560,000 infections through an app store...nothing to see here people...keep moving please...
paging Gatorguy for the unofficial Google response...and i do respect Gatorguy's intelligence.
Give him a chance! He has to wait for the email from Google HQ to have all the links to false equivalence articles to attach.
Excellent response!
Gatorguy reminds me of all of those tobacco company sponsored PR people who spun the facts to make tobacco appear to be a safe product back in the 60's and 70's, even sponsoring research to refute legitimate medical research.
When the truth became overwhelming, the tobacco companies stopped the nonsense because there was no one believing them anymore.
The same will happen to Google and Android. If this malware has the ability to take photos, listen in on conversations and the like, it's a VERY MAJOR problem. It's a HIPAA violation just waiting to happen. And when it does, Google is going to subject to very large civil lawsuits they cannot win. The attorneys will be salivating after going after Google's billions. Never mind the potential criminal issues involved.
If I were in Pichai's shoes, I would probably want to keep it quiet too. However, sometimes the right thing to do is to be honest and transparent. It's not going to happen and Google is faced with a nightmare on its hands.
560,000 infections through an app store...nothing to see here people...keep moving please...
paging Gatorguy for the unofficial Google response...and i do respect Gatorguy's intelligence.
Give him a chance! He has to wait for the email from Google HQ to have all the links to false equivalence articles to attach.
ROFTL!
The AI article is correct AFAICT from my own reading: Approximately .005% of Android devices had installed potentially harmful apps via Google Play in 2016 (A rooting app that someone intentionally and knowingly installs is still counted as potentially harmful as far as Google is concerned and part of that 500K).
So it is highly unlikely you or anyone you know or even anyone "your friend" knows would be negatively impacted by it. Not anything worth worrying about IMHO. A stray bullet is probably far more likely to harm you.
And yes it is technically accurate to describe the three apps that existed on Google Play for a short time as "several". It does make it sound more onerous.
First it was 0.05% and It was number Google put out and other assumed the numerator and denominator behind that statistic. Google never said what that % meant or the numbers behind the %, it could be as simple as that was the % of those who installed those specific apps, but there could be other aps with the same issue which Google is not adding into the numbers.
They did. I'll guess you just didn't want to take the time to look for it. Use your browser's search function and you should be able to find the actual detailed report AI mentions from last March.
560,000 infections through an app store...nothing to see here people...keep moving please...
paging Gatorguy for the unofficial Google response...and i do respect Gatorguy's intelligence.
Give him a chance! He has to wait for the email from Google HQ to have all the links to false equivalence articles to attach.
Google is doomed. .
Google actually has some very serious issues to address. So far they've done a very poor job.
The whole thing I find amusing is the fact that development of the software is automated. So we now get to experience the next big thing in AI. Utilizing "intelligent" computing platforms to develop sophisticated malware. Perhaps such malware can automate the process of transferring large sums of money to ISIL and North Korean bank accounts from various western nations.
Perhaps Google will one day realize that the development and release of new technology comes with responsibilities. The company acts like its run by a bunch of juveniles. Kids who do things for fun but don't realize the potential consequences. And then when the consequences come, they try to shirk any responsibility.
It's time for the company to grow up. There's nothing wrong with admitting oversights and mistakes. There is nothing wrong with trying to right past wrongs and act as a responsible and decent corporate partner. It's too much to ask I know. Google will be around for a long time. But they won't be getting my business. And if they continue to behave as they do, they are going to turn off ever larger portions of the public off to their practices. But their products appear inexpensive. There will always be a market for them. That is, if one wants to live with the trade offs in having little to no privacy.
Don't forget: “Google's real customer is its advertisers, from whom it makes virtually all of its income.” A lax attitude towards device security doesn't surprise me.
walled garden which everyone is invited in except the serpents. Apple happened to put a bouncer at the gate, while google is too business doing no evil.
Let's not forget that not everyone is invited and the invitation, where it exists, has a cost.
There have been many cases of legitimate apps getting refused entry or told to modify functionality.
Everyone is invited some people just chose not to join in. It just the cover fee at the door, when you do not have the place to set up a party and can not handle the total number of people you would like to party with then you have to play in someone else's garden and help to cover the costs, everyone is invited, as long as you are willing to pay the cover fee.
