or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Why Apple, Inc. is keeping the identity of many of its 23 recent acquisitions a secret
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Apple, Inc. is keeping the identity of many of its 23 recent acquisitions a secret - Page 3

post #81 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post
 
... highly-targeted ... highly precise search results, .... find a needle in a haystack. ..... in the past, may have taken days, weeks, months, or even a lifetime ....

Are there empirical measures/results that show this? (Not Page's thesis, but actual evidence assessed/analyzed by credible third parties). Measures of vague terms such as 'targeted', 'precise', the fact that it could have avoided a 'lifetime of searching'?

 

Again, I am not trying to be contentious, but none of what you guys have said so far has gone beyond the cliches I've heard time and again.

post #82 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

Why don't you enlighten us, instead of throwing out jargon?

 

I took the time to Google up a page that explains them both in short, concise words so that only the bare minimum of effort will be required on your part to educate yourself.

 

http://www.base36.com/2012/12/agile-waterfall-methodologies-a-side-by-side-comparison/

Thanks. That was a very helpful link.

 

But I am confused now: Are you saying Google is 'agile' while Apple is 'waterfall'? Or the other way around? How do you know this?

post #83 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post

How about Google Now (innovation of the year 2012) or Google Street View an innovation in it's own right. And Google's main product the search engine, they existed before, but they revolutionized how search engines worked.

I found little use for Google Now on my Nexus 4. I have yet to meet someone that used Street a View for anything other than idle curiosity. They are kind of neat but not stellar IMO.

On search, they have done amazing things. Most of the rest feels like beta testing.
post #84 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Are there empirical measures/results that show this? (Not Page's thesis, but actual evidence assessed/analyzed by credible third parties). Measures of vague terms such as 'targeted', 'precise', the fact that it could have avoided a 'lifetime of searching'?

Again, I am not trying to be contentious, but none of what you guys have said so far has gone beyond the cliches I've heard time and again.

How do you think Google, a lowly startup, got the world to move from, MSN, Yahoo!, and AltaVista? There search was better and faster. There were extensive tests on this when the word-of-mouth made people not only try it but stick with it. I tried DuckDuckGo — and it was fine — but it wasn't good enough to make me stop using Google.

You're argument is akin to something with an Android using empirical, verifiable data to show that the iPhone is better than their phone because the spec sheet lists a 6" display, 3GB RAM, 4 core CPU, blah blah blah. If you asked your same question and wanted proof that Apple makes better products I couldn't give you the impossible you want. If you haven't experienced Google's services compared to other vendor's services and you won't take my anecdotal comparisons as proof than I can't say that Google has a better spam filter than Hotmail I can only say I got a lot more spam in Hotmail than I ever did with Gmail.

"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 #85 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

Thanks. That was a very helpful link.

 

But I am confused now: Are you saying Google is 'agile' while Apple is 'waterfall'? Or the other way around? How do you know this?

 

Yes, I would say that Google takes an agile approach while Apple takes a waterfall approach.  Google takes a more iterative, customer feedback, add features regularly to a product that isn't totally complete on initial release approach.  Apple's iOS and OSX are mature products and the requirements are well known ahead of time.  They know what they want, they map out how to get there, and then they execute.  Their release cycles are more spread out with maintenance updates in between.

post #86 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

Are there empirical measures/results that show this? (Not Page's thesis, but actual evidence assessed/analyzed by credible third parties). Measures of vague terms such as 'targeted', 'precise', the fact that it could have avoided a 'lifetime of searching'?

 

Again, I am not trying to be contentious, but none of what you guys have said so far has gone beyond the cliches I've heard time and again.


Proof is in almost every other search engine out there adopting a similar system (as far as is possible as many of Google's search algorithms are still secret) afterwards. There is absolutely no doubt that the method Google used was fundamentally different from search engines already active at that time and eventually became the way search engines worked in general (with some minor differences here and there).

post #87 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

You may benefit from reading up on the differences between "agile" and "waterfall" development methodologies.  It may help you to understand the differences between Google's and Apple's methods and the pros and cons of each.  Neither is inherently bad, they're just different.

