Expensive malware appears for Microsoft's Windows Mobile - Page 2

Ok, I have been enjoying the responses and legitimate discussion up to this point. Seriously? Im trolling? I believe you need to brush up on your definition of what a troll is. I think the term youre looking for is dissenting opinion, which, to the best of my knowledge, is generally acknowledged in our society.

Seems like a decent portion of the other responses have been buy another phone then. Pretty poor attitude. Sure, its just the tech geeks voicing these complaints now, but what happens when the average consumer starts getting mad (Google Voice is probably the best example to date, or perhaps the denial of the political cartoonist)? Are you just going to keep telling everyone to go buy another phone? Seems like a better solution would be to either constructively deal with the problem or give proper justification for why the policies are in place. This AI article did not provide a very good justification.

Further, as it has been mentioned, the easy way around all this is by jailbreaking. I do this, hence the reason I use the iPhone over a different device. A jailbroken iPhone is the best phone in the world. And yet, even with the open Cydia, I have yet to download an application that destroyed my phone. All the applications Ive downloaded have been nothing short of phenomenal. I think this is a decent point to be made. Cydia has faired fine.

However, to say this isnt a problem because you can jailbreak is incorrect. Apple actively tries to prevent and break our ability to jailbreak the phone, thus, jailbreaking can only be looked upon as a temporary solution.

Im wondering where many of you stand on the open-source vs. proprietary software debate. Which is more secure? I believe most of the responses here would align more with being pro-proprietary software in terms of security, which has really been found to be quite the questionable stance.

Sorry if I didnt touch on all the replies generated. I tried to hit on the most direct ones, but alas, my post seems to be oft quoted and much loathed. I was a little disappointed in the general negativity and/or insulting nature of the responses, but what can you do.

I think the key word in the above quote as it applies here (questionable) is 'essential'. There is no essential liberty given up here. At least not for a conservative 99% of the population.

Apple isn't all about limiting choice and controlling its users as some would have it, but Apple is very much about simplifying the user experience, or to put it another way - making computing main stream. In so doing Apple removes certain options, for better or worse. It's analogous with the automobile. Every man used to tinker with his car, tune the engine and so on. Now only the uber home mechanic does. Options have been taken away but car ownership has gone main stream. Personally I can't see why Apple should include a checkbox to allow the installation of unauthorized apps. It makes no sense. For people like us there are work-arounds. If that ain't good enough there are, like many have pointed out, alternatives.

Steady on, there. His concerns are valid even if you see it differently. There has been no trolling. I think you need to apologize before you go to your room

You have choices. Pick them wisely -

Apple iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch << aka control freak >> you don't like but i want!
Android OS based phones << aka eat all u can >> good luck to u but I don't want!
Windows based (wat ever) << aka it happens again >> nop I'm done with anything Windows.
Symbian phones << aka dinosaur in the making >> they don't innovate sorry not on my radar screen

Fair enough. As I mentioned above, I wasn’t trying to use the quote in 100% seriousness.


Great post. Thanks. Good way to frame it. However, this is not how many people frame it (including the AI article), hence my initial post.

At the same time, it is still very much about limiting choice. My opinion obviously is that they have taken that too far. You (and most on this site) see it differently.

This is what make me sleep well at night, knowing that my original 2G, and 3Gs iphone will work without any problems. Granted, i know that no OS of any kind is completely perfect, but the chances of the Mac OS/Iphone OS getting any virus is slim. Thumbs up for Apple on this one!

I am all in favour of open standards but that's not the same as open-source (not against open source). I am not in favour of proprietary anything as a matter of principle but I do understand the need / wish to protect one's corner. So proprietary software using open standards may be acceptable although the picture is surely more complex than that.

Don't take the vindictiveness of the responses personally. Sometimes the AI forums come across like Cnet discussions, other times more measured. Its part and parcel of nerd-dom, I guess.

I don't understand why people are still talking about this. It's a classic curated environment vs. open environment debate. There is no right answer or one-size-fits-all solution. It's good people have the choice. If you argue against Apple's curated platform you're basically trying to take that choice away from people. That is wrong. It would be wrong to argue that Android should be a curated environment for the exact same reason. You have choices -- use them.

spiced, nicely put

There's no argument here. Apple is not the government. They are a for profit corporation. Apple has offered a product they have designed for the consumer. If you like it, you'll buy it. If you don't, you won't. When the Gremlin came out on the 70s, did we demand that it be modeled like a Mustang. No, we just didn't buy it and the market decided. Has the market decided in Apple's favor? I think it has. I think it's safe to say that you and others with your viewpoint are in the minority.

