Apple brings the nanny state to the computer world

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Feb 1, 2013.

  1. RichA <> wrote:
    > On Feb 1, 8:20 am, Bowser <> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:29:14 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >http://ibnlive.in.com/news/apple-blocks-java-on-macs-due-to-security-...

    >>
    >> Apple doe suck, but let's not ignore the real issue here: Java, and
    >> other programs like it, are swiss cheese and open your PC to a world
    >> of security issues. Adobe is next in line with Flash, their version of
    >> swiss cheese.


    > Much of the content on the web is Java-enabled. Use a product like No
    > Script and you can control it, but you will not be able to read/watch
    > a lot of what is out there.


    Given the attitude Oracle's lawyers are taking to the use of Java
    developers are moving away from it anyway. It will soon just be an old
    relic of lagacy nonsense, a once promising computer facility destroyed
    by corporate greed and lawyers.
    Chris Malcolm, Feb 2, 2013
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    | Ok. But then what is Java used for typically?
    |
    Mostly "applets" running on corporate intranets, I think.
    There are a fair number of job postings for Java, as with
    ..Net. They're not for people to write retail software or
    webpage applets, but rather for custom programming needs
    within a company. I think a typical example would be
    something like a database interface that people in the
    company can run on the company network.
    I know one Java programmer. He works for a big company
    writing the back-end (server-side) software for things like
    online shopping carts. (The website visitors don't need Java
    in that case. It's used to do the server-side grunt work
    needed to make the webpage shopping cart function work.
    I don't really know why they choose Java for that. Probably
    it's because it's safer to have all those programmers writing
    sandboxed applets than to have them writing fullscale software.)

    In a way I suppose one could think of it as 3 general
    categories:

    Category 1: Compiled software, which runs on a PC, accessing the
    CPU, file system and RAM directly through machine instructions.
    The role of the operating system is to make that connection
    between machine and software possible.

    Category 2: Java and .Net -- JIT-compiled software that runs on
    top of other software, once removed from the machine, for safety,
    simplicity and cross-platform use. (Microsoft was actually trying
    to make Vista an all-.Net OS originally, until they found that
    no machine in existence could handle the sheer bloat of the
    whole thing.)

    Category 3: Script, which is text that gets interpreted by some
    kind of software. So, for instance, script in a webpage can say:
    document.write "Hi there!"
    That's not software. It's just plain text. But it can perform actions
    like software because the browser interprets the script code and acts
    on it. (In this example, the script will cause the phrase "hi there!"
    to be inserted into the visible webpage.)

    | BTW, I do remember that occasionally, when I would reinstall the OS, I
    | would get an error message from a website that Java was missing.
    | Downloading Java from the Sun homepage and installing it would fix the
    | problem.

    There are a few sites. I have a friend who used to go to
    one site that required Java. It was an oddball site in the
    sense that it wasn't really highly interactive, so needing
    Java was surprising. I guess it was probably a holdover
    from earlier times. But Java is enough of a risk, and significant
    enough in terms of size, that it's worth at least looking into
    whether one can do without it.

    At one time there were big plans for Java, and Microsoft
    even wrote their own version -- which they were later forced
    to withdraw. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Java was
    expected to be a relatively easy, clean, safe, cross-platform
    way to write all software. But none of those expectations
    panned out. There are problems with such software
    on a PC: It's bloated, sandboxed, not fully compiled until
    it runs, and can never be absolutely safe. So speed and
    functionality are a problem on a PC, while security and support
    is a problem online. And security is much more of an issue
    now than it used to be. Being "pretty safe" is not
    enough anymore.

    A similar thing happened with .Net. Microsoft made .Net to
    compete with Java for server-side software and corporate
    intranet "web apps", in order to hold onto their corporate market.
    Then they also made big claims about using it for "Desktop"
    software and claimed it would be cross-platform. Those claims
    didn't work out. It just didn't make sense.

