or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google CEO digs into rival tech companies, says industry needs more innovation
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google CEO digs into rival tech companies, says industry needs more innovation - Page 4

post #121 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

I thought you might say that, but Android is least open of the 8, you forgot to point that out and it percentage. I am not going to provide any more information, you have not given us any factual data except for what you think.

FACT: Google Android is NOT OPEN SOURCE system!

but it is its 23% open source lol. Android is open source, it happens to be more controlled open source, as that article points put there are different levels of open source and Android makes the list. 

post #122 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post

like what?

 

I just told you, why are you asking me again?

 

If you knew anything about Android at all you should know exactly what I'm talking about. You claim Wired targeted their interview for consumers (which is why they left out talking about Google's contributions to the internet and servers). I'm targeting my comment towards programmers/developers. If you don't know anything about software engineering, then there's no point in me going any further. I'm not here to educate you before I can even have a discussion with you.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post

Lies android is fully open source, what is not open source are google apps (gmail, maps, youtube) and the google play store. 

 

ANDROID IS FULLY OPEN. I should know, I have flash many android phones with ASOP. stop spreading lies. 

 

You just showed your complete ignorance. Because you can flash a ROM means an OS is open source? ROFL.......ok I'm back.

 

Everyone who develops software knows Android is far from open. Of all the open source projects in the world Android was voted the "least open".

 

You can take Android source code and fully modify it to your needs if you like. This is what Amazon did and also Alibaba in China when they made Aliyun (Google claims Aliyun is an Android fork, Alibaba claims it's a Linux OS that also happens to run Android Apps). When you do this you lose access to many Google services. Funny how Google restricts access to modified versions of Android. Sounds pretty open to me.

 

Android OEM's who make smartphones are members of the OHA, and have strict rules to follow in terms of what they can to do Android. Ask Acer about this when they decided to make a smartphone running Aliyun. Google put the pressure on and prevented Acer from releasing a phone for a company that took Android source code and modified it (like Amazon has done). They did this literally the day before Acer was going to announce the phone. So not only does Google force you to follow their rules, they also prevent you from releasing hardware that runs another OS. Imagine if Google told Samsung they couldn't release any Windows 8 phones?

 

Sorry, but anyone who claims Android is Open Source is an idiot.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #123 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

I just told you, why are you asking me again?

 

If you knew anything about Android at all you should know exactly what I'm talking about. You claim Wired targeted their interview for consumers (which is why they left out talking about Google's contributions to the internet and servers). I'm targeting my comment towards programmers/developers. If you don't know anything about software engineering, then there's no point in me going any further. I'm not here to educate you before I can even have a discussion with you.

 

 

You just showed your complete ignorance. Because you can flash a ROM means an OS is open source? ROFL.......ok I'm back.

 

Everyone who develops software knows Android is far from open. Of all the open source projects in the world Android was voted the "least open".

 

You can take Android source code and fully modify it to your needs if you like. This is what Amazon did and also Alibaba in China when they made Aliyun (Google claims Aliyun is an Android fork, Alibaba claims it's a Linux OS that also happens to run Android Apps). When you do this you lose access to many Google services. Funny how Google restricts access to modified versions of Android. Sounds pretty open to me.

 

Android OEM's who make smartphones are members of the OHA, and have strict rules to follow in terms of what they can to do Android. Ask Acer about this when they decided to make a smartphone running Aliyun. Google put the pressure on and prevented Acer from releasing a phone for a company that took Android source code and modified it (like Amazon has done). They did this literally the day before Acer was going to announce the phone. So not only does Google force you to follow their rules, they also prevent you from releasing hardware that runs another OS. Imagine if Google told Samsung they couldn't release any Windows 8 phones?

 

Sorry, but anyone who claims Android is Open Source is an idiot.

Was open enough for amazon. 

 

Part of being in the Open handset alliance means rules. You want use android however you please leave the alliance its simple as that. Just because android is controlled somewhat does not mean its not open. 

 

I think this comment says it best. 

 

"So...just how open does a platform need to be considered open? Clearly Amazon had no problem with Android's supposed 23% "openness" when it used and altered Android source code (at will and at no charge) for it's Kindle Fire. My LG Optimus V is running a free custom ROM based on modified Android code. CM7.1 that is running on my Nook Color is also just freely modified Android code.

Android is open enough to have the largest modding community on the internet of any mobile OS but closed enough to maintain control of the overall platform and make it financially viable."

post #124 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

I thought you might say that, but Android is least open of the 8, you forgot to point that out and it percentage. I am not going to provide any more information, you have not given us any factual data except for what you think.

 

Here are the scores that Techstalker failed to state in his comments:

 

Open Governance index % Based on low score= 14 (0%) and highest score =45 (100%)

 

Android 23%, Eclipse 84%, Linux 71%, MeeGo 61%, Mozilla 65%, Qt 58%, Symbian 58% and WebKit 68%.

 

Now you provide me factual data that disprove this review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So whats the cutoff point to being open. 23% is enough for amazon and baido to fork android. 

 

So whats the cutoff point?

 

23% is also enough for me to go and download the source code and do whatever, WHATEVER I WANT with it. 

post #125 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post

but it is its 23% open source lol. Android is open source, it happens to be more controlled open source, as that article points put there are different levels of open source and Android makes the list. 

Read the report again especially page 41 and by way you shot yourself in the foot long time ago, with this comment below:

 

 

Lies android is fully open source, what is not open source are google apps (gmail, maps, youtube) and the google play store. 

 

ANDROID IS FULLY OPEN. I should know, I have flash many android phones with ASOP. stop spreading lies. 

 

Thats why your viewpoints are not credible!, now you are saying there are degrees of openness, when you stated yourself it was 'FULLY OPEN'.

 

 

post #126 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post

So whats the cutoff point to being open. 23% is enough for amazon and baido to fork android. 

 

So whats the cutoff point?

 

23% is also enough for me to go and download the source code and do whatever, WHATEVER I WANT with it. 

factual evidence please, not your twisted mind thoughts!

post #127 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

factual evidence please, not your twisted mind thoughts!

 

So whats the cut off point. answer the question. What percentage do you need to be to be considered open source?

post #128 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

Back in 2011 google refused to release the source code for honeycomb,   It was even confirmed by google.  They said that maybe they would release it in the future once there way of doing things in it was firmly entrenched in the developer community.  Those are googles words not mine.  Google wants to be android known  as the open os but in truth there are just as many closed parts to it as there are with other OS's.  They like being known as the Open os but there not.  the open source gpu states very clearly that all code will be made public not some, and if not they forfeit there license.    Google can't tell everyone there os is fully open then refuse to publish the code.  Its that simple and yet its what they have done.

 

Any developer using open source code under the gnu who contributes to googles code code for android under gnu could sue google and win.   There is no second chance with gnu. One violation and your done.   Its made that way on purpose.  So that it remains open.  Googles answer is to say its open and keep promising to release the all of the code someday.  With a lot of the parts that has not happened yet like the full source for honeycomb.  And by googles own admission it may never happen.  The still do the same thing with the current android as well.  They just need to stop telling people that all of android is open and admit that a semi walled garden is how it is.  Google is the one lying not me.  They are now controlling what they use from the open source community as well, which again according to the GPU license is a violation of your license and a forfeiture of your license.  The rules on GPU are harsh.  Again to  keep open source open.  Really its like one infraction and you forfeit your license. 

 

Android isn't licenced under the GNU GPL.  The modifications they made to the Linux kernel were of course released under the GPL (and eventually reincorporated into the kernel as of version 3.7), but the user space, which consists of the Dalvik VM and other Java bits, is licenced under the Apache licence, which doesn't require anyone to open source any bits if they don't want to. 

