or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by AsianBob

  What's with these pants comments?  I took a demo model of the Note 2 and put it in my pocket to see once and for all whether these "bigger pants" jokes held any water.  Sure it was slightly more visible than the iPhone 5, but it hardly required bigger pockets than what's standard for pants.  I didn't feel the Note 2 added any movement or sitting inconvenience.
  I'll willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but a Note 2 is too big of a big ticket item to have just a local promotion, in my opinion.  But Verizon has done weirder things...   Again, even if it were just local, I'd have expected the Android blogs to pick up on it.  When the Galaxy Nexus was about to release on Verizon, they picked up on select customers getting local-only flyers in the mail for immediate discounts and even moving upgrade dates up and were...
  I have to agree with gwmac.  So far,I've only seen an offer for BOGO on the flip case that goes with the Note 2 from Verizon.  If I recall right, it was a quick blurb after that Lebron James commercial.   Are you sure you didn't mishear?  If there really was a BOGO on the Note 2 itself, I would think it would be plastered all over Verizon's website.  They did it for the last few "big name" phones...   Not to mention that not a single one of the Android tech blogs have...
  The world does end tomorrow...  Maybe it'll be a zombie apocalypse and he'll be part of it.    Too soon?
  Truth as defined by you?
  If that were true, then what makes you believe that other companies aren't doing the same thing with the "switch that does nothing"?   I know it's only anecdotal evidence, but so far, I haven't seen anything bad come of the data Google collects on my browsing habits.  Maybe some better targeted ads based on what I've recently searched, but nothing more.
  And I'm glad there everyone settled on a fine instead of dragging this out in court, wasting taxpayers time.  The thing is that without a proper trial, all we have is allegations.  Maybe in a full trial it would have been proven that the cookies were inadvertantly generated.   I'm not going to claim that Google is 100% transparent (as these incidents show).  However, compared to many other companies out there, Google's is a lot more transparent.  Just the fact that...
  I would say that in a way, it still does.  What Google was going for was to add a +1 to the ads that they were already serving to the users.  If that's all Google was doing and the cookies were accidentally generated (as Google claims), then I see this more as fearmongering than anything.  The +1 feature is hardly invading anyone's privacy.
  I think those court cases were less about what Google was going to do with the information, rather more of how Google gathered the information.   Should Google have done that?  I'd say no.  But what Google would have done with the information is still pretty transparent.
  And the original app was created by Apple, not Google.  The only thing Google did was provide the background data.  If you want to blame someone for the dumbed down app, blame Apple.
New Posts  All Forums: