Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #50809 > unrolled thread
| Started by | ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-10-26 17:02 -0500 |
| Last post | 2013-10-28 20:44 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 156 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2013-10-26 17:02 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-26 20:21 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Juan I. Cahis <jiclbchSINBASURA@attglobal.net> - 2013-10-27 08:08 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-27 10:10 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-10-27 14:16 +1300
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-26 21:23 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-27 02:37 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-26 23:09 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). bj <address_is@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-27 09:31 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-27 11:00 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). bj <address_is@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-27 19:49 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-28 12:30 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). AV3 <arviso@earthlink.net> - 2013-10-28 17:41 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe) - 2013-10-28 21:52 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-10-28 18:03 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-10-28 16:00 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-28 23:03 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-10-28 23:39 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Zaidy036 <Zaidy036NoSpam@optonline.com> - 2013-10-31 07:36 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2013-10-27 10:30 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when sync(hroniz)ing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2013-10-27 12:21 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2013-10-28 10:20 -0600
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-28 18:15 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2013-10-28 12:31 -0600
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-28 20:44 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-28 18:38 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-29 17:01 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). bj <address_is@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-29 12:16 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-29 18:22 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-10-28 15:57 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2013-10-28 20:56 -0600
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-28 23:57 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> - 2013-10-29 00:47 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-29 02:02 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> - 2013-10-29 21:38 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2013-10-29 19:38 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-30 00:50 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-29 17:01 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> - 2013-10-29 22:21 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-10-30 09:09 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 09:05 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-30 14:39 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "857" <8571953@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 06:59 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-30 14:39 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-29 11:13 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2013-10-29 12:59 -0600
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-30 09:07 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-30 11:00 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-30 16:22 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-30 14:53 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-30 14:56 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2013-10-30 21:01 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2013-11-02 06:53 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 10:28 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-31 18:49 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2013-11-02 06:53 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-31 09:28 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-31 09:17 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-31 15:01 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-31 13:35 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-11-04 17:28 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-31 18:49 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-31 15:36 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-11-02 01:46 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-11-01 22:20 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Beli <baiheli.pip@xs4all.nl> - 2013-11-02 08:26 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-11-02 15:06 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 13:42 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 05:37 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 06:24 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 19:32 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-11-02 14:37 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 04:48 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-01 22:45 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-11-02 14:37 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-11-02 12:12 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-11-04 17:32 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2013-11-05 09:13 +1300
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-11-05 11:19 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). spamfalle2@arcor.de (Marc Stibane) - 2013-11-05 18:18 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-31 18:49 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> - 2013-11-02 22:49 -0600
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-03 05:23 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). spamfalle2@arcor.de (Marc Stibane) - 2013-11-05 18:02 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-28 16:08 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-29 11:00 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 06:28 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-29 16:42 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 08:53 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-29 17:29 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 09:41 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 08:33 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 15:58 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 12:30 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 23:14 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 03:23 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-30 10:13 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 10:24 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-30 16:32 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 11:22 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-31 02:41 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-30 20:51 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-31 18:49 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 07:42 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-10-30 21:55 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-30 20:53 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 07:43 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-10-30 22:05 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-30 21:00 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-10-31 10:01 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-31 07:39 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 07:48 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-11-06 17:21 -0600
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-06 19:58 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-11-07 09:32 -0600
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-07 22:03 -0700
Re: (OT) Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). AV3 <arvimide@earthlink.net> - 2013-11-08 10:48 -0500
Re: (OT) Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-08 21:34 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-11-09 10:06 -0600
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-09 20:01 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-11-09 22:36 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <foo@bar.com> - 2013-11-09 21:26 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-11-11 09:58 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2013-11-10 09:49 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 07:38 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-30 16:41 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-30 10:08 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 08:28 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 07:44 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-29 17:52 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 07:28 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 15:54 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 12:28 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-29 23:08 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 03:15 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-10-30 10:11 -0700
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 10:22 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-10-29 10:22 -0400
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-29 16:52 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 07:42 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-30 07:17 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-30 09:24 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-31 03:38 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-31 09:53 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 08:34 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-11-04 17:53 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-05 05:21 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-11-05 12:58 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-06 05:25 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-11-06 12:41 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-11-07 04:53 +1100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). spamfalle2@arcor.de (Marc Stibane) - 2013-11-05 18:02 +0100
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2013-11-05 14:08 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2013-10-27 19:34 -0500
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2013-10-28 17:07 +0000
Re: Online iCloud is required when synchronizing contacts and calendars between iPhone and iTunes in the new Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks). Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2013-10-28 20:44 +0000
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-31 09:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <bdde6gF7782U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #51339 |
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote > Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote >> Ed Anson wrote >>> I think I'll be looking into the options to create my own cloud. >> In order to check out the feasibility of using OS X Server to sync my >> devices, I went to the App Store. It turns out that the version that >> works with Mountain Lion is no longer available. The (new) version >> requires Mavericks. [And -- according to the reviews -- it's buggy.] >> So now I can't determine whether Mavericks will work for me without >> first updating to Mavericks. Catch-22? > Which brings up what may be a dumb question, but I'll ask it anyway > (grin). > Can one create one's own cloud remotely? For instance, could I set > up a cloud to back up my computer to at my Brother's house in Seattle. > Sorta like Kurtbonite (grin). Corse you can. It isn't even that hard to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 14:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l4r5mp$7m0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #51288 |
Ed Anson <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote: > On 10/29/13 12:47 AM, Ed Anson wrote: >> I think I'll be looking into the options to create my own cloud. > > In order to check out the feasibility of using OS X Server to sync my > devices, I went to the App Store. It turns out that the version that > works with Mountain Lion is no longer available. The (new) version > requires Mavericks. [And -- according to the reviews -- it's buggy.] > > So now I can't determine whether Mavericks will work for me without first > updating to Mavericks. Catch-22? Easy. Avoid the stray cattle entirely 8-) -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "857" <8571953@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 06:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <bdaidbFj37kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #51101 |
"Erilar" <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote in message news:l4mibh$h8n$2@dont-email.me... > Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote: > ... >> >> >> Fair enough, but as I said, there are plenty of "private cloud" options, >> that allow you to sync your devices wirelessly with each other without a >> cloud intermediary. > > > > Is the current assumption that everyone with any device now has full- time > cloud access anywhere on the planet? No, just that most phones when used as phones do have cloud access at least part of the time. > Not true. > > > -- > Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 14:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l4r5mq$7m0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #51227 |
"857" <8571953@gmail.com> wrote: > "Erilar" <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote in message news:l4mibh$h8n$2@dont-email.me... >> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote: >> ... >>> >>> >>> Fair enough, but as I said, there are plenty of "private cloud" options, >>> that allow you to sync your devices wirelessly with each other without a >>> cloud intermediary. >> >> >> >> Is the current assumption that everyone with any device now has full- time >> cloud access anywhere on the planet? > > No, just that most phones when used as phones do have cloud access at least > part of the time. > >> Not true. >> >> >> -- > Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad Since cell phones only work properly in my house unless one leans on the front door, I only have a cheap cloudless one I keep in my car. And my iPad can't reach it beyond a wi-fi spot. -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-29 11:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l4o1o3$5e3$1@news.sap-ag.de> |
| In reply to | #51083 |
Am 28.10.2013 19:31, schrieb Todd Allcock: > At 28 Oct 2013 18:15:52 +0100 Michael Eyd wrote: >> Am 28.10.2013 17:20, schrieb Todd Allcock: >> >>> I went wireless long before being "forced" to using a variety of >>> methods based on what was available at the time, giving up wired PIM >>> syncing long before the iPhone even existed. >> >> Your decision. >> >>> I'd think the number of people *wanting* to sync via USB would be >>> roughly equal to the number who prefer to regularly communicate via >>> fax machine! >> >> And I think that there are still many people out there (many more than > you think), that would rather not put anything into any cloud - least any > private information. Might be different in the US, but in Europe e.g. > mentalities may differ quite a lot from the ones in the US. And the > latest discussions about the NSA (and others) spying on basically > everybody don't help here either... > > > Fair enough, but as I said, there are plenty of "private cloud" options, > that allow you to sync your devices wirelessly with each other without a > cloud intermediary. I suspect a smart guy or gal will quickly take > advantage of this news to develop (or repackage a few open source tools, > to create) a simple solution for OS X users (much like how a small dev @ > Akruto.com seems to be making a decent living peddling his $25 cloudless > Outlook-to-Winodws/Android phone faux-Exchange server software to cloud- > phobic Windows users. There's no reason it wouldn't work on iPhones as > well, if/when Apple drops USB PIM sync support from iTunes, since iOS > supports Exchange.) Nevertheless, all these technologies still require (at least as of today) a decent amount of knowledge how to set them up, and how to set up the mobile devices, plus possibly (if you want to be able to access them from everywhere) how to set up your router, have a PC run 24/7, ... That's all not (yet?) really dummy proof - while the USB sync is (mostly, at least)... :-/ > The USB methodology was a reasonable one when we all had one or two PCs > and a Palm Pilot (anyone besides me remember the days of using your Palm > or Pocket PC to keep the contacts and calendar on your desktop and laptop > PCs in sync?), Actually, I only left this world (after more than ten years) about three years ago... ;-) > but it fails when we're trying to sync several computers, > a few phones, and a tablet or two with the same data store. > > I don't think either MS or Apple are/were up to anything nefarious (e.g. > "forcing us to the cloud") by dropping USB support- they both likely just > hit a wall in their development cycles where they deemed the cost of > continuing such support was no longer practical given the robust and > popular alternatives they and others offer. Which costs? The technology was there anyway, and it was (is) working just fine. It is probably even more expensive to take it out than to just keep it in the system - considering the (expected) number of support calls to Apple 'I can't sync my iPhone anymore! Help!'