So *what if* is meaningless if postulated by others, but not by you?
So, you're rejecting your entire argument? OK.
Quote:
If you want to believe someone doesn't understand MO in order to score a point, go ahead. That really doesn't bother me. According to Dr. David, I also don't know what a mixed metaphor is, I am either some kind of idiot or the debating skills around here are reduced to .... sophomoric levels
The debating skills around here seem to be generally fine.
Quote:
As for whether Google is *dumping* and being anti-competitive, as mentioned above, it is an interesting perspective. Is Amazon dumping too by selling the Fire (maybe the other Kindles too) at a loss? I don't know ... seriously.
Selling books is Amazon's core market, so, it isn't the same as leveraging your dominance and profits in one market to take over another. As to whether Amazon engages in anti-competitive behavior, that's another discussion, not really relevant to this one.
Quote:
EDIT: Just occurred to me .... what about giving away iTunes? I don't mean just the program itself. Apple has proclaimed more than once that it breaks even on iTunes operations. But that's ok for them as long as this leads to more device sales. Is this dumping too? Is this dramatically different from, dare I say, Google's MO?
Yes, it's dramatically different, and I'm surprised I would even need to explain this. Giving away software as a means to allow people to buy content from your store and to support devices you sell is not the same at all as giving away software and services at a loss in a new market to leverage yourself in on the strength of your profits in another entirely different industry sector.
Quote:
I don't know ... seriously. I need to look up MO first, not to mention mixed metaphors. Keeping company with intellectual giants gives me so much homework ....
Not at all. But you like framing people's words in your context to score points in your own game. So feel free to believe that. But it's quite a weak riposte, as is your MO to undermine my understanding of MO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Selling books is Amazon's core market, so, it isn't the same as leveraging your dominance and profits in one market to take over another. As to whether Amazon engages in anti-competitive behavior, that's another discussion, not really relevant to this one.
See above
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Yes, it's dramatically different, and I'm surprised I would even need to explain this. Giving away software as a means to allow people to buy content from your store and to support devices you sell is not the same at all as giving away software and services at a loss in a new market to leverage yourself in on the strength of your profits in another entirely different industry sector.
See above.
You see it as *dramatically* different so as to justify your arguments, allow no room for an alternative view, and try to sell your perspective with run-on sentences. It's an effective approach when your rationale is sound, which does happen from time to time. But, like in this case, when your premise is not the only viable perspective (or perhaps even a supportable one), it just sounds shaky all over. I'm sure someone will buy it. How many of them are unbiased observers without a pre-determined bias of Schmidt or Apple?
No need to answer. I will wait until you post one of your more reasonable points before engaging. This is just silly and no longer fun.
Is it illegal to win in the US now? What a strange place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
Nope, it's still legal. Charlie Sheen is cruising along quite well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad
Agreed!
Well, at&t "won" the telephone market way-back-when and I don't think anyone still thinks that was good for consumers and the country. Some technologies and services simply cannot be dominated and controlled by a single corporation. Human nature being what it is makes corruption and exploitation inevitable in such situations.
Google's Chairman is trying to get out of an Anti-Trust probe on Google by citing that Siri threatens their Monopoly; and therefore competition is safe.
It's a joke of an argument.
Well, this is the BUSINESS world after all.
On the stock market and to the press; you claim to be a mighty monopoly that is taking the world by storm.
In front of the IRS or a congressional hearing -- you are just a poor competitor in danger of getting your butt kicked.
>> Either Google's chairman was lying or ignorant last week, or he is lying or enlightened today. It think it's a little of both.
He was probably a bit cocky and speaking "marketing" a little while ago. But when his teenage daughter uses Siri and says; "Text message my friend Martha that 'LOL, I was scoping out the beefcake.'" --- he realizes that perhaps, Google may be the king of an empire that is in trouble.
The paradigm might have shifted when a lot of people realized that Siri really is a working and useful AI and speech to text implementation, and not just marketing hype.
