[HN Gopher] Google's newly formed 'Platforms and Devices' team i...
___________________________________________________________________
Google's newly formed 'Platforms and Devices' team is all about AI
Author : thecybernerd
Score : 76 points
Date : 2024-04-18 17:04 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| meindnoch wrote:
| It's going to be a tremendous success, I can feel it already.
| courseofaction wrote:
| The 'consumer data extractor' (hardware) team is teaming up with
| the 'consumer manipulator' (AI) team, and all free of any
| inconvenient 'dont be evil' policy.
|
| What a time to be alive!
| __loam wrote:
| Google execs found incapable of speaking two sentences without
| mentioning AI
| stagger87 wrote:
| If this article was written 4 years ago the title would have
| been,
|
| "Google is combining ..., and it's all about Blockchain"
| surfingdino wrote:
| Blockchain is so 2023 for Google. Speaking of blockchain,
| what happened to the crypto accelerator Google launched in
| 2023?
| CatWChainsaw wrote:
| It's google, what do you think happened? :)
| user_7832 wrote:
| I'm not sure how I feel about this, as a user of google's
| services and as an owner of google's hardware (pixel 5, nest hub
| 2). I'm probably cautiously optimistic, seeing how high quality
| yet unique/quirky their hardware has been. However Tensor/Samsung
| fabs have had their issues, but maybe factors may have been out
| of the hands of those in charge?
| ur-whale wrote:
| How is a reorg at Google any kind of news ?
|
| Last I spoke to folks working there, these seem to happen every
| y-ending day.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| A reorg at this scale?
|
| It doesn't even happen annually.
|
| A reorg of two teams of 10 people? Sure. Google is a ~180k
| person company.
| bsimpson wrote:
| There's also a buried lede:
|
| Hiroshi, who's been an Android lead since before it shipped,
| is no longer leading Android.
|
| When Jony Ive and Scott Forstall and the other big Apple
| execs left, that was news. Hiroshi may not have Jony's
| profile, but it's still a major change in how Android is
| governed.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshi_Lockheimer
| xnx wrote:
| Even small changes by a $2 trillion company with billions of
| daily users are a big deal.
| bogwog wrote:
| I don't know anything involved in the process, but I hope this
| doesn't make it any harder for regulators to break them up when
| the day finally comes.
| dcgudeman wrote:
| I hope ideas like "regulators break them up" never come true.
| I'll never understand why people crave the destruction of
| productive organizations. Android has been a stunning success.
| Valuable for consumers who enjoy the platform, profitable for
| the investors who bet on the platform and lucrative for the
| employees who work on the platform. The only people that seem
| to have a problem with Android are misguided ideologues who
| think that "big company == bad".
| bearjaws wrote:
| I believe I speak for everyone when I say: As long as the AI does
| something helpful I don't care how you structure the team.
|
| But the current generative craze with "AI generated backgrounds"
| is a dead end.
|
| Give me better AI autocomplete, AI image correction, AI noise
| cancellation...
| dcgudeman wrote:
| aren't they doing those things?
| lawlessone wrote:
| >Give me better AI autocomplete, AI image correction, AI noise
| cancellation..
|
| We have all those, some of it we've had a long time, we just
| didn't call it AI.
| treprinum wrote:
| It seems like Google didn't learn the lesson from Google+ and is
| going to do another fear-driven reorg.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| Google cannot learn that kind of lesson, the people who were in
| Google+ are probably long gone from Google for greener pastures
| most likely. Second, google is an amorphous giant with no other
| goals than increase market share, no wonder their products are
| terrible. But still, with all this in mind, we should remember
| that great things go come from google, it's just that they're
| not capable of capitalizing on them.
| afavour wrote:
| Yawn. Get back to me when something of actual note gets launched.
|
| Mobile OSes are now a boring, stable environment. All this noise
| about AI seems like an attempt to convince investors that some
| paradigm-shifting change is on the way. It isn't. A mildly better
| Google Assistant is on the way.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| So the team that is in charge of the OS which is licensed to
| Hardware vendors in the world is the same team that's in charge
| to create competing Hardware?
