Google Chairman Eric tells US senators Apple's Siri could pose 'competitive threat' - Page 4

wow... Just wow.
Sheep to slaughter much?

First of all, these sort of "what if...(we lived in an alternate universe)" questions are somewhat meaningless, because they cannot be answered. But, apart from WP7, and homegrown solutions, What might have been the future of, say, WebOS, if Android were not being given away for "free"?

So, the argument that the industry "needed" Android, is really nothing more than a disingenuous post hoc rationalization.

And Android isn't the only case of product dumping by Google, it's their entire MO.

Hmmm... Not arguing against your whole post but we _did_ "vote them in"... with our dollars (or in this case, eyeballs which amounts to the same thing)! In fact we can "vote them out" in the same way... by not giving them our eyeballs / dollars.

And that's why they're not a monopoly. Because we do still have viable choices (both Bing and Yahoo work well enough that if you were upset at google you could start using those).

To me, this is just big government trying to control the private market even more than they already do... and I bet that if you were to trace the money you might find one of their competitors had a hand in "influencing" the government representatives involved...

Poor old Charlie. When choosing our path to riches we must take our mental health in to account.

Google are not stupid, its said in the industry that Apple's iADs delivers the best on mobile device advertising. Siri poses a serious threat because its interactive and capable of making Google search irrelevant hence the "Google killer". There's always a bigger fish in the ocean.
Apple have some very unique technologies which existed before but no one could present them and market them they way they did. Matbe its time to start re inventing themselves like the rest with nokia looking at flexible handsets, htc music etc.

http://www.gadgetrophy.com/2011/10/u...tmas-2011.html

Agreed. But, as *outsiders* (at least I am an outsider), what else are we left with exceptional meaningless discussions. Aside from choosing what products to buy, we have no skin in the game.


Isn't this a bigger "what if"? Neither Palm nor HP was offering WebOS to 3rd party hardware manufacturers, until very recently (and even that, AFAIK, is hearsay).


Post hoc, yes. But again, what else do we have to discuss about? The alternative to post hoc analysis is speculation about the future. How's that more rational? As for disingenuous - you're free to accuse me of that if it pleases you, but I am satisfied with myself that it was a sincere rationalization.


That's post hoc analysis, and a baseless one unless you have irrefutable proof of their plans. I'd concede that this business model is interesting to analyze in the context of *dumping*.

To all those accusing Google of copying Apple, consider this:

Did Apple copy Google (and many others) by entering the Cloud computing field?

Did Apple copy Google with its iOS5 notification scheme?

Did Apple copy Google by adding speech recognition (even if they executed it better)?

It's a slippery slope.

So, why is "big government" (that the citizen has some modicum of control over), a bad thing and "big corporations" (which the citizen has no control at all over), "good."

I don't really expect you to answer anything reasonable here as your comment about how we control companies "through our dollars," shows a rather complete lack of understanding about politics and economics. I'm just pointing out the giant gaping hole in your argument/ideology with the arctic wind raging through it.

Americans are always going on about the evils of big government but they let huge, un-elected corporations rule the country (and most of the rest of the world), essentially unchecked and without even guidelines as to how these entities are supposed to act, let alone actual rules and regulations.

Americans are always also going on about "freedom" and letting the people decide what they want to do for themselves, but individual american citizens have demonstrably fewer freedoms than European or Canadian citizens, and no protection at all from corporate "mega-citizens who actually enjoy more rights and freedoms than the people themselves.

Eric Schmidt is absolutely right, but it won't happen immediately.
As long as you can get the answer you want (or bypass the answer and go straight to the solution) then you won't really care if it's Google or something else. By bypassing the answer and going straight to the solution I mean that if you can simply have your trip booked automatically, or your movie tickets reserved, or your whatever done for you, then you don't even need an answer; just a "done". I believe that is the future of computing. A very smart butler who knows everything about you and your preferences and those of your friends/family.

I thought that having a search bar at the top of browsers left Google wide open. After all, if you could get the answer you wanted, then it didn't matter if Google.com had mindshare, no one would be going to the site anyway. Just using whatever search field was default at the top of the screen. I think Microsoft and others missed a big opportunity here by not having a solution that was "good enough" at that point.

