If you are making statements like "android apps are more hackable than iPhone" then provide some reference to the fact. As a software development professional I find the statements aggravating to say the least. Android apps must be signed just like iPhone apps
Getting apps signed for Google Play is not hard and plenty of legitimately signed apps in Google Play ARE spyware and malware. It seems that some folk are pretty adept at disguising the code in their submissions. The track record suggests that Google aren't good at spotting this stuff whereas Apple have a much better track record. Don't care how aggravating or wrong you think that is, just go have a google around as there are plenty of nasty apps out there, plus you have the ability to install apps on your Android device THAT DIDN'T ORIGINATE FROM GOOGLE PLAY, which makes the point of signing apps for Android in the first place an absolute joke. It's already undermined before you even start the process, one infected device infects other infected devices and so on.
You can't get ANYTHING onto an iPhone unless it comes from the App Store, unless you jailbreak your handset. As far as I'm aware the only significant iPhone infections have occurred because of jail broken device, and to that I say to anyone with an injected and jailbroken iPhone 'good, serves you right, if you didn't see that coming a mile away then you're better off with an abacus'.
You ever tried developing something for either of these platforms?
I'm slightly surprised that someone that claims to be a developer would make such sweeping statements themselves and claim that both the Android and iPhone landscapes are anything like similar. Signing an app doesn't stop a rogue app being uploaded to Google Play just because it got signed! Google by their own admission have said they need to take steps to improve the vetting of submitted apps.
Android certificates:
http://developer.android.com/tools/publishing/app-signing.html
iPhone certifcates:
https://developer.apple.com/support/technical/certificates/
Tell me how these processes of securing the applications are any different? I believe the security issues with Android are caused by the platform attracting a more technical crowd that wants hack and customize more than the iOS platform.
The thing with system security, generally speaking, is that you only ever get to hear about a threat once it's out in the wild and doing it's thing. We hear LOTS of information about Android security issues, they are ALWAYS in the media. Android spyware and malware is a very real threat and there is no denying that it exists, and why is that? Because Google do a half-assed job of vetting their submissions and until very recently merely waved submissions through with almost no vetting at all ! That is precisely the reason why Google Play is full of crap, half of which doesn't work and crashes your hand set.
We're clearly not both talking about the same type or scale of 'hacking'. The type of hacking I'm referring to is not the soft and fluffy kind as done by nice people that want to customise their own device, which is what you're implying. I'm referring to the type carried out by 'organised crime' or just the more insidious individuals, which happens to be the variety I tackle on a daily basis. Not some script-kiddy sat in his bedroom that plays COD in between downloading the next bit of code that originated elsewhere. Organised crime doesn't care about your apps, they want your entire device under their control, and they ARE much more successful at it with a lovely open source Android device. So, Mr Development Professional, perhaps you'd like to explain to the nice boys and girls what 'open source' is, and what it's implications are for the security community? I'll save you the bother - 'open source' means that ANYONE can write code for the project which happens to be 'Open Source', such as Android and Linux. Any code submitted as part of the system (not the apps, I'm talking about the actual OS) is only vetted by the rest of the open source community, and the simple fact is that it's only as secure as the people that are looking at it are intelligent. Some of the time the people that vet the code being submitted don't always have hands-on experience of the libraries to which code is being submitted and therefore stuff can end up going under the radar, undetected. We had an incident earlier this year where Linus Torsvalds sacked one of his Kernel maintainers(Mauro) for doing a slack job at vetting code and blaming developers for problems caused by bad application developers - rather than admitting that he hadn't done his job properly, but I digress although it illustrates how poor it can be.
Spyware, malware, you name it, could possibly exist within the OS when it gets released to the general public - I'm not making this up, because it's happened already. Literally LOADS of exploits exist for the Android platform, which is a stark contrast when compared to Blackberry, iPhone and even Windows Phone. Look, just go and google it, you don't need me to post links for this stuff which should be common knowledge. Someone that wants to control your phone has a number of vectors available to them - injected code via the open source project, write their own app and publish it (Trojan), drive-by infection by a website which injects code via the browser (and the google browser is a joke when it comes to security), or just plain old network or Bluetooth access to the device itself. Those threat vectors are not a lot different for iPhone except the OS isn't open source as it's proprietary commercial code, apps for the App Store are more carefully vetted (fact) because Apple are able to do so because they understand the OS better than anyone because it's theirs and no one elses. It is a more tightly controlled environment in every way, and we might hate iPhones for being so proprietary but it's just that which is keeping the majority of it's zombie-army of fanboi users safe.
With that said this is WAY off topic. My person opinion is DJI made the decision based on the fact that the Apple eco-system is easier to develop for since there is essentially only one platform and one device that has evolved over the years as opposed to all the flavors of Android and vastly different devices out there. From a development perspective the man power needed to support Android would be cost prohibitive. Also Apple is like DJI in that they keep their secrets to themselves and do not have an affinity for open source at all.
Now that bit made perfect sense, all of it. 100% agree. This is symantics, but I'd actually say that Apple is perhaps harder to develop for, simply because you have more hoops to jump through. Any kid can write an app for Android and many do, you only have to look at the quality of many of the apps, it's a joke.