|
| I'd say that creates a huge conflict of interest.
|
| That's one of the big reasons why Nokia Series60 didn't take off
| as a licensed OS: Whatever Samsung or LG or Lenovo wanted to
| build on that platform to differentiate, they had to involve
| Nokia during the development (who then developed the needed OS-
| feature in parallel to the Nokia product that will make use of
| it).
|
| Google is either very secure that their grip on all these HW-
| vendors is strong enough forcing them to stay, or they are no
| longer part of Google's long-term strategy for Android.
| dheera wrote:
| Conflict of interest is a human invention, and not a law of the
| universe. There is no "conflict" unless you see it as one.
|
| You can play chess against yourself. AlphaGo can, because it
| wasn't brainwashed about this notion. ChatGPT can debate
| against itself. You can too, if you don't see it as a conflict.
| Humans might find it hard, only because they were brainwashed
| from a child that they need to pick sides. Your neural net is
| capable of operating on both sides simultaneously if you let
| it.
|
| The market is big enough for Google to create hardware AND
| other companies to create hardware.
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| > Conflict of interest is a human invention, and not a law of
| the universe.
|
| Lucky for us, we're discussing this in the context of humans
| building stuff for other humans to buy in a human society
| with human governments and markets, not in some metaphysical
| 'but what does meaning means' context.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| > The market is big enough for Google to create hardware AND
| other companies to create hardware.
|
| You obviously didn't read the comment you're replying to. No
| one is challenging that.
|
| Having the same TEAM in charge of the OS and in-house
| hardware is an entirely different story.
|
| It's a conflict of interest because the person Samsung is
| talking to to have a feature implemented into the OS baseline
| may be the same person in charge of defining the competitive
| featureset for the next Google hardware.
|
| Now this person knows that the product he and his team is
| designing will compete with a yet-to-be-announced Samsung-
| product with a new feature.
|
| So his interest to support a licensee being successful with
| his product is _in conflict_ with his interest to create a
| more successful competing product.
|
| And even if he isn't, for SAMSUNG just the potential of this
| situation to happen can be enough to NOT cooperate with this
| team and scale back communications with the Android team as a
| whole.
| dheera wrote:
| >It's a conflict of interest because the person Samsung is
| talking to to have a feature implemented into the OS
| baseline may be the same person in charge of defining the
| competitive featureset for the next Google hardware.
|
| The person can run two threads in their brain, one that
| deals with Samsung and one that deals with the internal
| product.
|
| > Now this person knows that the product he and his team is
| designing will compete with a yet-to-be-announced Samsung-
| product with a new feature.
|
| So? You're talking about the person, which is just the host
| hardware. There can be multiple threads running on that
| hardware at the same time in containers.
|
| > So his interest to support a licensee being successful
| with his product is in conflict with his interest to create
| a more successful competing product.
|
| They can both be successful at the same time. He can
| operate with an interest to optimize for an overall better
| world rather than interest to win over and kill Samsung. He
| can build a successful product AND help Samsung build a
| successful product at the same time.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _The person can run two threads in their brain, one
| that deals with Samsung and one that deals with the
| internal product._
|
| There's a reason we don't make a police chief investigate
| their own misconduct.
|
| "It's a perfectly OK thing to do. The person is just the
| host hardware. There can be multiple threads running on
| that hardware at the same time. They can run two threads
| in their brain, one that deals with investigating the
| case and a seperate one that might or might not did it".
|
| "He didn't just declare himself innocent of misconduct
| and embezzelment out of self-interest. The independent
| investigating "thread" must have arrived to an impartial
| decision".
|
| "In any case, it's not blatant misconduct, you only see
| it as such. There's no notion of misconduct in nature,
| it's a made up thing we invented".
| dheera wrote:
| If there's accusation of misconduct, there's a bug in the
| system so you isolate it and investigate it from the
| outside.
|
| There's no investigation happening here, just two happy
| parties trying to create great products that can both be
| successful and be even happier. Lawyers can stay out of
| this happiness, inventing and injecting "conflicts" that
| never existed in the first place.
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| > If there's accusation of misconduct, there's a bug in
| the system so you isolate it and investigate it from the
| outside.
|
| Why should the investigation be from the outside?