... > With MS, it was their new > Windows Phone OS- the old Windows Mobile OS had USB sync, but the new > (and incompatible) OS was incompatible with the existing USB sync software. > Since the new OS had media playing software loosely based on the failed > Zune media player, they opted to follow the path of least resistance (and > resources) use the existing Zune desktop sync software to sync media with > Windows Phones, but because the Zune software (unlike iTunes) didn't > support PIM sync, MS declared wireless Exchange Activesync (which already > existed, and the phone needed to support anyway) would be the sole PIM > sync method, requiring no new sync software to be written. There the situation certainly was different. > As incompetent as most here probably think MS is, they didn't make the > decision lightly- they had data from their prior mobile efforts guiding > them, which told them far fewer than 50% of Windows Mobile users had > *ever* plugged their phone into a PC to sync *anything* Question is whether these numbers included as well e.g. all the GPS systems running on WinMob - if I don't want new maps, why should I connect it to a PC anyway? > (and this was at > a time when MS offered no free comprehensive wireless sync options- > Exchange sync required an Exchange server or a monthly subscription for > Exchange hosting.) So, prior to the launch of the new Windows Phone OS, > MS added Exchange Activesync support to their free Live/Hotmail accounts > allowing free wireless PIM sync with Outlook (using a Microsoft cloud > account as an intermediary) to any EAS-compatible device (Windows Phone, > Android, iOS, Symbian, etc.), rendering USB sync, in their opinion, if > not unnecessary, at least an edge-case scenario. MS has not always been really lucky with such decisions... ;-) > Fast forward to 2013, when Apple is releasing a new desktop OS, and, > well, we all know what Apple thinks of "edge cases"... ;) I'm sure some > one at Apple looked at the cost of building iOS/Mac PIM sync services > into 10.9 Again: Which costs? It's not like 10.9 was a completely rewritten OS, there are tweaks here and there, but I estimate that over 90% of the code did not change at all. So which costs are you talking about? > and said "F--k it! Let them eat iCloud! Android never had USB > sync, and Microsoft, the poster child for legacy support and backwards > compatibility, stopped supporting USB sync three years ago!" > > Ironically, Apple, the first company to drop "legacy" floopy disks and > optical drives from their products is actually the last company to > support turn-of-the-century Palm Pilot sync technology (which also wreaks > havoc with less savvy users that turn on both wired and iCloud sync and > get to slog through the duplicate data that often creates.) So, while I > certainly sympathise with those who wish to keep their data under their > exclusive control, they are now a minority Questionable - though they certainly hardly make the headlines... > who will have to expend a > little more effort to continue (e.g. setting up a local server/"private > cloud") maintaining that level of security. (And, perhaps, actually end > up better off after all, with the conveniences and benefits of cloud sync > without the privacy sacrifices.) The problem is the effort needed to do so (and the knowledge needed for it)... :-( > If Akruto Sync or Companion Link for > Outlook/Windows filling the void in the Windows Phone/Android ecosystems > is any indication, this might help bolster the market for easy-to-use > "private cloud" apps for home computers that might convince more folks to > re-examine their blind faith in the cloud products from Apple, MS, and > Google and at least taking a second look at the risks/rewards/benefits of > cloud services vs. using local servers for PIM, media, etc. The vast majority of people don't have the necessary knowledge for such a re-examination... :-/ Sad, but true. > Or, we might all just let the NSA know everything there is to know about > us from our friends, to our favorite restaurants, to our kids' soccer > schedules... ;) Simple answer: No. :-( Best regards, Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-29 12:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <l4p0j5$372$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #51175 |
At 29 Oct 2013 11:13:23 +0100 Michael Eyd wrote: > Am 28.10.2013 19:31, schrieb Todd Allcock: > > At 28 Oct 2013 18:15:52 +0100 Michael Eyd wrote: > >> Am 28.10.2013 17:20, schrieb Todd Allcock: > > > > Fair enough, but as I said, there are plenty of "private cloud" options, > > that allow you to sync your devices wirelessly with each other without a > > cloud intermediary. I suspect a smart guy or gal will quickly take > > advantage of this news to develop (or repackage a few open source tools, > > to create) a simple solution for OS X users (much like how a small dev @ > > Akruto.com seems to be making a decent living peddling his $25 cloudless > > Outlook-to-Winodws/Android phone faux-Exchange server software to cloud- > > phobic Windows users. There's no reason it wouldn't work on iPhones as > > well, if/when Apple drops USB PIM sync support from iTunes, since iOS > > supports Exchange.) > > Nevertheless, all these technologies still require (at least as of > today) a decent amount of knowledge how to set them up, and how to set > up the mobile devices, plus possibly (if you want to be able to access > them from everywhere) how to set up your router, have a PC run 24/7, ... Sounds like we'd need a Venn diagram showing the intersection of those who actually care enough to keep their data out of Apple's (or Google's, or MS') hands (IMO, already a small number- probably a single digit percentage) with those incapable of setting up a server app easily (a large number, I'll wager, but one that doesn't intersect the first much, IMO.) We're living in a world where most people can't shut the hell up about their lives on Facebook, and lets FB, Twitter, Instagram and Foursquare track their every move, and yet you expect these same folks to care if Apple holds a copy of their calendar for them? (Lord knows how many of us are already letting Google do it!) As far as "24/7", is your PC running 24/7 now to save you time when you want to USB sync? Just like with USB sync, any changes on any device happily sit there waiting for the next connection. You could even set it up to sync manually. The only difference would be the lack of a wire. > That's all not (yet?) really dummy proof - while the USB sync is (mostly, > at least)... :-/ True, but nature, and the app store, abhors a vacuum... As I said, some clever person will package up a solution all wrapped in a step-by-step wizard, if only to cash in on the "sky is falling" panic this is already kicking up on some forums. That Akruto-sync guy scored all kinds of free publicity on Microsoft's official forums as a potential solution for the cloud-adverse. The first guy who tosses out a simple to set-up solution for this will get similar accolades on any forum kvetching about this. > > The USB methodology was a reasonable one when we all had one or two PCs > > and a Palm Pilot (anyone besides me remember the days of using your Palm > > or Pocket PC to keep the contacts and calendar on your desktop and laptop > > PCs in sync?), > > Actually, I only left this world (after more than ten years) about > three years ago... ;-) There you go. Long past time to drag you kicking and screaming into the 21st century... Come on in, lose all of your privacy. The water's fine! ;) > > I don't think either MS or Apple are/were up to anything nefarious (e.g. > > "forcing us to the cloud") by dropping USB support- they both likely just > > hit a wall in their development cycles where they deemed the cost of > > continuing such support was no longer practical given the robust and > > popular alternatives they and others offer. > > Which costs? The technology was there anyway, and it was (is) working > just fine. It is probably even more expensive to take it out than to > just keep it in the system - considering the (expected) number of > support calls to Apple 'I can't sync my iPhone anymore! Help!'... Exactly- Apple doesn't generally cause themselves pain for no reason. If I had to guess, something about Mavericks broke the existing sync service code, and ditching it was deemed a better use of resourses than solving the issue. Or it might have just been a deadline thing. (Again, to draw parallels to MS, the Windows Mobile USB sync software back in the day turned out to be completely incompatible with Vista, and the *beta* for its replacement wasn't ready for nearly a month *after* the Vista launch. Windows Mobile users were simply told to either use Exchange (the only wireless sync method at the time) or continue using Win XP until the beta software for Vista was released! Heck, we could even theorize that Apple's decision *was* based on a missed deadline, and Apple is monitioring the reaction to the iCloud-only "solution" to determine how much effort to put into solving it, or whether to bother at all- again, none of their competition seems to care about this "problem", happily letting third-parties solve it, and I assume you'll agree Apple's success with iOS isn't dependent on a mob of angry USB synchers adopting iOS solely because it's the last platform to support USB sync natively. > > > With MS, it was their new > > Windows Phone OS- the old Windows Mobile OS had USB sync, but the new > > (and incompatible) OS was incompatible with the existing USB sync software. > > Since the new OS had media playing software loosely based on the failed > > Zune media player, they opted to follow the path of least resistance (and > > resources) use the existing Zune desktop sync software to sync media with > > Windows Phones, but because the Zune software (unlike iTunes) didn't > > support PIM sync, MS declared wireless Exchange Activesync (which already > > existed, and the phone needed to support anyway) would be the sole PIM > > sync method, requiring no new sync software to be written. > > There the situation certainly was different. Perhaps, perhaps not- none of us know what Apple has up there sleeves. This might just be the beginning of a move to get rid of legacy connectivity options to support next-gen products. Maybe the iPhone 6 (or a variant of it) wants to one-up the new spillproof/"whateverproof" Samsung Galaxies- picture a completely sealed iPhone, with no ports at all: wireless inductive charging, bluetooth headphones, and iCloudPIM sync and WiFi-only iTunes media sync... A phone completely submersible, at home in any hostile environment. > > As incompetent as most here probably think MS is, they didn't make the > > decision lightly- they had data from their prior mobile efforts guiding > > them, which told them far fewer than 50% of Windows Mobile users had > > *ever* plugged their phone into a PC to sync *anything* > > Question is whether these numbers included as well e.g. all the GPS > systems running on WinMob - if I don't want new maps, why should I > connect it to a PC anyway? That was phones only- no GPS units or PDAs. (Technically, GPS units never ran on WinMo, but the WinCE operating system WinMo was built on. A subtle difference, but "WinMo" ran on top of CE, much like Windows 3.1 ran on top of MS-DOS, to use a strained analogy.) I'm not even sure I'm allowed to share that stat, but I'm fairly certain the statute of limitations eventually runs out on NDAs involving obsolete products. (I was a Microsoft "Most Valuable Professional" in the mobile device category from 2007 through 2011. That stat was given to us back in 2009 or so, to explain why MS was going to leverage the cloud for device backup instead of the PC, in the never finished or released Windows Mobile 7. (In a bizarre story illustrating just how stupid and wasteful large corporations and their politics can be, Windows Phone 7 was developed in parallel to WinMo 7 by a different team, and when MS was satisfied with the direction WP7 was heading, the plug was pulled on WinMo before the nearly complete WM7 was finished, scrapping everything done to date! Ironically, WP7 had the crappiest backup methodology of any mobile OS ever- it made an on-PC backup only when an OS upgrade was being performed, to transfer the data back to the device after the upgrade. There was no way to manually trigger a backup, or manually force a restore any time after the update.) > > (and this was at > > a time when MS offered no free comprehensive wireless sync options- > > Exchange sync required an Exchange server or a monthly subscription for > > Exchange hosting.) So, prior to the launch of the new Windows Phone OS, > > MS added Exchange Activesync support to their free Live/Hotmail accounts > > allowing free wireless PIM sync with Outlook (using a Microsoft cloud > > account as an intermediary) to any EAS-compatible device (Windows Phone, > > Android, iOS, Symbian, etc.), rendering USB sync, in their opinion, if > > not unnecessary, at least an edge-case scenario. > > MS has not always been really lucky with such decisions... ;-) Perhaps not, but again, Google has done pretty well with Android and it never had a USB connection methodolgy, because Google isn't in the computer business. The business model is based around the Google cloud. If a billion people are willing to entruse their data to Google, certainly they can trust Apple. > > > Fast forward to 2013, when Apple is releasing a new desktop OS, and, > > well, we all know what Apple thinks of "edge cases"... ;) I'm sure some > > one at Apple looked at the cost of building iOS/Mac PIM sync services > > into 10.9 > > Again: Which costs? It's not like 10.9 was a completely rewritten OS, > there are tweaks here and there, but I estimate that over 90% of the > code did not change at all. So which costs are you talking about? Again, just a guess, but I'll wager something broke, or the testing and updating the sync services code was prioritized so far down the list it fell off the end. Even the less than 10% of an entire computer OS you surmise has changed is still a lot of code and a lot of man-hours. Windows Vista to Windows 7 wasn't a huge change either (many claim 7 was really a "dot" release of Vista, but MS renamed it both to sell updates rather than give it away to existing Vista owners, as well as distance it from the tainted Vista name) and lots of software developed minor issues requiring patching. Again, I don't see Apple dropping USB support just to force increased adoption of iCloud- something else was at play. > > and said "F--k it! Let them eat iCloud! Android never had USB > > sync, and Microsoft, the poster child for legacy support and backwards > > compatibility, stopped supporting USB sync three years ago!" > > > > Ironically, Apple, the first company to drop "legacy" floopy disks and > > optical drives from their products is actually the last company to > > support turn-of-the-century Palm Pilot sync technology (which also wreaks > > havoc with less savvy users that turn on both wired and iCloud sync and > > get to slog through the duplicate data that often creates.) So, while I > > certainly sympathise with those who wish to keep their data under their > > exclusive control, they are now a minority > > Questionable - though they certainly hardly make the headlines... Ask yourself, if the cloud-phobic are the majority, just who are the bazillion users of Gmail Contacts/Google Calendar and Google Docs/Drive, Microsoft Hotmail/Live/Outlook contacts and calendars and SkyDrive, Dropbox, Sugarsync, Box, Copy.com, iCloud, etc. That's a lot of competition for a niche market! > > who will have to expend a > > little more effort to continue (e.g. setting up a local server/"private > > cloud") maintaining that level of security. (And, perhaps, actually end > > up better off after all, with the conveniences and benefits of cloud sync > > without the privacy sacrifices.) > > The problem is the effort needed to do so (and the knowledge needed for it)... :-( You could always Google for the info, unless you're afraid the search query will be stored in your permanent file... ;) > > > If Akruto Sync or Companion Link for > > Outlook/Windows filling the void in the Windows Phone/Android ecosystems > > is any indication, this might help bolster the market for easy-to-use > > "private cloud" apps for home computers that might convince more folks to > > re-examine their blind faith in the cloud products from Apple, MS, and > > Google and at least taking a second look at the risks/rewards/benefits of > > cloud services vs. using local servers for PIM, media, etc. > > The vast majority of people don't have the necessary knowledge for such a re-examination... :-/ Sad, but true. ...or they just don't care. Personally, I like the convenience. Do I think Google is mining my data? Of course, but I have faith most of it isn't personally identifiable, and exists to serve me ads on their pages. Do I think Apple or MS is selling my data to the highest bidder? No- I think they know the cost of a scandal would damage their business. MS in particular, who sells cloud services to Enterprise customers can't afford to get caught red-handed compromising users' data. Like a random tax- audit, the consequences of getting caught keeps them "honest". (NSA and governmental requests notwithstanding- that's outside their control.) Personally, my PIM data is stored by MS- not a value judgement about Apple or Google, just a simple compatibility issue (Exchange Activesync works with more devices than iCloud or Google Calendar, and integrates better with Outlook.) > > > Or, we might all just let the NSA know everything there is to know about > > us from our friends, to our favorite restaurants, to our kids' soccer > > schedules... ;) > > Simple answer: No. :-( Then don't upgrade OS X, or start boning up on running your own Cal/CardDav servers. On the bright side, if you make it simple enough, you can be the guy that cashes in selling the easy-to-use "EydServer" solution to everyone else. ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 09:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l4qenl$qut$1@news.sap-ag.de> |
| In reply to | #51220 |
Am 29.10.2013 19:59, schrieb Todd Allcock: > At 29 Oct 2013 11:13:23 +0100 Michael Eyd wrote: >> Am 28.10.2013 19:31, schrieb Todd Allcock: >>> At 28 Oct 2013 18:15:52 +0100 Michael Eyd wrote: >>>> Am 28.10.2013 17:20, schrieb Todd Allcock: >> Nevertheless, all these technologies still require (at least as of >> today) a decent amount of knowledge how to set them up, and how to >> set up the mobile devices, plus possibly (if you want to be able to >> access them from everywhere) how to set up your router, have a PC >> run 24/7, ... > > Sounds like we'd need a Venn diagram showing the intersection of > those who actually care enough to keep their data out of Apple's (or > Google's, or MS') hands (IMO, already a small number- probably a > single digit percentage) with those incapable of setting up a server > app easily (a large number, I'll wager, but one that doesn't > intersect the first much, IMO.) I think differently. Yes, the first group will have a larger percentage of people being capable of setting up alternatives than the average computer (or smartphone) user group, but even in this group it will only be a comparable small percentage. The majority will struggle hard if they tried... > We're living in a world where most people can't shut the hell up > about their lives on Facebook, and lets FB, Twitter, Instagram and > Foursquare track their every move, and yet you expect these same > folks to care if Apple holds a copy of their calendar for them? > (Lord knows how many of us are already letting Google do it!) Nope, certainly not the same folks. I don't know about the US, but here in Germany there is quite a group of people staying away from social networks altogether or at least controlling pretty well what they post there, who can read it, ... > As far as "24/7", is your PC running 24/7 now to save you time when > you want to USB sync? Just like with USB sync, any changes on any > device happily sit there waiting for the next connection. You could > even set it up to sync manually. The only difference would be the > lack of a wire. If you don't need access to the server all the time then this would work, agreed. >> That's all not (yet?) really dummy proof - while the USB sync is >> (mostly, at least)... :-/ > > True, but nature, and the app store, abhors a vacuum... As I said, > some clever person will package up a solution all wrapped in a > step-by-step wizard, if only to cash in on the "sky is falling" panic > this is already kicking up on some forums. That Akruto-sync guy > scored all kinds of free publicity on Microsoft's official forums as > a potential solution for the cloud-adverse. The first guy who tosses > out a simple to set-up solution for this will get similar accolades > on any forum kvetching about this. I won't hold my breath until then, though... ;-) >>> The USB methodology was a reasonable one when we all had one or >>> two PCs and a Palm Pilot (anyone besides me remember the days of >>> using your Palm or Pocket PC to keep the contacts and calendar on >>> your desktop and laptop PCs in sync?), >> >> Actually, I only left this world (after more than ten years) about >> three years ago... ;-) > > There you go. Long past time to drag you kicking and screaming into > the 21st century... Come on in, lose all of your privacy. The > water's fine! ;) Nope, the water is dangerous, there are poisonous fish under the surface, trying to attack you when you least suspect it. It looks fine, though, there I agree... ;-) >>> I don't think either MS or Apple are/were up to anything >>> nefarious (e.g. "forcing us to the cloud") by dropping USB >>> support- they both likely just hit a wall in their development >>> cycles where they deemed the cost of continuing such support was >>> no longer practical given the robust and popular alternatives >>> they and others offer. >> >> Which costs? The technology was there anyway, and it was (is) >> working just fine. It is probably even more expensive to take it >> out than to just keep it in the system - considering the (expected) >> number of support calls to Apple 'I can't sync my iPhone anymore! >> Help!'... > > > Exactly- Apple doesn't generally cause themselves pain for no reason. > You mean they had no reason to skip the disk drive or the optical drive, to skip legacy ports or the dock connector? All of that they got rid off because they ran into technical problems? I beg to differ... ;-) These changes were done following an agenda, and they as well caused a lot of anger in the beginning... > If I had to guess, something about Mavericks broke the existing sync > service code, and ditching it was deemed a better use of resourses > than solving the issue. Or it might have just been a deadline > thing. I don't buy either explanation - but as long as we don't get insider insight into Apple's reasoning this will have to stay 'gut feeling' for both of us... :-) > Heck, we could even theorize that Apple's decision *was* based on a > missed deadline, and Apple is monitioring the reaction to the > iCloud-only "solution" to determine how much effort to put into > solving it, or whether to bother at all- again, none of their > competition seems to care about this "problem", happily letting > third-parties solve it, and I assume you'll agree Apple's success > with iOS isn't dependent on a mob of angry USB synchers adopting iOS > solely because it's the last platform to support USB sync natively. One point is there, though, which makes me wonder what Apple is up to in this regard: Why is the Windows iTunes version still supporting the USB code? I'm still at a loss trying to explain that (apart from: Will come with the next release)... It may have to do with missing possibilities to access iCloud from Windows - but it looks like Apple is doing the second step before the first. Or they are really just trying the public reaction in the (comparably) small Mavericks user group? ...? >>> With MS, it was their new Windows Phone OS- the old Windows >>> Mobile OS had USB sync, but the new (and incompatible) OS was >>> incompatible with the existing USB sync software. Since the new >>> OS had media playing software loosely based on the failed Zune >>> media player, they opted to follow the path of least resistance >>> (and resources) use the existing Zune desktop sync software to >>> sync media with Windows Phones, but because the Zune software >>> (unlike iTunes) didn't support PIM sync, MS declared wireless >>> Exchange Activesync (which already existed, and the phone needed >>> to support anyway) would be the sole PIM sync method, requiring >>> no new sync software to be written. >> >> There the situation certainly was different. > > Perhaps, perhaps not- none of us know what Apple has up there > sleeves. This might just be the beginning of a move to get rid of > legacy connectivity options to support next-gen products. Maybe the > iPhone 6 (or a variant of it) wants to one-up the new > spillproof/"whateverproof" Samsung Galaxies- picture a completely > sealed iPhone, with no ports at all: wireless inductive charging, > bluetooth headphones, and iCloudPIM sync and WiFi-only iTunes media > sync... A phone completely submersible, at home in any hostile > environment. Interesting idea - though it would certainly make the iPhone considerably more expensive... And this would give me some problems with my 'budget controller'... :-/ >>> As incompetent as most here probably think MS is, they didn't >>> make the decision lightly- they had data from their prior mobile >>> efforts guiding them, which told them far fewer than 50% of >>> Windows Mobile users had *ever* plugged their phone into a PC to >>> sync *anything* >> >> Question is whether these numbers included as well e.g. all the >> GPS systems running on WinMob - if I don't want new maps, why >> should I connect it to a PC anyway? > > > That was phones only- no GPS units or PDAs. (Technically, GPS units > never ran on WinMo, but the WinCE operating system WinMo was built > on. A subtle difference, but "WinMo" ran on top of CE, much like > Windows 3.1 ran on top of MS-DOS, to use a strained analogy.) I'm > not even sure I'm allowed to share that stat, but I'm fairly certain > the statute of limitations eventually runs out on NDAs involving > obsolete products. (I was a Microsoft "Most Valuable Professional" in > the mobile device category from 2007 through 2011. That stat was > given to us back in 2009 or so, to explain why MS was going to > leverage the cloud for device backup instead of the PC, in the never > finished or released Windows Mobile 7. (In a bizarre story > illustrating just how stupid and wasteful large corporations and > their politics can be, Windows Phone 7 was developed in parallel to > WinMo 7 by a different team, and when MS was satisfied with the > direction WP7 was heading, the plug was pulled on WinMo before the > nearly complete WM7 was finished, scrapping everything done to date! > Interesting story! At some point along the way of all the different MS mobile solutions I lost track as I was definitively more the Palm guy... ;-) > Ironically, WP7 had the crappiest backup methodology of any mobile OS > ever- it made an on-PC backup only when an OS upgrade was being > performed, to transfer the data back to the device after the > upgrade. There was no way to manually trigger a backup, or manually > force a restore any time after the update.) Now, that's as stupid as one possibly could design a backup solution... :-( >> MS has not always been really lucky with such decisions... ;-) > > Perhaps not, but again, Google has done pretty well with Android and > it never had a USB connection methodolgy, because Google isn't in > the computer business. The business model is based around the Google > cloud. If a billion people are willing to entruse their data to > Google, certainly they can trust Apple. Oh, I'm not so concerned with whether I can trust Apple, I simply don't like having to take this decision... ;-) >>> and said "F--k it! Let them eat iCloud! Android never had USB >>> sync, and Microsoft, the poster child for legacy support and >>> backwards compatibility, stopped supporting USB sync three years >>> ago!" >>> >>> Ironically, Apple, the first company to drop "legacy" floopy >>> disks and optical drives from their products is actually the last >>> company to support turn-of-the-century Palm Pilot sync technology >>> (which also wreaks havoc with less savvy users that turn on both >>> wired and iCloud sync and get to slog through the duplicate data >>> that often creates.) So, while I certainly sympathise with those >>> who wish to keep their data under their exclusive control, they >>> are now a minority >> >> Questionable - though they certainly hardly make the headlines... > > Ask yourself, if the cloud-phobic are the majority, just who are the > bazillion users of Gmail Contacts/Google Calendar and Google > Docs/Drive, Microsoft Hotmail/Live/Outlook contacts and calendars and > SkyDrive, Dropbox, Sugarsync, Box, Copy.com, iCloud, etc. That's a > lot of competition for a niche market! It certainly isn't a niche market - no doubt. And I agree with you that the one's using GMail for mail, calendar and contacts (or similar all-in services) are most certainly not the ones complaining here the loudest. But there are quite many people out there who try to control where their data goes, and if only by splitting it between different services (so that not a single service holds all their data). Is this group the majority? Unfortunately I have to agree that we may well not be the majority, though the proportions seem to be quite different from country to country... >>> who will have to expend a little more effort to continue (e.g. >>> setting up a local server/"private cloud") maintaining that level >>> of security. (And, perhaps, actually end up better off after all, >>> with the conveniences and benefits of cloud sync without the >>> privacy sacrifices.) >> >> The problem is the effort needed to do so (and the knowledge needed >> for > it)... :-( > > You could always Google for the info, unless you're afraid the > search query will be stored in