Name me one Google product that people are forced to use, that has no alternative, and that people have to use in order to use the internet.
Google Analytics. Unless you go to great efforts to disable it (and you can never be certain that you have completely done so), and most people don't even know it's tracking them. This particular program might rightly be called spyware.
If you make this argument for Google Analytics you have to make the same argument for any analytics software. Analytics software does not and cannot record everything about the person visiting the site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Google Analytics. Unless you go to great efforts to disable it (and you can never be certain that you have completely done so), and most people don't even know it's tracking them. This particular program might rightly be called spyware.
If you make this argument for Google Analytics you have to make the same argument for any analytics software. Analytics software does not and cannot record everything about the person visiting the site.
No one is saying that Google is the only one tracking people online, just that they are the largest, most efficient, most agressive, most ubiquitous entity doing so. However, by tracking what sites you go to analytics can produce quite a bit of information about individuals, especially for people using other Google services, and it's just one more piece of the personal profile they maintain. Google isn't some benign entity bent on doing public good, they are a for profit corporation bent on maximizing profits by amassing and controlling information and access to it. To think otherwise is simply naive.
Google does not have that much power or control. You still did not really list one Google product that people are forced to use in order to use the internet and has no alternative.
Analytics software is passively used and there are many different types of analytics software used for different reasons, from many different companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
No one is saying that Google is the only one tracking people online, just that they are the largest, most efficient, most agressive, most ubiquitous entity doing so. However, by tracking what sites you go to analytics can produce quite a bit of information about individuals, especially for people using other Google services, and it's just one more piece of the personal profile they maintain. Google isn't some benign entity bent on doing public good, they are a for profit corporation bent on maximizing profits by amassing and controlling information and access to it. To think otherwise is simply naive.
Google does not have that much power or control. You still did not really list one Google product that people are forced to use in order to use the internet and has no alternative.
Analytics software is passively used and there are many different types of analytics software used for different reasons, from many different companies.
Uhm, I think you already admitted I did list one. Your position is naive and untenable.
great. Yet they're also releasing a direct competitor to the iphone. Google isn't in it to make us happy, they're in it to snag people over to the droid or droid or android or whatever the hell it's called. Free gps app for the iphone? Great. What else they got for us?
apple creates enthusiasm easily. I don't have to like every other pos non-apple product that comes along (and there are plenty) just to be "fair" or play at mock objectivity.
well dude, then don't listen to the article. Or don't read it. Whichever.
one sentence contradicts the other. Windows mobile is in a complete freefall with winmo 7 slated for 2010. Knowing ms and their ususal negligence, i wouldn't be surprised if they'll push back the release even further. Should be fun for them to start from virtually zero and convince everyone that their heads are out of their collective arses (for real, this time they swear!) when it comes to the mobile sector. As for your second statement . . . . sometimes a simple emoticon says it all.
yup. Not so much "annoyed", as "don't really care." it's a nice app by google, but in light of what the iphone has *already* brought to the table and what iphone goodness apple undoubtedly is already working on, it's just another app among many already good ones. And it remains to be seen just how good google's free solution stacks up to the rest.
1. Ugh. You say I contradict MY self (when I didn't) right after saying that first line. Google isn't making apps for iphone to make you happy, just get you over to android? So in other words, by your logic, they want to make an app that somehow gets people over to an android phone, but at the same time, sucks enough that you're unhappy with it on your iphone. Interesting. I wonder how they'll pull this one off in bizarro world. Secondly, what makes you think a single app would convince someone to not only switch to an android phone, but then go through the hassle of paying an ETF at AT&T?
2. I never said you had to LIKE everything that comes along so now you're changing the conversation in order to make me look illogical. It's sad that I see this almost every time in these types of discussions.
You know, I find it funny that as long as apple isn't making a product, you think of it as a piece of shit without much thought. Perfect apple customer lol.
3. Re-read my sentence there. I'll assume you mis-read, but basically, what I was saying was, after reading the article, I would NEVER have guessed that anyone could come up with a reason to trash Google for wanting to make good iphone apps. Then I read your comment. Facepalm to say the least.
4. You used that word "contradicted." I do not think it means what you think it means (please tell me you caught that princess bride reference.) Anyways, your impression of WM is a correct one, if looking at it 2 years ago. WM 6.5 is pretty nice, and 6.5.1 will definitely improve thumb-based navigation. They have seen the iphone, they know it rules, and they are responding.
