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.
That's fine, and possibly true to a large extent (except the bit about Schmidt). But I wanted to make clear that it wasn't a marketing gimmick when it was coined.
That's fine, and possibly true to a large extent (except the bit about Schmidt). But I wanted to make clear that it wasn't a marketing gimmick when it was coined.
Sorry if I wasn't being clear...I completely agree with you that it wasn't a marketing gimmick, and actually that is what bums me out. In the process of their monetization strategy they lost sight of it in big part due to becoming primarily an advertising company.
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.
Yes I mean, Google is so scared of that corpse called Oracle /s
Google has the right to protect their own IP, and since that Android wasn't found to be infringing Apple's IP (for example) and they are already paying all the royalties they should pay, as any other product, I see them as good citizens, at least when related to patents and IP.
Since Samsung was the one that copied everything they could find, I hope Google sues them.
Google and Apple, together with Samsung's own mistakes (If they leave Google's Android they have no chance) can really put the South-koreans down.
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.
In my (possibly unlightened) opinion:
- people might just be stating their preferences and opinions, rather than being "hands on deck" for a company
- Google is not 'railroading', it's unifying its products like Apple did with iCloud, and that's a good thing, even though most people hate change
Why not join the 180,000 people who have signed this petition asking Google to stop forcing Google + on YouTube users.
I don't think they "force" a Google+ account to view Youtube videos. AFAIK it's only if you want to comment on them. That doesn't sound unreasonable, does it to you? You have to set up a user account at nearly every site if you want to post comments.
Why not join the 180,000 people who have signed this petition asking Google to stop forcing Google + on YouTube users.
1- Because I don't think it's a bad idea (as I stated before)
2- 180k people out of the billions of users? Looks pretty "extremist/fringe" to me, if you'll allow me to think differently from you
Off topic: I run a French keyboard with Russian enabled. For the last few days, the keyboard randomly switches to an unidentified French version (at least, I type in an @ when I want to type a 2, but the é still is in the proper place), and I have to switch to Russian, type in a 2, and switch back to French. It only happens when typing on AppleInsider... Anyone has an idea what could be at play here? (Mac Book Air mid-2011, French keyboard)
Overall in agreement, but you are a little hard on the general public here. First the article makes zero mention of the Kindle Fire tables which hold a solid position in the discount market as well as zero mention of the retail channels and their influence on the public.
For those "unaffiliated" in the tablet wars, most will do just fine with a tier 1/1.5 tablet such as a nexus, galaxy tab, lenovo, or fire. They have strong specs for their price and often ( but not always ) decent support. Not all inexpensive tables are ewaste, some are respectable devices. I agree that these have little impact on long term iPad sales because Apple was hardly going to win over the cost conscious segment of the market with their offerings. Apple is always about sustainability and experience, not gross sales numbers.
Walk into any BestBuy and listen to the reps at the tablet area ( which is always a mess, half of them not charged, ... ). They are pushing the tier 1 tables and actively beating up on the Apple offerings "Why pay twice as much for the same hardware". I'm sure the reps are pushing the tables with the highest gross margins and/or lowest return rate rather than what is the best for the consumer. Once again this does have an effect in "market share" but I would doubt there is an effect on the mid-term iPad market.
One point that nobody made so far was the timing of the report. October.. you know the month where anybody that knows anything wasn't buying iPads last year and this year. That rather important disclaimer was nowhere in their reports.
"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.
No they don't. I know people who work at Google and they laugh at me when I bring up do no evil to them. They say Google is a business and business comes first. Do no evil was always a marketing gimmick. Even by your own admission it was a marketing gimmick to recruit engineers to their cause. Farming your personal information to advertising companies against your will and stealing IP has been their game since they came into existence.
