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 5

post #161 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disturbia View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

Apple fanboy blogs seem to love talking about Google and what google does, yet google, android fanboy blogs seem to not give a dam. Sites like android central, Google os, literally pretends apple doesn't exist and Apple blogs seem to have this weird hatred for Google, its weird.

ROFLMAO

 

 Short memory problem or playing dumb like all android fanboys?!! Google os was built by copying iOS fully and completely. Remember this from that arrogant f**** ... the so-called father of android?

 

He was in a cab in Las Vegas, watching a webcast of the presentation. He made the driver pull over so he could see the whole thing. He said, "Holy crap, I guess we're not going to launch that phone."

Honestly, your post is so weird I suggest you google them yourself before rambling.

Android is a stolen product.  Google is trying to kill the iPhone.

post #162 of 299
Android as we know it is a doubly-stolen product. Basic Android, that was going to run those bogus Blackberries that Rubin canceled at that point was stolen from Oracle, and the GUI that people think of as "Android" now was stolen from Apple. Incompetently in both cases. Unfortunately, Google being brought to book for either theft is somewhere between slim and none. They'll let hardware manufacturers take the heat on patent infringement.
post #163 of 299

I've heard the stolen claim a lot while posting here, but I'm not sure I know what the allegations are exactly. When you say 'the GUI' was stolen, what exactly do you mean? Early Android looked very little like iOS to my eyes, so I wonder if perhaps you're talking about concepts?

 

This thread might not be the appropriate place for discussing this but I'm just interested in getting a solid definition of what people consider stolen. Cheers.

post #164 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

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.

As boss, Jobs had the authority to fire, retain, or hire anyone he wanted. The fact that he decided to retain them is all we need to know.

At the the day, if Apple 2.0 had failed, it would be on his head. So should the success.

In any event, the opinions that people like you have about it is of piddling consequence.
post #165 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

At the the day, if Apple 2.0 had failed, it would be on his head. So should the success.

I think that's a sound argument.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #166 of 299
[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

As long as Apple's MO is to go 6-9 months with no new products that warrant a keynote or media attention this will continue. Under Steve Apple was given the benefit of the doubt that really cool stuff was always being cooked up in the Cupertino labs. Under Cook Apple isn't given that same benefit of the doubt. So silence basically equates to Apple out of ideas, can't innovate anymore, etc.

True. But on the positive site: Apple only needs to release one single landmark product under Cook to invalidate all this nonsense (and force these guys to innovate a new working doomsday scenario, which, given their average level of intelligence, most won't achieve in their lifetime). So far, they released a lot of very solid stuff under him, but certainly no true game changer.
g

"Apple only needs to release one single landmark product under Cook..."
We're it so simple. But it cuts to the crux certainly - because that's the overall perception by both sides of the argument. Not only does Apple have to release a new device category, but it has to be a combined home run_hatrick_Olympic Gold as well.
Perversely, Apple arguably uses raised expectations as part of its initial marketing to ensure almost instantaneous worldwide attention. In that sense it's better to make the wait worthwhile and that is the real challenge.
Edited by Frac - 2/16/14 at 6:04pm
post #167 of 299

You wrote:

 

Back out Apple's $159 billion in cash, and its obvious that investors are clearly deluded into thinking that Google's business is worth significantly more than Apple's, despite being rooted in the PC past and proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be unable to materially expand into the present era of mobile devices in a way that matters. 

 

Google is being valued higher because investors who are looking forward believe that their model is more sustainable in the future.  Their moat is bigger.  Google sells services and a little hardware. Apple sells mostly hardware, then little software and few services.  In the past hardware like phones have been easily disrupted.  At some point people believe phones can get extremely good and cost very little. This I believe will happen.  Just look at PC's a decade ago and now today.  No reason mobile should not follow the same path.

 

Googles moat is powerful and deep.  they will be generating search and other income for the foreseeable future.  Run by visionary and risk taking founders this is a different culture then apple.  Just look at the moonshots google takes all over the place compared to apple who is still iterating.

