May I correct your statement for you?
"I think Google gave non-iPhone users the false impression that all smart phones are iPhones."
Good point, but the difference is that Apple will try to plug this "hole" while Google is willingly allowing random apps from the Web to be installed with a simple "allow sideloading" switch.
I'd like to see some Android enthusiast here complain that Google doesn't do enough to prevent Android from becoming a malware haven like Windows was. I'm sure those people exist, but it seems that pro Android posters here choose instead to blame the "stupid" users and/or try to minimize the problem.
Yes there will always be the possibility of malware but it doesn't have to be that bad. You can't tell me that Google can't improve things there.
It's not that clear-cut MacBook. Not mentioned in the recent Symantec report that said most malware was targeting Android was another claim they made.
93% of all newly discovered mobile OS vulnerabilities come from iOS, 387 of the total 415 in the Symantec report.
In case you think Symantec's report must be wrong (and if so why would the Android malware claim be any more right), CVE, a highly respected and detailed security datasource, finds much the same with over 225 identified security flaws in iOS or more than 80% of the the total number across all mobile OS's
What about Android? Fewer than 30. Windows mobile OS must have a lot right? Nope only 14 at last count, and Blackberry is best of all with only 11 identified exploitable OS flaws according to CVE.
But that doesn't seem to make any sense. If Apple's iOS has had the highest number of security flaws of all the major mobile OS's, why is Android getting the most attention from cyber bad-guys? Experts say (and I agree) it's because Google had been lax about policing apps and the "user experience", and that makes complete sense. One of the supposed attractions of Android is how easy it is to customize and Google has encouraged users to do what they want with their smart-devices. Don't like the skin? Download a new one. The latest OS not yet available for your Android smartphone? No prob, just download an app that gives your the same functionality, more or less.
It's not that Android has more OS vulnerabilities than iOS as you would suggest. Far from it. But Apple's more heavily curated approach to apps and the stronger control they exert on their platform and those who play in their backyard makes Android users the easier and more profitable target. At some point Google may need to move closer to Apple's approach and take a little more control of the platform than they have so far. "At some point" may not be all that far off either.
It's also clear that Google's control over their own app store has improved a whole lot over the past couple of years. Nefarious apps within Google Play are exceptionally uncommon, perhaps now nearly as rare as finding one in Apple's app store. I haven't seen anything that would dispute that. But with lots of other sources for Android compatible apps and users in less-developed countries perhaps more likely to look for "free" versions of official Google Play paid apps they end up being targets for very expensive (and highly profitable) SMS texts, the most commonly mentioned scam. At least Google recognized that and took action with Jellybean, which now will flag a warning and ask for permission before your smartphone will send that expensive SMS.
In any event, it's not the number of exploitable security flaws in Android or iOS that attracts the bad guys. It comes down to those apps and where a user can get 'em IMO.
If you meant to restrict your list to Google Android specific vulnerabilities as you said you instead would have found this: (your flawed search included cross platform FLASH, Java etc that also affected Windows, iOS, Macs and others):
Total count: 29
The same search for Apple iOS is here:
Total count: 185
I assume you weren't intentionally being misleading MacBook Pro. You were just a little sloppy with the research.
EDIT: For someone who claims to have me on "ignore" and not reading my posts it's odd that you respond to the exact same points I bring up if I correct a post of yours. I don't mind having an honest debate if we disagree (and sometimes we do agree!) but you'd have to drop the charade that you don't have any idea what I write.
Ooohh, this is new. Mac malware signed with a real Apple ID? Tricky as that would bypass the security controls in Mountain Lion meant to prevent just such an occurance.
I agree, Google and Samsung care about security about as much as Apple does on OSX. In other words, not at all - remember Flashback? Apple didn't release the patch for OSX for months and months after it was released by Oracle.
You'd think that for a first post, someone might refrain from abject trolling.