As far as my phone doing what your phone can do, I'm 100% serious. That's not saying my touch pro 2 can run as many cool apps, just that it has the same potential, and can even do things the iphone can't (albeit minor.) Running games like XTrakt really show me the 3d rendering of this device is just as good as an iphone's. If developers were as excited about WM as they are about the iPhone OS, you'd see what I meant.
That leads me to 5. Given that Microsoft has left such a bad taste in people's mouths when it comes to WM, we DON'T get the same excitement from developers. Hell, I haven't even seen a WM commercial on TV for cryin out loud.
Anyways, your views of things are ignorant to say the least, but that's your right. It's also my right to try and show why I see fallacy in your comments.
Google isn't making apps for iphone to make you happy, just get you over to android?
Google isn't doing anything to make you happy, they are only interested in making money by controlling information access, and one of the ways to do that is to direct people away from other methods of accessing information. This is the only reason the release apps for any platform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
You are playing Sarah Conner in the movie of your own mind.
Yes, the last refuge of an utterly failed argument, try to paint the opposing view as crazy. You clearly have absolutely zero understanding of the issues involved, and can't comprehend any issue but in the simplest most polarized terms.
Google isn't doing anything to make you happy, they are only interested in making money by controlling information access, and one of the ways to do that is to direct people away from other methods of accessing information. This is the only reason the release apps for any platform.
Ok, so you understand their business strategy, but you honestly think making people happy with their apps isn't part of said strategy? Google might want people to use their apps so that, like you said, they can control access to information, ok, but will they accomplish this by giving iphone users apps they don't want to use? OF COURSE NOT.
I was just pointing out that Quadra is bitching for no other reason than just to bitch and praise Apple, even when there's giant flaws in his logic. It absolutely makes no sense to bash google for their actions here, just as it makes no sense to stand behind a single corporation and thoughtlessly dismiss any kind of competition.
Oh well. If someone wants to complain because they get free apps, more power to them. It's an extremely snobby, and quite frankly, illogical thing to do.
Oh well. If someone wants to complain because they get free apps, more power to them. It's an extremely snobby, and quite frankly, illogical thing to do.
Google is a threat to Apple's success, just as they are a threat to Microsoft's continued domination of the PC desktop. So, there's nothing illogical when the company that produces hardware and software that works extremely well, is being actively undermined by a company whose interests go against that, and whose software isn't really all that great (contrary to the common perception), as well as presenting a larger, more general threat. It's extremely logical to oppose Google, and to not want to see them undermine Apple's platforms, just as it was logical to oppose Microsoft and not want to see them do the same thing.
Quadra 610, to your statement of WM going down, here's the very near future of WM (should be available in the US Q1 2010): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wroCL...ayer_embedded# It's got a ton of HTC enhancements, but it's still based on WM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Google is a threat to Apple's success, just as they are a threat to Microsoft's continued domination of the PC desktop. So, there's nothing illogical when the company that produces hardware and software that works extremely well, is being actively undermined by a company whose interests go against that, and whose software isn't really all that great (contrary to the common perception), as well as presenting a larger, more general threat. It's extremely logical to oppose Google, and to not want to see them undermine Apple's platforms, just as it was logical to oppose Microsoft and not want to see them do the same thing.
Yeah, IF YOU'RE APPLE OR MICROSOFT. As the end user, you ALWAYS want companies stepping up and challenging each other. Does the love of Apple products blind people this this fact?
Google's encroachment into Apple's territory will only result in better products from Apple, should Google ever pose a serious threat.
It makes no sense at all to root for stifled competition (unless you're a communist.)
Yeah, IF YOU'RE APPLE OR MICROSOFT. As the end user, you ALWAYS want companies stepping up and challenging each other. Does the love of Apple products blind people this this fact?
Google's encroachment into Apple's territory will only result in better products from Apple, should Google ever pose a serious threat.
It makes no sense at all to root for stifled competition (unless you're a communist.)
Google is already a serious threat, and Google's success will result in stifled competition, so, it makes no sense at all to root for them.
There seems to be a fantasy that competition somehow inevitably leads to improvement, but this isn't always the case. Sometimes, it just leads to a race to the bottom, Walmart and the Windows based PC market being two separate cases in point
Google is already a serious threat, and Google's success will result in stifled competition, so, it makes no sense at all to root for them.
