaks
> the rules gets pulled from the store and not eradicated. if you were
> lucky enough to buy it before they pulled it, you can keep using it and
> that includes the tethering app which violates the term of service for
> at&t (and probably other carriers).
>
>
Of course, this means NOT giving back the MONEY they paid for the stealing
app, too.
nospam
<no...@home.com> wrote:
> Like I said over in the defensive other reply about the WAP smartphone, I
> can't figure out why it uses so much more than any other smartphone.
> It's browser is a little better than a pure WAP browser.
like i said in the other post, it's *much* better than a wap browser.
> It shows
> pictures but won't really play anything unless the webpage provider has a
> special iPhone webpage that supports its horrible nest of goofy codecs.
wrong.
> If there's a special iPhone webpage, that page is always LOTS simpler
> than the real webpage so the iphoner can see the whole page on such a
> narrow pixel width as iphone displays with bigger fonts, smaller
> pictures, less complex frames (or no frames at all). All that uses LESS
> bandwidth, not more!
using less bandwidth is a good thing. i even use mobile pages on my
home computer because they load faster and without all the crap, so i
can get the info i need much faster. nevertheless, if the user wants to
load the non-mobile page, they can still do that.
nospam
<no...@home.com> wrote:
> Of course, this means NOT giving back the MONEY they paid for the stealing
> app, too.
what stealing app might that be?
Larry
nos...@nospam.invalid:
> there's a big world out there, beyond flash, real and windows media,
> which you seem to be fixated on. perhaps you should venture out into it
> one day.
>
Now, now, let's not get our panties all in a wad defending the company.
Yes, I love to pull your chain, especially, but can't figure out why you
defend like a Knight defending the Queen. Why do you give a shit so much?
Is it your job?
Ok, let's "venture out into it", that vast webspace beyond......
BBC news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0053srr/Newshour_03_12_2009/
oops...sorry...FLASH based.
CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/
Click the lead story. Oops...sorry....FLASH
You won't be watching that video, either....
CBS? CSI trailer? Cool!
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/csi_ny/video/?play=true&pid=MkvLkyhy3
_iMbzq2eLhkZHj3ALPmMRAI
Oops...sorry....more FLASH.
Maybe we try overseas for more luck....
Radio Berner Oberland in Switzerland on one of the most beautiful lakes on
the planet:
http://www.radiobeo.ch/index_player_webcam.php
Oops...sorry. Webcam and player are Flash. But, you can try listening on
the low-res MP3 stream. That might work.....
Hmm...what about Germany?
http://www.dw-world.de/
Crap! More FLASH! Why is everyone playing their stations in FLASH?!
How about ICRT in English from Taiwan. That's a great station...
http://www.icrt.com.tw/
Oh, my! HiChannel delivers most of the streams in Asia! This is what it
says if things don't play right:
"Because hiChannel adding DRM function on All on-line broadcasting, so, if
you still can not receive radio from internet, please refer to follows
1. If your Windows XP upgraded to Service Pack 3, then you need to re-
download Media Player from
http://wml.media.hinet.net/sop/ErrorDesc.aspx#q19
2. if your Windows XP NOTupgraded to Service Pack 3, please
I. Don't block hiChannnel pop-up windows, i.e. allow *.hichannel.hinet.net
and *.media.hinet.net. Unlock refer to
http://wml.media.hinet.net/sop/ErrorDesc.aspx#q1
II. Download utility as follow and Reset DRM
http://wml.media.hinet.net/sop/ErrorDesc.aspx#q5
III. Browsing hiChannel, click ICRT channel and do DRM upgrade as following
windows
IV. If you complete I � III, still can not receive on-line broadcasting,
please restart your computer"
Hmm..no DRM decoded Windows Media player, either.....sorry.
How about one of my favs, the mighty PIG, KPIG in Freedom, CA?
http://www.kpig.com/
CRAP! KPIG uses an onscreen Windows Media player!
mms://mapleton.wmlive.internapcdn.net/live_mapleton_vitalstream_com_kpigfm
74Kbps..stereo..the coolest laid back blues music is playing.....
These guys are all NUTS! Live DJs playin' what they like. Clear Channel's
not gonna like this! Radio's supposed to sound like DRIVEL!
Your turn. Give me some TV and radio streamers that play on iPhone WITHOUT
some special app directed by apple....Play me sumthin' right off the
webpages. I can't find it here.....I know you have a Shoutcast app. How
much does Stevie want for that one just to listen to FREE radio?
