I think you're missing the point. He didn't ignore the suggestions, he felt that particular suggestion to restore the entire phone was unacceptable. Just because Apple says to do it, doesn't mean it may be the absolute best solution so the author went about finding other possible alternatives among the community. Unfortunately, beyond jailbreaking it there was no other worthwhile solution. In the end, he did exactly what Apple told him to do... and it still failed.
If a warning light on my car's dash turns on, I might look for a fix online. But if someone in a forum suggests I drive my troubled car off a cliff, I'm not going to write an angry rant accusing Ford of making me drive my car off a cliff.
I'm also not going to navigate to some amateurish-looking website that's obviously not affiliated with Ford, and claim that I can't tell it apart from Ford's website (and imply that Ford is somehow responsible for my confusion).
And if I can't fix it myself, I'll bring the car in for servicing, rather than writing a linkbait article speculating about what the repairman might tell me. (In fact, if the phone is a year old and it has a legitimate issue, Apple might just hand him a new phone... I find that scenario more in line with my own experiences, but we'll never know, since he couldn't be bothered).
> Unfortunately, beyond jailbreaking it there was no other worthwhile solution.
Really? Because he listed a bunch that all seemed more worthwhile.
I know you got downvoted and while I agree with you, it's not really Microsoft's fault. Microsoft is actually trying to stop it themselves by offering the same (sometimes) PCs in their own stores that come without the crapware.
IPO opening auctions are scheduled for the middle of the day. The regular market open auction is a very busy time and if they happened at the same time, everyone would be choosing between handling their normal business or the excitement of the IPO.
I'm also pretty sure that once MacOS starts becoming prevalent in the enterprise, they'll eventually need antivirus, back up agents, and some sort of management agent as well.
How would an IT organization manage the settings on the OS without some sort of management agent?
At what point are we going to get over the concept that Macs don't have virus issues because there's not popular enough yet? I feel like I've been hearing that chestnut for a decade now.
There are already IT management tools for Macs. I've worked at two large companies in a row (25k+ employees) where a large percentage of the company was using Macs (~30% or more) and they both had established management solutions that didn't bork the user experience on Macs. I'm typing this on a managed Macbook Air right now.
As for backups, those agents exist but they're rapidly growing less relevant as the majority of documents and work are either web-based or on servers anyway. If I somehow lost this computer, I'd be bummed to have to do some preferences setup again, but I wouldn't lose any work.
At what point are we going to get over the concept that Macs don't have virus issues because there's not popular enough yet? I feel like I've been hearing that chestnut for a decade now.
Excuse me son, but would you mind standing in line behind those Linux guys over there? They've been putting up with this longer than you have.
Why are Banks known for getting robbed more often than Bakeries? That's where the money is.
The reason you've been hearing about Mac popularity with regards to viruses is because it's true, despite the fact that you'd like to think otherwise.
The fact is that Mac market share is still only around ~15% in the US and much less than that worldwide. That is about triple the market share that they had ten years ago.
Also - Ever heard of Pwn2Own? The Mac has fallen first every year.
"Why are Banks known for getting robbed more often than Bakeries?"
Because of Hollywood movies? It isn't actually true.
Of all robberies in the US, only 2.1% targets a bank. Shops (including bakeries) are targeted far more often, 14.3% of the time. Gas stations are robbed more often than banks, and convenience stores are even 2.5 times more likely to get robbed. [1]
The number of bank robberies is on the rise, but that's not because "that's where the money is". It's because the number of bank branches has grown rapidly, banks have standardized floor plans, and banks have procedures to deal with robbers (= just give them the money). [2]
To further break down some bank robbery myths: nearly 80 percent of bank robberies are committed by one person. 70 percent of bank robbers are unarmed offenders who do not use or even threaten violence. About 60 percent of bank robbers do not bother with disguises; only 7 percent of robbers in Florida did. And finally, more than 80 percent of arrested bank robbers have no prior convictions for bank crime.
It may not be true anymore, but that doesn't mean that Hollywood made everything up about that! Ever heard of Jesse James? The point is...thieves go where the money is.
Okay, so fine you don't like my analogy. Let's fix it for you then: If you found a large oasis in the middle of a desert, would you pass it by in order to find a smaller one?
I'm sure robbers do risk assessment. If a bakery has half the cash a bank has but no security and a better escape route, they will much rather rob a bakery.
"If you found a large oasis in the middle of a desert, would you pass it by in order to find a smaller one?"
Alright, let's use that analogy. Which is the large oasis, Mac or Windows?
Windows has a larger installed base. However, most Windows computers have virus protection and Microsoft puts a lot of effort into improving security.
Mac OS X has a smaller installed base, but practically no one bothers with virus protection and security doesn't seem to be Apple's number one priority.
That's why I think Mac OS X is a lot more interesting to cyber criminals, it's an enormous oasis. And yet, there haven't been any attacks of scale -- if there had been, it would be front page news. Perhaps OS X is safer than you want to admit?
