Launch of Google Maps for iPhone viewed as a 'mixed blessing' for Apple - Page 6

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frood 

One common thing I see on Apple sites is people bashing Google for anonymously tracking user behaviors and using that data so advertisers can target people that might actually want their products. ...

Many people unfortunately do not have the time to research this stuff themselves, and instead rely on headlines or hearsay... usually heavily biased and paranoid.

No, I don't think Apple tracks our browsing or phone calls or location all day.

However, yes, especially because of iTunes, Apple knows or can guess or can obtain a large amount of info about us.  Credit, age, sex.  What iOS devices we buy.  What kinds of apps we purchase and use the most.  Our media purchases and preferences.  Of course, our location at the time of ad request.  

Apple tells advertisers that they can provide targeted iAd audiences based on at least the following (image from Apple):

Quote:

It's called the IFA (Identifier For Advertisers), a random number assigned to your device.  It's new in iOS 6.  (Prior to that, iAds used the UDID - the device id, which was a very insecure method, as it made it pretty easy for advertisers and others to get together and figure out who you were.  Bad Apple! )

Yes, iOS 6 added a Settings option to turn off targeted ads (*).  However, this doesn't actually get rid of the IFA, or stop Apple or others from tracking your interests, like many people think.  It simply sets a flag telling an advertising developer that they shouldn't use it to track you for targeted ads.  If they're honest, they don't.  Yet even if they obey the rules, they have figured out different ways of tracking us.  There is, for example, a MAC address database that's being built up for this purpose, which is effectively the same as a UDID. They also have their own flags from their own apps.

The upshot is, it doesn't matter if we're talking about Google or Apple, they're gathering info about us to sell anonymous ad space.  This is to pay for the services or app we're using.  (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch... TANSTAAFL for you Niven fans.)  

(*) For iOS < 6, see this help article:  http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4228

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaneur 


Much interesting new detail and viewpoiint. Can you indicate a source for the $2.5 figure? And are you rejecting the standard story that Google wanted too much data from Apple users before they would add TbT and street view to Apple's iOS Maps app, thus forcing Apple to develop their own? Or was it a case of a more general program on Apple's part to cut ties with Google?

Unfortunately, I cannot give a source for the $2.5B figure :-)

Regarding the reasons why Google Maps never got updated on the iPhone, people say a lot of things - like Apple built the app, and Apple was lazy to update it, Google wanted lot of data about users which Apple did not want to give, etc. Denying Turn by turn from the iPhone has nothing to do with collecting info from users. The moment the user enters the Source and Destination, Google obviously has all the information they need from the users. When the app refreshes pages, Google obviously has as much real time location information as it wants. It is impossible to provide a server based mapping solution without getting access to all this information. That was just some misinformation that Google never bothered to deny.

Android is costing Google tremendous amounts of money (whether or not you consider the bottomless pit that is Motorola!). It is costing Google a lot in terms of credibility and goodwill with Regulators, Industry standards associations, etc. It is obviously costing a lot in negative PR. But despite all this, Google ABSOLUTELY has no choice but to pursue the Android strategy as much as it can - they have to destroy iOS or marginalize it as much as possible. In 2007, when Apple asked Google to pay $100M to be the default search provider, it really opened Google's eyes to the risk that an unchallenged and massively popular platform like the iPhone could cause. By virtue of controlling this platform, Apple could force Google to pay increasing amounts of money to continue to be the default search provider. And this would hurt Google at its most sensitive spot - at the end of the day, over 90% of Google's revenues comes from advertising tied to search, and Apple could force Google to part with most of its search revenues from the iPhone.

As long as iOS is significant and has a better profile of users, Apple would be able to turn the screws into Google and charge whatever they want for keeping Google as the default search engine. Android absolutely needs to get something close to the kind of domination Windows had, for Google to feel safe. If iOS manages to stay at 30% of the smartphone+tablet market, and retains the higher value customers, that is way too important a chunk of the market for Google to be threatened with.

At this point, the natural question would arise, so what if Google is not the default search provider on iOS? What would Google lose? This is about the entire survival of Google. Back in 2004, Google's search algorithm gave it a massive advantage. And they had a choice, whether to patent the algorithm or not. The trouble with patenting it, was that the entire technical details of the algorithm would have to be disclosed. Google did not want to do this, and therefore decided not to patent, and instead kept the algorithm as a trade secret. The trouble with a secret, is that there is absolutely no legal protection against a secret being revealed, or being copied, or whatever. Over the last 6-8 years, competitors have managed to reverse engineer pretty much the entire secret. And they have been helped by the fact that Google itself has been forced to make a lot of changes to the algorithm, to detect cases where people were gaming the algorithm to get better positioning in the search results. The combination of these two things have meant that Google today does not have any edge whatsoever in terms of its algorithm.

The only edge Google has, stems from two sources - the fact that Google has already made massive investments in servers, storage, bandwidth - and any competitor has to make at least close to this level of investment to even stand a chance of competing with Google. This will not deter the big guys like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. The second advantage stems from the fact that Google sees over 75% of all searches - just the sheer volume of these searches allow Google to improve its results. It is this advantage that could be weakened if (say) Bing manages to become the default search provider on iOS. In a single shot, Bing would get access to a large portion of search queries, and they can improve their results quickly using these queries.

This is the edge that Google does not want to lose! And the reason that will explain Google's actions over the last 2-3 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by macarena 

But despite all this, Google ABSOLUTELY has no choice but to pursue the Android strategy as much as it can - they have to destroy iOS or marginalize it as much as possible.

 

... if (say) Bing manages to become the default search provider on iOS. In a single shot, Bing would get access to a large portion of search queries, and they can improve their results quickly using these queries.

 

This is the edge that Google does not want to lose! And the reason that will explain Google's actions over the last 2-3 years.

I think the entire Android strategy originally had Microsoft in the cross-hairs, not Apple.

Google had spent years building it's reputation on desktop search, beating out some pretty entrenched competitors to get there including a very powerful Microsoft. There's absolutely no doubt Google began planning for search market changes years and years ago, not wanting to be caught unprepared and needing to dig their way up from the bottom again. Buying up Android fit into that planning and pre-dated any Apple partnership talks. (For some background see this link http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-16/google-buys-android-for-its-mobile-arsenal). Apple too was after that mobile user and had no intention of having having the upcoming market surge go right into Microsoft's pocket like the desktop did, with Apple taking the crumbs. The partnership of Google and Apple was one of convenience and shared business interests. They needed each other to make sure Microsoft was as disadvantaged as possible, and neither had the expertise in both services and hardware to do so alone.

In my view Google had no original intent to make Apple a "competitor" and may still not. There was no goal of destroying iOS or creating an enemy. This was all about being the puppeteer rather than the puppet. In the desktop world MS was that puppeteer. Google simply wasn't willing to chance letting Apple make them dance on a string to see success in the fast-rising mobile space too. That's where the partnership soured, which was never a true partnership in the first place. Apple's aggressive play to call all the shots, be the unchallenged puppeteer in this new market rather than MS, didn't completely align with Google's interests but left no wiggle room. The only way the partnership was going to work was if Google was willing to serve as a major force at Apple's pleasure and under Apple's rules. Long-term that was never going to work out. But it was Apple that made it an almost immediate issue IMO, leaving no doubt that Google was to play by their rules, period. Google showed no aggression towards Apple nor issued any threats (unlike Apple), but at the same time were clear they were their own boss and not beholden to anyone. That wasn't a great match with Steve Jobs personality.

Fortunately for both of them Microsoft was too slow in formulating their own strategy (some might say they still don't have one), at least in part blindsided by how effectively Apple and Google had stormed the castle, one in hardware and the other software. Otherwise things could have looked a lot different than they do now. 

So in my opinion Google never saw Apple as an enemy. They had a vision of where they wanted to be, which in some ways overlapped with Apple's own plans and made working alongside Apple attractive for both parties. But unless Google had been willing to put Apple in control of their companies vision it was never going work out long-term. It was almost assured that at some point Google was going to be called an enemy rather than a friend in Mr. Jobs view...   and that's the only one that counted to Apple. Google's interests were unimportant. The way I read it in hindsight, as far as Mr. Jobs was concerned it was Apple's destiny to finally be the big dog, the perceived leader of the tech world, rather than the hated Microsoft and Google could either follow on their coattails or move aside. It was never a partnership to Apple. Google was simply a service provider, and would eventually be kicked aside anyway if it was to Apple's benefit. 

Anyway, that's the way I see it. With that said,I generally agree that where we are now may match up fairly close to the story of the last 2-3 years you're offered Macarena. That's not how it started out tho. Apple was never the enemy. It was Microsoft that concerned them both. It's just that Google and Apple have different views on how MS could impact their business and how best to blunt those concerns, which in Apple's world makes Google simply another enemy to add to their list.

In addition to Pogue and Siegler, the "third musketeer" has offered some comments on Google Maps for iOS:

_...this new iOS app seems to have all the features I’d want to use. The UI aesthetic is along the lines of Google’s other recent iOS apps (their just plain “Google” search app, and the newly redesigned Gmail app). This aesthetic is quite distinct from the standard iOS look, but it’s unique to Google’s iOS apps...

Google’s brand has always been very friendly, colorful, humane. Their iOS apps have that same feeling..."

"Mapping data aside, I consider Apple’s new Maps the better-designed app, but this new Google Maps is very good."

He also makes this observation:

 My “It all worked out” observation was in no way an attempt to argue that this was Apple’s plan all along. In fact, quite the opposite. What makes it remarkable is that it’s all worked out despite clearly not being Apple’s plan. Apple’s plan was for their own mapping service to be, if not as good as Google’s, at least good enough that it didn’t make us miss Google’s map data. I think Apple — where by “Apple”, I mean the company’s collective executive leadership — is seething regarding the way this has played out. Everything from Apple Maps being the butt of jokes to the accolades and joy that have accompanied the release of the new Google Maps iOS app. Seething.

http://daringfireball.net/2012/12/google_maps_iphone

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

I think Apple — where by “Apple”, I mean the company’s collective executive leadership — is seething regarding the way this has played out. Everything from Apple Maps being the butt of jokes to the accolades and joy that have accompanied the release of the new Google Maps iOS app. Seething.

Well, yeah. When your products get slandered and libeled simply for being made by you, you're pretty mad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 

... As someone who has built browser engines by yourself ...

So, let me get this straight, KDarling not only claims to have been a touch developer for decades, but that he's also built browser engines by himself? Either that's true in such a trivial sense as to be meaningless, or someone's bullshit meter just redlined.

Why is it that Google/Android supporters feel the need to come here and distort, misrepresent and otherwise do violence to the truth? Yes, some of them are surely trolls -- i.e., mentally disturbed individuals who derive pleasure from working people up -- who will just say anything to start an argument. Some of them are obviously shills -- i.e., paid PR representatives here to shape a message for their employers or clients -- who's job it is to manipulate the facts into a different picture of reality. But, some of them just seem to be misguided souls here on a religious mission to evangelize the heathens, and if lies will save our souls then they are apparently justified. Then again, some of them are just delusional fools who don't have a clue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaneur 


Here are two statements of yours than seem to be particularly created out of a malevolent fantasy of how Apple motivates themselves. The last statement seems to confess you're making it up.
Jobs said something about five percent of the mobile phone market. How is that reconciled by you in your scenario of tech-world domination?
The whole idea of domination, hegemony in business, is alien to Jobs's philosophy. ("Our motives are pure. We just want to make great products for people."—Jobs to Mossburg and Swisher at All Things D)
You are slandering him and Apple with this "puppeteer" line of made-up crap.

Well, it's a well known line of defense for propagandists to accuse their enemies of their own most egregious sins.*

I think that's all that's going on here, because Google is clearly the company driven by the need to dominate, to control, to, "be the big dog, the perceived leader of the tech world." It's also interesting to note that such feelings of needing to dominate and control are most often driven by feelings of insecurity and inferiority. None of these descriptors apply to Apple or Steve Jobs. But they fit Microsoft (and Bill Gates) and Google (and Eric Schmidt) to a T.

* Edit: There's a twofold reason for employing this technique. First, especially if you are the first to make the accusation, you can claim that any accusation that you did the same as you accused your enemy of doing is just retaliatory and thus not true. Secondly, even if you are both guilty (or more importantly, perceived to be), it means that everyone is doing it, so they are no better than you.

This is why we see all this nonsense about, "Apple is tracking you too," and other accusations where it is attempted to equate Apple's behavior with Google's and thus make Google's behavior not seem out of the norm. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaneur 


Here are two statements of yours than seem to be particularly created out of a malevolent fantasy of how Apple motivates themselves. The last statement seems to confess you're making it up.
Jobs said something about five percent of the mobile phone market. How is that reconciled by you in your scenario of tech-world domination?
The whole idea of domination, hegemony in business, is alien to Jobs's philosophy. ("Our motives are pure. We just want to make great products for people."—Jobs to Mossburg and Swisher at All Things D)
You are slandering him and Apple with this "puppeteer" line of made-up crap.

Didn't Jobs also say he wasn't going to let the same thing happen to their mobile market as happened with Microsoft and the desktop? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaneur 


Here are two statements of yours than seem to be particularly created out of a malevolent fantasy of how Apple motivates themselves. The last statement seems to confess you're making it up.

So when you and I post our opinions (as you did) we should really call it "making it up"? Just want to make sure we both use the same terminology so it doesn't get confusing for you.

Unlike some here I try to clearly state what is opinion (IMO/IMHO) and what is fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

Didn't Jobs also say he wasn't going to let the same thing happen to their mobile market as happened with Microsoft and the desktop? 

You mean having their work stolen by another company, yes he did say that. Oh, but you were trying to imply he meant something else, weren't you? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

So when you and I post our opinions (as you did) we should really call it "making it up"? Just want to make sure we both use the same terminology so it doesn't get confusing for you.

 

Unlike some here I try to clearly state what is opinion (IMO/IMHO) and what is fact.

Unfortunately for you, GG, the truth is biased. So, when you refer to differing "opinions", often that means that one side is stating the truth, and the other isn't. In this instance, you definitely aren't on the side stating the truth. 

Flaneur , we're not supposed to be posting opinions?? Really?  I must have missed your facts that proved I was distorting history, or anything at all for that matter. Since you didn't offer any, why bother posting anything at all then?

I'll wait for you to post 'em.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

Flaneur , we're not supposed to be posting opinions?? Really?  I must have missed your facts that proved I was distorting history, or anything at all for that matter. Since you didn't offer any, why bother posting anything at all then?

 

I'll wait for you to post 'em.

I guess we missed your facts proving that history happened in the novel way you described it, or perhaps a better phrase would be, insinuated it happened. GG, you haven't made a substantive post on this site that didn't misrepresent or distort the facts. You've been called out on it with numerous facts to support the argurment that your version of reality is fiction. You've posted links as "supporting evidence" that were shown to have either nothing to do with the topic or not to support your argument. The idea that you can just come here and spew an endless stream of bullshit and that to show you are lying through your teeth we have to spend hours tracking down citations to "prove" you are lying is ridiculous at this point. Given your complete lack of any indication other than lip service that you care at all about facts or truth, I think it's time we said enough is enough and call you what you are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaneur 
Jobs's statements, which are facts, do not support your version of history, that Apple was out to totally dominate the mobile space.

Which ones? You're surely not clipping the lone quote from his biographer as your only evidence that Apple didn't and still doesn't care about grabbing as much of the mobile market as possible. So show me what you got.

So far I've not seen anything from you or anyone that would make my opinion of what occurred and why an unlikely scenario. Here's your chance. Not just posting your opinion that I'm wrong or distorting things. Not vague accusations about being misleading or "making stuff up", yet without a single example of where I've done so. Bring on the proof since that's all that matters to you.

EDIT: While you're at it, why would you think Apple wanting to take as much of the mobile market as possible is something bad, and thus my opinion of that being an Apple goal must be an insult. That makes no sense at all from a business standpoint.

According to the same Steve Jobs biographer you mentioned earlier, Mr. Jobs was infuriated when Android's market share exceeded Apple's, with Google being "promiscuous" in distributing Android to any company willing to agree with Google's terms.  Does that sound like someone who would be happy with just 5% of smartphone sales because all that was really important was "just making great products"?

BTW, the supposed Jobs comment was that Apple would be happy with just 1% of the market, tho I've not seen that quote for myself. I have my doubts that's what he actually said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

Which ones? You're surely not clipping the lone quote from his biographer as proof Apple didn't care about grabbing as much of the mobile market as possible. So show me what you got.

Show us what you've got. You've got nothing, just an "opinion" based on your desire to portray Apple in a negative and Google in a positive light, and the tricks of the propagandist at your disposal. Just look at the quote you misrepresented above about what happened on the desktop where you are pretending it's about marketshare and not about theft. Your little game is played out here. You no longer have any value to your employer or clients.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

... So far I've not seen anything from you or anyone that would make my opinion of what occurred and why an unlikely scenario. Here's your chance. Not just posting your opinion that I'm wrong or distorting things. Not vague accusations about being misleading or "making stuff up", yet without a single example of where I've done so. Bring on the proof since that's all that matters to you.

Imagine if we all played GG's game here. just throw out a bunch of scabrous accusations, claim it's your opinion (but totally true) and insist that your claims stand (even though, out of the other side of your mouth you are hiding behind the "opinion" card) till someone definitively proves it false. Well, ok, it gets played all the time here, but GG is definitely the most thorough player. How many times has he been definitively shown to be lying (I've lost count) yet he still acts as though we have to give hime the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaneur 


Much interesting new detail and viewpoiint. Can you indicate a source for the $2.5 figure?

A citation earlier this year put the revenue that Apple got from Google searches last year at just over $1B.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-google-pays-apple-for-search-on-the-iphone-2012-3

Quote:

Originally Posted by WonkoTheSane 


Please provide a source for validation. This is new to me and I don't buy it.
As opposed to google being fined for circumventing privacy settings on safari, collecting wifi data, and their public statements.

Assuming you have an iOS 6 iPhone, go to your privacy settings where you would expect to find this.

You won't find it..  I must have made it up...

Okay, now go to the informational screens.  I don't have an iPhone so cant find it without one in my hand but instead of being in 'Privacy Settings' where you would expect it, it is buried two or three layers deep.

Something like:   About->General->Info

In that screen you will find something that says something along the lines of:

Limited IDFA tracking ->   Off

Just to put it where it is was pretty sneaky on Apples part, the way they phrase it is almost worse.

It is a somewhat misleading double negative.

By default FULL IDFA is enabled (IDFA is your ID For Advertisers) so by turning limited IDFA -> ON you are actually turning FULL IDFA off even though when you first look at it it looks like Apple has you 'protected' by turning tracking -> off

KDarling has an interesting post above and something I didn't know.  It's  actually a little sinister.  Turning the feature on (which is really off) still gives advertisers access to your unique ID, it just states that your preference is that they don't use it.  Nice one.

To clarify:  I don't think it is that big a deal.  I don't think either Apple nor Google is doing anything malicious with it or 'spying' on you.  They simply have access to that information and *could* go evil on you if they chose too.  Google states their practice is to delete info after a certain time perioed (18 months?).  Apple doesn't state they have any policy one way or the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frood 

 

KDarling has an interesting post above and something I didn't know.  It's  actually a little sinister.  Turning the feature on (which is really off) still gives advertisers access to your unique ID, it just states that your preference is that they don't use it.  Nice one.

To be exact, Apple's Advertising Identifier API gives the following instructions to developers about the advertisingTrackingEnabled flag that the Settings feature changes:
 

"Check the value of this [flag] before performing any advertising tracking. If the value is NO, use the advertising identifier only for the following purposes: frequency capping, conversion events, estimating the number of unique users, security and fraud detection, and debugging."

It is in both Apple's and Google's interests to keep our info as safe and anonymous as possible.  It's how they make money off ad placement, after all.  In return, we get free apps and ads that target our interests.

The only real downside... and it might be a big one for some people... is that they both will give the government access to that info if formally requested.  Of course, the same goes for cell phone records from a phone company.  Or financial records from a bank.  Or airlines.  And so forth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ankleskater 

True. But to be fair, there are also those who defend Apple when there is no reason or need. Some are fanatical about Google. Others (a larger population) are fanatical about Apple. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between.

The truth is not usually somewhere in between. The truth is not fair and balanced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

 

The only real downside... and it might be a big one for some people... is that they both will give the government access to that info if formally requested.  Of course, the same goes for cell phone records from a phone company.  Or financial records from a bank.  Or airlines.  And so forth.

In Google's case they investigate each request individually, and often refuse to comply with government requests for user information. We have no idea how many requests to turn over their user's private information are fielded by Apple or Microsoft nor how often they comply in full or part as neither appears willing to acknowledge it, much less discuss it. Google on the other hand wants us to take notice of the intrusion, publicly publishing statistics about government requests.

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

 

To be exact, Apple's Advertising Identifier API gives the following instructions to developers about the advertisingTrackingEnabled flag that the Settings feature changes:
 

"Check the value of this [flag] before performing any advertising tracking. If the value is NO, use the advertising identifier only for the following purposes: frequency capping, conversion events, estimating the number of unique users, security and fraud detection, and debugging."

 

 

It is in both Apple's and Google's interests to keep our info as safe and anonymous as possible.  It's how they make money off ad placement, after all.  In return, we get free apps and ads that target our interests.

There's been almost no mention of it by Apple (for obvious reasons IMO), with one of the more insightful articles being posted by BusinessInsider:

http://www.businessinsider.com/ifa-apples-iphone-tracking-in-ios-6-2012-10

As the article points out it's better than what Apple used to allow up until a few months ago (tracking by UDID) and I've no issue with the new method myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

I think the entire Android strategy originally had Microsoft in the cross-hairs, not Apple.

 

In my view Google had no original intent to make Apple a "competitor" and may still not. There was no goal of destroying iOS or creating an enemy. This was all about being the puppeteer rather than the puppet. In the desktop world MS was that puppeteer. Google simply wasn't willing to chance letting Apple make them dance on a string to see success in the fast-rising mobile space too. That's where the partnership soured, which was never a true partnership in the first place. Apple's aggressive play to call all the shots, be the unchallenged puppeteer in this new market rather than MS, didn't completely align with Google's interests but left no wiggle room. The only way the partnership was going to work was if Google was willing to serve as a major force at Apple's pleasure and under Apple's rules.

 

So in my opinion Google never saw Apple as an enemy. They had a vision of where they wanted to be, which in some ways overlapped with Apple's own plans and made working alongside Apple attractive for both parties. But unless Google had been willing to put Apple in control of their companies vision it was never going work out long-term. It was almost assured that at some point Google was going to be called an enemy rather than a friend in Mr. Jobs view...   and that's the only one that counted to Apple. Google's interests were unimportant. The way I read it in hindsight, as far as Mr. Jobs was concerned it was Apple's destiny to finally be the big dog, the perceived leader of the tech world, rather than the hated Microsoft and Google could either follow on their coattails or move aside. It was never a partnership to Apple. Google was simply a service provider, and would eventually be kicked aside anyway if it was to Apple's benefit. 

 

Anyway, that's the way I see it. With that said,I generally agree that where we are now may match up fairly close to the story of the last 2-3 years you're offered Macarena. That's not how it started out tho. Apple was never the enemy.

The only part of what you are saying that I agree with, is the part about Android not originally targeting Apple.

Android originally targeted not Microsoft, but Blackberry. The only player that was worth targeting back then, in the mobile space, was Blackberry.

The very origin of the word Google (based on a play on Googol), and the motto "Don't be Evil", is a very clear indication of Google's ultimate ambition. Normal companies don't go around proclaiming that they will not be evil. No one even thinks of "not being evil". Right from its beginning, Google has had an extremely clear idea of its destiny, and has worked on making that vision a reality by every means possible. Right at the beginning, the founders might have realized that Google would be incredibly powerful, and must not misuse that power - hence the Don't be Evil. Over the years, this focus on Don't be Evil has been diluted significantly, and Google has make several major decisions that can easily be classified as Evil (to name a few, Google's u-turn on net neutrality in partnership with Verizon, their support of the "one bullet to kill" strategy of Motorola, Blatant misuse of their monopoly powers to disadvantage competition, etc). They have shown scant respect for literally anything that comes in the way of achieving that destiny. It is absolutely mind boggling how many times this company has been caught pushing the envelope of other people's rights, or music, or other digital inventory. In comparison to Google, Microsoft's transgressions come out looking "not so bad"!!

Apple has never set out for world domination, or total control of everyone's information, or things like that. Apple's philosophy is quite simple - the best user experience comes about when there is a tight integration between hardware and software. Customers benefit when there is a reliable and easy to use ecosystem that they can use, without worrying about how to make things work. To keep this ecosystem safe, certain restrictions need to be in place - especially against the types of misuse companies like Google indulge in shamelessly. None of Apple's restrictions are specifically targeted against Google - they are just guidelines they have incorporated to create the best possible environment for the user. Even when you look at pricing, the intelligent consumer knows that the iPhone is a lot cheaper than the Android devices - even though the upfront cost of the device is higher, you get updates for 2-3 years, because of which your phone does not get outdated for a long time. And for the same reason, Apple's phones retain their resale value a lot better than Android devices. The build quality is so good, that the phones last way longer than Android devices - after 3 years, my old 3GS still works beautifully - just that the battery barely manages to last one day of use!

Google on the other hand has operated extremely dangerously. Does any sane person believe Google's defense that they collected WiFi data unintentionally? Or unintentionally bypassed privacy/security settings in Safari? These are just the things Google has been caught doing - who knows what else Google is doing that never sees the light of the day? Are we only going to wake up and understand Google when it is too late? All of Google's actions have been planned with a single motive - of controlling all the ways people access information, finding out everything possible about people's digital lives. There is nothing altruistic about anything Google does. Their DNS solution allows them to see what sites you visit, even if you never search on Google to visit that site. Their auto complete in search lets them see everything you are searching for, even if you changed your mind and never completed that search. At the scale at which Google is doing it, they can probably tell you more about yourself than you yourself can!

You say Google does not consider Apple as an enemy - considering Google's actions in connection with Apple, as well as the way Google has operated in other contexts, I don't think Google looks at anyone as friends or enemies - they are all means to achieve Google's objectives or hindrances in achieving Google's objectives. The classic case is the turn around with Verizon - when an enemy was converted into a friend! 

The 1984 commercial was looked upon as an Apple vs IBM commercial. But a reprisal of that ad targeting Google would probably be even more relevant today than it was in 1984. Google is pretty much the closest thing we have to Big Brother - much more so than IBM ever was. And Google's business plans are also very dangerous - Seemingly free, but in reality much more expensive than you realize. Imagine a situation where someone wants to sign up for Google Apps - it is no longer free, and it costs $5 per user per month. Once you pay $5 per user per month can you be assured that Google will not snoop around your data and will not use your data to profile you to target ads from other Google services? Considering Google's track record, can we even trust Google, even if they explicitly declare that they will not snoop your data?

It is not that Google's vision overlapped with Apple's vision. Google's ambition and goals are so big that pretty much any other ecosystem would be a threat to Google. Contrary to what you are saying, Jobs always positioned Apple as "if you can't afford it, its not for you". Apple and Jobs have never indicated any interest in becoming big dog. Even today, if Apple wanted to do that, there are several initiatives they can start, to become a lot bigger in market share. They need not focus on 38% margins. They can release products at multiple price points and not leave any room for the competition. If anything, Jobs and Apple probably realized that they would attract a lot of unwanted anti-trust attention if they had too much market share, and have focused on making more money from a smaller portion of the market.

Your comments are so disingenuous, it is hard to think that you actually believe what you write - it is almost like you are writing everything you can, just to paint Google in a better light than it is, and to paint Apple in a worse light. Some of your statements are too blatantly ridiculous, to justify any other opinion!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

A citation earlier this year put the revenue that Apple got from Google searches last year at just over $1B.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-google-pays-apple-for-search-on-the-iphone-2012-3

This Macquarie analyst has it completely wrong. This is not how Traffic Acquisition costs work at Google. It is not that Google pays Apple some percentage of the revenue that accrues because of Apple. Google's entire Traffic Acquisition costs consists of 2 components - One large annual payment to Apple, and another sizable annual payment to the Mozilla Foundation. And a few insignificant payments to a few other ecosystems. None of these payments are related to actual revenue figures.

I think a similar report next year will show a significantly higher TAC for Google - because of dramatically higher payment made to Apple. Ultimately, Google wants to control its TAC - that is the reason why Google has stopped supporting the Mozilla Foundation, and instead put its weight behind the Chrome Browser. Google does not have to pay anyone anything to keep Google as the default browser on Chrome.

If you look at Google's older reports, the TAC actually was quite insignificant till the iPhone came along. The iPhone was the first time Google had to pay for Traffic Acquisition - and that is when Google decided to take on Apple, and compete against the iPhone with Android.

And when people realize how much Google is paying Apple, you don't want to be owning Google shares! People keep wondering (including Eric Schmidt), why Apple is not suing Google directly over Android. The largest Android player just had to pay $1B for infringing Apple's IP. Why should Apple spend money on a lawsuit with Google, when they are getting back almost all the money Google makes from the iPhone? How much more can Apple get from a lawsuit against Google? But mark my words, the thermonuclear war will happen - what we have seen so far is nothing - and in fact, some of Apple's weapons for the thermonuclear war are already well known and public - just that no one thinks of these as weapons against Google.

Originally Posted by Vaelian 
Last time I checked, "at least" didn't mean "exactly". …you could have such terms confused.

You said this, did you not:-

Originally Posted by Vaelian 

Nobody needs to; Apple deserves all the criticism since they effectively removed Google Maps from iOS to replace it with their own solution, meaning they are expected to perform at least as well as Google Maps did EVERYWHERE.

By "everywhere" did you not mean including where Google Maps are wrong, or did you not really mean "everywhere", in which case you do not really think Apple Maps should be expected to perform as well as Google Maps did EVERYWHERE.

Thus your whole argument fell apart.

Macarena, after reading your original post I thought you might be on to something, perhaps having some inside knowledge of Apple and Google contracts. You had explained your thoughts in a generally even-handed way without any real bias showing. Your two subsequent posts with the obvious anger towards Google for whatever reason make your original comments seem as they were copied from somewhere else as these are completely out of step with the first post.

It leaves the sense you were offering only an opinion, no more and no less valid than my own, rather than a fact-based account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

Macarena, after reading your original post I thought you might be on to something, perhaps having some inside knowledge of Apple and Google contracts. You had explained your thoughts in a generally even-handed way without any real bias showing. Your two subsequent posts with the obvious anger towards Google for whatever reason make your original comments seem as they were copied from somewhere else as these are completely out of step with the first post.

 

It leaves the sense you were offering only an opinion, no more and no less valid than my own, rather than a fact-based account.

So, is this the new GG? Nothing he says is true, but neither can it be false, because everything is just an "opinion" now, an opinion apparently based on nothing whatsoever. Well, we know he's never really been much for facts, but now he appears to have jettisoned them altogether. 

Clearly his new strategy is to make totally over the top claims and then when he gets called on lying he just says, "I was expressing my opinion, but prove me wrong!"

Clever, right? It's an opinion, so it's not bound by evidence, but, "prove me wrong," assigns it the same weight as an evidenced based argument without the need for evidence, which he never has anyway.

And, by the way, everyone else's posts are just "opinions" too, so he doesn't need to address them, he can just merrily go on about his reality redefinition for Google.

Of course, if it's all just "opinions", why does he bother responding to people to tell them that their posts are not true, they are just "opinions". Oh, to discredit other ideas, without having to argue against them or support his own "opinions".

Typically, people pull out this "opinion" defense when they are on shaky ground and losing the argument. "Well, that's just your opinion, mine is just as valid." Thus, even though their argument held no water, they try to undermine confidence in the other argument by labeling it as "just an opinion".

Well, GG, your "opinions" in this thread consist of nothing but invention, misrepresentation and distortion. We don't have to prove them wrong, they are only your "opinions", and they are wrong anyway. And the other posts that you labeled opinions, it's not up to you to state whether another's post is opinion or fact, that's up to them.

Let's review for your client's sake, though:

* Google is a criminal enterprise, guilty of multiple crimes

* Google seeks to control access to all information on the Internet

* Google egregiously violates our privacy by tracking everything we do without our consent

* Google regularly shares information about us with the NSA

EDIT: The funniest thing about this "new" GG is that just the other day he was all about how he goes to great lengths to research "facts" for his posts, but, now, all of a sudden, now that he wants to post what he knows are utterly baseless inventions, he's all about "opinions", everything is just "opinions".