Google extends deal with Apple to remain default iPhone search
Google recently extended its contract with Apple, making the dominant search provider the default option on devices running iOS, including the iPhone.
In a recent conversation with Charlie Rose of BusinessWeek, Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt talked about his company's relationship with Apple. Rose asked about tension between Google and Apple since Google began partnering with smartphone makers for the Android mobile operating system.
"Apple is a company we both partner and compete with," Schmidt said. "We do a search deal with them, recently extended, and we're doing all sorts of things in maps and things like that."
He continued: "So the sum of all this is that two large corporations, both of which are important, both of which I care a lot about, will [remain] pretty close. But Android was around earlier than iPhone."
Schmidt also characterized the iPhone as a "closed" model controlled by Apple. He portrayed Android as a "turnkey solution with similar capabilities" to the iPhone, but one that gives vendors the "alternative" they seek.
Early this year, rumors suggested that Apple was in talks with Microsoft to make Bing the default search engine for the iPhone. Though that never came to be, the option to utilize Bing search was added to iOS 4.
However, Google has remained the default search provider for iOS devices, and Schmidt's recent comments would suggest that the company will remain the standard search provider for some time to come.
In a recent conversation with Charlie Rose of BusinessWeek, Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt talked about his company's relationship with Apple. Rose asked about tension between Google and Apple since Google began partnering with smartphone makers for the Android mobile operating system.
"Apple is a company we both partner and compete with," Schmidt said. "We do a search deal with them, recently extended, and we're doing all sorts of things in maps and things like that."
He continued: "So the sum of all this is that two large corporations, both of which are important, both of which I care a lot about, will [remain] pretty close. But Android was around earlier than iPhone."
Schmidt also characterized the iPhone as a "closed" model controlled by Apple. He portrayed Android as a "turnkey solution with similar capabilities" to the iPhone, but one that gives vendors the "alternative" they seek.
Early this year, rumors suggested that Apple was in talks with Microsoft to make Bing the default search engine for the iPhone. Though that never came to be, the option to utilize Bing search was added to iOS 4.
However, Google has remained the default search provider for iOS devices, and Schmidt's recent comments would suggest that the company will remain the standard search provider for some time to come.
Comments
By your logic, I actually started working on a new smartphone concept 21 years ago, so actually, my project that I'll be calling "Schmidtee" came before "Android", you pathetic buffoon.
Yeah, I totally remember how Android was out in the marketplace redefining the smartphone category long before iPhone. Right, Eric, right.
By your logic, I actually started working on a new smartphone concept 21 years ago, so actually, my project that I'll be calling "Schmidtee" came before "Android", you pathetic buffoon.
Chill man, grab a coffee and take a walk.
Yeah, I totally remember how Android was out in the marketplace redefining the smartphone category long before iPhone. Right, Eric, right.
By your logic, I actually started working on a new smartphone concept 21 years ago, so actually, my project that I'll be calling "Schmidtee" came before "Android", you pathetic buffoon.
Android was publicly announced in November 2007, 5 months after iPhone hit the market. One can imagine how long they were in development for, but considering Google only acquired Android Inc in July 2005, I imagine iPhone was in development at this point, and the move into making Android a mobile operating system based on the Linux kernel came after Google's acquisition (though former Android Inc employees lead the team).
Android was publicly announced in November 2007, 5 months after iPhone hit the market. One can imagine how long they were in development for, but considering Google only acquired Android Inc in July 2005, I imagine iPhone was in development at this point, and the move into making Android a mobile operating system based on the Linux kernel came after Google's acquisition (though former Android Inc employees lead the team).
Steve Jobs said the iPad was in development since 2004, which actually came first before the actual iPhone development, but since it's the OS that was already in development, I say Schmidt doesn't have a leg to stand on.
And before the iPhone, Android was positioned as a Blackberry competitor. Remember that? LOL.
Chill man, grab a coffee and take a walk.
Coffee has the opposite effect on me.
Revisionist version of history indeed...
Steve Jobs said the iPad was in development since 2004, which actually came first before the actual iPhone development, but since it's the OS that was already in development, I say Schmidt doesn't have a leg to stand on.
And before the iPhone, Android was positioned as a Blackberry competitor. Remember that? LOL.
It *really* doesn't matter, but I get a kick out of watching us geeks squabble.
Android Inc was acquired by Google in July 2005. At the time, it was reported that Andorid, Inc had been incorporated some 22 months prior - approximately September 2003.
If it is reasonable to assume (based on the evidence, or lack thereof) that the development that Apple was undertaking with the iPad back in 2004 can be directly related to the underpinnings of what would eventually come to be known as iOS, then I think is just as reasonable to assume (based on the evidence, or lack thereof) that the work Android Inc was doing back in 2003 could be directly related to the underpinnings of what would eventually come to be known as Android OS.
On the whole, though, I think this point is absolutely the wrong thing to dwell upon in the overall context of Schmidt's interview.
On the whole, though, I think this point is absolutely the wrong thing to dwell upon in the overall context of Schmidt's interview.
Do elaborate.
...
If it is reasonable to assume (based on the evidence, or lack thereof) that the development that Apple was undertaking with the iPad back in 2004 can be directly related to the underpinnings of what would eventually come to be known as iOS, then I think is just as reasonable to assume (based on the evidence, or lack thereof) that the work Android Inc was doing back in 2003 could be directly related to the underpinnings of what would eventually come to be known as Android OS.
....
Of course if we're talking about underpinnings, we all know that iOS development really started at NeXT back in 1985, long before Linus started on Linux (1991) or Java was a twinkle in Sun's eye (apparently started in 1991 as well, first publicly released in 1995). "Suck it Schmidt. Suck it long, suck it hard."
Just kidding on that, but if Schmidt weren't trying to get into the same space, he'd be incompetent given the kind of money that's flowing around these devices. It's just that Jobs doesn't have to be happy with him for probably at least somewhat back-stabbing him with his insider info, or presumably never revealing to Jobs while getting inside iPhone info that 'hey, we're going to be making phones too, using all of your neat new touch interface ideas'...
-=|Mgkwho
Of course if we're talking about underpinnings, we all know that iOS development really started at NeXT back in 1985, long before Linus started on Linux (1991) or Java was a twinkle in Sun's eye (apparently started in 1991 as well, first publicly released in 1995). "Suck it Schmidt. Suck it long, suck it hard."
Just kidding on that, but if Schmidt weren't trying to get into the same space, he'd be incompetent given the kind of money that's flowing around these devices. It's just that Jobs doesn't have to be happy with him for probably at least somewhat back-stabbing him with his insider info, or presumably never revealing to Jobs while getting inside iPhone info that 'hey, we're going to be making phones too, using all of your neat new touch interface ideas'...
Both of which of Unix-like systems, which trace back to AT&T in the 60's. AT&T, of course, dates back to the industrial revolution and the invention of the telephone. If I had the time to kill, I could probably trace Android and iOS development back to the Big Bang Theory, or the dinosaurs at the very least.
In a recent conversation with Charlie Rose of BusinessWeek, Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt talked about his company's relationship with Apple.
Firstly, Charlie Rose isn't with BusinessWeek.
Secondly, I saw his interview with Schmidt and Google has this TOTALLY wrong. Schmidt believes people want to use their 60" home theaters to surf the Web. What a freaking joke!
The MapQuest app for iOS offers a lot more than the default google maps - including turn by turn voice navigation - and it is free. I want that to be my default map app - but that does not mean that I want everyone to be forced to that default.
Regarding Schmidt's take on who his competitors are... I guess he's right that Microsoft and Bing are his primary worry, because that's the business where Google makes its money.
And really, Google and MS are more competitors in the phone business, too, in so far as both of them are competing for OEMs as customers, not end-users. Apple competes with Motorola, HTC, etc for end-users while Google and MS are just suppliers to those other OEMs.