Snowden needs positive attention. Despite his status as a hero, the press haven't been very kind to him. I agree that it makes sense for him to engage in this sort of talk.
Tyson is a showman. He just needs attention to keep himself employed. It's a shame that he's decided to take advantage of one of the greatest Americans of this century to keep his name in the papers.
All the rest is silly nonsense; being little more than fuel for the space nutters, armchair science cheerleaders, and conspiracy theorists. It's a lucrative market, and one Tyson knows how to exploit. That's right up his alley. I feel bad for Snowden. This kind of pandering is beneath him.
Planned Parenthood does not sell fetal tissue for a profit. They have never sold it for a profit. Even the heavily-edited video doesn't show them selling or admitting to selling fetal tissue for a profit.
Believe it or not, Fox News did not report this accurately. Shocking, I know.
Wow, you're confused. They absolutely make money on apps. They sure as hell aren't going to lose money on them! As for QA, a quick trip through the store ought to show you how great they are at that. It's been a sea of garbage since inception -- now with bonus malware!
You are incredibly naive to think that iOS is not a big enough target for virus/malware authors.
The volume of users counts, not how much money they spend. iOS users make up a tiny fraction of the mobile market. Remember when BlackBerry was king? Those users had money, and spent money. They were also too small a market to be worth targeting. Remember: with the exception of Apple, users don't pay for malware.
because you think that if there's a tiniest chink in the armor then the armor is useless [...] ALL SECURITY IS IMPERFECT.
This is how I know you have difficulty reading. iOS security is imperfect. Their walled-garden did not keep their users safe. Their users traded their freedom on the promise of security, thanks to Apples undeserved reputation. Now, those users are trapped. They have no alternative. With other platforms, they can opt to use different, safer, marketplaces when the pack-in inevitably turns in to a cesspool.
This is my entire point. Alternatives are essential. Smaller, community driven, marketplaces can actually deliver on the promise of a clean marketplace as they can devote more time and effort toward each submission. Apple and Google simply can't. The expense is far too great. With Apple, the situation is worse, as users can not escape their marketplace ghetto. They're trapped behind those garden walls with the low-quality apps and malware monsters.
For the most part, private industry would do a hell of a lot better for a hell of a lot less.
Except for prisons, healthcare, telecom, security... Do I really need to go on? When they're not milking the government teat (everything in my list) for every last penny they can extract while doing the minimum. With infrastructure, it's a bit worse -- without boat-loads of public money, they won't even service any but the maximally profitable, while moaning the whole time about how they don't want to spent our money building out to low-profit areas.
(heaven forbid a black child gets educated by a Christian school, it is better they vegetate in the school they are assigned because EVIL Christians)
Oddly enough, I have a friend who's an administrator at a private Christian school. While I admit demographics there are unusual as it is predominantly black. (For the curious, a lot of private Christian schools started as a reaction to integration.) Fun fact: they pull in a ton of government money. Again, private enterprise is sucking my sweet, sweet, tax dollars right out of their representatives "Washington monument".
There is absolutely no way to stop a failed government project or department
Quite a few have closed. It happens all the time. I was involved with HUD Neighborhood Networks before they shuttered in a round of budget cuts.
What's really tough is shutting down a private project funded with tax money. Planes that can't out-fly old designs, helmets with too much resin, etc. Once a company gets their hands in Government pockets, they never let go. No matter how much money they waste, or how badly they screw up, the cash just keeps on flowing.
Now that I'm thinking about it, I'll bet that a lot of the "government waste" you hate is a direct result of the involvement of private enterprise.
The revelation that Planned Parenthood rotates the baby to be able to harvest more body parts - and sells such parts for profit - doesn't sit right with us.
Oh, then you'll be happy to know that that doesn't happen and has never happened.
Lose/break/Zap your SD card? Done. No backup? So sorry for you!
My SD card sits under the battery. They're not akin to floppy disks, in that you'll be constantly swapping them in and out. Typically, users have just one and install it when they first get a phone. It's not something you leave on your desk or keep in a large collection. For the most part, they're a transparent extension of your phones built-in storage. Photo and video apps typically use the SD card by default, for example.
