Jobs praises Nokia's 3rd party app scheme, but he has it wrong
By Chris Ziegler 
posted Oct 17th 2007 3:03PM
posted Oct 17th 2007 3:03PM
In chatting up Apple's sudden change of direction today on the whole native iPhone SDK issue, Steve Jobs did a little name dropping by mentioning that he digs the way Nokia does things with S60's support for third party applications. It seems apparent from the get-go that Steve has every intention of offering apps through some sort of official, money-generating conduit -- iTunes, we'd wager -- and with that comes the promise of digital rights management, authenticity verification, and all those nasty little technologies that set the hacking community ablaze. To that end, Steve mentioned that he digs Nokia's approach of requiring that apps be digitally signed so they can be traced back to their developers, an effort to stem "viruses, malware, privacy attacks" that he thinks will flourish on a "highly visible target" like the iPhone. There's a problem, though: there's no telling when the last time is that Steve touched a phone not of his own creation, but we've used S60 devices pretty recently (like, today) and we have it on good authority that you can disable certificate verification for installed apps. Think iPhone users are going to have that option? Probably not. Apple's still visibly concerned about keeping the iPhone under its perceived draconian control (even though it's been busted wide open time and time again), and we've no doubt that trend will continue in full effect with the SDK. It's a huge, landmark upgrade from the web-based SDK developers have now, yes -- but we'd recommend Steve screw around with an N95 for a while before he heaps any more love on the way Nokia goes about its business.
you just can't please some people
Ok, I'm confused, do you guys like Nokia or not? I could've sworn the other day you were praising them and admonishing Apple to learn from the Nokia's out there.
Also, please tell me he did not actually use the word "dig", and if he did, did he also through in "groove" and "funkification"?
Change of direction? I pretty clearly remember them talking about 3rd party apps from the beginning, and they also said they were working on an SDK to be released later. The SDK announcement just puts a timetable on it.
Engadget,
Four of your front page news are iPhone-related. Is it just me or most people really don't care about the iPhone. It just isn't a good device. Not yet at least.
It's called reporting jack.
I'm sure a couple hundred thousand people care about iPhone news. We all know that the iPhone has its drawbacks and isn't everything we'd hope it is, but saying it's not a good device is idiotic.
And the other few million *don't* care.
Why? Well...
Apple products get more hits than other companies/products do. People like Apple. Engadget know what their readers like, and they happen to have excellent taste in technology as well. The iPhone isnt good? I beg to differ, Dell man.
If you don't care, don't read the post. Simple as that. Do you open a newspaper and sigh because every article on the front page is about something you're not interested in, then proceed to read those articles? No... You turn straight to the comics, right?
Who told u to come in and comment on this?
You obviously have too much time on your hand, go do something more useful for the phone u like.
If your work is better, it will be on engadget too.
4 apple iphone stories on the front page THAT"S NOT REPORTING THAT'S OVERKILL
@Adrian Williams:
Overkill? Only in Halo 3...
Um, that's ▲ ▼ ▲ ▼ ◄ ► ◄ ► A B A B
Woah NG... calm down buddy. I know Jobs has you and the rest of the cult on the edge the whole time, but we are all friends here. I can comment on whatever I want can't I? I thought that was the point of these blogs. And I don't know about you, but I'm pretty proficient with computers to where it takes me no more than a couple of minutes to do so. Not really wasting much time.
Anyways, have fun in iWorld...
Well, The engadget writers posted 4 news items about the iphone, so what? Isn't that the whole point of these blogs, That the writers can post whatever they want about anything they feel like posting about?
If you don't like the post, simply don't read it, and don't bother commenting on it. It saves a lot of bandwidth...
You iFans are pathetic...
Agreed as much as I would like to have an iphone and as much as I like this site I am sick that every other story is an apple or iphone story my god i supprised that this isn't iengadget. I mean come on apple isn't the only tech company making news but it seems this is all you write about lately, with as much inews on here it is just making it seem like this is a home for apple fanboys and nothing else. Come on engadget dont make a hater out of me.
I'm not really into hacking, just good electronic tools. I'm happy that Apple ensures a good user experience. I am happy their providing a developer kit and want to help make sure that the stuff 3rd parties provide don't destroy my phone, infect my computer or generally piss me off. I think that's what the majority of basic consumers want. I think anyone overly focused on meeting the needs of a hacker community really doesn't get why the iphone is selling so well....it just works without my having to screw around with it all the time.
it makes things a lot easier to verify things work when you strip functionality.
