Comment

Except that they are your oranges and you can set the price at whatever you want. If you don’t like Google’s offer, then don’t take it. Who is forcing you to accept Google’s offer?

about 12 hours ago on 'Who Owns The Future?' Jaron Lanier thinks Google and the government should pay for your data 1 reply 2 recommends

Comment

I think that the issue isn’t that people are being luddites as much as it is people, some of whom have some degree of influence in the tech world or have a big fan base, who are intentionally trying to put a hit out on products that are not made by the company of their choice.

With all due respect to the user crunkfish and his post in this thread from 4 hours ago, but I really call BS on his claim of these “Google evangelists” with “blind zealotry” who are being “slightly more aggressive than usual” about Google Glass. I’ve been following the Google Glass coverage on various general tech sites as well as Android focused sites and podcasts like Android Central, Droid Life, Android Police, All About Android, etc and pretty much the overwhelming vibe I get is that this is an “interesting” beta that could be really game-changing in the future but at the present still needs a ton of work. Other than Robert Scoble, I really don’t know who that is influential in tech or the tech press that is completely gung ho in love with Google Glass. If I had to describe my feeling about the general view of Google Glass in the Google fan base, it would be a sense of cautious optimism.

In contrast, I see the usual Apple shills bloggers working as desperately hard as they can to link to every negative article they can find about Google Glass and sprinkle the Internet with as many anti-Google Glass talking points, lies, and distortings of facts as they can. It is hilarious to read and listen to the same Apple personalities who, a month earlier was able to imagine all sorts of amazing applications and reasons to buy an Apple smartwatch suddenly have their imaginations fail to imagine any use of Google Glass other than as a spying machine, never mind the fact that if anything a smaller and less conspicuous device like a smartphone or a smartwatch is arguably far more effective for spying purposes than Google Glass. In the Apple pundit world, there is no Google Now or Google Maps turn-by-turn navigation and all Glass does is throw ads in your face every 5 seconds and is recording video and audio 24/7 and sending it off to Google.

Great new ideas on tech don’t just come from one company and in the last few years, I have seen things from Apple, Microsoft, Google, and many others that are amazing and we get better products by having a serious and open-minded discussion on all of what is out there and exploring the possibilities. There are plenty of discussions to be had about Google Glass and privacy and other aspects of the idea but I don’t see how this discussion can be a productive one if it is being poisoned because of people playing favorites with allegiances to certain companies, in this case by prominent pro-Apple figures.

11 days ago on The Biggest Threat to the Future of Tech

Comment

Except that’s not what I said.

Let me put it a different way. A smartphone (iPhone, Android, take your pick) does a set of functions X. Based on all the hype and speculation about the smartwatch, I think it is safe for me to say that the smartwatch does nothing more than a subset of X at the convenience of an essentially minuscule amount of energy. I don’t think it takes any significant amount of energy to look at your wrist at all. But I don’t think it takes much more energy to do that then to just pull out your phone, which is what you will need to do for a fair amount of things anyway. So I’m not sure why a smartwatch it worth it. I’d rather just save for another thing to buy instead.

28 days ago on I'm not convinced Google Glass will succeed

Comment

I’m not really sure what this is supposed to prove at all. In terms of the Q1 2013 smartphone market, the only phones that were “new” and “hot” were the iPhone 5 and the Nexus 4, the latter of which was largely sold online, extremely supply constrained, and available in the U.S. pretty much just on T-Mobile. Wouldn’t it make sense that a large amount of the sales in Q1 2013 would be iPhones? I expect to see the reversal of this in Q2 and Q3 when Android manufacturers bring out their hard hitters like the Galaxy S IV or the One or First and then back to these type of proportions again in Q4 when the next iPhone is released.

28 days ago on Benedict Evans Reports on US Smartphone Share 2 replies

Comment

Shankerton, I think that exus put it a little bit harsher than I would have, but I think the issue for me, which is why I kind of sympathize with exus’ sentiments, is that a lot of what Marco says about Android, specifically Android development, is based on intellectually dishonest manipulation/interpretation of facts/data and his using his success with Instapaper to position himself as an authority figure in development that can speak about Android development from a position of authority whereas in fact he has never seriously looked at Android development.

