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 - Page 2

post #41 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post


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.

 

Verizon’s goal is not to be big. It’s to make money. The linked article shows quite clearly that Verizon tried in 2009 to duplicate the iPhone’s success with BlackBerry (backing the Storm until it failed two years in a row) after which it dumped BlackBerry and started the 2010 Droid effort, which the Android world assured us meant certain death for iPhone.

 

However, despite having the critical advantage of 4G LTE support (despite flaws with the original implementations), Android failed to make Verizon competitive with AT&T in terms of valuable subscribers paying for data plans. We don’t have to imagine scenarios about what might have happened. By the end of 2010 Verizon was on the iPad and then next spring it launched iPhone 4 on its CDMA network.

 

Despite the fact that Verizon’s CDMA 3G is the slowest 3G on the world, and its 4G LTE was among the fastest, 3G iPhone 4 sales trounced the combined sales of Verizon’s 4G Android offerings. That’s remarkable, because the Android apologists told us it would all be very different. 

 

They were wrong. And no amount of foot stomping, imagining of scenarios, or creative definitions of success change the very stark reality that Android failed to keep Verizon competitive, or that Verizon gave Apple very substantial rights in order to get the iPhone. Because Verizon needed the iPhone. Android wasn’t an adequate substitute. 

 

That’s the fact, and you can’t argue with that. All you can do is quibble about irrelevant things in a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that the article is correct in everything it says.  

post #42 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

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. 

Emphasis mine! Please point to where in the article it "does claim that Verizon wanted the iPhone in 2009 but couldn’t have it."

I saved a copy of the original article so you can't change it retroactively.

Also, those of us on to your agenda, refuse to go down the daisy chain of you linking to other articles written by yourself... containing links to other articles written by yourself...
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #43 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

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

What got my attention with this story is that the U.S. Federal government sent out a RFQ a couple years ago for smart phones. In the end only one Samsung smart phone with this software feature built in was allowed on the contract. Now, if the carriers won't implement this, it sounds like Samsung will be frozen out of government purchases. This leaves only Blackbery and Apple as approved sources. (Microsoft came to late to the party to be considered)

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" (apparently it isn't) there's a video here.

See my comments directly above. If Android's pseudo-kill switch worked as well as Apple's then the U.S. government would have saw the value in it. Android does not offer the needed level of device security for reasons beyond your and my understanding.

While I'm on the topic of what the U.S. government will buy, ONLY the iPad passed the security test. No other tablet is allowed by the government for government use. No other, nada, zilch, zero, is allowed. Even Microsoft with their Surface Pro, which they pitch as really a PC is not allowed under the PC contract as Microsoft is not recognized as a PC hardware vendor to the government. Only OS and Office is recognized, and I'm not so sure the U.S. government has passed a MS OS newer then Win 7...
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #44 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.

Even then, Kit Kat can be gotten around... it's a pussy cat when it comes to the level of security Apple brings to the party... both in security of thieft and security of on-board information.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #45 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

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

What got my attention with this story is that the U.S. Federal government sent out a RFQ a couple years ago for smart phones. In the end only one Samsung smart phone with this software feature built in was allowed on the contract. Now, if the carriers won't implement this, it sounds like Samsung will be frozen out of government purchases. This leaves only Blackbery and Apple as approved sources. (Microsoft came to late to the party to be considered)

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" (apparently it isn't) there's a video here.

See my comments directly above. If Android's pseudo-kill switch worked as well as Apple's then the U.S. government would have saw the value in it. Android does not offer the needed level of device security for reasons beyond your and my understanding.

While I'm on the topic of what the U.S. government will buy, ONLY the iPad passed the security test. No other tablet is allowed by the government for government use. No other, nada, zilch, zero, is allowed. Even Microsoft with their Surface Pro, which they pitch as really a PC is not allowed under the PC contract as Microsoft is not recognized as a PC hardware vendor to the government. Only OS and Office is recognized, and I'm not so sure the U.S. government has passed a MS OS newer then Win 7...

Mmmm... interesting! Do you have any links to the references in your last paragraph (the government requirements)?
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #46 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.

This is an article about theft deterrence.  This is very different than the "find my iPhone" functionality, which has allowed iPhones to be remotely found or erased (or locked) since June of 2010 (free for all in 2011).  This "theft bricking" feature is new, and has nothing to do with what you've posted.  I assume, though, that since Google is providing find-my-Android functionality, there is nothing to prevent them from adding the same theft deterrence feature also.

post #47 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

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.

