iphone research

Click on image to see it full size.


Sizlopediea (2008). A peek into the iphone development timeline. Retrieved from http://www.sizlopedia.com/2008/07/07/iphone-timeline-1999-2008/

iPhone is a multimedia, Internet-enabled mobile phone designed and marketed by Apple Inc. It has a multi-touch screen with virtual keyboard and buttons. The iPhone's functions include those of a camera phone and a portable media player ("iPod"), in addition to text messaging and visual voicemail. It also offers Internet services including e-mail, web browsing, and local Wi-Fi connectivity. It is a quad-band mobile phone that uses the GSM standard, hence has international capability. It supports the Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution (EDGE) data technology.Following the success of iPod, Apple announced the iPhone in January 2007. The announcement was preceded by rumors and speculations that circulated for several months. The iPhone was introduced, first in the United States on June 29, 2007 with much media frenzy and then in the United Kingdom, Germany and France in November 2007. It was named Time magazine's Invention of the Year in 2007. 


White & Green (2008). The History of the iphone. Retrieved from http://www.xtimeline.com/timeline/History-of-iPhone

What am I up to?

Central Proposition

New Zealand is taking onboard a new smart phone system, 'Payforit' which will be launched late 2011 or early next year. Pullar-Strecker says "Payforit doesn't require customers to identity themselves, register to use the service, or even remember a password (2011)". Apparently the objective or the scheme is to "promote a safe and trustworthy environment". How trustworthy are we when it comes to using other peoples phones and is this actually just to make downloading easier so that companies get more money through 'accidental purchases'?

At the moment when using an iphone you get asked for your password to confirm an application purchase. You can save this password to your phone and many people do. However it's the same with the computer, you get asked for passwords for everything and its up to the individual to decide which ones to always be signed in, and which ones not to. Payforit takes away this choice. According to The Dominon Post there are already children spending up to $2,000 in a virtual world on virtual furniture on their parents smart-phones (2011). Part of this issue stems from Parents not reading the terms and conditions when they enter their credit card details to purchase the game, this means any in app purchases are often charged to the credit card. Children often don't have any concept of the value of money and these sorts of event are occurring more and more regularly. And then there are people saying that by taking away the privacy and password settings we are promoting "a safe and trustworthy environment"? This isn't how the world works. 

What it comes down to is that no-one reads the terms and conditions anymore. They are often long, full of tedious law based points of information and if people havn't had trouble before they simply trust the brand, tick the box and go for it. I'd like to raise awareness of this blind trust in brands and companies and make a point about the importance of reading the terms and conditions. 

Scale experiment 1. (no I'm not a copy writer)

By using my smartphone I can let people see which Doctor's I attend to pick up my anti-depressants, where I met my convict Dad for a drink last night and where I stopped by to have a quickie with my sisters husband last night.  This information is used for market research, what are they going to do? Send me ad's for nymphomaniac's anonymous. Sometimes this information can get leaked or hacked, or maybe people sell it? I could have a stalker ooo the excitement, could be a fine young chap, you never know, or perhaps he'll be on the war path, gosh, didn't consider that.   But in the mean time I could get a charmingly large bill for playing playing smurfs village, apparently I brought too many smurfberries, infact 10,000 of them. You'd think I'd remember that! What are smurfberries anyway, maybe I'll get them delivered to my door next week. Turns out little trudy (Sisters son, yes the one I'm shagging) got onto my phone when we were uhh a bit preoccupied. Who pays for that bill of $5,000?? Ya me, wow, that was an expensive shag that night wasn't it! Then Friday night out on the town with the girls and who gets so drunk she looses her phone? Once again.. me. Hey maybe I'll get an ad on alcoholics anonymous too, and some counseling all round, hey you guys know me as well as I do by now. So my phone is lost at at 6am, throbbing headache and unable to get myself up, I hear a smash as the door literally falls to the ground. "Police warrant, you'r under arrest!". Oh shit, my history is catching up on me, still too drunk to move, doesn't matter, they pin me to the ground just incase I decide to make a run for it, wouldn't though, too sore. Get dragged into the po po car in handcuffs for producing and uploading illegal kiddy porn. Ummm so I mighta bin smashed off my face but there's no way my drunk night would of entailed that, pity though because I have no recollection of my whereabouts between 1am and 6am this morning. Screw! I explained I'd lost my phone "oldest trick in the book girl, not buying it". What?! Truth don't count for nothing any more.
Always read the small print: Passwords and privacy functionality, don't give them access.

