Off the top of my head there's Google Sky, Google Body, Chrome Browser, Chrome OS, Google Voice. . .
These are all Google originals as far as I know. I'm sure there's others. And in effect they "invented" the free software market. Look how effective Google Apps has been at impacting Microsoft's Office products. Throw in Google Labs and Google Ventures and I think they're quite inventive.
While Apple may have a much higher profile (and more profits!) with their incredible consumer products and well-developed software programs, Google's no slouch in creating and/or backing technological advances.
Sure they've seen products that they've felt they could do better than the original. So has every other big corporation. Apple's iPod wasn't an original idea, but they thought they could do it better than Sony and they were right. Turned out to be the product that rescued Apple financially and allowed them to do what they do today.
Chrome is Webkit, which Apple created from KHTML
Google bought Google Voice from Grand Centeral..
Many of Ggoogle's services are rebranded something else. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not go crazy.
- are the mags simply selling PDF-like copies of their print issues, like Zinio offers, or purposely reformatted versions like the New Yorker iPad app? what is the underlying software?
- ok, we know they will mine your personal data. but why do the publishers believe Android users will actually pay for digital subscriptions? Playboy, ok, but Esquire, seriously?
if print media app sales for the iPad are modest/disappointing, they will be disappointing/total flop for Android.
And yet they are some of the most popular services in the world. Apple fans can scream all the want about Google's apparently "evil" ways. But here's the truth of the matter: nobody cares (other than the most die-hard Google haters). Heck, I'll bet 90%+ of most Apple fans still use Google's services.
People like free. And they'll risk Google knowing how much they spend on porn and dog food, if they can avoid paying for services. Talk to any university student. In many places, services like Google Docs is supplanting MS Office. It's not absolute yet. But for cash-strapped college students, an 80% solution like Google Docs at no cost, is a rather tempting offer.
If you're financials matter that much, you'll shell out for Excel or Numbers. But the reality is that for most people, the privacy concerns just aren't that big a deal. If they were, Google would not be anywhere as popular as it is now. Seriously. I actually leave on my location sharing info on my phone. I want Google to provide better traffic results to other Android users. And so what if they know that I'm a rather boring guy who spends most of his time at work or home? What are they going to do with that info? Send out black helicopters in the middle of the night to pick me up?
I've worked in the intelligence business. A field which arguably makes you extremely paranoid about personal security and privacy. And I still find that most of anti-Google nuts are more concerned than I ever will be.
Were you one of the ones decrying the evil of your phone knowing where you'd been?
Apple software may sound like a great idea. But at its core, Apple is a hardware company (which I'm sure we all agree they are the best at). At the very least, they Apple's not that great at cloud-based software services. They could build amazing software, but I sincerely doubt they'll be able to commercialize it without going the Google route.
OK first of all Apple has developed some of the most "revolutionary" software to date in order to enhance their hardware. I never saw Microsoft get praise for a Final Cut studio clone, iPhoto, aperture, Garage Band etc. I'm not sure what about their track record says "Hardware only".
Secondly, No one is good with cloud services at this point. Not even Google, Google docs (in my experience) is a nightmare when you try integrating it into a MSFT office environment, Sony just got hacked 2 or 3 times, Amazon and streaming services aren't even licensed and both could have problems with that moving forward. Apple has never really had a cloud product. MM much like Apple TV has been an experiment. Most people up until the last couple of years didn't have the bandwidth needed to take advantage of the cloud. some might argue most of us still don't.
Point is how can you say Apple can't do X very well when you're only reference is basically a beta?
Further, have you used MM at all? For the last 8 years or so I've used iDisk, dot mac and MM and it's only gotten better and better. What is your argument for what Apple can't do based on?
why do the publishers believe Android users will actually pay for digital subscriptions? Playboy, ok, but Esquire, seriously?
My wife eagerly signed up for subscription digital versions of Cosmo, Family Circle (juxtaposition anyone?) and some cooking magazine for her Android-based Nook. And those aren't even enhanced versions AFAIK.
Can everyone please get it through their heads that not everything is because of Apple this or that.
This Android service has nothing to do with Apple's rules etc. It is about one thing and one thing only. Money. Publishers want to make it and they know that print mags are on the decline. So they want to expand into the Android market to get money off those people. Just like they are expanding into iOS to get money from those folks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz
But at its core, Apple is a hardware company (which I'm sure we all agree they are the best at).
They might make their money off hardware sales but they really are NOT a hardware company. They use 99% the same hardware as everyone else.
It's the software where they make their mark. It is what drives those hardware sales. If their software wasn't so good their sales wouldn't be.
