Froyo and Gingerbread devices support Activesync policies. Looking at the corporate world, I'm seeing several large multinationals move off of BES and Blackberries to alternative platforms, and that Android (especially HTC, as they are more recent with Android releases which mean better Exchange support) is the clear winner in all of these cases with the phones on order.
OTOH, the consultancy that I work for recently moved off legacy Exchange infrastructure onto Google Apps. This means even better integration with our Android phones.
You underestimate the amount of momentum in the smartphone market. As with MS software in the 90's and early 00's, you have platform lock-in due to third party apps. With i(phone/pad)OS and Android, you have the same in the AppStore/Market. This is significant and users will be unwilling to change platforms if most of their software investment is in a particular platform.
Nokia didn't change its business model, just that one part of its business outgrew and eclipsed all of the other parts. It was diversified a business to begin with (what can be called a conglomerate, examples include Mitsubishi and GE).
You said that companies don't deviate from their "castles". I said that's not true and stuck in an example.
Food is not McDonald's "castle", fast food is. McDonalds invested in Pret-A-Manger for a long time as a way to hedge against the up-and-coming Cafe/Coffee Shops that appeal to a market segment with higher growth and profit margins. Then the recession started in 2007, they expected that this market to fall through the floor (premium coffee is overpriced and everybody in the industry knows it), and promptly sold it to retreat back into their comfort zone of delivering fast food.http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2055600&cid=35633018#
Besides, the whole castle and moat analogy is extremely simplistic to the point of being laughable.
Ads are a stable, mature and expansive market, and is not prone to the type of paradigm shift that you see in the tech world. Google is an ad company that uses technology (primarily the Internet, and now also mobile phone systems) to deliver their ads. Android is far more valuable as a vehicle via which to deliver ads than it is as a product itself.
The ad market is undergoing a paradigm shift right now due to technology, which pretty much invalidated your first assertion. This is pre-Android as well before you start barking up the wrong tree again.
At no point did anybody argue that Google was abandoning their search empire. That doesn't mean that everything they do equates to zealously protecting their search business. Companies seek out growth areas to build new business, and they sometimes take a loss in the beginning to do so. How hard is that to understand?
McDonalds once owned a portfolio of brands to diversify their business into other areas of the food business. (Which they got rid of only in the past 2 years as a response to market conditions). The reason that food brands stay in the food business is mainly because the market is stable, mature and expansive, and is not prone to the type of paradigm shift that you see in the tech world.
Yawn.. 20 years ago, Nokia's primary revenue source wasn't mobile technologies. Look how far we've gone.
Microsoft has had many a good year riding on its Windows and Office monopolies, but that didn't stop them from diversification into entertainment with the Xbox.
Your conviction seems to be absolutely unwavering, as if you somehow was involved in the decision making process within Google on Android strategy. It is clear on anybody with an ounce of common sense that decision like these are multi-faceted, and that diversification is an extremely common strategy for companies that have found extreme success in one market, but are also completely reliant on this one market.
It also makes since as Microsoft has targeted Google with Bing for Google to counter with an offensive strategy against the Microsoft core products of Windows and Office. The only difference is that Google plans to bypass the current cycle in this strategy.
Mobile ads is only one slice of the pie. Smartphones as envisaged by Google is a new applications delivery platform. This is why the Google apps you get on Android is proprietary, and also why they use licensing of these Apps to ensure that carriers comply with their "vision".
Of course Google wants to protect their cash cow, who wouldn't? Mobile ad delivery is a uncertain market that doesn't seem to be bringing the same amount of interest or revenue as normal online ads, but Google would definitely want to protect that as it is an extension of their core business (at the moment).
However, our main discussion is diversification of Google's revenue stream. You said that Google's revenue from non-search is small. What you forgot is that it's growing as a phenomenal rate. Android market grew from $11m in revenues to $102m in revenue in the space of a year. No-one can say what the final figure would be in 2011, but you can be sure that either this year or next year Android Market would make itself noticed on Google's balance sheet.
Then we have Google Apps, which is a direct assault on Exchange. In a year or so, MS Office will be in the crosshairs. A year after that, Windows.
Of course Google doesn't expect the same amount of market dominance in these area as Microsoft, but you can see the trend for them to be build up significant presence in many key areas. It's not all about search - which was my original point.
Barriers of entry (what Bill is basically describing) is a concept they teach you in high school economics - which also has absolutely nothing to do with what Google is doing with Android right now.
Google already has a massive stranglehold on search. Android on the other hand is a way for them to deliver Google "cloud" services (of which search is only one aspect) so that they can start monetizing and diversifying their non-search income. They are making money through Checkout (via Market), and stuff like Google Apps for Business (via Android's seamless sync with Gmail and Calendar), etc. With the latter, it is a route for Google into the enterprise. I've just seen 3 companies I work with drop their legacy Exchange infrastructure for Google Apps.
What Google is doing is only defense if you subscribe to the best-type-of-defense-is-offence school of war. What Microsoft is doing with it's WP7 strategy OTOH is 100% defence.
To prove my case, look at what come carriers are doing shipping Bing as the default search provider. Google doesn't care one bit as they know the pie's growing, which is exactly what Android is about - baking a new pie.
The article, does, however, explain why Wall Street is broken as it is. Not surprising if you have a bunch of clueless dolts like Bill Gurley making recommendations.
But Safari is exposed to the wider internet, while UIWebView is only exposed to the site that the app dev has coded in. With Apple's leash on the app store, wouldn't it be more safe to enable Nitro on UIWebView compared to Safari on i(phone)OS?
Speeding is what is called a strict liability offence. It does not require the intent, or more specifically the mens rea. The court only needs to establish the act, or specifically the actus reus.
Did you read the whole page? The only (levelised) study that shows nuclear to be competitive it the UK study (and only by a relatively small margin). In everything else, nuclear trails on-shore wind.
You might not have notice it, but Huffington Post also has its own content, just like the The Guardian, or the Washington Post, or the LA Times. It may not be a full news operation, but its a significant proportion of content.
These papers make money through "gaming" search engines to land on pages full of advertisements.
Face it. People single out Huffington Post because they are so effective at cherry picking the syndicated news from a sensationalistic left-wing (for America) point of view. It not on the same level as Ehow or Kelkoo or Dooyoo, etc, and you pretend it is because it conflicts with your political stance.
They use syndicated news, and so does Forbes, Business Week and Breitbart.com. These are up there in the search results as well. In fact, even very large and reputable outlets use syndicated news. The major newspapers, for example, use AP to pool their stories.
Slashdot Mirror
4/10, the Krugman part gave it away really..
Froyo and Gingerbread devices support Activesync policies. Looking at the corporate world, I'm seeing several large multinationals move off of BES and Blackberries to alternative platforms, and that Android (especially HTC, as they are more recent with Android releases which mean better Exchange support) is the clear winner in all of these cases with the phones on order.
OTOH, the consultancy that I work for recently moved off legacy Exchange infrastructure onto Google Apps. This means even better integration with our Android phones.
If you bought an app on Android Market, does it appear on your iphone App Store? No.
But it appears on every Android device that is tied to your google account.....
You underestimate the amount of momentum in the smartphone market. As with MS software in the 90's and early 00's, you have platform lock-in due to third party apps. With i(phone/pad)OS and Android, you have the same in the AppStore/Market. This is significant and users will be unwilling to change platforms if most of their software investment is in a particular platform.
Nokia didn't change its business model, just that one part of its business outgrew and eclipsed all of the other parts. It was diversified a business to begin with (what can be called a conglomerate, examples include Mitsubishi and GE).
You said that companies don't deviate from their "castles". I said that's not true and stuck in an example.
Food is not McDonald's "castle", fast food is. McDonalds invested in Pret-A-Manger for a long time as a way to hedge against the up-and-coming Cafe/Coffee Shops that appeal to a market segment with higher growth and profit margins. Then the recession started in 2007, they expected that this market to fall through the floor (premium coffee is overpriced and everybody in the industry knows it), and promptly sold it to retreat back into their comfort zone of delivering fast food.http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2055600&cid=35633018#
Besides, the whole castle and moat analogy is extremely simplistic to the point of being laughable.
Ads are a stable, mature and expansive market, and is not prone to the type of paradigm shift that you see in the tech world. Google is an ad company that uses technology (primarily the Internet, and now also mobile phone systems) to deliver their ads. Android is far more valuable as a vehicle via which to deliver ads than it is as a product itself.
The ad market is undergoing a paradigm shift right now due to technology, which pretty much invalidated your first assertion. This is pre-Android as well before you start barking up the wrong tree again.
At no point did anybody argue that Google was abandoning their search empire. That doesn't mean that everything they do equates to zealously protecting their search business. Companies seek out growth areas to build new business, and they sometimes take a loss in the beginning to do so. How hard is that to understand?
McDonalds once owned a portfolio of brands to diversify their business into other areas of the food business. (Which they got rid of only in the past 2 years as a response to market conditions). The reason that food brands stay in the food business is mainly because the market is stable, mature and expansive, and is not prone to the type of paradigm shift that you see in the tech world.
Yawn.. 20 years ago, Nokia's primary revenue source wasn't mobile technologies. Look how far we've gone.
Microsoft has had many a good year riding on its Windows and Office monopolies, but that didn't stop them from diversification into entertainment with the Xbox.
Your conviction seems to be absolutely unwavering, as if you somehow was involved in the decision making process within Google on Android strategy. It is clear on anybody with an ounce of common sense that decision like these are multi-faceted, and that diversification is an extremely common strategy for companies that have found extreme success in one market, but are also completely reliant on this one market.
