or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google announces plans to acquire Motorola Mobility for $12.5B
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google announces plans to acquire Motorola Mobility for $12.5B - Page 6

post #201 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

you say 'controlling' i say 'fully integrated'

We live in a 'facebook' world now. One cannot stay anonymous to your connected devices. All devices are tracked. Its the new reality. Its how said company uses your personal data is whats important. I am personally not 'afraid' of being tracked by Google.

Carriers track your location
ISP's track how much bandwidth you use
Facebook monitors what you like and dislike, and sells your personal information to 3rd party entities
Your credit score and finances can be checked through various online resources
Websites have been tracking your internet surfing habits for years through cookies
The list goes on...

And one Google to rule them all.......

I can't imagine anything online that's scarier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

This whole notion of 'Google gonna control your life' is a weak argument.

Not given Google's unending string of theft of IP and violation of personal privacy.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #202 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunspot42 View Post

And at the rate Motorola is burning thru cash, that won't last very long. Motorola is up against not only Apple and Nokia, but also Samsung and LG (and possibly HP, if they ever get their act together). All of them are larger, with better balance sheets.

Oh the cash would have lasted for several years at present rates, even at the rate that they lost over the last two quarters it still would have taken 12 years. Moto wasn't a success by any stretch but neither were they bleeding to death fast - it was more of a slow drip of failure.

They'd been treading water for years and they seemed quite able to continue to do so. There was no urgent need for them to sell their patents for a quick buck and indeed Jha's recent comments could be parsed as a public refusal to do so.
post #203 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

And one Google to rule them all.......

I can't imagine anything online that's scarier.

One Microsoft to rule them all? It would be just like one Google to rule them all but with worse services
post #204 of 237
Sheesh, there is a lot of assumptions (realistic and unrealistic) in this thread regarding Google's intent (that goes against their exact words), OEMs responses (despite them being elated by this news - news which backs up Google's previous claims that it'll protect it's OEMs) and the future of Android.

Google may be iffy and all and being a publicly traded company I trust them as much as I trust any politician but they still have a certain style of doing things.

This reminds me of people saying Google would sue everyone if they won the Nortel (or Norvell...or both) patents despite Google having a very absent record when it comes to being on a patent offensive.

Time will tell, and this is all interesting news...I'd rather they not get into the Hardware business and I doubt they will.

Now if they'd fix Android a bit more....just polish it and offer better templates for app devs so making an beautiful app becomes a norm (easy to do) not a triumph (more time consuming though possible)
post #205 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

As a tech enthusiast, I'm STOKED!




Are all of those Motorola Mobility products? Or do they include products made by other divisions too?
post #206 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

Are all of those Motorola Mobility products? Or do they include products made by other divisions too?

all that is part of Motorola Mobility Inc.

If you scroll down to bottom of page, you'll see it.

post #207 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Sheesh, there is a lot of assumptions (realistic and unrealistic) in this thread regarding Google's intent (that goes against their exact words), OEMs responses (despite them being elated by this news - news which backs up Google's previous claims that it'll protect it's OEMs) and the future of Android.

Indeed. But those who make these assumptions are rather confident they are right. Fascinating the level of conviction that exists.
post #208 of 237
First Google complains that Apple/Microsoft ganged up on them to acquire the Nortel patents, then it was revealed that they forgot to mention that they were invited to be part of the Nortel acquisition, now they want to raise the "victim of conspiracy against Google" card again by saying that's why they have to acquire Motorola. Poor, victimized Google. They're not the underdog here, people. Their smartphone platform dominates and yet they dare play the victim.

They want to be in the smartphone handset business, and they need a smokescreen to justify it to their partners, whom they will be competing against. "It's because of the Apple/Microsoft conspiracy," they say. And everyone faithful to Google buys it.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #209 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I don't think you can equate using Google Services with trusting Google. They do some things very well -- and it would be self-defeating not to use those services.

But trust... No!

I am interested in learning how you know whether millions of people trust Google or not. I respect that your conviction in distrusting them. I believe you have friends who feel the same way, and have read about the same sentiment in online fora. But that's a small and biased representation of the world.
post #210 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

First Google complains that Apple/Microsoft ganged up on them to acquire the Nortel patents, then it was revealed that they forgot to mention that they were invited to be part of the Nortel acquisition, . .

No they weren't, but that's a common misunderstanding.

Microsoft did ask if they were interested in joining them in some sort of partnership arrangement for the NOVELL patents purchased last year. But there's no claim they were welcome to join the Rockstar group headed by Apple/Microsoft for the Nortel patent bid.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #211 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

what are all the Moto-Blur software developers going to do? I have a feeling a lot of software engineers on Moto side will get the boot? Or maybe GOOG might be nice enough to take them under their wing. Lets see how this plays out. I'm extremely excited about this news though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

We don't even have an announcement that Moto is going to kill Moto Blur with this merger, though certainly there will be great jubilation in the Android community if Moto promises to abjure hideous reskins in future and stick with stock android.

Interesting observation - what will happen to MotoBlur? The *stock* android UI needs to step up in order to be appealing to the masses who crave easy access to social media and other like apps.
post #212 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

I am interested in learning how you know whether millions of people trust Google or not. I respect that your conviction in distrusting them. I believe you have friends who feel the same way, and have read about the same sentiment in online fora. But that's a small and biased representation of the world.

I don't claim to know how others feel about Google -- or whether they trust them.

I suspect the majority of the population knows and cares little about how Google operates -- they simply use their services.

However, it is not uncommon to use a service where no equal or better alternative is available -- that does not mean one trusts the provider -- rather, that it was the best (or only) alternative available.

I believe, I originally asked if anyone trusts Google? You responded that millions used their services.

A poor analog, I know... But, millions of people used the services of the East German Government -- but I doubt if many trusted them.

Like many, I take what I see on TV, read, hear, see on the Internet with healthy skepticism... as do you, I suspect!


After all it's what people do that defines them -- not what they say.

IMO, Google has a very bad record of doing unethical things -- I don't trust them!

Who does trust Google?

Do you?
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #213 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by juandl View Post

Google probably did buy Moto for their patents.
But this surely will not hold up Apple one bit. If the patents were being infringed Motorola is trying hard to stick it to Apple in the courts now.
Maybe Google has better Lawyers.
More than anything. Once the Samsungs and HTC's start jumping ship to Microsoft, this will give Google one company that is their very own.
All in all, the biggest losers will be Google. That is one big chunk of change.

Not necessarily.

I think that mindset is a bit different here. iPhone owners buy iPhone because it is Apple - I'm pretty sure many of them don't know or don't care what OS and what version of OS they run; Motivating factor here is Apple, not iOS.

But with Android, motivating factor seems to be software (Android) rather than hardware brand. Pretty much every Android user I know was considering number of devices from different manufacturers - at least I haven't met yet die-hard Samsung or HTC or... fan. Preferences are based on hardware specs rather than on name.

So... even if other manufacturers move to MS, I don't think that will hurt Android too much - presuming that Motorola will cover market with variety of different handsets. Which shouldn't be a problem for them if all Android market belongs to them only.
post #214 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Interesting perspective. But I disagree.

Andy Rubin is decidedly smart, accomplished ... when it comes to software. But what's his background and track record when it comes to hardware design? Even if we assume he had a big say in the design of the Sidekick at Danger, it was nothing remarkable (although, in terms of function, the product arguably helped to usher in the smartphone era).

Rubin already has had chances to influence if not control the design of Android phones in the Nexus reference series. Although each Nexus phone has been interesting and ahead of previous Droids, none has been groundbreaking or a standout. This is not surprising - Andy Rubin is not Steve Jobs. He is not Jonathan Ive. (Of course, they are not Andy Rubin either.) There is something special about the Apple culture built by Jobs that leads to the unique products that it generates. Jon Rubenstein took a bit of that magic with him to Palm, resulting in the distinctive Pre and WebOS. Neither Google nor Motorola has that kind of culture. Merging them will not produce it. This is no slag on either, for both are very good at what they do.

All to say, I expect to see improvement in the integration of hardware and software as a result of this merger, but I don't expect landscape shifting changes in the hardware.

This is an argument against Google doing a good job of taking over Motorola, not against them just doing it.

I don't think the Google culture necessarily level-headily evaluates their strengths and weaknesses and decides to stay out of areas they lack expertise-- just look at all the acquisitions that went nowhere.

If not Rubin then someone else within the organization is going to be sorely tempted to bring some of Google's self promoting "intelligence" to bear on Moto. Google is not a modest company, and they are not staffed by modest people. They may not know much about hardware, but rest assure they feel they know everything worth knowing about how to organize and staff a business.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #215 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

First Google complains that Apple/Microsoft ganged up on them to acquire the Nortel patents, then it was revealed that they forgot to mention that they were invited to be part of the Nortel acquisition, now they want to raise the "victim of conspiracy against Google" card again by saying that's why they have to acquire Motorola. Poor, victimized Google. They're not the underdog here, people. Their smartphone platform dominates and yet they dare play the victim.

They want to be in the smartphone handset business, and they need a smokescreen to justify it to their partners, whom they will be competing against. "It's because of the Apple/Microsoft conspiracy," they say. And everyone faithful to Google buys it.

And we didn't land on the moon, the government is well aware of Aliens LIVING AMONGST US!!! JFK was assassinated by a second gunman and "add-your-own-conspiracy-here"

In reality Google was quite clear on why they said no to the offer to join the consortium and lie or not, their reasoning makes sense...funny how you forgot to mention that as I'm sure it was in the same article as them saying "No" to the consortium...fancy that...something tells me you are being willfully ignorant.

As for playing the underdog? doubtful...they are not...what they are doing is building up a shield against the ever increasing litigation against their platform OEMs...which...ummm...is...uhhh...logical? smart? a duh moment? something they expressed interest in for maybe a year or more now?

try harder.
post #216 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

you say 'controlling' i say 'fully integrated'

We live in a 'facebook' world now. One cannot stay anonymous to your connected devices. All devices are tracked. Its the new reality. Its how said company uses your personal data is whats important. I am personally not 'afraid' of being tracked by Google.

Carriers track your location
ISP's track how much bandwidth you use
Facebook monitors what you like and dislike, and sells your personal information to 3rd party entities
Your credit score and finances can be checked through various online resources
Websites have been tracking your internet surfing habits for years through cookies
The list goes on...

This whole notion of 'Google gonna control your life' is a weak argument.

I've noticed the Google fanboys typically use this defense-- that a list of other companies do various bits of pieces of what Google does.

That, of course, ignores the fact that the entire problem with Google is that it does all of those things, and more, and makes all of that information accessible to the highest bidder, not to mention their steady accrual of a virtual profile that provides those bidders with a highly detailed, highly nuanced model that draws on every aspect of your life.

Add to that their near monopoly on search, which makes them more or less gatekeepers of the internet, and you have in Google an unprecedented concentration of information-- and information is all that matters in the wired world.

The weak argument is claiming that things like having a credit score based on credit card use somehow normalizes and excuses what Google has become. Google wants a piece of each and every transaction on the internet-- which is to say a piece of virtually every aspect of modern life. They want that to improve their product, which is you. You in as much detail as can be described by knowing every single thing you do, every place you go, every person you contact, every electronic message you send, every document you edit, every call you make, every item you buy, every item you research, every question you ask, every site you visit and every piece of media you consume.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #217 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Indeed. But those who make these assumptions are rather confident they are right. Fascinating the level of conviction that exists.

Definitely...it's that kind of die-hard conviction to any set of information (True or not) that leads to riots, lynching, etc...it's a mob mentality and while it is prevalent on all sides the Apple side is scary.

Based on my time on Android blogs and Apple blogs, iPhanboys and fandroids are as different as Fundamentalist Muslims and "militant" Atheists respectively.
post #218 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksec View Post

No, they didn't bought Motorola because of building Andriod Devices or making hardware etc. They brought Moto because of their HUGE patents portfolio.

I have always called for Apple to acquire Moto. They have a gigantic no. of patents relating to Tele communication, much more then Nortel or Nokia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Give this man a cigar!

Many of Motorola's wireless/wifi patents are quite old, I would guess.

Not sure how much longer they can put a wall around them.
post #219 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I've noticed the Google fanboys typically use this defense-- that a list of other companies do various bits of pieces of what Google does.

That, of course, ignores the fact that the entire problem with Google is that it does all of those things, and more, and makes all of that information accessible to the highest bidder, not to mention their steady accrual of a virtual profile that provides those bidders with a highly detailed, highly nuanced model that draws on every aspect of your life.

Add to that their near monopoly on search, which makes them more or less gatekeepers of the internet, and you have in Google an unprecedented concentration of information-- and information is all that matters in the wired world.

The weak argument is claiming that things like having a credit score based on credit card use somehow normalizes and excuses what Google has become. Google wants a piece of each and every transaction on the internet-- which is to say a piece of virtually every aspect of modern life. They want that to improve their product, which is you. You in as much detail as can be described by knowing every single thing you do, every place you go, every person you contact, every electronic message you send, every document you edit, every call you make, every item you buy, every item you research, every question you ask, every site you visit and every piece of media you consume.

Serious question...what is your point?

You said alot, but you really made no point and seem to be trying to drum up a scare tactic rather than make a solid point.

Google is no greater of however many evils...Google is a multinational corporation out to make a profit.

Like Apple, Like Facebook, Like Microsoft, etc...etc...

I don't see how they are possibly worse aside from either overexaggerated or in some cases straight up made up details a la Microsoft's "Gmail Man" commercials.
post #220 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I've noticed the Google fanboys typically use this defense-- that a list of other companies do various bits of pieces of what Google does.

That, of course, ignores the fact that the entire problem with Google is that it does all of those things, and more, and makes all of that information accessible to the highest bidder, not to mention their steady accrual of a virtual profile that provides those bidders with a highly detailed, highly nuanced model that draws on every aspect of your life.

Add to that their near monopoly on search, which makes them more or less gatekeepers of the internet, and you have in Google an unprecedented concentration of information-- and information is all that matters in the wired world.

The weak argument is claiming that things like having a credit score based on credit card use somehow normalizes and excuses what Google has become. Google wants a piece of each and every transaction on the internet-- which is to say a piece of virtually every aspect of modern life. They want that to improve their product, which is you in as much detail as knowing every single thing you do, every place you go, every person you contact, every electronic message you send, every document you edit, every call you make, every item you buy, every item you research, every question you ask, every site you visit and every piece of media you consume.

Never in the existence of Google has it used my personal information in a negative shape, form, fashion.

Sadly, this is the way the internet is going. I do not like it either, but say goodbye to 'anonymity' online. It looks as though this is standard protocol now.

The moment you are online, your presence is compromised. The facebook world we live in does not show an alternative.

Even on Google+, its mandatory to use a 'real name.' Obviously this is done to monetize you, the individual, into the Google platform/ecosystem.

If one is worried about these developments, I wonder why these same people go nuts over the patriot act, yet expose their personal information through facebook.
post #221 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

This is an argument against Google doing a good job of taking over Motorola, not against them just doing it.

I don't think the Google culture necessarily level-headily evaluates their strengths and weaknesses and decides to stay out of areas they lack expertise-- just look at all the acquisitions that went nowhere.

If not Rubin then someone else within the organization is going to be sorely tempted to bring some of Google's self promoting "intelligence" to bear on Moto. Google is not a modest company, and they are not staffed by modest people. They may not know much about hardware, but rest assure they feel they know everything worth knowing about how to organize and staff a business.

I don't disagree that Google may well have aspirations they can compete with Apple on design. In fact, I don't think I have argued that at all. My point is - they can't do it unless they change their culture. Google is an engineering company first and foremost. At one point, Marissa Mayer was given much leeway in the look and feel of their website. But with Eric Schmidt passing on the reins to Larry Page, Mayer has been given (shunted?) a different role, apparently outside the circle of influence. All to say, the design ethos is very different there in comparison to Apple.

Engineers generally are not good industrial designers (speaking as an engineer myself). Intelligence alone does not confer design talent. Arguably, conventional intelligence works on the wrong side of the brain. Jonathan Ive is NOT an engineer by training, but has a dominant role at Apple that few non-engineers have in almost all other computer companies. Will Google give similar power and freedom to an industrial designer on par with Ive? Even if they do, will that person have the equivalent of Steve Jobs to be the final discerning eye? Incidentally, Jobs is not an engineer either. At Google, he would not be qualified to lead. At Apple, he is the difference maker in Think Different.
post #222 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post



Listen To Me!

Maybe a Google takeover will make future Droid phones have cuter names, like Droid Popsicle or Droid Shortcake, instead of Motorola's thick-with-hyperbole names like "Droid Invincible" or "Droid 4G Hard-on" or whatever.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #223 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post

I thought the design behind Android let IT be tailored to fit any hardware. Isn't tailoring the hardware to suit the software the opposite of that? Or are they just copying Apple once again and making hardware and software together that are designed from the get go to work together? ANd what impact will that have on any other mfgs desire to use the OS?

They actually don't seem to believe that vision anymore. These days, they've talked seriously about addressing fragmentation, and the only way they seem to know how to do it is to become less open, less permissive, at least to what they'll let manufacturers put on their phones and still call "Android". I personally don't develop for Android, so I don't see why fragmentation is such a big problem. Android proliferated in marketshare very quickly and fragmentation is a natural side effect. Comes with the territory.

I think it's interesting that there were rumors Motorola wanted to build their own OS to compete against Android. If true, this probably puts any such project into a shallow grave.

As for the partners they didn't buy, well I don't think they have a choice. HP and RIM won't license their OS, Symbian is near death, so I have to think their only other choice is Windows Phone 7. The problem with that option is that buyers don't seem to really care about it right now. So they're left with Android. I'm sure that is not lost on Google; they know what cards they hold in this poker game.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #224 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

Never in the existence of Google has it used my personal information in a negative shape, form, fashion.

how do you know this... Especially from an organization whose CEO said (paraphrased): "if you don't want someone to know what you are doing -- maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place"?

That should be your decision... not his!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #225 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

I don't disagree that Google may well have aspirations they can compete with Apple on design. In fact, I don't think I have argued that at all. My point is - they can't do it unless they change their culture. Google is an engineering company first and foremost. At one point, Marissa Mayer was given much leeway in the look and feel of their website. But with Eric Schmidt passing on the reins to Larry Page, Mayer has been given (shunted?) a different role, apparently outside the circle of influence. All to say, the design ethos is very different there in comparison to Apple.

Engineers generally are not good industrial designers (speaking as an engineer myself). Intelligence alone does not confer design talent. Arguably, conventional intelligence works on the wrong side of the brain. Jonathan Ive is NOT an engineer by training, but has a dominant role at Apple that few non-engineers have in almost all other computer companies. Will Google give similar power and freedom to an industrial designer on par with Ive? Even if they do, will that person have the equivalent of Steve Jobs to be the final discerning eye? Incidentally, Jobs is not an engineer either. At Google, he would not be qualified to lead. At Apple, he is the difference maker in Think Different.

Right, I don't disagree with any of that, I'm just responding to the idea that Google will leave Moto alone to carry on as an independent hardware company. They don't have to be good industrial designers to be tempted to tinker.

My impression is that Google's culture will tend towards intervention, whether or not intervention is actually in their best interests.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #226 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

how do you know this... Especially from an organization whose CEO said (paraphrased): "if you don't want someone to know what you are doing -- maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place"?

That should be your decision... not his!

It's a test of faith in Google's not being evil claim. And he passed with flying colors

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #227 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

It's a test of faith in Google's not being evil claim. And he passed with flying colors

This obsession with Google being evil or not is kind of silly but also worrisome. Get help.
post #228 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doxxic View Post

It may be about patents, but it will definitely undermine 3rd party trust in Google.

It will be very tempting to bring all new developments to Motorola devices first, because Google now can develop hardware and software together.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

Also important was Motorolas plan to sue all of the other Android makers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

I agree with most of the posters on here that Google did this primarily for the patents. However, I'm sure Google will still keep releasing a new Nexus phone (and maybe even tablet, eventually) every year. Now they just don't have to partner with a phone maker, since they now own one.

Before most of y'all convinced me it's mostly all about the patent numbers, I had a parody response in mind. Oh well, I'll use it anyway.....

MS (with Nokia's) maybe doin' it,
HP and Web OS are doin' it,
And even Rim always thot they were' doin it,
So now GOOG and MOTOrola are gonna do it,
Let 'em all do it,
Let's ... well, let's all try to copy Apple's model of controlling the HW plus the Software package. Except maybe MS and Google aren't really. And nobody's anywhere close to even where Apple already was, let alone what a year of iOS 5, Lion, iCloud, airDrop, improvements to the stores etc.

Oops, that last don't fit the song....... ...oh well.

Anyway, whatever the relative weights of factors, this deal is hardly all synergy and does guarantee some entropy......

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #229 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

Not necessarily.

I think that mindset is a bit different here. iPhone owners buy iPhone because it is Apple - I'm pretty sure many of them don't know or don't care what OS and what version of OS they run; Motivating factor here is Apple, not iOS.

But with Android, motivating factor seems to be software (Android) rather than hardware brand. Pretty much every Android user I know was considering number of devices from different manufacturers - at least I haven't met yet die-hard Samsung or HTC or... fan. Preferences are based on hardware specs rather than on name.

So... even if other manufacturers move to MS, I don't think that will hurt Android too much - presuming that Motorola will cover market with variety of different handsets. Which shouldn't be a problem for them if all Android market belongs to them only.

People buy iPhones because they are iPhones, not because they are Apple products. And what makes the iPhone different in the average consumer's mind is iOS, not the hardware. How much hardware difference can a user imagine between one candybar phone and the next? Yes, the hardware make it possible for iOS to do certain things, but that is a very secondary/indirect thing to a an average consumer's reasoning in which phone to buy.

I'll agree that a certain subset of the Android buyers think about hardware specs, but most of them will either go Android because of advertised features (OS related), network platform availability or pure pricing related decisions. And even with the OS related decisions it doesn't mean the consumer even knows the market space and all the related pros/cons of all the platforms, it just means a marketing message resonated at the right moment based on some feature desire.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #230 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

how do you know this... Especially from an organization whose CEO said (paraphrased): "if you don't want someone to know what you are doing -- maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place"?

That should be your decision... not his!

how can you trust any person, company, or group for that matter?

you have to use your own judgement.

Personally, I haven't had any negative effects from using Google products, its only improved my productivity.

At the same time, this should be a given: Don't trust any publicly traded company whose sole purpose is to increase profits on a quarterly basis.
post #231 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

how can you trust any person, company, or group for that matter?

you have to use your own judgement.

Personally, I haven't had any negative effects from using Google products, its only improved my productivity.

At the same time, this should be a given: Don't trust any publicly traded company whose sole purpose is to increase profits on a quarterly basis.

Trust isn't really the issue. Obviously any corporation could possibly misuse your information, if only at the mildly irritating level of selling your email address and phone number to telemarketers.

The issue is the amount of information Google has, or potentially has, on their customers, and the fact that Google's business model is to sell that information to the highest bidder. That's all they do. Banks, retail operations, the DMV, insurance companies, the library, your doctor, local governments, licensing agencies, the Social Security Administration, internet sites, etc-- they all collect and share info, to a degree. But Google conceivably has a hand in all of those and more, and definitely wants to have a hand in as many other forms of commerce or information as is possible-- because by being privy to ever more of you life they make more money.

Now, it's easy to say "no problems here, as far as I know Google hasn't provided my info to anyone that means me harm and I don't think there are any scenarios where access to that information would be particularly damaging to me" but in fact you don't know that. You have no idea. And you have no idea what Google might evolve into while still having all your data.

I don't have to imagine that Google is "evil" to be leery of the sheer concentration of power. If my credit card gets stolen I may be on the hook for some monetary damages. If Google gets hacked, or decides the new normal is to sell all of my information to whomever is willing to pay, I'm utterly fucked.

Some people might not mind having their, for instance, power, water, garbage service, internet, cable TV, phone, banking and medical records all handled by the same company. They might find it convenient, and feel the services are first rate. Myself, I see that as a recipe for disaster, since it require only a single point of failure to destroy my life.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #232 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Trust isn't really the issue. Obviously any corporation could possibly misuse your information, if only at the mildly irritating level of selling your email address and phone number to telemarketers.

The issue is the amount of information Google has, or potentially has, on their customers, and the fact that Google's business model is to sell that information to the highest bidder. That's all they do.

Except that they don't Addabox. Your personal data never leaves Google's hands, nor is shared with others without your specific authorization to do so (opt-in). In fact it's a more restrictive policy than even Apple has (opt-out), and you seem to have no issue with Apple's privacy policy, or at least no mention of one. What Google does is market their ability to deliver targeted results. But they don't hand over any of your personal information. That's Google's raw materials, an intrinsic part of their value as a provider of advertising services. They're not letting that out of their control.

If you wish to view Google's policies, reveiw the types of data they store about you and your interests, and even put controls in place to limit the gathering of information, simply visit their privacy site:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/

IMO, they're more transparent in how and what is gathered and give you more control over the process than either Apple or Microsoft. The FUD that's spread around about Google's selling of your private data to the highest bidder seems to be a real success story.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #233 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Trust isn't really the issue. Obviously any corporation could possibly misuse your information, if only at the mildly irritating level of selling your email address and phone number to telemarketers.

The issue is the amount of information Google has, or potentially has, on their customers, and the fact that Google's business model is to sell that information to the highest bidder. That's all they do. Banks, retail operations, the DMV, insurance companies, the library, your doctor, local governments, licensing agencies, the Social Security Administration, internet sites, etc-- they all collect and share info, to a degree. But Google conceivably has a hand in all of those and more, and definitely wants to have a hand in as many other forms of commerce or information as is possible-- because by being privy to ever more of you life they make more money.

Now, it's easy to say "no problems here, as far as I know Google hasn't provided my info to anyone that means me harm and I don't think there are any scenarios where access to that information would be particularly damaging to me" but in fact you don't know that. You have no idea. And you have no idea what Google might evolve into while still having all your data.

I don't have to imagine that Google is "evil" to be leery of the sheer concentration of power. If my credit card gets stolen I may be on the hook for some monetary damages. If Google gets hacked, or decides the new normal is to sell all of my information to whomever is willing to pay, I'm utterly fucked.

Some people might not mind having their, for instance, power, water, garbage service, internet, cable TV, phone, banking and medical records all handled by the same company. They might find it convenient, and feel the services are first rate. Myself, I see that as a recipe for disaster, since it require only a single point of failure to destroy my life.

A lot of your comments, opinions can be said the same for Apple really. Your argument can't fit for one company, but not others. As long as you are in agreement with this, its fine.

One also has no idea what Apple is doing with your credit card information, your data, your phone files, etc. Pinning 'privacy' issues for one company is just a fallacy.

Simply, don't trust ANY corporation, whether its Apple, Microsoft, or Google, etc.

I agree with where you're coming from, with the question you posed: Where will Google take your data in the future?

I think thats a common concern, hence why all the 'SkyNet' phrase comes up often.
post #234 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

A lot of your comments, opinions can be said the same for Apple really. Your argument can't fit for one company, but not others. As long as you are in agreement with this, its fine.

One also has no idea what Apple is doing with your credit card information, your data, your phone files, etc. Pinning 'privacy' issues for one company is just a fallacy.

Simply, don't trust ANY corporation, whether its Apple, Microsoft, or Google, etc.

I agree with where you're coming from, with the question you posed: Where will Google take your data in the future?

I think thats a common concern, hence why all the 'SkyNet' phrase comes up often.

According to Apple they share personal information they've gathered about you "with companies who provide services such as information processing, extending credit, fulfilling customer orders, delivering products to you, managing and enhancing customer data, providing customer service, assessing your interest in our products and services, and conducting customer research or satisfaction surveys. These companies are obligated to protect your information and may be located wherever Apple operates.