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| > The person can run two threads in their brain, one that
| deals with Samsung and one that deals with the internal
| product.
|
| Great find! Does this also apply to a police officer
| investigating a crime where their spouse is a suspect? Or
| to a judge presiding over a court case involving
| themselves?
| rickdeckard wrote:
| He may also "operate" with 50% of his bonus depending on
| Google Hardware doubling in market-share.
|
| How much would you bet to win against me in a card-game
| if you have to show me all your cards and I show you
| none?
|
| Rest assured, I will maintain the task to beat you in
| another container than all the details I need to beat
| you.
|
| _> So? You 're talking about the person, which is just
| the host hardware. There can be multiple threads running
| on that hardware at the same time in containers._
|
| ...what?
| oarla wrote:
| Weren't the 2 teams already part of the same company? And
| OEMs do make custom modifications to Android before
| shipping their devices, so they don't have to share
| everything they intend to do with the Android team.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Conflict of interest is a human invention, and not a law
| of the universe. There is no "conflict" unless you see it as
| one._
|
| That could be said for anything in the moral and judicial
| sphere. "There's no theft, property is a human invention",
| "There's no rape, animals don't have that concept", and so
| on.
| dheera wrote:
| That's true, but there are good reasons for calling theft
| and rape crimes in civilization.
|
| Conflict of interest, on the other hand, was invented by
| some lawyer and HR types just to make life harder for the
| rest of us.
|
| I'm an optimistic engineer, believe in win-win situations,
| and don't see everything as a conflict.
| coldtea wrote:
| Conflict of interest has been a thing way before lawyers
| and HR types existed, they understood it and tried to
| prevent it at any point in history, from ancient Babylon
| to Rome, and from Amazon native tribes to imperial China.
|
| It's of course also the explicitly expressed reasoning
| for why there are independent branches of government
| (legislative, executive, and judicial in the US).
|
| > _I 'm an optimistic engineer, believe in win-win
| situations, and don't see everything as a conflict._
|
| Yes, it's called naivety :)
| spankalee wrote:
| The first priority for Android is competing against iPhone. Any
| self-dealing to get Pixel to have more of the Android pie would
| be far down the list, and probably counter-productive. It was
| already possible under the previous structure anyway.
| rezonant wrote:
| Correct, and it's clear that this isn't an outdated strategy
| from Google, just in the current cycle we saw Circle to
| Search launch on both Galaxy and Pixel, and most of the new
| AI stuff that differentiates Pixel is now coming to Galaxy as
| well. This might be a headscratcher if you think Google is
| trying to make Pixel the dominant _Android_ phone, but that
| 's not it. Google wants _Android_ to be the dominant phone
| OS, and despite it being massively popular globally, in the
| US the numbers are dire, with 50-60% overall going to Apple,
| and as high as 80-90% of young people choosing iPhone. I love
| Pixel, but it accounts for approximately 5% of the market in
| the US, with Samsung at 22%. Those stats about young people
| nearly universally picking iPhone is a bad sign for Android
| and a bad sign for competition in the phone market as a
| whole.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> as high as 80-90% of young people choosing iPhone_
|
| It's not really choosing, it's more like being handed over
| form parents or being force to due to iMessage network
| effect with teens in the US. Which teens wants to choose to
| be left out of group conversations?
|
| As an adult you can give fewer fucks about normie
| conformism, bubble colors and people being petty over it,
| but as a teen it would be a death sentence for your social
| life. Hence why the regulatory bodies are starting to twist
| Apple's arm over it.
| eschneider wrote:
| That's the situation NOW, but it can certainly change in the
| future. Work with Google as a hardware vendor, grow the
| Android market with them, and eventually they don't need you
| and cut you out. It happens.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| An american company is never going to be able to produce
| phones as cheaply as a korean or a chinese company.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| Let me assure you, Apple is capable to produce a cheaper
| device than any other smartphone vendor in the world
| today.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| In concert with Foxconn and others.
| pjmlp wrote:
| It took off for Sony and Ericsson.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| What took off?
|
| (Sony) Ericsson used UIQ, a pen-based OS built on top of the
| core of Symbian foundation.
|
| Nokia developed Series60, a key-based OS built on top of a
| Symbian core.
|
| They were not compatible operating systems, and most of all
| Ericsson didn't license it from Nokia.
| pjmlp wrote:
| As Nokia alumni I disagree.
|
| They weren't compatible at UI widgets level, but were at
| the underlying layers.
|
| It is like telling Samsung, Huawei or Xiomi aren't Android,
| because they use another GUI framework on top of AOSP.
|
| And as many Android developers are painfully aware, that
| isn't the only customisations to AOSP standard behaviours.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| Let's not fetch too far, this becomes a strawman
| argument.
|
| They weren't compatible operating systems because
| applications compiled for one of them were unable to be
| executed on the other without heavy modifications.
|
| At "underlying layers" the OS of a Tesla is compatible
| with that of a Nintendo Switch, and yet no one would say
| they have a compatible OS.
|
| _> It is like telling Samsung, Huawei or Xiomi aren 't
| Android, because they use another GUI framework on top of
| AOSP._
|
| No it's not, because they all use the same GUI framework
| as AOSP, hence they can run the same precompiled
| application.
| awiesenhofer wrote:
| Maybe you are mixing up your Sony Ericsson phones? There
| were loads of key based S60 phones too from them, not just
| UIQ.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| Name one please.
| Mathnerd314 wrote:
| I guess it makes them more like Apple, having a vertically
| integrated division for making phones. TFA says it might make
| other phone manufacturers struggle. Although I get the impression
| they are already struggling with the Open Handset Alliance terms
| from Google that they don't like. Maybe the best outcome is that
| AOSP gets multiple active forks supported by manufacturers,
| Google apps stop being distributed by default, and the phone
| software ecosystem gets more decentralized in general.
| lawlessone wrote:
| The other manufactures are fine I think as google still build a
| quality phone to house their cutting edge tech.
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| Samsung is the dominant Android manufacturer by far.
| conradfr wrote:
| Would it be realistic for app developers?
| rickdeckard wrote:
| Forks supported by manufacturers don't work, because they only
| earn money when selling hardware. So they can't each operate a
| huge platform maintenance team on their own.
|
| Also, the only glue that actually holds Android in place as a
| single platform is Google's CTS (compatibility test suite).
|
| Without it being mandated for Googles Mobile Services (GMS) and
| its revenue-share, Android will stop being a single platform.
|
| It will start drifting apart as soon as all vendors have to
| implement the next display/camera/sensor/form-factor support in
| the OS in parallel of each other...
| dmitrygr wrote:
| It is unsurprising to see that RickO beat Hiroshi for the title
| of grand poobah of devices and platforms. Hiroshi always made the
| impression of a very smart guy. Rick always made the impression
| of a good politician. Politicians always win
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| The world needs a third party software and hardware stack that
| isn't controlled by big tech walled garden monopolists /
| authoritarians. Not just for phones but laptops and computers
| too. As far as phones go, unfortunately the best alternative I've
| heard of is Graphene and the best phone for Graphene is the Pixel
| series. And I assume using it as a daily driver is problematic
| without access to various apps or maybe if websites block them or
| even carriers - not sure.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| The world is reactive, never proactive
| WillAdams wrote:
| This is why my next tech purchase will be a Raspberry Pi 5 and
| a Wacom One 13" touch screen --- my testing with a Raspberry Pi
| 4 and Wacom One (gen 1, no touch) went well, so I'm hopeful
| that this will work as well.
| rurp wrote:
| I recently got a new Pixel phone and Google's much hyped new AI
| features just seem so... gimmicky. One of the setup examples
| shows how you can circle a tent on the left side of a picture and
| move it more to the center. Neat, I guess? It's kind of a fun toy
| but I'm not sure what problem this is actually solving. I'm sure
| there are some usecases for this out there, but it's not a
| capability I have ever found myself wishing for.
|
| Meanwhile the rest of the phone is surprisingly buggy and
| annoying. Basic functionality I use every day is worse than on
| any other recent phone.
