Semifinal One: IIM Bangalore vs IIM Calcutta (Check out the other semifinal happening here)
Google revenues maybe a fraction of Apple's, but it has had a bigger impact on people’s lives around the world
FOR the motion - IIM Bangalore
Working on a “Platform” [1] model Google brings together businesses that seek to advertise and the audience that are the recipients. Owing to the large number of customers and the inherent networking effects, Google garners revenues by charging the advertisers while keeping the service free for the masses thereby reaching and benefiting millions of people.
Google’ search engine with 1 billion unique monthly visitors [2] has revolutionized data search saving the world millions of hours in unproductive search time [3][4]. Adoption of googling as a synonym for search is a testimony to the impact Google has had [5].
Google talk, Google plus and Gmail (350 million active users [6]) help people communicate quicker and in a more convenient manner.
Google maps help people immensely by locating places while Google docs help people share docs for collective working.
All these services were the first of their kinds in their sub-fields.
Google for years now has helped businesses develop by its Adwords service which helps people advertise their business through specific search words. See Video [7]
Adsense has helped small businesses and amateurs benefit monetarily through Google’s placing of ads on their fledgling commercial websites or personal blogs.
Google grant has helped provide free advertisement to non-profit organizations [8]
Technologically, Google’s Android OS (50% of Smartphone market share [9]) helps Application developers by bringing their developments to the Apps market where they are lapped by millions of smart phone users. That it is open source and platform-independent makes it compatible with most smart phones.
Not to mention YouTube (0.8 billion monthly users [10]) which helps people (personal) and organizations (event, promotional) videos
Contrast this with the arrogance of a company with its iPhone tagline as “If you don’t have an iPhone – you don’t have an iPhone”. The products of this, America’s most valuable company, sure are priced high to signal a sense of exclusivity. Infact the iPhones are priced so high that without subsidies from telecom operators it would struggle to sell those products. The now powerful firm continues arm-twist the bleeding operators to continue to provide huge subsidies .The operating margins are kept enormous (50% to Google’s 26% [11][12]) signifying the price people pay for the brand name resulting in the company’s massive revenue earnings despite a much smaller customer base. Possessing an apple product is seen as a status symbol in India. Most of Apples products are non-compatible with other products or softwares. The flash, 3.6mm non-standard audio jack and the much used Windows products cannot be used with Apples’ products inconveniencing a large number of users [13]. The cloud-computing-facilitated content sharing can only be done from one Apple product to another.
Thus, on one hand we have a firm that emphasizes on open source services at zero prices so that the world becomes more interconnected and more and more people are convenienced while on the other is a firm that revels in its exclusivity with its executives unabashedly saying “Apple has no obligation to solve America’s problems” [14]
- Kunal Ashok and Mohit Srivastava (IIM Bangalore)
AGAINST the motion: IIM Calcutta
Apple practically made the modern computer.
Apple I was the first to introduce a keyboard and a TV-like display unit[a]. The Apple Lisa introduced graphic user interfaces, the mouse, hard disk based operating systems, multitasking and virtual memory[2]. Apple popularized the desktop[3] and fonts[4] in the
mass market through the Macintosh. The iBook was the first mainstream computer with integrated wireless networking[b].
Apple and the Internet
[caption id="attachment_3036" align="aligncenter" width="555"]
The NeXT workstation used by Tim Berners-Lee to host the first website in 1991.[/caption]
In 1985, Steve Jobs left Apple , with a bunch of engineers from Apple’s SuperMicro division, to co-found a company named NeXT. NeXT further developed Macintosh’s technology and made the NeXT computer which Tim Berners-Lee used to create the World Wide Web[11[10] 14. Their technology was later absorbed and used by Apple to shape the internet industry.
Apple revolutionized “Humans-to-Technology Communication”.
The iPod changed the way we listen to music by allowing people to have easier access to their songs.
The iPhone was the first to implement multi-touch touch screens in a user-friendly way. This allowed the users to access internet on their phones in a way they never could before and gave the first boost to mobile computing. It was called the Invention of the Year by Time Magazine in 2007[8]. The iPhone was thus the first real smartphone and became a benchmark for other smartphones.
The iPad is now the first tablet computer that has been accepted by consumers of all kinds who have found it to be usable. It has also allowed autistic and visually challenged children to interact with the world in a way they could not before[5][6]. The iPad and iPhone have allowed doctors to deliver healthier babies, devote more time to patients, and remotely monitor patients with heart ailments16. They have changed the way businesses work through the app ecosystem that they have spawned.
The pioneering work of Apple in the development of mobile computing and communication devices have massively expanded the scope and utility of the internet and the role of internet majors like Google, Facebook and Twitter. Smartphones and tablet PCs have been the prime movers in the development of Social Media. The massive impact of Social Media on the world is a tribute to Apple’s vision of designing technology to enrich people’s lives.
Google stands on the Shoulders of a Titan
Apple was a prime mover in the transformation of the computer from a contraption of chips, switches and lights to the user-friendly device we now know. Today, using technology that Apple conceptualized, we logon to Google’s resources which run on technology that Apple helped to shape. We acknowledge all of Google’s achievements vis-à-vis technology. But Google’s stupendous achievements rest on the shoulders of Apple’s legacy, without which we would not have a computer or even the modern internet today. Apple’ impact on our lives has been at a more fundamental level than Google’s and thus greater than that of Google. This impact can be gauged by the tributes that Steve Jobs, founder of Apple, received upon his death[7].
- Mohamed Afzal Hussain & Nishan Konar (IIM Calcutta)
References - (IIM Bangalore)
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8591032/Google-reaches-1-billion-users.html
[3]http://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/insights/library/studies/the-impact-of-internet-technologies-search/
[4] http://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx?qprid=4
[5] http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2006/07/05/to-google-or-not-to-google.aspx
[6] http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/01/19/gmail-closes-in-on-hotmail-with-350-mm-active-users/
[7] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAO--kt5HN0
[8] http://www.commonsensenms.com/2011/03/google-grants-for-nonprofits/
[9] http://www.androidauthority.com/google-play-vs-apple-app-store-2012-76566/
[10] http://www.youtube.com/t/press_statistics/
[11] http://investor.google.com/pdf/2012Q2_google_earnings.pdf
[12] http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2012/04/24Apple-Reports-Second-Quarter-Results.html
[14] http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/03/opinion/prestowitz-apple-jobs/index.html
Chat 
Comments
Raghav
Well, I think the topic would have been more suitable to say IITB vs IITD folks instead of IIMB vs IIMC.
9 Aug 2012, 06.37 PM
@InsideIIM
Posting on behalf of IIM Calcutta: We have read the arguments of IIMB and after weighing the merit of their arguments that Google has had a greater impact respond thus: Youtube is popular. But half of Youtube videos are uploaded from iPhones: <a href="http://gigaom.com/video/youtube-iphone-already-accounts-for-half-of-mobile-uploads/" rel="nofollow">http://gigaom.com/video/youtube-iphone-already-ac...</a> The same story applies for Google's other services too. Google+ is a ghost town: <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-16/is-google-plus-a-ghost-town-and-does-it-matter" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-16/i...</a> "All these services were the first of their kinds in their sub-fields." This is false. Google Talk was preceeded by AOL messenger and Windows MSN messenger. Google Mail was preceeded by hotmail.com and is going to face stiff competition from outlook.com which could potentially replace Gmail. Outlook.com got 1 million subscribers in the first few hours. Gmail has 420 million subscribers. This trend may not last. <a href="http://mashable.com/2012/08/01/outlook-million/" rel="nofollow">http://mashable.com/2012/08/01/outlook-million/</a> Google Maps is a great product. But it was originally where2.com which was acquired by Google. The founder, Lars Rasmussen worked with Google and moved to Facebook. Google also acquired Youtube. While we cannot deny Google's impact per se, one should not give Google all the glory and credit, and derive their impact from that. The way IIMB went about trying to show that Apple's impact was not as high as Google's was short-sighted. EVERY company exists to make profit. The fact that their operating margins are high/low and that compatibility with other products is low do not affect the impact they have still had on people and technology. IIMB is basically pointing out what Apple is doing or could be doing wrong. "Apple has no obligation to solve America’s problems" Apple and Google both dont have any such "obligation". The government does. "The now powerful firm continues arm-twist the bleeding operators to continue to provide huge subsidies ." AT&T and Verizon continue to be the 2 largest players in a very large and profitable market. AT&T made awesome profits on the iPhone: <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2012/07/24/att-profit-beats-street-no-new-iphone-means-improved-wireless-margins/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2012/07/24...</a>
9 Aug 2012, 07.26 PM
+Read Replies (21)
@KunalAshoktweet
InsideIIM please ensure that all subsequent posts are made via twitter. If there is a limit on the number of words on twitter then so be it. It helps differentiates user comments from participants
9 Aug 2012, 07.35 PM |
@KunalAshoktweet
IIMC, urge you to go through your references clearly in itis mentioned " YouTube, the world’s biggest user-generated video site, said the iPhone was responsible for more than half of its mobile uploads in the last week" - the Iphone is responsible for more than half of Youtube's MOBILE uploads and not TOTAL upload. Barely 10% of total views ( and a few% of uploads ) actually happen from mobile. If the intention is to attribute any sizeable contribution of Iphones to Google's immensely popular Youtube then the argument falls flat on its face based on the sheer smallness of numbers. The fact that Iphone users make use of the You tube App/service further reinstates the popularity of the video service
9 Aug 2012, 09.30 PM |
@mohit_s
Let me take this up point by point. You suggested "Youtube is popular. But half of Youtube videos are uploaded from iPhones" Kunal has already answered this. You suggested "Google Mail was preceeded by hotmail.com" 1. We called gmail the first of its kind not because it was the first email service (And we knew hotmail came before gmail), but because of the following. a) Yes hotmail did exist before but it offered only 2 MB of space. Gmail started off with 1 GB of space (1024 MB) which basically meant you never had to delete any mail in this world (archive - dont delete)! b) Conversation threading - a feature that was not possessed by any of its online predecessors c) The concept of labels (For more detailed info - refer <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/01/cashmore.gmail/index.html)" rel="nofollow">http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/01/cashmore.g...</a>
9 Aug 2012, 11.18 PM |
@mohit_s
You suggested "Google also acquired Youtube. While we cannot deny Google's impact per se, one should not give Google all the glory and credit, and derive their impact from that. " Should the same argument be extended to Apple's acquisition of NEXT and all its products ? A company's impact is measured by how smartly it makes it decisions. For instance, acquiring youtube or for that matter android which has 68% of the market share of smartphone OSs now was a very smart decision and the one can clearly seen the impact. You suggested "The way IIMB went about trying to show that Apple's impact was not as high as Google's was short-sighted... " The point we were tyring to bring out were the social initiatives and contributions that Google makes and the impact it makes on the community (impacts can be of various types viz a viz social, technological etc) as compared to an arrogant company like Apple. Google with its "Don't be evil" and through initiatives like google grant, policies that support philanthropy on the Playstore. Refer the point The sixth point of the 10-point corporate philosophy of Google says "You can make money without doing evil." Refer the 6th point <a href="http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/</a> For Apple, refer <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/technology/09charity.html?_r=2" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/technology/09ch...</a> - The policies of the App store do not support anykind of donations or volutarry contributions to App developers as opposed to the Android playstore - an absoultely straight on the face incentive-killing move.
