or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Schiller 'unfollows' Tony Fadell and Nest after Google acquisition
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Schiller 'unfollows' Tony Fadell and Nest after Google acquisition - Page 2

post #41 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

Because Apple does not need Nest at this time,  The same way Apple does not need NetFlix and/or  Hulu and/or Pandora.

================

Why did Google buy Nest ?
Google does not need Nest either at this time but had invested in Nest and have an interest is keeping their investment and friend's business alive.
Without Google, Honeywell would kill Nest with legal fees.

From what I heard, they were able to best Honeywell in the courts. How could they have gotten 3 BILLION dollars if they were desperate to be saved? You have to have some pretty awesome leverage to get 3.. BILLION.. Dollars. They were not a struggling company.
post #42 of 157

Diversification is one thing. Losing focus is another. The Big Evil doesn't know what to do, but they made a bundle selling advertisements and now they're on a spending spree, buying anything shiney and nice.  Is was with a touch of irony that I noticed last week the adsense banners adorning my favorite sites were suddenly all about Nest, even though completely unrelated to the associated page, my interests, and my browsing history.

post #43 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


i guess this is what 9to5Mac thinks is hard hitting journalism. Mark Gurman is already whining on twitter because others are reporting this without giving him credit. As if it's so difficult to check who someone follows on twitter (or that no one else would have thought to do what he did). 1rolleyes.gif

 

What else is new? Gurman hasn't stopped whining since he started writing. He claims credit for stories they didn't even break and then gets upset when actual journalists ignore his bullshit. He's about as self absorbed as anyone can be. 

post #44 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

As far as Fadell being as good as Steve Jobs, if he was all that why would Steve have let him go in the first place? Why didn't Steve offer Fadell the SVP of devices job instead of bringing on Mark Papermaster? If Fadell was so valuable shouldn't Steve have offered him any price to stay at Apple? Perhaps he wasn't as valuable as some think and the past week has been one big PR show by Google/Nest to have you think Fadell was Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk all wrapped up into one.

 

You were doing okay (just okay) up until this part... where you just got silly.

 

Mr. Pepsi  wanted Steve gone and Apple's board agreed. So... can we put Steve's name where Fadell's name is and Sculley's (or Apple's) name where Steve's name is in the above statement? I think you've actually made the other person's argument.


Edited by island hermit - 1/18/14 at 8:06am
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #45 of 157

I'm glad to see Shiller knows there's a war going on, and this way of making a statement is much more classy than anything he could say.   He probably doesn't dislike fadell but Google is and always willl be the enemy of Apple and all decent people. 

post #46 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

This level of mind-numbing stupidity makes me want to go lie down.

 

Best thing to do is flag this new troll and hope management deals with it sooner rather than later. I mean all the troll memes are there, open is better, walled garden is bad, Google makes our lives better, Apple is doomed, etc. , all there in plain view,  a robotic recitation of the established talking points. Obvious as hell, and probably someone’s sock puppet.

post #47 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

It bothers me that every other day I read about some new Google innovation (Glasses, smart contact lenses, floating stores, etc.). Granted, some of these things may be silly or dead ends, but they do capture newsprint and more importantly, mindshare. Deserved or not, the general public gets the message that Google is the future while Apple is left perfecting its past products. Google is winning the PR war. What this means in the long run I cannot say, but I do find it disquieting.

 

So you are falling for the FUD?

post #48 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltyzip View Post

This Schiller is a typical Apple snob executive, he tried to humiliate Instagram by publicly insulting the company after they created an Android app. Now in a more subtle way he is doing the same to Nest. Business people know to grow a product it needs to appeal to the mass market, making it exclusive to Apple is just a ridiculous concept. Google believes in open standards and alliances and can use the expertise in Nest to drive these to define the smart homes of the future, which will benefit all, not just Apple users.

Google should be congratulated as from what I see, they are certainly making our lives better, more than anything I've seen from Apple in a long while.

Apple won't invest in adapted contact lenses to help diabetes sufferers because they would only work for iPhone users, this would be seen as unethical.

This walled garden approach will only continue while develops keep supporting it, and that's why the stock is going to continue on shaky ground. It's not about the hardware anymore.

Haha. I hope Google paid you a lot for this inept post.
post #49 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

It bothers me that every other day I read about some new Google innovation (Glasses, smart contact lenses, floating stores, etc.). Granted, some of these things may be silly or dead ends, but they do capture newsprint and more importantly, mindshare. Deserved or not, the general public gets the message that Google is the future while Apple is left perfecting its past products. Google is winning the PR war. What this means in the long run I cannot say, but I do find it disquieting.

 

But then what are you saying? That Apple needs to release a constant stream of half-baked innovations, in order to stay in the news? That's not the Apple way of doing business, and it doesn't seem to have hurt their ability consistently to lead the markets that they enter, nor their ability to maintain a very high public profile without stunts and gimmicks.

post #50 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

You were doing okay (just okay) up until this part... where you just got silly.

Mr. Pepsi  wanted Steve gone and Apple's board agreed. So... can we put Steve's name where Fadell's name is and Sculley's (or Apple's) name where Steve's name is in the above statement? I think you've actually made the other person's argument.
So you think Tony Fadell was the next Steve Jobs, and Steve acted like Scully by firing him? Wow that's some big RDF you all have going on there.
post #51 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaP42 View Post

What else is new? Gurman hasn't stopped whining since he started writing. He claims credit for stories they didn't even break and then gets upset when actual journalists ignore his bullshit. He's about as self absorbed as anyone can be. 
Yep. I remember When Gurman was on one of Rene Ritchie's podcasts and you could tell he was so annoyed because another site (MacRumors) got a scoop before 9to5Mac did. Oh the horror. And last year on Twitter he got into a fight with someone from Fast Company because their reporting on one of Apple's hires from Nike contradicted his. He claimed that Ben Shaffer worked on the Fuel Band team when in fact Shaffer was part of Nike's innovation kitchen, an R&D group not even in the same building as the fuel band team. Gurman was so childish about it as if getting a scoop is more important than whether the scoop is accurate or not.
post #52 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveinpublic View Post

From what I heard, they were able to best Honeywell in the courts. How could they have gotten 3 BILLION dollars if they were desperate to be saved? You have to have some pretty awesome leverage to get 3.. BILLION.. Dollars. They were not a struggling company.

If Google keeps up this spending spree, they may have to cut back on the free Jell-o in their commissary.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #53 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveinpublic View Post

From what I heard, they were able to best Honeywell in the courts. How could they have gotten 3 BILLION dollars if they were desperate to be saved? You have to have some pretty awesome leverage to get 3.. BILLION.. Dollars. They were not a struggling company.
because it's google and they have deep pockets and a weak board. I mean does anyone think Motorola Mobility was worth $12 billion? No. The same thing is being said about next.
post #54 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

But then what are you saying? That Apple needs to release a constant stream of half-baked innovations, in order to stay in the news? That's not the Apple way of doing business, and it doesn't seem to have hurt their ability consistently to lead the markets that they enter, nor their ability to maintain a very high public profile without stunts and gimmicks.
I think it is true that Apple has a perception problem but I don't think there's anything they can do about it other than continue to release great products and let those products do the talking. Apple is never going to give the Verge's of the world scoops on future stuff they're working on. It's not their MO.
post #55 of 157
If Apple wants to design a thermostat, it doesn't need Nest to do that. If Google wants to design anything that isn't software, it needs to buy a company.
post #56 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


So you think Tony Fadell was the next Steve Jobs, and Steve acted like Scully by firing him? Wow that's some big RDF you all have going on there.

 

You don't even know what you wrote, do you. How can I respond to you when you don't even understand your own thoughts.

 

Here, I'll give you some help:

 

Rogifan: "...  if he was all that why would Steve have let him go in the first place?"

 

or:  ..." if Steve was all that why would Apple have let him go in the first place?"

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #57 of 157
Unfollow is news? Really???

"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 #58 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post
 

 

But then what are you saying? That Apple needs to release a constant stream of half-baked innovations, in order to stay in the news? That's not the Apple way of doing business, and it doesn't seem to have hurt their ability consistently to lead the markets that they enter, nor their ability to maintain a very high public profile without stunts and gimmicks.

 

It makes me wonder how much pressure Tim Cook feels having the investment world's eyes scrutinizing him so intensely.

 

Tim hasn't really entered any new markets since he took over the top job... iPod, iPhone and iPad were all brought to market under Steve... and a new market is what will definitely increase Apple's revenue and profits.

 

He's got a fantastic team around him... but there are never any guarantees. It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #59 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BUSHMAN4 View Post

While nest may be a unique product it's nothing that's a "must have item "
Apple loyalists will he hesitant to buy this product. As will the regular community as Google spying is something that's out of hand
If Apple wanted Nest they could have bought it a long time ago yet they didn't

I am just concerned with the future support. What happens to iOS support? I have to assume it continues, but you never know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobSchlob View Post

So then Apple was wrong all that time that they touted it as being incredibly brilliant?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. It can be a brilliant product and not worth $3.2 billion at the same time.

For crying out loud... Just like anything; it's worth to the buyer, whatever the buyer is willing to pay.

The point of the OP said that Apple didn't buy Nest because Apple thinks that Nest was crap. Couldn't be further from the truth.

Now for the important stuff:

Your reply actually illustrates why the two elements CAN be mutually exclusive, and that they needn't be mutually INCLUSIVE. Not that they "aren't mutually exclusive".

post #60 of 157

All this debate for one "unfollows". Funny ;)

post #61 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist View Post

If Apple wants to design a thermostat, it doesn't need Nest to do that. If Google wants to design anything that isn't software, it needs to buy a company.

 

What the hell are you talking about. When Rubinstein wanted someone to help him [engineer] the iPod, he hired Fadell.


Edited by island hermit - 1/18/14 at 10:02am
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #62 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by ealvarez View Post
 

All this debate for one "unfollows". Funny ;)

 

Weekends are always slow.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #63 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

You don't even know what you wrote, do you. How can I respond to you when you don't even understand your own thoughts.

 

Here, I'll give you some help:

 

Rogifan: "...  if he was all that why would Steve have let him go in the first place?"

 

or:  ..." if Steve was all that why would Apple have let him go in the first place?"

I do know what I wrote. Steve Jobs 1.0 was nothing like Steve Jobs 2.0. and John Scully is nothing like Steve Jobs 2.0. Perhaps you can explain why Apple would need Tony Fadell? Apple's biggest weakness is online/cloud, not hardware design.

post #64 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I think it is true that Apple has a perception problem but I don't think there's anything they can do about it other than continue to release great products and let those products do the talking. Apple is never going to give the Verge's of the world scoops on future stuff they're working on. It's not their MO.
If one doesn't put any stock in perception then I guess everything is just fine as it is for Apple. But I think image IS important. I was not attacking Apple or calling for them to release junk. But it has been a while since they diversified from desktop/laptop computers into mobile/handhelds. The world doesn't stand still. I want them to succeed, but I don't think phones/tablets are enough for it to continue being the leader they should be. Google seems committed to fostering new ideas both from within and without–they may be throwing a lot of stuff to see what will stick, but the odds are something will. Apple may be doing the same thing secretly for all I know, but I was just expressing my discomfort that I'm not seeing any evidence of it. Don't get me wrong, I think Google is a dispicable thief, and I don't want them to get away with it.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #65 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

This level of mind-numbing stupidity makes me want to go lie down.

The truth hurts doesn't it, Apple don't share anything outside their walled garden, everything is proprietary from cables to chargers to icloud to iMessage to facetime etc. etc.
post #66 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

What the hell are you talking about. When Rubinstein wanted someone to help him design the iPod, he hired Fadell.

And when Steve created a SVP for iPhone hardware engineering he didn't choose Fadell. I'm curiou to know why you think Apple needs Fadell?

post #67 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
 

I do know what I wrote. Steve Jobs 1.0 was nothing like Steve Jobs 2.0. and John Scully is nothing like Steve Jobs 2.0. Perhaps you can explain why Apple would need Tony Fadell? Apple's biggest weakness is online/cloud, not hardware design.

 

That's not the point.

 

For you not to see that is pretty lame.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #68 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
 

And when Steve created a SVP for iPhone hardware engineering he didn't choose Fadell. I'm curiou to know why you think Apple needs Fadell?

 

WTF are you talking about?

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #69 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Haha. I hope Google paid you a lot for this inept post.

Nothing as inept as your post which added no value to the conversation.
post #70 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


If one doesn't put any stock in perception then I guess everything is just fine as it is for Apple. But I think image IS important. I was not attacking Apple or calling for them to release junk. But it has been a while since they diversified from desktop/laptop computers into mobile/handhelds. The world doesn't stand still. I want them to succeed, but I don't think phones/tablets are enough for it to continue being the leader they should be. Google seems committed to fostering new ideas both from within and without–they may be throwing a lot of stuff to see what will stick, but the odds are something will. Apple may be doing the same thing secretly for all I know, but I was just expressing my discomfort that I'm not seeing any evidence of it. Don't get me wrong, I think Google is a dispicable thief, and I don't want them to get away with it.

http://tinyurl.com/mvqqfh3

post #71 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

WTF are you talking about?

Why do you think Apple needs Tony Fadell right now?

post #72 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
 

Why do you think Apple needs Tony Fadell right now?

 

Did I say anything about Apple needing Fadell right now.

