(Er... you might want to consider your handle before responding).
I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at. If you're suggesting that I'm the first one who brings up Google, Android or Samsung in the comments section of an article then you would be mistaken.
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.
1) Google Now is Google's version of Siri. It came out as a result of Siri but in many ways it's better than Siri, but that shouldn't be surprising considering Google had been siting on all the parts for many years but (as usual) it's only after Apple shows them how to arrange the parts that others follow suit.
2) StreetView and FlyOver are both innovations.
3) Changing how an item is priced is a marketing strategy but you can still innovate in thought when finding new strategies that best suit a new market paradigm.
4) Claiming to not be aware of how Google revolutionized search sounds like a loaded question. I assume you are aware of their history so why ask that question except to want me to write a book just to then say, "OK, what else?"?
I don't know what to say if you aren't aware of how poor each were before Google jumped in.
That's not a persuasive argument. Not by far. I am truly curious as to why everyone thinks Google's search and mail are so amazing.
Surely, there must be something that sets it apart? Or was it dumb luck or network externalities or design (white space) or being at the right place at the right time? With mail, was it conversations (which would be not much more than the equivalent of $0.99 pricing in iTunes)?
Seriously, I am willing to be persuaded. But an appeal to 'it's obvious' does not help at all. That's like saying 'you're rich, so you must be smart.'
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.
You may benefit from reading up on the differences between "agile" and "waterfall" development methodologies. It may help you to understand the differences between Google's and Apple's methods and the pros and cons of each. Neither is inherently bad, they're just different.
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.
It would help, for starters, if you answered the question I asked you about Google's innovations.
Add: Just so you know, I don't hate Google at all. I think it's a fabulous -- but somewhat overrated for their 'innovation' -- company. They've created a lot of value for their shareholders, but also have disintermediated a lot businesses (e.g., print media; musicians and their income).
I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at. If you're suggesting that I'm the first one who brings up Google, Android or Samsung in the comments section of an article then you would be mistaken.
No, I am simply pointing out that you're no different from the folks about whom you're complaining.
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.
But I don't think that we're understanding each other.
My argument isn't that Google didn't improve search. They did. I don't think that's up for debate. My argument is that nearly 100% of Google's business is advertising. That's what they do. That's why they exist. Take that away, and they disappear. Thus, they are an advertising company. Why is anyone even questioning this?
Apple, otoh, is a hardware company. Apple is an actual tech company. Take away the technological aspects of Apple's business, they cease to exist.
No, I am simply pointing out that you're no different from the folks about whom you're complaining.
Ah, there's the source of the confusion. I wasn't complaining at all. If you go back and read the post you originally replied to, I find the phenomenon humorous but I can understand the misinterpretation. I could have been more clear.
1) Google Now is Google's version of Siri. It came out as a result of Siri but in many ways it's better than Siri, but that shouldn't be surprising considering Google had been siting on all the parts for many years but (as usual) it's only after Apple shows them how to arrange the parts that others follow suit.
2) StreetView and FlayOver are both innovations.
3) Changing how an item is priced is a marketing strategy but you can still innovate in thought when finding new strategies that best suit a new market paradigm.
4) Claiming to not be aware of how Google revolutionized search sounds like a loaded question. I assume you are aware of their history so why ask that question except to want me to write a book just to then say, "OK, what else?"?
1) A product/service, to quote you, that is the result of "...(as usual) it's only after Apple shows them how to arrange the parts that others follow suit" is innovative? Seriously?
2) No, they're not. They're useful improvements.
3) It was a massive marketing innovation.
4) You're just avoiding the question. This is at least the second time, in a conversation that we've had in this Forum (the last time, recall, it was about network externalities).
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.
One way Google revolutionized the search engine was with a concept called 'PageRank'. Named after Larry Page not as in 'webpage'. Instead of merely using a forward mechanism of searching for pages, it calculated a web page’s importance or relevance based on backlinks linking to a certain site, through PageRank, after crawling and indexing as many pages as possible. The result was a highly-targeted search engine, which allowed for highly precise search results, truly allowing people to find a needle in a haystack. What, in the past, may have taken days, weeks, months, or even a lifetime of searching, just took a few seconds.
If you want to know it in more detail then read Sergey Brin's and Larry Page's paper (Stanford University): "The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine".
That's not a persuasive argument. Not by far. I am truly curious as to why everyone thinks Google's search and mail are so amazing.
Surely, there must be something that sets it apart? Or was it dumb luck or network externalities or design (white space) or being at the right place at the right time? With mail, was it conversations (which would be not much more than the equivalent of $0.99 pricing in iTunes)?
Seriously, I am willing to be persuaded. But an appeal to 'it's obvious' does not help at all. That's like saying 'you're rich, so you must be smart.'
