Android makes Google no money. The only company that makes good money if Android proliferates like crazy is Microsoft, since it gets royalties every time an Android device is sold.
The only way Google can make money as a result of Android is to use it to monitor your behavior and show you advertisements.
Google doesn't make any money out of search. Google makes money out of ADVERTISING, that's its "one monopoly product that makes incredible money". Advertising is responsible for 96% of Google's revenue.
Google in many ways looks like Microsoft of the early 2000s. It has lots of bright people, lots of money, and has an enormous range of products that make no money while being sustained by one monopoly product that makes incredible money. It was lucky enough to be the Last Big Thing before Apple hit top gear and it's desperate to find the Next Big Thing before it falls behind.
In its approach to products, however, Google is more accurately the ANTI-Apple. Apple starts from "what do customers need?" and ruthlessly eliminates everything but the purest core product that meets that customer need. Apple focuses on a tiny number of things that people want and does them as perfectly as it can within the time it has at a price that no competitor can match.
Google on the other hand starts from "what cool shit can we do and how can we make money out of it?" "Hey employees, spend 20% of your time brainstorming cool stuff, we'll see if we can use that shit". Google then dribbles ALL OF THAT SHIT out - not launches, dribbles - in broken half-finished beta versions and then waits to see if anything works. Google has no product focus and just has a nonstop conveyor belt of "cool shit" projects coming out the door - Answers, Jotbot, Jaiku, Notebook, Sidewiki, Gears, Wave, Buzz, etc etc etc - that die because they are technically nifty solutions to problems that nobody actually has. Even when something potentially cool like Google+ comes off the production line it's fighting an uphill battle from day one - is fundamentally crippled - because no thought has been given to how people will actually use it.
Court documents revealed that Apple had offered to licence its patents to Samsung - allowing Samsung to produce perfectly-legal Apple-licenced phones and tablets - for $30 per phone and $40 per tablet.
Well yeah, why not? Apple wanted to sell a product called iPad in a country where another company already had a trademark on the name. That company reached a court-mediated settlement under which Apple agreed to pay that company 60 million dollars for the right to use the name "iPad" in the region where the name was already trademarked.
It sets you apart from everyone else. It says you not only had $1,500 to plunk down to be part of the “explorer” program, but that Google deemed you special enough to warrant inclusion (not everyone who wanted Glass got it; you had to be selected).
I'd punch him in the face just for writing that, let alone wearing Google Glass.
Apple desperately needs to stay relevant with its continues to drop behind in market share worldwide
On the contrary, Apple has nearly 100% market share in one specific market - people who have money and who are happy to spend it. Of course Android totally dominates Apple in the "poor freeloading pirate" market, which I'm sure has Apple very very worried.
But the insecticide companies say there must be a different explanation, so that's settled then. A massive multinational chemical company wouldn't lie.
There's no difference between Richard Dawkins and any other religious leader, they're all just peddling their own ideas about the nature of things, when in actual fact they have nothing but faith and belief that they are right, without any empirical evidence support their claims.
I was going to post a really articulate and reasoned response here, but I figure it's much more efficient use of my time to just post: you're a fucking retard.
Slashdot Mirror
Android makes Google no money. The only company that makes good money if Android proliferates like crazy is Microsoft, since it gets royalties every time an Android device is sold.
The only way Google can make money as a result of Android is to use it to monitor your behavior and show you advertisements.
Google doesn't make any money out of search. Google makes money out of ADVERTISING, that's its "one monopoly product that makes incredible money". Advertising is responsible for 96% of Google's revenue.
Jenny McCarthy wouldn't lie to me!
Google in many ways looks like Microsoft of the early 2000s. It has lots of bright people, lots of money, and has an enormous range of products that make no money while being sustained by one monopoly product that makes incredible money. It was lucky enough to be the Last Big Thing before Apple hit top gear and it's desperate to find the Next Big Thing before it falls behind.
In its approach to products, however, Google is more accurately the ANTI-Apple. Apple starts from "what do customers need?" and ruthlessly eliminates everything but the purest core product that meets that customer need. Apple focuses on a tiny number of things that people want and does them as perfectly as it can within the time it has at a price that no competitor can match.
Google on the other hand starts from "what cool shit can we do and how can we make money out of it?" "Hey employees, spend 20% of your time brainstorming cool stuff, we'll see if we can use that shit". Google then dribbles ALL OF THAT SHIT out - not launches, dribbles - in broken half-finished beta versions and then waits to see if anything works. Google has no product focus and just has a nonstop conveyor belt of "cool shit" projects coming out the door - Answers, Jotbot, Jaiku, Notebook, Sidewiki, Gears, Wave, Buzz, etc etc etc - that die because they are technically nifty solutions to problems that nobody actually has. Even when something potentially cool like Google+ comes off the production line it's fighting an uphill battle from day one - is fundamentally crippled - because no thought has been given to how people will actually use it.
Hell, I still get productive work done on a G4 PowerMac. 400MHz CPU, 768Mb RAM.
it was a joke :)
So how much did Samsung offer to pay then?
Oh that's right, nothing - it just infringed them without paying.
Court documents revealed that Apple had offered to licence its patents to Samsung - allowing Samsung to produce perfectly-legal Apple-licenced phones and tablets - for $30 per phone and $40 per tablet.
Samsung rejected the offer.
So then you agree with this case as well?
Apple pays $60 million to settle China iPad trademark dispute
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/02/us-apple-china-idUSBRE86104320120702 [reuters.com]
Well yeah, why not? Apple wanted to sell a product called iPad in a country where another company already had a trademark on the name. That company reached a court-mediated settlement under which Apple agreed to pay that company 60 million dollars for the right to use the name "iPad" in the region where the name was already trademarked.
What's there to disagree with?
That they were willing to try to make a deal is a historical fact. Records of the offers have been entered as evidence at the Samsung trial.
Samsung has been nuked in the courts to the tune of a bajillion dollars in fines so far, so now it's trying to work out a payment plan.
Another nail in the coffin of so-called "knowledge". How can you trust a belief system that CHANGES all the time?
That has any past connection, through staff or projects, with the NSA is now about as popular as cancer.
I have actively avoided visits to the USA in the past ten years. Tradeshow? Regional conference? Send someone else.
I'd punch him in the face just for writing that, let alone wearing Google Glass.
It's like being anally raped, AND choked to death at the same time!
Instagram: a business unit of Facebook
If you worry about how much it costs, you are not Apple's target market.
Apple desperately needs to stay relevant with its continues to drop behind in market share worldwide
On the contrary, Apple has nearly 100% market share in one specific market - people who have money and who are happy to spend it. Of course Android totally dominates Apple in the "poor freeloading pirate" market, which I'm sure has Apple very very worried.
Sweet FA sets us apart from all the others. We're just the latest and most successful members of the genus homo.
No it was just time. And you're still a fucking retard.
But the insecticide companies say there must be a different explanation, so that's settled then. A massive multinational chemical company wouldn't lie.
I bought an iPad last year instead of replacing my laptop. No regrets whatsoever.
There's no difference between Richard Dawkins and any other religious leader, they're all just peddling their own ideas about the nature of things, when in actual fact they have nothing but faith and belief that they are right, without any empirical evidence support their claims.
I was going to post a really articulate and reasoned response here, but I figure it's much more efficient use of my time to just post: you're a fucking retard.
The figures look a lot different when you include iPad. That's the sort of PC people are turning to these days.
I don't know anyone who has bought a new PC in the past year but I know probably 20 people who've bought iPads.