He's basically a very simplistic thinker, not bothered by things like how technology works, which is why he could crank out a readable biography in so short a time, and why so many insiders hated it.
He thinks Steve Jobs intended to be a "disrupter."
No he didn't.
He intended to be a maker of great new products, just like he said. "Disrupter' is a cliché that tech writers have cooked up to describe what happens when someone like Steve Jobs pushes out a great new product. It's just a simple-minded notation of a collateral effect.
He's basically a very simplistic thinker, not bothered by things like how technology works, which is why he could crank out a readable biography in so short a time, and why so many insiders hated it.
He thinks Steve Jobs intended to be a "disrupter."
No he didn't.
He intended to be a maker of great new products, just like he said. "Disrupter' is a cliché that tech writers have cooked up to describe what happens when someone like Steve Jobs pushes out a great new product. It's just a simple-minded notation of a collateral effect.
I don't agree with how Issacon appears to be using it but I do think Jobs wanted to disrupt even if Jobs never saw himself as such. My reasoning is Jobs wanted to change the world with "insanely great products." Revolutionary products. Neither of which can happen without disrupting the status quo. The difference I see is that Issacson pens it as Steve's goal, not as an artifact of making sweeping technological and cultural changes.
Why on earth would you care how much "goes to Apple" ..... unless, of course, you get a cut on every iPhone's profit ???
Apple is a public company.
I am a shareholder, so indirectly I do get a cut. Sure, we can debate all day long about how that cut has been unfairly punished by Wall Street these days, and that the cut isn't tremendous, but you can't deny that if the margins show sign of decrease, my share values will too.
That's why on Earth I care about how much goes to Apple.
He's basically a very simplistic thinker, not bothered by things like how technology works, which is why he could crank out a readable biography in so short a time, and why so many insiders hated it.
He thinks Steve Jobs intended to be a "disrupter."
No he didn't.
He intended to be a maker of great new products, just like he said. "Disrupter' is a cliché that tech writers have cooked up to describe what happens when someone like Steve Jobs pushes out a great new product. It's just a simple-minded notation of a collateral effect.
Jobs wanted to "put a dent in the Universe". That's about as big a disruption as you can imagine.
I think that Jobs was very driven by wanting to disrupt. Your point is valid though, that another goal was to make insanely great products. He probably would have been happy doing either one without the other, but happily enough he achieved both by focusing on the latter.
Keep him off TV. The last time Tim embarrassed himself when he butchered the pronunciation of Weibo while announcing the integration with Mac OS X.
Check out the interview. Tim rocked it, in my opinion. He gave face to the CEO of China Mobile and simultaneously inspired confidence in Apple's future.
Check out the interview. Tim rocked it, in my opinion. He gave face to the CEO of China Mobile and simultaneously inspired confidence in Apple's future.
Thompson
It was Xi Guohua's appearance that lifted me up: CM so very visibly aligning itself with Apple looks like something they didn't have to do, yet did anyway.
It was Xi Guohua's appearance that lifted me up: CM so very visibly aligning itself with Apple looks like something they didn't have to do, yet did anyway.
Should I trot out this line every time that Apple buys a company...
Yeah it works for apple as well.
But look at what apple buys and their reason is not because they can not do it. This is one of the fundamental issues the investment community has with apple, they are not using their money to grow their business. Wall Street would rather see apple buy companies to grow market share to expend into other markets or (new revenue channels). They buy a solution to make their products better and reduce time to market on what they are already doing and not a product market to grow into new markets.
But most of Google big purchases have not created new revenue channels it has just allowed them burn cash. Google will never make back the $12M they spend for Motorola it will continue to drain capital. and Nest my not drain cash but they will never earn back what they paid for it, this not only is Android fragmented but the whole home automation is fragmented. Look at Google track record, have they done anything to consolidate and un-fragment a market segment.
Google is an ad and marketing company and they buying things which has nothing to do with their core business. But Wall Street likes when companies spend their money on things they are not good at.
It was Xi Guohua's appearance that lifted me up: CM so very visibly aligning itself with Apple looks like something they didn't have to do, yet did anyway.
They didn't have to do it but it makes business sense for them to do it. The other two carriers in China have had the iPhone (and iPad?) for years now. This public appearance makes it look like Apple is more aligned with China Mobile in the public's eye which is usually good for business for those who are looking to buy an Apple product.
yeah Motorola is not paying it bills, google ad $ are paying Motorola's Bills. Keep in mind Motorola is still a separate company form Google so it is responsible for itself. I believe if you looked into their other purchases it is probable also true, they buy looser not revenue generators. But you can hide this fact as long as the Mother ship is making money.
