5 ms·
Imagine if Microsoft had vetted every DOS and Windows app Or, hold constant that Microsoft didn't vet DOS/Windows apps and imagine that every DOS/Windows machi
by pohl 17y ago
Imagine if Microsoft had vetted every DOS and Windows app
Or, hold constant that Microsoft didn't vet DOS/Windows apps and imagine that every DOS/Windows machine had access to a cellular network owned by a some other company.
I agree that the review process is completely broken, but I don't think the solution is as easy as having no controls whatsoever.
- chollida1 17y ago> , hold constant that Microsoft didn't vet DOS/Windows apps and imagine that every DOS/Windows machine had access to a cellular network owned by a some other company. Well most windows machines do have access to a network controlled by someone else. And with the proliferation of cellular usb accessories more and more windows machines do have access to a cellular network owned by some other company.
- pohl 17y agoTrue, and about ten million of them are estimated to be in the Conficker botnet, another half a million in the Kraken botnet, etc, etc... I'm definitely not saying that Microsoft should have been vetting programs. I'm saying that cellular platforms may not yet be to the point where unfettered access is safe. The software on cell phones tends to favor being small at the expense of all else - probably including safety.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- elblanco 17y agoThey don't? I don't know about how you connect to the internet, but my ISPs owns the networks I tend to connect to.
- wvenable 17y agoSo you've never heard of Windows Mobile then?
- tjogin 17y agoDo you think Apple should look at Microsoft's mobile strategy with envy?
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- wvenable 17y agoThat's not what I, or the original commenter, was talking about. Having no approval doesn't mean chaos for carrier's networks.
- tjogin 17y agoConversely, having a horrible train-wreck of an approval process like Apple does clearly doesn't mean you can't have unparalleled success either. So I guess we're back to square one.
- wvenable 17y agoUmm yes. But nobody seems to be arguing that. The original commenter implied that without vetting the applications, the carriers networks would be in danger. But that reality already exists on plenty of other platforms (even one by Microsoft) without any troubles. The success or failure of the platform is not in question.
- clawrencewenham 17y agoUnpopular platforms rarely have problems with third party software, regardless of any approval process. It's possible that if Windows Mobile had been as popular as the iPhone, then the carriers _would_ have started to see a big problem with malware ruining their networks.
- tshtf 17y agoI've owned two Windows Mobile phones over the past 5 years. Both allowed me complete access to install any third-party applications, in spite the fact they were on third-party cellular network. Same for Nokia. No application vetting whatsoever. Mobile platforms tend to separate critical functions in the radio from what a developer can do with the exposed APIs. Of course neither had an app store, but there were no controls in place for these platforms, and the cellular networks are still up.
- tjogin 17y agoApple's actual reason for the approval process is quality control. And by quality control, I mean everything from ensuring a lack of bugs to a polished interface and, last but certainly not least, lack of malware. Apple wants people to actually buy apps — imagine that. And how do you accomplish that? Make absolutely sure that users don't for even a second think that the app they're interested in might be crap or malware. Nothing kills spontaneous app shopping like a fear of malware, that's what Apple wants to make sure stays out of their garden.
- tshtf 17y agoI agree with you entirely. My comment was in response to parents contention that lack of a vetting process put third party cellular networks at risk.