9 Aug 2012, 11.20 PM |
@AfzalHu98096045
We sincerely apologize for the error. It missed our notice. But please see the merit in our other counters
10 Aug 2012, 01.00 AM |
@mohit_s
You suggested "going to face stiff competition from outlook.com " Lets not hypothesize about the possibilities with reference to outlook.com. What evidence exists to support your point? You suggested "Google Maps is a great product. But it was originally where2.com which was acquired by Google. The founder, Lars Rasmussen worked with Google and moved to Facebook." Products are not defined by how great they used to be. Myspace was a great idea but Facebook took it to an altogether different level. (posting it in 2 replies)
10 Aug 2012, 01.04 AM |
@AfzalHu98096045
The tech that NeXT used was derived from the tech developed at Apple and then absorbed back into Apple. This was a vital decision. The Apple App store was the original app ecosystem. It spawned the first real mobile apps. There are many free apps on the App store. It is worth noting that many of the apps on Google Play are similar to the ones on the App Store in terms of functionality (There is a counterpart for Siri, for example). We feel that the App Store has impacted Android's App ecosystem as well.
10 Aug 2012, 01.08 AM |
@mohit_s
Same thing happened with google Maps.Initiatives like the Google Self driving car which takes the idea of maps to an altogether different level is a fantastic demonstration of the same, google street view and( I am sure you would have used this) Gooogle Maps' immensely popular direction finder are what have made this product legendary.
10 Aug 2012, 01.12 AM |
@AfzalHu98096045
The crux of the argument was that Google Maps was the first of its kind but one cannot credit Google for that. Impact was not the crux. IIMB had given Google ownership of the innovation which we countered
10 Aug 2012, 01.41 AM |
@AfzalHu98096045
It remains to be seen if these cars will take off bigtime or if the tech that Google used will be used or not. Let us not indulge in speculation now
10 Aug 2012, 01.43 AM |
@mohit_s
Same thing happened with google Maps.Initiatives like the Google Self driving car which takes the idea of maps to an altogether different level is a fantastic demonstration of the same, google street view and( I am sure you would have used this) Gooogle Maps' immensely popular direction finder are what have made this product legendary. <a href="http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/googles-selfdriving-car-project-logs-more-than-300000-test-miles/356722" rel="nofollow">http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/g...</a>
10 Aug 2012, 01.05 AM |
@mohit_s
Same thing happened with google Maps.Initiatives like the Google Self driving car which takes the idea of maps to an altogether different level is a fantastic demonstration of the same, google street view and( I am sure you would have used this) Gooogle Maps' immensely popular direction finder are what have made this product legendary. <a href="http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/googles-selfdriving-car-project-logs-more-than-300000-test-miles/356722" rel="nofollow">http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/g...</a>
10 Aug 2012, 01.04 AM |
@mohit_s
You suggested "going to face stiff competition from outlook.com " Lets not hypothesize about the possibilities with reference to outlook.com. What evidence exists to support your point? You suggested "Google Maps is a great product. But it was originally where2.com which was acquired by Google. The founder, Lars Rasmussen worked with Google and moved to Facebook." Products are not defined by how great they used to be. Myspace was a great idea but Facebook took it to an altogether different level. Same thing happened with google Maps.Initiatives like the Google Self driving car which takes the idea of maps to an altogether different level is a fantastic demonstration of the same, google street view and( I am sure you would have used this) Gooogle Maps' immensely popular direction finder are what have made this product legendary. <a href="http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/googles-selfdriving-car-project-logs-more-than-300000-test-miles/356722" rel="nofollow">http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/g...</a>
10 Aug 2012, 12.55 AM |
@KunalAshoktweet
You suggested "going to face stiff competition from outlook.com " Lets not hypothesize about the possibilities with reference to outlook.com. What evidence exists to support your point? You suggested "Google Maps is a great product. But it was originally where2.com which was acquired by Google. The founder, Lars Rasmussen worked with Google and moved to Facebook." Products are not defined by how great they used to be. Myspace was a great idea but Facebook took it to an altogether different level. Same thing happened with google Maps.Initiatives like the Google Self driving car which takes the idea of maps to an altogether different level is a fantastic demonstration of the same, google street view and( I am sure you would have used this) Gooogle Maps' immensely popular direction finder are what have made this product legendary. <a href="http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/googles-selfdriving-car-project-logs-more-than-300000-test-miles/356722" rel="nofollow">http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/g...</a>
10 Aug 2012, 12.01 AM |
@mohit_s
You suggested "going to face stiff competition from outlook.com " Lets not hypothesize about the possibilities with reference to outlook.com. What evidence exists to support your point? You suggested "Google Maps is a great product. But it was originally where2.com which was acquired by Google. The founder, Lars Rasmussen worked with Google and moved to Facebook." Products are not defined by how great they used to be. Myspace was a great idea but Facebook took it to an altogether different level. Same thing happened with google Maps.Initiatives like the Google Self driving car which takes the idea of maps to an altogether different level is a fantastic demonstration of the same, google street view and( I am sure you would have used this) Gooogle Maps' immensely popular direction finder are what have made this product legendary. <a href="http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/googles-selfdriving-car-project-logs-more-than-300000-test-miles/356722" rel="nofollow">http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/g...</a>
9 Aug 2012, 11.22 PM |
@mohit_s
You suggested "going to face stiff competition from outlook.com " Lets not hypothesize about the possibilities with reference to outlook.com. What evidence exists to support your point? You suggested "Google Maps is a great product. But it was originally where2.com which was acquired by Google. The founder, Lars Rasmussen worked with Google and moved to Facebook." Products are not defined by how great they used to be. Myspace was a great idea but Facebook took it to an altogether different level. Same thing happened with google Maps.Initiatives like the Google Self driving car which takes the idea of maps to an altogether different level is a fantastic demonstration of the same, google street view and( I am sure you would have used this) Gooogle Maps' immensely popular direction finder are what have made this product legendary. <a href="http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/googles-selfdriving-car-project-logs-more-than-300000-test-miles/356722" rel="nofollow">http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/g...</a>
9 Aug 2012, 11.45 PM |
@mohit_s
You suggested "going to face stiff competition from outlook.com " Lets not hypothesize about the possibilities with reference to outlook.com. What evidence exists to support your point? You suggested "Google Maps is a great product. But it was originally where2.com which was acquired by Google. The founder, Lars Rasmussen worked with Google and moved to Facebook." Products are not defined by how great they used to be. Myspace was a great idea but Facebook took it to an altogether different level. Same thing happened with google Maps.Initiatives like the Google Self driving car which takes the idea of maps to an altogether different level is a fantastic demonstration of the same, google street view and( I am sure you would have used this) Gooogle Maps' immensely popular direction finder are what have made this product legendary. <a href="http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/googles-selfdriving-car-project-logs-more-than-300000-test-miles/356722" rel="nofollow">http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/g...</a>
9 Aug 2012, 11.19 PM |
@mohit_s
Let me take this up point by point. You suggested "Youtube is popular. But half of Youtube videos are uploaded from iPhones" Kunal has already answered this. You suggested "Google Mail was preceeded by hotmail.com" 1. We called gmail the first of its kind not because it was the first email service (And we knew hotmail came before gmail), but because of the following. a) Yes hotmail did exist before but it offered only 2 MB of space. Gmail started off with 1 GB of space (1024 MB) which basically meant you never had to delete any mail in this world (archive - dont delete)! b) Conversation threading - a feature that was not possessed by any of its online predecessors c) The concept of labels (For more detailed info - refer <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/01/cashmore.gmail/index.html)" rel="nofollow">http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/01/cashmore.g...</a> You suggested "going to face stiff competition from outlook.com " Lets not hypothesize about the possibilities with reference to outlook.com. What evidence exists to support your point? You suggested "Google Maps is a great product. But it was originally where2.com which was acquired by Google. The founder, Lars Rasmussen worked with Google and moved to Facebook." Products are not defined by how great they used to be. Myspace was a great idea but Facebook took it to an altogether different level. Same thing happened with google Maps.Initiatives like the Google Self driving car which takes the idea of maps to an altogether different level is a fantastic demonstration of the same, google street view and( I am sure you would have used this) Gooogle Maps' immensely popular direction finder are what have made this product legendary. <a href="http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/googles-selfdriving-car-project-logs-more-than-300000-test-miles/356722" rel="nofollow">http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/g...</a> You suggested "Google also acquired Youtube. While we cannot deny Google's impact per se, one should not give Google all the glory and credit, and derive their impact from that. " Should the same argument be extended to Apple's acquisition of NEXT and all its products ? A company's impact is measured by how smartly it makes it decisions. For instance, acquiring youtube or for that matter android which has 68% of the market share of smartphone OSs now was a very smart decision and the one can clearly seen the impact. You suggested "The way IIMB went about trying to show that Apple's impact was not as high as Google's was short-sighted... " The point we were tyring to bring out were the social initiatives and contributions that Google makes and the impact it makes on the community (impacts can be of various types viz a viz social, technological etc) as compared to an arrogant company like Apple. Google with its "Don't be evil" and through initiatives like google grant, policies that support philanthropy on the Playstore. Refer the point The sixth point of the 10-point corporate philosophy of Google says "You can make money without doing evil." Refer the 6th point <a href="http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/</a> For Apple, refer <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/technology/09charity.html?_r=2" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/technology/09ch...</a> - The policies of the App store do not support anykind of donations or volutarry contributions to App developers as opposed to the Android playstore - an absoultely straight on the face incentive-killing move.
