roguedograndy wrote: »
the first three don't run iOS, so no - they can't even be considered. I would never recommend android, but for poor destitute people there sometimes is no choice Some people you just can't reach. They are forever bogged down in their pitiful, worthless lives. Under or not educated, ignorant if they are educated...Android fits them perfectly.
The last 2 aren't $50, are they?
Probably missed someone mentioning this above, but the numbers above, bad as they are, are getting worse for Android, which was targeted by 97% of mobile malware apps last year (says F-Secure, amounting to 566 mal-apps, in comparison to 238 in 2012). While it notes there is a "relatively low" number of vulnerabilities in Android itself, this apparently doesn't really matter, since Android owners are pretty reliable in terms of side-loading "free" (and malware infected) versions of paid apps, allowing folks like the Dendroid makers an easy way in.
BTW, the other 3% of malware targeted...Symbian. Total number of malware apps targeting iOS, Blackberry, and Windows last year (at least according to F-Secure) was...
Bottom line, I suppose if you stick exclusively to the Google Play store, you'll probably be okay (although not always, as this article points out). But that kind of kills the "open vs walled garden" Android vs iOS argument, doesn't it?
If you never leave your house, you are statistically much less likely to get run over by a bus. Obviously people that leave their homes are at risk and nowhere near as safe as those who see the wisdom in remaining locked indoors.
Apple fans tend to want to blow any Android ill way out of proportion to reality. Android fans tend to do the same to all things Apple. Both are very secure overall, but have their flaws.
If you look at all they hyped up malware articles here, the general rule is they usually apply to a small subset of devices, and of those devices they actually apply to an even much smaller subset of people are affected, and of those affected an even smaller subset actually incur any harm.
When dealing with Android, an avid Apple fan such as EricTheHalfBee would be likely to argue that whether or not anyone actually incurs harm is irrelevant- it is clearly junk because the vulnerability is there. But would he apply the same standard to Apple? When there is a breach in iOS, the downside to the walled garden is everyone is the same and usually 100% of devices are affected. Consider the recent MITM attack vulnerability exposed on iOS devices. Way overblown by Android enthusiasts and poo-poo'd by Apple fans. But 100% of iOS users were at risk. By Eric's definition, regardless of whether actual harm can be shown, iOS is clearly 100% infected and completely unsafe! So which is worse, putting a spotlight on one case of software with malicious potential that in the end affected 50 users (but there are many such cases), or tens of millions of iOS users all being prone to MITM attacks?
Your answer is most likely to depend on which side of the Android or Apple side of the argument you choose to be on- if you've chosen a side. If avoiding Malware were difficult on either platform, people would stop using it.
Yeah, I think that for a significant number of people on both sides, the platform decision comes first, and remains, despite the relative malware risk. The plural of anecdote is not data, but as a Mac user I remember getting great gobs of infected emails from Windows users years ago (all entitled "I love you" awww- I had no idea that that contractor felt that way!) and although the worst security days of Windows have passed, our significantly sized company was still struggling with infections two years ago. On the Mac side, despite the absence of anti-viral software, I've never had a virus, nor has any Mac user I've known. Personal experience obviously, but I can tell you that no one- no one- in any IT I've ever worked with ever considered a different platform.
So it is with phones, I think - and again, probably on both sides. Nevertheless, I think the evidence that mobile malware _almost exclusively_ affects Android (perhaps through no fault of its own) is indisputable, and to deny that is being disingenuous to others (or oneself).
don't be such a psycho by going to Apple sites and squaring off against Apple product, Go to your lame little droid dork forums and gush all over each other about your android crap.