> I really don't see why dynamic libraries couldn't be allowed per app, in a similar vein to other mobile OS.

Apple considers it a security issue, so presumably they have figured out attacks that exploit dynamic library loading.

In general though, "Because another platform does it" isn't always a good argument for a particular feature in a platform, particularly when that choice involves a tradeoff. Taken to an extreme, you would end up with a lowest common denominator of samey platforms that just copy each other's design decisions.

In this case Apple has decided that security is a top priority for them even if it comes at a price in terms of developer convenience. Other platforms are free to make different tradeoffs, and that gives users and developers a diverse choice of distinctive platforms available to them. This is a good thing. iOS doesn't have to become Android any more than Android has to become iOS.

By other mobile OS, I meant :

- Epoch OS

- Symbian

- Windows CE/Pocket PC

- Windows Phone 7/8

- Android

- Blackberry

- Bada

The above vendors do have/had secure deployments mechanisms despite support for dynamic libraries.

Are these validated to be secure, in this way, or are you just asserting that they are? Bear in mind that many intentional features of Android would considered by Apple to be severe user privacy violations. There platforms aren't just different technically, their standards for what security is considered to be vary significantly. That's fine because if you want those features in Android, then Android has them, but if you prefer a garden with a higher wall, there's iOS.

You surely seem to have a problem with Android it seems, as you selectivly ignore all the other ones on your remarks.

That's a false dilemma. Mac OS X has dynamic library support and there isn't a vast sea of viruses and exploits coming from the Mac App Store.