201–210 of 214 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google is good at entering a market just as it's catching on with a meaningfully-differentiated product, and the product markets itself. See Search, Gmail, and Maps. When Google doesn't do this, they have to rely on marketing. See Wave or Buzz.
Every big company has its string of failed products. I'm not convinced that Google is really worse in this regard than Apple, Microsoft or Yahoo.
I really didn't expect this to happen within 10 years. I'm amazed that this happened so fast.
I did. You know why? Because there's no way Google would announce a technology that they think would be used 10 years from now. I knew it right away that if they announced it now, then they're doing it to get public support and then convince politicians to allow them as soon as possible. They also wouldn't have announced it if it didn't already work pretty well.They wouldn't have announced it if it still needed 10 mo…
Interesting that the limited the law to highways (edit: the law limited the use of autonomous vehicles to highways) (section 2, paragraph 1). I suppose it makes sense since highway driving is more predictable but its also higher speed and thus accidents are more dangerous. Also, this limitation would require the presence of a human driver to get the car to the highway.
It would be more difficult for an innovation like driverless cars to get a start in a country like France where almost any change in the laws requires the involvement of the national government. (In the U.S., most legal cases, including the laws of the road and most serious crimes like robbery, rape and murder, are handled by the individual 50 states.)
I suspect that it would actually be harder for something like Marijuana legalization to actually occur in California and Texas than it would be for it to occur in France, because the lumbering Federal government exists where there isn't really a close analogous overriding body in France (perhaps the EU to some extent).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every big company has its string of failed products. I'm not convinced that Google is really worse in this regard than Apple, Microsoft or Yahoo.
Has Apple had any failed products in the last 10 years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every big company has its string of failed products. I'm not convinced that Google is really worse in this regard than Apple, Microsoft or Yahoo.
Has Apple had any failed products in the last 10 years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has Apple had any failed products in the last 10 years?
None of them has any failed products if you set convenient enough window.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of them has any failed products if you set convenient enough window.
Google has only existed for 12 years, so it doesn't seem like it would be fair to talk about Apple failures from 1988 in this context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google has only existed for 12 years, so it doesn't seem like it would be fair to talk about Apple failures from 1988 in this context.
There were enough failures with Apple (constant string of failures in fact) until late 1990s. Also, if we take Yahoo!, a successful business by any measure, it is hard to assign any two years where they didn't fail at something. Mind you, Yahoo! is a prefect example of marketing-driven company, much more so than Apple (who actually prides itself more at solid design and technology).
I understand that Apple had more than enough failures in the 80s and 90s, but honestly they are basically a different company since 1998 when Steve Jobs came back and completely changed the trajectory of the company.
They have managed to have basically no significant failed products at all in the entire term that Google has existed at all as a company. Google and Microsoft have had several extremely high profile failures, and dozens of failures as minor as the most significant failed product that Apple had.
The stock price of the company went from 3.5 in 1997 to 350 in 2011. I just don't think that the Newton is at all relevant when talking about how careful the respective major companies are to avoid large public failures.