The first chink in Android's armor

[samcraig]

Yes, but Apples primary profitability derives from selling products to consumers. The vast bulk of their revenue depends on that business model. The hand that feeds Apple is end users and their good will.

Google's entire business model is 100% advertising funded. Which means end users are not their primary customers. End-users are farmed by feeding them free services, and then their eyeballs sold to advertisers. Google has to do this to survive - it's their only trick.

My argument is that difference is not a technicality. I think it is a profound difference. It fundamentally affects how the two companies treat and deal with end-users. And I think if you look hard its possible to taste that difference in how their respective products are presented and delivered.

C.

But you're wrong. Google doesn't make 100 percent of it's revenue from advertising. They have a ton of enterprise solutions and back end SaaS systems. Their "product" is cloud based computing in ADDITION to advertising. Yes - they have free services. But they also have paid services as well.

So that's why I think you're commentary isn't exactly "fair" so to speak.

 

[BaldiMac]

But you're wrong. Google doesn't make 100 percent of it's revenue from advertising. They have a ton of enterprise solutions and back end SaaS systems. Their "product" is cloud based computing in ADDITION to advertising. Yes - they have free services. But they also have paid services as well.

So that's why I think you're commentary isn't exactly "fair" so to speak.

Your being a little disingenuous here. According to Google's 2009 Annual Report, 97% of their revenue is from advertising.

 

[samcraig]

Your being a little disingenuous here. According to Google's 2009 Annual Report, 97% of their revenue is from advertising.

Yes - well - let's revisit that when the 2010 report is released. And then we can also look at Apple's report to determine how much of their revenue is coming from advertising.

I never said Google wasn't primarily in the business of advertising. My point is that both companies are in the business. Apple is clearly first and foremost a product company. Although one could argue that it's all a means to drive people to their cloud-based computing efforts (itunes, etc).

ETA: look above me - the poster said 100 percent. You say 97 percent. However small - the correction (yours) is valid. Google, as I said - is not 100 percent ad based

 

[BaldiMac]

Yes - well - let's revisit that when the 2010 report is released. And then we can also look at Apple's report to determine how much of their revenue is coming from advertising.

What are you implying? It's been at 97% for two years. Maybe we will see it hit 96%? How does that change anything? Paid services are not a significant source of revenue for Google.

I never said Google wasn't primarily in the business of advertising. My point is that both companies are in the business.

Yes, but nowhere near the same degree. Carniphage's point was about primary motivations. Google's primary motivation is advertising revenue. Apple's is not.

Apple is clearly first and foremost a product company. Although one could argue that it's all a means to drive people to their cloud-based computing efforts (itunes, etc).

Why would anyone argue that? The iTunes store is less than 7% of Apple's revenue and far less a percentage of their profits.

 

[samcraig]

No need to perpetuate the discussion surrounding this. You called me disingenuous because I argued the point the google is not 100 percent ad driven. You, yourself said it's 97 percent. Call it semantics or whatever you want 100 percent is not and never will be 97 percent. And the poster I was responding to said 100 percent.

Moving on...

 

[Carniphage]

So that's why I think you're commentary isn't exactly "fair" so to speak.

I'll use a nice metaphor.

There are two young women, one makes her living as a graphic designer. But when on a date, likes her date to pay for dinner. The other makes 97% percent of her income selling sex for money.

My argument is that this difference in revenue source might make a difference. It might change how they act, and even how they dress.

It might, if truth be known, make a difference to how much you should trust them?

C.

 

[samcraig]

I'll use a nice metaphor.

There are two young women, one makes her living as a graphic designer. But when on a date, likes her date to pay for dinner. The other makes 97% percent of her income selling sex for money.

My argument is that this difference in revenue source might make a difference. It might change how they act, and even how they dress.

It might, if truth be known, make a difference to how much you should trust them?

C.

Ironically - your post is either a really good or really poor example. Why?