Will it REALLY replace Google's ad revenue in a serious way -- I really doubt it and so does Google's executive here. Using a voice command every now and then to get something done is NOT going to replace the huge amount of time people use a search engine like Google to research. It's something that is really great when you are driving a car, at a party, or watching TV (spoiler alert for Apple TV) -- but not something that replaces the bulk of our computer usage of web search.
>> However, it makes the Android phone look long in the tooth before the next model comes out.
That was the best you could do? I explain why your nonsequitur was off base because you do not understand who Google's customer is from a competition standpoint, and that is the best you can do?
Most of the people here aren't seeing Schmidt's point. By using Siri people are bypassing the ads that google serves up which is Google's main moneymaker. The fact that siri uses google for data is immaterial.
Exactly, and it's the same with apps. Apple is bypassing Google's entire business model. To paraphrase another well known saying on AI, 'Google is doomed'. However correct Schmidt is, I agree with many here his motives for saying this are self serving. In fact he may not actually believe it.
I am tired of hearing Eric whine ... he needs to focus on Google. If I were him, I would take the advice Steve Jobs gave him. Do fewer things better. Google is trying to be everything to everyone. I expect them to be the next Microsoft in that respect and they may end up being a mediocre company.
I'm always amazed when people make derogatory comments about elected officials. Seems like the bigger the landslide defeat the louder they critize. It is not like he is any different than last time he was governor. The voters knew full well what they were getting.
Democracy has its advantages and disadvantages. Unfortunately for Repulicans, mostly disadvantages because they are in the minority.
Mmm.....
Quote:
The nickname was coined by Mike Royko, the famed Chicago columnist, who in 1976 said that Mr. Brown appeared to be attracting ?the moonbeam vote,? which in Chicago political parlance meant young, idealistic and nontraditional.
The term had a nice California feel, and Mr. Royko eventually began applying it when he wrote about the Golden State?s young, idealistic and nontraditional chief executive. He found endless amusement ? and sometimes outright agita ? in California?s oddities, calling the state ?the world?s largest outdoor mental asylum.?
?If it babbles and its eyeballs are glazed,? he noted in April 1979, ?it probably comes from California.?
California Gov. Jerry Brown is vetoing legislation requiring police to obtain a court warrant to search the mobile phones of suspects at the time of any arrest.
The Sunday veto means that when police arrest anybody in the Golden State, they may search that person?s mobile phone ? which in the digital age likely means the contents of persons? e-mail, call records, text messages, photos, banking activity, cloud-storage services, and even where the phone has traveled.
Police across the country are given wide latitude to search persons incident to an arrest based on the premise of officer safety. Now the nation?s states are beginning to grapple with the warrantless searches of mobile phones done at the time of an arrest.
Brown?s veto message abdicated responsibility for protecting the rights of Californians and ignored calls from civil liberties groups and this publication to sign the bill ? saying only that the issue is too complicated for him to make a decision about. He cites a recent California Supreme Court decision upholding the warrantless searches of people incident to an arrest. In his brief message, he also doesn?t say whether it?s a good idea or not.
...
In 2007, there were 332,000 felony arrests in California alone ? a third of which did not result in conviction.
Brown?s veto also shores up support with police unions and the Peace Officers Research Association of California, a police union that opposed the legislation and recently donated $38,900 to Brown?s campaign coffers. ?Restricting the authority of a peace officer to search an arrestee unduly restricts their ability to apply the law, fight crime, discover evidence valuable to an investigation and protect the citizens of California,? the association said in a message.
That support would be key if Brown decides to seek a second term.
In the last year alone, at least seven police unions donated more than $12,900 each to Brown. Those unions, including the California Association of Highway Patrolmen and the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff?s Association, had given Brown more than $160,000 in combined contributions.
FWIW, I've lived in California since 1950 (except the years 1964-1972 and 1989-2001) My parents lived in Pasadena 1951-2003. My daughter and her family in the Bay Area 1973-present.
I have had the privilege ? of experiencing the reign of Governors:
Earl Warren
Goodwin Jess Knight (Goodie was married in the house behind my parent's Pasadena home)
Edmund Gerald "Pat" Brown, Sr.
Ronald Reagan
Edmund Gerald "Jerry" Brown, Jr. - The Linda Ronstat era
George Deukmejian
Pete Wilson
Joseph Graham "Gray" Davis
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Edmund Gerald "Jerry" Brown, Jr.
IMO, This time around, "Moonbeam" is doing many things right -- especially reining in the profligate State spending.
Hmmm... Not arguing against your whole post but we _did_ "vote them in"... with our dollars (or in this case, eyeballs which amounts to the same thing)! In fact we can "vote them out" in the same way... by not giving them our eyeballs / dollars.
And that's why they're not a monopoly. Because we do still have viable choices (both Bing and Yahoo work well enough that if you were upset at google you could start using those).
To me, this is just big government trying to control the private market even more than they already do... and I bet that if you were to trace the money you might find one of their competitors had a hand in "influencing" the government representatives involved...
Not correct because you are looking at this as if you are the end user. Companies that utilize Google's services that pays Google's bills have little to no alternatives. If you want an online advertising campaign you WILL be dealing with Google even if you utilize a third party because that third party will be going to Google. That is what makes it a monopoly. Doesn't matter if there are other search engines. Look at Microsoft. It was deemed a monopoly and there were other OS's available in the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
To all those accusing Google of copying Apple, consider this:
Did Apple copy Google (and many others) by entering the Cloud computing field?
Did Apple copy Google with its iOS5 notification scheme?
Did Apple copy Google by adding speech recognition (even if they executed it better)?
It's a slippery slope.
1) Nope since Apple was doing some form of cloud computing before Google even existed. Apple was one of the first companies to do networked computing.
2) Debatable since a similar notification system was in the jailbreak community around the time the G1 came out.
3) Nope since Apple had voice activation and commands in its computers before the iPhone was released.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
So *what if* is meaningless if postulated by others, but not by you?
If you want to believe someone doesn't understand MO in order to score a point, go ahead. That really doesn't bother me. According to Dr. David, I also don't know what a mixed metaphor is, I am either some kind of idiot or the debating skills around here are reduced to .... sophomoric levels
As for whether Google is *dumping* and being anti-competitive, as mentioned above, it is an interesting perspective. Is Amazon dumping too by selling the Fire (maybe the other Kindles too) at a loss? I don't know ... seriously.
EDIT: Just occurred to me .... what about giving away iTunes? I don't mean just the program itself. Apple has proclaimed more than once that it breaks even on iTunes operations. But that's ok for them as long as this leads to more device sales. Is this dumping too? Is this dramatically different from, dare I say, Google's MO? I don't know ... seriously. I need to look up MO first, not to mention mixed metaphors. Keeping company with intellectual giants gives me so much homework ....
Dumping is a tricky issue and I personally would be loathe to outright accuse Google of doing it because it depends on the overall business plan. If the plan is to give away or sell a product/service at a minuscule price solely to drive others out of the market in order to turn around and raise prices, then it is dumping. If the company is providing a service/product at reduced prices in order to make it up in sales in a related product/service then it is legitimate.
As for whether Google is *dumping* and being anti-competitive, as mentioned above, it is an interesting perspective. Is Amazon dumping too by selling the Fire (maybe the other Kindles too) at a loss?
Is Amazon selling any model of Kindle at a loss? Reviewers don't think so. Amazon might not be making money on the hardware, but they're not believed to be losing money either. By no stretch is Amazon giving away Kindles.
Quote:
EDIT: Just occurred to me .... what about giving away iTunes? I don't mean just the program itself. Apple has proclaimed more than once that it breaks even on iTunes operations. But that's ok for them as long as this leads to more device sales. Is this dumping too?
It might be dumping if Apple gave away much iTunes media, but they don't. In fact, Apple charges for almost all products and services.
Now, for what products and services does Google charge? Almost nothing. With a monopoly on web ads, anything else that Google gives away for free could be suspect for dumping.
