daring-rss

Joanna Stern, writing for The Wall Street Journal (News+ link):

I’m not saying I prefer talking to Google’s Gemini Live over a
real human. But I’m not not saying that either.

Does it help that the chatty new artificial-intelligence bot says
I’m a great interviewer with a good sense of humor? *Maybe. *But
it’s more that it actually listens, offers quick answers and
doesn’t mind my interruptions. No “I’m sorry, I didn’t understand
that” apologies like some other bots we know.

I had a nice, long chat with Google’s generative-AI voice
assistant before its debut on Tuesday. It will come built into the
company’s four new Pixel phones, but it’s also available to anyone
with an Android phone, the Gemini app and a $20-a-month
subscription to Gemini Advanced. The company plans to launch it
soon on iOS, too.

The catch:

When I asked it to set a timer, it said it couldn’t do that — or
set an alarm — “yet.” Gemini Live is a big step forward
conversationally. But functionally, it’s a step back in some ways.
One big reason: Gemini Live works entirely in the cloud, not
locally on a device. Google says it’s working on ways for the new
assistant to control phone functions and other Google apps.

It’s a fascinating — but unsurprising — strategic and culture difference that Apple Intelligence runs largely on device, and completely privately even when going to the cloud, and Google Gemini is currently only in the cloud, and with nothing like Apple’s Private Cloud Compute. To be clear, Google’s new lineup of Pixel 9 phones perform a lot of “AI” features on device, but not the Gemini voice assistant.

 ★ 

Joanna Stern, writing for The Wall Street Journal (News+ link):

I’m not saying I prefer talking to Google’s Gemini Live over a
real human. But I’m not not saying that either.

Does it help that the chatty new artificial-intelligence bot says
I’m a great interviewer with a good sense of humor? *Maybe. *But
it’s more that it actually listens, offers quick answers and
doesn’t mind my interruptions. No “I’m sorry, I didn’t understand
that” apologies like some other bots we know.

I had a nice, long chat with Google’s generative-AI voice
assistant before its debut on Tuesday. It will come built into the
company’s four new Pixel phones, but it’s also available to anyone
with an Android phone, the Gemini app and a $20-a-month
subscription to Gemini Advanced. The company plans to launch it
soon on iOS, too.

The catch:

When I asked it to set a timer, it said it couldn’t do that — or
set an alarm — “yet.” Gemini Live is a big step forward
conversationally. But functionally, it’s a step back in some ways.
One big reason: Gemini Live works entirely in the cloud, not
locally on a device. Google says it’s working on ways for the new
assistant to control phone functions and other Google apps.

It’s a fascinating — but unsurprising — strategic and culture difference that Apple Intelligence runs largely on device, and completely privately even when going to the cloud, and Google Gemini is currently only in the cloud, and with nothing like Apple’s Private Cloud Compute. To be clear, Google’s new lineup of Pixel 9 phones perform a lot of “AI” features on device, but not the Gemini voice assistant.

Read More 

Chance Miller, writing for 9to5Mac:

In macOS Sequoia beta 6, however, Apple has adjusted this
policy and will now prompt users on a monthly basis instead. macOS
Sequoia will also no longer prompt you to approve screen recording
permissions every time you reboot your Mac.

Apple’s initial plan to require authorization weekly prompted a
lot of blowback from Mac users, including Jason Snell at Six
Colors and John Gruber at Daring Fireball. Apple
seemingly heard all of this feedback and determined that a
one-month approval window is a fair compromise. […]

A permission request on a monthly basis is certainly better than
one on a weekly basis, but I still think there needs to be a way
to permanently grant an app screen recording permissions.

Agreed. Perhaps the seemingly under-documented Persistent Content Capture entitlement, pointed out by Craig Hockenberry (who works on the excellent longstanding Iconfactory utility xScope, the entire point of which requires screen content capture) could be a part of such an exemption?

I do think, after some off-the-record conversations this week, that both the MacOS and security teams at Apple are trying to get the balance right on these permission issues. I continue to think part of the problem is thinking too small, and requiring what’s effectively whack-a-mole with multiple recurring permission prompts. Playing that game of whack-a-mole monthly instead of weekly is absolutely an improvement. But I still think there ought to be a way to grant a properly notarized app permanent permission.

 ★ 

Chance Miller, writing for 9to5Mac:

In macOS Sequoia beta 6, however, Apple has adjusted this
policy and will now prompt users on a monthly basis instead. macOS
Sequoia will also no longer prompt you to approve screen recording
permissions every time you reboot your Mac.

Apple’s initial plan to require authorization weekly prompted a
lot of blowback from Mac users, including Jason Snell at Six
Colors and John Gruber at Daring Fireball. Apple
seemingly heard all of this feedback and determined that a
one-month approval window is a fair compromise. […]

A permission request on a monthly basis is certainly better than
one on a weekly basis, but I still think there needs to be a way
to permanently grant an app screen recording permissions.

Agreed. Perhaps the seemingly under-documented Persistent Content Capture entitlement, pointed out by Craig Hockenberry (who works on the excellent longstanding Iconfactory utility xScope, the entire point of which requires screen content capture) could be a part of such an exemption?

I do think, after some off-the-record conversations this week, that both the MacOS and security teams at Apple are trying to get the balance right on these permission issues. I continue to think part of the problem is thinking too small, and requiring what’s effectively whack-a-mole with multiple recurring permission prompts. Playing that game of whack-a-mole monthly instead of weekly is absolutely an improvement. But I still think there ought to be a way to grant a properly notarized app permanent permission.

Read More 

I always knew that the original Gameboy was remarkably clever, but this video from the Real Engineering YouTube channel shows just how clever it was. The price was low ($89), a set of 4 AA batteries lasted for 30 hours, and, of course, it was fun as hell.

 ★ 

I always knew that the original Gameboy was remarkably clever, but this video from the Real Engineering YouTube channel shows just how clever it was. The price was low ($89), a set of 4 AA batteries lasted for 30 hours, and, of course, it was fun as hell.

Read More 

David McCabe and Nico Grant, reporting for The New York Times:

Justice Department officials are considering what remedies to ask
a federal judge to order against the search giant, said three
people with knowledge of the deliberations involving the agency
and state attorneys general who helped to bring the case. They are
discussing various proposals, including breaking off parts of
Google, such as its Chrome browser or Android smartphone operating
system, two of the people said.

Other scenarios under consideration include forcing Google to make
its data available to rivals, or mandating that it abandon deals
that made its search engine the default option on devices like the
iPhone, said the people, who declined to be identified because the
process is confidential. The government is meeting with other
companies and experts to discuss their proposals for limiting
Google’s power, the people said.

The deliberations are in their early stages. Judge Amit P. Mehta
of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who is
overseeing the case, has asked the Justice Department and Google
to come up with a process for determining a fix by Sept. 4. He has
scheduled a hearing on Sept. 6 to discuss next steps.

After winning the U.S.-v.-Microsoft case in 2001, the U.S. pursued breaking up Microsoft. It didn’t happen. But at least that made some sort of business sense — the idea at the time was to break the OS business (Windows) off from the app business (Office). Windows was profitable on its own. Office was profitable on its own. In theory they could have been separated and operated as independent businesses.

At a product level, you can see why it might be tempting to say Chrome and/or Android ought to be broken off from Google. But at a business level it doesn’t make any sense at all. Chrome makes no money at all on its own. It’s just a funnel for Google Search. Android maybe sort of kind of makes a little money for Google on its own, through the sale of Pixel devices, but it’s negligible. Like Chrome, Android really only exists as a funnel to keep users using Google search and within the broader Google digital ecosystem.

I mean, let’s say Google was forced to spin Chrome off. How would Chrome Inc. make money? Clearly, they’d make money through TAC fee payments from Google search. Also, if they split off Chrome they’d almost have to split off Android. If Google is disallowed from making its own web browser how in the world can they make an OS? I mean in theory they could make an OS that only offered third-party browsers but that would mean no system-level webview for apps to embed. Some people laughed at Microsoft’s late-1990s argument that Windows needed a built-in browser but that’s obviously true today. It’s no different than including a TCP/IP networking stack or printer drivers.

I don’t know what the remedy ought to be for this case, but I don’t think a breakup is it.

 ★ 

David McCabe and Nico Grant, reporting for The New York Times:

Justice Department officials are considering what remedies to ask
a federal judge to order against the search giant, said three
people with knowledge of the deliberations involving the agency
and state attorneys general who helped to bring the case. They are
discussing various proposals, including breaking off parts of
Google, such as its Chrome browser or Android smartphone operating
system, two of the people said.

Other scenarios under consideration include forcing Google to make
its data available to rivals, or mandating that it abandon deals
that made its search engine the default option on devices like the
iPhone, said the people, who declined to be identified because the
process is confidential. The government is meeting with other
companies and experts to discuss their proposals for limiting
Google’s power, the people said.

The deliberations are in their early stages. Judge Amit P. Mehta
of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who is
overseeing the case, has asked the Justice Department and Google
to come up with a process for determining a fix by Sept. 4. He has
scheduled a hearing on Sept. 6 to discuss next steps.

After winning the U.S.-v.-Microsoft case in 2001, the U.S. pursued breaking up Microsoft. It didn’t happen. But at least that made some sort of business sense — the idea at the time was to break the OS business (Windows) off from the app business (Office). Windows was profitable on its own. Office was profitable on its own. In theory they could have been separated and operated as independent businesses.

At a product level, you can see why it might be tempting to say Chrome and/or Android ought to be broken off from Google. But at a business level it doesn’t make any sense at all. Chrome makes no money at all on its own. It’s just a funnel for Google Search. Android maybe sort of kind of makes a little money for Google on its own, through the sale of Pixel devices, but it’s negligible. Like Chrome, Android really only exists as a funnel to keep users using Google search and within the broader Google digital ecosystem.

I mean, let’s say Google was forced to spin Chrome off. How would Chrome Inc. make money? Clearly, they’d make money through TAC fee payments from Google search. Also, if they split off Chrome they’d almost have to split off Android. If Google is disallowed from making its own web browser how in the world can they make an OS? I mean in theory they could make an OS that only offered third-party browsers but that would mean no system-level webview for apps to embed. Some people laughed at Microsoft’s late-1990s argument that Windows needed a built-in browser but that’s obviously true today. It’s no different than including a TCP/IP networking stack or printer drivers.

I don’t know what the remedy ought to be for this case, but I don’t think a breakup is it.

Read More 

Apple Newsroom:

Starting with iOS 18.1, developers will be able to offer NFC
contactless transactions using the Secure Element from within
their own apps on iPhone, separate from Apple Pay and Apple
Wallet. Using the new NFC and SE (Secure Element) APIs,
developers will be able to offer in-app contactless transactions
for in-store payments, car keys, closed-loop transit, corporate
badges, student IDs, home keys, hotel keys, merchant loyalty and
rewards cards, and event tickets, with government IDs to be
supported in the future.

Reading between the lines, I do not think this will grant third-party apps access to the double-tap-side-button action to initiate a payment. And, I say, that’s a good thing. That’s something Apple should reserve for Apple Pay. I’m not sure the European Commission will agree with me.

Whoops: I should have read more than the first paragraph:

To make a contactless transaction within an app that utilizes
these APIs, users can either open the app directly, or set the app
as their default contactless app in iOS Settings, and double-click
the side button on iPhone to initiate a transaction.

We regret the error, and the appropriate people have been sacked.

 ★ 

Apple Newsroom:

Starting with iOS 18.1, developers will be able to offer NFC
contactless transactions using the Secure Element from within
their own apps on iPhone, separate from Apple Pay and Apple
Wallet. Using the new NFC and SE (Secure Element) APIs,
developers will be able to offer in-app contactless transactions
for in-store payments, car keys, closed-loop transit, corporate
badges, student IDs, home keys, hotel keys, merchant loyalty and
rewards cards, and event tickets, with government IDs to be
supported in the future.

Reading between the lines, I do not think this will grant third-party apps access to the double-tap-side-button action to initiate a payment. And, I say, that’s a good thing. That’s something Apple should reserve for Apple Pay. I’m not sure the European Commission will agree with me.

Whoops: I should have read more than the first paragraph:

To make a contactless transaction within an app that utilizes
these APIs, users can either open the app directly, or set the app
as their default contactless app in iOS Settings, and double-click
the side button on iPhone to initiate a transaction.

We regret the error, and the appropriate people have been sacked.

Read More 

Spotify, in an update to an older post on the company blog:

While we are still many steps from a level playing field, we are
beginning to see progress because of the European Commission’s
historic decision on March 4, 2024 which found that Apple
violated the EU’s antitrust laws and fined them over €1.8
billion. Starting today, Spotify is opting into Apple’s
“entitlement” for music streaming services, created after
the European Commission’s ruling. This means we will finally be
able to offer something as obvious as it is overdue: iPhone
consumers in the EU will now see pricing information for Spotify
in the app and the fact that they can go to our website to
purchase items directly.

