Having Google as the default search engine on the iPhone is rumored to earn Apple more than $100 million per year in a revenue sharing deal between the two companies, a new report alleges.
It is clear why Apple doesn't want Flash on the iPhone or iPad. They do not have any control over it. And I don't mean that in a fascist way at all.
Apple's experience with Flash on OS X has been truly awful; security, stability and performance issues. In fact, with Safari 4, Apple has decided to push Flash objects into their own sandbox to prevent them from bringing down the entire browser.
The control aspect comes in when there is a legitimate issue with Flash and Apple is completely powerless to fix it. They must wait for Adobe to fix the issue and as history has shown, Adobe doesn't care about the end user experience (especially on the Mac) all they care about is selling Flash tools to developers.
So the user suffers and the experience of using the device is drown under shitty Flash code. I would be extremely upset if I bought a device to surf the web and it constantly crashed on me. You really think Apple is going to let that happen? Do you really think Apple will ever let Flash on its mobile devices?
Even the mobile Mozilla browser has turned off default Flash support, because it made the entire experience unbearable.
Perhaps it's Safari that's at fault.
Perhaps, because Apple changes things so often, with their OS, their hardware, their browser, that it makes it extremely difficult for third party developers to keep up with the changes, fix security issues or even make it profitable?
Adobe might just fine and dandy with Flash on over 95% of the computers and most of the web sites out there.
By the way, a security expert has ranked Safari LAST under Firefox and IE for security, another has said hacking Safari is trivial
Quote:
Nitesh Dhanjani, researcher and consultant: "...the Safari Web browser also has a lousy reputation in the security community--it almost seems a child's play to locate an exploitable condition in Safari...
Quote:
Frank Heidt, CEO of Leviathan Security: "From a browser (security) standpoint, I would choose Firefox over IE, and IE over Safari."
I know Apple likes to control the entire widget, but nobody uses a search engine or a keyword any more, they Google. I don't think that term will ever be replaced.
Think about this seriously. How could Apple possibly improve on the ability to type a single misspelled word into a little box in the corner of your browser and get the result you were looking for?
Apple has managed to add one noun to our language: iPod. It now represents any personal audio player. But iPhone will never be anything more than just another smart phone just as iMac is only one model of computer. If they do a search tool it'll just be a search tool, never a verb. Those who agree with me might be thinking "no shit Sherlock" which just proves that Apple can never use that name.
I know Apple likes to control the entire widget, but nobody uses a search engine or a keyword any more, they Google. I don't think that term will ever be replaced.
Think about this seriously. How could Apple possibly improve on the ability to type a single misspelled word into a little box in the corner of your browser and get the result you were looking for?
Apple has managed to add one noun to our language: iPod. It now represents any personal audio player. But iPhone will never be anything more than just another smart phone just as iMac is only one model of computer. If they do a search tool it'll just be a search tool, never a verb. Those who agree with me might be thinking "no shit Sherlock" which just proves that Apple can never use that name.
Well people might "Google" but Microsoft, who makes Windows on 90% of the PC's out there, installs IE by default which uses Bing, a search engine by Microsoft. (except in the European Union who new Windows users can get a choice of browsers from a default window)
It could be eventually people just "Bing" instead of "Googling" *shutters at the thought*
So it's looking like Google is paying Apple to not create their own search engine...
At least on Firefox there is a menu field (like Safari) and little drop down menu with a choice of search engines by default (except Bing) but one can add their own if they wish to the list.
I find it handy to search Wikipedia or eBay, directly from the browser bar.
Safari of course won't have this feature because Apple is getting paid by Google to keep the others off or not creating their own.
Check my post count 666... freaky eh, could I be the devil?
Funny, I just noticed on this thread your consistant post count. I was going to say something but thought I should stock up on garlic, rosary beads, wooden stakes, silver bullets and the like first. You can't be too careful these days...
Don't kid yourself, Apple is working on a Search engine. It might never release it, but if Google gets to big for it's britches, Apple will cut Google off.
Not really. Goole is paying Apple to bring it traffic to sell ads. In return, it is sharing revenue. Personally, I think Google is getting sick of sharing the revenue. That is why it is releasing products like Chrome. The more it takes share from Firefox and Safari, the less it will have to pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
So it's looking like Google is paying Apple to not create their own search engine...
Don't kid yourself, Apple is working on a Search engine. It might never release it, but if Google gets to big for it's britches, Apple will cut Google off.
Revenue from Google = $100M/year
Revenue from everthing = $50B/year
I'd say that that would warrant some R&D into a Search Engine. They already do searches on their Macs which needs to be improved and I'm sure they've thought of some ways to improve on the way web search engines work.
HUH? Why exactly would one expect them to make money from an internet search engine if it doesn't yet exist?
Quote:
N.B. It takes more than just a little research and implementation.
You take special note, you can't start getting serious about a new service until spend money researching and developing it. If you don't think spending millions to develop this technology is a method to eventually implement it then how exactly do you think Apple would being to pursue it?
You omitted selling it, billing for it, and paying for it.
That $100+ million from Google is essentially pure profit, by the way.
