No, your *theory* was that the OS can't be relied upon for security.
Your words:
Anytime you think of an operating system as your security, you have already lost the battle.
The Android OS has a feature by which a user can completely bypass the most fundamental security involved.
I never claimed that having that box checked would prevent ALL types of malware, but it certainly will prevent third party apps form being installed.
No, you said the exact opposite, you said that an OS *can't* provide sufficient security. So, obviously your claim wasn't that there is no Android malware, quite the opposite!
iOS *doesn't* have a malware problem, due to the security mechanisms of the OS being tied to a curated App Store. Based on your words, this cannot happen. Perhaps your wording was... loose?
If we can agree that iOS has reliable security, while Android has only a very loose security, then there's nothing more for us to discuss, we are in agreement as far as the important bits go. But if you think an OS cannot provide security, then you'll have to explain how iOS isn't an example of this.
And considering TFA states explicitly that this particular malware WAS installed using a third party app, you really have no argument.
That would only be true if the malware in TFA was the only malware that existed for Android. Sadly, that is far from the truth.
The first citation lists: "146 of the 28,398 malware samples were found on Google Play"
And: "23,049 were potentially unwanted software (PUA), 13,639 of which came from Google Play."
Hell, even the title says "0.5% came from Google Play"
And your quote? "This means most users, at least in countries where Google Play is available, won't ever see these malicious apps."
Again, by saying "most", that means there will be some who do. Re-read my post and you will see I never came close to implying most, just that it happens on Android, and doesn't happen on iOS.
What makes it user specific in my interpretation is that it's a security mechanism. There's no security in having a line that says "slide along this line to unlock". The patent makes it very clear from the beginning that it's about user security.
These were at the top of a simple google search, and are recent news items.
So yeah, maybe my "theory" (I presented no theory, just an observation of facts. You presented a theory. Please learn the difference) matches reality a bit better than yours.
"Android is better because it's free. Any use of that freedom doesn't count."???
If Android is a Linux distro, then BlackXP, available via torrent, is a valid Windows release.
Only MS, and those they have agreements with, are allowed to modify and distribute customized versions of Windows. Android (and Linux) are licensed such that everyone is allowed to modify and distribute it.
You can't go around calling something has more freedom, then bitch when that freedom is exercised!
Yup. Could just as easily infect a jailbroken iPhone this way.
This sort of infection vector is nothing to get excited about.
Except in China that's the only way to get apps, while on iOS you can get apps from the App Store.
So, what you are saying, is that Chinese people should not buy Android phones, and instead should buy iPhones, at least until Google opens the Play Store in China? Or just that they should buy Android phones and not install apps?
I wasn't aware that "apps" were mandatory. I guess I must be doing it wrong (again...)
So, now you're doing it wrong if you install apps on Android?
Why is it that, somehow, China counts for Android, where all the non-Play, low quality Android phones are sold, but then when they get malware, all of a sudden they don't count? You want the good (numbers, "freedom") you gotta take the bad the comes along with it (crap phones, malware). People act like the ~70 of phones running Android are all Samsung Galaxy SIII's and Note 2's, and that if you install malware it's entirely your fault for not reading the source code of the software you just installed.
I really like Android a lot, Jelly Bean is a great system. Samsung makes some nice phones, as well as other hardware manufacturers. But let's be honest about our ability to have our cake and eat it too.
Anytime you think of an operating system as your security, you have already lost the battle. Security is a process and procedures, not a product, not software, and not an operating system. Android can be locked down securely as well as iOS. Just don't uncheck the box allowing third party software to be installed and you thwart this type of attack.
That's a nice theory, but why doesn't it match reality?
iOS has never had anything like this on non-jailbroken iPhones, while Android has, even on non-rooted phones that disallow apps from outside the Play Store/Android Market.
Also, it's too specific to cover slide to unlock. It *might* cover Android's pattern unlock and MS's picture pattern unlock, because it talks about a user-specific geometric pattern in a specific direction as an authentication method. Slide to unlock is a universal gesture which does no authentication, it just prevents accidental unlocking. There is also a provision for detecting coercion (though I didn't read far enough to see if it's critical to the patent or not).
Even Google's and MS's unlock systems seem unaffected, but Apple's slide to unlock and Google's circle "move your finger at least this far" to unlock aren't going to be affected by this.