This natural language, solution-based question/command structure is very powerful. I think it's future is more robust than "search". Don't get me wrong.. I think Google has a huge dog in this race and they know it and they could very well win this one too. I'm often too hard on Google because Apple is my favourite company and I consider them a very strong competitor to Apple. Google is the champ of search though and they are right to worry about what Siri is doing. That just means they know it's the right track and will fortify their own efforts in natural language solutions.

Whoa! That's creepier than the real thing!
Alfred E. Neuman even looks like Eric "Chubby Cheeks" Schmidt

Why is the latest lemon scented detergent more scary to you than 10,000 men at arms?

1. are you coping someone when you buy a car or are going to take a piss?

2. no. they improved their own...

3. apple already had speech recognition.

did google basically copied apple's iOS style in appearance and apps after they saw it?

did google hypocritically lied to us, when they say that they are "open", "free", and they "do no evil"?

is google basically a big and important company but also the current most hypocrite one?

YES

That's far from an objective conclusion.

Well, you're the one who wanted to play the "what if..." game. But it's not a bigger "what if", and it's the whole point of looking at Google's dumping practices. Using their profits from search, they give products away to poison the market for others, classic anti-competitive behavior.

But, maybe you don't know the meaning of MO -- i.e., Method of Operation -- which is essentially an analysis of past actions, not future.

Check this out http://code.google.com/p/namebench/

Though I agree with much of what you say, when you try to sound intelligent by forming complex sentences with big words, you don't sound any smarter. Actually, you sound dumber because you don't understand how to properly form a complete sentence, don't know where commas go, and don't know when and when not to use conjunctions like "but". As a result, your complex sentences only show your incompetence.

Sorry, I can't stand it when people try to sound smart by butchering the English language with unnecessary complexity. Plus, I can't stand it when people agree with me politically but are incapable of sounding intelligent.

My advice: Simple, clear and "correct" language is much more effective, and don't use big words when smaller words work just as well. Ask any English professor, and they'll tell you the same.

My hero?

Yes...yes you are.

Hear hear.

So *what if* is meaningless if postulated by others, but not by you?

If you want to believe someone doesn't understand MO in order to score a point, go ahead. That really doesn't bother me. According to Dr. David, I also don't know what a mixed metaphor is, I am either some kind of idiot or the debating skills around here are reduced to .... sophomoric levels

As for whether Google is *dumping* and being anti-competitive, as mentioned above, it is an interesting perspective. Is Amazon dumping too by selling the Fire (maybe the other Kindles too) at a loss? I don't know ... seriously.

EDIT: Just occurred to me .... what about giving away iTunes? I don't mean just the program itself. Apple has proclaimed more than once that it breaks even on iTunes operations. But that's ok for them as long as this leads to more device sales. Is this dumping too? Is this dramatically different from, dare I say, Google's MO? I don't know ... seriously. I need to look up MO first, not to mention mixed metaphors. Keeping company with intellectual giants gives me so much homework ....

Tell that to Schmidt then, he's the one stating that "Siri is a threat to Google" in front of a senate hearing.

So is he lying?

I'm always amazed when people make derogatory comments about elected officials. Seems like the bigger the landslide defeat the louder they critize. It is not like he is any different than last time he was governor. The voters knew full well what they were getting.

Democracy has its advantages and disadvantages. Unfortunately for Repulicans, mostly disadvantages because they are in the minority.

Agreed.

But a question - are Republicans really in the minority? Particularly outside of regions where the educated masses live?

The undecided are the biggest factor in all regions and they are primarily motivated by current events which is why it is essential for Republicans to try to put the blame for economic struggles on the Dems totally denying any responsibility, even though the whole system colapsed under their watch and was a problem the current adminstration largely inherited due to Republican mistakes.

Was Apple iTools launched in 2000, "cloud" computing?

Hey look, a talking computer

Copying doesn't matter if it doesn't violate others rights.
Did Apple violate the intellectual property rights of others by doing the above?

"Voice Control" was released well over 2 years ago, in iOS3, by the way.

Has Google kept out of the smartphone manufacturing market because they'd be violating many more Apple patents?
Did Google stop selling smartphones on-line because they'd be in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988--the same act Netflix was hoping to avoid violating by splitting off its mail-order business?

Siri could probably answer the senators' questions more straight-forwardly than Schmidt.

But realistically, how much variance do you have from room to room in a house? I think you can over complicate the whole thing. I have a basic programmable unit and I never need to adjust a thing except when I go on holiday. I love the look of this system but I suspect it tries to creta a need. It's like a dishwasher. It's great to have 24 programs but I suspect 90 percent of people never change program. The once that do only select rinse or power wash once in a while.

