When you set up an account with a cable or satellite provider, you have to also obtain a device to actually decode the information and send it to your TV set. In the old days, a set would be “cable ready” by offering extra analog channels for non-premium cable content. Not so in the days of digital, where each provider has their own system to deliver digital content, which sort of forces you to buy or lease their own hardware.

Now in theory there’s an exception, at least for cable in the U.S. (but not satellite), and that’s the CableCARD. This is a secure ID card that allows a third-party set-top box to decrypt content from the cable guy. But the cable guy installs them reluctantly. I heard one story where someone wanted two, for two set-top boxes. So the cable company installed them, but one didn’t work. No, the customer couldn’t just install it without a technician, an absurd concept.

Now you’d think they’d take back the faulty card and replace it, right? No, instead they insisted that they could only install the pair, and thus took back both and returned with another pair. Again, one card failed. This crazy routine continued for a while until the customer gave up, which may have been the plan.

Continue Reading…

These days Apple has a lot on its plate. First and foremost is how the courts will react to their refusal to provide a backdoor to break into an iPhone 5c used by a terrorist. The conclusion to that story has yet to be written, but it may very well wend its tortured way through the courts for quite a while before there’s a final resolution.

As you might imagine, I’m sympathetic to Apple’s cause. It appears they are correct that the act of jailbreaking one iPhone, however laudable the reasons might be, will hurt everyone. Once the genie is out of the bottle, once a legal precedent has been set, what stops China or another country from imposing similar requirements on Apple, say to sell iPhones in their country? It’s the needs of the one outweighing the needs of the many.

Besides, a lot of the information the FBI seeks can be had by other methods, such as email, and SMS messages. Obviously messages sent through Apple’s system are encrypted, as are third-party apps having nothing to do with iOS other than being installed on an iPhone.

Meantime, Apple has resolved another pressing controversy in a way that makes plenty of sense.

So here was the scenario: Folks who had their iPhone 6-family gear repaired by an unauthorized third-party repair shop that includes the Touch ID system ran into a problem. Rather than using Apple’s approved parts and repair methods, the secure connection is not reestablished and it failed with an Error 53 message under a security test. So the iPhone was bricked.

Apple has already stated this action protects the customer not just from bad repairs, but attempts to tamper with the iPhone’s security that might include installing a fraudulent fingerprint sensor.

That, however, wasn’t good enough for some. One class action lawsuit has already been filed, but it appears Apple may have circumvented the damage proactively. So on Thursday, Apple issued a new version of iOS 9.2.1 that, when installed, is designed to restore the iPhone to normal functionality — except for the Touch ID, which remains disabled. So call it a secure half-a-loaf solution.

Apple explained exactly what they did and why in a brief statement:

Some customers’ devices are showing ‘Connect to iTunes’ after attempting an iOS update or a restore from iTunes on a Mac or PC. This reports as an Error 53 in iTunes and appears when a device fails a security test. This test was designed to check whether Touch ID works properly before the device leaves the factory.

Today, Apple released a software update that allows customers who have encountered this error message to successfully restore their device using iTunes on a Mac or PC.

We apologize for any inconvenience, this was designed to be a factory test and was not intended to affect customers. Customers who paid for an out-of-warranty replacement of their device based on this issue should contact AppleCare about a reimbursement.

As the statement indicates, this is not an over-the-air update. In order for an affected customer to restore their iPhones, they must do the installation via iTunes on a Mac or a PC. The fix involves connecting the bricked iPhone via a USB cable. It may first require putting the iPhone into recovery mode by holding down the Home button while powering it on, and waiting until the iTunes logo appears before plugging it in to the computer for installation.

Since the software was released, iFixit.com, the company that tears down tech gear, treated the fix and pronounced it successful.

Now the complaints, particularly from legal firms seeking a huge payday, are that the customer has the right to repair their iPhones anywhere they want. But that means they are responsible for the results if they don’t use an approved Apple repair shop. I realize that, in some cases, you may be too far from an Apple Store or third-party authorized facility to conveniently get the work done. The shop in the local mall or the nearest town may claim to be able to repair your iPhone, and in most respects they probably can. It’s not impossible to get displays and other components.

