Launch of Google Maps for iPhone viewed as a 'mixed blessing' for Apple

189101113

Comments

  • Reply 241 of 267
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


     


    The only real downside... and it might be a big one for some people... is that they both will give the government access to that info if formally requested.  Of course, the same goes for cell phone records from a phone company.  Or financial records from a bank.  Or airlines.  And so forth.



    In Google's case they investigate each request individually, and often refuse to comply with government requests for user information. We have no idea how many requests to turn over their user's private information are fielded by Apple or Microsoft nor how often they comply in full or part as neither appears willing to acknowledge it, much less discuss it. Google on the other hand wants us to take notice of the intrusion, publicly publishing statistics about government requests.


     


    http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/

  • Reply 242 of 267
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


     


    To be exact, Apple's Advertising Identifier API gives the following instructions to developers about the advertisingTrackingEnabled flag that the Settings feature changes:

     


    "Check the value of this [flag] before performing any advertising tracking. If the value is NO, use the advertising identifier only for the following purposes: frequency capping, conversion events, estimating the number of unique users, security and fraud detection, and debugging."


     


     


    It is in both Apple's and Google's interests to keep our info as safe and anonymous as possible.  It's how they make money off ad placement, after all.  In return, we get free apps and ads that target our interests.



    There's been almost no mention of it by Apple (for obvious reasons IMO), with one of the more insightful articles being posted by BusinessInsider:


    http://www.businessinsider.com/ifa-apples-iphone-tracking-in-ios-6-2012-10


     


    As the article points out it's better than what Apple used to allow up until a few months ago (tracking by UDID) and I've no issue with the new method myself.

  • Reply 243 of 267

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I think the entire Android strategy originally had Microsoft in the cross-hairs, not Apple.


     


    In my view Google had no original intent to make Apple a "competitor" and may still not. There was no goal of destroying iOS or creating an enemy. This was all about being the puppeteer rather than the puppet. In the desktop world MS was that puppeteer. Google simply wasn't willing to chance letting Apple make them dance on a string to see success in the fast-rising mobile space too. That's where the partnership soured, which was never a true partnership in the first place. Apple's aggressive play to call all the shots, be the unchallenged puppeteer in this new market rather than MS, didn't completely align with Google's interests but left no wiggle room. The only way the partnership was going to work was if Google was willing to serve as a major force at Apple's pleasure and under Apple's rules.


     


    So in my opinion Google never saw Apple as an enemy. They had a vision of where they wanted to be, which in some ways overlapped with Apple's own plans and made working alongside Apple attractive for both parties. But unless Google had been willing to put Apple in control of their companies vision it was never going work out long-term. It was almost assured that at some point Google was going to be called an enemy rather than a friend in Mr. Jobs view...   and that's the only one that counted to Apple. Google's interests were unimportant. The way I read it in hindsight, as far as Mr. Jobs was concerned it was Apple's destiny to finally be the big dog, the perceived leader of the tech world, rather than the hated Microsoft and Google could either follow on their coattails or move aside. It was never a partnership to Apple. Google was simply a service provider, and would eventually be kicked aside anyway if it was to Apple's benefit. 


     


    Anyway, that's the way I see it. With that said,I generally agree that where we are now may match up fairly close to the story of the last 2-3 years you're offered Macarena. That's not how it started out tho. Apple was never the enemy.



    The only part of what you are saying that I agree with, is the part about Android not originally targeting Apple.


     


    Android originally targeted not Microsoft, but Blackberry. The only player that was worth targeting back then, in the mobile space, was Blackberry.


     


    The very origin of the word Google (based on a play on Googol), and the motto "Don't be Evil", is a very clear indication of Google's ultimate ambition. Normal companies don't go around proclaiming that they will not be evil. No one even thinks of "not being evil". Right from its beginning, Google has had an extremely clear idea of its destiny, and has worked on making that vision a reality by every means possible. Right at the beginning, the founders might have realized that Google would be incredibly powerful, and must not misuse that power - hence the Don't be Evil. Over the years, this focus on Don't be Evil has been diluted significantly, and Google has make several major decisions that can easily be classified as Evil (to name a few, Google's u-turn on net neutrality in partnership with Verizon, their support of the "one bullet to kill" strategy of Motorola, Blatant misuse of their monopoly powers to disadvantage competition, etc). They have shown scant respect for literally anything that comes in the way of achieving that destiny. It is absolutely mind boggling how many times this company has been caught pushing the envelope of other people's rights, or music, or other digital inventory. In comparison to Google, Microsoft's transgressions come out looking "not so bad"!!


