Of course Google is a threat. They are willing to sell phones at a loss to undercut Apple. It would be like Apple giving search ads away for free.
Google had $11 billion in mobile revenue in 2014.
Facebook is forecasted to have $16 billion in 2015.
Facebook has already surpassed Google.
Only 16% of Google's revenue comes from mobile. The rest is in desktop that is shrinking every year.
Great data. Sounds like a pretty dramatic fall off a cliff for Google if only Apple could strangle that ad revenue from iOS. Perhaps someone should come up with an add on to iOS that works like Ad Block purely for anything to do with Google ads. Starve the f*****s of iOS revenue, it would truly be payback.
What could Google possibly do to harm Apple and why would they want to?
Are you joking?
Of course Google is a threat. They are willing to sell phones at a loss to undercut Apple. It would be like Apple giving search ads away for free.
Google had $11 billion in mobile revenue in 2014.
Facebook is forecasted to have $16 billion in 2015.
Facebook has already surpassed Google.
Only 16% of Google's revenue comes from mobile. The rest is in desktop that is shrinking every year.
Has selling phones at a loss helped in any way? There's years of sales to prove that it doesn't work so that point is moot, and they no longer sell phones at a loss making you wrong.
DED isn't an accurate source to cite while trying to suggest why Android was created. he wasnt in the room.
You know, @Gatorguy will use anything if it suits his flawed logic. DED is the source of all mis-information in the universe when he says something against Google, but he is a very reliable source when he mentions something that suits @Gatorguy's agenda.
I put him on block, but the sheer number of people he baits means that I still do read all his posts, which is really frustrating. I just wish he stops posting here. It's a real f'in pain!
In my opinion the "algorithm" is only a (very) small part of what you need to run a search engine. The hard part is the infrastructure (tens of data-center in the world, all of them connected, synchronized and mutually redundant) and the hidden private software that continuosly crawls, stores and updates a huge dataset. Probably in the world only Apple has the financial resources to compete with Google in this field, but it would be crazy to waste billion of dollars in such a non-profitable way.
How is cutting the head of your competitor and providing data to Siri (or whatever ) that provides added value to all Apple's ecosystem a waste! Is Apple not making money from their phone?
I didn't say the harm wasn't a problem. I said there was no harm in the first place, nor is it Google's intention to cause any. Feel free to disagree with actual pertinent examples of that harm that you believe Google is causing Apple so that we can discuss it. I didn't see any in that post.
Teenager?? LOL! While Google may think I'm more than 10 years younger than I really am I don't think I've been carding age for quite some time.
The guy is being fair...
You're acting super childish with your line of "baited" questioning.
As they said... it's obvious they are in competition. It's obvious that eaches success is directly correlated to the other's loss.
Pertinent examples? Indeedy!
1) Home integration is one of the HUGE new frontiers. Google and Apple both know this. Both are vying hard for their particular protocol to become the standard which all home automation relies. The winner will clearly get a big reward in the form of ecosystem lock. After all, wouldn't you be less likely to switch mobile platforms if it meant you could no longer remotely manage your home?
2) Wearables is the other REALLY BIG market. An electronic item more intimate than my smartphone??? Hard to conceive of a few years back- now in transition. This too, will create more sticky customers
There are a few examples. I'm sure you catch the drift.
It is 100% FULLY Google's intention to erode loyalty and entice iOS users to their platform. Duh. Obviously they want that. Why wouldn't they? Are you saying Google WANTS to fail?? That's what the absurd statement "it's not Google's intention to cause any harm to Apple" reads like. As if Google does NOT want to gain users (BY TAKING THEM FROM APPLE) with their new services such as unlimited photo storage in the cloud, etc. Lol. So..... if Google does NOT want to harm Apple by taking their customers, why in your opinion, are they going to such Herculean efforts? So much extra money, they simply "feel" like helping out competition with no advantage to themselves? Please.
The guy is being fair...
You're acting super childish with your line of "baited" questioning.
As they said... it's obvious they are in competition. It's obvious that eaches success is directly correlated to the other's loss.
Pertinent examples? Indeedy!
1) Home integration is one of the HUGE new frontiers. Google and Apple both know this. Both are vying hard for their particular protocol to become the standard which all home automation relies. The winner will clearly get a big reward in the form of ecosystem lock. After all, wouldn't you be less likely to switch mobile platforms if it meant you could no longer remotely manage your home?
2) Wearables is the other REALLY BIG market. An electronic item more intimate than my smartphone??? Hard to conceive of a few years back- now in transition. This too, will create more sticky customers
There are a few examples. I'm sure you catch the drift.
It is 100% FULLY Google's intention to erode loyalty and entice iOS users to their platform. Duh. Obviously they want that. Why wouldn't they? Are you saying Google WANTS to fail?? That's what the absurd statement "it's not Google's intention to cause any harm to Apple" reads like. As if Google does NOT want to gain users (BY TAKING THEM FROM APPLE) with their new services such as unlimited photo storage in the cloud, etc. Lol. So..... if Google does NOT want to harm Apple by taking their customers, why in your opinion, are they going to such Herculean efforts? So much extra money, they simply "feel" like helping out competition with no advantage to themselves? Please.
From that perspective I think I understand why you and one or two other commenters might believe Google is out to get Apple. So just to be certain your opinion is that any company offering a service or product that Apple also offers is hurting them. If that's accurate I get what your point is.
I just don't personally take that position. I don't believe every competing company, and that includes Google, has a target pinned on Apple's back, out to cause them harm. From where I'm standing Apple is doing darn well and tho they could be even richer and more powerful if they can eliminate all competitors I don't think all those other companies are out to get 'em.
Maybe Apple IS out to destroy everyone else and take over the planet, but I don't buy it any more than everyone out to destroy Apple.
From that perspective I think I understand why you and one or two other commenters might believe Google is out to get Apple. So just to be certain your opinion is that any company offering a service or product that Apple also offers is hurting them. If that's accurate I get what your point is.
I just don't personally take that position. I don't believe every competing company, and that includes Google, has a target pinned on Apple's back, out to cause them harm. From where I'm standing Apple is doing darn well and tho they could be even richer and more powerful if they can eliminate all competitors I don't think all those other companies are out to get 'em.
Maybe Apple IS out to destroy everyone else and take over the planet, but I don't buy it any more than everyone out to destroy Apple.
Thank you for taking the time & having the intellect to understand where my opinion is coming from!
I see your point as well... Perhaps the issue lies in the word "hurting". On a personal level, we equate that with injurious damage on one's person. That doesn't translate well to: "well, you see... one company made 20% less profit, while the other made 20% more". One could easily think: "yeah... but both still have profits in the billions... I don't see the injury". I suppose (cumbersome as this may sound), if we replaced "hurting" entirely with saying: "understanding that one company cannot dominate the entire market, it is still the primary goal of both Apple & Google to put their full efforts and resources into claiming absolutely the largest slice of that pie that they possibly can... thus diminishing the other's share by the same margin", we both could agree?
Sounds like the nuance is: whilst we both understand that fact, one of us considers taking a bigger chunk "hurting" the other company, & the other does not. That's definitely putting a fine point on it! Haha.... him who agrees with me 90%, I'll consider my ally.
The more I think about, the more I agree that "hurting" is FAR too humanistic a term to adequately describe business rivalries. For example: while Pepsi & Coke want to eat into the other's shares... when a "taste test" type of commercial comes out, CLEARLY depicting one better than the other, in an attempt to directly take sales from them, you don't often hear: "wow, Coke is really out to hurt Pepsi". Lol.
I would defy chalk this up to verbiage misunderstanding.
They need not boot them off iOS, Apple just needs to not make them the default search engine...something Google has been anticipating.
I would expect Apple to make the choice of the better search provider as their default rather than picking whoever is willing to pay them more. Assuming Apple stays true the user experience is more important than money. If they're lucky they can even do both!
From that perspective I think I understand why you and one or two other commenters might believe Google is out to get Apple. So just to be certain your opinion is that any company offering a service or product that Apple also offers is hurting them. If that's accurate I get what your point is.
I just don't personally take that position. I don't believe every competing company, and that includes Google, has a target pinned on Apple's back, out to cause them harm. From where I'm standing Apple is doing darn well and tho they could be even richer and more powerful if they can eliminate all competitors I don't think all those other companies are out to get 'em.
Maybe Apple IS out to destroy everyone else and take over the planet, but I don't buy it any more than everyone out to destroy Apple.
Google is out to harm Apple and others. That's why it offer its services for "free".
Apple isn't out to destroy competition because Apple still charges a premium for its products/services. However that premium offers outstanding value.
From that perspective I think I understand why you and one or two other commenters might believe Google is out to get Apple. So just to be certain your opinion is that any company offering a service or product that Apple also offers is hurting them. If that's accurate I get what your point is.
I just don't personally take that position. I don't believe every competing company, and that includes Google, has a target pinned on Apple's back, out to cause them harm. From where I'm standing Apple is doing darn well and tho they could be even richer and more powerful if they can eliminate all competitors I don't think all those other companies are out to get 'em.
Maybe Apple IS out to destroy everyone else and take over the planet, but I don't buy it any more than everyone out to destroy Apple.
Google is out to harm Apple and others. That's why it offer its services for "free".
Apple isn't out to destroy competition because Apple still charges a premium for its products/services. However that premium offers outstanding value.
Are those free services also available to iOS users? If they were only available to Android users you'd have a point but it's not. Apple is happy to allow Google services onto its ecosystem because it makes switching from Android that much simpler.
Are those free services also available to iOS users? If they were only available to Android users you'd have a point but it's not. Apple is happy to allow Google services onto its ecosystem because it makes switching from Android that much simpler.
The services are free but Apple's competing services are not. So for every person that uses free services, that's one less paying for Apple services.
Are those free services also available to iOS users? If they were only available to Android users you'd have a point but it's not. Apple is happy to allow Google services onto its ecosystem because it makes switching from Android that much simpler.
The services are free but Apple's competing services are not. So for every person that uses free services, that's one less paying for Apple services.
I see your point, but the initial hardware sale is what's most important. If a good amount of the switchers start using Apple's paid services then that move to allow Google's free services proved fruitful.
Comments
Can you not see the Powered by Google logos at all?
^ Err, no? Yahoo is powered by Bing and DuckDuckGo uses their own crawler along with some other indexes and search engines, but not Google. Where have you got this idea from?
Great data. Sounds like a pretty dramatic fall off a cliff for Google if only Apple could strangle that ad revenue from iOS. Perhaps someone should come up with an add on to iOS that works like Ad Block purely for anything to do with Google ads. Starve the f*****s of iOS revenue, it would truly be payback.
The map app wasn't Google's. It was Apple's app using Google's data, so how could Google upgrade an app that wasn't their's?
Has selling phones at a loss helped in any way? There's years of sales to prove that it doesn't work so that point is moot, and they no longer sell phones at a loss making you wrong.
DED isn't an accurate source to cite while trying to suggest why Android was created. he wasnt in the room.
You know, @Gatorguy will use anything if it suits his flawed logic. DED is the source of all mis-information in the universe when he says something against Google, but he is a very reliable source when he mentions something that suits @Gatorguy's agenda.
I put him on block, but the sheer number of people he baits means that I still do read all his posts, which is really frustrating. I just wish he stops posting here. It's a real f'in pain!
In my opinion the "algorithm" is only a (very) small part of what you need to run a search engine. The hard part is the infrastructure (tens of data-center in the world, all of them connected, synchronized and mutually redundant) and the hidden private software that continuosly crawls, stores and updates a huge dataset. Probably in the world only Apple has the financial resources to compete with Google in this field, but it would be crazy to waste billion of dollars in such a non-profitable way.
