[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#0cc]NOTHING EXCITING at Yesterday's Google's Keynote Presentation OTHER THAN THIS ! [/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]
[B][SIZE=5]San Francisco - Surprise Protesters Interrupt Google I/O[/SIZE][/B]?
[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=blue] Protesters [B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#f06]TWICE [B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=blue]Interrupted Google's Keynote Presentation during its Annual Developers Conference, Google I/O 2014.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]
[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#f09]A Woman Interrupts Dave Burke's Presentation on Android L.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]
[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#0cc]She Shouted[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#f06], "You Need to Develop A CONSCIENCE, Google, [B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#0cc]before Google Glass and/or Self-Driving Car !" [/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]
[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#f0f]A Second Protester, A Man who Appeared to be in His Late 20s WARNED the Crowd that Google was "BUILDING TOTALITARIAN MACHINES that Kill People !"
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..
Who disagreed with you when you said it the first time Eric? I'm not aware of anyone here ever saying that Google could update hard-coded OS-level security via Play Services, tho they supposedly will now be doing so. I think you're only arguing with yourself.
EDIT: Here's a perfect summation of what I've stated about Google Play Services, It even mentions your point on OS kernel updates and from a thread you pointed to a few posts back: "Most Google Android users are receiving security updates even languishing on old OS versions and Google still accounts for them. Kernel changes? Gotta have an OS update. we both agree on that. Security improvements? A lot can be done and is being done with no OS update required. We both should agree on that but you can't seem to bring yourself to admit it.. . ." http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/162893/new-android-rat-infects-google-play-apps-turning-phones-into-spyware-zombies/80#post_2483620
Interestingly enough you've come around to agree with me that some security enhancements and fixes were delivered via Play Services, (which is EXACTLY what I've said all along :rolleyes: ) and with the latest update they'll be able to do even more to keep Google's Android devices secure despite manufacturers/carriers not bothering to update the OS itself. Google isn't allowing users of older Android devices to be abandoned security-wise, which was one of your big complaints. You should be giving them credit for that as it only improves everyone's mobile security.
[quote name="HAMETA" url="/t/180957/wall-street-doesnt-see-googles-i-o-announcements-posing-a-threat-to-apples-ecosystem/40#post_2556473"][B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#0cc]NOTHING EXCITING at Yesterday's Google's Keynote Presentation OTHER THAN THIS ! [/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]
[B][SIZE=5]San Francisco - Surprise Protesters Interrupt Google I/O[/SIZE][/B]?
[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=blue] Protesters [B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#f06]TWICE [B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=blue]Interrupted Google's Keynote Presentation during its Annual Developers Conference, Google I/O 2014.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]
[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#f09]A Woman Interrupts Dave Burke's Presentation on Android L.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]
[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#0cc]She Shouted[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#f06], "You Need to Develop A CONSCIENCE, Google, [B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#0cc]before Google Glass and/or Self-Driving Car !" [/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]
[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#f0f]A Second Protester, A Man who Appeared to be in His Late 20s WARNED the Crowd that Google was "BUILDING TOTALITARIAN MACHINES that Kill People !"
[/QUOTE]
Both protest had nothing to with Google themselves. It was because one of the lawyers Google employs Jack Halprin owns the building from which she was about to get evicted.
The second one was a generic 'computers kill people' statement with no direct reference to Google. They just were looking for a stage and I/O was an opportunity.
Protestor one would apparently like Google to interfere and tell one of their employees they can't buy a piece of property. Riiight. . .
Protester two should have been pleased that Google not only informed the DoD that they would not be developing for them but also snatched the winner of the Defense Dept's robotics challenge out of their hands. Cooperation with defense plans for any potential "killer robot" was snuffed out with Google's purchase of the robotics firms involved. That should get a thank you from him, tho I somehow doubt that's forthcoming.
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.
That is indeed correct (both what it could do before and now). It's definitely a good thing. It will not solve fragmentation but it definitely combats one of the biggest problems that is associated with fragmentation.
For one I don't care enough about the subject matter to get upset, and secondly I don't know enough about Google Play Services to contradict you, or anyone else that had doubts, so I never made that claim. I pointed out that your original post was contradictory, and so is this one. How can there be no way of doing something, and now all of a sudden there's a way?
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).
Gotcha.... thanks for the detailed explanation!