    Another aspect: There's a perennial search for "online gold" in
    terms of webpage functionality. In the 90s Microsoft took over
    the browser market by creating ActiveX controls that could run
    in IE. But that was also the beginning of the end for IE because
    ActiveX controls in a browser are not safe. They're software.
    A similar approach was attempted with Java, Flash, Adobe AIR,
    Silverlight....
    Companies try to come up with the ultimate, whiz-bang, cross
    platform webpage substitute, in hopes of owning the Internet.
    But all of those things are actually software. They're unsafe
    and have limited support. (Thanks to Steve Jobs, people *finally*
    started to realize that Flash is unsafe.)

    There's a repeating pattern: People try to increase online
    functionality only to find it's too slow and/or unsafe.The latest
    online craze is HTML5, which is just another problem waiting
    for fruition. It's little more than gross overuse of javascript, so
    that webpages are becoming a kind of text-based software, with
    just enough HTML to deliver a big pile of javascript. The
    HTML5 craze is fairly recent, but it's really just the latest
    in a long line of attempts at high-functioning, cross-platform
    webpages.

    .Net and Java are both still big, but neither has really
    been able to fit in either on the Desktop or on the webpage.
    Mayayana, Feb 2, 2013
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    GMAN Guest

    In article <CD31A06E.97419%>, George Kerby <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >On 2/1/13 1:13 PM, in article , "MC"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> Whisky-dave wrote:
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> Macs are, indeed, for the lazy comuter literate who require
    >>>> everything
    >>>>
    >>>> done for them or need to be told what they can and cannot do.
    >>>
    >>> No macs are for people that want to get things done quiclky and
    >>> efficintly without havign to worry about such things as virusus. The
    >>> first thing PC usuers are expected to do is sign up for a virus
    >>> protection program or they pretty much screwed.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Ah, the old virus excuse. Well don't get too relaxed.
    >>

    >How many years have you Hatebois been doing that mantra?
    >
    >When I want to get something done, I DAMNSURE ain't going to a box that
    >crashes every time you look at it wrong and to actually turn it of in
    >between rebooting because it constantly hangs, you have to go to a icon that
    >is labeled "START". F**K all that crap. And WinDoze 8 is immature rip-off of
    >OS-X, with the interface that a Kindergartner would scoff at...
    >


    I see more junk, broken, outdated macs at the local Goodwills or Salvation
    army stores than i see PC's.
    GMAN, Feb 3, 2013
    #23
  4. RichA

    GMAN Guest

    In article <>, DanP <> wrote:
    >On Friday, 1 February 2013 19:14:43 UTC, MC wrote:
    >
    >> It does not matter who will use it. The point is that whoever does want
    >> to use it will be denied doing so.

    >
    >Well, you have a point, if you buy the hardware you own it and can do whatever
    > you want with it. Install Linux on dualboot on it and have full control. But
    > most Mac users will stick to the Mac OS.
    >
    >I see Apple as an OS maker and I fully understand why they want their product
    > to be safe by removing third party buggy software. Fortunately Apple is not
    > the only OS manufacturer and you can install Linux or Windows on a Mac.
    >
    >
    >DanP

    They dont want to make it safer by removing 3rd party, they want to make it
    more proprietary. This is the very reason so many people hate Sony shit!!!
    GMAN, Feb 3, 2013
    #24
  5. On 2/2/2013 3:30 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    >
    > Ok. But then what is Java used for typically?
    >



    Small programs that need to run in a browser window ans need
    computational speed. That's about it.

    What sort of programs? I can give examples. I used to teach quantum
    mechanics to chemists. I had programs that demoed how molecules react,
    or how particles spread out when they move. Students needed to be able
    to input data. I wrote them as stand-alone programs, this being before
    everything runs in a browser. These programs are hopelessly slow
    in Javascript. I've never converted them to Java, but other people
    have put such things on the Web. In Java. They work fine. But you have
    to install the rather bloated Java to run them.

    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, Feb 3, 2013
    #25
  6. RichA

    Mayayana Guest

    | > HTML5 craze is fairly recent, but it's really just the latest
    | > in a long line of attempts at high-functioning, cross-platform
    | > webpages.
    |
    | But then... what is the solution for having web pages with lots of
    | functionality? HTML doesn't provide enough functionality, and you write
    | that Javascript is not safe.

    It's a dilemma. :) And it has been since the Internet
    started. There isn't really a solution. At this point most
    people put up with the risk to get the benefits. It's
    probably only going to get worse. Likewise with privacy.
    Cookies were designed to hold a small amount of data
    that could only be accessed by the website one is
    visiting, but the whole system has become corrupted.
    Dozens of 3rd-party cookies track peoples' activities
    online these days. Malware writers have become highly
    sophisticated while the companies that are supposed to be
    the good guys (Google, MS, Apple, Facebook, and most
    corporate websites) have become sleazy spy operations.
    (In 1999 people were outraged when it came to light that
    Microsoft was accessing registration data when people
    logged onto Windows Update. Now people think it's normal
    to let Windows Update run all the time, while Microsoft has
    more rights to access your PC than you do.)

    I think the security problems have dovetailed somewhat
    with the interests of companies like Apple and Microsoft.
    On the one hand, they don't want people to be scared
    off. On the other hand, mounting security problems provide
    them with a great excuse to lock people into proprietary
    systems, on locked hardware, and require that everyone
    be identifiable within that system. In just a few years the
    general public has gradually become acclimated to the
    idea that these companies have a right to watch them,
    have access to their private property, and even control
    how hardware can be used. They use security scares to
    convince people that it's not safe to control their own
    phones, PCs and tablets.

    I had hoped that interactiveness would be built into
    HTML5, so that script could be discontinued. But it's
    clear that's not going to happen. For me it doesn't matter
    much. I see a static Web with very few ads and I like it
    that way. But for Facebook and webmail addicts, as well
    as for people who shop a lot online, the most reasonable
    choice may be to accept a locked down device for online
    use while running software and doing PC activities on a
    PC with limited online functionality. They're being herded
    into interactive pay TV. ("Mr. Smith? Mr. Smith? You're
    not buying anything Mr. Smith. Please step in front of the
    monitor and hold up your charge card, Mr. Smith.")

    There was an interesting story last week about how
    China hacked into the NYT and Symantec, in charge of
    NYT security, only caught one of some 50 malware attacks,
    exposing a long-true fact that most people are unaware
    of: Antivirus is all but useless, designed for a situation
    that existed 10 years ago.

    It's an interesting situation, philosophically. Historically,
    trust and security have been connected with human
    relationship. We develop trust through personal relationships.
    But increasingly there are no relationships. The thieves and
    the corporate leaders of the plutocracy become nearly
    indistinguishable in the sense that no one is home at the
    top. No human is responsible. Ironically, the online companies
    try to reassure by saying we shouldn't worry because it's
    all anonymous. :)
    Mayayana, Feb 4, 2013
    #26
  7. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Friday, February 1, 2013 7:13:14 PM UTC, MC wrote:
    > Whisky-dave wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > Macs are, indeed, for the lazy comuter literate who require

    >
    > > > everything

    >
    > > >

    >
    > > > done for them or need to be told what they can and cannot do.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > No macs are for people that want to get things done quiclky and

    >
    > > efficintly without havign to worry about such things as virusus. The

    >
    > > first thing PC usuers are expected to do is sign up for a virus

    >
    > > protection program or they pretty much screwed.

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > Ah, the old virus excuse. Well don't get too relaxed.


    Heard that for the last 20 years.


    > Thing is, I prefer freedom in how I use my computer and what I use it
    >
    > for. Apple seem to only want you to do with there products what they
    >
    > say you can.


    I don't feel restricted by my choice of computer in fact I feel less restrictied, I can put windows on my Mac, if fact I have done but used it so little I deleted it.
    I doubt you can put Mac OS X on your PC why should I feel restricted ?

    They can't be that restrictive Apple producst can they are why else would they be using them in MS Building 5 ?, keep teh doors open ?.
    What of the microsoft equivalants oh there arent; any ?



    > > Even those the broke into microsoft decided to only steal Aplpe

    >
    > > products now why was that ? Is it that even thieves are inteligent

    >
    > > enough to reconginse a good and worthy product.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >

    >
    > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/07/ipad_theft_microsoft_campus/

    >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > Theives would have stolen whatever had the higher resale value, down
    >
    > the pub. They merely realised that the bigger mugs are the ones who
    >
    > will pay the higher price for an iPad just so they can join the ranks
    >
    > of the Apple fanbois.


    I really doubt that, I very much doubt fanbois would buy such stolen equipment, wannabe, pretend fanbois maybe.
    But are these really the same fanbois that queue outside apple stores again I doubt it.


    > It is just another example of the success of
    >
    > Apple marketing.


    As you say a success, given the chance people will take or buy what they prefer or know others prefer, for me that makes a product more usefull and usually better, same goes with fakes you fake things that people want.
    Whisky-dave, Feb 4, 2013
    #27
  8. RichA

    GMAN Guest

    In article <>, Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >On Friday, February 1, 2013 7:13:14 PM UTC, MC wrote:
    >> Whisky-dave wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > >

    >>
    >> > > Macs are, indeed, for the lazy comuter literate who require

    >>
    >> > > everything

    >>
    >> > >

    >>
    >> > > done for them or need to be told what they can and cannot do.

    >>
    >> >

    >>
    >> > No macs are for people that want to get things done quiclky and

    >>
    >> > efficintly without havign to worry about such things as virusus. The

    >>
    >> > first thing PC usuers are expected to do is sign up for a virus

    >>
    >> > protection program or they pretty much screwed.

    >>
    >> >

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Ah, the old virus excuse. Well don't get too relaxed.

    >
    >Heard that for the last 20 years.
    >
    >
    >> Thing is, I prefer freedom in how I use my computer and what I use it
    >>
    >> for. Apple seem to only want you to do with there products what they
    >>
    >> say you can.

    >
    >I don't feel restricted by my choice of computer in fact I feel less
    > restrictied, I can put windows on my Mac, if fact I have done but used it so
    > little I deleted it.
    >I doubt you can put Mac OS X on your PC why should I feel restricted ?


    I have a PC here in my computer room with OSX Snow Leopard on it.


    >
    >They can't be that restrictive Apple producst can they are why else would they
    > be using them in MS Building 5 ?, keep teh doors open ?.
    > What of the microsoft equivalants oh there arent; any ?
    >
    >
    >
    >> > Even those the broke into microsoft decided to only steal Aplpe

    >>
    >> > products now why was that ? Is it that even thieves are inteligent

    >>
    >> > enough to reconginse a good and worthy product.

    >>
    >> >

    >>
    >> >

    >>
    >> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/07/ipad_theft_microsoft_campus/

    >>
    >> >

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Theives would have stolen whatever had the higher resale value, down
    >>
    >> the pub. They merely realised that the bigger mugs are the ones who
    >>
    >> will pay the higher price for an iPad just so they can join the ranks
    >>
    >> of the Apple fanbois.

    >
    >I really doubt that, I very much doubt fanbois would buy such stolen equipment,
    > wannabe, pretend fanbois maybe.
    >But are these really the same fanbois that queue outside apple stores again I
    > doubt it.
    >
    >
    >> It is just another example of the success of
    >>
    >> Apple marketing.

