First point - Shamsung got to market first with a big phone but not the right product. It's not the right product because it did not deliver the right experience. Back to the copy board for Shamsung.
Second point - What matters is not that you get there first, but that you get there first with what really matters.
The reason Android has succeeded has been really thanks to Apple and despite the executive corporate buffoonery of people like Schmidt. Apple's lack of hardware choices, lack of software customization, and embarrassing gaffes going back to antenna gate to the latest embarrassment of easily bent phones and firmware updates bricking the phones are a boon for the competition, mainly Android.
The Google payment system failed. Who buys a Google card? Wtf So android users pay top money for a shity phone with free to use software. I pay good money and respect Apple! Soon 60% of all apple products will be made in the usa! Green data centres and recycle products!
Google is basically a parasitic tick that has spread from one host to another and gorged themselves with vast amounts of money by sucking the lifeblood of personal information out of their hosts and selling it to the highest bidder. With the advent of mobility and curated application ecosystems Google saw their "host pool" drying up so they created their own farming system to grow their own hosts. This was called Android and like every parasitic move that preceded it they "harvested" ideas and feed for their livestock from others in the marketplace who had gone to great expense to create valuable things on their own.
With Apple you pay them for a shiny new product that they went to great expense to create. You hand them your money and they hand you an iThingy that makes you smile.
With Google they lure you in with a "free" email tool and search engine and in-turn you allow them to attach a tap into your personal information and behavioral history which they can in turn sell for profit to many other folks who want to help you empty your wallet.
Both strategies make money - no doubt. Which one you are more comfortable with and want to support is up to you. In the end your wallet is a little lighter either way.
@beltsbear Since 1970 Budweiser has had an aluminum body that bends just about as easy as the iphone6. Or maybe Apple was shooting for the curved screen? In the defense of plastic it does band back into place.
Why on earth would you need 64 bits to address 1GB of RAM on a phone with only limited multitasking?
I do not know as I am not a computer engineer. However it would appear to make a great deal of difference as the 64 bit dual core chip and 1gb RAM is faster than quad core chips with double the RAM and twice the clock speed.
I love how Samsung slavishly copying the trade dress and iconic elements of the iPhone designs as well as their interface and graphical elements is merely "using irreducibly obvious design elements", but Apple making a phone with a larger screen is somehow copying Samsung's "innovation"
Since 1970 Budweiser has had an aluminum body that bends almost as easy in your pocket as an iP6. We could either debate that Apple stole Budweiser IP for using an aluminum housing or we can debate that it is the precursor to a Apple curved screen phone.
This is Apple%u2019s 5.5%u201D iPhone with a full HD 1920 x 1080 IPS display. The phone runs iOS 8 and it has an anodized aluminum body available in silver, space gray or gold. It%u2019s just 7.1mm thin to offset otherwise large,pablet dimensions and it%u2019s a 6 ounce unibody design with the 2915 mAh battery sealed inside. The iPhone 6 Plus runs on Apple%u2019s dual core 1.4GHz A8 64 bit CPU with 1 gig of RAM and your choice of 16, 64 or 128 gigs of storage.It has a 1.2MP front and 8MP rear camera both with BSI and fast lenses
You know,i can do all experiment with my Iphone 6 ,because i got iphone 6 at no cost from my wallet from below link i found in youtube video description as Apple giving away iphone 6 to only residents of USA but valid email submission required:-
The reason Android has succeeded has been really thanks to Apple and despite the executive corporate buffoonery of people like Schmidt. Apple's lack of hardware choices, lack of software customization, and embarrassing gaffes going back to antenna gate to the latest embarrassment of easily bent phones and firmware updates bricking the phones are a boon for the competition, mainly Android.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. Apple wasn't able to monopolize the entire global cell phone market, what a fucking embarrassing failure of the a company.
And you know, Android's success obviously has NOTHING to do with cost, the fact that you can buy a $70 phone off contract on the most popylated countries on the planet, or the fact that Android is used for free by nearly every SINGLE OEM that isn't Apple. Yeah, it's all down to "embarrassing gaffes" and the utter incompetence of the complete imbeciles of Apple, who can't do a fucking thing right to save their lives. If only you would have emailed them with directions, Android wouldn't have gotten off the ground. Maybe it's not too late, and you can still save the company from complete demise.
