Agreed...I'm in the market for a TV...(not sure I can wait till next fall for the ATV) but I will be damned if I'm going to buy a Samsung. I don't care if a Sharp of LG is $40 more. No Samsung.
.....waiting for someone to tell me now, Sharp's and LG's are made by Samsung!
I agree. I got tired of waiting to see what Apple "might" be doing in the TV space. I needed a new set so I did my homework and bought one. Hint: the Samsung logo is no where in sight. The Samsung sets look nice, but I still won't buy one. Nor will I buy the Dyson Bladeless fan copy that they are reportedly working on.
I wound up buying an 55" LG and love it! I have yet to see a TV that has a noticeably better picture. Truthfully, there are a lot of very nice sets out there to choose from.
1. rip off/scrape everybody else's stuff.
2. slap ads on it.
3. then give it all away for "free" to anyone.
4. then data mine everyone that takes any of it.
5. and sell them to advertisers.
but let's all be friends!
seriously, Google IS evil.
and now that it is being exorcised from iOS, it's whining about it too.
Because Page believes that what's good for google is good for all customers.
First what he is saying isn't so bad. He is right that it would be nice for "me" a consumer, if my different toys and gadgets could play nice together without a million hoops to jump through. I am invested in Apple, Google and MS ecosystems, the later mostly because of work. Remember there was a time when Apple and Google were friends, perhaps only because of a shared enemy in MS. Still, things have changed. I love Apple products but it is wrong to say that Google didn't help the iPhone's initial success. The inclusion of Google products/api (like youtube and maps ) on the original iPhone was a big selling point for Apple. You can call me what ever you want but it's my opinion.
However this is a competition for the mind-share of the people. It is a winner take all. Including an antitrust smack down once one dominates. See what I did there. It is reasonable that at this point in the crusade to cooperate just a little more.
Your reply is right on target. Note that he cleverly used the words that Google "turned on multitouch" to make it looking like Google had this feature in Android from the beginning not stealing/copying from the iPhone.
No tin foil hat needed. It was worded that way simply because Android had multi-touch support built in for a long while before Google officially turned it on. If you don't know smartphone history, it's always better to ask first, rather than assuming the worst. Thanks!
As for the idea of multi-touch, there's no doubt that Apple made it a popular feature, and that alone would've certainly influenced Android to add it. At the same time, Apple was neither the first to demo multi-touch, nor to announce a multi-touch phone. It was not necessary to copy just Apple.
PS. one way to spot someone who doesn't know smartphone history, is if they repeat the nonsense that Android was meant as a Blackberry clone. No one would've gone up against RIM back then, especially with their lock at the time on push email. Instead, Android was clearly meant to compete with Windows Mobile and its set of both touch and non-touch phone versions. The first Android developer phone was even a slight mod of a well known WinMo phone.
I agree. I got tired of waiting to see what Apple "might" be doing in the TV space. I needed a new set so I did my homework and bought one. Hint: the Samsung logo is no where in sight. The Samsung sets look nice, but I still won't buy one. Nor will I buy the Dyson Bladeless fan copy that they are reportedly working on.
I wound up buying an 55" LG and love it! I have yet to see a TV that has a noticeably better picture. Truthfully, there are a lot of very nice sets out there to choose from.
I think by now a lot of people agree that the Apple TV will be a real TV equipped with an OS. The funny thing is no so-called Apple competitors dare to make one equipped with Android OS. May be they still remember the embarassment in 2010 CES show. Many companies were displaying a version of tablet. Because most of them know tablet will be the next big thing. When Apple introduced iPad in late January all of them withdrew their tablets from the market. With this lesson, I think all the Apple competitors are just waiting for Apple TV first then began copying it as soon as it is introduced.
No tin foil hat needed. It was worded that way simply because Android had multi-touch support built in for a long while before Google officially turned it on. If you don't know smartphone history, it's always better to ask first, rather than assuming the worst. Thanks!
As for the idea of multi-touch, there's no doubt that Apple made it a popular feature, and that alone would've certainly influenced Android to add it. At the same time, Apple was neither the first to demo multi-touch, nor to announce a multi-touch phone. It was not necessary to copy just Apple.
PS. one way to spot someone who doesn't know smartphone history, is if they repeat the nonsense that Android was meant as a Blackberry clone. No one would've gone up against RIM back then, especially with their lock at the time on push email. Instead, Android was clearly meant to compete with Windows Mobile and its set of both touch and non-touch phone versions. The first Android developer phone was even a slight mod of a well known WinMo phone.
Yes, I believe most "Apple competitors" knew it is possible to put the internet on a phone. The problem is they think the phone is so small that it is impractical to do so. Apple showed them it is possible and can make money on it. Apple showed Google the way to put internet on a phone.
Don't forget well before 2007, PC makers especially HP had made a touch screen enabled PC. You compare it to iPhone and iPad. You will understand Apple and Jobs contribution to multi-touch.
Blatantly copying a mobile OS and offering it for free is bad for the company that originally created the OS too.
And for the record...I'm not hurting at all Larry. Its just too god damn bad Android fanboys can't get an exact copy of iOS and claim its their own.
I think Google is slowly starting to go down hill a little. Other than Android and search, everything else they do is a massive failure. You can't beat people by copying them. You need to make something better and truly innovative.
I suppose you see Google Docs and Google Maps as failures...
Thinking about making a phone isn't the same as actually doing a production project. We know from multiple sources that the port of OSX into iOS didn't even start until early January 2006, for example. Forestall's testimony at the recent California trial as that the hardware exploration only started in mid 2005.
oh sh*t, you mean Apple created iOS in a year while it took Google 3+ yrs to create Android. I guess when you have to turn on a dime to copy iOS, it would take longer.
Google can preach till they're blue in the face about being "pro-consumer", but when it comes down it all they are is "pro-ideologues". Consumers care about results - the products, the services, the output. They care precious little about the how or the why, with few exceptions.
And even if Google is being pro-consumer, and if you define that as "making stuff as cheap as possible" then maybe they are, it still doesn't excuse the fact that their entire business model is dangerously anti-competitive, and that fact alone rescinds Google's right to claim to be pro-consumer because consumers like choices and Google's mere entry to a market can and does erode choice, for one simple reason:
Google has an essentially bottomless pit of money and so they can lose money by giving stuff away for free. Other companies do not have advertising revenues to tack onto free products, so in any price-sensistive market...They're dead once Google weighs in. Google provides the marketing weight of a major corporation, but the product is free. Google have all but killed the commercial third-party mobile OS market by making Android available. Just ask Microsoft how easy it is to charge money for an OS license in mobile with Android to compete with.
No amount of preaching about not doing evil and wanting what's best for consumers can make up for the fact that Google's business model outside of web services is toxic to any marketplace.
Google Chief Executive Larry Page has lamented the "island-like approach" companies have taken in commercializing the Internet, as services from Google, Apple and Amazon do not integrate well with one another.
Page's comments come from an <a href="http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/12/11/larry-page/">interview with</a> <em>Fortune</em> published on Tuesday, in which he said it is "a shame" that the three biggest technology companies are competing with each other with completely different business models. While Apple makes its money off of hardware, Google sells advertising that accompanies its free services, and Amazon opts for a low-margin, high-volume approach selling items and content from its Web-based store.
"All the big technology companies are big because they did something great," Page said. I"d like to see more cooperation on the user side. The Internet was made in universities and it was designed to integrate. And as we've commercialized it, we've added more of an island-like approach to it, which I think is somewhat of a shame for users."
The Google CEO said he feels it "would be nice" if his company got along better with rivals like Apple and Amazon. He believes more cooperation would make users "suffer" less.
"We try pretty hard to make our products available as widely as we can. That's our philosophy," he said. "I think sometimes we're allowed to do that. Sometimes we're not."
<div align="center"><img src="http://photos.appleinsidercdn.com/page-110815.png" border="0" alt="Larry Page" /></div>
When asked whether Google talks with Apple about resolving some of these issues, Page simply said that his company has a "big search relationship" with Apple, and that the two sides do talk.
Page also revealed he was friendly with Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, though only "at times." He clarified <a href="http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/04/04/googles_larry_page_thinks_steve_jobss_hatred_of_android_was_for_show.html">earlier comments</a> in which he said he believed Jobs' hatred of Android was "for show," adding that he felt it was "partly" to energize Apple's employees and supporters.
"That's something I try not to do," Page said. "I don't try to rally my company in that way because I think that if you're looking at somebody else, you're looking at what they do now, and that's not how again you stay two or three steps ahead."
The interview didn't touch on recent reports that claimed Page was in <a href="http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/30/apples_tim_cook_in_patent_talks_with_google_ceo_larry_page">direct talks</a> with Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook about patent litigation. One report from August claimed that the two CEOs have had phone conversations with one another about intellectual property issues.
Cook has been more delicate with his choice of words than his predecessor, Jobs, <a href="http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/10/20/steve_jobs_vowed_to_destroy_google_android_called_it_a_stolen_product.html">who told</a> biographer Walter Isaacson that he viewed Google's Android platform as a "stolen product." The late Jobs vowed to spend his "last dying breath" along with "every penny" that Apple had in the bank "to right this wrong."
