Editorial: Google, Microsoft claiming Apple's crown, albeit from 1994

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 130

    Probably a whole lot better than yours.

    Eh?
  • Reply 62 of 130
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    I missed a few periods (no pun) and commas. You people should see the texts I get from extremely educated people!

    I know, and it's new to me. I am appalled at many peoples writing styles, with plain and obvious errors, right in front of me. Can't understand why people don't bother to pay a little more attention. Though I'm not expecting proper English on a forum, but expect it amongst colleagues, emails, from family and such.

    I'm sure I'm writing 'peoples' wrong here, I think I need to append an apostrophe there.


    "Grammar: The difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit”
  • Reply 63 of 130
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



    I also read the article in the thread, not on/from the homepage. I think the number of repeated sentences increase with the onger articles. Hopefully Marvin can explain more, preferably Kasper gets rid of Huddler-the-crap-forum-software-provider and bring either vBulletin back 

    I never read the forum on a mobile device so I wouldn't know about that but it doesn't seem so bad on a Mac. The problem with the repeated text is that on the original article linked on the home page they use side bars for emphasis. When the text is copied to import into the forum version the side bars get copied as well, but because they are imported as regular text it appears to be accidentally duplicated. Easy enough to ignore once you know how it occurred. The problem is that Kasper's Automated Slave is not all that smart. I could probably fix it in about 15 minutes just like I hacked the entire home page for my personal viewing experience.

  • Reply 64 of 130
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member

    It's not just Microsoft and Google that have been stumbling, it's all of the (other) tech firms. None of them knew where to go next, only Steve Jobs knew.

  • Reply 65 of 130
    You wrote some sense here in the first paragraph then go off the rails it seems to me. Fixing Windows, if possible, is too late, the platform it runs on is diminishing. i.e. beige, black or silver boxes that sit under desks. Trying to shoehorn it onto mobile devices has proven to be a disaster.

    Office is hardly likely to sustain Microsoft, it's a spread sheet and a few other programs all of which are easily replaced. The only reason it was so ubiquitous in the first place is because so many people learned it and then felt protective of their investment in time learning it, especially MIS departments. The truth is there are tons of alternatives and in the end not that many people really need them these days. I would bet the vast number of Office users barely used 10% of it if that.

    Lastly there is a new generation who have come of buying age that barely know Microsoft as anything but a maker of a game box.

    Ah, a breath of fresh air. Someone who thinks as I do. Office is on it's way out. It's going out with the older generation. When I show people they can do the same things on their iPad, I'm amazed they didn't know it was there. Unfortunately the iPad version is underpowered compared to the Mac version.

    I know Apple has their Genius bars, but if they could actually show people what the product they own can actually do it would really work wonders. They need to find a cost effective way to educate everyone on how to use their device.

    Before someone chimes in, no, not everyone looks it up.
  • Reply 66 of 130
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    That article was boring. I don't disagree with any of the statements, just that there really wasn't a point. This is not the 90s and the comparisons with today are weak. The text jumps all over the place. Just a stream of random thoughts in no particular order and no central theme. Rambling, rambling, rambling...

     

    But the rolling over like an overfed goldfish was original, so one thumbs up.


     

    Oh please! This article was at least as accurate and far more entertaining than 90% of the drivel we get from WallStreet analysts. I was glad to read something fun on a dull Monday morning. Thanks DED!

  • Reply 67 of 130
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    mstone wrote: »
    I never read the forum on a mobile device so I wouldn't know about that but it doesn't seem so bad on a Mac. The problem with the repeated text is that on the original article linked on the home page they use side bars for emphasis. When the text is copied to import into the forum version the side bars get copied as well, but because they are imported as regular text it appears to be accidentally duplicated. Easy enough to ignore once you know how it occurred. The problem is that Kasper's Automated Slave is not all that smart. I could probably fix it in about 15 minutes just like I hacked the entire home page for my personal viewing experience.

