So the company notorious for killing projects is going to tackle infrastructure grade systems? I don't trust Google to tackle this problem.
So the company notorious for killing projects is going to tackle infrastructure grade systems? I don't trust Google to tackle this problem.
I could see smartphone seismometers being useful for areas that don't have all that. OTOH, if phones are useful seismometers, it should be possible to make cheap, dedicated ones.
iPhone users were a bit annoyed though, because it only worked on Android phones.
10 years is enough the ensure that any professional and company trying to make a living from earthquake early detection systems is working on something different.
yeah, someone will pop up after they inevitably kill it, but this stuff can end up delaying progress.
Which was among the reasons that Google did that, not that the company would say so.
Symbian had flirted with Open Source, but IMHO, Nokia's fight with US carriers over shipping a SIP client and the resulting disappearance from the US market of most Nokia phones doomed Symbian... Tech journalism is dominated by US outlets and nobody reported on Symbian phones because they weren't there.
I assume you mean Palm's WebOS, cause PalmOS was pretty stylus driven and ux expectations had moved on. WebOS was neat, but Palm didn't have the corporate resources to support it.
Blackberry certainly had time and resources to compete. BB10 was supposed to be quite good, but maybe a little late.
All of these had what I like to call early mover disadvantage. Being first or at least early to a market makes it hard to adapt when the market changes. Coming in ten years late to smartphones was great for Apple and Google.
‘early mover disadvantage’ is a compelling phrase
Case in point: No one built a group-chat for our government officials cause Telegram is free.
Always curious why people comment like this when they have a choice to, you know, not do it
If no one is doing it or well, I see no reason to just complain and offer no solution. If there are other solutions and Google is going to hurt or destroy "competition", that's what should be discussed.
If your infra is critical enough, they should nationalized, publicly owned.
Not OP, but it's still an important consideration - one can be both glad Google is working on this, but also cautiously optimistic given Google's history. IMO it's right to be wary of private entities taking care of what should effectively be a public service.
Did you mean cautiously pessimistic? Or maybe that's my bias from reading HN threads where this is a reliable theme in Google product threads, as well as seeing the list of killed products, while not seeing a list of kept-alive products