First, there was the Nexus One, manufactured by HTC, which set the bar for Android powered phones. Then, the Nexus S, which barely moved the bar at all, and everyone ignored in terms of innovation (which is to say the only new features in the Nexus S were all but neglected by other manufacturers, nobody implimented them); now, there's the Samsung Galaxy Nexus. They're not even HIDING the fact that samsung made this version, and it is raising the bar again.
Allow me to elaborate. The Google Nexus One, was all but unknown to be manufactured by HTC, you actually have to look it up to find the information. of course, the phone was only so popular, considering you could pretty much only buy it, unlocked, from google (a smart move, if I do say so myself). At the time at which the Nexus One hit the market, Android was primarily running Donut (v.1.6) on phones like the HTC Hero. a 500Mhz BEAST with a WHOPPING 256MB of RAM... The Nexus One raised the bar and said no more to these pathetic clock speeds and measly amounts of RAM... THIS is what Android should run on! A 1Ghz Snapdragon processor with 512MB of RAM! Twice as powerful as almost everything else on the market at the time, the flagship Google phone paved the way (and the specifications) for a multitude of variants, including the Samsung Galaxy S, HTC Desire, and Motorola's Droid 2. There were also new sensors introduced and a whole pile of great stuff that really defined a new standard, that almost all manufacturers followed from thre on out, until recently.
The Galaxy S brought nothing new to the tabe. Well, that's unnecessarily harsh, it had NFC. The Galaxy S is the first major Android phone to include NFC. Despite this, the majority of the Galaxy S's hardware was nearly identical to the Samsung Galaxy S, from where it borrowed a portion of its name; with the obvious technical exception of NFC, which the Galaxy S was missing. They were both manufactured by Samsung, so the phones are practically identical. What's hilarious to me is that the Nexus One defined the standard by which the Galaxy S was based on, and the Nexus S was based on that. So you end up with a phone that's identical in almost every way.
To be fair, probably the biggest consumer-oriented change with the Nexus S was the move to internal NAND style memory, as opposed to the SDHC, External style found in the Nexus One. This memory is faster and more efficient than using an external SDHC card, with the obvious downside of not being able to be upgraded, and if something goes horribly wrong, anything saved on your phone, while that data may still be intact, is impossible to retrieve without special hardware.
The Galaxy Nexus has the same level of innovation that it is bringing to the market, as the Nexus One did. The Galaxy Nexus stands as a new standard for Android; it's a dual-core, 1.2Ghz System with 1GB of RAM. The phone also has all the usual sensors, aGPS, Gyro, Compass, light sensors, capactive multitouch, etc. and the same communication functions as the previous Nexus: NFC, Bluetooth, Wifi and Cellular. Though, it's notable that the Galaxy Nexus has an upgraded Wireless chip, capable of 802.11a/b/g/n - this indicates a dual-band chip (both 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz, also a feature yet unseen in cellphone technologies). This has already spurred a whole line of new phones from every major manufacturer; from HTC: Sensation, Evo 3D, Amaze, etc. from Samsung: Galaxy S II and S II X. from Motorola: Atrix, Droid Razr, Droid 3, etc.
To put it briefly, I am not, and have never been a huge fan of the Nexus S. It was more popular than the Nexus One based on two merits: it was more widely available, many carriers actually sell the Nexus S in-store on contacts, making it faster and easier to get ahold of one than ever; the Nexus One, 9 times out of 10, you had to buy at full cost, no contract, from Google directly. Secondly, the Nexus S came out much later into Android's development, as a much more mature ( and much more popular ) platform, it was easy for the Nexus S to become as popular as it has become; despite not bringing much new to the table.
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Why Google?
Many people have raised concerns about the trustworthiness of Google and all the services that google provides. I understand; in an age of information, and the open exploitation of people's personal information for gain and marketing, it can be hard to trust a corporation with anything.
There are also those that get very upset about the heuristic nature of google searching, which also, has merit.
I use google because I consider it to be trustworthy and the heuristic searching makes things significantly better, overall.
I'll explain. Have you ever read Google's service agreements? Neither have I. Honestly, I blow past them in a the blur of a new application faster than... well, it's fast. From what I've seen, Google requires your authorization to release your information to anyone for any reason. I mean, they ARE their own advertising agency (Adsense anyone?) so any information they've gathered on you (marketing-wise) is used to filter out advertisements that will not interest you.... eg. if you're constantly searching for product X, then google will show you ads regarding product X or it's competitors, retailers, accessories, etc. it will do this automatically, the people that made the advertisement, tell google, or google derives from their ad, what they're trying to sell, and their target market. If you're not in it, why would they show you that ad? It makes no marketing sense.