Search algorithms and page ranking algorithms that both organize and query results better and faster than every other service. Then you have the algorithms for reducing spam and integrating various other serves into mail. Then you have the soft innovations like the uncluttered search screen and 1GB of free space for mail. All of these unseen until Google did them. Even now their secret sauce is still not matched. Well after Gmail eliminated spam .Mac and MobileMe mail was still riddled with it… and that was a paid service! With iCloud it's gotten much better but I still get too many.
Your question is akin to someone saying the iPad isn't innovative because every aspect someone could mention about how they changed the market would have you then saying: displays existed, tablets existed, etc.
That's not a persuasive argument. Not by far. I am truly curious as to why everyone thinks Google's search and mail are so amazing.
Surely, there must be something that sets it apart? Or was it dumb luck or network externalities or design (white space) or being at the right place at the right time? With mail, was it conversations (which would be not much more than the equivalent of $0.99 pricing in iTunes)?
Google was founded on the strength of its pagerank algorithm. People wouldn't have moved away from existing search giants such as Yahoo and Altavista to the startup that Google was back then unless Google's algorithm provided search results much more quickly or accurately than the competition.
Why don't you enlighten us, instead of throwing out jargon?
I took the time to Google up a page that explains them both in short, concise words so that only the bare minimum of effort will be required on your part to educate yourself.
1) A product/service, to quote you, that is the result of "...(as usual) it's only after Apple shows them how to arrange the parts that others follow suit" is innovative? Seriously?
2) No, they're not. They're useful improvements.
3) It was a massive marketing innovation.
4) You're just avoiding the question. This is at least the second time, in a conversation that we've had in this Forum (the last time, recall, it was about network externalities).
1) I never said Google Now was innovative but they did do it slightly better. Chances are there likely some innovative aspects to it that I am not aware.
2) in•o•vate - make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products. What the hell do you think improvements are? The iPhone 5S is an improvement over the iPhone 5 but I doubt you'd argue there are no innovations in it. After all, SoCs and biometrics existed before last year¡
3) I said as much.
4) I am not avoiding reasonable questions and I've gone out of my way in both cases to answer what I consider unreasonable questions because of your history here, but I do think you're purposely acting obtuse in both case.
... highly-targeted ... highly precise search results, .... find a needle in a haystack. ..... in the past, may have taken days, weeks, months, or even a lifetime ....
Are there empirical measures/results that show this? (Not Page's thesis, but actual evidence assessed/analyzed by credible third parties). Measures of vague terms such as 'targeted', 'precise', the fact that it could have avoided a 'lifetime of searching'?
Again, I am not trying to be contentious, but none of what you guys have said so far has gone beyond the cliches I've heard time and again.
Comments
Your posts are different how?
(Er... you might want to consider your handle before responding).
I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at. If you're suggesting that I'm the first one who brings up Google, Android or Samsung in the comments section of an article then you would be mistaken.
1) Google Now is Google's version of Siri. It came out as a result of Siri but in many ways it's better than Siri, but that shouldn't be surprising considering Google had been siting on all the parts for many years but (as usual) it's only after Apple shows them how to arrange the parts that others follow suit.
2) StreetView and FlyOver are both innovations.
3) Changing how an item is priced is a marketing strategy but you can still innovate in thought when finding new strategies that best suit a new market paradigm.
4) Claiming to not be aware of how Google revolutionized search sounds like a loaded question. I assume you are aware of their history so why ask that question except to want me to write a book just to then say, "OK, what else?"?
I don't know what to say if you aren't aware of how poor each were before Google jumped in.
That's not a persuasive argument. Not by far. I am truly curious as to why everyone thinks Google's search and mail are so amazing.
Surely, there must be something that sets it apart? Or was it dumb luck or network externalities or design (white space) or being at the right place at the right time? With mail, was it conversations (which would be not much more than the equivalent of $0.99 pricing in iTunes)?
Seriously, I am willing to be persuaded. But an appeal to 'it's obvious' does not help at all. That's like saying 'you're rich, so you must be smart.'
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.
You may benefit from reading up on the differences between "agile" and "waterfall" development methodologies. It may help you to understand the differences between Google's and Apple's methods and the pros and cons of each. Neither is inherently bad, they're just different.
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.
It would help, for starters, if you answered the question I asked you about Google's innovations.
Add: Just so you know, I don't hate Google at all. I think it's a fabulous -- but somewhat overrated for their 'innovation' -- company. They've created a lot of value for their shareholders, but also have disintermediated a lot businesses (e.g., print media; musicians and their income).
Yes, it sounds like a project codename.
I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at. If you're suggesting that I'm the first one who brings up Google, Android or Samsung in the comments section of an article then you would be mistaken.
No, I am simply pointing out that you're no different from the folks about whom you're complaining.
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.
But I don't think that we're understanding each other.
My argument isn't that Google didn't improve search. They did. I don't think that's up for debate. My argument is that nearly 100% of Google's business is advertising. That's what they do. That's why they exist. Take that away, and they disappear. Thus, they are an advertising company. Why is anyone even questioning this?