Brainstorming and inspiration

So after darting around and changing my topic, I've decided to revert back to the original topic. Looking at the lack of security systems on cell phones and how unaware people are of this. 

In class I did some brainstorming:

No privacy, no locks, no safety. Wallets, bank cards with no pin or signature required. Money growing on trees, everything free. Looking at the ad at the start of dvd's you rent "You wouldn't steal a car! You wouldn't steal a film!" etc. 

What age am I targeting? 7-15. The age where you understand what you are doing is wrong. 

Pam mentioned when she first got a mobile phone she had no concept of cost. It was on a plan so she just rung everyone. The bill came after the first month and it was $300. The plan vs pre-paid. Educating kids of cost/value in comparison to what they earn/have.

I figure that the info on the no-password concept is in the terms and conditions when people download or start playing games. So my idea is about scale, making the terms and conditions far bigger than the typical fine print. 

Do I.. Make it full of ridiculous information with one fact in there, get peoples attention and see if they pick up on the point? Real fact could be bigger, bolder etc.

Or.. Fill it with real facts from all sorts of places which you wouldn't expect to come across. Make it entertaining and truthful. I don't need to be subtle with my message because I have the best interests of the viewer in mind. It's about information and education.

While on the bus back to Wellington the other day I saw this and was particularly confused. Firstly because I expected it to be the typical sign about chance of fire etc. And secondly because I didn't understand if it was a joke or serious. It was on the way into a small town, levin I think it was, which is where you usually see the fire danger signs. As far as I knew (which is nothing about eczema) the weather didn't effect it, maybe it does, I wouldn't have a clue. 

Then going into the next town I saw a sign the same but with the heading "Facial Eczema Spore Count". More confusion, but still it stood out to me because it was different information in a familiar place. I could keep this in mind with my final outcome.

According to RD1 I found out its actually about animals, not the eczema that people get as such.

The facts on facial eczema

Article supplied by Agri-feeds Limited.

Facial Eczema (FE) is caused by a toxin sporidesmin produced by a pasture fungus Pithomyces Chartarum which thrives in warm moist conditions, found mostly in rye grass dominant pastures. This toxin is ingested by animals grazing affected pasture.

Symptoms

The period between spore ingestion and first symptoms depends on the amount of toxic spores actually consumed but can occur within 24 hours.

Affected animals are likely to:

• Go off their feed
• Stop milking
• Become restless
• Seek shade
• Start licking, rubbing and scratching affected areas 

After a few weeks:

• Skin lesions start to appear around the face, nostrils, ears, teats, vulva, and on any white areas
• Skin becomes reddened and inflamed, and may then thicken, encrust, blister and weep
• Liver damage and in severe cases, signs of jaundice may be visible
• Ultimately, cows may dry off completely
• Animals pass into a state of chronic ill-health or in extreme cases die. Others may show no clinical signs at all.

Sub-clinical signs:

• Increased barrenness
• Increased deaths at lambing and calving
• Decreased wool and meat growth
• Depressed milk production

Farmers often attribute these signs to something else. The reality however, is these are signs that stock are suffering from sub-clinical facial eczema. Productivity and income will be significantly affected.

Consumer calls for cosmetic withdrawal

13 Aug 2010

---

Consumer NZ is calling for Mahu Mother and Baby Skin Care products containing a banned ingredient to be withdrawn from sale immediately.

Mahu products are marketed as natural, NZ-made and the "safest choice" for you and your baby. But Consumer has found Mahu products on sale, including a baby lotion, that list a preservative called iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC). IPBC is not allowed in moisturisers or any other "leave on" preparations for children under three years of age.

The chemical is also banned from use in body lotions and creams intended for use on a "large part of the body" and in any oral hygiene or lip care products. However, Consumer found IBPC listed as an ingredient in Mahu Stretch Mark Lotion and Mahu Nipple Cream.

IPBC is better known as a timber preservative. In its pure form, it's classified by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) as having acute oral toxicity and inhalation toxicity. It is considered safe in some cosmetics such as shampoos and deodorants in low concentrations.

IPBC has also been identified as a potential contact allergen. Despite this, Mahu products Consumer bought state "Contains no ingredients that are potentially harmful".

