Seeing how well their Maps rival compares (even now), not making a search rival is probably wise.
Apple Maps are far better in the UK than Google maps. Navigation, spoken commands, appearance and integration with Apple Watch - it’s a no brainer.
Don't get me wrong - the FEATURES are great. But the map data everywhere I've ever tried it, sucks. (which hasn't been in major US cities or the UK) And that's really the bottom line.
I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.
Cue is being honest: Apple doesn't want to make a me-too copy of Google search. Me-too copies are the historical province of Microsoft, and more recently of Google (e.g. Pixel). Apple doesn't see any value in that.
Apple has some "me-too copies" too, and some of them still behind the competiion. For example,
Apple Maps / Google Maps HomePod / Sonos Era AirTag / Tile Apple TV+ / Netflix Apple Arcade / MS GamePass Apple Music / Spotify
I don't see issues in Apple developing a search engine, even if it is a "me-too copy".
I’d disagree that these are just “Me Too”
Apple Maps / Google Maps - Apple isn’t using maps to mine and sell user data....
Are folks so intent on "winning" that stretching the truth, even making things up, and then posting as though it's the gospel truth is that important? Just be honest. Geesh.
Yeah, Google mines user data. A lot of data. Microsoft mines user data as does Amazon, also a lot of data. Even Apple mines user data, even if not as much as those first three. What Google and Apple DON'T do is sell user data.
I'm not 100% certain about those other two. but I suspect not.
Sure, Google says that they don’t sell your data, so you should definitely believe them.
I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.
Cue is being honest: Apple doesn't want to make a me-too copy of Google search. Me-too copies are the historical province of Microsoft, and more recently of Google (e.g. Pixel). Apple doesn't see any value in that.
Apple has some "me-too copies" too, and some of them still behind the competiion. For example,
Apple Maps / Google Maps HomePod / Sonos Era AirTag / Tile Apple TV+ / Netflix Apple Arcade / MS GamePass Apple Music / Spotify
I don't see issues in Apple developing a search engine, even if it is a "me-too copy".
I’d disagree that these are just “Me Too”
Apple Maps / Google Maps - Apple isn’t using maps to mine and sell user data, which is kind of important. Also, they created it when they realized just how much ”location services” would become a core OS function. Maps is just the user-facing part of a much deeper program.
This doesn't changes the fact that Apple Maps is a me-too copy of Google Maps, which still miles ahead. And I know because I use both in a weekly basis.
HomePod / Sonos Era Haven’t heard the Sonos device so can’t compare, but HomePod is brilliant audio. Also, like maps, HomePod is the tip of a bigger functional iceberg. It’s needed for HomeKit functionality. See above for context on HomeKit’s approach to user privacy.
HomePod sounds very good compared to other smart speakers. But again, we could say this is a me-too product, since the Sonos have been doing the same years before Apple. The only advantage I see in the HomePod is the integration with other Apple products and services. But I suppose we cannot blame Sonos for the lack of integration with the Apple ecosystem.
AirTag / Tile AirTag has a vastly larger back end to support it, and thus superior functionality. See above for more on location services as a core function, as well as approaches to user privacy. That brings us to AirTag’s innovations in breaking the tracker’s utility for stalking. Tile skipped that part until Apple brought it up, then tried to copy it, then undermined those protections with a disingenuous “honor system” that allows tile users to stalk anyway.
Apple TV+ / Netflix Not the same thing. AppleTV+ isn’t a back catalog archive like Netflix. New content is brilliant. Try watching Ted Lasso. Apple Music / Spotify Apple Music has always been subscription-based and ad-free. They pay musicians more. They changed the paradigm with lossless and spatial audio by offering them not as an expensive premium, but as an included feature for all subscribers, and it works on the hardware millions already have. Before that, multi-channel audio was a niche thing that -all the way back to quad records in the early 1970s- could never achieve critical mass to become mainstream. Now, thanks to Apple, lots of new music and back-catalog remixes are coming out in Dolby Atmos every week. That’s not a me-too thing. That’s 100% because of Apple.
