And this is the whole point. I love it. Apple really should get into search. They won't, but they should. Just to piss Google off.
So far, Google is using Siri to serve their purpose by trotting it out in front of anti-trust regulators. Picture Alfred E. Neuman as Eric Schmidt saying: "What, me search monopoly?"
To be fair, why isnt the Senate committee grilling Apple with its monopolistic market share of the Tablet market?
Apple could have a 99% market share and it wouldn't be monopolistic. You might want to check out what that word means in a dictionary.
It's not Apple's fault that other tablets are being dumped away in drastic firesales and others are quickly collecting dust on store shelves. The reason nobody wants them is because they fucking suck and only mentally ill people or people on welfare would even consider buying these other inferior tablets compared to the iPad. There is only one choice for a tablet if somebody is looking for the best experience on the best hardware, and that choice is of course an iPad.
People aren't stupid. Well, most people aren't, and they're not going to waste their hard earned money on pieces of junk. Don't come here crying just because the iPad happens to rule all.
I guess that leaves Google no choice but to stop providing the free services that make Siri possible.
How do we know Apple and Google haven't already worked out a deal to send Siri searches to Google for a flat rate? Just because ads aren't being served doesn't mean Google isn't already cashing in on it.
The competitive threat from Apple is that they could make a deal with, say, Microsoft to let Bing handle backend searches for Siri in the future, not that Apple would get into the search business.
How do we know Apple and Google haven't already worked out a deal to send Siri searches to Google for a flat rate? Just because ads aren't being served doesn't mean Google isn't already cashing in on it.
The competitive threat from Apple is that they could make a deal with, say, Microsoft to let Bing handle backend searches for Siri in the future, not that Apple would get into the search business.
Unless the user specifically requests otherwise, Siri uses the currently selected search engine for any web searches. Google pays Apple significant sums of money (~ USD $100 m) to be the default search engine for Apple iPhone.
Google web searches via Siri do provide advertisements. Web searches via Siri look no different than a standard text-based web search as Siri passes the web search function to Safari and simply provides the text of the search.
Personally, I made a conscious decision to avoid all Google products and services years ago. I use the Yahoo! search engine, I have Yahoo! mail (as well as iCloud>MobileMe>.Mac>iTools). I effectively canceled my GMail and Google+ (which I opened as a courtesy to a good friend who gave me an early invite). I block all ads on my Mac as well.
Google is way too big. Take it apart with a crowbar. Apple's just about there, too. An unregulated corporation is to humanity what a flaming chain saw is to a five-year-old.
No corporation should ever be allowed to even approach a government in terms of power and wealth. Corporate boards don't sit general elections and corporate meetings are held in secret. While they're allegedly responsible to their stockholders, given that a tiny portion of the populace trades nearly all the stock, "stockholder" is nothing a euphemism for "oligarch," and in practice, multinational corporations are seldom held responsible for anything.
Particularly in a country where it's legal, cheap, and accepted for corporate money to openly buy Congressman a six-pack at a time, the whole notion of responsibility would resemble a farce by Moliere, but for the complete absence of wit.
Google's era under Eric Schmidt had involved into multiple crimes in Stanford which is fascism by nature.
Google's Eric Schmidt had abused google resources to financially and politicially supported a criminal suspect named Gabriele Scheler, along with a Stanford Computer Science faculty Sebastian Thrun, against ruling from Stanford and police authorities. During their fight with Stanford, Eric Schmidt's side had murdered an innocent Stanford student May Zhou in 2007 to threaten me and to terrorize Stanford. When they found I would not compromise a bit but actively tried to clarify the case, Eric Schmidt's side did plot a murder on me as well. The only reason they didn't make it a reality is becaue they were closely watched by police and they are afraid of leaving evidence (not becasuse they have any mercy on me as a human being, fascism by nature.) Eric Schmidt lost his CEO position because of his involvment into these crimes. Proof of real names, dates, photos along with a police case number are listed in my blog link [ http://tysurl.com/BsEnQ4 ].
Eric Schmidt and Sebastian Thrun had not paid for their crimes and they would have to.
