Okay, I like you. :D You have very valid points, and I must concede that I definitely see your point. (Unlike brother SuperKendall who seems to just want to troll.)

No more food for you, jackass.

Yeah, I've noticed that, and that was my inspiration behind my suggestion of making it a mandatory policy, because I appreciate it when app devs do that. Yeah, they could be lying, but I'd prefer to at least get the explanation that "full internet access" is required for the ads rather than it just be sitting there for no apparent reason on an app that is not exactly network-centric.

I stand corrected (by both you and SuperKendall, who might've had problems reading the rest of my post). However, leaving aside bricked phones for whatever reason, I stand by the rest of my point. I believe users should be given the choice between the two (and hide the 'jailbroken Wild West' option where only power users are going to find it if need be) instead of this cat-and-mouse game with every update.

Okay, so you responded to me twice correcting my statement regarding bricking. That's about the only logical thing you said. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't follow my thread of logic instead of assuming you just didn't even read my post properly or that you're some kind of idiot.

Uhh... no, my entire point is that users should be given the choice of EITHER an Apple-like walled garden OR the life of a jailbreaker... but that Apple (or Manufacturer X, in a broader sense) should respect the choice of people to jailbreak and make it an option. It should be hidden from the casual user (like Firefox's about:config or Android's "allow non-market packages" option), but it should be there. Please re-read that sentence and notice the 'or' separating the two clauses describing the two worlds.

Again, you seem to have misunderstood. I was referring to Android devices that are locked down by their manufacturer. The Android OS itself is designed to allow people to run non-market apps (the 'Wild West') via sideloading, but some manufacturers have restricted this option (and sometimes rooting altogether). THAT is what I was referring to, and I was acknowledging it because these locked-down devices contradict my statement about Android allowing you to run the apps of your choice outside the walled garden.

Not that a closed store stops crap from happening, mind you. Lessens, perhaps, but not stops.

Maybe Google could require an ESRB -style disclosure on what permissions are needed for what (I say ESRB because game developers are required to submit a listing of content that may be offensive/suggestive/etc. with their application for a rating), with real penalties for screwing around. The disclosure could go with the app in the market, putting it up front in a more obvious way that, hey, this Angry Birds level unlocker app requires the ability to make phone calls for ____ reason. Yes, the malware developer could make up reasons and, if they're in, say, China, probably get away without a lawsuit or anything, it should be a red flag to even the least-savvy user. It'd help if it had a timer that prevented you from just rubber-stamping the install buttons without looking in the way that Firefox/etc. have for extension installs.

Remember that the first updates after the first jailbreaks would brick peoples' iPhones. Now, that's arguably a consequence of poorly-made jailbreaks, and I'll concede that, but some people did end up with shiny paperweights, and Apple (rightfully, according to their EULA) did not do much to help them. They also try and lock down any avenues that jailbreaks use to prevent simple re-jailbreaking after an update. Perhaps "actively hostile" was not the best term, but the point is, Apple certainly could facilitate jailbreaking with ease and with little additional drain on their own resources. Instead, they do everything they can (short of becoming a malicious actor and bricking devices when they detect jailbreaks, which would be a PR armageddon for them) to restrict and prevent it with no compromise offered.

I personally choose not to be a part of Apple's annual obsolescence cycle, but if Android didn't exist I'm afraid that I would have an iPhone.

I've noticed that from the beginning. All the apps offering (IP-infringing) ringtones and soundboards, pretty much from day one, never mind pirated ebooks and so on. I think Google's strategy is kind of the Youtube/safe harbour policy: Let people decide what they want to see, take things down on complaints.

I'm not saying this is the smartest idea, because I tend to be quite wary about any app that has permissions I can't immediately determine (why does a calculator need full network access? Okay, perhaps ads, but I don't know that), but that appears to be their strategy.

I think you misunderstand GP's point. Apple is actively hostile against jailbreaking (bricked device, anyone?). What GP wants is the ability to choose, and be left alone if he does jailbreak his iOS device. Shelter in the safety of Apple's curated store, or brave the Wild West without interference from King Jobs. Android does the latter (bootloader lockdowns by individual manufacturers notwithstanding), but not the former. Amazon is starting to supply the former for Android. GP is saying that Apple should consider following their example.

I would've said "Republican," but to each their prejudices, I suppose.

Good God, you're stupid. I hope for your sake that you actually are a paid astroturfer, because then at least you'll be doing something that's useful to someone.

Oh! You mean like the PSP Go! Yeah, that does sound familiar.

Uh what? The PS3 Slim was a refresh of the PS3 with OtherOS and backwards compatibility removed out of the box, and this was stated up-front. What Sony did was remove advertised software functionality from products already lawfully purchased and in the possession of its customers. Well, okay, that's not true. It issued an ultimatum: Allow us to remove one feature (OtherOS), or we'll remove several features (online play, access to the PSN store, any games requiring updates after that update). The Playstation 3 is the only console I've ever seen to deliberately lose features on an ongoing basis in the middle of its normal lifecycle.

Yes, practically nobody developed for the original Xbox after the Xbox 360 came out, but the two are vastly different in terms of hardware capability. You trying to draw a comparison between two generations of Microsoft gaming hardware and the PS3/PS3 Slim change is disingenious, and if you can't see that you're too young or simple to be on the Internet. Let's compare the Xbox 360 to the new Xbox 360 Slim, if that's what you want to do. It is smaller, has a quieter fan, and has built-in wireless networking, which was not present without an accessory for the original 360. The two are fully compatible otherwise. No missing software, no limitations on playing new games, and as far as I know, it offers the same backwards compatibility title list as the original 360.

And if Microsoft had advertised installing your own OS, legally, on the 360, and then later removed that option unilaterally, I'd be pissed off at them, too. But they didn't, Sony did, and Sony is handling this with lawyers instead of brains.

Hold on. You're calling "the ability to play new PS3 titles" a new feature that was offered when they removed OtherOS? What the fuck marketing kool-aid did you drink? If I buy Brand X game console, I expect it to work with every Brand X console game (leaving special peripherals out of the picture). Microsoft has twice overhauled the Xbox 360 dashboard (a software feature of the console). If you wanted to continue to play online, you had to update to the new dashboard, I imagine for compatibility reasons with Live, but you wouldn't be incapable of playing newer store-bought game discs on it if you decided not to update.

I'm reminded of one of the first system updates for the PS3. It included the line Increased compatibility with PS3 titles. These are the geniuses we're dealing with, here.

It's my understanding that people had discovered how to circumvent the hypervisor's prohibition on using hardware graphics acceleration in OtherOS. Sony intentionally crippled 3D acceleration in OtherOS to prevent homebrew games competing with their library. Whether or not they were in the right to do this, someone decided this was stupid and worked out a way around it. Sony overreacted and pulled OtherOS. And pissed off people that were otherwise content with their hardware. And that started the war that exposed their hardware security model and revealed the root signing keys. It's DeCSS all over again, except that geohot happened to be in lawsuit range. Sony is trying to close the door after the horse, four cows, and drunken wayward hobo have left the barn.