What do you mean "as big a problem as I think"? All I said is that it's bigger than zero, which is how much you said it should be!
That it's more expensive, broadly speaking, to support Android than it is to support iOS, is widely known. Which is just salt on the wound that is the fact that, in spite of being greater in number, Android users spend significantly less on apps than iOS users.
That's not to say that Android isn't a good platform, or that it's not good to develop for or fun to develop for, or anything like that. It's simply that, from a strictly financial point of view, it's much more difficult to make money on Android than it is on iOS. That does speak to the quality of the ecosystem however, and possibly the quality of the user base (though I suspect that that is highly influenced by the design of the ecosystem).
I really do wish Google would get on the ball on this. Android is an enjoyable system with plenty of hardware options. But it primarily falls short when it comes to the app ecosystem. I do see the quality of the apps improving. Google just needs to do more to facilitate the process.
Apple copied every other fucking phone maker before that enough with apple fan boy propaganda. The Design is NOT new.
Exactly correct, Doctor "+3 Informative" (at the time of this writing, one can only assume you will exceed +5 before the day is past)! The iPhone copied "every other fucking phone", what with its flip-phone form-factor, its hardware keyboard, its stylus, and, most of all, its lack of multitouch or even single-touch display!
Fortunately for us all, Samsung invented the minimalist slab-o-screen, multitouch, keyboardless phone years later or we'd all be stuck with Apple's Palm/BlackBerry/Windows Mobile clone!
Good thing you're around to set the record straight. +1's all around for your mastery of Orwellian doublespeak. You, sir, are a true Defender of the Cause! Huzzah!
You and your "apple fan boy propaganda" (also known as "reality") have no place here on Slashdot! Begone and let them get back to the comedy that is confusing patents with trademarks, waxing on about how Apple is on the skids and ignoring the unique look and feel of Apple stores, all while completely missing the forest for the trees by thinking the trademark simply covers having a glass facade or long tables.
With your facts and reasoned level-headedness, you sully the name "Anonymous Coward". For shame, sir. For shame!
Or do you honestly think there's a snowball's chance in hell that "Apple doesn't have much longer". They've just sold more iPhones and iPads than ever, had their best ever profits, and have something like $130+ billion in cash. The idea that they're on their way out is amazingly absurd.
The sad thing is, going back 2-3 years, you'll find no shortage of Slashdot commenters making that very claim, over and over, all the while the exact opposite has been the norm over that period of time.
No doubt, such a scenario is technically possible, but the only evidence to support it actually occurring is fervent delusional Apple-hatred, nothing more.
If the furniture blocked out significantly more space than one would expect, yes, they are being misleading and should be made to give a more reasonable description.
On most tablets, it's widely understood, and standard, that the "formatted" capacity is less than the raw capacity (though even that is still footnoted in the specs), that there's a difference between the decimal and binary values, and that the OS itself subtracts from available space, but the OS is on the order of around 1-2GB, not 45!!!
That's nowhere near reasonable. If I buy a 64GB iPad, I can roughly estimate that at 1.5 GB/hour, I can store 20+ HD movies. But on a Surface Pro? The 64GB model will have enough free for... 3-4!
The issue is whether it's deceptive or not. And I find it very difficult to believe that people will realize at the get-go that they will be losing up to 45GB of space.
Once explained, I think people will understand (even if they aren't happy) what's going on. But just like the Windows RT Surface misleading people into thinking it's the same Windows that runs on standard PCs, this is something MS needs to (maybe by law, but at the very least as an honest and trustworthy proprietor) do more to make these facts clear.
Unfortunately, from a PR perspective, these are not convenient facts. Even so, consumers will find these out eventually anyway, so better to be up front about it than to obscure them in the hopes of a quick (and at least partially fraudulent) sale.
At around half a billion iOS devices, I think it's fair to say Apple is one of the companies that dominates the market. In fact, one of only two, with Google (by OS) or two, with Samsung (by hardware).
Speaking of red herrings, would you be so kind as to point out where it says Apple's market share percentage is dominant over the rest of the market? Because it's not actually there.
