wow google realised the bussiness model for mobile platform would be to integrate handset and os...
...Now let me think which much maligned by the idiots of the pc camp company thought of that 4-5 years before, to the criticism of the pundits and know alls of the tec world who claimed that a closed software model was a thing of the 80s...
...let us all think who the morons and the late comers to the party are once more...the very same people who claim all the time and profess how well advanced they are... and of course it's the apple "fan boys" that are in the wrong, always...
SO, GOOGLE, JOIN THE PARTY, JOIN THE MULTITUDES WHO HAVE COPIED APPLE'S BUSINESS MODEL TO TURN A BUCK BY RIDIND APPLE'S TAILCOATS...
Um...which company thought of doing the OS and hardware? hmm, maybe RIM, perhaps Palm, could be Danger.
I really hope you don't actually think it was Apple, as you seem to. Apple being wildly successful at it doesn't make them first.
It's fine to claim that Apple did it better. But to claim Google copied the idea of integrating OS and hardware from Apple and that this idea originated at Apple is just dumb. Why not claim Apple invented the GUI, simply because theirs is superior. Or that Apple that the very first OS, ever...again, theirs is great, so they must have been first...
Facts and independent thought should not be discarded simply to show how big an Apple fan you are.
It's fine to claim that Apple did it better. But to claim Google copied the idea of integrating OS and hardware from Apple and that this idea originated at Apple is just dumb. Why not claim Apple invented the GUI, simply because theirs is superior. Or that Apple that the very first OS, ever...again, theirs is great, so they must have been first...
Facts and independent thought should not be discarded simply to show how big an Apple fan you are.
Google copies, or tries to copy a successful business model, and as such, a successful model apple has been the first to implement it as successfully. Google didn't copy rim, three years ago, they attempted an a la linux attack on the mobile phones, but is realising solely on the tremendous success of apple that this is not the best way to make inroads to the mobile market. Thus google tries to copy apple's success story and changes its original strategy. Is it doing so because of the ailing palm or the eroding sales of rim, or maybe apple's success. Of course it's the later.
Apple was the first to implement this with such a success, which is what being first is all about in business. I wasn't referring solely to a os/device phone model on a technological basis but as a robust business model (that including the app store of course). I am not well versed with the rim device as I am from Europe where it's not as widely in use, but did they have an app store previously?
Moreso, every mobile manufacturer implemented a rudimentary "os" with their device. Apple was indeed the first to have a version of their desktop os on a smart device/phone. And it was also the first one from the computer camp. Win Mobile did not, and neither did the android choose this route, now they are making a u turn. Based on what? On riding the coat tails of a success story.
When apple did what most tec morons were claiming that they were using a faded 80s model and they were ecstatic about the "open" android os with google being the wave of the future. Turns out google were wrong in that they can't offer the seamless experience of the iphone when every manufacturer makes a variant of android with less than perfect results.
I am happy for them, that the (supposedly) innovative google (who to me are the biggest bubble in the tec world, based solely on one great idea that keeps feeding them perpetually (and the idiocy of their better competitors then such as altavista say)) will have mobile phone out by 2010.
It's sad they are 3 or so years late to the party. Too bad for them that by q1 2010 the next revolution will be the tablet device and apple will again be first and the rest will be trailing behind.
Good luck to google and m$ with the introduction of their tablets in 2013.
Google copies, or tries to copy a successful business model, and as such, a successful model apple has been the first to implement it as successfully. Google didn't copy rim, three years ago, they attempted an a la linux attack on the mobile phones, but is realising solely on the tremendous success of apple that this is not the best way to make inroads to the mobile market. Thus google tries to copy apple's success story and changes its original strategy. Is it doing so because of the ailing palm or the eroding sales of rim, or maybe apple's success. Of course it's the later.
Many companies change their plans...you might recall Apple promoting webapps for the original iPhone. We were told no native SDK was needed because webapps were so versatile...yet, they did a u-turn and now we have native apps and the app store. Who are you to say this was not planned from the beginning? Who are you to say google might also have originally planned to do their own phone, if they do in fact do so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
Apple was the first to implement this with such a success, which is what being first is all about in business. I wasn't referring solely to a os/device phone model on a technological basis but as a robust business model (that including the app store of course). I am not well versed with the rim device as I am from Europe where it's not as widely in use, but did they have an app store previously?
No, but Danger had an app store...along with their own OS for their device.
And yes, Apple was the "first to implement this with such a success"...which is sort of like saying they were the first to do it next. All your statement really says is that they have been the most successful with this model. This is true. But that doesn't mean their predecessors were not successful. Perhaps they were failures or perhaps they were smaller successes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
Moreso, every mobile manufacturer implemented a rudimentary "os" with their device. Apple was indeed the first to have a version of their desktop os on a smart device/phone. And it was also the first one from the computer camp. Win Mobile did not, and neither did the android choose this route, now they are making a u turn. Based on what? On riding the coat tails of a success story.
What do you mean 'the computer camp'? Do you mean computer manufactures? If so, then google doesn't really apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
When apple did what most tec morons were claiming that they were using a faded 80s model and they were ecstatic about the "open" android os with google being the wave of the future. Turns out google were wrong in that they can't offer the seamless experience of the iphone when every manufacturer makes a variant of android with less than perfect results.
mainly, it was people from companies (MS) that had a vested interest in WinMo that ridiculed Apple for going to an integrated solution...actually, mainly it seemed like Balmer.
Given there were other companies already going with integrated OS/device it would hardly make sense for pundits in general to see it as a failed model. They were concerned with Apple's lack of experience in the wireless market.
And it doesn't mean google was wrong or that they realized they were wrong. It could be the next step in an existing plan. Or maybe they decided their hardware partners needed more than a spec to go by and instead needed an actual shipping example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
It's sad they are 3 or so years late to the party. Too bad for them that by q1 2010 the next revolution will be the tablet device and apple will again be first and the rest will be trailing behind.
No, again, Apple won't be the first with a tablet. Again, they might make it a success.
Apple was 'late to the party' with MP3 players and smart phones..after all, many others were in those markets for years. Yet Apple became very successful in both. But you don't seem as eager to claim Apple copied those that came before them in those markets..and had some success. Except that by your reasoning, it means Apple was riding their coattails and copying them.
There is like zero chance Google would be stupid enough to make a phone. The whole purpose of the phone OS is to make sure Microsoft doesn't have dominance on the Phone so Google can continue to make big bucks on advertising. Google gets all those Android using hardware manufacturers to use it's services. If Google were to make it's own phone, it would risk all that. Further, Google might be competing with Apple, but Apple isn't it's focus. Apple is a great partner for Google as Apple embraces it's services for the most part, and uses it by default as it's search engine. Microsoft will make a phone before Google.
AdMob acquisition by GOOG doesn't make the latter a "good partner" for Apple. It's from now on the direct threat to App Store. Briefly, Apple's mistake.
As for copying models, GOOG copy Linux/Microsoft, not Apple.
Technology is by definition business. It's not science. You can have prototype of whatever fanciful tec in your back room, if you don't manage to have an impact and market penetration you 've done zip. Innovation is measured in combining elements and going to market with a successful product.
Now if you think the tablet has already been implemented and successfully so, then let me see you using that tablet and getting enough users who feel a cab at the moment that do so to.
Of course in the purist sense apple did not invent the mp3 player, but in that purist sense nobody did invent the mp3 player. Because no one was solely responsible for the parts of any of their players. They didn't make the hd drives, nor screens, nor the cpus by themselves. So who did innovate on the mp3 front? The ones (apple) that created a super useful interface in the click wheel and a model for a computer media manager in itunes, and store therein, and dominated the market. Or the couple of half baked badly thought devices that come before and failed miserable to capture the usefulness and imagination of the public?
Google had a clear strategy to be a microsoft/open source amalgam and now under the huge success of the iphone they are doing a u turn in bringing out their own device. That's not a pre-planned strategy, that's waiting for someone to innovate and create ripe model and market and then jump in ditching their own model in the process .
Technology is by definition business. It's not science. You can have prototype of whatever fanciful tec in your back room, if you don't manage to have an impact and market penetration you 've done zip. Innovation is measured in combining elements and going to market with a successful product.
Now if you think the tablet has already been implemented and successfully so, then let me see you using that tablet and getting enough users who feel a cab at the moment that do so to.
Of course in the purist sense apple did not invent the mp3 player, but in that purist sense nobody did invent the mp3 player. Because no one was solely responsible for the parts of any of their players. They didn't make the hd drives, nor screens, nor the cpus by themselves. So who did innovate on the mp3 front? The ones (apple) that created a super useful interface in the click wheel and a model for a computer media manager in itunes, and store therein, and dominated the market. Or the couple of half baked badly thought devices that come before and failed miserable to capture the usefulness and imagination of the public?
Google had a clear strategy to be a microsoft/open source amalgam and now under the huge success of the iphone they are doing a u turn in bringing out their own device. That's not a pre-planned strategy, that's waiting for someone to innovate and create ripe model and market and then jump in ditching their own model in the process .
Technology is by definition business. It's not science. You can have prototype of whatever fanciful tec in your back room, if you don't manage to have an impact and market penetration you 've done zip. Innovation is measured in combining elements and going to market with a successful product.
You are still confusing success with being first...and confusing being the most successful with the only one to succeed. Apple was not first to have a phone where they did the OS and hardware, nor were the first to be successful at it...they have been among the most successful. Think hard, it will come to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
Now if you think the tablet has already been implemented and successfully so, then let me see you using that tablet and getting enough users who feel a cab at the moment that do so to.
Still confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
Of course in the purist sense apple did not invent the mp3 player, but in that purist sense nobody did invent the mp3 player. Because no one was solely responsible for the parts of any of their players. They didn't make the hd drives, nor screens, nor the cpus by themselves. So who did innovate on the mp3 front? The ones (apple) that created a super useful interface in the click wheel and a model for a computer media manager in itunes, and store therein, and dominated the market. Or the couple of half baked badly thought devices that come before and failed miserable to capture the usefulness and imagination of the public?
Purist sense? How about in the realistic sense? How about in the factual sense? Did they innovate in the MP3 market? Sure. Did they invent the Mp3 player or were they the first to market or were they the first to have some success? No. Only if one were to be delusional could you even conceive that. Hell, they were successfully sued (settlement) over their UI on the iPod by Creative. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
Google had a clear strategy to be a microsoft/open source amalgam and now under the huge success of the iphone they are doing a u turn in bringing out their own device. That's not a pre-planned strategy, that's waiting for someone to innovate and create ripe model and market and then jump in ditching their own model in the process .
Again, you have no idea that google decided to do their own device based on Apple's success (if they are even doing so). You can claim it all you want, but it is just as likely that they planned to do so originally, but realized that to do this would hamper signing on other companies to also do Android devices. Or they have have actually changed their plan for other reasons. Or maybe it was because of the success that Apple had. You have no idea and to rail against them for doing so without having facts to back it up just smacks of ignorant ranting.
Are you just as angry with Apple for 'copying' Danger by doing a phone and the OS and an App store? After all, Apple originally stated they saw no need for native third party apps and then did a complete u-turn, released an SDK and opened the app store. Hypocrisy only makes one look foolish.
There is certainly a benefit for some who want to save money and/or don?t use the phone much, but having VoIP with QoS getting pushed in real time and ahead of any data is important. Unless Google can get that with their own service it may not be ideal for many heavy voice users.
www.abovethecrowd.com had an interesting blog post about it. Google basically pays other people to sell their products. with Google it will be like RIM. the data traffic is going to a few locations and will be easily routable. unlike current iphone traffic
Comments
wow google realised the bussiness model for mobile platform would be to integrate handset and os...
...Now let me think which much maligned by the idiots of the pc camp company thought of that 4-5 years before, to the criticism of the pundits and know alls of the tec world who claimed that a closed software model was a thing of the 80s...
...let us all think who the morons and the late comers to the party are once more...the very same people who claim all the time and profess how well advanced they are... and of course it's the apple "fan boys" that are in the wrong, always...
SO, GOOGLE, JOIN THE PARTY, JOIN THE MULTITUDES WHO HAVE COPIED APPLE'S BUSINESS MODEL TO TURN A BUCK BY RIDIND APPLE'S TAILCOATS...
Um...which company thought of doing the OS and hardware? hmm, maybe RIM, perhaps Palm, could be Danger.
I really hope you don't actually think it was Apple, as you seem to. Apple being wildly successful at it doesn't make them first.
. Apple being wildly successful at it doesn't make them first.
Might as well be.
Um...which company thought of doing the OS and hardware? hmm, maybe RIM, perhaps Palm, could be Danger.
I really hope you don't actually think it was Apple, as you seem to. Apple being wildly successful at it doesn't make them first.
Palm wasn't, and had a bit of NeXT moment when Palm had to buy back Handspring.
RIM is perhaps a first, and look at their marketshare. Not that any of their smartphones were worth using until the Storm2.
Might as well be.
Only for those for whom facts are irrelevant.
It's fine to claim that Apple did it better. But to claim Google copied the idea of integrating OS and hardware from Apple and that this idea originated at Apple is just dumb. Why not claim Apple invented the GUI, simply because theirs is superior. Or that Apple that the very first OS, ever...again, theirs is great, so they must have been first...
Facts and independent thought should not be discarded simply to show how big an Apple fan you are.
Only for those for whom facts are irrelevant.
It's fine to claim that Apple did it better. But to claim Google copied the idea of integrating OS and hardware from Apple and that this idea originated at Apple is just dumb. Why not claim Apple invented the GUI, simply because theirs is superior. Or that Apple that the very first OS, ever...again, theirs is great, so they must have been first...
Facts and independent thought should not be discarded simply to show how big an Apple fan you are.
Google copies, or tries to copy a successful business model, and as such, a successful model apple has been the first to implement it as successfully. Google didn't copy rim, three years ago, they attempted an a la linux attack on the mobile phones, but is realising solely on the tremendous success of apple that this is not the best way to make inroads to the mobile market. Thus google tries to copy apple's success story and changes its original strategy. Is it doing so because of the ailing palm or the eroding sales of rim, or maybe apple's success. Of course it's the later.
Apple was the first to implement this with such a success, which is what being first is all about in business. I wasn't referring solely to a os/device phone model on a technological basis but as a robust business model (that including the app store of course). I am not well versed with the rim device as I am from Europe where it's not as widely in use, but did they have an app store previously?
Moreso, every mobile manufacturer implemented a rudimentary "os" with their device. Apple was indeed the first to have a version of their desktop os on a smart device/phone. And it was also the first one from the computer camp. Win Mobile did not, and neither did the android choose this route, now they are making a u turn. Based on what? On riding the coat tails of a success story.
When apple did what most tec morons were claiming that they were using a faded 80s model and they were ecstatic about the "open" android os with google being the wave of the future. Turns out google were wrong in that they can't offer the seamless experience of the iphone when every manufacturer makes a variant of android with less than perfect results.
I am happy for them, that the (supposedly) innovative google (who to me are the biggest bubble in the tec world, based solely on one great idea that keeps feeding them perpetually (and the idiocy of their better competitors then such as altavista say)) will have mobile phone out by 2010.
It's sad they are 3 or so years late to the party. Too bad for them that by q1 2010 the next revolution will be the tablet device and apple will again be first and the rest will be trailing behind.
Good luck to google and m$ with the introduction of their tablets in 2013.
