Novelist Umberto Eco wrote a deliciously insightful essay in 1994, in which he argued that the Apple Mac was a Catholic machine, in contrast to the PC, which, he argued, was clearly a Protestant device. How so? Simply this: the Mac freed its users (believers) from the need to make decisions. All they had to do to find salvation was to follow the Apple way. When the Mac was launched, for example, a vigorous debate broke out among user-interface geeks about whether a computer mouse should have one or two buttons. Some were critical of the fact that the Macintosh mouse had only one button. When queried about this, Steve Jobs — then, as later, the supreme pontiff of the church of Apple — was adamant and unrepentant. Two buttons would undermine the rationale of the Mac user interface. He spoke — as his Vatican counterpart still does — ex cathedra, and that was that.
In contrast, Eco pointed out, the poor wretches who used a PC had — like the Calvinists of yore — to make their own salvation. For them, there was no one true way. Instead they had to choose and install their own expansion cards and anti-virus software, wrestle with incompatible peripherals and so on. They were condemned to an endless round of decisions about matters that were incomprehensible to them, but on which their computational happiness depended.
Spool forward 21 years to today and nothing much has changed, other than that the chasm between computational Catholics and Protestants now applies to handheld computers called smartphones, rather than to the desktop machines of yore.
Today’s “Catholics” have iPhones running the Apple iOS operating system, while the “Calvinists” have devices made by a host of manufacturers and powered by various flavors of the Android operating system. And when the Catholics put their devices on to charge overnight, they wake up in the morning to find that Apple has downloaded yet another update.
For Android worshipers, the picture is mixed. Their fate largely depends on how conscientious the manufacturer of their device is about keeping them up to date and safe from security vulnerabilities. Some, such as Google and LG, are pretty good. Some, like Motorola, Samsung, Sony, HTC and ASUS, are moderately conscientious. And the rest are, frankly, disgraceful. They just make cheap phones, install a version of Android on them and leave users to their fate.
The result is a world in which millions of people connect to the Internet using phones that are riddled with security holes. A glance at the number of red flags on the IT Security Database of Android vulnerabilities confirms that, but we did not really have finer-grain information on the extent of the problem — until now.
On Oct. 8, researchers at Cambridge University’s Computer Laboratory published a sobering report suggesting that 87 percent of Android devices are insecure. These devices, the researchers say, are vulnerable to attack by malicious apps and messages.
The researchers also finger the culprits — smartphone manufacturers, most of which “do not provide regular security updates.”
“Some manufacturers are much better than others: the study shows that devices built by LG and Motorola, as well as those devices shipped under the Google Nexus brand, are much better than most,” they said.
Why does this matter? At the moment, most smartphones run on versions of the Android operating system and account for 81 percent of the global market. In part, the Android security problem is an outcome of the economics of that marketplace. Although the iPhone has only one-fifth of the smartphone market worldwide, it accounts for almost all of the profits generated by smartphone sales, because Apple’s margins on its phones are — to use a classic Silicon Valley adjective — insane.
Manufacturers of Android phones, in contrast, operate in a parallel universe in which cut-throat competition and infinitesimal profit margins are the norm.
One source claims, for example, that “LG makes just a penny in profit per device — and established players like HTC are imploding, while dirt-cheap Android handset manufacturers like Huawei and Xiaomi are enjoying stratospheric rises.”
What is happening, in other words, is that even the smartphone — which, however you look at it, is a fantastically intricate device — is being commoditized, reduced to a low-margin product that is stamped out by the billion. This is the iron law of electronics manufacturing: there is no money in hardware.
The most remarkable thing about the iPhone, in a way, is that it has escaped that fate. Maybe there is someone up there intervening on its behalf.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers