Why does the EU hate Google so much? One German newspaper complained about Google using their content in Google News so Google used less of their content, which resulted in said newspaper seeing a huge drop in traffic so they recanted and let Google continue as before. Spain passed a law forcing aggregators to pay Spanish news sites for linking to them. Google responded by shutting down Google News in Spain which caused much bitching from Spanish news sites.
So, what is the deal here? No one is forced to use Google yet the EU acts as if Google is the only option. When they pass laws to try and screw over Google they respond in a way that follows the letter of the law but results in the opposite of what those pushing the law wanted.
Edit: it appears to me that the EU does not understand that Google is an advertising company that creates products to sell advertising. What the EU is pushing for, in these laws, is for Google to provide free advertising for non-Google companies.
There is no clear description of the "workaround". If it is a deficiency or failure in Safari or Safari options which has been misinterpreted by the court it might be a case of non technologically savy people ruling on a tech based case.
It has to be noted that the European governments are the ones who think this is a proper idea because they can't explain why so many people use Google products over anything else. From what I've read Android is far more popular in Germany than anything else, coupled with being a search engine and all the extra services used it may seem to the Government as if there is no other choice (like in the Microsoft Internet Explorer case). In reality the Government may not understand that there is no viable competitors and unlike the Internet Explorer case users opt to use Google, they aren't forced.
I'm trying to imagine what a company would have to do to compete in the same space that Google does but I can't imagine a way. Both Apple and Microsoft have tried and failed.
What space did Apple try and fail to compete with Google? Maps?
Email. Browser. Pretty much anything Web related.
It's clear Bing is Microsoft trying and failing (at least outside of the USA) to compete with Google's Search, as it came after Google and hasn't caught up.
However, Safari is a way older product than Chrome, by probably about five years, so that isn't Apple trying to compete with Google's Chrome, but the other way around. That Chrome is doing better on non-Apple PC's isn't Apple failing, just Google succeeding. In that case it's probably also Microsoft failing.
I don't think I use any web services by Apple. I didn't even know they had any.
I think that's the big difference. Apple fails a lot, but they fail quietly. People go on and on about Google buzz or Google wave failing. People forget that mobile me ever existed.
It might be because Mobile Me and iCloud (various versions) are considered support infrastructure for hardware products that didn't fail. The massive success of the iPhone hides the fact that the early iterations of the internet connectivity elements sucked balls.
On the other hand, Buzz and Plus and other high profile Google stuff feels like it is the product when launched. The truth is that it's built purely in support of Google's core businesses, search and advertising, rather than a product in its own right, much like Mobile Me was for Apple's core business.
So yeah, Apple seem to be better at framing what will be a successful...
I just remembered iTunes Ping. Now THAT was a flop right out the gate.
Like that'll do anything. The amount the EU is suing for is only half of what Google paid to own Motorola years ago. Even if they paid the full price to settle the lawsuit, Google is still rich as fuck.
So yesterday, Google announced a new SIM Card/cell plan called Project Fi. The plan gives you: - Non-roaming use of both Sprint and T-Mobile's networks, and seamless switching between them - Transparent use of Wi-Fi for calls and text messages, with automatic switching between Wi-Fi and cell networks depending on service - If you're using it over unsecured Wi-Fi, it uses a VPN to a Google server to protect against packet sniffing - Tethering included at no cost - And if you don't use up the data in your plan by the end of the month, they'll credit you back for all the data you didn't spend
The catch is that it's Nexus 6 only at the moment, until other manufacturers build in unlocked radios that work with it.
The thing is, if you look at the price of the plan, it really isn't that much cheaper than my Verizon plan. Some months ago they upgraded my data to give me more GB at no extra charge. I pretty much only run out of data in March when I go to PAX East and Anime Boston during the same billing period.
However, the data credit might mean that I can get a much cheaper plan since I can get a lot less data and still have enough at all times. Most months I don't even come close to the limit.
However, while a Sprint + T-Mobile combo is good, it's still not quite equal to Verizon by itself. I often get coverage in places other people don't, and full LTE at that.
It looks like it's a similar cost per line to Verizon's cell plans, only with a higher data cap and built-in VOIP capability.
On my current Verizon plan I get 2GB data per month for $30. Were I on Fi I would be spending about $7.50 most months, topping out at $15 during convention season.
But phones that support wifi calling (like my note 4) already have built in voip.
Minor difference: as far as I know, those phones will drop the call if you lose your Wi-Fi signal. Fi can switch from Wi-Fi to cell network and back again mid-call.
Way to read the completely misleading headline. Those 11 accidents occurred over 1.7 million miles of driving. 100% of those accidents were not the fault of the Google Car. In 7 of the accidents the car was hit from behind while stopped at a light.
Way to read the completely misleading headline. Those 11 accidents occurred over 1.7 million miles of driving. 100% of those accidents were not the fault of the Google Car. In 7 of the accidents the car was hit from behind while stopped at a light.
Wait, let me save the whole argument.
"Urgh, I don't like this new technology because I worry that it might be mandatory, and take away the thing I like and I fear new things."
"Nuh uh, no way, if you're not frothing at the loins about this technology you're just a stupid luddite you should be demanding it right now and insulting anyone who disagrees."
Both, in unison: "No fuck you, and I will aggressively misinterpret any statistics I have to to prove my side right."
