Didn't some Google VP recently at some Google Keynote say that Android was a response to what Apple was doing with the iPhone?
There have been internet aware phones on the market prior to the iPhone, but they all didn't start to look like the iPhone (both hardware and software) until after the iPhone was released.
davesw and columbus earlier posts have said about everything that needs to be said on this subject.
Juvenile Name-Calling... clearly the last gasps of one having lost an argument.
what argument? You didnt even have one to begin with.
You cannot seriously consider that taking cash from one part of your business to continuously fund another is being successful.
Hell, Give me 20mill and I bet you I will sell a bucket load of any product you care to mention. Now when the 20 mill is gone and I have absolutely zero to show for it, would you consider me successful?
Sure , just give me another 20 mill and i'll keep going. Forever even , if you want to keep giving!
To do it successfully, you have to be able to make it stand on its own feet. So i consider this a FAIL for them until (if) they do.
It is pretty damn easy to see what Google is attempting to do. Basically trying to be a category killer when it comes to the devices. Thankfully Apple is far out ahead and the iPhone is the best user experience out there. Unlike that fragmented Android crap.
Schmidt also said that he believes that Chrome OS, set to arrive later this year, will appear on tablet PCs, and will compete with Apple's iPad.
It's difficult to believe Google's stance when their products come out after Apple's. It's much easier to claim you didn't copy the competition whose products your ones look very similar to when you bring them out first.
If 'Rewriting History' = Blatantly Lying... then Absolutely!
Really? I'm presuming you know what Schmidt said to Jobs when the subject of the purchase of Android came up... and the fact that the only pictures released of Google's work was a Blackberry clone, six months after the iPhone launch.
Apple developed the iPhone internally, and so can't point to a clear public "start date" like Google with the purchase of Android. But the iPhone came out first, period. And when Android came out, it was clearly meant as an iPhone knock-off.
But really, who cares. This soap opera stuff might be good entertainment, but it doesn't affect which phones most people buy. My own personal opinion (not that it matters) is that Google screwed up big time here and will eventually regret it. I think Google's business model is far more vulnerable than Apple's. The "Reader" button in Safari 5 is a great example of why that is.
That has nothing to do with the initial claim that, "Microsoft has no history of being able to sell any consumer products."... Nothing.
The X-Box 360 is clear evidence that Microsoft can successfully sell a consumer product, all other arguments are moot/irrelevant to this statement.
I disagree. If you've lost money year after year while "selling" a consumer product, you're not really selling it very well. If you want to be good at selling a consumer product, you have to be able to sell it at a price that pays the bills. If Microsoft weren't backed by Office and Windows, and the XBox team were its own "game console" company, it would have failed and gone out of business by now. That's not "knowing how to sell a consumer product" in my book.
Yes, Google was working on Android. but their phones looked like this. Apple has always been the innovator. Google is a one-trick pony that just adds features and increase specs but doesn't innovate.
You mean the phone had a screen and buttons!? THOSE MORONS.
Seriously, what is with every AFB's obsession over this idea that if Apple hadn't released a touch screen phone, none of us would have one today? It's absurd, and it's already been proven wrong.
If Apple stayed away from the iphone, definitely you wouldn't see as many contenders stepping up, but it's far fetched to think that phones wouldn't have naturally progressed to where they are today.
It's possible. Apple has done desktop search (Spotlight) better than anyone, so they're not without indexing expertise. They have enterprise expertise with the iTunes infrastructure. They COULD marry the two and work their way up from the bottom instead of starting at the top-end like Google did.
what argument? You didnt even have one to begin with.
You cannot seriously consider that taking cash from one part of your business to continuously fund another is being successful.
Hell, Give me 20mill and I bet you I will sell a bucket load of any product you care to mention. Now when the 20 mill is gone and I have absolutely zero to show for it, would you consider me successful?
Sure , just give me another 20 mill and i'll keep going. Forever even , if you want to keep giving!
To do it successfully, you have to be able to make it stand on its own feet. So i consider this a FAIL for them until (if) they do.
