Another F for Alphabet: U.S. Marines reject Google's other android as too loud to use

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 70
    Unable to create a viable market for Chrome, Google has been forced to salvage what's left of it and Android
    I'm not sure if the author is talking about Chrome the most dominant browser on earth, or Chrome the operating system, which now outsells Windows in the laptop market and saw a 57% growth in the first half of 2015. Either way, this doesn't make any sense.
    edited January 2016 dasanman69lord amhran
  • Reply 22 of 70
    MichaelY said:
    Unable to create a viable market for Chrome, Google has been forced to salvage what's left of it and Android
    I'm not sure if the author is talking about Chrome the most dominant browser on earth, or Chrome the operating system, which now outsells Windows in the laptop market and saw a 57% growth in the first half of 2015. Either way, this doesn't make any sense.
    I don't know what Chrome is, but I thought browsers and operating systems usually are different things.  Is Chrome a two-in-one product that is both browser and OS?  Or are they distinct pieces of software that share the same name just to confuse me?
  • Reply 23 of 70

    I don't get it. What does this have to do with Apple products? How is this article relevant to Apple?

    This post isn't even grounded in reality. This isn't a loss for Google. They were handed 42 million dollars for free, and they used it responsibly to do development. Supposedly this is a failure because they didn't secure even more than 42 million? How would Apple have handled things any differently than Boston Dynamics? Apple doesn't even have a research arm in this field. If you really want to make a comparison, Apple secured a whopping 0 million dollar contract for military research. Now how is that better than 42 million?

    If all Apple has left are weak attempts to slander Google for performing cutting-edge R&D, that might explain why Apple's stock fell in 2015—while Google's stock rose by nearly 50%, which is unbelievably successful performance. Whoever wrote this bizarre article doesn't understand the first thing about enterprise.

    edited January 2016 singularitycnocbui
  • Reply 24 of 70

     This isn't a loss for Google. They were handed 42 million dollars for free, and they used it responsibly to do development. 

    This damages Google's credibility.  They took money and said, in exchange, they could deliver something usable.  They failed to deliver something usable.  This failure didn't destroy all their credibility, but it chipped away at it.
    applepieguybestkeptsecretpalominelostkiwiargonaut
  • Reply 25 of 70
    Way to miss the point of DARPA as well as Alphabet's involvement in BD's military business. What really happened is that Google leveraged tens of millions of dollars of DARPA investment to fund their own private robotics technology.

    DARPA failures are part of the plan, and part of their success. I'm not sure how one would miss that point. I have engineers on three teams transitioning projects out of DARPA into production, and all three are barely recognizable after the necessary changes needed to support the warfighters in actual use. My teams also put several DARPA projects on the shelf today, as they were not suitable for transition, but my company gets to retain all of the tech we developed, and we are actively selling it now.
    techlovercnocbuiargonaut
  • Reply 26 of 70
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,823moderator
    clexman said:
    crowley said:
    Mock non-Apple failure, mock non-Apple attempts at innovation, recycle Android bashing.  Repeat.
    Exactly. What does any of this have to do with Apple news and rumors?
    This provides Apple perspective.  Apple is extremely successful with its R&D budgets whereas many of its peers, including Alphabet, waste large amounts of R&D money.  Sure, DED's articles can be a bit shrill, but this one is chock-full of information and quite relevant to the environment that Apple competes in.  It's too easy to take Apple's smart decisions for granted, so DED is detailing some of the bad decisions Apple hasn't made.</quote>



    On point and well said!
    (BTW, the quote feature doesn't always leave an insertion point beyond the quoted text, thus my comment falling inside delreyjones' quoted comment.  Sheesh, and I'm working from an iPad Air 2 running Safari; you'd think this would be a tested platform for AI's forums. 
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 27 of 70
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,053member
    That LS3 is a fucking damn joke. Look like it's designed by a high school student. I couldn't believe they even showed that shit without shame. Damn, Google can't design anything from the scratch.
    edited January 2016 applepieguy
  • Reply 28 of 70
    I would like to point out that Google chose to leave the Chinese market years ago rather than capitulate to the Chinese government's ridiculous privacy restrictions. They wanted Google to block a very large portion of the internet, and report anybody attempting to view anything deemed "dangerous" (AKA critical of the government). That Google rejected these terms and Apple embraces them is a win and a source of pride for Google, not Apple.
    techloversingularityfreshmakercnocbui
  • Reply 29 of 70
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,088member

     This isn't a loss for Google. They were handed 42 million dollars for free, and they used it responsibly to do development. 

    This damages Google's credibility.  They took money and said, in exchange, they could deliver something usable.  They failed to deliver something usable.  This failure didn't destroy all their credibility, but it chipped away at it.
    Google wasn't handed $42M nor made any promises to deliver anything usable. They simply inherited a contract the previous ownership of Boston Dynamics signed. After buying BD Google had already signaled they had no interest in continuing a relationship with DARPA beyond honoring the already existing contractual commitments. 
    techloverlord amhransingularitycnocbui
  • Reply 30 of 70

     This isn't a loss for Google. They were handed 42 million dollars for free, and they used it responsibly to do development. 