 

Damn, man... get with the program.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #73 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkalu View Post

Why, why, why didn't Apple just buy Nest and keep it all in the family?

Perhaps because Google Ventures was a major investor and likely would have killed such a buyout. Perhaps Apple doesn't need or want Nest.
post #74 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltyzip View Post

*whine* *cry* *harp* *ohwoeesme*


Honestly, is there a "Troll Waiting Area" that has jerks like you coming out of an assembly area?  Apple will publish their quarterly reports, once again throw pie in your face and of those of your ilk, and then you'll simply either:

a) Spin the story (i.e. "lie") to make it sound like remotely had a (false) clue you knew what you were talking about
b) Scurry to the back of the room and pretend to look interested in a potted plant so no one calls you on your rubbish

c) b And c and sit patiently by your basement door in the hopes mommy brings down your dinner early.  

post #75 of 157

It's amazing what qualifies as "news" these days.

 

What's next?

 

"Tim Cook drives a different way to work to avoid sharing highway with Nest employees"?

post #76 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

If one doesn't put any stock in perception then I guess everything is just fine as it is for Apple. But I think image IS important. I was not attacking Apple or calling for them to release junk. But it has been a while since they diversified from desktop/laptop computers into mobile/handhelds. The world doesn't stand still. I want them to succeed, but I don't think phones/tablets are enough for it to continue being the leader they should be. Google seems committed to fostering new ideas both from within and without–they may be throwing a lot of stuff to see what will stick, but the odds are something will. Apple may be doing the same thing secretly for all I know, but I was just expressing my discomfort that I'm not seeing any evidence of it. Don't get me wrong, I think Google is a dispicable thief, and I don't want them to get away with it.

Google throws money at tons of stuff with little long term commitment for most things. Apple just executes. Perhaps Google believes that so far it is really just a one trick poney. Search will eventually change. Apple is already using Siri to hurt Google search
post #77 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


Honestly, is there a "Troll Waiting Area" that has jerks like you coming out of an assembly area?  Apple will publish their quarterly reports, once again throw pie in your face and of those of your ilk, and then you'll simply either:


a) Spin the story (i.e. "lie") to make it sound like remotely had a (false) clue you knew what you were talking about

b) Scurry to the back of the room and pretend to look interested in a potted plant so no one calls you on your rubbish
c) b And c and sit patiently by your basement door in the hopes mommy brings down your dinner early.  

Why not counteract my arguments rather than replying in a childish way?
post #78 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist View Post

If Apple wants to design a thermostat, it doesn't need Nest to do that. If Google wants to design anything that isn't software, it needs to buy a company.

OS X and iOS, the two most important software projects to come out of Apple, were directly enabled by acquisitions - NeXT in the former case and Fingerworks for the latter.

post #79 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltyzip View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


Honestly, is there a "Troll Waiting Area" that has jerks like you coming out of an assembly area?  Apple will publish their quarterly reports, once again throw pie in your face and of those of your ilk, and then you'll simply either:


a) Spin the story (i.e. "lie") to make it sound like remotely had a (false) clue you knew what you were talking about

b) Scurry to the back of the room and pretend to look interested in a potted plant so no one calls you on your rubbish
c) b And c and sit patiently by your basement door in the hopes mommy brings down your dinner early.  

Why not counteract my arguments rather than replying in a childish way?

 

Probably because you didn't make any arguments - you merely insulted Schiller, made a bunch of ridiculous assertions, and then regurgitated the usual troll memes regarding walled Apple gardens and open, benevolent Google. Your post didn't actually deserve a response at all, but TS nicely summed up what most of us thought of it.

post #80 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Tony Fadell didn't invent 'smart' thermostats and smoke detectors. And the design for both was outsourced to a 3rd party design firm. Honestly I'll bet a lot of people bought it just because of the sleek design. I mean if it looked like your typical beige box would Apple have featured it in their stores? Anyway rumors are Honeywell was coming after Nest so I'm not surprised Fadell wanted to be gobbled up by someone with deep pockets.

As far as Fadell being as good as Steve Jobs, if he was all that why would Steve have let him go in the first place? Why didn't Steve offer Fadell the SVP of devices job instead of bringing on Mark Papermaster? If Fadell was so valuable shouldn't Steve have offered him any price to stay at Apple? Perhaps he wasn't as valuable as some think and the past week has been one big PR show by Google/Nest to have you think Fadell was Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk all wrapped up into one.

 

It's like arguing with communications majors that they don't understand applied engineering. You'll never get through to them.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Schiller 'unfollows' Tony Fadell and Nest after Google acquisition