If you did not know this (and you must not), both companies use both methods. So what is your point?
post #88 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

Yes, I would say that Google takes an agile approach while Apple takes a waterfall approach.  Google takes a more iterative, customer feedback, add features regularly to a product that isn't totally complete on initial release approach.  Apple's iOS and OSX are mature products and the requirements are well known ahead of time.  They know what they want, they map out how to get there, and then they execute.  Their release cycles are more spread out with maintenance updates in between.

And that does not define Agile or waterfall development.
post #89 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) I never said Google Now was innovative but they did do it slightly better. Chances are there likely some innovative aspects to it that I am not aware.

2) in•o•vate - make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products. What the hell do you think improvements are? The iPhone 5S is an improvement over the iPhone 5 but I doubt you'd argue there are no innovations in it. After all, SoCs and biometrics existed before last year¡

3) I said as much.

4) I am not avoiding reasonable questions and I've gone out of my way in both cases to answer what I consider unreasonable questions because of your history here, but I do think you're purposely acting obtuse in both case.

Oh please, SolipsismX. Give me a tad more credit than that. I am not at all trying to be cute-sy or contentious, as I've repeatedly said. Also, I have pointed out that I actually admire Google (unless, of course, you think I am lying -- although, I would have no reason to).

 

My questions are motivated by a sense of befuddlement that I've had over the years about why everyone thinks Google is such an innovative company. People look at you like you must be daft (no, I am not), or as though it's a question along the lines of 'does God exist' (it's a pointless question), or that you must think Google is evil (I don't think so).

 

What I want to hear is cogent, well-articulated arguments that back up assertions and claims.

 

Now, to your points:

 

1) OK, it might be 'slightly better' but I don't know that for a fact. But you appeared to agree with the post from Chipsys which claimed that Google Now was some fantastic innovation. You're just damning Google with faint praise, as far as I can see.

 

2) The word 'innovate' would be redundant if it did not mean much more than 'improve'. (That's what I take away when you make a statement such as 'what do you think improvements are?').

 

3) No, you did not. You were dismissive of marketing.

 

4) The fact that you might think my questions are unreasonable doesn't make it so. If you -- or anyone makes an assertion -- I will call you on it. I expect people will do the same to me. I intensely dislike vacuous, platitudinous bullshit.

post #90 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
1) Google Now is Google's version of Siri. It came out as a result of Siri but in many ways it's better than Siri, but that shouldn't be surprising considering Google had been siting on all the parts for many years but (as usual) it's only after Apple shows them how to arrange the parts that others follow suit.

Have not used Google Now. Don't even know what it is but as far as the Siri comparison, I use Google Voice Search all the time. I believe that technology was home grown using the now defunct Goog 411 which was a beta phone number look up service that was developed by Google to perfect their voice recognition technology and was abandoned once the voice to text algorithms were ready for prime time. They didn't need to acquire a company for that unlike Apple who had to buy that technology.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #91 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

If you did not know this (and you must not), both companies use both methods. So what is your point?

This is what I would have guessed, from the descriptions that DroidFTW linked to.

 

But what do I know...

post #92 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post


And that does not define Agile or waterfall development.

 

What I posted may not be as thorough as you'd like, but you're welcome to correct any innacuracies or add any critical points about either that you feel I left out.

post #93 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Search algorithms and page ranking algorithms that both organize and query results better and faster than every other service. Then you have the algorithms for reducing spam and integrating various other serves into mail. Then you have the soft innovations like the uncluttered search screen and 1GB of free space for mail. All of these unseen until Google did them. Even now their secret sauce is still not matched. Well after Gmail eliminated spam .Mac and MobileMe mail was still riddled with it… and that was a paid service! With iCloud it's gotten much better but I still get too many.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

Google was founded on the strength of its pagerank algorithm. People wouldn't have moved away from existing search giants such as Yahoo and Altavista to the startup that Google was back then unless Google's algorithm provided search results much more quickly or accurately than the competition.

 

The Gmail interface pioneered the use of ajax in web applications (http://www.developer.com/design/article.php/3526681/AJAX-Asynchronous-Java--XML.htm). Everyone else made you sit around and wait for the entire page to reload when all you wanted to do was delete a message.

These are beginnings of good explanations. Thanks.

