8 ms·

It's annoying that the media continues to incorrectly spin Android's security updates problem as somehow caused by its open ecosystem (which itself barely meets

It's annoying that the media continues to incorrectly spin Android's security updates problem as somehow caused by its open ecosystem (which itself barely meets the definition of open) and implying that Apple's closed system is the solution. GNU/Linux distros are free open source software, and don't suffer from these sorts of update problems. Many distros have special high-priority security update channels that are enabled by default. Please, call this out if you have friends writing / spreading such nonsense.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago
They do this for the page views.
shkkmo 11y ago
Um... I don't think the article in question does this. It seems to describe the issue accurately: Updates are dependent on fixes being pushed out by device manufacturers and network carriers.
- infinity0 11y ago
  "Android phones are very different from iPhones, for example. Apple runs a closed system. It controls the hardware and software, and it's fairly easy to ship out a major revamp. The company says 85 percent of iPhone users have the latest operating system, iOS8." The fact that Apple runs a closed system is not relevant to Android having poor security updates, as is evident by how GNU/Linux distros work - yet these things are mentioned next to each other, as if they are related. (edit: lots of people missing the point here. media articles can equally point to free open source software GNU/Linux distros as having relatively successful security update mechanisms, yet Apple's closed ecosystem is always given more focus as the contrasting example to Android's; why? it is not the closed property that makes a security update mechanism succesful, yet that is the implication.) (edit: this is how weasel wording works; statements of fact which may be individually correct, are placed together in suggestive positions, so that the non-cautious reader walks away with a false understanding of a more complex point, but allow the author to deny responsibility of this) Other media articles have similar weasel wording. I'm not commenting on the author's intent - e.g. they may just be repeating the dominant narrative on this - however the wording has misleading connotations regardless of intent.
  - jlgaddis 11y ago
    That's not "spin", that's just fact.
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    How is that 'weasel wording'? That's an accurate statement of fact. The article never calls Android 'open' and doesn't blame the issue on the openness of the ecosystem. The issue is described fairly accurately. It would however be nice if the article brought up the point that the issue could be mitigated if users were allowed to actually control the software that runs on their phone (without hacking around restrictions). Instead most users are reliant on the device manufacturing seeing the financial incentive to provide updates.
    - awj 11y ago
      > Instead most users are reliant on the device manufacturing seeing the financial incentive to provide updates. Most users are reliant on this regardless. Few people possess the technical ability, much less time, to perform these tasks. Making the platform "open" and pointing to that as a solution would also be a way of weaseling out of that responsibility to users.
      - shkkmo 11y ago
        The number of people who could use a fairly simple third party to to update their operating system on their phone is much, much larger than the number who can figure out how to obtain root access or unlock their bootloader using a technique that varies depending on exact model number and firmware version. Obviously there are users who will be left behind, but that is an issue for novice users of ANY free and open source software.
  - Arnt 11y ago
    It is relevant: Apple's system is closed against meddling by lazy middlevendors as well as against the likes of us. If Apple decides that you should upgrade (or not) there's little Deutsche Telekom or Verizon or any other middlevendor can do about it. That it's closed against us is not nice at all, but being closed against Deutsche Telekom and Verizon and such is a feature, not a bug.
redml 11y ago
What I got from the article is that this is a hangouts bug which is part of the closed ecosystem of google apps anyway
- justin66 11y ago
  On the radio they mentioned that a phone's standard messaging app would be vulnerable the moment it downloaded the poisoned video file (prior to the user watching it).
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Then you didn't read the article; it's a video handling bug; the article notes a difference between Hangouts and other messaging apps in video handling which makss it worse with Hangouts, but the fundamental problem is with video handling, not the messaging app.
eddieroger 11y ago
I both heard the story this morning and read the article, and the intent didn't sound to me (admittedly, and obviously from participation here, as someone in the tech industry) like it was open vs closed, but more Apple's ability to immediately address issues that arise like this are a result of their closed nature, but with Android's open policy, everyone from Google to HTC|Samsung|LG to Verizon|Sprint|AT&T get to touch the code, and because of all these modifications, it will be a while for a fix if one even comes. If anything, the lack of financial incentive to fix anything was more the culprit over openness. The worst part is none of it was opinion - that's all completely true. How many phones get maybe one update after being released to the wild?
droopybuns 11y ago
I agree with a precise interpretation of what you are saying, but I think you are focusing on the wrong problem. The real problem is that Android really isn't an open ecosystem. Here is what it looks like to play the game:http://www.htc.com/us/go/htc-software-updates/ http://www.htc.com/us/go/htc-software-updates/
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
evilduck 11y ago
Certain distributions may not have the exact same update problems, but Linux as a whole sure as hell does, being free and open source fixes nothing by itself. The inherent insecurity of an abandoned OS over time is one of the largest issues with the whole Internet of Things device trend.
awj 11y ago
> It's annoying that the media continues to incorrectly spin Android's security updates problem as somehow caused by its open ecosystem That isn't "spin". Android's ecosystem is (largely) controlled by the phone carriers in this context. Their "open" system is a fractured jumble of closed systems with indifferent maintainers. If Google took it up, Apple's method here would be a solution. Were Google to force carriers into supporting security updates on Google's terms, we wouldn't see this kind of issue. Nobody making the Android/iPhone comparison in this context cares about "openness". That's largely a foregone conclusion on both devices. They care about the effective and timely distribution of security updates. > GNU/Linux distros are free open source software, and don't suffer from these sorts of update problems. Why on earth would NPR compare Linux distributions (which the general public has basically never heard of) to smartphones? It might be "more accurate", but it's not an accessible comparison.
- infinity0 11y ago
  > That isn't "spin". [then some correct statements, but not relevant to spin] See also my other comment about words having false connotations, regardless of intent. > Nobody making the Android/iPhone comparison in this context cares about "openness". I don't know why you just assert this so nonchalantly. Clearly some people care, because they keep repeatedly associating closed systems with security update mechanisms, even though we have plenty of open systems with relatively good security update mechanisms. That is in fact my whole point; other people keep veering off on a tangent. > it's not an accessible comparison. What is "accessible" is very transient, dependent on the environment and cultural background. Those of us who are interested in balance and accuracy, have to make it accessible. Not doing so is irresponsible.
samuellb 11y ago
>GNU/Linux distros are free open source software, and don't suffer from these sorts of update problems Agreed, but I would go further and say that the _PC platform_ doesn't suffer from such problems. You can buy a computer from HP/Lenovo/Toshiba/whatever and later buy an OS upgrade from Microsoft. Ordinary users can do this.

JustSomeNobody 11y ago

They do this for the page views.

shkkmo 11y ago

Um... I don't think the article in question does this. It seems to describe the issue accurately: Updates are dependent on fixes being pushed out by device manufacturers and network carriers.

infinity0 11y ago
"Android phones are very different from iPhones, for example. Apple runs a closed system. It controls the hardware and software, and it's fairly easy to ship out a major revamp. The company says 85 percent of iPhone users have the latest operating system, iOS8." The fact that Apple runs a closed system is not relevant to Android having poor security updates, as is evident by how GNU/Linux distros work - yet these things are mentioned next to each other, as if they are related. (edit: lots of people missing the point here. media articles can equally point to free open source software GNU/Linux distros as having relatively successful security update mechanisms, yet Apple's closed ecosystem is always given more focus as the contrasting example to Android's; why? it is not the closed property that makes a security update mechanism succesful, yet that is the implication.) (edit: this is how weasel wording works; statements of fact which may be individually correct, are placed together in suggestive positions, so that the non-cautious reader walks away with a false understanding of a more complex point, but allow the author to deny responsibility of this) Other media articles have similar weasel wording. I'm not commenting on the author's intent - e.g. they may just be repeating the dominant narrative on this - however the wording has misleading connotations regardless of intent.
- jlgaddis 11y ago
  That's not "spin", that's just fact.
- shkkmo 11y ago
  How is that 'weasel wording'? That's an accurate statement of fact. The article never calls Android 'open' and doesn't blame the issue on the openness of the ecosystem. The issue is described fairly accurately. It would however be nice if the article brought up the point that the issue could be mitigated if users were allowed to actually control the software that runs on their phone (without hacking around restrictions). Instead most users are reliant on the device manufacturing seeing the financial incentive to provide updates.
  - awj 11y ago
    > Instead most users are reliant on the device manufacturing seeing the financial incentive to provide updates. Most users are reliant on this regardless. Few people possess the technical ability, much less time, to perform these tasks. Making the platform "open" and pointing to that as a solution would also be a way of weaseling out of that responsibility to users.
    - shkkmo 11y ago
      The number of people who could use a fairly simple third party to to update their operating system on their phone is much, much larger than the number who can figure out how to obtain root access or unlock their bootloader using a technique that varies depending on exact model number and firmware version. Obviously there are users who will be left behind, but that is an issue for novice users of ANY free and open source software.
- Arnt 11y ago
  It is relevant: Apple's system is closed against meddling by lazy middlevendors as well as against the likes of us. If Apple decides that you should upgrade (or not) there's little Deutsche Telekom or Verizon or any other middlevendor can do about it. That it's closed against us is not nice at all, but being closed against Deutsche Telekom and Verizon and such is a feature, not a bug.