If you're so concerned about loss of liberty try working toward repealing the Patriot Act or AZ SB 1070. Those are real issues of loss of liberty. Ranting against Apple is just whining like a child because you can't have it your way.

Don't be silly. The government has to be kept on a tight leash because they have guns and tanks and planes. A private company, you just buy their products or don't.

I would remind people that there is a way to install apps on your phone that did not come from the app store, without jailbreaking. Just buy a $99 developer membership and you can write and install anything you want on it. I myself have apps on my phone that I wrote *for me* and no-one else will ever see. But this does not break security for the masses because it's only your own phone, the iTunes Store is still needed for (widespread) distribution.

this is just another reason why apples strict control to the app store is a benefit to the average consumer.

For the last few years MS has been all about excuses. Excuses about missing the mobile boat, excuses about half-assing their core business, excuses about being the last to the slate party, etc.

And what do customers get in return: ugly, barely usable, and sometimes downright pointless products.

And this could be applied to distribute open source software, just download an open-sourced Xcode project and compile it on your computer.
Yes, there is the $99/y but in the overall annual cost of an iPhone this will not be a dealbreaker for most people.

"malicious developers targeted Windows Mobile, which is almost entirely limited to the US"

This, it must be said, is also entirely incorrect.

I think even Steve Balmer is sick of excuses which is why in his discussion at D8 he said that the mobile team now reports directly to him.

Which can only mean good news for Apple.

Ballmer IS the problem.

Does a shop keeper have the right to decide what they sell? YES.
Apple is the shopkeeper it decides what it will have in it's store.

By your argument can we force the Microsoft Stores to sell Apple products (Mac OS X, MacBooks, etc)? No, why because they choose not to.

You are not forced to buy an iPhone, it is not the only one on the market. You knew the rules when you bought it. So shut up or move to another platform.

Even when then can have it their own way, i.e. don't buy an iPhone!

For you a jailbroken phone is best, for the majority it is not.
Don't force your unwelcome requirement on to the millions of users who are more than happy for Apple to control what we put on our iPhones. You really do not understand how important it is to people to have a secure managed environment, just because it does not fit your requirement. You have a solution, so why the moaning?

Most users of the iPhone care not one bit about what is and is not available in the App Store.

I was thinking the same but it's quite a strong point. Apple have well over 85 million units out there and have been in the market for 3 years and make up over 50% of all mobile traffic. If the target was about marketshare as well as wealthy people then the iPhone is ideal.

The point about the Mac isn't valid because users don't have complete access to the iPhone OS from the device unlike on the Mac where you can remove a kernel extension or startup item yourself and have console logs to trace problems.

If you consider the advantages and disadvantages, the App Store is better for the consumer. It mainly harms developers because Apple can pull your app for replicating future iPhone functionality or for emulating code and so on.

Apple's setup is far from perfect but their system has worked better than any of their competition so far and the competition always end up moving to the same models that Apple uses.

Not meaning to speak for anyone but myself-- the liberty to install arbitrary applications on my mobile computing platform is not, to me, at all essential. Back when I had that ability (first with my Texas Instruments Avigo 10, and later with a long series of Palm OS devices, most of which were also phones) I certainly did install arbitrary applications (some of which were free, some purchased, and a few of which I wrote myself). But, none of them were remotely essential...



I believe that in the Apple ecosystem it's called "jailbreak"... and, yes, for those who DO find the liberty to install arbitrary apps on their mobile phone to be "essential", there are several solutions (buy one of the dozens of Android or WiMo phones, jailbreak an iPhone, or use comparable over-rides to ignore the security requirements of a Symbian or RIM phone...)

Makes no difference. Every time consumers open their wallets and buy Apple gear, they say YES to Apple's policies.

Apple's policies can be anything. If developers flock to the platform and consumers line up at the cash, then it's all fair.

From what we're seeing, both consumers and developers agree with Apple's vision.

Exactly, and if I may be indulged in a few metaphors. One day historians will look back at the first thirty years of the micro computer and see this as the 'Wild West' days with ever more techy bandits in them there hills. The need for a far safer place to be becoming ever more apparent as those 30 years went by. It's one thing for an individual with techy enthusiasm to want to go it alone and do their own thing and get 'shot' a few times but for the masses, governmental, military, medical, business and industrial usage the need for a town with a strong sheriff is essential.

Apple may get criticized by the brave (foolhardy) individualists (who I assume love messing with virus update issues and having their phones auto dial Russia) but as long as there are alternatives they should go buy them instead of Apple products and stop trolling here!

The problem is that you've been given Apple's rationale - repeatedly - and you keep ignoring it. That's why you're being called a troll.

Apple has one business model, Google has another. If you don't like Apple's business model, buy something else. Expecting Apple to dump their very successful business model because you prefer that they follow Google's is insane.


QFT. Very well said.



So you're trying to draw an even sillier line in the sand. You're OK with Apple's business model SOME of the time, but you want to arbitrarily switch to Google's model at other times. It doesn't work.

Furthermore, as you've been told repeatedly, it's not just about blocking harmful apps. It's about the entire ecosystem. Apple wants the greatest, most consistent user interface. Google Voice was blocked because they tried to usurp the entire user experience and break the ecosystem. Most users of Apple products like simplicity and consistency and are willing to pay a premium for it - so Apple is simply defending its target audience.


AFAIK, all of those exploits only applied to jail-broken phones. That simply proves that what Apple is doing works.


You really want to rely on AT&T or Verizon to prevent virus infection of your phone? Sorry, I would rather have someone competent involved.

Besides, how is the carrier supposed to know that an application that I've loaded onto my phone from my computer has infected the phone? That just doesn't make sense.


Exactly. Note that Windows Phone 7 will also not have Flash and will have somewhat limited multitasking - similar to iPhone OS 3.2. Once again, the market seems to be recognizing that Apple was right.


That would be a ridiculous 'solution'. If you really want to install third party apps, you can jailbreak your phone - and then you're on your own.

But for Apple to facilitate it would simply be the worst of both worlds. Apple would have their restricted store and many vendors would go outside the Apple store - either because of greed (so they keep all the money) or because their apps are not good enough for the Apple store. A huge majority of phones would end up with that box checked and most users would experience the inconsistency, poor performance, and other problems related to crappy apps. Apple would end up getting the heat - not to mention having armies of dissatisfied customers.

The solution is that if you don't like a particular product, you buy something else. You don't whine that you like your Chevy, but GM ought to be willing to install a BMW engine in it if you ask for it.

I love it!!!

Roll around in the filth that you call your home.

this chart says it all ... via gruber
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...ng-is-good.php

Because viruses and malware are just as easily received, repaired, and addressed on a mobile phone, right? No, far from it. This article actually helped to drive home for me how important it is, for general smartphone users, to enjoy a degree of a controlled environment. It ensures their experience.

The fact that you didn't bother to read the article detracts from your comment...

Get a Life dude. Liberty and freedom is based on choice. You have a choice to buy an iPhone based on what you already know about how their product operates. Sorry but I don't really think Benjamin Franklin had cell phones in mind when he made that quote, regardless of how you want to twist it.
iPhone is run based on the fact the 95% percent of people who buy cell phones don't know about this type of stuff, nor do they really care where they get their apps from. They just want a fun and reliable experience. These are the people apple protects and they are clearly doing a good job.
Regardless of where a security issue came from or whose fault it was, majority of people's reaction would be to blame the phone and never buy that brand again.
The other fraction of people out there are generally technically inclined and have the know how to just hack their phone anyways, so they can still get any app.
Would people please stop this bullshit liberty crap. Your Civil rights are about freedom of speech, the right to chose your own path in life and other things that ACTUALLY matter. They aren't for whining about not getting what you want on toys.

I wonder how liberated this guy felt when he got his $1000 phone bill..

I think that you are claiming that the ends justify the means. And I think you are saying tHat any means of keeping viruses off you cell phone is a positive thing, no matter what the means were used to get there.

You seem to me to be a happy Apple customer. Steve is counting on you.

rrriiiightt.. the means of course being creating they're product in a way that protects their costumers from dangers they can't see?

Wow there's a lot of vitriol against planet blue for making a good point. I'd also much prefer Apple limited the App store approval to technical issues and security, and leave the political element out. I don't like being told what I can or can't do with my hardware based on someone else's puritan morals or political slant or business favoritism.

Sure, we could buy another phone, but that's a non-argument. You're not even trying to rationalize the policies anymore, your response amounts to "shut up and go away". As a debate mechanism, that's pretty much admitting defeat because you don't have anything better to say. Some of us like 95% of the iPhone system, and have valid opinions on what's missing in the last 5%. The "go away" argument is not adding any insight, why do you bother?

I can understand you not being comfortable with that sort of "curation" as Jobs now characterizes the process. I however, welcome it. I don't feel angry or deprived by Apple deciding what wares I get to choose. Just doesn't bother me. I don't lose sleep over apps I can't have. Most of us have bigger problems.

Also, I love the comments which respond to the desire to install non-authorized apps by suggesting jailbreaking the phone. If that was at all supported by Apple, I'd say sure. But I know the moment Apple does something to brick jailbroken phones you'll be the first to say that it was never supported and no one has any room to complain. It's like telling a guy who wants to buy a bb-gun to chase squirrels off his birdfeeder that he isn't allowed, but anyone who is savvy enough to differentiate between a squirrel and a bird at the feeder can instead just build a nuke in his garage to get rid of the squirrels. O_o

Apple doesn't allow non-app store installation because they want the consumer lock-in and the ability to block subversive/competitive technologies. This is not to benefit the consumer, this is to benefit Apple. Sometimes our interests are aligned with Apple, but not always.

But he did not make a good point. In fact, he created the "political" dimension by attempting to equate a company's product and marketing (read: not even remotely political) decisions with liberty. This is an obviously faulty comparison, on every imaginable level. In truth it is completely ridiculous. So no, he did make a good point. This is precisely what so many have taken pains to explain.

In case you haven't followed the news, there was a political cartoonist who was blocked because he made fun of public figures (uh, kind of the point... so are no political apps allowed? Or just the ones that disagree with Apple?). Also the Playboy app is allowed, but other smutty apps aren't? Will Apple block apps which promote gay/lesbian activities? I wouldn't be surprised given the track record. There is a HUGE political slant to their curation, and that is precisely where the Ben Franklin quote was aimed, perhaps a little overkill, but on topic.

But of course, his post is assuming you guys are keeping up on the background material to actually know the topic being discussed, which is perhaps why so many comments amount to "go away la la i'm not listening la la la". I hope there aren't a lot of Americans in this thread, because I'll be sorely disappointed with the level of comfort of having a company dictate our morals for such a personal and private item like a phone. I suppose if they block it from dialing 900 numbers that would be OK too, no one wants a surprise like being charged to call a sex-chat line. Maybe they should filter the Safari browser too, the web is a pretty gaping hole in the content they block from app store... how long do you think it will take to get there?

In case you haven't been following the news, he (and a couple of other political cartoonists) were ultimately able to have their apps in the store. And also, in case you haven't been following the news, Apple's policy clearly doesn't target any brand or type of politics, so you are far from being able to prove any "huge" or even extant "political slant" to their policy. The rule is simply a prohibition against defamatory apps. Are they being too careful in their screening? Probably so, and they have admitted as much, by inviting the cartoonist to resubmit.

The Franklin quote is more than just a "little overkill," it is inherently inapplicable. Apple is not the government. They have no power of censorship whatsoever, by definition. I always wonder at the confusion over these most basic concepts.

Right, after a public outcry and bad publicity for Apple. Perhaps others are not so lucky. We shouldn't have to rely on this, Apple is not the judicial system, they should not be judging what is "defamatory" or a number of other issues. If someone feels they are slandered/libeled by an app, they can sue the author directly, it's not Apple's job to decide these things.

It's quite strange actually, by accepting responsibility for app content, Apple is actually opening themselves to legal involvement in such cases. If Apple took a hands-off (common-carrier) approach I would expect (IANAL) they would reduce their liability. Instead by exercising editorial control, they are more like a publisher which would be liable.


Says who? You? Quite a few people have complained about inconsistent enforcement. They allow an Opera browser but not Google voice? Playboy but not titillating apps from other publishers? The whole concept of their "decency" patrol is clearly an issue of politicsÂwho are they to decide morality for their users?


Why should the Franklin quote be limited to the government? They are blocking applications from their users in the name of preventing "bad things". It's a clear security/liberty tradeoff. They could limit their app police to security and technical issues, but instead they explicitly choose to also filter any content they dislike. Thus to gain iPhone security we must accept lesser liberty.

Also, what makes you think only the government is capable of censorship? What "definition" are you going by? Censorship is simply the suppression of speech, it doesn't matter who does it. Media organizations are quite capable of censorship. I also wonder at the confusion over such a basic concept, and I'm quite scared that my countrymen are so unconcerned when a company actively opposes full expression of your rights. Personally, I don't want porn apps on my phone, but I'll still defend your moral right to have it on your phone, even if that isn't a legal right, perhaps it should be, Ã* la net neutrality. I don't want Comcast blocking traffic to sites they "don't like" either.

That's right, Apple is not the judicial system. They are not the government at all. Like any other company, they get to decide what they do and do not want to sell, just as you get to decide what you do and do not buy. The inappropriateness of the Franklin quote in this context should be quite obvious to you now.