 

I will plan to find out more.

post #94 of 250

Back to the main point of this article, which is that Apple's acquisition strategy appears to be small targets, done deliberately and quietly, with little, if any, overpayment, and in the nature of carefully nurtured 'A&D'. I believe that this disciplined approach is the winning M&A strategy for the long haul.

 

Witness the nonsensical tech M&A mess that we see swirling around us, such as HP/Autonomy, Intel/McAfee (that's when I sold my Intel holdings), FB/WhatsApp, Microsoft/Nokia, or Google/MotorolaMobility.

 

In that regard, major props to Amazon: they appear to have an M&A strategy that is similar to that of Apple's.


Edited by anantksundaram - 3/1/14 at 8:02pm
post #95 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post


If you did not know this (and you must not), both companies use both methods. So what is your point?

 

I don't doubt that they employ the method that suits the current project best.

 

As to what my point was, it was that Benjamin Frost may benefit from reading up on the differences between agile and waterfall methodologies and the pros and cons of each.  Neither is inherently bad, they're just different.  My apologies if I wasn't clear enough initially.

post #96 of 250

Further to the main points of the article, here's a (cheap) prediction: I am guessing that, within a couple of months, we'll see a ridiculous $35B offer from Google for Tesla. And that'll probably just the starting bid.

 

Why?

 

(i) FB has upped the ante by offering a delusional $16+B for a nothing company -- surely, twice as much for a real company can't be that bad? (ii) Thanks to the (bogus) rumor that Apple was interested in Tesla, Google feels like it has to preemptively counter-punch; (iii) They want to desperately get Android into the car -- what better way than to actually own one? (iv) They're into driverless cars; (v) They're desperate to get into hardware, and have struck out with every major attempt so far: Moto, Chromebook, GoogleTV, Nexus..... (vi) They've got lots of cash burning a hole in their pockets; (vii) Tesla is cool.

post #97 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Oh please, SolipsismX. Give me a tad more credit than that. I am not at all trying to be cute-sy or contentious, as I've repeatedly said. Also, I have pointed out that I actually admire Google (unless, of course, you think I am lying -- although, I would have no reason to).

I don't think you're lying. If I did I would have been very direct by outright saying that is what I believe.
Quote:
My questions are motivated by a sense of befuddlement that I've had over the years about why everyone thinks Google is such an innovative company. People look at you like you must be daft (no, I am not), or as though it's a question along the lines of 'does God exist' (it's a pointless question), or that you must think Google is evil (I don't think so).

Your question is very loaded. You could ask, "Is the iPhone really better?" I can say it is and tell you anecdotes as to why I think it's better but you can then point to facts on a spec sheet to prove me wrong. Your answers would be more empirical. I could then point to the results of the iPhone overtaking Nokia and BB in record time and the industry following suit to change how they make products, but that verifiable info shouldn't appeal to you since it doesn't appeal to you with Google's search, email and ad service results.
Quote:
What I want to hear is cogent, well-articulated arguments that back up assertions and claims.

Now, to your points:

1) OK, it might be 'slightly better' but I don't know that for a fact. But you appeared to agree with the post from Chipsys which claimed that Google Now was some fantastic innovation. You're just damning Google with faint praise, as far as I can see.

It's not faint praise at all. If anything it's a big of a jab. Saying it's slightly better — while still my opinion — is something I believe so to say otherwise would be a lie. It's not praise to recognize that unless saying that a 300lb man barely beat up a 100lb man. In this scenario Google is the 300lb man because all the things that Siri does Google had at their hands for years and were never able to see it until Apple came along. All they had to do was to copy Apple's model for something that was brand new to Apple.
Quote:
2) The word 'innovate' would be redundant if it did not mean much more than 'improve'. (That's what I take away when you make a statement such as 'what do you think improvements are?').

Words often have synonyms, but usually various terms have similar but not exactly the same definition.
Quote:
3) No, you did not. You were dismissive of marketing.

Not even in the slightness.

I've even argued the shitty race-to-the-bottom with PC vendors was filled with innovation. Not with technology, but with finding innovative new ways to cut costs.
Quote:
4) The fact that you might think my questions are unreasonable doesn't make it so. If you -- or anyone makes an assertion -- I will call you on it. I expect people will do the same to me. I intensely dislike vacuous, platitudinous bullshit.

That's fine. If you don't agree with what I write I certainly don't want you to ignore it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Have not used Google Now. Don't even know what it is but as far as the Siri comparison, I use Google Voice Search all the time. I believe that technology was home grown using the now defunct Goog 411 which was a beta phone number look up service that was developed by Google to perfect their voice recognition technology and was abandoned once the voice to text algorithms were ready for prime time. They didn't need to acquire a company for that unlike Apple who had to buy that technology.

That's one of the major parts I alluded to previously. They had that for years. They didn't have to buy or create it. It was also already tied to their search functionality. All they had to do was turn that into a service on Android and then add some of the refinements they gleaned from Apple, who probably gleaned some from Google, Yahoo! and other search sites that show a nice format for different categories like sports and entertainment when queried.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Back to the main point of this article, which is that Apple's acquisition strategy appears to be small targets, done deliberately and quietly, with little, if any, overpayment, and in the nature of carefully nurtured 'A&D'. I believe that this disciplined approach is the winning M&A strategy for the long haul.

Witness the nonsensical tech M&A mess that we see swirling around us, such as HP/Autonomy, Intel/McAfee (that's when I sold my Intel holdings), FB/WhatsApp, Microsoft/Nokia, or Google/MotorolaMobility.

In that regard, major props to Amazon: they appear to have an M&A strategy that is similar to that of Apple's.

All this I agree with.

"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 #98 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
(v) They're desperate to get into hardware, and have struck out with every major attempt so far: Moto, Chromebook, GoogleTV, Nexus.....

 

The success of the Chromebook is pretty undisputed.  You may want to double check your sources on that one.

 

EDIT:  On second though, you're probably referring to Google Chromebook vs. Samsung Chromebook?  The latter of which is certainly a top contender.  I'm not sure how Google's Chromebook does (or even who makes it for them).


Edited by DroidFTW - 3/1/14 at 8:38pm
post #99 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

With Google mentioned several times already by previous posters I'm glad to see you use the word "failed". It certainly speaks to something to be avoided at all costs according to some folks. Sit back and watch others fail, wait for your chance to do it right. Just don't fail. It's not good.

Yet Google tries and fails. A lot. And that's one of their greatest strengths IMO, their willingness to place a bet on an idea that might ultimately never see commercial success but do it anyway.

They're not afraid to take a chance, commit time and people spend a little money (maybe a lot of money) to perhaps make a difference. With every failure they learn something they would not have know if they hadn't tried. Something that may lead to success with a project, maybe one that "changes the world."

Innovation isn't defined by how much money you make from pursuing an idea. It's whether that thing changes the landscape, leads to a new way of thinking about things or a better way to "get there" or "do that". Something as simple as Streetview is innovative as well as successful. Google Glass is innovative too but may never be a commercial success.

Apple of course has more money. and has seen more commercial success. They have their own big gamble that paid off to thank for that. It's the kind of gamble that Google takes with ideas like driverless cars, Google Glass, alternative energy, extending human life, even crazy sounding stuff like satellite-connected balloons floating above 3rd world villages. Lately Apple hasn't seemed willing to risk a failure. That contributes to a perception by a lot of people that Google is the more innovative of the two, at least today. Tomorrow might be different. When the next "one more thing" from Apple dances across the stage a fickle media will toss Google aside and re-anoint Apple as the Great Innovator. But today I'd agree with those that say Google out-innovates them.

You're not buying the tripe you just regurgitated, are you? Google's "bets" are more like the small blind in a poker game. They are just trial testing. They have to put something out there for PR. If it fails, they fold and barely lose anything. If they really wanted to gamble, release the Glass for mass production. Google is putting its toes in the water rather than jumping in feet first.

When Apple gambles, they go all-In or nearly go all in.

Apple's aversion To failure? Does ios 7 ring a bell? If that's not a big risk, I don't know what is anymore. They could have done it the Google way and focus grouped it to death or make it only for the 5S at first.

Google out innovates Apple? That's laughable. You have no idea what Apple is working on. Just because Googs PR machine is running full blast with baby steps doesn't mean they are taking risks. If Googs end Glass, driverless cars, etc., there would be no backlash. There would be no Google is doomed meme.
post #100 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobSchlob View Post

…He says, without siting even just a single example.

I have to ask, did you mean siting, or sighting ... or perhaps citing? All three actually could, kind of, make sense ... 1biggrin.gif
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #101 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

With Google mentioned several times already by previous posters I'm glad to see you use the word "failed". It certainly speaks to something to be avoided at all costs according to some folks. Sit back and watch others fail, wait for your chance to do it right. Just don't fail. It's not good.

Yet Google tries and fails. A lot. And that's one of their greatest strengths IMO, their willingness to place a bet on an idea that might ultimately never see commercial success but do it anyway.

They're not afraid to take a chance, commit time and people spend a little money (maybe a lot of money) to perhaps make a difference. With every failure they learn something they would not have know if they hadn't tried. Something that may lead to success with a project, maybe one that "changes the world."

Innovation isn't defined by how much money you make from pursuing an idea. It's whether that thing changes the landscape, leads to a new way of thinking about things or a better way to "get there" or "do that". Something as simple as Streetview is innovative as well as successful. Google Glass is innovative too but may never be a commercial success.

Apple of course has more money. and has seen more commercial success. They have their own big gamble that paid off to thank for that. It's the kind of gamble that Google takes with ideas like driverless cars, Google Glass, alternative energy, extending human life, even crazy sounding stuff like satellite-connected balloons floating above 3rd world villages. Lately Apple hasn't seemed willing to risk a failure. That contributes to a perception by a lot of people that Google is the more innovative of the two, at least today. Tomorrow might be different. When the next "one more thing" from Apple dances across the stage a fickle media will toss Google aside and re-anoint Apple as the Great Innovator. But today I'd agree with those that say Google out-innovates them.

A long way of saying most times Google uses a sawn (sawed in US I believe) off shot gun approach while Apple uses a precision assassin's rifle.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #102 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

You're not buying the tripe you just regurgitated, are you? Google's "bets" are more like the small blind in a poker game. They are just trial testing. They have to put something out there for PR. If it fails, they fold and barely lose anything. If they really wanted to gamble, release the Glass for mass production. Google is putting its toes in the water rather than jumping in feet first.

When Apple gambles, they go all-In or nearly go all in.

Apple's aversion To failure? Does ios 7 ring a bell? If that's not a big risk, I don't know what is anymore. They could have done it the Google way and focus grouped it to death or make it only for the 5S at first.

Google out innovates Apple? That's laughable. You have no idea what Apple is working on. Just because Googs PR machine is running full blast with baby steps doesn't mean they are taking risks. If Googs end Glass, driverless cars, etc., there would be no backlash. There would be no Google is doomed meme.

I would say Google (and other companies, like Facebook) do make gambles but they do with cash and stocks. The purchase is their gamble. With Apple it's betting everything on massively complex idea that has been whittled down to (usually) be something that seems simple because of it's elegant and thoughtful design. Google et al. usually present smaller, less gambly ideas to see how the world reacts and if they can monetize it.

It's clear Apple's focus is very different even though all these companies are looking for answers and want to profit. As noted in a recent DaringFireball article Apple took a huge gamble with iOS 7. I was using it since the first beta and it took about week to really love what they were doing with it, I was surprised at how little backlash they received after it was launched. Sure, other companies change up their Android UIs all the time but Apple has around a half-billion(?) devices now using iOS 7. That's a huge gamble, IMO.

"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 #103 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I would say Google (and other companies, like Facebook) do make gambles but they do with cash and stocks. The purchase is their gamble.

I have to disagree here. These aren't big gambles. Witness the Moto deal. People still believe that failure was a success.
post #104 of 250

I think you actually made this person's point for them. It's not that they aren't innovative, but they spend a lot of time showing all the cool stuff they are working on without really releasing anything that is a finished, usable product by the general population. In other words, Google runs in sort of a constant state of beta and they like it that way.

 

Now before you get all upset with this, let me give an explanation. Google Glass. I have one and developed a beta app for it. It's neat. It's a nice piece of hardware. The packaging made me feel like I was opening an Apple product. But I can't deny the fact that this $1,500 device is sitting in a cabinet, untouched and collecting dust. Why? Because no one at Google thought through how this would actually be used in real life. Sure they have all the videos and it's a neat demo. But at the end of the day, everyone using it doesn't want to be accused of being a "Glasshole" so the safe bet is to not use it.  It also needs work. For instance, you can't just talk to it whenever you want so it requires you to tap the side of your head. It's hard to read in a number of conditions and people with glasses are out of luck. Combine that with the fact that it's really expensive and not really a standalone device (aka, you need a Google phone to help it get a cellular connection or to configure the WiFi.  It's an unpolished beta product.

 

Contrast that with Apple. When it released the original iPhone, they thought through everything at the time. It really took the industry by absolute surprise. It worked flawlessly right out of the box (my wife bought one of the original $700 versions).

 

So while it *appears* that Apple is not innovating... they are... truly are. They are iterating and refining and perfecting the "next big thing" until its done. Every other company on earth makes that process as public as possible trying to make it appear that they are coming out with the next big thing that may never ship. Take Amazon drone delivery. Cool concept and wonder R+D going on but it will probably never exist. Why? Regulations and societal response to unmanned drones flying around their neighborhoods.  There's a big difference between technology and appropriate technology. Apple does the latter.

post #105 of 250

Google is a innovating Co. but it also has no problem ripping off apple...but to say it invented internet search is just not true...next your be saying they invented the internet.

post #106 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post
 

 

FWIW:

There are very simple means of inferring sarcasm without using /s to make it clear it's intent. The original poster doesn't seem to know them. Outside of the instinctual, ``this has to be bs'' tickling the stomach nothing structurally inferred any sarcastic intent.

 

Hell, he could have exaggerated the use of Dude, but failed.

Saying Google invented free email was a pretty good sign the post was sarcasm. Since when do people have to declare a post is sarcasm? If you're embarassed by missing it, accept the fact you got fooled. Big deal.

post #107 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by foad View Post

 

I think Apple probably has a bit more focus than that. We'll see this year if that holds true.
I hope so. People who try to brute force creativity (by just trying everything) soon learn the hard way about Combinatorics, i.e. the sheer and unexplorable number of ways even a small number of things (such as ideas or technologies) can be combined.


The two most important attributes for a business seeking to make a mark in innovative technology are sincerity and trust -- once you learn to fake these, you've got it made!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker."
-auxio-
Reply
post #108 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

I think you are projecting what you personally wish to happen for Google but it significantly underestimates their impact on the internet connected world. First, perhaps you have heard of YouTube. That is a huge part of people's daily lives. Also just plain search. Almost everyone uses Google when they need to find the facts, with no intention of clicking on any ads. It is even a verb like Photoshop. Next, I would say that many companies actually do use their advertising resources. You probably don't own a company but, people who do, depend on AdWords, Analytics and AdSense. 

 

My favorite Google service is their Business Apps. They offer a great collection of hosted email, cloud storage, messaging, sharing and actual office apps. Our company uses it extensively. It is very affordable and full featured. I don't think any other company offers anything close to Google Business.

Ummm... Google bought an already totally-developed YouTube, then futzed with it for years without making any money on it (it's still not clear that YouTube makes Google much money). I don't see innovation there by Google - all they did was try to add advertising to it. Of course they innovated in search - they improved it immensely. I don't use it (because of Google's privacy violations), but the vast majority of people do. Other than search, I just don't see it. Most everything else they've done would have been done just as well by others if Google didn't exist.

post #109 of 250

If Google was truly an innovative company, they would be working on improving their core product, search, and would have shown results since.

 

Instead, the only innovation for years in search is what Wolfram did with alpha. Alpha is a potential disruptor, but Wolfram is a small company (500 or so) and privately held so they dont have the ressources a giant like Google would commit. And the ones who recognised Wolfram work strength are Apple.

 

That is one of the true strengths of Apple too. Not only the innovate themselves, but they are able to identify innovators and partner with them or buy them before anyone else can react. Sometimes it dont bear identifiable fruits (liquidmetal) but they still avoided that the innovators fall in competitors hands.

 

Buying at inflated prices other successful companies, like Google and Facebook did so often, is not innovation, nor did good things to the bottom line in most cases.

post #110 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukefrench View Post
 

If Google was truly an innovative company, they would be working on improving their core product, search, and would have shown results since.

 

Improving search like adding nutrition information to search results for food perhaps?

 

http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/30/google-adds-nutrition-info-for-over-1000-fruits-vegetables-meats-and-meals-to-its-search-results/

 

Or maybe improving stock search results?

 

http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2326141/6-Google-Search-Changes-You-May-Have-Missed


Edited by DroidFTW - 3/2/14 at 12:16am
post #111 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

1) A product/service, to quote you, that is the result of "...(as usual) it's only after Apple shows them how to arrange the parts that others follow suit" is innovative? Seriously?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) I never said Google Now was innovative but they did do it slightly better. Chances are there likely some innovative aspects to it that I am not aware.
 

 

The thing that sets apart Google Now is that it is predictive.  It surfaces information before you search for it.

 

From my personal experience, these are the things it has done for me:

 

1.  When I searched tonight for a club's webpage to see who was going to DJ, Google Now had a card ready that provided me with travel time and a single click to get navigation.  I didn't search for this club in Google Maps.

 

2.  Based on my search patterns, Google Now has brought up cards that link to articles relevant to what it knows as my "research topics."  In my case, it links me to articles regarding smartphones and other gadgets a lot.  It even links me to websites I don't regularly visit as long as the articles are relevant to me.

 

3.  Based on my frequency of visiting certain websites, it brings up cards about updates to those websites.  I get a lot of my wallpapers from the website of a digital artist, and whenever he updates his site with new images a card appears in Google Now to alert me of the update.

 

4.  When shipping notifications or flight itineraries arrive in my inbox, Google Now tracks those things automatically.  It tells me if my flight is delayed or lets me know the status of my package.

 

5.  Based on where I routinely drive, Google Now notifies me of the commute times when there is heavy traffic.

 

6.  Whenever a team who I follow is playing a game, it brings up a card tracking the score automatically and also provides a notification of the score in the event that I haven't looked at Google Now to see the card.

 

7.  It brings up a card with a handful of local events that it thinks I might be interested in.  Normally I ignore this card, but last week one of the events was a play that was coming through town while on tour.  I knew that one of my distant high school friends was acting in it because it's popped up on my Facebook newsfeed before, but I didn't know the play was coming through Orlando until I saw it on Google Now.

 

I imagine the experience is different for other people because there are a lot of things it can do that I never take advantage of, like public transit information for example.  All in all I think it's a pretty nice tool, and it makes it much easier to gather useful information.

post #112 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post

At this moment in time it can be argued that Google is actually the more innovative company of the two with Apple sticking to their already established products and gradually evolving while Google is thinking out of the box.

It isn't true, but it could be argued. What Apple's doing behind closed doors doesn't mean Apple is not innovating right now. And besides, the 2013 MacBook Air is considered the best laptop ever made; that's innovation. It's thinness combined with its extraordinary battery life is innovation; it didn't happen by accident. The iPad Air is innovative, the Mac Pro is innovative. Were any of them revolutionary? No. But that doesn't mean there wasn't innovations. Touch ID is the first time there's a reliable and user friendly finger print reader in a consumer grade product. That's real innovation, dude. The only other finger print readers in consumer grade products was the Atrix smartphone (a feature that was removed because it wasn't reliable), and the S5 (did you read The Verge's review of that reader?). Wake up!!!
Edited by Ireland - 3/2/14 at 2:05am
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #113 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post
 

Saying Google invented free email was a pretty good sign the post was sarcasm. Since when do people have to declare a post is sarcasm? If you're embarassed by missing it, accept the fact you got fooled. Big deal.

 

I'm not missing the point. If you noticed, I was positing another observation.

 

Then again Hotmail didn't invent Free Email. Email has been a free service on UNIX before 99% of members on this board took their first piss.

post #114 of 250
What exactly was the point of this editorial other than Google click bait.
post #115 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post

How about Google Now (innovation of the year 2012) or Google Street View an innovation in it's own right. And Google's main product the search engine, they existed before, but they revolutionized how search engines worked.

Google now just tells me what the weather is outside - I can look through the window for that - or how long it will take me to get from the office - like I don't already know that.

Google maps street view is good but Google has never implemented a version as good as the one on iOS before maps.

Google search - I don't use it on any if my devices now - even the android ones.
post #116 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post

Are you actually denying that Google is an innovative company? Google and Apple are both innovative companies in their own right and to state that Apple is the only "company that actually delivers true, useful, tangible advancements as opposed to these PR factories" is just pure nonsense. And Apple is one giant PR factory (among the largest out there) when they release something. At this moment in time it can be argued that Google is actually the more innovative company of the two with Apple sticking to their already established products and gradually evolving while Google is thinking out of the box.
But Google, like Amazon, loves to get into areas they neitherakes money or an industry they know well...
post #117 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chipsy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by foad View Post

I know they had two versions in development, but that goes to my point. They were willing to rush to market with something they knew wasn't going to last them. Google wasn't pushing limits. They acted on where the market was going after the light was shown. Apple wasn't first, but they set the benchmark. It took years for Google to catch up to the innovations Apple made. As a side note; Microsoft made that mistake. Early phones released on the new Windows Phone platform were left in the dark fairly soon after their release. That experience burned developers and more importantly, their customers. It compounded all the other issues regarding being late to market and not having enough developer support.

To your point about financial success determining innovation...I don't believe that. My point was about people propping up Google and Amazon as innovators just because they are open about their plans. Fundamentally Google is an advertising company that funds a bunch of nerds geeking out. I actually look at technology in a different light. True innovation are things that have a direct impact on humanity, preferably for good. Sure Apple makes great looking and feeling products, but that isn't the only thing I admire. I admire the fact that they make it accessible for people. Apple isn't the only company that makes products that have that sort of impact, but that's besides the point. Innovation is true innovation when it impacts our lives. Google Search had that sort of impact on peoples lives. I have a hard time seeing what else Google has done that resonated and had that level of impact on normal folks. Sure, their infrastructure is astounding and should be commended. I think the stuff that makes Google tick is more innovative than the stuff we see in the public, but ultimately, they have yet to deliver a product to the masses that had the impact of their search product.

It might sound wishy washy but my mom and many others are flabbergasted by Android or Windows, and even Blackberry. The truly innovative products are the ones that humanity can grasp, in the near term or the future. Google is trying to broaden its horizon outside of search and advertising, but we have to see how well they succeed, and I don't mean financially.

Our views on innovation seem to differ somewhat. As I don't necessarily think innovations need to drastically and directly impact humanity persé. But have to say I somewhat agree. Indeed we will have to see how Google broadening their horizon pans out in the end. But at least they are taking risks and don't just keep muddeling on (just do what they do).

And just for anyone chiming in late: I don't (and never have) dispute(d) that Apple is an innovative company, I'm just defending that Google is as well. Both are innovative companies in their own right.

 

No, the issue at hand is that you have not proved that Google is the "more" innovative company; and you can't. That's ok, because the reason you can't is due to the fact that nobody knows what Apple is working on.

And that was the original point.

Quote:
Chipsy
Google is actually the more innovative company of the two with Apple sticking to their already established products and gradually evolving while Google is thinking out of the box.
post #118 of 250
OT: Apple has started advertising 5C on Tumblr. This leads me to believe that the 5C will be sticking around and will become Apple's entry-level phone.

http://isee5c.tumblr.com
post #119 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

What I posted may not be as thorough as you'd like, but you're welcome to correct any innacuracies or add any critical points about either that you feel I left out.

You are confusing what the end consumer sees on the outside with the software design methodology used on the inside. They are highly non-related.
post #120 of 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

The success of the Chromebook is pretty undisputed.  You may want to double check your sources on that one.

EDIT:  On second though, you're probably referring to Google Chromebook vs. Samsung Chromebook?  The latter of which is certainly a top contender.  I'm not sure how Google's Chromebook does (or even who makes it for them).

ChromeBooks are undistributed failures by most accounts.

http://gs.statcounter.com/chart.php?20140227=undefined&device=Desktop%20%26%20Mobile%20%26%20Tablet&device_hidden=desktop%2Bmobile%2Btablet&statType_hidden=os&region_hidden=ww&granularity=daily&statType=Operating%20System&region=Worldwide&fromInt=20130801&toInt=20140227&fromMonthYear=2013-08&fromDay=01&toMonthYear=2014-02&toDay=27&multi-device=true&csv=1
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Why Apple, Inc. is keeping the identity of many of its 23 recent acquisitions a secret
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Why Apple, Inc. is keeping the identity of many of its 23 recent acquisitions a secret