backtop


Print 86 comment(s) - last by themaster08.. on Jan 7 at 11:14 AM

Schmidt makes his 2014 predictions

Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt made his 2014 predictions for Bloomberg TV recently, and said he believes everyone is going to have a smartphone. 
 
"The trend has been mobile was winning," said Schmidt in the Bloomberg TV video. "It's now won."
 
Google certainly has a lot to celebrate in the mobile realm. Its mobile operating system Android has achieved over 80 percent global market share, leaving competitors like Apple's iOS (12.9 percent) and Windows Phone (3.6 percent) in its dust. 
 
Schmidt went on to say that big data and machine intelligence will be the "biggest disruptor" as it becomes available everywhere and creates new services, such as the ability to locate people, rank what their doing, design products, etc. He said this would undoubtedly change every business globally. 
 
However, Schmidt said a huge disruptor that doesn't have a clear outcome yet is in the realm of genetics, but he suspects greater DNA sequencing could potentially help with cancer treatments and diagnostics over the next year. 
 
On a final note, Schmidt admitted that Google missed the train when it came to social networking, but that won't be the case in 2014. 
 
"The biggest mistake that I made was not anticipating the rise of the social networking phenomenon," said Schmidt. "Not a mistake we’re going to make again. I guess in our defense we were busy working on many other things, but we should have been in that area and I take responsibility for that."
 
Google unveiled its own social network, Google+, back in 2011. However, Facebook was far ahead with a 2004 birth date and has blossomed into the world's largest social network with over 1 billion users. Twitter launched shortly after in 2006.
 
But Google+ never really seemed to catch on. It had a lot of momentum at first, gaining 10 million users by July 15, 2011 (it launched June 28 of that year), but after some time, users fell silent.
 
Later that year, Google+ Vice President of Product Bradley Horowitz said Google+ wasn't meant to be an alternative to Facebook or Twitter, but rather a better experience on Google. 
 
You can check out Schmidt's Bloomberg video below: 

Source: Bloomberg



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By MrBlastman on 12/30/2013 10:36:35 AM , Rating: 4
And double down on it. You see, I'm not getting a smartphone this year if I can help it and neither is my wife. They are useless to us.

We did get a tablet, finally. Well, I did for my wife. An Android-based Nexus 10. It is... okay. It is wi-fi only which is fine but it definitely isn't anything more than I expected. My wife was convinced for a long time that it would be like a computer for her. I told her--no, no it won't.

She didn't believe me. Several days after owning one, she admitted to me: "Hey, this isn't as useful as our desktop. I'm constantly having weird problems with different websites and it almost seems pointless." I'm glad she's finally realizing it. I've always looked at them as toys for the most part.

The flash issues with even Android 4.2 are beyond annoying. Even after manually installing flash (highest version is 11.1x) and putting Firefox on, I couldn't go to staple websites like Homestar Runner or Twitch.tv and view any of their content because... uhoh... Plugin required or flash insufficient. That pissed me off. I finally had to install Puffin browser to go to any of these places and well, have to pay 3 bucks to use something basic that every damn tablet on Earth should support. Just because HTML 5 is better doesn't mean we shouldn't have it!!!!!!!!!! *glares at imbeciles like the dead Steve Jobs*

Anyways... those Smartphones are nice toys and if you are away from an office or home for long periods of time, then they are nice. If you go from home to work to home every day... well, what is the point in them? Other than paying another monthly bill that is nothing more than money being pissed down the drain, I see none.




RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By Guspaz on 12/30/2013 10:51:38 AM , Rating: 1
Speak for yourself. My father, who isn't the most technically savvy person, got himself an iPad. He finds it far more useful than their desktop: it's much easier to use, and does everything he needs.


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By 91TTZ on 12/30/2013 11:09:36 AM , Rating: 2
There is no way that you can say that a tablet, running a stripped-down operating system, is "far more useful" than a desktop.

You can say that it's "adequate for what he needs it for" but it's definitely not more useful than a desktop.

I have an iPhone, a tablet, a laptop, and a desktop. The desktop is still the most useful. The laptop is close but I prefer the form factor of the desktop. The tablet is more limited and useful for lightly browsing the web while watching TV. The phone is great for looking things up on the go and making phone calls.


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/30/2013 11:21:29 AM , Rating: 2
I think he was saying for his Father's purposes, it is more useful. That might not jive with what you or other folks think, but for his dad, the tablet is all he has a need for.


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By 91TTZ on 12/30/2013 11:47:18 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
but for his dad, the tablet is all he has a need for.


This would agree with what I said and it would disagree with what the OP said. He said it was "far more useful" while I said that it is "adequate for what he needs it for".


