Weblog of a “Switcher”

Daring Fireball linked to a survey report that shows that 24 percent of current iPhone owners switched from the Motorola RAZR. Whelp, I'm one of them. I had a RAZR before I bought my iPhone. I loved the RAZR due to it's size. It was small, metal so that if it was dropped it wouldn't crack the case, and quite thin.

Survey Claims 24 Percent of U.S. iPhone Owners Switched From a Razr

If it’s even vaguely close to accurate, that’s a remarkable number. It might also explain Motorola’s precipitous decline.

★ Sunday, 22 June 2008

[From Daring Fireball Linked List: Survey Claims 24 Percent of U.S. iPhone Owners Switched From a Razr]

My old RAZR is now being used by my wife. However, with the new iPhone just around the corner. I'm really considering getting the new iPhone. Mostly for the higher speed data connection. I use my iPhone about 4 or so hours a day checking mail, surfing the internet, reading tweet's on twitter, etc... Plus, the $300 price tag is pretty darn good to for the 16GB phone.

If I do get the new iPhone, I'll probably be giving my wife my current iPhone and then she will be switching from the RAZR to the iPhone.

So overall, I really believe the statistic and am not the least bit surprised.

written by Dave M. \\ tags: Apple, Switcher

Well, it appears that PayPal made a clarification to it's statement about blocking browsers that access PayPal.

AppleInsider | PayPal clarifies:
PayPal: No plans to block Safari

A representative for PayPal on Friday said the ecommerce firm is developing features to block customers from logging into PayPal when using obsolete browsers on outdated or unsupported operating systems, but has no intention of blocking Safari as a company white paper seemed to imply.

'An example of such a browser/OS combination might be, for example, Internet Explorer 4 running on Windows 98,' said spokesperson Michael Oldenburg. 'In doing so, we better protect our customers from viewing a phishing site through their browser. We have absolutely no intention of blocking current versions of any browsers, including Apple’s Safari, from our website.'

The Unofficial Apple Weblog | PayPal says it won't block Safari:
There's been some talk about PayPal blocking Safari from using its services, and I'm among those concerned about it... even if only from a convenience standpoint. Originally the news was gleaned from statements by PayPal Chief Information Security Officer Michael Barrett regarding browsers without phishing protection -- which most assumed included our beloved Webkit-based compass. But in a brief addendum to a post at the Wall Street Journal last week it was reported that -- while Paypal will be blocking older browsers (IE4-era) and older operating systems -- Safari is safe from the cut.

This is good to hear. This makes me believe that Apple's Safari browser is actually safe to use with PayPal. Otherwise they would insist that Apple do something to shore up it's holes.

As A PayPal user and Safari user myself, I feel better knowing that PayPal considers Safari a safe browser to use with it's service.

I just hope that the decision to not include Safari in the list of browsers being blocked wasn't due to pressure from either the media or Apple.

written by Dave M. \\ tags: anti-phishing, Apple, paypal, Safari

I'm not sure who these guys are over at ZDNet, but I think Mr. Dignan needs to take a couple of courses in internet security. In a recent article over at ZDNet, they are proposing that Apple should "call PayPal's bluff" and ignore a warning by PayPal to not allow the Safari browser to access PayPal's site.

Apple should call PayPal’s bluff | Zero Day | ZDNet.com:
"But is Apple really going to be pressured this way? Highly unlikely. PayPal seems to be hung-up on EV SSL certificates, but couldn’t Apple meet anti-phishing requirements another way? Why wouldn’t Apple just create lists of offending sites or warn users if a page is sketchy? Does Apple really have to buy into EV SSL?"
(Weblog of a "Switcher" added the bold emphasis)

I'm afraid I just can't let this article go by without some, admittedly just as inexperienced, insight into why the author really needs to take some courses in internet security. Let's take a look at their article, shall we?

According to Ryan Naraine, PayPal is about to launch a whitepaper that advocates blocking transactions from browsers that don’t have anti-phishing protection. This whitepaper is a thinly veiled attempt to get Apple to add EV SSL certificates to Safari.

First off, good for PayPal! PayPal is the most widely used payment method on the internet. Just about every small business allows PayPal transactions to pay for items. With all the PayPal Phishing attempts that I get sent to me via email, it's clear that PayPal is a favorite target of Phishers and they need to do something about it.

I'm not sure I understand Mr. Dignan's animosity of EV SSL. From what I read, it's clearly a stronger form of protection and security when communicating with a site that needs a secure connection. Would you want your Bank Account information being sent over the "tubes" without some level of protection? It just makes sense to me that putting a strong secure layer over any data being sent between PayPal and it's users is a good idea.

So what are the motives here? PayPal–a huge phishing target–obviously wants more protection. It obviously wants EV SSLs, but Apple won’t budge. The solution: Go public.

I seem to remember another such incident when Steve Jobs was getting all kinds of heat over having DRM in all it's iTunes tracks. So he "went public" and stated that he didn't want DRM in the tracks sold, but instead wanted all music sold on iTunes to be DRM free. The result of that letter (however thinly veiled it may have been) was that EMI records allowed their catalog to be sold without DRM. Next thing you know other record companies were allowing non-DRM's music to be sold at other online music stores.

So, yes, it's clear that "going public" has the ability to "get the job done". If, by publishing a White Paper detailing how PayPal plans to protect it's customers, will set a fire under Steve Jobs and Apple's butts and get them to add decent anti-phising code into Safari, I say go for it!

Why wouldn’t Apple just create lists of offending sites or warn users if a page is sketchy?

This is the part of the above first quote I bolded. I did so because of the pure idiocy of the statement. Why would Apple spend precious resources investigating all the millions if not billions of websites out there to make sure that they are valid sites and not phishing sites? Maybe Mr. Dignan is volunteering for the job?

There are several other browsers out there that are either making strong strides to become more secure or have actually already implemented such measures. Internet Explorer 7, Firefox 3.0 (currently in beta nearing it's release candidate cycle and will probably be out by end of 3rd quarter) and Opera 9.5 all have both implemented EV SSL. So what's holding up Apple?

Meanwhile, it’s unclear whether PayPal would actually follow through on a Safari ban. PayPal isn’t going to annoy Apple users. And it isn’t going to turn off transactions on the iPhone either. In this stand-off I’d say the advantage is all Apple.

Wow, Mr. Dignan seems to really think he has a good handle on what Apple is thinking and doing. First off, PayPal won't be losing all that much if they "annoy" Apple users. Apple currently has about an 8% market share of computers out there in the world. So, what does this mean if PayPal stops allowing Safari to create transactions on their service? They loose 8% of their business?

Nope, not really. Not every Mac user uses Safari as their browser. Sure it's the default browser on a Mac, but a lot of people switch from Windows to Macintosh. They are going to use a browser they are more familiar with. If they came from Windows and have any sense at all (which they must if they switched in the first place), they will probably be using either Firefox or Opera on Windows. So it's pretty easy to download the Macintosh equivalent and use it in OS X. So of that 8% market share, probably 50% are using Safari and that is being pretty generous. So PayPal isn't going to loose that much business by forcing a PayPal customer to use a different browser when using their service.

As far as the iPhone goes, the above statements hold ground here too. Apple just doesn't have a big enough market share compared to all the current smart phone usage. Sure, they are gaining market share, but until iPhone 2.0 ships and Enterprise users start buying the phone, the iPhone will still be just another smart phone in the vast sea of smart phones.

So I would have to say that, although Mr. Dignan is more than entitled to his opinion, he really should be "looking out for his readers" when he posts an article like this instead of allowing them to be the victim of a phishing attack.

written by Dave M. \\ tags: anti-phishing, Apple, paypal, Safari

Gruber has a post up on his site Daring Fireball about the new iPhone SDK and Apple's decision to not allow iPhone apps to run in the background...

Daring Fireball: The Flip Side of the Multitasking Argument:
"As I wrote this morning, I don’t think the ‘no background’ policy implies any spite or shortsightedness on Apple’s part. It’s simply the result of Apple’s decision to focus first and foremost on maximizing battery life and performance. Other mobile platforms, such as Android, may well have different priorities."

Now, I found out the hard way today that iPhone apps running in the background can kill the battery in a hurry. Apparently, an Apple application was running in the background for over 7 hours. I didn't know this and when I went to turn on my iPhone, I got nothing. I tried several ways to activate my phone only to get nothing.

I finally held the power button down for a few seconds and found out that my battery was down to a very small percentage left. Definitely in the red.

Fortunately I was at home and could plug the phone in to charge it back up. If I had been out, I would have been screwed.

Update: I feel I should point out here that up until this incident, I have not had any problems with my charge. I usually run about 1 day before needing to recharge. Usually that is about 2 hours of usage and 18 hours of standby time. This was the first time in the almost 9 months I have had the phone that the charge of my phone had all but drained out in less than a day.

Back to the original post:
Now, I can appreciate Apple's reluctance to allow apps to run in the background. However, I think they need to take a note out of their own rule book and fix their own apps so that they don't run in the background draining the battery of the phone.

You see, I don't know what I had done to cause the battery to be drained so quickly, but looking at my usage time, I saw that it had been running for over 7 hours. Now I know I hadn't been running my phone for over 7 hours. It was fully charged at 7am, and when I went to use it at 4pm, it was all but dead. I would have been using the thing pretty much all day.

So, Apple, fix your own apps please. I really can't have my phone die on me if I'm on the road. It's the biggest reason I have a cell phone in the first place. For emergencies!

Update 2: One of the author's of Twitterific: Craig Hockenberry, has more insights into why multitasking on the iPhone is a really bad idea.

(Via Daring Fireball .)

written by Dave M. \\ tags: 9 Months, Apple, Apps, Battery Life, Daring Fireball, Flip Side, Gruber, Hurry, iPhone, Mobile Platforms, Multitasking, Power Button, Priorities, Reluctance, Sdk, Several Ways, Shortsightedness, Spite, Standby Time, Usage Time

1.1.3 Update May Break Gmail (Nobody Wants A Styl.us): "Nobody Wants A Styl.us
Tips for using Apple's iPhone.
« HOW TO: Create WebClips Icons | Main

1.1.3 Update May Break Gmail
I got a call this morning from my Dad.

Him: Bad news.

Me: What?

Him: Your mother’s Gmail isn’t working on her iPhone.

Me: Oh no!

Him: Yes. Houston, we have a problem.

This basically ground my parent’s house to a halt this morning.

It turns out both of their Gmail accounts weren’t working, but they don’t appear to be alone in this. The specific error message is that imap.gmail.com isn’t available, and it just keeps checking for email. Outbound mail does go out, but there’s no verification that it goes.

I don’t really know what’s going wrong here, but if you recreate the Gmail account fresh on the iPhone, everything seems to work right again.

(Fortunately, the Gmail setup is pretty easy.)

(Via Nobody Wants A Styl.us.)

This is interesting. I have read a couple of blogs now that have mentioned that Gmail was messing up on their iPhones.

This seems odd to me. I haven't seen any issues at all with Gmail on my iPhone. Now, I know that problems can crop up for some people and not others, but it just seems odd.

Now I have had problems with IMAP Gmail not working correctly with Mail.app. It works really nicely with Thunderbird, but I had some strange problems when sending email's via Mail.app. They may have been fixed by now. I haven't spent the time to try it since the first time I tried.

I guess I should be glad that I am not seeing these problems. I use Gmail as my main email account and all my other email accounts forward messages they receive to my Gmail account so that I can have access to all my mail all the time.

written by Dave M. \\ tags: Apple, Bad News, Blogs, Break, Dad, Email Account, Email Accounts, Error Message, Gmail Account, Houston We Have A Problem, Icons, Imap, iPhone, Iphones, Outbound Mail, Strange Problems, Styl, Thunderbird

Twitter / tomit:
"I just noticed, no memory upgrades for the AIR as well. about 2 hours ago from im

Seems like the MacBook AIR is a great accessory for a larger Mac. I need to get a new PRIMARY MAC first! about 3 hours ago from web

Glad they are just doing the Apple TV update! I can't wait!!! about 4 hours ago from im

Just some issues with the AIR... Mono speaker, video mirroring only, 1USB, no switchable battery, and no apple remote for frontrow!?!? about 4 hours ago from im

Did you know the MacBook AIR only has a 'Built-in mono speaker' for audio??? about 5 hours ago from im "

(Via Tomit's Twitter page.)

Seriously, what in the world do you people want! A computer the size of the iPhone with a full size keyboard/screen 4GB's of RAM expandable to 16GB's, 160GB HDD expandable to 2TB's, super awesome CD/DVD reader/writer, video capabilities capable of playing Crysis at 1920x1600 and capable of driving 2 30" wide screen displays, surround sound speakers builtin, weighing 2lbs and costing $500!?!?!

The MacBook Air is incredibly thin, weighing it at 3lb's, great internals and fits inside a manila folder! Sure it's expensive, what do you expect for a sub-notebook.

Sheesh people, what does it take to impress you guys!

written by Dave M. \\ tags: Apple Tv, Crysis, Frontrow, Internals, iPhone, Manila Folder, Memory Upgrades, People, Reader Writer, Screen Displays, Size Keyboard, Sound Speakers, Sub Notebook, Twitter, Video Capabilities

Austin Heller: Promoters: "Austin Heller: Promoters

In December of 2006, John Gruber wrote a lengthy post last year questioning the ethics of the first MacHeist bundle, called The Iniquities of the Selfish. […] So, it does seem odd to see MacHeist advertising running on [Daring Fireball] - which makes me think the deal for the supporting developers might finally be fair.

John Gruber doesn’t seem like one to disregard his beliefs for sponsors, so I imagine they exchanged some emails about the treatment of developers with MacHeist II.

Edit: Gruber writes about his advertisers and sponsors:

Advertisements aren’t endorsements. They’re promotional messages from the sponsor, not me. In short, an ad is an ad, and what I write is what I write.

He goes on to day that the MacHeist is a good bundle for consumers, but not such a great deal for developers, although he has no information about this year’s MacHeist bundle.

(Via cameron i/o.)

To Cameron and others...
John Gruber is not God. He's just this guy, you know... (Sorry, couldn't resist the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy line)

He likes to post his opinion so that he can make money off his website. However, his posts are just "his opinion" and not fact.

MacHeist is a great way for developers to get their programs into users hands. Not to mention the fact that since the bundles probably have programs that the purchaser already owns, there is a good chance that the purchaser will give away the duplicate licenses to friends and family. I say this since I just purchased the MacHeist II bundle and I own just about half the software in the bundle. So I'll be giving the MacHeist bundle software I already own to friends and relatives.

If I truly use the software I have just purchased, I'll be upgrading the software when the next version comes out. That means more money for the developer. Plus there is the word of mouth thing. I'll be singing the praises of the software to others and giving the developers free advertising. Not to mention the advertising they are receiving by just being involved in the latest MacHeist.

Why John Gruber thinks this is bad for developers, I don't know. Maybe he was slighted by a bundle in the past or something. I can't say. All I can say is that, in "my humble opinion" he's completely wrong about these software bundles and folks reading his blog posts should not pay attention to such ramblings.

written by Dave M. \\ tags: Advertisements, Advertisers, Bundle Software, Cameron, Daring Fireball, Developers, Endorsements, Ethics, Galaxy Line, Good Chance, Guide To The Galaxy, Hitchhiker, Iniquities, John Gruber, Macheist, Promoters, Purchaser, Relatives, Singing The Praises, Word Of Mouth