Author:
web
Add date:
04/12/2008
Publishing date:
04/12/2008
Hits:
0
Total 4 pages, Current page:4, Jump to page:
2.) try to tell between developers and end-users (that's what they will do with the new Open Signed next week where you can only sign your own, self-developed applications.)
Also, Symbian Signed isn't a proper quality assurance regime or even a protection against malware! That's simply not true. Being able to self-sign applications openly contradicts the assumption, SymbianSigned is there to save your phone from malware. http://www.hongblog.net
I think, the developers have to live with Symbian Signed because it won't vanish soon. I'm not strictly against it even - I'd just like to have some things fixed and some things clarified.
For example, ExpressSigned is a great new offer from Symbian (US$ 20 per signed application, Publisher ID required.)
I'm deeply grateful that Symbian has introduced this new and uncomplicated way of signing your applications. Maybe it's an indication that Symbian is indeed looking at the developer community and trying to improve things for (smaller) developer/companies.
PIPS from Symbian and Open C from Nokia (for easier porting of Unix/Posix applications to Symbian) could be another evidence that this platform is meant to be open for developers after all.
However, what's also true is that Symbian has evolved from a niche manufacturer of handhelds to a niche provider of a smartphone OS to the major provider of the most popular smartphone OS to a provider of an OS for mass market phones.
It's obvious that you'd need to manage the stability and security issue of your mass market OS at a higher priority than the openness and "hackability" for third party developers. The restrictions imposed by SymbianSigned might be a pre-condition for becoming a mass market OS.
A word on the details of signing:
A developer (or any user) can simply self-sign an application given it's using only user-grantable capabilities. The application UID has to be from the unprotected range. This doesn't involve any costs and the application can be installed on almost any Symbian phone. Many, many applications can be and will be distributed this way.
It's perfectly fine and okay, in my opinion, if a commercial developer decides to distribute it's commercial grade software via the self-signing route.
Otherwise, we'd probably see only a TINY FRACTION of applications available to Symbian OS 9 based phones and even more importantly, there would be an even TINIER FRACTION of bug-fixed and improved releases of applications.
[Think of it: for each and every bug fix (a tiny typo) and for each new feature implemented upon user request, you would actually need to pay at least US$180 again and again ... ]
You are here:digital world
-> S60 (Series 60)
-> Content
Category: Home
-> S60 (Series 60)