And yet game consoles are not known for getting malware or virus of any kind.
One cannot have security while allowing apps to do whatever they feel like.
One cannot have security while allowing apps to do whatever they feel like.
Being able to do that isn't just a nice thing to have, it is a downright mandatory ability any computer must have.
You're more likely to get seriously scammed in a browser than by an actual malware/virus.
https://www.autotrader.com/car-news/new-general-motors-featu...
As consumer, app stores are more than proven.
I cannot parse this, what do you mean?
> As consumer, app stores are more than proven.
I do not have any problem with app stores as long as they are not tied to a locked down OS. See Steam or any Linux repository front-end as an example of app stores that do it right.
But yeah, it's still a choice and Apple is not one of them.
I rather have the inconvenience of using them, even if they don't prevent accidents.
Not being able to install any software you want on a device you own is not a small inconvenience cost, it is a great artificial limitation meant to take control away from the user and put the user at the mercy of the vendor who can then use it for other user hostile actions (e.g. forced obsolescence, a common tactic in the example of gaming consoles brought before).
And especially in this case, any "better" outcome is really small and short term (the user being unable to do much with their own device means they are also unable to install unwanted software) whereas the larger picture outcome is user hostile - a gradual loss of control and ownership to the goods you are paying for.
I rather have a store than a background application taking machine resources, to ensure that applications are safe to use and do not expose my computer contents to the world when connected.
Thankfully i'm not one. But that doesn't make me blind on such schemes.
Also that background application you mention, even though it isn't necessarily needed in all cases, it is still a better solution than a locked down system since it is under the user's control.
One cannot have a general purpose computer while preventing apps to do whatever they were designed to do.
I don't want random applications to access $HOME just because they feel like it.
If the application was designed for accessing $HOME given its purpose, then I as user, will gladly authorize it.
As developer, and someone that in the past dealt with games and mobile development like J2ME and Symbian, I don't see a big issue going through app certification processes.
That's why Nintendo not putting a browser on Switch
It's appalling an entire WWW browser would be necessary for connecting to certain Internet access points, but that's the current state of things.
In any case, someone has already achieved arbitrary code execution through it, but it was sandboxed anyway.
Also this is an orthogonal issue, the console wasn't designed to have security exploits to start with.