Quote:
The most innovative thing Apple could do is to find a way to offer these services without charging for them or infusing them with advertising.
Highly unlikely. IF they were to go that route then it would be extremely limited. Say 5gb max storage for everything.
Quote:
For a start though, I'd like to see MobileMe be offered for free to the purchaser of any iOS or OS X
If they were to go the $$$ not ads route they might do that. For the first year. After that you pay.
Or they might tier the services. Certain things are free, pay this must to add this other stuff, pay this much more to add these other other things, pay this much even more to up your storage and so on
I wouldn't risk buying anything with return window of 15 minutes. What's wrong with a day like before?
Nothing. I hate the 15 minute window. IMHO, it should be an hour minimum. But 15 mins is a lot more than what you have on iOS.
What I would like to see is a function where developers get to set their own trial windows. More sophisticated apps need more time to be tested. Short games need less...since sometimes these games can be finished within an hour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
For me it would mean more purchase. For example I'm trying to find the right OCR app but couldn't pull the trigger because there's no trail period. 0 purchase instead of 1.
I know lots of people with iOS devices who've bought an app or two and then not used it, because they found it useless. They can't refund it though. This is a downside of the App store. It's anti-consumer and it unfairly bumps up developer profits. This is a policy which Apple needs to copy from Google.
No one is screaming, and I wasn't hating on Google. I was only arguing your statement that Google invented free software, which they didn't, and that Google's software is not free to begin with because they use harness your personal data and make money off of it.
And yes, I am an Apple fan and I do use Google, not for free.
I never put up the satement that Google "invented" free software. My posts followed yours and I was responding to the idea that Google is utterly not innovative.
There is a lot to be said for learning from others. Companies don't operate in a vacuum.
+1
I really don't get the mentality that some fans (of any tech company) that if a compnay improves on an existing idea they are not innovative. Would these people rather wait till only the originator of said idea gets around to expanding on the concept?
OK first of all Apple has developed some of the most "revolutionary" software to date in order to enhance their hardware. I never saw Microsoft get praise for a Final Cut studio clone, iPhoto, aperture, Garage Band etc. I'm not sure what about their track record says "Hardware only".
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
They might make their money off hardware sales but they really are NOT a hardware company. They use 99% the same hardware as everyone else.
It's the software where they make their mark. It is what drives those hardware sales. If their software wasn't so good their sales wouldn't be.
It all works (and I use them at home). But it all works because it's on their hardware. Even if they are using common components, Apple does do the integration. It's something that Apple is insanely good at. I really wonder how well Apple would do, if they had to say get an operating system on every computer like Microsoft does. Just look at iTunes on Windows.
In any event, this is not just a software issue. This is a software as a service issue. Apple's cloud services would have to be as good or better than Google's for the same price. Given that Apple's business model is based on making profits from hardware, how exactly are they going to make money here? That's what I was alluding too.
And if they can't make money selling cloud services, why would they bother with developing and promoting them? Yes, software helps Apple sell hardware. But that model is much more challenging with the cloud. Because the whole purpose of the cloud is to provide access from anywhere, at any time, using any device. That's the antithesis of Apple's model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey
Secondly, No one is good with cloud services at this point. Not even Google, Google docs (in my experience) is a nightmare when you try integrating it into a MSFT office environment...
Only a problem if you insist on using MS Office all the time. I wouldn't have believed it, if I didn't have university aged relatives. But they are increasingly doing all their essays and stuff through Google Docs. Free. And it allows for real-time collaboration. And they just use cloudprint. They don't touch MS Office unless they have to. And that doesn't happen too often. Profs don't care what you use, as long as an essay lands on their desk on time. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it for everyone? Definitely not. But it's a start. And it's something that you can bet that Google will build on. And they are most certainly leading the way here (MS is definitely nipping at their heels though). And Apple? Apple doesn't even seem sincerely interested in the cloud at all right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey
Sony just got hacked 2 or 3 times, Amazon and streaming services aren't even licensed and both could have problems with that moving forward. Apple has never really had a cloud product. MM much like Apple TV has been an experiment. Most people up until the last couple of years didn't have the bandwidth needed to take advantage of the cloud. some might argue most of us still don't.
I'll give you a counter example. Netflix. Who would have predicted this a year ago?
The cloud isn't just about media consumption. Nor is it just about productivity. It's a new paradigm that's going to embrace a lot of things we do. Not everything is perfect. But we are in transition. And despite setbacks like the PSN hack, do you really think the public is going to stop using or adopting cloud-based services? Heck, do you think PSN is going to stop growing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey
Point is how can you say Apple can't do X very well when you're only reference is basically a beta?
