No one is denying that android post iPhone was inspired by the iPhone. Also Android looked like a BBOS well into the end of 2007 but nice try.
My point was Google had plans to enter the phone business independent of Apple's plans
Android in 2005 is not the same as Android OS that came out in 2008. There are many ways in which Google could have used that mobile OS. From vending machines to in-car systems and so on. What proof do you have that Google bought Android with plans to use it as a phone OS back in 2005. I have seen none. What I have seen is Google switch Android's focus on many occasions to suit various changes in the market. They even locked down Android at one point. Not exactly a well honed idea they are working with.
Independent of Apple or not, I think it was a mistake to use so many resources (money, talent and time) for eyeballs (which is how Google makes its money) that would most likely been there regardless with much less effort.
Time will tell. 2012 is the first full year of Larry Page CEO. We'll see if he continues to streamline and focus Google.
Better question is, respond to the question at hand. You claim Google is making money hand over fist (clever way of monetization) on Android. I claim it is a financial disaster.
Hand over fist? Trying the old desperate trick of putting words into someone's mouth and then attacking them?
Financial disaster? Hardly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
It is well established that Larry Page bought Android with out discussing it with the CEO of the company (then Eric S.) or his co-founder (S. Brin).
Well established? Hardly. This is based on anecdotes. Yes, the anecdotes are from Google itself. But people here seem to think Google executives are dishonest SOBs. Why believe them when it suits your purpose? If one understands how corporate acquisitions are carried out, one would understand that it didn't happen as simply as Brin or Page just proceeding without anyone else knowing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
It is well established that Google makes more mobile revenue off of iOS than Android.
Again, this is a reasonable extrapolation but hardly well established. You really need to fact-check. But why bother if it does not suit your thesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
It is well established Google has put between 12-15 billion into Android.
Like hell it is. You throw the words "well established" around like it is bottled water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
They are a one trick pony and worse they view every thing through that single pony. From Android to ChromeOS everything they do, Google ties into the one trick pony. Given DuckDuckGo (a 1 man band for the most part) kicks Google's a$$ on search, what happens when more people learn there are much better options for search.
Search. Mobile OS. AI-based navigation system. Google+. Are these all counted as one trick? Oh you're talking about the fact that they monetize all of them from selling ads? In that case, Apple is a one-trick pony because they make money mostly from manufacturing goods and selling them for a profit. Stupid Apple - just a pathetic one-trick pony regardless of how many iDevices and Macbooks it produces. Same old, same old. Just repeating same old trick of designing and selling computers and devices year after year, decade after decade. Someone needs to save Apple before it's too late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
Given I have OSes I have written orbiting the Earth, I can comment.
Spaced out, circular logic indeed.
If you want to keep spouting that Google is stupid and evil on all counts, go ahead. For your sake, I really hope you're just acting intransigent because you think it gives the appearance of intelligence, and don't actually believe everything you write.
Hand over fist? Trying the old desperate trick of putting words into someone's mouth and then attacking them?
Financial disaster? Hardly
Well established? Hardly. This is based on anecdotes. Yes, the anecdotes are from Google itself. But people here seem to think Google executives are dishonest SOBs. Why believe them when it suits your purpose? If one understands how corporate acquisitions are carried out, one would understand that it didn't happen as simply as Brin or Page just proceeding without anyone else knowing.
Again, this is a reasonable extrapolation but hardly well established. You really need to fact-check. But why bother if it does not suit your thesis.
Like hell it is. You throw the words "well established" around like it is bottled water.
Actually, we don't know that. It's one of the most misunderstood and most extrapolated factoid this year. But we all hear what we want to hear, and it's not, on the surface, an unreasonable stretch.
And given it matches well with web utilization stats, it makes sense. I am sure you believe what you want to in spite of data.
So you've never used a Google service, then? Their search has ads. Their e-mail has ads. Their video service has ads. Their maps have ads. I think their documents thing even has ads. They exist primarily to BE an ad.
