61–70 of 110 posts
Gruber is repeating the obvious, but in a convoluted way. Apple is about selling HW. Google is about selling ads. That's it. Everything else falls from that. Google's goal is to commodotize HW, and I this is, at least theoretically, doable. Apple can't really commodotize ads, at least in no way I can think of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, I don't know. The 2001 Macworld keynote that outlines the "digital hub" is still fascinating: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9046oXrm7f8 It's remarkably prescient in a lot of ways. Take this quote: Digital cameras now constitute 15% of all cameras sold in the US. 15% percent. It'll be 50% in a few years. He also makes the point that a hub is necessary because of all these various devices can't talk to the Interne…
> Digital cameras now constitute 15% of all cameras sold in the US. 15% percent. It'll be 50% in a few years. Really? That's the same thought I had the first time I saw a usable digital camera 10 years ago, and I don't think I'm special or that I was the only one...
To be fair, Apple isn't the only company that does this. Google is remarkable, as well. Virgin is another. I'm sure there are many others in many other industries that take big gambles for 'game-changing' or earth shattering results.
What Apple didn't really address is the growing socializing of data and in what context it is consumed, not just by the data's owner, but by their social graph. Without enabling native apps to do this, cross-platform apps will have a lot of room to grow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that the point was that Google's revenue stream doesn't seem to be easily commodotizable, while Apple's (at least theoretically) is. update: Downvotes? In my HN? I was just clarifying what I thought the original author was getting at, which wasn't what the parent post to mine was arguing against. If you have a disagreement with what I say, then argue against it, rather than just down-voting. Then maybe we can…
The point of commoditization is to commoditize your complements. It's clear that hardware and software are a complement to ads, and software is a complement to hardware. Are ads a complement to hardware?
Gruber is repeating the obvious, but in a convoluted way. Apple is about selling HW. Google is about selling ads. That's it. Everything else falls from that. Google's goal is to commodotize HW, and I this is, at least theoretically, doable. Apple can't really commodotize ads, at least in no way I can think of.
So... what happens when you maximize the browser window?
The actual issue is Google wants to be accessible from any device, Apple wants to sell you their custom hardware.
"But Google’s vision is about software you run in a web browser. Apple’s is about native apps you run on devices."
Other than that Apple wants to sell you hardware, there are only technical differences between those two things.
Sometimes I wonder how much Apple is paying this Gruber guy.
Is it too much to ask to have a Gruber article without the token "If Gruber loves Apple so much, why doesn't he marry it?" comment? We get it. Gruber is pro-Apple. Can we focus on what Gruber is actually saying now?
"Google’s frame is the browser window. Apple’s frame is the screen." I don't think it's going to matter. Google is putting a lot of work into 'promoting' the browser frame to the whole screen.
Could somebody point to a summary of Google's cloud strategy? I don't know which services are supposed to be limited to browser windows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the argument goes more like: When somebody else starts making better phones, computers, blah blah... You, and many other users will be so far locked in, you won't be able to switch. Remember Microsoft?
> When somebody else starts making better phones, > computers, blah blah... What would be your guess, when will be the time when you can start editing your document on Windows machine at work, tweak some on your tablet at home, and then show to someone on your phone without hitting "save" and "export" at all? Even is Dell starts to make better computers than Apple, HTC—better phones, and HP—better tablets Apple would…