Is Google turning into the dreaded Microsoft?

[Ry]

This. ^^ People hang onto these 3-4 year old devices and then complain that it doesn't have the latest OS. The s3 will be 3 years old in may.
Just upgrade already and be done with it. There are inexpensive upgrade options running the latest OS. Most carriers would give credit for the old device for trading it in.

it's like still using XP, it's just dumb. Google some articles on why XP is so dangerous. Anti virus on xp is like a screen door on a submarine.

IMO, Google should support patching AOSP for any security issues, especially if their own numbers show that that particular version of the OS is still significantly active. Heck, Microsoft has patched XP even after EOL. Apple has patched iOS after support for devices went EOL (see iOS 6.1.6 on the iPhone 3GS and iPod touch 4th generation).

I would rather have Google say that "AOSP is patched, please contact your device maker for the update". It should be on the OEMs to get the security updates out to consumers, but Google should patch the source.

Look at the DROID X. The phone was released in July of 2010. In September of 2013, over three years later, Motorola and Verizon pushed out an update. Changelog mentioned "Google security patches have been integrated to reduce potential security risks". If a phone isn't getting updated to the latest OS, it should still get security updates.

 

[A895]

Oh yes, they are absolutely not the worst thing out there right now but to me it's just ironic that a lot of people still hate MS for stuff that happened 20 years ago while seeing Google as some sort of savior. I don't even think Google is that bad in the grand scheme of things. However, some of their actions do concern me and I think eventually they will be forced to break up.

Why would they need to break up? They arguably have no real monopoly besides YouTube. I never understand why people think Google needs to break up. Nothing of theirs is compared to how prevalent Office is or how Windows was on 90%+ of all computers, or how IE was the main browser for everyone for a long time.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[A895]

IMO, Google should support patching AOSP for any security issues, especially if their own numbers show that that particular version of the OS is still significantly active. Heck, Microsoft has patched XP even after EOL. Apple has patched iOS after support for devices went EOL (see iOS 6.1.6 on the iPhone 3GS and iPod touch 4th generation).

I would rather have Google say that "AOSP is patched, please contact your device maker for the update". It should be on the OEMs to get the security updates out to consumers, but Google should patch the source.

Look at the DROID X. The phone was released in July of 2010. In September of 2013, over three years later, Motorola and Verizon pushed out an update. Changelog mentioned "Google security patches have been integrated to reduce potential security risks". If a phone isn't getting updated to the latest OS, it should still get security updates.

What is the security exploit that everyone has been tripping over?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[DJantel Ware]

Why would they need to break up? They arguably have no real monopoly besides YouTube

Are you kidding? What about... google, the search engine? Placing things on top (or not) how they please? It has a huge impact on everything that happens on the internet.

There is no argue about that google is really huge and has a lot of influence, just like MS (or even more by now).

 

[Ry]

What is the security exploit that everyone has been tripping over?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Really?

Understanding WebView and Android security patches | Android Central
Google explains why it's not fixing web security in old Android phones
Google defends policy that leaves most Android devices unpatched | Computerworld

 

[A895]

Are you kidding? What about... google, the search engine? Placing things on top (or not) how they please? It has a huge impact on everything that happens on the internet.

There is no argue about that google is really huge and has a lot of influence, just like MS (or even more by now).

They have no monopoly on search, had at least 20% plus other search engines.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[A895]

Really?

Understanding WebView and Android security patches | Android Central
Google explains why it's not fixing web security in old Android phones
Google defends policy that leaves most Android devices unpatched | Computerworld

I didn't see that article. And it doesn't seem like a problem considering KitKat fixed it. So it is an OEM not updating their devices problem more than a Google problem.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Ry]

I didn't see that article. And it doesn't seem like a problem considering KitKat fixed it. So it is an OEM not updating their devices problem more than a Google problem.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Releasing a patch to fix one problem in Jelly Bean is likely a smaller effort than releasing the full version of the OS. I think consumers are owed security patches, nothing more.

 

[A895]

Releasing a patch to fix one problem in Jelly Bean is likely a smaller effort than releasing the full version of the OS. I think consumers are owed security patches, nothing more.

Then the OEMs need to push it not Google.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Ry]

Then the OEMs need to push it not Google.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

...which is what I've been saying.

But first, Google needs to patch AOSP.

Posted via Android Central App (Moto X)

 

[A895]

...which is what I've been saying.

But first, Google needs to patch AOSP.

Posted via Android Central App (Moto X)

They did with KitKat.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[frooglepoopillion]

They have no monopoly on search, had at least 20% plus other search engines.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

OK but you've got to remember that all of their phones are using Google be default so they are using their own OS to create more traffic for themselves and their services that aren't necessarily available on other devices. You've got the most popular website in the world that owns the most used mobile OS in the world that has all of their products set as default for the user. Which is pretty much the same thing MS did at the time. It's also a huge problem that Chrome is attached to Java/Adobe/whatever installs and sets the default browser to Chrome without the average person realizing it. So while maybe they aren't technically a monopoly yet, they have made some moves that are questionable. And now they will become a MVNO with speculation of eventually buying out Sprint and T-Mo which would be even more questionable (at least as questionable as Comcast/NBC/Universal/Time Warner mergers). I think if MS made any of these moves today people would be crying foul.

