Daniel14

Motorola?

> WEP is completely broken. Even if you do everything right, it's trivial fot an attacker yo access a WEP-protected network.

Can you elaborate on this? I'm genuinly curious.

The problem with Android being open source is that Google hasn't really got much control over what happens with it. Everyone can tweak it for the better or worse, and lately its mostly been for the worse.

However, if you don't want to root or get a nexus, I've found that simply installing one of the many launchers available for free mostly does the trick of cleaning up your phone (touchwiz, blur etc get removed and you can hide apps completely if you like). Also, this seems worst in the US, where the carrier situation is -forgive me- completely fucked up. I haven't had issues anywhere similar with bloatware here in europe.

I can only hope, but if capitalism works and people don't like scins and crapware on their phone, the cunts in charge right now will eventually realize it's smarter to leave Android as it is because more people will buy it. I'm still waiting though.

You could say that about almost anything. "How can you justify commenting on HN, when the money earned in the equivalent amount of time wasted here could save n Nigerians from starvation?" You can't, not really. But Jonathan's card still is one of the more ethical ways of spending money, so I'm all for it.

Android pays for itself, in lots of different ways, among them and by far most importantly: Being the default search provider on 550k additional phones/day. That's worth a billion $ to Google any day.

I already feel rather uncomfortable about all the information apps can gather about me without me ever having to do anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be very easy to restrict that, and only let my friends have access to <i>my</i> personal data? I added my friends, I don't mind them having access to my data, including my email address. But apps my friends use are a very different matter.

From the same quote: "Google Contacts syncs with Orkut, so users can export their Orkut friends’ email addresses from Google Contacts", so it's technically wrong that Google didn't let you export your friend's mail addresses anymore. They just made it more difficult, ie didn't bundle it with the Orkut csv file people used to import everything into facebook.

And I think that's actually Google's point: They feel Facebook should offer reciprocity; if people can switch from Google to fb easily, fb should be willing to provide the same feature to their users.

Personally, I also don't agree with your point: I doubt the option to export your friends' email addresses in a useful file format would get abused, as it's only your friends that have access to it. You willingly added them, and thus gave them access to your email address. If you voluntarily tell a friend your email address, shouldn't he be able to remember it regardless of what social network he currently uses?

Well, if you care about a locked bootloader and similar restrictions (99% don't), but didn't put the effort into googling your phone to find out about them, you can always root your phone and put on the the newest version - If you didn't get a Nexus in the first place, that is. Also, you'd have to live in the US for it to matter, the vast majority of carriers actually deliver Android updates pretty timely.

I agree Android isn't anywhere near a perfect linux dream of open hard- and software, but it isn't as awful as you depict it either imho.

> "With Google+ in the open, Facebook finally needs to watch its step. ... Google is the only web property which can even begin to threaten Facebook’s supremacy. ... That’s the problem with monopolies, and the reason they’re illegal: if you have nowhere to go — if there isn’t an alternative service that you can switch to — the monopoly can simply milk you and stretch you without recourse. But now there’s Google+. With Big G hulking menacingly in Facebook’s shadow and just waiting for a misstep or mistake, Facebook needs to be careful. Mess up now, Zuckerberg, and Google will gladly gobble up droves of discontented denizens."

- One of the main reasons I like Google+, from http://www.extremetech.com/computing/89628-too-many-eggs-in-...

Of course, but what I think the author meant to say, was that owning those patents should have been worth more than $4.5 billion to Google, as they are crucial to Android's success.

And deplorably, I think he's right.

I agree with most of your points - However, I think the author's main complaint was that if you do anything somehow objectionable on any Google service, then all of them get blocked. I don't see why that's the case, but as long as it continues, his point is valid - Facebook won't also ban your email for posting nudity. They can only smash one egg, not your entire internet basket.

I feel like the author already knows the answer to this problem: "you either keep your content clean, or host [it] elsewhere." I agree there could be border-line issues with the legal system, but that mostly is about Google not getting sued, and having to comply with the law they operate in. (Still, Google should have a hotline.)

The author listed almost every complaint people have against Google since its founding, but the main point remains this: Google is an extremely successful company, and if you choose to use the best products, those are often owned by Google (Chrome, Google Search, Gmail etc.). However, you don't have to. If you don't like what Google does, there's always an alternative you can easily switch to - and that, imho, is the big distinction between Google and a monopoly.