BTW Motorola phone business has been loosing money since the end of 2005 they are coming up on 9 yrs of losses (~$5B), most VC would have dumped an investment if it was not breaking even within 3 or 4 yrs, they usually dump it on the investment world so they could take the looses. The question is how long will google fund losers before they realize it is not going to add anything to the bottom line. The ad Google business slows down and the market turns on them you will see them shutting down these operations. I personally give Motorola to the end of 2014 if they do not turn a profit google will shut it down.
yeah it works for apple as well, but look at what apple buys and their reason is not because they can not do it. This is one of the fundamental issues the investment community has with apple, they not using their money to grow their business. Wall Street would rather see apple buy companies to grow market share to expend into other markets or (new revenue channels). They buy a solution not a product market to make their products better and reduce time to market on what they are already doing.
But most of Google big purchases have not created new revenue channels it has just allowed them burn cash. Google will never make back the $12M they spend for Motorola it will continue to drain capital. and Nest my not drain cash but they will never earn back what they paid for it, this not only is Android fragmented but the whole home automation is fragmented. Look at Google track record, have they done anything to consolidate and un-fragment a market segment.
Google is an ad and marketing company and they buying things which has nothing to do with their core business. But Wall Street likes when companies spend their money on things they are not good at.
I guess you haven't been around that long. I heard the same things said about Apple... first with the iPod, then with the iPhone and then with the iPad. "Apple is a computer company. Do they really believe they can enter into these other markets?!"
I also heard a lot of discussion about how Brin and Page were going to fail when they went up against Yahoo over a decade ago.
Unless you have accurately predicted the future in the past (which I know you haven't), then I wouldn't go predicting the future now.
yeah Motorola is not paying it bills, google ad $ are paying Motorola's Bills. Keep in mind Motorola is still a separate company form Google so it is responsible for itself. I believe if you looked into their other purchases it is probable also true, they buy looser not revenue generators. But you can hide this fact as long as the Mother ship is making money.
BTW Motorola phone business has been loosing money since the end of 2005 they are coming up on 9 yrs of losses (~$5B), most VC would have dumped an investment if it was not breaking even within 3 or 4 yrs, they usually dump it on the investment world so they could take the looses. The question is how long will google fund losers before they realize it is not going to add anything to the bottom line. The ad Google business slows down and the market turns on them you will see them shutting down these operations. I personally give Motorola to the end of 2014 if they do not turn a profit google will shut it down.
lol! Do you really think that the acquisition of Motorola Mobility was about making money. The first reason was about patents. It might not have helped Google much but the worst case scenario for Google would have been Apple purchasing Motorola Mobility.
The second reason is now coming into play. An in-house electronics manufacturer (in the same sense as Apple). Combine that with Nest, make a few mistakes, let stew for 3 or 4 years, and then see what develops.
Google is not in the business of checking its bottom line just yet. Google has much bigger plans. Whether they can pull it off is another thing. I wouldn't count them out, though. Ask Yahoo.
... and, in the end, this might be Apple's downfall and Google's gain.
Apple could be focusing on the wrong things, while Google's diversions help it gain experience in other fields.
Only time will tell.
Google is "diversifying" because traditional advertising is disappearing. Those companies that collect the most data about consumers/users and can predict future behavior will have the most value.
One could argue that Apple (because they control the devices) and Facebook (because they monetize everything and have deep wells of consumer data) are in the best positions today.
There is no reason to believe that Google has a lock on valuable consumer data because it is a popular search engine today. Once expert systems and artificial intelligence are common (and we are talking about within the next 5-6 years), the need to perform ad-supported search disappears. This is why Google is performing what I consider both a scattershot and panicked approach to diversification.
Further, if Google is ultimately penalized very heavily for their IP infringements with Android, their entire mobile platform strategy is at risk.
Google is "diversifying" because traditional advertising is disappearing. Those companies that collect the most data about consumers/users and can predict future behavior will have the most value.
One could argue that Apple (because they control the devices) and Facebook (because they monetize everything and have deep wells of consumer data) are in the best positions today.
There is no reason to believe that Google has a lock on valuable consumer data because it is a popular search engine today. Once expert systems and artificial intelligence are common (and we are talking about within the next 5-6 years), the need to perform ad-supported search disappears. This is why Google is performing what I consider both a scattershot and panicked approach to diversification.
Further, if Google is ultimately penalized very heavily for their IP infringements with Android, their entire mobile platform strategy is at risk.
If Apple is in the best position then I'd hate to see the worst position.
Without Apple's expansion into China where would Apple be? What happens when China is saturated?
Everything that you say about Google's precarious position applies to Apple as well. Apple's position looks very similar to where Sony was in the 80s... and to Panasonic as well.
[ I always have to giggle a bit when people give me their opinion about why a company is doing what they are doing]
Comments
"neither Xi nor Cook opted to give estimates on how many iPhones they believe China Mobile could sell in its first year."
