or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › iPhone OS 4 to open web services to Microsoft's Bing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPhone OS 4 to open web services to Microsoft's Bing - Page 3

post #81 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

Now, back to the topic. I beg to differ with those who state that:

"Google is so way ahead in the "Search" business, it is unwise for Apple to enter the field."

Apple has shown that it can enter fields where other companies have dominated, and come out the game-changer. The phone business is a very good example.

Personally, I want and need a better Search engine. More than likely, others may have been wanting the same.

The Google Search:
  • Type a simple word, or a group of words. You get a gazillion pages. I typed "Word", and Google spewed: 733,000,000 results Really. How many of us go through all those pages?
  • Sometimes, you really know something exist in there. And, even remember using it once. But, you cannot recall where you bookmarked that URL. This happened to me so many times. Even after I went through so many pages, it still was not there. It would not have made the Google criteria (see next three below).
  • What is popular may not be the best. Back to the search using "Word". Is "Word.com" really the most authoritative source? I like Wikipedia, and use it quite often, but same thing.
  • There is a saying: "What is popular may not be true. What is true may not be popular." Google Search -- if I remember their mantra correctly -- is based on the concept that what is "clicked" most often must be the best. This worship of popularity feeds onto itself.
  • I am sure that there are many of you who really know your own field. When you do a general Search, you might have found that what you consider as the most reliable source may not even make the first page of Google Search. This is obvious, how can the "masses" know exactly what is most authoritative, if they are still in the process of trying to educate themselves on the topic they are searching. And yet, it is the search and collective clicking behavior of the masses that define Google Search.

I read about alternative Search algorithm efforts by a number of start ups. I am really too tech-savvy to decide which one is most promising. Apple, if it wants to, has the technical expertise to wade through these possible choices.

Apple should do the same with Maps, and basic softwares. I would be so disapppinted if Apple's North Carolina facility would just be used to house music, videos and movies as part of Apple's cloud computing initiative.

CGC

I totally agree. The search concept needs a paradigm shift. And who better than Apple to 'bring it'

Meanwhile I keep pointing out Apple not only bought Placebase but also Siri. They didn't buy these companies for fun. I keep feeling Apple have something under-wraps. It might be that it is not ready for WWDC but I am hoping this year we see something. Bing may be deliberate obfuscation.

I have no idea how Apple can solve this issue though; search with Google and it pulls up total crap along with accurate information. You can search for something and unless you have sufficient education on the subject how would you know? Just one example, I know people that actually built electrolysis systems to run off their car batteries to generate hydrogen to power their cars, seriously! They point to endless Google results pages to 'prove' this works. Point them to a paper on the first and second laws of thermo-dynamics and they tune out.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #82 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post

How many people actually physically type in Google.com into the URL bar and then do the search? I know I don't. I type it into the Search box in Safari.

People don't care about what they use so long as it gives accurate results and so far ALL search engines fail. They have to fail based on the fact they are using boolean searches and so a human not versed in computer thinking will fail to get the results that are required when we think of sentences as wholes not as an entity made of singular parts.
(...)

Sorry for not quoting the whole post for reasons of brevity which was very interesting, and reflects my thoughts. That's my main beef with google, that they brought a simple proposition way back when, effectively implemented, but since then they've spread out into all areas, without actually caring that much for their core users, and their core product.

They spent more than a decade to include an option for searching forums (discussions as they call them), and another about time targeting the results. That's hardly what one can call innovative. At the same time they were very effective in letting all that ad cash flow in. Surely, so many more things can be done with search engines, but google's domination hasn't helped. I don't give a rat's ass about google wave if I have to wait till a few months ago to have simple forum search (which still isn't well implemented)

I don't think highly of google, and seeing their CEO in their keynotes, he came across (other than a bad Steve Jobs impersonator) as a rather slow witted geek. Slow in terms not of geeky aspects, but in terms of common sense, vision and general intellect and perception, the things that high rate geeks are usually worse at. I just think they found a historical chance solely because everyone else was too close minded in searches, and have been milking this ever since.

Where's some modicum of AI (lol, not apple insider) in the searches after more than a decade of immense profits? Where's all that supposed talent in google working on this? Too busy scanning books so they can then blackmail whole industries, libraries and governments to become the big brother for publishing? Too busy gathering personal data on pretty much anyone? What the crap is that 20% creative time bs? What's been so revolutionary about the google, a half decent gmail interface coupled with lots of free space out of their ludicrously high profits?

