Why the hell wasn't he asked what the **** happened to Google Glass? Wasn't this supposed to be the next big thing, that all tech blogs and Fandroids had been hyping for 2 years as the definition of innovation? Where is it? How many have been sold? Why is Google now pretending the product doesn't exist, after yapping about it non-stop for years? Where did all the Glassholes go? Why does it still cost $1,500? Why isnt the software being updated anymore? Why is the design still unchanged since it was first previewed?
What's amazing is the free pass Google always gets for these massive bombs. Imagine if Apple launched Glass, them promptly ignored it. They would never, ever hear the end of it. But Google somehow has the ability to move on without skipping a beat after every epic failure.
Glass was updated in June, then July, then again in August, and even in September. There are two versions of Glass, and now there are prescription frames, but what do you care about Google's marketing plans for Glass?
So, why do you think it is that Google gets a free pass to fail? Why doesn't Apple? Why does Google continue to flourish with a seemingly different set of rules than Apple?
Good for you that it works for you. There are other solutions on other platforms that work equally well for others. Some even avoid cloud storage where data can be lost, compromised or even unavailable when they Internet is down.
By the way, will your solution allow you to swipe a customer's credit card to pay for a sale? There are solutions that integrate that function on your awake device while providing all the backend processing you want.
All of that is coming.
I think it's great that I can so easily auto-whip-up a photo release in Drive, email it to the customer with their confirmation, create an appointment, add it to my calendar and send them an invitation. There are a lot of steps like that which are completely brain-dead easy with Google services integration. I know that there is no shortage of awesome competing solution, but I'd be surprised if it could all be done so easily -- without installing a single development tool (I already have plenty for work though), and such simple API access to all of Google's services (Drive, Maps, Calendar, etc.). It's really a powerful option. Of course the APIs are available in plenty of other technology stacks.
Im busy. I've got a 50 hour-week job as a technical manager, and heads-down coder (C#, C++, Java), then sports photography as a side-business. Three kids, I'm coaching four teams from soccer to Lego Robotics, and I'm a bike racer keeping up with enough training to occasionally rip the legs off my competition on weekends. So, any solution that allows me to jump in and out without many speed bumps is a winner.
There was a bit in Google I/O this year where they had implemented a twitter analyzer during the world cup. A game was on during the keynote, and they were computing a sentiment for the tweets during Brazil/Croatia game and graphing them. They had staged a bug in the code, demonstrated it when someone tweeted live. They caught it in Chrome, in a debugger breakpoint, the next time it was hit. They fixed the bug, redeployed the server, and continued receiving tweets. It is all really simple.
It's pretty pathetic how he continually cheerleads for Samsung...
He has to! Google is contractually bound to pay Samsung's legal fees and judgments from the Android lawsuits. There is simply too at stake for Schmidt and Google not to be evil.
Why on earth would you need 64 bits to address 1GB of RAM on a phone with only limited multitasking?
Of course, 64 bits registers aren't needed for that, but they do make addressing 128 GB of storage more efficient. The 64-bit ARM instruction set also supports twice the registers (32 integer and 32 floating point) for even greater speed. This is twice the registers of Intel's latest Xeons.
That's much of the reason why the A8 processor in the iPhone 6 is basically as fast* as Samsung S5, despite having half as many cores and running at a vastly slower clock rate (for higher energy efficiency).
Processor design just isn't Samsung's core competency." src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
*Only in multi-threaded tasks. In single-threaded tasks, the iPhone 5s, 6 and 6 Plus absolutely smoke Samsung and all others.
Why on earth would you need 64 bits to address 1GB of RAM on a phone with only limited multitasking?
RAM size has nothing to do with it - you can access 1GB even with an 8-bit CPU like 8051/etc. In terms of multitasking - most smartphones run a UNIX clone (Apple iOS, Linux/Android, Blackberry QNX) so multitasking support is essentially the same.
Does anyone believe anything Google says anymore? What they should have asked is; as google have failed to transition web ad revenues to mobile & desktop clicks aren't yielding the same dollars, where do those increasing profits now come from?
Does anyone believe anything Google says anymore? What they should have asked is; as google have failed to transition web ad revenues to mobile & desktop clicks aren't yielding the same dollars, where do those increasing profits now come from?
When did Samsung get a good OS?
i honestly dont know why Samsung uses a touch wiz over their phones. Theyd be far better off with stock Android.
Glass was updated in June, then July, then again in August, and even in September. There are two versions of Glass, and now there are prescription frames, but what do you care about Google's marketing plans for Glass?
So, why do you think it is that Google gets a free pass to fail? Why doesn't Apple? Why does Google continue to flourish with a seemingly different set of rules than Apple?
Glass was updated in June, then July, then again in August, and even in September. There are two versions of Glass, and now there are prescription frames, but what do you care about Google's marketing plans for Glass?
So, why do you think it is that Google gets a free pass to fail? Why doesn't Apple? Why does Google continue to flourish with a seemingly different set of rules than Apple?
You know, you have to have a fuckload of intellectual dishonesty to pretend not to see my point. Google had been hyping Glass as the next big thing, in every single capacity, until it was silently launched, thrown on the Play Store, then we never heard a peep from Google about that product again. They swept it under the rug and moved on to "Android Wear" after creating countless "conceptual" hype videos for Glass, after every Google exec/employee pitched Glass in every single sentence, wore Glass at every single presentation, etc. Now it's released, and Google is pretending it doesn't exist, because they have an inability to commit to anything. You think that's normal? You think Apple would have gotten away with that?
What about other (expensive) products, like the Chromebook Pixel? Google's answer to the Macbook Pro, which costs just as much? Why was that launched, and then never updated? Stop pretending as if you have no idea what I'm talking about. If Google really was confident about their products, they would stand behind them and support them. If they really thought Glass was the next big thing fit for consumers, they should have produced them in mass quantities and had a big launch. But no, they "beta test" products on suckers, throw shit at the wall, see how the wing blows, and hedge their bets. Google was driving Glass down everyone's throats barely 6 months ago, attacking and mocking anyone who questioned the privacy implications, and yet they didnt have the conviction to follow-through with the product, proving how little honesty they have in terms of claiming to believe in their products. If you're fine with companies operating like that, that's great.
Glass was updated in June, then July, then again in August, and even in September. There are two versions of Glass, and now there are prescription frames, but what do you care about Google's marketing plans for Glass?
So, why do you think it is that Google gets a free pass to fail? Why doesn't Apple? Why does Google continue to flourish with a seemingly different set of rules than Apple?
Quite simple, really. Google is much more public about its R&D projects than Apple. People get carried away with Google's talk about its projects, without taking the time to dig into the details. So Google flourishes because the vast majority of people don't exercise simple critical thinking.
i honestly dont know why Samsung uses a touch wiz over their phones. Theyd be far better off with stock Android.
Because using stock Android makes their phones just like any other Android clone. Very bad for margins and marketing. They would be in a sense working for Google's profits instead of their own. That fact is what long term may put a big dent into Android. Companies need to make money and most Android makers are either barely making any or losing money. Even Samsung is now trending towards not making much money at all.
Apple is a popular rock band & Google is the cover band. No one lines up for a cover band. Schmidt claims Samsung had this tech a year ago, but Schmidt might not actually know what tech samsung had out%u2014 if the screen size is all Schmidt defines as a phone feature, then he was being truthful. However, Samsung doesn't have the build quality, nor the chipsets, nor the same quality of software. So, either Schmidt is ignorant of what the differences are or he was lying to try to save face. Either way, he is delusional thinking that either course will fix android%u2019s race to the bottom. Android is now a commodity OS, ripe for other commodity OSes to cannibalize it.
Of course, 64 bits registers aren't needed for that, but they do make addressing 128 GB of storage more efficient. The 64-bit ARM instruction set also supports twice the registers (32 integer and 32 floating point) for even greater speed. This is twice the registers of Intel's latest Xeons.
That's much of the reason why the A8 processor in the iPhone 6 is basically as fast* as Samsung S5, despite having half as many cores and running at a vastly slower clock rate (for higher energy efficiency).
Processor design just isn't Samsung's core competency.
*Only in multi-threaded tasks. In single-threaded tasks, the iPhone 5s, 6 and 6 Plus absolutely smoke Samsung and all others.:smokey:
If Google had that much faith in Android, how come they dumped Motorola? Now, after trying to make a move into hardware to move Android ahead, Schmidt is left trying to defend the company that is. singlehandedly trying to splinter the Android ecosystem.
Oth, are we supposed to trust the opinion on mobile hardware devices from a company that lost $2.2B dollars trying to get into the handset market and then dumped it to a Chinese company for a $6B loss?
Comments
Why the hell wasn't he asked what the **** happened to Google Glass? Wasn't this supposed to be the next big thing, that all tech blogs and Fandroids had been hyping for 2 years as the definition of innovation? Where is it? How many have been sold? Why is Google now pretending the product doesn't exist, after yapping about it non-stop for years? Where did all the Glassholes go? Why does it still cost $1,500? Why isnt the software being updated anymore? Why is the design still unchanged since it was first previewed?
What's amazing is the free pass Google always gets for these massive bombs. Imagine if Apple launched Glass, them promptly ignored it. They would never, ever hear the end of it. But Google somehow has the ability to move on without skipping a beat after every epic failure.
Glass was updated in June, then July, then again in August, and even in September. There are two versions of Glass, and now there are prescription frames, but what do you care about Google's marketing plans for Glass?
So, why do you think it is that Google gets a free pass to fail? Why doesn't Apple? Why does Google continue to flourish with a seemingly different set of rules than Apple?
This is Ballmer all over again.
[B]Edit[/B]: Okay just watched the video. Wow this guy's response was even more Ballmer-like than I'd anticipated.
His last answer about Europe was pathetic also. "Europe needs to embrace innovation", NO, they just don't wanna tolerate your BS in their country.
Good for you that it works for you. There are other solutions on other platforms that work equally well for others. Some even avoid cloud storage where data can be lost, compromised or even unavailable when they Internet is down.
By the way, will your solution allow you to swipe a customer's credit card to pay for a sale? There are solutions that integrate that function on your awake device while providing all the backend processing you want.
All of that is coming.
I think it's great that I can so easily auto-whip-up a photo release in Drive, email it to the customer with their confirmation, create an appointment, add it to my calendar and send them an invitation. There are a lot of steps like that which are completely brain-dead easy with Google services integration. I know that there is no shortage of awesome competing solution, but I'd be surprised if it could all be done so easily -- without installing a single development tool (I already have plenty for work though), and such simple API access to all of Google's services (Drive, Maps, Calendar, etc.). It's really a powerful option. Of course the APIs are available in plenty of other technology stacks.
Im busy. I've got a 50 hour-week job as a technical manager, and heads-down coder (C#, C++, Java), then sports photography as a side-business. Three kids, I'm coaching four teams from soccer to Lego Robotics, and I'm a bike racer keeping up with enough training to occasionally rip the legs off my competition on weekends. So, any solution that allows me to jump in and out without many speed bumps is a winner.
There was a bit in Google I/O this year where they had implemented a twitter analyzer during the world cup. A game was on during the keynote, and they were computing a sentiment for the tweets during Brazil/Croatia game and graphing them. They had staged a bug in the code, demonstrated it when someone tweeted live. They caught it in Chrome, in a debugger breakpoint, the next time it was hit. They fixed the bug, redeployed the server, and continued receiving tweets. It is all really simple.
...and no memory card slot.
It's pretty pathetic how he continually cheerleads for Samsung...
He has to! Google is contractually bound to pay Samsung's legal fees and judgments from the Android lawsuits. There is simply too at stake for Schmidt and Google not to be evil.
Why on earth would you need 64 bits to address 1GB of RAM on a phone with only limited multitasking?
Of course, 64 bits registers aren't needed for that, but they do make addressing 128 GB of storage more efficient. The 64-bit ARM instruction set also supports twice the registers (32 integer and 32 floating point) for even greater speed. This is twice the registers of Intel's latest Xeons.
That's much of the reason why the A8 processor in the iPhone 6 is basically as fast* as Samsung S5, despite having half as many cores and running at a vastly slower clock rate (for higher energy efficiency).
Processor design just isn't Samsung's core competency.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
*Only in multi-threaded tasks. In single-threaded tasks, the iPhone 5s, 6 and 6 Plus absolutely smoke Samsung and all others.
When did Samsung get a good OS?
Glass was updated in June, then July, then again in August, and even in September. There are two versions of Glass, and now there are prescription frames, but what do you care about Google's marketing plans for Glass?
So, why do you think it is that Google gets a free pass to fail? Why doesn't Apple? Why does Google continue to flourish with a seemingly different set of rules than Apple?
You know, you have to have a fuckload of intellectual dishonesty to pretend not to see my point. Google had been hyping Glass as the next big thing, in every single capacity, until it was silently launched, thrown on the Play Store, then we never heard a peep from Google about that product again. They swept it under the rug and moved on to "Android Wear" after creating countless "conceptual" hype videos for Glass, after every Google exec/employee pitched Glass in every single sentence, wore Glass at every single presentation, etc. Now it's released, and Google is pretending it doesn't exist, because they have an inability to commit to anything. You think that's normal? You think Apple would have gotten away with that?
What about other (expensive) products, like the Chromebook Pixel? Google's answer to the Macbook Pro, which costs just as much? Why was that launched, and then never updated? Stop pretending as if you have no idea what I'm talking about. If Google really was confident about their products, they would stand behind them and support them. If they really thought Glass was the next big thing fit for consumers, they should have produced them in mass quantities and had a big launch. But no, they "beta test" products on suckers, throw shit at the wall, see how the wing blows, and hedge their bets. Google was driving Glass down everyone's throats barely 6 months ago, attacking and mocking anyone who questioned the privacy implications, and yet they didnt have the conviction to follow-through with the product, proving how little honesty they have in terms of claiming to believe in their products. If you're fine with companies operating like that, that's great.
Same ol' Schmidt...
Glass was updated in June, then July, then again in August, and even in September. There are two versions of Glass, and now there are prescription frames, but what do you care about Google's marketing plans for Glass?
So, why do you think it is that Google gets a free pass to fail? Why doesn't Apple? Why does Google continue to flourish with a seemingly different set of rules than Apple?
Quite simple, really. Google is much more public about its R&D projects than Apple. People get carried away with Google's talk about its projects, without taking the time to dig into the details. So Google flourishes because the vast majority of people don't exercise simple critical thinking.
i honestly dont know why Samsung uses a touch wiz over their phones. Theyd be far better off with stock Android.
Because using stock Android makes their phones just like any other Android clone. Very bad for margins and marketing. They would be in a sense working for Google's profits instead of their own. That fact is what long term may put a big dent into Android. Companies need to make money and most Android makers are either barely making any or losing money. Even Samsung is now trending towards not making much money at all.
Oth, are we supposed to trust the opinion on mobile hardware devices from a company that lost $2.2B dollars trying to get into the handset market and then dumped it to a Chinese company for a $6B loss?