Mahu director Kathryn Fromont told Consumer it stopped using IPBC after restrictions on the ingredient's use were strengthened in 2008, and had asked retailers to withdraw the products. However, Consumer NZ readily found what appeared to be old stock. Fromont said the company would write to retailers again and ask them to remove products.

Consumer chief executive Sue Chetwin said the company should issue an immediate recall. "We've also raised our concerns with ERMA. Better enforcement of product standards is required to ensure consumer safety."

The problems with Mahu's products were discovered as part of our research on so-called "natural" cosmetics, published in this month's Consumer. Chetwin says there's a growing number of cosmetics claiming to be "organic" or "natural" and which are no-such thing.

"We bought 18 brands of skincare products readily available in stores, all of which made claims to be natural options. But behind the marketing hype, many had surprising ingredients," Chetwin said. "Several used the word 'organic' in their brand name but contained synthetic ingredients that wouldn't pass any rigorous organic standard."

Three products - Avalon Organics Lavender Daily Moisturiser, Giovanni Organic Hair Care LA Natural Styling Gel and Jason Pure, Natural & Organic Apricot Deodorant - are made in the US. These brands have been labelled "organic cheater-brands" by the US Organic Consumers Association which has filed a complaint with regulators alleging their products are mostly non-organic formulations.

Kiwi-made product Earths Organics Hand + Body Cream - Violet and Chamomile may contain organic manuka honey and sweet almond oil, but it also contains preservatives butyl paraben, ethyl paraben, methyl paraben, phenolyethanol and propyl paraben. Another, The Aromatherapy Company's Organic Fig and Olive Hand Balm which claims to be made with "the purity of nature" also contains synthetic substances.

Parabens are widely used in cosmetics but questions continue to be raised about the toxicity of some of these substances. Existing rules allow their use in low concentrations. Many cosmetics claim to be "paraben-free" but parabens have often been replaced in these products with other synthetic preservatives.

Only two of the 18 which claimed to be "organic" or "natural" had recognised eco accreditations. They were Dr Hauschka Rose Day Cream Light and Living Nature Refreshing Body Lotion.

Chetwin said products sold as natural or organic needed to demonstrate they lived up to their claims. Making misleading claims is an offence under the Fair Trading Act.

Consumer NZ wants a mandatory standard for "natural" cosmetic claims - one that sets out companies' obligations for ensuring claims are accurate, unambiguous and verifiable.

If you're buying "natural" cosmetics check the ingredients list carefully. Many are likely to contain synthetic chemicals.

Mahu response to consumer product recall etc.

mahu Press Release

16 August 2010
 

mahu skincare are extremely concerned by the content of a recent Consumer Magazine article and by the reckless approach taken by Consumer Magazine. The article contains many errors, untruths and omissions, a number of which have now been picked up by other media.

mahu were given the opportunity, ahead of publication, to read and comment on the article. They did so and pointed out the errors and untruths. Consumer Magazine, however, were clearly not interested in their story being factual and irresponsibly decided to go ahead and publish, regardless of mahu feedback and comments. mahu can only wonder why.

Here is mahu's response to requests from concerned consumers to present the facts:

 - All skin care requires a preservative if it is to have a shelf life of greater than 6 months for the supermarket channel.

 - Up until 2008 mahu used Iodopropynyl Butylcarbamate (IPBC) in minute quantities as a preservative. Iodopropynyl Butylcarbamate  (IPBC) was a preservative commonly used by many leading cosmetic and skincare companies prior to 2008. At that time this preservative was believed to be superior to Parabens, because studies had highlighted possible links to some cancers as a result of paraben use.

 - mahu's ongoing research and its commitment to both safety and quality lead them to change their formulations so as to remove IPBC. “We are a business that cares deeply about the safety of mums-to-be and their babies” said Kathryn Fromont. “I’m a mother of three young children, and I use mahu products on them and myself”, she added.

 - mahu last manufactured with IPBC in September 2007.

 - Fact: The New Zealand Health Department issued a notice in 2008 to all companies using IPBC in 'leave on skincare products for under 3 year olds'.  This required the reformulation of affected products and allowed for the sale of all remaining stock of affected products over the course of the following 12 months.  mahu followed the terms of this notice also and requested retailers to return affected stock for a credit or exchange with product newly formulated without IPBC.

