Google's Cookies and pundits everywhere...

Reading “Cookies and Privacy” by John Gruber, Daring Fireball, I was astound by the following line of reasoning that Gruber pointedly arguments against:

The Journal article does later acknowledge, though not in a way that a reasonable reader would interpret as meaningful, that the mobile version of Safari has “default” (ie not user activated) settings that prevent Google and others (like ad giant WPP) to track user behavior the way they do on the “normal” Web. That’s a far cry from the Journal’s lead paragraph, which again, states Google bypassed the “the privacy settings of millions of people.” So when is a privacy setting really a privacy setting, I wonder? When Apple makes it so?

This is what John Battelle thinks, as he expressed in the piece: “A sad state of internet affairs”. You understand: since many people did not even know that there was a default privacy setting in place, or since they did not explicitly chose to forbid tracking behavior, then possibly that setting should not be considered a “real” privacy setting (more of an “Apple setting”, say).

Well, let’s see. I have a Zoom wi-fi ADSL modem at home. It comes with a default firewall settings, with a default WPA password, it comes with many features pre-enabled to guarantee my privacy. According to Battelle, I might ask the following question: “when is a privacy setting really a privacy setting, I wonder? When Zoom makes it so?”

And if anyone circumvents those settings, is this any the less serious since I did not choose to enforce it in the first place?

Is this a way to sensible way to reason about things?

You know, the Google “affair” is bad enough to be all concerned at the practices of the big corps out there. Including Apple. And, IMO no one should ever get tired of investigating and denouncing offensive practices that diminish our rights. But in actuality someone might engage in arduous lines of “reasoning” to let those practices appear as less serious and not at fault at all. That is an even bigger problem that the big corporations engaging in dubious practices to force their business model upon us.

 

P.S., If you want a quick intro to Google’s-Cookies-Gate, you can go directly to the original Wall Street Journal piece or search the web for a wealthy of news and analysis on the topic.

 

More animation transitions for iOS

I think that one of the most common deceptions for iOS developers is to discover how small is the set of default transitions that the iOS SDK support out of the box. There are just four of them: flip from left or right, and curl up or down. Well, I also think that all iOS developers also think that those four are simply the only <i>public</i> transitions in the SDK, but that there have to be more. But, you know, non public means rejection, a word that  no one likes.

Cocos2D and the new Retina iPad

The introduction of the new iPad, a.k.a Retina-iPad, or iPad 3, has made developing universal applications supporting all of iOS devices definitely more complex. This is mostly due to the requirement of providing artwork for 4 (four!) different resolutions:

Review: iPoe for the iPad/iPhone

As a follow up to this old post of mine about interactive books for the iPhone/iPad, I would like to mention a new entry in the field: iPoe.

cocos2d and the new retina iPad - take 2

I described in a previous post about cocos2d and the new retina iPad a quick solution to the problem of supporting higher-resolution images. The main objective of that work was to make easier re-building your app for submission on the App Store before  you could possibly provide higher-resolution images for the new iPad. I mentioned anyway that that approach was just a quick hack and not  a full answer to the need to provide 4 (four!) different versions for any of your artworks.