 

[A895]

OK but you've got to remember that all of their phones are using Google be default so they are using their own OS to create more traffic for themselves and their services that aren't necessarily available on other devices. You've got the most popular website in the world that owns the most used mobile OS in the world that has all of their products set as default for the user. Which is pretty much the same thing MS did at the time. It's also a huge problem that Chrome is attached to Java/Adobe/whatever installs and sets the default browser to Chrome without the average person realizing it. So while maybe they aren't technically a monopoly yet, they have made some moves that are questionable. And now they will become a MVNO with speculation of eventually buying out Sprint and T-Mo which would be even more questionable (at least as questionable as Comcast/NBC/Universal/Time Warner mergers). I think if MS made any of these moves today people would be crying foul.

They aren't buying out T-Mobile or Sprint, that is poppycock. At most the only thing that is really questionable is the amount of data they have on people, that is it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[DJantel Ware]

They have no monopoly on search, had at least 20% plus other search engines.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Haha ok, it is not a full monopoly but a quasi-monopoly. There is really not much difference, because there is no such thing as "the other search engine" that could act with its 20%, there are several a lot smaller search engines. It is still true that google influences almost everything that happens on the internet -it has a huge impact. The fact that it has not a full monopoly but "only" a quasi-monopoly doesn't make it good again, it is just a little bit less worse.

 

[A895]

Haha ok, it is not a full monopoly but a quasi-monopoly. There is really not much difference, because there is no such thing as "the other search engine" that could act with its 20%, there are several a lot smaller search engines. It is still true that google influences almost everything that happens on the internet -it has a huge impact. The fact that it has not a full monopoly but "only" a quasi-monopoly doesn't make it good again, it is just a little bit less worse.

What? No. They don't even have a quasi monopoly. Let's face facts, Google has no real monopoly, people just like to fear monger when it comes to Google.

And how do we break up Google? Is it Google's fault other companies such at coming together compared to them and they managed to innovate and change? If anything we should be propping up other companies to take on Google and not breaking Google down to make it "fair".

Other companies need to step up.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[DJantel Ware]

What? No. They don't even have a quasi monopoly. Let's face facts, Google has no real monopoly, people just like to fear monger when it comes to Google.

As said, simply declaring it as "no real monopoly" does not make it any better. 80% market share for searches only is huge (and then there is also android and lots of other stuff google controls). They influence almost everything that happens on the internet. This is a fact. Playing with definitions will not change this fact.

And only looking at this percentages is also not sufficient. As a company(at least IT related company), no matter how small or big you are, you can not simply say "ahh, I do not care if I am findable via google or not". If you are not(or if you are not listed high enough), you will fail in most countries of this world. This dependency on Google is forced upon you.

BTW. I am not saying we should break up Google. But it would be healthy if other companies would play a bigger role in the whole business.

 

[A895]

As said, simply declaring it as "no real monopoly" does not make it any better. 80% market share for searches only is huge (and then there is also android and lots of other stuff google controls). They influence almost everything that happens on the internet. This is a fact. Playing with definitions will not change this fact.

BTW. I am not saying we should break up Google. But it would be healthy if other companies would play a bigger role in the whole business.

Yeah I don't see the problem with Google, the problem is poor competition. As I said people should prop up other companies if they don't like Google's "huge" share.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[DJantel Ware]

As I said people should prop up other companies if they don't like Google's "huge" share.

Yes, that is right. I guess the problem here is, that most people do not care and don't question this kind of things. They know Google, they use Google. That's it. The people that are affected by Google and would like to have a change are by far not enough people to make a change.

 

[A895]

Yes, that is right. I guess the problem here is, that most people do not care and don't question this kind of things. They know Google, they use Google. That's it. The people that are affected by Google and would like to have a change are by far not enough people to make a change.

I disagree. You are making people out to be ignorant, people know of other alternatives. Google or bing, chrome or Firefox, android or iOS or WP or BlackBerry, YouTube or vimeo or twitch, there is an alternative for every Google service.

If people are content with Google's services, does that not mean the competition should step up?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[DJantel Ware]

people know of other alternatives

I did not say they do not know, I said they do not care enough. Everyone uses Google. Your friends do, your teachers do, your professors do - there is not a real chance that you can form a habit to use something different. And using Google does not affect you, there is no real reason why you should change the service.

there is an alternative for every Google service.

Yeah, but because almost everyone uses Google - and Google does an amazing job on pushing its own services and hiding away everything else that is in competition to them- people do not really see the alternative services. It is as simple as that.

Here is a question: Do you really believe that Google delivers best results noone can compete with? Go ahead and Google + Bing for "Android". The results will be very, very --- very similar. And the video search of Bing is even better than Googles(at least in my opinion). Nowdays one can hardly say that Google is the only search engine that delivers good results. But man is a creature of habit.