There seems to be a fantasy that competition somehow inevitably leads to improvement, but this isn't always the case. Sometimes, it just leads to a race to the bottom, Walmart and the Windows based PC market being two separate cases in point
To say it's a fantasy is to say capitalism is a fantasy. The very essence of this country is based around competition. Companies like APPLE wouldn't even be doing as well as they are if it weren't for capitalism. You compare Walmart and entry level PC's to this situation, but I can turn around and point at the $99 iphone as a clear counter-example. Even the price of a 3gs is very competitive. Should I bash Apple for this? OF COURSE NOT. It leads to better things FOR ME even if I don't buy an iphone! Other companies step up or lose out. It's wonderful how that works, isn't it?
(We could get into corporate communism, where they use lobbyists to push for regulation that stifles competition and leads to more profits for them, but that's a whole other discussion.)
Now, you COULD look at Walmart and say that's a race to the bottom, but chips I buy there are the same as the chips I buy at a family run grocery store. They don't taste any different because of their price. End result? I save money because of competition.
As far as cheap PC's go, you're thinking of that in terms of Apple vs MS when really it's Asus vs Acer, or Sony vs HP, or Dell vs Gateway. Competition is present here, and results in better products for the end user as well. For instance, Asus comes out with a 12 inch netbook, then acer comes out with one, but with a finger print reader, all for the same price. Asus responds by going with ion. Acer responds to that with longer lasting battery. In the end, there's definite improvement at no cost to the consumer. They aren't producing junkier and junkier items until you can't find a decent product anymore.
BTW by not bashing Google here, I'm NOT rooting for them. I don't root for companies.
I find it amazing how nobody sees my point with this lol. I guess that's what happens when you have two truly opposite viewpoints.
To say it's a fantasy is to say capitalism is a fantasy... but I can turn around and point at the $99 iphone as a clear counter-example.
...
I find it amazing how nobody sees my point with this lol. I guess that's what happens when you have two truly opposite viewpoints.
What I actually said was that it's a fantasy that competition always leads to improvement. I think it's obviously not the case that it does. Which doesn't mean that there aren't cases where competition does lead to improvement, so, counter examples are not really to the point. And yes, I actually think most people's ideas about capitalism and how it works are fantasy: the "invisible hand", for one thing, is a pernicious and pervasive fantasy.
Yeah, I see your point, you want "cool stuff", and you probably like it cheap, and you think Google is great because they give you stuff for "free" that you think is cool. I personally don't think most of Google's stuff is all that cool, but I also see a larger issue, and I'm quite content to see Apple resist Google's efforts to trivialize Apple's platforms into simply something else to run Google stuff on.
What I actually said was that it's a fantasy that competition always leads to improvement. I think it's obviously not the case that it does. Which doesn't mean that there aren't cases where competition does lead to improvement, so, counter examples are not really to the point. And yes, I actually think most people's ideas about capitalism and how it works are fantasy: the "invisible hand", for one thing, is a pernicious and pervasive fantasy.
Competition spurs innovation, lowers prices, forces companies to deliver what customers want... need I go on? Now on the other hand, unfettered access and influence over politicians results in the corporatism we're facing today... which ends up crushing competition via political means and ensures de rigueur corporate welfare.
Competition spurs innovation, lowers prices, forces companies to deliver what customers want...
As a general rule, sure, but that isn’t always the case, unfortunately. For example, the competition at the low end of the PC market, the one where most PCs are sold has spurred no innovations that I can think of, except perhaps the marketing innovation to bog down brand new systems with excessive crapware to turn a profit on an otherwise profitless machine. Yet Apple has continued to innovate in areas that other PC makers have yet to catch up to despite dominating the market segments they play in. For example, the multi-touch trackpad. I don’t think it was until last year that Synaptics released a multi-touch driver for their trackpad, but that uptake by software developers was low. Innovation is a cost center and if too much competition has reduced profits substantially, then innovation may not be feasible.
What I actually said was that it's a fantasy that competition always leads to improvement. I think it's obviously not the case that it does. Which doesn't mean that there aren't cases where competition does lead to improvement, so, counter examples are not really to the point. And yes, I actually think most people's ideas about capitalism and how it works are fantasy: the "invisible hand", for one thing, is a pernicious and pervasive fantasy.
Yeah, I see your point, you want "cool stuff", and you probably like it cheap, and you think Google is great because they give you stuff for "free" that you think is cool. I personally don't think most of Google's stuff is all that cool, but I also see a larger issue, and I'm quite content to see Apple resist Google's efforts to trivialize Apple's platforms into simply something else to run Google stuff on.
Well, in any case, when applied to the whole consumer market framework (make sense?) I think competition always leads to improvement. It's just my naive opinion at this point. I'll blindly believe that the essence of capitalism has no flaws lol :P
Now, in regards to "cool stuff" I'm starting to see where your angle is on this. I'm thinking of it as anything that benefits your average joe consumer. I suppose if competition got so fierce that apple's profits started to dwindle, then it's plausible to say they wouldn't have the same money for research and development and their products wouldn't be as nice? BUT at the same time, look at Apple's turnaround within the past 10 years. Resources were used very wisely, they invented the ipod, things went well, and now they are making like 2 billion a quarter? lol.
So, really I guess it all comes down to who wants it more? In times of desperation, a company can either go under, or get back to what made them great in the first place. If Apple's profits started dwindling, and they honestly saw a serious threat, they would pull out the big guns and start bringing better products to the market. So again, the consumer benefits.
It's quite revealing how much everyone here loves Apple when they stop thinking this way, and start thinking in terms of worrying about Apple's profits. I think Apple will be fine for a LONG time.
As a general rule, sure, but that isn’t always the case, unfortunately. For example, the competition at the low end of the PC market, the one where most PCs are sold has spurred no innovations that I can think of, except perhaps the marketing innovation to bog down brand new systems with excessive crapware to turn a profit on an otherwise profitless machine. Yet Apple has continued to innovate in areas that other PC makers have yet to catch up to despite dominating the market segments they play in. For example, the multi-touch trackpad. I don’t think it was until last year that Synaptics released a multi-touch driver for their trackpad, but that uptake by software developers was low. Innovation is a cost center and if too much competition has reduced profits substantially, then innovation may not be feasible.
How can you compare the low end PC market to Apple computers? Since when was that logical?
Why don't we look at things like Intel's phase change memory? That's not innovative? Intel sure as hell dominates the low end pc market, but they continue to innovate.
NVidia and ATI duke it out in the "race to the bottom" with video cards, but I don't see any lack of innovation there. In fact, Nvidia has ion for netbooks and tegra for hand helds starting to come to market. You could say Nvidia didn't REALLY innovate with ion, because they bought out a company and built off their progress, but then what is multi-touch to Apple?
Competition spurs innovation, lowers prices, forces companies to deliver what customers want... need I go on?
No, no need to go on, I can see you're caught up in the fantasy. Sometimes this results in companies delivering what consumers want at lower prices, just as often, probably more often, it results in companies delivering cheap crap at lower prices. While consumers do like lower prices, I don't think most consumers want cheap crap, but that's often what they end up getting. What also often happens is that companies that refuse to deliver cheap crap are driven out of business, so quality further declines as a result.
Apple has done fairly well so far resisting the pressure to produce cheap crap. That's because, mainly through their operating systems, they've been able to differentiate themselves from the rest of the personal computer/smartphone market. This is what Stevee Jobs meant when he indicated that the Microsoft vs. Apple competition could be a win-win situation.
However, in the Google view of computing, where everyone uses Google apps and cloud services to access Google servers, where the operating system does become irrelevant, how does Apple differentiate itself. Why buy an iPhone or a Mac if all you do is use a browser to access the cloud? The more Google invades and trivializes Apple (and Microsoft) platforms, the more difficult it is for Apple to differentiate itself from Microsoft (or Google), and the more difficult it is for Apple to continue to thrive as a computer company.
While this might be just fine if what Google (or Microsoft) had to offer was just as compelling as what Apple has to offer, but the simple fact is that if you compare an all Google (or all Microsoft) computing experience to an all Apple computing experience, the Apple experience is much richer, much more powerful, much more more empowering of the user. Yet, consumers, even supposedly sophisticated consumers, will often choose cheaper over better quality, and if all you are using your Mac or iPhone for is to access Google's cloud, why do you need a Mac or iPhone? (Why do you even need Android for that matter? But that's not a problem for Google, because the point of Android isn't to generate revenue for them.)
The competition between Google and Apple (or Microsoft) is not a win-win situation, it's a zero-sum scenario. And while many consumers might be oblivious to or even happy with the result, I personally would not be, and I think everyone would actually suffer from the quality of the experience, if not in other ways as well, in the long run. So it's not "love of Apple" that motivates my desire for them to succeed and Google not to, it's my own enlightened self-interest.
How can you compare the low end PC market to Apple computers? Since when was that logical?
Because, it's a great example of what competition can do. Apple, by sharply differentiating itself at the top of the market, manages to "stay above the fray", while general PC manufacturers are most definitely caught in a race to the bottom with razor thin margins, little money for R&D, and almost nothing but tiny price differences and cosmetic flourishes to differentiate themselves from their competitors.
See my post above as to why the ascendancy of Google could force Apple into the fray, resulting in a further cheapening of the computing experience across the board, and why it's essential for Apple to resist Google's attempts to commoditize it.
Comments
Name me one Google product that people are forced to use, that has no alternative, and that people have to use in order to use the internet.
Google Analytics. Unless you go to great efforts to disable it (and you can never be certain that you have completely done so), and most people don't even know it's tracking them. This particular program might rightly be called spyware.
Google Analytics. Unless you go to great efforts to disable it (and you can never be certain that you have completely done so), and most people don't even know it's tracking them. This particular program might rightly be called spyware.
If you make this argument for Google Analytics you have to make the same argument for any analytics software. Analytics software does not and cannot record everything about the person visiting the site.
No one is saying that Google is the only one tracking people online, just that they are the largest, most efficient, most agressive, most ubiquitous entity doing so. However, by tracking what sites you go to analytics can produce quite a bit of information about individuals, especially for people using other Google services, and it's just one more piece of the personal profile they maintain. Google isn't some benign entity bent on doing public good, they are a for profit corporation bent on maximizing profits by amassing and controlling information and access to it. To think otherwise is simply naive.
Analytics software is passively used and there are many different types of analytics software used for different reasons, from many different companies.
No one is saying that Google is the only one tracking people online, just that they are the largest, most efficient, most agressive, most ubiquitous entity doing so. However, by tracking what sites you go to analytics can produce quite a bit of information about individuals, especially for people using other Google services, and it's just one more piece of the personal profile they maintain. Google isn't some benign entity bent on doing public good, they are a for profit corporation bent on maximizing profits by amassing and controlling information and access to it. To think otherwise is simply naive.
Google does not have that much power or control. You still did not really list one Google product that people are forced to use in order to use the internet and has no alternative.
Analytics software is passively used and there are many different types of analytics software used for different reasons, from many different companies.
Uhm, I think you already admitted I did list one. Your position is naive and untenable.
great. Yet they're also releasing a direct competitor to the iphone. Google isn't in it to make us happy, they're in it to snag people over to the droid or droid or android or whatever the hell it's called. Free gps app for the iphone? Great. What else they got for us?
apple creates enthusiasm easily. I don't have to like every other pos non-apple product that comes along (and there are plenty) just to be "fair" or play at mock objectivity.
well dude, then don't listen to the article. Or don't read it. Whichever.
one sentence contradicts the other. Windows mobile is in a complete freefall with winmo 7 slated for 2010. Knowing ms and their ususal negligence, i wouldn't be surprised if they'll push back the release even further. Should be fun for them to start from virtually zero and convince everyone that their heads are out of their collective arses (for real, this time they swear!) when it comes to the mobile sector. As for your second statement . . . . sometimes a simple emoticon says it all.
yup. Not so much "annoyed", as "don't really care." it's a nice app by google, but in light of what the iphone has *already* brought to the table and what iphone goodness apple undoubtedly is already working on, it's just another app among many already good ones. And it remains to be seen just how good google's free solution stacks up to the rest.
1. Ugh. You say I contradict MY self (when I didn't) right after saying that first line. Google isn't making apps for iphone to make you happy, just get you over to android? So in other words, by your logic, they want to make an app that somehow gets people over to an android phone, but at the same time, sucks enough that you're unhappy with it on your iphone. Interesting. I wonder how they'll pull this one off in bizarro world. Secondly, what makes you think a single app would convince someone to not only switch to an android phone, but then go through the hassle of paying an ETF at AT&T?
2. I never said you had to LIKE everything that comes along so now you're changing the conversation in order to make me look illogical. It's sad that I see this almost every time in these types of discussions.
You know, I find it funny that as long as apple isn't making a product, you think of it as a piece of shit without much thought. Perfect apple customer lol.
3. Re-read my sentence there. I'll assume you mis-read, but basically, what I was saying was, after reading the article, I would NEVER have guessed that anyone could come up with a reason to trash Google for wanting to make good iphone apps. Then I read your comment. Facepalm to say the least.
4. You used that word "contradicted." I do not think it means what you think it means
As far as my phone doing what your phone can do, I'm 100% serious. That's not saying my touch pro 2 can run as many cool apps, just that it has the same potential, and can even do things the iphone can't (albeit minor.) Running games like XTrakt really show me the 3d rendering of this device is just as good as an iphone's. If developers were as excited about WM as they are about the iPhone OS, you'd see what I meant.
That leads me to 5. Given that Microsoft has left such a bad taste in people's mouths when it comes to WM, we DON'T get the same excitement from developers. Hell, I haven't even seen a WM commercial on TV for cryin out loud.
Anyways, your views of things are ignorant to say the least, but that's your right. It's also my right to try and show why I see fallacy in your comments.
Uhm, I think you already admitted I did list one. Your position is naive and untenable.
Google isn't making apps for iphone to make you happy, just get you over to android?
Google isn't doing anything to make you happy, they are only interested in making money by controlling information access, and one of the ways to do that is to direct people away from other methods of accessing information. This is the only reason the release apps for any platform.
You are playing Sarah Conner in the movie of your own mind.
Yes, the last refuge of an utterly failed argument, try to paint the opposing view as crazy. You clearly have absolutely zero understanding of the issues involved, and can't comprehend any issue but in the simplest most polarized terms.
Google isn't doing anything to make you happy, they are only interested in making money by controlling information access, and one of the ways to do that is to direct people away from other methods of accessing information. This is the only reason the release apps for any platform.
Ok, so you understand their business strategy, but you honestly think making people happy with their apps isn't part of said strategy? Google might want people to use their apps so that, like you said, they can control access to information, ok, but will they accomplish this by giving iphone users apps they don't want to use? OF COURSE NOT.
I was just pointing out that Quadra is bitching for no other reason than just to bitch and praise Apple, even when there's giant flaws in his logic. It absolutely makes no sense to bash google for their actions here, just as it makes no sense to stand behind a single corporation and thoughtlessly dismiss any kind of competition.
Oh well. If someone wants to complain because they get free apps, more power to them. It's an extremely snobby, and quite frankly, illogical thing to do.
Oh well. If someone wants to complain because they get free apps, more power to them. It's an extremely snobby, and quite frankly, illogical thing to do.
Google is a threat to Apple's success, just as they are a threat to Microsoft's continued domination of the PC desktop. So, there's nothing illogical when the company that produces hardware and software that works extremely well, is being actively undermined by a company whose interests go against that, and whose software isn't really all that great (contrary to the common perception), as well as presenting a larger, more general threat. It's extremely logical to oppose Google, and to not want to see them undermine Apple's platforms, just as it was logical to oppose Microsoft and not want to see them do the same thing.
Google is a threat to Apple's success, just as they are a threat to Microsoft's continued domination of the PC desktop. So, there's nothing illogical when the company that produces hardware and software that works extremely well, is being actively undermined by a company whose interests go against that, and whose software isn't really all that great (contrary to the common perception), as well as presenting a larger, more general threat. It's extremely logical to oppose Google, and to not want to see them undermine Apple's platforms, just as it was logical to oppose Microsoft and not want to see them do the same thing.
Yeah, IF YOU'RE APPLE OR MICROSOFT. As the end user, you ALWAYS want companies stepping up and challenging each other. Does the love of Apple products blind people this this fact?
Google's encroachment into Apple's territory will only result in better products from Apple, should Google ever pose a serious threat.
It makes no sense at all to root for stifled competition (unless you're a communist.)
Yeah, IF YOU'RE APPLE OR MICROSOFT. As the end user, you ALWAYS want companies stepping up and challenging each other. Does the love of Apple products blind people this this fact?
Google's encroachment into Apple's territory will only result in better products from Apple, should Google ever pose a serious threat.
It makes no sense at all to root for stifled competition (unless you're a communist.)
Google is already a serious threat, and Google's success will result in stifled competition, so, it makes no sense at all to root for them.
There seems to be a fantasy that competition somehow inevitably leads to improvement, but this isn't always the case. Sometimes, it just leads to a race to the bottom, Walmart and the Windows based PC market being two separate cases in point
Google is already a serious threat, and Google's success will result in stifled competition, so, it makes no sense at all to root for them.
There seems to be a fantasy that competition somehow inevitably leads to improvement, but this isn't always the case. Sometimes, it just leads to a race to the bottom, Walmart and the Windows based PC market being two separate cases in point
To say it's a fantasy is to say capitalism is a fantasy. The very essence of this country is based around competition. Companies like APPLE wouldn't even be doing as well as they are if it weren't for capitalism. You compare Walmart and entry level PC's to this situation, but I can turn around and point at the $99 iphone as a clear counter-example. Even the price of a 3gs is very competitive. Should I bash Apple for this? OF COURSE NOT. It leads to better things FOR ME even if I don't buy an iphone! Other companies step up or lose out. It's wonderful how that works, isn't it?
