Why don't you enlighten us, instead of throwing out jargon?
I took the time to Google up a page that explains them both in short, concise words so that only the bare minimum of effort will be required on your part to educate yourself.
How about Google Now (innovation of the year 2012) or Google Street View an innovation in it's own right. And Google's main product the search engine, they existed before, but they revolutionized how search engines worked.
I found little use for Google Now on my Nexus 4. I have yet to meet someone that used Street a View for anything other than idle curiosity. They are kind of neat but not stellar IMO.
On search, they have done amazing things. Most of the rest feels like beta testing.
Are there empirical measures/results that show this? (Not Page's thesis, but actual evidence assessed/analyzed by credible third parties). Measures of vague terms such as 'targeted', 'precise', the fact that it could have avoided a 'lifetime of searching'?
Again, I am not trying to be contentious, but none of what you guys have said so far has gone beyond the cliches I've heard time and again.
How do you think Google, a lowly startup, got the world to move from, MSN, Yahoo!, and AltaVista? There search was better and faster. There were extensive tests on this when the word-of-mouth made people not only try it but stick with it. I tried DuckDuckGo — and it was fine — but it wasn't good enough to make me stop using Google.
You're argument is akin to something with an Android using empirical, verifiable data to show that the iPhone is better than their phone because the spec sheet lists a 6" display, 3GB RAM, 4 core CPU, blah blah blah. If you asked your same question and wanted proof that Apple makes better products I couldn't give you the impossible you want. If you haven't experienced Google's services compared to other vendor's services and you won't take my anecdotal comparisons as proof than I can't say that Google has a better spam filter than Hotmail I can only say I got a lot more spam in Hotmail than I ever did with Gmail.
But I am confused now: Are you saying Google is 'agile' while Apple is 'waterfall'? Or the other way around? How do you know this?
Yes, I would say that Google takes an agile approach while Apple takes a waterfall approach. Google takes a more iterative, customer feedback, add features regularly to a product that isn't totally complete on initial release approach. Apple's iOS and OSX are mature products and the requirements are well known ahead of time. They know what they want, they map out how to get there, and then they execute. Their release cycles are more spread out with maintenance updates in between.
Are there empirical measures/results that show this? (Not Page's thesis, but actual evidence assessed/analyzed by credible third parties). Measures of vague terms such as 'targeted', 'precise', the fact that it could have avoided a 'lifetime of searching'?
Again, I am not trying to be contentious, but none of what you guys have said so far has gone beyond the cliches I've heard time and again.
Proof is in almost every other search engine out there adopting a similar system (as far as is possible as many of Google's search algorithms are still secret) afterwards. There is absolutely no doubt that the method Google used was fundamentally different from search engines already active at that time and eventually became the way search engines worked in general (with some minor differences here and there).
You may benefit from reading up on the differences between "agile" and "waterfall" development methodologies. It may help you to understand the differences between Google's and Apple's methods and the pros and cons of each. Neither is inherently bad, they're just different.
If you did not know this (and you must not), both companies use both methods. So what is your point?
Yes, I would say that Google takes an agile approach while Apple takes a waterfall approach. Google takes a more iterative, customer feedback, add features regularly to a product that isn't totally complete on initial release approach. Apple's iOS and OSX are mature products and the requirements are well known ahead of time. They know what they want, they map out how to get there, and then they execute. Their release cycles are more spread out with maintenance updates in between.
And that does not define Agile or waterfall development.
1) I never said Google Now was innovative but they did do it slightly better. Chances are there likely some innovative aspects to it that I am not aware.
2) in•o•vate - make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products. What the hell do you think improvements are? The iPhone 5S is an improvement over the iPhone 5 but I doubt you'd argue there are no innovations in it. After all, SoCs and biometrics existed before last year¡
3) I said as much.
4) I am not avoiding reasonable questions and I've gone out of my way in both cases to answer what I consider unreasonable questions because of your history here, but I do think you're purposely acting obtuse in both case.