I also found it disgusting that he still thinks and insists that Instapaper on Android is not successful because Android is a bad place for developers to be in, despite the fact that there is a long list of better reasons such as his long history of making fun of and taking a crap on Android and its users turning away the Android hardcore and press that play a big role in publicizing apps, his entering Android years after his competitors have already entrenched themselves in the market, and his coming out with an app that was feature incomplete compared to the iOS version and competing products.

To say that his animosity to other platforms is caused by people of those platforms criticizing him and not him sticking his neck out to crap on other platforms and their users first is a big twisting and manipulation of facts.

28 days ago on Instapaper acquired by Betaworks, owner of Digg 2 recommends

Comment

Before I respond to your points, I will state that I wear glasses and am not interested in switching to contacts or getting corrective surgery in the near future so admittedly the barrier of having to wear glasses is non-existent to me.

Regarding audio feedback, I think that there are many situations I can think of in which a bit of audio feedback can be extremely useful. For example, how would the theoretical smartwatch “get your attention?” I can imagine a smartwatch beeping or vibrating but I know that there are instances where, for whatever reason, I happen to not feel my smartphone beeping or vibrating. In contrast, Glass could just beep (in addition to sending a text notification to Glass). And continuing with that example, I can see situations in which audio feedback would be extremely useful by allowing notifications, either without or in addition to being pushed to your visual field, is read out to you. For example, perhaps if you are driving or in some situation where GPS navigation is being used, the notifications will simply present itself as audio to prevent interrupting the screen with additional visual information.

Regarding the effort to raise a wrist, I don’t think it takes much effort at all to raise your wrist unless you have physical problems. However, I think that the effort to get your cell phone itself out is pretty much just as effortless and in fact for many of us, it is pretty much a reflex action now. So I guess my skepticism about the smartwatch is that I don’t see the worth and value of an item that does nothing that a smartphone cannot just for the luxury of not having to move your arm and hands slightly more whereas Glass allows for many of these functions to be done without moving the arm and hands at all but also, due to its form factor, can potentially do things that no smartphone can do.

Regarding Glass being in your face, we will obviously have to wait for the actual product to come out and be more available so that we can find out but from the limited things I have seen, my understanding is that the Glass is not “on” all of the time and in fact, in normal use, would probably stay off almost all the time, powering up briefly only when something happens.

Finally with regards to the creepy argument, I think that this will pass with time. People have been using smartphones to do creepy things for years already. If anything, I see Glass as being less creepy because it seems much harder to hide while shooting than a smartphone.

28 days ago on I'm not convinced Google Glass will succeed 1 reply

Comment

I started rewatching Jurassic Park the other day and even though I’ve always rolled my eyes in previous viewings at the Luddite views in the movie, I got really annoyed by it yesterday to the point where I turned off the movie, for exactly the reasons you outlined, and happened upon this interesting blog post while looking up stuff on the movie and book: http://www.mikebrotherton.com/2008/07/03/outside-the-ghetto-and-the-ghastly-example-of-michael-crichton/

28 days ago on Jurassic Park: An Open Discussion of Playing God 1 recommend

Comment

I think stefandroid hit the nail on the head here. As I see it, a major benefit of Google Glass over a smartwatch that you do not have up there is the ability to receive notifications and other functions that would normally require looking down at something without having to look down. In contrast, you still have to look down or at least move your hand up if you want to see what is on a smartwatch. In addition, with a smartwatch, I imagine that you are more limited in the audio feedback that you can get from the device.

28 days ago on I'm not convinced Google Glass will succeed 1 reply

Comment

I cannot see Nintendo “going” Android unless, for whatever reason, they decide at some time down the line that their portable system, whether it’s the 3DS or whatever is out in the future, needs to also be a phone.

28 days ago on Should Nintendo Go Android?

Comment

I think that you hit the nail on the head regarding the ability to retrieve the DNA in the first place. I remember seeing this article from last year that suggests that there is no way that any dinosaur DNA would possibly be recoverable or useable due to DNA having a half life of 521 years. I’ve linked it here: http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555

However, that being said, assuming that you can even get “useable” DNA, I would imagine that the issue then comes down to the cost of creating a viable clone and whether anyone with that kind of money wants to fund that. I think much of the excitement of cloning has died once Dolly was cloned and the idea of justifying the cost of cloning dinosaurs, assuming it is possible, by potentially recouping the costs by setting up a theme park with dinosaur clones seems extremely risky.

28 days ago on Jurassic Park: An Open Discussion of Playing God 2 recommends