My point here is that advertisers come to google with an ad, a site to link it to, and a target market (demographic data) - google then shows the ad to people who fit that pattern of viewing, YOUR information never leaves google; with the possible exception of being part of a statistic, which I would consider to be fair. (eg, you're one of X people that google'd the new iphone... or whatever)
In addition to targetted ads, google can also figure out what you google'd and what site you went to, and if you came back to google after visiting the site. This gives google a very small idea as to whether or not the site is relevant to the search. obviously keywords and meta data is factored in, and for very unique searches, it definitely is, however, for very common stuff, there's SO MUCH data out there, and there's a lot of BAD or MISLEADING information on the internet... For example, let's say the website for a resturant, let's say, the Keg, since it's common, let's say the programmer didn't really add a lot of meta data, so the phrase "the keg" does not uniquely appear on the site in anything more than the URL, and perhaps .jpg references or something. That's not a lot to go on. but imagine a firm who's main job it is to sell vacations, and one of the big selling points at a more major destination is that they have a keg resturant. The marketing firm, selling vacations, is going to use "The Keg" in every way, shape and form, increasing that phrase's hit count when being indexed... imagine there's quite a few marketing firms like that..
Now imagine you google "The Keg" without heuristic data, it would be a mess. the keg's website would probably be on page 15 buried among coupon offers. However, with heuristic data included, google would logically factor out most of these sites, since many people who google "the keg" would visit them, thinking this is a way to get to the keg, or information on the keg, then be bombarded by not-keg-related material, go back to their search, and keep trying. The massive amount of returns from that site would indicate to google's search engine that maybe, this site is not as related to "the keg" as the meta data suggests.
Additionally, when people go to the ACTUAL Keg website, they end up going and not coming back, either they close the tab/browser, or they browse the site for a long time and likely never come back to google, since they found what they wanted... potentially coming back to do another search, but not for the same thing. This would indicate that maybe this site is more relevant than the metadata would suggest.
Obviously this is not actually a problem, since if you google "the keg", www.kegsteakhouse.com/ is the first link.
My point is, Google, time and time again, has given control to it's users. Even with Google+ it's easy to delete your entire profile and all related information. Or back it up. Or not. It doesn't matter. You can delete the pictures from your picasa web album, making them unavailable forevermore. You can delete their references on your G+ account. You have full access to tag, untag, delete, or edit any of your comments, or delete unwanted comments from your posts. Your information is yours, and google knows, and respects that.
Sure, one day, Google could go bad and become the next facebook (but much much worse), but as far as I'm concerned, that day, according to all the evidence so far, will never happen.
In addition to that, without the heuristic data they use, searching online would be less than useless. You would never reach any relevant data, and with information growing and expanding constantly, there's no way anything that's remotely useful now, that doesn't classify results by relevance based on user data, there's no way it will be useful for long.
I love google, and everything it provides. and as a disclaimer, that doesn't mean I think everyone else's products are bad, or not worthwhile, or should not be used/enjoyed.... I just prefer google myself, I think they're awesome, and I'm sure google does too. If you disagree, that's fine, you're just dead to me.
There are also those that get very upset about the heuristic nature of google searching, which also, has merit.
I use google because I consider it to be trustworthy and the heuristic searching makes things significantly better, overall.
I'll explain. Have you ever read Google's service agreements? Neither have I. Honestly, I blow past them in a the blur of a new application faster than... well, it's fast. From what I've seen, Google requires your authorization to release your information to anyone for any reason. I mean, they ARE their own advertising agency (Adsense anyone?) so any information they've gathered on you (marketing-wise) is used to filter out advertisements that will not interest you.... eg. if you're constantly searching for product X, then google will show you ads regarding product X or it's competitors, retailers, accessories, etc. it will do this automatically, the people that made the advertisement, tell google, or google derives from their ad, what they're trying to sell, and their target market. If you're not in it, why would they show you that ad? It makes no marketing sense.
My point here is that advertisers come to google with an ad, a site to link it to, and a target market (demographic data) - google then shows the ad to people who fit that pattern of viewing, YOUR information never leaves google; with the possible exception of being part of a statistic, which I would consider to be fair. (eg, you're one of X people that google'd the new iphone... or whatever)
In addition to targetted ads, google can also figure out what you google'd and what site you went to, and if you came back to google after visiting the site. This gives google a very small idea as to whether or not the site is relevant to the search. obviously keywords and meta data is factored in, and for very unique searches, it definitely is, however, for very common stuff, there's SO MUCH data out there, and there's a lot of BAD or MISLEADING information on the internet... For example, let's say the website for a resturant, let's say, the Keg, since it's common, let's say the programmer didn't really add a lot of meta data, so the phrase "the keg" does not uniquely appear on the site in anything more than the URL, and perhaps .jpg references or something. That's not a lot to go on. but imagine a firm who's main job it is to sell vacations, and one of the big selling points at a more major destination is that they have a keg resturant. The marketing firm, selling vacations, is going to use "The Keg" in every way, shape and form, increasing that phrase's hit count when being indexed... imagine there's quite a few marketing firms like that..
Now imagine you google "The Keg" without heuristic data, it would be a mess. the keg's website would probably be on page 15 buried among coupon offers. However, with heuristic data included, google would logically factor out most of these sites, since many people who google "the keg" would visit them, thinking this is a way to get to the keg, or information on the keg, then be bombarded by not-keg-related material, go back to their search, and keep trying. The massive amount of returns from that site would indicate to google's search engine that maybe, this site is not as related to "the keg" as the meta data suggests.
Additionally, when people go to the ACTUAL Keg website, they end up going and not coming back, either they close the tab/browser, or they browse the site for a long time and likely never come back to google, since they found what they wanted... potentially coming back to do another search, but not for the same thing. This would indicate that maybe this site is more relevant than the metadata would suggest.
Obviously this is not actually a problem, since if you google "the keg", www.kegsteakhouse.com/ is the first link.
My point is, Google, time and time again, has given control to it's users. Even with Google+ it's easy to delete your entire profile and all related information. Or back it up. Or not. It doesn't matter. You can delete the pictures from your picasa web album, making them unavailable forevermore. You can delete their references on your G+ account. You have full access to tag, untag, delete, or edit any of your comments, or delete unwanted comments from your posts. Your information is yours, and google knows, and respects that.
Sure, one day, Google could go bad and become the next facebook (but much much worse), but as far as I'm concerned, that day, according to all the evidence so far, will never happen.
In addition to that, without the heuristic data they use, searching online would be less than useless. You would never reach any relevant data, and with information growing and expanding constantly, there's no way anything that's remotely useful now, that doesn't classify results by relevance based on user data, there's no way it will be useful for long.
I love google, and everything it provides. and as a disclaimer, that doesn't mean I think everyone else's products are bad, or not worthwhile, or should not be used/enjoyed.... I just prefer google myself, I think they're awesome, and I'm sure google does too. If you disagree, that's fine, you're just dead to me.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Android
Dear Google,
I love your android operating system, but I have one, very serious, very important suggestion.
Not to assume I know any way to implement what I'm suggesting, or if it's even possible. Not at all. Nor would I suggest that Android is not the best mobile OS I've ever seen; I would never do such a thing.
In fact, Android is so good, that I'm already planning my next-new phone purchase, and limiting myself only to Androids. I've thoroughly enjoyed the system and will continue to do so.
Finally, before I get to my point, I'd like to say that I know you don't control the app community, you merely facilitate it, which is fine! We appreciate the centralized distribution of apps. It's great in fact, simply wonderful, that even someone programming Java out of their basement can put out something simple and entertaining.
My suggestion is: make application permissions variable. 90% of the time, 90% of permissions are not necessary. Prime example, why does an application like slice it (I've been picking on them) require GPS? If I put my phone into "airplane" mode, I'm sure the app will function just fine, without GPS or network access. Obviously some applications will simply fail if they don't, like Google Maps. This is why I would recommend to give the control back to the users. Rather than have it setup where you either accept whatever permissions they're requesting of you, or don't use the application, you can still install/use an application and deny it access to something like, your phone book, text messaging, phone ID, GPS and network location services, SD Card access, etc.
I don't believe it would be difficult to do, and you could even have it default to whatever permissions the application requests... maybe add a "change allowed permissions" type feature to the bottom of the market page when you go to install a new application.
I think all consumers understand that if you want to do geotagging on your facebook photos, you'll need to give the facebook for android application permission to read GPS, access the internet, and permission to use the camera. I think we get that.
As I'm sure you'll be ignoring our cries again, I'm sure this is all just wasted breath.
Some flexability would be nice though.
Try not to turn into Apple.
Thanks.
Bye.
I love your android operating system, but I have one, very serious, very important suggestion.
Not to assume I know any way to implement what I'm suggesting, or if it's even possible. Not at all. Nor would I suggest that Android is not the best mobile OS I've ever seen; I would never do such a thing.
In fact, Android is so good, that I'm already planning my next-new phone purchase, and limiting myself only to Androids. I've thoroughly enjoyed the system and will continue to do so.
Finally, before I get to my point, I'd like to say that I know you don't control the app community, you merely facilitate it, which is fine! We appreciate the centralized distribution of apps. It's great in fact, simply wonderful, that even someone programming Java out of their basement can put out something simple and entertaining.
My suggestion is: make application permissions variable. 90% of the time, 90% of permissions are not necessary. Prime example, why does an application like slice it (I've been picking on them) require GPS? If I put my phone into "airplane" mode, I'm sure the app will function just fine, without GPS or network access. Obviously some applications will simply fail if they don't, like Google Maps. This is why I would recommend to give the control back to the users. Rather than have it setup where you either accept whatever permissions they're requesting of you, or don't use the application, you can still install/use an application and deny it access to something like, your phone book, text messaging, phone ID, GPS and network location services, SD Card access, etc.
I don't believe it would be difficult to do, and you could even have it default to whatever permissions the application requests... maybe add a "change allowed permissions" type feature to the bottom of the market page when you go to install a new application.
I think all consumers understand that if you want to do geotagging on your facebook photos, you'll need to give the facebook for android application permission to read GPS, access the internet, and permission to use the camera. I think we get that.
As I'm sure you'll be ignoring our cries again, I'm sure this is all just wasted breath.
Some flexability would be nice though.
Try not to turn into Apple.
Thanks.
Bye.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Another post about Android
I was reading an Android Spin Article about Why Android will win the mobile wars and I got the thinking of so many things as to why or why not this could be true.
They have an excellent point in regard to devices. While there's only one iPhone (only one current model), there's around 15-20 Android devices on the market at any given time. Though iPhone is more user-oriented rather than developer-oriented, and Android vice-versa, I believe, in the end, it will be Android's developer-oriented approach that will cause developers to CREATE a more user-friendly approach.
Though there are a lot of Android devices around sporting similar technical specs (3.7-4 inch screen, 1Ghz chip, 512 or so of RAM, MicroSD expansion, Android 2.1), aka the Nexus One oriented model, there are phones out there with varying features, more than just the size of the screen, the look of the buttons, and the resolution of the camera. Some have hardware keyboards, like the Motorola Milestone (my device) or the backflip.
As we slowly prepare for the next-gen of android operating systems and associated hardware (rumors of a dual-core 1.5Ghz snapdragon chip in the mix), we're quickly approaching cellphones that are more powerful than some people's home computers. Of course the two are not directly comparible, since desktops use the CISC x86 instruction set and cellphones use a RISC, ARM archetecture (mostly).
These so-called "cellphone wars" are heating up, and the iPhone, while a powerful device, since it is only ONE device against so many, is looking at a very tough battle to stay relevant, as time goes on. Blackberry has their niche business market, and Windows Mobile... well, I'm pretty sure that most Winmo users have been looking for something *not apple* and *not blackberry* to move to for a while, and that may account for some of this Android love. I know that's what pushed me to it.
They have an excellent point in regard to devices. While there's only one iPhone (only one current model), there's around 15-20 Android devices on the market at any given time. Though iPhone is more user-oriented rather than developer-oriented, and Android vice-versa, I believe, in the end, it will be Android's developer-oriented approach that will cause developers to CREATE a more user-friendly approach.
Though there are a lot of Android devices around sporting similar technical specs (3.7-4 inch screen, 1Ghz chip, 512 or so of RAM, MicroSD expansion, Android 2.1), aka the Nexus One oriented model, there are phones out there with varying features, more than just the size of the screen, the look of the buttons, and the resolution of the camera. Some have hardware keyboards, like the Motorola Milestone (my device) or the backflip.
As we slowly prepare for the next-gen of android operating systems and associated hardware (rumors of a dual-core 1.5Ghz snapdragon chip in the mix), we're quickly approaching cellphones that are more powerful than some people's home computers. Of course the two are not directly comparible, since desktops use the CISC x86 instruction set and cellphones use a RISC, ARM archetecture (mostly).
These so-called "cellphone wars" are heating up, and the iPhone, while a powerful device, since it is only ONE device against so many, is looking at a very tough battle to stay relevant, as time goes on. Blackberry has their niche business market, and Windows Mobile... well, I'm pretty sure that most Winmo users have been looking for something *not apple* and *not blackberry* to move to for a while, and that may account for some of this Android love. I know that's what pushed me to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)