Re: Acer
Could change again, though… The next Nexus is probably going to be released soon, which usually means a bump in sales.
3721 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
"Thank you for allowing me to think what I like"
Well, there are things where personal interpretation has no place. You stated an opinion which is, simply said, wrong. You might as well have said "as far as I am concerned, 2+2=5".
Note also that asking permission to take a picture of you is respecting your privacy (and is indeed required, even in public places, in some countries); but the picture still belongs to the photographer.
"Them automobile thingies will never catch on; they always break down, and they're unable to drive in the snow. I'll keep my trusty horse, thank you."
This article raises some excellent points. I am sure Google will realize now they cannot possibly make this work. They obviously didn't think about the fact GPS stops working in tunnels.
…But I wonder how this type of practices would be translated, say, for the cloud business. Where a certain "book store" happens to also be the market leader.
I think large companies eventually stop noticing that everything they do tends to make them look like bullies.
I would add, that other lawsuit from the same firm does not encourage me to take this seriously. They claim there that Google is using their controlling position in mobile to force people to use their search engine… When practically everyone will agree the search engine is what Google does best, and has no need of such tactics. And somehow, Android is too expensive because Google forces manufacturers to include their free apps.
You mean, companies like their employees not to have Facebook access?
Personally, I find fantastic to have all the documents of my company in the cloud. It's a dream compared to moving files around, or having documents that can be edited by one person at a time. I would never want to go back.
Yeah right. Apple intends its software to be a selling point of its hardware. E.g you can't use Apple Maps unless you have an iPhone or a Mac. They don't even have a website for it.
I think iTunes is about the only exception, in that it is also available for Windows… But I wouldn't hold my breath about an Android version. No way, no how.
While this does not seem the end of history, it is strange to me that Google would not be allowed to display, or more actually reproduce, an information which is displayed freely and legally on a Spanish web site (and thanks to the Streisand effect, all over the web by now).
To start splitting hair, how about a web site which would start gathering exclusively the type of information that Google is not allowed to show? Would that be legal, for instance, for a news organization to do this? I understand Google was refused a particular protection available to newspapers. And would Google be allowed to link to such a site?
I did notice something like this on Google Maps. While abroad, I got driving directions for a different town from the hotel WiFi, and later on the road, I did get a different route after taking a wrong turn. I'm not sure how much leeway it had, though. It's not something I would be keen on experimenting with.
This was the time Google had announced the hacking attempts coming from the Chinese government, isn't it? I don't see what's surprising about American tech companies getting together with the US government to protect themselves from an outside threat. This is not news. I remember reading on The Reg itself that Sergey Brin was given a temporary clearance to attend a security briefing organized by the US government.
So the NSA got together with Google and other companies to defend US interests from hacking attempts. I fail to see what's nefarious about that. If you'll remember, this was a time where the most likely threat of hacking was China, not the NSA. In fact, this would explain the feeling of betrayal displayed by Google when it was announced that the NSA was spying on their internal fiber links…
Not quite. It may be a fiduciary responsibility to protect the investment of the shareholders, but this would have been achieved more sensibly by agreeing to a settlement with Samsung. Declaring a lawsuit holy war takes more time, costs more money, without necessary bringing more results. It also makes you more enemies.
You might be confusing this with trademark law, which forces a company to defend its trademarks or lose them. Patents don't work that way.
The internet has become a monopoly for sending information over long distances. "It’s clear that [the Internet] has not achieved this monopoly through offering a better [system], but through its strategic, anti-competitive placement, and it doesn’t take a forensic economist to see that this is evidence of market manipulation".
You have to admit they have balls. Of all the products that Google is offering, Search has to be the one that is the most recognized to have become the first choice through its own merits. If anything, It is rather considered as the reason Google can push its other products down other people's throat…
It was so before Android existed, and is still more popular than Android…
But hey, don't let logic get in the way of your hope for $$$.
Google receives money from advertisers and passes (some of) it to publisher web sites on which the ads run. And the claim is that Google banned publisher web sites so as not to have to pay them, and did not refund advertisers?
That I understand, the payment threshold is $100. Even with "thousands upon thousands of publishers" thus banned, this is surely pocket change for Google…
Competition means having more than one provider available to each customer, not having many providers who agree not to compete for each other's customers…
In other words, this move would only go in the right direction if Comcast immediately tried to poach the millions of customers it sold to Charter Communications.
That's an interesting idea… Rather than creating self-driving cars, let's create remote controlled cars, which is considerably easier, and outsource the driving to India.
There's already way more Indians than Americans and Europeans combined, so no problem there.
I'll insert here patent-busting keywords to make prior art discovery easier: remote controlled car long distance driving teledriving outsourcing automated bullshit.
Actually, though Google did do it, this isn't the part which caused them trouble. It was the fact that they recorded packets going through the WiFi while they were driving by which made governments unhappy.
That I know, mapping the WiFi access points has not been judged a violation of privacy, and it is perfectly known that Apples iPhones have been using a similar mapping for years.
I would check back the article which made the claim about half their money being in the US. That definitely does not fit what I read on the subject.
About the deferred taxes, I suspect Apple does not count this as money they have not yet paid taxes on, but as money they don't intend to pay taxes on, ever.
What's this silliness about demanding bitcoins back?? I'm pretty certain that all the places in UK that proclaim to accept Euros give back change in pennies; and if you return the next day to ask for a refund, they'll pay you back in Pounds, not Euros.
Even though Bitcoins are accepted, that just means you are provided a transparent Bitcoin-to-Pounds exchange at the current rate, and if you ask for a refund the next day, the store may choose to exchange again their Pounds to your Bitcoins, if they wish, and at the current rate again… Whatever that is.
I don't see how customers could complain about this. Otherwise, you are basically getting the store to buy from you a lottery ticket, which you will buy back the next day only if it is a winning ticket.
The reason the manufacturers are paying is likely that it is cheaper and simpler to pay a couple of dollars to Microsoft for licensing unknown patents, than to try and fight them in court, which takes a lot of time and money, for a result that is uncertain.
Now, if Microsoft had tried the same kind of deal with Google-owned Motorola Mobility, they would certainly have been rebuffed. Because it is actually worth it for Google to figure out exactly what those famous patents are about, even at the risk of losing an expensive lawsuit.
Now, the fact that Microsoft did not actually sue Motorola, even though they claim that Motorola infringes their patents (since it makes Android phones), indicates that they are not sure of winning, or they don't think it's worth the trouble of a lawsuit against Google, or maybe they simply prefer to keep quiet what the famous patents are. Probably a mix of the three.
> Now "I work at Yahoo!" is a euphemism for "I'm too too crap to get a job at Google/Apple/whatever.
That was the case since way before Marissa came...
On the other hand, Yahoo may be a worse employer than Google or Facebook, but it is still a better employer than 80% of the industry, so "too crap" is probably an overstatement. You might as well claim that going to Princeton means you are "too crap" to go to Harvard.
My secret wish is for Rockstar to appeal this decision all the way to the Supreme Court, and for the Supreme Court to rule that no trial should ever happen in the Eastern district of Texas except when all the parties involved have exclusively existed in that district for at least ten years.
If there is a worse thing than patent trolls, it is the court that legitimates half of patent trolls.
Are they so unsure about ending in the right place? Otherwise, why not do it on the ground in the middle of the desert? Even if it ends up exploding, it seems a better simulation…
And if they are really unsure about controlling the rocket, it seems hardly worth it to add legs to it, considering the only thing they plan to do is to hover gently above the ocean before sinking it.