Apple obviously has something up their sleeves. Secret acquisitions mean secret products with secret technology. Can't wait to buy it.
Cool! I have on reliable insider info that Apple is developing a mind controlling implant that makes you stupid and empties your wallet. Google struggling to keep up with Apple innovation. Apple fans queue up at the 5th Avenue store to be the first to get the brain implant.
At first I though you might be new here but I see your join date says otherwise. You should be well aware by now that the comments section of pretty much every article becomes about either Google, Samsung, or Android in some way. It's a very odd phenomenon, but someone will always have to say something negative about one of the above within the first few posts regardless of the content of the article.
It's so prevalent that I have made a game out of it. I count how many posts it takes for someone to mention one of them. While I haven't been keeping stats, experience would say the average number is around 3-4 posts.
Hell, he could have exaggerated the use of Dude, but failed.
With Google mentioned several times already by previous posters I'm glad to see you use the word "failed". It certainly speaks to something to be avoided at all costs according to some folks. Sit back and watch others fail, wait for your chance to do it right. Just don't fail. It's not good.
Yet Google tries and fails. A lot. And that's one of their greatest strengths IMO, their willingness to place a bet on an idea that might ultimately never see commercial success but do it anyway.
They're not afraid to take a chance, commit time and people spend a little money (maybe a lot of money) to perhaps make a difference. With every failure they learn something they would not have know if they hadn't tried. Something that may lead to success with a project, maybe one that "changes the world."
Innovation isn't defined by how much money you make from pursuing an idea. It's whether that thing changes the landscape, leads to a new way of thinking about things or a better way to "get there" or "do that". Something as simple as Streetview is innovative as well as successful. Google Glass is innovative too but may never be a commercial success.
Apple of course has more money. and has seen more commercial success. They have their own big gamble that paid off to thank for that. It's the kind of gamble that Google takes with ideas like driverless cars, Google Glass, alternative energy, extending human life, even crazy sounding stuff like satellite-connected balloons floating above 3rd world villages. Lately Apple hasn't seemed willing to risk a failure. That contributes to a perception by a lot of people that Google is the more innovative of the two, at least today. Tomorrow might be different. When the next "one more thing" from Apple dances across the stage a fickle media will toss Google aside and re-anoint Apple as the Great Innovator. But today I'd agree with those that say Google out-innovates them.
Our views on innovation seem to differ somewhat. As I don't necessarily think innovations need to drastically and directly impact humanity persé. But have to say I somewhat agree. Indeed we will have to see how Google broadening their horizon pans out in the end. But at least they are taking risks and don't just keep muddeling on (just do what they do).
And just for anyone chiming in late: I don't (and never have) dispute(d) that Apple is an innovative company, I'm just defending that Google is as well. Both are innovative companies in their own right.
I should have been a bit more clear. Innovation won't always be drastic. Touch ID as an example. The technology behind Touch ID is incredible but the fact that it isn't invasive is incredible. That is the true innovation behind Google Search, and even more recently Google Now. That is the cool stuff Google does. It is scary how good it is. No one has matched it...yet. I also think all their infrastructure technology that they do, the programming stuff...a lot of it is truly groundbreaking.
I just have an adverse reaction to folks, not you, that parrot the Apple doesn't innovate line. Apple and Google innovate in different ways and doing different things.
I'm not seeing Google's effect on how people utilize tech on an every day basis. There's nothing that is part of their larger ecosystem that is in any way different or new. And the vast, vast, VAST majority of that larger ecosystem is selling ads anyways.
What?! Even if you don't like Google it's hard to deny they were leaders in search and email.
And I second [@]mstone[/@]'s comment regarding Google Apps for Business. I honestly don't know what I would do without it.
Look at it this way: Eliminate advertising revenues from Google (along with whatever they use to generate those revenues), and Google essentially disappears. OTOH, eliminate anything else they work on, and it has an almost imperceivable effect -- imperceivable on Google, and imperceivable on the public at large.