Add to the mix all the click-baiting bloggers, many only a few years out of business school who throw out links with titles like " Apples last hope to turnaround abysmal market share". Their advice is the equivalent of telling BMW that they'll never make it in the cutthroat automotive market unless they come up with an answer to the Nissan Sentra. The stock pages are strewn with these profound analyses setting up a drumbeat averring that Apple's downfall is a near certainty.
The 'analytics' reporting from the '90's always made me feel uneasy. Their logic was self-consistent, but just didn't "feel right." Now we see that these firms are basically protection rackets acting on behalf of their paying constituents. Great%u2026
First as a person who has used reports like this from these companies, you have to be an idiot to use their information blindly. I never used their summary information since as it was pointed out they are using stats to tell a story and drive their customers in a particular direction. You have to use the raw data which they have and analysis it yourself and make your own decisions. I have talked to these analysis a few times and questioned their numbers, specifically about how they came up with number which I knew for a fact a company never published and they give you some story about triangulating in on it (i.e they made it up).
I personally do not think the coke analogy was a good one. Coke in fact considers its market share in terms of stomach share. They want be the largest % of what you drink on a day even water thus why they sell bottle water and why the continue to try and convince people drink tap water in the US is bad for your health. If you going to compete against coke you can not say I will sell more cola than them, it have to say you sell more liquid going into some's stomach then Coke.
I've personally given up on GARTNER and IDC reports. I've never read of these companies calling the demise of Porsche and Ferrari against the Hyundai, Kia's sales. So why are they doing this to APPLE ?? go figure.......
I see a lot of reports on market share, most of which reflect reasonable consistency in their trends, but I must have missed the ones claiming that Apple's focus on the higher end of the market can only mean the demise of the company.
Can you help me find examples of those from Gartner or IDC?
I don't think they "force" a Google+ account to view Youtube videos. AFAIK it's only if you want to comment on them. That doesn't sound unreasonable, does it to you? You have to set up a user account at nearly every site if you want to post comments.
oh come on, stop apologizing for Google. there is a hell of a lot of difference between Google+ and, for example, Disqus. Disqus is merely a user name and PW system. Google+ is a massive invasion of your digital life.
Comments
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.
That's fine, and possibly true to a large extent (except the bit about Schmidt). But I wanted to make clear that it wasn't a marketing gimmick when it was coined.
To be more accurate the slogan was "Don't be evil".
True. I was responding to another post and simply repeated the incorrectly cited slogan.
That's fine, and possibly true to a large extent (except the bit about Schmidt). But I wanted to make clear that it wasn't a marketing gimmick when it was coined.
Sorry if I wasn't being clear...I completely agree with you that it wasn't a marketing gimmick, and actually that is what bums me out. In the process of their monetization strategy they lost sight of it in big part due to becoming primarily an advertising company.
Don't be evil.
Do not be evil.
Thou shalt not be evil.
Any way you cut it, they failed.
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.
Yes I mean, Google is so scared of that corpse called Oracle /s
Google has the right to protect their own IP, and since that Android wasn't found to be infringing Apple's IP (for example) and they are already paying all the royalties they should pay, as any other product, I see them as good citizens, at least when related to patents and IP.
Since Samsung was the one that copied everything they could find, I hope Google sues them.
Google and Apple, together with Samsung's own mistakes (If they leave Google's Android they have no chance) can really put the South-koreans down.
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.
In my (possibly unlightened) opinion:
- people might just be stating their preferences and opinions, rather than being "hands on deck" for a company
- Google is not 'railroading', it's unifying its products like Apple did with iCloud, and that's a good thing, even though most people hate change
Just my two cents.
Can anyone here comment on Google without thinking with their Apple shares?
In my (possibly unlightened) opinion:
- people might just be stating their preferences and opinions, rather than being "hands on deck" for a company
- Google is not 'railroading', it's unifying its products like Apple did with iCloud, and that's a good thing, even though most people hate change
Just my two cents.
I agree. But the way they're going about this is turning off a growing user segment, and not just the Apple fanboys.