    >
    >As you say a success, given the chance people will take or buy what they prefer
    > or know others prefer, for me that makes a product more usefull and usually
    > better, same goes with fakes you fake things that people want.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    GMAN, Feb 4, 2013
    #28
  9. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <kefkjg$k43$>, Mayayana
    <> wrote:

    > http://ibnlive.in.com/news/apple-blocks-java-on-macs-due-to-security-threat/37
    > 0092-11.html
    > |
    >
    > That's what Apple fans pay for. They're the AOLers
    > of the 2010s. They just want to buy stuff and not
    > have to understand security. Apple has always been
    > a "nanny state".


    nonsense.

    > Most of the people I know using Macs
    > switched to them for exactly that reason. (They believe
    > Macs don't get malware, and to a great extent they're
    > right.)


    there's almost no malware on macs. what exists is largely tricking
    users to install stuff, which can happen with anything, and it doesn't
    have to be a computer either.

    > In any case, there are very few cases where Java is
    > needed online and there should be none. It's an unsafe
    > system meant for corporate intranet applets. I've *never*
    > had Java installed.


    that part is true.
    nospam, Feb 5, 2013
    #29
  10. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > > In any case, there are very few cases where Java is
    > > needed online and there should be none. It's an unsafe
    > > system meant for corporate intranet applets. I've *never*
    > > had Java installed.

    >
    > Huh? The entire web runs on Java.


    where did you get that ridiculous idea?

    turning off java affects almost nobody.

    are you thinking of java*script* ? the entire web does not run on that
    either, but more sites use javascript than java.
    nospam, Feb 5, 2013
    #30
  11. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, MC <>
    wrote:

    > It does not matter who will use it. The point is that whoever does want
    > to use it will be denied doing so.


    including hackers who could take advantage of one of the security
    exploits and compromise your machine.
    nospam, Feb 5, 2013
    #31
  12. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > Much of the content on the web is Java-enabled.


    no it isn't.

    > Use a product like No
    > Script and you can control it, but you will not be able to read/watch
    > a lot of what is out there.


    that's for java *script*, not java.
    nospam, Feb 5, 2013
    #32
  13. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, MC <>
    wrote:

    > Macs are, indeed, for the lazy comuter literate who require everything
    > done for them or need to be told what they can and cannot do.


    nonsense.

    > Not long now and Apple will cut off the internet and have their own
    > "internet". Sites of which will only contain content which users will
    > be told how wonderful Apple is and how Apple products will change your
    > life for the better and make you into a better person.


    more idiocy.
    nospam, Feb 5, 2013
    #33
  14. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, MC <>
    wrote:

    > Thing is, I prefer freedom in how I use my computer and what I use it
    > for. Apple seem to only want you to do with there products what they
    > say you can.


    nonsense. where do people come up with this garbage?

    anyone can do anything with apple products. in fact, they can often do
    *more* than with other products.
    nospam, Feb 5, 2013
    #34
  15. RichA

    MC Guest

    nospam wrote:

    > In article <>, MC <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > It does not matter who will use it. The point is that whoever does
    > > want to use it will be denied doing so.

    >
    > including hackers who could take advantage of one of the security
    > exploits and compromise your machine.


    OK, let's shut all shops and banks, just in case they are robbed.
    Let's disconnect all ovens, just in case someone burns a cake. Let's
    block java form being used on all our machines, just in case .... oh,
    hang on ... we have.

    MC
    MC, Feb 5, 2013
    #35
  16. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, MC <>
    wrote:

    > > > It does not matter who will use it. The point is that whoever does
    > > > want to use it will be denied doing so.

    > >
    > > including hackers who could take advantage of one of the security
    > > exploits and compromise your machine.

