I've been trying Bing for a while now and I have to say --- Google is better. On the desktop, Bing would occasionally decide that I was German and start giving me everything in German with the assumption that I was in Germany. Just bizarre. I've also found that Bing is less likely to return relevant results (even when it did know that I'm in the US). I gave Bing a fair shot and it failed. So I return somewhat reluctantly to Google, and I'm glad that Apple is keeping Google as the default search engine for the iPhone (it really is the best thing for the user).
Regarding Schmidt's take on who his competitors are... I guess he's right that Microsoft and Bing are his primary worry, because that's the business where Google makes its money.
And really, Google and MS are more competitors in the phone business, too, in so far as both of them are competing for OEMs as customers, not end-users. Apple competes with Motorola, HTC, etc for end-users while Google and MS are just suppliers to those other OEMs.
I've been using Bing ever since Google screwed internet users over with its attempted end-run on Net Neutrality. I've never had any of the problems you're talking about, and always get what I'm looking for when performing a search (and I use search engines a lot). My guess is you're doing it wrong.
Schmidt also characterized the iPhone as a "closed" model controlled by Apple. He portrayed Android as a "turnkey solution with similar capabilities" to the iPhone, but one that gives vendors the "alternative" they seek.
Android itself may be open, but if any vendor can make it closed how is that any better than Apple (a handset vendor) making their device closed? At least i know I can use Google, Yahoo or Bing, get 3 full years of updates, and get great service if something does go wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison
It *really* doesn't matter, but I get a kick out of watching us geeks squabble.
Android Inc was acquired by Google in July 2005. At the time, it was reported that Andorid, Inc had been incorporated some 22 months prior - approximately September 2003.
If it is reasonable to assume (based on the evidence, or lack thereof) that the development that Apple was undertaking with the iPad back in 2004 can be directly related to the underpinnings of what would eventually come to be known as iOS, then I think is just as reasonable to assume (based on the evidence, or lack thereof) that the work Android Inc was doing back in 2003 could be directly related to the underpinnings of what would eventually come to be known as Android OS.
On the whole, though, I think this point is absolutely the wrong thing to dwell upon in the overall context of Schmidt's interview.
There is no need to delve into what was in development. What Schmidt stated is accurate. Google bought Android before there was an iPhone, there it was around sooner. The fact that there was some iProd device at Apple they were planning to call the iPhone doesn?t really count. Neither does the fact that Google had to make Android an OS, and then redesign it in 2007 after they saw that they could no longer copy the BB OS/WinMo OS development style if they wanted to be viable. Based on his words (his focus only on Apple) he is correct.
PS: If we really want to get pedantic note that Cisco had the iPhone rights, which I believe they acquired from Linksys which acquired it from Infogear which released their first iPhoen product in 1998.
Yeah, I totally remember how Android was out in the marketplace redefining the smartphone category long before iPhone. Right, Eric, right.
By your logic, I actually started working on a new smartphone concept 21 years ago, so actually, my project that I'll be calling "Schmidtee" came before "Android", you pathetic buffoon.
and then you wake up to find yourself cursing coz you forgot to take medication?
Android itself may be open, but if any vendor can make it closed how is that any better than Apple (a handset vendor) making their device closed? At least i know I can use Google, Yahoo or Bing, get 3 full years of updates, and get great service if something does go wrong.
There is no need to delve into what was in development. What Schmidt stated is accurate. Google bought Android before there was an iPhone, there it was around sooner. The fact that there was some iProd device at Apple they were planning to call the iPhone doesn?t really count. Neither does the fact that Google had to make Android an OS, and then redesign it in 2007 after they saw that they could no longer copy the BB OS/WinMo OS development style if they wanted to be viable. Based on his words (his focus only on Apple) he is correct.
PS: If we really want to get pedantic note that Cisco had the iPhone rights, which I believe they acquired from Linksys which acquired it from Infogear which released their first iPhoen product in 1998.
Have you seen the mock ups for android circa 2005? They were standard smartphones with keyboards. Do you remember what the first android phone looked like? Big touch screen with 4-5 total buttons. So whether or not they owned the rights to the name android, they clearly revamped they're game plan after they saw the iPhone. So is google arguingbthey invented the concept of a smart phone (obviously not). So saying that android was around before the iPhone is misleading, as android wasn't what it's now known to be. They were pioneers of the industry, and rewritting history to take credit for this revolution is awfully scummy, dontcha think?
