Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th May 2011 21:04 UTC
Google Well, that was all rather much. Google just held its keynote speech thing during the opening of the company's I/O conference, and they announced some pretty spectacular stuff. Aside from Android 3.1 for tablets and Android Icecream Sandwich which will unify the tablet and phone versions of Android in Q4 in 2011, Google announced an internet-based music service. And a video service. And an Arduino-based accessory development kit. And Android@Home. And an alliance of device makers and carriers to bring timely Android updates to devices for a minimum of 18 months.
Order by: Score:
Go
by vivainio on Tue 10th May 2011 21:09 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

You missed the most important bit, "Go" being deployed on App engine ;-).

Edited 2011-05-10 21:09 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE: Go
by Not2Sure on Wed 11th May 2011 02:24 UTC in reply to "Go"
Not2Sure Member since:
2009-12-07

Yes and in related news, Newsqueak is still available on Plan9.

Go doesn't really seem to add much to the toolbox imho.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Go
by anevilyak on Wed 11th May 2011 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Go"
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

I believe he was being sarcastic ;)

Reply Score: 3

A bit underwhelmed
by WorknMan on Tue 10th May 2011 21:22 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

I'm sure the general public will love the music service, but for us geeks, we can already use Subsonic to stream music directly from our PCs, so the Google offering seems rather pointless:

http://www.subsonic.org/pages/index.jsp

As for the whole ice cream caramel sundae thing (or whatever the f**k they're calling it), they'd better have something to show before the iPhone5 is released.

Reply Score: 4

RE: A bit underwhelmed
by Ventajou on Tue 10th May 2011 23:56 UTC in reply to "A bit underwhelmed"
Ventajou Member since:
2006-10-31

Thanks for the subsonic link, I had never heard of it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: A bit underwhelmed
by sorpigal on Wed 11th May 2011 12:48 UTC in reply to "A bit underwhelmed"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

I know you meant to say "For us geeks, we have been icecasting music from our homes (or private servers) for years."

Not that subsonic isn't cool, but it's hardly geek-level cool.

Reply Score: 2

GoogleTV
by robojerk on Tue 10th May 2011 21:38 UTC
robojerk
Member since:
2006-01-10

Hopefully in tomorrow's keynote they'll finally say when the GoogleTV source code will be released.

I'm really hoping for some cheaper ARM based GoogleTV consoles.

Reply Score: 2

v Yup
by mrhasbean on Wed 11th May 2011 00:02 UTC
RE: Yup
by Johann Chua on Wed 11th May 2011 00:28 UTC in reply to "Yup"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

You mean the exact same way Apple is going?

Reply Score: 6

RE: Yup
by Morgan on Wed 11th May 2011 02:14 UTC in reply to "Yup"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm curious, are you perhaps referring to the increasing trend of living our digital lives "in the cloud"? If so, I do share some of those concerns.

Specifically, I was awed and amazed at Amazon's Cloud Drive/Player feature at first, as most of my digital music purchases come from them. It's quite convenient to have the music I purchase automatically available on my Android phone, my laptop, my HTPC, etc. Then, because I purchased an MP3 album and turned on the Cloud Drive feature, I was awarded 20GB of additional storage.

My first instinct was to upload all of my online-purchased music from Amazon, iTunes and eMusic, as well as freebies downloaded from the (mostly indie) artists' websites I visit. Then I got to thinking about it; I had blazed right through the service agreement without really reading it. I did some research and I found that Amazon not only reserves the right to peek at your files, they also give themselves permission to disclose the data to third parties.[1]

Now, all the music I intended to store on the service is legally purchased from the above sources, and I had no intention of uploading all of the files I have ripped from my CDs as the CDs themselves are my backup. But after reading that article and remembering that eMusic in particular does not use any metadata to show the files are legally obtained, I realized my only proof of purchase lay with the providers' log files. Now, let's say Amazon decides to forward a list of the music files in "my" storage area to the RIAA. What is to stop them from suing me for each and every file there that wasn't purchased from Amazon itself? After all, the burden of proof is on me, not them, as the courts have so elegantly shown. eMusic might, might help me out -- of the ones I listed, they are the only provider that maintains a list of your purchases so you can re-download at will -- but what about the rest of them?

My point with all that is, what if Google's music service is no different? Why should we trust them just because they say they won't be evil? They've already failed that test several times in the past, especially regarding user privacy. I for one don't trust them any more than I do Amazon.

That's not to say I won't give the service a test run, using some mp3s of my own work (I'm an amateur musician, though not a good one). Let the RIAA sue me for storing my own independent recordings; I'd love to see how that turns out!

Anyway, I do see the value in some of the other technology announced by Google; I'm particularly interested in the Arduino-based accessory stuff and I'd be willing to give that a run as well. For all my years of hardware tinkering I've never messed around with that family of microcontrollers. I think it would be fun.


[1] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/no-privacy-on-amazon-8217s-clo...

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Yup
by WereCatf on Wed 11th May 2011 04:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Yup"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Now, let's say Amazon decides to forward a list of the music files in "my" storage area to the RIAA. What is to stop them from suing me for each and every file there that wasn't purchased from Amazon itself? After all, the burden of proof is on me, not them, as the courts have so elegantly shown. eMusic might, might help me out -- of the ones I listed, they are the only provider that maintains a list of your purchases so you can re-download at will -- but what about the rest of them?


I really, really doubt the burden of proof is on you. I could just barely accept that that was true in the US, but in any of the more civilized countries the burden of proof would be on RIAA/similar entities.

Now, here comes the tricky part which I am 100% certain RIAA/similar entities will use to their advantage: if your files have lines like "Ripped and uploaded by X" in their metadata then it's quite obvious it wasn't obtained in an "authorized" way. And I can bet that most people don't realize that most of such files do have exactly that kind of metadata tags in them. They'll just upload those files without thinking more about it, then RIAA/et. al. will check the metadata provided by Google, and POOF: you've just provided them the evidence they need against you.

As far as I know the metadata tags that indicate the file was downloaded from torrent sites or similar is more than enough to sue over in the US, but.. how about the rest of the world? After all, the files you have in your "locker" are accessible only to you, you aren't sharing them with anyone, so illegal distribution does not ever come in to play. And in many European countries you cannot be sued just for having such files in your possession, only for distribution of them. I predict that these RIAA and alike entities will try to sue and they will obviously try lobbying hard to get laws changed, but I'd say people are generally safe from them for now as long as they don't distribute the files to anyone else.

[Disclaimer: I ain't a lawyer so do not f*cking take anything I say as legal counseling or advice.]

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Yup
by Morgan on Wed 11th May 2011 05:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yup"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

You're exactly right: The letter of the law is that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff here in the U.S., but the ugly reality is that they have the million-dollar lawyers on retainer and we the people have whatever we can or can't afford. They have the resources to drag it out for years to make an example out of an individual, and the whole time the defendant is scrambling to prove that they are innocent. It's utterly absurd.

As to the metadata, I've found more often than not that my files from eMusic say simply that they were encoded with LAME. Nothing there about where they came from, whether they are legit, etc. And let's say someone out there bought some music from them, and then shared it (knowingly or unknowingly) on Kazaa or Limewire or another such network. I buy the same songs from eMusic, with the same digital signature, and now I have a file that is potentially flagged by the RIAA due to someone else's infringing acts. Amazon grants the RIAA access to my files, and next thing I know I'm the one being sued.

That's why I'm apprehensive about these new cloud-based services, and I will remain so unless they modify their privacy policy to protect their consumers from unjustified litigation.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Yup
by WereCatf on Wed 11th May 2011 10:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yup"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

As to the metadata, I've found more often than not that my files from eMusic say simply that they were encoded with LAME. Nothing there about where they came from, whether they are legit, etc.


As I said, the illegitimate uploads usually have such tags. Legitimate files usually do not have any such tags, atleast not the ones I have.

And let's say someone out there bought some music from them, and then shared it (knowingly or unknowingly) on Kazaa or Limewire or another such network. I buy the same songs from eMusic, with the same digital signature, and now I have a file that is potentially flagged by the RIAA due to someone else's infringing acts. Amazon grants the RIAA access to my files, and next thing I know I'm the one being sued.


Burden of proof in this case would be on RIAA. After all, the file is originally obtained legitimately and there is nothing to indicate otherwise (ie. no "Uploaded by/Ripped by" tags et. al.) then it doesn't matter that the exact same file can also be found illegitimately. RIAA would have to prove that somehow the file you have is not from the legitimate source and that would be hard as there are absolutely no indications of such.

That's why I'm apprehensive about these new cloud-based services, and I will remain so unless they modify their privacy policy to protect their consumers from unjustified litigation.


I am more concerned about metadata: especially younger people are bound to have some illegitimate copies of songs, whether they know that they are illegitimate or not, and if they then upload those songs to these services and Google scrounges their files for metadata they'll be exposing themselves for legal action (in the US I might add, not likely in European countries as it's still YOUR locker.)

Basically it means that people will have to check the filenames and metadata themselves, or Google will have to filter out metadata for it to be safe to use. And we all know Google won't do the latter one.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Yup
by novad on Wed 11th May 2011 04:18 UTC in reply to "Yup"
novad Member since:
2010-06-10

Well... I must be one of these "supposedly educated and intelligent people"... All in all I find these announcements rather positive.

These services, once again, tend to increase usability and quality of Googles products. It seems that all is built to interact with existing systems (also those from competitors) and to avoid Lock-in.

Maybe you could come down to the level of stupid people like me and also explain a bit your statement or was it simply an anti-Google rant?

Edited 2011-05-11 04:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Yup
by molnarcs on Wed 11th May 2011 08:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Yup"
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Well... I must be one of these "supposedly educated and intelligent people"... All in all I find these announcements rather positive.

These services, once again, tend to increase usability and quality of Googles products. It seems that all is built to interact with existing systems (also those from competitors) and to avoid Lock-in.

Maybe you could come down to the level of stupid people like me and also explain a bit your statement or was it simply an anti-Google rant?

He won't explain anything to you or to anyone. He is our local hit & run troll. Posts shit, people respond with reasonable counter points, he ignores them. Posts the same shit in other news (any news related to Apple or Google). He's the worst type of Apple fanboy. See for example: http://www.osnews.com/thread?471309

Edited 2011-05-11 08:42 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Yup
by WereCatf on Wed 11th May 2011 10:52 UTC in reply to "Yup"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

It's really quite funny that supposedly educated and intelligent people can't see where this is all heading. Sadly by time those people have that "uh-oh" moment, it will be far too late to do anything about it...


In the same direction as Apple?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Yup
by Neolander on Wed 11th May 2011 15:56 UTC in reply to "Yup"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Yeah, I know what you mean. This cloud thing scares me too. I hate the idea of relying on distant servers for accessing my music, my software, and in short my data. Of having a company own a large part of my life.

This is why I don't use iTunes, and when asked about DAP/Phones/whatever purchases, always suggest to buy UMS devices allowing software and data sideloading and backup. Unlike you. Strange, eh ?

No, if you want to accuse Thom of having some double standards, let's ask him why for some services being US-only is a fundamental defect which directly leads to failure in the long term, while for this Music Beta thing it's just "sad"...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Yup
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 11th May 2011 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Yup"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

No, if you want to accuse Thom of having some double standards, let's ask him why for some services being US-only is a fundamental defect which directly leads to failure in the long term, while for this Music Beta thing it's just "sad"...


*bangs head on desk*

Fcuk me, I'm going to need a bigger desk for this.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Yup
by Praxis on Wed 11th May 2011 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Yup"
Praxis Member since:
2009-09-17

Yeah, I know what you mean. This cloud thing scares me too. I hate the idea of relying on distant servers for accessing my music, my software, and in short my data. Of having a company own a large part of my life.


I kinda feel the backlash against the cloud by some in the tech world is overstating things themselves. Should people put everything on someone elses servers and not store anything locally? Hell no, you should have local copies of everything. But as people start using more and more devices, storing a copy of everything on each machine just isn't feasible. Naturally the solution is a good ol' client/server system. Except people don't want to administer their own severs, even among those who have the ability not everyone wants to do it themselves.

Is it any surprise then that people go to amazon, google or soon apple to do it for them. And no matter how many outages or misteps these services have people will keep coming back to them, because for most people it will still be better than doing it themselves.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Yup
by Neolander on Wed 11th May 2011 19:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yup"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Sure ;) But what mrhasbeen was mentioning, I think, was an hypothetic future where google services would be like Steam and Apple's App Store are now : a cloud-only world, where local copies are not feasible.

As an aside, I'm can also perfectly tolerate such solutions when it's about things which don't matter much to me. As an example, most of the single-player games I play are disposable pieces of fun which I'm done with in a week or so, so Steam is good enough for that, even though I strongly dislike their "no local copy" philosophy as a whole.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Yup
by _txf_ on Wed 11th May 2011 21:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yup"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Sure ;) But what mrhasbeen was mentioning, I think, was an hypothetic future where google services would be like Steam and Apple's App Store are now : a cloud-only world, where local copies are not feasible.


What the hell are you talking about? Steam does have a local copy of all game data (installable in as many computers as you want) as well as allowing you to make local backups of your game data...so not cloud only.

Aren't you confusing Steam with OnLive?

Edited 2011-05-11 21:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Yup
by Neolander on Thu 12th May 2011 02:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Yup"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I dont't think so. If I remember correctly, many games (big titles in particular) use the login to a Steam account as their DRM method : since you can only be connected to Steam from one place at a time (if you exclude what can be done in offline mode, that is), you may only play the game on one computer at a time.

This would mean in turn that local copies of the installer (which I just learned about) are useless, because if Steam's servers are down, you can't play your game anyway.

But I may not remember correctly.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Yup
by WereCatf on Thu 12th May 2011 06:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Yup"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

[qIf I remember correctly, many games (big titles in particular) use the login to a Steam account as their DRM method : since you can only be connected to Steam from one place at a time (if you exclude what can be done in offline mode, that is), you may only play the game on one computer at a time. [/q]

Yes, you may only be logged in from one PC at a time which means you cannot make copies of your games and share them with your friends for them to play, too.

because if Steam's servers are down, you can't play your game anyway.


