It bothers me that every other day I read about some new Google innovation (Glasses, smart contact lenses, floating stores, etc.). Granted, some of these things may be silly or dead ends, but they do capture newsprint and more importantly, mindshare. Deserved or not, the general public gets the message that Google is the future while Apple is left perfecting its past products. Google is winning the PR war. What this means in the long run I cannot say, but I do find it disquieting.
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.
From what I heard, they were able to best Honeywell in the courts. How could they have gotten 3 BILLION dollars if they were desperate to be saved? You have to have some pretty awesome leverage to get 3.. BILLION.. Dollars. They were not a struggling company.
Diversification is one thing. Losing focus is another. The Big Evil doesn't know what to do, but they made a bundle selling advertisements and now they're on a spending spree, buying anything shiney and nice. Is was with a touch of irony that I noticed last week the adsense banners adorning my favorite sites were suddenly all about Nest, even though completely unrelated to the associated page, my interests, and my browsing history.
i guess this is what 9to5Mac thinks is hard hitting journalism. Mark Gurman is already whining on twitter because others are reporting this without giving him credit. As if it's so difficult to check who someone follows on twitter (or that no one else would have thought to do what he did).
What else is new? Gurman hasn't stopped whining since he started writing. He claims credit for stories they didn't even break and then gets upset when actual journalists ignore his bullshit. He's about as self absorbed as anyone can be.
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.
You were doing okay (just okay) up until this part... where you just got silly.
Mr. Pepsi wanted Steve gone and Apple's board agreed. So... can we put Steve's name where Fadell's name is and Sculley's (or Apple's) name where Steve's name is in the above statement? I think you've actually made the other person's argument.
I'm glad to see Shiller knows there's a war going on, and this way of making a statement is much more classy than anything he could say. He probably doesn't dislike fadell but Google is and always willl be the enemy of Apple and all decent people.
This level of mind-numbing stupidity makes me want to go lie down.
Best thing to do is flag this new troll and hope management deals with it sooner rather than later. I mean all the troll memes are there, open is better, walled garden is bad, Google makes our lives better, Apple is doomed, etc. , all there in plain view, a robotic recitation of the established talking points. Obvious as hell, and probably someone’s sock puppet.
It bothers me that every other day I read about some new Google innovation (Glasses, smart contact lenses, floating stores, etc.). Granted, some of these things may be silly or dead ends, but they do capture newsprint and more importantly, mindshare. Deserved or not, the general public gets the message that Google is the future while Apple is left perfecting its past products. Google is winning the PR war. What this means in the long run I cannot say, but I do find it disquieting.
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.
Haha. I hope Google paid you a lot for this inept post.
It bothers me that every other day I read about some new Google innovation (Glasses, smart contact lenses, floating stores, etc.). Granted, some of these things may be silly or dead ends, but they do capture newsprint and more importantly, mindshare. Deserved or not, the general public gets the message that Google is the future while Apple is left perfecting its past products. Google is winning the PR war. What this means in the long run I cannot say, but I do find it disquieting.
But then what are you saying? That Apple needs to release a constant stream of half-baked innovations, in order to stay in the news? That's not the Apple way of doing business, and it doesn't seem to have hurt their ability consistently to lead the markets that they enter, nor their ability to maintain a very high public profile without stunts and gimmicks.
You were doing okay (just okay) up until this part... where you just got silly.
Mr. Pepsi wanted Steve gone and Apple's board agreed. So... can we put Steve's name where Fadell's name is and Sculley's (or Apple's) name where Steve's name is in the above statement? I think you've actually made the other person's argument.
So you think Tony Fadell was the next Steve Jobs, and Steve acted like Scully by firing him? Wow that's some big RDF you all have going on there.
What else is new? Gurman hasn't stopped whining since he started writing. He claims credit for stories they didn't even break and then gets upset when actual journalists ignore his bullshit. He's about as self absorbed as anyone can be.
Yep. I remember When Gurman was on one of Rene Ritchie's podcasts and you could tell he was so annoyed because another site (MacRumors) got a scoop before 9to5Mac did. Oh the horror. And last year on Twitter he got into a fight with someone from Fast Company because their reporting on one of Apple's hires from Nike contradicted his. He claimed that Ben Shaffer worked on the Fuel Band team when in fact Shaffer was part of Nike's innovation kitchen, an R&D group not even in the same building as the fuel band team. Gurman was so childish about it as if getting a scoop is more important than whether the scoop is accurate or not.
From what I heard, they were able to best Honeywell in the courts. How could they have gotten 3 BILLION dollars if they were desperate to be saved? You have to have some pretty awesome leverage to get 3.. BILLION.. Dollars. They were not a struggling company.
If Google keeps up this spending spree, they may have to cut back on the free Jell-o in their commissary.
From what I heard, they were able to best Honeywell in the courts. How could they have gotten 3 BILLION dollars if they were desperate to be saved? You have to have some pretty awesome leverage to get 3.. BILLION.. Dollars. They were not a struggling company.
because it's google and they have deep pockets and a weak board. I mean does anyone think Motorola Mobility was worth $12 billion? No. The same thing is being said about next.
But then what are you saying? That Apple needs to release a constant stream of half-baked innovations, in order to stay in the news? That's not the Apple way of doing business, and it doesn't seem to have hurt their ability consistently to lead the markets that they enter, nor their ability to maintain a very high public profile without stunts and gimmicks.
I think it is true that Apple has a perception problem but I don't think there's anything they can do about it other than continue to release great products and let those products do the talking. Apple is never going to give the Verge's of the world scoops on future stuff they're working on. It's not their MO.
If Apple wants to design a thermostat, it doesn't need Nest to do that. If Google wants to design anything that isn't software, it needs to buy a company.
But then what are you saying? That Apple needs to release a constant stream of half-baked innovations, in order to stay in the news? That's not the Apple way of doing business, and it doesn't seem to have hurt their ability consistently to lead the markets that they enter, nor their ability to maintain a very high public profile without stunts and gimmicks.
It makes me wonder how much pressure Tim Cook feels having the investment world's eyes scrutinizing him so intensely.
Tim hasn't really entered any new markets since he took over the top job... iPod, iPhone and iPad were all brought to market under Steve... and a new market is what will definitely increase Apple's revenue and profits.
He's got a fantastic team around him... but there are never any guarantees. It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobSchlob
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.
For crying out loud... Just like anything; it's worth to the buyer, whatever the buyer is willing to pay.
The point of the OP said that Apple didn't buy Nest because Apple thinks that Nest was crap. Couldn't be further from the truth.
Now for the important stuff:
Your reply actually illustrates why the two elements CAN be mutually exclusive, and that they needn't be mutually INCLUSIVE. Not that they "aren't mutually exclusive".
Comments
From what I heard, they were able to best Honeywell in the courts. How could they have gotten 3 BILLION dollars if they were desperate to be saved? You have to have some pretty awesome leverage to get 3.. BILLION.. Dollars. They were not a struggling company.
Diversification is one thing. Losing focus is another. The Big Evil doesn't know what to do, but they made a bundle selling advertisements and now they're on a spending spree, buying anything shiney and nice. Is was with a touch of irony that I noticed last week the adsense banners adorning my favorite sites were suddenly all about Nest, even though completely unrelated to the associated page, my interests, and my browsing history.
i guess this is what 9to5Mac thinks is hard hitting journalism. Mark Gurman is already whining on twitter because others are reporting this without giving him credit. As if it's so difficult to check who someone follows on twitter (or that no one else would have thought to do what he did).
What else is new? Gurman hasn't stopped whining since he started writing. He claims credit for stories they didn't even break and then gets upset when actual journalists ignore his bullshit. He's about as self absorbed as anyone can be.
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.
You were doing okay (just okay) up until this part... where you just got silly.
Mr. Pepsi wanted Steve gone and Apple's board agreed. So... can we put Steve's name where Fadell's name is and Sculley's (or Apple's) name where Steve's name is in the above statement? I think you've actually made the other person's argument.
I'm glad to see Shiller knows there's a war going on, and this way of making a statement is much more classy than anything he could say. He probably doesn't dislike fadell but Google is and always willl be the enemy of Apple and all decent people.
This level of mind-numbing stupidity makes me want to go lie down.
Best thing to do is flag this new troll and hope management deals with it sooner rather than later. I mean all the troll memes are there, open is better, walled garden is bad, Google makes our lives better, Apple is doomed, etc. , all there in plain view, a robotic recitation of the established talking points. Obvious as hell, and probably someone’s sock puppet.
It bothers me that every other day I read about some new Google innovation (Glasses, smart contact lenses, floating stores, etc.). Granted, some of these things may be silly or dead ends, but they do capture newsprint and more importantly, mindshare. Deserved or not, the general public gets the message that Google is the future while Apple is left perfecting its past products. Google is winning the PR war. What this means in the long run I cannot say, but I do find it disquieting.
So you are falling for the FUD?
Haha. I hope Google paid you a lot for this inept post.
It bothers me that every other day I read about some new Google innovation (Glasses, smart contact lenses, floating stores, etc.). Granted, some of these things may be silly or dead ends, but they do capture newsprint and more importantly, mindshare. Deserved or not, the general public gets the message that Google is the future while Apple is left perfecting its past products. Google is winning the PR war. What this means in the long run I cannot say, but I do find it disquieting.
But then what are you saying? That Apple needs to release a constant stream of half-baked innovations, in order to stay in the news? That's not the Apple way of doing business, and it doesn't seem to have hurt their ability consistently to lead the markets that they enter, nor their ability to maintain a very high public profile without stunts and gimmicks.
If Google keeps up this spending spree, they may have to cut back on the free Jell-o in their commissary.
So you think Tony Fadell was the next Steve Jobs, and Steve acted like Scully by firing him? Wow that's some big RDF you all have going on there.
You don't even know what you wrote, do you. How can I respond to you when you don't even understand your own thoughts.
Here, I'll give you some help:
Rogifan: "... if he was all that why would Steve have let him go in the first place?"
or: ..." if Steve was all that why would Apple have let him go in the first place?"
But then what are you saying? That Apple needs to release a constant stream of half-baked innovations, in order to stay in the news? That's not the Apple way of doing business, and it doesn't seem to have hurt their ability consistently to lead the markets that they enter, nor their ability to maintain a very high public profile without stunts and gimmicks.
It makes me wonder how much pressure Tim Cook feels having the investment world's eyes scrutinizing him so intensely.
Tim hasn't really entered any new markets since he took over the top job... iPod, iPhone and iPad were all brought to market under Steve... and a new market is what will definitely increase Apple's revenue and profits.
He's got a fantastic team around him... but there are never any guarantees. It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years.
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.
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.
For crying out loud... Just like anything; it's worth to the buyer, whatever the buyer is willing to pay.
The point of the OP said that Apple didn't buy Nest because Apple thinks that Nest was crap. Couldn't be further from the truth.
Now for the important stuff:
Your reply actually illustrates why the two elements CAN be mutually exclusive, and that they needn't be mutually INCLUSIVE. Not that they "aren't mutually exclusive".