steven n.
About
- Username
- steven n.
- Joined
- Visits
- 119
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 1,240
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 1,229
Reactions
-
Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen dies at 65
I think this is myopic in many ways. While Microsoft has a horrible design sense (and I found them overly ruthless in some of their theft of ideas), it is hard to underestimate the impact their business model had on the tech industry. Building a "just very good at getting a huge number of customers to buy a few standard products over and over again" is no easy feat and it requires a reasonably solid product available to millions at a price point allowing mass adoption.retrogusto said:The reports saying how much he contributed to modern computing surprise me a little. I think of Microsoft’s relationship to technology like McDonalds’ relationship to cuisine—sure, they have been innovative over the years, but not in terms of coming up with outstanding breakthrough products, just very good at getting a huge number of customers to buy a few standard products over and over again. It would be interesting to see an in-depth DED piece (is that redundant?) covering significant MS innovations over the years, if such an article is possible.
-
Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen dies at 65
I grew up with him in the forefront of tech. Him, Balmer, Gates and Jobs. 2 are gone... Darn... I am old.
-
Google's Pixel 3 is a third strike for hapless HTC and LG
Fact. Given the amount of hardware I have gotten from Google at past Google I/O because it ws the only way to unload it. Unless your name is Samsung (and perhaps Huawei), there is little to no profit in partnering with Google. And Google is doing worse than most of their partners. Profit wise on hardware. Lots and lots and lots of financial analysis out there and it is hard to find a positive one.gatorguy said:
Opinion or fact? And where's that Android Central link you were getting on LG building the Pixel 3?steven n. said:
...concentrate on services and software and leave hardware to companies that understand a little bit about it instead of loosing $$$$$ on inventory over and over and over and over and over again.franklinjackcon said:
And that is the wrong lens to use because Pixel is not just a standalone line of business from Google's perspectivesteven n. said:
No, the article is looking at the Pixel line from a business lens and NOT just an Apple lens. Through this lens, the Pixel line of phones is an abject failure.franklinjackcon said:This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears. Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.
/s
I am guessing you know how to use a search engine. Use it to do your own research.
-
Google's Pixel 3 is a third strike for hapless HTC and LG
Based on being a good allocation of Google's resources. After R/D, tooling, verification, testing... Google will be lucky to make ($200) -> ($100) on each Pixel phone sold. BTW: The () indicate Google LOOSING money.rogifan_new said:
Failure based on what? Everyone here says that market share isn’t an important metric. Based on how a Google is pricing these phones I have to imagine they’re making decent margins on them. Same with Microsoft and Surface.steven n. said:
No, the article is looking at the Pixel line from a business lens and NOT just an Apple lens. Through this lens, the Pixel line of phones is an abject failure.franklinjackcon said:This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears. Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.
-
Google's Pixel 3 is a third strike for hapless HTC and LG
It's absolutely the right lens to view the Pixel line through given Google's continual failure in trying to understand hardware. If it was only about "traffic", they would concentrate on services and software and leave hardware to companies that understand a little bit about it instead of loosing $$$$$ on inventory over and over and over and over and over again.franklinjackcon said:
And that is the wrong lens to use because Pixel is not just a standalone line of business from Google's perspectivesteven n. said:
No, the article is looking at the Pixel line from a business lens and NOT just an Apple lens. Through this lens, the Pixel line of phones is an abject failure.franklinjackcon said:This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears. Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.