AirTag could be a better Tile, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple copied another product.
Netflix have a lot of new content, and isn't just a back catalog, as you said. And while Apple Music have better sound quality, Spotify has a better app / interface, among other things. And I speak as an Apple Music subscriber. I went with Apple just for the sound quality. A part from that, Spotify is better. At the end, both can be considered me-too services.
I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.
Cue is being honest: Apple doesn't want to make a me-too copy of Google search. Me-too copies are the historical province of Microsoft, and more recently of Google (e.g. Pixel). Apple doesn't see any value in that.
Apple has some "me-too copies" too, and some of them still behind the competiion. For example,
Apple Maps / Google Maps HomePod / Sonos Era AirTag / Tile Apple TV+ / Netflix Apple Arcade / MS GamePass Apple Music / Spotify
I don't see issues in Apple developing a search engine, even if it is a "me-too copy".
I’d disagree that these are just “Me Too”
Apple Maps / Google Maps - Apple isn’t using maps to mine and sell user data, which is kind of important. Also, they created it when they realized just how much ”location services” would become a core OS function. Maps is just the user-facing part of a much deeper program.
This doesn't changes the fact that Apple Maps is a me-too copy of Google Maps, which still miles ahead. And I know because I use both in a weekly basis.
HomePod / Sonos Era Haven’t heard the Sonos device so can’t compare, but HomePod is brilliant audio. Also, like maps, HomePod is the tip of a bigger functional iceberg. It’s needed for HomeKit functionality. See above for context on HomeKit’s approach to user privacy.
HomePod sounds very good compared to other smart speakers. But again, we could say this is a me-too product, since the Sonos have been doing the same years before Apple. The only advantage I see in the HomePod is the integration with other Apple products and services. But I suppose we cannot blame Sonos for the lack of integration with the Apple ecosystem.
AirTag / Tile AirTag has a vastly larger back end to support it, and thus superior functionality. See above for more on location services as a core function, as well as approaches to user privacy. That brings us to AirTag’s innovations in breaking the tracker’s utility for stalking. Tile skipped that part until Apple brought it up, then tried to copy it, then undermined those protections with a disingenuous “honor system” that allows tile users to stalk anyway.
Apple TV+ / Netflix Not the same thing. AppleTV+ isn’t a back catalog archive like Netflix. New content is brilliant. Try watching Ted Lasso.
Apple Music / Spotify Apple Music has always been subscription-based and ad-free. They pay musicians more. They changed the paradigm with lossless and spatial audio by offering them not as an expensive premium, but as an included feature for all subscribers, and it works on the hardware millions already have. Before that, multi-channel audio was a niche thing that -all the way back to quad records in the early 1970s- could never achieve critical mass to become mainstream. Now, thanks to Apple, lots of new music and back-catalog remixes are coming out in Dolby Atmos every week. That’s not a me-too thing. That’s 100% because of Apple.
AirTag could be a better Tile, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple copied another product.
Netflix have a lot of new content, and isn't just a back catalog, as you said. And while Apple Music have better sound quality, Spotify has a better app / interface, among other things. And I speak as an Apple Music subscriber. I went with Apple just for the sound quality. A part from that, Spotify is better. At the end, both can be considered me-too services.
But then, isn’t Google maps just a me-too of Mapquest, and heck, isn’t Google search just a me-too of Yahoo search?
By this standard, the iPhone is a “me too” product. It wasn’t the first cell phone or even the first ‘smart’ phone. But then, by this standard, you’ve entirely missed what it is that Apple actually does.
I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.
Cue is being honest: Apple doesn't want to make a me-too copy of Google search. Me-too copies are the historical province of Microsoft, and more recently of Google (e.g. Pixel). Apple doesn't see any value in that.
Apple has some "me-too copies" too, and some of them still behind the competiion. For example,
Apple Maps / Google Maps HomePod / Sonos Era AirTag / Tile Apple TV+ / Netflix Apple Arcade / MS GamePass Apple Music / Spotify
I don't see issues in Apple developing a search engine, even if it is a "me-too copy".
I’d disagree that these are just “Me Too”
Apple Maps / Google Maps - Apple isn’t using maps to mine and sell user data....
Are folks so intent on "winning" that stretching the truth, even making things up, and then posting as though it's the gospel truth is that important? Just be honest. Geesh.
Yeah, Google mines user data. A lot of data. Microsoft mines user data as does Amazon, also a lot of data. Even Apple mines user data, even if not as much as those first three. What Google and Apple DON'T do is sell user data.
I'm not 100% certain about those other two. but I suspect not.
Sure, Google says that they don’t sell your data, so you should definitely believe them.
Why would anyone definitely believe YOU? You still seem to think misleading and outright dishonest posts are acceptable. Tracking is not selling private information. Hello cook stove, meet raincoat.
I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.
Cue is being honest: Apple doesn't want to make a me-too copy of Google search. Me-too copies are the historical province of Microsoft, and more recently of Google (e.g. Pixel). Apple doesn't see any value in that.
Apple has some "me-too copies" too, and some of them still behind the competiion. For example,
Apple Maps / Google Maps HomePod / Sonos Era AirTag / Tile Apple TV+ / Netflix Apple Arcade / MS GamePass Apple Music / Spotify
I don't see issues in Apple developing a search engine, even if it is a "me-too copy".
I’d disagree that these are just “Me Too”
Apple Maps / Google Maps - Apple isn’t using maps to mine and sell user data....
Are folks so intent on "winning" that stretching the truth, even making things up, and then posting as though it's the gospel truth is that important? Just be honest. Geesh.
Yeah, Google mines user data. A lot of data. Microsoft mines user data as does Amazon, also a lot of data. Even Apple mines user data, even if not as much as those first three. What Google and Apple DON'T do is sell user data.
I'm not 100% certain about those other two. but I suspect not.
Sure, Google says that they don’t sell your data, so you should definitely believe them.
Why would anyone definitely believe YOU? You still seem to think misleading and outright dishonest posts are acceptable. Tracking is not selling private information. Hello cook stove, meet raincoat.
I'm not collecting anyone's data and making promises about how I'll handle that data. In response to your own insistences about Google's behavior and trustworthiness (which, as an unsubstantiated comment on a message board is inherently no more trustworthy than mine...), I provided a link about a very recent settlement as evidence that speaks to Google's trustworthiness with regard to their promises about the handling of user data.
Your resort to an ad hominem attack on me is nonsensical. I am not being misleading or dishonest. I am expressing opinions about the unique nature of Apple's approach to the items listed. You can choose to believe me, or Google, or Apple, or no one, but it is unquestionably the case that Apple Maps is created and sold as a mapping and location services app that does not collect and use customer location data as an advertising income resource. Apple makes money primarily by selling hardware. They now also sell a number of services by subscription that no doubt also benefit their bottom line, but that also serve to drive customers to purchase their hardware. When you use their maps on an iPhone, it's pretty easy to see how they've been paid to provide that resource to you.
Google sells some devices, but they aren't Google's primary revenue source. Google is a targeted advertising broker. That is their business. They collect internet user data and profit from it by facilitating targeted advertising to those users. Google, at best, scrapes user location data and keeps it "in house," but then uses it to sell and meticulously place targeted advertising in front of specific users, based on that user data. The settlement noted above should make any reasonable person question whether that's all Google is doing to monetize user location data. Either way, a reasonable person should be able to see how Apple Maps is fundamentally different from Google Maps when it comes to the collection and use of customer location data. You can believe me or not, but I'm not being dishonest or misleading, your ad hominem libel notwithstanding.
I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.
Cue is being honest: Apple doesn't want to make a me-too copy of Google search. Me-too copies are the historical province of Microsoft, and more recently of Google (e.g. Pixel). Apple doesn't see any value in that.
Apple has some "me-too copies" too, and some of them still behind the competiion. For example,
Apple Maps / Google Maps HomePod / Sonos Era AirTag / Tile Apple TV+ / Netflix Apple Arcade / MS GamePass Apple Music / Spotify
I don't see issues in Apple developing a search engine, even if it is a "me-too copy".
I’d disagree that these are just “Me Too”
Apple Maps / Google Maps - Apple isn’t using maps to mine and sell user data, which is kind of important. Also, they created it when they realized just how much ”location services” would become a core OS function. Maps is just the user-facing part of a much deeper program.
This doesn't changes the fact that Apple Maps is a me-too copy of Google Maps, which still miles ahead. And I know because I use both in a weekly basis.
HomePod / Sonos Era Haven’t heard the Sonos device so can’t compare, but HomePod is brilliant audio. Also, like maps, HomePod is the tip of a bigger functional iceberg. It’s needed for HomeKit functionality. See above for context on HomeKit’s approach to user privacy.
HomePod sounds very good compared to other smart speakers. But again, we could say this is a me-too product, since the Sonos have been doing the same years before Apple. The only advantage I see in the HomePod is the integration with other Apple products and services. But I suppose we cannot blame Sonos for the lack of integration with the Apple ecosystem.
AirTag / Tile AirTag has a vastly larger back end to support it, and thus superior functionality. See above for more on location services as a core function, as well as approaches to user privacy. That brings us to AirTag’s innovations in breaking the tracker’s utility for stalking. Tile skipped that part until Apple brought it up, then tried to copy it, then undermined those protections with a disingenuous “honor system” that allows tile users to stalk anyway.
Apple TV+ / Netflix Not the same thing. AppleTV+ isn’t a back catalog archive like Netflix. New content is brilliant. Try watching Ted Lasso.
Apple Music / Spotify Apple Music has always been subscription-based and ad-free. They pay musicians more. They changed the paradigm with lossless and spatial audio by offering them not as an expensive premium, but as an included feature for all subscribers, and it works on the hardware millions already have. Before that, multi-channel audio was a niche thing that -all the way back to quad records in the early 1970s- could never achieve critical mass to become mainstream. Now, thanks to Apple, lots of new music and back-catalog remixes are coming out in Dolby Atmos every week. That’s not a me-too thing. That’s 100% because of Apple.
AirTag could be a better Tile, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple copied another product.
Netflix have a lot of new content, and isn't just a back catalog, as you said. And while Apple Music have better sound quality, Spotify has a better app / interface, among other things. And I speak as an Apple Music subscriber. I went with Apple just for the sound quality. A part from that, Spotify is better. At the end, both can be considered me-too services.
But then, isn’t Google maps just a me-too of Mapquest, and heck, isn’t Google search just a me-too of Yahoo search?
By this standard, the iPhone is a “me too” product. It wasn’t the first cell phone or even the first ‘smart’ phone. But then, by this standard, you’ve entirely missed what it is that Apple actually does.
The difference is that Google Maps, Google Search and the iPhone change the market, and were far better than the competition. That didn't happen with Apple Maps, AirTags, Apple TV+, HomePod, Apple Arcade and Apple Music, so I can see them as "me-too".
I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.
Cue is being honest: Apple doesn't want to make a me-too copy of Google search. Me-too copies are the historical province of Microsoft, and more recently of Google (e.g. Pixel). Apple doesn't see any value in that.
Apple has some "me-too copies" too, and some of them still behind the competiion. For example,
Apple Maps / Google Maps HomePod / Sonos Era AirTag / Tile Apple TV+ / Netflix Apple Arcade / MS GamePass Apple Music / Spotify
I don't see issues in Apple developing a search engine, even if it is a "me-too copy".
I’d disagree that these are just “Me Too”
Apple Maps / Google Maps - Apple isn’t using maps to mine and sell user data, which is kind of important. Also, they created it when they realized just how much ”location services” would become a core OS function. Maps is just the user-facing part of a much deeper program.
This doesn't changes the fact that Apple Maps is a me-too copy of Google Maps, which still miles ahead. And I know because I use both in a weekly basis.
HomePod / Sonos Era Haven’t heard the Sonos device so can’t compare, but HomePod is brilliant audio. Also, like maps, HomePod is the tip of a bigger functional iceberg. It’s needed for HomeKit functionality. See above for context on HomeKit’s approach to user privacy.
HomePod sounds very good compared to other smart speakers. But again, we could say this is a me-too product, since the Sonos have been doing the same years before Apple. The only advantage I see in the HomePod is the integration with other Apple products and services. But I suppose we cannot blame Sonos for the lack of integration with the Apple ecosystem.
AirTag / Tile AirTag has a vastly larger back end to support it, and thus superior functionality. See above for more on location services as a core function, as well as approaches to user privacy. That brings us to AirTag’s innovations in breaking the tracker’s utility for stalking. Tile skipped that part until Apple brought it up, then tried to copy it, then undermined those protections with a disingenuous “honor system” that allows tile users to stalk anyway.
Apple TV+ / Netflix Not the same thing. AppleTV+ isn’t a back catalog archive like Netflix. New content is brilliant. Try watching Ted Lasso.
Apple Music / Spotify Apple Music has always been subscription-based and ad-free. They pay musicians more. They changed the paradigm with lossless and spatial audio by offering them not as an expensive premium, but as an included feature for all subscribers, and it works on the hardware millions already have. Before that, multi-channel audio was a niche thing that -all the way back to quad records in the early 1970s- could never achieve critical mass to become mainstream. Now, thanks to Apple, lots of new music and back-catalog remixes are coming out in Dolby Atmos every week. That’s not a me-too thing. That’s 100% because of Apple.
AirTag could be a better Tile, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple copied another product.
Netflix have a lot of new content, and isn't just a back catalog, as you said. And while Apple Music have better sound quality, Spotify has a better app / interface, among other things. And I speak as an Apple Music subscriber. I went with Apple just for the sound quality. A part from that, Spotify is better. At the end, both can be considered me-too services.
But then, isn’t Google maps just a me-too of Mapquest, and heck, isn’t Google search just a me-too of Yahoo search?
By this standard, the iPhone is a “me too” product. It wasn’t the first cell phone or even the first ‘smart’ phone. But then, by this standard, you’ve entirely missed what it is that Apple actually does.
The difference is that Google Maps, Google Search and the iPhone change the market, and were far better than the competition. That didn't happen with Apple Maps, AirTags, Apple TV+, HomePod, Apple Arcade and Apple Music, so I can see them as "me-too".
We can certainly agree to disagree, but I'd still argue that at least several of those items meet one or both of the criteria you've set out in that sentence. I'd argue that Apple Maps is better because it doesn't use your location data to inundate you with targeted advertising. Correct me if you have data to contradict, but I think AirTags are in far wider use, because Apple's back-end resources make them far more effective. Tile relies on other users who have the Tile App installed to encounter a tag and create a location data point. AirTags merely rely on another iPhone passing nearby. There are a lot more iPhones in circulation than there are phones with the Tile App installed and functioning in the background. AppleTV+ and Arcade arguably don't (yet) meet your criteria. HomePod introduced vastly superior audio quality into a IoT home control market dominated by cheap loss-leader Amazon and Google voice assistant pods. Just comparing it to Sonos is like comparing the OG iPhone to competing mp3 players.
For Apple Music, I'll refer you back to my earlier comments. Making lossless and spatial audio available in the basic tier and functional on existing hardware is in fact a game changer, and vastly superior to the competition. Other providers had already introduced those formats a year or two before Apple, but they all made the same death-spiral mistake of limiting the market by charging a premium for it, which in turn served as a disincentive to produce much content in the formats, which in turn made the premium charge not worth it. Apple Music corrected that mistake and suddenly lossless and spatial audio are mainstream and everywhere.
I think Apple wants to enter a market when it can make a markedly better product that what's already out there. For example, compare the original 2007 iPhone to the other smartphones that existed at that time; the difference is huge. On the other hand, after Eero debuted (a big improvement in WiFi routers), Apple looked at its own router lineup and said, why are we even in this market? Then Apple left that market.
Cue is being honest: Apple doesn't want to make a me-too copy of Google search. Me-too copies are the historical province of Microsoft, and more recently of Google (e.g. Pixel). Apple doesn't see any value in that.
Apple has some "me-too copies" too, and some of them still behind the competiion. For example,
Apple Maps / Google Maps HomePod / Sonos Era AirTag / Tile Apple TV+ / Netflix Apple Arcade / MS GamePass Apple Music / Spotify
I don't see issues in Apple developing a search engine, even if it is a "me-too copy".
I’d disagree that these are just “Me Too”
Apple Maps / Google Maps - Apple isn’t using maps to mine and sell user data, which is kind of important. Also, they created it when they realized just how much ”location services” would become a core OS function. Maps is just the user-facing part of a much deeper program.
This doesn't changes the fact that Apple Maps is a me-too copy of Google Maps, which still miles ahead. And I know because I use both in a weekly basis.
HomePod / Sonos Era Haven’t heard the Sonos device so can’t compare, but HomePod is brilliant audio. Also, like maps, HomePod is the tip of a bigger functional iceberg. It’s needed for HomeKit functionality. See above for context on HomeKit’s approach to user privacy.
HomePod sounds very good compared to other smart speakers. But again, we could say this is a me-too product, since the Sonos have been doing the same years before Apple. The only advantage I see in the HomePod is the integration with other Apple products and services. But I suppose we cannot blame Sonos for the lack of integration with the Apple ecosystem.
AirTag / Tile AirTag has a vastly larger back end to support it, and thus superior functionality. See above for more on location services as a core function, as well as approaches to user privacy. That brings us to AirTag’s innovations in breaking the tracker’s utility for stalking. Tile skipped that part until Apple brought it up, then tried to copy it, then undermined those protections with a disingenuous “honor system” that allows tile users to stalk anyway.
Apple TV+ / Netflix Not the same thing. AppleTV+ isn’t a back catalog archive like Netflix. New content is brilliant. Try watching Ted Lasso.
Apple Music / Spotify Apple Music has always been subscription-based and ad-free. They pay musicians more. They changed the paradigm with lossless and spatial audio by offering them not as an expensive premium, but as an included feature for all subscribers, and it works on the hardware millions already have. Before that, multi-channel audio was a niche thing that -all the way back to quad records in the early 1970s- could never achieve critical mass to become mainstream. Now, thanks to Apple, lots of new music and back-catalog remixes are coming out in Dolby Atmos every week. That’s not a me-too thing. That’s 100% because of Apple.
AirTag could be a better Tile, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple copied another product.
Netflix have a lot of new content, and isn't just a back catalog, as you said. And while Apple Music have better sound quality, Spotify has a better app / interface, among other things. And I speak as an Apple Music subscriber. I went with Apple just for the sound quality. A part from that, Spotify is better. At the end, both can be considered me-too services.
But then, isn’t Google maps just a me-too of Mapquest, and heck, isn’t Google search just a me-too of Yahoo search?
By this standard, the iPhone is a “me too” product. It wasn’t the first cell phone or even the first ‘smart’ phone. But then, by this standard, you’ve entirely missed what it is that Apple actually does.
The difference is that Google Maps, Google Search and the iPhone change the market, and were far better than the competition. That didn't happen with Apple Maps, AirTags, Apple TV+, HomePod, Apple Arcade and Apple Music, so I can see them as "me-too".
We can certainly agree to disagree, but I'd still argue that at least several of those items meet one or both of the criteria you've set out in that sentence. I'd argue that Apple Maps is better because it doesn't use your location data to inundate you with targeted advertising. Correct me if you have data to contradict, but I think AirTags are in far wider use, because Apple's back-end resources make them far more effective. Tile relies on other users who have the Tile App installed to encounter a tag and create a location data point. AirTags merely rely on another iPhone passing nearby. There are a lot more iPhones in circulation than there are phones with the Tile App installed and functioning in the background. AppleTV+ and Arcade arguably don't (yet) meet your criteria. HomePod introduced vastly superior audio quality into a IoT home control market dominated by cheap loss-leader Amazon and Google voice assistant pods. Just comparing it to Sonos is like comparing the OG iPhone to competing mp3 players.
For Apple Music, I'll refer you back to my earlier comments. Making lossless and spatial audio available in the basic tier and functional on existing hardware is in fact a game changer, and vastly superior to the competition. Other providers had already introduced those formats a year or two before Apple, but they all made the same death-spiral mistake of limiting the market by charging a premium for it, which in turn served as a disincentive to produce much content in the formats, which in turn made the premium charge not worth it. Apple Music corrected that mistake and suddenly lossless and spatial audio are mainstream and everywhere.
I use Google Maps is iOS / CarPlay, and I haven't been inundated with ads, as you said. I use Apple Maps frequently because I prefer the UI. Apart from that, Google Maps is far better than Apple Maps.
Airtags vs Tiles, it's clear that Apple has advantage with more iOS devices in the market. At the end, both do the same, and I haven't seen one doing much better over the other. Tiles was first, and Apple responded with a me-too product.
Apple TV+ / Apple Arcade - Again, there were services before these two, and Apple did nothing to improve over the competition.
Apple Music - Yes, Apple Music has the advantage of better sound quality. At the same time, Spotify is a better app, and Spotify Connect works better than AirPlay. I'm an Apple Music subscriber only for the sound quality. Before that, I had Spotify and was a better experience. If you ask me, Apple Music still a me-too service.
Let's be clear, my response was to a post that mentioned that Google and MS were about me-too products. I don't think that's bad at all, since it encourages competition. But if someone think negatively about me-too products, we can easily extend that to Apple. At the end, Apple has its list of me-too products / services too. That's my point.
I would agree that Apple Maps is not a huge improvement over Google Maps, but there's a very important reason Apple created it anyway: Google refused to provide turn-by-turn directions, vector maps, 3D flyovers, etc. to iOS: those features were available only on Android. (This was back when Google was confident that Android was going to steamroll Apple like Windows did in the ’90s.) Google said, if you want those features, then you have to send us detailed info about each user when they do a map search. Apple certainly wasn't going to do that, and there was no other comparable map system to switch to — so Apple's hand was forced: create our own map system to replace Google's.
A lot of iOS users still use Google Maps, but as soon as Apple Maps launched, Google immediately relented and started providing turn-by-turn etc. to iOS users.
I would agree that Apple Maps is not a huge improvement over Google Maps, but there's a very important reason Apple created it anyway: Google refused to provide turn-by-turn directions, vector maps, 3D flyovers, etc. to iOS: those features were available only on Android. (This was back when Google was confident that Android was going to steamroll Apple like Windows did in the ’90s.) Google said, if you want those features, then you have to send us detailed info about each user when they do a map search.
At the time the claim was that Google insisted on branding it as Google Maps and not Apple. I don't think it had anything to do with gathering even more user data than they were already doing, and which Apple was apparently comfortable with considering the benefit to the ecosystem.
At the time the claim was that Google insisted on branding it as Google Maps and not Apple. I don't think it had anything to do with gathering even more user data than they were already doing, and which Apple was apparently comfortable with considering the benefit to the ecosystem.
Apple was "comfortable" sharing data to Google about the Apple users performing map searches? That's not what I heard: I heard Apple refused to do it.
At the time the claim was that Google insisted on branding it as Google Maps and not Apple. I don't think it had anything to do with gathering even more user data than they were already doing, and which Apple was apparently comfortable with considering the benefit to the ecosystem.
Apple was "comfortable" sharing data to Google about the Apple users performing map searches? That's not what I heard: I heard Apple refused to do it.
Your claim was that Google wanted MORE data from Apple users than they were already getting, and a level that Apple was comfortable with up until then, in order to get more map features. I don't think that was part of it.
Comments
Don't get me wrong - the FEATURES are great. But the map data everywhere I've ever tried it, sucks. (which hasn't been in major US cities or the UK) And that's really the bottom line.
HomePod sounds very good compared to other smart speakers. But again, we could say this is a me-too product, since the Sonos have been doing the same years before Apple. The only advantage I see in the HomePod is the integration with other Apple products and services. But I suppose we cannot blame Sonos for the lack of integration with the Apple ecosystem.
AirTag could be a better Tile, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple copied another product.
Netflix have a lot of new content, and isn't just a back catalog, as you said. And while Apple Music have better sound quality, Spotify has a better app / interface, among other things. And I speak as an Apple Music subscriber. I went with Apple just for the sound quality. A part from that, Spotify is better. At the end, both can be considered me-too services.
Hello cook stove, meet raincoat.
Your resort to an ad hominem attack on me is nonsensical. I am not being misleading or dishonest. I am expressing opinions about the unique nature of Apple's approach to the items listed. You can choose to believe me, or Google, or Apple, or no one, but it is unquestionably the case that Apple Maps is created and sold as a mapping and location services app that does not collect and use customer location data as an advertising income resource. Apple makes money primarily by selling hardware. They now also sell a number of services by subscription that no doubt also benefit their bottom line, but that also serve to drive customers to purchase their hardware. When you use their maps on an iPhone, it's pretty easy to see how they've been paid to provide that resource to you.
Google sells some devices, but they aren't Google's primary revenue source. Google is a targeted advertising broker. That is their business. They collect internet user data and profit from it by facilitating targeted advertising to those users. Google, at best, scrapes user location data and keeps it "in house," but then uses it to sell and meticulously place targeted advertising in front of specific users, based on that user data. The settlement noted above should make any reasonable person question whether that's all Google is doing to monetize user location data. Either way, a reasonable person should be able to see how Apple Maps is fundamentally different from Google Maps when it comes to the collection and use of customer location data. You can believe me or not, but I'm not being dishonest or misleading, your ad hominem libel notwithstanding.
For Apple Music, I'll refer you back to my earlier comments. Making lossless and spatial audio available in the basic tier and functional on existing hardware is in fact a game changer, and vastly superior to the competition. Other providers had already introduced those formats a year or two before Apple, but they all made the same death-spiral mistake of limiting the market by charging a premium for it, which in turn served as a disincentive to produce much content in the formats, which in turn made the premium charge not worth it. Apple Music corrected that mistake and suddenly lossless and spatial audio are mainstream and everywhere.
Airtags vs Tiles, it's clear that Apple has advantage with more iOS devices in the market. At the end, both do the same, and I haven't seen one doing much better over the other. Tiles was first, and Apple responded with a me-too product.
Apple TV+ / Apple Arcade - Again, there were services before these two, and Apple did nothing to improve over the competition.
Apple Music - Yes, Apple Music has the advantage of better sound quality. At the same time, Spotify is a better app, and Spotify Connect works better than AirPlay. I'm an Apple Music subscriber only for the sound quality. Before that, I had Spotify and was a better experience. If you ask me, Apple Music still a me-too service.
Let's be clear, my response was to a post that mentioned that Google and MS were about me-too products. I don't think that's bad at all, since it encourages competition. But if someone think negatively about me-too products, we can easily extend that to Apple. At the end, Apple has its list of me-too products / services too. That's my point.
A lot of iOS users still use Google Maps, but as soon as Apple Maps launched, Google immediately relented and started providing turn-by-turn etc. to iOS users.