Is harder to hide a backdoor when the code of the OS is open source and the apps are in html5
not really. there's no way a carrier just clones the OSS project and flashes it onto their phones. they always customize the software further. as long as the underlying OS allows for modular services, the fact that the OSS project does or does not have something has little to do with what will be running on the phone.
regardless, the carrier doesn't even need software on the device to watch you. they can monitor your network traffic and location simply by the fact that you are using their network.
and, if you think your carrier isn't watching you, i have a nice bridge to sell you. they all do it. whether they share that data with law enforcement is the only question.
Number 3 is pretty much false, because even air-headed teenagers know to put a find-phone-app on their phone and the best ones are free, and even Plan 9 (Morning after pill of find-phone-apps) is free.
first, it's plan B, and second, plan B only works on android 2 because it uses a security exploit.
Really? How so? I can't think of any way that my banking accounts are linked to my Google account.
there's plenty of data that can be phished from years of archived email. just knowing you have an account at blah blah credit union gets someone a long way. not to mention knowing your middle name, birthday, mother's maiden name, SSN, etc., which all could typically be gotten from your email.
One wonders why Google wanted in this market, when it was so (more than) adequately populated with other apps.
1. because "find my device" is something users expect for free, and the free offerings available are either weak or crippled. 2. because tracking / locating is a sensitive feature, and people trust google more than others 3. because find my phone is something that people don't know they need until they need it, so if it can be one of the pre-installed google apps, all the better
it's a bit pricier than a MacBook Air (equal if you don't include the Type Cover) and it's more flexible
and it's suffering from the same problem as first generation of android tablets. sexy, powerful, pretty much good as the apple alternative? yes... but the problem is people want apple. apple is the gold standard in ultra light weight laptops.
you have to give people reason to consider the unknown, unproven alternative. apple does a pretty good job of staying on top of the latest technology, so you have to beat them on price. android tablets didn't start taking off until they got significantly cheaper than the ipad...
A tablet cannot succeed when it depends on accessories to be useful, especially when those accessories are optional and hurting mobility.
mobility *always* hurts usability. my macbook is more usable w/ out accessories than a tablet, but it's also 3x as heavy (disregarding the screen size difference). are you are saying that a tablet form is not useful, and it must have the baggage of a KB and mouse to be so? i think tablet sales are there to say you are wrong.
tablet manufacturers aren't really pushing tablets as dual use yet... probably because the technology is not quite there... but it's close. a tablet that is powerful enough to replace my laptop and can drop into a dock to get a keyboard and mouse and a larger display is the killer device IMHO.
Any product recommendations? The idea of being able to have a mouse to work with my Nexus while using VPN/RDP is really interesting for me -- but I got the impression you need a Bluetooth device which is more geared to mobile devices to make the pairing work.
if you are using modern android, pretty much any BT mouse / kb will work. you can also get a USB OTG cable (and a hub if you need it) and plug in wired (or wireless) USB devices directly.
Windows RT may have been designed as a productivity device, but apparently it was no better at it than the iPad or any Android tablet or any laptop out there, or it would've sold really well.
microsoft entered the market at a point where it was already dominated by android and iOS tablets across all market segments. there is also the fact that everyone's other mobile device, their phone, is either android or iOS. it's hard to break into a market like that regardless of quality.
I think you are still missing the point. My Windows Mobile brick also tried to be a phone and a computer at the same time.
if someone can make a tablet-form-factor "PC", that is powerful enough, can dock to a larger screen and more traditional input devices... why can't you merge functionality? i'd love such a device
right now, the problem is getting the processing power of a mid-range laptop into a tablet form factor is very expensive, or even not possible. you think that will last forever, especially considering the r&d that is going into miniaturizing components for phones and traditional tablets?
Tablets are fine for what they are, but you can't sell them as a productivity tool without actually designing it as one, and that's what Microsoft tried to pull with Windows RT.
uh, what? the tablets you are describing are android and iOS based... small display, no standard keyboard / mouse interface, relatively weak processing power.
microsoft actually has (had) a decent plan. the tablet is the PC. tablet-ish form factors with larger displays and non-touch input devices standard... along with laptop-like processing power. RT was the low-end offering, but the x86 windows tablets were fairly capable computers.
Got that? Microsoft spent more in a single year advertising the Windows 8 and Surface launches than it took in from Surface sales that same year.
what would be amazing is if they didn't do that.
android and iOS are completely and utterly entrenched in the tablet market. for a third party to come in cold and take some that pie will certainly involve some initial losses.
and you can install any of the multitude of players and network file access solutions. it's not perfect since the interface is not optimized for a TV, but it works pretty well and is capable of doing many other things that a dedicated streaming player like roku cannot.
I agree it's redonculous. Why would samsung want to do that?
ummm. more money? samung sees google making money on software / services. samsung wants that money. no company likes to see other companies "eating their lunch" so to speak.
you are wrong. nexus devices in particular are essentially cost, plus some padding for support, returns, and shipping. why do you think the nexus 4 retailed at $300, but galaxy line starts at over $600?
If someone wants me to migrate away from Android to their pet OS, then not having Google+ will be the kilelr feature.
so basically, you are saying you are willing to buy their hardware at a loss to them, but you aren't willing to participate in any of the add-on services that actually earn them a profit.
You can keep all your privacy invading products to yourself Sundar. My next phone is going to be either a Jolla or a FirefoxOS device. I got tired of the whole Google+-ification of every Google product.
if you think any product that is released on a major carrier is not tracking your every bit, i have a bridge to sell you. such data is the single most valuable asset owned by these companies and they aren't going to give it up.
Indeed. Not only would that be much more secure because there is no unvetted 3rd party code running inside your security perimeter, but the web also runs much faster when done that way.
there's a balance between usability and security. going too far one way or the other doesn't work. the world seems to be benefiting from the way the web works, don't you think?
and no, transmitting the entire user interface and data model of an application on each interaction with the application is (obviously) not faster.
"Patch [blah blah blah]" is also a traumatically stupid thing to say, because they have already done this.
let me try to explain this to you. android is linux + linux patches + the android plafform. the linux patches are largely, but not entirely there to support running the android platform. so saying you want to run chrome (desktop) on android doesn't make sense. it means you are,
1) running it on top of a linux that has irrelevant and probably detrimental patches.
2) running the entire android platform for no reason since you aren't running android apps.
at the very least, running chrome (desktop) on android means wasting memory and resources. at worst it means opening up the system to attack vectors for no benefit. if you all you are going to do is boot into chrome then you want the minimal linux that will allow that and to strip away everything else. that's why you have chromeos.
If Chrome for Android were worth a crap, and if you had Android boot right into it and didn't give any options to get out of it, then it would be like a Chromebook in every way that mattered; all the rest would be details.
so this is your plan? take linux, patch the heck out of it to support the android platform, then throw hundreds of megabytes of code and services on top of it provide the android platform to allow execution of android apps... then don't use any of it because you are booting straight into chrome. if only you had worked for google and could have shown them the error of their ways.
Slashdot Mirror
Is harder to hide a backdoor when the code of the OS is open source and the apps are in html5
not really. there's no way a carrier just clones the OSS project and flashes it onto their phones. they always customize the software further. as long as the underlying OS allows for modular services, the fact that the OSS project does or does not have something has little to do with what will be running on the phone.
regardless, the carrier doesn't even need software on the device to watch you. they can monitor your network traffic and location simply by the fact that you are using their network.
and, if you think your carrier isn't watching you, i have a nice bridge to sell you. they all do it. whether they share that data with law enforcement is the only question.
Then there is Plan B. (also in the app store at above link), for when you forget to install any of these ahead of time.
it only works on android 2 devices. says so right in the description.
Give you a choice if you want to allow your device to be controlled with strings from a google website remotely.
did you hear that they are forcing the app to be installed and activated on your android device? no? sheesh.
Number 3 is pretty much false, because even air-headed teenagers know to put a find-phone-app on their phone and the best ones are free, and even Plan 9 (Morning after pill of find-phone-apps) is free.
first, it's plan B, and second, plan B only works on android 2 because it uses a security exploit.
Really? How so? I can't think of any way that my banking accounts are linked to my Google account.
there's plenty of data that can be phished from years of archived email. just knowing you have an account at blah blah credit union gets someone a long way. not to mention knowing your middle name, birthday, mother's maiden name, SSN, etc., which all could typically be gotten from your email.
also sony,
https://myxperia.sonymobile.com/
One wonders why Google wanted in this market, when it was so (more than) adequately populated with other apps.
1. because "find my device" is something users expect for free, and the free offerings available are either weak or crippled.
2. because tracking / locating is a sensitive feature, and people trust google more than others
3. because find my phone is something that people don't know they need until they need it, so if it can be one of the pre-installed google apps, all the better
it's a bit pricier than a MacBook Air (equal if you don't include the Type Cover) and it's more flexible
and it's suffering from the same problem as first generation of android tablets. sexy, powerful, pretty much good as the apple alternative? yes ... but the problem is people want apple. apple is the gold standard in ultra light weight laptops.
you have to give people reason to consider the unknown, unproven alternative. apple does a pretty good job of staying on top of the latest technology, so you have to beat them on price. android tablets didn't start taking off until they got significantly cheaper than the ipad ...
A tablet cannot succeed when it depends on accessories to be useful, especially when those accessories are optional and hurting mobility.
mobility *always* hurts usability. my macbook is more usable w/ out accessories than a tablet, but it's also 3x as heavy (disregarding the screen size difference). are you are saying that a tablet form is not useful, and it must have the baggage of a KB and mouse to be so? i think tablet sales are there to say you are wrong.
tablet manufacturers aren't really pushing tablets as dual use yet ... probably because the technology is not quite there ... but it's close. a tablet that is powerful enough to replace my laptop and can drop into a dock to get a keyboard and mouse and a larger display is the killer device IMHO.
Any product recommendations? The idea of being able to have a mouse to work with my Nexus while using VPN/RDP is really interesting for me -- but I got the impression you need a Bluetooth device which is more geared to mobile devices to make the pairing work.
if you are using modern android, pretty much any BT mouse / kb will work. you can also get a USB OTG cable (and a hub if you need it) and plug in wired (or wireless) USB devices directly.
Windows RT may have been designed as a productivity device, but apparently it was no better at it than the iPad or any Android tablet or any laptop out there, or it would've sold really well.
microsoft entered the market at a point where it was already dominated by android and iOS tablets across all market segments. there is also the fact that everyone's other mobile device, their phone, is either android or iOS. it's hard to break into a market like that regardless of quality.
I think you are still missing the point. My Windows Mobile brick also tried to be a phone and a computer at the same time.
if someone can make a tablet-form-factor "PC", that is powerful enough, can dock to a larger screen and more traditional input devices ... why can't you merge functionality? i'd love such a device
right now, the problem is getting the processing power of a mid-range laptop into a tablet form factor is very expensive, or even not possible. you think that will last forever, especially considering the r&d that is going into miniaturizing components for phones and traditional tablets?
Tablets are fine for what they are, but you can't sell them as a productivity tool without actually designing it as one, and that's what Microsoft tried to pull with Windows RT.
uh, what? the tablets you are describing are android and iOS based ... small display, no standard keyboard / mouse interface, relatively weak processing power.
microsoft actually has (had) a decent plan. the tablet is the PC. tablet-ish form factors with larger displays and non-touch input devices standard ... along with laptop-like processing power. RT was the low-end offering, but the x86 windows tablets were fairly capable computers.