redml 11y ago

What I got from the article is that this is a hangouts bug which is part of the closed ecosystem of google apps anyway

justin66 11y ago
On the radio they mentioned that a phone's standard messaging app would be vulnerable the moment it downloaded the poisoned video file (prior to the user watching it).
dragonwriter 11y ago
Then you didn't read the article; it's a video handling bug; the article notes a difference between Hangouts and other messaging apps in video handling which makss it worse with Hangouts, but the fundamental problem is with video handling, not the messaging app.

eddieroger 11y ago

I both heard the story this morning and read the article, and the intent didn't sound to me (admittedly, and obviously from participation here, as someone in the tech industry) like it was open vs closed, but more Apple's ability to immediately address issues that arise like this are a result of their closed nature, but with Android's open policy, everyone from Google to HTC|Samsung|LG to Verizon|Sprint|AT&T get to touch the code, and because of all these modifications, it will be a while for a fix if one even comes. If anything, the lack of financial incentive to fix anything was more the culprit over openness. The worst part is none of it was opinion - that's all completely true. How many phones get maybe one update after being released to the wild?

droopybuns 11y ago

I agree with a precise interpretation of what you are saying, but I think you are focusing on the wrong problem. The real problem is that Android really isn't an open ecosystem. Here is what it looks like to play the game:http://www.htc.com/us/go/htc-software-updates/ http://www.htc.com/us/go/htc-software-updates/

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

evilduck 11y ago

Certain distributions may not have the exact same update problems, but Linux as a whole sure as hell does, being free and open source fixes nothing by itself. The inherent insecurity of an abandoned OS over time is one of the largest issues with the whole Internet of Things device trend.

awj 11y ago

> It's annoying that the media continues to incorrectly spin Android's security updates problem as somehow caused by its open ecosystem That isn't "spin". Android's ecosystem is (largely) controlled by the phone carriers in this context. Their "open" system is a fractured jumble of closed systems with indifferent maintainers. If Google took it up, Apple's method here would be a solution. Were Google to force carriers into supporting security updates on Google's terms, we wouldn't see this kind of issue. Nobody making the Android/iPhone comparison in this context cares about "openness". That's largely a foregone conclusion on both devices. They care about the effective and timely distribution of security updates. > GNU/Linux distros are free open source software, and don't suffer from these sorts of update problems. Why on earth would NPR compare Linux distributions (which the general public has basically never heard of) to smartphones? It might be "more accurate", but it's not an accessible comparison.

infinity0 11y ago
> That isn't "spin". [then some correct statements, but not relevant to spin] See also my other comment about words having false connotations, regardless of intent. > Nobody making the Android/iPhone comparison in this context cares about "openness". I don't know why you just assert this so nonchalantly. Clearly some people care, because they keep repeatedly associating closed systems with security update mechanisms, even though we have plenty of open systems with relatively good security update mechanisms. That is in fact my whole point; other people keep veering off on a tangent. > it's not an accessible comparison. What is "accessible" is very transient, dependent on the environment and cultural background. Those of us who are interested in balance and accuracy, have to make it accessible. Not doing so is irresponsible.

samuellb 11y ago

>GNU/Linux distros are free open source software, and don't suffer from these sorts of update problems Agreed, but I would go further and say that the _PC platform_ doesn't suffer from such problems. You can buy a computer from HP/Lenovo/Toshiba/whatever and later buy an OS upgrade from Microsoft. Ordinary users can do this.