Oh please, SolipsismX. Give me a tad more credit than that. I am not at all trying to be cute-sy or contentious, as I've repeatedly said. Also, I have pointed out that I actually admire Google (unless, of course, you think I am lying -- although, I would have no reason to).
My questions are motivated by a sense of befuddlement that I've had over the years about why everyone thinks Google is such an innovative company. People look at you like you must be daft (no, I am not), or as though it's a question along the lines of 'does God exist' (it's a pointless question), or that you must think Google is evil (I don't think so).
What I want to hear is cogent, well-articulated arguments that back up assertions and claims.
Now, to your points:
1) OK, it might be 'slightly better' but I don't know that for a fact. But you appeared to agree with the post from Chipsys which claimed that Google Now was some fantastic innovation. You're just damning Google with faint praise, as far as I can see.
2) The word 'innovate' would be redundant if it did not mean much more than 'improve'. (That's what I take away when you make a statement such as 'what do you think improvements are?').
3) No, you did not. You were dismissive of marketing.
4) The fact that you might think my questions are unreasonable doesn't make it so. If you -- or anyone makes an assertion -- I will call you on it. I expect people will do the same to me. I intensely dislike vacuous, platitudinous bullshit.
1) Google Now is Google's version of Siri. It came out as a result of Siri but in many ways it's better than Siri, but that shouldn't be surprising considering Google had been siting on all the parts for many years but (as usual) it's only after Apple shows them how to arrange the parts that others follow suit.
Have not used Google Now. Don't even know what it is but as far as the Siri comparison, I use Google Voice Search all the time. I believe that technology was home grown using the now defunct Goog 411 which was a beta phone number look up service that was developed by Google to perfect their voice recognition technology and was abandoned once the voice to text algorithms were ready for prime time. They didn't need to acquire a company for that unlike Apple who had to buy that technology.
And that does not define Agile or waterfall development.
What I posted may not be as thorough as you'd like, but you're welcome to correct any innacuracies or add any critical points about either that you feel I left out.
Search algorithms and page ranking algorithms that both organize and query results better and faster than every other service. Then you have the algorithms for reducing spam and integrating various other serves into mail. Then you have the soft innovations like the uncluttered search screen and 1GB of free space for mail. All of these unseen until Google did them. Even now their secret sauce is still not matched. Well after Gmail eliminated spam .Mac and MobileMe mail was still riddled with it… and that was a paid service! With iCloud it's gotten much better but I still get too many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf
Google was founded on the strength of its pagerank algorithm. People wouldn't have moved away from existing search giants such as Yahoo and Altavista to the startup that Google was back then unless Google's algorithm provided search results much more quickly or accurately than the competition.
Back to the main point of this article, which is that Apple's acquisition strategy appears to be small targets, done deliberately and quietly, with little, if any, overpayment, and in the nature of carefully nurtured 'A&D'. I believe that this disciplined approach is the winning M&A strategy for the long haul.
Witness the nonsensical tech M&A mess that we see swirling around us, such as HP/Autonomy, Intel/McAfee (that's when I sold my Intel holdings), FB/WhatsApp, Microsoft/Nokia, or Google/MotorolaMobility.
In that regard, major props to Amazon: they appear to have an M&A strategy that is similar to that of Apple's.
If you did not know this (and you must not), both companies use both methods. So what is your point?
I don't doubt that they employ the method that suits the current project best.
As to what my point was, it was that Benjamin Frost may benefit from reading up on the differences between agile and waterfall methodologies and the pros and cons of each. Neither is inherently bad, they're just different. My apologies if I wasn't clear enough initially.
Further to the main points of the article, here's a (cheap) prediction: I am guessing that, within a couple of months, we'll see a ridiculous $35B offer from Google for Tesla. And that'll probably just the starting bid.
Why?
