The anti-Apple brigade are really having to scrape the barrel with their critisism's now.
[...]
And now
"spellchecker that ships with Iphone not great "
it's not being anti-apple to point out shortcomings that could use improvement. to not do so would be to never improve.
if you feel that it's being anti-apple, i offer that is your irrational, emotional response to a perceived threat or insult. you have to ask yourself why.
informing the user of a feature to learn how to spell doesnt fix the feature. blaming the user is rarely the solution.
ive noticed it a million times -- transposed letters can cause OS X/iOS not to have a clue, but google can suggest it first thing. thats a fault of the software's feature, not the user for trying to use it.
Google isn't always correct either. The have a massive server farm to do those word lookups. We don't have that facility on our local computers. Google is also constantly fixing word definitions, spelling, etc. in short notice because their business depends on it. No doubt they spend hundreds of millions a year on just getting better word recognition. I certainly wouldn't expect Apple to do the same. As I've suggested before, if the free checker isn't good enough, buy a better one.
I'm not talking about the fun you're having. You can be grumpy all you want. I'm talking about more fun for the employees. I think that Google Glass is a great example of something that would be extremely fun to develop, even if it doesn't sell. I can't think of too many projects more fun to work on that something like a self-driving car. Look at the companies they are buying, like Boston Dynamics -- what a great opportunity to work with those teams on projects.
I'm not talking about the fun you're having. You can be grumpy all you want. I'm talking about more fun for the employees. I think that Google Glass is a great example of something that would be extremely fun to develop, even if it doesn't sell. I can't think of too many projects more fun to work on that something like a self-driving car. Look at the companies they are buying, like Boston Dynamics -- what a great opportunity to work with those teams on projects.
Though most of Google's projects result in failure. Probably because they are so skatterbrained in concept. Remember the globular competitor to the Apple Tv Google came out with a few years ago? That's just one example. Now, it looks as though Glass will be following it.
Though most of Google's projects result in failure. Probably because they are so skatterbrained in concept. Remember the globular competitor to the Apple Tv Google came out with a few years ago? That's just one example. Now, it looks as though Glass will be following it.
Yep, absolutely true. On the other hand, after over a year, Chromecast continues to be a hit with my friends and coworkers. Cheap enough to be an impulse buy for everyone, and works extremely well. Then you have things like project Loon -- who knows if it will work? What a great pursuit though.
I don't want to go into a motivational speech here, but you can't succeed without failure. Jordan missed over 9000 shots. He was the only guy who would invent a new shot that he'd never tried before, during game seven of the finals, and after his feet left the ground. Most of those insane shots were a miss, but we only remember the ones that made it onto posters. Apple's failures are almost always contained within its walls, which fits their vision. Google exposes their ideas and failures publicly. One result is that it looks really fun to work there. Another is that they figure out what sticks.
I am coaching two Lego Robotics teams, and any time the kids come up with a hair brained idea, I tell them to build it and see what happens. Failure is an important part of the process. As the season progresses, they still have these wild ideas, but they do start to think through it more. They strike a balance without losing that off chance that something crazy works.
Yep, absolutely true. On the other hand, after over a year, Chromecast continues to be a hit with my friends and coworkers. Cheap enough to be an impulse buy for everyone, and works extremely well. Then you have things like project Loon -- who knows if it will work? What a great pursuit though.
I don't want to go into a motivational speech here, but you can't succeed without failure. Jordan missed over 9000 shots. He was the only guy who would invent a new shot that he'd never tried before, during game seven of the finals, and after his feet left the ground. Most of those insane shots were a miss, but we only remember the ones that made it onto posters. Apple's failures are almost always contained within its walls, which fits their vision. Google exposes their ideas and failures publicly. One result is that it looks really fun to work there. Another is that they figure out what sticks.
I am coaching two Lego Robotics teams, and any time the kids come up with a hair brained idea, I tell them to build it and see what happens. Failure is an important part of the process. As the season progresses, they still have these wild ideas, but they do start to think through it more. They strike a balance without losing that off chance that something crazy works.
I think that a lot of what Google does is for publicity. No company is willing to have so many failures intentionally. Remember that Google is an advertising agency. What do they do? They work on publicity. So I believe that a lot of their projects are destined to fail because they aren't well thought out. They really don't solve any problem. They're just there for people to say something like what you're saying. That is, how wonderful it is that Google does things like that. It's deflecting people from what Google really does, which is pretty dark, being a bigger collector of our information than the NSA.
As the biggest tech company, Apple should be supporting basic research. When they were small, it made sense for them to do only very focused applied research, and depend on the rest of society for basic research that benefits everyone. Now they are so big that they should be a major force pushing many avenues of science forward that don't just benefit them. For example, they should support basic research on chemical sensors at universities so that someday the Apple watch will be able to smell my blood sugar, and smell whether the food I'm about to eat contains something I'm allergic to.
Edit: I read this after posting
It wouldn't be that small an investment to properly support the research of the world's best scientists, unless they stuck to only theoretical research. But it would be great PR to accumulate a pile of Nobel Prizes for Apple!
No they shouldn't. That's only the business of business if they see some benefit to them. Basic research is done in universities and government labs. Intel will do that for chip making, because that's their business. But even Intel doesn't do work in basic physics.
Yours is just a point of view, just as his is.
Indeed, when corporations talk about 'social responsibility', I wish they would put something like this on top of the list.
I don't expect them to work on R&D that has nothing to do with eventual possible sales. I hope you don't either. Bell Labs never did.
My definition of 'research' would most certainly include something that currently looks tangential, but whose potential may only be realized in the future, perhaps even in industries other than those Apple competes in.
I am not saying that should be the main (or even dominant) focus. In any event, I'll bet all the R&D that Apple is currently doing is business-relevant. So the fact that I am bringing up their doing something more implicitly suggests that I think they should go beyond. I'd take something like that over CSR spending any day!
Incidentally, not al of Bell Labs's work led to eventual sales for ATT -- examples include UNIX, solar cells, radio astronomy, evidence of the Big Bang, Karmarkar's LP algorithm, 'fractional quantum hall' effect, synchronization system for movie sounds,.... and many more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross:
I don't expect them to work on R&D that has nothing to do with eventual possible sales. I hope you don't either. Bell Labs never did
[SIZE=14px]My definition of 'research' would most certainly include something that currently looks tangential, but whose potential may only be realized in the future, perhaps even in industries other than those Apple competes in.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]I am not saying that should be the main (or even dominant) focus. In any event, I'll bet all the R&D that Apple is currently doing is business-relevant. So the fact that I am bringing up their doing something more implicitly suggests that I think they should go beyond. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">I'd take something like that over CSR spending any day!</span>
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]Incidentally, not al of Bell Labs's work led to eventual sales for ATT -- examples include UNIX, solar cells, radio astronomy, evidence of the Big Bang, Karmarkar's LP algorithm, 'fractional quantum hall' effect, synchronization system for movie sounds,.... and many more.[/SIZE]
Absolutely correct Anant. Bell Labs was far from alone in pursuing research that advanced science and industry as a whole even if they themselves did not benefit economically from it. "What's in it for me?" is short-sighted IMO.
This link is for Me's benefit as well as others who don't believe Apple or any other big tech should freely give back to the scientific research that made their own businesses possible. A rising tide lifts all ships. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_36/b4145036681619.htm
Bell Labs was far from alone in pursuing research that advanced science and industry as a whole even if they themselves did not benefit economically from it. "What's in it for me?" is short-sighted IMO.
Couldn't agree more. Indeed, I'll bet doing precisely that kind of research serendipitously produces all sorts of "wow, look at what's in it for me" outcomes.
Indeed, when corporations talk about 'social responsibility', I wish they would put something like this on top of the list.
A business is in business to sell something. They do whatever R&D they need to do to sell those something's. Doing R&D that has nothing to do with that would not be part of their mission. It would waste funds. Investors would not be happy about that. The stock would drop, and the board would put a stop to it.
You need to be realistic about this.
Corporations sometimes donate money to universities, and covers it.