Yes, I believe most "Apple competitors" knew it is possible to put the internet on a phone. The problem is they think the phone is so small that it is impractical to do so. Apple showed them it is possible and can make money on it. Apple showed Google the way to put internet on a phone.
A lot of us had the internet on our phone. A "lot" being over 100 million smartphone users at the time the iPhone came out. But yes, phonemakers were stuck with legacy support for older devices, and were afraid to make too big a leap ahead at one time.
Apple, on the other hand, had no such legacy issues and thus was able to start from scratch. Now, five years later, Apple has similar legacy issues that prevent them from making too big a change in UI or screen size.
Quote:
Don't forget well before 2007, PC makers especially HP had made a touch screen enabled PC. You compare it to iPhone and iPad. You will understand Apple and Jobs contribution to multi-touch.
I've been a touchscreen developer for decades. I have touchscreen computers all around the house as family info and Skype centers. Heck, my daughter grew up using touch computers from the time she was one year old (back in 2003).
From that experience I can say that multi-touch isn't that important. Making a touch-friendly UI is. That was key to the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
oh sh*t, you mean Apple created iOS in a year while it took Google 3+ yrs to create Android. I guess when you have to turn on a dime to copy iOS, it would take longer.
Or, as anyone who is a professional developer can vouch for, they simply had different schedules and priorities and funding.
Ironically, it was partly because Schmidt was on Apple's board, that Android was delayed for so long. Andy Rubin has noted that Schmidt, who was his boss, purposely kept himself away from any Android business while he was with Apple, to avoid any legal impropriety. This meant that Android did not get the resources it would've normally gotten.
A lot of us had the internet on our phone. A "lot" being over 100 million smartphone users at the time the iPhone came out. But yes, phonemakers were stuck with legacy support for older devices, and were afraid to make too big a leap ahead at one time.
Apple, on the other hand, had no such legacy issues and thus was able to start from scratch. Now, five years later, Apple has similar legacy issues that prevent them from making too big a change in UI or screen size.
Apple has no legacy issues. Apple changed its behavior since Steve Jobs returned. Do you need me to elaborate?
I hope so too, but that is entirely up to Apple. iOS has improved VERY slowly while Google and Samsung have had the pedal to the metal with Android. Siri is "still" in beta and it's been over a year now. Maps was not fully baked. I think THIS is the real reason that Scott Forstall has been shown the door. I do not like Google. I find them to be a sneaky, greasy company that just want to look over our shoulders 24-7 and harvest information.
That said, while it pains me to say this, some of what they do is fantastic work. Their new voice search for iOS is a great example. I normally avoid anything Google but I had heard such great things about their Google Voice iOS search that I had to give it a try. Wow. It does voice recognition in real time, on the phone and is incredibly accurate. Plus it's search results are complete and useful. Siri? Barely better than when it was announced if at all.
Apple should be embarrassed. But hey, we have green felt in Game Center and leather accents in our contacts and calendar apps, so we're good. /s
I haven't used it since testing it out but the app is so good, I cannot bring myself to delete it.
Yucky yuck yuck. Because he cares so much about ME, Larry Page wants Apple and Amazon to change their entire business and Google "be allowed" to do everything it wants. That kid has a real future in Washington D.C., or even better, the U.N.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Get over your man-crush skater, you aren't my type.
I'm disappointed that was a weak attempt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126
Agreed...I'm in the market for a TV...(not sure I can wait till next fall for the ATV) but I will be damned if I'm going to buy a Samsung. I don't care if a Sharp of LG is $40 more. No Samsung.
.....waiting for someone to tell me now, Sharp's and LG's are made by Samsung!
I agree. I got tired of waiting to see what Apple "might" be doing in the TV space. I needed a new set so I did my homework and bought one. Hint: the Samsung logo is no where in sight. The Samsung sets look nice, but I still won't buy one. Nor will I buy the Dyson Bladeless fan copy that they are reportedly working on.
I wound up buying an 55" LG and love it! I have yet to see a TV that has a noticeably better picture. Truthfully, there are a lot of very nice sets out there to choose from.
Because Page believes that what's good for google is good for all customers.
First what he is saying isn't so bad. He is right that it would be nice for "me" a consumer, if my different toys and gadgets could play nice together without a million hoops to jump through. I am invested in Apple, Google and MS ecosystems, the later mostly because of work. Remember there was a time when Apple and Google were friends, perhaps only because of a shared enemy in MS. Still, things have changed. I love Apple products but it is wrong to say that Google didn't help the iPhone's initial success. The inclusion of Google products/api (like youtube and maps ) on the original iPhone was a big selling point for Apple. You can call me what ever you want but it's my opinion.
