Hacker News Reader

Comment by biafra | Hacker News Reader

I agree, but only if Apple allows unsigned apps on the iPhone. Then its a matter of taste & money. Money that I would be willing to spend if I owned the phone after purchasing it, like I own my MacBook Pro.

My hope is that Android is so successful that Apple has to allow unsigned App. Until then I am happy developing apps for Android.

View on HN

I think it will have to. On the other hand, I try to remind myself that 95% of iPhone/SmartPhone users out there don't care about Apple's embargo on certain apps. The most visible one was Google Voice, and that's still in a very closed beta. Things will dramatically change when the Andriod phones have something the iPhone doesn't that matters to those 95%.

I think that at the very least they're going to have to provide some method for Enterprises to load custom or semi-custom enterprise specific apps without going through the app store.

They have that. See here: http://developer.apple.com/programs/iphone/enterprise/

Shoot. How'd I miss that? Anyway thanks for pointing that out!

You're effectively saying, I hope that Apple becomes such a minority platform that they're forced to open up. But why would you want to develop for a minority platform, even if the stop actively chasing people away? It's a catch-22.

This stance benefits Apple now, when they have the early mover advantage, and delays the advance of Android but unless they're very quick to change strategies and smooth things over with developers then it's only going to accelerate things when (and it seems like a when, not if) they become a minority platform.

  But why would you want to develop for a minority platform

You may want to do that if majority of paying customers are on that minority platform.

Allowing only signed apps has one huge advantage: no malware.

I do feel that Apple should weaken its requirements and only disallow bad apps.

I understand what you're saying, but what the iPhone really excludes is unapproved malware.

I understand what you're saying, but what the iPhone really excludes is unapproved malware.

Which has always seemed like an elephant in the room for Apple, legally speaking. By aggressively vetting applications, aren't they warranting to their end users that the applications are free from harmful or illegal side effects? What stops me from writing an app that only turns into malware after a certain date, for instance?

I think that's a pretty unproven assertion. There's no evidence that Apple's review process is anywhere near comprehensive enough to detect zero day malware.

Actually Android apps are required to be signed too. It's just the restriction on who is allowed to sign it that is looser.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com