Comments on Scott Berry's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/scott-berry/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/113321-the-downside-to-iphone-success?source=feed#comment-349522 349522 Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:27:20 -0500
As far as your second response is concerned:

“Well, for my idea to be impossible, it seems at least one of the following have to be true:
1. Apple is perfect and never allows anything *that could be susceptible to* a virus get through its store.”

Scott, even if a malware author registered all their vital details with Apple (including financial information), paid their $99 entry fee, was approved by Apple into the iPhone developer program and then managed to get an app approved into the App Store that had undetectable malware hidden inside - as soon as it was discovered, Apple would flick the Kill Switch and bam, the app would be neutralised on every iPhone in the world.

“2. No iPhone ever accesses any content from any other iPhone or the Internet that might be used to infect a susceptible app or phone.”

Ah, but the sandboxed security model of the iPhone means no apps can be downloaded to the iPhone from the web or another iPhone and run without being securely signed by Apple through the App Store. Even social engineering won’t allow users to download any old app from the internet or another iPhone and run it - unlike a PC or Mac, or a Windows Mobile, Palm, Nokia or Android phone. (jailbroken iPhones are such a small percentage of the total that they do not count)

The easy infection vectors are just not available on the iPhone unlike virtually every other platform making it far more difficult for malware to survive let alone flourish.

-Mart]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113321-the-downside-to-iphone-success?source=feed#comment-349477 349477 Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:59:42 -0500
Your argument that "the most widespread iPhone application in 2009 will be a virus" is so patently impossible it does not take a fanboy to realise this.

Apple's central global remote "kill switch" capability combined with tight control over what programs are approved in the App Store as well as mandatory secure app certificate-signing and the iPhone's automatic app update notification mechanism makes it virtually impossible for a virus to even get out of the starting gate let alone replicate amongst a helpless public.

www.ipodobserver.com/s...

www.appleinsider.com/a...

In contrast Windows Mobile which lacks all of these security mechanisms already suffers from quite a number of viruses and trojans as does Symbian and Palm and it looks like Google's Android will suffer the same fate. With a wide-open distribution model without any editorial control and with the ability for users to easily get apps from sources other than Google's marketplace it looks like it will be Android following in Windows virus-ridden footsteps (160,000 viruses and counting) not the iPhone.

In the interests of responsible journalism, would you please post a retraction of this inaccurate article? Thanks!

-Mart]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113321-the-downside-to-iphone-success?source=feed#comment-349478 349478 Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:59:42 -0500
Your argument that "the most widespread iPhone application in 2009 will be a virus" is so patently impossible it does not take a fanboy to realise this.

Apple's central global remote "kill switch" capability combined with tight control over what programs are approved in the App Store as well as mandatory secure app certificate-signing and the iPhone's automatic app update notification mechanism makes it virtually impossible for a virus to even get out of the starting gate let alone replicate amongst a helpless public.

www.ipodobserver.com/s...

www.appleinsider.com/a...

In contrast Windows Mobile which lacks all of these security mechanisms already suffers from quite a number of viruses and trojans as does Symbian and Palm and it looks like Google's Android will suffer the same fate. With a wide-open distribution model without any editorial control and with the ability for users to easily get apps from sources other than Google's marketplace it looks like it will be Android following in Windows virus-ridden footsteps (160,000 viruses and counting) not the iPhone.

In the interests of responsible journalism, would you please post a retraction of this inaccurate article? Thanks!

-Mart]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113321-the-downside-to-iphone-success?source=feed#comment-348472 348472 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 09:53:59 -0500
1. Apple is perfect and never allows anything *that could be susceptible to* a virus get through its store.

2. No iPhone ever accesses any content from any other iPhone or the Internet that might be used to infect a susceptible app or phone.

So which one is it? My point was simply that more phones + more apps + more connectivity = more viruses. It also means the virus is likely to be more widespread.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113321-the-downside-to-iphone-success?source=feed#comment-348208 348208 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:39:20 -0500
Uhm, wasn't your original thesis that "The most widespread iPhone application in 2009 will be a virus." The question is HOW?

Your second stab at that seems to point to "unlocked phones". A 3G iPhone ver2.2 only JUST came out, and how many people will unlock? There's no financial advantage as 99% of iPhones sold must come with a contract. The only unlockers are people who need a different carrier.

Did you actually mean jailbreakers? That's a different group of people you know, and hurts your credibility if you don't know the difference between them. Jailbroken iPhones is also a tiny fraction of iPhones, and still doesn't explain how that could be the vector for the "most widespread iPhone application in 2009 [being] a virus".

If people are thin-skinned, you have to know the context. There have been tons of critical stories saying this or that, which have all been pretty much rubbish. Your commentary is coming after all of that.

Rewriting your story by saying there will be viruses, goes without saying, and is NOT what you wrote initially. Some responses have already pointed out why viruses won't get too far in the official App Store, as that is the largest population of users, your most widespread app being a virus seems highly suspect.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113321-the-downside-to-iphone-success?source=feed#comment-347446 347446 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:21:03 -0500
Good feedback from a few here. Others maybe ought to more carefully read what I read, and take off your AAPL-tinted shades. I'm not attacking the brilliance of Jobs or his engineers. Though I'm continually dismayed at the thin skins on some of his fans.

