Google prepping 'Android TV' set-top box with stripped-down interface, voice input and notifications

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 152
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member
    hill60 wrote: »
    When you said you can buy an iPad NOW, which won't run the latest version of iOS.

    I hope you're just trolling.

    You misreading my post != Me actually saying it.
  • Reply 122 of 152
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post





    I hope you're just trolling.



    You misreading my post != Me actually saying it.

     

    So you meant one model of iPad that stopped selling years ago vs Android tablets which are currently available?

  • Reply 123 of 152
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Have you ever said "that's the low end of high end"? I know I have plenty of times.

    The context seemed clear to me that we're talking about the market as a whole.
  • Reply 124 of 152
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post





    I hope you're just trolling.

     

    The person who thinks sales data created by statistical firms uses old devices bought off craigslist and eBay as a source accuses someone else for trolling.  The irony.

  • Reply 125 of 152
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    The context seemed clear to me that we're talking about the market as a whole.

    You thought wrong. For most people the tablet market consisted only of the iPad at first. So for them the lowest priced iPad would've been the low end of the market, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a 'low-end' device in terms of build quality, and usability.
  • Reply 126 of 152
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member
    andysol wrote: »
    The person who thinks sales data created by statistical firms uses old devices bought off craigslist and eBay as a source accuses someone else for trolling.  The irony.

    LOL! You're taking the whole misrepresenting what I say to a whole new level! I'm not even sure that one counts as misrepresentation. I think we've moved to outright lying by making stuff up with that one.
  • Reply 127 of 152
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    You thought wrong. For most people the tablet market consisted only of the iPad at first. So for them the lowest priced iPad would've been the low end of the market, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a 'low-end' device in terms of build quality, and usability.

     

    Solipsism didn't "think wrong."  If you meant something else, then you expressed yourself poorly.  It was, in the context of your statement, clear what you meant -- though, maybe it was clear to everyone except you.

  • Reply 128 of 152
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post





    You're taking the whole misrepresenting what I say to a whole new level!

    No one has a clue what you're saying anymore because you've moved the target so many times, no one knows where to shoot!

  • Reply 129 of 152
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    aaronj wrote: »
    Solipsism didn't "think wrong."  If you meant something else, then you expressed yourself poorly.  It was, in the context of your statement, clear what you meant -- though, maybe it was clear to everyone except you.

    What part of this is poorly expressed?
    Since Apple was the only game for a while then the cheapest (in price) option would be the low end, but not necessarily because it's in any way worse than the high end. In this instance price is the only determining factor.

    While Apple wasn't technically the only game in town most people didn't know that. What's perceived is often greater than what's real.
  • Reply 130 of 152
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    512ke wrote: »
    Google's TV strategy may be complex and a bit messy at this point, but there is no denying Google is a monster competitor for Apple.

    Apple used to control the smart phone and tablet markets. Now Apple is a minority player, and a shrinking one internationally, in both of those markets.

    Of course, that's not 100% due to Google, but Google is a primary reason or at least a primary part of the reason that iOS no longer dominates any market in which it competes.

    I personally would love to see Apple triumph in TV, but recent history doesn't suggest that Apple can fend off its more nimble and hasty competitors that well especially on a global level.

    When did Apple control the smart phone market? That's news to me.
  • Reply 131 of 152
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    You thought wrong. For most people the tablet market consisted only of the iPad at first. So for them the lowest priced iPad would've been the low end of the market, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a 'low-end' device in terms of build quality, and usability.

    I'm pretty sure this discussion started with claims of Android-based tablets trouncing Apple. Whether people believe Apple invented the tablet (or smartphone) is irrelevant to the fact that most Android-based devices are are clearly inferior devices in both HW and OS which must account, at least in part, for their abhorrent usage numbers.
  • Reply 132 of 152
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    [SIZE=4][B]The Six Stages of Apple Device Denial:[/B][/SIZE]

    [LIST=1]
    [*] "Apple will never be able to make a dent because the market is already saturated with better devices."
    [*] "Apple fanatics are buying all the Apple's devices."
    [*] "Apple is only good at marketing which is why idiots who don't understand technology are buying these inferior devices."
    [*] "Apple is only successful because everyone else buys their devices."
    [*] "Apple has lost its way because they aren't releasing new products like they did with (previous) devices."
    [*] "Apple had all the marketshare when they created this device but now they are losing it to others with better devices."
    [/LIST]
  • Reply 133 of 152
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    What part of this is poorly expressed?

    While Apple wasn't technically the only game in town most people didn't know that. What's perceived is often greater than what's real.

     

    So, since the space shuttle was the only thing of its kind, it was at the low end?

     

    Apple has never played in the low end of pool.  They aren't interested in selling a gazillion gadgets with razor thin margins.  Apple has never been the "low end."  It's that simple.

     

    When Apple starts tossing out minimum-speced, poorly constructed and designed junk at a 1% margin, flooding a particular market, then you can say that they are at the low end.  But we both know that isn't going to happen.

  • Reply 134 of 152
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure this discussion started with claims of Android-based tablets trouncing Apple. Whether people believe Apple invented the tablet (or smartphone) is irrelevant to the fact that most Android-based devices are are clearly inferior devices in both HW and OS which must account, at least in part, for their abhorrent usage numbers.

    I never denied that. My contention was that any market no matter how high end has a low end.
  • Reply 135 of 152
    maccherrymaccherry Posts: 924member
    Monkey see monkey effing do!
    Google tried their hand at this bullish** a few years ago and it stanked up the industry. Sony tried with their crap. A confusing remote with dozens of buttons.
  • Reply 136 of 152
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    aaronj wrote: »
    So, since the space shuttle was the only thing of its kind, it was at the low end?

    Apple has never played in the low end of pool.  They aren't interested in selling a gazillion gadgets with razor thin margins.  Apple has never been the "low end."  It's that simple.

    When Apple starts tossing out minimum-speced, poorly constructed and designed junk at a 1% margin, flooding a particular market, then you can say that they are at the low end.  But we both know that isn't going to happen.

    Try freeing your mind from the preconceived notion of what you consider 'low end'. If that space shuttle is coming in for a landing nose up then the nose is the high end and the tail is then the low end. I will say again I'm applying these words in their simplest definition, not at what they've become to mean.
  • Reply 137 of 152
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Try freeing your mind from the preconceived notion of what you consider 'low end'. If that space shuttle is coming in for a landing nose up then the nose is the high end and the tail is then the low end. I will say again I'm applying these words in their simplest definition, not at what they've become to mean.

     

    I'm sorry, but that's not how language works.  "Low end" has a specific meaning.  At least, it does in English.

     

    We can either argue about the importance of using correct terminology, or we can all agree to speak the English language in the way that 99.9% of English speakers understand it.

     

    Now, which do you think would lead to a more productive discussion?

  • Reply 138 of 152
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    I never denied that. My contention was that any market no matter how high end has a low end.

    I've always referred to the "low-end of a product line" as an entry-level model. I think most readers here would properly understand that more than calling it a low-end model.
  • Reply 139 of 152
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    aaronj wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but that's not how language works.  "Low end" has a specific meaning.  At least, it does in English.

    We can either argue about the importance of using correct terminology, or we can all agree to speak the English language in the way that 99.9% of English speakers understand it.

    Now, which do you think would lead to a more productive discussion?

    Of course that's how language works. You can't utter the words 'low end' without it meaning something cheap and crappy?
  • Reply 140 of 152
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member
    I can understand the initial confusion with dasanman's use of the term low end, but he's since clarified what he meant. He's even done so multiple times. How are people still confused? :/
Sign In or Register to comment.