'Cause web apps can really suck? Google Maps. Terrible. Popular Facebook games like Farmville. Terrible. They're all popular because they are crap right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift
Beware of any business that is purely ad-driven.
Agreed. But you should also beware of any company that has a CEO who decides what you can and cannot do and can and cannot watch. Why should Steve Jobs get to decide whether I should or should not be allowed to consumer porn on my phone? Or the work of a prize winning cartoonist?
I know Steve Jobs said that he never see Apple as a platform company or waging platform war with Microsoft (and lost)
But it is very clear that Google is waging a mobile platform war with Apple and with everybody else. Apple better wake up or history is going to repeat itself.
It may be the best (and you can best the Google gnomes are working at making it better) but it was certainly far more innovative than MobileMe. Anyway, I got the correlation wrong. It's iWorks that's a Google Docs competitor. MobileMe is more a competitor to GMail and Picassa.
actually you didn't get it wrong. iwork basically just stores files on a server. you can export pdf or office formats. can't edit online, but you can leave notes. iwork in the future will be a google doc competitor.
That's fine. Too each their own. In a few months, I'll have the security of the walled garden on my iPad and the freedom to install what I want on my Nexus One.
However, I was responding to the ridiculous charge made by the other poster that Google is moving to the "walled garden" approach. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I would agree that google is not moving to a walled garden ... yet google does have a wall, it just is raised after the damage occurred instead of before the damage occurred. read the wsj article, very interesting. will android become riddled with virus's similar to desktops? I really don't know, but their approach is much more dangerous than apples. i won't be accessing my bank account on one of those "open" machine, i'll tell you that.
Google is a joke. They are living off of an algorithm by Brin and Page.
Moreover, Google pays Apple 100 million a year to carry their freaking search! WTF!
So, how is Google competing with Apple when they are greasing their pockets with that much cash?
And Android can be developed up the a** but at the end of the day it is a free OS on competing hardware maker's tech who view their phones as nothing but fanboy art and will discard them with nary a support on earth. The celly biz is a very progressive business, but at the end of the day it is a throw away tech business.
I also heard that Google pays their cell phone partners to use Android. I don't know if that is true but taking into consideration that Google pays Apple big bank for Google search I wouldn't doubt it one bit.
Google is a joke. They are living off of an algorithm by Brin and Page.
Moreover, Google pays Apple 100 million a year to carry their freaking search! WTF!
So, how is Google competing with Apple when they are greasing their pockets with that much cash?
Google pays Apple big bank for Google search I wouldn't doubt it one bit.
I use Apple products by choice. Personally, I also prefer Apple;s "walled garden" if that helps minimize malware, and I have to minimize the time spent to find a gem, among a mountain of choices. Thus, I am more than likely to always prefer Apple over any Google phone, even if Google were to become dominant in the mobile computing devices. Just to get that straight.
However, it is comments like this that indicate how many Apple fans do not fully understand Google's business strategy.
First. It is Apple that is too dependent on Google - Google Search, Maps, You Tube (video), and Google is willing to collaborate with Apple because it is good for Google's strategy.
By the iPhone OS mobile devices using Google Search, it just continued the expansion of Google's domination over other Search engines. This happens to be the main source of income of Google and it also entrenched its Google Ads business. 100 million is pittannce, if in the process, you are earning 200 million or 500 million, in return. In fact, Google pays every browser company that uses its Search engine. Google Search is the bloodline of open source browser, Firefox.
The greater danger is that by cornering almost of all of the mobile Search business, except perhaps those few that use MS Bing Search (are there any using Yahoo?), Google has imprinted to teh minds of mobile gadget users that it is Google Search is also the de facto Search Engine in mobile computing devices.
This is the case also with Maps and You Tube.
As John Gruber mulled, Google at one point can exist without Apple (just like Google survived when Yahoo stopped using Google Search), but Apple will be terribly crippled if Google do decide to make some of its products not the fully compatible, not as much feature rich, or slow when used in Apple devices.
Microsoft did this to Apple. While Microsoft sold MS Office for the Mac, the update is not as often, or the latest version is not as rich as the Windows equivalent. AppleWorks did exist then but was neglected by Apple, MS Office was much better and became the de facto software for almost all computing devices, except for the "few rounding number" using other comparable software.
