No subscriptions for me. Looks good though, and I think Apple’s approach, implied in the new commercials, will go a long way to getting new artists discovered. … I’m simply not going to do yet another $10/month subscription … to anything, and I’m beginning to clean out the few that I have. The day I completely lose access to Apple media content because I’m forced to have a subscription … well, it’s going to be a sad day indeed.
As I get ready to start a new week there’s something I remain troubled by. Early last week I began to notice on certain support web sites, which will remain nameless, rather severe reactions from developers toward some of its users who are using beta versions of the upcoming iOS or Mac OS, who merely attempted to notify fellow users that the beta versions of these OSes render the developer’s application unuseable. In several of these cases I noted that the user attempting to post the notice made it perfectly clear that the notification was not a review or a criticism, only a notification to those who may be contemplating trying the beta versions of Apple’s OS(es). The barely polite chastisment by the development company’s moderator, of the enlightened user, was surprising to me and it has continued to trouble me off and on throughout the last week.
Apple itself has disabled their Review function on their app stores if the store senses you’re using a beta version of the OS. (I don’t remember if this was the case during the OS 8 beta.) In short, I get it. Prior to last week I found myself endlessly frustrated with individuals who were running beta versions of one or more of Apple’s OSes and proceeded to give soaring criticisms of how bad the OS was, or the app, or both. I’m reminded of the scene from the first Jurassic Park movie where the nefarious genetic engineer comes face to face with a smallish dinasour, and while holding a stick in his hand says something like, “… see the stick … it’s a stick, stupid.” Well, if my admittedly rough analogy holds any water at all, then I’ll leave you to make the final connection. If I were a software developer this kind of thing would be frustrating, at least.
So heres the “but”: I wanted to give the current public beta of iOS 9 a go, but, there are one or two iOS apps that are fairly important to my daily life and I didn’t feel I could afford to lose their functionality, so I went looking for information that might tell me if these apps were going to break if I installed the beta iOS. Ultimately, the virtual censorship that is going on by Apple and by app developers disallowed anyone from openly sharing that information. I find this disappointing, even irkesome. I totally get that no one in their right mind should judge an OS or an app in its beta phases – that’s easy, but I believe there needs to be some appropriate culpability by the developers toward users of their products. I’m not referring to a developer just sayng their product won’t work under the beta OS, whether or not they’ve actually tried it, just to cover their hides, I’m talking about developers at least opening their app with each beta iteration and posting the results for all to see, so that users can gauge for themselves how much of a risk they’re willing to take.
Personally, I like being able to take part in public betas, but, it has become hard to assess reasonable risk, because from where I sit, app developers are unwilling to cooperate with users who wish to do so. I don’t believe it would cost developers anything in time and effort to use their support pages to post a simple set of results along with the obligitory and inevitable reminder that, users always use their products at the user’s own risk, and all the more so if you’re using a public beta of the OS.
Rather than censorship maybe there needs to be some basic public education about what a beta version of any software really is, combined with examples of what reasonable expectiations might be. There also needs to be voluntary and full disclosure by developers as to whether or not their product is going to be unuseable with a public beta version of an OS. This whole concept can still be really good, but there’s clearly a communication gap between app developers, Apple and end users.
Apple’s video application priorities – Alex4D http://t.co/g1X1geua76
Sometimes I think that Apple is so torn between providing professional solutions, using their hardware, and competing in the consumer market place, that I think they should either farm out their pro software solutions or create a professional corporate branch. Maybe this will happen with some of the things I’ve been hearing about the Apple/IBM collusion, but something tells me that IBM is not going to jump into the media production market place. They’ll sell Macs with software to the accounting departments of these institutions, but probably are not going to sell FCPX along with network management solutions for that product.
Reading Alex’s take on Apple’s job openings just leaves me with more questions about whether or not Apple is ever going to take its professional users seriously, permanently.
Researcher details OS X security flaws: http://t.co/XbwwxQWylN
— Digital Rebellion (@digitalreb) August 6, 2015
I really have to wonder about the behind-the-scenes politics of people and organizations that create previously non-existent malware. On the surface I get it, but it seems dubious that a person or group that creates mechanisms that break the average desktop or handheld computer have only altruistic motivations. Here’s just a concern or three that I have:
- What happens when this person’s or group’s admiration for the computing system they portend to love wanes?
- How long does it take for that love to wane in light of the admitted lack of appreciation that comes from the manufacturer/developer.
- Whether or not there is/was any real admiration by the malware creator, what would it take to buy that particular creator’s particular creation?
- I see no regulation or oversight of any kind for this practice.
Certainly germ warfare development [bio-germs] takes place, but it is somewhat regulated by the realization of the people doing the hands-on development, of just how really dangerous what they’re working with is. I would also argue that, whatever of this kind of thing goes on in the USA is watched very closely, even if it is not strictly regulated, (and I’m not saying it’s not – I don’t know if it is or not). Why would it be closely watched? For two reasons: To keep it secret and because it’s just dangerous to all concerned, and no risks can afford to be taken.
Now back to the malware lab where it seems to me that this kind of thing is carried out with no oversight of any kind, and if this thing shows up in the wild 12-24 months from now this person will have no culpability except, “I told you so”.
Sorry, but I don’t believe this practice should be geek fodder, because there is a lot at stake – potentially, even human life – since computers are so indelible to our existence now. The more this is contemplated the more I think this practice needs to be reigned in – there needs to be official oversight. It’s really too bad that giant companies like Microsoft and Apple, and Google, and all the rest, don’t do this all in-house – with government oversight. Software development has too long enjoyed the luxury of getting us to completely depend on products that take absolutely no responsibility for outcomes or losses due to the product’s shortcomings.