But is your system programmed optimally? If you stick to the same schedule on a weekly basis maybe it is, but as they note most people don't set their programmable thermostat and those that do still have to fight with fluctuating schedules that won't get updated to the thermostat.

I think Nest is the future. That doesn't mean that all will be so attractive or expensive. I see no reason for others to not already be copying how Nest works so they can cash in on this other premium and budget models the same way programmable thermostats took over the average home after first being a very expensive.

Because unlike Google with Search, Apple doesn't dump free services to drive out competitors and then jack up the prices.

Most recent example - Google Maps API - was free, now through TOS change huge impact to those using Google Maps API.


No double standard, just ignorance of what should be simple concepts such as "Monopoly"


Ridiculous. If anything, when there are demonstrated and egregious examples of truly monopolistic behavior the government is often way more in the "too little, way too late" camp - i.e. Microsoft with DOS and Windows (DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run)...


For idiotic, rampant and completely baseless speculation? Too late - we are already here

I switched to Bing last much and it's far more useful. First of all, the number of blatantly ad-placed results are dramatically less!

Every once in a while I will cross check with a Google search, but I have yet to find any compelling reason to switch back to Google. Other than forgetting and going there out of habit

That you would state that just shows how either completely ignorant you are, or deliberately obtuse you are being.

Which is it?

Because his points are far from off topic. They go to the old adage that matters the most - especially for understanding motivation of why people or organizations do things: "Follow the money".

Actually, a very important point of clarification - Microsoft PREVENTED OEMs from installing other browsers. Even if the other browser makers wanted to pay them - otherwise Microsoft threatened to cut them off from being able to source Windows - basically putting them out of business.

Apple does no such thing. There is only one configuration of an iOS device and it's the same for all users, and you can easily download third party software out of the box.


Except for the part about MS threatening to basically bankrupt an OEM by not selling them Windows if they bundled third party browsers with their computers.


Well, you should be a fan of it. Because while I don't think it needs to be tossed about as casually as it is in forums like these, the fact that it exists does keep companies at least a little in check. Just go back and read earlier American history re:Standard Oil and you will see the necessity of anti-trust (and I am DEFINITELY not a big-governmant person - I am for a weak central government as advocated by our constitution and the founding fathers)

You're absolutely right, of course - rights are important. That brings up an example I have cited here before: iBooks, which looks like Delicious Library. The developer of that latter certainly felt his rights were violated, and did not receive recognition or compensation from Apple: http://twitter.com/#!/wilshipley/status/8289716016

What's my point? Very simple - Apple is hardly merely a victim when it comes to willful violation of IP rights. Sometimes, they buy their way out of it after the fact. Sometimes, they don't even bother.

So which is it - Absolute D? Are you ignorant or obtuse? Oops, sorry, I got it wrong. Are you completely ignorant or deliberately obtuse? It has to be one or the other. It cannot be partly ignorant or inadvertently obtuse. Which is it? Inquiring minds want to know!!

*Undecided* has to do with voting. I'm thinking of card-carrying Republicans. Now, this group is going to be lower than 50% of Americans and is therefore a minority in that sense. But I am thinking of minority in the qualitative sense of how small are they, in reality? How many Americans believe in lower taxes, rights to owning machine guns, abolishing abortion, allowing oil rigs all along the coastlines, removing all environmental regulations, etc.?

What intellectual property rights did Apple violate with iBooks? Answer specifically in terms of the law, not how the Delicious Library author feels.


There is simply no comparison between Apple and Google.
Google is king of IP violations.

You brought tears to my eyes. Somebody gets it.

Most of the people here aren't seeing Schmidt's point. By using Siri people are bypassing the ads that google serves up which is Google's main moneymaker. The fact that siri uses google for data is immaterial.

They see it all right. In fact, in another thread, many people were climbing over each other to claim how this is Apple's entry into search and how brilliant this was.

But they have to speak out of a different corner of the mouth here because the Apple fanboy guidebook stipulates that one must not agree with Eric Schmidt.

1) Schmidt's point was to try to get the antitrust committee from seeing the dominance of Google's search. Whether Google has an ill-gotten advantage or abused their position I can't say.

2) As previously noted Siri isn't pulling up any Google searches. The only thing that is pulling from Google is Maps, which is a separate set of APIs that is already built into the iOS Maps app.