Cars replaced horses so should horses still be included in car market share figures?
if you talking about modal split in travel, yes. just like air planes replaced trains and passenger liners. they perform the same basic function: get you from here to there.
DVD players replaced VCR's should they have been considered the same product?
you must mean did they (+DVR) compete for the same market? yes. because they also performed the same function: commercial/personal media hard copy playback and TV time-shifting.
So what about smartphones? Phones have been replacing pc's for online shopping in a far bigger way than iPads have affected business or education. Most people building sites now talk about mobile first strategies. So smartphones should be included right? Under your logic about replacing the pc, a smartphone does, so market shares for pc's should include smartphones.
yes you can use smartphones for some of the same traditional functions as a PC. but most users use them primarily for the things PC's never did. like take pictures and make phone calls (in general, communicate digitally) from anywhere. as a practical matter, few have actually replaced their PC with just a smartphone. so no, the functional overlap is too limited to count them as the same market. what smart phones have truly replaced instead are pay phones and to a significant extent land lines in general, and also now consumer cameras. they also have fostered a whole new world of location-based services of all kinds that PC's never encompassed conceptually at all. so smartphones are really a true new category/market - the "post PC" device.
Also is there actually that much evidence tablets are replacing pcs rather than being an additional item. We've got a few tablets in our house, but we still use a pc for stuff too. Almost everyone in my office has a tablet, some use them for work, but everyone still also uses a pc.
PC sales went down significantly and now have flattened. there is no doubt about that. businesses still need conventional workstations for many obvious reasons, but replacement cycles have lengthened as older PC's are still good enough. that is one factor. slowed global economic growth is a second factor. the third factor has to be shifts in the consumer market - the same longer replacement cycle, the same household budget tightening. those are all "forgone" PC sales, while tablet sales have boomed in spite of all that. one key factor is many tablet buyers never even owned/used a PC before - a new market segment. another is a decline in multiple-PC households as the second and third PC's are replaced by tablets when they get old.
In a work environment tablets have had a massive impact on the way people take notes. Some people that used to use a pen and paper now use a tablet. So should iPads be included in market share figures for notepads?
now you getting pretty silly, but sure, you could say that (and add pens and pencils too) - for a theoretical "note taking mechanisms" market. it would be fun to check if total sales of all office paper products to businesses have gone down due to the digital revolution of the last 20 years, both per capita and absolute tonnage. conventional wisdom would predict it has, substantially.
if we were talking just newsprint, that's for damn sure.
Android will become android when Samsung goes full court with their competitive Tizen OS.
<h1>Tizen: Samsung Makes Quiet Push for New Mobile Operating System</h1>
Good! Now Apple can just go after Samsung solely and directly. Maybe even add Intel to the lawsuit list.
“I got an impression that Tizen was benchmarking Android,” said Park Minhyung, a developer who attended the conference. “Speakers at the sessions said that they adopted strong features from Android."
Fortunately for Samsung, Google is highly unlikely to file patent suits for "borrowing" Android IP as it's so atypical for them. As much as I dislike the IP wars, even software patents altogether for that matter, I'd almost forgive Google if they broke with tradition and got Samsung's attention.
Good! Now Apple can just go after Samsung solely and directly. Maybe even add Intel to the lawsuit list.
“I got an impression that Tizen was benchmarking Android,” said Park Minhyung, a developer who attended the conference. “Speakers at the sessions said that they adopted strong features from Android."
Fortunately for Samsung, Google is highly unlikely to file patent suits for "borrowing" Android IP as it's so atypical for them. As much as I dislike the IP wars, even software patents altogether for that matter, I'd almost forgive Google if they broke with tradition and got Samsung's attention.
Google threatened legal action against licensees who said they would include Chinese forks of Android on some of their devices, kicking them out of the Android party. Of course, Google can’t sue over Android IP that it has given away, but Google would certainly sue a dissident licensee who destroyed the whole Android game.
Google has so far attempted to retaliate against Microsoft and Apple, using mostly FRAND licensed, standards essential patents in failed bids to block Android infringement of previously patented features. But if Samsung leaves for Tizen and rips off Google’s own apps, taking half of the installed base of Android with it (and the premium half at that), you have to be really naive to think that Google wouldn’t attempt to recoup some of the $13 billion it has paid for Andy Rubin’s Motorola Mobility boondoggle.
It’s equally impossible to fathom that Samsung would leave without ripping off every possible element of Google’s closed layer of Android value, the apps that aren’t free and which add the most value to "open" Android as a platform for OEMs. Google viciously protects this IP, just like every other company. It just spins a delusion of being free and open to impress its naive and ideological fan base.
Also, even if you think Google is incapable of suing over IP, recall that Google thought the same thing about Sun when it ripped off Java under the belief that Sun would just bend over and take it. But then Oracle bought Sun and changed the rules. If Google spun its Android group & IP rights off or sold it to another firm, say BlackBerry or even a full-on patent troll, all bets would be off. And everyone would be suing Samsung.
“I got an impression that Tizen was benchmarking Android,” said Park Minhyung, a developer who attended the conference. “Speakers at the sessions said that they adopted strong features from Android."
Isn't that the whole point of open source?
Besides, further from there, the whole idea of IP is very hard to define, because "an obvious idea" is obvious to specialists, but rarely to the common man.
Cars replaced horses so should horses still be included in car market share figures?
Well, I'd say yes, among other reasons, because you damn can't know if in a century from now, most people won't travel by horse for "short" distances, and electric zeppelin or electric sailboat for longer distances.
Right now, the horse is a minimal player, due to the ease of access to oil at competitive prices in $$$ and blood (not the West's).
Tomorrow, it might be again huge, as oil resources dwindle and replacements have to be found, especially in a world where business can be very much dematerialized. Just look at how many people use FaceTime or Skype everyday nowadays instead of wasting hours in a car!
However, it obviously cannot be the "car" market share figures, but the "transportation" market share figures, else your data is flawed.
The very problem with statistics is that you orient your analysis based on what you wish to study.
Good! Now Apple can just go after Samsung solely and directly. Maybe even add Intel to the lawsuit list.
“I got an impression that Tizen was benchmarking Android,” said Park Minhyung, a developer who attended the conference. “Speakers at the sessions said that they adopted strong features from Android."
Fortunately for Samsung, Google is highly unlikely to file patent suits for "borrowing" Android IP as it's so atypical for them. As much as I dislike the IP wars, even software patents altogether for that matter, I'd almost forgive Google if they broke with tradition and got Samsung's attention.
Shouldn't you be over on YouTube posting the benefits of Google +?
Google has so far attempted to retaliate against Microsoft and Apple, using mostly FRAND licensed, standards essential patents in failed bids to block Android infringement of previously patented features.
I don't think so. I'm not aware of a single lawsuit ever filed by Google against either of them, nor even a new active lawsuit filed against either one by Motorola Mobility for that matter since Google bought them. Sounds like more FUD. Again if I'm wrong a reliable citation would be nice.
If Google spun its Android group & IP rights off or sold it to another firm, say BlackBerry or even a full-on patent troll, all bets would be off. And everyone would be suing Samsung.
If Google spins off it's Android group?? Heck, throw in "if Apple merges with Google" or "if Google IP goes into a bankruptcy auction" or "if Samsung buys out Google" or "if Google gives the Moto IP to a troll to monetize" all just as likely scenarios IMO.
By the way, how have they "viciously" protected their IP so far? Perhaps you meant to say Apple. Or Microsoft. Or Samsung. Or VirnetX. Or Nokia. Or Rockstar. Or anyone but Google. :rolleyes:
I don't think so. Never saw the first mention of a possible Google lawsuit. Sounds like FUD
I don't think so. I'm not aware of a single lawsuit ever filed by Google against either of them, nor even a new active lawsuit filed against either one by Motorola Mobility for that matter since Google bought them. Sounds like more FUD.
