Why Apple's "walled garden" is a good idea

It seems this whole article is moot considering the fact the exploit was not accurate:

http://www.androidcentral.com/android-privacy-concern-lookout-response

There is a middle ground to all of this:
- Paying developers can pay Google/Apple an annual fee (e.g. $99/year) to have their apps stamped by Google as safe.
- All developers can post apps in the market but consumers will be less trustworthy of the non-stamped apps.
- Apps can be sideloaded (as they can with Android or a jailbroken iOS device. They shouldn't need to be jailbroken to do it.

I will say I feel safer being told what parts of my phone an app needs access to. Most games, for example, shouldn't require any special privileges. Good app design uses OAuth and other protocols to handle integration with things like Twitter, etc.

I honestly don't understand why simple solutions are never the ones big companies come up with.

Damned if your open, Damned if your closed...

I noticed the whole "Open or Closed" thing seems to be a lose, lose situation. If you stay closed, like Apple, you lose in the fact people complain your "too controlling" and sometimes you have to pull software. If you stay open, like Android, as this article describes you start to let in malware, viruses, phishing software and it will get to the point where there will need to be a "Norton Antivirus for Android".

But my personal opinion is I rather the company be considered "too controlling" than have viruses flooding my cell phone and need a phone antivirus program slugging the device down.

This article is BS. The walled garden is NOT that the App Store has a approval process (that is not an issue). The walled garden is that you are allowed to get apps ONLY from the App Store! If Google decided to get like Apple with the Android Market, that wouldn't make Android walled because you can still get apps off the market.

If Apple would open up the iPhone to other apps and markets, yet keep their control over the App Store, I can assure you, all the bad PR of Apple would go away.

I'm an iOS developer with an app in the store (The Fox & The Grapes) and I happen to feel that the App Store, with all its warts, is generally a good thing.

That's not to say there couldn't be other licensed stores, but the idea of a moderated, curated, easy to install, easy to remove store is essential for the next generation of non-pc devices if we don't want to recreate the security, virus, and malware problems of the last decade or so with Windows.

I wrote up my thoughts about it on my web site, http://causticmango.com/files/dont_fear_the_app_store.html, the gist of it is that my experience with Ubuntu's repositories convinced me it's the best thing for users.

You want you primary PC, your phone, your tablet, you're whatever to safe, reliable, and as pristine as possible. You want it to be a "production" device.

If you have a sandbox system you want to hack on or screw around with, that's fine. Maybe you're a programmer or hobbyist or just curious. But you're the edge case, not the primary case and the distribution system shouldn't be optimized for you.

Good points, although a few things to consider:

Apple doesn't check the source code. Malicious code can (and has) gotten past Apple if they hide it well. Recently an app stole iTunes account info. (Remember?)

Google does monitor their market, as you mention, although not as heavily. You have to go into your settings on your phone to allow Apps not installed/approved through the market.

Attacks are done through trojans and exploits. Torjans might be a tad harder in iOS, but they can still happen. Exploits can happen on either platform. Apple's cost is the loss of either the freedom to install Apps outside of the App Store or your warranty. I, personally, think the default to limit Apps to the Store/Market but the option to install other Apps if you want (as it is in Android) is preferable. Perhaps if Apple kept their hard moderation, but there was an option to go in and allow third party apps that could only be turned on by the user would be ideal... but Apple would never allow that.

There is nothing that prevents an iPhone app from doing the exact same thing. It's just that it hasn't happen yet or hasn't been discovered.

Apples frustrating review process is a joke. Just look at the flashlight app from a week ago that allowed full tethering. Apple didn't catch that, so why would that catch some person info being sent to a hackers server. All the app has to do is not send any personal info for the first few weeks it's out and Apple will be none the wiser.

Also, because of the walled garden, users can't install software such as LittleSnitch to help protect themselves. Apple won't allow it.

I've got to admit, a walled garden is a lot more enjoyable than an wallless wasteland.

This site is basically worthless nowadays
Not one article is based on fact every week the go from anti iphone to iphone fetish

Why eating children is a good idea:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm

What is really pathetic and sad is that it took TUAW such a long time to understand this.