HP introduces new Apple iMac - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/09/10/notefile/ <comment><USER2> Ridiculous. Other than the bezel color, bezel shape, metallic logo, logo positioning, aspect ratio, foot design, choice of materials, choice of finishing, keyboard design, key coloring, key layout, keyboard LED, keyboard footing, trackpad design, trackpad footing, keyboard battery chamber, and trackpad battery chamber, this is a totally unique design.

<comment><USER3> > Other than the bezel color, bezel shape, metallic logo, logo positioning...

We can't have an HP logo in a circle because Apple has an apple that resembles a circle!?

We can't center an HP logo because Apple centers their logo!?

We can't have a metallic logo because Apple does that!?

We can't have a rectangular screen because Apple has one just in that shape!?

We can't have a silvery finish because apple has one!

We can't have a qwerty keyboard because Apple has one!

And so on.

Are you joking?

These are all done 100 times over. In combination with each other.

The only resemblance I see are standard design choices being implemented. Like a monitor on a stand.

<comment><USER4> Oh, come on. If you make the same choices as your competitor for nearly _every_ item, that's copying.

These "standard design choices" hadn't ever been common in other products. Were all designers suddenly enlightened at some point on what computers should look like? (oh, wait! they were, by Apple)

<comment><USER3> Really? Having a centered logo is part of a trade dress? Is it supposed to be 2 inches to the right for everyone else?

And when you place that centerd logo on a thin form factor display/pc, that becomes a violation? Or is it when you make the keyboard silvery in color? Or is it when you make the frame as thin as possible given the technology and manufacturing capabilities you have at the time?

That's like saying Ford violates Toyota's "trade dress" when they combine 4 tires on a car, with an engine somewhere inside, and paint the body red. And the vehicle weighs less that 2000 lbs.

4 or 5 standard design choices in combination with one another is not a "trade dress" when those choices are generic and have been done a million times before.

<comment><USER4> No, that's like saying that Ford would violate Audi's trade dress if they combine slim headlights flush with the body, a large front grill in trapezoid shape with the logo on top, and two air intakes at the bottom edges. It would.

That's all design is: a combination of functional and aesthetic choices, that lead to a particular look.

Silver wasn't very popular until not long ago. Black was the default, and still is for many manufacturers. It is also currently possible to make the frame even thinner, or non-existent. The choice to make it that thick (and black) shows that it's not about technical limits or 'evolution'. You can absolutely make a computer that doesn't look like an iMac; in fact everybody has been doing it for years.

<comment><USER5> Indeed, there was a huge production of so-called beige PCs, and nobody complained that they looked the same, since they looked like crap, and people wouldn't purposedly copy crap, now would they? The fact is that Apple products look gorgeous, and they want to keep it that way. Commoditization of that style would destroy its value completely. That is, unless they keep leading the pack in design innovation, instead of trying to protect their old productions, and milk their fan base out of recycled ideas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This makes me sad for a variety of reasons. One, because HP are being assholes and making what is clearly a knock-off product. Apple has every right to be upset, and probably sue them for trade dress infringement.

And second, because everyone (on both sides) is going to be conflating this with Apple's UI patents, which _are_ total bullshit and which they shouldn't be able to sue over. Ah well.

<comment><USER7> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star>

<comment><USER8> I really don't think that posts that consist of nothing but a single link, like this one, should be acceptable. You link to a web page and don't make any argument. This is disingenuous.

It lets you pretend like you've taken a position or refuted the person you're responding to, but since you haven't actually said anything you can't be debated with. You can't be pinned down on saying any position, which means you can't be refuted.

Now, if you made an argument, and then linked to a wikipedia page to support that argument, besides the fact that wikipedia is not authoritative and is edited by amateurs, often with an agenda, that would be much better. At least then you're introducing potential facts to support an argument.

<comment><USER7> I think pointing out the Xerox Star is sufficient to make my point.

I agree that it's important that you can pin my argument down though so hopefully this will make it clear: HP's copying of the iMac is not much different from Apple's copying of the Xerox Star. The two main differences are that a) Apple copied a huge amount from Xerox and HP seem to just have copied the UI rather superficially and the end result seems mediocre and b) America has software patents now.

<comment><USER9> I hate this. You're attempting to re-litigate something in public court that was already handled in actual, real-people court almost 20 years ago. Read the Legacy[0] section of your link.

Apple also licensed the tech behind Xerox Star. At least Xerox was compensated for their work in some manner.

[0] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Star#Legacy>

<comment><USER7> Sorry you hate it. I'm not sure how I'm attempting to re-litigate...that is something to do with litigation, and I'm not a lawyer.

That article absolutely does not say that Apple licensed anything from Xerox. It only says that Xerox later tried to sue over it but it was thrown out due to age.

<comment><USER10> From the page linked in footnote 10 I found the following tidbit:

> __Tesler __: No, we didn't have one here. We went to the NCC when the Star > was announced and looked at it. And in fact it did have an immediate impact. > A few months after looking at it we made some changes to our user interface > based on ideas that we got from it. For example, the desktop manager we had > before was completely different; it didn't use icons at all, and we never > liked it very much. We decided to change ours to the icon base. That was > probably the only thing we got from the Star, I think. Most of our Xerox > inspiration was Smalltalk rather than Star.

Just thought this was interesting. And it's probably the modern equivalent of being inspired to move to touchscreen-based devices instead of keypad devices. Which, I might add, is pretty different than being "inspired" to completely clone a competing touchscreen-based device instead of coming up with your own UI and behaviors around the touchscreen metaphor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As a consumer, I couldn't care less. Android makes dropdown notification screen: good feature -> apple steals it -> yay. Apple makes slide to unlock: good feature -> android steals it -> yay. Honestly I'm more frustrated when the _don't_ incorporate good ideas: Win7 & Ubuntu unity have awesome keyboard window management features and when I use OSX I find myself wondering why the hell Apple hasn't stolen these features yet. They are good features, your OS is _WORSE_ for not having them (i.e. it's not just a "design choice" imo, window management/tiling is simply worse on Mac). I _wish_ some pc manufacturer would rip off the MPB as faithfully as possible so I could have a decent linux notebook!

Listen to Steve Jobs v1, steal good ideas! Furthermore, this article _only_ speaks to superficial "features", i.e. the look of the box, so I care even less. Insofar as it hurts consumers by confusing them, it's bad, otherwise I say steal and steal alike.

Assuming consumers are not confused/misled, is there any harm to consumers posed by this sort of copying?

<comment><USER12> Slide-to-unlock was pioneered by Neonode long before Apple even considered going into the phone business.

<comment><USER13> Apple's patent references the Neonode patent. I don't think patent law works the way you think it does. Neonode's patent 8,095,879 was only granted in January 2012 (filing date Dec 2002.)

See the references on Apple's 8,209,637 patent. It references Neonode's patent 8,095,879.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Who cares.

This is getting ridiculous. Originality counts when buying art, not tools. This is a box with some electronics inside. Does it do the job better than other computing devices?

This is like complaining when Craftsman came out with polished metal wrenches that look just like Snap-On. Stop trying to make computing into a fashion statement.

<comment><USER15> Design matters even when it's not art. There's a great little documentary called "Objectified". It's worth watching if you want to see a rebuttal for your opinion.

<comment><USER14> You misread my point about tools. _Design_ has value. _Originality_ doesn't. Nobody is complaining that HP's new product has bad design; in fact, they seem to be complaining that it follows Apple's good design.

This is petty vanity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's a different form factor. Unlike the iMac, the Spectre One contains electronic components in the stand.

A stand which is very "unMaclike."

Images here: <http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/09/hp-spectre-one/>

It's not as if HP just entered the all in one PC market.

And this one may get something the iMac's probably won't - a touch screen.

<comment><USER17> Yeah, it does look quite a bit different in most of the press shots than it does in the first post of the blog. Similar, but not enough that I would be that upset about it.

The keyboard and trackpad though? Blatant ripoffs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> What's interesting is that HP also has the all-in-one Z1 workstations[1] that have a more interesting design than the iMac. What's especially nice about them is that it's designed so that components can be replaced.

[1] [http://www.hp.com/united- states/campaigns/workstations/z1_fe...](http://www.hp.com/united- states/campaigns/workstations/z1_features.html)

<comment><USER19> That's indeed a very, very interesting design. And it looks good to booth. I hope they're not abandoning that idea, this is the kind of innovation that really benefits the consumer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The headline confused me, then I checked the article and laughed.

