Agreed. Just fired it up in Chrome on my Mac and got the notification that there is a new version of Silverlight available.
Back Button.
404 karma · joined March 23, 2008
Back Button.
Great article, Alex.
All vendors attempt to influence the relative positioning of their applications on their platforms. Microsoft and Apple have long thrived with this model, and I expect Google to too.
The difference with Google is that I also expect them to be more open about it, hence the open sourcing of Android and perhaps other OS moves they make.
I think this is significant because of Google's investment into public infrastructure. They are not building out a platform upon which only they can make money. I see Google as the number one contributor to the Internet Operating System today.
What happens to perceptions? Probably something.
There's always mistrust of the biggest player. If Apple become's the most valuable technology company in the world, their propensity to control their stack will be even more a focus for the media.
I think Microsoft will relish being an underdog for a change: "Clearly we're not a monopoly. We're not even the biggest technology company in the world."
Even if both companies change nothing, they will be seen differently.
Google's recent work, including Android, is all about reach and becoming part of various aspects of our online lives. And when they are part of our lives, search revenue follows.
The touchscreen mobile phone market.
Gruber was first to convince me that Apple didn't care about the business that Dell was in. Dell could have it. No margin.
Apple believed they built computers for the "elite" consumer who had taste or money or both and wanted a premium experience. They played there because that's where the margin is.
This situation (highlighted by iPhone vs. Android) is a stark departure for Apple, and it probably illustrates one of two things:
1. The competition is better, or 2. The switching costs for phones is much lower than for computers, and by costs I mean both money and the hassle of migrating data and applications.
Google is doing an amazing job on both fronts. If the iPhone didn't exist, Android would be the clear leader in this market. And when it comes to switching costs, Google is eradicating them: I use Gmail, Google Calendar, and Picasa. All work on both platforms very well. And I use Google Contacts as my primary rolodex.
I don't use Mobile Me because Google provides the equivalent for free (Google's services are probably better, really). Apple really doesn't have any hooks into me.
If Google can deliver a compelling alternative to iTunes, I could move tomorrow and the only costs I'd incur would be walking away from the $30 in Apps I've purchased.
Compare that to my trying to move from OS X to Windows.
Apple is rightly terrified of Google.
And it probably gets worse when the Chrome OS hits the market.
I love love love my MacBook Pro and my iPhone. But increasingly they are delivery vehicles for Google services. The irreplaceable part of that equation is Google, primarily because I'm not interested in Microsoft's or Yahoo's or Apple's alternatives.
If it's the rest of the Internet, then Google is better positioned.
What's striking to me is how much Facebook's approach is not "of" the Internet; Facebook is a site that takes the best of the Internet and places it within the borders of its own site. They've done a great job of that to date: my mum uses it every day and loves it.
Google appears much more inclined to believe it will grow as the Internet grows, and they are investing accordingly. True, they haven't hit many home runs outside of search, but they are willing to contribute to the web, which is the ultimate vendor-agnostic platform.
Google is investing in things it can't control. Facebook is investing only in things it can. I'm overgeneralizing of course, but over time I think Google's open nature wins because consumers eventually reject those companies who gain too much control.
Recommended.
Some forward looking company is going to sponsor an entire run of premium content (something by Joss Whedon?) on a YouTube channel and even the major networks aren't going to be able to ignore it.
If done correctly (not intrusive), it even mitigates the need for torrents. Just stream it legally.
My point was meant to be that regardless of how many iPhone users are attempting to download Flash, Apple is not going to change its stance unless Adobe addresses the performance issues within Flash. And even then Apple may not change. . . .
Same models. Same situations. Ha ha ha, sex sells.
Back then, "57 Channels and Nothin On"; today, 10 mbps.
I wish my company could return to such a clear message.
Love them or hate them, Apple has its act together.
I LIKE using my Mac and my iPhone. I DON'T like using my BlackBerry and Windows machine.
All of those machines offer pretty good usability (I can use them all to get things done). But I'm not attracted to the BlackBerry and the Windows box. It's not that they're ugly, just . . . unattractive.
