[natch]

>Is there any reason besides incompetence why the apps developers would do this?

Well... cheap shot maybe, but it's Android. People are always hating on Apple for having security checks and rules. Android, on the other hand... how did Sundar Pichai put it? "We prioritize openness over security," something like that.

Openness does sound good but positioning it as a tradeoff with security bothers me. Having both would be good.

I'm wondering how this is or will be handled on the Apple platform. When that information comes out, I'm not expecting it will make Apple look good, since they have said they will follow the law (no matter how bad the law is!) wherever they sell their devices. If following the law means allowing a spyware app into the App Store, and they do this, I'll have to reevaluate my expectations of privacy for using Apple devices.

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

> Openness does sound good but positioning it as a tradeoff with security bothers me. Having both would be good.

Letting people write and install whatever program they want necessarily includes letting them write and install shitty programs.

[natch]

Yes. I can write and install any shitty program I want on my Apple device. No problems there.

But when it comes to other people's devices, those other people probably want a say in who the device is open to and when, and for what purpose. Apple helps make it possible for them to have a say.

While I am free to install astoundingly shitty software on my own iPhone/iPad/Mac, Apple makes it difficult for me to install shitty programs on other people's Apple devices without their knowledge or consent.

Seems like a reasonable way of doing things. Open for your own device, and others get to decide for themselves what they are open to for their devices.

[Canada]

How are you free to install software on your own iPhone or iPad when you need a developer account to get a signing certificate to install your app on your own phone?

[natch]

With a developer account.

[edoceo]

And yet Google blocked the app i built while Apple let it pass.

Hmm.

[natch]

Which app was that?

[edoceo]

I would prefer not to say as, after some difficulty, I was able to reach someone at Google, provide necessary details and get approved to resubmit -- but the app name is now locked so I need a new one

[peterashford]

Yes, that was a very cheap shot. It's not Android's fault that China is forcing crappy spyware on users

[sbr464]

I wouldn’t say very. Didn’t Fortnight bypass the play store by using a direct/side-load install? Those things can only be done with design level decisions being made in a product.

[i_cant_speel]

That was to avoid giving Google a cut of in app purchases.

[sbr464]

Definitely, I meant that they were only able to circumvent the Play store because of the settings/admin/root access etc intentionally left open by the core product team.

To clarify, the article doesn't mention that they were stopping iPhone users to install the app, only Android. I'm not too familiar with the method/tech though. If by design, Android had a more closed ecosystem, they couldn't force it so casually. I'm personally not a fan of that approach, but could see the benefits when under this type of government.

[remlov]

Cheap shot indeed. The decision to use HTTP over HTTPS is unquestionably impartial whether it's implemented for an Apple or Android device.