I don't know it seems that is where the growth is. New streets don't come around nearly as often as new shops and restaurants. Mapping indoor spaces like malls and other large buildings or campuses would be something that could really extend the technology.
For instance, the location of mall and department store rest rooms would be a real hit! Imagine the app - Google Potty Stop ...
One of my favorite street view stories involves their face blur technology where it actually blurred the face of a perfectly anonymous horse in New York's Central Park ...
The fact that they blur faces at all in street view is a victory for idiocy and small-mindedness IMO.
Everyone knows that the arguments underlying it's use are the purest nonsensical garbage but we still allow it's use anyway just so we can protect the hurt feelings of the morons that think it's actually a reasonable idea.
You seem to be mistaking "monopolist" and "entrepreneur". If only one company is allowed to have the best brains, it turns into a monopoly. It then stops innovating. That's not entrepreneur's mindset, unless you consider late-era Rockefellers "entrepreneurs". I believe Steve Jobs/ Larry Page are entrepreneurs. Steve Ballmer, not so much. He'd love your way of thinking though.
Apple as the "monopolist" will out-innovate every "entrepreneur" both present and future. Competition from Apple didn't force or help M$ or Google to innovate. The team of Apple is TOTALLY ON THEIR OWN and rely on their own integrity.
Shame they didn't take the Software Quality Head; Apple's quality control for Leopard, Lion, iOS 5 and other products has been sadly lacking. Google's motive is clear, mind: the guy they poached to steal the original idea only had fixes for things up until he left - they need someone new to fix the thing, someone with familiarity with the new setup.
I don't know it seems that is where the growth is. New streets don't come around nearly as often as new shops and restaurants. Mapping indoor spaces like malls and other large buildings or campuses would be something that could really extend the technology.
I wonder how long it will take before Apple begins to hire Google employees?? .
I think Apple is more likely to hire people that can come up with new ideas... not copies of old ideas.
The more Google distracts themselves with projects outside of what makes them money, the weaker they become. If and when they do finish buying Moto, they will have gotten so far off message that they may not recover the search engine lead they now enjoy.
The war is just starting, it gold for all those who are working in these companies making great products.. Consumers will get the best that money can buy.. which is good...
You seem to be mistaking "monopolist" and "entrepreneur". If only one company is allowed to have the best brains, it turns into a monopoly. It then stops innovating. That's not entrepreneur's mindset, unless you consider late-era Rockefellers "entrepreneurs". I believe Steve Jobs/ Larry Page are entrepreneurs. Steve Ballmer, not so much. He'd love your way of thinking though.
So companies are not allowed to cultivate unique approaches to innovation, to seek out and hire the best minds they can afford? And you have a unique concept of "monopoly". Monopoly is inherently anti-competitive in nature - which is why there are controls in place to mitigate that.
Great minds for Apple are not necessarily great minds for Google and vice versa. Just as former Apple execs have gone on to do other work after a tenure at Apple, their value is related to their skills, talent, experience, and knowledge. Some have gone on to make significant other contributions directly related to what they did at Apple - others in other ways. Apple as an organization relies on an aggregate of people to do what it does - where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. For engineers, designers, managers, a very highly compensated offer at another firm can be very attractive, and Apple is a logical target since they have a high vetting standard for the people they hire, thus reasonably assuring an organization like Google that there is high value in recruiting that person for their own uses. Additional knowledge even protected under an NDA, comes with the package, which is why only a few very high-placed individuals really know what all is in the pipeline and thus limits the exposure that a fishing expedition could snag for a competitor. This is part of the reason that Jobs not only looked for the best executives, but then made sure they "fell in love with" Apple. This ensures that they will not run off to another executive position with a competitor - carying away highly valued knowledge of what Apple is doing and planning.
Ron Johnson for example. He moved on to what he obviously felt was the opportunity of a lifetime (after building the behemouth that is the successful and growing Apple retail operations unit), in resurrecting a languishing old label big-box retailer. He proved he capability by creating a successful retail operation when ALL tradition analysis said it would fail miserably. He brings with him that very valuable experience at Apple - and we get to watch to see if that will help him re-brand and revive JCPenny.
Will Google benefit from this - I would guess so - if they know what to do with him when he arrives. The unremarked side of this discussion is whether he fits into the corporate culture at Google (which much different than Apple) or not. If not he becomes another "Papermaster", and they then paid a high price for a bad fit/damaged goods, just as Apple did with Papermaster himself.
Google is culturally an engineering organization, based on search-generated ad revenue. They are trying to diversify their portfolio and are hunting ways to reduce the vulnerability they experience as a one-trick pony operation. For example, in spite of Android's huge incursion into the mobile space - it doesn't generate a significant (by comparison) amount of revenue, and is a cost center, not a profit center for Google. Same thing with Chrome, and most of the other products/services Google offers, not related to their search ad revenue. The now-legendary free development paradigm inside points to the urgent need they have to build a wider product/service revenue base. The longer they remain largely search ad revenued, they more vulnerable they become to Microsoft Bing, and more importantly to those former Google engineers looking to build the next "Google".
The guy is a "Senior Director of Product Integrity", which is, essentially, a quality control type job. It is unlikely that he has advance knowledge of future Apple plans, other than perhaps having some working knowledge of anything that is very close to release.
Quality control is something I feel has dwindled at Apple in last few years, so maybe it's time for a fresh face anyway. Apple should go after someone in quality control from say Cadillac, they need someone who gets sexy but also gets the polish of comfort & handling. Hard part is finding someone who really gets the software side of all that. I think Steve Jobs always sort of stepped in on that side on projects and now that he is gone they've lost a bit of that. Seems like the software side is something a lot of companies struggle with, they can make it sexy yet it usually is still clunky to use.
Comments
I don't know it seems that is where the growth is. New streets don't come around nearly as often as new shops and restaurants. Mapping indoor spaces like malls and other large buildings or campuses would be something that could really extend the technology.
For instance, the location of mall and department store rest rooms would be a real hit! Imagine the app - Google Potty Stop ...
For instance, the location of mall and department store rest rooms would be a real hit! Imagine the app - Google Potty Stop ...
Every toilet needs a Poop Notification Service. We should know ahead of time if a toilet is overflowing or needs a few minutes to air out.
Every toilet needs a Poop Notification Service. We should know ahead of time if a toilet is overflowing or needs a few minutes to air out.
I'm surprised that our resident crapper expert hasn't jumped in to say a few words.
No names mentioned... right, Dick!
I'm surprised that our resident crapper expert hasn't jumped in to say a few words.
No names mentioned... right, Dick!
He's probably grandkids deep in family right now for the Super Bowl.
BTW, NFL and NBC have a nice interactive live streaming site: http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/46/live/sunday
He's probably grandkids deep in family right now for the Super Bowl.
BTW, NFL and NBC have a nice interactive live streaming site: http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/46/live/sunday
Does that use Flash?
Does that use Flash?
Silverlight.
One of my favorite street view stories involves their face blur technology where it actually blurred the face of a perfectly anonymous horse in New York's Central Park ...
The fact that they blur faces at all in street view is a victory for idiocy and small-mindedness IMO.
Everyone knows that the arguments underlying it's use are the purest nonsensical garbage but we still allow it's use anyway just so we can protect the hurt feelings of the morons that think it's actually a reasonable idea.
I'm surprised that our resident crapper expert hasn't jumped in to say a few words.
No names mentioned... right, Dick!
With the iPad 2 you need to carefully choose between the front and rear facing cameras.
You seem to be mistaking "monopolist" and "entrepreneur". If only one company is allowed to have the best brains, it turns into a monopoly. It then stops innovating. That's not entrepreneur's mindset, unless you consider late-era Rockefellers "entrepreneurs". I believe Steve Jobs/ Larry Page are entrepreneurs. Steve Ballmer, not so much. He'd love your way of thinking though.
Apple as the "monopolist" will out-innovate every "entrepreneur" both present and future. Competition from Apple didn't force or help M$ or Google to innovate. The team of Apple is TOTALLY ON THEIR OWN and rely on their own integrity.
You should learn what emoticons mean.
Uhh...isn't that a bipolar Decepticon?
uhh...isn't that a bipolar decepticon?
