With that said the lack of sales didn't prevent the blogosphere blasting at full-volume every perceived failure of the Pixel line whether real, imaginary, widespread or one-off. The tech writers are equal-opportunity click-baiters. If there's a "name" and a possible nega-story they will write it. Apple fans already know that.
Yes, that was true. There are MANY articles written about problems with Pixel phones (particularly Pixel 2 XL, the phone with non-Samsung display) as soon as they were launched. It looked almost as-if Samsung paid tech media to portray Pixel 2 XL in the poorest light possible to me. DED himself wrote few articles about failures of Pixel lineups (both 1st generation and 2nd generation). So not sure, why DED complains about just one website singing praises about Pixel 2nd generation phones when there are PLENTY of articles available in tech media which criticized them.
I think his point is clear. DED’s column isn’t about other tech media, it’s about Bloomberg. And Bloomberg appears to be beating a drum for Google, despite the data indicators favoring Apple. Bloomberg continues to pigeon hole Apple as a failure and Google as a winner despite it plainly being the opposite.
As a leading investor news outlet, Bloomberg’s coverage is puzzling, and itself is newsworthy.
I don't really pay attention to specific Bloomberg stories per-se so I'll grant that they might have a slant to news stories that might favor some particular view for some period of time,tho I don't think that's a terribly media thing. Perhaps Bloomberg is no better than many other "new sites" and reports what people want to read rather than what they should read.
I'll just take DED's word for it then since I don't depend on any one particular outlet anyway, so for me it doesn't matter. other than Wired and a couple of highly technical trade journals I don't have any subscriptions that would unduly slant my opinions as a regular reader.
Two morons(Gordon and Spenser) from Forbes also relentlessly bad mouth, criticize and create biased article against Apple and Apple products. Not sure why Forbes allows such useless writer to publish ant-apple article.
If such coverage was ineffective (meaning no one was interested in it), then they wouldn’t engage in it.
I think Google influences the media quite a bit. This was covered in the news awhile back.
I also agree that Apple stock is manipulated. I can’t prove it, but the pattern has been happening for awhile now.
"A bit". Biasing searches is known techique.
Yes biased searches would be a known technique, but I don't think there any evidence for Google promoting negative Apple stories and downplaying stories about their own perceived product fails... But if ya got 'em post 'em.
IMHO Apple is more than capable with their own marketing, much of it free. Tooting their own horn is not something Apple fails at.
Who cares about Google Pixel? Google is not a hardware company. The majority of their revenue and profits are not generated from Pixel hardware.
My Twitter timeline is full of tech journalists at Google I/O going nuts over the stuff Google is announcing with Assistant. Like Assistant using AI to book an appointment by voice with a real person on the other end. Or contextually aware Assistant able to continue a conversation without you having to say Hey Google every time. Ben Bajarin who is a pretty pro-Apple analyst says Google Assistant is an area where Android is dramatically ahead of iOS. He even thinks it’s possible people might switch platforms to get the best assistant. Where is the DED/AI editorial about Siri and how it’s woefully behind the competition? It will be a rough summer and fall for Apple if we don’t see major improvements to Siri at WWDC. Heck I’d even take someone on stage discussing the things Apple is working on that might not be available right away. At least something to show they’re serious about turning Siri into a real competitive platform like Alexa and Assistant currently are.
I think Google influences the media quite a bit. This was covered in the news awhile back.
I also agree that Apple stock is manipulated. I can’t prove it, but the pattern has been happening for awhile now.
"A bit". Biasing searches is known techique.
Yes biased searches would be a known technique, but I don't think there any evidence for Google promoting negative Apple stories and downplaying stories about their own perceived product fails... But if ya got 'em post 'em.
IMHO Apple is more than capable with their own marketing, much of it free. Tooting their own horn is not something Apple fails at.
I assume you read the link (widely reported and easy to find with a Google search BTW) and the reason the author states Google wanted the story removed by Forbes. It was not because it was a negative story about them, heck plenty of those out there regularly surfaced with a Google Search. Her article relied on a meeting covered by a confidentiality agreement with the publication, something not even the writer disputes. If Google wanted to quash her follow-up claims of wrongdoing and coverup and unfair pressure applied, which would be the far bigger story than a +1 button, they're doing an awful job of it with plenty of search results for anyone looking for it... via a Google search.
I think Google influences the media quite a bit. This was covered in the news awhile back.
I also agree that Apple stock is manipulated. I can’t prove it, but the pattern has been happening for awhile now.
"A bit". Biasing searches is known techique.
Yes biased searches would be a known technique, but I don't think there any evidence for Google promoting negative Apple stories and downplaying stories about their own perceived product fails... But if ya got 'em post 'em.
IMHO Apple is more than capable with their own marketing, much of it free. Tooting their own horn is not something Apple fails at.
But they only screw over the little guy. This sort of tactic against Apple would be noticed, generate a lot of negative publicity and may end up in a court battle with a company with a mountain of cash and Zen-like patience.
Who cares about Google Pixel? Google is not a hardware company. The majority of their revenue and profits are not generated from Pixel hardware.
My Twitter timeline is full of tech journalists at Google I/O going nuts over the stuff Google is announcing with Assistant. Like Assistant using AI to book an appointment by voice with a real person on the other end. Or contextually aware Assistant able to continue a conversation without you having to say Hey Google every time. Ben Bajarin who is a pretty pro-Apple analyst says Google Assistant is an area where Android is dramatically ahead of iOS. He even thinks it’s possible people might switch platforms to get the best assistant. Where is the DED/AI editorial about Siri and how it’s woefully behind the competition? It will be a rough summer and fall for Apple if we don’t see major improvements to Siri at WWDC. Heck I’d even take someone on stage discussing the things Apple is working on that might not be available right away. At least something to show they’re serious about turning Siri into a real competitive platform like Alexa and Assistant currently are.
Except last week when a friend said it’s also the best thing ever, so we did a Siri vs. Google showdow (his idea) using the same search query (I can’t remember; something simple however.
Caring about the Google Pixel supply chain is like carrying about the Mac mini's supply chain. They're not exactly major sellers and don't really affect each company's bottom line or represent their respective markets.
I think Google influences the media quite a bit. This was covered in the news awhile back.
I also agree that Apple stock is manipulated. I can’t prove it, but the pattern has been happening for awhile now.
"A bit". Biasing searches is known techique.
Yes biased searches would be a known technique, but I don't think there any evidence for Google promoting negative Apple stories and downplaying stories about their own perceived product fails... But if ya got 'em post 'em.
IMHO Apple is more than capable with their own marketing, much of it free. Tooting their own horn is not something Apple fails at.
But they only screw over the little guy. This sort of tactic against Apple would be noticed, generate a lot of negative publicity and may end up in a court battle with a company with a mountain of cash and Zen-like patience.
I dont think they’d risk it, to be honest.
Yup, that British couple appeared to have been run-over by Google's business model, a poor decision that ultimately cost Google big-time and in the $Billions. Some things are simply indefensible.
I think Google influences the media quite a bit. This was covered in the news awhile back.
I also agree that Apple stock is manipulated. I can’t prove it, but the pattern has been happening for awhile now.
"A bit". Biasing searches is known techique.
Yes biased searches would be a known technique, but I don't think there any evidence for Google promoting negative Apple stories and downplaying stories about their own perceived product fails... But if ya got 'em post 'em.
IMHO Apple is more than capable with their own marketing, much of it free. Tooting their own horn is not something Apple fails at.
I’ve watched it play out in real-time on Google News when the Stagefright exploit started to come out at the end of July 2015. For the first few days (before it got wide media attention), stories on Stagefright would bubble to the top of Google News and then al of a sudden disappear. You couldn’t even search for them. Then, a few hours later, a series of new stories would bubble to the top and then... poof. Gone.
It looked like someone at Google was definitely actively removing news links discussing the Stagefright exploit.
I think Google influences the media quite a bit. This was covered in the news awhile back.
I also agree that Apple stock is manipulated. I can’t prove it, but the pattern has been happening for awhile now.
"A bit". Biasing searches is known techique.
Yes biased searches would be a known technique, but I don't think there any evidence for Google promoting negative Apple stories and downplaying stories about their own perceived product fails... But if ya got 'em post 'em.
IMHO Apple is more than capable with their own marketing, much of it free. Tooting their own horn is not something Apple fails at.
I assume you read the link (widely reported and easy to find with a Google search BTW) and the reason the author states Google wanted the story removed by Forbes. It was not because it was a negative story about them, heck plenty of those out there regularly surfaced with a Google Search. Her article relied on a meeting covered by a confidentiality agreement with the publication, something not even the writer disputes. If Google wanted to quash her follow-up claims of wrongdoing and coverup and unfair pressure applied, which would be the far bigger story than a +1 button, they're doing an awful job of it with plenty of search results for anyone looking for it... via a Google search.
Here are the excerpts from the Gizmodo article I focus on:
“After the meeting, I approached Google’s public relations team as a reporter, told them I’d been in the meeting, and asked if I understood correctly. The press office confirmed it, though they preferred to say the Plus button “influences the ranking.” They didn’t deny what their sales people told me: If you don’t feature the +1 button, your stories will be harder to find with Google.”
...
”After the meeting, I approached Google’s public relations team as a reporter, told them I’d been in the meeting, and asked if I understood correctly. The press office confirmed it, though they preferred to say the Plus button “influences the ranking.” They didn’t deny what their sales people told me: If you don’t feature the +1 button, your stories will be harder to find with Google.”
...
I was told by my higher-ups at Forbes that Google representatives called them saying that the article was problematic and had to come down. The implication was that it might have consequences for Forbes, a troubling possibility given how much traffic came through Google searches and Google News. ...
”the most disturbing part of the experience was what came next: Somehow, very quickly, search results stopped showing the original story at all.”
...
”Deliberately manipulating search results to eliminate references to a story that Google doesn’t like would be an extraordinary, almost dystopian abuse of the company’s power over information on the internet. I don’t have any hard evidence to prove that that’s what Google did in this instance, but it’s part of why this episode has haunted me for years: The story Google didn’t want people to read swiftly became impossible to find through Google.”
If the meeting was confidential, why didn’t they are the journalist sign and NDA or CA before or after the meeting especially after she identified herself as a journalist? Why didn’t the public relations team and press office tell her not to publish the article? Why didn’t Forbes tell her the reason it was taken down was because of the NDA in the first place?
My stance is to always scrutinize those who wield power. Google wields tremendous power and influence over the media, more than Apple. If you want to take their word for it, that’s your prerogative.
But Google also wields enormous power and influence within the US government. It’s called regulatory capture:
“But it is in the area of “regulatory capture” that Google has really excelled. Regulatory capture, according to Nobel laureate George Stigler, is the process by which regulatory agencies eventually come to be dominated by the very industries they were charged with regulating. Putting aside the fact that Google chairman Eric Schmidt has visited the Obama White House more than any other corporate executive in America and that Google chief lobbyist Katherine Oyama was associate counsel to Vice President Joe Biden, the list of highly placed Googlers in the federal government is truly mind-boggling. • The US chief technology officer and one of her deputies are former Google employees. • The acting assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s antitrust division is a former antitrust attorney at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, the Silicon Valley firm that represented Google. • The White House’s chief digital officer is a former Google employee. • One of the top assistants to the chairman of the FCC is a former Google employee and another ran a public lobbying firm funded in part by Google. • The director of United States Digital Service, responsible for fixing and maintaining Healthcare.gov, is a former Google employee. • The director of the US Patent and Trademark Office is the former head of patents at Google. And of course the revolving door goes both in and out of the government, as the Google Transparency Project (an independent watchdog report) clearly stated. • There have been fifty-three revolving-door moves between Google and the White House. • Those moves involved twenty-two former White House officials who left the administration to work for Google and thirty-one Google executives (or executives from Google’s main outside firms) who joined the White House or were appointed to federal advisory boards. • There have been twenty-eight revolving-door moves between Google and government that involve national security, intelligence, or the Department of Defense. Seven former national security and intelligence officials and eighteen Pentagon officials moved to Google, while three Google executives moved to the Defense Department. • There have been twenty-three revolving-door moves between Google and the State Department during the Obama administration. Eighteen former State Department officials joined Google, while five Google officials took up senior posts at the State Department. • There have been nine moves between either Google or its outside lobbying firms and the Federal Communications Commission, which handles a growing number of regulatory matters that have a major impact on the company’s bottom line. Here one can sense that Google has a type of insurance policy: at key agencies such as the FCC, the Office of Management and Budget, the patent office, and the Justice Department’s antitrust division, Google will always have a seat at the table and be able to access critical intelligence if its interests are threatened.” - Move Fast, Break Things, Johnathan Taplin
Who cares about Google Pixel? Google is not a hardware company. The majority of their revenue and profits are not generated from Pixel hardware.
My Twitter timeline is full of tech journalists at Google I/O going nuts over the stuff Google is announcing with Assistant. Like Assistant using AI to book an appointment by voice with a real person on the other end. Or contextually aware Assistant able to continue a conversation without you having to say Hey Google every time. Ben Bajarin who is a pretty pro-Apple analyst says Google Assistant is an area where Android is dramatically ahead of iOS. He even thinks it’s possible people might switch platforms to get the best assistant. Where is the DED/AI editorial about Siri and how it’s woefully behind the competition? It will be a rough summer and fall for Apple if we don’t see major improvements to Siri at WWDC. Heck I’d even take someone on stage discussing the things Apple is working on that might not be available right away. At least something to show they’re serious about turning Siri into a real competitive platform like Alexa and Assistant currently are.
Who cares about Google Pixel? Google is not a hardware company. The majority of their revenue and profits are not generated from Pixel hardware.
My Twitter timeline is full of tech journalists at Google I/O going nuts over the stuff Google is announcing with Assistant. Like Assistant using AI to book an appointment by voice with a real person on the other end. Or contextually aware Assistant able to continue a conversation without you having to say Hey Google every time. Ben Bajarin who is a pretty pro-Apple analyst says Google Assistant is an area where Android is dramatically ahead of iOS. He even thinks it’s possible people might switch platforms to get the best assistant. Where is the DED/AI editorial about Siri and how it’s woefully behind the competition? It will be a rough summer and fall for Apple if we don’t see major improvements to Siri at WWDC. Heck I’d even take someone on stage discussing the things Apple is working on that might not be available right away. At least something to show they’re serious about turning Siri into a real competitive platform like Alexa and Assistant currently are.
Ben Bajarin who is a pretty pro-Apple analyst says Google Assistant is an area where Android is dramatically ahead of iOS. He even thinks it’s possible people might switch platforms to get the best assistant.
Who it's possible that people might switch. It's also possible that people switch to iPhone because they like privacy and updates and a better overal experience. I know a lot of peolpe who used to be Android users and switched to iPhone because of these reasons. Assistants are overated it's not a major selling point and i think it never will be.
Comments
I'll just take DED's word for it then since I don't depend on any one particular outlet anyway, so for me it doesn't matter. other than Wired and a couple of highly technical trade journals I don't have any subscriptions that would unduly slant my opinions as a regular reader.
My Twitter timeline is full of tech journalists at Google I/O going nuts over the stuff Google is announcing with Assistant. Like Assistant using AI to book an appointment by voice with a real person on the other end. Or contextually aware Assistant able to continue a conversation without you having to say Hey Google every time. Ben Bajarin who is a pretty pro-Apple analyst says Google Assistant is an area where Android is dramatically ahead of iOS. He even thinks it’s possible people might switch platforms to get the best assistant. Where is the DED/AI editorial about Siri and how it’s woefully behind the competition? It will be a rough summer and fall for Apple if we don’t see major improvements to Siri at WWDC. Heck I’d even take someone on stage discussing the things Apple is working on that might not be available right away. At least something to show they’re serious about turning Siri into a real competitive platform like Alexa and Assistant currently are.
I assume you read the link (widely reported and easy to find with a Google search BTW) and the reason the author states Google wanted the story removed by Forbes. It was not because it was a negative story about them, heck plenty of those out there regularly surfaced with a Google Search. Her article relied on a meeting covered by a confidentiality agreement with the publication, something not even the writer disputes. If Google wanted to quash her follow-up claims of wrongdoing and coverup and unfair pressure applied, which would be the far bigger story than a +1 button, they're doing an awful job of it with plenty of search results for anyone looking for it... via a Google search.
Oh, they do this quite a bit.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5392817/British-couple-cost-Google-2-1BILLION-speak-out.html
But they only screw over the little guy. This sort of tactic against Apple would be noticed, generate a lot of negative publicity and may end up in a court battle with a company with a mountain of cash and Zen-like patience.
I dont think they’d risk it, to be honest.
I have it on my iPhone, but frankly never use it.
Except last week when a friend said it’s also the best thing ever, so we did a Siri vs. Google showdow (his idea) using the same search query (I can’t remember; something simple however.
Surprisingly, Siri was better.
To answer your question, however, it is precisely Bloomberg (and the media) which seem to care about Google Pixel.
The question is... Will Aphabet get tired of it and like so many things, the close them down.
Only time will tell.
It looked like someone at Google was definitely actively removing news links discussing the Stagefright exploit.
Here are the excerpts from the Gizmodo article I focus on:
“After the meeting, I approached Google’s public relations team as a reporter, told them I’d been in the meeting, and asked if I understood correctly. The press office confirmed it, though they preferred to say the Plus button “influences the ranking.” They didn’t deny what their sales people told me: If you don’t feature the +1 button, your stories will be harder to find with Google.”
...
”After the meeting, I approached Google’s public relations team as a reporter, told them I’d been in the meeting, and asked if I understood correctly. The press office confirmed it, though they preferred to say the Plus button “influences the ranking.” They didn’t deny what their sales people told me: If you don’t feature the +1 button, your stories will be harder to find with Google.”
...
I was told by my higher-ups at Forbes that Google representatives called them saying that the article was problematic and had to come down. The implication was that it might have consequences for Forbes, a troubling possibility given how much traffic came through Google searches and Google News.
...
”the most disturbing part of the experience was what came next: Somehow, very quickly, search results stopped showing the original story at all.”
...
”Deliberately manipulating search results to eliminate references to a story that Google doesn’t like would be an extraordinary, almost dystopian abuse of the company’s power over information on the internet. I don’t have any hard evidence to prove that that’s what Google did in this instance, but it’s part of why this episode has haunted me for years: The story Google didn’t want people to read swiftly became impossible to find through Google.”
If the meeting was confidential, why didn’t they are the journalist sign and NDA or CA before or after the meeting especially after she identified herself as a journalist? Why didn’t the public relations team and press office tell her not to publish the article? Why didn’t Forbes tell her the reason it was taken down was because of the NDA in the first place?
My stance is to always scrutinize those who wield power. Google wields tremendous power and influence over the media, more than Apple. If you want to take their word for it, that’s your prerogative.
But Google also wields enormous power and influence within the US government. It’s called regulatory capture:
“But it is in the area of “regulatory capture” that Google has really excelled. Regulatory capture, according to Nobel laureate George Stigler, is the process by which regulatory agencies eventually come to be dominated by the very industries they were charged with regulating. Putting aside the fact that Google chairman Eric Schmidt has visited the Obama White House more than any other corporate executive in America and that Google chief lobbyist Katherine Oyama was associate counsel to Vice President Joe Biden, the list of highly placed Googlers in the federal government is truly mind-boggling. • The US chief technology officer and one of her deputies are former Google employees. • The acting assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s antitrust division is a former antitrust attorney at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, the Silicon Valley firm that represented Google. • The White House’s chief digital officer is a former Google employee. • One of the top assistants to the chairman of the FCC is a former Google employee and another ran a public lobbying firm funded in part by Google. • The director of United States Digital Service, responsible for fixing and maintaining Healthcare.gov, is a former Google employee. • The director of the US Patent and Trademark Office is the former head of patents at Google. And of course the revolving door goes both in and out of the government, as the Google Transparency Project (an independent watchdog report) clearly stated. • There have been fifty-three revolving-door moves between Google and the White House. • Those moves involved twenty-two former White House officials who left the administration to work for Google and thirty-one Google executives (or executives from Google’s main outside firms) who joined the White House or were appointed to federal advisory boards. • There have been twenty-eight revolving-door moves between Google and government that involve national security, intelligence, or the Department of Defense. Seven former national security and intelligence officials and eighteen Pentagon officials moved to Google, while three Google executives moved to the Defense Department. • There have been twenty-three revolving-door moves between Google and the State Department during the Obama administration. Eighteen former State Department officials joined Google, while five Google officials took up senior posts at the State Department. • There have been nine moves between either Google or its outside lobbying firms and the Federal Communications Commission, which handles a growing number of regulatory matters that have a major impact on the company’s bottom line. Here one can sense that Google has a type of insurance policy: at key agencies such as the FCC, the Office of Management and Budget, the patent office, and the Justice Department’s antitrust division, Google will always have a seat at the table and be able to access critical intelligence if its interests are threatened.” - Move Fast, Break Things, Johnathan Taplin
Who it's possible that people might switch. It's also possible that people switch to iPhone because they like privacy and updates and a better overal experience. I know a lot of peolpe who used to be Android users and switched to iPhone because of these reasons. Assistants are overated it's not a major selling point and i think it never will be.