| 7:49 pm on Mar 2, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Sticking to their core competencies would be my guess. I reckon if they thought they could do it better, and make it profitable without endangering or compromising their brand, they would have taken the leap.
Probably though, it boiled down to all the good domain names being taken.
| 8:04 pm on Mar 2, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Apple has gained success helped by people's idiocracy of paying 3 times more for a product even if it doesn't bring you something really useful. They are the best in doing that, check the iPad 2 launch features: USB, Webcam or whatever they're putting into it. It's the same as other gadgets have, but they can amazingly sell it 3 times more expensive.
My guess is they've considered joining this business, but beating the already-existing "Big Fishes" would be hard, no matter what.
| 8:28 pm on Mar 2, 2011 (gmt 0)|
use our revolutionary isearchengine for only 9,999 per year, this changes everything, "again".
| 9:34 pm on Mar 2, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I would argue that Apple is more hardware-oriented than software-oriented. Although a top-notch search engine is built on a huge mega-bank of hardware in the background, that type of hardware is really outside Apple's consumer- (or even individual-) focused hardware.
| 9:39 pm on Mar 2, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I've been sitting here for several minutes trying to think of a clever response. They all sound hostile though.
I think I'll leave this one alone.
| 8:31 pm on Mar 7, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Apple is one of the few companies that are a less appealing challenge to Google than Microsoft.
| 2:21 pm on Mar 8, 2011 (gmt 0)|
^ they reduced themselves to a gadget company. The macs get an update and almost nobody hears anything about it. but come out with a new ipod or ipad and its front page news!
| 2:29 pm on Mar 8, 2011 (gmt 0)|
My guess would be that Apple doesn't feel the need to take over the world like Goofle.
| 2:52 pm on Mar 8, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I'll take a guess and believe you spelled it intentionally. I like it.
I call them the "borg" sometimes.