|
| Google has never been a great product org, but this desperate
| need to be seen as one of the cool kids in AI is making things
| worse. Granted I think of phones/computers more as a tool than a
| toy and put much higher value on usability and reliability versus
| novelty; perhaps I'm outlier in that.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> I recently got a new Pixel phone and Google's much hyped new
| AI features just seem so... gimmicky_
|
| Not just that, but their biggest crime is that almost none of
| those fancy AI features Google paraded at the Pixel launch even
| actually run on-device but need to be sent to their cloud for
| processing, despite all the gloating about their new Tensor 3
| chip's AI capabilities being the most important (since that
| chip sucks at CPU and GPU benchmarks compared to Apple and
| Qualcomm). Also, their Tensor 3 can't even run Google's
| smallest LLM. Absolutely embarrassing.
|
| They _REALLY_ need to unify the HW and SW development efforts
| to create a coherent and functional product, instead of
| designing them separately bazaar style then jerry rigging them
| together like some underfunded start-up making products for
| Kickstarter.
| moralestapia wrote:
| >Absolutely embarrassing.
|
| So sad but this continues to be the case for Google's
| incursion into AI. Why do they still keep Pichar around?
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| As a customer running on device is fairly low on my
| priorities, and I assume that's the case for at least 90% of
| users.
|
| Would it be nice? Sure, but I much prefer useful features now
| that could run on device later on if it adds value.
| jpalawaga wrote:
| honestly, it seems like every phone has its broken quirks. I
| recently switched from iphone to android and there's still a
| random collection of everyday things I do that are simply...
| broken.
|
| Maybe these devices have become so complicated they're simply
| too challenging to work out all of the edge cases out of. New
| features are easier.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> Maybe these devices have become so complicated they're
| simply too challenging to work out all of the edge cases out
| of. New features are easier.
|
| _
|
| With the amount of telemetry and data Google is collecting I
| doubt they can't catch edge cases, let alone recurrent bugs
| that impact multiple users.
|
| I wanted to buy a Pixel on sale last week but I watched a 6
| month long term review of the Pixel and the reviewer
| complained that every new update fixed some bugs but added
| it's own new bugs.
|
| It's why I'm still gonna keep using a phone that stopped
| getting updates over a year ago: it's finally stable and no
| more new bugs are being introduced by updates, as my mind and
| muscle memory has already adapted to the old bugs.
|
| Maybe I'm getting old but while 10 years ago I couldn't wait
| for new major updates to arrive on my phone, I feel like
| phone SW has peaked a few years ago and has been on a
| constant decline ever since, with new updates just adding
| useless crap that bugs you and changing things for the sake
| of change without improving them, and I would much rather
| have a phone that only updates security but nothing else.
| Basically I don't want my phone to be a Googler's playground
| and me being the beta-tester.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Not to mention all the Google shit on Android is just
| constantly harassing you. LOOK HERE, LOOK THERE, SET UP THIS,
| SET UP THAT, TURN THIS ON, TURN THAT ON, GIVE US FEEDBACK,
| SYNC NOW, SIGN IN TO GOOGLE, LET US SCAN YOUR PHONE FOR YOUR
| SAFETY, SIGN IN FOR SECURITY, SYNC YOUR PHOTOS, SYNC YOUR
| DRIVE, USE AI FOR THIS, HERES HOW YOU DO THIS THING BECAUSE
| ITS NOT OBVIOUS AND WE SUCK AT UI, GET UPDATES, WE DISABLED
| PERMISSIONS ON OLD APPS, WE DID THIS FOR YOU, WE DID THAT FOR
| YOU, POST PICTURES OF YOUR RECENT HOME DEPOT TRIP.
|
| Jesus christ, I've had to dismiss at least 20 different popup
| things just in the Messages app since I reset my phone a few
| days ago. Just fuck off already!
|
| And guess what. After resetting the phone, I still can only
| make a successful outgoing phone call 1 out of every 3 tries,
| and it will only work after a reboot. It worked fine after
| the reset for about a day. Now, again, it barely works as a
| phone.