However this is a competition for the mind-share of the people. It is a winner take all. Including an antitrust smack down once one dominates. See what I did there. It is reasonable that at this point in the crusade to cooperate just a little more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
Your reply is right on target. Note that he cleverly used the words that Google "turned on multitouch" to make it looking like Google had this feature in Android from the beginning not stealing/copying from the iPhone.
No tin foil hat needed. It was worded that way simply because Android had multi-touch support built in for a long while before Google officially turned it on. If you don't know smartphone history, it's always better to ask first, rather than assuming the worst. Thanks!
As for the idea of multi-touch, there's no doubt that Apple made it a popular feature, and that alone would've certainly influenced Android to add it. At the same time, Apple was neither the first to demo multi-touch, nor to announce a multi-touch phone. It was not necessary to copy just Apple.
PS. one way to spot someone who doesn't know smartphone history, is if they repeat the nonsense that Android was meant as a Blackberry clone. No one would've gone up against RIM back then, especially with their lock at the time on push email. Instead, Android was clearly meant to compete with Windows Mobile and its set of both touch and non-touch phone versions. The first Android developer phone was even a slight mod of a well known WinMo phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63
I agree. I got tired of waiting to see what Apple "might" be doing in the TV space. I needed a new set so I did my homework and bought one. Hint: the Samsung logo is no where in sight. The Samsung sets look nice, but I still won't buy one. Nor will I buy the Dyson Bladeless fan copy that they are reportedly working on.
I wound up buying an 55" LG and love it! I have yet to see a TV that has a noticeably better picture. Truthfully, there are a lot of very nice sets out there to choose from.
I think by now a lot of people agree that the Apple TV will be a real TV equipped with an OS. The funny thing is no so-called Apple competitors dare to make one equipped with Android OS. May be they still remember the embarassment in 2010 CES show. Many companies were displaying a version of tablet. Because most of them know tablet will be the next big thing. When Apple introduced iPad in late January all of them withdrew their tablets from the market. With this lesson, I think all the Apple competitors are just waiting for Apple TV first then began copying it as soon as it is introduced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
No tin foil hat needed. It was worded that way simply because Android had multi-touch support built in for a long while before Google officially turned it on. If you don't know smartphone history, it's always better to ask first, rather than assuming the worst. Thanks!
As for the idea of multi-touch, there's no doubt that Apple made it a popular feature, and that alone would've certainly influenced Android to add it. At the same time, Apple was neither the first to demo multi-touch, nor to announce a multi-touch phone. It was not necessary to copy just Apple.
PS. one way to spot someone who doesn't know smartphone history, is if they repeat the nonsense that Android was meant as a Blackberry clone. No one would've gone up against RIM back then, especially with their lock at the time on push email. Instead, Android was clearly meant to compete with Windows Mobile and its set of both touch and non-touch phone versions. The first Android developer phone was even a slight mod of a well known WinMo phone.
Yes, I believe most "Apple competitors" knew it is possible to put the internet on a phone. The problem is they think the phone is so small that it is impractical to do so. Apple showed them it is possible and can make money on it. Apple showed Google the way to put internet on a phone.
Don't forget well before 2007, PC makers especially HP had made a touch screen enabled PC. You compare it to iPhone and iPad. You will understand Apple and Jobs contribution to multi-touch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress
Blatantly copying a mobile OS and offering it for free is bad for the company that originally created the OS too.
And for the record...I'm not hurting at all Larry. Its just too god damn bad Android fanboys can't get an exact copy of iOS and claim its their own.
I think Google is slowly starting to go down hill a little. Other than Android and search, everything else they do is a massive failure. You can't beat people by copying them. You need to make something better and truly innovative.
I suppose you see Google Docs and Google Maps as failures...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Thinking about making a phone isn't the same as actually doing a production project. We know from multiple sources that the port of OSX into iOS didn't even start until early January 2006, for example. Forestall's testimony at the recent California trial as that the hardware exploration only started in mid 2005.
oh sh*t, you mean Apple created iOS in a year while it took Google 3+ yrs to create Android. I guess when you have to turn on a dime to copy iOS, it would take longer.
Google *is* indeed evil.
Apple should replace all Google services on iOS.
I hope Siri replaces search on iOS soon.
Time will tell.
So stop stealing & distributing Apple's technology.
