This article is completely wrong because (pick one): 1. DED wrote it 2. I don't like negative news about Google 3. I've been an Apple fan since 1964 but... 4. DED's Apple fanboyism annoys me 5. Everyone I know is too smart to download a virus 6. We don't know how many viruses are lurking in iOS
Google promotes the sale of devices that will never receive security patches, never receive new features that help protect user privacy. Google would like Android customers to believe they're getting something better than an iPhone, yet cheaper.
iOS 9.1 runs on the 4+ year old iPhone 4S. Outstanding job, Apple.
Maybe so, but the article is about the poor supposedly being unable to afford iPhones. If the poor were desperately concerned about security they could buy a used/refurbished iPhone 4, 4s or 5 for very reasonable prices and get most of Apple's best-in-class security features.
The iPhone 4 doesn't support the latest OS, how is that any better than an Android user?
You kind of missed the point. The guy was saying that a used iPhone is a good option if you are tight on cash. I'd buy an iPhone 4 over Android any day. It's gorgeous.
My 4 is still going strong to this day (I accidently got it on day 1 of release when I accidently made a detour to work to the phone shop) though now days it performs as a media player.
I'll never buy an Android phone period! Encryption would stifle their data collection.
Your argumentation is not correct. Data collection is not related to encryption. Google collects the data when you are using their services. And because on a Android phone the Google services are pushed to the user like iCloud services are pushed to user on an iPhone, most people with Android phones use Google services all the way. If you are using a Google service like Gmail on an iPhone, your data is also collected, it does not matter if your device is encrypted or not.
You kind of missed the point. The guy was saying that a used iPhone is a good option if you are tight on cash. I'd buy an iPhone 4 over Android any day. It's gorgeous.
That is just speculation about a situation that will never occur
I have an iPhone6 and I would never want to go back to an outdated iPhone4 (screen way too small, memory too low, outdated iOS with no more security updates, ...).
I have made the case for a while now that google is less secure due to how they decided to handle the marketing of there platform. Microsoft at least pushes out patches system wide for there OS when major holes are found.
Google now does push out monthly security updates to their own devices and sends the same security and bug fixes out to their partners 30 days earlier than that to give them a heads-up if they wish to use them (and they should). If Google built every phone themselves it would be handled much like Apple does, no carrier approval, interference, or delays. http://officialandroid.blogspot.com/2015/08/an-update-to-nexus-devices.html
Some OEM's had been pretty good about leaving Android fairly close to just the way it was sent to them from Google, allowing them to offer fairly quick fixes themselves (ie Sony, Motorola). Others like Sammy wish to lock users into their own system, ala Apple I presume, and heavily modify their handsets. They seem much more interested in selling new phones than supporting the ones they already sold.
More OEM's should plan as Blackberry has. They're promising to directly deliver security updates from Google on a monthly basis to Priv users, and as quickly as they get them. They'll also push bug fixes directly when it's a software issue. So yeah, it can be done. http://blogs.blackberry.com/2015/11/managing-android-security-patching-for-priv/
"...the poor and disadvantaged [B]forced to use[/B] Android."
What a ludicrous statement. No one is forced to use a goddamn phone! People voluntarily choose and pay for these phones and services. It's their choice.
If you think Apple doesn't collect data like Google you are mistaken. At least on Android I can control what has access to the internet with NetGuard or a similar app. This article is so full of ignorance and hate I could barely get to the end. Please educate yourself before spewing garbage.
I'm surprised that an MIT branded media outlet would stray into an area that's so far off their core competency. It's like dinging inexpensive automobile manufacturers for not including all of the fancy safety features that the high end auto makers provide. What's their mission, Technology or sociology?
Seeing that they say "Our mission is to equip our audiences with the intelligence to understand a world shaped by technology." It sounds like their mission is the social effects of technology.
Comments
1. DED wrote it
2. I don't like negative news about Google
3. I've been an Apple fan since 1964 but...
4. DED's Apple fanboyism annoys me
5. Everyone I know is too smart to download a virus
6. We don't know how many viruses are lurking in iOS
Why hasn't DED included a disclaimer that he is NOT invested in Google? Isn't that mandatory if he is writing an article bashing Google?