Verizon's size as number one carrier was never questioned, however Verizon was bleeding customers over to AT&T because they did not have the iPhone and in markets where AT&T was present Verizon was losing market share.

Verizon, without the iPhone tried hard to counter with a strong emphasis on Android and it STILL did not stop the bleeding. Later, after Verizon got the iPhone AT&T tried to break their dependence on the iPhone by promoting the first Nokia/MS phone and lost their butts on that bet.

Same thing was going on in Japan with the largest carrier there trying to go it without the iPhone. They remained the largest carrier, but were seeing erosion of their user base until this year when they got on the iPhone band wagon.

It has helped tremendously that Apple's iPhone is now able to address all the various bands and protocols. For example, since Apple is now compatible to China,s largest carrier, they are now seeing results there as well. Apple is the big fish and carriers have tried various strategies to neutralize Apple's dominance -- none have worked.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #48 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Mmmm... interesting! Do you have any links to the references in your last paragraph (the government requirements)?

There were several stories on this on AI, Do your own research. Use GSA as one of your search terms.

With the huge changes in the cell phone business, the GSA decided that it was time to open the bidding to other phones than just to RIMM. The contract for smart phones was let about the time Nokia/MS got their first phone out the door and was too late to be considered for purchase. The contract is for three years with an automatic renewal option for another three years. Being locked in, or being locked out is a big deal.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #49 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


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 carriers didn't capitulate in the first place. That is the point of why they(verizon, probably others) were left out of this product "exclusivity". The others should have capitulated from the start. it's the carriers own fault they had to wait for the agreements to end. So, I don't find it misleading at all.

android sucks, but not as much as the people who come here to defend it.

New for MS dorks - Microsoft sucks just as much as the losers that come to AI to defend it

Reply

android sucks, but not as much as the people who come here to defend it.

New for MS dorks - Microsoft sucks just as much as the losers that come to AI to defend it

Reply
post #50 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueDogRandy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

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 carriers didn't capitulate in the first place. That is the point of why they(verizon, probably others) were left out of this product "exclusivity". The others should have capitulated from the start. it's the carriers own fault they had to wait for the agreements to end. So, I don't find it misleading at all.

I don't believe we'll ever know the details about the early negotions between Apple and Verizon. It is interesting, though, that Apple's choice to use the cell radio supported by AT&T allowed it to support carriers in most foreign markets.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #51 of 74

Irrelevant. Something I read on this site said nobody steals non-Apple phones.

post #52 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by NormM View Post
 

This is an article about theft deterrence.  This is very different than the "find my iPhone" functionality, which has allowed iPhones to be remotely found or erased (or locked) since June of 2010 (free for all in 2011).  This "theft bricking" feature is new, and has nothing to do with what you've posted.  I assume, though, that since Google is providing find-my-Android functionality, there is nothing to prevent them from adding the same theft deterrence feature also.

No, Google can not provide the anti-theft feature that iPhones (with iOS7) provides. That because Google do not have a hand in the activation or re-activation of Android phones. (Maybe the Nexus?) All the various carriers, all over the World, large and small, handle the activation and re-activation of a Android phones. Apple can provide this feature because ALL iPhones must be activated through Apple. Therefore, Apple will not re-activate an iPhone that had it's "Kill Switch" activated without the proper passcode. The carriers has no hand in this. That goes for any where in the World, not just here in the U.S.. Where as there's nothing preventing some small carrier in Asia or Africa from re-activating a stolen Android phone that was on ATT in the U.S.. Even if it's on a U.S. blacklist. These carriers don't care where the phone came from, so long as you're paying for their service.  

post #53 of 74
Android device manager is a piece of shit I mean my moms android phone has it on and sometimes the damn locations don't even work I have to go and clear some shit on the phone for the damn thing to start working again it's a crapsung by the way unlike findmyiphone it always works and as stated before android device manager does not protect from a force erase it only allies u to lock it but a force erase will bypass it so don't try to compare iOS activation lock bcc it's not even worthy of it iOS activation lock is far superior
post #54 of 74

Could someone clarify what kill switch is this article (or the linked NYTimes article) referring to? According to this source (http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/07/17/lojack-for-samsung-galaxy-s4-and-s4-active-now-available-for-purchase-at-29-99-per-year/), Lojack has been available on the S4 for months. 


