Thanks for finding the reference for my comment.
Amazon, using its monopoly power in ebooks, kept prices artificially low. When Apple entered the market, Amazon lost some of its monopoly power and publishers used this event to increase eBook prices across the board.
No idea how they make up sales numbers.
Apple's own sales numbers say they sold 74 million iPads in 2014. Not sure how gartner lost 4 million.
Also, Apple's numbers are reported as sales to users, everyone else uses sales to channel (the channel can return unsold stock to the company in the following quarter but can still claim it sold that many)
Or they could update to iOS 6.1.6 on their iPhone 3GS (previous versions of iOS did not have this bug)
The update is available to all supported devices (From the iPhone 3GS running 6.1.x and up).
Or they should be better worded.
"I want to stop all electronic devices from passively collecting visible light but still desire riders' eyes to passively collect visible light."
To be fair, Apple does a hell of a lot to prevent user stupidity from installing Malware. Such as blacklisting known malware nearly immediately (as soon as Apple reverse engineers it, its signature is pushed out to ever mac user via a list that is updated every 24 hours).
The sad thing is and a major security flaw of Apple's is that they create trust with third parties based on code signing. This allows code signed malware to skip the normal malware checks in Mac OS X. (It's super trivial to get multiple code signing certs from Apple and Apple doesn't verify code certs applications for individuals)
I'm pretty sure this is not about sharing code, but about collaborating on needed features via a shared spec. So both compilers implement something a standard way instead of coming up with new features independently.
And RMS' complain isn't about the license, it's about the modular design of clang/LLVM and the fact it can be used piecemeal in other software projects.
Politely, thats crap, ever heard of updates? They, apple/Google/MS all do "updates" that "change"your phone/computer settings without your permission. That activate "features" in your system until you find out about later after some security expert notifies the public about what they did. Even then you have no idea what else has happened, since the companies/the phone/computer/parts/whatever/ even don't know what has been shipped, or refuse to elaborate on what they did, or they have been ordered by the FISA courts to keep quiet about what was added.....
You make a good point. Where are the Android release notes for each release? Where are the security advisories published when they've fixed a vulnerability?
If the attacker has physical access, the crypto key is still based on a PIN and (hopefully) some fixed number related to the hardware. The PIN is easy to guess in an offline attack, and the hardware info is also easily accessible. Therefore, full disk crypto doesn't help here either.
Apple documents how it figures out the encryption keys... you could look that up instead of saying "hopefully". Furthermore, you can't "guess" it in an offline attack easily. Well, if you have six months or so and a robot arm to do it, then maybe. Every time you enter an incorrect PIN, it takes longer and longer before you can attempt a different pin. Going from 0000 to 0010 will take around half a business day. Then it gets worse!
Google has removed apps that are banned from the Google Play store from people's devices remotely. Apple has not.
Is an unknown fear in the future somehow better for you to digest than that fear being played out in the past and present? (Apple's "may" versus Google's "has and does and will continue to do")
I still have the "Asian Boobs" apps I downloaded off the App Store on my iPhone even though it has long, long since been removed from App Store. (Yes, it's actually called "Asian Boobs")
Did you miss the part where Apple isnt keeping the prices artificially low, but instead is keeping the prices artificially high?
Where was that part?
On top of that, the Mac's "Resource Manager", which was really a little database system, was an unstable database
If you used the resource fork as a database, you deserve to DIAF.