or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google's Sundar Pichai targets the enterprise with Android L, featuring Samsung Knox
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google's Sundar Pichai targets the enterprise with Android L, featuring Samsung Knox

post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 
Google's head of Android development Sundar Pichai made brief remarks at Google IO to address the enterprise, a market that so far has largely ignored Android while enthusiastically adopting Apple's iOS mobile platform. Notably, his solution involved a "contribution" of Knox security by Samsung, Android's largest licensee.



Google hopes to be taken seriously by business with its upcoming "L" release (perhaps "Lollypop") of Android 5.0, slated for release later this year. Pichai in particular directed attention at new efforts targeting data separation and security and the bulk deployment of apps, two of Android's largest weaknesses in the business market.

Samsung "contributes" Knox to Android



Pichai specifically noted that the future Android 5.0's security layer involves Samsung's "contribution" of Knox, a feature that company unveiled last spring as part of its "SAFE" (Samsung for Enterprise) initiative.

Knox principally erects a "container" or sandbox around corporate apps and data to prevent any unauthorized mingling with a users' private, unsecured email, apps and other personal data.

Samsung SAFE Knox


According to a report by The Information, Google and Samsung faced a tense standoff in January regarding Samsung's demonstration of a new user interface dubbed "Magazine UX," which Pichai determined to be a direct threat to Google's control over and monetization of Android.

Pichai was reportedly "prepared to forbid" Samsung from using the ostensibly open Android operating system unless it fell into line with Google's requirements. That demand makes more sense given Google's latest announcement of a second attempt at delivering its own cohesive user interface for Android, an web-inspired initiative it calls "Material Design."

But the standoff also explains how Samsung could be strong-armed into "contributing" Knox, a significantly differentiating feature that has made some of Samsung's products at least possible for government and corporate users to buy, while other Android vendors have been virtually shut out of the enterprise entirely, as alluded to by IDC's Mobility Research Director Ryan Reith.

June 25, 2014


Samsung's Knox fails to pop Android sales to shops



After announcing Knox last spring, Samsung immediately began marketing its Galaxy S III and Note II as "SAFE for business" via billboards portraying Samsung devices running mockups of business presentation and project management software that doesn't really exist



Samsung also began offering trade-in rebates for companies willing to purchase hundreds of Galaxy devices, suggesting that companies could "save" tens of thousands of dollars trading in their fleets of higher end iPhones for rebates of no more than $300 each while paying full price for new mobile devices in order to become Samsung customers. That strategy didn't work very successfully.

A year later, Samsung hasn't made a dent in Apple's overwhelming dominance in the enterprise. Last spring, Apple's iOS made up 75 percent of all mobile device activations by Good Technology, and this year the Q1 figure remained at 72 percent.



Among business tablets, there's even less competition. Apple's iPad made up 92 percent of Good's enterprise activations, resulting in an overwhelming number of custom corporate apps--93%--targeting iOS. Once invested in iOS, business users are even less likely to evaluate incompatible alternatives.

In May, Samsung executive Dr. Injong Rhee acknowledged to the Wall Street Journal that while the company has delivered 87 million devices embedded with Knox, only 1.8 million of those are actively using Knox.

The paper noted that the executive "declined to comment on how many paid customers the company has won so far with its Knox system."

Google's "race to make Android work for businesses"



A second report by Amir Efrati for the The Information detailed Google's strategy and difficulties in winning over business users from iOS, the day before Pichai unveiled Google's plans to adopt Samsung's Knox.

Efrati profiled Needham Bank's chief technology officer James Gordon, who manages devices for the organization's 180 employees. Gordon described efforts to deploy an investment officer's Samsung Android phone as a "kludgy" process, noting that his team "'doesn't want to support Android' because 'there's a lot of complexity' in configuring the devices."

Gordon was cited as saying "we've been growing up with Apple devices, and it still comes down to user experience," noting that his bank 'trusts Apple more' and would be more likely to recommend Windows Phone than Android given that his employees use Microsoft Office.

The report also cited Craig Johnston of IT consulting firm NTT Data, who outlined all of the Mobile Device Management options supported by iOS that are not addressed by Android, with or without Knox, and Windows Phone 8 (sample below).

