or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by poke

I never bought the patent excuse. It hasn't made sense at any point in this story. I think Motorola was hedge against Samsung. It can't be a coincidence that the "Samsung and Google are now best friends" story before this news. That was Google doing damage control. Basically: there has been a big internal battle for Android between Google and Samsung. Google bought Motorola because it thought it might lose Android to Samsung. It also started taking more and more of Android...
This makes sense of the highly implausible "Samsung making concessions to Google" news (Google is clearly in the worse position in that relationship). Samsung has basically said to Google: "You get out of hardware or we're forking Android." Part of the terms were obviously Samsung dialling back some of the Android changes it showed in CES. So Google gets a couple of articles written about how they're regaining control over Android on Samsung devices as damage control...
 Pretty much. Apple has always said that it only makes sense to have a different price point if you have a different feature set. Jobs would always bring up the iPod shuffle to make that point. I think Cook has too. Aluminum vs. plastic isn't a meaningful choice. Presumably the mistake here was thinking they'd sell a bigger percentage of this "new" phone than if they'd sold last years phone, but they didn't.
This was always the end game. Apple offered Samsung the same terms it gave Microsoft and settled on with HTC and they refused, preferring to simply violate Apple's IP, and that was why Apple sued. The media picked up on the "thermonuclear war" quote from the Isaacson book, probably with Samsung and Google's encouragement, and pushed the narrative that Apple wanted to "destroy" Android. This despite the fact that in the book, Jobs works out his differences with Larry Page,...
Every big, lumbering, uncreative tech company has a lab. They're all doing stuff like Google. It's not hard to buy up researchers and their projects when you're flush with cash. The most you can say about it is that Google pays better than Stanford. You hear about Google's research, rather than everyone else's, because Google controls online advertising and has an especially cosy relationship with the media. The most likely outcome of Google taking away so much research...
I have to admit, I miss the bookshelves. It no longer feels like a "place". I like iOS 7, but everything looks so lifeless now. I hope they'll work more on making each app feel like it's own thing, rather than being generic iOS 7.
In China and the rest of the developing world, the Android open source project is used for anything with a display. It's a free modern OS, so it sees a lot of applications. I think IDC is counting all these devices as tablets. The way they're shuffling numbers around makes it look like they have some sort of proxy for estimating the total number of Android devices sold, then they divide those up into smartphones and tablets, and then divide those up into different brands....
Yes!Let's look at Google's strategy:1. Blatantly copy another company's product2. Give it away for free in order to destroy the market for companies that might exclude Google services from their phones3. Slowly make it proprietary piece by piece in order to control partners once they're dependent on it#1 was bad, but common. #2 was a nasty, cynical move, remiscent of the tactics that almost got Microosft broken up. #3 is just evil.
 The list is of the countries asking for data. All the terrorist-hunting requests would be included in the US listing.
You're right about zooming into apps. My mistake. But the way the apps fly onto the screen at different speeds is new, they used to just zoom in altogether.
New Posts  All Forums: