The 1st one (although I actually think that happened much earlier) in late 2012 compared to a plethora of data stealing apps from Google Play nee Android Market from the start. That's the problem with trolls: no concept of gradation, it's either all or nothing.
The post to which mine was a response gave ONE (count'em) example of malware in the Google Play store. I was simply pointing out that one could easily do the same with the iOS App Store.
That may be legit. It should not have been zero as it is components. Saying orders were 20 to 30 percent less than the initial build ramp for the mini is not bad at all. Actually sounds really good.
Apple has its own set of problems: if you have e.g. an iPhone 3G with the most up-to-date version of Facebook or Skype on it that phone can run and you need to reset it for any reason, you can't ever install these apps anymore because iTunes updates always to the latest versions which can't be installed anymore (minimum OS version too high) and the backups don't back up apps.
So users lose functionality they once had and are either forced to buy newer hardware or stick with a device that has less functionality than before the reset.
Apple doesn't sell the 3GS anymore and the vast majority of iPhones are on iOS 6. In addition, if you have the 3GS, don't upgrade the apps in iTunes. In addition, developers are told they need to support ios version N and N-1.
That's not really the issue. The issue is, that Apple's system is either broken, or intentionally set up such that minor mistakes require you to buy new hardware if you want to retain the same functionality.
One solution would be if iTunes would analyse what iOS devices are synced with a particular computer, and if it would not suggest to update apps in the iTunes library beyond the point where they will be workable on the devices synced. Another solution would be if iTunes could download from that AppStore certain milestone releases of software that are the newest releases still working on certain versions of iOS.
There are now many apps that only support iOS6. My iPhone is running iOS6, my (original) iPad is forever stuck at iOS5. Obviously I want the newest versions of the apps on my iPhone, so my iTunes library automatically suggests, (and I download) the newest versions, such as to install them on my iPhone.
If for any reason I need to reset my iPad, I'll be up the creek without a paddle, because there's no way for me to download the older versions of these apps again which are now installed on my iPad. After a reset, my iPad would be half the device it is now, and I would be forced to buy a new device.
Greenpeace should look at the forced resource wasted through planned obsolescence rather than make bogus claims about e.g. Apple's data centers.
A friend of mine got someone's old iPhone 3G. Had Skype and Facebook on it. To get the phone unlocked through AT&T required a reset of the device. But by now, these versions of Skype and Facebook that run on iOS 4.2.1 are no longer downloadable. So now the phone is unlocked, and Facebook and Skype are gone forever. Forced hardware upgrade. Skype and Facebook are "free" apps, but there are for purchase apps where there's the same issue. So not only is your device functionally downgraded through the reset, you're also deprived of software for which you actually did pay money for, unless you buy new hardware.
Totally uncool, and basically class-action lawsuit material. Sort of like you buy a car, but if you have to reset the engine management computer more than two years after you bought the car, the electrical windows stop working, and if you want a car with windows you can open, you have to buy a new model.
There's no technical reason that Apple couldn't maintain a database of the highest version of iOS each device can digest, and then retain versions of apps for download for these cut-off releases. Since Apple musters out groups of devices, this isn't such a big deal. Even the original iPhone can run 4.2.1. So iOS 4.2.1 would be one such cut-off release. The next cut-off release is 5.1.1 for e.g. the original iPad.
So all Apple would have to do, is to keep available for download the newest version of apps that were available for these cut-off versions, provided it did exist. Obviously I'm not saying developers should retain backwards compatibility forever, or should back-port apps. But Apple should keep older versions available for download for older devices if such software at some point was available in the past.
Try deleting apps on your computer (the ipa files where iTunes stores your library) and then sync your iPad. It should sync the apps to your computer (sync not backup). Then copy the ipa files elsewhere to back them up. Since you can re-download the latest apps at any time, no need to have iTunes keeping those up to date.
Can you show me a phone still sold with gingerbread in America? I searched and couldn't find one.
Didn't you post this crap way back?
- T-Mobile is selling the Prism and myTouch with Gingerbread.
- Sprint has the Kyocera Milano and ZTE Fury with Gingerbread.
