Apple to Allow Free iPhone/Touch Apps Without Special Approval?

[Chaos215bar2]

If this happens its a good outcome.

Even better if there is some code checking or a requirement for open code for Apple(?) to make sure there are no major performance issues or privacy concerns.

First, it would be completely impractical for Apple to check all apps. There is no complete solution for automated code checking, so to do this, Apple would need to have someone manually read through pretty much the entire source of every app developed for the iPhone.

Second, why should Apple care if a third party app has performance issues. It is quite clear from the built in apps that the iPhone performs quite well, so I doubt users would be likely to blame a third party app's bad performance on the iPhone itself.

Third, there is a much easier solution to privacy concerns. Simply have the OS ask the user the first time an app requests any personal information from the iPhone for its own use, and then sign the app giving it permission in the future (if the user requests). The way the APIs are designed, an app does not even need to be given access to the content of, for instance, a contact record to be able to display and use the information. The app simply handles a generic record while the OS handles the data it contains. Thus, an app would rarely, if ever, need to request this permission of the user, and the user would be free to deny it if they did not completely trust the app.

I would certainly expect Apple to check all these things for anything sold through the iTunes store, but I believe it is completely unnecessary to do so for third party apps. (Maybe this could be provided as an extra service for developers for a fee, but otherwise I don't see this kind of checking happening for any apps outside the control of the iTunes store.)

 

[Marx55]

iPhone/Touch applications without special Apple approval is must. Even more: a new breed of iPhone/Touch with Intel Sirverthorne is needed so that the same applications that run on Macs, run also on iPhone/Touch. That will be the real boost for them all. We need tons of those at our University. Something like this, but like the iPhone/Touch and with a full Mac OS X 10.5.2 inside:

OQO model e2
http://www.oqo.com

 

[fr33 loader]

At the end of the day though, I guess like the majority of iPhone owners, I just want a media rich working phone. If this would just screw up my phone, then I would rather not have any new applications in it at all. I bought my iPhone knowing what it is capable of at that time and accepted it as it is. Well my needs I suppose is far less than what you guys need on your phones so I know everybody has different view in what a phone is supposed to do.

Letting everybody put any apps they want on their phone could cause a lot of wasted manpower for Apple and regular customers. Lines would be filled up at genius bar and help phonelines on hold for hours complaining about their phone not working after installing a buggy software which could have been prevented if only Apple has checked it first. Another wave of bricked phones?

 

[shamrock593]

Steve J has already shown his opinion on the openess of the iPhone / iPod touch, it's pretty clear that there will be some sort of gate-keeping.

Some companies are already taking action. Nokia, for example, is not allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their newest phones unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to a known developer. While this makes such a phone less than "totally open," we believe it is a step in the right direction. We are working on an advanced system which will offer developers broad access to natively program the iPhone's amazing software platform while at the same time protecting users from malicious programs.
http://developer.apple.com/iphone/devcenter/third_party_apps.php

 

[diamond.g]

I would certainly expect Apple to check all these things for anything sold through the iTunes store, but I believe it is completely unnecessary to do so for third party apps. (Maybe this could be provided as an extra service for developers for a fee, but otherwise I don't see this kind of checking happening for any apps outside the control of the iTunes store.)

I wonder if this inspection requires source code. If so why would say Nintendo (for example) give the source code to say Super Mario 64 (again example) to Apple? That seems really trusting on Nintendo's part (in this example).

Letting everybody put any apps they want on their phone could cause a lot of wasted manpower for Apple and regular customers. Lines would be filled up at genius bar and help phonelines on hold for hours complaining about their phone not working after installing a buggy software which could have been prevented if only Apple has checked it first. Another wave of bricked phones?

Well that could be easy to fix, anytime I installed software on my Treo, it gave me a warning telling me that Sprint wasn't responsible for whatever the software did. Apple could do the same as the Treo. When they get the calls tell people to restore their phones, or call the developers. I mean if you have a problem with Windows causing your Mac to act funny do you call Apple or Microsoft? Pretty much the same thing here.

 

[barneyntd]

It seems there are two separate groups of iphone users, who totally fail to understand each other's viewpoint:

The first group think of the iphone as a handheld computer with built-in communications. To them, the whole point of the thing is to be able to run arbitrary applications, and open developer access is essential. If it crashes, or gets a virus, you deal with it as you would on your mac.

The second group think of the iphone as a phone with really neat features. If it stops making and receiving calls, it's broken. Being able to download a few games is a bonus, but not that big a deal.

The problem is that when the second group start downloading software written for the first group, there's going to be trouble. The vast majority of users are in the second group, while all but the most professional developers are in the first group, and think their customers are too.

Unless Apple are very careful, they're going to feel the backlash from this clash of views. It's very expensive to check that an application is safe enough for the second group to install, but if you don't, you can't claim that "it just works" because it doesn't. Trying to tell people that they have to be careful what they install undermines the whole ethos of simplicity and power which is the iPhone's main selling point.

If I were Apple, I would make it extremely complex to install arbitrary software, just so that people know they are throwing away the consumer-oriented phone in exchange for the geek-oriented computer.

 

[Stella]

I do not understand your strident dislike of the iPhone!

I don't dislike the iPhone, I dislike Apple's marketing of it. IMO, the best thing that Apple could do is:

- release a more expensive unlocked version
- keep the iPhone / Touch platform open - don't try and control the Devs.

Its also the image of the iPhone - "the iPhone is like no other phone and has special magical attributes that no other phone can touch." That really isn't the case.

The GUI is great, the UI has turned heads and will transform the cellphone market to the benefit of the user. Having said that, its a shame about the Multi-touch patents. In a perfect world, no patents, but thats not the case and a different post.

 

[dicklacara]

It seems there are two separate groups of iphone users, who totally fail to understand each other's viewpoint:

The first group think of the iphone as a handheld computer with built-in communications. To them, the whole point of the thing is to be able to run arbitrary applications, and open developer access is essential. If it crashes, or gets a virus, you deal with it as you would on your mac.

The second group think of the iphone as a phone with really neat features. If it stops making and receiving calls, it's broken. Being able to download a few games is a bonus, but not that big a deal.

True, except what about the iPod Touch?

This, from Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer, during Jan 22, 2008 Financial Call:

"One of our primary goals for this holiday season was to establish an entirely new type of iPod in the marketplace, the iPod touch," said Oppenheimer. "This new iPod has potential to grow the iPod from being just a music and video player into being the first mainstream Wi-Fi mobile platform running all kinds of mobile applications."

It appears that the iPhone is not just a phone, and the iPod Touch is not just an iPod, but both are part of a "Wi-Fi Mobile Platform"

If Donald is a Duck, and Pluto is a Dog... what does that make Goofy?

..."Wi-Fi Mobile Platform"... WIMP..,

...I think MS already used this acronym for something else...

Hope so!

 

[darkblu]

It seems there are two separate groups of iphone users, who totally fail to understand each other's viewpoint:

The first group think of the iphone as a handheld computer with built-in communications. To them, the whole point of the thing is to be able to run arbitrary applications, and open developer access is essential. If it crashes, or gets a virus, you deal with it as you would on your mac.

The second group think of the iphone as a phone with really neat features. If it stops making and receiving calls, it's broken. Being able to download a few games is a bonus, but not that big a deal.

The problem is that when the second group start downloading software written for the first group, there's going to be trouble. The vast majority of users are in the second group, while all but the most professional developers are in the first group, and think their customers are too.

Unless Apple are very careful, they're going to feel the backlash from this clash of views. It's very expensive to check that an application is safe enough for the second group to install, but if you don't, you can't claim that "it just works" because it doesn't. Trying to tell people that they have to be careful what they install undermines the whole ethos of simplicity and power which is the iPhone's main selling point.

If I were Apple, I would make it extremely complex to install arbitrary software, just so that people know they are throwing away the consumer-oriented phone in exchange for the geek-oriented computer.

well put and i almost entirely agree with your post, aside from the bolded part - i don't think many, if any, professional developers are in that group; few professionals are wasting their time posting in these threads, to boot. the way i see it, that group is comprised almost entirely of:

* tech savvy users who think of themselves as malware-impervious, but i wonder how many of those were around in the heydays of the ms-dos virus wars, when the combination of a totally open, hugely popular platform, and a user culture of 'run whatever you damn please' created the perfect breeding ground for malicious software. that period transcended later into what we have on windows today, well more than a decade later - a freaking war-zone, a computing environment of dubious value for the normal person.

* individuals who have little-to-zero interest in the platform but don't miss the opportunity to jump on the 'boo apple' wagon. otherwise generally referred to as 'trolls'.

that said, tech savvy users can be found in the second group too, and apple fanboys (the counterpart of trolls) can be found in there too, so you can't really hard-split people into those groups, but for simplicity's sake i think your post is fairly to the point.

 

[dicklacara]

I don't dislike the iPhone, I dislike Apple's marketing of it. IMO, the best thing that Apple could do is:

- release a more expensive unlocked version
- keep the iPhone / Touch platform open - don't try and control the Devs.

I agree with both of these points, with the following caveats:

--I do not believe that Apple could have successfully launched the iPhone without the partnership of an established carrier like ATT... timing, opportunity & all that! Because of contractual obligations, Apple cannot offer an unlocked iPhone in the US. However, ATT & Apple could renegotiate their contract and "jointly" offer a higher-priced unlocked US version, dividing the extra profits as they see fit. But, if US Congressman Markey's (D-MA) bill gets legs, then this may be a moot point!

--I think that Apple wants to better understand this "new" marketplace before it eases control. Like virginity: "once broken, never mended." But Apple is realistic, and will give the people what they want-- that's what they do!

Its also the image of the iPhone - "the iPhone is like no other phone and has special magical attributes that no other phone can touch." That really isn't the case.

Mas o menos! That's just Apple Marketing doing its thing. Sure other phones can do many of these things... some even better, but many a lot worse (or so hard to get at/use) as to be non-existent. The "magical attribute" is that Apple has hit the sweet spot of what many users want in a single portable device

The GUI is great, the UI has turned heads and will transform the cellphone market to the benefit of the user. Having said that, its a shame about the Multi-touch patents. In a perfect world, no patents, but thats not the case and a different post.

Agree, patents are a two-edged sword-- Apple (and others) get sued all the time for frivolous patents like: displaying caller ID on a phone, hierarchical menus, ad, infinitum...

But, without the Multi-Touch patents, Apple may not have had a viable business case for the iPhone... especially, entering a "closed" marketplace with established players & entrenched rules/procedures. I suspect that ATT would have laughed in SJ's face if he did not have the patent applications in his back pocket.

The iPhone has also changed the relationship between/among phone manufacturers, service providers and customers. In a few years we likely will see better phones and better service from multiple manufacturers and providers... increased competition.

Like Daimler-Benz's air-bag, Apple may (token) license its MT patents for the public good. But, at this point in time it would be a disservice to the AAPL investors (and IMO, the community) to let someone like MS come in, offer loss-leader cheap copies, and gain monopoly market share...

...been there, done that!

 

[bigmc6000]

Yep!

It seems there are two separate groups of iphone users, who totally fail to understand each other's viewpoint:

The first group think of the iphone as a handheld computer with built-in communications. To them, the whole point of the thing is to be able to run arbitrary applications, and open developer access is essential. If it crashes, or gets a virus, you deal with it as you would on your mac.

The second group think of the iphone as a phone with really neat features. If it stops making and receiving calls, it's broken. Being able to download a few games is a bonus, but not that big a deal.

The problem is that when the second group start downloading software written for the first group, there's going to be trouble. The vast majority of users are in the second group, while all but the most professional developers are in the first group, and think their customers are too.

Unless Apple are very careful, they're going to feel the backlash from this clash of views. It's very expensive to check that an application is safe enough for the second group to install, but if you don't, you can't claim that "it just works" because it doesn't. Trying to tell people that they have to be careful what they install undermines the whole ethos of simplicity and power which is the iPhone's main selling point.

If I were Apple, I would make it extremely complex to install arbitrary software, just so that people know they are throwing away the consumer-oriented phone in exchange for the geek-oriented computer.

People in this forum seem to think if you install something and it's a virus then oh well you can fix it. Do you not understand the "Image of Apple." If they let their baby (the iPhone) end up getting viruses and all these applications end up being resource hogs and killing the processor it doesn't matter who's fault it is - all the news media is going to say "Apple's iPhone get's a virus" not "Don't install crapware on your phone." Apple has absolutely NOTHING to gain from allowing free software to exist outside of iTunes. As it is now they just say look, you broke your phone, that's your own fault. But if they allow anyone and everyone to write free ware and let everyone install it without Apple making sure it's not crap-tastic Apple is going to get blamed and there's going to be dozens of articles about how the iPhone is no longer safe and blah, blah, blah, blah all because they allowed people to install free apps without them looking at it. Will it cost them more time/money to check all the apps? Of course. Will it pay off in the long run as windows mobile continues to get hacked and Apple can say "don't know your problem but the iPhone is just fine."

There's just 1 simple fact. The vast majority of iPhone users don't want to have to worry about the authenticity of an app and if it's a virus. Maybe there will be fewer apps out there - I'm fine with that. Trust me - we don't want the iPhone to turn into a platform that's going to require you install a virus scanner just to feel safe. Just let Apple do it for us! Chances are the really crappy stuff won't even make it to the iTunes store - and that's even better. Don't have to sort through dozens of ***** games to find something cool and fun.

So - Apple - do your own virus protection and check all the apps yourselves. If you don't you're going to regret it - big time.

 

[julianewus]

So - Apple - do your own virus protection and check all the apps yourselves. If you don't you're going to regret it - big time.

I agree because I dont want to have Norton anti-virus on my phone, I want to be able to download an app. and trust that its free of malware.....
and it does get rid of CRAPWARE

 

[3.1416]

Apple has absolutely NOTHING to gain from allowing free software to exist outside of iTunes. As it is now they just say look, you broke your phone, that's your own fault. But if they allow anyone and everyone to write free ware and let everyone install it without Apple making sure it's not crap-tastic Apple is going to get blamed and there's going to be dozens of articles about how the iPhone is no longer safe and blah, blah, blah, blah all because they allowed people to install free apps without them looking at it.

Right, good thing Apple doesn't let any random developers release Mac apps. Just imagine the chaos.

There's just 1 simple fact. The vast majority of iPhone users don't want to have to worry about the authenticity of an app and if it's a virus.

Great, so stick to the apps available through iTunes. Why are you insistent on forcing everyone else to adopt your unfounded paranoia of third party developers and your blind faith in Apple?

Maybe there will be fewer apps out there - I'm fine with that. Trust me - we don't want the iPhone to turn into a platform that's going to require you install a virus scanner just to feel safe. Just let Apple do it for us!

This attitude just baffles me. Apple is a corporation, they are not your buddy and protector. Often their interests align with yours, but quite frequently they don't.

 

[72930]

This attitude just baffles me. Apple is a corporation, they are not your buddy and protector. Often their interests align with yours, but quite frequently they don't.

They don't want people to get viruses as it ruins the image of the great phone people tell their friends about.

 

[3.1416]

The second group think of the iphone as a phone with really neat features. If it stops making and receiving calls, it's broken. Being able to download a few games is a bonus, but not that big a deal.

The problem is that when the second group start downloading software written for the first group, there's going to be trouble.

Why would they? The second group can just get their officially approved apps through iTunes; they don't even have to know of the existence of unapproved apps.

 

[rtdunham]

...If Donald is a Duck, and Pluto is a Dog... what does that make Goofy?...

head....spinnning. must...have....oooh! a shiny thing!

 

[fr33 loader]

Well that could be easy to fix, anytime I installed software on my Treo, it gave me a warning telling me that Sprint wasn't responsible for whatever the software did. Apple could do the same as the Treo. When they get the calls tell people to restore their phones, or call the developers. I mean if you have a problem with Windows causing your Mac to act funny do you call Apple or Microsoft? Pretty much the same thing here.

