Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smith' malware

Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by GeekyBear on Thursday July 11, 2019 @01:38PM (#20413581)

From the start, Google cared enough about device makers potentially shipping a device running a fork of Android that they forbade doing so in their contracts with device makers.

When it came to making sure consumers got timely software updates, Google sided with the device makers and carriers.

Device makers wanted you to buy new hardware every couple of years, and carriers wanted to lock you into an additional two year contract.

Google could have contractually required device makers and carriers to support end user devices after the sale, it just wasn't something they cared enough about.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by ApolloFortyNine on Thursday July 11, 2019 @01:40PM (#20413605)

Google never forbid updating phones... They forbid forking Android.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by cma on Thursday July 11, 2019 @01:42PM (#20413623)

That's what he said. They didn't forbid it, but they also didn't mandate it be allowed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by GeekyBear on Thursday July 11, 2019 @01:57PM (#20413771)

In contrast, Apple did forbid carriers to block software updates in it's contracts with them.

It's a matter of who you think your customers are.

Google sides with advertisers, device makers, and carriers and not it's end users.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Malicious apps infect 25M Android devices with 'Agent Smi... by ApolloFortyNine on Thursday July 11, 2019 @02:11PM (#20413910)

I fail to see the relevance of Samsung not updating their phones to Google not wanting Android to be forked. If Samsung had forked Android, they still wouldn't update old phones.

[ Parent | on HN ]