5 ms·

I know you're being sarcastic, but an exploit in iOS really doesn't have anything to do with Apple's review policy for 3rd party applications.

• spinchange 16y ago
  A principle reason they give as a defense of their app review policy and walled garden approach is that it is necessary to protect users from bad or malicious apps. I think he's inferring (or pointing out the irony) that perhaps it's not the 3rd party ones they need to be so overly concerned with.
  • dman 16y ago
    The popularity of the jailbreaks suggests that apple might be underestimating the intelligence of their own users.
    • andreyf 16y ago
      I think Apple realizes the importance of the jailbreaking community (at least, some people at Apple do - do you doubt that 20 year old Steve Jobs would have jailbroken his phone?). I imagine they're simply uninterested in an arms race on that front.
      • CamperBob 16y ago
        True; 20-year-old Steve Jobs was 'jailbreaking' the whole damn phone company (http://www.paulgraham.com/bluebox.html http://www.paulgraham.com/bluebox.html).
  • deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
• martythemaniak 16y ago
  You're right - security and quality certainly have nothing to do with their App Store policies. It's just that, knowing the above, some people wonder why Apple and their fans keep saying there's indeed such a connection.
  • tvon 16y ago
    Now you're just trolling.
    • andybak 16y ago
      Actually I think he's got a partial point. I think there is a review of app quality (although you could dispute the criteria they use). But security? It would be unfeasible to do a proper security audit of every app even if they did have access to the source code. And yet many people are convinced that there is some form of security guarantee.
• drivebyacct2 16y ago
  No, that was the sarcasm. It's funny because it's ironic that Apple wants to lock down what apps are available, and yet it's being openned to those very apps through an exploit in their own software. BUT, it's yet more ironic that people will try to use this in attacks again the App Store even though it's irrelevant. Apparently this wasn't obvious despite me pointing out that the comment was multidimensionally sarcastic. oh well. People attacking AppStore policies in the context of a browser exploit is as relevant as a "malicious app" that reports having access to your contact list, "stealing" your data through a Wallpaper that you manually install and grant access (ie, last weeks "debacle"). THOUGH, one could question why the Mobile Safari process is allowed the ability to become rampant anyway. I particularly appreciate the separation of the Dalvik VM in such scenarios. Also, I posted two comments this evening. One is at -4, the other is at 10. Why did my overall "karma" move from 92 to 89. Should it not be at 98? Maybe I don't understand it. Oh well, hardly relevant.
  • jsz0 16y ago
    The obvious difference is Apple's problem is unintentional and a theoretical malicious app distributed in Apple's store would be intentional. Probably something along the lines of going into a B&M Apple Store and falling down due to a wet spot on the floor versus some Apple employee running out and pushing you down on purpose. The damage may be the same but they don't have any real connection to each other.
    • drivebyacct2 16y ago
      That's the point I'm making!!! Why is everyone down voting and not bothering to read?!!?! "People attacking AppStore policies in the context of a browser exploit is as relevant as a "malicious app" that reports having access to your contact list, "stealing" your data through a Wallpaper that you manually install and grant access (ie, last weeks "debacle")" AKA, NOT RELEVANT. Hence the sarcasm. Whatever.