As it stands now slapping the MSFT logo on something adds perceived value and credibility
is what I replied to. What does that have to do with discounts from MS? Please log in with your answer so I will know who the reading comprehension challenged idiot I am replying to is.
As it stands now slapping the MSFT logo on something adds perceived value and credibility
I find that hard to believe. A Dell is going to sell whether it has a Windows logo on it or not. Same with Lenovo, HP, Acer, etc. I don't think that sticker is really that valuable as people expect windows on it and would be shocked if it didn't come with it. What do they need to see a sticker for?
FWIW, I have a Motorola Xoom with a Tegra2 clocked at 1.4 GHz with Ubuntu running in a chroot. I also have an Acer Aspire One with an N270 processor at 1.6 GHz. On every commandline benchmark I've done, the Xoom edges it out. My understanding is that anything involving an FPU, the Atom would come out on top but in my experience, the Xoom is very much on par with the Aspire in day to day use.
Most people know only one thing about smart phones - is it an iPhone or not. Most people have no idea about Android.
You people keep trotting this out but I have yet to see any corroborating evidence for it whatsoever. I hear people that don't know shit about smartphones say they "want an Android". I was talking to my friend's roommate last night and she was asking me what laptop she should get. To cut to the chase, we got around to tablets. I mentioned the iPad and Android tablets. What did she say? "Oh yeah, Android That's on tablets too? I'm thinking about getting 'an Android' on my next phone." People know what Android is. But keep believing your own bullshit, guy.
I just searched for "occupy seattle". There is not a single ad on the page. If you searched for that and saw an ad subsequently clicking on it, the site you clicked on knows you searched for that. It's not really that complicated. As far as I know, if you are using the https google page, none of the organic search results you click on know you found them buy typing "occupy seattle" into google. You are up in arms over nothing. Really.
You got that much correct. The error in your reasoning is assuming that what you want is what everybody else wants. You may never type in "wholesale flea market merchandise" but, I assure you, many people do. Wading through the organic search listings for a real wholesaler that will actually give you the time of day for an order under 20,000 dollars and who isn't a scam is an exercise in pure frustration. But if a legitimate business can buy a relevant ad and that ad can allow Google to connect that buyer to that business...everybody wins. The buyer can cut to the chase and get the merchandise they want, Google wins because their search engine just got.0000001 percent better based on the quality of that ad and of course the wholesaler wins because they just made a sale.
Google handles ad placement very well. They are shoved off to the side to be ignored when you want or to be clicked on if you choose to do so. No flash, no blink, no marquee or whatever. That's why Google wins and the other search engines that want to be competitive end up looking and working like Google. But I digress.
Charging more for misplaced ads simply highlights the conflict of interest Google recognizes that it's something users don't want, so they balance the other side of the conflict by charging advertisers more and allow the behavior to continue.
That is so backwards. If you pollute Google's results with crap, they charge you. They don't have a heuristics engine to tell if your ad sucks or not. They use how fast a user clicks away from it to tell. Then you pay more. Crowd sourcing in action and it works.
A search company that sells ads has a fundamental conflict of interest:
Provide better search results to get more users.
vs.
Inject more ads into search results to get more money, and sell more user information to get more money.
Google penalizes advertisers with irrelevant ads by charging them more. When someone searches for something they want to buy, clicking on ads is a perfectly natural thing to do. If the ads represent the product well and you end up buying, your needs have been met. That is most certainly not a conflict of interest. If an ad misrepresents a product then if some hapless searcher clicks on it, they are probably going to very quickly hit the back button. Google notes this and charges the advertiser more the next time. The advertiser then wises up and makes a better more contextually relevant ad. This makes sense and everybody wins.
I search for "linux laptop" and see a very relevant ad for system76.com so I win. If I searched for that and saw an ad for dell.com that took me to "We recommend Windows 7" landing page, believe me, Dell will be spending more money on Google in the future.
Well, damn. I used that purely as an example and just for shits and giggles, I tested it. Sure enough, the Dell ad at the top takes you to a "recommend Windows 7" page and the system76.com ad at the right is actually relevant. Ain't that a bitch. Maybe I'm wasting my talent as should get into advertising!
