Apple copied LG?!!?!

[AngelArs]

The iphone 4 is the most fragile device, a problem directly related to the amount of glass.

Good report. Instead of using the phrase "amount of glass" I would prefer "the use of rear glass". Other phones have large front screens and still aren't as fragile. It looks like Apple is taking so long to bring out the iPhone 5 because they will most likely move away from the design of so much glass. I don't know why they're using glass on the back of the phone anyway. Most likely for cosmetic reasons but I think they've learned their lesson. I would much prefer a stainless steel rear to glass, with a larger front piece of glass (like the GSII). Not sure why they don't use some sort of gaskets to cushion the front glass more or why it's not laminated better. With all the technology around in this field I find it hard to believe that they can't figure out something...

 

[EarlyMon]

Good report. Instead of using the phrase "amount of glass" I would prefer "the use of rear glass". Other phones have large front screens and still aren't as fragile. It looks like Apple is taking so long to bring out the iPhone 5 because they will most likely move away from the design of so much glass. I don't know why they're using glass on the back of the phone anyway. Most likely for cosmetic reasons but I think they've learned their lesson. I would much prefer a stainless steel rear to glass, with a larger front piece of glass (like the GSII). Not sure why they don't use some sort of gaskets to cushion the front glass more or why it's not laminated better. With all the technology around in this field I find it hard to believe that they can't figure out something...

New phones are going from consumables to disposables.

Who loses if the phone is built just sub-par enough that you're happy to replace one, year after year?

Not the makers. They've figured out plenty.

 

[AngelArs]

Who loses if the phone is built just sub-par enough that you're happy to replace one, year after year?

One thing I know for a fact is that Apple takes their reputation very seriously. Apple is not going to cut corners just to sell an extra phone. Maybe other companies like Nokia will do this, but not Apple.

 

[EarlyMon]

One thing I know for a fact is that Apple takes their reputation very seriously. Apple is not going to cut corners just to sell an extra phone. Maybe other companies like Nokia will do this, but not Apple.

The company's under new management. Perhaps things won't change, perhaps they will.

But Apple already cuts corners on their products. I own a lot of Apple gear, and I think that a number of products do give value for the money.

But if you think they haven't thought of things like gasketing, asked themselves what the payoff would be in additional sales vs cost to add it in, think again.

Recall antenna-gate. A number of people under Ives said the outer antennas needed covering - a poly coat would have served. They decided not to because the appearance degradation of a poly coating might affect sales, and Ive didn't believe the effect was real. That's been documented in leaked memos and emails. The PR nightmare and the very real bad design decision were both quite real. The poly-coat would have cost pennies.

And Jobs did take his reputation seriously. He went to try to demonstrate that all phones had the problem - even though only his new baby was the one dropping calls because of it. And that's not why he gave away free bumpers - it was for the PR. Yes. Ok. Sure.

Everyone cuts corners to sell another. Everyone.

Even the guys with the most advanced RF anechoic testing chamber in the industry (Apple).

 

[EarlyMon]

Everything transparent will shatter at some point. That's not the issue. The issue is to move the point of where it shatters past that of rough handling. As I understand it Gorilla Glass II does that.

Time will tell

Remove the ability for the glass to shatter and then we'll see if the force is translated into internal components instead?

Perhaps that was your original point? Apologies if I missed that.

Anyway, the G'zOne Commando is pretty good if you're worried about a rugged phone.

 

[AngelArs]

The poly-coat would have cost pennies.

Probably less. A swipe of clear nail polish will fix the problem.

And that's not why he gave away free bumpers

Which probably cost more than the poly coat would have

 

[AngelArs]

Remove the ability for the glass to shatter and then we'll see if the force is translated into internal components instead?

Perhaps that was your original point? Apologies if I missed that.

Yes, way back in post 115

Apple loves to cram a lot inside their devices. I feel sorry for those components. I'm surprised Lexan isn't used in some form more. If it's good enough for astronaut helmets, then it should be good for a phone case...