The legacy of this is that until now, in spite of an improved "Office" software by Apple *iWorks)
The same is true with Internet Explorer. In fact, at some point, MS simply stopped creating the IE for Apple. Sure Apple created Safari because of the action of the decision of Microsoft. Again, the legacy here is that, in PCs, IE is the de facto browser, even if its share is decreasing.
Apple in a sense is trying to gain some control in the mobile computing devices that are part of the iPhone OS ecosystem, in terms of Safari browser. It should do the same for Search, Maps but Apple has no comparable answer to You Tube. Sure Apple has bought a start up Maps company, and a Search start that it would prefer to call an AI (Artificial Intelligence) company.
Whatever it is , Apple is taking its time in developing these assets. That is good in a way to create a better alternative.
However, in my opinion, unlike other competitions, Apple may have found a viable competitor with Google, and with deep pockets, like Apple and Microsoft. Unlike other competitors, like Motorola, Nokia, RIM, Google is also known for its research. Or at least, Google was astute enough to buy acquisitions that strengthened its core business -- advertisements.
Steve Jobs cried foul that Google encrouched on its business. Such charges obviously is true, and fired up the Apple loyalist and created more publicity. But, let's face it, a business goal is to ensure its survival and profitability.
If it means encrouching on other's turf. That's business. Fight back, if you are a business.
Licensing your creation worked for Microsoft in the PC industry. Sure, MS used its clout to maintain its dominance. But, at the end of the day, Microsoft won the war in the PC industry.
Google believes it can do that same strategy and much better than Microsoft by using "open source" sharing of its creations -- Chrome, Android, etc. Why? Because it is free, more companies are likely to adopt these OS than proprietary OS, like Windows Phone 7. To support this, the share of Windows Mobile is declining while Android is growing in accelerated rate.
It is not a certainty, but if trends will continue, it is possible that Android can overtake the iPhone. Many Apple loyalist denigrate that some Androids were not as good as the iPhone, the Apps Store is much more ahead in terms of Apps, and has no equivalent in the Android ecosystem.
That is true, but historically the same charges were the response to growing car and electronics products of Japan. They were all copy-cat products based from Western technology. The West understimated Japan's technological prowess in the 60's but before the West realized, Japan became dominant in both the electornics industry, especially household products and entertainment, and became a poweerful competitor in car manufacturing. In fact, Japan automakers are far ahead in the most advanced cars in terms of energy conservation.
[China, Taiwan, South Korea are having similar increasing successes, but that is another thread.]
The point here is that Apple loyalist must not understimate Google but judging the state of its competing technologies. These technologies are improving, even a number of Apple bloggers and more independent tech analysts have indicated that the Android is ahead of the iPhone OS, in some areas, but the more experienced Apple iPhone users still prefer the iPhone.
The question now would be how the masses would react to a much more improved Google Ecosystem? How will it affect the dynamics if Android and the entire Google ecosystem, Search, Maps, Email, Social Networking, Video (You Tube), telephony, cloud computing, etc. becomes a true formidable competitor, or even overtake Apple, in the phone industry?
What Apple should do, is to understand and find ways to address the Google competition and the evolving Google Ecosystem. If Google succeeded in having many of the phone manufacturers to produce Android phone, improve its content delivery (Apps, music, books, mass media, etc.), these aspects of the Google Ecosystem would be formidable addition to that part of the ecoystem where it is already dominant -Search, Maps, You Tube video. More than likely, the films and TV and other video industries may attempt to provide preferential treatment to Google, if only for the Google to serve as a means for the mass media companies to have better negotiating position when it deals with Apple. The book and news-magazine industry did the same strategy to unlock the stranglehold of Amazon.
The silver lining in all these is that indeed Apple is trying to do this. For example, the WWDC next week is dedicated mainly to the iPhone OS because Apple correctly understood that the most contested competition with Google is the mobile computing market. Similarly, Apple has entered the iAds, to thwart the complete domination of Google in the growing mobile computing market.
Apple should do more though, and perhaps at a faster pace.
There are many ifs in the aforementioned speculation, and it will dictate the outcome. The most unpredictable among these in the response of the target consumers.
At least, in the past decade, Apple so far had the upperhand in creating products that resonated to consumers -- of all ages, and to an extent, economic strata, especially in the digital music.
That was a phenomenal post. Probably one of the best and most informative write-ups I?ve ever seen of the Apple vs. Google situation. Seriously. Thank you for taking the time to write that.
