I like Google's open-ness mantra. It's funny to note, however, that they're open in segments that DON'T generate money.
Why don't they open up their AdSense and search algorithms? Of course the fuck not.
Google is "open" only when it wishes to lure the open source community into its service to undermine competitors. Well, that and as a blatant marketing ploy, of course: "We're all about openness." Sounds a lot like the Adobe Flash mantra, doesn't it? And we all know how open Flash is.
Don't these curves follow several traditional trajectories?
I've seen a lot of curves for new products that are very flat near the left, as the early adopters buy them, and then get steeper and steeper as they enter an exponential growth portion of the curve, but then tend to flatten out again as they become mature.
I think that Android is in the exponential growth phase, while iPhone OS has become a more mature product. If/when Apple goes to more US carriers, I would expect the curve to get much steeper, very quickly, given that to a lot of consumers, it would represent a new product.
But none of this can really be used to predict the level at which the curve will flatten out, or whether it will remain flat, given product changes. Nobody knows with any certainty or in any detail what the future market share will be for any of these technologies.
If I were to guess, I think that Android will surpass iPhone OS in every area - phones, tablets, netbooks, STBs, automobile/emergency OSs, misc. handheld/palmtop devices - but I have no reliable crystal balls.
You are absolutely correct -- it's the classic "S" curve, with three phases: early adoption, penetration, saturation.
I see you're a little slow, so I'll help you out. "Where it really matters" refers to the core technologies the company is built on -- e.g. Google Search. Duh! I love these trolls.
Your original statement was "Oh, please, there's nothing open about Android or Google. "
as a Mac user, and iphone owner, my thoughts on this are that:
1- Apple needs to open up their products more
2- iphone ought to be able to install programs/apps NOT distributed via itunes
3- apple ought not have to approve each and every app for the phone, stop being the gatekeeper and censorer!
4- apple ought to embrace tons more cellular providers, stop tying their service to carriers who they get income from. start focusing on allowing consumers to pick their own provider, not get bogged down with horrible service from AT&T
Apple also needs to open up
Apple TV - allow companies like netflix, sirius/xm, slingbox client, pandora and more to have programs work on it.
Ipad - just like on the iphone, Apple needs to open this up.
Sorry, but consumers are starting to feel what apple is doing. restricting users to their approved world view. yes 1984 in part. The hard problem here is that software can be opened up, Apple can become more friendly.
Apple ought to embrace Blu-Ray in desktops and definitely the Macbook Pro line.
Apple needs to stop its 1984 ... possibly evil tendencies.
Free apps are great. Surely they are well worth offshoring our Privacy concerns to the Google and Facebook of this LaLaLand of ours. Let them handle it. They know money doesn't grow on trees and People's lives are so much better managed by thee.
An open and free market place is the way to go.
Regulations and constraints are so 'Obama' and 'Jobs', so socialist and paternalist, so anti-free-enterprise and anti-geeks; why don't we cut them to size and let Hell break loose for a while. After all, Wealth costs money and Poverty is free.
Comments co-sponsored by:
the Oil Industry, the Bank Cartel, the Insurance Industry, Wall Street, your friendly Google and Facebook service providers, and AsianBob/Asharian heavyweight Blogging tag-team.
as a Mac user, and iphone owner, my thoughts on this are that:
1- Apple needs to open up their products more
2- iphone ought to be able to install programs/apps NOT distributed via itunes
3- apple ought not have to approve each and every app for the phone, stop being the gatekeeper and censorer!
4- apple ought to embrace tons more cellular providers, stop tying their service to carriers who they get income from. start focusing on allowing consumers to pick their own provider, not get bogged down with horrible service from AT&T
Apple also needs to open up
Apple TV - allow companies like netflix, sirius/xm, slingbox client, pandora and more to have programs work on it.
Ipad - just like on the iphone, Apple needs to open this up.
Sorry, but consumers are starting to feel what apple is doing. restricting users to their approved world view. yes 1984 in part. The hard problem here is that software can be opened up, Apple can become more friendly.
Apple ought to embrace Blu-Ray in desktops and definitely the Macbook Pro line.
Apple needs to stop its 1984 ... possibly evil tendencies.
as a Mac user, and iphone owner, my thoughts on this are that:
1- Apple needs to open up their products more
2- iphone ought to be able to install programs/apps NOT distributed via itunes
3- apple ought not have to approve each and every app for the phone, stop being the gatekeeper and censorer!
4- apple ought to embrace tons more cellular providers, stop tying their service to carriers who they get income from. start focusing on allowing consumers to pick their own provider, not get bogged down with horrible service from AT&T
Apple also needs to open up
Apple TV - allow companies like netflix, sirius/xm, slingbox client, pandora and more to have programs work on it.
Ipad - just like on the iphone, Apple needs to open this up.
Sorry, but consumers are starting to feel what apple is doing. restricting users to their approved world view. yes 1984 in part. The hard problem here is that software can be opened up, Apple can become more friendly.
Apple ought to embrace Blu-Ray in desktops and definitely the Macbook Pro line.
Apple needs to stop its 1984 ... possibly evil tendencies.
Add tons more carriers? Apple would jump at the chance if they were able. They needed an exclusive contract with AT&T to get the iPhone going. If they added another carrier now, they would be breaking the law.
Blu-ray? Apple is just waiting. They love Blu-ray, they're just not ready.
And about opening up their products, who cares? If Apple allowed non-App Store applications, I would seriously consider switching to another company if I didn't love the iPhone so much. Not many people care if it's closed. Normal people don't even understand the difference.
Google is "open" only when it wishes to lure the open source community into its service to undermine competitors. Well, that and as a blatant marketing ploy, of course: "We're all about openness." Sounds a lot like the Adobe Flash mantra, doesn't it? And we all know how open Flash is.
You said "Oh, please, there's nothing open about Android or Google."
Is it still "nothing"?
You are welcome to say that your original statement was overbroad, and that what you really should have said was covered in subsequent posts.
But I don't really know, and I'm interested in what you really meant, and as of now, guessing seems to be my best alternative.
It's been used on several internal networks (not connected to the WWW) that I've worked on.
I thought everybody knew that you could do this?
He's changed the subject to whether or not Google has released its source code and a free license, and whether or not Google gives it away to people for free so they can repackage it for sale. Maybe that is what he meant in the first place. I find it harder and harder to tell.
You said "Oh, please, there's nothing open about Android or Google."
Is it still "nothing"?
You are welcome to say that your original statement was overbroad, and that what you really should have said was covered in subsequent posts.
But I don't really know, and I'm interested in what you really meant, and as of now, guessing seems to be my best alternative.
Or just reading through the posts, if you were really "interested", as you claim. Yes, I still maintain that Android is not open but is, for all intents and purposes, entirely under Google's control, and Google as a whole is not open in any meaningful sense of the word. By any definition that Google is open, one could likewise claim that Apple is open, or pretty much anyone who's ever released anything as open source. Only a fool would accept that Google and Android are open.
He's changed the subject to whether or not Google has released its source code and a free license, and whether or not Google gives it away to people for free so they can repackage it for sale. Maybe that is what he meant in the first place. I find it harder and harder to tell.
Oh, I see, you're confused about 'free' and 'open'. It's a common mistake.
Political parties also engage in this boogeyman strategy. Note that two entities often use each other as PR boogeymen, while simultaneously cooperating behind the scenes to preserve and advance their power over smaller rivals(e.g. political "bipartisanship", international trade agreements, Jobs and Schmidt playing footsie at the coffee shop). The name calling in public is just part of the courtly dance they do.
Yes.. I believe they fall into the catagory of Government figures. Good expansion of my original comment though.. Thank you.
Add tons more carriers? Apple would jump at the chance if they were able. They needed an exclusive contract with AT&T to get the iPhone going. If they added another carrier now, they would be breaking the law.
No, they would be breaking their contract. They'd pay the appropriate penalties and that's it. They are maintaining exclusivity for their own benefit/profit. Not yours. And that's fine. But it does leave the consumer worse off, if the iPhone is tied to one network in the US. There's no denying that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGreatBug
Blu-ray? Apple is just waiting. They love Blu-ray, they're just not ready.
Didn't Jobs say that he thought physical media was going to be irrelevant soon? If that's his take, I could see Apple bypassing Blu-ray altogether. Just look at the MacBook Air. And look at the iPad. Not even a USB port.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGreatBug
And about opening up their products, who cares? If Apple allowed non-App Store applications, I would seriously consider switching to another company if I didn't love the iPhone so much. Not many people care if it's closed. Normal people don't even understand the difference.
What would you think if Apple required all software running on Macs to be Apple approved and sold at the Apple store? Why can't there be a happy medium? I'd envision something like an Apple App Store (as today) which has Apple approved content and the ability to install applications from elsewhere if you wish, but at your peril. A simple warning, reminding the user that it's not an Apple approved application and that the user faces additional risk in installing this app. They can even offer options for parental control that limit the phone to only App store apps. I just don't understand the need for an absolute prohibition on non-Apple sourced apps with Apple as the perpetual gatekeeper for the App store.
Same for iTunes. Why is synching with iTunes a must? Why can't Apple just go OTA for everything? You should not ever need a computer to maintain a smartphone.
I'm where mitchelljd is right now. I love Apple products. But the restrictions can keep me from buying more Apple stuff. For example, there's a new carrier I really want to use. And here in Canada, where we have high cellular rates, the new carriers offer substantial savings. They don't support the iPhone, however, since they run on AWS (same as T-Mobile USA). So I have to choose between saving $20 per month on this new carrier or an iPhone.
Nobody says Apple has to completely ditch its highly integrated product line/service model. But I can't see how opening up a little wouldn't benefit them. The iPod took off after iTunes showed up on Windows. Similarly, the iPhone would do better if it was offered on more carriers.
"If Google did not act, we faced a Draconian future where some other man, some other company, some other device, some other carrier would be our only choice," Gundotra said. "Google only.... that's a future we want."
He was referring to why "Google made Android."
...It was a purely defensive move to prevent Apple from dominating the smartphone market. Unfortunately, he got the timeline wrong!
I posted this to another thread:
My, weren't they prescient!
"In July 2005, Google acquired Android, Inc., a small startup company based in Palo Alto, California, USA."
Comments
I like Google's open-ness mantra. It's funny to note, however, that they're open in segments that DON'T generate money.
Why don't they open up their AdSense and search algorithms? Of course the fuck not.
Google is "open" only when it wishes to lure the open source community into its service to undermine competitors. Well, that and as a blatant marketing ploy, of course: "We're all about openness." Sounds a lot like the Adobe Flash mantra, doesn't it? And we all know how open Flash is.
Indeed, you can set up your own Google search for your own computer. It works incredibly well. Google Desktop. It is astounding, really.
It's been used on several internal networks (not connected to the WWW) that I've worked on.
I thought everybody knew that you could do this?
Don't these curves follow several traditional trajectories?
I've seen a lot of curves for new products that are very flat near the left, as the early adopters buy them, and then get steeper and steeper as they enter an exponential growth portion of the curve, but then tend to flatten out again as they become mature.
I think that Android is in the exponential growth phase, while iPhone OS has become a more mature product. If/when Apple goes to more US carriers, I would expect the curve to get much steeper, very quickly, given that to a lot of consumers, it would represent a new product.
But none of this can really be used to predict the level at which the curve will flatten out, or whether it will remain flat, given product changes. Nobody knows with any certainty or in any detail what the future market share will be for any of these technologies.
If I were to guess, I think that Android will surpass iPhone OS in every area - phones, tablets, netbooks, STBs, automobile/emergency OSs, misc. handheld/palmtop devices - but I have no reliable crystal balls.
You are absolutely correct -- it's the classic "S" curve, with three phases: early adoption, penetration, saturation.
It's been used on several internal networks (not connected to the WWW) that I've worked on.
I thought everybody knew that you could do this?
Everybody does. But since the response sidesteps the issue, and not very cleverly, it's irrelevant to the discussion.
I see you're a little slow, so I'll help you out. "Where it really matters" refers to the core technologies the company is built on -- e.g. Google Search. Duh! I love these trolls.
Your original statement was "Oh, please, there's nothing open about Android or Google. "
But please keep going.
1- Apple needs to open up their products more
2- iphone ought to be able to install programs/apps NOT distributed via itunes
3- apple ought not have to approve each and every app for the phone, stop being the gatekeeper and censorer!
4- apple ought to embrace tons more cellular providers, stop tying their service to carriers who they get income from. start focusing on allowing consumers to pick their own provider, not get bogged down with horrible service from AT&T
Apple also needs to open up
Apple TV - allow companies like netflix, sirius/xm, slingbox client, pandora and more to have programs work on it.
Ipad - just like on the iphone, Apple needs to open this up.
Sorry, but consumers are starting to feel what apple is doing. restricting users to their approved world view. yes 1984 in part. The hard problem here is that software can be opened up, Apple can become more friendly.
Apple ought to embrace Blu-Ray in desktops and definitely the Macbook Pro line.
Apple needs to stop its 1984 ... possibly evil tendencies.
I wonder what drives Google.. altruism? Dollars? My gut feeling is that Apple is quite a bit more honest about their intentions than good ol' Google.
Both Apple and Google have exactly the same driver and exactly the same goal:
Both want to maximize total profits.
An open and free market place is the way to go.
Regulations and constraints are so 'Obama' and 'Jobs', so socialist and paternalist, so anti-free-enterprise and anti-geeks; why don't we cut them to size and let Hell break loose for a while. After all, Wealth costs money and Poverty is free.
Comments co-sponsored by:
the Oil Industry, the Bank Cartel, the Insurance Industry, Wall Street, your friendly Google and Facebook service providers, and AsianBob/Asharian heavyweight Blogging tag-team.
as a Mac user, and iphone owner, my thoughts on this are that:
1- Apple needs to open up their products more
2- iphone ought to be able to install programs/apps NOT distributed via itunes
3- apple ought not have to approve each and every app for the phone, stop being the gatekeeper and censorer!
4- apple ought to embrace tons more cellular providers, stop tying their service to carriers who they get income from. start focusing on allowing consumers to pick their own provider, not get bogged down with horrible service from AT&T
Apple also needs to open up
Apple TV - allow companies like netflix, sirius/xm, slingbox client, pandora and more to have programs work on it.
Ipad - just like on the iphone, Apple needs to open this up.
Sorry, but consumers are starting to feel what apple is doing. restricting users to their approved world view. yes 1984 in part. The hard problem here is that software can be opened up, Apple can become more friendly.
Apple ought to embrace Blu-Ray in desktops and definitely the Macbook Pro line.
Apple needs to stop its 1984 ... possibly evil tendencies.
This is all tongue in cheek, right??!!
as a Mac user, and iphone owner, my thoughts on this are that:
1- Apple needs to open up their products more
2- iphone ought to be able to install programs/apps NOT distributed via itunes
3- apple ought not have to approve each and every app for the phone, stop being the gatekeeper and censorer!
4- apple ought to embrace tons more cellular providers, stop tying their service to carriers who they get income from. start focusing on allowing consumers to pick their own provider, not get bogged down with horrible service from AT&T
Apple also needs to open up
Apple TV - allow companies like netflix, sirius/xm, slingbox client, pandora and more to have programs work on it.
Ipad - just like on the iphone, Apple needs to open this up.
Sorry, but consumers are starting to feel what apple is doing. restricting users to their approved world view. yes 1984 in part. The hard problem here is that software can be opened up, Apple can become more friendly.
Apple ought to embrace Blu-Ray in desktops and definitely the Macbook Pro line.
Apple needs to stop its 1984 ... possibly evil tendencies.
Add tons more carriers? Apple would jump at the chance if they were able. They needed an exclusive contract with AT&T to get the iPhone going. If they added another carrier now, they would be breaking the law.
Blu-ray? Apple is just waiting. They love Blu-ray, they're just not ready.
And about opening up their products, who cares? If Apple allowed non-App Store applications, I would seriously consider switching to another company if I didn't love the iPhone so much. Not many people care if it's closed. Normal people don't even understand the difference.
Google is "open" only when it wishes to lure the open source community into its service to undermine competitors. Well, that and as a blatant marketing ploy, of course: "We're all about openness." Sounds a lot like the Adobe Flash mantra, doesn't it? And we all know how open Flash is.
You said "Oh, please, there's nothing open about Android or Google."
Is it still "nothing"?
You are welcome to say that your original statement was overbroad, and that what you really should have said was covered in subsequent posts.
But I don't really know, and I'm interested in what you really meant, and as of now, guessing seems to be my best alternative.
Steve Job's does this kind of stuff in keynotes all the time.
It was funny then. It's funny now.
It's been used on several internal networks (not connected to the WWW) that I've worked on.
I thought everybody knew that you could do this?
He's changed the subject to whether or not Google has released its source code and a free license, and whether or not Google gives it away to people for free so they can repackage it for sale. Maybe that is what he meant in the first place. I find it harder and harder to tell.
You said "Oh, please, there's nothing open about Android or Google."
Is it still "nothing"?
You are welcome to say that your original statement was overbroad, and that what you really should have said was covered in subsequent posts.
But I don't really know, and I'm interested in what you really meant, and as of now, guessing seems to be my best alternative.
Or just reading through the posts, if you were really "interested", as you claim. Yes, I still maintain that Android is not open but is, for all intents and purposes, entirely under Google's control, and Google as a whole is not open in any meaningful sense of the word. By any definition that Google is open, one could likewise claim that Apple is open, or pretty much anyone who's ever released anything as open source. Only a fool would accept that Google and Android are open.
He's changed the subject to whether or not Google has released its source code and a free license, and whether or not Google gives it away to people for free so they can repackage it for sale. Maybe that is what he meant in the first place. I find it harder and harder to tell.
Oh, I see, you're confused about 'free' and 'open'. It's a common mistake.
Google entered the mobile market because they saw that they were being shutout of mobile advertising not because they wanted to be a super hero.
Someone should write a "brick my Nexus One" Android App and submit it to their app store.
I wonder if it will get approved.......
Political parties also engage in this boogeyman strategy. Note that two entities often use each other as PR boogeymen, while simultaneously cooperating behind the scenes to preserve and advance their power over smaller rivals(e.g. political "bipartisanship", international trade agreements, Jobs and Schmidt playing footsie at the coffee shop). The name calling in public is just part of the courtly dance they do.
Yes.. I believe they fall into the catagory of Government figures. Good expansion of my original comment though.. Thank you.
Add tons more carriers? Apple would jump at the chance if they were able. They needed an exclusive contract with AT&T to get the iPhone going. If they added another carrier now, they would be breaking the law.
No, they would be breaking their contract. They'd pay the appropriate penalties and that's it. They are maintaining exclusivity for their own benefit/profit. Not yours. And that's fine. But it does leave the consumer worse off, if the iPhone is tied to one network in the US. There's no denying that.
Blu-ray? Apple is just waiting. They love Blu-ray, they're just not ready.
Didn't Jobs say that he thought physical media was going to be irrelevant soon? If that's his take, I could see Apple bypassing Blu-ray altogether. Just look at the MacBook Air. And look at the iPad. Not even a USB port.
And about opening up their products, who cares? If Apple allowed non-App Store applications, I would seriously consider switching to another company if I didn't love the iPhone so much. Not many people care if it's closed. Normal people don't even understand the difference.
What would you think if Apple required all software running on Macs to be Apple approved and sold at the Apple store? Why can't there be a happy medium? I'd envision something like an Apple App Store (as today) which has Apple approved content and the ability to install applications from elsewhere if you wish, but at your peril. A simple warning, reminding the user that it's not an Apple approved application and that the user faces additional risk in installing this app. They can even offer options for parental control that limit the phone to only App store apps. I just don't understand the need for an absolute prohibition on non-Apple sourced apps with Apple as the perpetual gatekeeper for the App store.
Same for iTunes. Why is synching with iTunes a must? Why can't Apple just go OTA for everything? You should not ever need a computer to maintain a smartphone.
I'm where mitchelljd is right now. I love Apple products. But the restrictions can keep me from buying more Apple stuff. For example, there's a new carrier I really want to use. And here in Canada, where we have high cellular rates, the new carriers offer substantial savings. They don't support the iPhone, however, since they run on AWS (same as T-Mobile USA). So I have to choose between saving $20 per month on this new carrier or an iPhone.
Nobody says Apple has to completely ditch its highly integrated product line/service model. But I can't see how opening up a little wouldn't benefit them. The iPod took off after iTunes showed up on Windows. Similarly, the iPhone would do better if it was offered on more carriers.
"If Google did not act, we faced a Draconian future where some other man, some other company, some other device, some other carrier would be our only choice," Gundotra said. "Google only.... that's a future we want."
He was referring to why "Google made Android."
...It was a purely defensive move to prevent Apple from dominating the smartphone market. Unfortunately, he got the timeline wrong!
I posted this to another thread:
My, weren't they prescient!
"In July 2005, Google acquired Android, Inc., a small startup company based in Palo Alto, California, USA."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)
Yeah, right!
Dick Applebaum