3 ms·
> For example, they were done for using Google Street View cars to slurp WiFi information, so now they just use Android devices to do it for them. What? Street
by Oletros 12y ago
> For example, they were done for using Google Street View cars to slurp WiFi information, so now they just use Android devices to do it for them.
What? Street View problems were not about slurping SSID, MAC and geolocaction from wifi's, but because of capturing snippets of broadcasted data.
They still use Google Street cars to geolocate wifi's.
> Manufacturers have to have this enabled by default if they want Gmail and the Play Store on the device.
Source for that?
> and even worse, if you agree to that for one device you have to agree to not release any Android devices which do not have those things, thus removing the ability for the market to decide
Source for that?
- fidotron 12y agohttp://www.cnet.com/news/google-alibabas-os-is-an-incompatible-version-of-android/ http://www.cnet.com/news/google-alibabas-os-is-an-incompatib... For example. Try looking and you will find.
- Oletros 12y ago> For example. Try looking and you will find. I'm still trying to grasp what has to do the Aliyun case where a member of the OHA was developing an incompatible Android version with pirated Google apps in its store with your claim that Google forces OEM's to have geolocation enabled by default.
- fidotron 12y agohttp://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-motorola-samsung http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-la... Here's another example of their shit. I know, it will never be enough.
- Oletros 12y agohttp://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/11/06/google-lawsuits-skyhooks-geolocation-tech-was-just-inferior-court-rules/ http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/11/06/google-lawsuits-sky... Ups, there was not bullying. And, by the way, your claim was that Google forces OEM's to have enabled slurping of wifi data. So, I don't know why you bring the Skyhook case. Perhaps you will bring the Oracle case next. Still waiting > I know, it will never be enough. Yes, it will never will be enough if you only bring unrelated thing, and wrong things, by the way
- fidotron 12y agoYou need to take your blinkers off. The 750 pages of court submissions in that link on the Verge actually answer all your supposed confusions. Seriously. The whole "technical inferiority" angle is discussed as having been invented as a way for Motorola to break off the Skyhook deal. Skyhook pass the CTS in 2009 when Google aren't paying attention but then fail when it's strategically difficult. Basically "compatibility" is not technical at all, and entirely down to compatibility with Google strategic objectives. As Motorola quite rightly observe. "And indeed, Skyhook ran headlong into Motorola's dependence on Google: Motorola flat-out told Skyhook that Android devices are "approved essentially at Google's discretion," and that Moto couldn't afford to risk its relationship with Google." The key point behind the Skyhook case was that it impacted their ability to do the WiFi slurping, again, as discussed at length on that link.
- Oletros 12y agoYes, you use a proof of something a The Verge article but a court ruling and a posterior appeal ruling form 2014 doesn't And I'm the one that has to out off the blinkers. Really? And still waiting anything about your claim that Google forces Wifi SLURPING enabled in the smartphones But as I know that you won't provide anything because you're wrong since the beginning and you're just bringing random links unrelated to your claim, I will leave here.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]