Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Just a thought on why Apple may not want 3rd party apps

T

teamturbo

macrumors member
Original poster
Jan 30, 2007
34
0
Not sure if this was mentioned before.

Apple is suppose to sell 8 million iPhones by the end of 08. If Apple releases the code for iPhones for 3rd party apps, isn't that a serious threat for virus attacks, especially since the iPhone connects to iTunes for syncing?

Sounds like a press nightmare for Apple if they have millions of phones on the market being attacked by viruses.
 
I'm sure security is somewhere in there in the list of reasons.

From a CS standpoint, it's far nicer to have total control of the platform. If everyone is running different apps and such that makes Apple spend more money on tech support/CS.

The iPhone platform is also about Apple making money, though and while Apple doesn't appear to have any products that are competing with 3rd party apps, they may have something in the works that would make keeping 3rd party stuff off their phone financially advantageous for them.
 
Apple doesn't have to release code for there to be security holes.

This is proven by the ton of hacks, mods, and apps already out there.

Not to mention the multiple Safari bugs that made up the first software update.

Security is the fake monster they often trot out to justify policy decisions that can't be explained away otherwise.

:rolleyes:
 
kdarling said:
Apple doesn't have to release code for there to be security holes.
Click to expand...

No but it does have to 'release code' to fix security issues (like an OS provider) - hence the firmware/OS updates.

The 3rd party apps in this case were running as user 'root'. That's in no way a sustainable situation. Apple had no choice other than to step in in this instance.
 
kdarling said:
Apple doesn't have to release code for there to be security holes.

This is proven by the ton of hacks, mods, and apps already out there.

Not to mention the multiple Safari bugs that made up the first software update.

Security is the fake monster they often trot out to justify policy decisions that can't be explained away otherwise.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

feeling cynical this morning, are we? :p
 
Sobe said:
From a CS standpoint, it's far nicer to have total control of the platform. If everyone is running different apps and such that makes Apple spend more money on tech support/CS.
Click to expand...

Then Apple should limit 3rd party apps on OSX too... for the same reason.
 
Stella said:
Then Apple should limit 3rd party apps on OSX too... for the same reason.
Click to expand...

They would probably love to.

If you're paying people to do CS/Tech support for your customers, ideally you'd love everything to be identical, hardware and software.

That isn't always practical obviously.

For a real world example, try trouble shooting a problem with an XBox versus a PC.
 
From a CS standpoint, it's far nicer to have total control of the platform. If everyone is running different apps and such that makes Apple spend more money on tech support/CS.
Click to expand...

I don't feel that having 3rd party support would affect tech support or customer service.

If you take your phone in to the store, one of the first things they ask is to restore the phone via itunes to rule out a software issue. Then after the entire os is erased and reinstalled, if you're still having problems, they'll take a look at it.

I suspect that wouldn't change even if they opened up the phone to 3rd party developers.
 
teamturbo said:
Not sure if this was mentioned before.

Apple is suppose to sell 8 million iPhones by the end of 08. If Apple releases the code for iPhones for 3rd party apps, isn't that a serious threat for virus attacks, especially since the iPhone connects to iTunes for syncing?

Sounds like a press nightmare for Apple if they have millions of phones on the market being attacked by viruses.
Click to expand...

Press nightmare? You mean like the 1.1.1 update?
 
Theres only one reason Apple doesnt want homebrew apps on the iphone. They want us to PAY for 3rd party apps from their approved partners.

Apple already wants users to pay for music, movies and ringtones. They are always looking for more revenue streams.
 
badtzmaru said:
Theres only one reason Apple doesnt want homebrew apps on the iphone. They want us to PAY for 3rd party apps from their approved partners.

Apple already wants to pay for music, movies and ringtones. They are always looking for more revenue streams.
Click to expand...
Hopefully it won't be too long until iPhone Linux, with 3rd party apps galore! Linux certainly has made my iPod better :)
 
emotion said:
The 3rd party apps in this case were running as user 'root'. That's in no way a sustainable situation. Apple had no choice other than to step in in this instance.
Click to expand...

I doubt any update has yet changed how apps, internal or otherwise, run.

The root user problem has already been pointed out to be mostly hand-waving. Sure, that gives you direct access to the camera and phone, if that's your worry.

But even normal operations would require apps to run as the user... thus giving access to all your private data anyway !!
 
kdarling said:
I doubt any update has yet changed how apps, internal or otherwise, run.

The root user problem has already been pointed out to be mostly hand-waving. Sure, that gives you direct access to the camera and phone, if that's your worry.

But even normal operations would require apps to run as the user... thus giving access to all your private data anyway !!
Click to expand...

Any OS that runs apps under ellevated priviledges needs attention. Full stop. Particularly if Apple go through with Job's assertion that "desktop-class" apps will make it to the platform.
 
well lets hope they rethink and expand their SDK and open up more tools and options that will standardize the 3rd party scenario... at least if they can't take control of it, give some guidelines for the programmers and app coders.
 
emotion said:
Any OS that runs apps under ellevated priviledges needs attention. Full stop. Particularly if Apple go through with Job's assertion that "desktop-class" apps will make it to the platform.
Click to expand...

Agreed, especially considering that Safari still has bugs that let someone run code from a website.

(Actually, Jobs claimed that desktop class applications were already there, referring to the fact that by using OSX, which was already familiar to their programmers, they easily wrote what they did.)

Does OSX use hardware address privilege protection? Otherwise it's useless. I'm not an OSX or ARM expert. I do see ARMs have something that they call TrustZone. I assume they're using it because of the ability to pop out to the home screen when an app runs away. Which is a good thing.

OTOH, one of the first things savvy WM users will often do, is seek out a signed registry editor and disable most such security. This allows the equivalent of root apps to run, giving them access to writing or running very cool programs with dialing etc.

One of the apps that's available on BB's and WM that I'd like to see is the ability to remotely lock and/or wipe the phone via a text message.
 
Simple, simple, simple...

Apple will protect it's brand at all cost. That's it, when it makes sense, they'll do it. I don't know why people have such a hard time wrapping their brains around the concept. Every detail and execution is being thought out to preserve the enigma of the company for ages to come. Every empire crumbles and I doubt Apple will escape that fate, but for now, I'm not upset that they're trying to prolong the process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back