All those supposed so intelligent algos behind the search boil down to crawling the web for specific words, and using links for ranking. Big f.cking deal. Over the years a lot of people (myself included) have had a lot of good ideas on how google might add some very important missing elements to their searches, but it seems google hasn't really incorporated any of these.

Where's some lexicographical analysis and sense in the search? Why not form clusters of words that might be used for a search? When I search for a critical review or article, is it too hard for google, to analyse a few thousand similar searches and the respective pages, to automatically come up with a cluster of phrases to search that reflect what we mean when we are looking for a critical point of view on an issue. When I type in disadvantages, or criticism I am not looking for these specific words, I am looking for their meaning. How hard is it, say for a example to go over a few book or film reviews and cluster together some phrases commonly used when someone is writing a critical review (I should be saying negative instead, that's more accurate in this context). Then when you type blah blah book negative, you don't find only the the name of the book and the word negative. The current scenario is a Neanderthal level of searching the web.

And that could apply to pretty much any area where words and phrases can be associated and one can find a way to incorporate this intelligence in the search. I am not saying this will be easy or straightfoward, but dammit after all that 20% creativity talk and the self promotion for these guys, they should have at least released some beta AI, or advanced search engine. It's not really innovative to use the ~ sign before a word, so that google searches for synonyms of it as well. That takes about a couple of minutes to implement, get a thesaurus, and each time google sees ~ it searches all the words in the thesaurus for the input word. Big f.cking deal.

How hard is it to maintain a good directory of the web? Once when the open directory was well maintained it used to be a treat to use, and something that couldn't be replaced by a search engine, dumb as they are. How hard is it to have the search engine then search within this directory. Say I want to search within governmental organisations, or uk newspapers, or charities. It doesn't take a genius to put a few clerks there, keeping an up to date directory, if they can't do that, just licence the damn yellow pages, and then search within any group of categories within those of them that have a webpage.

If I want to search within university web sites, why do I have to manually specify say site:.edu, or site:ac.uk. Just make a category of universities worldwide and let me search it, how hard is that?

And these are just suggestions that are barely scratching the surface, most of them dead simple to implement, with a modicum of common sense and vision. But of course they are very into their megalomania (scanning all printed books of the world, producing google waves (....) ) or maintaining their ad profits, for them to even care about these. Although I would side more with the view that they also do lack the common sense required for these...

Anyway, this was an overlong post, I won't bore you any more with other suggestions, there are plenty out there. I just think google has crossed the line with accusing apple of being the big brother, when they are the single most big brother-ish company in the world. Apple just tries to keep their ecosystem consistent and opt to choose which technologies to support, to preserve the much valued user experience, and sell their hardware. At the same time there hasn't been a single company of their size that has contributed more to open standards. And here you have people tracking 90% of the worlds people searching the web, scanning all the books of the world so they can become some big brotherish world publisher, ripping almost everyone off being the world's big de facto brother advertiser, and wreaking havoc on the mobile phone industry by releasing a supposed free os, solely for the purposes of dominating the ad market there too an portraying this (in a most treacherous way) as their love for a free widely available mobile os. Sure apple is bad for disallowing flash in their own hardware devices, and these megalomaniacs are a ok for wanting everyone to pay up to them via their ads in a mobile os set to dominate the world. If there ever was a reversal of reality...but Orwell did write about this in 1984...

What's even more insulting is that they portray themselves as huge innovators for throwing about various hit and miss projects around their search engine, which itself remains way far behind what the times would require. Of course they are lucky because equally moronic directors run the bings and yahoos (apt name by the way) of this world, and the start ups with brains, sense and vision lack the all important clout to be any serious competition to google.
post #83 of 117
I know this is a bit off-topic, but if Apple greatly lowered (or made free...) their mobile me subscription, it would replace most of the things I use (email, file storage) or would want to use (build/host a web site) Google for.
Summer '09 Macbook 6 GB RAM, SSD; iPhone 3GS, aTV v.2

Jesus told her, I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying. Anyone who lives in me and [trusts]...
Reply
Summer '09 Macbook 6 GB RAM, SSD; iPhone 3GS, aTV v.2

Jesus told her, I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying. Anyone who lives in me and [trusts]...
Reply
post #84 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

This is what is really unclear..

PolcyMap which is/was (?) built (?) based on (?) utilized (?) placebase is a live functioning web site and after viewing their demo and seeing screen shots from 2008 it certainly seems like each and every map had a copyright mark attributed to NAVTEQ.

