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.
Google tries a lot in the lab. We know this because they publicly announce everything they do. Do you really think Apple never tries different projects in the lab? If you really think that is the case, then every project that Apple has worked on has been publicly released and never terminated.
In reality, Apple is doing a lot and failing a lot, but they will not release it to the public until it becomes viable. Another point is secrecy is key for an industry that depends on innovation and leading trends.
Just astounds me how few of the comments address the main thrust of the original article. Just more of the usual Apple v Google, "who's more innovative?" nonsense. Unless someone knows what Apple actually has going on with their R&D and has seen their product map, it's baseless speculation to compare this with companies that more readily publicize their R&D activities and pre-beta products. And that goes to the premise of the original article.
Given Apple's secrecy, the main clues into their behind-the-scenes activities and product plans have been acquisitions and patent filings (and supply chain leaks, but those will typically occur much closer to the actual release date). However, DED points out that a lot of Apple's acquisitions have occurred under the radar and remain secret, so using acquisitions as a source by which to figure out Apple's future plans can also paint an incomplete picture.
Trying to compare Apple to Google or other tech companies doesn't even warrant an apples-to-oranges analogy. More like the other companies telling you about every seed that they plant, while Apple won't even acknowledge their presence in the garden until the tree is already grown and bearing fruit.
Given Apple's secrecy, the main clues into their behind-the-scenes activities and product plans have been acquisitions and patent filings (and supply chain leaks, but those will typically occur much closer to the actual release date). However, DED points out that a lot of Apple's acquisitions have occurred under the radar and remain secret, so using acquisitions as a source by which to figure out Apple's future plans can also paint an incomplete picture.
I feel like we should be able to figure out most of these acquisitions. They usually change how they do business once they are bought up by Apple, often putting an end to certain types of support. Perhaps Cook is taking a more secretive path than before. Perhaps even the employees of many of these companies aren't aware they've been bought by Apple.
I would estimate that a fair number of them are health related.
You have an interesting take on the two which flies in the face of anything ever written about them. Also, just because something can be done a certain way, doesn't make it traditional or a good example of how things normally function. There are exceptions to every rule. To take an exception and try to imply that it's the norm would be a mistake.
It also seems like with every back and forth we are getting further and further from the original point. That being that agile methodoligies are not necessarily a bad thing or inferior to waterfall methodologies. Maybe we can both agree on that?
You have a complete misunderstanding of what you think you have read about each methodology. Each has specific business needs and processes but when used, they both can end up with a great product. I have been using each for years in professional environments and I have no idea how you relate what you see of either Google's services or Apple's products to either method.
Google tries a lot in the lab. We know this because they publicly announce everything they do. Do you really think Apple never tries different projects in the lab? If you really think that is the case, then every project that Apple has worked on has been publicly released and never terminated.
In reality, Apple is doing a lot and failing a lot, but they will not release it to the public until it becomes viable. Another point is secrecy is key for an industry that depends on innovation and leading trends.
Remember Apple's "thousand no's for every yes" promo vid last year? Or Steve Jobs pointing out that he was just as proud of what Apple chooses NOT to release? I think that goes to how Apple does things behind-the-scenes. They could very well have a lot of innovative out-of-the-box ideas that can fill out a steady stream of press releases and white papers, or new product concepts that they could readily bring to market if they choose to do so. But, they choose to stay focused on what they see as product-ready or market-ready. This is just a different mindset than, for example, Microsoft or Samsung who try to cover the entire broader market with expansive product families and long feature lists, or Google who constantly introduce and discontinue new and occasionally overlapping services.
You have a complete misunderstanding of what you think you have read about each methodology.
I disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
Each has specific business needs and processes but when used, they both can end up with a great product.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
I have been using each for years in professional environments and I have no idea how you relate what you see of either Google's services or Apple's products to either method.
Similarly, I have been using each for years in professional environments and I have no idea how you cannot see the similarities. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Even if DNA testing were to prove that it is not in fact a duck, it would still share similarities to a duck in both look and sound.
I would estimate that a fair number of them are health related.
I think health related features may be on the way but it is a little off of Apple's typical mass consumer market path. I would rather they enter the home automation sector first. Possible explanation why Google purchased Nest. They may have been aware of Apple nosing around. But web connected thermostats and smoke detectors are not that difficult to engineer. What is really needed is a home control center so that security can be centralized. It is better than each device making its own connection to the Internet. I can imagine Apple acquiring a high end door lock company, a garage door company, a lighting/electrical company, an alarm company, an HVAC company or solar company. Put it all together with a home server and integrated iOS apps. Everything needs to be geared toward retrofitting existing homes. Smart homes have a much broader appeal than health and fitness gadgets in my opinion.
