or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google CEO Larry Page says rivalries with Apple & Amazon hurt users
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google CEO Larry Page says rivalries with Apple & Amazon hurt users - Page 2

post #41 of 150
Is that so Larry?
Then why did u plant a mole in apple "(he scum scmidth) and copy ios and got onto the crell phone buisness?
If what you preach is our that companies are in different buisness with different buisness models... Why did nt you stick to search and advertizing.... Why did u roam in apple territory and started competing head on.
Hypocrisy at its best.
post #42 of 150

I don't feel I 'suffer' very much but it is beginning to bother me that more and more Google tries to claw me into their world when all I want is unbiased search. I like DuckDuckGo.com but still use Google. Maybe Apple should buy DDG.

post #43 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsdofny View Post

Larry: If you pay the other companies the money you make off them, I am sure that they will be more open to you. What does Apple or Amazon ask of you?

Google does share their advertising revenue with the sites that display the ads. . .

like AppleInsider. 

 

Google also pays for the privilege of being the default search provider. I forget how many millions they paid to Foxfire. Apple doesn't give that slot to Google for free either. They profit from Google services.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #44 of 150
I agree with "Tallest Skil", who suggested Google not start rivalries. Larry Page has finally realized that hiring Eric Schmidt who's a typical, greedy corporate type was a mistake. You didn't see Apple starting a search engine company. They were happy to let Google do what they do best. Had Eric Schmidt kept Google out of the device and operating system business, Apple would be excited to be more accommodating and willing to work with Google. Same goes for Samsung. Talk about two companies that "bit the hand that fed them". It all comes back to GREED. Samsung wants it all as well as Google. I think Apple does as good a job as any corporate entity at picking their battles, innovating and staying on track with quality product, unique ideas and quality design. When there is an opening they think about it, make sound decisions and go forward. Eric Schmidt, sat on the Apple board, pretended to be friends with Jobs and then ripped him off like nobody else. Can you imagine trusting someone enough to put them on your board then watch them take the ideas and technology and give it to your competitors for free. Larry Page is right, it's the public that pays the price but as a business man myself I can certainly understand Apple not trusting it's thieving rivals. 'I'm just saying" as we say in Minnesota.
post #45 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Wow, I'm surprised you could fit so many misrepresentations of facts into a single post. It's a nice little fairy tale you present, but...
I guess preaching his gospel over at MacRumors isn't enough... lol.gif

I'm waiting to hear more about how multitouch was all the rage in 2006 and Apple was just in the right place at the right time. Even though Eric Schmdit admits that Apple created the current smartphone revolution.
post #46 of 150
While I was in Engineering, I used to have so much respect for Google. I lost it since 4 to 5 years. Happily sitting in Apple's board - bast*rd Schmidt had copied all Apple's Business plan and ideas. They have completely completely totally ripped off Apple iOS, giving opportunities to Samscum like companies. I hate you Google!

Now, you are telling Welcome and let's not hurt users. Shame on you!

Oh, yeah! You told "Don't be evil." First stop being stupid. You morons.
post #47 of 150
BS. Google did something well to get on top, they sell people. You and I are the product, and companies are the customer. I see no reason to lime or support that. I love Apple, and I like amazon. Google is about as evil a tech company as we have today, and taking that crown from ms took some struggle. I refuse to give a damn about what they say.
OSX, because making UNIX user friendly is easier than debugging windows.
Reply
OSX, because making UNIX user friendly is easier than debugging windows.
Reply
post #48 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daekwan View Post

 

Pretty much.

 

I love some of google services, mainly because its usually the best "free" option in most cases.  But there's nothing "friendly" about the way the do business.

