Mr. Rubin is one of the primary architects behind another product that also smacks of potential über-coolness — the Google Phone. As Google’s “director of mobile platforms,” Mr. Rubin oversees dozens of engineers who are developing the software at the company’s sprawling campus here. The software embodies the promise of extending Google’s reach at a time when cellphones allow consumers to increasingly untether themselves from their desktop computers, as well as the threat that greater digital mobility poses to Google’s domination of Internet search.
The Google Phone — which, according to several reports, will be made by Google partners and will be available by the middle of 2008 — is likely to provide a stark contrast to the approaches of both Apple and Microsoft to the growing market for smartphones. Google, according to several people with direct knowledge of its efforts, will give away its software to hand-set makers and then use the Google Phone’s openness as an invitation for software developers and content distributors to design applications for it. If the effort succeeds, it will be the most drastic challenge to date of the assertion by Microsoft — the godfather of the desktop PC — that Google and other members of the so-called open-source world can imitate but not innovate.
View: Full Story @ The New York Times
The Google Phone — which, according to several reports, will be made by Google partners and will be available by the middle of 2008 — is likely to provide a stark contrast to the approaches of both Apple and Microsoft to the growing market for smartphones. Google, according to several people with direct knowledge of its efforts, will give away its software to hand-set makers and then use the Google Phone’s openness as an invitation for software developers and content distributors to design applications for it. If the effort succeeds, it will be the most drastic challenge to date of the assertion by Microsoft — the godfather of the desktop PC — that Google and other members of the so-called open-source world can imitate but not innovate.
View: Full Story @ The New York Times
(and Apple was always a hardware company.)
(and Apple was always a hardware company.)
....that does not use their own parts. Interesting. A hardware company.....that puts it together for you...since, they didn't build the internals.... and charge a whole lot. True question (I'm not being snarky) Is there ANYTHING that Apple *ACTUALLY* makes themselves? Besides the OS, cause that was bought and built upon.
(and Apple was always a hardware company.)
....that does not use their own parts. Interesting. A hardware company.....that puts it together for you...since, they didn't build the internals.... and charge a whole lot. True question (I'm not being snarky) Is there ANYTHING that Apple *ACTUALLY* makes themselves? Besides the OS, cause that was bought and built upon.
Does it matter?
Google on the other hand, is trying to be too much of things that it is not. The best example here is it's online office software which has little of anything to do with online search and advertising which is (was?) Google's strategic focus.
(and Apple was always a hardware company.)
Guess you didn't get the memo;
If you're going to be a blind fanboy, at least be well-versed in all the required material.
(and Apple was always a hardware company.)
....that does not use their own parts. Interesting. A hardware company.....that puts it together for you...since, they didn't build the internals.... and charge a whole lot. True question (I'm not being snarky) Is there ANYTHING that Apple *ACTUALLY* makes themselves? Besides the OS, cause that was bought and built upon.
Does it matter?
Well yeah. If I'm going to spend more money to get that cute little apple on the case... I'd like to know what I'm buying. It's like saying "I'm an auto manufacturer", when all I do is fix cars, not build them.
(and Apple was always a hardware company.)
Guess you didn't get the memo;
If you're going to be a blind fanboy, at least be well-versed in all the required material.
You should know when the Master of Marketing is playing for the camera, especially when he wants to warm it up with Billy, who incidentally, runs a software company. With the producer of MS Office there with him, I'd cozy up to Bill too. It's just common sense. Read between the lines.
Here's the real deal:
Apple Is a Hardware Company
This point cannot be emphasized strongly enough. Apple is a computer hardware company. Selling hardware is how Apple generates most of its revenue. Their operating system software may well be the best aspect of their computers, but that does not make them a software company. Anyone who claims that Apple could simply switch to being a software company and make up for lost hardware revenue by selling additional software doesn’t understand how the company operates.
During the brief period of time when Apple licensed the Mac OS to other manufacturers, their revenue tanked. Too many people bought cheap clones from PowerComputing and Umax instead of higher-priced Macs from Apple, and the licensing revenue didn’t compensate for the lost hardware revenue. The situation may well have been good for Mac users, but it was terrible for Apple’s bottom line.
And that, is indeed the bottom line when it comes to this issue.
As for "blind" Mac users . . . most of us made a conscious decision (read: choice) to leave an inferior platform in favour of the Mac. Most of us are former Windows users. I invite everyone reading this who is planning a computer purchase in the near future, and who is not wedded (chained) to the Windows architecture, to visit an Apple store and see what all the fuss (fanboyism, lol) is about.
(and Apple was always a hardware company.)
Guess you didn't get the memo;
If you're going to be a blind fanboy, at least be well-versed in all the required material.