It also makes since as Microsoft has targeted Google with Bing for Google to counter with an offensive strategy against the Microsoft core products of Windows and Office. The only difference is that Google plans to bypass the current cycle in this strategy.
Mobile ads is only one slice of the pie. Smartphones as envisaged by Google is a new applications delivery platform. This is why the Google apps you get on Android is proprietary, and also why they use licensing of these Apps to ensure that carriers comply with their "vision".
Of course Google wants to protect their cash cow, who wouldn't? Mobile ad delivery is a uncertain market that doesn't seem to be bringing the same amount of interest or revenue as normal online ads, but Google would definitely want to protect that as it is an extension of their core business (at the moment).
However, our main discussion is diversification of Google's revenue stream. You said that Google's revenue from non-search is small. What you forgot is that it's growing as a phenomenal rate. Android market grew from $11m in revenues to $102m in revenue in the space of a year. No-one can say what the final figure would be in 2011, but you can be sure that either this year or next year Android Market would make itself noticed on Google's balance sheet.
Then we have Google Apps, which is a direct assault on Exchange. In a year or so, MS Office will be in the crosshairs. A year after that, Windows.
Of course Google doesn't expect the same amount of market dominance in these area as Microsoft, but you can see the trend for them to be build up significant presence in many key areas. It's not all about search - which was my original point.
You didn't read that properly. The 2009 number was 11 million.
The 2010 number was 102 million.
Hence the 861% growth as the article's title stated.
Barriers of entry (what Bill is basically describing) is a concept they teach you in high school economics - which also has absolutely nothing to do with what Google is doing with Android right now.
Google already has a massive stranglehold on search. Android on the other hand is a way for them to deliver Google "cloud" services (of which search is only one aspect) so that they can start monetizing and diversifying their non-search income. They are making money through Checkout (via Market), and stuff like Google Apps for Business (via Android's seamless sync with Gmail and Calendar), etc. With the latter, it is a route for Google into the enterprise. I've just seen 3 companies I work with drop their legacy Exchange infrastructure for Google Apps.
What Google is doing is only defense if you subscribe to the best-type-of-defense-is-offence school of war. What Microsoft is doing with it's WP7 strategy OTOH is 100% defence.
To prove my case, look at what come carriers are doing shipping Bing as the default search provider. Google doesn't care one bit as they know the pie's growing, which is exactly what Android is about - baking a new pie.
The article, does, however, explain why Wall Street is broken as it is. Not surprising if you have a bunch of clueless dolts like Bill Gurley making recommendations.
But Safari is exposed to the wider internet, while UIWebView is only exposed to the site that the app dev has coded in. With Apple's leash on the app store, wouldn't it be more safe to enable Nitro on UIWebView compared to Safari on i(phone)OS?
Speeding is what is called a strict liability offence. It does not require the intent, or more specifically the mens rea. The court only needs to establish the act, or specifically the actus reus.
Yes, and only the UK study shows that nuclear is cost competitive with onshore wind. The capacity factor was already taken into account.
The numbers don't show that. From the link only the UK study does nuclear power come out cheaper than renewable sources.
Let me guess, your next argument will be that wind power produces more radioactive waste than nuclear.
Did you read the whole page? The only (levelised) study that shows nuclear to be competitive it the UK study (and only by a relatively small margin). In everything else, nuclear trails on-shore wind.
You might not have notice it, but Huffington Post also has its own content, just like the The Guardian, or the Washington Post, or the LA Times. It may not be a full news operation, but its a significant proportion of content.
These papers make money through "gaming" search engines to land on pages full of advertisements.
Face it. People single out Huffington Post because they are so effective at cherry picking the syndicated news from a sensationalistic left-wing (for America) point of view. It not on the same level as Ehow or Kelkoo or Dooyoo, etc, and you pretend it is because it conflicts with your political stance.
So I guess that is your point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources
Nuclear is also among the most expensive power generation methods available. I'm not sure what the potential upsides are.
Caught red-handed again. 3 times in a row -
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2033736&cid=35459768
Do you have a script that polls ./ every 60 seconds?
No, blame us, for letting Big Oil get in the way.
Democracy without wisdom is nothing but mob-rule.
They use syndicated news, and so does Forbes, Business Week and Breitbart.com. These are up there in the search results as well. In fact, even very large and reputable outlets use syndicated news. The major newspapers, for example, use AP to pool their stories.
So what's your point again?
Nope, he was caught red-handed.
Notice the time on his post and his posting history.
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2027146&cid=35417766
Thanks for playing, astroserf.
Googling for "japan tsunami" returns Huffington Post at #14, with BBC at #3, CBS at #13 and FOX News at #15. So what's your point?
Wake up Freud! It's time for your medication.
I was just asking why the GGP lumped ehow and Experts Exchange together with Huffington Post.
BTW, great psychoanalysis of your own post.
Huffington Post? What's the rationale behind that? Or are you just inclined to show us your tea bagging ways?