Android App Security Risk
Linked by David Adams on Thu 24th Jun 2010 16:22 UTC, submitted by Governa
Privacy, Security, Encryption About 20 percent of third-party apps available through the Android marketplace allow third-party access to sensitive data, and can do things like make calls and send texts without the owners' knowledge, according to a recent security report from security firm SMobile Systems. There's no indication that any of the highlighted apps is malicious, but the report does underscore the inherent risks of a more open ecosystem as opposed to Apple's oppressive yet more controlled environment, with every app being vetted before availability.
E-mail Print r 0   · Read More · 52 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/i46
Thread beginning with comment 431602
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

I have to say that all this talk about how to make installing un-vetted apps on Android as safe as installing vetted apps from the Apple App Store seems a bit pointless.

Why would Apple make their devices that complex and that potentially dangerous in order to add a feature (ie the ability to install Apps from an "open" source) that the vast majority of consumers don't care about? Apple's aim, it model, is to make complex devices as easy and safe to use as possible. Hence the App Store.

Indeed, the discussion becomes pointless at the moment where we start to invoke Apple's opinion.

You are saying that Apple have safety as their goal. I personally think that allowing people to install whatever they want instead of having them lick Stevie's boots before is not reducing security, as long as it's done properly, for reasons which are stated before. Taking this reasoning further, I think that this is not the reason why Apple did that, and propose a reasonable alternative explanation (companies all want to maximize their profit, no matter how jerkish the chosen option is).

But again, in the end, none of us know Apple's motivations. It's even possible that they had several reasons for doing that, including false beliefs of increased security.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

You are saying that Apple have safety as their goal. I personally think that allowing people to install whatever they want instead of having them lick Stevie's boots before is not reducing security, as long as it's done properly, for reasons which are stated before. Taking this reasoning further, I think that this is not the reason why Apple did that, and propose a reasonable alternative explanation (companies all want to maximize their profit, no matter how jerkish the chosen option is).

But again, in the end, none of us know Apple's motivations. It's even possible that they had several reasons for doing that, including false beliefs of increased security.


A couple of points.

Its true we don't exactly know Apple's motivation's re the App Store model but they don't make a lot of profit on on it, I thinks economically its a bit like the iTunes music store that way. I saw recently a figure of $1 billion paid to developers in total so far which would make Apple's cut roughly 300-400 million dollars since the launch of the App Store. Given the scale of Apple's operations and profitability nowadays that's chump change for them. Remember that's only revenue not profit - the cost of the App Store has to be deducted. I wouldn't be surprised if it only just made a profit or even just broke even.

I think their motivations are mixed but probably include a desire not to see anybody else control the iOS development platform by getting between them and their community of developers (that's happened before in Apple's long history and its always been a disaster for them) and a desire to ensure a high quality end user experience by controlling as much as possible the whole product stack. The latter reason is probably the most important - everything I have ever read about Steve Job's says the guys is a product perfectionist and that what he lives to do is to make fantastic products that people want to buy.

In the end its all moot. The only thing that matters is what succeeds in the market place and it seems as if, for now, the consumers absolutely adore the iPhone (which includes its App Store model). Did you see those lines on the launch day for iPhone 4 or the pre-order numbers?

I don't think Apple are too obsessed with market share (although more aware of it since their defeat by Microsoft in the 90s) as long as the iPhone continues to grow sales and make huge profits for them. Their strategy re any threat from Android may well be similar to the strategy that Job's adopted when he came to rescue Apple in relation to the Windows threat. Then he realised that Apple's competitors on the desktop was the OEM desktop makers and not Windows itself, and now Apple's competitors is the other handset makers and not so much Android itself.

Could say more - fascinating subject but too tired and too hungary - so perhaps another time....

