http://apple-ipod.ruqqa.com

The reason, simply, is that our economy depends on the public telco infrastructure to function. Plugging in a non-standard device at your house that results in the telco switch at the other end reboot effects other people. What if some of the other lines on your offline switch were used by the hospital, fire/rescue, or connected several busy ATM's to a bank?

Since the iPhone bridges computer software to carrier's public GSM phone networks, Apple has to balance regulatory compliance with the ability to extend the functionality of the end-user's device.

For example, let's say Bob writes a program that causes the GSM radio to broadcast a storm of meaningless packets at full power. This could un/intentionally cause the phone to jam nearby cell conversations. If that nearby call was to 911 during an emergency, Apple and Bob will likely face some expensive lawsuits.

Code-signing allows Apple to CYA. It prevents Bob from anonymously releasing his program into the world. That way, should the FCC some nocking (or a attorney representing a class-action), Apple can refer both back to the real culprit: Bob.

Tom O'B

http://humanvoice.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/what-is-cool/

Code signing doesn't make you safe. The NSA's applications are not signed by Apple.

Code signing simply puts you at the mercy of the code signing authority. These companies are using fear to cement their position as middlemen.

Would you like all your purchases pre-approved by the government? No? Then why would you want them pre-approved by Apple or Nokia or Microsoft?

“Mr. Joswiak, why does Apple feel it is necessary to require digital signatures for iPhone applications but not for Mac applications?…"

The new Leopard OS supports digital signing of applications. It is not required, but is available for Mac developers. Below is a link from the Apple Developer web site on this topic:

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Security/Conceptual/CodeSigningGuide/AboutCS/chapter_2_section_3.html

So with the iPhone SDK, everyone is starting fresh. So why not just use the more secure model at the get-go? Makes sense to me.

I do hope Apple allows signed apps to be downloaded from anywhere the developer chooses, not forcing developers to use Apple's online store as the sole means of distribution. I don't see that as necessarily connected to digital signatures. If Apple goes the restrictive route here, expect another developer backlash.

As a shareholder I hope that the marketing department revisits the pricing of its european phone plans. They are simply too high for the UK/European market and are resulting in abysmal iphone take-up here.

That's bad for the product, bad news for Apple and for me a shareholder…

Here, I'll compose it for you:

"Mr. Joswiak, why does Apple feel it is necessary to require digital signatures for iPhone applications but not for Mac applications? In the past, Steve Jobs suggested an open iPhone development environment might endanger AT&T's phone network, but that doesn't explain why there's no open development environment for the iPod touch, and nor does it jive with the fact that the open Mac development environment does not endanger Comcast's or AOL's Internet network."

This is important to ask because, in reality, the reasons for Apple was reluctantly dragged into providing an SDK at all and the reasons it will be crippled when it arrives are: Apple will require digital signature for iPhone applications is because Apple needs to protect its revenue streams — For example, Apple will not allow IM applications because AT&T wants SMS revenue, and Apple will not allow removal of the iTunes Store icon from the main menu. On a Mac, the user can write their own IM applications. On a Mac, you can remove any application you don't want to see. You can modify every menu. Yet, there is no security crisis on the Mac, just as allowing non-signed applications and a truly open iPhone would not lead to a security crisis on the iPhone.

In other words, when a corporate executive feeds you a load of bull, don't just accept it, question it. Do your job as a journalist.

From Jon Fortt: Your question isn't as smart as you think it is, Patrick. Mobile devices like the iPhone and iPod touch are bigger targets for malicious programs for two reasons. One, they're the most popular products in their categories. Two, they are more networked by nature (the iPod touch has built-in WiFi), yet people aren't used to protecting themselves against malicious programs on these devices. So Apple has good reason to be concerned here, and to use digital signatures.