Don't even care about that. I just want to know what the iPhone price is, and how much of that price goes to Apple.
Why on earth would you care how much "goes to Apple" ..... unless, of course, you get a cut on every iPhone's profit ???
He's basically a very simplistic thinker, not bothered by things like how technology works, which is why he could crank out a readable biography in so short a time, and why so many insiders hated it.
He thinks Steve Jobs intended to be a "disrupter."
No he didn't.
He intended to be a maker of great new products, just like he said. "Disrupter' is a cliché that tech writers have cooked up to describe what happens when someone like Steve Jobs pushes out a great new product. It's just a simple-minded notation of a collateral effect.
I don't agree with how Issacon appears to be using it but I do think Jobs wanted to disrupt even if Jobs never saw himself as such. My reasoning is Jobs wanted to change the world with "insanely great products." Revolutionary products. Neither of which can happen without disrupting the status quo. The difference I see is that Issacson pens it as Steve's goal, not as an artifact of making sweeping technological and cultural changes.
Why on earth would you care how much "goes to Apple" ..... unless, of course, you get a cut on every iPhone's profit ???
Apple is a public company.
I am a shareholder, so indirectly I do get a cut. Sure, we can debate all day long about how that cut has been unfairly punished by Wall Street these days, and that the cut isn't tremendous, but you can't deny that if the margins show sign of decrease, my share values will too.
That's why on Earth I care about how much goes to Apple.
Thompson
He's basically a very simplistic thinker, not bothered by things like how technology works, which is why he could crank out a readable biography in so short a time, and why so many insiders hated it.
He thinks Steve Jobs intended to be a "disrupter."
No he didn't.
He intended to be a maker of great new products, just like he said. "Disrupter' is a cliché that tech writers have cooked up to describe what happens when someone like Steve Jobs pushes out a great new product. It's just a simple-minded notation of a collateral effect.
Jobs wanted to "put a dent in the Universe". That's about as big a disruption as you can imagine.
I think that Jobs was very driven by wanting to disrupt. Your point is valid though, that another goal was to make insanely great products. He probably would have been happy doing either one without the other, but happily enough he achieved both by focusing on the latter.
Thompson
Keep him off TV. The last time Tim embarrassed himself when he butchered the pronunciation of Weibo while announcing the integration with Mac OS X.
Check out the interview. Tim rocked it, in my opinion. He gave face to the CEO of China Mobile and simultaneously inspired confidence in Apple's future.
Thompson
Google makes big money doing one thing and one thing only, selling advertising.
They are like old school ABC or NBC.
Nothing else Google does is making the big bucks.
Those barges aren't going to be huge profit centers?
Who knew?
Check out the interview. Tim rocked it, in my opinion. He gave face to the CEO of China Mobile and simultaneously inspired confidence in Apple's future.
Thompson
It was Xi Guohua's appearance that lifted me up: CM so very visibly aligning itself with Apple looks like something they didn't have to do, yet did anyway.
It was Xi Guohua's appearance that lifted me up: CM so very visibly aligning itself with Apple looks like something they didn't have to do, yet did anyway.
Indeed and agreed.
Thompson
Should I trot out this line every time that Apple buys a company...
Yeah it works for apple as well.
But look at what apple buys and their reason is not because they can not do it. This is one of the fundamental issues the investment community has with apple, they are not using their money to grow their business. Wall Street would rather see apple buy companies to grow market share to expend into other markets or (new revenue channels). They buy a solution to make their products better and reduce time to market on what they are already doing and not a product market to grow into new markets.
But most of Google big purchases have not created new revenue channels it has just allowed them burn cash. Google will never make back the $12M they spend for Motorola it will continue to drain capital. and Nest my not drain cash but they will never earn back what they paid for it, this not only is Android fragmented but the whole home automation is fragmented. Look at Google track record, have they done anything to consolidate and un-fragment a market segment.
Google is an ad and marketing company and they buying things which has nothing to do with their core business. But Wall Street likes when companies spend their money on things they are not good at.
The same media which always played down anything Apple dared to release?
Please.
They didn't have to do it but it makes business sense for them to do it. The other two carriers in China have had the iPhone (and iPad?) for years now. This public appearance makes it look like Apple is more aligned with China Mobile in the public's eye which is usually good for business for those who are looking to buy an Apple product.
Google's not paying its bills?
Apple isn't putting any money into diversions?
yeah Motorola is not paying it bills, google ad $ are paying Motorola's Bills. Keep in mind Motorola is still a separate company form Google so it is responsible for itself. I believe if you looked into their other purchases it is probable also true, they buy looser not revenue generators. But you can hide this fact as long as the Mother ship is making money.