    This damages Google's credibility.  They took money and said, in exchange, they could deliver something usable.  They failed to deliver something usable.  This failure didn't destroy all their credibility, but it chipped away at it.
    The company they bought took money before Google bought them. This has nothing to do with Google.
    welshdogsingularitytechlovernetmagecnocbui
  • Reply 31 of 70

    MichaelY said:
    I'm not sure if the author is talking about Chrome the most dominant browser on earth, or Chrome the operating system, which now outsells Windows in the laptop market and saw a 57% growth in the first half of 2015. Either way, this doesn't make any sense.
    I don't know what Chrome is, but I thought browsers and operating systems usually are different things.  Is Chrome a two-in-one product that is both browser and OS?  Or are they distinct pieces of software that share the same name just to confuse me?
    They are Chrome Browser and Chrome OS. Different software, but a lot of the same base code. Closer to a 2-in-1 than a convoluted plot to cause you confusion. :-)
    edited January 2016
  • Reply 32 of 70
    clexmanclexman Posts: 205member
    koop said:
    clexman said:
    Exactly. What does any of this have to do with Apple news and rumors?

    Because there's not enough Apple news and rumors for a site like this to exist. Apple clamps tight all most information, rumors are largely goofy and untrue, and most news wont spill until 60 days are so closer to WWDC. Some Microsoft blogs do the same thing. They start stirring the pot with competitor bashing and worthless accusations of media bias. Fills in content gaps, jumps clicks and views. 

    Show me a website that keeps focus on what it's tagline is and i'll show you a dead website. Everybody needs to eat. I've decided to not let it bother me. DED knows what he's doing.

    The title of the appleinsider.com home page is, "Apple news and rumors since 1997." Perhaps it should be amended to include, "Plus editorials that have no point." Apple's secrecy leaves the public with little information on its failures, but that does not mean that they don't exist.

    What I see from Apple is a company that is very afraid. You don't hoard piles of cash for a rainy day if you're not afraid of failure.
    singularitytechloverSpamSandwich
  • Reply 33 of 70
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Just to be "that person," ... those are robots, not androids.  

    Just because Google chose the wrong name for their OS and decided to screw up the long history of the definition of these words for everyone, doesn't mean we have to acquiesce.  A robot is a robot and and android is an android.  These are ALL robots (except where they are actually just automata pretending to be robots).  

    Androids are non-mechanical simulacra of animal beings.  A robot is a mechanical simulation an animal being, (or of some portion of an animal being). 
    Homage to the newly released Star Wars film where "robots" are referred to as "Droids"?

    Hence: "

    Not the droids they were looking for"

    edited January 2016 gatorguy
  • Reply 34 of 70
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Their headline use of "android" is within the boundaries. Which are wider than stated above. 
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(robot)
    edited January 2016 anantksundaramapplepieguy
  • Reply 35 of 70
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    welshdog said:
    I've been a reader and fan of AI for along time, but this article is awfully biased. Yes, I fully understand that this is a website focussed on Apple and their products, but sheesh! What a petulant, juvenile rant against everything Alphabet/Google. I'm not saying there are untrue statements, but the way they are stated is uncouth and not journalism in any sense, other than yellow.
    You probably shouldn't be reading editorials and the Goog truth isn't pretty. An article that exposes the truth about this scum company is refreshing every now and then.

    brakken said:

    cali said:
    Probably to kick dirt in the face of the company who betrayed Apple. Makes me happy :)

    Better than those non-Apple device reviews.
    Agree. 
    And the news and rumours here indicates by logical deduction that Apple will be reinforcing its position in both hardware/software and services at Goog's expense. Sadly, search alternatives to Goog are Bing or another one I've forgotten, or develop its own. 
    Already on it, I'd say!
    Applr has already removed MS's profits by introducing free OS's and bundling iWork for free. Bringing Maps and iAds, and suing hoc and SS has certainly limited Goog's sphere of influence. I hate advertising.

    I'm not convinced Apple will develop a search website, they'll most likely bring something futuristic-like Siri search on ALL Apple devices so %90+ of iOS users are using Apple's search by default.

    I wouldn't mind seeing a webiste search engine though but my GOD PLEASE don't let it be named Applesearch or Duckduckgo.
    Siri.com Hmmmn that actually sounds good!!
    applepieguyargonaut
  • Reply 36 of 70
    Way to miss the point of DARPA as well as Alphabet's involvement in BD's military business. What really happened is that Google leveraged tens of millions of dollars of DARPA investment to fund their own private robotics technology.

    DARPA failures are part of the plan, and part of their success. I'm not sure how one would miss that point. I have engineers on three teams transitioning projects out of DARPA into production, and all three are barely recognizable after the necessary changes needed to support the warfighters in actual use. My teams also put several DARPA projects on the shelf today, as they were not suitable for transition, but my company gets to retain all of the tech we developed, and we are actively selling it now.
    It makes sense to use DARPA R&D budgets when your company is low on cash.  But when the customer's paying the bills, you give up quite a bit of autonomy.  It's hard to imagine Apple ever doing that.  They've got plenty of cash and they don't want anyone else dictating how they spend it.  In contrast, Google's failure rate with their R&D budget is so large that it's understandable they'd want to use someone else's money when they can.  That's the difference between Apple's focussed R&D, and Google's try-anything-that-sounds-plausible-and-pray-for-success.
    macky the mackylostkiwiargonaut
  • Reply 37 of 70
    gatorguy said:
    You are right that andro- denotes "man," and android specifically denotes a robot with a human-like appearance (as opposed to robots, many of which don't attempt muscle-like movements, walk on legs, have a head, etc.)

    However, Boston Dynamics has several robot designs that all have human-like or otherwise being-inspired appearance or functionality. I also intended to reference Andy "android" Rubin, who got Google into Android, Motorola and then robotics, before his peace-out left the company with a series of albatrosses wrapped around its neck.
    Google also rejected further Darpa funding nearly two years ago didn't they? It only honored this one because the contracts were already committed to by Boston Dynamics when Google purchased the company.  I imagine I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know tho.  Google has zero interest in creating military robots. Further, DARPA has better uses for their limited $2B+ budget than giving it to a company that doesn't need any of it. They traditionally take an interest in startups.  Giving money to Google for research would be as ridiculous as giving it to Apple or Microsoft. So of course there would be no marriage between Google and military research. 

    In any event I think it's great that that there's no longer any connection to military uses of Google-owned robotics tech. Kudos all around. It needs to stay that way. 

    EDIT: For those that weren't aware of it here's the link to Google rejecting any further DARPA funding on any new projects back in March of 2014
    http://defensetech.org/2014/03/25/google-rejects-military-funding-in-robotics/

    EDIT2: Speaking of robotics it's entirely possible that some Google developments are helping to build Apple products. Google and Hon-Hai working together on robotic manufacturing processes? 
    http://www.dailytech.com/Google+Foxconn+Working+Together+on+Robotics/article34305.htm


    Either DED didn't know or he has deliberately misrepresented the facts to suit his agenda. Either way it reflects poorly on his reputation. 
    lord amhranfreshmakertechlovergwydiondasanman69cnocbui
  • Reply 38 of 70
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,264member
    Spending $42 million of military R&D dollars to conclude that a robotic donkey is not really a viable tactical tool is not necessarily a negative outcome. In relative terms this can be branded as a "success" in the R&D world because they got an answer and decided to terminate funding and further study. A much worse outcome would have been to advanced the robo-donkey project to the next development phase and blow through hundreds of millions of dollars or more trying to force a tool on the military that it neither wants nor needs. This worse case scenario happens far more often than you'd imagine, especially when there are political ramifications of continued funding of these projects. One could argue that having companies like Apple and Google/Alphabet involved with some aspects of advanced R&D for the military is not a bad deal for tax payers. At least these consumer product focused companies aren't desperate for government contracts like the traditional defense contracting companies are, so they are probably less likely to have politicians lobbying for the continuation of funding for projects that have little to no practical value for the military but happen to bring jobs to a needy congressional district. 
  • Reply 39 of 70
    MichaelY said:
    Unable to create a viable market for Chrome, Google has been forced to salvage what's left of it and Android
    I'm not sure if the author is talking about Chrome the most dominant browser on earth, or Chrome the operating system, which now outsells Windows in the laptop market and saw a 57% growth in the first half of 2015. Either way, this doesn't make any sense.

    I'd like to see a citation on that 'outsells Windows in the laptop market' claim. Sounds like horse hockey to me. Here are the Amazon bestsellers in laptops:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/electronics/565108

    Number 1 is indeed a Chromebook. As is  number 5. The other top 10 are all Windows. Notably, number 6, the HP Stream, is a 'real Windows' laptop at the same price point as a Chromebook.

    Anecdotally, Chromebooks are the number 1 most 'tried and regifted' gadgets I know of among friends and relatives. People I know try them out because they're so cheap, then toss them in a drawer or give them to a relative once they realize how limited they are.

    applepieguynolamacguynetmagecornchiplostkiwiargonaut
  • Reply 40 of 70
    clexman said:
    The title of the appleinsider.com home page is, "Apple news and rumors since 1997." Perhaps it should be amended to include, "Plus editorials that have no point." Apple's secrecy leaves the public with little information on its failures, but that does not mean that they don't exist.

    What I see from Apple is a company that is very afraid. You don't hoard piles of cash for a rainy day if you're not afraid of failure.
    'Afraid' of what exactly? And 'failure' on what front are they worried about?
    cornchip
Sign In or Register to comment.