Re: 50? What? Dell?
My Dell laptop brick says 65W and my HP brick is 90W, so I'd agree, 50W seems on the low side.
14 posts • joined 15 Oct 2012
Absolutely. The article seems to ignore the fact that in order to reclaim losses, you have to incur them in the first place! At best you end up neutral.
If the idea is that Google are reclaiming losses incurred by Moto before they bought the company, then how come it's ok for Google to offset the loss after selling to Lenovo, but Moto couldn't offset it elsewhere in their biz after selling to Google.
The whole article is speculation.
Real shame, I've owned a few Moto smartphones and they're decent quality, but historically let down by their appalling approach to updates and the motoblur UI. It looked like Google were transforming them into plain GUI, current OS, affordable handsets.
I can't say I've ever looked twice at Lenovo gear...
I won't pretend to understand what they've achieved in any depth, but often the problem with hacks like this is that they are built on platform idiosyncrasies and have no resilience to future change. So at best they have a maintenance headache and at worst the house of cards comes tumbling down.
Why invest in the BB ecosystem on the hope it'll run android apps for the foreseeable future - just buy android!.
But you can't access a specific phone from the data being sold, that's the point.
It's still pretty anonymous, since the data is aggregated. You might be able to find out how many phones at the Google office go to Southgate at night, but not the address to which each individual phone went. As the article says the data is in blocks of 50, you could presumably work out that at least 50 Google employees live in Southgate. It's a bit of a leap from that to suggest they aren't paying income tax, but I think it's assumed. And why live in Southgate? You'd need a good reason.
Agreed - this may work but only with a lot of development and attention to detail. So if Google fail then my start up gets it working I have to pay them? I don't think so. A half baked idea shouldn't be patentable.
Patents aside, Google should stop wasting time with glasses. My experience is that you don't want to be wearing glasses unless you really have to. I'd much rather carry a smartphone than wear glasses.
For a tech writer you must have no clue if you were thrilled and excited about receiving this gizmo which clearly isn't and was never going to be an open tablet. Yes, it's tied to Amazon because they sell these things stupidly cheap to promote their online sales. Apple are similar, without the cheap bit.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019