It seems to me that the logical conclusion is that Apple's vertically integrated model is deficient, if market share is a priority.
What makes you think Apple makes market share a priority?
That strategy is for low value-added players, like PC manufacturers and Nokia, and increasingly Android manufacturers (who give one away for free for every one you 'buy').
What makes you think Apple makes market share a priority?
That strategy for low value-added players, like PC manufacturers and Nokia, and increasingly Android manufacturers (who give one away for free for every one you 'buy').
If you're an application vendor or an advertiser, the iPod Touches out there are essentially equivalent to iPhones. They're the same size, similar in price, and are used almost interchangeably. So who would be interested in iPhones but not iPod Touches?
No one but Wireless carriers - and they have better information than this self-selecting survey that all the Android fans are bragging about.
For once, I'll agree with you. I think the only valid comparison is between the number of devices running each OS. That's what really concerns most developers, vendors, etc.
Keep that in mind though, when Android is running on cars, TV set-top boxes, phones, refrigerators....
Why don't you keep going for 8 more quarters, and Google will sell 8.5 billions of these, more than the population of the world!
They well might. LOL. Android will be running on your cable box, your phone and your in-dash infotainment system.....and then there's Google on your desktop....
They well might. LOL. Android will be running on your cable box, your phone and your in-dash infotainment system.....and then there's Google on your desktop....
(honest, we collected that data from open wifi networks completely by accident)
Definitely ironic that Google is calling out Apple. If Google wants they can virtually wipe your web site off of the internet. If people can't search and find your site then you're not getting traffic. They own over 80% of search at least in the US.
It is a lie that Google bought Android to fend off Apple's closed environment. Google wants the control via ads. They are crying foul now that Apple is breaking into their territory.
Ummm..... I am not being snarky in the least, but seriously, I don't get your comment (the one that you referenced in the link above).
Don't get the linked to comment, or its relevance to your post?
The comment, I think, speaks for itself in the context of the thread, at least. In reference to your post, Google is like one of those low value-added players who dump products on the market, in their case, solely to prevent others from succeeding.
Yes these things would be nice to alot of people, but almost all of them involve apple spending money with no real gaurentee of making money.
Right. So let's not pretend it's all about "the user experience". It's not. It's about Apple's profit margins. Nothing wrong with that. But nobody should pretend that Apple (or Google or anybody else for that matter) is some kind of benevolent overlord who really cares about your "user experience". They care, only insofar as it helps them sell gadgets.
The Flash war is already over and Adobe has lost. For Google, the Flash thing is just an opportunity to poke Apple in the eye.
Oh jeez, reading your completely out of touch die-hard "fanboist" comments make me feel real pity. The html5 web video codec(s) upcoming debacle is more and more obvious day after day (Apple & MS supporting the h.264 exclusively, Mozilla supporting Ogg Vorbis exclusively because of the h.264 patents, Google pushing forward a free VP8 that Jobs -childishly- quickly dismissed, etc), while flash has specifically fixed this cross-platforms multiple video codecs problem long ago: one example among many which indicates that it is here to stay, full flash player is just coming on Android OS (cf. numerous previews) and should be made available on most if not all others mobile OSes, excepting the iPhone OS of course, again because of control freak Big Brother Jobs telling you that this won't be allowed for you.
Don't get the linked to comment, or its relevance to your post?
The comment, I think, speaks for itself in the context of the thread, at least. In reference to your post, Google is like one of those low value-added players who dump products on the market, in their case, solely to prevent others from succeeding.
Sorry..... I got it upon a couple of re-reads...... [whacks own head].
The greatest danger to personal privacy in the world.
Truly Orwellian to see them refer to 1984.
I wonder what the anti trust implications are for them leveraging their complete dominance of the search market (with a totally closed and closely guarded proprietary search engine) to give away an OS in order to help further grow that search dominance.
Presumably, there is. That's not to say that it's inherently illegal or that wrong-doing would be found, but it is illegal to use a monopoly in one market to leverage your entry into another market.
In all likelihood, it's not an issue unless they give Android access to Google services that no one else has. If, for example, they were to stop offering Google search on iPhone or Safari, (as some have suggested), they would be in big trouble.
Right. So let's not pretend it's all about "the user experience". It's not. It's about Apple's profit margins. Nothing wrong with that. But nobody should pretend that Apple (or Google or anybody else for that matter) is some kind of benevolent overlord who really cares about your "user experience". They care, only insofar as it helps them sell gadgets.
Well, except that Apple's entire business model and philosophy is about succeeding by creating a superior user experience, so their profits and the quality of the user experience go hand in hand. They care, because that's the kind of company they've decided they want to be.
What kind of company has Google decided to be? Product dumping to fend off competition, leveraging search to control other markets, serial law breaking, ...
Comments
It seems to me that the logical conclusion is that Apple's vertically integrated model is deficient, if market share is a priority.
What makes you think Apple makes market share a priority?
That strategy is for low value-added players, like PC manufacturers and Nokia, and increasingly Android manufacturers (who give one away for free for every one you 'buy').
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich_ames
Gundotra <-> Sarah Palin
Google <-> Larry "Big Brother" Flint
"Do no evil" -> "Do nothing good, do nothing well"
What makes you think Apple makes market share a priority?
