The article you posted to and the video don't show a feature that prevents a reactivation. It just demonstrates a simple lock or wipe. Is there another feature of the Android Device Manager they didn't demo/discuss that prevents subsequent activation?
Unless you can post a credible link to where exactly Google claims any version of Android (including KitKat) does kill switch remote deactivation that prevents a wipe and resale, you need to remove your false allegations and apologize.
So you are the author then. I apologize to you for the implication that Google's theft deterrent actions using Device Manager rise to the level of Apple's Activation lock. Took me a few minutes to check the details but it doesn't appear you can (yet) completely brick an Android phone with it unlike Apple's implementation. With that said I suspect you'll have no problem with admitting that your claim that Google has done nothing at all to deter theft was at best poorly-worded.
So again my apologies.
EDIT: As mentioned earlier it looks as tho Android Device Manager in conjunction with carrier lock renders the user data wiped and a stolen Android phone "bricked", unable to be reactivated. Wasn't aware the carriers did that until I saw the mention a few posts back so thanks for that. http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/stolen-smart-phone-brick-it
Well then read the link or do some independent research of your own as to why Verizon abandoned its Android strategy after it failed to attract the kind of premium data subscribers that iPhone was bringing to AT&T. Your inability to understand or remember a subject does not make it controversial.
Again, this article is not about iOS 2.0 remote wipe. It’s about iOS 7 Activation Lock. You are five years behind.
FACT:Verizon remained the largest US carrier without the iPhone. In fact by and large they continued to add customers every quarter during their time without it. Go ahead Daniel, prove me wrong. You were the one who wrote leaving in droves... Not me. I don't want some analysts models. Cold hard facts. I would wager if Apple had launched the iPhone on both carriers there would have been no Droid in 2009 on Verizon and Google would have been left playing with itself on T-Mobile with Android, but that's for a different day.
If you even bothered to read I specifically stated the Android Device thing is not activation lock which Google is laughable late with in offering. I'm about 5 years behind? Get real. The point is all of these are merely feel good efforts. An actively stolen device is more likely to be disconnected long before you get the chance to even try with any of these. Engine imobilizers don't stop car theives either. True only someone like Apple can offer a true end to end solution like Activation Lock while Android OEMs have to figure it out. Beauty of owning the entire solution. (though BES can to an extent too)
When you have nothing to say Daniel you just resort to attacks that make my grade schooler look more mature. That's the difference between a blogger and a journalist.
In 2007, Apple disrupted the carrier status quo by negotiating a new user experience for iPhone, leveraging the device's incredible demand from users to elicit strong concessions from phone carriers that made Apple the central hub for all apps, media sales, cloud storage and software updates.
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.
Absolutely correct that Google's theft deterrent efforts are not yet as robust as that which iOS offers. At the same time the authors claim that "Google hasn't addressed the problem of rampant device theft in Android, and can't really. " is demonstrably false as I showed.
You didn’t demonstrate anything other than some circular logic where you dodge the issue and come up with some byzantine apology defending Android because you don’t recognize a problem.
We aren’t talking about features from 2008, so your video about five year old iOS features new to Android is irrelevant.
Absolutely correct that Google's theft deterrent efforts are not yet as robust as that which iOS offers. At the same time the authors claim that "Google hasn't addressed the problem of rampant device theft in Android, and can't really. " is demonstrably false as I showed.
Wrong. Google has ZERO theft deterrents. The ONLY thing that would stop (or significantly reduce) rampant theft of smartphones would be a method to brick the device.
Thieves have NO INTEREST in the data on your phone. Phones are stolen, wiped and then resold for profit. It's the physical device they're after, not your personal data. Since Google only offers a way to wipe clean your data, and no way to permanently lock/brick a device, it's not a deterrent.
Now if you can show me a source where phones are primarily stolen to get your personal information, then I might agree the ability to erase your phone is a deterrent.
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.
Uh, the capabilities are nothing like activation lock. I have a Nexus 5, the 2 options are lock and erase. Oh, and if they turn off the phone/take out the simcard/disable wifi, its utterly useless. Activation lock is a much deeper solution.
Sshhhh. Don't bring up what this is really about - theft deterrent. There's no theft deterrent with Android Device Manager like there is with iOS 7.
I highly doubt GG has a response to this feature even though it's the point of the entire article.