Google wants business model based on everything they do is free, but not necessarily legal, and they don't want to spend the money on tech support.  They'll let ANYONE post content on YouTube, whether it's legal or not.  They just want to infuse your life with advertisements.   Google STILL has a crappy website.  The YouTube GUI STILL sucks.  For a company that supposed to be so forward thinking, their GUI for everything they do is about the silliest I've seen.   They just come up with catchy names and then market them.  I don't take Google seriously as a company.

post #49 of 150

Google the new Borg?

post #50 of 150
Schmidt showed the iPhone prototype to his girlfriend at the time, while he was sitting on the Apple BoD. He claims he wasn't that interested in it personally.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #51 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Re: "the three biggest technology companies"
Really? Larry thinks that Amazon is a technology company?
Wall Street seems to think it's a retail company. That's why Amazon's P/E is so big.
Wall Street understands retail. Technology not so much.

Amazon is most definitely a technology company. Amazon handles at least 1% of all consumer internet traffic. They host a metric shit ton of web sites.

post #52 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

An oft-repeated claim that doesn't even make sense.

 

First off, Jobs _NEVER_ accused Schmidt of stealing anything from board meetings.  He only went "thermonuclear" three years after the iPhone debut, when Google finally turned on multi-touch.   At that point, Jobs called Google copiers... as if Apple had invented multi-touch, which they did not.

 

Google bought Android back in mid-2005.  Suddenly Apple became very interested in making a phone as well and started creating the first iPod based UI test mules.  A year later, Apple _invites_ Schmidt to their board.   Who was spying on whom?

 

Finally, Schmidt was only in a few months' meetings (at which we don't even know if he was shown anything... heck, Apple didn't even show the iPhone to the CEO of Cingular until late December 2006) before the iPhone debut in 2007.   After that, anyone could copy it.  You sure didn't need someone invited to the Apple board to do that.

 

 

It was symbiotic, as Apple needed Google's help.  By Nov 2006 the iPhone had no Maps app.  It sure didn't have cell location or YouTube, either.  They had to rush to add the Maps before the debut two months later, and that only happened because Google bent over backwards to help them.   No doubt Schmidt helped.   Can you imagine the debut without Maps?  It was a major feature.   So was YouTube and location services later that year.

 

 

 

Everyone looks at others' stuff.   For example, it took a 7" Samsung tablet to convince Apple and Jobs to do the iPad Mini.

 

1000

This is Larry Page trying to defend Google's position and legalise IP stealing. The interview is crock of crap and these opinions come from the same mindset. I wish I could be intelligent and rebuke every point, but this is so wrong, I do not want to waste my time!

post #53 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If your curious about the answer, listen to the interview, or read the synopsis over at Fortune. This was just the smallest and least important "click-bait" snippet from it.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/12/11/larry-page/

Good read; thanks for the link!

"How will you decide when to do a Motorola Nexus device, and what do you tell Samsung and LG?
I think there's a lot of complexity in that question. Maybe I'll talk more generally about that area.
The right way to think about it is how do we get amazing products into users' hands in the most cost-effective, highest quality way possible and to the most people. That's what we do as a business, and that's what we've done with Android."


"One of the first instances of Plus being woven into other Google services was in search. There was a fair amount of criticism. In some cases where somebody is not an active user of Google Plus, you put their [Google Plus profile in search results]. That is not necessarily the best use of that real estate. And some people went as far as saying you were betraying the promise of always giving the best, unbiased search results. What's your reaction to that?
What you should want us to do is to really build amazing products and to really do that with a long-term focus. Just like I mentioned we have to understand apps and we have to understand things you could buy, and we have to understand airline tickets. We have to understand anything you might search for. And people are a big thing you might search for."
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #54 of 150

I used to hold respect for Google but no more.  Google has done evil to iPhone users.    iPhone users suffered three years without a free navigation built in app.
Google purposely refused to provide navigation capabilities to iPhone Maps before iOS 6.  Google purposely degenerate iPhone users experience wrt to Android users. 

post #55 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post

It's like Apple having their CEO on Google's board while planning to build a search engine to compete head to head with Google's. Google knew what they were doing and they kept Eric as close to Apple as they could until right before they went public with their iOS clone. Greasy and dishonest to say the least.

 

Interestingly, Apple's current Chairman of the Board was also on both Apple and Google's board from 2004-2009.   Should people accuse him of stealing ideas from Google?    Hardly.  Board members are smarter than that.  If anything happened on either side, they would've been booted off and legal action taken.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

from Wired: It began back in 2002, soon after the iPod, when Jobs realized that the convergence of mobile phones and music players would force Apple to get into the mobile phone business.

 

 
Thinking about making a phone isn't the same as actually doing a production project.  We know from multiple sources that the port of OSX into iOS didn't even start until early January 2006, for example.   Forestall's testimony at the recent California trial as that the hardware exploration only started in mid 2005.
 
Quote:

yes, they would show a third party an internal device before they show the Board. I don't know if you know anything about Boards, but they are involved at a high level at what the business goals are. I assume an iPhone fitted that criteria.

 

Let's say they did show the board in late 2006 before it even fully worked (in the biography, Jobs said they didn't have a decently working product even by late Fall.  It wouldn't be like him to show that to the board until it was to his satisfaction).   What good would two months' notice have done for Google over the past five years?   He was only on the board for a very short time before EVERYONE saw the iPhone.  There was NO need to him to steal anything.

 

Again, Jobs never claimed Schmidt stole inside info.  That's purely an internet fantasy of people who seem to need to hate something.

 

Quote:

can you imagine it without Maps? i know ,so tragic because other phones had maps at the time, what no?

 

Well yes smartphones did.  Like many other people, at the time that the iPhone was first shown off, I had Google Maps on my WinMo touch smartphone, along with TomTom navigation.

post #56 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

An oft-repeated claim that doesn't even make sense.

 

First off, Jobs _NEVER_ accused Schmidt of stealing anything from board meetings.  He only went "thermonuclear" three years after the iPhone debut, when Google finally turned on multi-touch.   At that point, Jobs called Google copiers... as if Apple had invented multi-touch, which they did not.

 

Google bought Android back in mid-2005.  Suddenly Apple became very interested in making a phone as well and started creating the first iPod based UI test mules.  A year later, Apple _invites_ Schmidt to their board.   Who was spying on whom?

 

Finally, Schmidt was only in a few months' meetings (at which we don't even know if he was shown anything... heck, Apple didn't even show the iPhone to the CEO of Cingular until late December 2006) before the iPhone debut in 2007.   After that, anyone could copy it.  You sure didn't need someone invited to the Apple board to do that.

 

 

It was symbiotic, as Apple needed Google's help.  By Nov 2006 the iPhone had no Maps app.  It sure didn't have cell location or YouTube, either.  They had to rush to add the Maps before the debut two months later, and that only happened because Google bent over backwards to help them.   No doubt Schmidt helped.   Can you imagine the debut without Maps?  It was a major feature.   So was YouTube and location services later that year.

 

 

 

Everyone looks at others' stuff.   For example, it took a 7" Samsung tablet to convince Apple and Jobs to do the iPad Mini.

 

1000

Regardless, if they were planning to go from a "partner" to competing "head on" with Apple in the exact same space, Eric should have resigned from Apple's board long before he did. The fact that he hung around as long as he possibly could before resigning from the board speaks pretty loudly. He was gathering intel. Any way you slice it, the way that Google handled this is greasy and no way to treat your "partner". As I said, if Apple's CEO sat on their board all the while planning compete head on with them in search, it would be equally greasy. Come on! Google basically cloned iOS for crying out loud.

 

Jobs never PUBLICLY accused Eric of anything, but I would have loved to be a fly on the wall.

post #57 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Thinking about making a phone isn't the same as actually doing a production project.  We know from multiple sources that the port of OSX into iOS didn't even start until early January 2006, for example.   Forestall's testimony at the recent California trial as that the hardware exploration only started in mid 2005.

