Comments on: Oh, Kay.

Apple is beset with security woes! Imaginary ones!

[Obvioustroll]

Come on, a bit harsh on him, don't you think?

"Apple, welcome to Microsoft's world! This is an environment in which you have to support thousands of developers of varying quality, and all sorts of apps, well made or not. Some of these developers make you look good, but others end up trashing your reputation."

Wait, nevermind.
I'm surprised you didn't go to town on this. He makes light of the 30% fee to put apps on the iPhone but ignores that in doing so you are having to be approved by Apple... You know, they people that are most likely to make sure cruddy 3rd party software doesn't ruin their rep.

Can I hit him with my bridge?

[Bill Scott 122]

In the footer of his column, it says, "Kay is the founder and president of Endpoint Technologies Associates (www.ndpta.com), a market research firm. He writes an occasional column on the computer hardware industry at http://www.businessweek.com/technology/." Hmmmm... I wonder if he's Rob Enderle's evil twin brother, separated at birth, but just as "well-informed." Two people could not come up with such similar drivel and NOT be related!

[Isabella8290]

Great article. :)

Roger Kay's was one of the most stupid pieces I've ever had the displeasure to read. Shame on BusinessWeek for publishing that crap.

You should also read MacUser's take on the same article: http://www.macuser.com/security/kays_icarus_argument_waxes_ridiculous.php

[stam66]

10 tons of stoopid indeed. Well put, furry antlered one...

[DouglasUser140]

You're not as funny as John, and you've missed the point of Kay's article. Sure, he's embellished facts and made some mistakes, but his main point isn't what you've attacked here. You are saying that consumer's iPhones are not being broken into by third parties, and that's perfectly true. Kay isn't talking about that though, despite the odd comment about viruses on Macs. He's saying that people are making Apple software do things which Apple doesn't want them to do, just like people making Windows do things that Microsoft doesn't want Windows to do, whether that is breaking DRM or catching viruses.

The point isn't whether it hurts the consumer, but that Apple, like Microsoft, is no longer in control of it's platform.

That's a concern for business types. For them to believe in Apple, they want to see Apple do exactly what Apple sets out to do. If Apple says that it is going to make a closed handset, which can only accept Applications from the Apple Store, then any applications not from the Apple Store hurts Apple's reputation for doing whatever Apple wants to do.

Simply proposing a closed system hurts Apple's reputation in everybody else's eyes though.

[Macalope]

Kay is conflating two different definitions of "hacking". If you were a casual reader of Kay's piece who knew little of Macs, iPhones and security, you could easily conclude that iPhones are falling victim to malware. *Macs* aren't even falling victim to malware as Kay *explicitly states*. Kay wants to have it both ways - he wants to lambaste Apple for creating a closed system where it gets to pick and choose which vendors will get to put applications on the iPhone *and* say Apple has lost control. It cannot be both. And are you claiming there's no way that a person could hack their company-supplied Blackberry or Windows Mobile device to install third party applications? That's an interesting assertion - probably a wrong one - but more importantly that's a violation of corporate policy where the Macalope comes from. Remember, we're talking about the people with physical access to the unit. The Macalope is sympathetic to arguments that there aren't enough corporate software management options for the iPhone, but frankly the whole corporate aspect is a bit of a red herring because Kay never says anything about his complaints being about deploying the iPhone in businesses. His piece is simply a weak attempt to throw a bunch of garbage arguments at Apple to see if anything sticks. It doesn't.

[Peter02l]

"... Apple, like Microsoft, is no longer in control of its platform. That's a concern for business types."

And yet 90% of businesses are running Windows and waited seven years for an upgrade whilst many kept paying software assurance fees all along? If you were right, they would have dumped everyhing with a Microsoft label on it long ago!

[DouglasUser140]

And this comment form doesn't respect paragraph breaks.

Lame.

[Macalope]

The comment system at CNET is not very good.

[odinstrike]

@Douglas - You sound like one of the people who jailbroke their iPhone and then suddenly had an unwarrantied iBrick. Apple never claimed the iPhone could not be broken, but they certainly have their butts covered with the whole warranty thing. I wouldn't buy a $400 piece of equipment and void the warranty the very next day. Your own words: "For them to believe in Apple, they want to see Apple do exactly what Apple sets out to do." Apple never set out to make the iPhone unlockable, they set out to sell as many as they could and negotiate their profit sharing deal with carriers in other countries. These carriers or "bussiness types" are still signing their deals with Apple. You argument is however less ridiculous than Kays "THE THOUSANDS OF MAC VIRUSES ARE RUNNING ALL OVER IPHONES AND MACBOOKS!"

[DouglasUser140]

@odinstrike: "Apple never set out to make the iPhone unlockable"

Do you think that Apple put in application signing by accident??

[Macalope]

Application signing is not the same as unlocking. Just because Apple's clearly forged a supported path doesn't mean it's all that concerned if people choose not to take it. It still moves units.

[samdu]

Someone needs to point out to Kay that the iPhone is not a Mac.