A worrying proposition if Apple were to go near attempting to build a search engine..
In reality, that's exactly what Apple _has_ been doing with Siri all along*. Siri is a search engine, albeit not one built the way traditional "search" has been executed to this point. Instead, Siri's search model is modular. Apple can and will continue to plug in whatever relevant search-related service they find beneficial to the service going forward.
*Siri searches Apple's properties (iOS, iTunes, the App Store, Maps, etc) and the Web at large (Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, Wolfram Alpha, Weather.com, OpenTable, etc). Nearly any service imaginable could be plugged into Siri to provide further utility to iOS users (and presumably OS X users at some point).
I think Apple bought Topsy just for laughs and entertainment.
There's probably an office pool in Cupertino where they're placing bets on how long before Samsung buys a Twitter company (and announces they've been planning it long before Apple was) or how long before Google unveils a Twitter competitor.
The whole iWatch joke has run its course, so they did this to provide the next round of amusement.
Maybe next year they'll buy a bakery just to watch the rest of the industry trip over each other in the race to get their digital cakes to market.
Everyone seems to be focused on what Apple might do with the Twitter data access that ownership of Topsy gives it. Perhaps they are thinking in the totally opposite direction?
"Companies like Topsy can resell the data to "hundreds of smaller software analytics firms," the report said. To maintain the elite relationship with Twitter, the companies must audit their clients, ensure that user's real names are not revealed, and help crack down on spam on the site."
I guess maybe Apple has its own huge river of data, and perhaps they are looking for creative ways to monetize it. The protection of user identity requirements imposed by Twitter might be the key factor in this purchase.
That would be a complete change in Apples core philosophy of creating features and services to sell hardware. I see Apple strengthing search through this.
I'm thinking there is a lot of good suggestions here, but maybe we might see something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Like an "intelligent agent." Siri gets more context sensitive via twitter feeds and knows nicknames and habits -- as well as locations and the usual calendar events.
It's only going to become a bigger part of their business too. They even have an "Apple Data Mining Lab" (yes that's really the name) in a couple of cities, Austin TX for example. The only difference between Apple and Google user data collection is scale IMO. It's obviously a much bigger part of Google's business plan. But don't try to convince yourself Apple doesn't "sell you" too. You are both the customer and the product for each of them, just as you are with hundreds of other companies.
Huh? Of course Apple is mining and monetizing information/data on it's users. If it wasn't obvious "back in the day" it became eminently clear when Apple rolled out iAds a few years back.
It's only going to become a bigger part of their business too IMO. They even have an "Apple Data Mining Lab" (yes that's really the name) in a couple of cities, Austin TX for example. The only difference between Apple and Google user data collection is scale. It's obviously a much bigger part of Google's business plan. But don't try to convince yourself Apple doesn't "sell you" too. You are both the customer and the product for each of them, just as you are with hundreds of other companies.
iAds is just a multimedia tool to create a platform for ads. Just having ads doesn't meant they are selling the datamining back to potential advertisers.
Huh? Of course Apple is mining and monetizing information/data on it's users. If it wasn't obvious "back in the day" it became eminently clear when Apple rolled out iAds a few years back.
It's only going to become a bigger part of their business too. They even have an "Apple Data Mining Lab" (yes that's really the name) in a couple of cities, Austin TX for example. The only difference between Apple and Google user data collection is scale IMO. It's obviously a much bigger part of Google's business plan. But don't try to convince yourself Apple doesn't "sell you" too. You are both the customer and the product for each of them, just as you are with hundreds of other companies.
I'm also saying that for Apple to copy Google would be a DUMB idea. Their "product" is partially about Trust. People trust the product to work for them, to be reliable. If it becomes a billboard and a source of SPAM it's not the experience I was looking for.
It's like paying for HBO and still watching commercials. At some point, instead of trying to occupy every nitch, you have to decide what your value as a company is. Apple is HBO and Google is "whack the monkey" that pops up in Flash to tell you that if you can hit the flying monkey, you may already be a winner.
I don't have much money, but I'd rather pay up front than have some free device inviting me to spank monkeys all day. ;-)
Huh? Of course Apple is mining and monetizing information/data on it's users. If it wasn't obvious "back in the day" it became eminently clear when Apple rolled out iAds a few years back.
It's only going to become a bigger part of their business too IMO. Really the only difference between Apple and Google user data collection is scale. It's obviously a much bigger part of Google's business plan. But don't try to convince yourself Apple doesn't "sell you" too. You are both the customer and the product for each of them, just as you are with hundreds of other companies.
I disagree. Apple primary business model has been to use free or low cost features and services to sell hardware. To the extent Apple collects user data, it seems to do it to improve those features or services. Collecting is a necessity related to the features or services. The people who buy its hardware are its primary customers.
Google's business model has always been to give away free services so that it can learn more about the people using those services so that in turn it can maximize the amount it charges for targeted advertising. Its customers are advertisers. Those are two very different philosophies, and nothing has changed.
Apple offers advertising, but unlike with Google, the motivation does not seem to make a huge profit doing so. iAds seemingly was released as Apple's way of creating an incentive for developers to keep creating iOS apps by helping them get paid when offering free Apps and for Apple to recover the cost of delivering those apps for free. Perhaps it was also motivated to take some of Google's money. With iRadio, it can't offer streaming without compensating publishers, and it probably does not want to foot the bill. I do not see iAd being a major push for Apple outside of these areas. Apple could take a Google approach and scan emails and messages and place ads in its free iCloud services, but it has not taken that approach. It could take a Microsoft approach and place third party junkware on its hardware products, but has chosen not to do so.
I see Apple continuing to collect anonymous user data to improve its services it offers users for free. This new data can help Apple make movie, restaurant, music, and a whole bunch of other suggestions. That ability can be tied across all products.
You're not making sense. The image is also meant to be a link; it's common practice: everywhere! Apple's online store web masters should know and be fixing this. Sometimes it's as if Apple has never heard of the internet. There's no reason why Google should be so much better than Apple at this. I wouldn't accept it on a website I built myself; Apple definitely shouldn't. The fact that this hasn't been addressed at this stage of Apple online store speaks volumes.
First off, the new SVP of Retail (which now includes the Web store) is a master of this stuff and I expect the Apple Web presence to get much better quickly.
Second, I expect this "problem" you're pointing out affects a fraction of 1% of the users of the use the Apple store. If that's your biggest complaint about the site then Apple should be thrilled.
That's a poor excuse. Besides, this annoyingly non-standard behaviour is the same for non-carousel images on the store. Defend Apple on this and you are certainly a fool.
@Ireland - Well I'm supporting both TS, Apple, and a whoever recognizes that you are absolutely, 100%, dead wrong on this issue.
The Apple Store and image carousel operate according to good web design principles at the moment... and are in fact built upon the Twitter Bootstrap API.
You're gonna have to find something else to B***** about.... sorry (not really!).
First off, the new SVP of Retail (which now includes the Web store) is a master of this stuff and I expect the Apple Web presence to get much better quickly.
Second, I expect this "problem" you're pointing out affects a fraction of 1% of the users of the use the Apple store. If that's your biggest complaint about the site then Apple should be thrilled.
It affects no one outside of Ireland him/herself.***
Command or right-click the link or the image and a drop down menu appears with "web standard" choices such as "open in new Tab". Geez!
*** Unless Ireland is an it and represents all of the country of the same name... which I seriously doubt.
Although... I guess it could still be an it. Define "it"!...:smokey:
This purchase should be a further reminder to all the Twits that the legal system has defined Tweets as the property of Twitter, not the people who authored the Tweets. As such, Tweets can readily be mined by any company that Twitter cares to contract with. Tweets are thus a calculated source of income to Twitter. That said, I would not like to see Apple lower and dirty itself by getting into Tweet scanning.
This purchase should be a further reminder to all the Twits that the legal system has defined Tweets as the property of Twitter, not the people who authored the Tweets. As such, Tweets can readily be mined by any company that Twitter cares to contract with. Tweets are thus a calculated source of income to Twitter. That said, I would not like to see Apple lower and dirty itself by getting into Tweet scanning.
