Thanks. Nokia is trying, with Symbian, to make it relevant again. I don't think it will happen. Especially when you consider that they've effectively written it off by first going to their linux based Meamo, and now to the Nokia/Intel MeeGo (if I spelled those two correctly) for their higher end phones and tablets. That will kill Symbian off in the bettr smartphone race. As MeeGo moves down the line (assuming that IT will be successful), along with Meamo, where does that leave Symbian, and who will want it other than for cheap phones? Eventually, it will disappear.
You're welcome Mel...you obviously know more of the details than i do...but as you say...especially in Tech, it is awfully hard to resurrect yourself once you have 'missed the boat!' As it were. Apple did it...but, long term, MS, Sony, Motorola are in the business of going out of business!
Best!
Edit: Along your line of thinking...I think HP is trying with the acquisition of Palm... which was really a billion dollar investment in Palm's WebOS and maybe an entree into the tablet and mobile phone business. Unlike Dell and Google, which seem to be all over the place.
It's not clear to me how many Android handsets would have to be sold for Google to have the same cash flow as Apple gets from selling one iPhone.
What would that multiple be? Even if it's in the upper single digits, could Google ever achieve that kind of share? And, even if it does, will it simply be a volume play (like PCs) than a value play (like Macs)?
Well, of course, for Google, they only lose money on Android, if we're talking about direct income.
But my feeling about this has been that Google doesn't care. Google makes 95% of its income, both gross and net, from advertising. They aren't, despite what most people think, primarily a search company. That's not their business. They are an Ad placement company. Their search function is just there for the purpose of making money from Ads. The better the search, the more Ads they get.
Now, with the iPhone, Google is put into a bad position. With all the apps out there that bypass the Google search page, people don't get the search results popping up in a new page, with the paid for searches on top, and the paid Ads in the sidebar. If they don't appear, Google doesn't get paid for them. Oops!
With mobile growing at such a torrid pace, it will only be a ways before most people are on the internet through apps on phones, Touches, and tablets. Google's search business is, in the long term, in danger.
This is where Android comes in. With Google having their own platform for apps and search, they can control where those Ads appear, thereby getting paid for them. Giving it away for free increases the chances that manufacturers will use it. Allowing them to screw with it gives them the ability to differentiate themselves from all the other Android players. We know where that leads.
The interesting thing though, is that it's since come out that Google began working on this in 2005, long before Apple came out with their phone, and even longer before they had an app store to derail Google's business. So they were thinking about monopolizing search and Ads well before Apple got involved, though likely that made it even more important for Google to get something out there, even before it was really ready. We can see that by the first OS versions and phones. Not very good.
I think we can pretty much agree on most things here. You're right markets fluctuate over time. What was big, becomes small, and visa versa. Who ever thought that Motorola would drop to such a small marketshare? Ten years ago? No one!
I am not a history afficionado, but when I was exposed to history of nations for a longer period of time, I begun to appreciate the statement:
"Nothing last!"
or its other form:
"This too shall pass..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I remember when Samsung had less that a 5% marketshare early in this century when I first bought their i300 color Palmphone. Who thought they would become one of the largest manufacturers?
Yes, I remember the cars from Korea when I was a student in Baltimore. I think, it was called a Kia or something. My housemate was South Korean born in Korea but raised in the US. He was the most perceptive and considerate person I ever met. And that was good because I was just adjusting to America, at the time. He was more gregarious, and through him, our group became more international (not simply other nationals raised in the US).
Among the most impressive were the group coming from Taiwan and later on mainland China. [I was exposed with Chinese in my own country.] Of course, they were more educated, but the way they behaved. if they became the leaders in education, science and industry, I would not be too surprised if they would succeed in transforming their respective countries -- maybe not like the way we want it to be from a Western perspective.
This is one reason why I am surprised when some posters simply view China as autocratic state.
I would not be surprised if China would eventually overtake the US, economically. They may rely on Western technology right now, but like Japan, they will evolve their own local technology. It is not simply cheap and plentiful labor that attract many Western companies to China. In fact, even Western bred Asians (Chinese, Indians, etc.) are going back to their respective countries because some find more opportunities there to practice their training. It goes without saying that it is a bonus to be able help shape your birth country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
With Apple vs Android, the picture is less clear. After all, Apple is a manufacturer of phones, and Google is a developer of a free OS. Very different. It's possible that at some point, Android will become the most widely used phone OS, but at what cost? Will it become so fractionated that it will no longer become Android in most peoples eyes? With manufacturers putting their own, often not compatible GUIs on their own phones, and giving them names, will people think of these phones as Android phones? Its possible they won't, especially since some of these companies are tarting their own app stores, and many apps may not crossover the lines of one phone to another.
As a consumer, who had to wallow with the choices and lack of support, in a number of "open systems", I prefer the "walled garden" of Apple. I just want to use applications. If Apple can help me discard buggy Apps, and malwares, I have little in wading through poorly scripted Apps. My experience with Wintel hardware becomes an issue when something breakdown, and every one blames the other. Fortunately, for laboratory equipment, we just called the instrument vendor.
The fragmentation because of forking that usually occurs with "Open source" initiative would likely benefit Apple, and the reason why many developers would likely stick with the Apple Apps Store.
I consider the reluctance of Google to immerse into more active coordination of the Android project and its reluctance to invest in the infrastructure (not just the software) as a major stumbling in the development of the Android, as a more effective system, as much as the Apple integrated ecosystem it has built with the iPhone OS. The technology itself evolved from years of in-house design and technology; One Apple enthusiast. for example. traced the roots of the iPad, from generations of "integrated unibody of the screen-processor" starting with the original Mac, to first iMac and the latest iMac iteration. Apple would nnot likely have adopted the "Courier" (folding) form for the iPad, as speculated in early design before the iPad came out. More than likely, it is also the reason why Apple went with the form factor of the iPhone, rather than the more common clam shell used in phones and notebooks and netbooks.
Now, is the lack of more "controlling" approach of Google to its Android initiative be fatal? I would hazard to speculate that it would limit the potential of the OS, but the very nature of the "open source" may help developers in other countries evolve their own version of the Android for local consumption.
This will surely cause fragmentation, but if a local phone manufacturer in China would create one for the vast Chinese market, it is likely to thrive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
So will a Samsung Android phone be known as an Android phone, or as a BADA phone? Will an HTC Android phone be known as an Android phone, or as a Sense phone, etc? Will Verizon limit Google marketplace sales in favor of it's own store and apps? I don't think we will know that for a couple more years.
The issue as to what OS would be inside a phone would more likely concern mainly the technocrats, developers and carriers. The consumer would be more concerned if the phone addresses his/her needs.
I am not as verse to what Google is doing, but as primary developer, it had a lot of say on what goes on in the Android. For example, the integration of its browsers, Gmail, and relevant cloud computing initiatives. According to Gruber, this is where Apple mobile codmputing is catching up to Google's Android's ecosystem. The iPhone OS mobile computing devices are still tethered to the desktop. My hope is that this will change soon and I speculate that initiatives, like the North Carolina facility, Mobile Me, and some others in Apple research labs may be working towards tis goal.
Well, of course, for Google, they only lose money on Android, if we're talking about direct income.
But my feeling about this has been that Google doesn't care. Google makes 95% of its income, both gross and net, from advertising. They aren't, despite what most people think, primarily a search company. That's not their business. They are an Ad placement company. Their search function is just there for the purpose of making money from Ads. The better the search, the more Ads they get.
Now, with the iPhone, Google is put into a bad position. With all the apps out there that bypass the Google search page, people don't get the search results popping up in a new page, with the paid for searches on top, and the paid Ads in the sidebar. If they don't appear, Google doesn't get paid for them. Oops!
With mobile growing at such a torrid pace, it will only be a ways before most people are on the internet through apps on phones, Touches, and tablets. Google's search business is, in the long term, in danger.
This is where Android comes in. With Google having their own platform for apps and search, they can control where those Ads appear, thereby getting paid for them. Giving it away for free increases the chances that manufacturers will use it. Allowing them to screw with it gives them the ability to differentiate themselves from all the other Android players. We know where that leads.
The interesting thing though, is that it's since come out that Google began working on this in 2005, long before Apple came out with their phone, and even longer before they had an app store to derail Google's business. So they were thinking about monopolizing search and Ads well before Apple got involved, though likely that made it even more important for Google to get something out there, even before it was really ready. We can see that by the first OS versions and phones. Not very good.
Mel, you're correct...Google is all about ad revenue...'pennies per click/view' add up to billions! But consider this...maybe they're not in the ad business? Maybe they are in the 'harvesting' business....get users search/preference info and 'Sell' it!
In all honesty, I did not come up with this idea...it may have been anantksundaram. But it makes sense to me... Coca-Cola is not selling Coke, the soft drink but rather sugar and caffeine, McDonald's is not selling 'food,' but rather 'Fat,' 'sugar' and 'Salt!' And on and on....
