PDA

View Full Version : Why Apple will be bigger than Google


MacBytes
Nov 6, 2007, 08:46 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Why Apple will be bigger than Google (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20071106214602)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

thesheep
Nov 6, 2007, 10:00 PM
I love Apple as much as anyone... I have an iPhone and it's the best thing yet.

But I don't think this guy Jordan Golson understands too much about Google, or open standards, or third party developers.

That's the kind of skirt-waving that drives programmers crazy -- not Google's drop-your-dress open-standards move.

Google are smart. By making everything open, Google are already securing their own future... it's because of that openness that things like Google Maps have become ubiquitous... and are supported by Apple and other companies.

The writer may just be trying to say that he believes the iPhone will be a better product than anything made with Android... he may be right. But Google is never a company to put all their eggs in one basket.

And saying that open source initiatives don't appeal to programmers is just plain stupid.

IJ Reilly
Nov 6, 2007, 10:11 PM
He knows business models, and he knows Apple has a sound one for the iPhone. As for Google, they're flopping around in random directions without any obvious core strategy, spending money for no apparent return. The Android initiative sounds like pure Google -- another idea outside of their competency with a low probability of the kind of complete follow-through which is required to make it successful.

russell.h
Nov 6, 2007, 10:32 PM
Google has a fairly obvious core strategy: entice people to view their advertisements. If you can't see how giving millions of people the chance to spend more time browsing the web will do that then theres something wrong with you.

Edit: especially if, as I read somewhere, they somehow force (which will really mean make it most convenient to) interface to the internet through Google.

robd003
Nov 6, 2007, 10:37 PM
Am I the only one that sees Google as a "for-profit" university? They have so many products (that require teams of highly paid engineers) that do absolutely nothing for them. Has anyone checked out Picasa / Hello on the PC? Uh, how exactly does that generate revenue? They really only make money off of ads, something that in the beginning they thought was atrocious. I donno about you guys, but I definitely see Wall St. telling Google to fire 3/5ths of their work-force in 5 years after they realize nothing else coming out of Google will turn a profit. Maybe they'll have another great success, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

He knows business models, and he knows Apple has a sound one for the iPhone. As for Google, they're flopping around in random directions without any obvious core strategy, spending money for no apparent return. The Android initiative sounds like pure Google -- another idea outside of their competency with a low probability of the kind of complete follow-through which is required to make it successful.

Cleverboy
Nov 6, 2007, 10:50 PM
JORDAN GOLSON
Apple, meanwhile, has been luring developers by playing hard to get -- first saying it wouldn't open the iPhone, and then coquettishly changing its mind.Is it me, or is there a really really really popular MISconception that Apple EVER said that it wouldn't open the iPhone? Apple has a very prickly policy of never saying never, and also never alluding to things they fully planned to do, but weren't ready to announce (iTunes localization string watchers, can I git a whut, whut?) It's as if people fell in love with the notion that Apple said "NO!" and changed its mind, instead of the much more boring reality that Apple simply repeated what they WERE doing, and what the iPhone WAS at the time, and declined further comment. Meh. I'd go mad if I ever got into politics, I'd be stuffed with all the words people try to put in my mouth.

I agree though. Apple could be bigger than Google. Apple will be hitting "gaming" next, and merging that with their AppleTiVo offering. Eventually, the convergence is going to become posititvely crazy... unless the studios keep up the bad work and ruin the party.

~ CB

needthephone
Nov 7, 2007, 03:44 AM
"He knows business models, and he knows Apple has a sound one for the iPhone. As for Google, they're flopping around in random directions without any obvious core strategy, spending money for no apparent return. The Android initiative sounds like pure Google -- another idea outside of their competency with a low probability of the kind of complete follow-through which is required to make it successful."

Agree to a point but you can't argue with the money they are making. Google do put out lots of stuff which at first glance don't seem to make money. But 10 or so years ago people wee saying yes the internet is great but how do you make money out it. To make money out of search and to help millions of website owners to be able to make money out of their websites is a brilliant feet.

Google seem to be about karma-do no evil etc and give consumers stuff for free which probaly makes the consumers buy stuff from google indirectly (via ads). They seem to be creating lots of advertisng channels very subtely and people can't see it coming.

Don't underestimate Google if they can give me free calls just for having to look at some google ads then its fine by me.

Skype are the dark horse though, who needs mobile networks when there is a decent wifi coverage??

If Apple Skype enabled the touch or iphone even then that would be something.

We have a logitech skype phone as a roam around phone and it wirelessly communicates with our PC. $AU40 lasts us 6 months and we spend hours on the phone to the UK.

macFanDave
Nov 7, 2007, 11:22 AM
There. I said it.

Enron had everyone but me fooled that its business model made sense and its stock price skyrocketed. I could understand how companies that MAKE energy (I know that is not physically possible, they actually supply it in a consumer-usable form) could get into the FORTUNE Top Ten, but I couldn't figure out how a company that FACILITATED TRADING energy could be that valuable.

Google has two huge problems that will cause its collapse and either demise or contraction to a much more reasonable size:

1) The quality of Google searches is plummetting. When no one knew who Google was, the search results were scary good. It seemed like mind reading. Now that people (aka, big companies) are figuring out the Page Rank algorithm, Google searches are returning lots of garbage results. Ask.com is starting to make a push to be "your" search engine, and others certainly have opportunities to get in on that market as well.

and

2) The value of advertising on Google has not really been determined. I use Google day in and day out and I cannot think of a single time I have even paid the slightest bit of attention to the advertising that comes up during searches. TV advertising has an established value because when you are watching TV, you are in a receptive mode. Your brain is ready to take in what the boob tube spews at you. This is not how you are thinking while you are doing a Google search. The ads are going to show up only on pages that are intermediate destinations to what you are doing on the Internet, not the final targets of your search. Once this distinction is understood and Google's advertisement rate is slashed to its proper value, Google's stock price will fall like a rock.

Have a nice day.:)

IJ Reilly
Nov 7, 2007, 12:18 PM
Am I the only one that sees Google as a "for-profit" university? They have so many products (that require teams of highly paid engineers) that do absolutely nothing for them. Has anyone checked out Picasa / Hello on the PC? Uh, how exactly does that generate revenue? They really only make money off of ads, something that in the beginning they thought was atrocious. I donno about you guys, but I definitely see Wall St. telling Google to fire 3/5ths of their work-force in 5 years after they realize nothing else coming out of Google will turn a profit. Maybe they'll have another great success, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

Google is becoming like Microsoft, only quicker. They have one product that produces all of their revenue, which gives them the freedom to spend money on a shotgun blast of other products which may never earn them a cent. I see a lack of a central strategy, and even worse, the discipline of follow one.

Agree to a point but you can't argue with the money they are making. Google do put out lots of stuff which at first glance don't seem to make money. But 10 or so years ago people wee saying yes the internet is great but how do you make money out it. To make money out of search and to help millions of website owners to be able to make money out of their websites is a brilliant feet.

You can't underestimate any company with the kind of resources that Google has amassed. But again, the Microsoft analogy comes to mind. Sure, they rake in huge amounts of cash in the one area where they've been phenomenally successful -- but how are these other initiatives complementary to that revenue source? During the '90s Microsoft placed bets on every horse, in the hopes of scoring big, like they had with their operating system and office products. They spent a lot of money, but what did it get them? Big loses. Google has the same problem, IMO.

thesheep
Nov 7, 2007, 01:35 PM
I see a lack of a central strategy,

Google's whole strategy is, largely, not to have a central strategy. Their organisational structure is very flat, and programmers are given a lot of autonomy. The analogy with a university is a good one in some ways.

Some projects sink, or flounder, and some are victorious. Google maps is a great example of something that has been very successful to far. GMail is another one. The concepts behind using tags instead of mail folders, and the 'inbox' or 'archive' folder system is a great example of good user experience design. Google Analytics is also very successful in the web world.

But giving people more freedom, being more generous with your products, does not equate to weakness or failure. In the same way that open source products like Apache and Linux have turned the software world upside-down, this kind of generosity of spirit may prove to be a great strength in the future. The role and approach of software companies is still evolving and to be so certain in writing off everything that doesn't adhere to a strict, 20th century corporate model seems a bit narrow minded?

IJ Reilly
Nov 7, 2007, 02:40 PM
Yeah, narrow-minded. That must be it.

Google Maps is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. They could have blown away the competition if they'd continued perfecting this service, but years after introducing it, the implementation hasn't been improved significantly, and it's still half-baked. Google is happy with it being just okay. They've moved on to the next thing. This reminds me so much, and so uncomfortably, of Microsoft and their "just good enough" philosphy.

Google isn't being "generous." IMO, they simply don't have a strategy binding all these products together.

dukebound85
Nov 7, 2007, 03:05 PM
and i still prefer mapquest over google maps any day of the week

AlmostThere
Nov 7, 2007, 05:05 PM
1) The quality of Google searches is plummetting ... Now that people (aka, big companies) are figuring out the Page Rank algorithm, Google searches are returning lots of garbage results.

2) The value of advertising on Google has not really been determined. I use Google day in and day out and I cannot think of a single time I have even paid the slightest bit of attention to the advertising that comes up during searches.


First point is totally subjective and, not just that, increasingly irrelevant. Furthermore, page rank has long been understood, it is published and you can download an implementation from any number of sources right now.

The second point is simply wrong - every advertiser can accurately measure the value of their advertising on Google. You might not click on Google's ads, but millions of people do, and can be seen to. You track your exposure and track you associated sales. It really is that simple. And if you aren't putting money into Google, your competitors are and you are losing out.

And, IIRC, Google actually make more profit that Apple. They are not a smoke and mirrors company in the slightest.

They could have blown away the competition if they'd continued perfecting this service, but years after introducing it, the implementation hasn't been improved significantly, and it's still half-baked.

I really don't understand this. Who is beating Google maps and who offers a better product? We have Google maps embedded in all our relevant pages and there really isn't anything that comes close.

Google's 'good enough' is just sooo much better than anyone else's efforts.

When it comes to a business model, Google understand that people will pay for complicated stuff to be made easy, rather like Apple, IMHO. They understand that one of the biggest challenges facing business (and indirectly the general public) is not knowing of the existence of a resource but finding it ... and, yes, right now those resources are the punters on the web.

When it comes to the free stuff - head over to Google code. In the case of maps, Google maps make our web sites better and demonstrably increases profit. You might see it as some free service, we view it as something that gets and keeps people doing business with us. You can probably see the same potential in half the APIs at first glance, and again you will be able to measure the effect ... and drop it if it is not useful. Not only do they offer the range of services, they also offer a level of quality (generally) surpassing all of the rivals, meaning that trial is cheaper, faster and more effective.

The author of the article might well be right about Google not understanding consumers but they sure as hell understand where business is going.

IJ Reilly
Nov 7, 2007, 06:08 PM
I really don't understand this. Who is beating Google maps and who offers a better product? We have Google maps embedded in all our relevant pages and there really isn't anything that comes close.

Google's 'good enough' is just sooo much better than anyone else's efforts.

When it comes to a business model, Google understand that people will pay for complicated stuff to be made easy, rather like Apple, IMHO. They understand that one of the biggest challenges facing business (and indirectly the general public) is not knowing of the existence of a resource but finding it ... and, yes, right now those resources are the punters on the web.

When it comes to the free stuff - head over to Google code. In the case of maps, Google maps make our web sites better and demonstrably increases profit. You might see it as some free service, we view it as something that gets and keeps people doing business with us. You can probably see the same potential in half the APIs at first glance, and again you will be able to measure the effect ... and drop it if it is not useful. Not only do they offer the range of services, they also offer a level of quality (generally) surpassing all of the rivals, meaning that trial is cheaper, faster and more effective.

The author of the article might well be right about Google not understanding consumers but they sure as hell understand where business is going.

The poster above prefers Mapquest. Although I prefer Google Maps to Mapquest, my preference is only marginal, and I still personally find it to be clunky and annoying in any number of ways which could probably be fixed quite easily. Whether or not you agree, you have to ask yourself why a company with Google's resources and commitment to online services hasn't improved one of their most visible services one iota in years.

I also would point out that Google's vaunted search engine is showing signs of trouble. It's becoming more and more difficult to find actually relevant search results. Pages I know exist do not appear in searches, no matter how specifically I tune my search terms to exactly match known content. Pages which appear in one search disappear when the exact same search is attempted a few days later. What's up with that?

Google may be doing a lot to leverage their brand, but it seems to me they are doing very little to improve the basic services for which they are best known.

needthephone
Nov 8, 2007, 05:06 AM
Sorry can't agree with the author of the article. Google are going to be bigger than both MS and Apple, easily.

Just read today that Google is going to have a service at petrol pumps-offering maps, directions places to visit and stay on Gilbarco petrol pumps.

To say that Google doesn't have a business model is just being in denial or just doen't get it. They know exactly what they are doing.

Millions of webmasters (like whoever runs Macrumors) knows too, the acres of adsense is bringing in them and Google millions.

If you don't appreciate it then I suggest its because you don't own a website.

Google have long preached that content is king so as long as you provide good content then people will come stay and click on an adsense advert maybe. Its a numbers game, simple as that, The more people see an add the more chance there is of someone clicking it.

Also honestly how can you say google maps are cluncky!! Have you seen what they can do. I, personally, find most others, mapquest included, to be cluncky and amateurish in comparison.,

No I don't work for google!

thesheep
Nov 8, 2007, 05:14 PM
you have to ask yourself why a company with Google's resources and commitment to online services hasn't improved one of their most visible services one iota in years.

This isn't the case, actually. There have been quite a lot of improvements and new features added to Google Maps over the past 18 months. The ability to map a route between 2 locations, and click and drag that route to adjust it on the page, is a big one. The ability to embed a map in your own blog or webpage without an API key is another one. The ability to view street-level photos along routes is another (although it has limited coverage right now).

If you find Google Maps clunky, my guess is that is mainly due to the innate 'clunkiness' of HTML/Javascript technology. Especially if you are comparing it to Apple's desktop apps. Other complex, online applications also tend to be 'clunky' in this way. In my view Google maps is revolutionary and well polished.

Perhaps one of the main differences between Apple and Google is that Google is a software only company. That instantly means a very different business model I think.

Cleverboy
Nov 9, 2007, 05:33 AM
This isn't the case, actually. There have been quite a lot of improvements and new features added to Google Maps over the past 18 months. The ability to map a route between 2 locations, and click and drag that route to adjust it on the page, is a big one. People forget that Google is constantly improving things, especially with maps and local search. I was pretty impressed myself with the "Call Now" feature, that calls my house, and then connects me to the company I called. And, Google 411 is simply THE best, although I feel sorry for the human-operated services trying to keep up.

FYI, from a frame of reference, on 11/02, AOL Investor posted the 20 largest companies by market cap (http://aol.theonlineinvestor.com/large_cap.phtml)... its a nice reference point:

Company Ticker Market Cap
($ in billions)
Exxon Mobil XOM 487.68
General Electric GE 413.23
Microsoft Corp. MSFT 346.71
AT&T T 245.43
Google Inc. GOOG 222.01
Procter & Gamble PG 216.00
Berkshire Hathaway BRK-A 204.98
Bank of America BAC 200.15
Cisco Systems CSCO 198.28
Chevron CVX 188.61
Citigroup C 187.69
Johnson & Johnson JNJ 187.51
Wal-Mart Stores WMT 179.77
Pfizer Inc. PFE 165.65
Apple Inc. AAPL 163.88
IBM IBM 157.90
Intel Corp. INTC 156.51
Altria MO 151.81
American Int'l Group AIG 151.61
JPMorgan Chase JPM 146.02
Just looking at the numbers, the only way Apple would become "BIGGER" than Google, is if it leap-frogged all those people, and became bigger than Microsoft, and Google's growth became stagnant. Interestingly... Google will probably be bigger than AT&T eventually. Microsoft is next... and they KNOW it.

