371–380 of 874 posts
I don't like Google because they're gonna use my data against me. I don't like Apple because it's a walled garden and millions other reasons. I don't like Samsung because they bloat Android. I don't like Huawei because I don't trust the Chinese government to not do stuff to it. I don't like LG and HTC because the smartphone market is slipping away from them. Am I just getting old?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not really true. x86 emulation is a solved problem at this point, and Apple has shown willingness to use emulation to bridge an ISA transition in the past. I think the real reason is some combination of (a) ARM isn't competitive (or only recently became competitive) at the high power/high performance point that Intel CPUs excel at; (b) the Mac line generates so much less revenue and operates at so much smaller…
You think it's straightforward for Apple to emulate x86 on their own chips with enough performance to rival Intel's own chips? That's a bold claim!
Last week we tried to launch an Android-first app at a major startup conference with 5000 visitors. 95% of the visitors (startups, entrepreneurs, investors, executives) had iPhones. We later confirmed this by looking at the network stats and couldn't believe it. In a country where Android statistically has 80% marketshare. The Android users loved the product, but we failed because we couldn't generate word-of-mouth.…
Network stats viewer discretion advised. The log content may be self selecting to certain individuals and is not representative of the larger population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not really true. x86 emulation is a solved problem at this point, and Apple has shown willingness to use emulation to bridge an ISA transition in the past. I think the real reason is some combination of (a) ARM isn't competitive (or only recently became competitive) at the high power/high performance point that Intel CPUs excel at; (b) the Mac line generates so much less revenue and operates at so much smaller…
You need a faster processor to hide the emulation overhead. Good luck beating Intel by a big enough margin.
“Google is now the seller of record of this phone,” And who is the servicer of broken phones? Is there a warranty? Can I get a customer service agent on a real voice line? Given Google's track record of hardware they could have answers for all of this and I still wouldn't own one.
After using Android for a few weeks I would be pretty happy using it instead of IOS. Among top tier apps and Google provided apps it's definitely now on par with IOS. $59 for a phone is unbelievable.
I just got my iPhone 7 and while it's a great phone and has a slightly higher build quality, it's more than 10x the price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple earns about 94% of the smartphone industry profit with just 14% of the market. It's a thing.
"Percentage of industry profit" is a stupid metric. "Percentage of industry revenue " is an interesting one. But if Google sells phones at a loss, and they eat into Apple's sales, it is not a good thing for Apple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's quite tangential. How surprising is it really that Android sucks if you refuse to use Google services? Where have you been the last 3-5 years?
I guess I should have know. It's just that out of the two I would have expected Apple to be the one forcing you into their ecosystem, yet on iOS I had no trouble having a great experience in respect to email, contacts and calendars without signing into iCloud.
And yet not a single hard detail in the article as to why the headline might be true. For going on ten years we've seen the "iPhone killers" come and go, and this article does nothing to tell me why this time it will be different. Perhaps because it won't be. Of what very few details the article outlines, they just go on about nifty hardware. Have we not learned by now that cool hardware still sucks when hamstrung by…
> For going on ten years we've seen the "iPhone killers" come and go...
The headlines says Google's first "real threat" to iPhone, not that this is an iPhone "killer". Let's not be hyperbolic.
You don't need a lot of detail other than the fact that Google is designing, building and selling smartphones (and increasingly other devices) to recognize as legitimate the claim that this is merely a threat to iPhone.
> Now, Google is no Samsung, but they're a long way from Apple or even Microsoft on the UX front.
This seems biased. Everyone has their own tastes, but Google's software and UX have become pretty top notch across many of their product lines, imo. It's fine to state your personal preference or dislike of their design ethos but painting with such a broad and unequivocal brush is silly. This is not a universally shared sentiment.
> And yet not a single hard detail in the article as to why the headline might be true.
Again, you seem to be creating a strawman in taking about an "iPhone killer" claim. Certainly this represents some kind of threat. Other threats to Apple's iPhone have sprung up in the past, and some to great success. Google's new foray may or may not be successful in its own right over time and it may or may not impact the iPhone's success, but I bet Apple themselves view it as a competitive threat to monitor.
> Point is, this article does nothing to relieve my ignorance, which is why I clicked on the thing to begin with.
The tl;dr is that Google created a major new hw division that spans multiple devices including new smartphone lines and Google directly will carry the supply chain and inventory risk on their balance sheet. This is a major, major move financially and strategically and it's all that's necessary to back up the actual headline claim. On top of that, they provided some specifics on the phone offerings (eg two sizes, first phone to offer Android N, first phone with built in Google Assistant, the Pixel's design was unveiled (certainly a large part of Apple's phone unveilings, so why not count it for Google's?) including backside glass, lots of camera details (12MP, DXO Mark ratings, auto-stabilization for vid), free unlimited cloud storage, the fingerprint scanner+track pad, Daydream VR support, etc, etc).
Not sure how you came away with such a stark view of the articles headline vs content.
And yet not a single hard detail in the article as to why the headline might be true. For going on ten years we've seen the "iPhone killers" come and go, and this article does nothing to tell me why this time it will be different. Perhaps because it won't be. Of what very few details the article outlines, they just go on about nifty hardware. Have we not learned by now that cool hardware still sucks when hamstrung by…
> For going on ten years we've seen the "iPhone killers" come and go...
The headlines says Google's first "real threat" to iPhone, not that this is an iPhone "killer". Let's not be hyperbolic.
You don't need a lot of detail other than the fact that Google is designing, building and selling smartphones (and increasingly other devices) to recognize as legitimate the claim that this is merely a threat to iPhone.
> Now, Google is no Samsung, but they're a long way from Apple or even Microsoft on the UX front.
This seems biased. Everyone has their own tastes, but Google's software and UX have become pretty top notch across many of their product lines, imo. It's fine to state your personal preference or dislike of their design ethos but painting with such a broad and unequivocal brush is silly. This is not a universally shared sentiment.
> And yet not a single hard detail in the article as to why the headline might be true.
Again, you seem to be creating a strawman in taking about an "iPhone killer" claim. Certainly this represents some kind of threat. Other threats to Apple's iPhone have sprung up in the past, and some to great success. Google's new foray may or may not be successful in its own right over time and it may or may not impact the iPhone's success, but I bet Apple themselves view it as a competitive threat to monitor.
> Point is, this article does nothing to relieve my ignorance, which is why I clicked on the thing to begin with.
The tl;dr is that Google created a major new hw division that spans multiple devices including new smartphone lines and Google directly will carry the supply chain and inventory risk on their balance sheet. This is a major, major move financially and strategically and it's all that's necessary to back up the actual headline claim. On top of that, they provided some specifics on the phone offerings (eg two sizes, first phone to offer Android N, first phone with built in Google Assistant, the Pixel's design was unveiled (certainly a large part of Apple's phone unveilings, so why not count it for Google's?) including backside glass, lots of camera details (12MP, DXO Mark ratings, auto-stabilization for vid), free unlimited cloud storage, the fingerprint scanner+track pad, Daydream VR support, etc, etc).
Not sure how you came away with such a stark view of the articles headline vs content.