 

http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html

 

Google has abided by all the licencing terms it's legally bound to.  Maybe do some research before spreading FUD?

post #129 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post

One of the things I love about google, they are not afraid to fail, and the bigger they fail the more they try. 

 

Oh for those who says google doesnt innovate, ha. The web/cloud as we know it today is built off of Google's innovations in servers and server management. 

 

 

True, to some extent. But Google is one of a number of innovators in this area.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post

 icould, facebook, wouldn't exist without the ground breaking work google has done on the server side.

 

 

 

Now that's taking it to an absurd level. Can you name the specific innovations used by Facebook and Apple that could not be replaced by something else?

post #130 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post

 

Chrome and chrome os. Changed browsing forever. 

 

Chrome is a broken pile of crap. It's right up there with Firefox. Both are resource hogs that can't scale for squat.

 

Without WebKit and LLVM/Clang Chrome nor Chrome OS exists.

post #131 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

 

Chrome is a broken pile of crap. It's right up there with Firefox. Both are resource hogs that can't scale for squat.

 

Without WebKit and LLVM/Clang Chrome nor Chrome OS exists.

 

Without KDE's KHTML Webkit wouldn't exist...

post #132 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

But where is googles contribution to that fork ?????   Chrome does not contribute, It uses khtml and apples combine fork.  Hense no innovation on goggles part.

Hell google wont even give back androids full fork to the linux opensource group which is illegal according to the open source contract.

 

Google contributes very well to WebKit. Nothing in WebKit is KHTML/KJS. QtWebKit is a contribution from Nokia that later KDE modifies [begrudgingly] to KParts and their KHTML/KJS kludge which is now getting gutted for a straight QtWebKit. Google didn't start contributing well to WebKit until long after Safari was released.

 

Google splashed with their separation model that every wooed about and then Apple introduced WebKit 2 that stomps on that model and now Google Chrome is adopting a fork of it, plus custom code for their Android [parts they don't open source]. Apple gets called a non-opensource company when it's clear there is plenty of FOSS APSL code around, not to mention without CUPS funding and fully adopting to grow Linux Printing is DOA and that goes for Chrome OS.

 

LLVM/Clang will be the defacto standard compiler for Debian in 2 years, FreeBSD already, OS X already, Chrome OS already, SONY, IBM, Intel shortly, AMD already, Nvidia, CRAY, and much more.

 

The innovations in hardware alone by Apple in advanced manufacturing have completely redesigned markets 99.9999% of the globe don't have a clue about.

post #133 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post

So whats the cut off point. answer the question. What percentage do you need to be to be considered open source?

I do not know but higher the score the more credible you would be stating, you are FULLY OPEN SOURCE. Now you provide me factual evidence that Google is FULLY OPEN SOURCE, as you stated, since reading your comments, you have tried now state there are OPEN SOURCE, which means completely different.

Seems to attack people, but I not falling for your strategy and still waiting for MORE factual evidence.

 

Seems to me I provided that Android is far from FULLY OPEN SOURCE!

post #134 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85 View Post

 

Without KDE's KHTML Webkit wouldn't exist...

 

Horse crap. Apple dumped that pile of junk and started from scratch. They brought out WebKit and KDE fanbois continue to discuss WebKit as a fork of KHTML/KJS, a real pile of junk code base.

post #135 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

I do not know but higher the score the more credible you would be stating, you are FULLY OPEN SOURCE. Now you provide me factual evidence that Google is FULLY OPEN SOURCE, as you stated, since reading your comments, you have tried now state there are OPEN SOURCE, which means completely different.

Seems to attack people, but I not falling for your strategy and still waiting for MORE factual evidence.

 

Seems to me I provided that Android is far from FULLY OPEN SOURCE!

You stated that android is not open source at all? didnt you?

post #136 of 191

Also keep in mind the V8 Javascript engine was developed by Google.  No doubt one of the reasons JavaScript (and languages that compile to JS) are so popular today. 
 

post #137 of 191

This is typical CEO speak for "We're not innovating at all but hey look neither are our competitors so Wall Street should ding our competitors and not us." 

post #138 of 191

I notice a lot of people confuse the words invention and innovation. Some people on this site praise one companies innovations while ignoring another saying it is not important. It seems some people let there hatred/love for one company or another blind them to the truth open your eyes and look at the real innovation these companies are working on. 

 

Besides RIM is the only ones innovating 

post #139 of 191
"Also keep in mind the V8 Javascript engine was developed by Google. No doubt one of the reasons JavaScript (and languages that compile to JS) are so popular today. "

V8 JavaScript - hmmm. Developed by Google . Intristn. Wonder why they did that ?
Browser security anyone ?
Edited by RobM - 1/17/13 at 11:18pm
post #140 of 191
Yet another douchebag throwing around the word "innovation" without knowing what it really means. I'm sick to death of this word.
post #141 of 191
Wow, that may be the most clueless, perspective-lacking and downright dishonest thing I've heard come out of Google since Eric Schmidt walked out of Apple Board meetings with his notes on how to make a phone.
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #142 of 191

Just two words can destroy his vain efforts at excoriating  Apple on innovation and risk .....  Apple Newton.

The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #143 of 191
@Techstalker Thanks for the links man ¡
Quote:
Hölzle, Page, and a third engineer designed the rigs themselves. “It wasn’t really ‘designed,’” Hölzle says, gesturing with air quotes.


Oh Google, you'd do anything, won't you?



link

--
Quote:
Chrome and chrome os. Changed browsing forever.

Like trolls on AI, you mean?
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #144 of 191
Page's comments fall flat on Google's real successes. Yes, they had a better search algorithm than Yahoo & the others & they've kept ahead of pace with their competition in that respect. Though I can't say their search results are always dead on or that accurate in every instance. Google should give greater priority to that extent. That would be Page's Steve Jobs moment when he introduced the Apple Computer or the Macintosh or the iPhone. Every other commercial success is just playing catchup or creating an incremental improvement over the competition. Some people consistently find fault in others where they themselves stumble. Page was really describing Google & why it's really been a 1 trick pony

Cheers !
Cheers !
Reply
Cheers !
Reply
post #145 of 191

ironic.

post #146 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

I just told you, why are you asking me again?

 

If you knew anything about Android at all you should know exactly what I'm talking about. You claim Wired targeted their interview for consumers (which is why they left out talking about Google's contributions to the internet and servers). I'm targeting my comment towards programmers/developers. If you don't know anything about software engineering, then there's no point in me going any further. I'm not here to educate you before I can even have a discussion with you.

 

Fortunately, there are a lot of experienced programmers on this forum.  

 

Please tell us what IPC mechanism that Google "stole" from Apple.   Has Apple sued them over a patent?   (And no, obviously accidental infringement doesn't count.  That's not stealing, which is the word you used.)

 

Thanks ahead of time for the details.

post #147 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post

Chrome and chrome os. Changed browsing forever. 

ROTFLMAO.

Changed browsing forever? Care to explain how that worked? What did Chrome do that changed browsing to any significant extent?

Oh, and btw, please explain how it's a Google innovation when it's based on Webkit with a few UI tweaks.
"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 #148 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

Of course Larry would say this. That way Google can steal the next big thing and not have to pay anything for it. As for doing "crazy" things, Google good at that but Apple has their head screwed on a whole lot better coming up with things that help consumers do things better.

 

 

Hey Larry, if you didn't want to do something that's basically the same thing, then why did Google come out with Android?  IDIOT.

 

I hope Google finds out that those glasses they are working on are useless and won't be that successful.  I personally wear prescription glasses and would have to buy more expensive Google glasses to use and I am NOT going to do that.  There are enough distractions in life and to have a pair of glasses that further distracts someone by having information popping up in front of them is just distracting and they may find out that it's rather dangerous to wear these glasses.  They might have people walking around bumping into people and things because the glasses are TOO distracting.  Sorry, but I think these Google glasses might turn out to be a dud.

post #149 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

 

 

Hey Larry, if you didn't want to do something that's basically the same thing, then why did Google come out with Android?  IDIOT.

Google was interested in Android well before Apple leaked they were developing a smartphone. IMO Google didn't buy the fledgling Android because of the iPhone.

 

FWIW Android development started in 2003, with Google purchasing them in July of 2005. Apple had no smartphone research going on in 2003 and didn't commit to developing an actual "iPhone" product until sometime in 2006 according to a history. Android certainly wasn't conceived because of anything Apple had in the works as far as I can see.

 

It might even be that one of the reasons Steve Jobs wanted Google on their team was to stay up-to-date on Android development. It's even possible Steve Jobs finally gave a greenlight to the iPhone project after previewing the early Android OS.  Who knows? Not likely anyone here.


Edited by Gatorguy - 1/18/13 at 6:03am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #150 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Fortunately, there are a lot of experienced programmers on this forum.  

Please tell us what IPC mechanism that Google "stole" from Apple.   Has Apple sued them over a patent?   (And no, obviously accidental infringement doesn't count.  That's not stealing, which is the word you used.)

Thanks ahead of time for the details.
Oh look who's back! Tell you what, when you go back and answer questions I posted in previous threads then I'll spend the time to explain it to you. Otherwise you're a troll not worth spending the time on.

1. You claimed to be an expert on multitouch with "decades" of experience. I called you on it since I started developing with touch screens in 1985. You never replied and left the thread. Several people including myself were wondering where you went.

2. You claimed to work for a Fortune 20 company and worked on the deployment of "thousands" of Android tablets, yet never bothered to explain why or what specific software was being developed for them that made Android the better choice. Again, you left the thread.

You are the typical troll. Say something and disappear. So when you clean up the loose ends then maybe I'll spend some time explaining it to you.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #151 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Google was interested in Android well before Apple leaked they were developing a smartphone.

 

Yes, Google was no doubt investing in Android because of worry over Microsoft and their interest in mobile search.  Google's number one priority is to keep their search services up front.  

 

That's why Android looked so much like Windows Mobile at first, with both touch and touchless target devices.  (No, the first Android dev devices did NOT look like Blackberrys.  That's a common mistake that reporters new to smartphones make.  In fact, one was a variation of a known WinMo model.)

 

As for both Google and Apple getting serious about smartphones in 2005, I think it was also a case of the tech time being ripe for smartphones to get even more popular than they were.  (By 2006, there were over 100 million smartphone users in the world.)

post #152 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider 
In an interview with Wired, Google CEO and cofounder Larry Page offered his take on the state of technology, saying that companies like Apple and Facebook should dedicate more resources on innovation rather than competion.

I notice he doesn't mention Samsung, Microsoft or even Google. I guess we know which companies they are waiting for to move the industry forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider 
When asked about a specific case involving the late Steve Jobs' comment of "going thermonuclear war" on Google's Android mobile operating system, Page quipped, "How well is that working?"

"How exciting is it to come to work if the best you can do is trounce some other company that does roughly the same thing?"

Well Larry, how does it feel to push Android that does roughly the same thing as iOS or Google+ that tries to do roughly the same thing as Facebook?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider 
Speaking on the topic of Google X, the internet search giant's experimental products lab, Page said breakthroughs and non-incremental changes are key and questions why tech giants like Apple don't use their vast resources toward these goals.

How does he know they aren't? Nobody knew about Project Purple. There's a whole rainbow to get through:

I can Sing a Rainbow
Red and yellow and pink and green, purple and orange and blue

Projects Orange and Blue are probably underway right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider 
"You may say that Apple only does a very, very small number of things, and that's working pretty well for them. But I find that unsatisfying,"

They do a small number of things well. That last word is quite important. You can do lots of things but if they aren't very good then I'd say that's less satisfying. Maybe some people would be happier with a thousand bronze medals than a handful of gold ones though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider 
Regarding new products, Wired asked if Google's latest social networking endeavor, Google+, was a result of competition with Facebook, but Page dismissed the idea.

Rightly so, Google+ is no competition to Facebook at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider 
"Facebook is also doing a really bad job on their products. For us to succeed, is it necessary for some other company to fail? No. We're actually doing something different."

And yet curiously Google doesn't have many unique products. Nor are they succeeding with all of them. I wonder what these successful, different products are he's talking about.
post #153 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

Am I the only one in the freaking world who appreciates all of the things each of these large tech companies make? I love my iphone and MacBook, I live within my google world with email, calendars, contacts, mapping, etc. I communicate with a ton of my friends on Facebook, I use MS Office because I find it better for my uses than anything else, I find my Samsung tv absolutely stunning, my PS3 is awesome, as is my Apple TV for completely different reasons. I have Amazon Prime and a Kindle and couldnt imagine living without either anymore. Why am I being told all the time that I can't appreciate all these companies?

 

Best post in this thread. I also enjoy devices from various vendors, I don't care who buids the device that fits me the most. I don't want a 'thermonuclear' something against anyone. Just keep producing awesome devices. And whoever makes the one I like the most, I'm going to buy it. Doesn't matter if it's Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Sony, Google or whatever. The are lot of different people with different needs and it's good that there is competition because that means that one can choose.

post #154 of 191
"Page gave the examples of YouTube, Chrome, and Android, saying, "If you%u2019re not doing some things that are crazy, then you%u2019re doing the wrong things."

Google didn't create YouTube. They bought it. Their own version didn't get traction.

Google didn't create Chrome. Apple surprised everyone, deviated from Mozilla and chose KHTML. Chrome took Apple's WebKit engine.

Android stole Apple's concept and reused Mac UI concepts. Also built incrementally on Linux and Java. It is the pinnacle of incremental technology. That's why it's free/cheap.

I don't see the innovations they cites in his 3 examples. They are all incremental according to his words.
post #155 of 191
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
…Larry Page offered his take on the state of technology, saying that companies… …should dedicate more resources on innovation… rather than competion.

We're actually doing something different."

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Google's Very First Innovation:

 

 

Stealing from Yahoo!.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #156 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Google's Very First Innovation:

 

 

Stealing from Yahoo!.

Wow, good find! First time I'd seen that one. It even pre-dates Google themselves.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #157 of 191

Of course Google wants more innovation and less competition.

 

Less competition is good for companies - they have a captive audience meaning they don't have to try so hard.

More competition is good for the consumer - more innovation is required to keep the company on top and relevant.

 

Google became a household name when there was very little competition and they are still riding on that. From the point they have started to compete against other firms they have not repeated their success.

 

This Google troll who keeps bringing up Google Now as an innovation. Predictive searching, really? Have you tried it?

About as random as predictive text can be some times.

Not an innovation, just a derivative of other peoples ideas and work which is pretty much Google's MO.

post #158 of 191
Hey Larry: how about more innovation, and less talk?

"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 #159 of 191
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post
Of course Google wants more innovation and less competition.

 

I found that hilarious. He actually said "less competition" instead of "less litigation". Maybe he picked a different word than the classic cliché simply to not be the cliché, but I don't think so.

 

He said "less competition" because that's the only way Google can grow. I don't think any company that actually cares about its customers (well, in this case, we have to distinguish customers and actual consumers) would actually want less competition, much less say it out loud.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #160 of 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker View Post

You stated that android is not open source at all? didnt you?

Answer the question and stop putting on me, I said that your statement was false and proved it. NOT FULLY OPEN SOURCE!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google CEO digs into rival tech companies, says industry needs more innovation