For Apple, the potential advantages in a close Google relationship could include things like
- Integrated email system (choose your own, or Google with ads, or pay for .Mac )
- Integrated calendaring (including better perception of an MS competitor for calendaring)
- Integrated mapping (as we know)
- Merging a youTube client into iTunes (iTube/YouTunes) - Google does the free (advertising-supported) stuff, Apple sells shows
- General integration of advertising (hopefully optional!) into Apple's model, making software free rather than paid for.
I'd also hope for an online storage model... though I'd rather see Apple work with existing offerings to encourage competition.
ps. I'm not sure, but the advertising link may be the most important. Like it or not, in the IPTV world we need a model for advertising that works - to make the advertisers happy AND allow for free ('sponsored') entertainment. This might be done badly (popups annoy me both on websites & at the bottom left of a TV show), or well (how about 1 ad instead of 5, but have that ad customised to me personally (not just my demographic) and stop me skipping it?)
Your ideas aren't terrible, they just go against what Apple and Youtube are.
1) You can have that now, just choose Gmail, or choose to pay for .Mac.
2) YES PLEASE! Spanningsync just plain doesn't work AT ALL!
3) More Likely then not
4) Not going to Happen. Apple doesn't want Ads in iTunes, and Youtube is still independant from Google for the most part, and last I checked, Google and Youtube plan to keep it that way (which is good because the Youtube brand is very well known)
5) Never going to Happen (with Steve around) because Apple doesn't insert Ads into their software. It's either Free or you Pay for it, but there's no room for Ads.
About the IPTV thing, um... if you mean the Apple TV, all of your content comes from your computer. Either you put it there from another source, you create it, or you download it. There's no need to sponsor anything.
About the IPTV thing, um... if you mean the Apple TV, all of your content comes from your computer. Either you put it there from another source, you create it, or you download it. There's no need to sponsor anything.
Actually I meant IPTV generally - time shifted viewing, VoD (any show from any time), live sport, etc etc. Whoever can make a model that persuades existing advertisers to make the jump will own a large part of the future of TV. I think Google has a good chance at that, while Apple has a good chance at the pay-to-view model. Working together would help both.
Agreed though, that so far Apple has avoided all that, and may choose to simply continue that way.
Actually I meant IPTV generally - time shifted viewing, VoD (any show from any time), live sport, etc etc. Whoever can make a model that persuades existing advertisers to make the jump will own a large part of the future of TV. I think Google has a good chance at that, while Apple has a good chance at the pay-to-view model. Working together would help both.
Agreed though, that so far Apple has avoided all that, and may choose to simply continue that way.
Well, yes they will choose to simply stay the way they are now.
Apple knows the real money is in hardware, Software as far as they care and services like .Mac or the iTunes Store are literally just extra spice.
I routinely use Google Maps even moreso than Mapquest now and I use Google web search for movies a I simply type the name of the movie and my zip code and I get showtimes.
Apple knows the real money is in hardware, Software as far as they care and services like .Mac or the iTunes Store are literally just extra spice.
If Apple only wants to sell hardware, then whether they have ad supported TV or purchased TV would make no difference to them. They'd choose whichever would encourage more hardware sales. ie: Would offering ad-supported TV in ADDITION to purchased TV encourage Apple hardware sales?
Of course, it's not that simple. Apple has repeatedly said it's about the whole package. Apple makes more money on its hardware because it bundles OSX, iLife, etc...
If Apple only wants to sell hardware, then whether they have ad supported TV or purchased TV would make no difference to them. They'd choose whichever would encourage more hardware sales. ie: Would offering ad-supported TV in ADDITION to purchased TV encourage Apple hardware sales?
Of course, it's not that simple. Apple has repeatedly said it's about the whole package. Apple makes more money on its hardware because it bundles OSX, iLife, etc...
Like I said, Software and Services are just extra spice. The real money is in the hardware, this goes for OS X, iLife, iTunes, iTunes Store, .Mac, AppleCare, Pro Care, iWork, Shake, Final Cut Studio, Logic Express, etc. Apple COULD for example, sell Macs with Windows and not bother with Mac OS X, but the only problem is that it would go against their entire business model of selling the Hardware by selling the Software. Mac OS X is the main selling point of Macs so obviously that would be suicidal.
Why are FCS, Shake, iLife, and the rest of the iApps around? Because they're not going to sell their OS and through that, their Hardware if it doesn't run any type of Software at all. Why does the iTunes Store exist? Well 2 reasons, One is to keep DRM from falling into the control of Microsoft who would not bother fighting for consumer rights at all, and has even worse DRM than FairPlay. The Other is to give their computers and their Digital Media Players content to play.
An Ad Supported model probably wouldn't do as well as iTunes is doing right now, Apple is better off sticking with what they have now.
I'm checking out Contactizer Pro 3.x from Objective Decision right now.
The first bit of Google integration was the importation of my Gmail messages and contacts. It also pulls the Google Map location of any correct address you have input for a contact.
I could see this becoming a nice partnership with Apple supporting Google technologies and vice versa.
So, Picasa was created by Google? Nope, it was bought. Google Earth? Nope, bought as well. Gmail? Nope, it was based on a previous AJAX application.
So what are all those alleged PhD's doing at Google? I don't know, maybe bouncing their exercise balls?
But seriously, the search engine is great, but don't give them a lot of credit for "inventing" whatever they have acquired. It is what Microsoft has been doing for years...
I think the key is "based on". They made quite a bit of changes. Gdocs has had a lot of integration work from different code bases. My understanding is that a lot of it was recoded to use Google's API, quickly too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Google will likely duplicate any developments with Apple on other platforms. I'm not on the edge of my seat...yet.
I think it would be irresponsible of Google to not support Windows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123
Well, if we are gonna sing that tune, iTunes was purchased, so was OS X.
OS X wasn't totally purchased though, and I don't think from just one source. Much of the original base is from NextStep, most of the back-end has been updated from other open source origins. Bringing all these together, as well as other parts, and make it Mac-like, isn't trivial.
Hey, maybe this whole Google joining was brought out when Jobs pulled his "secret features" comment out of his ass last year, needed some help coming up with something worthy of the comment, couldn't come up with any good ideas on his own and teamed up with Google to see if they could come up with something interesting.
Oh, and don't forget, iMovie and GarageBand were bought by Apple as well! And they basically stole the ideas for Dashboard and Sherlock. And I think they've kind of ripped off Microsoft's idea of delayed OS releases....
What cool things have google created? I don't see why everyone is in love with google.
Microsoft made their fortune on integrating (their only successes) Windows, Office and their Servers (Exchange, etc.). Apple has come back on the back of their integrated computers and OS X (it's like they're made for each other!), the integration of their OS X and other software (iLife, iWork, Final Cut, Aperture, etc.), and the integration of their various hardware (Macs, iPod, AppleTV, iPhone, etc.). In a couple of months their server offerings, with it's integration with everything Apple, will be ready to take on Microsoft's in the enterprise. Google is similarly building the exponential power of integration......
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123
Well, if we are gonna sing that tune, iTunes was purchased, so was OS X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by karbon
So, Picasa was created by Google? Nope, it was bought. Google Earth? Nope, bought as well. Gmail? Nope, it was based on a previous AJAX application.
So what are all those alleged PhD's doing at Google? I don't know, maybe bouncing their exercise balls?
But seriously, the search engine is great, but don't give them a lot of credit for "inventing" whatever they have acquired. It is what Microsoft has been doing for years...
Apples offerings, many of which come from acquisitions that they then built on and perfected (NeXT/OS X, Final Cut, DVDStudio, Shake...), Google is acquiring pieces (Writely, Blogger, YouTube...) to build on and perfect. And you're right. Microsoft built MSDos from a clone of CP/M.
What Apple has done in the past ten years would never have happened if they'd tried to bake everything from scratch. They took a lot of open source software and aquisitions but the big deal is that they made great software out of the building blocks that were available to them. Without Apple's software from Final Cut Pro to iLife, Apple would have disappeared......
Why does the iTunes Store exist? Well 2 reasons, One is to keep DRM from falling into the control of Microsoft who would not bother fighting for consumer rights at all, and has even worse DRM than FairPlay.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that Apple is fighting for consumer rights. They are not. They are fighting for their own rights.
Quote:
An Ad Supported model probably wouldn't do as well as iTunes is doing right now, Apple is better off sticking with what they have now.
Sebastian
We don't know how well it would work if Apple does it, because Apple isn't doing it.
But, that doesn't mean that Apple won't do a form of it in the future. Apple is doing things they formally said they wouldn't do.
Comments
For Apple, the potential advantages in a close Google relationship could include things like
- Integrated email system (choose your own, or Google with ads, or pay for .Mac )
- Integrated calendaring (including better perception of an MS competitor for calendaring)
- Integrated mapping (as we know)
- Merging a youTube client into iTunes (iTube/YouTunes) - Google does the free (advertising-supported) stuff, Apple sells shows
- General integration of advertising (hopefully optional!) into Apple's model, making software free rather than paid for.
