201–210 of 348 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android is not UNIX - it's GNU[0]/Linux-based, which is UNIX-like. iOS is also not UNIX, which is based on OS X but not UNIX Certified. OS X is UNIX. [0] G NU's N ot U nix
And while technically unix, the command line tools which ship are so horribly out of date as to be almost unusable.... Try using sftp on a mac sometime, if you enjoy the sensation of bleeding from your eyes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have full disk encryption enabled, the system won't boot if you don't give it the password. They write it down because you can't expect a tech to remember 16 digits of alphanumeric password for each client, as it looks bad when they have to phone up the client asking what their password is when they forget it. Writing down passwords is bad because other people can find them. If they're kept safe, there's no is…
They can't boot it off a flash drive? I can understand asking for a password to do that, but the system should not be designed so that they need access to the current OS install to diagnose hardware problems.
Had I given them my password, I'd not have had the issue. I was able to do the fix, but not everyone would be able to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android is not UNIX - it's GNU[0]/Linux-based, which is UNIX-like. iOS is also not UNIX, which is based on OS X but not UNIX Certified. OS X is UNIX. [0] G NU's N ot U nix
I stand corrected. You appear to be technically correct that OS X is "Unix" [0] not Unix-like or a Unix clone like Linux-based operating systems. Legal precedent established in the SCO-linux cases [1] seems to confirm this technicality. I think the distinction is pedantic, but I think we can agree that Android is the most widely shipped OS based on a Unix-like kernel. [0] http://www.opengroup.org/csq/search/t=XY1.htm…
It is, but no more than that of the OP and you. It's ultimately irrelevant to this discussion.
Everyone seems to be Apple-bashing, and ignoring the fact that Apple really don't make money out of your private information. They make cash out of selling devices. So their interests are more aligned with yours. You may have noticed that Google don't make their money out of selling hardware. So they make it through other means. This is really inarguable, regardless of whether you think Apple are using that for marke…
I think the strong reaction is because the distinction between Apple and Google is much fuzzier and weaker than Tim Cook (and some commenters here) are trying to make it sound. Apple makes money from device sales. Apple can make more money by using private information (to improve their cloud services, selling the search default to Google, for iAds and so on) - as long as they don't do something with it that makes peo…
True, but what a degree, and the difference matters [1]:
- 91% of Apple's income is from hardware.
- More that 90% of Google's income is from advertising.
There's also a very big difference between trying to understand your customers better so that you can build a better mousetrap, rather than selling their information to third parties, directly or indirectly.
[1] http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-google-microsoft-where-do...
At the moment, this thread seems more like a YouTube comment section than a HN one. Though it's not exactly surprising given that Tim Cook's speech is obviously aimed at Google/FB. Let's start with the facts. Apple makes its major money in hardware. Google makes its major money in search. Obviously, iOS has to be able to compete with Android in order for iPhones to sell well. Google offers services like Google Now an…
From that communication, I read that Tim Cook is against some business models, not machine learning or data collection.
At the moment, this thread seems more like a YouTube comment section than a HN one. Though it's not exactly surprising given that Tim Cook's speech is obviously aimed at Google/FB. Let's start with the facts. Apple makes its major money in hardware. Google makes its major money in search. Obviously, iOS has to be able to compete with Android in order for iPhones to sell well. Google offers services like Google Now an…
The problem is that Duck Duck go doesn't provide as good results, because it lacks the personalized data. Google knows that when I search for Django I want the web framework. Duck duck go gives me that as well as many links to the film. I think option 1 is more likely for Apple.
I think there is a large amount of value in both of options 1 and 2. To me, the idea of Now on Tap and Google Photos is absolutely horrifying. On the other hand, my roommate told me that the Google Photos app was perfect.
I suspect that my views will hold, but it is possible that personalization becomes too important to opt out of. I tried to delete my Facebook for similar reasons recently. I missed out on enough party invites and messages from classmates that I ended up going back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, there's another alternative. Provide all these "insights" with offline, data-on-computers-you-own systems. The intelligence can be carried with you, without internet. This is traditional computing. Apple or Microsoft, or even any other competitor could provide that. They just need to sell you this software (oh and also build it first).
Not possible. The insights come from the combination of everyone's data, not the analysis of any individual in isolation.
When Google(+) Photos auto-tags my photos, still my data, although I'd admit the IA training requires a big amount of photos.
Looking at https://www.google.com/landing/now/#cards ; it's obvious a lot of those need online information. It's not obvious that the data source for requiring those online informations has to be in the cloud, or combined from multiple people's data.
Apple collects tons of user data, and I'm sure they use some of it to provide machine-learning backed services, and I'm sure they'll come out with much nicer products to compete with Google in the future, also enhanced by machine learning techniques. The difference that Tim Cook wants you to believe in is that Apple doesn't directly make money from your data, they just use it to improve their product; alternatively,…
Apple improves their products for several reasons, but as a for-profit business the main reason they would use some of their limited capital to "improve their product" would be to make money.
The details about how a business exploits user data is not that interesting. Arguments about this kind of minutia are a distraction and a waste of time. The problem is, as you say, the fact that they collect data at all.
> That means gimped Siri
As Dan Geer said regarding the inevitable software-industry complains about liability legislation
"Yes, please! That was exactly the idea."
In his recent (highly recommended) talk[1], Aral Balkan suggested a very interesting model, because there is another product that is well-known to adversely impact the people "near" the user as a secondary effect: tobacco. Siri, Amazon's Echo, and most of Google's services are like software "second-hand smoke". Like smoking, I don't care what you do in your own home. What we need - at a minimum - is new social conventions/etiquette where you ask permission or step outside before enabling any of these recording devices.
[1] https://projectbullrun.org/surveillance/2015/video-2015.html...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, there's another alternative. Provide all these "insights" with offline, data-on-computers-you-own systems. The intelligence can be carried with you, without internet. This is traditional computing. Apple or Microsoft, or even any other competitor could provide that. They just need to sell you this software (oh and also build it first).
On-premise vs. Cloud?