Google Chairman Eric tells US senators Apple's Siri could pose 'competitive threat'

145791012

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 232
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Andysol View Post


    Either way, I'm not a fan of anti-trust stuff... Kind of bugs me on a philosophical standpoint (no need for someone to argue their point)



    wow... Just wow.

    Sheep to slaughter much?
  • Reply 122 of 232
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    I don't agree that is classic monopolistic behaviour. On the other hand, there is an interesting point here - if not Android, what choices would the likes of HTC, Samsung and others have? They would have been left to customize Linux on their own or continue with Windows Mobile. I'm not sure the smartphone world would be a better place. Would iPhone alone have pushed MS to retrench and come up with a new approach?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    That's an interesting question, but I don't think WP7 today would be much different without Android because iOS would still the biggest obstacle for MS to overcome in the mobile space. The only difference would likely be Apple having more percentage but MS may still have had close to what it has now with or without Android's presence.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    One difference: Samsung, HTC, etc. would have no alternative to Windows Mobile (sure Samsung can continue to pretend they can roll their own). So perhaps (and I am guessing) the pressure on MS would have been less.



    First of all, these sort of "what if...(we lived in an alternate universe)" questions are somewhat meaningless, because they cannot be answered. But, apart from WP7, and homegrown solutions, What might have been the future of, say, WebOS, if Android were not being given away for "free"?



    So, the argument that the industry "needed" Android, is really nothing more than a disingenuous post hoc rationalization.



    And Android isn't the only case of product dumping by Google, it's their entire MO.
  • Reply 123 of 232
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    Agreed.



    People are arguing over whether Google has a "monopoly" or not but ignoring the fact that true absolute monopolies rarely if ever exist. Oligarchical control is essentially the same thing. In Canada for instance there are three big cell companies that control 80-90% of the market. They are all separate companies and no one has a "monopoly," but they all have the same prices and the same plans and they all treat the customers like dogs.



    Chasing after the "true monopoly" and trying to peg Google or Microsoft with that term is a hopeless and essentially useless task. All of these companies are far too big and have far too much control over our lives. They have more control that the average Government and yet no one voted them in and no one can tell them what to do.



    But that's what happens when you live in an essentially fascist society. :-/



    Hmmm... Not arguing against your whole post but we _did_ "vote them in"... with our dollars (or in this case, eyeballs which amounts to the same thing)! In fact we can "vote them out" in the same way... by not giving them our eyeballs / dollars.



    And that's why they're not a monopoly. Because we do still have viable choices (both Bing and Yahoo work well enough that if you were upset at google you could start using those).



    To me, this is just big government trying to control the private market even more than they already do... and I bet that if you were to trace the money you might find one of their competitors had a hand in "influencing" the government representatives involved...
  • Reply 124 of 232
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    Nope, it's still legal. Charlie Sheen is cruising along quite well.



    Poor old Charlie. When choosing our path to riches we must take our mental health in to account.
  • Reply 125 of 232
    Google are not stupid, its said in the industry that Apple's iADs delivers the best on mobile device advertising. Siri poses a serious threat because its interactive and capable of making Google search irrelevant hence the "Google killer". There's always a bigger fish in the ocean.

    Apple have some very unique technologies which existed before but no one could present them and market them they way they did. Matbe its time to start re inventing themselves like the rest with nokia looking at flexible handsets, htc music etc.



    http://www.gadgetrophy.com/2011/10/u...tmas-2011.html
  • Reply 126 of 232
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    First of all, these sort of "what if...(we lived in an alternate universe)" questions are somewhat meaningless, because they cannot be answered.



    Agreed. But, as *outsiders* (at least I am an outsider), what else are we left with exceptional meaningless discussions. Aside from choosing what products to buy, we have no skin in the game.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    But, apart from WP7, and homegrown solutions, What might have been the future of, say, WebOS, if Android were not being given away for "free"?



    Isn't this a bigger "what if"? Neither Palm nor HP was offering WebOS to 3rd party hardware manufacturers, until very recently (and even that, AFAIK, is hearsay).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    So, the argument that the industry "needed" Android, is really nothing more than a disingenuous post hoc rationalization.



    Post hoc, yes. But again, what else do we have to discuss about? The alternative to post hoc analysis is speculation about the future. How's that more rational? As for disingenuous - you're free to accuse me of that if it pleases you, but I am satisfied with myself that it was a sincere rationalization.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    And Android isn't the only case of product dumping by Google, it's their entire MO.



    That's post hoc analysis, and a baseless one unless you have irrefutable proof of their plans. I'd concede that this business model is interesting to analyze in the context of *dumping*.
  • Reply 127 of 232
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member
    To all those accusing Google of copying Apple, consider this:



    Did Apple copy Google (and many others) by entering the Cloud computing field?



    Did Apple copy Google with its iOS5 notification scheme?



    Did Apple copy Google by adding speech recognition (even if they executed it better)?



    It's a slippery slope.
  • Reply 128 of 232
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by friedmud View Post


    ... To me, this is just big government trying to control the private market even more than they already do...



    So, why is "big government" (that the citizen has some modicum of control over), a bad thing and "big corporations" (which the citizen has no control at all over), "good."



    I don't really expect you to answer anything reasonable here as your comment about how we control companies "through our dollars," shows a rather complete lack of understanding about politics and economics. I'm just pointing out the giant gaping hole in your argument/ideology with the arctic wind raging through it.



    Americans are always going on about the evils of big government but they let huge, un-elected corporations rule the country (and most of the rest of the world), essentially unchecked and without even guidelines as to how these entities are supposed to act, let alone actual rules and regulations.



    Americans are always also going on about "freedom" and letting the people decide what they want to do for themselves, but individual american citizens have demonstrably fewer freedoms than European or Canadian citizens, and no protection at all from corporate "mega-citizens who actually enjoy more rights and freedoms than the people themselves.
  • Reply 129 of 232
    Eric Schmidt is absolutely right, but it won't happen immediately.

    As long as you can get the answer you want (or bypass the answer and go straight to the solution) then you won't really care if it's Google or something else. By bypassing the answer and going straight to the solution I mean that if you can simply have your trip booked automatically, or your movie tickets reserved, or your whatever done for you, then you don't even need an answer; just a "done". I believe that is the future of computing. A very smart butler who knows everything about you and your preferences and those of your friends/family.



    I thought that having a search bar at the top of browsers left Google wide open. After all, if you could get the answer you wanted, then it didn't matter if Google.com had mindshare, no one would be going to the site anyway. Just using whatever search field was default at the top of the screen. I think Microsoft and others missed a big opportunity here by not having a solution that was "good enough" at that point.



    This natural language, solution-based question/command structure is very powerful. I think it's future is more robust than "search". Don't get me wrong.. I think Google has a huge dog in this race and they know it and they could very well win this one too. I'm often too hard on Google because Apple is my favourite company and I consider them a very strong competitor to Apple. Google is the champ of search though and they are right to worry about what Siri is doing. That just means they know it's the right track and will fortify their own efforts in natural language solutions.
  • Reply 130 of 232
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Hello, I'm Eric Schmidt... What, me search monopoly?





    Created on my iPad!







    Whoa! That's creepier than the real thing!

    Alfred E. Neuman even looks like Eric "Chubby Cheeks" Schmidt
  • Reply 131 of 232
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    So, why is "big government" (that the citizen has some modicum of control over), a bad thing and "big corporations" (which the citizen has no control at all over), "good."



    Why is the latest lemon scented detergent more scary to you than 10,000 men at arms?
  • Reply 132 of 232
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    To all those accusing Google of copying Apple, consider this:



    Did Apple copy Google (and many others) by entering the Cloud computing field?



    Did Apple copy Google with its iOS5 notification scheme?



    Did Apple copy Google by adding speech recognition (even if they executed it better)?



    It's a slippery slope.



    1. are you coping someone when you buy a car or are going to take a piss?



    2. no. they improved their own...



    3. apple already had speech recognition.



    did google basically copied apple's iOS style in appearance and apps after they saw it?



    did google hypocritically lied to us, when they say that they are "open", "free", and they "do no evil"?



    is google basically a big and important company but also the current most hypocrite one?



    YES
  • Reply 133 of 232
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post


    is google basically a great company but also the current most hypocrite one?



    YES



    That's far from an objective conclusion.
  • Reply 134 of 232
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,857member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    ...



    Isn't this a bigger "what if"? Neither Palm nor HP was offering WebOS to 3rd party hardware manufacturers, until very recently (and even that, AFAIK, is hearsay).



    ...



    That's post hoc analysis, and a baseless one unless you have irrefutable proof of their plans. I'd concede that this business model is interesting to analyze in the context of *dumping*.



    Well, you're the one who wanted to play the "what if..." game. But it's not a bigger "what if", and it's the whole point of looking at Google's dumping practices. Using their profits from search, they give products away to poison the market for others, classic anti-competitive behavior.



    But, maybe you don't know the meaning of MO -- i.e., Method of Operation -- which is essentially an analysis of past actions, not future.
  • Reply 135 of 232
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    You're asking the wrong person on this one. I always assumed there were pros and cons with performance when using Google's DNS and that it would slow as more users hopped on board so I never tried it.



    Check this out http://code.google.com/p/namebench/
  • Reply 136 of 232
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post


    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.



    Though I agree with much of what you say, when you try to sound intelligent by forming complex sentences with big words, you don't sound any smarter. Actually, you sound dumber because you don't understand how to properly form a complete sentence, don't know where commas go, and don't know when and when not to use conjunctions like "but". As a result, your complex sentences only show your incompetence.



    Sorry, I can't stand it when people try to sound smart by butchering the English language with unnecessary complexity. Plus, I can't stand it when people agree with me politically but are incapable of sounding intelligent.



    My advice: Simple, clear and "correct" language is much more effective, and don't use big words when smaller words work just as well. Ask any English professor, and they'll tell you the same.
  • Reply 137 of 232
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    So, why is "big government" (that the citizen has some modicum of control over), a bad thing and "big corporations" (which the citizen has no control at all over), "good."



    I don't really expect you to answer anything reasonable here as your comment about how we control companies "through our dollars," shows a rather complete lack of understanding about politics and economics. I'm just pointing out the giant gaping hole in your argument/ideology with the arctic wind raging through it.



    Americans are always going on about the evils of big government but they let huge, un-elected corporations rule the country (and most of the rest of the world), essentially unchecked and without even guidelines as to how these entities are supposed to act, let alone actual rules and regulations.



    Americans are always also going on about "freedom" and letting the people decide what they want to do for themselves, but individual american citizens have demonstrably fewer freedoms than European or Canadian citizens, and no protection at all from corporate "mega-citizens who actually enjoy more rights and freedoms than the people themselves.



    My hero?



    Yes...yes you are.
  • Reply 138 of 232
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    So, why is "big government" (that the citizen has some modicum of control over), a bad thing and "big corporations" (which the citizen has no control at all over), "good."



    I don't really expect you to answer anything reasonable here as your comment about how we control companies "through our dollars," shows a rather complete lack of understanding about politics and economics. I'm just pointing out the giant gaping hole in your argument/ideology with the arctic wind raging through it.



    Americans are always going on about the evils of big government but they let huge, un-elected corporations rule the country (and most of the rest of the world), essentially unchecked and without even guidelines as to how these entities are supposed to act, let alone actual rules and regulations.



    Americans are always also going on about "freedom" and letting the people decide what they want to do for themselves, but individual american citizens have demonstrably fewer freedoms than European or Canadian citizens, and no protection at all from corporate "mega-citizens who actually enjoy more rights and freedoms than the people themselves.



    Hear hear.
  • Reply 139 of 232
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Well, you're the one who wanted to play the "what if..." game. But it's not a bigger "what if", and it's the whole point of looking at Google's dumping practices. Using their profits from search, they give products away to poison the market for others, classic anti-competitive behavior.



    But, maybe you don't know the meaning of MO -- i.e., Method of Operation -- which is essentially an analysis of past actions, not future.



    So *what if* is meaningless if postulated by others, but not by you?



    If you want to believe someone doesn't understand MO in order to score a point, go ahead. That really doesn't bother me. According to Dr. David, I also don't know what a mixed metaphor is, I am either some kind of idiot or the debating skills around here are reduced to .... sophomoric levels



    As for whether Google is *dumping* and being anti-competitive, as mentioned above, it is an interesting perspective. Is Amazon dumping too by selling the Fire (maybe the other Kindles too) at a loss? I don't know ... seriously.



    EDIT: Just occurred to me .... what about giving away iTunes? I don't mean just the program itself. Apple has proclaimed more than once that it breaks even on iTunes operations. But that's ok for them as long as this leads to more device sales. Is this dumping too? Is this dramatically different from, dare I say, Google's MO? I don't know ... seriously. I need to look up MO first, not to mention mixed metaphors. Keeping company with intellectual giants gives me so much homework ....
  • Reply 140 of 232
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by drobforever View Post


    The stupid media created a fake target for Google to get away with this prob. Siri is not a threat to Google search as I've said in another thread, what Siri can do right now, are stuffs you won't want to use Google search for. Sad.



    Tell that to Schmidt then, he's the one stating that "Siri is a threat to Google" in front of a senate hearing.



    So is he lying?
Sign In or Register to comment.