Maybe he should spend some time fixing their f'ups in China instead of all this non-sense.
Boy, Did Google Blow It In China
This morning came news that China has renewed Google's license to operate in the country.
That seemed like good news--Google wins the China standoff!--until it was revealed that Google's China search engine will now be censoring its entire list of web pages, instead of just the ones that the Chinese government found objectionable.
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.
That phone looks like my DuraLabel handheld label maker
You mean Motorola was in the phone business first, while Apple was in the iTunes business first. And we all remember how "successful" that little innovation was.
If licensing iTunes to Motorola is your idea of Apple being in the phone business then you're just desperate to try to win a point. Enjoy your delusion.
Somebody needs to learn the difference between revenue and profit.
Not sure if that was in response to my post since you didn't reference it, but I'll take the opportunity to repeat the bolded references to profit in that post.
That's profit. And there was also that reference to a 50% increase in revenue from Xbox live to $1.2B year to year. I imagine some of that revenue will be profit.
But you could go on record as stating that you believe none of that revenue will be profit.
Complete and utter bullshit. Sorry, but I actually am a geek who kept up with what was the latest and greatest before the iphone was ever out. A simple google search for what microsoft was doing in 1999 found this for cryin out loud: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...ricssonpr.mspx Everyone can crap on windows mobile all they want (even when they've never even worked with it for a second) but it's true: Apple pretty much copied MS in a LOT of ways, and if they hadn't come out with the iphone, phones would have still gone in the direction they're going today. Full screen PDA's with multimedia support, internet browsing, the list goes on. And if you think I'm full of shit, please tell me what Windows Mobile copied from Apple. You can't, because it was first.
I've been in this debate plenty of times. People who never paid any attention to PDA's until the iphone came out are absolutely confident in arguing with me over this.
The bottom line is, I'm not completely irrational in thinking Google would have made Android into what it is without the iphones existence. Someone hurry up and invent a way to look into alternate realities for f's sakes
I guess you are to young to remember that winmo's precursor wince was microsofts reaction to apples newton os. You know, that full screen PDA with Internet browsing? Universally acknowledged to be the FIRST PDA - a term coined by then Apple CEO John Scully?
Firstly, Google was (at least publicly) in the phone business before Apple.
Firstly, publicly means nothing in this statement, the qualifier publicly is only a self serving attempt to make the statement a tautology knowing Apple didn't announce iPhone until Jan 07.
Apple was working on the iPhone for at least a couple years before it's announcement, reportedly but not officially confirmed back into 2003.
do you know when Apple started working internally on an iPhone prototype? NO. so unless you do, you don't have a clue.
Well, until they actually show something to the market, then there's no evidence at all they're in that market. I thought that much was clear when I alluded to the LG Prada.
Calm down, it's not a race. As Apple has shown, it's not who is first, but who does it better.
Firstly, publicly means nothing in this statement, the qualifier publicly is only a self serving attempt to make the statement a tautology knowing Apple didn't announce iPhone until Jan 07.
I would disagree. How do you know I'm not in the phone business? There's no way for you to tell and on no other evidence you should rightfully conclude that I am not.
Quote:
Apple was working on the iPhone for at least a couple years before it's announcement, reportedly but not officially confirmed back into 2003.
Reportedly. For at least a couple of years. How many? All innuendo and guesswork. Until a company announces something, they're not 'in' the market.
EDIT: The other 'reported' but is that it wasn't a phone in the first instance. It was a tablet.
Not sure if that was in response to my post since you didn't reference it, but I'll take the opportunity to repeat the bolded references to profit in that post.
That's profit. And there was also that reference to a 50% increase in revenue from Xbox live to $1.2B year to year. I imagine some of that revenue will be profit.
But you could go on record as stating that you believe none of that revenue will be profit.
I look forward to that categorical claim.
No, that's revenue. Says so right in the part you quote, repeatedly, even the part where you added emphasis.
Beyond that please don't attribute ridiculous arguments to me, even if you choose to make them yourself.
WRONG. Technically speaking, Apple was in the phone business FIRST.
Remember the Motorola Rockr? The very first mobile phone with iTunes. Technology sites reporting on collaborations between Motorola and Apple as far back as December 2004.
