I guess it is pure coincidence that since he became a board member Apple boosted it's R&D dollars in battery and manufacturing tech and now has the most environmentally friendly lineup in the industry. Their new 7-8 hour battery tech is light years ahead of the competition.
I'm very glad he is there.
Apple is moving into the direction of "all on the logic board" because it makes sound business sense and reduces manufacturing costs.
The new MacBook Pro's battery is nearly three times the size of the previous versions, that's why it gets more life.
It's a trade, they give us longer battery life in exchange we can't replace it on our own.
Next version, it gets hard wired to the logic board like the other Apple products and planned obsolescence kicks in. Your battery dies in 2-3 years, you need a whole new computer.
Who else - other than Schmidt - is Apple "sharing with potential competitors?" The only other computer software or hardware company represented on Apple's board is Intuit. I don't see Apple and Intuit as potential competitors to each other.
True, but the issues of "interlocking directorates" is a bit more complicated than that. The issue can be raised when individuals sit on several boards. Well explained here:
On worries regarding Tim Cook's elevation to the board, the modal number of insiders on Fortune 500 company boards is two: Apple currently has one (Jobs).
Quite apart from that, this likely move tells me that Tim Cook will be formally made CEO, and SJ will become Chairman of the Board. If that were to happen, Apple will be among the less than 10% of publicly traded US firms to split the job of CEO and Chairman, something that is (rightly or wrongly) considered good governance practice. I hope that happens.
That would be good move, in total, although even better, Jobs could take the board chair and cede the CEO position to Cook without Cook being placed on the board. This was the Bill Gates exit plan. So the question becomes, would Steve Jobs do anything that even looked like he was following Bill Gates?
Even on mobile machines people want e.g. their own pictures and videos. Unless sufficient bandwidth is ubiquitous and affordable, I really see no need for lugging around a device, that is useless without bandwidth. Needing a 50-100 USD per month plan to access the own data is making a "cheap" netbook pretty much pointless, this gets even worse, if you want to use it during holidays in a foreign country ? having to download own content at something like 10 bucks per MB when an integrated HD for 50 bucks can hold half a TB? Why is Google e.g. developing Google Gears? Because people want and demand offline functionality.
I know we are reading a lot about Chrome OS having "web based" apps, but instead read it as "browser based" apps. Google Gears and HTML5 will make pretty much anything Google an conceive to run in the browser regard of you Internet connection. This even includes an iTunes-like browser interface for audio and video storage and playback and any Google Docs apps and so forth. To restate, all your locally cached apps will be useable regardless of Internet connection, just like a real OS. Think of Palm Pre app development... only better.
More and more business and moving to web based apps. Everything is managed by large database apps with web front ends. These apps can be accessed by employees on desktops, laptops, netbooks and smartphones. This is the future of enterprise computing.
Most corporate employees aren't photoshopping or editing video and they are prime candidates for a machine running Chrome OS. It won't be on all the computers in any company but most companies will find a significant percentage that only need a web browser and hence a Web OS makes sense.
Personally I would like to see Apple add a similar feature to Mac OS X.
A "Safari User Account"... When you log in it takes you straight to Safari and there is no Finder, no Dock, no other Apps.
This would be great for Web kiosks and my mother.
a lot of wage slaves still use ancient tools like MS Access for working with data. a person with MS Access or some other similar database can get working right away analyzing data. with Chrome OS you would need a developer to build the custom app for that person or a few people
I think that Chrome OS will make it's biggest mark in emerging markets once it gets off the ground.
Assuming it does.
One thing of interest I've noted in this discussion is the apparently sanguine attitude towards browser-based applications. I clearly remember the fury unleashed at Apple when that was their initial approach to application development on the iPhone platform, the general feeling being that application development for the iPhone would never go anywhere that way. It seems Google is being cut a lot of slack in this department. I am curious to know why. Maybe someone who will confess to believing that browser-based applications on the iPhone = fail, but browser-based applications on Chrome = success, can explain this difference.
True, but the issues of "interlocking directorates" is a bit more complicated than that. The issue can be raised when individuals sit on several boards. Well explained here:
There is nothing particularly complicated about interlocking directorships. The article you cited speaks only to Apple and Google. If there is any other such interlock and if someone credible complained about it (both of which your previous post implied), could you please provide a link?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
That would be good move, in total, although even better, Jobs could take the board chair and cede the CEO position to Cook without Cook being placed on the board. This was the Bill Gates exit plan. So the question becomes, would Steve Jobs do anything that even looked like he was following Bill Gates?
