I don't know what Chrome is, but I thought browsers and operating systems usually are different things. Is Chrome a two-in-one product that is both browser and OS? Or are they distinct pieces of software that share the same name just to confuse me?
They are Chrome Browser and Chrome OS. Different software, but a lot of the same base code. Closer to a 2-in-1 than a convoluted plot to cause you confusion. :-)
A lot of the base code is different, too. This is something I think Google intentionally obfuscates. Chrome OS is really a somewhat stripped-down and specially configured version of Linux, with auto-updates turned on and the Chrome browser running in full-screen mode at login.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing (I personally think it's a pretty cool idea, tech-wise), but it is a lot more complex and fragile than Google presents it as.
One key point of (very) possible failure: What happens to the existing Chromebooks if/when Google gives up on Chrome OS? Will Google still send out updates? For how long? Will they do anything to make it clear to existing owners that their laptops are no longer getting security updates and are thus no longer secure?
I personally see this as a real possibility because Chromebooks are being sold as super-cheap alternatives to Windows laptops. So they're sold at razor-thin margins. It's hard to imagine that Google makes much money per laptop, maybe a few bucks, if that. Is it enough to offset the costs of Chrome OS development, testing, and marketing? I doubt it. It's not a trivial product, and supporting it costs Google a lot more than $free.
Typical example of absurd Pentagon waste. After spending $42 million they conclude that the thing is too noisy -- a conclusion any knucklehead could have reached before a single penny was spent.
They are Chrome Browser and Chrome OS. Different software, but a lot of the same base code. Closer to a 2-in-1 than a convoluted plot to cause you confusion. :-)
A lot of the base code is different, too. This is something I think Google intentionally obfuscates. Chrome OS is really a somewhat stripped-down and specially configured version of Linux, with auto-updates turned on and the Chrome browser running in full-screen mode at login.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing (I personally think it's a pretty cool idea, tech-wise), but it is a lot more complex and fragile than Google presents it as.
One key point of (very) possible failure: What happens to the existing Chromebooks if/when Google gives up on Chrome OS? Will Google still send out updates? For how long? Will they do anything to make it clear to existing owners that their laptops are no longer getting security updates and are thus no longer secure?
I personally see this as a real possibility because Chromebooks are being sold as super-cheap alternatives to Windows laptops. So they're sold at razor-thin margins. It's hard to imagine that Google makes much money per laptop, maybe a few bucks, if that. Is it enough to offset the costs of Chrome OS development, testing, and marketing? I doubt it. It's not a trivial product, and supporting it costs Google a lot more than $free.
Google has had some success with Chromebooks. Are they killing it in sales? No. But they've carved out the eduction market and trying to chip into enterprise. Unlike something like Windows phone which is just a pure flop, Chromebooks are a measured success. It would be difficult to see them abandon their platform when so many organizations depend on it. It would badly damage their reputation. ChromeOS is here to stay in one form or another.
And to add to that, ChromeOS probably isn't a very expensive platform to keep updated. They've already got a hugely successful Chrome browser team that pushes out the updates regularly, and that's 80% of what ChromeOS is. The other 20% is the linux underpinnings that get updates far more sparingly. I imagine the ChromeOS team is quite small and just keeps everything smooth for the browser team.
And then to add to that, Google supposedly has plans to merge Android with ChromeOS. It looks to me like Google is looking to leverage Android to the desktop.
I would like to point out that Google chose to leave the Chinese market years ago rather than capitulate to the Chinese government's ridiculous privacy restrictions. They wanted Google to block a very large portion of the internet, and report anybody attempting to view anything deemed "dangerous" (AKA critical of the government). That Google rejected these terms and Apple embraces them is a win and a source of pride for Google, not Apple.
Oh please! Do you seriously think Google did that out some altruistic intentions of standing up for human rights? It is complete garbage. Google is rotten from the top down. At the time, Baidu, China's homegrown version of Google was growing by leaps and bounds while Google was languishing. Google walked away from China because it would't have made a big difference to the bottom line to stay in China, simple as that. That the media would glorify Google was a welcome side effect.
Eric Schmidt is on record for saying that if someone had something they didn't want anyone knowing about, they wouldn't be doing it in the first place. Schmidt was CEO at the time. Although he's no longer the CEO, he's still in a position of importance at Google. The people in power at Google have that kind of an attitude about privacy.
Sometimes, I get the feeling that Google engages in all of its R&D in order to distract the public from how rotten its core business really is. It's definitely working. 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.
I would like to point out that Google chose to leave the Chinese market years ago rather than capitulate to the Chinese government's ridiculous privacy restrictions. They wanted Google to block a very large portion of the internet, and report anybody attempting to view anything deemed "dangerous" (AKA critical of the government). That Google rejected these terms and Apple embraces them is a win and a source of pride for Google, not Apple.
please link to where Apple granted China secret backdoor access to its devices. thanks.
This damages Google's credibility. They took money and said, in exchange, they could deliver something usable. They failed to deliver something usable. This failure didn't destroy all their credibility, but it chipped away at it.
The company they bought took money before Google bought them. This has nothing to do with Google.
sure it does, they bought them knowing it. it would be like you buying an arms dealer then claiming that you had nothing to do with fueling violence. of course it does, you knew when you bought it. duh.
A lot of the base code is different, too. This is something I think Google intentionally obfuscates. Chrome OS is really a somewhat stripped-down and specially configured version of Linux, with auto-updates turned on and the Chrome browser running in full-screen mode at login.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing (I personally think it's a pretty cool idea, tech-wise), but it is a lot more complex and fragile than Google presents it as.
One key point of (very) possible failure: What happens to the existing Chromebooks if/when Google gives up on Chrome OS? Will Google still send out updates? For how long? Will they do anything to make it clear to existing owners that their laptops are no longer getting security updates and are thus no longer secure?
I personally see this as a real possibility because Chromebooks are being sold as super-cheap alternatives to Windows laptops. So they're sold at razor-thin margins. It's hard to imagine that Google makes much money per laptop, maybe a few bucks, if that. Is it enough to offset the costs of Chrome OS development, testing, and marketing? I doubt it. It's not a trivial product, and supporting it costs Google a lot more than $free.
Google has had some success with Chromebooks. Are they killing it in sales? No. But they've carved out the eduction market and trying to chip into enterprise. Unlike something like Windows phone which is just a pure flop, Chromebooks are a measured success. It would be difficult to see them abandon their platform when so many organizations depend on it. It would badly damage their reputation. ChromeOS is here to stay in one form or another.
And to add to that, ChromeOS probably isn't a very expensive platform to keep updated. They've already got a hugely successful Chrome browser team that pushes out the updates regularly, and that's 80% of what ChromeOS is. The other 20% is the linux underpinnings that get updates far more sparingly. I imagine the ChromeOS team is quite small and just keeps everything smooth for the browser team.
And then to add to that, Google supposedly has plans to merge Android with ChromeOS. It looks to me like Google is looking to leverage Android to the desktop.
The Chromebook is the "thin client" computer concept they used to say was just around the corner back in 1998-99. Larry Ellison was a big proponent. And many years before that were the "dumb terminals" which relied on a room-sized computer for processing. Thanks to fast Internet and disperse computing resources these days, these old concepts made a comeback.
I would like to point out that Google chose to leave the Chinese market years ago rather than capitulate to the Chinese government's ridiculous privacy restrictions. They wanted Google to block a very large portion of the internet, and report anybody attempting to view anything deemed "dangerous" (AKA critical of the government). That Google rejected these terms and Apple embraces them is a win and a source of pride for Google, not Apple.
I would like to point out that Google chose to leave the Chinese market years ago rather than capitulate to the Chinese government's ridiculous privacy restrictions. They wanted Google to block a very large portion of the internet, and report anybody attempting to view anything deemed "dangerous" (AKA critical of the government). That Google rejected these terms and Apple embraces them is a win and a source of pride for Google, not Apple.
please link to where Apple granted China secret backdoor access to its devices. thanks.