Slashdot commenters are so eager to get all fanboy in their hatred for Apple, realities are distorted, and this is no exception. To attempt to argue that Apple isn't a dominant player in the smartphone market is... amusing to say the least!
Not everyone is going to share your opinions on the matter. Why does that seem to bother you so?
The issue here is that if all devices marketed to home users are locked down the way certain Apple, Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony products are, devices that aren't locked down may lose their economies of scale to the point where only businesses can afford them.
That will never, ever happen. Ever.
The reason is threefold. First is that there is no shortage of hobbyists. DIY PCs, even in the worst case scenario, would be like ham radio. Absolutely it can become more expensive than the "locked down" PCs, just like ham radio equipment is more expensive than commodity FM/AM radios, but it will always be available and attainable by standard people. Look at the Raspberry Pi and the countless other ARM systems. There are $50 Android USB stick PCs!
So, for that reason alone, your Chicken Little scenario will never ever come to pass.
The second reason is that, as you point out, businesses (and academia) will need unlocked hardware. Multiply that out by the millions and millions of businesses, researchers, students... And you'll see that the economies of scale still exist.
And, finally, technology becomes cheaper and cheaper. Already there are $30 PCs that are fully functional PCs, with HDMI, networking, RAM, USB, CPU, the entire package ready to go. In 10 years, that shit will be built into magazine ads and throwaway flyers.
So it's never going to happen. Ever. It's all but physically impossible.
But you are prone to fantasy. You talk about absurd scenarios as though they are the norm. I believe that's called paranoid delusional.
But by no means, should you let the facts get in the way of your brand loyalty.
On the contrary, I'm railing against brand hatred. I don't care if you like iOS or iPhones or Apple itself. Only that it's pointless to quip silly things that don't fucking matter, like lens flair. It's not bad on the iPhone 5. The worst you can say about it is that it's purple.
It's not like it just happens out of nowhere. All lenses have it, when you point at a bright light source. "Ooh, this camera has 10% more lens flare" or "that camera's lens flair is purpler!". Using that as an insult against a product is silly, and the very "brand loyalty" bullshit you pretend to be against.
I don't hate Apple; I just disagree with aspects of its business model.
It's just a shame you don't act that way.
In other words: "Apple products aren't for everyone." At that point, we can agree to agree.
Indeed. Now if only we could agree to agree that Apple products actually are for some people. Many people, in fact, if the hundreds of millions of happy Apple customers is anything to go by.
Not everyone is going to share your opinions on the matter. Why does that seem to bother you so? What harm does it do to you for someone else to make different choices? What concern is it of yours? They are happy and their choices are bettering their lives, and isn't that all that truly matters?
You forgot to add "... in the long run". Market share without profits can be very useful if the purpose is to drive other companies out of the market over a relatively short time period.
Exactly. iOS is not even remotely in danger of being driven out of the market. On the contrary, Apple is continuously doing better year after year.
Other than as a matter of pride, Google doesn't care terribly much whether Android dominates the market or not. It's simply a way to bolster (through control) their ad revenues.
However if a company is competing solely on price but cannot drive others out of the industry (think airline industry)
Or the industry we are talking about...
The main problem is people mistakenly look at it as a single industry. It's not. Google's industry is ads. Apple's is hardware (or hardware and software, if you prefer, but their revenue is from hardware sales). Google "wins" whenever someone views an ad, be it on Android or iOS or even BlackBerry. Apple "wins" whenever someone buys an iPhone or iPad, etc. It's a mistake to directly compare the two as though that's the entirety of the story.
Slashdot Mirror
No, your *theory* was that the OS can't be relied upon for security.
Your words:
Anytime you think of an operating system as your security, you have already lost the battle.
The Android OS has a feature by which a user can completely bypass the most fundamental security involved.
I never claimed that having that box checked would prevent ALL types of malware, but it certainly will prevent third party apps form being installed.
No, you said the exact opposite, you said that an OS *can't* provide sufficient security. So, obviously your claim wasn't that there is no Android malware, quite the opposite!
iOS *doesn't* have a malware problem, due to the security mechanisms of the OS being tied to a curated App Store. Based on your words, this cannot happen. Perhaps your wording was... loose?
If we can agree that iOS has reliable security, while Android has only a very loose security, then there's nothing more for us to discuss, we are in agreement as far as the important bits go. But if you think an OS cannot provide security, then you'll have to explain how iOS isn't an example of this.
And considering TFA states explicitly that this particular malware WAS installed using a third party app, you really have no argument.
That would only be true if the malware in TFA was the only malware that existed for Android. Sadly, that is far from the truth.
The first citation lists: "146 of the 28,398 malware samples were found on Google Play"
And: "23,049 were potentially unwanted software (PUA), 13,639 of which came from Google Play."
Hell, even the title says "0.5% came from Google Play"
And your quote? "This means most users, at least in countries where Google Play is available, won't ever see these malicious apps."
Again, by saying "most", that means there will be some who do. Re-read my post and you will see I never came close to implying most, just that it happens on Android, and doesn't happen on iOS.
What makes it user specific in my interpretation is that it's a security mechanism. There's no security in having a line that says "slide along this line to unlock". The patent makes it very clear from the beginning that it's about user security.
If this is the case, you posting a citation proving it should be trivial. Or maybe your theory is nice, but it doesn't match reality...
You're right, it is trivial.
Citation 1
Citation 2
These were at the top of a simple google search, and are recent news items.
So yeah, maybe my "theory" (I presented no theory, just an observation of facts. You presented a theory. Please learn the difference) matches reality a bit better than yours.
"Android is better because it's free. Any use of that freedom doesn't count."???
If Android is a Linux distro, then BlackXP, available via torrent, is a valid Windows release.
Only MS, and those they have agreements with, are allowed to modify and distribute customized versions of Windows. Android (and Linux) are licensed such that everyone is allowed to modify and distribute it.
You can't go around calling something has more freedom, then bitch when that freedom is exercised!
Yup.
Could just as easily infect a jailbroken iPhone this way.
This sort of infection vector is nothing to get excited about.
Except in China that's the only way to get apps, while on iOS you can get apps from the App Store.
So, what you are saying, is that Chinese people should not buy Android phones, and instead should buy iPhones, at least until Google opens the Play Store in China? Or just that they should buy Android phones and not install apps?
where should he get apps instead?
I wasn't aware that "apps" were mandatory. I guess I must be doing it wrong (again...)
So, now you're doing it wrong if you install apps on Android?
Why is it that, somehow, China counts for Android, where all the non-Play, low quality Android phones are sold, but then when they get malware, all of a sudden they don't count? You want the good (numbers, "freedom") you gotta take the bad the comes along with it (crap phones, malware). People act like the ~70 of phones running Android are all Samsung Galaxy SIII's and Note 2's, and that if you install malware it's entirely your fault for not reading the source code of the software you just installed.
I really like Android a lot, Jelly Bean is a great system. Samsung makes some nice phones, as well as other hardware manufacturers. But let's be honest about our ability to have our cake and eat it too.
Or just don't install every single app that promises you free bikini-clad-screencursors.
"Apple is bad because they don't allow porn. Google is better because they do. Oh, btw, don't install porn apps."???
the also unsurprising factor is that this is happening in China, where the same responses for how to prevent this have been sent every week:
download things from official trusted sources only.
"Android is better than iOS because it has a 'Freedom' button. Oh, also, never press that 'Freedom' button. kthxbye!"
Your sarcasm doesn't change the fact that iOS is more secure specifically due in large part that it does the very thing you are mocking.
To rephrase, you are saying that Android isn't less secure, and then say how good it is that the user has the option to make it less secure...?
Yes, Android provides a bit more freedom. But that freedom comes with a cost, and you can't just mock that cost away.
Anytime you think of an operating system as your security, you have already lost the battle. Security is a process and procedures, not a product, not software, and not an operating system. Android can be locked down securely as well as iOS. Just don't uncheck the box allowing third party software to be installed and you thwart this type of attack.
That's a nice theory, but why doesn't it match reality?
iOS has never had anything like this on non-jailbroken iPhones, while Android has, even on non-rooted phones that disallow apps from outside the Play Store/Android Market.
Also, it's too specific to cover slide to unlock. It *might* cover Android's pattern unlock and MS's picture pattern unlock, because it talks about a user-specific geometric pattern in a specific direction as an authentication method. Slide to unlock is a universal gesture which does no authentication, it just prevents accidental unlocking. There is also a provision for detecting coercion (though I didn't read far enough to see if it's critical to the patent or not).
