Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 11th Feb 2010 14:32 UTC
Editorial The fact that the iPhone is a locked-down device, and that you don't really own it so much as rent it from Apple is well-known by now. The supposed reason for this lock-down is to ensure the device's stability and security - in fact, this has already become conventional wisdom. However, where is the proof that supports this statement? Is there any real-world evidence that suggests this model is better?
Permalink for comment 408874
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

This need to protect device owners from themselves gets to me at times. "users can't be trusted to find applications".. no.. "owners" may not be able to find trustworthy applications but it's there device. If it wasn't, Apple should be handing out Iphones free and deriving all profit from service contracts.

Not that I'm disagreeing with the OP (I much prefer the freedom to install apps from any location), but there is a distinct difference from a smartphone versus a PC. Besides a flat-rate cost to get onto the Internet, you don't have any additional costs, or at least costs that you don't explicitly agree to and enter a credit card number. A smartphone on the other hand, can entail additional costs simply from use.

- You get malware on a PC that visits a porn site regularly, and you don't pay anything. Sure the site may get improved advertising revenue from extra hits, but you're not left with any bill for it.

- You get malware on a phone that dials a 900 number or sends SMS messages constantly, and you're left with a huge phone bill.

The landscape is different between the two due to the open-access nature of the Internet-connected PC and the explicit agreement between two parties for billing. Phones are a different matter entirely.

Reply Parent Score: 1