or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google has fooled the media and markets, but hasn't bested Tim Cook's Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google has fooled the media and markets, but hasn't bested Tim Cook's Apple - Page 4

post #121 of 299
Someone's already pulled the Peterbob post before I could respond but most of you called him out on his BS.
DED is right in that the press worship whatever Google does.
Here's a funny story about Google taking accolades from research that Microsoft had funded:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-04/new-ceo-satya-nadella-needs-to-make-microsoft-more-like-google

Blame Microsoft for not making more noise about its own research, but the press has created the ficition that Google is the center all innovation in Silicon Valley, and that's not true. Google takes credit for all the innovation, even if someone else is doing the research.

"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 #122 of 299
"Google, in contrast, has been hyping glasses that cause headaches, touting robotics acquisitions that have no obvious business model...,"

As a reader/investor in Apple who strongly believes in their products and business model, for the record, Google's plans into investing resources in robotics is because they plan to automate manufacturing. The US can't compete vs. low offshore wages; therefore, to restore competitive manufacturing in the US, robots will be the future (they'll run 24/7/365; no hourly wages, no HR issues, no sick days, no health premiums, etc.).

I applaud Google's efforts in this new business model. Will it work? Time will tell.
post #123 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quazze View Post

they'll run 24/7/365; no hourly wages, no HR issues, no sick days, no health premiums, etc.).

I applaud Google's efforts in this new business model. Will it work? Time will tell.

24/7/365 can happen with human run facilities, and sick days can occur with machines when there is an error with production or routine maintenance is needed. This will happen. Foxconn is already 24/7 but I'm not sure if they are 365, but if not they are probably in the 360's.

Costs associated with hourly wages and health premiums are instead converted into the purchase, setup, use, and maintenance of the machines, which includes the requisite employees needed for said machines.

The only one that I see that can see being removed from the cost of the machines is HR but it'll still be needed for the employees monitoring and maintaining the factories, and is already an insignificant cost for any major company.

I'd think a reduction in potential legal issues that occur with employees and cost of training to get an employee up to speed would be a more significant cost saver.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/17/14 at 7:28am

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #124 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

Then how come ISIS itself has not taken off?  MasterCard PayPass?  Visa Wallet?
  • Ease of use problems with pass codes and to many steps?
  • Security risks with lost of phones?
  • No better than the existing credit cards?
  • Minimal to no support from Point Of Sale vendors?

Isis hadn't taken off because it's only available in one market, Salt Lake City.
Edited by NachoKingP - 2/17/14 at 7:56am
post #125 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post
 
  • Google's driverless cars: 2010 and earlier.
  • iOS in the Car: unveiled at WWDC 2013.
  • Open Automotive Alliance (Android in cars): announced January 2014.

 

Google were involved in the automotive arena before Apple, and expanding from driverless cars running Google software to cars augmented with Google software is a fairly logical progression. 

 

Apple was working on full automotive iPod integration with BMW, Volvo, and Mercedes in 2004. To put that in perspective, that was the year that Google had its IPO, and was 4 years before the first release of Android. So, no, in no sense was Google involved in the automotive arena before Apple.

post #126 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post

Google is in trouble in 2020 when their search patent has expired, when that happens expect their revenue to be one third it is today....

Man that is freakin' good news. Never knew, glad to read this; thanks.

Google's Pagerank is patented but all the other search engines have some similar ranking algorithm. Google search is full of secret sauce and their search extends into many other areas besides text search. They have patent search, weather, movie schedule, images, financials, sports scores, on and on. The expiration of a single patent for a technology that has already been modified to the extent that it has totally replaced the original concept, is not going to change anything.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #127 of 299

Passionate article, but glosses over and just misses a few fundamentals...

 

Apples main income source by far is the iPhone.  That market has been growing for years allowing Apple to post 'record sales' year after year.  That market growth is coming to an end, and the high end portion of the market especially is essentially saturated. 

