franklinjackcon

If this had been the law 20 years ago, we probably wouldn't have Google Maps and people would still be using paper maps. Even the clunky Garmin and Tom Tom would have struggled to compete with cheap Chinese knock offs using their IP and Google would never have bothered getting in the game.Without Maps, there'd be no Uber, no Yelp. Even self driving cars might be further away than they are now. I'm all for companies opening up their systems to let smaller, unrelated ones leverage their tech but forcing them to give away the cow is counterproductive.

I don't need a jet pack. We about about to be living in the future. This is amazing, even if it starts off very small.

dewme said:

I like the technology tremendously. A roll up high definition TV or monitor. Lots of wearable potential. If you made a full body suit from this flexible material and had multiple cameras on all sides could this not be used to form a cloaking device. Or maybe just upgrade your appearance. Full face video bag. Hmmm. Maybe something simpler, like window shades that always show a bright and sunny image on the inside regardless of the actual weather. 

Or shades that show you clouds and rain if you know you need to stay in and work/clean/study. 

Anyway, I'm still waiting for windows that produce solar electricity.

teonyc said:

While I didn’t see it mentioned, there’s another underlying issue that affects Tim Cook. As an out gay man, I find it curious that he chums it up with someone who would have him executed just for his sexuality (note, not even behavior). It is simply enough to be accused of being gay to be arrested and executed in Saudi Arabia. I understand his fiduciary responsibility as CEO supersedes his personal issues in this context. But if the murder of a journalist is a red line, then why not this?

I think there are three aspects that worry people - one is that it was carried out on NATO soil, two, he was a US resident and some of his kids are citizens, three, he's a "journalist" even if it's part time and state-sponsored intimidation of the media is a classic anti-democratic move. If he was just some guy living in KSA and a victim of an extra-judicial killing, I doubt people would bat an eyelid. This will all blow over - look at what the Russians did in the UK, nothing has changed really 

This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears. Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.