Apple's Schiller 'unfollows' Tony Fadell and Nest after Google acquisition

2456789

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 162
    bobschlobbobschlob Posts: 1,074member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Evilution View Post



    Because it's an overpriced company with no worthwhile IP.

    So then Apple was wrong all that time that they touted it as being incredibly brilliant?

  • Reply 22 of 162
    Why is this news?
  • Reply 23 of 162
    ksecksec Posts: 1,567member
    The news would show there are certainly some hatred from within Apple towards google. And at least show how google betray apple story hold some ground. Although we may never know the truth.
  • Reply 24 of 162
    childish
  • Reply 25 of 162
    Really, AppleInsider?

    You know, just because a worthless "story" that tangentially involves Apple appears on The Verge, does not mean it's worth copying.

    Come on. This is really weak.
    Agree. How is this even news or something we should care about?
  • Reply 26 of 162
    bushman4 wrote: »
    While nest may be a unique product it's nothing that's a "must have item "
    Apple loyalists will he hesitant to buy this product. As will the regular community as Google spying is something that's out of hand
    If Apple wanted Nest they could have bought it a long time ago yet they didn't

    I am just concerned with the future support. What happens to iOS support? I have to assume it continues, but you never know.
    bobschlob wrote: »
    So then Apple was wrong all that time that they touted it as being incredibly brilliant?

    The two aren't mutually exclusive. It can be a brilliant product and not worth $3.2 billion at the same time.
  • Reply 27 of 162
    irelandireland Posts: 17,671member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post



    Apple had very smart people who I am sure considered an acquisition and deemed it not worthy. Being bought-out does not validate a business model (though it can make shareholders rich).

     

    Being bought out doesn't validate a business, but betting on home automation and the father of the iPod does sound like a sensible idea to me.

  • Reply 28 of 162
    irelandireland Posts: 17,671member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GadgetCanadaV2 View Post

     

    3 billion dollars!!! I would drop Apple and iPhone in an instant and use a Google Chromebook and an Android phone (although I'd hate it) for that kind of money.


     

    Why must he do that?

  • Reply 29 of 162
    This Schiller is a typical Apple snob executive, he tried to humiliate Instagram by publicly insulting the company after they created an Android app. Now in a more subtle way he is doing the same to Nest. Business people know to grow a product it needs to appeal to the mass market, making it exclusive to Apple is just a ridiculous concept. Google believes in open standards and alliances and can use the expertise in Nest to drive these to define the smart homes of the future, which will benefit all, not just Apple users.

    Google should be congratulated as from what I see, they are certainly making our lives better, more than anything I've seen from Apple in a long while.

    Apple won't invest in adapted contact lenses to help diabetes sufferers because they would only work for iPhone users, this would be seen as unethical.

    This walled garden approach will only continue while develops keep supporting it, and that's why the stock is going to continue on shaky ground. It's not about the hardware anymore.
  • Reply 30 of 162
    Interesting similarity between Nest and NeXT - and not just in the name. In both cases they were started by serial inventors with unique ideas - Jobs the Macintosh, Fadell the iPod. In both cases they parted ways with Apple and only showed how valuable they were after leaving.

    In this case though, Google has snapped up a potential bargain. It isn't about what Nest has already done (a primitive MacBook Air in the Phillips Velo, a primitive iPod touch/iPad mini in the Nino PDA etc), it is more to do with what could Tony Fadell invent next... and with no obvious visionary replacement for Jobs at Apple maybe this is one Apple should have brought back into the fold. That was clear right from the launch of the first Nest device. Now, that Apple DNA has been taken over by Google.

    From Fadell's point of view, a $3.2 billion valuation was just too hard to ignore - I mean, c'mon! You'd have to be bonkers to turn that money down.

    Will Apple's lack of interest in diluting shareholder equity (perhaps why Fadell wouldn't rejoin) hurt the company, long term? Perhaps; but what is certain is that they will have to run faster and work harder if they lose more engineers of the calibre of Fadell (and dare I say, Scott Forstall, based on the poor usability of iOS7 and Mavericks?) and fail to recapture them when they show what they can do in the wild.

    Sadly, that's a typical mistake of large corporations - they often don't see the value of someone at a lower level (perhaps due to some envious manager who feels threatened by the 'upstart' below him who he works hard to keep below him) and it isn't until the talent is recognised by a competitor that senior management realise their loss. Too late.
  • Reply 31 of 162
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nkalu View Post



    Why, why, why didn't Apple just buy Nest and keep it all in the family?

     

    Because Apple does not need Nest at this time,  The same way Apple does not need NetFlix and/or  Hulu and/or Pandora.

     

    ================

     

    Why did Google buy Nest ?