But the Touch ID system is carefully designed to integrate with the secure enclave chip to provide a high level of security. Unless Apple’s own parts are used along with the prescribed repair procedures, the secure connection isn’t restored. That’s why the Error 53 message appears. At least new versions of iOS will restore basic functionality without Touch ID.

I also suppose one has the right to complain to the repair shop for taking on a task they weren’t equipped to handle. That may represent ignorance, incompetence or possibly fraud, and I suppose customers can complain that the repairs were improperly handled and demand refunds. I also assume these shops have some sort of guarantee, but if Apple is offering a reimbursement for these unauthorized repairs, the customer will only lose time and some level of convenience until the fixes are performed.

Can Apple somehow be forced to make repair kits available to any shop trained or not? I doubt it, although customers cannot be stopped from taking their iPhones anywhere they want for repairs. But “caveat emptor” must apply.

When Tim Cook vowed that Apple would never develop a backdoor to help the authorities unlock encrypted iPhones, it was only inevitable that it would become a political football. That’s true especially in this political climate, where so-called debates, once staid affairs, have become the equivalents of wrestling matches.

So here’s what’s going on: It seems that the issue has become front and center in the wake of a ruling from U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym that Apple must provide software that would allow them to break into an iPhone 5c owned by one of the shooters in the San Bernardino, CA terrorist rampage last December. The problem is that, as with other iPhones using iOS 8 and iOS 9, it is encrypted in such a way that there is no way to unlock it except to use the correct passcode. That particular model doesn’t have Touch ID.

Here’s the problem: You can’t use brute force to break the password, which would involve a computer sending tons of login requests with different codes, because you only have 10 chances with Apple’s current unlocking scheme. After 10 failed attempts, the data on the iPhone is deleted.

So the possible solution would be for Apple to develop a special software utility that would allow the authorities to bypass the passcode limit and unlock the phone. Apple’s response? Definitely not!

The issue was important enough for Tim Cook to post, at Apple’s site, a lengthy explanation as to why. The long and short of it is that any backdoor Apple provides the authorities could be used to unlock any iPhone and, in turn, since nothing is totally secure, it would create the possibility hackers and terrorists would also be able to use the same technique to unlock anyone’s iPhone.

So much for the promise that nobody else can decrypt your iPhone, not even Apple. Well, unless they can guess the proper passcode with only ten tries.

Cook says, “For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.”

Cook says that they provided assistance to law enforcement authorities after the San Bernardino attack, “The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.

“When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.”

But Cook said, in that statement, that they will not create a backdoor to the iPhone. “Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.”

And that’s the crux of the argument. Worse, once that precedent had been created, it would open Apple to being similarly forced to unlock iPhones in other countries in which the product is sold, not to mention raising the possibility that hackers might get the code, and then all bets are off.

To be sure, the politicians have weighed in. Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump says, pure and simple, Apple should comply. But in his usual rush to generalize and simplify the complex, he doesn’t seem to be aware of the complications involved or the risks.

One of his opponents, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, had a more nuanced response, but concluded that the government and Apple should work together to come up with a solution.

The White House press representative said that the request only applied to a single iPhone, not to all iPhones. But from what Apple is claiming, the master key would not be limited to a single handset, but would open the possibility that other iPhones could be similarly decrypted.

For now Apple can appeal the court order, and perhaps pursue the matter in the courts all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. But even if the court would agree to fast track the matter, there’s still a matter of being short one member as a result of the recent passing of Justice Scalia. That would create the possibility of a four-four tie, thus sending it back to the lower courts. Of course, that assumes the court would be equally split on the issue, which is by no means certain.

At the end of the day, perhaps a middle ground can be found that would ensure your privacy and still allow law enforcement authorities to get the data they require to investigate a criminal case. So this is an issue that will not go away. Whether it will linger in the news cycle is another matter. The answer is probably not.