That strategy for low value-added players, like PC manufacturers and Nokia, and increasingly Android manufacturers (who give one away for free for every one you 'buy').
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...2&postcount=84
Except that's a largely useless comparison.
If you're an application vendor or an advertiser, the iPod Touches out there are essentially equivalent to iPhones. They're the same size, similar in price, and are used almost interchangeably. So who would be interested in iPhones but not iPod Touches?
No one but Wireless carriers - and they have better information than this self-selecting survey that all the Android fans are bragging about.
For once, I'll agree with you. I think the only valid comparison is between the number of devices running each OS. That's what really concerns most developers, vendors, etc.
Keep that in mind though, when Android is running on cars, TV set-top boxes, phones, refrigerators....
If they didn't, then Windows PCs would dominate the PC market. Oops!
If more people were willing (or able) to pay a premium for a better product, then Windows PCs would certainly not dominate the PC market.
Why, of course. That is just brilliant, man!
Why don't you keep going for 8 more quarters, and Google will sell 8.5 billions of these, more than the population of the world!
They well might. LOL. Android will be running on your cable box, your phone and your in-dash infotainment system.....and then there's Google on your desktop....
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...2&postcount=84
Ummm..... I am not being snarky in the least, but seriously, I don't get your comment (the one that you referenced in the link above).
They well might. LOL. Android will be running on your cable box, your phone and your in-dash infotainment system.....and then there's Google on your desktop....
... your telescreen, ...
Big Brother really will be watching us.
pot kettle etc.
(honest, we collected that data from open wifi networks completely by accident)
Definitely ironic that Google is calling out Apple. If Google wants they can virtually wipe your web site off of the internet. If people can't search and find your site then you're not getting traffic. They own over 80% of search at least in the US.
It is a lie that Google bought Android to fend off Apple's closed environment. Google wants the control via ads. They are crying foul now that Apple is breaking into their territory.
Ummm..... I am not being snarky in the least, but seriously, I don't get your comment (the one that you referenced in the link above).
Don't get the linked to comment, or its relevance to your post?
The comment, I think, speaks for itself in the context of the thread, at least. In reference to your post, Google is like one of those low value-added players who dump products on the market, in their case, solely to prevent others from succeeding.
I just can't get on board with this comment.
Yes these things would be nice to alot of people, but almost all of them involve apple spending money with no real gaurentee of making money.
Right. So let's not pretend it's all about "the user experience". It's not. It's about Apple's profit margins. Nothing wrong with that. But nobody should pretend that Apple (or Google or anybody else for that matter) is some kind of benevolent overlord who really cares about your "user experience". They care, only insofar as it helps them sell gadgets.
The Flash war is already over and Adobe has lost. For Google, the Flash thing is just an opportunity to poke Apple in the eye.
Oh jeez, reading your completely out of touch die-hard "fanboist" comments make me feel real pity. The html5 web video codec(s) upcoming debacle is more and more obvious day after day (Apple & MS supporting the h.264 exclusively, Mozilla supporting Ogg Vorbis exclusively because of the h.264 patents, Google pushing forward a free VP8 that Jobs -childishly- quickly dismissed, etc), while flash has specifically fixed this cross-platforms multiple video codecs problem long ago: one example among many which indicates that it is here to stay, full flash player is just coming on Android OS (cf. numerous previews) and should be made available on most if not all others mobile OSes, excepting the iPhone OS of course, again because of control freak Big Brother Jobs telling you that this won't be allowed for you.
Don't get the linked to comment, or its relevance to your post?
The comment, I think, speaks for itself in the context of the thread, at least. In reference to your post, Google is like one of those low value-added players who dump products on the market, in their case, solely to prevent others from succeeding.
Sorry..... I got it upon a couple of re-reads...... [whacks own head].
Google, quit whining about Apple.
The greatest danger to personal privacy in the world.
Truly Orwellian to see them refer to 1984.
I wonder what the anti trust implications are for them leveraging their complete dominance of the search market (with a totally closed and closely guarded proprietary search engine) to give away an OS in order to help further grow that search dominance.
Presumably, there is. That's not to say that it's inherently illegal or that wrong-doing would be found, but it is illegal to use a monopoly in one market to leverage your entry into another market.
In all likelihood, it's not an issue unless they give Android access to Google services that no one else has. If, for example, they were to stop offering Google search on iPhone or Safari, (as some have suggested), they would be in big trouble.
Right. So let's not pretend it's all about "the user experience". It's not. It's about Apple's profit margins. Nothing wrong with that. But nobody should pretend that Apple (or Google or anybody else for that matter) is some kind of benevolent overlord who really cares about your "user experience". They care, only insofar as it helps them sell gadgets.
Well, except that Apple's entire business model and philosophy is about succeeding by creating a superior user experience, so their profits and the quality of the user experience go hand in hand. They care, because that's the kind of company they've decided they want to be.
What kind of company has Google decided to be? Product dumping to fend off competition, leveraging search to control other markets, serial law breaking, ...
... your telescreen, ...
Big Brother really will be watching us.
...as long as he helps bring down my cable bill, I'm okay with it!
Applies to both companies.
Android is open source and free to license (sans Google branding). I can make a toaster oven and run Android on it fully legally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance
I still dont get how Google is going to make money from an open source OS if they dont make the hardware either?!?