or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google extends deal with Apple to remain default iPhone search
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google extends deal with Apple to remain default iPhone search

post #1 of 58
Thread Starter 
Google recently extended its contract with Apple, making the dominant search provider the default option on devices running iOS, including the iPhone.

In a recent conversation with Charlie Rose of BusinessWeek, Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt talked about his company's relationship with Apple. Rose asked about tension between Google and Apple since Google began partnering with smartphone makers for the Android mobile operating system.

"Apple is a company we both partner and compete with," Schmidt said. "We do a search deal with them, recently extended, and we're doing all sorts of things in maps and things like that."

He continued: "So the sum of all this is that two large corporations, both of which are important, both of which I care a lot about, will [remain] pretty close. But Android was around earlier than iPhone."

Schmidt also characterized the iPhone as a "closed" model controlled by Apple. He portrayed Android as a "turnkey solution with similar capabilities" to the iPhone, but one that gives vendors the "alternative" they seek.

Early this year, rumors suggested that Apple was in talks with Microsoft to make Bing the default search engine for the iPhone. Though that never came to be, the option to utilize Bing search was added to iOS 4.

However, Google has remained the default search provider for iOS devices, and Schmidt's recent comments would suggest that the company will remain the standard search provider for some time to come.
post #2 of 58
Yeah, I totally remember how Android was out in the marketplace redefining the smartphone category long before iPhone. Right, Eric, right.

By your logic, I actually started working on a new smartphone concept 21 years ago, so actually, my project that I'll be calling "Schmidtee" came before "Android", you pathetic buffoon.
post #3 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerARSgm View Post

Yeah, I totally remember how Android was out in the marketplace redefining the smartphone category long before iPhone. Right, Eric, right.

By your logic, I actually started working on a new smartphone concept 21 years ago, so actually, my project that I'll be calling "Schmidtee" came before "Android", you pathetic buffoon.

Chill man, grab a coffee and take a walk.
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
iPad, Macbook Pro, iPhone, heck I even have iLife! :-)
Reply
post #4 of 58
Deleted....
post #5 of 58
I think he does exaggerate a bit. Maybe work on Android was public before iPhone OS was public, but Apple is so secretive, nobody outside of Apple knows when they first started work on it. Things like this all overlap anyway. OS X is part of iOS and similarly I'm sure, Chrome/Android/Chrome OS all have quite a bit of overlap. Hopefully this indicates the relationship between Apple and Google is reaching an equilibrium and that the tension might be easing.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #6 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerARSgm View Post

Yeah, I totally remember how Android was out in the marketplace redefining the smartphone category long before iPhone. Right, Eric, right.

By your logic, I actually started working on a new smartphone concept 21 years ago, so actually, my project that I'll be calling "Schmidtee" came before "Android", you pathetic buffoon.

Android was publicly announced in November 2007, 5 months after iPhone hit the market. One can imagine how long they were in development for, but considering Google only acquired Android Inc in July 2005, I imagine iPhone was in development at this point, and the move into making Android a mobile operating system based on the Linux kernel came after Google's acquisition (though former Android Inc employees lead the team).
post #7 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbarriault View Post

Android was publicly announced in November 2007, 5 months after iPhone hit the market. One can imagine how long they were in development for, but considering Google only acquired Android Inc in July 2005, I imagine iPhone was in development at this point, and the move into making Android a mobile operating system based on the Linux kernel came after Google's acquisition (though former Android Inc employees lead the team).

Steve Jobs said the iPad was in development since 2004, which actually came first before the actual iPhone development, but since it's the OS that was already in development, I say Schmidt doesn't have a leg to stand on.

And before the iPhone, Android was positioned as a Blackberry competitor. Remember that? LOL.
post #8 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek View Post

Chill man, grab a coffee and take a walk.

Coffee has the opposite effect on me.
post #9 of 58
Please! The shareholders said make the deal cause money is mother******* money.
post #10 of 58
Android isn't a phone.
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
post #11 of 58
I had to laugh at that as well. Google didn't even file for patents until September of 2007, a full 8 months after iPhone was already on the market. They released the first distribution of Android in November 2007, 11 months after iPhone was already out on the market.

Revisionist version of history indeed...
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #12 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by bartfat View Post

Steve Jobs said the iPad was in development since 2004, which actually came first before the actual iPhone development, but since it's the OS that was already in development, I say Schmidt doesn't have a leg to stand on.

