Yet more proof Apple doesn't test software sufficiently (this time not only from Facebook but also from Expedia, Hollister and Hotels.com)

[arlen holder]

Facts.

Yet more proof Apple doesn't test software sufficiently (this time not only
from Facebook but also from Expedia, Hollister and Hotels.com) in the App
Store.

HINT: I realize it's obvious - and has been for years - that Apple never
tests App Store apps sufficiently - but the Apologists _need_ facts.

Facts:
o Apple tells app developers to disclose or remove screen recording code
<https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/07/apple-glassbox-apps/>
"Apple is telling app developers to remove or properly disclose
their use of analytics code that allows them to record how a user
interacts with their iPhone apps — or face removal from the
app store"

It appears that Apple, yet again, doesn't give a shit ... until ... the
shit hits the fan (sigh.... this is so common that to deny it is something
only a true Apologist can even think of doing".

Apple never finds these bugs ... outsiders in the real world find them.

Apple's email ... "follows an investigation by TechCrunch that
revealed major companies, like Expedia, Hollister and Hotels.com,
were using a third-party analytics tool to record every tap and
swipe inside the app. We found that none of the apps we tested
asked the user for permission, and none of the companies said
in their privacy policies that they were recording a user’s app
activity."

Yet again, Apple reacts _only_ after the shit hits the fan publicly...
"It’s the latest privacy debacle that has forced Apple to wade
in to protect its customers after apps were caught misbehaving."

It's clear Apple never tested this App Store software sufficiently:
"Last week, TechCrunch reported that Apple banned Facebook's
research app that the social media giant paid teenagers to collect
all of their data."

"It followed another investigation by TechCrunch that revealed
Facebook misused its Apple-issued enterprise developer
certificate to build and provide apps for consumers outside
Apple’s App Store"

See also:
o Apple threatens to remove iPhone apps caught recording user activity without consent
<https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/07/apple-threatens-to-remove-iphone-apps-caught-recording-users-screens.html>

Facts.
o The biggest weakness of the Apple Apologists ... are facts.

Logic.
o The second biggest weakness of the Apple Apologists ... is logic.

Fact:
o Apple clearly doesn't tests sufficiently in the real world.
Logic:
o The proof is in the taste of the pudding (these aren't found by Apple)
o And yet, they're trivially easy to find.

[badgolferman]

arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:
> Facts.
>
> Yet more proof Apple doesn't test software sufficiently (this time not only
> from Facebook but also from Expedia, Hollister and Hotels.com) in the App
> Store.
>
> HINT: I realize it's obvious - and has been for years - that Apple never
> tests App Store apps sufficiently - but the Apologists _need_ facts.
>
> Facts:
> o Apple tells app developers to disclose or remove screen recording code
> <https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/07/apple-glassbox-apps/>
> "Apple is telling app developers to remove or properly disclose
> their use of analytics code that allows them to record how a user

> interacts with their iPhone apps ¡X or face removal from the

Lets just say what you claim is true. Apple does not test their products
sufficiently and releases them with bugs. The same thing has been said
about Microsoft products, yet Microsoft and now Apple have become dominant
industry giants so there must be something appealing about their products
regardless of how good their marketing departments are at projecting an
image. Projecting an image is not enough to make you a giant as we can see
with the likes of Tesla and other companies.

Now what? How will anyone in this newsgroup change Apple’s practices? Why
must you constantly belittle Apple users? Are you the conscience of the
group?

[Lewis]

In message <q3jrqi$pdg$1...@news.albasani.net> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Now what? How will anyone in this newsgroup change Apple’s practices? Why
> must you constantly belittle Apple users? Are you the conscience of the
> group?

S/He is a terribly insecure child who spends his days lying about
everything s/he can. S/He doesn't care what s/he says, s/he just wants as much
attention as possible, and it doesn't matter if it's good or bad. In
fact, being as insecure as s/he is, bad is probably better so s/he can tell
him/herself s/he is "standing up to oppressors" or some shit like that. He
revels in his wrongness.

S/He is probably a flat-Earther, audiophile, fake moon landing, alien
lizard government, scientologist Trump lover conspiracy nutter too.

The only way to deal with people like him/her is to not reply to them. Once
they stop getting the attention they need to feel like they are alive and
tamp down the dead inside, s/he will go somewhere else.

You can't argue crazy. You can't argue stupid. S/He's both.

--
Is it my imagination, or do buffalo wings taste like chicken?

[arlen holder]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 12:14:10 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> Lets just say what you claim is true.

Hi badgolferman,

<WARNING: Adult conversation below - not for Apple Apologists' eyes!>

You're not an Apologists, as you're generally (but not always) reasonable,
so we _can_ very likely have an adult discussion about two things that the
Apologists prove they can't:
1. Facts
2. Logic

Hence, you and I can both _learn_ from each other; if we wish to.

> Apple does not test their products sufficiently and releases them with bugs.

The facts are extremely clear that Apple doesn't test product sufficiently.

Some recent hardware examples are that _all_ iPhones (except the XS Max)
have evidence of huge flaws (i.e., they need to be throttled in "about a
year" or you face unacceptable stability).

Recent software examples abound, most (or maybe even _all_) of which could
be found by a mere child simply using the software, for example:
o Lockscreen exploit easily found only hours after iOS 12.1 released
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/N-hQKPDI4a0/4tfgLojLAAAJ>

> The same thing has been said about Microsoft products

<smile>
While I have to infer what you're implying, I already know two things
you don't know because I know your argument inside & out, and yet,
you don't know mine (apparently).

<WARNING... adult discussion below ... not for mere children...>

I know EXACTLY where you're going with that sentence, and, better yet, I
know the flaws in your argument. The reason I know where you're going is
that EVERYONE thinks that, at first. It's sort of like why everyone thinks
the sun goes around the earth at first, or everyone thinks that you're
weightless when you're in orbit, or that everyone thinks glass flows such
that it's thicker at the bottom in old farmhouse windows, or that everyone
thinks that "high octane" gasoline is "better" than lower octane gasoline,
etc.

What you're thinking is along the lines of saying that acetaminophen (e.g.,
Tylenol) is better than acetylsalicylic acid (i.e., Aspirin) simply because
they MARKET Tylenol better than they market Bufferin.

FACT: *Tylenol is the brand doctor's recommend most!*
LOGIC: It's a MARKETING trick (a brilliant trick, but still a trick).

Don't fall prey to MARKETING of a tiger running across the screen making
you _think_ that high-octane Exxon gasoline is any better than low octane
Rotten Robbie gasoline (and yes, that's a real brand name in California).

*Here is the biggest _question_ for everyone on this newsgroup:*

FACT: Is your _brain_ that of an ADULT or that of a CHILD?
LOGIC: An adult can see right through (even brilliant) MARKETING; a child
can't.

I posit there are a dozen "children" on this ng who cannot see through
marketing, in that they _always_ post _exactly_ what Apple Marketing
Propaganda teaches their (weak) minds.

Do you want me to _name_ those Apple Apologists with the weak mind?

The fact is that the fact that Tylenol outsells Bufferin does NOT
(inherently) mean that Tylenol is better than Bufferin; it just means that
people may _think_ it's better - but how many of those people _understand_
the differences.

The fact is that high-octane fuel costs more than lower-octane fuel, but
that alone (inherently) does not mean that high octane gasoline is any
better than low octane gasoline for your engine; it just means that people
may _think_ it's better - but how many of those people _understand_ what an
octane rating signifies?

The ADULT mind can COMPREHEND that the mere fact that product X sells at a
higher price than does product Y, in and of itself, is more due to
MARKETING than it's due to PRODUCT.

HINT: Did anyone here _ever_ take even a _single_ marketing class?
DOUBLEHINT: Product differentiation is a primary goal of marketing 101.

> yet Microsoft and now Apple have become dominant
> industry giants so there must be something appealing about their products
> regardless of how good their marketing departments are at projecting an
> image.

Aha! You're THINKING badgolferman!
o You're beginning to think like an adult thinks ... which is GREAT!

That's a great observation badgolferman, where it's only a single sentence
so there's not much to go on, but if I infer the facts & logic you implied,
then I know EXACTLY where you're going with that sentence.

HINT: I'm way (way) ahead of you on this one!
I'm so far ahead of you on the logic that we won't be able to cover it
sufficiently because I've spent about 10 years on _that_ question alone.

FACT/LOGIC: I've ASKED on the Microsoft newsgroups, for example, WHY
Microsoft still exists, given that it has (almost) nothing over Linux - as
just one example. (And the reason is astounding why M$ still exists!).

FACT/LOGIC: I've ASKED on the Microsoft newsgroups if we can come up with
even TEN functional things that we can do on Windows 10 that we can't do on
_every_ other Microsoft OS, where we couldn't even get to ten (we got
close, but barely).

