09-15-11 04:11 PM
39 12
tools
  1. BitPusher2600's Avatar
    Linux News: Security: The Future of Android, Part 2: Security Snafus

    This article explains why Android, being the biggest thing it is right now, is also the least secure platform on the market. I fear RIM opening the doors to Android software may place us in that same boat. For example, where they talk about an influx of malware because Android is so open handed, that dirty software will find its way to 'Berry land because it can run what Android can once the player is implemented. Because we will have all the advantages of being able to run Android stuff, there are disadvantages that come with it and I can't help but wonder if anyone else ponders the same.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-14-11 02:44 AM
  2. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    The problem lies in Android's security architecture, and the proof is that it's easy to build applications that can get access to sensitive operating system resources such as text messages, voice, location and more, Trusteer's Boodaei told LinuxInsider.

    In its defense, Google has repeatedly pointed out that all downloaded apps request permission to access resources on uses' smartphones, and users can just say no.

    That isn't enough, Boodaei contends.

    Users usually just say yes because many applications request access to an "extensive list" of resources, Boodaei explained.

    Google could make Android's permissions model more fine-grained, Dasient's Daswani suggested.
    I'd like to believe that RIM is stronger in the areas that they suggest needs improvement in Android in the article.
    09-14-11 03:03 AM
  3. BitPusher2600's Avatar
    Wouldn't such door opening have to be present? If an app someone downloads is dirty and demands certain access or certain permissions to run, else it won't work, wouldn't the QNX app player have to support users (likely unknowing) approval? I might have a serious misunderstanding off the app player, but doesn't it have to be similar to every functional nuance of Android in order to run Android apps? The very system control you just quoted has to function as it would on native Android for Android software to run no? Else how could an Android app possibly be ran?

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-14-11 03:12 AM
  4. BitPusher2600's Avatar
    Hold on. I just re-read that and feel the need to apologize. I'm not among the most intelligent folk on the planet and tend to struggle to word my thoughts, so allow me to try again.

    What I was trying to say is that Android apps are made for Android, so for Android apps to run on QNX via app player, wouldn't the player have to allow for 100% exact functionality? I see it as trying, for example, to run Mac software on a Windows box; you simply can't. So I'm seeing the same logic for Android apps here. Now, being Android is top of the smartphone market at present, it does make them a huge target for the jerkoffs who love making our lives miserable with their malware and data fraud. Android's inherent security flaws make the bullseye all the bigger.

    My whole concern is that Android's flaws will become QNX's flaws via app player because, again, I don't understand how QNX can handle anything (permisssions, controls, functionality etc) differently than Android and still be able to run Android softwares (like my Mac software on a Windows box analogy.)

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-14-11 03:29 AM
  5. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    They can run the apps in a sandbox that basically isolates it from other apps and services.

    It's more like running Windows on a Mac using Parallels, except very stripped down.. Windows has access to the stuff it needs to run, but that doesn't give it access to everything.

    The Android Player will likely contain some of the Android components required and most apps won't need access to your data
    09-14-11 03:48 AM
  6. CrackedBarry's Avatar
    Yes, yes it is. See they both harp on their app eco-system. So basically RIM stole Android's app eco-system and now there is no reason for them to harp on their huge app selection.

    Plus it's not just about the playbook but the QNX eco-system in general. This is forward thinking.

    Whether or not developers have to submit their apps to app world is not a fault to me. They should have to. RIM is no exception, all the other platforms require it.
    You don't get it, do you... RIM didn't steal anything, they've basically capitulated, and given their users a halfassed solution that's more like the worst of both worlds.

    Before you contribute again about the app player, please read up about it so you understand what we're talking about.

    The Android Player WON'T make all, or even most of the Android Market available.

    All it will do, is make SOME (probably not more than a handful, considering how much attention RIM gets from developers) older phone apps available.

    No Tablet apps, no games, no advanced apps that use any of Google's proprietary APIs.

    And finally, they won't just be available. Developers have to port them first, and then submit them to RIM, which will further limit the selection.

    So yeah, it's the worst of both worlds. Instead of native apps that take advantage of the advantages of QNX/RIM, users will get old, basic phone apps ported.

    And instead of the wide selection of Android apps, user's will get a small fraction of what's available.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-14-11 09:30 AM
  7. Bromo33333's Avatar
    [...] I felt like they were giving in to Google. It's almost as though they were conceding that App World would never has as many apps as the Market. Now, developers don't even have to develop for future BBs (assuming they have AP), and something about that doesn't feel right. [...]
    Most people making apps in a serious way routinely port from iPhone to Android (and some to Symbian, too!). Having an API or a player will only speed app development for Blackberry. For instance, if someone ports, say, "Angry Birds" to BB, and lots of people adopt its use ... then the developer may make a native version eventually. Without a player it is much more of a kiss and promise.

    TO me this is excellent news since the cost and time to develop and application will be very low. This means as a developer, you would know an Android App which covered abotu 40% of the market, will also get a nearly free 20% extra. And given the frugality of the typical Android customer, the BB 20% generally is willing to spend like an iPhone user for the right app. (iPhone users routinely throw a few bucks at just about any application, and happily deletes it if they grow bored of it)

    I, frankly, don't see much of a downside. And the fact that BB devices are a little different than some Android devices isn't a big deal given how fragmented the hardware is in Android. It is an Android weakness, but one that makes the BB Player a viable strategy.

    Oh and as word of mouth spreads about how much money BB users are willing to spend for a good app, you will find more apps (basic stuff) and more using special features found in BB only at this point.
    Last edited by Bromo33333; 09-14-11 at 11:40 AM.
    09-14-11 11:25 AM
  8. rollingrock1988's Avatar
    You don't get it, do you... RIM didn't steal anything, they've basically capitulated, and given their users a halfassed solution that's more like the worst of both worlds.

    Before you contribute again about the app player, please read up about it so you understand what we're talking about.

    The Android Player WON'T make all, or even most of the Android Market available.

    All it will do, is make SOME (probably not more than a handful, considering how much attention RIM gets from developers) older phone apps available.

    No Tablet apps, no games, no advanced apps that use any of Google's proprietary APIs.

    And finally, they won't just be available. Developers have to port them first, and then submit them to RIM, which will further limit the selection.

    So yeah, it's the worst of both worlds. Instead of native apps that take advantage of the advantages of QNX/RIM, users will get old, basic phone apps ported.

    And instead of the wide selection of Android apps, user's will get a small fraction of what's available.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    No sir, I do get it. Apparently you do NOT. The things you are mentioning are minor nit-picky details. The bottom line: There will be more apps available for Blackberry users because of this android player.

    There is no downside. There is NO downside to having more apps. There is no downside to making a platform as versatile as possible.

    THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE, SO PLEASE STOP TRYING TO MAKE ONE UP
    09-14-11 12:05 PM
  9. darkmanx2g's Avatar
    No sir, I do get it. Apparently you do NOT. The things you are mentioning are minor nit-picky details. The bottom line: There will be more apps available for Blackberry users because of this android player.

    There is no downside. There is NO downside to having more apps. There is no downside to making a platform as versatile as possible.

    THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE, SO PLEASE STOP TRYING TO MAKE ONE UP
    He isnt making it up. This is a huge downside. RIM stepped on alot of toes by bringing in the Android player. If you listen to the podcasts Kevin mentioned this and was a big F U to the developers developing for BBOS.

    Why dont you see a huge influx of developers developing for the Playbook? A developer can develop for Android which has a bigger user base and then just lazily port to BB with no hardware acceleration which wasnt originally optimized for QNX. And the kicker is these are PHONE apps!
    09-14-11 11:51 PM
  10. MrHelyar's Avatar
    I have said it's sad from day one. It sucks that RIM is falling back on Android for me personally because I like BlackBerry but hate Android, and it sucks for RIM because it shows they aren't 110% faithful in their own ability to make a platform desirable enough to develop for.
    It is apparent that BB isn't very desirable, because if it were we wouldn't have had this issue in the first place. i have no problem with what they are doing, it just gives the consumer what they want, a great device with great apps. as much as people complain about the native email/bbm or lack there of, i would much rather have the extra apps. i can go online and get my emails, what i can't do is find good flash games that play as well as apps such as Cut The Rope.
    09-15-11 12:45 AM
  11. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    I love how the naysayers contradict themselves with every post. No developer is going to make BB apps because they can just port over their Android apps, but all we're going to get from the Android Player is a few crappy, half-baked phone apps...
    09-15-11 01:28 AM
  12. CrackedBarry's Avatar
    but all we're going to get from the Android Player is a few crappy, half-baked phone apps...
    Where's the contradiction? Look, this really isn't that complicated. Especially since I assume you can read, if you're a regular visitor here.

    Now, did you read up on the Android Player? I don't mean scan the headline, mumble "Yay RIM!" And read the next article-read, I mean did you really read up on it and understand the basics of it...

    Once you do that, you'll know exactly why all the Android Player will be able to run, is old simple phone apps. It's because it'll be technically incompatible with tablet apps and apps that use any of Google's proprietary APIs.

    Now imagine you're an app company that just made an awesome tablet app for Android. Kindle, for example, or Netflix.

    You won't be able to have the tablet app run on the Playbook, so with the Playbooks meagre sales in mind, would you spend time and money to make a Playbook version?

    Why would you with the Android Player available, when it's cheaper and easier to port the old Android phone app you made last year, and put it on the market/player instead.

    Then again, if the goal is to alienate current BB/PB developers, and push them over to developing for other platforms, then the Android Player is a brilliant move. Why would a developer make an app specifically for the Playbook, when he can write it for an Android phone instead? Sure it'll be ugly and slow on the Playbook, and won't take advantage of its excellent hardware, but that's a minor tradeoff, when you consider the huge new userbase that Android phoneowners provide.

    Playbook development will be an afterthought, that's the problem.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    09-15-11 02:26 PM
  13. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    It's the same argument that's been answered already. A crappy app won't sell well, a native app has a better chance. Money is the incentive.

    Since you can't get past the fact that not all devs fit this one mindset you have concluded they have and you have to be condescending when giving what is simply your opinion, not fact, we can end our discussion now.
    09-15-11 03:06 PM
  14. rollingrock1988's Avatar
    Yes, yes. RIM has no idea what they are doing. No one will develop for QNX or BBs in general. RIM is dead and the management at top needs to be cut. They should sell their patents and move on.
    09-15-11 04:11 PM
39 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD