Another F for Alphabet: after abandoning Android tablets last year, Google retreats from C...

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 53
    sirozhasirozha Posts: 801member
    chasm said:
    sirozha said:
    It doesn’t matter if one uses a Mac or a Chromebook to get to a web site.  Once you get there, it works the same way regardless of the OS running locally. Those web-based applications are not designed for a touch interface. They are designed for a pointing device.
    Sorry, but I'm calling BS on this. First you say "once you get [to the web site], it works the same way regardless of the OS running locally." Then you contradict yourself by claiming said web site requires a "pointing device." as though a finger isn't a "pointing device." Simply put, no it doesn't.

    Websites are designed for users to interact with almost exclusively using two actual input mechanisms: clicking (touching) and text input (requires a software or hardware keyboard). That's pretty much it.

    Maybe you're unaware that iOS recently added an easier way to reposition a cursor in text? It always had a method for this, but iOS 12 introduced a more "mouse-like" way to do that. If that's the basis of your claim, then you're simply mistaken.

    I'm looking forward to you supplying a few URLs of websites that won't work with fingers and keyboards. i can report them for not being ADA-compliant, and be eligible for a reward!
    Not the educational cuticular websites. Those run web apps that are not designed for touch. These are not your run-of-the-mill web sites that adjust to the browser. 
    Jinuxentropys
  • Reply 22 of 53
    sirozha said:
    chasm said:
    sirozha said:
    It doesn’t matter if one uses a Mac or a Chromebook to get to a web site.  Once you get there, it works the same way regardless of the OS running locally. Those web-based applications are not designed for a touch interface. They are designed for a pointing device.
    Sorry, but I'm calling BS on this. First you say "once you get [to the web site], it works the same way regardless of the OS running locally." Then you contradict yourself by claiming said web site requires a "pointing device." as though a finger isn't a "pointing device." Simply put, no it doesn't.

    Websites are designed for users to interact with almost exclusively using two actual input mechanisms: clicking (touching) and text input (requires a software or hardware keyboard). That's pretty much it.

    Maybe you're unaware that iOS recently added an easier way to reposition a cursor in text? It always had a method for this, but iOS 12 introduced a more "mouse-like" way to do that. If that's the basis of your claim, then you're simply mistaken.

    I'm looking forward to you supplying a few URLs of websites that won't work with fingers and keyboards. i can report them for not being ADA-compliant, and be eligible for a reward!
    Not the educational cuticular websites. Those run web apps that are not designed for touch. These are not your run-of-the-mill web sites that adjust to the browser. 
    When you say "not designed for touch," what exactly do you mean?  I haven't found a website yet that doesn't respond when I use my finger on a control instead of the mouse.

    Rendering of controls and interacting with them is a function of the browser, not the website.  The website merely defines the controls and the events associated with them. It's the responsibility of the browser to implement the look and functionality.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 53
    sirozhasirozha Posts: 801member
    sirozha said:
    chasm said:
    sirozha said:
    It doesn’t matter if one uses a Mac or a Chromebook to get to a web site.  Once you get there, it works the same way regardless of the OS running locally. Those web-based applications are not designed for a touch interface. They are designed for a pointing device.
    Sorry, but I'm calling BS on this. First you say "once you get [to the web site], it works the same way regardless of the OS running locally." Then you contradict yourself by claiming said web site requires a "pointing device." as though a finger isn't a "pointing device." Simply put, no it doesn't.

    Websites are designed for users to interact with almost exclusively using two actual input mechanisms: clicking (touching) and text input (requires a software or hardware keyboard). That's pretty much it.

    Maybe you're unaware that iOS recently added an easier way to reposition a cursor in text? It always had a method for this, but iOS 12 introduced a more "mouse-like" way to do that. If that's the basis of your claim, then you're simply mistaken.

