Summary of that long winded email: I'm smarter than you. You're wrong. Apple is guilty too.
On Jun 10, 2010, at 8:55 PM, Nick FitzGerald wrote: > Joel Esler wrote: > >> My only problem with the article is the inaccuracy of the headline. >> Gawker is known for their sensationalism. Frustratingly awesome. > > My only problem with your commentary on this is the inaccuracy of your > use of the word "inaccuracy". > > Although technically "inaccurate" means only "not accurate", due to the > tendency of (simpler) humans to conceive "accuracy" as a binary state > (akin to true/false), common use of "inaccurate" tends to have a strong > connotation of "false", and even "wrong" (with all its connotations). > (Should we be surprised that Wikitionary suffers this misperception, > unlike the professionally maintained dictionaries I checked?) > > You would have been more accurate (now, how can that be a meaningful > utterance for something that ostensibly has binary state?) to have > said: > > My only problem with the article is the less than fully accurate > headline. Gawker is known for their sensationalism. ... > > Of course, that is not quite as sensationalistic as strongly connoting > that Gawker was wrong... > > True, their headline was not fully accurate. > > But do you really not think that Apple must at least partly carry the > can for this? > > After all, it was Apple that decided to make 3G iPads available in the > US (and Canada I presume) via an exclusive deal with AT&T. If the > devices were available across any 3G network, Apple's customers would > have had to choose their carrier, and thus only those who chose AT&T (a > presumably small number from what I've heard of that network's > coverage, reliability and service) would have been exposed by this lack > of security smarts at AT&T (well, we have to speculate and as you seem > to be into sensationalism, let me assume that none of the other 3G > networks are run by such security dullards as those at AT&T). > > Of course, the real reason behind Apple's choice of AT&T had nothing to > do with "providing the most consistent user experience" and all that > touchy-feely mush the fanboiz lap up, but had everything to do with > making the device "more exclusive" and keeping the price rather on the > high side (i.e. it was about making profits for Apple, and presumably > the fixed-term service contracts had something to do with making > profits for AT&T). > > So, I have no sympathy for Apple being socked with the full blame for > something like this. If Apple really cared about its reputedly ever so > valuable customers, Apple would have made sure that it was not teaming > with a security-challenged carrier and thus inflicting that carrier's > low standards on Apple's "valuable customers". (And arguably it would > have made the device network agnostic to provide its ever so valuable > customers the best range of choice to get the device and carrier deal > that suited them...) > > Apple is at least as guilty in this as AT&T, because from a great deal > of pre-existing commentary on the quality of AT&T's service in general, > and from its direct past experince with the iPhone fiasco, it seems > that Apple should have been more than aware of the potential for brand > spoilage by partnering with AT&T. > > So, to label this anything other than a failure by Apple, and worse to > only focus on AT&T's role in this (I'm not saying that Joel did this -- > just that some are), is actually aiding and abetting Apple, maintaining > the Jobs/fanboi circle-jerk that "everything Apple is perfect". > > > > Regards, > > Nick FitzGerald > > > _______________________________________________ > Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. > https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec > Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. -- Joel Esler http://www.joelesler.net _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