Even Google's and MS's unlock systems seem unaffected, but Apple's slide to unlock and Google's circle "move your finger at least this far" to unlock aren't going to be affected by this.
What do you mean "as big a problem as I think"? All I said is that it's bigger than zero, which is how much you said it should be!
That it's more expensive, broadly speaking, to support Android than it is to support iOS, is widely known. Which is just salt on the wound that is the fact that, in spite of being greater in number, Android users spend significantly less on apps than iOS users.
That's not to say that Android isn't a good platform, or that it's not good to develop for or fun to develop for, or anything like that. It's simply that, from a strictly financial point of view, it's much more difficult to make money on Android than it is on iOS. That does speak to the quality of the ecosystem however, and possibly the quality of the user base (though I suspect that that is highly influenced by the design of the ecosystem).
I really do wish Google would get on the ball on this. Android is an enjoyable system with plenty of hardware options. But it primarily falls short when it comes to the app ecosystem. I do see the quality of the apps improving. Google just needs to do more to facilitate the process.
..fucking-believable.
Captcha is 'Circus' - quite appropriate for how I feel about the US patent system.
Based on the astonishing quality of the comments here, it should be "never go full-retard".
Sadly, it would never work. If commenters here could read, they'd notice simple facts like that this is a trademark, not a patent.
Apple copied every other fucking phone maker before that enough with apple fan boy propaganda. The Design is NOT new.
Exactly correct, Doctor "+3 Informative" (at the time of this writing, one can only assume you will exceed +5 before the day is past)! The iPhone copied "every other fucking phone", what with its flip-phone form-factor, its hardware keyboard, its stylus, and, most of all, its lack of multitouch or even single-touch display!
Fortunately for us all, Samsung invented the minimalist slab-o-screen, multitouch, keyboardless phone years later or we'd all be stuck with Apple's Palm/BlackBerry/Windows Mobile clone!
Good thing you're around to set the record straight. +1's all around for your mastery of Orwellian doublespeak. You, sir, are a true Defender of the Cause! Huzzah!
You and your "apple fan boy propaganda" (also known as "reality") have no place here on Slashdot! Begone and let them get back to the comedy that is confusing patents with trademarks, waxing on about how Apple is on the skids and ignoring the unique look and feel of Apple stores, all while completely missing the forest for the trees by thinking the trademark simply covers having a glass facade or long tables.
With your facts and reasoned level-headedness, you sully the name "Anonymous Coward". For shame, sir. For shame!
Exactly. The stupidity burned his eyes.
Or do you honestly think there's a snowball's chance in hell that "Apple doesn't have much longer". They've just sold more iPhones and iPads than ever, had their best ever profits, and have something like $130+ billion in cash. The idea that they're on their way out is amazingly absurd.
The sad thing is, going back 2-3 years, you'll find no shortage of Slashdot commenters making that very claim, over and over, all the while the exact opposite has been the norm over that period of time.
No doubt, such a scenario is technically possible, but the only evidence to support it actually occurring is fervent delusional Apple-hatred, nothing more.
If the furniture blocked out significantly more space than one would expect, yes, they are being misleading and should be made to give a more reasonable description.
On most tablets, it's widely understood, and standard, that the "formatted" capacity is less than the raw capacity (though even that is still footnoted in the specs), that there's a difference between the decimal and binary values, and that the OS itself subtracts from available space, but the OS is on the order of around 1-2GB, not 45!!!
That's nowhere near reasonable. If I buy a 64GB iPad, I can roughly estimate that at 1.5 GB/hour, I can store 20+ HD movies. But on a Surface Pro? The 64GB model will have enough free for... 3-4!
The issue is whether it's deceptive or not. And I find it very difficult to believe that people will realize at the get-go that they will be losing up to 45GB of space.
Once explained, I think people will understand (even if they aren't happy) what's going on. But just like the Windows RT Surface misleading people into thinking it's the same Windows that runs on standard PCs, this is something MS needs to (maybe by law, but at the very least as an honest and trustworthy proprietor) do more to make these facts clear.