I don't know it seems that is where the growth is. New streets don't come around nearly as often as new shops and restaurants. Mapping indoor spaces like malls and other large buildings or campuses would be something that could really extend the technology.
Kinda like this? Click the picture under the map.
http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cl...ed=0CDMQrwswAA
I wonder how long it will take before Apple begins to hire Google employees?? .
I think Apple is more likely to hire people that can come up with new ideas... not copies of old ideas.
The more Google distracts themselves with projects outside of what makes them money, the weaker they become. If and when they do finish buying Moto, they will have gotten so far off message that they may not recover the search engine lead they now enjoy.
You seem to be mistaking "monopolist" and "entrepreneur". If only one company is allowed to have the best brains, it turns into a monopoly. It then stops innovating. That's not entrepreneur's mindset, unless you consider late-era Rockefellers "entrepreneurs". I believe Steve Jobs/ Larry Page are entrepreneurs. Steve Ballmer, not so much. He'd love your way of thinking though.
So companies are not allowed to cultivate unique approaches to innovation, to seek out and hire the best minds they can afford? And you have a unique concept of "monopoly". Monopoly is inherently anti-competitive in nature - which is why there are controls in place to mitigate that.
Great minds for Apple are not necessarily great minds for Google and vice versa. Just as former Apple execs have gone on to do other work after a tenure at Apple, their value is related to their skills, talent, experience, and knowledge. Some have gone on to make significant other contributions directly related to what they did at Apple - others in other ways. Apple as an organization relies on an aggregate of people to do what it does - where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. For engineers, designers, managers, a very highly compensated offer at another firm can be very attractive, and Apple is a logical target since they have a high vetting standard for the people they hire, thus reasonably assuring an organization like Google that there is high value in recruiting that person for their own uses. Additional knowledge even protected under an NDA, comes with the package, which is why only a few very high-placed individuals really know what all is in the pipeline and thus limits the exposure that a fishing expedition could snag for a competitor. This is part of the reason that Jobs not only looked for the best executives, but then made sure they "fell in love with" Apple. This ensures that they will not run off to another executive position with a competitor - carying away highly valued knowledge of what Apple is doing and planning.
Ron Johnson for example. He moved on to what he obviously felt was the opportunity of a lifetime (after building the behemouth that is the successful and growing Apple retail operations unit), in resurrecting a languishing old label big-box retailer. He proved he capability by creating a successful retail operation when ALL tradition analysis said it would fail miserably. He brings with him that very valuable experience at Apple - and we get to watch to see if that will help him re-brand and revive JCPenny.
Will Google benefit from this - I would guess so - if they know what to do with him when he arrives. The unremarked side of this discussion is whether he fits into the corporate culture at Google (which much different than Apple) or not. If not he becomes another "Papermaster", and they then paid a high price for a bad fit/damaged goods, just as Apple did with Papermaster himself.
Google is culturally an engineering organization, based on search-generated ad revenue. They are trying to diversify their portfolio and are hunting ways to reduce the vulnerability they experience as a one-trick pony operation. For example, in spite of Android's huge incursion into the mobile space - it doesn't generate a significant (by comparison) amount of revenue, and is a cost center, not a profit center for Google. Same thing with Chrome, and most of the other products/services Google offers, not related to their search ad revenue. The now-legendary free development paradigm inside points to the urgent need they have to build a wider product/service revenue base. The longer they remain largely search ad revenued, they more vulnerable they become to Microsoft Bing, and more importantly to those former Google engineers looking to build the next "Google".
The guy is a "Senior Director of Product Integrity", which is, essentially, a quality control type job. It is unlikely that he has advance knowledge of future Apple plans, other than perhaps having some working knowledge of anything that is very close to release.
Quality control is something I feel has dwindled at Apple in last few years, so maybe it's time for a fresh face anyway. Apple should go after someone in quality control from say Cadillac, they need someone who gets sexy but also gets the polish of comfort & handling. Hard part is finding someone who really gets the software side of all that. I think Steve Jobs always sort of stepped in on that side on projects and now that he is gone they've lost a bit of that. Seems like the software side is something a lot of companies struggle with, they can make it sexy yet it usually is still clunky to use.