That's why I included the revenue they do make, not they revenue they don't make from a service that doesn't exist. I'm agreeing with TBell's assessment that it would behoove Apple to look into offering an internet search engine. Should I also include how much Apple makes from selling doorstops? (hint: $0)
That's why I included the revenue they do make, not they revenue they don't make from a service that doesn't exist.
Let's say it already exists.
Revenue = (negative)
Quote:
Should I also include how much Apple makes from selling doorstops? (hint: $0)
Got you covered! If Apple is investing R&D into doorstops, the associated revenue is also negative unless and until Apple can sell them in sufficient quantities. Turns out, designing and building prototype doorstops is actually pretty easy.
Got you covered! If Apple is investing R&D into doorstops, the associated revenue is also negative unless and until Apple can sell them in sufficient quantities. Turns out, designing and building prototype doorstops is actually pretty easy.
So you your against R&D because it costs money? Unicorns and fairydust didn't magically put the iPad in Steve Job's hand. Hold up, who paid for that special event? Could it have been Apple? Seriously, what could you possibly have against companies doing R&D?
Don't kid yourself, Apple is working on a Search engine. It might never release it, but if Google gets to big for it's britches, Apple will cut Google off.
And who'd use it other than a minority of folks who use Apple products? And realistically, most users who own Apple products would still use Google over anything Apple puts out. Google get's more and more accurate every time people use it. That's part of Google's big success. How do you create a product like that, without actually getting people to use your product in the first place. I just can't see Apple being all that great at taking on Google for things like search. And it'd have to be all domains too, not just web search, but news and images, etc.
And who'd use it other than a minority of folks who use Apple products? And realistically, most users who own Apple products would still use Google over anything Apple puts out. Google get's more and more accurate every time people use it. That's part of Google's big success. How do you create a product like that, without actually getting people to use your product in the first place. I just can't see Apple being all that great at taking on Google for things like search. And it'd have to be all domains too, not just web search, but news and images, etc.
Gotta love your lack of vision. Remember Yahoo and Lycos and Excite. People said the same thing you said "who's gonna use a new search engine when others already own the market." The only benefit to that outlook is that you're always surprised when things change. Of course, if you hate the change that will eventually come then I suppose it's not a benefit.
For a point of reference, MSN Search has been given new life since being reborn as Bing. They've grown in marketshare for 8th months in a row now. They are now at 11.3%. Could Apple do it (maybe/maybe not), will they do it (maybe/maybe not) but I guarantee some will make another internet search engine that does things that Google never thought of and people will flock to it.
Comments
I just Trip because I think outside the box sometimes and question the status quo.
1) Be objective. Question everything, not just the status quo.
2) Paranoia is a delusion, it is not a path to understanding.
3) You are so far into the center of the box you don't even realize there is a box.
4) Not comprehending any other points of view on think forum is not good critical thinking.
Having Google as the default search engine on the iPhone is rumored to earn Apple more than $100 million per year in a revenue sharing deal between the two companies, a new report alleges.
Has Apple done something wrong?
It is clear why Apple doesn't want Flash on the iPhone or iPad. They do not have any control over it. And I don't mean that in a fascist way at all.
Apple's experience with Flash on OS X has been truly awful; security, stability and performance issues. In fact, with Safari 4, Apple has decided to push Flash objects into their own sandbox to prevent them from bringing down the entire browser.
The control aspect comes in when there is a legitimate issue with Flash and Apple is completely powerless to fix it. They must wait for Adobe to fix the issue and as history has shown, Adobe doesn't care about the end user experience (especially on the Mac) all they care about is selling Flash tools to developers.
So the user suffers and the experience of using the device is drown under shitty Flash code. I would be extremely upset if I bought a device to surf the web and it constantly crashed on me. You really think Apple is going to let that happen? Do you really think Apple will ever let Flash on its mobile devices?
Even the mobile Mozilla browser has turned off default Flash support, because it made the entire experience unbearable.
Perhaps it's Safari that's at fault.
Perhaps, because Apple changes things so often, with their OS, their hardware, their browser, that it makes it extremely difficult for third party developers to keep up with the changes, fix security issues or even make it profitable?
Adobe might just fine and dandy with Flash on over 95% of the computers and most of the web sites out there.
By the way, a security expert has ranked Safari LAST under Firefox and IE for security, another has said hacking Safari is trivial
Nitesh Dhanjani, researcher and consultant: "...the Safari Web browser also has a lousy reputation in the security community--it almost seems a child's play to locate an exploitable condition in Safari...
Frank Heidt, CEO of Leviathan Security: "From a browser (security) standpoint, I would choose Firefox over IE, and IE over Safari."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html
Think about this seriously. How could Apple possibly improve on the ability to type a single misspelled word into a little box in the corner of your browser and get the result you were looking for?
Apple has managed to add one noun to our language: iPod. It now represents any personal audio player. But iPhone will never be anything more than just another smart phone just as iMac is only one model of computer. If they do a search tool it'll just be a search tool, never a verb. Those who agree with me might be thinking "no shit Sherlock" which just proves that Apple can never use that name.
I know Apple likes to control the entire widget, but nobody uses a search engine or a keyword any more, they Google. I don't think that term will ever be replaced.