    Google does not need Nest either at this time but had invested in Nest and have an interest is keeping their investment and friend's business alive.

    Without Google, Honeywell would kill Nest with legal fees.

  • Reply 32 of 162
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,744member
    Innovative company bought by one of Apple's competitors automatically means Apple should have bought them?

    What?

    Lol

    There are *other* possible acquisitions, people.
  • Reply 33 of 162

    Why is Google buying Nest such a huge deal anyway? It's all over the news everywhere. I can't honestly figure it out. Can anyone please explain?

  • Reply 36 of 162
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nkalu View Post



    Why, why, why didn't Apple just buy Nest and keep it all in the family?

     

    Why pay $3.2 billion for something Apple could design literally over night if they wanted to? They don’t need the expertise of Next. They already have the expertise and will use it if or when they decide to get into the home automation market. Buying Nest makes absolutely no sense. And the Nest isn’t exactly cornering the market for smart thermostats either. Google is the one who just blew big bucks for basically nothing, just like their purchase of Motorola Mobile.

     

    My post is a paraphrase of what most talking head are saying, and they’re right this time.

  • Reply 37 of 162

    People keep saying Nest isn't worth $3.2 billion. "They only make overpriced thermostats and smoke detectors." Well yeah they do but in typical Google fashion they don't want the people, they don't want the design. They want the info. Nest knows when you're home, when you go out, how hot or cold you keep your home, whether you've had a smoke, heat, CO accident. That's extremely valuable information. Mr. Fadell says that information is private and won't be shared with Google. Yeah right.

  • Reply 38 of 162
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    ireland wrote: »
    Being bought out doesn't validate a business, but betting on home automation and the father of the iPod does sound like a sensible idea to me.
    Father of the iPod? I'm sure Jon Rubinstein would have something to say about that.
  • Reply 39 of 162
    Originally Posted by saltyzip

    Business people know to grow a product it needs to appeal to the mass market… Google believes in open standards… Google should be congratulated… …they are certainly making our lives better, more than anything I’ve seen from Apple in a long while. Apple wont invest in adapted contact lenses to help diabetes sufferers because they would only work for iPhone users, this would be seen as unethical. This walled garden approach will only continue… …that’s why the stock is going to continue on shaky ground. It's not about the hardware anymore.

     

    This level of mind-numbing stupidity makes me want to go lie down.

  • Reply 40 of 162
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    swissmac2 wrote: »
    Interesting similarity between Nest and NeXT - and not just in the name. In both cases they were started by serial inventors with unique ideas - Jobs the Macintosh, Fadell the iPod. In both cases they parted ways with Apple and only showed how valuable they were after leaving.

    In this case though, Google has snapped up a potential bargain. It isn't about what Nest has already done (a primitive MacBook Air in the Phillips Velo, a primitive iPod touch/iPad mini in the Nino PDA etc), it is more to do with what could Tony Fadell invent next... and with no obvious visionary replacement for Jobs at Apple maybe this is one Apple should have brought back into the fold. That was clear right from the launch of the first Nest device. Now, that Apple DNA has been taken over by Google.

    From Fadell's point of view, a $3.2 billion valuation was just too hard to ignore - I mean, c'mon! You'd have to be bonkers to turn that money down.

    Will Apple's lack of interest in diluting shareholder equity (perhaps why Fadell wouldn't rejoin) hurt the company, long term? Perhaps; but what is certain is that they will have to run faster and work harder if they lose more engineers of the calibre of Fadell (and dare I say, Scott Forstall, based on the poor usability of iOS7 and Mavericks?) and fail to recapture them when they show what they can do in the wild.

    Sadly, that's a typical mistake of large corporations - they often don't see the value of someone at a lower level (perhaps due to some envious manager who feels threatened by the 'upstart' below him who he works hard to keep below him) and it isn't until the talent is recognised by a competitor that senior management realise their loss. Too late.
    Tony Fadell didn't invent 'smart' thermostats and smoke detectors. And the design for both was outsourced to a 3rd party design firm. Honestly I'll bet a lot of people bought it just because of the sleek design. I mean if it looked like your typical beige box would Apple have featured it in their stores? Anyway rumors are Honeywell was coming after Nest so I'm not surprised Fadell wanted to be gobbled up by someone with deep pockets.

    As far as Fadell being as good as Steve Jobs, if he was all that why would Steve have let him go in the first place? Why didn't Steve offer Fadell the SVP of devices job instead of bringing on Mark Papermaster? If Fadell was so valuable shouldn't Steve have offered him any price to stay at Apple? Perhaps he wasn't as valuable as some think and the past week has been one big PR show by Google/Nest to have you think Fadell was Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk all wrapped up into one.
Sign In or Register to comment.