MDM policies on mobile OSs


Johnston noted that Android is "really suffering" and is seriously behind in supporting the mass deployment tools and options Apple most recently addressed in February. Apple began working to make iPhones relevant to companies back in 2008, and has made corporate support a primary focus in every subsequent release of iOS.

"iOS is very established so it will take time" for Android to make any progress Johnston was cited as saying.

Roman Foeckl, the chief executive of global security vendor CoSoSys noted to AppleIsnider that "todays announcement at Google I/O to add more security and granular controls to Android is good news for Enterprise admins that are facing the challenges of BYOD.

"Google is bringing more power to Android on the OS layer for dual-persona features that allow for a clear separation of personal and business data on one device. This is what will continue driving adoption of Android devices in the enterprise as this is an essential feature for enterprises that have this requirement to be compliant with different regulatory requirements and industry standards."

Foeckl added, "Google is adding more features for Mobile Device Management to Android as Apple has done for years in iOS. As device vendors like Samsung have adopted their Android distributions with features such as Knox it was about time that Google follows this device vendor requirement that is driven by business and enterprise customer demand.

"Apple has for years empowered enterprise IT with full management capabilities in iOS that developers for Android MDM solutions had to replicate or find workarounds that never gave that powerful of a feature set of APIs as iOS had since early versions of iOS. Growing large scale deployment in Enterprises and Education are forcing Google to follow Apple's iOS."

Google's next leg of the enterprise race involves distributing its new software



The Information also called attention to Google's parallel issue of not having most of its Android user base running on the latest version, nor even able to upgrade in many cases.

Google has focused on delivering updates via "Google Play Services," a metric Pichai called attention to in his presentation today. However, for enterprise users who demand security, Google Play updates aren't enough to patch up a fragmented array of phone hardware running a broad swath of different API versions of Android, many of which contain serious underlying security vulnerabilities.

In February, Pichai blew off a question about Google's security with a response stating, "we do not guarantee that Android is designed to be safe; its format was designed to give more freedom. When they talk about 90% of malicious programs for Android, they must of course take into account the fact that it is the most used operating system in the world. If I had a company dedicated to malware, I would also send my attacks to Android."



One month prior to that, Cisco issued a report targeting enterprise users noting that 99 percent of mobile malware targets Android, harmonizing with comments by Juniper Networks in a report last summer that noted that "77 percent of Android's threats could be largely eliminated today if all Android devices had the latest OS. Currently only 4 percent do."

Apple's Tim Cook called particular attention to the rapid adoption of iOS 7 by users, noting earlier this month at WWDC that 89 percent of the company's mobile users are actively using iOS 7. Google's latest figures indicate that only 13.9 percent of Android users who actively access Google Play (a figure that excludes most Android users in China or users of forks like Amazon's Fire lineup) are running a version as new as iOS 7.

The largest block (29 percent) of Google's own active Android users are still on Android 4.1, released in the summer of 2012 alongside iOS 6. Another 28 percent are on an even older version of Android dating back as far as 2010 when Apple released iOS 4.
post #2 of 45
I do not think many Corporate 1000 companies trust Google at the enterprise service level. This may change, but its hard to see an abandonment of the 'tried & true' for the 'new & untested'. I am not saying that it cannot be done, but it will require an entire new dedicated division within Google to do this and even then ,there's no assurance it will succeed.
post #3 of 45
Considering Knox is a failure (I will find the link on Patently Apple), Pinchai's promotion of Knox shows how desperate Google is to have ANY kind of story to compete with Apple!

I am starting to hope the 4.7 and 5.5 iPhone rumors are true because Apple would be in a very strong position to demolish Android in North America and China starting the day the iPhones were released for sale!
post #4 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

Considering Knox is a failure (I will find the link on Patently Apple), Pinchai's promotion of Knox shows how desperate Google is to have ANY kind of story to compete with Apple!

I am starting to hope the 4.7 and 5.5 iPhone rumors are true because Apple would be in a very strong position to demolish Android in North America and China starting the day the iPhones were released for sale!