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/30/2013 2:35:59 PM , Rating: 1
The person we responded to (Guspaz) is not generalizing that a tablet is far more useful than a desktop. He is saying his dad finds it far more useful. It is dad's subjective view and while it doesn't match mine or yours, it is perfectly valid - for him.

My subjective view is that neither a tablet or laptop fulfills my needs. Thus I find a desktop far more useful - for me.


By Cypherdude1 on 1/1/2014 3:54:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
She didn't believe me. Several days after owning one, she admitted to me: "Hey, this isn't as useful as our desktop. I'm constantly having weird problems with different websites and it almost seems pointless." I'm glad she's finally realizing it. I've always looked at them as toys for the most part.
If you were to pay (a lot ) extra and buy a Microsoft Surface Pro 2 10" 256GB tablet with the full Windows 8 O/S, then you could run anything you wanted to. Unfortunately, the SP2 256GB costs $1300. Perhaps next year the other tablet makers will catch up. The problem with the Chinese makers is they are not innovative. They do not lead, they copy, they cut back on features, etc... I remember Acer was whining about Microsoft producing their own tablet. That's because all the other table makers were producing junk. Now that the SP2 has arrived with full Win8, Lenovo, Asus, Acer, and also HP, & Gateway will produce their own high-end tablets next year . I am hoping one of the other tablet makers will produce a 512GB 15.6" Win8 Pro tablet for $900 late next year. I suspect someone will do this, probably Lenovo.

quote:
Speak for yourself. My father, who isn't the most technically savvy person, got himself an iPad. He finds it far more useful than their desktop: it's much easier to use, and does everything he needs.
Yes, if someone is not tech savvy and only wants to email and browse the web, then all you need is an iPad. Most people are at this level of computer usage and that's OK.

The desktop still does the heavy lifting, the maxed out work. If you want to use your computer for maximum use, if you are an experienced power user, then you'll need a maxed out desktop. You'll want the Intel i7, 16 GB RAM, 480 GB SSD, HDD's, dedicated video cards and 1000 watt PSU. You'll want something like what I use:
http://tinyurl.com/5monitors

B^D


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By Paj on 12/31/2013 11:25:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no way that you can say that a tablet, running a stripped-down operating system, is "far more useful" than a desktop.


It depends on how you define 'useful'. The majority of people just want a device to read emails, watch videos, and maybe do a bit of online shopping.

A fully fledged PC is often overkill for these purposes.
A tablet is smaller, lighter, more portable, has more battery life, boots up faster and is generally more intuitive and easy to use.

True, they're not good for everything - business, rich media, gaming, 3D rendering - the PC is far more flexible. But for many, as a general purpose machine tablets are preferable to PCs or laptops, which are expensive and come with a steep learning curve. This is one of the reasons they're selling poorly since tablets were introduced.


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By damianrobertjones on 12/30/2013 12:27:53 PM , Rating: 1
Nah. The guy at number 1 called me over to have a look at an issue... PC World managed to sell him an iPad with a nice printer and, try as he might, he couldn't print.

So... TELL ME that an iPad is easier than a standard Windows laptop? Tell me... Tell me that the wealth of settings within the various menus of the iPad are easier? 50/50 in that regard.


By Monkey's Uncle on 12/30/2013 2:44:08 PM , Rating: 1
Bro,

Learn to read.

Guspaz is not talking about your preferences or anyone but his dad's. His dad finds the tablet far more useful than a desktop. And for HIM that is a perfectly valid view. It has nothing to do with your views, my views or the views of anybody but his dad. It is dad's own subjective view of his experiences with both platforms.

Oh, and try to hook up a Windows printer (you know the ones that depend on a proprietary Windows driver to give them their intelligence) to a Windows machine if you don't have access to those proprietary drivers and see how well you are going to print on your desktop machine. Desktops are not all that simple to deal with either - in fact they can be far more intimidating to someone that is a total technical n00b that a simple iOS or Android tablet.


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By Jeffk464 on 12/30/2013 3:04:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'll tell you, iPad's are easier to use.


By p05esto on 12/31/2013 2:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
ipads blow. I won one and I choose my firesale HP TouchPad over the ipad.... hate the freaking ipad, barf.


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By ET on 12/31/2013 3:26:33 AM , Rating: 2
Of course tablets are easier. They're less flexible, but they are easier on several levels. Take touch for example, see how long it takes a toddler (or an old person who's never used a PC) to use a tablet vs. use a computer mouse proficiently. Software installation, it's trivial on a tablet, messier on a PC (unless you install from Steam, the app store or the like).