Look anyone can set up their own gardens and invited everyone they would like to come and play in their garden, but when you do not have the means or the money for your own garden you have to play by the rules of other people's garden.
everyone wants the benefits of selling to customer apple cultivated, but they do not want to cover some of the costs to cultivate those customers. Apple has all the infrastructure and carries lots of the liability none of which the developer have to deal with.
It's not only about infrastructure and services.
Apple has been historically very protective of its own offerings to the point of not letting competitors encroach on certain areas.
Allowing other App Stores to operate on iOS hardware, however unlikely that is, would represent a true change in attitude. While that isn't an option, there is no real choice.
That said, I think the current model won't last forever.
Ask Google how well that is working for them and their Android platform. At lease the Apple solution is stable and it draws some of the most creative solutions out there. So what that is does not cater to the 5% of the people who want to hack around with their phone and customize it.
560,000 infections through an app store...nothing to see here people...keep moving please...
paging Gatorguy for the unofficial Google response...and i do respect Gatorguy's intelligence.
Give him a chance! He has to wait for the email from Google HQ to have all the links to false equivalence articles to attach.
ROFTL!
The AI article is correct AFAICT from my own reading: Approximately .005% of Android devices had installed potentially harmful apps via Google Play in 2016 (A rooting app that someone intentionally and knowingly installs is still counted as potentially harmful as far as Google is concerned and part of that 500K).
So it is highly unlikely you or anyone you know or even anyone "your friend" knows would be negatively impacted by it. Not anything worth worrying about IMHO. A stray bullet is probably far more likely to harm you.
And yes it is technically accurate to describe the three apps that existed on Google Play for a short time as "several". It does make it sound more onerous.
First it was 0.05% and It was number Google put out and other assumed the numerator and denominator behind that statistic. Google never said what that % meant or the numbers behind the %, it could be as simple as that was the % of those who installed those specific apps, but there could be other aps with the same issue which Google is not adding into the numbers.
They did. I'll guess you just didn't want to take the time to look for it. Use your browser's search function and you should be able to find the actual detailed report AI mentions from last March.
On macOS you can close the garden gate or leave it open.
And how has 'choice' been working out for Android?
Because the a desktop a different animal as the previous user said. On the desktop the choice is between risk and flexibility. Since most phones are not because being used for software development or complex bulk file handling, then the choice is between security and insecurity.
How things work out is irrelevant. Having the choice is the question.
How that plays out would depend on many factors but having the option to decide for yourself and not someone deciding for you is the question.
Nope, the question is what works best for Apple's customers, not the small but vocal group hoping Apple will compromise the OS so they can hack the OS and install pirate software. They already have an OS if they want to do that. I don't want to sideload apps. I want my phone to be as secure as possible.
560,000 infections through an app store...nothing to see here people...keep moving please...
paging Gatorguy for the unofficial Google response...and i do respect Gatorguy's intelligence.
Give him a chance! He has to wait for the email from Google HQ to have all the links to false equivalence articles to attach.
ROFTL!
The AI article is correct AFAICT from my own reading: Approximately .005% of Android devices had installed potentially harmful apps via Google Play in 2016 (A rooting app that someone intentionally and knowingly installs is still counted as potentially harmful as far as Google is concerned and part of that 500K).
So it is highly unlikely you or anyone you know or even anyone "your friend" knows would be negatively impacted by it. Not anything worth worrying about IMHO. A stray bullet is probably far more likely to harm you.
And yes it is technically accurate to describe the three apps that existed on Google Play for a short time as "several". It does make it sound more onerous.
First it was 0.05% and It was number Google put out and other assumed the numerator and denominator behind that statistic. Google never said what that % meant or the numbers behind the %, it could be as simple as that was the % of those who installed those specific apps, but there could be other aps with the same issue which Google is not adding into the numbers.
They did. I'll guess you just didn't want to take the time to look for it. Use your browser's search function and you should be able to find the actual detailed report AI mentions from last March.
FYI… So far, this isn't your best work.
Well some segment of the populace here gets perturbed when I offer links too, so figured I may as well try encouraging them to look for themselves once in awhile. TBH most folks would actually discover a lot more about issues if they didn't restrict all their learning to solely what a favorite blog had to say. But you are correct about my effort. It's just not all that big of a deal IMO and I had a busy day with bids.
Anyway facts are facts and I'm not disputing the ones AI used in the article. Besides, because it's Google any even minor issue will be promoted here as proof of the roof falling in on them, impending doom and all.
walled garden which everyone is invited in except the serpents. Apple happened to put a bouncer at the gate, while google is too business doing no evil.
Let's not forget that not everyone is invited and the invitation, where it exists, has a cost.
There have been many cases of legitimate apps getting refused entry or told to modify functionality.
Everyone is invited some people just chose not to join in. It just the cover fee at the door, when you do not have the place to set up a party and can not handle the total number of people you would like to party with then you have to play in someone else's garden and help to cover the costs, everyone is invited, as long as you are willing to pay the cover fee.
Look anyone can set up their own gardens and invited everyone they would like to come and play in their garden, but when you do not have the means or the money for your own garden you have to play by the rules of other people's garden.
everyone wants the benefits of selling to customer apple cultivated, but they do not want to cover some of the costs to cultivate those customers. Apple has all the infrastructure and carries lots of the liability none of which the developer have to deal with.
It's not only about infrastructure and services.
Apple has been historically very protective of its own offerings to the point of not letting competitors encroach on certain areas.
Allowing other App Stores to operate on iOS hardware, however unlikely that is, would represent a true change in attitude. While that isn't an option, there is no real choice.
That said, I think the current model won't last forever.
You do realize Apple has had at least two outside the App Store method for people to build and install native Apps , for 9 years now ?
While Google continues to fuel the Communist ripoff artists (Huawei, Oppo, LeEco, Meizu, Xiaomi and seemingly a billion others) at the expense of Western companies/innovation (Nokia, RIM, Palm (RIP), Motorola (RIP), Microsoft, Apple), people like Gatorguy continue to defend them to the death. Anything for that sweet, sweet targeted advertising revenue. Shameful.
While Google continues to fuel the Communist ripoff artists (Huawei, Oppo, LeEco, Meizu, Xiaomi and seemingly a billion others) at the expense of Western companies/innovation (Nokia, RIM, Palm (RIP), Motorola (RIP), Microsoft, Apple), people like Gatorguy continue to defend them to the death. Anything for that sweet, sweet targeted advertising revenue. Shameful.
walled garden which everyone is invited in except the serpents. Apple happened to put a bouncer at the gate, while google is too business doing no evil.
Let's not forget that not everyone is invited and the invitation, where it exists, has a cost.
There have been many cases of legitimate apps getting refused entry or told to modify functionality.
Everyone is invited some people just chose not to join in. It just the cover fee at the door, when you do not have the place to set up a party and can not handle the total number of people you would like to party with then you have to play in someone else's garden and help to cover the costs, everyone is invited, as long as you are willing to pay the cover fee.
Look anyone can set up their own gardens and invited everyone they would like to come and play in their garden, but when you do not have the means or the money for your own garden you have to play by the rules of other people's garden.
everyone wants the benefits of selling to customer apple cultivated, but they do not want to cover some of the costs to cultivate those customers. Apple has all the infrastructure and carries lots of the liability none of which the developer have to deal with.
It's not only about infrastructure and services.
Apple has been historically very protective of its own offerings to the point of not letting competitors encroach on certain areas.
Allowing other App Stores to operate on iOS hardware, however unlikely that is, would represent a true change in attitude. While that isn't an option, there is no real choice.
That said, I think the current model won't last forever.
Ask Google how well that is working for them and their Android platform. At lease the Apple solution is stable and it draws some of the most creative solutions out there. So what that is does not cater to the 5% of the people who want to hack around with their phone and customize it.
Actually, it isn't that bad for Google but that wasn't the point. Which option is more secure wasn't the point either. The point was having the choice, be it (the implementation, that is) worse, the same, or better.
I have seen nothing (in this thread or anywhere else) that truly manages to support the idea that Gatekeeper should be always on in macOS and far less to support the walled garden in iOS.
The only reason it isn't always on in macOS (with the lock-in as a consequence) is that the lock-in model came second on the timeline. I am sure that Apple wants to lock apps down on macOS eventually and is moving in that direction but the decision hasn't arrived yet.
My guess is that the words to justify such a move will be something like '90% of our users use Gatekeeper and local security has improved as a result, so we've decided to make apps only available from the Mac App Store'.