9 Aug 2012, 11.14 PM |
Mohit
Let me take this up point by point. You suggested "Youtube is popular. But half of Youtube videos are uploaded from iPhones" Kunal has already answered this. You suggested "Google Mail was preceeded by hotmail.com" 1. We called gmail the first of its kind not because it was the first email service (And we knew hotmail came before gmail), but because of the following. a) Yes hotmail did exist before but it offered only 2 MB of space. Gmail started off with 1 GB of space (1024 MB) which basically meant you never had to delete any mail in this world (archive - dont delete)! b) Conversation threading - a feature that was not possessed by any of its online predecessors c) The concept of labels (For more detailed info - refer <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/01/cashmore.gmail/index.html)" rel="nofollow">http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/01/cashmore.g...</a> You suggested "going to face stiff competition from outlook.com " Lets not hypothesize about the possibilities with reference to outlook.com. What evidence exists to support your point? You suggested "Google Maps is a great product. But it was originally where2.com which was acquired by Google. The founder, Lars Rasmussen worked with Google and moved to Facebook." Products are not defined by how great they used to be. Myspace was a great idea but Facebook took it to an altogether different level. Same thing happened with google Maps.Initiatives like the Google Self driving car which takes the idea of maps to an altogether different level is a fantastic demonstration of the same, google street view and( I am sure you would have used this) Gooogle Maps' immensely popular direction finder are what have made this product legendary. <a href="http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/googles-selfdriving-car-project-logs-more-than-300000-test-miles/356722" rel="nofollow">http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/g...</a> You suggested "Google also acquired Youtube. While we cannot deny Google's impact per se, one should not give Google all the glory and credit, and derive their impact from that. " Should the same argument be extended to Apple's acquisition of NEXT and all its products ? A company's impact is measured by how smartly it makes it decisions. For instance, acquiring youtube or for that matter android which has 68% of the market share of smartphone OSs now was a very smart decision and the one can clearly seen the impact. You suggested "The way IIMB went about trying to show that Apple's impact was not as high as Google's was short-sighted... " The point we were tyring to bring out were the social initiatives and contributions that Google makes and the impact it makes on the community (impacts can be of various types viz a viz social, technological etc) as compared to an arrogant company like Apple. Google with its "Don't be evil" and through initiatives like google grant, policies that support philanthropy on the Playstore. Refer the point The sixth point of the 10-point corporate philosophy of Google says "You can make money without doing evil." Refer the 6th point <a href="http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/</a> For Apple, refer <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/technology/09charity.html?_r=2" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/technology/09ch...</a> - The policies of the App store do not support anykind of donations or volutarry contributions to App developers as opposed to the Android playstore - an absoultely straight on the face incentive-killing move.
9 Aug 2012, 10.57 PM |
@KunalAshoktweet
IIMC, urge you to go through your references clearly.In your reference <a href="http://gigaom.com/video/youtube-iphone-already-accounts-for-half-of-mobile-uploads/" rel="nofollow">http://gigaom.com/video/youtube-iphone-already-ac...</a> it is mentioned " YouTube, the world’s biggest user-generated video site, said the iPhone was responsible for more than half of its mobile uploads in the last week" - the Iphone is responsible for more than half of Youtube's MOBILE uploads and not TOTAL upload. Barely 10% of total views ( and a few% of uploads ) actually happen from mobile. If the intention is to attribute any sizeable contribution of Iphones to Google's immensely popular Youtube then the argument falls flat on its face based on the sheer smallness of numbers. The fact that Iphone users make use of the You tube App/service further reinstates the popularity of the video service
9 Aug 2012, 09.36 PM |
Mohit
Let me take this up point by point. You suggested "Youtube is popular. But half of Youtube videos are uploaded from iPhones" Kunal has already answered this. You suggested "Google Mail was preceeded by hotmail.com" 1. We called gmail the first of its kind not because it was the first email service (And we knew hotmail came before gmail), but because of the following. a) Yes hotmail did exist before but it offered only 2 MB of space. Gmail started off with 1 GB of space (1024 MB) which basically meant you never had to delete any mail in this world (archive - dont delete)! b) Conversation threading - a feature that was not possessed by any of its online predecessors c) The concept of labels (For more detailed info - refer <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/01/cashmore.gmail/index.html)" rel="nofollow">http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/01/cashmore.g...</a> You suggested "going to face stiff competition from outlook.com " Lets not hypothesize about the possibilities with reference to outlook.com. What evidence exists to support your point? You suggested "Google Maps is a great product. But it was originally where2.com which was acquired by Google. The founder, Lars Rasmussen worked with Google and moved to Facebook." Products are not defined by how great they used to be. Myspace was a great idea but Facebook took it to an altogether different level. Same thing happened with google Maps.Initiatives like the Google Self driving car which takes the idea of maps to an altogether different level is a fantastic demonstration of the same, google street view and( I am sure you would have used this) Gooogle Maps' immensely popular direction finder are what have made this product legendary. <a href="http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/googles-selfdriving-car-project-logs-more-than-300000-test-miles/356722" rel="nofollow">http://tech2.in.com/news/science-and-technology/g...</a> You suggested "Google also acquired Youtube. While we cannot deny Google's impact per se, one should not give Google all the glory and credit, and derive their impact from that. " Should the same argument be extended to Apple's acquisition of NEXT and all its products ? A company's impact is measured by how smartly it makes it decisions. For instance, acquiring youtube or for that matter android which has 68% of the market share of smartphone OSs now was a very smart decision and the one can clearly seen the impact. You suggested "The way IIMB went about trying to show that Apple's impact was not as high as Google's was short-sighted... " The point we were tyring to bring out were the social initiatives and contributions that Google makes and the impact it makes on the community (impacts can be of various types viz a viz social, technological etc) as compared to an arrogant company like Apple. Google with its "Don't be evil" and through initiatives like google grant, policies that support philanthropy on the Playstore. Refer the point The sixth point of the 10-point corporate philosophy of Google says "You can make money without doing evil." Refer the 6th point <a href="http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/</a> For Apple, refer <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/technology/09charity.html?_r=2" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/technology/09ch...</a> - The policies of the App store do not support anykind of donations or volutarry contributions to App developers as opposed to the Android playstore - an absoultely straight on the face incentive-killing move.
9 Aug 2012, 11.03 PM |
@KunalAshoktweet
A Gandhi giving freedom to a great nation does not mean one can attribute the recent economic success to the father of the nation. Agreed that the freedom was monumental but to suggest all subsequent achievements of the country were made possible only because of this first monumental achievement is being grossly unfair to later efforts. Our opponents arguments of Google rests on the shoulder of the titan sound profoundly similar. How can all developments in the field of computing be attributed to the first computer which the opposition claims as having been put in place by the Titan? By that logic all developments in the field of MRI scanning, rocket technology, information processing you name it -should be attributed to the Titan. Sounds clearly unreasonable.
9 Aug 2012, 07.27 PM
+Read Replies (7)
@AfzalHu98096045
Every idea has its genesis in a previous idea. Now, while credit cannot be taken away from the newer idea, the older idea has itself impacted the newer one. So the cumulative impact of the older idea is greater. Going by that analogy, Gandhi has had a far greater impact on India than, say, Rajiv Gandhi as his philosophy impacted everyone else around him, and among those impacted were the writers of our Constitution. Impact is always cumulative.
