This is blather. No one said that Apple never listens to market forces. You're just making it up -- just like Google, in this business -- as you go along.....
With multiple people in this thread implying that apple is always the innovating the market and never the one changing to the market. I'd say my point is justified.
All companies adapt to the strategies and moves of their competitors. That's what I'm saying.
And again, you make wild claims while providing no evidence. Why is it that you bother replying again?
Mostly just to call you out as an astroturfer, which in itself is a deceitful, dishonest activity on the part of both the company and the individual engaged in it.
Wild claims? Think Google isn't an outlaw company? Then explain to us why they are engaged in wholesale lawbreaking in the illegal Google Books Program, and why, even after it's been established that their behavior is illegal, and even after they tried to essentially bribe their way out of it, ineffectually, they continue to constantly commit illegal acts because they believe they can simply strongarm authors and buy their way out of trouble for a few pieces of silver.
If open is so good, what's up with Honeycomb? Google's in violation of the GPL and talking out of both sides of their mouth. And while we're on the subject, Google provides all sorts of software to people that's based on GPL code but never provides us with the source code as required by the licenses. This is a company we should trust? This is a company whose very basis is deceit.
Google is a company that will do whatever it wants because it believes itself above the law. Sometimes I think the people inside Google believe they are actually following the "Do no evil" propaganda. They are Google, they do no evil, so, if Google does it, it isn't evil.
All companies adapt to the strategies and moves of their competitors. That's what I'm saying.
Now you aren't even being honest about what you're saying. What you said was that Google was different, that we should just trust them, that they would use these patents for good, not evil. Now you are saying that they would do whatever any other company would with these patents, that the patents are no better off being owned by Google than any other company. You contradict yourself
Seems you are weaving your own web of lies and deceit.
With multiple people in this thread implying that apple is always the innovating the market and never the one changing to the market. I'd say my point is justified.
Who said that Apple is ALWAY the innovator and never changed to adopt market standards?
You know you've lost when you have to make up silly straw man arguments. Or, at least, an intelligent person would realize that.
No, it's actually not a "Very specific action" They're claiming the entire process of unlocking the touch screen by interacting with the touch screen, save for a simple tap, or using a password (both listed as references)
It's Not just for the "Slide to unlock" option. Apple left the wording vague enough to cover all methods of touch screen unlock, and they named several phones in the lawsuit that used different methods of unlock. And even if it was a "specific" method they were suing for, then the only phones they could name in the lawsuit would be (possibly) those built using AOSP Android 2.0 or higher. Which they didn't.
First, you really shouldn't be commenting on patents if you don't understand how they're written.
The 'general' stuff you're talking about is mostly in the prior art - which Apple is required to provide. The part that Apple can enforce is only in the claims. The independent claims related to 'swipe to open' are #1, 6, 8, and 11 (the rest are for the device itself).
Feel free to show any phones which used a swipe to open that falls under those claims before Apple applied for the patent.
As for the rest, timing is a problem. If the lawsuit was prepared before Android 2.0 came out, then they could hardly use Android 2.0 phones as an example, right? They would have plenty of time to introduce them into evidence later.
Transaction cost obviously. We're talking about $900 mil here.
What transaction cost? There's nothing 'obvious' about the difference that will have to be incurred by a US buyer vs a Canadian buyer of a Canadian company.
Btw, taxes are not the same as transaction costs. So I still don't understand what you meant there.
With multiple people in this thread implying that apple is always the innovating the market and never the one changing to the market. I'd say my point is justified.
All companies adapt to the strategies and moves of their competitors. That's what I'm saying.
There are times that Apple innovates, and there are times it follows.
Any reasonable person would have to admit, however, that in the past decade, the balance has quite distinctly shifted in favor of the former. That's the main sentiment I see expressed on this board.
I think Google did have some fabulous innovations in the past, but can you point to one home-grown idea that has become a revenue or profit blockbuster for the company lately?
Google has a business plan that's much harder to understand than Apple's. You can hold an iPad in your hand. Google eschews physical products for virtual. They're making crazy profits by doing things that, on the surface, may not make sense to most of us.
Google has a business plan that's much harder to understand than Apple's. You can hold an iPad in your hand. Google eschews physical products for virtual. They're making crazy profits by doing things that, on the surface, may not make sense to most of us.
These are things that may or may not pan out. Every company does these types of things, but stays quiet about them.
None of these initiatives is providing a cent of cash flow for Google. The unfortunate truth is, 97% of its revenue comes from advertising (refer to latest quarterly report), and this is an unfortunate trap that Google does not know how to get out of. At this point, and at risk of exaggeration, their strategy reeks of desperation.
I'm surprised you presume to know how much revenue Google makes from each of it's innovations and products. Claiming "None of these initiatives is providing a cent of cash flow for Google." sounds like you're stating a fact based on some source. Unless you can offer one, should we assume it's just your opinion?
And what's "unfortunate" about 80% gross profit and 30%+ net. Over $2 billion in profit just this past quarter. I wish I was so unfortunate.
What should worry RIM (but so far doesn't appear to) is the many surveys of Blackberry owners who want to jump ship to the iPhone or Android. THAT is their biggest problem and they are dropping the ball. I don't dislike RIM at all, their headquarters is just down the highway form me and they employ my nephew. I just think that they're focussing in the wrong area.
The Playbook might sell okay with some of the Blackberry faithful, but I don't see it as being huge hit for them, I just don't. I certainly don't see it attracting people away from iOS devices or Android. I think the sleeper here might be HP. Palm was doing some pretty good work when they were scooped up by HP and they've been pretty quite lately.
Google has a business plan that's much harder to understand than Apple's. You can hold an iPad in your hand. Google eschews physical products for virtual. They're making crazy profits by doing things that, on the surface, may not make sense to most of us.
True enough. Talking of that, I'd like to be able to opt out if I wish. a plug in from the ClicktoFlash folks called ClicktoGoogle. I know there are many plug ins but nothing quite so simplistic yet powerful.
I'm surprised you presume to know how much revenue Google makes from each of it's innovations and products. Claiming "None of these initiatives is providing a cent of cash flow for Google." sounds like you're stating a fact based on some source. Unless you can offer one, should we assume it's just your opinion?
And what's "unfortunate" about 80% gross profit and 30%+ net. Over $2 billion in profit just this past quarter. I wish I was so unfortunate.
I told you: (i) that 97% of their revenue is from advertising; (ii) exactly where I got that information.
Let me ask a few different questions. What $ value would you put on Facetime? How about Garage Band? What portion of Apple's revenue can be attributed to those applications? Does anyone buy an iPad because of those? If so, what percentage? For that matter, what would Apple's revenue from iPhones and iPad's be without an AppStore? If you can answer those questions, then you might be able to understand the answer to what value Google's innovations have for Google's bottom line.
Let me ask a few different questions. What $ value would you put on Facetime? How about Garage Band? What portion of Apple's revenue can be attributed to those applications? Does anyone buy an iPad because of those? If so, what percentage? For that matter, what would Apple's revenue from iPhones and iPad's be without an AppStore? If you can answer those questions, then you might be able to understand the answer to what value Google's innovations have for Google's bottom line.
Lol. Wrong analysis on your part, with a silly comparison of a company that gets pretty much all its revenues from selling its own stuff, versus one that gets its revenue from eyeballs that it (hopefully) directs to other people's sites so they can (hopefully) sell more of their stuff.
Google has three main ad-placement products --search, YouTube and Gmail -- for own revenue (about two-thirds), and gets an additional one-third from third-party sites. If you are convinced that some 'super cool' Googe labs experiments (most of which are pr, and don't necessarily pan out: case in point, Google TV) like Google Body and Google Self-Driving car are comparable to iTunes, iLife, and the App Store in terms of the ecosystem it creates for Apple's hardware sales, I honestly don't know what to tell you.
Incidentally, here's Google's biggest nightmare, and one for which they have no answer despite repeated tries (hence their panic): ad dollars migrating en masse to Facebook, Twitter et. al.
How about you give me an example one Google Labs product that will help solve this problem for them?
Comments
This is blather. No one said that Apple never listens to market forces. You're just making it up -- just like Google, in this business -- as you go along.....
With multiple people in this thread implying that apple is always the innovating the market and never the one changing to the market. I'd say my point is justified.
All companies adapt to the strategies and moves of their competitors. That's what I'm saying.
What tax and business advantages? How would it be any different from a US company buying a Canadian company (or vice versa)?
Transaction cost obviously. We're talking about $900 mil here.
And again, you make wild claims while providing no evidence. Why is it that you bother replying again?
Mostly just to call you out as an astroturfer, which in itself is a deceitful, dishonest activity on the part of both the company and the individual engaged in it.
Wild claims? Think Google isn't an outlaw company? Then explain to us why they are engaged in wholesale lawbreaking in the illegal Google Books Program, and why, even after it's been established that their behavior is illegal, and even after they tried to essentially bribe their way out of it, ineffectually, they continue to constantly commit illegal acts because they believe they can simply strongarm authors and buy their way out of trouble for a few pieces of silver.
If open is so good, what's up with Honeycomb? Google's in violation of the GPL and talking out of both sides of their mouth. And while we're on the subject, Google provides all sorts of software to people that's based on GPL code but never provides us with the source code as required by the licenses. This is a company we should trust? This is a company whose very basis is deceit.
Google is a company that will do whatever it wants because it believes itself above the law. Sometimes I think the people inside Google believe they are actually following the "Do no evil" propaganda. They are Google, they do no evil, so, if Google does it, it isn't evil.
All companies adapt to the strategies and moves of their competitors. That's what I'm saying.
Now you aren't even being honest about what you're saying. What you said was that Google was different, that we should just trust them, that they would use these patents for good, not evil. Now you are saying that they would do whatever any other company would with these patents, that the patents are no better off being owned by Google than any other company. You contradict yourself
Seems you are weaving your own web of lies and deceit.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=122355
With multiple people in this thread implying that apple is always the innovating the market and never the one changing to the market. I'd say my point is justified.
Who said that Apple is ALWAY the innovator and never changed to adopt market standards?
You know you've lost when you have to make up silly straw man arguments. Or, at least, an intelligent person would realize that.
No, it's actually not a "Very specific action" They're claiming the entire process of unlocking the touch screen by interacting with the touch screen, save for a simple tap, or using a password (both listed as references)
This is the patent:
http://www.google.com/patents/about?...J&dq=7,657,849
It's Not just for the "Slide to unlock" option. Apple left the wording vague enough to cover all methods of touch screen unlock, and they named several phones in the lawsuit that used different methods of unlock. And even if it was a "specific" method they were suing for, then the only phones they could name in the lawsuit would be (possibly) those built using AOSP Android 2.0 or higher. Which they didn't.
First, you really shouldn't be commenting on patents if you don't understand how they're written.
The 'general' stuff you're talking about is mostly in the prior art - which Apple is required to provide. The part that Apple can enforce is only in the claims. The independent claims related to 'swipe to open' are #1, 6, 8, and 11 (the rest are for the device itself).
Feel free to show any phones which used a swipe to open that falls under those claims before Apple applied for the patent.
As for the rest, timing is a problem. If the lawsuit was prepared before Android 2.0 came out, then they could hardly use Android 2.0 phones as an example, right? They would have plenty of time to introduce them into evidence later.
Transaction cost obviously. We're talking about $900 mil here.
What transaction cost? There's nothing 'obvious' about the difference that will have to be incurred by a US buyer vs a Canadian buyer of a Canadian company.
Btw, taxes are not the same as transaction costs. So I still don't understand what you meant there.
With multiple people in this thread implying that apple is always the innovating the market and never the one changing to the market. I'd say my point is justified.
All companies adapt to the strategies and moves of their competitors. That's what I'm saying.
There are times that Apple innovates, and there are times it follows.
Any reasonable person would have to admit, however, that in the past decade, the balance has quite distinctly shifted in favor of the former. That's the main sentiment I see expressed on this board.
I think Google did have some fabulous innovations in the past, but can you point to one home-grown idea that has become a revenue or profit blockbuster for the company lately?
And don't ignore Google Labs. http://www.networkworld.com/communit...ts-google-labs
Google has a business plan that's much harder to understand than Apple's. You can hold an iPad in your hand. Google eschews physical products for virtual. They're making crazy profits by doing things that, on the surface, may not make sense to most of us.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/20933...s_of_2010.html
And don't ignore Google Labs. http://www.networkworld.com/communit...ts-google-labs
Google has a business plan that's much harder to understand than Apple's. You can hold an iPad in your hand. Google eschews physical products for virtual. They're making crazy profits by doing things that, on the surface, may not make sense to most of us.
These are things that may or may not pan out. Every company does these types of things, but stays quiet about them.
