We can wish for a big iOS8 update with lots of new features. Maps still needs a lot of work even at the most basic level. If I look at 'supermarket' in my sector, it shows me a supermarket several miles away. Google accurately shows dozens of supermarkets and smaller shops around my position.
Oh and I still miss Streeview a lot. I used it again a few days ago and I had forgotten how great it is.
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.
Are you actually denying that Google is an innovative company? Google and Apple are both innovative companies in their own right and to state that Apple is the only "company that actually delivers true, useful, tangible advancements as opposed to these PR factories" is just pure nonsense. And Apple is one giant PR factory (among the largest out there) when they release something. At this moment in time it can be argued that Google is actually the more innovative company of the two with Apple sticking to their already established products and gradually evolving while Google is thinking out of the box.
If he isn't disputing it, I am. Google is not an innovative company. They are a one-trick pony. They built a relational database a long time ago and gave it a catchy name. They got out ahead of the curve like Amazon did. To this day, search is how they make their money. Android, Google Glass, self-driving cars and the plethora of other ambitious but poorly executed pipe dreams have not worked-out for Google in terms of monetization.
Apple on the other hands, has reinvented three major consumer electronic categories in the past decade and are about to reinvent one or two more (watch and itv). Apple is on the cusp of changing the means by which consumers buy things with ibeacons and biometric security. Apple changed the music industry and the way music is delivered to the consumer to the benefit of the consumer. Apple has created a 10 billion dollar industry just for developing apps for iOS devices. Apple has stimulated the Global economy with 85% of all global mobile commerce and 70% of all global mobile browsing occurring on an iOS device.
There is simply no comparison between these two companies.
FWIW:
There are very simple means of inferring sarcasm without using /s to make it clear it's intent. The original poster doesn't seem to know them. Outside of the instinctual, ``this has to be bs'' tickling the stomach nothing structurally inferred any sarcastic intent.
Hell, he could have exaggerated the use of Dude, but failed.
I personally thought it was very obvious. But, that's just me.
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.
So you are aware that you're fickle then? As far as innovation is concerned, I think it's funny how many people are missing the point. We're talking about innovation in released products because Apple doesn't release info on unreleased products. Not because unfinished products aren't innovative. And when you eliminate unfinished products from the debate, Apple wins. As far as googles 'glucose contact lense', they didn't think if it, they didn't begin research on it, they are not very far with it, and they wouldn't release it without the help of many other companies - their own words:
But I guess when google posts a blog about an idea people like to talk about it for awhile. Somebody said Apple is a PR machine. All they do is run ads. Google runs ads and they also hype up products that aren't here and probably won't be. At least Apple reserves the hype for a product they've already developed, polished, and shipped to a store down the street from you.
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?
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.
The thing that sets apart Google Now is that it is predictive. It surfaces information before you search for it.
From my personal experience, these are the things it has done for me:
1. When I searched tonight for a club's webpage to see who was going to DJ, Google Now had a card ready that provided me with travel time and a single click to get navigation. I didn't search for this club in Google Maps.
2. Based on my search patterns, Google Now has brought up cards that link to articles relevant to what it knows as my "research topics." In my case, it links me to articles regarding smartphones and other gadgets a lot. It even links me to websites I don't regularly visit as long as the articles are relevant to me.
3. Based on my frequency of visiting certain websites, it brings up cards about updates to those websites. I get a lot of my wallpapers from the website of a digital artist, and whenever he updates his site with new images a card appears in Google Now to alert me of the update.
4. When shipping notifications or flight itineraries arrive in my inbox, Google Now tracks those things automatically. It tells me if my flight is delayed or lets me know the status of my package.
5. Based on where I routinely drive, Google Now notifies me of the commute times when there is heavy traffic.
6. Whenever a team who I follow is playing a game, it brings up a card tracking the score automatically and also provides a notification of the score in the event that I haven't looked at Google Now to see the card.
7. It brings up a card with a handful of local events that it thinks I might be interested in. Normally I ignore this card, but last week one of the events was a play that was coming through town while on tour. I knew that one of my distant high school friends was acting in it because it's popped up on my Facebook newsfeed before, but I didn't know the play was coming through Orlando until I saw it on Google Now.
