When I got my original iPhone (August 2007), I only knew two other friends who had them. And these were Mac loyalists as well. No one else had them in my extended circle. Now, almost everyone I know has one. I think Apple's growth is slowing because they are approaching a saturation point, like they did with the iPod. So comparing Apple to Google in relation to growth isn't exactly accurate.
Yes, but comparing growth at specific time since each introduction is good starting point. Additionally, one should keep in mind that Android is facing much more saturated market and stronger competition than iPhone was at the same relative time since introduction. Who was competing with iPhone? Pretty much no one - everything else was bulky, old fashioned... and Android has to face iPhone in the market already saturated (to a certain degree) by iPhone.
I'd say Android has much more difficult job to do and they are doing it bloody fine.
While it is true that competition does not always produce good results for the consumer, the lack of competition always produces a disaster for the consumer. That is, unless you want a product market to be deliberately monopolized and regulated, as in a public utility.
FWIW, product dumping is a real concept in antitrust law. It's a form of predatory pricing.
iPhone is available in 90 or so countries, from around 150 carriers (of course there are recurring names, like Vodafone Australia, Vodafone NZ, Vodafone...)
How smart is it by Google to upfront bash Apple like this? This is just driving Apple away and what incentives has Apple to play nice with anything Google does after this?
In a very narrow-minded group of Google-supporters this is funny, smart and creative. But seriously - it only shows that Google management is about to loose it. They have a positive curve and it will go on for a while, but they will loose touch. Big headed, self-centered and right out blunt.
Likewise, only very narrow-minded group of Apple-supporters found some of "Get a Mac" adds funny, smart and creative. They did good job for Apple, though.
I think people should really stop complaining about adds and propaganda in general. If they were supposed to be realistic, they would be documentaries.
That is not at all clear. Both of those figures are based on a single self-selecting survey.
SALES figures put Apple's worldwide business well ahead of Android. And even that comparison is flawed. Why would you compare ALL Android devices to just one iPhone OS device from Apple?
Either compare all Android devices to all iPhone OS devices (including iPod Touch and iPad) or compare any one Android phone to the Apple iPhone.
I'm not interested in a comparison of whether all Korean cars put together outsold the Camry.
It looks logical to me, as long as we are talking about phone platforms, not OS.
They are comparing smartphones based on iPhone OS and smartphones based on Android. If you add other devices based on iPhone OS, you'll have to add Android tablets, toasters, TV boxes, portable video games, intelligent toilet seats and who knows what else... but then you are talking about specific OS coverage, not about phone platform.
Additionally, there is still iPhone, iPhone 3G, 3Gs and soon enough 4 (or whatever it's name is going to be). And some of them come with different storage options and colour (some of Android phones do not differ much more than that anyway).
Apple's model is what is good for consumer is good for Apple not the other way around. In the case of Google is what is good for them is good for you.
I don't agree with you - not completely, at least. As iPhone user, I don't like number of limitations Apple is imposing on me, especially that I know they are not forced by technology shortcomings, but by Apple's restrictive philosophy. And that restrictive policy that Apple is applying to their users can be seen as Orwellian, in a way.
And I don't think those limitations are good for me. Even with them iPhone is good device so I learned to live with limitations, but like them I don't.
Which is why these kind of analogies are fraught with peril. It might seem explanatory at first blush, but if you give it some thought you'll realize that the infrastructure based barriers to entry for new fuels are just orders of magnitude greater than those for new internet technologies.
Or maybe "orders of magnitude" doesn't even work, since we're talking about completely different definitions of barrier. Vast, trillion dollar deployment of development, processing, delivery and utilization systems which touch on every aspect of modern life, on the one hand, and coding for a new standard on a browser on the other. Which the end user doesn't even notice.
A response that's longer than a sentence (anonymouse, take note).
I'll agree with you there when you examine it on a detailed level, however, I think you're thinking into it too much. Analogies do not have to be exactly the same in magnitude to make sense, just similar in idea.
Both Flash and fossil fuels are technologies with limited lives. Both HTML5 and new fuels are emerging technologies that are "under development". When Flash runs its life, HTML5 will most likely take over. Just like whatever new fuel will take over for gas. Both have barriers that are relative in size to their areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
No, it is about clinging. Ubiquitous technologies are EOL'd and displaced time after time, and Flash is one of those that is destined to meet the same fate. Cling to Flash if you want, but the web will pass you by.
Groovetube was right when he said that my comments wouldn't sink in with you. I'm not pro-Flash or pro-HTML5 only. All I care about is that I'm allowed to have the tools to view the majority of the web on my device (which Google has finally done). If Flash sticks around for another 10 years, I'd like to be able to view that for the 10 years. And when HTML5 finally takes over, I'll jump to that.
I don't see how Google providing me the ability to view the current Flash content, as well as HTML5 content, is a sign of the web passing me by. If anything, I'm actually future-proofed. Once an HTML5 site gets up, I'll be able to view it as if nothing's changed. I just get the bonus of being able to view the current Flash content in the meantime.
Google vs. Apple is much juicier. The competition is driving both companies to innovate using very different tactics, but consumers will benefit. I'm a developer on iPhone and Android, and this is as fun as it gets.
I couldn't get into Google IO Conference (and missed out on two free smartphones!!) but will head to Apple WWDC in about two weeks for Apple's rebuttal. Gotta love it!!
Don't worry, those two free smartphones will probably go in the bin soon after you realise how crap they are.
I wonder if Google will go the full hog and just BUY ADOBE AND GIVE AWAY CS5 FOR FREE... or something along the lines of buying Adobe and giving some stuff away for free, since that's what they do...
If Google buys Adobe, then I'd say Flash will be dead in 2 years, Confirmed!!11!!
One should not throw rocks while living in a glass house. Just remember the "accidental" data recording done in Sweden recently by a certain red car... not owned by apple.
Google uses its search revenue to allow it to dump all sorts of free products onto the market. A clear example of a company leveraging its controlling position in one market to take over others.
Quote:
Can you please give an example of where the above scenario has played out in real life?
Maybe you just aren't old enough to realize how much the quality of basic (and even not so basic) consumer goods has declined since most of the manufacturing was off-shored and price became the primary mechanism of competition?
Here's another example of a different sort. Toyota recently attempted to cover up safety issues with their product line because they believed revealing them would put them at a competitive disadvantage. Eventually these problems became widely known anyway and did hurt Toyota's business, but in the meantime, because of actions based on competitive pressures, consumers were put at risk.
The overall point is very simply that since competition is goalless -- it's simply a struggle between two or more entities, not to reach some particular endpoint, but just to dominate -- it is illogical to conclude that the result is always positive for others. For example, competition has produced a lion that is a very efficient killing machine. This was great for the lion and its descendants, but not so much if you're a wildebeest.
While it is true that competition does not always produce good results for the consumer, the lack of competition always produces a disaster for the consumer. That is, unless you want a product market to be deliberately monopolized and regulated, as in a public utility
Yes, absolutely, if there is no competition in a particular market, there must be strict regulation.
Comments like this say more about you than about him, really.
Actually, I think it's quite relevant that he, and an increasing number of Google employees, came there by way of Microsoft. What does it say about you that you can't see through the style to the substance?
Groovetube was right when he said that my comments wouldn't sink in with you. I'm not pro-Flash or pro-HTML5 only. All I care about is that I'm allowed to have the tools to view the majority of the web on my device (which Google has finally done). If Flash sticks around for another 10 years, I'd like to be able to view that for the 10 years. And when HTML5 finally takes over, I'll jump to that.
I don't see how Google providing me the ability to view the current Flash content, as well as HTML5 content, is a sign of the web passing me by. If anything, I'm actually future-proofed. Once an HTML5 site gets up, I'll be able to view it as if nothing's changed. I just get the bonus of being able to view the current Flash content in the meantime.
that's my view. As a developer I can tell you if everyone suddenly ran screaming in the streets dumping their flash sites to rewrite the w hole thing in html what ever, I think I'll be able to afford that 23foot sailboat I've wanted for some time. Bring... it... on....
As a surfer, if they continue to fix and innovate flash, which it appears having a gun to adobe's head isn't a bad thing at all, great. Also if html5 starts taking on the more run of the mill simpler stuff many weak kneed developers would flash for, then perhaps it;s a good thing all round, for surfers, developers, and all platforms if less needless flash is written.
Likewise, only very narrow-minded group of Apple-supporters found some of "Get a Mac" adds funny, smart and creative. They did good job for Apple, though.
Obviously a very incorrect statement as the ever growing number of previous windows users who now own Macs can attest to. .... (They did good job for Apple, though)
Comments
When I got my original iPhone (August 2007), I only knew two other friends who had them. And these were Mac loyalists as well. No one else had them in my extended circle. Now, almost everyone I know has one. I think Apple's growth is slowing because they are approaching a saturation point, like they did with the iPod. So comparing Apple to Google in relation to growth isn't exactly accurate.
Yes, but comparing growth at specific time since each introduction is good starting point. Additionally, one should keep in mind that Android is facing much more saturated market and stronger competition than iPhone was at the same relative time since introduction. Who was competing with iPhone? Pretty much no one - everything else was bulky, old fashioned... and Android has to face iPhone in the market already saturated (to a certain degree) by iPhone.
I'd say Android has much more difficult job to do and they are doing it bloody fine.
FWIW, product dumping is a real concept in antitrust law. It's a form of predatory pricing.
I don't know, but then you were the one who made the claim.
Likely someone has already mentioned this... anyway, according to:
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1937
iPhone is available in 90 or so countries, from around 150 carriers (of course there are recurring names, like Vodafone Australia, Vodafone NZ, Vodafone...)
How smart is it by Google to upfront bash Apple like this? This is just driving Apple away and what incentives has Apple to play nice with anything Google does after this?
In a very narrow-minded group of Google-supporters this is funny, smart and creative. But seriously - it only shows that Google management is about to loose it. They have a positive curve and it will go on for a while, but they will loose touch. Big headed, self-centered and right out blunt.
Likewise, only very narrow-minded group of Apple-supporters found some of "Get a Mac" adds funny, smart and creative. They did good job for Apple, though.
I think people should really stop complaining about adds and propaganda in general. If they were supposed to be realistic, they would be documentaries.
FWIW, product dumping is a real concept in antitrust law. It's a form of predatory pricing.
That is not at all clear. Both of those figures are based on a single self-selecting survey.
SALES figures put Apple's worldwide business well ahead of Android. And even that comparison is flawed. Why would you compare ALL Android devices to just one iPhone OS device from Apple?
Either compare all Android devices to all iPhone OS devices (including iPod Touch and iPad) or compare any one Android phone to the Apple iPhone.
I'm not interested in a comparison of whether all Korean cars put together outsold the Camry.
It looks logical to me, as long as we are talking about phone platforms, not OS.
They are comparing smartphones based on iPhone OS and smartphones based on Android. If you add other devices based on iPhone OS, you'll have to add Android tablets, toasters, TV boxes, portable video games, intelligent toilet seats and who knows what else... but then you are talking about specific OS coverage, not about phone platform.
Additionally, there is still iPhone, iPhone 3G, 3Gs and soon enough 4 (or whatever it's name is going to be). And some of them come with different storage options and colour (some of Android phones do not differ much more than that anyway).
Apple's model is what is good for consumer is good for Apple not the other way around. In the case of Google is what is good for them is good for you.
I don't agree with you - not completely, at least. As iPhone user, I don't like number of limitations Apple is imposing on me, especially that I know they are not forced by technology shortcomings, but by Apple's restrictive philosophy. And that restrictive policy that Apple is applying to their users can be seen as Orwellian, in a way.
And I don't think those limitations are good for me. Even with them iPhone is good device so I learned to live with limitations, but like them I don't.
He was weaned from the teat of Bill Gates and Steve Balmer. Need we say more about him?
Comments like this say more about you than about him, really.
How could Google be engaged in predatory pricing when they give everything away for free?
I didn't say they were. You seemed to be questioning the existence of the concept, so I was simply clarifying that it does exist.
Which is why these kind of analogies are fraught with peril. It might seem explanatory at first blush, but if you give it some thought you'll realize that the infrastructure based barriers to entry for new fuels are just orders of magnitude greater than those for new internet technologies.
Or maybe "orders of magnitude" doesn't even work, since we're talking about completely different definitions of barrier. Vast, trillion dollar deployment of development, processing, delivery and utilization systems which touch on every aspect of modern life, on the one hand, and coding for a new standard on a browser on the other. Which the end user doesn't even notice.
A response that's longer than a sentence (anonymouse, take note).
I'll agree with you there when you examine it on a detailed level, however, I think you're thinking into it too much. Analogies do not have to be exactly the same in magnitude to make sense, just similar in idea.
Both Flash and fossil fuels are technologies with limited lives. Both HTML5 and new fuels are emerging technologies that are "under development". When Flash runs its life, HTML5 will most likely take over. Just like whatever new fuel will take over for gas. Both have barriers that are relative in size to their areas.
No, it is about clinging. Ubiquitous technologies are EOL'd and displaced time after time, and Flash is one of those that is destined to meet the same fate. Cling to Flash if you want, but the web will pass you by.
Groovetube was right when he said that my comments wouldn't sink in with you. I'm not pro-Flash or pro-HTML5 only. All I care about is that I'm allowed to have the tools to view the majority of the web on my device (which Google has finally done). If Flash sticks around for another 10 years, I'd like to be able to view that for the 10 years. And when HTML5 finally takes over, I'll jump to that.
I don't see how Google providing me the ability to view the current Flash content, as well as HTML5 content, is a sign of the web passing me by. If anything, I'm actually future-proofed. Once an HTML5 site gets up, I'll be able to view it as if nothing's changed. I just get the bonus of being able to view the current Flash content in the meantime.
Google vs. Apple is much juicier. The competition is driving both companies to innovate using very different tactics, but consumers will benefit. I'm a developer on iPhone and Android, and this is as fun as it gets.
I couldn't get into Google IO Conference (and missed out on two free smartphones!!) but will head to Apple WWDC in about two weeks for Apple's rebuttal. Gotta love it!!
Don't worry, those two free smartphones will probably go in the bin soon after you realise how crap they are.
If Google buys Adobe, then I'd say Flash will be dead in 2 years, Confirmed!!11!!
One should not throw rocks while living in a glass house. Just remember the "accidental" data recording done in Sweden recently by a certain red car... not owned by apple.
Actually what you are talking about is when companies actually stop competing. They begin to collude and price fix.
No, I wasn't talking about collusion there. Companies end up competing solely on price all the time.
What is "product dumping"? And exactly what is Google doing that you consider "unfair competition"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping...cing_policy%29
Google uses its search revenue to allow it to dump all sorts of free products onto the market. A clear example of a company leveraging its controlling position in one market to take over others.
Can you please give an example of where the above scenario has played out in real life?
Maybe you just aren't old enough to realize how much the quality of basic (and even not so basic) consumer goods has declined since most of the manufacturing was off-shored and price became the primary mechanism of competition?
Here's another example of a different sort. Toyota recently attempted to cover up safety issues with their product line because they believed revealing them would put them at a competitive disadvantage. Eventually these problems became widely known anyway and did hurt Toyota's business, but in the meantime, because of actions based on competitive pressures, consumers were put at risk.
The overall point is very simply that since competition is goalless -- it's simply a struggle between two or more entities, not to reach some particular endpoint, but just to dominate -- it is illogical to conclude that the result is always positive for others. For example, competition has produced a lion that is a very efficient killing machine. This was great for the lion and its descendants, but not so much if you're a wildebeest.
While it is true that competition does not always produce good results for the consumer, the lack of competition always produces a disaster for the consumer. That is, unless you want a product market to be deliberately monopolized and regulated, as in a public utility
Yes, absolutely, if there is no competition in a particular market, there must be strict regulation.
How could Google be engaged in predatory pricing when they give everything away for free?
How much more predatory can you get?
Comments like this say more about you than about him, really.
Actually, I think it's quite relevant that he, and an increasing number of Google employees, came there by way of Microsoft. What does it say about you that you can't see through the style to the substance?
Yes, with over 90% of desktop market they are really hard to spot
Where are you going to go when the MS 'desktop' decline sets in?
"Chrome continues surge as IE drops below 60% market share - 3 May 2010
Remember when Internet Explorer's market share was well over 90 percent? Now it's less than 60 percent. Meanwhile, Chrome saw the*?
arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/... - Options"
Other sites quote IE below 50%
With Win-Mob stagnating, it's no surprise that the markets are starting to consider MS as very ordinary.
APPLE market cap $220B
MS market cap $235B
I almost (no I don't) feel sorry for MS. hehe
Groovetube was right when he said that my comments wouldn't sink in with you. I'm not pro-Flash or pro-HTML5 only. All I care about is that I'm allowed to have the tools to view the majority of the web on my device (which Google has finally done). If Flash sticks around for another 10 years, I'd like to be able to view that for the 10 years. And when HTML5 finally takes over, I'll jump to that.
I don't see how Google providing me the ability to view the current Flash content, as well as HTML5 content, is a sign of the web passing me by. If anything, I'm actually future-proofed. Once an HTML5 site gets up, I'll be able to view it as if nothing's changed. I just get the bonus of being able to view the current Flash content in the meantime.
that's my view. As a developer I can tell you if everyone suddenly ran screaming in the streets dumping their flash sites to rewrite the w hole thing in html what ever, I think I'll be able to afford that 23foot sailboat I've wanted for some time.
As a surfer, if they continue to fix and innovate flash, which it appears having a gun to adobe's head isn't a bad thing at all, great. Also if html5 starts taking on the more run of the mill simpler stuff many weak kneed developers would flash for, then perhaps it;s a good thing all round, for surfers, developers, and all platforms if less needless flash is written.
Likewise, only very narrow-minded group of Apple-supporters found some of "Get a Mac" adds funny, smart and creative. They did good job for Apple, though.
Obviously a very incorrect statement as the ever growing number of previous windows users who now own Macs can attest to. .... (They did good job for Apple, though)