The interesting thing is that the BBC were happy to get iPlayer working on the iPhone originally. That didn't have any meaningful DRM, at least nothing that couldn't be done to a similar degree on Android.
I suspect that this is because iPhones are "cool" and someone high up just demanded that it should happen.
Weren't iPhones better locked down at that time? I'm thinking it was a calculated risk. Much like start-ups will do risky things when they first launch. iPlayer was effectively an internal start-up too.
Targeting iPhone is like supporting a cable company's set top box, so highly prized because it's straightforward; whereas targeting Android is like supporting a myriad of smart TVs.
Targeting iPhone is like supporting a cable company's set top box, so highly prized because it's straightforward; whereas targeting Android is like supporting a myriad of smart TVs.
That's certainly true for supportability. It's easy to test and confirm that it works on the 2 or 3 iphone models, less so for all the Android devices. That's potentially bad from a PR point of view.
For drm-esque security it makes little difference though. The 'attack' in this case was from people running a script and pretending to be an iPhone, not from people running unauthorised software on iPhones themselves.
I suspect that this is because iPhones are "cool" and someone high up just demanded that it should happen.