radarthekat

gatorguy said:

corrections said:

gatorguy said:

https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/03/13/android-q-beefs-up-privacy-with-new-limits-on-location-access-device-ids-and-more/
They're working at it. An instance where "copying Apple" is a great thing. 

Note that even Business Insider who posted the story (anonymous sources of course) says that in the near-term expect nothing to change with hi-end Chrome OS product plans hardware wise. But since the Pixel Slate is Google's most expensive hardware product (and a widely panned one too) they would likely be their slowest selling and most likely to be chopped. The Pixelbook on the other hand is still praised.

There's a wide field between "Apple:We're Number 1!!" and those at the very bottom of the heap. Everyone "not Apple" doesn't grade as an F, nor should the author confuse discontinuing the Pixel Slate or any other expensive Google manufactured Chrome hardware as discontinuing and no longer improving and supporting their Chrome OS used daily by millions of people. 

Posted from my 2017 Pixelbook. My 2013 Chromebook Pixel is still good (at work) tho the battery life is now down to a couple hours between charges. 

EDIT: On a somewhat related note (technically not OT as DED brought up smartphones too) my OG Pixel that shipped with Android 7, then getting 8 (Oreo) and then 9 (Pie) is in the process of being updated for Android 10 (Q*) in a bit of a surprise.  I may wait one more year to buy another smartphone. TBH they haven't changed all that much in the last two or three, not enough to spend $600+ on another, and like some Apple users as long as the device is still being supported....

When you view yourself as really important and the center of reality, it might seem relevant that your Pixel phone is getting three years of updates. But the fact that nobody else bought it actually means that Google blew huge amounts of money on a hardware failure with nothing to show but receipts. That has more consequences than your anecdote. And the failure within Google hardware that keeps on expanding is clearly a big deal, despite all your handwaving attempts at minimizing huge losses and wasted money.  

According to Google the Pixel line is profitable. And it's apparently four years of updates so far, not three...

Personally I don't consider myself as all that important. Honest, but not terribly important in the bigger scheme of stuff, no more than anyone else. Some folks here seem to "think differently", believe the world is revolving around their opinion, that they're a "name" to be reckoned with and deserve accolades for it. I'm glad neither of us put ourselves in that group. 

You apparently see your views/opinions as relatively highly important.  You joined in March 2011, compared to me in June 2012, but you have 20k comments compared to my 3k, and I’m a moderator with some portion of my comments directed to that role.  Your ratio of likes to comments is less than 1:1, more like 1:5.  That’s a shame; seems you spend a great deal of time spitting into the wind, but you must think your opinion is sufficiently important to continue spreading. 

Google makes some good, even great, services.  Web search is so useful, has been for going on two decades.   Mail, maps, etc. 

It’s just a shame that these things can exist only due to the desperation of companies worldwide to reach an audience with their advertisements.  Google is smart, I guess, to take advantage, bringing useful products to the masses funded by satisfying the desires of every brand on earth to reach an audience.  

The problem comes in not separating the church and state, so to speak; it becomes too tempting to plaster advertisements on thick everywhere there’s a bit of space to do so.  And to push the line of how information gathered is utilized to better target audiences.  It’s the reason Apple talks about privacy invasion, the reason FB is called before congress and Google has a certain ‘reputation.’  After all these years why is it that Google has not attempted to build, in parallel, a different business model that supports its services, but instead has raced to stay ahead of the Facebooks and others in directed advertisement?   A company with the model ‘do no evil’ should at least give some credence to the notion of providing a path to its services that doesn’t involve the seduction of extreme data gathering about its customers lives.  How about a new slogan, ‘be less creepy.’  Why isn’t Google disassociating itself with the whole notion of advertisement-funded services?  It’s a hard idea to wrap itself around, I suppose, with so much money to be made continuing with the status quo. 

My John Oliver impression...

Last week Samsung introduced a future-thinking folding phone.  Future-thinking in that nobody at present can think of a single reason why we’d want a phone that when folded has a small narrow display and is nearly two and a half times thicker than an iPhone.  Future-thinking in that someone, someday, might think of a reason we want a small square tablet with a screen that when touched reminds us of a giant 1980’s membrane switch.

I know, I know, my Apple wool is preventing me from seeing the brilliance of Samsung’s move.  All I’m able to perceive here is an attempt to be first.  On that score Samsung has won yet another round, another pyrrhic victory for their side of the ledger.  And yes, Apple may follow, but not down the same trail Samsung is blazing.  For Apple to offer a foldable phone, there still exists some real challenges:

Appropriate hardware technology would have to be available.  

First, the display would need to be covered with a non-malleable and scratch-resistant surface; there’s little chance Apple would return to a malleable and markable plastic display cover.  The challenge is that the necessary display properties are, of course, incompatible with folding and are likely to remain so.  

