waits for mainstream media to run anti-samsung/android security scare stories... oh, nothing? if this were apple, they'd be "doomed".
No need to wait. Already out everywhere including here.
Hmmm....went to CNET and no mention of it when searching on Tizen (at least not the top 10 articles under that search, many of which are from years ago). Nothing on CNN or CNBC. That would be somewhat "mainstream".
The stories are shown as being on the tech sites (Verge, Ars, ...) when you do a Google search, but if you go to the website you won't find it on any "first 5 pages". Unless you specifically search for the story, it won't be found.
Not a good day. If you're Samsung or Google, that is.
Another exploit discovered is the one Apple literally just patched in 10.3.1 whereby the Broadcom WiFi chip could be hacked without any intervention by the user.
Of course Google will patch it quickly. Just don't expect it to arrive on your device any time soon.
You neglected to thank Google for discovering it and letting Apple know.
Thank you google for stealing Apple's technology and stealing Billions of dollars from Apple and discovering this one tiny flaw. Certainly makes up for being a scumbag all these years.
No it doesn't. You'll never be part of Apple again, sorry.
Apple's current Chairman of the Board doesn't seem to have a trust issue with Google. Why would you? I suspect he knows far more about what's gone on than any of us.
*Sigh* And the Stagefright FUD rolls on. So much for honesty. Quoting the ACLU as your source of security news is a nice touch too.
Only at AI does every discussion of any OS (this one was supposedly Tizen) somehow morph into "yeah but... but... ANDROID!". There's nearly as much discussion about them as iOS here on some days. Weird. Well maybe not when certain editors seem to have a fixation with them. Must be slow on the Apple news front at the moment.
Then why the heck are you on his blog? You already stated you don't use Apple products. Why not read stuff on a site for pro Google folks and spare us?
The usual reason: insecurity.
Some people make a choice and can't be happy until everyone agrees with them.
*Sigh* And the Stagefright FUD rolls on. So much for honesty. Quoting the ACLU as your source of security news is a nice touch too.
Only at AI does every discussion of any OS (this one was supposedly Tizen) somehow morph into "yeah but... but... ANDROID!". There's nearly as much discussion about them as iOS here on some days. Weird. Well maybe not when certain editors seem to have a fixation with them. Must be slow on the Apple news front at the moment.
Then why the heck are you on his blog? You already stated you don't use Apple products. Why not read stuff on a site for pro Google folks and spare us?
The usual reason: insecurity.
Some people make a choice and can't be happy until everyone agrees with them.
Yup. That's absolutely one valid reason. Not mine, but unquestionably the reason for some folks to do what they do or say what they say.
Not a good day. If you're Samsung or Google, that is.
Another exploit discovered is the one Apple literally just patched in 10.3.1 whereby the Broadcom WiFi chip could be hacked without any intervention by the user.
Of course Google will patch it quickly. Just don't expect it to arrive on your device any time soon.
You neglected to thank Google for discovering it and letting Apple know.
You neglected to thank Apple for providing the muse for which Android devices were completely ripped off from. (I'll spare you from posting The Photo yet again).
And how about Apple thanking everyone that came before? Sometimes knowing what not to do is as important as knowing what to do.
waits for mainstream media to run anti-samsung/android security scare stories... oh, nothing? if this were apple, they'd be "doomed".
No need to wait. Already out everywhere including here.
Hmmm....went to CNET and no mention of it when searching on Tizen (at least not the top 10 articles under that search, many of which are from years ago). Nothing on CNN or CNBC. That would be somewhat "mainstream".
The stories are shown as being on the tech sites (Verge, Ars, ...) when you do a Google search, but if you go to the website you won't find it on any "first 5 pages". Unless you specifically search for the story, it won't be found.
Good try though!
Probably because it's a relatively old story by blogosphere standards. I read it a couple days ago at least when it first made the news.
So why not in the mainstream press you might ask? Why would they waste much resources on it? Who the heck on mainstreet ever heard of Tizen, and why would they want to read about it? It's just not news or even worthy of click-fodder for most publications. Had it been Apple or Google's OS, sure it would have been all over. At least for 48 hours anywy. Folks have a short attention span. As for this one it's just another day and another OMG! Security story.
The real problem is that creating an OS from scratch is really difficult. iOS was based on OS X. A subset if you will. Given that reality it was assumed at the time that the only competitors would be Windows eventually.
What google did with android was fairly impressive, then, considering. Of course it was total shite for years.
Not a good day. If you're Samsung or Google, that is.
Another exploit discovered is the one Apple literally just patched in 10.3.1 whereby the Broadcom WiFi chip could be hacked without any intervention by the user.
Of course Google will patch it quickly. Just don't expect it to arrive on your device any time soon.
That's always the rub with Android. Many things are patched, but getting the patch in a timely manner (or at all) is a constant issue. Apple did right by starting off by detaching the iPhone and its OS from the carrier, but even if Google had done that there would still be vendor issues for Android users to contend with.
I wonder how how long that issue has been exploitable in the wild and if we'll find out years from now it was used extensively by various gov't agencies.
If you're going to go with a Android phone, there's really only one choice, a over priced Google Pixel phone. That gets updated. How long? Will Google go with it's recommended 18 months support or longer? It's to early to tell.
Not a good day. If you're Samsung or Google, that is.
Another exploit discovered is the one Apple literally just patched in 10.3.1 whereby the Broadcom WiFi chip could be hacked without any intervention by the user.
Of course Google will patch it quickly. Just don't expect it to arrive on your device any time soon.
That's always the rub with Android. Many things are patched, but getting the patch in a timely manner (or at all) is a constant issue. Apple did right by starting off by detaching the iPhone and its OS from the carrier, but even if Google had done that there would still be vendor issues for Android users to contend with.
I wonder how how long that issue has been exploitable in the wild and if we'll find out years from now it was used extensively by various gov't agencies.
If you're going to go with a Android phone, there's really only one choice, a over priced Google Pixel phone. That gets updated. How long? Will Google go with it's recommended 18 months support or longer? It's to early to tell.
Close. OS updates are guaranteed for minimum two years from first sale. Security updates are handled separately and are delivered monthly far after the OS updates stop, for at least three years. The two things are not interconnected, allowing Google to continue supporting security features even if the OS version lags behind. In addition many of the original phone's features are now updated separately via Google Play, not reliant on a user getting the latest OS to get that new product feature he/she wants.
What technology did Apple invent that didn't already exist? A smartphone OS? Several existed before Apple. Touchscreen smartphone? Existed already as well. All Apple did was implement them much better than any company had done previously.
Apple may not have invented all of the technology they use, but they always pay the licensing or acquire the companies they need to. Unlike what Google did to Sun by finding a loophole in the Java licensing instead of ponying up like everyone else did.
Even in the famous case that Fandroids love to bring up with the Xerox GUI, they at least gave Xerox shares in Apple which were worth millions a few years later (edit: the opportunity to acquire pre-IPO shares, which they did). Unlike Google/Alphabet who just keep dragging the Java case through the courts instead of doing the right thing.
So was Google successful for what they did or from the missteps of the existing smartphone manufacturers of the time?
One can argue that if Palm and Blackberry had pivoted to Apple's paradigm shift instead of laughing at it Android would not have stood a chance. Google didn't laugh, instead they got busy going along with the shift and changed their BB like smartphone OS to a touchscreen iPhone like OS. It was the smart move to make.
Not a good day. If you're Samsung or Google, that is.
Another exploit discovered is the one Apple literally just patched in 10.3.1 whereby the Broadcom WiFi chip could be hacked without any intervention by the user.
Of course Google will patch it quickly. Just don't expect it to arrive on your device any time soon.
You neglected to thank Google for discovering it and letting Apple know.
Thank you google for stealing Apple's technology and stealing Billions of dollars from Apple and discovering this one tiny flaw. Certainly makes up for being a scumbag all these years.
No it doesn't. You'll never be part of Apple again, sorry.
What technology did Apple invent that didn't already exist? A smartphone OS? Several existed before Apple. Touchscreen smartphone? Existed already as well. All Apple did was implement them much better than any company had done previously.
That's as stupid as saying "What technology did Tesla invent? Cars already existed!"
Tesla is making a very different car, just like Apple made a very different smartphone.
What google did with android was fairly impressive, then, considering.
Not really. It's based on Linux, which had been in development since the early 1990s. As well, people had been using embedded Linux systems in devices for years before Android came around (μClinux, for example). They also used Apache Harmony, Dalvik, and Eclipse for their app development environment (where most of my issues with Google lie). Where they did the most work was around the touch-based UI, so I'll give them credit for that. But it was hardly a from-scratch OS creation effort.
What technology did Apple invent that didn't already exist? A smartphone OS? Several existed before Apple. Touchscreen smartphone? Existed already as well. All Apple did was implement them much better than any company had done previously.
Apple may not have invented all of the technology they use, but they always pay the licensing or acquire the companies they need to. Unlike what Google did to Sun by finding a loophole in the Java licensing instead of ponying up like everyone else did.
Even in the famous case that Fandroids love to bring up with the Xerox GUI, they at least gave Xerox shares in Apple which were worth millions a few years later (edit: the opportunity to acquire pre-IPO shares, which they did). Unlike Google/Alphabet who just keep dragging the Java case through the courts instead of doing the right thing.
So was Google successful for what they did or from the missteps of the existing smartphone manufacturers of the time?
Much their success came from getting a mature, well-known, easy-to-use application development environment without having to pay for R&D (as Apple/NeXT did with Objective-C) or paying for licensing (as competitors did with Java). They got the benefit of all the resources Sun had put into Java without paying anything for it, which is bad for the industry. It shows that it's not worthwhile to try and develop and license technology when others can just reimplement and ship it in commercial products, and not be punished for that.
For the people who don't understand the technical details, the takeaway here is that all the great 3rd party applications on Android came at the expense of another company (Sun Microsystems). This gave Android a huge advantage in the marketplace compared to, for example, Blackberry.
You see Tizen is a mess, makes you wonder about their TouchWiz interface and other software on their Android phones? You really think it's any better? Not likely!
Not a good day. If you're Samsung or Google, that is.
Another exploit discovered is the one Apple literally just patched in 10.3.1 whereby the Broadcom WiFi chip could be hacked without any intervention by the user.
Of course Google will patch it quickly. Just don't expect it to arrive on your device any time soon.
You neglected to thank Google for discovering it and letting Apple know.
Thank you google for stealing Apple's technology and stealing Billions of dollars from Apple and discovering this one tiny flaw. Certainly makes up for being a scumbag all these years.
No it doesn't. You'll never be part of Apple again, sorry.
What technology did Apple invent that didn't already exist? A smartphone OS? Several existed before Apple. Touchscreen smartphone? Existed already as well. All Apple did was implement them much better than any company had done previously.
That's as stupid as saying "What technology did Tesla invent? Cars already existed!"
Tesla is making a very different car, just like Apple made a very different smartphone.
So what Tesla did existed already as well and"all Tesla did was implement them much better than any company had done previously. Nothing new from this 'very different car" just like there was nothing new from Apple's "very different smartphone" which you previously argued wasn't different at all?
What technology did Apple invent that didn't already exist? A smartphone OS? Several existed before Apple. Touchscreen smartphone? Existed already as well. All Apple did was implement them much better than any company had done previously.
Apple may not have invented all of the technology they use, but they always pay the licensing or acquire the companies they need to. Unlike what Google did to Sun by finding a loophole in the Java licensing instead of ponying up like everyone else did.