What can android device have left after iPhone 4.7" and 5.5" release? Damn, I can't think of any...or maybe Android Earings?

post #5 of 45
Who in their right mind would trust Guugle...with anything important?!
post #6 of 45

KNOX started off with so much promise as it actually looked very good. But it only worked on certain Samsung devices that had the necessary hardware to support it. Then there's all the little "issues" that popped up. As it stands, only a very small percentage of Samsung devices that have KNOX actually have it enabled.

 

I guess Google lacked the resources to bring Enterprise security to Android, so they made a deal with Samsung to take KNOX and apply it to Android. The really tough part is going to make it work across various manufacturers.

 

As mentioned, Samsung devices need certain hardware to run KNOX. That's why early versions of the GS3 wouldn't support it. How many OEM's are going to want to make hardware changes to ensure they can properly run KNOX? Further, to run KNOX means to have your device locked down tight as a drum. No more custom ROM's. I wonder how the Android community will respond to this? Are people going to flock to non-KNOX devices to maintain their "freedom"? This will really give us a good idea of how many people actually care about ROMs and how many just yap about it but never do it.

post #7 of 45
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
Notably, his solution involved a "contribution" of Knox security by Samsung, Android's largest licensee.

 

Aww, isn't that cute?

Doggie doo (Samsung) wagging the tail (Android) wagging the dog (Google).

 

Security and privacy are going to become big selling points.  And not just to enterprise clients.  There are all manner of credit card hacks (Target), privacy breaches (NSA), and spying (Google Glass etc.) in the news these days.  There are two groups of consumers now: scared of privacy and security breaches, and soon-to-be scared of privacy and security breaches.

 

So now we're really starting to see the most important benefit of Apple's tight hardware + software integration.  Apple can and will leverage that in their ads and marketing for all their OS X and iOS devices.  Sure, seamless integration adds up to a pleasant user experience.  But it also allows for vastly superior security.  There's no way you can clone all of that overnight.  Not when you dump free, open-source software onto the market.  Not when you trust other companies, with orthogonal goals, to design and build hardware for you.  If you don't control your own destiny, there's no hope of achieving decent security.

 

And, frankly, it's not in Google's interest to secure Android devices.  97% of Google's revenue comes from ads.  They are an advertising giant, they want as much information about all of us as they can grab, and their goal is to use that information to target ever-more specific ads to each and every one of us.  Security is an impediment to that goal.

 

Let the buyer beware.  And watch where you're stepping.


Edited by SockRolid - 6/25/14 at 3:44pm

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #8 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post
 

 

Aww, isn't that cute?

Doggie doo (Samsung) wagging the tail (Android) wagging the dog (Google).

 

Is that what they call "dogfooding"? LOL!

 

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #9 of 45

Samsung Knox? That's the most hilarious and ironic name that I've ever heard!:lol:

 

This is the real Fort Knox.

 

 

This is what I imagine when I hear Android and security mentioned in the same sentence.

 

post #10 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

KNOX started off with so much promise as it actually looked very good. But it only worked on certain Samsung devices that had the necessary hardware to support it. Then there's all the little "issues" that popped up. As it stands, only a very small percentage of Samsung devices that have KNOX actually have it enabled.

I guess Google lacked the resources to bring Enterprise security to Android, so they made a deal with Samsung to take KNOX and apply it to Android. The really tough part is going to make it work across various manufacturers.

As mentioned, Samsung devices need certain hardware to run KNOX. That's why early versions of the GS3 wouldn't support it. How many OEM's are going to want to make hardware changes to ensure they can properly run KNOX? Further, to run KNOX means to have your device locked down tight as a drum. No more custom ROM's. I wonder how the Android community will respond to this? Are people going to flock to non-KNOX devices to maintain their "freedom"? This will really give us a good idea of how many people actually care about ROMs and how many just yap about it but never do it.
They'll finish with their training wheels and come over to the fine side of the App Stores and security.
post #11 of 45
This isn't any competition. It's KitKat with 4% of Android users updating. It's not secure because of Androids own bases. Putting samsung on top of that just makes it worse
post #12 of 45
Too little too late, even if it was worth anything.
Enterprise has already adopted iOS, they've spent good money on iOS app development, they have the infrastructure...changing to something else would be out of the question. Unless Apple suddenly ceased to exist, businessess will stick with what they invested in. It's why most businessess still have Windows PC's and why OS X never had a real chance in enterprise.
post #13 of 45

I know that I'm personally coming back to Apple for the larger screen. I only switched in the first place for a usable experience, since I'm a tall guy with big hands. If Apple brings me a phone I can use comfortably, there's no reason for me to stay on Android anymore.

post #14 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Samsung Knox? That's the most hilarious and ironic name that I've ever heard!lol.gif

C'mon, it's not worse than 'Microsoft Works', both are proper oxymorons though 1wink.gif
post #15 of 45

the first big question is, does Knox, even when properly implemented, actually provide the security that it purports to?

