41–50 of 75 posts
Maybe they patented it to stop anyone from implementing it, did you think of that?
Even Apple's more questionable moves are, based on Apple's view of the world, based on improving the lot of the end user. You can talk about how not being open doesn't benefit the user but Apple clearly disagree - they're not walling off their phone because they're fascists, they're doing so because they believe that provides a better experience overall. You can disagree with that but I see no rational argument even if they do you disagree with their approach which takes you from the walled garden to this sort of kill switch.
Plus to implement such a thing would put them at a significant commercial disadvantage against Android and other smart phone platforms at precisely the time when their advantage is shrinking (if not gone altogether). Certainly if they implemented this then my current iPhone would absolutely be my last.
But just because something is technically possible it doesn't mean it will happen and this would seem to be one of those cases.
Unless someone can come up with a realistic scenario where Apple benefit from this? And please no shadowy conspiracies - if that were the case Apple wouldn't have publicly patented it and it wouldn't just be Apple, after all, the Man doesn't just care about Apple customers...
Absolutely the thought of this kind of "feature" used to actively cripple a democratic tool by big gov is chilling. i.e. "What if cops used it to mask abuses?" But somehow it's the more banal applications I can imagine that would deliver a more real sense of oppression. Stores turning it on so that nobody could photograph their displays, meaning you couldn't take a picture with your mom if you were out shopping. Or b…
Reality check: at least at first, this would likely only exist on the iPhone.
Going to a protest, take your Flip, your camera, your Android phone, whatever.
Unless it's almost universal there's little or no point.
And Apple just patented it so no-one else can implement it....
The thing about this which makes me think it wouldn't be something Apple would implement is that Apple's priority (after doing what's right for Apple) is what's best for the user over what's best for third parties (most notably the networks when they launched the iPhone, stopping their "value add" customisations) and it's hard to see how using this technology to implement a kill switch benefits the user. Even Apple's…
The thing about this which makes me think it wouldn't be something Apple would implement is that Apple's priority (after doing what's right for Apple) is what's best for the user over what's best for third parties (most notably the networks when they launched the iPhone, stopping their "value add" customisations) and it's hard to see how using this technology to implement a kill switch benefits the user. Even Apple's…
Possibly paranoid, but not exactly far-fetched. See: Communications decency act; DMCA.
I agree, photo crippling features seem hardly in Apple's interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's already mandatory (Korea/Japan) for phones to make sounds when taking a picture. It's one of the aims to curb perverts. [0] [0] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Camera_phone#...
Ugh. I hate it when any of my devices make sounds without me explicitly allowing it to, both in principle and on a practical level. (Dear Macbook, please shut the fuck up forever so I don't wake up my girlfriend at night when I boot you up.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reality check: at least at first, this would likely only exist on the iPhone.
That's the problem - if it only existed on the iPhone you basically have no significant suppression, particularly once it's known. Going to a protest, take your Flip, your camera, your Android phone, whatever. Unless it's almost universal there's little or no point. And Apple just patented it so no-one else can implement it....
> And Apple just patented it so no-one else
> can implement it....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=2003122015465176...
Thanks! It's kind of ridiculous that I have to dig through a Japanese-language-only website to find a Beta software to simply control the fact that my computer moos like a cow with intestinal distress every time it boots up.
Absolutely the thought of this kind of "feature" used to actively cripple a democratic tool by big gov is chilling. i.e. "What if cops used it to mask abuses?" But somehow it's the more banal applications I can imagine that would deliver a more real sense of oppression. Stores turning it on so that nobody could photograph their displays, meaning you couldn't take a picture with your mom if you were out shopping. Or b…
Police already use cell phone jammers in prisons and remote systems to disable engines of vehicles in chases, I don't doubt for a second that they would use this as a way to disable recording devices at public demonstrations, etcetera. The (anti)feature may be put in place to prevent 'piracy' of live events, but a backdoor is a backdoor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the problem - if it only existed on the iPhone you basically have no significant suppression, particularly once it's known. Going to a protest, take your Flip, your camera, your Android phone, whatever. Unless it's almost universal there's little or no point. And Apple just patented it so no-one else can implement it....
> And Apple just patented it so no-one else > can implement it.... [citation needed]