In my (possibly unlightened) opinion:
- people might just be stating their preferences and opinions, rather than being "hands on deck" for a company
- Google is not 'railroading', it's unifying its products like Apple did with iCloud, and that's a good thing, even though most people hate change
Just my two cents.
Why not join the 180,000 people who have signed this petition asking Google to stop forcing Google + on YouTube users.
I don't think they "force" a Google+ account to view Youtube videos. AFAIK it's only if you want to comment on them. That doesn't sound unreasonable, does it to you? You have to set up a user account at nearly every site if you want to post comments.
Why not join the 180,000 people who have signed this petition asking Google to stop forcing Google + on YouTube users.
1- Because I don't think it's a bad idea (as I stated before)
2- 180k people out of the billions of users? Looks pretty "extremist/fringe" to me, if you'll allow me to think differently from you
Off topic: I run a French keyboard with Russian enabled. For the last few days, the keyboard randomly switches to an unidentified French version (at least, I type in an @ when I want to type a 2, but the é still is in the proper place), and I have to switch to Russian, type in a 2, and switch back to French. It only happens when typing on AppleInsider... Anyone has an idea what could be at play here? (Mac Book Air mid-2011, French keyboard)
For those "unaffiliated" in the tablet wars, most will do just fine with a tier 1/1.5 tablet such as a nexus, galaxy tab, lenovo, or fire. They have strong specs for their price and often ( but not always ) decent support. Not all inexpensive tables are ewaste, some are respectable devices. I agree that these have little impact on long term iPad sales because Apple was hardly going to win over the cost conscious segment of the market with their offerings. Apple is always about sustainability and experience, not gross sales numbers.
Walk into any BestBuy and listen to the reps at the tablet area ( which is always a mess, half of them not charged, ... ). They are pushing the tier 1 tables and actively beating up on the Apple offerings "Why pay twice as much for the same hardware". I'm sure the reps are pushing the tables with the highest gross margins and/or lowest return rate rather than what is the best for the consumer. Once again this does have an effect in "market share" but I would doubt there is an effect on the mid-term iPad market.
One point that nobody made so far was the timing of the report. October.. you know the month where anybody that knows anything wasn't buying iPads last year and this year. That rather important disclaimer was nowhere in their reports.
The stock pages are strewn with these profound analyses setting up a drumbeat averring that Apple's downfall is a near certainty.
First as a person who has used reports like this from these companies, you have to be an idiot to use their information blindly. I never used their summary information since as it was pointed out they are using stats to tell a story and drive their customers in a particular direction. You have to use the raw data which they have and analysis it yourself and make your own decisions. I have talked to these analysis a few times and questioned their numbers, specifically about how they came up with number which I knew for a fact a company never published and they give you some story about triangulating in on it (i.e they made it up).
I personally do not think the coke analogy was a good one. Coke in fact considers its market share in terms of stomach share. They want be the largest % of what you drink on a day even water thus why they sell bottle water and why the continue to try and convince people drink tap water in the US is bad for your health. If you going to compete against coke you can not say I will sell more cola than them, it have to say you sell more liquid going into some's stomach then Coke.
I've personally given up on GARTNER and IDC reports. I've never read of these companies calling the demise of Porsche and Ferrari against the Hyundai, Kia's sales. So why are they doing this to APPLE ?? go figure.......
I see a lot of reports on market share, most of which reflect reasonable consistency in their trends, but I must have missed the ones claiming that Apple's focus on the higher end of the market can only mean the demise of the company.
Can you help me find examples of those from Gartner or IDC?
I don't think they "force" a Google+ account to view Youtube videos. AFAIK it's only if you want to comment on them. That doesn't sound unreasonable, does it to you? You have to set up a user account at nearly every site if you want to post comments.
oh come on, stop apologizing for Google. there is a hell of a lot of difference between Google+ and, for example, Disqus. Disqus is merely a user name and PW system. Google+ is a massive invasion of your digital life.
get real.