 

Despite that massive growth and record sales in terms of unit sales- Apple posted -10% in profits from the prior year.  How many people here think they would be 'worth more' or happy if they took a 10% pay cut in a year?  With their best quarter behind them for this fiscal year, and with their current guidance, Apple is looking to make less money again this year, or maybe break even with last year at best.

 

Apple really does need their 'next trick' to turn around their profit decline.  Apple will still make insane profits on phones for many many years, but that is going to get whittled away year after year.  I think their plan with iTV was to follow the iBooks model and do an 'agency plan/mfn' combo that would raise all our prices by 30% and give the lions share of that to Apple.  With that thwarted their next focus looks to be wearables.  I like what I've read on their wearables, but in order to have any real impact on Apples financials they really have to be a huge thing and highly profitable right out of the crate.  That's a tough order for Apple.  Whatever they do it has to be of a magnitude that it impacts the massive (but declining) behemoth that is iPhone profits.

 

Google, on the flip side, has gone- and continues to go on- quite a few long shot boondoggles.  They make no excuses and are quite open about taking on quite risky projects.  *Despite* all their risky R&D ventures and despite whatever losses they may have taken on Moto... their profits continue to grow nicely.   By almost the same 10% that Apple's profits declined.  And that is despite they 'alarming' issues pointed out in the article.  PC's declining and mobile taking over the future!  Actually, PC's are still nicely around 70% of where the online shopping occurs.  Mobile is still a fraction of the online components- but continues to grow.  While sales of tablets and phones may be hurting 'PC' sales directly, how much shopping people do online continues to grow, and so Google's market is still growing (despite them not having the same relative dominance in mobile as they do in PC advertising).

 

Apple's profits from phones, tablets, and Macs are expected to continue to decline.  The fact that despite that their share price went up is a testament to how much faith the markets have that Apple will come up the next big hit.

post #128 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

Quote:
Apple has sold 700 million iOS units...they need to convince Apple's 600 million+ customers to part with their devices
There's a false assumption here, that units sold is approximately equal to users. This is clearly not the case because as you can see from posts here, many users have owned every single iPhone or every other iPhone. This would reduce Apple's users to ~150-200m, which is still a ridiculously high number of course. The same would be true for Android but as usual the situation is more complex.

You'd have to assume that these people throw their old devices away though. Even if they pass them on or sell them used, that's a new owner, some do hold onto them for backup devices. Any consideration of overall units is still clearly more accurate than any financial quarter. At the very least, a 1-3 year period would be better than 3 months as that doesn't even account for seasonality or proximity to a major product revision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

The numbers you quoted only include Google Play activations afaik, so a significant fraction of the market is missed off there, all Amazon or Xaomi or 'Other' devices are also included there.

Xiaomi is not a significant fraction. The Kindle is significant in the realm of tablets but nowhere near smartphones.
Quote:
Samsung is little more than a copycat, although it's hard to really take the position that any company is truly 'innocent' in this regard.

That depends on what you want to prove. Did Apple steal their original smartphone design from a competitor in the market? No. Did Google and Samsung? Yes. Did Apple steal anything? Nobody has proven this to be the case, it's what people want to be the case and so they assume it is. It's not really hard to take the position that Apple is 'innocent' of theft because there's no evidence otherwise. It's common for people to try and put them on equal ground though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

Android certainly doesn't have a total 80% marketshare. if you are to discount 80% share of new sales then you have to provide some actual evidence.

I don't think the article was taking issue with new sales. The article addresses the 80% figure under the assumption of it being used to represent "the mobile market", not limited to new sales, hence the accusation that the "author is an idiot who only repeats numbers he or she does not comprehend and hasn't given the subject even cursory thought". These people are repeating the phrases that make them feel good outside of their context and changing their meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

statistics show Apple selling ~750,000 devices per day alongside just Google Activations of 1.5m devices per day. I know your argument is that this is not going to be sustained, but that is a matter of opinion and I refuse to predict the future one way or another.

