Oh yeah. I like that both will cut Apple down when necessary though. Jean Louis Gassee over at Monday Note will do that as well.
I've watched a chunk of TOS, not all of it.
Wow, there's a name from the past. I still have BeOS somewhere.
I find TOS a bit dated to say the least now but it was ground breaking in its day for many reasons. Many of the stories are of genuinely Esopean proportions in their allegoric power.
I hear you. I am a total sci-fi junky and Netflix is a dream come true! Just went through 'The 100' in two nights!
To think there was a time I had to finish my home work before I could watch the weekly Star Trek episode back in the 1960s ...
To get back OT, those links you sent are amazing! Really putting Google and Android in perspective.
Be sure to read this additional Stratechery article while you're there. He's a long time Mac user who holds to the same view I've posted here on several occasions: Google Android was meant as a buttress against Microsoft, and still serves to ensure no single player dominates mobile like MS did the desktop. It was NOT intended as a Google attack on Apple. http://stratechery.com/2013/the-android-detour/
Wow, there's a name from the past. I still have BeOS somewhere.
I find TOS a bit dated to say the least now but it was ground breaking in its day for many reasons. Many of the stories are of genuinely Esopean proportions in their allegoric power.
There are some good ones, obviously The City On The Edge of Forever being the gold standard.
Be sure to trad this additional Stratechery article while you're reading there. He's a long time Mac user who holds to the same view I've posted here on several occasions: Android was a buttress against Microsoft, and still serves to ensure no single player dominates mobile like MS did the desktop. It was NOT intended as a Google attack on Apple. http://stratechery.com/2013/the-android-detour/
That doesn't mean he is correct. Besides, if Google hadn't gone after Apple then Microsoft, or Palm, or BlackBerry would he the number two player today. Apple was never going to dominate 95% of the market simply because they're not a low end player, and they don't appeal to everyone. And by launching Android they cut their own throats, by losing iOS users, which is where the real money is. One report said that Google lost 85% of Maps traffic from iOS after Apple Maps launched.
Be sure to read this additional Stratechery article while you're there. He's a long time Mac user who holds to the same view I've posted here on several occasions: Google Android was meant as a buttress against Microsoft, and still serves to ensure no single player dominates mobile like MS did the desktop. It was NOT intended as a Google attack on Apple. http://stratechery.com/2013/the-android-detour/
"Google acquired Android in 2005 as a defense against Windows Mobile dominating smartphones just as Windows dominated PCs. When the iPhone arrived in 2007, Google quickly pivoted Android to defuse the new threat. And they were hugely successful."
I have no argument with the first part of your reading of that article. That 2007 pivot is where I and many Apple folks have the problem not least of those of that opinion was Steve.
by launching Android they cut their own throats, by losing iOS users, which is where the real money is. One report said that Google lost 85% of Maps traffic from iOS after Apple Maps launched.
Apple would never have kept Google as a long time partner anyway IMHO. Google served a purpose for them at the time but Apple generally prefers to control their own ecosystem rather than relying on "partners" for the good and profitable stuff. By now I believe they would be slowly phasing Google out no matter what they did unless they sold out entirely to Apple, toeing a fine line and no longer controlling their own destiny.
That doesn't mean he is correct. Besides, if Google hadn't gone after Apple then Microsoft, or Palm, or BlackBerry would he the number two player today. Apple was never going to dominate 95% of the market simply because they're not a low end player, and they don't appeal to everyone. And by launching Android they cut their own throats, by losing iOS users, which is where the real money is. One report said that Google lost 85% of Maps traffic from iOS after Apple Maps launched.
"Google acquired Android in 2005 as a defense against Windows Mobile dominating smartphones just as Windows dominated PCs. When the iPhone arrived in 2007, Google quickly pivoted Android to defuse the new threat. And they were hugely successful."
I have no argument with the first part of your reading of that article. That 2007 pivot is where I and many Apple folks have the problem not least of those of that opinion was Steve.
Then in general we agree. If White Falcon is correct and Apple could not have completely dominated mobile anyway then Google caused them no actual harm, instead ensuring there would be no one dominant player which should be seen as a good thing. In a way they did Apple a favor by splintering the industry and neutering MS at the same time. Google, who in no way competed with Apple and their hardware business, helped prevent any other single hardware manufacturer from having much impact on Apple's cash-cow.
There are some good ones, obviously The City On The Edge of Forever being the gold standard.
I will have to check that out, not ringing any bells ...
I always remember the one where a planet is divided and destroying itself in war ... one between folks who are half white and half black, can't remember the title. Seen that one? Kirk say's, 'but you are the same?' The response .. "What? ...Look ..he is white on the left ... I'm white on the right!"