 

the second question is, if so, what are the trade offs?

 

the third question is, does it work well with today's typical enterprise IT setups and software?

 

but what is not a question is, when it comes to security:

 

first, no business or government in the world trusts Samsung - the world's #2 industrial espionage operation (after China).

 

and second, no business or government in the world should trust Google, the world's #2 data miner (after the NSA).

post #16 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

So now we're really starting to see the most important benefit of Apple's tight hardware + software integration.  Apple can and will leverage that in their ads and marketing for all their OS X and iOS devices.  

It isn't Apple's style lately to even mention other products or competitors, let alone use some scare tactics. I do remember a few I'm a Mac ads that poked fun at Windows viruses, but they don't do that anymore. I think they did a good job of explaining security without making it scary in this video:

 

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #17 of 45
Looking forward to reading this article.

Android L=toxic L stew.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #18 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

 

and second, no business or government in the world should trust Google, the world's #2 data miner (after the NSA).

 

What alternatives would you recommend to those businesses and governments using Google Apps? Microsoft?

post #19 of 45
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

What alternatives would you recommend to those businesses and governments using Google Apps? Microsoft?

 

Just about any other company on Earth. Apple would work, after all.

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 #20 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Just about any other company on Earth. Apple would work, after all.

Does Apple guarantee the reliability of its cloud services through SLAs?

post #21 of 45
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

It isn't Apple's style lately to even mention other products or competitors, let alone use some scare tactics. I do remember a few I'm a Mac ads that poked fun at Windows viruses, but they don't do that anymore. I think they did a good job of explaining security without making it scary in this video: [...]

 

I'm pretty sure Apple's ad agency (or their new internal marketing group) will be able to come up with something fun and memorable.  Without mentioning any would-be competitors and wannabes.

 

Here are two rules for marketing mobile devices:

 

If you're Apple: mention competitors and you'll be perceived as kicking-puppies-mean.

If you're not Apple: mention Apple and you lose.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #22 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

 

What alternatives would you recommend to those businesses and governments using Google Apps? Microsoft?

 

Are any government agencies stupid enough to use Google Apps?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

Does Apple guarantee the reliability of its cloud services through SLAs?

 

Does Google indemnify anyone using their products (like Microsoft does)? Why no, they don't.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Waiting for GG to come in here and lie and make the claim they do, even though he has never been able to provide any sort of link to Google's official policy on this, and instead will link to a couple half-baked (and restrictive) agreements Google made with HTC and Samsung

.

post #23 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
 

 

Are any government agencies stupid enough to use Google Apps?

 

 

Does Google indemnify anyone using their products (like Microsoft does)? Why no, they don't.

.

 

Does this count as indemnification?

"Indemnity. Google, at its expense, shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Customer against any losses, costs and damages arising from a claim by a third party against Customer that the Services, or any part thereof, infringe any intellectual property or proprietary rights of such third party or misappropriates any protected trade secret of such third party...."

(http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/appsecurity_tos.html)

post #24 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

 

Does this count as indemnification?

"Indemnity. Google, at its expense, shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Customer against any losses, costs and damages arising from a claim by a third party against Customer that the Services, or any part thereof, infringe any intellectual property or proprietary rights of such third party or misappropriates any protected trade secret of such third party...."

(http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/terms/appsecurity_tos.html)

 

Thanks for digging that up.

 

Now explain to me why Google Apps is covered, but Android is not. Think long and carefully about this. What good is using a company and its services when it selectively indemnifies what it offers? So if you use Google Apps on an Android device, are you actually protected by an indemnification policy? How do you determine which aspect of your complete business solution is actually indemnified, when there are different agreements between various software packages you might be using?