     


    Apple has never set out for world domination, or total control of everyone's information, or things like that. Apple's philosophy is quite simple - the best user experience comes about when there is a tight integration between hardware and software. Customers benefit when there is a reliable and easy to use ecosystem that they can use, without worrying about how to make things work. To keep this ecosystem safe, certain restrictions need to be in place - especially against the types of misuse companies like Google indulge in shamelessly. None of Apple's restrictions are specifically targeted against Google - they are just guidelines they have incorporated to create the best possible environment for the user. Even when you look at pricing, the intelligent consumer knows that the iPhone is a lot cheaper than the Android devices - even though the upfront cost of the device is higher, you get updates for 2-3 years, because of which your phone does not get outdated for a long time. And for the same reason, Apple's phones retain their resale value a lot better than Android devices. The build quality is so good, that the phones last way longer than Android devices - after 3 years, my old 3GS still works beautifully - just that the battery barely manages to last one day of use!


     


    Google on the other hand has operated extremely dangerously. Does any sane person believe Google's defense that they collected WiFi data unintentionally? Or unintentionally bypassed privacy/security settings in Safari? These are just the things Google has been caught doing - who knows what else Google is doing that never sees the light of the day? Are we only going to wake up and understand Google when it is too late? All of Google's actions have been planned with a single motive - of controlling all the ways people access information, finding out everything possible about people's digital lives. There is nothing altruistic about anything Google does. Their DNS solution allows them to see what sites you visit, even if you never search on Google to visit that site. Their auto complete in search lets them see everything you are searching for, even if you changed your mind and never completed that search. At the scale at which Google is doing it, they can probably tell you more about yourself than you yourself can!


     


    You say Google does not consider Apple as an enemy - considering Google's actions in connection with Apple, as well as the way Google has operated in other contexts, I don't think Google looks at anyone as friends or enemies - they are all means to achieve Google's objectives or hindrances in achieving Google's objectives. The classic case is the turn around with Verizon - when an enemy was converted into a friend! 


     


    The 1984 commercial was looked upon as an Apple vs IBM commercial. But a reprisal of that ad targeting Google would probably be even more relevant today than it was in 1984. Google is pretty much the closest thing we have to Big Brother - much more so than IBM ever was. And Google's business plans are also very dangerous - Seemingly free, but in reality much more expensive than you realize. Imagine a situation where someone wants to sign up for Google Apps - it is no longer free, and it costs $5 per user per month. Once you pay $5 per user per month can you be assured that Google will not snoop around your data and will not use your data to profile you to target ads from other Google services? Considering Google's track record, can we even trust Google, even if they explicitly declare that they will not snoop your data?


     


    It is not that Google's vision overlapped with Apple's vision. Google's ambition and goals are so big that pretty much any other ecosystem would be a threat to Google. Contrary to what you are saying, Jobs always positioned Apple as "if you can't afford it, its not for you". Apple and Jobs have never indicated any interest in becoming big dog. Even today, if Apple wanted to do that, there are several initiatives they can start, to become a lot bigger in market share. They need not focus on 38% margins. They can release products at multiple price points and not leave any room for the competition. If anything, Jobs and Apple probably realized that they would attract a lot of unwanted anti-trust attention if they had too much market share, and have focused on making more money from a smaller portion of the market.


     


    Your comments are so disingenuous, it is hard to think that you actually believe what you write - it is almost like you are writing everything you can, just to paint Google in a better light than it is, and to paint Apple in a worse light. Some of your statements are too blatantly ridiculous, to justify any other opinion!

  • Reply 244 of 267

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    A citation earlier this year put the revenue that Apple got from Google searches last year at just over $1B.


    http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-google-pays-apple-for-search-on-the-iphone-2012-3



     


    This Macquarie analyst has it completely wrong. This is not how Traffic Acquisition costs work at Google. It is not that Google pays Apple some percentage of the revenue that accrues because of Apple. Google's entire Traffic Acquisition costs consists of 2 components - One large annual payment to Apple, and another sizable annual payment to the Mozilla Foundation. And a few insignificant payments to a few other ecosystems. None of these payments are related to actual revenue figures.


