Spork Boards

That Darn Google...

ARL (Moderator) – May 12, 2011 08:15PM Reply Quote
With the release of Chrome OS (whatever the hell that is) I thought it might be time Google got it's own thread.

Don't be evil? < /Snark...>

ddt – January 29, 2014 03:03PM Reply Quote
Even if we don't take devaluation into account, how much do you think this cost Google in things like legal fees/hours billed, not to mention opportunity costs? (Yeah, I learn a few terms from Econ 101 and I totally run with them.)


ARL (Moderator) – July 01, 2014 10:00PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!

ARL (Moderator) – December 22, 2014 03:12PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!

ddt – January 19, 2015 07:56AM Reply Quote
It should be obvious to anyone who knows me or my public postings that I'm no Google fanboy or like just about anything about how the Glass project was designed/made/marketed (I think it could be great in verticals, like for warehouse workers or surgeons, etc., just not for general purpose; a textbook example of Google's "to a hammer, everything looks like a nail" thinking) -- but that take is off. If they wanted to move Glass to an actual consumer product, and viability, can you think of a better way than to put it in Tony Fadell's hands?

Knowing Tony (a bit), and having interviewed at Nest, the weirdest thing/potentially worst fit is actually that Tony is most passionate about NEW product ideas. They don't have to be his ideas (he's not so much NIH), but they have to be new, and make sense. I was proposing adapting Nest products for large-scale -- think large apartment buildings or office buildings that have to act as systems rather than single-family, owned, houses -- but that didn't do for him. So he may not be so interested in taking this existing and fizzling product, unless he can find a new way to configure its components for a new use.


Cloudscout – January 19, 2015 09:20AM Reply Quote
Det finnes ikke dårlig vær, bare dårlige klær!
Glass was initially a solution looking for a problem. Unfortunately, they only seemed to be looking for problems to solve in the consumer market. I could see it having several business uses but nothing significant on the consumer side.

ddt – January 19, 2015 11:46AM Reply Quote
Agreed. Distinct lack of user research, which is systemic to Google. I asked a YouTube user researcher how they go about discovering what they don't already know (it's a real, and important, question to check on regularly), and the answer she gave was, lightly paraphrased, "We see people creating hashtags for videos, which isn't a feature we have, so we were looking at how existing users made and tagged hashtags". Note that that's not an answer to what I asked. At all.


ARL (Moderator) – February 15, 2015 03:43PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!



"We don't know your credit card number, what you bought, and what you pay, and we don't want to," he said. "Your purchases are private."

Here Cook also made veiled jabs at companies like Google, Facebook and Yahoo — the CEOs of which were all invited to the event but declined — which make money from the sale of user data.

"We have a straightforward business model that's based on selling the best products and services in the world, not on selling your data," Cook said. "We don't sell advertisers any information from your email content, from your messages, or your web browsing history."

Cloudscout – February 15, 2015 05:43PM Reply Quote
Det finnes ikke dårlig vær, bare dårlige klær!
Microsoft made similar comments last month when they mentioned that their users are their customers, not their product.

El Jeffe – February 16, 2015 05:30AM Reply Quote
What a journey.
"Let them eat ___(unidentified purchased food product)___ !"

James DeBenedetti – February 16, 2015 10:11PM Reply Quote
Impressive (especially at the 28 sec. mark). NB - this is one of Google’s acquisitions.

ddt – May 28, 2015 08:11AM Reply Quote
Okay, so Material Design. Someone got totes offended when I said it seemed just a skinning of existing UIs (said in reference to how, say, Google Drive's web interface saw no functional changes, just color and a small change to white space).

Someone want to try to 'splain me why there is a functional difference in interaction between MD and what came before? I know Google puts up (arcane, poorly structured) documents touting it, but that's not answering my question; it's just promo.


ARL (Moderator) – August 10, 2015 04:25PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!
That darn... Alphabet?

Am I missing something?

El Jeffe – August 11, 2015 12:00AM Reply Quote
What a journey.
I have not consumed much of the news on this. But I bet that the wall street folks were asking for each of the business units to be represented in such a manner as to make valuation a tad more methodical.
My company split into two parts again, under the onus of same such. That is, one line of business has completely different projections, risks, and can be marketed to a different portfolio buyer/audience than another can.

ddt – August 11, 2015 07:53AM Reply Quote
"You get to be a CEO! You get to be a CEO! EVERYBODY GETS TO BE A CEO!"


John Willoughby – April 07, 2016 09:04AM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
Android may be getting Swift. That'd make a lot of mobile developers happy, I guess.

porruka (Admin) – April 07, 2016 09:55AM Reply Quote
Failure is pre-greatness.
John Willoughby
Android may be getting Swift. That'd make a lot of mobile developers happy, I guess.

It definitely got my attention.

While having to learn effective JAVA (or hiring a developer who already is fluent) isn't the primary blocker keeping me from supporting Android as a user client for my platform, it's certainly on the list of barriers.

John Willoughby – April 07, 2016 10:22AM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
I wonder how hard porting would be; my code is pretty thick with iOS calls. I'm sure that somebody will write a nice piece of lowest-common-denominator middleware, so that you can publish mediocre apps for both platforms simultaneously.

porruka (Admin) – April 07, 2016 07:34PM Reply Quote
Failure is pre-greatness.
There is plenty of opportunity for library code sharing. Doesn't mean you won't get crappy QT-style bad apps, but I do see some good chances for legit common code.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login