 

[EarlyMon]

Probably less. A swipe of clear nail polish will fix the problem.

Yes.

Sad, wasn't it?

On free bumpers:

Which probably cost more than the poly coat would have

Compared to the cost of bumper per phone using them or the total cost of limited bumper program vs. number of phones in total produced with the problem?

Cutting corners often comes out in the wash and they paid - a little.

Poly-coating the metal would have added a process and a number of cost-increasing QA and contracting steps. It's not like the cost of toenail polish at home for one device, where the labor is free. But I digress.

Even after they stopped with the give away and still did nothing about the problem, they continued to sell very well.

Seems that cutting corners until the product was subpar and becoming the laughingstock in the media didn't hurt them a lick.

This might surprise you, but a number of people actually believe that phone was well-designed, from an engineering standpoint.

 

[AngelArs]

This might surprise you, but a number of people actually believe that phone was well-designed, from an engineering standpoint.

Depends on how you look at it. The SquareTrade article posted above showed that it is a very reliable phone, quote;

The iPhone 4 was the most reliable phone, with 2.1% projected to have a non- accident malfunction in the first 12 months

I think the rear glass is it's downfall. Too much glass. It's the American Motors Pacer of the phone world

 

[EarlyMon]

Obligatory AMC Pacer post -

Spoiler

Movie Scene - Wayne's World - Bohemian Rhapsody - YouTube

 

[Slug]

Schwiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing!

 

[motorazr]

I hate how much apple products limit the user...

Its fine for people like my mom who have limited technical prowess but for people like me (cs major) or those who use computers to actually do something worthwhile rather than wasting time on facebook or gaming 24/7, its just not useful.

Those who use macbooks in my major (rofl @ them) have to dual boot windows to get work done. I laugh every time one of them comes up to me and shows off their macbook's 4gb ram and crappy processor...

I laugh again, watching them boot windows to do their course work, while I get my work done on my 300 dollar netbook. I go to my room, where my monster desktop with an i5 2500k 4.8ghz, 16gb ram, 2x256gb ssd raid 0, and CF 6990 awaits me.

Apple products are for people who want to look cool but ultimately the products end up becoming toys... they're awesome to look at because they look cool but they just don't make sense if you want control over your devices... you should not be bound by your computer... you should be the one to have full control over it.

The iphone looks nice and all but really... its just a toy. My friends have iphones and they let me use it... but compared to the joy I felt on another friend's android..... well... that's why I went with android and I'm lovin it...

Mom has iphone, and both mom and dad have ipad (which I like... its a toy imo but at least its design is well done)

 

[AngelArs]

Those who use macbooks in my major (rofl @ them) have to dual boot windows to get work done.

And no doubt they are laughing at you because your tiny netbook can't

 

[EarlyMon]

Apple products are for people who want to look cool but ultimately the products end up becoming toys... they're awesome to look at because they look cool but they just don't make sense if you want control over your devices... you should not be bound by your computer... you should be the one to have full control over it.

Or they're for people like me.

I use mine for all sorts of tasks that you might find in your CS courses. You might be very surprised.

And you can make friends by telling your classmates about Parallels or VMWare or VirtualBox to avoid that dual-boot you're describing.

 

[IOWA]

Or they're for people like me.

I use mine for all sorts of tasks that you might find in your CS courses. You might be very surprised.

And you can make friends by telling your classmates about Parallels or VMWare or VirtualBox to avoid that dual-boot you're describing.

