I personally don’t like this sort of thing from Apple. Talking trash about your competitor means you’re worried about them. Phil, shut your pie hole and let us the faithful take care of the hatchet jobs.
What point is he trying to make? I don't like this cockiness he's displaying. Why not just shut up, stay on task and beat them. Don't worry about them, focus on what you do and do it very well.
I'm actually surprised Phil isn't posting things like this every 3 minutes.
Imagine watching something you passionately worked on, endless hours, sacrificed time with family, etc. to then have it copied & then watch the press claim your company and your work isn't innovating.
When the products you've worked on are the only consumer technology products that have actually mattered for the last 12-15 years.
It would piss me off! He's sick of it! He's pissed! I don't blame him!
It's like looking at a Ferrari (iOS) and saying that Datsun (Android) over there has the same paint so their the same!
What about web usage among users? Why do Android users (despite their vast numbers) do not USE their devices for the very purpose it was designed for... to browse the web?
I thought we weren't supposed to trust these metrics. Besides I very much doubt abstract stats like this capture use too well. For example I am often on my desktop PC vs my tablet/phone. Just because I don't use it to browse the web doesn't mean I'm unhappy with it, or I don't value it. I honestly don't get the argument.
I would take it a step back from that. The two you are responding to are whining that he is pointing out the flaws in Android, when it may just be that he is drawing attention to how well iOS devices ranked on the report. It is perfectly valid for him to point this out as it is from a respectable and well reputed vendor. And as he posted it without comment, any people complaining that he is somehow doing a hatchet job or mud slinging are truly inferring from his post as it is in no way implied.
Apple reported 700 million iOS devices around the end of October. Google reported 1 billion around that time.
It really doesn't make sense that Android would have more attacks because of device ownership, especially in light of the usage statistics and the fact that many Android devices are pretty much dumbphones. The Cisco report seems to be online here:
It says 98% of Android malware is with SMSSend, which can:
- Steal your contacts and pictures - Track your location - Access your text messages - Log your keystrokes and passwords - Send SMS messages to premium numbers without your knowledge that can result in a very high phone bill - Fake legitimate banking applications and steal your personal banking information when you log in
Most of that should be normal to Android users, it's just the last two items are things Google wouldn't really do themselves.
Anyway, it's really the infection rate that's important and Cisco doesn't seem to go into detail about that. Google doesn't seem to think it's a problem and the stats given here show quite a low infection rate:
"Google's Android chief of security Adrian Ludwig, who reported that only 0.001% of apps downloaded by Android users pose any harm to their devices or data.
The Google statistic includes not only apps downloaded from Google Play, but any app installed by a user on his Android device. Ludwig used the finding to argue that Google's approach to app installation -- in essence, anything goes -- is a better system than Apple's walled-garden model, which requires all apps to be vetted before they can be downloaded and installed by users on their devices.
"A walled garden systems approach [to] blocking predators and disease breaks down when rapid growth and evolution creates too much complexity," the biologically minded Ludwig told the conference, reported Quartz. "Android's innovation from inside and outside Google are continuous, making it impossible to create such a walled garden by locking down Android at the device level."
Ludwig continued by likening Android's security model to how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tackles real-world infections. "The CDC knows that it's not realistic to try to eradicate all disease. Rather, it monitors disease with scientific rigor, providing preventative guidance and effective responses to harmful outbreaks," he said.
Do Google's mobile malware infection statistics and approach add up?
A study released Monday by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and security firm Damballa, "The Core of the Matter: Analyzing Malicious Traffic in Cellular Carriers," found that mobile malware "appears in a minuscule number of devices" in the two networks they studied. Those networks belonged to "a major U.S. cellular provider as well as a major U.S. non-cellular Internet service provider." In particular, just 3,492 out of more than 380 million devices exhibited signs that they'd been infected with mobile malware. That's fewer than 0.0009%, which is even lower than Google's finding, although Google's research encompassed devices from outside the United States, where mobile infection rates have historically been higher."
Apple reported 700 million iOS devices around the end of October.
Google reported 1 billion around that time.
