I had hoped apple and google could do great things together. Or is all this tension a media invention ?
My first thought was: "Oh well, so much for Goople" and I was just a touch sad. It seemed just a short while ago that this was just what the world needed to knock Microsoft down a few pegs... Then, of course, I remembered that MS seems intent on knocking themselves down a few pegs all on their own these days...
The more we learn about Apple's relationship with Google the more I think it hasn't been the best thing for the consumer. To what extent did either company hold back competitively where they otherwise might not have? I'm not talking conspiracy as much as the possibility of more of these "unwritten" or polite agreements or understandings.
Maybe Google would have played Android a bit differently? Developed a music store maybe?
Now that sounds like you are talking 'conspiracy'.
Suggest Reading: Board of Directors
Typical duties of boards of directors include
governing the organization by establishing broad policies and objectives;
selecting, appointing, supporting and reviewing the performance of the chief executive;
ensuring the availability of adequate financial resources;
approving annual budgets;
accounting to the stakeholders for the organization's performance.
Being involved in the day-to-day activity, e.g., in research, marketing, sales, et., is not the function, let alone any internal information that may come out of them, of a non-executive director like those being mentioned here.
Although I am American, I think America is one the stupidest countries on the planet. These companies agreed not to steal each other's talent. What's wrong with that? Isn't that ethical? On the other hand, had they been poaching (stupid word by the way) each other's employees at free will, imagine all of the lawsuits that our courts would be tied up with regarding trade secrets and such. Didn't Apple get into hot water recently for hiring an employee from one of their competitors regarding semi-conductors? If you don't steal employees from your competition you're in deep shiznah; if you do steal employees you're in deep shiznah! Being in business in 21st century America truly sucks!!! Especially if you're high profile company like Apple or Google.
Being involved in the day-to-day activity, e.g., in research, marketing, sales, et., is not the function, let alone any internal information that may come out of them, of a non-executive director like those being mentioned here.
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. My point was that A) the more info that comes to light about the relationship between Apple and Google the more it appears that the relationship may not have been in the best interest of the consumer. A relationship doesn't have to be a willful conspiracy or meet a legal definition to be detrimental to the market.
Had Google and Apple been all out full on competitors, where might both companies have directed research and development efforts? You can't say to some degree that the relationship didn't effect their individual decision making at all levels and in various departments.
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. My point was that A) the more info that comes to light about the relationship between Apple and Google the more it appears that the relationship may not have been in the best interest of the consumer. A relationship doesn't have to be a willful conspiracy or meet a legal definition to be detrimental to the market.
Had Google and Apple been all out full on competitors, where might both companies have directed research and development efforts? You can't say to some degree that the relationship didn't effect their individual decision making at all levels and in various departments.
I agree with your point, completely. No one can deny that this type of relationship was symbiotic and prevented each other from doing some things they may have otherwise done had that relationship not been there. We'll now find out, I suspect, what type of competition there can be between the two.
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. My point was that A) the more info that comes to light about the relationship between Apple and Google the more it appears that the relationship may not have been in the best interest of the consumer. A relationship doesn't have to be a willful conspiracy or meet a legal definition to be detrimental to the market.
Had Google and Apple been all out full on competitors, where might both companies have directed research and development efforts? You can't say to some degree that the relationship didn't effect their individual decision making at all levels and in various departments.
Full on competitors at what? Google sells nothing to consumers. Apple, for the most part, only sells to consumers. Please be more specific.
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. My point was that A) the more info that comes to light about the relationship between Apple and Google the more it appears that the relationship may not have been in the best interest of the consumer. A relationship doesn't have to be a willful conspiracy or meet a legal definition to be detrimental to the market.
Had Google and Apple been all out full on competitors, where might both companies have directed research and development efforts? You can't say to some degree that the relationship didn't effect their individual decision making at all levels and in various departments.
That is what is called a conspiracy
As for my listing of the fiduciary responsibilities of the board members, if you think that there is "…some degree that the relationship didn't effect their individual decision making at all levels and in various department," then that also is alluding to a conspiracy.
Board Meetings are recorded. Discussing research/marketing/sales strategies would not be part of their discussions. To post otherwise and suggest "…that the relationship may not have been in the best interest of the consumer", is accusing them of a conspiracy.
While we're on the subject and you seem willing to talk about it, what other companies were on that list besides Apple?
I'm not going there but I can tell you that the list was dynamic and changed often with companies coming on and going away and coming back on the list. For what reasons, we were never told.
