That they both issue a lot of updates and fixes, and on a regular basis?
I'd say that Apple's push of the updates is vastly superior to Android's mixed hit or miss carrier update technique. You get more updates from Apple because it is so easy for them to issue them. If they forgot to dot an "i" they can push another update and it will be accepted and installed on the majority of the installed base within a day or two.
I don't think that is what mistercow said. I read their logic and it basically means there is no conclusive relationship. Not sure, why they did not simply say it that way. If there was another point to be made, it didn't come over clearly.
I am not seeing how his comments are not saying that the number of SW updates has a direct correlation to the insecurity of a system.
That they both issue a lot of updates and fixes, and on a regular basis?
I'd say that Apple's push of the updates is vastly superior to Android's mixed hit or miss carrier update technique. You get more updates from Apple because it is so easy for them to issue them. If they forgot to dot an "i" they can push another update and it will be accepted and installed on the majority of the installed base with in a day or two.
I'm surprised we have not heard the point of view that because Android is so fragment, it's harder to target security flaws against it.
Hmm. Why isn't the text being quoted. Anyway, not all these updates are security related. If you think that Android is more secure just because they don't update it, you'd be sadly mistaken.
I noted DED used several Google references alongside mentions of Samsung astro-turfing and paid blogging efforts, I suppose hoping to conflate the two in readers minds. To the credit of AI readers it looks like no one fell for it.
Having said that if DED's theory is correct then with no evidence that Google pays for favorable coverage either I'd imagine it's only a matter of time before the media turns on them too. In fact IMO there's a lot more negative commentary on both Google and Apple than there was even 5 years ago. Microsoft is pretty much the invisible man now, relatively speaking, a testimony to how little influence is attributed to them nowadays.
Leave it to Google guy to defend Googs when no attack was issued.
Oh and wasn't Googs dinged for having its services highlight at the top of its search results?
On a related note, would somebody please enlighten me as I am genuinely interested in the following...
A number of times now, when I have described to friends how I prefer iOS over Android for its ecosystem, consistency across apps, ease of use, speed, etc., I have had Consumer Reports thrown in my face (as if that's the last (and only) word on the subject).
Was it ever shown that Consumer Reports was, in some way, influenced by the "Android Lobby"?
That they both issue a lot of updates and fixes, and on a regular basis? Sadly many Android licensees don't take advantage of the Google offered updates and that is unfortunate. I don't blame Google for taking things into their own hands and handling many of the fixes and improvements now via Google Play Services as EricTheHalfBee mentioned in an earlier post.
so basically, you are saying that Android efforts to tighten up security is ineffective (because they don't have control) and therefore its the user's responsibility. Did I summarize your position correctly?
I noted DED used several Google references alongside mentions of Samsung astro-turfing and paid blogging efforts, I suppose hoping to conflate the two in readers minds. To the credit of AI readers it looks like no one fell for it.
Having said that if DED's theory is correct then with no evidence that Google pays for favorable coverage either I'd imagine it's only a matter of time before the media turns on them too. In fact IMO there's a lot more negative commentary on both Google and Apple than there was even 5 years ago. Microsoft is pretty much the invisible man now, relatively speaking, a testimony to how little influence is attributed to them nowadays.
All in all, Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOG) spent $18 million on lobbying while Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) only parted with $2 million.
I'm surprised we have not heard the point of view that because Android is so fragment, it's harder to target security flaws against it.
Well perhaps but I doubt you will hear that from any die hard Android users because it only serves to expose a significant drawback of the their OS.
If I were an evil hacker I would specifically target Samsung Galaxy and iPhone because that is where the more valuable identity and credit information would be. Who cares about the older Android crap phones? Those users' identities are worthless because they don't have any money to steal.
so basically, you are saying that Android efforts to tighten up security is ineffective (because they don't have control) and therefore its the user's responsibility. Did I summarize your position correctly?
Not exactly, but obviously Google doesn't have end-to-end control over Android. To their credit tho with Play Services they're trying to take up the slack for some of their licensees who have much more interest in selling the next new phone rather than supporting the ones they already sold.
On a related note, would somebody please enlighten me as I am genuinely interested in the following...
A number of times now, when I have described to friends how I prefer iOS over Android for its ecosystem, consistency across apps, ease of use, speed, etc., I have had Consumer Reports thrown in my face (as if that's the last (and only) word on the subject).