What they won't say so openly is that as a result, Apple will be taking a cut of all proceeds from the store and that alternative solutions could be created to provide the same functionality while eliminating Apple as the only option and providing an area for true competition.
While Google continues to fuel the Communist ripoff artists (Huawei, Oppo, LeEco, Meizu, Xiaomi and seemingly a billion others) at the expense of Western companies/innovation (Nokia, RIM, Palm (RIP), Motorola (RIP), Microsoft, Apple), people like Gatorguy continue to defend them to the death. Anything for that sweet, sweet targeted advertising revenue. Shameful.
Rip-off artist?
When you finish reading this, please post back with who they copied from.
While Google continues to fuel the Communist ripoff artists (Huawei, Oppo, LeEco, Meizu, Xiaomi and seemingly a billion others) at the expense of Western companies/innovation (Nokia, RIM, Palm (RIP), Motorola (RIP), Microsoft, Apple), people like Gatorguy continue to defend them to the death. Anything for that sweet, sweet targeted advertising revenue. Shameful.
walled garden which everyone is invited in except the serpents. Apple happened to put a bouncer at the gate, while google is too business doing no evil.
Let's not forget that not everyone is invited and the invitation, where it exists, has a cost.
There have been many cases of legitimate apps getting refused entry or told to modify functionality.
Everyone is invited some people just chose not to join in. It just the cover fee at the door, when you do not have the place to set up a party and can not handle the total number of people you would like to party with then you have to play in someone else's garden and help to cover the costs, everyone is invited, as long as you are willing to pay the cover fee.
Look anyone can set up their own gardens and invited everyone they would like to come and play in their garden, but when you do not have the means or the money for your own garden you have to play by the rules of other people's garden.
everyone wants the benefits of selling to customer apple cultivated, but they do not want to cover some of the costs to cultivate those customers. Apple has all the infrastructure and carries lots of the liability none of which the developer have to deal with.
It's not only about infrastructure and services.
Apple has been historically very protective of its own offerings to the point of not letting competitors encroach on certain areas.
Allowing other App Stores to operate on iOS hardware, however unlikely that is, would represent a true change in attitude. While that isn't an option, there is no real choice.
That said, I think the current model won't last forever.
Ask Google how well that is working for them and their Android platform. At lease the Apple solution is stable and it draws some of the most creative solutions out there. So what that is does not cater to the 5% of the people who want to hack around with their phone and customize it.
Actually, it isn't that bad for Google but that wasn't the point. Which option is more secure wasn't the point either. The point was having the choice, be it (the implementation, that is) worse, the same, or better.
I have seen nothing (in this thread or anywhere else) that truly manages to support the idea that Gatekeeper should be always on in macOS and far less to support the walled garden in iOS.
The only reason it isn't always on in macOS (with the lock-in as a consequence) is that the lock-in model came second on the timeline. I am sure that Apple wants to lock apps down on macOS eventually and is moving in that direction but the decision hasn't arrived yet.
My guess is that the words to justify such a move will be something like '90% of our users use Gatekeeper and local security has improved as a result, so we've decided to make apps only available from the Mac App Store'.
What they won't say so openly is that as a result, Apple will be taking a cut of all proceeds from the store and that alternative solutions could be created to provide the same functionality while eliminating Apple as the only option and providing an area for true competition.
Actually apple has locked down the Mac and has been that way for a number of years, grant it they still offer a way around it if you want to install apps which did not originate from the store. I guess you have not tried to install an app that has not come from a known source the Mac will not allow it even with your admin password. You have to take a number of steps to install apps from outside the eco system and gatekeeper, even MS is adopting this method to try and keep bad things from installing on to people computers.
Apple introduced the idea on IOS and now is pushing the same idea to the Mac, The Mac and computers have a long history of doing it other ways, you can not just shut the door and tell everyone they have to do it a new way without backward compatibilities. Again Apple has a long history of easing people into changes and support legacy methods for a period of time. I willing to bet at some time in the near future you will not be able to install apps on the mac unless they come from Apples store.
What you do not understand, the only way to make something secure is to control the solution end to end. As soon as you open a door to allow people access outside the control system you are asking for problems. Talk to MS about this, and all the doors they open over the years to allow outsiders a way in to control the system. With Apple the are only one door and the door has gatekeeper who verifies what is coming through the door. Even with this tight control method, even apple gotten burned, but they could stop the spread far faster than MS ever could.