As for my listing of the fiduciary responsibilities of the board members, if you think that there is "?some degree that the relationship didn't effect their individual decision making at all levels and in various department," then that also is alluding to a conspiracy.
Board Meetings are recorded. Discussing research/marketing/sales strategies would not be part of their discussions. To post otherwise and suggest "?that the relationship may not have been in the best interest of the consumer", is accusing them of a conspiracy.
Do you think Google had unprecedented access to apple and their engineers? Do you think that was not aided by the fact that Schmidt was on the board?
Although I am American, I think America is one the stupidest countries on the planet. These companies agreed not to steal each other's talent. What's wrong with that? Isn't that ethical? On the other hand, had they been poaching (stupid word by the way) each other's employees at free will, imagine all of the lawsuits that our courts would be tied up with regarding trade secrets and such.
A few things here:
1) "America" is not a country. The "United States of America" is a country.
2) Competitively speaking, the true harm is not to the consumer, but the engineers themselves. In a "no-poach" environment, the engineers are much more likely to be paid less than they otherwise would be (given that salary competition is nearly moot after a hire). As an engineer, I find this result to be slightly annoying (though I'm not sure it should be a federal issue).
3) Nearly EVERY engineer will sign a contract on or before his first day at work saying he won't work for a competitor for X number of months after leaving the company. In other words, there would be very few lawsuits. The only lawsuits I could think of is a definitional one: "is company Z really a competitor of company Y"? And you really only need one of those suits...
Do you think Google had unprecedented access to apple and their engineers? Do you think that was not aided by the fact that Schmidt was on the board?
Absolutely not.
As Schmidt and Apple have already stated, Schmidt would recluse himself if there was deemed a conflict of interest.
If anything, Apple would have been even more cautious discussing 'products' at a board meeting. Particularly, if it concerned future developments.
Board members, in particular, outsiders, i.e., non-Apple Executives/Employees, would be even more precluding. A Board Member of a public-held company in particular has fiduciary responsibilities to the respective shareholders. Using that position or special relationships gained from it for personal gain or gain for any company they were associated would be suicidal.
To suggest otherwise is tantamount to suggesting collusion or conspiracy on the part of the members of the board.
Full on competitors at what? Google sells nothing to consumers. Apple, for the most part, only sells to consumers. Please be more specific.
Yes, the lion's share of Google's revenue currently is derived from ad search. Google is most definitely a consumer company even though they have chosen to wait to directly monetize products and services such as Chrome, Desktop, Earth, Finance, Gmail, Goog-411, Images, Maps, News, Toolbar, Video, YouTube, Blogger, Apps, Picasa, Talk, Voice, etc.
I offered the examples of Android and a Google music store earlier. How might Google have handled the Android rollout if it were treating Apple as full on competitor? Might it have been a bit more fierce than it was? Might they have taken advantage of the intense desire of the other carriers to have an iPhone alternative?
Everyone else has a music store, wouldn't it make sense for Google to leverage its customer base with one?
Again, I'm not saying there were any organized conspiracies here... Just something to think about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
[B]That is what is called a conspiracy[B]
As for my listing of the fiduciary responsibilities of the board members, if you think that there is "…some degree that the relationship didn't effect their individual decision making at all levels and in various department," then that also is alluding to a conspiracy.
Board Meetings are recorded. Discussing research/marketing/sales strategies would not be part of their discussions. To post otherwise and suggest "…that the relationship may not have been in the best interest of the consumer", is accusing them of a conspiracy.
Our systems have indicated an infinite loop condition with Abster2core. Attempts to communicate will now cease.
Yes, the lion's share of Google's revenue currently is derived from ad search. Google is most definitely a consumer company even though they have chosen to wait to directly monetize products and services such as Chrome, Desktop, Earth, Finance, Gmail, Goog-411, Images, Maps, News, Toolbar, Video, YouTube, Blogger, Apps, Picasa, Talk, Voice, etc.
I offered the examples of Android and a Google music store earlier. How might Google have handled the Android rollout if it were treating Apple as full on competitor? Might it have been a bit more fierce than it was? Might they have taken advantage of the intense desire of the other carriers to have an iPhone alternative?
Everyone else has a music store, wouldn't it make sense for Google to leverage its customer base with one?
Again, I'm not saying there were any organized conspiracies here... Just something to think about.