Was it ever shown that Consumer Reports was, in some way, influenced by the "Android Lobby"?
I do so hate playing chess with pidgeons.
Have not heard anything about CR related to this. However, some word of advise on making your friends see the light about iOS. Let them use Android all they want. That's the best form of education. Sometimes you can't smell sh*t, until you step in it and have to live with your decision for the length of a 2 yr contract. Don't rub it in their face however. Its been my experience that they all eventually switch to iOS. Some people just have to make their own mistakes first hand. Some take longer than others. This goes for many aspects of life, not just technology. Many times it just boils down to wanting to make their own decisions and not getting the same product as you have. Even if it means not getting the best. Just the fact its not the same as what YOU have is the only motivator sometimes.
Not exactly, but obviously Google doesn't have end-to-end control over Android. To their credit tho with Play Services they're trying to take up the slack for some of their licensees who have much more interest in selling the next new phone rather than supporting the ones they already sold.
so basically, you are saying that Android efforts to tighten up security is ineffective (because they don't have control) and therefore its the user's responsibility. Did I summarize your position correctly?
Not exactly, but obviously Google doesn't have end-to-end control over Android. To their credit tho with Play Services they're trying to take up the slack for some of their licensees who have much more interest in selling the next new phone rather than supporting the ones they already sold.
yeah.. that makes sense. From Google's point of they don't care much about which device you are using, just as long as you go through their services. From OEM point of view, I guess you want people to keep buying your devices on a regular basis. A bit risky however for the OEM. Since Android is marketed as a "Android" phone, this update may lead to a competitor's Android phone. So they have to take care not to upset the customer with lack of updates. People might just switch to a different brand, hoping they will support it better than their previous brand. Fine line. 2 years is long time to go without updates. They may just say, no know.. I've lived with this design for very long time now and I'm bored with it, I want something quite different. Maybe I'll try someone else.
I don't think that is what mistercow said. I read their logic and it basically means there is no conclusive relationship. Not sure, why they did not simply say it that way. If there was another point to be made, it didn't come over clearly.
I am not seeing how his comments are not saying that the number of SW updates has a direct correlation to the insecurity of a system.
Let me break down their comment.
So you can draw a couple of conclusions -
1. previous versions had less security flaws
2. previous versions had the same number of security flaws but just weren't being patched
3. the new version has more holes.
So, ?1 = 3 is the same statement, just on different side of the "<" symbol. right? so
1 & 3 result in:
Previous Version # of bugs < New Version # of bugs. (is this true?, don't know, can't prove it)
2 results in:
Previous Version # of bugs = New Version # of bugs (is this true? don't know, can't prove it).
what conclusion can you come up with when you combine 1/3 and 2? Its the same result. Which is, Don't know if its true, can't prove it.
I can also make another statement which will give you the same value.
Previous Version # of bug > New Version # of bugs. (is this true? don't know, can't prove it)
So is it less than, equal to, or great than? I can conclusively say, its inconclusive. Don't know, can't prove it, wasting everyone's time with this.
On a related note, would somebody please enlighten me as I am genuinely interested in the following...
A number of times now, when I have described to friends how I prefer iOS over Android for its ecosystem, consistency across apps, ease of use, speed, etc., I have had Consumer Reports thrown in my face (as if that's the last (and only) word on the subject).
Was it ever shown that Consumer Reports was, in some way, influenced by the "Android Lobby"?
I do so hate playing chess with pidgeons.
There is no good argument to defend against an experience, which is probably why it's hard for some people to see beyond superficial listings on a spec sheet and why they may refer to those that like a particular vendor as being part of a cult. You're better off explaining a rainbow to Helen Keller.
In the kingdom of the Android the one iPhone is king.
On a related note, would somebody please enlighten me as I am genuinely interested in the following...
A number of times now, when I have described to friends how I prefer iOS over Android for its ecosystem, consistency across apps, ease of use, speed, etc., I have had Consumer Reports thrown in my face (as if that's the last (and only) word on the subject).
Was it ever shown that Consumer Reports was, in some way, influenced by the "Android Lobby"?
I do so hate playing chess with pidgeons.
..You're better off explaining a rainbow to Helen Keller.
In the kingdom of the Android the one iPhone is king.
Nice "Minority Report" reference.
I hate that movie though. Apparently in the future wifi and ethernet are lost technologies which were substituted with glass diskettes.