    >
    > OK, let's shut all shops and banks, just in case they are robbed.
    > Let's disconnect all ovens, just in case someone burns a cake. Let's
    > block java form being used on all our machines, just in case .... oh,
    > hang on ... we have.


    more idiocy.

    let's just eliminate the requirement for smoke detectors. so what if
    you burn a cake and the house burns down. after all, it's your house.
    bummer about the kids who lost their lives in the fire though.

    let's also eliminate vehicle inspections too. so what if you drive a
    shitbox that pollutes and has defective brakes.

    the reality is that most people are not going to follow what security
    exploits are discovered and what to do about it. they wouldn't even
    know where to start. having exploits automatically patched is a *good*
    thing. why anyone would say otherwise is baffling. absolutely baffling.

    nevertheless, if you really want be stupid and run a machine with known
    unpatched security exploits, you can still do that. just turn off the
    auto-update mechanism and you'll have exactly what you want, a machine
    that can be easily compromised. it's just one click away. make sure you
    have an up to date backup and don't keep any banking info on it.
    nospam, Feb 5, 2013
    #36
  17. RichA

    MC Guest

    nospam wrote:

    > In article <>, MC <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > > > It does not matter who will use it. The point is that whoever
    > > > > does want to use it will be denied doing so.
    > > >
    > > > including hackers who could take advantage of one of the security
    > > > exploits and compromise your machine.

    > >
    > > OK, let's shut all shops and banks, just in case they are robbed.
    > > Let's disconnect all ovens, just in case someone burns a cake.
    > > Let's block java form being used on all our machines, just in case
    > > .... oh, hang on ... we have.

    >
    > more idiocy.
    >

    <ramble snipped>

    To be perfectly honest, I do not care whether Apple owners love their
    Apple machines, good luck to you all. However, it seems these same
    people do not like others disliking, for whatever reasons, the products
    they revere so much. They are not happy to accept there are those who
    do not like Apple products so much so that they feel the need to
    justify (maybe to themselves, as nobody else cares) why they have
    bought into the cult, even down to inferring that non Apple owning
    people are idiots. Maybe it's a guilt thing but it sounds a bit like
    Scientology to me :eek:).
    Sad, isn't it.

    MC
    MC, Feb 5, 2013
    #37
  18. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, MC <>
    wrote:

    > To be perfectly honest, I do not care whether Apple owners love their
    > Apple machines, good luck to you all. However, it seems these same
    > people do not like others disliking, for whatever reasons, the products
    > they revere so much. They are not happy to accept there are those who
    > do not like Apple products so much so that they feel the need to
    > justify (maybe to themselves, as nobody else cares) why they have
    > bought into the cult, even down to inferring that non Apple owning
    > people are idiots. Maybe it's a guilt thing but it sounds a bit like
    > Scientology to me :eek:).
    > Sad, isn't it.


    more bullshit.

    the problem is that the haters can't accept the fact that apple makes
    competitive products and ones which people like to use, so much so that
    they make up reasons to bash, ones that are flat out lies or actually
    apply to other companies more than they do apple. oddly enough, the
    bashers never point out the real problems.

    when other companies, such as google or microsoft, do the same thing
    apple does they get a free pass, but when apple does it, it's bash
    time. hypocrisy at its finest.

    remember the dell adamo? it was *more* expensive than the macbook air
    and had an internal battery. did anyone bash dell? nope.

    and then there's the motorola razr maxx and other android and windows
    phones that have internal batteries. lots of products have internal
    batteries, but only apple gets criticized. why is that?

    <http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19736_7-57367017-251/its-time-to-kiss-that-
    removable-smartphone-battery-goodbye/>

    What do the iPhone, Motorola Droid Razr Maxx, and Nokia Lumia 900
    have in common? The fact that their batteries can't easily be removed.
    nospam, Feb 5, 2013
    #38
  19. RichA

    MC Guest

    nospam wrote:

    > In article <>, MC <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > To be perfectly honest, I do not care whether Apple owners love
    > > their Apple machines, good luck to you all. However, it seems these
    > > same people do not like others disliking, for whatever reasons, the
    > > products they revere so much. They are not happy to accept there
    > > are those who do not like Apple products so much so that they feel
    > > the need to justify (maybe to themselves, as nobody else cares) why
    > > they have bought into the cult, even down to inferring that non
    > > Apple owning people are idiots. Maybe it's a guilt thing but it
    > > sounds a bit like Scientology to me :eek:).
    > > Sad, isn't it.