Seriously, though, I'm really curious what HP is thinking here. I honestly can't imagine Apple _not_ suing them over this. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it, but after the Samsung/Apple iPhone lawsuit, it's pretty obvious Apple is going to defend their design IP in court.

It just seems like HP is inviting a big headache when there's a lot of other designs they could have used. Heck, they'll need to sell a lot of these just to cover their lawyer costs.

<comment><USER3> I'm still confused. What would they sue over? A qwerty keyboard? A rectangular monitor? Having a silvery stand? What?

I've looked at the two pictured presented and I don't see anything similar besides standard design choices.

<comment><USER21> I'm certainly no expert, but Apple successfully sued eMachines over the eOne that, to my eye, looks "inspired" by the then-current iMac, compared to this HP that looks like an outright copy of the now-current iMac. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EOne>

_A qwerty keyboard? A rectangular monitor? Having a silvery stand? What?_

Surely you don't think that's the extent of the similarity, right? Nearly anyone that sees this machine and is familiar with the iMac is going to say "that looks like a copy of the iMac"; people don't say that about every machine with a QWERTY keyboard and a rectangular monitor on a silvery stand.

<comment><USER3> > Surely you don't think that's the extent of the similarity, right?

Yes I do. I don't see anything apple inspired here? Again, what would they sue over? Having a thin form factor?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> What kills me is there is a great touchscreen with dramatically different design headed to market, just need to add a CPU:

<http://www.wacom.com/en/products/cintiq/cintiq24touch.aspx>

<comment><USER23> I think the Cintiqs are a little more expensive than a multi-touch monitor.

<comment><USER22> but why? I'm betting part of their cost comes from their limited scale.

<comment><USER24> because Wacom makes pressure sensitive tablets/screens specifically for cases where pressure sensitive is necessary.

Apple would need to outright purchase Wacom if they were going to incorporate pressure sensitive screens - because to do it right, you need to license Wacom's patent library. Which Wacom won't do because they make a killing already by having exclusive technology.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So everything "converges" to Apple designs because it is the end all designs of everything ... Or so say the anti Apple crowd in here and Samsung and other copycats. Disappointed with HP in this shameless look a like product.

</comment><comment><USER13> The all-in-one doesn't look all that much like an iMac but the keyboard and trackpad sure look like they copied Apple.

<comment><USER26> How would you envision a desktop trackpad that doesn't converge on the design of the apple magic trackpad?

<comment><USER27> There can't be any other possible design, can it?

[http://technabob.com/blog/2011/09/13/logitech-wireless- touch...](http://technabob.com/blog/2011/09/13/logitech-wireless-touchpad/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Congratulations HP, and good luck with that.

I realize that many HN readers (including myself) are working on their own products which are almost indistinguishable from what came before and what will come after, and we hope that no competitor will ever be able to get a slice of our pie, but if I put on my consumer hat for a minute, here's what I have to say:

Thanks goodness most cars have round wheels, steering wheels at chest height, and reasonably similar control layout. Had that industry developed in today's environment they'd all be suing each other left and right over door handles that pulled upward to open the door and sun roof patent licensing deals. Who knows, maybe back in the day they did.

Thank goodness for wintel and competition. How dare people look down their noses at the market forces that produced a sub 1k laptop (or sub 400). Many people, myself included, are pretty lucky that the "race to the bottom" resulted in home computers that we (or our parents) could afford, allowing us to eventually become part of the hacker community.

Congratulations to Apple for making a beautiful high end product, but the fact that their product is beautiful and high end should be all the market advantage they need/deserve, and if they can't out compete imitators like HP, they don't deserve our business.

</comment><comment><USER29> While they are similar in some ways, they are not as similar as the article makes them out to be. From images I found elsewhere, the iMac seems to have its components behind the screen, and a very thin stand, while the Spectre One seems to have its components in its thick stand, while its screen is thinner. I think the article is misleading by not showing that, which to me makes them completely different designs. As for the keyboard and trackpad, of course they're going to try to make them as small as possible.

</comment><comment><USER30> Let's turn to our wise friend Macalope[1] and hear what s/he said just last week:

        Samsung wasn't copying Apple, it's just that smartphones naturally evolve into
        flat touchscreens with minimal buttons on the front and slide to unlock and
        a virtual keyboard and an Apple logo on the back and oops we went too far.

[1]: [http://www.macworld.com/article/1168385/macalope_the_sincere...](http://www.macworld.com/article/1168385/macalope_the_sincerest_form_of_jerkery.html)

</comment><comment><USER31> It surprise me that it took pc makers this long time to finally copy macbooks and imac.

</comment><comment><USER32> Really this is worth getting worked up over. Honestly it looks a bit like an iMac, who cares, it's clearly not an iMac and the HP logo is an extra big giveaway for anyone who might be confused.

The aluminium iMac design has been around for 5 years now it's hardly surprising that what is obviously a good design is going to be copied by its competitors. Why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth?

</comment><comment><USER33> This looks as much like an Apple as one PC clone looked like another PC clone years ago, which is to say "a lot but who cares..."

</comment><comment><USER34> It almost seems that we're to a point where we just have to accept this as an industry. The frequency of outright copies seems to be increasing, and there's not much the Apples of the world can do about it. Seems like this is common place on the web too, where various design memes (the ribbon thing, etc. etc.) eventually spread to a large number of sites. Given that Apple is still making boatloads of cash, it seems like this isn't reducing their incentive to innovate.

(Not that I'm endorsing what seems to be an outright copy)

<comment><USER21> _The frequency of outright copies seems to be increasing, and there's not much the Apples of the world can do about it._

Well, they did just win $1.5 billion from Samsung…

<comment><USER34> Not much different than doing nothing about it when companies the size (and of the profit) of Apple and Samsung are the involved parties.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I worked for HP in 2011 and at that time (after Hurd was fired) they were clearly making only a very small profit on the computer business and the different business units justified doing so to get brand recognition despite 1 digit profit margin (compared to double digit from the PSG group). But they had no will to compete on the consumer market, it's probably a change of strategy to try to make double digit profit margin on consumer device. The sad thing is they didn't even try to be innovative they just copy whatever Apple is doing.

You may agree/disagree with the patent system but you have to be really dishonest or blind to tell me it's not a copy of an Apple product. They will probably fool some family with it but I suspect the majority of people are going to buy the "original" Apple.

Really sad, HP can't stick a valid strategy or a CEO ;)

<comment><USER36> Yea, Leo tried to sell it which led to backlash. Luckily Leo was replaced with Meg in time to stop this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> So no one else can create a minimalist style keyboard without being accused of copying Apple?

<comment><USER38> That's like plagiarizing an entire novel and saying "what, I can't use the phrase 'it was dark and stormy'?"

<comment><USER39> Its a commodity PC filled with Samsung guts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Take a look at this one <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4500970>

<comment><USER41> "I have always regarded Apple products – and the kind words Jony Ive has said about me and my work – as a compliment. Without doubt there are few companies in the world that genuinely understand and practise the power of good design in their products and their businesses. [...] I am always fascinated when I see the latest Apple products. Apple has managed to achieve what I never achieved: using the power of their products to persuade people to queue to buy them."[1] --Dieter Rams (Braun designer from 1961 to 1995)

[1]: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8555503/Dieter-R...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8555503/Dieter- Rams-Apple-has-achieved-something-I-never-did.html)

<comment><USER42> I think Apple's clear use of Dieter Rams' design language is more of an "homage" than a "ripoff". The fact that the Apple products and Braun products are separated by decades and in different product categories makes a difference.

<comment><USER43> Disagree, in at least terms of the Calculator - that's not homage, that's blatant copying. Colors, identical, button shape and layout, identical, ratios, identical. The thing looks like someone traced it in Photoshop. That's not "homage".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> If I have to boycot every company that does stupid shit, I'll have to manufacture my own hardware, if this keeps happening.

This goddamn industry.

</comment><comment><USER45> so no one is now allowed to make silver screens and keyboards, they only allowed white, beige and black!

the design have differences, minor of course, but ... its just a keyboard and screen

</comment><comment><USER46> While it definitely resembles an iMac, HP has been exploring the post-mouse era a bit with their Touchsmart series, and this could be seen as a cousin to that brand.

<comment><USER47> I think that's exactly what makes this so strange. HP already was selling all- in-one PCs that did not look like iMacs at all. They could have continued with that – but for some reason decided not to.

<comment><USER2> In fairness to HP, the Touchsmart line is terrible. Bad build quality, BSOD's on first boot, awkward design decisions, atrocious touch experience, and literally forty preinstalled and thoroughly rotten "touch" apps that join forces with dozens of sludgeware packages to make the first hour of use punishing. The Spectre looks like a work of art compared to them.

(By awkward design decisions: there's a secret chamber that holds a secret USB port that's already got a secret USB stick in it that drives the radio for the included wireless keyboard and mouse)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> So where's that iMac with the multi-touch gesture capable IPS display again? Looking, looking...

What's that you say? Such a product has never existed? Apple has never made a touch screen iMac? Oh dear.

What's that you say? HP introduced their first TouchSmart system featuring a polished aluminum housing with integrated display and touch screen on JANUARY 7, 2007, putting them only 8 months ahead of Apple's release? (IQ770. Look it up, kids.)

CURSE YOU, FACTS!

<comment><USER49> This is about trade dress, not features. Multi-touch and IPS are irrelevant.

And the IQ770 looks like a hideous product Apple would never, ever make: [http://www.strongengineering.com/images/products/detail/hp40...](http://www.strongengineering.com/images/products/detail/hp4070.jpg)

<comment><USER50> Oh my god, that's a real picture.

When I pulled it up, I figured it was one of those "Here's the kind of thing PC maker build" pictures, where a bunch of irrelevant things are put on because people might want them. It had to be a joke image.

Nope. It's on Amazon[1]. Their picture looks a tad better though. Were there any industrial designers on that project?

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/HP-TouchSmart-IQ770-Processor- SuperMul...](http://www.amazon.com/HP-TouchSmart-IQ770-Processor- SuperMulti/dp/B000NX1UNU)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I was curious how the fashion industry deals with this problem.

I mean when is a pair of slacks a knock-off, a copied design, and an original design. I would think the clothing fashion industry would have way more experience with this.

This came up via Google: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/worldbusiness/04i...](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/worldbusiness/04iht- fashion.1.7373169.html?pagewanted=all)

Somewhat old, but it reads just like these Apple v. whomever stories. Unfortunately it looks like they landed on the same solution as the tech industry; litigation. But now that I really think about it, what else can one do?

</comment><comment><USER52> Yeah, Apple clearly invented plastic and shapes.

</comment><comment><USER53> HP deserves to get roasted in the court of public opinion on this one. Absolutely pathetic. This is the type of stuff no-name Chinese fly by night companies do to make a quick buck hoping they can trick consumers into buying the wrong thing. It's so shameless I'm surprised they didn't change their logo to a pear or something. If HP has any self respect left they need to just discontinue this product now and publicly apologize to Apple.

</comment><comment><USER54> The look of all-in-one computers is fluff. What people are doing with computers is the heart of the matter. Why aren't people doing more with such large multitouch interfaces available for so cheap? (I've seen all-in-one multitouch PCs for a little over $1000.)

I think one could do something really cool with statistics and scheduling programs using such interfaces. Why aren't more people using these things as little physical desktops?

<comment><USER55> A big screen laying flat on a desk is uncomfortable to look at, and a big screen facing towards you like a computer display is uncomfortable to touch continuously. The term is "gorilla arm".

<comment><USER54> _> A big screen laying flat on a desk is uncomfortable to look at_

What about a "drafting table" setup?

 _> a big screen facing towards you like a computer display is uncomfortable to touch continuously. The term is "gorilla arm"._

Please re-read my proposal as written by someone who's already aware of this.

<comment><USER55> > What about a "drafting table" setup?

Sounds interesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> This all-in-one is ok but their Z1 workstation is actually pretty nice. It actually has easily accessible internals.

</comment><comment><USER51> HP Makes the TouchSmart line which is an all-in-one computer and is not similar to an iMac so clearly they know how to do original design. So what they heck were they thinking when they released this product? Did they think no one would notice? It boggles the mind.

</comment><comment><USER57> I wonder why there was no such furor when refrigerator companies copied each other's designs.

</comment><comment><USER58> If I was HP I would be ashamed of releasing such a product. I would not want to be an engineer working there. Perhaps they don't have any engineers left which is why they are releasing such a knock-off.

</comment><comment><USER59> In my opinion, the computer itself looks nothing like an imac. The keyboard, and touchpad however, do look exactly like Apple's equivalent products.

</comment><comment><USER60> Apple preys on the ignorant. HP now preys on the ignorant of the ignorant who don't know the difference.

<comment><USER61> ? Because they take design seriously? And another company wants in on their success? Is this not normal for design - cause i feel like it is. Company X finds pleasing design, others copy. Some other company / designer innovates, some other company copies.

I really don't know what all the fuss is about.

<comment><USER60> No, I meant the Apple consumers who make the decision to buy a product based on looks over most other factor due to their cognitive ability. Within that subsection of consumers lays an even more naive group of consumers who would buy an HP Spectre, not knowing the difference from an iMac.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> It's what's on the inside that counts.

</comment><comment><USER63> The marketing tag line being: "Sue us!"

</comment><comment><USER64> so the Personal Computer industry is like every other industry. How is this news.

Don't manufacturers/designers in the fashion industry (sunglasses, clothing, hats, shoes ETC.) The auto industry, house design, art, home furnishing, appliance, Hollywood movies and sitcoms, advertising industry, landscape (I could go on and on) do the same thing?

Please stop with this...

<comment><USER65> There is a slight difference though, you should still be able to tell distinctly at a distance this is an HP vs. a Mac. Having a high resolution display built into an all-in-one body makes sense to copy, but using the same color scheme regardless of materials with the same shapes makes it look like a copy of an iMac.

<comment><USER64> I am not disputing that HP made it to look like a Mac. I am only saying that this happens in literally every industry, yet we don't see headlines because some pair of Walmart imported sunglasses look like Oakleys.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> <start pathetic argument> I can't believe Apple is suing HP for making a computer with a keyboard, mouse and a monitor with round corners. Apple is a patent troll, suing instead of innovating</end android fanboi argument>

</comment><comment><USER67> Downvote</comment>


Built in Rails a disposable burner email service - <AUTHOR> https://burnonce.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is in beta right now but pretty much everything works. Would love to get some feedback on this to see how I can make it better!</comment>


How to DIY a Product Launch Video with No Experience, and for Free - <AUTHOR> https://clearfounder.com/how-to-diy-a-product-launch-video-with-no-experience-and-for-free/ <comment><USER2> I think the way to do anything well is to reverse engineer what other people are doing well, find a pattern, break it into small bite size steps and then do it or get help with the step you can't do it on your own.

Always beats imagination or reinventing the wheel.

<comment><USER3> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Do you really need a video ? I think a clean and clear website is much better, and much faster to process by the potential consumer (it might depend on the target audience though).

<comment><USER5> This. Great copy and clean UI for the website does a real good job of explaining the product. I personally, dislike watching videos to understand the product, until unless maybe if it is a physical product.

<comment><USER6> It is said that if people can't understand your product right away, you're doing it wrong. But Slack is very successful and yet people just understand what it is after watching a video of it

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Very cool and I think the product and landing page are gorgeous!

One bit of feedback on the vid is I think it could be better timed to the music - the text zooms should be on the beat breaks.

<comment><USER8> This! It's more work during editing but worth it. You've got a good uplifting soundtrack, to transfer the vibe to your video you need to match its beat. Add zoom as mentioned elsewhere and you've got yourself a professional video!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Great effort.

> The bad news is, I don't know of the equivalents of these for Windows, so > all I can simply say for this article is you'll need a macOS device to > follow along.

Does anyone have suggestions for Windows-supporting alternatives?

<comment><USER10> Really suprises me that a company would go out of their way to make software for Apple products exclusively.

No B2B, customers are likely pre-college grads, and the pool of customers are tiny.

Anyone like to hypothesize why a company would be exclusive to Apple?

<comment><USER11> For media production apple is the market leader and the biggest market by a long way

<comment><USER10> Source? Is this true? I've seen apple users say this, but none of them are out of college, or they are STAHMs.

Does enterprise use this? Any big companies?

<comment><USER12> I'm in VFX, in one of the leading houses (5000+ employees over 5 sites). We use Linux for 90% of our workload, but the rest is probably evenly split between Windows for the occasional tools that don't have a Linux release, or Macs.

Interestingly, its mostly the admin/production/HR team who are on the Macs. Additionally all company laptops are MacBooks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Nice. I did a classical animation demo [0] for a product that we worked on a few years ago and was surprised by how much we could achieve by simply following general advice. Although I wouldn't recommend anyone going down the path of classical animation for their product demos, the excursion surely made an impact on me.

[0] [https://bubblin.io/cover/demo-in-sixty-seconds-by-marvin- dan...](https://bubblin.io/cover/demo-in-sixty-seconds-by-marvin-danig)

Edit: Added a link.

</comment><comment><USER14> Videos are super helpful when trying to convey the real value of a product to users. So many people skim sites however when it comes to video they become completely immersed.

<comment><USER15> For me it's the opposite. If a video doesn't get to the point within a few seconds I skip it. However, I read specs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Great effort!

Assuming the video creator is here, here's a quick tip to make the video even better: zoom in and crop.

Currently you seem to be showing the entire app window. Try only showing the feature you are highlighting. This makes the video better for small devices and on computer screens when the viewer hasn't gone full-screen.

<comment> zupa-hu Except the viewer is loosing context. I'd go the opposite direction and show the entire screen. (Of course shrink your screen size to be just right.) If you want, maybe zoom in later once you have given context. I don't know otherwise if this runs in the browser or if it is a standalone app.

<comment><USER12> I'm pretty sure you are both talking about the same thing. The used phrase "zoom in and crop" implies starting with context, zooming in, and showing the close-up feature. Otherwise s/he could have just said "crop".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The app seems to be a cross between MindNode and iA Writer. Which to me, as an active user of both those apps, seems like a great idea.

<comment><USER18> $40 seems excessive for what is essentially a hierarchical TODO list.

I simply open a google doc in B4 page format landscape and keep a list with bullets/sub-bullets.

It's not ideal, but I haven't found a mind-mapping tool that materially provides anything better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Thanks for the tutorial. If you don't zoom into where the magic happens, users don't have context and don't understand. Also didn't like the hard cuts. Camtasia is a tool with fantastic zoom and transition effects. Not free but well worth it.

<comment> zupa-hu +1. Camtasia Studio has been some of my best dollars spent. Also it's noise removal and volume adjustment features are INCREDIBLE. I mean, just push a button, done, and it's, WOW.

I also bought a great mic (AT2020USB+) so that viewers were actually able to hear what I say. I went as far as recording the audio separately to avoid my notebook fan noise, keyboard clicks, etc. But I later figured that the high quality mic + Camtasia's noise removal are so great that I can save the (huge amount of) time and use the audio that I record on the go. (I was mainly recording 1-2 minute how-to videos.) Now recording a 1 minute video takes me ~an hour instead of a day that it took at the start.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Question non snarky question: Why do some people opt to host their videos in vimeo instead of youtube? Are there benefits or is it the cool contrarian thing to do atm?

Great article. I hope to use it to do something similar soon :)

<comment><USER21> Vimeo publishers with paid subscriptions have a greater degree of control over the appearance of the video player. In particular, they can remove the Vimeo branding or replace it with their own branding. On the other hand, YouTube always displays its own logo on its video player.

[https://vimeo.com/blog/post/customize-the-embedded-vimeo- pla...](https://vimeo.com/blog/post/customize-the-embedded-vimeo-player)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Could not handle the music and closed 10 seconds into the video.

</comment><comment><USER23> For anyone not wanting to follow the link trail, here's the website: [https://writemapper.com](https://writemapper.com)

</comment><comment><USER24> This is great. I'm going to start a YouTube channel in the next week or so and stuff like this is very helpful!

</comment><comment><USER25> This is great and your product looks interesting, too! Thanks for the post.

</comment><comment><USER26> I really like this post.

I've been doing this for a few months myself : < 1.5 min videos for products I'm working on then I share the video around - and after a few iterations can post it to a website.

I've been doing a "story style" voice narration over my videos "Meet _________ she's a ________ that needs to accomplish _________. Product _______ helps her do that ....."

that said - I like the OP's non narration style too : Headline -> product screen -> headline ..."

Here is a summary of the tools and process I use on windows 10:

1) write down the narrated story in a google doc - with individual, numbered "scenes" ..these will be only 1-3 sentences each.

2) practice narrating into Audacity (an audio tool). A decent mic is a good idea - I use a Samson Q2U.

3) iterate on #1 & #2 over and over until you get the text and time to be < 1.5 mins. This is harder than it seems and listening to one's own voice is grating ;)

4) export to mp3 and share with some friends/family to make sure the audio and intonation sounds good. (hint: before exporting, use Audacity's "Normalize" effect .this will attempt to bring the audio to a 0db level which is helpful in the video editing phase when mixing with background music and the audio ducking features).

4.5) once you have the audio narration wrapped up, export audio into individual audio clips for each scene in the written story. This helps if you want to move things around at video editing time.

5) product mockups are done in draw.io , then I just grab the a screen shot of the product mockup screens to be included in the video.

6) screen recordings with a real product / desktop etc are grabbed using OBS (open broadcaster software). This is a GREAT package and works great with single or multi-monitor setup as well as multiple webcam sources all at once if you need them (ex. to show mobile / hardware / physical product along side the desktop software).

7) I bring in other scene images purchased from Shutterstock. This is KEY if you want to have the same actor in different scenes throughout the video; and its hard to get this from the free image sites like pixabay. If there is one thing to spend money on in this whole process - its shutterstock - I can't emphasize this enough. Seriously - the images are great and seem to almost be ready made for this kind of activity.

8) Background music - just like the OP - youtube audio library is awesome : [https://www.youtube.com/audiolibrary/music](https://www.youtube.com/audiolibrary/music)

9) Video editing (remember we're talking windows 10 here) - I use Pinnacle studio 22 - its decent once you get through all the very frustrating UI bugs and bugs in encoded output. I like it for the pan & zoom effects (think Ken Burns effect) and audio ducking. If you don't buy a package, try starting with the free Davinci Resolve - its pretty good and what I would use if starting over. (in fact the only reason I purchased Pinnacle was becuase I forgot about Davinci Resolve)

9.5) putting it all together in video is a matter of dropping in all the images from shutterstock, screen shots of draw.io mockups, obs video captures, background music and narrated audio clips - and then spending HOURS (I'm still a novice) getting the transitions and audio lined up just right.

9.6) use "audio ducking" to cause the background music to go down in level when the voice narration is present and go up in level during transitions or non-narrated demo sections.

hope this helps...

</comment><comment><USER27> Any pc equivalent? Would be helpful.

<comment><USER26> I added a comment to this thread about windows 10 tools and my process. hope that is helpful...</comment></comment>


Apple helped make 'top secret' iPod for US government - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53835079 <comment><USER2> Here's the link to the original article about this, instead of the BBC's less interesting re-hash of someone else's work:

[https://tidbits.com/2020/08/17/the-case-of-the-top-secret- ip...](https://tidbits.com/2020/08/17/the-case-of-the-top-secret-ipod/)

<comment><USER3> It's good to link to both, but the BBC article does contain some extra information.

<comment><USER4> The BBC article is also less than 1/4 of the size, for those not enthused about reading news in short-story form.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I look forward to the day when one of these makes an appearance on one of those prototype/collector forums.

"So my friend who used to work at the DOE was getting rid of some stuff and he had this iPod, and it looks like a regular iPod but I took a look inside and does anybody know what the hell this is...?"

<comment><USER6> You bet!

Does anyone have the link to the story about the guy who found a Made in China power strip w/ a hidden bug inside?

<comment><USER7> You can buy them: [https://www.trackers-cam.com/en/gsm-spy- microphone/329-gsm-c...](https://www.trackers-cam.com/en/gsm-spy- microphone/329-gsm-connected-spy-microphone-power-strip.html)

The power strip calls you as soon as it detects a sound.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think the focus on nuclear power in the article is naive at best. Bechtel helps run the national labs, which work on (among other things) nuclear weapons and anti-proliferation. I would think it's more likely this would be for anti-proliferation work. Have a CIA asset walk near a suspected nuclear facility with this in their pocket while looking like a civilian. Collect radiation data, and if they get arrested or something, it's just an ipod.

