Hey, if that's his ricebowl (an Asian term for "his way of earning his daily bread"), who am I to hate. It's nice having our very own one-man Google PR team specially for us here on AppleInsider.
What makes you think it's a one-man team? Or that they only work here?
I hope no one is so naive as to think a company like Google doesn't have paid PR shills out masquerading as "ordinary folk" on forums and blogs all over the place. And they aren't the only company that does this, I'm certain.
Okay time to be serious now. I've watched the Google I/O 2011 Keynote. Basically Google is throwing everything they have at becoming the next OS that really matters. Take Windows on with Chrome. And for the new battleground, mobile, tablets, your house, the car, everything else... take it on with Android.
The weak link is this: They are operating at a very fast pace only on the software side. The limitations are thereby twofold: the rate of change, and being only on the software side.
Rate of change
The level of OS updates and major releases is probably too fast for carriers and hardware manufacturers to keep up with - unlike Apple, where one source does everything, the end user must go through curation (har har) by their carrier AND their manufacturer AND Google. Sure, I forsee things being better, but to stay on the cutting edge of Android releases will take some effort on the part of the end user.
Software-only approach
Despite the Nexus One, or whatever came or will come next, Google still has to depend on other hardware implementors. Especially now that Android will do everything from run on a phone, to a tablet, to powering an amusement park. All that depends on a lot of different manufacturers doing a lot of work to get the hardware working well with the software. I think Google is trying to improve this, but it remains a weak link.
Still, there is no doubt in my mind now that Google is all out for dominating any "connected" part of our lives. The premise of a virtually unlimited and ever-exciting playground for developers and consumers, covering everything from phones to cars is the bait for delivering ads to you wherever you are.
In fact, Google is on the cusp of achieving advertising's biggest dream - knowing what you like, what you do, where you are, and putting a product you probably are interested in, in front of you every step you take. This is chilling to the bone. This is also, the future, for better or worse. The best thing is that you need not even buy this product. Google will make money nonetheless, whether it's clickthroughs, pageviews, paid search placement, whatever.
A very thoughtful and well written post nvidea. Basically what I've tried to say since I don't know when here in assorted threads. Yours is far more eloquent.
I'm not against the premise and promise of targeted ads, and don't "hate Google" for going that route at all. Since I'm heavily involved in advertising myself, it is a very tempting carrot for me and my clients both. I've actually waxed poetically about GPS aware "push ads" to clients not too long ago. So I'm not worried about that.
What I am worried about, is the OTHER information gathered, and what they use IT for. No tin-hat here... but I just don't find it wise to throw your whole damn history out there for anyone and everyone to peruse through. Even an email sent from gmail, COULD come back to haunt you 10 years down the road. I feel for the FB crowd already, and it has been reported here in Germany that HR looks there first, and a few other websites for damning evidence against potential employees. What if Google sold your data, or sold their business, or maybe just spun of "mobile" and data services? Not possible? What if they get tired of being a software house?
The other major "schtick" is the "we are open" BS and "pulling" all the blinded F'boys (G'boys?) along like the Peid Piper, as well as many an unwary consumer along for the ride. Of course, I think everyone can see and assume what Google is trying to do here. BUT, the saying goes: "Assume" means making an Ass out of U and Me. You and me... but not Google, or any other nefarious partner and/or dev. with yours and my info.
Also, it's not about which platform is better, and what you can do with it. Apple already has Apps that can control far more than just AppleTV or your Mac, so nothing new there. But it is HOW they are controlled and managed... and with "open", what does the crisis management look like when someone or something, goes "bad".... and I'm not talking the MJ variety of Bad either.
Already one tech firm has been taken down a notch or 2 for over-reaching and abusing it's influence, but that was a B2B thing mostly. This time it's "our property"... or not... according to many an EULA and permission screen. Apple has it's faults in this area as well. However since their "bread and butter" (as duly noted above by others here) is not our info and ads, but our ability to purchase their products.... I'm far more forgivable in their gathering of "certain information", to leverage those purchases, and make them easier to use and enjoy. This is a FAR cry from Google's incentives IMHO.
Okay time to be serious now. I've watched the Google I/O 2011 Keynote. Basically Google is throwing everything they have at becoming the next OS that really matters. Take Windows on with Chrome. And for the new battleground, mobile, tablets, your house, the car, everything else... take it on with Android.
The weak link is this: They are operating at a very fast pace only on the software side. The limitations are thereby twofold: the rate of change, and being only on the software side.
Rate of change
The level of OS updates and major releases is probably too fast for carriers and hardware manufacturers to keep up with - unlike Apple, where one source does everything, the end user must go through curation (har har) by their carrier AND their manufacturer AND Google. Sure, I forsee things being better, but to stay on the cutting edge of Android releases will take some effort on the part of the end user.
Software-only approach
Despite the Nexus One, or whatever came or will come next, Google still has to depend on other hardware implementors. Especially now that Android will do everything from run on a phone, to a tablet, to powering an amusement park. All that depends on a lot of different manufacturers doing a lot of work to get the hardware working well with the software. I think Google is trying to improve this, but it remains a weak link.
Still, there is no doubt in my mind now that Google is all out for dominating any "connected" part of our lives. The premise of a virtually unlimited and ever-exciting playground for developers and consumers, covering everything from phones to cars is the bait for delivering ads to you wherever you are.
In fact, Google is on the cusp of achieving advertising's biggest dream - knowing what you like, what you do, where you are, and putting a product you probably are interested in, in front of you every step you take. This is chilling to the bone. This is also, the future, for better or worse. The best thing is that you need not even buy this product. Google will make money nonetheless, whether it's clickthroughs, pageviews, paid search placement, whatever.
Every Google I/O I keep having flashbacks to Minority Report...
One thing to remember in this thread is that it's not like Apple didn't have it's own growing pains when it came to the iOS ecosystem. Some developers complained openly about Apple's curation policies and for good reason. Policies were being enforced selectively in many cases. Some apps were denied for political or marketing reasons (Google Voice as an example) and many were hung out to dry for weeks and months will little to no communication as to why. Apple finally got their act together and laid out the rules in plain english along with a healthy dose of "this is the spirit of what we meant by this rule." Finally, issues regarding apps from competitors were relaxed substancially since the anti-trust issues outweighed any political/marketing issues for denying them.
IF Google can make money by charging customers $10/year, why aren't they doing that now? They have (by your and other accounts) a massive user base - why aren't they monetizing it? Which is answered in the article - they positioned themselves as "open". To move to a subscription model would disrupt their user base. Same issue with the rest of their "free" offerings. It would also mean they would have to invest significantly in support - which they are not good at.
Android's "acceleration" only produces 2% of of operating income for mobile search/ad. In fact they make more off of TAC reduction than mobile search.
While Google collects 30% from Market app purchases, we know that in fact the Market has very few paid apps to collect on (because everyone wants free, ad-revv'd apps), and only sees 40% of ad revvs from free in-app ads. In fact, Google WANTS mostly ad-rev apps, not paid apps - because paid apps are a one-time hit, where ad-rev apps payback continuously.
The rest is highly speculative and runs counter to the primary drivers behind WHY Google does what it does. And the WHY is the the very heart of what drives Google. Which is why Android like everything else is a temporary interest and not an abiding one. Which is a shame really - because it is a good open standards OS.
I really can't believe that so many people are that clueless?!
I also can't believe that Apple has the "Open Successful Downloads" as a default setting!!!!
The first time I ran OSX years back, and Safari did that... I freaked! Coming from a Wintel box, it was a scary moment. I turned it, and on every other client/friends Mac off... immediately.
Reminds of a client a few years back when Windows malware, viuses, Trojans and drive-bys, etc. were all over the news here in Germany, including a Ministry warning country-wide regarding stolen bank accounts. A lady "friend of a friend" got a ubiquitous pop-up, and proceeded to hastily yank the plug on her machine from the wall, at the same time it was updating Windows. That was a fun conversation and repair... with no up-to-date back-up, as usual.
I do not miss those days at all, just fun reminiscing... and I hope that anyone I've "switched" over the last few years, is smarter this time around..... uhm...
...gotta go... I have a few emails to send and people to call!
One thing to remember in this thread is that it's not like Apple didn't have it's own growing pains when it came to the iOS ecosystem. Some developers complained openly about Apple's curation policies and for good reason. Policies were being enforced selectively in many cases. Some apps were denied for political or marketing reasons (Google Voice as an example) and many were hung out to dry for weeks and months will little to no communication as to why. Apple finally got their act together and laid out the rules in plain english along with a healthy dose of "this is the spirit of what we meant by this rule." Finally, issues regarding apps from competitors were relaxed substancially since the anti-trust issues outweighed any political/marketing issues for denying them.
The Android OS is not significantly "younger" than iOS and either is the Marketplace. "Growing pains" are not the issue here, and the shortfalls of Apple's start-up into their support of iOS are a matter of record. How that matters to your point is not clear. You cannot claim that Android is younger/subject to the same "growing pains" that the iOS had, without acknowledging that they are the same age. And that the growing paings are nothing more than the results of the decisions on their approach to the market.
"Android faces a problem similar to Microsoft's efforts to exert control over the Windows ecosystem, Otellini continued, noting that Windows originally ran on a variety of platforms before settling on Intel's x86 architecture."
I think he meant DOS. DOS ran on many different platforms but Windows was x86 only from the get go. But even MS knew the value of a single platform back then and attempted to change the world's Commodores, Apples and Ataris into MSX machines. Thank God they failed.
Note to editors: I have been using Apple computers since 1983 and continue to use them in my everyday work as well. I have a BA in English, a certificate in graphic design, and I'm one of the few folks out there who still bleed six-colors. So if you would like to hire me to do some writing for your publication. Please contact me via my email address. Thank you.
Here's an interesting question from MG Siegler via Gruber (emphasis, mine):
Quote:
Why Isn’t Google Chrome A Part Of Android?
...
As Google executives kept saying over and over again when asked last week, the two OSes have different goals — and are going about things in completely different ways. While Chrome may have started out as a web browser, it’s now much more from an ideology perspective inside of Google. No one will admit this, but if they’re to ultimately succeed, they sort of have to believe that Android won’t. That makes it hard to work together.
...
And now they may be stuck with it for good. The problem is that Chrome, for better or worse, is now associated with another product that is similar but different from Android — again, Chrome OS. Imagine if they start including a Chrome browser on Android tablets and then next year Chrome OS tablets launch. Consumers will wonder what the hell the difference is? (And this may already prove to be an issue on the PC/Chromebook side of things, we’ll see.)
Today's Mac users talking of Android sound like yesterday's Windows users talking about Mac.
iOS is a good platform, Android is a good platform, and neither is going away. The perception of a platform war is the stuff of corporate marketing and end-user fan sites; smart developers deploy to both.
Sorry, but Android is analogous to Windows as it runs on various 3rd party OEMs and Apple runs on Apple.
Unfortunately for Google, this isn't 1984 and Apple is being run by a Sugar Water CEO.
Comments
Hey, if that's his ricebowl (an Asian term for "his way of earning his daily bread"), who am I to hate. It's nice having our very own one-man Google PR team specially for us here on AppleInsider.
What makes you think it's a one-man team? Or that they only work here?
I hope no one is so naive as to think a company like Google doesn't have paid PR shills out masquerading as "ordinary folk" on forums and blogs all over the place. And they aren't the only company that does this, I'm certain.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/...king-strategy/
Okay time to be serious now. I've watched the Google I/O 2011 Keynote. Basically Google is throwing everything they have at becoming the next OS that really matters. Take Windows on with Chrome. And for the new battleground, mobile, tablets, your house, the car, everything else... take it on with Android.
The weak link is this: They are operating at a very fast pace only on the software side. The limitations are thereby twofold: the rate of change, and being only on the software side.
Rate of change
The level of OS updates and major releases is probably too fast for carriers and hardware manufacturers to keep up with - unlike Apple, where one source does everything, the end user must go through curation (har har) by their carrier AND their manufacturer AND Google. Sure, I forsee things being better, but to stay on the cutting edge of Android releases will take some effort on the part of the end user.
Software-only approach
Despite the Nexus One, or whatever came or will come next, Google still has to depend on other hardware implementors. Especially now that Android will do everything from run on a phone, to a tablet, to powering an amusement park. All that depends on a lot of different manufacturers doing a lot of work to get the hardware working well with the software. I think Google is trying to improve this, but it remains a weak link.
Still, there is no doubt in my mind now that Google is all out for dominating any "connected" part of our lives. The premise of a virtually unlimited and ever-exciting playground for developers and consumers, covering everything from phones to cars is the bait for delivering ads to you wherever you are.
In fact, Google is on the cusp of achieving advertising's biggest dream - knowing what you like, what you do, where you are, and putting a product you probably are interested in, in front of you every step you take. This is chilling to the bone. This is also, the future, for better or worse. The best thing is that you need not even buy this product. Google will make money nonetheless, whether it's clickthroughs, pageviews, paid search placement, whatever.
A very thoughtful and well written post nvidea. Basically what I've tried to say since I don't know when here in assorted threads. Yours is far more eloquent.
I'm not against the premise and promise of targeted ads, and don't "hate Google" for going that route at all. Since I'm heavily involved in advertising myself, it is a very tempting carrot for me and my clients both. I've actually waxed poetically about GPS aware "push ads" to clients not too long ago. So I'm not worried about that.
What I am worried about, is the OTHER information gathered, and what they use IT for. No tin-hat here... but I just don't find it wise to throw your whole damn history out there for anyone and everyone to peruse through. Even an email sent from gmail, COULD come back to haunt you 10 years down the road. I feel for the FB crowd already, and it has been reported here in Germany that HR looks there first, and a few other websites for damning evidence against potential employees. What if Google sold your data, or sold their business, or maybe just spun of "mobile" and data services? Not possible? What if they get tired of being a software house?
The other major "schtick" is the "we are open" BS and "pulling" all the blinded F'boys (G'boys?) along like the Peid Piper, as well as many an unwary consumer along for the ride. Of course, I think everyone can see and assume what Google is trying to do here. BUT, the saying goes: "Assume" means making an Ass out of U and Me. You and me... but not Google, or any other nefarious partner and/or dev. with yours and my info.
Also, it's not about which platform is better, and what you can do with it. Apple already has Apps that can control far more than just AppleTV or your Mac, so nothing new there. But it is HOW they are controlled and managed... and with "open", what does the crisis management look like when someone or something, goes "bad".... and I'm not talking the MJ variety of Bad either.
Already one tech firm has been taken down a notch or 2 for over-reaching and abusing it's influence, but that was a B2B thing mostly. This time it's "our property"... or not... according to many an EULA and permission screen. Apple has it's faults in this area as well. However since their "bread and butter" (as duly noted above by others here) is not our info and ads, but our ability to purchase their products.... I'm far more forgivable in their gathering of "certain information", to leverage those purchases, and make them easier to use and enjoy. This is a FAR cry from Google's incentives IMHO.
My 3 cents
Okay time to be serious now. I've watched the Google I/O 2011 Keynote. Basically Google is throwing everything they have at becoming the next OS that really matters. Take Windows on with Chrome. And for the new battleground, mobile, tablets, your house, the car, everything else... take it on with Android.
The weak link is this: They are operating at a very fast pace only on the software side. The limitations are thereby twofold: the rate of change, and being only on the software side.
Rate of change
The level of OS updates and major releases is probably too fast for carriers and hardware manufacturers to keep up with - unlike Apple, where one source does everything, the end user must go through curation (har har) by their carrier AND their manufacturer AND Google. Sure, I forsee things being better, but to stay on the cutting edge of Android releases will take some effort on the part of the end user.
Software-only approach
Despite the Nexus One, or whatever came or will come next, Google still has to depend on other hardware implementors. Especially now that Android will do everything from run on a phone, to a tablet, to powering an amusement park. All that depends on a lot of different manufacturers doing a lot of work to get the hardware working well with the software. I think Google is trying to improve this, but it remains a weak link.
Still, there is no doubt in my mind now that Google is all out for dominating any "connected" part of our lives. The premise of a virtually unlimited and ever-exciting playground for developers and consumers, covering everything from phones to cars is the bait for delivering ads to you wherever you are.
In fact, Google is on the cusp of achieving advertising's biggest dream - knowing what you like, what you do, where you are, and putting a product you probably are interested in, in front of you every step you take. This is chilling to the bone. This is also, the future, for better or worse. The best thing is that you need not even buy this product. Google will make money nonetheless, whether it's clickthroughs, pageviews, paid search placement, whatever.
Every Google I/O I keep having flashbacks to Minority Report...
A CNN/Money article from last year speaks about Android, revenue, and how Google may benefit financially.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/...king-strategy/
Are fundamental:
IF Google can make money by charging customers $10/year, why aren't they doing that now? They have (by your and other accounts) a massive user base - why aren't they monetizing it? Which is answered in the article - they positioned themselves as "open". To move to a subscription model would disrupt their user base. Same issue with the rest of their "free" offerings. It would also mean they would have to invest significantly in support - which they are not good at.
Android's "acceleration" only produces 2% of of operating income for mobile search/ad. In fact they make more off of TAC reduction than mobile search.
While Google collects 30% from Market app purchases, we know that in fact the Market has very few paid apps to collect on (because everyone wants free, ad-revv'd apps), and only sees 40% of ad revvs from free in-app ads. In fact, Google WANTS mostly ad-rev apps, not paid apps - because paid apps are a one-time hit, where ad-rev apps payback continuously.
The rest is highly speculative and runs counter to the primary drivers behind WHY Google does what it does. And the WHY is the the very heart of what drives Google. Which is why Android like everything else is a temporary interest and not an abiding one. Which is a shame really - because it is a good open standards OS.
I really can't believe that so many people are that clueless?!
