as Gatorguy pointed out the .12% infection rate represents only the hit rate from 1200 known apps from external to the Google Play store. What we don't know is how many infected apps have been found in the Google Play store at any point in time. Something I think which is not in Google interest to reveal. Of course there is this whole realm of unidentified apps existance in App stores (any app store for that matter Android, iOS, Windows, Mac); no idea how we would determine this. We can only speculate and I don't see how this article will help that debate.
In short, I really don't know what to do with that 0.001% number or why anyone would even attempt to dispute it as does not have much usefulness. If I understand it correctly, It represents a number which is a subset, of a subset of a subset and is composed of the following:
% of the total Android downloads, which can only found outside of the Google Play store from a set of 1200 known "bad" apps that have been identified by Google, for which users refuse to delete after being warned by Google. This yields our 0.001% figure.
Arguing an average or an estimate is wrong using a number that, itself, is inexact and comes from a different data set when there are no exact numbers known from an independent source?
perhaps... I think more importantly, I don't think this number tells us anything that has much value. At least not that I can figure out why it would be useful. I would think most consumers buying Android or iOS phones don't jailbreak or use third party stores other than OEM.
I guess it's nice of Google to scan third party stores downloads and tell users who hack their phones when Google thinks they have downloaded a sneaky app that is on Google's known blacklist. Better than not at all I guess for people that jailbreak; but for people who run their phone stock I am not sure I see any benefit unless Google starts blacklisting apps from their own store; something which was not discussed in this article nor applies to the 0.001 figure.
Telling some what they did or did not do (e.g., "You really should read the article I linked.") and the instructing them on what to do is insulting.
I have to admit, I did not read the link at first and as a result Gatorguy rightly so told me to stop asking him annoying questions and just RTF Article. It stung a little, but he was right. Reading it answered most of my questions and cleared things up.
Note that F-Secure does not claim numbers of harmed users or even that any of the supposed malware apps they "discovered" on Google Play actually caused any harm to users at all. Some may have. Or maybe they didn't. Again targeting is not the same as hitting the bullseye. You've made the additional and almost certainly erroneous assumption that the number of downloads for a highly-regarded, popular and established app and a sketchy new unrated one would be roughly equivalent in arriving at your 25 million count. Darn doubtful. By the way do you know the types of behavior F-Secure considers malware? You should look for their definition.
Google Android is not the malware-infested platform you and a few others would like to believe it is (for whatever reason). There are no hard numbers to support what you apparently are convinced of, that every Google Android user is under attack, their phones and tablets infested with lots of malicious apps and on a regular basis. It's a myth with no basis in reality. Sure there's malware. It exists for iOS, MAC and Windows too. It's not a runaway problem for Google Android despite dire warnings filled with doom and gloom from anti-virus companies.
IMO I don't think the level of malware infecting and harming users from Google Play is significantly higher than from Apple's App Store.
Yet people are willing to pay four bucks for an app that changes a check mark, making it one of the top downloads.
If malware isn't the issue perhaps it's Android's poor performance which leads people to think they must have malware.
Yet people are willing to pay four bucks for an app that changes a check mark, making it one of the top downloads.
If malware isn't the issue perhaps it's Android's poor performance which leads people to think they must have malware.
That's a good point. If viruses are such a non-issue then why would enough Android users be willing to pay $4 for an antivirus app to get into the best selling paid apps, much less one from an untested app from an unknown vendor?
That's a good point. If viruses are such a non-issue then why would enough Android users be willing to pay $4 for an antivirus app to get into the best selling paid apps, much less one from an untested app from an unknown vendor?
That's a good point. If viruses are such a non-issue then why would enough Android users be willing to pay $4 for an antivirus app to get into the best selling paid apps, much less one from an untested app from an unknown vendor?
This assumes that if viruses were a non-issue people would actually know that viruses are a non-issue. I think you overestimate how technically informed users are. If users were well-informed, they would stop wasting money on third-party antivirus software for Windows, and companies like McAfee would go under in no time. Windows viruses have been a non-issue since at least 7, and the rare malware that manages to leak through can be handled by Microsoft's free and resource-efficient Security Essentials software, which has actually been integrated into Windows 8. As another example, people continue to download third-party task managers despite them usually being counterproductive (http://www.howtogeek.com/127388/htg-explains-why-you-shouldnt-use-a-task-killer-on-android/).
Yet people are willing to pay four bucks for an app that changes a check mark, making it one of the top downloads.
If malware isn't the issue perhaps it's Android's poor performance which leads people to think they must have malware.
It's really no different from people who buy guns for 'protection'. Most have never been attacked, and odds are that they'll never be, but that doesn't stop them from spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars for the illusion that they're protected. If there's a perceived threat people will safeguard themselves from it regardless of how slim the odds. A perfect example is a anti virus app for iOS that I'm sure people have installed.
It's really no different from people who buy guns for 'protection'. Most have never been attacked, and odds are that they'll never be, but that doesn't stop them from spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars for the illusion that they're protected. If there's a perceived threat people will safeguard themselves from it regardless of how slim the odds. A perfect example is a anti virus app for iOS that I'm sure people have installed.
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." — Arthur Schopenhauer"
I like that!
