The comparison, made during a question-and-answer session at the Gartner Symposium/ITxpo, drew laughter from a packed-house audience.
Gartner analyst David Willis, who is chief of research for mobility and communications and who runs Gartner’s Senior Research Board, said to Schmidt: “If you polled many people in this audience they would say Google Android is not their principal platform […] When you say Android, people say, wait a minute, Android is not secure.”
Schmidt didn’t miss a beat, replying, “Not secure? It’s more secure than the iPhone.”
Eric Schmidt has lost his fucking mind.
This post could use a soundtrack from your diabolical laughter.
More Android devices were hacked while we were reading this post than iPhones were hacked since 2007.
this page needs a loop of Jim’s laughter
I love Apple, so at first glance I thought the same. But then I started my research and I found this: http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerabil…e-Android.html
http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerabil…Iphone-Os.html
I don’t know how legit these statistics are, but I was a bit confused about the numbers. Maybe some of you will have some additional numbers and stats (links), that will lead to the fact that Eric Schmidt is an idiot.
Nevertheless, I think usability and design (not how it looks, but how it works!) is the most important aspect of using a mobile device. And there is by far no better experience than using iOS 7 with an iPhone. People using iPhones and iOS just have the feeling that it just works …
Seems to me that few, if any, people left Sun Microsystems with their minds intact. Must’ve been something in the ventilation system.
Links are broken.
Sorry!
http://www.cvedetails.com/product/15556/Apple-Iphone-Os.html?vendor_id=49
http://www.cvedetails.com/product/19997/Google-Android.html?vendor_id=1224
“I’m goin’ off the rails on a crazy train”
I hope Dan just brings it up every 5 minutes during the podcast.
Jim once again you display your complete ignorance on the matter. Adriano has posted the relevant links. Schmidt is right. I suggest that as a major voice for Apple you take large steps to educate yourself, and quickly.
After you have your first billion in the bank, it doesn’t really matter what you say…. Either to you OR any one else. You just don’t care any more.
“vulnerability count” without reference to exploitability or magnitude is a piss poor proxy for security.
Last week, Google presented data showing that they can block the vast, vast majority of malware on Android.
Summary: http://qz.com/131436/contrary-to-what-youve-heard-android-is-almost-impenetrable-to-malware/
Slide deck: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1YDYUrD22Xq12nKkhBfwoJBfw2Q-OReMr0BrDfHyfyPw
Essentially, between Bouncer, which runs server-side, and Google Play Service’s Verify Apps, which runs client-side, 99.999% of malware was blocked. In particular, look at slides 14, 15, and 17 (17 especially). If you look at the “master key” vulnerability, for example, which the tech press hyped a few months ago, Google claims that less than 8 per 1 million app installs had this malware (and none from the Play Store).
So, I don’t think Schmidt’s claims are as outlandish as you’ve made them out to be.
How many existing Android consumers will either have the hardware capable of doing this, and the awareness to implement it?
If you can’t make it convenient for people who aren’t tech enthusiasts to use, it isn’t security.
Bouncer is a server-side technology, part of the Play Store. It was rolled out in early 2012. So everything submitted to the Play Store is scanned. Users don’t need to do anything.
Verify apps was pushed out to client devices this summer. It’s part of Google Play Services, so it was an automatic, silent update for users. Verify Apps runs on Android 2.3 or higher, so ~98% of Android devices with Google Services. It’s on by default. Users don’t have to do anything to enable it.
Sounds good. About how many Android devices (including non-smartphones) are running Google services?
Impossible to say definitively. In the West, I suspect it’s on most devices, save the Kindle Fires. In Asia, there are probably more white box devices without it, but I haven’t seen good estimates of the size of that segment.
Here’s why I’m asking. Android is being sold as a complete solution, but out in the field where consumers are buying (or receiving for free) low-capability devices, It sounds far from complete.
A) What is your evidence that (most) consumers use low-capability devices (and what does that mean, exactly).
B) As I said, outside of Asia, most devices run Google Play Services. The fact that < 100% of Android devices don’t have them doesn’t invalidate the large number that do.
I’m asking about the cheap or free Android devices that have largely replaced the phones which used to run Symbian. The phones which, regardless of their touted capabilities, are simply being used as “feature” phones.
We know that a great number of Android devices are being used as simple telephone and text handsets, without significant data plans, whose users do not use them to access the Internet or run mobile apps purchased for actual money from Google Play.
I’m asking whether those people—who reportedly still exist in significant numbers—will benefit from the security features you’re describing. Are they covered, or are they considered unimportant by Android enthusiasts?
Wow, I’m continually amazed at the mental acrobatics here. You’ve managed to take a study showing the vast, vast majority of malware is blocked and twist it into an implication that it’s Android enthusiasts that are condescending elitists. Hat off to you.
Actually, no, we don’t know that a great number of Android devices are being used as dumb phones. That’s a common allegation around this part of the Web, but I haven’t seen good data backing it up. But even if it were true, I think you’ve answered the question yourself — if they “do not use them to access the Internet or run mobile apps” then they’re not at much risk for malware, are they?
Further, as I’ve said before, outside of Asia (and China in particular), most Android devices have Google Play Services installed on them, so they’re covered. This really is a non-issue.