Exactly! The users of their products do not buy anything and get access to quality product. "Giving somebody good stuff for free instills loyalty," and "Google ads are easy to ignore."
Google's design philosophy is based on end-user loyalty - not money.
That statement makes a good point, even though it's more like Google's design philosophy is based on using end-user loyalty to make money.
Google spends a lot of it's time developing quality products that people keep coming back to use. Loyalty. Google doesn't develop those products and then sell them, they develop those products to support their user base and therefore their advertisements.
Does it cost you to do a google search? Does gmail cost? My "opinion" is that that "opinion" is fairly factual. Google uses free services to instill loyalty and keep people coming back... and clicking on their ads.
Hmm, I can't really think of any free MS services off the top of my head. Definitely not any that don't tie in with their OS or something.
Independents are just that, independent. Rogue commercial organizations will usually scrape out a living in a niche market or become/join a large company.
If a small company comes up with a really good idea in their industry it'll end up being copied by the big dogs. Look at everybody and their brothers selling single songs for some variation of 99 cent.
The geographical information is out there in multiple locations, it's just very accessible on google. If a terrorist was determined enough to find couple year old satelite photos on the internet they could find them even if google didn't have a convenient service. Accessibility shouldn't be hampered just because "somebody" might use it in a "negative" way.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read the Dilbert cartoon, Estonia is the fake country with the bearded people
That would be Elbonia.
A quick look shows they've donated over $28B [wikipedia.org] and over $1B each year.
Is that counting the monetary equivalent of "donated software"?
...And get better quality.
Nothing like a good slashdotting to check for hernias.
Google is "all about" making money
Exactly! The users of their products do not buy anything and get access to quality product. "Giving somebody good stuff for free instills loyalty," and "Google ads are easy to ignore."
Google's design philosophy is based on end-user loyalty - not money.
That statement makes a good point, even though it's more like Google's design philosophy is based on using end-user loyalty to make money.
Google spends a lot of it's time developing quality products that people keep coming back to use. Loyalty. Google doesn't develop those products and then sell them, they develop those products to support their user base and therefore their advertisements.
Does it cost you to do a google search? Does gmail cost? My "opinion" is that that "opinion" is fairly factual. Google uses free services to instill loyalty and keep people coming back... and clicking on their ads.
Hmm, I can't really think of any free MS services off the top of my head. Definitely not any that don't tie in with their OS or something.
Even if now isn't the "best" time, ipod has a lot going for it.
- This product is leading the pack. Is there anything that offers the same integration for this service?
- The cult of mac. It plugs in with itunes, it's part of the ipod series... It's integrating technology.
These are the same advantages that kept ipod afloat against comparable music players. No reason to think it'll stop working now.
Independents are just that, independent. Rogue commercial organizations will usually scrape out a living in a niche market or become/join a large company.
If a small company comes up with a really good idea in their industry it'll end up being copied by the big dogs. Look at everybody and their brothers selling single songs for some variation of 99 cent.
The geographical information is out there in multiple locations, it's just very accessible on google. If a terrorist was determined enough to find couple year old satelite photos on the internet they could find them even if google didn't have a convenient service. Accessibility shouldn't be hampered just because "somebody" might use it in a "negative" way.