[SIZE=14px]My definition of 'research' would most certainly include something that currently looks tangential, but whose potential may only be realized in the future, perhaps even in industries other than those Apple competes in.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]I am not saying that should be the main (or even dominant) focus. In any event, I'll bet all the R&D that Apple is currently doing is business-relevant. So the fact that I am bringing up their doing something more implicitly suggests that I think they should go beyond. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">I'd take something like that over CSR spending any day!</span>
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]Incidentally, not al of Bell Labs's work led to eventual sales for ATT -- examples include UNIX, solar cells, radio astronomy, evidence of the Big Bang, Karmarkar's LP algorithm, 'fractional quantum hall' effect, synchronization system for movie sounds,.... and many more.[/SIZE]
A number of those things were peripheral to the research being done. Solar cells were intended to power AT&T equipment where power lines couldn't reach. Evidence of the Big Bang came from research into noise that was affecting AT&T systems. I could go on. Read the excellent book about the history of Bell Labs.
Also remember that AT&T was a vast monopoly, they had no competitors, so they could waste a bit of money on pursuits their scientists wanted to look at, here and there.
I would t mind if Apple took a bit of that money they're throwing away on share repurchases and spent it on more university donations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross:
I don't expect them to work on R&D that has nothing to do with eventual possible sales. I hope you don't either. Bell Labs never did
Absolutely correct Anant. Bell Labs was far from alone in pursuing research that advanced science and industry as a whole even if they themselves did not benefit economically from it. "What's in it for me?" is short-sighted IMO.
This link is for Me's benefit as well as others who don't believe Apple or any other big tech should freely give back to the scientific research that made their own businesses possible. A rising tide lifts all ships. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_36/b4145036681619.htm
Instead of that link, you should read the book The Idea Factory by Jon Gertner.
Instead of that link, you should read the book The Idea Factory by Jon Gertner.
Isn't that book primarily about Bell Labs? There's a number of companies besides Bell that contributed to research outside their core business as noted in the article I linked. You did take a look at it didn't you, noting the commentary on why it matters?
A business is in business to sell something. They do whatever R&D they need to do to sell those something's. Doing R&D that has nothing to do with that would not be part of their mission. It would waste funds. Investors would not be happy about that. The stock would drop, and the board would put a stop to it.
You need to be realistic about this.
Corporations sometimes donate money to universities, and covers it.
I know from past postings of yours that you've said you ran a business. But I don't know (or recall) what, whether public, how big, or how long ago.
I can assure you that this view would be considered overly narrow and limited in a large, publicly traded, Fortune 500 company in 2014. In fact, it probably wouldn't fly.
A number of those things were peripheral to the research being done. Solar cells were intended to power AT&T equipment where power lines couldn't reach. Evidence of the Big Bang came from research into noise that was affecting AT&T systems. I could go on. Read the excellent book about the history of Bell Labs.
Also remember that AT&T was a vast monopoly, they had no competitors, so they could waste a bit of money on pursuits their scientists wanted to look at, here and there.
I would t mind if Apple took a bit of that money they're throwing away on share repurchases and spent it on more university donations.
'Peripheral' would be fine with me.
The fact that ATT was a monopoly has nothing to with it. What matters is the resources it had.
As someone who works in a university (and has, in a few), I can assure you that 'university donations' are unlikely to produce a lot of cutting-edge, industry-advancing research.
A business is in business to sell something. .....
You need to be realistic about this.
Sorry to add a separate post for this, but just wanted to note that it's quite a platitudinous statement to say that a business is in business to sell something.
Also, as to being 'realistic,' expressing a wish -- which is what I was doing, if you could understand context -- is quite different.
Isn't that book primarily about Bell Labs? There's a number of companies besides Bell that contributed to research outside their core business as noted in the article I linked. You did take a look at it didn't you, noting the commentary on why it matters?
It's all about them. Yeah, I looked at it. The author is confused. Everything he mentioned was done for profit. I almost worked for DARPA, but that's a government agency.
Comments
The anti-Apple brigade are really having to scrape the barrel with their critisism's now.
[...]
