Linked by David Adams on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 03:49 UTC
Google With the announcement of its new Search app, Google gave iPad users more than just a slick and well-made native search app that bests the experience on any Android tablet. It also managed to squeeze the core elements of Chrome OS into Apple's ecosystem.
Order by: Score:
Snuck
by drstorm on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 04:12 UTC
drstorm
Member since:
2009-04-24

Snuck isn't a word! ;)

(In case you don't know what I'm talking about, check this out www.youtube.com/watch?v=q51ld-scMI8 )


Seriously though, it is not Chrome! Poor article, but it has a few good points...

Edited 2011-11-22 04:24 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Snuck
by Wodenhelm on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 05:57 UTC in reply to "Snuck"
Wodenhelm Member since:
2010-07-16

Snuck is indeed a word. Standardized English is an artificial construct that ignores, and often defies, natural, spoken dialects.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Snuck
by looncraz on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 08:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Snuck"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Snuck is indeed a word. Standardized English is an artificial construct that ignores, and often defies, natural, spoken dialects.


Not sure who modded you down, but I agree!!

Spoken language is NOT meant to be standardized! This is a 'recent' phenomenon. Natural language trumps any codex -as can be observed in action- by the formation of new languages through vernacularization.

When the general consensus is that "hung" should be used in preference to "hanged," then that use case can, and should, trump the rules. Natural language is by consensus, not decree.

--The loon

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Snuck
by judgen on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 09:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Snuck"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

G'day mate, i think hung is a little dependent on the sentence it is used in. (atleast for me) In the punishment i definitly prefer "she was hanged" instead of hung, but i would use hung when saying "we hung out last night" and also in the sentence "he was well hung" as in endowed in the genital department. But i would not use it for "hanged meat" (tenderized) for instance. Maybe i use it improperly, but i rather feel it to be a better fit for my usage that way.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Snuck
by Athlander on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 13:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Snuck"
Athlander Member since:
2008-03-10

Probably modded down because he didn't understand drstorm's reference. The link shows Jennifer Garner telling Conan O'Brien that "snuck isn't a word" - so he looks it up in a dictionary to show that snuck is a word recognised by the dictionary.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Snuck
by _xmv on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Snuck"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

"Snuck is indeed a word. Standardized English is an artificial construct that ignores, and often defies, natural, spoken dialects.


Not sure who modded you down, but I agree!!

Spoken language is NOT meant to be standardized! This is a 'recent' phenomenon. Natural language trumps any codex -as can be observed in action- by the formation of new languages through vernacularization.

When the general consensus is that "hung" should be used in preference to "hanged," then that use case can, and should, trump the rules. Natural language is by consensus, not decree.

--The loon
"


Well no.
If we don't use standard English, or at least try to follow that rule, we end up with entirely different dialects and use completely wrong constructs just because some haven't learn English properly.

No need to be anal about it - but "snuck" or "hanged" certainly aren't fine ;-)

This is an English speaking website, so at least news items should use standard English. For comprehension, by everyone, not just whoever knows about a some obscure dialect's words.

Edited 2011-11-22 14:31 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Snuck
by righard on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 14:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Snuck"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

...snuck still is a word though and it is not obscure.

Edited 2011-11-22 14:39 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Snuck
by phoenix on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Snuck"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

"hung" and "hanged" are completely different and cannot be used interchangeably. Just like the difference between "lay" and "lie".

Objects are hung. People are hanged.
Objects lay down. People lie down.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Snuck
by maethorechannen on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 11:37 UTC in reply to "Snuck"
maethorechannen Member since:
2009-09-03

Snuck isn't a word!

According to Merriam-Webster, it's the past and past participle of sneak

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snuck

Poor article

It appears to have been written by someone who has absolutely no clue as to what Chrome OS is.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Snuck
by drstorm on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 13:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Snuck"
drstorm Member since:
2009-04-24

Snuck isn't a word!

According to Merriam-Webster, it's the past and past participle of sneak

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snuck


Of course it is a word... It was a reference to the clip where Jennifer Garner "corrects" Conan O'Brien. Check out the link from my last post. I laughed so hard. ;)

Poor article

It appears to have been written by someone who has absolutely no clue as to what Chrome OS is.

Indeed.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by AnythingButVista
by AnythingButVista on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 06:12 UTC
AnythingButVista
Member since:
2008-08-27

Countdown until Apple makes up some lame excuse and pulls the app from the App Store, in ten... nine... eight...

Reply Score: 3

Irrelevant
by wocowboy on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 11:33 UTC
wocowboy
Member since:
2006-06-01

Back to the subject of the article......ChromeOS was never really anything more than a web page with all the Google services on it, so this really isn't as big a deal as the title of the article makes it out to be. It is nice to have an app with all the Google services available on it, and it is nice and very handy for the users of Google Mail, etc, but it is not like Google is about to take over the iPad, which is the insinuation of the title of the article, and is just silly.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Irrelevant
by avgalen on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 12:42 UTC in reply to "Irrelevant"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Umh no, Chrome OS was an OS that was immutable and didn't need any configuration/installation/updating. In the end it would start a full-screen browser window as the "GUI" making it " the perfect internet appliance"

(of course updates were possible by entering a special "hardware" maintenance mode)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Irrelevant
by Laurence on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 13:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Irrelevant"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Umh no, Chrome OS was an OS that was immutable and didn't need any configuration/installation/updating. In the end it would start a full-screen browser window as the "GUI" making it " the perfect internet appliance"

(of course updates were possible by entering a special "hardware" maintenance mode)

Exactly.

It may have essentially been a crippled Linux distro, but it's no less an OS than SplashTop or any of the other intentionally "light" OSs.

So to port ChromeOS to iOS, Google would have to write an entire virtual machine to emulate everything from the Linux kernel and upwards. This doesn't even remotely do this. This isn't even a port of Chrome browser. This is just a few shortcuts (with a degree of preloaded content for speed) tied in with Apple's own webkit APIs.

All this article demonstrates is the ability for an ignorant author to drum up BS hype about a pretty average mobile app.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Irrelevant
by Lennie on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Irrelevant"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I believe it it gets automatic updates, like Chrome the webbrowser.

Not updates users can choose which/when to install.

Reply Score: 2

What a stupid article.
by tidux on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 14:34 UTC
tidux
Member since:
2011-08-13

"Google is losing the tablet race." Oh, is that why Apple was so worried about Samsung's Galaxy Tab that they filed lawsuits all over the planet? Is that why everybody and their dog is running TV ads for Android tablets?

I'm pretty excited about the Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) tablets, especially the Transformer Prime. An open-source OS that isn't essentially a for-pay beta release should definitely help with adoption. Oh, and Tegra 3 support in mainline Linux 3.2 will be a huge boon for GNU/Linux on tablets.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What a stupid article.
by rhavyn on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 15:48 UTC in reply to "What a stupid article."
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/11/22/npd.shows.hp.leading....

"With just 1.2 million tablets sold at retail across every company outside of Apple"

"Samsung was close, but at 16 percent (192,000)"

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Google Android Tablets are a failure. Amazon's Android Tablet, on the other hand, looks like it might have some success, certainly more success than anything Samsung and Motorola are vomiting into the market.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What a stupid article.
by Lennie on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE: What a stupid article."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I'm not sure Android is the problem.

The hardware manufactures were late to market with a competitive product.

The same happend with the iPhone, it too had a really large market share of newly sold smartphones. Now Android is the dominant one.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is still time to 'fix' the problem.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: What a stupid article.
by rhavyn on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What a stupid article."
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

The same happend with the iPhone, it too had a really large market share of newly sold smartphones. Now Android is the dominant one.


Except, that's a myth. The iPhone didn't start with a large market share, see here: http://www.asymco.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Screen-Shot-2011-1.... One could argue the iPhone has never had a large market share and not even Apple would disagree with that, I think.

On the other hand, there are two markets that Apple entered fairly early and quickly dominated: portable music players and tablets. Personally I think the market landscape of the iPad looks a lot closer to the iPod than the iPhone.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: What a stupid article.
by Lennie on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 17:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What a stupid article."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

When the first iPhone came out the market of touchscreen smartphones was really small. Almost all other products from that time are now considered 'feature phones' (like the Nokia, old Windows Phone and old Blackberry devices that are listed in the graph).

The iPhone became pretty popular in a short time, right ?

There might have been a few others like the "Prada". But that was a bit of a niche product too I would guess.

Maybe my memory is wrong, I didn't follow the market all that closely.

Edited 2011-11-22 17:55 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: What a stupid article.
by rhavyn on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 20:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What a stupid article."
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

When the first iPhone came out the market of touchscreen smartphones was really small.


Except there is no "touchscreen smartphone" market, there is just a smartphone market. When the iPhone came out BlackBerry, Symbian and Windows Mobile were already established players with large install bases. The iPhone has grown quickly but it has never been a dominant player in the smartphone market.

And, again, this is categorically different from the iPod and iPad. In both of those cases, Apple was a fairly early entrant in a very small market which they were quickly able to dominate. No one has been able to touch the iPod and that market became basically Apple and a few small companies that could afford to live on low sales of niche devices. The question is, will the iPad market move in that direction? And if it doesn't, will the current players (Samsung, Asus, Acer, HP, etc.) be willing to play in a low volume market?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: What a stupid article.
by Laurence on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 21:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What a stupid article."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


On the other hand, there are two markets that Apple entered fairly early and quickly dominated: portable music players and tablets. Personally I think the market landscape of the iPad looks a lot closer to the iPod than the iPhone.

Apple didn't enter early in those markets either.
Portable music players (walkmans et al) had been around for at least a decade before the iPod and MP3 players had been around a few years as well. What Apple had done was popularise an existing geeky product at around the time when the general populous was looking for the next big music platform. While some could argue they created a market there, they certainly weren't the 1st to market - not by a long stretch.

It's a similar case with tablets. Slates and tablet PCs had been around for a decade before the iPad. However in this instance Apple had the brand image from the iPhone that could push their own tablet. In this instance though, plenty of hardware and software vendors (and Apple included) had tried to create a market there for years prior to the iPad and failed. In fact, I'd openly said I expected the iPad to fail as well but clearly it didn't. So to Apple's credit, they really did create an industry there where nobody else could.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: What a stupid article.
by rhavyn on Tue 22nd Nov 2011 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What a stupid article."
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

"
On the other hand, there are two markets that Apple entered fairly early and quickly dominated: portable music players and tablets. Personally I think the market landscape of the iPad looks a lot closer to the iPod than the iPhone.

Apple didn't enter early in those markets either.
Portable music players (walkmans et al) had been around for at least a decade before the iPod and MP3 players had been around a few years as well. What Apple had done was popularise an existing geeky product at around the time when the general populous was looking for the next big music platform. While some could argue they created a market there, they certainly weren't the 1st to market - not by a long stretch.
"

I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not. I clearly didn't say they were first, I said they were fairly early. And for the portable MP3 player market, they were. I mean, they were competing with devices like the Diamond Rio 500, IIRC. In any case, it was still a tiny market and they quickly dominated it.

It's a similar case with tablets. Slates and tablet PCs had been around for a decade before the iPad. However in this instance Apple had the brand image from the iPhone that could push their own tablet. In this instance though, plenty of hardware and software vendors (and Apple included) had tried to create a market there for years prior to the iPad and failed. In fact, I'd openly said I expected the iPad to fail as well but clearly it didn't. So to Apple's credit, they really did create an industry there where nobody else could.


I agree, it is a similar case, which is why I think looking at the iPod is a better example than looking at the iPhone for how the tablet market will shake out.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: What a stupid article.
by Laurence on Wed 23rd Nov 2011 11:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: What a stupid article."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not. I clearly didn't say they were first, I said they were fairly early. And for the portable MP3 player market, they were. I mean, they were competing with devices like the Diamond Rio 500, IIRC. In any case, it was still a tiny market and they quickly dominated it.

Sorry, I should have been more clear.
I was disagreeing when you said that Apple were early to market. I don't think they were. I think they were the 1st to create a desirable consumer device, but that's very different to being early to a market.

When creating a successful product, making it desirable is just as (if not more so) important as being early into the market. Obviously if you're early and desirable, that's a bonus. But I think where Apple excels is sitting back and learning from the failures of others before releasing their own gadgets.

Reply Score: 3