Google's finance has been met with lukewarm interest, but I think its brilliant. It's really made Yahoo step up with its visualization options.
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=AAPL%2CMSFT%2CGOOG%2CIBM
And Google Trends has become a net hallmark for battling keywords and ideas against each other to see what the public zeitgeist is in general terms.
~ CB

Chef Medeski
Nov 9, 2007, 09:11 AM
There. I said it.

Enron had everyone but me fooled that its business model made sense and its stock price skyrocketed. I could understand how companies that MAKE energy (I know that is not physically possible, they actually supply it in a consumer-usable form) could get into the FORTUNE Top Ten, but I couldn't figure out how a company that FACILITATED TRADING energy could be that valuable.

Google has two huge problems that will cause its collapse and either demise or contraction to a much more reasonable size:

1) The quality of Google searches is plummetting. When no one knew who Google was, the search results were scary good. It seemed like mind reading. Now that people (aka, big companies) are figuring out the Page Rank algorithm, Google searches are returning lots of garbage results. Ask.com is starting to make a push to be "your" search engine, and others certainly have opportunities to get in on that market as well.

and

2) The value of advertising on Google has not really been determined. I use Google day in and day out and I cannot think of a single time I have even paid the slightest bit of attention to the advertising that comes up during searches. TV advertising has an established value because when you are watching TV, you are in a receptive mode. Your brain is ready to take in what the boob tube spews at you. This is not how you are thinking while you are doing a Google search. The ads are going to show up only on pages that are intermediate destinations to what you are doing on the Internet, not the final targets of your search. Once this distinction is understood and Google's advertisement rate is slashed to its proper value, Google's stock price will fall like a rock.

Have a nice day.:)

I think one is underestimating Google's capabilites. I don't use google for their search I use them because of their e-mail client. And I have to say I had recently started a club and wished to have the various officials be able to post and retrieve documents from one online sources. Allowing us to easily do our work and have it updated immediately. One source so we didnt have to worry who has the old budget, who doesn't. I was looking at starting an ftp site but many of my officials were having trouble accessing it. I got a gmail account as a general e-mail. Low to my behold I could post all the documents there. AND EDIT THEM ANYWHERE ON THE FLY! I put all my contacts. All the calendars, and now wherever anyone is. They can see when we have meetings, who is in attendanc, all the contacts. Budget. Minutes of a meeting. Its truly amazing to set up this kinda of system would have been quite difficiult just a year or two ago.

This is truly incredible. I think a lot of their initiatives are undervalued. It truly allows small people to act big. And this I find is very important to level the business playing field. And I would thank Google truly for that. They may be overhyped, but their inititiativs are certainly worthwhile.

Where do they make their money? Not from ads on their site. From selling their ad technology to others. Allowing other sites to pay solely for when their ads are cliked on any site other than Google is where they make their money. Their business isn't ads but software. And they prove they can do that.

IJ Reilly
Nov 9, 2007, 10:48 AM
People forget that Google is constantly improving things, especially with maps and local search.

I don't seen any improvements at all with the basic search and mapping capabilities. In fact I find the implementation frequently to be frustrating.

shoelessone
Nov 9, 2007, 11:02 AM
I love Apple, but google is totally out of the parkly bigger.

I just hope the new Android system destroy's apple's iphone, not because I don't love the iPhone and want one, but because I wish more phones were more usable with a better interface, not just apples exlusive iPhone. That said, I doubt it will happen, but it's a start.

Cleverboy
Nov 9, 2007, 08:12 PM
I don't seen any improvements at all with the basic search and mapping capabilities. In fact I find the implementation frequently to be frustrating.Everyone's entitled to their opinion. As someone who uses them frequently, I'm constantly seeing Google improve Image search and Maps. With image search, Google was one of the first to implement the concept well, and upgrades such as image size (and more) have been welcome... and easy to get to. When it comes to "maps", I'm amused that Google seems like the first one to let you search locally, using ONE BOX... instead of the horrifyingly confusing "multiple box" set up everyone else had been using. I type my zipcode and keyword, and Google is showing "pizza" in my area. I click the "nearby" button, and I can search other things quickly. I click the "call" button, and Google calls my cellphone and connects me to the restaurant.

