The reason some people say it is and some people say it isn't a rootkit is because some people believe that the Google Earth (important distinction) Auto Update program does more than Google claims it does and some don't.
If you believe the program sends more personal information back to Google than the Terms of Service state they do, then you would call it a rootkit.
You don't need a rootkit to send personal information back that the program itself is getting and using.
A rootkit is a program that is hidden in the OS itself. Often, it can't be found by normal methods, and can't be removed easily. As the definition says, it's used to alter code in the machine to install it's own code, often to take the machine over, and monitor operations.
The reason some people say it is and some people say it isn't a rootkit is because some people believe that the Google Earth (important distinction) Auto Update program does more than Google claims it does and some don't.
If you believe the program sends more personal information back to Google than the Terms of Service state they do, then you would call it a rootkit.
Ummm..no, then you might cal it malware.
Root kit, as in root access. You know, as in complete control of your system.
I guess now it makes sense that all these people are calling it a root kit, since they don't understand what the hell that term means.
I could call it a four headed sheep, but that wouldn't make any sense either...nor would it be true. It would just be another lie.
Can anyone explain the reason why Google auto software updater is not rootkit, since I look over the internet and many people have stated different opinions.
To me it is rootkit and many people who stated in this forum it is not, I am not taking their word for it, since the same people have been ranting about providing facts to our opinions.
Translation: I don't know what a root kit is, but I would like to accuse Google Earth of being one. Please help me.
Seriously, if you don't understand what you are accusing them of, it is better not to make the accusation.
These are the best arguments against GV on the iPhone. A bunch of paranoid, inaccurate, untruthful claims about Google as a company?
Thank you: As I understood it when I looked at the GV website: My t-mobile phone already has my number(s) consolidated, free long distance, I can forward calls from my (VoIP) work phone and have free voicemail. Oh: I can also assign different ring tones to work or personal callers ... anything important I missed?
Funny enough: This reminds me of the strange fact that only with the appearance of "apps" on the iPhone some people are recognizing available software tools, some of which have been available for a long time on Windows Mobile e.g. (there, I said the "W" word) ...
Nope, you haven't missed anything. Nothing in GV s unique. Hell, most of it isn't even unique on the iPhone App Store....which makes the non-rejection/rejection of the app so puzzling.
No one here has been able to put together a rational or sane argument as a reason for the app to be denied. They just sort of feel the need to make nonsensical arguments to defend the actions of Apple, because it is Apple. As a long time and somewhat crazed Apple fan myself, it is sort of embarrassing to see Apple fandom reduced to such drivel.
I've seen a two headed sheep. I'd love to see one with four.
But have you seen the google 4 headed sheep? Those bastards pervert everything they touch...and the sheep are just the beginning. Next they are going to start root kitting cows.
But have you seen the google 4 headed sheep? Those bastards pervert everything they touch...and the sheep are just the beginning. Next they are going to start root kitting cows.
But think of all the grass it eats!
Seriously though, Google is as screwed up as any company. But not more than most.
They've come out with that app to leverage Apple's platform for their own benefit. now, thats fine, as far as it goes. I've now read a lot about what it is, how it does what it does, and honestly, I'm still a bit confused. Truthfully, the service Google is offering is not easy to to do from the consumers standpoint. You need another phone number etc. I don;t know how many people would want this anyway, and the service won't really end up being free.
I'm not sure what Apple's concern is though. We can oversimplify on either side, but it's a complex issue.
I know Apple says that AT&T had nothing to do with this, but then they mention the terms of service.
The way that works is that ANYTHING that goes through AT&T's network (other networks have the same terms) can't violate the terms of service. One of those terms is that anything that makes calls can't go over their network if it bypasses their payment schedule.
That's why SKYPE can work with WiFi, but not with EDGE or 3G, for example.
Reading the service details carefully makes me believe that this IS violating that terms of service agreement in some way.
I'd like someone to show exactly why it isn't, if it isn't. For example, the purpose of this service is to do what, exactly?
See, that;s the funny thing. There is no ned to make stuff up in this case. Your posts [...] speak for themselves.