Next, the phone when folded will need to be as ready to hand, and pocket, as current iPhones, to which any foldable iPhone, in folded configuration, will be ruthlessly compared.  The rumor that Apple may bolster battery capacity in the 2019 models could result in thicker iPhones, which would help in a comparison of a future foldable model.  Apple would be settting the stage for a thicker handset with a meaningful enhancement to justify it.  But it would still be a significant challenge to then add a second screen layer and not significantly increase the thickness.  Perhaps a flattened battery on one side of the fold and all the electronics and cameras on the other fold.  Not sure if Samsung did that, or if it’s even viable.

Next there’s the reliability aspect.  iPhones, and high-end Android phones, are all very solidly constructed these days, with few or no moving parts.  But that doesn’t imply even today’s phones are free of physical wear and tear or immune to extreme conditions.  Extreme cold or heat will be significant issues to account for in selecting materials and designing folding phones to yield a similar lifespan compared to their non-folding counterparts.  For iPhones that implies a five- or six-year lifespan.  Not to mention tensile stresses of the folding process itself.

The only viable solution my limited brain can conceive is two separate displays, each pressed up hard against a lip on a hinge to prevent dust or cookie crumbs intruding.  As the phone unfolds, at the last part of the arc, that lip recedes, allowing the two screen edges to come together perfectly, leaving not a single pixel width gap between.  How incredibly precise would such a mechanism need to be... boggles the mind.  But if it worked, every time, for five or six years, it would allow two glass-covered displays to perfectly come together as one, without a visible seam.  

Finally, Apple would need to do one more thing that Samsung has not yet accomplished.  Apple would need to determine the reason such a needlessly complex handset should exist.  That’s where I take my bet off the table.  I’m betting Apple goes a different direction. 

ihatescreennames said:

Well, I hope all the effort they're putting into AR comes to fruition in a worthwhile product. For all the talk about how great it is the experience on iPhone/iPad so far is pretty lackluster. Sure, the Measure app is cool and works fairly well, but I hope there's more to AR than a virtual measuring tape. 

I've been saying this since ARKit rolled out in iOS 11, most of what is available or has been teased during keynotes is kinda useless or something that could just be done in 3D with no AR required (like the really cool but also kinda silly model of Apple Park at the visitor's center. It's a good demonstration of the tech but why can't I just download an app at home and get a virtual tour in 3D the same way? I don't see the reason I have to walk around a physical model to see an overlay on my phone).

Also, I've noticed that all the comments of "wait for developers to figure this out" have pretty much disappeared. Which I find a little funny as, way back in 2017, when I made similar comments I was told "not to crap on it" before we saw what developers will do. It's coming up on two years...

Fact is, there may not be compelling AR apps for a small screen you hold out in front of you.  It’s been speculated, and I find it compelling speculation, that ARKit on iOS is merely the laying of groundwork for AR glasses.  The trouble is, even after 40 years of shrinking technology to fit in smaller forms, it’s still an incredible thing to imagine the needed smarts and power added to the frames of a normal pair of glasses, even considering much of the processing and rendering will likely be handled by a paired iPhone.  Look to the Apple Watch, AirPods and Pencil to see the progression of miniaturization and shared-with-paired-iPhone processing that will lead to Apple iWear (you heard it here first).

gatorguy said:

fred stein said:

Note: Google takes 45% of the ad revenue on YouTube.

A fair bit different than Apple and Google taking a 30% cut of independent apps in their storefronts, but still a good mention that some aren't aware of. 

This is popcorn being eaten in Apple’s Theater.  As far as I’m aware only Apple devices run iOS, and iOS does NOT belong to you, the consumer.  It’s licensed, and therefore remains Apple’s property.  And so that means that all the APIs apps call to interact with the hardware are Apple’s property.  So every app that does anything under iOS is constantly making use of Apple’s APIs, and if Apple chose to make such an argument, they could well make a strong argument that it’s not merely the App Store (and its marketing power) and not merely the purchase transaction, that constitutes justification for its 30% cut, but also the ongoing development and maintainanve of iOS and it’s APIs, which provide the secure, privacy protecting, smoothly functioning and stable platform upon which those apps run.  

Like when you buy food at the movie theater consession stand, there’s both an extra cost versus the same food you could buy outside and also a prohibition on bring in and consuming food from outside while attending a movie on the theater’s property.  iOS is Apple’s property.  The videos you watch, via YouTube or any other source, and the apps and media you run, are all being run via calls to Apple’s API’s.  This is also true for Windows, et al; the fact those other OS vendors chose not to prohibit externally sourced apps does not argue that Apple has no right to do so.  It’s how they maintain a superior experience.  It may not be possible to do so if they didn’t lock it down as they do.  Witness Android...