With freedom comes responsibility (note, in my house there is an iPhone, two iPads, a Samsung Galaxy SIII and a Nokia Lumia 920 - the Galaxy hasn't even been charged since Christmas I think).
Android gives you freedom, but that means you have to behave responsibly. Not everybody does (or can). It's a trade off, and I am not willing to say one is absolutely wrong and the other absolutely right. They are different and serve different purposes. A walled garden is for those who can't or won't take responsibility for what happens on their phone sys admin style. For most people, that might be OK. It's a phone, why treat it like a computer, right? For others, the ability to do what you want is more important.
Apparently Ben Franklin is to have said something similar to: "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." In principle I do agree with Ben here, there can be no doubt that the Apple view of a Walled Garden for all to play in is one of the most dangerous threats to computer freedom today. That and the "You're the product we're selling" attitudes of Google and Facebook.
The weird thing is that the current behavior or Apple (All your base are belong to us) and Google/Facebook (we'll sell you, your soul, your children and whatever else we can get our hands on to the highest bidder) makes Microsoft look like the Good Guys (TM).
Microsoft, who has a garden with even higher walls and thicker gates.
Look, Ballmer, either go find a Windows forum or get back to dancing.
Sigh. So you want me to prove a negative? You are actually asking me to prove that Microsoft doesn't have higher walls than Apple? The statement that needs "proof" is the positive statement, in fact, it is the only one where supplying proof is possible. The "no, it is not so" neither needs proof, nor can it have it. Proving a negative is not possible. Asking for proof that something "isn't" is therefore rather idiotic. Please, I am not saying that you are an idiot, just that your request is idiotic.
So, the only baseless statement currently is (stated more formally) "Microsoft's walled garden is more restrictive than Apple's walled garden". The question then becomes "How so?"
Yep. It's easy for anyone who actually has an argument to support it. Reword the effing question if it's so "difficult" for you to comprehend: How is Microsoft more open than Apple?
Simple. Answer it or don't.
Looks like my answer to this one has been removed by someone, so I'll try to answer it, perhaps a little more politely. Here it is: I have never stated that Microsoft is more open than Apple. Why do you think I have said that?
Let me try an analogy for you. Mr Smith says: Mr Jones is a theif. Mr Jones answers "no I am not". Mr Smith then says: "Prove it". Sadly, in the universe we live, Mr Jones can not. It isn't possible to prove that you are not a thief (in other words, to prove a negative). You are demanding Mr Jones proves he is not a thief, that's absurd. I'll repeat it, I have ONLY said that Microsoft is NOT more closed than Apple, I have not said whether that means that Microsoft is more open than Apple or whether that means that they are equally closed.
There is only ONE positive statement made in this debate, and that is yours, and you are the only one who could possibly have any proof, since - as I might have mentioned, you cannot prove a negative.
Since you refuse to comprehend what you're even talking about, we're done here. I'm not wasting my time with someone who moves the goalposts and then drapes a giant cloth over where the goalpost used to be and claims that it can't be proven the goalpost has moved… when you can see it right behind the cloth.
This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.
This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.
Goodness. I have not changed anything at all about anything I have said in this discussion. I have stated one thing, and one thing only, and that is that the claim that Apples walled garden is more open than Microsoft's walled garden is wrong. Nothing changed at all.
Sadly, you spout religious nonsense and refuse to back it up with facts or documentation. That is just sad, and I actually pity you. Get well.
You are absolutely correct in that I have not detailed any criteria for what is open an what is closed. I have only stated that a statement claiming that Microsoft is more closed than Apple is unsubstantiated. There are more than two (of the ones I listed for the simpleton who have been hounding me to prove a negative - see articles referred at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative) possible reasons.
