Please correct me if I am wrong. But isn't it GENERALLY a good idea to have this sort of device locked down? Otherwise, couldn't a malicious person program a Zuma clone to run happily for an hour before overwriting your firmware and providing you with a free iBrick?
Try looking at this from a support point-of-view. (I work in a call center for a piece of consumer hardware, so...) Would you be anxious to answer the flood of calls and emails from unconsolable people who want *you* to fix or replace their phones because they installed some lousy piece of software from some third-rate developer and it wrecked the operating system, bricked the phone, what have you? I'm not convinced that people who install something they perceive to be "made for iPhone" and it hoses the phone will say to themselves, "Oh well, it's not Apple's fault. It's mine."
On a somewhat unrelated note, I used to work at a telco, and you wouldn't believe the number of calls we used to get from customers who didn't pay their bill for three months once we terminated their service. They were convinced that the ability to make calls was a "right". Granted, that was home phone service and not a device, but when people's ability to make calls is screwed up, they feel very cut off and tend to get nuts about it pretty quickly. Again, if i were to be widespread, I can't assume that most people would think they are assuming any real risk on their own by downloading software from God-knows-where.
I don't think I'm totally alone, being someone who would prefer to be largely assured that what I'm about to download and install won't screw up my device. After all, think about all the people out there who choose not to install a new version of Windows until it's been in circulation for a while/a service pack has been released for that very reason.
There's no reason you can't have certified apps and still allow people to install third party apps. You could even have a default setting that would only allow signed apps to run.
It's not just a matter of application quality. It also allows Apple/AT&T complete control over what applications you can run. That makes it unlikely you'll ever see apps like SlingPlayer, Skype, or multiprotocol IM applications on the phone. It also means Apple is going to get a cut of all applications, which means programs will cost more, and freeware is unlikely.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Please correct me if I am wrong. But isn't it GENERALLY a good idea to have this sort of device locked down? Otherwise, couldn't a malicious person program a Zuma clone to run happily for an hour before overwriting your firmware and providing you with a free iBrick?
"Please correct me if I am wrong. But isn't it GENERALLY a good idea to have this sort of device locked down?"
Only if that company is Apple and you need to spin this in a positive light.
If it was any other company, it would be a case of them being greedy and controlling.
It's all relative.
Not a problem. Play for 59 minutes then quit it, easy. Next.
I have no idea why you'd think any sane programmer would let 3rd-party apps have access to firmware.
Try looking at this from a support point-of-view. (I work in a call center for a piece of consumer hardware, so...) Would you be anxious to answer the flood of calls and emails from unconsolable people who want *you* to fix or replace their phones because they installed some lousy piece of software from some third-rate developer and it wrecked the operating system, bricked the phone, what have you? I'm not convinced that people who install something they perceive to be "made for iPhone" and it hoses the phone will say to themselves, "Oh well, it's not Apple's fault. It's mine."
On a somewhat unrelated note, I used to work at a telco, and you wouldn't believe the number of calls we used to get from customers who didn't pay their bill for three months once we terminated their service. They were convinced that the ability to make calls was a "right". Granted, that was home phone service and not a device, but when people's ability to make calls is screwed up, they feel very cut off and tend to get nuts about it pretty quickly. Again, if i were to be widespread, I can't assume that most people would think they are assuming any real risk on their own by downloading software from God-knows-where.
I don't think I'm totally alone, being someone who would prefer to be largely assured that what I'm about to download and install won't screw up my device. After all, think about all the people out there who choose not to install a new version of Windows until it's been in circulation for a while/a service pack has been released for that very reason.
I
If a third party app can break the iPhone, then Apple did screw up when making it.
There's no reason you can't have certified apps and still allow people to install third party apps. You could even have a default setting that would only allow signed apps to run.
It's not just a matter of application quality. It also allows Apple/AT&T complete control over what applications you can run. That makes it unlikely you'll ever see apps like SlingPlayer, Skype, or multiprotocol IM applications on the phone. It also means Apple is going to get a cut of all applications, which means programs will cost more, and freeware is unlikely.