or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Launch of Google Maps for iPhone viewed as a 'mixed blessing' for Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Launch of Google Maps for iPhone viewed as a 'mixed blessing' for Apple - Page 7

post #241 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I'm not talking about the AppStore. I'm talking about a native app that comes with the phone. The original maps app and original youtube app had no Google branding. Fast forward 5 years with Google being one of Apple's major competitors. It's nuts to think Apple would allow a stock app with Google's branding all over it. ...

 

I think you're right about YouTube, but the original Maps app always had Google branding.  From a July 2007 iPhone review:

 

700

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by macarena View Post

This Macquarie analyst has it completely wrong. This is not how Traffic Acquisition costs work at Google. It is not that Google pays Apple some percentage of the revenue that accrues because of Apple. Google's entire Traffic Acquisition costs consists of 2 components - One large annual payment to Apple, and another sizable annual payment to the Mozilla Foundation. And a few insignificant payments to a few other ecosystems. None of these payments are related to actual revenue figures.

 

Google's payment to Apple and Mozilla to be their default search engine is less than 10% of their TAC.

 

Quote:

If you look at Google's older reports, the TAC actually was quite insignificant till the iPhone came along. The iPhone was the first time Google had to pay for Traffic Acquisition - and that is when Google decided to take on Apple, and compete against the iPhone with Android.

 

Perhaps you meant something else.  TAC has been going down as a percentage of revenues, for years.  For example, longtime pre-iPhone and now:

 

Google 2Q2006 :  "TAC totaled $785 million, or 32% of advertising revenues."

Google 3Q2012 :  "TAC totaled $2.77 billion, or 26% of advertising revenues."

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by macarena View Post

Android originally targeted not Microsoft, but Blackberry. The only player that was worth targeting back then, in the mobile space, was Blackberry.

 

On the contrary, the only player that no one would go up against back then was RIM.  Way too embedded with enterprises, and not into consumers yet.  Blackberry users were (and still are) NOT a meaningful internet search / ad source.

 

To those of us developing on smartphones at the time, Android was CLEARLY targeted at Windows Mobile:

 

  • Its purpose was to prevent Microsoft from locking Google out of the mobile market.
  • It was planned for two target product types, one touch and one not, just like WinMo. 
  • The first development device was a slight variation of a known WinMo phone.

 

The widespread mistaken idea of targeting Blackberry all started from the blog of a young intern who, like many young people, had no knowledge of the smartphone market prior to 2007.  Later, he posted a corrective note, saying that nobody should listen to his explanations because they were wrong.


Edited by KDarling - 12/17/12 at 6:41am
post #242 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

... The widespread mistaken idea of [Android] targeting Blackberry all started from the blog of a young intern who, like many young people, had no knowledge of the smartphone market prior to 2007.  Later, he posted a corrective note, saying that nobody should listen to his explanations because they were wrong.

 

Hahaha, you're a piece of work. We're so happy you possess the secret knowledge about all these things to enlighten us with.

 

Let's see, decades of touch development, built your own browser engine, secret knowledge of Google's Android plans (including the secret intern)... Is there any knowledge or skill you don't intend to claim? lol.gif

 

You are actually worse than GG, at least the old one. The new GG seems to just be making up facts as he goes along, just like you do.

 

Can't wait to read your next fairy tale.

post #243 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

The only real downside... and it might be a big one for some people... is that they both will give the government access to that info if formally requested.  Of course, the same goes for cell phone records from a phone company.  Or financial records from a bank.  Or airlines.  And so forth.

Right on the heels of your mention, the WSJ reported today on a little-known US Government agency, the National Counterterrorism, Center with widely sweeping powers to keep databases on any citizen they wish and for up to 5 years even if innocent of any wrong-doing. 

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/12/13/national_counterterrorism_center_s_massive_new_surveillance_program_uncovered.html


Edited by Gatorguy - 12/17/12 at 9:09am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #244 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Macarena, after reading your original post I thought you might be on to something, perhaps having some inside knowledge of Apple and Google contracts. You had explained your thoughts in a generally even-handed way without any real bias showing. Your two subsequent posts with the obvious anger towards Google for whatever reason make your original comments seem as they were copied from somewhere else as these are completely out of step with the first post.

 

It leaves the sense you were offering only an opinion, no more and no less valid than my own, rather than a fact-based account.

 

So you decide on the veracity of someone's posts by whether they are "obviously angry", or whether they are "even handed"? By that token, when Jobs made that Thermo nuclear statement, he must have been lying through his teeth?

 

And regarding "obvious anger", can you refute any of the "opinions" I made in that post? Or is it that it was too spot on, and you could not refute it - so you just decided to play the "just an opinion" card?

 

And the best part of the whole thing - "you were only offering an opinion, no more and no less valid than my own" - you are just amazing... even if what I offered was "just" an "opinion", how does it make it as valid as yours? The next time you fall sick, don't bother going to a doctor - your opinion of what's wrong is just as valid as his opinion of what's wrong, so why pay him!?

 

Will give you another chance - point out areas of my post that are wrong, or incorrect, or things you don't agree with, and tell me why. Then there's something to discuss. I gave you several points on the things I did not agree with in your post, with my "opinions" as to why your "opinions" were wrong - let's see you do something similar (if you can). 

post #245 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

 

So you decide on the veracity of someone's posts by whether they are "obviously angry", or whether they are "even handed"? By that token, when Jobs made that Thermo nuclear statement, he must have been lying through his teeth?

 

And regarding "obvious anger", can you refute any of the "opinions" I made in that post? Or is it that it was too spot on, and you could not refute it - so you just decided to play the "just an opinion" card?

 

And the best part of the whole thing - "you were only offering an opinion, no more and no less valid than my own" - you are just amazing... even if what I offered was "just" an "opinion", how does it make it as valid as yours? The next time you fall sick, don't bother going to a doctor - your opinion of what's wrong is just as valid as his opinion of what's wrong, so why pay him!?

 

Will give you another chance - point out areas of my post that are wrong, or incorrect, or things you don't agree with, and tell me why. Then there's something to discuss. I gave you several points on the things I did not agree with in your post, with my "opinions" as to why your "opinions" were wrong - let's see you do something similar (if you can). 

If there's any need to prove anything (and I'm not claiming there is) the onus is on you Macarena. You were the one claiming my opinion was wrong, remember? It wasn't the other way around. Note the last paragraph in this link sir, where I clearly said you could well be right. That you were unable to offer the same acceptance of mine isn't my issue. 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/155019/launch-of-google-maps-for-iphone-viewed-as-a-mixed-blessing-for-apple/200#post_2247314

 

And yes, my opinion is just as valid as yours. With that out of the way I don't know any reliable source that said Google felt any danger to it's core business from RIM and they needed to do something about it. To be clear that doesn't invalidate anything you wrote. It just doesn't support it. IMO Android was all about minimizing Microsoft's impact, just as Apple was concerned about it too. Thus one reason for the original cooperation. They needed each other... and still do. 

 

You also weren't simply stating opinions tho but also posting information we were to accept as fact, including very specific dollar numbers. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually had solid information to base them on. Do you?


Edited by Gatorguy - 12/17/12 at 11:36am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #246 of 255

A few members had questioned the number of Google Maps for iOS downloads. Reports today put the number at 10M in just the first 48 hours.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #247 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by NexusPhan View Post

That's why CNet's top smartphone this year is a Samsung....

http://reviews.cnet.com/holiday-gift-guide/top-gifts/

And Samsung Galaxy series has outsold the iPhone 5. Don't put too much weight with what the customer satisfaction surveys say. If they weren't satisfied, they wouldn't continue to sell so many tens of millions.

Just curious but are your sales numbers comparing the total time the Galaxy phones were on sale or just since the iPhone 5 was released? Also are you including the free phone piece of the BOGO offers or just the phones actually purchased, though I am not sure if there were any on the GS3. Just saying there are many ways to come up with sales figures which is why actual profit matters.
post #248 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Google's payment to Apple and Mozilla to be their default search engine is less than 10% of their TAC.