your permanent file... ;) Franky, that's not really my most prominent data privacy issue... ;-) But if I see how many people (family and friends) around me rely on my computer knowledge (Windows and OS X, though I never owned a Mac myself), and how little knowledge and understanding they actually have, I don't think any installation description on Google could ever be of help to them. At least not if it's longer than 'Press this button, wait a minute and you're all set'. ;-) (or rather :-/ ?) >>> If Akruto Sync or Companion Link for Outlook/Windows filling the >>> void in the Windows Phone/Android ecosystems is any indication, >>> this might help bolster the market for easy-to-use "private >>> cloud" apps for home computers that might convince more folks to >>> re-examine their blind faith in the cloud products from Apple, >>> MS, and Google and at least taking a second look at the >>> risks/rewards/benefits of cloud services vs. using local servers >>> for PIM, media, etc. >> >> The vast majority of people don't have the necessary knowledge for >> such > a re-examination... :-/ Sad, but true. > > ...or they just don't care. Personally, I like the convenience. Do > I think Google is mining my data? Of course, but I have faith most > of it isn't personally identifiable, and exists to serve me ads on > their pages. And I'm damn sure that most of it is personally identifiable (if you don't take special precautions), and that at least one day you will notice that it is. :-( > Do I think Apple or MS is selling my data to the highest bidder? No- > I think they know the cost of a scandal would damage their business. > MS in particular, who sells cloud services to Enterprise customers > can't afford to get caught red-handed compromising users' data. Like > a random tax- audit, the consequences of getting caught keeps them > "honest". Agreed - however this puts the security of my data into the hands of company strategy. Without any way for me to influence it (and please don't tell me I should buy Apple shares... ;-) ). Sure, a shitstorm could be expected, but companies have survived bad shitstorms and still continued doing what they wanted. I'd rather prefer having more solidly founded rights, e.g. in terms of laws giving me specific rights, and on which I can sue. > (NSA and governmental requests notwithstanding- that's outside their > control.) Agreed. > Personally, my PIM data is stored by MS- not a value judgement about > Apple or Google, just a simple compatibility issue (Exchange > Activesync works with more devices than iCloud or Google Calendar, > and integrates better with Outlook.) > >> >>> Or, we might all just let the NSA know everything there is to >>> know about us from our friends, to our favorite restaurants, to >>> our kids' soccer schedules... ;) >> >> Simple answer: No. :-( > > Then don't upgrade OS X, or start boning up on running your own > Cal/CardDav servers. As I'm currently considering moving from Windows to OS X, this is definitively something I will have to look into. Unfortunately, I will have to set it up then (if it's working) several times, as other family members will at some point take up using Mavericks as well... :-/ > On the bright side, if you make it simple enough, you can be the guy > that cashes in selling the easy-to-use "EydServer" solution to > everyone else. ;) Sounds nice to me... ;-) Might look into this plan if I ever get a Mac... :-) Best regards, Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Davoud <star@sky.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 11:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <301020131100359117%star@sky.net> |
| In reply to | #51313 |
Michael Eyd: > ...I don't know about the US, but here > in Germany there is quite a group of people staying away from social > networks altogether or at least controlling pretty well what they post > there, who can read it, ... Yes, of course the U.S. has many people who have heeded the warning to be cautious with Facebook and other such services. I limit my posts to my small circle of "friends." But the truth is that everyone who hacks FB can see what I post. > ...And I agree with you that > the one's using GMail for mail, calendar and contacts (or similar all-in > services) are most certainly not the ones complaining here the loudest. > But there are quite many people out there who try to control where their > data goes, and if only by splitting it between different services (so > that not a single service holds all their data). Is this group the > majority? Unfortunately I have to agree that we may well not be the > majority, though the proportions seem to be quite different from country > to country... No, that is not a majority. And those who think that they can put anything on a remote server and expect privacy are delusional. You want privacy, get off the Internet. The talk of setting up one's own cloud is terribly amusing, a lovely childrens fantasy. Anyone who can set up a remote server that is more secure than the best that industry can offer could hire themselves out for a great deal of money. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 16:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l4r88h$qe6$1@news.sap-ag.de> |
| In reply to | #51360 |
Am 30.10.2013 16:00, schrieb Davoud: > No, that is not a majority. And those who think that they can put > anything on a remote server and expect privacy are delusional. You want > privacy, get off the Internet. How to do that if Apple (e.g.) forces one to use cloud services? Difficult, isn't it? > > The talk of setting up one's own cloud is terribly amusing, a lovely > childrens fantasy. Anyone who can set up a remote server that is more > secure than the best that industry can offer could hire themselves out > for a great deal of money. Not necessarily, it depends on the threats you want to secure your own cloud against. If you want to secure it against e.g. FBI security letters, you might fairly easy succeed (simply by sailing under their radar - as long as you are not the target of an investigation). You want to secure your server against using your data for commercial purposes? Should be fairly easy... You want to secure your server against malware? Now, that's an altogether different story, and one that regularly proves even professionals cannot guarantee... :-/ So in this case I agree with you. Best regards, Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Davoud <star@sky.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 14:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <301020131453006842%star@sky.net> |
| In reply to | #51361 |
Davoud: > > No, that is not a majority. And those who think that they can put > > anything on a remote server and expect privacy are delusional. You want > > privacy, get off the Internet. Michael Eyd: > How to do that if Apple (e.g.) forces one to use cloud services? > Difficult, isn't it? Apple doesn't force anyone to use cloud services. Some billions of people in the world do not use cloud services. As to how to get off the Internet, it's easy. Turn off the router, turn off the WiFi, cancel your account with your ISP. Dump the smartphone and the tablet. Resign yourself to no more e-mail, no more software updates, no more software purchases--they all involve putting information about yourself on remote servers. Stop using Adobe Creative Cloud. > > The talk of setting up one's own cloud is terribly amusing, a lovely > > childrens fantasy. Anyone who can set up a remote server that is more > > secure than the best that industry can offer could hire themselves out > > for a great deal of money. > Not necessarily, it depends on the threats you want to secure your own > cloud against. If you want to secure it against e.g. FBI security > letters, you might fairly easy succeed (simply by sailing under their > radar - as long as you are not the target of an investigation). You keep missing the point that you are already far under the radar of the FBI and other police and security services. Only paranoia could persuade you otherwise. > You want > to secure your server against using your data for commercial purposes? > Should be fairly easy... Really? Because Google, Microsoft, Adobe, and a host of others have failed to secure the data they store. You /cannot/ use the Internet without exposing yourself to certain risks. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 14:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <301020131456472543%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #51375 |
In article <301020131453006842%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote: > Apple doesn't force anyone to use cloud services. they do when they remove usb syncing. what other choice do people have?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-30 21:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l4rs2p$nvn$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #51376 |
On 30/10/2013 18:56, nospam wrote: > In article <301020131453006842%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> > wrote: > >> Apple doesn't force anyone to use cloud services. > > they do when they remove usb syncing. what other choice do people have? Just use one device for storing your contacts and calendars, be that an iPhone or a good old-fashioned diary. Or none at all. You might not *like* those choices, but they're certainly choices. -- Xbox: GallusNumpty Steam: scottishwildcat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-02 06:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <DfWdnYGeNYxSnujPnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #51394 |
On 10/30/2013 2:01 PM PT, Calum typed:
>>> Apple doesn't force anyone to use cloud services.
>>
>> they do when they remove usb syncing. what other choice do people have?
>
> Just use one device for storing your contacts and calendars, be that an
> iPhone or a good old-fashioned diary. Or none at all.
>
> You might not *like* those choices, but they're certainly choices.
Or switch to another device that can do USB syncing?
--
"Ants never lend, ants never borrow." --unknown
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-31 10:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <bddj14F86rtU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #51376 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote > Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote >> Apple doesn't force anyone to use cloud services. > they do when they remove usb syncing. > what other choice do people have? Some other local communication system other than usb.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-31 18:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l4u8n2$7n4$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #51376 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <301020131453006842%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> > wrote: > >> Apple doesn't force anyone to use cloud services. > > they do when they remove usb syncing. what other choice do people have? Join me in not "up"grading? -- Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-02 06:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <DfWdnYCeNYxvnujPnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #51513 |
On 10/31/2013 11:49 AM PT, Erilar typed:
>>> Apple doesn't force anyone to use cloud services.
>>
>> they do when they remove usb syncing. what other choice do people have?
>
> Join me in not "up"grading?
Ditto, but for how long until we're forced to upgrade due to newer
phones, computers, etc.? :(
--
"Ants never lend, ants never borrow." --unknown
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-31 09:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l4t4br$rr2$1@news.sap-ag.de> |
| In reply to | #51375 |
Am 30.10.2013 19:53, schrieb Davoud: > Davoud: >>> No, that is not a majority. And those who think that they can put >>> anything on a remote server and expect privacy are delusional. You want >>> privacy, get off the Internet. > > Michael Eyd: >> How to do that if Apple (e.g.) forces one to use cloud services? >> Difficult, isn't it? > > Apple doesn't force anyone to use cloud services. Some billions of > people in the world do not use cloud services. As to how to get off the > Internet, it's easy. Turn off the router, turn off the WiFi, cancel > your account with your ISP. Dump the smartphone and the tablet. Resign > yourself to no more e-mail, no more software updates, no more software > purchases--they all involve putting information about yourself on > remote servers. Stop using Adobe Creative Cloud. You missed the 'easiest' way: Shoot yourself... :-/ Seriously, you completely miss my point: Until now there were better possibilities to keep my data private, and Apple deliberately changed that. Provided that I don't invest considerable effort (and possibly money) into setting up my own alternative solution. Everything you are listing is a completely different story, and you know that. >>> The talk of setting up one's own cloud is terribly amusing, a lovely >>> childrens fantasy. Anyone who can set up a remote server that is more >>> secure than the best that industry can offer could hire themselves out >>> for a great deal of money. > >> Not necessarily, it depends on the threats you want to secure your own >> cloud against. If you want to secure it against e.g. FBI security >> letters, you might fairly easy succeed (simply by sailing under their >> radar - as long as you are not the target of an investigation). > > You keep missing the point that you are already far under the radar of > the FBI and other police and security services. Only paranoia could > persuade you otherwise. It was your unspecific remark that I dissected somewhat. >> You want >> to secure your server against using your data for commercial purposes? >> Should be fairly easy... > > Really? Because Google, Microsoft, Adobe, and a host of others have > failed to secure the data they store. You /cannot/ use the Internet > without exposing yourself to certain risks. You really don't understand my point, do you? Apparently for you data is data, if some of one's data is available on the internet, why bother with all data being there. Well, if that's the way you see, be my guest. I don't share this opinion - and nothing you could ever say/write/... will change that. I continue to believe in data privacy by default (yes, I know, not a very popular point of view in the US, esp. not with the major internet/cloud providers), and in the fact that *I* choose what to put on the internet/cloud/... Best regards, Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Davoud <star@sky.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-31 09:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <311020130917346578%star@sky.net> |
| In reply to | #51464 |
Michael Eyd: > >> How to do that if Apple (e.g.) forces one to use cloud services? > >> Difficult, isn't it? Davoud: > > Apple doesn't force anyone to use cloud services. Some billions of > > people in the world do not use cloud services. As to how to get off the > > Internet, it's easy. Turn off the router, turn off the WiFi, cancel > > your account with your ISP. Dump the smartphone and the tablet. Resign > > yourself to no more e-mail, no more software updates, no more software > > purchases--they all involve putting information about yourself on > > remote servers. Stop using Adobe Creative Cloud. Michael Eyd: > You missed the 'easiest' way: Shoot yourself... :-/ There is no easiest. Getting off the Internet /only/ way to reduce the amount of personal information you put on a remote server. Michael Eyd: > Seriously, you completely miss my point: Until now there were better > possibilities to keep my data private, and Apple deliberately changed > that. Provided that I don't invest considerable effort (and possibly > money) into setting up my own alternative solution. Everything you are > listing is a completely different story, and you know that. Yes, I do not entirely understand what you said in the previous paragraph. My point is not that you should push your data into the so-called "cloud." I say so-called because I like plain language, and "cloud" sounds magical. I prefer to remember that this is a vulnerable hard drive on a remote server (remote server, for short). My point is that your private data is already there and there's nothing you can do about it. Apple is just a tiny part of it; they're just one of a dozen or more entities that know where I live, what kind of music I buy (and full details of the credit card with which I buy it), my annual income (advertisers need this information in order to target me), some of my medical history, etc. In fact, it doesn't matter if you don't have an Internet connection; your bank account is on-line. You say you don't use on-line banking? Doesn't matter. Your account is on an Internet-connected computer, and you can't have your bank move it to a stand-alone, unconnected computer. Anyone in the world can go to a web page hosted by the State of Maryland and find where I live, a description of my house and property (370 sq. meters, .81 hectares), and the tax value of my house. Adobe has recently advised me that I am one of 39 million people whose personal data, including my credit-card data, were stolen from its servers. Also stolen: the source code for Photoshop, Acrobat, and other Adobe products. I cannot use Creative Cloud without allowing Adobe to store my credit card and other identifying data. I assume that Google has either sold or inadvertently leaked my G-mail account information; I get plenty of junk mail via my Google account, but none from my iCloud or Verizon accounts. And so that's the way it is. I'm not arguing that it's good or that one should be anxious to participate, only that, even without an Internet connection, without a computer, information about you is out there. "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." --Scott McNealy, 1999. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-31 15:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l4tns6$iau$1@news.sap-ag.de> |