I should have added ... I'd not necessarily use the term successful, but the point was, that pivot was IP theft. I assume that is what we are agreeing on.
Apple would never have kept Google as a long time partner anyway IMHO. Google served a purpose for them at the time but Apple generally prefers to control their own ecosystem rather than relying on "partners" for the good and profitable stuff. By now I believe they would be slowly phasing Google out no matter what they did unless they sold out entirely to Apple, toeing a fine line and no longer controlling their own destiny.
That'd doubtful. Apple has commonly relied on trusted partners, it's why third party guys do the manufacturing. They only bring things in house when there's a need. Apple was fine with Google handling the services because they weren't the things Apple makes money from, but they added value to the device.
Honestly, after being betrayed for the second time by a key partner with regards to a revolutionary device, I think Steve had had enough, and that's why they've become so vertically integrated as of late. And Tim is continuing the holy war in his sub-zero manner, which may not be as entertaining but is more effective.
I will have to check that out, not ringing any bells ...
I always remember the one where a planet is divided and destroying itself in war ... one between folks who are half white and half black, can't remember the title. Seen that one? Kirk say's, 'but you are the same?' The response .. "What? ...Look ..he is white on the left ... I'm white on the right!"
I may have. I've seen about two thirds of the first season, a few scattered episodes after that.
That'd doubtful. Apple has commonly relied on trusted partners, it's why third party guys do the manufacturing. They only bring things in house when there's a need. Apple was fine with Google handling the services because they weren't the things Apple makes money from, but they added value to the device.
Honestly, after being betrayed for the second time by a key partner with regards to a revolutionary device, I think Steve had had enough, and that's why they've become so vertically integrated as of late. And Tim is continuing the holy war in his sub-zero manner, which may not be as entertaining but is more effective.
The last panel of this says it perfectly:
LOL, made my night. That should be their new motto ... "We're Monsters aren't we."
Every day I go to work, I have my own thoughts, I dare not express them too much. I am forced to walk down the stairs using the hand rail lest someone report me. Never did I think when I read the first chapter of 1984 when I was 12 would it actually happen , but it has! The interesting aspect of all this is I believe most of the underground so called anti establishment orgs are actually run by the Ministry of Truth (The Party i.e. Homeland Insecurity) ACLU being one of them. Most have been infiltrated. Please remember that anyone who is on a "list" and pops up on searches is now categorized as a terrorist every since they passed the "Unpatriotic Act" which your wonderful Obama didn't repeal because he is one of em. You actually believe all this anti Obama so called "news " is for real , interesting! Its a smoke screen. They go on and on about how Congress and President have such low approval rating. Don't fall for it! The correct question to ask is why do they want you to think about that in the first place? A. To make you feel good! and divert you from the the real truth which is "WE ARE SLAVES". What do you think the Matrix is about? It's a battle for your mind and to program you to think their way! Just keep asking questions thats all we have to do! The elite hates that, why do you think they want to completely gut the education system and create mindless morons who don't know how to think for themselves. All they want is productive workers, People like Obama, Clinton, in fact all public officials, police, CEO's Tim Cook, Schmitt are all "Agents" of the system. Their game is "MIND CONTROL" They are all carrying out the orders from their masters even if they are not conscious of it. We are all controlled and its okay. Accept it there is nothing you can do about it at all, just be amused and watch the show. As George Carlin said "Its a freak show, We in USA get a front row seat"
I should have added ... I'd not necessarily use the term successful, but the point was, that pivot was IP theft. I assume that is what we are agreeing on.
IP theft? I've seen that claimed over and over yet no actual example of it nor a believable explanation why if Oracle could go after them Apple could not have too if they felt strongly that it happened.
IP theft? I've seen that claimed over and over yet no actual example of it nor a believable explanation why if Oracle could go after them Apple could not have too if they felt strongly that it happened.
Google hasn't made any money from Android. Samsung did. Hard to sue for damages when you can't prove there was a net financial benefit.
I will have to check that out, not ringing any bells ...
I always remember the one where a planet is divided and destroying itself in war ... one between folks who are half white and half black, can't remember the title. Seen that one? Kirk say's, 'but you are the same?' The response .. "What? ...Look ..he is white on the left ... I'm white on the right!"
Google hasn't made any money from Android. Samsung did. Hard to sue for damages when you can't prove there was a net financial benefit.
So why was Oracle convinced they were due a few billion? That's where your argument falls apart. You don't have to profit from IP theft to be ordered to make the IP holder whole thru monetary damages, or even via an injunction. Using the excuse Google doesn't make money from Android to explain away Apple's avoidance of a lawsuit is a red herring. The Federal courts don't care if the infringer made a profit as it doesn't matter except to additional disgorgement damages if the court sees fit to go after those too. Apple could still be paid for their losses and demand an injunction to prevent further damage.
Comments
There is no 'Private Sector'...
Tell that to my crotch.Yes, that’s just about the stupidest joke I’ve ever done.
I hear you. I am a total sci-fi junky and Netflix is a dream come true! Just went through 'The 100' in two nights!
To think there was a time I had to finish my home work before I could watch the weekly Star Trek episode back in the 1960s ...
To get back OT, those links you sent are amazing! Really putting Google and Android in perspective.
Oh yeah. I like that both will cut Apple down when necessary though. Jean Louis Gassee over at Monday Note will do that as well.
I've watched a chunk of TOS, not all of it.
Wow, there's a name from the past. I still have BeOS somewhere.
I find TOS a bit dated to say the least now but it was ground breaking in its day for many reasons. Many of the stories are of genuinely Esopean proportions in their allegoric power.
Be sure to read this additional Stratechery article while you're there. He's a long time Mac user who holds to the same view I've posted here on several occasions: Google Android was meant as a buttress against Microsoft, and still serves to ensure no single player dominates mobile like MS did the desktop. It was NOT intended as a Google attack on Apple.
http://stratechery.com/2013/the-android-detour/
There are some good ones, obviously The City On The Edge of Forever being the gold standard.
That doesn't mean he is correct. Besides, if Google hadn't gone after Apple then Microsoft, or Palm, or BlackBerry would he the number two player today. Apple was never going to dominate 95% of the market simply because they're not a low end player, and they don't appeal to everyone. And by launching Android they cut their own throats, by losing iOS users, which is where the real money is. One report said that Google lost 85% of Maps traffic from iOS after Apple Maps launched.
"Google acquired Android in 2005 as a defense against Windows Mobile dominating smartphones just as Windows dominated PCs. When the iPhone arrived in 2007, Google quickly pivoted Android to defuse the new threat. And they were hugely successful."
I have no argument with the first part of your reading of that article. That 2007 pivot is where I and many Apple folks have the problem not least of those of that opinion was Steve.
Apple would never have kept Google as a long time partner anyway IMHO. Google served a purpose for them at the time but Apple generally prefers to control their own ecosystem rather than relying on "partners" for the good and profitable stuff. By now I believe they would be slowly phasing Google out no matter what they did unless they sold out entirely to Apple, toeing a fine line and no longer controlling their own destiny.
And we are back to schadenfreude ... 8-)
Then in general we agree. If White Falcon is correct and Apple could not have completely dominated mobile anyway then Google caused them no actual harm, instead ensuring there would be no one dominant player which should be seen as a good thing. In a way they did Apple a favor by splintering the industry and neutering MS at the same time. Google, who in no way competed with Apple and their hardware business, helped prevent any other single hardware manufacturer from having much impact on Apple's cash-cow.
I will have to check that out, not ringing any bells ...
I always remember the one where a planet is divided and destroying itself in war ... one between folks who are half white and half black, can't remember the title. Seen that one? Kirk say's, 'but you are the same?' The response .. "What? ...Look ..he is white on the left ... I'm white on the right!"
I should have added ... I'd not necessarily use the term successful, but the point was, that pivot was IP theft. I assume that is what we are agreeing on.
That'd doubtful. Apple has commonly relied on trusted partners, it's why third party guys do the manufacturing. They only bring things in house when there's a need. Apple was fine with Google handling the services because they weren't the things Apple makes money from, but they added value to the device.
Honestly, after being betrayed for the second time by a key partner with regards to a revolutionary device, I think Steve had had enough, and that's why they've become so vertically integrated as of late. And Tim is continuing the holy war in his sub-zero manner, which may not be as entertaining but is more effective.
The last panel of this says it perfectly:
I may have. I've seen about two thirds of the first season, a few scattered episodes after that.
LOL, made my night. That should be their new motto ... "We're Monsters aren't we."
I'm signing off to go watch some Sci-Fi.
IP theft? I've seen that claimed over and over yet no actual example of it nor a believable explanation why if Oracle could go after them Apple could not have too if they felt strongly that it happened.
Google hasn't made any money from Android. Samsung did. Hard to sue for damages when you can't prove there was a net financial benefit.
Let That Be Your Last Battlefield
So why was Oracle convinced they were due a few billion? That's where your argument falls apart. You don't have to profit from IP theft to be ordered to make the IP holder whole thru monetary damages, or even via an injunction. Using the excuse Google doesn't make money from Android to explain away Apple's avoidance of a lawsuit is a red herring. The Federal courts don't care if the infringer made a profit as it doesn't matter except to additional disgorgement damages if the court sees fit to go after those too. Apple could still be paid for their losses and demand an injunction to prevent further damage.
...IF they truly believed Google stole their IP.
Try again.