- AT&T has the Sharp FX PLUS (running 2.2) and Pantech Pocket running Gingerbread.
Gee, that's 6 phones and I didn't even look at every model they sold. I also never bothered to look at the numerous smaller carriers or regional carriers, but I'd bet they have lots as well.
I am the one who opened that door this time around.
Yes, you did, by gross overreaction. Even so, you did not actually acknowledge that my point was valid -- a single example of malware does not prove that the whole ecosystem is contaminated. In fact, if you do the google search I had suggested in my post you will see that one of the first couple of hits points to some expert opinion that iOS has less malware even though it has MORE vulnerabilities. Does that mean iOS is doomed? Neither of us believes that, so let's use the golden rule and not insult the Google Play store without justification. Your insults to me directly contradict your moderator function (your edit of my response, on the other hand, was, in fact, in the service of moderation, so to that I have no objection.)
...so let's use the golden rule and not insult the Google Play store without justification.
There is a Golden Rule not to insult the Google Play store? :???:
Your insults to me directly contradict your moderator function (your edit of my response, on the other hand, was, in fact, in the service of moderation, so to that I have no objection.)
Unfortunately Google just can't twist the arm of every manufacturer to release patches and version upgrades. To blame fragmentation for malware and other security risks seems like a stretch.
There is a Golden Rule not to insult the Google Play store?
I'm not a mod! I also didn't edit your post.
I thought you were a mod. My mistake (and my post was edited, unless my memory has had a sudden lapse, though not by you, obviously). The golden rule is do to unto others as you wish to be done unto yourself. But you knew that.
Unfortunately Google just can't twist the arm of every manufacturer to release patches and version upgrades. To blame fragmentation for malware and other security risks seems like a stretch.
I agree with the second statement, but not the first. A counterexample (already mentioned by someone) is Windows: windows updates independently of which white box vendor you got your machine from. There is no obvious reason why Google could not have similar licensing, except one: it does not WANT to be viewed as responsible for whatever junk some third tier chinese vendor makes (the responsibility would greatly increase its support costs), while the first tier vendors (Samsung, HTC) have enough resources to support their own devices.
Yes, you did, by gross overreaction. Even so, you did not actually acknowledge that my point was valid -- a single example of malware does not prove that the whole ecosystem is contaminated. In fact, if you do the google search I had suggested in my post you will see that one of the first couple of hits points to some expert opinion that iOS has less malware even though it has MORE vulnerabilities. Does that mean iOS is doomed? Neither of us believes that, so let's use the golden rule and not insult the Google Play store without justification. Your insults to me directly contradict your moderator function (your edit of my response, on the other hand, was, in fact, in the service of moderation, so to that I have no objection.)
Isn't one of the main selling points of Android it's "openness" part of which is the ability to side load applications from a variety of sources outside the walled garden of Google's play store?
BAM!
An instant and massive increase in vulnerabilities.
I agree with the second statement, but not the first. A counterexample (already mentioned by someone) is Windows: windows updates independently of which white box vendor you got your machine from. There is no obvious reason why Google could not have similar licensing, except one: it does not WANT to be viewed as responsible for whatever junk some third tier chinese vendor makes (the responsibility would greatly increase its support costs), while the first tier vendors (Samsung, HTC) have enough resources to support their own devices.
I concur, about not having the resources (or motivation) to police every single Android implementation. It is not accurate to compare Android and Windows, because one can be modified by the manufacturer and the other one cannot. One is provided for free, the other is sold. Love it or hate it, this is the nature of the beast. I guess they could go into the licensing business but then the rest of the model falls apart.
Isn't one of the main selling points of Android it's "openness" part of which is the ability to side load applications from a variety of sources outside the walled garden of Google's play store?
BAM!
An instant and massive increase in vulnerabilities.
This is true, but sideloading has to be explicitly enabled by the user. It is somewhat (not completely) comparable with jailbreaking an iPhone [the latter is harder to do, but both are conscious acts. In both case in 90% of the cases the only purpose of the "jailbreak" is to get outside the walls of the garden, so one can argue that the user then better know what s/he is doing.