Think about this seriously. How could Apple possibly improve on the ability to type a single misspelled word into a little box in the corner of your browser and get the result you were looking for?
Apple has managed to add one noun to our language: iPod. It now represents any personal audio player. But iPhone will never be anything more than just another smart phone just as iMac is only one model of computer. If they do a search tool it'll just be a search tool, never a verb. Those who agree with me might be thinking "no shit Sherlock" which just proves that Apple can never use that name.
Well people might "Google" but Microsoft, who makes Windows on 90% of the PC's out there, installs IE by default which uses Bing, a search engine by Microsoft. (except in the European Union who new Windows users can get a choice of browsers from a default window)
It could be eventually people just "Bing" instead of "Googling" *shutters at the thought*
So it's looking like Google is paying Apple to not create their own search engine...
At least on Firefox there is a menu field (like Safari) and little drop down menu with a choice of search engines by default (except Bing) but one can add their own if they wish to the list.
I find it handy to search Wikipedia or eBay, directly from the browser bar.
Safari of course won't have this feature because Apple is getting paid by Google to keep the others off or not creating their own.
So it's looking like Google is paying Apple to not create their own search engine...
Not everything in life is a conspiracy you know!
Check my post count 666... freaky eh, could I be the devil?
Not everything in life is a conspiracy you know!
Check my post count 666... freaky eh, could I be the devil?
Funny, I just noticed on this thread your consistant post count. I was going to say something but thought I should stock up on garlic, rosary beads, wooden stakes, silver bullets and the like first. You can't be too careful these days...
So it's looking like Google is paying Apple to not create their own search engine...
Don't kid yourself, Apple is working on a Search engine. It might never release it, but if Google gets to big for it's britches, Apple will cut Google off.
Revenue from Google = $100M/year
Revenue from everthing = $50B/year
I'd say that that would warrant some R&D into a Search Engine. They already do searches on their Macs which needs to be improved and I'm sure they've thought of some ways to improve on the way web search engines work.
Revenue from Google = $100M/year
Revenue from everthing = $50B/year
Revenue from Apple search engine = $0.
I'd say that that would warrant some R&D into a Search Engine.
N.B. It takes more than just a little research and implementation.
Revenue from Apple search engine = $0.
HUH?
N.B. It takes more than just a little research and implementation.
You take special note, you can't start getting serious about a new service until spend money researching and developing it. If you don't think spending millions to develop this technology is a method to eventually implement it then how exactly do you think Apple would being to pursue it?
HUH?
You take special note, you can't start getting serious about a new service until spend money researching and developing it.
You omitted selling it, billing for it, and paying for it. Just building and operating a search engine doesn't make money, it costs money.
Unlike the $50B in annual revenue you mentioned, the $100+ million from Google is essentially pure profit.
You omitted selling it, billing for it, and paying for it.
That $100+ million from Google is essentially pure profit, by the way.
That's why I included the revenue they do make, not they revenue they don't make from a service that doesn't exist. I'm agreeing with TBell's assessment that it would behoove Apple to look into offering an internet search engine. Should I also include how much Apple makes from selling doorstops? (hint: $0)
That's why I included the revenue they do make, not they revenue they don't make from a service that doesn't exist.
Let's say it already exists.
Revenue = (negative)
Should I also include how much Apple makes from selling doorstops? (hint: $0)
Got you covered!
Let's say it already exists.
Revenue = (negative)
Got you covered!
So you your against R&D because it costs money? Unicorns and fairydust didn't magically put the iPad in Steve Job's hand. Hold up, who paid for that special event? Could it have been Apple? Seriously, what could you possibly have against companies doing R&D?
Don't kid yourself, Apple is working on a Search engine. It might never release it, but if Google gets to big for it's britches, Apple will cut Google off.
And who'd use it other than a minority of folks who use Apple products? And realistically, most users who own Apple products would still use Google over anything Apple puts out. Google get's more and more accurate every time people use it. That's part of Google's big success. How do you create a product like that, without actually getting people to use your product in the first place. I just can't see Apple being all that great at taking on Google for things like search. And it'd have to be all domains too, not just web search, but news and images, etc.
And who'd use it other than a minority of folks who use Apple products? And realistically, most users who own Apple products would still use Google over anything Apple puts out. Google get's more and more accurate every time people use it. That's part of Google's big success. How do you create a product like that, without actually getting people to use your product in the first place. I just can't see Apple being all that great at taking on Google for things like search. And it'd have to be all domains too, not just web search, but news and images, etc.
Gotta love your lack of vision. Remember Yahoo and Lycos and Excite. People said the same thing you said "who's gonna use a new search engine when others already own the market." The only benefit to that outlook is that you're always surprised when things change. Of course, if you hate the change that will eventually come then I suppose it's not a benefit.
For a point of reference, MSN Search has been given new life since being reborn as Bing. They've grown in marketshare for 8th months in a row now. They are now at 11.3%. Could Apple do it (maybe/maybe not), will they do it (maybe/maybe not) but I guarantee some will make another internet search engine that does things that Google never thought of and people will flock to it.