Google CEO Larry Page says rivalries with Apple & Amazon hurt users - Page 3

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.     

Quote:

Originally Posted by tzeshan 

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilbo63 

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.

I think by now a lot of people agree that the Apple TV will be a real TV equipped with an OS.  The funny thing is no so-called Apple competitors dare to make one equipped with Android OS.  May be they still remember the embarassment in 2010 CES show.  Many companies were displaying a version of tablet.  Because most of them know tablet will be the next big thing.  When Apple introduced iPad in late January all of them withdrew their tablets from the market.  With this lesson, I think all the Apple competitors are just waiting for Apple TV first then began copying it as soon as it is introduced. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

 

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.

Yes, I believe most "Apple competitors" knew it is possible to put the internet on a phone.  The problem is they think the phone is so small that it is impractical to do so.  Apple showed them it is possible and can make money on it.  Apple showed Google the way to put internet on a phone. 

Don't forget well before 2007, PC makers especially HP had made a touch screen enabled PC.  You compare it to iPhone and iPad.  You will understand Apple and Jobs contribution to multi-touch. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by macxpress 

Blatantly copying a mobile OS and offering it for free is bad for the company that originally created the OS too. 

 

And for the record...I'm not hurting at all Larry. Its just too god damn bad Android fanboys can't get an exact copy of iOS and claim its their own. 

 

I think Google is slowly starting to go down hill a little. Other than Android and search, everything else they do is a massive failure. You can't beat people by copying them. You need to make something better and truly innovative. 

I suppose you see Google Docs and Google Maps as failures...

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

 

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.

 

oh sh*t, you mean Apple created iOS in a year while it took Google 3+ yrs to create Android. I guess when you have to turn on a dime to copy iOS, it would take longer.

Google *is* indeed evil.

Apple should replace all Google services on iOS.

I hope Siri replaces search on iOS soon.

Time will tell.

So stop stealing & distributing Apple's technology.

Google can preach till they're blue in the face about being "pro-consumer", but when it comes down it all they are is "pro-ideologues". Consumers care about results - the products, the services, the output. They care precious little about the how or the why, with few exceptions.

And even if Google is being pro-consumer, and if you define that as "making stuff as cheap as possible" then maybe they are, it still doesn't excuse the fact that their entire business model is dangerously anti-competitive, and that fact alone rescinds Google's right to claim to be pro-consumer because consumers like choices and Google's mere entry to a market can and does erode choice, for one simple reason:

Google has an essentially bottomless pit of money and so they can lose money by giving stuff away for free. Other companies do not have advertising revenues to tack onto free products, so in any price-sensistive market...They're dead once Google weighs in. Google provides the marketing weight of a major corporation, but the product is free. Google have all but killed the commercial third-party mobile OS market by making Android available. Just ask Microsoft how easy it is to charge money for an OS license in mobile with Android to compete with.

No amount of preaching about not doing evil and wanting what's best for consumers can make up for the fact that Google's business model outside of web services is toxic to any marketplace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tzeshan 

Yes, I believe most "Apple competitors" knew it is possible to put the internet on a phone.  The problem is they think the phone is so small that it is impractical to do so.  Apple showed them it is possible and can make money on it.  Apple showed Google the way to put internet on a phone. 

A lot of us had the internet on our phone.  A "lot" being over 100 million smartphone users at the time the iPhone came out.  But yes, phonemakers were stuck with legacy support for older devices, and were afraid to make too big a leap ahead at one time.

Apple, on the other hand, had no such legacy issues and thus was able to start from scratch.   Now, five years later, Apple has similar legacy issues that prevent them from making too big a change in UI or screen size.

I've been a touchscreen developer for decades.  I have touchscreen computers all around the house as family info and Skype centers.  Heck, my daughter grew up using touch computers from the time she was one year old (back in 2003).

From that experience I can say that multi-touch isn't that important.  Making a touch-friendly UI is.  That was key to the iPhone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jungmark 

oh sh*t, you mean Apple created iOS in a year while it took Google 3+ yrs to create Android. I guess when you have to turn on a dime to copy iOS, it would take longer.

Or, as anyone who is a professional developer can vouch for, they simply had different schedules and priorities and funding.

Ironically, it was partly because Schmidt was on Apple's board, that Android was delayed for so long.   Andy Rubin has noted that Schmidt, who was his boss, purposely kept himself away from any Android business while he was with Apple, to avoid any legal impropriety.   This meant that Android did not get the resources it would've normally gotten.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

 

A lot of us had the internet on our phone.  A "lot" being over 100 million smartphone users at the time the iPhone came out.  But yes, phonemakers were stuck with legacy support for older devices, and were afraid to make too big a leap ahead at one time.

 

Apple, on the other hand, had no such legacy issues and thus was able to start from scratch.   Now, five years later, Apple has similar legacy issues that prevent them from making too big a change in UI or screen size.

 

 

Apple has no legacy issues.  Apple changed its behavior since Steve Jobs returned.  Do you need me to elaborate?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 

Google *is* indeed evil.

 

Apple should replace all Google services on iOS.

 

I hope Siri replaces search on iOS soon.

 

Time will tell.

I hope so too, but that is entirely up to Apple. iOS has improved VERY slowly while Google and Samsung have had the pedal to the metal with Android. Siri is "still" in beta and it's been over a year now. Maps was not fully baked. I think THIS is the real reason that Scott Forstall has been shown the door. I do not like Google. I find them to be a sneaky, greasy company that just want to look over our shoulders 24-7 and harvest information.

That said, while it pains me to say this, some of what they do is fantastic work. Their new voice search for iOS is a great example. I normally avoid anything Google but I had heard such great things about their Google Voice iOS search that I had to give it a try. Wow. It does voice recognition in real time, on the phone and is incredibly accurate. Plus it's search results are complete and useful. Siri? Barely better than when it was announced if at all.

Apple should be embarrassed. But hey, we have green felt in Game Center and leather accents in our contacts and calendar apps, so we're good. /s

I haven't used it since testing it out but the app is so good, I cannot bring myself to delete it.

Yucky yuck yuck. Because he cares so much about ME, Larry Page wants Apple and Amazon to change their entire business and Google "be allowed" to do everything it wants. That kid has a real future in Washington D.C., or even better, the U.N.

But I am a masochist!

The internet was created by non-profits using shared open protocols. Then someone realized that the internet could be used to make money. The influx of capital created some wonderful new technologies, but increased the desire to keep secrets and not co-operarte with others. Technology islands are the natural result of competition.

Google is only successful when they are between users and their data. Having the world's most popular search engine allowed them to gather a lot of information and owning the entire browser (Chrome) allows them to get even more. However, Google realized a few years ago that their business model was not sustainable. Apple showed them a world in which people could find information without Googling for it or even using a browser at all. They had to change or fade into irrelevancy.

With Android Google is able to reinsert themselves between users and their data. They can offer users lots of choice: pick your phone hardware, pick your apps, pick your browser because no matter what choices you make, the operating system is always in between you and your data.

If you trust Google to sit between you and your data then it's a pretty happy place to be because Google gives its people a lot of free services in return.

If you don't trust Google to sit in such a position of power then you choose a different OS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tzeshan 

Apple has no legacy issues. 

I would say that Apple now has multiple legacy sticking points that prevent it from changing screen sizes and UI too quickly.

Sure.   I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on this topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathillien 

Well everyone CAN have a great searching. Open up Safari, go to google.com, search all day long for FREE. I don't think it costs Apple anything (correct me if I'm wrong).

The thing is that Apple wants to be an "island" in every possible way they can - to be honest, I don't mind - it's just a fact.

No I disagree with that. Apple is fine partnering with other companies. They partnered Google. Everything was going great until Google stabbed them in the back. Now Apple might think twice. They've also learned that sometimes it makes more sense to control as much of the user experience as they can. They're not perfect and they make mistakes and error in judgement at times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

 

 as if Apple had invented multi-touch, which they did not.

 

Apple invented multi-touch.   Claims to the contrary are nothing but lies.  The only way you can make such a claim is if you are completely ignorant of the history of touch technology, you're a liar, or you're just repeating what you've heard from other people. 

I've challenged android zealots on this issue hundreds of times, and not once, has anyone ever been able to show prior art, or any evidence that Apple didn't invent the radical new touch technology that first appeared in the iPhone and is commonly called "multi-touch".

They do point to all manner of absurd devices, like the tablets in the movie 2001: A space odessy, and physical membrane "touch" pads from the 1970s, as "proof" that apple "didn't invent it".

All this does is prove that they are so ignorant of technology they don't even know what it is that Apple invented that they claim was existing before. 

So, at this point, for you to say something like that, as if it were true, without clarifying or defending it, you just look like yet another android fan who can't be honest about the situation, and is going to relying on just mindlessly repeating a lie because you WANT it to be true.

This makes you a person of less than acceptable quality, in my book.

Or put another way, you are not allowed to tell a lie like that and be considered a decent human... you're nothing more than a liar.  You should be embarassed but if you don't have the good sense to be embarassed, know that no person of any integirty will listen to anything you say afterwards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton 

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.

That right there is a violation of apple's non-disclosure agreements, and really should be actionable.  In fact, I think it might be a felony under california law, and it certainly counts as industrial espianage. 

I don't care if he was "interested" or not (as that is a convenient lie)... he admits showing it to third parties, which violates his fudiciary duty to Apple. 

Apple should sue him for all the compensation he was awarded during his time on the board. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessi 

 

Apple invented multi-touch.   Claims to the contrary are nothing but lies.  The only way you can make such a claim is if you are completely ignorant of the history of touch technology, you're a liar, or you're just repeating what you've heard from other people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch

Read up on it a little.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tzeshan 

 

I think by now a lot of people agree that the Apple TV will be a real TV equipped with an OS.  The funny thing is no so-called Apple competitors dare to make one equipped with Android OS.  May be they still remember the embarassment in 2010 CES show.  Many companies were displaying a version of tablet.  Because most of them know tablet will be the next big thing.  When Apple introduced iPad in late January all of them withdrew their tablets from the market.  With this lesson, I think all the Apple competitors are just waiting for Apple TV first then began copying it as soon as it is introduced. 

Personally, I'm not sure why they feel the need to make the entire TV. To me, it makes more sense just to make a really, really good device that controls the entire TV experience. Nearly all of the TVs have great pictures nowadays. They are really just a great display with a crappy UI. Furthermore, Many of the TV manufacturers are are all complaining that they're not making money. Why does Apple even want to enter that space?

If Apple do make the entire TV, I guess they'll have their reasons, and I'll find out what they are. At this point, I just don't get it.

Ever heard of Jeff Han

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessi 

 

Apple invented multi-touch.   Claims to the contrary are nothing but lies.  The only way you can make such a claim is if you are completely ignorant of the history of touch technology, you're a liar, or you're just repeating what you've heard from other people. 

 

I've challenged android zealots on this issue hundreds of times, and not once, has anyone ever been able to show prior art, or any evidence that Apple didn't invent the radical new touch technology that first appeared in the iPhone and is commonly called "multi-touch".

 

They do point to all manner of absurd devices, like the tablets in the movie 2001: A space odessy, and physical membrane "touch" pads from the 1970s, as "proof" that apple "didn't invent it".

 

All this does is prove that they are so ignorant of technology they don't even know what it is that Apple invented that they claim was existing before. 

 

So, at this point, for you to say something like that, as if it were true, without clarifying or defending it, you just look like yet another android fan who can't be honest about the situation, and is going to relying on just mindlessly repeating a lie because you WANT it to be true.

 

This makes you a person of less than acceptable quality, in my book.

 

Or put another way, you are not allowed to tell a lie like that and be considered a decent human... you're nothing more than a liar.  You should be embarassed but if you don't have the good sense to be embarassed, know that no person of any integirty will listen to anything you say afterwards.

"Google CEO Larry Page"?

I thought it was Larry Flint.

lol...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilbo63 

I hope so too, but that is entirely up to Apple. iOS has improved VERY slowly while Google and Samsung have had the pedal to the metal with Android. Siri is "still" in beta and it's been over a year now. Maps was not fully baked. I think THIS is the real reason that Scott Forstall has been shown the door. I do not like Google. I find them to be a sneaky, greasy company that just want to look over our shoulders 24-7 and harvest information.

 

That said, while it pains me to say this, some of what they do is fantastic work. Their new voice search for iOS is a great example. I normally avoid anything Google but I had heard such great things about their Google Voice iOS search that I had to give it a try. Wow. It does voice recognition in real time, on the phone and is incredibly accurate. Plus it's search results are complete and useful. Siri? Barely better than when it was announced if at all.

 

Apple should be embarrassed. But hey, we have green felt in Game Center and leather accents in our contacts and calendar apps, so we're good. /s

 

I haven't used it since testing it out but the app is so good, I cannot bring myself to delete it.

No thanks.  Siri works quite well for me now.  
I want more then voice recognition and web search.  

I want intelligent speech interpretation that can then tap into dedicated services like Yelp and Wolfram and Fandango for better answers and actions.

Time will tell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee 


Every now and then you come across a George Costanza moment: "Is anyone here a marine biologist?"
I myself have worked with touchscreens since 1985. I developed a macro language that would let an ordinary user create touch screen based multi media presentations. I also worked extensively with trying to understand gestures, but never pursued it because the hardware back then couldn't keep up. In 1986 iwon a national award for best use of technology for my implementation.
I have read your posts and I call BS. Sorry, but I'm not going to give you a pass on your "decades of touchscreen experience" claim.
Which systems have you developed for? What hardware? What software? How did you interface? Did you create your own drivers? What systems are you using in your house? Which system was your daughter using in 2003? Don't worry about having to dumb things down - I'm quite sure whatever you want to discuss I'll be intimately familiar with given my work as a developer since 1985.

I'm quite looking forward to the reply to this one.

Android Maps vs. iOS Maps

Page can preach all he wants about how he wants to do right by the consumer, but at the end of the day, they're a business just like Apple. They're in this to make money. No one should ever believe that.

To those who claim that Google has given us great free services like Maps and Gmail and have made the world a better place with these services, let's not forget that Google gets tons of advertising revenue from them. They're comfortable in the strength of their business model that they're willing to give them away because they know they'll make it up several times over from ads.

And Google hasn't practiced what it preached. Maps for Android has features that the old iOS Maps didn't have. And if the rumors are to be believed, Google was withholding certain features from iOS, and tried to get their pound of flesh from Apple. If Google really cared about making the experience better for consumers, why didn't they let Apple have those features? At the end of the day, Google favored Android from day one, and they would have continued to do so.

Google is as guilty of trying to build islands as Apple and Amazon are. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton 

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.

According to all the gossip rags, he didn't start dating that girlfriend until summer 2007... a half year after the iPhone was first shown off, and about the same time that it first went on sale.  By then, it would've just been a curiousity. Supposedly, he first tried giving it to his wife. 

So, instead of showing a secret, it sounds like he was just being cheap.  Really cheap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

"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."

Touche!   Exellent response.  Siri, of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelligent 

Let's be real, people. Does anyone believe the iPhone was ever going to be the only multitouch smartphone?

Nope.  And while the iPhone was the first multi-touch phone sold, it wasn't the first one announced.  That honor belongs to the Open Moko smartphone, two months before Jobs showed off the iPhone for the first time.

"The phone itself has a 2.8-inch VGA display, USB mesh file sharing, multi-touch sensor recognition, GSM, GPS, 128MB RAM, a Samsung ARM9-based processor and MP3 playback capabilities. The concept of their multi-touch gestures is that you can use two fingers to control a variety of tasks, such as two finger scrolling like the PowerBooks and MacBooks."  - Gizmodo article, Nov 7, 2006

Later, when the iPhone came out, Gizmodo remembered it: "OpenMoko - Did they have a time machine or what?"

Other reporters even wondered if Apple had stolen some of the ideas, but I think not. As I keep saying, many touch features naturally end up being developed in parallel by multiple groups.  Once you decide to go full touch, quite a few design options become obvious.