Finally a reasonable and intelligent comment, rather than all the rah-rah Google stole...rah rah Google copied....rah-rah Google is going down crap.
I believe the Apple-Google split came (and was bound to happen) because their underlying philosophies differ so much. Apple is fundamentally a hardware maker. They sell iWidgets. Google is ad funded service provider. For Google to do well in the brave new world of mobile computing, they need as many as eyeballs as they can get, using their websites. It would have been extremely dangerous for them to have to rely one company (Apple was so far ahead of the competition in 2007...and if not for Android would still be that far ahead), especially one as temperamental and restrictive as Apple, to drive mobile traffic to their sites.
Google's vision of companies like Apple is that they sell tools that help you access services and content. That's what the iPhone is. It's a tool. In Google's view they don't care what device you use as long as you end up using Google's services. Apple, see it much differently, of course. They don't believe web-services can be as good as native apps. They don't see the iPhone as just another tool. It's a crucial element in a whole ecosystem of Apple products. And most importantly, it's a best seller that makes them money.
These visions fundamentally clash. Google needs OEMs to proliferate cheap devices that help users access the web (and its services). Apple wants to sell its devices for as high a cost as possible to maximize its profits. Sooner or later they were bound to split. It makes perfect sense for Google to help all the other struggling OEMs by giving them Android, since they all suck so much at software. They don't even have to include a lick of Google stuff on the Android platform. Yet, Google will still make money as mobile traffic is driven to its sites. And it makes perfect sense for Apple to remain an exclusive and restrictive OEM since that approach makes them money. Unfortunately, that leaves less and less ground for commonality.
The important thing to remember about Google is they basically have one revenue source and it's advertising. Going forward they will increasingly need to corner markets because advertisers need to be where the users are. Google's growth is directly tied to growing their advertising business. If another new service or product comes along not serving Google ads or otherwise promoting Google's services it's an attack on their core. It's a troubling future to me because it puts Google into the Microsoft growth model of needing to dominate markets and stamp out competition early and often. We saw this recently with the AdMob purchase. It's rumored they tried to buy both Facebook and Twitter in the past. I'm really surprised with all the controversy over Facebook privacy and Apple's App Store policies few people in the tech media are talking about Google's dark side. We're going to see a lot more of this in the future from Google.
I find it dumb how people think Google is "evil" for collecting data. Everything you use on Google is usually free. And things you type into Google, might be used to better target Ads for you. However no human is ever going to read the data, and even if they did, its all anonymous data so they would have no idea who's data it was. And the only reason Google does this is to make money, so they can provide the service for free.
So lets cut the crap about security, your free to use other competitors for $$ that don't use your data for ads. You get access to Google's great services for free. And if you think other free services (like bing) don't collect any data, your naive. You only hate on Google because they compete with Apple is some areas of the market. But remember if Google never made android, Apple would never feel any pressure and the iPhone 4 would most likely suck ass. Now it looks like its going to kick ass. Google making great phones is good for Apple customers, its good for everyone.
And you say stay away from Google services, yet there is nothing that even comes close to replacing them. Same thing with with Flash, people says its slow, buggy, compared to what? Nothing comes close. Silverlight? You got to be joking... You know they feel the pressure when Apple fans are suggesting Microsoft's products as solutions... LOL Lets get real here...
Google *is* evil. All they do is copy other company's products and give it away for free in order to stimulate their advertising business. If Google is so giving, why doesn't Google open source its search algorithm? Of course not, that's their crown jewel they will guard it with their life. In the mean time, they will undermine products from Microsoft, Apple, the music and movie industry etc... for an extra buck in advertising.
Apple could really screw Google by offering iAD for free. That would really give Google a taste of its own medicine. I still hope iAD kicks Google's ass even if Google participates in it. I hope they really shake up the internet advertising industry and open it to everyone.
With all the Apple bashing at Google it seems that they are trying to replicate some of that walled garden approach that apple has to their platform..
With all the security problems, Google has to go that way.
My favorite line was "Google's efforts to match Apple's iTunes features integrated into its iPhone OS may stomp out the emerging third party solutions to the feature gap on Android,"
So it's horrible when Apple vets applications for quality, but it's OK for Google to restrict applications simply because they compete? ROTFLMAO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patroll
I think you mean loss leaders. Unless you are referring to Ballmer, in which case you are correct in all sorts of ways.
Best line of the day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevetim
The article was in context to a bank app available at google store that they had to pull (yes google pulls app from their store too--but the alt press doesn't get hissy about it). Evidently it was a bank app that would have had potential to take some finance data from users.
Yes, I can see why Google wouldn't allow that kind of app. After all, stealing your personal data is GOOGLE's job.
Google *is* evil. All they do is copy other company's products and give it away for free in order to stimulate their advertising business.
So who'd they copy Google Maps from? What about WebAnalytics? Visual search? I am grateful that there is a company out there that's found a way to commercialize products that nobody else has. Where would maps be without Google and its advertising business?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007
If Google is so giving, why doesn't Google open source its search algorithm? Of course not, that's their crown jewel they will guard it with their life. In the mean time, they will undermine products from Microsoft, Apple, the music and movie industry etc... for an extra buck in advertising.
Why doesn't Apple open up its whole multi-touch patent set to anybody and everybody? Suggesting that they are evil because they don't hand out their IP to the competition is ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007
Apple could really screw Google by offering iAD for free. That would really give Google a taste of its own medicine. I still hope iAD kicks Google's ass even if Google participates in it. I hope they really shake up the internet advertising industry and open it to everyone.
I'd love to see Apple try. Why not right? Let Apple blow billions in an ad war with a race to the bottom. Kinda hard when iAds only does ads in apps and not on the rest of the net. But why not? Apple should take on the entire internet advertising industry and simply pay out more than Google. They can make lots of website owners rich and cut that $40 billion warchest down to a more manageable size.
With all the security problems, Google has to go that way.
My favorite line was "Google's efforts to match Apple's iTunes features integrated into its iPhone OS may stomp out the emerging third party solutions to the feature gap on Android,"
So it's horrible when Apple vets applications for quality, but it's OK for Google to restrict applications simply because they compete? ROTFLMAO.
You really have Apple tinted glasses don't you. You didn't understand what you read. Google isn't going to restrict anything. AI's observation was that Google's offering would compete and eventually trump the "emerging third party solutions".
And Apple does far more than "vet" applications. They outright reject them if they compete with any OS feature or they'll axe them later when Apple decides to make said function a core OS feature (right after the developer has expended serious time and effort).
And you say stay away from Google services, yet there is nothing that even comes close to replacing them. Same thing with with Flash, people says its slow, buggy, compared to what? Nothing comes close. Silverlight? You got to be joking... You know they feel the pressure when Apple fans are suggesting Microsoft's products as solutions... LOL Lets get real here...
The article was in context to a bank app available at google store that they had to pull (yes google pulls app from their store too--but the alt press doesn't get hissy about it). Evidently it was a bank app that would have had potential to take some finance data from users.
It was more than just a bad app. It was infected with a trojan.
Article also shows and iphone developer was grabbing contact info from phones, but apple found out about and kicked them off. So apple let's some bad ones squeak by, but at least they are trying to stop the madness.
I agree that Google is way to free with Android Market. And I really don't understand why. Since Android is an open platform, you can install apps from elsewhere. It's not make or break like the App Store. There's nothing stopping developers from taking their work elsewhere if they get rejected by AM. I think Google's afraid of looking like hypocrites if they start kicking off apps. Can you imagine what people on here would be staying?
I find it dumb how people think Google is "evil" for collecting data. Everything you use on Google is usually free. And things you type into Google, might be used to better target Ads for you. However no human is ever going to read the data, and even if they did, its all anonymous data so they would have no idea who's data it was. And the only reason Google does this is to make money, so they can provide the service for free. ...
I think you have it backwards, and have missed a few points. Google provides "free" services, and faux open source software, for several reasons.
First, and very simply, it allows them to undermine the business models of other companies. By throwing out "free" software, it disrupts markets and "opens up" information for harvesting by Google. Just as importantly, it gives Google control of that information. Google's business model isn't simply about advertising, it's about gathering, and controlling access to, information. Some of that information is personally identifiable information (sorry, but the information Google collects is absolutely not anonymized, despite what they would like you to believe) and some of that information falls into other categories. But the underlying business model is collection and control of information.
Also, I think it's almost certain that, at some point, humans will be reviewing specific information about specific individuals. Whether it be "rogue" Google employees using it for their own purposes, government agencies conducting investigations, or officially sanctioned internal access, it absolutely will happen. Human nature being what it is, a treasure trove of personal (and business) data such as this will eventually be used for purposes other than benign.