<comment><USER9> Its funny really because I never took my uncle seriously in the 90's when he said I should develop my own Geiger counter amongst other electronic devices. Of course I didnt realise the significance of the fact he had access to the Prestel system which the Govt and Royal Family used for messaging before email became the standard in days when computer hacking was still legal. He also supplied GCHQ with telecomes equipment. Probably contributes to reasons why he broke out of HMP Parkhurst and tried to escape the country. If you wrote his degree titles out in full, it would take half a page of A4 before he could even start writing a letter.

It makes me wonder what he knew back then, but as I cant visit him, if he is ever let out, or I dont get another attempt on my life, maybe one day we'll meet & he'll spill the beans more openly.

Of course, I can get nodules of raw uranium sticking out the soil eroded by the sea along the Jurassic Coast in Dorset, UK. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to make a dirty nuke or even a decent nuke. There is enough information online from reputable sources like the BBC, Youtube showing 50year WW2 US & UK Govt archive footage and interviews in scientific journals who worked on the Manhattan Project and other nuclear projects to piece together the "meta data" in order to make one, including spotting the spurious info which will make you fail if one should attempt to make one.

<comment><USER10> > If you wrote his degree titles out in full, it would take half a page of A4 > before he could even start writing a letter.

No, his full degree titles do not take up 300 words.

If you want to converse online without sounding completely crazy, focus on reducing the ridiculous hyperbole and stick to short, comprehensive and digestible statements that flow together and form a cohesive argument/statement.

<comment><USER11> But the comment wasn't intended to be a cohesive argument/statement, it was a personal anecdote with mild exaggeration for the effect of being entertaining. I don't see the commenter as crazy at all; at worst a bit overenthusiastic to share details about their uncle who probably had some sort of security clearance. Why do you have to be so rude?

<comment><USER12> The username may hold a clue as to why the individuals communications are a bit disjointed.

<comment><USER11> Perhaps, but it is in no way an excuse to be impolite to them.

<comment><USER12> Nor was I.... good thing I suppose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This reminds me of the Xerox machine in the Soviet Embassy. Xerox embedded a small camera that recorded every photocopied document on microfilm and recovered the microfilm for the CIA whenever they serviced the machine.

<comment><USER14> So the soviets didn't bother to check the american made Xerox machine for bugs and just let it rip at their confidential documents? I find that hard to belive. Got a source?

<comment><USER13> This is when Xerox machines were first invented; otherwise they would probably have used a Soviet-produced photocopier instead of using a magical American machine in the first place.

There are lots of sources but this is one: [https://electricalstrategies.com/about/in-the-news/spies- in-...](https://electricalstrategies.com/about/in-the-news/spies-in-the-xerox- machine/)

<comment><USER15> If true, that is stunningly naive by the Soviets. Almost too naive. Are we certain they weren't intentionally feeding the machine bad intelligence?

<comment><USER13> People in the real world often have terrible opsec. Maybe we take our instincts about information security for granted these days. Maybe the Soviets just photocopied their own butts to prank the CIA. I honestly don't know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> tweet by Tony Fadell (iPod):

      Absolutely spot on David Shayer…
      This project was real w/o a doubt.
      There was whole surreal drama & interesting story about how this project was kicked off & then kept secret.

      The Case of the Top Secret iPod

[https://twitter.com/tfadell/status/1295727727606104064](https://twitter.com/tfadell/status/1295727727606104064)

<comment><USER17> (For those not in the know, Tony was the leader of iPod Projects back then, basically acting as full 100% confirmation of this story being true.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Some limited discussion on this from a couple of days ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24188791](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24188791)

<comment><USER19> Also: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24205888](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24205888)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > We on the iPod engineering team were impressed. But Apple corporate didn't > like it. Starting with the iPod nano, the operating system was signed with a > digital signature to block the Linux hackers (and others). The boot ROM > checked the digital signature before loading the operating system; if it > didn't match, it wouldn't boot.

Why oh WHY are companies like this? If we want to put our own OS on a cool bit of hardware, what is the problem with that? Absolutely shocking mentality that needs to die (but looks like frankly it is getting worse).

<comment><USER21> Giving you the freedom to run arbitrarily code on your device means giving your government the freedom to run arbitrarily code on _your_ device, and it means giving every hacker on the planet who finds a remote exploit the freedom to run arbitrarily code on _your_ device.

I don't mind that freedom being limited to desktops and specialist hardware like Raspberry Pi and Arduino, and taken away from everything else like a phone or an MP3 player or a printer.

What's the saying? The 'S' in IoT stands for 'security'?

<comment><USER22> You know it's possible to have a signed boot loader without locking the owner out of the device.

Moreover, I do mind such freedom being taken away.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > "I have a special assignment for you. Your boss doesn't know about it. > You'll help two engineers from the US Department of Energy build a special > iPod. Report only to me.

So how does this work in weekly on-on-one meetings with his boss?

<comment><USER24> Answered here:

> My boss was told I was working on a special project and not to ask > questions.

<comment><USER25> If only I could figure out how to get that message to my boss...

<comment><USER24> Easy, have your boss's boss tell them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> So Agent Cody Banks was realistic after all: [https://www.icollector.com/item.aspx?i=16246907&mobile=0](https://www.icollector.com/item.aspx?i=16246907&mobile=0)

</comment><comment><USER14> Can anyone be so kind as to explain to me why did Apple accept to do this work without contract and payment, as the blog describes?

Engineer hours cost the company time they would otherwise invest in their current products in development.

Why do it for free? It's not like the US Gov can't afford it.

<comment><USER27> There is a cultural precedent here with Graphing Calculator: [https://www.pacifict.com/Story/](https://www.pacifict.com/Story/)

<comment><USER28> Not really a precedent, imho, but still a great story.

My favorite part, the last line, "We wanted to release a Windows version as part of Windows 98, but sadly, Microsoft has effective building security."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Nobody has asked it yet,so I will. What is the use case for this device. I know, the article says "measure radiation without being noticed", but what are the actual situations where you would want to do that?

Presumably sending spies to gather data on nuclear weapons production sites? Wouldn't those sites have crazy operational security and would confiscate things like iPods before entering anyways?

Or is the idea to detect facilities that are building dirty-bombs in dense urban areas (a-la some scene set in middle-eastern country X from the show 'Homeland')

<comment><USER30> The use case for the iPod could be anything, but one time that Swedish authorities wanted to covertly measure radiation was during Whiskey on the rocks ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_S-363](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_S-363)). They pulled up small boats beside the sub and put Geiger counters directly against the hull while pretending to do something else.

<comment><USER31> Just goes to show, you really should take your whiskey neat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Here's the link to the original article - [https://tidbits.com/2020/08/17/the- case-of-the-top-secret-ip...](https://tidbits.com/2020/08/17/the-case-of-the- top-secret-ipod/)

</comment><comment><USER33> If you've looked at the open source particle detector[1] you see that the "sensor" can be a reverse biased diode. Nothing very fancy.

[1] [https://github.com/ozel/DIY_particle_detector](https://github.com/ozel/DIY_particle_detector)

</comment><comment><USER34> Why would you go through the pain of all this, just make the copy of the case and mimic the software UI - underneath it can be all of your custom hardware and software. No need to bother Apple. This is how most of the fake iPhones are made in China.

<comment><USER35> Because it takes tens of millions of dollars to replicate the functionality of the Ipod-Iphone.

Chinese do it in a completely different way, using prefabricated components.

Secret services can not use prefabricated Chinese components because those need to be audited and that cost millions too.

So using already made American companies components' is the obvious solution. It just cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

<comment><USER36> > _already made American companies components '_ made in china

FTFY

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This makes me wonder, I know Linux can run on some iPods, but did anybody ever run homebrew apps or games on the native iPod OS?

<comment><USER38> I remembered there were third-party games available on the iPod, but checking [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod_game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod_game) , it doesn't look like an SDK ever made it to the public.

<comment><USER37> Yeah, I'm amazed that there aren't any homebrew ones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Assuming this is all true - how does something like this leak? Wouldn't someone go to prison for the leak?

<comment><USER40> Reasonable possibility nobody involved signed an NDA or filled out any paperwork, given how unofficial it was. It's been fifteen years, it's likely the hardware in question is long deprecated in favor of covert hardware that looks like a modern smartphone or something.