Ps. That word 'harvest' makes my kidneys hurt for some reason!
I am not a history afficionado, but when I was exposed to history of nations for a longer period of time, I begun to appreciate the statement:
"Nothing last!"
or its other form:
"This too shall pass..."
Yes, I remember the cars from Korea when I was a student in Baltimore. I think, it was called a Kia or something. My housemate was South Korean born in Korea but raised in the US. He was the most perceptive and considerate person I ever met. And that was good because I was just adjusting to America, at the time. He was more gregarious, and through him, our group became more international (not simply other nationals raised in the US).
Among the most impressive were the group coming from Taiwan and later on mainland China. [I was exposed with Chinese in my own country.] Of course, they were more educated, but the way they behaved. if they became the leaders in education, science and industry, I would not be too surprised if they would succeed in transforming their respective countries -- maybe not like the way we want it to be from a Western perspective.
This is one reason why I am surprised when some posters simply view China as autocratic state.
I would not be surprised if China would eventually overtake the US, economically. They may rely on Western technology right now, but like Japan, they will evolve their own local technology. It is not simply cheap and plentiful labor that attract many Western companies to China. In fact, even Western bred Asians (Chinese, Indians, etc.) are going back to their respective countries because some find more opportunities there to practice their training. It goes without saying that it is a bonus to be able help shape your birth country.
As a consumer, who had to wallow with the choices and lack of support, in a number of "open systems", I prefer the "walled garden" of Apple. I just want to use applications. If Apple can help me discard buggy Apps, and malwares, I have little in wading through poorly scripted Apps. My experience with Wintel hardware becomes an issue when something breakdown, and every one blames the other. Fortunately, for laboratory equipment, we just called the instrument vendor.
The fragmentation because of forking that usually occurs with "Open source" initiative would likely benefit Apple, and the reason why many developers would likely stick with the Apple Apps Store.
I consider the reluctance of Google to immerse into more active coordination of the Android project and its reluctance to invest in the infrastructure (not just the software) as a major stumbling in the development of the Android, as a more effective system, as much as the Apple integrated ecosystem it has built with the iPhone OS. The technology itself evolved from years of in-house design and technology; One Apple enthusiast. for example. traced the roots of the iPad, from generations of "integrated unibody of the screen-processor" starting with the original Mac, to first iMac and the latest iMac iteration. Apple would nnot likely have adopted the "Courier" (folding) form for the iPad, as speculated in early design before the iPad came out. More than likely, it is also the reason why Apple went with the form factor of the iPhone, rather than the more common clam shell used in phones and notebooks and netbooks.
Now, is the lack of more "controlling" approach of Google to its Android initiative be fatal? I would hazard to speculate that it would limit the potential of the OS, but the very nature of the "open source" may help developers in other countries evolve their own version of the Android for local consumption.
This will surely cause fragmentation, but if a local phone manufacturer in China would create one for the vast Chinese market, it is likely to thrive.
The issue as to what OS would be inside a phone would more likely concern mainly the technocrats, developers and carriers. The consumer would be more concerned if the phone addresses his/her needs.
I am not as verse to what Google is doing, but as primary developer, it had a lot of say on what goes on in the Android. For example, the integration of its browsers, Gmail, and relevant cloud computing initiatives. According to Gruber, this is where Apple mobile codmputing is catching up to Google's Android's ecosystem. The iPhone OS mobile computing devices are still tethered to the desktop. My hope is that this will change soon and I speculate that initiatives, like the North Carolina facility, Mobile Me, and some others in Apple research labs may be working towards tis goal.
CGC
Very good!
I don't want to get too deeply into politics here, but it seems that the largest State, by number of people (until rapidly expanding India catches up before too long) is mostly interested in keeping a lid on things. It's a good question whether their expansion can continue, or will bust like Japan's did. Top heavy economies tend to do well for a number of years, but the imbalances that are a necessary part of that expansion eventually blow up. Right now, China has a very unbalanced economy. How much longer they can continue with that isn't known.
Why not? They are the largest by that metric. If you mean by number of employees then companies like Foxconn are probably larger. Market Cap is a much better metric then market share. All the market share metrics I see are like comparing the market share of a sub-compact to the market share of a luxury sudan.
It's all semantics.
I think it would have been more appropriate to say that Apple has become the most *valuable* tech company.
