Nice to know that you can admit to ripping off code in court and be found guilty, but still pull an A- grade for your behavior. Students everywhere are surely rejoicing.
I am a Realtor in Arizona who drives on an almost daily basis to a variety of properties. Apple Maps has not missed once. Not once. One of my clients was driving their own car and had entered the same addresses on their Android/Google device. I did the same on my iPhone using Apple Maps. Guess what? Their route almost always took them a longer way while I ended up at all of the destinations ahead of schedule. My client commented, saying that he thought Apple Maps didn't work and he had no idea that it actually worked better than the Google Maps on his Samsung Galaxy S3.
This is just the experience of two people in Arizona, but positive nonetheless.
I have already changed the default search engine on my iPhone to yahoo. Apple should buy yahoo and turn it into the best search engine yet. The only google product I use is YouTube and that wasn't created by google.
Because Apple has shown such a positive track record when it comes to deploying its internet-based services? LOL
As for the apple maps vs. google maps, I honestly have been using apple maps since there inception (beta developer versions) and it has never failed me yet in multiple cities, and different areas, Turn by turn has worked flawlessly without problem. Google has a big issue with apple not using there maps because of loosing the ad revenue stream, that is the only reason google built there own stand alone map app and finally coughed up turn by turn and other features that were missing. Apple got tired of not having those features that google told them were "only for android" and did something about it.
Google maps both the old apple maps and the new standalone have flaws, and glitches. Googles mapping system (old apple maps) was horrible on my iphone 3g when i first started using it and directed me to the wrong location quite a few times.
Apples maps is improving day by day and will eventually get all of the kinks worked out. But for me right now Apples maps app does everything I need and does it well with full integration with siri and iOS services. Honestly I dont need google maps for anything at all currently. Others mileage may vary, but like I said in my previous post im happy with google not shoving ads in my face and tracking my every move and selling my demographic to advertisers and the more I can stop that by not using there apps the less irritating and peaceful and private my life will be.
I have already changed the default search engine on my iPhone to yahoo. Apple should buy yahoo and turn it into the best search engine yet. The only google product I use is YouTube and that wasn't created by google.
"Yahoo has entered into an advertising deal with Google by which the search engine giant will run its ads on some of Yahoo’s websites..."
Because Apple has shown such a positive track record when it comes to deploying its internet-based services? LOL
I will give you one caveat Mobile me was not very good and did have a lot of problems. I agree there, but iCloud for me has been seamless and has had very little issues.
In fact it works so well syncing my music, emails, documents, photos, contacts, calendar appointments, bookmarks and tons of other stuff that i dont notice it doing it, which is how it should be. The data just shows up on all of my iDevices and computers. Of which I have many.
There have been a few glitches here and there but have been resolved by a restore from iCloud, and the problem is gone.
Your mileage may vary but for me iCloud has been a very good experience.
"No, he was spinning BS, you know, like you do. " That's the thing really. Often it is a case of the more people attack the less we trust the source. Microsoft are a prime example. Bing has now fallen to 5th. Coincidence?
Google Maps is becoming a joke these days. I can not tell you how many time I am standing in front of a place I was looking for only to have Google Maps stay the location was in a completely different place. They seem to have the biggest issue with places which are on strip malls. To show you how bad it was, I was on an Android phone which is suppose to be better than the apple version on IOS5 on my wife's phone and her google maps showed the location to be in a different place than the Android version. It obvious to me that Google is using two different databases for their maping programs one for IOS devices and one for Android.
Oh BTW, my tomtom got it right, seem like their POI database is much better, I trust my TomTom over google maps any day.
Even among Android devices it is not consistent, I was on a recent trip and used turn by turn on my android phone and it got me exactly where i needed to go. However the person i was traveling with got lost going to the same location. He was using a different phone and version of Android, which obviously had a different map version. It found the right location but could not resolve the fact the place was on on the highway but in a business park next to the highway. It told them down the highway, made them get off the exit go over the over pass then back on the highway heading in the opposite direction they were coming from. Then told them to stop on the highway since they reach their destination. Talk about taking you life in your hands. The person had to go ask someone for directions to how to get into the business park.
The other thing I have notice is Google seems to know they have lots of wrong places in their data base, some of these wrong location have an extra item that show up when you click on the marker it will ask you if this marker is in the right place. However, most times this question comes up on location which are already in the right place, it the one which are wrong which do not allow you to tell them it is wrong.
I am not saying Apple product is better since I have very limited experience with it, But Google maps is starting to have some serious issues and I am not talking about it 3D picture looking wrong or Street View being wrong. Their address database is screw up and sometime it does not even know a road exist that has been around for 100 yrs.
Google is also rely in the user to tell them things are wrong, so if someone wanted to mess with google they can begin reporting things which are obviously correct as wrong. How much time do you thing Google invest in fact checking and making sure it is correct.
I will give you one caveat Mobile me was not very good and did have a lot of problems. I agree there, but iCloud for me has been seamless and has had very little issues.
In fact it works so well syncing my music, emails, documents, photos, contacts, calendar appointments, bookmarks and tons of other stuff that i dont notice it doing it, which is how it should be. The data just shows up on all of my iDevices and computers. Of which I have many.
There have been a few glitches here and there but have been resolved by a restore from iCloud, and the problem is gone.
Your mileage may vary but for me iCloud has been a very good experience.
While iCloud isn't a total disaster, I consider it to be a massive step backwards. I had no problem syncing my bookmarks, appointments, etc with MobileMe. iCloud adds nothing for my purposes. In fact, since there are some glitches (particularly with calendars), it's not all that great.
However, the document storage part is much worse than iDisk. With iDisk, I could sync ALL my files and store them the way I wanted to. I had ALL my files mirrored on iDisk so that all my computers were constantly up to date. With iCloud, it only works with some of my files - and loses its usefulness. Since I would have to use iCloud PLUS something else, it doesn't make sense to use iCloud. I might as well just use DropBox or something else.
Really? Where did your article say Google was publishing books without the author's permission? Perhaps spending less time laughing and more time reading might be in order. I linked the complete history for you in my previous post, which includes Google Print, if you're at all concerned with what Google say they intended to accomplish rather than what you'd apparently rather think it was.
Bury your head in the sand if you wish. Fortunately, not everyone accepts Google's crap without question:
"The Association of American Publishers (AAP) today announced the filing of a lawsuit against Google over its plans to digitally copy and distribute copyrighted works without permission of the copyright owners."
What part of 'distribute' do you not understand?
Well of course you're never wrong. . . What part of "distribute" means the same as they're publishing a book, and when did a claim made by a litigant become true simply because they said so? By your inferred rule Apple would have been found guilty hundreds of times already.
Publishing books as you claim they were doing is a far cry from snippets of a book delivered in a web-search result, which is what they actually did in a Google search. Even your new link doesn't claim Google is publishing books without the author's permission. Keep looking. It's gotta be out there, as evil as you apparently consider this devious plan to be.
By the way the AAP is the group that settled with Google.
However, the document storage part is much worse than iDisk. With iDisk, I could sync ALL my files and store them the way I wanted to. I had ALL my files mirrored on iDisk so that all my computers were constantly up to date. With iCloud, it only works with some of my files - and loses its usefulness. Since I would have to use iCloud PLUS something else, it doesn't make sense to use iCloud. I might as well just use DropBox or something else.
Totally agree. I used iDisk all the time just as a quick way to copy projects from my work computer to my MBP or home iMac so I could continue working on them. Now with iCloud that is impossible. I have not put even one file on iCloud. I whipped together my own file management service over http which I run on a server in our datacenter. It works pretty much like Dropbox and has the added security of being private.
As for the Google Books project, they're also partnered with dozens of universities and libraries, as well as settling any remaining issues with book publishers. They're good with it for now. The settlement with authors was disapproved by a judge so that remains an issue. But Google wasn't "publishing books" without the authors' consent in the first place AFAIK.
OK, this is simply a brazen lie. Of course they were, and there is no possibility to deny it. The fact the they "partnered" with universities is irrelevant since those entities didn't own the copyrights either. The best you get out of those "partnerships" is that Google conspired with dozens of universities and libraries to commit thousands of copyright violations.
Two things. First, shortly after Apple Maps caused somebody problems in Australia, Google's Maps did the same. So not sure why Google is talking here. Second, I usually use Navigon, and thought I would try Apple's Maps again around where I live in Ann Arbor Michigan. My experience is Apple's maps are better looking than Google's, and they render faster. I also find the App has no problem with street locations and names. The weak part of the product is Apple's reliance on Yelp for Point of Data information. Yesterday, Yelp had Lowes, Kroger, and Home Goods on the wrong side of the street a block off. I don't think this causes problems when getting driving directions because Apple doesn't rely on Yelp for address information when giving directions. Yet, it is annoying if you are trying to find something based on what you see on the Map.
It will be interesting to see how Apple fixes the Map App. It is getting data from other sources, and my understanding is it has to rely on the other sources to correct data errors (e.g. yelp). Google's advantage is it has a staff that can correct errors with location data on the fly without going to a third party to do it.
Really? Where did your article say Google was publishing books without the author's permission? Perhaps spending less time laughing and more time reading might be in order. I linked the complete history for you in my previous post, which includes Google Print, if you're at all concerned with what Google say they intended to accomplish rather than what you'd apparently rather think it was.
They made them available on the internet without the copyright holder's permission. And, frankly, it doesn't require publishing to commit a copyright violation. Simply making a single illegal copy is the copyright violation. Making additional copies and distributing them -- i.e., returning book content to a web browser -- are separate offenses.
Your lies have simply gone too far in this instance. There is absolutely no possibility of credibly denying that Google broke the law by committing thousands of copyright violations. Brazenly attempting to do so shows us your true character and complete lack of honesty or decency.
OK, this is simply a brazen lie. Of course they were, and there is no possibility to deny it. The fact the they "partnered" with universities is irrelevant since those entities didn't own the copyrights either. The best you get out of those "partnerships" is that Google conspired with dozens of universities and libraries to commit thousands of copyright violations.
Yes, but the real issue is does the copying of the copyrighted material amount to copyright infringement? Not all copying of copyright works for commercial purposes amounts to infringement. Google is relying on a fair-use defense, which I think is a valid defense. What Google did wasn't much different than what Sony did when it came out with its Beta Max players that allowed people to copy copyrighted works from the TV. Content holders argued that Sony was liable for contributory copyright infringement. The Supreme Court sided with Sony claiming that Sony's facilitation of the copying of copyrighted works was fair-use largely because Sony was doing something that advanced the public good in a way that didn't significantly deprive the copyright holders of income.
Google was definitely benefiting the public in a way that didn't injury copyright holders. If anything, Google was going to make them more money because all those works that largely were out of print could easily be located. Google would show people excerpts of the works, and tell people where to acquire the works. In some cases, Google would have offered to sell people the works with the authors' permission. Since copyright infringement liability is huge, Google, unlike Sony, decided to opt for trying to settle the matter. I wish Google would have fought it as it seems like a straight forward fair-use defense.
Totally agree. I used iDisk all the time just as a quick way to copy projects from my work computer to my MBP or home iMac so I could continue working on them. Now with iCloud that is impossible. I have not put even one file on iCloud. I whipped together my own file management service over http which I run on a server in our datacenter. It works pretty much like Dropbox and has the added security of being private.
I haven't played with "Back to my Mac", but need to see if that will allow me to do it from remote locations.
They made them available on the internet without the copyright holder's permission. And, frankly, it doesn't require publishing to commit a copyright violation. Simply making a single illegal copy is the copyright violation. Making additional copies and distributing them -- i.e., returning book content to a web browser -- are separate offenses.
Your lies have simply gone too far in this instance. There is absolutely no possibility of credibly denying that Google broke the law by committing thousands of copyright violations. Brazenly attempting to do so shows us your true character and complete lack of honesty or decency.
Your words are harsh, and you are being dishonest. Google's goal was never to publish the whole works unless the works were in the public domain or the Universities in question owned the copyrights to academic works. Google was trying to do two things. First, make the text of the books available to search inquiry. If somebody searched for a particular topic, it would have gave users the option to include books in the result. It was only going to show snippets of works that were covered by copyright. Second, Google was going to try to form partnerships with authors to join up on selling the electronic copies that were protected or tell people where they could find these works.
If you go to Google Books now, it tells users where to find the whole works, including stores other than Google. This can only help the authors, and it certainly benefits users.
Again, Google undeniably copied the works, but a copyright is not an absolute monopoly. A copyright has to be viewed in the context of its original purpose to motivate authors to create works for the public benefit. When a court is deciding whether a copy is fair-use it balances four factors. The four factors judges consider are:
the purpose and character of the use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
When balancing these four factors a Court would likely find Google's actions were very similar to Sony's. Like Sony, Google is/was copying whole works. However, the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted works, and the effect of the use upon a potential market all work in Google's favor.
Comments
I am a Realtor in Arizona who drives on an almost daily basis to a variety of properties. Apple Maps has not missed once. Not once. One of my clients was driving their own car and had entered the same addresses on their Android/Google device. I did the same on my iPhone using Apple Maps. Guess what? Their route almost always took them a longer way while I ended up at all of the destinations ahead of schedule. My client commented, saying that he thought Apple Maps didn't work and he had no idea that it actually worked better than the Google Maps on his Samsung Galaxy S3.
This is just the experience of two people in Arizona, but positive nonetheless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosslad
I have already changed the default search engine on my iPhone to yahoo. Apple should buy yahoo and turn it into the best search engine yet. The only google product I use is YouTube and that wasn't created by google.
Because Apple has shown such a positive track record when it comes to deploying its internet-based services? LOL
As for the apple maps vs. google maps, I honestly have been using apple maps since there inception (beta developer versions) and it has never failed me yet in multiple cities, and different areas, Turn by turn has worked flawlessly without problem. Google has a big issue with apple not using there maps because of loosing the ad revenue stream, that is the only reason google built there own stand alone map app and finally coughed up turn by turn and other features that were missing. Apple got tired of not having those features that google told them were "only for android" and did something about it.
Google maps both the old apple maps and the new standalone have flaws, and glitches. Googles mapping system (old apple maps) was horrible on my iphone 3g when i first started using it and directed me to the wrong location quite a few times.
Apples maps is improving day by day and will eventually get all of the kinks worked out. But for me right now Apples maps app does everything I need and does it well with full integration with siri and iOS services. Honestly I dont need google maps for anything at all currently. Others mileage may vary, but like I said in my previous post im happy with google not shoving ads in my face and tracking my every move and selling my demographic to advertisers and the more I can stop that by not using there apps the less irritating and peaceful and private my life will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosslad
I have already changed the default search engine on my iPhone to yahoo. Apple should buy yahoo and turn it into the best search engine yet. The only google product I use is YouTube and that wasn't created by google.
"Yahoo has entered into an advertising deal with Google by which the search engine giant will run its ads on some of Yahoo’s websites..."
http://techcircle.vccircle.com/2013/02/08/yahoo-signs-an-online-advertising-deal-with-google/
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist
Because Apple has shown such a positive track record when it comes to deploying its internet-based services? LOL
I will give you one caveat Mobile me was not very good and did have a lot of problems. I agree there, but iCloud for me has been seamless and has had very little issues.
In fact it works so well syncing my music, emails, documents, photos, contacts, calendar appointments, bookmarks and tons of other stuff that i dont notice it doing it, which is how it should be. The data just shows up on all of my iDevices and computers. Of which I have many.
There have been a few glitches here and there but have been resolved by a restore from iCloud, and the problem is gone.
Your mileage may vary but for me iCloud has been a very good experience.
"No, he was spinning BS, you know, like you do. " That's the thing really. Often it is a case of the more people attack the less we trust the source. Microsoft are a prime example. Bing has now fallen to 5th. Coincidence?
Google Maps is becoming a joke these days. I can not tell you how many time I am standing in front of a place I was looking for only to have Google Maps stay the location was in a completely different place. They seem to have the biggest issue with places which are on strip malls. To show you how bad it was, I was on an Android phone which is suppose to be better than the apple version on IOS5 on my wife's phone and her google maps showed the location to be in a different place than the Android version. It obvious to me that Google is using two different databases for their maping programs one for IOS devices and one for Android.
Oh BTW, my tomtom got it right, seem like their POI database is much better, I trust my TomTom over google maps any day.
Even among Android devices it is not consistent, I was on a recent trip and used turn by turn on my android phone and it got me exactly where i needed to go. However the person i was traveling with got lost going to the same location. He was using a different phone and version of Android, which obviously had a different map version. It found the right location but could not resolve the fact the place was on on the highway but in a business park next to the highway. It told them down the highway, made them get off the exit go over the over pass then back on the highway heading in the opposite direction they were coming from. Then told them to stop on the highway since they reach their destination. Talk about taking you life in your hands. The person had to go ask someone for directions to how to get into the business park.
The other thing I have notice is Google seems to know they have lots of wrong places in their data base, some of these wrong location have an extra item that show up when you click on the marker it will ask you if this marker is in the right place. However, most times this question comes up on location which are already in the right place, it the one which are wrong which do not allow you to tell them it is wrong.
I am not saying Apple product is better since I have very limited experience with it, But Google maps is starting to have some serious issues and I am not talking about it 3D picture looking wrong or Street View being wrong. Their address database is screw up and sometime it does not even know a road exist that has been around for 100 yrs.
Google is also rely in the user to tell them things are wrong, so if someone wanted to mess with google they can begin reporting things which are obviously correct as wrong. How much time do you thing Google invest in fact checking and making sure it is correct.
While iCloud isn't a total disaster, I consider it to be a massive step backwards. I had no problem syncing my bookmarks, appointments, etc with MobileMe. iCloud adds nothing for my purposes. In fact, since there are some glitches (particularly with calendars), it's not all that great.
However, the document storage part is much worse than iDisk. With iDisk, I could sync ALL my files and store them the way I wanted to. I had ALL my files mirrored on iDisk so that all my computers were constantly up to date. With iCloud, it only works with some of my files - and loses its usefulness. Since I would have to use iCloud PLUS something else, it doesn't make sense to use iCloud. I might as well just use DropBox or something else.
iTunes is one of the largest online retailers in the world and just sold it 25 billionth song. Sounds reasonably successful to me.
Bury your head in the sand if you wish. Fortunately, not everyone accepts Google's crap without question:
http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2060688/Association-of-American-Publishers-Sues-Google-over-Library-Digitization-Plan
"The Association of American Publishers (AAP) today announced the filing of a lawsuit against Google over its plans to digitally copy and distribute copyrighted works without permission of the copyright owners."
What part of 'distribute' do you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2060688/Association-of-American-Publishers-Sues-Google-over-Library-Digitization-Plan
"The Association of American Publishers (AAP) today announced the filing of a lawsuit against Google over its plans to digitally copy and distribute copyrighted works without permission of the copyright owners."
What part of 'distribute' do you not understand?
Well of course you're never wrong. . . What part of "distribute" means the same as they're publishing a book, and when did a claim made by a litigant become true simply because they said so? By your inferred rule Apple would have been found guilty hundreds of times already.
Publishing books as you claim they were doing is a far cry from snippets of a book delivered in a web-search result, which is what they actually did in a Google search. Even your new link doesn't claim Google is publishing books without the author's permission. Keep looking. It's gotta be out there, as evil as you apparently consider this devious plan to be.
By the way the AAP is the group that settled with Google.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2012/10/04/google-settles-with-publisher-group-aap.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
However, the document storage part is much worse than iDisk. With iDisk, I could sync ALL my files and store them the way I wanted to. I had ALL my files mirrored on iDisk so that all my computers were constantly up to date. With iCloud, it only works with some of my files - and loses its usefulness. Since I would have to use iCloud PLUS something else, it doesn't make sense to use iCloud. I might as well just use DropBox or something else.
Totally agree. I used iDisk all the time just as a quick way to copy projects from my work computer to my MBP or home iMac so I could continue working on them. Now with iCloud that is impossible. I have not put even one file on iCloud. I whipped together my own file management service over http which I run on a server in our datacenter. It works pretty much like Dropbox and has the added security of being private.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
As for the Google Books project, they're also partnered with dozens of universities and libraries, as well as settling any remaining issues with book publishers. They're good with it for now. The settlement with authors was disapproved by a judge so that remains an issue. But Google wasn't "publishing books" without the authors' consent in the first place AFAIK.
OK, this is simply a brazen lie. Of course they were, and there is no possibility to deny it. The fact the they "partnered" with universities is irrelevant since those entities didn't own the copyrights either. The best you get out of those "partnerships" is that Google conspired with dozens of universities and libraries to commit thousands of copyright violations.
Two things. First, shortly after Apple Maps caused somebody problems in Australia, Google's Maps did the same. So not sure why Google is talking here. Second, I usually use Navigon, and thought I would try Apple's Maps again around where I live in Ann Arbor Michigan. My experience is Apple's maps are better looking than Google's, and they render faster. I also find the App has no problem with street locations and names. The weak part of the product is Apple's reliance on Yelp for Point of Data information. Yesterday, Yelp had Lowes, Kroger, and Home Goods on the wrong side of the street a block off. I don't think this causes problems when getting driving directions because Apple doesn't rely on Yelp for address information when giving directions. Yet, it is annoying if you are trying to find something based on what you see on the Map.
It will be interesting to see how Apple fixes the Map App. It is getting data from other sources, and my understanding is it has to rely on the other sources to correct data errors (e.g. yelp). Google's advantage is it has a staff that can correct errors with location data on the fly without going to a third party to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Really? Where did your article say Google was publishing books without the author's permission? Perhaps spending less time laughing and more time reading might be in order. I linked the complete history for you in my previous post, which includes Google Print, if you're at all concerned with what Google say they intended to accomplish rather than what you'd apparently rather think it was.
They made them available on the internet without the copyright holder's permission. And, frankly, it doesn't require publishing to commit a copyright violation. Simply making a single illegal copy is the copyright violation. Making additional copies and distributing them -- i.e., returning book content to a web browser -- are separate offenses.
Your lies have simply gone too far in this instance. There is absolutely no possibility of credibly denying that Google broke the law by committing thousands of copyright violations. Brazenly attempting to do so shows us your true character and complete lack of honesty or decency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Publishing books as you claim they were doing is a far cry from snippets of a book delivered in a web-search result
No, it's really not. You are simply grasping at false semantic technicalities in a feeble attempt to cover up your lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
OK, this is simply a brazen lie. Of course they were, and there is no possibility to deny it. The fact the they "partnered" with universities is irrelevant since those entities didn't own the copyrights either. The best you get out of those "partnerships" is that Google conspired with dozens of universities and libraries to commit thousands of copyright violations.
Yes, but the real issue is does the copying of the copyrighted material amount to copyright infringement? Not all copying of copyright works for commercial purposes amounts to infringement. Google is relying on a fair-use defense, which I think is a valid defense. What Google did wasn't much different than what Sony did when it came out with its Beta Max players that allowed people to copy copyrighted works from the TV. Content holders argued that Sony was liable for contributory copyright infringement. The Supreme Court sided with Sony claiming that Sony's facilitation of the copying of copyrighted works was fair-use largely because Sony was doing something that advanced the public good in a way that didn't significantly deprive the copyright holders of income.
Google was definitely benefiting the public in a way that didn't injury copyright holders. If anything, Google was going to make them more money because all those works that largely were out of print could easily be located. Google would show people excerpts of the works, and tell people where to acquire the works. In some cases, Google would have offered to sell people the works with the authors' permission. Since copyright infringement liability is huge, Google, unlike Sony, decided to opt for trying to settle the matter. I wish Google would have fought it as it seems like a straight forward fair-use defense.
I haven't played with "Back to my Mac", but need to see if that will allow me to do it from remote locations.
Imaps vs Google maps in draw....
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
They made them available on the internet without the copyright holder's permission. And, frankly, it doesn't require publishing to commit a copyright violation. Simply making a single illegal copy is the copyright violation. Making additional copies and distributing them -- i.e., returning book content to a web browser -- are separate offenses.
Your lies have simply gone too far in this instance. There is absolutely no possibility of credibly denying that Google broke the law by committing thousands of copyright violations. Brazenly attempting to do so shows us your true character and complete lack of honesty or decency.
Your words are harsh, and you are being dishonest. Google's goal was never to publish the whole works unless the works were in the public domain or the Universities in question owned the copyrights to academic works. Google was trying to do two things. First, make the text of the books available to search inquiry. If somebody searched for a particular topic, it would have gave users the option to include books in the result. It was only going to show snippets of works that were covered by copyright. Second, Google was going to try to form partnerships with authors to join up on selling the electronic copies that were protected or tell people where they could find these works.
If you go to Google Books now, it tells users where to find the whole works, including stores other than Google. This can only help the authors, and it certainly benefits users.
Again, Google undeniably copied the works, but a copyright is not an absolute monopoly. A copyright has to be viewed in the context of its original purpose to motivate authors to create works for the public benefit. When a court is deciding whether a copy is fair-use it balances four factors. The four factors judges consider are:
the purpose and character of the use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
When balancing these four factors a Court would likely find Google's actions were very similar to Sony's. Like Sony, Google is/was copying whole works. However, the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted works, and the effect of the use upon a potential market all work in Google's favor.