You're absolutely right, of course - rights are important. That brings up an example I have cited here before: iBooks, which looks like Delicious Library. The developer of that latter certainly felt his rights were violated, and did not receive recognition or compensation from Apple: http://twitter.com/#!/wilshipley/status/8289716016
What's my point? Very simple - Apple is hardly merely a victim when it comes to willful violation of IP rights. Sometimes, they buy their way out of it after the fact. Sometimes, they don't even bother.
If Wil Shipley, founder of OmniGroup and later Delicious Monster had a real beef he'd do more than just tweet about it. He has a connective history going back to doing an internship at NeXT while at the University of Washington.
Tim Wood's and the rest at OmniGroup had a falling out with him and there is no f'n way Wil's work is being intellectually violated and he's not filing an IP Lawsuit. He's been a NeXT developer and later an Apple early Cocoa developer long before most even heard of Cocoa.
If he's that inept it's no wonder he's no longer the CEO of OmniGroup.
"My statement was clearly wrong," he said. "Apple?s Siri is a significant development?a voice-activated means of accessing answers through iPhones that demonstrates the innovations in search."
What a weasel-y, self-serving statement.
Was he dissembling then, or is he dissembling now?
If Wil Shipley, founder of OmniGroup and later Delicious Monster had a real beef he'd do more than just tweet about it. He has a connective history going back to doing an internship at NeXT while at the University of Washington.
Tim Wood's and the rest at OmniGroup had a falling out with him and there is no f'n way Wil's work is being intellectually violated and he's not filing an IP Lawsuit. He's been a NeXT developer and later an Apple early Cocoa developer long before most even heard of Cocoa.
If he's that inept it's no wonder he's no longer the CEO of OmniGroup.
What's your point here beyond showing off your knowledge about someone inept?
Is Amazon selling any model of Kindle at a loss? Reviewers don't think so. Amazon might not be making money on the hardware, but they're not believed to be losing money either. By no stretch is Amazon giving away Kindles.
It might be dumping if Apple gave away much iTunes media, but they don't. In fact, Apple charges for almost all products and services.
Now, for what products and services does Google charge? Almost everything. With a monopoly on web ads, anything else that Google gives away for free could be suspect for dumping.
ITunes itself is a product and a service, and it's free. So is Safari! They are given away to sell devices, computers, ... Wasn't it that long ago that Microsoft was considered anti-competitive because they gave away IE while Netscape was trying make a business out of selling Navigator to businesses? It's been a while and memory fades, but I seem to recall something like that.
Further, Google Search and Gmail are also both free. Is that dumping as well? In that case, Microsoft is dumping too. So is Yahoo. So is Apple. Because of their *dumping*, can anyone generate meaningful revenue out of web-based email or search?
ITunes itself is a product and a service, and it's free.
How useful is iTunes without Apple hardware or an iTMS media purchase?
Quote:
So is Safari! They are given away to sell devices, computers, ...
Why use Safari if you don't have a Mac or don't use fee-based MobileMe/iCloud services?
Quote:
Wasn't it that long ago that Microsoft was considered anti-competitive because they gave away IE while Netscape was trying make a business out of selling Navigator to businesses?
Yup, and the same laws and rules apply to Google and everyone else.
Quote:
Further, Google Search and Gmail are also both free.
Yup, just like most Google products and services. We've basically been over this.
Quote:
Is that dumping as well?
Could be!
Quote:
In that case, Microsoft is dumping too. So is Yahoo. So is Apple. Because of their *dumping*, can anyone generate meaningful revenue out of web-based email or search?
I don't approve of all of his policies... And the nickname is not necessarily negative...
Read my post!
Well I am back to my original position. If you voted for Meg, Meg isn't here. You need to wait until next time for another chance to get your preferred candidate elected. It is not so much about the individual, it is more about the party. It is us or them and nothing in between no matter which side you are on.
Comments
So *what if* is meaningless if postulated by others, but not by you?
So, you're rejecting your entire argument? OK.