(i) FB has upped the ante by offering a delusional $16+B for a nothing company -- surely, twice as much for a real company can't be that bad? (ii) Thanks to the (bogus) rumor that Apple was interested in Tesla, Google feels like it has to preemptively counter-punch; (iii) They want to desperately get Android into the car -- what better way than to actually own one? (iv) They're into driverless cars; (v) They're desperate to get into hardware, and have struck out with every major attempt so far: Moto, Chromebook, GoogleTV, Nexus..... (vi) They've got lots of cash burning a hole in their pockets; (vii) Tesla is cool.
Oh please, SolipsismX. Give me a tad more credit than that. I am not at all trying to be cute-sy or contentious, as I've repeatedly said. Also, I have pointed out that I actually admire Google (unless, of course, you think I am lying -- although, I would have no reason to).
I don't think you're lying. If I did I would have been very direct by outright saying that is what I believe.
My questions are motivated by a sense of befuddlement that I've had over the years about why everyone thinks Google is such an innovative company. People look at you like you must be daft (no, I am not), or as though it's a question along the lines of 'does God exist' (it's a pointless question), or that you must think Google is evil (I don't think so).
Your question is very loaded. You could ask, "Is the iPhone really better?" I can say it is and tell you anecdotes as to why I think it's better but you can then point to facts on a spec sheet to prove me wrong. Your answers would be more empirical. I could then point to the results of the iPhone overtaking Nokia and BB in record time and the industry following suit to change how they make products, but that verifiable info shouldn't appeal to you since it doesn't appeal to you with Google's search, email and ad service results.
What I want to hear is cogent, well-articulated arguments that back up assertions and claims.
Now, to your points:
1) OK, it might be 'slightly better' but I don't know that for a fact. But you appeared to agree with the post from Chipsys which claimed that Google Now was some fantastic innovation. You're just damning Google with faint praise, as far as I can see.
It's not faint praise at all. If anything it's a big of a jab. Saying it's slightly better — while still my opinion — is something I believe so to say otherwise would be a lie. It's not praise to recognize that unless saying that a 300lb man barely beat up a 100lb man. In this scenario Google is the 300lb man because all the things that Siri does Google had at their hands for years and were never able to see it until Apple came along. All they had to do was to copy Apple's model for something that was brand new to Apple.
2) The word 'innovate' would be redundant if it did not mean much more than 'improve'. (That's what I take away when you make a statement such as 'what do you think improvements are?').
Words often have synonyms, but usually various terms have similar but not exactly the same definition.
3) No, you did not. You were dismissive of marketing.
Not even in the slightness.
I've even argued the shitty race-to-the-bottom with PC vendors was filled with innovation. Not with technology, but with finding innovative new ways to cut costs.
4) The fact that you might think my questions are unreasonable doesn't make it so. If you -- or anyone makes an assertion -- I will call you on it. I expect people will do the same to me. I intensely dislike vacuous, platitudinous bullshit.
That's fine. If you don't agree with what I write I certainly don't want you to ignore it.
Have not used Google Now. Don't even know what it is but as far as the Siri comparison, I use Google Voice Search all the time. I believe that technology was home grown using the now defunct Goog 411 which was a beta phone number look up service that was developed by Google to perfect their voice recognition technology and was abandoned once the voice to text algorithms were ready for prime time. They didn't need to acquire a company for that unlike Apple who had to buy that technology.
That's one of the major parts I alluded to previously. They had that for years. They didn't have to buy or create it. It was also already tied to their search functionality. All they had to do was turn that into a service on Android and then add some of the refinements they gleaned from Apple, who probably gleaned some from Google, Yahoo! and other search sites that show a nice format for different categories like sports and entertainment when queried.
Back to the main point of this article, which is that Apple's acquisition strategy appears to be small targets, done deliberately and quietly, with little, if any, overpayment, and in the nature of carefully nurtured 'A&D'. I believe that this disciplined approach is the winning M&A strategy for the long haul.