The problem with ad-supported the searcher-is-the-product Google is that it is exploitative to those that don't realize the ramifications since it's not in Google's best interest to be completely honest with how they operate and monetize.
Google spells out very clearly how adwords works.
I'd make the argument that in many ways the relevant ads actually enhance the search experience. Often times people use Google for just that, buying stuff. If an ad sucks and misrepresents the product, I might click it but then I'm going to hit faster than you can say it. Google clues into this and charges the advertiser more next time around as the ad is obviously not relevant. The advertiser feels the pain and fixes the ad. Everybody wins. I search for "linux laptop" and see a very relevant ad for system76.com so I win. If I searched for that and saw an ad for dell.com that took me to "We recommend Windows 7" landing page, believe me, Dell will be spending more money on Google in the future.
For the other 90 percent of the time when I'm not wanting to buy anything, I can easily ignore the right hand side of the page and the little bar at the top where the ads are.
Chances are you are product, not a customer or a user.
The three are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, Google penalizes advertisers that don't post relevant ads to the searcher by forcing said advertiser to pay more per click. As someone that searches Google and periodically even buys stuff, I'd much rather see an ad that is relevant to my interests. In this way, the ads actually enhance the search experience because it is getting me what I want faster. And if I'm not looking to buy anything, the ads are segregated either off to the side or are in a clearly defined area at the top so I ignore them. Win/win.
To put things in perspective, isn't it fair to say that the vast majority of the web is financed through ads? Something as fantastic as Google which basically equates to a modern day Oracle of Delphi has to be financed somehow. Would you prefer they extract.001/$YOUR_LOCAL_CURRENCY from your bank account everytime you use it? Or if you don't use Google, how about Slashdot? Or any other ad financed website/service?
Your point is valid, but MS, Apple, and Sun were all operating system publishers and creating languages makes sense.
There are many successful programming languages that did not come from operating system publishers. Java is very successful but that has little to do with the fact that Sun was an OS maker. People found and continue to find Java useful. Javascript is supremely popular. It was made by Netscape. A browser maker. What about PHP? And Perl? Python? Only the.net languages are highly successful and currently developed by and intended to be used on a particular OS vendor's OS. On what do you base your opinion on?
Google creating programming languages is sort of like Yahoo or Facebook creating programming languages.
Google perceives a need for a better scripting language for the web, they have the resources to build one, and a delivery mechanism. Seeing as the vast majority of their services are delivered through the web browser, wouldn't they want the best experience for their users? Since interface responsiveness is very important in complex applications, it very much does make sense for them to want to work to make that happen. At any rate, if Dart and Go solve problems (and are promoted and marketed well), they will succeed. Otherwise, they won't. There is no inherent reason why it doesn't make sense for Google to create them.
I suspect that these creations have little to do with their actual corporate mission and more to do with their wildly undisciplined engineering management.
Pure conjecture and nothing you've said supports it in any way.
"I'm an OS X user looking to switch to a Linux laptop. I like the Unix/BSD aspect of OS X. Simple things like when I close the lid the laptop goes to sleep, the sound card works out of the box, long battery life, minimum cooling fan noise, and a comprehensive but relatively straightforward backup system and 'AppleCare' package are important to me. What all-inclusive model of laptop and distro would you recommend?"
Let's see...
Took me 10 seconds on Google.
They offer every single thing he mentioned in the summary as a turnkey solution. Try again, stupid.
Thanks asshole. The guy asked about Linux and you first posted some drivel about OSX. The guy already has fucking OSX. Thanks to you, have the fucking discussion is an Apple love-in. Fucking Slashdot. What a joke these days.
Slashdot Mirror
You're wasting your talent trolling slashdot.
You have a PHD in being a complete and utter moronic caricature of yourself.
As it stands now slapping the MSFT logo on something adds perceived value and credibility
is what I replied to. What does that have to do with discounts from MS? Please log in with your answer so I will know who the reading comprehension challenged idiot I am replying to is.
APK unpatched psychological disturbances: over 9000!
As it stands now slapping the MSFT logo on something adds perceived value and credibility
I find that hard to believe. A Dell is going to sell whether it has a Windows logo on it or not. Same with Lenovo, HP, Acer, etc. I don't think that sticker is really that valuable as people expect windows on it and would be shocked if it didn't come with it. What do they need to see a sticker for?
I run MySQL in a chroot on my Xoom you insensitive clod!
FWIW, I have a Motorola Xoom with a Tegra2 clocked at 1.4 GHz with Ubuntu running in a chroot. I also have an Acer Aspire One with an N270 processor at 1.6 GHz. On every commandline benchmark I've done, the Xoom edges it out. My understanding is that anything involving an FPU, the Atom would come out on top but in my experience, the Xoom is very much on par with the Aspire in day to day use.
Most people know only one thing about smart phones - is it an iPhone or not. Most people have no idea about Android.
You people keep trotting this out but I have yet to see any corroborating evidence for it whatsoever. I hear people that don't know shit about smartphones say they "want an Android". I was talking to my friend's roommate last night and she was asking me what laptop she should get. To cut to the chase, we got around to tablets. I mentioned the iPad and Android tablets. What did she say? "Oh yeah, Android That's on tablets too? I'm thinking about getting 'an Android' on my next phone." People know what Android is. But keep believing your own bullshit, guy.
I thought it had something to do with the fact that Maemo actually multi-tasks while wp7 multi-"services".
Whatever drugs you are on...please share.
Yes, you are mistaken. They are even worse.
I just searched for "occupy seattle". There is not a single ad on the page. If you searched for that and saw an ad subsequently clicking on it, the site you clicked on knows you searched for that. It's not really that complicated. As far as I know, if you are using the https google page, none of the organic search results you click on know you found them buy typing "occupy seattle" into google. You are up in arms over nothing. Really.
Users go to a search engines to find things
You got that much correct. The error in your reasoning is assuming that what you want is what everybody else wants. You may never type in "wholesale flea market merchandise" but, I assure you, many people do. Wading through the organic search listings for a real wholesaler that will actually give you the time of day for an order under 20,000 dollars and who isn't a scam is an exercise in pure frustration. But if a legitimate business can buy a relevant ad and that ad can allow Google to connect that buyer to that business...everybody wins. The buyer can cut to the chase and get the merchandise they want, Google wins because their search engine just got .0000001 percent better based on the quality of that ad and of course the wholesaler wins because they just made a sale.
Google handles ad placement very well. They are shoved off to the side to be ignored when you want or to be clicked on if you choose to do so. No flash, no blink, no marquee or whatever. That's why Google wins and the other search engines that want to be competitive end up looking and working like Google. But I digress.
Charging more for misplaced ads simply highlights the conflict of interest Google recognizes that it's something users don't want, so they balance the other side of the conflict by charging advertisers more and allow the behavior to continue.
That is so backwards. If you pollute Google's results with crap, they charge you. They don't have a heuristics engine to tell if your ad sucks or not. They use how fast a user clicks away from it to tell. Then you pay more. Crowd sourcing in action and it works.
A search company that sells ads has a fundamental conflict of interest:
Provide better search results to get more users. vs.
Inject more ads into search results to get more money, and sell more user information to get more money.
Google penalizes advertisers with irrelevant ads by charging them more. When someone searches for something they want to buy, clicking on ads is a perfectly natural thing to do. If the ads represent the product well and you end up buying, your needs have been met. That is most certainly not a conflict of interest. If an ad misrepresents a product then if some hapless searcher clicks on it, they are probably going to very quickly hit the back button. Google notes this and charges the advertiser more the next time. The advertiser then wises up and makes a better more contextually relevant ad. This makes sense and everybody wins.
I search for "linux laptop" and see a very relevant ad for system76.com so I win. If I searched for that and saw an ad for dell.com that took me to "We recommend Windows 7" landing page, believe me, Dell will be spending more money on Google in the future.