By ptmmac on 12/30/2013 11:08:29 AM , Rating: 1
The Flash is your problem. The iPad is more stable because of native Apps that don't run Flash. Flash is old dead code that almost worked when nothing else did. Not all apps are superior to the web based system, but they can be a lot more secure. Good luck with the aftermarket price for the Nexus tablet.


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By OoklaTheMok on 12/30/2013 11:22:38 AM , Rating: 3
You should have purchased a Surface tablet. Every website works on a Surface just as if you were using your desktop. The only difficulty is trying to find one because they have been selling like crazy this holiday season.


By 91TTZ on 12/31/2013 1:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
Nice try STEVE BALLMER.


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By MrBlastman on 12/31/2013 2:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
I wanted a Surface. In fact, I considered getting a new Nokia Lumia 2520. If it weren't for Windows RT and Microsoft killing it off, I may have. The lack of apps was also frustrating.

RT sucks. To get one with full-blown Windows would have cost more than twice as much as I paid for her Nexus 10... which was only 350 bucks for the 32 GB model. Yeah, I got a great deal. :)


By Alexvrb on 1/1/2014 10:10:13 PM , Rating: 3
What apps are you lacking on WinRT? The Surface isn't perfect, but they're pretty solid devices. Web browsing is great, with full IE11 (and soon Firefox).

Anyway, I don't know what you mean by killing it off. They just updated RT to 8.1, and if they merge WP and RT into one OS that doesn't mean that they killed off all ARM development. That means they're consolidating their ARM efforts into one unified OS. I'm sure it'll run the existing software. Heck even WP8 ran most of the WP7 apps and they don't even use the same kernel.


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By sprockkets on 12/30/13, Rating: 0
RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By retrospooty on 12/30/13, Rating: 0
RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By deltaend on 12/30/2013 2:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reason is that flash is horrible, CPU intensive, buggy and insecure as hell, take your pick.


Right, because the Java used in replacement of Flash is fast, bug free and totally secure. There have been far more computers infected with viruses due to Java vulnerabilities than Flash and I am not convinced at all that Java is faster for most common applications. HTML5 is cool, but it doesn't show up correctly in every browser (like flash does) and Java by itself seems far more insecure and buggy than flash has ever been.

I am still marveling that Adobe just rolled over and decided that they agree with Steve that flash for the mobile is dead. With that statement, they condemned the desktop flash player to death as well.


By Jeffk464 on 12/30/2013 3:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
This is the reason I don't install java on windows.


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By sprockkets on 12/30/2013 3:14:12 PM , Rating: 1
Both java and flash are dead. You can blame oracle for messing up java.

But I guess some people want to still live in browser plugin hell for some stupid reason.


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/30/2013 6:22:57 PM , Rating: 3
Java is a long way from being dead.

Trust me on that - there are companies making billions of dollars writing, and selling Java-based systems out there. There is also a 98% chance that the bank you are keeping your money in is using Java-based systems to manage it. The planes you fly in are being controlled by applications written in Java. So are the manufacturing processes that build the cars we drive.

Flash, yeah - its on the way out and being replaced. But java is and will be running very strong for the next decade or more.


By sprockkets on 12/30/2013 7:29:41 PM , Rating: 1
Just because there are companies that still use it doesn't mean the end users on desktops and tablets are.

And those companies use it just because they have for years. I doubt anyone is going to start using it when other alternatives are around that don't suck.


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/30/2013 6:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
Java is dead? Most Android apps are written in Java dude.


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By sprockkets on 12/30/2013 7:34:51 PM , Rating: 1
You mean an alternative form of Java called Dalvik?

That isn't the Java that people used to use in browsers via a java runtime installed on desktop computers.

Go ahead. Name one popular website that still uses Java. About the only one I know of is the archaic games on Yahoo.


By retrospooty on 12/31/2013 7:43:51 AM , Rating: 2
I am sure he is referring to Java/browser plugins, not Java itself. Insecure as hell, the only thing worse than flash in a browser is Java.


By Gsplaver on 1/2/2014 5:40:04 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You mean an alternative form of Java called Dalvik?

That isn't the Java that people used to use in browsers via a java runtime installed on desktop computers.

Go ahead. Name one popular website that still uses Java. About the only one I know of is the archaic games on Yahoo.


No. Dalvik is the name of the Android Virtual Machine. The apps are written in Java, and parsed with Dalvik. It is the exact same Java that people use on their computers. Using the word browser in your second sentence also seems to imply that you think java-script is in some way related to Java, which is completely false.

Also, much of Amazon.com's frontend is written in java. A lot of its internals are as well. So that's a pretty bad argument too. It's a multi-billion dollar language, and it services some of the largest corporations in the world. Even though Oracle has put a fat stain on the creation of Sun, arguing against its ubiquity is like denying that the sun rises every morning. You're just plain wrong.