 

 

Not true.  I remember hearing Steve Jobs in an new iPod introduction event that Apple is working on even bigger things. 

post #58 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Interestingly, Apple's current Chairman of the Board was also on both Apple and Google's board from 2004-2009.   Should people accuse him of stealing ideas from Google?    Hardly.  Board members are smarter than that.  If anything happened on either side, they would've been booted off and legal action taken.

 

Uh yeah, but Apple wasn't competing with them in head to head in search, so what's your point?

 

Also, do you seriously expect people to believe that Google had next to no advanced knowledge of what Apple was doing with the iPhone? Google was writing apps for the iPhone! Of course they did!


Edited by Bilbo63 - 12/11/12 at 11:34am
post #59 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Interestingly, Apple's current Chairman of the Board was also on both Apple and Google's board from 2004-2009.   Should people accuse him of stealing ideas from Google?    Hardly.  Board members are smarter than that.  If anything happened on either side, they would've been booted off and legal action taken.

 

 

Are you still trying to breathe life into your fairy tale? Given it up, pull the plug, it's brain dead.

post #60 of 150
'The Google CEO said he feels it "would be nice" if his company got along better with rivals like Apple. . . "

Maybe that would have been the case if your company didn't stab Apple and Steve Jobs in the back, eh? What a disingenuous comment. Not surprising though as insincerity and hypocrisy have always been Google's predominant corporate personality trait.
post #61 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post

Google's CEO was sitting on Apple's board, being privy to Apple's plans and products while at the same time planning to compete with their "partner" by producing basically a clone of Apple's work. That is beyond a sh*tty thing to do to your "partner". Eric, should have "excused himself" from Apple's board long before, while stating that they were planning to compete "head to head" with Apple... but then again think of all of the intel he wouldn't have been able to gather if he did that.

 

Eric Schmidt was essentially a mole on Apple's board. Google wanted to be sure that their maps, search and YouTube was on Apple's devices so they could harvest user data AND gain insight on Apple's products and plans. Had Apple known what Google was planning, their is no way in hell that Eric Schmidt would have been allowed anywhere near the Apple campus let alone sit on their board. Steve was furious because he was betrayed by a snake posing as a partner.

 

The only people that repeat this are internet tough guys. It doesn't align with the claims from either side.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

from Wired: It began back in 2002, soon after the iPod, when Jobs realized that the convergence of mobile phones and music players would force Apple to get into the mobile phone business.

 

yes, they would show a third party an internal device before they show the Board. I don't know if you know anything about Boards, but they are involved at a high level at what the business goals are. I assume an iPhone fitted that criteria.

 

can you imagine it without Maps? i know ,so tragic because other phones had maps at the time, what no?

 

According to all stories at the time, Schmidt excused himself from meetings that would present a conflict of interest. If Apple doesn't claim otherwise, you really shouldn't worry about it.There is no way we're going to see detailed records of every board meeting, so it's all speculation anyway.

 

I vaguely remember some of the early phones that tried that to incorporate mp3 libraries. I expected it to become more prevalent as soon as storage and battery life improved on these devices. Some of the really old ones like the original Treo when it was still Handspring were terrible on battery. If you tried to integrate more functions on such a device, you would have been tethered to something all the time. Remember things like car chargers? Now if you'll excuse me, I must sort out my pills for the week :P. Regarding maps many of them did have gps applications available or the ability to download maps to the device. It wasn't as refined as it is today, but simpler versions of these features go back a long way.


Edited by hmm - 12/11/12 at 12:20pm
post #62 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post

Regardless, if they were planning to go from a "partner" to competing "head on" with Apple in the exact same space, Eric should have resigned from Apple's board long before he did.

 

I agree with that.  For that matter, Eric should've left the moment he realized that Steve was trying to play on Schmidt's admiration for him, in order to try to stop Android.  Remember, Eric idolized Jobs.

 

The fact is, Schmidt didn't sneak onto the board.  Jobs, knowing that Google was already working on a phone, invited him. 

 

For anyone who needs to see a conspiracy, the evidence overwhelmingly points to Jobs wanting to know what Google was doing, and to try to convince them to not do anything similar.

 

post #63 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post
 

I agree with that.  For that matter, Eric should've left the moment he realized that Steve was trying to play on Schmidt's admiration for him, in order to try to stop Android.  Remember, Eric idolized Jobs.

 

The fact is, Schmidt didn't sneak onto the board.  Jobs, even knowing that Google was working on a phone, invited him. 

 

For anyone who needs to see a conspiracy, the evidence overwhelmingly points to Jobs wanting to know what Google was doing, and to try to convince them to not do anything similar.

 

You forgot to start with, "Once upon a time..."

post #64 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post

Regardless, if they were planning to go from a "partner" to competing "head on" with Apple in the exact same space, Eric should have resigned from Apple's board long before he did. The fact that he hung around as long as he possibly could before resigning from the board speaks pretty loudly. He was gathering intel. Any way you slice it, the way that Google handled this is greasy and no way to treat your "partner". As I said, if Apple's CEO sat on their board all the while planning compete head on with them in search, it would be equally greasy. Come on! Google basically cloned iOS for crying out loud.

Except that they aren't competing head-on with Apple. Google uses services to expand their advertising revenues. Apple sells hardware, with the software side being a necessary evil in some cases, at least in my view. Other than both offering an OS the two business plans don't have much in common really.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #65 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63 View Post

Uh yeah, but Apple wasn't competing with them in head to head in search, so what's your point?

 

 

Some people blindly repeat Jobs' clever comment that Apple wasn't getting into search, without stopping to think about it.

 

Google's business isn't search.   It's selling ads.  Search is just one primary way of doing that.   Apple now also sells ads.   Apple is indeed competing with Google's business.

 

Quote:

Also, do you seriously expect people to believe that Google had next to no advanced knowledge of what Apple was doing with the iPhone? Google was writing apps for the iPhone! Of course they did!

 

Google didn't write the original iPhone apps.  They provided APIs and Apple wrote their own apps.

 

Don't forget Apple's penchant for secrecy.  Even inside Apple, only a tiny few developers ever saw the iPhone hardware and software together.

 

Cheers!

post #66 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Wow, I'm surprised you could fit so many misrepresentations of facts into a single post. It's a nice little fairy tale you present, but...

 

First off, you are just making this part up. It's a nice little tale you are telling, but, frankly, I don't think you are in a position to have this knowledge. I doubt very much that Jobs was fine with Android until they turned on multitouch, and your little tale contradicts what I have heard. But, at least I'm not pretending I have the inside story. Please don't make stuff up and pass it off as facts. We already have another poster here who does that and we don't need another.

 

The "Android" Google bought in 2005 bears no resemblance to the Android we know today. The only thing they have in common is the name. So, this other OS called "Android", that Google bought in 2005, is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I'm sure you know that, but thought that you could get away with saying it anyway. You didn't. So give up that story too.

 

Since this part of your fiction depends on the first, we'll just dismiss it as part of the tale.

 

This next paragraph is perhaps the most entertaining, a beautiful little "just so" story. But, the idea that Google did the heavy lifting so the iPhone could be born is beyond ludicrous. There would have been an iPhone even if Google had never existed. Google's only involvement was to steal everything they could from it. So enough of this fantasy as well.

 

Lastly, "Everyone looks at others' stuff" != "Everyone steals others' stuff". And, yes, you were certainly attempting to promote that equivalence. You failed, miserably.

 

If you're going to post here, try to be a little more honest, less disingenuous, than your posts to date. As I said above, we already have more than enough people coming here to spin fictitious versions of reality. We don't need any more of that.

 

Your reply is right on target.  Note that he cleverly used the words that Google "turned on multitouch" to make it looking like Google had this feature in Android from the beginning not stealing/copying from the iPhone. 

post #67 of 150

I basically agree....

 

The main reason I do not use iCloud is that I cannot sync Notes, Contacts, Calendars with any non-apple device.  This is something that I have to do form my work.  As a result, I am forced to use Google to sync these items because it works on ALL platforms....

 

If Apple simply allowed me to sync these three servies with non apple device in iCLoud I would probably just use iCloud instead of Google....

 

This is what I think he is talking about....

post #68 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post

 

Your reply is right on target.  Note that he cleverly used the words that Google "turned on multitouch" to make it looking like Google had this feature in Android from the beginning not stealing/copying from the iPhone. 

The code existed in Android well before it was ever activated. That's fairly common knowledge. IIRC one of the mockups being shown prior to Android's first phone (besides the Blackberry-like scroll-wheel device) was one having a touch interface.

 

There were several different hardware combos being shown as sample builds to potential members of the Android Handset Alliance. With Apple's instant success with a touchscreen smartphone the direction for others was obviously set. Kudos to Apple.


Edited by Gatorguy - 12/11/12 at 12:27pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #69 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

I would work on taking your own advice.

 

Get over your man-crush skater, you aren't my type.

post #70 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Some people blindly repeat Jobs' clever comment that Apple wasn't getting into search, without stopping to think about it.

 

Google's business isn't search.   It's selling ads.  Search is just one primary way of doing that.   Apple now also sells ads.   Apple is indeed competing with Google's business.

 

 

Google didn't write the original iPhone apps.  They provided APIs and Apple wrote their own apps.

 

Don't forget Apple's penchant for secrecy.  Even inside Apple, only a tiny few developers ever saw the iPhone hardware and software together.

 

Cheers!

Well, I respect your opinion, and maybe things didn't happen the way that they certainly appeared to, but I will say that the way that Google handled themselves looks very sketchy at best. Especially in light of how Android "magically" turned into darn near an iOS clone. I'm sorry but I don't see Google being anything but greasy. I've set it before, that seems like a very very crappy way to be a "partner".

 

Yes Apple now sells iAds, but wasn't that more in a knee-jerk response to Google stabbing them in the back? In any event, iAds was probably a poor decision. Which is often the case when you do something for the wrong reasons. Isn't it pretty much dead anyway?

 

Yes, poor, poor, misunderstood Google... you're the good guy. We all believe you. /s

post #71 of 150
"rivalries with Apple & Amazon hurt users"

using android hurt them much more.
post #72 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post

While I was in Engineering, I used to have so much respect for Google. I lost it since 4 to 5 years. Happily sitting in Apple's board - bast*rd Schmidt had copied all Apple's Business plan and ideas. They have completely completely totally ripped off Apple iOS, giving opportunities to Samscum like companies. I hate you Google!
Now, you are telling Welcome and let's not hurt users. Shame on you!
Oh, yeah! You told "Don't be evil." First stop being stupid. You morons.

Agreed...I'm in the market for a TV...(not sure I can wait till next fall for the ATV) but I will be damned if I'm going to buy a Samsung. I don't care if a Sharp of LG is $40 more. No Samsung.

 

.....waiting for someone to tell me now, Sharp's and LG's are made by Samsung! :(

post #73 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

because it appears no one else does.

 

That's because there isn't much to contest. 

post #74 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Except that they aren't competing head-on with Apple. Google uses services to expand their advertising revenues. Apple sells hardware, with the software side being a necessary evil in some cases, at least in my view. Other than both offering an OS the two business plans don't have much in common really.

Wow. Really?  Google were well entrenched with the iPhone and probably always would be, if they didn't behave like such dicks. They could still work with other vendors on their devices to support their services. What makes them "extremely dick'ish", is they create basically an iOS clone and then give it away for FREE. That is a really sh*tty thing to do to your partner and totally unnecessary. They could have partnered with everyone and got everything that they wanted without stabbing Apple in the back.