Because you're asking about trust. In that scenario - and if we relate it over to google - I would trust google/the "lady of the evening" more. You KNOW what you're getting into bed with - so to speak. With the graphic designer - anything could be the motivation. There's more of a reason NOT to trust - no? There's more grey area.


LOL - fun example to dissect though.

 

[BaldiMac]

You called me disingenuous because I argued the point the google is not 100 percent ad driven.

No, I said you were being a little disingenuous because you were trying to argue that Apple and Google have the same motivations regarding advertising data despite the fact that advertising revenue is almost all of Google's business and a minor part of Apple's business. I brought up the percentage because it appeared that you were trying to imply that paid services were a significant part of Google's revenue.

 

[kdarling]

In terms of actual reported instances of malicious apps sending personal data - as far as I can tell, of the actual reported instances seem to be Android apps beaming contact data overseas.

As far as I know, the only instance of this (a live wallpaper) turned out to be bad reporting.

Of the other two supposed Trojans, I think one was fairly real (it was a fake media player that was sending out SMSs for some reason). However, it was stoppable because it was a media player asking for SMS permission, it only worked in Russia, and it was never actually in the Android market.

The other was a game called Tap Snake that uploaded your GPS position to a server, from which another app sold by the same person could track that phone. Of course, this made the GPS indicator light up on the status bar every 15 minutes, which made people suspicious. Not illegal or anything, but really sneaky. I think the developer got banned.

--
Most actual information uploads come from official advertising libraries that all companies seem to be pushing. (A result of the massive lowering of app prices started by the iPhone popularity. Many devs now need ads to make income from "free" apps.)

Many times apps ask for permissions that aren't used. Such goofs stem from the same problem that iOS has: lots of new junior programmers who copy&paste sample code without understanding it.

That fact is not surprising because the Android market place is un-policed. It is the wild-west. There is no vetting of content - and the responsibility is placed on the users to defend themselves. Instead of Android, perhaps Deadwood might be a better name?

Sorry, C., but that's FUD. The Android market is not a free-for-all. You can't just upload something anonymously.

It relies on security using the same model that Apple and RIM actually depend on in the end: developer registration and app-to-developer signatures.

By charging a fee, and requiring a confirmable address and credit card on file, common hackers are winnowed out, and bad apps can be instantly traced back to the developer, who can be questioned and/or banned.

 

[BaldiMac]

As far as I know, the only instance of this (a live wallpaper) turned out to be bad reporting.

Of the other two supposed Trojans, I think one was fairly real (it was a fake media player that was sending out SMSs for some reason). However, it was stoppable because it was a media player asking for SMS permission, it only worked in Russia, and it was never actually in the Android market.

The other was a game called Tap Snake that uploaded your GPS position to a server, from which another app sold by the same person could track that phone. Of course, this made the GPS indicator light up on the status bar every 15 minutes, which made people suspicious. Not illegal or anything, but really sneaky. I think the developer got banned.

And the tip calculator that you mentioned earlier which was really on Android and not the iPhone. And all the apps mentioned in this study.

It relies on security using the same model that Apple and RIM actually depend on in the end: developer registration and app-to-developer signatures.

If you ignore the testing that Apple does during the approval process.

 

[WeegieMac]

I wouldn’t say this is the first chink.

The first to me personally was that it looks ugly as dog **** compared to iOS and is nowhere near us intuitive.

I've used the HTC Desire, the Samsung Wave, and the Samsung Galaxy S and it still embarrasses me that Android needs a "skin" by these companies to make it look appealing.

I just don't like the UI, it looks blocky, basic, and incredibly clumsy.

But each to their own eh?

 

[aohus]

The first to me personally was that it looks ugly as dog **** compared to iOS and is nowhere near us intuitive.

I've used the HTC Desire, the Samsung Wave, and the Samsung Galaxy S and it still embarrasses me that Android needs a "skin" by these companies to make it look appealing.

I just don't like the UI, it looks blocky, basic, and incredibly clumsy.

But each to their own eh?

yeah, i mean, i bought a phone for good call quality, excellent coverage, and expanded functionality. i guess aesthetics were the last on my list.

but seriously, you buy a phone for looks only? or functionality. i guess thats the main difference between an iUser and Android user.

 

[WeegieMac]

yeah, i mean, i bought a phone for good call quality, excellent coverage, and expanded functionality. i guess aesthetics were the last on my list.

but seriously, you buy a phone for looks only? or functionality. i guess thats the main difference between an iUser and Android user.

I have great call quality on O2 here in the UK thank you very much.

Calls are great, MMS are great, Visual Voicemail works every time, no dropped calls ... oh, and iOS looks and runs brilliantly.

I reiterate once again, the iPhone 4 has launched all over the world. Where is the majority of bitching about dropped calls and antenna issues coming from? The USA.

I can go out of my way to make my iPhone 4 drop bars if I'm in an area of poor reception (GPRS). Thankfully, that's not very often. While out and about in Glasgow, I sometimes like to apply the "Death Grip" to my five bar 3G signal iPhone 4 and giggle as nothing happens.

I don't like Android's UI or how it works. That's my opinion, I don't ask you to agree or even understand it, nor will trying to belittle me with the usual "I guess I buy a phone to make calls" jibe get you any further.

Android's UI is far from functional, in my opinion. I've tried HTC's version and Samsung's version, and I don't like it. The fact it needs a skin by the host manufacturer to make it look usable says everything you need to know, although drop the piss "that's the difference between an iUser and an Android user". Honest to Christ, Android users make me laugh ... they've made hating Apple so cool to themselves that they can't see they've become the very mirror image of the thing they proclaim to protest against.

The real difference between an iUser and an Android user is that one buys Apple products, and the other wants an Apple product without the Apple brand and has to resort to using an alternative that's gained all it's hype about being so un-Apple that they can't see that it's nothing but the exact same product Apple offer with a slightly inferior/different (delete as applicable) UI. In effect, they want the product Apple offer, but can't bring themselves to like "the big guy" and so settle for the rip off/alternative (again, delete as applicable if you must) and then spend more time trying to justify their purchase by using the same pedantic piss excuses to iPhone users in some form of self justification that they're "cooler than you".

 

[Kadman]

Yeah, because there's no tracking going on in iOS land...

http://www.pskl.us/wp/?p=476


Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, kiddies!!

 

[Carniphage]

Sorry, C., but that's FUD. The Android market is not a free-for-all. You can't just upload something anonymously.

It relies on security using the same model that Apple and RIM actually depend on in the end: developer registration and app-to-developer signatures.

I'd argue that there's a very big difference between policing content before it goes into the store - and the Google model - of relying on consumers to report transgressions after content becomes available.

One is proactive, one is reactive.

C.

As far as I know, the only instance of this (a live wallpaper) turned out to be bad reporting.

If you read the link you cite. It clarifies the report. It *did* send device information, subscriber identification, phone number, region, and voicemail phone number to the app developer’s website.

Apparently, Google are cool with this.

C.

 

[kdarling]

And the tip calculator that you mentioned earlier which was really on Android and not the iPhone. And all the apps mentioned in this study.

Actually, it turns out that the iPhone tip calculator wasn't doing Contacts, it was one of many apps using Pinch Media ad code, which stores and forwards the following info:

• iPhone's unique ID
• iPhone Model
• OS Version
• Application version (in this case, camera zoom 1.x)
• If the application is cracked/pirated
• If your iPhone is jailbroken
• time & date you start the application
• time & date you close the application
• your current latitude & longitude
• your gender (if facebook enabled)
• your birth month (if facebook enabled)
• your birth year (if facebook enabled)

If you ignore the testing that Apple does during the approval process.

It's ignorable testing. Are you a developer and have you ever been involved in real software validation? I am and have, as have others here.

There have been numerous articles about how little testing Apple does, and how it's all mostly geared towards making sure the developer didn't violate one of the app store submission rules related to trademarks or bandwidth or morals or duplication of Apple apps... NOT about how the code works or what it might secretly do. And how could they?

Apple officially told the FCC that they only had a relative handful of approvers, which calculated out at that time as 10,000 submissions a week for 40 approvers = 6 apps per hour per approver! Time enough for morals policing? Sure. For code testing? No chance. (I heard they've added more approvers and it's now "only" like two or three apps per hour. )

Heck, even if Apple had the source code (which they do not) for each app, it could take days or weeks to check for malevolent code. At best, right now they can probably run an automated tool looking for known code holes or unofficial API usages. It obviously doesn't show up hidden code such as that WiFi hotspot, though.

I'd argue that there's a very big difference between policing content before it goes into the store - and the Google model - of relying on consumers to report transgressions after content becomes available. One is proactive, one is reactive.

Only if there's enough staff and time. Otherwise it's mostly just good for censorship as noted above. Some iPhone developers have called for Apple to drop even that time consuming and frustrating process, and do as the Android market does... rely on user responses to weed out apps that really should be banned, as Google does for about 1% of submissions (copyright issues, etc).

If you read the link you cite. It clarifies the report. It *did* send device information, subscriber identification, phone number, region, and voicemail phone number to the app developer’s website. Apparently, Google are cool with this.

No, they asked him to change it, even though he was doing it to serve his customers's requests. And apparently Apple was cool with similar information (see above).

Again, there's no perfect process, and neither Android nor iOS are perfectly safe. You want safe? Go with a Blackberry, which only allows managed Java apps, not native code, and is not based on a Unix OS where rooting gives SU status. (Well... at least it used not to be. QNX will bring them into that same fold )

 

[iBaloney]

haha first chink

 

[djrod]

On Android when you are installing a new application, the installer explicitly asks you about the permissions needed for this application. If you see that , say, a calculator application asks a permission to get data on your location, it's a red flag. Once installed, the application can not get the data for which it does not have a permission (Android takes care of this). iPhone completely lacks any permission system. The user has absolutely no control over what data gets accessed by any given application. It is very surprising that people can not understand how much Android is better in this regard. Remember how a few weeks ago someone submitted a flashlight application to App Store that was secretly able to perform the tethering? Unlike on Android, neither Apple nor iPhone users have any good means for detecting such rogue applications.

Mainstream users knows nothing of permissions and absolutely will not think that if the calculator app wants to know your location is because is going to steal something from you. Techies are the less percentage of users.

People just want to run the app, not to have to take care of how to use it.

 

[samcraig]

Mainstream users knows nothing of permissions and absolutely will not think that if the calculator app wants to know your location is because is going to steal something from you. Techies are the less percentage of users.

People just want to run the app, not to have to take care of how to use it.

So you're saying we should encourage people to be lazy and not take an interest in what they run/install on their systems.

I personally think that's a horrible idea.

 

[BaldiMac]

Actually, it turns out that the iPhone tip calculator wasn't doing Contacts, it was one of many apps using Pinch Media ad code, which stores and forwards the following info:

• iPhone's unique ID
• iPhone Model
• OS Version
• Application version (in this case, camera zoom 1.x)
• If the application is cracked/pirated
• If your iPhone is jailbroken
• time & date you start the application
• time & date you close the application
• your current latitude & longitude
• your gender (if facebook enabled)
• your birth month (if facebook enabled)
• your birth year (if facebook enabled)

Why would you enable facebook or approve location data on a tip calculator? Other than that, isn't all that information the same stuff available to any website that you visit on the internet?

I guess it's getting to the point where apps need privacy policies that they can be held accountable for.

It's ignorable testing. Are you a developer and have you ever been involved in real software validation? I am and have, as have others here.