    THIS is the explanation I remember! So it was you, not Marvin. Thank you for clearing that up, and also thanks for that handy java script that can block posters out, even when quoted.
  • Reply 68 of 130
    mstone wrote: »
    I never read the forum on a mobile device so I wouldn't know about that but it doesn't seem so bad on a Mac. The problem with the repeated text is that on the original article linked on the home page they use side bars for emphasis. When the text is copied to import into the forum version the side bars get copied as well, but because they are imported as regular text it appears to be accidentally duplicated. Easy enough to ignore once you know how it occurred. The problem is that Kasper's Automated Slave is not all that smart. I could probably fix it in about 15 minutes just like I hacked the entire home page for my personal viewing experience.

    No. Really. The original articles on the "home" page, generally from this author, imply a lot of copy and pasting. It really is that bad. It jumps into paragraphs. I'm not joking. That's why I responded to the original commenter. It was the same way on this author's other site. I don't think it's an import error. It's the writers style.

    Usually I just overlook it and shake my head (not that it needs more shaking). I just confirmed what that poster stated based on past experience and my own observations.

    They never get corrected. If you want you can look up past articles/editorials. Apparently "corrections" only apply to posters and not original editorials.
  • Reply 69 of 130
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    I refuse to read this DED opinion based on previous submissions, but I congratulate AI on finally labeling his work "editorial". Perhaps there is still hope.
  • Reply 70 of 130
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member

    Ssshhhh!

    For heaven's sake, just ssshhhh!!!

  • Reply 71 of 130
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



    I also read the article in the thread, not on/from the homepage. I think the number of repeated sentences increase with the onger articles. Hopefully Marvin can explain more, preferably Kasper gets rid of Huddler-the-crap-forum-software-provider and bring either vBulletin back 

    I never read the forum on a mobile device so I wouldn't know about that but it doesn't seem so bad on a Mac. The problem with the repeated text is that on the original article linked on the home page they use side bars for emphasis. When the text is copied to import into the forum version the side bars get copied as well, but because they are imported as regular text it appears to be accidentally duplicated. Easy enough to ignore once you know how it occurred. The problem is that Kasper's Automated Slave is not all that smart. I could probably fix it in about 15 minutes just like I hacked the entire home page for my personal viewing experience.


    Thanks for explaining this - it's been bugging me for a long time, especially because,

    while I enjoy the OpEd history and viewpoint, it seemed to bespeak a carelessness

    that challenged the articles' credibility.  So your explanation helps!

  • Reply 72 of 130
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    I refuse to read this DED opinion based on previous submissions, but I congratulate AI on finally labeling his work "editorial". Perhaps there is still hope.

    When have DED's specials not been editorial? Speaking for myself I would add, I have yet to read one that wasn't spot on either, having lived and worked through the entire history of Apple with close connections to the industry myself. As you obviously take the opposite view would you care to explain on what basis and your personal qualifications / experience on which you base this to find them untrue?
  • Reply 73 of 130
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    When have DEDs specials not been editorial?

    Precisely. His pieces have never been accurately labeled before.
  • Reply 74 of 130

    Probably a whole lot better than yours.

    Please do write a paragraph or two in response to this article. I would enjoy the realization of how horrible my grammar is compared to yours.
  • Reply 75 of 130
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    When have DED's specials not been editorial? Speaking for myself I would add, I have yet to read one that wasn't spot on either, having lived and worked through the entire history of Apple with close connections to the industry myself. As you obviously take the opposite view would you care to explain on what basis and your personal qualifications / experience on which you base this to find them untrue?

    This thread is surely only to debate the present article.

    DED doesn't really prove anything in these articles, one way or the other. He's not giving a scientific opinion. In this article he is claiming that google 2014 and MS 2014 = Apple 1994. Which gives them a few years until they almost go bankrupt, then comes along a saviour?

    This kind of equivalence is polemic. The past is not prelude. Apple had far fewer irons in the fire in 1994 than google or MS do now, a much less entrenched platform, and had lost it's founder. Unlike google.

    Its the theme of the article, but not the only argument. He's probably right that google is overreaching, that Samsung may split the OS, that MS is flailing about looking for a new purpose; however neither of them are a few years away from near bankruptcy so the analogy flounders. However I assume it's an approximation, as I said an editorial is not a science.
  • Reply 76 of 130
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Please do write a paragraph or two in response to this article. I would enjoy the realization of how horrible my grammar is compared to yours.