Google makes 95% of its income, both gross and net, from advertising. They aren't, despite what most people think, primarily a search company. That's not their business. They are an Ad placement company. Their search function is just there for the purpose of making money from Ads. The better the search, the more Ads they get.
I agree.
However, dependence on ad spending will turn out to be their Achilles heel in the long run. They know it, and that's why they are flailing about for an alternative product-market strategy: a strategy that amounts to throwing lots of things at the wall and hoping that something will stick.
Mel, you're correct...Google is all about ad revenue...'pennies per click/view' add up to billions! But consider this...maybe they're not in the ad business? Maybe they are in the 'harvesting' business....get users search/preference info and 'Sell' it!
In all honesty, I did not come up with this idea...it may have been anantksundaram. But it makes sense to me... Coca-Cola is not selling Coke, the soft drink but rather sugar and caffeine, McDonald's is not selling 'food,' but rather 'Fat,' 'sugar' and 'Salt!' And on and on....
Ps. That word 'harvest' makes my kidneys hurt for some reason!
The "harvesting" business is one that's fairly new for them. First, they needed to do years of it in an ever increasingly sophisticated fashion. Once they got there, the information began to have value. But in a way, this is still part of the advertising business for them. It's just the marketing arm of the ad business. Sell the information to Ad agencies, and companies who would use it to?place targeted Ads on Google's pages.
However, dependence on ad spending will turn out to be their Achilles heel in the long run. They know it, and that's why they are flailing about for an alternative product-market strategy: a strategy that amounts to throwing lots of things at the wall and hoping that something will stick.
That's true. But you notice that almost all of that is free to users. Guess how they get paid?
However, dependence on ad spending will turn out to be their Achilles heel in the long run. They know it, and that's why they are flailing about for an alternative product-market strategy: a strategy that amounts to throwing lots of things at the wall and hoping that something will stick.
Right on. Google is riding a wave right now and 'flailing' is a good description of their business direction!
Incidentally, your description of Google aptly describes 'modern art....'
'...throwing lots of things at the wall and hoping that something will stick.' And hoping someone will buy it!
Let us take a moment to feel for the trolls. Imagine how heart broken they must be. Their only mantra from here on in can be that 'volume' is king. AKA the GM school of economics.
On a serious note this has come a year earlier than I expected and it may well fluctuate with M$ on top again for a while but the over all trend is relentless. Apple haven't even started yet. I stand by my belief we are close to the time when people ask "Do you remember Microsoft?"
People tend to abandon sinking ships so I expect to see the decline of M$ to accelerate in anything in the next two years.
Anyone taking bets on how long Monkey Man will last at M$?
The "harvesting" business is one that's fairly new for them. First, they needed to do years of it in an ever increasingly sophisticated fashion. Once they got there, the information began to have value. But in a way, this is still part of the advertising business for them. It's just the marketing arm of the ad business. Sell the information to Ad agencies, and companies who would use it to?place targeted Ads on Google's pages.
Agreed! But doesn't the word 'harvesting' hurt your kidneys? Liver?
Let us take a moment to feel for the trolls. Imagine how heart broken they must be. Their only mantra from here on in can be that 'volume' is king. AKA the GM school of economics.
On a serious note this has come a year earlier than I expected and it may well fluctuate with M$ on top again for a while but the over all trend is relentless. Apple haven't even started yet. I stand by my belief we are close to the time when people ask "Do you remember Microsoft?"
People tend to abandon sinking ships so I expect to see the decline of M$ to accelerate in anything in the next two years.
Anyone taking bets on how long Monkey Man will last at M$?
Oh didgit, You have hit the nail on the head, so to speak. I can't tell you how many times I've heard, 'we are losing losing money on every item we sell...only to hear, that's OK, we'll make it up on volume!' It's such a short sighted business model, as you say, a la GM!
It's the game so many misguided MBA educated CEO's play b/c they don't have any skin in the game! F the original owners of the company, F the shareholders and Pension funds that, have in good faith, invested in the enterprise and F America as long as the CEO gets their MacMansion, golf membership and a blonde xmas tree to hang ornaments on! Ok sorry a little carried away there. At least I didn't wish they would get colon cancer from all the filet mignon they are eating!
Comments
Thanks. Nokia is trying, with Symbian, to make it relevant again. I don't think it will happen. Especially when you consider that they've effectively written it off by first going to their linux based Meamo, and now to the Nokia/Intel MeeGo (if I spelled those two correctly) for their higher end phones and tablets. That will kill Symbian off in the bettr smartphone race. As MeeGo moves down the line (assuming that IT will be successful), along with Meamo, where does that leave Symbian, and who will want it other than for cheap phones? Eventually, it will disappear.