How is cutting the head of your competitor and providing data to Siri (or whatever ) that provides added value to all Apple's ecosystem a waste! Is Apple not making money from their phone?
The guy is being fair...
You're acting super childish with your line of "baited" questioning.
As they said... it's obvious they are in competition. It's obvious that eaches success is directly correlated to the other's loss.
Pertinent examples? Indeedy!
1) Home integration is one of the HUGE new frontiers. Google and Apple both know this. Both are vying hard for their particular protocol to become the standard which all home automation relies. The winner will clearly get a big reward in the form of ecosystem lock. After all, wouldn't you be less likely to switch mobile platforms if it meant you could no longer remotely manage your home?
2) Wearables is the other REALLY BIG market. An electronic item more intimate than my smartphone??? Hard to conceive of a few years back- now in transition. This too, will create more sticky customers
There are a few examples. I'm sure you catch the drift.
It is 100% FULLY Google's intention to erode loyalty and entice iOS users to their platform. Duh. Obviously they want that. Why wouldn't they? Are you saying Google WANTS to fail?? That's what the absurd statement "it's not Google's intention to cause any harm to Apple" reads like. As if Google does NOT want to gain users (BY TAKING THEM FROM APPLE) with their new services such as unlimited photo storage in the cloud, etc. Lol. So..... if Google does NOT want to harm Apple by taking their customers, why in your opinion, are they going to such Herculean efforts? So much extra money, they simply "feel" like helping out competition with no advantage to themselves? Please.
I just don't personally take that position. I don't believe every competing company, and that includes Google, has a target pinned on Apple's back, out to cause them harm. From where I'm standing Apple is doing darn well and tho they could be even richer and more powerful if they can eliminate all competitors I don't think all those other companies are out to get 'em.
Maybe Apple IS out to destroy everyone else and take over the planet, but I don't buy it any more than everyone out to destroy Apple.
They need not boot them off iOS, Apple just needs to not make them the default search engine...something Google has been anticipating.
Thank you for taking the time & having the intellect to understand where my opinion is coming from!
I see your point as well... Perhaps the issue lies in the word "hurting". On a personal level, we equate that with injurious damage on one's person. That doesn't translate well to: "well, you see... one company made 20% less profit, while the other made 20% more". One could easily think: "yeah... but both still have profits in the billions... I don't see the injury". I suppose (cumbersome as this may sound), if we replaced "hurting" entirely with saying: "understanding that one company cannot dominate the entire market, it is still the primary goal of both Apple & Google to put their full efforts and resources into claiming absolutely the largest slice of that pie that they possibly can... thus diminishing the other's share by the same margin", we both could agree?
Sounds like the nuance is: whilst we both understand that fact, one of us considers taking a bigger chunk "hurting" the other company, & the other does not. That's definitely putting a fine point on it! Haha.... him who agrees with me 90%, I'll consider my ally.
The more I think about, the more I agree that "hurting" is FAR too humanistic a term to adequately describe business rivalries. For example: while Pepsi & Coke want to eat into the other's shares... when a "taste test" type of commercial comes out, CLEARLY depicting one better than the other, in an attempt to directly take sales from them, you don't often hear: "wow, Coke is really out to hurt Pepsi". Lol.
I would defy chalk this up to verbiage misunderstanding.
Google is out to harm Apple and others. That's why it offer its services for "free".
Apple isn't out to destroy competition because Apple still charges a premium for its products/services. However that premium offers outstanding value.
Are those free services also available to iOS users? If they were only available to Android users you'd have a point but it's not. Apple is happy to allow Google services onto its ecosystem because it makes switching from Android that much simpler.
I see your point, but the initial hardware sale is what's most important. If a good amount of the switchers start using Apple's paid services then that move to allow Google's free services proved fruitful.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/186681/apple-enables-third-party-content-blockers-for-safari-in-ios-9/40#post_2734715