     


    I think a similar report next year will show a significantly higher TAC for Google - because of dramatically higher payment made to Apple. Ultimately, Google wants to control its TAC - that is the reason why Google has stopped supporting the Mozilla Foundation, and instead put its weight behind the Chrome Browser. Google does not have to pay anyone anything to keep Google as the default browser on Chrome.


     


    If you look at Google's older reports, the TAC actually was quite insignificant till the iPhone came along. The iPhone was the first time Google had to pay for Traffic Acquisition - and that is when Google decided to take on Apple, and compete against the iPhone with Android.


     


    And when people realize how much Google is paying Apple, you don't want to be owning Google shares! People keep wondering (including Eric Schmidt), why Apple is not suing Google directly over Android. The largest Android player just had to pay $1B for infringing Apple's IP. Why should Apple spend money on a lawsuit with Google, when they are getting back almost all the money Google makes from the iPhone? How much more can Apple get from a lawsuit against Google? But mark my words, the thermonuclear war will happen - what we have seen so far is nothing - and in fact, some of Apple's weapons for the thermonuclear war are already well known and public - just that no one thinks of these as weapons against Google.

  • Reply 245 of 267
    rogifan wrote: »
    I'm not talking about the AppStore. I'm talking about a native app that comes with the phone. The original maps app and original youtube app had no Google branding.

    Yes, they did, in the corner. Some of the developer rules even used to forbid covering such branding.
  • Reply 246 of 267
    hill60 wrote: »
    vaelian wrote: »
    Nobody needs to; Apple deserves all the criticism since they effectively removed Google Maps from iOS to replace it with their own solution, meaning they are expected to perform at least as well as Google Maps did everywhere. Apple put themselves in such a position, they only have themselves to blame for it. Google didn't replace anything, they never put themselves in a position that would lead people to expect their solution to be better than anyone else's.

    So they should retain the same errors Google maps has?

    Last time I checked, "at least" didn't mean "exactly". Only a retard like you could have such terms confused.
  • Reply 247 of 267
    solipsismx wrote: »
    His argument is completely warped.

    Or perhaps you are a retard...

    solipsismx wrote: »
    I'd like to hear him argue for IE for Mac over Apple creating Safari. Sure, WebKit is the most popular browser engine now, thanks to Apple, but back when they made the switch it wasn't natively supported by sites and most sites still focused on IE's layout with about 80%(?) marketshare. If his argument holds then Apple shouldn't have ever replaced IE unless it could "perform at least as well as Google Maps did everywhere."

    Your retard analogy is flawed; IE for Mac was never a first-party application, so Apple stopping its distribution never caused it to become unavailable.

    Shouldn't you be learning about operating systems since the last thread, by the way?
  • Reply 248 of 267
    solipsismx wrote: »
    That wasn't his argument. He clearly stated "perform at least as well as Google Maps did everywhere." Does Safari perform as well as IE for Mac everywhere? Of course not. As someone who has built browser engines by yourself — or are you just claiming to have built an app around an existing engine? — you should know that you can't make it exactly the same if the backend (in regards to mapping) or the engine (in regards to a browser) is different without an excessive amount of effort. It's only since WebKit has taken hold that we've seen a good deal of uniformity in functionality and layouts for the webpages, and yet there is still much to do and each browser engine still has pros and cons.

    Except "exactly the same" and "at least" are completely different concepts, thus further demonstrating your retardation. Even if you were right, however, you would still not have a valid point due to my previous post, and EVEN if I wasn't right in my previous post, you would still not have a point, because the expectation for Apple to do what you claim to be impossible is a result of their arrogance. How does it feel to be completely owned in an argument?
  • Reply 249 of 267
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I'm saying it's nearly impossible to match or be better than a complex service/app in every regard. That is the where Vaelian's argument is warped. He's claiming that Apple should not have released their own mapping solution until that goal was passed. It's a goal that Apple should strive for but it's not one that it expected to be achieved, and in domes circumstances it may even be impossible.

    No, I'm not. I'm claiming that Apple should not have replaced Google Maps. That's a straw man fallacy, you idiot!
  • Reply 250 of 267
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member


    Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post

    Last time I checked, "at least" didn't mean "exactly". …you could have such terms confused.


     


    You said this, did you not:-


     


    Originally Posted by Vaelian View Post



    Nobody needs to; Apple deserves all the criticism since they effectively removed Google Maps from iOS to replace it with their own solution, meaning they are expected to perform at least as well as Google Maps did EVERYWHERE.


