This is very true for most OEM suppliers. Many products are a combination of many OEM parts and you can't have each OEM supplier insist on it's own rules, especially if all those OEM rules would conflict with each other. Apple got away with it because it's their own phone, Google doesn't own any of the phones except for Nexus. Microsoft gets away with it because you don't argue with the giant gorilla who wants your banana.
Well, first off the subject really confused me. I thought the issue was someone not pushing out security updates even when none was required. Ie, like Microsoft's Tuesday updates make me wonder if they come out with pointless and unnecessary updates just so that they can have something every week, what do you do every month if you have no security patch to shove out?
But reading the article it is *nothing* like that, the "monthly" thing is just a red herring. Basically they're not incorporating patches that they've already received. But that's probably like many phone vendors. I've only had one Android update on my Samsung in a year, and when I had HTC I only had a few handfuls of updates. If Googl really is pushing out vital security updates every month then Google should start advertising that fact.
Microsoft just has an enormous amount of leverage and gets its way with its partners Most places you have to beg and plead for partners and customers to accept your updates, then wait patiently for several months while they test the hell out of it in their own labs. Windows is an exception in many ways. Also phone makers have a lot of significant integration with the core OS which is not the case with Windows where the partners don't do much beyond adding some annoy-ware and an occasional optional driver. You can't put off-the-shelf android onto a phone the same way you can put off-the-shelf windows onto a PC. So the phone makers have to do the integration of these fixes, make sure they don't break anything, etc. If Google pushed out an upgrade itself it would likely break a lot of phones.
I suspect the vast majority of people wanting a wireless keyboard only wanted it because it was new and cool, and not for any practical reasons.
Agreed. I never wanted a wireless keyboard from the first day they existed, for three reasons. The pain of having to change and hunt down batteries, the utter and complete lack of security, and because it's pointless to be wireless. So other people just NOW realized there were security problems? Were these the same people who were surprised that their parents could see their drunken party photos on facebook?
As far as I see it they're telling us who to thank.
Russia - defender of democracy.....?
The crappiest encrypted bluetooth keyboard is better than virtually any of these proprietary wireless systems, almost none of which use encryption and virtually all of which use common off-the-shelf wireless chips.
Logitech has something called secure connect, no idea if that is worth a crap. Not tested here, unfortunately. Their normal non-bluetooth wireless is known to be insecure, however.
Logitech, easily as popular as Microsoft and more popular than ANY of the named brands, wasn't tested? Why not?
Their hardware is already known to be vulnerable.
If your keyboard doesn't use bluetooth, it is certainly vulnerable.
If your keyboard does use bluetooth, it might still be vulnerable.
The trick is to fool newcomers. Ie, new to PC gaming, they think Steam is the way to go for getting mods, the location for "official" forums, etc, while all the old timers say "no!" and try to correct them. But over time the focus starts shifting. So MS thinks they can do the same thing: Supply something that they claim is easier and lure in newcomers who don't know any different. After awhile they say "Steam? Can't I just use the Windows Store? Why go with the extra complication?", and Steam ends up being for only oldtimers and treated as irrelevant.
Except that on the Apple Mac platform (not iphone/ipad, but osx) the walled garden is not walled. You never have to use the store on OSX. At one point there was a snag in that you couldn't get the basic dev command lines tools except in the store (necessary to build an alternative development environment), but they fixed that. There are definitely moves on Apple's part to try and close the wall, but they're no where near as restrictive as what Microsoft is aiming itself to be. As long as there's a way to write code and run it on your own machine then there's no way to lock it up (thus the push from Microsoft to get Windows-friendly UEFI).
Normally all I can find is psuedorandom ones
No exceptions. A phone is a critical communications device, and if the OEM won't supply critical upgrades, then they must allow others to do so.
Which Motorola phones don't have unlockable bootloaders? I'd be surprised if PAYG phones from crapfone etc. did, to be fair. But aren't most moto phones unlockable?
How about a common sense regulation saying that anyone operating a drone over a certain weight has to be available on a particilar CB radio channel?
CB can not work well when microwave still does. Better FRS.
Where's the kickstarter for this so I can sign up?
"When in doubt, print 'em out." -- Karl's Programming Proverb 0x7