It works pretty much like Dropbox and has the added security of being private.
Private being the key word here. How many times has the security of Dropbox been compromised? Three times? And yes, jragosta, I miss iDisk as well, fully agree with your post.
Last night's QI recorded in 2009 played on ABC in Australia last night pointed out the flaws a SatNav (which is very popular in the UK). It claimed something like 400,000 accidents were put down to Satnav directions (way before iOS maps). Any kind of GPS gives bad directions - often taking you on non-optimal but major highway routes when a minor road will get you straight there.
The moral is not to trust everything to satnav/GPS - use your brain.
I recently ran both iOS maps and Google maps (invented here in Sydney!) on a long trip - they just suck in different ways. I think Google is trying to pin the common problems with GPS on iOS maps, which will improve anyway.
The other point on would you trust Google or your mayor - well publicly elected officials are supposed to be held accountable. Private companies can pretty much get away with what they will. Has anyone ever stopped to think that private companies are in effect communist regimes and would you trust a communist regime? Most of us in capitalist societies spend our lives ruled by a communist system of one kind or another.
Stupid google is on a propaganda campaign against apple. They're all taking turns being snarky, smug and insulting. Well F U google.
I think the best way for us iOS and OS X users to react to that attitude boycott them. I've stopped using most Google apps and services minus some very basic and non-personal ones.
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.
Yes, you've said this before, that you're a lawyer, that you took classes in copyright law...
.. and you still have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Google's copying of these books doesn't even remotely qualify as fair use in any way. They copied them in their entirety, they copied them with the intent to re-publish them, and they copied with the intent to use them to directly and indirectly generate revenues. And they did all this on a wholesale scale. And, no, they did not do it for educational, research or other purposes outlined as potentially fair use and they did not do it for the public good.
However, you illustrate well the point that when hiring a lawyer, you should make sure you get one who specializes in the area of law concerned, otherwise he may not have a clue what he's doing.
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.
Revisionist history. Google was trying to do one thing, make money off these books without the copyright holder's permission. End of story. Anything else is a fairy tale.
... 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.
...
And it's interesting that you've paraphrased the law to try to make your point, leaving out important points, here's the actual law [emphasis mine]:
Quote:
US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
1. Since Google copied all sorts of works, no generalization can be made in that regard. However, they did so entirely for commercial purposes, where the intent is clearly established that such purposes do not fall under fair use. That someone could then use the illegal copies Google made for, "nonprofit educational purposes," or for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research," is not relevant since that wasn't Google's purpose. Google's purpose was to profit by republishing these works.
2. Again, since Google copied all sorts of works, no generalization can be made on this factor.
3. They copied entire works, which would generally disqualify the copying from fair use, and especially when done for commercial purposes.
4. Again, because they engaged in wholesale infringement, this is difficult to gauge, but the effect has to be negative if universities and libraries no longer have to purchase copies (no wonder they got involved), and for low demand works, this would effectively destroy the market for them.
Furthermore, the wholesale, willful and methodical nature of the infringement also counts against them. Fair use was not intended to allow such wholesale copying of works, but to allow works and extracts from works to be used for the purposes outlined above. There was never any intent to allow someone to build a virtual library by invoking this clause. Google has absolutely no defense by invoking fair use, and it's either ignorance, fantasy or disingenuousness to say they do.
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.
Thanks for the detailed response and analysis. A recent court ruling concerning the Google Books Project and the partner libraries addressed those same four points, and agreed with you on each of them. Guess you were paying attention in law school after all.
"The Author's Guild has suffered another major setback in its fight to stop Google's ambitious book-scanning project. The Guild lost a key ally when Google settled with a coalition of major publishers last week. Now a judge has ruled that the libraries who have provided Google with their books to scan are protected by copyright's fair use doctrine. While the decision doesn't guarantee that Google will win—that's still to be decided in a separate lawsuit—the reasoning of this week's decision bodes well for Google's case."
"There are four factors the courts consider in fair use cases. Judge Harold Baer sided squarely with the libraries on all four factors."
"The copyright scholar (and sometime Ars contributor) James Grimmelmann called the ruling a "near-complete victory" for the libraries. Indeed, he said, the decision "makes the case seem so lopsided that it makes the appeal into an uphill battle. Perhaps together with the AAP [American Association of Publishers] settlement, this is a moment for a reevaluation of the Authors Guild’s suit against Google. My estimate of the likelihood of settlement just went up substantially."
Techdirt has an update on the story saying the Author's Guild want's to appeal anyway, and also offering more details from Google's side.
Thanks for the detailed response and analysis. A recent court ruling concerning the Google Books Project and the partner libraries addressed those same four points, and agreed with you on each of them. Guess you were paying attention in law school after all.
"The Author's Guild has suffered another major setback in its fight to stop Google's ambitious book-scanning project. The Guild lost a key ally when Google settled with a coalition of major publishers last week. Now a judge has ruled that the libraries who have provided Google with their books to scan are protected by copyright's fair use doctrine. While the decision doesn't guarantee that Google will win—that's still to be decided in a separate lawsuit—the reasoning of this week's decision bodes well for Google's case."
"There are four factors the courts consider in fair use cases. Judge Harold Baer sided squarely with the libraries on all four factors."
"The copyright scholar (and sometime Ars contributor) James Grimmelmann called the ruling a "near-complete victory" for the libraries. Indeed, he said, the decision "makes the case seem so lopsided that it makes the appeal into an uphill battle. Perhaps together with the AAP [American Association of Publishers] settlement, this is a moment for a reevaluation of the Authors Guild’s suit against Google. My estimate of the likelihood of settlement just went up substantially."
All this means is that the libraries aren't going to be held accountable as co-conspirators. Nice try, though.
News Flash, I just read in Yahoo! that Eric Schmidt is selling off 42% of his stake in Google. What does he know that he's not saying? Does he see the writing on the wall that Google is finished and it's just a matter of time before Google gives up? If Apple is slamming down lots of iPhone/IPad tablet business in government, corporate, and education market, and Google just can't make the in roads, then it's just a matter of time. I think maybe Google is believing their own media hype.
I actually like Apple Maps and haven't found enough "deal breakers" to make me want to switch to a different Mapping app, but if I need to, I know there are others. But so far, I typically know where i'm going before i go there. I've never had a GPS navigation system in any car that I've owned. In fact, for all of the people that have one, I rarely see people use them. I think they are for people that travel out of their local area, for people that work in the field where they constantly have to break out a Thomas guide.
What does he know that he's not saying? Does he see the writing on the wall that Google is finished and it's just a matter of time before Google gives up?
That's wishful thinking from an Apple fan, I think. Nothing more.
Some people keep saying this, but that's not my recollection, nor does it match up with old Google Maps reviews, which leaned towards high praise after it came out in 2005. E.g.
About.com - 2005. Five stars. "Google Maps <span style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.231;">are incredible. They're very intuitive, well designed, interactive, and the search capabilities are amazing. While there are still some snags, the site is one to be utilized if you're looking for directions or maps of anyplace."</span>
<span style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.231;">CNET - 2006. "</span> <span style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.231;">Google's map and directions service,</span>
<a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6350783.html?" style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.231;" target="_blank">Google Maps Beta</a> <span style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.231;">, is out in a full release version called Google Local. Google Local rolls the phone book, maps, and driving directions into one big, interactive ball that's handy and just plain fun to use."</span>
Google Maps was definitely one of my favorite smartphone apps back in 2006. (Plus everyone loved their satellite views starting in 2005.)
Heck, Apple bent over backwards to put Google Maps into the iPhone at the last minute for its debut in 2007. You don't do that for junk.
Even more importantly for the iPhone, Google had been using Maps to collect cell tower stats from all the smartphones with GPS that had come before it. This allowed the GPS-less first iPhone to later get location services by cell tower id.
So, no, I don't remember Google Maps getting panned at all. Perhaps you're thinking of other, earlier map services.
Amazing memory you have. So every review was positive then? No one had any problems what so ever?
There are lots of problems with google maps now, it's 2013 by the way.
Apple bending over backwards, so you worked at Apple at that time, you must have to make this remark?
They did not bend over backwards, they needed a map service and google's was the most mature at the time, and both companies had a much better relationship with one another back then.
Stop spinning, you are making me dizzy.
<span style="color:rgb(68,68,68);font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:24px;">"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..."</span>
You never stop do you?
At every opportunity, you rubbish Apple, directly or indirectly, I give you credence though, you do it really well, I call u an über troll.
May I ask why? I know it's to instill a sense of balance in us, to enlighten us, to show us the errors of our way?
Now I know, Apple is crap and the rest are the best. Thanks.
Where can I make my donation?
There are Forum members who, in their lame attempts (you know who u are), try to spin it, but nothing is accidental, everything that is said/written in the media has a purpose. I'm not going to spend my time here explaining it to you all, simply do the research and draw your own conclusions. Google are in damage control having realized the enormity of the problem they now face with Apple's own maps. Missing all that data and not being able to swamp users with ads must be not only bad business-wise but personally galling to the upper echelons at google land. Why else take any and every opportunity to belittle Apple? On a personal level, I despise everything google stands for. What intrigues me is that people simply don't care what they are doing, I guess call it apathy or ignorance. A company that will read personal emails and then spam that person with ads is simply too much for me.
Going of at a tangent, why has wonderful google removed one of the filter options in youtube? I don't have flash installed and in the past one could filter by google's video standard version that they thought would and should replace HTML5. It's now gone. I guess another one of their pet projects that has quietly died.
What does Apple have to do with Yahoo? Perhaps you're confused because I'm not aware of anything.
You are funny, not.
A poster mentioned they hate google and will try and be google-free, they write yahoo would be their default search engine. Yet you had to jump in and mention yahoo-google business arrangement.
Now do you get it? Or u want me to use blocks for u?
A poster mentioned they hate google and will try and be google-free, they write yahoo would be their default search engine. Yet you had to jump in and mention yahoo-google business arrangement.
Now do you get it? Or u want me to use blocks for u?
Since the OP was trying to avoid Google I think he'd appreciate knowing that Yahoo may also be using Google for targeted ads, wouldn't you agree? Better than discovering it later on.
As for whether you should block me, that's completely your choice. There's a few thousand visitors here that might discover some nugget of knowledge in one of my posts, or perhaps look at something differently than they did before. You may not be one of those. If I'm right then ignore wouldn't be inappropriate.
EDIT: It looks like English isn't your first language so perhaps you didn't intend to sound as snippy/arrogant as you did. If so my apology for misreading your tone.
Enough of the Google Maps is always right mess. Google Maps is frequently wrong. Addresses are frequently numbered wrong. I just googled my childhood apartment on Herkimer street in Brooklyn - and it's still wrong. Subways are also frequently mislabeled or outdated.
It's actually quite sad to see how frequently my friends end up in the wrong place and assume they've done something wrong because they accept Google Maps as law.
Last week my wife and I were out on a stormy night with our baby. She was following the directions from Google Maps and the place we arrived was completely wrong. She was so confused and started double-checking the address and her emails and wondering what she entered wrong. Then I re-mapped the address on my phone with Apple maps and found we were 7 city blocks away from the correct spot. Thanks Google! Thanks Apple.
Personally, I ain't trying to find a water station in the middle of the Australian outback, I'm just a NYC guy who travels upstate, and to Philly and northern Michigan every couple months; and Apple Maps hasn't led me wrong once %u2013 yet. I'm sure after I've used it for several years I will come across some errors, but Google Maps should by no means be accepted as infallible either.
Amazing memory you have. So every review was positive then? No one had any problems what so ever?
As I said, I'm open to someone finding some negative reviews. I couldn't find any, myself. Have you?
And yes, I mentioned that there were problems. That didn't change the reviews.
Quote:
Apple bending over backwards, so you worked at Apple at that time, you must have to make this remark?
Perhaps you're not aware that it was recently revealed that Apple had no Maps app in the iPhone until the last minute. They first met with Google on Halloween, which was only 2-1/2 months before the iPhone was revealed, and both sides worked like crazy to get Maps done in time. Thus the valid phrase, "Apple bent over backwards to put Google Maps into the iPhone at the last minute for its debut in 2007."
Despite your attempt to spin that as negative, it's not. It's just a fact.
Since the OP was trying to avoid Google I think he'd appreciate knowing that Yahoo may also be using Google for targeted ads, wouldn't you agree? Better than discovering it later on.
As for whether you should block me, that's completely your choice. There's a few thousand visitors here that might discover some nugget of knowledge in one of my posts, or perhaps look at something differently than they did before. You may not be one of those. If I'm right then ignore wouldn't be inappropriate.
EDIT: It looks like English isn't your first language so perhaps you didn't intend to sound as snippy/arrogant as you did. If so my apology for misreading your tone.
English is not first language. Pleeeaaaazzzzzeeeeee !
Why would I wat to ignore you ? I did not say that, perhaps English is not your first language?
Comments
Private being the key word here. How many times has the security of Dropbox been compromised? Three times? And yes, jragosta, I miss iDisk as well, fully agree with your post.
The moral is not to trust everything to satnav/GPS - use your brain.
I recently ran both iOS maps and Google maps (invented here in Sydney!) on a long trip - they just suck in different ways. I think Google is trying to pin the common problems with GPS on iOS maps, which will improve anyway.
The other point on would you trust Google or your mayor - well publicly elected officials are supposed to be held accountable. Private companies can pretty much get away with what they will. Has anyone ever stopped to think that private companies are in effect communist regimes and would you trust a communist regime? Most of us in capitalist societies spend our lives ruled by a communist system of one kind or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vqro
Stupid google is on a propaganda campaign against apple. They're all taking turns being snarky, smug and insulting. Well F U google.
I think the best way for us iOS and OS X users to react to that attitude boycott them. I've stopped using most Google apps and services minus some very basic and non-personal ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
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.
Yes, you've said this before, that you're a lawyer, that you took classes in copyright law...
.. and you still have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Google's copying of these books doesn't even remotely qualify as fair use in any way. They copied them in their entirety, they copied them with the intent to re-publish them, and they copied with the intent to use them to directly and indirectly generate revenues. And they did all this on a wholesale scale. And, no, they did not do it for educational, research or other purposes outlined as potentially fair use and they did not do it for the public good.
However, you illustrate well the point that when hiring a lawyer, you should make sure you get one who specializes in the area of law concerned, otherwise he may not have a clue what he's doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
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.
Revisionist history. Google was trying to do one thing, make money off these books without the copyright holder's permission. End of story. Anything else is a fairy tale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
... 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.
...
And it's interesting that you've paraphrased the law to try to make your point, leaving out important points, here's the actual law [emphasis mine]:
Quote:
US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
1. Since Google copied all sorts of works, no generalization can be made in that regard. However, they did so entirely for commercial purposes, where the intent is clearly established that such purposes do not fall under fair use. That someone could then use the illegal copies Google made for, "nonprofit educational purposes," or for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research," is not relevant since that wasn't Google's purpose. Google's purpose was to profit by republishing these works.
2. Again, since Google copied all sorts of works, no generalization can be made on this factor.
3. They copied entire works, which would generally disqualify the copying from fair use, and especially when done for commercial purposes.
4. Again, because they engaged in wholesale infringement, this is difficult to gauge, but the effect has to be negative if universities and libraries no longer have to purchase copies (no wonder they got involved), and for low demand works, this would effectively destroy the market for them.
Furthermore, the wholesale, willful and methodical nature of the infringement also counts against them. Fair use was not intended to allow such wholesale copying of works, but to allow works and extracts from works to be used for the purposes outlined above. There was never any intent to allow someone to build a virtual library by invoking this clause. Google has absolutely no defense by invoking fair use, and it's either ignorance, fantasy or disingenuousness to say they do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
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.
Thanks for the detailed response and analysis. A recent court ruling concerning the Google Books Project and the partner libraries addressed those same four points, and agreed with you on each of them. Guess you were paying attention in law school after all.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/court-rules-book-scanning-is-fair-use-suggesting-google-books-victory/
"The Author's Guild has suffered another major setback in its fight to stop Google's ambitious book-scanning project. The Guild lost a key ally when Google settled with a coalition of major publishers last week. Now a judge has ruled that the libraries who have provided Google with their books to scan are protected by copyright's fair use doctrine. While the decision doesn't guarantee that Google will win—that's still to be decided in a separate lawsuit—the reasoning of this week's decision bodes well for Google's case."
"There are four factors the courts consider in fair use cases. Judge Harold Baer sided squarely with the libraries on all four factors."
"The copyright scholar (and sometime Ars contributor) James Grimmelmann called the ruling a "near-complete victory" for the libraries. Indeed, he said, the decision "makes the case seem so lopsided that it makes the appeal into an uphill battle. Perhaps together with the AAP [American Association of Publishers] settlement, this is a moment for a reevaluation of the Authors Guild’s suit against Google. My estimate of the likelihood of settlement just went up substantially."
Techdirt has an update on the story saying the Author's Guild want's to appeal anyway, and also offering more details from Google's side.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121115/02514721054/book-scanning-as-fair-use-google-makes-its-case-as-authors-guild-appeals-hathitrust-fair-use-ruling.shtml
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Thanks for the detailed response and analysis. A recent court ruling concerning the Google Books Project and the partner libraries addressed those same four points, and agreed with you on each of them. Guess you were paying attention in law school after all.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/court-rules-book-scanning-is-fair-use-suggesting-google-books-victory/
"The Author's Guild has suffered another major setback in its fight to stop Google's ambitious book-scanning project. The Guild lost a key ally when Google settled with a coalition of major publishers last week. Now a judge has ruled that the libraries who have provided Google with their books to scan are protected by copyright's fair use doctrine. While the decision doesn't guarantee that Google will win—that's still to be decided in a separate lawsuit—the reasoning of this week's decision bodes well for Google's case."
"There are four factors the courts consider in fair use cases. Judge Harold Baer sided squarely with the libraries on all four factors."
"The copyright scholar (and sometime Ars contributor) James Grimmelmann called the ruling a "near-complete victory" for the libraries. Indeed, he said, the decision "makes the case seem so lopsided that it makes the appeal into an uphill battle. Perhaps together with the AAP [American Association of Publishers] settlement, this is a moment for a reevaluation of the Authors Guild’s suit against Google. My estimate of the likelihood of settlement just went up substantially."
All this means is that the libraries aren't going to be held accountable as co-conspirators. Nice try, though.
News Flash, I just read in Yahoo! that Eric Schmidt is selling off 42% of his stake in Google. What does he know that he's not saying? Does he see the writing on the wall that Google is finished and it's just a matter of time before Google gives up? If Apple is slamming down lots of iPhone/IPad tablet business in government, corporate, and education market, and Google just can't make the in roads, then it's just a matter of time. I think maybe Google is believing their own media hype.
I actually like Apple Maps and haven't found enough "deal breakers" to make me want to switch to a different Mapping app, but if I need to, I know there are others. But so far, I typically know where i'm going before i go there. I've never had a GPS navigation system in any car that I've owned. In fact, for all of the people that have one, I rarely see people use them. I think they are for people that travel out of their local area, for people that work in the field where they constantly have to break out a Thomas guide.
Originally Posted by drblank
What does he know that he's not saying? Does he see the writing on the wall that Google is finished and it's just a matter of time before Google gives up?
That's wishful thinking from an Apple fan, I think. Nothing more.
Amazing memory you have. So every review was positive then? No one had any problems what so ever?
There are lots of problems with google maps now, it's 2013 by the way.
Apple bending over backwards, so you worked at Apple at that time, you must have to make this remark?
They did not bend over backwards, they needed a map service and google's was the most mature at the time, and both companies had a much better relationship with one another back then.
Stop spinning, you are making me dizzy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts
What does Apple have to do with Yahoo? Perhaps you're confused because I'm not aware of anything.
Google are in damage control having realized the enormity of the problem they now face with Apple's own maps.
Missing all that data and not being able to swamp users with ads must be not only bad business-wise but personally galling to the upper echelons at google land. Why else take any and every opportunity to belittle Apple?
On a personal level, I despise everything google stands for. What intrigues me is that people simply don't care what they are doing, I guess call it apathy or ignorance.
A company that will read personal emails and then spam that person with ads is simply too much for me.
Going of at a tangent, why has wonderful google removed one of the filter options in youtube? I don't have flash installed and in the past one could filter by google's video standard version that they thought would and should replace HTML5. It's now gone. I guess another one of their pet projects that has quietly died.
You are funny, not.
A poster mentioned they hate google and will try and be google-free, they write yahoo would be their default search engine. Yet you had to jump in and mention yahoo-google business arrangement.
Now do you get it? Or u want me to use blocks for u?
Enough said me thinks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts
You are funny, not.
A poster mentioned they hate google and will try and be google-free, they write yahoo would be their default search engine. Yet you had to jump in and mention yahoo-google business arrangement.
Now do you get it? Or u want me to use blocks for u?
Since the OP was trying to avoid Google I think he'd appreciate knowing that Yahoo may also be using Google for targeted ads, wouldn't you agree? Better than discovering it later on.
As for whether you should block me, that's completely your choice. There's a few thousand visitors here that might discover some nugget of knowledge in one of my posts, or perhaps look at something differently than they did before. You may not be one of those. If I'm right then ignore wouldn't be inappropriate.
EDIT: It looks like English isn't your first language so perhaps you didn't intend to sound as snippy/arrogant as you did. If so my apology for misreading your tone.
It's actually quite sad to see how frequently my friends end up in the wrong place and assume they've done something wrong because they accept Google Maps as law.
Last week my wife and I were out on a stormy night with our baby. She was following the directions from Google Maps and the place we arrived was completely wrong. She was so confused and started double-checking the address and her emails and wondering what she entered wrong. Then I re-mapped the address on my phone with Apple maps and found we were 7 city blocks away from the correct spot.
Thanks Google!
Thanks Apple.
Personally, I ain't trying to find a water station in the middle of the Australian outback, I'm just a NYC guy who travels upstate, and to Philly and northern Michigan every couple months; and Apple Maps hasn't led me wrong once %u2013 yet. I'm sure after I've used it for several years I will come across some errors, but Google Maps should by no means be accepted as infallible either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts
Amazing memory you have. So every review was positive then? No one had any problems what so ever?
As I said, I'm open to someone finding some negative reviews. I couldn't find any, myself. Have you?
And yes, I mentioned that there were problems. That didn't change the reviews.
Quote:
Apple bending over backwards, so you worked at Apple at that time, you must have to make this remark?
Perhaps you're not aware that it was recently revealed that Apple had no Maps app in the iPhone until the last minute. They first met with Google on Halloween, which was only 2-1/2 months before the iPhone was revealed, and both sides worked like crazy to get Maps done in time. Thus the valid phrase, "Apple bent over backwards to put Google Maps into the iPhone at the last minute for its debut in 2007."
Despite your attempt to spin that as negative, it's not. It's just a fact.
English is not first language. Pleeeaaaazzzzzeeeeee !
Why would I wat to ignore you ? I did not say that, perhaps English is not your first language?