News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by cstejerean on Thursday July 11, 2019 @01:09PM (#20413286)
This is what I love about Apple. They gave the carriers a big middle finger when it comes to the usual bullshit of bloatware, sticking their logos on things or getting in the middle of updates. That’s because they cared about the end user experience. Google was happy to just grab market share at the expense of the users by allowing carriers to continue with their usual shenanigans. For this reason Apple will have my eternal gratitude, because I remember what a shitshow smartphones (and deploying apps for them) was before Apple flexed their muscles on this.
Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by michaelcampbell on Thursday July 11, 2019 @01:16PM (#20413369)
> That’s because they cared about the end user experience.

I'm sure 100% of any revenue going to Apple and not shared with anyone had nothing to do with that.

Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by enraged_camel on Thursday July 11, 2019 @01:26PM (#20413490)
It may have, but I doubt it was the primary motivation. Steve Jobs famously cared a lot about user experience, security and reliability. Remember that Apple under his leadership took a firm stance and loudly and publicly refused to allow Flash on its devices, despite the fact that many websites back then relied on Flash.
Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by avtar on Thursday July 11, 2019 @03:17PM (#20414632)
> Steve Jobs famously cared a lot about user experience, security and reliability. Remember that Apple under his leadership took a firm stance and loudly and publicly refused to allow Flash on its devices, despite the fact that many websites back then relied on Flash.

A less generous take on that would be that he/Apple also wanted to push their app store. At the time Flash was popular for publishing apps and games on the web. Yes their decision helped move everyone away from Flash but it also meant they would be getting their 30% cut from iOS apps.

Edit: I stand corrected. "While originally developing iPhone prior to its unveiling in 2007, Apple's then-CEO Steve Jobs did not intend to let third-party developers build native apps for iOS, instead directing them to make web applications for the Safari web browser." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store_(iOS)#iOS_SDK

Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by scarface74 on Thursday July 11, 2019 @05:05PM (#20415835)
You mean the same Flash that Adobe said they could have gotten to work on the original iPhone - with 128MB of RAM and a 400Mhz processor but barely worked on Android with minimum requirements of a 1Ghz processor and 1GB of RAM?
Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by avtar on Thursday July 11, 2019 @09:59PM (#20417496)
I wasn't claiming Flash was ideal in any sense -- just that it was popular back then.
Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by neotek on Thursday July 11, 2019 @11:23PM (#20417844)
>A less generous take on that would be that he/Apple also wanted to push their app store.

The App Store didn't exist at that time.

Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by ninkendo on Thursday July 11, 2019 @03:26PM (#20414764)
The original iPhone didn't even have an app store...
Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by Despegar on Thursday July 11, 2019 @03:26PM (#20414758)
This is like saying that Apple can't collect 30% if you make your app in React Native rather than a purely native iOS app. It doesn't matter what technology you use, they're going to get 30% because they control the store.
Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by z3t4 on Thursday July 11, 2019 @02:25PM (#20414039)
Apple also planned to sandbox all apps. But developers wanted bare metal performance.
Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by scarface74 on Thursday July 11, 2019 @05:07PM (#20415856)
Sandboxes apps has to do with the permissions not having “metal performance”. iOS apps compile down to ARM native code. Unlike most Android apps that run on top of a VM.
Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by weaksauce on Thursday July 11, 2019 @03:42PM (#20414997)
the anti-flash stance was mainly there because of the abysmal performance a flash app would have on the device and the device's battery life.
Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by enraged_camel on Thursday July 11, 2019 @04:51PM (#20415704)
Hence, user experience!
Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by azernik on Friday July 12, 2019 @12:02AM (#20418023)
Don't make this about moral superiority of Apple over Google.

Apple did it because they could, because when the iPhone came out it owned the smartphone market; any carrier that didn't play ball would be frozen out (as T-Mobile was initially - AT&T's exclusivity on the iPhone really helped their market share among high-end consumers). Google did not have that luxury.

Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by filmgirlcw on Friday July 12, 2019 @01:15AM (#20418390)
That’s not an accurate representation of what happened.

When Apple/Steve Jobs went into negotiations with Verizon and AT&T (then known as Cingular), it didn’t have any leverage. In fact, Verizon wouldn’t sign the deal in part because of the control Steve Jobs wanted over the devices. AT&T agreed to get the exclusive.

BlackBerry was King when the iPhone launched and BlackBerry bent over backwards to do whatever the carrier wanted (the book Losing the Signal has great details on this).

Google could have depended on similar provisions with Verizon when the Droid launched in 2009 or with T-Mobile when the G1 launched in 2008. Both carriers wanted an iPhone killer.

But Google didn’t do that. It did force Verizon not to put Bing as the default search engine on some of Verizon’s Android phones (like the Droid series), despite an early 2009 agreement Verizon made to make Bing its default search engine — and it also negotiated to NOT force consumers to pay for Android apps using the carrier stores (something many carriers had required for previous non-Apple App Stores), once paid apps launched.

