Why is Pixel in the title and largely irrelevant in the text?
Why even mention Google Pixel when they are not primarily a consumer hardware company?
This article lost itself and is so full of holes, it sinks fast.
Three months ago you came around to comment on my Pixel 3a article that "There is a huge potential market for them" and stated "They now have better carrier support, a cheaper (lower risk for consumers) phone and over a thousand HTC engineering workers onboard for future projects."
Now suddenly Pixel is "not primarily a consumer hardware company"?
And the point is that Google's claim that its custom silicon would be put to use at Google and by third parties simply didn't work out. This is why.
Calling the Pixel line a failure when you know perfectly well it wasn't even designed to compete in terms of sales?
Ah yes, the "But Google didn't intend it to sell well!" fallacy (also presented as "But it was just a reference design!"). It's so painfully obvious some of you have never been in business before. Nobody, not even Google, kicks of massive product line projects in order for them to not sell well.
Nexus models which were simply an outgrowth of Google needing thousands of reference devices for OS testing and not intended to be highly profitable market successes in their own right.
Again, the "But it wasn't intended to sell well!" fallacy. New products are expensive to kickoff and ramp up with the hope of selling well, recouping costs, and generate profit. No consumer goods that I know of undergo this expensive product lifecycle with the intention of failing.
Do you have some published interviews from Google management where they explain their intention for the Nexus to fail? Otherwise this just sounds like more of the same bullshit.
LOL, you're a funny guy, "intention for the Nexus to fail".
You've already announced you don't really know anything about Android devices.
Where's the part where Google says they intended for them to fail?
LOL, your failsafe put in play. Did anyone anywhere EVER say "Nexus phones were intended to fail", here or anyplace else. Other than yourself of course. If they did what Google intended of course they didn't fail, and the intent was needing to contract thousands of hardware specific handsets to be used for testing new OS features that often needed certain hardware components, and testbedding a small scale warehousing, order, and distribution model for a future where they would create a for-profit smartphone brand of their own. Taht would be the Pixels. I am not surprised you might claim total ignorance.
Allll a fancy way of saying "But they intended it to fail!"
Not selling well = fail. Nexus = fail. Pixel = fail.
Sorry your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to accept this.
Your insistence on being "right at any cost" is what gets you in trouble. You don't recognize when you lost and cannot abide being wrong. I've had to admit to it once in awhile and generally it's doesn't take 20 posts to convince me as long as the poster can point me to why.
Dude we are ALL wrong once in awhile. Lick your wounds and move on. It won't kill your online persona.
gatorguy said: Don't you have some Wiki page to change?
This made me physically lol.
Another guy who doesn't understand how wikipedia works. See above, my change pertained only to the month AirPods were released, and had zilch to do with with IconX, which someone after me changed from "DECEMBER 2016" to "July".
Good to know where the end of the technical ability is for you boys lies. Pretty weak.
Please whine to someone else. If you had been intellectually honest, you would have tried to ensure your edit was factual. Instead your goal only seemed to be making sure your edit confirmed your claim of both being introduced in December 2016. They weren't. The IconX was provably introduced in July 2016 - months before the AirPods - just as the wiki stated before you changed it. So your claim was false and even when shown it was false, instead of acknowledging it you doubled down on that thin excuse. So you keep holding that excuse bud if it makes you feel better. It's all good. I'm still laughing. Just like I laughed at your misunderstanding of what "moving the goalpost" means. You were obstinate on that as well.
Pixel? PIXEL? Of course it doesn't drive "the future of mobile silicon"
That's not what Android fan sites and Google's blog were saying. In fact, they parroted off the same ideas you did: that Tensor acceleration gave Google some lead, that Pixel photography was better than an iPhone (that is not true, and continues to be false).
I don't know that you understand what Google's Tensor Processing Units (TPU) are and I think you're using terms you don't know much about but making it sound as tho you do. Tensor processors aren't made for smartphones.
Apple and Google may compete in some areas but are far apart on other custom silicon the two companies develop. Apple does it primarily for consumer uses, a great source of income obviously, while Google does it for science, industry, and enterprise. Different needs and different reasons for developing their own special silicon.
How wonderful for Google, that, and tracking...
Very insightful... Amazed you bothered to make an off-topic comment. You're usually better than that. Perhaps try again?
Just yesterday you managed to squeeze a Google-praising comment in a non-Google article.
I'd say a Google comment on a Google article is relevant.
Pixel? PIXEL? Of course it doesn't drive "the future of mobile silicon"
That's not what Android fan sites and Google's blog were saying. In fact, they parroted off the same ideas you did: that Tensor acceleration gave Google some lead, that Pixel photography was better than an iPhone (that is not true, and continues to be false).
I don't know that you understand what Google's Tensor Processing Units (TPU) are and I think you're using terms you don't know much about but making it sound as tho you do. Tensor processors aren't made for smartphones.
Apple and Google may compete in some areas but are far apart on other custom silicon the two companies develop. Apple does it primarily for consumer uses, a great source of income obviously, while Google does it for science, industry, and enterprise. Different needs and different reasons for developing their own special silicon.
How wonderful for Google, that, and tracking...
Very insightful... Amazed you bothered to make an off-topic comment. You're usually better than that. Perhaps try again?
That’s just weird to talk about something completely off topic.
At least he came back to add something of interest to his original one-sentence reply. It's not a horrible read, tho a bit too bashy to be taken at face value. I actually agree with some parts of it. And yeah really off-topic but I guess TMay had nothing to say on-topic but the driving urge to post anyway.
Face value is that Webkit and Mozzilla are behind blocking tracking, and Google has resisted it to date for Chrome. As it relates to this story, pure tech is only as good as applied.
Yup I agree. Now have you waylaid the thread enough to be satisfied? Got your fix for a bit?
LOL, the king of detours to google topics is here to tell Apple forum regulars to stay on topic? Hilarious.
Why is Pixel in the title and largely irrelevant in the text?
Why even mention Google Pixel when they are not primarily a consumer hardware company?
This article lost itself and is so full of holes, it sinks fast.
Three months ago you came around to comment on my Pixel 3a article that "There is a huge potential market for them" and stated "They now have better carrier support, a cheaper (lower risk for consumers) phone and over a thousand HTC engineering workers onboard for future projects."
Now suddenly Pixel is "not primarily a consumer hardware company"?
And the point is that Google's claim that its custom silicon would be put to use at Google and by third parties simply didn't work out. This is why.
Calling the Pixel line a failure when you know perfectly well it wasn't even designed to compete in terms of sales?
Ah yes, the "But Google didn't intend it to sell well!" fallacy (also presented as "But it was just a reference design!"). It's so painfully obvious some of you have never been in business before. Nobody, not even Google, kicks of massive product line projects in order for them to not sell well.
Nexus models which were simply an outgrowth of Google needing thousands of reference devices for OS testing and not intended to be highly profitable market successes in their own right.
Again, the "But it wasn't intended to sell well!" fallacy. New products are expensive to kickoff and ramp up with the hope of selling well, recouping costs, and generate profit. No consumer goods that I know of undergo this expensive product lifecycle with the intention of failing.
Do you have some published interviews from Google management where they explain their intention for the Nexus to fail? Otherwise this just sounds like more of the same bullshit.
LOL, you're a funny guy, "intention for the Nexus to fail".
You've already announced you don't really know anything about Android devices.
Where's the part where Google says they intended for them to fail?
LOL, your failsafe put in play. Did anyone anywhere EVER say "Nexus phones were intended to fail", here or anyplace else. Other than yourself of course. If they did what Google intended of course they didn't fail, and the intent was needing to contract thousands of hardware specific handsets to be used for testing new OS features that often needed certain hardware components, and testbedding a small scale warehousing, order, and distribution model for a future where they would create a for-profit smartphone brand of their own. Taht would be the Pixels. I am not surprised you might claim total ignorance.
Allll a fancy way of saying "But they intended it to fail!"
Not selling well = fail. Nexus = fail. Pixel = fail.
Sorry your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to accept this.
I'm just happy the "pure Android experience" phone failed further proving the fact most people only want a cheap phone and don't give a sh** about android.
Also glad Google is abandoning the knockoff iPad market which will further plummet those cheap pieces of crap to the ground and will have less developer support.
It has been what? Almost 10 years since the first iPad knockoff released? And developers STILL haven't embraced them.
Why is Pixel in the title and largely irrelevant in the text?
Why even mention Google Pixel when they are not primarily a consumer hardware company?
This article lost itself and is so full of holes, it sinks fast.
Three months ago you came around to comment on my Pixel 3a article that "There is a huge potential market for them" and stated "They now have better carrier support, a cheaper (lower risk for consumers) phone and over a thousand HTC engineering workers onboard for future projects."
Now suddenly Pixel is "not primarily a consumer hardware company"?
And the point is that Google's claim that its custom silicon would be put to use at Google and by third parties simply didn't work out. This is why.
Calling the Pixel line a failure when you know perfectly well it wasn't even designed to compete in terms of sales?
Ah yes, the "But Google didn't intend it to sell well!" fallacy (also presented as "But it was just a reference design!"). It's so painfully obvious some of you have never been in business before. Nobody, not even Google, kicks of massive product line projects in order for them to not sell well.
Nexus models which were simply an outgrowth of Google needing thousands of reference devices for OS testing and not intended to be highly profitable market successes in their own right.
Again, the "But it wasn't intended to sell well!" fallacy. New products are expensive to kickoff and ramp up with the hope of selling well, recouping costs, and generating profit. No consumer goods that I know of undergo this expensive product lifecycle with the intention of failing.
Do you have some published interviews from Google management where they explain their intention for the Nexus to fail? Otherwise this just sounds like more of the same bullshit.
Strange as it may seem, companies will at times invest more money in a particular activity than they can recoup from that same activity. The term "loss leader" springs to mind.
Sacrificing short-term profits for the sake of strategic improvement is, if anything, a more rational approach to achieving goals (whether at the individual or corporate level).
I suppose we can take issue with the phrasing used by both parties to this debate, but at the end of the day, Google embarked on this course of action as a strategic move where profitability of the endeavour was far less important than losing developer mindshare to Microsoft or Apple.
This editorial is arguing that Apple's consumer focus is more influential on the design of silicon for phones than Google's general computing focus, and that Google trying to counter that influence with custom silicon of its own has not worked out well. Will Google's strategy of building more server capabilities become dominant at some time? Maybe. For now, I'm enjoying the spectacle.
Pixel? PIXEL? Of course it doesn't drive "the future of mobile silicon"
That's not what Android fan sites and Google's blog were saying. In fact, they parroted off the same ideas you did: that Tensor acceleration gave Google some lead, that Pixel photography was better than an iPhone (that is not true, and continues to be false).
I don't know that you understand what Google's Tensor Processing Units (TPU) are and I think you're using terms you don't know much about but making it sound as tho you do. Tensor processors aren't made for smartphones.
Apple and Google may compete with overlapping efforts in some areas but are far apart on others, especially custom silicon the two companies develop and the reasons for doing it. Apple does it primarily for consumer uses, a great source of income obviously, while Google does it for science, industry, and enterprise. Different needs and different reasons for developing their own special silicon.
Google is right there with Apple in the Silicon Valley, just working in different areas to advance computing assisted by their custom silicon designs.
BUT... That doesn't mean Google is not interested in developing custom silicon intended for various purposes in Pixels and other Google devices. You should get acquainted with "gChips" too if you desire to write a more well-rounded future editorial.
The problem is that Google isn't using quantum computing, in fact 99% (percentage made up but it's pretty high in reality) of what Google develops never makes it to market so what real value do they provide?
On the other hand Apple has made the mobile market. Google didn't even factor into the game until Apple decided Google's tracking was affecting their users and so basically cut Google out by developing Maps and other services themselves. This pushed Google to create Android built on stolen code from Sun/Oracle and stolen ideas from Apple thus creating a crappy operating system that doesn't have anywhere near the power that iOS does. Google then employed smoke and mirrors to detract from this by selling nerds on customisability.
Meanwhile Apple introduced the world to 64bit mobile processors causing the entire mobile industry to hastily gather themselves together and buy processors from Qualcomm who are substantially behind the game compared to the A10 and above. They effectively killed off Nvidia from the mobile market who have now gone back to graphics cards - none of which work on the Mac effectively.
Apple will do the same to Intel because Intel has just sat on their partnership with Apple for so long. We've already got a glimpse of what Apple can do on the desktop/laptop market with their specialised graphics platform that makes Intels CPUs look pathetic.
So Google can have their quantum computing platform as a science experiment because Apple is making way more money selling stuff to people. Sooner or later the money WILL run out for Google... I mean Alphabet.