I don't get this at all. How does eliminating their profit center make for a valid argument? One could use the same argument against Apple's profit center, hardware sales, and they they essentially disappear with only iAds, iTunes Store and iCloud services to keep them afloat. Both Google and Apple give away their OSes and SW because they make money off each indirectly so why disparage one and not the other?
Yes-that, too. Their R&D has been shooting up by Apple's standards. And I don't want it to seem like acquisitions are everything; they're just a first stage. Then, Apple has to go through many more stages to amalgamate the newly-acquired talent with their own and finally arrive at a finished product.
Yes-that, too. Their R&D has been shooting up by Apple's standards. And I don't want it to seem like acquisitions are everything; they're just a first stage. Then, Apple has to go through many more stages to amalgamate the newly-acquired talent with their own and finally arrive at a finished product.
A bit off topic, but it always struck me as odd that of all their acquisitions Siri wasn't renamed to something else.
If that response was meant for me how about these: Project Ara, Project Loon, Google's Glucose Lens,...
Isn't every single one of those vapor ware currently? And any company that derives 90%+ of revenues from advertising is only ever going to be so innovative.
Anyways, the way people toss the word "innovate" around has made it nearly completely meaningless.
Nah... it's only a meaningless word for the Chipsys of the world.
I don't (and never have) dispute(d) that Apple is an innovative company, I'm just defending that Google is as well. Both are innovative companies in their own right.
Except, you still have not pointed out a single major 'innovation' from Google.
What?! Even if you don't like Google it's hard to deny they were leaders in search and email.
And I second @mstone's comment regarding Google Apps for Business. I honestly don't know what I would do without it.
I don't get this at all. How does eliminating their profit center make for a valid argument? One could use the same argument against Apple's profit center, hardware sales, and they they essentially disappear with only iAds, iTunes Store and iCloud services to keep them afloat. Both Google and Apple give away their OSes and SW because they make money off each indirectly so why disparage one and not the other?
Not necessarily. It could be additions in HW, SW and services to better their current products.
They are the leaders in search. Yes. I never questioned that. But as I pointed out, search not only pre-dates Google, it pre-dates the web itself. Those of us who used the internet before Tim Berners-Lee did his work at CERN remember this well. Google managed to make search work better than it had (with something like Alta Vista, say). But if they hadn't done it, someone would have. The fact that people use Google more than they use something like Bing doesn't mean that much. Not to me, anyways.
And your point about Apple only helps my argument. Apple is a hardware company. Everything else they do -- iTunes for example -- is in one way or another in service to that singular goal: develop and sell hardware.
Google, OTOH, is an advertising company. Nearly everything they do is one way or another done with one goal in mind: make more money through advertising (whether directly through advertising revenues, or by getting more personal information about users, to make advertising more profitable). I don't hold that against Google anymore than I hold selling coffee against Starbucks.
But I don't buy that Google is really a tech company. They are an advertising company that has found ways to utilize tech to sell ads. Good for them. I don't like them or dislike them. But let's not pretend they are something they aren't, anymore than we say that Ford is a sports company because they are involved in auto racing.
How about Google Now (innovation of the year 2012) or Google Street View an innovation in it's own right. And Google's main product the search engine, they existed before, but they revolutionized how search engines worked.
What is Google Now? I must have missed it.
Saying StreetView is an innovation is like saying $0.99 music pricing was an innovation in iTunes.
How did Google revolutionize 'how search engines worked'? I am all ears.
They are the leaders in search. Yes. I never questioned that. But as I pointed out, search not only pre-dates Google, it pre-dates the web itself. Those of us who used the internet before Tim Berners-Lee did his work at CERN remember this well. Google managed to make search work better than it had (with something like Alta Vista, say). But if they hadn't done it, someone would have. The fact that people use Google more than they use something like Bing doesn't mean that much. Not to me, anyways.
And your point about Apple only helps my argument. Apple is a hardware company. Everything else they do -- iTunes for example -- is in one way or another in service to that singular goal: develop and sell hardware.