9 Aug 2012, 09.02 PM |
@KunalAshoktweet
Impact is cumulative no doubt but the relevance of the contribution should matter, don't you think. As we move into the future events (and not some event from the distant past) of that period should be relevant to the people of that era . The fact that Google is the thing that is synonymous for search engines and has through its impactful services influenced the life of millions is the reality which we have to appreciate instead of holding in increadibly high regard the contributions of the faded past
9 Aug 2012, 10.19 PM |
@AfzalHu98096045
Relevance of contribution pertains to credit and ownership, not impact. We have acknowledged Google's feats. We have established how Apple IMPACTED the world wide web. We have not given it any ownership. You have not questioned that creditably. And you keep harping on about search engines and video sharing sites that rely on the WWW. First, understand the meaning and implications of impact, then comment here. You have posted too many comments without understanding impact!
9 Aug 2012, 10.42 PM |
@KunalAshoktweet
IIMC could you please be a little more organised in your postings? In this particular thread where do you see a discussion on IMPACT discussion. This comment is a discussion on your frequent revisiting on the impact of Apple as the pioneer. Rather than urging us not to harp on search engines and we have mentioned it because you conveniently choose to ignore it, please do post this first on the thread to where it belongs. And Apple's contribution to world wide web? The world wide web is a CERN product. Let's give the Zurich scientists full credit for that. It sound ludicrous to even suggest that for APPLE was resposible on the world wide web. NEXT( not even APPLE and please do not make us stress this more) provided the testing server. They were absolutely not responsible in the development of the WWW . We have posted comment because we see the apparent irrelevance of some arguments , the esoteric meaning of the term IMPACT that you intend to bring out and irrationally suggesting that the WWW even at an inferior level is an APPLE contribution
9 Aug 2012, 11.09 PM |
@mohit_s
IIMC there are some new points of discussions posted as a reply to your first set of counter arguments. I am sure you find them interesting given that you have found some of the relevant arguments insipid..
9 Aug 2012, 11.26 PM |
@AfzalHu98096045
You are doing it again. This is about Apple's IMPACT and not contribution. There was no responsibility. We see the same resistance to understanding our argument about impact and how it is different from ownership. We are seeing it in each of your comments. So we are putting it all in one place. "Organization" takes a backseat for now. Impact 101: Socrates taught Plato who taught Aristotle who taught Alexander the Great. Socrates impacted Alexander and thus all of Greek History. It works in a similar way with Apple. Every comment has been posted where it belongs. The word Impact is all over this thread. Apple's impact has been explained in more than one thread.
9 Aug 2012, 11.35 PM |
@mohit_s
IIMC. There are atleast 4 points by Mohit Srivaastava that have not seen any response from you. Could you instead of stating the word IMPACT which we understand has been the cornerstone and if rationally seen perhaps you only point of argument, Please go to each of these points and state where you see a difference. The point in every debate is countering or supporting the opposition's stated points depending on your assessment of the same. Urge you therefore to stick to this basic principle of debating rather than generically stating and defending the IMPACT argument over and over again
9 Aug 2012, 11.52 PM |
Insideiim Admin
.
Posting on behalf of IIM Calcutta: Regarding Adsense, check out the damage it is doing: Throws up ads for Marijuana <a href="http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/adsense/VcxpbjvivPo/f3vV0aHkk3AJ%5B1-25%5D" rel="nofollow">http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/adsen...</a> And it is controversial too! The results thrown by the Google search engine can be rigged! <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/global-cio/compliance/google-ad-controversy-prompts-finger-poi/232301208" rel="nofollow">http://www.informationweek.com/global-cio/complia...</a>
9 Aug 2012, 07.35 PM
+Read Replies (5)
@KunalAshoktweet
For every single adsense ad on marijuana you will find hundreds and thousands of people who have benefited monetarily through adsense . Check below a few from the innumerable reviews received in favor of adsense.Read he first link particularly to understand what Adsense is all about and how it benefits: <a href="http://ezinearticles.com/?Google-AdSense---Why-Should-Content-Sites-Go-For-It?&id=5544615" rel="nofollow">http://ezinearticles.com/?Google-AdSense---Why-Sh...</a> <a href="http://www.iblogzone.com/2012/01/google-adsense-really-worth-it.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.iblogzone.com/2012/01/google-adsense-r...</a> <a href="http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Adsense-Benefits-Visitors-Too/1906500" rel="nofollow">http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Adsense-B...</a> <a href="http://www.malima.com.br/adsense/" rel="nofollow">http://www.malima.com.br/adsense/</a> Check this for another set of instances <a href="http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081003121431AADEbpV" rel="nofollow">http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20...</a> If google results are considered controversial then tell me which search engine can be considered non controversial? It is not for nothing that the GOOGLE search engine has an 84% market share <a href="http://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx?qprid=4" rel="nofollow">http://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-marke...</a> the fact that Google has for years managed to maintain a huge market share points to the immense faith that people have had in the results of he search
9 Aug 2012, 08.13 PM |
@AfzalHu98096045
test
9 Aug 2012, 08.56 PM |
@AfzalHu98096045
So let me tell you why AdSense is not Google's gift to mankind: A monopoly is hard for the market to break. A government can but that is a different story. What we have with Google and its search engine here is a monopoly (benefiting Google) that gives Google too much power over search engine marketing/advertising, giving it the power to rig results without having to fear the consequences because.............it has a monopoly. Please dont deny that this is a monopoly. You yourself have said that it has a 84% share in searches. Also, no monopoly bodes well for the market and the world, inspite of the freebies <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/business/global/europe-warns-google-over-antitrust.html?pagewanted=all" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/business/global...</a>
9 Aug 2012, 09.08 PM |
@KunalAshoktweet
A law suit has not even been filed. Let's not count the chicken before they hatch. The Competition commission has to prove it in the court of law. Mere speculations cannot be taken as points of discussion. And why is a monopoly so bad. May be it is a reflection of the fact that the quality of services have been so good that people have not wanted to switch to other forms of searches. There have been so many search engines - Yahoo,Ask, Live search and now yahoo and not one of them have been able to make a significant dent in Google's immense popularity - the very reason why it is a darling in the eyes of millions of search engine users. Yes, i said Gooogle holds an 84% market share - So let's just accept that this is an endorsement of its quality and polularity than bringing out possibilities of lawsuits. In any case the fact that Adsense has helped so many people earn money still stands unchallenged
9 Aug 2012, 09.46 PM |
@AfzalHu98096045
Lawsuits are irrelevant. We are not speculating. It is economic common sense!!!! We will not waste time on explaining basic economics here. As for the continued popularity, users will not go to someone else, as there is only one relevant player that gets the eyeballs: Google. Your point about quality could be speculation.
9 Aug 2012, 10.15 PM |
@KunalAshoktweet
The iPhone has been revolutionary from a technology perspective but what use is a technology if it does not become accessible to all? What answers are there to the fact that a firm makes as much as a 52% margin (i.e. its profits are 52% of its sales pointing to deliberate jacking up of prices (the reference is present in our opening argument) when the product could be made more widely available.
9 Aug 2012, 07.38 PM
+Read Replies (10)
@AfzalHu98096045
We did not want to state this. But here is why Apple has lost ground to Android: Android was "inspired" by Apple, only its idea did not take its genesis from Apple's. The idea infringed on Apple's copyrights. Andriod has lost out in the patent lawsuits against Apple. <a href="http://www.inquisitr.com/264213/apple-wins-samsung-patent-lawsuit-galaxy-tab-10-1-pulled-from-us-shelves/" rel="nofollow">http://www.inquisitr.com/264213/apple-wins-samsun...</a> <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/03/tech/mobile/apple-wins-ban-android-time/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/03/tech/mobile/app...</a> <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/03/tech/mobile/apple-wins-ban-android-time/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/03/tech/mobile/app...</a> Android's 52% market share will not hold for long. The original innovator in the smartphone and tablet market will return!
9 Aug 2012, 09.00 PM |
@KunalAshoktweet
IIMC - Have you tried responding to our comments in this tweet. Because there clearly seems to be no relation between Android's market share which you have mentioned and the exorbitant profit margins that Apple continues to have. In any case Android's market share is 68% not 52% <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/android-marketshare-iphone_n_1756180.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/android-...</a> Also with respect to the Android-iOS debate - This is what your first reference says: "The case was decided upon after Apple submitted a five-page “design patent” which covers the look of a product and not the technology it uses" The infrigement is on the design not on the technology. the problem is Samsung's not Google's. In any case where are getting with a Android and an i-OS debate? Google's range of products affecting the lives of miions of people is not restricted to the limited world of smartphone telephony
9 Aug 2012, 09.22 PM |
@AfzalHu98096045
Also, since the iPhone was revolutionary, as you graciously admitted, it becomes a pioneer. Everyone else (Samsung, Android and rest) becomes a follower. The pioneer always impacts the followers in a lasting way. The impact holds even after the followers overtake the pioneer. Take Standard Oil's impact on the oil industry for example. It exists no more but its impact still holds. East India Company doesnt exist anymore but its impact on modern India still holds. Apple has lost market share to Android for now. But it has impacted Android beyond doubt. And that impact reflects in the market. Note: Market share is NOT a measure of impact. The importance of innovation isSo let me tell you why AdSense is not Google's gift to mankind:
9 Aug 2012, 09.50 PM |
@AfzalHu98096045
The problem is Samsung's as well as Android's as they are in the same ecosystem
9 Aug 2012, 09.50 PM |
@AfzalHu98096045
And regarding responses to the comments, you have clearly not understood what impact really means. You have forgotten the significance of being a pioneer. We have answered the market share concept of your argument, which also ignores Apple's impact on the industry conveniently. Appearance of the product is part of the offering as far as user attitudes are concerned. It always affects sales in the long run. The problem is Samsung's as well as Android's as they are in the same ecosystem We are disappointed that you did not understand the connections that exist within a market
9 Aug 2012, 10.00 PM |
@KunalAshoktweet
How have you answered the market share question? If you had taken time off to read the article that I stated as reference in the previous comment you would have observed that Android is wresting market share from Apple.I am stating the article again: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/android-marketshare-iphone_n_1756180.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/android-...</a> Android's market share is up to 68% from 47% in one year. the trend is against you. Upon what basis do you say "The original innovator in the smartphone and tablet market will return!"