Comments
Good luck with cross-platform crap apps.
'Cause web apps can really suck? Google Maps. Terrible. Popular Facebook games like Farmville. Terrible. They're all popular because they are crap right?
Beware of any business that is purely ad-driven.
Agreed. But you should also beware of any company that has a CEO who decides what you can and cannot do and can and cannot watch. Why should Steve Jobs get to decide whether I should or should not be allowed to consumer porn on my phone? Or the work of a prize winning cartoonist?
Google is trying to undermine Apple's cloud announcements next week.
It won't work.
Time will tell.
Never thought I'd hear someone talk up Apple's virtually non existent cloud services when comparing them to Google.
Google *is* the cloud, pretty much. Even Microsoft are doing better with the cloud than Apple are, and you know their heart really isn't in it.
The cloud is Apple's Achilles' heel, they just don't understand it. Hopefully that begin to change next week.
But it is very clear that Google is waging a mobile platform war with Apple and with everybody else. Apple better wake up or history is going to repeat itself.
It may be the best (and you can best the Google gnomes are working at making it better) but it was certainly far more innovative than MobileMe. Anyway, I got the correlation wrong. It's iWorks that's a Google Docs competitor. MobileMe is more a competitor to GMail and Picassa.
actually you didn't get it wrong. iwork basically just stores files on a server. you can export pdf or office formats. can't edit online, but you can leave notes. iwork in the future will be a google doc competitor.
That's fine. Too each their own. In a few months, I'll have the security of the walled garden on my iPad and the freedom to install what I want on my Nexus One.
However, I was responding to the ridiculous charge made by the other poster that Google is moving to the "walled garden" approach. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I would agree that google is not moving to a walled garden ... yet google does have a wall, it just is raised after the damage occurred instead of before the damage occurred. read the wsj article, very interesting. will android become riddled with virus's similar to desktops? I really don't know, but their approach is much more dangerous than apples. i won't be accessing my bank account on one of those "open" machine, i'll tell you that.
Moreover, Google pays Apple 100 million a year to carry their freaking search! WTF!
So, how is Google competing with Apple when they are greasing their pockets with that much cash?
And Android can be developed up the a** but at the end of the day it is a free OS on competing hardware maker's tech who view their phones as nothing but fanboy art and will discard them with nary a support on earth. The celly biz is a very progressive business, but at the end of the day it is a throw away tech business.
I also heard that Google pays their cell phone partners to use Android. I don't know if that is true but taking into consideration that Google pays Apple big bank for Google search I wouldn't doubt it one bit.
Google is a joke. They are living off of an algorithm by Brin and Page.
Moreover, Google pays Apple 100 million a year to carry their freaking search! WTF!
So, how is Google competing with Apple when they are greasing their pockets with that much cash?
Google pays Apple big bank for Google search I wouldn't doubt it one bit.
I use Apple products by choice. Personally, I also prefer Apple;s "walled garden" if that helps minimize malware, and I have to minimize the time spent to find a gem, among a mountain of choices. Thus, I am more than likely to always prefer Apple over any Google phone, even if Google were to become dominant in the mobile computing devices. Just to get that straight.
However, it is comments like this that indicate how many Apple fans do not fully understand Google's business strategy.
First. It is Apple that is too dependent on Google - Google Search, Maps, You Tube (video), and Google is willing to collaborate with Apple because it is good for Google's strategy.
By the iPhone OS mobile devices using Google Search, it just continued the expansion of Google's domination over other Search engines. This happens to be the main source of income of Google and it also entrenched its Google Ads business. 100 million is pittannce, if in the process, you are earning 200 million or 500 million, in return. In fact, Google pays every browser company that uses its Search engine. Google Search is the bloodline of open source browser, Firefox.
The greater danger is that by cornering almost of all of the mobile Search business, except perhaps those few that use MS Bing Search (are there any using Yahoo?), Google has imprinted to teh minds of mobile gadget users that it is Google Search is also the de facto Search Engine in mobile computing devices.
This is the case also with Maps and You Tube.
As John Gruber mulled, Google at one point can exist without Apple (just like Google survived when Yahoo stopped using Google Search), but Apple will be terribly crippled if Google do decide to make some of its products not the fully compatible, not as much feature rich, or slow when used in Apple devices.
Microsoft did this to Apple. While Microsoft sold MS Office for the Mac, the update is not as often, or the latest version is not as rich as the Windows equivalent. AppleWorks did exist then but was neglected by Apple, MS Office was much better and became the de facto software for almost all computing devices, except for the "few rounding number" using other comparable software.
The legacy of this is that until now, in spite of an improved "Office" software by Apple *iWorks)
The same is true with Internet Explorer. In fact, at some point, MS simply stopped creating the IE for Apple. Sure Apple created Safari because of the action of the decision of Microsoft. Again, the legacy here is that, in PCs, IE is the de facto browser, even if its share is decreasing.
Apple in a sense is trying to gain some control in the mobile computing devices that are part of the iPhone OS ecosystem, in terms of Safari browser. It should do the same for Search, Maps but Apple has no comparable answer to You Tube. Sure Apple has bought a start up Maps company, and a Search start that it would prefer to call an AI (Artificial Intelligence) company.
Whatever it is , Apple is taking its time in developing these assets. That is good in a way to create a better alternative.
However, in my opinion, unlike other competitions, Apple may have found a viable competitor with Google, and with deep pockets, like Apple and Microsoft. Unlike other competitors, like Motorola, Nokia, RIM, Google is also known for its research. Or at least, Google was astute enough to buy acquisitions that strengthened its core business -- advertisements.
Steve Jobs cried foul that Google encrouched on its business. Such charges obviously is true, and fired up the Apple loyalist and created more publicity. But, let's face it, a business goal is to ensure its survival and profitability.
If it means encrouching on other's turf. That's business. Fight back, if you are a business.
Licensing your creation worked for Microsoft in the PC industry. Sure, MS used its clout to maintain its dominance. But, at the end of the day, Microsoft won the war in the PC industry.
Google believes it can do that same strategy and much better than Microsoft by using "open source" sharing of its creations -- Chrome, Android, etc. Why? Because it is free, more companies are likely to adopt these OS than proprietary OS, like Windows Phone 7. To support this, the share of Windows Mobile is declining while Android is growing in accelerated rate.
It is not a certainty, but if trends will continue, it is possible that Android can overtake the iPhone. Many Apple loyalist denigrate that some Androids were not as good as the iPhone, the Apps Store is much more ahead in terms of Apps, and has no equivalent in the Android ecosystem.
That is true, but historically the same charges were the response to growing car and electronics products of Japan. They were all copy-cat products based from Western technology. The West understimated Japan's technological prowess in the 60's but before the West realized, Japan became dominant in both the electornics industry, especially household products and entertainment, and became a poweerful competitor in car manufacturing. In fact, Japan automakers are far ahead in the most advanced cars in terms of energy conservation.
[China, Taiwan, South Korea are having similar increasing successes, but that is another thread.]
The point here is that Apple loyalist must not understimate Google but judging the state of its competing technologies. These technologies are improving, even a number of Apple bloggers and more independent tech analysts have indicated that the Android is ahead of the iPhone OS, in some areas, but the more experienced Apple iPhone users still prefer the iPhone.
The question now would be how the masses would react to a much more improved Google Ecosystem? How will it affect the dynamics if Android and the entire Google ecosystem, Search, Maps, Email, Social Networking, Video (You Tube), telephony, cloud computing, etc. becomes a true formidable competitor, or even overtake Apple, in the phone industry?
What Apple should do, is to understand and find ways to address the Google competition and the evolving Google Ecosystem. If Google succeeded in having many of the phone manufacturers to produce Android phone, improve its content delivery (Apps, music, books, mass media, etc.), these aspects of the Google Ecosystem would be formidable addition to that part of the ecoystem where it is already dominant -Search, Maps, You Tube video. More than likely, the films and TV and other video industries may attempt to provide preferential treatment to Google, if only for the Google to serve as a means for the mass media companies to have better negotiating position when it deals with Apple. The book and news-magazine industry did the same strategy to unlock the stranglehold of Amazon.
The silver lining in all these is that indeed Apple is trying to do this. For example, the WWDC next week is dedicated mainly to the iPhone OS because Apple correctly understood that the most contested competition with Google is the mobile computing market. Similarly, Apple has entered the iAds, to thwart the complete domination of Google in the growing mobile computing market.
Apple should do more though, and perhaps at a faster pace.
There are many ifs in the aforementioned speculation, and it will dictate the outcome. The most unpredictable among these in the response of the target consumers.
At least, in the past decade, Apple so far had the upperhand in creating products that resonated to consumers -- of all ages, and to an extent, economic strata, especially in the digital music.
CGC
CGC
That was a phenomenal post. Probably one of the best and most informative write-ups I?ve ever seen of the Apple vs. Google situation. Seriously. Thank you for taking the time to write that.
Finally a reasonable and intelligent comment, rather than all the rah-rah Google stole...rah rah Google copied....rah-rah Google is going down crap.
I believe the Apple-Google split came (and was bound to happen) because their underlying philosophies differ so much. Apple is fundamentally a hardware maker. They sell iWidgets. Google is ad funded service provider. For Google to do well in the brave new world of mobile computing, they need as many as eyeballs as they can get, using their websites. It would have been extremely dangerous for them to have to rely one company (Apple was so far ahead of the competition in 2007...and if not for Android would still be that far ahead), especially one as temperamental and restrictive as Apple, to drive mobile traffic to their sites.
Google's vision of companies like Apple is that they sell tools that help you access services and content. That's what the iPhone is. It's a tool. In Google's view they don't care what device you use as long as you end up using Google's services. Apple, see it much differently, of course. They don't believe web-services can be as good as native apps. They don't see the iPhone as just another tool. It's a crucial element in a whole ecosystem of Apple products. And most importantly, it's a best seller that makes them money.
These visions fundamentally clash. Google needs OEMs to proliferate cheap devices that help users access the web (and its services). Apple wants to sell its devices for as high a cost as possible to maximize its profits. Sooner or later they were bound to split. It makes perfect sense for Google to help all the other struggling OEMs by giving them Android, since they all suck so much at software. They don't even have to include a lick of Google stuff on the Android platform. Yet, Google will still make money as mobile traffic is driven to its sites. And it makes perfect sense for Apple to remain an exclusive and restrictive OEM since that approach makes them money. Unfortunately, that leaves less and less ground for commonality.
I find it dumb how people think Google is "evil" for collecting data. Everything you use on Google is usually free. And things you type into Google, might be used to better target Ads for you. However no human is ever going to read the data, and even if they did, its all anonymous data so they would have no idea who's data it was. And the only reason Google does this is to make money, so they can provide the service for free.
So lets cut the crap about security, your free to use other competitors for $$ that don't use your data for ads. You get access to Google's great services for free. And if you think other free services (like bing) don't collect any data, your naive. You only hate on Google because they compete with Apple is some areas of the market. But remember if Google never made android, Apple would never feel any pressure and the iPhone 4 would most likely suck ass. Now it looks like its going to kick ass. Google making great phones is good for Apple customers, its good for everyone.
And you say stay away from Google services, yet there is nothing that even comes close to replacing them. Same thing with with Flash, people says its slow, buggy, compared to what? Nothing comes close. Silverlight? You got to be joking... You know they feel the pressure when Apple fans are suggesting Microsoft's products as solutions... LOL Lets get real here...
Google *is* evil. All they do is copy other company's products and give it away for free in order to stimulate their advertising business. If Google is so giving, why doesn't Google open source its search algorithm? Of course not, that's their crown jewel they will guard it with their life. In the mean time, they will undermine products from Microsoft, Apple, the music and movie industry etc... for an extra buck in advertising.
Apple could really screw Google by offering iAD for free. That would really give Google a taste of its own medicine. I still hope iAD kicks Google's ass even if Google participates in it. I hope they really shake up the internet advertising industry and open it to everyone.
Time will tell.
With all the Apple bashing at Google it seems that they are trying to replicate some of that walled garden approach that apple has to their platform..
With all the security problems, Google has to go that way.
My favorite line was "Google's efforts to match Apple's iTunes features integrated into its iPhone OS may stomp out the emerging third party solutions to the feature gap on Android,"
So it's horrible when Apple vets applications for quality, but it's OK for Google to restrict applications simply because they compete? ROTFLMAO.
I think you mean loss leaders. Unless you are referring to Ballmer, in which case you are correct in all sorts of ways.
Best line of the day.
The article was in context to a bank app available at google store that they had to pull (yes google pulls app from their store too--but the alt press doesn't get hissy about it). Evidently it was a bank app that would have had potential to take some finance data from users.
Yes, I can see why Google wouldn't allow that kind of app. After all, stealing your personal data is GOOGLE's job.