The awesome stuff that comes off of their main business (the translation, self-driving cars, etc.) are the GOOD parts of Google.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
Have you used Google's search recently. Bombarded is a good term. Cluttered is another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
Are you one of those that believe that the entire iPhone was put together in a matter of days? I would guess several years from initial concept to demonstration meaning the iPhone/iPad projects had their genesis in 2003 to 2004.
If Apple did the iPhone in just a few days, your statement of Google going down Android path before anyone had even heard of the iPhone has merit.
If Apple actually spent several years developing the software, hardware, getting contracts in line, certification from FCC and UL and CE, documentation then your beliefe that Google started down the Android path before the iPhone was envisioned is just all wet.
Given the polish of the first iPhone and given I have worked on engineering projects for 25+ years, I am guessing your thought process is all wet.
NOTE: In 2005 Apple had to decide on going down a Linux based phone path or a shrunk OS X path. Senior VP Tony Fadell had this to say on Linux/iOS:
?I inherited the competitive iPhone OS project from Jon Rubenstein and Steve Sakoman when they left Apple. I quickly shuttered the project after assessing that a modified Mac OS was the right platform to build the iPhone upon. It was clear that to create the best smartphone product possible, we needed to leverage the decades of technology, tools and resources invested in Mac OS while avoiding the unnecessary competition of dueling projects.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Android in 2005 is not the same as Android OS that came out in 2008. There are many ways in which Google could have used that mobile OS. From vending machines to in-car systems and so on. What proof do you have that Google bought Android with plans to use it as a phone OS back in 2005. I have seen none. What I have seen is Google switch Android's focus on many occasions to suit various changes in the market. They even locked down Android at one point. Not exactly a well honed idea they are working with.
No I'm using an extreme example of why his/her logic is flawed.
According to GTR it is up to her/him to provide evidence that what I said is incorrect.
Also...don't quote mine me if what you quote skews my point. It's another dishonest tactic in debates especially on an internet forum.
That's not an extreme example. It's a personal attack. There are literally thousands of other negatives you can't disprove that would have worked as an example, but you went right for the 'you molest boys and girls' for the attack value.
As for not quoting 'mine me', I cut it down to the part I found in bad taste. I'm not going to quote 2 pages of an online discussion just to get to your insult to another board member, the insult itself is enough.
Have you used Google's search recently. Bombarded is a good term. Cluttered is another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So you've never used a Google service, then? Their search has ads. Their e-mail has ads. Their video service has ads. Their maps have ads. I think their documents thing even has ads. They exist primarily to BE an ad.
The awesome stuff that comes off of their main business (the translation, self-driving cars, etc.) are the GOOD parts of Google.
I guess we have vastly different definitions of "bombard"
That's not an extreme example. It's a personal attack. There are literally thousands of other negatives you can't disprove that would have worked as an example, but you went right for the 'you molest boys and girls' for the attack value.
As for not quoting 'mine me', I cut it down to the part I found in bad taste. I'm not going to quote 2 pages of an online discussion just to get to your insult to another board member, the insult itself is enough.
If you're offended, do something about it. I use shock-worthy tactics to get my points across. If you want to cry about it being a veiled personal attack and not an undeniable proof of GTRs faulty logic then that's on you.
Hand over fist? Trying the old desperate trick of putting words into someone's mouth and then attacking them?
Financial disaster? Hardly
Yes. Billions out and 100's of million in. You claim Google has found a clever way to monetize Android. I claim it is a money sink. MMI's purchase. Android's purchase. IBM Patent purchases. The list goes on. Yes I own both AAPL and GOOG. I am glad to see Larry reigning in many of the Google projects and getting some focus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
Well established? Hardly. This is based on anecdotes. Yes, the anecdotes are from Google itself.
Don't you mean Google's CEO? Yes, it is well established.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
Again, this is a reasonable extrapolation but hardly well established. You really need to fact-check. But why bother if it does not suit your thesis.
Again, you choose not believe the published on the record data when it does not hold to your world view. Unless you are saying Google will lie to the Senate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
Like hell it is. You throw the words "well established" around like it is bottled water.