For many reasons, see for example "Unfair Burden" in the article referred above, it is the job of the person making the positive statement to supply proof. Anything else is both unreasonable and quite illogical. Russel's tea pot is a good example. I refer to the example I used above:
Mr Jones: Mr Smith is a thief
Mr Smith: No I am not
Mr Jones: Prove it
Nobody in their right mind would demand that Mr Smith provides such a proof. Here is what has happened in this thread:
Statement: Microsoft is more closed than Apple
Negation: No it is not
Tallest Skil: Prove it
Why would the burden of proof fall on the "No it is not" in the second case?
Oh, I am sorry, I didn't mean to make it a college-level post. It was more intended for the kindergarden level, since that was the intellect I had to assume Tallest Skil was able to understand. He apparently doesn't understand the difference between "is not taller than" and "is much shorter than". Basic English appears to be above his skill level, so that is where I had to try to communicate.
Someone past kindergarden level usually understands the difference, and most also understand where the burden of proof lies. With the person making an accusation. But hey, if that is freshmen level, I have misunderstood the quality of the US education system.
What question? Are you seriously asking me to prove something I have never stated? I have never stated that Microsoft is more open than Apple, you do realize this right? What particular question do you want me to answer? Also, why don't you provide proof for your statement that Microsoft is more closed than Apple? You never have.
So insults, lies, and then refusing to prove what you explicitly said. That's nice. Later, skater.
Please, read the final part of this post carefully.
BTW, sorry about not answering the latter part of your post here. I originally didn't find it relevant but apparently Tallest Skil wants me to answer this. Now, parts of it has already been answered by Relic, OSX can not be considered OpenSource, and in actuality, Apples contribution to OpenSource is quite scarce compared to what it gets - http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9992358-16.html. Heck, you can just go out and try to develop an iOS application without owning a Mac and see how easy it is (yes, it can be done, I've done it using PhoneGap build).
I am not sure how using, but not contributing at a similar level, can be considered open.
You also pointed to the Microsoft site for open source, but did you actually read what was there? If you did, I am not quite sure how you could say that Microsoft doesn't contribute. Ajax is built on Microsoft ideas and technologies, first available in IE. Microsoft fully embraces jQuery and jQuery UI as web standards, and contributes significantly (particularly to validation lately). Almost all Microsoft efforts in the Web 2.0 space at the moment are Open Source, and more are being added by the day. ASP.NET MVC is fully FOSS. Windows Commuication Foundation. Most of ASP. Significant PHP contributions (particularly in compilation etc), F#, Python, Java, Ruby etc. Azure fully supports Linux, and of course runs the iCloud, Web 2.0 security, SOAP security, SOAP is a Microsoft Technology, PhoneGap...
Currently I am using Visual Studio 2012 to develop an app that will be deployed on Android and iOS (no Windows deployment currently planned). Please let me know when I can use any Apple tool to build anything for Windows...
Oh, and finally, this was about the walled gardens of Microsoft and Apple, in other words, iOS. What is open about iOS other than the fact that it runs on BSD in the bottom. The fact that Apple didn't (couldn't) write the OS from scratch and had to hitch-hike on FOSS, doesn't make them open. What makes a company open as it related to FOSS is what it contributes, not what it uses, and how what it delivers is FOSS. OSX and iOS? They are FOSS in the same way that Windows 8 is VAX VMS.
Do you own a mirror? If not, you should buy one. You stated something that you have never backed up. The only thing you have delivered since are rather odd requests for me to prove something I have never stated, and insults. Next time you make a statement, please try to back it up with facts. Oh, and please point to a single lie. I have delievered none. The only liar so far is you.
Did you even read the post that you quoted? I did explain it there. With mostly short words. Look at the part that says 1... 2... 3...
Know what, I'll repeat it here for you: "The statement is nonsensical and determining openness is impossible or highly subjective, the original statement then is absurd". Was there anything in there you did not understand?
And you honestly wonder why I refuse to entertain your delusions.
I'm certain you're someone back again at this point. There's just nothing else it could be.
The "couldn't" was an attempt at being humorous, it might have failed. But they didn't. OSX core is BSD. Still see no documentation from you on anything, so a liar you are.