(I might have to add that I see a lot of the author's sentiments being pretty wide-spread, at least here in Europe Google is considered a pretty evil, privacy-invading company they don't want to give any more personal information.)

> This is just a regular product launch.

My point was that Google is putting a lot of effort into competing with Facebook, and that they're willing to use all their other products to succeed with Plus. Think about their bonuses being tied to social, Larry Page as the new CEO, the +1 button in the search results, the renaming of Blogger and Picasa, the redesign of Calender, Gmail etc., the new notification bar accross all Google sites... These aren't just regular product updates, but show how serious Google really is about getting into social, ie keeping facebook at bay.

I can't help but feel like they really want this to succeed, and are betting the entire company on it. From what I've heard, Google+ has to potential to turn out huge. And making sure there aren't any bugs before letting everybody in is simply a must for them - They just can't afford to have any problems with this last attempt at social.

I also think the hype you're talking about only happens in a very small group of geeks. The average guy on the street still hasn't heard of Google+, and until he has and is willing to try it out, Google will lose the social war. Convincing the fb masses to bother is an extremely difficult task, and Google will need all the hype it can get. Right know, I think they're doing exactly the right thing.

I imagine the number for Android lying significantly lower, because a) it's a lot harder to pay in the Android market and thus b) more apps are ad-supported. But I don't think you can ignore the market share trends in favor of how much money devs get on each platform today. Google is already working to get carrier billing for apps to more countries, so buying apps on android will get easier. Given the huge android userbase, it might soon be very smart to put in the extra effort of programming for Android (especially as you'd be one of the first to do so).

An imho better poll would have looked more like this: "a) Google+ > Facebook b) Google+ < Facebook c) Couldn't try it out yet d) Don't care", since the way mrspeaker asked the question, a lot of people get left out.

I don't think that's really a legitimate question.

If you tell a friend e.g. your email address, you willingly give up the control you had over that piece of information, and accept that he now knows your email address. What you're expecting is that you can control when your friend forgets the information you voluntarily gave him. I doubt that's a legitimate expectation.

I think that's going to play an ever greater role in Google's expanding plans. They're pissing a lot of established companies off by competing with free, and mostly, quite simply better products. This is great for consumers because it kicks competition up a notch - but it could lead to the other companies, now having a common enemy, to partner up against Google. We recently saw this in the Nortel case.. FB comments include Yahoo, Bing includes Facebook, Nokia includes WP7, the list goes on and on. Lots of turkeys do make an eagle - Even if Google alone is better than all the other players in the market, as long as they're alone they'll quickly face pretty serious resistance.

"They're too entrenched with no viable competitor, and who's going to try to 'take on' google? Where would you start?"

I disagree. All their products have serious competitors people can switch to anytime: Search - Bing; Mail - Yahoo; Docs - Office; Blogger - Wordpress; Android - WP7; Chrome - FF; the list goes on and on. Google is facing heavy competition on all fronts, and only time will tell if they can step up to their game. (See http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/03/google-six-front-war/ for further information). But I like Google's attitude of creating lots and lots of new products, without being concerned about who they compete with, as they really seem to shake up the industry for the better wherever they enter.

Lastly, your last paragraph about "How would we know if they did something we disagreed with?" sounds pretty paranoid to me. If Google screws up we're going to find out very quickly). Google doesn't control the internet. Blogs, Twitter, Facebook, traditional news etc. will make sure we'll find out about it, even if Google starts censoring their search results (which, admirably, they've completely refused to do in the past).

Sorry for not specifying that, thanks for the correction. The exception to promoting being legal of course is, when the product in question has a monopoly on the market. However, I doubt that's the case with Google Search. Again, IANAL, but a) the barriers to enter the industry are pretty small, b) there are plenty of alternatives, c) you can switch to them extremely easy, and d) Google would go out of business if they tried raising prices (i.e., they don't control the market).

Also, my point still stands - Google has been promoting other products on their homepage for a long time without getting sued. I don't understand how Plus would be different from, say, Reader.

Google doesn't sell any data to other companies, only fb does.

> They [Google] have ten times more potential for evil than Microsoft ever dreamed of having in the nineties.

I disagree - Can you clarify why you think so? You see, Google is probably the most vulnerable of the tech giants: If users stop visiting their sites for <i>whatever</i> reason, they'll die. It's really easy to switch to an alternative if you don't like what Google does, and Google even promotes this ease because they think people will be more willing to try out their services (think about the DLF team).

Microsoft, Apple or Facebook on the other hand, have already sold their product, and now the consumer depends on <i>them</i>. MS, Apple and fb sell products that tie people into their services once they buy into them. After that, they don't have to care what Joe thinks about their business practices anymore, and can therefore act almost any way they want.

I get the impression that the folks at Google actually take their unofficial motto "Don't be evil" seriously, but even if I'm mistaken I don't have to be scared - Google would quickly be out of business if they piss consumers off. And they know it.

> I'd rather that Facebook dominate the space completely than give Google any more of my personal information.

I feel differently, but see quite a few (mostly non-technical) people agreeing with you - at least, here in Europe. Google already owns most of the data you've given facebook, and treats it a lot better than fb imho (e.g. allowing export/deletion). I don't see why giving Google access to a bit more of your personal data will somehow decrease your quality of life.

The reason people are foaming at the mouth, as you call it, isn't the exceptionally good technical execution, but rather how Google handles consumers (giving them more rights over their data) and developers (they're the underdog, they have to). This is another reason I like Google entering social - Facebook has been behaving rather arrogantly, and it does seem like they really own the social web [1]. But with Google acting as a threat, perhaps Facebook will be forced to soften up on some of its policies. Competition is a good thing, and I really doubt it will result in the rest of us getting squashed - In fact, I really believe we'll profit from those giants having to compete. For other reasons why G+ is anticipated highly, try http://www.pcworld.com/article/234825/9_reasons_to_switch_fr...

Lastly, IANAL, but I doubt promoting one of your products on one of your products is in any way illegal. The Google homepage has been showing us links to Docs, Reader, Gmail etc. for a long time without anyone getting upset about it.

[1] http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/13/its-a-facebook-world-other-...

It wouldn't make me, because you can't just buy changes of the law, not even in the US. Three billion dollars is a lot, but will never match what other big companies stand to lose from software patents becoming less important. This is the worst possible outcome for Google and the open source community. Apple, MS, Sony and others will be able to sue everyone - but not each other. And after laying that amount of cash on the table, they will. Google is right to be pissed off, but they can't do much about it.

> Why get rid of the white text for full day events?

For me, it still displays full day events in white text if I select a dark color like green, and only uses black text for light colors. The only minor problem I see is that it also uses the light color I selected for timed events, which could make them a bit difficult to see on the white background.

> The create button looks gimmicky and cartoonish as well.

It reminded me of Gmail's "Compose mail" button (which is located similarly), and don't quite understand how it looks gimmicky or cartoonish in comparison. Because it's red? I would argue it makes sense to make the most important button on the site a flashy color, but I guess it comes down to a matter of taste.

Overall, I think this is Google unifying their services and making them look more alike. Google+ is more than just another social attempt, but rather the beginning of Google bringing its services together, which seems like a smart move in countering Facebook by their new CEO.

I'm not too familiar with how Kickstarter operates, but since anyone can "back" a project, why didn't you pay the difference to yourself? Kickstarter doesn't keep a cut, and you could've used those thousands of dollars to start your project even though you set your goal too high.

I can see two benefits of increasing Chrome market share for Google, that justify these expenses:

1) It speeds up the web. Since every second internet user makes Google money, making the web a great place for both consumers (speed, security) and developers (standards, up-to-date browsers) is very much in Google's interest. 2) It makes Google the default search engine. Instead of being at the mercy of browser developers and having to pay them huge sums of money, they can directly make lots of people use their search engine (and look at their ads).

I personally believe the second point is what actually finances the Chrome team. Like android, Chrome is but "moat" for Google, protecting their main source of revenue: Search. Shaking up the industry for the better is just a nice side effect.

I could imagine it, as always, being the guys that paid for it.

I don't think it's really that simple. Here's their business model:

a) The customers sign up for those offers for free, and can buy certain things for less than the normal price. b) The business owners will lose a percentage of a sale (they might have never made) and in exchange get new customers to check out their place (who, if they like it, will come eat there again.) Instead of spending money on advertising, this is a pretty sure way to get people visit your restaurant. c) The "coordinator" gets a cut.

So, ideally, it's really a win-win situation for everyone involved. Also, I don't think it helps to dismiss the whole idea up front as "its fucking retarded."

? Clicking on the logo takes you to the results page for the query "Les Paul", the 1st result is Wikipedia, which, if you read it, should answer your question..