Further, have you used MM at all? For the last 8 years or so I've used iDisk, dot mac and MM and it's only gotten better and better. What is your argument for what Apple can't do based on?
Because there are spaces where Apple doesn't compete well. How late was the iWork cloud? And yet, iwork.com does not allow you to edit online. It's just a document sharing service....which Apple still charges for.
I am not suggesting that Google is the best by any stretch of imagination. But they are a company that's focused on the Cloud unlike any other. That's their bread and butter. Just like hardware sales are for Apple. If Apple was as focused on the cloud as Google, I daresay, you'd have a full iTunes cloud service by now.
More broadly speaking the suggestion above was about maps, search, speech recgonition, etc. How exactly does anybody think Apple will best Google, both in terms of service and in monetization (especially if Apple fans are adamant that Apple doesn't infuse advertising into their services)? I'm genuinely curious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Highly unlikely. IF they were to go that route then it would be extremely limited. Say 5gb max storage for everything.
...
If they were to go the $$$ not ads route they might do that. For the first year. After that you pay.
Or they might tier the services. Certain things are free, pay this must to add this other stuff, pay this much more to add these other other things, pay this much even more to up your storage and so on
I agree with this. And that might not be such a big deal. There might well be a lot of users who will be satisfied with a limited or tiered service. But that's not what is there right now. There's no free Apple alternative to GMail or Picasa or Google Docs. That's not even to speak of areas where Apple will have to work to compete with Google (search, maps, etc.).
They invented Chrome -- the browser based on Apple's Webkit? They certainly didn't invent Google Voice, they bought the company (it was called Grand Central, before Google got their claws into it). I'm too lazy to google, but I bet a large portion of their other "inventions" were in fact purchased. Heck, they bought Android as well.
They also didn't invent google docs/apps - they bought a company called "writely" - i was one of writely's original users - great product and great team that created it!
Comments
Off the top of my head there's Google Sky, Google Body, Chrome Browser, Chrome OS, Google Voice. . .
These are all Google originals as far as I know. I'm sure there's others. And in effect they "invented" the free software market. Look how effective Google Apps has been at impacting Microsoft's Office products. Throw in Google Labs and Google Ventures and I think they're quite inventive.
While Apple may have a much higher profile (and more profits!) with their incredible consumer products and well-developed software programs, Google's no slouch in creating and/or backing technological advances.
Sure they've seen products that they've felt they could do better than the original. So has every other big corporation. Apple's iPod wasn't an original idea, but they thought they could do it better than Sony and they were right. Turned out to be the product that rescued Apple financially and allowed them to do what they do today.
Chrome is Webkit, which Apple created from KHTML
Google bought Google Voice from Grand Centeral..
Many of Ggoogle's services are rebranded something else. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not go crazy.
- are the mags simply selling PDF-like copies of their print issues, like Zinio offers, or purposely reformatted versions like the New Yorker iPad app? what is the underlying software?
- ok, we know they will mine your personal data. but why do the publishers believe Android users will actually pay for digital subscriptions? Playboy, ok, but Esquire, seriously?
if print media app sales for the iPad are modest/disappointing, they will be disappointing/total flop for Android.
Unlike on Apple's App Store, publishers will get "full access" to subscriber information from Next Issue's apps.
Well thats a shocker! Who would have expected Google to give away your information without asking.
And yet they are some of the most popular services in the world. Apple fans can scream all the want about Google's apparently "evil" ways. But here's the truth of the matter: nobody cares (other than the most die-hard Google haters). Heck, I'll bet 90%+ of most Apple fans still use Google's services.
People like free. And they'll risk Google knowing how much they spend on porn and dog food, if they can avoid paying for services. Talk to any university student. In many places, services like Google Docs is supplanting MS Office. It's not absolute yet. But for cash-strapped college students, an 80% solution like Google Docs at no cost, is a rather tempting offer.
If you're financials matter that much, you'll shell out for Excel or Numbers. But the reality is that for most people, the privacy concerns just aren't that big a deal. If they were, Google would not be anywhere as popular as it is now. Seriously. I actually leave on my location sharing info on my phone. I want Google to provide better traffic results to other Android users. And so what if they know that I'm a rather boring guy who spends most of his time at work or home? What are they going to do with that info? Send out black helicopters in the middle of the night to pick me up?
I've worked in the intelligence business. A field which arguably makes you extremely paranoid about personal security and privacy. And I still find that most of anti-Google nuts are more concerned than I ever will be.
Were you one of the ones decrying the evil of your phone knowing where you'd been?