 

Getting another ipad or iphone hit is a longshot.  Time will tell.  Even if apple does manage to do it the question is how long will the next big thing sustain its advantage and margins?  Apple margins already down big from their peak.  This is why investors value google higher PE over apple because likelihood of margin erosion and disruption is far lower.  Bing tried to take down Google.  Didn't make a dent. Who could build what google has taken all these years to build and what stands on the minds of 1000's of geniuses.  It won't be apple or microsoft no matter how much they spend or put into it.  This is the strength of google.

post #168 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

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.

Not at all, the OP doubted that Google could do any better than the companies that have been in robotics for years. I was merely pointing out that the same was said about 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 #169 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by SudoNym View Post

Android is a stolen product.  Google is trying to kill the iPhone.

I think you meant stolen idea, and why would Google kill one of its biggest money makers? There's really nothing on a Android phone that doesn't have a iOS version.
"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 #170 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

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.

Thanks for the clarification. He's on a bit of thin ice, but like I say, it's way worth it, and I can't imagine how else he could steer us to a valuable new concept.

This is in reference to chrismariott's post on Apple as a "supercompany," #47, on page two of the comments here. The general idea is that while the shortsighted are worried about Apple's imminent decline or doom, the company itself is mapping out 25-year plans with a coherence not seen before by any industrial concern in history. Their investment in production robotics over many recent years is only one example. This view would see google's new interest as a very late effort to catch up.
Edited by Flaneur - 2/16/14 at 6:48pm
post #171 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


Sadly, what I do now is to write my posts using Textedit (or whatever separate editor) and when I'm ready I simply copy/paste it into the post before the site gets an opportunity to crash my browser.  It's sad, but it's what I do.


Weird that the site crashes on my MBA (late 2011) consistently, yet is rock-solid on my 2009 iMac.  Both running Mavericks.  Figure that.

We collectively need to start calling out AI for the pure piece of shit their web platform is built on. For god's sake, they are a technology focused news organization - use good technology! Start by firing your entire IT staff, trash this POS and build a technologically competent website. This is absolutely the worst site I visit in terms of speed, loading, crashing, etc. FIX IT! Please, everyone, join me in this effort to wake these people up!
post #172 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post

You wrote:

Back out Apple's $159 billion in cash, and its obvious that investors are clearly deluded into thinking that Google's business is worth significantly more than Apple's, despite being rooted in the PC past and proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be unable to materially expand into the present era of mobile devices in a way that matters. 

Google is being valued higher because investors who are looking forward believe that their model is more sustainable in the future.  Their moat is bigger.  Google sells services and a little hardware. Apple sells mostly hardware, then little software and few services.  In the past hardware like phones have been easily disrupted.  At some point people believe phones can get extremely good and cost very little. This I believe will happen.  Just look at PC's a decade ago and now today.  No reason mobile should not follow the same path.

Googles moat is powerful and deep.  they will be generating search and other income for the foreseeable future.  Run by visionary and risk taking founders this is a different culture then apple.  Just look at the moonshots google takes all over the place compared to apple who is still iterating.

Getting another ipad or iphone hit is a longshot.  Time will tell.  Even if apple does manage to do it the question is how long will the next big thing sustain its advantage and margins?  Apple margins already down big from their peak.  This is why investors value google higher PE over apple because likelihood of margin erosion and disruption is far lower.  Bing tried to take down Google.  Didn't make a dent. Who could build what google has taken all these years to build and what stands on the minds of 1000's of geniuses.  It won't be apple or microsoft no matter how much they spend or put into it.  This is the strength of google.


Advertising is a service that is arguably the most easily disrupted of all products and services. As we can see, this is occurring currently in mobile advertising. Google advertising has been displaced on the most valuable platform dramatically reducing mobile advertising revenue for Google. If the same displacement occurs in the motor vehicle market, digital media market or mobile payments market then Google could be demonstrated to be vulnerable.
post #173 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post


Advertising is a service that is arguably the most easily disrupted of all products and services. As we can see, this is occurring currently in mobile advertising. Google advertising has been displaced on the most valuable platform dramatically reducing mobile advertising revenue for Google. If the same displacement occurs in the motor vehicle market, digital media market or mobile payments market then Google could be demonstrated to be vulnerable.