Office is one of the worst of many of these, and far from needed.
well, out in the Real World, office is the industry standard and is required to work in most business environments.
Got that? Microsoft spent more in a single year advertising the Windows 8 and Surface launches than it took in from Surface sales that same year.
what would be amazing is if they didn't do that.
android and iOS are completely and utterly entrenched in the tablet market. for a third party to come in cold and take some that pie will certainly involve some initial losses.
The general problem that Android players have is that they tend to be under-powered, particularly compared to top-end phones and tablets.
for $50, you can buy a quad-core android stick that will play anything you throw at it,
http://www.amazon.com/MK808-Android-Rockchip-RK3066-Cortex-A9/dp/B009OX22B4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374885694&sr=8-1&keywords=mk808
and you can install any of the multitude of players and network file access solutions. it's not perfect since the interface is not optimized for a TV, but it works pretty well and is capable of doing many other things that a dedicated streaming player like roku cannot.
if it doesn't even allow playing a musical recording that I composed, performed, and recorded myself
sync your music with google play. done.
I agree it's redonculous. Why would samsung want to do that?
ummm. more money?
samung sees google making money on software / services. samsung wants that money. no company likes to see other companies "eating their lunch" so to speak.
you are wrong. nexus devices in particular are essentially cost, plus some padding for support, returns, and shipping.
why do you think the nexus 4 retailed at $300, but galaxy line starts at over $600?
If someone wants me to migrate away from Android to their pet OS, then not having Google+ will be the kilelr feature.
so basically, you are saying you are willing to buy their hardware at a loss to them, but you aren't willing to participate in any of the add-on services that actually earn them a profit.
You can keep all your privacy invading products to yourself Sundar. My next phone is going to be either a Jolla or a FirefoxOS device. I got tired of the whole Google+-ification of every Google product.
if you think any product that is released on a major carrier is not tracking your every bit, i have a bridge to sell you. such data is the single most valuable asset owned by these companies and they aren't going to give it up.
strawmen, strawman ... strawman? strawman!
Indeed. Not only would that be much more secure because there is no unvetted 3rd party code running inside your security perimeter, but the web also runs much faster when done that way.
there's a balance between usability and security. going too far one way or the other doesn't work. the world seems to be benefiting from the way the web works, don't you think?
and no, transmitting the entire user interface and data model of an application on each interaction with the application is (obviously) not faster.
my friend, i would recommend you go read a book. you don't understand how android is put together.
http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920021094.do
"Patch [blah blah blah]" is also a traumatically stupid thing to say, because they have already done this.
let me try to explain this to you. android is linux + linux patches + the android plafform. the linux patches are largely, but not entirely there to support running the android platform. so saying you want to run chrome (desktop) on android doesn't make sense. it means you are,
1) running it on top of a linux that has irrelevant and probably detrimental patches.
2) running the entire android platform for no reason since you aren't running android apps.
at the very least, running chrome (desktop) on android means wasting memory and resources. at worst it means opening up the system to attack vectors for no benefit. if you all you are going to do is boot into chrome then you want the minimal linux that will allow that and to strip away everything else. that's why you have chromeos.
If Chrome for Android were worth a crap, and if you had Android boot right into it and didn't give any options to get out of it, then it would be like a Chromebook in every way that mattered; all the rest would be details.
so this is your plan? take linux, patch the heck out of it to support the android platform, then throw hundreds of megabytes of code and services on top of it provide the android platform to allow execution of android apps ... then don't use any of it because you are booting straight into chrome. if only you had worked for google and could have shown them the error of their ways.
Whereas if I run the same program twice on my desktop, it's the same program both times.
that's a bad assumption. what's stopping the desktop app from connecting to the internet and downloading code and executing it? answer: nothing.
there's nothing special about your browser. it's just a native application. anyone can write a native application that doesn't the same thing.