-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Serious Android flaw threatens hundreds of millions of users
- Thread starter Dannydet
- Start date
much to about nothing. if there is no immediate fix, and the only solution is to wait for an update, this kind of info is sort of useless to me. plus the article says that if you have had an update between nov 2020 and now, then you already have the security patch.....which i have so this will just stress out people more than it should.
thanx @Dannydet ....i just wasted 5 minutes of my time reading about nothing!!!!!!!!
thanx @Dannydet ....i just wasted 5 minutes of my time reading about nothing!!!!!!!!
Sorry! I read that article and got spooked.
LOL i was only half kidding......LOL
yeah most moderately new phones should have this security patch already. the older phones though i would be worried about as they are not likely to get an update. there has not been any formal statements from the manufacturers about this though and there is no info on who has added the patch in their updates .......so....... who knows????? but the article says that Qualcomm told oems about the flaw in December 2020......so i'm betting that any phone that has gotten an update since then should have the fix.
Yup, so Google discontinued security patches for the Pixel 2 just before this one. Planned obsolescence is one of the diseases that poorly-regulated capitalism forces on our society 
.
(OK, I've always used phones long after they stop getting updates, so this isn't going to make me change. Just noting that it's rather weak of one of the richest and most profitable corporations on the planet to do this, when they could easily support for longer. Heck, even Samsung do better now, since the S8 got 4 years of support).
.(OK, I've always used phones long after they stop getting updates, so this isn't going to make me change. Just noting that it's rather weak of one of the richest and most profitable corporations on the planet to do this, when they could easily support for longer. Heck, even Samsung do better now, since the S8 got 4 years of support).
"Poorly-regulated capitalism"? The United States has one of the most over-regulated markets in the free world. The solution isn't more regulation: the solution is for consumers to stop buying Pixel products from Google, letting the corporation know that until they can support their devices longer, money will be spent elsewhere. When you hit corporations on the bottom line, things change quickly. But if consumers can't control their own spending by not buying Google products, they shouldn't rely on the government to do it for them. My 2¢
Should we stop buying all Android devices though? Because Google, while I criticised them because they definitely can afford to do better, are still better than the average. And that is the problem."Poorly-regulated capitalism"? The United States has one of the most over-regulated markets in the free world. The solution isn't more regulation: the solution is for consumers to stop buying Pixel products from Google, letting the corporation know that until they can support their devices longer, money will be spent elsewhere. When you hit corporations on the bottom line, things change quickly. But if consumers can't control their own spending by not buying Google products, they shouldn't rely on the government to do it for them. My 2¢
The trouble is that I don't think "the market" can solve this problem, because it's not a growing market and so the only way to keep shareholders happy is for people to replace devices frequently (or to raise the prices. But of course what the manufacturers try to do is both: ever more expensive devices replaced frequently
).
puppykickr
Android Expert
"Poorly-regulated capitalism"? The United States has one of the most over-regulated markets in the free world. The solution isn't more regulation: the solution is for consumers to stop buying Pixel products from Google, letting the corporation know that until they can support their devices longer, money will be spent elsewhere. When you hit corporations on the bottom line, things change quickly. But if consumers can't control their own spending by not buying Google products, they shouldn't rely on the government to do it for them. My 2¢
I wholeheartedly agree.
Capitalism is not the problem- consumerism is.
Until we as a society can resist 'keeping up with the Jones's' and allowing ourselves to feel less if we don't have the latest and greatest, this issue will not end.
yep you can blame me......its all my fault.
right now i'm starting to salivate over the rumors of the Fold 3 coming out this July!!!!!!!!
sorry
puppykickr
Android Expert
yep you can blame me......its all my fault.
right now i'm starting to salivate over the rumors of the Fold 3 coming out this July!!!!!!!!
sorry
I don't wanna hear a thing when it breaks in half!
lol
I don't want to go all PCA, but how do you separate the two? Although you can argue that acquisitive instincts are part of human nature, in our societies lot of money and effort is put into encouraging consumerism because that serves the profit motive. Indeed the requirement of maximising returns to shareholders will compel companies to do encourage this any way they can.
Sorry, we're a long way off topic here, and that's my fault!
Last edited:
puppykickr
Android Expert
Supply and demand.
If there is no demand, then there would be no supply.
Unfortunately, we have all been hook, line, and sinkered into advertising that makes us feel that ehatever we have is no longer good enough shortly after we purchase it.
Look at how American automobile manufacturers will turn the taillights from bars to circles, or some other useless change, then call it a new model for the next year- even selling a 'new' model year a year in advance- to make you feel that your 'old' model is insufferable now.
Compare this to how long the VW Beetle and the Porsche 911 remained basically the same car for many, many years.
But "advertising" isn't something separate from the phone business (or many others). And I'd argue that as long as you not only allow but legally require companies to maximise profits as far as they can within the law then the industry of manufacturing dissatisfaction in order to create demand is an inevitable consequence. As they say, it's not a bug, it's a feature.
Though one of the things that makes it easier for me to resist the phone manufacturers' efforts is that most of their "innovations" in recent years have been pretty similar to changing the shape of the taillights. (Thanks for that analogy!).
Though one of the things that makes it easier for me to resist the phone manufacturers' efforts is that most of their "innovations" in recent years have been pretty similar to changing the shape of the taillights
. (Thanks for that analogy!).
svim
Extreme Android User
This latest reveal of an exploit is just adding to an existing list of decades-old exploits. It's tied directly to a well-documented, 30 year old flaw to the mobile radio chip that's been inside a lot of mobile phones back even before we were all using flip-phones.
It's a) not fixable by users so don't allow yourself to get too fixated on this issue and b) when security patches for this particular exploit come about keep in mind that it's a fix for this particular exploit, the preexisting hardware flaw is still there whether previous or more recent patches are or are not applied.
It's a) not fixable by users so don't allow yourself to get too fixated on this issue and b) when security patches for this particular exploit come about keep in mind that it's a fix for this particular exploit, the preexisting hardware flaw is still there whether previous or more recent patches are or are not applied.
puppykickr
Android Expert
But "advertising" isn't something separate from the phone business (or many others). And I'd argue that as long as you not only allow but legally require companies to maximise profits as far as they can within the law then the industry of manufacturing dissatisfaction in order to create demand is an inevitable consequence. As they say, it's not a bug, it's a feature.
Though one of the things that makes it easier for me to resist the phone manufacturers' efforts is that most of their "innovations" in recent years have been pretty similar to changing the shape of the taillights
Actually, it is separate.
An advertising firm is contracted to handle the advertising for such companires.
The advertising firm does nothing but study the effects of advertising and how to exploit human reactions to it.
They then use this information with a product to increase sales of the product.
And the stock market- and how it works- is the reason that companies are legally required to make a profit for their investors.
That does not change the fact that the USA was capitalist long before the stock market existed.
Remeember that this country started out in communist fashion, and failed miserably until a capitalistic style was adopted.
Advertising may be a separate company (though the manufacturer will surely have its own marketing department contracting and overseeing), but that's a detail, nothing more. The factors that drive the use of such techniques to drive sales are the cause, and whether they are done in-house or contracted-out doesn't matter.
You've now got me thinking about how advertising could exist without driving consumerism, but I suspect that it's not possible - it would end up like tobacco advertising: you start by restricting certain associations between product and lifestyle, but in the end it just has to go completely.
You've now got me thinking about how advertising could exist without driving consumerism, but I suspect that it's not possible - it would end up like tobacco advertising: you start by restricting certain associations between product and lifestyle, but in the end it just has to go completely
.
puppykickr
Android Expert
Advertising may be a separate company (though the manufacturer will surely have its own marketing department contracting and overseeing), but that's a detail, nothing more. The factors that drive the use of such techniques to drive sales are the cause, and whether they are done in-house or contracted-out doesn't matter.
You've now got me thinking about how advertising could exist without driving consumerism, but I suspect that it's not possible - it would end up like tobacco advertising: you start by restricting certain associations between product and lifestyle, but in the end it just has to go completely
I have no problem with truthful advertising.
Tell me how much power the vehicle has, and the comfort options.
Don't show me the car flying through clouds of cotton candy with strippers on the hood.
Unfortunately (?), strippers, cotton candy, and flying cars are more sales inducing than realistic horsepower stats, torque specs, and leather vs velore interior options.
And that is a problem with society as a whole- not with advertisers that are paid to make products appeal to the masses.