What's wrong with a CEO sitting on a board!? It is not only common, but often necessary so that the CEO can get input on what his/her 'bosses' think, first-hand. As long as normal board procedures are followed, there is no issue. You may be confusing it with the issue of CEO as Chairman. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, nine out of ten US companies have CEOs as Chairman of the board.
There is, as far as I know, absolutely no empirical evidence that shows that not having a CEO on the board (like you suggest) results in better governance; indeed, there is even no compelling evidence that splitting the job of CEO and Chairman matters in the least for shareholder value (at least in the case of US firms) - empirical evidence even on that issue is all over the map.
There is nothing particularly complicated about interlocking directorships. The article you cited speaks only to Apple and Google. If there is any other such interlock and if someone credible complained about it (both of which your previous post implied), could you please provide a link?
No, just a bit more complicated than you suggested. The article I linked describes the issues well enough.
Quote:
What's wrong with a CEO sitting on a board!? It is not only common, but often necessary so that the CEO can get input on what his/her 'bosses' think, first-hand. As long as normal board procedures are followed, there is no issue. You may be confusing it with the issue of CEO as Chairman. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, nine out of ten US companies have CEOs as Chairman of the board.
There is, as far as I know, absolutely no empirical evidence that shows that not having a CEO on the board (like you suggest) results in better governance; indeed, there is even no compelling evidence that splitting the job of CEO and Chairman matters in the least for shareholder value (at least in the case of US firms) - empirical evidence even on that issue is all over the map.
One thing of interest I've noted in this discussion is the apparently sanguine attitude towards browser-based applications. I clearly remember the fury unleashed at Apple when that was their initial approach to application development on the iPhone platform, the general feeling being that application development for the iPhone would never go anywhere that way. It seems Google is being cut a lot of slack in this department. I am curious to know why. Maybe someone who will confess to believing that browser-based applications on the iPhone = fail, but browser-based applications on Chrome = success, can explain this difference.
There are a lot of differences. For starters, people just expected too much from Apple to have a native SDK ready when th iPhone launched. Even the Pre's WebOS, which has been in been in development or years and whose native apps are basically HTML, JS and CSS didn't have a
public SDK ready at launch. Note that Palm has a long history of mobile developemt and that Mojo is nowhere near the complexity of iPhone OS X SDK.
Secondly, web based apps on the iPhone at launch required an Internet connection. While this was very likely since it is a phone, even a fast Internet connection can still be a bottleneck. Google is the only site on my iPhone that is utilizing HTML5's DB features. I don't believe this was even an option for the iPhone OS until v3.0.
Finally, as previously stated by others, OS X's market focus is not Chrome OS' market focus. If you are going for higher-end customers they will expect more, if you are going for emerging markets then getting basic functionality on the cheap is important. You don't need a massive OS to get Internet which is more than sufficient for a large majority of the people. Remember, these will not be web-centric apps, but browser-centric apps.
This has been discussed for at least a half a decade in regards to Google going in this direction. My question is not "why are they doing this?" but rather "what took
There are a lot of differences. For starters, people just expected too much from Apple to have a native SDK ready when th iPhone launched.
Sorry but I've got to stop you here, because I think this attitude bears on the rest of your explanation. It seems implicit in this and by everything which follows that people simply expect more from Apple. We don't even really know much about Google's approach, which could be good, bad or indifferent -- but one thing we do know is that more is expected from Apple. This pains me in one major way: it sounds a lot like Microsoft. They succeed by not failing, but Apple only succeeds when they meet everyone's expectations, and then some, right away.
The article I linked describes the issues well enough.
No, it does not. You specifically made the sweeping assertion that "Apple is already one of many companies currently under criticism for sharing too many board members with potential competitors".
One Eric Schmidt does not make "too many." There is no need to exaggerate to make your point.
I wish you would bother to read your own cites. The article says nothing about CEOs sitting on boards. It talks obliquely about possible conflicts from CEOs being Chairman of the Board, and on the matter of CEO pay. Your earlier point was that it would be better for Cook (as CEO) to be not on the board at all. The BW article says nothing at all about CEO presence/absence on the board. (Moreover, you would surely know that a CEO would recuse himself from such a pay-setting decision).
