Is that really possible today? Have you tried to browse the web without trying to hit Google servers? Do you know how hard it is? No common man is capable of doing it frankly.
If it was a institution where people expressly donated their data for research then that is the right way to do it. The concern is about selling that data and using it for other commercial purposes. Another concern is about creating this single repository of data that can then be exploited my incremental updates to TOS that nobody reads or understands.
The author is trying to use that relationship to stress a point which stands no matter whether the founder is related to Google founder or not. Take that piece of information out and the point that the author is making still stands. Google has showed us that by luring people to share their private information, it is possible to sell your users eventually. Now you don't have to be related to a Google founder to learn and use that business model. If there was any other company that followed the same practice and didn't explicitly allow me to own my data and delete it from their databases I'd be worried about that company as well. No matter whether they are related to Google or not. The relationship to Google just make me extra worried because of the history of Google.
If you clicked on the link above, you will see that nearly 40% of the Amazon reviews are 1*. There is a good chance that most of those people received a dead PS4. Agree that not everybody who received a good PS4 left a positive review but this certainly does not make it looks like a minority.
The slow rate of ie adoption is from corporate users who are reluctant to update more frequently because of the risk of breaking their internal applications. If this was any other browser I am guessing the chart would have looked the same.
Apple did the dame thing basing OS X on unix kernel. Google is just following the lead. The only part that the OSS community was fooled on was the hypocrisy of Google
Most of the thoughts expressed there are philosophical. e.g. a good UI should work for al skill levels, It should satisfy Gestalt rule, absence of dock, etc. Of these the last is not even correct. You can pin whatever tiles you want on the start screen including many deep links into apps that other OSes don't even offer (afaik)
As for the other two, again they are philosophical. If the user had said that it doesn't work for me because I am novice or expert user then I'd understand. What does it have to do with it following certain design principles? does it work for you as an individual or not? Isn't that the most important question. The comment does not answer that at all.
Is it the name nokia that matters? I think MS got their cell phone business which is the one that designs and manufactures the phones and related tech. I am hoping that they stick to the durable and functional designs that made nokia popular
If text was such preferred and dominant ways of communication for deaf people then sign language would not have been invented in the first place. The fact that it is used more commonly to communicate with people with hearing disabilities tells me that this is interesting.
Besides this is a research project. Just goes off to show the potential a full body recognition platform such as Kinect can have.
I clicked on the link thinking I am going to see the old legendary Nokia candybar here. But the phone they are talking about here is a handheld computer itself. It was the Nokia Lumia as complex as any other phone out there. Kudos to Nokia's manufacturing.
I guess the more alarming trend is how a lot of tech companies and governments are picking up LTS Ubuntu as a replacement for Windows XP workstations they have had for 10+ years.
I have friends who work in the systems integration space and from their experience they don't see an evidence of this. Was there a number reported anywhere that makes you say this?
Impressed by the diversity of revenue streams for Microsoft. Wonder how a one trick pony like Google will be able to handle this should it run into pressure from competitors in future.