You should know when the Master of Marketing is playing for the camera, especially when he wants to warm it up with Billy, who incidentally, runs a software company. With the producer of MS Office there with him, I'd cozy up to Bill too. It's just common sense. Read between the lines.
Here's the real deal:
Apple Is a Hardware Company
This point cannot be emphasized strongly enough. Apple is a computer hardware company. Selling hardware is how Apple generates most of its revenue. Their operating system software may well be the best aspect of their computers, but that does not make them a software company. Anyone who claims that Apple could simply switch to being a software company and make up for lost hardware revenue by selling additional software doesn’t understand how the company operates.
During the brief period of time when Apple licensed the Mac OS to other manufacturers, their revenue tanked. Too many people bought cheap clones from PowerComputing and Umax instead of higher-priced Macs from Apple, and the licensing revenue didn’t compensate for the lost hardware revenue. The situation may well have been good for Mac users, but it was terrible for Apple’s bottom line.
And that, is indeed the bottom line when it comes to this issue.
As for "blind" Mac users . . . most of us made a conscious decision (read: choice) to leave an inferior platform in favour of the Mac. Most of us are former Windows users. I invite everyone reading this who is planning a computer purchase in the near future, and who is not wedded (chained) to the Windows architecture, to visit an Apple store and see what all the fuss (fanboyism, lol) is about.
INFERIOR platform???? I hate to be the one to break this to you... APPLE IS USING INTEL CPUs! I mean really, they ditched the IBM and Moto CPU and went with intel. So Apple just joined the rest of the computing world when it went to x86/x64 processors. You have it backwards my friend.
Apple uses Intel, AMD (ATi) and Nvidia GPUs. They do not make one friggin part (maybe the case, I'm sure that's sub-contracted out) that goes into the Apple computer. They did the OS, which they had to buy and build upon. You stated that when Apple licenced the OS to other OEMs, they didn't make a good profit. So can you tell me with a straight face Apple does not over charge for their PCs? I was on the Apple site last night and am looking into either a mac mini or a iMac... 850 DOALLARS to upgrade the RAM from 1 to 4 gigs? Gimmie a break. Talk about shafting the consumer.
Linkie link 850 dollars for more 3 gigs of RAM
(and Apple was always a hardware company.)
Guess you didn't get the memo;
If you're going to be a blind fanboy, at least be well-versed in all the required material.
You should know when the Master of Marketing is playing for the camera, especially when he wants to warm it up with Billy, who incidentally, runs a software company. With the producer of MS Office there with him, I'd cozy up to Bill too. It's just common sense. Read between the lines.
Here's the real deal:
Apple Is a Hardware Company
This point cannot be emphasized strongly enough. Apple is a computer hardware company. Selling hardware is how Apple generates most of its revenue. Their operating system software may well be the best aspect of their computers, but that does not make them a software company. Anyone who claims that Apple could simply switch to being a software company and make up for lost hardware revenue by selling additional software doesn’t understand how the company operates.
During the brief period of time when Apple licensed the Mac OS to other manufacturers, their revenue tanked. Too many people bought cheap clones from PowerComputing and Umax instead of higher-priced Macs from Apple, and the licensing revenue didn’t compensate for the lost hardware revenue. The situation may well have been good for Mac users, but it was terrible for Apple’s bottom line.
And that, is indeed the bottom line when it comes to this issue.
As for "blind" Mac users . . . most of us made a conscious decision (read: choice) to leave an inferior platform in favour of the Mac. Most of us are former Windows users. I invite everyone reading this who is planning a computer purchase in the near future, and who is not wedded (chained) to the Windows architecture, to visit an Apple store and see what all the fuss (fanboyism, lol) is about.
INFERIOR platform???? I hate to be the one to break this to you... APPLE IS USING INTEL CPUs! I mean really, they ditched the IBM and Moto CPU and went with intel. So Apple just joined the rest of the computing world when it went to x86/x64 processors. You have it backwards my friend.
Apple uses Intel, AMD (ATi) and Nvidia GPUs. They do not make one friggin part (maybe the case, I'm sure that's sub-contracted out) that goes into the Apple computer. They did the OS, which they had to buy and build upon. You stated that when Apple licenced the OS to other OEMs, they didn't make a good profit. So can you tell me with a straight face Apple does not over charge for their PCs? I was on the Apple site last night and am looking into either a mac mini or a iMac... 850 DOALLARS to upgrade the RAM from 1 to 4 gigs? Gimmie a break. Talk about shafting the consumer.
Linkie link 850 dollars for more 3 gigs of RAM
I was talking about Windows. Which was obvious.
You sure?
Example:
http://msevents.microsoft.com/CUI/WebCastE...;CountryCode=US
You sure?
Example:
http://msevents.microsoft.com/CUI/WebCastE...;CountryCode=US
No, I'm not.
You sure?