This places Android's recent growth at 2:1 vs iOS. You then assume that leads to 80:20 (4:1) marketshare. Clearly that doesn't add up. There's a disparity between the activations and the marketshare stats too. If Google is only activating at 2:1, then the quarterly sales share showing 4:1 have to be due to channel flooding, which are balanced out in other quarters.
post #129 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrismarriott View Post

Wall Street remains obsessed with Apple's short term performance and the belief that Apple's existence is predicated upon their next hit or failed product. Meanwhile, Apple is executing a 10-25 year strategy that will leave their competitors behind entirely as Apple takes its place as the World's only super-company: http://torusoft.com/blog/how-to-recognize-a-super-company

It's a foolish mistake to believe Apple and Google are in the same league. I also think that one of the reasons Wall Street produces so much FUD, tripe, and uninformed analysis is that on some level, they know Apple doesn't care about their opinions and hasn't for many years.

Now here is the proper big picture view, which I have been struggling to formulate, but not nearly so well as you do here and especially in the linked article.

I urge everyone to check out the link Chris Marriott provides, and the comments as well. I haven't read the rest of this thread, but I think we've been waiting for this perspective. It implicitly makes good use of DED's valuable work, and builds on it. Thanks, Chris.

Edit: To clarify, it's a link to his blog, sometimes considered questionable posting, but in this case it's justified, I think. It's serious, and non commercial anyway.
Edited by Flaneur - 2/16/14 at 12:36pm
post #130 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleTechSpot View Post

Google does have
Google does have a monopoly on search in Europe as it constitutes over 80% share of the search market in Europe, far higher than here in the states. Plus Android is being investigated for anti competitive behavior as other competing and sometimes superior products are locked out due to the bundling of Google services in Android. Much like MS was forced to unbundle IE in Windows in the EU I look for Google to be forced to give Android users the option of hangin built in search and other services in Android!!!!


No    it     Doesnt.

 

From the dictionary on my Macbook:  • monopoly  - a commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company or group.

 

80% isn't exclusivity.   Google offers a service that people can choose to use or not - in exactly the same way that Apple offers products that people can choose to buy or not.  The majority of people seem to think Google's product is superior, hence the market share, but there are very viable options available.

 

What superior competing products to Google's are locked out of Android to the point users can't avail of their use?

 

I have a Nokia and - surprise, surprise - the default search function uses Bing.

post #131 of 299
Quote:
Anytime you read that Google has claimed some "80 percent share" in the mobile market, you can confidently assume the author is an idiot who only repeats numbers he or she does not comprehend and hasn't given the subject even cursory thought.

 

Wow, that's some strong editorializing! 

(And I like it like that.)

post #132 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


No    it     Doesnt.

From the dictionary on my Macbook:  • monopoly  - a commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company or group.

80% isn't exclusivity.   Google offers a service that people can choose to use or not - in exactly the same way that Apple offers products that people can choose to buy or not.  The majority of people seem to think Google's product is superior, hence the market share, but there are very viable options available.

What superior competing products to Google's are locked out of Android to the point users can't avail of their use?

I have a Nokia and - surprise, surprise - the default search function uses Bing.

That would mean that MS never had a monopoly?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #133 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


You'd have to assume that these people throw their old devices away though. Even if they pass them on or sell them used, that's a new owner, some do hold onto them for backup devices. Any consideration of overall units is still clearly more accurate than any financial quarter. At the very least, a 1-3 year period would be better than 3 months as that doesn't even account for seasonality or proximity to a major product revision.

 

I don't disagree with any of this really. I wasn't supporting using any 3 month period as a benchmark, just saying that no reliable estimates have been produced that support either argument as far as I know.

 
Quote:
Xiaomi is not a significant fraction. The Kindle is significant in the realm of tablets but nowhere near smartphones.

I was simply trying to illustrate that the situation is quite complex, there are a huge number of smartphones sold in china which do not come with Google Play, and accounting for those is very tricky.

 

Quote:
That depends on what you want to prove. Did Apple steal their original smartphone design from a competitor in the market? No. Did Google and Samsung? Yes. Did Apple steal anything? Nobody has proven this to be the case, it's what people want to be the case and so they assume it is. It's not really hard to take the position that Apple is 'innocent' of theft because there's no evidence otherwise. It's common for people to try and put them on equal ground though.

Where did I say theft? I did not. What I said was that Samsung copies. Google's first smartphone was not made by Samsung.

 

With regard to Apple, I think it'd be hard to deny that they have introduced features inspired by everything from the jailbreak community to their direct competitors. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing this though, it's just that Samsung brings little in the way of their own innovation or improvement, and simply tries to compete by reproducing whatever else anyone offers.

 

Quote:
I don't think the article was taking issue with new sales. The article addresses the 80% figure under the assumption of it being used to represent "the mobile market", not limited to new sales, hence the accusation that the "author is an idiot who only repeats numbers he or she does not comprehend and hasn't given the subject even cursory thought". These people are repeating the phrases that make them feel good outside of their context and changing their meaning.

I certainly didn't read this meaning into the original article, and it doesn't come across in the wording of the critical quote IMO.

Quote:
This places Android's recent growth at 2:1 vs iOS. You then assume that leads to 80:20 (4:1) marketshare. Clearly that doesn't add up. There's a disparity between the activations and the marketshare stats too. If Google is only activating at 2:1, then the quarterly sales share showing 4:1 have to be due to channel flooding, which are balanced out in other quarters.

I made (and make) no claims to a 4:1 marketshare. I simply stated that the calculations are very difficult because even though we have some relatively concrete numbers the market has been growing significantly and hundreds of millions more devices have been sold. Divining their actual marketshare is not something I would like to try.

post #134 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradipao View Post

Yes, but much like MS was forced to unbundle IE in Windows, Apple could be forced to open the platform to other browser and even to show an ugly ballot screen.

Except Apple doesn't have the dominant market share in any market, which is a blessing, that would garner anti trust actions to proceed.

cut the tech garbage and check me out at

www.appletechspot.com

Reply

cut the tech garbage and check me out at

www.appletechspot.com

Reply
post #135 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

He wrote about facts from the past and present so for DED to write about the next five years he's going to have to make shit up. I much prefer him sticking to the facts here, but if he wants to weigh in on how he thinks these companies will evolve I would welcome its own separate article.

Fair enough. Just seems like it was missing some kind of conclusion.
post #136 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornchip View Post

Fair enough. Just seems like it was missing some kind of conclusion.

I personally felt the "What About the Future?" conclusion was sufficient to close it out. If he hadn't included that I would agree it felt that it just ended abruptly.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #137 of 299
Great analysis about Google and Apple. I would even argue that besides Samsung, it is far more profitable to be selling iPhone accessaries than selling iPhone competitor.

I think media has this fascination about software companies like Google and Microsoft because their margins are actually higher than Apple's. I'd argue that companies like Google and Microsoft do not understand hardware and never will. Experiments like Glass, Moto X, and even Nest will end up being good products but with marketshare comparable to Zune.
post #138 of 299
I've thought this for years. Apple should come out with products quarterly if they are going to do things on an annual basis. iPhones, iPads, Desktops, Laptops, Apple TV, Pro Apps, iLife, iWork, iOS, OS X. These things can be released throughout the year on a schedule. Laptops certainly during the Summer in time for the school year. There could be much more interest throughout the year with publicly expected deadlines for different products. Once each year isn't buzz, it's buzz kill.
post #139 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quazze View Post

"Google, in contrast, has been hyping glasses that cause headaches, touting robotics acquisitions that have no obvious business model...,"

As a reader/investor in Apple who strongly believes in their products and business model, for the record, Google's plans into investing resources in robotics is because they plan to automate manufacturing. The US can't compete vs. low offshore wages; therefore, to restore competitive manufacturing in the US, robots will be the future (they'll run 24/7/365; no hourly wages, no HR issues, no sick days, no health premiums, etc.).

I applaud Google's efforts in this new business model. Will it work? Time will tell.

Meh.

 

This is another instance of Google trying to reinvent the wheel. They’re pretty late to the party. If they really wanted to learn about industrial robotics, they should seek out advice from companies like Siemens, Rockwell, Mistubishi, etc. who are highly advanced in this field: http://robohub.org/credit-suisse-picks-7-automationrobotics-stocks/

post #140 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

Meh.

 

This is another instance of Google trying to reinvent the wheel. They’re pretty late to the party. If they really wanted to learn about industrial robotics, they should seek out advice from companies like Siemens, Rockwell, Mistubishi, etc. who are highly advanced in this field: http://robohub.org/credit-suisse-picks-7-automationrobotics-stocks/

 

...or they could check out Apple's factory in Austin, Tx where the Mac Pro is made.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #141 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

I urge everyone to check out the link Chris Marriott provides

Edit: To clarify, it's a link to his blog, sometimes considered questionable posting, but in this case it's justified, I think. It's serious, and non commercial anyway.

The commercial part is the services being sold under the same domain. Promoting the blog entries promotes the services as far as search engines are concerned but it's relevant enough in that instance. If it happens regularly though, they'll be removed. The expected way is to copy/paste the content into the forum rather than link but that one was too long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet 
no reliable estimates have been produced that support either argument as far as I know.

80% of new sales in a given quarter is believable enough - Samsung sells 2x the smartphones of Apple alone and they make up 60% of Android phones.

That information however is not particularly important when considering device usage or ad revenue because it doesn't give an indication of the ownership share. It's also not clear what devices are in the remaining 40% because there doesn't seem to be any profit outside of Samsung and Apple. If they are all operating at a loss for this long, they're not going to last and the sales will be absorbed by Samsung or Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet 
I certainly didn't read this meaning into the original article, and it doesn't come across in the wording of the critical quote IMO.

The critical quote is "repeats numbers he or she does not comprehend". The objection isn't the accuracy of the figures but what they mean.

"if Google had actually captured 80 percent of the success in smartphones, it should be reporting a similar percentage of revenues and profits: four times Apple's mobile performance."

Google's ad revenue comes from device ownership, not new sales. If Android had 80% ownership, the revenues would be different. Why would there be an objection in the article to authors misusing the figure if it wasn't the usage of the figure rather than the figure itself that was in question?
post #142 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

What evidence do you have that he has Jobs' taste or attention to detail. Jobs took a company which was bleeding to death, righted the ship, released OS X - the basis of all their success - on time; then when Apple was stable produced new and ground breaking products. Cook has taken over that company and as yet has done nothing in terms of innovation, is far too beholden to Wall Street ( buy backs and dividends would never have happened under Jobs - he never tried to prop up the stock). Cook may come good yet, we'll see this year.

I forgot Jobs ran Apple by himself. Everyone else was just a pretty face with a fancy title.
post #143 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

I forgot Jobs ran Apple by himself. Everyone else was just a pretty face with a fancy title.

I forgot to put you on ignore for arguing like a particular stupid 12 year old who can produce nothing but stupid straw man arguments, but I've rectified that now so don't both replying.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #144 of 299
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post
I forgot to put you on ignore for arguing like a particular stupid 12 year old who can produce nothing but stupid straw man arguments, but I've rectified that now so don't both replying.
 

Keep your pants on, everypeople. Let’s look at this again.

 

Originally Posted by asdasd View Post
What evidence do you have that he has Jobs' taste or attention to detail.

 

Cook doesn’t have to. Ive does. Cook does in the business, Ive does in the products. As does Federighi.

 

Steve trained his team to be him after he couldn’t be him.

 

Originally Posted by jungmark View Post
I forgot Jobs ran Apple by himself.

 

He’s not wrong in what he said. Jobs is the one who saved the company from going over the cliff. Jobs took the reins, but pulling the carriage was his team from NeXT. The wheels were Apple’s existing infrastructure. The carriage was the brand name. The shrieking woman inside the carriage was Jonathan Ive. And the metaphor’s running thin now. 

 

Do you think that a NeXT purchase, without Jobs, would have seen Apple become what it is today?

post #145 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

He’s not wrong in what he said. Jobs is the one who saved the company from going over the cliff. Jobs took the reins, but pulling the carriage was his team from NeXT. The wheels were Apple’s existing infrastructure. The carriage was the brand name. The shrieking woman inside the carriage was Jonathan Ive. And the metaphor’s running thin now. 

Do you think that a NeXT purchase, without Jobs, would have seen Apple become what it is today?

Yes Jobs saved Apple but he didn't do it alone. No one should downplay the team just to put Jobs on a pedestal.
post #146 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Meh.

This is another instance of Google trying to reinvent the wheel. They’re pretty late to the party. If they really wanted to learn about industrial robotics, they should seek out advice from companies like Siemens, Rockwell, Mistubishi, etc. who are highly advanced in this field: http://robohub.org/credit-suisse-picks-7-automationrobotics-stocks/

Sometimes a new player brings something the old guard never thought about, just ask Apple.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #147 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Yes Jobs saved Apple but he didn't do it alone. No one should downplay the team just to put Jobs on a pedestal.

That is quite trite. Of course no one does things like this by himself/herself.

Do you tend to always say 'Edison and his team,' or 'Musk and lieutenants', or 'Watson and his managers,' ....you get the point ..... when you talk about the accomplishments of leaders and their companies? If you do, you're the only one.
post #148 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Sometimes a new player brings something the old guard never thought about, just ask Apple.

Other than search, does Google have a track record of doing that?
Edited by anantksundaram - 2/16/14 at 2:36pm
post #149 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Other than search, does a Google have track record of doing that?

I think we could definitely add email to the list. Google was the first to bring 1GB of storage when Yahoo! Mail and Hotmail were giving something weak like 20MB, not to mention Google bringing decent attachment sizes, a better and more secure UI, and reducing spam considerably. Even today I think Gmail is the best (that I use) for removing spam. I don't think I have gotten any from Gmail in years but I get several per week from iCloud mail. Even years after Gmail launched Apple was woefully behind the times. Even MobileMe mail would send all your personal email data as cleartext via the web interface. This was only resolved with iCloud mail.

Google Docs might be another instance of Google paying the way. I am in limbo over including Google Business (which I use) for my domain's email as an inexpensive, robust, and always available service that seems unmatched but is that doing something substantially different than the "old guard" or merely doing essentially the same thing better than the "old guard"?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #150 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Other than search, does a Google have track record of doing that?

No but neither did Apple. It's usually a new unknown runner that breaks the track record.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #151 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I think we could definitely add email to the list. Google was the first to bring 1GB of storage when Yahoo! Mail and Hotmail were giving something weak like 20MB, not to mention Google bringing decent attachment sizes, a better and more secure UI, and reducing spam considerably. Even today I think Gmail is the best (that I use) for removing spam. I don't think I have gotten any from Gmail in years but I get several per week from iCloud mail. Even years after Gmail launched Apple was woefully behind the times. Even MobileMe mail would send all your personal email data as cleartext via the web interface. This was only resolved with iCloud mail.

Google Docs might be another instance of Google paying the way. I am in limbo over including Google Business (which I use) for my domain's email as an inexpensive, robust, and always available service that seems unmatched but is that doing something substantially different than the "old guard" or merely doing essentially the same thing better than the "old guard"?

Mail, I totally agree. Google Docs is very poorly implemented: almost as bad as Apple's related efforts.

