You said this, did you not:-
Originally Posted by Vaelian
Nobody needs to; Apple deserves all the criticism since they effectively removed Google Maps from iOS to replace it with their own solution, meaning they are expected to perform at least as well as Google Maps did EVERYWHERE.
By "everywhere" did you not mean including where Google Maps are wrong, or did you not really mean "everywhere", in which case you do not really think Apple Maps should be expected to perform as well as Google Maps did EVERYWHERE.
Thus your whole argument fell apart.
"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.
"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.
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.
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
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, is this the new GG? Nothing he says is true, but neither can it be false, because everything is just an "opinion" now, an opinion apparently based on nothing whatsoever. Well, we know he's never really been much for facts, but now he appears to have jettisoned them altogether.
Clearly his new strategy is to make totally over the top claims and then when he gets called on lying he just says, "I was expressing my opinion, but prove me wrong!"
Clever, right? It's an opinion, so it's not bound by evidence, but, "prove me wrong," assigns it the same weight as an evidenced based argument without the need for evidence, which he never has anyway.
And, by the way, everyone else's posts are just "opinions" too, so he doesn't need to address them, he can just merrily go on about his reality redefinition for Google.
Of course, if it's all just "opinions", why does he bother responding to people to tell them that their posts are not true, they are just "opinions". Oh, to discredit other ideas, without having to argue against them or support his own "opinions".
Typically, people pull out this "opinion" defense when they are on shaky ground and losing the argument. "Well, that's just your opinion, mine is just as valid." Thus, even though their argument held no water, they try to undermine confidence in the other argument by labeling it as "just an opinion".
Well, GG, your "opinions" in this thread consist of nothing but invention, misrepresentation and distortion. We don't have to prove them wrong, they are only your "opinions", and they are wrong anyway. And the other posts that you labeled opinions, it's not up to you to state whether another's post is opinion or fact, that's up to them.
Let's review for your client's sake, though:
* Google is a criminal enterprise, guilty of multiple crimes
* Google seeks to control access to all information on the Internet
* Google egregiously violates our privacy by tracking everything we do without our consent
* Google regularly shares information about us with the NSA
EDIT: The funniest thing about this "new" GG is that just the other day he was all about how he goes to great lengths to research "facts" for his posts, but, now, all of a sudden, now that he wants to post what he knows are utterly baseless inventions, he's all about "opinions", everything is just "opinions".
I think you're right about YouTube, but the original Maps app always had Google branding. From a July 2007 iPhone review:
Quote:
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.
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:
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:
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.
... 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? 
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.
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.
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
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).
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.
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?
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
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
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
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:
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.
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]
[...]
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!)
.