Takeshi Young
- 28 comments
- 14 likes given
- 14 likes received
Bio not provided
Cool idea, would definitely interested in seeing the results!
A little healthy skepticism is good for everyone. People are way too comfortable these days giving away their personal information to sites they know next to nothing about.
It could work the other way too. If people really love the functionality of Facebook Home, they could jump ship to Android.
They're killing Google Reader but releasing crap like this? Unbeievable.
I don't normally wear a watch, but Apple has a powerful brand and ecosystem that just might convince me to sport some wrist candy. And as far as wearable computing goes, a watch is a lot less intrusive than Google Glass, which will surely be banned from most private establishments within a month of its release.
Very cool, I want! Seems like Apple is really lagging in the smart watch market with all these other cool products already on the market. They better have something amazing up their sleeves.
Wearing $1500 worth of electronics on your face is just asking to be mugged.
The reason why Ecommerce 2.0 hasn't taken off is because Ecommerce 1.0 (i.e. Amazon.com) is so dominant. Who's going to compete with Amazon and their razor thin margins?
Thanks for writing this. The way the prosecutors acted in this case were disgusting. I hope that the renewed focus this case is bringing on the law will produce some good from this terrible tragedy.
RIP.
Great advice. I know this is a tech site, so the focus is on engineering/making stuff, but there also continues to be opportunity in service jobs like nursing, elderly care, hotel & restaurant management, etc. basically jobs which cannot be easily outsourced or eliminated by technology (at least not yet).
It's true that the majority of "tech" companies being launched are not ground breaking in terms of actual technology. So what? It's not necessary for every company to be at the forefront of technology, or to build groundbreaking new technologies to be successful. There has been so much amazing technology that has been created over the past few decades that there is now a surplus of opportunity that entrepreneurs can take advantage.
Think of it this way: there are two types of tech companies-- those that push the envelope and develop new technologies (the Apples, Googles, and Intels of the world) and those that build on top of the infrastructure that the first group created. The first type of company is more difficult and more cost intensive, but success can change the way people interact with technology (iPod, iPhone, Google Glass). The second class of companies is lower cost, but not as exciting to Mr. Arrington.
Looked at this way, it's not surprising at all that there are more "underwear" companies than there are true innovators. Building off of existing infrastructure means lower costs and lower barrier to entry, which leads more new entrepreneurs to follow this route than developing new technology. The venture capital community also supports this-- lower startup costs mean lower initial investments, and lower risks.
The two examples you gave of the medical field and SpaceX are perfect examples. These are extremely capital and talent expensive industries. There are very few first time entrepreneurs who could ever dream of starting companies like that, and even fewer venture capitalists willing to fund them.
It's rather telling that the founder of SpaceX cut his teeth as an internet entrepreneur before having enough funding and credibility to tackle the space industry. The same is true of companies like Apple & Google-- they started off building off of existing technologies before they grew to the point of being able to develop new ones. It's the natural progression.
Everything is obvious when you're looking backward. Look at any success, and with 20/20 hindsight it seems so obvious, they were just so lucky to have been at the right place at the right time! Zuckerberg was lucky to get into social networking when he did. Bill Gates got into operating systems at the right time. It was all just luck that everything worked out for them.
Except, when you're living in the present, nothing is obvious. It wasn't obvious to those successes, or the other 5 billion other people living on the planet what the next big thing was going to be. It took a lot of hard work for Steve Jobs to be in the right place at the right time, to take advantage of the trends of the time, and that's not luck, it's skill.
Really, you're attributing Apple's success to the Internet and bigger hard drives?? What about the beautiful candy colored iMacs that Apple designed when everyone else was stuck in beige? Combined with a popular marketing campaign that created Apple's reputation for being "cool" and grew their marketshare, making them a more attractive platform for developers. The strategic partnerships with companies like Microsoft and game companies that brought all the best software products to the Mac. The switch to Intel and Boot Camp that allowed Macs to run Windows.
Please get yourself a history lesson. It's people like you who will be writing articles 10 years from now, claiming that Tim Cook inherited Apple at just the right time, with Apple having the most popular smart phone and tablet in the market, in a world that is increasingly mobile. That their next innovation was so obvious, and that they just happened to be at the right place at the right time...
Nice!
@JohanKlarin You're forgetting that Steve was involved in Apple's product roadmap for at least the next 3 years, including a rumored Apple TV. So although Steve may no longer be here in person, his influence will continue to shape Apple's products for years to come. And of course, aside from Steve's genius, Apple's top software and hardware designers (the people who actually make stuff) are still at the company, bringing Apple's visions to life.
I think you are underestimating Apple's dominance in content. Google is starting to amass a good amount of content/apps, but most of their content is based in the US, whereas Apple has been negotiating licenses since the iTunes Store launched. I would estimate that Apple is at least 2 years ahead of Google in terms of content.
Amazon poses some threat in the content space, but they are WAY behind in terms of devices sold compared to iOS. Also, Amazon sells Kindle Fires at a loss and has razor thin margins, whereas Apple is the most profitable company in the world. I don't see Amazon replacing Apple's iPods, iPhones, or iPads anytime in the near future.
I agree that Apple's latest phone was evolutionary more than it was revolutionary, but I honestly wonder, what more do people expect from a phone? It's the world's most popular phone with double the speed, better camera, bigger screen, and better battery life. What more can a phone possibly do? Do your laundry? Get you a date? (there's probably an app for that).
I'm excited to see what Apple has in store for TVs and other areas as it continues to drive consumer hardware innovation.
I don't envy the task that Apple has before them. You're right that all the phones on the market are starting to approach each other in terms of featureset. What more can Apple possibly put into a phone (that already does everything I need it to, and more) to make it amazing?
@JsLampe @redhat Goods points, maybe these companies don't need to be successful outside of tech companies to succeed. However, some of these companies like Square seem focused on the consumer, so consumer recognition is at least somewhat important. Paypal gets a bad rap, but they have built up a powerful brand and the Paypal logo carries with it a lot of trust and recognition that companies like "Braintree" (who came up with that name?) don't have. It would be interesting to know what percentage of Paypal's revenues comes from individual consumers vs merchants.
Outside of the tech world, no one has heard anything about these companies.