Also, it's remarkably obtuse for you to suggest that Motorola Mobility didn't just lose its attempt to sue Microsoft for billions over H264 SEPs, or that Google didn't just finish losing its efforts to use patents to stop iOS users in Germany from getting iCloud push messaging features.
Google also maintained Motorola's first strike FRAND patent abuse against Apple.
The main reason why Google isn't yet suing over its own core patents is that nobody is willfully infringing them the way Google has stormed into every market it enters with flagrant violations of everyone else's rights, starting with search (look up Overture).
Also, it's remarkably obtuse for you to suggest that Motorola Mobility didn't just lose its attempt to sue Microsoft for billions over H264 SEPs, or that Google didn't just finish losing its efforts to use patents to stop iOS users in Germany from getting iCloud push messaging features.
Google also maintained Motorola's first strike FRAND patent abuse against Apple.
The main reason why Google isn't yet suing over its own core patents is that nobody is willfully infringing them the way Google has stormed into every market it enters with flagrant violations of everyone else's rights, starting with search (look up Overture).
Also, look up the definition of FUD.
Fear, uncertainly and doubt. Yup, pretty much sounds like what you're attempting to do: Sow "doubt" and "uncertainty" on what the facts are and "fear" that Google is going to attack Apple with "vicious" IP infringement claims, acting no differently than Apple. They aren't and they haven't. You're a smart well-read guy and already knew that I'm sure.
No where in your Ars article does it mention Google threatening lawsuits as far as I see. Perhaps you could just clip the quote proving you're correct afterall to save everyone wasting time on a search.
Google also didn't file a lawsuit using H264 patents in Germany either, which you can find by looking at the name and date on the filing. Further both the US and German lawsuits predate even Motorola Mobility itself, going back to an old Motorola subsidiary named General Instruments. MM was just the lucky recipient :rolleyes: when Moto spun them off.
Your third claim, that Google hasn't sued because nobody is infringing on their IP almost sounded reasonable until you realize they've been around for over 15 years and IMO it's ridiculous to believe no one has used any of the 20,000+ Google-controlled patents without permission.
At your suggestion I did look up Overture. Looks like Google ended up licensing their patent, by then owned by Yahoo, in return for 2.7M shares of Google stock in much the same way Apple sold some pre-IPO stock to Zerox PARC in return for a peek at what was in the works (except that Google actually got a license to use the IP). That was a proper way to handle it right?
I will give you credit for one thing tho. Since Google bought MM last year they haven't dropped the lawsuits Motorola originally filed that have wound their way thru the courts for several years now. Personally i think it would have been nice of Google to drop them.
Fear, uncertainly and doubt. Yup, pretty much sounds like what you're attempting to do: Sow "doubt" and "uncertainty" on what the facts are and "fear" that Google is going to attack Apple with "vicious" IP infringement claims, same as Apple does to it's competition. They aren't and they haven't. Worse is that you're a smart well-read guy and already knew that yet wanted to spread half-truths anyway.
No where in your Ars article does it mention Google threatening lawsuits as far as I see. Perhaps you could just clip the quote proving you're correct afterall to save everyone wasting time on a search.
Google also didn't file a lawsuit using H264 patents in Germany either, which you'd know if you looked at the name on the paperwork. Further both the US and German lawsuits predate even Motorola Mobility itself, going back to an old Motorola subsidiary named General Instruments. MM was just the lucky recipient :rolleyes: when Moto spun them off.
Your third claim, that Google hasn't sued because nobody is infringing on their IP almost sounded reasonable until you realize they've been around for over 15 years and it's ridiculous to believe no one has used any of the 20,000+ Google-controlled patents without permission.
But you did get one thing right. Since Google bought MM last year they haven't dropped the lawsuits Motorola originally filed. Evil and vicious...
Everything you ever say is such a confused mess that I can't even tell if you're a straight up troll just trying to waste my time or if you are really that bad at basic reading comprehension and really believe what you say.