Apple software may sound like a great idea. But at its core, Apple is a hardware company (which I'm sure we all agree they are the best at). At the very least, they Apple's not that great at cloud-based software services. They could build amazing software, but I sincerely doubt they'll be able to commercialize it without going the Google route.
OK first of all Apple has developed some of the most "revolutionary" software to date in order to enhance their hardware. I never saw Microsoft get praise for a Final Cut studio clone, iPhoto, aperture, Garage Band etc. I'm not sure what about their track record says "Hardware only".
Secondly, No one is good with cloud services at this point. Not even Google, Google docs (in my experience) is a nightmare when you try integrating it into a MSFT office environment, Sony just got hacked 2 or 3 times, Amazon and streaming services aren't even licensed and both could have problems with that moving forward. Apple has never really had a cloud product. MM much like Apple TV has been an experiment. Most people up until the last couple of years didn't have the bandwidth needed to take advantage of the cloud. some might argue most of us still don't.
Point is how can you say Apple can't do X very well when you're only reference is basically a beta?
Further, have you used MM at all? For the last 8 years or so I've used iDisk, dot mac and MM and it's only gotten better and better. What is your argument for what Apple can't do based on?
why do the publishers believe Android users will actually pay for digital subscriptions? Playboy, ok, but Esquire, seriously?
My wife eagerly signed up for subscription digital versions of Cosmo, Family Circle (juxtaposition anyone?) and some cooking magazine for her Android-based Nook. And those aren't even enhanced versions AFAIK.
This Android service has nothing to do with Apple's rules etc. It is about one thing and one thing only. Money. Publishers want to make it and they know that print mags are on the decline. So they want to expand into the Android market to get money off those people. Just like they are expanding into iOS to get money from those folks
But at its core, Apple is a hardware company (which I'm sure we all agree they are the best at).
They might make their money off hardware sales but they really are NOT a hardware company. They use 99% the same hardware as everyone else.
It's the software where they make their mark. It is what drives those hardware sales. If their software wasn't so good their sales wouldn't be.
The most innovative thing Apple could do is to find a way to offer these services without charging for them or infusing them with advertising.
Highly unlikely. IF they were to go that route then it would be extremely limited. Say 5gb max storage for everything.
For a start though, I'd like to see MobileMe be offered for free to the purchaser of any iOS or OS X
If they were to go the $$$ not ads route they might do that. For the first year. After that you pay.
Or they might tier the services. Certain things are free, pay this must to add this other stuff, pay this much more to add these other other things, pay this much even more to up your storage and so on
Unlike on Apple's App Store, publishers will get "full access" to subscriber information from Next Issue's apps.
This is a distinction which should be noted in advertising, government hearings, etc.
I wouldn't risk buying anything with return window of 15 minutes. What's wrong with a day like before?
Nothing. I hate the 15 minute window. IMHO, it should be an hour minimum. But 15 mins is a lot more than what you have on iOS.
What I would like to see is a function where developers get to set their own trial windows. More sophisticated apps need more time to be tested. Short games need less...since sometimes these games can be finished within an hour.
For me it would mean more purchase. For example I'm trying to find the right OCR app but couldn't pull the trigger because there's no trail period. 0 purchase instead of 1.
I know lots of people with iOS devices who've bought an app or two and then not used it, because they found it useless. They can't refund it though. This is a downside of the App store. It's anti-consumer and it unfairly bumps up developer profits. This is a policy which Apple needs to copy from Google.
Were you one of the ones decrying the evil of your phone knowing where you'd been?
Nope. I'm not all that worried about Google knowing how much toilet paper I buy.
No one is screaming, and I wasn't hating on Google. I was only arguing your statement that Google invented free software, which they didn't, and that Google's software is not free to begin with because they use harness your personal data and make money off of it.
And yes, I am an Apple fan and I do use Google, not for free.
I never put up the satement that Google "invented" free software. My posts followed yours and I was responding to the idea that Google is utterly not innovative.
There is a lot to be said for learning from others. Companies don't operate in a vacuum.
+1
I really don't get the mentality that some fans (of any tech company) that if a compnay improves on an existing idea they are not innovative. Would these people rather wait till only the originator of said idea gets around to expanding on the concept?
OK first of all Apple has developed some of the most "revolutionary" software to date in order to enhance their hardware. I never saw Microsoft get praise for a Final Cut studio clone, iPhoto, aperture, Garage Band etc. I'm not sure what about their track record says "Hardware only".
They might make their money off hardware sales but they really are NOT a hardware company. They use 99% the same hardware as everyone else.
It's the software where they make their mark. It is what drives those hardware sales. If their software wasn't so good their sales wouldn't be.
It all works (and I use them at home). But it all works because it's on their hardware. Even if they are using common components, Apple does do the integration. It's something that Apple is insanely good at. I really wonder how well Apple would do, if they had to say get an operating system on every computer like Microsoft does. Just look at iTunes on Windows.
In any event, this is not just a software issue. This is a software as a service issue. Apple's cloud services would have to be as good or better than Google's for the same price. Given that Apple's business model is based on making profits from hardware, how exactly are they going to make money here? That's what I was alluding too.
And if they can't make money selling cloud services, why would they bother with developing and promoting them? Yes, software helps Apple sell hardware. But that model is much more challenging with the cloud. Because the whole purpose of the cloud is to provide access from anywhere, at any time, using any device. That's the antithesis of Apple's model.
Secondly, No one is good with cloud services at this point. Not even Google, Google docs (in my experience) is a nightmare when you try integrating it into a MSFT office environment...
Only a problem if you insist on using MS Office all the time. I wouldn't have believed it, if I didn't have university aged relatives. But they are increasingly doing all their essays and stuff through Google Docs. Free. And it allows for real-time collaboration. And they just use cloudprint. They don't touch MS Office unless they have to. And that doesn't happen too often. Profs don't care what you use, as long as an essay lands on their desk on time. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it for everyone? Definitely not. But it's a start. And it's something that you can bet that Google will build on. And they are most certainly leading the way here (MS is definitely nipping at their heels though). And Apple? Apple doesn't even seem sincerely interested in the cloud at all right now.
Sony just got hacked 2 or 3 times, Amazon and streaming services aren't even licensed and both could have problems with that moving forward. Apple has never really had a cloud product. MM much like Apple TV has been an experiment. Most people up until the last couple of years didn't have the bandwidth needed to take advantage of the cloud. some might argue most of us still don't.
I'll give you a counter example. Netflix. Who would have predicted this a year ago?
http://www.pcworld.com/article/22813...bandwidth.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20057180-261.html
The cloud isn't just about media consumption. Nor is it just about productivity. It's a new paradigm that's going to embrace a lot of things we do. Not everything is perfect. But we are in transition. And despite setbacks like the PSN hack, do you really think the public is going to stop using or adopting cloud-based services? Heck, do you think PSN is going to stop growing?
Point is how can you say Apple can't do X very well when you're only reference is basically a beta?
Further, have you used MM at all? For the last 8 years or so I've used iDisk, dot mac and MM and it's only gotten better and better. What is your argument for what Apple can't do based on?
Because there are spaces where Apple doesn't compete well. How late was the iWork cloud? And yet, iwork.com does not allow you to edit online. It's just a document sharing service....which Apple still charges for.
I am not suggesting that Google is the best by any stretch of imagination. But they are a company that's focused on the Cloud unlike any other. That's their bread and butter. Just like hardware sales are for Apple. If Apple was as focused on the cloud as Google, I daresay, you'd have a full iTunes cloud service by now.
More broadly speaking the suggestion above was about maps, search, speech recgonition, etc. How exactly does anybody think Apple will best Google, both in terms of service and in monetization (especially if Apple fans are adamant that Apple doesn't infuse advertising into their services)? I'm genuinely curious.
Highly unlikely. IF they were to go that route then it would be extremely limited. Say 5gb max storage for everything.
...
If they were to go the $$$ not ads route they might do that. For the first year. After that you pay.
Or they might tier the services. Certain things are free, pay this must to add this other stuff, pay this much more to add these other other things, pay this much even more to up your storage and so on
I agree with this. And that might not be such a big deal. There might well be a lot of users who will be satisfied with a limited or tiered service. But that's not what is there right now. There's no free Apple alternative to GMail or Picasa or Google Docs. That's not even to speak of areas where Apple will have to work to compete with Google (search, maps, etc.).
This is a distinction which should be noted in advertising, government hearings, etc.
Why? When you subscribe to a magazine now, do you not give them subscriber information?
They invented Chrome -- the browser based on Apple's Webkit? They certainly didn't invent Google Voice, they bought the company (it was called Grand Central, before Google got their claws into it). I'm too lazy to google, but I bet a large portion of their other "inventions" were in fact purchased. Heck, they bought Android as well.
They also didn't invent google docs/apps - they bought a company called "writely" - i was one of writely's original users - great product and great team that created it!
Seriously,
Will these guys be thrilled when Apple offers their own Maps and Search Services?
Apple didn't create the idea of Digital subscriptions. The news outlets did. What Apple did was develop a payment method and platform.
Nope. I'm not all that worried about Google knowing how much toilet paper I buy.
Which, based on your posts here, must be quite a lot.