<comment><USER41> Right, someone walking around carrying an iPod has gone from notable to mundane and back to notable. No longer the way to blend in.

<comment><USER40> It's also possibly one of the reasons we're so worried about Huawei here in the US right now: We know what our guys can do. We may know a fair bit about what China can or has done. And nobody wants to talk specifically about what those things are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Can I see one and inspect the hardware? Remember, we discounted Bloomberg's story concerning SuperMicro implants (likely justifiably) for not having hardware and not naming sources. Does this story about the ability for hardware to be altered from a large manufacturer at the behest of the government with so few knowing about it for so long (even within the company), unreported by anyone else, and not going on record with their names about it until way later give any credence to other similar stories that may not yet be at the reveal names and insider info stage?

(to clarify, I believe this story and am skeptical of the Bloomberg one, I just find the 15-year secrecy and limited scope notable)

<comment><USER43> There's a reason why Bloomberg didn't retract the story.

The idea that senior execs know everything that happens at their respective company is borderline nonsense.

<comment><USER44> > There's a reason why Bloomberg didn't retract the story.

Not a valid one. The story was false.

<comment><USER45> I honestly suspect the reporter was at least very confused, but the firmware for the BMC on SuperMicro boards has had some serious security vulnerabilities from time to time --- I wonder if that's the base of story, and it got confused from there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> > Only four people at Apple knew about this secret project. Me, the director > of iPod Software, the vice president of the iPod Division, and the senior > vice president of Hardware.

Not even Steve Jobs? Shouldn't this have been his decision?

<comment><USER47> I doubt Steve Jobs would have submitted to the burdens of getting and retaining top secret clearance.

<comment><USER48> Jobs had a top secret clearance. [https://www.informationweek.com/desktop/steve-jobs-the- fbi-f...](https://www.informationweek.com/desktop/steve-jobs-the-fbi- file/d/d-id/1102747)

<comment><USER47> For only about two years in the late 80's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Apple are generally considered to be best when it comes to protecting their user's privacy (edit: issues like this aside).

It does make me wonder what the others are doing.

<comment><USER50> No, Apple wants you to think they're the best when it comes to protecting user's privacy.

Don't forget Apple was one of the many companies part of the PRISM program.

<comment><USER51> Talk to any engineer at Apple and they'll tell you that privacy is involved with every feature development and pervades every discussion internally. It's not a facade.

<comment><USER52> Friend used to be a security engineer at Apple and was thoroughly disillusioned with their privacy stance after working there for three years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Many years ago I worked on open source MP3 player firmware at Rockbox.org, we created a feature to develop skins for the UI so you could make it look exactly like the original firmware if you wanted. Why wouldn't they use that, from the secrecy of their own office, instead of asking Apple (or any other manufacturer) to participate and risk the kind of "leak" that we see now?

</comment><comment><USER54> I'm amused that the Apple's IPod software team developed on windows machines. (from [https://tidbits.com/2020/08/17/the-case-of-the-top-secret- ip...](https://tidbits.com/2020/08/17/the-case-of-the-top-secret-ipod/) )

<comment><USER55> I'll bet that many of the people who worked on iTunes probably developed on Windows as well. I'm sure Apple would _prefer_ that every iPod user own a Mac, but at the time it launched, the market would've been like 90% PC, so surely there would've been an incentive to ensure compatibility with your dominant user-base.

<comment><USER56> > I'm sure Apple would prefer that every iPod user own a Mac

Not if it's an old mac ;-) I was an early iPod touch adopter (bought with X-mas money IIRC). Plugged it into my iBook G4 and was informed the version of iTunes was both too old and the latest this laptop was going to get.

Plugged it into a Windows 2000/XP machine (which I think was already old for the time) and it managed to get the latest version of iTunes.

Now of course, I'm aware of the context of the PPC to Intel shift and that there was a non-zero cost to maintaining both streams of iTunes build but it really put me off Apple at the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I doubt this project was "Top Secret" ... If it was, I doubt we would be reading about it here...

<comment><USER58> If Shayer's (in turn, Apple's) participation were classified, he would be looking at a serious criminal offense for writing the article. The hardware and functionality of the devices that the Bechtel engineers were integrating, about which Shayer only speculates, could well have been so classified, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> I expect that the real purpose of the project was simply to let those two engineers learn iPod development. Afterward, they had the expertise and software tools to make an iPod do many things, not just collect data.

</comment><comment><USER60> Apple will neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a project.

</comment><comment><USER61> I guess everyone on HN is checking their discs for hidden partions now...

</comment><comment><USER62> related? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet#History)

<comment><USER63> Maybe, but that wouldn't necessarily require modifications to the iPod. iPods could be used as USB external drives and you could just load it on there without having to mess with the OS at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> This will be Stuxnet.

This has nothing to do with a geiger counter or measuring radioactivity.

Watch the doco Zero Days. It's an ok round up of Stuxnet.

<comment><USER65> Stuxnet has been well broken down and described. It had nothing to do with iPods with surreptitious recording capabilities.

<comment><USER64> Since you are an expert, can you explain the zero day that would be needed to get Stuxnet onto the SCADA/first computer?

Obviously the final product might not have used this iPod. It was a huge operation on many levels with failed projects. This iPod also obviously might not have been for recording, since that's a level one misdirect, oh it's secret spy recording device, person who's watched to much James Bond.

But how did they do the 'usb' zero day since you know it isn't a iPod?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Wow, interesting read. Wonder what else they do to normal apple products.

</comment><comment><USER67> yup they helped a spy not get killed ....

<comment><USER67> legit why did this get downvoted?...

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Blogspam from [https://tidbits.com/2020/08/17/the-case-of-the-top-secret- ip...](https://tidbits.com/2020/08/17/the-case-of-the-top-secret-ipod/)

</comment><comment><USER69> __

<comment><USER70> Get this straight - it was essentially bribing four of their workers to make an "authenic" iPod that had added functionality to secretly gather it. An overpriced pork bespoke hardware hacking project, not adding bugs to every iPod produced or anything. If anything they would be annoyed not grateful over the covert poaching and they certainly would get blocked if they tried to sue anyone over it but the losses were petty/background cost of doing business anyway.

There isn't any factual basis where that incident contribuites to that fallacious narrative. If I were a plumber and doing work on a CIA building they might do a background check so deep that it finds and analyzes any colon polyps to ensure I won't be planting any bugs in the plumbing but it doesn't mean "I am pretty much the CIA."

<comment><USER71> Even less - it was asking for some tech support from Apple to learn how to hack Apple Hardware with their _own_ (Bechtel) engineers - the actual hardware/software was done by Bechtel. Given this particular engineer is talking about it - they didn't have to undergo security clearance (if they had, they wouldn't be talking about it. Ever.)

All apple did was provide a little bit of JTAG/Build/Source Code support. The rest was up to a third party.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> what's an ipod?

</comment><comment><USER73> Ahem, ahem. Would it be surprising if such a "crazy cool technology" is embedded into the AirPods of late and being used by your political opponents?

<comment><USER74> How do you suppose AirPods with a built-in hidden Geiger counter could be used to attack political opponents?

<comment><USER73> Ah, reaction is often telling. Thank you downvoters. ;-)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Interesting sci-fi movies BY TOPIC? - <AUTHOR> My favorite, ML-based movie recommendation website is (temporarily?) down.
The main reason I like SF (movies) is they explore intriguing ideas. HN has had a number of threads about favorite SF movies, but they tend to repeat the same movies. And some topics are very repetitive, for instance it's hard to find a time-travel movie which does not show the grandfather paradox.
In this post, we can take advantage of threaded nature of HN and create a list of most interesting SF movies by topic. <comment>-----
Rules:
1. Top-level comments are for topics ONLY. I suggest not to upvote any of them, my intent is not karma fishing.
2. Only mention individual movies in comments of 2nd level and later. (index 1 when starting from index 0)
3. For each movie, try to write a single sentence describing why this movie shows an interesting angle.
EDIT: go ahead and create a category if a movie focuses on a different theme! </comment><comment><USER2> I'd suggest to look at Letterboxd lists, ie.:

[https://letterboxd.com/illusorium/list/the-cyborg-is- taking-...](https://letterboxd.com/illusorium/list/the-cyborg-is-taking-over/)

[https://letterboxd.com/sofaraway/list/parallel- universes/](https://letterboxd.com/sofaraway/list/parallel-universes/)

You can search for your own topics of interest. If you want movie recommendations, it seems more sensible to browse through the site for movie buffs, not the one for engineers.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a good site, thanks.

I posted here precisely because I wanted /your/ recommedations. There are some super smart people around here, and HN is my main source of thought-provoking articles.

I mostly use a website with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Item- item_collaborative_filter...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Item- item_collaborative_filtering)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Topic: Cyborgs / Body Augmentation

<comment><AUTHOR> Robocop (1987)

A crime thriller, a corporate dystopia, a lot of black humor and some social commentary.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Topic: Environmentalist / Ecology

<comment><USER3> Annihilation (2018): A biologist signs up for a dangerous, secret expedition into a mysterious zone where the laws of nature don't apply.

Could fall into a few different categories but...

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> TOPIC: Artificial Intelligence

<comment><AUTHOR> Her (2013)

No guns, teleportation or colorful explosions, but a really in-depth exploration of (disembodied) artificial intelligence.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> TOPIC: (Alternate) Evolution

<comment><AUTHOR> Planet of the Apes (1968)

Partially an action movie, but poses a couple of good questions.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> TOPIC: Deep Sea Exploration

<comment><AUTHOR> The Abyss (1989)

An adventure in the depths

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Topic: Genetic Engineering

<comment><AUTHOR> Jurassic Park (1993)

Dinosaurs restored back to life from DNA.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> TOPIC: Memories (Identity)

<comment><AUTHOR> Blade Runner (1982) A classic movie about artificial humans (replicants).

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> TOPIC: Parallel Universes

<comment><USER3> The Endless (2017): As kids, they escaped a UFO death cult. Now, two adult brothers seek answers after an old videotape surfaces and brings them back to where they began.

Bizarre little indie film, worth sitting through.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> TOPIC: Alternate History

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> TOPIC: Post-Apocalyptic

<comment><AUTHOR> A Boy And His Dog (1975)

Very good for a shoestring budget movie. One of main influences for Fallout and Wasteland. A bit politically incorrect and you may find it offensive.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> TOPIC: What Is Reality

<comment><AUTHOR> Dark City (1999)

An overlooked, but very enjoyable movie in the style of The Matrix. WARNING! The theater version was shoe-horned into an action movie format, including a very spoiler-heavy narration at the start. Either watch the Director's Cut, or mute sound and fast forward to when the title screen.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> TOPIC: Future society

<comment><USER4> Snowpiercer

[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706620/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706620/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)

Ecological dystopia...on a train.

Has some plot holes, but original story with great action sequences.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> TOPIC: Colonization

<comment><AUTHOR> Prospect (2018)

A slow-paced movie, and pacing is its main flaw, but it's an interesting vision of colonies with a great visual style.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> TOPIC: Space Travel

<comment><AUTHOR> 2001: A Space Odyssey

This is what this movie is primarily about, although it has an iconic second act (AI) and a terrible last act. One of most realistic depictions of space travel to date.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> TOPIC: Time Travel

<comment><AUTHOR> Les Visiteurs (1993) (Guests)

A comedy about a medieval knight and his squire traveling into modern times.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> TOPIC: Alien Life

<comment><USER4> Contact

[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2)

Not sure where to put it, so I'll stick it here. Deals with the _politics_ behind alien contact, which seems even more relevant in today's political climate.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> TOPIC: Robotics

<comment><AUTHOR> Virus (1999)

An American tugboat crew finds an abandoned Russian research vessel. Very good special effects and overall a pretty unique movie, but poor execution. I guess it doesn't stand the test of time but I liked the oppressive atmosphere when I was young. Watch this if you liked System Shock.</comment></comment>


Web Push API centralized nature - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/w3c/push-api/issues/243 <comment><AUTHOR> tl;dr

Web Push API requires centralized service the messages are sent over what has serious privacy implications. Android Chrome makes it even worse because it does not allow changing the Push API provider (Google's proprietary GCM/FCM is used)</comment>


Valve says turning away researcher reporting Steam vulnerability was a mistake - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/08/valve-says-turning-away-researcher-reporting-steam-vulnerability-was-a-mistake/ <comment><USER2> Shady thing happens -> Lucky enough for issue to go viral -> Company makes an apology mainly bragging about how much they've paid out on H1 and playing some blame game.

Count me not surprised.

A company that goes out of their way to dispute the CVE, to turn around a day after a PR firestorm, is not actually turning around. They are saving face.

<comment><USER3> Or, the systems in place didn't work as intended and Valve took steps to rectify that. Sure it'd be better to get it right from the start, but people and organizations are fallible and the best thing to do is to make things right when they do fall.

<comment><USER2> This is not Valve's first time at the rodeo, and they aren't a small indie company learning the ropes.

The apology was loaded with blame shifting and bragging about previous H1 payments, neither of these lead me to be more lenient with Valve.

The hacker is still banned from submitting bugs, for god's sake. Nor has he heard from Valve.

Edit: They even disputed the CVE, manually, removing any doubt that this wasnt an oopsie caused by a system.

<comment><USER3> "system" doesn't refer to hackerone, but rather Valve's bug bounty program in aggregate. It seems pretty clear to me that the root of this issue was failing to understand the scope of the vulnerability, leading to erroneous dispute of the CVE.

> We are also aware that the researcher who discovered the bugs was > incorrectly turned away through our HackerOne bug bounty program, where his > report was classified as out of scope. This was a mistake.

> Our HackerOne program rules were intended only to exclude reports of Steam > being instructed to launch previously installed malware on a user's machine > as that local user. Instead, misinterpretation of the rules also led to the > exclusion of a more serious attack that also performed local privilege > escalation through Steam.

Valve seems to be pretty explicit about the fact that the issue was due to bad rules over what is and isn't in scope.

Un-banning the researcher is one HackerOne's end, isn't it?

<comment><USER2> > _Valve seems to be pretty explicit about the fact that the issue was due to > bad rules over what is and isn 't in scope._

I could perhaps forgive a misunderstanding over fringe-cases or a company that is new to the H1 platform. However, we are talking about a LPE in this case, with a company who has themselves bragged about their familiarity with the platform. I would expect that they would spend some time checking their scope for something like LPE's and making sure it is crystal clear.

> _Un-banning the researcher is one HackerOne 's end, isn't it?_

I was under the impression that each corporation running a bounty is in charge of allowing or disallowing users to their specific bounty, not H1. But to be fair, I'm not positive of this.

I understand you may think I'm being hard on Valve, but given how many computers the Steam Client is installed on, the age and size of the company, their familiarity with H1, their past responses to situations like this, not attempting to get in touch with the researcher they said it was a mistake to turn away (and there was a 2nd researcher turned away), and the half-hearted response - I simply can't understand making excuses for them. They should be held to a higher standard than Ma and Pa's coffee shop.

They do not appear to be acting in good faith, but rather trying to put out a fire and sweep it under the rug.

Edit:

To pile on, here is an open letter sent to Valve in 2014. This is not a new pattern for Valve.

[https://steamdb.info/blog/valve-security-open- letter/](https://steamdb.info/blog/valve-security-open-letter/)

An excerpt:

 _" This letter is collaboratively written by various members of Steam's developer community regarding our concerns with Valve security behaviours, in particular Valve's inconsistency in rewarding those who report bugs (occasionally punishing people), the speed at which Valve addresses bug reports (if at all), and the problems users face attempting to report bugs to Valve"_

<comment><USER3> > I understand you may think I'm being hard on Valve, but given how many > computers the Steam Client is installed on, the age and size of the company, > their familiarity with H1, their past responses to situations like this, not > attempting to get in touch with the researcher they said it was a mistake to > turn away (and there was a 2nd researcher turned away), and the half-hearted > response - I simply can't understand making excuses for them. They should be > held to a higher standard than Ma and Pa's coffee shop.

This doesn't make sense. For the number of clients that have their software installed on their computes, Valve is a tiny company (~360 employees). I work in a 1000+ person company and we have only a fraction of the number of installed clients. We also don't know the volume of reports Valve is handling, and the ratio of spurious reports to genuine reports.

The open letter you link to talks about how Valve doesn't even have a bug bounty program at all - so I'm not sure how this is supposed to serve as evidence that Valve's bug bounty program is poorly managed. If anything, it shows that the company listened to criticism and subsequently established a bug bounty program. This is still an overall positive delta, even if their bug bounty program is less than ideal. And when they do make a mistake, they responded constructively to public criticism. I'm really at a loss as to why I'm supposed to see Valve as the villain here.

