Or Novell of the late 80's / early 90's with Eric Schmidt at its head. The guy has no vision. They had tons of cash and no vision. Now they are dead as dead.
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.
Management Shakeup at Google: Larry Page to Replace Eric Schmidt as CEO
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Or Novell of the late 80's / early 90's with Eric Schmidt at its head. The guy has no vision. They had tons of cash and no vision. Now they are dead as dead.
This seems to be the way of the world now. If you have a different view it is because you are ignorant of the facts. I make it my mission to educate you. If you don't accept my correct world view then you are an idiot.
Sad really because these huge companies that have my undying loyalty really only care about me enough to sell me a product.
that's fine as far as i can see. the raw numbers of windows users could provide quite a target market for apple to tap
Do you mean the copy and paste features that were first used by Apple Macintosh computers back in 1984? Oh wait, don't tell me, that was Droid too, like touchscreen, apps, home button, app store, gyro, ......
That is a limited understanding of business. Anything can be a factor. Gasoline prices are competition to computers for consumer dollars. Don't be fooled into thinking you have to compare companies with precisely similar products. Apple and Google are absolutely huge, direct competitors today. In many software types.
he tried the Microsoft strategy on Apple but left in the part about why people dumped Novell in the first place.
i remember one time my employer bought a company that used novell and we had to copy all the data onto our NT servers. took me a few hours to do it manually via the GUI. the novell/unix guy who had to do half the users did what he knew to do. it took him 3 days to write a huge script to copy the users that ran for an hour or so while the process completed.
this is why everyone dumped novell. Windows NT wasn't as good technically but a lot of every day things were easy and fast to do. with novell i guess the answer was always i have to write a script and don't bug me for a few days.
NT/2000 was the iOS of it's day. it did a few things well and it took MS years to code features that the competition had for years but people bought it for the features that worked better than the competition. a killer implementation of a user directory and later ldap.
I thought I was the only one who saw Google as the Spam machine that they are ... Google just does not offer up what people are searching for.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20029140-265.html?tag=topStories3
I highly doubt they will change much ... Google was born to Spam.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20029140-265.html?tag=topStories3
I highly doubt they will change much ... Google was born to Spam.
Did Eric Schmidt remind anyone else of Agent Smith from the Matrix? Kind of a subtle bit of evil.
Welcome to the hive mind. Drones are welcome. I see you checked your brains at the door.
Yup bring on the Comb in a Tablet. It won't run on any current Android phone without Tegra. Looking forward to batt life in a Comb Tablet.
Comb=The Framented Android version of Vista.
The future is iOS, WIN7, and RIM. Talk in a year.
Comments on this after the next quote...
Wrong analogy - partly. Actually it's the tech version of the old "give away razors, sell blades" model. The original razor was the search function and the blades were the ads and along the way, the analytics they gather from the aggregate use of their products, etc.. Other "razors" ranging from wildly popular to clear misfires - are maps, mail, Docs, GTalk, G. Voice and, more to the current point, Chrome and Android.
Right analogy - partly. The whole notion of things being "free" on the internet has cost us all. Both in ways we see and ways we (here mostly) know about but don't see. In the early days some advocated for a micro-payments model for accessing web content but were soundly trounced by egalitarianism. Resulting in a(n ugly,cluttered) web first filled with banner ads, then blinking ones, then "interactive" ones, personally targeted ads, clutter all over your YouTube watches, etc.
How much cleaner and leaner would the web have been if you paid a tiny amount for accesses? While you're waiting for a page to come up, note the order of loading of the elements - it's all the commercial bits loading first. How many hours (days, months, etc. cumulatively) of your life have you "paid" for this?
And the freeness vacuum was also filled with spam - spam loaded with ads, phishing schemes, malware, etc. and by marginal to criminal companies - which proliferated wildly by being subsidized by the rest of how the net was being paid for.
At one point the percentage of spam in email was what, well over 90%? What would that percentage have been if each sent email cost even a 10th of a penny? Certainly reduced by orders of magnitude. Ahh, but email was and is "free."
And those of us who don't bit torrent huge amounts of pirated content have also paid for the proclivities of those who do - with the costs of keeping the net robust enough to move all those bits (spam and piracy) reflected in our monthly access bills. No one can say for certain, but I'll propose that the net net cost to most net users today would be lower with a web that paid its own way from the start.
"Free everything" also helped the arts of analytics and targeted marketing advance leading to a massive loss of personal and demographic privacy.
Which is why facebook is a privacy sinkhole where you are routinely given the opportunity not only to give up your personal info to any barely-vetted outside company who'll give Mark Z. a few bucks for access to an "app," but that of all your friends as well.
But, while things would have been significantly better, at least in this respect, all roads lead to Rome. One of the benefits of "Pay TV" touted in the early days of big dish and then cable and satellite TV was that it would be commercial free. As if. Even HBO has long promotional periods, even if what they're promoting is only HBO content. Meanwhile the amount of content vs ads - ESPECIALLY on the "free" cable nets (compared to the broadcasters of even not that long ago) - has only shrunk to the point where re-runs have to be truncated to fit in all the ads. Which at least helps incremental sales of "uncut" Seinfeld DVDs, but what does it do for YOU?
So... ...much of what plagues us today would probably be entering our lives anyway - likely just more slowly and subtly.
Meanwhile, gotta wrap up. Going to a "free seminar" on some investing scheme. It includes lunch!!
And Buzz and Wave and more?
Maybe....
Micropayments was, as noted above, the most likely alternative, but never really got off the ground. (Tho' I've heard the word circulating again recently.)
It's REALLY hard to make facebook seem like "the good privacy fairy." Google sells aggregate data about you while facebook essentially sells YOU and your own info.Google is doing it with more than just Ads ... Funny how there is no AdSpam on their own home page?
I do not trust Google ... they make Facebook seem like the Good Privacy Fairy.
I have no need for either company.
And like it or not, you do "need" Google by the critical part it's become of what drives the very existence of the net in its current form. Remove Google all at once and you would quickly hear a vast sucking sound of business as usual imploding into a singularity.
Given all the trends in the development of the net, don't hold your breath.
Last edited:
lol ... I think you have bought into the Google Spam Scam too much ... and give them credit they have not earned or deserve.
The Internet would continue on just fine without Google.
In time, yes - but the immediate effect on netonomics and navigation would be notable enough. But, yeah, I confess to being too hyperbolic about a hypothetical.