Maybe I'm slow or just confused. How would Google be more of a competitor to Apple if they started charging consumers for things that they now give away for free? Microsoft, as we'll all recall, were considered to be unfairly competing by NOT charging for software but instead bundled for free.
Also, I don't understand the Android situation, either. How does anyone know whether Google held back on Android (to Apple's benefit)? There's no evidence that I'm aware of that suggests so.
As Schmidt and Apple have already stated, Schmidt would recluse himself if there was deemed a conflict of interest.
If anything, Apple would have been even more cautious discussing 'products' at a board meeting. Particularly, if it concerned future developments.
Board members, in particular, outsiders, i.e., non-Apple Executives/Employees, would be even more precluding. A Board Member of a public-held company in particular has fiduciary responsibilities to the respective shareholders. Using that position or special relationships gained from it for personal gain or gain for any company they were associated would be suicidal.
To suggest otherwise is tantamount to suggesting collusion or conspiracy on the part of the members of the board.
You are not tuning in to the way things actually work, you're tuning in to the way it 'should' work. Reciting a manual or some other piece of material is useless, people break and bend the rules all the time.
Maybe I'm slow or just confused. How would Google be more of a competitor to Apple if they started charging consumers for things that they now give away for free? Microsoft, as we'll all recall, were considered to be unfairly competing by NOT charging for software but instead bundled for free.
Also, I don't understand the Android situation, either. How does anyone know whether Google held back on Android (to Apple's benefit)? There's no evidence that I'm aware of that suggests so.
I was merely illustrating for you that Google is very definitely a consumer driven company despite their current revenue picture. It's not a matter of giving products and services away "free" its which areas and markets a company chooses to focus on regardless of when and how you monetize.
Companies that are very friendly with one another MAY choose to avoid stepping on each others toes in competitive terms. This MAY ultimately benefit the companies but MAY not be in the best interest of the consumer. We don't know that Google held back on Android. I'm just wondering how their rollout MAY have been different had the companies not been so friendly with one another.
You are not tuning in to the way things actually work, you're tuning in to the way it 'should' work. Reciting a manual or some other piece of material is useless, people break and bend the rules all the time.
And you base this on what evidence?
Sure, there are rogues but unilaterally painting the world as such is ludicrous.
Of the thousands of companies guided by the SEC, you are inferring that every company is conspiring to be unlawful all the time. To do so, would suggest that your parents, relatives and friends are all involved in some sort of illegal activity as well.
Right now, public traded companies are under the scrutiny of a dozen state and federal agencies. Some are undoubtedly involved in some form of unscrupulous activity. But if there was one company that would best ensure that they were more than above board, it would be Apple. Not because they have engaged illegal meanderings, which the haven't, but because there are so many idiots out there making unfounded, misguided and libelous accusations; that not to do something, the governing agencies a equally deemed guilty.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would certainly be more than pleased to examine it. Just make sure that it is collaborated and/or published; not some bloggers comments that hides behind the anonymity of the internet.
I was merely illustrating for you that Google is very definitely a consumer driven company despite their current revenue picture. It's not a matter of giving products and services away "free" its which areas and markets a company chooses to focus on regardless of when and how you monetize.
Companies that are very friendly with one another MAY choose to avoid stepping on each others toes in competitive terms. This MAY ultimately benefit the companies but MAY not be in the best interest of the consumer. We don't know that Google held back on Android. I'm just wondering how their rollout MAY have been different had the companies not been so friendly with one another.
It's not illegal to not compete or avoid stepping on a competitor's toes. It's illegal to collude to not compete via price fixing, market division, etc. These are market laws as they have the potential to effect consumers and other customers. I'm not sure what the applicability is to hiring, though.
Sure, there are rogues but unilaterally painting the world as such is ludicrous.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would certainly be more than pleased to examine it. Just make sure that it is collaborated and/or published; not some bloggers comments that hides behind the anonymity of the internet.
Google Maps and Google Mobile App are starters. They had access to Apples API's that no other company has had access to.
Google Maps and Google Mobile App are starters. They had access to Apples API's that no other company has had access to.
Please provide links to support you claim.
By the way, Google Maps ?was first announced on the Google Blog on February 8, 2005, and was located at http://maps.google.com/. It originally only supported users of Internet Explorer and Mozilla web browsers, but support for Opera and Safari was added on February 25, 2005.*
A year and a half before Schmidt was elected to the board.
Are you suggesting that Apple nefariously gave only Google the API's because of their relationship with Google and in particular, because Schmidt was on the board? Could you supply evidence of such?
FYI: In partnership with Google Maps, Apple has made the core of the map application available free to developers, so they can consider using them in the applications they intend to build. Included are all the features currently in Google Maps: regular map view, topographic view, and street view; annotations and location tracking is also in the SDK.?
Comments
I had hoped apple and google could do great things together. Or is all this tension a media invention ?
My first thought was: "Oh well, so much for Goople" and I was just a touch sad. It seemed just a short while ago that this was just what the world needed to knock Microsoft down a few pegs... Then, of course, I remembered that MS seems intent on knocking themselves down a few pegs all on their own these days...
The more we learn about Apple's relationship with Google the more I think it hasn't been the best thing for the consumer. To what extent did either company hold back competitively where they otherwise might not have? I'm not talking conspiracy as much as the possibility of more of these "unwritten" or polite agreements or understandings.
Maybe Google would have played Android a bit differently? Developed a music store maybe?
Now that sounds like you are talking 'conspiracy'.
Suggest Reading: Board of Directors
Typical duties of boards of directors include
- governing the organization by establishing broad policies and objectives;
- selecting, appointing, supporting and reviewing the performance of the chief executive;
- ensuring the availability of adequate financial resources;
- approving annual budgets;
- accounting to the stakeholders for the organization's performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_o...nd_interest.22Being involved in the day-to-day activity, e.g., in research, marketing, sales, et., is not the function, let alone any internal information that may come out of them, of a non-executive director like those being mentioned here.
Now that sounds like you are talking 'conspiracy'.
Suggest Reading: Board of Directors
Typical duties of boards of directors include
- governing the organization by establishing broad policies and objectives;
- selecting, appointing, supporting and reviewing the performance of the chief executive;
- ensuring the availability of adequate financial resources;
- approving annual budgets;
- accounting to the stakeholders for the organization's performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_o...nd_interest.22Being involved in the day-to-day activity, e.g., in research, marketing, sales, et., is not the function, let alone any internal information that may come out of them, of a non-executive director like those being mentioned here.
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. My point was that A) the more info that comes to light about the relationship between Apple and Google
Had Google and Apple been all out full on competitors, where might both companies have directed research and development efforts? You can't say to some degree that the relationship didn't effect their individual decision making at all levels and in various departments.
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. My point was that A) the more info that comes to light about the relationship between Apple and Google
Had Google and Apple been all out full on competitors, where might both companies have directed research and development efforts? You can't say to some degree that the relationship didn't effect their individual decision making at all levels and in various departments.
I agree with your point, completely. No one can deny that this type of relationship was symbiotic and prevented each other from doing some things they may have otherwise done had that relationship not been there. We'll now find out, I suspect, what type of competition there can be between the two.
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. My point was that A) the more info that comes to light about the relationship between Apple and Google
Had Google and Apple been all out full on competitors, where might both companies have directed research and development efforts? You can't say to some degree that the relationship didn't effect their individual decision making at all levels and in various departments.
Full on competitors at what? Google sells nothing to consumers. Apple, for the most part, only sells to consumers. Please be more specific.
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. My point was that A) the more info that comes to light about the relationship between Apple and Google
Had Google and Apple been all out full on competitors, where might both companies have directed research and development efforts? You can't say to some degree that the relationship didn't effect their individual decision making at all levels and in various departments.
That is what is called a conspiracy
As for my listing of the fiduciary responsibilities of the board members, if you think that there is "…some degree that the relationship didn't effect their individual decision making at all levels and in various department," then that also is alluding to a conspiracy.
Board Meetings are recorded. Discussing research/marketing/sales strategies would not be part of their discussions. To post otherwise and suggest "…that the relationship may not have been in the best interest of the consumer", is accusing them of a conspiracy.
While we're on the subject and you seem willing to talk about it, what other companies were on that list besides Apple?
I'm not going there but I can tell you that the list was dynamic and changed often with companies coming on and going away and coming back on the list. For what reasons, we were never told.
[B]That is what is called a conspiracy[B]
As for my listing of the fiduciary responsibilities of the board members, if you think that there is "?some degree that the relationship didn't effect their individual decision making at all levels and in various department," then that also is alluding to a conspiracy.
Board Meetings are recorded. Discussing research/marketing/sales strategies would not be part of their discussions. To post otherwise and suggest "?that the relationship may not have been in the best interest of the consumer", is accusing them of a conspiracy.
Do you think Google had unprecedented access to apple and their engineers? Do you think that was not aided by the fact that Schmidt was on the board?
Although I am American, I think America is one the stupidest countries on the planet. These companies agreed not to steal each other's talent. What's wrong with that? Isn't that ethical? On the other hand, had they been poaching (stupid word by the way) each other's employees at free will, imagine all of the lawsuits that our courts would be tied up with regarding trade secrets and such.
A few things here:
1) "America" is not a country. The "United States of America" is a country.
2) Competitively speaking, the true harm is not to the consumer, but the engineers themselves. In a "no-poach" environment, the engineers are much more likely to be paid less than they otherwise would be (given that salary competition is nearly moot after a hire). As an engineer, I find this result to be slightly annoying (though I'm not sure it should be a federal issue).
3) Nearly EVERY engineer will sign a contract on or before his first day at work saying he won't work for a competitor for X number of months after leaving the company. In other words, there would be very few lawsuits. The only lawsuits I could think of is a definitional one: "is company Z really a competitor of company Y"? And you really only need one of those suits...
Do you think Google had unprecedented access to apple and their engineers? Do you think that was not aided by the fact that Schmidt was on the board?
Absolutely not.
As Schmidt and Apple have already stated, Schmidt would recluse himself if there was deemed a conflict of interest.
If anything, Apple would have been even more cautious discussing 'products' at a board meeting. Particularly, if it concerned future developments.
Board members, in particular, outsiders, i.e., non-Apple Executives/Employees, would be even more precluding. A Board Member of a public-held company in particular has fiduciary responsibilities to the respective shareholders. Using that position or special relationships gained from it for personal gain or gain for any company they were associated would be suicidal.
To suggest otherwise is tantamount to suggesting collusion or conspiracy on the part of the members of the board.
Full on competitors at what? Google sells nothing to consumers. Apple, for the most part, only sells to consumers. Please be more specific.
Yes, the lion's share of Google's revenue currently is derived from ad search. Google is most definitely a consumer company even though they have chosen to wait to directly monetize products and services such as Chrome, Desktop, Earth, Finance, Gmail, Goog-411, Images, Maps, News, Toolbar, Video, YouTube, Blogger, Apps, Picasa, Talk, Voice, etc.
I offered the examples of Android and a Google music store earlier. How might Google have handled the Android rollout if it were treating Apple as full on competitor? Might it have been a bit more fierce than it was? Might they have taken advantage of the intense desire of the other carriers to have an iPhone alternative?
Everyone else has a music store, wouldn't it make sense for Google to leverage its customer base with one?
Again, I'm not saying there were any organized conspiracies here... Just something to think about.
[B]That is what is called a conspiracy[B]
As for my listing of the fiduciary responsibilities of the board members, if you think that there is "…some degree that the relationship didn't effect their individual decision making at all levels and in various department," then that also is alluding to a conspiracy.
Board Meetings are recorded. Discussing research/marketing/sales strategies would not be part of their discussions. To post otherwise and suggest "…that the relationship may not have been in the best interest of the consumer", is accusing them of a conspiracy.
Our systems have indicated an infinite loop condition with Abster2core. Attempts to communicate will now cease.
Yes, the lion's share of Google's revenue currently is derived from ad search. Google is most definitely a consumer company even though they have chosen to wait to directly monetize products and services such as Chrome, Desktop, Earth, Finance, Gmail, Goog-411, Images, Maps, News, Toolbar, Video, YouTube, Blogger, Apps, Picasa, Talk, Voice, etc.
I offered the examples of Android and a Google music store earlier. How might Google have handled the Android rollout if it were treating Apple as full on competitor? Might it have been a bit more fierce than it was? Might they have taken advantage of the intense desire of the other carriers to have an iPhone alternative?
Everyone else has a music store, wouldn't it make sense for Google to leverage its customer base with one?
Again, I'm not saying there were any organized conspiracies here... Just something to think about.
Maybe I'm slow or just confused. How would Google be more of a competitor to Apple if they started charging consumers for things that they now give away for free? Microsoft, as we'll all recall, were considered to be unfairly competing by NOT charging for software but instead bundled for free.
Also, I don't understand the Android situation, either. How does anyone know whether Google held back on Android (to Apple's benefit)? There's no evidence that I'm aware of that suggests so.
Absolutely not.
As Schmidt and Apple have already stated, Schmidt would recluse himself if there was deemed a conflict of interest.
If anything, Apple would have been even more cautious discussing 'products' at a board meeting. Particularly, if it concerned future developments.
Board members, in particular, outsiders, i.e., non-Apple Executives/Employees, would be even more precluding. A Board Member of a public-held company in particular has fiduciary responsibilities to the respective shareholders. Using that position or special relationships gained from it for personal gain or gain for any company they were associated would be suicidal.
To suggest otherwise is tantamount to suggesting collusion or conspiracy on the part of the members of the board.
You are not tuning in to the way things actually work, you're tuning in to the way it 'should' work. Reciting a manual or some other piece of material is useless, people break and bend the rules all the time.
Maybe I'm slow or just confused. How would Google be more of a competitor to Apple if they started charging consumers for things that they now give away for free? Microsoft, as we'll all recall, were considered to be unfairly competing by NOT charging for software but instead bundled for free.
Also, I don't understand the Android situation, either. How does anyone know whether Google held back on Android (to Apple's benefit)? There's no evidence that I'm aware of that suggests so.
I was merely illustrating for you that Google is very definitely a consumer driven company despite their current revenue picture. It's not a matter of giving products and services away "free" its which areas and markets a company chooses to focus on regardless of when and how you monetize.
Companies that are very friendly with one another MAY choose to avoid stepping on each others toes in competitive terms. This MAY ultimately benefit the companies but MAY not be in the best interest of the consumer. We don't know that Google held back on Android. I'm just wondering how their rollout MAY have been different had the companies not been so friendly with one another.
You are not tuning in to the way things actually work, you're tuning in to the way it 'should' work. Reciting a manual or some other piece of material is useless, people break and bend the rules all the time.
And you base this on what evidence?
Sure, there are rogues but unilaterally painting the world as such is ludicrous.
Of the thousands of companies guided by the SEC, you are inferring that every company is conspiring to be unlawful all the time. To do so, would suggest that your parents, relatives and friends are all involved in some sort of illegal activity as well.
Right now, public traded companies are under the scrutiny of a dozen state and federal agencies. Some are undoubtedly involved in some form of unscrupulous activity. But if there was one company that would best ensure that they were more than above board, it would be Apple. Not because they have engaged illegal meanderings, which the haven't, but because there are so many idiots out there making unfounded, misguided and libelous accusations; that not to do something, the governing agencies a equally deemed guilty.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would certainly be more than pleased to examine it. Just make sure that it is collaborated and/or published; not some bloggers comments that hides behind the anonymity of the internet.
I was merely illustrating for you that Google is very definitely a consumer driven company despite their current revenue picture. It's not a matter of giving products and services away "free" its which areas and markets a company chooses to focus on regardless of when and how you monetize.
Companies that are very friendly with one another MAY choose to avoid stepping on each others toes in competitive terms. This MAY ultimately benefit the companies but MAY not be in the best interest of the consumer. We don't know that Google held back on Android. I'm just wondering how their rollout MAY have been different had the companies not been so friendly with one another.
It's not illegal to not compete or avoid stepping on a competitor's toes. It's illegal to collude to not compete via price fixing, market division, etc. These are market laws as they have the potential to effect consumers and other customers. I'm not sure what the applicability is to hiring, though.
And you base this on what evidence?
Sure, there are rogues but unilaterally painting the world as such is ludicrous.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would certainly be more than pleased to examine it. Just make sure that it is collaborated and/or published; not some bloggers comments that hides behind the anonymity of the internet.
Google Maps and Google Mobile App are starters. They had access to Apples API's that no other company has had access to.
Google Maps and Google Mobile App are starters. They had access to Apples API's that no other company has had access to.
Please provide links to support you claim.
By the way, Google Maps ?was first announced on the Google Blog on February 8, 2005, and was located at http://maps.google.com/. It originally only supported users of Internet Explorer and Mozilla web browsers, but support for Opera and Safari was added on February 25, 2005.* Are you suggesting that Apple nefariously gave only Google the API's because of their relationship with Google and in particular, because Schmidt was on the board? Could you supply evidence of such?
FYI: In partnership with Google Maps, Apple has made the core of the map application available free to developers, so they can consider using them in the applications they intend to build. Included are all the features currently in Google Maps: regular map view, topographic view, and street view; annotations and location tracking is also in the SDK.?
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps
? http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Apple/Apple...ndless-655024/