SS4
Established Member
You honestly think that if similar security issues had happened at Apple they would just stay schtum? :roll:
Not entirely but they would if it's in their best interests to!
A simple bug. Bugs get into every kind of software.
They are usually fixed in a time period far shorter than 6 months too - this issue occurred when the clocks went back last year and again when they went forward this year (and possibly last year). Since no independent person can check the code we have to take Apple's word whether or not it's fixed.
Because the end user is never given the choice to install it. Most of the millions will never hear of the disallowed apps. Logic says that if you don't know it exists, then you won't want to install it, thus Apple are not dictating what they can install.
That would explain the apps that never see the light of day but doesn't explain about the apps that are pulled after release.
You should only use [sic] where you are denoting the passage is quoted exactly from the original source. No need to do that for iPhone!
True, yet since it's a proper noun it ought to begin with an upper case letter too.
In any case, Apple did not track any users. No data was sent to Apple. The data was so inaccurate anyway, it would only give a general location - sometimes hundreds of miles out.
Apple tracked users by recording their location onto the iPhone. Regardless of whether or not it was monitored it was still tracked. The accuracy of the data doesn't enter into it.
Apple didn't remove it because they didn't like the licensing. That's untrue. I suggest you read this: http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-store/
Putting DRM onto software is a violation of the GPL as it renders the program undistributable.
Your Link said:The end result seems somewhat counterproductive...So much for ensuring that VLC can be freely distributed
Balderdash! VLC can be freely distributed, Apple chose not to because they wanted DRM and Rémi Denis-Courmont did not. Surely Apple, themselves no strangers to legal action, would have let the case go to court if they were in the right.
Imagine the uproar if this had been the other way around and someone wanted to change the licences of apple products.