Google copies, or tries to copy a successful business model, and as such, a successful model apple has been the first to implement it as successfully. Google didn't copy rim, three years ago, they attempted an a la linux attack on the mobile phones, but is realising solely on the tremendous success of apple that this is not the best way to make inroads to the mobile market. Thus google tries to copy apple's success story and changes its original strategy. Is it doing so because of the ailing palm or the eroding sales of rim, or maybe apple's success. Of course it's the later.
Many companies change their plans...you might recall Apple promoting webapps for the original iPhone. We were told no native SDK was needed because webapps were so versatile...yet, they did a u-turn and now we have native apps and the app store. Who are you to say this was not planned from the beginning? Who are you to say google might also have originally planned to do their own phone, if they do in fact do so?
Apple was the first to implement this with such a success, which is what being first is all about in business. I wasn't referring solely to a os/device phone model on a technological basis but as a robust business model (that including the app store of course). I am not well versed with the rim device as I am from Europe where it's not as widely in use, but did they have an app store previously?
No, but Danger had an app store...along with their own OS for their device.
And yes, Apple was the "first to implement this with such a success"...which is sort of like saying they were the first to do it next. All your statement really says is that they have been the most successful with this model. This is true. But that doesn't mean their predecessors were not successful. Perhaps they were failures or perhaps they were smaller successes.
Moreso, every mobile manufacturer implemented a rudimentary "os" with their device. Apple was indeed the first to have a version of their desktop os on a smart device/phone. And it was also the first one from the computer camp. Win Mobile did not, and neither did the android choose this route, now they are making a u turn. Based on what? On riding the coat tails of a success story.
What do you mean 'the computer camp'? Do you mean computer manufactures? If so, then google doesn't really apply.
When apple did what most tec morons were claiming that they were using a faded 80s model and they were ecstatic about the "open" android os with google being the wave of the future. Turns out google were wrong in that they can't offer the seamless experience of the iphone when every manufacturer makes a variant of android with less than perfect results.
mainly, it was people from companies (MS) that had a vested interest in WinMo that ridiculed Apple for going to an integrated solution...actually, mainly it seemed like Balmer.
Given there were other companies already going with integrated OS/device it would hardly make sense for pundits in general to see it as a failed model. They were concerned with Apple's lack of experience in the wireless market.
And it doesn't mean google was wrong or that they realized they were wrong. It could be the next step in an existing plan. Or maybe they decided their hardware partners needed more than a spec to go by and instead needed an actual shipping example.
It's sad they are 3 or so years late to the party. Too bad for them that by q1 2010 the next revolution will be the tablet device and apple will again be first and the rest will be trailing behind.
No, again, Apple won't be the first with a tablet. Again, they might make it a success.
Apple was 'late to the party' with MP3 players and smart phones..after all, many others were in those markets for years. Yet Apple became very successful in both. But you don't seem as eager to claim Apple copied those that came before them in those markets..and had some success. Except that by your reasoning, it means Apple was riding their coattails and copying them.
As for copying models, GOOG copy Linux/Microsoft, not Apple.
You don't have a point.
Technology is by definition business. It's not science. You can have prototype of whatever fanciful tec in your back room, if you don't manage to have an impact and market penetration you 've done zip. Innovation is measured in combining elements and going to market with a successful product.
Now if you think the tablet has already been implemented and successfully so, then let me see you using that tablet and getting enough users who feel a cab at the moment that do so to.
Of course in the purist sense apple did not invent the mp3 player, but in that purist sense nobody did invent the mp3 player. Because no one was solely responsible for the parts of any of their players. They didn't make the hd drives, nor screens, nor the cpus by themselves. So who did innovate on the mp3 front? The ones (apple) that created a super useful interface in the click wheel and a model for a computer media manager in itunes, and store therein, and dominated the market. Or the couple of half baked badly thought devices that come before and failed miserable to capture the usefulness and imagination of the public?
Google had a clear strategy to be a microsoft/open source amalgam and now under the huge success of the iphone they are doing a u turn in bringing out their own device. That's not a pre-planned strategy, that's waiting for someone to innovate and create ripe model and market and then jump in ditching their own model in the process .
You don't have a point.
Technology is by definition business. It's not science. You can have prototype of whatever fanciful tec in your back room, if you don't manage to have an impact and market penetration you 've done zip. Innovation is measured in combining elements and going to market with a successful product.
Now if you think the tablet has already been implemented and successfully so, then let me see you using that tablet and getting enough users who feel a cab at the moment that do so to.
Of course in the purist sense apple did not invent the mp3 player, but in that purist sense nobody did invent the mp3 player. Because no one was solely responsible for the parts of any of their players. They didn't make the hd drives, nor screens, nor the cpus by themselves. So who did innovate on the mp3 front? The ones (apple) that created a super useful interface in the click wheel and a model for a computer media manager in itunes, and store therein, and dominated the market. Or the couple of half baked badly thought devices that come before and failed miserable to capture the usefulness and imagination of the public?
Google had a clear strategy to be a microsoft/open source amalgam and now under the huge success of the iphone they are doing a u turn in bringing out their own device. That's not a pre-planned strategy, that's waiting for someone to innovate and create ripe model and market and then jump in ditching their own model in the process .
@Tulkas
You don't have a point.
Technology is by definition business. It's not science. You can have prototype of whatever fanciful tec in your back room, if you don't manage to have an impact and market penetration you 've done zip. Innovation is measured in combining elements and going to market with a successful product.
You are still confusing success with being first...and confusing being the most successful with the only one to succeed. Apple was not first to have a phone where they did the OS and hardware, nor were the first to be successful at it...they have been among the most successful. Think hard, it will come to you.
Now if you think the tablet has already been implemented and successfully so, then let me see you using that tablet and getting enough users who feel a cab at the moment that do so to.
Still confused.
Of course in the purist sense apple did not invent the mp3 player, but in that purist sense nobody did invent the mp3 player. Because no one was solely responsible for the parts of any of their players. They didn't make the hd drives, nor screens, nor the cpus by themselves. So who did innovate on the mp3 front? The ones (apple) that created a super useful interface in the click wheel and a model for a computer media manager in itunes, and store therein, and dominated the market. Or the couple of half baked badly thought devices that come before and failed miserable to capture the usefulness and imagination of the public?
Purist sense? How about in the realistic sense? How about in the factual sense? Did they innovate in the MP3 market? Sure. Did they invent the Mp3 player or were they the first to market or were they the first to have some success? No. Only if one were to be delusional could you even conceive that. Hell, they were successfully sued (settlement) over their UI on the iPod by Creative. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument.
Google had a clear strategy to be a microsoft/open source amalgam and now under the huge success of the iphone they are doing a u turn in bringing out their own device. That's not a pre-planned strategy, that's waiting for someone to innovate and create ripe model and market and then jump in ditching their own model in the process .
Again, you have no idea that google decided to do their own device based on Apple's success (if they are even doing so). You can claim it all you want, but it is just as likely that they planned to do so originally, but realized that to do this would hamper signing on other companies to also do Android devices. Or they have have actually changed their plan for other reasons. Or maybe it was because of the success that Apple had. You have no idea and to rail against them for doing so without having facts to back it up just smacks of ignorant ranting.
Are you just as angry with Apple for 'copying' Danger by doing a phone and the OS and an App store? After all, Apple originally stated they saw no need for native third party apps and then did a complete u-turn, released an SDK and opened the app store. Hypocrisy only makes one look foolish.
There is certainly a benefit for some who want to save money and/or don?t use the phone much, but having VoIP with QoS getting pushed in real time and ahead of any data is important. Unless Google can get that with their own service it may not be ideal for many heavy voice users.
www.abovethecrowd.com had an interesting blog post about it. Google basically pays other people to sell their products. with Google it will be like RIM. the data traffic is going to a few locations and will be easily routable. unlike current iphone traffic