Either way, does not matter. Keep up the false accusations and your account will get banned however.
Shouldn't you be over on YouTube posting the benefits of Google +?
Seems a lot of people don't like it at all.
1- Why Youtube, isn't that "the cesspool of the Internet"?At least for the comments part...
2- Google+ is pretty nice, much better than FaceBook (I'm amazed why anyone uses that, but to each their own, right), and in my opinion more practical than Twitter for audience management (who do I want to tell what) and conversations.
Anyway, there are a lot of people who don't like Macs. Doesn't make Macs bad computers, and doesn't change my choice to use them, or Google+... This is not North Korea, where the "Will of the People" (ahemf) determines your life or death.
Everything you ever say is such a confused mess that I can't even tell if you're a straight up troll just trying to waste my time or if you are really that bad at basic reading comprehension and really believe what you say.
This sentence doesn't make sense. Try editing it and your repartee might sink some teeth into the Gator.
1- Why Youtube, isn't that "the cesspool of the Internet"?At least for the comments part...
2- Google+ is pretty nice, much better than FaceBook (I'm amazed why anyone uses that, but to each their own, right), and in my opinion more practical than Twitter for audience management (who do I want to tell what) and conversations.
Anyway, there are a lot of people who don't like Macs. Doesn't make Macs bad computers, and doesn't change my choice to use them, or Google+... This is not North Korea, where the "Will of the People" (ahemf) determines your life or death.
As far as Google is concerned, the Internet is their "North Korea" and Internet users are their peasants, going on their latest attempts to railroad people into Google +.
The thing is it's starting to backfire with people beginning to question Google's dominance.
Which is why I wonder why Google apologists are wasting their time here when all hands on deck are required for damage control elsewhere.
You need to back up your claims with links. Do no evil was just marketing. Google uses the open marketing for those in the development community who can't think for themselves and realize that its just a marketing gimmick. As soon as open doesnt benefit them they flip the script at the drop of the hat.
You need to back up your claims with links. Do no evil was just marketing. Google uses the open marketing for those in the development community who can think for themselves and realize that its just a marketing gimmick. As soon as open doesnt benefit them they flip the script at the drop of the hat.
"Do no evil" was not a marketing gimmick. Pls don't make up shit just because you don't like a company. They believed in this internally, at the beginning. It was also a motto used to recruit engineers with similar mindset. Somewhere along the way, they have allowed business to take precedence over this motto.
"Do no evil" was not a marketing gimmick. Pls don't make up shit just because you don't like a company. They believed in this internally, at the beginning. It was also a motto used to recruit engineers with similar mindset. Somewhere along the way, they have allowed business to take precedence over this motto.
To be more accurate the slogan was "Don't be evil".
"Do no evil" was not a marketing gimmick. Pls don't make up shit just because you don't like a company. They believed in this internally, at the beginning. It was also a motto used to recruit engineers with similar mindset. Somewhere along the way, they have allowed business to take precedence over this motto.
The problem is that Google started out as a research project and most genuine researchers are idealists. Unfortunately when it came to having to monetize the company, it had to become more invasive and in that process I think they lost a bit of their soul. Eric Schmidt was part of the soul sucking that happened at Google. Google saw crazy growth but at a cost. I think that is why Apple initially saw a good partner in Google. They were idealists like them (well as much as any multi-national, publicly traded company can be). I also can see why Apple would feel a bit betrayed. In the end, Google has ended up being just like Microsoft was back in the day, which bums me out. I was an avid proponent of theirs but as time passed, they lost the trust and goodwill.
Ultimately, I love technology and try to avoid thinking about the shady side of the industry, whether it is these market research papers or the stock market.
Comments
Cars replaced horses so should horses still be included in car market share figures?
if you talking about modal split in travel, yes. just like air planes replaced trains and passenger liners. they perform the same basic function: get you from here to there.
DVD players replaced VCR's should they have been considered the same product?
you must mean did they (+DVR) compete for the same market? yes. because they also performed the same function: commercial/personal media hard copy playback and TV time-shifting.