And, btw, please don't cite casual-comment opinion pieces in BusinessWeek as careful empirical research. They are not.
Bottom line: Again, as with a number of your prior posts on the topic of governance, you have a tendency to make sweeping statements. It is quite OK to have a view, but another to pass it off as though it is backed by evidence.
Sorry but I've got to stop you here, because I think this attitude bears on the rest of your explanation. It seems implicit in this and by everything which follows that people simply expect more from Apple. We don't even really know much about Google's approach, which could be good, bad or indifferent -- but one thing we do know is that more is expected from Apple. This pains me in one major way: it sounds a lot like Microsoft. They succeed by not failing, but Apple only succeeds when they meet everyone's expectations, and then some, right away.
You are absolutely right. Until you can see that a simple OS for apps and web use is completely different in design and consumer focus than a high-end consumer OS then there is nothing to discuss.
PS: There are already SDKs for making the Apps Google will use.
My guess is that Schmidt leaves the Apple board and that Apple & Google continue to work together where they can.
It is interesting to read how many people dismiss Chrome OS and define it in such narrow terms. Personally I think it sounds like a great idea, but it will neither spell the death of MS nor Apple, nor will all laptops become thin cloud clients. People who need a powerful laptop will not buy but a lot of people will be able to use such a machine as a second computer. The OS will underpin Google's Cloud computing concept but nonetheless I imagine that users will be able to store and work on files locally.
I wouldn't be surprised if both Apple and MS will develop products in this direction, too. MobileMe with iWorks.com is on the way. I bet a small Apple device (what happened to all those 10" screens Apple aparently purchased a couple of months back?) geared towards this kind of service is on its way. I would love something like that. At least 50% of my computing is non power computing.
Maybe someone who will confess to believing that browser-based applications on the iPhone = fail, but browser-based applications on Chrome = success, can explain this difference.
Apple was making native apps for the iphone and telling developers to make web-based apps.
Palm is making web-based apps for the Pre and is telling developers to also make web-based apps.
Google makes web-based apps and is telling developers to also make web-based apps.
The difference is the level playing field.
If Google starts to load Chrome OS up with native apps such as Google Earth and Picassa, they will get the same reaction Apple did.
If there is a level playing field and they use the same APIs developers have access to, then they will get the same reaction Palm did.
a lot of wage slaves still use ancient tools like MS Access for working with data. a person with MS Access or some other similar database can get working right away analyzing data. with Chrome OS you would need a developer to build the custom app for that person or a few people
Salesforce.com has done the work already. It is just a matter of companies realizing there is a better way than antiquated apps such as access.
PS. Apple/Filemaker should be making a web based version of Bento.
Salesforce.com has done the work already. It is just a matter of companies realizing there is a better way than antiquated apps such as access.
I access salesforce.com daily and do not entirely agree with your point. Universal access, better backups, instant access to new releases and low maintenance costs are undeniable benefits. The same holds true for GMail. But in both cases, the user interface leaves a lot to be desired compared to well-designed OS X (or even Windows) applications. Whether this is the case of poor design skills, temporary technology limitations or something else (obsession with the search paradigm springs to mind), I do not know.
Whatever the case, I would not choose to use GMail's web interface to do a lot of work. And I would certainly consider accessing salesforce through a well designed application that offered things like the ability to format your emails, drag and drop and copy-paste into other applications. For now my vote goes to cloud services and client applications. Except for navigation where I'd like the map stored on my iPhone so that i am not forced to carry around a second, dedicated device - one that actually works.
One thing of interest I've noted in this discussion is the apparently sanguine attitude towards browser-based applications. I clearly remember the fury unleashed at Apple when that was their initial approach to application development on the iPhone platform, the general feeling being that application development for the iPhone would never go anywhere that way. It seems Google is being cut a lot of slack in this department. I am curious to know why. Maybe someone who will confess to believing that browser-based applications on the iPhone = fail, but browser-based applications on Chrome = success, can explain this difference.
Because Google has the browser extensions to make it work as solipsism mentioned. Apple didn't have the same extension capability despite full control of the platform because that's not one of their core competencies.
Gears is one of the key components for success (offline persistence) with Google apps (apps people already use and are familiar with) and Google Web Toolkit (modified java based development kit) two of the others. GWT + Ajax + HTML5 can provide a rich user interface backed by both a hefty cloud capability and local persistence and computing when disconnected from the cloud.
