Last Active
  • YouTube TV comes to 10 more US markets like Atlanta, Houston & Miami

    I'm just confused what benefit this is supposed to have over existing services. "The benefit is that we get to know what you're doing absolutely everywhere at all times!" Oh, thanks, Google.
    Fine. Share this same sentiment with all the other companies that are rolling out competing live TV services such as Plex, Sling, DirecTV and Hulu. It is incredible ... just because Google competes with Apple with Android - which Google began developing in like 2004, years before the iPhone was introduced - Apple fans are just reflexively all anti-Google all the time, even in areas where Apple doesn't have a competing product. The fact that Google's existence kept Microsoft from becoming an even bigger and more powerful monopoly? Eh, because Android's existence causes maybe 50 million people to buy Samsung Galaxy devices (and maybe 5-10 million people to buy whatever premium devices LG, HTC, Pixel and Motorola tries to push on people) instead of iPhones when Apple sells more iPhones than that every single quarter, that is enough to turn folks into foaming at the mouth anti-Googlers? Tell you what ... imagine if Samsung were making Windows phones and tablets instead. And imagine if everyone was using the IE browser instead of the Chrome browser. (Except IE is not available on non-Microsoft platforms like macOS, iOS and Linux the way that Chrome is.) Or if Bing was the #1 search/ads/data company instead of Google. And so on. That would be a MUCH better world for Apple than the one that exists now wouldn't it?

    You can keep deluding yourself. In a world where Microsoft is going what Google is doing now - and that is in addition to being the #1 PC OS and the #1 enterprise software and services company on the planet and the #1 gaming company on the planet ... yes when you combine the XBox with the PC gaming platforms like Steam it crushes Nintendo and Playstation and even outperforms iOS and Android - the rest of the industry's only hope (and yes this includes Apple) would be for the anti-trust regulators to step in and break them up. Again.
    Google is a poorly run, undisciplined and opportunistic company as bad if not worse than Microsoft in their philosophy. 

    And Google didn't save the planet from a Microsoft hegemony, Apple did. If it weren't for the iPod leading to eventual development of the iPhone and iOS we would all still be dealing with Windows. Did you even care to take a look at what Google thought a mobile os would look like? Even they knew it would fail. It's why they chose to rip off iOS. 

    Samsung saved Google's Android. And then Google returns the favor by dictating to Samsung the terms of continuing to license Android and the play store. They ensure that Samsung's mobile device profits remain pressured while they take all of the profits on the software side. Well, that is ending. Samsung is moving all of its mobile platforms over to Tizen. Tizen has just displaced Android wear as the number two platform in wearables. That trend is only going to accelerate. No one else other than Apple is as capable as Samsung in hardware. Samsung controls a number of critical technologies and cutting them off to the other manufacturers. The Gear S3 watches with LTE as vastly superior to ANY Android wear watch. Samsung pay is far more widely available also. 

    I like Samsung. I like Apple. Google is a terrible company. In fact, Google is going to be receiving some massive fines by the EU and will be forced to change the way they do business. So much for them being better than Microsoft. In many ways they are actually worse. Especially these days. 
  • Amazon willing to allow Apple's Siri on Echo speakers, executive says

    The HomePod will sell well. As an audiophile, the sophistication built into the device running an A8 SOC should be quite good. I have an Echo and it has been quite useful. The sound quality, however, doesn't come close to my HK amplifier driving a set of Paradigm speakers. Hence, I rarely use the Echo to actually play music. I use an old G4 based Mac mini with HK soundsticks to play music over the Echo upstairs in my home where I don't have a sophisticated sound system. I may get a pair of HomePods as a result. The A8 SOC should theoretically make full surround possible. It would be nice if Apple builds in this capability as it would be very nice to play my SACD collection in full surround on a set of HomePods without having to fiddle with the settings to optimize the sound for the room's acoustics. 

    Apple has a winner here. 
  • Google plans limited ad blocking in Chrome starting in 'early 2018'

    I paid Appleinsider a subscription to avoid ads. Yet I continue to see ads when a peruse the site. 

    This kind of bebahior needs to stop. Or I will cancel my subscription and stop using the site. 
    tallest skil
  • Google Assistant standalone iPhone Siri competitor app launching for iPhone [u]

    Google is making a very concerted effort to get their software products back on iOS. 

    Does anyone besides me think that this is highly unusual behavior for a company that touts its mobile OS dominance? How they feel that iOS is going to one day become irrelevant in the face of the onslaught of cheap and commoditized mobile devices running Android. 

    Samsung is rattling the mothership in Mountain View. Google has finally figured it out, but too late. The hardware is of utmost importance. Cheap and commoditized hardware will never compete with a well designed and robust platform. Otherwise the company would be content to build its best software only for the Android platform. After all, Android has 80% of the market. Why would Google even develop for a minority platform with one fifth the marketshare when they own the platform with     nearly four fifths? When Jobs came back to Apple, from Next computer, he had to negotiate with Microsoft to keep Office alive for the Mac. Microsoft had no need to continue development on the Macintosh platform. Now that Google has the dominant mobile software platform, why the need to develop for iOS?

    Google should build an assistant for Amazon's Echo as a skill. It is likely doubtful that anyone would want to use it. I know I wouldn't. And I don't want to put the Assistant on my iOS devices either. 

    Hopefully Samsung does a good job with Bixby and puts the service on their Gear S3 frontier watch. 

    I know that there is a lot of anti-Samsung sentiment on these boards. But Samsung is doing a lot of hard work and building nice devices and components. Google takes advantage and takes nearly all of the profits from the Android platform. Samsung is going to put an end to it. Especially when the company controls the critical hardware components that all smartphones require to operate. 

    It's comical to watch Google struggle with Samsung's ascendency in hardware. Of seeing how the Android ecosystem espoused the superiority of OLED panels over typical LCD ones. Now that Google cannot source them, they are looking at trying to augment LCD technology in order to compete. The Android apologists were sure quick to hammer Apple over the LCD panels with lower resolution. Apple contracting with samsung to source all of the OLEDs that the company can build eliminated any chance at Google even being able to meet the relatively paltry demand for the Pixel. At least the present offerings that come with OLED panels. It is quite doubtful that the next Pixel will even come with an OLED panel at any price. 

    When the next Pixel comes with an LCD screen, it will be quite interesting to see how the Android community responds. My guess is that such a development will split the Android community and split them decisively. In a very destructive fashion. But Samsung will prevail because Google simply won't be able to contract with anyone to build hardware comparable to Samsung, much less Apple. As it is, Samsung produces the best image sensor in the industry. Google's Pixel has the best one that can be purchased on the open market from Sony. Samsung's is better and it isn't available to any other manufacturer. Even Samsung mobile itself has to buy sensors from Sony as they cannot meet the demand for their own devices. Samsung makes the best smartphone CPU of anyone not named Apple. And yes, the Exynos is better than the Snapdragon 835. CPU performance is a wash but the Exynos has a decidedly better GPU and likely better power consumption. Samsung's v-NAND product is the best in the industry. 

    It won't go well for anyone in the Android marketplace not named samsung. LG can build its own phones with OLED panels, but when QCOM melts down, won't have a source of CPUs to compete with the Exynos.  Hence Google's need to move their services back onto iOS. The problem is that most iOS users won't care. Siri will remain dominant. 

    I actually like Samsung. I know DED and others root for the company to fail. But I don't. I am rooting for them to succeed. No one outside of LG had the foresight to invest heavily in OLED. Not even Sony. The development of folding OLED panels will disrupt the mobile computing industry. Samsung is developing that technology. And with Apple's size and profitability, they will have access to the technology. Google, HTC, Sony, Huawei, Oppo, Xiaomi and the others won't. From the trends, it will take a fortune, a lot of luck and magnificent determination to achieve conventional OLED parity with Samsung. Sony, National/Panasonic, JDI and Sharp are out of the game completely. AUO is barely in the game. LG produces a relatively large number of panels for the Apple Watch. But Samsung display is going to produce tens of millions for the Galaxy S8 and iPhone 8 or 7S depending on how Apple markets the next device. With those numbers, the associated profits and a singular focus on developing the next big thing, Samsung is going to rout the OLED industry. 

    With Samsung's success, Google will be eliminated as a competitor in the mobile OS arena. Apple will then have one major competitor instead of a host of Chinese firms subsidized by their government producing phones selling at losses, gaining marketshare, but with no hope of long term success and driving down profits for the other legitimate manfucturers. Manufacturers which include Apple itself, Samsung, LG, HTC and Sony-Ericsson among others. 

    Apple has major advantages due to their incredible CPU development team. The A10 fusion destroys the competition in single threaded performance. So much so that the Android community has to tout multi-core performance. It reminds me of the day when we Apple users touted dual processor G4 machines having better performance than Pentium processors which were superior in single threaded performance. We were emphatically denounced. But now on a small screen device where single threaded performance is even far more important, the Android types espouse multi-threaded performance. Coding is difficult to optimimize threads to all of the CPU cores, especially when different architectures are involved like the Big.Little ones in the modern ARM designs. It's costly and time consuming. Coding for single threaded applications is far easier. It also provides a superior user experience. But the Android types continue to praise the multi-core performance of the Snapdragon over the A series. It's actually comical. Apple excels and that fact alone guarantees the success of their mobile products. Much like Samsung has essentially no competition for small screen OLED panels, Apple has little in the mobile CPU arena. 

    Apple and Samsung can peacefully co-exist, splitting the profits in the mobile device market. Google will be displaced as Samsung through its stellar components manufacturing dept. takes complete control of the non iOS portion of the mobile hardware market. 

    Google can try to put its software back on iOS devices, but it is going to fail as a long term strategy. Like the situation with Apple maps, there will be no need to use the Google product. Apple will get Siri right and Google assistant will be totally dead in the water. 
    kevin kee
  • Waymo, Lyft partner on self-driving tests as Google plans CarPlay-ready Android car interf...

    I still don't buy the idea that "self" driving vehicles will be a reality in our lifetime. Perhaps for hauling cargo. Trains are perfect for automation. Driving a vehicle requires complex interactions. Asking a computer to duplicate the highest cognitive function, judgment is a pretty tall task. Poor judgment is still better than none at all. 

    Will a computer understand a cop at a busy intersection after a sporting event is over, who is directing traffic by hand? Even when the traffic signals are operating normally? Will it understand another driver at a four way stop gesturing to proceed? And the big question. Nearly everyone I know of drives over the speed limit. Just not enough to be pulled over. Will a driving computer do such? I highly doubt that it will. It means that for most of the driving public, the automated assistant will be scorned, not embraced. People will still prefer to operate their own vehicles so that they can get from point A to point B just a little bit faster. For in town driving, going the speed limit makes sense. The traffic lights are such that going the speed limit offers a smoother experience. But on a long stretch of interstate, nearly everyone pushes the speed envelope. 

    Automated vehicles have a long way to go. Flying planes is much more easily automated, but none of the airlines is proposing to eliminate their human pilots. 

    If I need transportation, I will simply find a cab or Uber or Lyft with a human operator. I rather like chatting with the drivers. And in a place like New York City, I would never trust an automated vehicle. The subway is far better if I need automated transportation.