I call Google 411, and it "speaks" the same local results to me over the phone, and let's me navigate the results almost as easy as if I used the browser. Whether your life's tasks are effected or not, you can't argue that they're asleep at the wheel. But, I gotta say, Ask and Live! aren't sleeping either... which is all good for competition. I also LOVE the way they automatically include image search info and local search data in the main search results. It's just good stuff.

~ CB

Rodimus Prime
Nov 9, 2007, 08:45 PM
and i still prefer mapquest over google maps any day of the week

I agree. google maps is very weak for finding directions and I never really use it for that. Now I do like google maps better for finding an address and from there I will decide the best route.


As for apple becoming bigger than google. I honestly do not see it happening. it is like saying apple becoming bigger than M$. Apple is just not a big enough company for that.

At least that is my view on it.

eric55lv
Nov 9, 2007, 09:10 PM
i downloaded google earth and the 3d buildings ar really sucky and sometimes does not show so Apple is better than Google a lot

IJ Reilly
Nov 9, 2007, 11:57 PM
Everyone's entitled to their opinion. As someone who uses them frequently, I'm constantly seeing Google improve Image search and Maps. With image search, Google was one of the first to implement the concept well, and upgrades such as image size (and more) have been welcome... and easy to get to. When it comes to "maps", I'm amused that Google seems like the first one to let you search locally, using ONE BOX... instead of the horrifyingly confusing "multiple box" set up everyone else had been using. I type my zipcode and keyword, and Google is showing "pizza" in my area. I click the "nearby" button, and I can search other things quickly. I click the "call" button, and Google calls my cellphone and connects me to the restaurant.

Everyone's also entitled to their own experiences. I'd like to place multiple pins in a map. A simple thing, but no can do. Why not? Many times I put in a complete address including zip code, and Google Maps returns a choice of several cities with a similar street address instead of a map of the one I clearly requested. Lame. When I zoom into a hybrid map, the street names disappear. Lame. Maybe this service is great for finding pizza, but it's got lots of failings which Google just isn't interested in correcting. This service is good enough. They've moved onto other things.

CalBoy
Nov 10, 2007, 01:06 AM
Just looking at the numbers, the only way Apple would become "BIGGER" than Google, is if it leap-frogged all those people, and became bigger than Microsoft, and Google's growth became stagnant. Interestingly... Google will probably be bigger than AT&T eventually. Microsoft is next... and they KNOW it.

Your chart leaves out some crucial information. First of all, Apple has been leapfrogging lately. Just a few years ago, AAPL was worth less than Dell (which is now at $50 billion).

Secondly, I think Google has pretty much reached its apex in terms of creativity. I haven't seen a really good feature come out of Menlo Park in the past year-at least (and by good feature, I mean one that many users can find useful or fun, as this is what brings in cash).

Thirdly, I'm not sure Google's current stock price is fair. Google is currently making its money in some very "soft" ways. A poster above mentioned how TV advertising is worth while because the viewer is tuned in. I can't remember the last Google search (of which I do several times a day) which made me click or even look at an ad. Eventually advertisers will realize that Google is yielding results, and revenue will drop off.

This is where Microsoft has a major advantage. It's highly unlikely that a large percentage of people will suddenly stop using both Windows and Office. Search engines on the other hand can be easily changed. Today it might be Google, tomorrow it might be ask.com.

I think it's quite possible that in the next few years, we'll see a top out of Google's revenue and profits. Once they level off, share holders will lose interest and dump the stock for something new and exciting. Along comes Apple with its consistently higher earnings reports and larger reserve of funds, and AAPL could very well be worth more than Google.

Cleverboy
Nov 10, 2007, 01:33 AM
EDIT: Nevermind

Rodimus Prime
Nov 10, 2007, 01:57 AM
Your chart leaves out some crucial information. First of all, Apple has been leapfrogging lately. Just a few years ago, AAPL was worth less than Dell (which is now at $50 billion).

Secondly, I think Google has pretty much reached its apex in terms of creativity. I haven't seen a really good feature come out of Menlo Park in the past year-at least (and by good feature, I mean one that many users can find useful or fun, as this is what brings in cash).