    I have no idea why anybody criticised your grammar to begin with. Just ignore them.
  • Reply 77 of 130
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    When have DED's specials not been editorial? Speaking for myself I would add, I have yet to read one that wasn't spot on either, having lived and worked through the entire history of Apple with close connections to the industry myself. As you obviously take the opposite view would you care to explain on what basis and your personal qualifications / experience on which you base this to find them untrue?

    I've worked in the smartphone industry for over 14 years. Every time I read something about the pre-iPhone smartphone industry written by DED, I find it riddled with factual inaccuracies. When I've pointed these inaccuracies out in the past, DED gets very defensive and has tried to argue that up is down or that red is blue. I've given up trying as it often takes a long time to dig up evidence to support what I'm saying.

    So, if DED is knowingly writing bullshit about a subject area that I know a lot about then I'm going to assume that he does it every subject.
  • Reply 78 of 130
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Last year Mary Jo Foley reported that Microsoft had 16 business units/products that generate at least $1B in annual sales. As long as the enterprise is wedded to Windows, Office, Exchange, SQL Sever, Visual Studio, etc. I don't see Microsoft going away any time soon. Who has a competitive offering to replace Office in the enterprise? Maybe Google Docs for small businesses but large corporations aren't giving up Office any time soon.
  • Reply 79 of 130
    rogifan wrote: »
    Last year Mary Jo Foley reported that Microsoft had 16 business units/products that generate at least $1B in annual sales. As long as the enterprise is wedded to Windows, Office, Exchange, SQL Sever, Visual Studio, etc. I don't see Microsoft going away any time soon. Who has a competitive offering to replace Office in the enterprise? Maybe Google Docs for small businesses but large corporations aren't giving up Office any time soon.

    MS will be in enterprise for a long time. However that does not mean profits for MS. There are hardware vendors that sign extended agreements to maintain the hardware, which runs Windows. I've seen them for up to ten years on the hardware which is contract guaranteed.

    On the flip side, companies are trying to save money. So employees have old or new hardware and if they're not deemed "worthy" then they do not get a license for Office. They get a shortcut on their screen for Google Docs. It's really a lose, lose situation for everyone involved on the hardware and software side. It's a loophole businesses are taking advantage of which will ultimately implode.

    When the explosion happens people will wake up, but it's still a long way off. Believe it or not but those cheap computers really do last for a very long time. Most people go to work, and their computer is there waiting. You don't realize how many years go by before you have a problem. It's only brats on this site that have to buy a new one just because a new one was released. No one expects to go to work and have the most current computer waiting for them.
  • Reply 80 of 130
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    addicted44 wrote: »
    On reading the headline, I was extremely skeptical of the article (Google is like 90s Apple? Surely not). I am still not convinced, but DED makes some really good points.

    The massive issue for Google is that its entire operations are bankrolled by web ads. These can be vulnerable to several fronts:
    1) Monopoly accusations like those faced by MS.
    2) Increased regulations preventing them from capturing as much user data.
    3) Customers shifting to no -Google search due to privacy concerns (DuckDuckGo) or because browsers replacing Google search with alternates.
    4) A new revolutionary competitor who slowly erodes Google's lead
    5) Apple and MS eliminating the need for Google searches through better and more prevalent apps.

    While I don't think any of these are likely, the point is that Google as a business has a Death Star like single point of failure. One which may be attacked by the natural and ongoing desktop to mobile transition even if none of the revolutionary scenarios above come into play.

    That being said, Larry Page is a smart guy and I am sure aware of this issue. Google must be actively involved in fighting this off.

    1) Microsoft wields monopoly power if you look only at OS and Desktop Office software. Where Microsoft overstepped heavily was not in shipping MSIE with Windows 98 but with cramming a bunch of broken technology into it like the Web wouldn't evolve, and we've only recently managed to dispose of standards-broken MSIE6 and 7 because of this. Apple ships Safari with their OS too, in much the same way as MSIE in Windows, but unlike Windows, it's in a lot more pieces (the rendering engine and javascript engine are completely separate pieces for example that can be used in other software on the OS.) With each OS version released, you start getting a lot more "included" software like you would on a free OS like Linux, or a complete-package system like an iMac. People often don't realize how little MS Windows comes with, and what it does come with is, is a very sad attempt compared to Apple, which everything works great together. Google doesn't sell an OS, and doesn't control how the Android OS is used, so really Android is becoming the Windows ME of mobile operating systems. Lots are installed, but it's incredibly broken to use, and the blame for a lot of that lays at the feet of the OEM's.