Yes, they do, but your restatement of them is not what they say at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
The other funny thing is that with all the paranoia about Google and their apparent attempts to use their services to create the New World Order, not one of you has put together a coherent argument as to how that should affect Apple's business decisions regarding the Google Voice App.
There you go again, putting words in my mouth. Your self-loathing must be very nearly unbearable.
However, I have repeatedly stated that Google's intent is to undermine Apple's (and Microsoft's) platforms as places where people maintain, and go to for, information, for the purpose of gaining control over that information themselves, and the process of accessing it. Their services trivialize other platforms for the benefit of Google, and to the detriment of Apple (and Microsoft, and individuals' privacy and control of their own information and access to other information) and it is absolutely not in Apple's interest to allow that to happen.
Which is exactly why Apple has a strong interest in not allowing GV on the iPhone as long as it is in a form that undermines, or trivalizes, the iPhone platform, and, thus, threatens Apple's long-term viability and financial health.
Socialism according to the Oxford, you know from the country where the language originated, defines Socialism as state ownership OR regulation of private industry such as the people calling for the FCC to adopt a socialist stance and force Apple to bow to regulation and allow the GV App into their store.
Perhaps you should gaolbreak your iPhone or as a consumer chose something that suits your needs, as opposed to expecting a socialist government body to enforce your desires by Government regulation.
Absolutely amazing. Just some questions remain. First, can an ordinary phone, just a crappy gadget, provoke revolution in States? Second, why are all those profit fanciers so sure that they still can ride on Apple's back to the same success, to the same money, as pioneering entrepreneurs did?
Yes, they do, but your restatement of them is not what they say at all.
No resentment of them. None of them make sense. None of them are worth resenting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
However, I have repeatedly stated that Google's intent is to undermine Apple's (and Microsoft's) platforms as places where people maintain, and go to for, information, for the purpose of gaining control over that information themselves, and the process of accessing it. Their services trivialize other platforms for the benefit of Google, and to the detriment of Apple (and Microsoft, and individuals' privacy and control of their own information and access to other information) and it is absolutely not in Apple's interest to allow that to happen.
Which is exactly why Apple has a strong interest in not allowing GV on the iPhone as long as it is in a form that undermines, or trivalizes, the iPhone platform, and, thus, threatens Apple's long-term viability and financial health.
1) Your points make no sense, since banning the apps accomplishing nothing except to make using the service less convenient. All the trivializing, control and undermining happens with, or without the app.
2) Apple has partnered with Google, continues to do so and enables users to send wads of data to and from google. Apple obviously does not share your concerns.
Even if you continue to repeat, it doesn't make it rational or true. But please, continue.
Still waiting for a rational argument and not just misleading, confused conjecture. Guess I will have to wait some time.
Seriously though, Google is as screwed up as any company. But not more than most.
They've come out with that app to leverage Apple's platform for their own benefit. now, thats fine, as far as it goes. I've now read a lot about what it is, how it does what it does, and honestly, I'm still a bit confused. Truthfully, the service Google is offering is not easy to to do from the consumers standpoint. You need another phone number etc. I don;t know how many people would want this anyway, and the service won't really end up being free.
I'm not sure what Apple's concern is though. We can oversimplify on either side, but it's a complex issue.
I know Apple says that AT&T had nothing to do with this, but then they mention the terms of service.
The way that works is that ANYTHING that goes through AT&T's network (other networks have the same terms) can't violate the terms of service. One of those terms is that anything that makes calls can't go over their network if it bypasses their payment schedule.
That's why SKYPE can work with WiFi, but not with EDGE or 3G, for example.
Reading the service details carefully makes me believe that this IS violating that terms of service agreement in some way.
I'd like someone to show exactly why it isn't, if it isn't. For example, the purpose of this service is to do what, exactly?
But, it doesn't by pass the payment schedule. All calls you make or receive through your GV acct on your iPhone still use your calling minutes. At best they avoid the long distance charges. But, you already can choose to use alternative long distance providers or to use calling cards or to use outbound call forwarding services, and they act exactly the same. if they don't violate the TOS in this way and are allowed, then GV doesn't violate them either.