 

Microsoft indemnifies users of its operating systems, server software, office suites - basically everything your business might use.

post #25 of 45

"Google hopes to be taken seriously by business . . ."

Now that’s an oxymoron if ever there was a defining moment.

 

Sending shorts to laundry.

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply

When I find time to rewrite the laws of Physics, there'll Finally be some changes made round here!

I am not crazy! Three out of five court appointed psychiatrists said so.

Reply
post #26 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
 

 

Thanks for digging that up.

 

Now explain to me why Google Apps is covered, but Android is not. Think long and carefully about this. 

 

The answer seems quite clear. Google controls every aspect of Google Apps, so they are in a position to defend it from lawsuits. But that's not so with Android. Most Android OEMs (with the possible exception of Motorola lately) are not content to ship Android as released by Google, but instead hack it and layer on their own features. You might recall that during the most recent lawsuit, Google did agree to assume liability for the Google apps that Samsung left unmolested. 

Quote:

Microsoft indemnifies users of its operating systems, server software, office suites - basically everything your business might use.

Admittedly I haven't read their terms of service, but common sense would suggest that Microsoft's indemnification only applies to unmodified Microsoft software.


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 6/25/14 at 9:00pm
post #27 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

 

The answer seems quite clear. Google controls every aspect of Google Apps, so they are in a position to defend it from lawsuits. But that's not so with Android, as most Android OEMs (with the possible exception of Motorola lately) are not content to ship Android as released by Google, and instead modify it and layer on their own features. You might recall that during the most recent lawsuit, Google did agree to assume liability for the Google apps that Samsung left unmolested. 

Even though I haven't read their terms of service, common sense would suggest that Microsoft's indemnification only applies to unmodified Microsoft software.

 

Of course you'd come back with that response. Microsoft software runs on a gazillion different combinations of hardware, and it still gets indemnification. And Windows Mobile (which also gets some modifications like Android) is indemnified. It took almost a year before Microsoft was able to work out the terms for Mobile because of this. Google forces tight restrictions on Android OEM's. They can modify Android, but only within very specific limits.

 

The reason Google won't indemnify Android has nothing to do with it being modified - it has to do with the fact it's filled with stolen IP. Google would be opening a can of worms if they indemnified Android. They would rather steal IP then give it away free.

post #28 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

 

What alternatives would you recommend to those businesses and governments using Google Apps? Microsoft?

is this a serious question? the vast majority of business applications - the hundreds if not thousands of employee-facing proprietary softwares in widespread use - are Windows based of course. Google cloud Apps are essentially consumer services - popular, but unrelated to specialized, or even generic, business needs. they need customized client software on portable devices for employees that ties in to the programs they depend on back in the HQ. all those "modules" etc. that typify proprietary softwares.

 

sure, they can write custom apps for Android that do that, just like they have been doing for iOS. but that has nothing to do with Google's generic services. it has everything to do, tho, with Android's intrinsic security at the app/system level. which is why i asked if Knox really provides the complete security at that level that it claims to. Android alone most definitely does not.

post #29 of 45
On a related subject (sort of) wasn't there a lot of talk a while back that Google's plan was to ultimately replace Android with Chrome OS? Seems like they've scrapped that idea then.
post #30 of 45

So sad that Google is relying on Samsung's software solution for security. I wouldn't trust Samsung to code their way out of a cardboard box, their UI and add-ons is well known to be un-optimized, ugly trash. 

post #31 of 45
I also can't imagine in a million years Google using Knox, so I ask: what's in a name? This looks to me like a public relations ploy negotiated by Samsung and Google. Samsung agrees to discontinue its silly UI work, Google continues to indemnify Samsung in lawsuits, Google develops "Knox" into a properly implemented security solution that's maybe easier to deploy, and everybody looks real chummy and "innovative."
post #32 of 45
Jobs was good at creating a Reality Distortion Field around him and Apple's products... and other people believed him.

But when Pichai starts in spinning a Reality Distortion Field, he's the only one in the room that believes it.

Knox must be so shitty to implement that only 2% of the people who have it on their phone will activate it! Now think about that, they have the most unsecure phone in the world and can't bring themselves to turn on the security feature...! Does it stink up the room or something when activated??
"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 #33 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1983 View Post

On a related subject (sort of) wasn't there a lot of talk a while back that Google's plan was to ultimately replace Android with Chrome OS? Seems like they've scrapped that idea then.

You're pretty close... Google was planning on getting 100% behind Chrome and planning on letting Android spin slowly in the wind. Then Chrome laid an egg in the market and suddenly Google decides the crazy aunt in the attic didn't look so nuts after all. Google's management reminds me of a classroom of ADD kids playing with toys and spending a short minute before grabbing up the next one to play with.
"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 #34 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post


You're pretty close... Google was planning on getting 100% behind Chrome and planning on letting Android spin slowly in the wind. Then Chrome laid an egg in the market and suddenly Google decides the crazy aunt in the attic didn't look so nuts after all. Google's management reminds me of a classroom of ADD kids playing with toys and spending a short minute before grabbing up the next one to play with.

AFAIK, the only person saying that Google was going to dump Android for Chrome was DED in an editorial on AI.  Do a Google for 'google dumping android for chrome' and the only relevant articles refer back to DED's piece, which was, unsurprisingly, light on any actual evidence for his claims.

post #35 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


The reason Google won't indemnify Android has nothing to do with it being modified - it has to do with the fact it's filled with stolen IP. Google would be opening a can of worms if they indemnified Android. They would rather steal IP then give it away free.
Where did you get the proof that Google doesn't indemnify their version of Android and the Google Services that are part of the package? I recall at least three contracts have become public that proved they do (HTC, Samsung, Motorola), but not one document yet indicating they do not. As there's evidence of indemnification yet you claim they do not the onus to prove your claim is on you sir.

As far as your statement it's "filled with stolen IP" it's odd that in 8 years there's been so little shown to be fact.

Look, there's things Google has done that I don't feel were right. For instance:

- They should have taken a license to Sun tech whether they felt they needed to or not. There wasn't enough money involved to take the chance on any future problems. Licensing would have been the right thing to do.

- Google should not have messed around with cookie code that enabled bypassing Safari settings. Even if you take them at their word and it was originally a "mistake" I don't think it would have taken Google very long to recognize what it was doing in the wild. IMHO they chose to do it anyway. Not good.

- The supposedly "accidental" collection of assorted snippets via wi-fi sniffing was very poorly handled. Even IF it was a rogue engineer or three doing some weird testing Google management should have noted it immediately (personally I think they did), dumped anything they had gathered including the associated Street-view images, gone back and done things the way they should have been done in the first place and fired anyone involved in planning it. There are valid reasons to log wi-fi locations, particularly to aid in way-finding and services. Google is hardly the only one to do that. There's zero need for anything beyond that as far as I know.

- Artificially restricting the ability of workers from bettering their station in life is just plain wrong. That Google cowtowed to Mr. Jobs angry threats is one of the worst things they've done IMO. They weren't harming some big corporation with already deep pockets and more money than they could ever spend. They were exacting real monetary harm on the employees who made those tech profits possible.

- Then there's "me-too" stuff. They've spent a lot of time creating features that were sometimes dumb just because someone else had a good idea. IMO Google+ is a prime example. Google TV was another.

But when it comes to IP I don't think Google is any more guilty of "stealing" it than any other big tech.

Apple for instance created their own bag of worms when they were bringing the iPhone to market. They put the want for secrecy above the need to license some of the IP they I believe knowingly used, particularly the standard-essential packages. Rather than give away details of their smartphone they elected to ship it without the the requisite licenses in place.

IMHO had they approached both Nokia and Motorola beforehand they could have negotiated a fair license in advance and neither of those lawsuits would have happened. Instead they chose to "steal" the IP rather than license it, ignore it existed until the owner complained. Of course since those licensors now knew exactly what Apple had they may have tried to make it a little more expensive for them than they otherwise would have. Motorola may have been particularly guilty of that. Who knows for certain. In any event I see Apple's secrecy as the beginning of the IP war over smartphones and they certainly did not go in with clean hands themselves. And that's only two of the hundreds of "stolen" IP lawsuits Apple has faced.