And now
"spellchecker that ships with Iphone not great "
it's not being anti-apple to point out shortcomings that could use improvement. to not do so would be to never improve.
if you feel that it's being anti-apple, i offer that is your irrational, emotional response to a perceived threat or insult. you have to ask yourself why.
Google isn't always correct either. The have a massive server farm to do those word lookups. We don't have that facility on our local computers. Google is also constantly fixing word definitions, spelling, etc. in short notice because their business depends on it. No doubt they spend hundreds of millions a year on just getting better word recognition. I certainly wouldn't expect Apple to do the same. As I've suggested before, if the free checker isn't good enough, buy a better one.
What has been "fun"?
I'm not talking about the fun you're having. You can be grumpy all you want. I'm talking about more fun for the employees. I think that Google Glass is a great example of something that would be extremely fun to develop, even if it doesn't sell. I can't think of too many projects more fun to work on that something like a self-driving car. Look at the companies they are buying, like Boston Dynamics -- what a great opportunity to work with those teams on projects.
Though most of Google's projects result in failure. Probably because they are so skatterbrained in concept. Remember the globular competitor to the Apple Tv Google came out with a few years ago? That's just one example. Now, it looks as though Glass will be following it.
Though most of Google's projects result in failure. Probably because they are so skatterbrained in concept. Remember the globular competitor to the Apple Tv Google came out with a few years ago? That's just one example. Now, it looks as though Glass will be following it.
Yep, absolutely true. On the other hand, after over a year, Chromecast continues to be a hit with my friends and coworkers. Cheap enough to be an impulse buy for everyone, and works extremely well. Then you have things like project Loon -- who knows if it will work? What a great pursuit though.
I don't want to go into a motivational speech here, but you can't succeed without failure. Jordan missed over 9000 shots. He was the only guy who would invent a new shot that he'd never tried before, during game seven of the finals, and after his feet left the ground. Most of those insane shots were a miss, but we only remember the ones that made it onto posters. Apple's failures are almost always contained within its walls, which fits their vision. Google exposes their ideas and failures publicly. One result is that it looks really fun to work there. Another is that they figure out what sticks.
I am coaching two Lego Robotics teams, and any time the kids come up with a hair brained idea, I tell them to build it and see what happens. Failure is an important part of the process. As the season progresses, they still have these wild ideas, but they do start to think through it more. They strike a balance without losing that off chance that something crazy works.
not nearly good enough to replace typing. not by a million years.
Correct, however it will replace any misspelled words if you simply highlight it and then dictate the replacement word.
I think that a lot of what Google does is for publicity. No company is willing to have so many failures intentionally. Remember that Google is an advertising agency. What do they do? They work on publicity. So I believe that a lot of their projects are destined to fail because they aren't well thought out. They really don't solve any problem. They're just there for people to say something like what you're saying. That is, how wonderful it is that Google does things like that. It's deflecting people from what Google really does, which is pretty dark, being a bigger collector of our information than the NSA.
As the biggest tech company, Apple should be supporting basic research. When they were small, it made sense for them to do only very focused applied research, and depend on the rest of society for basic research that benefits everyone. Now they are so big that they should be a major force pushing many avenues of science forward that don't just benefit them. For example, they should support basic research on chemical sensors at universities so that someday the Apple watch will be able to smell my blood sugar, and smell whether the food I'm about to eat contains something I'm allergic to.
Edit: I read this after posting
It wouldn't be that small an investment to properly support the research of the world's best scientists, unless they stuck to only theoretical research. But it would be great PR to accumulate a pile of Nobel Prizes for Apple!
No they shouldn't. That's only the business of business if they see some benefit to them. Basic research is done in universities and government labs. Intel will do that for chip making, because that's their business. But even Intel doesn't do work in basic physics.
Yours is just a point of view, just as his is.
Indeed, when corporations talk about 'social responsibility', I wish they would put something like this on top of the list.
I don't expect them to work on R&D that has nothing to do with eventual possible sales. I hope you don't either. Bell Labs never did.
My definition of 'research' would most certainly include something that currently looks tangential, but whose potential may only be realized in the future, perhaps even in industries other than those Apple competes in.
