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

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 44
    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

    .

  • Reply 22 of 44
    d4njvrzfd4njvrzf Posts: 797member
    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)

  • Reply 23 of 44
    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.

  • Reply 24 of 44
    mhiklmhikl Posts: 471member

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

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

     

    Sending shorts to laundry.

  • Reply 25 of 44
    d4njvrzfd4njvrzf Posts: 797member
    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.

  • Reply 26 of 44
    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.

  • Reply 27 of 44
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    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.

  • Reply 28 of 44
    19831983 Posts: 1,201member
    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.
  • Reply 29 of 44
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,194member

    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. 

  • Reply 30 of 44
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,516member
    I also can't imagine in a million years Google using Knox, so I ask: [I]what's in a name?[/I] 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."
  • Reply 31 of 44
    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??
  • Reply 32 of 44
    1983 wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 33 of 44
    reefoidreefoid Posts: 158member
    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.

  • Reply 34 of 44
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,301member

    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.
  • Reply 35 of 44
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mstone wrote: »
    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.


    [VIDEO]
  • Reply 36 of 44
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    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.

  • Reply 37 of 44
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    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" image than Android. Surely you've noted all the lawsuits claiming it.

    Good post.

  • Reply 38 of 44
    d4njvrzfd4njvrzf Posts: 797member
    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?

  • Reply 39 of 44
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,301member
    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.
  • Reply 40 of 44
    nhtnht Posts: 4,496member
    Apple should buy Good and drop Android support and partner with MS for airtight exchange integration.
Sign In or Register to comment.