So now I'm even less sure of exactly WHAT placebase is/was/owned but after watching a youtube video from last year prior to Apples purchase the maps used ALSO has the copyright NAVTEQ in the lower left corner so it seems pretty clear that placebase was NOT about the 'actual' lowest level maps - however thats not to say that placebase didn't own data found drawn over/on top of the raw maps.

/shrug

This was an interesting nugget I hadn't known before... NAVTEQ is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nokia Corporation.

Finally...

This may be of some help: http://www.policymap.com/blog/?p=2709

Thanks for the info ...

Siri is another fascinating purchase that could be related maybe?
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #85 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I totally agree. The search concept needs a paradigm shift. And who better than Apple to 'bring it'

Meanwhile I keep pointing out Apple not only bought Placebase but also Siri. They didn't buy these companies for fun. I keep feeling Apple have something under-wraps. It might be that it is not ready for WWDC but I am hoping this year we see something. Bing may be deliberate obfuscation.

I have no idea how Apple can solve this issue though; search with Google and it pulls up total crap along with accurate information. You can search for something and unless you have sufficient education on the subject how would you know? Just one example, I know people that actually built electrolysis systems to run off their car batteries to generate hydrogen to power their cars, seriously! They point to endless Google results pages to 'prove' this works. Point them to a paper on the first and second laws of thermo-dynamics and they tune out.

It requires part curatorship to achieve quality results and a vast database archives (quality directories). The key here is human curatorship. and if there is a way to aid this through computational power and more intelligent software, then that would be in the correct direction. [myapplelove outlines some of the ideas already in his post just above,]

I believe Google does both. One thing that flawed Google search is its focus on popularity as the basis of "the best". Since it is for the masses, many of whom do not know the difference more than likely, would not know that they are not getting the most reliable sources.

Actually, you cannot blame Google for choosing popularity; It is the easiest to quantify on a massive scale,, all electronically. No need for human intervention to quantify what is popular.

I read some developers talk about "intelligent search" but I only grasped the idea conceptually. I do not know how that the concept was translated into script to create such an intelligent Search algorithm.

CGC
post #86 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

They 've already bought a dedicated maps - navigation company a year or so ago, apparently their still integrating it, and nothing has surfaced.

They won't produce an app until they need to. These were all defensive moves... Apple is covering its butt in case Google tries to pull the rug out from under them.

Apple is saying "keep giving us the current terms for using your mapping service, and search service, and we won't deploy our own map and search. We've got it right here. It's really nice, but gosh we think a better arrangement is to stick together."

Google, however did attack with the Ad Mob buy, and then again with Google TV.
You've seen the response to the first one and I think you'll see the response to the second one real soon now.
post #87 of 117
Bone to pick with article...

Exactly what core iPhone app would a GoogleVoice app replace?

As far as I can surmise from GoogleVoice it's a really clunky, limited phone service that brings back all the worst features of phone systems from the 80's.

At first I was really stoked to get an invitation to GV, then after setting it up and trying the jailbreak app on an old iPhone, it was pretty clear that it's a cheesy telephby doorprize from a telemarketing firm posing as a interent developer. What defunct company did Poodle purchase those horrible hardware phone relays from? Were they digging through the dumpsters at a shutdown Sun office? They can't find a grad student to write a lousy piece of software to auto-relay outgoing calls? What's next, taping a pager to your head and calling it SkyMail?

There nothing in GV that even touches a real phone line, much less the iPhone's phone app. I think the author needs to rethink a few things instead of helping Poodle spread their PR.

Free has no value, but peasants sure love the illusion of generosity.
post #88 of 117
I think the graphics look cheesy and the information primarily shows where to buy stuff. However, if it makes people happy, I can see why they would just put it on the list of alternatives like they have done with Yahoo.
post #89 of 117
Aside from the technology issue there's the user experience And I wonder how it would clash with Apple's interests. For example, recall how search engines early on would load up with ads? Google insisted on text ads only. It was extremely innovative at the time. But it's an approach Apple criticized when they launched iAds. Now who here wants to go back to days of ad cluttered search pages? Yet, without rich ads Apple won't make much. I don't even think no ads is possible. Apple won't spend billions for nothing in return.

Next Apple or Microsoft even would have to match all of Google's most popular services to be really effective. Internet Search, image search, maps, email. And then there's emerging stuff like visual search which has serious potential but nobody except for Google is working on it.

And none of that even touches on anti-trust issues that could creep up from Apple using its large smartphone market share to target internet search on mobiles.
post #90 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgc0202 View Post

It requires part curatorship to achieve quality results and a vast database archives (quality directories). The key here is human curatorship. and if there is a way to aid this through computational power and more intelligent software, then that would be in the correct direction. [myapplelove outlines some of the ideas already in his post just above,]

I believe Google does both. One thing that flawed Google search is its focus on popularity as the basis of "the best". Since it is for the masses, many of whom do not know the difference more than likely, would not know that they are not getting the most reliable sources.

Actually, you cannot blame Google for choosing popularity; It is the easiest to quantify on a massive scale,, all electronically. No need for human intervention to quantify what is popular.

I read some developers talk about "intelligent search" but I only grasped the idea conceptually. I do not know how that the concept was translated into script to create such an intelligent Search algorithm.

CGC

The human curatorship poses a massive issue of course ... imagine the Texas School Board being the arbiter for example!
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #91 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

The human curatorship poses a massive issue of course ... imagine the Texas School Board being the arbiter for example!

Great! Now I'll never get back to sleep after that frightening imagery.


(self editing out all the funny pics I really want to post as they would be both political and religious.)
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #92 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Great! Now I'll never get back to sleep after that frightening imagery.


(self editing out all the funny pics I really want to post as they would be both political and religious.)

Hahaha ... sorreeee.

Good morning good sir

BTW I got my first ever warning and a point by the Mods ...!!! For replying to a Troll no less. It's a shame that IPs or even MAC addresses (not even sure if the latter is possible?) are not taken at time of joining a Blog so banning Trolls can have a few more teeth.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #93 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

Aside from the technology issue there's the user experience And I wonder how it would clash with Apple's interests. For example, recall how search engines early on would load up with ads? Google insisted on text ads only. It was extremely innovative at the time. But it's an approach Apple criticized when they launched iAds. Now who here wants to go back to days of ad cluttered search pages? Yet, without rich ads Apple won't make much. I don't even think no ads is possible. Apple won't spend billions for nothing in return.

Next Apple or Microsoft even would have to match all of Google's most popular services to be really effective. Internet Search, image search, maps, email. And then there's emerging stuff like visual search which has serious potential but nobody except for Google is working on it.

And none of that even touches on anti-trust issues that could creep up from Apple using its large smartphone market share to target internet search on mobiles.

I don't think that Apple should get into the search business. They don't really need it. From what I gathered at the OS4 intro, Apple doesn't believe in the future of ad-based revenue from searches.

If there is one place I'd like to see them go it would be to directly compete against Google's cloud services. I'd like to see them buy Vimeo which is better than YouTube in most respects. MobileMe would have to eventually be free. iWork.com will have to eventually have some minimal kind of online editing for collaboration with others who don't have iWork. iTunes needs subscription services. I'm sure Apple already envisions a future where iTunes becomes the next Paypal as well.
post #94 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

I don't think that Apple should get into the search business. They don't really need it. From what I gathered at the OS4 intro, Apple doesn't believe in the future of ad-based revenue from searches.

If there is one place I'd like to see them go it would be to directly compete against Google's cloud services. I'd like to see them buy Vimeo which is better than YouTube in most respects. MobileMe would have to eventually be free. iWork.com will have to eventually have some minimal kind of online editing for collaboration with others who don't have iWork. iTunes needs subscription services. I'm sure Apple already envisions a future where iTunes becomes the next Paypal as well.

Re the search part ... People are assuming if Apple did enter the field it would be search as we know it. Remember they bought Siri and that is far from conventional search. Perhaps a paradigm shift in search is coming?

I agree Apple need to get into the video business a la YouTube. I hadn't thought of Vimeo having never used it. Does it already support HTML5 and H264?

Re Paypal ... given iTunes now second only to Amazon from what i read recently in the on line purchases arena this seems to be a massive business for them which they could expand on in many ways for sure. Apple need to get the inter-country thing sorted . I cannot use iTunes easily to gift relatives in UK from USA. And the argument it is too complicated due to currency that some have said is ridiculous .
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #95 of 117
I don't find Siri to be a paradigm shift. Keywords using voice to text and the Google Search bar on Android come pretty close. Albeit, the experience is not as polished as Siri.

Beyond that the problem is that Siri is really designed for basic functions you'd do all the time. Can't really replace search. Especially since it essentially uses other search engines to do the job. The Siri site itself describes the platform as a virtual personal asisstant.