Have you seen the mock ups for android circa 2005? They were standard smartphones with keyboards. Do you remember what the first android phone looked like? Big touch screen with 4-5 total buttons. So whether or not they owned the rights to the name android, they clearly revamped they're game plan after they saw the iPhone. So is google arguingbthey invented the concept of a smart phone (obviously not). So saying that android was around before the iPhone is misleading, as android wasn't what it's now known to be. They were pioneers of the industry, and rewritting history to take credit for this revolution is awfully scummy, dontcha think?
Yes, it would be more accurate to say, something with the name Android was around back then, but that's not the Android anyone is talking about. Google is playing games with words, trying to fool people into thinking two different things with the same name are really the same thing.
I have only tried one of those, and it certainly blew. I like the birds eye imagery on Bing, but in general, getting relevant search results has been a dissapointing experience.
As for Lohan, barring a head injury that causes me to suddenly develop a junkie fetish, I think I'll pass.
What Schmidt said: "turnkey solution with similar capabilities"...
What Schmidt meant: "turkey of an OS blatantly copying iOS"...
Well guess what Eric. Thanksgiving is just around the corner and turkeys are going to be slaughtered. The Oracle lawsuit has merit. Clear violation of the Java license agreement. And the lawsuit has legal precedent: Microsoft paid Sun $20 million for a similar violation.
But Larry Ellison doesn't want money. He wants blood. Turkey blood will be spilled, and only Chrome OS can rescue Google's mobile strategy. Just ask Sergey Brin.
Schmidt also characterized the iPhone as a "closed" model controlled by Apple. He portrayed Android as a "turnkey solution with similar capabilities" to the iPhone, but one that gives vendors the "alternative" they seek.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Android itself may be open, but if any vendor can make it closed how is that any better than Apple (a handset vendor) making their device closed? At least i know I can use Google, Yahoo or Bing, get 3 full years of updates, and get great service if something does go wrong.
Note that Schmidt did not characterize Android as "open" (at least going by these quotes). And he's right in that regard, it is a turnkey solution that vendors can do as they like with, and that's exactly what they are doing, with the trend now apparently to make it as closed as phones before the iPhone were.
A bitter pill to swallow for all those who jumped on the Android bandwagon because of it's purported "openness".
... only Chrome OS can rescue Google's mobile strategy. Just ask Sergey Brin.
Chrome OS will be a failure in the marketplace. People don't want web apps when there are alternatives. You can try to convince them how wonderful they are, but they aren't going to buy it.
Have you seen the mock ups for android circa 2005? They were standard smartphones with keyboards. Do you remember what the first android phone looked like? Big touch screen with 4-5 total buttons. So whether or not they owned the rights to the name android, they clearly revamped they're game plan after they saw the iPhone. So is google arguingbthey invented the concept of a smart phone (obviously not). So saying that android was around before the iPhone is misleading, as android wasn't what it's now known to be. They were pioneers of the industry, and rewritting history to take credit for this revolution is awfully scummy, dontcha think?
The iPhone was not what it is today in 2005 let alone 2007. The darn thing couldn't even run 3rd party apps until long after Android was public. The most revolutionary thing with the iPhone in 2007 was it actually had a browser worth using. Now most traffic from iPhone's and Android phones comes from apps other than the browser.
The gist of the comment is that Google was working on entering the mobile phone market long before the iPhone's launch and success. There have been comments on here, in the press, etc. that Google decided to create Adroid enter the market after they say the iPhone and that is not accurate. They obviously spent a lot of time on it before Apple publicly announced they were entering the market, and probably before Schmidt knew Apple was working on a phone.
The iPhone was not what it is today in 2005 let alone 2007. The darn thing couldn't even run 3rd party apps until long after Android was public. The most revolutionary thing with the iPhone in 2007 was it actually had a browser worth using. Now most traffic from iPhone's and Android phones comes from apps other than the browser.
The iPhone today, is pretty much exactly what it was back then. There weren't 3rd-party apps, but there were apps, and the entire model of how a user interacts with the phone and the apps on it, and how it behaves, is pretty much unchanged through that entire time. Third-party apps don't change that, they simply make it more powerful. The most revolutionary thing with the iPhone in 2007 was that it was the first phone that didn't totally suck, which is why everyone is trying to copy it.
