<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Controversy Over Symbian Signed</title>
	<link>http://mobile.antonypranata.com/2007/08/09/controversy-over-symbian-signed/</link>
	<description>My personal blog about mobile phones and wireless industry.</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:00:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Johnny Kewl</title>
		<link>http://mobile.antonypranata.com/2007/08/09/controversy-over-symbian-signed/#comment-29540</link>
		<author>Johnny Kewl</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:56:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://mobile.antonypranata.com/2007/08/09/controversy-over-symbian-signed/#comment-29540</guid>
		<description>We have a product that we were thinking of CDC enabling, I think its going to be a waste of effort and time.

When someone can show me a long list of CDC Symbian signed products, I\'ll change my mind.

I dont buy it, think its a rip-off.

Why have verisign twice, anyone with a serios product will put it on a certified site to begin with, if its a vendor, well they have a brand name to protect, which PC shop is going to stock viruses.

What about a simple warning, this application has not been signed, do you really want to proceed? User says yes because her boyfriend wrote the application, and is in a much better position to judge character than verisign, dont you think.

No, the absolute gate keeping model leads me to believe its an absolute rip-off.

Good-bye Java on the cell phone, solutions are all going to be delivered via browser.

Very very short sighted... I think.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We have a product that we were thinking of CDC enabling, I think its going to be a waste of effort and time.</p>
<p>When someone can show me a long list of CDC Symbian signed products, I\&#8217;ll change my mind.</p>
<p>I dont buy it, think its a rip-off.</p>
<p>Why have verisign twice, anyone with a serios product will put it on a certified site to begin with, if its a vendor, well they have a brand name to protect, which PC shop is going to stock viruses.</p>
<p>What about a simple warning, this application has not been signed, do you really want to proceed? User says yes because her boyfriend wrote the application, and is in a much better position to judge character than verisign, dont you think.</p>
<p>No, the absolute gate keeping model leads me to believe its an absolute rip-off.</p>
<p>Good-bye Java on the cell phone, solutions are all going to be delivered via browser.</p>
<p>Very very short sighted&#8230; I think.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
