How Google Software Won 2018 (engadget.com) 75
Google is relatively new to the hardware game -- at least compared to rivals Apple and Samsung. But it's not just what's outside that matters. An analysis, by Engadget : The Pixel 3 is the best example. Physically, the phone is a more premium version of the Pixel 2. But aside from that, nothing about the Pixel 3's design makes me yearn for the phone. In fact, the 3 XL even has one of the biggest screen notches in the market, which some people find hideous. And yet, the Pixel 3s were still one of our favorite phones of the year, and ended up on our best gadgets list. But if you can stomach the notch, or don't mind using the smaller phone, then boy, will you be blown away by Google's software. Let's start with my favorite -- Call Screening.
On the Pixels, you can have Assistant field calls for you without having to answer the phone or even say a single word. It's easy to dismiss this feature as simply a glorified voice messaging system, but it's so much more than that. Assistant will ask your caller what they want, transcribe what they're saying in real time and suggest actions for you. Say you realize it's your doctor calling. You could ask them more questions, dictate a real time reply, or use a preset action like hang up or promise to call back. Can your voicemail do that? I don't think so.
[...] Nowhere is the importance of software exemplified as effectively as it is in Google's imaging algorithms, which are so powerful they helped the Pixel 3 nab the smartphone camera crown in our tests. Not only can the phones capture clear, colorful pictures with just a single rear camera, but the Pixels produced the nicest Portrait mode effects using pure software alone. And with the magical Night Sight mode, Google easily kicked Apple and Samsung's butts in low light photography, turning dark, noisy pictures into shots that look like they were taken in daytime. [...] Counter-point: DxOMark's Pixel 3 camera score shows AI isn't enough.
On the Pixels, you can have Assistant field calls for you without having to answer the phone or even say a single word. It's easy to dismiss this feature as simply a glorified voice messaging system, but it's so much more than that. Assistant will ask your caller what they want, transcribe what they're saying in real time and suggest actions for you. Say you realize it's your doctor calling. You could ask them more questions, dictate a real time reply, or use a preset action like hang up or promise to call back. Can your voicemail do that? I don't think so.
[...] Nowhere is the importance of software exemplified as effectively as it is in Google's imaging algorithms, which are so powerful they helped the Pixel 3 nab the smartphone camera crown in our tests. Not only can the phones capture clear, colorful pictures with just a single rear camera, but the Pixels produced the nicest Portrait mode effects using pure software alone. And with the magical Night Sight mode, Google easily kicked Apple and Samsung's butts in low light photography, turning dark, noisy pictures into shots that look like they were taken in daytime. [...] Counter-point: DxOMark's Pixel 3 camera score shows AI isn't enough.
Re: No (Score:1)
Pretty much everhwhere where there aren't Google paid "enthuisiasts" astroturfing the consensous is that the Endgaget piece is a total sham. It looks like Tomshardware's has a contender to its "most unlikely to be an unbiased, non company supplied, article" for its glowing article on nVIdia's RTX graphics cards...
Shillbots gotta shill....
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed. Google employees are a bunch of assholes and the execs should be in jail. I do what I can to stay away from their spyware.
Re: At Google (Score:2, Interesting)
Thatâ(TM)s the reason I wouldnâ(TM)t use Android or Windows.
Not all data is created equal and mine is worth paying an Apple tax to have a privacy advocate in one of the worlds largest companies.
Malware (Score:1)
Re: Malware (Score:1)
I like talking to real people. I cannot imagine using this feature. I certainly would not pay for it
Re: Malware (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah.
"Is that Jim?"
"Hi, this is Jim's personal assistant. How can I help?"
"I would like to talk to Jim."
"What would you like to talk to Jim about?"
"He'll never find out now. But do him a favour, clear his calendar after Wednesday."
*click*
"our" (Score:2, Redundant)
"And yet, the Pixel 3s were still one of our favorite phones of the year, and ended up on our best gadgets list.>
"Our"? Who is he talking to? Where does he get off making claims for "us"? I don't even have a "best gadgets" list.
Re: "our" (Score:2, Informative)
Is it really that difficult to understand? It says the article is from Engadget. They are more than a 1 person company (I would home any slashdot terrible would know that by now). Clearly the "our" refers to the group of employees responsible for the Engadget reviews.
Re: (Score:2)
It is an advertisement. So by "us" he means, people that matter. Real humans. Virtuous Citizens.
Re: (Score:3)
Given that it was an article written by Engadget staff wrapping up their year, I'd imagine "our" refers to them.
It's both strange and enlightening that you would assume it was referring to you... Possibly explains why so many people take everything personally.
Hey Engadget (Score:2)
Why do I get asked to login to your site before I’m given a chance to read the article?
Call Screening: Google Assistant (Score:2)
The name "Google Assitant" is very pertinent here. It's not your assistant, it's Google's assistant. This means that Google knows (in detail) what someone is calling you about/for. But nobody cares about inviting Google into their life like this any more, do they? I mean it's not like it is the government doing this. Except that the government can subpoena or ortherwise make representation to find all this out and because Google isn't a telecommunications provider, the rules and regulations regarding long t
Re: Call Screening: Google Assistant (Score:4, Interesting)
I made a mistake last year. I bought a Pixel 2. Previously I had Google Nexus 5, which was easy to root, easy to change ROMs (no gapps), and was decent.
Pixel 2 meant a year long fight with the software. It was a pain in the rear to root originally, and it was so touchy with software removal that it took me rougly 20 reflashes before I got an idea what not to remove from the system (removal of google.app renders pixel 2 unbootable, and it took me a week to neuter the monstrosity). Currently I am running my own build of AOSP, heavilly firewalled and gapp'less, but it took a year to make it as usable as Nexus was within days.
My next purchase will be Purism Libre 5. I realize that this is exactly what I want from a phone; nothing smart, just usable.
Re: (Score:2)
I made a mistake last year. I bought a Pixel 2. Previously I had Google Nexus 5, which was easy to root, easy to change ROMs (no gapps), and was decent.
Pixel 2 meant a year long fight with the software. It was a pain in the rear to root originally, and it was so touchy with software removal that it took me rougly 20 reflashes before I got an idea what not to remove from the system (removal of google.app renders pixel 2 unbootable, and it took me a week to neuter the monstrosity). Currently I am running my own build of AOSP, heavilly firewalled and gapp'less, but it took a year to make it as usable as Nexus was within days.
My next purchase will be Purism Libre 5. I realize that this is exactly what I want from a phone; nothing smart, just usable.
While I admire your doggedness, perhaps some difficulty removing Google software from Google hardware running a Google operating system might not be entirely unexpected.
Counter-counter point (Score:5, Interesting)
DxOMark is the most obvious paid reviewer website ever. I don't have proof, but man that top 10 can't fool anyone.
Re: (Score:3)
What items on the top 10 list do you disagree with? They are all top notch cameras. Also if they were paid reviews then you should be able to point to issues with their extensive reviews and raw data (you can download the original files).
Re: (Score:1)
They are all top notch cameras.
I think their ranking refers to the rear cameras, not the top notch ones. Besides, I hate notches.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever modded this redundant is being a bit harsh. If I was able to moderate it I'd have done with +1 funny.
Re: (Score:2)
The DxOMark isn't a paid site. It is however a site for masturbating to raw numbers. If that does it for you then by all means. Personally I prefer to look at photos.
Yawn.... (Score:5, Interesting)
What is impressive of software that doesn't let you do what you want? Seriously. I can't even record my calls. Simple feature that should be easily enabled on my phone. But no. It is disabled by Google software on their hardware. Can we stop giving credit to companies who cant't get the basics right. The software prevents me from using MY phone legally. Google even went out of their way to disable the feature. How can this even be considered great.
The other day I was just talking and Google assistant jumped in telling me it can't help with my request. There was none made. I'm not impressed I'm bored. I have real tasks to handle on a regular basis where Google software gets in the way.
If my doctors calls I would much prefer to automatically record the conversation in case I misinterpret his instructions not have a stupid assistant possibly give them the wrong message.
Not to mention the hardware/software integration is over rated and flaky especially that stupid dongle. I think /. is looking for stories on a slow day.
Re: Yawn.... (Score:2)
Are you certain thatâ(TM)s legal? In many countries it is illegal to record a phone conversation without obtaining the other partyâ(TM)s permission.
Re: (Score:2)
Even ignoring the number of Android users in jurisdictions in which it's perfectly legal, half the phone calls I have these days include an automated system telling me, "This phone call may be recorded."
So I have their consent anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
Wake me up when... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wake me up when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but then the robocallers will just use their own AI programs-- only connecting you to a live person if and when the AI thinks that it has a live "customer" on the line. (Navient, the loan company, does this already when it calls you about an overdue payment).
To get past the digital assistant, the robocaller will try to convince the digital assistant it's a real person (and not a robocaller). Likewise, the digital assistant will try to convince the robocaller it's a real person looking for their credit card (and not a digital assistant). It'll be an arms race, in which increasingly sophisticated AI programs administer Turing tests to each other.
Google needs to be broken up (Score:2)
They have to be. I don't care who does it but it has to be done.
Stupid fucking title (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I can haz this year? You not finished yet?
Can I keep it?
How DogDude just won the internet! (Score:2)
"How x won y". What a stupid, mindless, clickbait title. It means nothing.
Of course it means something. Google won! Not sure what competition they were in, but they won! Woot.
Brain Drain. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great. Please stop calling! You finally get it.
huh? (Score:2)
Say you realize it's your doctor calling. You could ask them more questions, dictate a real time reply, or use a preset action like hang up or promise to call back. Can your voicemail do that? I don't think so.
Wait, what?
So instead of, you know, talking to my doctor's office when they call, I can now listen and watch some weird interface, and then clumsily choose from preset actions in real time, hopefully before they say "WTF?" and hang up on "me"?
Wow, that's great! Thanks Google!!
Re: huh? (Score:2)
If itâ(TM)s my doctor calling, theyâ(TM)re either speaking directly to me from the start, or leaving me a message to call them. HIPAA isnâ(TM)t going to let them âoecommunicateâ with some kind of wacky software assistant.
Re: (Score:2)
If itâ(TM)s my doctor calling, theyâ(TM)re either speaking directly to me from the start, or leaving me a message to call them. HIPAA isnâ(TM)t going to let them âoecommunicateâ with some kind of wacky software assistant.
Hmm, I dunno.
I can (and do) give them permission to leave me sensitive info in a voicemail. And my voicemail is hosted by my telecom provider.
Re: (Score:2)
I can (and do) give them permission to leave me sensitive info in a voicemail. And my voicemail is hosted by my telecom provider.
Just because they have your consent does not mean that they are actually-allowed to do it. If they have a policy that medical information is not left on voicemail, doesn't mean that the person on the other end is going to risk being in violation of that policy unless you have that consent as a part of your outgoing messge *and* they're recording their outgoing calls, and even then, super-regimented Mona who thrives on following every policy to the T is not going to make an exception for you when she makes t