Hacker News Reader

I think that argument is bogus. Having a way to sideload apps in your device or being able to install a different OS, doesn't make grandma more likely to get malware. It's the same model Apple is using in Mac OS X, too, now.

Grandma will still use the same OS, and will still install apps from the app store, never knowing that she can even install apps from other places, and it will be just as easy as it if were without that sideloading option. Having the option to do other things doesn't interfere with any of that.

And even if it does change things a little in some extreme cases - but everything has its positive and negative sides. Everything. At the end of the day you have to decide which gives the greater benefit. And I think having "open" computing systems over completely closed ones, offers the greater benefit in the long term, just like having an open (also could be read as malware-filled, and cybercriminals-filled) Internet in the end if is of much greater benefit than having one fully controlled by the government and companies.

Now compare the difference in malware between OS X and Android. There appears to be a correlation between how easy it is to circumvent the walls and the amount of malware within the garden.

I'd love to see some real research on causality here, though, because correlation obviously doesn't imply causation (though it is a reasonable hypothesis, IMO).

Android malware takes advantage of the same social "hole" that makes Windows so prone to malware: security is practically impossible when the OEM doesn't care, the OS maker's hands are tied, and the end user doesn't have any other option.

I believe Cyanogenmod users have a much better security track record for the same social reasons that Desktop Linux users have better security. Case in point: the exynos root exploit was patched quickly for Cyanogenmod users [1]. It may never be patched for "the rest of us."

[1] http://androidheadlines.com/2012/12/cyanogenmod-team-introdu...

I thought a lot of malware on android was distributed directly from the store rather than sideloaded?

If you are going to sell software to people then you certainly have some responsibility not to provide dangerous goods.

"The limited walled garden approach to computing ensures that she doesn't accidentally install malware, etc"

OK, but why not have a sanctioned, free, voids-your-warranty way to disable these restrictions, so that users who want to install software without using the app store can do so? This would not be hard. It could be buried somewhere deep where users cannot find it, it could be loaded with warnings, but all that would be fine.

Apple wants control, because control is profitable. Control lets them spot the next cool application early, so they will not be blindsided like they were by the Web. Control lets them promise developers and media partners that copyright infringement will not be such an issue. Control lets them maintain their image on a level that was not previously possible -- they can make sure that iPads are not associated with pornography, that iPhones are not associated with political cartoons, that nobody will point at Apple devices as a symbol of some national rebellion, and so forth. Control lets them slow down their competitors until Apple has a chance to market their solution (even if that solution is a total boondoggle).

It is hard to believe that Apple's policies on the app store were created with users as the top priority.

"the inherent danger is unfair competition - the gatekeeper can decide to reject software whenever it wants and impose fees and crazy rules"

Which is already what happens.

"I think it is best that the European union would regulate such walled gardens, e.g. by limiting the percentage that the gatekeeper can charge,"

Did they regulate video game consoles?

I am slightly concerned that you might have got mixed up different concepts here. One is simplistic design which users with little or no previous experience can still feel comfortable to use on their own. A second is enforced uniformed interface cross multiple application which users feel familiar with (and thus also comfortable with). The third is safety against malware, which is a security concern. The last is market and user incentives.

A device without a walled garden can still maintain a simplistic design, encourage a uniformed interface, and maintain a similar security against malware. However, it has a harder time to incentivize software developers to strictly follow the uniformed interface and to always use the official store. Android market place has also less incentives to turn away new software, because developers has an alternative (thus Android app store have incentives to be lenient). For the Iphone app store, there are no alternatives for developers so Apple can be as harsh they want (thus they have incentives to be harsh).

Unwalled gardens also has a harder time to discourage users to run unknown software with malware in them. In practice, iphone users are less likely to try run downloaded software from a random internet site (or dl via bittorent), because no legit iphone developer ask them to do it. Android developers however often teaches users to use third-party stores. Thus, a android virus has a much easier time spreading than a Iphone one because on user base are trained to run untrustworthy programs, and one user base is not.

Thus a walled garden has two functions. First it maintain a monopoly grasp on a market, to extract tax on each purchase. Second, it provide incentives to developers so they follow a strict uniformed interface, to App store approvers so they will be more strict in judging new software, and to users so they are less inclined to run untrusthworthy software.

The first thing should be regulated away. The second thing should be understood when designing unwalled devices so to create the correct incentive for everyone.

The gates should not be completely closed though. By default maybe, but there should definitely be a way to make it open for the people that want it to be open. For example I received a hp pavilion laptop and wanted to install another os on it. All I had to do was set secure mode off in the bios and it was ready. That is a good solution because it works for both the grandma who wants the security of secure-boot, and me who wants to tinker.

I shouldn't need government regulation to ensure that things I own are truly mine.