While Google continues to fuel the Communist ripoff artists (Huawei, Oppo, LeEco, Meizu, Xiaomi and seemingly a billion others) at the expense of Western companies/innovation (Nokia, RIM, Palm (RIP), Motorola (RIP), Microsoft, Apple), people like Gatorguy continue to defend them to the death. Anything for that sweet, sweet targeted advertising revenue. Shameful.
walled garden which everyone is invited in except the serpents. Apple happened to put a bouncer at the gate, while google is too business doing no evil.
Let's not forget that not everyone is invited and the invitation, where it exists, has a cost.
There have been many cases of legitimate apps getting refused entry or told to modify functionality.
Everyone is invited some people just chose not to join in. It just the cover fee at the door, when you do not have the place to set up a party and can not handle the total number of people you would like to party with then you have to play in someone else's garden and help to cover the costs, everyone is invited, as long as you are willing to pay the cover fee.
Look anyone can set up their own gardens and invited everyone they would like to come and play in their garden, but when you do not have the means or the money for your own garden you have to play by the rules of other people's garden.
everyone wants the benefits of selling to customer apple cultivated, but they do not want to cover some of the costs to cultivate those customers. Apple has all the infrastructure and carries lots of the liability none of which the developer have to deal with.
It's not only about infrastructure and services.
Apple has been historically very protective of its own offerings to the point of not letting competitors encroach on certain areas.
Allowing other App Stores to operate on iOS hardware, however unlikely that is, would represent a true change in attitude. While that isn't an option, there is no real choice.
That said, I think the current model won't last forever.
Ask Google how well that is working for them and their Android platform. At lease the Apple solution is stable and it draws some of the most creative solutions out there. So what that is does not cater to the 5% of the people who want to hack around with their phone and customize it.
Actually, it isn't that bad for Google but that wasn't the point. Which option is more secure wasn't the point either. The point was having the choice, be it (the implementation, that is) worse, the same, or better.
I have seen nothing (in this thread or anywhere else) that truly manages to support the idea that Gatekeeper should be always on in macOS and far less to support the walled garden in iOS.
The only reason it isn't always on in macOS (with the lock-in as a consequence) is that the lock-in model came second on the timeline. I am sure that Apple wants to lock apps down on macOS eventually and is moving in that direction but the decision hasn't arrived yet.
My guess is that the words to justify such a move will be something like '90% of our users use Gatekeeper and local security has improved as a result, so we've decided to make apps only available from the Mac App Store'.
What they won't say so openly is that as a result, Apple will be taking a cut of all proceeds from the store and that alternative solutions could be created to provide the same functionality while eliminating Apple as the only option and providing an area for true competition.
Actually apple has locked down the Mac and has been that way for a number of years, grant it they still offer a way around it if you want to install apps which did not originate from the store. I guess you have not tried to install an app that has not come from a known source the Mac will not allow it even with your admin password. You have to take a number of steps to install apps from outside the eco system and gatekeeper, even MS is adopting this method to try and keep bad things from installing on to people computers.
Apple introduced the idea on IOS and now is pushing the same idea to the Mac, The Mac and computers have a long history of doing it other ways, you can not just shut the door and tell everyone they have to do it a new way without backward compatibilities. Again Apple has a long history of easing people into changes and support legacy methods for a period of time. I willing to bet at some time in the near future you will not be able to install apps on the mac unless they come from Apples store.
What you do not understand, the only way to make something secure is to control the solution end to end. As soon as you open a door to allow people access outside the control system you are asking for problems. Talk to MS about this, and all the doors they open over the years to allow outsiders a way in to control the system. With Apple the are only one door and the door has gatekeeper who verifies what is coming through the door. Even with this tight control method, even apple gotten burned, but they could stop the spread far faster than MS ever could.
While I agree with what you think the future of macOS app installation will be, it still doesn't address the root issue which I mentioned at the start of this thread: choice.
Choice is entirely possible. The 'problem' is Apple allowing other stores on its hardware. I understand Apple's position but that doesn't change anything. Lack.of choice is not a good thing.
Looks like someone is trying to scam the AI membership with an alternate Apple iCloud Support site. Dredging up an old thread is almost always a clue...