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.
They aren't innovative, Google are the Masters of Illusion Vaporware is their style.
I do the vast majority of my research on a Chromebook. OnIn the evenings and on weekends (like now) all my work is done on it with rare exception. If I need to use PS or Illustrator I pop by work. Otherwise I haven't needed to do anything on the weekends that the Chromebook can't handle.
I might keep a half dozen or more tabs open at any particular time (only 4 right now) and it never misses a beat. Handles all my search requests fast, allows me to do most customer artwork previews, has a free 100GB cloud account, even uses Google Now. As a bonus it's just as malware-proof as a Mac.
It boots faster than any other computer, tablet or smartphone I've used, has had only two crashes over the past several months and automatically recovered from those with no effort needed on my part. Excellent battery time, completely silent and zero heat. It also cost me less than $200 (retailed for about $25 IIRC). Can't find anything not to like (other than a quirky issue with the touchpad when powered) or what entry-level Windows or Apple machine would be a better value for a casual user.
Your Chromebook may boot faster than any tablet you've used, but it certainly is slower than an iPad or iPhone.
Fine, but other than acquiring other companies for their technology, innovation is simply building a a better mouse trap and Google has done that in spades.
There is no need to boot an iPhone; therefore, it's substantially quicker.
I'm pretty sure chromebooks support regular sleep modes just like Macbooks etc too. That's what iPhones also do. I've not got one though so maybe Gatorguy can comment.
I'm pretty sure chromebooks support regular sleep modes just like Macbooks etc too. That's what iPhones also do. I've not got one though so maybe Gatorguy can comment.
A Chromebook waking from sleep will be slower than an iPad or iPhone.
A Chromebook waking from sleep will be slower than an iPad or iPhone.
Who cares? Clearly Gatorguy was talking about cold boot, which you'd want to use if you were going anywhere without power for a while and helps you save on battery if you don't need to use it.
I'm sure that no matter what it's going to be on the order of 'a few seconds' for basically any platform. It's pointless jumping on his statement as an iPad and Chromebook are pretty different devices for different purposes.
A Chromebook waking from sleep will be slower than an iPad or iPhone.
Ah, changing your tune a bit now aren't you? Rather than boot times your wanting to change it to claim wake from sleep times. :rolleyes:
Don't blame you. FWIW wake from sleep just took about two seconds. Hardly slow.
EDIT: Just closed the lid, left it for about 30 seconds or so and tried it again. Yup, about two seconds. For practical purposes I'd consider that instant. That's close to the least important feature to me too.
To be clear it's not a device for everyone. Absolutely has it's limits. For a casual user doing a lot of web-browsing, checking email, perhaps a student writing a few term papers and doing research or homework I think it would handle it with aplomb. Plan to do more than basic photo-editing or graphic design? Set your sights a little higher.
Did a bit of googling. iPhone 5s boot time is about 20 seconds from cold. Chromebooks seem really hilariously fast:
[video]
This isn't a good argument because boot times are composed of what needs to be loaded for the OS to be up and the HW (CPU and storage, mainly) that it's been booted from. With the current Chromebooks this seems to be exclusively some sort of SSD. It's only viable when comparing to other Chromebooks with the same OS, or the same Chromebooks with different versions of ChromeOS.
Case in point, my MBP boots in about half the time but the HW is clearly much, much faster, including the PCIe SSD but that's not really a fair comparison here because the HW is priced well outside the common Chromebook range. Hell, my CPU alone costs more than most Chromebooks. On the same HW as the Chromebook Mac OS X would probably boot slower but it's starting up a lot more, including drivers for HW that aren't a consideration for Chrome OS, which ultimately makes this a bad argument in favour for Chrome OS app because it easily paints it as a "toy" OS.
But all that's irrelevant when it comes to using the system. What's important is how it runs when it's up and running. I'd like to see some tests that cover some real world usage between competing platforms.
Ah, changing your tune a bit now aren't you? Rather than boot times your wanting to change it to claim wake from sleep times. :rolleyes:
Don't blame you. FWIW wake from sleep just took about two seconds. Hardly slow.
EDIT: Just closed the lid, left it for about 30 seconds or so and tried it again. Yup, about two seconds. That's close to the least important feature to me too.
Boot time more important than wake times? No way! Two seconds isn't bad but the new MBPs feel like it's instant.
This isn't a good argument because boot times are composed of what needs to be loaded for the OS to be up and the HW (CPU and storage, mainly) that it's been booted from. With the current Chromebooks this seems to be exclusively some sort of SSD. It's only viable when comparing to other Chromebooks with the same OS, or the same Chromebooks with different versions of ChromeOS.
...
But all that's irrelevant when it comes to using the system. What's important is how it runs when it's up and running. I'd like to see some tests that cover some real world usage between competing platforms.
You'll get no argument from me here, it was just an interesting claim that I didn't intuitively know the answer to. I hadn't seen an iPhone 5s boot from cold and I don't own a Chromebook, so I thought I'd see what the answer was.
Comments
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.
Google tries a lot in the lab. We know this because they publicly announce everything they do. Do you really think Apple never tries different projects in the lab? If you really think that is the case, then every project that Apple has worked on has been publicly released and never terminated.
In reality, Apple is doing a lot and failing a lot, but they will not release it to the public until it becomes viable. Another point is secrecy is key for an industry that depends on innovation and leading trends.
Just astounds me how few of the comments address the main thrust of the original article. Just more of the usual Apple v Google, "who's more innovative?" nonsense. Unless someone knows what Apple actually has going on with their R&D and has seen their product map, it's baseless speculation to compare this with companies that more readily publicize their R&D activities and pre-beta products. And that goes to the premise of the original article.
Given Apple's secrecy, the main clues into their behind-the-scenes activities and product plans have been acquisitions and patent filings (and supply chain leaks, but those will typically occur much closer to the actual release date). However, DED points out that a lot of Apple's acquisitions have occurred under the radar and remain secret, so using acquisitions as a source by which to figure out Apple's future plans can also paint an incomplete picture.
Trying to compare Apple to Google or other tech companies doesn't even warrant an apples-to-oranges analogy. More like the other companies telling you about every seed that they plant, while Apple won't even acknowledge their presence in the garden until the tree is already grown and bearing fruit.
I feel like we should be able to figure out most of these acquisitions. They usually change how they do business once they are bought up by Apple, often putting an end to certain types of support. Perhaps Cook is taking a more secretive path than before. Perhaps even the employees of many of these companies aren't aware they've been bought by Apple.
I would estimate that a fair number of them are health related.
You have a complete misunderstanding of what you think you have read about each methodology. Each has specific business needs and processes but when used, they both can end up with a great product. I have been using each for years in professional environments and I have no idea how you relate what you see of either Google's services or Apple's products to either method.
Google tries a lot in the lab. We know this because they publicly announce everything they do. Do you really think Apple never tries different projects in the lab? If you really think that is the case, then every project that Apple has worked on has been publicly released and never terminated.
In reality, Apple is doing a lot and failing a lot, but they will not release it to the public until it becomes viable. Another point is secrecy is key for an industry that depends on innovation and leading trends.
Remember Apple's "thousand no's for every yes" promo vid last year? Or Steve Jobs pointing out that he was just as proud of what Apple chooses NOT to release? I think that goes to how Apple does things behind-the-scenes. They could very well have a lot of innovative out-of-the-box ideas that can fill out a steady stream of press releases and white papers, or new product concepts that they could readily bring to market if they choose to do so. But, they choose to stay focused on what they see as product-ready or market-ready. This is just a different mindset than, for example, Microsoft or Samsung who try to cover the entire broader market with expansive product families and long feature lists, or Google who constantly introduce and discontinue new and occasionally overlapping services.
You have a complete misunderstanding of what you think you have read about each methodology.
I disagree.
Each has specific business needs and processes but when used, they both can end up with a great product.
I agree.
I have been using each for years in professional environments and I have no idea how you relate what you see of either Google's services or Apple's products to either method.
Similarly, I have been using each for years in professional environments and I have no idea how you cannot see the similarities. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Even if DNA testing were to prove that it is not in fact a duck, it would still share similarities to a duck in both look and sound.
I would estimate that a fair number of them are health related.
I think health related features may be on the way but it is a little off of Apple's typical mass consumer market path. I would rather they enter the home automation sector first. Possible explanation why Google purchased Nest. They may have been aware of Apple nosing around. But web connected thermostats and smoke detectors are not that difficult to engineer. What is really needed is a home control center so that security can be centralized. It is better than each device making its own connection to the Internet. I can imagine Apple acquiring a high end door lock company, a garage door company, a lighting/electrical company, an alarm company, an HVAC company or solar company. Put it all together with a home server and integrated iOS apps. Everything needs to be geared toward retrofitting existing homes. Smart homes have a much broader appeal than health and fitness gadgets in my opinion.
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.
They aren't innovative, Google are the Masters of Illusion Vaporware is their style.
I do the vast majority of my research on a Chromebook. OnIn the evenings and on weekends (like now) all my work is done on it with rare exception. If I need to use PS or Illustrator I pop by work. Otherwise I haven't needed to do anything on the weekends that the Chromebook can't handle.