And before the iPhone, Android was positioned as a Blackberry competitor. Remember that? LOL.

It *really* doesn't matter, but I get a kick out of watching us geeks squabble.

Android Inc was acquired by Google in July 2005. At the time, it was reported that Andorid, Inc had been incorporated some 22 months prior - approximately September 2003.

If it is reasonable to assume (based on the evidence, or lack thereof) that the development that Apple was undertaking with the iPad back in 2004 can be directly related to the underpinnings of what would eventually come to be known as iOS, then I think is just as reasonable to assume (based on the evidence, or lack thereof) that the work Android Inc was doing back in 2003 could be directly related to the underpinnings of what would eventually come to be known as Android OS.

On the whole, though, I think this point is absolutely the wrong thing to dwell upon in the overall context of Schmidt's interview.
post #13 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post


On the whole, though, I think this point is absolutely the wrong thing to dwell upon in the overall context of Schmidt's interview.

Do elaborate.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #14 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

...

If it is reasonable to assume (based on the evidence, or lack thereof) that the development that Apple was undertaking with the iPad back in 2004 can be directly related to the underpinnings of what would eventually come to be known as iOS, then I think is just as reasonable to assume (based on the evidence, or lack thereof) that the work Android Inc was doing back in 2003 could be directly related to the underpinnings of what would eventually come to be known as Android OS.

....

Of course if we're talking about underpinnings, we all know that iOS development really started at NeXT back in 1985, long before Linus started on Linux (1991) or Java was a twinkle in Sun's eye (apparently started in 1991 as well, first publicly released in 1995). "Suck it Schmidt. Suck it long, suck it hard."

Just kidding on that, but if Schmidt weren't trying to get into the same space, he'd be incompetent given the kind of money that's flowing around these devices. It's just that Jobs doesn't have to be happy with him for probably at least somewhat back-stabbing him with his insider info, or presumably never revealing to Jobs while getting inside iPhone info that 'hey, we're going to be making phones too, using all of your neat new touch interface ideas'...
post #15 of 58
What a COMPLETELY misleading article title. Nowhere is the sentiment that the default search option for Google on the iPhone backed up by a fact. It's just stated that it has been extended. How do you even know that there is a deal in the first place? Sources!

-=|Mgkwho
post #16 of 58
Schmidt was an Apple board member for three years, and is the CEO of Google, yet you people think you know more about who started what mobile OS first. Frankly, who cares which came first?
post #17 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrstep View Post

Of course if we're talking about underpinnings, we all know that iOS development really started at NeXT back in 1985, long before Linus started on Linux (1991) or Java was a twinkle in Sun's eye (apparently started in 1991 as well, first publicly released in 1995). "Suck it Schmidt. Suck it long, suck it hard."

Just kidding on that, but if Schmidt weren't trying to get into the same space, he'd be incompetent given the kind of money that's flowing around these devices. It's just that Jobs doesn't have to be happy with him for probably at least somewhat back-stabbing him with his insider info, or presumably never revealing to Jobs while getting inside iPhone info that 'hey, we're going to be making phones too, using all of your neat new touch interface ideas'...

Both of which of Unix-like systems, which trace back to AT&T in the 60's. AT&T, of course, dates back to the industrial revolution and the invention of the telephone. If I had the time to kill, I could probably trace Android and iOS development back to the Big Bang Theory, or the dinosaurs at the very least.
post #18 of 58
I really like the collaboration of Apples apps and front-end, plus Googles back-end data. Especially for Maps. (I kind of wish Apple would develop their own UI for web search results though.)
post #19 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In a recent conversation with Charlie Rose of BusinessWeek, Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt talked about his company's relationship with Apple.

Firstly, Charlie Rose isn't with BusinessWeek. He has a show on PBS.
Secondly, I saw his interview with Schmidt and Google has this TOTALLY wrong. Schmidt believes people want to use their 60" home theaters to surf the Web. What a freaking joke! I know that and so does Steve Jobs.
post #20 of 58
Why not allow the user to decide which search engine they prefer to use - as with the browser on your personal computer? And maps as well?