9 Aug 2012, 10.26 PM |
@KunalAshoktweet
Most of the arguments sound philosophical. I do not think sound arguments need to appeal so much to the heart as hey should to the mind. Continuing for a moment on the philosophical chain of thoughts - "Things change and the old paves way for new". Orkut, Myspace,hi5 all made way for FACEBOOK. While Myspace may remain in the hearts of some people (though i doubt how many) is impact on society or on its stakeholders is minimal. Years down the line people will be talking of FACEBOOK and not of myspace. In any case which is more impactful? . A limited impact of uses of smartphones on the lives of the people who can afford it or the more generic services of mails, video and photo uploads, document sharing that is free and I repeat absolutely FREE and is available to absolulely everyone with access to internet - This is in response to your question if Market share is a measure of the impact
9 Aug 2012, 10.36 PM |
@AfzalHu98096045
Take time out to read our other comment again! "Also, since the iPhone was revolutionary, as you graciously admitted, it becomes a pioneer. Everyone else (Samsung, Android and rest) becomes a follower. The pioneer always impacts the followers in a lasting way. The impact holds even after the followers overtake the pioneer. Take Standard Oil's impact on the oil industry for example. It exists no more but its impact still holds. East India Company doesnt exist anymore but its impact on modern India still holds. Apple has lost market share to Android for now. But it has impacted Android beyond doubt. And that impact reflects in the market. Note: Market share is NOT a measure of impact. " Market share is a great thing.......but it (conveniently for you) ignores the impact of the pioneer(Apple) on the followers. Now, here is a suggestion: Read the argument posted in favour of Apple. Read ALL the comments that we have written regarding Apple and how IMPACT is not the same as OWNERSHIP. Then, question the IMPACT Apple has made on our lives
9 Aug 2012, 10.54 PM |
@AfzalHu98096045
In your analogy, Orkut has impacted Facebook. Facebook used a cleaner and better interface that Orkut used and built up on the increasing interest in Social Media. You can say the same about MySpace etc To do all the above you need a well-designed, usable, reliable piece of hardware. And Apple has revolutionized that hardware sector, and here we mean the whole sector. We seem to agree that Apple was a pioneer in both smartphones and PCs, which account for all of the hardware used to access Google's services. Hence the impact. We also imply that Apple has impacted Google as well
9 Aug 2012, 11.41 PM |
@KunalAshoktweet
The iMAC is does not have the largest reach among all the PCs in the world. It is far from being a leader. The fact that I need a hardware device to use Facebook is true for all hardware. Why should Apple thump its chest and take credit as an enabler when such few people own it in the first place. See reference below: <a href="http://www.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=http://jimries.com/MSThesis/ThesisFull_files/image009.gif&imgrefurl=http://jimries.com/MSThesis/ThesisFull.htm&h=532&w=641&sz=9&tbnid=iD78msN0yip8-M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=108&zoom=1&usg=__arbnd0_CsrPJxtVDPrwGpaOmPSk=&docid=sYkdIQmWzFloZM&sa=X&ei=aAMkUJKSH8StrAeOlYH4Bg&ved=0CHQQ9QEwCA&dur=884" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=http://jimr...</a> Also the reason why facebook was able to almost wipe out Myspace was because it made use of superior Web 2.0 technologies such news feed and its ability to use the platform faiclity to host 3rd applications like Farmville, Zynga poker etc., <a href="http://www.revenews.com/internet-strategy/why-myspace-really-lost-to-facebook/" rel="nofollow">http://www.revenews.com/internet-strategy/why-mys...</a>
10 Aug 2012, 12.15 AM |
@mohit_s
This argument has been about comparisons. With 1 bn searches a month, 800 million monthly YouTube users and 350 million users freely hosted on Google’s apps server the reach of Google beats Apple less than 90 million <a href="http://www.quora.com/iPhone/How-many-active-iPhone-users-are-there" rel="nofollow">http://www.quora.com/iPhone/How-many-active-iPhon...</a> IPhone, Ipod and Mac users over the entire lifetime of Apple brings out the garanguantan difference in the extent to which these companies have impacted the life of the commoner.
9 Aug 2012, 07.45 PM
@mohit_s
That Tim Bernes Lee hosted the world wide web on NEXT is no reason for celebration for Apple. That could very well have been hosted on any other workstation for instance Linux or DOS based serves. In any case Jobs joined back Apple in 1996-97. In 1991 NEXT was an independent technology firm away from the management wrangling and inefficiencies of its CEOs Sculley (83-85), Spindler (93-95) and Amelio (96-97) Refer <a href="http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/09/20/21pogue-email/" rel="nofollow">http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/09/20/21pogue...</a> <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086261/Ex-Apple-boss-John-Sculley-blasts-iMyths.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086261/E...</a>
9 Aug 2012, 07.48 PM
+Read Replies (1)
@AfzalHu98096045
Berners-Lee hosted on the NeXT as it was the best high-performance device of the time. Its technology, which advanced object-oriented programming as well as others, was the best choice. We do not claim that NeXT was owned by Apple. But Jobs took what was best from Apple and did some great things with it. Hence the impact of Apple. Again, we are discussing impact and not credit/ownership. Impact is cumulative.
9 Aug 2012, 09.00 PM |
Deb
The debate isnt about whether Apple has been a pioneer or not, it clearly has been and is clearly portrayed here. The question is about the impact and perhaps one measure of it is the reach. The greater the reach, more likely is it to impact a larger audience. Not everyone can afford to have an Apple product while Google's products are majorly for everyone. You can use any of the wonderful Apple gadgets that have been listed here, but the moment one goes online using these or any other gadget, the first website is invariably, <a href="http://www.google.com" rel="nofollow">www.google.com</a>. Isn't that an interesting measure of how much impact Google has made? One does not search for something on Google anymore, one simply Googles it!
9 Aug 2012, 07.55 PM
+Read Replies (5)
@AfzalHu98096045
Pioneers have the greater impact. Please focus more on the core issue of the debate. And you have not understood the idea of "standing on another's shoulders". Read up on what we wrote about NeXT and the internet
9 Aug 2012, 08.59 PM |
Deb
It would perhaps be helpful if you stated your basis for the first statement instead of making it sound as if, thats how it is, period. Perhaps this would also help you realize some core issues that may have been overlooked. First of all, NeXT was not an Apple product when it was used by Tim Berners Lee but was taken over by Apple much later (in 1996). So that makes that argument in favor of Apple redundant. Further, NeXT did help Tim Berners Lee with the origin of the internet, but only to the extent of providing a medium. To give Apple all the credit for creating the internet and touching people's lives is like giving the guy who invented the kite credit for the discovery of electricity! Going by this and how Apple's products are dependent on electricity, aren't both parties "standing on top of others shoulders" ? There seems to be a disconnect somewhere and surely this isn't conclusive "evidence" in Apple's favor. And even if one were to agree to this "line of thinking", why not credit the creator of the microchip as well without which NeXT computer would never see the light of day? Surely then Apple would be standing on others' shoulders as well! One only hopes you see how absurd this line of thinking is !
9 Aug 2012, 09.51 PM |
@AfzalHu98096045
You are repeating what we have already said. Also, also you are making us repeat our own content again. The issue is not credit or ownership but impact. And the inventor of electricity has IMPACTED Apple and every other player in the electronic industry as did the inventor of the microchip. As a great man said, we all stand on the shoulders of giants. I wont qualify your absurd comment about absurdity with a response. For the last time, we are saying that the technology developed at Apple was used by Steve Jobs and his people to develop the computer that became the medium for the WWW. It was the BEST medium available.
9 Aug 2012, 10.28 PM |
Deb
You believe the great man who said that "We all stand on the shoulders of giants", and yet you claim to use that as a differentiator in Apple's favor in your comment above! Please dont make such contradicting statements. If Apple stands on another shoulder and so does Google, what is this argument doing in a debate ? Surely <a href="http://www.google.com" rel="nofollow">www.google.com</a> can be better utilized to come up with stronger points of argument! In case you guys didnt get it, didnt repeat anything you guys said. I was doing a "what if" analysis where I was trying to answer the outlandish question, "What if this argument actually held water?" Lastly, I'm forced to give up waiting to hear how how Pioneers have the "greater" impact! I cant understand how your definition of impact doesn't even begin to consider the reach/coverage of these products. Apple is premium and not for everyone and yet it seems to make more impact in your opinion while Google catering to the majority's need is just passe.
9 Aug 2012, 10.58 PM |
@AfzalHu98096045
Apple has been impacted by many people and technologies. We have mentioned that in a comment here. This debate is about who has a greater impact: Apple or Google? Our argument serves to show that Apple had a greater impact. This argument belongs here. Your sarcasm does not. Impact is qualitative and cannot be completely quantified. But it can be described and explained. As for the importance of being a pioneer and its impact, read up on the story of Alexander Graham Bell, how he was a pioneer, and how he has impacted phones in general.
9 Aug 2012, 11.47 PM |
Raghavendra
Well said Deb. It clearly is not Google vs Steve Jobs - atleast I do not see it in the title. Apple's absence from the big scene in the 1980s and 1990s shows clearly how they have not been the iconic company you want us to believe they are. And if it is Steve Job's achievements that you so want to highlight then isn't it sad that the great company that you so willingly support depends so largely on one inidividual
9 Aug 2012, 10.03 PM
+Read Replies (3)
@AfzalHu98096045
Dont digress from the topic!!! Read what we have written.....properly....again!
9 Aug 2012, 10.29 PM |
Arushi
IIM C, could you please clearly state on what point has the argument stated by Raghvendra and Dev failed. rather than recursively stating "Dont digree from the topic" Such statements are generic and seem to show the inclination of the team to dodge a question rather than facing it head on.
9 Aug 2012, 11.44 PM |
@AfzalHu98096045
We will answer Raghav's comment: "Apple's absence from the big scene in the 1980s and 1990s" They made the Apple Newton in this era. Some of the handwriting recognition technology from the Newton later found its way into Windows CE. Gesture recognition is derived from this technology. Apple was never really dormant. It was constantly innovating.
10 Aug 2012, 12.52 AM |
Abhinav Agrawal
As had already been mentioned, it was Apple who dreamed of putting a fully-functioning computer in the hands of every individual at a low cost. The number of users mentioned for all of google's products would simply not have been possible without so many people having access to the personal computer! Also, in the arguments given by the IIM Bangalore team, they have only mentioned iPhone and its negative implications (will come to that later). However, they have conveniently chosen to ignore other innovations of Apple, like the Mac, the iPad, and the iPod. iPod was not simply another music device. Through iTunes, Apple established a very easy method for customers to pay for music directly to the recording labels. This almost single-handedly revived the music industry, which was getting killed by piracy. Customers were generally unwilling to go out and buy a cassette/CD (please note I am talking about early 2000s here), and they would feel slightly guilty about downloading it for free via Napster or some similar sources. However, iTunes let customers download their favourite song for a small amount. Now, the iPad. It is without doubt one of the most disruptive innovations of the last decade. Apple was certainly not the first company to try making tablet devices, but they were the first company to be successful in selling it. Every other company scrambled to get a share of the tablet pie, a market which didn't even exist before the iPad launch. iPad still has >80% market share in this category. However, what it has led to is the increase in sales of e-books. Only last week, the number of e-books sold in UK surpassed the number of hardcopy books sold. Imagine the number of trees being saved because of this, and the environmental impact, except of course that more people are reading book now than before! Now lets talk about the iPhone. The IIMB team mentions it is overpriced, and customers buy it because of the status symbol. In the previous quarter, 26 million iPhones were sold across the globe, highest for a single handset. Surely not too overpriced, were they? The operators make up for the loss on sales (which btw is not as substantial as projected) through their specially tailored plans for iPhone users. Now you may say that they are overcharging the customers. Well then, iPhone would not have been around till now, would it, if they were being overcharged? Also, Google has been mentioned as the saviour, a shining example of open source software. Rewind to about a couple of years ago, when the open source community were up in arms against google for not providing access to the Android code. The very public lawsuit changed the popular perception that google can do no evil. Research has proven that for any particular app, an iPhone user spends thrice as much as an Android user, for the very same app. As a developer, it makes more sense for me to have my app on the iOS store before Android store. Isn't that helping developers make more money, and hence, leading to better apps/products, and a greater benefit to the community as a whole? "Thus, on one hand we have a firm that emphasizes on open source services at zero prices". Oh please. Its not as if there are no paid apps on the Android Store, and that Google does not keep even 1% of the share. Google charges $25 if a developer is willing to start selling his app on the app store. 25 does look greater than zero to me. I would like to end with the following point: every company is there to make a profit. In a capitalist economy, the best way for a company to contribute to the economy and the society as a whole is by creating as many jobs as possible, and drive growth, by creating value for the customer and charge him for the same. Apple has done that, not only once, but many times. Apple II, their PC; iPod; iTunes; iPhone; and the iPad. Google has also had many innovative products, no doubt about that. However, their impact has been limited. Yes, they created jobs. Yes, they improved productivity. But, their impact on the society as a whole is much less as compared to Apple's. Apple's early success spawned a generation of tech entrepreneurs in the USA, responsible for creating more jobs than any single company could. Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg; all pay homage to Steve Jobs and thank him for sparking that entrepreneurial bug in them. For more, please refer to the following link: <a href="http://blogs.hbr.org/pallotta/2011/09/steve-jobs-worlds-greatest-phi.html" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.hbr.org/pallotta/2011/09/steve-jobs-...</a> (it is specific to Steve Jobs, but I think most of us will agree that Steve Jobs was the main driving force behind Apple's success).
10 Aug 2012, 12.03 AM
+Read Replies (2)
@mohit_s
You know that the android platform (be it because of any cause) is open source, and you can basically change the kernel code and create your own custom android. Having said that, where did you get the data for the Android Store that "Google charges $25 if a developer is willing to start selling his app on the app store." The link <a href="https://appmakr.zendesk.com/entries/405819-how-to-sell-priced-apps-on-the-android-market" rel="nofollow">https://appmakr.zendesk.com/entries/405819-how-to...</a> clearly says that Google charges 30% as the application fee. From <a href="http://www.androidtapp.com/android-apps-statistics-summary-for-2010/" rel="nofollow">http://www.androidtapp.com/android-apps-statistic...</a> and <a href="http://www.appbrain.com/stats/free-and-paid-android-applications" rel="nofollow">http://www.appbrain.com/stats/free-and-paid-andro...</a> you can see that an overwhelmingly majority of apps are free. A very miniscule number is for apps > $10 which clearly says that the number $25 has been hypothesized!
10 Aug 2012, 01.28 AM |
@prateek2189
Kindly read here, the reference you quoted was some random site, and it talks about what googledoes AFTER you are a merchant. The following reply comes from AppMobi Developer : "First, Google and Appple have their own costs to submit to the app store. For Android, it's $25, for iOS it's $99. These are a requirement to submit to the appstores and not associated with AppMobi. If you were to use the native SDK's or any other tool, you are still required to pay these costs." <a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8767020/using-appmobi-can-i-create-android-apps-and-iphone-apps-for-free-besides-google" rel="nofollow">http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8767020/using-...</a> See one more comment in the in response to someone who made a statement like you : Statement : "You don't have to pay anything for Android market. But you still need to pay $99 for Apple developer program to push your iPhone app in App store." Reply : "thanks for your answer, but for completeness: Android Market requires 25$ one time subscription (Apple is 99$/ year). – superjos Jan 7 at 16:36"
10 Aug 2012, 09.06 AM |
Sachin Gupta
I have a simple thing. I don't know about history but I'm pretty sure I can live without an apple product but definitely cannot imagine a life without Google
10 Aug 2012, 12.42 AM
+Read Replies (3)
@AfzalHu98096045
What would our lives be without a computer? Will we be able to use Google's services? The computer, as we know it today, was conceptualized by Apple. The role that Apple plays is taken for granted and trying to look at the ripples caused at the surface... doesn't this stand for Apples impact?