Even in the famous case that Fandroids love to bring up with the Xerox GUI, they at least gave Xerox shares in Apple which were worth millions a few years later (edit: the opportunity to acquire pre-IPO shares, which they did). Unlike Google/Alphabet who just keep dragging the Java case through the courts instead of doing the right thing.
So was Google successful for what they did or from the missteps of the existing smartphone manufacturers of the time?
Much their success came from getting a mature, well-known, easy-to-use application development environment without having to pay for R&D (as Apple/NeXT did with Objective-C) or paying for licensing (as competitors did with Java). They got the benefit of all the resources Sun had put into Java without paying anything for it, which is bad for the industry. It shows that it's not worthwhile to try and develop and license technology when others can just reimplement and ship it in commercial products, and not be punished for that.
For the people who don't understand the technical details, the takeaway here is that all the great 3rd party applications on Android came at the expense of another company (Sun Microsystems). This gave Android a huge advantage in the marketplace compared to, for example, Blackberry.
Had Oracle not bought Sun after Android had become successful simply to sue Google (as the rumor goes) there would be no issue now IMO.
EDIT: This a a really good article and follow-up discussion that predates even the first Android handset. Never had come across this one before dating back to 2007. http://archive.oreilly.com/pub/post/dalvik_googles_tweaked_nonstan.html No place does it claim something was "stolen". Various arguments both for and against Google creating a non-compatible off-shoot, but no one in the development community saying they didn't have a right to. "Stolen Java" was a creation of Oracle's.
No it doesn't. You'll never be part of Apple again, sorry.
What technology did Apple invent that didn't already exist? A smartphone OS? Several existed before Apple. Touchscreen smartphone? Existed already as well. All Apple did was implement them much better than any company had done previously.
What technology did Apple invent that didn't already exist? A smartphone OS? Several existed before Apple. Touchscreen smartphone? Existed already as well. All Apple did was implement them much better than any company had done previously.
Apple may not have invented all of the technology they use, but they always pay the licensing or acquire the companies they need to. Unlike what Google did to Sun by finding a loophole in the Java licensing instead of ponying up like everyone else did.
Even in the famous case that Fandroids love to bring up with the Xerox GUI, they at least gave Xerox shares in Apple which were worth millions a few years later (edit: the opportunity to acquire pre-IPO shares, which they did). Unlike Google/Alphabet who just keep dragging the Java case through the courts instead of doing the right thing.
So was Google successful for what they did or from the missteps of the existing smartphone manufacturers of the time?
Much their success came from getting a mature, well-known, easy-to-use application development environment without having to pay for R&D (as Apple/NeXT did with Objective-C) or paying for licensing (as competitors did with Java). They got the benefit of all the resources Sun had put into Java without paying anything for it, which is bad for the industry. It shows that it's not worthwhile to try and develop and license technology when others can just reimplement and ship it in commercial products, and not be punished for that.
For the people who don't understand the technical details, the takeaway here is that all the great 3rd party applications on Android came at the expense of another company (Sun Microsystems). This gave Android a huge advantage in the marketplace compared to, for example, Blackberry.
That only benefits developers. Users can give a flying fuck if it's easier to develop for one OS versus another. At that time most smartphone users were on Blackberry, Windows, or Palm, and had either one of those come out with a decent touchscreen smartphone the users would have stayed with them.
No software engineers worth anything would even remotely consider ever working for Samsung. That sham of a company can only hire coders that basically have no real path to greatness. Those that do show hope would take the next job at a more glamorous "hip" company. Even I knew Tizen was a wretched mess from the get go.
Have reviewers did the same for Samsung's KNOX code? I do know that KNOX failed to be as secure as Samsung's marketing machined claimed, but I wonder if the coding in that system was of the playschool-variety as Tizen.
