Yes, we all want our mobile apps to be efficient, but please don't lump Davlik in with javascript. I concede that Java/Davlik are not quite as efficient as native code, but running an Android app on your phone is not in the same league of inefficiency as using a web app.

While I admire Google's continued to push to improve and promote the web, their continued insistence that web apps are the future even for mobile - in spite of Android doing so well - seems crazy to me.

I agree with your general point, but the fine should also take into account that there is no evidence or indication that this was done on purpose, that they did anything with the data, or that they ever intended to do anything with the data.

So now they have been fined, sued (class action lawsuits), and pilloried in pretty much every jurisdiction of the world for this.

Do you really think that is not sufficient deterrent, and why do you even need deterrent there isn't really much of an upside?

Isn't IBTimes widely regarded as one of the slimiest sites around. Notice that, if you try to stop the auto play video it will wait a minute or two and then auto resume.

This idea that you can 'mine' for bitcoins is what makes me not take it seriously. It seems so arbitrary and ridiculous.

In the future, if they want to issue more bitcoin, I hope they will instead allow people to exchange other currencies for bitcoin, and setup a foundation (or something like that) which will use the currency that is raised to further the interests of the bitcoin ecosystem.

Actually, I think Google's Go language in the same terms as Rust.

NaCL and Dart do have some value in relation to Google's goal of moving the Web forward. If they really want the Web to compete with desktop OS's then javascript really is lacking.

Building a next-gen browser engine sounds like exactly what 'mozilla labs' should be doing.

On the other hand, creating a new language in order to do it, sounds like Engineers whacking off.

Comparing Google's Chromebooks to Reader is silly.

For one thing, Chrome and Chromebooks are central to Google's future.

And for all the fuss about Reader (i'm a heavy user myself) switching away from Reader has been dead simple since it is just a viewer based around a standard protocol. Google turfing it was annoying at most, and no indication that they will kill off their core initiatives.

I look forward to seeing Amazon and Google battle each other in providing Linux infrastructure. I know there are many excellent small providers, but no one has really come close to Amazon so far.

I can't believe anyone would mod your post up - the original was clearly sarcastic.

The thing that was wrong about that original post is the Eric Schmidt hasn't been the CEO of Google for a couple of years.

But most of those who wish to record you will be wearing invisible cameras - not Glass. Are you going to search everyone?

"ubiquitous cameras everywhere recording everything at all times" is already happening and it has nothing to do with Google Glasses.

If you care about your privacy, Glass is the least of your concerns - there are already many ways to record everything secretly. And, if you want to invade people's privacy like this, Glass is the last thing you should use since it is so conspicuous.

Britain already went through this debate as they installed their ubiquitous CCVC network. Privacy lost.

These days, if a big patent holder in a related field (e.g. MPEG-LA) says they are going to gather all their patents and attack you, then they can do serious damage regardless of what any experts might say about actual infringement.

A company deciding to license patents that it believes it hasn't infringed it pretty common-place unfortunately.

TFA indicates that MS was only holding back on WebRTC (which uses VP8) because of patent concerns, so they may now move forward on it.

That seems to defy history. MS drags its feet and tries to undercut every new web tech it can. That's just MS - their strength is the desktop and they see the web and the Internet in general as a threat.

I can well believe that MS said that patents were the reason, but making random excuses for why they won't support a web tech - and then creating new ones as necessary - is just how MS operates when it comes to the web and open standards.

Every e-mail company 'reads' your e-mail. They must, in order to do spam detection. The difference is that MS has temporarily stopped using that info for targetted ads in their e-mail product. They still do it (target ads based on analysis of your data) in other properties.

If we fall for their trick of equating online activities with physical activities, and equating algorithmic analysis with a human reading, then we could convict every internet company right now.

But that's just Oracle - and always has been Oracle. Being aggressive and obnoxious hasn't hurt them before (check their stock price).