Touched a nerve? You don't like adding up all those financials do you? Might hurt your world view. Add what Google has been paying to try and protect Android and see where you get. It is a big number. Really really big.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
Search. Mobile OS. AI-based navigation system. Google+. Are these all counted as one trick? Oh you're talking about the fact that they monetize all of them from selling ads?
Yep. One trick. Are you telling me Google lies on their financials (and to Senate committees)?
MobileOS? What is the monetization?
Google+? What is the monetization?
Google Nav (hardly AI based)? What is the monetization?
Google Search? Dude, that is the cash cow. The rest is like Apple's iTunes revenue. Small.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
If you want to keep spouting that Google is stupid and evil on all counts, go ahead. For your sake, I really hope you're just acting intransigent because you think it gives the appearance of intelligence, and don't actually believe everything you write.
And you can worship everything Google does as unfettered brillance. Do I think Google is Evil? Since they did Google Books and the wholesale copyright theft of millions of works HELL YES. As evil and BP and the most corrupt of oil companies. I have no idea how Larry Page thought Google Books was even remotely legal, ethical, right or a good idea.
Stupid on all accounts? Nope. They have an amazing search technology. They had great fast follower status on Android but I think they have made some very serious legal/financial missteps that have cost them dearly financially and will continue to cost them for years to come.
And yes, I have used Android quiet a bit. Has some nice aspects. Has lots of not nice aspects.
iOS has lots of nice aspects. it has some not nice aspects.
If you're offended, do something about it. I use shock-worthy tactics to get my points across. If you want to cry about it being a veiled personal attack and not an undeniable proof of GTRs faulty logic then that's on you.
Very well then, let's shift the burden of proof: you disprove the theory that Schmidt took iPhone knowledge to Google to the Android project. No cop outs that it's circumstantial, that it took 2 years, etc. Prove, in painstaking details, how and why Eric Schmidt could not have possibly taken insider information to Google about the iPhone.
See, you can't win that side of the argument either.
Very well then, let's shift the burden of proof: you disprove the theory that Schmidt took iPhone knowledge to Google to the Android project. No cop outs that it's circumstantial, that it took 2 years, etc. Prove, in painstaking details, how and why Eric Schmidt could not have possibly taken insider information to Google about the iPhone.
See, you can't win that side of the argument either.
Great idea for a courtroom ploy!
Defendant:
"Your honor, let's shift the burden of proof and disprove the theory the prosecuting attorney did it"
Why doesn't everyone have adblock? Seriously. No ads. Ever!
Indeed. I remember a few years back being confused at seeing people complain on YouTube that they had to watch ads before the video actually played. Not to mention the pop-up ads during the videos.
I've had Click2Flash and AdBlock since they were first available, so I never knew that was the case.
The burden of proof is always on those making a claim not those who deny a claim made without evidence and even in the face of contradictory evidence.
While I understand it's hard to prove/disprove a negative or non-facts/perceptions; you could help your cause with some(more?) published facts/timelines etc(contradictory evidence). Granted I skimmed these through these posts... So if contradictory evidence was given I apologize.
Comments
I believe you're off topic.
No one is denying that android post iPhone was inspired by the iPhone. Also Android looked like a BBOS well into the end of 2007 but nice try.
My point was Google had plans to enter the phone business independent of Apple's plans
Android in 2005 is not the same as Android OS that came out in 2008. There are many ways in which Google could have used that mobile OS. From vending machines to in-car systems and so on. What proof do you have that Google bought Android with plans to use it as a phone OS back in 2005. I have seen none. What I have seen is Google switch Android's focus on many occasions to suit various changes in the market. They even locked down Android at one point. Not exactly a well honed idea they are working with.
Maybe ConradJoe will have some insights for us.
Independent of Apple or not, I think it was a mistake to use so many resources (money, talent and time) for eyeballs (which is how Google makes its money) that would most likely been there regardless with much less effort.
Time will tell. 2012 is the first full year of Larry Page CEO. We'll see if he continues to streamline and focus Google.
Better question is, respond to the question at hand. You claim Google is making money hand over fist (clever way of monetization) on Android. I claim it is a financial disaster.
Hand over fist? Trying the old desperate trick of putting words into someone's mouth and then attacking them?
Financial disaster? Hardly
It is well established that Larry Page bought Android with out discussing it with the CEO of the company (then Eric S.) or his co-founder (S. Brin).
Well established? Hardly. This is based on anecdotes. Yes, the anecdotes are from Google itself. But people here seem to think Google executives are dishonest SOBs. Why believe them when it suits your purpose? If one understands how corporate acquisitions are carried out, one would understand that it didn't happen as simply as Brin or Page just proceeding without anyone else knowing.
It is well established that Google makes more mobile revenue off of iOS than Android.
Again, this is a reasonable extrapolation but hardly well established. You really need to fact-check. But why bother if it does not suit your thesis.
It is well established Google has put between 12-15 billion into Android.
Like hell it is. You throw the words "well established" around like it is bottled water.
They are a one trick pony and worse they view every thing through that single pony. From Android to ChromeOS everything they do, Google ties into the one trick pony. Given DuckDuckGo (a 1 man band for the most part) kicks Google's a$$ on search, what happens when more people learn there are much better options for search.
Search. Mobile OS. AI-based navigation system. Google+. Are these all counted as one trick? Oh you're talking about the fact that they monetize all of them from selling ads? In that case, Apple is a one-trick pony because they make money mostly from manufacturing goods and selling them for a profit. Stupid Apple - just a pathetic one-trick pony regardless of how many iDevices and Macbooks it produces. Same old, same old. Just repeating same old trick of designing and selling computers and devices year after year, decade after decade. Someone needs to save Apple before it's too late.
Given I have OSes I have written orbiting the Earth, I can comment.
Spaced out, circular logic indeed.
If you want to keep spouting that Google is stupid and evil on all counts, go ahead. For your sake, I really hope you're just acting intransigent because you think it gives the appearance of intelligence, and don't actually believe everything you write.
Sigh ...
You molest little boys and girls.
Prove.
Me.
Wrong.
Doesn't a post like this violate the user agreement?
Hand over fist? Trying the old desperate trick of putting words into someone's mouth and then attacking them?
Financial disaster? Hardly
Well established? Hardly. This is based on anecdotes. Yes, the anecdotes are from Google itself. But people here seem to think Google executives are dishonest SOBs. Why believe them when it suits your purpose? If one understands how corporate acquisitions are carried out, one would understand that it didn't happen as simply as Brin or Page just proceeding without anyone else knowing.
Again, this is a reasonable extrapolation but hardly well established. You really need to fact-check. But why bother if it does not suit your thesis.
Like hell it is. You throw the words "well established" around like it is bottled water.
http://9to5mac.com/2011/09/21/google...om-apples-ios/
This link shows where the 2/3s statement comes from which was part of sworn testimony in front of a government body.
Doesn't a post like this violate the user agreement?
No.. I'm pointing out his/her faulty logic.
The burden of proof is always on those making a claim not those who deny a claim made without evidence and even in the face of contradictory evidence.
And looked like the BlackBerry OS until January 9, 2007, I believe is what he's saying. He's not being very clear about it.
Actually... we don't know what Android looked like back then.
Android Beta wasn't revealed until November 2007... 10 months after the iPhone. And it still looked like Blackberry OS.
I have a feeling Google will never show a timeline of photos of Android's development.
No.. I'm pointing out his/her faulty logic.
The burden of proof is always on those making a claim not those who deny a claim made without evidence and even in the face of contradictory evidence.
Actually, you're disguising a personal attack as a 'lesson'. Nothing more, nothing less.
Actually, we don't know that. It's one of the most misunderstood and most extrapolated factoid this year. But we all hear what we want to hear, and it's not, on the surface, an unreasonable stretch.
And given it matches well with web utilization stats, it makes sense. I am sure you believe what you want to in spite of data.
Actually, you're disguising a personal attack as a 'lesson'. Nothing more, nothing less.
No I'm using an extreme example of why his/her logic is flawed.
According to GTR it is up to her/him to provide evidence that what I said is incorrect.
Also...don't quote mine me if what you quote skews my point. It's another dishonest tactic in debates especially on an internet forum.
So you've never used a Google service, then? Their search has ads. Their e-mail has ads. Their video service has ads. Their maps have ads. I think their documents thing even has ads. They exist primarily to BE an ad.
The awesome stuff that comes off of their main business (the translation, self-driving cars, etc.) are the GOOD parts of Google.
Have you used Google's search recently. Bombarded is a good term. Cluttered is another.
Are you one of those that believe that the entire iPhone was put together in a matter of days? I would guess several years from initial concept to demonstration meaning the iPhone/iPad projects had their genesis in 2003 to 2004.
If Apple did the iPhone in just a few days, your statement of Google going down Android path before anyone had even heard of the iPhone has merit.
If Apple actually spent several years developing the software, hardware, getting contracts in line, certification from FCC and UL and CE, documentation then your beliefe that Google started down the Android path before the iPhone was envisioned is just all wet.
Given the polish of the first iPhone and given I have worked on engineering projects for 25+ years, I am guessing your thought process is all wet.
NOTE: In 2005 Apple had to decide on going down a Linux based phone path or a shrunk OS X path. Senior VP Tony Fadell had this to say on Linux/iOS:
?I inherited the competitive iPhone OS project from Jon Rubenstein and Steve Sakoman when they left Apple. I quickly shuttered the project after assessing that a modified Mac OS was the right platform to build the iPhone upon. It was clear that to create the best smartphone product possible, we needed to leverage the decades of technology, tools and resources invested in Mac OS while avoiding the unnecessary competition of dueling projects.?
Android in 2005 is not the same as Android OS that came out in 2008. There are many ways in which Google could have used that mobile OS. From vending machines to in-car systems and so on. What proof do you have that Google bought Android with plans to use it as a phone OS back in 2005. I have seen none. What I have seen is Google switch Android's focus on many occasions to suit various changes in the market. They even locked down Android at one point. Not exactly a well honed idea they are working with.
Maybe ConradJoe will have some insights for us.
It was made as a mobile phone OS.
No I'm using an extreme example of why his/her logic is flawed.
According to GTR it is up to her/him to provide evidence that what I said is incorrect.
Also...don't quote mine me if what you quote skews my point. It's another dishonest tactic in debates especially on an internet forum.
That's not an extreme example. It's a personal attack. There are literally thousands of other negatives you can't disprove that would have worked as an example, but you went right for the 'you molest boys and girls' for the attack value.
As for not quoting 'mine me', I cut it down to the part I found in bad taste. I'm not going to quote 2 pages of an online discussion just to get to your insult to another board member, the insult itself is enough.
Nope, no bombardment of ads... unless you count the entire top half of the page results and the entire right side.
Have you used Google's search recently. Bombarded is a good term. Cluttered is another.
So you've never used a Google service, then? Their search has ads. Their e-mail has ads. Their video service has ads. Their maps have ads. I think their documents thing even has ads. They exist primarily to BE an ad.
The awesome stuff that comes off of their main business (the translation, self-driving cars, etc.) are the GOOD parts of Google.
I guess we have vastly different definitions of "bombard"
That's not an extreme example. It's a personal attack. There are literally thousands of other negatives you can't disprove that would have worked as an example, but you went right for the 'you molest boys and girls' for the attack value.
As for not quoting 'mine me', I cut it down to the part I found in bad taste. I'm not going to quote 2 pages of an online discussion just to get to your insult to another board member, the insult itself is enough.
If you're offended, do something about it. I use shock-worthy tactics to get my points across. If you want to cry about it being a veiled personal attack and not an undeniable proof of GTRs faulty logic then that's on you.
Hand over fist? Trying the old desperate trick of putting words into someone's mouth and then attacking them?
Financial disaster? Hardly
Yes. Billions out and 100's of million in. You claim Google has found a clever way to monetize Android. I claim it is a money sink. MMI's purchase. Android's purchase. IBM Patent purchases. The list goes on. Yes I own both AAPL and GOOG. I am glad to see Larry reigning in many of the Google projects and getting some focus.
Well established? Hardly. This is based on anecdotes. Yes, the anecdotes are from Google itself.
Don't you mean Google's CEO? Yes, it is well established.
Again, this is a reasonable extrapolation but hardly well established. You really need to fact-check. But why bother if it does not suit your thesis.
Again, you choose not believe the published on the record data when it does not hold to your world view. Unless you are saying Google will lie to the Senate.
Like hell it is. You throw the words "well established" around like it is bottled water.
Touched a nerve? You don't like adding up all those financials do you? Might hurt your world view. Add what Google has been paying to try and protect Android and see where you get. It is a big number. Really really big.
Search. Mobile OS. AI-based navigation system. Google+. Are these all counted as one trick? Oh you're talking about the fact that they monetize all of them from selling ads?
Yep. One trick. Are you telling me Google lies on their financials (and to Senate committees)?
MobileOS? What is the monetization?
Google+? What is the monetization?
Google Nav (hardly AI based)? What is the monetization?
Google Search? Dude, that is the cash cow. The rest is like Apple's iTunes revenue. Small.
If you want to keep spouting that Google is stupid and evil on all counts, go ahead. For your sake, I really hope you're just acting intransigent because you think it gives the appearance of intelligence, and don't actually believe everything you write.
And you can worship everything Google does as unfettered brillance. Do I think Google is Evil? Since they did Google Books and the wholesale copyright theft of millions of works HELL YES. As evil and BP and the most corrupt of oil companies. I have no idea how Larry Page thought Google Books was even remotely legal, ethical, right or a good idea.
Stupid on all accounts? Nope. They have an amazing search technology. They had great fast follower status on Android but I think they have made some very serious legal/financial missteps that have cost them dearly financially and will continue to cost them for years to come.
And yes, I have used Android quiet a bit. Has some nice aspects. Has lots of not nice aspects.
iOS has lots of nice aspects. it has some not nice aspects.
For usage, iOS is much more pleasant to use.
If you're offended, do something about it. I use shock-worthy tactics to get my points across. If you want to cry about it being a veiled personal attack and not an undeniable proof of GTRs faulty logic then that's on you.
Very well then, let's shift the burden of proof: you disprove the theory that Schmidt took iPhone knowledge to Google to the Android project. No cop outs that it's circumstantial, that it took 2 years, etc. Prove, in painstaking details, how and why Eric Schmidt could not have possibly taken insider information to Google about the iPhone.
See, you can't win that side of the argument either.
Very well then, let's shift the burden of proof: you disprove the theory that Schmidt took iPhone knowledge to Google to the Android project. No cop outs that it's circumstantial, that it took 2 years, etc. Prove, in painstaking details, how and why Eric Schmidt could not have possibly taken insider information to Google about the iPhone.
See, you can't win that side of the argument either.
Great idea for a courtroom ploy!
Defendant:
"Your honor, let's shift the burden of proof and disprove the theory the prosecuting attorney did it"
Nope, no bombardment of ads... unless you count the entire top half of the page results and the entire right side.
I have adblock, so I can't see what you're talking about.
Why doesn't everyone have adblock? Seriously. No ads. Ever!
Why doesn't everyone have adblock? Seriously. No ads. Ever!
Indeed. I remember a few years back being confused at seeing people complain on YouTube that they had to watch ads before the video actually played. Not to mention the pop-up ads during the videos.
I've had Click2Flash and AdBlock since they were first available, so I never knew that was the case.
No.. I'm pointing out his/her faulty logic.
The burden of proof is always on those making a claim not those who deny a claim made without evidence and even in the face of contradictory evidence.
While I understand it's hard to prove/disprove a negative or non-facts/perceptions; you could help your cause with some(more?) published facts/timelines etc(contradictory evidence). Granted I skimmed these through these posts... So if contradictory evidence was given I apologize.