Don’t write off the iPhone just yet

This may seem and odd premise, given that Apple flogged 4 million of the new iPhone 6 units as soon as it was launched. It doesn’t sound like a failure. But I’m hearing voices…

The theory is that the smartphone market is saturated. In the US, an often quoted statistic is that 75% of Americans already have one. In the UK, research from Deloitte puts the figure at 72% a year ago, rising at about 15% a year. Selling something everyone already has is not a good place to be.

Then there’s the inexorable rise of Android. Google launched the low cost, very capable and very affordable Android One phone in June. Never heard of it? Well it’s not available in the west – they’re going after the huge third world market, starting with India. There are a billion punters there, eager for the western tech. And the same with China, although they can make their own (as well as handsets for the rest of the world).

Generic Chinese Android handsets are good. I have one. It takes two SIMs at once and works under water, at a fraction of the prices of a western branded unit. Manufactures like Huawei, ZTE and Foxconn own this space and will be hard to shift. Google doesn’t make money from Android, and I doubt that the Android One will contribute much to their balance sheet. But Google is a data capture company, and have Google-controlled smartphones out there is strategically very good.

So, Apple must be doomed – a saturated market and cheaper smartphones that do it better. But that’s never been a problem Apple’s business model.

Apple’s products are aspirational – they say, “Look at me – I’m wealthy enough to spend £100s every year for the latest iPhone and therefore I’m a good prospect when it comes to making babies.” The more they cost, the more people want them. Fanbois may protest, saying that they iPhones work better (not so) and look nicer. Sony sells nice looking kit too, but is forecasting a $1.2B loss from its Android smartphones. The same with HT; it’s just breaking even on declining sales. Samsung is making a good profit ($6B), but there’s a suspicion this has been generated on a huge marketing spend.

Apple doesn’t need to spend too much on marketing. It just has to look cool and remain aspirational.

According to Juniper, shipments of smartphones will be close to 1.2B units this year (with 985M shipped in 2013). That’s a high volume, but if it’s the Android One and low cost units going to emerging markets (those not yet saturated), the bulk of that will be making meagre profit.

Apple, on the other hand, makes a very nice margin, thanks. Fanbois will happily hand over $100s simply to have one with a larger flash memory; several thousand percent more than the memory itself costs elsewhere. They’ll accept that the limited-life battery is ;sealed inside and will die, taking the iPhone with it in a couple of years. They’ll accept that there’s no memory card slot as an alternative to buying the ridiculously expensive internally upgraded models. They’ll even put up with the poor telephone performance; after all the screen looks very nice (don’t tell them that Samsung beat them too it).

I used to work with Cuppertino in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s – lots of people did because the Apple II was a major player; a de-facto standard. Then in 1981 the IBM PC was launched, became the new de-facto standard and Apple was marginalised with the Mac, losing market-share big time until it was less than 10%. 25 years ago I was discussing their demise with Guy Kewney, a good and wise pundit and friend. “You’re wrong”, he said. “The PC market is much bigger. Other PC makers would be very happy to have 9% of the current market, and they have much lower margins than Apple.”

Google geek lives on site for year. Yawn

Matthew weaver told the BBC he lived on site on Google’s. Mountain view campus. for 54 weeks between 2005 and 2006. Are we supposed to be impressed? Well it’s a long time but the story continues to reveal he was living in a camper van. How soft modern techies have become. Back in the early 1980’s living on site while a project was on was not at all uncommon. I certainly was not the only programmer in small tech startups to spend the night under the workbench in a sleeping bag. It was an alternative soft option to simply working through the night.

These young techies simply don’t know they’re even born. Camper van indeed!

Thoughts on Infosec, 2014 – first day

I usually post a show report about Infosec somewhere, and for various painful reasons, this year it has to go here. And this year I’m at a bit of a loss.

Normally there’s a theme to the show; the latest buzzword and several companies doing the same thing. I wasn’t able to spend as long as normal there today, thanks to the RMT, but I think it’s probably “Cloud Security” this year. As with “cloud” anything, this is a pretty nebulous term.

Needless to say, the first day of the show lacked the buzz, with a smaller than usual number of visitors, haggared by disrupted journeys, mooched around the booths.

I was a bit surprised to see very little on the “heartbleed bug”, although there were a couple of instances. Either the marketing people didn’t understand it, or had uncharacteristically been put in their places.

