or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › U.S. carriers block Samsung's kill switch alternative to Apple's iOS 7 Activation Lock
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

U.S. carriers block Samsung's kill switch alternative to Apple's iOS 7 Activation Lock

post #1 of 74
Thread Starter 
Samsung's plans to include a third party "kill switch" app on some of its premium smartphones to match Apple's iPhone Activation Lock theft deterrent system has been thwarted by phone carriers and fragmentation.



U.S. carriers, including AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile and Sprint, are refusing to support Samsung's efforts to pre-load its third party, LoJack-branded theft deterrent system on the devices they sell, according to note by New York Times blogger Brian Chen.

San Francisco district attorney George Gasc?n and New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman have led a campaign to deter rampant thefts via a "kill switch" mechanism advocated under their "Secure Our Smartphones" program.

The campaign was initiated in response to a crime wave that has targeted smartphones (and particularly iPhones) as being easy to steal, wipe and then resell, a practice that even carrier blacklists (when enforced) do little to slow because many stolen phones are being shipped overseas for use on foreign carriers.

The two politicians did not outline their own solution, but instead demanded a technical fix from hardware vendors.

Apple's Activation Lock gets official scrutiny, endorsement



Apple announced Activation Lock as a feature of iOS 7 this summer. Security experts in California working with Gasc?n examined the technology after it was released.

In September, Gasc?n responded to an inquiry by AppleInsider about the results of the study, stating that the experts studying various kill switch features decided not to publish their results "to avoid inadvertently creating a guide book for aspiring thieves" but had 'made recommendations to the manufacturers.'

September 20, 2013


Last week, Gasc?n tweeted an endorsement of Apple's solution to arresting phone theft, stating, "I'm using the IOs 7 with the find my iPhone feature which allows me to basically brick the phone if stolen or lost."

November 13, 2013


Police in New York have also advocated an upgrade to iOS 7 for the security feature.



No Activation Lock for Android



Gasc?n has equated Samsung's bundling deal with LoJack on certain models of its premium Android devices as an Android alternative to Activation Lock, although the service is limited to less than a third of Samsung's smartphone offerings.

Chen cited Gasc?n as complaining that while Samsung's proposed anti theft software "has the potential to safeguard Samsung customers," emails between Samsung and phone carriers indicated that they were concerned that Samsung's kill switch software, which is offered as an annual $29.99 subscription fee, would compete with their own insurance offerings.

Gasc?n alleged that "the carriers rejected it so they can continue to make money hand over fist on insurance premiums."

Chen also referenced the CTIA trade group representing carriers, which argued to the Federal Communications Commission in June that "a kill switch isn't the answer" to controlling device theft, noting that any preloaded software with the ability to remotely disable a phone could by hijacked and used by hackers to interfere with service.

Another problem the CTIA has with such kill switch apps is the concern that once a phone is remotely killed by a user, it could not be easily reactivated. Conversely, if it were easy to work around the lock, it wouldn't serve as an effective theft deterrent as thieves could work around it, too.

Apple's Activation Lock bypasses carriers



Apple's new Activation Lock feature aims to kill the market for stolen iPhones by requiring users of any locked iPhone reported as stolen to authenticate with iCloud before reactivating the device via iTunes, even after a device "wipe" reset.

The service is free, but requires setting up an iCloud account and locking the device with a passcode, a practice Apple has made more appealing with the convenience of Touch ID on iPhone 5s.

In addition to Activation Lock, iCloud also optionally allows users to turn on Find My iPhone, when enables them to find, track and remotely lock or erase a stolen iOS device. Activation Lock remains in place even after a phone is remotely wiped, making a stolen phone impossible to resell.

Apple's iCloud, Activation Lock and Find my iPhone features are all handled by the company itself, and don't involve the carrier. The features even work on non-mobile devices like a WiFi-only iPad or iPod touch.

In 2007, Apple disrupted the carrier status quo by negotiating a new user experience for iPhone, leveraging the device's incredible demand from users to elicit strong concessions from phone carriers that made Apple the central hub for all apps, media sales, cloud storage and software updates.