By retrospooty on 12/31/2013 7:45:47 AM , Rating: 2
No, HELL no. Java is even worse. Between the 2 that covers 99% of all virus infections on PC's... Both are over with when speaking of browser/web plugins, although I am sure it will take Java browser/web plugins a lot longer to be phased out.


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By Paj on 12/31/2013 11:30:09 AM , Rating: 2
It sounds like you're thinking of Javascript. They are not the same thing. Most websites use a combination of Javascript/CSS/HTML5 to do all the fancy stuff that Flash used to.

Theres a few scenarios where Flash has the lead (mainly gaming and 3D), but the gap is closing fast.


By deltaend on 1/2/2014 7:07:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It sounds like you're thinking of Javascript. They are not the same thing. Most websites use a combination of Javascript/CSS/HTML5 to do all the fancy stuff that Flash used to.


No, I'm not. Obviously Javascript and Java are two different things, but although HTML5 contains these more modern combinations of HTML + CSS + Javascript, it cannot bring the same functionality to bear as what is currently offered in Flash without the addition of Java. Java is the only web technology that is both cross platform and capable of all of the functionality as what Flash offers. HTML5 can do some of those things, but it doesn't show up exactly the same in all browsers (unlike flash or java) and it doesn't even work in all browsers (unlike flash and java). We could talk about ActiveX, but since that's IE only, who really cares?


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By sprockkets on 12/30/13, Rating: 0
By sprockkets on 12/31/2013 12:22:08 PM , Rating: 1
(OOO a downrater? Tough sht, you are seeing my posts anyhow.)

Uh, you are worried about running homestarrunner.com, a site that has been abandoned for what, 5 years now?

And twitch.tv says to watch their stuff you download their app for android.

Wow, your two worst issues are non existent!

And to add to it, twitch tv could play video natively in chrome on android without flash, which leads me to believe you are more like lying!

You are full of sht!


By KoolAidMan1 on 12/31/2013 4:51:35 AM , Rating: 2
You don't even need an app for Twitch. I don't know about Android but live streams run in the iOS browser. The app is better since it remembers your account favorites and a native app is always good, but the browser does work. It's harder to find sites that don't work with mobile. The few that are Flash only are frankly out of date and need to catch up.

Flash is dead on mobile. Even Adobe abandoned it because they couldn't make it energy efficient or secure on Android. They had their chance for years and they gave up. Better tech for mobile won.


By nafhan on 12/30/2013 11:49:47 AM , Rating: 2
Having a hard time telling... is this satire? This made me pretty sure it is: "I couldn't go to staple websites like Homestar Runner".


By drycrust3 on 12/30/2013 12:01:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not getting a smartphone this year if I can help it and neither is my wife. They are useless to us.

The rate technology is moving, and the rate at which prices are falling, the attractiveness of a smartphone will almost double by the end of 2014.


By Jeffk464 on 12/30/2013 2:39:46 PM , Rating: 2
Flash and most ARM processors didn't get along to well. Apple intentionally blocked flash from their iOS.


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/30/2013 3:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think we all thought this way at one point about the smartphone.

And we were all wrong. I couldn't imagine going back to a time without one.

My smartphone is my camera, my GPS device, my PDA and personal calendar. It's my universal remote control, my remote access terminal, the ultimate shopping assistant...I honestly can't even sit here and list all the uses and scenarios where my smartphone has proved itself invaluable.

Useless toys? No, sorry you're wrong, and being WAY too myopic.


By MrBlastman on 12/31/2013 2:59:31 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the way I see it:

1. I'm either at home or work. I have a computer in both places. My mouse is easier to use, my keyboard is easier to input with and the computer responds faster. No room for a smartphone here or there.

2. If I'm not at home or work, I'm usually running a couple errands. I have no time to leisurely use the internet when doing this.

Now, one might argue the smartphone will help me shop but I prefer exercising my mind and memory by memorizing everything. It helps keep me sharp. :)

I'm doing okay without one.


RE: Mr. Schmidth I bet you 1000 bucks...
By ET on 12/31/2013 3:32:01 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, you're not getting a smartphone. It's okay, as long as you accept that you're the minority.


By KiwiTT on 12/31/2013 1:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
My 70 years plus parents love their iPads. The desktop is still used occasionally, but they now do most of their computer stuff; emailing, iMessaging (all our family have iOS devices), browsing, reading news, skyping, etc. on their iPads.

My 5 year old niece and and 9 year-old autistic nephew got new iPad minis from their grandparents and these are great as well. Games and also learning apps are good too. These are the way kids will or are being taught now.

The future is here now, who know what the coming decade will bring, but mobile computing is it. I knew it would be one day, when I had my first pocket BASIC language computer in 1980, with only 1400 bytes of RAM. I now see an iPad in my future as well one day, however, there is a lot to be said for Smartphones that are in your pocket and for that my iPhone 5 is fine, and will be for the next 3-5 years.


By Gsplaver on 1/2/2014 5:33:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The flash issues with even Android 4.2 are beyond annoying. Even after manually installing flash (highest version is 11.1x) and putting Firefox on, I couldn't go to staple websites like Homestar Runner or Twitch.tv and view any of their content because... uhoh... Plugin required or flash insufficient. That pissed me off. I finally had to install Puffin browser to go to any of these places and well, have to pay 3 bucks to use something basic that every damn tablet on Earth should support. Just because HTML 5 is better doesn't mean we shouldn't have it!!!!!!!!!! *glares at imbeciles like the dead Steve Jobs*


That's because Jelly Bean ended flash support. If you want some of it back, Adobe suggests you use Adobe AIR, or an alternative solution. I believe that even South Park Studios and the Daily Show have an AIR extension or another tablet/smartphone friendly format to play their videos, and why on earth would you not use the Twitch.tv native application? I use it, and it's far better than the webpage on my desktop browser in a few ways. It's also quite intuitive. (Puffin Browser, or another browser that parses flash remotely instead of locally would also work). I challenge you to find a tablet that runs flash, and is stable. You won't. Anything Pre-Jelly Bean tablet wise doesn't get official support anymore, is probably slow, and will probably be even slower with flash. The intent of HTML 5 was NEVER to replace flash, it was to combine CSS, HTML, AJAX, and other web languages/technologies into one language. (You can always visit the W3C to verify this...) Web-video parsing and playback was simply one of its features. Not that you're expected to know any of this, but it's a bit unfair to bash the Android ecosystem for something that's now extinct in the mobile world.


Pro-Google bias?
By astralsolace on 12/30/2013 10:23:23 AM , Rating: 3
Why the characterization that Google's high market share of Android has left Apple "in the dust"?

Apple's never really been the type of company to compete for low-cost/margin penetration. They've always been the novelty, super-expensive (and usually not worth it) toy for the better-off or not-too-smart.

The only reason the iPhone enjoyed such high penetration is because it was really the first (and only, for a while) modern smartphone, and has been dropping ever since.

But characterizing Apple as being left "in the dust" by Google in the mobile market really seems disingenuous. Apple makes a ton of money selling their status-symbol novelties at high-margin. They certainly make a lot of money (more than Google, at any rate, off their devices) from it.

Disclaimer: I've got a Galaxy S4, which I love, and will never go back to iPhones.




RE: Pro-Google bias?
By futrtrubl on 12/30/2013 10:34:31 AM , Rating: 2
They still got left in the dust. It may be gold dust and Apple is probably quite happy sitting and playing in the dust, but they got left in the dust.


RE: Pro-Google bias?
By Argon18 on 12/30/13, Rating: 0
RE: Pro-Google bias?
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/30/2013 11:18:48 AM , Rating: 1
I might also say that Ford not only sells more cars than Ferrari, they also make far more money overall than Ferrari by a very large margin. I don't think anybody cares whether an Android smartphone costs less than an iPhone any more than anyone cares that a Ferrari F12berlinetta costs more than a Ford Focus. Rather foplks care that there are a lot more android phones being sold than iPhones. Likewise that the sum total of money made from selling those android phones also beats the sum total of money Apple is getting from their iPhone sales by a very wide margin.

The metrics are pretty simple really.

For market share, Samsung alone beats out Apple by a pretty healthy margin. That doesn't factor in all the other Android implementers out there - just Samsung.

Revenue-wise Apple and Google are in completely different markets and can't be compared. Google is strictly speaking, a software vendor (not counting Motorola who makes and sells under their own brand) whereas Apple's primary market is hardware. If you want to compare the number of sold units and total profits from those sales, you have to compare Apple to the combined sales of all the Android implementers (i.e. Samsung, LG, Acer, HTC, Motorola, Sony, Alcatel, Hauwei, etc.).

When looked at it in these terms, I would say that yes, Apple's smartphones are being left in the dust by all the Android smartphones being sold.

Would I call an iPhone 5s a Ferrari and a LG G2 a Ford Focus, nope. I would call the G2 a Lambo ;)


RE: Pro-Google bias?
By lukarak on 1/1/2014 1:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
Meanwhile, in the factual world:

"For all of 2012, Appleā€™s $35.903 billion in operating income from mobile devices accounted for 69% of the industry total."