The MapQuest app for iOS offers a lot more than the default google maps - including turn by turn voice navigation - and it is free. I want that to be my default map app - but that does not mean that I want everyone to be forced to that default.
post #21 of 58
I've been trying Bing for a while now and I have to say --- Google is better. On the desktop, Bing would occasionally decide that I was German and start giving me everything in German with the assumption that I was in Germany. Just bizarre. I've also found that Bing is less likely to return relevant results (even when it did know that I'm in the US). I gave Bing a fair shot and it failed. So I return somewhat reluctantly to Google, and I'm glad that Apple is keeping Google as the default search engine for the iPhone (it really is the best thing for the user).

Regarding Schmidt's take on who his competitors are... I guess he's right that Microsoft and Bing are his primary worry, because that's the business where Google makes its money.

And really, Google and MS are more competitors in the phone business, too, in so far as both of them are competing for OEMs as customers, not end-users. Apple competes with Motorola, HTC, etc for end-users while Google and MS are just suppliers to those other OEMs.
post #22 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by knwbuddy View Post

This is good news for Apple. Google is unbeaten in search at this point in history.

Back so soon, Newtron?
post #23 of 58
Bing blows harder than Lindsay Lohan.
post #24 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

I've been trying Bing for a while now and I have to say --- Google is better. On the desktop, Bing would occasionally decide that I was German and start giving me everything in German with the assumption that I was in Germany. Just bizarre. I've also found that Bing is less likely to return relevant results (even when it did know that I'm in the US). I gave Bing a fair shot and it failed. So I return somewhat reluctantly to Google, and I'm glad that Apple is keeping Google as the default search engine for the iPhone (it really is the best thing for the user).

Regarding Schmidt's take on who his competitors are... I guess he's right that Microsoft and Bing are his primary worry, because that's the business where Google makes its money.

And really, Google and MS are more competitors in the phone business, too, in so far as both of them are competing for OEMs as customers, not end-users. Apple competes with Motorola, HTC, etc for end-users while Google and MS are just suppliers to those other OEMs.

I've been using Bing ever since Google screwed internet users over with its attempted end-run on Net Neutrality. I've never had any of the problems you're talking about, and always get what I'm looking for when performing a search (and I use search engines a lot). My guess is you're doing it wrong.
post #25 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Schmidt also characterized the iPhone as a "closed" model controlled by Apple. He portrayed Android as a "turnkey solution with similar capabilities" to the iPhone, but one that gives vendors the "alternative" they seek.

Android itself may be open, but if any vendor can make it closed how is that any better than Apple (a handset vendor) making their device closed? At least i know I can use Google, Yahoo or Bing, get 3 full years of updates, and get great service if something does go wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

It *really* doesn't matter, but I get a kick out of watching us geeks squabble.

Android Inc was acquired by Google in July 2005. At the time, it was reported that Andorid, Inc had been incorporated some 22 months prior - approximately September 2003.

If it is reasonable to assume (based on the evidence, or lack thereof) that the development that Apple was undertaking with the iPad back in 2004 can be directly related to the underpinnings of what would eventually come to be known as iOS, then I think is just as reasonable to assume (based on the evidence, or lack thereof) that the work Android Inc was doing back in 2003 could be directly related to the underpinnings of what would eventually come to be known as Android OS.

On the whole, though, I think this point is absolutely the wrong thing to dwell upon in the overall context of Schmidt's interview.

There is no need to delve into what was in development. What Schmidt stated is accurate. Google bought Android before there was an iPhone, there it was around sooner. The fact that there was some iProd device at Apple they were planning to call the iPhone doesnt really count. Neither does the fact that Google had to make Android an OS, and then redesign it in 2007 after they saw that they could no longer copy the BB OS/WinMo OS development style if they wanted to be viable. Based on his words (his focus only on Apple) he is correct.

PS: If we really want to get pedantic note that Cisco had the iPhone rights, which I believe they acquired from Linksys which acquired it from Infogear which released their first iPhoen product in 1998.
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 #26 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerARSgm View Post

Yeah, I totally remember how Android was out in the marketplace redefining the smartphone category long before iPhone. Right, Eric, right.