Just kidding. It is an entertaining movie so long as you ignore the supposed advanced tech.
I think the name Android must have been some twisted and evil joke by a Goggle executive. A botnet of cloneable minions for which we harvest data from. Billions upon billions of droids connected to and watched by our network. Not humans with privacy rights; but servants to play with as we like to harvest and sell their data. bha bah ha ha.
but why would people agree to this? just tell them its free and open.
feels more like a combination of "Soylent Green" and "The Matrix" to me than "Minority Report"
Comments
That they both issue a lot of updates and fixes, and on a regular basis?
I'd say that Apple's push of the updates is vastly superior to Android's mixed hit or miss carrier update technique. You get more updates from Apple because it is so easy for them to issue them. If they forgot to dot an "i" they can push another update and it will be accepted and installed on the majority of the installed base within a day or two.
I am not seeing how his comments are not saying that the number of SW updates has a direct correlation to the insecurity of a system.
All those other "fixes" are just to hid the fact that iOS full of security holes¡
That they both issue a lot of updates and fixes, and on a regular basis?
I'd say that Apple's push of the updates is vastly superior to Android's mixed hit or miss carrier update technique. You get more updates from Apple because it is so easy for them to issue them. If they forgot to dot an "i" they can push another update and it will be accepted and installed on the majority of the installed base with in a day or two.
I'm surprised we have not heard the point of view that because Android is so fragment, it's harder to target security flaws against it.
Hmm. Why isn't the text being quoted. Anyway, not all these updates are security related. If you think that Android is more secure just because they don't update it, you'd be sadly mistaken.
Leave it to Google guy to defend Googs when no attack was issued.
Oh and wasn't Googs dinged for having its services highlight at the top of its search results?
On a related note, would somebody please enlighten me as I am genuinely interested in the following...
A number of times now, when I have described to friends how I prefer iOS over Android for its ecosystem, consistency across apps, ease of use, speed, etc., I have had Consumer Reports thrown in my face (as if that's the last (and only) word on the subject).
Was it ever shown that Consumer Reports was, in some way, influenced by the "Android Lobby"?
I do so hate playing chess with pidgeons.
That they both issue a lot of updates and fixes, and on a regular basis? Sadly many Android licensees don't take advantage of the Google offered updates and that is unfortunate. I don't blame Google for taking things into their own hands and handling many of the fixes and improvements now via Google Play Services as EricTheHalfBee mentioned in an earlier post.
so basically, you are saying that Android efforts to tighten up security is ineffective (because they don't have control) and therefore its the user's responsibility. Did I summarize your position correctly?
http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/how-much-are-google-inc-goog-and-apple-inc-aapl-spending-on-political-efforts-66817/
Well perhaps but I doubt you will hear that from any die hard Android users because it only serves to expose a significant drawback of the their OS.
If I were an evil hacker I would specifically target Samsung Galaxy and iPhone because that is where the more valuable identity and credit information would be. Who cares about the older Android crap phones? Those users' identities are worthless because they don't have any money to steal.
Not exactly, but obviously Google doesn't have end-to-end control over Android. To their credit tho with Play Services they're trying to take up the slack for some of their licensees who have much more interest in selling the next new phone rather than supporting the ones they already sold.
It appears that Apple's Tim Cook is not only choosing to spend his company's money with more integrity, but is also doing so more effectively.
Evidently. It seems like nearly every big-budget Hollywood (and foreign) movie has Apple gear in it.
Might be because Apple simply has the best-looking hardware and Os-es.
Or it might be because Apple simply out-bids competitors for product placement.
(Slightly off-topic: Jimmy Fallon's MacBook Pro has its Apple logo covered up now that he's
hosting the Tonight Show. Interesting. But you can still see that it's obviously a MacBook Pro.)
On a related note, would somebody please enlighten me as I am genuinely interested in the following...
A number of times now, when I have described to friends how I prefer iOS over Android for its ecosystem, consistency across apps, ease of use, speed, etc., I have had Consumer Reports thrown in my face (as if that's the last (and only) word on the subject).
Was it ever shown that Consumer Reports was, in some way, influenced by the "Android Lobby"?
I do so hate playing chess with pidgeons.