Apple, otoh, is a hardware company. Apple is an actual tech company. Take away the technological aspects of Apple's business, they cease to exist.
No, I am simply pointing out that you're no different from the folks about whom you're complaining.
Ah, there's the source of the confusion. I wasn't complaining at all. If you go back and read the post you originally replied to, I find the phenomenon humorous but I can understand the misinterpretation. I could have been more clear.
1) Google Now is Google's version of Siri. It came out as a result of Siri but in many ways it's better than Siri, but that shouldn't be surprising considering Google had been siting on all the parts for many years but (as usual) it's only after Apple shows them how to arrange the parts that others follow suit.
2) StreetView and FlayOver are both innovations.
3) Changing how an item is priced is a marketing strategy but you can still innovate in thought when finding new strategies that best suit a new market paradigm.
4) Claiming to not be aware of how Google revolutionized search sounds like a loaded question. I assume you are aware of their history so why ask that question except to want me to write a book just to then say, "OK, what else?"?
1) A product/service, to quote you, that is the result of "...(as usual) it's only after Apple shows them how to arrange the parts that others follow suit" is innovative? Seriously?
2) No, they're not. They're useful improvements.
3) It was a massive marketing innovation.
4) You're just avoiding the question. This is at least the second time, in a conversation that we've had in this Forum (the last time, recall, it was about network externalities).
You may benefit from reading up on the differences between "agile" and "waterfall" development methodologies.
Why don't you enlighten us, instead of throwing out jargon?
One way Google revolutionized the search engine was with a concept called 'PageRank'. Named after Larry Page not as in 'webpage'. Instead of merely using a forward mechanism of searching for pages, it calculated a web page’s importance or relevance based on backlinks linking to a certain site, through PageRank, after crawling and indexing as many pages as possible. The result was a highly-targeted search engine, which allowed for highly precise search results, truly allowing people to find a needle in a haystack. What, in the past, may have taken days, weeks, months, or even a lifetime of searching, just took a few seconds.
If you want to know it in more detail then read Sergey Brin's and Larry Page's paper (Stanford University): "The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine".
Search algorithms and page ranking algorithms that both organize and query results better and faster than every other service. Then you have the algorithms for reducing spam and integrating various other serves into mail. Then you have the soft innovations like the uncluttered search screen and 1GB of free space for mail. All of these unseen until Google did them. Even now their secret sauce is still not matched. Well after Gmail eliminated spam .Mac and MobileMe mail was still riddled with it… and that was a paid service! With iCloud it's gotten much better but I still get too many.
Your question is akin to someone saying the iPad isn't innovative because every aspect someone could mention about how they changed the market would have you then saying: displays existed, tablets existed, etc.
That's not a persuasive argument. Not by far. I am truly curious as to why everyone thinks Google's search and mail are so amazing.
Surely, there must be something that sets it apart? Or was it dumb luck or network externalities or design (white space) or being at the right place at the right time? With mail, was it conversations (which would be not much more than the equivalent of $0.99 pricing in iTunes)?
Google was founded on the strength of its pagerank algorithm. People wouldn't have moved away from existing search giants such as Yahoo and Altavista to the startup that Google was back then unless Google's algorithm provided search results much more quickly or accurately than the competition.
The Gmail interface pioneered the use of ajax in web applications (http://www.developer.com/design/article.php/3526681/AJAX-Asynchronous-Java--XML.htm). Everyone else made you sit around and wait for the entire page to reload when all you wanted to do was delete a message.
Why don't you enlighten us, instead of throwing out jargon?
I took the time to Google up a page that explains them both in short, concise words so that only the bare minimum of effort will be required on your part to educate yourself.
http://www.base36.com/2012/12/agile-waterfall-methodologies-a-side-by-side-comparison/
1) I never said Google Now was innovative but they did do it slightly better. Chances are there likely some innovative aspects to it that I am not aware.
2) in•o•vate - make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products. What the hell do you think improvements are? The iPhone 5S is an improvement over the iPhone 5 but I doubt you'd argue there are no innovations in it. After all, SoCs and biometrics existed before last year¡
3) I said as much.
4) I am not avoiding reasonable questions and I've gone out of my way in both cases to answer what I consider unreasonable questions because of your history here, but I do think you're purposely acting obtuse in both case.
Solipsism is Ramsay Snow.
I know the name but I don't get the reference. I also need to catch up on GoT. I am still at the beginning of S02.
Are there empirical measures/results that show this? (Not Page's thesis, but actual evidence assessed/analyzed by credible third parties). Measures of vague terms such as 'targeted', 'precise', the fact that it could have avoided a 'lifetime of searching'?
Again, I am not trying to be contentious, but none of what you guys have said so far has gone beyond the cliches I've heard time and again.