    >
    > more bullshit.
    >
    > the problem is that the haters can't accept the fact that apple makes
    > competitive products and ones which people like to use, so much so
    > that they make up reasons to bash, ones that are flat out lies or
    > actually apply to other companies more than they do apple. oddly
    > enough, the bashers never point out the real problems.
    >
    > when other companies, such as google or microsoft, do the same thing
    > apple does they get a free pass, but when apple does it, it's bash
    > time. hypocrisy at its finest.
    >
    > remember the dell adamo? it was more expensive than the macbook air
    > and had an internal battery. did anyone bash dell? nope.
    >
    > and then there's the motorola razr maxx and other android and windows
    > phones that have internal batteries. lots of products have internal
    > batteries, but only apple gets criticized. why is that?
    >
    >

    <http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19736_7-57367017-251/its-time-to-kiss-that-
    > removable-smartphone-battery-goodbye/>
    >
    > What do the iPhone, Motorola Droid Razr Maxx, and Nokia Lumia 900
    > have in common? The fact that their batteries can't easily be
    > removed.


    I rest my case...

    MC
    MC, Feb 6, 2013
    #39
  20. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, MC <>
    wrote:

    > > > To be perfectly honest, I do not care whether Apple owners love
    > > > their Apple machines, good luck to you all. However, it seems these
    > > > same people do not like others disliking, for whatever reasons, the
    > > > products they revere so much. They are not happy to accept there
    > > > are those who do not like Apple products so much so that they feel
    > > > the need to justify (maybe to themselves, as nobody else cares) why
    > > > they have bought into the cult, even down to inferring that non
    > > > Apple owning people are idiots. Maybe it's a guilt thing but it
    > > > sounds a bit like Scientology to me :eek:).
    > > > Sad, isn't it.

    > >
    > > more bullshit.
    > >
    > > the problem is that the haters can't accept the fact that apple makes
    > > competitive products and ones which people like to use, so much so
    > > that they make up reasons to bash, ones that are flat out lies or
    > > actually apply to other companies more than they do apple. oddly
    > > enough, the bashers never point out the real problems.
    > >
    > > when other companies, such as google or microsoft, do the same thing
    > > apple does they get a free pass, but when apple does it, it's bash
    > > time. hypocrisy at its finest.
    > >
    > > remember the dell adamo? it was more expensive than the macbook air
    > > and had an internal battery. did anyone bash dell? nope.
    > >
    > > and then there's the motorola razr maxx and other android and windows
    > > phones that have internal batteries. lots of products have internal
    > > batteries, but only apple gets criticized. why is that?
    > >
    > >

    > <http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19736_7-57367017-251/its-time-to-kiss-that-
    > > removable-smartphone-battery-goodbye/>
    > >
    > > What do the iPhone, Motorola Droid Razr Maxx, and Nokia Lumia 900
    > > have in common? The fact that their batteries can't easily be
    > > removed.

    >
    > I rest my case...


    you don't have a case. i've proven you wrong in everything you've said.
    nospam, Feb 6, 2013
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. buffy

    Net Nanny or Cyber patrol????

    buffy, Oct 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    5,162
    anthonyberet
    Oct 21, 2003
  2. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    14,703
    JF Mezei
    Mar 7, 2007
  3. Rodrique
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    749
    Rodrique
    Mar 14, 2008
  4. NormanM
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    635
    Robert J Harsh
    Jun 4, 2010
  5. RichA

    OT: Nanny state gone insane

    RichA, Jan 11, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    314
    Bruce
    Jan 12, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page