Unfortunately, from a PR perspective, these are not convenient facts. Even so, consumers will find these out eventually anyway, so better to be up front about it than to obscure them in the hopes of a quick (and at least partially fraudulent) sale.
One could argue the tablet is not really a computer
Only if one knew absolutely nothing whatever about computers.
Sadly, many people who know a lot about computers seem even more prone to making that very mistake.
At around half a billion iOS devices, I think it's fair to say Apple is one of the companies that dominates the market. In fact, one of only two, with Google (by OS) or two, with Samsung (by hardware).
Speaking of red herrings, would you be so kind as to point out where it says Apple's market share percentage is dominant over the rest of the market? Because it's not actually there.
Slashdot commenters are so eager to get all fanboy in their hatred for Apple, realities are distorted, and this is no exception. To attempt to argue that Apple isn't a dominant player in the smartphone market is... amusing to say the least!
Not everyone is going to share your opinions on the matter. Why does that seem to bother you so?
The issue here is that if all devices marketed to home users are locked down the way certain Apple, Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony products are, devices that aren't locked down may lose their economies of scale to the point where only businesses can afford them.
That will never, ever happen. Ever.
The reason is threefold. First is that there is no shortage of hobbyists. DIY PCs, even in the worst case scenario, would be like ham radio. Absolutely it can become more expensive than the "locked down" PCs, just like ham radio equipment is more expensive than commodity FM/AM radios, but it will always be available and attainable by standard people. Look at the Raspberry Pi and the countless other ARM systems. There are $50 Android USB stick PCs!
So, for that reason alone, your Chicken Little scenario will never ever come to pass.
The second reason is that, as you point out, businesses (and academia) will need unlocked hardware. Multiply that out by the millions and millions of businesses, researchers, students... And you'll see that the economies of scale still exist.
And, finally, technology becomes cheaper and cheaper. Already there are $30 PCs that are fully functional PCs, with HDMI, networking, RAM, USB, CPU, the entire package ready to go. In 10 years, that shit will be built into magazine ads and throwaway flyers.
So it's never going to happen. Ever. It's all but physically impossible.
But you are prone to fantasy. You talk about absurd scenarios as though they are the norm. I believe that's called paranoid delusional.
But by no means, should you let the facts get in the way of your brand loyalty.
On the contrary, I'm railing against brand hatred. I don't care if you like iOS or iPhones or Apple itself. Only that it's pointless to quip silly things that don't fucking matter, like lens flair. It's not bad on the iPhone 5. The worst you can say about it is that it's purple.
It's not like it just happens out of nowhere. All lenses have it, when you point at a bright light source. "Ooh, this camera has 10% more lens flare" or "that camera's lens flair is purpler!". Using that as an insult against a product is silly, and the very "brand loyalty" bullshit you pretend to be against.
I don't hate Apple; I just disagree with aspects of its business model.
It's just a shame you don't act that way.
In other words: "Apple products aren't for everyone." At that point, we can agree to agree.
Indeed. Now if only we could agree to agree that Apple products actually are for some people. Many people, in fact, if the hundreds of millions of happy Apple customers is anything to go by.
Not everyone is going to share your opinions on the matter. Why does that seem to bother you so? What harm does it do to you for someone else to make different choices? What concern is it of yours? They are happy and their choices are bettering their lives, and isn't that all that truly matters?
We don't all have to be the same.
56 billion Won, or about 50 million dollars. Whoopdie-frickin-doo!
You forgot to add "... in the long run". Market share without profits can be very useful if the purpose is to drive other companies out of the market over a relatively short time period.
Exactly. iOS is not even remotely in danger of being driven out of the market. On the contrary, Apple is continuously doing better year after year.
Other than as a matter of pride, Google doesn't care terribly much whether Android dominates the market or not. It's simply a way to bolster (through control) their ad revenues.
However if a company is competing solely on price but cannot drive others out of the industry (think airline industry)
Or the industry we are talking about...
The main problem is people mistakenly look at it as a single industry. It's not. Google's industry is ads. Apple's is hardware (or hardware and software, if you prefer, but their revenue is from hardware sales). Google "wins" whenever someone views an ad, be it on Android or iOS or even BlackBerry. Apple "wins" whenever someone buys an iPhone or iPad, etc. It's a mistake to directly compare the two as though that's the entirety of the story.