Google, OTOH, is an advertising company. Nearly everything they do is one way or another done with one goal in mind: make more money through advertising (whether directly through advertising revenues, or by getting more personal information about users, to make advertising more profitable). I don't hold that against Google anymore than I hold selling coffee against Starbucks.
But I don't buy that Google is really a tech company. They are an advertising company that has found ways to utilize tech to sell ads. Good for them. I don't like them or dislike them. But let's not pretend they are something they aren't, anymore than we say that Ford is a sports company because they are involved in auto racing.
Then your argument can be made against Apple. Apple didn't invent the cellphone, the tablet, the PMP, or PC but they revolutionized how all these worked. Same for Google in search, email and ads.
With Google mentioned several times already by previous posters I'm glad to see you use the word "failed". It certainly speaks to something to be avoided at all costs according to some folks. Sit back and watch others fail, wait for your chance to do it right. Just don't fail. It's not good.
Yet Google tries and fails. A lot. And that's one of their greatest strengths IMO, their willingness to place a bet on an idea that might ultimately never see commercial success but do it anyway.
They're not afraid to take a chance, commit time and people spend a little money (maybe a lot of money) to perhaps make a difference in the world. With every failure they learn something they would not have know if they hadn't tried. Something that may lead to success with a project, maybe one that "changes the world."
Innovation isn't defined by how much money you make from pursuing an idea. It's whether that thing changes the landscape, leads to a new way of thinking about things or a better way to "get there" or "do that". Something as simple as Streetview is innovative as well as successful. Google Glass is innovative too but may never be a commercial success.
Apple of course has more money. and has seen more commercial success. They have their own big gamble that paid off to thank for that. It's the kind of gamble that Google takes with ideas like driverless cars, Google Glass, alternative energy, extending human life, even crazy sounding stuff like satellite-connected balloons floating above 3rd world villages. Lately Apple hasn't seemed willing to risk a failure. That contributes to a perception by a lot of people that Google is the more innovative of the two, at least today. Tomorrow might be different. When the next "one more thing" from Apple dances across the stage a fickle media will toss Google aside and re-anoint Apple as the Great Innovator. But today I'd agree with those that say Google out-innovates them.
I can assure you that Apple fails thousands of times and has done for every year of its existence. The difference is that it chooses to keep those failures private, rather than using the public as guinea pigs and seeing what shit sticks. Of course, using the public is one way to test the waters, but I view it as deeply cynical.
So you see, to define the difference between these two companies as failure is the wrong way to look at it. If Apple started to regularly put out bad products, you can be sure that the media and the public would come down on them like a ton of bricks. That's what happens when you have attained the heights of being the gold standard.
Yes, Google stuff is very popular; it's generally free to use. But youtube? Well, youtube was already exploding by the time Google bought it. In view of the horrendous interface, I would say that YouTube is popular in spite of Google, not because of them.
And people love Apple products, because they are a delight to touch and look at. Simple things, maybe, but important. And there are lots of shops to enjoy them. I wouldn't call Google Glasses or Chromecast objects of desire.
Nah... it's only a meaningless word for the Chipsys of the world.
That comment doesn't make any sense at all. He's stating that it gets thrown around too much (which is the case) making it nearly meaningless. How would that make it meaningless only to people like me? And how would you know anything about me for that matter? Or are you purely judging me by my defense of something that is not Apple (while simultaneously also acknowledging Apple as an innovator in it's own right)? I know there are quite some Apple fanboys that hate Google (just like there are fadroids who hate Apple) but get over it.
Comments
Stop talking about google. This is about apple.
Apple obviously has something up their sleeves. Secret acquisitions mean secret products with secret technology. Can't wait to buy it.
Cool! I have on reliable insider info that Apple is developing a mind controlling implant that makes you stupid and empties your wallet. Google struggling to keep up with Apple innovation. Apple fans queue up at the 5th Avenue store to be the first to get the brain implant.
Stop talking about google. This is about apple.
