I'd be the first to say that the overall quality of Google's financial reporting is excellent. Indeed, others (especially Android handset makers) should follow their lead.
I think addabox was referring to the fact that Google doesn't spend a lot of time talking about the advertising business and search (its core) but rather, spends its time venting on a lot of other issues (e.g., IP, climate change, mobile, etc).
Indeed. To listen to Google's public utterances you'd think they were a selfless organization dedicated to bringing awesome technology to as many people as possible just out of the shear goodness of their hearts.
Whenever Google starts talking about how other people are closed, or proprietary, or litigious (always with the corollary that Google is open and free and public minded) it's worth remembering that their business model is completely different from the people they're casting aspirations on, and that their clients are not consumers. To the extent that you do not keep that in mind you are completely misreading anything Google has to say, ever, about anything. The fact that their business appears to overlap Apple's, so that it makes sense for them to hold forth about how Apple is doing it wrong, is bullshit of the highest order. They are in entirely different businesses.
And I can guarantee are not going to happily hand over the keys to search and ad placement and data harvesting so that everybody can share and share alike and build awesome businesses that actually compete with Google in the business that Google is actually in.
Microsoft PR chief Frank Shaw tweets a response to Drummond's post by including an email in which Google turns down an offer to partner on the patent bid:
FriedLobster, are you DED? You are passionately against Google to the point that you sound like a tabloid. READ ALL ABOUT IT!! GOOGLE'S RESEARCH IS BASED ON NAZI PRINCIPLES! THEY HAVE KILLED ELDERLY WIDOWS!! THEIR NEW GOAL IS TO STEAL YOUR CHILD'S SAFETY BLANKET AND BURN IT BEFORE THEIR EYES!! Get a life. I love Apple products for their amazing workmanship, and I love Google products for their amazing utility. My brain has not yet imploded, and I don't think yours will either if you ever decide to open your front door and check out the world.
rofl what are you talking about? i was just presenting the fact that Google is an investor in a patent troll.
Apple isn't an R&D driven company, the reason they generate much more profit is because they are the ones "borrowing" from other's research and development, look at iOS 5.
Google is good at developing good technology, but failed miserably to protect their IP. Apple won at patents, they're playing the broken system to win while Google had its head up its a** innovating.
Google may be right but it doesn't matter, the law isn't on their side, Apple army of lawyers will find every way to piggy back on their success. Another win for MS/Apple duo.
The difference is Apple is so focused on it's R&D that is spends loads less while getting a whole lot more. As Job's said, dump the crap.
FriedLobster, are you DED? You are passionately against Google to the point that you sound like a tabloid. READ ALL ABOUT IT!! GOOGLE'S RESEARCH IS BASED ON NAZI PRINCIPLES! THEY HAVE KILLED ELDERLY WIDOWS!! THEIR NEW GOAL IS TO STEAL YOUR CHILD'S SAFETY BLANKET AND BURN IT BEFORE THEIR EYES!! Get a life. I love Apple products for their amazing workmanship, and I love Google products for their amazing utility. My brain has not yet imploded, and I don't think yours will either if you ever decide to open your front door and check out the world.
Godwin's law invoked. I think that means you automatically lose the argument.
Patenting a finger movement is prime example of how these patents are far too general and shouldn't be worth shit.
I disagree. To wit, Apple pretty much owns the patent on movement of the middle finger and are the only ones capable of making money by raising it. All the while, Microsoft, RIM and Nokia were caught with their fingers up their noses, and are still trying hard at moving them out.
Boy, you really buy into every word Jobs (purportedly) says, don't you? Where's the evidence that Google tried to "kill" the iPhone? Where's the smoking gun?
Google isn't in the technology business except tangentially; they are in the advertising business. That being so, the reason you don't see them suing people is that they give technology away for free to drive their advertising business.
Google is one of the most significant technology developer in the last while. Recent events and their own modus operandi obscure the facts that they make regular fundamental contributions to computer science, whereas Apple's innovation is at a less fundamental level (design, UI, integration, etc.). That's not to say Apple is less innovative. But Google's innovations are the stuff that moves computer science forward at a much lower level, and therefore have the potential to have a stronger and wider legacy.
And that's why they were critically panned and didn't sell... oh, wait.
I recently bought a Kia Soul. It doesn't have in-dash navigation, full climate control, it can't tow a thing, and has only a 4-speed automatic transmission. Doesn't mean it's not an awesome car that for myself and a heck of a lot of other people is a far better choice than most SUVs and hatchbacks on the market. A product doesn't need to do everything every prior comparable product did to be better.
What does your response have to do with the claim that the original iPhone was so much better than existing smartphones available at its release? I will give you a clue, nothing...
If the original iPhone was so bad in your opinion, why was everyone and their dog tripping all over themselves trying to copy it? ... and it's still going on .... and still not very successfully, I might add.
I will also ask you, what does your response have to do with the claim that the original iPhone was so much better than existing smartphones available at its release? I will give you a clue, nothing...