FACT/LOGIC:
The fact is that Microsoft is successful - but not because it's a great
product (compared to Linux, which is free). In fact, I've said MANY TIMES
on the Microsoft & Linux newsgroups why I think Microsoft is successful
(and it's NOT because it's a great product).

FACT/LOGIC:
The fact is that iPhones & iPads & iPods are successful, where only ONE of
those three things is still arguably (by facts & logic) a great product.
(IMHO) The iPod _is_ one of the most fantastic products I've ever seen,
and, the _first_ (and only the first) set of iPhones _were_ absolutely
stunningly fantastic products (at the time) compared to the alternatives.

FACT/LOGIC:
Even today, when it's clear that all iOS mobile devices are primitive in
functionality compared to Android, many people THINK that iOS is a great
product ... but not for the reasons you might think.

> Projecting an image is not enough to make you a giant as we can see
> with the likes of Tesla and other companies.

Aha! I see where you're going, badgolferman.

Please remember that there is no argument anyone here can make that I can't
instantly comprehend - and - perhaps - since I have at least an average
intelligence (if that) - I haven't yet seen anyone promote an argument that
I haven't ALREADY thought about in asking MYSELF this basic question:

BASIC QUESTION:
Q: Why on earth do the Apple Apologists _believe_ what they believe?

> Now what? How will anyone in this newsgroup change Apple┬ practices? Why

> must you constantly belittle Apple users? Are you the conscience of the
> group?

<WARNING ... strategy & tactics will be discussed below>

This question, badgolferman, is an EXTREMELY RELEVENT question!

You can ask that _same_ question many ways, for example:
Q: Why do I constantly post negative press about Apple products?
Q: Why do I constantly state the truth about Apple products?

Notice the difference?
My strategy is clear, I would think, as it never changes.
My tactics evolve, but they're clear that they support my strategy.

The answer to your question is multiple answers, one of which is that
clearly, I _own_ Apple products (do I not?). I always laugh when I hear
people like Snit & Jolly Roger and most recently Alan Baker, who intimate
that I am an Android "lover" who doesn't even own Apple products.

But they are all adults who prove to own the mind of a child.

The fact is that:
o On Microsoft newsgroups, I tell the truth about Microsoft product.
o On Linux newsgroups, I tell the truth about Ubuntu product.
o On Android newsgroups, I tell the truth about Android product.
And ...
o On Apple newsgroups, I tell the truth about Apple product.

Remember, NOBODY has EVER found me WRONG on MATERIAL fact!

What you're really asking is something along these lines:
Q: Why can't I always just say only good things about Apple product?

[arlen holder]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 13:52:23 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> S/He is a terribly insecure child who spends his days lying about
> everything s/he can.

Hi Lewis,

You're an Apple Apologists, so we're not going to be in the same league.
o (NOTE TO ADULTS: Adult response below - please appreciate the effort!)

I believe I understand you Lewis, inside and out.
o And yet, everything you post, indicates you don't understand my motive.

FACT + LOGIC
o That! Is my motive.

Even though I'm as simple as a rock to figure out.
o My strategy and tactics are consistent - which I've stated many times.

I'm going to point out what you SAY ... which are FACTS...
o and I will apply LOGIC to those facts of what you say

Are facts & logic OK with you, Lewis?

FACT: You like to infer that I am a girl, and a child, is that right Lewis?
LOGIC: That's the _best_ Lewis can do - because my FACTS are correct.

Notice also this FACT/LOGIC in what Lewis wrote above:
FACT: Lewis calls _me_ a child because I assert he has a child's mind.
LOGIC: Lewis can't _prove_ that assertion - he can only _make_ it.

Also notice:
FACT: Lews has never proven any _independent_ thought process.
LOGIC: All Lewis _can_ do, is parrot Apple (and even me).

Note how hilarious it is when the best that the Apologists _can_ do.
o Apologists simply _parrot_ that which someone else says!

HINT: Nospam and Jolly Roger and BK, et al. all do the same thing.
o They have no synapses devoted to _independent_ thought processes.

BTW, this is not just an idle assertion.
o I simply point out EXACTLY what Lewis says to prove my point.

> S/He doesn't care what s/he says, s/he just wants as much
> attention as possible, and it doesn't matter if it's good or bad.

Again note that Lewis can _easily_ be proven dead wrong.

First off, I don't generally post to other people's threads.
Second off, _all_ my posts are on the same or similar set of topics.
Third off, I _break_ off conversations with Apologists all the time.
Fourth off, I _never_ use ad hominem attacks! (HINT: This is a fact!)
etc.

I could go on (and on) where it's people like Lewis who do all that.

The problem here is that Lewis is likely PROJECTING why _he_ does things.
o The real problem is that Lewis doesn't like the facts about Apple.

For example:
o He calls me a "girl" simply because he doesn't like those facts.

NOTE: I don't have to prove any of this any more than to POINT to exactly
what Lewis writes. Those _are_ my facts. Lewis proves them for me!

> fact, being as insecure as s/he is, bad is probably better so s/he can tell
> him/herself s/he is "standing up to oppressors" or some shit like that. He
> revels in his wrongness.

Actually, Lewis, I'm not insecure, despite the fact you _wish_ I were.
It's _you_ who is arguably the insecure one, simply because facts hurt you.

You see Lewis, facts don't hurt me one bit:
o Facts about Microsoft don't hurt me
o Facts about Linux don't hurt me
o Facts about Android don't hurt me
o Facts about iOS don't hurt me
etc.

But, to you Lewis, it appears very much that
o Facts about Apple _do_ hurt you (very much so), Lewis.

The question isn't whether facts hurt you Lewis, since they apparently do.
o The adult question is WHY do facts about Apple hurt you so much Lewis?

HINT: I know the answer; but do you?

> S/He is probably a flat-Earther, audiophile, fake moon landing, alien
> lizard government, scientologist Trump lover conspiracy nutter too.

Wow.
o Just wow.

Lewis ... you don't even realize what you just proved.
o Notice I speak only FACTS and defensible adult LOGIC.

Also notice that I _never_ once have said anything whatsoever about:
o Flat earth
o Fake moon landings
o Alien lizard government
o Scientology
o Or Trump

I shake my head in dismay that people like Lewis _actually_ exist.
o Lewis literally _believes_ what he wrote

Even in the total and complete absence of a single fact to support it!
o Do adults see why I argue Apologist belief systems are devoid of fact?

> The only way to deal with people like him/her is to not reply to them.

Hi Lewis,

Remember, we're not in the same league.
o People like Jolly Roger & Savageduck have figured that out.
o People like Alan Baker and BK have not figured that out.

Even people like nospam _can_ figure that out
o But nospam is in a different category from normal Apple Apologists.

I'm going to let you in on a bit of sincere adult advice, Lewis.
o The reason you _hate_ me is that I speak facts that you don't like
o Those facts do not fit into your _imaginary_ belief system.

It's really _that_ simple, Lewis.
o It's not that I'm a "girl" Lewis; it's that I speak facts you don't like.

> Once
> they stop getting the attention they need to feel like they are alive and
> tamp down the dead inside, s/he will go somewhere else.

Let me let you in on a _secret_ Lewis:
o I have a strategy; and I have tactics that support that strategy

Whether or not you post, Lewis, does not affect either.
o My strategy has been the same for years, Lewis (with or without you)
o My tactics (while they evolve) are the same (with or without you, Lewis)

You see, Lewis, _you_ are my _example_ ... but you're not the only one.
o There are a score of Apple Apologists, Lewis - you're not the only one.

> You can't argue crazy. You can't argue stupid. S/He's both.

What I _love_ about Lewis (and Jolly Roger), is that they prove my point in
every single line of every single one of their posts.

*I don't even have to prove the point since they prove it for me.*
o Every single time they post!

I simply point out that the _best_ argument Lewis has - against facts - is
o Facts must be wrong ... because ... I'm crazy (according to Lewis)
o Facts must be wrong ... because ... I'm stupid (according to Lewis)
o Facts must be wrong ... because ... I'm a girl (according to Lewis)

The _real_ question for you Lewis, is this simple:
o *Why do you so very much _hate_ true facts about Apple product?*

[badgolferman]

arlen holder wrote:

>What you're really asking is something along these lines:
>Q: Why can't I always just say only good things about Apple product?

No, that is not what I am asking. This is what I am asking: Why must
you *belittle* (talk down) to others? You could just make your case
and let it go without getting personal. But instead you project an
image of superiority by talking down to certain people and telling them
they suffer from some sort of derangement syndrome.

I accept you have many valid points about Apple products and I also
think you can provide a very valuable service to others, but belittling
people raises their hackles and only serves to ensure conflict. Maybe
if you can lay off the personal insults others will eventually do the
same.

[arlen holder]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 16:47:18 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> No, that is not what I am asking.

Hi badgolferman,

We have done this before, where you _seemingly_ ask an honest question, and
I _certainly_ provide you with an honest answer ... but ... since you don't
_like_ the honest answer, it begins to appear to smell like your point is
not what you at first asked.

> This is what I am asking:

Let's take EXACTLY what you object to, and EXACTLY respond.
Shall we?

HINT: I know exactly where you are in error, badgolferman;
o But you don't know it yet.

HINT: Lewis.

> Why must you *belittle* (talk down) to others?

Hi badgolferman,
I completely UNDERSTAND what you're saying, but I assert you completely
misunderstand what you said.

Remember facts - which you _must_ comprehend for you to even understand
your _own_ thoughts on who is belittling whom.

FACT 1: I act as a _mirror_ to every post (implied as inferred).
Fact 2: I never once used an ad hominem attack (HINT: That is a fact!)
Fact 3: I don't throw the first stone - I merely _respond_ to the posts.

Now badgolferman, I realize you didn't comprehend _any_ of those facts.
Trust me badgolferman. I _know_ you didn't comprehend those facts.
In fact, trust me that I know you don't even _believe_ those facts.

Am I right?
OK. We agree.

Now let's _look_ at the facts shall we?
o Take the post right here just now, in this thread, from Lewis, shall we?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/8HfdPOQVNVk/9NykUTeOCgAJ>

That post is a fact, is it not, badgolferman?

HINT: It's the most important fact because I know where you err,
badgolferman; you don't know where you err - but I do.

*And where you err has exactly all to with _that_ Lewis post, badgolferman.*

Notice how Lewis responded to facts:

The facts are that nobody has ever found me even once to be materially
wrong on the facts that I present on Apple products, software, & services.
o Not even once out of thousands of facts posted over the years

Lewis' only response to the facts are, clearly, as evidenced in that post:

o Facts must be wrong ... because ... I'm a girl (according to Lewis)
o Facts must be wrong ... because ... I'm crazy (according to Lewis)
o Facts must be wrong ... because ... I'm stupid (according to Lewis)

But wait, the disconnect between Apologists & Facts gets even worse:
o Apple Apologists constantly prove to own imaginary belief systems

Lewis literally _believes_ completely in the absence of any facts, the following:
o Facts about Apple must be wrong ... because of Lewis' "Flat earth" beliefs
o Facts about Apple must be wrong ... because of Lewis' "Fake moon landing" beliefs
o Facts about Apple must be wrong ... because of Lewis' "Alien lizard government" beliefs
o Facts about Apple must be wrong ... because of Lewis' "Scientology" beliefs
o Facts about Apple must be wrong ... because of Lewis' "Trump" beliefs.
etc.

I'm not kidding - Lewis just said all of that (and more!).
Do you deny this is a fact, badgolferman?

Remember, I know where you err, badgolferman
o Even though you don't even comprehend yet, where you err.

> You could just make your case
> and let it go without getting personal.

Hi badgolferman,

First off, remember I said I _never_ make ad hominem attacks.
And every time I say that, I tell you that it is a FACT.

Notice, I _know_ you don't _believe_ that is a fact.
But it's _simple_ for me to prove that is a fact.

Look at Lewis' post, for example:
o Who made ad hominem attacks? (HINT: Lewis called me a "girl".)
(Among a slew of other wholly unsupported ad hominem attacks.)

Now, what _two_ things do I say the Apologists are?
o HINT: I know EXACTLY what those two things are
o DOUBLEHINT: This is where you err, badgolferman.

FACT:
o Since I use the same strategy & tactics all the time, it should be simple
for you to _answer_ this simple question below, which I don't think you
know the answer to (which is where you err, badgolferman).

QUESTION:
Q: What _two_ things do I prove the Apologists mind is like
o Note that I simply point to their very words to prove this is a fact.

You see badgolferman, I _know_ where you err.
o You don't _realize_ where you err ... (I'll tell you in a followup post).

> But instead you project an
> image of superiority by talking down to certain people and telling them
> they suffer from some sort of derangement syndrome.

Again, badgolferman, you err.
o I know EXACTLY where you err - but you don't _see_ it yourself (yet).

HINT:
o Why don't you write to Lewis to tell him that calling me a "girl"
in response to facts, is not appropriate, badgolferman?

HINT:
o Why don't you write to Lewis to tell him that calling me a
moon-landing-apologist has zero basis in fact, badgolferman?

HINT:
o Why don't you write to Lewis to tell him that calling me "stupid" in
response to valid well-sited easily validated facts, has zero basis in
fact, badgolferman.

HINT:
o I know _exactly_ why, badgolferman, you don't tell Lewis that.

The question for you, badgolferman, is why you don't tell Lewis that.

SUPER OBVIOUS SUPER IMPORTANT ADULT LIKE YOU CAN'T BELIEVE HINT:
Q: Why don't you ask _that_ question of Lewis, badgolferman?

NOTE TO ADULTS:
o The answer to the question above _is_ the answer to badgolferman's
question to me. I know the answer. I don't know yet if badgolferman knows
the answer to why he's not asking Lewis to not do what Lewis just did.

> I accept you have many valid points about Apple products

IMPORTANT correction:
o I have _never_ once been wrong on my facts about Apple products.

*Not once!*
o In thousands upon thousands upon thousands of posts.

*Not even once!*

Certainly nobody here has ever found any material error in my facts.(1)
o And trust me when I say they would _love_ to find at least one.

> and I also
> think you can provide a very valuable service to others, but belittling
> people raises their hackles and only serves to ensure conflict. Maybe
> if you can lay off the personal insults others will eventually do the
> same.

It's kind of sad, badgolferman, that you're one of the more intelligent
posters, since you actually _believe_ that I belittled people like Lewis,
which you say "ensures conflict" where, the sad but extremely obvious fact
is that Lewis belittled me (remember, he posted here, out of the blue,
calling me, of all things, a "girl", as if that's supposed to hurt my
feelings).

Do you even _realize_ badgolferman, _why_ you don't say what you just said,
to Lewis, instead of to me?

You did this before, where you _still_ do not comprehend why you tell me to
not "belittle" Lewis, after Lewis _clearly_ called me a "girl" (his
_intent_ is clear, even if it didn't actually hurt my feelings).

Do you even _realize_ why, badgolferman, you're not having this
conversation with Lewis?

I do.

HINT: We've had this EXACT conversation in the past.
o And you proved in the past you _still_ don't comprehend why.

PLEASE badgolferman.
I beg you to _think_ about this very simple question of your motive,
badgolferman.

QUESTION FOR YOU, BADGOLFEMAN, to answer (in your own mind):
NOTE: You do not have to write back - you just have to _think_.

*Q: Why are you _not_ asking Lewis what you just now asked of me?*
A: The answer to _that_ question ... _is_ the answer you seek of me!

--
Note (1): Since I'm human, and only of average intelligence (if that), I
must have been wrong accidentally on at least _one_ material fact over the
decades, but nobody has ever found one - and - trust us - they would _love_
to, but all they can find are silly semantic issues which occur during
casual conversation (Alan Baker & nospam _specialize_ in that game).

[badgolferman]

arlen holder wrote:

>*Q: Why are you not asking Lewis what you just now asked of me?*
>A: The answer to that question ... is the answer you seek of me!


Because I was hoping _you_ would be a bigger man (figuratively) than
Lewis.

--
"Being happy doesn't mean everything's perfect; it just means you've
decided to see beyond the imperfections." ~ Unknown

[arlen holder]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 17:45:17 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> Because I was hoping _you_ would be a bigger man (figuratively) than
> Lewis.

Hi badgolferman,

We've been though this once before, where, this time, you're getting very
close - which is a good thing.

In part, you finally _understood_ two things, but perhaps only partially:
o Why you ask me the question you _should_ be asking of Lewis, and,
o What is the _reason_ Apple is so successful.

Q: *Why you ask me the question you _should_ be asking of Lewis?*

In blunt terms, on why you don't ask people like Lewis what you asked me,
is that you implicitly realized (sub consciously) that what you dislike
about Apple threads is what comes out of _their_ mouths - but - you
implicitly realize there's no way to stop _them_ from doing it.

Q: *What is the reason Apple is so successful?*

I'm not yet sure you realized that the answer to the question above is the
_same_ reason why Apple is so successful, simply because you are beginning
to understand who the Apple customer is.

[arlen holder]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 18:16:48 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> Q: *Why you ask me the question you _should_ be asking of Lewis?*

> Q: *What is the reason Apple is so successful?*

Hi Badgolferman,

This is a _PROFOUND_ statement below ... which is VERY IMPORTANT
for you to comprehend (my strategy and my tactics which support it).

It's not the PRODUCT that makes Apple product so successful.
o It's the user.

To be clear badgolferman, your question was _not_ unreasonable.
o It was the right question to ask...
o It was just asked of the wrong person, that's all.

What you implicitly realized sub consciously is that the typical Apple user
is the reason that the Apple product is so very successful.

It's not the PRODUCT that makes Apple product so successful.
o It's the typical user.

It's not people like me, badgolferman, who make Apple successful.
o The mindset of the typical Apple user is what makes Apple successful.

i.e.,
o People like Lewis (who _are_ that typical user), prove that to be fact.
--
NOTE: This is a very adult statement which requires comprehension skills.

[Alan Baker]

This is not a fact. It's an assertion you've made.

You are asserting that this statement is true, but you're not credible.

> LOGIC: It's a MARKETING trick (a brilliant trick, but still a trick).
>
> Don't fall prey to MARKETING of a tiger running across the screen making
> you _think_ that high-octane Exxon gasoline is any better than low octane
> Rotten Robbie gasoline (and yes, that's a real brand name in California).
>
> *Here is the biggest _question_ for everyone on this newsgroup:*
>
> FACT: Is your _brain_ that of an ADULT or that of a CHILD?

You can't even tell that a question is implicitly NOT a fact?

Questions may assume facts at times, but this one doesn't even do that.

> LOGIC: An adult can see right through (even brilliant) MARKETING; a child
> can't.
>
> I posit there are a dozen "children" on this ng who cannot see through
> marketing, in that they _always_ post _exactly_ what Apple Marketing
> Propaganda teaches their (weak) minds.
>
> Do you want me to _name_ those Apple Apologists with the weak mind?
>
> The fact is that the fact that Tylenol outsells Bufferin does NOT
> (inherently) mean that Tylenol is better than Bufferin; it just means that
> people may _think_ it's better - but how many of those people _understand_
> the differences.

Is it a fact that Tylenol outsells Bufferin?

When you say it, I'm inclined not to believe it.

Got any facts to support what is only your assertion at them moment?

>
> The fact is that high-octane fuel costs more than lower-octane fuel, but
> that alone (inherently) does not mean that high octane gasoline is any
> better than low octane gasoline for your engine; it just means that people
> may _think_ it's better - but how many of those people _understand_ what an
> octane rating signifies?

I do. Do you... ...really?

>
> The ADULT mind can COMPREHEND that the mere fact that product X sells at a
> higher price than does product Y, in and of itself, is more due to
> MARKETING than it's due to PRODUCT.
>
> HINT: Did anyone here _ever_ take even a _single_ marketing class?

Did you? What class? When? What proof will you offer?

> DOUBLEHINT: Product differentiation is a primary goal of marketing 101.



>
>> yet Microsoft and now Apple have become dominant
>> industry giants so there must be something appealing about their products
>> regardless of how good their marketing departments are at projecting an
>> image.
>
> Aha! You're THINKING badgolferman!
> o You're beginning to think like an adult thinks ... which is GREAT!
>
> That's a great observation badgolferman, where it's only a single sentence
> so there's not much to go on, but if I infer the facts & logic you implied,
> then I know EXACTLY where you're going with that sentence.
>
> HINT: I'm way (way) ahead of you on this one!
> I'm so far ahead of you on the logic that we won't be able to cover it
> sufficiently because I've spent about 10 years on _that_ question alone.
>
> FACT/LOGIC: I've ASKED on the Microsoft newsgroups, for example, WHY
> Microsoft still exists, given that it has (almost) nothing over Linux - as
> just one example. (And the reason is astounding why M$ still exists!).

Then you should produce an example of such a post to back your ASSERTION.

>
> FACT/LOGIC: I've ASKED on the Microsoft newsgroups if we can come up with
> even TEN functional things that we can do on Windows 10 that we can't do on
> _every_ other Microsoft OS, where we couldn't even get to ten (we got
> close, but barely).

Same comment.

>
> FACT/LOGIC:
> The fact is that Microsoft is successful - but not because it's a great
> product (compared to Linux, which is free). In fact, I've said MANY TIMES
> on the Microsoft & Linux newsgroups why I think Microsoft is successful
> (and it's NOT because it's a great product).

Same comment.

>
> FACT/LOGIC:
> The fact is that iPhones & iPads & iPods are successful, where only ONE of
> those three things is still arguably (by facts & logic) a great product.
> (IMHO) The iPod _is_ one of the most fantastic products I've ever seen,
> and, the _first_ (and only the first) set of iPhones _were_ absolutely
> stunningly fantastic products (at the time) compared to the alternatives.

With the exception the fact that they are clearly successful, so that is
a fact, the rest of that was just opinion.

>
> FACT/LOGIC:
> Even today, when it's clear that all iOS mobile devices are primitive in
> functionality compared to Android, many people THINK that iOS is a great
> product ... but not for the reasons you might think.

In what manner for their intended use are iOS mobile devices "primitive
in functionality". The only point I've ever seen you try to make about
this is WiFi scanners.

>
>> Projecting an image is not enough to make you a giant as we can see
>> with the likes of Tesla and other companies.
>
> Aha! I see where you're going, badgolferman.
>
> Please remember that there is no argument anyone here can make that I can't
> instantly comprehend - and - perhaps - since I have at least an average
> intelligence (if that) - I haven't yet seen anyone promote an argument that
> I haven't ALREADY thought about in asking MYSELF this basic question:
>
> BASIC QUESTION:
> Q: Why on earth do the Apple Apologists _believe_ what they believe?

Assumes facts not in evidence and implies that you actually know what
others believe.

>
>> Now what? How will anyone in this newsgroup change Apple¢s practices? Why

>> must you constantly belittle Apple users? Are you the conscience of the
>> group?
>
> <WARNING ... strategy & tactics will be discussed below>
>
> This question, badgolferman, is an EXTREMELY RELEVENT question!
>
> You can ask that _same_ question many ways, for example:
> Q: Why do I constantly post negative press about Apple products?

You're an asshole? That's only my opinion.

> Q: Why do I constantly state the truth about Apple products?

That one's easy. You clearly don't do that.

In fact, you'll continue to lie even in the fact of completely supported
refutations of your bullshit.

>
> Notice the difference?
> My strategy is clear, I would think, as it never changes.
> My tactics evolve, but they're clear that they support my strategy.
>
> The answer to your question is multiple answers, one of which is that
> clearly, I _own_ Apple products (do I not?). I always laugh when I hear
> people like Snit & Jolly Roger and most recently Alan Baker, who intimate
> that I am an Android "lover" who doesn't even own Apple products.
>
> But they are all adults who prove to own the mind of a child.
>
> The fact is that:
> o On Microsoft newsgroups, I tell the truth about Microsoft product.
> o On Linux newsgroups, I tell the truth about Ubuntu product.
> o On Android newsgroups, I tell the truth about Android product.
> And ...
> o On Apple newsgroups, I tell the truth about Apple product.

Since I know that that last is false, I assume the rest are as well.

>
> Remember, NOBODY has EVER found me WRONG on MATERIAL fact!

I presented the evidence that you were completely wrong about that
mother posting a video of the Facetime bug and reporting it to Apple
"the next day" after her son found it (i.e. on January 20).

I provided specific quotes and cites from someone who spoke to her and
her video was posted 3 days later than you insist and the report was two
days after she'd posted it (January 25).

>
> What you're really asking is something along these lines:
> Q: Why can't I always just say only good things about Apple product?

Nope.

[arlen holder]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 16:13:48 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> I presented the evidence that you were completely wrong about that
> mother posting a video of the Facetime bug and reporting it to Apple
> "the next day" after her son found it (i.e. on January 20).

The subject of this thread is that Apple clearly doesn't test sufficiently.
o Apple rolls out fix for FaceTime eavesdropping bug
<https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/tech/apple-facetime-bug-fix/index.html>

"The software updates -- iOS 12.1.4 and macOS Mojave 10.14.3 --
were rolled out to iPhones, iPads and Mac computers on Thursday,
_nine days_ after videos of the bug in action went _viral_ on social
media"

"Apple said it will compensate 14-year-old Grant Thompson and
his family for flagging the bug _more than a week before_ it attracted
national attention"

"Thompson, a high school freshman in Arizona, discovered the flaw
on January 19 while trying to start a FaceTime group chat with his
friends. His mother Michele Thompson tried to warn Apple about the
issue by calling, emailing, tweeting at, and even faxing the company,
but Apple did not publicly address the problem until [after it] was
shared online by other iPhone users."

Timeline:
o Apple accepted that they were informed a week before it went viral
o Apple fixed the bug 9 days _after_ it went viral

Notice that, as I predicted over here:
o Apple's delay may indicate QA found long-standing super-serious facetime flaws
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/1V5tFA1OQ0w>

The _reason_ Apple took so long, is that this is likely arguably the very
FIRST TIME they've _ever_ tested the facetime & related product
sufficiently - and - guess what - they found MORE BUGS!

