Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Stores iCloud Data With Google (crn.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the rivals,-friends-and-frenemies dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Alphabet's Google has quietly scored a major coup in its campaign to become an enterprise cloud computing powerhouse, landing Apple as a customer for the Google Cloud Platform, multiple sources with knowledge of the matter told CRN this week. Previously, Apple had acknowledge using Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft Azure's rival cloud computing platforms in addition to its own data centers. None of the services would have access to iCloud users' records. "The iCloud information is not at risk of being breached or otherwise observed by the ultimate owners of the platforms it resides on because of the very heavy encryption and partitioning technologies used," commended Chris Green, a tech expert at the consultancy Lewis. CRN has mentioned the agreement between the two companies was done late last year.

49 comments

  1. Google + Apple is big alliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will be great for data analytics, surveillance and profiling!

    1. Re:Google + Apple is big alliance by cfalcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The data is encrypted with a key only Apple knows. Maybe in the future it will be encrypted with a key only YOU know- but the point is that Amazon or Google can't get the data.

    2. Re:Google + Apple is big alliance by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Right.

    3. Re:Google + Apple is big alliance by robmv · · Score: 1

      If they are only using the could providers servers as storage, probably true, but if they use them to run applications, keys are on memory to be able to read the data and process it.

    4. Re:Google + Apple is big alliance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, right, of course they will share the keys with their "partners". After all, they are in the business of monetizing every cent out of their users.

  2. Re:first post by whipslash · · Score: 1

    Nope

  3. Apple does not have server hardware by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Apple does not have server hardware unless they make so they have a mac osx build that will install on real hardware or in a VM running on non apple hardware. With out needing any workarounds or hacks.

    1. Re:Apple does not have server hardware by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      I like OS X as a desktop operating system... but I've never seen the point of having it on a server, even when Apple sold them.

      It's Unix, and who wants a GUI on a Unix server? And without the GUI, why bother with OS X? Heck, for system stuff I'm using the command line more and more even on my Mac laptop.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re: Apple does not have server hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice troll.

      Who's the stupid one? If you're not bright enough to figure it out, it's the person who belongs to the group who couldn't figure redhat out for nineteen freaking weeks. Someones are in the wrong line of work.

    3. Re:Apple does not have server hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trollolol

    4. Re:Apple does not have server hardware by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Your rant is kind of funny, given that Microsoft has made it clear it's moving away from reliance on the GUI interface with its server offerings. It's all about PowerShell now.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re: Apple does not have server hardware by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Linux is just unusable to the average IT person.

      Aircraft suck: they'reentirely unusable to the average driver.

    6. Re:Apple does not have server hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] Linux is just unusable to the average IT person. [...]

      Why in Good Fuck would you hire an average IT person in the first place?

    7. Re:Apple does not have server hardware by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Is that why MS are introducing better CLI support with each version of windows? Or why they're making CLI a requirement for some advanced administration tasks?

      A server does not need a GUI, that's just a waste of resources for the 99.9% of its life when noone will be using it. And a server OS is not meant to be used by your average employee, it's meant to be used by a competent sysadmin which it seems your company lacks if it took them 19 weeks to configure RedHat.

      There are also plenty of point and click linux distros if that's what you want, it's possible to configure all kinds of stuff without ever touching the CLI, that said even if it's possible do you really want staff with such a poor level of skill running your network? They won't be able to troubleshoot if something ever goes wrong, and they probably won't configure anything remotely securely.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    8. Re:Apple does not have server hardware by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      I like OS X as a desktop operating system... but I've never seen the point of having it on a server, even when Apple sold them.

      It's Unix, and who wants a GUI on a Unix server? And without the GUI, why bother with OS X? Heck, for system stuff I'm using the command line more and more even on my Mac laptop.

      I love my (virtualized) Linux servers to death, but on the desktop -- yeah it's OS X for me. And it has a very, very decent commandline.

      Nowadays, I can just install a Mac and run a giant script that first sets all preferences (with "defaults write com.apple.blahblah"), and then another smaller script that installs all open source software with "brew install" and most commercial stuff with "brew cask install". Love it.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    9. Re:Apple does not have server hardware by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Get that hook out of your mouth. ;-)

      That and, well... You've always been able to do quite a bit with Windows Server editions via the command prompt. They've also generally been able to be configured to push the desktop out over a network without too much trouble for quite a long time. So, people are pretty used to having a GUI. I've played around with Windows as a server and have even used it professionally. More recently, I've had a whole WSUS, Exchange, and AD running at my home. That doesn't exist and was a while back but I had an MSDN subscription and hardware so, why not? I was actually rather content with the setup - I even had roaming profiles configured and was able to push out updates, had my own images, had profile defaults via group policy, and all that stuff - it was heaps of fun.

