'Stagefright' vulnerability compromises Android phones with 1 text message, may affect 950M devices

124678

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 157
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    chazwatson wrote: »

    But it is in mainstream news outlets, so why would anyone assume he was wondering why it wasn't?  There is no value left in the post.  All that remains is irony.

    You're now claiming AppleInsider is a mainstream news outlet, as in having the equivalent as the NYTimes, CNN, FOX News, CNBC, etc.? Get the **** out!
  • Reply 62 of 157
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,707member
    lkrupp wrote: »
    As has been pointed out it was Steve Jobs’ genius to negotiate total control away from the carriers. If this were an iOS issue we would get a patch in a timely manner without having to rely on our carriers.

    The real genius was to get ATT to completely fall in line, in return for which, Steve gave them the promised exclusivity (even in the face of considerable commentary that said Apple should move to other carriers quicker). Rumors then also had it that Verizon wanted carrier control, but Steve told them to take a hike.

    Once ATT was in the bag, the rest had no choice but to follow.
    yes, but this approach also gave android a leg up through Verizon, back when it was only a pale, laggy imitation of iOS. If Verizon had fallen in line with job's demands, the mobile world would probably be quite different. Who knows how the market may have developed? Would CDMA be still significant? Would windows phone be the 'other 'Mobile OS? Would android be like Symbian?
  • Reply 63 of 157
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    I highly doubt Apple ever considered going CDMA at first. That would not have been conducive to a worldwide roll out. It was much smarter to make the phone compatible to many smaller carriers than one big one. Any talks between Apple and Verizon were feelers at most.

    How did we get to talking about what HW they considered? We were talking about Apple's negotiations with carriers. Apple may not have wanted to do a CDMA iPhone but that doesn't mean they didn't engage in negotiations in order to strengthen their position with the carrier they did wish to make a deal. You should be able to grasp that tactic.

    Any talks with someone to use as leverage against another party are indeed BS.
  • Reply 64 of 157
    patpatpatpatpatpat Posts: 628member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chadbag View Post

     



    And how many Nexus devices are out there compared to other Android devices?   Apple does it with ALL their devices.   So yes, quite.

     

    Google sold Nexus themselves.  They did not go through carriers.


    Wrong, Nexus 4,5 and 6 are/were available through carriers. Google also sold them.

  • Reply 65 of 157
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    entropys wrote: »
    lkrupp wrote: »
    As has been pointed out it was Steve Jobs’ genius to negotiate total control away from the carriers. If this were an iOS issue we would get a patch in a timely manner without having to rely on our carriers.

    The real genius was to get ATT to completely fall in line, in return for which, Steve gave them the promised exclusivity (even in the face of considerable commentary that said Apple should move to other carriers quicker). Rumors then also had it that Verizon wanted carrier control, but Steve told them to take a hike.

    Once ATT was in the bag, the rest had no choice but to follow.
    yes, but this approach also gave android a leg up through Verizon, back when it was only a pale, laggy imitation of iOS. If Verizon had fallen in line with job's demands, the mobile world would probably be quite different. Who knows how the market may have developed? Would CDMA be still significant? Would windows phone be the 'other 'Mobile OS? Would android be like Symbian?

    The mobile world would be quite different, but CDMA would still be significant.
  • Reply 66 of 157
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Any talks with someone to use as leverage against another party are indeed BS.

    Wait, you're saying that doesn't happen or that to be in talks with multiple parties is somehow unethical?
  • Reply 67 of 157
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,361member
    entropys wrote: »
    yes, but this approach also gave android a leg up through Verizon, back when it was only a pale, laggy imitation of iOS. If Verizon had fallen in line with job's demands, the mobile world would probably be quite different. Who knows how the market may have developed? Would CDMA be still significant? Would windows phone be the 'other 'Mobile OS? Would android be like Symbian?

    I generally find counterfactuals to be a waste of time, discussion-wise.

    I prefer factuals!
  • Reply 68 of 157
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    solipsismy wrote: »
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    It was Cingular, who had really no choice but to bow down, and the Verizon story is probably BS.

    I don't think the Verizon story is BS. Why wouldn't Apple engage in talks with all the carriers? At the very least it could be used to leverage the one they wanted. Why would Verizon want to give Apple something that had never been done previously? Verizon was by far the largest and most powerful carrier so having a HW vendor dictate terms at all would likely be laughable unless they had some insightful executives (which is historically doubtful). I seem to recall that Apple dictated these terms without letting the carriers know anything about the device. Cingular wanted a leg up since they weren't on top and the Apple deal was a wildcard, and risk taking is less likely when you are in the number one position. I think it's all very plausible, but I wouldn't phrase it as Cingular having to bow down to Apple, remember this 2005, they simply came to a mutual agreement that each party hoped would be beneficial.

    I highly doubt Apple ever considered going CDMA at first. That would not have been conducive to a worldwide roll out. It was much smarter to make the phone compatible to many smaller carriers than one big one. Any talks between Apple and Verizon were feelers at most.

    I believe you all are right in your own way. I really think AT&T would nave have listened to Steve Jobs any more then Verizon. WHat Apple was demanding was just unheard of and never happened since by any other phone manufacturer. It's to AT&T's credit that they went along with the contract Apple had with Cingular when they bought them...