I knew some stuff could be made available for older versions of Android... I just never knew exactly what. It sounds like the developer has to do a little extra work to ensure compatibility with older versions of Android.
I get a kick out of when people say "ZOMG Android has 80% market share"
It's true that 8 out of 10 smartphones sold today are running some version of Android. But for a developer... it's not exactly a seamless experience. There are many things they need to consider if they want to target that full 80%
Sure... you can make an app that runs all the way back to Gingerbread... but you might not be able to use all the goodies Google has provided to you lately.
You did get some disagreement when you made these erroneous statements yesterday. Perhaps that's what got you upset since all the "liar" posts of yours started around that time. No biggie to make a mistake. I've made some and so have you. I just don't resort to name-calling as a distraction when it happens.
There's a difference between making a mistake and knowing the truth but intentionally misrepresenting it to favor your position.
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.
No-one's interested in the simple answer, only the correct one: analysts are always wrong.
More evidence that Google is taking control of their Android platform, "saving OEM's from themselves" as Ars put it.
In addition to their new Android One program Google announced yesterday that Android TV, Android Wear and Android Car will also have consistent interfaces within product lines. Manufacturers will not be allowed to add their own "skins" as they had been doing with smartphones. It won't prevent the addition of specific services to differentiate one from another but the basic operation and software versions will be the same from one to another.
What that means is a user of Android Car in a Hyundai will find the same UI he's familiar with in a Mercedes. If you own one Android Wear watch buying another one eliminates the learning curve as both will have software that operates in the same way. An Android TV in the living room will work the same as the one in the den. Consistency across devices.
It also puts Google firmly in control of updates rather than manufacturers. An update for one will apply to all the others as well, largely eliminating the fragmentation that smartphones suffered. Absolutely a step in the right direction and a sign Google is serious about these new Android product lines.
Comments
[B][SIZE=5]San Francisco - Surprise Protesters Interrupt Google I/O[/SIZE][/B]?
[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=blue]
Protesters [B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#f06]TWICE [B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=blue]Interrupted Google's Keynote Presentation during its Annual Developers Conference, Google I/O 2014.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]
[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#f09]A Woman Interrupts Dave Burke's Presentation on Android L.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]
[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#0cc]She Shouted[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#f06], "You Need to Develop A CONSCIENCE, Google, [B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#0cc]before Google Glass and/or Self-Driving Car !" [/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]
[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#09c]TOO TRUE ![/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]
[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#f0f]A Second Protester, A Man who Appeared to be in His Late 20s WARNED the Crowd that Google was "BUILDING TOTALITARIAN MACHINES that Kill People !"
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/45076/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/45077/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
Who disagreed with you when you said it the first time Eric? I'm not aware of anyone here ever saying that Google could update hard-coded OS-level security via Play Services, tho they supposedly will now be doing so. I think you're only arguing with yourself.
EDIT: Here's a perfect summation of what I've stated about Google Play Services, It even mentions your point on OS kernel updates and from a thread you pointed to a few posts back:
"Most Google Android users are receiving security updates even languishing on old OS versions and Google still accounts for them. Kernel changes? Gotta have an OS update. we both agree on that. Security improvements? A lot can be done and is being done with no OS update required. We both should agree on that but you can't seem to bring yourself to admit it.. . ."
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/162893/new-android-rat-infects-google-play-apps-turning-phones-into-spyware-zombies/80#post_2483620
Interestingly enough you've come around to agree with me that some security enhancements and fixes were delivered via Play Services, (which is EXACTLY what I've said all along :rolleyes: ) and with the latest update they'll be able to do even more to keep Google's Android devices secure despite manufacturers/carriers not bothering to update the OS itself. Google isn't allowing users of older Android devices to be abandoned security-wise, which was one of your big complaints. You should be giving them credit for that as it only improves everyone's mobile security.
You did get some disagreement when you made these erroneous statements yesterday. Perhaps that's what got you upset since all the "liar" posts of yours started around that time. No biggie to make a mistake. I've made some and so have you. I just don't resort to name-calling as a distraction when it happens.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/180894/google-looks-to-squeeze-apple-in-emerging-markets-with-new-android-one-program#post_2555578
[B][SIZE=5]San Francisco - Surprise Protesters Interrupt Google I/O[/SIZE][/B]?
[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=blue]
Protesters [B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#f06]TWICE [B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=blue]Interrupted Google's Keynote Presentation during its Annual Developers Conference, Google I/O 2014.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]
[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#f09]A Woman Interrupts Dave Burke's Presentation on Android L.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]
[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#0cc]She Shouted[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#f06], "You Need to Develop A CONSCIENCE, Google, [B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#0cc]before Google Glass and/or Self-Driving Car !" [/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]
[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#09c]TOO TRUE ![/COLOR][/SIZE][/I][/B]
[B][I][SIZE=5][COLOR=#f0f]A Second Protester, A Man who Appeared to be in His Late 20s WARNED the Crowd that Google was "BUILDING TOTALITARIAN MACHINES that Kill People !"
[/QUOTE]
Both protest had nothing to with Google themselves. It was because one of the lawyers Google employs Jack Halprin owns the building from which she was about to get evicted.
The second one was a generic 'computers kill people' statement with no direct reference to Google.
They just were looking for a stage and I/O was an opportunity.
Protestor one would apparently like Google to interfere and tell one of their employees they can't buy a piece of property. Riiight. . .
Protester two should have been pleased that Google not only informed the DoD that they would not be developing for them but also snatched the winner of the Defense Dept's robotics challenge out of their hands. Cooperation with defense plans for any potential "killer robot" was snuffed out with Google's purchase of the robotics firms involved. That should get a thank you from him, tho I somehow doubt that's forthcoming.
That is indeed correct (both what it could do before and now). It's definitely a good thing. It will not solve fragmentation but it definitely combats one of the biggest problems that is associated with fragmentation.
Gotcha.... thanks for the detailed explanation!
I knew some stuff could be made available for older versions of Android... I just never knew exactly what. It sounds like the developer has to do a little extra work to ensure compatibility with older versions of Android.
I get a kick out of when people say "ZOMG Android has 80% market share"
It's true that 8 out of 10 smartphones sold today are running some version of Android. But for a developer... it's not exactly a seamless experience. There are many things they need to consider if they want to target that full 80%
Sure... you can make an app that runs all the way back to Gingerbread... but you might not be able to use all the goodies Google has provided to you lately.
You did get some disagreement when you made these erroneous statements yesterday. Perhaps that's what got you upset since all the "liar" posts of yours started around that time. No biggie to make a mistake. I've made some and so have you. I just don't resort to name-calling as a distraction when it happens.
There's a difference between making a mistake and knowing the truth but intentionally misrepresenting it to favor your position.
Since you show no intention of looking for my previous comments on Google Play Services I did it for you. I quoted for you my exact claims from back in March in post 63 above, and from the topic we had a long discussion about this in If you're going to continue with clams I was being dishonest perhaps you could point out the exact part now that it's right in front of you.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/162893/new-android-rat-infects-google-play-apps-turning-phones-into-spyware-zombies/80#post_2483620
And what are all those Google I/O attendees looking at (while being distracted by their Google Glass-es)?
Where's a lady with a sledgehammer when you need one?
They're not being distracted by their Google Glasses; they're being distracted from their Glasses.
Also, I'm not the only person to hear "Android L" as "Android Hell", am I?
They were gonna call it "Android Toxic Hellstew"... but that name was already leaked.
Hey - that was my joke! Scrip the Crib.
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.
No-one's interested in the simple answer, only the correct one: analysts are always wrong.
In addition to their new Android One program Google announced yesterday that Android TV, Android Wear and Android Car will also have consistent interfaces within product lines. Manufacturers will not be allowed to add their own "skins" as they had been doing with smartphones. It won't prevent the addition of specific services to differentiate one from another but the basic operation and software versions will be the same from one to another.
What that means is a user of Android Car in a Hyundai will find the same UI he's familiar with in a Mercedes. If you own one Android Wear watch buying another one eliminates the learning curve as both will have software that operates in the same way. An Android TV in the living room will work the same as the one in the den. Consistency across devices.
It also puts Google firmly in control of updates rather than manufacturers. An update for one will apply to all the others as well, largely eliminating the fragmentation that smartphones suffered. Absolutely a step in the right direction and a sign Google is serious about these new Android product lines.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/06/android-wear-auto-and-tv-save-you-from-skins-and-oems-from-themselves/