    I'm looking forward to you supplying a few URLs of websites that won't work with fingers and keyboards. i can report them for not being ADA-compliant, and be eligible for a reward!
    Not the educational cuticular websites. Those run web apps that are not designed for touch. These are not your run-of-the-mill web sites that adjust to the browser. 
    When you say "not designed for touch," what exactly do you mean?  I haven't found a website yet that doesn't respond when I use my finger on a control instead of the mouse.

    Rendering of controls and interacting with them is a function of the browser, not the website.  The website merely defines the controls and the events associated with them. It's the responsibility of the browser to implement the look and functionality.
    These are web based applications that look similar to desktop applications. The buttons are too small for a finger. They are designed to be clicked with a mouse or trackpad. The UI doesn’t adjust to a mobile web browser.

    Imagine using Microsoft Word in Windows with a finger. There are applications for iOS that let you remote to a Windows computer. When you start using you finger to navigate a standard desktop OS or applications written for a desktop OS, you realize why mice and trackpads exist. 

    Additonally, schools want their students to learn how to operate a traditional computer with a physical keyboard and a pointing device because this is what people use in the real world at work. It doesn’t matter what OS runs in a computer; the principles are the same, and kids need to learn how to touch-type on a physical keyboard and how to use a pointing device. Schools are going for Chromebooks because Chromebooks are incredibly cheap and yet provide the standard computing experience with a physical keyboard and a pointing device. I’m sure schools would rather buy Wintels, but when you multiply the price difference by hundreds of thousands of units in some school districts, you realize incredible savings by going with Chromebooks. As for Macs, only private schools can afford those, but even most private schools don’t buy Macs. 


    edited March 2019
  • Reply 24 of 53
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,185member
    cornchip said:
    It’s clear the market for tablets is evaporating. The Goog is just the first, and like dominoes clickety-clack Apple will have to retreat.

    Forever doomed.
    That's one of the silliest comments I've read on this site. 
    fastasleepbakedbananas
  • Reply 25 of 53
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,185member
    I can't help but notice how many of the articles that fawned over Android tablets and ChromeBooks are from Bloomberg. the same Bloomberg that published the utter garbage story last year about the spying hardware in servers. The one that has been totally debunked but that they have yet to retract and apologize for. 

    Consider the source.
    AppleExposedkiltedgreenwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 53
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,036member
    I think Google is following the Intel model of business dabble in things to show what can be done once it is shown to work or not dump it on the market and let others fight the race to the bottom. In the meantime fire everyone who is involved.
    AppleExposedwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 53
    "Chromebooks are a gateway into the Google ecosystem." Except not really. My son uses Chromebooks at school but have absolutely zero interest in them outside of school. And that goes for Google services too. Pretty much how every single of of his friends feel too. They laugh at Chromebooks.


    "So, who cares if Google makes money on Chromebooks or not?" Seriously ? For starters stock holders do. Also what corp has ever not cared about making money on a product ?
    edited March 2019 watto_cobrabakedbananas
  • Reply 28 of 53
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,018member
    sirozha said:
    Chromebooks are a gateway into the Google ecosystem. Public K12 buys millions of Chromebooks because public education doesn’t have enough money to buy Macs. If you know anything about the modern public education, you’ll know that web-base resources are utilized widely. Homework is almost entirely web based. There are educational curriculum companies that have entire curricula available for public schools to subscribe to, and all of that is web based.

    It doesn’t matter if one uses a Mac or a Chromebook to get to a web site.  Once you get there, it works the same way regardless of the OS running locally. Those web-based applications are not designed for a touch interface. They are designed for a pointing device. Apple shoots itself in the balls by stubbornly continuing to ban the mouse from the iPad. That is the biggest reason why K12 buy Chromebooks and not cheap iPads with an external keyboard. People need a mouse to navigate a web site designed for a pointing device.

    For whatever reason, Apple’s iTunes university didn’t take in K12. Apple’s framework for educational apps is not widely used either; at least not as widely as web-based curricula. 

    So, who cares if Google makes money on Chromebooks or not? Hardware is not Google’s core business. It’s Apple’s core business, though, and Apple doesn’t seem to care that they have lost the public education sector in the US. 
    That used to be the narrative long ago. What kids use in school will be what they use in life. My own school district was considering Apple twenty years ago. Parents were adamant that the board go with PCs because “that’s what my kid will use when he gets a job.” Apple was declared doomed as usual. Well, when my oldest got to the University of Illinois at Champaign/Urbana his engineering labs were full of Macs. That must have been a shock to the PC only parents. Anyway, ChromeBooks being a gateway to the Google ecosystem is laughable. There is no google ecosystem of hardware, only the spyware they foist on the public.
    radarthekatAppleExposedbakedbananas
  • Reply 29 of 53

    https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/03/13/android-q-beefs-up-privacy-with-new-limits-on-location-access-device-ids-and-more/
    They're working at it. An instance where "copying Apple" is a great thing. 

    Note that even Business Insider who posted the story (anonymous sources of course) says that in the near-term expect nothing to change with hi-end Chrome OS product plans hardware wise. But since the Pixel Slate is Google's most expensive hardware product (and a widely panned one too) they would likely be their slowest selling and most likely to be chopped. The Pixelbook on the other hand is still praised.

    There's a wide field between "Apple:We're Number 1!!" and those at the very bottom of the heap. Everyone "not Apple" doesn't grade as an F, nor should the author confuse discontinuing the Pixel Slate or any other expensive Google manufactured Chrome hardware as discontinuing and no longer improving and supporting their Chrome OS used daily by millions of people. 

    Posted from my 2017 Pixelbook. My 2013 Chromebook Pixel is still good (at work) tho the battery life is now down to a couple hours between charges. 

    EDIT: On a somewhat related note (technically not OT as DED brought up smartphones too) my OG Pixel that shipped with Android 7, then getting 8 (Oreo) and then 9 (Pie) is in the process of being updated for Android 10 (Q*) in a bit of a surprise.  I may wait one more year to buy another smartphone. TBH they haven't changed all that much in the last two or three, not enough to spend $600+ on another, and like some Apple users as long as the device is still being supported....
    Ever the Google apologist. Google gets an F because they failed to be successful on really any level in their self branded endeavors. They aren’t profitable, so let’s move the goal post. They never planned to be profitable(?); it was about showing an example of what could be done for other vendors to follow. Ok, so they managed to show other vendors if you make an expensive table/netbook running Android/Chromebook there is basically no market of buyers for it. I guess they succeeded in dissuading others from losing money by example? How magnanimous of them. Oh well that maybe true now, but think long term it’s only temporary! The failure can be explained by just little hiccups, iterations really, in their endless march to delivering a superior product. They have been failing for about a decade now, you would seem to be suggesting “Google learns slowly, it’s true. But they learn”. Look Google is not the Sansa Stark of Silicon Valley. They are not suddenly flip the script and wow us all with a fantastic Android/Chromebook that is capable of selling at quantities the allow for profitability.

    I get it you threw you lot in with Google at some point. Perhaps you bought a Google product and are too embarrassed or have such hubris that you are unable to accept you were robbed, comparatively speaking. Maybe your profession is tied to their sub par ecosystem or reliant on it’s existence in some fashion. That could explain the continued support. It might just be your someone who has benefited from Google, via the stock market, by Wall Street giving them a free pass on their relentless string of failures, so many that to expect one to enumerate them all from memory seems unrealistic. Whatever the reason you can’t just move goal post endless and expect that to mask the underlying failure. That would be like buying a cow to produce milk, then letting it die, and saying “Look how successful I was, now I have all this meat”. 
    radarthekatAppleExposedwatto_cobrabakedbananas
  • Reply 30 of 53
    sirozhasirozha Posts: 801member
    "Chromebooks are a gateway into the Google ecosystem." Except not really. My son uses Chromebooks at school but have absolutely zero interest in them outside of school. And that goes for Google services too. Pretty much how every single of of his friends feel too. They laugh at Chromebooks.


    "So, who cares if Google makes money on Chromebooks or not?" Seriously ? For starters stock holders do. Also what corp has ever not cared about making money on a product ?
    If you know anything about Google, you would know that Google’s history is riddled with projects and products that earn no money for the company. It’s not necessarily a bad thing either. Many of these products come out of the way Google conducts business. Every Googler is mandated to work 8 hours per week on his/her own project that he/she conceives. Some of these individual projects get endorsed by the upper management, get funded, and become a Google service or Google product released to the public. Most of these projects  never come out of beta and eventually fail, but Google considers this system to be a great way to tap into the ingenuity of their employees and encourage their employees to create their own products and projects. 

    Say what you want about Android, but it did create a viable alternative to iOS while having made almost no money for Google. Say what you want about Google Maps and/or Waze, but they provide an incredible public service for billions of people around the world without charging users a penny. 

    Say what you want about Chromebooks, but they allow public schools constantly starved of funding to provide access to amazing web-based curricula and save money to spend on other things that schools need. 

    And as for Google search. If you are old enough, you would remember how long it took
    to get information about anything at all before Google search was invented. I have the entire knowledge base of the entire humankind at my fingertips at all times and can get information about anything I want within a few seconds. In the past it could take days, weeks, or months to get this information. Yahoo wasn’t nearly as capable a search engine as Google, which came much later. Giogle search has made me tremendously more productive in life.

    I can’t think of anything that Apple invented that is as revolutionary as Google search. I appreciate how delightful Macs are and how wonderful iPads are, and how great Apple watches are, but they did not revolutionize my life like Google search and Google Maps, which cost me absolutely nothing. 
    edited March 2019 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 31 of 53
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,422member

    https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/03/13/android-q-beefs-up-privacy-with-new-limits-on-location-access-device-ids-and-more/
    They're working at it. An instance where "copying Apple" is a great thing. 

    Note that even Business Insider who posted the story (anonymous sources of course) says that in the near-term expect nothing to change with hi-end Chrome OS product plans hardware wise. But since the Pixel Slate is Google's most expensive hardware product (and a widely panned one too) they would likely be their slowest selling and most likely to be chopped. The Pixelbook on the other hand is still praised.

    There's a wide field between "Apple:We're Number 1!!" and those at the very bottom of the heap. Everyone "not Apple" doesn't grade as an F, nor should the author confuse discontinuing the Pixel Slate or any other expensive Google manufactured Chrome hardware as discontinuing and no longer improving and supporting their Chrome OS used daily by millions of people. 

    Posted from my 2017 Pixelbook. My 2013 Chromebook Pixel is still good (at work) tho the battery life is now down to a couple hours between charges. 

    EDIT: On a somewhat related note (technically not OT as DED brought up smartphones too) my OG Pixel that shipped with Android 7, then getting 8 (Oreo) and then 9 (Pie) is in the process of being updated for Android 10 (Q*) in a bit of a surprise.  I may wait one more year to buy another smartphone. TBH they haven't changed all that much in the last two or three, not enough to spend $600+ on another, and like some Apple users as long as the device is still being supported....
    Ever the Google apologist. Google gets an F because they failed to be successful on really any level in their self branded endeavors. They aren’t profitable...
    Google says the Pixel line is profitable. Absolutely not Apple-like profitable, and what is, but deserving an "F" because they aren't as successful at it as Apple? Nah.

    As for why I have a Pixelbook it's the best match for me personally for a home computer. There's not been a task yet that I can't do on mine, the battery life is great, performance and boot times are top-notch, the keyboard is amazingly nice to use,  security and resistance to malware is better even than your Mac, updates are often and regular, no lack of applications. What's not to like?