Carriers who resisted Apple's control over the iPhone ecosystem, including Verizon Wireless in the U.S. and NTT DoCoMo in Japan, were forced to watch their best subscribers leave in droves until they capitulated.

The iPhone's powerful leverage allowed Apple's iOS to skirt fragmentation issues erected by carriers who want to differentiate their offerings with their own app bundles and force users to buy content, insurance plans and security software through them, rather than the phone's hardware vendor.

Android open to theft, fragmented on solutions



Android licensees like Samsung just sell their devices to carriers, and don't activate their phones for end users or exert much control over the ecosystem, which is shared among the maker, carrier, and the platform vendor.

Samsung and other device vendors have little clout to demand from carriers the same kind of control Apple has over end users' experience because Android and Windows Phone vendors are selling commodity products with little differentiation.

Google hasn't addressed the problem of rampant device theft in Android, and can't really because it doesn't have any real control over how licensees use Android either; Google is powerless to demand concessions from carriers, and has little leverage with hardware makers.

Additionally, rather than seeking to exert leverage against carriers on behalf of end users to deliver a better hardware experience, Google has advocated the "openness" of Android as an competitive alternative to iOS, offering carriers the tantalizing opportunity to win back control and set up their own app stores, bundle layers of apps on their devices and interrupt the free distribution of software updates.

Even Google's own Nexus and Motorola-branded phones do not offer a built in kill switch mechanism similar to Apple's iOS 7 Activation Lock.
post #2 of 74
So Samdung wants to sell activation lock service for $30 a year. What a joke.
post #3 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


Google hasn't addressed the problem of rampant device theft in Android, and can't really .

Where do folks come up with this stuff? It's baked right into Android, and yes offered by Google themselves (even for Nexus and Motorola branded smartphones/tablets 1hmm.gif. )Carriers aren't in the way at all. Samsung's lone wolf feature may be a problem with them but not Google's.
http://www.androidcentral.com/how-set-android-device-manager-lock-and-wipe-your-phone

And for those curious if it's similar to Apple's "kill switch" (apparently it isn't) there's a video here.
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/19/13 at 3:30pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #4 of 74
There was a pretty long segment on CBS Good Morning America this morning.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57612922/inside-the-hidden-tech-battle-over-a-smartphone-kill-switch/

It was pointed out that all five of the U.S. major carriers have declined to implement the kill-switch technology on Android phones proposed by Samsung. Since Apple does not allow carriers to customize their phone load images they bypass the carrier%u2019s reluctance.
post #5 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Where do folks come up with this stuff? It's baked right into Android, and yes offered by Google themselves (even for Nexus and Motorola branded smartphones/tablets 1hmm.gif. )Carriers aren't in the way at all. Samsung's lone wolf feature may be a problem with them but not Google's.
http://www.androidcentral.com/how-set-android-device-manager-lock-and-wipe-your-phone

And for those curious if it's similar to Apple's "kill switch" (it is) there's a video here.

 

Author of article explains it all.

post #6 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Where do folks come up with this stuff? It's baked right into Android, and yes offered by Google themselves (even for Nexus and Motorola branded smartphones/tablets 1hmm.gif. )Carriers aren't in the way at all. Samsung's lone wolf feature may be a problem with them but not Google's.
http://www.androidcentral.com/how-set-android-device-manager-lock-and-wipe-your-phone

 

Uh, the capabilities are nothing like activation lock. I have a Nexus 5, the 2 options are lock and erase. Oh, and if they turn off the phone/take out the simcard/disable wifi, its utterly useless. Activation lock is a much deeper solution. 

post #7 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Where do folks come up with this stuff? It's baked right into Android, and yes offered by Google themselves (even for Nexus and Motorola branded smartphones/tablets 1hmm.gif. )Carriers aren't in the way at all. Samsung's lone wolf feature may be a problem with them but not Google's.
http://www.androidcentral.com/how-set-android-device-manager-lock-and-wipe-your-phone

I think they are referring to the fact that few of the Android phones out there run KitKat, which runs Android's Device Manager.

post #8 of 74

Perhaps you should check your facts. The remote wipe offered by Google is only good if the phone hasn't been hard reset. The first thing a thief will do is remove the battery and then wipe the phone. Nothing will prevent it being reused on another network. So this remote wipe only protects your data and not the actual phone. 

