SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
ZDNet have put out a story claiming that, although Apple's walled-garden approach is not popular with everybody, it does appear to have prevented almost all malware from becoming prevalent on iOS. From the article:
Everyone knows there's no iOS malware, right? Strictly speaking, there is. As a practical matter, there isn't. At least if you stick with the official Apple store, you are more likely to win Powerball than to be hit by iOS malware.
But to make that "strictly speaking" point, FortiGuard Labs's Axelle Apvrille ("the Crypto Girl") felt it necessary to list all the iOS malware on record all 11 instances, eight of which work only on jailbroken phones.
[....]
It's not like iOS isn't an inviting target. There are zillions of devices out there and iOS customers have shown that they are willing to spend money on apps. And there absolutely are ways that iPhones can be attacked, although more likely through vulnerabilities, especially in Safari, than through malicious apps.
In fact, Apple's rules for what it will allow in its App Store are so strict that they effectively ban security software. It's a good thing there is next to no malware, because what you would need to do to block it on your phone is not permitted. Android, on the other hand, has a burgeoning market for security software and no shortage of malware.
Do you agree with this assessment?
(Score: -1) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @11:49AM
Really only "too restrictive" if iOS devices were numerically superior in the global market - and last I checked, they're not.
I quite like my Apple pocket appliance, it requires nearly no maintenance. Suits me just fine. I used to run linux on a Sharp Zaurus. Was really only good for reading books and playing MP3's, but it could do one hell of a lot more than an iPod, at the time. It was however, quite the special hell to maintain back then.
In the meantime I prefer to build my own computer systems - for specific purposes - entirely from RTL in FPGA. Far better control than the monstrosity that x86-64 is. Modularise - one thing per function, then hide the lot in a box if necessary. Makes troubleshooting much easier.
My standard "dev platform methodology": Whatever is #1 on distrowatch.org 12month chart, with an exactly-noted install script for everything beyond what can be had from apt-get. (there isn't any open sourced FPGA dev software, more's the pity).
Minimal barrier to entry for newbies - means people can spend their time and effort working on the thing, not working to try and match whatever custom spread of particular version unique distro my gentoo box had become.
So far as walled garden applies: Stop thinking of Apple iOS things as personal computers =- they're clearly just communication appliances.
And if you want the control, there is a huge collection of Android-compatible devices out there - get one you can easily jailbreak, and take control.
You don't *have* to buy Apple. Their present "comparatively smallish" marketshare is quite healthy. They're doing just fine, and the majority of people have cheaper, freer options. Apple are very closed and secretive to be sure, but at least they do manage to build well.
The secrecy is because their development process has no manageabiliy at all, and their non-employee investors would be scared at the seemingly unplanned and chaotic nature it has. But in reality, all new development always looks inefficient - like no-one knows what they're doing. This is obviously necessary where a new thing that has never been build is being attempted.
But it's exactly the opposite of how most conservative engineering firms work: They work to a plan, and do with absolute certainty jobs they know exactly how to plan. They consequently can't innovate to save themselves, mostly because such firms simply don't have the necessary culture to handle the unavoidable chaos.
Apple is a rare beast - an engineering firm in a market that (was) dominated by "technician" firms who could sure code, but not *produce* non-virtual products in the real world. Yet the furthest thing from the ultra-conservative engineering firms who do hydraulics, say. Or build bridges.
They keep leading their field, because they're good at development, and they're good at engineering. (applying science, with a plan, and *forcing* reality to submit).
The smartphone industry is a breath of fresh air - because to compete, each company has to be at least ok at engineering - if they aren't, their (battery life * capability / weight*cost) ratio is too low. And so competition is quite fair.
Software efficiency has finally become necessary: The PC market never had that limit, vendors could simply require more powerful computers which they could then manage inefficiently to do even less in less time, whilst seeming to give more. (really, they only had to give the appearance of novelty to retain their market share). Apple inverted that, giving novelty in physical form. Prior to that they had been giving only technical excellence, which their competitors need not have afforded. All the engineering firms were too busy competing to supply just PC components - the "PC" companies didn't need engineers at all. Just technicians.
So they maintain their little walled garden: Good. So long as people arn't "Born into" it, it's just fine. It's only a virtual dictatorship, and one whose existence totally depends on providing benefit: Keeping out most malware certainly qualifies.
It'll only be a problem if the law were to decide that you really need to be a professional in order to sell software. Like they do with that oldest of professions: Medicine.
And civil engineers too. Those component makers have to deliver parts that really do as their spec sheets say, or they're guilty of fraud.
The point is that iOS device == Appliance, not computer.
Computer == something that to be literate with, and fully use, you need to be capable of programming.
Apple actually does still sell those, and whilst these days they stop casual users from just running randomly downloaded apps, it's fairly trivial to authenticate on a per-executable basis. If you buy one, they will even give your their SDK for the asking.
If a computer manufacturer today made it difficult or impossible for their users to program their own computers, or even decide for themselves what they wanted their personal computer to do, we'd rightfully be up in arms.
More so if there were no alternative.
Thankfully that hasn't happened, and whilst it sorta did for software, those of us who left and formed the OSS community built something superior, even if we only contributed another user, we helped the marketshare of OSS grow to where engineering firms saw the benefit in supporting it. (Even while the competition shot its own foot by effectively eliminating casual "piracy", the true source of their own market dominance!)
That said - make sure you don't buy a personal computer with a TPM, and consider how much you do trust the manufacturer of each of your appliances.