Pay Apple US$9.90 to fix 46 security holes in your iPod Touch

Posted by Oo Gin Lee on Tuesday, June 23rd 2009 under: cellphones Tags: apple iphone, iPod Touch, OS 3.0

For years, Apple fans have lambasted Windows for being insecure (which is true) while boasting that their own Macs “had no viruses.” It’s not that Mac had no vulnerabilities, its market share was just too small to make it worth the hackers’ time. But with iPhone and ipod Touch now taking over the world, it is only a matter of time before the viruses will appear.

What is interesting about the iPhone 3.0 OS is that while it is free for iPhone users, iPod Touch users like me ( I only bought it because I thought my wife would like it) have to pay US$9.90 for 3.0. Now 3.0 has a host of nifty features which in Apple’s principle justifies charging users for the update.

Of course only Apple gets away with this rubbish, charging users for updates to the operating system of their machine as they have done with Mac OSX for years with fancy Big Cat names to updates. Imagine if Microsoft charged for Windows Vista Sp1 – the world would probably descend onto pandemomiun.

But my beef with 3.0 is this – it fixes 46 security holes http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3639 including stuff we only usually see when using Windows and Internet Explorer – opening malicious PDF files, visiting malicious websites, accessing malicious Exchange mail servers. So now we now know that whatever has gone before 3.0 is not exactly secure.

While there are no reported viruses to exploit these vulnerabilities, I don’t see why I should have to pay to fix something which I paid good money for which was broken from the beginning.

3 Tweets

12 Comments Already

techgoondu Said,

June 23rd, 2009 @9:46 am

Pay Apple US$9.90 to fix 46 security holes in your iPod Touch: For years, Apple fans have lambasted Windows for .. http://tinyurl.com/kp4yrd

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

Alfred Siew

Said,

June 23rd, 2009 @11:17 am

Yah, the Apple hype that’s believed by all – from users to supposedly discerning members of the media – that Macs and iPhones got no viruses, they don’t crash, they are perfect.

While I loved my Apple PowerBook G3 and later G4 at work, and I still use my iPod for jogging, I truly hate the blinkered fools who take everything from that hype machine as gold.

I have a long memory: back when I used a beige PowerMac in the office, Apple simply “decided” that there will be no more support for SCSI and ADB overnight with the iMac/G3 desktop. Imagine how we scrambled to buy overpriced adapters all for the scanners/Zip drives/even mouse when we switched to the new machines.

Not to mention, as I reported in the old Computer Times years ago, that Apple once deliberately changed the BIOS on its G3s so you can’t easily upgrade them to G4s!

That’s for all your Apple worshipping fans – you love them, but they love your money more!

ameliaa Said,

June 23rd, 2009 @1:47 pm

Taking a bite out of Apple. http://bit.ly/u5o9j

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

Boon Kiat

Said,

June 23rd, 2009 @1:56 pm

Yo guys, I am gonna put up a opposing view here. As much as I hate to pay for upgrades, I don’t see why we should hate vendors which charge for it. Don’t get it then, if you don’t wanna pay. After all, the device still works in the way that first attracted you to the purchase. The big cat Apple OS upgrades do provide functional changes, against the mostly functional fixes that the service packs by Windows provide. I know of discerning Apple users who were glad they paid for the feline upgrades so far.

On charging for security bug fixes, I agree its unconscionable on the part of the vendors. Especially since the previously hidden bugs are now exposed with the so-called upgrades, and hence open for hackers to exploit. Yeah, I agree, Apple should make the bug fixes free – perhaps they should have separated those fixes from the OS upgrade itself in the case of the iPhone 3.0 OS.

Oo Gin Lee

Said,

June 23rd, 2009 @2:05 pm

Yes paying for substantial upgrades is OK.

But if I don’t want the upgrades and yet I want to be protected against viruses and malware for my $600 plus device, I think it is unfair to charge us iPod Touch users (especially those who only bought it becoz they thought their wife might like it as a present)

But because this is an OS upgrade, I dont think Apple can easily separate the features from the security patches

Sherwin Loh

Said,

June 23rd, 2009 @2:27 pm

Paying for an upgrade is justified. But telling users that hey, if you bought item A, it’s free. But if you have item B, Screw You, you need to pony up, is extremely unreasonable.

What makes iPod Touch users (and those who love their wives) different from iPhone users?

angelsherwin Said,

June 23rd, 2009 @2:34 pm

Microsoft is paying me pay for software to fix security flaws! Lucky I’m an Apple user…. oh, wait… http://bit.ly/Bsc11

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

Billy Teo

Said,

June 23rd, 2009 @3:58 pm

Guys, guys,

this sounds pretty much like a regular canteen session at Toa Payoh North, sans the “Member” curry puff and kopi o.

Anyway, just to clarify two things:

1. I’m still using OSX 10.4.11 (aka Crouching Tiger) on my ancient iBook and I still get my OS updates/fixes free. I wasn’t compelled to upgrade to Leopard (10.5) in any way, even though I’m aware that Leopard has major improvements and nifty tools like Time Machine (which probably has something to do with Terminators coming back for Judgement Day looking for Salvation, time and again).

2. The iPod touch (guys, it’s a small ‘t’, so better clean up before Eve Yap spots it) versus iPhone debate on paying for OS updates has been, er, touched upon. The purported rationale is because of the way Apple accounts for revenue from iPod touch versus the subscription revenues from iPhone (and Apple TV too). Something to do with the SOX Act….hope I spelt SOX correctly otherwise I’ll have to clean up my act. But I’m not convinced by this argument because Sony doesn’t charge for PSP firmware updates which often produce substantial improvements — and I’m sure Sony has to play by the same accounting rules as Apple.

In any case, for guys who really love their wives, the moral of the story is: Get an iPhone.

Or a PSP.

Alfred Siew

Said,

June 26th, 2009 @10:51 am

I think we are all in agreement on some things. If there are new features, fine, there may be a reason to charge for it and its success will depend on how valuable the extra features are to users.

But if it’s a patch, ie, to fix a flaw in a product, then there’s no way consumers should have to pay for it. Why should we, when these flaws should never have shipped with the product in the first place? Imagine Toyota recalling their cars for faulty handbrakes and you had to pay for it!

Bilab

Said,

June 27th, 2009 @4:08 pm

Seriously misinformed you are. If you did some research on this, you’ll find that they charge because of a silly accounting rule in the states. There might be a security fix only released for users who remain on 2.0, just like what Apple does for its Macs with OS X for users who don’t upgrade to the next version.

http://www.macworld.com/article/131991/2008/02/ipodtouch.html