That's how I run windows and Linux side by side =)

 

[motorazr]

actually my 300 dollar netbook does get my work done and has allowed me to maintain a 3.8 gpa. it was my first "laptop" and i got it 3 yrs ago. i have a very good desktop now... and i still use my netbook cuz its nifty... and running an IDE is not exactly intensive... you don't need a 1200 dollar apple netbook (air) to learn programming or concepts rofl...

i told them to use vmware but even they prefer using windows 7 dual boot rather than that.... most of them regret buying their macbooks LOL. couple of my friends dont do that fusion thing anymore... they just run windows as main os lol

i'm not saying macs are terrible (they employ some unique and interesting techniques) but the whole user experience is one of hand holding... you're not really given freedom to do as you want to...

also its hilarious that people pay premium to get worse hardware for the price and buy apple products just because they're apple... its like those idiots who shell out 2k+ for their alienwares which my 1500 dollar desktop (which I saved up for 2 yrs) can beat easily. grats on paying more for a logo

you can defend apple all you want but in the end you're paying more for mere looks and not functionality.

you buy apple products to have fun with. you buy windows if you want to get something done. unless you're a photographer or something... lucky bastards have fun and get stuff done LOL xDDDD

 

[AngelArs]

you buy windows if you want to get something done

...like updating your spyware, malware and virus definitions

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

...like updating your spyware, malware and virus definitions

Others have said it and I will repeat it now, that is because Apple computers account for 8% or less of the total computer market worldwide. It is simple numbers, if they had a higher percentage then there would be far more viruses, malware and spyware for them. They aren't immune to it, just not an attractive target.

I have never in 12 years had a virus on my Windows systems, as Iowa stated it is usually the users fault, at least before drive-by-downloads became prevalent. I still have yet to get one though I have caught a few in the process.

 

[AngelArs]

that is because Apple computers account for 8% or less of the total computer market worldwide. It is simple numbers

Oh you really don't want to go down that path now do you? You are grossly misinformed and obviously haven't researched the topic pass the 'urban myth' stage

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Oh you really don't want to go down that path now do you? You are grossly misinformed and obviously haven't researched the topic pass the 'urban myth' stage

Everything I find across the internet and in the news backs these figures up. If you have access to something I don't please share it with me so I can review it for myself. I am merely going by the data I have to make my assumptions and am willing to consider any reliable source for arriving at a conclusion.

 

[EarlyMon]

Evidently, Apple vs LG is now a dead subject.

I suppose I will look for other threads to merge this with or move posts to or something.

Apple vs Windows threads do always bring out information, misinformation, strong opinions, and humorous, fun comments.

But last I checked, neither Apple nor Android phones run OS X or Windows.

But any thread with Apple in the name always leads to this hijacking - we all get drawn in, I guess.

Meanwhile, have fun, continue replying, it is the Lounge, and I will try to find a suitable home for the latest debate in the meantime.

 

[AngelArs]

Everything I find across the internet and in the news backs these figures up.

And by "figures" I'm assuming you mean the 8% figure? If so then it appears that the last time you updated your "research" was back in 2008 Today Apple has acquired the third spot at 12.9% and growing at a much faster rate than any other computer company. This is what the experts (including the CEO of HP) says about Apples growth in 2012 But this isn't about market share, it's about viruses and why one platform gets them when another does not. See below.

I am merely going by the data I have to make my assumptions and am willing to consider any reliable source for arriving at a conclusion.

And assumptions is all that they are. Market share has NOTHING to do with who gets viruses. That way of thinking is just FUD! The topic of viruses is complex and goes back many years. My apologies in advance but in order to understand the facts this will take a little reading. I'll try to keep it as brief as possible though Long gone are the days when size of a operating system platform had anything to do with getting, or not getting, a virus. But let

 

[Roze]

^--- OMG Angel, are you writing a book here? Where's my synopsis?

 

[IOWA]

And by "figures" I'm assuming you mean the 8% figure? If so then it appears that the last time you updated your "research" was back in 2008 Today Apple has acquired the third spot at 12.9% and growing at a much faster rate than any other computer company. This is what the experts (including the CEO of HP) says about Apples growth in 2012 But this isn't about market share, it's about viruses and why one platform gets them when another does not. See below.