Any person would tell you it's obvious Apple are not going to do that.
@Ireland - Well I'm supporting both TS, Apple, and a whoever recognizes that you are absolutely, 100%, dead wrong on this issue.
The Apple Store and image carousel operate according to good web design principles at the moment... and are in fact built upon the Twitter Bootstrap API.
You're gonna have to find something else to B***** about.... sorry (not really!).
First off, the new SVP of Retail (which now includes the Web store) is a master of this stuff and I expect the Apple Web presence to get much better quickly.
Second, I expect this "problem" you're pointing out affects a fraction of 1% of the users of the use the Apple store. If that's your biggest complaint about the site then Apple should be thrilled.
I see your point, but it needs to be addressed. And I too hope Apple becomes more web savvy.
Comments
A worrying proposition if Apple were to go near attempting to build a search engine..
In reality, that's exactly what Apple _has_ been doing with Siri all along*. Siri is a search engine, albeit not one built the way traditional "search" has been executed to this point. Instead, Siri's search model is modular. Apple can and will continue to plug in whatever relevant search-related service they find beneficial to the service going forward.
*Siri searches Apple's properties (iOS, iTunes, the App Store, Maps, etc) and the Web at large (Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia, Wolfram Alpha, Weather.com, OpenTable, etc). Nearly any service imaginable could be plugged into Siri to provide further utility to iOS users (and presumably OS X users at some point).
I think Apple bought Topsy just for laughs and entertainment.
There's probably an office pool in Cupertino where they're placing bets on how long before Samsung buys a Twitter company (and announces they've been planning it long before Apple was) or how long before Google unveils a Twitter competitor.
The whole iWatch joke has run its course, so they did this to provide the next round of amusement.
Maybe next year they'll buy a bakery just to watch the rest of the industry trip over each other in the race to get their digital cakes to market.
TV is a good guess, but the information could be used across all Apple products.
That would be a complete change in Apples core philosophy of creating features and services to sell hardware. I see Apple strengthing search through this.
Huh? Of course Apple is mining and monetizing information/data on it's users. If it wasn't obvious "back in the day" it became eminently clear when Apple rolled out iAds a few years back.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/10/07/06/early.advertisers.identified/
It's only going to become a bigger part of their business too. They even have an "Apple Data Mining Lab" (yes that's really the name) in a couple of cities, Austin TX for example. The only difference between Apple and Google user data collection is scale IMO. It's obviously a much bigger part of Google's business plan. But don't try to convince yourself Apple doesn't "sell you" too. You are both the customer and the product for each of them, just as you are with hundreds of other companies.
Huh? Of course Apple is mining and monetizing information/data on it's users. If it wasn't obvious "back in the day" it became eminently clear when Apple rolled out iAds a few years back.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/10/07/06/early.advertisers.identified/
It's only going to become a bigger part of their business too IMO. They even have an "Apple Data Mining Lab" (yes that's really the name) in a couple of cities, Austin TX for example. The only difference between Apple and Google user data collection is scale. It's obviously a much bigger part of Google's business plan. But don't try to convince yourself Apple doesn't "sell you" too. You are both the customer and the product for each of them, just as you are with hundreds of other companies.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/10/07/06/early.advertisers.identified/
iAds is just a multimedia tool to create a platform for ads. Just having ads doesn't meant they are selling the datamining back to potential advertisers.
Huh? Of course Apple is mining and monetizing information/data on it's users. If it wasn't obvious "back in the day" it became eminently clear when Apple rolled out iAds a few years back.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/10/07/06/early.advertisers.identified/
It's only going to become a bigger part of their business too. They even have an "Apple Data Mining Lab" (yes that's really the name) in a couple of cities, Austin TX for example. The only difference between Apple and Google user data collection is scale IMO. It's obviously a much bigger part of Google's business plan. But don't try to convince yourself Apple doesn't "sell you" too. You are both the customer and the product for each of them, just as you are with hundreds of other companies.