I suggest Apple has tapped in to something innately human: we like pretty stuff. Or at least enough people do to make the iPhone the best selling smartphone in the world. . . .
The usability Apple mixed in with the lipstick makes these things irresistible for large chunks of the market. These things sell like crazy.
However, as a Canadian who has a US-based Google Voice number (Montana, eh) functionality is actually reduced on the iPhone.
Now the app initiates a call to a different US number (operated by Google) to then present the Google Voice number as the "who's calling" number.
This results in a long distance call. Before this, calls were initiated by calling the iPhone. Inbound = no long distance charges.
I can still initiate the old way by using the desktop browser instance of Google Voice on a desktop PC, but not from the phone because it auto-detects. Rats!
Oh well. I love the service and can't wait for it to be launched worldwide formally.
I love the market. Every day is like George Costanza's do-the-opposite day.
The Internet delivers a WORLD of news sites meaning the traditional publishers have less of a voice than they did when paper was the sole medium.
Their proposed pay wall may ensnare existing readers, but who in his right mind is going to subscribe having never had a relationship with this provider before? "Oh, you want money for that story, the same story I can see a 1,000 versions of in Google News? Buh-bye."
I'd love to see the evidence that supports this decision. This reeks of someone trying to save his job.
Chrome became the default on my PC at work as soon as I could get it installed a year ago.
The beauty of Chrome is its speed and elegance. Omnibox for searches, the behaviour of tabs (remembering which tab spawned the subsequent one), and the ability to use icons only for the bookmarks bar are three things that Safari doesn't do.
The addition of extensions for the PC have cemented its position there, and when those services are added to the Mac version life gets better.
Firefox does most of this, of course, but it looks and feels bloated and old on both platforms.
I will forever love Firefox for freeing us from Microsoft's IE tyranny, but Chrome is truly firing on all 8 cylinders these days, pun intended.
iStat Menus processor graph still goes nuts when scrolling compared to Safari. That said, Chromium/Chrome has been my default browser for about a month now.
Go for it.
Don't bother writing about it and talking about it.
Do it.
Put up your pay wall and see who pays.
Until then. . . .
But as per the other response here, I'm not sure it's using the video so much as the location and orientation to deliver results.
I'd like to see a version, like the still-photos, whereby the search engine is translating in real time as new objects enter the frame.
While I'm at it, I'd like it to perform these tasks with a T-800-style HUD.
Droid indeed.
I anticipate a video version of this soon.
No one gets everything done that could be done.
The difference between winners and losers is knowing what to leave undone.
Things have changed a LOT in the communications world since that day, however.
If a 9/11 event happened today, twitter would make most of these messages public instantly.
At that time I was still using my ISP's email system, not Gmail. I used to turn on the TV in the morning, not the computer (TV was how I learned of the event itself: "what's Peter Jennings doing on TV in the morning?").
I don't think I was on any IM services by that point either.
I owned a mobile phone, but the only non-voice connectivity was SMS.
I don't miss those days, and that day in particular.
Jobs himself has said what Apple (and he) has compared to others is "taste." I believe that to be true.
In relation to the human side (leading people), what Jobs has going for him is "judgement."
The older I get, the thing that attracts me to certain leaders is good judgement. Without that, a leader is a manager and not a very good one.
But as a percentage of innovation worldwide, not as much as historically.
The US has done a great job of teaching other nations how to execute, which is to say, how to set up an environment within which motivated people can be rewarded for being successful.
Perhaps not ironically, some of those other countries have learned the negative lessons within such a system (for example, a lack of financial regulation and oversight), and have done more work to mitigate the negative impact than the US has.
The key for the US will be to see if it too can learn from its own mistakes, and from the success of others.
I think the important thing to note is that Google is the only large company whose business model depends almost completely on the success of the Internet.
This is why we see them at bat for Net Neutrality as well as efficiencies within communication protocols.
Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, HP, IBM . . . those companies make their livings in other ways.
The only company comparable to Google would be Yahoo in this way. Their inability to keep engineering talent means their contribution to The-Internet-As-Platform is not as significant.