Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware.
Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"
..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll).
The actual quote was "Google, though, like Microsoft, is
not a hardware manufacturer. It has never been, despite the existence of Chromecasts, Google Homes and Microsoft's Surface tablets. It provides internet and cloud based services, and make them do things we love so we all keep using them."
If Google just wanted to build mobile services, it would have continued to partner with Apple as it had been rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware.
Ummmm, isn't it Apple that decides whether to partner with Google and not the other way around?
Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"
..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll).
The article pivots Android advocacy around in a 180 degree spin, erasing a decade of the giddy hopes for Android that anticipated the "Google Phone," and tells us that all Google really ever wanted to do was mobile services. That's 100% false.
The entire idea behind Android was first to prevent Microsoft from blocking Google from Windows (in mobile, as it appeared to be threatening with Vista),
100% false?? You yourself said it was about services in your own response...
Where in heck did you pull THAT from? Google said that? Now it appears you're completely making stuff up just to suit your argument. I'm sure you wouldn't actually stoop to that so I'm guessing you've confused this with something else.
DanielEran said: ....rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware.
Wow, missed that announcement altogether. When was that? A link would be wonderful so I don't assume you've become confused again.
Are you serious?
- the site clearest rewrites history by pretending google never *tried* to be a hardware maker (to the tune of billions of dollars).
- yes Apple decides who it partners with based on what terms they offer. Googles terms were unreasonable to the point where apple had to rightly cease the partnership. But that's on google. I don't know if you've ever run a business or released a product, but I have -- and I've had suppliers who didn't want to supply us anymore just toss out an absurd number. It happens and isn't rare.
- DED is correct that it is 100% false that google only wanted to do services.
IMHO You really have zero knowledge of what Google's terms were (but feel free to prove me wrong on that), much less enough insight to state how reasonable they were. All you factually know (me too) is that Apple chose to do their own maps. Period. Apple chose to remove Google Maps from pre-installed software.
You pretending to "know the truth" doesn't make it so. You don't know anything more about it than I do, and perhaps even less based on your response. So you're guessing but framing it as fact while I plainly let readers know I'm posting opinion when that's what it is. It's painfully obvious what drives your IMO narrow viewpoints whenever a not-Apple company is mentioned.
Posted by a successful owner and /or manager of several corporations for over 3 decades.
What does you being the successful owner/manager of several corporations have to do with anything? Do you feel it adds weight to your arguments? FYI, It doesn't. It's usually used in an effort to bolster a weak argument - a logical fallacy also known as "argument from authority".
That was a question you could have answered for yourself if you had bothered reading the post i responded to. It's even quoted!
But since you seem to be clueless about the reason (or perhaps not) Strange Days commented to me "I don't know if you've ever run a business or released a product, but I have", so obviously he put some weight on it. You should read for context.
Google is in a bad spot. Their total incompetence with respect to hardware will be their undoing. It is actually kind of fun watching Samsung put the screws to Google. In a few short years, Samsung will have displaced Google on the only non iOS premium mobile platform that matters.
If Samsung gets Bixby done right, then Google is in real trouble over the long term. Samsung will eventually acquire a maps developer and Google will find it myself off of the two hardware platforms of any importance. NO ONE ELSE will stay competitive with Samsung and Apple in hardware over the next several years. Anyone else who says otherwise is in major denial.
I could care less if Google has the smartest assistant. Having the assistant recognize my voice and play a certain music library is somewhat convenient. But I do not feel like paying for such a trivial and the key word is trivial convenience by giving up the type of privacy that the assistant demands.
Hardware matters. Even MSFT figured that one out. Google has its TPU but it matters little with Samsung moving its customer over to Tizen and Apple removes the last vestiges of Google from iOS.
Google should give up on Android and focus on YouTube before it's too late. YouTube is the ONLY service they have that isn't easily duplicated. But Facebook is headed there. And when Facebook produces a video app that is included on iOS by default, even YouTube will be seriously vulnerable.
Thanks for the laughs Samsung getting hardware done 😂 MS getting hardware right 😂 iOS having anything FB by default😂
Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware.
Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"
..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll).
The article pivots Android advocacy around in a 180 degree spin, erasing a decade of the giddy hopes for Android that anticipated the "Google Phone," and tells us that all Google really ever wanted to do was mobile services. That's 100% false.
The entire idea behind Android was first to prevent Microsoft from blocking Google from Windows (in mobile, as it appeared to be threatening with Vista), then to destroy IPhone and replace it with Google's own open version of Windows on mobile devices.
If Google just wanted to build mobile services, it would have continued to partner with Apple as it had been rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware.
G1, Honeycomb tablets, Nexus, Chrome, Pixel ...
Google just failed to do that in any area other than the low-end market that Apple doesn't care about, the province of Symbian, Linux and Java ME.
If that's what Google really intended to do, it could have simply annnounced that it wanted to be the OS for <$300 phones and remained partnered with Apple on iPhones.
If it had had done that, it would still have its Maps, voice and search on iPhones as the default. Instead it lost out on all of that, and helped turn Apple into a major rival in data services.
Google not only failed in hardware, but also sparked a major non-hardware competitor in Apple.
Meanwhile, despite all of its research and good ideas, google is incapable of successfully delivering real products. Even David Pierce of Wired (who crowed praise of Glass, Motorola, etc) has come around on this.
It just warms my heard watching Google trying so hard to get BACK into the walled garden. I had to laugh watching them try to integrate themselves back into Apple.
Don't kid yourself. There is absolutely no reason to "stylize" it after the iconic Apple lower case "i". I/O actually looks cooler.
Though it MAY have been a brilliant hint at Google trying to get into the walled garden again.
Google never left the Walled Garden. Apple just kicked their Maps app out for their own. But Maps is still available and in fact one the the most popular iPhone apps in the App Store. Other Google services are among the most popular too.
Sure. Let's forget that Google never allowed Apple to have access to turn-by-turn navigation or vector based graphics, and kept these advantages for their own Android version of Google Maps. And funny enough, shortly after iOS 6 with Apple Maps came out Google suddenly brought those missing features to the iOS version of Google Maps.
Of course Google wants to be on iOS. It's the most valuable mobile platform/user base in the world.
To get you gotta give. Apple did not want to give so they didn't get. Google put on TBT Nav only when they had full control of the app.
Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware.
Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"
..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll).
The article pivots Android advocacy around in a 180 degree spin, erasing a decade of the giddy hopes for Android that anticipated the "Google Phone," and tells us that all Google really ever wanted to do was mobile services. That's 100% false.
The entire idea behind Android was first to prevent Microsoft from blocking Google from Windows (in mobile, as it appeared to be threatening with Vista), then to destroy IPhone and replace it with Google's own open version of Windows on mobile devices.
If Google just wanted to build mobile services, it would have continued to partner with Apple as it had been rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware.
G1, Honeycomb tablets, Nexus, Chrome, Pixel ...
Google just failed to do that in any area other than the low-end market that Apple doesn't care about, the province of Symbian, Linux and Java ME.
If that's what Google really intended to do, it could have simply annnounced that it wanted to be the OS for <$300 phones and remained partnered with Apple on iPhones.
If it had had done that, it would still have its Maps, voice and search on iPhones as the default. Instead it lost out on all of that, and helped turn Apple into a major rival in data services.
Google not only failed in hardware, but also sparked a major non-hardware competitor in Apple.
Meanwhile, despite all of its research and good ideas, google is incapable of successfully delivering real products. Even David Pierce of Wired (who crowed praise of Glass, Motorola, etc) has come around on this.
It just warms my heard watching Google trying so hard to get BACK into the walled garden. I had to laugh watching them try to integrate themselves back into Apple.
Don't kid yourself. There is absolutely no reason to "stylize" it after the iconic Apple lower case "i". I/O actually looks cooler.
Though it MAY have been a brilliant hint at Google trying to get into the walled garden again.
Google never left the Walled Garden. Apple just kicked their Maps app out for their own. But Maps is still available and in fact one the the most popular iPhone apps in the App Store. Other Google services are among the most popular too.
Sure. Let's forget that Google never allowed Apple to have access to turn-by-turn navigation or vector based graphics, and kept these advantages for their own Android version of Google Maps. And funny enough, shortly after iOS 6 with Apple Maps came out Google suddenly brought those missing features to the iOS version of Google Maps.
Of course Google wants to be on iOS. It's the most valuable mobile platform/user base in the world.
Trust GatorGuy to ignore the circumstances in which Google Maps was kicked off iOS.
"Apple kicked Google Maps off, but it is one of the most popular apps on the App Store". All true, but not the full picture. Classic troll-speak.
Getting kicked out of anywhere or worse off completely left out is exactly why Google made Android. Apple has a track record of using someone until they learn enough to do it on their own. It wouldn't have been long before Google was cast aside in favor of Apple's offerings.
Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware.
Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"
..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll).
The article pivots Android advocacy around in a 180 degree spin, erasing a decade of the giddy hopes for Android that anticipated the "Google Phone," and tells us that all Google really ever wanted to do was mobile services. That's 100% false.