I'm also saying that for Apple to copy Google would be a DUMB idea. Their "product" is partially about Trust. People trust the product to work for them, to be reliable. If it becomes a billboard and a source of SPAM it's not the experience I was looking for.
It's like paying for HBO and still watching commercials. At some point, instead of trying to occupy every nitch, you have to decide what your value as a company is. Apple is HBO and Google is "whack the monkey" that pops up in Flash to tell you that if you can hit the flying monkey, you may already be a winner.
I don't have much money, but I'd rather pay up front than have some free device inviting me to spank monkeys all day. ;-)
Huh? Of course Apple is mining and monetizing information/data on it's users. If it wasn't obvious "back in the day" it became eminently clear when Apple rolled out iAds a few years back.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/10/07/06/early.advertisers.identified/
It's only going to become a bigger part of their business too IMO. Really the only difference between Apple and Google user data collection is scale. It's obviously a much bigger part of Google's business plan. But don't try to convince yourself Apple doesn't "sell you" too. You are both the customer and the product for each of them, just as you are with hundreds of other companies.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/10/07/06/early.advertisers.identified/
I disagree. Apple primary business model has been to use free or low cost features and services to sell hardware. To the extent Apple collects user data, it seems to do it to improve those features or services. Collecting is a necessity related to the features or services. The people who buy its hardware are its primary customers.
Google's business model has always been to give away free services so that it can learn more about the people using those services so that in turn it can maximize the amount it charges for targeted advertising. Its customers are advertisers. Those are two very different philosophies, and nothing has changed.
Apple offers advertising, but unlike with Google, the motivation does not seem to make a huge profit doing so. iAds seemingly was released as Apple's way of creating an incentive for developers to keep creating iOS apps by helping them get paid when offering free Apps and for Apple to recover the cost of delivering those apps for free. Perhaps it was also motivated to take some of Google's money. With iRadio, it can't offer streaming without compensating publishers, and it probably does not want to foot the bill. I do not see iAd being a major push for Apple outside of these areas. Apple could take a Google approach and scan emails and messages and place ads in its free iCloud services, but it has not taken that approach. It could take a Microsoft approach and place third party junkware on its hardware products, but has chosen not to do so.
I see Apple continuing to collect anonymous user data to improve its services it offers users for free. This new data can help Apple make movie, restaurant, music, and a whole bunch of other suggestions. That ability can be tied across all products.
You're not making sense. The image is also meant to be a link; it's common practice: everywhere! Apple's online store web masters should know and be fixing this. Sometimes it's as if Apple has never heard of the internet. There's no reason why Google should be so much better than Apple at this. I wouldn't accept it on a website I built myself; Apple definitely shouldn't. The fact that this hasn't been addressed at this stage of Apple online store speaks volumes.
First off, the new SVP of Retail (which now includes the Web store) is a master of this stuff and I expect the Apple Web presence to get much better quickly.
Second, I expect this "problem" you're pointing out affects a fraction of 1% of the users of the use the Apple store. If that's your biggest complaint about the site then Apple should be thrilled.
Apple: [I]"Eat your creepy hearts out."[/I]
@Ireland - Well I'm supporting both TS, Apple, and a whoever recognizes that you are absolutely, 100%, dead wrong on this issue.
The Apple Store and image carousel operate according to good web design principles at the moment... and are in fact built upon the Twitter Bootstrap API.
You're gonna have to find something else to B***** about.... sorry (not really!).
It affects no one outside of Ireland him/herself.***
Command or right-click the link or the image and a drop down menu appears with "web standard" choices such as "open in new Tab". Geez!
*** Unless Ireland is an it and represents all of the country of the same name... which I seriously doubt.
Although... I guess it could still be an it. Define "it"!...:smokey:
Any person would tell you it's obvious Apple are not going to do that.
No no.
I see your point, but it needs to be addressed. And I too hope Apple becomes more web savvy.
What?? Twitter is selling all the tweets? That's it. I'm going to encrypt all my tweets from now on.
I heard Flopsy and Mopsy are holding out for better offers.