Ah, one color in one model in one product from a range of iOS products is comparable to the Android LOGO (i.e., the image that is emblematic of the entire ecosystem)?
Oh, you sad little folks with your utter lack of taste or expectations are really quite laughable.
Don't make so many assumptions about people you know nothing about. I hate Android. I'm just pointing out that Apple isn't always so tasteful when it comes to decisions about colour or design. But yes, a logo is more prevalent and pervasive than an ad.
If we go by the numbers, the vulnerability numbers that is, iOS has 415 vulnerabilities to Android%u2019s 334 since inception. So despite common beliefs, there have been more vulnerabilities discovered in iOS than Android to-date. Also, almost all mobile security professionals (the ones who actually know which is OS safer) they have to use Android. Apple is like a gated community, it is hard to get past the outer wall, but once you do there isn't enough of a fighting force. It takes quite a long time (relatively speaking of course) for Apple to fix vulnerabilities. Google on the other hand has a much stronger (even legendary) fighting force and usually has a fix out in a day or two.
Having said that, there is no denying that even once a fix is out there it is up to Samsung, HTC, LG, Sony, Vertu, Silent Circle, Motorola, etc to then send that fix to their respective phones. Samsung is the market leader and they are pretty terrible at speedy updates. So for all the amazing cybersecurity team that protects Android...they are completely disabled by every single manufacturer, carrier, in the world...end result...Apple wins.
your apology fails to explain why OS X has no viruses in the wild. while Windows has had a ton over the years.
Don't make so many assumptions about people you know nothing about. I hate Android. I'm just pointing out that Apple isn't always so tasteful when it comes to decisions about colour or design. But yes, a logo is more prevalent and pervasive than an ad.
I am (anyone is) quite justified in filling in the blanks by making any assumptions I (they) want when a post lacks any context, clarity, or intelligence.
Which "sources" are saying that Apple is on the brink of disaster? Surely only the most hardcore Android fan site would attempt that argument.
You keep making out that the media is biased against Apple but that just doesn't reflect the reality! Mainstream media coverage of Apple is typically very favourable.
not sure what planet you're from, but here on earth Apple is constantly aimed at by clickbaiters and MSM alike, always trying to shine a light on some new imagined disaster at Apple. WSJ and NYT are two good examples. Washington Post. etc...
Not sure why everyone keeps predicting this. Even in the U.S., Apple market share is growing.
Why does no one ever say this about Google? If they lost their search dominance, they would be done. Search ads subsidize all their other activities, including and especially Android.
not to mention that Apple also owns the majority of profit in the PC industry. so that's at least a two-trick pony. oops.
I am (anyone is) quite justified in filling in the blanks by making any assumptions I (they) want when a post lacks any context, clarity, or intelligence.
The problem with Relic's flawed logic is the fact that people can be social engineered in side loading whatever from an inbound email, sms, etc. So, its not like people are specifically looking for dangerous apps, they are foist onto them.
Even supposedly savvy people have been hit by social engineering. That's how most of inside company hacks occur.
To write an "article" on Android updates, especially in the context of security and not even mention Google Play Services shows either no understanding of the Android eco system or a deliberate intent to mislead!
The article is clearly labeled an "Editorial", but nice try new sockpuppet Android guy with one post who just joined AI.
Which "sources" are saying that Apple is on the brink of disaster? Surely only the most hardcore Android fan site would attempt that argument.
You keep making out that the media is biased against Apple but that just doesn't reflect the reality! Mainstream media coverage of Apple is typically very favourable.
Huh? It is not. Why? Because good or even neutral news don't sell in the mass media.
So, it is mostly not reported or underplayed.
So, everything is slanted negatively with clickbait titles.
How do you know its a clickbait title, when the title is more negative than the article itself or negative when the article is neutral to positive.
Clickbait titles on neutral/positive occur most often on wire news or major media news.
More Inflammatory rewriting of articles, with more contentious click bait titles (based on wire news are collation of sketchy rumors) occur in blogs and web only based news sites.
This doesn't only occur with Apple, but also for high profile people, events, topic companies that can ellicit an emotional response.
Basically, journalism ethics have gone out the window and now early 20th century yellow journalism rules.
The only fully positive reporting is when Apple seemingly does a purposeful PR push. Like in fashion press before watch launch.
You also sometimes see some positive press in specialized tech press, were their reputation depends on their professionalism.
To give credit where credit is due, Microsoft has been supplying security patches for older versions of Windows - stretching much further back than Apple does for OS X versions. People with older hardware (maybe can't afford a new Mac) can't get security patches and are left exposed. I can agree with Apple not adding features to old versions, but it should do more with regard to security updates.
The ideal is free updates for 10 years which Apple is pushing, there not quite there yet, but close.
I didn't know we were talking about OS X, but OS X is no safer than a Windows machine. In fact whenever there were Mac viruses they tended to infect a lot larger proportion of Macs. The only real reason there are so few viruses/malware on Macs is very very simple...it is not economical. Windows commands nearly 90% of the world's desktops, so attacking Macs would only make sense if you are targeting specific people or just hate Macs for some odd reason. There is too little to be gained versus the effort, so it will continue to be rare until that changes. Having said that in the last two years, the 'detected' infection percentage of Macs has been higher than Windows primarily because Windows has more experience fighting off threats and their user base is conditioned to be prepared for it.
To give credit where credit is due, Microsoft has been supplying security patches for older versions of Windows - stretching much further back than Apple does for OS X versions. People with older hardware (maybe can't afford a new Mac) can't get security patches and are left exposed. I can agree with Apple not adding features to old versions, but it should do more with regard to security updates.
The ideal is free updates for 10 years which Apple is pushing, there not quite there yet, but close.
Well, it's nowhere near that now. Mountain Lion 10.8 no longer gets security updates and that's only three years old (last version release 10.8.5 was about two years ago).
Well, it's nowhere near that now. Mountain Lion 10.8 no longer gets security updates and that's only three years old (last version release 10.8.5 was about two years ago).
Mountain Lion just got a security update on June 30th.
The upload date is Nov, 2007 Dookie. Oh, and at least it didn't crash as hard as the iPhone. If memory serves Steve had to follow the good path during the demo because the OS was crashing left and right. And it still hasn't changed after all this time. It's 2015 and iOS is still a crash laden OS.
As I said, almost a YEAR after the iPhone was shown. Understanding the calendar is not your strong suit. And no, the iPhone was remarkably solid during demos during and after the January announcement and it was NOT reported to be "crashing hard" as you just made up.
Comments
your apology fails to explain why OS X has no viruses in the wild. while Windows has had a ton over the years.
I am (anyone is) quite justified in filling in the blanks by making any assumptions I (they) want when a post lacks any context, clarity, or intelligence.
not sure what planet you're from, but here on earth Apple is constantly aimed at by clickbaiters and MSM alike, always trying to shine a light on some new imagined disaster at Apple. WSJ and NYT are two good examples. Washington Post. etc...
not to mention that Apple also owns the majority of profit in the PC industry. so that's at least a two-trick pony. oops.
Yup, you got it. Exactly as in the original post.
Why are you wasting time fighting me over this inconsequential matter? Go fight a Fandroid...
Hey, I am not the one started it. If you post something, provide context, or stand behind it, or retract it. Heck, even try and make it consequential.
Also, it's a public forum, so expect people to react to it.
Or maybe they will.
http://www.scmagazineuk.com/game-malware-has-up-to-1-million-downloads-on-google-play/article/425751/
The problem with Relic's flawed logic is the fact that people can be social engineered in side loading whatever from an inbound email, sms, etc. So, its not like people are specifically looking for dangerous apps, they are foist onto them.
Even supposedly savvy people have been hit by social engineering. That's how most of inside company hacks occur.
To write an "article" on Android updates, especially in the context of security and not even mention Google Play Services shows either no understanding of the Android eco system or a deliberate intent to mislead!
The article is clearly labeled an "Editorial", but nice try new sockpuppet Android guy with one post who just joined AI.
Which "sources" are saying that Apple is on the brink of disaster? Surely only the most hardcore Android fan site would attempt that argument.
You keep making out that the media is biased against Apple but that just doesn't reflect the reality! Mainstream media coverage of Apple is typically very favourable.
Huh? It is not. Why? Because good or even neutral news don't sell in the mass media.
So, it is mostly not reported or underplayed.
So, everything is slanted negatively with clickbait titles.
How do you know its a clickbait title, when the title is more negative than the article itself or negative when the article is neutral to positive.
Clickbait titles on neutral/positive occur most often on wire news or major media news.
More Inflammatory rewriting of articles, with more contentious click bait titles (based on wire news are collation of sketchy rumors) occur in blogs and web only based news sites.
This doesn't only occur with Apple, but also for high profile people, events, topic companies that can ellicit an emotional response.
Basically, journalism ethics have gone out the window and now early 20th century yellow journalism rules.
The only fully positive reporting is when Apple seemingly does a purposeful PR push. Like in fashion press before watch launch.
You also sometimes see some positive press in specialized tech press, were their reputation depends on their professionalism.
Actually, Google had 2 prototypes. Here's the second that Apple fanboys conveniently "forget"
Actually, Google copies any and all good ideas.
But only if it they think it will sell ads.
97% of Google's revenue comes from ads.
My apologies. I guess if its just an ill informed opinion piece, that is much better!
An yes, I joined to comment on the tripe that was written. Guilty as charged!
I didn't know we were talking about OS X, but OS X is no safer than a Windows machine. In fact whenever there were Mac viruses they tended to infect a lot larger proportion of Macs. The only real reason there are so few viruses/malware on Macs is very very simple...it is not economical. Windows commands nearly 90% of the world's desktops, so attacking Macs would only make sense if you are targeting specific people or just hate Macs for some odd reason. There is too little to be gained versus the effort, so it will continue to be rare until that changes. Having said that in the last two years, the 'detected' infection percentage of Macs has been higher than Windows primarily because Windows has more experience fighting off threats and their user base is conditioned to be prepared for it.
To give credit where credit is due, Microsoft has been supplying security patches for older versions of Windows - stretching much further back than Apple does for OS X versions. People with older hardware (maybe can't afford a new Mac) can't get security patches and are left exposed. I can agree with Apple not adding features to old versions, but it should do more with regard to security updates.
The ideal is free updates for 10 years which Apple is pushing, there not quite there yet, but close.
Well, it's nowhere near that now. Mountain Lion 10.8 no longer gets security updates and that's only three years old (last version release 10.8.5 was about two years ago).
Mountain Lion just got a security update on June 30th.
https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1826?locale=de_DE
As I said, almost a YEAR after the iPhone was shown. Understanding the calendar is not your strong suit. And no, the iPhone was remarkably solid during demos during and after the January announcement and it was NOT reported to be "crashing hard" as you just made up.