Antitrust Investigation of Apple Led Nortel Patent Purchase

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

Sure it is.

1) both have three columns, with a top row of menu-type stuff.

Like almost every other website around.

2) the left column of both includes contacts for chat,and the ability to navigate to different "feeds."

I only have a newsfeed on the left on facebook. My chat is on the bottom on facebook.

3) the center column of both has a "wall" (or "stream"). Just like facebook, each entry has a thumbnail photo on the top left, a top row listing the name of the person who posted, and underneath lists the actual feed. Facebook has links for "like - comment - share" and google has links for "+1 - comment - share," in each case on the bottom of the entry.

Just like real life, Google and Facebook have a button for showing someone support or that you agree with something or you think it's funny. It's like calling someone who laughs unoriginal because other people have done it before.

Google+ performs some of the same functions as facebook, but my opinion is that it's far better designed. The fact that some features overlap mean that layouts are going to be similar (of course you need some kind of feed, how else do you want it to show up? letters flying at you?) but it's all about how things are executed.

This is really ancillary to the point of the thread, but it does illustrate something important. Google+ definitely took some cues from facebook, just like facebook took cues from myspace. That's how technologies advance. Things are built upon. Just like Android built on things iPhone pioneered on mobile devices and iPhone built on things Android and Windows Mobile did.

 

[NAG]

Except it's not. I have Google+, I have facebook. Google+ is not a copy of facebook.

This needs to be emphasized here. It does similar things (you can talk to friends and chat). However, as far as I can see it does all of those things in a completely different way (I got an invite sometime last week). If you want a great example just look at the source code (some interesting talk with respect to Instapaper). There is also the circle thing. (Would it kill Twitter to make Lists more like circles?) Google is actually making some steps in the right direction with Google+ (especially UI-wise, it is like they aren't letting their engineers make the UI anymore).

And before I get attacked for being a Google fanboy or whatever, I use Bing. Yes, I use Microsoft's search engine. I also think Google ripped off the iOS UI (look at the prerelease android screens and then release screens, it goes from Blackberry clone to iOS clone). I just do not see that kind of wholesale copying with Google+. So lets all try to stay objective here and not lashout without looking at it.

 

[dethmaShine]

Except it's not. I have Google+, I have facebook. Google+ is not a copy of Facebook.

Not all opinions are facts. Mine maybe not; but I have various sources proving the same.

The only issue can be with my eyes, but I got them checked last month; they were fine @20/20. Maybe after the Google+ release, I've gone blind. I'll get them checked soon.

Denial at its best.

http://www.7chip.com/2011/07/google-1-facebook-copygoogle-just.html

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

Not all opinions are facts. Mine maybe not; but I have various sources proving the same.

The only issue can be with my eyes, but I got them checked last month; they were fine @20/20. Maybe after the Google+ release, I've gone blind. I'll get them checked soon.

Denial at its best.

http://www.7chip.com/2011/07/google-1-facebook-copygoogle-just.html

Why don't you use Google+ first and get back to me? Why don't you also re-read my post where I mentioned why there are UI similarities?

 

[roadbloc]

Except it's not. I have Google+, I have facebook. Google+ is not a copy of facebook.

I'm afraid that's all down to opinion.

I created a google account and tried it out today, out of sheer curiosity (before deleting my account), and I thought it was pretty much exactly like Facebook except with strong emphasis on groups (or circles as they are called), video chat and a web 2.0 look.

In my OPINION, it is pretty much identical to Facebook. It just lacks them annoying 'apps' and has more than one colour than blue on the webpage.

 

[R.Perez]

Some of the Apple fanboi's in here are starting to sound like loons.

I love that someone actually said that Android won't be around for long... Guess having the largest market share of any smartphone OS means you won't be around for long. Fail

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

...I thought it was pretty much exactly like Facebook except with strong emphasis on groups (or circles as they are called)...

And that changes everything. Google+ more accurately mimics the kind of socializing we do in real, everyday life. There's something to be said for that, similarities and all.

 

[kdarling]

Google betrayed Apple Article

Note that nowhere in the article does anyone claim that Google stole ideas from Apple during the time that Schmidt was on its board. Jobs' claims of Google using iPhone features came from after the iPhone came out.

Google bought Android in 2005, about the same time that Apple secretly decided to get serious about phones... and a year before Schmidt was invited to be on Apple's board in 2006. Perhaps Apple wanted to sniff out what Google was doing with Android. After all, they invited Google in, not the other way around.

As for ideas, Google was important to the iPhone as well. The Maps app and Google search in the browser were favorite features. (The Google Maps for Mobile app had been out on Windows Mobile phones for almost a year before the iPhone came along.)

Also, without Google Maps being on previous phones with GPS, the original iPhone would never have gotten the Google cell id location method to replace its lack of GPS.

At one particularly heated meeting in 2008 on Google’s campus, Mr. Jobs angrily told Google executives that if they deployed a version of multitouch — the popular iPhone feature that allows users to control their devices with flicks of their fingers — he would sue. - NYTimes

Jobs had no foot to stand on. Apple was not first. The Linux OpenMoko project had announced plans to buld a multi-touch phone with pinch zoom a few months before the iPhone was shown off. (Some people even believe that Apple might've stolen the idea from them.)