You're welcome Mel...you obviously know more of the details than i do...but as you say...especially in Tech, it is awfully hard to resurrect yourself once you have 'missed the boat!' As it were. Apple did it...but, long term, MS, Sony, Motorola are in the business of going out of business!
Best!
Edit: Along your line of thinking...I think HP is trying with the acquisition of Palm... which was really a billion dollar investment in Palm's WebOS and maybe an entree into the tablet and mobile phone business. Unlike Dell and Google, which seem to be all over the place.
Very good questions.
It's not clear to me how many Android handsets would have to be sold for Google to have the same cash flow as Apple gets from selling one iPhone.
What would that multiple be? Even if it's in the upper single digits, could Google ever achieve that kind of share? And, even if it does, will it simply be a volume play (like PCs) than a value play (like Macs)?
Well, of course, for Google, they only lose money on Android, if we're talking about direct income.
But my feeling about this has been that Google doesn't care. Google makes 95% of its income, both gross and net, from advertising. They aren't, despite what most people think, primarily a search company. That's not their business. They are an Ad placement company. Their search function is just there for the purpose of making money from Ads. The better the search, the more Ads they get.
Now, with the iPhone, Google is put into a bad position. With all the apps out there that bypass the Google search page, people don't get the search results popping up in a new page, with the paid for searches on top, and the paid Ads in the sidebar. If they don't appear, Google doesn't get paid for them. Oops!
With mobile growing at such a torrid pace, it will only be a ways before most people are on the internet through apps on phones, Touches, and tablets. Google's search business is, in the long term, in danger.
This is where Android comes in. With Google having their own platform for apps and search, they can control where those Ads appear, thereby getting paid for them. Giving it away for free increases the chances that manufacturers will use it. Allowing them to screw with it gives them the ability to differentiate themselves from all the other Android players. We know where that leads.
The interesting thing though, is that it's since come out that Google began working on this in 2005, long before Apple came out with their phone, and even longer before they had an app store to derail Google's business. So they were thinking about monopolizing search and Ads well before Apple got involved, though likely that made it even more important for Google to get something out there, even before it was really ready. We can see that by the first OS versions and phones. Not very good.
I think we can pretty much agree on most things here. You're right markets fluctuate over time. What was big, becomes small, and visa versa. Who ever thought that Motorola would drop to such a small marketshare? Ten years ago? No one!
I am not a history afficionado, but when I was exposed to history of nations for a longer period of time, I begun to appreciate the statement:
"Nothing last!"
or its other form:
"This too shall pass..."
I remember when Samsung had less that a 5% marketshare early in this century when I first bought their i300 color Palmphone. Who thought they would become one of the largest manufacturers?
Yes, I remember the cars from Korea when I was a student in Baltimore. I think, it was called a Kia or something. My housemate was South Korean born in Korea but raised in the US. He was the most perceptive and considerate person I ever met. And that was good because I was just adjusting to America, at the time. He was more gregarious, and through him, our group became more international (not simply other nationals raised in the US).
Among the most impressive were the group coming from Taiwan and later on mainland China. [I was exposed with Chinese in my own country.] Of course, they were more educated, but the way they behaved. if they became the leaders in education, science and industry, I would not be too surprised if they would succeed in transforming their respective countries -- maybe not like the way we want it to be from a Western perspective.
This is one reason why I am surprised when some posters simply view China as autocratic state.
I would not be surprised if China would eventually overtake the US, economically. They may rely on Western technology right now, but like Japan, they will evolve their own local technology. It is not simply cheap and plentiful labor that attract many Western companies to China. In fact, even Western bred Asians (Chinese, Indians, etc.) are going back to their respective countries because some find more opportunities there to practice their training. It goes without saying that it is a bonus to be able help shape your birth country.
With Apple vs Android, the picture is less clear. After all, Apple is a manufacturer of phones, and Google is a developer of a free OS. Very different. It's possible that at some point, Android will become the most widely used phone OS, but at what cost? Will it become so fractionated that it will no longer become Android in most peoples eyes? With manufacturers putting their own, often not compatible GUIs on their own phones, and giving them names, will people think of these phones as Android phones? Its possible they won't, especially since some of these companies are tarting their own app stores, and many apps may not crossover the lines of one phone to another.
As a consumer, who had to wallow with the choices and lack of support, in a number of "open systems", I prefer the "walled garden" of Apple. I just want to use applications. If Apple can help me discard buggy Apps, and malwares, I have little in wading through poorly scripted Apps. My experience with Wintel hardware becomes an issue when something breakdown, and every one blames the other. Fortunately, for laboratory equipment, we just called the instrument vendor.
The fragmentation because of forking that usually occurs with "Open source" initiative would likely benefit Apple, and the reason why many developers would likely stick with the Apple Apps Store.
I consider the reluctance of Google to immerse into more active coordination of the Android project and its reluctance to invest in the infrastructure (not just the software) as a major stumbling in the development of the Android, as a more effective system, as much as the Apple integrated ecosystem it has built with the iPhone OS. The technology itself evolved from years of in-house design and technology; One Apple enthusiast. for example. traced the roots of the iPad, from generations of "integrated unibody of the screen-processor" starting with the original Mac, to first iMac and the latest iMac iteration. Apple would nnot likely have adopted the "Courier" (folding) form for the iPad, as speculated in early design before the iPad came out. More than likely, it is also the reason why Apple went with the form factor of the iPhone, rather than the more common clam shell used in phones and notebooks and netbooks.
Now, is the lack of more "controlling" approach of Google to its Android initiative be fatal? I would hazard to speculate that it would limit the potential of the OS, but the very nature of the "open source" may help developers in other countries evolve their own version of the Android for local consumption.
This will surely cause fragmentation, but if a local phone manufacturer in China would create one for the vast Chinese market, it is likely to thrive.
So will a Samsung Android phone be known as an Android phone, or as a BADA phone? Will an HTC Android phone be known as an Android phone, or as a Sense phone, etc? Will Verizon limit Google marketplace sales in favor of it's own store and apps? I don't think we will know that for a couple more years.
The issue as to what OS would be inside a phone would more likely concern mainly the technocrats, developers and carriers. The consumer would be more concerned if the phone addresses his/her needs.
I am not as verse to what Google is doing, but as primary developer, it had a lot of say on what goes on in the Android. For example, the integration of its browsers, Gmail, and relevant cloud computing initiatives. According to Gruber, this is where Apple mobile codmputing is catching up to Google's Android's ecosystem. The iPhone OS mobile computing devices are still tethered to the desktop. My hope is that this will change soon and I speculate that initiatives, like the North Carolina facility, Mobile Me, and some others in Apple research labs may be working towards tis goal.
CGC
Well, of course, for Google, they only lose money on Android, if we're talking about direct income.
But my feeling about this has been that Google doesn't care. Google makes 95% of its income, both gross and net, from advertising. They aren't, despite what most people think, primarily a search company. That's not their business. They are an Ad placement company. Their search function is just there for the purpose of making money from Ads. The better the search, the more Ads they get.
Now, with the iPhone, Google is put into a bad position. With all the apps out there that bypass the Google search page, people don't get the search results popping up in a new page, with the paid for searches on top, and the paid Ads in the sidebar. If they don't appear, Google doesn't get paid for them. Oops!
With mobile growing at such a torrid pace, it will only be a ways before most people are on the internet through apps on phones, Touches, and tablets. Google's search business is, in the long term, in danger.
This is where Android comes in. With Google having their own platform for apps and search, they can control where those Ads appear, thereby getting paid for them. Giving it away for free increases the chances that manufacturers will use it. Allowing them to screw with it gives them the ability to differentiate themselves from all the other Android players. We know where that leads.
The interesting thing though, is that it's since come out that Google began working on this in 2005, long before Apple came out with their phone, and even longer before they had an app store to derail Google's business. So they were thinking about monopolizing search and Ads well before Apple got involved, though likely that made it even more important for Google to get something out there, even before it was really ready. We can see that by the first OS versions and phones. Not very good.
Mel, you're correct...Google is all about ad revenue...'pennies per click/view' add up to billions! But consider this...maybe they're not in the ad business? Maybe they are in the 'harvesting' business....get users search/preference info and 'Sell' it!
In all honesty, I did not come up with this idea...it may have been anantksundaram. But it makes sense to me... Coca-Cola is not selling Coke, the soft drink but rather sugar and caffeine, McDonald's is not selling 'food,' but rather 'Fat,' 'sugar' and 'Salt!' And on and on....
Ps. That word 'harvest' makes my kidneys hurt for some reason!
I am not a history afficionado, but when I was exposed to history of nations for a longer period of time, I begun to appreciate the statement:
"Nothing last!"
or its other form:
"This too shall pass..."
Yes, I remember the cars from Korea when I was a student in Baltimore. I think, it was called a Kia or something. My housemate was South Korean born in Korea but raised in the US. He was the most perceptive and considerate person I ever met. And that was good because I was just adjusting to America, at the time. He was more gregarious, and through him, our group became more international (not simply other nationals raised in the US).
Among the most impressive were the group coming from Taiwan and later on mainland China. [I was exposed with Chinese in my own country.] Of course, they were more educated, but the way they behaved. if they became the leaders in education, science and industry, I would not be too surprised if they would succeed in transforming their respective countries -- maybe not like the way we want it to be from a Western perspective.
This is one reason why I am surprised when some posters simply view China as autocratic state.
I would not be surprised if China would eventually overtake the US, economically. They may rely on Western technology right now, but like Japan, they will evolve their own local technology. It is not simply cheap and plentiful labor that attract many Western companies to China. In fact, even Western bred Asians (Chinese, Indians, etc.) are going back to their respective countries because some find more opportunities there to practice their training. It goes without saying that it is a bonus to be able help shape your birth country.
As a consumer, who had to wallow with the choices and lack of support, in a number of "open systems", I prefer the "walled garden" of Apple. I just want to use applications. If Apple can help me discard buggy Apps, and malwares, I have little in wading through poorly scripted Apps. My experience with Wintel hardware becomes an issue when something breakdown, and every one blames the other. Fortunately, for laboratory equipment, we just called the instrument vendor.
The fragmentation because of forking that usually occurs with "Open source" initiative would likely benefit Apple, and the reason why many developers would likely stick with the Apple Apps Store.
I consider the reluctance of Google to immerse into more active coordination of the Android project and its reluctance to invest in the infrastructure (not just the software) as a major stumbling in the development of the Android, as a more effective system, as much as the Apple integrated ecosystem it has built with the iPhone OS. The technology itself evolved from years of in-house design and technology; One Apple enthusiast. for example. traced the roots of the iPad, from generations of "integrated unibody of the screen-processor" starting with the original Mac, to first iMac and the latest iMac iteration. Apple would nnot likely have adopted the "Courier" (folding) form for the iPad, as speculated in early design before the iPad came out. More than likely, it is also the reason why Apple went with the form factor of the iPhone, rather than the more common clam shell used in phones and notebooks and netbooks.
Now, is the lack of more "controlling" approach of Google to its Android initiative be fatal? I would hazard to speculate that it would limit the potential of the OS, but the very nature of the "open source" may help developers in other countries evolve their own version of the Android for local consumption.
This will surely cause fragmentation, but if a local phone manufacturer in China would create one for the vast Chinese market, it is likely to thrive.
The issue as to what OS would be inside a phone would more likely concern mainly the technocrats, developers and carriers. The consumer would be more concerned if the phone addresses his/her needs.
I am not as verse to what Google is doing, but as primary developer, it had a lot of say on what goes on in the Android. For example, the integration of its browsers, Gmail, and relevant cloud computing initiatives. According to Gruber, this is where Apple mobile codmputing is catching up to Google's Android's ecosystem. The iPhone OS mobile computing devices are still tethered to the desktop. My hope is that this will change soon and I speculate that initiatives, like the North Carolina facility, Mobile Me, and some others in Apple research labs may be working towards tis goal.
CGC
Very good!
I don't want to get too deeply into politics here, but it seems that the largest State, by number of people (until rapidly expanding India catches up before too long) is mostly interested in keeping a lid on things. It's a good question whether their expansion can continue, or will bust like Japan's did. Top heavy economies tend to do well for a number of years, but the imbalances that are a necessary part of that expansion eventually blow up. Right now, China has a very unbalanced economy. How much longer they can continue with that isn't known.
Why not? They are the largest by that metric. If you mean by number of employees then companies like Foxconn are probably larger. Market Cap is a much better metric then market share. All the market share metrics I see are like comparing the market share of a sub-compact to the market share of a luxury sudan.
It's all semantics.
I think it would have been more appropriate to say that Apple has become the most *valuable* tech company.
Google makes 95% of its income, both gross and net, from advertising. They aren't, despite what most people think, primarily a search company. That's not their business. They are an Ad placement company. Their search function is just there for the purpose of making money from Ads. The better the search, the more Ads they get.
I agree.
However, dependence on ad spending will turn out to be their Achilles heel in the long run. They know it, and that's why they are flailing about for an alternative product-market strategy: a strategy that amounts to throwing lots of things at the wall and hoping that something will stick.