I thought even AI had mentioned part of the story some months ago. In any event Apple was the very first Western tech company to agree to China's proposed (now law) cyber-security rules. Those included access to the OS. That doesn't mean Apple gave them a back door. Im 100% satified that Mr. Cook was being truthful a year ago when he said Apple does not give governments a back-door. But that also doesn't mean that what Apple gave them didn't allow one to be created by the Chinese despite what Apple would prefer. Remember that months earlier Apple had agreed to acquiesce to Chinese demands and move Apple users data and information to Chinese controlled and based servers. Putting those pieces together with recent agreements involving Chinese state-run companies it makes common sense that the Chinese likely have access now doesn't it? http://en.yibada.com/articles/19013/20150312/apple-chinas-cyber-security-requirements.htm
... and if so it certainly does not make Apple a "bad guy". If you're going to do business in China there are rules that might have a cost. Every company is going to have to deal with them no matter how rich or big they are. Note that Google too is supposedly opening a Google Play store there in the coming months. They won't be exempt from Chinese law either. So guess where user data is going to have to be kept? I doubt what would be Google's preference. I think Microsoft among others already capitulated in recent months. It's just such a huge market with so much money to made that's it's near impossible to ignore. Business is business.
As for your comment about China and Google it's obvious that China's demands for access and censorship couple with the hacking of Chinese user accounts and spying on US firms weighed on their decision to exit China. You do remember they even tried to go around them by moving out of China and into Hong Kong but that was eventually blocked too. So yeah user privacy and open exchange of information and ideas is important to them despite their advertising ventures that rely on anonymised data. But you are correct that it's too simplistic to say Google left China for those reasons alone. No doubt economics and competition played a part too, but probably a much smaller part than you would like to believe. Personally I doubt it was the bigger reason. The spying on US companies and hacking into Chinese GMail accounts were the big ones that led to the exit IMHO. But as I said a few sentences ago, "business is business". They'll go back and have to follow Chinese laws to do so.
Even without checking, I knew this was DED. I love your work! I am stunned that anyone takes Alphabet-Google seriously at all, any more. The only other company that gets such a huge free pass is MS, and they are being consumed by their own lack of taste, too. I wouldn't be surprised if the anti-encryption people were being financed by these two lame and disgusting companies.
In the meantime, The Macalope wrote a fun article about Apple's foibles. I recommend it!
Don't forget Amazon. They plow all their profits back into growing the company, and Wall Street loves it, giving them an astronomical P/E ratio of something over 900, compared to Apple's 12.
hey, while we're at it, Microsoft HoloLens doesn't use holography either. Media and the general public are clueless as to what holography is and have let Microsoft try to redefine it. Actual holography is far cooler and very distant in the future as a practical reality for user interfaces.
Redefinition of words is all the craze nowadays, they even redefined CO2 as pollution. It all depends on the political and/or commercial agenda and ignorance of the public.
Google bought the products your bashing on. Maybe bad judgement but it could be part of a bigger picture. Apple makes similar errors in areas they are not familiar with, look at Siri for example.
Even without checking, I knew this was DED. I love your work! I am stunned that anyone takes Alphabet-Google seriously at all, any more. The only other company that gets such a huge free pass is MS, and they are being consumed by their own lack of taste, too. I wouldn't be surprised if the anti-encryption people were being financed by these two lame and disgusting companies.
In the meantime, The Macalope wrote a fun article about Apple's foibles. I recommend it!
Don't forget Amazon. They plow all their profits back into growing the company, and Wall Street loves it, giving them an astronomical P/E ratio of something over 900, compared to Apple's 12.
Since they have so little profit, they don't have much choice of plowing it all in... Unlike Apple. I have no clue what Apple could do investing 70B a year on R&D! A base on moon of Jupiter for 2020?
A lot of the base code is different, too. This is something I think Google intentionally obfuscates. Chrome OS is really a somewhat stripped-down and specially configured version of Linux, with auto-updates turned on and the Chrome browser running in full-screen mode at login.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing (I personally think it's a pretty cool idea, tech-wise), but it is a lot more complex and fragile than Google presents it as.
One key point of (very) possible failure: What happens to the existing Chromebooks if/when Google gives up on Chrome OS? Will Google still send out updates? For how long? Will they do anything to make it clear to existing owners that their laptops are no longer getting security updates and are thus no longer secure?
I personally see this as a real possibility because Chromebooks are being sold as super-cheap alternatives to Windows laptops. So they're sold at razor-thin margins. It's hard to imagine that Google makes much money per laptop, maybe a few bucks, if that. Is it enough to offset the costs of Chrome OS development, testing, and marketing? I doubt it. It's not a trivial product, and supporting it costs Google a lot more than $free.
And then to add to that, Google supposedly has plans to merge Android with ChromeOS. It looks to me like Google is looking to leverage Android to the desktop.
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.
Even without checking, I knew this was DED. I love your work! I am stunned that anyone takes Alphabet-Google seriously at all, any more. The only other company that gets such a huge free pass is MS, and they are being consumed by their own lack of taste, too. I wouldn't be surprised if the anti-encryption people were being financed by these two lame and disgusting companies.
In the meantime, The Macalope wrote a fun article about Apple's foibles. I recommend it!
Don't forget Amazon. They plow all their profits back into growing the company, and Wall Street loves it, giving them an astronomical P/E ratio of something over 900, compared to Apple's 12.
Wall Street's love affair with Amazon is based on a misguided belief that the more a company spends on R&D, the more innovative the company is. This asinine notion forms the entire basis for the idea that Apple is not investing in its future at all and is just milking the profits of the iPhone.
R&D does cost money but in the end, a company has to deliver. That R&D has to lead to eventually lead to a revenue stream. Amazon has been saying for 20 years that it expects to lose money as it invests in its future. 20 years later, for all that spending, Amazon should be crushing Apple in revenue growth at least. Apple earns twice as much as Amazon yet still manages to show higher percentage growth rates. Maybe I'll be proven wrong and it's only a matter of a few years before Apple's financials sink to the bottom of the ocean while Amazon will triple, quadruple, and quintuple its growth and it will earn ten times as much as Apple. At least that's what investors think.
You are right that andro- denotes "man," and android specifically denotes a robot with a human-like appearance (as opposed to robots, many of which don't attempt muscle-like movements, walk on legs, have a head, etc.)
However, Boston Dynamics has several robot designs that all have human-like or otherwise being-inspired appearance or functionality. I also intended to reference Andy "android" Rubin, who got Google into Android, Motorola and then robotics, before his peace-out left the company with a series of albatrosses wrapped around its neck.
Google also rejected further Darpa funding nearly two years ago didn't they? It only honored this one because the contracts were already committed to by Boston Dynamics when Google purchased the company. I imagine I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know tho. Google has zero interest in creating military robots. Further, DARPA has better uses for their limited $2B+ budget than giving it to a company that doesn't need any of it. They traditionally take an interest in startups. Giving money to Google for research would be as ridiculous as giving it to Apple or Microsoft. So of course there would be no marriage between Google and military research.
In any event I think it's great that that there's no longer any connection to military uses of Google-owned robotics tech. Kudos all around. It needs to stay that way.
My recollection is that Boston Dynamics was an early pioneer in artificial locomotion; that would certainly put it in a niche that would preclude much in the way of real world products, at least until there are breakthroughs to increase the power to weight ratio. The Marines benchmarked the state of the art and found it unsuitable for further development, albeit they will be happy to take advantage of breakthroughs down the road.
These developments would have very little application to assembly robots, though prosthetics might be a application at some point. I have difficulty understanding why Google purchased what is primarily a niche R&D company, so I won't be surprised if at some point that the company is spun off.
hey, while we're at it, Microsoft HoloLens doesn't use holography either. Media and the general public are clueless as to what holography is and have let Microsoft try to redefine it. Actual holography is far cooler and very distant in the future as a practical reality for user interfaces.
And also while we're at it... Face recognition technology is called 'face recognition,' not 'facial recognition.' We're not trying to recognize that someone just returned from a spa appointment.
And the "hoverboards" generally being sold aren't hoverboards.
And then to add to that, Google supposedly has plans to merge Android with ChromeOS. It looks to me like Google is looking to leverage Android to the desktop.
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.
Just to be "that person," ... those are robots, not androids.
Just because Google chose the wrong name for their OS and decided to screw up the long history of the definition of these words for everyone, doesn't mean we have to acquiesce. A robot is a robot and and android is an android. These are ALL robots (except where they are actually just automata pretending to be robots).
Androids are non-mechanical simulacra of animal beings. A robot is a mechanical simulation an animal being, (or of some portion of an animal being).
How about at one point, Google was this Huge Monster coming barreling down the street taking down everything in it's path. And as soon as they started to get into the phone market, Apple decided to "shut them down (search and maps)". Now all google will be known for is a piss poor search engine with thousands of old, dead ass links, with the first 5 being Wikipedia (which they should have bought a long time ago) or Amazon links, oh and their endless image database area. Ads Ads Ads... The only hope for Google is to become a great Fiber Network Service Provider...why? Because it's a stable business plan that can take millions and billions and turn them right back into millions and billions. What's sad tho is there are "new Google fanboys" who wanna fight with Microsoft or even Apple. It's wild right now...
Comments
A lot of the base code is different, too. This is something I think Google intentionally obfuscates. Chrome OS is really a somewhat stripped-down and specially configured version of Linux, with auto-updates turned on and the Chrome browser running in full-screen mode at login.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing (I personally think it's a pretty cool idea, tech-wise), but it is a lot more complex and fragile than Google presents it as.
One key point of (very) possible failure: What happens to the existing Chromebooks if/when Google gives up on Chrome OS? Will Google still send out updates? For how long? Will they do anything to make it clear to existing owners that their laptops are no longer getting security updates and are thus no longer secure?
I personally see this as a real possibility because Chromebooks are being sold as super-cheap alternatives to Windows laptops. So they're sold at razor-thin margins. It's hard to imagine that Google makes much money per laptop, maybe a few bucks, if that. Is it enough to offset the costs of Chrome OS development, testing, and marketing? I doubt it. It's not a trivial product, and supporting it costs Google a lot more than $free.
And to add to that, ChromeOS probably isn't a very expensive platform to keep updated. They've already got a hugely successful Chrome browser team that pushes out the updates regularly, and that's 80% of what ChromeOS is. The other 20% is the linux underpinnings that get updates far more sparingly. I imagine the ChromeOS team is quite small and just keeps everything smooth for the browser team.
And then to add to that, Google supposedly has plans to merge Android with ChromeOS. It looks to me like Google is looking to leverage Android to the desktop.
Eric Schmidt is on record for saying that if someone had something they didn't want anyone knowing about, they wouldn't be doing it in the first place. Schmidt was CEO at the time. Although he's no longer the CEO, he's still in a position of importance at Google. The people in power at Google have that kind of an attitude about privacy.
Sometimes, I get the feeling that Google engages in all of its R&D in order to distract the public from how rotten its core business really is. It's definitely working. 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.
please link to where Apple granted China secret backdoor access to its devices. thanks.
http://en.yibada.com/articles/19013/20150312/apple-chinas-cyber-security-requirements.htm
... and if so it certainly does not make Apple a "bad guy". If you're going to do business in China there are rules that might have a cost. Every company is going to have to deal with them no matter how rich or big they are. Note that Google too is supposedly opening a Google Play store there in the coming months. They won't be exempt from Chinese law either. So guess where user data is going to have to be kept? I doubt what would be Google's preference. I think Microsoft among others already capitulated in recent months. It's just such a huge market with so much money to made that's it's near impossible to ignore. Business is business.
As for your comment about China and Google it's obvious that China's demands for access and censorship couple with the hacking of Chinese user accounts and spying on US firms weighed on their decision to exit China. You do remember they even tried to go around them by moving out of China and into Hong Kong but that was eventually blocked too. So yeah user privacy and open exchange of information and ideas is important to them despite their advertising ventures that rely on anonymised data. But you are correct that it's too simplistic to say Google left China for those reasons alone. No doubt economics and competition played a part too, but probably a much smaller part than you would like to believe. Personally I doubt it was the bigger reason. The spying on US companies and hacking into Chinese GMail accounts were the big ones that led to the exit IMHO. But as I said a few sentences ago, "business is business". They'll go back and have to follow Chinese laws to do so.
It all depends on the political and/or commercial agenda and ignorance of the public.
Maybe bad judgement but it could be part of a bigger picture.
Apple makes similar errors in areas they are not familiar with, look at Siri for example.
I have no clue what Apple could do investing 70B a year on R&D! A base on moon of Jupiter for 2020?
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.
R&D does cost money but in the end, a company has to deliver. That R&D has to lead to eventually lead to a revenue stream. Amazon has been saying for 20 years that it expects to lose money as it invests in its future. 20 years later, for all that spending, Amazon should be crushing Apple in revenue growth at least. Apple earns twice as much as Amazon yet still manages to show higher percentage growth rates. Maybe I'll be proven wrong and it's only a matter of a few years before Apple's financials sink to the bottom of the ocean while Amazon will triple, quadruple, and quintuple its growth and it will earn ten times as much as Apple. At least that's what investors think.
These developments would have very little application to assembly robots, though prosthetics might be a application at some point. I have difficulty understanding why Google purchased what is primarily a niche R&D company, so I won't be surprised if at some point that the company is spun off.
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.