Google promotes the sale of devices that will never receive security patches, never receive new features that help protect user privacy. Google would like Android customers to believe they're getting something better than an iPhone, yet cheaper.
iOS 9.1 runs on the 4+ year old iPhone 4S. Outstanding job, Apple.
That is an absolutely moronic statement. To get yourself a good education.
Do we now know the meaning of your username?
The iPhone 4 doesn't support the latest OS, how is that any better than an Android user?
There is quite a bit of grain feed pork though
Which is expensive for a two year old phone
Buying used - a device with good privacy security is available to many...
But what are they going to do?
Install Facebook, WhatsApp, gmail, Chrome ...
Unfortunately the user is always the weakest link.
I'll never buy an Android phone period! Encryption would stifle their data collection.
Your argumentation is not correct. Data collection is not related to encryption. Google collects the data when you are using their services. And because on a Android phone the Google services are pushed to the user like iCloud services are pushed to user on an iPhone, most people with Android phones use Google services all the way. If you are using a Google service like Gmail on an iPhone, your data is also collected, it does not matter if your device is encrypted or not.
You kind of missed the point. The guy was saying that a used iPhone is a good option if you are tight on cash. I'd buy an iPhone 4 over Android any day. It's gorgeous.
That is just speculation about a situation that will never occur
I have an iPhone6 and I would never want to go back to an outdated iPhone4 (screen way too small, memory too low, outdated iOS with no more security updates, ...).
Google now does push out monthly security updates to their own devices and sends the same security and bug fixes out to their partners 30 days earlier than that to give them a heads-up if they wish to use them (and they should). If Google built every phone themselves it would be handled much like Apple does, no carrier approval, interference, or delays.
http://officialandroid.blogspot.com/2015/08/an-update-to-nexus-devices.html
Some OEM's had been pretty good about leaving Android fairly close to just the way it was sent to them from Google, allowing them to offer fairly quick fixes themselves (ie Sony, Motorola). Others like Sammy wish to lock users into their own system, ala Apple I presume, and heavily modify their handsets. They seem much more interested in selling new phones than supporting the ones they already sold.
More OEM's should plan as Blackberry has. They're promising to directly deliver security updates from Google on a monthly basis to Priv users, and as quickly as they get them. They'll also push bug fixes directly when it's a software issue. So yeah, it can be done.
http://blogs.blackberry.com/2015/11/managing-android-security-patching-for-priv/
What a ludicrous statement. No one is forced to use a goddamn phone! People voluntarily choose and pay for these phones and services. It's their choice.
And saying Apple doesn't collect their user's data just like Google does is bs. At least on Android I can control which information is sent to the cloud using NetGuard or a similar app. I am disgusted by the hate and ignorance on this site. And by the way all phones on Android 6.0 are required to be encrypted by default, http://www.androidpolice.com/2015/10/19/android-6-0-will-finally-require-manufacturers-to-enable-full-disk-encryption-by-default-on-new-devices/
Please educate yourselves before spewing such garbage. Thanks!
All devices on Android 6.0 are required to be encrypted by default: http://www.androidpolice.com/2015/10/19/android-6-0-will-finally-require-manufacturers-to-enable-full-disk-encryption-by-default-on-new-devices/
iOS is not as secure as you thin. One recent example: http://www.wired.com/2015/11/hackers-claim-million-dollar-bounty-for-ios-attack/
If you think Apple doesn't collect data like Google you are mistaken. At least on Android I can control what has access to the internet with NetGuard or a similar app. This article is so full of ignorance and hate I could barely get to the end. Please educate yourself before spewing garbage.
I'm surprised that an MIT branded media outlet would stray into an area that's so far off their core competency. It's like dinging inexpensive automobile manufacturers for not including all of the fancy safety features that the high end auto makers provide. What's their mission, Technology or sociology?
Seeing that they say "Our mission is to equip our audiences with the intelligence to understand a world shaped by technology." It sounds like their mission is the social effects of technology.
Sure, but that's used. If one is talking about a used phone that qualifier should be presented at that time.
There's a big difference between used and refurbished.
Rebuilt to Last: A DIY Expert Explains Why He ONLY Buys Refurbs