echotoall
- 30 comments
- 0 likes given
- 5 likes received
Bio not provided
Interesting how perception changes. 6-8 months ago most of pando was calling google the new Microsoft or stagnant, yet here we are, and they are now the future. Few thing have changed from then and now. Google was always pushing to produce the best on all platforms. Apple saw a weakness in their maps and pushed for a solution. The result, excluding the noise, is a far better user experience for iOS users.
Truth is both companies have been pushing their respective specialties into the future. An unbiased assessment from the facts you site can also be used to show why both companies can succeed. But both companies need to improve in specific areas, just like any company, to stay relevant.
Although google's transition to be more like Apple, controlling hardware, kinda tells us about the future.
To each their own, but the speed of the iPhone 5 is more than just 'zippier'. AT&T's LTE is fast, and the usage speed is noticeable.
@bgoldberg @echotoall I'm annoying too, but not for comments on blogs :)
Annoying = an article written to get an emotional reaction = Bryan Goldberg
The act of gathering data for ads is shifting. Real user data will have to be used. Facebook is connected to 200k apps. If users log into google maps, google blatantly says it will use ur data.
IMO, cookies aren't needed for mobile ads, but user data will be.
@Rizz0 @eringriffith FB was legally bound to go public. Their share holder base exceeded its ability to stay private. They needed the cash to truly stay competitive. The only way to get that cash was to go public.
Nokia did not and is not doing everything right. They fucked up by ignoring android. They fucked up by isolating themselves to an OS brand (windows) completely deteriorated, by Microsoft, in mobile. Nokia chose the uphill battle every step of the way. It's a shame because their hardware has always been a force to reckon, but that's obviously only part of the equation.
HTML 5, when up to snuff with hardware capabilities, should dissolve the app ecosystems. (Of course Facebook proved this effort is still a few years away.)
As for Facebook and Twitter, their actions have been pretty shitty, and these companies should streamline their developer policies much better. But is that not the cost of developing for an established audience? (There is always a cost, even if the cost is not monetary.)
@KyleCooke @bnkausik I noticed it too when it was posted. It reminded me of Apple and how they would slowly leak positive info to the wsj. But the info was ancedotal. Fb has become a show-me story, and they need to keep proving it works.
The premise of the article is dated. And no mention at all about fb exchange? I mean, fbx destroys the thesis of this article.
Your very wrong. The secondary market inflated FB value due to low liquidity that consisted of a handful of very rich entities/individuals. This secondary market has tested ur theory, and it already failed. The public markets are not perfect, not by a long shot, but they are ruthless and (for the most part) honest (barring periods of emotional swings that is susceptible to any market). A key part of the public market's value is its high liquidity. Something very difficult to reproduce.
Did u watch Risky Business before writing this?
So who would you and your diner friends consider "lootists" (I hate that term. Robber-baron sounds so much better:) based on ur premise "The ease with which wealth extraction can be disguised as wealth creation is looterism’s most frightening aspect": The VC's who unloaded the pumped up the current crop of social stocks or the 2001-2007 bank management or anyone guilty of creating a mini/big financial bubble in order to see a profit? (Although I think ur version of capitalism is perverse. Capitalism in its purest form is greed. Hence the need to be rooted in social purpose. To prevent douchiness.)
A lengthy article for the commonly understood premise of consumer device companies having valitile earnings. Hence the oversized cash position. From any valuation perspective, aapl is already reflecting a negative scenario. Ever since last year, when aapl's trailing multiple broke below 16, the stock has been a 'show me' story.
100 years?
With such a short product life cycle, the handset makers don't apply to the sectors mentioned. Observing the industry, handset makers should follow the curve of 'fads' vs established industries. But even that suggestion is riddled with caveats due to the external forces (i.e. app eco system, innovation etc) killing a handset maker or allowing a handset maker to thrive (and not be a fad). Mobile is more complex.
Nokia's failure was there lack of commitment. 1. They lacked commitment to software when they were by far the envy in the space. 2. They lacked commitment as a hardware company by ignoring android. If Samsung was able to leverage android, nok would have had success given there hardware know how. They can't compete for developers so they have to leverage their hardware. Create a kick ass phone for android. Maybe it's too late. It will be tough to compete against the htc one or galaxy 3. But it's worth a try.
Should be interesting. Hope u can detach from ur established bias (and pando's bias) and produce an objective review.
Should be interesting. Hope u can detach from ur established bias (and pando's bias) and produce an objective review.
If the "bubble" is only affecting really rich people or VC, so be it. The emotion will drive further investments. But please don't throw the word bubble around when valuations r only affecting less then a handful of companies. p.s. the pic is really cool