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.)
I enjoyed those last few sentences. ...a LOT! Lol.
Sol is not a moderator, but he is a brilliant man. He may be brilliant enough to edit your post, but I really don't think he would consider it worth the effort...
Don't flatter yourself! Lol!!!
I'm curious. Do you really get paid for your posts? I find that concept very intriguing. I would love to understand though.
If you do get paid, you apparently have a high quota. ...and lots of responses! )
Perhaps ACLU would be smarter if they considered the fact that android itself is Malware- it's Google's spyware.
No amount of android updating will get around this, android is built to be spyware !
:no:
Just catching on Josh? I'll give ya a hint. ...shhhhh! It's not just Android! LOL!
Android is open and is made by Google nothing more than to gain more control at the mobile internet space for their own interest; more data, advertisements and therefore more opportunities for their business. Google's job is to give people treats like giving candies to children, it doesn't have to be tasty as long as it is appealing to woo people. Contrary to popular belief, Google services are not free, Google makes money through advertisements, basically by us using their services. We are their product. People should know what they're getting before buying or using a service, it's about preference, if the pros and cons are okay to you then I don't see any problem, but don't just go point a finger at Google, because it is a choice.
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. They are to excellent what Prosopagnosianists are to faces.
To be fair Soli there's much higher profile examples of "iOS malware" if you're applying the same definition some security companies use to both Android and iOS.
Millions of Apple users were infected with malware/spyware just a few months ago and most here are probably aware of it...
by using Path which was collecting their contact information without permission. It was hardly the only app to do so either with a list of several more published on various blog sites. That's considered malware and included in Android statistics about it when reported by anti-virus companies. Personally I'd suspect that apps that collect personal information without the permission of the user accounts for the majority of malware found. I don't see it reported as such when iOS malware statistics are published tho, and I don't know why.
McAfee:
Mobile Malware Defined
We classify an app as containing malware if it does one or more of the following:
•Sends your handset or personal information to someone else without your permission
•Spys on and records your activity (browsing history, messages, videos played)
•Sends premium rate SMS messages to sell ringtones, downloads, or subscription data services
•Commits click fraud
• Exploits a vulnerability or software bug on your device to cause it to do something you aren’t expecting
(often through downloading other malware)
• Roots your device to give an attacker control of it
• Installs a backdoor or turn your device into a bot client, often collecting personal information as a
side benefit
• Installs a hacking tool that allows the attacker to control your device
•Downloads a secondary piece of malicious code from a website
• Is destructive to your device or its data
•Sends spam messages via SMS from your device
Before anyone jumps in to say I'm claiming iOS and Android are just as bad, I am not. I don't think I've seen any premium-SMS scams mentioned on iOS like there has been on Android, even thru the official Play Store! With less direct control exerted over the Android appstores they're certain to harbor more REAL malware, tho whether the average user would ever see it is highly unlikely outside of Russia and China.
Instead I'm highlighting what the security companies include in their malware statistics, at least when mentioning Android, and how it affects the perception of the two platforms. If it's not really legitimate to call an app like Path malware if it's in the App Store how does it suddenly morph into malware if it's on Google Play? The anti-virus companies appear to think it does.
Perhaps they should include another category, distributed by the security companies themselves: Scareware.
It is odd they did not name Google, HTC, Samsung, LG and Sony as well. This is primarily the fault of Google that rushed the design of Android so they did not get the ability to update Android as needed. For proof, look to MS and Windows that shows it is very possible to design a component based OS supplied by multiple hardware vendors and provide centralized updates. Google simply took the cheap and easy way out and never considered updates as part of the feature set of Android.
True but I can't help but be amused by the fact in the MS world, not only don't many want to upgrade, they actually buy newer hardware and voluntarily down grade ... But that's another story
ALL Straight Talk Android phones are shipping with nothing newer than 2.3, and one is even sold with 2.2. Virgin and Boost offer many with 4.0+, but still sell 2.3. That's just a quick search I did.
The worst part is, Straight Talk has openly said on their Facebook page that none of these phones will EVER get an OS update. What's on it when you buy it is what you'll be stuck with, period (unless you want to hack it).
Totally not comparable. With PalmOS you download the apps from anywhere, they don't have DRM other than maybe a license key, and you have to manage the apps yourself. Even if you deleted the apps, you can get the app from someone else, enter your license key after reinstalling it, and you're good to go. And of course, you still should have your original download, download link, or could ask the app vendor to resend you the version. None of that works with iOS apps, because it's AppStore or nothing (unless it's a jail-broken device, and even then that would only work if you were to use pirated apps or apps which someone bought and someone removed the DRM from for future use on other devices by people who bought them and are in a pickle)
With the AppStore model, there is no way to re-download the app you had, and the entire app management is automated by iTunes, so unless you're a power user, it's difficult to go back, even if you do have a backup somewhere. Also, even if someone else has the app, you can't use it on your device, because of the DRM system. So you're totally stuck, while you're not stuck at all in the Palm example.
This isn't about devices eventually not being upgraded, this is about devices LOSING functionality because of how the AppStore model ratchets versions upwards, even for devices that can't follow the new version.
Are you friking totally tone deaf? You totally missed the point that your whole premise is pure BS! You can in fact backup your apps! And its up to developers, as they have stated here, that are responsible for compatibility. So is the whole app ecosystem supposed to come to a screaching halt because you have an older device? And just as someone else pointed out, you would be the first to complain when those apps ran slow on your device. So grow up, get a job, and get yourself a new ipad and iphone. A 3G you are complaining about, really?
Is this a joke? Nexus branded devices (aka. the 'pure' Google devices) get updated to every new OS version when it's released.
It's only the OEM modded models that have delayed OS updates...
I never specified Nexus branded devices (though how well was the Nexus One supported?) but the designer of the OS that never took updates into design consideration.
The average user doesn't care about updates sadly enough.
In the last five years that has drastically changed, at least with Apple products.
I remember a time when people were still using 1.1 on their iPod touches after the launch of iPhone OS 3. "Oh, I can't get 'apps'; I need a newer iPod." And then I just blow their minds…
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.
Again this is 100% wrong. There are two types of Android. The free one that has no access to many Google services and the licensed one with full access to Google services.
It was an option to Google when Google first designed Android to design in an update architecture that would be available to all the licensed versions of Android. This would have required much more thought, planning and (I suspect something Google did not have and still does not have) true OS level expertise. Getting this in place would have taken another 6 months to a year so Google took the cheap and easy path and willfully put their products ... Oops I mean users at risk by not providing easy access to updates.
Again this is 100% wrong. There are two types of Android. The free one that has no access to many Google services and the licensed one with full access to Google services.
It was an option to Google when Google first designed Android to design in an update architecture that would be available to all the licensed versions of Android. This would have required much more thought, planning and (I suspect something Google did not have and still does not have) true OS level expertise. Getting this in place would have taken another 6 months to a year so Google took the cheap and easy path and willfully put their products ... Oops I mean users at risk by not providing easy access to updates.
It's not a matter of design but rather a matter of policy. All Google-sponsored phones (i.e. nexus) get their updates directly from Google because Google controls the entire OS on those phones. OEMs like HTC, Samsung, etc. insist on updates going through themselves because they want to test their extensive modifications such as Touchwiz and Sense against the new kernel and system libraries, and possibly apply their own patches. Carriers also want to test their own hacks. Blaming Google for not directly updating HTC or Sony devices is kind of like blaming Linus for not pushing kernel updates directly to linux users when distros maintain their own kernel patches. To address this fragmentation issue Google would have to essentially prohibit OEM modifications, but they don't seem willing to do that.
It's not a matter of design but rather a matter of policy. All Google-sponsored phones (i.e. nexus) get their updates directly from Google because Google controls the entire OS on those phones. OEMs like HTC, Samsung, etc. insist on updates going through themselves because they want to test their extensive modifications such as Touchwiz and Sense against the new kernel and system libraries, and possibly apply their own patches. Carriers also want to test their own hacks. Blaming Google for not directly updating HTC or Sony devices is kind of like blaming Linus for not pushing kernel updates directly to linux users when distros maintains their own kernel patches. To address this fragmentation issue Google would have to prohibit or severely curtail OEM modifications, but they don't seem willing to do that.
I agree with your main points about why the delay in updates (if they ever come) from vendors take so long, but it's still ultimately falls on Google for creating an system that is managed in such away to create this fragmentation in the first place. The average customer doesn't walk in to buy a cell phone with knowledge of unit sales number, vendor support states, etc. They look at Android the same way they look at Windows and that simply isn't the case when it comes to updates or app compatibility. Google knows there is a problem as they've made mention of it at least once, and I think they have even stated it will be corrected but that was years ago and it still isn't.
And why is the ACLU getting involved? The market will take care of itself without them having to get involved.
This.
Markets organize automatically. People always buy the best experience they can afford, and they always value a better experience. If they aren't paying for the absolute best experience, then there are real, material reasons for that—throwing laws at people doesn't make them more wealthy.
Markets organize automatically. People always buy the best experience they can afford, and they always value a better experience. If they aren't paying for the absolute best experience, then there are real, material reasons for that—throwing laws at people doesn't make them more wealthy.
I agree that it will work itself out and that people try to buy the best assumed experience for a given price point but I'd disagree that people buy the best experience. The difference being that customers may not get the experience that was assumed — or worse, told they would get by the cell phone store rep pushing anything but the iPhone — but this too also get corrected as you can't get repeat customers or mindshare without having a product that exceeds the expectations for the majority of your customer base.
It's not a matter of design but rather a matter of policy. All Google-sponsored phones (i.e. nexus) get their updates directly from Google because Google controls the entire OS on those phones. OEMs like HTC, Samsung, etc. insist on updates going through themselves because they want to test their extensive modifications such as Touchwiz and Sense against the new kernel and system libraries, and possibly apply their own patches. Carriers also want to test their own hacks. Blaming Google for not directly updating HTC or Sony devices is kind of like blaming Linus for not pushing kernel updates directly to linux users when distros maintain their own kernel patches. To address this fragmentation issue Google would have to essentially prohibit OEM modifications, but they don't seem willing to do that.
No it is 100% a mater of design. The poor design drove the policy.
The kick is, there is an order or two of magnitude higher amount on the Google Play Store compared to the App Store. Likewise, Google has had to execute the remote delete many many many times compared to Apple's 0 times.
No it is 100% a mater of design. The poor design drove the policy.
It is far from clear that the design is "poor". The vendors want the flexibility to add their own hacks, and one of the problems with Windows Phone is that MSFT has (or is perceived as having) too much control of the OS. Since Google's goal was maximal market penetration, what they did was probably the right thing. I should also note that it seems fairly clear that the roots of Android were defensive: Google's principals grew up in the era of the Microsoft monopoly, which stifled innovation, and they wanted to make sure that this did not happen with the mobile market (at the time Google bought Android there was no iPhone, and MSFT's horrid windows phone was dominant, so there was a good chance that MSFT would dominate in mobile, but obviously an Apple monopoly is just as bad in the long run). I am sure that Google might do things differently if they were starting now, though I am not sure HOW differently.
The kick is, there is an order or two of magnitude higher amount on the Google Play Store compared to the App Store. Likewise, Google has had to execute the remote delete many many many times compared to Apple's 0 times.
Comments
Perhaps ACLU would be smarter if they considered the fact that android itself is Malware- it's Google's spyware.
No amount of android updating will get around this, android is built to be spyware !
I enjoyed those last few sentences. ...a LOT! Lol.
Sol is not a moderator, but he is a brilliant man. He may be brilliant enough to edit your post, but I really don't think he would consider it worth the effort...
Don't flatter yourself! Lol!!!
I'm curious. Do you really get paid for your posts? I find that concept very intriguing. I would love to understand though.
If you do get paid, you apparently have a high quota. ...and lots of responses!
Just catching on Josh? I'll give ya a hint. ...shhhhh! It's not just Android! LOL!
Android is open and is made by Google nothing more than to gain more control at the mobile internet space for their own interest; more data, advertisements and therefore more opportunities for their business. Google's job is to give people treats like giving candies to children, it doesn't have to be tasty as long as it is appealing to woo people. Contrary to popular belief, Google services are not free, Google makes money through advertisements, basically by us using their services. We are their product. People should know what they're getting before buying or using a service, it's about preference, if the pros and cons are okay to you then I don't see any problem, but don't just go point a finger at Google, because it is a choice.
Quote:
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. They are to excellent what Prosopagnosianists are to faces.
To be fair Soli there's much higher profile examples of "iOS malware" if you're applying the same definition some security companies use to both Android and iOS.
Millions of Apple users were infected with malware/spyware just a few months ago and most here are probably aware of it...
by using Path which was collecting their contact information without permission. It was hardly the only app to do so either with a list of several more published on various blog sites. That's considered malware and included in Android statistics about it when reported by anti-virus companies. Personally I'd suspect that apps that collect personal information without the permission of the user accounts for the majority of malware found. I don't see it reported as such when iOS malware statistics are published tho, and I don't know why.
McAfee:
Mobile Malware Defined
We classify an app as containing malware if it does one or more of the following:
• Sends your handset or personal information to someone else without your permission
• Spys on and records your activity (browsing history, messages, videos played)
• Sends premium rate SMS messages to sell ringtones, downloads, or subscription data services
• Commits click fraud
• Exploits a vulnerability or software bug on your device to cause it to do something you aren’t expecting
(often through downloading other malware)
• Roots your device to give an attacker control of it
• Installs a backdoor or turn your device into a bot client, often collecting personal information as a
side benefit
• Installs a hacking tool that allows the attacker to control your device
• Downloads a secondary piece of malicious code from a website
• Is destructive to your device or its data
• Sends spam messages via SMS from your device
Before anyone jumps in to say I'm claiming iOS and Android are just as bad, I am not. I don't think I've seen any premium-SMS scams mentioned on iOS like there has been on Android, even thru the official Play Store! With less direct control exerted over the Android appstores they're certain to harbor more REAL malware, tho whether the average user would ever see it is highly unlikely outside of Russia and China.
Instead I'm highlighting what the security companies include in their malware statistics, at least when mentioning Android, and how it affects the perception of the two platforms. If it's not really legitimate to call an app like Path malware if it's in the App Store how does it suddenly morph into malware if it's on Google Play? The anti-virus companies appear to think it does.
Perhaps they should include another category, distributed by the security companies themselves: Scareware.
True but I can't help but be amused by the fact in the MS world, not only don't many want to upgrade, they actually buy newer hardware and voluntarily down grade ... But that's another story
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
Can you show me a phone still sold with gingerbread in America? I searched and couldn't find one.
You didn't search very hard. Here:
http://www.shopstraighttalk.com/bpdirect/straighttalk/Start.do?action=view&zip=16601&locale=en&siteType=&market=GSM5SPRCO&gotoPhonelist=true
http://www.virginmobileusa.com/shop/cell-phones/android-phones/
http://www.boostmobile.com/shop/phones/#/sort_feature/view_grid/type_android/
ALL Straight Talk Android phones are shipping with nothing newer than 2.3, and one is even sold with 2.2. Virgin and Boost offer many with 4.0+, but still sell 2.3. That's just a quick search I did.
The worst part is, Straight Talk has openly said on their Facebook page that none of these phones will EVER get an OS update. What's on it when you buy it is what you'll be stuck with, period (unless you want to hack it).
The average user doesn't care about updates sadly enough.
I never specified Nexus branded devices (though how well was the Nexus One supported?) but the designer of the OS that never took updates into design consideration.
Originally Posted by 3Eleven
The average user doesn't care about updates sadly enough.
In the last five years that has drastically changed, at least with Apple products.
I remember a time when people were still using 1.1 on their iPod touches after the launch of iPhone OS 3. "Oh, I can't get 'apps'; I need a newer iPod." And then I just blow their minds…
Now, people just do updates as they come up.
Again this is 100% wrong. There are two types of Android. The free one that has no access to many Google services and the licensed one with full access to Google services.
It was an option to Google when Google first designed Android to design in an update architecture that would be available to all the licensed versions of Android. This would have required much more thought, planning and (I suspect something Google did not have and still does not have) true OS level expertise. Getting this in place would have taken another 6 months to a year so Google took the cheap and easy path and willfully put their products ... Oops I mean users at risk by not providing easy access to updates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
Again this is 100% wrong. There are two types of Android. The free one that has no access to many Google services and the licensed one with full access to Google services.
It was an option to Google when Google first designed Android to design in an update architecture that would be available to all the licensed versions of Android. This would have required much more thought, planning and (I suspect something Google did not have and still does not have) true OS level expertise. Getting this in place would have taken another 6 months to a year so Google took the cheap and easy path and willfully put their products ... Oops I mean users at risk by not providing easy access to updates.
It's not a matter of design but rather a matter of policy. All Google-sponsored phones (i.e. nexus) get their updates directly from Google because Google controls the entire OS on those phones. OEMs like HTC, Samsung, etc. insist on updates going through themselves because they want to test their extensive modifications such as Touchwiz and Sense against the new kernel and system libraries, and possibly apply their own patches. Carriers also want to test their own hacks. Blaming Google for not directly updating HTC or Sony devices is kind of like blaming Linus for not pushing kernel updates directly to linux users when distros maintain their own kernel patches. To address this fragmentation issue Google would have to essentially prohibit OEM modifications, but they don't seem willing to do that.
I agree with your main points about why the delay in updates (if they ever come) from vendors take so long, but it's still ultimately falls on Google for creating an system that is managed in such away to create this fragmentation in the first place. The average customer doesn't walk in to buy a cell phone with knowledge of unit sales number, vendor support states, etc. They look at Android the same way they look at Windows and that simply isn't the case when it comes to updates or app compatibility. Google knows there is a problem as they've made mention of it at least once, and I think they have even stated it will be corrected but that was years ago and it still isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
And why is the ACLU getting involved? The market will take care of itself without them having to get involved.
This.
Markets organize automatically. People always buy the best experience they can afford, and they always value a better experience. If they aren't paying for the absolute best experience, then there are real, material reasons for that—throwing laws at people doesn't make them more wealthy.
I agree that it will work itself out and that people try to buy the best assumed experience for a given price point but I'd disagree that people buy the best experience. The difference being that customers may not get the experience that was assumed — or worse, told they would get by the cell phone store rep pushing anything but the iPhone — but this too also get corrected as you can't get repeat customers or mindshare without having a product that exceeds the expectations for the majority of your customer base.
No it is 100% a mater of design. The poor design drove the policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
No it is 100% a mater of design. The poor design drove the policy.
It is far from clear that the design is "poor". The vendors want the flexibility to add their own hacks, and one of the problems with Windows Phone is that MSFT has (or is perceived as having) too much control of the OS. Since Google's goal was maximal market penetration, what they did was probably the right thing. I should also note that it seems fairly clear that the roots of Android were defensive: Google's principals grew up in the era of the Microsoft monopoly, which stifled innovation, and they wanted to make sure that this did not happen with the mobile market (at the time Google bought Android there was no iPhone, and MSFT's horrid windows phone was dominant, so there was a good chance that MSFT would dominate in mobile, but obviously an Apple monopoly is just as bad in the long run). I am sure that Google might do things differently if they were starting now, though I am not sure HOW differently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
The kick is, there is an order or two of magnitude higher amount on the Google Play Store compared to the App Store. Likewise, Google has had to execute the remote delete many many many times compared to Apple's 0 times.
Why don't you back this up with actual data?