(It's fucking astounding if you actually believe a single word you said. The fact that you used antenna gate as a reason is evidence enough of either your insanity, or the fact that you're a filthy troll)
This is Apple’s 5.5” iPhone with a full HD 1920 x 1080 IPS display. The phone runs iOS 8 and it has an anodized aluminum body available in silver, space gray or gold. It’s just 7.1mm thin to offset otherwise large,pablet dimensions and it’s a 6 ounce unibody design with the 2915 mAh battery sealed inside.The iPhone 6 Plus runs on Apple’s dual core 1.4GHz A8 64 bit CPU with 1 gig of RAM and your choice of 16,64 or 128 gigs of storage.It has a 1.2MP front and 8MP rear camera both with BSI and fast lenses
You know,i can do all experiment with my Iphone 6 ,because i got iphone 6 at no cost from my wallet from below link i found in youtube video description as Apple giving away iphone 6 to only residents of USA but valid email submission required:-
Google is basically a parasitic tick that has spread from one host to another and gorged themselves with vast amounts of money by sucking the lifeblood of personal information out of their hosts and selling it to the highest bidder. With the advent of mobility and curated application ecosystems Google saw their "host pool" drying up so they created their own farming system to grow their own hosts. This was called Android and like every parasitic move that preceded it they "harvested" ideas and feed for their livestock from others in the marketplace who had gone to great expense to create valuable things on their own.
With Apple you pay them for a shiny new product that they went to great expense to create. You hand them your money and they hand you an iThingy that makes you smile.
With Google they lure you in with a "free" email tool and search engine and in-turn you allow them to attach a tap into your personal information and behavioral history which they can in turn sell for profit to many other folks who want to help you empty your wallet.
Both strategies make money - no doubt. Which one you are more comfortable with and want to support is up to you. In the end your wallet is a little lighter either way.
..probably the best description of Google that I've ever read. Well done.
Google is basically a parasitic tick that has spread from one host to another and gorged themselves with vast amounts of money by sucking the lifeblood of personal information out of their hosts and selling it to the highest bidder......
The truth of this made me all itchy just reading it.
Did you notice Rosenberg's body language during the entire interview? Or how he blinked constantly when answering questions? He doesn't believe what he says, he's just sucking up to Schmidt-kopf. Schmidt is a lot more polished at deception.
"The fact of the matter is you can make a small marketshare with a lot of profits, or you can make the same amount of money with a much larger marketshare with lesser profits."
How can you make the same amount of money with lesser profits?
Of course, 64 bits registers aren't needed for that, but they do make addressing 128 GB of storage more efficient. The 64-bit ARM instruction set also supports twice the registers (32 integer and 32 floating point) for even greater speed. This is twice the registers of Intel's latest Xeons.
That's much of the reason why the A8 processor in the iPhone 6 is basically as fast* as Samsung S5, despite having half as many cores and running at a vastly slower clock rate (for higher energy efficiency).
Processor design just isn't Samsung's core competency." src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
*Only in multi-threaded tasks. In single-threaded tasks, the iPhone 5s, 6 and 6 Plus absolutely smoke Samsung and all others.
I'll own not being up on the 64-bit ARM instruction set advantages (thx for the 30k-foot overview). This doesn't sound like a 64-bit argument as much as it's an argument for the latest ARM architecture, and 64-bit processing is thrown in.
Still, I have yet to see anyone do something useful on an iPhone 5s that I wish my Nexus 4 could do, and I use both daily. Performance parity is there. Battery life parity is there. Google Now responds at least as fast Siri. The 64b ARM architecture does not seem to be any advantage at all, in practice.