    2) You only get regulated when you do unhealthy things. Invading privacy (Google probably knows as much about you as the NSA does, even if you never had a gmail/G+ account) is one way to get regulations imposed on your business.

    3) Honestly I don't see this happening at all. Google will remain the king of search as long as nobody does it better, and nobody can really improve upon Google without outright making it work like Google as a starting point to begin with because that's how all the SEO spammers program their bots. Remember Lycos? Altavista? Those originally started by indexing keywords found in pages, but using those engines back before google was the worst user experience ever. Yahoo! tried to do it better by putting the human factor back into it, but they are obsessed with making the user experience more like a newspaper (eg horrible) than actually providing anything usable, so they also went away. Bing and Yandex use Google-like algorithms as a starting base, so they start out with google-like results, but ultimately they don't differentiate themselves from Google at all, and that's why they aren't used as the first option. It's the non-search things that make people stick around. I find Bing's translation is a bit less lol-worthy than Google, but I end up using both if I need to stumble through a foreign website.

    4) Not happening until the next "thing" comes along People kinda haven't noticed how break-neck of speed we moved from electricity to radio, to television, to computers, to internet, to cellular. Mobile internet is like the final form of all these technologies and Nikola Tesla would love it. All in less than 150 years. When you look at the software side, it's not so dramatic, as most software will be unusable before it ever enters the public domain. Will Google still be around in 20 years? It wouldn't be if it was just a search engine. It has to remain relevant.

    5) Microsoft I'm confident can keep a #1 or #2 place if it can push Google out of that position for the search engine, email, or even mobile devices. The problem is that Microsoft isn't Apple and isn't producing it's own hardware that runs it's own OS. The Surface Pro is the only device that does, and the only Surface Pro device that anyone would want is the Surface Pro 2. The 3 is just a cheapened version of the SP2, and the RT doesn't run x86/x86-64 software, thus confusing everything. What Microsoft should have done was made the RT their "iPad", and kept the classic desktop for all other x86 versions, keeping the "touch mode" for convertible laptops. That would have sold it. Too late now, but maybe they should have thought of this when they came out with Windows Phone/Mobile. Android has so far been a total failure for anything but phones, and that's because the OEM's are using it as a throw-away OS to power weak Android phones and trying to pass them off as being as good as an iPhone.


    Honestly if you look at history, either Google has to step up and make their own hardware and OS like Apple does, or Microsoft has to step up and make their own hardware. Here I'll even offer an obvious compromise everyone could be happy with:
    Apple, Microsoft and Google could all offer their OS for free (closed or open, doesn't matter,) and provide just the documentation needed to write drivers for the OS, but the hardware manufacturer has to support the hardware for 10 years by providing the drivers for all versions of the operating system that is released after the device is sold, and can not sell hardware of inferior performance to what the first party sells themselves. The idea is for OEM's to step up and produce hardware that people want, not "cheap clones" which provide poor experiences.

    There are plenty of people out there who don't buy a Mac because they want a desktop that they can put a SLI video card configuration in, and they'd dump Windows in a heartbeat if there was an option to. Steam on Linux doesn't fill this gap because making a Linux desktop work is as horrible as pre-plug-and-play was in 1993. Google could come out with a desktop OS, (ChromeOS and Firefox OS aren't OS's, they're Web Thin-clients,) but they would have no incentive to since nobody is demanding it.

    I don't see Apple ever licencing their OS again, even though there are at least two markets it would be perfectly suitable to that wouldn't result in a repeat of the Mac Clone era (Rack Servers and High-end gaming systems) that Apple completely ignores. There are entire communities dedicated to doing this without Apple's blessing. If the pirates put as much effort into hacking the OS they could probably write a new OS that is compatible with OS X and that would be a serious problem for Apple.
Sign In or Register to comment.