That's profit. And there was also that reference to a 50% increase in revenue from Xbox live to $1.2B year to year. I imagine some of that revenue will be profit.
Learn the definitions of revenue and profit.
You will then have the possibility of making a persuasive argument without
Maybe he should spend some time fixing their f'ups in China instead of all this non-sense.
Boy, Did Google Blow It In China
This morning came news that China has renewed Google's license to operate in the country.
That seemed like good news--Google wins the China standoff!--until it was revealed that Google's China search engine will now be censoring its entire list of web pages, instead of just the ones that the Chinese government found objectionable.
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.
Thanks Dave for making the most important point of all in this.
The trolls has goldfish memory. If Google is willing to publicly rip-off the iPhone and then try to play it off as their own, they have absolutely no corporate honor or integrity, are telling everyone their too stupid to notice this, and are obviously enjoying it because they keep up the incredibly lame PR attempts. I think from a public perspective, Apple's corporate behavior is the polar opposite - which probably forms some of the basis for their making of superior products.
Why does Google act the same whenever they've been caught collecting data promised to remain confidential? They make the pledge, then Schmidt says nobody is entitled to privacy from his company, or "oops we didn't mean to collect this, but we weren't really planning to sell it, like the other stuff we said we wouldn't sell". I challenge anyone to find an instance when Google has demonstrated any kind of commitment to any policy or even shred of integrity to their statements. These aren't bugs in products, or debates about missing features, this is just plain, abysmal corporate direction. If they don't value integrity there, it's pretty safe to assume there's little pride in their engineering.
no matter how crappy the Rockr was and how small Apple's involvement, it showed that they were at least in the mobile business several months before Google had ANYTHING running on a mobile device.
And don't forget Apple had the iPod (a mobile device ) years before Google bought Android.
No, that's revenue. Says so right in the part you quote, repeatedly, even the part where you added emphasis.
Beyond that please don't attribute ridiculous arguments to me, even if you choose to make them yourself.
Apparently I didn't make myself clear...
"Success with Xbox Live is key to Microsoft's Entertainment division, which has seen slow sales of Zune media players, slow smartphone sales, and a barely profitable Xbox 360 console, which sees most of its profit from software and accessory sales."
Notice that reference to profit, not revenue. You know, that part where I "added emphasis" in my original post? Even without Xbox Live, the Xbox and its accessories make a profit.
On top of that profit, MS generates revenue from its Xbox Live services. Note that it's separate to the profit from its console and accessories. And as I pointed out previously, I believe that the revenue from Xbox Live will return additional profit to MS's Xbox division.
If you disagree that MS also make a profit from Xbox Live, then I'd appreciate you saying so. Otherwise, I'll assume that you agree that MS make a profit from Xbox Live on top of the profit it makes on its hardware, software and accessories.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
You'll notice also that I didn't attribute any argument to you, merely questioned whether you believe that MS don't make a profit. Your dismissive comment under my original post doesn't make that or anything else clear.
As you can see, I have a good understanding of profit and revenue, your comment notwithstanding.
You will then have the possibility of making a persuasive argument without
having to rely on your imagination.
See my reply to Dr Millmoss. And for the record, I was quoting the Bloomberg piece with emphasis on those parts that were relevant to the post I was responding to.
The out-take is that contrary to some opinions voiced in this thread, the Xbox is indeed a profitable venture to MS even though it currently contributes stuff-all to its bottom line. The Xbox Live growth suggests that that might well change in the near future.
Google's pre-iPhone Android prototype with a keyboard speaks volumes about what their engineers were thinking.
You're right, touch-screens were previously available. Palm had them. The first touch-screen smartphone I know of was the Palm-OS based Handspring Treo (before Palm bought Handspring.) It was not a market changer. People disliked the Graffiti interface and hated the on-screen keyboard even worse. Handspring (and then Palm) actually had to add keyboards to their devices, relegating the touch screen to little more than cursor-positioning and menu-selection.
You may also remember all the criticism from the press when the iPhone was first announced. Everybody insisted that the lack of the mechanical keyboard was doomed to failure, because nobody has ever been successful with one in the past.
It was only after iPhone sales went through the roof that the conventional wisdom changed and manufacturers started considering the possibility of a device with a touchscreen-only interface.
Ditto for multi-touch. The first most people ever heard of this tech was a video by Jeff Han in 2006. Nobody was talking about it, let alone shipping products before then. Then we saw some Apple patent filings for multi-touch input devices and everybody started talking about it.
So I agree with "anonymouse" when he says that a multuitouch-based Android phone was not inevitable. Without the presence of the iPhone, they could very easily have gone in a different direction, releasing a product completely different from what ended up shipping.
Yup. chronster usually is a good foil around here, but he's off-track on this one.
And again it's not about absolute firsts, though i'm glad someone above mentioned the Newton. I suppose in usual fashion before long someone will mention Xerox labs.
As for the X-Box, take the discussion somewhere else imo.
Notice that reference to profit, not revenue. You know, that part where I "added emphasis" in my original post? Even without Xbox Live, the Xbox and its accessories make a profit.
You absolute IDIOT !!
Being Profitable (barely) is not the same as making a profit on something.
Lets make this VERY VERY simple for you :
Say you start a business and for the first 5 years you make 1m Loss per year. Now you are down 5m. In year six, you start to see a profit of 100,000. Now you are profitable in what you are doing. ( PLEASE note the "ABLE" part on the end )
But you are still at an over all loss of 4,900,000.
profitABLE does NOT equal profit.
Ask the Underpants Gnomes. At least they understand more than you. I think there is a question mark over steps 1, 2, and 3 with you.
Comments
No, that's not being fair at all.
One example? Dual-microphone phone design for noise cancellation, something that was directly copied by Apple for the iPhone 4.
That wasn't Google's doing, that was HTC, the equipment manufacturer. You need to pick more carefully.
Maybe he should spend some time fixing their f'ups in China instead of all this non-sense.
Boy, Did Google Blow It In China
This morning came news that China has renewed Google's license to operate in the country.
That seemed like good news--Google wins the China standoff!--until it was revealed that Google's China search engine will now be censoring its entire list of web pages, instead of just the ones that the Chinese government found objectionable.
http://blogs.forbes.com/firewall/201...mepagechannels
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.
That phone looks like my DuraLabel handheld label maker
You mean Motorola was in the phone business first, while Apple was in the iTunes business first. And we all remember how "successful" that little innovation was.
If licensing iTunes to Motorola is your idea of Apple being in the phone business then you're just desperate to try to win a point. Enjoy your delusion.
Exactly -
Somebody needs to learn the difference between revenue and profit.
Not sure if that was in response to my post since you didn't reference it, but I'll take the opportunity to repeat the bolded references to profit in that post.
That's profit. And there was also that reference to a 50% increase in revenue from Xbox live to $1.2B year to year. I imagine some of that revenue will be profit.
But you could go on record as stating that you believe none of that revenue will be profit.
I look forward to that categorical claim.
Complete and utter bullshit. Sorry, but I actually am a geek who kept up with what was the latest and greatest before the iphone was ever out. A simple google search for what microsoft was doing in 1999 found this for cryin out loud: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...ricssonpr.mspx Everyone can crap on windows mobile all they want (even when they've never even worked with it for a second) but it's true: Apple pretty much copied MS in a LOT of ways, and if they hadn't come out with the iphone, phones would have still gone in the direction they're going today. Full screen PDA's with multimedia support, internet browsing, the list goes on. And if you think I'm full of shit, please tell me what Windows Mobile copied from Apple. You can't, because it was first.
I've been in this debate plenty of times. People who never paid any attention to PDA's until the iphone came out are absolutely confident in arguing with me over this.
The bottom line is, I'm not completely irrational in thinking Google would have made Android into what it is without the iphones existence. Someone hurry up and invent a way to look into alternate realities for f's sakes
I guess you are to young to remember that winmo's precursor wince was microsofts reaction to apples newton os. You know, that full screen PDA with Internet browsing? Universally acknowledged to be the FIRST PDA - a term coined by then Apple CEO John Scully?
Back to geek school for some history lessons!
Firstly, Google was (at least publicly) in the phone business before Apple.
Firstly, publicly means nothing in this statement, the qualifier publicly is only a self serving attempt to make the statement a tautology knowing Apple didn't announce iPhone until Jan 07.
Apple was working on the iPhone for at least a couple years before it's announcement, reportedly but not officially confirmed back into 2003.
do you know when Apple started working internally on an iPhone prototype? NO. so unless you do, you don't have a clue.
Well, until they actually show something to the market, then there's no evidence at all they're in that market. I thought that much was clear when I alluded to the LG Prada.
Calm down, it's not a race. As Apple has shown, it's not who is first, but who does it better.
do you know when Apple started working internally on an iPhone prototype? NO. so unless you do, you don't have a clue.
And the irony is that you don't actually understand that the same applies to you, or you wouldn't have made that post.
Amazing.
That wasn't Google's doing, that was HTC, the equipment manufacturer. You need to pick more carefully.
Did Apple design and manufacture the LCD panel and touchscreen used in the iPhone?
Firstly, publicly means nothing in this statement, the qualifier publicly is only a self serving attempt to make the statement a tautology knowing Apple didn't announce iPhone until Jan 07.
I would disagree. How do you know I'm not in the phone business? There's no way for you to tell and on no other evidence you should rightfully conclude that I am not.
Apple was working on the iPhone for at least a couple years before it's announcement, reportedly but not officially confirmed back into 2003.
Reportedly. For at least a couple of years. How many? All innuendo and guesswork. Until a company announces something, they're not 'in' the market.
EDIT: The other 'reported' but is that it wasn't a phone in the first instance. It was a tablet.
Not sure if that was in response to my post since you didn't reference it, but I'll take the opportunity to repeat the bolded references to profit in that post.
That's profit. And there was also that reference to a 50% increase in revenue from Xbox live to $1.2B year to year. I imagine some of that revenue will be profit.
But you could go on record as stating that you believe none of that revenue will be profit.
I look forward to that categorical claim.
No, that's revenue. Says so right in the part you quote, repeatedly, even the part where you added emphasis.
Beyond that please don't attribute ridiculous arguments to me, even if you choose to make them yourself.
WRONG. Technically speaking, Apple was in the phone business FIRST.
Remember the Motorola Rockr? The very first mobile phone with iTunes. Technology sites reporting on collaborations between Motorola and Apple as far back as December 2004.
January 7, 2005 - Motorola previews iTunes phone
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ne_images.html
August 17, 2005 - Google buys Android
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...0949_tc024.htm
I would argue that the rockr was simply steve jobs payback for motorola failing to push the PowerPC to 3ghz.
That's profit. And there was also that reference to a 50% increase in revenue from Xbox live to $1.2B year to year. I imagine some of that revenue will be profit.
Learn the definitions of revenue and profit.
You will then have the possibility of making a persuasive argument without
having to rely on your imagination.
Looks like ole Stevie and his AT&T minions will be making a bit of 'history' soon enough... http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/ga...iphone-ATT.pdf
The funny part is, iPhone is the only phone people give a shit enough to sue.
Maybe he should spend some time fixing their f'ups in China instead of all this non-sense.
Boy, Did Google Blow It In China
This morning came news that China has renewed Google's license to operate in the country.
That seemed like good news--Google wins the China standoff!--until it was revealed that Google's China search engine will now be censoring its entire list of web pages, instead of just the ones that the Chinese government found objectionable.
http://blogs.forbes.com/firewall/201...mepagechannels
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.
Thanks Dave for making the most important point of all in this.
The trolls has goldfish memory. If Google is willing to publicly rip-off the iPhone and then try to play it off as their own, they have absolutely no corporate honor or integrity, are telling everyone their too stupid to notice this, and are obviously enjoying it because they keep up the incredibly lame PR attempts. I think from a public perspective, Apple's corporate behavior is the polar opposite - which probably forms some of the basis for their making of superior products.
Why does Google act the same whenever they've been caught collecting data promised to remain confidential? They make the pledge, then Schmidt says nobody is entitled to privacy from his company, or "oops we didn't mean to collect this, but we weren't really planning to sell it, like the other stuff we said we wouldn't sell". I challenge anyone to find an instance when Google has demonstrated any kind of commitment to any policy or even shred of integrity to their statements. These aren't bugs in products, or debates about missing features, this is just plain, abysmal corporate direction. If they don't value integrity there, it's pretty safe to assume there's little pride in their engineering.
Just goes to show... telemarketers are all scum.
And don't forget Apple had the iPod (a mobile device ) years before Google bought Android.
No, that's revenue. Says so right in the part you quote, repeatedly, even the part where you added emphasis.
Beyond that please don't attribute ridiculous arguments to me, even if you choose to make them yourself.
Apparently I didn't make myself clear...
"Success with Xbox Live is key to Microsoft's Entertainment division, which has seen slow sales of Zune media players, slow smartphone sales, and a barely profitable Xbox 360 console, which sees most of its profit from software and accessory sales."
Notice that reference to profit, not revenue. You know, that part where I "added emphasis" in my original post? Even without Xbox Live, the Xbox and its accessories make a profit.
On top of that profit, MS generates revenue from its Xbox Live services. Note that it's separate to the profit from its console and accessories. And as I pointed out previously, I believe that the revenue from Xbox Live will return additional profit to MS's Xbox division.
If you disagree that MS also make a profit from Xbox Live, then I'd appreciate you saying so. Otherwise, I'll assume that you agree that MS make a profit from Xbox Live on top of the profit it makes on its hardware, software and accessories.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
You'll notice also that I didn't attribute any argument to you, merely questioned whether you believe that MS don't make a profit. Your dismissive comment under my original post doesn't make that or anything else clear.
As you can see, I have a good understanding of profit and revenue, your comment notwithstanding.
Learn the definitions of revenue and profit.
You will then have the possibility of making a persuasive argument without
having to rely on your imagination.
See my reply to Dr Millmoss. And for the record, I was quoting the Bloomberg piece with emphasis on those parts that were relevant to the post I was responding to.
The out-take is that contrary to some opinions voiced in this thread, the Xbox is indeed a profitable venture to MS even though it currently contributes stuff-all to its bottom line. The Xbox Live growth suggests that that might well change in the near future.
I hope that clarifies my position.
Google's pre-iPhone Android prototype with a keyboard speaks volumes about what their engineers were thinking.
You're right, touch-screens were previously available. Palm had them. The first touch-screen smartphone I know of was the Palm-OS based Handspring Treo (before Palm bought Handspring.) It was not a market changer. People disliked the Graffiti interface and hated the on-screen keyboard even worse. Handspring (and then Palm) actually had to add keyboards to their devices, relegating the touch screen to little more than cursor-positioning and menu-selection.
You may also remember all the criticism from the press when the iPhone was first announced. Everybody insisted that the lack of the mechanical keyboard was doomed to failure, because nobody has ever been successful with one in the past.
It was only after iPhone sales went through the roof that the conventional wisdom changed and manufacturers started considering the possibility of a device with a touchscreen-only interface.
Ditto for multi-touch. The first most people ever heard of this tech was a video by Jeff Han in 2006. Nobody was talking about it, let alone shipping products before then. Then we saw some Apple patent filings for multi-touch input devices and everybody started talking about it.
So I agree with "anonymouse" when he says that a multuitouch-based Android phone was not inevitable. Without the presence of the iPhone, they could very easily have gone in a different direction, releasing a product completely different from what ended up shipping.
Yup. chronster usually is a good foil around here, but he's off-track on this one.
And again it's not about absolute firsts, though i'm glad someone above mentioned the Newton. I suppose in usual fashion before long someone will mention Xerox labs.
As for the X-Box, take the discussion somewhere else imo.
Notice that reference to profit, not revenue. You know, that part where I "added emphasis" in my original post? Even without Xbox Live, the Xbox and its accessories make a profit.
You absolute IDIOT !!
Being Profitable (barely) is not the same as making a profit on something.
Lets make this VERY VERY simple for you :
Say you start a business and for the first 5 years you make 1m Loss per year. Now you are down 5m. In year six, you start to see a profit of 100,000. Now you are profitable in what you are doing. ( PLEASE note the "ABLE" part on the end )
But you are still at an over all loss of 4,900,000.
profitABLE does NOT equal profit.
Ask the Underpants Gnomes. At least they understand more than you. I think there is a question mark over steps 1, 2, and 3 with you.