iPhone 4 vs 3GS
You’ve probably already seen reports of the new iPhone 4’s problems with its antenna. This results in poor connectivity, especially for left-handed people.
Being right-handed, and with a Nokia N95 ready to be upgraded, I popped into my local mobile phone shops this last week to see what all the fuss is about.
As the iPhone 4 is not yet generally available until near the end of July, I could only find a demo model. Uncomfortable to hold, with sharp edges on the metal ring around the phone. The iPhone 4 is supposed to have a clearer screen, but I actually found the descriptions of the icons easier to read on the 3GS.
Now the 3GS is available with the same operating system (IOS4) as the iPhone 4, is there any good reason to pay extra for the iPhone 4?
This is Apple’s official comparison. Yes the picture resolution of 5MP (which my N95 has), the iPhone 3 does not have a camera flash gun (which my N95 has), and the iPhone 4 also has HD-quality video capture. There are a few other advantages of the 4 over the 3GS.
So it would have to be an iPhone 4, rather than 3GS, to be a complete “upgrade” on my N95. Reports of the multi-tasking in IOS4 suggest it’s not as good as on other manufacturers’ phones. Looks like I need wait for v2 of the iPhone 4, assuming it fixes these issues.
In the meantime, does anyone who has used both a 3GS and 4 wish they hadn’t changed? If so, why?
“Norton Safe Web Lite”
I was busily minding my own business a few days ago when a window appeared on my PC asking whether I wanted to install Norton’s “Safe Web Lite”.
As a Norton user (OK I know, I know), this was likely to be just an extra service. But I’m always sceptical of any software that purports to fix a security problem, and I hadn’t heard anything about it before.
Web searches indicated the software has been in public beta testing since February, whilst they built a database of “safe” and “unsafe” internet sites, and finished in June. This last week the software went on general release.
Whilst anyone can install the software for free, to automatically warn you if accessing an unsafe site, there is also a free manual facility to check on sites.
It’s worth checking out a few sites, including your own.
Whilst it's good to be warned about truly troublesome sites, what if your own website gets branded “unsafe”? There is a “re-evaluation” process, for website owners, but they are talking around 2 weeks. That could be 2 weeks’ lost business, and a struggle to re-gain trust thereafter.
I took a well-known website at random, www.bt.com. It’s given a green “safe” tick, but a “Community Rating” of only 3.7 out of 5. Why? There have been only three reviews, two of which gave 5 out of 5. The third is 1 out of 5, as apparently “anonymous” took exception to some small bit of wording on the website. What would happen if there were to be a concerted attack on a website by a group of activists?
Perhaps the lawyers out there could comment on Norton’s liability to website owners in the event of malicious or erroneous site ratings?
Perhaps someone could also tell me if Norton are trying to make any money out of this service. Are there plans for a full fat version? Does a site owner have to pay for re-evaluation, for example?
For legitimate website owners Web Safe Lite service is a two-edged sword – potentially making the internet more trust-worthy, to the benefit of legitimate operators - but with the risk of being unfairly branded “unsafe”. Views?
.
No comments:
Post a Comment