Example:
http://msevents.microsoft.com/CUI/WebCastE...;CountryCode=US
No, I'm not.
Hehe, ok.
I know, it's a weird catch-all term. At first I thought I had it wrong as well. Mind you, if MS hadn't mentioned it in some document or another, I might have retracted it. In any case, it's good that these back-and-forths with you are challenging.
You sure?
Example:
http://msevents.microsoft.com/CUI/WebCastE...;CountryCode=US
No, I'm not.
Hehe, ok.
I know, it's a weird catch-all term. At first I thought I had it wrong as well. Mind you, if MS hadn't mentioned it in some document or another, I might have retracted it. In any case, it's good that these back-and-forths with you are challenging.
Don't get me wrong, I DO like the banter. Also remember I respect your opinion. If I didn't play games all the time, I'd most likely use my iMac or my PC with OS X more than any other OS, including Ubuntu. It's the whole lack of games on OS X that keeps me using XP more often than anything else. Oh yeah... next year I am gonna get a new iMac. I just need to allocate my monies to things other than a new computer right now.
You sure?
Example:
http://msevents.microsoft.com/CUI/WebCastE...;CountryCode=US
No, I'm not.
Hehe, ok.
I know, it's a weird catch-all term. At first I thought I had it wrong as well. Mind you, if MS hadn't mentioned it in some document or another, I might have retracted it. In any case, it's good that these back-and-forths with you are challenging.
Don't get me wrong, I DO like the banter. Also remember I respect your opinion. If I didn't play games all the time, I'd most likely use my iMac or my PC with OS X more than any other OS, including Ubuntu. It's the whole lack of games on OS X that keeps me using XP more often than anything else. Oh yeah... next year I am gonna get a new iMac. I just need to allocate my monies to things other than a new computer right now.
Like it or not, you're right about the game issue. Sure, there are titles out for OS X, but chances are, I happen to be a fan of some other series that isn't out for OS X. I keep a Windows partition on my Mac. It's still DirectX over OpenGL.
You sure?
Example:
http://msevents.microsoft.com/CUI/WebCastE...;CountryCode=US
No, I'm not.
Hehe, ok.
I know, it's a weird catch-all term. At first I thought I had it wrong as well. Mind you, if MS hadn't mentioned it in some document or another, I might have retracted it. In any case, it's good that these back-and-forths with you are challenging.
Don't get me wrong, I DO like the banter. Also remember I respect your opinion. If I didn't play games all the time, I'd most likely use my iMac or my PC with OS X more than any other OS, including Ubuntu. It's the whole lack of games on OS X that keeps me using XP more often than anything else. Oh yeah... next year I am gonna get a new iMac. I just need to allocate my monies to things other than a new computer right now.
Like it or not, you're right about the game issue. Sure, there are titles out for OS X, but chances are, I happen to be a fan of some other series that isn't out for OS X. I keep a Windows partition on my Mac. It's still DirectX over OpenGL.
Totally. I think once I do drop the dime for the iMac, I do want one with the quad core. There's no point (to me) to buy into an "old" dual core technology. Do you know when/if they're gonna drop a quad in the iMac?
We'll see a quad core iMac in approx. a year when the mobile quad chip will be released (hopefully.) The iMac is basically a notebook on roids. Although the Core 2 Extreme available in the highest-end iMac is not a mobile processor.
For some reason, however, AFAIK Intel stopped mentioning the possibility of a quad core mobile (penryn) chip altogether. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Either way, give it a few months. iMacs go through pretty regular refreshes.
Configuration-wise, I believe the high-end iMac offers a choice of videocard. Beyond that, you're looking at (stuck with?) a Mac Pro - highly configurable but rather pricey:
http://store.apple.com/AppleStore/WebObjec...p;family=MacPro
It's interesting to note that there's not a huge price difference between the highest-end iMac and at least the quad-core Mac Pro.
We'll see a quad core iMac in approx. a year when the mobile quad chip will be released (hopefully.) The iMac is basically a notebook on roids. Although the Core 2 Extreme available in the highest-end iMac is not a mobile processor.
For some reason, however, AFAIK Intel stopped mentioning the possibility of a quad core mobile (penryn) chip altogether. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Either way, give it a few months. iMacs go through pretty regular refreshes.
Configuration-wise, I believe the high-end iMac offers a choice of videocard. Beyond that, you're looking at (stuck with?) a Mac Pro - highly configurable but rather pricey:
http://store.apple.com/AppleStore/WebObjec...p;family=MacPro
It's interesting to note that there's not a huge price difference between the highest-end iMac and at least the quad-core Mac Pro.
EEEE! The price! That's a little more than I want to pay. I mean, the specs are great.. but it's a little out of my price range. Along with the iMac, I also plan on building a new PC. Thanks for the info though.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.