I'll take the alternative. thanks.
great to see that engadget can also criticize apple and jobs. congrats!
I bet it must have been a really painfull experience! :D
Oh phoey...they do it all the time.
"Apple's still visibly concerned about keeping the iPhone under its perceived draconian control (even though it's been busted wide open time and time again)"
Nothing illustrates this axiom more than the famous quote, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Umm. Did they say they were going for a for-profit model in the hot news? No. Did they say they're going to force their certification? No. This post is completely useless.
So according to Engadget everyone, 3rd party iPhone apps will require a purchase through the iTunes Store and you won't be able to have unsigned apps on your phone. You heard it here first.
Let's not be snide, here. Do you really feel like apple is all of a sudden going to go all super cool and totally reverse their current trend of decisions/business model? I'm not saying they absolutely will not, but it is entirely likely that this is exactly what they'll do. Tried to put your very own mp3 ringtones on your (unhacked) iPhone? Can't. Except without going through itunes and paying for the song (again even if you own the cd) and then paying AGAIN for the privilege of cutting it down to 30 seconds and setting it as a ringtone. What makes you think that this "3rd party" development is going to be any different?
(and this is coming from a relatively pleased owner)
I believe its called 'supposition' and its probably a fairly accurate prediction at that.
Record labels ≠ Apple. MP3 ringtones are probably a bad example.
What's Apple going to do, make a software developer charge 20 bucks for an app they want to give away? I don't see that happening. I understand it will probably go through iTunes. But this doesn't mean they're going to charge for the apps. Think of it like the podcasts in the iTunes Store.
Either way...it's 4 months away. This post is pointless since no one knows the details (probably not even Apple yet).
C'mon, are you going to tell me that apple *fought* the labels when they wanted to charge for ringtones? "No no, we don't want to make incremental income!" heh.
Not to mention the countless other places that apple nickel-and-dimes their customers.
Hey, don't get me wrong. If apple decides to hire developers to go over every single Joe Schmoe's code to ensure it's kosher and then put its digital stamp for free.. I'll be quite pleased. I just don't really expect that that's going to be the case.
imho, the more likely scenario is Joe develops a free app, submits it to apple, apple goes over the code and tacks on a $2 "submission fee" or some such. Admittedly wild speculation, just saying that something like that seems more likely to this dude.
If you're developing for the iPhone it'll require an ADC membership and that's how they'll digitally sign the apps. You honestly think Apple is going to charge for apps that a developer wants to give away? No way. Apple will make their money in increased ADC memberships. I'm sure some developers will want to charge for their hard work...that part Apple will facilitate, but reporting that all apps will "most likely" require a purchase is pure FUD.
Sorry if you feel nickle-n-dimed but yes I do think they fought the labels to get $.99 ringtones. The rest of the industry is double that. Besides, who gives a fuck about ringtones? Teenagers?
Do I honestly think apple will charge for apps that it may or may not have to verify/sign? The answer to that is "I sure hope not, but I don't think they're above it." And, for the record, I am a big free/donationware proponent. If someone spends a lot of time making a kickass product that I use, I have a habit of donating for it. So I don't have a problem if the author wants to charge for it. I'm just not capable of saying that there is *no way* that apple won't try to get their paws on some of that revenue.
As for ringtones, I'm afraid that apple doesn't have $.99 ringtones unless you happen to have already purchased the small subset of itunes songs that are "valid" for it. So it's more accurate to say $1.98. And that isn't exactly a bargain since every other phone I've had in the last 4 or 5 years has had the ability to make any mp3 I own my ringtone. And I'm hardly a teen anymore, but I loathe having the same tone everybody else does. "Marimba" goes off and 3 people around me reach for their pockets. That's stupid. It doesn't have to be a song - I should be able to just increase the volume of a standard noise if I want. Unless I'm outside, I've got it on vibrate anyway, but that isn't the point. I'd like to (in non-noise-sensitive locales) have a unique noise to alert me to my specific phone ringing. Anyway. This is a side-topic, and was just something I mentioned as an example that you didn't like. No big deal - I don't feel the need to argue this point. Lets concentrate on the apps/API. *(:=
Well that's where we'll disagree then. I don't think they'll "profit" off of the apps themselves, their profit will come in the form of new ADC memberships (which will be required to develop for the iPhone (guessing here)).