I'd also hope for an online storage model... though I'd rather see Apple work with existing offerings to encourage competition.
ps. I'm not sure, but the advertising link may be the most important. Like it or not, in the IPTV world we need a model for advertising that works - to make the advertisers happy AND allow for free ('sponsored') entertainment. This might be done badly (popups annoy me both on websites & at the bottom left of a TV show), or well (how about 1 ad instead of 5, but have that ad customised to me personally (not just my demographic) and stop me skipping it?)
Your ideas aren't terrible, they just go against what Apple and Youtube are.
1) You can have that now, just choose Gmail, or choose to pay for .Mac.
2) YES PLEASE! Spanningsync just plain doesn't work AT ALL!
3) More Likely then not
4) Not going to Happen. Apple doesn't want Ads in iTunes, and Youtube is still independant from Google for the most part, and last I checked, Google and Youtube plan to keep it that way (which is good because the Youtube brand is very well known)
5) Never going to Happen (with Steve around) because Apple doesn't insert Ads into their software. It's either Free or you Pay for it, but there's no room for Ads.
About the IPTV thing, um... if you mean the Apple TV, all of your content comes from your computer. Either you put it there from another source, you create it, or you download it. There's no need to sponsor anything.
Sebastian
About the IPTV thing, um... if you mean the Apple TV, all of your content comes from your computer. Either you put it there from another source, you create it, or you download it. There's no need to sponsor anything.
Actually I meant IPTV generally - time shifted viewing, VoD (any show from any time), live sport, etc etc. Whoever can make a model that persuades existing advertisers to make the jump will own a large part of the future of TV. I think Google has a good chance at that, while Apple has a good chance at the pay-to-view model. Working together would help both.
Agreed though, that so far Apple has avoided all that, and may choose to simply continue that way.
Actually I meant IPTV generally - time shifted viewing, VoD (any show from any time), live sport, etc etc. Whoever can make a model that persuades existing advertisers to make the jump will own a large part of the future of TV. I think Google has a good chance at that, while Apple has a good chance at the pay-to-view model. Working together would help both.
Agreed though, that so far Apple has avoided all that, and may choose to simply continue that way.
Well, yes they will choose to simply stay the way they are now.
Apple knows the real money is in hardware, Software as far as they care and services like .Mac or the iTunes Store are literally just extra spice.
Sebastian
I routinely use Google Maps even moreso than Mapquest now and I use Google web search for movies a I simply type the name of the movie and my zip code and I get showtimes.
I always prefer GoogleMaps.
..except their directions aren't always the best.
What cool things have google created? I don't see why everyone is in love with google.
Well, if we are gonna sing that tune, iTunes was purchased, so was OS X.
Perhaps you'll see the death of .Mac and its migration to Google.
Not going to happen. I'd f***ing murder Apple if they did, being a happy user of .Mac myself.
Sebastian
Apple knows the real money is in hardware, Software as far as they care and services like .Mac or the iTunes Store are literally just extra spice.
If Apple only wants to sell hardware, then whether they have ad supported TV or purchased TV would make no difference to them. They'd choose whichever would encourage more hardware sales. ie: Would offering ad-supported TV in ADDITION to purchased TV encourage Apple hardware sales?
Of course, it's not that simple. Apple has repeatedly said it's about the whole package. Apple makes more money on its hardware because it bundles OSX, iLife, etc...
If Apple only wants to sell hardware, then whether they have ad supported TV or purchased TV would make no difference to them. They'd choose whichever would encourage more hardware sales. ie: Would offering ad-supported TV in ADDITION to purchased TV encourage Apple hardware sales?
Of course, it's not that simple. Apple has repeatedly said it's about the whole package. Apple makes more money on its hardware because it bundles OSX, iLife, etc...
Like I said, Software and Services are just extra spice. The real money is in the hardware, this goes for OS X, iLife, iTunes, iTunes Store, .Mac, AppleCare, Pro Care, iWork, Shake, Final Cut Studio, Logic Express, etc. Apple COULD for example, sell Macs with Windows and not bother with Mac OS X, but the only problem is that it would go against their entire business model of selling the Hardware by selling the Software. Mac OS X is the main selling point of Macs so obviously that would be suicidal.
Why are FCS, Shake, iLife, and the rest of the iApps around? Because they're not going to sell their OS and through that, their Hardware if it doesn't run any type of Software at all. Why does the iTunes Store exist? Well 2 reasons, One is to keep DRM from falling into the control of Microsoft who would not bother fighting for consumer rights at all, and has even worse DRM than FairPlay. The Other is to give their computers and their Digital Media Players content to play.
An Ad Supported model probably wouldn't do as well as iTunes is doing right now, Apple is better off sticking with what they have now.