No, it's not safer than I'd like to admit just because you don't agree with my analogy. I am relying on empirical evidence, thank you very much.
Are you one of those people who thinks that the Mac has fallen first at Pwn2Own because it's a "nicer" computer that all the hackers want? Because that's not the case at all. It's been shown a number of times that OS X can be rooted more easily than Windows.
So, no I don't think it's "safer" because of anything technical either. Even if it were though, that wouldn't matter. Windows is safe, yet it can be hacked much like any OS.
The only remaining possibility must be true: Hackers don't pay little attention to OS X because too few targets are using them to make it worth the effort.
Windows is the larger oasis (quite obviously to the non-obstinate reader). This is because even with virus protection, you can't protect users from themselves and more users means more chances to try. If a malprogrammer can get you to run a binary, you're done. If OS X were the more popular OS and it were being run by almost every business in the world that utilize computers, then I have zero doubt that it would have the same problem as Windows in that regard.
I don't think that it will ever be a problem though for Apple since I doubt OS X could ever reach the same market penetration within the highly hacker-targeted business and enterprise market. So, people can go on believing what they want I guess.
I'll limit it to what I think is the core of your message:
Why would cyber criminals be more interested in breaking into some empty business desktop, if they can break into a personal desktop filled with personal information like credit card numbers and iTunes/Paypal/Bank logins?
Why don't you just tell me why you think the Mac is safer despite empirical evidence the says otherwise?
That'd probably be quicker than me trying to explain to you why the Mac is worthless target. (Actually a no explanation is typically needed for that since the market share numbers don't lie. I just think you're being extremely obstinate at this point, so there's no way you'll see that. You might as well attempt to prove _your_ point to me since there's obviously no way you'll accept _my_ point.)
"Why don't you just tell me why you think the Mac is safer"
I'll let Pwn2Own winner Charlie Miller answer that for me:
"I'd say that Macs are less secure [...] but are more safe because there simply isn't much malware out there. For now, I'd still recommend Macs for typical users as the odds of something targeting them are so low that they might go years without seeing any malware, even though if an attacker cared to target them it would be easier for them."
Oh please. Compared to over a billion PCs worldwide? If you are going to build a bot-net, would you really target the Mac? Gimme a break dude.
Considering the vast difference between Windows and OS X APIs; it's quite clear why mal-programmers don't waste their time with OS X. You would have to spend MORE than half your time attacking the Mac for less than 10% of your total attack surface.
The only other argument that has been made in the face of this fact is from Gruber who said: If Macs have 10% of the market, why don't they have 10% of the viruses? That's like saying because I am Nth the size of the sun, I should have Nth the power of the sun. Reality does not work that way. Everything does not have to be proportional and in this case it's crystal clear why it is not proportional.
Yes. Superficial, non-technical safety via obscurity which lasts forever since OS X will never break 10% worldwide usage market share.
iOS might be another story, but smartphone and tablet usage in general is still dwarfed by Windows usage. Despite that, within the realm of smartphones there have been more iOS threats than there have been threats for Windows Phone 7. Shocker? Nope. It's based on popularity.
They wouldn't. They would use Apple's Server Admin Tools (a free download) [1] and Lion Server's Profile Manager [2].
My point wasn't that Macs don't need management, anti-malware or back up software. It is that you don't need third party software that bogs down your system.
They didn't mess up the internal version number. It was done for software compatibility reasons.
Windows 2000 code was 5.0 and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1, even though it was a major release we didn't' want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility.
That brings us to Windows Vista, which is 6.0. So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and 7th in the family of Windows releases.
We learned a lot about using 5.1 for XP and how that helped developers with version checking for API compatibility. We also had the lesson reinforced when we applied the version number in the Windows Vista code as Windows 6.0-- that changing basic version numbers can cause application compatibility issues.
So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1 - which is what you will see in the actual version of the product in cmd.exe or computer properties.
This is not really surprising. Infrastructure is a key competitive advantage of Google, and they prefer to build their own stuff (including CDNs) instead of outsourcing it.
Given that Google is barely in the infrastructure market (they mostly just have a ton for their own uses), I don't see how Google + Akamai would be any less competitive than Akamai on its own.
I guess there could be some issues since this makes Google's competitors in other markets reliant on them, but from a "too much good infrastructure in one company" standpoint, I don't see how there would be anti-trust concerns.
Google has always wanted to make web faster. See http://code.google.com/speed/articles/ . And I'm sure you know about various Google tools (including Chrome) that try to speed up web.
They rely very heavily on web, and it's absolutely important for them to speed up web for people to keep moving away from native.
That's exactly what it is. Looks like it will be live for everyone next week. Once you make the change and publish it, however, it's only available to other Dev-enabled FB profiles to see. Everyone else still sees the old profile.
Now what?