What you are missing is that Google and Apple both have something that a company like Palm doesn't have: A solid source of profit that isn't related to phones.
Even Motorola, with other profitable businesses, is having a hard time making ends meet - they lose more than 10% in handsets, and barely break even with other businesses propping them up. It's such a drain, that they are effectively becoming Google Android resellers...
Apple and Google both (and particularly Google) can afford to work the market because of their other income streams. Apple also benefits greatly from it's incredible dedicated customer base who would buy bags of Job's Ipooh if they could only get it.
Literally, Apple or Google could entirely screw up, and still afford to do it again. Motorola and Palm are not so obviously going to be able to do it again, IMHO.
Google is even smarter by having done what is effectively a soft launch on their OS, allowing it to quietly run for a while, then picking up steam as all the Droid style phones hit the market in the last 6 months. Now it a gold rush, with everyone and their dog trying to get Google phone to market. Google comes out, and caps that market with the product that will likely define hip for geeks who hate apple.
Google can afford to play the game with an eye on the long term, as more and more companies come to use android, Google tightens it's grip very subtly around users data access, which in turn will allow them to work the market at a lower price, and continue to push.
Full disclosure: I have an HTC phone with Android, asian market model. It is very similar to the Google phone.
The only problem I see is that this is a general answer to a leading question / inquiry from a citizen, and not a specific policy statement or anything like that. It almost reads more like a placating "leave us alone" as opposed to any great change of heart.
Google is doing what they pretty much always seem to do. They are very good at making people think the things you are thinking, and then they just turn the screws endlessly.
In this case, the real trick is their willingness to sell the phone (albeit at a high price) unlocked. That is not a very common thing in the US market. While they are doing locked deals with only one supplier to start with, it appears they will appeal to all of them.
The next step? The price of the unlocked phone will likely keep dropping. I have a feeling that Google's angle at least to start with is to make the individual providers less important, getting customers to be loyal to Google's stuff, no matter which network they are on. Locked phones and 2 year agreements are what keep most companies floating. Remove that, and they are forced to compete. With number portablity and an unlocked phone, no need for longer term commitments. That pretty much kicks out the underpinnings of the cellphone business in the US.
Considering how much Google was interested in the spectrum sales in the past, don't count them out in the business of bypassing the incumbents altogether. Can you imagine their phone bypassing the cell company data networks, doing their own data (perhaps free, provided Google is your homepage or something). It's pretty hard to compete against free.
Google is the ultimate company when it comes to smiling sweetly as they quietly apply intense pressure in their desired markets. They have the bankroll and the patience to make it happen.
I just think facebook doesn't want to be part of any anti-web2.0 movement. They are being very careful not to give these guys much of a chance. Facebook, like any other social website, is very dependant on repeat users and seemingly active profiles. Suicide like this leaves it clear that you are "gone", which not only means you are gone, but gives friends and such perhaps the push to do the same.
In real life, one suicide often leads to others. I suspect facebook sees the same potential.
Seriously though, online flame wars are older than the internet, somewhere I have a box of logs from about 1980 or so with some pretty amazing battles (I was a spectator, not a participant).
A cooling off period may be enough to get the most strident drive by flamers to go away, perhaps encourage kids to move on to other things, but in the end, the comments will re-open and the issue still won't be fixed.
Google ads work because Google's content isn't expensive to produce or deliver. You don't see them crowing about the amazing margins on YouTube, do you?
In this case, the difference isn't important. They appear to be rapidly approaching evil.
Joe, there are some circumstances where a monopoly is actually useful. It can often be very wasteful to have multiple players all spending money to accomplish the same exact thing, especially where there isn't enough market to support them. Needless duplication can be a waste.
Really, what I am against is "buying markets". Google is muscling into the phone market because they have income in other places. They can afford to come into the market, lose their asses for an extended period of time, and essentially buy the market.
In Google's case, it gets even worse. They can leverage their web ads / search model to pay for expansion into any market that has traffic, without concern for actually making direct money in that marketplace.
It's a potential dangerous situation that could leave many people entirely dependant on a single source for everything communication.
You only have to look at the ratings. Network TV viewership continues to go down. The mille rate for ads isn't going up. Less viewers, stagnant rates = less total revenue.