Well, damn. I used that purely as an example and just for shits and giggles, I tested it. Sure enough, the Dell ad at the top takes you to a "recommend Windows 7" page and the system76.com ad at the right is actually relevant. Ain't that a bitch. Maybe I'm wasting my talent as should get into advertising!
The problem with ad-supported the searcher-is-the-product Google is that it is exploitative to those that don't realize the ramifications since it's not in Google's best interest to be completely honest with how they operate and monetize.
Google spells out very clearly how adwords works. I'd make the argument that in many ways the relevant ads actually enhance the search experience. Often times people use Google for just that, buying stuff. If an ad sucks and misrepresents the product, I might click it but then I'm going to hit faster than you can say it. Google clues into this and charges the advertiser more next time around as the ad is obviously not relevant. The advertiser feels the pain and fixes the ad. Everybody wins. I search for "linux laptop" and see a very relevant ad for system76.com so I win. If I searched for that and saw an ad for dell.com that took me to "We recommend Windows 7" landing page, believe me, Dell will be spending more money on Google in the future.
For the other 90 percent of the time when I'm not wanting to buy anything, I can easily ignore the right hand side of the page and the little bar at the top where the ads are.
Chances are you are product, not a customer or a user.
The three are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, Google penalizes advertisers that don't post relevant ads to the searcher by forcing said advertiser to pay more per click. As someone that searches Google and periodically even buys stuff, I'd much rather see an ad that is relevant to my interests. In this way, the ads actually enhance the search experience because it is getting me what I want faster. And if I'm not looking to buy anything, the ads are segregated either off to the side or are in a clearly defined area at the top so I ignore them. Win/win.
Google is an ad agency. What do you expect?
To put things in perspective, isn't it fair to say that the vast majority of the web is financed through ads? Something as fantastic as Google which basically equates to a modern day Oracle of Delphi has to be financed somehow. Would you prefer they extract .001/$YOUR_LOCAL_CURRENCY from your bank account everytime you use it? Or if you don't use Google, how about Slashdot? Or any other ad financed website/service?
Your point is valid, but MS, Apple, and Sun were all operating system publishers and creating languages makes sense.
There are many successful programming languages that did not come from operating system publishers. Java is very successful but that has little to do with the fact that Sun was an OS maker. People found and continue to find Java useful. Javascript is supremely popular. It was made by Netscape. A browser maker. What about PHP? And Perl? Python? Only the .net languages are highly successful and currently developed by and intended to be used on a particular OS vendor's OS. On what do you base your opinion on?
Google creating programming languages is sort of like Yahoo or Facebook creating programming languages.
Google perceives a need for a better scripting language for the web, they have the resources to build one, and a delivery mechanism. Seeing as the vast majority of their services are delivered through the web browser, wouldn't they want the best experience for their users? Since interface responsiveness is very important in complex applications, it very much does make sense for them to want to work to make that happen. At any rate, if Dart and Go solve problems (and are promoted and marketed well), they will succeed. Otherwise, they won't. There is no inherent reason why it doesn't make sense for Google to create them.
I suspect that these creations have little to do with their actual corporate mission and more to do with their wildly undisciplined engineering management.
Pure conjecture and nothing you've said supports it in any way.
"I'm an OS X user looking to switch to a Linux laptop. I like the Unix/BSD aspect of OS X. Simple things like when I close the lid the laptop goes to sleep, the sound card works out of the box, long battery life, minimum cooling fan noise, and a comprehensive but relatively straightforward backup system and 'AppleCare' package are important to me. What all-inclusive model of laptop and distro would you recommend?"
Let's see...
Took me 10 seconds on Google. They offer every single thing he mentioned in the summary as a turnkey solution. Try again, stupid.
I would actually prefer to adhere to butt fucking your mother. I will just keep doing that, thank you.
low 4 digit uid and still trolling. but then again, this is slash dot after all.
No, it's still pretty amazing.
Thanks asshole. The guy asked about Linux and you first posted some drivel about OSX. The guy already has fucking OSX. Thanks to you, have the fucking discussion is an Apple love-in. Fucking Slashdot. What a joke these days.
HaHa you one dumb ass motherfucker