 

Not sure I would agree with that.  If advertising was so easily disrupted why does google dominate it still?  It dominates on the desktop and is rising in mobile ad market share up from 52.36% in 2012 to 53.17% in 2013.  

 

Also this is not just advertising and this is what you and most don't realize.  There is a network effect on a grand scale:

 

1) Google has more traffic than anyone so they bring more buyers and more money.  More searchers means the highest CPC too but also the largest pool of consumers

 

2) Only google has littered the web with more site ads than anyone out there.  Most sites contain google adwords and are essentially partner with google utilizing their huge ad network to monetize their site.  Again this brings more ad buyers and more consumers to the table. Network effect

 

3) Mobile share is rising even if apple sells iphones/ipads.  I own iphones and ipads but the only thing I use to search on both is google app. I use google apps (gmail, etc) on both devices.  I use google maps and google drive too.  Google owns search on android and no reason they won't have or don't already have dominance on iphone/ipad.  What do you use to search on your idevice?  Is there really any alternative to Google?  siri is dreadful as is bing and yahoo a 2nd ran still. 

 

4) Yes on mobile the CPC will be lower but the volume will be demonstrably larger and we already see this in their latest numbers exactly like that.  Huge jump in clicks and decrease in CPC (cost per click).  Net effect is still healthy rise in revenue and profits.

 

As a consumer and advertise the only places I promote my sites are on google and facebook.  Would not even consider wasting time or money on yahoo or bing.  My sites are also monetized, in part, by google adwords.  Does bing or yahoo even have an equivalent?  No.  Google's ad network reigns supreme.

 

Apple whether they like it or not are at the early stages of the race to the bottom.  They used to have almost 50% margins.  Now they are in the 30's.  A few years could be 20's just to stay in the game.  What will people do when they get an equivalent S5 coming out soon in 3 or 4 years for $100.  It will be a harder sell putting an iphone up against that.  A few weeks ago I'd say it didn't matter because telcos subsidize it.  Now Verizon, ATT and T-Mobile all let you bring your phone, pay for it and then pay LOWER monthly rates.  This is all new. The effect will be longer upgrade cycles and more price conscious buyers.

 

Sure apple won't lose most of their fans but even a 5% slice a year for a few years will be damaging especially if apple has to lower ASP's to keep what remains.  I used to believe this would not happen but things have changed and more so recently.  If you keep saying there are no weeds, there are no weeds....they will take your garden.

post #174 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Not at all, the OP doubted that Google could do any better than the companies that have been in robotics for years. I was merely pointing out that the same was said about Apple.

I agree with your comment but would also point out that Apple tends to heavily leverage their current expertise when they've ventured into other areas (not just throw money at it) which does seem different than Google getting into robotics (unless they're leveraging robotics needed for their vast and numerous data centers).
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/17/14 at 6:20am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #175 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.

All I'm saying is Jobs wasn't 100% correct and that the others pushed him to make the correct decision to make Apple a success.
post #176 of 299
"Motorola threatened to consider making Windows Phones, and that was enough for Google's executives to write a virtually blank check. So in a sense, Motorola did super charge Google, but not in the way Android fans expected."

 

Well.... (Ahem)... That certainly increased the "thrown cat"-to-pigeon ratio.

post #177 of 299
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post
All I'm saying is Jobs wasn't 100% correct and that the others pushed him to make the correct decision to make Apple a success.

 

To use a metaphor, existing Apple was the Rocketdyne F-1, NeXT was the Rocketdyne J-2, his executive team was the CM and its RCS engines, and Jobs was the LEM.

 

I’m sorry, but the fact that we haven’t been to the Moon in 42 years really infuriates me.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #178 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod View Post
 

 

Not sure I would agree with that.  If advertising was so easily disrupted why does google dominate it still?  It dominates on the desktop and is rising in mobile ad market share up from 52.36% in 2012 to 53.17% in 2013.  

 

Also this is not just advertising and this is what you and most don't realize.  There is a network effect on a grand scale:

 

1) Google has more traffic than anyone so they bring more buyers and more money.  More searchers means the highest CPC too but also the largest pool of consumers

 

2) Only google has littered the web with more site ads than anyone out there.  Most sites contain google adwords and are essentially partner with google utilizing their huge ad network to monetize their site.  Again this brings more ad buyers and more consumers to the table. Network effect

 

3) Mobile share is rising even if apple sells iphones/ipads.  I own iphones and ipads but the only thing I use to search on both is google app. I use google apps (gmail, etc) on both devices.  I use google maps and google drive too.  Google owns search on android and no reason they won't have or don't already have dominance on iphone/ipad.  What do you use to search on your idevice?  Is there really any alternative to Google?  siri is dreadful as is bing and yahoo a 2nd ran still. 

 

I would say the biggest threat to Google is that they deal in an information economy rather than a cash economy. Google users are not customers but the product being sold to advertising customers. Awareness around the real world consequences of the information economy is building. Browser plugins that block all adwords, trackers and social networking plugins across the web are relatively trivial to implement. In fact in typing this reply I'm currently blocking 7 trackers/beacons(one of which is Google Analytics) and 2 advertisements.

 

There are also search engine alternatives that provide cleaner (and arguably better) results.

post #179 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

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.

So they're here to stay, bummer.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #180 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

So, how does iTunes, that is the various iTunes store's revenue compare to Google's entire revenue?

 

Over the last several years iTunes revenue when taken on it's own has exploded and is more than every Android handset maker, apart from Samsung, earns combined.

Revenues of iTunes are strongly related to hardware sales. A slip in sales == a slip in revenue. iTunes doesn't exist as "a standalone" source of revenue.

 

These are the advantages and disadvantages of having an ecosystem. You can create a positive reinforcing cycle as well as a downward spiral according to sales.

 

Imagine Android continuing it's increase in sales: where are developers going to go? Android first and Apple second. So Apple won't have exclusives, and the interest might decrease.

Moreover: Rdio, Pandora, iTunes Radio itself are eating up music sales profits. Let's see what happens with the AppleTV. If it takes off then maybe als TV episode sales might see a slip.

 

Apple isn't "doomed", quite the opposite. But seeing the challenge it faces in the coming years allows to better understand, in my opinion at least, that Apple has to increase the sources of revenue (diversification) without spreading too thin, which almost turned into a disaster prior to Jobs returning.

post #181 of 299

Re: Apple not having majority phone marketshare.

 

Ten years ago when we all had one computer that did everything, owning that market was super important, and Microsoft did that. But today, where most people have several gadgets: a phone, a tablet, a computer - having 20% of each market may be better for a company than having 90% of one. Because then customers can integrate all their devices, and get pulled in to an ecosystem. And if it's the premium 20% of each market than more the better.

 

So in this age of many devices, when looking at marketshare, perhaps there needs to be a new kind of calculation, that takes in to account related markets.

post #182 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post


Advertising is a service that is arguably the most easily disrupted of all products and services. As we can see, this is occurring currently in mobile advertising. Google advertising has been displaced on the most valuable platform dramatically reducing mobile advertising revenue for Google. If the same displacement occurs in the motor vehicle market, digital media market or mobile payments market then Google could be demonstrated to be vulnerable.

I agree to a certain extent. But Google was smart in creating Android. It gives them a strong foothold in the mobile industry. Much as it was the case for Microsoft on the desktop, manufacturers have a love-hate relationship with Android. They love it because it allows them to create phones which they couldn't by themselves, they hate it because they have a partner that dictates the rules (more so than anyone imagined).

 

Google played it smart though. They allowed a level of customization that was unprecedented for an OS (excluding Linux of course) providing the manufacturer with the chance to create their phone "slightly" different one from the other, still retaining compatibility with all apps.


Manufacturers love this approach, they always had. Carriers have historically tried to customize the phones they subsidize for a long time. I remember (makes me feel old though) that all Vodafone and Orange phones where so much full of personalized icons and stuff that all Vodafone devices' menus looked the same. And that the same phone on Vodafone or Orange would seem a totally different phone.

All of this led to poor innovation and disaster. Luckily the iPhone came along and disrupted this strategy. Still thankful to Jobs for providing a masterpiece of technology (dare I say it? Art!) and changing so much of the phone industry.

post #183 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post
 

Re: Apple not having majority phone marketshare.

 

Ten years ago when we all had one computer that did everything, owning that market was super important, and Microsoft did that. But today, where most people have several gadgets: a phone, a tablet, a computer - having 20% of each market may be better for a company than having 90% of one. Because then customers can integrate all their devices, and get pulled in to an ecosystem. And if it's the premium 20% of each market than more the better.

 

So in this age of many devices, when looking at marketshare, perhaps there needs to be a new kind of calculation, that takes in to account related markets.

 

 

The point is that the computer market is shrinking. So, even though you have a small marketshare but command the lion's share of profits, the overall profit you make is still dwarfed by the numbers of the mobile industry.

 

Yes, Apple will probably retain the highest tier of the smartphone market. But they most certainly won't be selling hundred of millions of phones a year. And their cost structure requires them these kind of profits (Apple stores, free software, R&D, etc etc). 

Apple cannot sell only a handful of phones a year, even at premium prices, without massively reducing its size. Or entering new, growing markets and retain the overall profit. Important is that watches don't allow for a "Per unit" profit level of a smartphone.

post #184 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMat View Post
 

I agree to a certain extent. But Google was smart in creating Android. It gives them a strong foothold in the mobile industry. Much as it was the case for Microsoft on the desktop, manufacturers have a love-hate relationship with Android. They love it because it allows them to create phones which they couldn't by themselves, they hate it because they have a partner that dictates the rules (more so than anyone imagined).

 

Google played it smart though. They allowed a level of customization that was unprecedented for an OS (excluding Linux of course) providing the manufacturer with the chance to create their phone "slightly" different one from the other, still retaining compatibility with all apps.


Manufacturers love this approach, they always had. Carriers have historically tried to customize the phones they subsidize for a long time. I remember (makes me feel old though) that all Vodafone and Orange phones where so much full of personalized icons and stuff that all Vodafone devices' menus looked the same. And that the same phone on Vodafone or Orange would seem a totally different phone.

All of this led to poor innovation and disaster. Luckily the iPhone came along and disrupted this strategy. Still thankful to Jobs for providing a masterpiece of technology (dare I say it? Art!) and changing so much of the phone industry.

 

The level of customisation offered by Symbian and other OS's as shown by your examples, kills your earlier argument.

 

Android largely replaced Symbian.

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 #185 of 299
Wow this article is super-biased. Google may be able to fool investors but you can't fool your customers. If 80% of phones being shipped are android it's because people like it. Most of these users are people who have used android phones in the past and are happy with it. Some are switching from the iPhone (for good reason) and maybe a handful are completely new to smartphones but have been recommended by friends/family. If anything, I think it's Apple who has been trying to fool customers by selling products for double their android-equivalent prices based purely on the "it's cool" factor. But the shift to android shows that you can only fool people for so long.

Comparing their growth to Sun/Adobe is a silly comparison. In the smartphone-era android figures are unparalleled. That's not to say that android will always be the dominant OS. Sooner or later they too will join Nokia and Apple in the once-was list. But for now, they are inarguably the no.1 player. And personally I feel as a software Android 4.4 is leagues ahead of iOS7.
post #186 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashail View Post

Wow this article is super-biased. Google may be able to fool investors but you can't fool your customers. If 80% of phones being shipped are android it's because people like it. Most of these users are people who have used android phones in the past and are happy with it. Some are switching from the iPhone (for good reason) and maybe a handful are completely new to smartphones but have been recommended by friends/family. If anything, I think it's Apple who has been trying to fool customers by selling products for double their android-equivalent prices based purely on the "it's cool" factor. But the shift to android shows that you can only fool people for so long.

Comparing their growth to Sun/Adobe is a silly comparison. In the smartphone-era android figures are unparalleled. That's not to say that android will always be the dominant OS. Sooner or later they too will join Nokia and Apple in the once-was list. But for now, they are inarguably the no.1 player. And personally I feel as a software Android 4.4 is leagues ahead of iOS7.

 

Most Android phones sold are cheap pieces of junk that barely function as feature phones, let alone smartphones, there is no money in them.

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 #187 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I agree with your comment but would also point out that Apple tends to heavily leverage their current expertise when they've ventured into other areas (not just through money at it) which does seem different than Google getting into robotics (unless they're leveraging robotics needed for their vast and numerous data centers).

I agree, but I was speaking in generalities, not in 'if Apple did it so could Google'.
"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 #188 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

In any event, the opinions that people like you have about it is of piddling consequence.
and same can be said of you or anyone else posting in this thread.
post #189 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMat View Post

Revenues of iTunes are strongly related to hardware sales. A slip in sales == a slip in revenue. iTunes doesn't exist as "a standalone" source of revenue.

These are the advantages and disadvantages of having an ecosystem. You can create a positive reinforcing cycle as well as a downward spiral according to sales.

Imagine Android continuing it's increase in sales: where are developers going to go? Android first and Apple second. So Apple won't have exclusives, and the interest might decrease.
Moreover: Rdio, Pandora, iTunes Radio itself are eating up music sales profits. Let's see what happens with the AppleTV. If it takes off then maybe als TV episode sales might see a slip.

Apple isn't "doomed", quite the opposite. But seeing the challenge it faces in the coming years allows to better understand, in my opinion at least, that Apple has to increase the sources of revenue (diversification) without spreading too thin, which almost turned into a disaster prior to Jobs returning.
Developers won't go Android first if iOS is where the money is to be made. We've already seen stats that show iOS customers use their devices as a smartphone more than Android customers do. iOS customers do more online browsing and spend more on apps. Basically iOS customers have more disposable income. I think I know who I'd want to develop for.
post #190 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Developers won't go Android first if iOS is where the money is to be made. We've already seen stats that show iOS customers use their devices as a smartphone more than Android customers do. iOS customers do more online browsing and spend more on apps. Basically iOS customers have more disposable income. I think I know who I'd want to develop for.

 

These days there's even a bunch of frameworks for simpler apps or games that will let you deploy your app to every platform at once. As far as I know Apple has no problem with Unity for example, so that way you can take advantage of both markets.

post #191 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Developers won't go Android first if iOS is where the money is to be made. We've already seen stats that show iOS customers use their devices as a smartphone more than Android customers do. iOS customers do more online browsing and spend more on apps. Basically iOS customers have more disposable income. I think I know who I'd want to develop for.

Actually develpers going iOS first has nothing to do with anything either of you said.  Developers go iOS first because iOS is much easier to program for.  With iOS, there are only a handful of devices, all with similar hardware, so programming is easy.  With Android, there are so many variants in both hardware (phones with multiple buttons, phones with one button, phones with no buttons, varying resolution screens, etc.) and software (phones running the gamut of Android releases between 2.3 Gingerbread and 4.4 KitKat, phones running all the skinned variants of Android from manufacturers like Samsung TouchWiz, HTC Sense, Motorola MotoBlur, LG's skin, etc.) that is takes MUCH longer for developers to test on.

post #192 of 299
Quote:
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.

Please add me to your block list if you haven't already.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #193 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

How does one do that on the iPad?

He's referring to the Mac version of Safari, not the iPad version.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #194 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post

I've heard the stolen claim a lot while posting here, but I'm not sure I know what the allegations are exactly. When you say 'the GUI' was stolen, what exactly do you mean? Early Android looked very little like iOS to my eyes, so I wonder if perhaps you're talking about concepts?

This thread might not be the appropriate place for discussing this but I'm just interested in getting a solid definition of what people consider stolen. Cheers.

'GUI' refers to the User Interface—it's what the OS looks like.

Early Android was designed to copy Blackberry, but when the iPhone came out, they quickly realised they would have to copy Apple, so they did. As Google is a company with no ethics, stealing doesn't matter to them. To most people, stealing is very wrong, which is why Google is deservedly hated by several people who write on these forums.

As you know all this, I conclude that you condone theft.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #195 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Please add me to your block list if you haven't already.

I'll wait until you are here more than 5 minutes. You don't get ignored by veterans here until I actually know who you are. I have no idea who you are.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #196 of 299

Not sure that Android copied the GUI all that much.  Samsung certainly copied a bit/lot in some versions of TouchWiz, but Android proper looks quite different to iOS, and the things that are similar are things that also look similar to PalmOS and other mobile GUIs that predate both iOS and Android.  What Android "copied" was more conceptual, in its focusing on the large screen touch paradigm (whereas previous protoypes all had keyboards) and competing directly with iOS in the consumer market (it was initially meant as a BlackBerry competitor).

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #197 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post


'GUI' refers to the User Interface—it's what the OS looks like.

Early Android was designed to copy Blackberry, but when the iPhone came out, they quickly realised they would have to copy Apple, so they did. As Google is a company with no ethics, stealing doesn't matter to them. To most people, stealing is very wrong, which is why Google is deservedly hated by several people who write on these forums.

As you know all this, I conclude that you condone theft.

 

I do not condone theft and I would still like you to point out what exactly is copied. This is the first Android phone as far as I know and I don't see much in the way of similarities:

 

 

edit: Crowley, I'm confused by your post too. You state that all previous phones had keyboards, but the first Android phone also had a keyboard. You also seem to state that Google copied 'being an Apple competitor' from Apple, which I don't really understand.

post #198 of 299
Outside of the US, in the auto-mobile market MirrorLink is likely to be adopted as standard.

I'm not sure about 'fooling the markets', most competition revolves around hiding existence of the best new technologies.
Reality is like the tide, ever changing.
post #199 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsTheInternet View Post
 

edit: Crowley, I'm confused by your post too. You state that all previous phones had keyboards, but the first Android phone also had a keyboard. You also seem to state that Google copied 'being an Apple competitor' from Apple, which I don't really understand.

Sorry, I probably worded it clumsily.

 

The G1, and a few other early Android phones had slide out keyboards, but the Android prototypes had fixed keyboards like BlackBerrys.  And the keyboards didn't last long, manufacturers dropped them to copy Apple's approach of a touch screen and software keyboard.

 

Re. being an Apple competitor, I'm talking about the market they were targetting.  BlackBerry were on top of the enterprise, with some minor encroachment on the consumer market, and I believe Android was conceived of as a rival to BlackBerry for that space.  When Apple announced the iPhone, and it was clearly consumer-facing (albeit high end) then the target for Android was shifted to also being the consumer market.

 

I don't think either of these things are in any way illegal or questionable copying, but they're what got Steve Jobs so wound up.  Android was refactored from a Microsoft and RIM rival for businesses, to a direct iPhone competitor and copied its touch paradigm.

 

The GUI itself, well it has some resemblances because it uses the same touch paradigm, but it's not really copied, it's pretty different throughout Android's lifespan.

 


Edited by Crowley - 2/17/14 at 9:17am

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #200 of 299
The chart showing the constant lowering of phone prices should scare the hell out of Apple. The old days of not caring how much the phone costs are gone, people now pay monthly or upfront the entire cost of the phone, and the higher the price the more expensive their monthly phone bill. All you have to do is look at the Moto G which is a very nice phone with last years technology and all it costs is $179. Once people get out of their contract and get a great phone for not a lot of money Apple will be forced to dramatically lower their prices which will cut into the massive profit margins they have been enjoying.
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