I imagine the experience is different for other people because there are a lot of things it can do that I never take advantage of, like public transit information for example. All in all I think it's a pretty nice tool, and it makes it much easier to gather useful information.
Apple on the other hands, has reinvented three major consumer electronic categories in the past decade and are about to reinvent one or two more (watch and itv). Apple is on the cusp of changing the means by which consumers buy things with ibeacons and biometric security. Apple changed the music industry and the way music is delivered to the consumer to the benefit of the consumer. Apple has created a 10 billion dollar industry just for developing apps for iOS devices. Apple has stimulated the Global economy with 85% of all global mobile commerce and 70% of all global mobile browsing occurring on an iOS device.
There is simply no comparison between these two companies.
I really don't think that you can argue that a bigger iPhone is equally as revolutionary as an iPhone, or that BLE beacons or fingerprint scanning is revolutionary.
Apple make some very neat stuff, but the Mac Pro was nothing special, larger screened iPhones are nothing special. The most special thing they've made recently is 64bit A-series but even then it's hardly unheard of and has been in roadmaps for basically a decade.
If you want to dismiss all other companies, you're going to have to take the same approach to Apple.
Yeah Google Now is scifi tech really, but it depends on you sharing a lot of information. I don't share my search history, nor do I tend to use my Gmail as my primary one. As a result I get less of this scifi tech, what really impresses me there is the knowledge graph.
Siri's approach is to have a list of data sources and query them for appropriate query types. Google's approach is to augment their search engine with the ability of extract information from webpages. This is similar to the semantic web drive of a decade ago, that never took off enough but Google are still pushing away at it.
This allows some very impressive behaviours. An example I've used before is asking "How much does a theory test cost" for which Google can actually extract the real £31 cost from webpages and speak it back to you. As far as I know they have not needed to collect this data specifically, or handle the query uniquely. It is simply part of their search engine now and interactive questions can be answered simply from 'web knowledge' rather than having to direct to Wolfram or similar.
I really don't think that you can argue that a bigger iPhone is equally as revolutionary as an iPhone, or that BLE beacons or fingerprint scanning is revolutionary.
Apple make some very neat stuff, but the Mac Pro was nothing special, larger screened iPhones are nothing special. The most special thing they've made recently is 64bit A-series but even then it's hardly unheard of and has been in roadmaps for basically a decade.
If you want to dismiss all other companies, you're going to have to take the same approach to Apple.
The Mac Pro is just a PC, yes it has a cool 3 board layout, but if that's the level of innovation we're going for then hell I'm at least that innovative. It's a nice, high end PC, but when we're dicussing 'innovation' then using one heatsink is absolutely nothing special and comes with a bunch of associated downsides. Do you really need a tiny wastepaper basket shaped PC? I prefer the old one personally, I don't have any shortage of under-desk space and I prefer internal disks than endless externals.
Not that I'm trying to hate on the Mac Pro. It's overpriced IMO but otherwise a well designed and powerful machine, but it just doesn't float my boat and I find it hard to see how it can be considered that innovative.
Marvin and moderators: I'd like to take the liberty of quoting Dan Manners. He was commenting on an article in Seeking Alpha. I appreciate that this may be against your forum policy; however, I felt that it would tickle the fancy of your readers. I generally find his comments irritating; he seems to adopt a split personality, either being wildly effusive with praise for Apple or absurdly trollish. In this case, however, he's brilliant.
I apologise if you object, and I will take note. Otherwise, here's his comment—enjoy!
Dan Manners Mar 1 03:39 AM I just received my Galaxy 5s and I love it. Sleek, stylish and so much nicer to use than the iPhone. I had an iPhone5s but it went bad when it caught fire and I through it in the toilet. The fire and water killed it but Samsung would have survived 30 minutes in the toilet.
I love my Galaxy 5s. The operating system is so nice. I also don't have to worry about upgrades being forced on me like Apple does. I now have the best ecosystem too.
My phone lasts days on a charge and so easy to read because of its size. IT was like I went from a 19 inch tube tv to a 80 inch ultra high definition set. I just love it. Samsung also called me at my home and asked me if they could answer any questions. The next day a young pretty Samsung representative showed up at my house and took me to dinner to show their appreciation. I would be lucky to get the crust from Tim Cook's sandwich.
A week went by and I noticed that I had a smudge from fingerprints on the glass of the phone. I called Samsung and they sent out to young Mexicans to clean the display right in my own home. Great service. Then the Mexicans took me out for Chipolte free of charge.
The phone has actually saved my life. I was robbed and the gunman was going to kill me but when he saw I had a Galaxy5S he decided that he just couldn't do it. He gave me a hundred bucks towards buying the watch. That watch is the greatest device know to man.
Where is Apple's big phone? Watch? TV? No where and you won't find them ever. Apple is never going to upgrade anything again. Nothing. Samsung is a world that makes sense. Apple is bizzarro world. Maybe next year! That's the mantra. Always next year. P/E Ratio? Going down. No innovation here.
If only the head of Samsung could run Apple. Then Apple would be making phones for emerging markets. Phones that everyone wanted. Nooooo. Cook only sells expensive phones. This is why Samsung is making money and Apple is losing tons of cash each quarter. The only thing Apple can afford is to buy back a small amount of shares as that is all they can afford.
Again, my new phone is great. I love the metallic look that gives Apple a run for its money. The phone has a fingerprint sensor that really works and is accessible by developers making the phone less secure. THat is so much better than a secure iPhone.
Samsung had fingerprint plans all along but Apple stole the idea and rushed it to market. Samsung does it so much better. Reply49Likes
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.
Prove it. Apple's methods change the world, while Google just sells personal information to the highest bidder.
Prove it. Apple's methods change the world, while Google just sells personal information to the highest bidder.
How can I buy personal information from Google? I can bid highly, but they won't seem to sell it to me. Perhaps you are inventing things and slandering people over a personal dislike. It seems that way to me.
The thing that sets apart Google Now is that it is predictive. It surfaces information before you search for it.
From my personal experience, these are the things it has done for me:
1. When I searched tonight for a club's webpage to see who was going to DJ, Google Now had a card ready that provided me with travel time and a single click to get navigation. I didn't search for this club in Google Maps.
2. Based on my search patterns, Google Now has brought up cards that link to articles relevant to what it knows as my "research topics." In my case, it links me to articles regarding smartphones and other gadgets a lot. It even links me to websites I don't regularly visit as long as the articles are relevant to me.
3. Based on my frequency of visiting certain websites, it brings up cards about updates to those websites. I get a lot of my wallpapers from the website of a digital artist, and whenever he updates his site with new images a card appears in Google Now to alert me of the update.
4. When shipping notifications or flight itineraries arrive in my inbox, Google Now tracks those things automatically. It tells me if my flight is delayed or lets me know the status of my package.
5. Based on where I routinely drive, Google Now notifies me of the commute times when there is heavy traffic.
6. Whenever a team who I follow is playing a game, it brings up a card tracking the score automatically and also provides a notification of the score in the event that I haven't looked at Google Now to see the card.
7. It brings up a card with a handful of local events that it thinks I might be interested in. Normally I ignore this card, but last week one of the events was a play that was coming through town while on tour. I knew that one of my distant high school friends was acting in it because it's popped up on my Facebook newsfeed before, but I didn't know the play was coming through Orlando until I saw it on Google Now.
I imagine the experience is different for other people because there are a lot of things it can do that I never take advantage of, like public transit information for example. All in all I think it's a pretty nice tool, and it makes it much easier to gather useful information.
8) It can show you webpage search results on the Google Now screen instead of Siri's clunky and exhaustive method of having you input your passcode/TouchID and take you to Safari to then load search results.
I have yet to meet someone that used Street a View for anything other than idle curiosity.
Whenever I read an article in a newspaper about a major real estate development in town, I use Street View to see where the new building is going to be built. Sometimes I know what the scene looks like currently just because of the address, like "One Main Street". But usually, I look up the address on Street View so that I know exactly where the proposed project is to be built, and which old buildings are to be demolished.
Nothing else allows this to be done from the comfort of my easy chair.
I take no position on whether or not this meets any particular or idiosyncratic definitions of "innovative", or whether my use is mere "idle curiosity".
8) It can show you webpage search results on the Google Now screen instead of Siri's clunky and exhaustive method of having you input your passcode/TouchID and take you to Safari to then load search results.
Several posters seem to be completely unaware of what Google Now is, how it works and what the benefits are. For those who might be curious Google has a landing page here. Give it a spin even. If you don't like it then uninstall it: http://www.google.com/landing/now/#
When I first started using it I think I only had two cards that regularly appeared, weather and travel time to work/home. After using it for a few months I now have cards automatically load for new content at some of the websites I visit, a card with current articles on subjects I've researched, another showing sports scores for "my teams", a card for current stocks of interest, and yet another for local events that I might want to consider.
It's been easier to keep up with stuff that interest me as well as discover a few things/eventsI might otherwise have missed if not for Google Now. I think it's a brilliant feature.
Are the cards intrusive? Nope. I'll get a mention in my notifications when new card content is available. If I'm not interested in looking at it (yet) I simply ignore it or dismiss it. Otherwise it stays out of the way until I have a need for it.
8) It can show you webpage search results on the Google Now screen instead of Siri's clunky and exhaustive method of having you input your passcode/TouchID and take you to Safari to then load search results.
Several posters seem to be completely unaware of what Google Now is, how it works and what the benefits are. For those who might be curious Google has a landing page here. Give it a spin even. If you don't like it then uninstall it: http://www.google.com/landing/now/#
Ok, GN sounds impressive. But given the iOS world I inhabit, I have little interest.
But enough already. It has barely moved the needle for Google. Yet. How do you reconcile this with the main thrust of the article, which is about acquisition strategy? Why does Google do such high-priced acquisitions as Motorola, Nest, and so forth (and the ones where the deal luckily didn't happen for them, such as WhatsApp and Snapchat), that scream a complete lack of disciplined strategy?
What exactly are they trying to achieve? (Yeah, yeah, I know that Android was an acquisition too -- but I am talking about their weird high-price ones where they seem to be willing to throw a lot of money).
most times Google uses a sawn (sawed in US I believe) off shot gun approach while Apple uses a precision assassin's rifle.
Apple uses a high tech laser with multi-element lenses to make the dot as small as a single photon and Google just puts everything into a big heap and throws hand grenades at it!
OT: Apple has started advertising 5C on Tumblr. This leads me to believe that the 5C will be sticking around and will become Apple's entry-level phone.
Why does Google do such high-priced acquisitions as Motorola, Nest, and so forth (and the ones where the deal luckily didn't happen for them, such as WhatsApp and Snapchat), that scream a complete lack of disciplined strategy?
What exactly are they trying to achieve? (Yeah, yeah, I know that Android was an acquisition too -- but I am talking about their weird high-price ones where they seem to be willing to throw a lot of money).
Google's stated goal is to organise all of the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.
This is apparently what drives their long term goals and a lot of their developments seem to be along these lines. Android and Glass and self driving cars etc are simple vectors. With cars they can map and gather live statistics on the entirety of the transport network of the world and give users deep access to that information, for example Navigation on Android is 'traffic aware' via passive collection. Imagine if even 5% of cars were self driving and constantly scanning the environment, they could pick up on even the most trivial things like a change to a sign that would otherwise require deep integration with the local transport authority.
This seems to be their long term strategy, to get people to use their products because they do what the user wants, and as a result collect as much information as possible about the environment. By doing this they can provide that user with information they need sometimes even before they need it.
For example, in certain places, Google Now (at least the Android verison) will provide you with service timetables if you are stood at a bus stop or train station. If they can't find which platform you are at due to a lack of GPS / BLE beacons / WiFi SSIDs etc then they have Project Tango to gather real 3d models of the interior and situate the phone with extreme accuracy.
