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...
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)
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 . )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.
[VIDEO]
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...
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.
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)
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 . )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.
[VIDEO]
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
...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.
Comments
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...
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)
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...
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.
Mmmm... interesting! Do you have any links to the references in your last paragraph (the government requirements)?
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.
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.
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.
This is misleading.
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.
Irrelevant. Something I read on this site said nobody steals non-Apple phones.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.