At first I though you might be new here but I see your join date says otherwise. You should be well aware by now that the comments section of pretty much every article becomes about either Google, Samsung, or Android in some way. It's a very odd phenomenon, but someone will always have to say something negative about one of the above within the first few posts regardless of the content of the article.
It's so prevalent that I have made a game out of it. I count how many posts it takes for someone to mention one of them. While I haven't been keeping stats, experience would say the average number is around 3-4 posts.
Yet Google tries and fails. A lot. And that's one of their greatest strengths IMO, their willingness to place a bet on an idea that might ultimately never see commercial success but do it anyway.
They're not afraid to take a chance, commit time and people spend a little money (maybe a lot of money) to perhaps make a difference. With every failure they learn something they would not have know if they hadn't tried. Something that may lead to success with a project, maybe one that "changes the world."
Innovation isn't defined by how much money you make from pursuing an idea. It's whether that thing changes the landscape, leads to a new way of thinking about things or a better way to "get there" or "do that". Something as simple as Streetview is innovative as well as successful. Google Glass is innovative too but may never be a commercial success.
Apple of course has more money. and has seen more commercial success. They have their own big gamble that paid off to thank for that. It's the kind of gamble that Google takes with ideas like driverless cars, Google Glass, alternative energy, extending human life, even crazy sounding stuff like satellite-connected balloons floating above 3rd world villages. Lately Apple hasn't seemed willing to risk a failure. That contributes to a perception by a lot of people that Google is the more innovative of the two, at least today. Tomorrow might be different. When the next "one more thing" from Apple dances across the stage a fickle media will toss Google aside and re-anoint Apple as the Great Innovator. But today I'd agree with those that say Google out-innovates them.
Our views on innovation seem to differ somewhat. As I don't necessarily think innovations need to drastically and directly impact humanity persé. But have to say I somewhat agree. Indeed we will have to see how Google broadening their horizon pans out in the end. But at least they are taking risks and don't just keep muddeling on (just do what they do).
And just for anyone chiming in late: I don't (and never have) dispute(d) that Apple is an innovative company, I'm just defending that Google is as well. Both are innovative companies in their own right.
I should have been a bit more clear. Innovation won't always be drastic. Touch ID as an example. The technology behind Touch ID is incredible but the fact that it isn't invasive is incredible. That is the true innovation behind Google Search, and even more recently Google Now. That is the cool stuff Google does. It is scary how good it is. No one has matched it...yet. I also think all their infrastructure technology that they do, the programming stuff...a lot of it is truly groundbreaking.
I just have an adverse reaction to folks, not you, that parrot the Apple doesn't innovate line. Apple and Google innovate in different ways and doing different things.
What?! Even if you don't like Google it's hard to deny they were leaders in search and email.
And I second [@]mstone[/@]'s comment regarding Google Apps for Business. I honestly don't know what I would do without it.
I don't get this at all. How does eliminating their profit center make for a valid argument? One could use the same argument against Apple's profit center, hardware sales, and they they essentially disappear with only iAds, iTunes Store and iCloud services to keep them afloat. Both Google and Apple give away their OSes and SW because they make money off each indirectly so why disparage one and not the other?
Not necessarily. It could be additions in HW, SW and services to better their current products.
Yes-that, too. Their R&D has been shooting up by Apple's standards. And I don't want it to seem like acquisitions are everything; they're just a first stage. Then, Apple has to go through many more stages to amalgamate the newly-acquired talent with their own and finally arrive at a finished product.
A bit off topic, but it always struck me as odd that of all their acquisitions Siri wasn't renamed to something else.
If that response was meant for me how about these: Project Ara, Project Loon, Google's Glucose Lens,...
Isn't every single one of those vapor ware currently? And any company that derives 90%+ of revenues from advertising is only ever going to be so innovative.
Anyways, the way people toss the word "innovate" around has made it nearly completely meaningless.
Nah... it's only a meaningless word for the Chipsys of the world.