I'd be interested in any use cases I'm missing here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
You know, you have to have a fuckload of intellectual dishonesty to pretend not to see my point. Google had been hyping Glass as the next big thing, in every single capacity, until it was silently launched, thrown on the Play Store, then we never heard a peep from Google about that product again. They swept it under the rug and moved on to "Android Wear" after creating countless "conceptual" hype videos for Glass, after every Google exec/employee pitched Glass in every single sentence, wore Glass at every single presentation, etc. Now it's released, and Google is pretending it doesn't exist, because they have an inability to commit to anything. You think that's normal? You think Apple would have gotten away with that?
What about other (expensive) products, like the Chromebook Pixel? Google's answer to the Macbook Pro, which costs just as much? Why was that launched, and then never updated? Stop pretending as if you have no idea what I'm talking about. If Google really was confident about their products, they would stand behind them and support them. If they really thought Glass was the next big thing fit for consumers, they should have produced them in mass quantities and had a big launch. But no, they "beta test" products on suckers, throw shit at the wall, see how the wing blows, and hedge their bets. Google was driving Glass down everyone's throats barely 6 months ago, attacking and mocking anyone who questioned the privacy implications, and yet they didnt have the conviction to follow-through with the product, proving how little honesty they have in terms of claiming to believe in their products. If you're fine with companies operating like that, that's great.
Intellectual dishonesty? Please. Like nobody f's with anyone else on this forum, including you.
Anyway, that's just how Google operates. There's only one tech company that's followed around like a religion, and that's Apple. Apple cannot afford too many big mistakes, so they do less, and they do it with greater product success consistency.
The reason Google gets a pass for failure is because that's what innovation looks like, and people don't mind seeing it if they're getting a good experience from the products and services that don't fail. Apple fails at innovation too, and they go back to the drawing board just like Google. The difference is that Apple doesn't let anyone see the failures that are part of an innovative process -- they keep it in the white box until a week before release. That's a different experience, and it works for Apple and its customers.
Glass certainly didn't live up to Google's vision, but it's not hidden. It's available, supported, and moving forward. It was covered at I/O. Google has chosen not to market it, and I think everyone here would agree that Google knows "more" about their customers than any other tech company (for better or for worse). Why would they pour more money into marketing a product when they don't expect an ROI? At one point it seemed feasible, and they were incorrect. So what?
The alternative is something like Microsoft's "Bing it on" campaign, where they went all-in on a product, they had to know it didn't keep up, but they moved ahead with head-to-head marketing anyway. The few customers they did manage to convert were very expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup
Quite simple, really. Google is much more public about its R&D projects than Apple. People get carried away with Google's talk about its projects, without taking the time to dig into the details. So Google flourishes because the vast majority of people don't exercise simple critical thinking.
Yeah, that's about right. Apple and Google have a different approach to energizing their users. People are different. Go figure.
Comments
Second point - What matters is not that you get there first, but that you get there first with what really matters.
Third Point - Eric is no longer scared of Steve.
^
your comment is laughable.
GOOGLE CEO until 20111, that 'll be another 18097 years! wow Google 2.0 is really into life expectancy enhancing technologies.
So android users pay top money for a shity phone with free to use software. I pay good money and respect Apple!
Soon 60% of all apple products will be made in the usa! Green data centres and recycle products!
Google is basically a parasitic tick that has spread from one host to another and gorged themselves with vast amounts of money by sucking the lifeblood of personal information out of their hosts and selling it to the highest bidder. With the advent of mobility and curated application ecosystems Google saw their "host pool" drying up so they created their own farming system to grow their own hosts. This was called Android and like every parasitic move that preceded it they "harvested" ideas and feed for their livestock from others in the marketplace who had gone to great expense to create valuable things on their own.
With Apple you pay them for a shiny new product that they went to great expense to create. You hand them your money and they hand you an iThingy that makes you smile.
With Google they lure you in with a "free" email tool and search engine and in-turn you allow them to attach a tap into your personal information and behavioral history which they can in turn sell for profit to many other folks who want to help you empty your wallet.
Both strategies make money - no doubt. Which one you are more comfortable with and want to support is up to you. In the end your wallet is a little lighter either way.
I do not know as I am not a computer engineer. However it would appear to make a great deal of difference as the 64 bit dual core chip and 1gb RAM is faster than quad core chips with double the RAM and twice the clock speed.
I love how Samsung slavishly copying the trade dress and iconic elements of the iPhone designs as well as their interface and graphical elements is merely "using irreducibly obvious design elements", but Apple making a phone with a larger screen is somehow copying Samsung's "innovation"
Since 1970 Budweiser has had an aluminum body that bends almost as easy in your pocket as an iP6. We could either debate that Apple stole Budweiser IP for using an aluminum housing or we can debate that it is the precursor to a Apple curved screen phone.
64 or 128 gigs of storage.It has a 1.2MP front and 8MP rear camera both with BSI and fast lenses
You know,i can do all experiment with my Iphone 6 ,because i got iphone 6 at no cost from my wallet from below link i found in youtube video description as Apple giving away iphone 6 to only residents of USA but valid email submission required:-
The reason Android has succeeded has been really thanks to Apple and despite the executive corporate buffoonery of people like Schmidt. Apple's lack of hardware choices, lack of software customization, and embarrassing gaffes going back to antenna gate to the latest embarrassment of easily bent phones and firmware updates bricking the phones are a boon for the competition, mainly Android.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. Apple wasn't able to monopolize the entire global cell phone market, what a fucking embarrassing failure of the a company.
And you know, Android's success obviously has NOTHING to do with cost, the fact that you can buy a $70 phone off contract on the most popylated countries on the planet, or the fact that Android is used for free by nearly every SINGLE OEM that isn't Apple. Yeah, it's all down to "embarrassing gaffes" and the utter incompetence of the complete imbeciles of Apple, who can't do a fucking thing right to save their lives. If only you would have emailed them with directions, Android wouldn't have gotten off the ground. Maybe it's not too late, and you can still save the company from complete demise.
(It's fucking astounding if you actually believe a single word you said. The fact that you used antenna gate as a reason is evidence enough of either your insanity, or the fact that you're a filthy troll)
This is Apple’s 5.5” iPhone with a full HD 1920 x 1080 IPS display. The phone runs iOS 8 and it has an anodized aluminum body available in silver, space gray or gold. It’s just 7.1mm thin to offset otherwise large,pablet dimensions and it’s a 6 ounce unibody design with the 2915 mAh battery sealed inside.The iPhone 6 Plus runs on Apple’s dual core 1.4GHz A8 64 bit CPU with 1 gig of RAM and your choice of 16,64 or 128 gigs of storage.It has a 1.2MP front and 8MP rear camera both with BSI and fast lenses
You know,i can do all experiment with my Iphone 6 ,because i got iphone 6 at no cost from my wallet from below link i found in youtube video description as Apple giving away iphone 6 to only residents of USA but valid email submission required:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1-j36eY1Ik
Google is basically a parasitic tick that has spread from one host to another and gorged themselves with vast amounts of money by sucking the lifeblood of personal information out of their hosts and selling it to the highest bidder. With the advent of mobility and curated application ecosystems Google saw their "host pool" drying up so they created their own farming system to grow their own hosts. This was called Android and like every parasitic move that preceded it they "harvested" ideas and feed for their livestock from others in the marketplace who had gone to great expense to create valuable things on their own.
With Apple you pay them for a shiny new product that they went to great expense to create. You hand them your money and they hand you an iThingy that makes you smile.
With Google they lure you in with a "free" email tool and search engine and in-turn you allow them to attach a tap into your personal information and behavioral history which they can in turn sell for profit to many other folks who want to help you empty your wallet.
Both strategies make money - no doubt. Which one you are more comfortable with and want to support is up to you. In the end your wallet is a little lighter either way.
..probably the best description of Google that I've ever read. Well done.
Google is basically a parasitic tick that has spread from one host to another and gorged themselves with vast amounts of money by sucking the lifeblood of personal information out of their hosts and selling it to the highest bidder......
The truth of this made me all itchy just reading it.
I need some i-Benadryl.
Did you notice Rosenberg's body language during the entire interview? Or how he blinked constantly when answering questions? He doesn't believe what he says, he's just sucking up to Schmidt-kopf. Schmidt is a lot more polished at deception.