By your logic, I actually started working on a new smartphone concept 21 years ago, so actually, my project that I'll be calling "Schmidtee" came before "Android", you pathetic buffoon.

and then you wake up to find yourself cursing coz you forgot to take medication?
Same Apple. Same Mac. Different Take. Different Place. http://Applemacness.com
Reply
Same Apple. Same Mac. Different Take. Different Place. http://Applemacness.com
Reply
post #27 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by knwbuddy View Post

This is good news for Apple. Google is unbeaten in search at this point in history.

Two unrelated statements cramped together doesnt make sense.
Same Apple. Same Mac. Different Take. Different Place. http://Applemacness.com
Reply
Same Apple. Same Mac. Different Take. Different Place. http://Applemacness.com
Reply
post #28 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Android itself may be open, but if any vendor can make it closed how is that any better than Apple (a handset vendor) making their device closed? At least i know I can use Google, Yahoo or Bing, get 3 full years of updates, and get great service if something does go wrong.



There is no need to delve into what was in development. What Schmidt stated is accurate. Google bought Android before there was an iPhone, there it was around sooner. The fact that there was some iProd device at Apple they were planning to call the iPhone doesnt really count. Neither does the fact that Google had to make Android an OS, and then redesign it in 2007 after they saw that they could no longer copy the BB OS/WinMo OS development style if they wanted to be viable. Based on his words (his focus only on Apple) he is correct.

PS: If we really want to get pedantic note that Cisco had the iPhone rights, which I believe they acquired from Linksys which acquired it from Infogear which released their first iPhoen product in 1998.

Have you seen the mock ups for android circa 2005? They were standard smartphones with keyboards. Do you remember what the first android phone looked like? Big touch screen with 4-5 total buttons. So whether or not they owned the rights to the name android, they clearly revamped they're game plan after they saw the iPhone. So is google arguingbthey invented the concept of a smart phone (obviously not). So saying that android was around before the iPhone is misleading, as android wasn't what it's now known to be. They were pioneers of the industry, and rewritting history to take credit for this revolution is awfully scummy, dontcha think?
32G iPhone 4, 32G iPad 2, late 2009 15" mbp
Reply
32G iPhone 4, 32G iPad 2, late 2009 15" mbp
Reply
post #29 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyguido View Post

Have you seen the mock ups for android circa 2005? They were standard smartphones with keyboards. Do you remember what the first android phone looked like? Big touch screen with 4-5 total buttons. So whether or not they owned the rights to the name android, they clearly revamped they're game plan after they saw the iPhone. So is google arguingbthey invented the concept of a smart phone (obviously not). So saying that android was around before the iPhone is misleading, as android wasn't what it's now known to be. They were pioneers of the industry, and rewritting history to take credit for this revolution is awfully scummy, dontcha think?

Yes, it would be more accurate to say, something with the name Android was around back then, but that's not the Android anyone is talking about. Google is playing games with words, trying to fool people into thinking two different things with the same name are really the same thing.
post #30 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubert View Post

Bing blows harder than Lindsay Lohan.

I have only tried one of those, and it certainly blew. I like the birds eye imagery on Bing, but in general, getting relevant search results has been a dissapointing experience.

As for Lohan, barring a head injury that causes me to suddenly develop a junkie fetish, I think I'll pass.
post #31 of 58
What Schmidt said: "turnkey solution with similar capabilities"...

What Schmidt meant: "turkey of an OS blatantly copying iOS"...

Well guess what Eric. Thanksgiving is just around the corner and turkeys are going to be slaughtered. The Oracle lawsuit has merit. Clear violation of the Java license agreement. And the lawsuit has legal precedent: Microsoft paid Sun $20 million for a similar violation.

But Larry Ellison doesn't want money. He wants blood. Turkey blood will be spilled, and only Chrome OS can rescue Google's mobile strategy. Just ask Sergey Brin.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #32 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Schmidt also characterized the iPhone as a "closed" model controlled by Apple. He portrayed Android as a "turnkey solution with similar capabilities" to the iPhone, but one that gives vendors the "alternative" they seek.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Android itself may be open, but if any vendor can make it closed how is that any better than Apple (a handset vendor) making their device closed? At least i know I can use Google, Yahoo or Bing, get 3 full years of updates, and get great service if something does go wrong.

Note that Schmidt did not characterize Android as "open" (at least going by these quotes). And he's right in that regard, it is a turnkey solution that vendors can do as they like with, and that's exactly what they are doing, with the trend now apparently to make it as closed as phones before the iPhone were.