People run out of space on iDevices constantly. Either from using apps like iMovie or just from having a lot of games. You might not need a lot of space, but other people certainly do!
Remember that nightmare iOS update that required you free up 5gb? A lot of other users do. Had iOS users had access to cheap, expandable, local storage, it wouldn't have been big news.
Why is local storage more important than cloud storage? Well, people pay a lot of money for mobile data. Network transmission is painfully slow and unreliable. What if Apples servers are down? (They have a pretty poor track-record there.) What if you don't have a connection? What if you're over your data limit? How do you manage what is and is not local? (Are users prepared for that?)
So, I'm not sure how many live's worth of data people expect to have at their fingertips; but I guess I just don't get it.
You can fill up a 16gb iPhone pretty quick with a few popular games. Even faster if you use it for video. I've seen more than one iPhone filled to the brim. Just because it isn't an issue for you doesn't mean it's not a problem for many other people.
On the contrary, Android and iOS were well-behind BB for years in terms of features, with few exceptions.
No matter how great QNX is for a nuclear power plant, it failed in the smartphone market, partly because it failed to attract developers.
Which is odd, as developing for BB has always been easier than developing for Android. Of course, in those days, people still thought Android was "open" and that Google had their best interests in mind.
When is it the last time you have seen someone using a Blackberry?
A few minutes ago. My wife was debating between the Note and BB Classic, but ultimately found the Classic to be the phone she preferred. As it's for work, she wanted a solid productivity tool, so that's what she opted to buy. Not that she hasn't tried alternatives. Her last Android lasted about 6 months before she tossed it. I'm still running a Z10 and feel no compelling reason to upgrade, though that keyboard sure would make life easier...
Because everyone with even a tiny bit of technical knowledge knows that Android is a terrible platform. It sucks for users and sucks for developers. Had there been any other "free" alternative, you'd likely have never heard of it.
They have a vastly superior platform. Why toss that out for third-rate garbage?
It was a stupid idea then, and it's a stupid idea now. "Hey, let's toss out every advantage we have and become another me-too player in a crowded market!"
Android hasn't exactly been a path to success for anyone but Samsung. Their own OS, QNX, is superior in just about every way imaginable, including development tools.
The board should have fired Chen just for suggesting they do something this foolish.
An SD card isn't an objectively better solution to limited local storage?
It's less expensive, faster, works everywhere, and has fewer points of failure. Any particular reason you thing cloud storage is better suited for this particular application, or why you wouldn't want an SD card option?
Why doesn't Apple offer and SD card option? As they're omnibenevolent, how does that omission help their users?
The person I replied to (AmiMoJo) argued that women are disadvantaged by the presence of men but men aren't disadvantaged by the presence of women.
I see. You simply didn't understand her post. There are two important factors in play here: the social belief that computing is for boys and the dominance of boys in co-ed classrooms.
If there were one or two boys in the girls-only class, there wouldn't be a problem for the girls. Though that might be a problem for the boys, for the some of the same reasons that cause problems for the girl in the article.
A girls-only class helps with everything here. Having a class of all (or mostly) girls helps with the social stigma. It lets the girls know that it's okay to be interested in computers. They're not weird or aberrant because of their interests. They're also less likely to be excluded or bullied for being different. Which, in a classroom with a heavy gender disparity, is pretty likely.
If there were less of an imbalance in co-ed classrooms, a girls only class wouldn't be necessary. It doesn't need to be 50/50, just less dramatic. Being the only girl (or only boy) in a classroom can be intimidating. That's made even worse when you have issues that uniquely affect you, as is the case for girls interested in computers. When media and society tell you that computers are for boys and women interested in computing are weird or strange in a negative way (see: any TV show with a female "techie" character) you're not going to have a positive and rewarding experience. Ultimately, you'll end up with a negative impression of computing and seek out other interests, more socially acceptable for girls.