So what about smartphones? Phones have been replacing pc's for online shopping in a far bigger way than iPads have affected business or education. Most people building sites now talk about mobile first strategies. So smartphones should be included right? Under your logic about replacing the pc, a smartphone does, so market shares for pc's should include smartphones.
yes you can use smartphones for some of the same traditional functions as a PC. but most users use them primarily for the things PC's never did. like take pictures and make phone calls (in general, communicate digitally) from anywhere. as a practical matter, few have actually replaced their PC with just a smartphone. so no, the functional overlap is too limited to count them as the same market. what smart phones have truly replaced instead are pay phones and to a significant extent land lines in general, and also now consumer cameras. they also have fostered a whole new world of location-based services of all kinds that PC's never encompassed conceptually at all. so smartphones are really a true new category/market - the "post PC" device.
Also is there actually that much evidence tablets are replacing pcs rather than being an additional item. We've got a few tablets in our house, but we still use a pc for stuff too. Almost everyone in my office has a tablet, some use them for work, but everyone still also uses a pc.
PC sales went down significantly and now have flattened. there is no doubt about that. businesses still need conventional workstations for many obvious reasons, but replacement cycles have lengthened as older PC's are still good enough. that is one factor. slowed global economic growth is a second factor. the third factor has to be shifts in the consumer market - the same longer replacement cycle, the same household budget tightening. those are all "forgone" PC sales, while tablet sales have boomed in spite of all that. one key factor is many tablet buyers never even owned/used a PC before - a new market segment. another is a decline in multiple-PC households as the second and third PC's are replaced by tablets when they get old.
In a work environment tablets have had a massive impact on the way people take notes. Some people that used to use a pen and paper now use a tablet. So should iPads be included in market share figures for notepads?
now you getting pretty silly, but sure, you could say that (and add pens and pencils too) - for a theoretical "note taking mechanisms" market. it would be fun to check if total sales of all office paper products to businesses have gone down due to the digital revolution of the last 20 years, both per capita and absolute tonnage. conventional wisdom would predict it has, substantially.
if we were talking just newsprint, that's for damn sure.
“I got an impression that Tizen was benchmarking Android,” said Park Minhyung, a developer who attended the conference. “Speakers at the sessions said that they adopted strong features from Android."
Fortunately for Samsung, Google is highly unlikely to file patent suits for "borrowing" Android IP as it's so atypical for them. As much as I dislike the IP wars, even software patents altogether for that matter, I'd almost forgive Google if they broke with tradition and got Samsung's attention.
Good! Now Apple can just go after Samsung solely and directly. Maybe even add Intel to the lawsuit list.
“I got an impression that Tizen was benchmarking Android,” said Park Minhyung, a developer who attended the conference. “Speakers at the sessions said that they adopted strong features from Android."
Fortunately for Samsung, Google is highly unlikely to file patent suits for "borrowing" Android IP as it's so atypical for them. As much as I dislike the IP wars, even software patents altogether for that matter, I'd almost forgive Google if they broke with tradition and got Samsung's attention.
Google threatened legal action against licensees who said they would include Chinese forks of Android on some of their devices, kicking them out of the Android party. Of course, Google can’t sue over Android IP that it has given away, but Google would certainly sue a dissident licensee who destroyed the whole Android game.
Google has so far attempted to retaliate against Microsoft and Apple, using mostly FRAND licensed, standards essential patents in failed bids to block Android infringement of previously patented features. But if Samsung leaves for Tizen and rips off Google’s own apps, taking half of the installed base of Android with it (and the premium half at that), you have to be really naive to think that Google wouldn’t attempt to recoup some of the $13 billion it has paid for Andy Rubin’s Motorola Mobility boondoggle.
It’s equally impossible to fathom that Samsung would leave without ripping off every possible element of Google’s closed layer of Android value, the apps that aren’t free and which add the most value to "open" Android as a platform for OEMs. Google viciously protects this IP, just like every other company. It just spins a delusion of being free and open to impress its naive and ideological fan base.
Also, even if you think Google is incapable of suing over IP, recall that Google thought the same thing about Sun when it ripped off Java under the belief that Sun would just bend over and take it. But then Oracle bought Sun and changed the rules. If Google spun its Android group & IP rights off or sold it to another firm, say BlackBerry or even a full-on patent troll, all bets would be off. And everyone would be suing Samsung.
“I got an impression that Tizen was benchmarking Android,” said Park Minhyung, a developer who attended the conference. “Speakers at the sessions said that they adopted strong features from Android."
Isn't that the whole point of open source?
Besides, further from there, the whole idea of IP is very hard to define, because "an obvious idea" is obvious to specialists, but rarely to the common man.
Cars replaced horses so should horses still be included in car market share figures?
Well, I'd say yes, among other reasons, because you damn can't know if in a century from now, most people won't travel by horse for "short" distances, and electric zeppelin or electric sailboat for longer distances.
Right now, the horse is a minimal player, due to the ease of access to oil at competitive prices in $$$ and blood (not the West's).
Tomorrow, it might be again huge, as oil resources dwindle and replacements have to be found, especially in a world where business can be very much dematerialized. Just look at how many people use FaceTime or Skype everyday nowadays instead of wasting hours in a car!
However, it obviously cannot be the "car" market share figures, but the "transportation" market share figures, else your data is flawed.
The very problem with statistics is that you orient your analysis based on what you wish to study.
Good! Now Apple can just go after Samsung solely and directly. Maybe even add Intel to the lawsuit list.
“I got an impression that Tizen was benchmarking Android,” said Park Minhyung, a developer who attended the conference. “Speakers at the sessions said that they adopted strong features from Android."
Fortunately for Samsung, Google is highly unlikely to file patent suits for "borrowing" Android IP as it's so atypical for them. As much as I dislike the IP wars, even software patents altogether for that matter, I'd almost forgive Google if they broke with tradition and got Samsung's attention.
Shouldn't you be over on YouTube posting the benefits of Google +?
Seems a lot of people don't like it at all.
I don't think so. I'm not aware of a single lawsuit ever filed by Google against either of them, nor even a new active lawsuit filed against either one by Motorola Mobility for that matter since Google bought them. Sounds like more FUD. Again if I'm wrong a reliable citation would be nice.
If Google spins off it's Android group?? Heck, throw in "if Apple merges with Google" or "if Google IP goes into a bankruptcy auction" or "if Samsung buys out Google" or "if Google gives the Moto IP to a troll to monetize" all just as likely scenarios IMO.
By the way, how have they "viciously" protected their IP so far? Perhaps you meant to say Apple. Or Microsoft. Or Samsung. Or VirnetX. Or Nokia. Or Rockstar. Or anyone but Google. :rolleyes:
Stop talking and start reading.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary
Also, it's remarkably obtuse for you to suggest that Motorola Mobility didn't just lose its attempt to sue Microsoft for billions over H264 SEPs, or that Google didn't just finish losing its efforts to use patents to stop iOS users in Germany from getting iCloud push messaging features.
Google also maintained Motorola's first strike FRAND patent abuse against Apple.
The main reason why Google isn't yet suing over its own core patents is that nobody is willfully infringing them the way Google has stormed into every market it enters with flagrant violations of everyone else's rights, starting with search (look up Overture).
Also, look up the definition of FUD.
Fear, uncertainly and doubt. Yup, pretty much sounds like what you're attempting to do: Sow "doubt" and "uncertainty" on what the facts are and "fear" that Google is going to attack Apple with "vicious" IP infringement claims, acting no differently than Apple. They aren't and they haven't. You're a smart well-read guy and already knew that I'm sure.
No where in your Ars article does it mention Google threatening lawsuits as far as I see. Perhaps you could just clip the quote proving you're correct afterall to save everyone wasting time on a search.
