"Android devices that are not jail-broken"
That's "Rooted", surely?
Downloads of a free anti-virus app for Android devices reached the 2.5 million milestone last week. DroidSecurity's ad-supported antivirus free app has become among the 50 most popular downloads on the Android marketplace despite a paucity of malware threats that affect the platform. The first SMS Trojan for Android only …
"Android devices that are not jail-broken"
That's "Rooted", surely?
........yet seen our Antipodean compadres comment this expression "to root ones phone". Is it because they believe that it is an activity confined to certain fanbois of a certain company who are "busy" defining "the love that durst not speak its name" and is therebye something no selfrespecting Aussie bloke would have anything to do with?
......claimed that certain customers of a certain company had more sex than other smartphone owners. We now understand that the question is "more sex with what"? What might we call it "autophone"?
We'll see. Running Windows apps in the equivalent of RDP sessions doesn't count pal.
I guess he is hoping it will replace windows as the most virus riddled platform so he can drive higher adoption of his pointless AV software and rake in revenue from suckers.
Jail-broken Android?! A process that allows third-party code from outside the Android marketplace to be run on devices?
Yeah, that's called the "[Allow] Unknown sources" tick-box in the Application settings, right?
Absolutely right. 'Jail breaking' is an iPhone activity, it is similar to rooting Android devices but by no means the same thing.
In any case, you do not need any root access to run code from outside the market, you just need to tick a box (which is clearly presented in settings).
Big fail here.
Since carriers and manufacturers may enable or disable any OS feature they like. See also: Vodafone.
O2 Doesn't disable it.
If you look on the open web safely then theres more available for android phones than there is in the app store
"The vast majority (99 per cent) of antivirus free customers are running Android devices that are not jail-broken, a process that allows third-party code from outside the Android marketplace to be run on devices."
No, that's be ticking the box to allow installs from unknown sources, in the apps setup screen. Jailbreaking allows a whole 'nother set of access.
Only if someone sorts out device encryption first...
"The vast majority (99 per cent) of antivirus free customers are running Android devices that are not jail-broken, a process that allows third-party code from outside the Android marketplace to be run on devices"
Could that BE any more wrong?
I've finally managed to jailbreak my Android phone. It was tough, because then itunes stopped working. And I haven't received my antenna case yet!
Android is Apple's phone, right?
I have to admit was caught out about this one but two people in the last 2 days talking about jailbreaking iPhones.
The term is everywhere and even saw it on the news, but then everything about the iPhone is news these days so crucial as it is to everything.
What happened to good old hacking? Well its an old word that just isn't hip anymore, think Johnny Lee Miller and Angelina Jolie killed it, or maybe all the hollywood geeks who can hack into the Pentagon in seconds just using a Smeg fridge and an oily rag.
Looks like an iPhone
Sounds like an iPhone
ISN'T an iPhone.
In case the million other comments don't clear this up for you - the android platform allows non-market place apps by ticking a box in the system settings to say you want to. No hacking required.
Google's Marketplace does not audit application source, so whether you get your apk from the marketplace or some untrusted source is immaterial to the amount of harm it can do.
It's how much you trust the person who wrote the app that matters. For example, some companies like Gameloft sell games straight from their site so they're unlikely to be malicious. Other vendors might also offer an apk from their site.
Of course if install your apps from some dodgy app site in Taiwan then more fool you.
this guy knows 'anything' better. "Android will replace Windows." f-n LOL.
Google is a crappy company hell bent on collecting statistics even if it means violating people's rights. And they "accidently" collect data! What bank or business in their right mind would allow any google product on their network?
Accidently collect data, F-n LOL.
If ticking this magic box in settings is all that is required to allow full, unmoderated access to Android hardware then maybe Vodafone Desire users wouldn't be quite so unhappy with the update forced upon them by their network and the plethora of applications that they are unable to remove.
But of course, let's not let the facts interfere with an opportunity to bash iOS eh chaps?
Jailbreaking = full access to the hardware without arbitrary restaints placed upon the device by Apple. Rooting = full access to the hardware without arbitrary restaints placed upon the device by your network. Not really all that different now is it...
.......people are talking about here are Android phones which are *not* currently locked into Vodaphone or whoever it might be. If you buy a phone with a contract then you will of course discover there are restrictions. The point is perhaps that even when you pay full price for an iPhone there are *still* such restrictions, hmm? Or have I misunderstood?
In the context of the article, Jailbreaking is required to run apps provided outside of the AppStore. Rooting isn't required to run apps outside of the Market on Android, just the "magic box in settings". The tickbox doesn't give full root access as you say, but it does allow 3rd party applications to be installed.
As another poster said, individual vendors/networks can disable the checkbox, which would then require rooting to re-enable it / install 3rd party apps. According to IRC chatter this has only ever happened with an AT&T handset - although I haven't verified that.
You are correct that root access is required to remove the junk installed by operators.
Please stop misrepresenting 'free' software.
Ad-supported *is* 'free'. It may or may not be 'Free'. To find out, of course, you'd have to read a multi-page definition of 'Free', written by a bunch of *tards who can't be arsed to open a dictionary, and who think they can redefine the language by shouting loudly enough.
because I don't know what a dictionary is and thus have no idea of what the word free means.
A static advertisement in the product, yes I would agree product is free. Changing advertisements in the product which require bandwidth to download, product is not free.
It is business that is trying to redefine the word free as something that incurs no fee to actually get, but costs something in the way of information or bandwidth (other than the downloading of updates) to use.
the origional word "Free"
the lazy contraction of "Free-of-charge"
Free as in "Free Software Movement" was there first.
5 minutes on the internet would have found you some etymology for 'free'. According to the 'Online Etymology Dictionary', at least, the 'free of charge' sense of 'free' dates from the 1580s:
> "Sense of "given without cost" is 1580s, from notion of "free of cost."
I know RMS is getting on a bit, but he's not quite that old.
Quote from the article: "iPhone users often jailbreak their phones to run applications outside of those approved by Apple."
From what evidence does the author make this assertion? I suspect that this is risibly incorrect and based on media-hype surrounding websites and hacks aimed at geeks and nerds.
I hazard that 99.99% of iPhone users do not in fact gaolbreak their iPhones and those in the States that do are predominantly doing so to be able to use a different network (i.e. not AT&T) rather than to run unapproved applications. The majority of the rest will be those wanting to pirate games or use tethering without having to pay extortionate fees to their provider.
Any who were outraged by Apple's App Store policy will have long ago moved to a different platform.
I am amazed at all the comments here over the use of "jail-breaking" in the article.
So much pedantry seems to have distracted them from the irony of an anti-virus program that runs ads on its user's phones. Given the propensity for apparently innocuous advertisements to contain malware as of late, it seems rather odd that a vendor of anti-malware would be opening a direct avenue of attack. Though it might help their business if more phones get infected...
It's not always about the network. I have an Xperia X10 and found that the battery life was garbage. Never used the built in Sony UI cos it was a resource hog, so switched to another. Loads of stuff was still running from Timescape though and I needed to improve my battery life. Go to remove, not happening. Nothing to do with O2. I had to root it to have full access to my phone and get rid of that crap, be able to back up all my apps (Titanium) Get my VPN running through VPN Tunneler, block ads by editing the host file, Manage my CPU settings when on standby. That's why the Magic Tick Box a'int all that
........it does very much depend on which phone you have and how you use it/set it up as well as if you have a "locked" phone. I would however point out that these issues are first and foremost connected to what the individual manufacturer has put "on top off" Android. Sony's UI is somewhat thirsty and I have heard others commenting Timescape and what they had to say was not exactly complimentary! Personally I use a Wildfire and have no trouble gettin about three days out of it.
for me at least. no matter how much Google plug it. Any OS that allows its maker to secretly install and remove applications, and spy on what I do, will NEVER find a place on any machine owned by me.
for Microsoft, then, eh?
...just ... well ... um ... *imagine*
...no longer have that tickbox to allow apps from outside the Marketplace.
But I suspect it would be commercial suicide, as this is one of the strongest attractions of Android for a certain segment of the target market, even if they never actually use it.
Think he means "Windows Mobile" when he says "Windows", not the desktop version.
but people are too busy egoing about the propper-use of the term "jail-break" to think that one through :-D
I don't think Android will replace Windows either. I DO however think that Android will become the Windows of the mobile world. I believe that it will eventually be on 95 or so percent of the phones out there and apple will have its small crumbs of fans like it does on PC's. I think everyone knows it to be true. http://TechReview.LIEconomy.com