And assumptions is all that they are. Market share has NOTHING to do with who gets viruses. That way of thinking is just FUD! The topic of viruses is complex and goes back many years. My apologies in advance but in order to understand the facts this will take a little reading. I'll try to keep it as brief as possible though Long gone are the days when size of a operating system platform had anything to do with getting, or not getting, a virus. But let’s not put the cart before the horse, a little review of virus history is needed first. Here’s a brief examination of the history of computer viruses over the past 30 years;

Back in the 1980s & early 1990s there was a thriving virus scene for DOS. The market share for DOS back then was very small compared to the windows market share, and yet there were plenty of viruses for DOS around, even though there weren’t as many people using DOS as people using windows. Why? It certainly had NOTHING to do with the market share size of the DOS community. That’s because “market share” has nothing to do with who gets a virus.

Comparatively, the DOS market share was very much the same as the Mac OS X market share, the only main exception was that DOS and windows were both made by Microsoft. Yet DOS still received its fair share of viruses even though it had a much smaller market share. This is a perfect example that proves that market share has no effect what-so-ever on which platform receives viruses, but there are MANY other examples of why the market share myth simply doesn’t hold water. Let’s look deeper into some of those other examples that disprove this urban myth now shall we.

Mac Systems had roughly 1/10th of the PC market in the 1980s - which means a fraction of the number of installed Mac’s of today, and a vanishingly small number compared to the Windows computers of today - yet viruses still came out for Mac Systems back then. If the market share myth were true, then Macs would never have had viruses written for them, but we know that back in the 1980s this wasn’t true. At the time, even though Macs had a much smaller market share they still had a virus problem. Viruses, or so it seemed, we’re a part of every operating system. So then why did Macs get viruses back then, and today they no longer do? Well for one thing Macs back then used an operating system called OS8 and OS9 (also known as Classic). Today Macs use OS X (Tiger, Leopard, Lion) which is much beefier security wise, but more on this later.

Returning to today… ask yourself, how many people do you know that use AmigaDOS today? Probably no one. Yet it's still alive and well thank you very much (version 4.1 just released). The AmigaDOS market share is therefore extremely small, almost non-existent, yet virus writers are still writing the occasional virus for AmigaDOS! Why? It certainly has NOTHING to do with the small market share size of the AmigaDOS community. According to the ‘market share myth‘ no one would EVER write a virus for AmigaDOS when they could get more “bang for the buck” writing one for windows, right? Yet we know in real life this simply isn’t the case, that people still do write viruses for AmigaDOS. However, on the same hand they still don’t write viruses for Macs OS X today. Why is that? Here’s a legitimate clue, a lot has to do with the foundation of both operating systems, which we’ll delve into a little deeper in a bit.

What we’re seeing here is a history of operating systems that have a very small market share, smaller than Macs even, and yet there are people still writing viruses for these small operating systems, but not one virus is around for Mac OS X.

Hmmm... let’s see now, we have far more Mac OS X computers being used today than there were Mac Systems in 1980s, there WERE Mac Systems viruses in 1980s, yet still no viruses are found for OS X today.

Obviously the market share myth isn’t all it’s cracked up to be!

So then why are there so many viruses for windows, and yet none for Macs?

What we have seen above is that virus writers write viruses that exploit ANY vulnerability that they can find, regardless of the popularity or market share size of the platform! Most viruses are no longer written by 13 year olds trying to boost their ego like some people believe. Today writing viruses is BIG money, especially in countries like Russia. For example; the Russian Zlob gang has written many viruses for the wild.

Here’s a quick example, the “whizzer worm” is a complex and sophisticated virus designed to infect a computer by exploiting an obscure flaw in one particular version - of one particular company’s software firewall program called Black Ice.

The total number of people in the whole entire world who used this version of this program was ONLY around 50,000. Yet the virus writers still took the time, found and exploited that flaw. Why? Well, it had NOTHING to do with market share, and everything to do with the fact that… they could exploit that flaw!