But all of this is irrelevant. My original post was that this engadget post shouldn't exist. They don't know whether Apple will charge for it, put DRM into it, or whatever. They imply this, and that could cause confusion in the future because of the amount of readers that now believe it.
Anyone notice this job with Apple?!?
http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=1&method=mExternal.showJob&RID=5709&CurrentPage=1
Wow, was the code for all the built-in apps written that sloppily? My guess is that even those apps didn't use an SDK and Apple will rework the frameworks for a 2.0 version. Good reason why simple things like Camera, A2DP, and MMS got shafted: they aren't important enough to divert attention from developing the iPhone SDK.
Id hate to see the comments for this article if Jobs had bashed Nokia, rather then praising it and saying he liked the direction they were heading in. Even though ye ol Nokia took a stab at Apple earlier this month I'm glad their not bitter. And regardless, who the hell wants to hack peoples N95's and put virus' on them? Saying Apple is a "visable target" is the understatment of the week.
Why hack the N95? Well, maybe because S60 outsells the iPhone 10:1 worldwide?
People were writing malware for S60 before Symbian started using certificates.
I may be in the minority, but I would feel safer if I knew there was someone certifying that an application won't kill my phone, and if it does, I have someone to go back to for support.
I also don't mind paying for useful applications, and having a single point of payment for those apps would be very welcome.
To chime in with utmonster, the media loves to focus on the needs of the hacking community without much thought about the USER community.
Namaste, Steve.
Yes. A central source of certification and point of payment will be very nice, I will admit. But why does providing that imply preventing people from installing what the heck they want?
If you want superior reliability, don't install uncertified apps!! It's not like anyone is forcing you to!
If you don't cate about reliability, install uncertified apps as much as you like. If you don't check the option to install uncertified apps, no unsigned code runs, and hence there are no viruses. That's how Symbian works, which is exactly what the article explains but you still don't get it do, you?
Steve Jobs probably knows just a slight bit more about what Nokia does than the person that wrote this article. He didn't get to be a multi billionaire by being a dumbass.
and yet....
But the macboys don't know anything about Nokia, and Steve probably knows everything about the macboys..
...he only needed to be milimeters above the levels of ye olde fanbois to become that rich.. just as the shepherd is only a bit smarter than his sheep but still manages to make them follof blindly, and also reaps everything there can be reaped from them...
Andi...you cant be serious. Your entire point revolves around the argument that a shepard is not that much smarter then a sheep. Are you seriously trying to imply that a farm animal is only slightly dumber then a human being? Thats got to be the worst figure of speech I've ever heard. Also, I think its a bit rediculous that you say Steve Jobs is only millimeters smarter then his fanboys. Im fairly sure Steve Jobs was programing computers in his twenties as well as having a hand in the invention of the graphic interface and the mouse. I don't think the average fanboy will accomplish any of those things in his lifetime let alone so early.
Now, i will admit up front i know nothing about programming for phones, but i think everyone may have missed the idea that letting whoever do whatever with a piece of technology that accesses a network leads to some issues. Not to say that developers would use it as a platform to do unsavory things, but if somebody just so happened to accidentally write some code that brought down the entire GSM network, there'd be some pretty unhappy campers out there. So, i for one think some caution is a good idea. That said, whether they're being too cautious or not is up to debate. Carry on!
I get it. I owned a Nokia E61 before I bought the iPhone.
You can never please people. First people complained when Apple didn't offer and SDK, now people are complaining when they provide an SDK. BTW, no one knows exactly what the security model will look like. Why the complaining? Just to complain about what might be?
I just have a problem with media proclaiming "he has it wrong" when they don't even know for sure.
Choice is good. I hope Apple gives people a choice. If the only choice is between free and for-pay apps on iTunes, I'll still be happy. Obviously you won't. And at that time Engadget is welcome to proclaim "Steve got it wrong."
The additional problem with Nokia's scheme is the steep financial requirement on the part of the software developer to get certified. The software developer has to pay Nokia for certification and testing costs because Nokia has no other model to monetize the sale of the applications. This is where Apple has a possible angle.
Apple will be able to reduce / eliminate the cost the developer would have to shoulder for a cut of the sales as Apple controls the point-of-sale.