    Gad! I remember how Verizon wanted to rent me every tiny piece of upgrade to my dumb phone back then. Internet surfing was like trying to assemble a wrist watch through a keyhole. Want a custom ringtone; that's extra. Weather info: that's extra. Want to know where that phone call was coming from; that extra too.
  • Reply 69 of 157
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,361member
    dasanman69 wrote: »

    It was Cingular, who had really no choice but to bow down, and the Verizon story is probably BS.

    I've owned the iPhone since the first day it was made available. I never once got a bill fom 'Cingular', only ATT. So you're wrong.

    As to the Verizon incident, I said it was a rumor. But I do recall that a number of very credible news sources were saying the same thing. (I don't have the time to dig out those stories).
  • Reply 70 of 157
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Any talks with someone to use as leverage against another party are indeed BS.

    Wait, you're saying that doesn't happen or that to be in talks with multiple parties is somehow unethical?

    I use that tactic all the time. The best lure for women is other women. I talk to one to attract the others. It's completely ethical but it's still BS.
  • Reply 71 of 157
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    dasanman69 wrote: »

    It was Cingular, who had really no choice but to bow down, and the Verizon story is probably BS.

    I've owned the iPhone since the first day it was made available. I never once got a bill fom 'Cingular', only ATT. So you're wrong.

    As to the Verizon incident, I said it was a rumor. But I do recall that a number of very credible news sources were saying the same thing. (I don't have the time to dig out those stories).

    Because the deal with Cingular was already in place before the merger and subsequent launch of the iPhone.
  • Reply 72 of 157
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,800member
    never mind

  • Reply 73 of 157
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    I've owned the iPhone since the first day it was made available. I never once got a bill fom 'Cingular', only ATT. So you're wrong.

    As to the Verizon incident, I said it was a rumor. But I do recall that a number of very credible news sources were saying the same thing. (I don't have the time to dig out those stories).

    Cingular signed the deal with Apple. Apple introduced the iPhone with Cingular as the carrier. Cingular announced they acquired — not merged with — AT&T. Cingular changed their name to AT&T because AT&T was much more well known. The iPhone launched with AT&T as the sole carrier.

    dasanman69 wrote: »
    I use that tactic all the time. The best lure for women is other women. I talk to one to attract the others. It's completely ethical but it's still BS.

    700
  • Reply 74 of 157
    solipsismy wrote: »
    I wonder how much national media attention this will get.

    "Android is safe because their users are experienced enough to root their own phones and know better than to download suspicious apps."
  • Reply 75 of 157
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    700

    We all can't look like Brad Pitt and have women falling over themselves to get to us. :lol:
  • Reply 76 of 157
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,361member
    dasanman69 wrote: »

    Because the deal with Cingular was already in place before the merger and subsequent launch of the iPhone.

    So what? It means therefore that ATT, as the new owners, had to be in complete agreement. That's consistent with what I posted. End of story.

    Add: @SY's post clarifies it better.
  • Reply 77 of 157
    entropys wrote: »

    yes, but this approach also gave android a leg up through Verizon, back when it was only a pale, laggy imitation of iOS. If Verizon had fallen in line with job's demands, the mobile world would probably be quite different. Who knows how the market may have developed? Would CDMA be still significant? Would windows phone be the 'other 'Mobile OS? Would android be like Symbian?

    I agree Verizon, at the time, tried mighty hard to compete against iPhone with Android but AT&T/Apple was sucking off millions of Verizon customers and they could not stop the losses until they got the iPhone to sell too.

    Once Apple opened up Verizon as well as AT&T, both carriers tried to limit Apple's clout by selling Android phones too... I think the carriers are still nervous about Apple's clout and still promoting Android based on that concern. So, I think the landscape would still be much like it is today. Google gave a way the Android OS and with so many manufacturers of cell phones (over 300) at the time wanting to get into the smart phone market, Android was really their only way to do so. Microsoft was totally clueless about how to stay relevant -- even after developing mobile Win8 they wanted to SELL their OS.
  • Reply 78 of 157
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    You could just turn off "auto-retrieve" in your messaging apps settings as a stop-gap.

    Ladies night and gentlemen droid is fixed!!

    Now resume your Apple is Doomed business....
  • Reply 79 of 157
    cali wrote: »
    gatorguy wrote: »
    You could just turn off "auto-retrieve" in your messaging apps settings as a stop-gap.

    Ladies night and gentlemen droid is fixed!!

    Now resume your Apple is Doomed business....

    Haha..."We had to kill the patient to save him." A perfectly secure Android phone is a "bricked" phone.
  • Reply 80 of 157
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    solipsismy wrote: »
    Cingular signed the deal with Apple. Apple introduced the iPhone with Cingular as the carrier. Cingular announced they acquired — not merged with — AT&T. Cingular changed their name to AT&T because AT&T was much more well known. The iPhone launched with AT&T as the sole carrier.

    It's actually more confusing than that. In 2004, Cingular (created by SBC Comm and Bell South) bought AT&T Wireless but kept the Cingular name, in 2005 SBC bought AT&T Corp and became AT&T Inc, and then in 2006 AT&T Inc bought Bell South consolidating ownership of Cingular and changed it to AT&T as one global brand.
Sign In or Register to comment.