I completely understand Apple's reasoning. Secrecy was more important at the time and licensing negotiations would have revealed a lot more than Apple wanted. Apple also had very little IP to trade so cash royalties would probably have been required. They were already taking a big chance in entering a new field and added costs would not have helped. Apple was betting the farm in their words. Still it was a choice they made and one Nokia took advantage of to get rights to some of that newly revealed iPhone IP later on in addition to some ongoing cash payments.

So your use of trigger words like "stolen" hardly portrays the real world business tactics. In the end all the big techs are influenced by what a competitor does, all the big techs tend to answer successful features and products with one of their own, and all the big techs tend to ignore potential IP issues until they are legally required to, and for assorted reasons. That's my view anyway.
Edited by Gatorguy - 6/26/14 at 11:17am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #36 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I do remember a few I'm a Mac ads that poked fun at Windows viruses, but they don't do that anymore. I think they did a good job of explaining security without making it scary in this video:

It took them a long time to even Windows by name. Before it was just the general concept of the "PC" (as oppose to the Mac). I think it wasn't until Vista was such a flop that they jumped on that with some Windows specific ads.

Even the Viruses video used the generic PC and didn't mention any other brand or trademark except for Apple and Mac.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #37 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post
 

which is why i asked if Knox really provides the complete security at that level that it claims to. Android alone most definitely does not.

 

Yes, it's actually a very good security system, contrary to the unfounded and snide comments against it so far in this thread. The reason why it has failed thus far is that the majority of Samsung users are consumers not enterprise and most mobile users aren't very security conscious. The amount of people that I've personally seen who don't even use something as simple as a locking code for their iPhone's or Android phones is absolutely staggering. Samsung gave Google Vault to have it permanently embedded and enabled by default in Android. Not this absurd notion that since Vault was found to be inadequate or useless Samsung decided to just throw it away. This move can only benefit Samsung as well as every other Android user and I personally can't wait for the next version of Android.


Edited by Relic - 6/26/14 at 5:18am
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #38 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Where did you get the proof that Google doesn't indemnify their version of Android and the Google Services that are part of the package? I recall at least three contracts have become public that proved they do, but not one document yet indicating they do not. As far as your claim it's "filled with stolen IP" it's odd that in 8 years there's been so little shown as fact. iOS may have as much if not more more "stolen IP" 1hmm.gif than Android. Surely you've noted all the lawsuits claiming it.

Good post.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #39 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post
 

 

Of course you'd come back with that response. Microsoft software runs on a gazillion different combinations of hardware, and it still gets indemnification. And Windows Mobile (which also gets some modifications like Android) is indemnified. It took almost a year before Microsoft was able to work out the terms for Mobile because of this. Google forces tight restrictions on Android OEM's. They can modify Android, but only within very specific limits.

 

Google Apps run on just as many combinations of hardware as Microsoft software -- in fact any hardware that can run a web browser So why does Google have an "easier" time indemnifying Google apps users? At any rate, why should the hardware affect software features? MS has such large marketshare precisely because those gazillions of hardware combinations all run MS software in the same way. MS doesn't expose a different set of software features for each hardware configuration.

 

Google's restrictions on Android OEMs pertain mostly to the inclusion and placement of Google Apps -- again, the only parts of an OEM device that Google truly owns. OEMs are otherwise at liberty to skin and mod the code they get before releasing it to the consumers. You might also recall in the first Apple v. Samsung trial that Google specifically warned Samsung about mimicking Apple's products, and carefully designed various features of stock Android to work around Apple's patents. Yet Samsung went ahead and did it anyway, for example, replacing the stock overscroll glow with the iOS bounceback animation. Are you suggesting that Microsoft would have vouched for such a "rogue" OEM anyway if it had been in Google's position?


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 6/26/14 at 11:03am
post #40 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

What good is using a company and its services when it selectively indemnifies what it offers?

Apple selectively indemnifies what it offers (an example is linked), but they definitely are worthy of using for services aren't they? You might even have used this Apple software package.

https://developer.apple.com/softwarelicensing/agreements/pdf/bonjour4win.pdf

I don't think your point is valid.
Edited by Gatorguy - 6/26/14 at 6:37am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Google's Sundar Pichai targets the enterprise with Android L, featuring Samsung Knox
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google's Sundar Pichai targets the enterprise with Android L, featuring Samsung Knox