I also can't believe that Apple has the "Open Successful Downloads" as a default setting!!!!
The first time I ran OSX years back, and Safari did that... I freaked! Coming from a Wintel box, it was a scary moment. I turned it, and on every other client/friends Mac off... immediately.
Reminds of a client a few years back when Windows malware, viuses, Trojans and drive-bys, etc. were all over the news here in Germany, including a Ministry warning country-wide regarding stolen bank accounts. A lady "friend of a friend" got a ubiquitous pop-up, and proceeded to hastily yank the plug on her machine from the wall, at the same time it was updating Windows. That was a fun conversation and repair... with no up-to-date back-up, as usual.
I do not miss those days at all, just fun reminiscing... and I hope that anyone I've "switched" over the last few years, is smarter this time around..... uhm...
...gotta go... I have a few emails to send and people to call!
One thing to remember in this thread is that it's not like Apple didn't have it's own growing pains when it came to the iOS ecosystem. Some developers complained openly about Apple's curation policies and for good reason. Policies were being enforced selectively in many cases. Some apps were denied for political or marketing reasons (Google Voice as an example) and many were hung out to dry for weeks and months will little to no communication as to why. Apple finally got their act together and laid out the rules in plain english along with a healthy dose of "this is the spirit of what we meant by this rule." Finally, issues regarding apps from competitors were relaxed substancially since the anti-trust issues outweighed any political/marketing issues for denying them.
The Android OS is not significantly "younger" than iOS and either is the Marketplace. "Growing pains" are not the issue here, and the shortfalls of Apple's start-up into their support of iOS are a matter of record. How that matters to your point is not clear. You cannot claim that Android is younger/subject to the same "growing pains" that the iOS had, without acknowledging that they are the same age. And that the growing paings are nothing more than the results of the decisions on their approach to the market.
I think he meant DOS. DOS ran on many different platforms but Windows was x86 only from the get go. But even MS knew the value of a single platform back then and attempted to change the world's Commodores, Apples and Ataris into MSX machines. Thank God they failed.
Note to editors: I have been using Apple computers since 1983 and continue to use them in my everyday work as well. I have a BA in English, a certificate in graphic design, and I'm one of the few folks out there who still bleed six-colors. So if you would like to hire me to do some writing for your publication. Please contact me via my email address. Thank you.
Why Isn’t Google Chrome A Part Of Android?
...
As Google executives kept saying over and over again when asked last week, the two OSes have different goals — and are going about things in completely different ways. While Chrome may have started out as a web browser, it’s now much more from an ideology perspective inside of Google. No one will admit this, but if they’re to ultimately succeed, they sort of have to believe that Android won’t. That makes it hard to work together.
...
And now they may be stuck with it for good. The problem is that Chrome, for better or worse, is now associated with another product that is similar but different from Android — again, Chrome OS. Imagine if they start including a Chrome browser on Android tablets and then next year Chrome OS tablets launch. Consumers will wonder what the hell the difference is? (And this may already prove to be an issue on the PC/Chromebook side of things, we’ll see.)
Why Isn’t Google Chrome A Part Of Android?
Those fees are said to be higher that the licensing fees Microsoft takes for its mobile OS Windows Phone 7.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...10427052238659
Thanks for the link to the insights!
That Apple charges the highest margins in the industry is both well known and not exactly a benefit to consumers.
As for developers, you raise a good question:
Android now more profitable than iOS for well-known game developer
http://blogs.computerworld.com/17941...ios_app_profit
Angry Birds Makes More Money from the Free Android Version than from Paid Ones
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Angry...s-170596.shtml
Developer says Pocket Legends makes more money on Android than iOS
http://www.androidcentral.com/develo...ey-android-ios
Android vs. iOS: A Developer's Perspective
http://www.junauza.com/2011/03/andro...rspective.html
IDC: Developer interest in Android nearly equals iOS
http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/ar...iOS/1295993954
Today's Mac users talking of Android sound like yesterday's Windows users talking about Mac.
iOS is a good platform, Android is a good platform, and neither is going away. The perception of a platform war is the stuff of corporate marketing and end-user fan sites; smart developers deploy to both.
Sorry, but Android is analogous to Windows as it runs on various 3rd party OEMs and Apple runs on Apple.
Unfortunately for Google, this isn't 1984 and Apple is being run by a Sugar Water CEO.
A very thoughtful and well written post nvidea
Cheers...
Every Google I/O I keep having flashbacks to Minority Report...
Yeah, I could not get it out of my mind while watching the Google I/O 2011 Keynote.