Of all the time I owned the E61, NONE of the third-party apps I used were properly certified by Nokia.
no i think engadget has it wrong not apple because although theres a feature to disable certificate verification for installed apps, Nokia's approach of requiring that apps be digitally signed are are in place, but they just added the feature in case you want to try a program that was created by a hacker that most likely just wants to screw with your phone, remember nothing in the wold is free and no one in the world wants to sit in front of a computer all day for the hell of it, although iphone 3rd party apps are cool i would never trust anyone with my phone again, where do you think junk mail and emails come from? and telemarketers calls come from, where did they get your info from?
Right now the touch is about perfect as far as open access goes. It's a great device now that we can put on it the apps it should have had from the factory and add additional 3rd party apps and games.
So really this news isn't all that exciting, even though it's certainly big news. One can bet a reason for it to be announced now is due to the cracking of the 1.1.1 firmware.
About the only really good news for owners is that it should mean easier development of apps for the devices, although given Apple's metamorphosis into a more draconian corporation that locks down devices and locks out users and creativity, i imagine the SDK will output something that can only be installed via iTunes and not a normal app like people are creating now the hard way.
This is a serious question.
Why doesn't Engadget leave iPhone stuff to it's sister site TUAW.com?
I mean chances are they're going to report the same thing anyway and most Mac users that know about Engadget probably know about TUAW, as it is...
Leave Engadged to Sony, Samsung, Nokia, LG, Denon, Sprint, AT&T (non-iPhone), T-Mobile, Verizon, Woot, Best Buy, Denon, Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, Belkin, Palm, Research In Motion, Motorola, HTC and everything else non-Apple related.
Leave the iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, Leopard (MacOS), iMac, Mac Pro, Mac Mini, Macbook Pro, Macbook, Newton, Airport, Lisa, iTunes, Macintosh II and everything else to TUAW.com.
That would help substancially. Mac users have their own special site, and 95% of the people that use everything else have their site.
while I kind of agree with you here, part of what makes engadget so great is its "pull" within the tech industry - the ability to get interviews and comments from companies when smaller sites (like TUAW) are left to fend for themselves and take the info from the bigger sites like engadget and giz.
TUAW is great, and I do often visit there for mac commentry and the community, but the simple fact of the matter is that for up to date, breaking news, engadget posts it first and in most cases does it better.
To Ryan and the team, please keep up the good work. We may be a silent majority, but most of us love the excellent work you guys do.
How about a little reality.
Apple has to vouch for all of these 3rd party apps. Do you think that apple is going to risk their reputation on some rinky-dink POS (Piece of Software) that some kid tossed together in an afternoon? Do you think that some of the apps that do some questionably legal things are going to be allowed? Do you think that apps that may eat into AT&Ts profits are going to be allowed?
This is a parlor trick pure and simple. Jobs gets the fandupes to shut their hole, he wins points from the press who are too stupid to ask follow up questions, and he cuts the hacker community off at their knees.
Iim not a Apple fan, but this is SoFa King brillant to own all of the Apple fanbase in one swoop, that i have to applaud the guy.
What makes a phone any different than installing "unapproved" apps on a Mac or PC?? Sure, the AT&T thing might be the deciding factor, but Im willing to bet its not since AT&T has sold S60 phones before exclusively & you can install anything you please on those. Blackberrys, same thing.
Here comes the Nokia iPhone haters!!!
Java apps already have this infrastructure for signed applications, as well as a very robust "sandbox" design for layered security. There are good cross device Java apps (browsers like Opera Mini, gps, personal organizers, games, etc) that use this infrastructure.
http://www.getjar.com/software/Java/All
http://java.mob385.com/en/
Yet even though a JVM runs on just about every device out there, Apple won't do it because they want to keep their device separate.
Now, Apple can do what they want, but it is really a disservice to consumers who could have more choice, and all the developers who'd like to reach the widest market without having to rewrite everything.
reality check! disabling certificate check in s60-3rd does next to nothing! you really should check before posting garbage like that.
correct:)
really Giz andEngadget are turning into the equivilent of the National enquirer!
Jobs play with an N95?! But how would he cope, there are so many buttons!
this is why i "love/trust" Engadget, because you guys some how know what Jobs is thinking, what he has seen and what he has in store for us. Journalism at its best.