Companies do it all the time. If one part of the model starts to dip, they give it a crutch until it's better, and vice versa. If something is failing miserably though, then yes, it doesn't make sense to keep sinking money into it.
Consider for instance a bank who's been affected drastically by the housing crisis. You don't think they divert funds to keep the wound minimal?
It's possible. Apple has done desktop search (Spotlight) better than anyone, so they're not without indexing expertise. They have enterprise expertise with the iTunes infrastructure. They COULD marry the two and work their way up from the bottom instead of starting at the top-end like Google did.
Steve did say a few months back that Apple should "think big" with their profits. It would be awesome if they could "revolutionize" internet searching.
Maybe instead of telling someone to google something, one day we'll be telling them to apple it
You mean the phone had a screen and buttons!? THOSE MORONS.
Seriously, what is with every AFB's obsession over this idea that if Apple hadn't released a touch screen phone, none of us would have one today? It's absurd, and it's already been proven wrong.
If Apple stayed away from the iphone, definitely you wouldn't see as many contenders stepping up, but it's far fetched to think that phones wouldn't have naturally progressed to where they are today.
Actually it's not far fetched at all that phones would not be like they are today. Google obviously was not heading in that direction. The Blackberry was the wildly popular phone of the time. It's quite plausible that, if Apple had not released the iPhone at the time they did, phones might have evolved in an entirely different direction than they have and would be nothing like the phones that exist today. There was nothing inevitable about the iPhone's design becoming ubiquitous. And, no, the existence of touchscreen phones prior to the iPhone does not support your assertion.
Actually it's not far fetched at all that phones would not be like they are today. Google obviously was not heading in that direction. The Blackberry was the wildly popular phone of the time. It's quite plausible that, if Apple had not released the iPhone at the time they did, phones might have evolved in an entirely different direction than they have and would be nothing like the phones that exist today. There was nothing inevitable about the iPhone's design becoming ubiquitous. And, no, the existence of touchscreen phones prior to the iPhone does not support your assertion.
Uh yeah it does actually lol. The very fact that companies were putting out devices that consumers were responding positively to is enough to show things would naturally have progressed to where they are today.
It's not that far fetched that Apple saw where things were going, and formulated their gen 1 iphone around it.
It gets a little confusing because this argument always goes from "Apple did it first" to "Apple did it better, first" and in either case, people always try to convince me that without Apple, we would all be using RAZRs or something.
Let me just ask you this: Do you truly think the idea of a touch screen phone NEVER crossed the minds of the people over at Google as they poured money into R&D for Android? Your answer to this question will influence my opinion of you from here on out
what argument? You didnt even have one to begin with.
You cannot seriously consider that taking cash from one part of your business to continuously fund another is being successful.
Hell, Give me 20mill and I bet you I will sell a bucket load of any product you care to mention. Now when the 20 mill is gone and I have absolutely zero to show for it, would you consider me successful?
Sure , just give me another 20 mill and i'll keep going. Forever even , if you want to keep giving!
To do it successfully, you have to be able to make it stand on its own feet. So i consider this a FAIL for them until (if) they do.
Not sure what your getting at. Are you saying that Microsoft makes no money on the xbox platform(hardware and software)? Simple web search(google!) says they do. Granted I do not have the MS accounting books in hand and perhaps you do.
Many manufactuers sell an item at cost or even lower and make it up on the other end with related services.
ATT and iphone for example.
Jet engines (thats a big racket)
Or even strategic reasons - apple TV
Xbox hardware perhaps? Make it up on software sales. Do you think thats possible?
But this is off topic, I do apologize.
Back to topic, meh who cares what bam-boogle says, in any case the competition is good for us consumers.
Not sure what your getting at. Are you saying that Microsoft makes no money on the xbox platform(hardware and software)? Simple web search(google!) says they do. Granted I do not have the MS accounting books in hand and perhaps you do.
The quarterly numbers for the Xbox are in the black now, but they were deeply in the red for the first several years. The sunk costs on this project are fairly staggering. I'm not sure if they've reached the point yet where it has become net profitable. That's no way to run a railroad.
Comments
Didn't some Google VP recently at some Google Keynote say that Android was a response to what Apple was doing with the iPhone?
