This is hilarious. It reminds me of the old Win Doze days. The propaganda was that windows could "do more" because it was on more machines. It took years for people to figure out it was so full of holes and virus attacks and crashes, unlike a Mac.
osmartormenajr and everyone else or whose spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend that tried(s) Android:
?
The ironic and funny thing is that a few months ago, Appleinsider wrote an article saying how Android's security issues are analogous or yet worse when compared to a Windows desktop operating system. One thing that contributed to this was not knowing who or where to download an application/program from since there are lot of people taking credit for the original creator's work on it. Talk about having a poor quality photocopier! Eric Schmidt, go talk to your older and dumber brother Bill Gates and try to pick up more than just a few pointers for what not to do when copying other people's work.
I have a Galaxy Note2 and an iPhone5, and never had a malware attack on any of them. I am sure if Android is more secure than IOS, it is only marginal.
I have a Galaxy Note2 and an iPhone5, and never had a malware attack on any of them. I am sure if Android is more secure than IOS, it is only marginal.
What Eric's talking about "Android the OS" being secure is flawed. It's like saying I built an OS, and the OS is secure, but it can be breached because of 'n' number of other applications that can be installed on it.
Security as a whole on the platform is what the general point out as weak.
And this has to do with the overall implementation of Android as a whole. Hence security flaws could arise from licensee implementations of a certain feature, a licensee's own App Store, or any other third party guys implementation of certain things.
At the end, irrespective of whose fault it is, in general fingers get pointed at "Android". And this is were iOS has it's advantage cause Apple controls everything from end to end..
Similar to the saying "Too many cooks spoil the broth", is true with Android platform. Too many vendors / licensee / App Stores / Internet App side loading you have in short a system that's prone to more loop holes. So Eric's point of view that Google's OS as such is secure is pointless. They should have kept an end to end closed system like Apple's then to claim such a fact.
Android isn't even my second choice of smartphones, of all my Steve Ballmer bashing, I'd totally pick Windows Phone over Android, I really don't want to install anti-virus on my mobile device, what Google should do is make an Android defender like service like Microsoft so their users don't have to go through the hassle of maintaining that stuff.
Clearly he hasn't exercised his Ph.D. since before leaving SUN.
How does one exercise his PhD?
Schmidt is a dweeb. But he is also whip smart. He rarely says anything that is far off the mark. I think, in this instance, what he is saying is that given the number of Android devices out there, the security record is not bad at all.
Android isn't even my second choice of smartphones, of all my Steve Ballmer bashing, I'd totally pick Windows Phone over Android, I really don't want to install anti-virus on my mobile device, what Google should do is make an Android defender like service like Microsoft so their users don't have to go through the hassle of maintaining that stuff.
Actually they have. The latest reports based on real Google Android app install numbers show only .001 percent of those were malicious apps attempting to get past the baked in defenses. Assuming the numbers are accurate, and no one is yet disputing them so far as I can tell tho they've been invited to, that equates to possibly 15,000 malicious app installs sneaking past built-in Google Android safeguards out of the 1.5 Billion total installs studied. That's a pretty tiny number. And before anyone says "yeah, but that's just from the official Play Store" it isn't. Those stats include unofficial side-loaded apps too, an area where Google still offers malicious app protection. Now of course if a user decides to ignore the big red warning screen presented by Google when they attempt to load a malicious app and proceeds anyway, well there's no protection from stupid and those folks aren't part of the .001% stat.
In a nutshell there's been a lot of changes to Google Android security over the past year or so with features like AppVerify via Google Play Services rolled out as far back as Gingerbread 2.2 and now protecting upwards of 95% of all active Google Android smartphones. That's something AI has never bothered reporting so readers here being unaware of it isn't surprising. While Schmidt's statement was as best an unfortunate choice of words and at worst an outright lie the scary reports of runaway malware on the Android platform are way overblown according to the most recent statistics. The scareware stories flowing from anti-malware companies and repeated by the "I hope it's true" crowd are mostly a collection of FUD Facts IMO. http://qz.com/131436/contrary-to-what-youve-heard-android-is-almost-impenetrable-to-malware/
The iPhone is FAR more secure... for a few reasons.
The iPhone and iOS in general, is far more secure than Android simply by design. Having a closed (or shall we say, controlled) ecosystem allows Apple to immediately close security holes, like the bug that was detected in the first release of iOS 7. There will always be vulnerabilities in a computer system, as long as the device is turned on. What's important is that Apple has enough control of their environment that they could fix the issue and have an update available to EVERYONE extremely quickly. That passcode lock bypass was acknowledged (in fact, before the official release of iOS 7), and has already been patched, so I don't think many of you had someone bypass your lock screen with that method! Also, the integration of the WORLD'S FIRST truly usable (because it is SOOOO much faster and more accurate than any other consumer-grade version of fingerprint scanning ever available) fingerprint scanner on the new iPhone 5s makes THAT particular iPhone FAR more secure than any other phone or computer on the market. Every CIO in the world should pay notice and if they truly care about the security of their company's data, should be buying their employees the iPhone 5s for the time being. Eric Schmidt is a dumb putz. I will happily be receiving my iPhone 5s today in the mail. Thanks Apple, for building in technology that will actually make my phone work better. I don't want to wave my hand over my phone to answer it.. I do however, want it to unlock simply by picking it up and touching my thumb to the home button. No more passwords, awesome!!!!
....and don't even try to say that some German hacking team bypassed the fingerprint scanner.. that method is so elaborate and costly and requires someone have so much access to you to be getting copies of your fingerprints!! if someone has the ability to get that close to you and enough money to print out 2400dpi prints onto skin-like polymer, you have bigger problems and really need to invest in full-time security staff!
So many comments and no mention to the classics - 2006 Microsoft co-president Jim Allchin suggested that Windows Vista is so secure that it does not need any antivirus. Eric couldn't beat that. You know, there are people so stupid that if they participate on stupidity contest, they wouldn't win. Even there they land on second place.
When I saw the orange-clothes in the Thumbnail image it reminded me of prison-garb, which all thieves should wear.
Good choice.
Speaking of Orange, it's always been an "Apples to Oranges" comparison (hey I'm good today) to compare 96 different flavors of Android, many years-old and obsolete, that don't even all run the same stuff, against essentially 1 (or 2 or 3) version of iOS in a championship pedigree that can largely run (mostly-)all the same Apps.
No shame, these guys.
HEY! GM IS KILLING FERRARI ON MARKET SHARE! The Chevy Cruze is clearly a better car than the 458 Italia!
More secure? Is it because the Android platform has more malware is that how security is judged? The more malware types, the more secure? Hmmm... Interesting logic.
Comments
I don't see what all the fuss is about. Android devices are absolutely secure...as long as you never install an app or connect to the Internet.
Eric is right...he is always right. Google it!
Sheesh!
?
The ironic and funny thing is that a few months ago, Appleinsider wrote an article saying how Android's security issues are analogous or yet worse when compared to a Windows desktop operating system. One thing that contributed to this was not knowing who or where to download an application/program from since there are lot of people taking credit for the original creator's work on it. Talk about having a poor quality photocopier! Eric Schmidt, go talk to your older and dumber brother Bill Gates and try to pick up more than just a few pointers for what not to do when copying other people's work.
Just glad a person living in denial is out of Apple's board.
Of that I am truly happy.
I have a Galaxy Note2 and an iPhone5, and never had a malware attack on any of them. I am sure if Android is more secure than IOS, it is only marginal.
What Eric's talking about "Android the OS" being secure is flawed. It's like saying I built an OS, and the OS is secure, but it can be breached because of 'n' number of other applications that can be installed on it.
Security as a whole on the platform is what the general point out as weak.
And this has to do with the overall implementation of Android as a whole. Hence security flaws could arise from licensee implementations of a certain feature, a licensee's own App Store, or any other third party guys implementation of certain things.
At the end, irrespective of whose fault it is, in general fingers get pointed at "Android". And this is were iOS has it's advantage cause Apple controls everything from end to end..
Similar to the saying "Too many cooks spoil the broth", is true with Android platform. Too many vendors / licensee / App Stores / Internet App side loading you have in short a system that's prone to more loop holes. So Eric's point of view that Google's OS as such is secure is pointless. They should have kept an end to end closed system like Apple's then to claim such a fact.
Android isn't even my second choice of smartphones, of all my Steve Ballmer bashing, I'd totally pick Windows Phone over Android, I really don't want to install anti-virus on my mobile device, what Google should do is make an Android defender like service like Microsoft so their users don't have to go through the hassle of maintaining that stuff.
Schmidt, not a trust worthy guy, slimy.
Clearly he hasn't exercised his Ph.D. since before leaving SUN.
How does one exercise his PhD?
Schmidt is a dweeb. But he is also whip smart. He rarely says anything that is far off the mark. I think, in this instance, what he is saying is that given the number of Android devices out there, the security record is not bad at all.
True. When Schmidt says it, it comes from the horse's other end.
Actually they have. The latest reports based on real Google Android app install numbers show only .001 percent of those were malicious apps attempting to get past the baked in defenses. Assuming the numbers are accurate, and no one is yet disputing them so far as I can tell tho they've been invited to, that equates to possibly 15,000 malicious app installs sneaking past built-in Google Android safeguards out of the 1.5 Billion total installs studied. That's a pretty tiny number. And before anyone says "yeah, but that's just from the official Play Store" it isn't. Those stats include unofficial side-loaded apps too, an area where Google still offers malicious app protection. Now of course if a user decides to ignore the big red warning screen presented by Google when they attempt to load a malicious app and proceeds anyway, well there's no protection from stupid and those folks aren't part of the .001% stat.
In a nutshell there's been a lot of changes to Google Android security over the past year or so with features like AppVerify via Google Play Services rolled out as far back as Gingerbread 2.2 and now protecting upwards of 95% of all active Google Android smartphones. That's something AI has never bothered reporting so readers here being unaware of it isn't surprising. While Schmidt's statement was as best an unfortunate choice of words and at worst an outright lie the scary reports of runaway malware on the Android platform are way overblown according to the most recent statistics. The scareware stories flowing from anti-malware companies and repeated by the "I hope it's true" crowd are mostly a collection of FUD Facts IMO.
http://qz.com/131436/contrary-to-what-youve-heard-android-is-almost-impenetrable-to-malware/
The iPhone is FAR more secure... for a few reasons.
....and don't even try to say that some German hacking team bypassed the fingerprint scanner.. that method is so elaborate and costly and requires someone have so much access to you to be getting copies of your fingerprints!! if someone has the ability to get that close to you and enough money to print out 2400dpi prints onto skin-like polymer, you have bigger problems and really need to invest in full-time security staff!
So many comments and no mention to the classics - 2006 Microsoft co-president Jim Allchin suggested that Windows Vista is so secure that it does not need any antivirus. Eric couldn't beat that. You know, there are people so stupid that if they participate on stupidity contest, they wouldn't win. Even there they land on second place.
When I saw the orange-clothes in the Thumbnail image it reminded me of prison-garb, which all thieves should wear.
Good choice.
Speaking of Orange, it's always been an "Apples to Oranges" comparison (hey I'm good today) to compare 96 different flavors of Android, many years-old and obsolete, that don't even all run the same stuff, against essentially 1 (or 2 or 3) version of iOS in a championship pedigree that can largely run (mostly-)all the same Apps.
No shame, these guys.
HEY! GM IS KILLING FERRARI ON MARKET SHARE! The Chevy Cruze is clearly a better car than the 458 Italia!
#Flawgic
More secure? Is it because the Android platform has more malware is that how security is judged? The more malware types, the more secure? Hmmm... Interesting logic.