Yes, I think the lack of an opt-out is one of the issues. Practically, that would mean that Google would have two maintain two versions of their software - potentially another version for each country that rejects future changes. And their external systems, like Android, would need to be able to work with each different version. That sounds like a nightmare to me.

I tend to think of privacy in terms of companies: if Google knows something then I expect them to know it everywhere, but not sell it or leak it to anyone else.

If the distinction is finer then site: within the various services of the companies, it's tricky to know where the line is drawn because individual services are not always clearly divided and I think Google must make theirs more integrated if they are to move forward.

Sadly, that is the level of discourse common amongst fanbois of any camp. (I refer to the post I'm replying to.)

The summary isn't much better: the article accurately says that Google wants to consolidate user data across Google's "services", into "track users over multiple sites" which is quite different and not relevant to this issue.

Personally, I get annoyed at how often I have to re-enter data across the various Google services, because the different services aren't allowed to share data. I'm not attributing altruism to Google's change, but it still seems like progress to me.

I also don't appreciate the fact that they have many, complicated privacy policies, and I really appreciate the fact that this change reduces them all to one, much simpler, policy.

I wonder whether Apple has patented the idea?

If not, they really should have. As you have pointed out this another instance of Google flagrantly copying an Apple innovation. Release the lawyers!

But who isn't doing that? These companies all collect information about users in order to judge which ads to show them.

You've used scary words, like 'dossier', and tried to give human meaning to the activity with words like 'conversation', but you are still just describing the business of the ads on the Internet.

> Google DOES read your email, and we learned from the Patreus affair that access to that email is handed over without a warrant as well.
> Are we living in a police state yet?

Equating the two is about as disingenuous as the MS campaign, and painting Google as the state patsy in comparison to MS is equally dishonest.

First, showing contextual ads based on e-mails and handing over e-mails to the state have nothing to do with each other. MS hands over e-mails to - the only difference is that they don't fight against it.

Google fighting against state censorship in China and against invasion of privacy in the U.S. probably doesn't go far enough for you, but MS doesn't fight against them at all. In fact, when Google was fighting China, MS say it as an opportunity to gain some market share by agreeing to do the stuff that Google was fighting.

"Connecting Android to Amazon services...WHICH BY THE WAY Amazon sells as a service to other companies so they have built it to be easily incorporated."

You seem to be talking about AWS. OMG, you really aren't aware that Amazon has their own successful line of mobile products based on their own version of Android, are you?

We've had this whole discussion, with your acting condescending and obnoxious throughout, and it turns out that you don't even know what we are talking about.

Now it really is time for you to hit yourself!

There is this company called Amazon - I guess you haven't heard of them...

"If it was so easy to rework Android the way you suggest company's would be doing it."

Built their own app store, notification system, browser, payment services, user interface, all on top of Android. You should check it out.

" BlackBerry is positioning themselves for the future....not for the now. "

Yeah, unfortunately, companies that don't worry about the 'now' end up not having much of a future. While you are learning about Amazon, you might want to check BB's stock price...

The build-in CalDAV and CardDAV are broken. It is Google pushing those standards - RIM and MS are pushing back. Hopefully RIM fixes their support.

User-selectable permissions sounds great. I didn't realize it had that.

"You don't deserve a response with substance. To be honest you don't even deserve this retort..."
You have made yourself clear.

The biggest security issues with Android are
#1. manufacturers who don't provide updates (there was a good article from the ACLU in the last few days).
#2. it is simply not a priority for most of its users and the manufacturers, so not much emphasis is put into it.
#3. the open appstore - in my opinion much less of an issue then #1, and #2.

RIM could easily resolve all of these issues. #3 is the hardest because it means creating their own appstore, but that's what we are talking about anyway.

Getting QNX ready took 2 years. How long would it take RIM to create a distribution of Android that addressed these issues.

One reason I'm bummed about the route RIM took is because I would have loved to have seen what RIM could do with Android. Now, instead, we are questioning whether they even have a future.

Finally, you are talking about QNX as some kind'of salvation. I"m hearing a lot of that these days, but when I read the reviews of BB10 I see nothing to suggest that QNX itself will save RIM. The good stuff is the Hub and Blackberry Balance - both of these have nothing to do with QNX. Yeah, it's nice and slick and responsive, but iOS and Android (as of 4.1) are now too.

The only thing I see in the reviews that is really about the core OS is the complaints that the battery life is horrible.

Yes, and if were a 'devices' company they would have to charge more, perhaps work with carriers etc., but the part about skinning Android - and putting their effort into that skin, and into getting to market fast - could have been the same.

Amazon has their own appstore, their own push notification service, their own browser, their own payment service, etc. For most of the stuff that matters they made it their own.

Would it have made sense for them to spend an extra year on the stuff their customers will never see?

And in the end, this much touted QNX, which cost RIM so much, doesn't actually sound so great. For example, the battery life is apparently terrible. If I'm not careful to keep my Playbook charged then it is toast (this has happened to several friends). I'm not saying QNX is bad, but it wasn't worth the delay.

Gotta love a response that says "hit yourself with something" and provides no response or substance at all. Classy!

BB appears to think is is an OS company. It even seems to be describing a backup plan that involves selling BB10 into embedded markets.

Surely, this is a mistake. They have/had great smartphone features, particularly around messaging, and they have server software running in most corporations around the world. But they have let these advantages slip away as they pursued the perfect OS.

Instead, they could have done as Amazon did, and skin Android to their liking. This would have got them to market at least a year sooner with a product that could easily still have been uniquely BB on the surface - and the surface is the only thing the smartphone user sees.

No, it doesn't.

"said Soghoian, principal technologies and senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union."

Finally, an article about the dangers of Android that quotes someone I'm prepared to listen to. I'm not entirely sure why the ACLU would be involved in this stuff, but I do have some respect for them and believe them to be objective in this matter.

I'm tired of the barrage of articles about the security problems with Android, and the need for anti-virus to resolve them - quoting people paid by the anti-virus companies.