The gist of the comment is that Google was working on entering the mobile phone market long before the iPhone's launch and success. There have been comments on here, in the press, etc. that Google decided to create Adroid enter the market after they say the iPhone and that is not accurate. They obviously spent a lot of time on it before Apple publicly announced they were entering the market, and probably before Schmidt knew Apple was working on a phone.
As pointed out above, Google was working on an entirely different product, also called Android. When the iPhone came out, they scrapped that and created a new product called Android. It's easy to see how this is confusing, it's meant to be.
The most revolutionary thing with the iPhone in 2007 was that it was the first phone that didn't totally suck
If that is your level of understanding, there is no point in debating with you, but the there is a huge difference between the iPhone and iPhone OS 1.x and the iPhone 3G/3GS and 2.x and 3.x. No apps, no push mail, no corporate mail support, no data security (remote wipe), no MMS, no 3G, no copy and paste, no voice dialing, horrible camera, etc.
The first iphone had a neat user interface and a great mobile browser and music app, and a revolutionary unlimited data plan from AT&T. Other than that it "sucked." I guess that means it did not "totally suck" but it did not deliver as much as it showed potential.
Chrome OS will be a failure in the marketplace. People don't want web apps when there are alternatives. You can try to convince them how wonderful they are, but they aren't going to buy it.
you mean you are using a real 'app' to access apple insider? didn't know they had one. i think people won't care as long as they have pretty icons to click on and it 'works'.
you mean you are using a real 'app' to access apple insider? didn't know they had one. i think people won't care as long as they have pretty icons to click on and it 'works'.
Quote:
... People don't want web apps when there are alternatives. ...
If there were an AI app, I'd never use Safari on my iPhone to access AI ever again.
But the broader point is that with apps on the iPad, and now Android tablets, web apps on Chrome OS simply won't entice people to buy Chrome OS devices.
As pointed out above, Google was working on an entirely different product, also called Android. When the iPhone came out, they scrapped that and created a new product called Android. It's easy to see how this is confusing, it's meant to be.
Seriously, just because the development hardware and UI were different than what was released ACCORDING TO GIZMODO OF ALL RELIABLE SOURCES, you think they totally scrapped old Android and wrote the entire new OS from scratch? Somehow I doubt it. I also doubt you have ever worked in a development environment. Products evolve both before and after release. Companies watch their competition and market place and they also keep up with technology trends with their suppliers and potential suppliers.
Comments
This is good news for Apple. Google is unbeaten in search at this point in history.
Back so soon, Newtron?
I've been trying Bing for a while now and I have to say --- Google is better. On the desktop, Bing would occasionally decide that I was German and start giving me everything in German with the assumption that I was in Germany. Just bizarre. I've also found that Bing is less likely to return relevant results (even when it did know that I'm in the US). I gave Bing a fair shot and it failed. So I return somewhat reluctantly to Google, and I'm glad that Apple is keeping Google as the default search engine for the iPhone (it really is the best thing for the user).
Regarding Schmidt's take on who his competitors are... I guess he's right that Microsoft and Bing are his primary worry, because that's the business where Google makes its money.
And really, Google and MS are more competitors in the phone business, too, in so far as both of them are competing for OEMs as customers, not end-users. Apple competes with Motorola, HTC, etc for end-users while Google and MS are just suppliers to those other OEMs.
I've been using Bing ever since Google screwed internet users over with its attempted end-run on Net Neutrality. I've never had any of the problems you're talking about, and always get what I'm looking for when performing a search (and I use search engines a lot). My guess is you're doing it wrong.
Schmidt also characterized the iPhone as a "closed" model controlled by Apple. He portrayed Android as a "turnkey solution with similar capabilities" to the iPhone, but one that gives vendors the "alternative" they seek.
Android itself may be open, but if any vendor can make it closed how is that any better than Apple (a handset vendor) making their device closed? At least i know I can use Google, Yahoo or Bing, get 3 full years of updates, and get great service if something does go wrong.
It *really* doesn't matter, but I get a kick out of watching us geeks squabble.
Android Inc was acquired by Google in July 2005. At the time, it was reported that Andorid, Inc had been incorporated some 22 months prior - approximately September 2003.
If it is reasonable to assume (based on the evidence, or lack thereof) that the development that Apple was undertaking with the iPad back in 2004 can be directly related to the underpinnings of what would eventually come to be known as iOS, then I think is just as reasonable to assume (based on the evidence, or lack thereof) that the work Android Inc was doing back in 2003 could be directly related to the underpinnings of what would eventually come to be known as Android OS.
On the whole, though, I think this point is absolutely the wrong thing to dwell upon in the overall context of Schmidt's interview.
There is no need to delve into what was in development. What Schmidt stated is accurate. Google bought Android before there was an iPhone, there it was around sooner. The fact that there was some iProd device at Apple they were planning to call the iPhone doesn?t really count. Neither does the fact that Google had to make Android an OS, and then redesign it in 2007 after they saw that they could no longer copy the BB OS/WinMo OS development style if they wanted to be viable. Based on his words (his focus only on Apple) he is correct.
PS: If we really want to get pedantic note that Cisco had the iPhone rights, which I believe they acquired from Linksys which acquired it from Infogear which released their first iPhoen product in 1998.
Yeah, I totally remember how Android was out in the marketplace redefining the smartphone category long before iPhone. Right, Eric, right.
By your logic, I actually started working on a new smartphone concept 21 years ago, so actually, my project that I'll be calling "Schmidtee" came before "Android", you pathetic buffoon.
and then you wake up to find yourself cursing coz you forgot to take medication?
This is good news for Apple. Google is unbeaten in search at this point in history.
Two unrelated statements cramped together doesnt make sense.
Android itself may be open, but if any vendor can make it closed how is that any better than Apple (a handset vendor) making their device closed? At least i know I can use Google, Yahoo or Bing, get 3 full years of updates, and get great service if something does go wrong.
There is no need to delve into what was in development. What Schmidt stated is accurate. Google bought Android before there was an iPhone, there it was around sooner. The fact that there was some iProd device at Apple they were planning to call the iPhone doesn?t really count. Neither does the fact that Google had to make Android an OS, and then redesign it in 2007 after they saw that they could no longer copy the BB OS/WinMo OS development style if they wanted to be viable. Based on his words (his focus only on Apple) he is correct.
PS: If we really want to get pedantic note that Cisco had the iPhone rights, which I believe they acquired from Linksys which acquired it from Infogear which released their first iPhoen product in 1998.
Have you seen the mock ups for android circa 2005? They were standard smartphones with keyboards. Do you remember what the first android phone looked like? Big touch screen with 4-5 total buttons. So whether or not they owned the rights to the name android, they clearly revamped they're game plan after they saw the iPhone. So is google arguingbthey invented the concept of a smart phone (obviously not). So saying that android was around before the iPhone is misleading, as android wasn't what it's now known to be. They were pioneers of the industry, and rewritting history to take credit for this revolution is awfully scummy, dontcha think?
Have you seen the mock ups for android circa 2005? They were standard smartphones with keyboards. Do you remember what the first android phone looked like? Big touch screen with 4-5 total buttons. So whether or not they owned the rights to the name android, they clearly revamped they're game plan after they saw the iPhone. So is google arguingbthey invented the concept of a smart phone (obviously not). So saying that android was around before the iPhone is misleading, as android wasn't what it's now known to be. They were pioneers of the industry, and rewritting history to take credit for this revolution is awfully scummy, dontcha think?
Yes, it would be more accurate to say, something with the name Android was around back then, but that's not the Android anyone is talking about. Google is playing games with words, trying to fool people into thinking two different things with the same name are really the same thing.
Bing blows harder than Lindsay Lohan.
I have only tried one of those, and it certainly blew. I like the birds eye imagery on Bing, but in general, getting relevant search results has been a dissapointing experience.
As for Lohan, barring a head injury that causes me to suddenly develop a junkie fetish, I think I'll pass.
What Schmidt meant: "turkey of an OS blatantly copying iOS"...
Well guess what Eric. Thanksgiving is just around the corner and turkeys are going to be slaughtered. The Oracle lawsuit has merit. Clear violation of the Java license agreement. And the lawsuit has legal precedent: Microsoft paid Sun $20 million for a similar violation.
But Larry Ellison doesn't want money. He wants blood. Turkey blood will be spilled, and only Chrome OS can rescue Google's mobile strategy. Just ask Sergey Brin.
Schmidt also characterized the iPhone as a "closed" model controlled by Apple. He portrayed Android as a "turnkey solution with similar capabilities" to the iPhone, but one that gives vendors the "alternative" they seek.
Android itself may be open, but if any vendor can make it closed how is that any better than Apple (a handset vendor) making their device closed? At least i know I can use Google, Yahoo or Bing, get 3 full years of updates, and get great service if something does go wrong.
Note that Schmidt did not characterize Android as "open" (at least going by these quotes). And he's right in that regard, it is a turnkey solution that vendors can do as they like with, and that's exactly what they are doing, with the trend now apparently to make it as closed as phones before the iPhone were.
A bitter pill to swallow for all those who jumped on the Android bandwagon because of it's purported "openness".
... only Chrome OS can rescue Google's mobile strategy. Just ask Sergey Brin.
Chrome OS will be a failure in the marketplace. People don't want web apps when there are alternatives. You can try to convince them how wonderful they are, but they aren't going to buy it.
link:
http://googlified.com/google-android-phone-prototype/
Have you seen the mock ups for android circa 2005? They were standard smartphones with keyboards. Do you remember what the first android phone looked like? Big touch screen with 4-5 total buttons. So whether or not they owned the rights to the name android, they clearly revamped they're game plan after they saw the iPhone. So is google arguingbthey invented the concept of a smart phone (obviously not). So saying that android was around before the iPhone is misleading, as android wasn't what it's now known to be. They were pioneers of the industry, and rewritting history to take credit for this revolution is awfully scummy, dontcha think?
The iPhone was not what it is today in 2005 let alone 2007. The darn thing couldn't even run 3rd party apps until long after Android was public. The most revolutionary thing with the iPhone in 2007 was it actually had a browser worth using. Now most traffic from iPhone's and Android phones comes from apps other than the browser.
The gist of the comment is that Google was working on entering the mobile phone market long before the iPhone's launch and success. There have been comments on here, in the press, etc. that Google decided to create Adroid enter the market after they say the iPhone and that is not accurate. They obviously spent a lot of time on it before Apple publicly announced they were entering the market, and probably before Schmidt knew Apple was working on a phone.
The iPhone was not what it is today in 2005 let alone 2007. The darn thing couldn't even run 3rd party apps until long after Android was public. The most revolutionary thing with the iPhone in 2007 was it actually had a browser worth using. Now most traffic from iPhone's and Android phones comes from apps other than the browser.
The iPhone today, is pretty much exactly what it was back then. There weren't 3rd-party apps, but there were apps, and the entire model of how a user interacts with the phone and the apps on it, and how it behaves, is pretty much unchanged through that entire time. Third-party apps don't change that, they simply make it more powerful. The most revolutionary thing with the iPhone in 2007 was that it was the first phone that didn't totally suck, which is why everyone is trying to copy it.
The gist of the comment is that Google was working on entering the mobile phone market long before the iPhone's launch and success. There have been comments on here, in the press, etc. that Google decided to create Adroid enter the market after they say the iPhone and that is not accurate. They obviously spent a lot of time on it before Apple publicly announced they were entering the market, and probably before Schmidt knew Apple was working on a phone.
As pointed out above, Google was working on an entirely different product, also called Android. When the iPhone came out, they scrapped that and created a new product called Android. It's easy to see how this is confusing, it's meant to be.
The most revolutionary thing with the iPhone in 2007 was that it was the first phone that didn't totally suck
The first iphone had a neat user interface and a great mobile browser and music app, and a revolutionary unlimited data plan from AT&T. Other than that it "sucked." I guess that means it did not "totally suck" but it did not deliver as much as it showed potential.
Chrome OS will be a failure in the marketplace. People don't want web apps when there are alternatives. You can try to convince them how wonderful they are, but they aren't going to buy it.
you mean you are using a real 'app' to access apple insider? didn't know they had one. i think people won't care as long as they have pretty icons to click on and it 'works'.
you mean you are using a real 'app' to access apple insider? didn't know they had one. i think people won't care as long as they have pretty icons to click on and it 'works'.
... People don't want web apps when there are alternatives. ...
If there were an AI app, I'd never use Safari on my iPhone to access AI ever again.
But the broader point is that with apps on the iPad, and now Android tablets, web apps on Chrome OS simply won't entice people to buy Chrome OS devices.
As pointed out above, Google was working on an entirely different product, also called Android. When the iPhone came out, they scrapped that and created a new product called Android. It's easy to see how this is confusing, it's meant to be.
Seriously, just because the development hardware and UI were different than what was released ACCORDING TO GIZMODO OF ALL RELIABLE SOURCES, you think they totally scrapped old Android and wrote the entire new OS from scratch? Somehow I doubt it. I also doubt you have ever worked in a development environment. Products evolve both before and after release. Companies watch their competition and market place and they also keep up with technology trends with their suppliers and potential suppliers.