Ahh, a sensible person on these boards... Our numbers are few. (im joking...!)
Truthfully, Google could (I said could) be a bigger threat than that of Microsoft. Take a read at this.
This statement from Google's CEO just scares me for some reason:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Others Considering Bids for Yahoo?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This statement from Google's CEO just scares me for some reason:
Although I hate microsoft, but I agree that it is needed to pose competition to apple.
When microsoft was at the top of it's game with 90% market share it didn't have to release an iphone to keep in business. I love apple, but realize that it needs microsoft to keep up the innovation.
When microsoft was at the top of it's game with 90% market share it didn't have to release an iphone to keep in business. I love apple, but realize that it needs microsoft to keep up the innovation.
Hey, they do whatever works. Apparently it did, because Vista overtook Mac OS X in 8 months...
If Apple could do that, I bet they would too.grammar police
for jettredmont, gnasher, GQB etcetc
for the original statment, it should have been..
Does google even have the money to take over yahoo? I read somewhere that google doesn't make as much money as yahoo (although still a lot), despite having such a large market share..
it has to be this way cause the sentence is talking in present tense, and as the event in question is current, it makes sense. If the sentence had started with "Did..." and in the middle "don't" it would imply that the event happened in the past.
too mix the two together changes the tense of the sentence which is wrong. and which is why when you read it, it just doesn't sound quite right.
The english tend to over use the word "don't", say "don't it.." in a heavy english accent and you will understand, but its okay cause americans spell badly ... color/colour... humor/humour... and they "ize" instead of "ise" in words, you know its true, thats why you can select "american" in your spell checkers instead of english.
the grammar police have spoken
BACK ON TOPIC.. nobody outside america uses yahoo!! they dont offer anything drastically different to the other players in the market, apple would be better off making there own search engine/ ad system than buying yahoo,
for jettredmont, gnasher, GQB etcetc
for the original statment, it should have been..
Does google even have the money to take over yahoo? I read somewhere that google doesn't make as much money as yahoo (although still a lot), despite having such a large market share..
it has to be this way cause the sentence is talking in present tense, and as the event in question is current, it makes sense. If the sentence had started with "Did..." and in the middle "don't" it would imply that the event happened in the past.
too mix the two together changes the tense of the sentence which is wrong. and which is why when you read it, it just doesn't sound quite right.
The english tend to over use the word "don't", say "don't it.." in a heavy english accent and you will understand, but its okay cause americans spell badly ... color/colour... humor/humour... and they "ize" instead of "ise" in words, you know its true, thats why you can select "american" in your spell checkers instead of english.
the grammar police have spoken
BACK ON TOPIC.. nobody outside america uses yahoo!! they dont offer anything drastically different to the other players in the market, apple would be better off making there own search engine/ ad system than buying yahoo,
google yahoos net worth
funny, i was curious what yahoo is actually worth (microsuck is offering a $9 premium per share if i recall correctly, yahoo isn't worth $46-48 billion)
what comes up first in my search results?
What is George W. Bush's net worth vs. John Kerry's net worth?
LOL. yahoos net worth, gotta love it
and I think it would be an awful move for Apple to buy Yahoo. If they wanted into web services, AOL would fetch a much cheaper price (if they wanted to rebrand it), but America Off-Line does have FAR less appeal. It's just no Apple's thing. Though, the way of the future I think will very much be web based apps and less physical software on a HD, but I still think that age if far enough off that now isn't a time to invest in such things.
funny, i was curious what yahoo is actually worth (microsuck is offering a $9 premium per share if i recall correctly, yahoo isn't worth $46-48 billion)
what comes up first in my search results?
What is George W. Bush's net worth vs. John Kerry's net worth?
LOL. yahoos net worth, gotta love it
and I think it would be an awful move for Apple to buy Yahoo. If they wanted into web services, AOL would fetch a much cheaper price (if they wanted to rebrand it), but America Off-Line does have FAR less appeal. It's just no Apple's thing. Though, the way of the future I think will very much be web based apps and less physical software on a HD, but I still think that age if far enough off that now isn't a time to invest in such things.
Personally, I do not know much of what Google's future plans are in store in order to stay as strong as it is today. I just remember what Bill Gates said (forgot when he said it), and that is "no company can stay in business any longer than certain period of time. There were a lot of great companies that came and went. And it's natural to think that Microsoft would be remembered as one of them one day. That's why we (Microsoft) focus on innovation. In order to stay in business, we move forward." Or something along the line.
Would Google be able to do that? Is Google doing it right now? I don't know the answer. Hope somebody knows.
First, I see you point. Maybe it is true that it is only limited to iPod products in terms of innovation that led to the 'most known success.' But I was talking about Apple the company itself to begin with. Yes, I gave an example of iPod and iTunes. However, what I meant was to acknowledge the presence of the driving force that got Apple where it is today after all these years.
Personally, I do not own iPhone and am not familiar with it as much as you do, so I am not going to comment anything on it. However, as you know, innovation doesn't always necessarily translate into success.
I believe that compatibility is one of the keys to success.
As a former iRiver user (before I switch from PC to Mac) and an iPod nano user, I understand what you're saying. It certainly has been an issue for non-iPod users (or vice versa) in terms of sharing music or whatnot. Now we're moving onto the next chapter of purchasing music (DRM Free), so it shouldn't be a big issue. As we all know, markets always change and are prone to adapt themselves to the next 'it' thing. And consumers always hold the key to it. In spite of whatever products certain companies make, if consumers don't respond, they'll eventually die out. (Some products came and went because they came ahead of time, such as Newton.)
As far as "rewards" and bonuses are concerned, I don't know much of it. I haven't heard of a word about it, although it is not logical to think that such "rewards" do not exist at all at such a publicly traded company like Apple.
But think about this. If you were the person who built a company from scratch and got kicked out by the board and then got rehired, would you really want to have a $1 salary? Seriously. The whole point is that Steve Jobs would rather spend more than $1 on R&D so that Apple can produce more innovative and better quality products. Would you really take $1 salary if you were the person?
I am not quite sure if I understood your point.
If I am not mistaken, I thought we've been talking about technology companies, which can be interpreted as companies produce products with high margin. These companies deal with intellectual properties and innovative products, meaning their technology literally lets our world move ahead. If not all innovative, at least Apple is, IMHO.
Apple has been always a front runner in the computer industry and still is in terms of innovation. Correct me if I am wrong, but Apple is the first one brought GUI to computer. In oder to sustain its credibility as an innovator and to compete with other followers/copiers, it is not easy to stay afloat by making little money to begin with. In order to bring a broad appeal, of course, it is natural to think that one should develop and produce more one-size fit all products, instead of only a small number of people would use.
Don't get me wrong. If such a company as Microsoft can do what it does, that's good (regardless of playing almost-monopoly or being named copier or whatever name out there). Because the majority of people will appreciate it anyway.
I don't know if this is a right comparison, but here's what I think. Hollywood exists and we all know what kind of films it produces. Yes... It produces a batch of fun and exciting blockbuster films that a lot of moviegoers appreciate in the company of popcorn and pop (or soda). Then there's the independent film industry that quenches our thirst for something different, creative and unique. Once again, I could be wrong, but as long as you get my point, I think that's close enough. Right?
I do not disagree with anyone's opinions. I just listen. Then I form my own.
Cheers!
this is just poor english
google don't google doesn't is being used as google does not. Don't is used entirely wrong. Don't open that door! Doesn't open that door! They are not interchangeable in UK speak or US speak.
google don't google doesn't is being used as google does not. Don't is used entirely wrong. Don't open that door! Doesn't open that door! They are not interchangeable in UK speak or US speak.
OK, I have to ask this, not as a picky grammar-police thing, but as a British vs American English thing.
I seem to have noticed recently a UK thing of considering company names as plural. In fact, now that I've noticed that, I seem to be seeing it everywhere in UK posts...
Why "Google don't" instead of "Google doesn't". Google is A company.
Just thought I'd ask. Really curious.
The point is that Apple, right now, is NOT in Microsoft's position. They are not the 800 pound gorilla who has somehow forgotten to evolve with the rest of the primates. Apple has been busy making cool stuff while MS has been buying companies and running them into the ground.
If/when Apple starts showing signs of microsoftness, I'll gladly turn on them and towards the next innovator. But, they aren't there now, not yet, perhaps never will be.
english dork
Proper noun. Google in context is the same as someone's name. Google posted record earnings. Google's web site (as they own it.) Googles would always be wrong.
Trousers is really not plural, but can be taken to be plural in context. "HIs trousers were too tight." "The trousers' riveted buttons were..." vs. Stranger us, "I bought a pair of trousers." God love english!
Proper noun. Google in context is the same as someone's name. Google posted record earnings. Google's web site (as they own it.) Googles would always be wrong.
Trousers is really not plural, but can be taken to be plural in context. "HIs trousers were too tight." "The trousers' riveted buttons were..." vs. Stranger us, "I bought a pair of trousers." God love english!
Not much worth to respond to the first part of your post, as its hard to disagree, but here's the second part.
Well what I meant by saying that is Apple looks for products that will return a quick profit. Not that this is a bad thing, but its very different from Microsoft, who is willing to loose money at first and look down the line. An example is their Xbox Division. To date, the Xbox Division has lost a total of 6 billion dollars. However, in that time, they raised some serious brand recognition in the U.S., and seriously shook up the business. Sony now had a competitor and it brought Online gaming to consoles. It also created the entertainment behemoth known as "Halo". Nowadays, Microsoft's Gaming Division reported their first profit last quarter, 532 million dollars. But it took 7 long years to get this far. Now, Microsoft could potentially have another cash cow rising in the $17 billion dollar Gaming Industry.
Now I agree, back in the day, Apple was quite the innovator. They, along with Microsoft, envisioned the PC. But now, It seems like Apple's formula is just making existing things better. I mean, they invented the PC industry out of nothing... I just can't see how that carried on. They learned early on that taking risks gives them rewards, but now...
Its a good example, but I just can't see Apple filling in that independent film industry role. I see them as taking the traditional formula and just making it simpler/nicer to look at. Thats in contrast to Apple/Microsoft back in the day when they were making progress out of nothing, betting their entire lives on the take off of the PC.
The reason you think this is because Microsoft's core products are software, not hardware. While Apple has been making products you can hold in your hand. This does not mean Microsoft is not making progress. Even in the hardware business, Microsoft has Xbox 360, and Zune, which are still young, but have enormous potential [360 more so than Zune right now]. Did you know Xbox Live has more on-demand content than ANY cable provider in the US? Did you know Halo 3 is deemed at the "greatest entertainment launch in history", did you know Microsoft is bringing IPTV to Xbox in Britain? This may not interest you, but Microsoft is doing things...
Also, it may not be as well covered by the media as Apple’s iThis-and-iThat products, but Microsoft’s mobile division makes more money than Apple’s mobile products by licensing the Windows Mobile O/S to dozens of companies that run it on millions of devices [Expecting to ship 20 million in 2008]. Producing products with longevity, which enable others to be innovative, has proven to be the business model that is sustainable. Microsoft enables tens of thousands of partners to be innovative; Apple enables themselves only.
Also, name me a company Microsoft has bought and "ran them into the ground" as you speak?
Okey, I know what you mean, but i prefer iPhone to Windows Mobile. Could you really say that a platform that "makes more money" would be superior to a platform that make less money?
Same case as Windows vs OSX.
Sorry, this is a bit off-topic.
I also prefer the iPhone to Windows Mobile. The platform that makes more money is not guaranteed to be superior, but it is more successful. Which some people can't comprehend. So mostly, I wrote that for the people who claim how Apple is just dominating Microsoft in everything they do.
In the case of Windows vs OS X, I might not be the best person to ask. Yes, I have a MacBook [bought it Leopard Day] but, I can't say I like it more than Windows.
1. My Dashboard doesn't work.
2. My wireless connection has with my network, dropping at least 3 times a day and forgetting the WPA password
3. Safari's outright refusal to work for me half the time. [shows pages in plain text like 30% of the time, others it thinks im not connected to the internet, while firefox works fine]
4. Mail.app doesn't verify my Cox e-mail's certificate so everytime I check the mail, I have to accept it. Very Annoying.
Still, even with all these bugs, Leopard has still been quite enjoyable. Just not as "perfect" as people make it out to be. Heck, I would put it on par with Vista. Not to sound like a MS Fanboy, but I have not experienced ONE problem with Vista outside of having to run some games with administrative rights.
Not like Yahoo's craptacular spam engine is that much better... my Yahoo account is useless these days because of that. Thank God for Gmail...
I can't help but encourage this bit of off-topic banter. Every modern linguist who has addressed the topic in both UK and American English insists that a company referred to by name is singular only. Apple is singular. Google is singular. The reasoning behind it is that the reference is to a single entity. It's similar to referring to a bushel of apples as one bushel. Yes, there are many apples, but they make up 1 bushel.
My response to the original poster who noticed this is that
it's a common error on both sides of the pond. Americans frequently don't understand or get lazy with subject-verb agreement. It's actually slightly more common in the US than it is in the UK. It's most definitely not one of the many differences between British and American English.
And now back to the regularly scheduled program.
I will admit to not reading all 7 pages.
But my 2 cents: Every business' goal is market domination (their market). That inherently makes me nervous. Google makes me nervous, Microsoft made/makes me nervous, iPod makes me nervous, Wal-Mart makes me nervous.
I like factions in society and business. It keeps us all honest.
Competition is good. Sometimes I use Yahoo to do searches instead of Google just to support the factions.
But my 2 cents: Every business' goal is market domination (their market). That inherently makes me nervous. Google makes me nervous, Microsoft made/makes me nervous, iPod makes me nervous, Wal-Mart makes me nervous.