    Don't wanna spend $750 or so for one there's other options from other vendors: Samsung, Motorola, Asus, Dell....
    You of course would never know how capable one is as you've not ever used one, right? Silly for you to reflexively poo-poo something that you don't really know anything about. Yeah it's not sold by Apple. So?
    edited March 2019 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 32 of 53
    Dan_DilgerDan_Dilger Posts: 1,583member
    crowley said:
    Google's (and to a lesser extent Microsoft's) misadventures in selling hardware don't make big waves with analysts and journalists for the simple reason that they don't matter much, either to those companies or the industry at large.  They aren't primarily hardware companies, the Pixel and Surface lines are little more than hobbies existing within a much broader ecosystem of Chrome, Android and Windows devices.  Apple showing weakness in pricing or units shifted on the other hand is a big deal because selling hardware is Apple's bread and butter.

    Not sure why Daniel doesn't get this.  This is little more than whatabboutism.
    The money they aren't earning wouldn't "matter much" unless they were successful, huh? 

    In 2012, analysts and journalists were entertaining the idea that Microsoft's Surface would grow far larger than Apple, just like they previously expected Honeycomb tablets would sideline iPad and that Windows Mobile could derail iPhone and PlaysForSure could take over iPod. If any of those things had happened, Microsoft or Google would have the potential to be making the $200 billion in revenues that Apple makes from hardware each year. 

    The fact that they aren't actually is a problem. The money was on the table. Microsoft and Google are spending a lot of money on horseshit products that aren't selling. That's the biggest problem in business one can have. It's much worse than not doing anything. 

    You can keep trotting out your "not sure why nobody gets my theory about why failure isn't a problem because after failing the money they don't earn doesn't count anywhere so who cares?" 

    Makes you sound really stupid. I'd stop. 
    fastasleepwatto_cobrabakedbananas
  • Reply 33 of 53
    Dan_DilgerDan_Dilger Posts: 1,583member
    gatorguy said:
    https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/03/13/android-q-beefs-up-privacy-with-new-limits-on-location-access-device-ids-and-more/
    They're working at it. An instance where "copying Apple" is a great thing. 

    Note that even Business Insider who posted the story (anonymous sources of course) says that in the near-term expect nothing to change with hi-end Chrome OS product plans hardware wise. But since the Pixel Slate is Google's most expensive hardware product (and a widely panned one too) they would likely be their slowest selling and most likely to be chopped. The Pixelbook on the other hand is still praised.

    There's a wide field between "Apple:We're Number 1!!" and those at the very bottom of the heap. Everyone "not Apple" doesn't grade as an F, nor should the author confuse discontinuing the Pixel Slate or any other expensive Google manufactured Chrome hardware as discontinuing and no longer improving and supporting their Chrome OS used daily by millions of people. 

    Posted from my 2017 Pixelbook. My 2013 Chromebook Pixel is still good (at work) tho the battery life is now down to a couple hours between charges. 

    EDIT: On a somewhat related note (technically not OT as DED brought up smartphones too) my OG Pixel that shipped with Android 7, then getting 8 (Oreo) and then 9 (Pie) is in the process of being updated for Android 10 (Q*) in a bit of a surprise.  I may wait one more year to buy another smartphone. TBH they haven't changed all that much in the last two or three, not enough to spend $600+ on another, and like some Apple users as long as the device is still being supported....
    When you view yourself as really important and the center of reality, it might seem relevant that your Pixel phone is getting three years of updates. But the fact that nobody else bought it actually means that Google blew huge amounts of money on a hardware failure with nothing to show but receipts. That has more consequences than your anecdote. And the failure within Google hardware that keeps on expanding is clearly a big deal, despite all your handwaving attempts at minimizing huge losses and wasted money.  
    StrangeDaysMacProAppleExposedfastasleepbestkeptsecretwatto_cobrabakedbananas
  • Reply 34 of 53
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,196member
    crowley said:
    Google's (and to a lesser extent Microsoft's) misadventures in selling hardware don't make big waves with analysts and journalists for the simple reason that they don't matter much, either to those companies or the industry at large.  They aren't primarily hardware companies, the Pixel and Surface lines are little more than hobbies existing within a much broader ecosystem of Chrome, Android and Windows devices.  Apple showing weakness in pricing or units shifted on the other hand is a big deal because selling hardware is Apple's bread and butter.

    Not sure why Daniel doesn't get this.  This is little more than whatabboutism.
    You're arguing there should be two different metrics of hardware success/failure, based on who is being discussed. AKA, grading on a curve. Doing so makes no sense, because the rest of the build-up coverage to these products isn't also on a curve...they hype them up as the next great iPhone/iPad-killer, and then when they fail it's "Oh it didn't matter to Google anyway!"

    Yeah no. A failure is a failure, and it's worth noting them. 
    AppleExposedfastasleepwatto_cobrabakedbananas
  • Reply 35 of 53
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,422member
    gatorguy said:
    https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/03/13/android-q-beefs-up-privacy-with-new-limits-on-location-access-device-ids-and-more/
    They're working at it. An instance where "copying Apple" is a great thing. 

    Note that even Business Insider who posted the story (anonymous sources of course) says that in the near-term expect nothing to change with hi-end Chrome OS product plans hardware wise. But since the Pixel Slate is Google's most expensive hardware product (and a widely panned one too) they would likely be their slowest selling and most likely to be chopped. The Pixelbook on the other hand is still praised.

    There's a wide field between "Apple:We're Number 1!!" and those at the very bottom of the heap. Everyone "not Apple" doesn't grade as an F, nor should the author confuse discontinuing the Pixel Slate or any other expensive Google manufactured Chrome hardware as discontinuing and no longer improving and supporting their Chrome OS used daily by millions of people. 

    Posted from my 2017 Pixelbook. My 2013 Chromebook Pixel is still good (at work) tho the battery life is now down to a couple hours between charges. 

    EDIT: On a somewhat related note (technically not OT as DED brought up smartphones too) my OG Pixel that shipped with Android 7, then getting 8 (Oreo) and then 9 (Pie) is in the process of being updated for Android 10 (Q*) in a bit of a surprise.  I may wait one more year to buy another smartphone. TBH they haven't changed all that much in the last two or three, not enough to spend $600+ on another, and like some Apple users as long as the device is still being supported....
    When you view yourself as really important and the center of reality, it might seem relevant that your Pixel phone is getting three years of updates. But the fact that nobody else bought it actually means that Google blew huge amounts of money on a hardware failure with nothing to show but receipts. That has more consequences than your anecdote. And the failure within Google hardware that keeps on expanding is clearly a big deal, despite all your handwaving attempts at minimizing huge losses and wasted money.  
    According to Google the Pixel line is profitable. And it's apparently four years of updates so far, not three... ;)

    Personally I don't consider myself as all that important. Honest, but not terribly important in the bigger scheme of stuff, no more than anyone else. Some folks here seem to "think differently", believe the world is revolving around their opinion, that they're a "name" to be reckoned with and deserve accolades for it. I'm glad neither of us put ourselves in that group. 
    avon b7muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 36 of 53
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,353member
    crowley said:
    Google's (and to a lesser extent Microsoft's) misadventures in selling hardware don't make big waves with analysts and journalists for the simple reason that they don't matter much, either to those companies or the industry at large.  They aren't primarily hardware companies, the Pixel and Surface lines are little more than hobbies existing within a much broader ecosystem of Chrome, Android and Windows devices.  Apple showing weakness in pricing or units shifted on the other hand is a big deal because selling hardware is Apple's bread and butter.

    Not sure why Daniel doesn't get this.  This is little more than whatabboutism.
    You're arguing there should be two different metrics of hardware success/failure, based on who is being discussed. AKA, grading on a curve. Doing so makes no sense, because the rest of the build-up coverage to these products isn't also on a curve...they hype them up as the next great iPhone/iPad-killer, and then when they fail it's "Oh it didn't matter to Google anyway!"

    Yeah no. A failure is a failure, and it's worth noting them. 
    Sure it's worth noting them, but it's never going to be as big news as Apple's forecasts being downgraded, because quite simply no one cares.  Microsoft and Google investors don't care if Pixels and Surfaces aren't selling, because that's never been a contributor to the bottom line.  If they started selling in meaningful amounts then they'd probably start caring, but they haven't so they don't

    Daniel's rants would have you believe that there's some kind of tech journalism cover-up of the failure of Apple's rivals, but there isn't, tech journalists just write the articles that people are interested in.
    avon b7AppleExposed
  • Reply 37 of 53
    In more than 20 years of scouring the web and reading articles about the tech world, I've never seen anything like the following from Patrick Berlinquette. He is the only person I've read who fleshes out the euphemism Go-ogle hides behind, "monetizing users' data".

    The rest of the media goes out of its way to keep the public from knowing Go-ogle makes 90% of its revenue from advertising through surveillance capitalism, otherwise, Mr. Berlinquette wouldn't have to go out of his way to explain it. Think about it, when have you ever heard anyone on TV tell you anything even remotely like what Patrick does in his 3-part (supposed to have a 4th part added later) series (see links below)? The answer's NEVER!

    _______

    When lazy journalists are pessimistic about Amazon’s Alexa or Google Home, they say stuff like: “Even Orwell couldn’t have predicted that we’d willingly bring Big Brother into our own homes."

    What they fail to mention is our willingness to exchange privacy for convenience didn’t start with the advent of virtual assistants. It started in the early 2000s, when people—in return for having access to Google products and seeing more relevant ads—allowed Google to have all their data.

    Today, Google provides marketers like me with so much of your personal data that we can infer more about you from it than from any camera or microphone.

         ~ Patrick Berlinquette from How Google Tracks Your Personal Information


    Part 1: How Google Tracks Your Personal Information: 

         https://medium.com/s/story/the-complete-unauthorized-checklist-of-how-google-tracks-you-3c3abc10781d

    Part 2: How Google Marketers Exploit Your Discomfort:

         https://medium.com/s/story/make-orwell-fiction-again-part-2-micro-moments-9ba6e042a0c4

    Part 3: How Marketers Use Redirect Ads to Deceive You:

         https://medium.com/s/story/make-orwell-fiction-again-part-3-masters-of-our-fates-620a84792482
    AppleExposedwatto_cobraradarthekatbakedbananas
  • Reply 38 of 53
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,353member
    crowley said:
    Google's (and to a lesser extent Microsoft's) misadventures in selling hardware don't make big waves with analysts and journalists for the simple reason that they don't matter much, either to those companies or the industry at large.  They aren't primarily hardware companies, the Pixel and Surface lines are little more than hobbies existing within a much broader ecosystem of Chrome, Android and Windows devices.  Apple showing weakness in pricing or units shifted on the other hand is a big deal because selling hardware is Apple's bread and butter.

    Not sure why Daniel doesn't get this.  This is little more than whatabboutism.
    The money they aren't earning wouldn't "matter much" unless they were successful, huh? 

    In 2012, analysts and journalists were entertaining the idea that Microsoft's Surface would grow far larger than Apple, just like they previously expected Honeycomb tablets would sideline iPad and that Windows Mobile could derail iPhone and PlaysForSure could take over iPod. If any of those things had happened, Microsoft or Google would have the potential to be making the $200 billion in revenues that Apple makes from hardware each year. 

    The fact that they aren't actually is a problem. The money was on the table. Microsoft and Google are spending a lot of money on horseshit products that aren't selling. That's the biggest problem in business one can have. It's much worse than not doing anything. 

    You can keep trotting out your "not sure why nobody gets my theory about why failure isn't a problem because after failing the money they don't earn doesn't count anywhere so who cares?" 

    Makes you sound really stupid. I'd stop. 
    Sure, if they weren't successful that'd be major news.  But new products from new entrants not being a smash hit isn't significant news. Microsoft and Google are doing just fine in their core competencies, and they're making bank.

    I'll keep "trotting out my theory" because it's right.  And supported by the real world of journalism.  Do you never wonder why no else notices these amazing insights that you have?  Answer, they do, they just don't think it's important. 

    Pixel and Surface aren't majorly successful?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    gatorguymuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 39 of 53
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,422member
    In more than 20 years of scouring the web and reading articles about the tech world, I've never seen anything like the following from Patrick Berlinquette. He is the only person I've read who fleshes out the euphemism Go-ogle hides behind, "monetizing users' data".

    The rest of the media goes out of its way to keep the public from knowing Go-ogle makes 90% of its revenue from advertising through surveillance capitalism, otherwise, Mr. Berlinquette wouldn't have to go out of his way to explain it. Think about it, when have you ever heard anyone on TV tell you anything even remotely like what Patrick does in his 3-part (supposed to have a 4th part added later) series (see links below)? The answer's NEVER!

    _______

    When lazy journalists are pessimistic about Amazon’s Alexa or Google Home, they say stuff like: “Even Orwell couldn’t have predicted that we’d willingly bring Big Brother into our own homes."

    What they fail to mention is our willingness to exchange privacy for convenience didn’t start with the advent of virtual assistants. It started in the early 2000s, when people—in return for having access to Google products and seeing more relevant ads—allowed Google to have all their data.

    Today, Google provides marketers like me with so much of your personal data ...

         ~ Patrick Berlinquette from How Google Tracks Your Personal Information

    Unfortunately he's not being totally honest IMO. Google provided Mr Berlinquette ZERO personal information about you AFAIK. Challenge him to supply proof of this "supplying" and see what his response is. 
    muthuk_vanalingamAppleExposed
  • Reply 40 of 53
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,500member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/03/13/android-q-beefs-up-privacy-with-new-limits-on-location-access-device-ids-and-more/
    They're working at it. An instance where "copying Apple" is a great thing. 

    Note that even Business Insider who posted the story (anonymous sources of course) says that in the near-term expect nothing to change with hi-end Chrome OS product plans hardware wise. But since the Pixel Slate is Google's most expensive hardware product (and a widely panned one too) they would likely be their slowest selling and most likely to be chopped. The Pixelbook on the other hand is still praised.

    There's a wide field between "Apple:We're Number 1!!" and those at the very bottom of the heap. Everyone "not Apple" doesn't grade as an F, nor should the author confuse discontinuing the Pixel Slate or any other expensive Google manufactured Chrome hardware as discontinuing and no longer improving and supporting their Chrome OS used daily by millions of people. 

    Posted from my 2017 Pixelbook. My 2013 Chromebook Pixel is still good (at work) tho the battery life is now down to a couple hours between charges. 

    EDIT: On a somewhat related note (technically not OT as DED brought up smartphones too) my OG Pixel that shipped with Android 7, then getting 8 (Oreo) and then 9 (Pie) is in the process of being updated for Android 10 (Q*) in a bit of a surprise.  I may wait one more year to buy another smartphone. TBH they haven't changed all that much in the last two or three, not enough to spend $600+ on another, and like some Apple users as long as the device is still being supported....
    When you view yourself as really important and the center of reality, it might seem relevant that your Pixel phone is getting three years of updates. But the fact that nobody else bought it actually means that Google blew huge amounts of money on a hardware failure with nothing to show but receipts. That has more consequences than your anecdote. And the failure within Google hardware that keeps on expanding is clearly a big deal, despite all your handwaving attempts at minimizing huge losses and wasted money.  
    According to Google the Pixel line is profitable. And it's apparently four years of updates so far, not three... ;)

    Personally I don't consider myself as all that important. Honest, but not terribly important in the bigger scheme of stuff, no more than anyone else. Some folks here seem to "think differently", believe the world is revolving around their opinion, that they're a "name" to be reckoned with and deserve accolades for it. I'm glad neither of us put ourselves in that group. 
    As I have suggested ad infinitum you should go off to an Android/Google blog where I would suspect most Mac users wouldn't be seen dead so won't bother you. 
    AppleExposedfastasleepwatto_cobraradarthekat
Sign In or Register to comment.