      I'd not recommend it for your typical home user but I enjoyed it. Any computer could be used by guests with limited use accounts. People had actual accounts with saved profiles and could log on from anywhere in the network. They could even use their own computers to log on, if they were properly configured to join a domain. I could use the installer to push software out to all the computers. There were local profiles as well.

      For a while, I had thin clients from Wyse and used Citrix. There's still one device (I'm pretty sure it's not actually connected to anything any more - it has been replaced with a rugged laptop with Lubuntu) in the garage and one in the shop. That one doesn't boot, as I recall. I've never fixed it. That too has been replaced but that gets replaced often - computers aren't really fond of sawdust even though there's dust collection. The rest of the thin clients have gone to either friends, family, or maybe I've pawned 'em off on the local school. I forget which.

      At any rate, I've often done things with Windows while it was headless. It's certainly doable, it's just really, really awkward and unfamiliar unless your're used to it and have learned the arcana and proper invocations. It's almost logical once you figure out what they're doing. I'd not go so far as to say that it's intuitive, not really. But, the command prompt has always been there and headless access has always been possible. I've not played much with PowerShell but it has actually been around for quite a while now. I don't remember when it first came out but I think it was something like 10 years ago. It, like the regular ol' command line, is often overlooked by people.

      Err... I'm not a Luddite. I have a GUI, I'm using one now. I use a GUI much of the time. I use the terminal a lot and always have a terminal open - it opens automatically on boot with most installs. I do have my own saved aliases and my own special bash files (like bashrc and bash_history get saved and pushed out to other profiles as well as dumped in a repository and then cleaned). I do a lot in the terminal but there are other areas where ticking boxes is easier. It's also (often) easier to get help in a GUI. GUI has a time and place and a good GUI is a great benefit.

      I figured I'd add that 'cause, well... Some folks are pretty passionate about favoring one or the other to the point of exclusion.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    10. Re: Apple does not have server hardware by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty average and have done a lot of work that falls under the IT heading. In fact, I have zero formal computer education. I've never even taken so much as a basics course nor a relevant programming course. In 1970 (or so) I used an HP 9100, I think it was called, and then didn't touch a computer until the 80s. At that point, I kind of hated computers but I owned my first in about 1981.

      I say no formal programming because I must be accurate - it's in my nature. Unfortunately, my memory isn't as good as it could be. The HP 9100 was a computer, they called it a calculator I think, that had memory. You could use the cards you color with a pencil on them. You could store an algorithm on a magnetic stripe plastic card, and memory was stored resident until reboot. It had a plottter and you could push it out to a television or use the LED display. I hated them. They were in our Physics class but I want to say that there were a couple in the Chemistry labs and a couple in the astronomy section. (We had a telescope and observatory. We didn't yet have the telescope. We only had the observatory. It had just been built. The telescope was added a couple of years later - I'm pretty sure. That was a long time ago.)

      Anyhow, in that class, I had a week of learning how to "program" that computer. That is the entirety of my formal computer programming except for auditing a night course in an Intro to C, which I missed the vast majority of, I've no other education given formal instruction. In other words, I'm actually a fairly period-typical IT person. I'd say that I'm below average with today's IT person, or some of them at least. And, below average in theory - the results of their education may not be as good as the courses describe. I can not honestly speculate but credit is where it is due to say that they've a huge amount of resources available to learn, resources that I've never had access to. Presumably, the average IT person should be much more adept than I.

      So, I said all that to paint a picture. The picture is that I'd like to think that, at best, I'm in the average class with IT. I'm comfortable with that designation. After all, I've had no formal training of any type, my academic achievements were in applied mathematics and I really hated computers at the time.

      Which gets me to the point of refuting what the OP had claimed... I find Linux eminently usable on the desktop and on the server. I have, and administer, a wide variety of hardware. All of that hardware (sans phone) uses the Linux kernel. Even all of my virtual machines have OSes that are using the Linux kernel. I do not have one single Windows-based operating system and only two devices that are from Apple. On the other hand, I've used Windows many times and, for a period of about a half-dozen years, was given the MVP award by Microsoft for lending aid in their public (and private) newsgroups. I've not really used any Windows OSes beyond 8 and I mostly didn't use anything beyond 7 and actually (I know, I know) preferred Vista over 7 once SP1 came out for Vista. That's a topic for another day as this is already too long.

