DanielEran

This is a French investigation into a hypothesis, conducted after an earlier Egyptian investigation determined the place was blown up by a bomb.

Isis claimed it placed a bomb on the plane, which took off from Egypt, and "Egyptian authorities said explosive residue had been found on some of the victims."

http://www.businessinsider.com/explosives-traces-found-on-victims-of-crashed-egyptair-flight-2016-12

That is sort of material to the report. 

Also, Apple's statement to BI:

"We haven't been contacted by [Air Transport Gendarmerie] or any authority investigating this tragic event. We have not seen any report, but we understand there is no evidence to link this event to Apple products. If investigators have questions for us, we would, of course, assist in any way we can. We rigorously test our products to ensure they meet or exceed international safety standards."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/french-investigators-think-apple-iphone-153313900.html?.tsrc=applewf

gatorguy said:

Here's a different take from DED's on what Google IO17 was about. 
http://www.androidcentral.com/when-it-stops-being-about-hardware-googles-way-forward-and-all-new-kind-cloud

Your eyes won't burst into flames when reading it even tho it's an Android fan site, so it's safe. They even give big props to Apple and their hardware. 

Android Central says "Google has never been a hardware maker"

..well except for those years when it owned Motorola Mobility, and paid billions for Nest, and that new Pixel phone and Pixel C (eye rolll). 

The article pivots Android advocacy around in a 180 degree spin, erasing a decade of the giddy hopes for Android that anticipated the "Google Phone," and tells us that all Google really ever wanted to do was mobile services. That's 100% false. 

The entire idea behind Android was first to prevent Microsoft from blocking Google from Windows (in mobile, as it appeared to be threatening with Vista), then to destroy IPhone and replace it with Google's own open version of Windows on mobile devices.

If Google just wanted to build mobile services, it would have continued to partner with Apple as it had been rather than what chose to do: very arrogantly announce that it would take over hardware. 

G1, Honeycomb tablets, Nexus, Chrome, Pixel ...

Google just failed to do that in any area other than the low-end market that Apple doesn't care about, the province of Symbian, Linux and Java ME. 

If that's what Google really intended to do, it could have simply annnounced that it wanted to be the OS for <$300 phones and remained partnered with Apple on iPhones. 

If it had had done that, it would still have its Maps, voice and search on iPhones as the default. Instead it lost out on all of that, and helped turn Apple into a major rival in data services. 

Google not only failed in hardware, but also sparked a major non-hardware competitor in Apple. 

Meanwhile, despite all of its research and good ideas, google is incapable of successfully delivering real products. Even David Pierce of Wired (who crowed praise of Glass, Motorola, etc) has come around on this. 

https://www.wired.com/2017/05/googles-perfect-future-will-always-just-around-corner/

Soli said:

longpath said:

saltyzip said:

I thought Google also announced an easy way to update android which includes even down to graphics drivers, did I dream that?

Let's see if we actually start to see more than a tiny sliver of Android handsets using the current version of Android. It's not enough to propose an alleged way of defragmenting the platform. It has to work in actual practice, otherwise, I'd say you just dreamed it or it was just more vaporware from Google.

Vendors and/or Google have been getting better. Version 7.x, which was officially released in late-August 2016, is running on 7.1% of handsets, according to Google.

• https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html

Actually it's not getting better. It's getting worse. At the same time last year, Android 6.x had reached a slightly higher 7.5% penetration, and two years ago Android 5.x was well above 9%. 

New, commercially relevant Android is effectively going away, sliding into obscurity. To distract, Google is showing off cool apps (Lens, Assistant) that don't even work across more than a tenth of it's installed base. 

Thats is why Google is bringing those things to iOS, because Apple's platform is modern, functional, growing and healthy. 

Http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/17/05/17/google-io17-android-deployment-rate-continues-to-slip-backward

The base of "really old Android" is actually growing faster, perhaps in part because some devices don't get upgrades yet stick around, but also because new devices continue to ship in large volumes with very outdated software. 

The Android apologists like to focus on flagship new Androids, but those models don't sell in enough quantity to matter. Most Androids are barely functional feature phones aimed at selling for $100.

Low margin exporters don't work to get the most updated software working on their basic hardware for that kind of money. They ship 2-3 year old products, unchanged. That is the majority of Android. 

seanismorris said:

Samsung & Andriod in general are doing fine.

It is true Samsung should outsource software development.  They really are terrible at it.

This part is completely false:
The CPU cores of Apple's latest A10 Fusion speed past Samsung's own Exynos and Qualcomm's fastest Snapdragon, neither of which generate comparable profits to warrant equal investment going forward. 

A10 is a superior chip, but both Exynos and the Snapdragon absolutely warrant further investment.  They're arguably the 2 & 3 best mobile chips out there, and much much better than anything Intel has produced (for mobile).

A10 has an integration/optimization advantage.  And while Android is decent, efforts to optimize it have legged.  When Google has a monopoly, why bother...

The article does not say that Exynos or Snapdragon does not "warrant further investment."

It says, as you quoted, "neither of which generate comparable profits to warrant equal investment going forward."

The difference is significant. Apple is selling far more premium A10-powered iPhones than premium Exynos+Snapdragon phones, and at a higher margin. That enables Apple to invest more into performance going forward, extending its lead. Most of the phones Samsung sells are middle or lower tier phones with older/basic processors. 

Samsung (and Android) is in the same position PowerPC was 10-15 years ago: there's no critical mass demand for high-end chips, and the majority of profits are fueling the development of another chip family. The problem for Android is that the alternative chips are proprietary to Apple, so it can't switch the way Apple's Macs, Xbox 360, PS3 etc all switched from PPC to Intel. The other problem is that Samsung's high end isn't growing. Who is going to speculatively invest in super fast smartphone chips when the only market outside of Apple is middle tier phones that sell for < $300? 

Qualcomm is certainly going to keep investing in Snapdragon, but as long as it only gets a fraction of Samsung's flagship business, a couple million Pixels and other minor flagships, it can't keep up with Apple. Especially as it gets hit with a $1billion fine from every government and is now getting sued for billions by Apple and other partners. 

andyshannon said:

This is what happens when you innovate, put out devices with the latest cutting edge technology in them, like wireless charging, fast charging, waterproofing, give customers a headphone jack, a fully customizable OS, smartwatches that will pair with any other mobile device, a VR ecosystem at a great price. All make for a winning formula. Plus make all the most important parts (screens, chipsets, memory) for the other biggest mobile phones out there too, you are gonna make some big money!

We know where Samsung makes its money because the company reports it.