It really doesn't make sense that Android would have more attacks because of device ownership, especially in light of the usage statistics and the fact that many Android devices are pretty much dumbphones. The Cisco report seems to be online here:
It says 98% of Android malware is with SMSSend, which can:
- Steal your contacts and pictures
- Track your location
- Access your text messages
- Log your keystrokes and passwords
- Send SMS messages to premium numbers without your knowledge that can result in a very high phone bill
- Fake legitimate banking applications and steal your personal banking information when you log in
Most of that should be normal to Android users, it's just the last two items are things Google wouldn't really do themselves.
Anyway, it's really the infection rate that's important and Cisco doesn't seem to go into detail about that. Google doesn't seem to think it's a problem and the stats given here show quite a low infection rate:
"Google's Android chief of security Adrian Ludwig, who reported that only 0.001% of apps downloaded by Android users pose any harm to their devices or data.
The Google statistic includes not only apps downloaded from Google Play, but any app installed by a user on his Android device. Ludwig used the finding to argue that Google's approach to app installation -- in essence, anything goes -- is a better system than Apple's walled-garden model, which requires all apps to be vetted before they can be downloaded and installed by users on their devices.
"A walled garden systems approach [to] blocking predators and disease breaks down when rapid growth and evolution creates too much complexity," the biologically minded Ludwig told the conference, reported Quartz. "Android's innovation from inside and outside Google are continuous, making it impossible to create such a walled garden by locking down Android at the device level."
Ludwig continued by likening Android's security model to how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tackles real-world infections. "The CDC knows that it's not realistic to try to eradicate all disease. Rather, it monitors disease with scientific rigor, providing preventative guidance and effective responses to harmful outbreaks," he said.
Do Google's mobile malware infection statistics and approach add up?
A study released Monday by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and security firm Damballa, "The Core of the Matter: Analyzing Malicious Traffic in Cellular Carriers," found that mobile malware "appears in a minuscule number of devices" in the two networks they studied. Those networks belonged to "a major U.S. cellular provider as well as a major U.S. non-cellular Internet service provider." In particular, just 3,492 out of more than 380 million devices exhibited signs that they'd been infected with mobile malware. That's fewer than 0.0009%, which is even lower than Google's finding, although Google's research encompassed devices from outside the United States, where mobile infection rates have historically been higher."
Thank you for posting research-based evidence on infection rates.
You guys are ridiculous, I use a Model 500 phone, it's the coolest phone out there and a definite head turner. It is more secure than an iPhone, Android, Windows, and BB. You guys overpay for everything, do yourself a favor and get yourself one. I'm however finding it difficult to find a case and screen protector for it.
Yo dudes, you Apple fans make me sick to my stomach!
There are hardly any malware issues on Android at all! My Android phone has no issues at all.
I am so damn cheap (being an Android user of course), that my solution is simply not to connect to the internet at all. I don't use the internet at home and I especially don't use it on flights.
And for those rare times when I do need to connect, I simply run shady anti-virus and anti-malware software which I illegally downloaded from some Chinese site.
So there you have it Apple fans, Android is the way to go. And besides, I have $3.50 in my bank account, so there's nothing much to lose if somebody were to hack my phone.
Apple users pay way too much for their devices. Every penny saved is a fortune for Android users such as myself. I'd love to chat more, but I'm off to eat my ramen noodles dinner right now. I'm heating it up at my neighbors house, so I don't have to use my own stove.
The operative word is target, it's definitely more targeted, now whether the attempts hit their mark is another story.
Crooks go where the money is. If they're targeting Android it's not because they like Apple, hate Google or anything like that. It's pure business, and if their attacks weren't getting them anything in return (information, ID's, $$$) then they wouldn't keep doing it.
I read the report Marvin linked, and I'm skeptical of their methods. They are tracking the domains visited by mobile devices and then treating the "suspect" domains as malware. I doubt this method accurately catches all types of malware. For example, if I have an App that sends information out via SMS, then their study doesn't catch it. If my App sends e-mails then they can't catch those either. Or if an App is connecting to a legitimate server, but passing additional information from your device that it shouldn't be. There are so many different ways to steal your data, and tracking which domains your device connects to is, IMO, not nearly reliable enough.
I'm also suspect of their ridiculously low number of 3,500 out of 380 million. Not that I think the number should be in the millions, but 3,500 seems ridiculously low.
Did you see how malware companies are buying up Chrome extension makers?
They do this because they can "update" the chrome extensions to include whatever they want and push them out to Android devices with no user awareness, at all.
Wait, does chrome on android even support extensions?
Did you see how malware companies are buying up Chrome extension makers?
They do this because they can "update" the chrome extensions to include whatever they want and push them out to Android devices with no user awareness, at all.
Fun times, enjoy your malware laden piece of junk.
I personally don’t like this sort of thing from Apple. Talking trash about your competitor means you’re worried about them. Phil, shut your pie hole and let us the faithful take care of the hatchet jobs.
[QUOTE]Android has over 80% of the global market, and encounters about 71 percent of the attacks. Apple has 12% of the global market and encounters 14% of the attacks[/QUOTE]
Just out of curiosity - where do these numbers come from? Last I had seen (sometime 2013) was Apple at a global 20something% market share, with Android-powered devices having about double of that....
Just out of curiosity - where do these numbers come from? Last I had seen (sometime 2013) was Apple at a global 20something% market share, with Android-powered devices having about double of that....
Google, Bing, or whatever search engine you prefer will gladly lead you to those figures. It's been widely reported that Android has over 80% of the global market.
Comments
He isn't lying unlike Creepy Eric.
Imagine watching something you passionately worked on, endless hours, sacrificed time with family, etc. to then have it copied & then watch the press claim your company and your work isn't innovating.
When the products you've worked on are the only consumer technology products that have actually mattered for the last 12-15 years.
It would piss me off! He's sick of it! He's pissed! I don't blame him!
It's like looking at a Ferrari (iOS) and saying that Datsun (Android) over there has the same paint so their the same!
What about web usage among users? Why do Android users (despite their vast numbers) do not USE their devices for the very purpose it was designed for... to browse the web?
I thought we weren't supposed to trust these metrics. Besides I very much doubt abstract stats like this capture use too well. For example I am often on my desktop PC vs my tablet/phone. Just because I don't use it to browse the web doesn't mean I'm unhappy with it, or I don't value it. I honestly don't get the argument.
I don't think his job is marketing.
Edit: Oops it sure is.
Google reported 1 billion around that time.
It really doesn't make sense that Android would have more attacks because of device ownership, especially in light of the usage statistics and the fact that many Android devices are pretty much dumbphones. The Cisco report seems to be online here:
https://www.cisco.com/web/offer/gist_ty2_asset/Cisco_2014_ASR.pdf
It says 98% of Android malware is with SMSSend, which can:
- Steal your contacts and pictures
- Track your location
- Access your text messages
- Log your keystrokes and passwords
- Send SMS messages to premium numbers without your knowledge that can result in a very high phone bill
- Fake legitimate banking applications and steal your personal banking information when you log in
Most of that should be normal to Android users, it's just the last two items are things Google wouldn't really do themselves.
Anyway, it's really the infection rate that's important and Cisco doesn't seem to go into detail about that. Google doesn't seem to think it's a problem and the stats given here show quite a low infection rate:
http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/google-dont-fear-android-malware/d/d-id/1111863?
"Google's Android chief of security Adrian Ludwig, who reported that only 0.001% of apps downloaded by Android users pose any harm to their devices or data.
The Google statistic includes not only apps downloaded from Google Play, but any app installed by a user on his Android device. Ludwig used the finding to argue that Google's approach to app installation -- in essence, anything goes -- is a better system than Apple's walled-garden model, which requires all apps to be vetted before they can be downloaded and installed by users on their devices.
"A walled garden systems approach [to] blocking predators and disease breaks down when rapid growth and evolution creates too much complexity," the biologically minded Ludwig told the conference, reported Quartz. "Android's innovation from inside and outside Google are continuous, making it impossible to create such a walled garden by locking down Android at the device level."
Ludwig continued by likening Android's security model to how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tackles real-world infections. "The CDC knows that it's not realistic to try to eradicate all disease. Rather, it monitors disease with scientific rigor, providing preventative guidance and effective responses to harmful outbreaks," he said.
