Apple-Google battle heats up with key hires on both sides

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 110
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 2,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mbsmd View Post


    True, but same goes for Apple. Even more so because Apple has a public perception of slick, polished products - Apple can lose that if they put out (closed, sanitized, sterilized) crap. Apple gets bad press and their stock price slips.



    Google, on the other hand, gives their stuff away for free. Shiny and clean isn't Google's "raison d'etre." So if it doesn't work perfectly (Buzz), people complain for a week or two then drop it.



    You appear to be implicitly equating "slick, polished" with "closed, sanitized". I don't think those are equivalent at all. Outside of the EFF, nobody is saying "oooh, check out the rounded, curvy opensourcedness of my laptop!" Consumers don't care about inputs, they care about outputs. The extent to which a product is "open" or "closed" is just one of many inputs. And when it comes to "slick and polished" I think you're more likely to find closed-source inputs than open-source inputs. Compare, for example, Windows gaming to Linux gaming -- which is the more "polished" experience?
  • Reply 22 of 110
    hypermarkhypermark Posts: 152member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mbsmd View Post


    True, but same goes for Apple. Even more so because Apple has a public perception of slick, polished products - Apple can lose that if they put out (closed, sanitized, sterilized) crap. Apple gets bad press and their stock price slips.



    Google, on the other hand, gives their stuff away for free. Shiny and clean isn't Google's "raison d'etre." So if it doesn't work perfectly (Buzz), people complain for a week or two then drop it.



    I would agree with you that this knife cuts both ways (Apple doesn't get a free pass, for example, if the market concludes that Apple is simply being a bully/stifling innovation with their patent strategy vs. rightfully protecting their IP) but I disagree with the thesis that because Google's products are less than shiny, that will pass muster over the long haul with device OEMs, software developers and carriers.



    What consumers will cope with (because they don't care enough to differentiate) is very different from what developers, handset makers and carriers expect when they are making a mission-critical bet.
  • Reply 23 of 110
    swingeswinge Posts: 110member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hypermark View Post


    Personally, the tact of "our sh-t doesn't smell, but yours stinks" is a dangerous one for Google, if for no other reason than the fact that Google really isn't that much more open than Apple.



    After all, Google isn't providing open source to core Google services like Maps, Gmail, YouTube and the like. And of course, crown jewels, like Google's search index are closed, not to mention that they have NEVER provided visibility to the spread they make between advertisers and publishers with AdWords/AdSense. What's so open about that?



    It reminds me of the adage, "Be open with what you want to commoditize, but closed where your proprietary advantage lies."



    By that definition, Google is more “open-ish" than open, something that I blogged about here:



    Open "ish": The meaning of open, according to Google

    http://bit.ly/5ocoV3



    Check it out if interested.



    Mark



    GREAT post and article Mark, thank you!!



    Also interesting, I just took a peak at Android Market Place: http://www.android.com/market/terms/...nt-policy.html



    It really ISN'T any more open than Apple...What's interesting to me is that 3rd bullet... Does anyone know, can you alter the core apps like the Android dialer? Seems they could use this bullet to deny an App just as Apple denied Google Voice....
  • Reply 24 of 110
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post


    I agree. But I suspect that his real gripe here has nothing to do with "censorship" of controversial or sexual content. This sounds like a cover for an open-source type ideology. He's not concerned about consumer freedom, he's concerned about developer freedom. Those aren't exactly the same things.



    I think Apple has the right approach, because they are putting consumer experience above ideology (or, perhaps consumer experience is their ideology).



    I agree that his gripe probably has nothing to do with the censorship and I agree that putting the consumer first is the way to go, but I don't see how you can argue that Apple has done this considering that self-same censorship issue.



    Censorship in the manner in which Apple has employed it in this case, is exactly the thing you are arguing they "don't do." It's putting Apple's personal ideology ahead of the needs and desires of the consumers.



    Sure some consumers (supposedly) complained about the risque stuff (I don't actually believe that but let's go with accepted wisdom), but if Apple's consumers got a vote, we all know the censorship would be immediately lifted. The censorship isn't about what the consumers of Apple's products and services want, it's a PR move from Apple to defuse a vocal minority.



    I'm agreeing with what you are saying about Apple in general, but this censorship issue is a whole new ballgame for them. They are doing something they have never done before and acting very un-Apple-like in the process.
  • Reply 25 of 110
    swingeswinge Posts: 110member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    I agree that his gripe probably has nothing to do with the censorship and I agree that putting the consumer first is the way to go, but I don't see how you can argue that Apple has done this considering that self-same censorship issue.



    Censorship in the manner in which Apple has employed it in this case, is exactly the thing you are arguing they "don't do." It's putting Apple's personal ideology ahead of the needs and desires of the consumers.



    Sure some consumers (supposedly) complained about the risque stuff (I don't actually believe that but let's go with accepted wisdom), but if Apple's consumers got a vote, we all know the censorship would be immediately lifted. The censorship isn't about what the consumers of Apple's products and services want, it's a PR move from Apple to defuse a vocal minority.



    I'm agreeing with what you are saying about Apple in general, but this censorship issue is a whole new ballgame for them. They are doing something they have never done before and acting very un-Apple-like in the process.



    To this point, notice bullet number 7.

    http://www.android.com/market/terms/...nt-policy.html



    Just as Disney-fied it appears....
  • Reply 26 of 110
    woohoo!woohoo! Posts: 291member
    If you want to cause Google some grief, download Firefox and use the TrackMeNot randomized (but observable) search submission plug-in and the Ghostery web bug anti-tracking plug-in.



    They are harmless, but adds noise to their system of data collectors, tell all your friends...
  • Reply 27 of 110
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Lots of great comments on this thread so far. Well done!
  • Reply 28 of 110
    hypermarkhypermark Posts: 152member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by swinge View Post


    GREAT post and article Mark, thank you!!



    Also interesting, I just took a peak at Android Market Place: http://www.android.com/market/terms/...nt-policy.html



    It really ISN'T any more open than Apple...What's interesting to me is that 3rd bullet... Does anyone know, can you alter the core apps like the Android dialer? Seems they could use this bullet to deny an App just as Apple denied Google Voice....



    Thanks, though, I would say that in fairness to Google, one of the first Verizon phones using Android has Bing as the default search engine, which speaks to the degree of heavy-handedness Google is NOT employing.



    Imagine Apple allowing an iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad to ship with doubleTwist as the default media library management app vs. iTunes. Never, right?



    Thus, the net out is that Apple is a bit more prescriptive when it comes to CHOICE (they are a governed platform, after all), but at the same time, the OPENNESS distinction made by Google-ites is a bit of smokescreen.



    It's the distinction between attributes (Openness) and Outcomes (User Experience).
  • Reply 29 of 110
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by swinge View Post


    To this point, notice bullet number 7.

    http://www.android.com/market/terms/...nt-policy.html



    Just as Disney-fied it appears....



    Yep.



    The funny part is that to anyone outside of the USA (or at least those of us that don't work at Disney), the idea of putting it as "pornography, obscenity, nudity or sexual activity" is such a joke.



    "Pornography" and "obscenity" are the same thing, "nudity" has nothing to do with pornography (or even "sexual activity" half the time), and the term "sexual activity" could cover completely non-pornographic science stuff at the same time as it's basically just another pseudonym for "pornography" again.



    It's almost as bad as the way Americans talk about "socialism, communism, and fascism" in the same sentence (Obama is all three for instance), when in fact these are three completely different things, two of them being complete opposites.
  • Reply 30 of 110
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by satcomer View Post


    Google is evil!... "free" stuff [email, search, apps, etc] is just a ruse to collect data on you to direct adds to you.



    VERY WELL PUT. (Although there are a bunch of Google-heads on this forum, so be prepared for criticism.)



    Google is far from the innocent company that seems to provide free search. They're an advertising giant - collecting and retaining - every search you do. Google knows more about you than your spouse and they use it to sell advertising to companies who want access. What started out as a 'search' company found a way to do it profitably. The problem is that it's at the consumers expense of privacy.
  • Reply 31 of 110
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hypermark View Post


    Personally,...... blah blah blah, leading up to



    ...... something that I blogged about here:.......

    deleted



    Check it out if interested.



    Mark



    No thanks.
  • Reply 32 of 110
    Apple may have formed, or be in the process of forming, a quasi-fascist state for developers and consumers, but Google's nose is all up in your tish - in perpetuity.



    Not sure which company out-evils the other, just yet. I love most of what each company does, but I hate their philosphies of having the right to control what I do and to know about it.



    When Apple's logo turns black, and Google's turns graphite, will we really be in trouble then?
  • Reply 33 of 110
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 2,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    I agree that his gripe probably has nothing to do with the censorship and I agree that putting the consumer first is the way to go, but I don't see how you can argue that Apple has done this considering that self-same censorship issue.



    Censorship in the manner in which Apple has employed it in this case, is exactly the thing you are arguing they "don't do." It's putting Apple's personal ideology ahead of the needs and desires of the consumers.



    Sure some consumers (supposedly) complained about the risque stuff (I don't actually believe that but let's go with accepted wisdom), but if Apple's consumers got a vote, we all know the censorship would be immediately lifted. The censorship isn't about what the consumers of Apple's products and services want, it's a PR move from Apple to defuse a vocal minority.



    I'm agreeing with what you are saying about Apple in general, but this censorship issue is a whole new ballgame for them. They are doing something they have never done before and acting very un-Apple-like in the process.



    I think you vastly underestimate the extent to which Apple's customers want that type of "censorship." Two big apple customers are school districts and parents. Right there you've got a sizable chunk of people who are very much in favor of controlling risque stuff. Add to them all of the prudes, feminists, and religious conservatives, and you're talking about a pretty sizable chunk of people.



    Also, I seriously doubt that censoring risque material has anything to do with any "personal ideology" of anyone at Apple. Steve Jobs has repeatedly talked about how great it is to take LSD -- I really don't see him as a big time prude. You may not like this type of "censorship", but it's totally customer-driven.
  • Reply 34 of 110
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    Caged deathmatch battle-royale... Steve Jobs and Eric Schmitt wrestling neked in yesterday's NY Times...



    Not that these gossipy blubs aren't fun but let's get real. The Apple is a "walled garden" argument is a stale Microsoft talking point. Apple and Google competitors? That's news? I'm dumbfounded there's anybody left who doesn't already know it.
  • Reply 35 of 110
    iluviluv Posts: 123member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FormerARSgm View Post


    Google is far from the innocent company that seems to provide free search.



    Google is more evil than any company's.
  • Reply 36 of 110
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iLuv View Post


    Google is more evil than any company's.



    I disagree. I would still maintain that Google is the least evil company of all others. The problem with them, however, is they try to maintain this huge "holier than thou" "we are openner than you (although we never open things where our competitive advantage lies)" "do no evil (unless its in your interest)" BS.



    I prefer Apple/MS etc. because they don't pretend to be the complete opposite of the huge corporations they are.
  • Reply 37 of 110
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    I guess this means WAR



    Eh! I think so...
  • Reply 38 of 110
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,709member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tranquility View Post


    Apple may have formed, or be in the process of forming, a quasi-fascist state for developers and consumers...



    Can you elaborate on this, please? And also show me an industry which is not what you describe.
  • Reply 39 of 110
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,756member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    The consumer.



    How?



    Microsoft can continue to do what they've been doing:



    Nothing.
  • Reply 40 of 110
    macapfelmacapfel Posts: 572member
    I wanted to buy the iPad before Apple even announced it. I have an iPhone, my wife an iTouch and I wanted the iPad eg for reading newspapers. I have to say I don't like Apple's move of censorship and the press is becoming cautious here. Apple cannot dictate the newspapers what they are allowed to publish. At the moment the problem are only pictures of women with not much clothes on. It doesn't matter whether one likes those pictures or not. But it must be the buyer who decides what he wants to seeand read, not Apple. I will not buy an iPad before it is clear that the press can publish what they want to publish through their apps!
Sign In or Register to comment.