Comments
Gatorguy reminds me of all of those tobacco company sponsored PR people who spun the facts to make tobacco appear to be a safe product back in the 60's and 70's, even sponsoring research to refute legitimate medical research.
When the truth became overwhelming, the tobacco companies stopped the nonsense because there was no one believing them anymore.
The same will happen to Google and Android. If this malware has the ability to take photos, listen in on conversations and the like, it's a VERY MAJOR problem. It's a HIPAA violation just waiting to happen. And when it does, Google is going to subject to very large civil lawsuits they cannot win. The attorneys will be salivating after going after Google's billions. Never mind the potential criminal issues involved.
If I were in Pichai's shoes, I would probably want to keep it quiet too. However, sometimes the right thing to do is to be honest and transparent. It's not going to happen and Google is faced with a nightmare on its hands.
The whole thing I find amusing is the fact that development of the software is automated. So we now get to experience the next big thing in AI. Utilizing "intelligent" computing platforms to develop sophisticated malware. Perhaps such malware can automate the process of transferring large sums of money to ISIL and North Korean bank accounts from various western nations.
Perhaps Google will one day realize that the development and release of new technology comes with responsibilities. The company acts like its run by a bunch of juveniles. Kids who do things for fun but don't realize the potential consequences. And then when the consequences come, they try to shirk any responsibility.
It's time for the company to grow up. There's nothing wrong with admitting oversights and mistakes. There is nothing wrong with trying to right past wrongs and act as a responsible and decent corporate partner. It's too much to ask I know. Google will be around for a long time. But they won't be getting my business. And if they continue to behave as they do, they are going to turn off ever larger portions of the public off to their practices. But their products appear inexpensive. There will always be a market for them. That is, if one wants to live with the trade offs in having little to no privacy.
I don't want to sideload apps. I want my phone to be as secure as possible.
Anyway facts are facts and I'm not disputing the ones AI used in the article. Besides, because it's Google any even minor issue will be promoted here as proof of the roof falling in on them, impending doom and all.
I have seen nothing (in this thread or anywhere else) that truly manages to support the idea that Gatekeeper should be always on in macOS and far less to support the walled garden in iOS.
The only reason it isn't always on in macOS (with the lock-in as a consequence) is that the lock-in model came second on the timeline. I am sure that Apple wants to lock apps down on macOS eventually and is moving in that direction but the decision hasn't arrived yet.
My guess is that the words to justify such a move will be something like '90% of our users use Gatekeeper and local security has improved as a result, so we've decided to make apps only available from the Mac App Store'.
What they won't say so openly is that as a result, Apple will be taking a cut of all proceeds from the store and that alternative solutions could be created to provide the same functionality while eliminating Apple as the only option and providing an area for true competition.
When you finish reading this, please post back with who they copied from.
www.huawei.com/en/about-huawei/research-development
And then possibly explain why a company invests billions in R&D when it could just rip off Apple and other, ehem, western countries.
Or even better, provide a list of examples so we can take a look at them.
Actually apple has locked down the Mac and has been that way for a number of years, grant it they still offer a way around it if you want to install apps which did not originate from the store. I guess you have not tried to install an app that has not come from a known source the Mac will not allow it even with your admin password. You have to take a number of steps to install apps from outside the eco system and gatekeeper, even MS is adopting this method to try and keep bad things from installing on to people computers.
Apple introduced the idea on IOS and now is pushing the same idea to the Mac, The Mac and computers have a long history of doing it other ways, you can not just shut the door and tell everyone they have to do it a new way without backward compatibilities. Again Apple has a long history of easing people into changes and support legacy methods for a period of time. I willing to bet at some time in the near future you will not be able to install apps on the mac unless they come from Apples store.
What you do not understand, the only way to make something secure is to control the solution end to end. As soon as you open a door to allow people access outside the control system you are asking for problems. Talk to MS about this, and all the doors they open over the years to allow outsiders a way in to control the system. With Apple the are only one door and the door has gatekeeper who verifies what is coming through the door. Even with this tight control method, even apple gotten burned, but they could stop the spread far faster than MS ever could.
Choice is entirely possible. The 'problem' is Apple allowing other stores on its hardware. I understand Apple's position but that doesn't change anything. Lack.of choice is not a good thing.