And Google could make the ads location-aware so if you are driving down the street your car could be talking to you... "Starbucks ahead ! Should I pull in?" or "You just passed McDonald's and your last chance for a McRib sandwich for the next 3.2 miles".
I mentioned something like that before, except that it would forcibly take you to those locations and refuse to move until you purchased something.
IF...then Apple has most certainly lost any momentum they might have in developing nations. Something they desperately need to take command over in the coming years. IF this *open-source* hardware spec is fast and powerful and IF the android OS is optimized to these specs, IMO Apple has a lot to compete with. This idea of open source hardware in the sub-$100 range is exactly what developing nations run too. People in these markets are not loyal to, nor are concerned with ecosystems. They care about the all-in-one and price.
But...it's a wait and see right now.
"L" is basically a reaction to iOS 7.
I guarantee you that Apple remains the aspirational brand in the developing world and to the extent that a 3rd world country becomes more prosperous, then Apple's sales , market share, and profit in that country grows. And if some 3rd world country remains impoverished, why would Apple want to dominate a geographical region where no profits are to be made.
I do not understand this idea that Apple has to contest the third world market tooth and nail against Android. Apple cannot sell its integrated suite of products at a price that is affordable in the third world and generates worthwhile profits. It's just economically impossible. And even if it were, and I'm sure it's not, why would they do something that cheapens their brand and erases their aspirational status? It's just totally illogical.
In that case iOS8 could be considered by some as much a reaction to Android KitKat which could be considered a reaction to iOS7 which could be considered a reaction to Jellybean. . .
They've all got their reactionary features.
I'm pretty sure 'reactionary' doesn't mean what you think it means.
Wait - do we care about Wall St opinion or not? I get confused in the head. Sometimes we don't and rail against their pronouncements. But today we do! Stop playing with my emotions AI.
From what I can gather, the rules are pretty simple:
1. If they say bad things about Apple. Bash them for being a bunch of idiots for not recognizing Apple superiority, and point out the flagrant bias and clear market manipulation of trying to drive the share price down.
2. If they say good things about Apple. Agree with them. Accuse them of clear market manipulation because they are obviously only trying to drive things up before they drive them back down and are throwing out high numbers based purely on speculation! Then contradict everything you just said by citing your personal target as being much higher than their estimates based upon your gut feelings.
3. If they say neither anything good nor bad about Apple. Accuse them of being biased against Apple because they are obviously talking about someone else. How can they talk about someone else, and not talk about Apple? Huh? How? An optional play here would be to throw in something about Tim Cook because he's obviously not making Wall Street talk about Apple.
I have maintained all along (as well as a couple others) that Google Play Services cannot update all security flaws in Android. Yet several well known trolls here on AI claim I was wrong and that it does.
Now we find out at Google I/O that Google has expanded the capabilities of Google Play Services so that it can now do updates relating to security. Gee, why would Google have to add this ability if it was already there?
Here's a hint - because it NEVER was there. Sorry, just have to rub it in the faces of the trolls.
It’s pretty simple to understand: We care about it when it’s wrong. How’s that confusing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
From what I can gather, the rules are pretty simple:
1. If they say bad things about Apple. Bash them for being a bunch of idiots for not recognizing Apple superiority, and point out the flagrant bias and clear market manipulation of trying to drive the share price down.
2. If they say good things about Apple. Agree with them. Accuse them of clear market manipulation because they are obviously only trying to drive things up before they drive them back down and are throwing out high numbers based purely on speculation! Then contradict everything you just said by citing your personal target as being much higher than their estimates based upon your gut feelings.
3. If they say neither anything good nor bad about Apple. Accuse them of being biased against Apple because they are obviously talking about someone else. How can they talk about someone else, and not talk about Apple? Huh? How? An optional play here would be to throw in something about Tim Cook because he's obviously not making Wall Street talk about Apple.
LOL! Yeah. I'm just trolling. I know the temperature changes in here depending on the quoted analysts. It's like sports teams. There are people concerned with keeping score. I get it. I see these quotes and grab the bowl of popcorn.
From what I can gather, the rules are pretty simple:
1. If they say bad things about Apple. . . .
2. If they say good things about Apple. . . .
3. If they say neither anything good nor bad about Apple. . . .
4. Actually care about technology itself and who is designing it right, making it easy to use for everyone, and making people's lives better through it. Ignore what people who are mainly interested in market share/market capitalization/the word on the street/rumour mill/online buzz think.
Obviously a publicly traded company needs some measure to assign a valuation to it. Business metrics are fine, they're just not my area of interest. However, when the people who are focused on those metrics pretend to be technology visionaries, that's when I tune out. Especially since there's risk of a financial motivation for doing so.
I mean, I certainly wouldn't go on public record making a statement about a company's business fundaments and whatnot, so why do financial people feel the need to go on record about technology?
And Google could make the ads location-aware so if you are driving down the street your car could be talking to you... "Starbucks ahead ! Should I pull in?" or "You just passed McDonald's and your last chance for a McRib sandwich for the next 3.2 miles".
I am looking forward to all the innovation.
"I detect 37 fast food restaurants in your area. However, you Body Mass Index exceeds desired parameters. Dispensing carrot sticks..."
I have maintained all along (as well as a couple others) that Google Play Services cannot update all security flaws in Android. Yet several well known trolls here on AI claim I was wrong and that it does.
Now we find out at Google I/O that Google has expanded the capabilities of Google Play Services so that it can now do updates relating to security. Gee, why would Google have to add this ability if it was already there?
Here's a hint - because it NEVER was there. Sorry, just have to rub it in the faces of the trolls.
One can't expand the capabilities of something that was never there. Some security flaws are within the skin put on by the manufacturer. There was a big flaw in Samsung's TouchWiz that allowed a hacker to completely wipe someone's Samsung device. Wake me when the sky finally falls down. Until then enjoy your FUDge.
There are two takeaways - a) basically they repeated everything Apple is doing by saying, We're offering it too! But ulimately it's like a Linux Developer's Conference or a TED talk - you it's all just a suggestion because Google doesn't even control the large majority of where Android is headed - Samsung, Amazon, Xiaomi and MS/Nokia all shoot off in their own direction so b) the only people really on board is Google's own phone group - Nexus and as far as we can tell, they seem to have sold a few hundred thousand phones in the past 5 years. Unlike when Apple announces and releases an OS upgrade, 80-90% of its users can upgrade - Android - a few % points IF your manufacturer allows it - and of course, SAmsung is also moving towards its own OS so again, the Google "developers" conference is more like a TED talk - listen to us, please! BUt really, very little changes.
They should rename the event to "Glassholes Convention". Twiddledee and Twiddledum on the far right looks like they are going to break their chairs.
This is a sad, sad photo.
Twiddledee: "We paid $1500 for Glass and they didn't even mention it in the keynote."
?Twiddledum: "Bummer, man. We're not cool any more."
Everyone not at I/O: "Google Glass was nevercool, you #Glassholes."
I've seen people in Mountain View wearing Glass, and I'm pretty sure they were all Googlers. Fine. The problem (for Google anyway) is that Google thinks that their employees are a good target market for their products. Well-paid, 20-to-30-something, white male, uber-geek-wannabes with $1500 to blow on beta hardware toys.
Googlers obviously love Glass. The rest of the population obviously doesn't.
(P.S. I've worn my Daring Fireball t-shirt more than once when going to lunch in Mountain View. Got some stink-eye. Yeah, that was me.)
If Oprah was running Google, all the developers would have looked under their seats and found the keys to a new Google Self-Driving Car.
This would be a massive opportunity for Google developers - when the passengers are being driven by the car to their destination they don't have anything to do, so Android could just flash ads on the dashboard display screen for the riders to watch.
And Google could make the ads location-aware so if you are driving down the street your car could be talking to you... "Starbucks ahead ! Should I pull in?" or "You just passed McDonald's and your last chance for a McRib sandwich for the next 3.2 miles".
I am looking forward to all the innovation.
In GoogleWorld, you don't drive the car, the car drives you!
Also in GoogleWorld, you don't see the ads, the ads see you!
From what I can gather, the rules are pretty simple:
1. If they say bad things about Apple. Bash them for being a bunch of idiots for not recognizing Apple superiority, and point out the flagrant bias and clear market manipulation of trying to drive the share price down.
2. If they say good things about Apple. Agree with them. Accuse them of clear market manipulation because they are obviously only trying to drive things up before they drive them back down and are throwing out high numbers based purely on speculation! Then contradict everything you just said by citing your personal target as being much higher than their estimates based upon your gut feelings.
3. If they say neither anything good nor bad about Apple. Accuse them of being biased against Apple because they are obviously talking about someone else. How can they talk about someone else, and not talk about Apple? Huh? How? An optional play here would be to throw in something about Tim Cook because he's obviously not making Wall Street talk about Apple.
Simple??? WTF??? That's way too many conditions!
The simple simple answer is: analysts are right when you agree with them, wrong when you don't.
One can't expand the capabilities of something that was never there. Some security flaws are within the skin put on by the manufacturer. There was a big flaw in Samsung's TouchWiz that allowed a hacker to completely wipe someone's Samsung device. Wake me when the sky finally falls down. Until then enjoy your FUDge.
Always interesting to see who responds.
Google Play Services could update security faults in higher level stuff (like Google Apps or API's in Google Play) but that's it. And since so many security holes are lower level there's no way they could be fixed. Now it appears Google has a way for Google Play Services to update lower level OS components.
Which is EXACTLY what I've said all along.
Don't be upset you were one of those who claimed otherwise and have now been proven wrong. Perhaps in the future you, GG and the rest should stay out of technical discussions since you clearly lack the knowledge to engage in them.
Kit Kat came out a year ago with a bunch of new APIs... yet only 15% of Android devices have it. So what incentive is there for an Android developer to take advantage of all these new APIs?
Just to give you some context, I am an Apple user (iPad, iPhone, old iPods) that develops android apps just for fun. You are right about new API that will not become widespread for years, but there are some distinctions to be made. There are APIs related to the specific OS implementation and tightly linked to hardware, for example the UI framework with all those OS-wide UI animations: these API cannot be available in older OS versions. There APIs related to UI widgets used in apps UI, for example ActionBar introduced in Android 3.0: these APIs are made available to previous OS release through a compatibility library compiled in apps, some overhead for the developer, but viable. Then there are APIs related to services (mainly google services) such as gameAPI, driveAPI, ... and these APIs are automatically updated with the update of the PlayMarket app.
So, the situation of the APIs related to UI framework is quite bad, because all these good visual effects are actually hold back for years (developers often avoid to implement something just for a minority). The situation of the compatibility library is not good, but acceptable, because if you strongly want to use an API, there is a support for it, even if with some pain. Google play services are very good, because Play Market app is always updated on all devices (mandatory for installing apps).
Comments
I mentioned something like that before, except that it would forcibly take you to those locations and refuse to move until you purchased something.
I guarantee you that Apple remains the aspirational brand in the developing world and to the extent that a 3rd world country becomes more prosperous, then Apple's sales , market share, and profit in that country grows. And if some 3rd world country remains impoverished, why would Apple want to dominate a geographical region where no profits are to be made.
I do not understand this idea that Apple has to contest the third world market tooth and nail against Android. Apple cannot sell its integrated suite of products at a price that is affordable in the third world and generates worthwhile profits. It's just economically impossible. And even if it were, and I'm sure it's not, why would they do something that cheapens their brand and erases their aspirational status? It's just totally illogical.
I'm pretty sure 'reactionary' doesn't mean what you think it means.
Wait - do we care about Wall St opinion or not? I get confused in the head. Sometimes we don't and rail against their pronouncements. But today we do! Stop playing with my emotions AI.
From what I can gather, the rules are pretty simple:
1. If they say bad things about Apple. Bash them for being a bunch of idiots for not recognizing Apple superiority, and point out the flagrant bias and clear market manipulation of trying to drive the share price down.
2. If they say good things about Apple. Agree with them. Accuse them of clear market manipulation because they are obviously only trying to drive things up before they drive them back down and are throwing out high numbers based purely on speculation! Then contradict everything you just said by citing your personal target as being much higher than their estimates based upon your gut feelings.
3. If they say neither anything good nor bad about Apple. Accuse them of being biased against Apple because they are obviously talking about someone else. How can they talk about someone else, and not talk about Apple? Huh? How? An optional play here would be to throw in something about Tim Cook because he's obviously not making Wall Street talk about Apple.
For a laugh, have a read through this thread:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/162893/new-android-rat-infects-google-play-apps-turning-phones-into-spyware-zombies
I have maintained all along (as well as a couple others) that Google Play Services cannot update all security flaws in Android. Yet several well known trolls here on AI claim I was wrong and that it does.
Now we find out at Google I/O that Google has expanded the capabilities of Google Play Services so that it can now do updates relating to security. Gee, why would Google have to add this ability if it was already there?
Here's a hint - because it NEVER was there. Sorry, just have to rub it in the faces of the trolls.
No Shit, Wall Street Einsteins!!
BMW may pose a threat to Mercedes but an ugly Toyota Echo?!!
P.S. No offence to those Echo lovers ...
It’s pretty simple to understand: We care about it when it’s wrong. How’s that confusing?
From what I can gather, the rules are pretty simple:
1. If they say bad things about Apple. Bash them for being a bunch of idiots for not recognizing Apple superiority, and point out the flagrant bias and clear market manipulation of trying to drive the share price down.
2. If they say good things about Apple. Agree with them. Accuse them of clear market manipulation because they are obviously only trying to drive things up before they drive them back down and are throwing out high numbers based purely on speculation! Then contradict everything you just said by citing your personal target as being much higher than their estimates based upon your gut feelings.
3. If they say neither anything good nor bad about Apple. Accuse them of being biased against Apple because they are obviously talking about someone else. How can they talk about someone else, and not talk about Apple? Huh? How? An optional play here would be to throw in something about Tim Cook because he's obviously not making Wall Street talk about Apple.
LOL! Yeah. I'm just trolling. I know the temperature changes in here depending on the quoted analysts. It's like sports teams. There are people concerned with keeping score. I get it. I see these quotes and grab the bowl of popcorn.
From what I can gather, the rules are pretty simple:
1. If they say bad things about Apple. . . .
2. If they say good things about Apple. . . .
3. If they say neither anything good nor bad about Apple. . . .
4. Actually care about technology itself and who is designing it right, making it easy to use for everyone, and making people's lives better through it. Ignore what people who are mainly interested in market share/market capitalization/the word on the street/rumour mill/online buzz think.
Obviously a publicly traded company needs some measure to assign a valuation to it. Business metrics are fine, they're just not my area of interest. However, when the people who are focused on those metrics pretend to be technology visionaries, that's when I tune out. Especially since there's risk of a financial motivation for doing so.
I mean, I certainly wouldn't go on public record making a statement about a company's business fundaments and whatnot, so why do financial people feel the need to go on record about technology?
"I detect 37 fast food restaurants in your area. However, you Body Mass Index exceeds desired parameters. Dispensing carrot sticks..."
One can't expand the capabilities of something that was never there. Some security flaws are within the skin put on by the manufacturer. There was a big flaw in Samsung's TouchWiz that allowed a hacker to completely wipe someone's Samsung device. Wake me when the sky finally falls down. Until then enjoy your FUDge.
"L" is basically a reaction to iOS 7.
Rotate the character "7" 180 degrees, and you have "L". Hmm.
Also, I'm not the only person to hear "Android L" as "Android Hell", am I?
That's not fair. Google Glass is supposed to be worn as a virginity keeper.
They were gonna call it "Android Toxic Hellstew"... but that name was already leaked.
They should rename the event to "Glassholes Convention". Twiddledee and Twiddledum on the far right looks like they are going to break their chairs.
This is a sad, sad photo.
Twiddledee: "We paid $1500 for Glass and they didn't even mention it in the keynote."
?Twiddledum: "Bummer, man. We're not cool any more."
Everyone not at I/O: "Google Glass was never cool, you #Glassholes."
I've seen people in Mountain View wearing Glass, and I'm pretty sure they were all Googlers. Fine. The problem (for Google anyway) is that Google thinks that their employees are a good target market for their products. Well-paid, 20-to-30-something, white male, uber-geek-wannabes with $1500 to blow on beta hardware toys.
Googlers obviously love Glass. The rest of the population obviously doesn't.
(P.S. I've worn my Daring Fireball t-shirt more than once when going to lunch in Mountain View. Got some stink-eye. Yeah, that was me.)
In GoogleWorld, you don't drive the car, the car drives you!
Also in GoogleWorld, you don't see the ads, the ads see you!
Simple??? WTF??? That's way too many conditions!
The simple simple answer is: analysts are right when you agree with them, wrong when you don't.
Always interesting to see who responds.
Google Play Services could update security faults in higher level stuff (like Google Apps or API's in Google Play) but that's it. And since so many security holes are lower level there's no way they could be fixed. Now it appears Google has a way for Google Play Services to update lower level OS components.
Which is EXACTLY what I've said all along.
Don't be upset you were one of those who claimed otherwise and have now been proven wrong. Perhaps in the future you, GG and the rest should stay out of technical discussions since you clearly lack the knowledge to engage in them.
Just to give you some context, I am an Apple user (iPad, iPhone, old iPods) that develops android apps just for fun. You are right about new API that will not become widespread for years, but there are some distinctions to be made. There are APIs related to the specific OS implementation and tightly linked to hardware, for example the UI framework with all those OS-wide UI animations: these API cannot be available in older OS versions. There APIs related to UI widgets used in apps UI, for example ActionBar introduced in Android 3.0: these APIs are made available to previous OS release through a compatibility library compiled in apps, some overhead for the developer, but viable. Then there are APIs related to services (mainly google services) such as gameAPI, driveAPI, ... and these APIs are automatically updated with the update of the PlayMarket app.
So, the situation of the APIs related to UI framework is quite bad, because all these good visual effects are actually hold back for years (developers often avoid to implement something just for a minority). The situation of the compatibility library is not good, but acceptable, because if you strongly want to use an API, there is a support for it, even if with some pain. Google play services are very good, because Play Market app is always updated on all devices (mandatory for installing apps).