And yes, Apple is a Ferrari. The LG G2 is a Lambo (as are the HTC One, GS4 and Xperia Z). All Lambos. But the Android market share doesn't come from Lambos. It doesn't even come from BMWs and AUDIs. It comes from Fords and Toyotas to an extent, and almost all future growth will come from Dacias, Tatas, Ladas and Geelys. A market that will always run to the ground on running almost at cost, with the only focus on paper specs that can be shown next to the phone in a store (you could hear a great interview on Anandtech with Arm's chief designer), with no regard to the actual usage period of the phone.


RE: Pro-Google bias?
By Nutzo on 12/30/2013 11:26:16 AM , Rating: 1
Bad example since there are android phones that beat the iPhone in almost every spec (faster, larger screen, more ram, more storage, etc.

The comparison would more accurate if Ford also made cars that where faster and better that Ferraris.

As for having a higher profit margin, that's fine if you are a stock holder, but from a consumer standpoint, it means you are paying way to much for the product.


RE: Pro-Google bias?
By Argon18 on 12/30/2013 12:17:13 PM , Rating: 1
"As for having a higher profit margin, that's fine if you are a stock holder, but from a consumer standpoint, it means you are paying way to much for the product."
Not sure what your point is. This is an article about global market share, not your opinion of other consumers.


RE: Pro-Google bias?
By retrospooty on 12/30/2013 1:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
Here is a better way of describing what he means...

http://imgur.com/ZfQqgQ9


RE: Pro-Google bias?
By Argon18 on 12/31/2013 1:13:51 PM , Rating: 1
Is that supposed to be some kind of anti-Apple humorous snub? FYI I don't own a single Apple product. I love my Galaxy S4.


RE: Pro-Google bias?
By retrospooty on 12/30/2013 11:57:06 AM , Rating: 1
"How do you define "left in the dust"? What is the metric? Are we talking about unit volume? Or revenue? Or profit margin?"

I define it as modern features and would agree its "technically" left in the dust as well as unit volume. Obviously not profit. Alot of people want and appreciate a simple device without too many features to confuse them... IOS has the basics down, but is missing FAR too many features for me. It's UI is nearly a decade old and looks it's age... Dusty.


RE: Pro-Google bias?
By bupkus on 12/30/2013 11:26:24 AM , Rating: 2
The most noteworthy of things market share brings is "developers, developers, developers" sorry, couldn't help it.

If Apple ignores this fact they do it at their peril.


RE: Pro-Google bias?
By KoolAidMan1 on 12/31/2013 4:43:25 AM , Rating: 2
iOS is where developers make money. It's a big reason I switched from Android and WP8 this year.

iOS doesn't have the main market share but they have the one that counts: high end hardware with users that go online and buy apps. Android won't get there until it graduates from mostly being on low end hardware and feature phones.


RE: Pro-Google bias?
By purerice on 1/1/2014 3:04:47 PM , Rating: 1
In the mid 90's, app revenue/machine was one of Apple's bragging points. By the late 90's, that was lost. Apple makes a great first product (bondi blue iMac, iPod, iPhone) but suffocates it with their closed door policy on hardware/OS licensing.


RE: Pro-Google bias?
By ven1ger on 12/30/2013 2:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
Market share is important in the long term. Developers will flock to the device that has the larger market share. If MS overtakes Apple in marketshare, expect to see more MS apps and less Apple apps. Virtually almost every app that gets release, there will be an Android and Apple version, while MS gets a maybe, too often nothing.

Even in terms of the computer market place, you'll find virtually almost any kind of software for the PC, and all the variants of Windows. While for the Mac, only a percentage of the software available for the PC is available for the Mac.

Marketshare is important for the user and developer, profit margins are only important for the share holder.


RE: Pro-Google bias?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/30/2013 4:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But characterizing Apple as being left "in the dust" by Google in the mobile market really seems disingenuous.


Oh really?

Who has the most used mobile search engine? The most used mobile calendar? The most used email service? The most used maps? The most used video hosting service? The most used mobile OS? Google has Google+, Apple has NO alternative to that either. The list goes on and on.

Seriously, in what way has Apple NOT been 'left in the dust' when it comes to the mobile market?

quote:
Apple makes a ton of money


That's great for the shareholders, sure. But what's that do for the end user?

quote:
They certainly make a lot of money (more than Google, at any rate, off their devices) from it.


Well that's not fair because Google has an entirely different business model. They give away everything for free, and making money on device sales was never their goal.

I'm really not seeing a Pro-Google bias. Imo you have to be biased to NOT see how Google has left Apple behind. Their mobile presence is MUCH stronger.