Witness the nonsensical tech M&A mess that we see swirling around us, such as HP/Autonomy, Intel/McAfee (that's when I sold my Intel holdings), FB/WhatsApp, Microsoft/Nokia, or Google/MotorolaMobility.
In that regard, major props to Amazon: they appear to have an M&A strategy that is similar to that of Apple's.
(v) They're desperate to get into hardware, and have struck out with every major attempt so far: Moto, Chromebook, GoogleTV, Nexus.....
The success of the Chromebook is pretty undisputed. You may want to double check your sources on that one.
EDIT: On second though, you're probably referring to Google Chromebook vs. Samsung Chromebook? The latter of which is certainly a top contender. I'm not sure how Google's Chromebook does (or even who makes it for them).
With Google mentioned several times already by previous posters I'm glad to see you use the word "failed". It certainly speaks to something to be avoided at all costs according to some folks. Sit back and watch others fail, wait for your chance to do it right. Just don't fail. It's not good.
Yet Google tries and fails. A lot. And that's one of their greatest strengths IMO, their willingness to place a bet on an idea that might ultimately never see commercial success but do it anyway.
They're not afraid to take a chance, commit time and people spend a little money (maybe a lot of money) to perhaps make a difference. With every failure they learn something they would not have know if they hadn't tried. Something that may lead to success with a project, maybe one that "changes the world."
Innovation isn't defined by how much money you make from pursuing an idea. It's whether that thing changes the landscape, leads to a new way of thinking about things or a better way to "get there" or "do that". Something as simple as Streetview is innovative as well as successful. Google Glass is innovative too but may never be a commercial success.
Apple of course has more money. and has seen more commercial success. They have their own big gamble that paid off to thank for that. It's the kind of gamble that Google takes with ideas like driverless cars, Google Glass, alternative energy, extending human life, even crazy sounding stuff like satellite-connected balloons floating above 3rd world villages. Lately Apple hasn't seemed willing to risk a failure. That contributes to a perception by a lot of people that Google is the more innovative of the two, at least today. Tomorrow might be different. When the next "one more thing" from Apple dances across the stage a fickle media will toss Google aside and re-anoint Apple as the Great Innovator. But today I'd agree with those that say Google out-innovates them.
You're not buying the tripe you just regurgitated, are you? Google's "bets" are more like the small blind in a poker game. They are just trial testing. They have to put something out there for PR. If it fails, they fold and barely lose anything. If they really wanted to gamble, release the Glass for mass production. Google is putting its toes in the water rather than jumping in feet first.
When Apple gambles, they go all-In or nearly go all in.
Apple's aversion To failure? Does ios 7 ring a bell? If that's not a big risk, I don't know what is anymore. They could have done it the Google way and focus grouped it to death or make it only for the 5S at first.
Google out innovates Apple? That's laughable. You have no idea what Apple is working on. Just because Googs PR machine is running full blast with baby steps doesn't mean they are taking risks. If Googs end Glass, driverless cars, etc., there would be no backlash. There would be no Google is doomed meme.
With Google mentioned several times already by previous posters I'm glad to see you use the word "failed". It certainly speaks to something to be avoided at all costs according to some folks. Sit back and watch others fail, wait for your chance to do it right. Just don't fail. It's not good.
Yet Google tries and fails. A lot. And that's one of their greatest strengths IMO, their willingness to place a bet on an idea that might ultimately never see commercial success but do it anyway.
They're not afraid to take a chance, commit time and people spend a little money (maybe a lot of money) to perhaps make a difference. With every failure they learn something they would not have know if they hadn't tried. Something that may lead to success with a project, maybe one that "changes the world."
Innovation isn't defined by how much money you make from pursuing an idea. It's whether that thing changes the landscape, leads to a new way of thinking about things or a better way to "get there" or "do that". Something as simple as Streetview is innovative as well as successful. Google Glass is innovative too but may never be a commercial success.
Apple of course has more money. and has seen more commercial success. They have their own big gamble that paid off to thank for that. It's the kind of gamble that Google takes with ideas like driverless cars, Google Glass, alternative energy, extending human life, even crazy sounding stuff like satellite-connected balloons floating above 3rd world villages. Lately Apple hasn't seemed willing to risk a failure. That contributes to a perception by a lot of people that Google is the more innovative of the two, at least today. Tomorrow might be different. When the next "one more thing" from Apple dances across the stage a fickle media will toss Google aside and re-anoint Apple as the Great Innovator. But today I'd agree with those that say Google out-innovates them.
A long way of saying most times Google uses a sawn (sawed in US I believe) off shot gun approach while Apple uses a precision assassin's rifle.
Comments
Why don't you enlighten us, instead of throwing out jargon?
I took the time to Google up a page that explains them both in short, concise words so that only the bare minimum of effort will be required on your part to educate yourself.
http://www.base36.com/2012/12/agile-waterfall-methodologies-a-side-by-side-comparison/
Thanks. That was a very helpful link.
But I am confused now: Are you saying Google is 'agile' while Apple is 'waterfall'? Or the other way around? How do you know this?
I found little use for Google Now on my Nexus 4. I have yet to meet someone that used Street a View for anything other than idle curiosity. They are kind of neat but not stellar IMO.
On search, they have done amazing things. Most of the rest feels like beta testing.
How do you think Google, a lowly startup, got the world to move from, MSN, Yahoo!, and AltaVista? There search was better and faster. There were extensive tests on this when the word-of-mouth made people not only try it but stick with it. I tried DuckDuckGo — and it was fine — but it wasn't good enough to make me stop using Google.
You're argument is akin to something with an Android using empirical, verifiable data to show that the iPhone is better than their phone because the spec sheet lists a 6" display, 3GB RAM, 4 core CPU, blah blah blah. If you asked your same question and wanted proof that Apple makes better products I couldn't give you the impossible you want. If you haven't experienced Google's services compared to other vendor's services and you won't take my anecdotal comparisons as proof than I can't say that Google has a better spam filter than Hotmail I can only say I got a lot more spam in Hotmail than I ever did with Gmail.
Thanks. That was a very helpful link.
But I am confused now: Are you saying Google is 'agile' while Apple is 'waterfall'? Or the other way around? How do you know this?
Yes, I would say that Google takes an agile approach while Apple takes a waterfall approach. Google takes a more iterative, customer feedback, add features regularly to a product that isn't totally complete on initial release approach. Apple's iOS and OSX are mature products and the requirements are well known ahead of time. They know what they want, they map out how to get there, and then they execute. Their release cycles are more spread out with maintenance updates in between.
Are there empirical measures/results that show this? (Not Page's thesis, but actual evidence assessed/analyzed by credible third parties). Measures of vague terms such as 'targeted', 'precise', the fact that it could have avoided a 'lifetime of searching'?
Again, I am not trying to be contentious, but none of what you guys have said so far has gone beyond the cliches I've heard time and again.
Proof is in almost every other search engine out there adopting a similar system (as far as is possible as many of Google's search algorithms are still secret) afterwards. There is absolutely no doubt that the method Google used was fundamentally different from search engines already active at that time and eventually became the way search engines worked in general (with some minor differences here and there).
If you did not know this (and you must not), both companies use both methods. So what is your point?
And that does not define Agile or waterfall development.
1) I never said Google Now was innovative but they did do it slightly better. Chances are there likely some innovative aspects to it that I am not aware.
2) in•o•vate - make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products. What the hell do you think improvements are? The iPhone 5S is an improvement over the iPhone 5 but I doubt you'd argue there are no innovations in it. After all, SoCs and biometrics existed before last year¡
3) I said as much.
4) I am not avoiding reasonable questions and I've gone out of my way in both cases to answer what I consider unreasonable questions because of your history here, but I do think you're purposely acting obtuse in both case.
