PS: I just "discovered" that you can copy an image URL in iOS. Long press on image then press Copy, Paste in address bar to display URL, then Select All, then Copy. Now you can Paste it anywhere. Am I just really late to the party here or I did I stumble upon so,etching obscure in iOS?
PS: I just "discovered" that you can copy an image URL in iOS. Long press on image then press Copy, Paste in address bar to display URL, then Select All, then Copy. Now you can Paste it anywhere. Am I just really late to the party here or I did I stumble upon so,etching obscure in iOS?
Might be late to the party. Annoys me that you have to paste it in the address bar to get the URL though.
i just figured out that you can upload photos via Safari. How long has that been in iOS?
Question to you, why participate in these forums, when its obvious you don't care for apple. Seems like you have a lot of time on your hands, just to argue on a forum that you don not favor. Pretty interesting on your character, do you often like wasting time, do you do anything productive with your life?
He's being productive. He gets paid to post here, that's how he makes his living. That's also how he is able to spend so much time here, so much time scouring for links (although he doesn't do that good a job with that), and why he only posts on threads where Google or Android are concerned, and why you know he'll be along soon when there is one of those threads. Usually, the bigger the negative for Google, the faster he posts. When there's a big negative Google/Android story AI hasn't posted yet, but is out there, he'll be in the first 5 posters because he's just waiting for it to show up so he can go into PR spin mode. Gatorguy has never met a fact he couldn't twist.
Yet the worst that happens is you receive a relevant ad. No threatening letters, no blackmail, no late night calls to your significant other, no messages to your boss on your after-work activities. No dossier on your travels, no reporting to the IRS, no mysterious men-in-black.
No, serving up ads is practically a "who cares". The worst that can happen?
- Goog management changes (and that WILL happen), bringing usage and policy changes;
- laws can change to allow unfettered access to that data by any government agency (probably will happen at some point, given the trajectory our nation is on);
- big break-ins do happen (has already happened at some level, by Chinese interests)
There are many bad things that can happen merely by having that amount of detailed data available in one place. And no, you're not seeing all the data when you look at your dashboard. I know even you don't believe that.
Personally I find Facebook much more intrusive, and seemingly for unclear reasons that go beyond serving up relevant ads. If Google was still bed partners with Apple there would be few if any complaints about them, just as few here complain about Facebook.
Facebook is just as bad, in fact I'd say their attitude about privacy is even worse than Google. Google at least attempts to not hand off everyone's data to anyone that wants it. But that's very different from saying it's a good idea to have all that data in one place.
The difference is that, with a bit of effort, one can almost completely stay invisible from Facebook. Just don't use their service, and install a few filters in your browser, etc. Because of the level of integration Google has with other sites and services on the internet, especially email, that's nearly impossible, even for a dedicated, diligent person.
Let me ask a simple question:
If Google is so evil, stealing every bit of information they can from you, intruding on your privacy at every opportunity, why is Apple turning you over to them in return for 30 pieces of silver? What would that make Apple?
I don't expect a single one of the resident fear-mongers to answer those questions. I doubt any of them have the cajones.
No, mostly people aren't going to respond to you because you've made it clear that your views are so one-sided that it's generally not worth arguing.
But I'll bite. A little.
As others have already said, there's a huge difference between integrating another company's top-notch service into your product and having your entire business model dependent upon being a giant hoover of private data. I don't think anyone would argue that Google search wasn't the best general-purpose search engine in the world at the time it was hooked into iOS, and it probably still is (though the differential has certainly decreased) for most people. Regardless of any payments, Apple chose the path that gave their users the best product. They made a counter-mistake with Maps, but it was more about premature delivery than strategy. Google wouldn't provide the same mapping services to iOS that they did for Android, so it was again clear that Apple at least tries to act in the best interest of their customers.
So here's the bottom line, and we'll see if you have the cajones to address this:
I'm not company-biased or hypocritical. NO ONE should have the kind of personal profile data that a handful of companies are accumulating, and that includes Apple.
But I can, and do, use Apple's products without giving them a single bit of personal data. Ever. Yes, it takes a bit of effort, but can you do that with Google? No, it's impossible because their entire business model is dependent on that data. They are very, very clever about how they marry data from various sources together, and because of the high level of integration across many services and the vast majority of web sites, they are in a unique position to do this. Apple makes most of their money from hardware sales (which you can buy at thousands of locations, with good old cash if you like), secondarily from services that you don't need to use, or can use anonymously (with iTunes cards, for example, you don't even need to use a real name).
THAT is why Apple is a better company from a privacy standpoint than Google.
Knowledge is power. Fear is often the result of lack of knowledge.
Unfortunately, this is a case of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" ! ;-)
1. Location. Some have expressed the idea that "Google knows everywhere you go". Well, not unless you use one of their services, and you've enabled location. Similarily, doing a Siri search tells Apple where you are as well. In either case, just turn off your location. Sometimes I do that; most often I do want localized search results.
Please tell me you understand that Location Services are just one way for Google to track your location. WiFi access points, email content, etc. are all used to determine not only your current location, but your likely soon-to-be locations. Perhaps you don't care, but Google is really, really good at this stuff. It's part of how they make billions of dollars every year while other search engines struggle.
When the government wants to know where you've been, they usually go straight to the phone companies instead. For anything else, both Apple and Google terms of service state they cooperate with legal requests.
About going straight to the phone companies, this is absolutely true, and in some cases it's a serious concern (requests without warrants). But at least the government has some legal restrictions on what/how/who, and there are obvious cases where it's in the public interest for them to acquire that data. Neither of which is true with for-profit, unregulated companies being the front-line gatherers of this data. Not to mention that what Google gathers is much, much more than just location data. It's location data along with everything else they can possibly piece together.
2. What info have they have stored about us, and can we delete it.
Sign into your https://www.google.com/dashboard/ and you can see and edit all your searches, profile. You can even empty or disable custom voice files that are used to help with your own recognition. (Apple also stores such files.)
Then open a window to http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/ and you can see, and edit, the profile they use for serving up ads to you, and even opt out of personalized ads altogether.
You'd probably be surprised how boring your profile actually is.
I hope you don't really believe that your dashboard profile is everything Google has gathered about you. Seriously? That's just the stuff they want you to see, and the stuff they allow you to edit or remove, so of course it's boring! Please.
If you still worry about Google, then just don't use their services. Problem solved. However, a lot of us prefer Google over other search engines.
If you think it's easy to not use their services, then you don't understand how broadly and deeply Google is integrated across the net. Adwords/adsense, analytics, various other bits of code and tools that they provide hosting "free of charge" but can use for analytics. The list is a mile long. Yes, their search engine is really good, but that's only one piece of the big picture.
Note: you can get all the benefit of Google's search engine without being tracked by merely using a proxy service like startpage.com. Just don't click on the sponsored search result links. There are other options as well, like duckduckgo.com. Check 'em out.
What I do when I want to make some private searches on a shared family tablet, is simply open a new search page that I'm not signed in on. I also turn off search history in the settings link at the bottom of the page. Then the searches are not associated with my account, and they're not remembered,
Instead of being fearful, take control.
Again, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Do you seriously think that works? It requires extra steps by Google, and it's not perfect, but they have literally thousands of PhDs that make their living figuring out how to profile people, including multiple individuals that use the same computer. They don't need to you to be signed into any account to associate your internet behavior with you, as an individual. I think you'd be surprised at what these guys can do with the incredible resources at their disposal. It's very cool stuff, technically, but because of how good they are, it's also very scary.