10 Aug 2012, 01.14 AM |
@mohit_s
Apple never conceptualized the computer. Refer <a href="http://inventors.about.com/library/blcoindex.htm" rel="nofollow">http://inventors.about.com/library/blcoindex.htm</a>
10 Aug 2012, 01.19 AM |
@prateek2189
Surely you have not tried Bing and other email services ! Regarding youtube, google maps etc, if there werent Google, they still would be there and you would be using those :)
10 Aug 2012, 09.08 AM |
@mohit_s
I wish you would have read your source <a href="http://lisafaq.sunder.net/lisafaq-hs_about_lisa.html" rel="nofollow">http://lisafaq.sunder.net/lisafaq-hs_about_lisa.h...</a> more carefully before saying that Apple Lisa "introduced" the following features. The article only says "It is one of the first commercial machines to have a.." and not the first! Let us take this apart point by point as well You suggested "The Apple Lisa introduced graphic user interfaces, the mouse, hard disk based operating systems, multitasking and virtual memory" Mouse As far as the real inventor of mouse is concerned, here is the company that really invented the mouse <a href="http://www.briskinfo.com/it/invention-of-computer-mouse.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.briskinfo.com/it/invention-of-computer...</a> Hard Disk Based Operating Systems: The first computer with a hard disk was IBM’s RAMAC, which was used during the 1960 Olympics to calculate sports results. <a href="http://abbas14.hubpages.com/hub/History-of-Hard-Disk-Drive" rel="nofollow">http://abbas14.hubpages.com/hub/History-of-Hard-D...</a>
10 Aug 2012, 01.01 AM
@mohit_s
Multi-tasking GUIs Just go the link to realize that Apple was not the first to have achieved the feat. <a href="http://pim.famnit.upr.si/blog/index.php?/archives/166-History-of-multitasking.html" rel="nofollow">http://pim.famnit.upr.si/blog/index.php?/archives...</a> Virtual Memory <a href="http://www.ehow.com/facts_6905251_history-virtual-memory.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ehow.com/facts_6905251_history-virtual...</a> The article clearly suggests that the virtual memory concept had its origins in 1959 and it was in 1969 (much before the first touted computer by Apple in 1976 came on the scene) when David Sayre from the IBM showed that virtual memory could control systems more effectively. And it was again IBM that introduced virtual memory in its 370 series in 1972 (refer <a href="http://euler.vcsu.edu:7000/14337/" rel="nofollow">http://euler.vcsu.edu:7000/14337/</a> )
10 Aug 2012, 01.02 AM
@mohit_s
You suggested "Apple I was the first to introduce a keyboard and a TV-like display unit" This was the Apple I computer introduced in 1976 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_I_Computer.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_I_Compute...</a> This is ADM-3A, first introduced in 1975 and carrying a keyboard and a TV like display unit <a href="http://pages.rediff.com/adm-3a/1434578" rel="nofollow">http://pages.rediff.com/adm-3a/1434578</a> <a href="http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/learSiegler/ADM3A_Maint.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/learSiegler/ADM3A_Ma...</a> Clearly, none of the technologies/features you proclaimed as having been developed by Apple were developed by it. So, your premise that just by the dint of introducing these technologies Apple has left a huge impact on the minds of the people stands falsified.
10 Aug 2012, 01.02 AM
+Read Replies (2)
@AfzalHu98096045
We did not claim that Apple "invented" any of these technologies. We would have explicitly used the word "invented" if that were the case. They have significantly developed all these technologies. This was our point
10 Aug 2012, 01.31 AM |
@AfzalHu98096045
For all the given points questioning Apple's early innovations, we did not say that Apple invented a particular tech. We meant that they made it a requirement and standard for future computers
10 Aug 2012, 02.00 AM |
Sudeep
Just to reiterate Sachin's point..The sheer number of users who use Apple or Google is a good indicator of which one has had a greater impact. Secondly one should also consider the fact that Google is way ahead of its competitors (in a field which doesn't necessarily have too many entry barriers) while Apple is not ( in a field where it faces much more limited set of competitors). The fact that Apple has been a pioneer in the field of personal computers doesn't necessarily mean that PCs wouldn't have evolved at all if Steve Jobs wasn't around . On the other hand no company has been able to replicate what Google has done in its 10-15 years of existence.
10 Aug 2012, 01.08 AM
+Read Replies (1)
@AfzalHu98096045
Apple faced tons of entry barriers when it started (read IBM and HP). It conceptualized computer technology that its competitors adopted and which we still use. It made significant accomplishments from the introduction of Apple 1 to the Mac, from 1975 to 1984, roughly 9 years
10 Aug 2012, 01.34 AM |
@AfzalHu98096045
"Contrast this with the arrogance of a company with its iPhone tagline as “If you don’t have an iPhone – you don’t have an iPhone”. " The tagline only highlights the uniqueness quality of their product. Also, these characteristics are derived from Apple's mission to connect tech with the human experience
10 Aug 2012, 01.20 AM
@AfzalHu98096045
IIMB has highlighted Google's tagline "Dont be evil" Google here is talking about how NOT to do business. Rather they are preaching the ethics of business Apple on the other hand says "Think Different" They say that one should do business by innovating and thus creating an ever-lasting impact. So why innovation? Because Innovation gives better tech to the users and thus better user experience Here, Apple strives to make an ever-lasting impact on society through better technologies
10 Aug 2012, 01.26 AM
Kunal Ashok
Abhinav -Thanks for bringing out so many of the points which we even as opponents would have thought about as Apple's strength but which the representatives of your college have been incapable of mentioning or at any rate elaborating on that (you can see their opening arguments on how they went on a glory seeking drive on the past) While you think it was Apple who dreamed of putting a fully functional computers in the hands of people, we ascribe it as your personal opinion. you are entitled to it. Good luck. We have in the previous posts stated and restate that several of the pioneers in the field of Computer technology were non-Apples one. Here is the reference: <a href="http://inventors.about.com/library/blcoindex.htm" rel="nofollow">http://inventors.about.com/library/blcoindex.htm</a> But since this is subjective, i will give you the benefit of doubt and like a gentleman leave this point of argument at this. iTunes- yes they reversed the trends of piracy in the US and UK. Yes, and thank you for stating the concept of platform. I was for a moment thinking that this word was probably not understood.For every 99 cent of song Apple provides 70 cents to the music label keeping a small percentage of money with itself. It thereby creates a loss leader and this serves to help sale its Ipod at as much as 35 % margin. Apple BOM for 80GB hard disk classics was $127 which retailed for $249. A master stroke in marketing but again reemphasizing our point of forcing the customer to pay enormous premium for a brand Reference. HBS case study Apple Inc,2008 Though I would have liked it you to have stated the source for the >80% market share of Ipads, the accessibility of Ipads is low - certainly in middle income countries. The fact it is a market leader in a rarefied field of exclusives (thanks to its price) shows the limitation of impact. Yes, the UK and US are buying but "isn't the question on the impact of people's lives". In today's consumer driven electronics market 67 million sales till date - doesn't appear to be a huge number certainly not huge compared to Google's monthly numbers. Kunal Ashok - posting from gmail
10 Aug 2012, 01.33 AM
+Read Replies (2)
Abhinav Agrawal
Kunal About the personal computer point, I am not suggesting that Apple was the first company to build it. But it was certainly the first company to make it accessible to the average user at an affordable price, and gain commercial value out of it. And yes, it is subjective, I think we can end this debate here :). iTunes: Every company has the right to charge for any platform they are providing, and I really do not believe that Apple is wrong in doing the same, legally as well as ethically. And my point wasn't about the ethicality of it all, it was about the impact of this move. It stopped piracy, it revived one of the largest industries in the US. Reiterating, a company's primary aim must be to create value, and hence create jobs. By reviving the US music industry it managed to create many more jobs. I don't understand in what is wrong in "overcharging" (in your own words) if the customer is willing to pay for it.The high price has not deterred its sales, from what I can see. It is merely making more profit, and hence creating more value for its shareholders. And please remember, the cost is this low because of Apple's continuous improvement in its supply chain. About iPad, why is the number of users being reiterated over and over again? Google.com might be used by 1 billion customers, but most of them spend less than an hour in a month on that. No doubt that it is helping a lot of people, but is it having as big as an impact by such limited usage? I don't think so. In contrast, an iPad user will probably spend atleast 10 times as much time on his iPad. I am not able to find the relevant video, but at the launch of iPad 2, there was a video which showed how iPad is helping disabled children in their education, and how doctors are able to improve healthcare and response time because of iPads.
10 Aug 2012, 12.14 PM |
Vishnu
"most of them spend less than an hour in a month on that" I really do not know how do you cook up some numbers. <a href="http://www.mindjumpers.com/blog/2012/05/time-spend-online/" rel="nofollow">http://www.mindjumpers.com/blog/2012/05/time-spen...</a> This shows that the average time spent by a user searching for google is 21% of their time which roughly amounts to some 1 hr 47 minutes (as compared to Apple products which stand at 1 hour 6 minutes) And you are comparing apples and oranges when you say that you would compare the time spent by users on a device (iPad) vs a service (Google) And if you still want to do it, compare it with android and get some real numbers for people to analyze rather than hypothesizing "an iPad user will probably spend atleast 10 times as much time on his iPad"
10 Aug 2012, 01.55 PM |
@KunalAshoktweet
Please note that the previous comments was posted as a response to audience comment and hence posted from my gmail id as stated by the rules.
10 Aug 2012, 01.36 AM
@KunalAshoktweet
As for the capitalist's way of contributing to the society the job argument sounds good . Despite the fact that Apple employs one and a half time the number of people in Google most of those employees are in its retail stores. So technically Google's innovative employment trumps Apples:Check <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/245806/apple_vs_google_by_the_numbers.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcworld.com/article/245806/apple_vs_go...</a> As for the "business of capitalist market system" - We are not all Milton Friedman's fan here now, are we? While the primary responsibility of the company would be towards profit making - a blatant display of this monetary mindset at the cost of any social initiative is bound to raise my eyebrows
10 Aug 2012, 01.47 AM
+Read Replies (2)
@AfzalHu98096045
We are not sure how this is relevant. Also, sales is a serious science for great companies, like Apple
10 Aug 2012, 01.58 AM |
Abhinav Agrawal
Google mostly employs very qualified computer engineers, who would as easily get a job elsewhere. Apple employs many people in retail stores, many of them who might just be high-school graduates, who would possibly not get a better job. So who is creating more jobs, Apple of Google?