But it didn’t negotiate the update bit, even though the company had the leverage to do it.

I can only speculate the reasons why, but based on the number of books I’ve read, people I’ve talked to, and and other information, it strikes me that Google decided it was more advantageous to let any phone maker or carrier adopt its OS to gain marketshare, rather than worrying about device fragmentation or security update issues.

And that strategy worked beautifully and Android took over the world. The problem is getting carriers or device makers to update, especially when many have spent lots of time customizing Android as a way of differentiating themselves.

But it’s unfair to claim Google didn’t have the opportunity to make the deal Apple did. Google just didn’t want to do that and wasn’t willing to walk away from a partnership to have that level of control.

Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by davidgl on Friday July 12, 2019 @05:15AM (#20419363)
Is that because Android was a defensive move against ios to protect the search/advertising income, like Chrome, rather than something they make money from do you think ?
Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by filmgirlcw on Friday July 12, 2019 @10:51AM (#20421143)
Yes. (Although it was originally a defensive move against Windows Mobile and BlackBerry and Symbian and it then pivoted as soon as they saw the iPhone.)

The big draw for Android for OEMs was that unlike Windows Mobile or Symbian, there was no licensing fee for the devices. HTC, which made the first Android phone, was a Windows Mobile device maker (fun fact, the XDA from XDA Developers, was an OG Windows Mobile forum — XDA was the name of an early series of Windows Mobile devices) — Samsung and LG and Motorola made Windows Mobile phones, Sony used Symbian and so on. Android was free and customizable, which made it enticing for OEMs and carriers to embrace. And unlike BlackBerry, carriers didn’t have to give a portion of the data charge (which was like $20 or $40 a month per BlackBerry device) to BlackBerry, they got to keep all the data fees to themselves.

Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by codedokode on Thursday July 11, 2019 @03:26PM (#20414762)
But Apple software is proprietary, not friendly to open soure developers and you never know what that software is doing. Maybe they are streaming your data directly to "cloud" operated by NSA. Or iPhone doesn't upload anything to cloud?
Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by w1nst0nsm1th on Thursday July 11, 2019 @04:00PM (#20415206)
Most of the function users care about in their phone, if not implemented by third party, are proprietary apps from google.

Without the app store and the google ecosystem, android experience is poor at best.

Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by darkpuma on Thursday July 11, 2019 @04:15PM (#20415351)
The Google ecosystem can drown in bleach for all I care. F-Droid is not bad at all. Downloading apps from the Google store is an awful experience because on that store it's the norm for damn near every application to spy on you to the fullest extent possible. On f-droid, applications the typical application is a good citizen. It's a lower stress experience and a better appstore than either Google or Apple, unless you desire specific closed source software in which case it's no longer an option.

Try this: On Google's Appstore, find a flashlight app that doesn't upload your contacts. Now on F-droid, try to find one that does. This is not an easy challenge!

Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by wildduck on Thursday July 11, 2019 @07:30PM (#20416832)
Or we can also try this: https://www.replicant.us
Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by scarface74 on Thursday July 11, 2019 @05:02PM (#20415808)
And what makes Android what it is to most consumers - Google Play Services is also proprietary as well as all of the drivers. Not to mention whatever the OEMs and the carriers add.

Even if you have a completely “open” operating system on your phone, your communications is still going through a carrier that could be “operated by the NSA”.

Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by throwaway2048 on Thursday July 11, 2019 @04:09PM (#20415279)
All of the data collection functionality in Google Apps is closed source too.
Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by Jerry2 on Thursday July 11, 2019 @07:09PM (#20416724)
Huawei incident has taught that Android is proprietary too. Any country that's at odds with the US will eventually find out that Android will be blocked to their companies too.
Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by NegativeLatency on Thursday July 11, 2019 @04:45PM (#20415652)
The Google Play Store and related APIs are similarly locked down. Not that you couldn't distribute through something like fdroid.

I take your point but android is similar in some respects (Google probably has less interest in your privacy than Apple does).

Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by davidw on Thursday July 11, 2019 @03:28PM (#20414791)
Having a closed ecosystem has costs too, though, especially in terms of user freedom and choice.
[dead]
Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by codebje on Thursday July 11, 2019 @06:19PM (#20416418)
I buy unlocked Nexus devices to avoid mftr and carrier bloatware and update delays.

Never again for a Samsung device, they churn through models absurdly quickly, delay updates for months, and shovel tons of crap on.

Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by navigatesol on Friday July 12, 2019 @06:29AM (#20419598)
>I buy unlocked Nexus devices to avoid mftr and carrier bloatware and update delays.

Exactly. There is a whole series of phones offering bloat-less Android, from a variety of manufacturers:

https://www.android.com/one/