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?
Thread beginning with comment 408849
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Symbian is hardly a "lucrative potential market for malicious crackers" when nobody but a couple of geeks install anything on those.

You mention it yourself, so I do not get part of your argument:

First you mention that "it is by far not unreasonable to assume that iPhone owners install and use more applications", than Symbian that is?. And then you compare it with how little malware is available for Mac OS X, vs Windows I would assume?

Windows users are as prone to install stuff as Mac OS X users, that is why their market share matters (over Mac OS X's). Symbian users do not even know they can install stuff (and even if they knew, not that there is much decent stuff to install).

Do not get me wrong, I like the comfortability of the App Store, and yet would like to have the option not to use it to install certain things.

But that part of the argument does not hold.

Edited 2010-02-11 16:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2

elmimmo Member since:

By the way, Apple does check for bad practices in apps. You wanted proof, there

If you do want to have the liberty to take risks, then I am with you. But that is another different topic.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:

Eh, you do realise that that link actually solidifies my point, right? Because, uhm, despite the review process, the application GOT THROUGH IT. It was only removed AFTERWARDS. When the damage had been done.

Reply Parent Score: 1