4 ms·
It's quite sad when you have to pay premium money for a device and still aren't able to do the things YOU want with it. For all the things Apple did for usabili
by mrich 15y ago
It's quite sad when you have to pay premium money for a device and still aren't able to do the things YOU want with it. For all the things Apple did for usability, this is one big letdown.
- maukdaddy 15y agoThen don't pay for the premium device. No one is forcing you to. If you want something hackable, and let's be honest, cheap - buy an android device.
- rbarooah 15y agoIt's sad, but the world contains coders who have ill intent towards everyday users. Apple's solution has many downsides, but it is aimed at solving a real problem.
- derefr 15y agoI wonder, though--if Apple was able to come up with this Gatekeeper architecture that can both keep users safe and make developers happy, why not use it on iOS as well? (Presumably just with it set to the first "Mac App Store apps only" setting by default.)
- rbarooah 15y agoWe don't actually know how safe Gatekeeper keeps users yet. It's never been deployed. I don't think it's inconceivable that they'll eventually add that option to iOS, especially if some killer apps start to appear on Android that would be impossible through the store.
- rbarooah 15y agoI'd be fascinated to know why this got downvoted: Is it because it's cautious about the effectiveness of an untested design of Apple's? Is it because it suggests that Apple might be forced to change their policies? Is it because it implies that Android's relative openness might eventually give it a significant advantage over time? I think it's a pretty cogent comment, so I'm assuming the downvotes are because someone thinks it's not supporting the right side. What I'm not sure about is which side it's not supporting.
- mindslight 15y agoIt's the carriers. Apple had to give the Wi-Fi Alliance a lot of concessions in exchange for allowing the device on their networks.