Have not heard anything about CR related to this. However, some word of advise on making your friends see the light about iOS. Let them use Android all they want. That's the best form of education. Sometimes you can't smell sh*t, until you step in it and have to live with your decision for the length of a 2 yr contract. Don't rub it in their face however. Its been my experience that they all eventually switch to iOS. Some people just have to make their own mistakes first hand. Some take longer than others. This goes for many aspects of life, not just technology. Many times it just boils down to wanting to make their own decisions and not getting the same product as you have. Even if it means not getting the best. Just the fact its not the same as what YOU have is the only motivator sometimes.
Close the barn doors after the horses are gone.
so basically, you are saying that Android efforts to tighten up security is ineffective (because they don't have control) and therefore its the user's responsibility. Did I summarize your position correctly?
Not exactly, but obviously Google doesn't have end-to-end control over Android. To their credit tho with Play Services they're trying to take up the slack for some of their licensees who have much more interest in selling the next new phone rather than supporting the ones they already sold.
yeah.. that makes sense. From Google's point of they don't care much about which device you are using, just as long as you go through their services. From OEM point of view, I guess you want people to keep buying your devices on a regular basis. A bit risky however for the OEM. Since Android is marketed as a "Android" phone, this update may lead to a competitor's Android phone. So they have to take care not to upset the customer with lack of updates. People might just switch to a different brand, hoping they will support it better than their previous brand. Fine line. 2 years is long time to go without updates. They may just say, no know.. I've lived with this design for very long time now and I'm bored with it, I want something quite different. Maybe I'll try someone else.
That equals:
SLOW NEWS DAY!!!!!
I don't think that is what mistercow said. I read their logic and it basically means there is no conclusive relationship. Not sure, why they did not simply say it that way. If there was another point to be made, it didn't come over clearly.
I am not seeing how his comments are not saying that the number of SW updates has a direct correlation to the insecurity of a system.
Let me break down their comment.
So you can draw a couple of conclusions -
1. previous versions had less security flaws
2. previous versions had the same number of security flaws but just weren't being patched
3. the new version has more holes.
So, ?1 = 3 is the same statement, just on different side of the "<" symbol. right? so
1 & 3 result in:
Previous Version # of bugs < New Version # of bugs. (is this true?, don't know, can't prove it)
2 results in:
Previous Version # of bugs = New Version # of bugs (is this true? don't know, can't prove it).
what conclusion can you come up with when you combine 1/3 and 2? Its the same result. Which is, Don't know if its true, can't prove it.
I can also make another statement which will give you the same value.
Previous Version # of bug > New Version # of bugs. (is this true? don't know, can't prove it)
So is it less than, equal to, or great than? I can conclusively say, its inconclusive. Don't know, can't prove it, wasting everyone's time with this.
There is no good argument to defend against an experience, which is probably why it's hard for some people to see beyond superficial listings on a spec sheet and why they may refer to those that like a particular vendor as being part of a cult. You're better off explaining a rainbow to Helen Keller.
In the kingdom of the Android the one iPhone is king.
On a related note, would somebody please enlighten me as I am genuinely interested in the following...
A number of times now, when I have described to friends how I prefer iOS over Android for its ecosystem, consistency across apps, ease of use, speed, etc., I have had Consumer Reports thrown in my face (as if that's the last (and only) word on the subject).
Was it ever shown that Consumer Reports was, in some way, influenced by the "Android Lobby"?
I do so hate playing chess with pidgeons.
..You're better off explaining a rainbow to Helen Keller.
awesome summary.
Nice "Minority Report" reference.
I hate that movie though. Apparently in the future wifi and ethernet are lost technologies which were substituted with glass diskettes.
Just kidding. It is an entertaining movie so long as you ignore the supposed advanced tech.
I am not aware of its usage in that film although I can see how this common American English proverb could be used in both the film and book.
Nice "Minority Report" reference.
I hate that movie though. Apparently in the future wifi and ethernet are lost technologies which were substituted with glass diskettes.
Just kidding. It is an entertaining movie so long as you ignore the supposed advanced tech.
I think the name Android must have been some twisted and evil joke by a Goggle executive. A botnet of cloneable minions for which we harvest data from. Billions upon billions of droids connected to and watched by our network. Not humans with privacy rights; but servants to play with as we like to harvest and sell their data. bha bah ha ha.
but why would people agree to this? just tell them its free and open.
feels more like a combination of "Soylent Green" and "The Matrix" to me than "Minority Report"