     


    By "everywhere" did you not mean including where Google Maps are wrong, or did you not really mean "everywhere", in which case you do not really think Apple Maps should be expected to perform as well as Google Maps did EVERYWHERE.


     


    Thus your whole argument fell apart.

  • Reply 251 of 267
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member


    Macarena, after reading your original post I thought you might be on to something, perhaps having some inside knowledge of Apple and Google contracts. You had explained your thoughts in a generally even-handed way without any real bias showing. Your two subsequent posts with the obvious anger towards Google for whatever reason make your original comments seem as they were copied from somewhere else as these are completely out of step with the first post.


     


    It leaves the sense you were offering only an opinion, no more and no less valid than my own, rather than a fact-based account.

  • Reply 252 of 267

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Macarena, after reading your original post I thought you might be on to something, perhaps having some inside knowledge of Apple and Google contracts. You had explained your thoughts in a generally even-handed way without any real bias showing. Your two subsequent posts with the obvious anger towards Google for whatever reason make your original comments seem as they were copied from somewhere else as these are completely out of step with the first post.


     


    It leaves the sense you were offering only an opinion, no more and no less valid than my own, rather than a fact-based account.



     


    So, is this the new GG? Nothing he says is true, but neither can it be false, because everything is just an "opinion" now, an opinion apparently based on nothing whatsoever. Well, we know he's never really been much for facts, but now he appears to have jettisoned them altogether. 


     


    Clearly his new strategy is to make totally over the top claims and then when he gets called on lying he just says, "I was expressing my opinion, but prove me wrong!"


     


    Clever, right? It's an opinion, so it's not bound by evidence, but, "prove me wrong," assigns it the same weight as an evidenced based argument without the need for evidence, which he never has anyway.


     


    And, by the way, everyone else's posts are just "opinions" too, so he doesn't need to address them, he can just merrily go on about his reality redefinition for Google.


     


    Of course, if it's all just "opinions", why does he bother responding to people to tell them that their posts are not true, they are just "opinions". Oh, to discredit other ideas, without having to argue against them or support his own "opinions".


     


    Typically, people pull out this "opinion" defense when they are on shaky ground and losing the argument. "Well, that's just your opinion, mine is just as valid." Thus, even though their argument held no water, they try to undermine confidence in the other argument by labeling it as "just an opinion".


     


    Well, GG, your "opinions" in this thread consist of nothing but invention, misrepresentation and distortion. We don't have to prove them wrong, they are only your "opinions", and they are wrong anyway. And the other posts that you labeled opinions, it's not up to you to state whether another's post is opinion or fact, that's up to them.


     


    Let's review for your client's sake, though:


     


    * Google is a criminal enterprise, guilty of multiple crimes


    * Google seeks to control access to all information on the Internet


    * Google egregiously violates our privacy by tracking everything we do without our consent


    * Google regularly shares information about us with the NSA


     


     


    EDIT: The funniest thing about this "new" GG is that just the other day he was all about how he goes to great lengths to research "facts" for his posts, but, now, all of a sudden, now that he wants to post what he knows are utterly baseless inventions, he's all about "opinions", everything is just "opinions".

  • Reply 253 of 267
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    I'm not talking about the AppStore. I'm talking about a native app that comes with the phone. The original maps app and original youtube app had no Google branding. Fast forward 5 years with Google being one of Apple's major competitors. It's nuts to think Apple would allow a stock app with Google's branding all over it. ...



     


    I think you're right about YouTube, but the original Maps app always had Google branding.  From a July 2007 iPhone review:


     


    image


     


     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by macarena View Post


    This Macquarie analyst has it completely wrong. This is not how Traffic Acquisition costs work at Google. It is not that Google pays Apple some percentage of the revenue that accrues because of Apple. Google's entire Traffic Acquisition costs consists of 2 components - One large annual payment to Apple, and another sizable annual payment to the Mozilla Foundation. And a few insignificant payments to a few other ecosystems. None of these payments are related to actual revenue figures.



     


    Google's payment to Apple and Mozilla to be their default search engine is less than 10% of their TAC.


     


    Quote:


    If you look at Google's older reports, the TAC actually was quite insignificant till the iPhone came along. The iPhone was the first time Google had to pay for Traffic Acquisition - and that is when Google decided to take on Apple, and compete against the iPhone with Android.




     


    Perhaps you meant something else.  TAC has been going down as a percentage of revenues, for years.  For example, longtime pre-iPhone and now:


     


    Google 2Q2006 :  "TAC totaled $785 million, or 32% of advertising revenues."


    Google 3Q2012 :  "TAC totaled $2.77 billion, or 26% of advertising revenues."


     


     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by macarena View Post


    Android originally targeted not Microsoft, but Blackberry. The only player that was worth targeting back then, in the mobile space, was Blackberry.



     


    On the contrary, the only player that no one would go up against back then was RIM.  Way too embedded with enterprises, and not into consumers yet.  Blackberry users were (and still are) NOT a meaningful internet search / ad source.


     


    To those of us developing on smartphones at the time, Android was CLEARLY targeted at Windows Mobile:


     



    • Its purpose was to prevent Microsoft from locking Google out of the mobile market.


    • It was planned for two target product types, one touch and one not, just like WinMo. 


    • The first development device was a slight variation of a known WinMo phone.


     


    The widespread mistaken idea of targeting Blackberry all started from the blog of a young intern who, like many young people, had no knowledge of the smartphone market prior to 2007.  Later, he posted a corrective note, saying that nobody should listen to his explanations because they were wrong.

  • Reply 254 of 267

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


    ... The widespread mistaken idea of [Android] targeting Blackberry all started from the blog of a young intern who, like many young people, had no knowledge of the smartphone market prior to 2007.  Later, he posted a corrective note, saying that nobody should listen to his explanations because they were wrong.



     


    Hahaha, you're a piece of work. We're so happy you possess the secret knowledge about all these things to enlighten us with.


     


    Let's see, decades of touch development, built your own browser engine, secret knowledge of Google's Android plans (including the secret intern)... Is there any knowledge or skill you don't intend to claim? image


     


    You are actually worse than GG, at least the old one. The new GG seems to just be making up facts as he goes along, just like you do.


     


    Can't wait to read your next fairy tale.

  • Reply 255 of 267
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


    The only real downside... and it might be a big one for some people... is that they both will give the government access to that info if formally requested.  Of course, the same goes for cell phone records from a phone company.  Or financial records from a bank.  Or airlines.  And so forth.



    Right on the heels of your mention, the WSJ reported today on a little-known US Government agency, the National Counterterrorism, Center with widely sweeping powers to keep databases on any citizen they wish and for up to 5 years even if innocent of any wrong-doing. 


     


    http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/12/13/national_counterterrorism_center_s_massive_new_surveillance_program_uncovered.html

  • Reply 256 of 267

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Macarena, after reading your original post I thought you might be on to something, perhaps having some inside knowledge of Apple and Google contracts. You had explained your thoughts in a generally even-handed way without any real bias showing. Your two subsequent posts with the obvious anger towards Google for whatever reason make your original comments seem as they were copied from somewhere else as these are completely out of step with the first post.


     


    It leaves the sense you were offering only an opinion, no more and no less valid than my own, rather than a fact-based account.



     


    So you decide on the veracity of someone's posts by whether they are "obviously angry", or whether they are "even handed"? By that token, when Jobs made that Thermo nuclear statement, he must have been lying through his teeth?


     


    And regarding "obvious anger", can you refute any of the "opinions" I made in that post? Or is it that it was too spot on, and you could not refute it - so you just decided to play the "just an opinion" card?


     


    And the best part of the whole thing - "you were only offering an opinion, no more and no less valid than my own" - you are just amazing... even if what I offered was "just" an "opinion", how does it make it as valid as yours? The next time you fall sick, don't bother going to a doctor - your opinion of what's wrong is just as valid as his opinion of what's wrong, so why pay him!?


     


    Will give you another chance - point out areas of my post that are wrong, or incorrect, or things you don't agree with, and tell me why. Then there's something to discuss. I gave you several points on the things I did not agree with in your post, with my "opinions" as to why your "opinions" were wrong - let's see you do something similar (if you can). 

  • Reply 257 of 267
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by macarena View Post


     


    So you decide on the veracity of someone's posts by whether they are "obviously angry", or whether they are "even handed"? By that token, when Jobs made that Thermo nuclear statement, he must have been lying through his teeth?


     


    And regarding "obvious anger", can you refute any of the "opinions" I made in that post? Or is it that it was too spot on, and you could not refute it - so you just decided to play the "just an opinion" card?


     


    And the best part of the whole thing - "you were only offering an opinion, no more and no less valid than my own" - you are just amazing... even if what I offered was "just" an "opinion", how does it make it as valid as yours? The next time you fall sick, don't bother going to a doctor - your opinion of what's wrong is just as valid as his opinion of what's wrong, so why pay him!?


     


    Will give you another chance - point out areas of my post that are wrong, or incorrect, or things you don't agree with, and tell me why. Then there's something to discuss. I gave you several points on the things I did not agree with in your post, with my "opinions" as to why your "opinions" were wrong - let's see you do something similar (if you can). 



    If there's any need to prove anything (and I'm not claiming there is) the onus is on you Macarena. You were the one claiming my opinion was wrong, remember? It wasn't the other way around. Note the last paragraph in this link sir, where I clearly said you could well be right. That you were unable to offer the same acceptance of mine isn't my issue. 


    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/155019/launch-of-google-maps-for-iphone-viewed-as-a-mixed-blessing-for-apple/200#post_2247314


     


    And yes, my opinion is just as valid as yours. With that out of the way I don't know any reliable source that said Google felt any danger to it's core business from RIM and they needed to do something about it. To be clear that doesn't invalidate anything you wrote. It just doesn't support it. IMO Android was all about minimizing Microsoft's impact, just as Apple was concerned about it too. Thus one reason for the original cooperation. They needed each other... and still do. 


     


    You also weren't simply stating opinions tho but also posting information we were to accept as fact, including very specific dollar numbers. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually had solid information to base them on. Do you?

  • Reply 258 of 267
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member


    A few members had questioned the number of Google Maps for iOS downloads. Reports today put the number at 10M in just the first 48 hours.

  • Reply 259 of 267
    nexusphan wrote: »
    That's why CNet's top smartphone this year is a Samsung....

    http://reviews.cnet.com/holiday-gift-guide/top-gifts/

    And Samsung Galaxy series has outsold the iPhone 5. Don't put too much weight with what the customer satisfaction surveys say. If they weren't satisfied, they wouldn't continue to sell so many tens of millions.

    Just curious but are your sales numbers comparing the total time the Galaxy phones were on sale or just since the iPhone 5 was released? Also are you including the free phone piece of the BOGO offers or just the phones actually purchased, though I am not sure if there were any on the GS3. Just saying there are many ways to come up with sales figures which is why actual profit matters.
  • Reply 260 of 267

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


     


    Google's payment to Apple and Mozilla to be their default search engine is less than 10% of their TAC.


     


     


    Perhaps you meant something else.  TAC has been going down as a percentage of revenues, for years.  For example, longtime pre-iPhone and now:


     


    Google 2Q2006 :  "TAC totaled $785 million, or 32% of advertising revenues."


    Google 3Q2012 :  "TAC totaled $2.77 billion, or 26% of advertising revenues."


     


     


    On the contrary, the only player that no one would go up against back then was RIM.  Way too embedded with enterprises, and not into consumers yet.  Blackberry users were (and still are) NOT a meaningful internet search / ad source.


     


    To those of us developing on smartphones at the time, Android was CLEARLY targeted at Windows Mobile:


     



    • Its purpose was to prevent Microsoft from locking Google out of the mobile market.


    • It was planned for two target product types, one touch and one not, just like WinMo. 


    • The first development device was a slight variation of a known WinMo phone.


     


    The widespread mistaken idea of targeting Blackberry all started from the blog of a young intern who, like many young people, had no knowledge of the smartphone market prior to 2007.  Later, he posted a corrective note, saying that nobody should listen to his explanations because they were wrong.



     


    Lies, damned lies, and statistics. You have a figure that clearly shows Google's TAC has ballooned by over $2B EACH quarter over 6 years. But you chose not to look at how much that figure has increased, and instead focus on the fact that the figure is a lower % of revenue. Did it ever occur to you, that between 2006 and 2012, Google has launched a couple of small projects called Chrome and Android - and these two play a fairly significant part in Google's revenues. And for these 2 products, Google pays ZERO TAC.


     


    And from your own data, where do you see Apple getting less than 10% of Google's TAC? Or are you using last years estimated amount paid to Apple, and comparing it with 3Q 2012 TAC of Google? For most sensible people, the fact that Google is now paying $2.7B in TAC EACH quarter, is a good enough indication that Apple is getting about $2.5B each year from Google. But in your math, probably this indicates something else.


     


    You seem to be an expert on a lot of things, but math and business probably is not one of your speciality areas - if you ever start a business, I hope you don't target non-existent competition, and target the real competition.

Sign In or Register to comment.