Google also didn't file a lawsuit using H264 patents in Germany either, which you can find by looking at the name and date on the filing. Further both the US and German lawsuits predate even Motorola Mobility itself, going back to an old Motorola subsidiary named General Instruments. MM was just the lucky recipient :rolleyes: when Moto spun them off.
Your third claim, that Google hasn't sued because nobody is infringing on their IP almost sounded reasonable until you realize they've been around for over 15 years and IMO it's ridiculous to believe no one has used any of the 20,000+ Google-controlled patents without permission.
At your suggestion I did look up Overture. Looks like Google ended up licensing their patent, by then owned by Yahoo, in return for 2.7M shares of Google stock in much the same way Apple sold some pre-IPO stock to Zerox PARC in return for a peek at what was in the works (except that Google actually got a license to use the IP). That was a proper way to handle it right?
I will give you credit for one thing tho. Since Google bought MM last year they haven't dropped the lawsuits Motorola originally filed that have wound their way thru the courts for several years now. Personally i think it would have been nice of Google to drop them.
Everything you ever say is such a confused mess that I can't even tell if you're a straight up troll just trying to waste my time or if you are really that bad at basic reading comprehension and really believe what you say.
Either way, does not matter. Keep up the false accusations and your account will get banned however.
Shouldn't you be over on YouTube posting the benefits of Google +?
Seems a lot of people don't like it at all.
1- Why Youtube, isn't that "the cesspool of the Internet"?At least for the comments part...
2- Google+ is pretty nice, much better than FaceBook (I'm amazed why anyone uses that, but to each their own, right), and in my opinion more practical than Twitter for audience management (who do I want to tell what) and conversations.
Anyway, there are a lot of people who don't like Macs. Doesn't make Macs bad computers, and doesn't change my choice to use them, or Google+... This is not North Korea, where the "Will of the People" (ahemf) determines your life or death.
Is anyone of this making it easier or harder to buy the Apple products we love? Nope. So what's the problem?
Everything you ever say is such a confused mess that I can't even tell if you're a straight up troll just trying to waste my time or if you are really that bad at basic reading comprehension and really believe what you say.
This sentence doesn't make sense. Try editing it and your repartee might sink some teeth into the Gator.
As far as Google is concerned, the Internet is their "North Korea" and Internet users are their peasants, going on their latest attempts to railroad people into Google +.
The thing is it's starting to backfire with people beginning to question Google's dominance.
Which is why I wonder why Google apologists are wasting their time here when all hands on deck are required for damage control elsewhere.
You need to back up your claims with links. Do no evil was just marketing. Google uses the open marketing for those in the development community who can think for themselves and realize that its just a marketing gimmick. As soon as open doesnt benefit them they flip the script at the drop of the hat.
"Do no evil" was not a marketing gimmick. Pls don't make up shit just because you don't like a company. They believed in this internally, at the beginning. It was also a motto used to recruit engineers with similar mindset. Somewhere along the way, they have allowed business to take precedence over this motto.
To be more accurate the slogan was "Don't be evil".
"Do no evil" was not a marketing gimmick. Pls don't make up shit just because you don't like a company. They believed in this internally, at the beginning. It was also a motto used to recruit engineers with similar mindset. Somewhere along the way, they have allowed business to take precedence over this motto.
The problem is that Google started out as a research project and most genuine researchers are idealists. Unfortunately when it came to having to monetize the company, it had to become more invasive and in that process I think they lost a bit of their soul. Eric Schmidt was part of the soul sucking that happened at Google. Google saw crazy growth but at a cost. I think that is why Apple initially saw a good partner in Google. They were idealists like them (well as much as any multi-national, publicly traded company can be). I also can see why Apple would feel a bit betrayed. In the end, Google has ended up being just like Microsoft was back in the day, which bums me out. I was an avid proponent of theirs but as time passed, they lost the trust and goodwill.
Ultimately, I love technology and try to avoid thinking about the shady side of the industry, whether it is these market research papers or the stock market.