Back to AmiMoJo's point:
The idea is to help girls get started with CS in an environment where it won't be seen as a "boy's" thing or where there won't be pressure from ignorant parents and even teachers pushing them away from it. It sounds pretty basic but when questioned a lot of girls say that parents and teachers told them computers were not a girl's thing, so by having classes for girls it makes it a girls thing and allows them to participate.
I don't understand what you are talking about. The only difference is that Apple makes it very hard to load apps except through their curated store;
That's no so hard, is it? The walled-garden offers no additional benefits to the user. Now, consider the litany of additional problems caused by allowing only one marketplace I mentioned above.
specifically to avoid creating additional attack vectors.
That's foolish. The purpose is ensure Apple gets a cut of app sales. This has lead to the host of other problems, as I explained earlier.
Security isn't about perfection. It never has been ever before in the history of mankind. The average Apple user is much less likely to experience malware than the average Android or Windows user
I'm glad that you're finally able to accept that the walled-garden approach does not work, and that any advantage it offers is shared by any other curated store. Now, why doesn't Apple have the same malware problem as Android and Windows?
The same reason desktop Linux doesn't suffer from serious malware issues: Their microscopic marketshare makes them an unattractive target for malware. iOS and OSX combined sit at around 10% of devices shipped. If you were in the malware business, they're just not worth your time.
Are they more secure? Well, no. That they consistently fall in contests like pwn2own indicates that they're just as vulnerable as everyone else. They're not magic, after all. That's why it's important to have a safe marketplace.
Now, this all started because I suggested that smaller, community operated, stores would be better able to keep malware out than larger stores. The reason being that smaller stores can dedicate more QA resources per app than larger stores as they're processing few apps. Apple and Google deal with thousands of submissions every day. They've had to sacrifice review quality to deal with the volume -- and it shows.
The solution for users, tired of dealing with the sea of low-quality apps and malware, is to simply use a different marketplace. This is possible on other platforms, but not possible on iOS. The walled-garden has failed it's users. They're now trapped within its gates with no means of escape.
Do you think the ghost of Steve Jobs is going to come charging in on the back of a white horse and save those poor users? Do you think they'll have an attack of conscious and spend far more per app review than they'll see in revenue? Or do you think they'll downplay their malware problem, telling a different story to their users than other security research groups, and hope their users don't notice? I'll give you hint: They've done one of these things.
There have been something like 6 total reported cases in iOS
The key word here is "reported". Just as an example, Apple's reported figure in this case is dramatically lower than every other security research group.
Those apps will also be cleaned up and that attack vector will be eliminated.
That remains to be seen. I'd wait for something other than wishes and good feelings.
It is just patently false to claim that the walled garden approach doesn't work.
Considering that it clearly hasn't worked I'd say you're in denial.
It's the only thing that does work
Except, as you can see, it has not worked.
You are being intellectually dishonest.
I'm being intellectually dishonest? "This wall keeps monsters out of the garden" "But there are clearly monsters in the garden" "No! This wall has not failed!"
Still, you're ignoring my entire previous post. To recap: There is no advantage to a walled garden that is not also shared by a curated store. Not one. There are, however, many serious problems with the walled garden approach that are not shared by the curated store approach. (As I explained earlier.)
You're missing the entire point. All the big stores have malware. When you're processing thousands of app submissions a day, and don't want to spend far more than you'll make, quality falls dramatically.
This is the great failure of Apples walled garden. Unfortunately, with Apple, there's nothing you can do about it. You're stuck with their malware ridden market. This is not the case for other platforms where you do have the option to use other marketplaces.
You need devices locked to only the "safe stores" or you need customers to be really careful about which stores they download apps from.
The problem with locking users to only the "safe stores" is that it's impossible as those "safe stores" are obviously not safe. Due to their scale, it's impossible (at least wildly impractical) to make or keep them safe.
The walled garden clearly doesn't work. In retrospect, it was doomed to failure.
Any malware statistics you can find show that iOS has dramatically less malware than Windows or Android.
Microsoft uses the exact same walled-garden approach as Apple. No surprise, they both have malware. Google Play is loaded with malware for the exact same reason that Apple's market is loaded with malware (see above).