<comment><USER2> You cherry-pick a one-off example (# of clients) and ignore the rest. Feel free to remove that one if you don't think it is pertinent, and address the remainder of my comment.

You also cherry-picked the letter. Yes, 5 years after a history and pattern of security negligence, they are now able to repeat that pattern on H1. Hurray, positive delta.

Even if all issues have been addressed, the fact that it has happened in the past (many times) means that Valve deserves skepticism going forward. You a big fan of Facebook now that they deleted those cleartext passwords? They are cool now and anything else that comes to light must just be an oopsie, deserving of no scrutiny? Or are you skeptical because Facebook has a proven pattern of dishonesty? The same thing applies to Valve. They have a proven pattern.

> _they responded constructively to public criticism_ Uhh, you'll have to link > me to a constructive response of public criticism.

Since you cherry-picked one issue from the letter (which should still prove to show the pattern of bad behavior that, at the very least, used to exist), I will put a few others here:

> _A few members of the developer community, and no doubt members of the > community at large, have received infractions against their accounts for the > discovery and disclosure of bugs – a subset of which are similar to those > that have been rewarded with economy items._

> _During this time we caught the occasional mention that Valve's servers were > indeed leaking sensitive information (such as partner session IDs, logins > and cleartext passwords), however upon patching the bug Valve did not > mandate a password reset._

> _As a result, an unknown user changed a different app's name up to three > days after the servers were patched[4] – proving that Steam Partner > credentials were indeed exposed and abused during Heartbleed._

I see bad security practices piled on bad practices piled onto a culture that spurns security.

> _I 'm really at a loss as to why I'm supposed to see Valve as the villain > here._

I'm not telling you to look at them as a villain. I'm saying that perhaps, given a proven history of bad practices, it would be good to look at this situation with a skeptical eye (they are trying to save face, nothing else) rather than shrug it off as an "Oops! Haha, we didn't scope our bounty quite right!".

Obviously we don't see eye to eye on the subject.

I'll keep looking at Valve, with their repeated security blunders, with skepticism. Feel free to continue to chalk it all up to an oops.

Remember the whole "Trust takes a lifetime to build, and a second to destroy"? That's the heart of where I am coming from.

<comment><USER3> > You cherry-pick a one-off example (# of clients) and ignore the rest. Feel > free to remove that one if you don't think it is pertinent, and address the > remainder of my comment.

> You also cherry-picked the letter. Yes, 5 years after a history and pattern > of security negligence, they are now able to repeat that pattern on H1. > Hurray, positive delta.

Those were the only two arguments you made to support your claim that Valve's bug bounty program is not as good as it should be. You're accusing me of "cherry picking" because I responded the only two arguments you made. This is just laughable, and it eliminated the rest of my doubt as to whether or not you're participating in this conversation in good faith.

Let's recap your previous comment: Your first paragraph didn't make an argument, it was sharing your opinion that you think Valve's management of their bug bounty isn't up to par and that highlighting the fact that they _have_ paid out hundreds of bounties amounts to "bragging". Your second paragraph is where you make the first actual argument, the claim that we should be able to hold them to a higher standard because of the ratio of their client install count and employees. And you added the link to the letter in an edit below that.

I respond to both of the claims you made (the client vs. employee count, and the letter) and now you're saying that I'm "cherry picking" because I'm responding to the two arguments that _you brought up_.

<comment><USER2> I must not have written it clearly, sorry.

Here is the only argument I've been trying to make:

Valve has a history of bad security practices and bad responses to security researchers. We should be skeptical of this announcement, coming immediately after bad PR coverage, because Valve has a history of bad security practices and bad responses to security researchers.

\----

In support of my main argument, which is that we should be skeptical of Valve's announcement because of their history, I made several supporting arguments.

Just in my last comment, you chose # of clients. Some of the other examples I gave (you guessed it, in support of my main argument, which I shouldn't need to repeat again):

> _the age and size of the company, their familiarity with H1, their past > responses to situations like this, not attempting to get in touch with the > researcher they said it was a mistake to turn away (and there was a 2nd > researcher turned away), and the half-hearted response - I simply can 't > understand making excuses for them._

The letter, which again served in support of my main argument, showed a few examples of how their security culture has always been this way. Although _since_ that time they have moved to H1, which I tried to point out doesn't really mean a whole lot when they were forced into it (and a reminder, we are looking at their pattern of bad behavior with security), the other issues raised include: Putting infractions against accounts that report bugs while rewarding others, and leaking sensitive information including passwords and not forcing a reset.

From some of my past comments, in support of the main argument, I gave examples such as: Shifting blame in their post, not contacting the researcher this entire PR mess is about, not allowing that researcher to submit bugs, and disputing the CVE which requires additional manual review of the bug (and is additional confirmation that they both a) understand that it is an LPE and b) that they don't think it's serious.)

I have done nothing but try to argue in good faith, I'm sorry you see it a different way.

Valve needs to gain my trust after years and years of proving to be negligent with security. They seem to have yours explicitly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Valves been on the down for years. Last minute chat app trying to mimic discord/curse, and introducing laughable vulnerabilities. VR gear more expensive and less relevant than competitors, no advancement on the tech that worked (steam controller, steam streaming box). Better mods through other sites and curse client. No more valve games, holding onto a dead engine.

Valve is coasting on prior success. If discord or curse was done better steams market share would nosedive.

This is one of many mistakes that happen when you dont compete and innovate.

<comment><USER5> Curse & Discord wouldn't even exist if Steam had evolved properly. They had game store + friends list + chat integrated like 15 years ago, big miss IMO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Well, maybe future serious bugs in valve/steam software should just go to open/public disclosure until they've actually paid out for the two bugs they denied previously.</comment>


Richard Clarke is sounding the alarm about another kind of 9/11 - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90378700/richard-clarke-is-sounding-the-alarm-about-another-kind-of-9-11 <comment><USER2> Is there anyway that people's, paundits, and expert opinion reported in USA media will not be mandated by the release of their latest book? It seems like there's no real news reporting anywhere, just marketing of books. Also, you might wonder why Americans are so clueless about history, climate or the world outside, assuming they've read all these books...</comment>


Former Windows Phone 7 GM on why it's failing - consumers can be easily fooled - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.computerworld.com/19489/former_windows_phone_7_general_manager_explains_why_the_platform_is_failing_consumers_can_be_easily_fooled

<comment><USER2> What phones? Maybe there are some in the US and Europe, but they could have tried to go for the rest of the world.

There are exactly zero Windows phones available for my carrier, I could choose between Android (affordable) and iPhone (expensive), or other stuff like Samsung's Bada phones or Nokia's dying Symbian phones.

I would have considered a Windows phone had it been an option, but I probably wouldn't have bought it unless it had superior hardware or performance, because Android has such a large ecosystem (I bought a Galaxy Ace for Christmas).

Edit: the article basically answers itself: "Microsoft also needs to get a wider range of phones into the market, and do a better job of educating people about the platform's appeal. "

</comment><comment><USER3> This article is ridiculous because it just states that WP7 is superior to Android without explaining why. So far their metro UI has yet to prove itself, people want apps, if I wanted their metro UI so badly there is probably already an Android app for that too.

Microsoft spent a lot on commercials, I have seen a lot more WP commercials than Android ads, Microsoft got Nokia as their partner, Nokia in turn has a lot of partners of it's own, still their product failed, because it's inferior to the consumers, hardware manufacturers and carriers.

<comment><USER4> > if I wanted their metro UI so badly there is probably already an Android app > for that too.

Indeed. <https://market.android.com/search?q=metro+ui></comment></comment>


On choosing an IDE color scheme - <AUTHOR> https://code.scottshipp.com/2019/08/28/on-choosing-an-ide-color-scheme/ <comment><USER2> The article is very brief and leaves a lot to be desired. There is a quote about how reading a book on a sunny day helps and how Solarized is a good color scheme. There is one screenshot of the authors' setup and that's pretty much it.

> _Many dark themes available today are worse for eye strain than what you're > currently using._ But the article doesn't say how to see if the dark theme > you are using is actually bad.

I feel like the article is trying to suggest using light themes, but there are only like a dozen available and most of them look the same.</comment>