Thirdly, I'm not sure Google's current stock price is fair. Google is currently making its money in some very "soft" ways. A poster above mentioned how TV advertising is worth while because the viewer is tuned in. I can't remember the last Google search (of which I do several times a day) which made me click or even look at an ad. Eventually advertisers will realize that Google is yielding results, and revenue will drop off.

This is where Microsoft has a major advantage. It's highly unlikely that a large percentage of people will suddenly stop using both Windows and Office. Search engines on the other hand can be easily changed. Today it might be Google, tomorrow it might be ask.com.

I think it's quite possible that in the next few years, we'll see a top out of Google's revenue and profits. Once they level off, share holders will lose interest and dump the stock for something new and exciting. Along comes Apple with its consistently higher earnings reports and larger reserve of funds, and AAPL could very well be worth more than Google.

ah but one thing interesting about google ads is a lot of the money comes off when people click on them. Not so much money for being displayed but clicking on them. I would not be surpised if in the end they get a much better rate of return on google ads than TV ads. The google ads hit a much wider number of people than TV ads for less cost so fewer people have to even respond to them.

AlmostThere
Nov 10, 2007, 06:09 AM
Everyone's also entitled to their own experiences. I'd like to place multiple pins in a map. A simple thing, but no can do. Why not? Many times I put in a complete address including zip code, and Google Maps returns a choice of several cities with a similar street address instead of a map of the one I clearly requested. Lame. When I zoom into a hybrid map, the street names disappear. Lame. Maybe this service is great for finding pizza, but it's got lots of failings which Google just isn't interested in correcting. This service is good enough. They've moved onto other things.

I think that you are missing the point slightly although if you only see Google as an advertiser then this is understandable.

If you separate maps.google.com from the underlying Google Maps service, which allows developers and businesses to use geographical information in their own way (for very low cost), then some of the value in what Google offer and where they are heading is clearer (and then extend this developer / business centric view to their other services).

IJ Reilly
Nov 10, 2007, 11:01 AM
True. Interpretations can diverge wildly on the same basic facts though, and I've found incomplete information makes it worse.I can do this... Partly what I'm talking about regarding the "push pins". I agree in part... Microsoft Live Search totally beat Google to "pins", but when Google got around to activating them, they totally made a mashup idea I'd thought up obsolete before I'd even typed a line of code. Again... for instance, Google added "my maps". Here, you can create a series of maps with push-pinned custom locations, free-form shapes and lines, rich text, and directions attached. Fairly nifty if you really get into it. The drawing tools even tell you how many "feet" you're moving across. Also, with regards to actually using your Google account... I have "saved locations" that automatically appear using Ajax, as I type, saving me loads of time, and informing my frequent searches with a few keystrokes.

These tools are nice, but I'm not talking about manually placing push-pins. I'm talking about dropping a series of pins based on addresses. I am not a programmer, and neither are the vast majority of people, so the features you find so wonderful aren't necessarily available to most of us. This really isn't a matter of interpretation. It is what it is (and isn't).

I'd certainly be interested in seeing a concrete example over an abstract anecdote (like, give one that returns multiple results unnecessarily.)

Well I don't write this stuff down, so I guess you'll have to trust me -- it's happened numerous times. Google Maps should never try to return an address location in a different city from the one you specified, even if you haven't provided a perfect address, but it does. A minor annoyance, but one Google could fix.

I think that you are missing the point slightly although if you only see Google as an advertiser then this is understandable.

If you separate maps.google.com from the underlying Google Maps service, which allows developers and businesses to use geographical information in their own way (for very low cost), then some of the value in what Google offer and where they are heading is clearer (and then extend this developer / business centric view to their other services).

I'm not sure what point you think I'm missing. Some basic features of Google Maps don't work nearly as well as they ought to work.