Oh please, SolipsismX. Give me a tad more credit than that. I am not at all trying to be cute-sy or contentious, as I've repeatedly said. Also, I have pointed out that I actually admire Google (unless, of course, you think I am lying -- although, I would have no reason to).
My questions are motivated by a sense of befuddlement that I've had over the years about why everyone thinks Google is such an innovative company. People look at you like you must be daft (no, I am not), or as though it's a question along the lines of 'does God exist' (it's a pointless question), or that you must think Google is evil (I don't think so).
What I want to hear is cogent, well-articulated arguments that back up assertions and claims.
Now, to your points:
1) OK, it might be 'slightly better' but I don't know that for a fact. But you appeared to agree with the post from Chipsys which claimed that Google Now was some fantastic innovation. You're just damning Google with faint praise, as far as I can see.
2) The word 'innovate' would be redundant if it did not mean much more than 'improve'. (That's what I take away when you make a statement such as 'what do you think improvements are?').
3) No, you did not. You were dismissive of marketing.
4) The fact that you might think my questions are unreasonable doesn't make it so. If you -- or anyone makes an assertion -- I will call you on it. I expect people will do the same to me. I intensely dislike vacuous, platitudinous bullshit.
1) Google Now is Google's version of Siri. It came out as a result of Siri but in many ways it's better than Siri, but that shouldn't be surprising considering Google had been siting on all the parts for many years but (as usual) it's only after Apple shows them how to arrange the parts that others follow suit.
Have not used Google Now. Don't even know what it is but as far as the Siri comparison, I use Google Voice Search all the time. I believe that technology was home grown using the now defunct Goog 411 which was a beta phone number look up service that was developed by Google to perfect their voice recognition technology and was abandoned once the voice to text algorithms were ready for prime time. They didn't need to acquire a company for that unlike Apple who had to buy that technology.
If you did not know this (and you must not), both companies use both methods. So what is your point?
This is what I would have guessed, from the descriptions that DroidFTW linked to.
But what do I know...
And that does not define Agile or waterfall development.
What I posted may not be as thorough as you'd like, but you're welcome to correct any innacuracies or add any critical points about either that you feel I left out.
Search algorithms and page ranking algorithms that both organize and query results better and faster than every other service. Then you have the algorithms for reducing spam and integrating various other serves into mail. Then you have the soft innovations like the uncluttered search screen and 1GB of free space for mail. All of these unseen until Google did them. Even now their secret sauce is still not matched. Well after Gmail eliminated spam .Mac and MobileMe mail was still riddled with it… and that was a paid service! With iCloud it's gotten much better but I still get too many.
Google was founded on the strength of its pagerank algorithm. People wouldn't have moved away from existing search giants such as Yahoo and Altavista to the startup that Google was back then unless Google's algorithm provided search results much more quickly or accurately than the competition.
The Gmail interface pioneered the use of ajax in web applications (http://www.developer.com/design/article.php/3526681/AJAX-Asynchronous-Java--XML.htm). Everyone else made you sit around and wait for the entire page to reload when all you wanted to do was delete a message.
These are beginnings of good explanations. Thanks.
I will plan to find out more.
Back to the main point of this article, which is that Apple's acquisition strategy appears to be small targets, done deliberately and quietly, with little, if any, overpayment, and in the nature of carefully nurtured 'A&D'. I believe that this disciplined approach is the winning M&A strategy for the long haul.
Witness the nonsensical tech M&A mess that we see swirling around us, such as HP/Autonomy, Intel/McAfee (that's when I sold my Intel holdings), FB/WhatsApp, Microsoft/Nokia, or Google/MotorolaMobility.
In that regard, major props to Amazon: they appear to have an M&A strategy that is similar to that of Apple's.
If you did not know this (and you must not), both companies use both methods. So what is your point?