Others
It may be necessary − by law, legal process, litigation, and/or requests from public and governmental authorities within or outside your country of residence − for Apple to disclose your personal information. We may also disclose information about you if we determine that for purposes of national security, law enforcement, or other issues of public importance, disclosure is necessary or appropriate.

We may also disclose information about you if we determine that disclosure is reasonably necessary to enforce our terms and conditions or protect our operations or users. Additionally, in the event of a reorganization, merger, or sale we may transfer any and all personal information we collect to the relevant third party."


Yet some members here seem more comfortable with Apple sharing your private data, even your Social Security number (the epitome of personally identifiable information in the US) without your specific approval to Google's written policy requiring your very specific permission to share details about you.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #235 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs View Post

A lot of your comments, opinions can be said the same for Apple really. Your argument can't fit for one company, but not others. As long as you are in agreement with this, its fine.

One also has no idea what Apple is doing with your credit card information, your data, your phone files, etc. Pinning 'privacy' issues for one company is just a fallacy.

Simply, don't trust ANY corporation, whether its Apple, Microsoft, or Google, etc.

I agree with where you're coming from, with the question you posed: Where will Google take your data in the future?

I think thats a common concern, hence why all the 'SkyNet' phrase comes up often.

Again, my point is that Apple doesn't have anything like the scope of Google's data mining available to them, and that Apple's business model isn't predicated on selling that information. It's not about trusting Apple and fearing Google; it's about taking note of the vast array of Google's interests. Their near monopoly on search alone puts them in a unique position among modern corporations. Even the 19th century didn't see cartels spanning as many diverse areas as Google now deals with, and of course the 19th century didn't afford the digital networks that allow those interests to merge in such a fundamental way.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #236 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

But, also don't forget that Google created and has invested enormous amounts into Android for a reason. They see mobile as the future and killing that would have a huge impact on their business. Maybe not as large an immediate hit as Apple would take by losing iOS, but large nonetheless.

As everybody states this im just baffeled. How does providing free os's help in search advertising???? Can Somebody explain please why they would throw billions in the os. They would still would BE the prefered search engine in every OS because of the searchengine Some people think its obvious but Google has sworn that is will not use android to collect data of users. The _ONLY_ thing that i could come up with is user profiling. They need a name to go with the search results and other services! Google doesnt have a good trackrecord of being honest (no result tampering of paid advertisements remember anyone). I think this os thing will sink Google in the end and it will loose big time in the search field to the next good searchengine contender that comes along.
post #237 of 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Except that they don't Addabox. Your personal data never leaves Google's hands, nor is shared with others without your specific authorization to do so (opt-in). In fact it's a more restrictive policy than even Apple has (opt-out), and you seem to have no issue with Apple's privacy policy, or at least no mention of one. What Google does is market their ability to deliver targeted results. But they don't hand over any of your personal information. That's Google's raw materials, an intrinsic part of their value as a provider of advertising services. They're not letting that out of their control.

If you wish to view Google's policies, reveiw the types of data they store about you and your interests, and even put controls in place to limit the gathering of information, simply visit their privacy site:
http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/

IMO, they're more transparent in how and what is gathered and give you more control over the process than either Apple or Microsoft. The FUD that's spread around about Google's selling of your private data to the highest bidder seems to be a real success story.

And why is it they invest so much in android and crome os again. If they dont disclose or use any other information they dont need android at all they already have all this information!!! Come on, dont be so naive and stupid!!! They throw billions into it for what reason???? Goodness of the hart doesnt count (your free to guess why)

As an executive in a big company YOU would have to convince the other executives why it is such a good business to throw much more than 13 billion to the scrapbin on a os that you give for free and that doesnt add anything to the searchresults As YOU and Google say it doesnt.

I Just cant understand the trust that all these fandroids have in Google the used car salesman. Atleast they know how to clowd some peoples thinking on privacy by waving the open/free methodology flag. And to even make people believe that stealing and giving it for free is not a bad thing even if they steal for themself at the same time. They purport themselves as the corporate "Robin hood". Its just not that we know their motives. And what they say and what they do don't go hand in hand anymore ( just answer the question I asked)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google announces plans to acquire Motorola Mobility for $12.5B