"While investigating the [Facepalm] bug, Apple discovered another
security issue involving Live Photos on FaceTime. The company did
not specify what the bug was or how it worked, but the new updates
fixes that issue. Apple disabled the use of LivePhotos in FaceTime
on devices that have not yet been updated"

Exactly as I said it would happen... Apple management realized that
FaceTime was _never_ sufficiently tested (i.e., the bugs likely existed
since the _beginning_ but Apple has _refused_ to answer that question),
saying only:

"In addition to addressing the bug that was reported, our team
conducted a thorough security audit of the FaceTime service
and made additional updates to both the FaceTime app and
server to improve security"

Hence, everything was likely _exactly_ as I had predicted.
o Apple is very predictable, once you realize that IMAGE is everything!

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-02-08 8:48 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 16:13:48 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> I presented the evidence that you were completely wrong about that
>> mother posting a video of the Facetime bug and reporting it to Apple
>> "the next day" after her son found it (i.e. on January 20).
>
> The subject of this thread is that Apple clearly doesn't test sufficiently.
> o Apple rolls out fix for FaceTime eavesdropping bug
> <https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/tech/apple-facetime-bug-fix/index.html>

Sorry, Snowflake, but YOU put this at issue:

"Remember, NOBODY has EVER found me WRONG on MATERIAL fact! "

You were wrong on the material facts of the group Facetime bug.

[arlen holder]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 21:32:47 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Sorry, Snowflake, but YOU put this at issue:
> "Remember, NOBODY has EVER found me WRONG on MATERIAL fact! "
> You were wrong on the material facts of the group Facetime bug.

Hi Alan Baker,
In deference to badgolferman, I'll assume you can handle adult content.

RELIABLE REFERENCES:
"Thompson and his mother are widely known for being the first
people to discover and report the bug to Apple, _over a week before_
it made headlines on January 28... "

"Morris ... reported the bug to Apple _on January 27_, several days
after the Thompsons but _one day before it made headlines_. He \
apparently discovered the bug a week earlier..."
<https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/08/facetime-bug-daven-morris/>

"Apple was made aware of the bug for some time, but only
responded to it last week _after news of it went viral_
on social media"
<https://www.thestreet.com/technology/apple-had-to-fix-another-facetime-bug-14860003>

"Apple's disclosure process--and the company's initial plan to just
_leave the flaw alone for a few days_ --raise questions about how
the company might have resolved the problem better"
<https://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-fixes-facetime-flaw-macos-ios,38579.html>

"Grant┬ mother tried to contact Apple about the bug,...Once the media
picked up on the issue, _that's when Apple got in touch_ with her."
<https://bgr.com/2019/02/08/apple-facetime-bug-bounty-paid-to-teen-fortnite-player-and-texas-software-engineer/>

"The Wall Street Journal today shared a few details about Morris,
noting he is a 27-year-old software engineer who reported the bug
to Apple on _January 27_, several days after the Thompsons but
one day before it made headlines," the blog reports. 'He apparently
discovered the bug a week earlier while planning a group trip with
friends"
<https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-to-reward-teen-as-it-patches-facetime-bug-11549572939>

"Thompson's mother Michelle attempted to warn Apple about the
exploit _a week before it was made public_, and claims she flung
emails, Facebook Messages, several tweets and even a fax in the
company's direction"
<https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3070714/facetime-bug-fixed>

Letter from Congress to Tim Cook:
<https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Apple.2019.2.5.%20Letter%20re%20Group%20FaceTime%20Privacy%20Violation.CPC__0.pdf>
Dear Mr. Cook,
We are deeply troubled by the recent press reports about how _long_ it
took for Apple ot address a significant privacy violation identified by
Grant Thompson, a 14-year old...

... We are writing to better understand _when_ Apple _first_ learned
of this security flaw ...

[Andreas Rutishauser]

In article <q3k96n$mv8$1...@news.mixmin.net>,
arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

why do you need so many words to write nothing of interest?

--
MacAndreas Rutishauser, <http://www.MacAndreas.ch>
EDV-Dienstleistungen, Hard- und Software, Internet und Netzwerk
Beratung, Unterstuetzung und Schulung
<mailto:and...@MacAndreas.ch>, Fon: 044 / 721 36 47

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 09 Feb 2019 07:45:27 +0200, Andreas Rutishauser wrote:

> why do you need so many words to write nothing of interest?

Why do you comprehend absolutely nothing of what is said?

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 06:52:06 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

>> why do you need so many words to write nothing of interest?
> Why do you comprehend absolutely nothing of what is said?

To open-minded adult comprehensive adults on this ng...

I'm going to try to follow badgolferman's astute advice in not responding
to the close-minded people like Andreas Rutishauser always proves to be.

I will simply add adult FACTS & adult LOGIC to these threads, as needed.
o FACT + LOGIC <===> the open-minded comprehend both

FACT:
o It's abundantly clear that apps have been recording the users every
button press within the app unbeknownst to Apple.

LOGIC:
o Why didn't Apple know of this before approving the apps?

"Apple confirmed to the publication that its App Store Review
Guidelines prohibit this kind of activity without first gaining
proper consent from a user."
<https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/7/18216143/apple-iphone-ios-session-replay-screen-recording-crackdown>

FACT:
o Glassbox was used to monitor, record, and save user actions.

LOGIC:
o Why wasn't Apple able to confirm what TechCrunch clearly confirmed?

"The practice, known as session replaying, involves using a
third-party company, in this case analytics firm Glassbox,
to embed code in a mobile app that records user activity"

FACT:
o This is a security & privacy vulnerability

LOGIC:
o Why is Apple (yet again) clueless about protecting users' privacy?

"In one case, Air Canada┬ mobile app was even failing to mask
sensitive user data, and mobile expert App Analyst was able to
intercept that data using a pretty standard man-in-the-middle attack"

The honest open-minded question is very simple.

FACTS + LOGIC

FACTS:
o The fact is that Apple was wholly unaware of this spyware they approved.
o And yet, Apple screams on building walls they take privacy seriously.

LOGIC:
o Why does this huge privacy hole even exist?
o (Why doesn't Apple simply _test_ for such spyware before approval?)

[badgolferman]

I’m not entirely sure Apple _can_ test every single bit of apps on their
App Store. It would be prohibitive to the user in most cases.

> o And yet, Apple screams on building walls they take privacy seriously.

I think they take it more seriously than other big name software companies
such as Google and Facebook. They don’t purposely install trackers or
locators in their own software and when they discover one from an app
provider they take care of it.

> LOGIC:
> o Why does this huge privacy hole even exist?

Because some companies sneak it in their own software.

> o (Why doesn't Apple simply _test_ for such spyware before approval?)
>

My guess is that it’s cost prohibitive, time prohibitive, and they have
agreements in place with the app developers to not do such things.

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 20:03:08 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> I▌ not entirely sure Apple _can_ test every single bit of apps on their

> App Store. It would be prohibitive to the user in most cases.

Hi badgolferman,

<WARNING: Adult open-minded logical & factual discussion is below.>

First, I thank you for your advice about ignoring the closed-minded
individuals in favor of spending energy with open-minded ones.

I hope to use your advice moving forward.

In doing so, I will stick, as always to adult "facts" & "logic", where
facts are rarely in dispute with open-minded adult people, and where logic
is where the depth of an adult conversation lies, since people differ on
their interpretation of the future, and the past, based on any set of
facts.

(e.g., How many MacOS root flaws in a year is "too many")

An example of that is this case where Apple has a rule, but certain apps
purposefully flaunted that rule.

FACT:
o The facts are that the rule exists, and that the apps broke the rule, as
reported to Apple by TechCrunch.

o The logic is the harder part, which is the "why" they broke the rules,
and why Apple didn't _catch_ the break in the rules.

To your point that Apple can't catch _all_ the apps, while that may be
true, what does Techcrunch have by way of resources that Apple doesn't
have?

The logic tells me that Apple has way more vested interest, way more tools,
way more people, way more expertise, etc., than TechCrunch can _ever_ have.

Hence, while the facts are crystal clear, the logic is "up for grabs" by
adults who "can" easily differ.

If you ask me, the logic is crystal clear since I've studied Apple's
behavior for quite some time - but I do recognize the logic may be
different for other open-minded individuals - who either have different
data than I do - or who think differently.

In my point of view, I'd argue:
FACTS:
o The fact exists that Apple did NOT catch these privacy holes
o The fact appears to be that these privacy holes are _easy_ to catch

LOGIC:
o The logic is that TechCrunch had a vested interest in catching this
o The logic is that Apple did not attempt to catch these holes

Notice that I recognize that TechCrunch has a vested interest in making
news; but also notice that I assert the only way Apple didn't find these
security holes (just like with all the rest) is that Apple isn't even
LOOKING for them.