Do Google's mobile malware infection statistics and approach add up?
A study released Monday by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology and security firm Damballa, "The Core of the Matter: Analyzing Malicious Traffic in Cellular Carriers," found that mobile malware "appears in a minuscule number of devices" in the two networks they studied. Those networks belonged to "a major U.S. cellular provider as well as a major U.S. non-cellular Internet service provider." In particular, just 3,492 out of more than 380 million devices exhibited signs that they'd been infected with mobile malware. That's fewer than 0.0009%, which is even lower than Google's finding, although Google's research encompassed devices from outside the United States, where mobile infection rates have historically been higher."
Thank you for posting research-based evidence on infection rates.
" . . . Phil Schiller plugs security report . . . "
Tweeting a URL is hardly a "plug."
Much less "talking trash," "cocky," or "a hatchet job."
It's pretty quietly confident though!
You guys are ridiculous, I use a Model 500 phone, it's the coolest phone out there and a definite head turner. It is more secure than an iPhone, Android, Windows, and BB. You guys overpay for everything, do yourself a favor and get yourself one. I'm however finding it difficult to find a case and screen protector for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_500_telephone
At least you are not on one of those party lines where everyone was hacked.
Yo dudes, you Apple fans make me sick to my stomach!
There are hardly any malware issues on Android at all! My Android phone has no issues at all.
I am so damn cheap (being an Android user of course), that my solution is simply not to connect to the internet at all. I don't use the internet at home and I especially don't use it on flights.
And for those rare times when I do need to connect, I simply run shady anti-virus and anti-malware software which I illegally downloaded from some Chinese site.
So there you have it Apple fans, Android is the way to go. And besides, I have $3.50 in my bank account, so there's nothing much to lose if somebody were to hack my phone.
Apple users pay way too much for their devices. Every penny saved is a fortune for Android users such as myself. I'd love to chat more, but I'm off to eat my ramen noodles dinner right now. I'm heating it up at my neighbors house, so I don't have to use my own stove.
and using your neighbor's wifi to post this...
The operative word is target, it's definitely more targeted, now whether the attempts hit their mark is another story.
Crooks go where the money is. If they're targeting Android it's not because they like Apple, hate Google or anything like that. It's pure business, and if their attacks weren't getting them anything in return (information, ID's, $$$) then they wouldn't keep doing it.
I read the report Marvin linked, and I'm skeptical of their methods. They are tracking the domains visited by mobile devices and then treating the "suspect" domains as malware. I doubt this method accurately catches all types of malware. For example, if I have an App that sends information out via SMS, then their study doesn't catch it. If my App sends e-mails then they can't catch those either. Or if an App is connecting to a legitimate server, but passing additional information from your device that it shouldn't be. There are so many different ways to steal your data, and tracking which domains your device connects to is, IMO, not nearly reliable enough.
I'm also suspect of their ridiculously low number of 3,500 out of 380 million. Not that I think the number should be in the millions, but 3,500 seems ridiculously low.
Did you see how malware companies are buying up Chrome extension makers?
They do this because they can "update" the chrome extensions to include whatever they want and push them out to Android devices with no user awareness, at all.
Wait, does chrome on android even support extensions?
Wait, does chrome on android even support extensions?
Not as far as I know. I have the beta on mine and I don't see any extensions option.
Wait, does chrome on android even support extensions?
No, it doesn't.
That's the computer version.
I personally don’t like this sort of thing from Apple. Talking trash about your competitor means you’re worried about them. Phil, shut your pie hole and let us the faithful take care of the hatchet jobs.
Pretty sure Phil didn't make amy comments.Apple has 12% of the global market and encounters 14% of the attacks[/QUOTE]
Just out of curiosity - where do these numbers come from? Last I had seen (sometime 2013) was Apple at a global 20something% market share, with Android-powered devices having about double of that....
Just out of curiosity - where do these numbers come from? Last I had seen (sometime 2013) was Apple at a global 20something% market share, with Android-powered devices having about double of that....
Google, Bing, or whatever search engine you prefer will gladly lead you to those figures. It's been widely reported that Android has over 80% of the global market.
You guys are missing the big story here. See how secure Win CE is? That's the phone to get.