Frankly, I have nothing but respect for Apple's design and usability. In fact I said that. The point remains that no matter how good it is, they are now a MUCH bigger target (the iPhone, not Macs). And hackers aren't only interested in kudos or in attacking "affluent" markets. Just ask any of the many whose PCs have been co-opted to become spam generators.

Nowhere did I say hacking iPhones would be as easy as Windows, nor did I say it would be easy at all. Only that it would happen.

I also didn't state that anyone would be attacking the App store directly (though I suppose I did imply it, and am happy to be educated here) . There could be other entry points, particularly as people start using "non-certified" apps on unlocked phones. Regardless, there *will* be viruses striking iPhones. How frequent, how damaging, and how easy all remain to be seen. To suggest otherwise just isn't sensible.

And last, I'm not "pro-RIM" or "pro-Android" and "anti-Apple". Reread what I said. I expect Android to be much more vulnerable to viruses for the exact reason many commenters said--lack of central control of the market. However, there is no scale in either RIM or Android (yet).

I do believe strongly that there are disadvantages to Apple's closed ecosystem(s), but most of them accrue to users and to the device market, not so much to Apple's business. If the iPhone continues on the growth track that is making my thesis more likely, that can't help but improve AAPL's stock price, despite fallout from any virus issues.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113321-the-downside-to-iphone-success?source=feed#comment-347388 347388 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:28:08 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/113321-the-downside-to-iphone-success?source=feed#comment-347384 347384 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:25:09 -0500
It's wise never to say never, so I won't say "Never!" But there have been long technical articles by Mac users tearing into the thesis that it's only the Mac's low market share that has made it so much less vulnerable to real-world malware attacks. Rather, it’s the OS’s basic architecture that protects it. (I printed out a couple of these articles many months ago but they're buried in my piles of printouts, so I can't provide a link.)

And there are inferential considerations that argue against OS X's vulnerability: For instance, There would be lots of back-slapping kudos and ego-boost in hackerdom to the guy who first infected the Mac in any serious way. So it's not as though the Mac isn't a tempting target. And there have been, I've read, more successes in attacking Linux PCs than Macs, despite the former's relatively tiny market share. So it's not as though a small share deters hackers either. Therefore, it's untrue to say, "betting against hackers has always been a sucker play." Over 90% of Mac users have between against hackers by operating without anti-virus software or other anti-malware utilities--they haven't been exposed as suckers yet.

Of course, I'm not saying there won't be some successful attacks on the iPhone. And there will probably be internal glitches that will come to light in time, like the leap-year bug that recently affected the Zune. But I think the threat-level to the iPhone is about 10% of what this article implies.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113321-the-downside-to-iphone-success?source=feed#comment-347374 347374 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:18:40 -0500
I want disruption NOW. I don't want to wait. I'm quite sure that Apple can handle viruses as a technical issue. Apple will have a 1.5 BILLION downloads from its App Store by the time that RIM has one.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113321-the-downside-to-iphone-success?source=feed#comment-347328 347328 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:48:34 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/113321-the-downside-to-iphone-success?source=feed#comment-347289 347289 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:24:48 -0500
If the hack is aginst the App store, itself ('pro' hacker), Apple will force an immediate defensive download across all devices. Mac OS X and the App Store is not an easy target. And again, the Feds will have a great opportunity to arrest the hacker.

One of Apple's objectives w/ the App Store system is to prevent hacker heaven from appearing on the OS X platform. As implemented the system appears to be thoughtfully designed and has a chance of achieving its security and reliability objective.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113321-the-downside-to-iphone-success?source=feed#comment-347244 347244 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:45:57 -0500
Apple Mac OSX is a Unix system - industrial strength computing designed for communicatong with the outside world.

It is NOT Microsoft Windows which was only ever designed to work on isolated PC's on the desktop...

The REAL prediction is that there will be much more FUD like yours coming. Just as the predictions of Mac viruses on OSX would happen as soon as there were enough users. Five years later - still nothing, yet the target is the most affluent of computer user groups. Answer that one old fella...

iTunes and the App Store will only be surpassed when others start innovating and not copying Apple...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113321-the-downside-to-iphone-success?source=feed#comment-347210 347210 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:45:07 -0500
I am a contributor on thecreatingwealthblog.com

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113321-the-downside-to-iphone-success?source=feed#comment-347155 347155 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:53:34 -0500 The Android Platform have a much higher risk to be infected.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113321-the-downside-to-iphone-success?source=feed#comment-347153 347153 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:52:05 -0500
Very tired of all the vultures just waiting for something negative to lay on Apple. The minute the stock begins to recover, out they come.

The people who will have trouble with any potential virus on the iPhone will be those who jailbreak it. And protection is one of the reasons why Apple has such tight control over which applications it allows to be sold through their store.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/111060-telecom-internet-players-backpedal-on-progress?source=feed#comment-345799 345799 Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:33:48 -0500
It's also true that the goal is to strenghten democracy, not the corporates, and that this is done by laws that make illegal to decrease the quantity and quality of info., and also mandate a greater increase in the amount and quality of information and opinion that is diverse. These will benefit me, and, if this is not the result of a net neutrality scheme, it's not implemented to benefit me. It's, therefore, a loss to me, compelling me to be less interested in national democracy leading me to promote a greater reliance on regional, insular, democratic solutions which the gov. -- if it is not hell bent on allowing methods of oppression -- should promote in order to counter the dominance of monoliths and opportunists who, by their very nature, do not necessarily have my interests in mind.

I order to increase a greater flow and quality of info. and opinion, we also need to decrease methods that domestic spy agencies use to gather data on us. To achieve this, I propose the opening up of the CIA, the DIA, the NRO, NASA, et al., to citizen scrutiny, and strengthening the Legislature at the expense of the Executive. Among other things, this means repudiating the recent anti-progressive laws such as the U. S. Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and even such innocuous sounding laws as Reagan's "compilation law" so that citizens can regain the freedom to think differently and regain the Writ, and regional newspapers and media outlets can be freer to discuss issues other than what the presidential executive and corporates want. Some of these unseemly laws and provisions can be reversed quickly simply because they were passed quickly.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/111060-telecom-internet-players-backpedal-on-progress?source=feed#comment-345800 345800 Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:33:48 -0500
It's also true that the goal is to strenghten democracy, not the corporates, and that this is done by laws that make illegal to decrease the quantity and quality of info., and also mandate a greater increase in the amount and quality of information and opinion that is diverse. These will benefit me, and, if this is not the result of a net neutrality scheme, it's not implemented to benefit me. It's, therefore, a loss to me, compelling me to be less interested in national democracy leading me to promote a greater reliance on regional, insular, democratic solutions which the gov. -- if it is not hell bent on allowing methods of oppression -- should promote in order to counter the dominance of monoliths and opportunists who, by their very nature, do not necessarily have my interests in mind.

I order to increase a greater flow and quality of info. and opinion, we also need to decrease methods that domestic spy agencies use to gather data on us. To achieve this, I propose the opening up of the CIA, the DIA, the NRO, NASA, et al., to citizen scrutiny, and strengthening the Legislature at the expense of the Executive. Among other things, this means repudiating the recent anti-progressive laws such as the U. S. Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and even such innocuous sounding laws as Reagan's "compilation law" so that citizens can regain the freedom to think differently and regain the Writ, and regional newspapers and media outlets can be freer to discuss issues other than what the presidential executive and corporates want. Some of these unseemly laws and provisions can be reversed quickly simply because they were passed quickly.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93860-comcast-limits-user-downloads-wrong-solution?source=feed#comment-269855 269855 Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:53:29 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/76732-nationwide-wimax-who-benefits?source=feed#comment-245678 245678 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:16:07 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/93860-comcast-limits-user-downloads-wrong-solution?source=feed#comment-245669 245669 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:56:09 -0400
What I'd like to see is much more granularity, and in particular some incentives to "trade up". If I have a base 2 Mb/s service, where's the sales pitch to go to 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 Mb/s? If they're truly in the access business that's the model I'd expect.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93860-comcast-limits-user-downloads-wrong-solution?source=feed#comment-245584 245584 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:25:46 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/93860-comcast-limits-user-downloads-wrong-solution?source=feed#comment-245386 245386 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:33:28 -0400
Higher bandwidth/speed is cheaper to provide (I'm talking infrastructure, here) than QoS. Always has been.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93860-comcast-limits-user-downloads-wrong-solution?source=feed#comment-245301 245301 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:25:32 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/93860-comcast-limits-user-downloads-wrong-solution?source=feed#comment-245263 245263 Thu, 04 Sep 2008 08:59:11 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/92431-intel-yahoo-joint-venture-widgets-and-idjits?source=feed#comment-239229 239229 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:24:49 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/92431-intel-yahoo-joint-venture-widgets-and-idjits?source=feed#comment-239120 239120 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:43:50 -0400
And I'd add that the more transparent this is made to users, the wider the adoption will be. People don't want to have to figure this stuff out. Widgets is a good step, 'bots would ultimately be better. But getting that right is VERY tough.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/92431-intel-yahoo-joint-venture-widgets-and-idjits?source=feed#comment-239116 239116 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:41:49 -0400
The key word, I think, is niche. Frankly, I'd use the Widget Channel myself (at least if watching alone), but then I'm also an early adopter and so perhaps not typical.

Of course, there are some who would really like a thin client for the kitchen, a picturephone, or even a touchscreen PC on the refrigerator.

If I had to guess, there will be many such small niche initiatives/chips/moda... that employ the internet to simplify lives, most of which won't appeal to many people, though in total they'll amount to something. I don't see a "big win" yet, however.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/92431-intel-yahoo-joint-venture-widgets-and-idjits?source=feed#comment-238971 238971 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:22:08 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/92431-intel-yahoo-joint-venture-widgets-and-idjits?source=feed#comment-238967 238967 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:19:04 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/92431-intel-yahoo-joint-venture-widgets-and-idjits?source=feed#comment-238966 238966 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:19:03 -0400