 

The Apple activation lock means that the iPhone has to check in with iCloud before it can be set-up on a new network, worldwide, even if the device is wiped. 

post #9 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

So Samdung wants to sell activation lock service for $30 a year. What a joke.

Lojack will recover stolen phone or pay out up to $1000. It cuts into carrier insurance business of $10/month

post #10 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Where do folks come up with this stuff? It's baked right into Android, and yes offered by Google themselves (even for Nexus and Motorola branded smartphones/tablets 1hmm.gif. )Carriers aren't in the way at all. Samsung's lone wolf feature may be a problem with them but not Google's.
http://www.androidcentral.com/how-set-android-device-manager-lock-and-wipe-your-phone

Funny that you wrote this. In Android Device Manager - yes you can lock your phone and this will frustrate efforts to access your information, although a savvy hacker can bypass it. Yes you can remotely erase your phone to clear all data and leave the thief with your phone restored to factory settings. Saves them the trouble. In iOS, you can find and lock and erase your phone. And with Activation Lock, unless you have the original ID, that phone is bricked and of no use to the thief. Quite a difference in the level of deterrence.

post #11 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post

Author of article explains it all.

Yeah, it says what I've just posted about Android Device Manager doesn't exist, and worse that Google couldn't offer such a "kill switch"" if they wanted to. Author of my link article explains why the author of this AI article is not up-to-date.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #12 of 74
Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


Carriers who resisted Apple's control over the iPhone ecosystem, including Verizon Wireless in the U.S. and NTT DoCoMo in Japan, were forced to watch their best subscribers leave in droves until they capitulated.
 

 

What? Verizon has been the largest carrier by subscriber in the US since 2008 (and 2004 prior). Facts do not support the conclusion.

 

Quote:
 

Google hasn't addressed the problem of rampant device theft in Android, and can't really because it doesn't have any real control over how licensees use Android either; Google is powerless to demand concessions from carriers, and has little leverage with hardware makers.
 
 

Source? I thought no one wanted those crappy Android devices, now they're being rampantly stolen? Android has device manager built in to remote lock and wipe your phone much like find my iPhone. It's not an activation lock, but if your device (regardless what) is stolen, it's gone, If reported to your carrier it's blacklisted so what's the point? You prevent the thief from using it all? Yay? I still can't get it back right? I would think making sure my data isn't on it is the key. 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #13 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwingrav View Post
 

I think they are referring to the fact that few of the Android phones out there run KitKat, which runs Android's Device Manager.

False. Device manager is based on Google Play Services which is updated quietly all the time. Device Manager supports Android 2.2 and higher. 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #14 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Yeah, it says what I've just posted about Android Device Manager doesn't exist, and worse that Google couldn't offer such a "kill switch"" if they wanted to. Author of my link article explains why the author of this AI article is not up-to-date.

 

Unless you can post a credible link to where exactly Google claims any version of Android (including KitKat) does kill switch remote deactivation that prevents a wipe and resale, you need to remove your false allegations and apologize.

 

I really don’t think you are confused. I think you are being deliberately misleading. Simple secure "remote wipe" was a feature Apple added to iOS 2.0 in 2008. That’s not what Activation Lock is. Remote wipe deletes sensitive data, but does nothing to stop trafficking of stolen phones. 

 

It doesn’t even make sense that this could be done in software on Android phones, because an "open" device would let anyone who has access to a device load a new firmware. Only specific locked devices like Samsung’s Galaxy S4 can support a firmware-level kill switch like LoJack, which works somewhat similarly to Activation Lock. That’s what carriers are not interested in doing.

post #15 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



Yeah, it says what I've just posted about Android Device Manager doesn't exist, and worse that Google couldn't offer such a "kill switch"" if they wanted to. Author of my link article explains why the author of this AI article is not up-to-date.