In an ideal world, that would have been nice. You could drop by at iPhone hack forum and it would be riddled with posts like this "Help, I messed/bricked my iPhone after installing this and that, do you think Apple will find out if I returned it?" Also people would usually call Apple first if there is something wrong with their Mac/iPhone regardless if it's a hardware or software issue. Money, time, manpower saved in the long run if they do quality control.

 

[Chaos215bar2]

In an ideal world, that would have been nice. You could drop by at iPhone hack forum and it would be riddled with posts like this "Help, I messed/bricked my iPhone after installing this and that, do you think Apple will find out if I returned it?" Also people would usually call Apple first if there is something wrong with their Mac/iPhone regardless if it's a hardware or software issue. Money, time, manpower saved in the long run if they do quality control.

Well, yes. Obviously if you mess with things you are not supposed to mess with you will break things. Jail-breaking an iPhone involves changing around system files that Apple does not intend the user to change, and in fact does its best to prevent the user from changing. Obviously there will be the occasional vulnerability that will allow some malicious third party app to do something bad to the iPhone, but short of that, running third party apps on the iPhone should be just as safe as running them on a Mac. After all, they are using variants of the same OS.

 

[barneyntd]

... running third party apps on the iPhone should be just as safe as running them on a Mac ...

That's just the point. The iPhone is sold as a phone, not a computer. Most users think of it as a phone, not a computer. People expect computers to crash, but if their phone does, they don't blame the game they downloaded from the internet, they think the phone is junk. For most users, running third party apps needs to be MUCH SAFER than running them on a mac.

The only question is, can Apple allow hobby developers to write code for their iphones without compromising its reputation? I think they can, but only by making decisions which will make life much harder for developers.

There are essentially only two possibilities:
1. A really strong sandbox. This severely limits what third-part apps can do, and is hard to make strong enough anyway. This is what they were trying to do with the Web Apps thing.
2. Make users jump through hoops before they can install unapproved apps. Just having a "click to agree" disclaimer isn't enough: people never read those things. If this is actually effective enough to make a difference, it will stop most people from using third-party software at all, thus severely reducing the market for small developers.

 

[Stella]

In an ideal world, that would have been nice. You could drop by at iPhone hack forum and it would be riddled with posts like this "Help, I messed/bricked my iPhone after installing this and that, do you think Apple will find out if I returned it?" Also people would usually call Apple first if there is something wrong with their Mac/iPhone regardless if it's a hardware or software issue. Money, time, manpower saved in the long run if they do quality control.

So, on one had you think its OK for Apple to allow free apps for OSX, but on the other, you think its not OK for iPhone.

Just imagine the cost reduction for support if Apple controlled OSX 3rd party apps!!

I don't understand the thinking personally behind the thought that its good to restrict 3rd party apps for iPhone.

 

[bigmc6000]

Right, good thing Apple doesn't let any random developers release Mac apps. Just imagine the chaos.

Great, so stick to the apps available through iTunes. Why are you insistent on forcing everyone else to adopt your unfounded paranoia of third party developers and your blind faith in Apple?

This attitude just baffles me. Apple is a corporation, they are not your buddy and protector. Often their interests align with yours, but quite frequently they don't.

1 - We already have our own amount of crapware but at least it's a lot lower than Windows. I'd be perfectly fine with going through apple.com to get an app. At least I'd know they've looked at it.

2- "unfounded paranoia"? Did you see the whole "virus problem" when that 13 year old kid screwed with some XML code and screwed with the Installer App. I have absolutely no problem what so ever with 3rd party developers. I just want Apple to look at it first (to make sure those 3rd party apps aren't malicious).

3 - You're right - Apple isn't my buddy but in this instance my interests do align with theirs. I want a great phone with some cool, fun apps and I want it to be safe. If they allow just anyone to program crap you'll end up with some person wanting to be the first to hack the crap out of the iPhone.

All I want is Apple to look at the apps, I'm 100% for free software and 3rd party developers but not at the risk of jeopardizing the security of my phone and judging from the comments of others I'm not the only one.

 

[Chaos215bar2]

1 - We already have our own amount of crapware but at least it's a lot lower than Windows. I'd be perfectly fine with going through apple.com to get an app. At least I'd know they've looked at it.

Yes, this is true. If you really can't be troubled to or don't know how to find good software, then the iTunes solution is perfect for you. Why stop others from doing something just because you don't want to.

2- "unfounded paranoia"? Did you see the whole "virus problem" when that 13 year old kid screwed with some XML code and screwed with the Installer App. I have absolutely no problem what so ever with 3rd party developers. I just want Apple to look at it first (to make sure those 3rd party apps aren't malicious).

There are essentially two options for the certification of apps:

1) Spend several hours testing and reading the source of every app released. This will catch most malicious software, but its still likely to miss something eventually, especially if Apple is processing a huge volume of random third party software. There are just too many ways to disguise malicious code.

2) Solve the halting problem and create and automated code certifier (and prove P=NP while you're at it). (Have fun with this one.)

In other words, if Apple were to check every single app, they would either need to hire a huge number of support staff solely for this purpose or the certification process would probably take months to complete. However, there is an easier solution, which has ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTED. Provide regular security updates to patch vulnerabilities and restrict access to sensitive user data. (Remember how Apple made a big deal about creating a Javascript library for the iPhone that allows apps to display personal user data without actually having access to the content.)

Anyway, I don't see why this is even an issue. If you decide to install a random third party app, it messes up your iPhone, and call support to have them fix the problem, there is a very simple solution they can provide. Reset your iPhone and sync it. All your personal information, accounts, music, iTunes provided apps, etc. will be exactly as you left them, and the third party apps you say you don't want anyway will be deleted. And if you aren't 100% sure an app isn't malicious, don't install it.

3 - You're right - Apple isn't my buddy but in this instance my interests do align with theirs. I want a great phone with some cool, fun apps and I want it to be safe. If they allow just anyone to program crap you'll end up with some person wanting to be the first to hack the crap out of the iPhone.

Of course someone will do this. If you don't want install non-certified software, this will not effect you.

All I want is Apple to look at the apps, I'm 100% for free software and 3rd party developers but not at the risk of jeopardizing the security of my phone and judging from the comments of others I'm not the only one.

Again, if you only install software through iTunes (assuming only certified apps are provided there), why do you care? Anyway, if the software is free, who's going to pay for all the people who are looking at the apps?

 

[fr33 loader]

So, on one had you think its OK for Apple to allow free apps for OSX, but on the other, you think its not OK for iPhone.

Just imagine the cost reduction for support if Apple controlled OSX 3rd party apps!!

I don't understand the thinking personally behind the thought that its good to restrict 3rd party apps for iPhone.

Where did I ever say that I didnt want 3rd party apps or free apps is not good, my user name is free_loader for christ sake All I wanted is for Apple to check all applications make sure that its secure and stable.

My phone should never be compared with my Mac, all of my computers combined would never be as important as my phone. I need my phone to be stable and secure so that I could use it when I need to. I could live with little glitches here and there on my computer, computer softwares shutting down unexpectedly but not my phone. Its not OK for a car dying on me from time to time on a freeway. I want it working all the time when I need to use it.

 

[bigmc6000]

Yes, this is true. If you really can't be troubled to or don't know how to find good software, then the iTunes solution is perfect for you. Why stop others from doing something just because you don't want to.
There are essentially two options for the certification of apps:
1) Spend several hours testing and reading the source of every app released. This will catch most malicious software, but its still likely to miss something eventually, especially if Apple is processing a huge volume of random third party software. There are just too many ways to disguise malicious code.
2) Solve the halting problem and create and automated code certifier (and prove P=NP while you're at it). (Have fun with this one.)
In other words, if Apple were to check every single app, they would either need to hire a huge number of support staff solely for this purpose or the certification process would probably take months to complete. However, there is an easier solution, which has ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTED. Provide regular security updates to patch vulnerabilities and restrict access to sensitive user data. (Remember how Apple made a big deal about creating a Javascript library for the iPhone that allows apps to display personal user data without actually having access to the content.)
Anyway, I don't see why this is even an issue. If you decide to install a random third party app, it messes up your iPhone, and call support to have them fix the problem, there is a very simple solution they can provide. Reset your iPhone and sync it. All your personal information, accounts, music, iTunes provided apps, etc. will be exactly as you left them, and the third party apps you say you don't want anyway will be deleted. And if you aren't 100% sure an app isn't malicious, don't install it.
Of course someone will do this. If you don't want install non-certified software, this will not effect you.
Again, if you only install software through iTunes (assuming only certified apps are provided there), why do you care? Anyway, if the software is free, who's going to pay for all the people who are looking at the apps?

