please link to where Apple granted China secret backdoor access to its devices. thanks.
<SNIP>
Hey @gatorguy, I know you are really graceful to people who don't like your posting history. I've noticed, from personal experience, that you treat them with a sense of humour. You said you run/ work at a Fortune500 company. Admit it, you are Sergey right?
please link to where Apple granted China secret backdoor access to its devices. thanks.
<SNIP>
Hey @gatorguy, I know you are really graceful to people who don't like your posting history. I've noticed, from personal experience, that you treat them with a sense of humour. You said you run/ work at a Fortune500 company. Admit it, you are Sergey right?
If by Fortune500 you mean my fortune amounts to about $500 that would be closer to the truth than me working for (owning in my case) a Fortune500 company.
Google is synonymous with making the world a better place in the eyes of the media despite its core business being built on selling users' search habits to the highest bidder.
They don't sell user data. It's too valuable to them. They sell services that utilize user data.
Android on the desktop. The absolute worst idea ever. Who wants to run crappy, watered down software on their desktop?
This is one area where Google is basically stuck. They lack several things Apple and Microsoft have:
- A long history and experience with developing a modern OS. - A desktop AND mobile OS. Google only has mobile. Before someone spouts off that Android is built on Linux - well yes I guess it is - if you consider taking Linux and stripping out most of its functionality, and then modifying what's left so it hardly resembles Linux and making such that you'll never actually be able to run any Linux software on it, then I guess you could say it's based on Linux. - A large base of desktop grade (and high end) software and developers. Does anyone think you're going to see AutoCAD or Photoshop in Chrome? Or on Android?
Developers of desktop software have already been taking their code and porting it to iOS to bring high-end features to mobile. Microsoft is taking a different tack with Windows anywhere, but the general idea is there. Where is Google going to get their "desktop class" software for Chrome or Android? Android is terrible on a tablet, and developers can't even bother to optimize their Apps for the larger screen. And these same developers are supposed to make Android desktop Apps people will actually want to use? Not to mention they have no desktop class software they could "port" over (which Apple and Microsoft have plenty of).
The really odd thing about this is that Microsoft dominates on the desktop (Windows) and lags in mobile. iOS dominates in mobile and Mac OS is behind in desktop. It's not like either one of them is going to completely dominate the convergence of mobile/desktop. And Google is stuck with their dominance of the low-end commodity OS market.
They already have a desktop OS, it's ChromeOS. They are going to merge them. How that looks is anyone's guess. Google has some plans to improve UX design for tablets and larger screens, but we won't see the fruits of their work until Google I/O later this year. Chances are they are looking to improve Chromebooks with material design and Android apps and games. I would assume they are hoping to spur android app development for Chromebooks and that would leak into tablets as well.
Chromebooks have a large install base in education. App developers will take notice if android is fused with those notebooks.
Already have a desktop OS? Thanks for making me spit out my coffee all over my keyboard this morning. Chrome OS is so limited as an 'OS' it's pathetic. Just one example, how are you going to write Apps for Chrome OS? Keep using JavaScript?
And as I mentioned already, developers are already too lazy to even make optimized Apps for Android tablets. And these same developers are going to make the next generation of powerful software on some bastardized Chrome/Android OS?
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.
That's just DED's writing style. Usually just a bunch of FUD. Especially liked the cheap shot at Nest. Classy
Especially since by leaving a comma out, he implied that both the thermostats and the smoke detectors were defective when only the smoke detectors are faulty.
This loud robot donkey wasn't mocked, it was canned by the US Military for being an expensive, stupid project that didn't accomplish its goals. But I'm glad to see DED got under your skin: it means he's doing his job. Repeat.
Depending on their range, one use I could see for these kinds of robots is mapping terrain on a Google street level-type of accuracy.
Sure they are loud and slow, but pop a 360 degree Google mapping camera on top and deploy a bunch of them.
That could be useful for things like forest management, selective tree harvesting and overall mapping of the terrain.
I wouldn't mind being able to have a Google-style street level view of every inch of national parks.
These would be classified as motor vehicles so would be proscribed from almost all areas of a National Park, Wilderness, Management, or Study area of Federal / State lands and would likely be banned from improved roads at that.
Boots. horses, some non-equine pack animals, or unpowered watercraft are about it.
I completely agree with some of the points in the article. Google has spent far more R&D than Apple, yet Google remains married to search/advertising. It's not a problem of insufficient resources. It's that Google is scatterbrained. It lacks the discipline needed to turn that R&D into a product/service that can generate cash. Apple hasn't spent as much as Google but it has generated far more profit and cash flow from its R&D. But somehow, Wall Street has chosen to reward Google's profligacy not only with a high valuation but also unchallenged power for its founders.
With that said, this article is reaching for news. It is making a mountain out of a molehill. When a company buys out another, the acquirer agrees to assume most of the target's obligations. The $42 million contract simply happened to be one of the obligations that Google incurred as a result of the acquisition. It was determined that the proposed robot concept was not feasible, end of story. While it is true that Google is good at outlining grandiose, pie-in-the-sky ideas but barely mediocre at delivering on a fraction of that blue sky, the results of this contract don't support that conclusion in any way. To use this contract smacks of third-rate journalism.
Comments
Hey @gatorguy, I know you are really graceful to people who don't like your posting history. I've noticed, from personal experience, that you treat them with a sense of humour.
You said you run/ work at a Fortune500 company. Admit it, you are Sergey right?
Already have a desktop OS? Thanks for making me spit out my coffee all over my keyboard this morning. Chrome OS is so limited as an 'OS' it's pathetic. Just one example, how are you going to write Apps for Chrome OS? Keep using JavaScript?
And as I mentioned already, developers are already too lazy to even make optimized Apps for Android tablets. And these same developers are going to make the next generation of powerful software on some bastardized Chrome/Android OS?
Sure they are loud and slow, but pop a 360 degree Google mapping camera on top and deploy a bunch of them.
That could be useful for things like forest management, selective tree harvesting and overall mapping of the terrain.
I wouldn't mind being able to have a Google-style street level view of every inch of national parks.
Boots. horses, some non-equine pack animals, or unpowered watercraft are about it.
With that said, this article is reaching for news. It is making a mountain out of a molehill. When a company buys out another, the acquirer agrees to assume most of the target's obligations. The $42 million contract simply happened to be one of the obligations that Google incurred as a result of the acquisition. It was determined that the proposed robot concept was not feasible, end of story. While it is true that Google is good at outlining grandiose, pie-in-the-sky ideas but barely mediocre at delivering on a fraction of that blue sky, the results of this contract don't support that conclusion in any way. To use this contract smacks of third-rate journalism.