 

 

Perhaps you meant something else.  TAC has been going down as a percentage of revenues, for years.  For example, longtime pre-iPhone and now:

 

Google 2Q2006 :  "TAC totaled $785 million, or 32% of advertising revenues."

Google 3Q2012 :  "TAC totaled $2.77 billion, or 26% of advertising revenues."

 

 

On the contrary, the only player that no one would go up against back then was RIM.  Way too embedded with enterprises, and not into consumers yet.  Blackberry users were (and still are) NOT a meaningful internet search / ad source.

 

To those of us developing on smartphones at the time, Android was CLEARLY targeted at Windows Mobile:

 

  • Its purpose was to prevent Microsoft from locking Google out of the mobile market.
  • It was planned for two target product types, one touch and one not, just like WinMo. 
  • The first development device was a slight variation of a known WinMo phone.

 

The widespread mistaken idea of targeting Blackberry all started from the blog of a young intern who, like many young people, had no knowledge of the smartphone market prior to 2007.  Later, he posted a corrective note, saying that nobody should listen to his explanations because they were wrong.

 

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. You have a figure that clearly shows Google's TAC has ballooned by over $2B EACH quarter over 6 years. But you chose not to look at how much that figure has increased, and instead focus on the fact that the figure is a lower % of revenue. Did it ever occur to you, that between 2006 and 2012, Google has launched a couple of small projects called Chrome and Android - and these two play a fairly significant part in Google's revenues. And for these 2 products, Google pays ZERO TAC.

 

And from your own data, where do you see Apple getting less than 10% of Google's TAC? Or are you using last years estimated amount paid to Apple, and comparing it with 3Q 2012 TAC of Google? For most sensible people, the fact that Google is now paying $2.7B in TAC EACH quarter, is a good enough indication that Apple is getting about $2.5B each year from Google. But in your math, probably this indicates something else.

 

You seem to be an expert on a lot of things, but math and business probably is not one of your speciality areas - if you ever start a business, I hope you don't target non-existent competition, and target the real competition.

post #249 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

In spite of all the screaming about Apple's maps, no one has yet provided any evidence that x is greater than y, much less that any difference is significant.

For me, it's not just about errors. It's about crappy functionality. The traffic data in Apple's new Maps is just barely above useless. All you get is is red dashes if it knows of a traffic issue. No indication how severe the traffic problem is. The road could be shut down and you'd never know it until you drove up to the line of stopped traffic. The 3d maps are really just useless eye candy. The hybrid view is ridiculous in that it only highlights certain roads. The level of detail is too low and by the time you reach a decent level of detail you've zoomed in so far the map is useless.

And yes there are data issues. I tried searching for a restaurant I was going to and it couldn't find it by name. I found the address and put it in. Ironically some other data source apparently knew the restaurant as there was a market for it on the map. Too bad it wasn't a data source that Apple searched.

Google maps has already replaced Apple's Maps on my iPhone.
post #250 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Google maps has already replaced Apple's Maps on my iPhone.

Don't complain that Google is stalking you and that no one here warned you 1wink.gif.
Edited by AlexN - 12/20/12 at 9:18pm
post #251 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexN View Post

Don't complain that Google is stalking you and that no one here warned you 1wink.gif.

Pretty sure there's a few million people who'd be more interesting for Google to stalk. But if they are, it's nice to know they care so much.
post #252 of 255
Another **itbag analyst...simultaneously spouting and citing irrelevant analyst opinion. "Not only did *Google win*, but *Apple lost*." Seriously? Didn't we learn to ignore these idiots after the last recession?

Users are the big winners - Google'ites can love the Google, FWIW. Everyone else have plenty of options too. Open Street Maps is nice, as are many of the mapping plugins like Map Quest.

IMO, Google has been too big for their britches since they became an Advertising company instead of a search company. (Yes, a long time.) Their sojourn into telephony has only exacerbated the problem. Sad, especially given the bright beginning they had.
post #253 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

One common thing I see on Apple sites is people bashing Google for anonymously tracking user behaviors and using that data so advertisers can target people that might actually want their products.  Everyone knows that is what Google does.

 

That very apologetic of Google for you to say.  You should receive some Google stock for that!  ;)

 

(Sad that you only see Google bashing on Apple sites....should be much more prevalent than that as they very much deserve bashing.)

 

I think if you asked 1000 people on the street "what Google does" the answer would universally be "Internet Search!"  Not "tracking me for advertisers".

 

Google is really there to track you for advertisers, BTW.  It's Google's get rich quick scheme, and it's working out well so far - nuts to the rest of us.  Search engines, phones...and everything else...are only coincidence.  I do not like advertising, nor the advertising industry, so I will not further support Google outside of Search.  (And I use Duck Duck Go and other alternative searches as much as possible...resorting to Google as needed.)

 

It should be no surprise to someone such as yourself who is informed on Google why some people are surprised (more like disappointed...people have always wanted to like Google) to learn what scheisty practices Google is up to on the advertising side of the house.  The side that in reality makes up about 99% of the Google house.  I think that factoid would also be a surprise to the vast majority of Google users.

 

"Behavioral advertising" and other dirty tricks that Google uses in advertising are practically unknown to their customers, really devious, and IMO evil in a very Microsoftian fashion.

 

[/soapbox]

post #254 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

[...]

Android is costing Google tremendous amounts of money (whether or not you consider the bottomless pit that is Motorola!). It is costing Google a lot in terms of credibility and goodwill with Regulators, Industry standards associations, etc. It is obviously costing a lot in negative PR. But despite all this, Google ABSOLUTELY has no choice but to pursue the Android strategy as much as it can - they have to destroy iOS or marginalize it as much as possible. In 2007, when Apple asked Google to pay $100M to be the default search provider, it really opened Google's eyes to the risk that an unchallenged and massively popular platform like the iPhone could cause. By virtue of controlling this platform, Apple could force Google to pay increasing amounts of money to continue to be the default search provider. And this would hurt Google at its most sensitive spot - at the end of the day, over 90% of Google's revenues comes from advertising tied to search, and Apple could force Google to part with most of its search revenues from the iPhone.

[...]

The only edge Google has, stems from two sources - the fact that Google has already made massive investments in servers, storage, bandwidth - and any competitor has to make at least close to this level of investment to even stand a chance of competing with Google. This will not deter the big guys like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. The second advantage stems from the fact that Google sees over 75% of all searches - just the sheer volume of these searches allow Google to improve its results. It is this advantage that could be weakened if (say) Bing manages to become the default search provider on iOS. In a single shot, Bing would get access to a large portion of search queries, and they can improve their results quickly using these queries.

 

This is the edge that Google does not want to lose! And the reason that will explain Google's actions over the last 2-3 years.

 

Okay with the facts, but not sure I agree with your analysis.

 

Apple playing hardball with Google is a side-effect of Google's entrance to cell-phone market with a copy-cat product and an own-the-world-like-Microsoft attitude.  Prior to that they were all chummy all the time.  No sense in trying to muddy this by portraying Google as some kind of victim.

 

Further, Google got way up in the search market share (user searches NOT advertising dollars!!!) by being good at search -- not by having a smart phone or having a browser or being involved with advertising and not due to a lack of competitors.

 

Today, Google still has few legitimate competitors in search.  (Bing certainly isn't one.)  As long as they maintain such a commanding lead in marketshare and give better results this is unlikely to change.  However, continued bad behavior outside of search along with continued neglect/abuse of the search clientele may change this.  (We can hope....I want the good old Google that didn't seem to care about anything but search back!)

post #255 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


It's very easy to whore out your OS to anyone that can slam together a box and not give a damn about the experience. The lazy-man's way to market share. Keep puffing up share numbers by spreading around garbage - much of which doesn't even qualify as a "smartphone" while masquerading as one in the measurements. 

The more things change...!

Sub out the term "smartphone" and go back about ten years and I think I may have written that exact passage about M$FT. LOL - You really took me back with that one! Thanks!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Launch of Google Maps for iPhone viewed as a 'mixed blessing' for Apple