Except, you still have not pointed out a single major 'innovation' from Google.
We're waiting.
What?! Even if you don't like Google it's hard to deny they were leaders in search and email.
And I second @mstone's comment regarding Google Apps for Business. I honestly don't know what I would do without it.
I don't get this at all. How does eliminating their profit center make for a valid argument? One could use the same argument against Apple's profit center, hardware sales, and they they essentially disappear with only iAds, iTunes Store and iCloud services to keep them afloat. Both Google and Apple give away their OSes and SW because they make money off each indirectly so why disparage one and not the other?
Not necessarily. It could be additions in HW, SW and services to better their current products.
They are the leaders in search. Yes. I never questioned that. But as I pointed out, search not only pre-dates Google, it pre-dates the web itself. Those of us who used the internet before Tim Berners-Lee did his work at CERN remember this well. Google managed to make search work better than it had (with something like Alta Vista, say). But if they hadn't done it, someone would have. The fact that people use Google more than they use something like Bing doesn't mean that much. Not to me, anyways.
And your point about Apple only helps my argument. Apple is a hardware company. Everything else they do -- iTunes for example -- is in one way or another in service to that singular goal: develop and sell hardware.
Google, OTOH, is an advertising company. Nearly everything they do is one way or another done with one goal in mind: make more money through advertising (whether directly through advertising revenues, or by getting more personal information about users, to make advertising more profitable). I don't hold that against Google anymore than I hold selling coffee against Starbucks.
But I don't buy that Google is really a tech company. They are an advertising company that has found ways to utilize tech to sell ads. Good for them. I don't like them or dislike them. But let's not pretend they are something they aren't, anymore than we say that Ford is a sports company because they are involved in auto racing.
Why don't their search and mail count?
How about Google Now (innovation of the year 2012) or Google Street View an innovation in it's own right. And Google's main product the search engine, they existed before, but they revolutionized how search engines worked.
What is Google Now? I must have missed it.
Saying StreetView is an innovation is like saying $0.99 music pricing was an innovation in iTunes.
How did Google revolutionize 'how search engines worked'? I am all ears.
Why don't their search and mail count?
I am willing to be persuaded. Tell me more?
Then your argument can be made against Apple. Apple didn't invent the cellphone, the tablet, the PMP, or PC but they revolutionized how all these worked. Same for Google in search, email and ads.
... the comments section of pretty much every article becomes about either Google, Samsung, or Android in some way. It's a very odd phenomenon,
Your posts are different how?
(Er... you might want to consider your handle before responding).
I don't know what to say if you aren't aware of how poor each were before Google jumped in.
You're repeating yourself. Please tell us how? (Know that I like Google Search and Google Mail).
Ads?!
I can assure you that Apple fails thousands of times and has done for every year of its existence. The difference is that it chooses to keep those failures private, rather than using the public as guinea pigs and seeing what shit sticks. Of course, using the public is one way to test the waters, but I view it as deeply cynical.
So you see, to define the difference between these two companies as failure is the wrong way to look at it. If Apple started to regularly put out bad products, you can be sure that the media and the public would come down on them like a ton of bricks. That's what happens when you have attained the heights of being the gold standard.
Yes, Google stuff is very popular; it's generally free to use. But youtube? Well, youtube was already exploding by the time Google bought it. In view of the horrendous interface, I would say that YouTube is popular in spite of Google, not because of them.
And people love Apple products, because they are a delight to touch and look at. Simple things, maybe, but important. And there are lots of shops to enjoy them. I wouldn't call Google Glasses or Chromecast objects of desire.
That comment doesn't make any sense at all. He's stating that it gets thrown around too much (which is the case) making it nearly meaningless. How would that make it meaningless only to people like me? And how would you know anything about me for that matter? Or are you purely judging me by my defense of something that is not Apple (while simultaneously also acknowledging Apple as an innovator in it's own right)? I know there are quite some Apple fanboys that hate Google (just like there are fadroids who hate Apple) but get over it.