4 ms·

It feels boring without ability to jailbreaking your device but overall that's better for end-user security (less malware) and developer profit(less pirate).

• toufka 9y ago
  I've mentioned it before, but it's frustrating how linked 'freedom' and 'free' are. If you buy into the security walled garden, you must too accept the commercial walled garden. I don't think those things must theoretically be intertwined, but in today's market they certainly are.
• saurik 9y ago
  It is absolutely possible to build a device that no only is secure but also lets you--the owner of the device--actually run anything you--again, the owner of the device--want to run; as it stands, the device is secure despite you, by saying that only Apple--who is actually the owner of your device, which they have effectively only lent to you and which they heavily restrict your usage of--can decide what can and can't run on your device... to me this is like saying "my apartment is secure because I am not trusted with a key: in order to get in, I have to call Apple and give them my password, and they open the door"... honestly, that seems a lot less secure to me than "I have the key".
  • freewizard 9y ago
    That's certainly technically possible to achieve both security and "hack-ability", but having a reasonably attractive business model and user experience to make it available for general public is another layer of challenge. The analogy of apartment is interesting, as today people may have equal or more to lose on a cellphone breach comparing to apartment, while managing the security is much more difficult on cellphone for common users. That fact certainly contributes to the prospers of walled garden (apartment management company) like Apple. btw thanks for all the great work, saurik. //hatoff