If we assume that to be a fact, we have a very troubling picture:
FACT: The security holes exist
LOGIC: They appear to be easily found
FACT: Apple didn't find them
LOGIC: That likely means Apple isn't even looking
FACT: TechCrunch, who can't possibly have Apple's resources, found them
LOGIC: If true, then that means Apple doesn't care to even LOOK for them

But wait...there's more (which is the troubling part):
FACT: Apple advertises like crazy that they care about protecting privacy
LOGIC: ....... ...... .... this is the problem ..... ,..... ....

Do you see the problem?
o It's a really big problem.

What Apple _says_ is not even close to what Apple _does_ is the only
possible logic that I can see.

Sure it can be a simple "mistake" but this isn't the first, second, third,
fourth, fifth, sixth, etc., time this has happend in just a couple of
years, so, it's a "pattern" and not an isolated mistake.

I think that an open-minded person only has two options:
LOGIC: Apple cares - but Apple sucks at testing for privacy, or,
LOGIC: Apple doesn't care - until it goes viral - and then Apple cares.

Either way, I can't think of any other option.
o Can you?

> I think they take it more seriously than other big name software companies

> such as Google and Facebook. They don┤ purposely install trackers or

> locators in their own software and when they discover one from an app
> provider they take care of it.

Hi badgolferman,

You bring up a good point containing facts & logic.
Being an open-minded adult, I completely comprehend your fact & logic.

I don't disagree in the least that Google spys and Apple doesn't.
Likewise with Facebook - who spies (but I don't use Facebook).

So if you had to _list_ them in order of who is worse for privacy,
clearly, any open-minded adult would rank them as follows:
1. Google is the worst for privacy
2. Facebook is likely a close second
3. Where Apple would be a very distant third.

We agree, I'm sure, since
o It's factual
o It's logical

We agree because we're open-minded adults.
o Open minded adults are funny that way.

HOWEVER ... I'm against "duplicity".
o The facts and logic of all my posts _prove_ that.

I can't stand duplicity
o You know I accuse the apologists of that all the time, right?

Let me repeat:
o I hate duplicitious entities.

You also know I care very much about my credibility, right?
o It's the OPPOSITE of duplicity.

Having said that, if I were to rank those same outfits for what they
ADVERTISE with respect to privacy, the order would be different.

1. Apple would come out, by far, as number 1, MARKETING PRIVACY.

This! Is where I fault Apple.
o Apple is all talk.

Just like Tim Cook said the trade in was "primarily" for the environment...
o Apple is all bullshit.
(Pardon my French.)

I'm against bullshit which is why you see me come down hard on people like
nospam, Alan Baker, Joerg Lorenz, Tim Streater, Alan Browne, et al.

They bullshit every second of every day of their lives.
o I've always wondered how they survive with all that bullshit

Me?
o I never bullshit.

So what I come down HARD on Apple for is their privacy bullshit.

FACT:
o It's clear that Apple ADVERTISES their privacy aspect

LOGIC:
o It's just as clear that Apple doesn't implement even the simplest of
tests for privacy leaks (check out the multiple mac root password flaws, as
just a set of common examples).

>
>> LOGIC:
>> o Why does this huge privacy hole even exist?
>
> Because some companies sneak it in their own software.

No no no...

The question is why doesn't Apple _test_ for this common trick?

FACT:
o The holes clearly exist & clearly Apple didn't find them.

LOGIC:
o Apple clearly doesn't test sufficiently for privacy.

FACT:
o Apple ADVERTISES LIKE CRAZY that they care about privacy.
LOGIC:
o Then why do all these privacy holes constantly exist?

>> o (Why doesn't Apple simply _test_ for such spyware before approval?)
>>
>

> My guess is that it┬ cost prohibitive, time prohibitive, and they have

> agreements in place with the app developers to not do such things.

Hi badgolferman,

Since you're an open-minded adult, I don't directly disagree that
FACT: These privacy holes exist & Apple doesn't catch them
LOGIC: It costs money for Apple to catch them (same as time)
LOGIC: It takes time for Apple to catch them (same as money)
LOGIC: They "trust" their app developers

However, there are _more_ logical arguments:
FACT: Apple advertises they CARE about PRIVACY like you can't believe
LOGIC: Apple spends LOTS OF MONEY advertising about privacy
LOGIC: Apple spends LOTS OF TIME advertising about privacy
LOGIC: Apple kicks out apps all the time that do things they don't want
them to do (like we proved long ago when they kicked out screen recording
apps before they had that native in the OS)

My argument is that I agree with you that privacy costs money.
(Time & money being essentially the same thing for this purpose.)

But do you acknowledge that my argument is that Apple ADVERTISES
privacy which, in and of itself, hands them a RESPONSIBILITY to actually
spend some of that money on testing for privacy flaws (instead of _only_ on
advertising)?

In short, do you have any agreement on my argument that:
o If Apple is going to ADVERTISE privacy, then...
o That means Apple has to at least attempt to DELIVER on privacy?

NOTE: This argument I make is both factual & logical, but it
will only resonate with open-minded individuals.

[badgolferman]

arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 20:03:08 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
>

>> I¢m not entirely sure Apple _can_ test every single bit of apps on their

>> such as Google and Facebook. They don¢t purposely install trackers or

>> My guess is that it¢s cost prohibitive, time prohibitive, and they have

I don’t disagree that Apple SHOULD make a better effort to protect one’s
privacy, but at the same time I contend they do a better and faster job
responding to privacy breaches than other similar companies. Whether it’s
to protect their image or something else doesn’t matter. If a flaw was
found in Android similar to the FaceTime issue how long do you think it
would take Google to do something about it? Far longer than a week or two
as Apple has done.

Most people I know don’t give a whit about their privacy anyway. The
evidence is all around us, just look at Facebook and how people air their
dirty laundry.

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 23:55:45 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:

> I don┤ disagree that Apple SHOULD make a better effort to protect one┬
> privacy...

Hi badgolferman,

Thank you for that reasonable open-minded statement.

I don't think there is any other reasonable answer, so it's with relief
that I saw you agree (my facts are always correct and my logic based on
those facts is generally impeccable, but everyone carries different WEIGHTS
to the balance ... where ... for example ... how many bugs is too many?).

For me, it's Apple's BAL:ANCE between ADVERTISING & TESTING I deplore.

It's almost as if Apple doesn't have enough money to TEST for privacy.
o Apple seems to only have tons of money to ADVERTISE privacy.

Personally, I feel Apple, if they're that hard up for money that they can't
sufficiently test their software, should simply spend LESS on advertising
privacy so that they can use their limited resources to TESTING for privacy
flaws. :)

It's the incongruity that I deplore.

> but at the same time I contend they do a better and faster job
> responding to privacy breaches than other similar companies.

As open-minded thoughtful adults sometimes do...
... We are simply going to have to disagree on that assessment. :)

I don't wish to belabor this privacy issue since we covered it in GREAT
detail in this thread, where I simply say that anyone who states that
iPhones are "more private" than Android has a LOT of 'splaining to do
(since they simply are not any more private due to a TON of factors).
What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs>

I think the fact you _think_ they're more private, is exactly why Apple
doesn't bother to put more money into testing, when they instead, put tons
of money into advertising privacy.

All that matters, I posit, to Apple, is that people THINK it's more private.

That's enough said as my fact-based argument is _already_ in the thread
referenced above, where we clearly completely disagree (& that's OK):

o You think iOS devices more private than Android
While...
o I think, only at the default, can any case be made for iOS privacy
o At the intelligent-user level, Android _easily_ is (far) more private
o And yet, at the carrier level, neither is more private

In the end, the only safe argument is that the privacy, overall,
between the two platforms, is "about the same".

> Most people I know don┤ give a whit about their privacy anyway. The

> evidence is all around us, just look at Facebook and how people air their
> dirty laundry.

I don't disagree that most people don't seem to be cognizant of the myriad
ways their privacy is breached.

Me?
o I care about privacy ... but ... I also realize a phone is a tool.
o I don't want lose power for advertised privacy that I don't get anyway.

It was helpful to discuss this topic with you, where you TAUGHT me
something which I will try to use, moving forward.

THANKS!

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-02-08 10:21 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 21:32:47 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Snowflake, but YOU put this at issue:
>> "Remember, NOBODY has EVER found me WRONG on MATERIAL fact!"
>> You were wrong on the material facts of the group Facetime bug.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
> In deference to badgolferman, I'll assume you can handle adult content.
>
> RELIABLE REFERENCES:
> "Thompson and his mother are widely known for being the first
> people to discover and report the bug to Apple, _over a week before_
> it made headlines on January 28... "

This is false. Proven to be false and proof shown to you.