Whether they're more innovative then Apple or not is a frankly impossible question to answer I think. Both produce very interesting products, and although I think Apple deserves a lot of credit for pushing forward on the more 'boring but immediately useful' developments, I also think Google deserves credit for their 'moonshots'.
Comments
Oh and I still miss Streeview a lot. I used it again a few days ago and I had forgotten how great it is.
Thanks for the link. It's referring to software development. That is but one small part of making a product.
Are you actually denying that Google is an innovative company? Google and Apple are both innovative companies in their own right and to state that Apple is the only "company that actually delivers true, useful, tangible advancements as opposed to these PR factories" is just pure nonsense. And Apple is one giant PR factory (among the largest out there) when they release something. At this moment in time it can be argued that Google is actually the more innovative company of the two with Apple sticking to their already established products and gradually evolving while Google is thinking out of the box.
If he isn't disputing it, I am. Google is not an innovative company. They are a one-trick pony. They built a relational database a long time ago and gave it a catchy name. They got out ahead of the curve like Amazon did. To this day, search is how they make their money. Android, Google Glass, self-driving cars and the plethora of other ambitious but poorly executed pipe dreams have not worked-out for Google in terms of monetization.
Apple on the other hands, has reinvented three major consumer electronic categories in the past decade and are about to reinvent one or two more (watch and itv). Apple is on the cusp of changing the means by which consumers buy things with ibeacons and biometric security. Apple changed the music industry and the way music is delivered to the consumer to the benefit of the consumer. Apple has created a 10 billion dollar industry just for developing apps for iOS devices. Apple has stimulated the Global economy with 85% of all global mobile commerce and 70% of all global mobile browsing occurring on an iOS device.
There is simply no comparison between these two companies.
I personally thought it was very obvious. But, that's just me.
So you are aware that you're fickle then? As far as innovation is concerned, I think it's funny how many people are missing the point. We're talking about innovation in released products because Apple doesn't release info on unreleased products. Not because unfinished products aren't innovative. And when you eliminate unfinished products from the debate, Apple wins. As far as googles 'glucose contact lense', they didn't think if it, they didn't begin research on it, they are not very far with it, and they wouldn't release it without the help of many other companies - their own words:
http://m.blogs.computerworld.com/internet-search/23407/google-makes-first-contact-lens-itbwcw?mm_ref=https://www.google.com/
But I guess when google posts a blog about an idea people like to talk about it for awhile. Somebody said Apple is a PR machine. All they do is run ads. Google runs ads and they also hype up products that aren't here and probably won't be. At least Apple reserves the hype for a product they've already developed, polished, and shipped to a store down the street from you.
That's very impressive.
Apple on the other hands, has reinvented three major consumer electronic categories in the past decade and are about to reinvent one or two more (watch and itv). Apple is on the cusp of changing the means by which consumers buy things with ibeacons and biometric security. Apple changed the music industry and the way music is delivered to the consumer to the benefit of the consumer. Apple has created a 10 billion dollar industry just for developing apps for iOS devices. Apple has stimulated the Global economy with 85% of all global mobile commerce and 70% of all global mobile browsing occurring on an iOS device.
There is simply no comparison between these two companies.
I really don't think that you can argue that a bigger iPhone is equally as revolutionary as an iPhone, or that BLE beacons or fingerprint scanning is revolutionary.
Apple make some very neat stuff, but the Mac Pro was nothing special, larger screened iPhones are nothing special. The most special thing they've made recently is 64bit A-series but even then it's hardly unheard of and has been in roadmaps for basically a decade.
If you want to dismiss all other companies, you're going to have to take the same approach to Apple.
That's very impressive.
Yeah Google Now is scifi tech really, but it depends on you sharing a lot of information. I don't share my search history, nor do I tend to use my Gmail as my primary one. As a result I get less of this scifi tech, what really impresses me there is the knowledge graph.
Siri's approach is to have a list of data sources and query them for appropriate query types. Google's approach is to augment their search engine with the ability of extract information from webpages. This is similar to the semantic web drive of a decade ago, that never took off enough but Google are still pushing away at it.
This allows some very impressive behaviours. An example I've used before is asking "How much does a theory test cost" for which Google can actually extract the real £31 cost from webpages and speak it back to you. As far as I know they have not needed to collect this data specifically, or handle the query uniquely. It is simply part of their search engine now and interactive questions can be answered simply from 'web knowledge' rather than having to direct to Wolfram or similar.
Anyways, the way people toss the word "innovate" around has made it nearly completely meaningless.
In your view, what is the correct meaning?
Hope you're over your flu.
The Mac Pro is nothing special?? Come, come now.
Hope you're over your flu.
The Mac Pro is nothing special?? Come, come now.
Yeah took two bloody weeks.
The Mac Pro is just a PC, yes it has a cool 3 board layout, but if that's the level of innovation we're going for then hell I'm at least that innovative. It's a nice, high end PC, but when we're dicussing 'innovation' then using one heatsink is absolutely nothing special and comes with a bunch of associated downsides. Do you really need a tiny wastepaper basket shaped PC? I prefer the old one personally, I don't have any shortage of under-desk space and I prefer internal disks than endless externals.
Not that I'm trying to hate on the Mac Pro. It's overpriced IMO but otherwise a well designed and powerful machine, but it just doesn't float my boat and I find it hard to see how it can be considered that innovative.
I apologise if you object, and I will take note. Otherwise, here's his comment—enjoy!
Dan Manners
Mar 1 03:39 AM
I just received my Galaxy 5s and I love it. Sleek, stylish and so much nicer to use than the iPhone. I had an iPhone5s but it went bad when it caught fire and I through it in the toilet. The fire and water killed it but Samsung would have survived 30 minutes in the toilet.
I love my Galaxy 5s. The operating system is so nice. I also don't have to worry about upgrades being forced on me like Apple does. I now have the best ecosystem too.
My phone lasts days on a charge and so easy to read because of its size. IT was like I went from a 19 inch tube tv to a 80 inch ultra high definition set. I just love it. Samsung also called me at my home and asked me if they could answer any questions. The next day a young pretty Samsung representative showed up at my house and took me to dinner to show their appreciation. I would be lucky to get the crust from Tim Cook's sandwich.
A week went by and I noticed that I had a smudge from fingerprints on the glass of the phone. I called Samsung and they sent out to young Mexicans to clean the display right in my own home. Great service. Then the Mexicans took me out for Chipolte free of charge.
The phone has actually saved my life. I was robbed and the gunman was going to kill me but when he saw I had a Galaxy5S he decided that he just couldn't do it. He gave me a hundred bucks towards buying the watch. That watch is the greatest device know to man.
Where is Apple's big phone? Watch? TV? No where and you won't find them ever. Apple is never going to upgrade anything again. Nothing. Samsung is a world that makes sense. Apple is bizzarro world. Maybe next year! That's the mantra. Always next year. P/E Ratio? Going down. No innovation here.
If only the head of Samsung could run Apple. Then Apple would be making phones for emerging markets. Phones that everyone wanted. Nooooo. Cook only sells expensive phones. This is why Samsung is making money and Apple is losing tons of cash each quarter. The only thing Apple can afford is to buy back a small amount of shares as that is all they can afford.
Again, my new phone is great. I love the metallic look that gives Apple a run for its money. The phone has a fingerprint sensor that really works and is accessible by developers making the phone less secure. THat is so much better than a secure iPhone.
Samsung had fingerprint plans all along but Apple stole the idea and rushed it to market. Samsung does it so much better.
Reply49Likes
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.
Prove it. Apple's methods change the world, while Google just sells personal information to the highest bidder.
Prove it. Apple's methods change the world, while Google just sells personal information to the highest bidder.
How can I buy personal information from Google? I can bid highly, but they won't seem to sell it to me. Perhaps you are inventing things and slandering people over a personal dislike. It seems that way to me.
8) It can show you webpage search results on the Google Now screen instead of Siri's clunky and exhaustive method of having you input your passcode/TouchID and take you to Safari to then load search results.
I have yet to meet someone that used Street a View for anything other than idle curiosity.
Whenever I read an article in a newspaper about a major real estate development in town, I use Street View to see where the new building is going to be built. Sometimes I know what the scene looks like currently just because of the address, like "One Main Street". But usually, I look up the address on Street View so that I know exactly where the proposed project is to be built, and which old buildings are to be demolished.
Nothing else allows this to be done from the comfort of my easy chair.
I take no position on whether or not this meets any particular or idiosyncratic definitions of "innovative", or whether my use is mere "idle curiosity".
Several posters seem to be completely unaware of what Google Now is, how it works and what the benefits are. For those who might be curious Google has a landing page here. Give it a spin even. If you don't like it then uninstall it:
http://www.google.com/landing/now/#
When I first started using it I think I only had two cards that regularly appeared, weather and travel time to work/home. After using it for a few months I now have cards automatically load for new content at some of the websites I visit, a card with current articles on subjects I've researched, another showing sports scores for "my teams", a card for current stocks of interest, and yet another for local events that I might want to consider.
It's been easier to keep up with stuff that interest me as well as discover a few things/eventsI might otherwise have missed if not for Google Now. I think it's a brilliant feature.
Are the cards intrusive? Nope. I'll get a mention in my notifications when new card content is available. If I'm not interested in looking at it (yet) I simply ignore it or dismiss it. Otherwise it stays out of the way until I have a need for it.
Ok, GN sounds impressive. But given the iOS world I inhabit, I have little interest.
But enough already. It has barely moved the needle for Google. Yet. How do you reconcile this with the main thrust of the article, which is about acquisition strategy? Why does Google do such high-priced acquisitions as Motorola, Nest, and so forth (and the ones where the deal luckily didn't happen for them, such as WhatsApp and Snapchat), that scream a complete lack of disciplined strategy?
What exactly are they trying to achieve? (Yeah, yeah, I know that Android was an acquisition too -- but I am talking about their weird high-price ones where they seem to be willing to throw a lot of money).
Apple uses a high tech laser with multi-element lenses to make the dot as small as a single photon and Google just puts everything into a big heap and throws hand grenades at it!
http://isee5c.tumblr.com
Okay, uh, couple of things.
1. The heck are they doing advertising on Tumblr?
2. The heck are they doing advertising only in French?
3. The heck are they doing not having these cute little spots on their OWN website?
4. You can put this level of interactivity and design into a Tumblr site?
Why does Google do such high-priced acquisitions as Motorola, Nest, and so forth (and the ones where the deal luckily didn't happen for them, such as WhatsApp and Snapchat), that scream a complete lack of disciplined strategy?
What exactly are they trying to achieve? (Yeah, yeah, I know that Android was an acquisition too -- but I am talking about their weird high-price ones where they seem to be willing to throw a lot of money).
Google's stated goal is to organise all of the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.
This is apparently what drives their long term goals and a lot of their developments seem to be along these lines. Android and Glass and self driving cars etc are simple vectors. With cars they can map and gather live statistics on the entirety of the transport network of the world and give users deep access to that information, for example Navigation on Android is 'traffic aware' via passive collection. Imagine if even 5% of cars were self driving and constantly scanning the environment, they could pick up on even the most trivial things like a change to a sign that would otherwise require deep integration with the local transport authority.
This seems to be their long term strategy, to get people to use their products because they do what the user wants, and as a result collect as much information as possible about the environment. By doing this they can provide that user with information they need sometimes even before they need it.
For example, in certain places, Google Now (at least the Android verison) will provide you with service timetables if you are stood at a bus stop or train station. If they can't find which platform you are at due to a lack of GPS / BLE beacons / WiFi SSIDs etc then they have Project Tango to gather real 3d models of the interior and situate the phone with extreme accuracy.
Whether they're more innovative then Apple or not is a frankly impossible question to answer I think. Both produce very interesting products, and although I think Apple deserves a lot of credit for pushing forward on the more 'boring but immediately useful' developments, I also think Google deserves credit for their 'moonshots'.