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 11/19/13 at 9:39pm
post #55 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by itachiuchiha510 View Post

Android device manager is a piece of shit I mean my moms android phone has it on and sometimes the damn locations don't even work I have to go and clear some shit on the phone for the damn thing to start working again it's a crapsung by the way unlike findmyiphone it always works and as stated before android device manager does not protect from a force erase it only allies u to lock it but a force erase will bypass it so don't try to compare iOS activation lock bcc it's not even worthy of it iOS activation lock is far superior

Ramble much? I read that comment out loud and by the time I said the word superior, my face was purple from lack of oxygen.

 

Punctuate, man, punctuate!

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #56 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

Could someone clarify what kill switch is this article (or the linked NYTimes article) referring to? According to this source (http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/07/17/lojack-for-samsung-galaxy-s4-and-s4-active-now-available-for-purchase-at-29-99-per-year/), Lojack has been available on the S4 for months. 

 

That's the software that the carriers are blocking.

post #57 of 74
Someone needs to fact check how activation lock works. Cause it doesn't require a passcode. But it does require "find my" to be on

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #58 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


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

 

There's not much left if you subtract out their posts.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #59 of 74

HAHAHAHAHA Sorry about thy dude, lol I was in the middle of Break and I had a short time. I was scrambling to post the comment before the break ended and though punctuation was just a waste of time bc I had literally 10 secs left, lol my bad sorry. But in all seriousness Android device manager is a joke.

post #60 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post
 

Ramble much? I read that comment out loud and by the time I said the word superior, my face was purple from lack of oxygen.

 

Punctuate, man, punctuate!

HAHAHAHAHA Sorry about thy dude, lol I was in the middle of Break and I had a short time. I was scrambling to post the comment before the break ended and though punctuation was just a waste of time bc I had literally 10 secs left, lol my bad sorry. But in all seriousness Android device manager is a joke. Sorry still getting the hang of this site :P

post #61 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeJay2012 View Post

...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.

If your worry is savvy hackers they can bypass Activation Lock too, even lock the original owner out of their own account. But even so Activation Lock is certainly a significant step up in theft deterrence from what Android currently offers.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #62 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by aylk View Post
 

 

That's the software that the carriers are blocking.

Are the carriers blocking installation of the app altogether (like they did with pre-4.4 google wallet) or just declining to preload it?


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 11/20/13 at 5:33am
post #63 of 74
Article says ..."The service is free, but requires setting up an iCloud account and locking the device with a passcode" but Apple's info pages don't mention the passcode thing. They do say that activating "Lost mode" for a phone allows you to set a passcode that's needed to unlock it, but that's a different thing.

Does anyone know whether a regular passcode (or TouchID on iPhone 5s) is required to be turned on for Activation Lock to be effective?
post #64 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


If your worry is savvy hackers they can bypass Activation Lock too, even lock the original owner out of their own account. But even so Activation Lock is certainly a significant step up in theft deterrence from what Android currently offers.

 

Source? I have not heard of anyone bypassing Activation Lock. And it doesn't take a "savvy hacker" to resell an Android device that's been "erased". Any 12 year old could do it.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #65 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Source? I have not heard of anyone bypassing Activation Lock.

At the end the videographer also suggests what seems like some relatively easy fixes Apple could use. The video isn't used as an Apple-bash IMHO.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

Article says ..."The service is free, but requires setting up an iCloud account and locking the device with a passcode" but Apple's info pages don't mention the passcode thing. They do say that activating "Lost mode" for a phone allows you to set a passcode that's needed to unlock it, but that's a different thing.

Does anyone know whether a regular passcode (or TouchID on iPhone 5s) is required to be turned on for Activation Lock to be effective?

 

Find My iPhone is the same as Activation Lock. If it's turned on, then Activation Lock is on. If it's turned off, then Activation Lock is off (meaning someone who has your iPhone could do a factory reset and then activate it/sell it).

 

In order to turn Find My iPhone off, you need to enter in your iCloud account password (not the phone unlock PIN). This is the best way to ensure a used iPhone you're about to buy hasn't been stolen. If the user knows the account password and can turn off Find My iPhone in front of you, then you're good to go.