That said, if Apple owns Siri, I am surprised they haven't rolled it out more widely. Really beats voice 2 text on Android. Not paradigm shifting. But far better than anything on the iPhone right now. And more polished than Android. So maybe we'll see it in a few days?
post #96 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

It's a shame that IPs or even MAC addresses (not even sure if the latter is possible?) are not taken at time of joining a Blog so banning Trolls can have a few more teeth.

IP addresses currently can be banned. MAC addresses - no.
post #97 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

IP addresses currently can be banned. MAC addresses - no.

With the nature of DHCP, mobile devices and hotspots these days, the admins probably wouldn't block based on IP. Although it can be useful information to see which users are coming from the same IP, if you are trying to determine if two different users appear to be the same person. The software does the IP address comparison automatically.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #98 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Re the search part ... People are assuming if Apple did enter the field it would be search as we know it. Remember they bought Siri and that is far from conventional search. Perhaps a paradigm shift in search is coming?

It could be possible. I had forgotten about the Siri purchase and could make for an interesting search engine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I agree Apple need to get into the video business a la YouTube. I hadn't thought of Vimeo having never used it. Does it already support HTML5 and H264?

Vimeo supports h.264 (and a lot of other formats) but, assuming Apple purchased them, the transition could be easily made to support that alone. Vimeo is like YouTube but it's much more geared toward creative artists which would be right down Apple's alley.

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Re Paypal ... given iTunes now second only to Amazon from what i read recently in the on line purchases arena this seems to be a massive business for them which they could expand on in many ways for sure. Apple need to get the inter-country thing sorted . I cannot use iTunes easily to gift relatives in UK from USA. And the argument it is too complicated due to currency that some have said is ridiculous .

There is still a large transition that has to be made for it to become something like Paypal but if look at Apple's patents with such things as iTravel, e-Wallet, buying concert tickets and rumors of RFID chips in iPhones it seems as if this is ultimately Apple's intent.
post #99 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose View Post

Exactly what core iPhone app would a GoogleVoice app replace?

The killer app Steve Jobs talked about at the release of the original iPhone... phone calls.

Google's app tried to hijack that application so that all calls went through the Google Voice application... or at least that's what all the writings seemed to suggest. Of course Apple wasn't going to let that one get through.

Plus apparently the Google Voice app required unpublished APIs which Apple does not allow.
post #100 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

The same with Bing. Really, who uses Bing?

Me, I like the pictures each day. Probably just me though.

When you combine Google's desire to track every bit of information about you and Apple desire to control everything you see, I seem to have gone full circle back to liking Microsoft.

Whatever way you view it though, this is good, choice is always good. As far as Safari goes this is only news as Safari full's under the world according to Apple where you can't choose any search engine only the ones approved by Apple, which is to some extent is a bit shocking.
post #101 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman View Post

It would be nice to see Apple stir away from Google and start developing their own in house solutions for things like Maps, search, etc.

WOAH! Hold the phone. So, hardcore Apple fans, not to say you are, are criticizing Google for pissing Apple's pool. Yet they, again not to say you, also want Apple to make a search engine. Isn't that all a little contradicting?

HP Omni 100-5100z, 500GB HDD, 4GB RAM; ASUS Transformer, 16GB, Android 4.0 ICS
Although I no longer own Apple products like I did before, I'll continue to post my opinions.

Reply

HP Omni 100-5100z, 500GB HDD, 4GB RAM; ASUS Transformer, 16GB, Android 4.0 ICS
Although I no longer own Apple products like I did before, I'll continue to post my opinions.

Reply
post #102 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilimanjaro View Post

..thank you, i've been wanting to clear up the difference between "it's" and "its" for quite some time..

If you can be kind enough to check my post, and correct me if I made that kinda mistakes, I would be grateful..

PS. what's up with the 1964 movie title as your nickname there?


Be careful with the use of the ' character.

-- remember this classic MR post from a while back:

"I want to be a pirate again. I hated to leave my shipmate's behind."

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #103 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Re the search part ... People are assuming if Apple did enter the field it would be search as we know it. Remember they bought Siri and that is far from conventional search. Perhaps a paradigm shift in search is coming?

I agree Apple need to get into the video business a la YouTube. I hadn't thought of Vimeo having never used it. Does it already support HTML5 and H264?

Re Paypal ... given iTunes now second only to Amazon from what i read recently in the on line purchases arena this seems to be a massive business for them which they could expand on in many ways for sure. Apple need to get the inter-country thing sorted . I cannot use iTunes easily to gift relatives in UK from USA. And the argument it is too complicated due to currency that some have said is ridiculous .

Apple, unfortunately won't enter the search engine field, any time soon, it's not close to their core businesses, and certainly not the way S.J. operates with incremental calculated and well prepared steps.

The problem with a website such as vimeo is that it depends on user content or participation to gain some critical mass to even operate. That's why everyone goes to youtube because it has 95% chance than pretty much anyone else of coming up with the content one might be looking for. That of course, like facebook, causes an odious centralisation of power (private data, and of course assets to a few companies that can be counted on one hand). This can be broken up by governments, and there are plenty of ways to do this, but of course it's not something the economic and political elite want. That's not how they envision the world... Apple of course can bring a vision to video sharing that will differentiate youtube from what they might offer. It's an interesting discussion on what they could do. For me youtube is too far an unruly beast to be useful other than occasionally.

Paypal is an atrocity of the internet age, taking advantage of our collective payments, bunch of crooks, with lots of money they put in the right pockets to stay were they are, they have given me grief with the most simple transactions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Me, I like the pictures each day. Probably just me though.

When you combine Google's desire to track every bit of information about you and Apple desire to control everything you see, I seem to have gone full circle back to liking Microsoft.

Whatever way you view it though, this is good, choice is always good. As far as Safari goes this is only news as Safari full's under the world according to Apple where you can't choose any search engine only the ones approved by Apple, which is to some extent is a bit shocking.

You can, downoad glims add on, and get any search engine you want.

I have a hard time understanding your concept of choice, being a hardware and software vendor and controlling the eco system of your applications is one thing, being the world's almost exclusive advertiser on the web, the world's almost exclusive search engine and arbitrator of what and how gets ranked, a colossal mail provider, making inroads to be into most mobile devices...when you can track and profile almost anyone on the globe, well, it's quite another and it's quite scary.

The 1984 reversal of reality here, is that Google is calling Apple big brother, when the extent to which they are the big brother on a global scale is almost unfathomable. And then you get 1,000 morons in the audience for a keynote of google clapping and cheering for the big brother joke on appple, when they've been stripped to their underpants in terms of privacy, and they 've surrendered their full profiles to them.

If there was any sense of decency in governments, they'd be banging on google's doors and if they found a single hard drive storing profiles for users with ip addresses, they would shut them down on the spot. Of course though when you get as large as google you pocket pretty much anyone in power and you can go your merry way undisturbed...
post #104 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by kilimanjaro View Post

Exactly, and that's the very reason why Apple should start producing its very own cloud-centric services.. Because of Google dominance in that area, because everyone is using Google's services, even iDevices users.

Google was bashing at Apple during their I/O event not long ago, making fun of Apple's 1984-themed ad by creating its own banner: "Not The Future We Want." But that same joke can be put on to Google itself, seeing it from Apple point of view. In the future Apple definitely doesn't want too many core apps in iPhone are powered and rely too much on Google's services, hence the saying in AI's article above: "Google wrote the iPhone?"
That is of course a scary thought for Steve Jobs..

Perhaps it seem futile to fend off Google powerful services, but I sincerely do hope that Apple (driven by its uncanny CEO, Steve Jobs) will try to take head on at least one or two Google's cloud-centric services. It's not just Apple who should be worried in the future if Google become the one and only dominant force in the cloud-centric market, we should too. The thought of only one company to dictate the market, is frightening..

Besides, Apple wouldn't be Apple if the company doesn't dare enough to challenge what seems impossible..

That was perfect!

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #105 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

It is an explanation

However, a panel is still a panel, regardless of how its members act. A school of fish is a school, regardless of how many fish are in it or what an individual fish does. A fish does, a school of fish do. Apple is an entity. It does (or doesn't do) stuff. The employees of Apple do (or don't do) stuff.

Manchester United, then, is (or is not) playing well, as a team.

In your world... but there are others!

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #106 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

That is understandable. In this day and age, Apple fans need some kind of hierarchy as to who is most hated by Apple. Lately, Google might top that list:

Google
Adobe
Intuit
...
...
Microsoft.


So while M$ is a hated company, it is not nearly as hated (these days) as some others.

Stevie
Google
Adobe
Intuit
...
...
Microsoft.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #107 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Really? Was that incorrect?

"Apple is working with Microsoft to broaden the iPhone's search and related web services from their current primary dependance upon Google to include additional support for Bing."


...broaden the iPhone's ... services from their current ... dependence...


That matches, doesn't it?

It is wordy, convoluted and badly written, but I think that the grammar is correct.

I'd edit it to:

Apple and Microsoft together are adding additional support for Bing. This will broaden the iPhone's search and related services, which are now primarily dependent on Google.


I mean, fer chrissakes, "additional support for Bing" is the main subject. It is the point. It is the payoff for reading the sentence.

And the AI author forces you to wade through multiple nested clauses to finally get to it. They have a "style" here at AI where they use that type of sentence. They try to pack lots of info into a sentence by stringing adverbs and adjectives into a convoluted mess, which takes too much effort to read.

I prefer short declarative sentences in news stories.

You are right!

This particular AI author goes out of his way to bash MS, and usually cites himself as a reference.

it is tedious, really!


.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #108 of 117
I can understand the worry that some have about Google. While I don't share it, I understand it.

What I don't get is why people think anybody else would be different. Does Bing not track search history? And if they aren't what's stopping them? Does anybody think Apple would act substantially differently if they had a search engine? They are already tracking users through iAds. We know that because of their FTC troubles with other advertisers. So what reason would they have not to extend this to any sort of web based service they operate?

Personally, I don't think it's a bad idea. It would let Apple offer free services. Maybe a free but ad supported MobileMe and a subscription based ad free version? Same for search? People who value privacy can pay for it.
post #109 of 117
Myapplelove,

I found your suggestions for improving search interesting. But one issue I foresee is privacy concerns again. Some of those suggestions could involve further info gathering to implement.
post #110 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

Myapplelove,

I found your suggestions for improving search interesting. But one issue I foresee is privacy concerns again. Some of those suggestions could involve further info gathering to implement.

Yes but they could be implemented anonymously to begin with, for the templates to be built, and then after stringent privacy measures should be in place. Of course the best privacy measure is to not have one entity in the world aggregate all private data, such as google, is doing, but that's a dream so far...

What are your concerns?
post #111 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

It is an explanation

However, a panel is still a panel, regardless of how its members act. A school of fish is a school, regardless of how many fish are in it or what an individual fish does. A fish does, a school of fish do. Apple is an entity. It does (or doesn't do) stuff. The employees of Apple do (or don't do) stuff.

Manchester United, then, is (or is not) playing well, as a team.

Well, as an American myself, I tend to agree. I'm just sayin' that's why they do it the other way.
post #112 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

What are your concerns?

Nothing specifically. I am personally not bothered by the current situation. But if people want to see more powerful search engines, I do wonder how that can be pulled off without being more invasive. Ultimately, the best way to gauge intent may be by developing a user history which you can measure historical accuracy against.
post #113 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

I can understand the worry that some have about Google. While I don't share it, I understand it.

What I don't get is why people think anybody else would be different. Does Bing not track search history? And if they aren't what's stopping them? Does anybody think Apple would act substantially differently if they had a search engine? They are already tracking users through iAds. We know that because of their FTC troubles with other advertisers. So what reason would they have not to extend this to any sort of web based service they operate?

Personally, I don't think it's a bad idea. It would let Apple offer free services. Maybe a free but ad supported MobileMe and a subscription based ad free version? Same for search? People who value privacy can pay for it.

Mmmm... iAds have been announced, but aren't available, yet. So, technically, "They are already tracking users through iAds." is untrue.

I think the issue is not so much the tracking and gathering of information on web habits or purchases. Rather, it is what is done with the information, once gathered.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt has stated:

"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/48975

From that statement it is easy to infer that Schmidt believes that any information "harvested" by Google is fair game and can be sold to the highest bidder, or used for any other purpose Google chooses.

Can personal, economic or political blackmail be far behind?

A more legitimate approach would be:

-- gather detail information on an individual's surfing and buying preferences
-- use that information to tailor advertising to his activity- only relevant ads from a pool of ads are presented to the user (opt in, or opt out)
-- share user detail information with no one! *

* unlike State and Federal governments who sell the data to anyone

To potential advertisers, provide macro demographic information, e.g.:

-- We have a million hits per hour
-- Average age is 31 years
-- Gender 62% male
-- Average 2.3 individuals per household
-- 55% are registered as Republicans
-- Average Household Income is $84,000




The advertisers could design ads that target their desired demographic ranges and place them in an ad pool.

The deliverer of the ads (iAd in our example) could use the private detail information on an individual to select ads from the pool if the user has opted in. Then when the individual visits a site or store, he is presented with ads that will, likely, be of interest to him and result in "sell-throughs" for the ads.


Using the demo above, iAd would probably not bother 70-year old granny with an ad for an Obama T-Shirt.

Sure, Apple could misuse the information as easily as Google... but they have shown just the opposite tendency.

Where would you put your faith:

A. Apple with a proven privacy track record (millions of credit cards in iTunes and Apple web sites). A demonstrated, almost fanatical, dedication to secrecy. A demonstrated dedication to protecting their customers from aps or services unpleasant or dangerous (to the UX).


B. Google, who seems to believe, and has demonstrated, that Google can make whatever rules that serve their needs.


I know where my trust (and money) goes!

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #114 of 117
@Dick

Enjoyed reading your post, the quote from the Google CEO is utterly repulsive, but it's the ethos of this new age of nitwits that govern such big corporations. In his demented interpretation of reality privacy is a concept to be banished from the face of the earth. You will either do something behind a glass window or not do it at all. But of course he is tracking the others not vice versa, so he is in a position of power to say that. Boy would I love some paparazzo coming up with a few compromising photos of him, so we can collectively reply to him in his smug hypocritical tone, that if he didn't want people finding out then he shouldn't have been doing it in the first place.

It is a matter of fact that federal and state information on individuals is sold at will?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

Nothing specifically. I am personally not bothered by the current situation. But if people want to see more powerful search engines, I do wonder how that can be pulled off without being more invasive. Ultimately, the best way to gauge intent may be by developing a user history which you can measure historical accuracy against.

They have a few options that won't be invasive, lexicographical analysis is one, and there are a number of others. User history is a very good suggestion too, since they are already tracking us at google they might as well use the user history to better the results of the engine. (Of course they are too busy tracking us to target the ads to be bothered to actually use any of their expertise to actually take their search engine a step ahead...) I am sure as part of an opt in program, where strict privacy rules will be implemented, a lot of people would not object.

My problem is that they haven't been doing any of that yet, and their actual core service is stuck pretty much to where it was ten years ago (or course their real core service which is advertising isn't...), whilst at the same time they are professing and marketing how creative and innovative they are. That to me is the biggest sham of all. Google is microsoft in disguise ( I would even say that in terms of actual products and services delivered over these past ten years they are worse than ms).

What's their huge innovation, a mail client? Scanning the world's books in basements so they can then blackmail governments and publishers to become some big brother uber content holder? Aggregating all the scientific database searches, to become some uber world journal content provider with google scholar? These are rhetorical questions of course, because I expect most here agree, but it's mind boggling how outside these forums google's pr has been so effective to turn the facts upside down... because hey we are offering you a few gb of mail space, and look are servers are growing by the second, now bend over and see us taking an immense cut out of everyone's ad profits.
post #115 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post


It is a matter of fact that federal and state information on individuals is sold at will?

I am too lazy, at the moment, to run down specific examples-- but I have read of many over the years.

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #116 of 117
I think its high time Apple opened up services to Bing. IMO, Bing is superior to Google on the iPhone platform. Ever since Google got involved with Android they have left iPhone users in the dust. Their Google app is buggy and crashes constantly, and trying to access many of their vital web services like Talk or Wave through Safari is a disaster. Microsoft, on the other hand, has put a lot of effort into creating great apps for the iPhone. I think the days of hating Microsoft need to come to an end, as Apple's chief rival now is Google. One thing I'd like to see is an MSN messenger app that comes out of Redmond. A bigger dream would be a full-fledged Office suite on the iPad and maybe the iPhone!
Mac Mini 2.26 GHZ 2GB RAM GeForce 9400 256 MB RAM
Acer X233H bd 23" 60hz
iPhone 3G 16 GB
Reply
Mac Mini 2.26 GHZ 2GB RAM GeForce 9400 256 MB RAM
Acer X233H bd 23" 60hz
iPhone 3G 16 GB
Reply
post #117 of 117
Apple's been keen to break away from Google for a while now and the Goog knows it. That's why back in Feb a link to Google Maps through Safari on the iPhone or from the Google App on the iPhone used to default to the Maps.app but now there's this whole web-based mobile version of google maps right there in the browser (just like for Google Voice & Latitude) & you can do the whole web app homescreen link thingy too. Same deal with YouTube...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › iPhone OS 4 to open web services to Microsoft's Bing