kevliu1980

It's worriesome that the only reason this wasn't a bigger issue was the Chinese govt using it to target a minority population that it wants under surveillance. I'm not confident ad networks have sufficient controls if the attacking party wanted to go big and take advantage of widespread distribution channels. Yes it would have been caught faster but world have hit far more devices.

Not sure it's a great look to say it wasn't that big a deal only because the attacker had narrow goals.

christophb said:

StrangeDays said:

lkrupp said:

spice-boy said:

Any US leader that sucks up to Putin won't get my vote. 

Then you won’t be voting I guess.

Other than the GOP, I don’t know any Putin suckups. Who are you referring to?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mgQaFlo_p8

Facts are stubborn things...

Hey Ukraine - denuke and we’ll defend you.  Oops- perhaps they will in the next 4 or 8 years.  Dunno (F’U I got re-elected). Hillary got your back as long as some moron in her staff can’t read English and not hand his password to bad people

There would be a course in free thinking universities in the Communist Manifesto if it wasn’t so alligned with the common “press” or the DNC.  As much as you hate on political think of the other side, read “We the living” It happened and will happen once more if your will be done.

This is some of the worst attempts at both sides do it I've seen in a while.  One presidency had been constantly critical of Putin, implemented sanctions, deployed missile defense (of which this was the context of the video where two powers were negotiating) to another presidency which can't stop praising Putin, is undoing sanctions, pressures Russia's enemies and what should be US allies, and is actively weakening NATO. But sure both sides because of a video and ignoring the mountain of actual actions.

I think the mistake DED is making in all of his articles recently is the same mistake he complains that others make - namely trying to make both companies fit into the same narrative. Then his points mostly seem to boil down to - if you're not making the most money, you're not making any money.

Google doesn't care about the premium/low end mix of their products as long as they use Google services - that's the model they've chosen and they clearly are not a hardware company. So their goal is to take even more than the 84% of the smartphone market they already have and get people using their services and get ads served to them. The progress of Chromebooks is only a plus to them - they previously had trivial share of the desktop market and it's now helping them get a foothold there.

That being said, their model pretty much translates to far less revenue and profit per customer. But for heaven's sake, these two great companies choosing to not compete directly is not some winning/losing narrative for either side.

There's an awful lot of defensiveness - just b/c a competitor does a few things better doesn't suddenly make the overall phone better. Apple should be pressured to improve in areas they're behind the competition:

- phone size with a 5.5" screen - Apple can clearly get better here as the 6S Plus is borderline huge for the screen size. No sane person wouldn't like to see a iPhone 7 Plus with dimensions closer to the S7 Edge
- OIS on all phones - no more nonsense with only the Plus getting it. Borderline unacceptable considering most people get the regular phone.
- iPhones used to be the best in low light and focus speed - the S7 is now significantly better. The iPhone 7 camera needs to catch up while maintaining superior all-conditions performance. 
- displays - the newest AMOLEDs are darned nice and the A9, much less the A10, can easily handle higher resolutions without breaking a sweat

It's amusing in a typical DED word salad article he doesn't actually refute the kantar data but makes a wholly different argument about launch week and total sales. Buddy, who are you arguing with?