 


So i see you only replied to one person. Not any of the others that responded to your first post. And the base question is does "Android Device Manager" BRICK the phone, where no one at all can restore settings or back to factory default? If not then it is a Wipe Switch, so the article is correct about no KILL SWITCH. iPhone KILLS/BRICKS itself when told too. No restore, no factory defaults... BRICKED. So wiping is not kill switching... sorry.

 


 

You don't want to make me curmudgeon, you would not like me when I am curmudgeon.  I go all caps, bold, with a 72PT font and green lettering.  

Reply

You don't want to make me curmudgeon, you would not like me when I am curmudgeon.  I go all caps, bold, with a 72PT font and green lettering.  

Reply
post #16 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post
 

 

What? Verizon has been the largest carrier by subscriber in the US since 2008 (and 2004 prior). Facts do not support the conclusion.

 

Source? I thought no one wanted those crappy Android devices, now they're being rampantly stolen? Android has device manager built in to remote lock and wipe your phone much like find my iPhone. It's not an activation lock, but if your device (regardless what) is stolen, it's gone, If reported to your carrier it's blacklisted so what's the point? You prevent the thief from using it all? Yay? I still can't get it back right? I would think making sure my data isn't on it is the key. 


Well then read the link or do some independent research of your own as to why Verizon abandoned its Android strategy after it failed to attract the kind of premium data subscribers that iPhone was bringing to AT&T. Your inability to understand or remember a subject does not make it controversial. 

 

Again, this article is not about iOS 2.0 remote wipe. It’s about iOS 7 Activation Lock. You are five years behind. 

 

Blacklisting doesn’t work or it would be working.

 

Uninformed opinions aren’t really worth spreading.  

post #17 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Yeah, it says what I've just posted about Android Device Manager doesn't exist, and worse that Google couldn't offer such a "kill switch"" if they wanted to. Author of my link article explains why the author of this AI article is not up-to-date.

Author will also make changes with no disclaimer or update statement.

post #18 of 74

Frankly I found this story odd - given that I doubt ANYONE would steal a POS Samsung product of any kind.

post #19 of 74
Sooooo ... let me see if I've got this ....

samsung and google, 2 stupidest companies on earth can't even come up with their own kill switch. They either copy Apple or pay third parties to get business going, eh?!?!

What the f*** indeed! ROFLAMO


EDIT: Those who buy android / samsung are dumb already. Who would be even dumber to steal one of those craps anyway?????

EDIT #2: Look at these idiots' report too!!!

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/u-s-wireless-carriers-reject-anti-theft-kill-switch-for-phones-da-1.1550869

Morons, it's NOT "phones". It's only about samsung shit!
Edited by Disturbia - 11/19/13 at 3:59pm

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #20 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post
 

 

Uh, the capabilities are nothing like activation lock. I have a Nexus 5, the 2 options are lock and erase. Oh, and if they turn off the phone/take out the simcard/disable wifi, its utterly useless. Activation lock is a much deeper solution. 

 

Sshhhh. Don't bring up what this is really about - theft deterrent. There's no theft deterrent with Android Device Manager like there is with iOS 7.

 

I highly doubt GG has a response to this feature even though it's the point of the entire article.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #21 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeJay2012 View Post

Funny that you wrote this. In Android Device Manager - yes you can lock your phone and this will frustrate efforts to access your information, although a savvy hacker can bypass it. Yes you can remotely erase your phone to clear all data and leave the thief with your phone restored to factory settings. Saves them the trouble. In iOS, you can find and lock and erase your phone. And with Activation Lock, unless you have the original ID, that phone is bricked and of no use to the thief. Quite a difference in the level of deterrence.

Absolutely correct that Google's theft deterrent efforts are not yet as robust as that which iOS offers. At the same time the authors claim that "Google hasn't addressed the problem of rampant device theft in Android, and can't really. " is demonstrably false as I showed.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #22 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

 

Unless you can post a credible link to where exactly Google claims any version of Android (including KitKat) does kill switch remote deactivation that prevents a wipe and resale, you need to remove your false allegations and apologize.

 

I really don’t think you are confused. I think you are being deliberately misleading. Simple secure "remote wipe" was a feature Apple added to iOS 2.0 in 2008. That’s not what Activation Lock is. Remote wipe deletes sensitive data, but does nothing to stop trafficking of stolen phones. 

 

It doesn’t even make sense that this could be done in software on Android phones, because an "open" device would let anyone who has access to a device load a new firmware. Only specific locked devices like Samsung’s Galaxy S4 can support a firmware-level kill switch like LoJack, which works somewhat similarly to Activation Lock. That’s what carriers are not interested in doing.


In a previous thread you called me liar outright.  I proved your assertion to be wrong.  You did not apologise to me.

 

Having set the bar rather low, it is hypocritical of you to demand others  meet a higher standard.


Edited by cnocbui - 11/19/13 at 3:08pm
post #23 of 74

The article you posted to and the video don't show a feature that prevents a reactivation.  It just demonstrates a simple lock or wipe.  Is there another feature of the Android Device Manager they didn't demo/discuss that prevents subsequent activation?

post #24 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Unless you can post a credible link to where exactly Google claims any version of Android (including KitKat) does kill switch remote deactivation that prevents a wipe and resale, you need to remove your false allegations and apologize.

So you are the author then. I apologize to you for the implication that Google's theft deterrent actions using Device Manager rise to the level of Apple's Activation lock. Took me a few minutes to check the details but it doesn't appear you can (yet) completely brick an Android phone with it unlike Apple's implementation. With that said I suspect you'll have no problem with admitting that your claim that Google has done nothing at all to deter theft was at best poorly-worded.

So again my apologies.

EDIT: As mentioned earlier it looks as tho Android Device Manager in conjunction with carrier lock renders the user data wiped and a stolen Android phone "bricked", unable to be reactivated. Wasn't aware the carriers did that until I saw the mention a few posts back so thanks for that.
http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/stolen-smart-phone-brick-it
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/19/13 at 3:16pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #25 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


Well then read the link or do some independent research of your own as to why Verizon abandoned its Android strategy after it failed to attract the kind of premium data subscribers that iPhone was bringing to AT&T. Your inability to understand or remember a subject does not make it controversial. 

Again, this article is not about iOS 2.0 remote wipe. It’s about iOS 7 Activation Lock. You are five years behind. 

Blacklisting doesn’t work or it would be working.

Uninformed opinions aren’t really worth spreading.  
FACT:Verizon remained the largest US carrier without the iPhone. In fact by and large they continued to add customers every quarter during their time without it. Go ahead Daniel, prove me wrong. You were the one who wrote leaving in droves... Not me. I don't want some analysts models. Cold hard facts. I would wager if Apple had launched the iPhone on both carriers there would have been no Droid in 2009 on Verizon and Google would have been left playing with itself on T-Mobile with Android, but that's for a different day.


If you even bothered to read I specifically stated the Android Device thing is not activation lock which Google is laughable late with in offering. I'm about 5 years behind? Get real. The point is all of these are merely feel good efforts. An actively stolen device is more likely to be disconnected long before you get the chance to even try with any of these. Engine imobilizers don't stop car theives either. True only someone like Apple can offer a true end to end solution like Activation Lock while Android OEMs have to figure it out. Beauty of owning the entire solution. (though BES can to an extent too)

When you have nothing to say Daniel you just resort to attacks that make my grade schooler look more mature. That's the difference between a blogger and a journalist.
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #26 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In 2007, Apple disrupted the carrier status quo by negotiating a new user experience for iPhone, leveraging the device's incredible demand from users to elicit strong concessions from phone carriers that made Apple the central hub for all apps, media sales, cloud storage and software updates.

Carriers who resisted Apple's control over the iPhone ecosystem, including Verizon Wireless in the U.S. and NTT DoCoMo in Japan, were forced to watch their best subscribers leave in droves until they capitulated.

This is misleading.
  1. Apple and ATT negotiated an exclusive agreement with ATT in the US and didn't make a Verizon CDMA model until 2011.
  2. Apple had an exclusive agreement with Softbank in Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_iPhone

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/22/kddi-may-get-iphone-5-putting-an-end-to-softbanks-exclusivity/

While the carriers mentioned may have lost subscribers to the iPhone carriers in their respective countries -- they couldn't have done anything about it even if they wanted to -- until the exclusive deals expired and/or an iPhone model was released that supported the carrier's cell radios.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #27 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Absolutely correct that Google's theft deterrent efforts are not yet as robust as that which iOS offers. At the same time the authors claim that "Google hasn't addressed the problem of rampant device theft in Android, and can't really. " is demonstrably false as I showed.

 

You didn’t demonstrate anything other than some circular logic where you dodge the issue and come up with some byzantine apology defending Android because you don’t recognize a problem.

 

We aren’t talking about features from 2008, so your video about five year old iOS features new to Android is irrelevant.

post #28 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Absolutely correct that Google's theft deterrent efforts are not yet as robust as that which iOS offers. At the same time the authors claim that "Google hasn't addressed the problem of rampant device theft in Android, and can't really. " is demonstrably false as I showed.

 

Wrong. Google has ZERO theft deterrents. The ONLY thing that would stop (or significantly reduce) rampant theft of smartphones would be a method to brick the device.

 

Thieves have NO INTEREST in the data on your phone. Phones are stolen, wiped and then resold for profit. It's the physical device they're after, not your personal data. Since Google only offers a way to wipe clean your data, and no way to permanently lock/brick a device, it's not a deterrent.

 

Now if you can show me a source where phones are primarily stolen to get your personal information, then I might agree the ability to erase your phone is a deterrent.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #29 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

This is misleading.
While the carriers mentioned may have lost subscribers to the iPhone carriers in their respective countries -- they couldn't have done anything about it even if they wanted to -- until the exclusive deals expired and/or an iPhone model was released that supported the carrier's cell radios.

 

There’s nothing misleading at all. Verizon and DoCoMo were both vocally critical of Apple and against giving it control, yet as soon as they could carry the iPhone, they dropped their objections and jumped on it. And in both cases, it was very clear that their attempts to replicate an iPhone-like customer base with Android alternatives failed miserably. 

 

The article does claim that Verizon wanted the iPhone in 2009 but couldn’t have it. It says that Verizon dropped its efforts to back Android and capitulated to Apple’s demands in order to carry the iPhone. 

post #30 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_Me View Post
 

It's DED. You cant expect much from him.

 

personally attack the author because you can’t back up your own arguments or take issue with any of the facts

post #31 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

Uh, the capabilities are nothing like activation lock. I have a Nexus 5, the 2 options are lock and erase. Oh, and if they turn off the phone/take out the simcard/disable wifi, its utterly useless. Activation lock is a much deeper solution. 

Sshhhh. Don't bring up what this is really about - theft deterrent. There's no theft deterrent with Android Device Manager like there is with iOS 7.

I highly doubt GG has a response to this feature even though it's the point of the entire article.

Actually, any Android phone has a much better theft-deterrant than an iPhone... It's an Android phone 1biggrin.gif
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #32 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

 

Unless you can post a credible link to where exactly Google claims any version of Android (including KitKat) does kill switch remote deactivation that prevents a wipe and resale, you need to remove your false allegations and apologize.

I really don’t think you are confused. I think you are being deliberately misleading. Simple secure "remote wipe" was a feature Apple added to iOS 2.0 in 2008. That’s not what Activation Lock is. Remote wipe deletes sensitive data, but does nothing to stop trafficking of stolen phones. 