At least if you're doing stuff like that you're paying some attention to the problem, so for that you can have a small pat on the back. Just know that you're bailing water with a thimble. Hell, we all are. :-(
So here's the bottom line, and we'll see if you have the cajones to address this:
I'm not company-biased or hypocritical. NO ONE should have the kind of personal profile data that a handful of companies are accumulating, and that includes Apple.
But I can, and do, use Apple's products without giving them a single bit of personal data. Ever. Yes, it takes a bit of effort, but can you do that with Google? No, it's impossible because their entire business model is dependent on that data. They are very, very clever about how they marry data from various sources together, and because of the high level of integration across many services and the vast majority of web sites, they are in a unique position to do this. Apple makes most of their money from hardware sales (which you can buy at thousands of locations, with good old cash if you like), secondarily from services that you don't need to use, or can use anonymously (with iTunes cards, for example, you don't even need to use a real name).
THAT is why Apple is a better company from a privacy standpoint than Google.
That's a fair outlook too. I completely agree that avoiding Google services is much harder than avoiding Apple. I also agree with you that there's potential danger with a relative handful of companies being privy to a lot of personal data.
With that said I don't see a major problem with Google's current use of anonymized data for ad delivery. On a privacy danger scale of 1 to 10 it might rate a 2. Could it someday, somehow become more of a problem in some future time and place? Absolutely. So could Apple's data gathering. They could change hands just as well as Google. Is there a real danger today or tomorrow or the next day? I don't believe there is.
There's zero evidence that Google uses what it gathers for anything more than targeted ad delivery, and absolutely nothing to indicate that personal data is ever sold to 3rd parties or that "where you are" personally is ever shared outside of Google. It's not impossible that some day that could change, but in the here and now it's just about advertising which is hardly fearsome.
Can you run the Chromebook without an Internet connection, like when you're on an airplane or somewhere out in the woods? If not, how can you even compare it to a Macbook Air? The engineers who think they can create a great user experience in a browser must be as "high" as the "cloud".
So the Verge just put up their review. Gave it a 7.5 out of 10 even though they said no one should buy it. Guy doing the review said it was the best designed laptop he's ever used, with the best screen keyboard and trackpad ever. I guess now we know why the Verge was given access to Google Glass. http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/25/4023830/google-chromebook-pixel-review
I know I have an Apple bias, but man there are other laptops besides a Mac I'd place ahead of this in the design department, like ones from Sony, Lenovo and Asus. Being completely objective I'm trying to understand what's so great about this design? It's basically ripping off the unibody MacBook (including thumb scoop) with just a more squared off look we saw from laptops 5+ years ago. I don't get it.
That's almost as good as the iPhone 4's 90+ across the board from Consumer Reports, despite them saying not to buy it.
Interesting that a weekend after the Verge had Google Glass plastered all over their website they put out an overly positive review of this laptop. Hmmm...
And the reviewer claims: "nearly every single person walking by my aisle looked at the Pixel as they passed. One guy even did a double-take, screeching to a halt in the aisle as if he’d seen a ghost in seat 17G.”
We're really supposed to believe this? Sorry but I call BS on that one.
Interesting that a weekend after the Verge had Google Glass plastered all over their website they put out an overly positive review of this laptop. Hmmm...
And the reviewer claims: "nearly every single person walking by my aisle looked at the Pixel as they passed. One guy even did a double-take, screeching to a halt in the aisle as if he’d seen a ghost in seat 17G.”
We're really supposed to believe this? Sorry but I call BS on that one.
The review also showed that the thing can't even play back local 1080P video files without major stuttering. This is somehow acceptable on a $1400 laptop?!
Literally the only redeeming factor of chrome notebooks was the price. Literally. Otherwise, why would anyone choose such a crippled, limited, and inferior OS to OSX or Windows? I don't see a single potential buyer for this thing apart from Google faboys, geeks, or people with money to burn who just want to try something new. The value proposition is just utterly absurd. I justified the price of my Macbook Air by the fact that I'm a designer, and do ALL my work on it. As it stands now, the pixel is a well built but near useless machine.
The review also showed that the thing can't even play back local 1080P video files without major stuttering. This is somehow acceptable on a $1400 laptop?!
Literally the only redeeming factor of chrome notebooks was the price. Literally. Otherwise, why would anyone choose such a crippled, limited, and inferior OS to OSX or Windows? I don't see a single potential buyer for this thing apart from Google faboys, geeks, or people with money to burn who just want to try something new. The value proposition is just utterly absurd. I justified the price of my Macbook Air by the fact that I'm a designer, and do ALL my work on it. As it stands now, the pixel is a well built but near useless machine.
Amazing how often Apple has been knocked for being about form over function. Yet everyone who's drooling over this laptop seems to be doing do for the same reason.
Last year in an interview Jony Ive said: "It’s a very strange thing for a designer to say, but one of the things that really irritates me in products is when I’m aware of designers wagging their tails in my face."
Seems to me this is exactly what Google is doing. All the praise this laptop is getting is over its design, not functionality.
And the reviewer claims: "nearly every single person walking by my aisle looked at the Pixel as they passed. One guy even did a double-take, screeching to a halt in the aisle as if he’d seen a ghost in seat 17G.”
Amazing how often Apple has been knocked for being about form over function. Yet everyone who's drooling over this laptop seems to be doing do for the same reason.
Last year in an interview Jony Ive said: "It’s a very strange thing for a designer to say, but one of the things that really irritates me in products is when I’m aware of designers wagging their tails in my face."
Seems to me this is exactly what Google is doing. All the praise this laptop is getting is over its design, not functionality.
I guess I was referring to the tech site reviews I've seen so far. I readily admit I have a Apple bias, but honestly this design does nothing for me.
Nor me. I personally think the Samsung Chromebook at $250 might be a worthwhile investment, tho Samsung on the cover makes it a non-starter for many here. The Pixel at $1400?? No thanks. Nice display tho.
This is a discussion of how stupid it is for Google to nearly force customers into paying for their cloud services by including less storage than computers had over 10 years ago.
iCloud is optional. Macs include plenty of useable storage.
This google thing includes Wii U storage. 32 GB
But charges an arm and a leg for it.
Let's see... you get to pay very high prices for...
1) A nasty looking computer that has fail design cues like it being basically a rectangle, the hinge and a rainbow colored logo. -
2) An OS that hearkens back to the draconian IBM mainframe days, where there was no person computer. It was just server and client. -
3) No support for the apps you actually want and need to use. -
4) a nice screen. +
5) 32 GB of LOCAL storage. -
6) Time-limited free google server storage (another mainframe, or "cloud" tie-in. And likely in the license, an opportunity for Google to peek into your files and advertise to you some more). Is this a plus or a minus? See point number 5.
Yeah... No thanks.
For the money, you can get the best OS in OS X, use real apps, have your own files stored on your own PERSONAL computer, have the nice screen, and a great looking design.
Basically, this google thing has no reason to exist. And no one will buy it. It exists simply so that google can say "hey, we have a couple more pixels than Apple." To drive the point home, they named it Pixel (should be named pixie dust for all the dust it will gather on shelves). It is not a worthy computer. It is a google brag point (speaking of the screen. Everything else pretty much sucks.)
The sad part about that is, this product will end up being called a failure.
Comments
[indent][IMG]http://www.maclife.com/files/u32/2010/07/0715_bing2_380.jpg[/IMG][/indent]
PS: I just "discovered" that you can copy an image URL in iOS. Long press on image then press Copy, Paste in address bar to display URL, then Select All, then Copy. Now you can Paste it anywhere. Am I just really late to the party here or I did I stumble upon so,etching obscure in iOS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
And...
PS: I just "discovered" that you can copy an image URL in iOS. Long press on image then press Copy, Paste in address bar to display URL, then Select All, then Copy. Now you can Paste it anywhere. Am I just really late to the party here or I did I stumble upon so,etching obscure in iOS?
Might be late to the party.
i just figured out that you can upload photos via Safari. How long has that been in iOS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic
Question to you, why participate in these forums, when its obvious you don't care for apple. Seems like you have a lot of time on your hands, just to argue on a forum that you don not favor. Pretty interesting on your character, do you often like wasting time, do you do anything productive with your life?
He's being productive. He gets paid to post here, that's how he makes his living. That's also how he is able to spend so much time here, so much time scouring for links (although he doesn't do that good a job with that), and why he only posts on threads where Google or Android are concerned, and why you know he'll be along soon when there is one of those threads. Usually, the bigger the negative for Google, the faster he posts. When there's a big negative Google/Android story AI hasn't posted yet, but is out there, he'll be in the first 5 posters because he's just waiting for it to show up so he can go into PR spin mode. Gatorguy has never met a fact he couldn't twist.
It looks like it came with iOS 6.
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Yet the worst that happens is you receive a relevant ad. No threatening letters, no blackmail, no late night calls to your significant other, no messages to your boss on your after-work activities. No dossier on your travels, no reporting to the IRS, no mysterious men-in-black.
No, serving up ads is practically a "who cares". The worst that can happen?
- Goog management changes (and that WILL happen), bringing usage and policy changes;
- laws can change to allow unfettered access to that data by any government agency (probably will happen at some point, given the trajectory our nation is on);
- big break-ins do happen (has already happened at some level, by Chinese interests)
There are many bad things that can happen merely by having that amount of detailed data available in one place. And no, you're not seeing all the data when you look at your dashboard. I know even you don't believe that.
Personally I find Facebook much more intrusive, and seemingly for unclear reasons that go beyond serving up relevant ads. If Google was still bed partners with Apple there would be few if any complaints about them, just as few here complain about Facebook.
Facebook is just as bad, in fact I'd say their attitude about privacy is even worse than Google. Google at least attempts to not hand off everyone's data to anyone that wants it. But that's very different from saying it's a good idea to have all that data in one place.
The difference is that, with a bit of effort, one can almost completely stay invisible from Facebook. Just don't use their service, and install a few filters in your browser, etc. Because of the level of integration Google has with other sites and services on the internet, especially email, that's nearly impossible, even for a dedicated, diligent person.
Let me ask a simple question:
If Google is so evil, stealing every bit of information they can from you, intruding on your privacy at every opportunity, why is Apple turning you over to them in return for 30 pieces of silver? What would that make Apple?
I don't expect a single one of the resident fear-mongers to answer those questions. I doubt any of them have the cajones.
No, mostly people aren't going to respond to you because you've made it clear that your views are so one-sided that it's generally not worth arguing.
But I'll bite. A little.
As others have already said, there's a huge difference between integrating another company's top-notch service into your product and having your entire business model dependent upon being a giant hoover of private data. I don't think anyone would argue that Google search wasn't the best general-purpose search engine in the world at the time it was hooked into iOS, and it probably still is (though the differential has certainly decreased) for most people. Regardless of any payments, Apple chose the path that gave their users the best product. They made a counter-mistake with Maps, but it was more about premature delivery than strategy. Google wouldn't provide the same mapping services to iOS that they did for Android, so it was again clear that Apple at least tries to act in the best interest of their customers.
So here's the bottom line, and we'll see if you have the cajones to address this:
I'm not company-biased or hypocritical. NO ONE should have the kind of personal profile data that a handful of companies are accumulating, and that includes Apple.
But I can, and do, use Apple's products without giving them a single bit of personal data. Ever. Yes, it takes a bit of effort, but can you do that with Google? No, it's impossible because their entire business model is dependent on that data. They are very, very clever about how they marry data from various sources together, and because of the high level of integration across many services and the vast majority of web sites, they are in a unique position to do this. Apple makes most of their money from hardware sales (which you can buy at thousands of locations, with good old cash if you like), secondarily from services that you don't need to use, or can use anonymously (with iTunes cards, for example, you don't even need to use a real name).
THAT is why Apple is a better company from a privacy standpoint than Google.
Originally Posted by KDarling
Knowledge is power. Fear is often the result of lack of knowledge.
Unfortunately, this is a case of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" ! ;-)
1. Location. Some have expressed the idea that "Google knows everywhere you go". Well, not unless you use one of their services, and you've enabled location. Similarily, doing a Siri search tells Apple where you are as well. In either case, just turn off your location. Sometimes I do that; most often I do want localized search results.
Please tell me you understand that Location Services are just one way for Google to track your location. WiFi access points, email content, etc. are all used to determine not only your current location, but your likely soon-to-be locations. Perhaps you don't care, but Google is really, really good at this stuff. It's part of how they make billions of dollars every year while other search engines struggle.
When the government wants to know where you've been, they usually go straight to the phone companies instead. For anything else, both Apple and Google terms of service state they cooperate with legal requests.
About going straight to the phone companies, this is absolutely true, and in some cases it's a serious concern (requests without warrants). But at least the government has some legal restrictions on what/how/who, and there are obvious cases where it's in the public interest for them to acquire that data. Neither of which is true with for-profit, unregulated companies being the front-line gatherers of this data. Not to mention that what Google gathers is much, much more than just location data. It's location data along with everything else they can possibly piece together.
2. What info have they have stored about us, and can we delete it.
Sign into your https://www.google.com/dashboard/ and you can see and edit all your searches, profile. You can even empty or disable custom voice files that are used to help with your own recognition. (Apple also stores such files.)
Then open a window to http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/ and you can see, and edit, the profile they use for serving up ads to you, and even opt out of personalized ads altogether.
You'd probably be surprised how boring your profile actually is.
I hope you don't really believe that your dashboard profile is everything Google has gathered about you. Seriously? That's just the stuff they want you to see, and the stuff they allow you to edit or remove, so of course it's boring! Please.
If you still worry about Google, then just don't use their services. Problem solved. However, a lot of us prefer Google over other search engines.
If you think it's easy to not use their services, then you don't understand how broadly and deeply Google is integrated across the net. Adwords/adsense, analytics, various other bits of code and tools that they provide hosting "free of charge" but can use for analytics. The list is a mile long. Yes, their search engine is really good, but that's only one piece of the big picture.
Note: you can get all the benefit of Google's search engine without being tracked by merely using a proxy service like startpage.com. Just don't click on the sponsored search result links. There are other options as well, like duckduckgo.com. Check 'em out.
What I do when I want to make some private searches on a shared family tablet, is simply open a new search page that I'm not signed in on. I also turn off search history in the settings link at the bottom of the page. Then the searches are not associated with my account, and they're not remembered,
Instead of being fearful, take control.
Again, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Do you seriously think that works? It requires extra steps by Google, and it's not perfect, but they have literally thousands of PhDs that make their living figuring out how to profile people, including multiple individuals that use the same computer. They don't need to you to be signed into any account to associate your internet behavior with you, as an individual. I think you'd be surprised at what these guys can do with the incredible resources at their disposal. It's very cool stuff, technically, but because of how good they are, it's also very scary.
At least if you're doing stuff like that you're paying some attention to the problem, so for that you can have a small pat on the back. Just know that you're bailing water with a thimble. Hell, we all are. :-(
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64
So here's the bottom line, and we'll see if you have the cajones to address this:
I'm not company-biased or hypocritical. NO ONE should have the kind of personal profile data that a handful of companies are accumulating, and that includes Apple.
But I can, and do, use Apple's products without giving them a single bit of personal data. Ever. Yes, it takes a bit of effort, but can you do that with Google? No, it's impossible because their entire business model is dependent on that data. They are very, very clever about how they marry data from various sources together, and because of the high level of integration across many services and the vast majority of web sites, they are in a unique position to do this. Apple makes most of their money from hardware sales (which you can buy at thousands of locations, with good old cash if you like), secondarily from services that you don't need to use, or can use anonymously (with iTunes cards, for example, you don't even need to use a real name).
THAT is why Apple is a better company from a privacy standpoint than Google.
That's a fair outlook too. I completely agree that avoiding Google services is much harder than avoiding Apple. I also agree with you that there's potential danger with a relative handful of companies being privy to a lot of personal data.
With that said I don't see a major problem with Google's current use of anonymized data for ad delivery. On a privacy danger scale of 1 to 10 it might rate a 2. Could it someday, somehow become more of a problem in some future time and place? Absolutely. So could Apple's data gathering. They could change hands just as well as Google. Is there a real danger today or tomorrow or the next day? I don't believe there is.
There's zero evidence that Google uses what it gathers for anything more than targeted ad delivery, and absolutely nothing to indicate that personal data is ever sold to 3rd parties or that "where you are" personally is ever shared outside of Google. It's not impossible that some day that could change, but in the here and now it's just about advertising which is hardly fearsome.
Originally Posted by KDMeister
Can you run the Chromebook without an Internet connection, like when you're on an airplane or somewhere out in the woods?
Sounds like a 'yes' to that, but you're obviously just limited to the contents of the onboard 32GB of storage.
So the Verge just put up their review. Gave it a 7.5 out of 10 even though they said no one should buy it. Guy doing the review said it was the best designed laptop he's ever used, with the best screen keyboard and trackpad ever. I guess now we know why the Verge was given access to Google Glass. http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/25/4023830/google-chromebook-pixel-review
I know I have an Apple bias, but man there are other laptops besides a Mac I'd place ahead of this in the design department, like ones from Sony, Lenovo and Asus. Being completely objective I'm trying to understand what's so great about this design? It's basically ripping off the unibody MacBook (including thumb scoop) with just a more squared off look we saw from laptops 5+ years ago. I don't get it.
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Gave it a 7.5 out of 10 even though they said no one should buy it.
That's almost as good as the iPhone 4's 90+ across the board from Consumer Reports, despite them saying not to buy it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That's almost as good as the iPhone 4's 90+ across the board from Consumer Reports, despite them saying not to buy it.
Interesting that a weekend after the Verge had Google Glass plastered all over their website they put out an overly positive review of this laptop. Hmmm...
And the reviewer claims: "nearly every single person walking by my aisle looked at the Pixel as they passed. One guy even did a double-take, screeching to a halt in the aisle as if he’d seen a ghost in seat 17G.”
We're really supposed to believe this? Sorry but I call BS on that one.
Engadget has pictures up comparing the Chromebook Pixel to the 13" rMBP. Does Google have no shame?! http://www.engadget.com/gallery/chromebook-pixel-vs-13-inch-macbook-pro-with-retina
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Interesting that a weekend after the Verge had Google Glass plastered all over their website they put out an overly positive review of this laptop. Hmmm...
And the reviewer claims: "nearly every single person walking by my aisle looked at the Pixel as they passed. One guy even did a double-take, screeching to a halt in the aisle as if he’d seen a ghost in seat 17G.”
We're really supposed to believe this? Sorry but I call BS on that one.
Engadget has pictures up comparing the Chromebook Pixel to the 13" rMBP. Does Google have no shame?! http://www.engadget.com/gallery/chromebook-pixel-vs-13-inch-macbook-pro-with-retina
The review also showed that the thing can't even play back local 1080P video files without major stuttering. This is somehow acceptable on a $1400 laptop?!
Literally the only redeeming factor of chrome notebooks was the price. Literally. Otherwise, why would anyone choose such a crippled, limited, and inferior OS to OSX or Windows? I don't see a single potential buyer for this thing apart from Google faboys, geeks, or people with money to burn who just want to try something new. The value proposition is just utterly absurd. I justified the price of my Macbook Air by the fact that I'm a designer, and do ALL my work on it. As it stands now, the pixel is a well built but near useless machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
The review also showed that the thing can't even play back local 1080P video files without major stuttering. This is somehow acceptable on a $1400 laptop?!
Literally the only redeeming factor of chrome notebooks was the price. Literally. Otherwise, why would anyone choose such a crippled, limited, and inferior OS to OSX or Windows? I don't see a single potential buyer for this thing apart from Google faboys, geeks, or people with money to burn who just want to try something new. The value proposition is just utterly absurd. I justified the price of my Macbook Air by the fact that I'm a designer, and do ALL my work on it. As it stands now, the pixel is a well built but near useless machine.
Amazing how often Apple has been knocked for being about form over function. Yet everyone who's drooling over this laptop seems to be doing do for the same reason.
Last year in an interview Jony Ive said: "It’s a very strange thing for a designer to say, but one of the things that really irritates me in products is when I’m aware of designers wagging their tails in my face."
Seems to me this is exactly what Google is doing. All the praise this laptop is getting is over its design, not functionality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
And the reviewer claims: "nearly every single person walking by my aisle looked at the Pixel as they passed. One guy even did a double-take, screeching to a halt in the aisle as if he’d seen a ghost in seat 17G.”
He then commented, "Jeez, that's fugly."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Amazing how often Apple has been knocked for being about form over function. Yet everyone who's drooling over this laptop seems to be doing do for the same reason.
Last year in an interview Jony Ive said: "It’s a very strange thing for a designer to say, but one of the things that really irritates me in products is when I’m aware of designers wagging their tails in my face."
Seems to me this is exactly what Google is doing. All the praise this laptop is getting is over its design, not functionality.
I don't see anything special about the design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I don't see anything special about the design.
I guess I was referring to the tech site reviews I've seen so far. I readily admit I have a Apple bias, but honestly this design does nothing for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I guess I was referring to the tech site reviews I've seen so far. I readily admit I have a Apple bias, but honestly this design does nothing for me.
Nor me. I personally think the Samsung Chromebook at $250 might be a worthwhile investment, tho Samsung on the cover makes it a non-starter for many here. The Pixel at $1400?? No thanks. Nice display tho.
http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/pc-mac/laptops-portable-pcs/laptops-and-netbooks/samsung-series-3-chromebook-1111354/review
LOL
This isn't a comparison of cloud services.
This is a discussion of how stupid it is for Google to nearly force customers into paying for their cloud services by including less storage than computers had over 10 years ago.
iCloud is optional. Macs include plenty of useable storage.
This google thing includes Wii U storage. 32 GB
But charges an arm and a leg for it.
Let's see... you get to pay very high prices for...
1) A nasty looking computer that has fail design cues like it being basically a rectangle, the hinge and a rainbow colored logo. -
2) An OS that hearkens back to the draconian IBM mainframe days, where there was no person computer. It was just server and client. -
3) No support for the apps you actually want and need to use. -
4) a nice screen. +
5) 32 GB of LOCAL storage. -
6) Time-limited free google server storage (another mainframe, or "cloud" tie-in. And likely in the license, an opportunity for Google to peek into your files and advertise to you some more). Is this a plus or a minus? See point number 5.
Yeah... No thanks.
For the money, you can get the best OS in OS X, use real apps, have your own files stored on your own PERSONAL computer, have the nice screen, and a great looking design.
Basically, this google thing has no reason to exist. And no one will buy it. It exists simply so that google can say "hey, we have a couple more pixels than Apple." To drive the point home, they named it Pixel (should be named pixie dust for all the dust it will gather on shelves). It is not a worthy computer. It is a google brag point (speaking of the screen. Everything else pretty much sucks.)
The sad part about that is, this product will end up being called a failure.