None of these initiatives is providing a cent of cash flow for Google. The unfortunate truth is, 97% of its revenue comes from advertising (refer to latest quarterly report), and this is an unfortunate trap that Google does not know how to get out of. At this point, and at risk of exaggeration, their strategy reeks of desperation.
And what's "unfortunate" about 80% gross profit and 30%+ net. Over $2 billion in profit just this past quarter. I wish I was so unfortunate.
The Playbook might sell okay with some of the Blackberry faithful, but I don't see it as being huge hit for them, I just don't. I certainly don't see it attracting people away from iOS devices or Android. I think the sleeper here might be HP. Palm was doing some pretty good work when they were scooped up by HP and they've been pretty quite lately.
Sure - just as Google was all in favor of Open software - until it suited their purposes to act otherwise.
And just as Google is in favor of intellectual property rights - until it suits their purposes to act as if copyrights don't exist.
It will be fascinating to see if the Google culture / mindset changes post Eric.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/20933...s_of_2010.html
And don't ignore Google Labs. http://www.networkworld.com/communit...ts-google-labs
Google has a business plan that's much harder to understand than Apple's. You can hold an iPad in your hand. Google eschews physical products for virtual. They're making crazy profits by doing things that, on the surface, may not make sense to most of us.
True enough. Talking of that, I'd like to be able to opt out if I wish. a plug in from the ClicktoFlash folks called ClicktoGoogle. I know there are many plug ins but nothing quite so simplistic yet powerful.
I'm surprised you presume to know how much revenue Google makes from each of it's innovations and products. Claiming "None of these initiatives is providing a cent of cash flow for Google." sounds like you're stating a fact based on some source. Unless you can offer one, should we assume it's just your opinion?
And what's "unfortunate" about 80% gross profit and 30%+ net. Over $2 billion in profit just this past quarter. I wish I was so unfortunate.
I told you: (i) that 97% of their revenue is from advertising; (ii) exactly where I got that information.
But since you appear to have had trouble figuring that out, here you go: http://investor.google.com/earnings/..._earnings.html Look at the last two tables, all the way at the bottom of the page.
I told you: (i) that 97% of their revenue is from advertising; (ii) exactly where I got that information.
But since you appear to have had trouble figuring that out, here you go: http://investor.google.com/earnings/..._earnings.html Look at the last two tables, all the way at the bottom of the page.
Wrong answer.
Let me ask a few different questions. What $ value would you put on Facetime? How about Garage Band? What portion of Apple's revenue can be attributed to those applications? Does anyone buy an iPad because of those? If so, what percentage? For that matter, what would Apple's revenue from iPhones and iPad's be without an AppStore? If you can answer those questions, then you might be able to understand the answer to what value Google's innovations have for Google's bottom line.
Wrong answer.
Let me ask a few different questions. What $ value would you put on Facetime? How about Garage Band? What portion of Apple's revenue can be attributed to those applications? Does anyone buy an iPad because of those? If so, what percentage? For that matter, what would Apple's revenue from iPhones and iPad's be without an AppStore? If you can answer those questions, then you might be able to understand the answer to what value Google's innovations have for Google's bottom line.
Lol. Wrong analysis on your part, with a silly comparison of a company that gets pretty much all its revenues from selling its own stuff, versus one that gets its revenue from eyeballs that it (hopefully) directs to other people's sites so they can (hopefully) sell more of their stuff.
Google has three main ad-placement products --search, YouTube and Gmail -- for own revenue (about two-thirds), and gets an additional one-third from third-party sites. If you are convinced that some 'super cool' Googe labs experiments (most of which are pr, and don't necessarily pan out: case in point, Google TV) like Google Body and Google Self-Driving car are comparable to iTunes, iLife, and the App Store in terms of the ecosystem it creates for Apple's hardware sales, I honestly don't know what to tell you.
Incidentally, here's Google's biggest nightmare, and one for which they have no answer despite repeated tries (hence their panic): ad dollars migrating en masse to Facebook, Twitter et. al.
How about you give me an example one Google Labs product that will help solve this problem for them?
Apple should let RIM buy the Nortel patents for 900+ million, then Apple can buy RIM and it's patents for 600 million in about 2 years.
LOL That?s funny.
I don?t see anything that RiM has that Apple would want. They?d be better off siphoning an employee or two for some key areas.