That a tremendous web technology base that Apple simply does not have. On the other hand Apple has OSX, Core Video/Image/Audio, Cocoa, etc. A tremendous OS infrastructure base that was ported to the iPhone. Something that Google simply does not have.
The difference is like a NASCAR vs Formula 1. No, I won't say who is which.
No, it does not. You specifically made the sweeping assertion that "Apple is already one of many companies currently under criticism for sharing too many board members with potential competitors".
One Eric Schmidt does not make "too many." There is no need to exaggerate to make your point.
No, you just missed it. As the article makes clear, sharing means more than the one thing you assume it means.
Quote:
I wish you would bother to read your own cites. The article says nothing about CEOs sitting on boards. It talks obliquely about possible conflicts from CEOs being Chairman of the Board, and on the matter of CEO pay. Your earlier point was that it would be better for Cook (as CEO) to be not on the board at all. The BW article says nothing at all about CEO presence/absence on the board. (Moreover, you would surely know that a CEO would recuse himself from such a pay-setting decision).
And, btw, please don't cite casual-comment opinion pieces in BusinessWeek as careful empirical research. They are not.
Bottom line: Again, as with a number of your prior posts on the topic of governance, you have a tendency to make sweeping statements. It is quite OK to have a view, but another to pass it off as though it is backed by evidence.
No, you have a tendency to read them as sweeping statements in an effort to avoid discussing the actual issues. You also tend to dismiss every source provided that doesn't endorse your view for one trivial reason or another. You'd think Businessweek was Mother Jones.
I tell you what. If you have another view, please take the trouble of finding backup for it. Then we can discuss. Otherwise you are just making others do all the work, or worse yet, just sniping.
Hint: Articles on corporate governance, CEO compensation, and conflicts of interest between CEOs and other executives serving the boards of directors that set their compensation are easy to locate. It's been a pretty big discussion topic of late.
Comments
I guess it is pure coincidence that since he became a board member Apple boosted it's R&D dollars in battery and manufacturing tech and now has the most environmentally friendly lineup in the industry. Their new 7-8 hour battery tech is light years ahead of the competition.
I'm very glad he is there.
Apple is moving into the direction of "all on the logic board" because it makes sound business sense and reduces manufacturing costs.
The new MacBook Pro's battery is nearly three times the size of the previous versions, that's why it gets more life.
It's a trade, they give us longer battery life in exchange we can't replace it on our own.
Next version, it gets hard wired to the logic board like the other Apple products and planned obsolescence kicks in. Your battery dies in 2-3 years, you need a whole new computer.
Plus Al Gore has been proven a hypocrite:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...re-green_x.htm
Look at waste of resources and energy in his own office. Three 30" monitors and a TV on at the same time?
http://www.stefandidak.com/pics/show...e=algoreoffice
and finally Al Gores house:
http://theconservatarian.blogivists....xtraordinaire/
Who else - other than Schmidt - is Apple "sharing with potential competitors?" The only other computer software or hardware company represented on Apple's board is Intuit. I don't see Apple and Intuit as potential competitors to each other.
True, but the issues of "interlocking directorates" is a bit more complicated than that. The issue can be raised when individuals sit on several boards. Well explained here:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterp...ectorates.html
On worries regarding Tim Cook's elevation to the board, the modal number of insiders on Fortune 500 company boards is two: Apple currently has one (Jobs).
Quite apart from that, this likely move tells me that Tim Cook will be formally made CEO, and SJ will become Chairman of the Board. If that were to happen, Apple will be among the less than 10% of publicly traded US firms to split the job of CEO and Chairman, something that is (rightly or wrongly) considered good governance practice. I hope that happens.
That would be good move, in total, although even better, Jobs could take the board chair and cede the CEO position to Cook without Cook being placed on the board. This was the Bill Gates exit plan. So the question becomes, would Steve Jobs do anything that even looked like he was following Bill Gates?
Even on mobile machines people want e.g. their own pictures and videos. Unless sufficient bandwidth is ubiquitous and affordable, I really see no need for lugging around a device, that is useless without bandwidth. Needing a 50-100 USD per month plan to access the own data is making a "cheap" netbook pretty much pointless, this gets even worse, if you want to use it during holidays in a foreign country ? having to download own content at something like 10 bucks per MB when an integrated HD for 50 bucks can hold half a TB? Why is Google e.g. developing Google Gears? Because people want and demand offline functionality.
I know we are reading a lot about Chrome OS having "web based" apps, but instead read it as "browser based" apps. Google Gears and HTML5 will make pretty much anything Google an conceive to run in the browser regard of you Internet connection. This even includes an iTunes-like browser interface for audio and video storage and playback and any Google Docs apps and so forth. To restate, all your locally cached apps will be useable regardless of Internet connection, just like a real OS. Think of Palm Pre app development... only better.
Mac OS X = Consumer
Chrome OS = Corporate
More and more business and moving to web based apps. Everything is managed by large database apps with web front ends. These apps can be accessed by employees on desktops, laptops, netbooks and smartphones. This is the future of enterprise computing.
Most corporate employees aren't photoshopping or editing video and they are prime candidates for a machine running Chrome OS. It won't be on all the computers in any company but most companies will find a significant percentage that only need a web browser and hence a Web OS makes sense.
Personally I would like to see Apple add a similar feature to Mac OS X.
A "Safari User Account"... When you log in it takes you straight to Safari and there is no Finder, no Dock, no other Apps.
This would be great for Web kiosks and my mother.
a lot of wage slaves still use ancient tools like MS Access for working with data. a person with MS Access or some other similar database can get working right away analyzing data. with Chrome OS you would need a developer to build the custom app for that person or a few people
Mac OS X = Consumer
Chrome OS = Corporate
I think that Chrome OS will make it's biggest mark in emerging markets once it gets off the ground.
I think that Chrome OS will make it's biggest mark in emerging markets once it gets off the ground.
Assuming it does.
One thing of interest I've noted in this discussion is the apparently sanguine attitude towards browser-based applications. I clearly remember the fury unleashed at Apple when that was their initial approach to application development on the iPhone platform, the general feeling being that application development for the iPhone would never go anywhere that way. It seems Google is being cut a lot of slack in this department. I am curious to know why. Maybe someone who will confess to believing that browser-based applications on the iPhone = fail, but browser-based applications on Chrome = success, can explain this difference.
True, but the issues of "interlocking directorates" is a bit more complicated than that. The issue can be raised when individuals sit on several boards. Well explained here:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterp...ectorates.html
There is nothing particularly complicated about interlocking directorships. The article you cited speaks only to Apple and Google. If there is any other such interlock and if someone credible complained about it (both of which your previous post implied), could you please provide a link?
That would be good move, in total, although even better, Jobs could take the board chair and cede the CEO position to Cook without Cook being placed on the board. This was the Bill Gates exit plan. So the question becomes, would Steve Jobs do anything that even looked like he was following Bill Gates?
What's wrong with a CEO sitting on a board!? It is not only common, but often necessary so that the CEO can get input on what his/her 'bosses' think, first-hand. As long as normal board procedures are followed, there is no issue. You may be confusing it with the issue of CEO as Chairman. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, nine out of ten US companies have CEOs as Chairman of the board.
There is, as far as I know, absolutely no empirical evidence that shows that not having a CEO on the board (like you suggest) results in better governance; indeed, there is even no compelling evidence that splitting the job of CEO and Chairman matters in the least for shareholder value (at least in the case of US firms) - empirical evidence even on that issue is all over the map.
There is nothing particularly complicated about interlocking directorships. The article you cited speaks only to Apple and Google. If there is any other such interlock and if someone credible complained about it (both of which your previous post implied), could you please provide a link?
No, just a bit more complicated than you suggested. The article I linked describes the issues well enough.
What's wrong with a CEO sitting on a board!? It is not only common, but often necessary so that the CEO can get input on what his/her 'bosses' think, first-hand. As long as normal board procedures are followed, there is no issue. You may be confusing it with the issue of CEO as Chairman. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, nine out of ten US companies have CEOs as Chairman of the board.
There is, as far as I know, absolutely no empirical evidence that shows that not having a CEO on the board (like you suggest) results in better governance; indeed, there is even no compelling evidence that splitting the job of CEO and Chairman matters in the least for shareholder value (at least in the case of US firms) - empirical evidence even on that issue is all over the map.
Because,
http://www.businessweek.com/managing...025_072667.htm
Assuming it does.
One thing of interest I've noted in this discussion is the apparently sanguine attitude towards browser-based applications. I clearly remember the fury unleashed at Apple when that was their initial approach to application development on the iPhone platform, the general feeling being that application development for the iPhone would never go anywhere that way. It seems Google is being cut a lot of slack in this department. I am curious to know why. Maybe someone who will confess to believing that browser-based applications on the iPhone = fail, but browser-based applications on Chrome = success, can explain this difference.
There are a lot of differences. For starters, people just expected too much from Apple to have a native SDK ready when th iPhone launched. Even the Pre's WebOS, which has been in been in development or years and whose native apps are basically HTML, JS and CSS didn't have a
public SDK ready at launch. Note that Palm has a long history of mobile developemt and that Mojo is nowhere near the complexity of iPhone OS X SDK.
Secondly, web based apps on the iPhone at launch required an Internet connection. While this was very likely since it is a phone, even a fast Internet connection can still be a bottleneck. Google is the only site on my iPhone that is utilizing HTML5's DB features. I don't believe this was even an option for the iPhone OS until v3.0.
Finally, as previously stated by others, OS X's market focus is not Chrome OS' market focus. If you are going for higher-end customers they will expect more, if you are going for emerging markets then getting basic functionality on the cheap is important. You don't need a massive OS to get Internet which is more than sufficient for a large majority of the people. Remember, these will not be web-centric apps, but browser-centric apps.
This has been discussed for at least a half a decade in regards to Google going in this direction. My question is not "why are they doing this?" but rather "what took
them so long?"
There are a lot of differences. For starters, people just expected too much from Apple to have a native SDK ready when th iPhone launched.
Sorry but I've got to stop you here, because I think this attitude bears on the rest of your explanation. It seems implicit in this and by everything which follows that people simply expect more from Apple. We don't even really know much about Google's approach, which could be good, bad or indifferent -- but one thing we do know is that more is expected from Apple. This pains me in one major way: it sounds a lot like Microsoft. They succeed by not failing, but Apple only succeeds when they meet everyone's expectations, and then some, right away.
The article I linked describes the issues well enough.
No, it does not. You specifically made the sweeping assertion that "Apple is already one of many companies currently under criticism for sharing too many board members with potential competitors".
One Eric Schmidt does not make "too many." There is no need to exaggerate to make your point.
Because,
http://www.businessweek.com/managing...025_072667.htm
I wish you would bother to read your own cites. The article says nothing about CEOs sitting on boards. It talks obliquely about possible conflicts from CEOs being Chairman of the Board, and on the matter of CEO pay. Your earlier point was that it would be better for Cook (as CEO) to be not on the board at all. The BW article says nothing at all about CEO presence/absence on the board. (Moreover, you would surely know that a CEO would recuse himself from such a pay-setting decision).
And, btw, please don't cite casual-comment opinion pieces in BusinessWeek as careful empirical research. They are not.
Bottom line: Again, as with a number of your prior posts on the topic of governance, you have a tendency to make sweeping statements. It is quite OK to have a view, but another to pass it off as though it is backed by evidence.
Sorry but I've got to stop you here, because I think this attitude bears on the rest of your explanation. It seems implicit in this and by everything which follows that people simply expect more from Apple. We don't even really know much about Google's approach, which could be good, bad or indifferent -- but one thing we do know is that more is expected from Apple. This pains me in one major way: it sounds a lot like Microsoft. They succeed by not failing, but Apple only succeeds when they meet everyone's expectations, and then some, right away.
You are absolutely right. Until you can see that a simple OS for apps and web use is completely different in design and consumer focus than a high-end consumer OS then there is nothing to discuss.
PS: There are already SDKs for making the Apps Google will use.
It is interesting to read how many people dismiss Chrome OS and define it in such narrow terms. Personally I think it sounds like a great idea, but it will neither spell the death of MS nor Apple, nor will all laptops become thin cloud clients. People who need a powerful laptop will not buy but a lot of people will be able to use such a machine as a second computer. The OS will underpin Google's Cloud computing concept but nonetheless I imagine that users will be able to store and work on files locally.
I wouldn't be surprised if both Apple and MS will develop products in this direction, too. MobileMe with iWorks.com is on the way. I bet a small Apple device (what happened to all those 10" screens Apple aparently purchased a couple of months back?) geared towards this kind of service is on its way. I would love something like that. At least 50% of my computing is non power computing.
Maybe someone who will confess to believing that browser-based applications on the iPhone = fail, but browser-based applications on Chrome = success, can explain this difference.
Apple was making native apps for the iphone and telling developers to make web-based apps.
Palm is making web-based apps for the Pre and is telling developers to also make web-based apps.