This would make a good comic book story. I could see Eric Schmidt as evil corporate mastermind.
Google is not a monopoly. Long live Baidu! No seriously, in trying to keep out large Western capitalism, China has ironically created more competition in this market - which is what capitalism would prefer.
Google is way too big. Take it apart with a crowbar. Apple's just about there, too. An unregulated corporation is to humanity what a flaming chain saw is to a five-year-old.
No corporation should ever be allowed to even approach a government in terms of power and wealth. Corporate boards don't sit general elections and corporate meetings are held in secret. While they're allegedly responsible to their stockholders, given that a tiny portion of the populace trades nearly all the stock, "stockholder" is nothing a euphemism for "oligarch," and in practice, multinational corporations are seldom held responsible for anything.
Particularly in a country where it's legal, cheap, and accepted for corporate money to openly buy Congressman a six-pack at a time, the whole notion of responsibility would resemble a farce by Moliere, but for the complete absence of wit.
Did you write this from your iPhone while sitting down at "occupy wall street"?
Like Facebook, yelp, groupon, twitter, I can go on.
Yes, basically the same way Microsoft tried to push internet explorer on everybody who uses windows.
What Microsoft did was completely different. They built IE to look like a part of Windows, and it was, an inseparable part, and they did this because the Internet had caught on, and they were trying to use this fact, along with IE, to show that the Internet was inside of Windows, which built consumer confidence in the product. That's still fine, but then they started supporting proprietary syntax and crap like ActiveX which could only work in IE. That's unfair. If you force or strongly encourage the development community to use MS-specific code in their sites, MacOS and Linux users are just screwed with regard to any sites that use those technologies. By relying on their market share to persuade developers to disregard standards set by the w3c and others, in an attempt to shape the internet so that it only properly functioned in IE, they were acting unfairly.
Surprisingly civil discussion so far involving the Anti-Chri...I mean Google...sorry I get confused when I come on these boards...
You'd swear sometimes that Google supported Osama. -_-
Anywho, I don't see how Google is in violation of Anti-Trust laws.
Buzz probably as you were automatically enrolled in that craptastic attempt at a social network simply by having Gmail.
But I was never forced to join any of their services except that.
The only thing they do is create more products that compete in more markets and try and expand their business...
Not unlike Apple.
Like with tablets, mp3 players, computers, phones, TV boxes, and probably TVs in the future you are free to buy another item. If Apple is what you prefer then you buy it.
Like someone said if Apple forced you to have a Mac in order to use other Apple products then they'd have a problem.
I don't need Gmail, G+, Youtube, etc to use search (or any other item)
I don't see how they are in violation but I'm not that savvy on the laws at play.
Now I am not Google's biggest fan. In fact, I really don't like a lot of what they do, but some of the accusations against them are silly and sad attempts from inferior search engines to try and get into the market with out doing the work it takes to get there. These are some of the accusations that I find silly.
Google is not giving competing search engines a fair opportunity because it does not link to them if you do a Google search for something. Really? I don't think think McDonalds tells you to go to Burger King when you ask them for their burger choices, and I doubt that you can claim foul by McDonalds(food standards not withstanding). Yet this is actually making it into courts across the World against Google.
Google does not list competing services first instead of it's own when you do searches like for map directions. Again really? If I run say a Glass store that offers install services I am not going to offer competing services above my own, that's just stupid business.
Not all the charges against Google are unwarranted, but it appears that there are some cheap shots getting through.
To be fair, why isnt the Senate committee grilling Apple with its monopolistic market share of the Tablet market?
Double standard?
Dont get your hopes up too high Apple fans, because the yard stick to a competitive landscape in the eyes of the Senators is anyone having greater than 90% of any market is deemed a monopoly.
Apple should be next on target.
There's other tablets out there. If you don't want to support Apple, then buy a Samsung or a Xoom.
Comments
People just like Google more.
There's other search engine competition out there. If you don't want to support google, then use Bing or Yahoo.
People just like Google more.
the problem is with Google using their monopoly in search unfairly to gain marketshare in other markets.