Mel, you're correct...Google is all about ad revenue...'pennies per click/view' add up to billions! But consider this...maybe they're not in the ad business? Maybe they are in the 'harvesting' business....get users search/preference info and 'Sell' it!
In all honesty, I did not come up with this idea...it may have been anantksundaram. But it makes sense to me... Coca-Cola is not selling Coke, the soft drink but rather sugar and caffeine, McDonald's is not selling 'food,' but rather 'Fat,' 'sugar' and 'Salt!' And on and on....
Ps. That word 'harvest' makes my kidneys hurt for some reason!
The "harvesting" business is one that's fairly new for them. First, they needed to do years of it in an ever increasingly sophisticated fashion. Once they got there, the information began to have value. But in a way, this is still part of the advertising business for them. It's just the marketing arm of the ad business. Sell the information to Ad agencies, and companies who would use it to?place targeted Ads on Google's pages.
I speculate that initiatives, like the North Carolina facility, Mobile Me, and some others in Apple research labs may be working towards tis goal.
CGC
Enjoyed reading your comments! I too am hopeful that Apple's NC facility will be for MobileMe or Search!
Best!
I agree.
However, dependence on ad spending will turn out to be their Achilles heel in the long run. They know it, and that's why they are flailing about for an alternative product-market strategy: a strategy that amounts to throwing lots of things at the wall and hoping that something will stick.
That's true. But you notice that almost all of that is free to users. Guess how they get paid?
I agree.
However, dependence on ad spending will turn out to be their Achilles heel in the long run. They know it, and that's why they are flailing about for an alternative product-market strategy: a strategy that amounts to throwing lots of things at the wall and hoping that something will stick.
Right on. Google is riding a wave right now and 'flailing' is a good description of their business direction!
Incidentally, your description of Google aptly describes 'modern art....'
'...throwing lots of things at the wall and hoping that something will stick.' And hoping someone will buy it!
On a serious note this has come a year earlier than I expected and it may well fluctuate with M$ on top again for a while but the over all trend is relentless. Apple haven't even started yet. I stand by my belief we are close to the time when people ask "Do you remember Microsoft?"
People tend to abandon sinking ships so I expect to see the decline of M$ to accelerate in anything in the next two years.
Anyone taking bets on how long Monkey Man will last at M$?
The "harvesting" business is one that's fairly new for them. First, they needed to do years of it in an ever increasingly sophisticated fashion. Once they got there, the information began to have value. But in a way, this is still part of the advertising business for them. It's just the marketing arm of the ad business. Sell the information to Ad agencies, and companies who would use it to?place targeted Ads on Google's pages.
Agreed! But doesn't the word 'harvesting' hurt your kidneys? Liver?
Let us take a moment to feel for the trolls. Imagine how heart broken they must be. Their only mantra from here on in can be that 'volume' is king. AKA the GM school of economics.
On a serious note this has come a year earlier than I expected and it may well fluctuate with M$ on top again for a while but the over all trend is relentless. Apple haven't even started yet. I stand by my belief we are close to the time when people ask "Do you remember Microsoft?"
People tend to abandon sinking ships so I expect to see the decline of M$ to accelerate in anything in the next two years.
Anyone taking bets on how long Monkey Man will last at M$?
Oh didgit, You have hit the nail on the head, so to speak. I can't tell you how many times I've heard, 'we are losing losing money on every item we sell...only to hear, that's OK, we'll make it up on volume!' It's such a short sighted business model, as you say, a la GM!
It's the game so many misguided MBA educated CEO's play b/c they don't have any skin in the game! F the original owners of the company, F the shareholders and Pension funds that, have in good faith, invested in the enterprise and F America as long as the CEO gets their MacMansion, golf membership and a blonde xmas tree to hang ornaments on! Ok sorry a little carried away there. At least I didn't wish they would get colon cancer from all the filet mignon they are eating!
Google aptly describes 'modern art....'
'...throwing lots of things at the wall and hoping that something will stick.' And hoping someone will buy it!
Their only mantra from here on in can be that 'volume' is king. AKA the GM school of economics.
I think I'll steal those quotes for future use!
Boom.
That is all
Good call, sir.
I think I'll steal those quotes for future use!
Welcome to it...I do it all the time!
Edit: In fact, I don't think I've had an original thought since 1959!
Still I'd hope Apple acquires Adobe, otherwise Google will. Adobe worth only 16.6 bil now.
Wow! Never thought of that....but what a 'load' Adobe would be for Apple. But it's a good idea though!
LOL