I still have no idea why people can't see that the iPhone situation is NOTHING like the Mac situation. We've immersed ourselves in a world of expecting people to try to run malicious code on our computer systems and we've adapted to only running stuff we know and intend to download. So if someone downloads an app that messes up their Mac it's not that big of a deal. Some people will make a big deal but there's still the "Windows has tens of thousands of viruses." Now with the iPhone there isn't that built in backup out there. If someone makes an app that runs rampant through iPhones and bricks them (even if you have the option of going back to your computer and restoring it) the negative publicity could very well kill the iPhone. Right now Apple is benefiting from the huge amount of consumer and retailer love for the iPhone.

Phones have never been the same anyway - I've never downloaded apps from my computer and put them on my phone - I always had to buy them off of my phone.

Who's going to pay to look at it? Apple will because if they let their baby turn into a virus haven they are going to lose millions in the long run.

And by the way - there's already a way for people to install free apps who don't care about potentially 1) bricking their phones and 2) opening themselves up to viruses. It's called jail breaking and it's going to continue to stay around. So - there's already a way to get unchecked 3rd party apps. I want a way to get secure 3rd party apps.

So - jailbreak away. I'll just wait until I get bad@ss games from the likes of EA, Freeverse, etc from the iTunes store

 

[Chaos215bar2]

I still have no idea why people can't see that the iPhone situation is NOTHING like the Mac situation... [Please refer to the above post for the remainder of this quote.]

I agree Apple needs to tread carefully while opening up the iPhone, but I do not believe that it is impossible to do so in a way that will avoid harming the image of the iPhone. The current iPhone situation is exactly why I do not yet have an iPhone, and I believe there is a middle ground that will preserve this image while allowing those users who expect more out of the iPhone to get more.

Unless it is completely free of vulnerabilities (near impossible with the amount of code that goes into something the size of Mac OS X, which runs on the iPhone), every platform will have its viruses. I am not familiar with the inner workings of the current jailbreaks, but I know the first one used a vulnerability in the JPEG library to install itself. If a jailbreak can do things to the iPhone that Apple has tried to prevent, there is absolutely nothing preventing malicious software from doing the same. Without these vulnerabilities, a third party app will not be able to cause damage to the iPhone anyway, unsell specifically allowed access to restricted areas of the iPhone's hardware and software.

I've never downloaded apps from my computer and put them on my phone - I always had to buy them off of my phone.

I'm happy for your service provider that you think of your phone this way. However, some of the best apps on my phone (Opera Mini, for example) came free from the internet. I do not, however, want to perform anything along the lines of a jailbreak to gain this ability. Jailbreaking the iPhone involves modifying the low level operation of the iPhone in ways it was not designed to be modified. It is actually an amazing feet to successfully do this without bricking the phone in the process.

I don't understand why people seem to think that because someone is willing to risk installing third party software, they should be willing to jailbreak their phone. Jailbreaking an iPhone is many orders of magnitude more risky than installing a piece of third party software from a trusted source. While a jailbreak is designed to leverage a flaw in the iPhone's software, no non-malicious third party app should do so.

So, enjoy your "bad@ss" games; I have absolutely no problem with you using your iPhone that way. But hopefully while you are sticking to your safe iTunes provided content, I will be doing so much more with thousands of available third party apps. An app on my iPhone may crash every now and then, but it will be well worth the risk. And assuming Apple does its job with security updates, I will have little more need to worry about malicious software than you.