Comments on: Why Do We Need Symbian Signed?

By: PB

PB — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:54:10 +0000

This signing sucks and is stupid. It only makes people quicker not to try software.
One needs to fiddle a few hours with software just to make one tiny tool on your phone work. Worst thing… software that only runs on Windoze. Haven’t seen any Linux or MacOS-X versions.

By: sergio

sergio — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:29:33 +0000

dear all, I\’m Symbian developer. Like most of you I\’ve spend lot of time learning Symbian… now this people have throw all to the trash (simply the debug work is impossible if I\’ve to use MULTIMEDIADD cap, I\’m trying to get it from 3 weeks ago). Currently I\’m working in convert my application MobileRecorder from Symbian 7.0 to Windows Mobile…

if you want to take a look see:

http://www.radioexe.com/mobile_recorder/html/mobile_recorder.htm

By: david

david — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:18:06 +0000

also forgot to ask, what happens to our cells if symbian signed page shuts down for whatever reason? Do our cells become obsolete to app downloads cause a company chooses to nolonger operate? To me, thats alot of trust in one company. So now my cell is only good if my carrier is operational AND this company prospers. Sorry for multiple posts.

By: david

david — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:09:15 +0000

I hate this signing crap. Props to people who have the patiants to do it. Could someone please please create a signed app to hack the need for signed apps! As long as app is running durring intallation it takes care of it. I would pay dollors for it. Start a team on it. Make a statement that we don\’t like as consumers. They can take their toll booths and shuvem\’.

By: Antony Pranata

Antony Pranata — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:50:02 +0000

@George: I fully agree with you. I am currently also stuck with my latest freeware. It’s been a month and I got no news at all from them.

By: George

George — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:56:22 +0000

I think Symbian Signed is a mistake because:
- It only promotes bud-ridden software that is never updated.
- It is destroying the symbian third-party ecosystem (and there\’s no first-part software development).
- Even freeware developers won\’t bother as one can currently see all around.
- Symbian certification is basically an enemy of small-scale software development.
- Most of the benefit in new software and developer commitment should go to Windows Mobile which has very little of this nonsense.

It\’s not only the price of the certification, it\’s the freezing it imposes that\’s simply not compatible with current-day dynamic software development.
The self-signing is really not a realistic mass-market option.

By: Tote

Tote — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:04:26 +0000

Antony,

This is exactly what I asked from myself at the following address: http://mobile-thoughts.blogspot.com/2007/03/here-is-my-program-sign-it-yourself.html

By: Antony Pranata

Antony Pranata — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:29:28 +0000

@SilkKoRnSaad: I understand about manufacturer-approved capability. And I understand that we need Symbian Signed for that.
My point is for basic and extended capabilities (All - Tcb -Drm -DiskAdmin -MultimediaDD - NetworkControl -AllFiles -CommDD). Why do we need signing for those capabilities? Anyone can request for developer certificate and sign themselves.

By: SlipKoRnSaad

SlipKoRnSaad — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:56:57 +0000

What is the point of having signing if the users can sign applications themselves?

the answer is : simply because some apllications requires some Sensitive Capabilities that only symbiansigned can give and approve

check pdf files on symbiansigned’s web signed for more information…

By: yuku

yuku — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:12:01 +0000

I think, maybe because people who can sign the sis files themselves are technical enough to take the risk of use of unsigned application.