Please clarify the noticification debate

I read the most recent topic about this issue which is here http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=90814.0 .
But it seems to me that there is still confusion about what would happen to AMB and its Anti-Theft module when the user opts to remove the notification icon in the status bar.

Let’s consider these two scenarios:

  1. AWM is installed and notification is disabled. Now what kind of functionality will be broken in case Android runs out of memory and terminates the related processes? Auto-update? Scheduled Scans? the Firewall? Most importantly, will the Anti-Theft module be affected?

  2. Now let’s say I lose my (rooted) phone and the thief hard-resets it. Now the only thing that is still installed is the Anti-theft module which obviously doesn’t have an icon in app launcher or the status bar. Does that mean that Android OS will be able to kill the process and render the anti-theft app useless?
    If the answer is yes then that’s a serious flaw for a security application that needs to be addressed.
    If the answer is no then GREAT! But that also means there is a way within the Android OS to keep the anti-theft process running without keeping a constant notification. Then it seems logical that the same method could be used to keep the main application (AMS) running without any notifications.

Web Shield. Anti-Theft module won’t be affected. But we are working on the Web Shield solution and are pretty close.

Anti-Theft will work fine in this case. But the logic you are mentioning is flawed since this is not how Android works. Some features are not affected by memory running low due to Android OS design, some unfortunately are.

Filip