Pixel? PIXEL? Of course it doesn't drive "the future of mobile silicon"
That's not what Android fan sites and Google's blog were saying. In fact, they parroted off the same ideas you did: that Tensor acceleration gave Google some lead, that Pixel photography was better than an iPhone (that is not true, and continues to be false).
"The problem is that Google isn't using quantum computing,
No Joke. Because it hasn't been accomplished yet? LOL
"Google didn't even factor into the game until Apple decided Google's tracking was affecting their users and so basically cut Google out by developing Maps and other services themselves."
Except that Google's Android development began before Mr. Jobs ever greenlighted what would become iOS. Gogole didn't begin develop of Android as a reaction to anything Apple was doing. In fact its near certain that Apple was already aware of Google developing a mobile OS meant for phones which may have played into Steve Job finally convinced to approve the iPhone/iOS project.
"Apple will do the same to Intel because Intel has just sat on their partnership with Apple for so long. We've already got a glimpse of what Apple can do on the desktop/laptop market with their specialised graphics platform that makes Intels CPUs look pathetic." Is there really any such thing as a long-term "Apple partner"? Seems like eventually any service/component provided to them will get dropped or swallowed up if there's profit in it. Apple has enough money to replace or buy anyone they want, and dabble in just about every profitable market from energy to automotive to financial to media services to audio to....
"So Google can have their quantum computing platform as a science experiment because Apple is making way more money selling stuff to people."
As I've said before not everything Google does is intended for immediate gratification and "PROFIT!". IMO If all we ever did is work on things for profit alone the advancement of science and improvement of the human condition would drop to a snail's pace. Somebody has to develop the core technologies that make innovation possible.
"Sooner or later the money WILL run out for Google... I mean Alphabet."
Just as it will for Apple, and Microsoft and. IBM and ... Every company ever known has eventually died, gets swallowed up, gets broken up, or will suffer one of those fates.
Comments
Dude we are ALL wrong once in awhile. Lick your wounds and move on. It won't kill your online persona.
Maybe we can all get back to the editorial?
Just yesterday you managed to squeeze a Google-praising comment in a non-Google article.
I'd say a Google comment on a Google article is relevant.
Detour'd.
I'm just happy the "pure Android experience" phone failed further proving the fact most people only want a cheap phone and don't give a sh** about android.
Also glad Google is abandoning the knockoff iPad market which will further plummet those cheap pieces of crap to the ground and will have less developer support.
It has been what? Almost 10 years since the first iPad knockoff released? And developers STILL haven't embraced them.
Sacrificing short-term profits for the sake of strategic improvement is, if anything, a more rational approach to achieving goals (whether at the individual or corporate level).
I suppose we can take issue with the phrasing used by both parties to this debate, but at the end of the day, Google embarked on this course of action as a strategic move where profitability of the endeavour was far less important than losing developer mindshare to Microsoft or Apple.
This editorial is arguing that Apple's consumer focus is more influential on the design of silicon for phones than Google's general computing focus, and that Google trying to counter that influence with custom silicon of its own has not worked out well. Will Google's strategy of building more server capabilities become dominant at some time? Maybe. For now, I'm enjoying the spectacle.
On the other hand Apple has made the mobile market. Google didn't even factor into the game until Apple decided Google's tracking was affecting their users and so basically cut Google out by developing Maps and other services themselves. This pushed Google to create Android built on stolen code from Sun/Oracle and stolen ideas from Apple thus creating a crappy operating system that doesn't have anywhere near the power that iOS does. Google then employed smoke and mirrors to detract from this by selling nerds on customisability.
Meanwhile Apple introduced the world to 64bit mobile processors causing the entire mobile industry to hastily gather themselves together and buy processors from Qualcomm who are substantially behind the game compared to the A10 and above. They effectively killed off Nvidia from the mobile market who have now gone back to graphics cards - none of which work on the Mac effectively.
Apple will do the same to Intel because Intel has just sat on their partnership with Apple for so long. We've already got a glimpse of what Apple can do on the desktop/laptop market with their specialised graphics platform that makes Intels CPUs look pathetic.
So Google can have their quantum computing platform as a science experiment because Apple is making way more money selling stuff to people. Sooner or later the money WILL run out for Google... I mean Alphabet.