So you're just lying now.

>
> "Morris ... reported the bug to Apple _on January 27_, several days
> after the Thompsons but _one day before it made headlines_. He \
> apparently discovered the bug a week earlier..."
> <https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/08/facetime-bug-daven-morris/>

So?

>
> "Apple was made aware of the bug for some time, but only
> responded to it last week _after news of it went viral_
> on social media"
> <https://www.thestreet.com/technology/apple-had-to-fix-another-facetime-bug-14860003>
>
> "Apple's disclosure process--and the company's initial plan to just
> _leave the flaw alone for a few days_ --raise questions about how
> the company might have resolved the problem better"
> <https://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-fixes-facetime-flaw-macos-ios,38579.html>

How does anyone know what Apple's "plan" was?

>
> "Grant¢s mother tried to contact Apple about the bug,...Once the media

> picked up on the issue, _that's when Apple got in touch_ with her."
> <https://bgr.com/2019/02/08/apple-facetime-bug-bounty-paid-to-teen-fortnite-player-and-texas-software-engineer/>
>
> "The Wall Street Journal today shared a few details about Morris,
> noting he is a 27-year-old software engineer who reported the bug
> to Apple on _January 27_, several days after the Thompsons but
> one day before it made headlines," the blog reports. 'He apparently
> discovered the bug a week earlier while planning a group trip with
> friends"
> <https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-to-reward-teen-as-it-patches-facetime-bug-11549572939>
>
> "Thompson's mother Michelle attempted to warn Apple about the
> exploit _a week before it was made public_, and claims she flung
> emails, Facebook Messages, several tweets and even a fax in the
> company's direction"
> <https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3070714/facetime-bug-fixed>

Wrong. She posted a video on January 23rd, and emailed Apple about it on
the 25th.

>
> Letter from Congress to Tim Cook:
> <https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Apple.2019.2.5.%20Letter%20re%20Group%20FaceTime%20Privacy%20Violation.CPC__0.pdf>
> Dear Mr. Cook,
> We are deeply troubled by the recent press reports about how _long_ it
> took for Apple ot address a significant privacy violation identified by
> Grant Thompson, a 14-year old...
>
> ... We are writing to better understand _when_ Apple _first_ learned
> of this security flaw ...

How does that "prove" anything?

>

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-02-09 5:41 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 23:55:45 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
>

>> I don¢t disagree that Apple SHOULD make a better effort to protect one¢s

>> privacy...
>
> Hi badgolferman,
>
> Thank you for that reasonable open-minded statement.
>
> I don't think there is any other reasonable answer, so it's with relief
> that I saw you agree (my facts are always correct and my logic based on
> those facts is generally impeccable, but everyone carries different WEIGHTS
> to the balance ... where ... for example ... how many bugs is too many?).
>
> For me, it's Apple's BAL:ANCE between ADVERTISING & TESTING I deplore.

About which you have no actual clue, but you don't let that stop you.

:-)

>
> It's almost as if Apple doesn't have enough money to TEST for privacy.
> o Apple seems to only have tons of money to ADVERTISE privacy.

Or it's as if they test a lot, but testing everything is difficult.

>
> Personally, I feel Apple, if they're that hard up for money that they can't
> sufficiently test their software, should simply spend LESS on advertising
> privacy so that they can use their limited resources to TESTING for privacy
> flaws. :)

But that assumes facts about which you know nothing.

>
> It's the incongruity that I deplore.
>
>> but at the same time I contend they do a better and faster job
>> responding to privacy breaches than other similar companies.
>
> As open-minded thoughtful adults sometimes do...
> ... We are simply going to have to disagree on that assessment. :)
>
> I don't wish to belabor this privacy issue since we covered it in GREAT
> detail in this thread, where I simply say that anyone who states that
> iPhones are "more private" than Android has a LOT of 'splaining to do
> (since they simply are not any more private due to a TON of factors).
> What is the factual truth about PRIVACY differences or similarities between the Android & iOS mobile phone ecosystems?
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/MiZixhidmOs>

You mean other than the little fact that Google's whole business model
revolves around violating your privacy.

>
> I think the fact you _think_ they're more private, is exactly why Apple
> doesn't bother to put more money into testing, when they instead, put tons
> of money into advertising privacy.
>
> All that matters, I posit, to Apple, is that people THINK it's more private.

Positing from ignorance.

>
> That's enough said as my fact-based argument is _already_ in the thread
> referenced above, where we clearly completely disagree (& that's OK):
>
> o You think iOS devices more private than Android
> While...
> o I think, only at the default, can any case be made for iOS privacy
> o At the intelligent-user level, Android _easily_ is (far) more private

You "think"? This is a new development.

But please.. ...expound on how this works.

[John McWilliams]

On 2/9/19 PDT 5:41 PM, arlen holder wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 23:55:45 +0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote:
>

>> I don¢t disagree that Apple SHOULD make a better effort to protect one¢s

>> Most people I know don¢t give a whit about their privacy anyway. The

>> evidence is all around us, just look at Facebook and how people air their
>> dirty laundry.
>
> I don't disagree that most people don't seem to be cognizant of the myriad
> ways their privacy is breached.
>
> Me?
> o I care about privacy ... but ... I also realize a phone is a tool.
> o I don't want lose power for advertised privacy that I don't get anyway.
>
> It was helpful to discuss this topic with you, where you TAUGHT me
> something which I will try to use, moving forward.
>
> THANKS!
>

DB

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 19:06:33 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Or it's as if they test a lot, but testing everything is difficult.

Hi Alan Baker,

In deference to badgolferman, I will attempt to treat you as an adult Alan
Baker, in terms of your comprehension of fact + logic, simply by stating
the facts and logic that adults use in open-minded discussions...

FACT:
o The bug is extremely critical & it exists (these are facts).
LOGIC:
o Clearly, it's _patently_ obvious - Apple did not test sufficiently.

FACT:
o A child could find this bug, in normal use & did as it's 3 common steps.
LOGIC:
o Clearly, Apple did almost zero (if not 0) actual testing of the product.

FACT:
o This isn't the first example of Apple "root passwd" type bugs exist!
LOGIC:
o Apple clearly does almost zero (if not 0) testing (which is obvious).

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-02-10 1:05 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 19:06:33 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Or it's as if they test a lot, but testing everything is difficult.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> In deference to badgolferman, I will attempt to treat you as an adult Alan
> Baker, in terms of your comprehension of fact + logic, simply by stating
> the facts and logic that adults use in open-minded discussions...
>

The very fact (actual fact, not your pretend kind) that you have deleted
most of what I posted belies your claim to attempt civil, adult discussion.

Come back when you can do that.

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 17:50:44 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> Wrong. She posted a video on January 23rd, and emailed Apple about it on
> the 25th

In deference to badgolferman's suggestion, I will no longer
provide adults facts & logic to you, Alan Baker. even though your posts are
_perfect_ for fitting into my strategy of informing Apple users of
o *FACT*
o *LOGIC*

You see, Alan Baker, I _do_ have a purpose being on the Apple newsgroups...
o It's strategic
o It's transparent
o It's consistent

My strategy (& tactics to fit that strategy) have _always_ been the same.
o Most Apple users own an "imaginary" belief system devoid of fact
o Hence they own an immunity to facts contrary to their belief system

Since most Apple users are, essentially, "ignorant" of facts...
o My strategy has _always_ been to provide those valid facts
o Using tactics of simply _reporting_ the facts, as they arise

And then, _defending_ those facts, as objections ensue
o Where those objections are _always_ childish in nature
o And, to my point, those objections are always _devoid_ of fact

For example, Joerg Lorenz flatly refuted facts
o As do you, Alan Baker

All Apple Apologists flatly refute all facts they just don't like
o Those facts don't fit into their imaginary belief system

However ... what everyone sees, but you, Alan Baker is...

When the Apologists flatly refute facts out of hand
o They play right into my hands, since they prove my point

*Endlessly, time & again... you Apologists prove my point.*
o Alan Baker
o Jolly Roger
o nospam
o Chris
o joe
o BK
o Lewis
o Alan Browne
o Andreas Rutishauser
o Hemidactylus
o Tim Streater
o Wade Garrett
o et al.

It's _easy_ to predict _exactly_ what you Apologists will do
o All I need to do is state a fact you don't like

Immediately ... Apologists _flaty_ deny those facts
o The Apologists consistently prove to own an imaginary belief system

All I ever need to do, is point to your words - to prove that point.
o You incessantly deny facts, out of hand, because you don't like facts

The weakness of all the dozen Apple Apologists, are simple:
o Fact
o Logic

--
My strategy and tactics to fit that strategy, have always been consistent.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-02-11 2:14 a.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 17:50:44 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Wrong. She posted a video on January 23rd, and emailed Apple about it on
>> the 25th
>
> In deference to badgolferman's suggestion, I will no longer
> provide adults facts & logic to you, Alan Baker. even though your posts are
> _perfect_ for fitting into my strategy of informing Apple users of
> o *FACT*
> o *LOGIC*

Weird that moments after this post, you purported to do just what you
said you would no longer do, don't you think?

You claim she posted that video at an earlier date than January 23rd.

Fact: I've shown you a video that shows her YouTube video in it, and it
clearly shows it was uploaded on January 23rd.

You claim she emailed Apple about that video at an earlier date than
January 25th.

Fact: I've shown you a Twitter post of someone who was in contact with
her that states that her email about the video was sent on January 25th.

Logic:

Since you continue to claim that these events happened at times when you
KNOW they did not...

...you're just a common (and not very clever) liar.

:-)

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 20:45:23 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> You claim she posted that video at an earlier date than January 23rd.

Hi Alan Baker,

FACT + LOGIC

Those are the main weakness of the entire score of you Apple Apologists.
o I don't even need to prove this, since you Apologists prove it in every post!

You're posting unrelated drivel to a variety of threads, none of which have
anything to do with your mistakes in claiming that a random twitter account
is more reliable than almost _all_ the media reports to the contrary.

Especially when it doesn't matter _how_ the lady reported the bug to Apple.
o HINT: Bugs were reported long before YouTube existed for Christs' sake

What matters is _when_ the lady reported the information to Apple
o But you can't seem to _comprehend_ something even _that_ simple!

FACT + LOGIC
o Those are the weakness of all score of you Apple Apologists
o Alan Baker

o Alan Browne
o Andreas Rutishauser

o BK
o Chris
o Elden
o Hemidactylus
o joe
o Joerg Lorenz
o Jolly Roger
o Lewis
o Lloyd
o nospam
o Savageduck

o Tim Streater
o Wade Garrett
o et al

You deny flatly what was reported in reliable media such as the NY Times.
o All you Apple Apologists flatly deny facts you just don't like.

But your denial of facts you don't like doesn't make fact not fact.
o It just proves Apologists' belief systems are completely imaginary

Do you remember Snit in this thread?
o It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.ipad/-T7FEXIdU9Q>

All you Apologists _claimed_ iOS had even that _simple_ functionality
o Claims made in the total absence of any supporting fact & logic!

That's bad enough - but you - like Snit - can't stop making your idiotic claims!

Snit posted over 400 times to a variety of threads this idiotic video:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QaABa6DFIo&feature=youtu.be>

All the Apologists "high fived" Snit, where not a single one of you even
looked at the Y axis for Christ's sake.

You're all that _incredibly_ stupid, Alan Baker.
o It boggles the mind your almost complete lack of FACT + LOGIC

You're doing the _same_ thing that Snit did, Alan Baker.
o Just stop.

That badgolferman blames me for what you Apple Apologists do, is simply due
to the sheer idiocy of what you Apple Apologists actually post.
o HINT: Lemon juice doesn't actually work, Alan Baker.

If this group suddenly lost the dozen Apple Apologists, the quality of
conversations would go up dramatically, instantly, and for the better.

Just _stop_ posting your wholly inane drivel, Alan Baker.
o We get it that you _think_ a random twitter account as more reliable then
_every_ other reliable news media that was reported to date.
o We get that - just like we get that Snit posted his idiotic video over
400 times without ever _once_ looking at the Y axis.

Snit called me wrong over 400 times, Alan Baker.
o And the Apologists all applauded him, Alan Baker.

*But the fact is that _none_ of them ever even _looked_ at the Y-axis!*

It's the _same_ today with the idiotic post here from nospam:
o Unable to open MMS messages
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/6mSj5QG-oL0/f2fe5MCiEAAJ>

Where nospam didn't even _look_ at the idiotic links he posted:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/6mSj5QG-oL0/nvt_R0vxEAAJ>

None of you Apologists _ever_ seem to comprehend two simple things:
o FACT + LOGIC

[John McWilliams]

Too many groups.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-02-13 7:54 p.m., arlen holder wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 20:45:23 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> You claim she posted that video at an earlier date than January 23rd.
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>

> F...

Sorry, but I'm not playing your games.

I've posted a factual rebuttal.

Go back and address it.

[arlen holder]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 03:47:50 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> Yet more proof Apple doesn't test software sufficiently

There is a lot of proof that Apple finds only 1 out of 10 security bugs in
their software in this thread today:
o iOS v12.2 is out now! (by Ant)
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/v3y5ih7ReCE>

Where just one guy (Samuel Gross) at Google Project Zero found almost as
many bugs (only 1 less) than did _all_ of Apple, which is a pretty damning
statement on Apple's supreme lack of any reasonable level of QA when one
guy outdoes the _entire_ company on finding bugs.

*The number of huge such holes in iOS is literally shocking!*

And that's not me using that word ... it's in this report published today!
"*Those are just a few of the most shocking [iOS] security flaws*"
<https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/26/tech/ios-12-2-security/index.html>

Specifically, what seems to have happened is that Apple, finally, for the
first time seemingly, has looked at Facetime, and found security hole after
security hole after security hole after security hole.

And it's not just Facetime, but even shocking flaws in the microphone!
"Perhaps the most notable fix: Apple patched a flaw that could allow
malicious applications to access the microphone on your iPhone
and record you and those around you. "

That article goes on to remind us that:
"But that's just one of the vulnerabilities..."

Where, there's more privacy & security holes Apple only found by putting
eyes on Facetime, seemingly for the first time, where Apple fixed
o a problem with the FaceTime app that prevented video chats from pausing
o a loophole that allowed users to access sensitive information in the
Messages app and websites visited
o see information from their phone's light and motion sensors
etc.

All perhaps simply because a mother went viral on the Internet
o Apple may not care about testing, but they care very much about IMAGE!

[Andreas Rutishauser]

In article <q7gbm5$ouh$5...@news.mixmin.net>,

arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 03:47:50 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:
>
> > Yet more proof Apple doesn't test software sufficiently

4 times the same shit into groups that are not elevant to the thread
title!

[Your Name]

On 2019-03-28 06:04:39 +0000, Andreas Rutishauser said:

> In article <q7gbm5$ouh$5...@news.mixmin.net>,
> arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 03:47:50 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:
>>
>>> Yet more proof Apple doesn't test software sufficiently
>
> 4 times the same shit into groups that are not elevant to the thread
> title!

Nonthing that idiot posts is relevant to *any* newsgroup ... it's all a
load of misinformed crap and anti-Apple bullshit. Just killfile the
idiot.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-03-28 02:07, Your Name wrote:
> On 2019-03-28 06:04:39 +0000, Andreas Rutishauser said:
>
>> In article <q7gbm5$ouh$5...@news.mixmin.net>,
>>  arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 03:47:50 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yet more proof Apple doesn't test software sufficiently
>>
>> 4 times the same shit into groups that are not elevant to the thread
>> title!
>
> Nonthing that idiot posts is relevant to *any* newsgroup ... it's all a
> load of misinformed crap and anti-Apple bullshit. Just killfile the idiot.

+1


--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 10:53:44 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

>> Nonthing that idiot posts is relevant to *any* newsgroup ... it's all a
>> load of misinformed crap and anti-Apple bullshit. Just killfile the idiot.
>
> +1

Hi Alan Browne,
I've studied why you Apple Apologists act the way that you do.
o Your belief system is literally _threatened_ by facts.

That's why you hate facts so much:
o You bought into an imaginary belief system concocted by MARKETING

The reason you hate me, IMHO, is that you hate the facts that I provide.
o Facts instantly _destroy_ your imaginary belief system.

Such as these basic facts:
o iPhone overall camera quality of results is almost never the best.
o Most current iPhones have throttling software halving the CPU
o After about a year - your choice is unacceptable stability or performance
o Apple ships iOS releases with holes so big a bus could drive through
o Privacy on iOS is "about the same" as privacy on any consumer platform
o Apple essentially lied to Congress when saying iPhone X didn't need throttling (as much)
o There is no known app functionality on iOS that isn't ALREADY on Android
o Worse, there is a ton of app functionality on Android that isn't on iOS
o There is no meaningful hardware on iOS that isn't already on Android
o Worse, there is meaningful hardware on Android that is not on iPhones
etc.

HINT: This list of facts you don't like goes on for quite a long time.

The reason you call facts, trolls, is because you don't like them.
o But the fact you don't like facts doesn't change the fact that they're facts

The reason you hate me, IMHO, is that you hate the facts that I provide.
o Facts instantly _destroy_ your imaginary belief system.