I might keep a half dozen or more tabs open at any particular time (only 4 right now) and it never misses a beat. Handles all my search requests fast, allows me to do most customer artwork previews, has a free 100GB cloud account, even uses Google Now. As a bonus it's just as malware-proof as a Mac.
It boots faster than any other computer, tablet or smartphone I've used, has had only two crashes over the past several months and automatically recovered from those with no effort needed on my part. Excellent battery time, completely silent and zero heat. It also cost me less than $200 (retailed for about $25 IIRC). Can't find anything not to like (other than a quirky issue with the touchpad when powered) or what entry-level Windows or Apple machine would be a better value for a casual user.
Your Chromebook may boot faster than any tablet you've used, but it certainly is slower than an iPad or iPhone.
If that response was meant for me how about these: Project Ara, Project Loon, Google's Glucose Lens,...
All vaporware leading to no product and even less profit.
Your Chromebook may boot faster than any tablet you've used, but it certainly is slower than an iPad or iPhone.
Did a bit of googling. iPhone 5s boot time is about 20 seconds from cold. Chromebooks seem really hilariously fast:
Did a bit of googling. iPhone 5s boot time is about 20 seconds from cold. Chromebooks seem really hilariously fast:
There is no need to boot an iPhone; therefore, it's substantially quicker.
Fine, but other than acquiring other companies for their technology, innovation is simply building a a better mouse trap and Google has done that in spades.
They haven't done anything except sell vaporware.
There is no need to boot an iPhone; therefore, it's substantially quicker.
I'm pretty sure chromebooks support regular sleep modes just like Macbooks etc too. That's what iPhones also do. I've not got one though so maybe Gatorguy can comment.
I'm pretty sure chromebooks support regular sleep modes just like Macbooks etc too. That's what iPhones also do. I've not got one though so maybe Gatorguy can comment.
A Chromebook waking from sleep will be slower than an iPad or iPhone.
A Chromebook waking from sleep will be slower than an iPad or iPhone.
Who cares? Clearly Gatorguy was talking about cold boot, which you'd want to use if you were going anywhere without power for a while and helps you save on battery if you don't need to use it.
I'm sure that no matter what it's going to be on the order of 'a few seconds' for basically any platform. It's pointless jumping on his statement as an iPad and Chromebook are pretty different devices for different purposes.
Ah, changing your tune a bit now aren't you? Rather than boot times your wanting to change it to claim wake from sleep times. :rolleyes:
Don't blame you. FWIW wake from sleep just took about two seconds. Hardly slow.
EDIT: Just closed the lid, left it for about 30 seconds or so and tried it again. Yup, about two seconds. For practical purposes I'd consider that instant. That's close to the least important feature to me too.
To be clear it's not a device for everyone. Absolutely has it's limits. For a casual user doing a lot of web-browsing, checking email, perhaps a student writing a few term papers and doing research or homework I think it would handle it with aplomb. Plan to do more than basic photo-editing or graphic design? Set your sights a little higher.
This isn't a good argument because boot times are composed of what needs to be loaded for the OS to be up and the HW (CPU and storage, mainly) that it's been booted from. With the current Chromebooks this seems to be exclusively some sort of SSD. It's only viable when comparing to other Chromebooks with the same OS, or the same Chromebooks with different versions of ChromeOS.
Case in point, my MBP boots in about half the time but the HW is clearly much, much faster, including the PCIe SSD but that's not really a fair comparison here because the HW is priced well outside the common Chromebook range. Hell, my CPU alone costs more than most Chromebooks. On the same HW as the Chromebook Mac OS X would probably boot slower but it's starting up a lot more, including drivers for HW that aren't a consideration for Chrome OS, which ultimately makes this a bad argument in favour for Chrome OS app because it easily paints it as a "toy" OS.
But all that's irrelevant when it comes to using the system. What's important is how it runs when it's up and running. I'd like to see some tests that cover some real world usage between competing platforms.
Boot time more important than wake times? No way! Two seconds isn't bad but the new MBPs feel like it's instant.
This isn't a good argument because boot times are composed of what needs to be loaded for the OS to be up and the HW (CPU and storage, mainly) that it's been booted from. With the current Chromebooks this seems to be exclusively some sort of SSD. It's only viable when comparing to other Chromebooks with the same OS, or the same Chromebooks with different versions of ChromeOS.
...
But all that's irrelevant when it comes to using the system. What's important is how it runs when it's up and running. I'd like to see some tests that cover some real world usage between competing platforms.
You'll get no argument from me here, it was just an interesting claim that I didn't intuitively know the answer to. I hadn't seen an iPhone 5s boot from cold and I don't own a Chromebook, so I thought I'd see what the answer was.