I concur, about not having the resources (or motivation) to police every single Android implementation. It is not accurate to compare Android and Windows, because one can be modified by the manufacturer and the other one cannot. One is provided for free, the other is sold. Love it or hate it, this is the nature of the beast. I guess they could go into the licensing business but then the rest of the model falls apart.
Yes, I agree, actually my comments about policing was meant to back up essentially your last sentence.
Isn't one of the main selling points of Android it's "openness" part of which is the ability to side load applications from a variety of sources outside the walled garden of Google's play store?
BAM!
An instant and massive increase in vulnerabilities.
Yes, more freedom equals more potential hazards. The problem is most people don't understand that.
- T-Mobile is selling the Prism and myTouch with Gingerbread.
- Sprint has the Kyocera Milano and ZTE Fury with Gingerbread.
- AT&T has the Sharp FX PLUS (running 2.2) and Pantech Pocket running Gingerbread.
Gee, that's 6 phones and I didn't even look at every model they sold. I also never bothered to look at the numerous smaller carriers or regional carriers, but I'd bet they have lots as well.
No I don't think I did. I think you're confusing me with someone else although I do remember the thread so I could have been involved. Anyway thank you for informing me. Now I know!
I completely agree that ACLU seems to be reaching. They have plenty of actual civil liberty infractions to worry about these days. As for Android, it is hard to understand how Google managed to design the android world so poorly. You would think that they would have licensed the thing in such a way that anything claiming to run android would have top be up to date.
Don't worry. What goes around does really get around. Not establishing basic software/hardware restrictions is slowly creeping up on them. Unfortunately for Google/Android, it is a growing issue. By growing I mean this...
Google is treating Android like one of the old fashioned trains. Throw coal in the engine and it goes faster. Agree?..
The problem is that Google is forgetting that all of the passengers do not ride in the engine. They're in the cars behind the engine. Throw too much coal into the engine and the hitches give, leaving most of the passengers behind.
If you only care about how fast the engine goes, and figure the passengers will keep up because they have to, there isn't really much hope for the company running the engines.
Comments
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The 1st one (although I actually think that happened much earlier) in late 2012 compared to a plethora of data stealing apps from Google Play nee Android Market from the start. That's the problem with trolls: no concept of gradation, it's either all or nothing.
The post to which mine was a response gave ONE (count'em) example of malware in the Google Play store. I was simply pointing out that one could easily do the same with the iOS App Store.
Originally Posted by igriv
Are you a moderator or a douchebag?
Neither. Stop the insults.
I am the one who opened that door this time around.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I am the one who opened that door this time around.
You're right. I read the last 'you' as plural, but it could have been either. Trimming both, I think.
That may be legit. It should not have been zero as it is components. Saying orders were 20 to 30 percent less than the initial build ramp for the mini is not bad at all. Actually sounds really good.
Try deleting apps on your computer (the ipa files where iTunes stores your library) and then sync your iPad. It should sync the apps to your computer (sync not backup). Then copy the ipa files elsewhere to back them up. Since you can re-download the latest apps at any time, no need to have iTunes keeping those up to date.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
Can you show me a phone still sold with gingerbread in America? I searched and couldn't find one.
Didn't you post this crap way back?
- T-Mobile is selling the Prism and myTouch with Gingerbread.
- Sprint has the Kyocera Milano and ZTE Fury with Gingerbread.
- AT&T has the Sharp FX PLUS (running 2.2) and Pantech Pocket running Gingerbread.
Gee, that's 6 phones and I didn't even look at every model they sold. I also never bothered to look at the numerous smaller carriers or regional carriers, but I'd bet they have lots as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I am the one who opened that door this time around.
Yes, you did, by gross overreaction. Even so, you did not actually acknowledge that my point was valid -- a single example of malware does not prove that the whole ecosystem is contaminated. In fact, if you do the google search I had suggested in my post you will see that one of the first couple of hits points to some expert opinion that iOS has less malware even though it has MORE vulnerabilities. Does that mean iOS is doomed? Neither of us believes that, so let's use the golden rule and not insult the Google Play store without justification. Your insults to me directly contradict your moderator function (your edit of my response, on the other hand, was, in fact, in the service of moderation, so to that I have no objection.)
There is a Golden Rule not to insult the Google Play store? :???:
I'm not a mod! I also didn't edit your post.
Unfortunately Google just can't twist the arm of every manufacturer to release patches and version upgrades. To blame fragmentation for malware and other security risks seems like a stretch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
There is a Golden Rule not to insult the Google Play store?
I'm not a mod! I also didn't edit your post.
I thought you were a mod. My mistake (and my post was edited, unless my memory has had a sudden lapse, though not by you, obviously). The golden rule is do to unto others as you wish to be done unto yourself. But you knew that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
Unfortunately Google just can't twist the arm of every manufacturer to release patches and version upgrades. To blame fragmentation for malware and other security risks seems like a stretch.
I agree with the second statement, but not the first. A counterexample (already mentioned by someone) is Windows: windows updates independently of which white box vendor you got your machine from. There is no obvious reason why Google could not have similar licensing, except one: it does not WANT to be viewed as responsible for whatever junk some third tier chinese vendor makes (the responsibility would greatly increase its support costs), while the first tier vendors (Samsung, HTC) have enough resources to support their own devices.
Isn't one of the main selling points of Android it's "openness" part of which is the ability to side load applications from a variety of sources outside the walled garden of Google's play store?
BAM!
An instant and massive increase in vulnerabilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
I agree with the second statement, but not the first. A counterexample (already mentioned by someone) is Windows: windows updates independently of which white box vendor you got your machine from. There is no obvious reason why Google could not have similar licensing, except one: it does not WANT to be viewed as responsible for whatever junk some third tier chinese vendor makes (the responsibility would greatly increase its support costs), while the first tier vendors (Samsung, HTC) have enough resources to support their own devices.
I concur, about not having the resources (or motivation) to police every single Android implementation. It is not accurate to compare Android and Windows, because one can be modified by the manufacturer and the other one cannot. One is provided for free, the other is sold. Love it or hate it, this is the nature of the beast. I guess they could go into the licensing business but then the rest of the model falls apart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Isn't one of the main selling points of Android it's "openness" part of which is the ability to side load applications from a variety of sources outside the walled garden of Google's play store?
BAM!
An instant and massive increase in vulnerabilities.
This is true, but sideloading has to be explicitly enabled by the user. It is somewhat (not completely) comparable with jailbreaking an iPhone [the latter is harder to do, but both are conscious acts. In both case in 90% of the cases the only purpose of the "jailbreak" is to get outside the walls of the garden, so one can argue that the user then better know what s/he is doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
I concur, about not having the resources (or motivation) to police every single Android implementation. It is not accurate to compare Android and Windows, because one can be modified by the manufacturer and the other one cannot. One is provided for free, the other is sold. Love it or hate it, this is the nature of the beast. I guess they could go into the licensing business but then the rest of the model falls apart.
Yes, I agree, actually my comments about policing was meant to back up essentially your last sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Isn't one of the main selling points of Android it's "openness" part of which is the ability to side load applications from a variety of sources outside the walled garden of Google's play store?
BAM!
An instant and massive increase in vulnerabilities.
Yes, more freedom equals more potential hazards. The problem is most people don't understand that.
No I don't think I did. I think you're confusing me with someone else although I do remember the thread so I could have been involved. Anyway thank you for informing me. Now I know!
Still, you get points!
Don't worry. What goes around does really get around. Not establishing basic software/hardware restrictions is slowly creeping up on them. Unfortunately for Google/Android, it is a growing issue. By growing I mean this...
Google is treating Android like one of the old fashioned trains. Throw coal in the engine and it goes faster. Agree?..
The problem is that Google is forgetting that all of the passengers do not ride in the engine. They're in the cars behind the engine. Throw too much coal into the engine and the hitches give, leaving most of the passengers behind.
If you only care about how fast the engine goes, and figure the passengers will keep up because they have to, there isn't really much hope for the company running the engines.
I don't care either way. Just saying...