Google can preach till they're blue in the face about being "pro-consumer", but when it comes down it all they are is "pro-ideologues". Consumers care about results - the products, the services, the output. They care precious little about the how or the why, with few exceptions.
And even if Google is being pro-consumer, and if you define that as "making stuff as cheap as possible" then maybe they are, it still doesn't excuse the fact that their entire business model is dangerously anti-competitive, and that fact alone rescinds Google's right to claim to be pro-consumer because consumers like choices and Google's mere entry to a market can and does erode choice, for one simple reason:
Google has an essentially bottomless pit of money and so they can lose money by giving stuff away for free. Other companies do not have advertising revenues to tack onto free products, so in any price-sensistive market...They're dead once Google weighs in. Google provides the marketing weight of a major corporation, but the product is free. Google have all but killed the commercial third-party mobile OS market by making Android available. Just ask Microsoft how easy it is to charge money for an OS license in mobile with Android to compete with.
No amount of preaching about not doing evil and wanting what's best for consumers can make up for the fact that Google's business model outside of web services is toxic to any marketplace.
Followed the stolen Java-code saga which Google stole for Android ?
Eric Schmidt used to work at Sun Microsystems too !
This guy is very, very evil. The worst kind !
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
Yes, I believe most "Apple competitors" knew it is possible to put the internet on a phone. The problem is they think the phone is so small that it is impractical to do so. Apple showed them it is possible and can make money on it. Apple showed Google the way to put internet on a phone.
A lot of us had the internet on our phone. A "lot" being over 100 million smartphone users at the time the iPhone came out. But yes, phonemakers were stuck with legacy support for older devices, and were afraid to make too big a leap ahead at one time.
Apple, on the other hand, had no such legacy issues and thus was able to start from scratch. Now, five years later, Apple has similar legacy issues that prevent them from making too big a change in UI or screen size.
Quote:
Don't forget well before 2007, PC makers especially HP had made a touch screen enabled PC. You compare it to iPhone and iPad. You will understand Apple and Jobs contribution to multi-touch.
I've been a touchscreen developer for decades. I have touchscreen computers all around the house as family info and Skype centers. Heck, my daughter grew up using touch computers from the time she was one year old (back in 2003).
From that experience I can say that multi-touch isn't that important. Making a touch-friendly UI is. That was key to the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
oh sh*t, you mean Apple created iOS in a year while it took Google 3+ yrs to create Android. I guess when you have to turn on a dime to copy iOS, it would take longer.
Or, as anyone who is a professional developer can vouch for, they simply had different schedules and priorities and funding.
Ironically, it was partly because Schmidt was on Apple's board, that Android was delayed for so long. Andy Rubin has noted that Schmidt, who was his boss, purposely kept himself away from any Android business while he was with Apple, to avoid any legal impropriety. This meant that Android did not get the resources it would've normally gotten.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
A lot of us had the internet on our phone. A "lot" being over 100 million smartphone users at the time the iPhone came out. But yes, phonemakers were stuck with legacy support for older devices, and were afraid to make too big a leap ahead at one time.
Apple, on the other hand, had no such legacy issues and thus was able to start from scratch. Now, five years later, Apple has similar legacy issues that prevent them from making too big a change in UI or screen size.
Apple has no legacy issues. Apple changed its behavior since Steve Jobs returned. Do you need me to elaborate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007
Google *is* indeed evil.
Apple should replace all Google services on iOS.
I hope Siri replaces search on iOS soon.
Time will tell.
I hope so too, but that is entirely up to Apple. iOS has improved VERY slowly while Google and Samsung have had the pedal to the metal with Android. Siri is "still" in beta and it's been over a year now. Maps was not fully baked. I think THIS is the real reason that Scott Forstall has been shown the door. I do not like Google. I find them to be a sneaky, greasy company that just want to look over our shoulders 24-7 and harvest information.
That said, while it pains me to say this, some of what they do is fantastic work. Their new voice search for iOS is a great example. I normally avoid anything Google but I had heard such great things about their Google Voice iOS search that I had to give it a try. Wow. It does voice recognition in real time, on the phone and is incredibly accurate. Plus it's search results are complete and useful. Siri? Barely better than when it was announced if at all.
Apple should be embarrassed. But hey, we have green felt in Game Center and leather accents in our contacts and calendar apps, so we're good. /s
I haven't used it since testing it out but the app is so good, I cannot bring myself to delete it.
GTFO!
Yucky yuck yuck. Because he cares so much about ME, Larry Page wants Apple and Amazon to change their entire business and Google "be allowed" to do everything it wants. That kid has a real future in Washington D.C., or even better, the U.N.