walled garden not so bad after all..

[scottjl]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Talk about a storm in a teacup. Y'all do realize that there is a lot more personal/important information stored on your computers and that applications that run on your computers are not "approved" by anybody.

not necessarily. i might store far more phone numbers on my phone than i bother to put in my desktop address book. same with calendar entries.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by scottjl

not necessarily. i might store far more phone numbers on my phone than i bother to put in my desktop address book. same with calendar entries.

And your list of phone numbers and calendar entries is more important than the actual work that you do? ANd you never backup the phone numbers on your device onto your computer?

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by =X=

No you wouldn't trust me .

Actually most phones today are setup to only allow downloading from the Google Market. You have to disable this block in your phone before you can sideload your apps. What AT&T has done is prevented users from disabling this feature.
In your case since you are a technical challenged (as you put it, I would never call anybody that) you would not know how to disable this feature, until you have a need.


=X=

Lol. I'm not going to fake knowledge I don't have, so I declare my tech lame-ness.

I would prefer that a carrier not lock stuff, so people with tech skills can tinker, yet make things simple enough so that I don't get hung up. I also would prefer some kind of checking of apps before they go to the market I shop at. Without tech know-how, I'm basically relying on companies to screen. Yes, I can read warnings and (dis)approve, but I'm guessing that scammers are hiding whatever they're really trying to do.

[=X=]

Originally Posted by scottjl

well. if i jailbreak i can sideload apps. so it's a wash. you don't think the other carriers will follow in AT&T's footsteps if AT&T is successful at it?

Yeah, I never cared about the "if I jailbreak /or if I root my device" argument. In the end we're professionals trying to use our products to be productive. And that means being able to call tech support in case we need issues resolved. (Which is why i said "but that is not an option" for me in my last post)

Hard to tell, Verizon and Sprint have been marketing "Open" solutions for some time now. Locking out their phones really goes against their philosophy. And AT&T well their AT&T.

Originally Posted by scottjl

there were mentions made of the X going into a completely restricted mode that required motorola equipment to "unbrick". in any case, building any sort of self-destruction is not very consumer friendly. as for root/jailbreak, expect motorola to close the holes as they are found as well.

Understand we are not talking about jail breaking or rooting a device here. We are talking about applying source code to a kernel model compiling it and re-installing it on a phone.

While I am quite cable of doing so, I will never be doing that to my phone, that is VERY risky. But I will give you this one, just because I don't like any restrictions.

Originally Posted by scottjl

you have a choice with the iphone. don't buy one. that is always an option. if the increasing number of rumors are true the iphone will be coming to other carries in the US as well. and now, if you're willing to go over the border and spend some money, you can buy a completely unlocked iphone in canada. i expect you'll be able to in the US as well as soon as AT&T's exclusive period is over.

Dude if I'm going to go through that kind of effort I might as well get something that's worth the work.... like cuban cigars

Originally Posted by scottjl

well, so did apple with iOS 4, some 1,500 new APIs. doesn't mean they are more "open", just allowing more access via restricted methods.

Okay so my last sentence was very vague. What I mean is they have release the source code to their OS, not just the API.

Historically Google has been a huge proponent of Open Source and has based much of their success on using open source and contributing to Open Source, unlike SONY, Amazon and Apple.

But fair enough, though historically Google has always been an huge Open source contributor, any company can change direction in a heart beat. But why argue about tomorrow when we have plenty of discord in our present day. And my tomorrow is free of war and discord.


=X=

[scottjl]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

And your list of phone numbers and calendar entries is more important than the actual work that you do? ANd you never backup the phone numbers on your device onto your computer?

you don't know who's numbers are in my address book.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Crowl

The whole walled garden just gives people a false sense of security really, code that does more than expected has already slipped through not to mention this whole thing about ad-supported apps including advertss that will then dial a premium rate phone number for you without asking.

Originally Posted by =X=

Right that is the key issue here. Anrdoid, like BlackBerries, inform the user what access the app is requiring during install. If the user chooses to grant this level of access to the app then the app may do so. There is no way to bypass this security feature, not even RIM/Android apps can.

The problem is most people DON"T read the security warning and just simply hit ignore.

I don't care what anybody says, there is no way anybody can fool proof these kind of apps. And it is up to the user to be vigilant about what they install on their devices.

=X=

Right. This is as someone up there said a tempest in a teapot and just one more of the Scottj's attempts to attack and discredit anything that is not Apple.

There are trade-offs in any system that provides internet access. Apple has chosen one way (one which I vehemently disagree with) others - Android, MS, Linux, have chosen other approaches to the market.

I prefer to take my chances, protect myself appropriately and have access to what I choose to use on my technology appliances.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by scottjl

Actually it is impossible to write an app that just dials a number without alerting the user on iOS at this time. Direct dialing is not possible through the supported APIs without putting up a nice dialog box to alert the user a number is going to be dialed (and approval is asked for).

Not true sadly.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07...mium_dialling/

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by scottjl

you don't know who's numbers are in my address book.

Steve Jobs' phone number I'm guessing

[scottjl]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Right. This is as someone up there said a tempest in a teapot and just one more of the Scottj's attempts to attack and discredit anything that is not Apple.

jeeze. who the hell stirred up your hornets nets? i don't recall inviting you to this conversation, nor launching any personal attacks on you. so please. go crawl back to your cave and stay away. seriously.

There are trade-offs in any system that provides internet access. Apple has chosen one way (one which I vehemently disagree with) others - Android, MS, Linux, have chosen other approaches to the market.

we're well aware you hate all things apple.

I prefer to take my chances, protect myself appropriately and have access to what I choose to use on my technology appliances.

well, unless you're designing and manufacturing your own hardware, writing your own operating system, and running it on your own developed network, you're going to have to use someone else's technology sooner or later.

[scottjl]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Steve Jobs' phone number I'm guessing

god no. i can't stand the man.

[scottjl]

Originally Posted by Crowl

Not true sadly.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07...mium_dialling/

actually if you look at the application. you have to click on the ad, then it puts up a box asking for your approval to call the number. you have to click yes to dial the number. something these kids were doing. apple is hardly at fault here.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by scottjl

god no. i can't stand the man.

Joking aside, my point stands. Installing "unapproved" applications on a phone is no more dangerous than doing it on your computer. I would say it is a lot less dangerous.

Phones/tablets/media consumption devices contain far less critical information than computers that are actually used for something productive.

[scottjl]

well. no one is arguing that installing cydia apps poses a risk, and hopefully with as cautious as apple is about everything they aren't letting any rogue apps into their store.

as for the critical level of data. i wouldn't say that at all. i have quite a few sensitive documents on my ipad. nothing stopping me from loading them there. nothing stopping me from deleting them easily. with apple's pin code wipe and remote wipe capabilities can be pretty sure they don't fall into the "wrong hands". i realize not everyone may use their ipad for work purposes today, but that will change as the days go by.

[kovidgoyal]

The point is: there is no security risk to using android greater than the security rusk in using any computer. Since no one is raising a hue and cry about the ability to install "unapproved" applications on a computer, it is silly at best and disingenuous at worst to do so for Android devices.

Unless you are arguing that Apple should be able to control everything that is installed on your computer as well, in which case you need to be locked up for your own safety.

[scottjl]

really don't get why people have to start up with personal attacks when someone doesn't share the same opinion with them..