I don't doubt that they employ the method that suits the current project best.
As to what my point was, it was that Benjamin Frost may benefit from reading up on the differences between agile and waterfall methodologies and the pros and cons of each. Neither is inherently bad, they're just different. My apologies if I wasn't clear enough initially.
Further to the main points of the article, here's a (cheap) prediction: I am guessing that, within a couple of months, we'll see a ridiculous $35B offer from Google for Tesla. And that'll probably just the starting bid.
Why?
(i) FB has upped the ante by offering a delusional $16+B for a nothing company -- surely, twice as much for a real company can't be that bad? (ii) Thanks to the (bogus) rumor that Apple was interested in Tesla, Google feels like it has to preemptively counter-punch; (iii) They want to desperately get Android into the car -- what better way than to actually own one? (iv) They're into driverless cars; (v) They're desperate to get into hardware, and have struck out with every major attempt so far: Moto, Chromebook, GoogleTV, Nexus..... (vi) They've got lots of cash burning a hole in their pockets; (vii) Tesla is cool.
I don't think you're lying. If I did I would have been very direct by outright saying that is what I believe.
Your question is very loaded. You could ask, "Is the iPhone really better?" I can say it is and tell you anecdotes as to why I think it's better but you can then point to facts on a spec sheet to prove me wrong. Your answers would be more empirical. I could then point to the results of the iPhone overtaking Nokia and BB in record time and the industry following suit to change how they make products, but that verifiable info shouldn't appeal to you since it doesn't appeal to you with Google's search, email and ad service results.
It's not faint praise at all. If anything it's a big of a jab. Saying it's slightly better — while still my opinion — is something I believe so to say otherwise would be a lie. It's not praise to recognize that unless saying that a 300lb man barely beat up a 100lb man. In this scenario Google is the 300lb man because all the things that Siri does Google had at their hands for years and were never able to see it until Apple came along. All they had to do was to copy Apple's model for something that was brand new to Apple.
Words often have synonyms, but usually various terms have similar but not exactly the same definition.
Not even in the slightness.
I've even argued the shitty race-to-the-bottom with PC vendors was filled with innovation. Not with technology, but with finding innovative new ways to cut costs.
That's fine. If you don't agree with what I write I certainly don't want you to ignore it.
That's one of the major parts I alluded to previously. They had that for years. They didn't have to buy or create it. It was also already tied to their search functionality. All they had to do was turn that into a service on Android and then add some of the refinements they gleaned from Apple, who probably gleaned some from Google, Yahoo! and other search sites that show a nice format for different categories like sports and entertainment when queried.
All this I agree with.
The success of the Chromebook is pretty undisputed. You may want to double check your sources on that one.
EDIT: On second though, you're probably referring to Google Chromebook vs. Samsung Chromebook? The latter of which is certainly a top contender. I'm not sure how Google's Chromebook does (or even who makes it for them).
You're not buying the tripe you just regurgitated, are you? Google's "bets" are more like the small blind in a poker game. They are just trial testing. They have to put something out there for PR. If it fails, they fold and barely lose anything. If they really wanted to gamble, release the Glass for mass production. Google is putting its toes in the water rather than jumping in feet first.
When Apple gambles, they go all-In or nearly go all in.
Apple's aversion To failure? Does ios 7 ring a bell? If that's not a big risk, I don't know what is anymore. They could have done it the Google way and focus grouped it to death or make it only for the 5S at first.
Google out innovates Apple? That's laughable. You have no idea what Apple is working on. Just because Googs PR machine is running full blast with baby steps doesn't mean they are taking risks. If Googs end Glass, driverless cars, etc., there would be no backlash. There would be no Google is doomed meme.
I have to ask, did you mean siting, or sighting ... or perhaps citing? All three actually could, kind of, make sense ...
A long way of saying most times Google uses a sawn (sawed in US I believe) off shot gun approach while Apple uses a precision assassin's rifle.