(We could get into corporate communism, where they use lobbyists to push for regulation that stifles competition and leads to more profits for them, but that's a whole other discussion.)
Now, you COULD look at Walmart and say that's a race to the bottom, but chips I buy there are the same as the chips I buy at a family run grocery store. They don't taste any different because of their price. End result? I save money because of competition.
As far as cheap PC's go, you're thinking of that in terms of Apple vs MS when really it's Asus vs Acer, or Sony vs HP, or Dell vs Gateway. Competition is present here, and results in better products for the end user as well. For instance, Asus comes out with a 12 inch netbook, then acer comes out with one, but with a finger print reader, all for the same price. Asus responds by going with ion. Acer responds to that with longer lasting battery. In the end, there's definite improvement at no cost to the consumer. They aren't producing junkier and junkier items until you can't find a decent product anymore.
BTW by not bashing Google here, I'm NOT rooting for them. I don't root for companies.
I find it amazing how nobody sees my point with this lol. I guess that's what happens when you have two truly opposite viewpoints.
To say it's a fantasy is to say capitalism is a fantasy... but I can turn around and point at the $99 iphone as a clear counter-example.
...
I find it amazing how nobody sees my point with this lol. I guess that's what happens when you have two truly opposite viewpoints.
What I actually said was that it's a fantasy that competition always leads to improvement. I think it's obviously not the case that it does. Which doesn't mean that there aren't cases where competition does lead to improvement, so, counter examples are not really to the point. And yes, I actually think most people's ideas about capitalism and how it works are fantasy: the "invisible hand", for one thing, is a pernicious and pervasive fantasy.
Yeah, I see your point, you want "cool stuff", and you probably like it cheap, and you think Google is great because they give you stuff for "free" that you think is cool. I personally don't think most of Google's stuff is all that cool, but I also see a larger issue, and I'm quite content to see Apple resist Google's efforts to trivialize Apple's platforms into simply something else to run Google stuff on.
What I actually said was that it's a fantasy that competition always leads to improvement. I think it's obviously not the case that it does. Which doesn't mean that there aren't cases where competition does lead to improvement, so, counter examples are not really to the point. And yes, I actually think most people's ideas about capitalism and how it works are fantasy: the "invisible hand", for one thing, is a pernicious and pervasive fantasy.
Competition spurs innovation, lowers prices, forces companies to deliver what customers want... need I go on? Now on the other hand, unfettered access and influence over politicians results in the corporatism we're facing today... which ends up crushing competition via political means and ensures de rigueur corporate welfare.
Competition spurs innovation, lowers prices, forces companies to deliver what customers want...
As a general rule, sure, but that isn’t always the case, unfortunately. For example, the competition at the low end of the PC market, the one where most PCs are sold has spurred no innovations that I can think of, except perhaps the marketing innovation to bog down brand new systems with excessive crapware to turn a profit on an otherwise profitless machine. Yet Apple has continued to innovate in areas that other PC makers have yet to catch up to despite dominating the market segments they play in. For example, the multi-touch trackpad. I don’t think it was until last year that Synaptics released a multi-touch driver for their trackpad, but that uptake by software developers was low. Innovation is a cost center and if too much competition has reduced profits substantially, then innovation may not be feasible.
What I actually said was that it's a fantasy that competition always leads to improvement. I think it's obviously not the case that it does. Which doesn't mean that there aren't cases where competition does lead to improvement, so, counter examples are not really to the point. And yes, I actually think most people's ideas about capitalism and how it works are fantasy: the "invisible hand", for one thing, is a pernicious and pervasive fantasy.
Yeah, I see your point, you want "cool stuff", and you probably like it cheap, and you think Google is great because they give you stuff for "free" that you think is cool. I personally don't think most of Google's stuff is all that cool, but I also see a larger issue, and I'm quite content to see Apple resist Google's efforts to trivialize Apple's platforms into simply something else to run Google stuff on.
Well, in any case, when applied to the whole consumer market framework (make sense?) I think competition always leads to improvement. It's just my naive opinion at this point. I'll blindly believe that the essence of capitalism has no flaws lol :P
Now, in regards to "cool stuff" I'm starting to see where your angle is on this. I'm thinking of it as anything that benefits your average joe consumer. I suppose if competition got so fierce that apple's profits started to dwindle, then it's plausible to say they wouldn't have the same money for research and development and their products wouldn't be as nice? BUT at the same time, look at Apple's turnaround within the past 10 years. Resources were used very wisely, they invented the ipod, things went well, and now they are making like 2 billion a quarter? lol.
So, really I guess it all comes down to who wants it more? In times of desperation, a company can either go under, or get back to what made them great in the first place. If Apple's profits started dwindling, and they honestly saw a serious threat, they would pull out the big guns and start bringing better products to the market. So again, the consumer benefits.
It's quite revealing how much everyone here loves Apple when they stop thinking this way, and start thinking in terms of worrying about Apple's profits. I think Apple will be fine for a LONG time.
As a general rule, sure, but that isn’t always the case, unfortunately. For example, the competition at the low end of the PC market, the one where most PCs are sold has spurred no innovations that I can think of, except perhaps the marketing innovation to bog down brand new systems with excessive crapware to turn a profit on an otherwise profitless machine. Yet Apple has continued to innovate in areas that other PC makers have yet to catch up to despite dominating the market segments they play in. For example, the multi-touch trackpad. I don’t think it was until last year that Synaptics released a multi-touch driver for their trackpad, but that uptake by software developers was low. Innovation is a cost center and if too much competition has reduced profits substantially, then innovation may not be feasible.
How can you compare the low end PC market to Apple computers? Since when was that logical?
Why don't we look at things like Intel's phase change memory? That's not innovative? Intel sure as hell dominates the low end pc market, but they continue to innovate.
NVidia and ATI duke it out in the "race to the bottom" with video cards, but I don't see any lack of innovation there. In fact, Nvidia has ion for netbooks and tegra for hand helds starting to come to market. You could say Nvidia didn't REALLY innovate with ion, because they bought out a company and built off their progress, but then what is multi-touch to Apple?
Competition spurs innovation, lowers prices, forces companies to deliver what customers want... need I go on?
No, no need to go on, I can see you're caught up in the fantasy. Sometimes this results in companies delivering what consumers want at lower prices, just as often, probably more often, it results in companies delivering cheap crap at lower prices. While consumers do like lower prices, I don't think most consumers want cheap crap, but that's often what they end up getting. What also often happens is that companies that refuse to deliver cheap crap are driven out of business, so quality further declines as a result.
Apple has done fairly well so far resisting the pressure to produce cheap crap. That's because, mainly through their operating systems, they've been able to differentiate themselves from the rest of the personal computer/smartphone market. This is what Stevee Jobs meant when he indicated that the Microsoft vs. Apple competition could be a win-win situation.
However, in the Google view of computing, where everyone uses Google apps and cloud services to access Google servers, where the operating system does become irrelevant, how does Apple differentiate itself. Why buy an iPhone or a Mac if all you do is use a browser to access the cloud? The more Google invades and trivializes Apple (and Microsoft) platforms, the more difficult it is for Apple to differentiate itself from Microsoft (or Google), and the more difficult it is for Apple to continue to thrive as a computer company.
While this might be just fine if what Google (or Microsoft) had to offer was just as compelling as what Apple has to offer, but the simple fact is that if you compare an all Google (or all Microsoft) computing experience to an all Apple computing experience, the Apple experience is much richer, much more powerful, much more more empowering of the user. Yet, consumers, even supposedly sophisticated consumers, will often choose cheaper over better quality, and if all you are using your Mac or iPhone for is to access Google's cloud, why do you need a Mac or iPhone? (Why do you even need Android for that matter? But that's not a problem for Google, because the point of Android isn't to generate revenue for them.)
The competition between Google and Apple (or Microsoft) is not a win-win situation, it's a zero-sum scenario. And while many consumers might be oblivious to or even happy with the result, I personally would not be, and I think everyone would actually suffer from the quality of the experience, if not in other ways as well, in the long run. So it's not "love of Apple" that motivates my desire for them to succeed and Google not to, it's my own enlightened self-interest.
How can you compare the low end PC market to Apple computers? Since when was that logical?
Because, it's a great example of what competition can do. Apple, by sharply differentiating itself at the top of the market, manages to "stay above the fray", while general PC manufacturers are most definitely caught in a race to the bottom with razor thin margins, little money for R&D, and almost nothing but tiny price differences and cosmetic flourishes to differentiate themselves from their competitors.
See my post above as to why the ascendancy of Google could force Apple into the fray, resulting in a further cheapening of the computing experience across the board, and why it's essential for Apple to resist Google's attempts to commoditize it.