I like factions in society and business. It keeps us all honest.
Competition is good. Sometimes I use Yahoo to do searches instead of Google just to support the factions.
With the release of the iphone, apple also announced it's workings with yahoo. They integrated yahoo mail into the iphone web app. I sure as hell hope google doesn't let microsoft get away with this.
I think you are doing what so many other companies do in the context of evaluating "innovation." You, quite reasonably--as a consumer, place a high value on feature-sets. You want all the latest and greatest now. Who doesn't?
The problem is that a feature is only as good as its interface. A feature with an inconvenient or downright hostile interface is worthless except for bragging-rights. And those don't go very far in the marketplace.
Apple is successful because they absolutely reject your attitude about features. It's quality over quantity. Some people call it form over function, but I disagree. Form over function only happens when device fails to do (or do well) what it is intended by its creator to do because the creator wanted it to take a certain form.
While you may not be the target audience for some of Apple's products (I am certainly not a target for a lot of what they produce), that doesn't mean that Apple has not innovated in terms of usability. I just don't happen to need to use what they are selling right now.
And if you are surprised by this, it's only because you don't really understand Apple's history. Everything Apple's ever made has been governed by the idea that user-choice isn't necessarily a good thing. Many users will make bad choices. Apple has never tried to appeal to everyone all at once. And it never will.
Innovation shouldn't be defined in such narrow terms. Is it really innovation to cram every possible feature into the smallest possible box, and to hell with how anyone's going to use it? Is that really all it takes to innovate?
I think the market disagrees with you. The first iPods were not exactly feature-rich. Hell, the first Macs weren't exactly feature-rich. But they were extremely usable for what they did. The iPhone is an extension of that design philosophy. It's not everyone's cup of tea. But for the 3-something million people--and counting--who use them every day, they are certainly innovative.
Plus, when you think about the nature of innovation in history, it's never been about doing something "new." Innovation has been about doing something familiar but better. The people who invented cars didn't invent motion or travel, they just found a more user-friendly way of accomplishing it. The people who invented the written word didn't invent communication, they just made it more accessible. The people who invented education didn't invent knowledge, they made it easier to learn.
History is littered with the corpses of would-be innovators who tried to do something "new." The definition of innovation throughout history has always been to make something worthwhile easier.
Apple is no different. Apple looks at what we want to do and focuses on how best to do it. The specific features get there eventually after the specific issues surrounding the deployment and use of a feature get solved, not before. That is innovation.
Forgot to evolve? last i remember microsoft went from a dos system to vista.
No matter what you think of vista it is clear that evolution is active over @ microsofts headquarters. They dont make their own hardware...but the integration of diffrent features or hardware needs help 3rd party vendors evolve their products. To me stop evolving would mean that microsoft is still stuck with windows 3.1 in 2008.
If anything they evolve to a point of being up to date...last i checked a 2700 computer from mac had an outdated card without the capbility to bring up to date.
This is exactly what i mean by being double standard. Thank you proving my point. Some of you are so focused on everything apple you MISS the big picture. Both linux and windows support anything high tech out there.
I Think evolution in relation to technology extends farther then eye candy add ons and software.
I own a vista quad computer, macbook pro and macbook. If apple was so innovative why do i have to go to my vista
to have the ability to play blu-ray and hd dvd movies? You see where im going with it? WHERE IS THE INNOVATION BESIDES THIN?
just because they get first dibs on new products from STUFF INTEL MAKES does not make apple the innovative company we use to know.
Huh? Google let Microsoft get away with what? I can't imagine Google has any say what-so-ever in these agreements.
Wow! You should really post in the forums here and get some help to get those bugs fixed. This is a great community for getting help for things like that. If you can't find an answer here, get on the Apple.com support forums or go see a genius at the store...
The only problems I have had recently with OS X are slowdown in iTunes 7.6 (which is pretty well documented) and my keychain for Mail app getting messed up. Really overall though I'm happy to use a Mac at home so I don't have to repair my registry, defrag, virus/spyware scan, check firewall settings etc. as much. With the exception of the registry all of the other things are applicable to OS X but it seems not to need as much constant attention as Windows to run smoothly. Most of all OS X is a cleaner and slightly more advanced OS than Vista IMO which makes it a little nicer to use.
Actually, I have visited the discussion forums at Apple a lot. All of those, besides the Mail certificate thing, are getting heavy discussion over there. Especially the wifi dropouts. I returned my first Macbook thinking it was just the computer. But its happening again. Sure enough when I try to replicate the problem at the Apple store, nothing is wrong...
i'm almost certain someone has said this before me, but if m$ does buy yahoo, google and apple should join forces (not merge) and kick their asses