He's probably talking about "Symbian Signed"
Sorry about the dupe, as I posted this in the wrong article. This one goes out to those who are sick of the Apple news (and NOT to start a flame-war; I'm just having a reasonable, unemotional conversation):
I don't know if you guys realize this or not, but the iPhone really IS a big deal. A few years from now you'll all be typing away on your touchscreen media/internet communication devices, laughing at the thought of physical QUERTY keyboards and the BS phone interfaces of the 90s and 2000s, conveniently forgetting the fact that it was Apple who once again flipped the industry on their ear with their unprecedented maneuvers.
I'm all for articles focusing on other pieces of tech, obviously, but you all are letting your emotions get the best of you, in this case your dislike of Apple. The reason they're everywhere is because they've literally doubled their marketshare in a few years and will be growing leaps and bounds. Remember, 1% marketshare = billions in revenue for Apple. This growth is amazing, considering how well entrenched MS is. On top of that, they rewrote the book on DAT players and their integration with computers, and rewrote the book on how to sell music in this day and age. As much as I appreciate Zune stories as much as the next guy, MS and the rest are literally following Apple's lead when it comes to certain markets.
Hate it all you want, but we've all been here before. People laughed at the mouse in the 80s, and look what happened. It's mainstream now, thank you Apple for flipping the computer industry on its ear with the first truly marketable GUI/mouse combo.
You've watched the same thing happen with computer industrial designs, DAT players (does ANYONE remember the Nomad before iPod? Yikes!), and the distribution of music. You're literally watching the same thing happen to cell phones, whether or not you want to admit that.
You guys may hate this, but we've been here before. Including the hate.
Engadget is about ALL technology. Apple's just been in the news ALOT lately.
If you've read this far, understand I'm not trying to start a flame-war. I understand iPhone's short-comings and hell no, Apple's not perfect. But they have some great ideas, and certainly they're not the only one. They've just been executing amazingly the last few years. This is important, not just to Apple fans, but all fans of technology as this will influence where we go from here.
Thanks for reading.
Just a reminder for those who are bashing Engadget. This is a journalistic site and, like all other media of this category, they are entitled to post editorial hypothesis based on previous experience ("Made for iPod" for one) and pending known direction ("signed" applications in Leopard).
While many commenters seem to be ready for the "wait and see" approach to this news, I for one have to be skeptical (like this editorial is) that anything more than repeating the past is going to take place here. Are you "wait and see" people the same ones who are still holding out for MMS, official A2DP, official Video Recording, etc from your iPhones while you watch Apple release updates that, for all intents purposes, are not only not providing this functionality but locking out those means by which others have found ways to do them without Apple? I'm done with "wait and see" and have realized that Apple needs to be added to the list of Giants that don't care about customers past how to make them just happy enough to get their money.
To extrapolate on one last thing, my hypothesis for Apple's "signed apps" is, based on past experience with "made for iPod"... this was supposed to be a great step forward at the time of release. The "wait and see" optimistic out there expected this to be a sign of quality. They thought Apple wouldn't allow them to put that sticker on any accessory if it didn't pass some specific QA, if it wasn't "good" for your device, if it didn't "fit" the device, etc... but what did we end up with? We ended up with a sticker that means nothing but the fact that Apple received compensation from the vendor of the accessory so that the vendor could put the sticker on... period, that's it. With this, we got deep into the "iPod tax" which looks to be leaking it's way to an "OS X" tax. If you want people to trust your application, you have to buy a digital signature from us and it's up to you how you get the money to pay us. [see http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/18/apple-wants-a-10-cut-of-all-made-for-ipod-accessories/ ]
...Oh, and just to flame a little more here I thought I'd remind all the apple fanboys that Microsoft has had Digital Signature ability for years, both Desktop OS and Mobile OS. Does this mean Apple is "copying" Microsoft? I'm sure someone had it before either but just like returning the favor when Apple does something Microsoft does (does and in this case gets SLAMMED for and people usually end up hacking to get around) because I constantly hear how superior Apple is to M$ (oh, i hate M$ too but i'll leave that for another time ;)... I can't wait until 10.6 of OS X comes out and there's multiple versions after hearing all the bashing Apple is doing to Vista, selective memory will get the fanboys I'm sure but I'll remember :)
"This is a journalistic site"
No. It's not.
Well, since you won't elaborate, I will.
