Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 139 posts

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#91

Post by wutbrodo »

simonh wrote: post #80
holtalanm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes you can compile and install your own software, but AFAIK, you have to pay a yearly fee for the privilege of doing so Yes. And you have to own one of their overpriced computers too.

Oh for goodness sake, go and get yourself a GNU Stallmanphone or whatever along with the other five or six owners and leave the rest of the world alone. What the heck did Apple ever do to you?

Hilariously enough, your comment only makes sense if you assume that everyone else is as pathetically and irrationally emotionally invested in their consumer choices as you clearly are. It's entirely possible to complain about one of the downsides of apple's approach without thinking being an extremist on the position of consumer control of their computing devices.

For example, I use Ubuntu instead of eg Windows; someone as simple-minded as you could make the exact same complaint: "why don't you go compile Linux from scratch and leave the normal people alone".

But this would be missing the part of the picture where eg I chose Ubuntu over Debian because the small extra hassle of Debian's extra commitment to free software means not being able to do things out of the box like use certain codecs.

People are capable of choosing different points on the spectrum of convenience vs controlled solutions, and those of us who aren't incredibly immature are able to discuss their pros and cons without turning everything into a holy war.

> What the heck did Apple ever do to you?

Jeez, this part is just embarrassing.

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#92

Post by wutbrodo »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #28
neonhomer wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of those people who gladly use an iPhone with mostly Google apps (namely Chrome, Gmail and Maps). My little experience with Android has always been negative. The only real annoyance with iOS is you can't set Chrome nor Maps as default applications.

I'm in the same boat. My dream device would be iPhone HW with Android software. I like Android's flexibility, the replaceable home screen instead of the list of apps, the Intents system that lets you replace an app handler with another (Chrome & Maps for example), the much better notification system... I have an iPhone now (because work), and it took a few months to stop grumbling, but I definitely appreciated the ov…

> compared to my friend's Android phones

One universal fallacy I've noted since the beginning of Android and iOS is seeing people compare $30 Android phones with iPhones, which target only the premium part of the market. I've used primarily the Galaxy S line but my friends have had Nexuses etc, and the hardware quality (screen, camera, compute speed,build quality) has been about as good (with variance in both directions) as contemporary iPhones for many years now (helped along by the fact that the galaxy S6 aped iPhone's design pretty aggressively).

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#93

Post by morsch »

cududa wrote: post #79
ariwilson wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true at all. A huge number of OEMs have come out of China and (to a much lesser extent) the US over the last few years and taken substantial market share. Huawei, Xiaomi, etc.

Less than ten percent market share - whoopee, who cares?

Xiaomi sold half as many smartphones in 2Q17 as Apple. Huawei sold about as much as Apple. Apart from Samsung, the Android brands that are well known in western markets -- HTC, Motorola. Google, LG, Sony -- aren't relevant globally.

https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS42935817

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#94

Post by scholia »

dom0 wrote: post #64
tyingq wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you have a reference that Google detuned their search for profit purposes? That's not what I said at all...I was saying their costs were higher as a result. They detuned it to reduce the number of low quality sites appearing in Google search results. I am speculating on one particular side effect that had. I have no proof, because only Google would have the data needed to prove that.

> They detuned it to reduce the number of low quality sites appearing in Google search results. Interestingly Google Search results have degraded heavily over the years, and for many topics almost entirely consist of bullshit SEO sites and arbitrary-keyword-generation sites ( http://foo-shit.com/freude-des-schadens = automatically generated page about "freude-des-schadens").

Agreed. My anecdotal experience is that the number of low quality sites has increased dramatically.

I put this down partly to the "freshness" algorithm. You get shown the most appalling crap on the grounds that it appeared within the past few hours.

If you're a share cropper in the news blogosphere, it's stupid to spend an hour checking facts or making phone calls because then you'll be 50th to post. Post any old crap and you reap the financial rewards of "freshness".

I exaggerate only slightly....

