gibwell

20 ms·

1.
by gibwell 13y ago
Google building more and more stuff directly into search has been going on since the early 2000s. Why are you uneasy now?
2.
by gibwell 13y ago
There are many googlers who sincerely support free software, but Google the company is a business that has no particular interest in preserving other businesses or even business models. Why would anyone expect Google not to eliminate its
3.
by gibwell 13y ago
Google is in the business of organizing the worlds information and monetizing it through advertising. If you are in the information business, Google is in competition with you.
4.
by gibwell 13y ago
Google/Motorola initiated a patent suit against Apple's use of push email in Germany. What did that have to do with anything Apple was doing?
5.
by gibwell 13y ago
That is not an answer to my question.
6.
by gibwell 13y ago
What do you expect Apple to do? These things are made open source under a permissive license. The whole point is that people can do what they want with the code.
7.
by gibwell 13y ago
Would you prefer that Google gains a monopoly in operating systems as well as search?
8.
by gibwell 13y ago
What I believe is that (as you have claimed) Android started as open, and is not any longer, but that many advocates of Android (Google included) continue to assert that it is. You seem to be trying to wriggle out of this by saying that wha
9.
by gibwell 13y ago
This is absolutely disingenuous. Google routinely refers to 'Android activations', and the success of Android in public communications. This use is clearly not confined to carefully referring to the AOSP. If as you say, Google i
10.
by gibwell 13y ago
A little, but they are still regarded as 'better than the others' by those who for some reason desire that Google obtain a monopoly over search and the OS.
11.
by gibwell 13y ago
I don't agree with the parent poster's implication that 'because you work for Google you are a spokesperson' But.. You have certainly claimed to have authority to speak about parts of Google's strategy because you w
12.
by gibwell 13y ago
I don't disagree with most of what you are saying except for the part about Google putting its own most significant parts of android into closed source components. Your comment about 'You don't get to freeride after X years&#
13.
by gibwell 13y ago
Sure, but this isn't just the manufacturers working somehow against Google's goal to have android be truly open. Google is actively participating in this process rather than resisting it. Android is, for example not licensed wit
14.
by gibwell 13y ago
This falls pray to a reductio ad absurdum. The android you can do this with is nothing like the android that ships on consumer's phones. So no, you absolutely cannot do this with what almost everyone thinks of as 'Android'
15.
by gibwell 13y ago
By that definition, Apple uses patents defensively against those who are using to shut down iOS.
16.
by gibwell 13y ago
That's unlikely when so many people in the tech sphere (PG included) paint Google as an 'open' benevolent company fighting the 'evil' of everyone else.
17.
by gibwell 13y ago
Seems highly unlikely unless the next generation Google Glass is a quantum leap ahead of the existing one. I'm not a naysayer about the product in general (although I am not a fan of google), but I have used Glass, and it is far from
18.
by gibwell 13y ago
It means nothing of the sort. Regular consumers are absolutely locked into google by this, and as a consequence, so are developers. The fact that a few hobbyists can back their phones does nothing to change this.
19.
by gibwell 13y ago
These aren't frand patents. And even if they are found to be, they are still entitled to a /reasonable/ license fee.
20.
by gibwell 13y ago
False. Google uses parents aggressively through its wholly owned subsidiary, Motorola.
21.
by gibwell 13y ago
Give that they are the ones with a search monopoly, that's clearly true, but it doesn't say anything about their ethics.
22.
by gibwell 13y ago
With all due respect, they are already suffering as if they had done this, so I think they have little to lose by actually doing it.
23.
by gibwell 13y ago
The Mac Pro is from Apple, so it is fair game as an example of something 'passé', bad or a dead end.
24.
by gibwell 13y ago
So it was just nastiness waiting for a made up justification.
25.
by gibwell 13y ago
That's no moon.
26.
by gibwell 13y ago
So all the vitriol about this issue was simply misplaced?
27.
by gibwell 13y ago
You have to be smart to choose intellectual property worth buying.
28.
by gibwell 13y ago
It's impressive if it is good for the customers, but the comparison with Apple is uninformative linkbait.
29.
by gibwell 13y ago
Do you think Google, or Apple AstroTurf?
30.
by gibwell 13y ago
I was put off by the idea they needed a business model other than selling the app for money. A little googling should provide the due diligence you require.

More ›