| In reply to | #51482 |
Am 31.10.2013 14:17, schrieb Davoud: > Michael Eyd: >>>> How to do that if Apple (e.g.) forces one to use cloud services? >>>> Difficult, isn't it? > > Davoud: >>> Apple doesn't force anyone to use cloud services. Some billions of >>> people in the world do not use cloud services. As to how to get off the >>> Internet, it's easy. Turn off the router, turn off the WiFi, cancel >>> your account with your ISP. Dump the smartphone and the tablet. Resign >>> yourself to no more e-mail, no more software updates, no more software >>> purchases--they all involve putting information about yourself on >>> remote servers. Stop using Adobe Creative Cloud. > > Michael Eyd: >> You missed the 'easiest' way: Shoot yourself... :-/ > > There is no easiest. Getting off the Internet /only/ way to reduce the > amount of personal information you put on a remote server. The world is not black/white alone, there are (were) possibilities to control how much information is stored on the net about oneself. Certainly not all is controllable, but so far I am/was able to keep at least some amount of control. With more and more services moving from local services into the cloud, this possibility vanishes more and more. If you like that, be my guest. I don't. > Michael Eyd: >> Seriously, you completely miss my point: Until now there were better >> possibilities to keep my data private, and Apple deliberately changed >> that. Provided that I don't invest considerable effort (and possibly >> money) into setting up my own alternative solution. Everything you are >> listing is a completely different story, and you know that. > > Yes, I do not entirely understand what you said in the previous > paragraph. > > My point is not that you should push your data into the so-called > "cloud." I say so-called because I like plain language, and "cloud" > sounds magical. I prefer to remember that this is a vulnerable hard > drive on a remote server (remote server, for short). Exactly. > My point is that your private data is already there and there's nothing > you can do about it. And this point of your's is wrong - at least as far as I'm concerned (might be different for you): *Some* of my data is already in the cloud (though hardly at a single provider, at least not one I asked to collect it), no doubt. But there is other information that I deliberately chose not to put on the cloud or on any server in the internet. But if my only chance of syncing and backing up my iDevices would be through iCloud, this information would go to servers beyond my control - and I certainly don't like that idea. > Apple is just a tiny part of it; they're just one > of a dozen or more entities that know where I live, what kind of music > I buy (and full details of the credit card with which I buy it), my > annual income (advertisers need this information in order to target > me), some of my medical history, etc. In fact, it doesn't matter if you > don't have an Internet connection; your bank account is on-line. You > say you don't use on-line banking? Doesn't matter. Your account is on > an Internet-connected computer, and you can't have your bank move it to > a stand-alone, unconnected computer. Anyone in the world can go to a > web page hosted by the State of Maryland and find where I live, a > description of my house and property (370 sq. meters, .81 hectares), > and the tax value of my house. Adobe has recently advised me that I am > one of 39 million people whose personal data, including my credit-card > data, were stolen from its servers. Also stolen: the source code for > Photoshop, Acrobat, and other Adobe products. I cannot use Creative > Cloud without allowing Adobe to store my credit card and other > identifying data. What's your point? That I leave traces whenever I'm online? No doubt. That that means all the information about me can be found online? Certainly not! I'm just not ready (yet?) to give in to the hype of 'everything online'. For me data privacy still holds a lot of value, and I do (try to) choose the services I use rather deliberately, looking (amongst other things) as well on how they treat my data, resp. trying to leave as little data whereever possible. > I assume that Google has either sold or inadvertently leaked my G-mail > account information; I get plenty of junk mail via my Google account, > but none from my iCloud or Verizon accounts. > > And so that's the way it is. I'm not arguing that it's good or that one > should be anxious to participate, only that, even without an Internet > connection, without a computer, information about you is out there. > > "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." --Scott McNealy, 1999. That's as stupid a statement as one can find. My opinion. Would he want to live in a house with glass walls, being targeted 24/7 by cameras so that everybody (who cared) could trace his every move? I bet he wouldn't... Best regards, Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Davoud <star@sky.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-31 13:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <311020131335322039%star@sky.net> |
| In reply to | #51488 |
Davoud, quoting: > > "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." --Scott McNealy, 1999. Michael Eyd: > That's as stupid a statement as one can find. My opinion. Would he want > to live in a house with glass walls, being targeted 24/7 by cameras so > that everybody (who cared) could trace his every move? I bet he wouldn't... "Britain has a CCTV camera for every 11 people, a security industry report disclosed..." "EU delegation says it will review allegations that Europe spy services helped with NSA spying" "...public outcry here recently when it discovered that German state investigators were using spying software capable of turning a computer¹s webcam and microphone into a sophisticated surveillance device." "As It Denounces U.S. Spying, Europe Delays Privacy Protection at Home" (NYT, Oct. 29, 2013) ***** You are so naïve! There is a parallel universe to the one that you can see, and it's a product of Realpolitik in the 21st century. It's worth remembering how we got to our state of widespread collection of telephone metadata (thank goodness for digital telephony!). The planners of the 9/11/2001 attacks against the United States worked for several years in Western Europe to plan these attacks. They used telephones, e-mail, and other forms of electronic communication without being detected. U.S. allies in Western Europe and elsewhere decided that they did not want to host such a planning session again. Thus they instituted a program of electronic surveillance and a parallel program of assisting the U.S. with its SIGINT collection. Such cooperation in this parallel universe is not new; it's only public awareness that has changed. It's no more complicated than that. Persons who think that the average citizen of the EU is under electronic surveillance by their own or an allied government have been grossly misled, or they are paranoid. A number of European countries have arrested and dealt with known or suspected terror suspects in the past 10 years or so. You cannot find a single instance in which your garden-variety European has had her life disrupted by this collection program. No disappearances, no raids on housewives, no report that Frau Müller's little office affair with Herr Weber has been revealed by the BfV. As for collection of leadership-level communications, having a spy in the leader's circle is as old as history, a time-honored tradiiton, business as usual. "...documents at the National Archives in London show how Winston Churchill was sent a report on a 1940 private phone call between President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and Joe Kennedy, the U.S. ambassador to London, during which they discussed options 'if Europe is overrun' by Nazi Germany." OK, enough time wasted. Got to update Contacts and Calendar, which will immediately go into the iCloud and propagate to my other Apple devices. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web