I also pointed out earlier that basic Google web searches are less useful than they appear. I have searched for content which I know exists but which Google cannot return no matter how explicitly I search for it. I have seen some of this content vanish from searches even though the pages still exist. I do a lot of obscure research on the web so it bugs me seriously to know that I'm probably missing a lot of things when I research a topic in Google.

clevin
Nov 10, 2007, 11:08 AM
lmao, apple maybe can be richer than google (its 600 vs 160 now), but is that the purpose? if so, why not compare apple to M$?

Apple will never be more inspiring than google. and apple will never contribute to human kind more than google. Im seriously, google is contributing to the advancing of human kind, google is bridging the high end tech and each individuals on earth.

Apple? just another corporation.

Cleverboy
Nov 10, 2007, 12:19 PM
EDIT: Nevermind

SiliconAddict
Nov 10, 2007, 12:22 PM
I honestly don't care about Google. Until they get all their various services linked so I can say move from mail...to groups...to Docs....back to mail again without needing to have to hit 30 different links, log in again, etc. They need a unifying page damn it. Until this happens Google is dead to me. I work for a convention and we are trying to use Google Groups as a central repository for data and communication. Beyond the above they don't even have a freaking calendar in groups....we are talking basic features here. Its a PITA in most cases. That being said Apple has NOTHING comparable to Google's offerings. So how the heck can they be bigger then Google at least when it comes to online offerings....I don't see how.

IJ Reilly
Nov 10, 2007, 01:16 PM
That's your interpretation.

No, it's not an "interpretation" no matter how often you say it is. I also won't respond to any implication that I am making untrue representations of my experiences.

Cleverboy
Nov 10, 2007, 03:12 PM
EDIT: Nevermind

Cleverboy
Nov 10, 2007, 03:48 PM
EDIT: Nevermind.

kwfl
Nov 10, 2007, 04:20 PM
to me, google is better and more consumer friendly.

CalBoy
Nov 10, 2007, 06:57 PM
to me, google is better and more consumer friendly.

Perhaps you could explain how a little better. Google and Apple really aren't direct competitors in their core markets; one produces hardware, the other software.

IJ Reilly
Nov 10, 2007, 07:51 PM
This is the classic problem. YOU think acknowledging that something is an "interpretation" implies that it is not "valid". Instead, you might want to consider that you're probably being emotional about it. FACTS can be verified. INTERPRETATION is by its nature a subjective observation of FACTS.

No lectures, thank you. The point was, it's pretty rude in what should be friendly discussion, to imply that some isn't telling the truth. You may have chosen to not believe what I am saying, but that matter not at all to me.

BTW, neither of the techniques you've outlined do what I want to do. But I've explained all of this already.

clevin
Nov 10, 2007, 08:21 PM
Perhaps you could explain how a little better. Google and Apple really aren't direct competitors in their core markets; one produces hardware, the other software.

1. "consumer friendly" is not a phrase specifically for hardware or software.
2. Apple does both hardwares and softwares, altho it mostly does packaging job rather than creation.

CalBoy
Nov 10, 2007, 10:00 PM
1. "consumer friendly" is not a phrase specifically for hardware or software.
This is why I really wanted that poster to give me his reasons for that comment. He might have a new perspective that all of us have overlooked.

2. Apple does both hardwares and softwares, altho it mostly does packaging job rather than creation.

True, but the software is actually made to sell the hardware. Apple makes its money off of hardware (mostly).

Cleverboy
Nov 11, 2007, 06:49 AM
No lectures, thank you. The point was, it's pretty rude in what should be friendly discussion, to imply that some isn't telling the truth. You may have chosen to not believe what I am saying, but that matter not at all to me.

BTW, neither of the techniques you've outlined do what I want to do. But I've explained all of this already.Sorry if my efforts ultimately just antagonised you, I'll move on now and go back and erase my follow-up responses as a time-consuming bad job. I'm saving my responses in a folder on my computer so I can remind myself when I'm not helping a discussion and just move on earlier.

~ CB

IJ Reilly
Nov 11, 2007, 11:52 AM
Sorry if my efforts ultimately just antagonised you, I'll move on now and go back and erase my follow-up responses as a time-consuming bad job. I'm saving my responses in a folder on my computer so I can remind myself when I'm not helping a discussion and just move on earlier.

~ CB

Peace, my friend. ;)