Big Data
By Argon18 on 12/30/13, Rating: 0
RE: Big Data
By Argon18 on 12/30/13, Rating: 0
RE: Big Data
By Argon18 on 12/30/2013 12:14:23 PM , Rating: 1
... Also forgot to add ebay. Ebay runs entirely on Hadoop + Linux.


RE: Big Data
By 91TTZ on 12/30/2013 11:23:15 AM , Rating: 1
I've worked in a datacenter for the last 6 years. The majority of the servers here run Windows Server.

If you're only including giant databases in "big data" then you may have a point, but those companies are few and far between. The vast majority of companies in the country are smaller and have no need for such massive databases. They're content running on Windows Server and using MS SQL.

Even large, fortune 500 companies use Windows Server, SQL, and Exchange. It's going to be the rare entity such as Facebook, Google, or the US Government that will need massive databases that span across huge numbers of computers.

Microsoft has been sucking lately with Windows 8 and Server 2012. They're steaming piles of dog crap.


RE: Big Data
By Nutzo on 12/30/2013 11:29:15 AM , Rating: 3
Actually Server 2012 has some nice features, it's just the GUI that's a steaming pile of dog ****.


RE: Big Data
By 91TTZ on 12/30/2013 11:47:39 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed.


RE: Big Data
By Argon18 on 12/30/13, Rating: 0
RE: Big Data
By retrospooty on 12/30/2013 1:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
As usual, when speakng MS, your head goes right up your wazoo... Read what he said again really slow this time. I will underline the key parts for you. :P

"If you're only including giant databases in "big data" then you may have a point , but those companies are few and far between . The vast majority of companies in the country are smaller and have no need for such massive databases"

O% of big data, OK... Like it or not (and I know you dont) Microsoft is still the biggest and most important player in the enterprise/server market by a HUGE margin.


RE: Big Data
By Nutzo on 12/30/2013 2:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
That's like compaining that the automakers have a 0% market share of the train or ship market. Different market, different product. Microsoft has a huge market share outside the "Big Data" market.


RE: Big Data
By Argon18 on 12/31/2013 1:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
And what is this article about? Big Data. What did the Google CEO quote that I quoted discuss? Big Data.

Good grief you Wintards can't see past your own smelly pile of BSOD's and Hotfixes. Even in an article about Big Data, all you can do is cup Steve Ballmer's nutsack and cry to your mommy. It's sad really.


RE: Big Data
By themaster08 on 12/31/2013 1:59:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think you understand what big data is.
And you don't understand any of Microsoft's products other than the ones you heard of 15 years ago.

Microsoft Azure HDInsight is Microsoft's Big Data service (which is also Hadoop-based), not Microsoft SQL Server:

http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/services/hdinsig...


RE: Big Data
By Argon18 on 12/31/2013 1:12:09 PM , Rating: 1
"Microsoft Azure HDInsight"

Ok, and who exactly is using this? Nobody that's who. You can't name one customer because they don't exist. Facebook, Ebay, Amazon, Netflix, etc. are all running Linux.


RE: Big Data
By themaster08 on 1/7/2014 11:14:43 AM , Rating: 2
That wasn't my point. I don't care how many people are using it. You were incorrect in your statement that Microsoft SQL server is their Big Data service, because you're so entrenched in the past when it comes to Microsoft, you have no clue of the services which they provide.

By the way, Microsoft contributed 16,000 lines of code to Apache Hadoop, and is also a large contributor to the Linux Foundation, previously sitting in the top 20 list of largest contributors. I bet that makes your skin crawl doesn't it, my deluded friend? :)))


joke
By p05esto on 12/30/2013 3:56:32 PM , Rating: 2
What a joke. Google is foolish, they sound like a rookie. Tell 95% of business workers that mobile won, as they sit at their desks and workstations getting stuff done. Sure they have a cell in their pocket, but for almost all actual work it requires a mouse, keyboard and a larger screen. Not to mention a good chair and proper desk setup.

FOOLISH YOU ARE GOOGLE, to make sure pointless predictions. PCs simple got fast and outpaced the need to replace them every 2 years. PCs can now easily last 5 years. It's now mobile devices that get replaced 2 yrs because there's where progress is being made. At some point the hardware will surpass the software and cell phones will last 5 yrs too. Then what will they say? Same with tablets of course....the hardware WILL catch up.




RE: joke
By ritualm on 12/30/2013 4:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
Claiming why those predictions are stupid, is stupid.

I ignore them entirely. AFAIK Eric Schmidt is talking with his head buried in sand.