Actually, any Android phone has a much better theft-deterrant than an iPhone... It's an Android phone
Unless you can post a credible link to where exactly Google claims any version of Android (including KitKat) does kill switch remote deactivation that prevents a wipe and resale, you need to remove your false allegations and apologize.
I really don’t think you are confused. I think you are being deliberately misleading. Simple secure "remote wipe" was a feature Apple added to iOS 2.0 in 2008. That’s not what Activation Lock is. Remote wipe deletes sensitive data, but does nothing to stop trafficking of stolen phones.
It doesn’t even make sense that this could be done in software on Android phones, because an "open" device would let anyone who has access to a device load a new firmware. Only specific locked devices like Samsung’s Galaxy S4 can support a firmware-level kill switch like LoJack, which works somewhat similarly to Activation Lock. That’s what carriers are not interested in doing.
In a previous thread you called me liar outright. I proved your assertion to be wrong. You did not apologise to me.
Having set the bar rather low, it is hypocritical of you to demand others meet a higher standard.
I am having difficulty following this thread as both GatorGuy and Corrections (AKA DED) are on my block list.
You and I do not agree on much -- But you are correct, DED's MO is to demean and insult those who challenge his "facts" or disagree with his agenda.
Well then read the link or do some independent research of your own as to why Verizon abandoned its Android strategy after it failed to attract the kind of premium data subscribers that iPhone was bringing to AT&T. Your inability to understand or remember a subject does not make it controversial.
Again, this article is not about iOS 2.0 remote wipe. It’s about iOS 7 Activation Lock. You are five years behind.
FACT:Verizon remained the largest US carrier without the iPhone. In fact by and large they continued to add customers every quarter during their time without it. Go ahead Daniel, prove me wrong. You were the one who wrote leaving in droves... Not me. I don't want some analysts models. Cold hard facts. I would wager if Apple had launched the iPhone on both carriers there would have been no Droid in 2009 on Verizon and Google would have been left playing with itself on T-Mobile with Android, but that's for a different day.
If you even bothered to read I specifically stated the Android Device thing is not activation lock which Google is laughable late with in offering. I'm about 5 years behind? Get real. The point is all of these are merely feel good efforts. An actively stolen device is more likely to be disconnected long before you get the chance to even try with any of these. Engine imobilizers don't stop car theives either. True only someone like Apple can offer a true end to end solution like Activation Lock while Android OEMs have to figure it out. Beauty of owning the entire solution. (though BES can to an extent too)
When you have nothing to say Daniel you just resort to attacks that make my grade schooler look more mature. That's the difference between a blogger and a journalist.
personally attack the author because you can’t back up your own arguments or take issue with any of the facts
Editing your own articles without a disclaimer or statement that you secretly change things on the article to hide your mistakes shows the lack of your integrity
Absolutely correct that Google's theft deterrent efforts are not yet as robust as that which iOS offers. At the same time the authors claim that "Google hasn't addressed the problem of rampant device theft in Android, and can't really. " is demonstrably false as I showed.
Since nearly all cell phone thefts is for the value of the phone, having the ability to remote wipe your data on it is not at all a deterrent. The iPhone had this feature for years and it was not a deterrent back then nor now.
BTW - Since most Android phones has a feature know as a "user friendly removable battery", all a thief has to do is remove the battery as soon as he steals the phone and then put if back in without the sim and away from WiFi. So how would one use Google Device Manager to wipe the data from this stolen phone?
FACT:Verizon remained the largest US carrier without the iPhone. In fact by and large they continued to add customers every quarter during their time without it. Go ahead Daniel, prove me wrong. You were the one who wrote leaving in droves... Not me. I don't want some analysts models. Cold hard facts. I would wager if Apple had launched the iPhone on both carriers there would have been no Droid in 2009 on Verizon and Google would have been left playing with itself on T-Mobile with Android, but that's for a different day.
If you even bothered to read I specifically stated the Android Device thing is not activation lock which Google is laughable late with in offering. I'm about 5 years behind? Get real. The point is all of these are merely feel good efforts. An actively stolen device is more likely to be disconnected long before you get the chance to even try with any of these. Engine imobilizers don't stop car theives either. True only someone like Apple can offer a true end to end solution like Activation Lock while Android OEMs have to figure it out. Beauty of owning the entire solution. (though BES can to an extent too)
When you have nothing to say Daniel you just resort to attacks that make my grade schooler look more mature. That's the difference between a blogger and a journalist.
Verizon’s goal is not to be big. It’s to make money. The linked article shows quite clearly that Verizon tried in 2009 to duplicate the iPhone’s success with BlackBerry (backing the Storm until it failed two years in a row) after which it dumped BlackBerry and started the 2010 Droid effort, which the Android world assured us meant certain death for iPhone.
However, despite having the critical advantage of 4G LTE support (despite flaws with the original implementations), Android failed to make Verizon competitive with AT&T in terms of valuable subscribers paying for data plans. We don’t have to imagine scenarios about what might have happened. By the end of 2010 Verizon was on the iPad and then next spring it launched iPhone 4 on its CDMA network.
Despite the fact that Verizon’s CDMA 3G is the slowest 3G on the world, and its 4G LTE was among the fastest, 3G iPhone 4 sales trounced the combined sales of Verizon’s 4G Android offerings. That’s remarkable, because the Android apologists told us it would all be very different.
They were wrong. And no amount of foot stomping, imagining of scenarios, or creative definitions of success change the very stark reality that Android failed to keep Verizon competitive, or that Verizon gave Apple very substantial rights in order to get the iPhone. Because Verizon needed the iPhone. Android wasn’t an adequate substitute.
That’s the fact, and you can’t argue with that. All you can do is quibble about irrelevant things in a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that the article is correct in everything it says.
Comments
The article you posted to and the video don't show a feature that prevents a reactivation. It just demonstrates a simple lock or wipe. Is there another feature of the Android Device Manager they didn't demo/discuss that prevents subsequent activation?
So you are the author then. I apologize to you for the implication that Google's theft deterrent actions using Device Manager rise to the level of Apple's Activation lock. Took me a few minutes to check the details but it doesn't appear you can (yet) completely brick an Android phone with it unlike Apple's implementation. With that said I suspect you'll have no problem with admitting that your claim that Google has done nothing at all to deter theft was at best poorly-worded.
So again my apologies.
EDIT: As mentioned earlier it looks as tho Android Device Manager in conjunction with carrier lock renders the user data wiped and a stolen Android phone "bricked", unable to be reactivated. Wasn't aware the carriers did that until I saw the mention a few posts back so thanks for that.
http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/stolen-smart-phone-brick-it
If you even bothered to read I specifically stated the Android Device thing is not activation lock which Google is laughable late with in offering. I'm about 5 years behind? Get real. The point is all of these are merely feel good efforts. An actively stolen device is more likely to be disconnected long before you get the chance to even try with any of these. Engine imobilizers don't stop car theives either. True only someone like Apple can offer a true end to end solution like Activation Lock while Android OEMs have to figure it out. Beauty of owning the entire solution. (though BES can to an extent too)
When you have nothing to say Daniel you just resort to attacks that make my grade schooler look more mature. That's the difference between a blogger and a journalist.
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.
Absolutely correct that Google's theft deterrent efforts are not yet as robust as that which iOS offers. At the same time the authors claim that "Google hasn't addressed the problem of rampant device theft in Android, and can't really. " is demonstrably false as I showed.
You didn’t demonstrate anything other than some circular logic where you dodge the issue and come up with some byzantine apology defending Android because you don’t recognize a problem.
We aren’t talking about features from 2008, so your video about five year old iOS features new to Android is irrelevant.
Absolutely correct that Google's theft deterrent efforts are not yet as robust as that which iOS offers. At the same time the authors claim that "Google hasn't addressed the problem of rampant device theft in Android, and can't really. " is demonstrably false as I showed.
Wrong. Google has ZERO theft deterrents. The ONLY thing that would stop (or significantly reduce) rampant theft of smartphones would be a method to brick the device.
Thieves have NO INTEREST in the data on your phone. Phones are stolen, wiped and then resold for profit. It's the physical device they're after, not your personal data. Since Google only offers a way to wipe clean your data, and no way to permanently lock/brick a device, it's not a deterrent.
Now if you can show me a source where phones are primarily stolen to get your personal information, then I might agree the ability to erase your phone is a deterrent.
In a previous thread you called me liar outright. I proved your assertion to be wrong. You did not apologise to me.
Having set the bar rather low, it is hypocritical of you to demand others meet a higher standard.
It's DED. You cant expect much from him.
This is misleading.
While the carriers mentioned may have lost subscribers to the iPhone carriers in their respective countries -- they couldn't have done anything about it even if they wanted to -- until the exclusive deals expired and/or an iPhone model was released that supported the carrier's cell radios.
