[theBobMcCormick]

> They want to control what apps can be installed simply to keep out malware and porn, so that they can do right by their customers who don't want malware and the parents who don't want porn apps.

That's simply untrue. Many apps have been blocked from the iPhone apps store that were neither "porn" nor malware. If it were just about blocking "porn" and malware then they would continue with their (excellent BTW) curated apps store, but could still allow side-loaded apps for those who wish to use them. Instead they block sideloaded apps to ensure complete control of the iOS ecosystem and render impossible any kind of credible competing app store (like the Amazon App store) on iOS.

[shmerl]

Agreed. For example ban on competing browsers embedded in the iOS SDK is simply a monopoly protection, and has nothing to do with customers' interests.

[gte910h]

As people have seen to downvote this:

The reason why competing browsers aren't prevalent is that they don't want any executable code downloadable that isn't in their sandboxes.

Browsers have executable systems (Javascript, being the biggest issue), so they aren't allowed.

[shmerl]

I wonder who downvoted this one. Any reasoning please? Or it's just an effort to downvote any critique addressed towards Apple?

[snowwrestler]

Can't developers load their own apps directly onto their own device, without going through the App Store approval process? I think Apple even provides a mechanism for corporations to deploy private apps directly to large numbers of iOS devices, without traversing the App Store.

[nirvana]

>That's simply untrue. Many apps have been blocked from the iPhone apps store that were neither "porn" nor malware.

There have been a few mistakes, but I'm not aware of any apps that wouldn't fit into those categories. I consider apps that trick users, or which use undocumented APIs to be malware.

Apps that are offensive, such as gay bashing apps, etc, have been blocked, this is true, though I put that under the "porn" label even though it isn't porn. What's the broader word for "apps that many people might find inappropriate or offensive"?

> could still allow side-loaded apps for those who wish to use them.

As I pointed out, Apple has gone out of their way to create a method for "side loading" apps. They provided a way to create apps in javascript, which have access to much of the native hardware, you can install it thru the web, with a custom app icon and run them offline.

> Instead they block sideloaded apps to ensure complete control of the iOS ecosystem

On the contrary, as I mentioned there is a method to install apps completely out of Apple's control. (in fact, you can do this also with native apps as well using the adhoc distribution method.)

>and render impossible any kind of credible competing app store (like the Amazon App store) on iOS.

Yep. And this has proven also to be in consumers best interest. Look at all the dozens of "App Stores" that have sprung up since the real AppStore was created? Every single one of them sucks, and sucks really hard. Its like they aren't even trying.

Massive amounts of malware are being distributed via, at least the android marketplace, if not Amazon as well.

Why should Apple support third parties making the phone suck?

[theBobMcCormick]

Here's an example of a non-porn app being banned: http://www.macrumors.com/2010/07/20/flashlight-app-sneaks-te...

> Massive amounts of malware are being distributed via, at least the android marketplace, if not Amazon as well.

Amazon's app store is curated exactly like Apple's, so if there is malware in the Amazon's store then the model must be broken.

Besides, as I mentioned, I don't have a problem with Apple curating their app store. I think it's great. A nice mall like shopping experience. I do have a problem with them not allowing side-loading for those more advanced users who would like to side-load apps. IMHO, it seems to me like 90% of the reasons people Jailbrake their IOS devices are things that would be available without Jailbraking if side loading were allowed.

> On the contrary, as I mentioned there is a method to install apps completely out of Apple's control. (in fact, you can do this also with native apps as well using the adhoc distribution method.)

That's rather a bullshit cop-out to claim than web-apps or an "Adhoc" method that's limited to 100 users are either viable alternatives to side-loading.