What bullshit....jumpin' through hoops just to listen to BBC!
Larry
nos...@nospam.invalid:
> it renders the full webpage
That's simply NOT TRUE and you know it! ALL webpages that don't come from
Apple.com now use EXTENSIVE Flash video, pictures and apps.....
A browser without FLASH is like a Word Processor without CUT AND PASTE, or
a computer without MULTITASKING!
That thing won't render MOST of the commercial internet, now!
nospam
<no...@home.com> wrote:
> > it renders the full webpage
>
> That's simply NOT TRUE and you know it! ALL webpages that don't come from
> Apple.com now use EXTENSIVE Flash video, pictures and apps.....
all webpages use flash? every single one?
> A browser without FLASH is like a Word Processor without CUT AND PASTE, or
> a computer without MULTITASKING!
nonsense.
nospam
<no...@home.com> wrote:
> > there's a big world out there, beyond flash, real and windows media,
> > which you seem to be fixated on. perhaps you should venture out into it
> > one day.
>
> Now, now, let's not get our panties all in a wad defending the company.
> Yes, I love to pull your chain, especially, but can't figure out why you
> defend like a Knight defending the Queen. Why do you give a shit so much?
> Is it your job?
i'm not defending anyone. if you say something bogus, someone will
correct it.
> Ok, let's "venture out into it", that vast webspace beyond......
i'm not going to go through each one, but here's a few:
> CNN:
> http://www.cnn.com/
> Click the lead story. Oops...sorry....FLASH
> You won't be watching that video, either....
wrong. cnn has an app that not only has all the videos but without any
preroll ads. it also has live video and will alert you for breaking
news stories. news can also be read offline.
> CBS? CSI trailer? Cool!
the official csi game is on the iphone.
> Maybe we try overseas for more luck....
there are streaming apps for a variety of stations, including
international. they don't all broadcast *only* in flash, you know.
> How about one of my favs, the mighty PIG, KPIG in Freedom, CA?
i told you last week that kpig can be heard with a number of apps.
> These guys are all NUTS! Live DJs playin' what they like. Clear Channel's
> not gonna like this! Radio's supposed to sound like DRIVEL!
what you meant to say was that your posts are supposed to (and do)
sound like drivel.
> Your turn. Give me some TV and radio streamers that play on iPhone WITHOUT
> some special app directed by apple....Play me sumthin' right off the
> webpages. I can't find it here.....I know you have a Shoutcast app. How
> much does Stevie want for that one just to listen to FREE radio?
actually i don't have any shoutcast app, but the official one is free.
there's also no reason *not* to use a dedicated app to do something.
Larry
news:031220092014289915%nos...@nospam.invalid:
The one they sold you that steals your contacts list data they took off the
app store because it did that.....but didn't give you your money back
because you still have it installed and working.
You can't be that stupid. Are you just acting that way for me?
nospam
<no...@home.com> wrote:
> The one they sold you that steals your contacts list data they took off the
> app store because it did that.....but didn't give you your money back
> because you still have it installed and working.
as i recall, that app used the contacts list to find other players, not
collect names and addresses, so it's not as evil as it might seem. the
developer updated it to not do that and then the app was reinstated.
John Navas
in <4b0ebb32$0$87073$815e...@news.qwest.net>:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
>
>yes, there is never a need for that on iphones since all developers have
>signed contracts disallowing that type of behavior, they'd be liable and
>sued into oblivion. plus they are all unix based phones so nothing can
>spread unless a default password/username was known.
No offense, but that's dangerously naive.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:30:26 -0700, David Moyer <dav...@world.com> wrote
> in <4b0ebb32$0$87073$815e...@news.qwest.net>:
>
> >John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Apple is that there's no need for anti-malware for iPhones.
> >
> >yes, there is never a need for that on iphones since all developers have
> >signed contracts disallowing that type of behavior, they'd be liable and
> >sued into oblivion. plus they are all unix based phones so nothing can
> >spread unless a default password/username was known.
>
> No offense, but that's dangerously naive.
not really, although what he wrote is not entirely correct.
unless the iphone is jailbroken, it's *very* difficult to get
non-approved code to run, let alone spread.
tlvp
> ... ALL webpages that don't come from
> Apple.com now use EXTENSIVE Flash video, pictures and apps.....
That's a wee bit of an overstatement, I believe :-) .
Or should I infer that all the webpages I've put up
on non-Apple.com servers, using *no* Flash, *no* apps,
no scripts even, now *do* "come from Apple.com"?
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP