They faced scrutiny over iTunes in Europe before, and regulatory issues were raised in the US and abroad over exclusive contracts on iPhones. Companies are best off not looking like they dominate an industry to the regulators.
At the same time, they need to work together to forge standards and allow one to pick up where the other leaves off. It is the nature of technology and commerce.
There were zero antitrust issues in either case. As it turned out.
"Looking like they dominate an industry" is not against any law. Period.
No need to imagine, Google bought Android in July 2005. Apple announced Iphone Jan 2007, with Google plstaered all over it. Everyone here talks as if Apple only heard of Android when Google announced, after the Iphone had been released and blew up, and suddenly found out that Google had bamboozled them, like a sneak thief.
Everyone knew, including Jobs and Apple, well before the Iphone ever launched, that Google had Android, a potentially competing mobile OS. If Apple thought Andy Rubin was just hanging out at the Googleplex playing sudoku for years on end -- thats kind of on them.
Hard to say if you are right. The company Android was bought summer 2005 and was known for location based mobile applications but not for an OS.
The Android OS was announced november 2007. Apple started developing the iPhone OS (estimated) 2005 and presented it january 2007, while Google services were implemented at this time. Maybe the development of Android was on it's way in 2006, bit it was not official.
If Apple chooses to replace Google for search the effect would be devastating for Google. Aside from losing the Mac faithful on computers.... think of the huge percentage of internet users on iPhone and iPods, not to mention the new iPad/iSlate coming next week.
We all know the the algorithms depend on search results/location/title/etc, and that the vast majority of searches conducted by Apple devices. It could cost Google 50% of its present stock price just for openers.http://forums.appleinsider.com/image...ies/1oyvey.gif
CNBC's Jim Goldman claimed a source told him that Apple co-founder Steve Jobs "hates Eric (Schmidt)." The anonymous comment was used to explain why Apple has allegedly been in negotiations with Microsoft since late last year.
If Steve thinks Eric has abused his trust, I could imagine him saying that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerARSgm
I think we all know that if there is one thing Steve Jobs dislikes...even HATES... it's a traitor. No doubt that Schmidt had access to Apple's product roadmap and access to conversations with department heads at a whim. That he would potentially (likely) use this information to his company's advantage would make him a traitor.
Yeah exactly. Doesn't need to be the phone specifically either - could be any number of ideas.
Glad I read the whole thread before responding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Apple is also expected to enter the mobile advertising business after its purchase of Quattro Wireless, believed to be worth $275 million, in December. Through the acquisition, Apple also named the former CEO of Quattro Wireless, Andy Miller, to a new position: vice president of Mobile Advertising.
Hey, if Apple purchased a mobile advertising business, doesn't that mean they are IN the mobile advertising business now? Why say they're expected to enter the business?
Hard to say if you are right. The company Android was bought summer 2005 and was known for location based mobile applications but not for an OS.
The Android OS was announced november 2007. Apple started developing the iPhone OS (estimated) 2005 and presented it january 2007, while Google services were implemented at this time. Maybe the development of Android was on it's way in 2006, bit it was not official.
It was not publicly official, certainly publicly rumored. The Business Week article covering the acquisition:
Quote:
Rubin & Co. have sparingly described the outfit as making software for mobile phones, providing little more detail than that. One source familiar with the company says Android had at one point been working on a software operating system for cell phones.
My only real point is that Google had their own mobile strategy. In hindsight things don't look the same as looking forward from a point in the past. Google wasn't waiting on Apple to see whether their phone was successful, they are a large company with their own imperitives, pursuing their own strategy. It might be easy to look back and divide the world into the pre and post Iphone epochs, and say Google should have waited with Android, or considered this or that. But from where they were then, looking forward, that is not how it works. They had their services deeply embedded on Iphone, which was beneficial to both Apple and Google. That is the meat of their partnership, and it has been great for both. But iphone could have flopped, too. That wouldnt have been much of a strategy. And I'm sure Apple understood and understands all of that.
Regardless of their missteps with Android, having Android is a much better strategy than not.
I think the objective was to give Microsoft as much trouble as possible, erode their market share and power.
I think Apple and Google are still in league along those lines even though they compete in some areas.
Also Steve likes to sell companies, like he did Pixar to Disney, so he might be lining up Apple's future with either Intel or Google when he passes.
Apple combined with a huge money source like advertising or processors would ensure it's survival against a resurgent Microsoft.
[1] Where is this evidence of Microsoft's resurgence?
[2] Steve selling Pixar to Disney made him the single largest shareholder at Disney, rather beneficial.
[3] Steve sold NeXT because he had to.
I think it is wrong to say Steve likes selling companies. Personally I think Apple being a subsidiary of Google or Intel would horrify Steve and go against what he has worked for ? a strong Apple, the company he part founded.
It was not publicly official, certainly publicly rumored. The Business Week article covering the acquisition:
My only real point is that Google had their own mobile strategy. In hindsight things don't look the same as looking forward from a point in the past. Google wasn't waiting on Apple to see whether their phone was successful, they are a large company with their own imperitives, pursuing their own strategy. It might be easy to look back and divide the world into the pre and post Iphone epochs, and say Google should have waited with Android, or considered this or that. But from where they were then, looking forward, that is not how it works. They had their services deeply embedded on Iphone, which was beneficial to both Apple and Google. That is the meat of their partnership, and it has been great for both. But iphone could have flopped, too. That wouldnt have been much of a strategy. And I'm sure Apple understood and understands all of that.
Regardless of their missteps with Android, having Android is a much better strategy than not.
Interesting points. If this rumor is true, then it was a really great purchase of an revolutionary small company that founded in 2003 had a vision of an unix based phone OS while we all were happy to play pack-man an an tiny 16 color screen.
It seem a bid unlikely but not impossible.
Given this Google's strategy is understandable. If communicated well I'm also sure Apple understands this.
I, as a former board member, have a special spot for Apple in my heart
'course ya do, Eric. Because if it weren't for those chai 'n sushi board meetings with Steve you would never have come up with anything as good as the Nexus One. But it looks like you still have a long way to go. Board meetings only get you so far. It all comes down to your attitude about the consumer, and frankly, yours still sucks.
Well...Apple's relationship with Google when Eric Schmidt was on the board was suspicious enough for the DOJ to take notice and investigate. They could technically make illegal deals in several markets including ads, browsers, operating systems, mobile phones etc...
[1] Where is this evidence of Microsoft's resurgence?
I said resurgent:
"resurgent |riˈsərjənt| adjective
increasing or reviving after a period of little activity, popularity, or occurrence"
If Steve parts from Apple, Apple would be hard pressed to replace him and his talent, this could lead to a resurgent Microsoft, who would face little competition. Thus my point it might be a good idea for Apple to merge with a larger safer corporation with a big bank roll, such as Intel or Google.
Quote:
I think it is wrong to say Steve likes selling companies. Personally I think Apple being a subsidiary of Google or Intel would horrify Steve and go against what he has worked for ? a strong Apple, the company he part founded.
Ok, your entitled to your opinion of course.
But the facts speak for themselves, Steve sold Pixar to Disney and NeXT to Apple so they would survive.
You might be right in a sense he might not have liked it, but he did it anyway and that was my point.
There is nothing wrong with Apple being part of Intel or Google, it still would be Apple, just more weatherproof to anything Microsoft can do in the future (a potential resurgent Microsoft) get it?
If Steve parts from Apple, Apple would be hard pressed to replace him and his talent, this could lead to a resurgent Microsoft, who would face little competition. Thus my point it might be a good idea for Apple to merge with a larger safer corporation with a big bank roll, such as Intel or Google.
Bank Roll? Apple's is around $34 billion, cash on hand. Stock at an all-time high and poised to head much higher. Larger market cap than Google. Apple is as big as Google, if not bigger.
More cash on hand than Intel. Larger market cap than Intel.
Apple's market value surpassed that of Intel, IBM, and Dell (several times over) long ago.
Merge with a larger, "safer" corporation? What on earth are you talking about? Why should they? What do you mean by "safer"? LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
There is nothing wrong with Apple being part of Intel or Google, it still would be Apple, just more weatherproof to anything Microsoft can do in the future (a potential resurgent Microsoft) get it?
Again,
What can Microsoft do in the future, exactly? MS has shown very recently that as far as the consumer end goes, they have no real plans for the future. Whatever you've seen over the last 5 years sums up MS' strategy. Their recent keynote proved that. They can barely push out a decent version of their OS (took em 8 years, and still not up to OS X standards), never mind a mobile OS! MS can barely manage their core (in)competency, never mind anything new or extraordinary for the consumer to enjoy. Their whole business model just isn't set up for that. Meanwhile Apple surges ahead, ready to remake our conceptions of mobile computing. But never mind that, just wait for Apple's quarterly numbers. Blowout.
Apple is "weatherproof" to recessions, never mind a bungling software maker whose business model can never, ever put it in the same league as Apple. MS' whole philosophy is about as opposite to the Premium end as you can get. Apple owns the most profitable segments of every market they're in and by the looks of it, has them all locked up nice and tight for a while to come. Weatherproof? That's the equivalent of a nuclear bomb shelter.
Steve says this kind of 'fluff response' any times he's bored of says "We don't comment on future products". Would you rather hear... Yea we're gonna sit back and milk the current devices and/or software for at least 6 more months before throwing out a new feature like a camera in the iPod Touch or multi-touch in our laptops?
Alternatively the man could have said "My thoughts on Apple you say? Well being a former member of the board I should know, they don't got shit and between android and our other projects we plan to out do them every chance we get" but what good would that comment do (even IF it was what he was actually thinking).
Because the notion that Android out does Cocoa is a f'n laugh, let alone the hardware offerings and productivity software Apple produces and that of Google.
Google seems to be taking some huge risks lately. First, by releasing Chrome on the Mac it is attacking revenue it pays Apple and Firefox for search placement. In other words, if Chrome becomes big enough, Google is likely hoping to not have to pay Apple or Firefox revenue it currently pays for default search status. Risky because it provides incentive for Apple and Firefox to consider entering a deal with Microsoft to displace Google.
Second, by releasing it's own phone, Apple has to feel like Google used some of the wealth of knowledge it gained at Apple to pursue that endeavor at potentially Apple's expense. As such Apple is likely to want to find alternatives for Google's services on the iPhone.
Third, now Google wants to create and OS for low costs netbooks. Google is going into every one of Apple's markets. At some point Apple is going to have seriously consider cutting back it's support to Google or to start entering Google's areas of business.
This is all rubbish. The rivalry is nothing but pseudo-journalism, and blogs writing for clicks. They compete. but they also collaborate as all industries worldwide do all the time.
Even Google gives you the option to change to Bing in Chrome. Default means just that: default. It doesn't mean the only option. You can change it.
Google is my preferred search engine, and if Apple made Bing the default, I probably would switch the settings to Google. However, I could see Apple changing the default to Bing as a warning shot to Google.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea
Apple better not put BING in as a default search engine. If they do, its "Iinux, here I come".
I don't want to use ANY MS crap on my computer.
The only thing that I want to use from Google is their search functionality. The rest - not interested.
Comments
They faced scrutiny over iTunes in Europe before, and regulatory issues were raised in the US and abroad over exclusive contracts on iPhones. Companies are best off not looking like they dominate an industry to the regulators.
At the same time, they need to work together to forge standards and allow one to pick up where the other leaves off. It is the nature of technology and commerce.
There were zero antitrust issues in either case. As it turned out.
"Looking like they dominate an industry" is not against any law. Period.
No need to imagine, Google bought Android in July 2005. Apple announced Iphone Jan 2007, with Google plstaered all over it. Everyone here talks as if Apple only heard of Android when Google announced, after the Iphone had been released and blew up, and suddenly found out that Google had bamboozled them, like a sneak thief.
Everyone knew, including Jobs and Apple, well before the Iphone ever launched, that Google had Android, a potentially competing mobile OS. If Apple thought Andy Rubin was just hanging out at the Googleplex playing sudoku for years on end -- thats kind of on them.
Hard to say if you are right. The company Android was bought summer 2005 and was known for location based mobile applications but not for an OS.
The Android OS was announced november 2007. Apple started developing the iPhone OS (estimated) 2005 and presented it january 2007, while Google services were implemented at this time. Maybe the development of Android was on it's way in 2006, bit it was not official.
We all know the the algorithms depend on search results/location/title/etc, and that the vast majority of searches conducted by Apple devices. It could cost Google 50% of its present stock price just for openers.http://forums.appleinsider.com/image...ies/1oyvey.gif
CNBC's Jim Goldman claimed a source told him that Apple co-founder Steve Jobs "hates Eric (Schmidt)." The anonymous comment was used to explain why Apple has allegedly been in negotiations with Microsoft since late last year.
If Steve thinks Eric has abused his trust, I could imagine him saying that.
I think we all know that if there is one thing Steve Jobs dislikes...even HATES... it's a traitor. No doubt that Schmidt had access to Apple's product roadmap and access to conversations with department heads at a whim. That he would potentially (likely) use this information to his company's advantage would make him a traitor.
Yeah exactly. Doesn't need to be the phone specifically either - could be any number of ideas.
Glad I read the whole thread before responding.
Apple is also expected to enter the mobile advertising business after its purchase of Quattro Wireless, believed to be worth $275 million, in December. Through the acquisition, Apple also named the former CEO of Quattro Wireless, Andy Miller, to a new position: vice president of Mobile Advertising.
Hey, if Apple purchased a mobile advertising business, doesn't that mean they are IN the mobile advertising business now? Why say they're expected to enter the business?
Hard to say if you are right. The company Android was bought summer 2005 and was known for location based mobile applications but not for an OS.
The Android OS was announced november 2007. Apple started developing the iPhone OS (estimated) 2005 and presented it january 2007, while Google services were implemented at this time. Maybe the development of Android was on it's way in 2006, bit it was not official.
It was not publicly official, certainly publicly rumored. The Business Week article covering the acquisition:
Rubin & Co. have sparingly described the outfit as making software for mobile phones, providing little more detail than that. One source familiar with the company says Android had at one point been working on a software operating system for cell phones.
My only real point is that Google had their own mobile strategy. In hindsight things don't look the same as looking forward from a point in the past. Google wasn't waiting on Apple to see whether their phone was successful, they are a large company with their own imperitives, pursuing their own strategy. It might be easy to look back and divide the world into the pre and post Iphone epochs, and say Google should have waited with Android, or considered this or that. But from where they were then, looking forward, that is not how it works. They had their services deeply embedded on Iphone, which was beneficial to both Apple and Google. That is the meat of their partnership, and it has been great for both. But iphone could have flopped, too. That wouldnt have been much of a strategy. And I'm sure Apple understood and understands all of that.
Regardless of their missteps with Android, having Android is a much better strategy than not.
I think the objective was to give Microsoft as much trouble as possible, erode their market share and power.
I think Apple and Google are still in league along those lines even though they compete in some areas.
Also Steve likes to sell companies, like he did Pixar to Disney, so he might be lining up Apple's future with either Intel or Google when he passes.
Apple combined with a huge money source like advertising or processors would ensure it's survival against a resurgent Microsoft.
[1] Where is this evidence of Microsoft's resurgence?
[2] Steve selling Pixar to Disney made him the single largest shareholder at Disney, rather beneficial.
[3] Steve sold NeXT because he had to.
I think it is wrong to say Steve likes selling companies. Personally I think Apple being a subsidiary of Google or Intel would horrify Steve and go against what he has worked for ? a strong Apple, the company he part founded.
It was not publicly official, certainly publicly rumored. The Business Week article covering the acquisition:
My only real point is that Google had their own mobile strategy. In hindsight things don't look the same as looking forward from a point in the past. Google wasn't waiting on Apple to see whether their phone was successful, they are a large company with their own imperitives, pursuing their own strategy. It might be easy to look back and divide the world into the pre and post Iphone epochs, and say Google should have waited with Android, or considered this or that. But from where they were then, looking forward, that is not how it works. They had their services deeply embedded on Iphone, which was beneficial to both Apple and Google. That is the meat of their partnership, and it has been great for both. But iphone could have flopped, too. That wouldnt have been much of a strategy. And I'm sure Apple understood and understands all of that.
Regardless of their missteps with Android, having Android is a much better strategy than not.
Interesting points. If this rumor is true, then it was a really great purchase of an revolutionary small company that founded in 2003 had a vision of an unix based phone OS while we all were happy to play pack-man an an tiny 16 color screen.
It seem a bid unlikely but not impossible.
Given this Google's strategy is understandable. If communicated well I'm also sure Apple understands this.
'course ya do, Eric. Because if it weren't for those chai 'n sushi board meetings with Steve you would never have come up with anything as good as the Nexus One. But it looks like you still have a long way to go. Board meetings only get you so far. It all comes down to your attitude about the consumer, and frankly, yours still sucks.
What possible antitrust issues could Apple face?
Well...Apple's relationship with Google when Eric Schmidt was on the board was suspicious enough for the DOJ to take notice and investigate. They could technically make illegal deals in several markets including ads, browsers, operating systems, mobile phones etc...
Time will tell.
What possible antitrust issues could Apple face?
At this point, zero.
[1] Where is this evidence of Microsoft's resurgence?
I said resurgent:
"resurgent |riˈsərjənt| adjective
increasing or reviving after a period of little activity, popularity, or occurrence"
If Steve parts from Apple, Apple would be hard pressed to replace him and his talent, this could lead to a resurgent Microsoft, who would face little competition. Thus my point it might be a good idea for Apple to merge with a larger safer corporation with a big bank roll, such as Intel or Google.
I think it is wrong to say Steve likes selling companies. Personally I think Apple being a subsidiary of Google or Intel would horrify Steve and go against what he has worked for ? a strong Apple, the company he part founded.
Ok, your entitled to your opinion of course.
But the facts speak for themselves, Steve sold Pixar to Disney and NeXT to Apple so they would survive.
You might be right in a sense he might not have liked it, but he did it anyway and that was my point.
There is nothing wrong with Apple being part of Intel or Google, it still would be Apple, just more weatherproof to anything Microsoft can do in the future (a potential resurgent Microsoft) get it?
If Steve parts from Apple, Apple would be hard pressed to replace him and his talent, this could lead to a resurgent Microsoft, who would face little competition. Thus my point it might be a good idea for Apple to merge with a larger safer corporation with a big bank roll, such as Intel or Google.
Bank Roll? Apple's is around $34 billion, cash on hand. Stock at an all-time high and poised to head much higher. Larger market cap than Google. Apple is as big as Google, if not bigger.
More cash on hand than Intel. Larger market cap than Intel.
Apple's market value surpassed that of Intel, IBM, and Dell (several times over) long ago.
Merge with a larger, "safer" corporation? What on earth are you talking about? Why should they? What do you mean by "safer"? LOL
There is nothing wrong with Apple being part of Intel or Google, it still would be Apple, just more weatherproof to anything Microsoft can do in the future (a potential resurgent Microsoft) get it?
Again,
What can Microsoft do in the future, exactly? MS has shown very recently that as far as the consumer end goes, they have no real plans for the future. Whatever you've seen over the last 5 years sums up MS' strategy. Their recent keynote proved that. They can barely push out a decent version of their OS (took em 8 years, and still not up to OS X standards), never mind a mobile OS! MS can barely manage their core (in)competency, never mind anything new or extraordinary for the consumer to enjoy. Their whole business model just isn't set up for that. Meanwhile Apple surges ahead, ready to remake our conceptions of mobile computing. But never mind that, just wait for Apple's quarterly numbers. Blowout.
Apple is "weatherproof" to recessions, never mind a bungling software maker whose business model can never, ever put it in the same league as Apple. MS' whole philosophy is about as opposite to the Premium end as you can get. Apple owns the most profitable segments of every market they're in and by the looks of it, has them all locked up nice and tight for a while to come. Weatherproof? That's the equivalent of a nuclear bomb shelter.
You're in fine form tonight, MT!
Merge with a larger, "safer" corporation? What on earth are you talking about? Why should they? What do you mean by "safer"? LOL
Diversification, multiple income streams.
Intel, the worlds processors or Google the world's online advertisers.
I think Intel would be a safer choice than Google.
What can Microsoft do in the future, exactly?.....etc etc
Steve Ballmer could have heart attack and die and all of a sudden there's this new dynamic CEO creating all sorts of positive change for Microsoft.
Remember, Apple was nearly dead before Steve Job's return.
Diversification, multiple income streams.
You don't get much more diversified than Apple. Apple *has* multiple income streams.
Add the tablet after the 27th.
Steve Ballmer could have heart attack and die and all of a sudden there's this new dynamic CEO creating all sorts of positive change for Microsoft.
And Steve Jobs could live for another 15 years. What's your point?
Steve says this kind of 'fluff response' any times he's bored of says "We don't comment on future products". Would you rather hear... Yea we're gonna sit back and milk the current devices and/or software for at least 6 more months before throwing out a new feature like a camera in the iPod Touch or multi-touch in our laptops?
Alternatively the man could have said "My thoughts on Apple you say? Well being a former member of the board I should know, they don't got shit and between android and our other projects we plan to out do them every chance we get" but what good would that comment do (even IF it was what he was actually thinking).
Because the notion that Android out does Cocoa is a f'n laugh, let alone the hardware offerings and productivity software Apple produces and that of Google.
Second, by releasing it's own phone, Apple has to feel like Google used some of the wealth of knowledge it gained at Apple to pursue that endeavor at potentially Apple's expense. As such Apple is likely to want to find alternatives for Google's services on the iPhone.
Third, now Google wants to create and OS for low costs netbooks. Google is going into every one of Apple's markets. At some point Apple is going to have seriously consider cutting back it's support to Google or to start entering Google's areas of business.
International antitrust issues nearly destroyed Microsoft over the last decade.
Microsoft nearly destroyed Microsoft in the last decade.
In fact Microsoft has destroyed itself since its incorporation due to its own policies and lack of innovation.
Risky because it provides incentive for Apple and Firefox to consider entering a deal with Microsoft to displace Google.
Apple better not put BING in as a default search engine. If they do, its "Iinux, here I come".
I don't want to use ANY MS crap on my computer.
The only thing that I want to use from Google is their search functionality. The rest - not interested.
Google is my preferred search engine, and if Apple made Bing the default, I probably would switch the settings to Google. However, I could see Apple changing the default to Bing as a warning shot to Google.
Apple better not put BING in as a default search engine. If they do, its "Iinux, here I come".
I don't want to use ANY MS crap on my computer.
The only thing that I want to use from Google is their search functionality. The rest - not interested.