One stand that’s always interesting is Bit9, a company after my own heart with alternatives to simple virus scanning. They went on a spending spree earlier in the year and have purchased and integrated Carbon Black. This is technology to allow their customers to monitor exactly what’s happening on all their (Windows) computers; which applications launch with others, what initiates a network connection and so on. It’s all very impressive; a GUI allows you to drill down and see exactly what’s happening in excruciating details. What worries me is the volume of data it’s likely to generate if its being used for IDS. There will be so much it’ll be hard to see the wood for the trees. When I questioned this I was told that software would analyse the “big data”, which is a good theory. It’s one to watch.

Plenty of stands were offering the usual firewalls. Or is that integrated solutions to unified threat management. Nothing has jumped out yet.

At the end of the day there was a very sensible keynote address by Google’s Dr Peter Dickman that was definitely worth a listen. All solid stuff, but from Google’s perspective as an operator of some serious data centre hardware. He pointed out that Google’s own company is run on its cloud services, so they’re going to take care of everyone’s data as they would their own. Apparently they also have an alligator on guard duty at one of their facilities.

I was a bit saddened to see a notice saying that next year’s show will now be in early June and Olympia. I’ve got fond memories of Earls Court going back more than thirty years to the Personal Computer World show. And Earls Court just has better media facilities!

 

US judge tells Microsoft to hand over data on foreign servers

Yesterday, a judge in a New York court ordered Microsoft to hand over information stored on a server in Ireland following a US search warrant. Magistrate Judge James Francis reckons a search warrant for servers is different to a search warrant for anywhere else – more of a subpoena to hand over documents. Unsurprisingly, Microsoft plans to roll the dice again with a Federal judge this time.

Microsoft, of course, has recently been soothing its cloud customers by saying that if the data is held outside the US, Uncle Sam won’t be able to plunder it in violation of the users’ local rights. In particular, the EU legislation being drafted to prevent companies sharing EU citizens’ data with foreign powers unless explicitly allowed by international treaty or another EU law. The NSA, or US corporations, would not be allowed to just look at whatever they wanted.
This plays right in to Angela Merkel’s proposal for an EU communications network that can’t be legally snooped on by the yanks by avoiding the use of US-based servers.

In a statement to Reuters, Microsoft said:

“A U.S. prosecutor cannot obtain a U.S. warrant to search someone’s home located in another country, just as another country’s prosecutor cannot obtain a court order in her home country to conduct a search in the United States. (Microsoft) thinks the same rules should apply in the online world, but the government disagrees.”

Is Microsoft really so naive? Although the ruling followed its challenge of a search warrant concerning a Microsoft account, its implications apply to all US cloud service providers. Although they intend to appeal, in the mean time any US company holding your data off-shore might as well have its servers in America – they’ll be forced to hand over all your data either way.

This isn’t to say that data held in the UK, for example, is any more secure. There’s RIPA to worry about – the Act allows authorities can plunder what they like, although it does make it illegal for anyone other than the State to do this.

 

Google shoots own foot in war on child abuse images

If you believe the Daily Mail and the BBC, Google and Microsoft have buckled under pressure from the Government to block images of child abuse on the Internet. What they’ve actually done is block around 100,000 search terms that are used by peodphiles looking for material, whether such search terms could be used to locate other content or not. Great.

Actually, this is rubbish. Google (about which I know more) has not even been indexing such sites, so search terms won’t have found any that it knew about anyway. I’m sure the other search engines have similar programmes in place. This is a public relations exercise, with a piece by Eric Schmidt in the Mail today. It’s a desperate PR stunt that will back-fire on Google.

Eric Schmidt of Google, seeming desperate (from Wikipedia)
Eric Schmidt of Google, seeming desperate

The fact is that household names like Google don’t have a case to answer here. They’re not ISPs, they’re not providing hosting space for illegal material and they’re not actually responsible for it in any way. The only thing they can do is spend their money researching such sites, dropping them from there indices and alerting the relevant authorities to their research. This they already do. So when the likes of Mr Cameron criticize them, as an easy target, the correct response is “Don’t be silly, it’s not us, and it’s the job of your Police to catch the criminals whether they’re using the Internet or not”. What Google has done with this move is give legitimacy to the original false accusation.

As anyone concerned with cybercrime will tell you, the major criminal activity takes place in areas outside the World Wide Web – areas not indexed by Google or any legitimate company. It travels around the Internet, encrypted and anonymous; and the peodophiles seem to be able to find it anyway. All this move will achieve is pushing the final remnants underground, where they’ll be much harder to track.

Looking at the comments that have appeared on the Daily Mail site since it was published is depressing. They’re mostly from people who have been taken in by this line (originally spun by the Daily Mail, after all), and they clearly don’t understand the technical issues behind any of this. I can’t say I blame them, however, as the majority of the population has little or no understanding of what the Internet is or how it works. They simply see a web browser, normally with Google as a home-page, and conflate the Internet with Google. The Prime Ministers advisors are either just as simple-minded, or are cynically exploiting the situation.

 

David Cameron on Google Porn

I’ve been watching with dismay David Cameron’s statements on the Andrew Marr show at the weekend; he’s attacked Google and other big companies for not blocking illegal pornography. Let’s be clear: Google et al, already do, as far as is possible. The Prime Minister is simply playing politics, and in doing so is exposing his complete lack of understanding about matters technological and social.

It’s not just the coalition government; Edward Miliband trumped him in stupidity by saying that the proposed plans “didn’t go far enough”, which is his usual unthinking response to anything announced by the government that’s might be popular.

Cameron’s latest announcement is to force ISPs to turn on “no porn” filters for all households (optionally removed, so it’s not State censorship). I’d be fascinated to hear him explain how such a filter could possibly work, but as my understanding of quantum mathematics isn’t that good it I may yet be convinced. Don’t hold your breath waiting.

The majority of the population won’t be able to understand why this is technical nonsense, so let’s look at it from the social point-of-view. People using the Internet to distribute child-abuse images do not put them on web sites indexed by Google. If Google finds any, they will remove them from search results and tell the police, as would everyone else. Paedophiles simply don’t operate in the open – why would they? They’re engaged in a criminal activity and don’t want to be caught, and therefore use hidden parts of the Internet to communicate, and not web sites found by Google!

Examining the illegal drugs trade is a useful model. It’s against the law, harmful and regarded as “a bad thing” by the overwhelming majority. The police and border security spend a lot of time and money tackling it, but the demand remains and criminal gangs are happy to supply that demand. So how successful has 100 years of prohibition been? Totally ineffective, by any metric. With 80% of the prison population on drugs IN PRISON it should be obvious that criminals will continue to supply drugs under any circumstances, if there’s a demand. If anything, proscribing drugs has made it more difficult to deal with the collateral effects by making the trade and users much more difficult to track.

So, if we can’t stop drugs (a physical item) getting in to prisons (presumably amongst most secure buildings in the country) , does anyone seriously think it’s possible to beat the criminals and prevent illegal porn being transmitted electronically to millions of homes across  the country? David Cameron’s advisors don’t appear to have been able get him to understand this point.

Another interesting question is whether I should opt to have the porn filter removed from my connection. The only way such a filter could possibly be effective is if it banned everything on its creation, and then only allowed what was proven safe through. There are generally considered to be over 500 million web sites out there, with 20,000 being added every month. That’s sites; not individual pages. The subset that can realistically be examined and monitored to make sure they are safe is going to be quite small, and as a security researcher, I need to retrieve everything. So am I going to have to ‘phone my ISP and say “yes please, want to look at porn”? Actually, that won’t be a problem for me because I am my own ISP. The government doesn’t even know I exist; there is no register of ISPs (or even a definition of the term). There are probably tens of thousands in the country. So I shall await a call from Mr Cameron’s office with a full technical explanation of this filtering  scheme with interest.

Fortunately for the Prime Minister, his live speech on the subject scheduled for 11am has been displaced by a load of royal reporters standing outside a hospital and Buckingham Palace saying “no news yet” on the supposed imminent arrival of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s first child.

 

Google’s Evil Browser policy

Google’s VP of Engineering (Venkat Panchapakesan) has published one of the most outrageous policy statements I’ve seen in a long time – not in a press release, but in a blog post.

He’s saying that Google will discontinue support for all browsers that aren’t “modern” from the end of July, with the excuse that is developers need HTML5 before they can improve their offerings to meet current requirements. “Modern” means less than three versions old, which currently refers to anything prior to IE8 (now that IE 10 is available on beta) and Firefox 3.5. This is interesting – Firefox 4 has just been released, I’m beta testing Firefox 5 with Firefox 7 talked about by the end of 2011. This will obsolete last month’s release of Firefox 4 in just six months. Or does he mean something different by version number? Anyone who knows anything about software engineering will tell you that major differences can occur with minor version number changes too so it’s impossible to interpret what he means in a technical sense.

I doubt Google would be stupid enough to “upgrade” it’s search page. This will affect Google Apps and Gmail.

The fact is that about 20% of the world is using either IE 6 or a similar vintage browser. Microsoft and Mozilla have a policy of encouraging people to “upgrade” and are supportive of Google. Microsoft has commercial reasons for doing this; Mozilla’s motives are less clear – perhaps they just like to feel their latest creations are being appreciated somewhere.