SKYPE and other VOIP aps avoided the voice service of the ATT network entirely. if it was allowed on 3G, then all calls would be over the data and AT&T would be cut out of the voice revenue. This is against the TOS and so SKYPE had to block 3G calling. This was a clear cut violation and so they were right to change their app. It also happens to be why the are involved with the FCC investigation into net neutrality, as they would like to run over the data networks, without restriction, but as they can with your ISP connection. They want the TOS changed so that they are not in violation. Different issue than GV.
Edit: Also, Apple's own response to the the FCC said they welcomed google to do a GV webapp. As far as the calling features, this would duplicate the features of the native app for most intents. In both native and web, AT&T would stand to lose the same potential revenue of their long distance revenue. If the webapp provides the same features, and would therefore be also be in violation of AT&T's terms, if the native app is, then why would Apple encourage this route?
The webapp would lose out on some convenience through loss of direct integration, such as selecting a contact from your address book instead of having to manually enter the number, but this wouldn't make a difference to AT&T. And even this convenience can easily be regained, enabled by Apple themselves. Set you Mac to sync OTA with Google and with MobileMe (or through iTunes) and you now have access to your contacts in the webapp. Snow Leopard added direct syncing of your Mac to Google, or you can use third party syncing utils to do the same on Windows and Mac.
Translation: I don't know what a root kit is, but I would like to accuse Google Earth of being one. Please help me.
Seriously, if you don't understand what you are accusing them of, it is better not to make the accusation.
These are the best arguments against GV on the iPhone. A bunch of paranoid, inaccurate, untruthful claims about Google as a company?
You rant like 5 yrs old, who dues not read people's post properly, but got all hot and bothered, we all have different opinions and I will not listen to you, simply because you act childish.
In my opinion it was rootkit, but I was looking for clarification,. which I got. You on the other hand read too much into people's comments and go off on some childish name calling rant!
No, just sit there at your keyboard and wait for me to post a response that you can understand.
Finally! This is what I've been asking of you. Been waiting for a coherent post from you that explains how your believes about google might have any impact on gv being accepted or not. None of your posts so far seem to even be a serious attempt at rational arguments.
I'll wait, but I know it might be a while. Should I get my tinfoil hat out for your response?
You rant like 5 yrs old, who dues not read people's post properly, but got all hot and bothered, we all have different opinions and I will not listen to you, simply because you act childish.
In my opinion it was rootkit, but I was looking for clarification,. which I got. You on the other hand read too much into people's comments and go off on some childish name calling rant!
If you need clarification then it is best not to accuse. That's not childish. It is a hope for intelligent debate. One could accuse google of all sorts of nefarious actions. But if you do not even understand the terminology of the accusation and the assertion is clearly wrong, you deserve to be called on it.
Translation: I don't know what a root kit is, but I would like to accuse Google Earth of being one. Please help me.
Seriously, if you don't understand what you are accusing them of, it is better not to make the accusation.
These are the best arguments against GV on the iPhone. A bunch of paranoid, inaccurate, untruthful claims about Google as a company?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
If you need clarification then it is best not to accuse. That's not childish. It is a hope for intelligent debate. One could accuse google of all sorts of nefarious actions. But if you do not even understand the terminology of the accusation and the assertion is clearly wrong, you deserve to be called on it.
I had an opinion, did not accuse, now who is putting words in my mouth. I asked the questions, since my research shows many people think it is and many do not.
Btw: you may say it is but you have not provide a link to explain wht it is not. At least other educate and do not rant and act like 5 yrs. Calling me out, this is internet, who cares, you can't see me.
my feelings are hate /sarcasm ..grow up
P.S. I thought there are some pretty good opinions from other people who are against Google Voice, but you would ignore them, since you think, you found someone you can win in argument, since this is not discussion from your ranting anyway.
Comments
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rootkit:
The reason some people say it is and some people say it isn't a rootkit is because some people believe that the Google Earth (important distinction) Auto Update program does more than Google claims it does and some don't.
If you believe the program sends more personal information back to Google than the Terms of Service state they do, then you would call it a rootkit.
You don't need a rootkit to send personal information back that the program itself is getting and using.
A rootkit is a program that is hidden in the OS itself. Often, it can't be found by normal methods, and can't be removed easily. As the definition says, it's used to alter code in the machine to install it's own code, often to take the machine over, and monitor operations.
I don't see how this would qualify.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rootkit:
The reason some people say it is and some people say it isn't a rootkit is because some people believe that the Google Earth (important distinction) Auto Update program does more than Google claims it does and some don't.
If you believe the program sends more personal information back to Google than the Terms of Service state they do, then you would call it a rootkit.
Ummm..no, then you might cal it malware.
Root kit, as in root access. You know, as in complete control of your system.
I guess now it makes sense that all these people are calling it a root kit, since they don't understand what the hell that term means.
I could call it a four headed sheep, but that wouldn't make any sense either...nor would it be true. It would just be another lie.
Can anyone explain the reason why Google auto software updater is not rootkit, since I look over the internet and many people have stated different opinions.
To me it is rootkit and many people who stated in this forum it is not, I am not taking their word for it, since the same people have been ranting about providing facts to our opinions.
Translation: I don't know what a root kit is, but I would like to accuse Google Earth of being one. Please help me.
Seriously, if you don't understand what you are accusing them of, it is better not to make the accusation.
These are the best arguments against GV on the iPhone. A bunch of paranoid, inaccurate, untruthful claims about Google as a company?
Ummm..no, then you might cal it malware.
Root kit, as in root access. You know, as in complete control of your system.
I guess now it makes sense that all these people are calling it a root kit, since they don't understand what the hell that term means.
I could call it a four headed sheep, but that wouldn't make any sense either...nor would it be true. It would just be another lie.
I've seen a two headed sheep. I'd love to see one with four.
Thank you: As I understood it when I looked at the GV website: My t-mobile phone already has my number(s) consolidated, free long distance, I can forward calls from my (VoIP) work phone and have free voicemail. Oh: I can also assign different ring tones to work or personal callers ... anything important I missed?
Funny enough: This reminds me of the strange fact that only with the appearance of "apps" on the iPhone some people are recognizing available software tools, some of which have been available for a long time on Windows Mobile e.g. (there, I said the "W" word) ...
Nope, you haven't missed anything. Nothing in GV s unique. Hell, most of it isn't even unique on the iPhone App Store....which makes the non-rejection/rejection of the app so puzzling.
No one here has been able to put together a rational or sane argument as a reason for the app to be denied. They just sort of feel the need to make nonsensical arguments to defend the actions of Apple, because it is Apple. As a long time and somewhat crazed Apple fan myself, it is sort of embarrassing to see Apple fandom reduced to such drivel.
I've seen a two headed sheep. I'd love to see one with four.
But have you seen the google 4 headed sheep? Those bastards pervert everything they touch...and the sheep are just the beginning. Next they are going to start root kitting cows.
But have you seen the google 4 headed sheep? Those bastards pervert everything they touch...and the sheep are just the beginning. Next they are going to start root kitting cows.
But think of all the grass it eats!
Seriously though, Google is as screwed up as any company. But not more than most.
They've come out with that app to leverage Apple's platform for their own benefit. now, thats fine, as far as it goes. I've now read a lot about what it is, how it does what it does, and honestly, I'm still a bit confused. Truthfully, the service Google is offering is not easy to to do from the consumers standpoint. You need another phone number etc. I don;t know how many people would want this anyway, and the service won't really end up being free.
I'm not sure what Apple's concern is though. We can oversimplify on either side, but it's a complex issue.
I know Apple says that AT&T had nothing to do with this, but then they mention the terms of service.
The way that works is that ANYTHING that goes through AT&T's network (other networks have the same terms) can't violate the terms of service. One of those terms is that anything that makes calls can't go over their network if it bypasses their payment schedule.
That's why SKYPE can work with WiFi, but not with EDGE or 3G, for example.
Reading the service details carefully makes me believe that this IS violating that terms of service agreement in some way.
I'd like someone to show exactly why it isn't, if it isn't. For example, the purpose of this service is to do what, exactly?
See, that;s the funny thing. There is no ned to make stuff up in this case. Your posts [...] speak for themselves.
Yes, they do, but your restatement of them is not what they say at all.
The other funny thing is that with all the paranoia about Google and their apparent attempts to use their services to create the New World Order, not one of you has put together a coherent argument as to how that should affect Apple's business decisions regarding the Google Voice App.
There you go again, putting words in my mouth. Your self-loathing must be very nearly unbearable.
However, I have repeatedly stated that Google's intent is to undermine Apple's (and Microsoft's) platforms as places where people maintain, and go to for, information, for the purpose of gaining control over that information themselves, and the process of accessing it. Their services trivialize other platforms for the benefit of Google, and to the detriment of Apple (and Microsoft, and individuals' privacy and control of their own information and access to other information) and it is absolutely not in Apple's interest to allow that to happen.
Which is exactly why Apple has a strong interest in not allowing GV on the iPhone as long as it is in a form that undermines, or trivalizes, the iPhone platform, and, thus, threatens Apple's long-term viability and financial health.
1. You need to look up the word socialism as it does not mean what you think it means: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=socialism
Terribly sorry mate, I can't trust a dictionary which can't even spell colour correctly.
http://www.askoxford.com:80/concise_...ialism?view=uk
Socialism according to the Oxford, you know from the country where the language originated, defines Socialism as state ownership OR regulation of private industry such as the people calling for the FCC to adopt a socialist stance and force Apple to bow to regulation and allow the GV App into their store.
Perhaps you should gaolbreak your iPhone or as a consumer chose something that suits your needs, as opposed to expecting a socialist government body to enforce your desires by Government regulation.
P.S. Wanna buy a Che Guevara T-Shirt.
Yes, they do, but your restatement of them is not what they say at all.
No resentment of them. None of them make sense. None of them are worth resenting.
However, I have repeatedly stated that Google's intent is to undermine Apple's (and Microsoft's) platforms as places where people maintain, and go to for, information, for the purpose of gaining control over that information themselves, and the process of accessing it. Their services trivialize other platforms for the benefit of Google, and to the detriment of Apple (and Microsoft, and individuals' privacy and control of their own information and access to other information) and it is absolutely not in Apple's interest to allow that to happen.
Which is exactly why Apple has a strong interest in not allowing GV on the iPhone as long as it is in a form that undermines, or trivalizes, the iPhone platform, and, thus, threatens Apple's long-term viability and financial health.
1) Your points make no sense, since banning the apps accomplishing nothing except to make using the service less convenient. All the trivializing, control and undermining happens with, or without the app.
2) Apple has partnered with Google, continues to do so and enables users to send wads of data to and from google. Apple obviously does not share your concerns.
Even if you continue to repeat, it doesn't make it rational or true. But please, continue.
Still waiting for a rational argument and not just misleading, confused conjecture. Guess I will have to wait some time.
But think of all the grass it eats!
Seriously though, Google is as screwed up as any company. But not more than most.
They've come out with that app to leverage Apple's platform for their own benefit. now, thats fine, as far as it goes. I've now read a lot about what it is, how it does what it does, and honestly, I'm still a bit confused. Truthfully, the service Google is offering is not easy to to do from the consumers standpoint. You need another phone number etc. I don;t know how many people would want this anyway, and the service won't really end up being free.
I'm not sure what Apple's concern is though. We can oversimplify on either side, but it's a complex issue.
I know Apple says that AT&T had nothing to do with this, but then they mention the terms of service.
The way that works is that ANYTHING that goes through AT&T's network (other networks have the same terms) can't violate the terms of service. One of those terms is that anything that makes calls can't go over their network if it bypasses their payment schedule.
That's why SKYPE can work with WiFi, but not with EDGE or 3G, for example.
Reading the service details carefully makes me believe that this IS violating that terms of service agreement in some way.
I'd like someone to show exactly why it isn't, if it isn't. For example, the purpose of this service is to do what, exactly?
But, it doesn't by pass the payment schedule. All calls you make or receive through your GV acct on your iPhone still use your calling minutes. At best they avoid the long distance charges. But, you already can choose to use alternative long distance providers or to use calling cards or to use outbound call forwarding services, and they act exactly the same. if they don't violate the TOS in this way and are allowed, then GV doesn't violate them either.
SKYPE and other VOIP aps avoided the voice service of the ATT network entirely. if it was allowed on 3G, then all calls would be over the data and AT&T would be cut out of the voice revenue. This is against the TOS and so SKYPE had to block 3G calling. This was a clear cut violation and so they were right to change their app. It also happens to be why the are involved with the FCC investigation into net neutrality, as they would like to run over the data networks, without restriction, but as they can with your ISP connection. They want the TOS changed so that they are not in violation. Different issue than GV.
Edit: Also, Apple's own response to the the FCC said they welcomed google to do a GV webapp. As far as the calling features, this would duplicate the features of the native app for most intents. In both native and web, AT&T would stand to lose the same potential revenue of their long distance revenue. If the webapp provides the same features, and would therefore be also be in violation of AT&T's terms, if the native app is, then why would Apple encourage this route?
The webapp would lose out on some convenience through loss of direct integration, such as selecting a contact from your address book instead of having to manually enter the number, but this wouldn't make a difference to AT&T. And even this convenience can easily be regained, enabled by Apple themselves. Set you Mac to sync OTA with Google and with MobileMe (or through iTunes) and you now have access to your contacts in the webapp. Snow Leopard added direct syncing of your Mac to Google, or you can use third party syncing utils to do the same on Windows and Mac.
Yes, they do, but your restatement of them is not what they say at all.
No resentment of them. None of them make sense. None of them are worth resenting. ... Your points make no sense,
Hahaha, OK, whatever you say.
Hahaha, OK, whatever you say.
ok, I say I am still waiting for you to put together a reasonable argument. Should I get coffee while I wait? Perhaps run some errands?
Edit: My bad. I see my mistake in misreading your comment. My goof on that one.
Still, no reason to restate your statements either. They are pretty clear. And have been show to have no legs. Repeatedly.
ok, I say I am still waiting for you to put together a reasonable argument. Should I get coffee while I wait? Perhaps run some errands?
No, just sit there at your keyboard and wait for me to post a response that you can understand.
Translation: I don't know what a root kit is, but I would like to accuse Google Earth of being one. Please help me.
Seriously, if you don't understand what you are accusing them of, it is better not to make the accusation.
These are the best arguments against GV on the iPhone. A bunch of paranoid, inaccurate, untruthful claims about Google as a company?
You rant like 5 yrs old, who dues not read people's post properly, but got all hot and bothered, we all have different opinions and I will not listen to you, simply because you act childish.
In my opinion it was rootkit, but I was looking for clarification,. which I got. You on the other hand read too much into people's comments and go off on some childish name calling rant!
No, just sit there at your keyboard and wait for me to post a response that you can understand.
Finally! This is what I've been asking of you. Been waiting for a coherent post from you that explains how your believes about google might have any impact on gv being accepted or not. None of your posts so far seem to even be a serious attempt at rational arguments.
I'll wait, but I know it might be a while. Should I get my tinfoil hat out for your response?
You rant like 5 yrs old, who dues not read people's post properly, but got all hot and bothered, we all have different opinions and I will not listen to you, simply because you act childish.
In my opinion it was rootkit, but I was looking for clarification,. which I got. You on the other hand read too much into people's comments and go off on some childish name calling rant!
If you need clarification then it is best not to accuse. That's not childish. It is a hope for intelligent debate. One could accuse google of all sorts of nefarious actions. But if you do not even understand the terminology of the accusation and the assertion is clearly wrong, you deserve to be called on it.
Translation: I don't know what a root kit is, but I would like to accuse Google Earth of being one. Please help me.
Seriously, if you don't understand what you are accusing them of, it is better not to make the accusation.
These are the best arguments against GV on the iPhone. A bunch of paranoid, inaccurate, untruthful claims about Google as a company?
If you need clarification then it is best not to accuse. That's not childish. It is a hope for intelligent debate. One could accuse google of all sorts of nefarious actions. But if you do not even understand the terminology of the accusation and the assertion is clearly wrong, you deserve to be called on it.
I had an opinion, did not accuse, now who is putting words in my mouth. I asked the questions, since my research shows many people think it is and many do not.
Btw: you may say it is but you have not provide a link to explain wht it is not. At least other educate and do not rant and act like 5 yrs. Calling me out, this is internet, who cares, you can't see me.
my feelings are hate /sarcasm ..grow up
P.S. I thought there are some pretty good opinions from other people who are against Google Voice, but you would ignore them, since you think, you found someone you can win in argument, since this is not discussion from your ranting anyway.