joshwex90

Google+ isn't social media competing with Facebook. On that front, it's a failure. But if you look at them as a business product, it's pretty successful. The Plus in Google Plus? It's Mostly for Google - NY Times

ScottC

Another Apple event has come and gone with very little that seems to have excited people. More of the the same in the iPad department (copying Samsung there) and a 5K iMac. Google had more to show off the day before in their little product lineup.

joshwex90

To be fair, their iPhone event would probably have been the most watched tech event of some time if not for *minor* technical constraints
(You know, how Apple required you to be using Apple products to watch - no Mac/iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch - no watchie!)

ScottC

Looks like I may have been ahead of the curve:

http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/21/w...he-boring-one/

SRQ Guy

The answer to engadget's question is "when Steve Jobs left the company". Clearly he was the sole creative brains of the operation.

ScottC

I find it hard to believe that Google, Facebook and Microsoft can find creative people to lead them and develop innovative new technologies, but Apple lost its entire creative mind with the loss of one person, brilliant as he may have been.

Non-NonRev

Maybe all of the really good ideas had been stolen by the time Jobs croaked .......

nkedel

I suspect it's less a matter of the creative mind vs. corporate courage. Apple has the talent, but may not have the processes in place to bring out the products that the talent could produce... and they've never been about risk-taking. Virtually every successful product they've had since Jobs came back except the iTunes store has been a case of taking something someone else has already commercialized, and executing it better.

Google and Microsoft have both been very ready to diversify by throwing products out there to see what sticks or to come out with a "me too" product just to try to f with competitors (true for a very long time, in Microsoft's case*), with that diversification supported by a horrifically profitable core product (search in one case, the Windows/Office/Exchange triad in the other) ... which you'll note is much, much more conservative than the company's other offerings.

(* Windows, after all, was originally both one of those "me too" and "see what sticks" products, and probably in that sense one of the most profitable gambles of that sort in history. I doubt many companies would have the patience these days to go through 5 years and 3 versions of a product before it caught on.)

One company that surprises me that Google acquired them and not Apple is Nest...

ScottC

Yeah, that one was a huge surprise. But at 4 billion, I imagine someone at Apple decided they could probably do a better job at making their own. Same applies to Dropcam - another product that could have been a great fit at Apple.

And then there is Beats - which makes no sense to me. Mediocre headphones and a failing streaming product just didn't seem like a good fit, especially at that price.

nkedel

I'll be very curious when/if Apple does decide to take on the home automation market.

As for Beats, the amount of acquisition activity these days that seems purely-speculative from the outside is huge, and sometimes it makes sense later, and sometimes it doesn't. I don't know if the evidence is out yet on that one, but it certainly is at best still in the ... stage.

pseudoswede

Over-hyped product at inflated prices? Like peas in a pod.

planemechanic

Apple's competitors would kill to be as "boring" and as profitable as Apple.

wco81

When did some engadget writer become the judge for excitement?

That Hololens demo is cool but it's unlikely to be a smash product.

The Kinect demos were cool too and look where it is now. MS had to drop it to cut price on the Xbox One, to boost sales.

People thought Google Glass was obtrusive? To me, all these HMD things are of limited appeal. But we'll see if this thing takes off.

ScottC

Yeah, just one of the largest tech blogs in the world. Definitely worth ignoring.

Smash products are not all that matters - sometimes companies just need to show they can still innovate. Apple has become more of a "us too" company than a "we lead" company. Apple made a name for itself by being a leader - often with massive failed products, but it didn't hurt them - because it showed they had balls. Think about the first consumer digital camera, first Wi-Fi devices, first PDA. All Apple. They took risks, showed they could create entire new product lines, and sometimes they had a hit, sometimes they didn't. Now they just make some computers and phones that are a dime a dozen.

The Hololens is absolutely amazing, and took everyone by surprise. Add the Microsoft developments in things like full room projection, and the 85 inch surface, and they have some brand new product lines which is more than Apple has done in well over a decade.

Yeah, silly Kinect. All it managed to accomplish was become the fastest selling consumer gadget in history. Well worth ignoring or mocking. Apple entirely missed a massive market with that technology and let Microsoft walk all over them. Ironically, Apple now owns the company that made the tech in Kinect, just in time for the relevance of that technology to be over. Good job Apple, way to "lead".

No doubt - there is a limited market for these devices. But when companies like Facebook are leading the development of this new market, and not Apple, they need to ask themselves if they are as relevant as they used to be.

Look at the Apple Watch news today about its battery life- Apple is a good 18 months behind the competition, and their battery tech is significantly behind where Motorola is. Think about that one - APPLE is behind MOTOROLA when it comes to smart watch battery tech.

LtKernelPanic

This one had me puzzled too. While Beats are popular (honestly I'm not sure why either since you can get better for less) I think what Apple was really buying were the industry connections of Jimmy Iovine and Andre Young (Dr. Dre).