If Steam cannot get connection to Steam servers and you have been playing the game atleast once before it actually does allow you to still play it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Yup
by _txf_ on Thu 12th May 2011 10:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Yup"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

If Steam cannot get connection to Steam servers and you have been playing the game atleast once before it actually does allow you to still play it.


Yah, I could have sworn I had played steam games offline.

Frankly one shouldn't really complain about steam when there are far worse cloud services out there. Steam is probably the most un-evil cloud service you are realistically going to get.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Yup
by ephracis on Wed 11th May 2011 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Yup"
ephracis Member since:
2007-09-23

I love your thoughts on the music service.

I just recently released my own music player (http://www.stoffiplayer.com) where I have been thinking of doing the same thing Google is doing now.

I would love to hear about tips on how to beat them (or if I should integrate them).

What about:
* Not a company, but a non-profit organization, which donates all extra profit to charity
* Your data is encrypted and we cannot read it
* No ads... anywhere!
* Great tools for easy migration away from the service

Anything other suggestions?

:)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Yup
by vodoomoth on Thu 12th May 2011 09:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yup"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

With just your last three points, you'd beat any service out there.

Reply Score: 2

shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

Surely that little gem is of interest to OSNEWS?
Other forums have picked up on it including the Register.

Reply Score: 0

molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

Surely that little gem is of interest to OSNEWS?
Other forums have picked up on it including the Register.

I will quote someone else on this:
Before he said any of that, he said you have to understand the nature of git: When they release Ice Cream Sandwich, the Honeycomb source will be in the patch history. What they may not bother to do is to tag the specific commit of Honeycomb.

But once Ice Cream Sandwich is released, I have no idea who the fuck would care about Honeycomb; the only reason would be for a device that had proprietary drivers that never updates to Ice Cream Sandwich, but that could be solved pretty easily by just pinning the kernel release to Honeycomb and taking the rest of ice cream.

All this hand-wringing over Honeycomb is fucking annoying at this point. Get over it.

http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2142960&cid=36090314

Reply Score: 5

A gem
by vodoomoth on Wed 11th May 2011 10:42 UTC
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30

There is a gem in that news item that seems to have been overlooked in previous comments:


...and carriers to bring timely Android updates to devices for a minimum of 18 months.

I have an HTC Desire bought with Android 2.1 around mi-september. Some time later, it was upgraded OTA with 2.2; that was last year. Since then, I've been waiting for 2.3 which was released... last year, five months ago.

Reply Score: 2

RE: A gem
by Beta on Wed 11th May 2011 11:21 UTC in reply to "A gem"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

There is a gem in that news item that seems to have been overlooked in previous comments:
"
...and carriers to bring timely Android updates to devices for a minimum of 18 months.

I have an HTC Desire bought with Android 2.1 around mi-september. Some time later, it was upgraded OTA with 2.2; that was last year. Since then, I've been waiting for 2.3 which was released... last year, five months ago.
"

2.3 should be landing for the Desire within the next few weeks..

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: A gem
by vodoomoth on Wed 11th May 2011 11:28 UTC in reply to "RE: A gem"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

I've been hearing that since February if I'm not mistaken. Do you happen to have some inside info?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: A gem
by flump on Wed 11th May 2011 11:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A gem"
flump Member since:
2006-06-19

I believe HTC UK had posted something recently on their Facebook page about this (http://www.facebook.com/htcuk), but I cannot find it right now.

Reply Score: 1

RE: A gem
by Not2Sure on Wed 11th May 2011 19:01 UTC in reply to "A gem"
Not2Sure Member since:
2009-12-07

Doubtful this will ever happen or make any impact on consumers, btw. Microsoft made the same "announcement" regarding WP7 and how Microsoft would retain control over the update/upgrade channel and release in timely fashion.

Then they find out the carriers (at least here in the US) have little or no interest in giving any control to anyone (especially that might disrupt the absurd and lucrative upgrade your phone every 8 month cycle mentality they have fostered among consumers), and there is little anyone is going to do about it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: A gem
by vodoomoth on Thu 12th May 2011 07:32 UTC in reply to "RE: A gem"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

That's an effective way of destroying hope :-)

Reply Score: 2

Why...
by jtfolden on Wed 11th May 2011 19:20 UTC
jtfolden
Member since:
2005-08-12

...do I want to upload GB's and GB's of music online again?

What are the use cases where this is worth it? I can easily sync stuff to my notebook, phone and/or tablet.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why...
by vodoomoth on Thu 12th May 2011 09:37 UTC in reply to "Why..."
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Yeah, you could. And if you ask me, that's the smart thing to do: keep your things, be it data or else, private!
But, you wouldn't be trendy and apparently, in this crazy world, trendy and hip easily beat smart.

Reply Score: 2