Yesterday's news regarding the lawsuit Skyhook has filed against Google seems to have made quite an impact here and there. If you read through the complaint (at Daring Fireball), Skyhook makes some interesting claims about how Google abuses its position to strongarm OEMs into using Google Location services, but the big claim, something everyone seems to overlook, is this one: Skyhook says Google tried to gain access to Skyhook's data.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2010-09-17
Member since:
2005-11-13
It seems to me that Google is like the darling of the tech industry, but articles like this make me nervous. With as much effort as it has taken to try and put Microsoft in its place, how much harder is it going to be with Google, once their transition to the dark side is complete?
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-10-21
So this is not true anymore? 
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/password_reuse.png
Member since:2010-03-30
This scared me when I saw it a few days ago. I started wondering what proof do we have that by entering our passwords in browsers, we are not unknowingly surrendering control of parts of our lives?
I mean, I have 170+ secondary email addresses on my Yahoo account. This means at least as many registrations on websites, forums, etc. But I only have three passwords. A weak one I really don't care about, that I use on all secondary addresses, another one for my PC accounts and a third strong one for my main email accounts. In case I have other passwords, I just send myself an email with the website, username and password.
I thought about all that while reading the comic strip and it was... unsettling.
Member since:
2005-06-30
Member since:2006-07-04
Member since:2010-03-30
Member since:
2010-09-18
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:
2005-08-18
Member since:
2005-09-15
Member since:
2006-06-02
Google will be the next Catholic Church
Soon it will be claimed, asserted, demonstrated and defended that there is and can be no knowledge without them.
Time for someone to nail a new 95 Theses to Google's home page on the intrinsic and sacrosanct value of the relationship between the individual and his or her Information.
No Googlery!!!!
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2006-06-02
I am saying - let's reinforce the concept of individual conscience, if you like, as the agent, not the corporate body. Even Cardinal Newman said:
"Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeed does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink to the Pope, if you please, still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards"
So, I say, "I drink to unconstrained Information and knowledge first, Google's global needs second (if at all)"
Member since:
2009-10-12
Member since:
2008-05-03
Member since:
2006-01-14
I have some questions after reading your article Thom. How can an agreement be a secret agreement if you haven't seen it yet? Unless you mean its between Google and third parties, but not Skyhook. In which case, how do we really know it exists? Lets face it. Google owns Android. It can do what ever it wants with it. While the software may be open, the branding is NOT. Just like Red Hat. Just like Fedora. Now, we KNOW that other services can be used on these phones. The real question is: Does Google treat everyone the same? If so, then Skyhook hasn't got a chance. Google doesn't own a monopoly in the phone space, so its not like Skyhook had to go with Google in the first place.
Member since:
2005-11-14
I can understand if Google didn't allow Motorola et al to use Skyhook instead of Google's location services: it would break third party apps relying on it. Then you'd have an actual problem of fragmentation instead of just the usual FUD. Google would have a lot of unhappy customers downloading apps they couldn't use. Yes, Google's services are tightly integrated into the platform.
Now, if Skyhook's tech was supposed to be an addition to Google's, on the other hand, then that's a different story. But that doesn't seem to be their complaint.
Member since:
2010-09-20
Member since:2006-12-06