Matt Craig [10.17.07 11:40 AM]

At what point does "security" become a non-issue? When the lack of it provides some cool apps? Apple, and every other OS vendor gets hammered for not patching security exploits... UNLESS they are used to add apps to the iPhone. The "existing iPhone developer community" is made possible by exploiting a security flaw that could also be used for malicious purposes. In any other context Apple would get hammered by allowing a way to get root access possible. But not with iPhone. Patching iPhone security holes is Apple being vindictive, but if they exist in Tiger, then they're "long overdue". If security is to be taken seriously, then it applies to ALL applications, benevolent or benign.

  Anonymous [10.17.07 12:17 PM]

I wouldn't be surprised if they middle road that they take is signed apps (a la Vista signed drivers). If you want to do something that could be exploited, Apple could require that they sign your app for you.

Of course this would be the death of anything that apple doesn't like which is to say, don't expect an alternative media player any time soon.

  Kyle Adams [10.17.07 12:41 PM]

"It would have been better if Apple had announced this when it released the iPhone." What do you mean by "better"? Remember, Apple is venturing into new territory (the cellular world) with the iPhone. When trying something new, it's almost always better (where "better" means delivering a quality experience to the end user) to start simple.

Once you've got your feet wet, then you can start to add in additional capabilities (i.e. APIs for third parties). It seems to me like Apple handled things the proper way: make sure the iPhone itself is launched successfully and then focus on providing third-party access in a secure manner.

  Kyle Adams [10.18.07 06:32 AM]

Perhaps, but only if you 100% know that you'll actually be able to deliver that support. We all know how things work in the IT world: under promise and over deliver.