Now, what makes a walled-garden superior to a curated store? For users, the answer is "absolutely nothing". You get the exact same benefits from a curated store. The difference? With the walled-garden, you're stuck. You're stuck with malware, an endless sea of low-quality apps, censorship, and a host of other issues. There is no justification (that benefits users) for locking users to a single marketplace.
An object is only an instance of a class in some languages. Though it's not a terribly useful definition, even in those languages in which that statement is true. Depending on the language, you're either stating the obvious, or spouting nonsense.
who certifies which 'community app stores' are clean and well maintained?
Isn't it obvious? The community that operates and maintains the store!
You know what is an outrageously successful system? Apple's walled garden.
Except for the thousands of malware infected apps -- including many popular apps. Oh, and discovery. That's a big one. There's also the censorship. That's pretty nasty. The endless sea of low-quality apps. I'll bet I could go on...
I've yet to hear an alternative that wasn't just a thin repackaging of the failed Windows and Android app ecosystems.
Microsoft's store "failed" because they tried to mimic Apple's walled-garden. Had they not been openly hostile to developers (like Apple) they'd have seen a lot more success. If they have any sense, they'll open things up a bit.
I'm not sure how Android failed. As far as I can tell, they're an unparalleled success. Amazon's store stands out as an excellent example of what a good third-party app store can be -- handily beating out the Google's Play store in terms of quality.
Slashdot Mirror
Snowden needs positive attention. Despite his status as a hero, the press haven't been very kind to him. I agree that it makes sense for him to engage in this sort of talk.
Tyson is a showman. He just needs attention to keep himself employed. It's a shame that he's decided to take advantage of one of the greatest Americans of this century to keep his name in the papers.
All the rest is silly nonsense; being little more than fuel for the space nutters, armchair science cheerleaders, and conspiracy theorists. It's a lucrative market, and one Tyson knows how to exploit. That's right up his alley. I feel bad for Snowden. This kind of pandering is beneath him.
No, no. There is a clear pattern there.
I won't go so far as to suggest it's being transmitted by intelligent life, but it's an interesting signal none-the-less.
Planned Parenthood does not sell fetal tissue for a profit. They have never sold it for a profit. Even the heavily-edited video doesn't show them selling or admitting to selling fetal tissue for a profit.
Believe it or not, Fox News did not report this accurately. Shocking, I know.
Apple doesn't make money off of apps
Wow, you're confused. They absolutely make money on apps. They sure as hell aren't going to lose money on them! As for QA, a quick trip through the store ought to show you how great they are at that. It's been a sea of garbage since inception -- now with bonus malware!
You are incredibly naive to think that iOS is not a big enough target for virus/malware authors.
The volume of users counts, not how much money they spend. iOS users make up a tiny fraction of the mobile market. Remember when BlackBerry was king? Those users had money, and spent money. They were also too small a market to be worth targeting. Remember: with the exception of Apple, users don't pay for malware.
because you think that if there's a tiniest chink in the armor then the armor is useless [...] ALL SECURITY IS IMPERFECT.
This is how I know you have difficulty reading. iOS security is imperfect. Their walled-garden did not keep their users safe. Their users traded their freedom on the promise of security, thanks to Apples undeserved reputation. Now, those users are trapped. They have no alternative. With other platforms, they can opt to use different, safer, marketplaces when the pack-in inevitably turns in to a cesspool.
This is my entire point. Alternatives are essential. Smaller, community driven, marketplaces can actually deliver on the promise of a clean marketplace as they can devote more time and effort toward each submission. Apple and Google simply can't. The expense is far too great. With Apple, the situation is worse, as users can not escape their marketplace ghetto. They're trapped behind those garden walls with the low-quality apps and malware monsters.
This isn't complicated.
The ACA kinda sucks. It's better than nothing, but not what anyone wanted.
For the most part, private industry would do a hell of a lot better for a hell of a lot less.
Except for prisons, healthcare, telecom, security ... Do I really need to go on? When they're not milking the government teat (everything in my list) for every last penny they can extract while doing the minimum. With infrastructure, it's a bit worse -- without boat-loads of public money, they won't even service any but the maximally profitable, while moaning the whole time about how they don't want to spent our money building out to low-profit areas.
(heaven forbid a black child gets educated by a Christian school, it is better they vegetate in the school they are assigned because EVIL Christians)
Oddly enough, I have a friend who's an administrator at a private Christian school. While I admit demographics there are unusual as it is predominantly black. (For the curious, a lot of private Christian schools started as a reaction to integration.) Fun fact: they pull in a ton of government money. Again, private enterprise is sucking my sweet, sweet, tax dollars right out of their representatives "Washington monument".
There is absolutely no way to stop a failed government project or department
Quite a few have closed. It happens all the time. I was involved with HUD Neighborhood Networks before they shuttered in a round of budget cuts.
What's really tough is shutting down a private project funded with tax money. Planes that can't out-fly old designs, helmets with too much resin, etc. Once a company gets their hands in Government pockets, they never let go. No matter how much money they waste, or how badly they screw up, the cash just keeps on flowing.
Now that I'm thinking about it, I'll bet that a lot of the "government waste" you hate is a direct result of the involvement of private enterprise.
The revelation that Planned Parenthood rotates the baby to be able to harvest more body parts - and sells such parts for profit - doesn't sit right with us.
Oh, then you'll be happy to know that that doesn't happen and has never happened.
Lose/break/Zap your SD card? Done. No backup? So sorry for you!
My SD card sits under the battery. They're not akin to floppy disks, in that you'll be constantly swapping them in and out. Typically, users have just one and install it when they first get a phone. It's not something you leave on your desk or keep in a large collection. For the most part, they're a transparent extension of your phones built-in storage. Photo and video apps typically use the SD card by default, for example.
People run out of space on iDevices constantly. Either from using apps like iMovie or just from having a lot of games. You might not need a lot of space, but other people certainly do!
Remember that nightmare iOS update that required you free up 5gb? A lot of other users do. Had iOS users had access to cheap, expandable, local storage, it wouldn't have been big news.
Why is local storage more important than cloud storage? Well, people pay a lot of money for mobile data. Network transmission is painfully slow and unreliable. What if Apples servers are down? (They have a pretty poor track-record there.) What if you don't have a connection? What if you're over your data limit? How do you manage what is and is not local? (Are users prepared for that?)
So, I'm not sure how many live's worth of data people expect to have at their fingertips; but I guess I just don't get it.
You can fill up a 16gb iPhone pretty quick with a few popular games. Even faster if you use it for video. I've seen more than one iPhone filled to the brim. Just because it isn't an issue for you doesn't mean it's not a problem for many other people.
Ever try to write a BB app? It was frigging impossible to get it done.
I have. From OS5 through 10. Even OS5 development was easier than Android.
As far as I know, BB still has not learned this lesson.
As of OS10, things are dramatically better. Android development, however, still sucks. I don't think it was the tools.
On the contrary, Android and iOS were well-behind BB for years in terms of features, with few exceptions.
No matter how great QNX is for a nuclear power plant, it failed in the smartphone market, partly because it failed to attract developers.
Which is odd, as developing for BB has always been easier than developing for Android. Of course, in those days, people still thought Android was "open" and that Google had their best interests in mind.
When is it the last time you have seen someone using a Blackberry?
A few minutes ago. My wife was debating between the Note and BB Classic, but ultimately found the Classic to be the phone she preferred. As it's for work, she wanted a solid productivity tool, so that's what she opted to buy. Not that she hasn't tried alternatives. Her last Android lasted about 6 months before she tossed it. I'm still running a Z10 and feel no compelling reason to upgrade, though that keyboard sure would make life easier...
No. They need to port Android onto QNX.
Something related happened. You can run a wide variety of Android apps on BB10 -- it even includes Amazon's app store.
Step 3 (dream): Open Source QNX.
It happened once. It was such a hopeful time...
Because everyone with even a tiny bit of technical knowledge knows that Android is a terrible platform. It sucks for users and sucks for developers. Had there been any other "free" alternative, you'd likely have never heard of it.
They have a vastly superior platform. Why toss that out for third-rate garbage?
It was a stupid idea then, and it's a stupid idea now. "Hey, let's toss out every advantage we have and become another me-too player in a crowded market!"
Android hasn't exactly been a path to success for anyone but Samsung. Their own OS, QNX, is superior in just about every way imaginable, including development tools.
The board should have fired Chen just for suggesting they do something this foolish.
An SD card isn't an objectively better solution to limited local storage?
It's less expensive, faster, works everywhere, and has fewer points of failure. Any particular reason you thing cloud storage is better suited for this particular application, or why you wouldn't want an SD card option?
Why doesn't Apple offer and SD card option? As they're omnibenevolent, how does that omission help their users?
The person I replied to (AmiMoJo) argued that women are disadvantaged by the presence of men but men aren't disadvantaged by the presence of women.
I see. You simply didn't understand her post. There are two important factors in play here: the social belief that computing is for boys and the dominance of boys in co-ed classrooms.
If there were one or two boys in the girls-only class, there wouldn't be a problem for the girls. Though that might be a problem for the boys, for the some of the same reasons that cause problems for the girl in the article.
A girls-only class helps with everything here. Having a class of all (or mostly) girls helps with the social stigma. It lets the girls know that it's okay to be interested in computers. They're not weird or aberrant because of their interests. They're also less likely to be excluded or bullied for being different. Which, in a classroom with a heavy gender disparity, is pretty likely.
If there were less of an imbalance in co-ed classrooms, a girls only class wouldn't be necessary. It doesn't need to be 50/50, just less dramatic. Being the only girl (or only boy) in a classroom can be intimidating. That's made even worse when you have issues that uniquely affect you, as is the case for girls interested in computers. When media and society tell you that computers are for boys and women interested in computing are weird or strange in a negative way (see: any TV show with a female "techie" character) you're not going to have a positive and rewarding experience. Ultimately, you'll end up with a negative impression of computing and seek out other interests, more socially acceptable for girls.
Back to AmiMoJo's point:
The idea is to help girls get started with CS in an environment where it won't be seen as a "boy's" thing or where there won't be pressure from ignorant parents and even teachers pushing them away from it. It sounds pretty basic but when questioned a lot of girls say that parents and teachers told them computers were not a girl's thing, so by having classes for girls it makes it a girls thing and allows them to participate.
This should make a lot more sense to you now.
I don't understand what you are talking about. The only difference is that Apple makes it very hard to load apps except through their curated store;
That's no so hard, is it? The walled-garden offers no additional benefits to the user. Now, consider the litany of additional problems caused by allowing only one marketplace I mentioned above.
specifically to avoid creating additional attack vectors.
That's foolish. The purpose is ensure Apple gets a cut of app sales. This has lead to the host of other problems, as I explained earlier.
Security isn't about perfection. It never has been ever before in the history of mankind. The average Apple user is much less likely to experience malware than the average Android or Windows user
I'm glad that you're finally able to accept that the walled-garden approach does not work, and that any advantage it offers is shared by any other curated store. Now, why doesn't Apple have the same malware problem as Android and Windows?
The same reason desktop Linux doesn't suffer from serious malware issues: Their microscopic marketshare makes them an unattractive target for malware. iOS and OSX combined sit at around 10% of devices shipped. If you were in the malware business, they're just not worth your time.
Are they more secure? Well, no. That they consistently fall in contests like pwn2own indicates that they're just as vulnerable as everyone else. They're not magic, after all. That's why it's important to have a safe marketplace.
Now, this all started because I suggested that smaller, community operated, stores would be better able to keep malware out than larger stores. The reason being that smaller stores can dedicate more QA resources per app than larger stores as they're processing few apps. Apple and Google deal with thousands of submissions every day. They've had to sacrifice review quality to deal with the volume -- and it shows.
The solution for users, tired of dealing with the sea of low-quality apps and malware, is to simply use a different marketplace. This is possible on other platforms, but not possible on iOS. The walled-garden has failed it's users. They're now trapped within its gates with no means of escape.
Do you think the ghost of Steve Jobs is going to come charging in on the back of a white horse and save those poor users? Do you think they'll have an attack of conscious and spend far more per app review than they'll see in revenue? Or do you think they'll downplay their malware problem, telling a different story to their users than other security research groups, and hope their users don't notice? I'll give you hint: They've done one of these things.
You must be new. It didn't always have that craptastic downloader.
An SD card slot would be even better.
There have been something like 6 total reported cases in iOS
The key word here is "reported". Just as an example, Apple's reported figure in this case is dramatically lower than every other security research group.
Those apps will also be cleaned up and that attack vector will be eliminated.
That remains to be seen. I'd wait for something other than wishes and good feelings.
It is just patently false to claim that the walled garden approach doesn't work.
Considering that it clearly hasn't worked I'd say you're in denial.
It's the only thing that does work
Except, as you can see, it has not worked.
You are being intellectually dishonest.
I'm being intellectually dishonest? "This wall keeps monsters out of the garden" "But there are clearly monsters in the garden" "No! This wall has not failed!"
Still, you're ignoring my entire previous post. To recap: There is no advantage to a walled garden that is not also shared by a curated store. Not one. There are, however, many serious problems with the walled garden approach that are not shared by the curated store approach. (As I explained earlier.)
Exceptions are one approach. The mistake is in thinking that one approach supersedes all others.
It has more than its share of problems, which need to be acknowledged if we're to move beyond them.
Somehow, we managed to handle errors decades before exceptions. Through arcane magic, we handle errors today in languages without exceptions.
There are exceptional ways to handle errors that work exceptionally well, exceptions excepted, naturally.
You're missing the entire point. All the big stores have malware. When you're processing thousands of app submissions a day, and don't want to spend far more than you'll make, quality falls dramatically.
This is the great failure of Apples walled garden. Unfortunately, with Apple, there's nothing you can do about it. You're stuck with their malware ridden market. This is not the case for other platforms where you do have the option to use other marketplaces.
You need devices locked to only the "safe stores" or you need customers to be really careful about which stores they download apps from.
The problem with locking users to only the "safe stores" is that it's impossible as those "safe stores" are obviously not safe. Due to their scale, it's impossible (at least wildly impractical) to make or keep them safe.
The walled garden clearly doesn't work. In retrospect, it was doomed to failure.
Any malware statistics you can find show that iOS has dramatically less malware than Windows or Android.
Microsoft uses the exact same walled-garden approach as Apple. No surprise, they both have malware. Google Play is loaded with malware for the exact same reason that Apple's market is loaded with malware (see above).
Now, what makes a walled-garden superior to a curated store? For users, the answer is "absolutely nothing". You get the exact same benefits from a curated store. The difference? With the walled-garden, you're stuck. You're stuck with malware, an endless sea of low-quality apps, censorship, and a host of other issues. There is no justification (that benefits users) for locking users to a single marketplace.
That's a bit delusional. You may want to check your facts.
An object is only an instance of a class in some languages. Though it's not a terribly useful definition, even in those languages in which that statement is true. Depending on the language, you're either stating the obvious, or spouting nonsense.
who certifies which 'community app stores' are clean and well maintained?
Isn't it obvious? The community that operates and maintains the store!
You know what is an outrageously successful system? Apple's walled garden.
Except for the thousands of malware infected apps -- including many popular apps. Oh, and discovery. That's a big one. There's also the censorship. That's pretty nasty. The endless sea of low-quality apps. I'll bet I could go on...
I've yet to hear an alternative that wasn't just a thin repackaging of the failed Windows and Android app ecosystems.
Microsoft's store "failed" because they tried to mimic Apple's walled-garden. Had they not been openly hostile to developers (like Apple) they'd have seen a lot more success. If they have any sense, they'll open things up a bit.
I'm not sure how Android failed. As far as I can tell, they're an unparalleled success. Amazon's store stands out as an excellent example of what a good third-party app store can be -- handily beating out the Google's Play store in terms of quality.