4 ms·
The thing about this which makes me think it wouldn't be something Apple would implement is that Apple's priority (after doing what's right for Apple) is what's
by Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
The thing about this which makes me think it wouldn't be something Apple would implement is that Apple's priority (after doing what's right for Apple) is what's best for the user over what's best for third parties (most notably the networks when they launched the iPhone, stopping their "value add" customisations) and it's hard to see how using this technology to implement a kill switch benefits the user.
Even Apple's more questionable moves are, based on Apple's view of the world, based on improving the lot of the end user. You can talk about how not being open doesn't benefit the user but Apple clearly disagree - they're not walling off their phone because they're fascists, they're doing so because they believe that provides a better experience overall. You can disagree with that but I see no rational argument even if they do you disagree with their approach which takes you from the walled garden to this sort of kill switch.
Plus to implement such a thing would put them at a significant commercial disadvantage against Android and other smart phone platforms at precisely the time when their advantage is shrinking (if not gone altogether). Certainly if they implemented this then my current iPhone would absolutely be my last.
But just because something is technically possible it doesn't mean it will happen and this would seem to be one of those cases.
Unless someone can come up with a realistic scenario where Apple benefit from this? And please no shadowy conspiracies - if that were the case Apple wouldn't have publicly patented it and it wouldn't just be Apple, after all, the Man doesn't just care about Apple customers...
- LXicon 15y agobig concert promoters could point to all the flickr pages with pics of their shows from iphones and threaten to sue apple unless apple implements a means to disable taking pics at a concert. this is very similar to the code that allows DVRs to shut off analogue outputs when playing new release movies (Selectable Output Control) * i don't agree with either of these.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y agoHow's threatening to sue the makers of hardware used to commit a crime working out for victims of gun crime? Phones don't record gigs, people do.
- scelerat 15y agoMy fear would be some consortium of big-box retailers, the MPAA, police unions, and fearful save-the-children groups lobbying congress to create laws requiring the inclusion of such turn-off features in all cameras. Possibly paranoid, but not exactly far-fetched. See: Communications decency act; DMCA. I agree, photo crippling features seem hardly in Apple's interest.
- antihero 15y agoPerhaps then people would consider rioting. Probably not, seeing as the critical aspect the average person is essentially neutralised if they have been appeased by gadgets and cheap entertainment.
- sixtofour 15y ago1. Patent something that appeals to government and other control freaks. 2. Watch the technology become mandatory by law. 3. Profit.
- camiller 15y agoWorked for the SawStop, oh wait, no it didn't. Despite their intense lobbying to get congress to mandate that all table saw manufactures use their patented tech, congress never went for it.
- thebooktocome 15y agoIt failed for SawStop because the inventor chose to attempt to leverage his monopoly instead of licensing the patent. He also charged pretty outrageous prices for the tech -- wasn't it 3k or so a blade? I don't really remember.
- camiller 15y agoAnd it was, at least in the beginning, self destructive. The original version engaged a breaking mechanism that basically destroyed itself. So a false positive caused by the wood being a little green/damp would cost $300 to get the saw back up and running. I think the new version rapidly drops the blade below the table surface instead of destroying itself. Still, it fits sixtofour's #1 and #2, they invented a tech, tried to get it mandatory by law, so they could charge large license fees. Edit: Besides, what IS licensing a patent if not leveraging a monopoly.