I doubt very much, however, that Google is going to bring some revolutionary thinking to hardware.
post #152 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


No but neither did Apple.

With all due respect, that is plainly nonsense.
post #153 of 299
How many times can you write the same article?
post #154 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

With all due respect, that is plainly nonsense.

Are you forgetting at how nobody thought the iPod/iPhone/iPad would be successful? How many times did people say the same things you said? I'm not saying Google will beat those companies, I'm just saying that it's possible.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #155 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post
 
  • Google's driverless cars: 2010 and earlier.
  • iOS in the Car: unveiled at WWDC 2013.
  • Open Automotive Alliance (Android in cars): announced January 2014.

 

Google were involved in the automotive arena before Apple, and expanding from driverless cars running Google software to cars augmented with Google software is a fairly logical progression. 

 

 

  • Google Glass: 2011
  • iWatch rumours: 2012 / 2013
  • Google smartwatch rumours: 2013
  • Google's glucose-sensing contact lens: 2014

 

'Wearable' does not mean just 'smart watches'. To some extent, Google's not even moving in the same direction as Apple - they're investigating the watch side of things, but Glass and other optical devices are completely different to anything we're hearing about from Apple.

 

Yeah? Apple has been working on glasses since 2007 when this patent was filed: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,605,008.PN.&OS=PN/8,605,008&RS=PN/8,605,008

post #156 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Are you forgetting at how nobody thought the iPod/iPhone/iPad would be successful? How many times did people say the same things you said? I'm not saying Google will beat those companies, I'm just saying that it's possible.

I wonder if your disagreement is regarding the term "new player." Apple was a new player to both the handset and tablets markets which were considered to be entrenched and unestablishable, respectively, but Apple wasn't a new player and had proven themselves with the first mass produced "PC," the first GUI PC, and dominating the PMP market, not to mention reinventing and rerouting these markets at their will.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #157 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zippinglou View Post

I'm using safari and have not crashed ever on this site. Reinstall your software if not the whole OS

It's always the fault of the user huh?

 

Once I updated Safari to 6.1.1 just a few weeks ago the crashing of these forums (which was rampant) finally stopped.

That's all I can say on the matter.

post #158 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

That is quite trite. Of course no one does things like this by himself/herself.

Do you tend to always say 'Edison and his team,' or 'Musk and lieutenants', or 'Watson and his managers,' ....you get the point ..... when you talk about the accomplishments of leaders and their companies? If you do, you're the only one.
But this discussion started with the assertion that Jobs had taste and cared about quality, as if no one else at Apple does (or at least not to the level Jobs did). Sure Jobs made good design and great products the priority at Apple. But he alone couldn't make that happen. He had to have talented employees who shared the same values as he did to make it happen. Two of Steve's closest colleagues/friends, Jony Ive (his design partner) and Eddy Cue (his deal maker and Mr Fix-It) weren't even hired by him. Both of them were at Apple years before Steve came back. And if it wasn't for Tim Cook running all the parts of Apple that Steve didn't care about (Steve never once set foot in China while he was CEO) Steve wouldn't have had all the time to spend on the things he did care about. I think it's totally unfair the way some dismiss Cook just because the things he excels at are different than what Steve excelled at.
post #159 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobSchlob View Post

Once I updated Safari to 6.1.1 just a few weeks ago the crashing of these forums (which was rampant) finally stopped.
That's all I can say on the matter.
How does one do that on the iPad?
post #160 of 299
Quote:
 Despite those leaps, Apple's stock has only appreciated by $41, or about 8.3 percent over the past two years. Google's stock has nearly doubled, seeing an increase of 98.5 percent over the same two year period. It's hard to argue that's not delusion in a graph.
 

 

 

Can you say Stock Manipulation?  I knew you could!

 

A stock like Apple is very easy to manipulate.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Google has fooled the media and markets, but hasn't bested Tim Cook's Apple
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google has fooled the media and markets, but hasn't bested Tim Cook's Apple