I've had my own, sloppily worded variation of that. "A brilliant mind can understand a concept that others can't understand, but a genius can explain that concept to others so that instantly understood." I think I'll start using Schopenhauer's quote from now on.
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." — Arthur Schopenhauer"
I like that!
I've had my own, sloppily worded variation of that. "A brilliant mind can understand a concept that others can't understand, but a genius can explain that concept to others so that instantly understood." I think I'll start using Schopenhauer's quote from now on.
I like yours as well! This Arthur Schopenhauer fella has a lot of them, many are lame though:
Comments
Arguing that
macaholic_1948,
as Gatorguy pointed out the .12% infection rate represents only the hit rate from 1200 known apps from external to the Google Play store. What we don't know is how many infected apps have been found in the Google Play store at any point in time. Something I think which is not in Google interest to reveal. Of course there is this whole realm of unidentified apps existance in App stores (any app store for that matter Android, iOS, Windows, Mac); no idea how we would determine this. We can only speculate and I don't see how this article will help that debate.
In short, I really don't know what to do with that 0.001% number or why anyone would even attempt to dispute it as does not have much usefulness. If I understand it correctly, It represents a number which is a subset, of a subset of a subset and is composed of the following:
Arguing an average or an estimate is wrong using a number that, itself, is inexact and comes from a different data set when there are no exact numbers known from an independent source?
perhaps... I think more importantly, I don't think this number tells us anything that has much value. At least not that I can figure out why it would be useful. I would think most consumers buying Android or iOS phones don't jailbreak or use third party stores other than OEM.
I guess it's nice of Google to scan third party stores downloads and tell users who hack their phones when Google thinks they have downloaded a sneaky app that is on Google's known blacklist. Better than not at all I guess for people that jailbreak; but for people who run their phone stock I am not sure I see any benefit unless Google starts blacklisting apps from their own store; something which was not discussed in this article nor applies to the 0.001 figure.
Telling some what they did or did not do (e.g., "You really should read the article I linked.") and the instructing them on what to do is insulting.
I have to admit, I did not read the link at first and as a result Gatorguy rightly so told me to stop asking him annoying questions and just RTF Article. It stung a little, but he was right. Reading it answered most of my questions and cleared things up.
Gatorguy,
my apologies to you.
Yet people are willing to pay four bucks for an app that changes a check mark, making it one of the top downloads.
If malware isn't the issue perhaps it's Android's poor performance which leads people to think they must have malware.
That's a good point. If viruses are such a non-issue then why would enough Android users be willing to pay $4 for an antivirus app to get into the best selling paid apps, much less one from an untested app from an unknown vendor?
This is just fucking Gold:
http://www.neowin.net/news/the-1-paid-app-in-the-google-playstore-virus-shield-is-a-complete-scam
Wow. I mean, wow.
The fact that the maker was called 'Deviant Solutions' didn't set off any alarm bells either!
Why are vitamins so popular?
But the the name was already taken.
The is the epitome of truth in advertising. Gotta love it
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chris_economou.themostuselessappever
That's a good point. If viruses are such a non-issue then why would enough Android users be willing to pay $4 for an antivirus app to get into the best selling paid apps, much less one from an untested app from an unknown vendor?
This assumes that if viruses were a non-issue people would actually know that viruses are a non-issue. I think you overestimate how technically informed users are. If users were well-informed, they would stop wasting money on third-party antivirus software for Windows, and companies like McAfee would go under in no time. Windows viruses have been a non-issue since at least 7, and the rare malware that manages to leak through can be handled by Microsoft's free and resource-efficient Security Essentials software, which has actually been integrated into Windows 8. As another example, people continue to download third-party task managers despite them usually being counterproductive (http://www.howtogeek.com/127388/htg-explains-why-you-shouldnt-use-a-task-killer-on-android/).
It's really no different from people who buy guns for 'protection'. Most have never been attacked, and odds are that they'll never be, but that doesn't stop them from spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars for the illusion that they're protected. If there's a perceived threat people will safeguard themselves from it regardless of how slim the odds. A perfect example is a anti virus app for iOS that I'm sure people have installed.
http://www.intego.com/mac-virus-barrier-ios
It's really no different from people who buy guns for 'protection'. Most have never been attacked, and odds are that they'll never be, but that doesn't stop them from spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars for the illusion that they're protected. If there's a perceived threat people will safeguard themselves from it regardless of how slim the odds. A perfect example is a anti virus app for iOS that I'm sure people have installed.
http://www.intego.com/mac-virus-barrier-ios
muscle cars used as commuter cars in the city
8+MP cameras from tiny sensors in smartphones
3/4 ton 4x4 Luxury Pickup trucks w/ leather interiors but w/ unprotected cargo beds (unscratched) riding on low profile tires
same kind of customers?
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." — Arthur Schopenhauer"
I like that!
I've had my own, sloppily worded variation of that. "A brilliant mind can understand a concept that others can't understand, but a genius can explain that concept to others so that instantly understood." I think I'll start using Schopenhauer's quote from now on.
I like yours as well! This Arthur Schopenhauer fella has a lot of them, many are lame though:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/arthur_schopenhauer.html
But on that page there are a couple that can be used on this site:
"The wise have always said the same things, and fools, who are the majority have always done just the opposite."