10 Aug 2012, 12.19 PM |
@KunalAshoktweet
Again please state the distribution of the sales of he Iphones. It is skewed in favour of the New Yorks and Hong Kongs - still not a hit among the Lucknow and Kanpurs of the world. The 26 million sales of iPhone sold to the rich world illustrate this precise point and you are aware of the subsidy model being followed in all these places so the telecom operator (AT&T in the US, China mobile in CHina and SmartOne in HongKong) bears the one time cost while Apple benefits. <a href="http://www.tech-thoughts.net/2012/05/proof-of-iphones-dependence-on-carrier.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.tech-thoughts.net/2012/05/proof-of-iph...</a> And these operators are bleeding right now and revising their subsidy policies.Have your statements well researched. For my claims please check the below links: <a href="http://www.phonearena.com/news/AT-T-to-cut-down-on-phone-subsidies-CEO-gives-Nokia-Lumia-900-and-HTC-One-X-as-shining-examples_id30293/" rel="nofollow">http://www.phonearena.com/news/AT-T-to-cut-down-o...</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/mobility/business/iphone-subsidies-hurt-sprints-bottom-lin/232600454" rel="nofollow">http://www.informationweek.com/mobility/business/...</a> Apple has continued to use its arm twisting philosophy without conceding an inch
10 Aug 2012, 01.37 AM
Kunal Ashok
Again please state the distribution of the sales of he Iphones. It is skewed in favour of the New Yorks and Hong Kongs - still not a hit among the Lucknow and Kanpurs of the world. The 26 million sales of iPhone sold to the rich world illustrate this precise point and you are aware of the subsidy model being followed in all these places so the telecom operator (AT&T in the US, China mobile in CHina and SmartOne in HongKong) bears the one time cost while Apple benefits. <a href="http://www.tech-thoughts.net/2012/05/proof-of-iphones-dependence-on-carrier.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.tech-thoughts.net/2012/05/proof-of-iph...</a> And these operators are bleeding right now and revising their subsidy policies.Have your statements well researched. For my claims please check the below links: <a href="http://www.phonearena.com/news/AT-T-to-cut-down-on-phone-subsidies-CEO-gives-Nokia-Lumia-900-and-HTC-One-X-as-shining-examples_id30293/" rel="nofollow">http://www.phonearena.com/news/AT-T-to-cut-down-o...</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/mobility/business/iphone-subsidies-hurt-sprints-bottom-lin/232600454" rel="nofollow">http://www.informationweek.com/mobility/business/...</a> Apple has continued to use its arm twisting philiosophy without conceding an inch
10 Aug 2012, 01.34 AM
Kunal Ashok
Abhinav -Thanks for bringing out so many of the points which we even as opponents would have thought about as Apple's strength but which the representatives of your college have been incapable of mentioning or at any rate elaborating on that (you can see their opening arguments on how they went on a glory seeking drive on the past) While you think it was Apple who dreamed of putting a fully functional computers in the hands of people, we ascribe it as your personal opinion. you are entitled to it. Good luck. We have in the previous posts stated and restate that several of the pioneers in the field of Computer technology were non-Apples one. Here is the reference: <a href="http://inventors.about.com/library/blcoindex.htm" rel="nofollow">http://inventors.about.com/library/blcoindex.htm</a> But since this is subjective, i will give you the benefit of doubt and like a gentleman leave this point of argument at this. iTunes- yes they reversed the trends of piracy in the US and UK. Yes, and thank you for stating the concept of platform. I was for a moment thinking that this word was probably not understood.For every 99 cent of song Apple provides 70 cents to the music label keeping a small percentage of money with itself. It thereby creates a loss leader and this serves to help sale its Ipod at as much as 35 % margin. Apple BOM for 80GB hard disk classics was $127 which retailed for $249. A master stroke in marketing but again reemphasizing our point of forcing the customer to pay enormous premium for a brand Reference. HBS case study Apple Inc,2008 Though I would have liked it you to have stated the source for the >80% market share of Ipads, the accessibility of Ipads is low - certainly in middle income countries. The fact it is a market leader in a rarefied field of exclusives (thanks to its price) shows the limitation of impact. Yes, the UK and US are buying but "isn't the question on the impact of people's lives". In today's consumer driven electronics market 67 million sales till date - doesn't appear to be a huge number certainly not huge compared to Google's monthly numbers. Again please state the distribution of the sales of he Iphones. It is skewed in favour of the New Yorks and Hong Kongs - still not a hit among the Lucknow and Kanpurs of the world. The 26 million sales of iPhone sold to the rich world illustrate this precise point and you are aware of the subsidy model being followed in all these places so the telecom operator (AT&T in the US, China mobile in CHina and SmartOne in HongKong) bears the one time cost while Apple benefits. <a href="http://www.tech-thoughts.net/2012/05/proof-of-iphones-dependence-on-carrier.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.tech-thoughts.net/2012/05/proof-of-iph...</a> And these operators are bleeding right now and revising their subsidy policies.Have your statements well researched. For my claims please check the below links: <a href="http://www.phonearena.com/news/AT-T-to-cut-down-on-phone-subsidies-CEO-gives-Nokia-Lumia-900-and-HTC-One-X-as-shining-examples_id30293/" rel="nofollow">http://www.phonearena.com/news/AT-T-to-cut-down-o...</a> <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/mobility/business/iphone-subsidies-hurt-sprints-bottom-lin/232600454" rel="nofollow">http://www.informationweek.com/mobility/business/...</a> Apple has continued to use its arm twisting philiosophy without conceding an inch Kunal Ashok - posting from gmail id
10 Aug 2012, 01.26 AM
@mohit_s
I wish you would have read your source <a href="http://lisafaq.sunder.net/lisafaq-hs_about_lisa.html" rel="nofollow">http://lisafaq.sunder.net/lisafaq-hs_about_lisa.h...</a> more carefully before saying that Apple Lisa "introduced" the following features. The article only says "It is one of the first commercial machines to have a.." and not the first! Let us take this apart point by point as well You suggested "The Apple Lisa introduced graphic user interfaces, the mouse, hard disk based operating systems, multitasking and virtual memory" Mouse As far as the real inventor of mouse is concerned, here is the company that really invented the mouse <a href="http://www.briskinfo.com/it/invention-of-computer-mouse.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.briskinfo.com/it/invention-of-computer...</a> Hard Disk Based Operating Systems: The first computer with a hard disk was IBM’s RAMAC, which was used during the 1960 Olympics to calculate sports results. <a href="http://abbas14.hubpages.com/hub/History-of-Hard-Disk-Drive" rel="nofollow">http://abbas14.hubpages.com/hub/History-of-Hard-D...</a> Multi-tasking GUIs Just go the link to realize that Apple was not the first to have achieved the feat. <a href="http://pim.famnit.upr.si/blog/index.php?/archives/166-History-of-multitasking.html" rel="nofollow">http://pim.famnit.upr.si/blog/index.php?/archives...</a> Virtual Memory <a href="http://www.ehow.com/facts_6905251_history-virtual-memory.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ehow.com/facts_6905251_history-virtual...</a> The article clearly suggests that the virtual memory concept had its origins in 1959 and it was in 1969 (much before the first touted computer by Apple in 1976 came on the scene) when David Sayre from the IBM showed that virtual memory could control systems more effectively. And it was again IBM that introduced virtual memory in its 370 series in 1972 (refer <a href="http://euler.vcsu.edu:7000/14337/" rel="nofollow">http://euler.vcsu.edu:7000/14337/</a> ) You suggested "Apple I was the first to introduce a keyboard and a TV-like display unit" This was the Apple I computer introduced in 1976 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_I_Computer.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_I_Compute...</a> This is ADM-3A, first introduced in 1975 and carrying a keyboard and a TV like display unit <a href="http://pages.rediff.com/adm-3a/1434578" rel="nofollow">http://pages.rediff.com/adm-3a/1434578</a> <a href="http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/learSiegler/ADM3A_Maint.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/learSiegler/ADM3A_Ma...</a> Clearly, none of the technologies/features you proclaimed as having been developed by Apple were developed by it. So, your premise that just by the dint of introducing these technologies Apple has left a huge impact on the minds of the people stands falsified.
10 Aug 2012, 12.47 AM
@mohit_s
Secondly is the “titan” worthy of the title? Given below are the list of innovations that have been made in the world of computer technology. Apple was never a first. Agreed it did produce the Mac which because of its inherent features started gaining market share but issues of exclusivity (The Lisa was not compatible with the IBM standard) refer <a href="http://(http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Apple-Computers-Paper/988957)" rel="nofollow">(http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Apple-Computers-Paper/988957)</a> and compatibility existed even in the 1970s and Apple always wanted to create its ultra- exclusive brand so that they would differentiate on price. Agreed also that the Iphone revolutionized the world of touch screen telephony (albeit for a few to start with) but the Macintosh was no way close the iconic status that our opponents want us to believe it had.
9 Aug 2012, 07.54 PM
@mohit_s
Secondly is the titan worthy of the title? Given below are the list of innovations that have been made in the world of computer technology. Apple was never a first. Agreed it did produce the Mac which because of its inherent features started gaining market share but issues of exclusivity (The Lisa was not compatible with the IBM standard) refer <a href="http://(http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Apple-Computers-Paper/988957)" rel="nofollow">(http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Apple-Computers-Paper/988957)</a> and compatibility existed even in the 1970s and Apple always wanted to create its ultra- exclusive brand so that they would differentiate on price. Agreed also that the Iphone revolutionized the world of touch screen telephony (albeit for a few to start with) but the Macintosh was no way close the iconic status that our opponents want us to believe it had.
9 Aug 2012, 07.44 PM