I am not saying that should be the main (or even dominant) focus. In any event, I'll bet all the R&D that Apple is currently doing is business-relevant. So the fact that I am bringing up their doing something more implicitly suggests that I think they should go beyond. I'd take something like that over CSR spending any day!
Incidentally, not al of Bell Labs's work led to eventual sales for ATT -- examples include UNIX, solar cells, radio astronomy, evidence of the Big Bang, Karmarkar's LP algorithm, 'fractional quantum hall' effect, synchronization system for movie sounds,.... and many more.
Originally Posted by melgross:
I don't expect them to work on R&D that has nothing to do with eventual possible sales. I hope you don't either. Bell Labs never did
Absolutely correct Anant. Bell Labs was far from alone in pursuing research that advanced science and industry as a whole even if they themselves did not benefit economically from it. "What's in it for me?" is short-sighted IMO.
This link is for Me's benefit as well as others who don't believe Apple or any other big tech should freely give back to the scientific research that made their own businesses possible. A rising tide lifts all ships.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_36/b4145036681619.htm
Bell Labs was far from alone in pursuing research that advanced science and industry as a whole even if they themselves did not benefit economically from it. "What's in it for me?" is short-sighted IMO.
Couldn't agree more. Indeed, I'll bet doing precisely that kind of research serendipitously produces all sorts of "wow, look at what's in it for me" outcomes.
A business is in business to sell something. They do whatever R&D they need to do to sell those something's. Doing R&D that has nothing to do with that would not be part of their mission. It would waste funds. Investors would not be happy about that. The stock would drop, and the board would put a stop to it.
You need to be realistic about this.
Corporations sometimes donate money to universities, and covers it.
A number of those things were peripheral to the research being done. Solar cells were intended to power AT&T equipment where power lines couldn't reach. Evidence of the Big Bang came from research into noise that was affecting AT&T systems. I could go on. Read the excellent book about the history of Bell Labs.
Also remember that AT&T was a vast monopoly, they had no competitors, so they could waste a bit of money on pursuits their scientists wanted to look at, here and there.
I would t mind if Apple took a bit of that money they're throwing away on share repurchases and spent it on more university donations.
Instead of that link, you should read the book The Idea Factory by Jon Gertner.
A business is in business to sell something. They do whatever R&D they need to do to sell those something's. Doing R&D that has nothing to do with that would not be part of their mission. It would waste funds. Investors would not be happy about that. The stock would drop, and the board would put a stop to it.
You need to be realistic about this.
Corporations sometimes donate money to universities, and covers it.
I know from past postings of yours that you've said you ran a business. But I don't know (or recall) what, whether public, how big, or how long ago.
I can assure you that this view would be considered overly narrow and limited in a large, publicly traded, Fortune 500 company in 2014. In fact, it probably wouldn't fly.
A number of those things were peripheral to the research being done. Solar cells were intended to power AT&T equipment where power lines couldn't reach. Evidence of the Big Bang came from research into noise that was affecting AT&T systems. I could go on. Read the excellent book about the history of Bell Labs.
Also remember that AT&T was a vast monopoly, they had no competitors, so they could waste a bit of money on pursuits their scientists wanted to look at, here and there.
I would t mind if Apple took a bit of that money they're throwing away on share repurchases and spent it on more university donations.
'Peripheral' would be fine with me.
The fact that ATT was a monopoly has nothing to with it. What matters is the resources it had.
As someone who works in a university (and has, in a few), I can assure you that 'university donations' are unlikely to produce a lot of cutting-edge, industry-advancing research.
A business is in business to sell something. .....
You need to be realistic about this.
Sorry to add a separate post for this, but just wanted to note that it's quite a platitudinous statement to say that a business is in business to sell something.
Also, as to being 'realistic,' expressing a wish -- which is what I was doing, if you could understand context -- is quite different.
Will that be a direct hit or amortized over the remaining life of the average subscriber?
It's all about them. Yeah, I looked at it. The author is confused. Everything he mentioned was done for profit. I almost worked for DARPA, but that's a government agency.