|
| Rodney Dangerfield was right. There is no fucking respect for
| the people using the phones. There is only respect for the
| stocks going up. Fuck you and give us money, that's what
| smartphones are all about.
|
| Yesterday I ordered a Nokia flip phone. I'm done with iOS and
| Android. It has added nothing to my life except distractions
| and maintenance. I spent 3 days trying to get this piece of
| trash to work as a phone. Just a total waste of my life.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| _> , I still can only make a successful outgoing phone call
| 1 out of every 3 tries_
|
| Which phone? Pixel?
| onemoresoop wrote:
| Harassment as a service. That comes from the advertising
| mindset..
| throw7 wrote:
| I can't stand all the "AI" junk, especially when things worked
| better in the past. My pet peeve: I used to be able to ask
| google maps while I was driving "What's the E.T.A.?" and it
| would respond with, you know, the answer. It's been broken for
| many years now and responds with nonsense.
|
| Another one: I can't tell my phone to change it's name to what
| I want. Basic "AI" fail.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| While I think Google needs a better clear vision in many cases,
| god help us that the people who have screwed up every hardware
| launch for a decade now get to run the OS too.
| resource_waste wrote:
| I basically forgot that Google made Android.
|
| Are they really making major contributions? Seems like Mobile OS
| are basically stagnant.
| Groxx wrote:
| It gets less and less stable with every major upgrade, if that
| counts. Achieving that takes effort.
| danpalmer wrote:
| Do you have some basis for this that you can share? My
| perception is the opposite.
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| Nah, that's just entropy.
|
| Making UIs progressively worse beyond levels you though
| imaginable, like Reddit or GNOME -- that's art.
| coldtea wrote:
| "Google is paninicking and chasing the latest buzzword" would be
| a more descriptive title
| beezlebroxxxxxx wrote:
| Also seems like some employees/exec has figured out the latest
| promotion mill.
| aerotwelve wrote:
| > Under Rick Osterloh, a new platforms and devices team will be
| dedicated to bringing AI to your phone, your TV, and everything
| else that runs Android.
|
| Who is asking for this? Why can't they just make their search
| engine work again?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Who is asking for this?
|
| Anyone who regularly uses Siri or "Hey, Google".
| Groxx wrote:
| You mean the thing that requires an internet connection or it
| doesn't work?
|
| And probably will continue needing internet for the
| foreseeable future, regardless of how many mobile Tensor-
| chips they develop, because cloud data and compute power will
| always be orders of magnitude better than your phone?
|
| That's the thing they need specialized mobile-hardware teams
| involved for?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > You mean the thing that requires an internet connection
| or it doesn't work?
|
| The AI? Or the phone?
| Terr_ wrote:
| Nah, I want them to first fix the basic shit I actually
| (would) use.
|
| For example, when I'm driving and a timed phone alarm goes
| off for the Android phone in my pocket, I ask it to silence
| the alarm, yet instead rebukes me by falsely claiming no
| alarms are active right now.
|
| It's fixed now that I checked, but for a while it would also
| secretly ignore the date that I already specified for a
| scheduled event while it was prompting me to clarify the time
| of day.
| badgersnake wrote:
| So nobody.
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| (It's only good for pranks.) Hey Siri, call the police. Ok
| Google, call the police. Alexa, call the police.
| summerlight wrote:
| Or maybe, is it even a possible scenario that different teams
| are working on different products?
| antod wrote:
| I can't help feeling that Google is trying hard to turn itself
| into the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
|
| _Share and enjoy!_
| dpflan wrote:
| The comments here are trending towards "stop cramming 'AI' into
| everything". I am curious how the end-user consumer (versus 'AI'
| for enterprise/business) differ in experience and use. We are in
| the beginning of this AI-fication, and it seems deep learning
| models are doing really well and that DL can predictably scale
| [1.]; therefore, do we have to wait a bit for really life-
| changing AI for the end-user consumer?
|
| I can see AI in enterprise/business being extremely useful in
| different industries, but at the same time, is the current 'AI'
| actually good/useful for the end-user consumer?
|
| [1.] https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.00409
| ykonstant wrote:
| I'll wait for Advanced Platforms and Devices second edition.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-18 23:01 UTC)