Samsung just keeps digging its own hole so much deeper.
Perhaps you should learn about meaning of opportunity rather than throwing blanket statements like this. What purpose does it serve?
Not a good day. If you're Samsung or Google, that is.
Another exploit discovered is the one Apple literally just patched in 10.3.1 whereby the Broadcom WiFi chip could be hacked without any intervention by the user.
Of course Google will patch it quickly. Just don't expect it to arrive on your device any time soon.
You neglected to thank Google for discovering it and letting Apple know.
Thank you google for stealing Apple's technology and stealing Billions of dollars from Apple and discovering this one tiny flaw. Certainly makes up for being a scumbag all these years.
No it doesn't. You'll never be part of Apple again, sorry.
What technology did Apple invent that didn't already exist? A smartphone OS? Several existed before Apple. Touchscreen smartphone? Existed already as well. All Apple did was implement them much better than any company had done previously.
That's as stupid as saying "What technology did Tesla invent? Cars already existed!"
Tesla is making a very different car, just like Apple made a very different smartphone.
So what Tesla did existed already as well and"all Tesla did was implement them much better than any company had done previously. Nothing new from this 'very different car" just like there was nothing new from Apple's "very different smartphone" which you previously argued wasn't different at all?
It's still a car that runs on batteries. The underlying technologies have changed quite a bit since the last mass produced electric car but the overall function is the same. How Tesla gets their car to go forward might be different, but getting an electric car to move forward was done before, so they didn't invent a new idea, they just invented a new process of an old idea.
Comments
The stories are shown as being on the tech sites (Verge, Ars, ...) when you do a Google search, but if you go to the website you won't find it on any "first 5 pages". Unless you specifically search for the story, it won't be found.
Good try though!
Some people make a choice and can't be happy until everyone agrees with them.
So why not in the mainstream press you might ask? Why would they waste much resources on it? Who the heck on mainstreet ever heard of Tizen, and why would they want to read about it? It's just not news or even worthy of click-fodder for most publications. Had it been Apple or Google's OS, sure it would have been all over. At least for 48 hours anywy. Folks have a short attention span. As for this one it's just another day and another OMG! Security story.
No one cares about Tizen other than Samsung.
What google did with android was fairly impressive, then, considering. Of course it was total shite for years.
OS updates are guaranteed for minimum two years from first sale. Security updates are handled separately and are delivered monthly far after the OS updates stop, for at least three years. The two things are not interconnected, allowing Google to continue supporting security features even if the OS version lags behind. In addition many of the original phone's features are now updated separately via Google Play, not reliant on a user getting the latest OS to get that new product feature he/she wants.
One can argue that if Palm and Blackberry had pivoted to Apple's paradigm shift instead of laughing at it Android would not have stood a chance. Google didn't laugh, instead they got busy going along with the shift and changed their BB like smartphone OS to a touchscreen iPhone like OS. It was the smart move to make.
For the people who don't understand the technical details, the takeaway here is that all the great 3rd party applications on Android came at the expense of another company (Sun Microsystems). This gave Android a huge advantage in the marketplace compared to, for example, Blackberry.
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2236229/opensource-subnet/java-creator-says-google-s-use-of-java-is--odd-.html
And another explaining why Sun didn't demand a license from Google in the first place.
https://www.cnet.com/news/former-sun-ceo-says-googles-android-didnt-need-license-for-java-apis/
Had Oracle not bought Sun after Android had become successful simply to sue Google (as the rumor goes) there would be no issue now IMO.
EDIT: This a a really good article and follow-up discussion that predates even the first Android handset. Never had come across this one before dating back to 2007.
http://archive.oreilly.com/pub/post/dalvik_googles_tweaked_nonstan.html
No place does it claim something was "stolen". Various arguments both for and against Google creating a non-compatible off-shoot, but no one in the development community saying they didn't have a right to. "Stolen Java" was a creation of Oracle's.