[gernica]

If Data collecting is beneficial, then it gives them a reason.

Now think about this statement. If there was nothing for Google to gain by releasing a map app for iPhone, then they would be doing so for free. Where is the breakdown in logic for this?

It's you that's facepalmed, again.

Your argument is that Google wouldn't want to enhance the iPhone experience when they have their own OS, Android.

Will countered with the fact that Google is primarily an advertising company, and they get income every time someone clicks a map marker that takes them to a google page.

It's simple, simple business. Google knows that iPhone users will stick with the iPhone, as a general rule, and it also knows that it can increase its revenue by having an app. What's not to understand?

[2swasseneons]

Is the map marker revenue channel really that big?

Is it that big for Google Voice, Google Calendar, Google Docs or Google Mail?

Google maps can do context searches. Type in "Chinese Food" in Google Maps, AFAIK that uses Google's search engine.

It does not end there, there is also value in recognition and dependence. There is a micro-transaction with every click.

Dracom,

You said, "for free" - that is what was flagged for retardation. Explain that. Your business acumen is already largely in question, you are heading into Sparafucilian territory.

[gernica]

Dracom, so you hear it from me I have reported you for your signature, a quote that I did not make and consider libellous.

Don't start telling lies because you can't win an argument like a man.

--- Post Update ---

You said, "for free" that is what was flagged for retardation. Explain that. Your business acumen is already largely in question, you are heading into Sparafucilian territory.

He has literally none. It's like talking to someone who has read the foreward in "business for dummies".

[zCLadw3R]

Man, that has gone beyond Sparafucial territory. I don't think he would even go that low.

I know nothing about business, therefore rarely comment on it, but i thought what was just outlined by Will and DM was common knowledge regarding Google?

[77Dinaartickire]

Dracom,

You said, "for free" - that is what was flagged for retardation. Explain that. Your business acumen is already largely in question, you are heading into Sparafucilian territory.

By stating "for free" I am implying that Google does not receive anything for the work they put it. If they are getting something out of it, then they aren't doing it for free. Please don't twist this around.

Dracom, so you hear it from me I have reported you for your signature, a quote that I did not make and consider libellous.

Don't start telling lies because you can't win an argument like a man.

You are right, you did not say it specifically, but it is a condensed version of the idea you expressed and reinforce when you quote me out of context on an idea I see in advertisements all the time. If that was not the idea you wanted to express, then why were you arguing against me in the first place?

[gernica]

By stating "for free" I am implying that Google does not receive anything for the work they put it. If they are getting something out of it, then they aren't doing it for free. Please don't twist this around.

Seriously poor back-tracking.

You are right, you did not say it specifically, but it is a condensed version of the idea you expressed and reinforce when you quote me out of context on an idea I see in advertisements all the time. If that was not the idea you wanted to express, then why were you arguing against me in the first place?

I didn't say it at all, your complete inability to think laterally was what got you in this pickle.

[77Dinaartickire]

I didn't say it at all, your complete inability to think laterally was what got you in this pickle.

Here is your response to a statement I made about Apple not adding in a technology that dozens technology companies support including some big name cell phone makers and even gave you examples of people wishing the iPhone had it and even linked you to an expansion module that brings the very same technology to older iPhone designs.

The mass market does not care if this item is included or not. They just want it to work well and have all the things their friends use.

In which I responded that adding a specific new technology isn't about giving the customer what they want, but offering the customer something they may not know they want. That is the statement you laughed at and choose to quote out of context even though it is an idea I see demonstrated all the time out in the world.

[gernica]

In which I responded that adding a specific new technology isn't about giving the customer what they want, but offering the customer something they may not know they want. That is the statement you laughed at and choose to quote out of context even though it is an idea I see demonstrated all the time out in the world.

Because they wouldn't care! They would care about a new camera, screen, design etc but a new audio codec is something that only nerds give a crap about. That's not meant to be rude, just a realistic assessment of the consumer market.

I didn't quote you out of context at all, you just made a ridiculous statement.

[2swasseneons]

This is a joke, right?

It's not their phone system/OS and I don't see how it would be beneficial for Google to invest resource into developing, releasing, and maintaining an app to enhance a competitors device for free.

By stating "for free" I am implying that Google does not receive anything for the work they put it. If they are getting something out of it, then they aren't doing it for free. Please don't twist this around.

Sorry for twisting your own words...

[77Dinaartickire]

Because they wouldn't care! They would care about a new camera, screen, design etc but a new audio codec is something that only nerds give a crap about. That's not meant to be rude, just a realistic assessment of the consumer market.

I didn't quote you out of context at all, you just made a ridiculous statement.

1. I posted links to Apple's forums where people expressed a desire for the technology. Obviously people do care.
2. I linked you to devices that added the technology to existing iphones. Obviously people do want it.
3. I gave you examples of technology that is already included in the new iPhone that would also be categorized as something "they wouldn't care about".

And it's not a ridiculous statement if it's an idea that is commonly used out in the world. You lack of understanding it does not make it ridiculous.

Here is an example. You sometimes see the phrase "never even knew you wanted". It is about offering something new to the customer. I've seen it in advertisements and other places. Here's is an example http://business.financialpost.com/20...ew-you-wanted/. That is the concept behind my statement.

Context

Sorry for twisting your own words...

Then I will admit I was wrong. I made an assumption that Google did not get anything in exchange for putting this app on the iphone. If Google is getting something out of the investment, then they would not be doing it for free.

[gernica]

1. I posted links to Apple's forums where people expressed a desire for the technology. Obviously people do care.
2. I linked you to devices that added the technology to existing iphones. Obviously people do want it.
3. I gave you examples of technology that is already included in the new iPhone that would also be categorized as something "they wouldn't care about".

And it's not a ridiculous statement if it's an idea that is commonly used out in the world. You lack of understanding it does not make it ridiculous.

Here is an example. You sometimes see the phrase "never even knew you wanted". It is about offering something new to the customer. I've seen it in advertisements and other places. Here's is an example http://business.financialpost.com/20...ew-you-wanted/. That is the concept behind my statement.

Context

If you don't want to include the parts of the argument that lead up to the statement, then you are quoting me out of context.


When h.264 came out, it took a while for it to catch on, and I would have to say the general public doesn't care about it or even know what it is, yet it is the most predominate codec used in Blu-rays.

Oh Lord, do you really think that a few people on the Apple forum is a good representation of the 200 million (that's a guess) smartphone users in the world? Of course it isn't. What kind of person do you think goes on a forum talking about new features.

As for h.264, it's useful, as I'm sure this new codec you are talking about is, but nobody gave a **** about it specifically. Sure, it was nice when they finally got devices that sold it, but have you ever heard of anyone putting h.264 support on their wishlist outside of the geek squad?

This is the hugest problem here, instead of looking at the overall market, you're basing all of your assumptions on what the geeks want and that is just plain silly.

--- Post Update ---

Then I will admit I was wrong. I made an assumption that Google did not get anything in exchange for putting this app on the iphone. If Google is getting something out of the investment, then they would not be doing it for free.

You seem thoroughly confused at every level on the business front. Surely you mean that they they would not do it for free if they weren't getting something out of it?

I think what you are trying to say is that Google earning something from maps means that they have not done it for the sake of a free app where they have to carry the cost of the development without return.

The argument Will is making, and myself actually, is that Google saw an opportunity to add value to their business s they have developed an app to take advantage of this.

To be honest, you're so confused with what you mean that it took me several goes at separating it.

EDIT: You're trying to say that they didn't develop the app for free because they can pay their programmers with the income, whereas actually they did develop the app for free to take advantage of a business opportunity.

[jokilewqs]

Is there a bing maps app? If so, that's probably going to take off.

Will be interesting to see what MS do on this. On one hand they can dramatically increase the usage of it in the short term, but they may want to take the long term view and keep it on Windows Mobile in case they can pick up some of the users that will leave Apple over this.

[77Dinaartickire]

This is the hugest problem here, instead of looking at the overall market, you're basing all of your assumptions on what the geeks want and that is just plain silly.

And you are assuming I am advocating a technology for geeks when in reality, I am advocating a technology that can benefit everyone.

[gernica]

And you are assuming I am advocating a technology for geeks when in reality, I am advocating a technology that can benefit everyone.

Gawd, we're getting nowhere here.

I'm sure it can, but it's not an exciting technology, and exciting technologies are the ones that get the marketing exposure, and the mass market.

You really, really, really need to start thinking about this a bit.

[77Dinaartickire]

Gawd, we're getting nowhere here.

I'm sure it can, but it's not an exciting technology, and exciting technologies are the ones that get the marketing exposure, and the mass market.

You really, really, really need to start thinking about this a bit.

You are right, we are going nowhere. Because despite having given you examples of people that want the tech, examples of devices that add the tech to existing iphones, examples of technology that started off the same way and now standards of the industies they are in, examples of companies that have already adopted the technology, you keep saying that nobody gives a f**k about the technology and therefore is a waste of time to include in the iPhone5. Hence why I quoted you the way I did.

[AndyScouchek]

When h.264 came out, it took a while for it to catch on, and I would have to say the general public doesn't care about it or even know what it is, yet it is the most predominate codec used in Blu-rays. I was treating that technology in the same manner. It is an underlying technology designed to enhance the user's experience. If you want to argue that it has no place, then you may as well argue the h.264 has no place or that FLAC has no place.

Funnily enough you can thank Apple back in '07 for helping to push YouTube to switch over to that codec.

[gernica]

You are right, we are going nowhere. Because despite having given you examples of people that want the tech, examples of devices that add the tech to existing iphones, examples of technology that started off the same way and now standards of the industies they are in, examples of companies that have already adopted the technology, you keep saying that nobody gives a f**k about the technology and therefore is a waste of time to include in the iPhone5. Hence why I quoted you the way I did.

Your examples represent a microscopic dot in the global smartphone marketplace!! I have never said any of these technologies are useless, I am saying they are not exciting technologies that get people to buy things. What part of your tiny brain can't separate things

He's not Bungle, but he IS Bungle's American cousin.

[2swasseneons]

Your examples represent a microscopic dot in the global smartphone marketplace!! I have never said any of these technologies are useless, I am saying they are not exciting technologies that get people to buy things. What part of your tiny brain can't separate things?

He is not that stupid. I have a problem with this.

I think he is purposely shutting his brain down.

[gernica]

He is not that stupid. I have a problem with this.

I think he is purposely shutting his brain down.

OK, he's ignorant about the following subjects:

Business acumen
Commercial awareness
Marketing
Product research
Advertising
Data analysis
Consumer research

There are loads more that have become apparent, but they will do for a kickoff.

[77Dinaartickire]

Your examples represent a microscopic dot in the global smartphone marketplace!! I have never said any of these technologies are useless, I am saying they are not exciting technologies that get people to buy things. What part of your tiny brain can't separate things

He's not Bungle, but he IS Bungle's American cousin.

Typical Dangermoose, dismissive of the facts when it contradicts your argument. I don't care how significant the facts are, they contradict statements you made.

And I never said anywhere in this argument that it was a product selling feature. I have only listed it as an enhancement to existing technology.