It doesn’t even make sense that this could be done in software on Android phones, because an "open" device would let anyone who has access to a device load a new firmware. Only specific locked devices like Samsung’s Galaxy S4 can support a firmware-level kill switch like LoJack, which works somewhat similarly to Activation Lock. That’s what carriers are not interested in doing.


In a previous thread you called me liar outright.  I proved your assertion to be wrong.  You did not apologise to me.

Having set the bar rather low, it is hypocritical of you to demand others  meet a higher standard.

I am having difficulty following this thread as both GatorGuy and Corrections (AKA DED) are on my block list.

You and I do not agree on much -- But you are correct, DED's MO is to demean and insult those who challenge his "facts" or disagree with his agenda.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #33 of 74
When you steal a mobile OS and give it away free, ya gotta make money somehow. Jeez.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #34 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


Well then read the link or do some independent research of your own as to why Verizon abandoned its Android strategy after it failed to attract the kind of premium data subscribers that iPhone was bringing to AT&T. Your inability to understand or remember a subject does not make it controversial. 

Again, this article is not about iOS 2.0 remote wipe. It’s about iOS 7 Activation Lock. You are five years behind. 

Blacklisting doesn’t work or it would be working.

Uninformed opinions aren’t really worth spreading.  
FACT:Verizon remained the largest US carrier without the iPhone. In fact by and large they continued to add customers every quarter during their time without it. Go ahead Daniel, prove me wrong. You were the one who wrote leaving in droves... Not me. I don't want some analysts models. Cold hard facts. I would wager if Apple had launched the iPhone on both carriers there would have been no Droid in 2009 on Verizon and Google would have been left playing with itself on T-Mobile with Android, but that's for a different day.


If you even bothered to read I specifically stated the Android Device thing is not activation lock which Google is laughable late with in offering. I'm about 5 years behind? Get real. The point is all of these are merely feel good efforts. An actively stolen device is more likely to be disconnected long before you get the chance to even try with any of these. Engine imobilizers don't stop car theives either. True only someone like Apple can offer a true end to end solution like Activation Lock while Android OEMs have to figure it out. Beauty of owning the entire solution. (though BES can to an extent too)

When you have nothing to say Daniel you just resort to attacks that make my grade schooler look more mature. That's the difference between a blogger and a journalist.

+++ QFT
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #35 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

 

personally attack the author because you can’t back up your own arguments or take issue with any of the facts

Editing your own articles without a disclaimer or statement that you secretly change things on the article to hide your mistakes shows the lack of your integrity 

post #36 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Absolutely correct that Google's theft deterrent efforts are not yet as robust as that which iOS offers. At the same time the authors claim that "Google hasn't addressed the problem of rampant device theft in Android, and can't really. " is demonstrably false as I showed.

Since nearly all cell phone thefts is for the value of the phone, having the ability to remote wipe your data on it is not at all a deterrent. The iPhone had this feature for years and it was not a deterrent back then nor now.

BTW - Since most Android phones has a feature know as a "user friendly removable battery", all a thief has to do is remove the battery as soon as he steals the phone and then put if back in without the sim and away from WiFi. So how would one use Google Device Manager to wipe the data from this stolen phone?
post #37 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

 

personally attack the author because you can’t back up your own arguments or take issue with any of the facts

 

That's a very peculiar way of putting things when you are the author in question.

 

I've never understood why you don't defend your pieces using your real name. Is it because you want to be rude to people in a semi-anonymous manner?

post #38 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post
 

 

That's a very peculiar way of putting things when you are the author in question.

 

I've never understood why you don't defend your pieces using your real name. Is it because you want to be rude to people in a semi-anonymous manner?

Simple. To be hypocritical.

post #39 of 74
If I had a SamDung Phone, I would welcome it getting stolen so I could replace with an iPhone!
post #40 of 74

An activation lock facility is only needed for highly sought-after devices. Why should Google bother implementing a relatively useless feature?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • U.S. carriers block Samsung's kill switch alternative to Apple's iOS 7 Activation Lock
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › U.S. carriers block Samsung's kill switch alternative to Apple's iOS 7 Activation Lock