They bought Oculus when the technology was already developed. VR will neither make a difference in the market nor change the character of Facebook as an advertising company. That’s not just my opinion.
Do you consider staying in touch with friends to be a technology? Is that something you couldn’t do with messengers and websites before Facebook invented the Like button? Somewhere you’ve got to draw a line between a company that’s simply present on the internet and a technology company that contributes to how it all works. And it can’t be stock market valuation or being headquartered in California.
iMessage came out when a lot of other existing messaging services and products were in place for years and years, does that mean that iMessage isn't a technology that Apple has developed and made available for use?
It will always be in development, because it will never become a product. VR is a fad like 3D TVs. And its not the first time people tried to make it a thing. VR helmets can’t work as an optional peripheral. You need to build an entire ecosystem around it. A gaming console, all the games and a software framework to build them efficiently. And it still won’t win against freemium phone games. There’s just not enough value added to win over a large follower base. It’s simply impossible!
Being the first is important for an innovation. Being unique is important for the ability to monetize. Apple didn’t invent mp3-players, but dominated the market with the iPod. Apple did invent the modern smartphone, but doesn’t dominate on market share.
While interesting, this is something yet again different from what was being commented on earlier and what this is all in relation to. By the logic mentioned before that other things were available to connect to people when Facebook came around and therefore there wasn't anything new/different that Facebook created in relation to that, iMessage (as an example, given that there are plenty other similar ones) similarly couldn't be part of technology that Apple developed and made available, which we know isn't how everyone sees it.
I haven’t seen any claims to the contrary. Are you mad enough to say Apples market share of $1000+ computers has decreased in the past decade? Are you telling me the Oculus is a successful IT product which has found its market niche and won’t be scrapped within the next five years? Isn’t Facebook a website written in hypertext rendered by a browser?
Was/is the primary and most involved work that The New York Times does involve creating/modify/improving the technologies that are behind the features offered on their web site or behind the advertisement and/or user data algorithms?
Oh no, Facebook is something new and unique. Otherwise one couldn’t monetize it. It’s just not IT.
Nope! The New York Times produces news. They switched from paper to silicon as a means of transportation. But their product is still knowledge of the most recent world events. They are not selling IT. Never have and never will. If the New York Times is a tech company now, then what it was before is a paper company. Not a newspaper, just paper.
Seems like we keep on coming back to a (mostly rhetorical) question that was asked a little earlier in the thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ebook-and-google.2158772/page-5#post-26884836
I (dis)believe a lot of things most people wouldn’t doubt to be undisputable facts. Here’s to the crazy ones: I believe artificial intelligence can’t exist without self awareness. And a silicon chip that knows its place in the universe wouldn’t want to drive our cars. Skynet in Terminator is actually the best depiction of how artifical intelligence would actually look like. And you do need intelligence for autonomous driving.