If you want to believe someone doesn't understand MO in order to score a point, go ahead. That really doesn't bother me. According to Dr. David, I also don't know what a mixed metaphor is, I am either some kind of idiot or the debating skills around here are reduced to .... sophomoric levels
The debating skills around here seem to be generally fine.
As for whether Google is *dumping* and being anti-competitive, as mentioned above, it is an interesting perspective. Is Amazon dumping too by selling the Fire (maybe the other Kindles too) at a loss? I don't know ... seriously.
Selling books is Amazon's core market, so, it isn't the same as leveraging your dominance and profits in one market to take over another. As to whether Amazon engages in anti-competitive behavior, that's another discussion, not really relevant to this one.
EDIT: Just occurred to me .... what about giving away iTunes? I don't mean just the program itself. Apple has proclaimed more than once that it breaks even on iTunes operations. But that's ok for them as long as this leads to more device sales. Is this dumping too? Is this dramatically different from, dare I say, Google's MO?
Yes, it's dramatically different, and I'm surprised I would even need to explain this. Giving away software as a means to allow people to buy content from your store and to support devices you sell is not the same at all as giving away software and services at a loss in a new market to leverage yourself in on the strength of your profits in another entirely different industry sector.
I don't know ... seriously. I need to look up MO first, not to mention mixed metaphors. Keeping company with intellectual giants gives me so much homework ....
Yes, it would seem you do.
So, you're rejecting your entire argument? OK.
Not at all. But you like framing people's words in your context to score points in your own game. So feel free to believe that. But it's quite a weak riposte, as is your MO to undermine my understanding of MO.
Selling books is Amazon's core market, so, it isn't the same as leveraging your dominance and profits in one market to take over another. As to whether Amazon engages in anti-competitive behavior, that's another discussion, not really relevant to this one.
See above
Yes, it's dramatically different, and I'm surprised I would even need to explain this. Giving away software as a means to allow people to buy content from your store and to support devices you sell is not the same at all as giving away software and services at a loss in a new market to leverage yourself in on the strength of your profits in another entirely different industry sector.
See above.
You see it as *dramatically* different so as to justify your arguments, allow no room for an alternative view, and try to sell your perspective with run-on sentences. It's an effective approach when your rationale is sound, which does happen from time to time. But, like in this case, when your premise is not the only viable perspective (or perhaps even a supportable one), it just sounds shaky all over. I'm sure someone will buy it. How many of them are unbiased observers without a pre-determined bias of Schmidt or Apple?
No need to answer. I will wait until you post one of your more reasonable points before engaging. This is just silly and no longer fun.
Is it illegal to win in the US now? What a strange place.
Nope, it's still legal. Charlie Sheen is cruising along quite well.
Agreed!
Well, at&t "won" the telephone market way-back-when and I don't think anyone still thinks that was good for consumers and the country. Some technologies and services simply cannot be dominated and controlled by a single corporation. Human nature being what it is makes corruption and exploitation inevitable in such situations.
Google's Chairman is trying to get out of an Anti-Trust probe on Google by citing that Siri threatens their Monopoly; and therefore competition is safe.
It's a joke of an argument.
Well, this is the BUSINESS world after all.
On the stock market and to the press; you claim to be a mighty monopoly that is taking the world by storm.
In front of the IRS or a congressional hearing -- you are just a poor competitor in danger of getting your butt kicked.
>> Either Google's chairman was lying or ignorant last week, or he is lying or enlightened today. It think it's a little of both.
He was probably a bit cocky and speaking "marketing" a little while ago. But when his teenage daughter uses Siri and says; "Text message my friend Martha that 'LOL, I was scoping out the beefcake.'" --- he realizes that perhaps, Google may be the king of an empire that is in trouble.
The paradigm might have shifted when a lot of people realized that Siri really is a working and useful AI and speech to text implementation, and not just marketing hype.
Will it REALLY replace Google's ad revenue in a serious way -- I really doubt it and so does Google's executive here. Using a voice command every now and then to get something done is NOT going to replace the huge amount of time people use a search engine like Google to research. It's something that is really great when you are driving a car, at a party, or watching TV (spoiler alert for Apple TV) -- but not something that replaces the bulk of our computer usage of web search.
>> However, it makes the Android phone look long in the tooth before the next model comes out.
Surprisingly off topic.
That was the best you could do? I explain why your nonsequitur was off base because you do not understand who Google's customer is from a competition standpoint, and that is the best you can do?
Seriously?
Most of the people here aren't seeing Schmidt's point. By using Siri people are bypassing the ads that google serves up which is Google's main moneymaker. The fact that siri uses google for data is immaterial.
Exactly, and it's the same with apps. Apple is bypassing Google's entire business model. To paraphrase another well known saying on AI, 'Google is doomed'. However correct Schmidt is, I agree with many here his motives for saying this are self serving. In fact he may not actually believe it.
Is that what Eric wants?
I'm always amazed when people make derogatory comments about elected officials. Seems like the bigger the landslide defeat the louder they critize. It is not like he is any different than last time he was governor. The voters knew full well what they were getting.
Democracy has its advantages and disadvantages. Unfortunately for Repulicans, mostly disadvantages because they are in the minority.
Mmm.....
The nickname was coined by Mike Royko, the famed Chicago columnist, who in 1976 said that Mr. Brown appeared to be attracting ?the moonbeam vote,? which in Chicago political parlance meant young, idealistic and nontraditional.
The term had a nice California feel, and Mr. Royko eventually began applying it when he wrote about the Golden State?s young, idealistic and nontraditional chief executive. He found endless amusement ? and sometimes outright agita ? in California?s oddities, calling the state ?the world?s largest outdoor mental asylum.?
?If it babbles and its eyeballs are glazed,? he noted in April 1979, ?it probably comes from California.?
How Jerry Brown Became ?Governor Moonbeam?
and...
California Gov. Jerry Brown is vetoing legislation requiring police to obtain a court warrant to search the mobile phones of suspects at the time of any arrest.
The Sunday veto means that when police arrest anybody in the Golden State, they may search that person?s mobile phone ? which in the digital age likely means the contents of persons? e-mail, call records, text messages, photos, banking activity, cloud-storage services, and even where the phone has traveled.
Police across the country are given wide latitude to search persons incident to an arrest based on the premise of officer safety. Now the nation?s states are beginning to grapple with the warrantless searches of mobile phones done at the time of an arrest.
Brown?s veto message abdicated responsibility for protecting the rights of Californians and ignored calls from civil liberties groups and this publication to sign the bill ? saying only that the issue is too complicated for him to make a decision about. He cites a recent California Supreme Court decision upholding the warrantless searches of people incident to an arrest. In his brief message, he also doesn?t say whether it?s a good idea or not.
...
In 2007, there were 332,000 felony arrests in California alone ? a third of which did not result in conviction.
Brown?s veto also shores up support with police unions and the Peace Officers Research Association of California, a police union that opposed the legislation and recently donated $38,900 to Brown?s campaign coffers. ?Restricting the authority of a peace officer to search an arrestee unduly restricts their ability to apply the law, fight crime, discover evidence valuable to an investigation and protect the citizens of California,? the association said in a message.
That support would be key if Brown decides to seek a second term.
In the last year alone, at least seven police unions donated more than $12,900 each to Brown. Those unions, including the California Association of Highway Patrolmen and the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff?s Association, had given Brown more than $160,000 in combined contributions.
Calif. Governor Veto Allows Warrantless Cellphone Searches
FWIW, I've lived in California since 1950 (except the years 1964-1972 and 1989-2001) My parents lived in Pasadena 1951-2003. My daughter and her family in the Bay Area 1973-present.
I have had the privilege ? of experiencing the reign of Governors:
Earl Warren
Goodwin Jess Knight (Goodie was married in the house behind my parent's Pasadena home)
Edmund Gerald "Pat" Brown, Sr.
Ronald Reagan
Edmund Gerald "Jerry" Brown, Jr. - The Linda Ronstat era
George Deukmejian
Pete Wilson
Joseph Graham "Gray" Davis
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Edmund Gerald "Jerry" Brown, Jr.
