For a fee, of course; SDK-created apps need a digital signature from Apple, and I doubt Apple's just going to give that away -- they need to keep the riff-raff in check, after all.
Additionally, we don't know yet whether iTunes Store will be the exclusive distribution channel for apps designed for the iPhone/Touch, or whether developers can create their own. Knowing The Steve's desire to control and take a cut of everything he touches, probably the former. (I don't now whether this would violate antitrust laws or not, but it likely won't stop him from trying anyway))
Apple has not said that at all. Steve has said virtually nothing on the subject, in fact. The "leaked" MacWorld keynotes claimed this, but that was a hoax, just like the many hoaxes before it that have become a ritual.
I never said it was censorship. I implied that it was a means of control. The Steve never wanted third party development to begin with; the SDK is a bow to public demand for it, but he wasn't going to do it without tight restrictions on system access to prevent just anyone writing just anything. He wants quality apps to be developed with the SDK, and the most effective way to do this is to price the digital signatures out of the range of the average Joe Hacker. Pricing signatures will ensure that those who want to write software for the iPhone/Touch will be serious about doing so, and not just some scruffy dude off the street covered in Cheetos dust and smelling of Bawls who may or may not have it in mind to try and write some sort of virus or trojan or some damn thing. (Speaking from a reasonable facsimile of Steve's perspective here, not my own.) Steve wants security, and the best security is tight control of the environment he needs to secure.
The SDK doesn't make jailbreaking irrelevant. It's two sides of the same coin. SDK apps will likely cost money. Jailbreak software usually doesn't. Jailbreak software has virtually no limits on what it can accomplish with respect to the filesystem and access to all system calls. The SDK will have restrictions. Six of one, half dozen of the other.
Frankly, this depends entirely on the quality of the software available in the hacking scene that isn't available in the legit scene. Until suitable replacements for the likes of iPhysics, TTR, the various emulators, and so on, turn up on the SDK side of the fence, then jailbreaking is not irrelevant.
I don't recall reading this -- not that I am implying that it wasn't said -- but if you have a cite handy I'd appreciate reading up on it.
Security is control by definition. If you have no control over your environment, then you have no security. Digital signatures are a means to control which applications get through and which don't in order to ensure that those that get through are safe to run.
There is a significant difference between developing for a Mac and developing for the iPod or iPhone. The latter are closed systems, never originally intended to have third party apps developed for them. The Steve doesn't want any old Joe messing with the system and potentially screwing it up. That's where the SDK and digital signatures come in.
Hacking has been and continues to be about opening up a previously closed system to third party development. Whether or not it's practical depends both on your definition of practicality and the applications that are developed on a hacked system. I think you can agree however that there has been plenty of practical apps developed on the jailbreak scene outside of entertainment software. The predictions, too, aren't out of left field. They are based on a combination of Apple's track record and logical speculation as to how Apple is likely to handle certain scenarios, knowing Apple as many do.
Possibly. It has not been proved yet that this security system has to be a binary, all-or-nothing sort of deal. I think it's perfectly credible that Apple might have a multi-level tiered system of signatures.
That seems rather complex and strikes me as the sort of thing Apple wouldn't much want to deal with, much less develop. Anything is possible of course, I just can't really see The Steve going to the trouble. He's basing this digital signature system on Nokia's example, after all (though making it mandatory rather than just throwing a warning with unsigned apps) so he's probably going to want to stick to that model applying only whatever modifications are needed to ensure that apps can't wander outside the sandbox.
I'll see if I can dig it up, but thanks for the heads up.
Closed systems are those that weren't intended to allow public access for the purpose of writing and executing arbitrary code. Almost all DAPs and PMPs are closed systems; they were not designed to allow the public to access any part of the system's infrastructure to be able to design applications. That some can be hacked is a function of both the ingenuity of the hacking community and the vulnerability of those devices to hacking attempts; that doesn't make them any more open by design than they were originally, it just means that hackers were able to get in and make an opening.
jailbroken 16 pretty gig ipod touch 1.1.3