 

Edit: Corrected a typo. My spulling is sometimes bad. ;-)


Edited by Bilbo63 - 12/11/12 at 12:27pm
post #75 of 150
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post
Some people blindly repeat Jobs' clever comment that Apple wasn't getting into search, without stopping to think about it.

 

Some people blindly ignore both what Apple said they were doing and what Apple did (which is the same) and pretend whatever they want.

 

Paraphrased, "You bought those guys, and everyone, you know, the rumor mill's talking about how they're for search; how Apple's getting into search…"

 

"Well, no, not… They're not really a search company."

"Well, what are they?"

"They're an AI company." And Steve gives Mossberg the look, you know? That one where it's like, "This is blindingly obvious to us, and it should be to you, and I'm quite satisfied with how my four word answer will cause far more of a stir than any multi-page article on any rumor site."

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #76 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Agreed...I'm in the market for a TV...(not sure I can wait till next fall for the ATV) but I will be damned if I'm going to buy a Samsung. I don't care if a Sharp of LG is $40 more. No Samsung.

 

.....waiting for someone to tell me now, Sharp's and LG's are made by Samsung! :(

I agree. I got tired of waiting to see what Apple "might" be doing in the TV space. I needed a new set so I did my homework and bought one. Hint: the Samsung logo is no where in sight. The Samsung sets look nice, but I still won't buy one. Nor will I buy the Dyson Bladeless fan copy that they are reportedly working on.

 

I wound up buying an 55" LG and love it! I have yet to see a TV that has a noticeably better picture. Truthfully, there are a lot of very nice sets out there to choose from.

post #77 of 150
google is a racketering enterprise.
post #78 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

Google's basic business plan is:

1. rip off/scrape everybody else's stuff.
2. slap ads on it.
3. then give it all away for "free" to anyone.
4. then data mine everyone that takes any of it.
5. and sell them to advertisers.

but let's all be friends!

seriously, Google IS evil.

and now that it is being exorcised from iOS, it's whining about it too.

Because Page believes that what's good for google is good for all customers.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #79 of 150

First what he is saying isn't so bad. He is right that it would be nice for "me" a consumer, if my different toys and gadgets could play nice together without a million hoops to jump through. I am invested in Apple, Google and MS ecosystems, the later mostly because of work. Remember there was a time when Apple and Google were friends, perhaps only because of a shared enemy in MS. Still, things have changed. I love Apple products but it is wrong to say that Google didn't help the iPhone's initial success. The inclusion of Google products/api (like youtube and maps ) on the original iPhone was a big selling point for Apple. You can call me what ever you want but it's my opinion. 

 

However this is a competition for the mind-share of the people. It is a winner take all. Including an antitrust smack down once one dominates. See what I did there. It is reasonable that at this point in the crusade to cooperate just a little more.     

post #80 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post

Your reply is right on target.  Note that he cleverly used the words that Google "turned on multitouch" to make it looking like Google had this feature in Android from the beginning not stealing/copying from the iPhone. 

 

No tin foil hat needed.  It was worded that way simply because Android had multi-touch support built in for a long while before Google officially turned it on.   If you don't know smartphone history, it's always better to ask first, rather than assuming the worst. Thanks!

 

As for the idea of multi-touch, there's no doubt that Apple made it a popular feature, and that alone would've certainly influenced Android to add it.  At the same time, Apple was neither the first to demo multi-touch, nor to announce a multi-touch phone.  It was not necessary to copy just Apple.

 

PS. one way to spot someone who doesn't know smartphone history, is if they repeat the nonsense that Android was meant as a Blackberry clone.  No one would've gone up against RIM back then, especially with their lock at the time on push email.  Instead, Android was clearly meant to compete with Windows Mobile and its set of both touch and non-touch phone versions.  The first Android developer phone was even a slight mod of a well known WinMo phone.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google CEO Larry Page says rivalries with Apple & Amazon hurt users