Keys, secrets, etc. yes. But code? What am I missing here?
See also: the time that ATI's CEO told his employees that their chips would be powering Apple's to-be-announced hardware a few days before the announcement. Steve Jobs responded by pulling all of ATI's hardware from its demo units at the announcement, not mentioning ATI at all, cancelling a joint demonstration of the Radeon card that was going to be in the system, and never partnering with ATI again.
https://web.archive.org/web/20001216031800/https://www.zdnet...
> The incident began Monday when ATI, which supplies graphics cards for all Apple's current models, issued a four-paragraph news release that stated its Radeon processor would be featured in three new Mac models -- none of which were announced by Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) until CEO Steve Jobs' Wednesday morning keynote address.
People who moved to bluetooth got arguably worse sound quality.
For wired headphones, there were very few lightning headphones and they mostly sucked.
Now with usb-c you can get a broader range of headphones (because other phones have gone with usb-c).
either kind needs a dac inside the dongle, or the shell of the headphone, or have a bulky external dac.
3.5mm is still king for decent wired headphones/earbuds.
https://www.cnn.com/world/wired-headphones-comeback-spc
https://mashable.com/article/wired-headphones-instagram-acco...
When you simply can't purchase one thing, then you move to the next thing.
I have several wired and wireless headphones, all for different uses, and the existence of wireless headphones don't make the wired ones less useful for their particular strenghts.
All my three phones have a headphone jack.
I don't have or plan to have an iPhone.
That's kinda a no-no for partnerships.
Namely, his belief that CEO == company.
Jobs would never take the view that the action of the CEO of ATI is actually one bad actor acting alone which doesn't represent what ATI wants as an organization, and is unfair and damaging to that organization and all of its employees.
The reason he would not take that view is because then he would not be able to believe that he is the single most important thing at Apple, overshadowing everything else.
If the leak had been the responsibility of some rank and file employee at ATI, with appropriate action taken against that employee by the ATI CEO, it is likely that Jobs would likely have reacted differently, because it then would not longer be seen as a personal matter between him and the CEO, where the corporations are just pawns in a game of teach-you-a-lesson.
Except of course shipping ATI hardware for years afterwards, then also using nvidia, then dropping nvidia and only using ATI/AMD until transitioning to Apple Silicon.
1. They kept existing designs, since even Jobs wasn't so crazy as to demand a complete re-architecture of existing laptop models on a whim; plus they probably also had contractual obligations/pre-purchase arrangements
2. They switched to nvidia, but from everything I know they also hated working with nvidia (IIRC Jobs accused nvidia of stealing Pixar tech)
3. AMD is a different company than ATI (technically), and Apple of that era was different than the Steve Jobs temper tantrum era.
But yes, relevant details.
You are looking at the problem from the wrong direction.
If you build a honeypot, to trap hackers, does it behove you to explain what the bait is, and how the trap works?
Know your customer, fraud detection heuristics, finger prints, behavioral triggers are all areas where banks, and financial institutions need to keep the sauce secret. Telling the other party "how" you catch them just gives them the steps of what not to do.
It's not sensitive in the leaking state secrets sense it's sensitive in the risk adverse lawyers on both sides think it's sensitive.
The Bureaucracy exists to perpetuate the Bureaucracy.
Suppose an organization doesn't believe such a thing; it's still more secure to keep code secret than not.
Obscurity is a valid layer of security, just not a valid corner stone or linchpin of security.
In particular, when code operates as a service (end users don't have the executable code on their machines) then protecting the source code is a real security measure. Without it, attackers can only probe the service as a black box, guessing about what it is doing.
For example say I have a hollowed out wall that is hidden behind a painting.
Just putting my money in the hole is bad once it’s found it’s gone but if I put my money in a safe in the hole. Well now you need to find it and break the safe and a hidden safe is objectively better than just having a safe on the floor because you need to find it first.
This was within a bank and the code in question was related to enabling Apple Pay from within the banking application. The consequences of that information and code leaking or being seen by anyone who had not signed the NDA were very serious (don't remember the details but it made the lawyers were extremely stressed about it).
Needing to figure out a way to protect those parts of the codebase it was decided in the end that the "easiest" way of doing this was to split the repository in half, with the actual artifact building taking place from the half that had the NDA code. The rest of the application (basically the whole application) was then used as a dependency by it.
Still didn't quite solve the issue, but access to that repository was heavily controlled.