The entire idea behind Android was first to prevent Microsoft from blocking Google from Windows (in mobile, as it appeared to be threatening with Vista), then to destroy IPhone and replace it with Google's own open version of Windows on mobile devices.
If Google just wanted to build mobile services, it would have continued to partner with Apple as it had been rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware.
G1, Honeycomb tablets, Nexus, Chrome, Pixel ...
Google just failed to do that in any area other than the low-end market that Apple doesn't care about, the province of Symbian, Linux and Java ME.
If that's what Google really intended to do, it could have simply annnounced that it wanted to be the OS for <$300 phones and remained partnered with Apple on iPhones.
If it had had done that, it would still have its Maps, voice and search on iPhones as the default. Instead it lost out on all of that, and helped turn Apple into a major rival in data services.
Google not only failed in hardware, but also sparked a major non-hardware competitor in Apple.
Meanwhile, despite all of its research and good ideas, google is incapable of successfully delivering real products. Even David Pierce of Wired (who crowed praise of Glass, Motorola, etc) has come around on this.
It just warms my heard watching Google trying so hard to get BACK into the walled garden. I had to laugh watching them try to integrate themselves back into Apple.
Don't kid yourself. There is absolutely no reason to "stylize" it after the iconic Apple lower case "i". I/O actually looks cooler.
Though it MAY have been a brilliant hint at Google trying to get into the walled garden again.
Google never left the Walled Garden. Apple just kicked their Maps app out for their own. But Maps is still available and in fact one the the most popular iPhone apps in the App Store. Other Google services are among the most popular too.
Sure. Let's forget that Google never allowed Apple to have access to turn-by-turn navigation or vector based graphics, and kept these advantages for their own Android version of Google Maps. And funny enough, shortly after iOS 6 with Apple Maps came out Google suddenly brought those missing features to the iOS version of Google Maps.
Of course Google wants to be on iOS. It's the most valuable mobile platform/user base in the world.
Trust GatorGuy to ignore the circumstances in which Google Maps was kicked off iOS.
"Apple kicked Google Maps off, but it is one of the most popular apps on the App Store". All true, but not the full picture. Classic troll-speak.
Getting kicked out of anywhere or worse off completely left out is exactly why Google made Android. Apple has a track record of using someone until they learn enough to do it on their own. It wouldn't have been long before Google was cast aside in favor of Apple's offerings.
Care to back that up with citations and facts? Has Apple replaced the web-search functionality built into OSes with their own search engine? No? Then why was it inevitable they build out maps?
Google got kicked out because they wouldn't give up vector maps or TBT directions. They didn't want to because they didn't need to, so they tried to get private customer data mining rights. They knew they had android and figured it was worth the risk of getting booted.
That iChat segment from the 2007 keynote is a great example of how Apple has lost its sense of fun.
1) Posting a link to the clip would be helpful.
2) What do you mean? Didn't they fail to release those "fun" iChat features? Is this the last time you thought Apple was any fun? I'll have to think about it, but I seem to recall more than a few "fun" moments with other Apple events since then.
Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware.
Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"
..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll).
The article pivots Android advocacy around in a 180 degree spin, erasing a decade of the giddy hopes for Android that anticipated the "Google Phone," and tells us that all Google really ever wanted to do was mobile services. That's 100% false.
The entire idea behind Android was first to prevent Microsoft from blocking Google from Windows (in mobile, as it appeared to be threatening with Vista), then to destroy IPhone and replace it with Google's own open version of Windows on mobile devices.
If Google just wanted to build mobile services, it would have continued to partner with Apple as it had been rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware.
G1, Honeycomb tablets, Nexus, Chrome, Pixel ...
Google just failed to do that in any area other than the low-end market that Apple doesn't care about, the province of Symbian, Linux and Java ME.
If that's what Google really intended to do, it could have simply annnounced that it wanted to be the OS for <$300 phones and remained partnered with Apple on iPhones.
If it had had done that, it would still have its Maps, voice and search on iPhones as the default. Instead it lost out on all of that, and helped turn Apple into a major rival in data services.
Google not only failed in hardware, but also sparked a major non-hardware competitor in Apple.
Meanwhile, despite all of its research and good ideas, google is incapable of successfully delivering real products. Even David Pierce of Wired (who crowed praise of Glass, Motorola, etc) has come around on this.
It just warms my heard watching Google trying so hard to get BACK into the walled garden. I had to laugh watching them try to integrate themselves back into Apple.
Don't kid yourself. There is absolutely no reason to "stylize" it after the iconic Apple lower case "i". I/O actually looks cooler.
Though it MAY have been a brilliant hint at Google trying to get into the walled garden again.
Google never left the Walled Garden. Apple just kicked their Maps app out for their own. But Maps is still available and in fact one the the most popular iPhone apps in the App Store. Other Google services are among the most popular too.
Sure. Let's forget that Google never allowed Apple to have access to turn-by-turn navigation or vector based graphics, and kept these advantages for their own Android version of Google Maps. And funny enough, shortly after iOS 6 with Apple Maps came out Google suddenly brought those missing features to the iOS version of Google Maps.
Of course Google wants to be on iOS. It's the most valuable mobile platform/user base in the world.
Trust GatorGuy to ignore the circumstances in which Google Maps was kicked off iOS.
"Apple kicked Google Maps off, but it is one of the most popular apps on the App Store". All true, but not the full picture. Classic troll-speak.
Getting kicked out of anywhere or worse off completely left out is exactly why Google made Android. Apple has a track record of using someone until they learn enough to do it on their own. It wouldn't have been long before Google was cast aside in favor of Apple's offerings.
Care to back that up with citations and facts?
Google got kicked out because they wouldn't give up vector maps or TBT directions. They didn't want to because they didn't need to, so they tried to get private customer data mining rights.
"VPS seems stupendously dumb--and displays an ignorance of technological and societal trends"
I don't think big box stores are going away any time soon and obviously this was just one example. The same tech could be used in malls, supermarkets, (not to mention parks, zoos, concerts, sports events) and it's precisely this type of innovation that can keep people in bricks and mortar stores. If I can be looking at a product and get reviews and price comparisons, the way I can in an e-shop at home, I'm more likely to shop in the physical world.
Google isn't presenting this as some final product, that's not how they operate. They roll things out for early adopters to try and to improve and eventually, the tech is ready for the masses. Some day we'll be wearing Glass or body cams with Hint and the tech will seem old hat rather than laughable
VPS isn't AR, it's navigation by camera. VPS as demonstrated looks as dumb as Project ARA last year, which Google similarly paraded out like a naked emperor as most of the media gushed about how wonderful the fine clothes of the idea were. It then canceled it a few months later because it really was a stupid idea that obviously made no sense.
Do you want to walk around with your camera pointed ahead, looking for paint in a Home Depot? That's just stupid.
Google also canceled Glass. Nobody wants to walk around navigating by body camera. There are much smarter and more efficient ways to do indoor navigation using wireless BLE. Recall that when Apple showed off iBeacons, the tech media didn't even get it. Most still don't. There may be even better and more accurate ways to navigate inside, but camera nav does not seem to be a smart use of camera/AR type research.
Of course Google wants to be on iOS. It's the most valuable mobile platform/user base in the world.
Forget a guess as to the reasons eh? I had read another article guessing that Google offered both TBT and vector graphics but in return wanted Google branding on it along with pass-thru search as a couple of the conditions. (What, you thought it was free? LOL) That branded Google Maps would quickly appear with those features on iOS supports the latter opinion rather than the former. But rather than both of us guessing why not look at what Apple themselves gave as the reasons and let us know what they are.
Google wanted to bring vector GMaps/Nav to iPhone but Apple developed its own and deployed it before most iOS users saw what vector maps looked like. That gave Apple Maps a strong advantage.
And no, Google Maps for iOS didn't appear "quickly," it was delayed because Google was caught flatfooted by Apple's move to its own Maps data. Google expected Apple to keep using its Maps data because the contract hadn't even expired.
Conversely, Google ended support for Apple's bundled iOS YouTube app (Apple developed both the mobile Maps and YouTube iOS apps; Google then copied them for Android and worked to shoehorn its ads in) so it could release its own YouTube app with ads on iOS. Possibly would have sought to do the same to iOS Maps if Apple hadn't gutted Google Maps and built its own mapping servers.
Bravo!!<**enthusiastic applause that continues for 5 mins or more**>
Everything I have ever attempted to articulate (and failed to) in relation to the sheer childishness, idiocy, point-missing, boat-missing, etc, about Google, served up in a balanced and wholly accurate, truthful article. What an amazing piece - not a single hint of snarkyness or childish jabs, just outright observation of fact minus any unnecessary detractors of sarcasm and put-downs.
It's the same, tired old story every time I try a new Android device, my current acquisition being a Moto G5 (non-plus variant) - more layers of meh, piled upon a sluggish meh UI, with "Google Now" functioning significantly worse in "Nougat" ( ) than on my old but stalwart Moto G3 which I only bought as it was only £45, used, to use as a music player. Google, seriously folks, go and work on search - your "experiments" just dig the hole of embarrassment deeper for you every year.
This article demonstrates everything I hate about Apple, elitism. Focus on those with money, rather than those that do not.
Those cheaper android phones are still powerful devices, this article makes them out to be no more than a calculator.
I thought Google also announced an easy way to update android which includes even down to graphics drivers, did I dream that?
Those "powerful devices" HAVE to be powerful, HAVE to have all that ridiculous CPU and RAM for the same reason that one has to have incredibly strong legs to wade through a pool of treacle, or escape being pulled under when trapped in sinking sand... the same reason that a lorry loaded full with 30 tons of sand needs an extra large engine retrofitted to it to reach the same speed as a tiny sports car with an engine 1/10th the size.
(new paragraph below - formatting and line breaks blatently ignored by the forum edit function)
On a new, rocketry tangent, you may have heard of the term "escape velocity" - it describes the speed the rocket needs to attain JUST to escape the earth's gravitational pull... I hope this isn't going over your head? (Bah, there I go AGAIN with the puns, how embarrassing!!)
Sinking in yet? Ah, sorry, I just realised the pun... how ghastly.
This article demonstrates everything I hate about Apple, elitism. Focus on those with money, rather than those that do not.
Those cheaper android phones are still powerful devices, this article makes them out to be no more than a calculator.
I thought Google also announced an easy way to update android which includes even down to graphics drivers, did I dream that?
Those "powerful devices" HAVE to be powerful, HAVE to have all that ridiculous CPU and RAM for the same reason that one has to have incredibly strong legs to wade through a pool of treacle, or escape being pulled under when trapped in sinking sand... the same reason that a lorry loaded full with 30 tons of sand needs an extra large engine retrofitted to it to reach the same speed as a tiny sports car with an engine 1/10th the size.
(new paragraph below - formatting and line breaks blatently ignored by the forum edit function)
On a new, rocketry tangent, you may have heard of the term "escape velocity" - it describes the speed the rocket needs to attain JUST to escape the earth's gravitational pull... I hope this isn't going over your head? (Bah, there I go AGAIN with the puns, how embarrassing!!)
Sinking in yet? Ah, sorry, I just realised the pun... how ghastly.
The very same notion applies to iPhones and possibly moreso to take advantage of ARkit.
I can't see a problem here.
On the other hand, having that power available on large screen phones at half the price of an equivalently sized iPhone will be a draw for some, dare I say many. As will seeing prices of the very highest end Android handsets get pulled down due to competition.
If you want an iPhone but can't afford one, you will be able to have a very fruitful time with the Android of your choice. The most important thing is to have options open to you.
Comments
But since you seem to be clueless about the reason (or perhaps not) Strange Days commented to me "I don't know if you've ever run a business or released a product, but I have", so obviously he put some weight on it. You should read for context.
Samsung getting hardware done 😂
MS getting hardware right 😂
iOS having anything FB by default😂
Google got kicked out because they wouldn't give up vector maps or TBT directions. They didn't want to because they didn't need to, so they tried to get private customer data mining rights. They knew they had android and figured it was worth the risk of getting booted.
2) What do you mean? Didn't they fail to release those "fun" iChat features? Is this the last time you thought Apple was any fun? I'll have to think about it, but I seem to recall more than a few "fun" moments with other Apple events since then.
VPS isn't AR, it's navigation by camera. VPS as demonstrated looks as dumb as Project ARA last year, which Google similarly paraded out like a naked emperor as most of the media gushed about how wonderful the fine clothes of the idea were. It then canceled it a few months later because it really was a stupid idea that obviously made no sense.
Google wanted to bring vector GMaps/Nav to iPhone but Apple developed its own and deployed it before most iOS users saw what vector maps looked like. That gave Apple Maps a strong advantage.
Everything I have ever attempted to articulate (and failed to) in relation to the sheer childishness, idiocy, point-missing, boat-missing, etc, about Google, served up in a balanced and wholly accurate, truthful article. What an amazing piece - not a single hint of snarkyness or childish jabs, just outright observation of fact minus any unnecessary detractors of sarcasm and put-downs.
It's the same, tired old story every time I try a new Android device, my current acquisition being a Moto G5 (non-plus variant) - more layers of meh, piled upon a sluggish meh UI, with "Google Now" functioning significantly worse in "Nougat" (
Google, seriously folks, go and work on search - your "experiments" just dig the hole of embarrassment deeper for you every year.
Bravo author, again!
I can't see a problem here.
On the other hand, having that power available on large screen phones at half the price of an equivalently sized iPhone will be a draw for some, dare I say many. As will seeing prices of the very highest end Android handsets get pulled down due to competition.
If you want an iPhone but can't afford one, you will be able to have a very fruitful time with the Android of your choice. The most important thing is to have options open to you.