gibwell

10 ms·

31.
by gibwell 13y ago
Are you joking?
32.
by gibwell 13y ago
It's a false dichotomy from a strictly abstract point of view where other logical possibilities exist, but that's irrelevant. The people who are proposing to move control of the internet away from the US actually are foreign go
33.
by gibwell 13y ago
Do you seriously think that Xiaomi makes the kind of changes that Apple makes to their products annually on a weekly basis?
34.
by gibwell 13y ago
Google has never had a standard IMAP implementation for Gmail.
35.
by gibwell 13y ago
It's not a loss leader. OSX has always been supplied as a component that is integrated with the Mac. I.e. You never had to buy a Mac and then separately purchase OSX. What they are doing here is to integrate ongoing support for OS up
36.
by gibwell 13y ago
Even if they don't make it cross platform, it will probably give Adobe a run for their money. Progress on this thing had been astoundingly fast, and compared to Adobe it's practically free.
37.
by gibwell 13y ago
They sell millions of licenses a year. Their revenue per employee exceeds that of Google or Apple. Is more explanation needed?
38.
by gibwell 13y ago
How are we going to use fewer antibiotics when they are a profit making venture?
39.
by gibwell 13y ago
We can't discipline ourselves because there are giant vested interests in selling antibiotics and none in resisting buying them.
40.
by gibwell 13y ago
It doesn't have more advanced features, and there is little or no software optimized for it.
41.
by gibwell 13y ago
I never made a 'childish ultimatum'. I simply said that if you believe Samsung is a more ethical company than Samsung, we have nothing to discuss, because it have no intention of debating that belief with you. I am glad you were
42.
by gibwell 13y ago
StavrosK wanted a narrow definition of valid criticism. Narrowly confining ourselves to a technical analysis of ignores that there are other dimensions to how people think about technology, and the perception that Google has created about
43.
by gibwell 13y ago
That's why that comment has now sunk to the bottom.
44.
by gibwell 13y ago
Interesting experimentation doesn't mean a more useful product, and those devices do not match the build quality. Whereas a 30% weight reduction and 100% performance improvement makes the iPad air far more useable in every situation
45.
by gibwell 13y ago
More materials and more battery. That's what you are paying the extra for. The larger device is better for collaboration and creative use whereas the smaller one is better for casual use and reading, but both are equally capable when
46.
by gibwell 13y ago
Touch covers are a bad idea. That's why Apple isn't fooling around with them.
47.
by gibwell 13y ago
Whereas the massive weight reduction is what will enable me to buy an iPad air instead of an iPad mini. The larger device is far more usable for collaborative work than the mini, and the weight difference makes it far more portable.
48.
by gibwell 13y ago
So their 'non-revolutionary' changes have somehow produced a better product for you than their competitors?
49.
by gibwell 13y ago
Asking why we should trust a privacy related product from Google is legitimate. You are assuming that everyone will comprehend the trust model at a glance the way you do, but this is not so. Your argument seems to be that people shouldn&#x
50.
by gibwell 13y ago
Cloning other people's products and then dumping them onto the market using predatory pricing is a far more 'vehement' attack than anything Apple has done. If you seriously believe Samsung is a more ethical company than Apple
51.
by gibwell 13y ago
The point is that Google was once held in high esteem because it acted in an unusually trustworthy way for a large corporation. Almost everything they were fundamentally trusted on has turned out to be a betrayal. It is right and natural
52.
by gibwell 13y ago
Google is a long-time NSA collaborator. The risks of what they could share with them should always be scrutinized.
53.
by gibwell 13y ago
Sadly not true. Google is moving most new Android development into tightly controlled closed source: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-... And portraying Samsung as the victim is a
54.
by gibwell 13y ago
I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that a boycott of Apple would do anything to cause Samsung to improve their behavior in any way. Most likely they would conclude that their general PR campaign to tarnish Apple was successful and
55.
by gibwell 13y ago
A clear sunsetting roadmap still means that you trusted your business to something Google no longer cares about. It doesn't protect you from the cost of migration.
56.
by gibwell 13y ago
You say I'm wrong but your argument then supports exactly my position. The 'black box' is trained by humans, and it applies their judgments to the pages it processes.
57.
by gibwell 13y ago
I agree that Google uses one rule set across the whole internet. I don't think they have anything resembling a list of competitors to downgrade or anything like that. However the algorithm is based on hundreds of metrics, and is hig
58.
by gibwell 13y ago
They don't need magic powers. They employ hundreds of human raters to judge the quality of search results according to Google's criteria and biases.
59.
by gibwell 13y ago
You can't download and build what consumers think of as Android.
60.
by gibwell 13y ago
Surely you don't expect that to be taken seriously. Samsung is not some innocent well-meaning bystander in this. Nor is Google.

More ›