Google *is* evil. All they do is copy other company's products and give it away for free in order to stimulate their advertising business.
So who'd they copy Google Maps from? What about WebAnalytics? Visual search? I am grateful that there is a company out there that's found a way to commercialize products that nobody else has. Where would maps be without Google and its advertising business?
If Google is so giving, why doesn't Google open source its search algorithm? Of course not, that's their crown jewel they will guard it with their life. In the mean time, they will undermine products from Microsoft, Apple, the music and movie industry etc... for an extra buck in advertising.
Why doesn't Apple open up its whole multi-touch patent set to anybody and everybody? Suggesting that they are evil because they don't hand out their IP to the competition is ridiculous.
Apple could really screw Google by offering iAD for free. That would really give Google a taste of its own medicine. I still hope iAD kicks Google's ass even if Google participates in it. I hope they really shake up the internet advertising industry and open it to everyone.
I'd love to see Apple try. Why not right? Let Apple blow billions in an ad war with a race to the bottom. Kinda hard when iAds only does ads in apps and not on the rest of the net. But why not? Apple should take on the entire internet advertising industry and simply pay out more than Google. They can make lots of website owners rich and cut that $40 billion warchest down to a more manageable size.
With all the security problems, Google has to go that way.
My favorite line was "Google's efforts to match Apple's iTunes features integrated into its iPhone OS may stomp out the emerging third party solutions to the feature gap on Android,"
So it's horrible when Apple vets applications for quality, but it's OK for Google to restrict applications simply because they compete? ROTFLMAO.
You really have Apple tinted glasses don't you. You didn't understand what you read. Google isn't going to restrict anything. AI's observation was that Google's offering would compete and eventually trump the "emerging third party solutions".
And Apple does far more than "vet" applications. They outright reject them if they compete with any OS feature or they'll axe them later when Apple decides to make said function a core OS feature (right after the developer has expended serious time and effort).
didn't they just kick a bunch of Tetris clone out of the Android store?
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...oid-market.ars
IP issues.
And you say stay away from Google services, yet there is nothing that even comes close to replacing them. Same thing with with Flash, people says its slow, buggy, compared to what? Nothing comes close. Silverlight? You got to be joking... You know they feel the pressure when Apple fans are suggesting Microsoft's products as solutions... LOL Lets get real here...
Babaloo, your whole post:
+1
The article was in context to a bank app available at google store that they had to pull (yes google pulls app from their store too--but the alt press doesn't get hissy about it). Evidently it was a bank app that would have had potential to take some finance data from users.
It was more than just a bad app. It was infected with a trojan.
http://www.h-online.com/security/new...ils-901895.htm
Article also shows and iphone developer was grabbing contact info from phones, but apple found out about and kicked them off. So apple let's some bad ones squeak by, but at least they are trying to stop the madness.
I agree that Google is way to free with Android Market. And I really don't understand why. Since Android is an open platform, you can install apps from elsewhere. It's not make or break like the App Store. There's nothing stopping developers from taking their work elsewhere if they get rejected by AM. I think Google's afraid of looking like hypocrites if they start kicking off apps. Can you imagine what people on here would be staying?
I find it dumb how people think Google is "evil" for collecting data. Everything you use on Google is usually free. And things you type into Google, might be used to better target Ads for you. However no human is ever going to read the data, and even if they did, its all anonymous data so they would have no idea who's data it was. And the only reason Google does this is to make money, so they can provide the service for free. ...
I think you have it backwards, and have missed a few points. Google provides "free" services, and faux open source software, for several reasons.
First, and very simply, it allows them to undermine the business models of other companies. By throwing out "free" software, it disrupts markets and "opens up" information for harvesting by Google. Just as importantly, it gives Google control of that information. Google's business model isn't simply about advertising, it's about gathering, and controlling access to, information. Some of that information is personally identifiable information (sorry, but the information Google collects is absolutely not anonymized, despite what they would like you to believe) and some of that information falls into other categories. But the underlying business model is collection and control of information.
Also, I think it's almost certain that, at some point, humans will be reviewing specific information about specific individuals. Whether it be "rogue" Google employees using it for their own purposes, government agencies conducting investigations, or officially sanctioned internal access, it absolutely will happen. Human nature being what it is, a treasure trove of personal (and business) data such as this will eventually be used for purposes other than benign.