IMO, This time around, "Moonbeam" is doing many things right -- especially reining in the profligate State spending.
Siri could probably answer the senators' questions more straight-forwardly than Schmidt.
...and more believably and accurately...
IMO, This time around, "Moonbeam" is doing many things right -- especially reining in the profligate State spending.
If you approve of his policies , why propagate the negative nickname?
Hmmm... Not arguing against your whole post but we _did_ "vote them in"... with our dollars (or in this case, eyeballs which amounts to the same thing)! In fact we can "vote them out" in the same way... by not giving them our eyeballs / dollars.
And that's why they're not a monopoly. Because we do still have viable choices (both Bing and Yahoo work well enough that if you were upset at google you could start using those).
To me, this is just big government trying to control the private market even more than they already do... and I bet that if you were to trace the money you might find one of their competitors had a hand in "influencing" the government representatives involved...
Not correct because you are looking at this as if you are the end user. Companies that utilize Google's services that pays Google's bills have little to no alternatives. If you want an online advertising campaign you WILL be dealing with Google even if you utilize a third party because that third party will be going to Google. That is what makes it a monopoly. Doesn't matter if there are other search engines. Look at Microsoft. It was deemed a monopoly and there were other OS's available in the market.
To all those accusing Google of copying Apple, consider this:
Did Apple copy Google (and many others) by entering the Cloud computing field?
Did Apple copy Google with its iOS5 notification scheme?
Did Apple copy Google by adding speech recognition (even if they executed it better)?
It's a slippery slope.
1) Nope since Apple was doing some form of cloud computing before Google even existed. Apple was one of the first companies to do networked computing.
2) Debatable since a similar notification system was in the jailbreak community around the time the G1 came out.
3) Nope since Apple had voice activation and commands in its computers before the iPhone was released.
So *what if* is meaningless if postulated by others, but not by you?
If you want to believe someone doesn't understand MO in order to score a point, go ahead. That really doesn't bother me. According to Dr. David, I also don't know what a mixed metaphor is, I am either some kind of idiot or the debating skills around here are reduced to .... sophomoric levels
As for whether Google is *dumping* and being anti-competitive, as mentioned above, it is an interesting perspective. Is Amazon dumping too by selling the Fire (maybe the other Kindles too) at a loss? I don't know ... seriously.
EDIT: Just occurred to me .... what about giving away iTunes? I don't mean just the program itself. Apple has proclaimed more than once that it breaks even on iTunes operations. But that's ok for them as long as this leads to more device sales. Is this dumping too? Is this dramatically different from, dare I say, Google's MO? I don't know ... seriously. I need to look up MO first, not to mention mixed metaphors. Keeping company with intellectual giants gives me so much homework ....
Dumping is a tricky issue and I personally would be loathe to outright accuse Google of doing it because it depends on the overall business plan. If the plan is to give away or sell a product/service at a minuscule price solely to drive others out of the market in order to turn around and raise prices, then it is dumping. If the company is providing a service/product at reduced prices in order to make it up in sales in a related product/service then it is legitimate.
It's supposed to + shut up = choke on your own snot bubble.
As for whether Google is *dumping* and being anti-competitive, as mentioned above, it is an interesting perspective. Is Amazon dumping too by selling the Fire (maybe the other Kindles too) at a loss?
Is Amazon selling any model of Kindle at a loss? Reviewers don't think so. Amazon might not be making money on the hardware, but they're not believed to be losing money either. By no stretch is Amazon giving away Kindles.
EDIT: Just occurred to me .... what about giving away iTunes? I don't mean just the program itself. Apple has proclaimed more than once that it breaks even on iTunes operations. But that's ok for them as long as this leads to more device sales. Is this dumping too?
It might be dumping if Apple gave away much iTunes media, but they don't. In fact, Apple charges for almost all products and services.
Now, for what products and services does Google charge? Almost nothing. With a monopoly on web ads, anything else that Google gives away for free could be suspect for dumping.
