The Android operating system, despite its immense potential, often feels like a missed opportunity. Google’s ambitious strategy of creating an open-source platform with multiple hardware partners seemed poised to revolutionize the mobile device landscape. Yet, seventeen years later, the single-vendor, proprietary iPhone still dominates mobility. Google is a highly innovative company, but often suffers in the execution department. By contrast, Microsoft isn’t particularly innovative, but excels in execution, particularly in enterprise use cases. Let's delve into some illustrative examples. Google Apps, launched in 2006, was a pioneering move—a web-based office productivity suite, when the concept of working in the cloud was still nascent. Though Google Apps couldn’t match Microsoft Office's functionality, it's good enough solution appealed to many individuals and small businesses. Fast forward a few years, Microsoft introduced a web-based version of Office (Office 365) that was far more capabile. Despite arriving late to the party, Microsoft’s iteration was so refined and familiar that it now boasts over 200 million subscribers, generating billions in revenue annually. .Another example: Consider the browser wars. Google recognized the shortcomings of Internet Explorer long before Microsoft did, leading to the development of Chrome. Through its open-source foundation, Chrome catalyzed innovation and quickly became the dominant browser. Microsoft responded by adopting Chromium’s open-source framework for its Edge browser, thereby revitalizing its web presence and ending incompatibilities of the browser wars. Edge has become a robust alternative to Chrome. Another pertinent example is WebRTC. Google’s efforts made this real-time communication protocol a free, browser-based standard. Initially, Microsoft was hesitant, with Lync and Skype for Business lacking WebRTC support. However, Teams extensively leverages WebRTC to deliver video and interoperability with other collaboration platforms. Google Meet on the other hand still only has browser and third party options for its interoperability. For those not familiar, Android exists in two forms: a free, open-source version and a proprietary, paid version that includes Google apps and access to the Play Store. The latter is prevalent in Android-based smartphones in the US and Europe, while many Asian vendors prefer the free version, customizing it to access their own app ecosystems. With the paid version of Android, manufacturers must sign Google's Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (MADA). This version requires bundling Google apps and the Google Mobile Services (GMS) framework. GMS requires users to log into their Google accounts during device setup. While the current plans to implement MDEP in meeting rooms is intriguing, its potential is far greater. I foresee Microsoft reentering mobility with its own version of Android aimed at business users. This version would integrate with Microsoft applications natively, allowing users to log in with their Microsoft credentials instead of a Google ID. For apps, users could access a new Microsoft app store—let’s tentatively call it the "Work Store." This move could position Microsoft as a mobile player and nudge Google (and its Play Store) further toward consumers. In 2015, Microsoft wrote off $7.6 billion related to its acquisition of the Nokia phone business and, soon after, killed Windows Phone. Microsoft experimented with making Android phones before (Surface Duo and Surface Duo 2), but those were Google MADA phones that required Microsoft users to use or create Google credentials. In an interview with Business Insider, CEO Satya Nadella reflected on the company’s mistakes with mobile: “I think there could have been ways we could have made [mobile phones] work by perhaps reinventing the category of computing between PCs, tablets, and phones.” Learn more by visiting OUR FORUM.

Car manufacturer Ford Motor Company has filed a patent application for an in-vehicle advertisement presentation system based on information derived from several trip and driver characteristics. Among those characteristics—human conversations. Further one it details that “the controller may monitor user dialogue to detect when individuals are in a conversation.” Based on this info, the controller can decrease or increase the number of advertisements. And “the conversations can be parsed for keywords or phrases that may indicate where the occupants are travelling to.” Okay. Essentially, the car you’re driving would not only spy on your driving behavior, your present and future locations, and your requested driving routes, but it would also eavesdrop on you. And let’s not forget the safety implications of displaying advertisements while you’re driving. We have spoken about cars and privacy at length and came to the conclusion they’re not very good at it. Many politicians in the US agree with that point of view. US senators have asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate car makers’ privacy practices and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued General Motors for selling customer driving data to third parties. We explained why car location tracking needs an overhaul and we’ve implored that automakers work together to help users by providing them with the ability to turn tracking features off (a serious vulnerability for people fleeing from an abusive relationship). Yet nowhere in the entire document exists one word about how Ford intends to keep the acquired information secure. We’d advise all car companies remediate existing security vulnerabilities before introducing potential new ones. What’s next, Ford? Will you stop working if we drive past one of the establishments that sponsor your ads? Or was that “feature” to disable a functionality of a component of the vehicle or to place the vehicle in a lockout condition only for the repossession plans you attempted to patent earlier on? Another controversial Ford patent filed in July described technology that would enable vehicles to monitor the speed of nearby cars, photograph them and send the information to police. In a statement to Fortune, the company clarified that filing a patent is a standard practice to explore new ideas and doesn’t necessarily indicate immediate plans to release such a system. We realize that advertisements make the internet go round. Many useful websites could not exist without them. But do these in-vehicle advertisements benefit the owner of the car? If it makes the cars cheaper, I’d be willing to pay some extra to not be bothered and eavesdropped on while driving. How about you? Let us know in the comments. Follow this and more on OUR FORUM.