5 ms·

Your argument would be completely correct if the App Store were not the sole means of distribution of native software to iOS devices. Because the App Store is

by tewks 16y ago

Your argument would be completely correct if the App Store were not the sole means of distribution of native software to iOS devices. Because the App Store is the sole means of said distribution, the validity of your argument becomes much murkier. In my opinion, Apple should enhance the permissions system and allow the installation of software from other sources. The App Store would still reign supreme, generate revenue, et cetera and users would largely continue to be protected from malicious software. This sort of discussion would be moot as a result and your argument would stand.

Groxx 16y ago
Because it's the sole means of distribution, but they're not significantly the biggest / only fish in the pond, it falls solidly in allowable-anti-competitive-behavior land. Anti-competitive, certainly, but there are plenty of other phones out there. If you want an iPhone, you want an iPhone and everything that goes with it, and this is one of those things. Opening it up would be nice, I doubt anyone would disagree with that, but it's fully within their interest, ability, and right to restrict it. Maybe not best interest, but it's their decision to make.
thought_alarm 16y ago
> Apple should enhance the permissions system and allow the > installation of software from other sources. Arguably, Apple already provides this. It's called WebKit. More to the point, Apple could have forced all 3rd-party software to run in a virtual machine, like Microsoft, and Google, and Palm, and RIM. They could then provide graduated API access, make their app review process a hell of a lot simpler, and eliminate the review process altogether for software distributed outside of the App Store. Instead, they allow 3rd-party apps to run on the bare metal as full-fledged OS X applications. There are advantages and disadvantages to that approach, but it's very hard to argue that they made the wrong choice given how things have turned out. Everything else is academic.
- tewks 16y ago
  Justifying the sole control of UIKit application distribution based on the fact that either WebKit exists or that UIKit is not implemented within a VM is illogical and irrelevant.
  - thought_alarm 16y ago
    There are technical realities that you obviously don't understand. Call me when Google, Microsoft, RIM, or Palm ever allow fully native 3rd-party software.
    - nlogn 16y ago
      Android has allowed native code through the NDK since 1.6. Now, you have to use it in conjunction with the SDK and thus some of your code will have to be in Java, but the main reason I can see to get down to the "bare metal" anyway would be for performance critical algorithms.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - tewks 16y ago
      OSX on armv6 or v7 is secure enough to not warrant the use of a virtual machine. Virtual memory and memory protection were not commonly found in mobile pre-iPhone, making the choice of the JVM or dalvik in 2003, when Android was founded, or earlier in the case of RIM, convenient. Regardless, the review process as it stands provides little in the way of additional security, a fact that further weakens your vague argument. Static analysis can only go so far. The status quo is about desire for revenue, not supposed "technical realities". All I am proposing is that allowing apps from other sources would have little effect on either. Call me when Apple ever allows fully native 3rd-party software on the Mac.

by tewks 16y ago

Groxx 16y ago

Because it's the sole means of distribution, but they're not significantly the biggest / only fish in the pond, it falls solidly in allowable-anti-competitive-behavior land. Anti-competitive, certainly, but there are plenty of other phones out there. If you want an iPhone, you want an iPhone and everything that goes with it, and this is one of those things. Opening it up would be nice, I doubt anyone would disagree with that, but it's fully within their interest, ability, and right to restrict it. Maybe not best interest, but it's their decision to make.

thought_alarm 16y ago

> Apple should enhance the permissions system and allow the > installation of software from other sources. Arguably, Apple already provides this. It's called WebKit. More to the point, Apple could have forced all 3rd-party software to run in a virtual machine, like Microsoft, and Google, and Palm, and RIM. They could then provide graduated API access, make their app review process a hell of a lot simpler, and eliminate the review process altogether for software distributed outside of the App Store. Instead, they allow 3rd-party apps to run on the bare metal as full-fledged OS X applications. There are advantages and disadvantages to that approach, but it's very hard to argue that they made the wrong choice given how things have turned out. Everything else is academic.

tewks 16y ago
Justifying the sole control of UIKit application distribution based on the fact that either WebKit exists or that UIKit is not implemented within a VM is illogical and irrelevant.
- thought_alarm 16y ago
  There are technical realities that you obviously don't understand. Call me when Google, Microsoft, RIM, or Palm ever allow fully native 3rd-party software.
  - nlogn 16y ago
    Android has allowed native code through the NDK since 1.6. Now, you have to use it in conjunction with the SDK and thus some of your code will have to be in Java, but the main reason I can see to get down to the "bare metal" anyway would be for performance critical algorithms.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - tewks 16y ago
    OSX on armv6 or v7 is secure enough to not warrant the use of a virtual machine. Virtual memory and memory protection were not commonly found in mobile pre-iPhone, making the choice of the JVM or dalvik in 2003, when Android was founded, or earlier in the case of RIM, convenient. Regardless, the review process as it stands provides little in the way of additional security, a fact that further weakens your vague argument. Static analysis can only go so far. The status quo is about desire for revenue, not supposed "technical realities". All I am proposing is that allowing apps from other sources would have little effect on either. Call me when Apple ever allows fully native 3rd-party software on the Mac.