 - Fact: The New Zealand Health Department did not ban or request the recall of any mahu products, nor did it single out mahu as Consumer Magazine have done.

 - mahu products are batch coded on the bottom of the bottles.  This gives full traceability including date of manufacture and ingredient listings.

 - mahu have over-labelled ingredient listings on a small number of products in the range as these bottles were pre-printed, and thus it was considered more environmentally-friendly and less wasteful to over-label than to produce new bottles. Over-labelling is a common practice. Consumer Magazine’s assertion that mahu was being deceptive and misleading is refuted in the strongest terms.  

So there you have it.  The facts.  All of this was explained to Consumer Magazine prior to publication, and we emphasise again that they had every opportunity to ensure their story was factually correct. Instead they chose, for whatever reason, to single out mahu and to ignore the facts which were communicated to them.

mahu was started approx 7 years ago by Kathryn and Andrew, a brother and sister team from Hamilton. “mahu is our baby and we have put our heart and soul into creating safe quality skincare for New Zealand mums and their precious babies. We have not, nor will we, deviate from that commitment” said Kathryn Fromont.

"We would like to thank all of our loyal customers for their support and messages of encouragement," said Kathryn Fromont, "I am extremely proud of our integrity as a business. I stand by our values and our ethical and honest approach to all that we do. Our customers and their safety are paramount and our products reflect this deeply personal and heartfelt commitment to their well-being.”

Our products are enthusiastically recommended by midwives throughout NZ, and sold in terrific retailers like Countdown, Foodtown, Woolworths and New World supermarkets.

Kathryn is happy to answer any questions at any time. 

Allergy Info NZ

Auckland Allergy Clinic


It can be seen, therefore, that cosmetics are an important part of our daily life. It is estimated that the average adult uses at least 7 different skin care products each day, so it’s not surprising that reactions to these products are very common. Reactions can be seen after the first application or after years of use.


In New Zealand, like the rest of the developed world, there is a trend towards using "natural products", with the misconception that natural products are "healthier" and cause fewer reactions than artificial products. This myth is debunked when people are reminded that most allergens are "natural” proteins.

Cosmetics Legislations

Unlike drugs, cosmetics do not undergo governmental approval before marketing. The cosmetic industry is primarily self-regulated (by The Cosmetics, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association).

Cosmetics, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA)

CTFA represents the industry’s interests at the local, state, national, and international levels, promoting voluntary industry self-regulation and reasonable governmental requirements that support the health and safety of consumers.

CTFA has approximately 600 member companies. Active members are manufacturers and distributors of finished products. Associate members are suppliers of ingredients, raw materials, packaging, and other services used in the production and marketing of finished products, as well as consumer and trade publications.

CTFA also supports the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), a program it helped establish in 1976 which assesses the safety of ingredients used in cosmetics in an unbiased, independent forum with an expert panel comprised of world-renowned physicians and scientists.

Cosmetics Regulations in New Zealand

Cosmetics in New Zealand are only self-regulated by CTFA. The CTFA in NZ was formed in 1972 by a core group of cosmetics companies who were manufacturing their products in NZ at that time. In NZ there is a reasonable code of practice through the local CTFA. The problem arises where cosmetics are brought in from Asian countries where no similar requirements are applied. Some of these products can have undisclosed allergens, including peanuts.

What is even more worrying is the fact that there are at present no regulations in New Zealand that cover cosmetic ingredient labelling. In October 1991, the Cosmetic Ingredient Labelling Regulations were introduced in Australia. These regulations define the term “cosmetic product” and require that all ingredients be listed in descending order of concentration (although no naming convention is specified nor is there a minimum print size requirement apart from it being legible). This is a major step in helping consumers become aware of exactly what they are rubbing into their skin and putting in their hair. In New Zealand it is still possible to buy cosmetics with no proper labelling, with known allergens omitted from the label or with the term "hypoallergenic" used loosely on the label.

In USA a cosmetic can be removed from the market if the US Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) demonstrate that the cosmetic may be harmful to the consumer under customary conditions of use. The federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 with its colour additive amendment of 1960 and 1962 and the Fair Packaging & Labelling Act of 1966 are the two primary federal laws that regulate the cosmetic industry. The FDA and the Federal Trade Commission enforce these laws, and two industry-sponsored groups review the safety of cosmetic ingredients.