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#95

Post by KwanEsq »

ungzd wrote: post #38
gumby wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the contrary, Apple's ecosystem is completely closed Their App Store is a monopoly, but I have friends who use iPhones and use Google's Inbox, Google's search app, Chrome browser, Google Maps and Waze etc and don't use the built-in defaults. I guess they like the hardware. So maybe I'm not interpreting "completely closed" correctly. > ... In the name of user centricity, their platform places arbitrary restrictio…

> Chrome browser It's really Safari, but with Google services. Apple forbids other HTML rendering engines.

Isn't it only other JavaScript interpreters/JITs specifically it forbids?

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#96

Post by on_and_off »

mankash666 wrote: post #2

It's rather sad that Google needs to pay Android makers a fee for installing it's apps, given how Google gives away source code that makes Android exist in the first place. On the contrary, Apple's ecosystem is completely closed, app cut fairly high and non-negotiable at 30% and app store rejections arbitrary at best and blatantly anti competitive at worst. In the name of user centricity, their platform places arbitr…

IMO they should investigate both. I do know that bundling hardware and software together allows apple to do whatever they want, but it still horrifies me that on a general purpose device, there is a gatekeeper raising arbitrary rules on what apps I can install (or sell for the other side of the equation).

While Apple's practices have been worrying me for some time, they are in no way mutually exclusive with Google's ones.

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#97

Post by thephyber »

gumby wrote: post #13
mankash666 wrote: post #2

It's rather sad that Google needs to pay Android makers a fee for installing it's apps, given how Google gives away source code that makes Android exist in the first place. On the contrary, Apple's ecosystem is completely closed, app cut fairly high and non-negotiable at 30% and app store rejections arbitrary at best and blatantly anti competitive at worst. In the name of user centricity, their platform places arbitr…

> On the contrary, Apple's ecosystem is completely closed Their App Store is a monopoly, but I have friends who use iPhones and use Google's Inbox, Google's search app, Chrome browser, Google Maps and Waze etc and don't use the built-in defaults. I guess they like the hardware. So maybe I'm not interpreting "completely closed" correctly. > ... In the name of user centricity, their platform places arbitrary restrictio…

I mostly agree with you except

> Their App Store is a monopoly

That word gets thrown around too liberally. Does anyone expect the Apple App Store to be able to serve apps to the Android, Windows, or Linux ecosystems? Arguing that "Apple's App Store is a monopoly" is like arguing that "JCPenny is a monopoly of all goods sold at JCPenny stores". If you want to sell goods in a store, you must abide by the stipulations of a contract with that company.

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#98

Post by freehunter »

fjksksvdjsjd wrote: post #74
freehunter wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you can't buy/rent movies on Google Play, Amazon, etc. apps on iOS Isn't that a choice Google and Amazon make because they don't want to pay Apple's fees for sales going through their marketplace? If that's the case, it doesn't seem anticompetitive, since everyone is charged the same fees no matter what. Google and Amazon just don't want to pay it. Same thing as the Kindle Store, you can't buy Kindle books through t…

Anti competitive or not, it’s terrible for consumers.

Well it's terrible for consumers that Intel charges money for their processors too, but such is capitalism.

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#99

Post by fjksksvdjsjd »

freehunter wrote: post #98
fjksksvdjsjd wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti competitive or not, it’s terrible for consumers.

Well it's terrible for consumers that Intel charges money for their processors too, but such is capitalism.

But, it’s really not that terrible. Intel has plenty of competition; if you just need “a computer” you can get a rpi for $25.

Realistically there’s no way to buy digital video without also fucking yourself into a walled garden that restricts your use of your own licensed content. There is no real competition there for the experience people want—video they can play on whatever they want to, whenever.

Re: Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors

#100

Post by dymk »

racer-v wrote: post #83
wil421 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll take one App Store over many anyday if it severely lessons the chance of getting malware.

Would you also take one news source over many if it lessens the chance of seeing "fake news"?

Would you take one false equivalency over another if it lessens the chance of an "ironic reply"?
Post reply on HN