They are also competing against cable only properties that get paid by the cable and sat companies (often at quite high rates) allowing them to survive well with lower ad rates. They cable outlets are also more likely to use recycled programming (USA = the Law and Order channel, it seems). Their programming costs are lower, they are getting paid more by the cable companies, and they don't have to maintain broadcast stations around the country.
I don't think it is that they want to make more money, they just want to make what they were making before, and want to be sure of it in the long run.
I am not suggesting they are doing a good job, that isn't the point. We are rapidly heading towards a single company being involved in every part of your entertainment, communication, and information services. That is way more dangerous than slightly incompetent phone companies. That's a monopoly, the most evil thing possible.
Which is fine, except that Spike could only offer it because of what the cable companies are paying them per subscriber. Remove that money, and most of the current cable channels (and their original program) dries up faster than a puddle in the desert.
Cause and effect.
Why do you think Fox was pushing for more money per subscriber? Quite simply, the advertising model is broken, no longer functional. Yet, most of the models being pushed for internet distribution are based on advertising. It seems like a bit of a paradox, moving from one system which is failing because of a lack of advertising revenue, and moving to another distribution model that will be even MORE dependent on advertising dollars.
Actually, numbers I heard over the weekend suggested that while there are twice as many films released, ticket sales for the year are up only 4%. On average, that means that ticket sales per released movie is down 48%.
$350 per copy if you individually water mark them. Sending out 1000 individually watermarked copies would be a little more pricey, no? heck, Nina Paley could make another movie for that.
Google has long since passes the point of doing no evil. Disturbing market places by using their search ad revenue to allow themselves to move into a market is a dangerous step, one that could squeeze some players out of the market, both on the phone and web site.
Yahoo, MSN, and other search engines without hardwired handset access risk falling farther and farther behind. Phone companies not offering specifically google products also risk becoming outsiders. That Google potentially will offer the phone as an unlocked product may also be very disruptive to the markets that the carriers work in.
Google could not do any of this without it's bags of money, which makes it look like they are trying to buy market share, which in turn is pretty darn evil.
On the post: Google Isn't Targeting iPhone Users; It's Targeting Everyone Else (Maybe)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even Motorola, with other profitable businesses, is having a hard time making ends meet - they lose more than 10% in handsets, and barely break even with other businesses propping them up. It's such a drain, that they are effectively becoming Google Android resellers...
Apple and Google both (and particularly Google) can afford to work the market because of their other income streams. Apple also benefits greatly from it's incredible dedicated customer base who would buy bags of Job's Ipooh if they could only get it.
Literally, Apple or Google could entirely screw up, and still afford to do it again. Motorola and Palm are not so obviously going to be able to do it again, IMHO.
Google is even smarter by having done what is effectively a soft launch on their OS, allowing it to quietly run for a while, then picking up steam as all the Droid style phones hit the market in the last 6 months. Now it a gold rush, with everyone and their dog trying to get Google phone to market. Google comes out, and caps that market with the product that will likely define hip for geeks who hate apple.
Google can afford to play the game with an eye on the long term, as more and more companies come to use android, Google tightens it's grip very subtly around users data access, which in turn will allow them to work the market at a lower price, and continue to push.
Full disclosure: I have an HTC phone with Android, asian market model. It is very similar to the Google phone.
On the post: Google Isn't Targeting iPhone Users; It's Targeting Everyone Else (Maybe)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Agrees That ACTA Secrecy Is Not In The Public Interest
On the post: Google Isn't Targeting iPhone Users; It's Targeting Everyone Else (Maybe)
Re: Might Be Good To Use Subject Lines, People
On the post: Google Isn't Targeting iPhone Users; It's Targeting Everyone Else (Maybe)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In this case, the real trick is their willingness to sell the phone (albeit at a high price) unlocked. That is not a very common thing in the US market. While they are doing locked deals with only one supplier to start with, it appears they will appeal to all of them.
The next step? The price of the unlocked phone will likely keep dropping. I have a feeling that Google's angle at least to start with is to make the individual providers less important, getting customers to be loyal to Google's stuff, no matter which network they are on. Locked phones and 2 year agreements are what keep most companies floating. Remove that, and they are forced to compete. With number portablity and an unlocked phone, no need for longer term commitments. That pretty much kicks out the underpinnings of the cellphone business in the US.
Considering how much Google was interested in the spectrum sales in the past, don't count them out in the business of bypassing the incumbents altogether. Can you imagine their phone bypassing the cell company data networks, doing their own data (perhaps free, provided Google is your homepage or something). It's pretty hard to compete against free.
Google is the ultimate company when it comes to smiling sweetly as they quietly apply intense pressure in their desired markets. They have the bankroll and the patience to make it happen.
On the post: Google Isn't Targeting iPhone Users; It's Targeting Everyone Else (Maybe)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Facebook Continues Blocking Apps That Help You Delete Your Facebook Account
Suicide is contageous
In real life, one suicide often leads to others. I suspect facebook sees the same potential.
On the post: Site Suspends Comments For 'Cooling Off Period'
Re: Re:
Seriously though, online flame wars are older than the internet, somewhere I have a box of logs from about 1980 or so with some pretty amazing battles (I was a spectator, not a participant).
A cooling off period may be enough to get the most strident drive by flamers to go away, perhaps encourage kids to move on to other things, but in the end, the comments will re-open and the issue still won't be fixed.
On the post: The Next Big Battle: Cable TV vs. The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Isn't Targeting iPhone Users; It's Targeting Everyone Else (Maybe)
Re: Re: Re:
Joe, there are some circumstances where a monopoly is actually useful. It can often be very wasteful to have multiple players all spending money to accomplish the same exact thing, especially where there isn't enough market to support them. Needless duplication can be a waste.
Really, what I am against is "buying markets". Google is muscling into the phone market because they have income in other places. They can afford to come into the market, lose their asses for an extended period of time, and essentially buy the market.
In Google's case, it gets even worse. They can leverage their web ads / search model to pay for expansion into any market that has traffic, without concern for actually making direct money in that marketplace.
It's a potential dangerous situation that could leave many people entirely dependant on a single source for everything communication.
On the post: The Next Big Battle: Cable TV vs. The Internet
Re: Re: Re:
They are also competing against cable only properties that get paid by the cable and sat companies (often at quite high rates) allowing them to survive well with lower ad rates. They cable outlets are also more likely to use recycled programming (USA = the Law and Order channel, it seems). Their programming costs are lower, they are getting paid more by the cable companies, and they don't have to maintain broadcast stations around the country.
I don't think it is that they want to make more money, they just want to make what they were making before, and want to be sure of it in the long run.
On the post: Google Isn't Targeting iPhone Users; It's Targeting Everyone Else (Maybe)
Re: Re:
Does the term "too big to fail" ring a bell?
We need more mega-corp-blobs running everything like we need more George W Bush. (hint, we don't need more W)
On the post: Google Isn't Targeting iPhone Users; It's Targeting Everyone Else (Maybe)
Re: Re:
On the post: The Next Big Battle: Cable TV vs. The Internet
Re:
Cause and effect.
Why do you think Fox was pushing for more money per subscriber? Quite simply, the advertising model is broken, no longer functional. Yet, most of the models being pushed for internet distribution are based on advertising. It seems like a bit of a paradox, moving from one system which is failing because of a lack of advertising revenue, and moving to another distribution model that will be even MORE dependent on advertising dollars.
Can you see where this will crash?
On the post: MySpace Replaces All iMeem Playlists With Ads -- Doesn't Ask Permission
On the post: Sony Won't Support Its Own Movie For An Oscar Over Misplaced Piracy Fears
Re: Re: Re:
Hmmm.
On the post: Sony Won't Support Its Own Movie For An Oscar Over Misplaced Piracy Fears
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Isn't Targeting iPhone Users; It's Targeting Everyone Else (Maybe)
Yahoo, MSN, and other search engines without hardwired handset access risk falling farther and farther behind. Phone companies not offering specifically google products also risk becoming outsiders. That Google potentially will offer the phone as an unlocked product may also be very disruptive to the markets that the carriers work in.
Google could not do any of this without it's bags of money, which makes it look like they are trying to buy market share, which in turn is pretty darn evil.
On the post: Sony Won't Support Its Own Movie For An Oscar Over Misplaced Piracy Fears
Re: Re:
On the post: Sony Won't Support Its Own Movie For An Oscar Over Misplaced Piracy Fears
Re: Re:
2) the logical conclusion on pre-release movies is only to release them with massive watermarks or not at all
3) "the shoplifters are winning, let's just give up"
Next >>