You're absolutely right, of course - rights are important. That brings up an example I have cited here before: iBooks, which looks like Delicious Library. The developer of that latter certainly felt his rights were violated, and did not receive recognition or compensation from Apple: http://twitter.com/#!/wilshipley/status/8289716016
What's my point? Very simple - Apple is hardly merely a victim when it comes to willful violation of IP rights. Sometimes, they buy their way out of it after the fact. Sometimes, they don't even bother.
If Wil Shipley, founder of OmniGroup and later Delicious Monster had a real beef he'd do more than just tweet about it. He has a connective history going back to doing an internship at NeXT while at the University of Washington.
Tim Wood's and the rest at OmniGroup had a falling out with him and there is no f'n way Wil's work is being intellectually violated and he's not filing an IP Lawsuit. He's been a NeXT developer and later an Apple early Cocoa developer long before most even heard of Cocoa.
If he's that inept it's no wonder he's no longer the CEO of OmniGroup.
"My statement was clearly wrong," he said. "Apple?s Siri is a significant development?a voice-activated means of accessing answers through iPhones that demonstrates the innovations in search."
What a weasel-y, self-serving statement.
Was he dissembling then, or is he dissembling now?
If Wil Shipley, founder of OmniGroup and later Delicious Monster had a real beef he'd do more than just tweet about it. He has a connective history going back to doing an internship at NeXT while at the University of Washington.
Tim Wood's and the rest at OmniGroup had a falling out with him and there is no f'n way Wil's work is being intellectually violated and he's not filing an IP Lawsuit. He's been a NeXT developer and later an Apple early Cocoa developer long before most even heard of Cocoa.
If he's that inept it's no wonder he's no longer the CEO of OmniGroup.
What's your point here beyond showing off your knowledge about someone inept?
Is Amazon selling any model of Kindle at a loss? Reviewers don't think so. Amazon might not be making money on the hardware, but they're not believed to be losing money either. By no stretch is Amazon giving away Kindles.
It might be dumping if Apple gave away much iTunes media, but they don't. In fact, Apple charges for almost all products and services.
Now, for what products and services does Google charge? Almost everything. With a monopoly on web ads, anything else that Google gives away for free could be suspect for dumping.
ITunes itself is a product and a service, and it's free. So is Safari! They are given away to sell devices, computers, ... Wasn't it that long ago that Microsoft was considered anti-competitive because they gave away IE while Netscape was trying make a business out of selling Navigator to businesses? It's been a while and memory fades, but I seem to recall something like that.
Further, Google Search and Gmail are also both free. Is that dumping as well? In that case, Microsoft is dumping too. So is Yahoo. So is Apple. Because of their *dumping*, can anyone generate meaningful revenue out of web-based email or search?
It ain't that simple.
If you approve of his policies , why propagate the negative nickname?
I don't approve of all of his policies... And the nickname is not necessarily negative...
Read my post!
ITunes itself is a product and a service, and it's free.
How useful is iTunes without Apple hardware or an iTMS media purchase?
So is Safari! They are given away to sell devices, computers, ...
Why use Safari if you don't have a Mac or don't use fee-based MobileMe/iCloud services?
Wasn't it that long ago that Microsoft was considered anti-competitive because they gave away IE while Netscape was trying make a business out of selling Navigator to businesses?
Yup, and the same laws and rules apply to Google and everyone else.
Further, Google Search and Gmail are also both free.
Yup, just like most Google products and services. We've basically been over this.
Is that dumping as well?
Could be!
In that case, Microsoft is dumping too. So is Yahoo. So is Apple. Because of their *dumping*, can anyone generate meaningful revenue out of web-based email or search?
It ain't that simple.
Except in Google's case, it's simple.
I don't approve of all of his policies... And the nickname is not necessarily negative...
Read my post!
Well I am back to my original position. If you voted for Meg, Meg isn't here. You need to wait until next time for another chance to get your preferred candidate elected. It is not so much about the individual, it is more about the party. It is us or them and nothing in between no matter which side you are on.