You mean like how google drives around filming the world, mapping your home wifi network, and when you complain tells you “Set up your network better”? That’s scary, but of course, that’s not what he’s scared of. Because that would be evil and google’s not evil.
Brin said he and co-founder Larry Page would not have been able to create Google if the internet was dominated by Facebook. “You have to play by their rules, which are really restrictive,” he said. “The kind of environment that we developed Google in, the reason that we were able to develop a search engine, is the web was so open. Once you get too many rules, that will stifle innovation.”
How about the environment where Google can kill your adwords account at any time, keep your money, and not even have to tell you why. Or the clause wherein if they think you knew about a “violation” of the Adwords ToS, which of course, they never tell you what that violation actually is, because it would reveal “proprietary” data. Funny how Google is open only when it’s convenient. So a company well-known for arbitrary application of rules, and heavy-handed handling of violations of those rules that are never actually revealed to the people who violated said rules is “worried that facebook’s rules are restrictive.”. Clearly Sergey is an atheist. No one actually afraid of a hell would be that much of a hypcritical twonk.
[Introspection is hard. Google has not mastered it at all.]
I agree with one thing: sustaining high profit margins is difficult. But where Denninger goes wrong is in assuming that competitors can easily or quickly copy what Apple is doing. His argument is no different than the dire predictions for the iPod a decade ago. Yes, Apple’s hardware margins are extraordinary. But Apple is an extraordinary company. They have an unparalleled retail presence, a top-shelf brand, and a loyal, large, and growing customer base. They write and design their own entire software stack, have incredible third-party developer support, and, by selling very large quantities of a relatively small number of hardware products, attain astounding economies of scale.
I’m not saying Apple’s continued success is assured. But there’s no sense in an argument based on the supposition that Apple is in any way a typical hardware maker.
[It is always easier to throw rocks.]
Source: Daring Fireball
Most people don’t have great taste. (And they don’t care, so it doesn’t matter to them.) They usually like tasteful, well-designed products, but often don’t recognize why, or care more about other factors when making buying decisions.
People who naturally recognize tasteful, well-designed products are a small subset of the population. But people who can create them are a much smaller subset.
Taste in product creation overlaps a lot with design: doing it well requires it to be valued, rewarded, and embedded in the company’s culture and upper leadership. If it’s not, great taste can’t guide product decisions, and great designers leave.
No amount of money, and no small amount of time, can buy taste.
[I’m not sure I quite agree with the “People who naturally recognize tasteful, well-designed products are a small subset of the population” line. I think the subset is those who *think* about the design, rather than the more common, “yeah, that works, yeah, I like it” intuitive understanding majority. Since taste is the ability to discern and consider the differences rather than intuit them… The argument here is simple, most people would gravitate toward a better a better design, but they let a whole slew of other factors (what they’ve been told and by whom, and their own biases of many years etc) get in the way. Remove some of this, and the design that works, one that provides a good experience, every time.]