|
Posted by Robert Levy [MS] on October 17, 2005, 9:05 am
Please log in for more thread options Inline
--
-Robert Levy
Program Manager, Windows Mobile Developer Experience
http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsmobile
> Interesting response, considering I shelled out money for The OS and then
> more for the Developer software, and then I purchased the device. Now you
> want me to pay to write my own Apps?
Absolutely not. There are thousands of great Smartphone apps out there that
do not use the small handful of privileged APIs - those developers paid
nothing extra to write those apps.
> What was it you were saying about 99%
> of the blah blah? Please use your canned responses somewhere else.
This whitepaper explains the security model and the appendix lists the APIs
& registry keys that are protected. Everything else is fair game.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnppcgen/html/smartphone_security.asp
> I have craeted Amazing Applications for the pocket PC, I use them everyday
> at work. They make my job eaiser, sure be nice to have the same ability
> on
> my phone.
That would be awesome - it's the 3rd party applications that really make our
platform shine. Let's try to figure out why that isn't working for you.
Can you compare your app against the list of APIs & regkeys listed in that
whitepaper?
> As for the high risk comment you made? Looks like someone needs to bite
> the
> bullet and take a chance, they dont want to have to worry about the
> dangers
> then they should get out of the market, not pass thier paranoia down to
> the
> consumer who gets hurt the most.
> Every time a Surgeon preforms an operation he risks life or death on
> someone, it's part of the job.
Surgery is *very* risky but a lot of that risk is mitigated through various
policies and procedures.
On Smartphone the mitigation is simple: 3rd party apps are free to party on
the platform but if they touch one of the few APIs that has the potential to
damage the network, the developer needs to go to a signing process. The
signing process ensures that if an application turns out to be malicious, 1)
parties damaged by it can identify and prosecute the developer and 2)
operators can send out a certificate revokation that stops the app from
spreading to other devices.
>
> Harm |
>
> "Robert Levy [MS]" wrote:
>
>> There are a small set of programming interfaces which have a high risk of
>> being used mailiciously impact the device or cellular network. Operators
>> have the option of preventing uncertified applications from accessing
>> those
>> interfaces. Microsoft makes $0 on the certification process (it's done
>> entirely by 3rd parties). Meanwhile, 99% of the programming interfaces
>> are
>> available to developers to run with and create amazing apps.
>>
>> --
>> -Robert Levy
>> Program Manager, Windows Mobile Developer Experience
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsmobile
>>
>> > As I see it application locking is Microsofts way of generating more
>> > revenue,
>> > and should be an insult to the development community. It's like they
>> > are
>> > saying "unless your pay 23842973432 dollars you aren't worthy of
>> > writing
>> > applications for mobile devices."
>> >
>> > It's like buying a car, then having the dealer telling you what roads
>> > you
>> > can only drive on.
>> >
>> > I bought the unit, I should be able to DO with it as I please. If this
>> > doesn't policy doesn't change in the future I can see lot of people
>> > shying
>> > away from Mobile devices and in the end that would hurt the device more
>> > than
>> > help it.
>> >
>> > Just my .02 cents.
>> >
>> > (Let the flaming begin)
>> >
>> > Harm|
>> >
>>
>>
>>
| 
XML Sitemap