Sebastian
MacGoo sounds niftier than GoMac.
Mr. Magoo
Don't forget his famous quote... "Ah Magoo, you've done it again!"
http://www.toontracker.com/magoo/magoo.htm
So, Picasa was created by Google? Nope, it was bought. Google Earth? Nope, bought as well. Gmail? Nope, it was based on a previous AJAX application.
So what are all those alleged PhD's doing at Google? I don't know, maybe bouncing their exercise balls?
and making lots of money?!
The first bit of Google integration was the importation of my Gmail messages and contacts. It also pulls the Google Map location of any correct address you have input for a contact.
I could see this becoming a nice partnership with Apple supporting Google technologies and vice versa.
So, Picasa was created by Google? Nope, it was bought. Google Earth? Nope, bought as well. Gmail? Nope, it was based on a previous AJAX application.
So what are all those alleged PhD's doing at Google? I don't know, maybe bouncing their exercise balls?
But seriously, the search engine is great, but don't give them a lot of credit for "inventing" whatever they have acquired. It is what Microsoft has been doing for years...
I think the key is "based on". They made quite a bit of changes. Gdocs has had a lot of integration work from different code bases. My understanding is that a lot of it was recoded to use Google's API, quickly too.
Google will likely duplicate any developments with Apple on other platforms. I'm not on the edge of my seat...yet.
I think it would be irresponsible of Google to not support Windows.
Well, if we are gonna sing that tune, iTunes was purchased, so was OS X.
OS X wasn't totally purchased though, and I don't think from just one source. Much of the original base is from NextStep, most of the back-end has been updated from other open source origins. Bringing all these together, as well as other parts, and make it Mac-like, isn't trivial.
Wow, karbon. Welcome to the forums. Cranky first post, I must say...
Correcting misperceptions makes him cranky?
Correcting misperceptions makes him cranky?
No, but the tone sure makes him sound cranky.
I'm not saying I'm above it either, I'm cranky at times too, but I'm just saying...
Oh, and don't forget, iMovie and GarageBand were bought by Apple as well! And they basically stole the ideas for Dashboard and Sherlock. And I think they've kind of ripped off Microsoft's idea of delayed OS releases....
What cool things have google created? I don't see why everyone is in love with google.
Microsoft made their fortune on integrating (their only successes) Windows, Office and their Servers (Exchange, etc.). Apple has come back on the back of their integrated computers and OS X (it's like they're made for each other!), the integration of their OS X and other software (iLife, iWork, Final Cut, Aperture, etc.), and the integration of their various hardware (Macs, iPod, AppleTV, iPhone, etc.). In a couple of months their server offerings, with it's integration with everything Apple, will be ready to take on Microsoft's in the enterprise. Google is similarly building the exponential power of integration......
Well, if we are gonna sing that tune, iTunes was purchased, so was OS X.
So, Picasa was created by Google? Nope, it was bought. Google Earth? Nope, bought as well. Gmail? Nope, it was based on a previous AJAX application.
So what are all those alleged PhD's doing at Google? I don't know, maybe bouncing their exercise balls?
But seriously, the search engine is great, but don't give them a lot of credit for "inventing" whatever they have acquired. It is what Microsoft has been doing for years...
Apples offerings, many of which come from acquisitions that they then built on and perfected (NeXT/OS X, Final Cut, DVDStudio, Shake...), Google is acquiring pieces (Writely, Blogger, YouTube...) to build on and perfect. And you're right. Microsoft built MSDos from a clone of CP/M.
What Apple has done in the past ten years would never have happened if they'd tried to bake everything from scratch. They took a lot of open source software and aquisitions but the big deal is that they made great software out of the building blocks that were available to them. Without Apple's software from Final Cut Pro to iLife, Apple would have disappeared......
defiantly
Defiantly?
Or definitely?
Well, yes they will choose to simply stay the way they are now.
Apple knows the real money is in hardware, Software as far as they care and services like .Mac or the iTunes Store are literally just extra spice.
Sebastian
The cash flow is in hardware, but the profits are in software, and services.
By software, I don't mean Tunes.
Why does the iTunes Store exist? Well 2 reasons, One is to keep DRM from falling into the control of Microsoft who would not bother fighting for consumer rights at all, and has even worse DRM than FairPlay.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that Apple is fighting for consumer rights. They are not. They are fighting for their own rights.
An Ad Supported model probably wouldn't do as well as iTunes is doing right now, Apple is better off sticking with what they have now.
Sebastian
We don't know how well it would work if Apple does it, because Apple isn't doing it.
But, that doesn't mean that Apple won't do a form of it in the future. Apple is doing things they formally said they wouldn't do.