The important statistic is accidents per miles driven average. Google's is enormously higher for this type of accident, but there's also fewer cars making fewer miles, so even one accident is going to be statistically significant. And google also makes a fair point, even if they're just trying to mitigate some bad PR - A lot of minor accidents of this type go unreported, whereas every single accident with the google cars are. Though they try and imply that this is an extremely high number, the answer is that we don't know how many, because they're unreported. Duh.
The old "NONE OF THEM IS THE SELF DRIVING CAR'S FAULT" is misreporting, mostly by over-enthusiastic tech blogs and dedicated Ray Kurzwiel worshiping futurologists who must defend the perfection of self-driving cars to the death - IIRC, to this point, two have been caused by the car, one to three others by the human driver in the self driving car, and the rest by other road users. What does this mean? Fuck all. It's not finished yet, they're still wildly incomplete. Though anyone who says they are, right now, better than human drivers is simply wrong - that's only the case in certain situations, under ideal conditions.
Also I look forward to Scott's swipe at "All these people going Urgh, Google car crashed on the internet" on the next podcast.
Comments
So, what is the deal here? No one is forced to use Google yet the EU acts as if Google is the only option. When they pass laws to try and screw over Google they respond in a way that follows the letter of the law but results in the opposite of what those pushing the law wanted.
Edit: it appears to me that the EU does not understand that Google is an advertising company that creates products to sell advertising. What the EU is pushing for, in these laws, is for Google to provide free advertising for non-Google companies.
If it is a deficiency or failure in Safari or Safari options which has been misinterpreted by the court it might be a case of non technologically savy people ruling on a tech based case.
I'm trying to imagine what a company would have to do to compete in the same space that Google does but I can't imagine a way. Both Apple and Microsoft have tried and failed.
However, Safari is a way older product than Chrome, by probably about five years, so that isn't Apple trying to compete with Google's Chrome, but the other way around. That Chrome is doing better on non-Apple PC's isn't Apple failing, just Google succeeding. In that case it's probably also Microsoft failing.
I don't think I use any web services by Apple. I didn't even know they had any.
On the other hand, Buzz and Plus and other high profile Google stuff feels like it is the product when launched. The truth is that it's built purely in support of Google's core businesses, search and advertising, rather than a product in its own right, much like Mobile Me was for Apple's core business.
So yeah, Apple seem to be better at framing what will be a successful...
I just remembered iTunes Ping. Now THAT was a flop right out the gate.
Like that'll do anything. The amount the EU is suing for is only half of what Google paid to own Motorola years ago. Even if they paid the full price to settle the lawsuit, Google is still rich as fuck.
- Non-roaming use of both Sprint and T-Mobile's networks, and seamless switching between them
- Transparent use of Wi-Fi for calls and text messages, with automatic switching between Wi-Fi and cell networks depending on service
- If you're using it over unsecured Wi-Fi, it uses a VPN to a Google server to protect against packet sniffing
- Tethering included at no cost
- And if you don't use up the data in your plan by the end of the month, they'll credit you back for all the data you didn't spend
The catch is that it's Nexus 6 only at the moment, until other manufacturers build in unlocked radios that work with it.
tl;dr: Shut up and take my money
I'm assuming this is groundwork for a larger, more impressive implementation down the road.
However, the data credit might mean that I can get a much cheaper plan since I can get a lot less data and still have enough at all times. Most months I don't even come close to the limit.
However, while a Sprint + T-Mobile combo is good, it's still not quite equal to Verizon by itself. I often get coverage in places other people don't, and full LTE at that.
On my current Verizon plan I get 2GB data per month for $30. Were I on Fi I would be spending about $7.50 most months, topping out at $15 during convention season.
I was right.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2921332/googles-selfdriving-cars-of-tomorrow-face-the-mean-streets-of-today.html
Get off my lawn yah damn kids!
"Urgh, I don't like this new technology because I worry that it might be mandatory, and take away the thing I like and I fear new things."
"Nuh uh, no way, if you're not frothing at the loins about this technology you're just a stupid luddite you should be demanding it right now and insulting anyone who disagrees."
Both, in unison: "No fuck you, and I will aggressively misinterpret any statistics I have to to prove my side right."
The important statistic is accidents per miles driven average. Google's is enormously higher for this type of accident, but there's also fewer cars making fewer miles, so even one accident is going to be statistically significant. And google also makes a fair point, even if they're just trying to mitigate some bad PR - A lot of minor accidents of this type go unreported, whereas every single accident with the google cars are. Though they try and imply that this is an extremely high number, the answer is that we don't know how many, because they're unreported. Duh.
The old "NONE OF THEM IS THE SELF DRIVING CAR'S FAULT" is misreporting, mostly by over-enthusiastic tech blogs and dedicated Ray Kurzwiel worshiping futurologists who must defend the perfection of self-driving cars to the death - IIRC, to this point, two have been caused by the car, one to three others by the human driver in the self driving car, and the rest by other road users. What does this mean? Fuck all. It's not finished yet, they're still wildly incomplete. Though anyone who says they are, right now, better than human drivers is simply wrong - that's only the case in certain situations, under ideal conditions.
Also I look forward to Scott's swipe at "All these people going Urgh, Google car crashed on the internet" on the next podcast.