I believe this is journalistic writing, please provide information as to why you disagree. While you're preparing your response, please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism "Reporting versus editorializing" discusses briefly the two forms of journalism - both of which are used here - or perhaps http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=journalistic and subsequently http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=journalism which I would say, since this is a reporting media it qualifies.
Jesus. How much time do you whingers waste posting in articles that don't interest you to complain about the fact that they don't interest you? Exactly how hard it is to scroll that mouse wheel a few more clicks to move on to the next article? I don't care a whit about Blackberries, or the latest Asian imitations, or Symbian-based phones -- hell, I don't even have an iPhone and have no plans to get one (the Touch is a different story, even in spite of its diminutive storage) but I still enjoy reading news about it. The iPhone is a pretty big deal whether you have any interest in it or not, and it's made a lot of news that's fit to print lately. If you don't like it, deal with it. Scroll to the next article, move on with your life, and get over yourself. Engadget isn't all about things only you like. If you find that unreasonable then what the hell are you still doing here? Either read Engadget's apple-free RSS feeds or get bent, savvy?
As to Apple's fawning over Nokia's digital sigs, I understand where they're coming from and why they want to do it, but I think Jobs is mistaken if he thinks that even that will stop viruses or malware from finding its way on to the iPhone. How hard will it be for a determined hacker to forge a digitall signature? Not hard, I'd wager. First law of hacking: If it can be done, it can be undone.
Actually, if they do it right, it's almost impossible to fake a digital signature. It would require having Apple's private key - which one assumes Apple will be VERY diligent in protecting.
You can't take an existing digital signature and use it to reconstruct the private key (well, as of this writing, no one has found a way short of brute force and that would take hundreds of thousands of years of trying).
Perceived? Just because they've failed to do it doesn't make it less so - their INTENT is to maintain tight control. The sad thing is that they still haven't realised it isn't working.
What really bothers me about this is that it's *exactly* the same mistake Microsoft made with their Authenticode concept. It fails because unless getting the certificate is cheap and easy (thus rendering it useless as a control mechanism), developers won't bother with it. At that point one of two things happens: you get apps that won't install (which makes the consumer unhappy), or you let everything through after displaying a fingerwag and letting the customer take the blame when things fail (the Microsoft/Nokia way).
One advantage to the WM and Symbian approach is that the entire OS is in eprom, so no matter how bad things get (assume you're not flashing your ROM for recreational activities) you can always hard reset your phone and get back to a fresh, new system at anytime, anywhere.
Since Apple keeps most of the 'firmware' for the iPhone and iPod touch on the main storage media, there's no way to do this other than doing a system restore which requires being tethered to a Mac or PC and obtaining the firmware image.
Wow. Engadget, you really spun this story bad.
Firstly, it is obvious to anyone who read Jobs' letter that he is not praising every nitpicking detail of the Nokia security scheme. He merely says that phone security is becoming a necessity, and that's where Nokia has the right idea.
Secondly, from what I've read, all current iPhone hacks rely on using a weakness in a TIFF image, and that it is otherwise extremely difficult to get in. It appears that Apple is letting this weakness continue to exist so as not to estrange the hacker community. If Apple wanted to, it could easily close the hole - except that it said it would not specifically stop third-party apps from working.
Thirdly, whoever said Apple would charge for the iPhone IDE? The iPhone runs Mac OS X - Apple would most probably make iPhone development an additional feature to Xcode, which, by the way, is free.
I know that Engadget is out to put a jokingly sarcastic spin on every tech story it can, but this story was way out. Please, get it right! Then you can make wisecracks, and I won't mind.
"we've used S60 devices pretty recently (like, today) and we have it on good authority that you can disable certificate verification for installed apps"
This is NOT true for S30 3rd edition (e.g. N80, N95). You need a cert to develop for those phones. You can compile your own programs and "self-sign" them to run on your phone and only your phone but to distribute a program it needs to be approved which requires time and money (there is a supposedly a free cert processes for freeware but I hear it takes months to get your code approved - and you have to do for every time you make a code revision).
This is so typical Steve Jobs. He'll say anything to get in your wallet.
We'll see who can afford the digital signature & hoops Steve will obviously make devs go through. Hacks will be the only way to go with the iphone and the touch.
I "used to" develop Symbian application from the first S60 phones [7650 etc]. Then one fine day I bought a N80 thinking boy I am going to get stuck into this, what with the VOIP an' all. Then I came back down to earth as I realized how closed the platform had become and what a money making factory it had been turned into. Every significant application had to be tested and signed by "affiliates" each time costing you $$$.
This was the sole reason my drive got switched off. Apple has one chance to get it right, users should ultimately have to 'right' to trust an application. Maybe have varying trust levels [applications distributed via iTunes / tested and certified by Apple, applications recommended by community, applications that are untrusted] Each trust level can be denoted by pretty little "Apple iCons" and the user can choose how much they want to trust.
But, thats like a perfect world, and everybody knows we dont live in one, so my guess is its going to be locked down tight and with a 2.99$ "accounting charge" for distribution :-) Long live el jobso..
"Jobs also noted that mobile malware is real issue and noted that mobiles have been infected with viruses before, without actually pointing out that the most famous virus infected Symbian phones. That would have been embarrassing to Nokia."
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/10/17/steve-jobs-ends-iphone-sdk-panic/#more-599
Why does an iPhone post have to bash the N95 and S60? N95 is a great, mostly open platform...Its not for everyone but neither is the iPhone. For me, GPS enabled Google Maps, Torrent client and 5 megapixel camera can't be beat...for others the iPhone is perfect. No need to make a snide comment about Nokia.
The point is: look at the uproar over no SDK for the iPhone...there were digs galore in this site. They even assume what Jobs said was a dig. I saw no dig in his statement...he was just stating the reality of the situation. I just posted reality...no dig.
How to "disable certificate verification for installed apps" on Nokia's E61 (S60 3rd)? Sorry I didn't find it in the setting menus and doubt if the option really exists as Engadget claimed. Anybody has an answer?
Settings -> Applications -> App Manager -> Software installation. The user can choose "All" and "Signed Only" here.
Chris
Even if the "All" has been chosen, all installation packs have to have a certification offered by Nokia (or a certification for testing purpose). Engadget is defly wrong at this point!
Developers can self-sign applications and install them when "All" is chosen. My point here is that there's an easy, accessible way for devs to get around the requirement.
Chris
Thanks for your answer, Chris. But I think Jobs didn't count "self-signed" .sisx installation packs as an accessible way for most Nokia S60 3rd users. (Though it's very easy for pro users.) And it's correct.
flypig: you can install almost anything when 'all' is selected. there are only some times of certificates that won't let you install the program if they are expired.
with 'install all' you can install totally unsigned applications.
Self-signed apps are not the case, since all commercial apps ARE signed. Developers also sign their freeware before posting it for download. So, that leaves the categories of unsigned apps to 2: homebrew and pirated.
Symbian platform security is a joke and yes, it is a open platform if you know what you are doing:
http://symbaali.info/
"The S60 image contains policy file, which enforces the capabilities and signatures when installing applications. Luckily, it allows defining the user granted permissions easily (it's all documented!). "
OMG, Apple are copying Nokia! Why can't they innovate any more! :P
Apple and Nokia are linked by core staff. Remember the old Psion PDA pocket computers? Well Psion was a UK company that started moving away from the consumer PDA business early 2000 and finally called it a day 2003. The OS for the Psion was Symbian, designed for the Psion and bought out by Nokia along with all the Symbian developers. Another core founder of the Psion team had an idea in 1999 about creating small hardware devices that played music, he moved to Apple in 2000 and worked on little project called the iPod.
You look at the OS for the iPod touch and the iPhone it’s a coloured up (and fancy version) version of Psions Symbian OS for the Psion Series 5/5mx, which was using touch screen back in 1997 before all the other palm devices.
Digital signing etc is necessary because, uhm... I've had ZERO malware/virii/etc issues on both Palms and Windows Mobile over the past 10 years.
xda-developers FTW
Aside from having a B+ vocabulary, there is really not a ton of substance to what you are saying. I don't really see what evidence you are using to suggest that you know what apple's model for iphone apps is. Quite frankly, you have no idea. Neither do I and neither does engadget. What is for sure is that apple has a long history of innovation whether you like to admit it or not. It would seem logical that they will continue to be innovative now, especially since the media has been having a field day with iphone apps lately. As for this "made for iPod" business you've gone off about, I never ever heard of this until now and I keep up with apple pretty well. Thats hardly scandalous. Also, if you look at that article its not much more then speculation. " SOUNDS LESS LIKE apple is trying to look out for consumers (who MAY end up paying a little more...)"