There’s nothing misleading at all. Verizon and DoCoMo were both vocally critical of Apple and against giving it control, yet as soon as they could carry the iPhone, they dropped their objections and jumped on it. And in both cases, it was very clear that their attempts to replicate an iPhone-like customer base with Android alternatives failed miserably.
The article does claim that Verizon wanted the iPhone in 2009 but couldn’t have it. It says that Verizon dropped its efforts to back Android and capitulated to Apple’s demands in order to carry the iPhone.
It's DED. You cant expect much from him.
personally attack the author because you can’t back up your own arguments or take issue with any of the facts
Actually, any Android phone has a much better theft-deterrant than an iPhone... It's an Android phone
I am having difficulty following this thread as both GatorGuy and Corrections (AKA DED) are on my block list.
You and I do not agree on much -- But you are correct, DED's MO is to demean and insult those who challenge his "facts" or disagree with his agenda.
+++ QFT
personally attack the author because you can’t back up your own arguments or take issue with any of the facts
Editing your own articles without a disclaimer or statement that you secretly change things on the article to hide your mistakes shows the lack of your integrity
Since nearly all cell phone thefts is for the value of the phone, having the ability to remote wipe your data on it is not at all a deterrent. The iPhone had this feature for years and it was not a deterrent back then nor now.
BTW - Since most Android phones has a feature know as a "user friendly removable battery", all a thief has to do is remove the battery as soon as he steals the phone and then put if back in without the sim and away from WiFi. So how would one use Google Device Manager to wipe the data from this stolen phone?
personally attack the author because you can’t back up your own arguments or take issue with any of the facts
That's a very peculiar way of putting things when you are the author in question.
I've never understood why you don't defend your pieces using your real name. Is it because you want to be rude to people in a semi-anonymous manner?
That's a very peculiar way of putting things when you are the author in question.
I've never understood why you don't defend your pieces using your real name. Is it because you want to be rude to people in a semi-anonymous manner?
Simple. To be hypocritical.
An activation lock facility is only needed for highly sought-after devices. Why should Google bother implementing a relatively useless feature?
FACT:Verizon remained the largest US carrier without the iPhone. In fact by and large they continued to add customers every quarter during their time without it. Go ahead Daniel, prove me wrong. You were the one who wrote leaving in droves... Not me. I don't want some analysts models. Cold hard facts. I would wager if Apple had launched the iPhone on both carriers there would have been no Droid in 2009 on Verizon and Google would have been left playing with itself on T-Mobile with Android, but that's for a different day.
If you even bothered to read I specifically stated the Android Device thing is not activation lock which Google is laughable late with in offering. I'm about 5 years behind? Get real. The point is all of these are merely feel good efforts. An actively stolen device is more likely to be disconnected long before you get the chance to even try with any of these. Engine imobilizers don't stop car theives either. True only someone like Apple can offer a true end to end solution like Activation Lock while Android OEMs have to figure it out. Beauty of owning the entire solution. (though BES can to an extent too)
When you have nothing to say Daniel you just resort to attacks that make my grade schooler look more mature. That's the difference between a blogger and a journalist.
Verizon’s goal is not to be big. It’s to make money. The linked article shows quite clearly that Verizon tried in 2009 to duplicate the iPhone’s success with BlackBerry (backing the Storm until it failed two years in a row) after which it dumped BlackBerry and started the 2010 Droid effort, which the Android world assured us meant certain death for iPhone.
However, despite having the critical advantage of 4G LTE support (despite flaws with the original implementations), Android failed to make Verizon competitive with AT&T in terms of valuable subscribers paying for data plans. We don’t have to imagine scenarios about what might have happened. By the end of 2010 Verizon was on the iPad and then next spring it launched iPhone 4 on its CDMA network.
Despite the fact that Verizon’s CDMA 3G is the slowest 3G on the world, and its 4G LTE was among the fastest, 3G iPhone 4 sales trounced the combined sales of Verizon’s 4G Android offerings. That’s remarkable, because the Android apologists told us it would all be very different.
They were wrong. And no amount of foot stomping, imagining of scenarios, or creative definitions of success change the very stark reality that Android failed to keep Verizon competitive, or that Verizon gave Apple very substantial rights in order to get the iPhone. Because Verizon needed the iPhone. Android wasn’t an adequate substitute.
That’s the fact, and you can’t argue with that. All you can do is quibble about irrelevant things in a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that the article is correct in everything it says.