Fun new service from Barclays - totally pointless, but fun...
2012-09-28
2012-09-27
2012-09-25
iOS6 file upload strips exif data?
One of the annoying things with iOS was that you could not do file uploads in web pages.
Thankfully iOS6 fixes this, at least in part, by allowing upload of images. This is excellent news. We can now use the web based image upload on photo sites.
Except! It appears that iOS6 strips all the useful exif data from the image - even the timestamp.
If, instead, you email the file, it contains loads of useful exif data including camera make and model (Apple, iPhone 5), aperture, focal length, exposure, etc. It even includes the location data in a GPS tag block.
So, nice new feature, totally bloody useless, thanks Apple!
Thankfully iOS6 fixes this, at least in part, by allowing upload of images. This is excellent news. We can now use the web based image upload on photo sites.
Except! It appears that iOS6 strips all the useful exif data from the image - even the timestamp.
If, instead, you email the file, it contains loads of useful exif data including camera make and model (Apple, iPhone 5), aperture, focal length, exposure, etc. It even includes the location data in a GPS tag block.
So, nice new feature, totally bloody useless, thanks Apple!
2012-09-22
Will it burn? iPhone 5
Anodised aluminium - laser engraves like a charm - I assume the back is the same, but not decided what to cut on to that yet.
If Microsoft were forced to offer choice of browser, why not force Apple to offer choice of mapping?
A while ago microsoft were forced to offer choices of browser on their operating system as not doing so was anti competitive.
Now we see that mapping and all of the corresponding location data and imagery is quite important. Google clearly want Apple users to use Google maps as they get revenue from location based search and advertise. Apple want that too. Why should Apple be able to force their solution on us even on a new phone (let alone taking away Google from existing phones)?
Even with a Google maps app, if we get one (waiting for Apple to approve), it will not be in all of the map based apps that use the o/s to hook in the mapping (like FindMyFriends, etc). So Google will be disadvantaged as a mapping supplier.
Surely Apple should have to offer users a choice of underlying mapping and location services at the o/s level? Then people could choose. If Apple then make a really good service, people will switch to them, but it will have to compete on a level playing field and win users by providing the quality they want.
Apple update T&Cs
I have been discussing the apple T&Cs with a friend and we disagree on the meaning. I am known for reading legal documents like an engineer, so may have the wrong end of the stick here.
(b) Apple, at its discretion, may make available future iOS Software Updates for your iOS Device. The iOS Software Updates, if any, may not necessarily include all existing software features or new features that Apple releases for newer or other models of iOS Devices. The terms of this License will govern any iOS Software Updates provided by Apple that replace and/or supplement the Original iOS Software product, unless such iOS Software Update is accompanied by a separate license in which case the terms of that license will govern.
My problem is that an update may not include all existing features. To my mind it was not clear that the fact an update may not include an existing feature means the existing feature is actually taken away rather than left as is and not updated.
This is obviously important when considering how apple have actually taken away key features as part of the update to iOS6. Not just breaking maps in many ways, but taking away streetview and usable aerial imagery of where I live.
Surely a term in a contract which allows the supplier of a product to actually remove key features from the operation of that product at a later date, is one that has to be specifically drawn to the attention of the customer (more so than the usual click-through of standard terms)? I am struggling to find the legislation covering that though!
Interestingly, I did find unfair contract terms 6 (2)
(2)As against a person dealing as consumer, liability for breach of the obligations arising from—
(a)[F3section 13, 14, or 15 of the 1979 Act](sellers’s implied undertakings as to conformity of goods with description or sample, or as to their quality or fitness for a particular purpose);
(b)section 9, 10 or 11 of the 1973 Act (the corresponding things in relation to hire-purchase),
cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to any contract term.
Now, the "sample" I looked at in the shop when buying this product had good maps with good aerial imagery and streetview. Now the product does not comply with that. Contract terms allowing that change are excluded, surely?
But, I am no lawyer. It just feels very unfair that key features of something I own has been taken away from me, simply by doing an "update".
(b) Apple, at its discretion, may make available future iOS Software Updates for your iOS Device. The iOS Software Updates, if any, may not necessarily include all existing software features or new features that Apple releases for newer or other models of iOS Devices. The terms of this License will govern any iOS Software Updates provided by Apple that replace and/or supplement the Original iOS Software product, unless such iOS Software Update is accompanied by a separate license in which case the terms of that license will govern.
My problem is that an update may not include all existing features. To my mind it was not clear that the fact an update may not include an existing feature means the existing feature is actually taken away rather than left as is and not updated.
This is obviously important when considering how apple have actually taken away key features as part of the update to iOS6. Not just breaking maps in many ways, but taking away streetview and usable aerial imagery of where I live.
Surely a term in a contract which allows the supplier of a product to actually remove key features from the operation of that product at a later date, is one that has to be specifically drawn to the attention of the customer (more so than the usual click-through of standard terms)? I am struggling to find the legislation covering that though!
Interestingly, I did find unfair contract terms 6 (2)
(2)As against a person dealing as consumer, liability for breach of the obligations arising from—
(a)[F3section 13, 14, or 15 of the 1979 Act](sellers’s implied undertakings as to conformity of goods with description or sample, or as to their quality or fitness for a particular purpose);
(b)section 9, 10 or 11 of the 1973 Act (the corresponding things in relation to hire-purchase),
cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to any contract term.
Now, the "sample" I looked at in the shop when buying this product had good maps with good aerial imagery and streetview. Now the product does not comply with that. Contract terms allowing that change are excluded, surely?
But, I am no lawyer. It just feels very unfair that key features of something I own has been taken away from me, simply by doing an "update".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Taxing home internet
There seems to be a proposal to change TV licensing to a tax on home internet! Thanks to this article from ISP review. I hope it goes nowhe...
-
Broadband services are a wonderful innovation of our time, using multiple frequency bands (hence the name) to carry signals over wires (us...
-
For many years I used a small stand-alone air-conditioning unit in my study (the box room in the house) and I even had a hole in the wall fo...
-
This is an appeal for (sensible) comments. I am working on revised A&A tariffs for broadband. For those that are not sure how they wor...