There have been numerous articles about how little testing Apple does, and how it's all mostly geared towards making sure the developer didn't violate one of the app store submission rules related to trademarks or bandwidth or morals or duplication of Apple apps... NOT about how the code works or what it might secretly do. And how could they?

Apple officially told the FCC that they only had a relative handful of approvers, which calculated out at that time as 10,000 submissions a week for 40 approvers = 6 apps per hour per approver! Time enough for morals policing? Sure. For code testing? No chance. (I heard they've added more approvers and it's now "only" like two or three apps per hour. )

Heck, even if Apple had the source code (which they do not) for each app, it could take days or weeks to check for malevolent code. At best, right now they can probably run an automated tool looking for known code holes or unofficial API usages. It obviously doesn't show up hidden code such as that WiFi hotspot, though.

It's ignorable with lots of articles written about it... but you have no idea what they actually do. If they do some automated testing, and some manual testing, isn't that better than doing neither?

 

[wirelessmacuser]

One thing that could stop android's growth dead in its tracks is people starting to think that Google is spying on them *without telling them*.

People who understand the state of privacy on the net regardless what computer, smartphone or device one uses to access it, already know privacy is but a ruse for those who are less educated.

Android will continue to grow and thrive. They have too much to offer. It's why they are wildly popular at the present time, and getting better at warp speed.

 

[kdarling]

Mainstream users knows nothing of permissions and absolutely will not think that if the calculator app wants to know your location is because is going to steal something from you. Techies are the less percentage of users.

Which is exactly the sort of naive trust that Pinch Media took advantage of when they were taking iPhone information after any user allowed "location" access:

"Being an approved app, it must first ask you for permission to use your location. If you tap “Don’t Allow”, it will ask you again in about a minute, the next time its ad changes. So you either stop using this app (because it pesters you so much about the location question), or you finally submit and tap “OK”.

From that point on, your location (*) and path info (your actual physical path through your area each time you launch the app) belongs to Pinch Media, Inc. We think that’s a Pinch too much."

(*)Along with some Facebook info, device id, jailbreak status, etc.

I gave my 85 year old mother an iPad hoping it would be easy for her to use. Naturally I still had to explain why she shouldn't trust random emails from "banks", or enter info into just any website.

The point is, it doesn't matter what you use. Everyone needs a basic education in security, and to use common sense, because no one can totally protect you, techie or not.

 

[wirelessmacuser]

People just want to run the app, not to have to take care of how to use it.

Very true.

That's why they buy iPhones.

Simple, nothing to read or think about.

It makes the buyer look "cool" according to general consensus, and that's all they care about.

 

[samcraig]

Very true.

That's why they buy iPhones.

Simple, nothing to read or think about.

It makes the buyer look "cool" according to general consensus, and that's all they care about.

But that's not accurate either because the iPhone, while "easy" perhaps to pick up is not without a learning curve - just like any other device.

And if you think otherwise - I can bring you to an Apple Store and show you hundreds of people taking classes and/or coming in with questions about basic functions.

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

But that's not accurate either because the iPhone, while "easy" perhaps to pick up is not without a learning curve - just like any other device.

And if you think otherwise - I can bring you to an Apple Store and show you hundreds of people taking classes and/or coming in with questions about basic functions.

At least Apple offers classes. On the other hand, it's harder to get help with Windows or Android. The iPhone is relatively easier to use. If you need help with something, you can get make a genius bar appointment and get free help. Not just with getting your device replaced.

Android is a sinking ship and Google knows that. I've written code both iOS and Android. Android is a nightmare. Every bit of info about the OS and APIs is scattered. Apple makes it super easy to find the info you need and provides example code. iOS is much more organized. And the App Store is curated so Apple will reject the apps that steal your personal info and such. The Android Marketplace has zero rules and anyone can do anything they want. Most of the apps there are poor excuses for the word "app". I had an Android phone before my iPhone so I know what crap means.