      Now, I think I've given enough evidence to support the claim to "average IT" status. It took a minute and a lot of words but, suffice to say, that should put me at or below that status. I find Linux very usable. I do not have a problem with it. In fact, I started using it to the exclusion of all else a while back and I've a fairly fresh interpretations.

      Linux is simple to use. It really is. It may appear hard. Don't approach it like Windows and it's actually simpler than safely maintaining a Windows box/network.
      The terminal is an overlooked tool but this is true with Windows and the command line. It has great power when used by someone who has learned how.
      The Linux desktop environment are all pretty good, support modern features, and offer a bunch of choices between them.
      It's not difficult to get Linux to do things the way you want - and then to replicate that so that you can have a unified experienc

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:Apple does not have server hardware by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I have a remote server at home that I used to run console only (SSH). I found there were some things I just couldn't do via console. At the time, I think it was primarily Keepass and there were no Bittorrent clients with integrated search.
      Now I run X2go and I get all that (qbittorrent if you were curious) and way more. I still have access to the console via a handy Konsole window.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    12. Re:Apple does not have server hardware by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I cheat and use VNC. There are some things you can't do via terminal/remote/SSH. But, there are lots of things that can be. I've settled on VNC and have been using it for a while. You might have been able to push the GUI out (I forget the name of the process) out through SSH for a torrent client. Basically, it forwards the GUI over SSH - buggered if I can recall the name at the moment but lots of apps support it, or so I'm told. I've not bothered with it in a long, long time - having settled on installing a VNC server and using a client.

      It's actually what I'm using to send this. I'm connected to a computer in Maine via VNC and through a VPN. That enables me to use my home network and keep things much the same as they always are. I still keep my data stored back in Maine, it's propagated out to remote locations for storage, and I'm able to access it all while I am out on the road. It took only a little while to set up and secure well enough to trust it. Sometimes, I even use a (convoluted) method where I'm using a VNC that's located on a server that's back in Maine and I'm working in that while I have a Slashdot tab open.

      It's surprisingly stable and effective. I can even stream stuff from my house to here. I just use a VNC client (TurboVNC right now) at full-screen and call it good. I don't have to worry about additional archiving and access, I just do it there. I don't store any data locally, not really. Even at home, my data is on the network and not on the device. I've been doing it this way for years now. It's a bit convoluted seeming at first but I'm quite used to it and prefer it this way.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:Apple does not have server hardware by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      X2go, a variant of the NX protocol, blows the socks of VNC or remote X sessions. You should give it a try. NoMachine makes a commercial version, and allows you to run up to 2 connections with their free version, but why deal with that when X2go works so well.
      Audio is great, video can be a bit choppy, but it's watchable, on a 1.5Mb upstream connection.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    14. Re:Apple does not have server hardware by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I shall investigate, thanks. One of the reasons that I favor VNC is that it's cross-platform. I think I've looked at X2go in the past - someone else recommended it (maybe WolfRider?) and downloaded it but never got around to installing it. It looks like I'm not getting approval to go to Cuba this week so I'll poke at it over the weekend.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    15. Re:Apple does not have server hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with X2go is that it doesn't support a number of popular GUIs, so you have to also have some of the older and simpler GUIs installed.

    16. Re:Apple does not have server hardware by sjames · · Score: 1

      I have run across a number of cases where all I could get was a CLI due to the very issue I was trying to fix.Try re-initializing the network card on a remote GUI, for example. OOPS. Sure you can use a networked KVM, but now you're buying a bunch of extra hardware to compensate for the GUI's failings. And if the problem is that the network card is babbling on the LAN, good luck cramming a GUI session through the flood.

      The OS and it's admins should be able to do anything necessary to fix the server over a serial console. Not because that's the best interface, but because it's the most likely to still be working when something goes bad.

    17. Re:Apple does not have server hardware by castionsosa · · Score: 1

      I know I am a late to this... but Windows Server 2012 and W2012R2 install Server Core by default. W2016 doesn't even give you the option for a GUI until you have the machine installed and are at a PowerShell prompt. Exchange has been using PowerShell for a lot of its configuration for almost a decade now.

  4. Apple is apping apps using other apps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like all modern app appers, Apple is simply apping their apps using other apps while apping more apps!

    Apps!

  5. Re:first post by dstyle5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think I just went back in time 15 years, a 'first post" post attempt and slashdot actually listening to users these days. If only my hairline would go back that far in time as well.

  6. Re:first post by ls671 · · Score: 0

    Your post looks suspicious because you work for /.

    Maybe he got first post after all. You seem to be in a conflict of interest. I would restrain myself from replying to such posts if I was you ;-)

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  7. Your data is safe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /rofl.... from what?

  8. Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's quite a non-sequitur.

    1. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non-sequitur? It's barely fucking comprehendible.

  9. Is it secure? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    "The iCloud information is not at risk of being breached or otherwise observed by the ultimate owners of the platforms it resides on because of the very heavy encryption and partitioning technologies used,"

    While I have no doubt it is possible to do this, is it really secure?

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Is it secure? by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      "The iCloud information is not at risk of being breached or otherwise observed by the ultimate owners of the platforms it resides on because of the very heavy encryption and partitioning technologies used,"

      While I have no doubt it is possible to do this, is it really secure?

      Assuming Apple doesn't make any newbie mistakes, it's as secure as the keys used to encrypt it.

    2. Re:Is it secure? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      As secure as domestic data collection was with any one of the many brands that helped with PRISM.
      With two helper brands for domestic collection, the links back to the US gov will be even more secure and NSL friendly.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  10. Re:first post by whipslash · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  11. Seems like good strategy. by denbesten · · Score: 2

    It appears that Apple is adapting iCloud so that it can use any of the "storage as a service" providers. My guess is that they are on a quest to "partner" with anyone and everyone that rents space on hard drives.

    In addition to being able to scale up and down rapidly, it also improves their ability to rapidly abandon any providers that don't play the game according to Apple's whims.

  12. According to Apple, they can't see your dick pics by rsborg · · Score: 1, Informative

    The data is encrypted with a key only Apple knows. Maybe in the future it will be encrypted with a key only YOU know- but the point is that Amazon or Google can't get the data.

    In the case of iMessage and PhotoStream, the key is actually one even Apple doesn't know - it's derived from hardware-specific key from your phone, generated with your password/touchID.

    So Apple can't see your dick pics and neither can Google (or whoever else they use).

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  13. can't encrypt with a key only Apple has by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Customer data CAN usefully be encrypted with a key that only the user (via their phone) has. It's encrypted on the phone, then uploaded. That is in fact done for at least some data.

    Customers' cloud data can NOT be usefully encrypted with a key only Apple, and not the cloud operator, has access to. Before it's sent back to the customer, it would need to be decrypted. Which would require that the decryption key be on the server- which the cloud operator owns.

    In general (though special cases exist), you can't usefully encrypt data that's on a server where the data is supposed to be used or retrieved for this reason. If the server can provide (decrypted) data to the customer, it can provide that same data to anyone who has access to the server.

    * Primarily of use for passwords, you can usefully store a hash of data, a lossy "checksum" which allows you to verify whether or not two copies of the data are identical, without storing either copy.

  14. Why not Softlayer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the Apple/IBM partnership effort, you'd think they'd be putting a lot on Softlayer. Especially because SL isn't a potentially competing software company.

  15. Apple Has Been Gay For Google For Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a Gay-on-Gay Queer-on-Queer mash up.

    Who da momy who da daddy or who momy-momy or daddy-daddy.

    What will they name the "off-spring"?

    Aoogle or Appgle?

    TDC will be prancing through the Queer-Plex with a teeshirt reading "Ar U Queer Enough?"

    Ha ha

  16. Re: first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a similar thought given how helpful whiplashs' other post have been.

  17. Re:According to Apple, they can't see your dick pi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go ahead and tell that to Jennifer Lawrence and all those other people hit by The Fappening.

    iCloud's been hacked before. It's going to be hacked again, no matter how secure Apple pretends the data is.

  18. Re:first post by cerberusss · · Score: 1

    Replying to undo accidental "overrated" post (please mod it funny :)).

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  19. Re: According to Apple, they can't see your dick p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It was not hacked, passwords were phished. Google and Apple accounts. Apparently not rven brute forced- which was the previous theory. If that was true it would mean bad passwords.

    Being encrypted with a key Apple knows is unrelated anyway- in ALL these cases, the attackers were ultimately able to authenticate as the owner, at which point Apple and Google gave them access to "their" icloud or gmail dara.

  20. Re:According to Apple, they can't see your dick pi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Attention to details that matter is not one of your strengths.

  21. Corporate relationships are weird. by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Apple and Google are usually busy competing with each other over smartphone market share, so it seems a bit odd that one of the systems Apple's devices depend on is now hosted by Google, right? Especially when Apple spends so much time suing Google's smartphone partners.

  22. Fear the rise of St. Jobs by ausekilis · · Score: 1

    They've tried other tactics to try to get their old boss to turn in his grave, such as bigger iPad and the iPen (Jobs said no stylus... remember?). He also famously said he was going to sue Android into oblivion.... Now they're giving Google money?

    Isn't there some prophecy in the iBible about three strikes against St. Jobs and he shall rise again and smite the nonbelievers?