A bitter pill to swallow for all those who jumped on the Android bandwagon because of it's purported "openness".
post #33 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

... only Chrome OS can rescue Google's mobile strategy. Just ask Sergey Brin.

Chrome OS will be a failure in the marketplace. People don't want web apps when there are alternatives. You can try to convince them how wonderful they are, but they aren't going to buy it.
post #34 of 58
Here's how the Google phone looked liked before Google copied the iPhone:

link:
http://googlified.com/google-android-phone-prototype/
post #35 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyguido View Post

Have you seen the mock ups for android circa 2005? They were standard smartphones with keyboards. Do you remember what the first android phone looked like? Big touch screen with 4-5 total buttons. So whether or not they owned the rights to the name android, they clearly revamped they're game plan after they saw the iPhone. So is google arguingbthey invented the concept of a smart phone (obviously not). So saying that android was around before the iPhone is misleading, as android wasn't what it's now known to be. They were pioneers of the industry, and rewritting history to take credit for this revolution is awfully scummy, dontcha think?

The iPhone was not what it is today in 2005 let alone 2007. The darn thing couldn't even run 3rd party apps until long after Android was public. The most revolutionary thing with the iPhone in 2007 was it actually had a browser worth using. Now most traffic from iPhone's and Android phones comes from apps other than the browser.

The gist of the comment is that Google was working on entering the mobile phone market long before the iPhone's launch and success. There have been comments on here, in the press, etc. that Google decided to create Adroid enter the market after they say the iPhone and that is not accurate. They obviously spent a lot of time on it before Apple publicly announced they were entering the market, and probably before Schmidt knew Apple was working on a phone.
post #36 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

The iPhone was not what it is today in 2005 let alone 2007. The darn thing couldn't even run 3rd party apps until long after Android was public. The most revolutionary thing with the iPhone in 2007 was it actually had a browser worth using. Now most traffic from iPhone's and Android phones comes from apps other than the browser.

The iPhone today, is pretty much exactly what it was back then. There weren't 3rd-party apps, but there were apps, and the entire model of how a user interacts with the phone and the apps on it, and how it behaves, is pretty much unchanged through that entire time. Third-party apps don't change that, they simply make it more powerful. The most revolutionary thing with the iPhone in 2007 was that it was the first phone that didn't totally suck, which is why everyone is trying to copy it.
post #37 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

The gist of the comment is that Google was working on entering the mobile phone market long before the iPhone's launch and success. There have been comments on here, in the press, etc. that Google decided to create Adroid enter the market after they say the iPhone and that is not accurate. They obviously spent a lot of time on it before Apple publicly announced they were entering the market, and probably before Schmidt knew Apple was working on a phone.

As pointed out above, Google was working on an entirely different product, also called Android. When the iPhone came out, they scrapped that and created a new product called Android. It's easy to see how this is confusing, it's meant to be.
post #38 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

The most revolutionary thing with the iPhone in 2007 was that it was the first phone that didn't totally suck

If that is your level of understanding, there is no point in debating with you, but the there is a huge difference between the iPhone and iPhone OS 1.x and the iPhone 3G/3GS and 2.x and 3.x. No apps, no push mail, no corporate mail support, no data security (remote wipe), no MMS, no 3G, no copy and paste, no voice dialing, horrible camera, etc.

The first iphone had a neat user interface and a great mobile browser and music app, and a revolutionary unlimited data plan from AT&T. Other than that it "sucked." I guess that means it did not "totally suck" but it did not deliver as much as it showed potential.
post #39 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Chrome OS will be a failure in the marketplace. People don't want web apps when there are alternatives. You can try to convince them how wonderful they are, but they aren't going to buy it.

you mean you are using a real 'app' to access apple insider? didn't know they had one. i think people won't care as long as they have pretty icons to click on and it 'works'.
post #40 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

you mean you are using a real 'app' to access apple insider? didn't know they had one. i think people won't care as long as they have pretty icons to click on and it 'works'.

Quote:
... People don't want web apps when there are alternatives. ...

If there were an AI app, I'd never use Safari on my iPhone to access AI ever again.

But the broader point is that with apps on the iPad, and now Android tablets, web apps on Chrome OS simply won't entice people to buy Chrome OS devices.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google extends deal with Apple to remain default iPhone search