Well, a "nice" tablet UI-based Reader app for PDFs.

Only if you treat a subjective word like "safe" as an objective absolute. Nothing, anywhere, is absolutely safe. Putting the burden on the user and giving them the impossible task of being "vigilant" is not helpful.

However, if you treat safety as the subjective word it is, you may realize that removing Flash and Java will increase your safety on the web by an enormous amount. Most people aren't technologically savvy enough to use vigilance as a safety mechanism. Just avoid Flash and Java, run antivirus software (if you're on Windows), keep up with software updates (on all platforms), and only enter in personal and financial info into sites you trust, and you're about as safe as can be reasonably expected.

Even with all that, there's still a risk, but it's a reasonable risk. The sort of risks we deal with in every other aspect of our lives without fear. Why should we treat the risk and safety aspects of computers any different?

This, among all the reasons people complain about it being programmed in Java, is the biggest complaint I have of Minecraft. It's the only reason I have Java installed at all.

Yes. Ad-enabled videos work on the iPad. Though you end up with the issue of not being able to play videos that disallow mobile device playback.

Both of these restrictions are enabled by the video uploader, and both cause (IMO) more harm than good. Any uploader that disables mobile viewing is an uploader I'm far less likely to subscribe to or otherwise watch future videos from.

Was the audio Yakkity Sax? Because I think I know what your problem was...

Just get them an iPad then. Problem solved (and a few other problems get solved as well, such as the one where they are constantly asking for an iPad).

I'm glad to hear you are gainfully employed, and (I'm guessing) enjoy your job. I only ask you don't begrudge others for doing the same.

Sorry, what? I replied to a post of yours. How is this a proper or rational response?

I'm sure you have some research behind that claim? Well, let's just pretend that you actually do for the moment. There are hundreds of millions running the software. If ~0.1% are having troubles, it'll be a big number, but still a minute fraction of the user base.

"True Gospel"? WTF? And I do hope the moronic "fanboi" remark was rhetorical.

What you said was with Apple, you always have to wait for version x.3. So, let's just think about that for a moment. That means that no one should be running Mountain Lion or iOS 6, because neither have hit x.3. Now, if what you said is true, then you'd expect a majority of users to be having nothing but troubles. Do you think that's even remotely the case?

Yes, there will be bugs, and yes, some people will be hit hard by them. But if it's something that is going to hit such a small percentage of users, is it really "True Gospel"? Sounds more like, "sometimes it's true, but 99.9% of the time it's bullshit". I don't think that's how most people use the word "gospel".

So, your Apple rule isn't just an Apple rule after all. But more to the point, it's a silly rule. I can see it being applicable to some people (such as yourself), but by no means is it a "True Gospel" rule for everyone to follow. And it's absurd and offensive to call people "fanbois" because they don't have any problems, or that they need to "get a life" because they point this out to you.

What are you talking about? You're the one making silly claims of FUD.

Wait, didn't you just call it "True Gospel"? You're accusing others of being "religious" about it, when you're the only one who has been using religious terminology? You're all over the board here!

It's quite odd to me that you think saying, "most people aren't having any significant problems with the software" makes one a... no-life fanboi, getting his (apparently gay, given your choice of spelling for "fanboy") panties in a twist, at an alter. Or something.

Or maybe you just aren't all that coherent today.

That's the worst you could come up with? I'd have to say, that's a bit dramatic. Everyone knows full well that Apple locks the OS down. And everyone who knows about jailbreaking knows that the new phones and new OS's are often have no public jailbreak available.

And even sillier still, is that Apple had nothing to do with the wait for the public release of the jailbreak. The hackers themselves held off on the release, not Apple. A move which is strange to me anyway, the logic is supposed to be to not let people jailbreak their phones to prevent Apple from not letting people jailbreak their phones? It's dubious at best.

But I digress.

Correct. And you knew how it functions before you bought it, so I can't see how Apple has done anything wrong. They never lied or misled you on how it works.

I can't even remotely agree with you. "Evil" evokes significant harm to people, or at the very least, some exceptional level of criminality. Apple just tries to make great products. They can't make something great for everyone, so maybe you just don't like what they make? Is it "evil" for a company to make a product that doesn't work the way you'd like it to? When there is no shortage of alternatives? When it harms no one, and is not misrepresented in any way?

You seem to have a fairly low bar for what qualifies as "evil".

Fairly reasonable (I agree with some of it, disagree with other parts, and not necessarily all the ones you might think). I do think you are exaggerating things more than a bit, and confusing opinion with fact.

Awesome!

The claim that they just quite simply broke it, deliberately, for no benefit whatsoever is not something that I can believe without some evidence.

With Apple, there are all sorts of things that look like that, but turn out to have some reason that is not so capricious or malevolent at all. I'll give another example. Mountain Lion requires 64-bit Macs, and there are a handful of 64-bit models it can't run on due to graphics cards requirements.

The explanation for the 64-bit requirement should be straightforward: to simplify development. The graphics card requirement though? Some people have concluded that was because Apple just wanted to force people to buy new Macs. But the reason is as a result of the 64-bit requirement. The 64-bit kernel means 64-bit kexts. The older Intel iGPUs don't have 64-bit drivers.

I'd wager your example is more along those lines than that they just want to make things hard for developers.

I've nothing to add either way to this.

However this seems to be contradicted by all the apps on the App Store. I don't mean to say it's something every developer gets right on the first try or anything like that, just that I doubt every developer goes through repeated submissions for something like this.

And maybe they do. Either way, it's not enough of a problem that it supports the OP's claim. Unless it's really horrible. Which, again, would be suspicious given all the apps on the App Store. I just can't buy that every, or even most, apps go through such rigamarole as you seem to imply. That would put such a burden on Apple's resources as to make it a no brainer to just address that part of UIKit itself.

NB: The TL;DR goes at the bottom

No, it's much, much worse. On Android, you are correct that it lists the permissions in the App description, and that the Play Store shows the scariest ones to you before you even install the app. But with Android, it's all or nothing. You can't pick and choose which permissions to grant or deny, even ones that have nothing to do with the core functionality of the app (how many games are given permission to read your phone number, and to open a network connection (hmm... why would they want *those* to features together?!) even if it has no online component whatsoever?)

On iOS, the worrisome permissions (contacts, location, etc.) are prompted for when they are initiated by the app, and you must actively grant permission before the app can use that feature. This is vastly superior to the way Android does it. This is because Google doesn't really take privacy seriously the way Apple does. Their business model is centered on using customer data. That's why they bought Android in the first place.

False. Those reports are just some of the reports, and when they are presented, they are in the context not of "these apps are malware", but that "Android has a problem with user privacy policies", which is exactly what I pointed out above. On iOS, an app can't get away with fast and loose privacy requests the way they can on Android.

And it's better yet to minimize suspicious activity as much as possible, is it not? On this particular matter, Apple is doing it right, and Google is doing it very, very wrong. This has been an ongoing issue for years now, and I have high hopes that Google will address this with Key Lime Pie.

Other than the prompt that iOS pops up asking you at the time of action whether you wish to allow that specific permission or not!

In short, iOS is designed in such a way as to foster user confidence. I have no fear of downloading any app from the App Store, because I know if it's going to do something I might not want, I will receive a prompt. On Android, the only apps I can fully trust are those that don't even ask for the permissions in the first place, because I have no way of knowing when and how those permissions are being used. The level of trust on iOS is across the board, and on Android you have to measure it on a case-by-case basis, and can't even run the app first to get a basis on which to help your judgement!

How is it "backwards" to pay people for your use of their products? Do you work for free? Because if you don't, it sounds to me like you are part of the "problem", and are making those that use the fruits of your labor "go backwards".

Of course, given your adamance against paying for things, maybe you really do work for free. In which case, please accept my humblest apologies and condolences.

When people use a dollar sign on either an American site (like Slashdot), unless context suggests otherwise, it will be taken to mean US dollars.

And the rest of your points are silly. It's a cable designed for the phone. It's not terribly important whether it is patented or not. What's important is does it do its job well? There's no other cable that comes close to lightning. Micro USB is quite inferior, except in two ways (neither of which have anything to do with its functionality), price and use by other manufacturers. The price doesn't bother me (it's not like I have to buy one every week or something), and the lack of support by other manufacturers (i.e., Samsung, Motorola, etc.) is a knock against those products (in my book), than against Apple. It's a feature that helps the iPhone and iPads stand out in an all to commoditized marketplace.

I find myself wishing my Nexus devices used it, and never once wished my iOS devices didn't. There's even an adaptor if, for some reason, you want to use micro USB on your lightning devices.

You mean, $19. And it is an active cable with chips to talk to the device so it can alter the functionality of the pins, allowing for an impressive array of features and a future-proof design.

Which has wide third-party support, so it's not like "proprietary" means anything here, other than that it belongs to Apple.

In some ways, yes.

If those "some ways" are important to you, then (like you said) there are other phones.

Indeed, but like all double-edged swords, it cuts both ways...

And to me, the way it slices is that the pastures seem greener to me on the iOS side of things. I think Android is great, but (for me), iOS is better. And I see iOS 7 becoming better still.

iOS 7 and Key Lime Pie will move both platforms forward. iOS 6 and Jellybean are already great OS's. I doubt that either Apple or Google is going to mess up their next OS update this year enough to topple the other (or do so well as to take a huge lead over the other). It could happen (and would definitely be interesting), but it's nothing I'd bet on.

And that's what's great about it. Two worthy choices, something out there for everyone.