Google makes web-based apps and is telling developers to also make web-based apps.
The difference is the level playing field.
If Google starts to load Chrome OS up with native apps such as Google Earth and Picassa, they will get the same reaction Apple did.
If there is a level playing field and they use the same APIs developers have access to, then they will get the same reaction Palm did.
a lot of wage slaves still use ancient tools like MS Access for working with data. a person with MS Access or some other similar database can get working right away analyzing data. with Chrome OS you would need a developer to build the custom app for that person or a few people
Salesforce.com has done the work already. It is just a matter of companies realizing there is a better way than antiquated apps such as access.
PS. Apple/Filemaker should be making a web based version of Bento.
Salesforce.com has done the work already. It is just a matter of companies realizing there is a better way than antiquated apps such as access.
I access salesforce.com daily and do not entirely agree with your point. Universal access, better backups, instant access to new releases and low maintenance costs are undeniable benefits. The same holds true for GMail. But in both cases, the user interface leaves a lot to be desired compared to well-designed OS X (or even Windows) applications. Whether this is the case of poor design skills, temporary technology limitations or something else (obsession with the search paradigm springs to mind), I do not know.
Whatever the case, I would not choose to use GMail's web interface to do a lot of work. And I would certainly consider accessing salesforce through a well designed application that offered things like the ability to format your emails, drag and drop and copy-paste into other applications. For now my vote goes to cloud services and client applications. Except for navigation where I'd like the map stored on my iPhone so that i am not forced to carry around a second, dedicated device - one that actually works.
Assuming it does.
One thing of interest I've noted in this discussion is the apparently sanguine attitude towards browser-based applications. I clearly remember the fury unleashed at Apple when that was their initial approach to application development on the iPhone platform, the general feeling being that application development for the iPhone would never go anywhere that way. It seems Google is being cut a lot of slack in this department. I am curious to know why. Maybe someone who will confess to believing that browser-based applications on the iPhone = fail, but browser-based applications on Chrome = success, can explain this difference.
Because Google has the browser extensions to make it work as solipsism mentioned. Apple didn't have the same extension capability despite full control of the platform because that's not one of their core competencies.
Gears is one of the key components for success (offline persistence) with Google apps (apps people already use and are familiar with) and Google Web Toolkit (modified java based development kit) two of the others. GWT + Ajax + HTML5 can provide a rich user interface backed by both a hefty cloud capability and local persistence and computing when disconnected from the cloud.
That a tremendous web technology base that Apple simply does not have. On the other hand Apple has OSX, Core Video/Image/Audio, Cocoa, etc. A tremendous OS infrastructure base that was ported to the iPhone. Something that Google simply does not have.
The difference is like a NASCAR vs Formula 1. No, I won't say who is which.
Highly doubtful that Google's Chrome OS will target Apple customers.
Doubt it too
No, it does not. You specifically made the sweeping assertion that "Apple is already one of many companies currently under criticism for sharing too many board members with potential competitors".
One Eric Schmidt does not make "too many." There is no need to exaggerate to make your point.
No, you just missed it. As the article makes clear, sharing means more than the one thing you assume it means.
I wish you would bother to read your own cites. The article says nothing about CEOs sitting on boards. It talks obliquely about possible conflicts from CEOs being Chairman of the Board, and on the matter of CEO pay. Your earlier point was that it would be better for Cook (as CEO) to be not on the board at all. The BW article says nothing at all about CEO presence/absence on the board. (Moreover, you would surely know that a CEO would recuse himself from such a pay-setting decision).
And, btw, please don't cite casual-comment opinion pieces in BusinessWeek as careful empirical research. They are not.
Bottom line: Again, as with a number of your prior posts on the topic of governance, you have a tendency to make sweeping statements. It is quite OK to have a view, but another to pass it off as though it is backed by evidence.
No, you have a tendency to read them as sweeping statements in an effort to avoid discussing the actual issues. You also tend to dismiss every source provided that doesn't endorse your view for one trivial reason or another. You'd think Businessweek was Mother Jones.
I tell you what. If you have another view, please take the trouble of finding backup for it. Then we can discuss. Otherwise you are just making others do all the work, or worse yet, just sniping.
Hint: Articles on corporate governance, CEO compensation, and conflicts of interest between CEOs and other executives serving the boards of directors that set their compensation are easy to locate. It's been a pretty big discussion topic of late.