RE: joke
By p05esto on 12/31/2013 1:57:38 PM , Rating: 2
Are you not saying the comments are stupid yourself and his head is in the sand? Just because I spelled it out doesn't make it stupid or untrue.


RE: joke
By ritualm on 12/31/2013 3:34:55 PM , Rating: 2
Predictions are just that. You're reading too much into them.


RE: joke
By Reclaimer77 on 12/30/2013 4:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think you should watch the whole interview before judging. In the context of the discussion, he's right. There are more phones and tablets being sold than PC's today, and that trend is only ticking upwards as we go forward.


RE: joke
By p05esto on 12/31/2013 1:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
BUT: While almost every person has a cell phone every family doesn't need a separact PC, often 1-2 are enough for a home. A cell phone is personal, while a laptop/desktop can be shared and have multiple accounts.

Regardless of the numbers (irrelevant), it would be like saying SmartTVs are taking over PCs because there are more of them. It's just another computing device. REAL WORK must be done on a desktop or laptop with large screens and good user inputs. A 4" touch screen is not EVER going to cut it. No better on a tablet unless you hook up a keyboard and a mouse input.... but then isn't it REALLY a laptop anyway?


Mobile has won versus what?
By 91TTZ on 12/30/2013 11:06:10 AM , Rating: 3
It's kind of a vague statement. Mobile has won versus what? Are they comparing it to laptops? Desktops? Other mobile?

You could say that my iPhone is mobile, but what did it win against? It replaced an older mobile phone I had. It didn't replace my desktop or laptop. I'm not going to make phone calls on my desktop or carry it around with me. But when I get home it's all about the desktop. It's much more productive to work with a mouse/keyboard and look at a large screen than it is to type on my phone.




RE: Mobile has won versus what?
By p05esto on 12/31/2013 2:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
No kidding, right on. Wow, we all have tvs too...and technically you can surf the web, youtube, etc... but they didn't win because there are more of them. I can't get any work done on a tv, cell phone or tablet (maybe Surface Pro, but that's about it). Those devices have their place for internet consumption and stupid little games, but that's it. it's just another must have toy, not replacing desktops/laptops for ANYONE who does actual work. For the web surfers, sure, of course... but that's not what we're talking about it.


Winning a battle vs winning a war.
By drycrust3 on 12/30/2013 11:38:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"It's now won."
... Android has achieved over 80 percent global market share, leaving competitors like Apple's iOS (12.9 percent) and Windows Phone (3.6 percent) in its dust.

Market domination isn't winning the war, it's just market domination. You might be able to claim winning the war when your competitors products are taken off the market, but that hasn't happened yet, so the war isn't over.
To me, at this stage in the market, where the only 64 bit ARM smartphone is an iPhone, gloating over an 80 percent market share is a bit premature. One can argue this market isn't even a decade old.
Also, don't forget that unlike Microsoft, Google doesn't support manufacturers in their patent battles. Why wasn't it part of a company's agreement with Google that if they have a patent that helps win patent battles, that they will licence that patent to other Android manufacturers at a lower rate than what the patent troll does? Anyway, Google didn't, and that means that Windows Phone is still a viable product because Microsoft will support manufacturers in their battles. In fact, it is better than that, Microsoft look after all the patent battle problems. Companies like HTC want their phones and tablets on shelves, they want them moving, and they want to make a profit, they aren't so particular about what OS is inside as long as they make a profit.




RE: Winning a battle vs winning a war.
By sprockkets on 12/30/2013 12:38:09 PM , Rating: 1
So what was Google giving HTC some patents to fight apple with and them suing Rockstar for a declaratory judgement then?

Running WP7 on one of HTC's phones didn't shield them from Nokia either.


By themaster08 on 12/31/2013 7:28:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Running WP7 on one of HTC's phones didn't shield them from Nokia either.
Because the patents were related to hardware, not software or the OS.


hah
By chromal on 12/30/2013 5:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
Not only hasn't mobile won, it has yet to even offer equivalents and alternatives to the non-mobile computing I care about.




RE: hah
By purerice on 1/1/2014 3:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. I have tried tablets and smartphones but always go back to my desktop. My desktop is 6 years old and the latest smartphones and tablets can actually outperform it.

With the quasi exception of some Windows tablets, what a 9" tablet or 5" smart phone cannot do is run a proper GUI, with open file system, multiple apps actually running simultaneously, etc ad nauseum.

Mobile may have the market share but in terms of productivity, they are 30 years behind.


Nice Words
By RapidDissent on 12/30/2013 10:23:04 AM , Rating: 2
I like that he says, I screwed up, we were kind of busy, but I screwed up.

Not sure if other leaders, whom I may or may not work for, would do the same.




"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki