Makes a nice change from the usual click bait, pros and some cons discussed.
http://www.zdnet.com/the-windows-phone-one-month-later-7000032820/
http://www.zdnet.com/the-windows-phone-one-month-later-7000032820/
Makes a nice change from the usual click bait, pros and some cons discussed.
http://www.zdnet.com/the-windows-phone-one-month-later-7000032820/
So anyone who talks about android's security problems(even when google execs themselves admit android wasn't developed with security in mind), tells lies?
Or if someone doesn't like google services because they poach your personal data to better target users with data is a lie?
And I specifically said google poaches data through google services. Ofcourse, not many people care about it. But for those who do, it doesn't make any less of a concern as google make it be.
I'm sure there are 3rd party solutions for security. And wasn't black phone was the one that got hacked within five minutes on its first encounter? Lol.
And I'm not defending her. Like she said, "Everything is hackable. It is only a matter of how much time and resources it takes."
And as you said, "Every OS has its share of goods and flaws." But for google, security isn't much of a concern. Of course, personal preferences differ.
The article is totally biased but I'm happy about that. Writers are usually biased against windows phone in the first place, which make users steer away from the platform. The writer probably wants the market share to increase. Can't you understand that?Every operating system has its share of faults and flaws but she isn't simply balanced. I'm pretty sure that tomorrow if her Windows Phone breaks and she moves onto an Android she is start going to say things against Windows Phone.
The Google executive never said that Android wasn't built with security in mind, he was implying that security wasn't the biggest concern in the operating system not that it was never in mind.
If you are really afraid of your data being poached, that can also be done on iOS and Windows Phone. Android actually has dedicated solutions for privacy.
Ever heard of Blackphone? Or about Cyanogenmod's secure SMS encryption? If Google really wanted to poach your data why would it allow these operating systems and OEMs to run on it?
My point still stands, she's not balanced in her criticism, read her previous article as well. She said something about Android having "unfinished BETAs" and I have yet to find any apps like that.
The article is totally biased but I'm happy about that. Writers are usually biased against windows phone in the first place, which make users steer away from the platform. The writer probably wants the market share to increase. Can't you understand that?
It can be but it is more difficult for it since it is more secure than android.
And those security patches are for general use. Everyone knows about Gmail being scanned and all. Most people aren't aware of it and most may not care at all. But for those who think it is creepy, you can't tell them that it is a lie.
Your assumption about Windows Phone is just that, an assumption. What makes you think Windows Phone is more secure?
If you think Gmail is being scanned, don't use it. Use Outlook.com or Yahoo.
Android's security problems have more to do with the reality that people aren't great with their technology than the inherent issues with Android. It's just like Windows in that if you know what you're doing, it's a generally pleasant experience. In fact, some iterations of it, e.g. Xiaomi MIUI, look really nice.
Well I'd say the word "secure" for Windows Phone also refers to it being "locked down" compared to Android. If someone wants more granular control, options, versatility, etc, they'd probably prefer Android and its insecurity (which they know how to deal with) than Windows Phone, which is - in their view - "limited."So, you mean Android as an OS (in a pure form, without 3rd party protection software) is as secure as windows phone? We are not talking about user experience either.
The article is totally biased but I'm happy about that. Writers are usually biased against windows phone in the first place, which make users steer away from the platform. The writer probably wants the market share to increase. Can't you understand that?
Well I'd say the word "secure" for Windows Phone also refers to it being "locked down" compared to Android. If someone wants more granular control, options, versatility, etc, they'd probably prefer Android and its insecurity (which they know how to deal with) than Windows Phone, which is - in their view - "limited."
Exactly. Windows phone is more secure than android because it is locked down. It is one of the key distinction of windows phone from android. Albeit at the cost of less power to the developers which might in turn means less than favorable experience for the users but that is another story.
Thus, it is a fact that windows phone is more secure than android.
Although, yes, windows phone can also be breakable albeit with more difficulty while anyone can have a safe experience on android if they are careful in their use.
Windows Phone is locked down in what sense? Not being unlock the bootloader and rooting? Or something else?
Yes, that. And modern apps/games in windows phone/windows RT/PCs run in a sandbox environment with less to no files access and permissions.
Access to what files and permissions? Dude do you even know what you are talking about? What extra files and permissions does Android give to apps?Android being open does not mean it's easier to viruses in it.
I know what I'm talking about, do you? What do you think rooting or root access means? Or how it is able to change so many things things about pure android? Or let users bypass OS restrictions? Do you think hackers and malwares can't get advantage of that? Openness of android while advantageous has also a major flaw in terms that it can be exploited by any coder in the world.