Jess Weatherbed, at The Verge:

One thing that’s missing is the ability to click a link to make
those purchases from outside the Apple App Store. Spotify says
it’s opting into the “music streaming services entitlement”
that Apple introduced after being served a €1.84 billion (about $2
billion) EU antitrust fine in March for “abusing its
dominant position” in music streaming, rather than accepting the
complicated new developer terms Apple outlined last week.
Unlike the entitlement, the latter would allow EU developers to
link to external payment options with Apple taking a cut of
off-platform sales. Spotify clearly doesn’t want to do that,
saying that Apple is demanding “illegal and predatory taxes.”

So after all this, all that Spotify’s app is now doing differently in the EU is (a) showing the prices of its available plans, and (b) telling users, without offering a tappable link, that to sign up, they need to go to Spotify’s website. It doesn’t even tell you the URL of the website, it just says “To buy Premium, go to the Spotify website.”

For anyone who isn’t paying close attention to these arguments over Apple’s draconian anti-steering terms for apps, it is surely very surprising that it took years of legal wrangling and a $2 billion fine (which, it should be noted, Apple hasn’t yet paid, and which quite possibly will be reduced or thrown out upon appeal) just to allow Spotify to present this information to users. Just to tell them the price and tell them they need to go to Spotify’s website to sign up.

These anti-steering provisions are indefensible. They make Apple look bad in the court of public opinion, and they look even worse in actual courts of law.

 ★ 

Spotify, in an update to an older post on the company blog:

While we are still many steps from a level playing field, we are
beginning to see progress because of the European Commission’s
historic decision on March 4, 2024 which found that Apple
violated the EU’s antitrust laws and fined them over €1.8
billion. Starting today, Spotify is opting into Apple’s
“entitlement” for music streaming services, created after
the European Commission’s ruling. This means we will finally be
able to offer something as obvious as it is overdue: iPhone
consumers in the EU will now see pricing information for Spotify
in the app and the fact that they can go to our website to
purchase items directly.

Jess Weatherbed, at The Verge:

One thing that’s missing is the ability to click a link to make
those purchases from outside the Apple App Store. Spotify says
it’s opting into the “music streaming services entitlement”
that Apple introduced after being served a €1.84 billion (about $2
billion) EU antitrust fine in March for “abusing its
dominant position” in music streaming, rather than accepting the
complicated new developer terms Apple outlined last week.
Unlike the entitlement, the latter would allow EU developers to
link to external payment options with Apple taking a cut of
off-platform sales. Spotify clearly doesn’t want to do that,
saying that Apple is demanding “illegal and predatory taxes.”

So after all this, all that Spotify’s app is now doing differently in the EU is (a) showing the prices of its available plans, and (b) telling users, without offering a tappable link, that to sign up, they need to go to Spotify’s website. It doesn’t even tell you the URL of the website, it just says “To buy Premium, go to the Spotify website.”

For anyone who isn’t paying close attention to these arguments over Apple’s draconian anti-steering terms for apps, it is surely very surprising that it took years of legal wrangling and a $2 billion fine (which, it should be noted, Apple hasn’t yet paid, and which quite possibly will be reduced or thrown out upon appeal) just to allow Spotify to present this information to users. Just to tell them the price and tell them they need to go to Spotify’s website to sign up.

These anti-steering provisions are indefensible. They make Apple look bad in the court of public opinion, and they look even worse in actual courts of law.

Read More 

Eli Blumenthal, reporting for CNet:

Looking for Google’s new Pixel 9 Pro Fold? You won’t find it at
AT&T. The carrier has confirmed to CNET that it will not be
offering Google’s newest Pixel Fold to its customers. The decision
would be a blow to Google’s device ambitions as it would make it
harder for it to reach millions of AT&T customers. In its
second-quarter earnings last month the carrier revealed that it
had nearly 72 million postpaid phone users. […]

AT&T sold last year’s original Pixel Fold and still plans to sell
much of the rest of Google’s new lineup including the Pixel 9, 9
Pro, 9 Pro XL and Pixel Watch 3. It will have deals for those
looking to upgrade to one of those phones.

Backs up my hunch that none of these foldables — including Google’s, regarded by some as the best — are selling well.

 ★ 

Eli Blumenthal, reporting for CNet:

Looking for Google’s new Pixel 9 Pro Fold? You won’t find it at
AT&T. The carrier has confirmed to CNET that it will not be
offering Google’s newest Pixel Fold to its customers. The decision
would be a blow to Google’s device ambitions as it would make it
harder for it to reach millions of AT&T customers. In its
second-quarter earnings last month the carrier revealed that it
had nearly 72 million postpaid phone users. […]

AT&T sold last year’s original Pixel Fold and still plans to sell
much of the rest of Google’s new lineup including the Pixel 9, 9
Pro, 9 Pro XL and Pixel Watch 3. It will have deals for those
looking to upgrade to one of those phones.

Backs up my hunch that none of these foldables — including Google’s, regarded by some as the best — are selling well.

Read More 

Juli Clover, writing last week for MacRumors:

Distraction Control can be used to hide static content on a page,
but it is not an ad blocker and cannot be used to permanently hide
ads. An ad can be temporarily hidden, but the feature was not
designed for ads, and an ad will reappear when it refreshes. It
was not created for elements on a webpage that regularly change.

To use Distraction Control, go to the Page Menu and select Hide
Distracting Items. You can select an area on the page that you
want to hide, and static content that you select will remain
hidden. It is a good way to eliminate the pesky popovers that show
up when browsing online stores, reading articles, and more.
iPhone, iPad, and Mac users need to opt in to
hiding elements on the page, and Apple says that nothing is hidden
that is not proactively selected.

When hiding a cookie banner or GDPR popup with Distraction
Control, the function is the same as closing a banner without
submitting website preferences at all.

This is a really great feature, and the animations it employs are delightful.

Just last week, I found myself shaking my head at this screenshot posted by Nilay Patel of CBS News’s website. It’s ridiculous and sad that the state of web design has sunk so low, but the web browsers themselves — led by Safari — continue to allow users to fight back.

 ★ 

Juli Clover, writing last week for MacRumors:

Distraction Control can be used to hide static content on a page,
but it is not an ad blocker and cannot be used to permanently hide
ads. An ad can be temporarily hidden, but the feature was not
designed for ads, and an ad will reappear when it refreshes. It
was not created for elements on a webpage that regularly change.

To use Distraction Control, go to the Page Menu and select Hide
Distracting Items. You can select an area on the page that you
want to hide, and static content that you select will remain
hidden. It is a good way to eliminate the pesky popovers that show
up when browsing online stores, reading articles, and more.
iPhone, iPad, and Mac users need to opt in to
hiding elements on the page, and Apple says that nothing is hidden
that is not proactively selected.

When hiding a cookie banner or GDPR popup with Distraction
Control, the function is the same as closing a banner without
submitting website preferences at all.

This is a really great feature, and the animations it employs are delightful.

Just last week, I found myself shaking my head at this screenshot posted by Nilay Patel of CBS News’s website. It’s ridiculous and sad that the state of web design has sunk so low, but the web browsers themselves — led by Safari — continue to allow users to fight back.

Read More 

Jonathan Hoefler, on Threads:

The Harris/Walz logo got a smart and subtle haircut this weekend,
which, like the very best typography, is making everything better
while drawing very little attention to itself.

I read a lot of comments about political logos… Having helped
shape the logo of every Democratic president in the twenty-first
century (hflr.io/biden, hflr.io/obama), let me say from
experience that campaign typography is completely unlike graphic
design: it’s a strange and fascinating agility sport, marked by
limited information, a ticking clock, unimaginable pressures, and
serious consequences. It’s Iron Chef, but in Adobe Illustrator.

The “Harris” was fine all along, and only ever-so-slightly tweaked in this updated logo. It was the “Walz” that needed help, and got it here. Making the letters in “Walz” just a tad taller makes the whole mark feel significantly more cohesive.

 ★ 

Jonathan Hoefler, on Threads:

The Harris/Walz logo got a smart and subtle haircut this weekend,
which, like the very best typography, is making everything better
while drawing very little attention to itself.

I read a lot of comments about political logos… Having helped
shape the logo of every Democratic president in the twenty-first
century (hflr.io/biden, hflr.io/obama), let me say from
experience that campaign typography is completely unlike graphic
design: it’s a strange and fascinating agility sport, marked by
limited information, a ticking clock, unimaginable pressures, and
serious consequences. It’s Iron Chef, but in Adobe Illustrator.

The “Harris” was fine all along, and only ever-so-slightly tweaked in this updated logo. It was the “Walz” that needed help, and got it here. Making the letters in “Walz” just a tad taller makes the whole mark feel significantly more cohesive.

Read More 

Emma Roth, writing for The Verge:

Google has finally taken the wraps off its Pixel 9 lineup, which
includes three slab phones and a folding phone. The regular lineup
consists of a base Pixel 9 with a 6.3-inch display, a Pixel 9 Pro
XL with a 6.8-inch screen, and a new, smaller Pixel 9 Pro option
measuring 6.3 inches. The trio of devices comes with a redesigned
oval-shaped camera housing, Google’s updated G4 Tensor chip,
better battery life, and a new satellite SOS feature.

While the Pixel 9’s $799 starting price is $100 more than last
year’s model, the Pixel 9 Pro starts at $999, and the Pro XL will
cost $1,099 and up. The Pixel 9 and 9 Pro XL start shipping on
August 22nd, with availability for the smaller Pixel 9 Pro
starting in September.

Almost certainly the best Android phones on the market, all things considered, yet it seems pretty predictable that, just like with all previous generations of Pixel phones, few people will buy them. IDC claims Pixels have 5 percent market share in the U.S. but it sure doesn’t seem to me like one out of every 20 phones I see is a Pixel.

In addition to three new standard Pixel devices, Google showed off
the Pixel 9 Pro Fold. The refreshed Fold is taller and thinner
than its predecessor, offering larger displays measuring 6.3
inches on the outside and eight inches on the inside.

The Pixel Pro Fold costs $1,800. I’ve seen a handful of folding phones in real-world use over the years, but only a handful. These things get a ton of attention in the tech media but seemingly nearly zero traction in the market. I continue think this will remain true until and if Apple releases one, which I expect will look nothing like the existing ones, and then the Android handset makers will makes ones that look like Apple’s, and the Android zealots will attempt to shoot down accusations of copycatting by arguing that the design is obvious.

Google’s Made By event was held live, including the AI demos, which didn’t go well. But I have no snark for that. I like live demos and miss them at Apple events. And part of what I like is the high-wire drama of potential demo failure. Watching a live demo gets your attention in a way that a pre-recorded demo cannot. It’s like watching a live stunt.

See also: Marques Brownlee’s first impressions of the new phones (and the new Pixel Watches and wireless earbuds).

 ★ 

Emma Roth, writing for The Verge:

Google has finally taken the wraps off its Pixel 9 lineup, which
includes three slab phones and a folding phone. The regular lineup
consists of a base Pixel 9 with a 6.3-inch display, a Pixel 9 Pro
XL with a 6.8-inch screen, and a new, smaller Pixel 9 Pro option
measuring 6.3 inches. The trio of devices comes with a redesigned
oval-shaped camera housing, Google’s updated G4 Tensor chip,
better battery life, and a new satellite SOS feature.

While the Pixel 9’s $799 starting price is $100 more than last
year’s model, the Pixel 9 Pro starts at $999, and the Pro XL will
cost $1,099 and up. The Pixel 9 and 9 Pro XL start shipping on
August 22nd, with availability for the smaller Pixel 9 Pro
starting in September.

Almost certainly the best Android phones on the market, all things considered, yet it seems pretty predictable that, just like with all previous generations of Pixel phones, few people will buy them. IDC claims Pixels have 5 percent market share in the U.S. but it sure doesn’t seem to me like one out of every 20 phones I see is a Pixel.

In addition to three new standard Pixel devices, Google showed off
the Pixel 9 Pro Fold. The refreshed Fold is taller and thinner
than its predecessor, offering larger displays measuring 6.3
inches on the outside and eight inches on the inside.

The Pixel Pro Fold costs $1,800. I’ve seen a handful of folding phones in real-world use over the years, but only a handful. These things get a ton of attention in the tech media but seemingly nearly zero traction in the market. I continue think this will remain true until and if Apple releases one, which I expect will look nothing like the existing ones, and then the Android handset makers will makes ones that look like Apple’s, and the Android zealots will attempt to shoot down accusations of copycatting by arguing that the design is obvious.

Google’s Made By event was held live, including the AI demos, which didn’t go well. But I have no snark for that. I like live demos and miss them at Apple events. And part of what I like is the high-wire drama of potential demo failure. Watching a live demo gets your attention in a way that a pre-recorded demo cannot. It’s like watching a live stunt.

See also: Marques Brownlee’s first impressions of the new phones (and the new Pixel Watches and wireless earbuds).

Read More