How can you make the same amount of money with lesser profits?
Of course, 64 bits registers aren't needed for that, but they do make addressing 128 GB of storage more efficient. The 64-bit ARM instruction set also supports twice the registers (32 integer and 32 floating point) for even greater speed. This is twice the registers of Intel's latest Xeons.
That's much of the reason why the A8 processor in the iPhone 6 is basically as fast* as Samsung S5, despite having half as many cores and running at a vastly slower clock rate (for higher energy efficiency).
Processor design just isn't Samsung's core competency.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
*Only in multi-threaded tasks. In single-threaded tasks, the iPhone 5s, 6 and 6 Plus absolutely smoke Samsung and all others.
I'll own not being up on the 64-bit ARM instruction set advantages (thx for the 30k-foot overview). This doesn't sound like a 64-bit argument as much as it's an argument for the latest ARM architecture, and 64-bit processing is thrown in.
Still, I have yet to see anyone do something useful on an iPhone 5s that I wish my Nexus 4 could do, and I use both daily. Performance parity is there. Battery life parity is there. Google Now responds at least as fast Siri. The 64b ARM architecture does not seem to be any advantage at all, in practice.
I'd be interested in any use cases I'm missing here.
You know, you have to have a fuckload of intellectual dishonesty to pretend not to see my point. Google had been hyping Glass as the next big thing, in every single capacity, until it was silently launched, thrown on the Play Store, then we never heard a peep from Google about that product again. They swept it under the rug and moved on to "Android Wear" after creating countless "conceptual" hype videos for Glass, after every Google exec/employee pitched Glass in every single sentence, wore Glass at every single presentation, etc. Now it's released, and Google is pretending it doesn't exist, because they have an inability to commit to anything. You think that's normal? You think Apple would have gotten away with that?
What about other (expensive) products, like the Chromebook Pixel? Google's answer to the Macbook Pro, which costs just as much? Why was that launched, and then never updated? Stop pretending as if you have no idea what I'm talking about. If Google really was confident about their products, they would stand behind them and support them. If they really thought Glass was the next big thing fit for consumers, they should have produced them in mass quantities and had a big launch. But no, they "beta test" products on suckers, throw shit at the wall, see how the wing blows, and hedge their bets. Google was driving Glass down everyone's throats barely 6 months ago, attacking and mocking anyone who questioned the privacy implications, and yet they didnt have the conviction to follow-through with the product, proving how little honesty they have in terms of claiming to believe in their products. If you're fine with companies operating like that, that's great.
Intellectual dishonesty? Please. Like nobody f's with anyone else on this forum, including you.
Anyway, that's just how Google operates. There's only one tech company that's followed around like a religion, and that's Apple. Apple cannot afford too many big mistakes, so they do less, and they do it with greater product success consistency.
The reason Google gets a pass for failure is because that's what innovation looks like, and people don't mind seeing it if they're getting a good experience from the products and services that don't fail. Apple fails at innovation too, and they go back to the drawing board just like Google. The difference is that Apple doesn't let anyone see the failures that are part of an innovative process -- they keep it in the white box until a week before release. That's a different experience, and it works for Apple and its customers.
Glass certainly didn't live up to Google's vision, but it's not hidden. It's available, supported, and moving forward. It was covered at I/O. Google has chosen not to market it, and I think everyone here would agree that Google knows "more" about their customers than any other tech company (for better or for worse). Why would they pour more money into marketing a product when they don't expect an ROI? At one point it seemed feasible, and they were incorrect. So what?
The alternative is something like Microsoft's "Bing it on" campaign, where they went all-in on a product, they had to know it didn't keep up, but they moved ahead with head-to-head marketing anyway. The few customers they did manage to convert were very expensive.
Quite simple, really. Google is much more public about its R&D projects than Apple. People get carried away with Google's talk about its projects, without taking the time to dig into the details. So Google flourishes because the vast majority of people don't exercise simple critical thinking.
Yeah, that's about right. Apple and Google have a different approach to energizing their users. People are different. Go figure.