What these technological evangelists completely fail to realise is that not everyone in the world wishes to use the “latest” bloated version of their software. Who wants their computer slowed down to a crawl using a browser that consumes four times as much RAM as the previous version? Not everyone’s laptop has the 2Gb of RAM needed to run the “modern” versions at a reasonable speed.

It’s completely disingenuous to talk about users “upgrading” – it can easily make older computers unusable. The software upgrade may be “free” but the hardware needed to run it could cost dear.

It’ll come as no surprise to learn that the third world has the highest usage of older browser versions; they’re using older hardware. And they’re using older versions of Windows (without strict license enforcement). There’s money to be made by forcing the pace of change, but it is right to make anything older than two years old obsolete?

But does Google have a point about HTML5? Well the “web developers” who’s blog comments they’ve allowed through uncensored seem to think so. But web developers are often just lusers with pretensions, fresh out of a lightweight college and dazzled by the latest cool gimmick. Let’s assume Google is a bit more savvie than that. So what’s their game? Advertising. Never forget it. Newer web technologies are driven by a desire to push adverts – Flash animations and HTML5 – everything. Standard HTML is fine for publishing standard information.

I’ll take a lot of convincing that Google’s decision isn’t to do with generating more advertising revenue at the expense of the less well-off Internet users across the globe. Corporate evil? It looks like it from here.

Google Phishing Tackle

In the old days you really needed to be a bit technology-savvy to implement a good phishing scam. You need a way of sending out emails, a web site for them to link back to that wouldn’t be blacklisted and couldn’t be traced, plus the ability to create an HTML form to capture and record the results.

Bank phishing scam form created using Google Apps
Creating a phishing scam form with Google Apps is so easy

These inconvenient barriers to entry have been swept away by Google Apps.

A few days back I received a phishing scam email pointing to a form hosted by Google. Within a couple of minutes of its arrival an abuse report was filed with the Google Apps team. You’d might expect them to deal with such matters, but this still hadn’t been actioned two days later.

If you want to have a go, the process is simple. Get a Gmail account, go to Google Docs and select “Create New…Form” from on the left. You can set up a data capture form for anything you like in seconds, and call back later to see what people have entered.

Such a service is simply dangerous, and Google doesn’t appear to be taking this at all seriously. Given their “natural language technology” it shouldn’t be hard for them to spot anything looking like a phishing form so, I decided to see how easy it was and tried something blatant. This is the result:

No problem! Last time I checked the form was still there, although I haven’t asked strangers to fill it in.

Google is innocent (ish)

So Google’s streetview cars have been driving around harvesting people’s email passwords have they? Well this is probably true. Let’s sue/fine/regulate them!

Actually, let’s not. They haven’t done anything wrong. What Google’s surveying vehicles did was record the wireless Ethernet radio activity as they went along, to get an idea of where the WIFI hotspots are. This is a really useful thing for someone to have done – there’s no other way to find out what’s really where than by doing a ground-level survey.

In order to determine what kind of service they’re receiving you need to record a bit of the traffic for analysis. If it’s a private service, this traffic will be encrypted so it really doesn’t matter a jot – they’d be mostly recording gibberish. If it’s an open, public service they’d get the clear text of whatever happened to be transmitted at the time if the luser’s weren’t using application-layer encryption. If some technological dunderhead decides to do a radio broadcast of his unencrypted passwords, Google (and anyone else in the vicinity) will end up receiving that too.

Look at it another way – if someone wrote their password on a big sign and stuck it in the front of their house, anyone walking down the road couldn’t help but capture it. Are the pedestrians doing something wrong, or is the owner of the house an idiot?

It’s no good the idiots bleating on about Google. That won’t give them brains. It might, however, give them some of Google’s money and this could be the real motive.

The Information Commissioner, Christopher Graham, has come up with some surprising statements about Google. But on review, they’re only surprising to someone understanding the technical issues here. Does this mean Graham is a technological klutz? It’s one theory – at times it seems like everyone the government appoints to deal with technology requires this as a qualification. However I think it’s far more likely a case of bowing to media/political pressure on the subject and wishing to be seen to be doing something about it.

Then, last Friday, Google signed an undertaking with the Information Commissioner’s Office to train their staff that they mustn’t do naughty things (just in case they were ever tempted). In return for this the ICO promises to leave them alone. Read it for yourself – it’s only three pages long.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/library/Data_Protection/Notices/google_inc_undertaking.ashx

What’s sad about the whole affair is that the ICO is, first and foremost, a political/media driven entity even if there are some level heads at work behind the scenes. But what a waste of time and money…