In the European Community (EC), cosmetic products are regulated by the council directive 76/768/EEC of 1976, which has been subsequently amended and adapted numerous times. The Commission of the European Communities to examine the scientific and technical issues concerning cosmetic regulations established a scientific committee on Cosmetology in 1977.

The new Dangerous Preparations Directive (DPD, 1999/45/EC) introduces a special labelling requirement for skin sensitizers in products that are regulated under this Directive. The packaging of products containing 0.1% of a sensitizer must bear the inscription “Contains ‘name of sensitizer’. May produce an allergic reaction.” The aim is to protect individuals already sensitized by providing information, which enables them to avoid products containing ingredients, which may elicit their allergy

In Japan cosmetics are regulated by the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law, which is implemented by the Ministry of Health & Welfare.

In New Zealand Product Safety Standards are regulations made under section 29 of the Fair Trading Act 1986. The purpose of these regulations is to prevent or reduce the risk of injury to any person. At the present time cosmetics are not included under the Product safety standard. From verbal communication with Medsafe & Consumer Affairs, there is no proposal for cosmetic labelling in New Zealand at this stage.

Misleading Terms

Manufacturers of cosmetics use various terms to sell their products to allergy-prone people. In NZ there are no standards that govern the use of these terms. Some of the terms misused include:

• Hypoallergenic usually means that the manufacturer believes that this product is less likely to cause an allergic reaction than others. There is no requirement to substantiate their claim.
• Fragrance free or unscented do not guarantee that the products do not contain chemicals. They simply imply that they have no perceptible odour.
• Natural implies that the ingredients are extracted directly from plants or animal products as opposed to being produced synthetically. There are an increasing number of ‘natural’ ingredients causing allergies.

What can legislation achieve?

In most western countries nickel is the most common contact allergen, and it is clearly related to body piercing. In 1991 Denmark implemented a statutory order calling for the reduction in exposure to nickel in nickel-plated items in close contact to the skin.

In a retrospective analysis, a comparison was made of the number of positive reactions to nickel seen in private practice of dermatology before and after this statutory order was implemented. The sensitivity fell from 20.81% pre-1991 to 16.7% in 1999.

A nationwide outbreak of alopecia in USA associated with the use of hair relaxing formulation (Arch Dermatol.200 Sep; 136(9): 1104-8)

Between 1994 and 1995 a nationwide outbreak of hair loss with scalp injuries involving tens of thousands of women (and some men) occurred following the marketing of a chemical hair-relaxing product. Most of those affected reported substantial hair loss, with a majority indicating growth of new hair that was abnormal in quantity & quality.

An epidemic of allergic contact dermatitis due to epilating (hair removal) products in France & Belgium (Contact Dermatitis 2002 Aug; 47(2): 67-70)

Over a period of 19 months, 33 cases of acute allergic contact dermatitis from Veet epilating waxes were observed in France & Belgium.

The lesions started with the legs and spread to other parts of the body, especially face, and were sometimes so severe that hospitalization was required.

With proper cosmetic legislation (government approval before marketing & proper labelling) epidemics like those mentioned above can be prevented or quickly curtailed.

Problems associated with cosmetics and skin care products:

• Contact Urticaria & rarely contact Anaphylaxis
• Irritant Contact dermatitis
• Allergic Contact dermatitis
• Photosensitivity

Contact Urticaria & Anaphylaxis (Contact Urticaria Syndrome)

Contact urticaria reactions appear within minutes to about 1 hour after exposure of the urticariant (allergen) to the skin. The patient may complain of a local burning sensation, tingling, or itching. Swelling and redness may be seen (wheal and flare).

In some cases, this exposure may include the application of cosmetic products, especially to the face (cosmetic intolerance syndrome).

Cosmetic Intolerance Syndrome

This is a particularly difficult group of patients who complain of severe facial burning & discomfort with or without any obvious facial inflammation (redness, swelling etc). These individuals are no longer able to tolerate the use of any cosmetics. The cause of this entity is multifactorial, and includes:

• Irritant & Allergic contact dermatitis
• Contact Urticaria
• Photoallergic contact dermatitis
• Atopic Dermatitis
• Seborrhoeic dermatitis
• Rosacea
• Significant psychological disorder

Contact urticaria is caused by a number of cosmetic ingredients including fragrances, preservatives, and particularly ammonium persulfate in hair bleaches.