There have been internet aware phones on the market prior to the iPhone, but they all didn't start to look like the iPhone (both hardware and software) until after the iPhone was released.
davesw and columbus earlier posts have said about everything that needs to be said on this subject.
Juvenile Name-Calling... clearly the last gasps of one having lost an argument.
what argument? You didnt even have one to begin with.
You cannot seriously consider that taking cash from one part of your business to continuously fund another is being successful.
Hell, Give me 20mill and I bet you I will sell a bucket load of any product you care to mention. Now when the 20 mill is gone and I have absolutely zero to show for it, would you consider me successful?
Sure , just give me another 20 mill and i'll keep going. Forever even , if you want to keep giving!
To do it successfully, you have to be able to make it stand on its own feet. So i consider this a FAIL for them until (if) they do.
and ask for calling names.... ... ... takes one to know one !! LOL http://forums.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/lol.gif
Schmidt also said that he believes that Chrome OS, set to arrive later this year, will appear on tablet PCs, and will compete with Apple's iPad.
It's difficult to believe Google's stance when their products come out after Apple's. It's much easier to claim you didn't copy the competition whose products your ones look very similar to when you bring them out first.
If 'Rewriting History' = Blatantly Lying... then Absolutely!
Really? I'm presuming you know what Schmidt said to Jobs when the subject of the purchase of Android came up... and the fact that the only pictures released of Google's work was a Blackberry clone, six months after the iPhone launch.
But really, who cares. This soap opera stuff might be good entertainment, but it doesn't affect which phones most people buy. My own personal opinion (not that it matters) is that Google screwed up big time here and will eventually regret it. I think Google's business model is far more vulnerable than Apple's. The "Reader" button in Safari 5 is a great example of why that is.
That has nothing to do with the initial claim that, "Microsoft has no history of being able to sell any consumer products."... Nothing.
The X-Box 360 is clear evidence that Microsoft can successfully sell a consumer product, all other arguments are moot/irrelevant to this statement.
I disagree. If you've lost money year after year while "selling" a consumer product, you're not really selling it very well. If you want to be good at selling a consumer product, you have to be able to sell it at a price that pays the bills. If Microsoft weren't backed by Office and Windows, and the XBox team were its own "game console" company, it would have failed and gone out of business by now. That's not "knowing how to sell a consumer product" in my book.
Yes, Google was working on Android. but their phones looked like this. Apple has always been the innovator. Google is a one-trick pony that just adds features and increase specs but doesn't innovate.
You mean the phone had a screen and buttons!? THOSE MORONS.
Seriously, what is with every AFB's obsession over this idea that if Apple hadn't released a touch screen phone, none of us would have one today? It's absurd, and it's already been proven wrong.
If Apple stayed away from the iphone, definitely you wouldn't see as many contenders stepping up, but it's far fetched to think that phones wouldn't have naturally progressed to where they are today.
I wish Apple would enter the search sector.
It's possible. Apple has done desktop search (Spotlight) better than anyone, so they're not without indexing expertise. They have enterprise expertise with the iTunes infrastructure. They COULD marry the two and work their way up from the bottom instead of starting at the top-end like Google did.
Good artists copy. Great artists steal. Real artist ship.
what argument? You didnt even have one to begin with.
You cannot seriously consider that taking cash from one part of your business to continuously fund another is being successful.
Hell, Give me 20mill and I bet you I will sell a bucket load of any product you care to mention. Now when the 20 mill is gone and I have absolutely zero to show for it, would you consider me successful?
Sure , just give me another 20 mill and i'll keep going. Forever even , if you want to keep giving!
To do it successfully, you have to be able to make it stand on its own feet. So i consider this a FAIL for them until (if) they do.
and ask for calling names.... ... ... takes one to know one !! LOL http://forums.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/lol.gif
Companies do it all the time. If one part of the model starts to dip, they give it a crutch until it's better, and vice versa. If something is failing miserably though, then yes, it doesn't make sense to keep sinking money into it.
Consider for instance a bank who's been affected drastically by the housing crisis. You don't think they divert funds to keep the wound minimal?
I wish Apple would enter the search sector.
eventually they will.
Siri is essentially the search engine of search engines.
It's possible. Apple has done desktop search (Spotlight) better than anyone, so they're not without indexing expertise. They have enterprise expertise with the iTunes infrastructure. They COULD marry the two and work their way up from the bottom instead of starting at the top-end like Google did.
Steve did say a few months back that Apple should "think big" with their profits. It would be awesome if they could "revolutionize" internet searching.
Maybe instead of telling someone to google something, one day we'll be telling them to apple it
IF Apple were to get into a search engine of sorts, and you typed in Apple Farm, would it point to SC, Palo Alto, or a real Apple farm
Skip
You mean the phone had a screen and buttons!? THOSE MORONS.
Seriously, what is with every AFB's obsession over this idea that if Apple hadn't released a touch screen phone, none of us would have one today? It's absurd, and it's already been proven wrong.
If Apple stayed away from the iphone, definitely you wouldn't see as many contenders stepping up, but it's far fetched to think that phones wouldn't have naturally progressed to where they are today.
Actually it's not far fetched at all that phones would not be like they are today. Google obviously was not heading in that direction. The Blackberry was the wildly popular phone of the time. It's quite plausible that, if Apple had not released the iPhone at the time they did, phones might have evolved in an entirely different direction than they have and would be nothing like the phones that exist today. There was nothing inevitable about the iPhone's design becoming ubiquitous. And, no, the existence of touchscreen phones prior to the iPhone does not support your assertion.
Actually it's not far fetched at all that phones would not be like they are today. Google obviously was not heading in that direction. The Blackberry was the wildly popular phone of the time. It's quite plausible that, if Apple had not released the iPhone at the time they did, phones might have evolved in an entirely different direction than they have and would be nothing like the phones that exist today. There was nothing inevitable about the iPhone's design becoming ubiquitous. And, no, the existence of touchscreen phones prior to the iPhone does not support your assertion.
Uh yeah it does actually lol. The very fact that companies were putting out devices that consumers were responding positively to is enough to show things would naturally have progressed to where they are today.
It's not that far fetched that Apple saw where things were going, and formulated their gen 1 iphone around it.
It gets a little confusing because this argument always goes from "Apple did it first" to "Apple did it better, first" and in either case, people always try to convince me that without Apple, we would all be using RAZRs or something.
Let me just ask you this: Do you truly think the idea of a touch screen phone NEVER crossed the minds of the people over at Google as they poured money into R&D for Android? Your answer to this question will influence my opinion of you from here on out
what argument? You didnt even have one to begin with.
You cannot seriously consider that taking cash from one part of your business to continuously fund another is being successful.
Hell, Give me 20mill and I bet you I will sell a bucket load of any product you care to mention. Now when the 20 mill is gone and I have absolutely zero to show for it, would you consider me successful?
Sure , just give me another 20 mill and i'll keep going. Forever even , if you want to keep giving!
To do it successfully, you have to be able to make it stand on its own feet. So i consider this a FAIL for them until (if) they do.
and ask for calling names.... ... ... takes one to know one !! LOL http://forums.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/lol.gif
Not sure what your getting at. Are you saying that Microsoft makes no money on the xbox platform(hardware and software)? Simple web search(google!) says they do. Granted I do not have the MS accounting books in hand and perhaps you do.
Many manufactuers sell an item at cost or even lower and make it up on the other end with related services.
ATT and iphone for example.
Jet engines (thats a big racket)
Or even strategic reasons - apple TV
Xbox hardware perhaps? Make it up on software sales. Do you think thats possible?
But this is off topic, I do apologize.
Back to topic, meh who cares what bam-boogle says, in any case the competition is good for us consumers.
Not sure what your getting at. Are you saying that Microsoft makes no money on the xbox platform(hardware and software)? Simple web search(google!) says they do. Granted I do not have the MS accounting books in hand and perhaps you do.
The quarterly numbers for the Xbox are in the black now, but they were deeply in the red for the first several years. The sunk costs on this project are fairly staggering. I'm not sure if they've reached the point yet where it has become net profitable. That's no way to run a railroad.