I was reading Tom Hume's account of the Over The Air event and this quote jumped out at me.

"When I asked how Google get away with not doing this (comparing in my head the publish-instantly process the Android Marketplace offers to the proud proclamation from a Vodafone gentleman earlier that they could launch apps in 10 days), the answer James gave was customer support costs: that the operator is the one fielding this particular bugbear, and who needs to cover themselves."

I just don't buy the "customer support costs" argument at all. The first argument against self-certification was that it would result in an endless plague of viruses and malware. That, of course, didn't come to pass and so the argument was refined and has become a little bit more subtle but at the end of the day its still equally lacking in logic.

A prominent 'Terms and Conditions' / 'No Support' warning notice on the application store would make users aware that the network operator wasn't responsible for the applications in the store or the consequences of downloading them. I also think the costs of testing all these applications must be pretty huge and must surely be equivalent to, or more than, any support costs associated with helping users who have installed dodgy applications (and separate from the costs of helping users with certified / sanctioned applications). And anyway, most users can install software onto their phones without going via a walled market place. I'm pretty certain a proper cost-benefit analysis would favour a less rigorously controlled mobile application market place.

Deciding what applications appear in application market places is about maintaining control of the network, of the device, of the developer and of the user. I really wish the network operators would admit this instead of giving us silly excuses and then maybe we could start to trust them.