BTW Motorola phone business has been loosing money since the end of 2005 they are coming up on 9 yrs of losses (~$5B), most VC would have dumped an investment if it was not breaking even within 3 or 4 yrs, they usually dump it on the investment world so they could take the looses. The question is how long will google fund losers before they realize it is not going to add anything to the bottom line. The ad Google business slows down and the market turns on them you will see them shutting down these operations. I personally give Motorola to the end of 2014 if they do not turn a profit google will shut it down.
yeah it works for apple as well, but look at what apple buys and their reason is not because they can not do it. This is one of the fundamental issues the investment community has with apple, they not using their money to grow their business. Wall Street would rather see apple buy companies to grow market share to expend into other markets or (new revenue channels). They buy a solution not a product market to make their products better and reduce time to market on what they are already doing.
But most of Google big purchases have not created new revenue channels it has just allowed them burn cash. Google will never make back the $12M they spend for Motorola it will continue to drain capital. and Nest my not drain cash but they will never earn back what they paid for it, this not only is Android fragmented but the whole home automation is fragmented. Look at Google track record, have they done anything to consolidate and un-fragment a market segment.
Google is an ad and marketing company and they buying things which has nothing to do with their core business. But Wall Street likes when companies spend their money on things they are not good at.
I guess you haven't been around that long. I heard the same things said about Apple... first with the iPod, then with the iPhone and then with the iPad. "Apple is a computer company. Do they really believe they can enter into these other markets?!"
I also heard a lot of discussion about how Brin and Page were going to fail when they went up against Yahoo over a decade ago.
Unless you have accurately predicted the future in the past (which I know you haven't), then I wouldn't go predicting the future now.
yeah Motorola is not paying it bills, google ad $ are paying Motorola's Bills. Keep in mind Motorola is still a separate company form Google so it is responsible for itself. I believe if you looked into their other purchases it is probable also true, they buy looser not revenue generators. But you can hide this fact as long as the Mother ship is making money.
BTW Motorola phone business has been loosing money since the end of 2005 they are coming up on 9 yrs of losses (~$5B), most VC would have dumped an investment if it was not breaking even within 3 or 4 yrs, they usually dump it on the investment world so they could take the looses. The question is how long will google fund losers before they realize it is not going to add anything to the bottom line. The ad Google business slows down and the market turns on them you will see them shutting down these operations. I personally give Motorola to the end of 2014 if they do not turn a profit google will shut it down.
lol! Do you really think that the acquisition of Motorola Mobility was about making money. The first reason was about patents. It might not have helped Google much but the worst case scenario for Google would have been Apple purchasing Motorola Mobility.
The second reason is now coming into play. An in-house electronics manufacturer (in the same sense as Apple). Combine that with Nest, make a few mistakes, let stew for 3 or 4 years, and then see what develops.
Google is not in the business of checking its bottom line just yet. Google has much bigger plans. Whether they can pull it off is another thing. I wouldn't count them out, though. Ask Yahoo.
Correct. They are two separate topics. Which makes me wonder: then why is he even talking to CNBC about Apple?
... and, in the end, this might be Apple's downfall and Google's gain.
Apple could be focusing on the wrong things, while Google's diversions help it gain experience in other fields.
Only time will tell.
Google is "diversifying" because traditional advertising is disappearing. Those companies that collect the most data about consumers/users and can predict future behavior will have the most value.
One could argue that Apple (because they control the devices) and Facebook (because they monetize everything and have deep wells of consumer data) are in the best positions today.
There is no reason to believe that Google has a lock on valuable consumer data because it is a popular search engine today. Once expert systems and artificial intelligence are common (and we are talking about within the next 5-6 years), the need to perform ad-supported search disappears. This is why Google is performing what I consider both a scattershot and panicked approach to diversification.
Further, if Google is ultimately penalized very heavily for their IP infringements with Android, their entire mobile platform strategy is at risk.
Google is "diversifying" because traditional advertising is disappearing. Those companies that collect the most data about consumers/users and can predict future behavior will have the most value.
One could argue that Apple (because they control the devices) and Facebook (because they monetize everything and have deep wells of consumer data) are in the best positions today.
There is no reason to believe that Google has a lock on valuable consumer data because it is a popular search engine today. Once expert systems and artificial intelligence are common (and we are talking about within the next 5-6 years), the need to perform ad-supported search disappears. This is why Google is performing what I consider both a scattershot and panicked approach to diversification.
Further, if Google is ultimately penalized very heavily for their IP infringements with Android, their entire mobile platform strategy is at risk.
If Apple is in the best position then I'd hate to see the worst position.
Without Apple's expansion into China where would Apple be? What happens when China is saturated?
Everything that you say about Google's precarious position applies to Apple as well. Apple's position looks very similar to where Sony was in the 80s... and to Panasonic as well.
[ I always have to giggle a bit when people give me their opinion about why a company is doing what they are doing]