And this is the whole point. I love it. Apple really should get into search. They won't, but they should. Just to piss Google off.
So far, Google is using Siri to serve their purpose by trotting it out in front of anti-trust regulators. Picture Alfred E. Neuman as Eric Schmidt saying: "What, me search monopoly?"
the problem is with Google using their monopoly in search unfairly to gain marketshare in other markets.
Like what... Phones?
So... Google can't spend the money they make from searches? Are they forced to give it away or just sit on it?
To be fair, why isnt the Senate committee grilling Apple with its monopolistic market share of the Tablet market?
Apple could have a 99% market share and it wouldn't be monopolistic. You might want to check out what that word means in a dictionary.
It's not Apple's fault that other tablets are being dumped away in drastic firesales and others are quickly collecting dust on store shelves. The reason nobody wants them is because they fucking suck and only mentally ill people or people on welfare would even consider buying these other inferior tablets compared to the iPad. There is only one choice for a tablet if somebody is looking for the best experience on the best hardware, and that choice is of course an iPad.
People aren't stupid. Well, most people aren't, and they're not going to waste their hard earned money on pieces of junk. Don't come here crying just because the iPad happens to rule all.
I guess that leaves Google no choice but to stop providing the free services that make Siri possible.
How do we know Apple and Google haven't already worked out a deal to send Siri searches to Google for a flat rate? Just because ads aren't being served doesn't mean Google isn't already cashing in on it.
The competitive threat from Apple is that they could make a deal with, say, Microsoft to let Bing handle backend searches for Siri in the future, not that Apple would get into the search business.
Like what... Phones?
So... Google can't spend the money they make from searches? Are they forced to give it away or just sit on it?
Like Facebook, yelp, groupon, twitter, I can go on.
Yes, basically the same way Microsoft tried to push internet explorer on everybody who uses windows.
How do we know Apple and Google haven't already worked out a deal to send Siri searches to Google for a flat rate? Just because ads aren't being served doesn't mean Google isn't already cashing in on it.
The competitive threat from Apple is that they could make a deal with, say, Microsoft to let Bing handle backend searches for Siri in the future, not that Apple would get into the search business.
Unless the user specifically requests otherwise, Siri uses the currently selected search engine for any web searches. Google pays Apple significant sums of money (~ USD $100 m) to be the default search engine for Apple iPhone.
Google web searches via Siri do provide advertisements. Web searches via Siri look no different than a standard text-based web search as Siri passes the web search function to Safari and simply provides the text of the search.
Personally, I made a conscious decision to avoid all Google products and services years ago. I use the Yahoo! search engine, I have Yahoo! mail (as well as iCloud>MobileMe>.Mac>iTools). I effectively canceled my GMail and Google+ (which I opened as a courtesy to a good friend who gave me an early invite). I block all ads on my Mac as well.
No corporation should ever be allowed to even approach a government in terms of power and wealth. Corporate boards don't sit general elections and corporate meetings are held in secret. While they're allegedly responsible to their stockholders, given that a tiny portion of the populace trades nearly all the stock, "stockholder" is nothing a euphemism for "oligarch," and in practice, multinational corporations are seldom held responsible for anything.
Particularly in a country where it's legal, cheap, and accepted for corporate money to openly buy Congressman a six-pack at a time, the whole notion of responsibility would resemble a farce by Moliere, but for the complete absence of wit.
Like Facebook, yelp, groupon, twitter, I can go on.
Yes, basically the same way Microsoft tried to push internet explorer on everybody who uses windows.
So does Apple push Safari on iOS users? Nobody forces anyone to use Google products.
Apple chose to use Google services in their applications
Google's era under Eric Schmidt had involved into multiple crimes in Stanford which is fascism by nature.
Google's Eric Schmidt had abused google resources to financially and politicially supported a criminal suspect named Gabriele Scheler, along with a Stanford Computer Science faculty Sebastian Thrun, against ruling from Stanford and police authorities. During their fight with Stanford, Eric Schmidt's side had murdered an innocent Stanford student May Zhou in 2007 to threaten me and to terrorize Stanford. When they found I would not compromise a bit but actively tried to clarify the case, Eric Schmidt's side did plot a murder on me as well. The only reason they didn't make it a reality is becaue they were closely watched by police and they are afraid of leaving evidence (not becasuse they have any mercy on me as a human being, fascism by nature.) Eric Schmidt lost his CEO position because of his involvment into these crimes. Proof of real names, dates, photos along with a police case number are listed in my blog link [ http://tysurl.com/BsEnQ4 ].
Eric Schmidt and Sebastian Thrun had not paid for their crimes and they would have to.
This would make a good comic book story. I could see Eric Schmidt as evil corporate mastermind.
There's other search engine competition out there. If you don't want to support google, then use Bing or Yahoo.
People just like Google more.
I switch to Bing every now and then and it is getting better.
Google is way too big. Take it apart with a crowbar. Apple's just about there, too. An unregulated corporation is to humanity what a flaming chain saw is to a five-year-old.
No corporation should ever be allowed to even approach a government in terms of power and wealth. Corporate boards don't sit general elections and corporate meetings are held in secret. While they're allegedly responsible to their stockholders, given that a tiny portion of the populace trades nearly all the stock, "stockholder" is nothing a euphemism for "oligarch," and in practice, multinational corporations are seldom held responsible for anything.
Particularly in a country where it's legal, cheap, and accepted for corporate money to openly buy Congressman a six-pack at a time, the whole notion of responsibility would resemble a farce by Moliere, but for the complete absence of wit.
Did you write this from your iPhone while sitting down at "occupy wall street"?
Like Facebook, yelp, groupon, twitter, I can go on.
Yes, basically the same way Microsoft tried to push internet explorer on everybody who uses windows.
What Microsoft did was completely different. They built IE to look like a part of Windows, and it was, an inseparable part, and they did this because the Internet had caught on, and they were trying to use this fact, along with IE, to show that the Internet was inside of Windows, which built consumer confidence in the product. That's still fine, but then they started supporting proprietary syntax and crap like ActiveX which could only work in IE. That's unfair. If you force or strongly encourage the development community to use MS-specific code in their sites, MacOS and Linux users are just screwed with regard to any sites that use those technologies. By relying on their market share to persuade developers to disregard standards set by the w3c and others, in an attempt to shape the internet so that it only properly functioned in IE, they were acting unfairly.
Google does not behave in this way.
You'd swear sometimes that Google supported Osama. -_-
Anywho, I don't see how Google is in violation of Anti-Trust laws.
Buzz probably as you were automatically enrolled in that craptastic attempt at a social network simply by having Gmail.
But I was never forced to join any of their services except that.
The only thing they do is create more products that compete in more markets and try and expand their business...
Not unlike Apple.
Like with tablets, mp3 players, computers, phones, TV boxes, and probably TVs in the future you are free to buy another item. If Apple is what you prefer then you buy it.
Like someone said if Apple forced you to have a Mac in order to use other Apple products then they'd have a problem.
I don't need Gmail, G+, Youtube, etc to use search (or any other item)
I don't see how they are in violation but I'm not that savvy on the laws at play.
Google is not giving competing search engines a fair opportunity because it does not link to them if you do a Google search for something. Really? I don't think think McDonalds tells you to go to Burger King when you ask them for their burger choices, and I doubt that you can claim foul by McDonalds(food standards not withstanding). Yet this is actually making it into courts across the World against Google.
Google does not list competing services first instead of it's own when you do searches like for map directions. Again really? If I run say a Glass store that offers install services I am not going to offer competing services above my own, that's just stupid business.
Not all the charges against Google are unwarranted, but it appears that there are some cheap shots getting through.
To be fair, why isnt the Senate committee grilling Apple with its monopolistic market share of the Tablet market?
Double standard?
Dont get your hopes up too high Apple fans, because the yard stick to a competitive landscape in the eyes of the Senators is anyone having greater than 90% of any market is deemed a monopoly.
Apple should be next on target.
There's other tablets out there. If you don't want to support Apple, then buy a Samsung or a Xoom.
Google did not fulfill their promise. What is Google talking about now? They have what they deserve.