Cue up the tiny violins. Google's search algorithms are trade secrets, but not very patentable. Apple's designs are patentable, but not (solely) trade secrets. Wahh wahh we need more lobbyists in washington.... but don't change the laws about trade secrets!
Patent laws are a mess, so I wouldn't mind if the laws were streamlined, but hearing it from a whiny billion-dollar company just puts a hop in my step and a smile on my face.
Google is one of the most significant technology developer in the last while. Recent events and their own modus operandi obscure the facts that they make regular fundamental contributions to computer science, whereas Apple's innovation is at a less fundamental level (design, UI, integration, etc.). That's not to say Apple is less innovative. But Google's innovations are the stuff that moves computer science forward at a much lower level, and therefore have the potential to have a stronger and wider legacy.
Cue up the tiny violins. Google's search algorithms are trade secrets, but not very patentable.
Not very patentable? But perhaps just patentable enough to get a number of patents approved?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Can you provide some examples?
Didn't we go thru this before? More than once? But I understand it's common trolling game here to bait each other even when knowing that the other person is at least partially right - anything to score a point.
Anyhow, IMO, it's difficult to rank or judge innovation, patents or not. But I firmly believe the evidence is strong that Google and Apple innovate at different levels. Many Apple inventions are well known and therefore do not require my explanation. Google's technology starts but does not end with the search patents alluded to above. Here are some examples which I have cited before:
MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters
In Proceedings of OSDI 2004
Bigtable: A Distributed Storage System for Structured Data
In Proceedings of OSDI 2006
There are many more academic citations and patents which represent what Google has contributed to computer science. But I think CloudGazer has captured it best here - Google processes massive amount of data. To accomplish this, they have had to reinvent distributed computing.
IMO, iPhone, iPod and MacOS are all significant technology advances but they will not leave the same legacy that BigTable, MapReduce, GFS, search (and mobile search), etc. will.
I disagree. To wit, Apple pretty much owns patent on movement of the middle finger and are the only ones capable of making money by raising it. All the while, Microsoft, RIM and Nokia were caught with their fingers up their noses, and are still trying hard at moving them out.
Comments
You mean, if I wrote it down, character for character, I would be OK, but if I were to use cut-and-paste to do the same thing, I'd be in violation?
Character for character is still prevented by copyright. The problem with patents is even if all the characters are different you still get sued.
I'd be the first to say that the overall quality of Google's financial reporting is excellent. Indeed, others (especially Android handset makers) should follow their lead.
I think addabox was referring to the fact that Google doesn't spend a lot of time talking about the advertising business and search (its core) but rather, spends its time venting on a lot of other issues (e.g., IP, climate change, mobile, etc).
Indeed. To listen to Google's public utterances you'd think they were a selfless organization dedicated to bringing awesome technology to as many people as possible just out of the shear goodness of their hearts.
Whenever Google starts talking about how other people are closed, or proprietary, or litigious (always with the corollary that Google is open and free and public minded) it's worth remembering that their business model is completely different from the people they're casting aspirations on, and that their clients are not consumers. To the extent that you do not keep that in mind you are completely misreading anything Google has to say, ever, about anything. The fact that their business appears to overlap Apple's, so that it makes sense for them to hold forth about how Apple is doing it wrong, is bullshit of the highest order. They are in entirely different businesses.
And I can guarantee are not going to happily hand over the keys to search and ad placement and data harvesting so that everybody can share and share alike and build awesome businesses that actually compete with Google in the business that Google is actually in.
http://twitter.com/#!/fxshaw/status/...691776/photo/1
FriedLobster, are you DED? You are passionately against Google to the point that you sound like a tabloid. READ ALL ABOUT IT!! GOOGLE'S RESEARCH IS BASED ON NAZI PRINCIPLES! THEY HAVE KILLED ELDERLY WIDOWS!! THEIR NEW GOAL IS TO STEAL YOUR CHILD'S SAFETY BLANKET AND BURN IT BEFORE THEIR EYES!! Get a life. I love Apple products for their amazing workmanship, and I love Google products for their amazing utility. My brain has not yet imploded, and I don't think yours will either if you ever decide to open your front door and check out the world.
rofl what are you talking about? i was just presenting the fact that Google is an investor in a patent troll.
OH PLEASE
Apple isn't an R&D driven company, the reason they generate much more profit is because they are the ones "borrowing" from other's research and development, look at iOS 5.
Google is good at developing good technology, but failed miserably to protect their IP. Apple won at patents, they're playing the broken system to win while Google had its head up its a** innovating.
Google may be right but it doesn't matter, the law isn't on their side, Apple army of lawyers will find every way to piggy back on their success. Another win for MS/Apple duo.
The difference is Apple is so focused on it's R&D that is spends loads less while getting a whole lot more. As Job's said, dump the crap.