Today’s iPhone product line has four large-screen models from the iPhone 6-family, plus a 2013 iPhone 5s to fill the demand of those who want something cheaper. Or something with a smaller display. Unfortunately, for those who still want the smaller iPhone who already bought an iPhone 5s in 2013, Apple has no solution.

So stick with what you have and save your money until Apple decides when and if to meet that demand. Of course, I don’t know what demand there really is. Apple’s marketing knows. But I wouldn’t be surprised if a smaller iPhone could reach tens of millions of potential customers who’d otherwise buy a larger iPhone under protest, stick with what they have, or buy something else from another company that supports another platform.

There are published reports that Apple has just such a solution in the works, to meet the demand for a smaller iPhone, and that it’ll be out some time in March. It doesn’t matter if it’s called an iPhone 5se, a peculiar branding choice, or an iPhone 6c. Or whatever. Supposedly this new iPhone would contain pretty up-to-date components, so it would support all or most of the features of the larger iPhones. Maybe it’ll have 3D Touch, maybe it won’t; I wouldn’t presume to guess except to suggest that it wouldn’t cost much extra to include more up-to-date components, so might as well.

If such a product comes to be, of course.

The other question is about the timing. Surely Apple has the development resources to build more than two versions of a new iPhone at any one time. So if there’s a viable market for a new 4-inch model, why would it arrive in March of 2016 rather than six months earlier, along with the other handsets? Why wait until now?

If there is a demand for a smaller iPhone that is sufficient to justify building another product to fill it, that demand existed in September 2015. Indeed, it’s highly possible that the slight increase in iPhone sales in the December quarter would have been less slight had there been another new model in the mix. It’s possible this quarter’s expected sales decline would have been less severe, but we can only guess about total sales for now.

I don’t dismiss the possibility that Apple miscalculated, and was thus caught flatfooted about the slowing iPhone sales and had to rush a solution. Just because a company is huge doesn’t mean all marketing and production decisions must be correct.

That takes us to the second part of this story, that the introduction of the alleged smaller iPhone will also include the rumored iPad Air 3.

As you recall, the iPad Air 2, circa 2014, was not updated last fall. Maybe it wouldn’t have changed the poor sales picture any, so why would Apple deliver that solution now? Would it help prop up sales some until a better solution is devised?

If it happens, the new iPad would allegedly inherit some features from the iPad Pro, such as a more powerful processor, four speakers, and a Smart Connector for an attachable keyboard case. The latter would likely be accompanied by a smaller equivalent of the Smart Keyboard that debuted with the larger iPad. Maybe support for the Apple Pencil would be included.

Prices, I presume, would be the same as the current mid-sized model.

I can see the value of all these additional features, but would wonder why it took several months to deliver a solution. Why not last fall, so that Apple would have gotten the maximum possible revenue from the iPad in the December quarter? Did Apple run out of time finishing the iPad Pro, and thus set the smaller model aside?

In either cases, it strains credibility to consider that there wasn’t sufficient development time and resources to ready such products for last fall. It may have been, as I suggested, a sales/marketing decision that turned out to have been wrong.

Or perhaps Apple is trying to bolster iPhone and iPad sales through the spring and summer quarters until other all-new models appear. I do not pretend to guess what Apple is considering. We know what they are doing, in part, by the products that are released. The products that are not produced remain non-factors regardless of why.

So if the new iPhone and the new iPad do appear — and again it’s still all about rumors and speculation — is that it for the spring? Well, perhaps here will be new Mac note-books as well, since Intel has released Skylake chips to power these new devices. If there is to be a major change, perhaps it’ll be the now-aging MacBook Air. It may get a Retina display, perhaps Force Touch and end up a little thinner and lighter. But I don’t think the MacBook will replace it — at least not yet. Apple still does well with an $899 note-book computer, and I don’t see that going away.

But I still remain curious about the fate of the Mac Pro. It had its last major refresh at the end of 2013, and there are better Intel Xeon chips and better graphic cards to be had now. A simple update shouldn’t expend lots of resources, unless Apple has some other ideas about where to take its showpiece workstation computer.