41–50 of 195 posts
So the team that is in charge of the OS which is licensed to Hardware vendors in the world is the same team that's in charge to create competing Hardware? I'd say that creates a huge conflict of interest. That's one of the big reasons why Nokia Series60 didn't take off as a licensed OS: Whatever Samsung or LG or Lenovo wanted to build on that platform to differentiate, they had to involve Nokia during the development…
I recently got a new Pixel phone and Google's much hyped new AI features just seem so... gimmicky. One of the setup examples shows how you can circle a tent on the left side of a picture and move it more to the center. Neat, I guess? It's kind of a fun toy but I'm not sure what problem this is actually solving. I'm sure there are some usecases for this out there, but it's not a capability I have ever found myself wis…
Maybe these devices have become so complicated they're simply too challenging to work out all of the edge cases out of. New features are easier.
The 'consumer data extractor' (hardware) team is teaming up with the 'consumer manipulator' (AI) team, and all free of any inconvenient 'dont be evil' policy. What a time to be alive!
Are they really making major contributions? Seems like Mobile OS are basically stagnant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conflict of interest is a human invention, and not a law of the universe. There is no "conflict" unless you see it as one. You can play chess against yourself. AlphaGo can, because it wasn't brainwashed about this notion. ChatGPT can debate against itself. You can too, if you don't see it as a conflict. Humans might find it hard, only because they were brainwashed from a child that they need to pick sides. Your neura…
> The market is big enough for Google to create hardware AND other companies to create hardware. You obviously didn't read the comment you're replying to. No one is challenging that. Having the same TEAM in charge of the OS and in-house hardware is an entirely different story. It's a conflict of interest because the person Samsung is talking to to have a feature implemented into the OS baseline may be the same person…
The person can run two threads in their brain, one that deals with Samsung and one that deals with the internal product.
> Now this person knows that the product he and his team is designing will compete with a yet-to-be-announced Samsung-product with a new feature.
So? You're talking about the person, which is just the host hardware. There can be multiple threads running on that hardware at the same time in containers.
> So his interest to support a licensee being successful with his product is in conflict with his interest to create a more successful competing product.
They can both be successful at the same time. He can operate with an interest to optimize for an overall better world rather than interest to win over and kill Samsung. He can build a successful product AND help Samsung build a successful product at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conflict of interest is a human invention, and not a law of the universe. There is no "conflict" unless you see it as one. You can play chess against yourself. AlphaGo can, because it wasn't brainwashed about this notion. ChatGPT can debate against itself. You can too, if you don't see it as a conflict. Humans might find it hard, only because they were brainwashed from a child that they need to pick sides. Your neura…
> The market is big enough for Google to create hardware AND other companies to create hardware. You obviously didn't read the comment you're replying to. No one is challenging that. Having the same TEAM in charge of the OS and in-house hardware is an entirely different story. It's a conflict of interest because the person Samsung is talking to to have a feature implemented into the OS baseline may be the same person…
So the team that is in charge of the OS which is licensed to Hardware vendors in the world is the same team that's in charge to create competing Hardware? I'd say that creates a huge conflict of interest. That's one of the big reasons why Nokia Series60 didn't take off as a licensed OS: Whatever Samsung or LG or Lenovo wanted to build on that platform to differentiate, they had to involve Nokia during the development…
Conflict of interest is a human invention, and not a law of the universe. There is no "conflict" unless you see it as one. You can play chess against yourself. AlphaGo can, because it wasn't brainwashed about this notion. ChatGPT can debate against itself. You can too, if you don't see it as a conflict. Humans might find it hard, only because they were brainwashed from a child that they need to pick sides. Your neura…
That could be said for anything in the moral and judicial sphere. "There's no theft, property is a human invention", "There's no rape, animals don't have that concept", and so on.
So the team that is in charge of the OS which is licensed to Hardware vendors in the world is the same team that's in charge to create competing Hardware? I'd say that creates a huge conflict of interest. That's one of the big reasons why Nokia Series60 didn't take off as a licensed OS: Whatever Samsung or LG or Lenovo wanted to build on that platform to differentiate, they had to involve Nokia during the development…
It took off for Sony and Ericsson.
(Sony) Ericsson used UIQ, a pen-based OS built on top of the core of Symbian foundation.
Nokia developed Series60, a key-based OS built on top of a Symbian core.
They were not compatible operating systems, and most of all Ericsson didn't license it from Nokia.
So the team that is in charge of the OS which is licensed to Hardware vendors in the world is the same team that's in charge to create competing Hardware? I'd say that creates a huge conflict of interest. That's one of the big reasons why Nokia Series60 didn't take off as a licensed OS: Whatever Samsung or LG or Lenovo wanted to build on that platform to differentiate, they had to involve Nokia during the development…
The first priority for Android is competing against iPhone. Any self-dealing to get Pixel to have more of the Android pie would be far down the list, and probably counter-productive. It was already possible under the previous structure anyway.