 

In fact, this is just what I did the other day when selling a used iPhone 5 (after getting my 5S). I turned off Find My iPhone for the potential buyer, reset the phone and let him activate it. This was, the buyer wasn't even aware of this feature and I had to explain if he bought an iPhone with Find My iPhone turned on, then he wouldn't be able to activate or use the phone. He was surprised and happy to hear about this.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #67 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


At the end the videographer also suggests what seems like some relatively easy fixes Apple could use. The video isn't used as an Apple-bash IMHO.

 

Again you've just proved how much of an idiot you really are and a waste of time, but I will respond for the benefit of others (not to you, since you're worthless).

 

This requires so many things to be wrong it's not even funny.

 

- First they need to get a print. As has been proven already, these guys who "claim" to have unlocked an iPhone using the "fake fingerprint" are all scammers. There are numerous flaws in their techniques. They need a pristine print (which will never be lifted from an iPhone that gets used by a normal person). Second, they never show continuity from the print on the phone to the software. They could easily have previously saved a perfect print they made themselves in advance under a different file name on their computer and select that one to make the fake instead of using the actual one they "supposedly" lifted from the phone itself. But this is a whole other topic, and anyone who wants to debate this just speak up and I'll expose the totality of this scam.

- Second they need to find a person that has actually used the e-mail on their device for password recovery. That's quite the assumption to make.

- Thirdly you have to assume that you will be able to get the recovery e-mail and copy the link BEFORE the iPhone gets erased when connected.

 

So you have two ASSUMPTIONS and a very difficult to replicate fingerprint hack to sell a used iPhone.

 

 

Meanwhile, on Android I can plug my phone into my USB port, run a piece of software (of which there are countless available) and in minutes the phone is ready for use. No hacks required, no complicated fingerprint hacks and NO ASSUMPTIONS about things like recovery e-mails.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #68 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


As has been proven already, these guys who "claim" to have unlocked an iPhone using the "fake fingerprint" are all scammers.
...they never show continuity from the print on the phone to the software. They could easily have previously saved a perfect print they made themselves in advance under a different file name on their computer and select that one to make the fake instead of using the actual one they "supposedly" lifted from the phone itself. But this is a whole other topic, and anyone who wants to debate this just speak up and I'll expose the totality of this scam.

Here ya go, expose it for the fake it is.
http://vimeo.com/75324765

As is often the case your personal attacks start as soon as you find things may not be exactly as you thought they were. If all else fails shoot the messenger right?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #69 of 74
Originally Posted by umumum View Post

the real story is not about apple, samsung, or any other device manufacturer, it's about why so many carriers seem unwilling to apply a basic, but highly effective anti-crime measure

 

Because it means fewer phones on their network, plain and simple. They don’t give the first flipping burger to the well-being of their users. They just care about the number thereof.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #70 of 74

To me, this speaks volumes about a bigger issue at hand.

 

This is distressing, in that carriers are having too much power in dictating what gets on your phone, often for their own benefits and to the detriments of the end user. Something is wrong when Android updates are taking 9 months to reach the end user, during which Google proceeds to release another 2 Android updates. When Apple releases a small 30mb update, I am wirelessly downloading and installing it while walking to work, on the very same day. None of this rooting crap.

 

Sure, people can say how they don't really care about having activation lock on their Android phones. What about next time, when the Telcos block another feature which you do want? People tend to criticise Apple for not doing this or that, yet often fail to give recognition where it's due for the things that Apple does do well. 

post #71 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. 

True but it wasn't because they were losing customers in droves. At no point in time did VZW fail to add close to a million subscribers in a quarter.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #72 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Google is powerless to demand concessions from carriers...

Apparently Google may have a little more clout with carriers than you give them credit for. Just three weeks after the latest Android version was announced it's already being rolled out to MotoX users at Verizon (!) and T-Mobile.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #73 of 74
your better off getting renters insurance for your android then rely on lojack's reward
Edited by rigorkrad - 11/24/13 at 11:03am
post #74 of 74

in order for lojack to pay out the $1000, you have to report it stolen, and it must phone home
its location to lojack at least once in a 90 day period. if your phone gets stolen, and it is wiped, or has its sim removed, or otherwise can't phone home to lojack, you do not get your $1000

the $1000 reward for lojack is for laptops only, and every year you subscribe to lojack it goes down.

within the first year $1000
second year $800
third year $600
forth year $400
fifth year $200
the android smart phone plan, also goes down

within the first year $600
second year $360
third year $ 240
forth year $ 180
fifth year $ $90

i meant to quote and reply but i botched it.

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