Hacker News Reader

Comment by pierrefar | Hacker News Reader

"But today, with smartphones permeating our lives and going everywhere we go, it makes a good deal of sense to have someone keeping a close eye on what those apps do."

No it doesn't. To use their words from two paragraphs up: "The software market for personal computing has existed in this way for nearly three decades, and while there have certainly been some problems along the way, I'd argue that overall we're better off without Microsoft or Apple or some other organization approving software applications before they're released to the market."

So it doesn't make sense now, it never made sense, and I don't see how it could make sense in the future.

View on HN

We IT people look at smartphones as computers with phone capabilities but I think the average consumer sees them as phones with other stuff added on. This is an important distinction.

Over the past 30 years people have come to accept that computers do not work at times, whether it is due to hardware failures, software bugs, or viruses. There is no such history of acceptable failure with the telephone, it has always just worked - even in a power outage!

I can see why Apple is being paranoid with making sure the phone just works, it would be a product-killing public relations nightmare to have a bug or virus break a phone's core functionality.

Finally someone gets it. The model Apple uses at the moment does scale, though. In a point in future you could approve not for a single app but for a whole app store.

You're dead on - it should be as simple as an appliance. Turn it on and it works. I think one of the biggest reasons for being paranoid about bugs/virus problems is that when something happens to your phone (or "social appliance" as I think the iPhone is) - you aren't damaging the device you're damaging the social connections.

Customers don't want to buy/own something that will make them look bad or worse, hurt their standing with their friends. If I have a device that gets a virus and makes voice calls to my address book and plays a pre-recorded marketing message, that is going to really suck for me when none of my friends will answer the phone when I really do call.

Apple sells the phone. It's working 100%. User installs app, breaks phone. Apple takes blame?

The trick here is see that: 1. If Apple is very paranoid and must approve every single app, then it should rightly take the blame.

2. If Apple says it's free for all and users should realize that some apps are not that great, then it would rightly remove any blame thrown its way.

Which is why I think the whole app approval process is absurd: Apple should stop approving apps and remove any associated blame. The path it's on right now is never going to scale or end well for Apple - all it would take is one bad slip and it's pretty much over.

On the flip side is what Google does with Android: they're collecting tons of feedback every time someone uninstalls an app, including an option that says "this is a malicious app". Care to wager that this will be used in some kind of automated way to keep the app store clean?

Not just that, they're empowering the user to make an informed decision. The Android app store tells you how many downloads the app gets, its star rating (out of 5 stars) and user comments. Before installing any app I read all this info and decide "hey, with 10,000 downloads and 4.5 stars, how bad can it be?"

But then one more thing happens: the app store tells you what the application requests permission to do like access your location or full internet access or whatnot. You still can decide not to install if you see something fishy. I've seen many games request access to my contacts and they didn't get installed.

So please tell me, how is Apple's way better in any regard?

An anecdote:

Two colleagues from different industries (one insurance, one technology) were Palm Treo users. After installing various 3rd party apps (not malicious but related to productivity things like emails, note taking etc), both of them started experiencing sporadic crashes of the phone, for example when attempting to answer incoming calls. One blamed Palm for his problems, the other blamed one of the app vendors. Neither wanted to live without those apps. Today both of them are iPhone users.

That's quite funny. IMHO, that's a failure of Palm to market/position the Treo properly. The marketing message I think would work well for smartphones is that they allow you to do anything you want. There is an app for everything, all conveniently located in one place. Actually there is more than one. See which one works for you.

Apple in all its marketing genius can pull this off. Honestly, I think they're the only company who can pull this off. My Google Android example above is certainly not part any marketing message I've heard - it's just there working in the background without anyone noting it.

I'd probably be just as pissed off or more pissed off if a malicious app screwed up my macbook pro, lost my data, and emailed everyone porn. Both run the same complex operating system. You do not see us regulating those apps. Oh, because there's a 3g connection attached? Not sure I can buy that one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com