FriedLobster, are you DED? You are passionately against Google to the point that you sound like a tabloid. READ ALL ABOUT IT!! GOOGLE'S RESEARCH IS BASED ON NAZI PRINCIPLES! THEY HAVE KILLED ELDERLY WIDOWS!! THEIR NEW GOAL IS TO STEAL YOUR CHILD'S SAFETY BLANKET AND BURN IT BEFORE THEIR EYES!! Get a life. I love Apple products for their amazing workmanship, and I love Google products for their amazing utility. My brain has not yet imploded, and I don't think yours will either if you ever decide to open your front door and check out the world.
Godwin's law invoked. I think that means you automatically lose the argument.
well, pinch to zoom was right here and patented.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/05/30/t...jobs-inventor/
if they don't like playing by the patent office rules, they should go invent their own shit.
Patenting a finger movement is prime example of how these patents are far too general and shouldn't be worth shit.
I know, why don't I go and patent moving my mouse down the screen to scroll.
What a fucking joke.
I am on google's side. Patent hardware, do not patent software. That kills innovation.
Patenting a finger movement is prime example of how these patents are far too general and shouldn't be worth shit.
I disagree. To wit, Apple pretty much owns the patent on movement of the middle finger and are the only ones capable of making money by raising it. All the while, Microsoft, RIM and Nokia were caught with their fingers up their noses, and are still trying hard at moving them out.
Remember, Google tried to kill the iPhone.
Boy, you really buy into every word Jobs (purportedly) says, don't you? Where's the evidence that Google tried to "kill" the iPhone? Where's the smoking gun?
Google isn't in the technology business except tangentially; they are in the advertising business. That being so, the reason you don't see them suing people is that they give technology away for free to drive their advertising business.
Google is one of the most significant technology developer in the last while. Recent events and their own modus operandi obscure the facts that they make regular fundamental contributions to computer science, whereas Apple's innovation is at a less fundamental level (design, UI, integration, etc.). That's not to say Apple is less innovative. But Google's innovations are the stuff that moves computer science forward at a much lower level, and therefore have the potential to have a stronger and wider legacy.
And that's why they were critically panned and didn't sell... oh, wait.
I recently bought a Kia Soul. It doesn't have in-dash navigation, full climate control, it can't tow a thing, and has only a 4-speed automatic transmission. Doesn't mean it's not an awesome car that for myself and a heck of a lot of other people is a far better choice than most SUVs and hatchbacks on the market. A product doesn't need to do everything every prior comparable product did to be better.
What does your response have to do with the claim that the original iPhone was so much better than existing smartphones available at its release? I will give you a clue, nothing...
It must be full of despair to inhabit your world, given how remarkably successful Apple and the iPhone have become....
What are you talking about. Someone made a false claim, I proved them wrong, and you have issue with that?
Yes, vastly better, despite the absence of some features that some people decried as deal-breakers...
Actually, the original iPhone wasn't a large success outside the USA, it needed a number of improvements before it was successful.
If the original iPhone was so bad in your opinion, why was everyone and their dog tripping all over themselves trying to copy it? ... and it's still going on .... and still not very successfully, I might add.
I will also ask you, what does your response have to do with the claim that the original iPhone was so much better than existing smartphones available at its release? I will give you a clue, nothing...
Patent laws are a mess, so I wouldn't mind if the laws were streamlined, but hearing it from a whiny billion-dollar company just puts a hop in my step and a smile on my face.
Google is one of the most significant technology developer in the last while. Recent events and their own modus operandi obscure the facts that they make regular fundamental contributions to computer science, whereas Apple's innovation is at a less fundamental level (design, UI, integration, etc.). That's not to say Apple is less innovative. But Google's innovations are the stuff that moves computer science forward at a much lower level, and therefore have the potential to have a stronger and wider legacy.
Can you provide some examples?
Cue up the tiny violins. Google's search algorithms are trade secrets, but not very patentable.
Not very patentable? But perhaps just patentable enough to get a number of patents approved?
Can you provide some examples?
Didn't we go thru this before? More than once? But I understand it's common trolling game here to bait each other even when knowing that the other person is at least partially right - anything to score a point.
Anyhow, IMO, it's difficult to rank or judge innovation, patents or not. But I firmly believe the evidence is strong that Google and Apple innovate at different levels. Many Apple inventions are well known and therefore do not require my explanation. Google's technology starts but does not end with the search patents alluded to above. Here are some examples which I have cited before:
MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters
In Proceedings of OSDI 2004
Bigtable: A Distributed Storage System for Structured Data
In Proceedings of OSDI 2006
There are many more academic citations and patents which represent what Google has contributed to computer science. But I think CloudGazer has captured it best here - Google processes massive amount of data. To accomplish this, they have had to reinvent distributed computing.
IMO, iPhone, iPod and MacOS are all significant technology advances but they will not leave the same legacy that BigTable, MapReduce, GFS, search (and mobile search), etc. will.
Actually, the original iPhone wasn't a large success outside the USA, it needed a number of improvements before it was successful.
It also was not released in many countries outside of the US.
I disagree. To wit, Apple pretty much owns patent on movement of the middle finger and are the only ones capable of making money by raising it. All the while, Microsoft, RIM and Nokia were caught with their fingers up their noses, and are still trying hard at moving them out.