I think we can both agree that 50,000 users is a far smaller number (and therefore a smaller market share) than the number of people who buy a Mac each and every day. The point is that virus writers write WHERE EVER they can find and exploit a vulnerability. They do not care about the market share of a platform. They ONLY care about the vulnerabilities that they know they can easily profit from and exploit.

Now let’s look at the market share myth from the other side of the coin, let’s say that you know how to write viruses. As low a profession as it might be, we’ll say that you are really good at writing viruses. You also know that modern day Macs are known to be bullet proof. Which would you do, write the 500,000th Windows virus and join the ranks of script kiddies, or do you write the worlds first OS X virus? Think about that for a minute, don’t you think that it might tempt you to be the very FIRST person to write the first real Mac OS X virus? Your name would go down in Cyber history if you could do that, right? But still you don’t see ANY viruses around for modern day Macs do you… why? For a clue to the answer it might be time to consider what is known as “Occam’s razor” which states: “All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one”. The simplest solution for the lack of Mac viruses is that these hackers today are VERY capable of writing powerful, disruptive viruses, but they simply can not find a way to penetrate the OS X architecture, or they would - if for no other reason then just to become worldly famous for being the first person to successfully do so - yet still no Mac viruses exist. It all goes back to the OS’s foundation which we talked about earlier, and OS X was designed on top of BSD, an already EXTREMELY secure variant of Unix. Windows however… was not.

Architectural elements between the different OS’s are key to the virus discussion. As mentioned before, MacOS was designed on top of BSD, an already extremely secure variant of Unix. On the other hand the Windows architecture historically has never been secure (ever) and design decisions made many, many years ago make it almost impossible to secure it now.

Rule Number One: an operating system can only be as secure as it’s framework allows it to be.

No matter how many Macs are in the wild you won't see any viruses written for them, and I seriously doubt you'll see any for Android either. However Windows has had more than one million different viruses, trojans, worms, and other malware reported as of 2009, and that number increases daily. According to CNN, the number of windows viruses has risen to over 400%

Oh bother.

One sentence to debunk youre whole paragraph.

MacOSX is nearly always First to fall in hacking contests. Since its existence.

Secondly, if you really want to compare security, Windows 7 is just as every bit secure as the latest version od OSX, if not moreso because of all the tools developed over the years.

And i assure you, if I felt like learning Objective C and the ins and outs of MacOSX I (or any other programmer) could write a malware thats every bit as bad as any Windows kit thats been developed over the last decade.

Once Admin/SU rights are granted, it's game over. Doesnt matter what operating system you're using.

And since OSX doesnt have many tools to fight off an "infection" once it's started, you could say Windows is technically the more secure OS.

Again, the way most computers get "infected" is through social engineering. Last time I checked users of all categories fall for these traps and grant badware Admin rights.

Architecture design has nothing to do with social engineering.


FYI, there are already quite a few malware programs written for and used on OSX. There won't be any "firsts" for anyone. Please do some research.

Bottom line: an OS's biggest weakness (as of Today) is always the end user. This takes most technical aspects out of the equation anyway.

Good day.

 

[AngelArs]

^--- OMG Angel, are you writing a book here? Where's my synopsis?

You mean CliffsNotes?

BTW the butler did it...

One sentence to debunk youre whole paragraph.

You're not very big on comprehension I take it. We're talking about viruses and the market share myth. But since you want to go off topic - did you know that it turns out that with sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine

Apparently you saw the word 'Apple' and your eyes glazed over, and you immediately morphed into your Apple haters frame of mind and started type, type, typing away.

BTW apples float because 25 percent of their volume is air.

I'm talking about the fruit

Mac OS X is nearly always First to fall in hacking contests.

Yeah I notice you keep saying this. Not sure if you're trying to convince us or yourself. Most of those so-called 'hacking wins' were through old versions of Safari, NOT OS X. As Homer Simpson would say... D'oh! Since you apparently don't know it Safari is a browser, not a operation system. Big difference. You lose. Oh and the very next day Apple issued a fix, and on top of that every Mac user already knows to uncheck the