Reply Parent Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Its true we don't exactly know Apple's motivation's re the App Store model but they don't make a lot of profit on on it, I thinks economically its a bit like the iTunes music store that way. I saw recently a figure of $1 billion paid to developers in total so far which would make Apple's cut roughly 300-400 million dollars since the launch of the App Store. Given the scale of Apple's operations and profitability nowadays that's chump change for them. Remember that's only revenue not profit - the cost of the App Store has to be deducted. I wouldn't be surprised if it only just made a profit or even just broke even.

Profit does not necessarily take the form of direct financial benefits. Increased control over a population is profit, too.

As an example, Google make little to no direct benefits by distributing Android or Chrome for free. There's no ad included, no fee for using them. However, if those product gain large market share due to their low price tag, it can be beneficial to Google.
Let's consider the example of usage statistics : those people who gave Google the right to watch what they're doing are giving them precious information about their life in exchange of a better browsing experience. Google can then use this information to make better ads, which people have a higher chance to click. "Real" financial benefits can ensue.

I think their motivations are mixed but probably include a desire not to see anybody else control the iOS development platform by getting between them and their community of developers (that's happened before in Apple's long history and its always been a disaster for them)

It's not a good thing to keep past failures in mind when doing something new. Screw drivers get sold even though their vendors do not tightly control the spec, and it's the real product value which wins in the end...

and a desire to ensure a high quality end user experience by controlling as much as possible the whole product stack. The latter reason is probably the most important - everything I have ever read about Steve Job's says the guys is a product perfectionist and that what he lives to do is to make fantastic products that people want to buy.

Perfectionism is important in order to make a great product. But for something as large as the computer industry, there are times where you have to make a choice, and specialize yourself in something while leaving the rest to other peoples.

As an example, Apple don't make Macbooks themselves. They partly design it, and they make the software for it, but it's ASUS who work on the hardware part in the end. And from a quality point of view, it doesn't sounds that bad, except maybe from a heat management point of view (which is the necessary drawback of wanting small computers to be silent).

In the end its all moot. The only thing that matters is what succeeds in the market place and it seems as if, for now, the consumers absolutely adore the iPhone (which includes its App Store model). Did you see those lines on the launch day for iPhone 4 or the pre-order numbers?

Well, Windows sells very well, and I'm not ready to admit that other OSs are irrelevant because of their low sales. Every innovation in history started by being something small.
Moreover, the evolution of mankind is not adiabatic. You cannot say at some instant that an equilibrium state has been reached, that someone in the market has "won". Things like speculation show how much the notion of equilibrium is irrelevant where considering how things go on a market.

Apple managed to make some sales, good. But once all current potential iPhone customers will have bought one, will they manage to match competition and adapt their product to the needs of more people, like they did by widening the iPod product line but didn't with the Mac ? This remains to be seen.

I don't think Apple are too obsessed with market share (although more aware of it since their defeat by Microsoft in the 90s) as long as the iPhone continues to grow sales and make huge profits for them. Their strategy re any threat from Android may well be similar to the strategy that Job's adopted when he came to rescue Apple in relation to the Windows threat. Then he realised that Apple's competitors on the desktop was the OEM desktop makers and not Windows itself, and now Apple's competitors is the other handset makers and not so much Android itself.

I totally and absolutely agree. People buy a phone, not an OS. That's the reason why carriers should stop bloating phone OSs with crap and giving a false impression of poor general quality of the phone, when they are the ones that are to blame.

This is where I'm against the holistic approach of Apple, by the way. In my opinion, everyone should stick to his job, and only give design docs to others. Laptops filled by crap in the software area because of the hardware manufacturer ? This is unacceptable. Carriers re-doing home screens of the phones and preventing people from updating instead of just doing their job of processing phone calls and texts ? This is unacceptable too. People should stick to the areas where they are competent. And a finite number of people cannot be competent in every way.

Could say more - fascinating subject but too tired and too hungary - so perhaps another time....

Why not ! It was an interesting read.

Edited 2010-06-27 15:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Read more of this thread... >