Upshot: the idea that Google stole ideas from Apple while on its board, has no merit. However, most phone makers did jump more heavily on the touchscreen slab bandwagon after the iPhone was a success.

 

[Koham]

Google is not a threat to Apple

Google is not really a threat to Apple. They're only a threat to Microsoft. I definitely think Android dying would be a huge loss to everyone, apple customers included. Competition is good for us and Android is a better competitor. People will still buy Apple devices when they want stuff that just works. It's not like Google phones are any cheaper. Galaxy S2 is more expensive than the iPhone. So they're not beating Apple on price either. Don't you guys want to see a different competitor to Apple in the mobile space? We've already seen Apple Vs Microsoft.

 

[cmaier]

Like almost every other website around.

Like what? Not, for example, linkedin or plaxo or a bunch of other social networking sites.

I only have a newsfeed on the left on facebook. My chat is on the bottom on facebook.

You're special. The rest of us have "Friends on chat" that appears in the bottom of the left column.

Just like real life, Google and Facebook have a button for showing someone support or that you agree with something or you think it's funny. It's like calling someone who laughs unoriginal because other people have done it before.

I see no such buttons in real life. Nor did Facebook used to have one. But if google wanted one, there's lots of other ways they could have done it, and lots of places they could have put it. They chose to put it in the same place, in the same order, as facebook.

Google+ performs some of the same functions as facebook, but my opinion is that it's far better designed. The fact that some features overlap mean that layouts are going to be similar (of course you need some kind of feed, how else do you want it to show up? letters flying at you?) but it's all about how things are executed.

And yet linkedin.com does some of the same stuff and looks different. Myspace looked different. Plaxo looks different. Even buzz looked different. This time around google tried to look as much like facebook as they could get away with.

 

[dethmaShine]

Why don't you use Google+ first and get back to me? Why don't you also re-read my post where I mentioned why there are UI similarities?

1. You had absolutely no answer for it?

2. Just so that you know, I am on Google+.
Here's it if you won't believe that, but I don't care.

 

[mikedeissler]

resistence is futile....

you will be assimilated - and after the "new" final cut pro, I'm sure it will be soon.... I'm bailing and writing for Android....

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

Like what? Not, for example, linkedin or plaxo or a bunch of other social networking sites.

Linkedin's UI is terrible.

You're special. The rest of us have "Friends on chat" that appears in the bottom of the left column.

Cool, must be a copy then.

I see no such buttons in real life.

Whooosh

1. You had absolutely no answer for it?

No answer for what? Google+ has similarities to facebook, but I think it's executed better. Again, you're missing the point. I'm beginning to think it's on purpose.

Technologies, methods, art, and literature evolve from what came before it and add something new, something a little bit different. Certain things make sense and should be copied. Do you consider a computer that uses transistors as just copying from whoever did it first? If you want to, go ahead.

I'm not here trying to argue that Google+ didn't take any design cues from facebook. I'm not here trying to argue that iOS copied everything from Android. All I'm trying to say is that there's a lot more cross-inspiration than people here give credit for. Instead, they attribute everything to Apple. Apple does things brilliantly. They come out with a few new things, but not all that much. They take concepts people have already come up with and focus them to create a great user experience. That's why I like Apple, but don't for a second think that's not what they do.

 

[NAG]

Here is the layout on the main page of Facebook and Google+ as far as I see them. Initial impression is that Google+ is much more strict with how many vertical lines there are. Facebook seems to be more willing to throw junk on the screen.

Notable differences are Google+ lacks applications (which I see as a positive). Google+ has a more persistent sharing UI on the navigation bar. Facebook's feed controls are limited to "magic" and most recent. Google+'s is by Circle/feed group. We'll see if Google needs to automatically remove a lot of the "Bob found a chicken" type feed entries or not. Currently, Google doesn't as Circles good a good enough job of filtering the beta/low level of content on the service.

Essentially, Facebook's strategy to deal with noise is to automatically ignore most of it. Google+'s seems to be to group people together so you can easily pay attention to different groups of people as you need. We'll see which one is better.

Additionally, all the people who say Google+ is a clone, I strongly suggest you look at the html code. Google is doing some interesting stuff and it isn't Flash based, as far as I can see. Facebook seems to be relying heavily on third party plugins (e.g. the new Skype plugin and forcing you to use Flash for Youtube videos).

 

[cmaier]

Linkedin's UI is terrible.

Irrelevant.

I'm not here trying to argue that Google+ didn't take any design cues from facebook.

It's a massive copy-job, not "taking design cues." The difference is that in a dozen ways where things could be done lots of ways and still work perfectly fine, rather than attempting to do its own thing, Google just did it exactly the way facebook chose to do it.

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

Irrelevant.

If you could understand my point, it's not irrelevant.

It's a massive copy-job, not "taking design cues." The difference is that in a dozen ways where things could be done lots of ways and still work perfectly fine, rather than attempting to do its own thing, Google just did it exactly the way facebook chose to do it.

Missing. The. Point.

 

[cmaier]

If you could understand my point, it's not irrelevant.




Missing. The. Point.

You're being obtuse. Of course it's the point. You said, and I quote:

Except it's not. I have Google+, I have facebook. Google+ is not a copy of facebook.

I explain that it is indeed a copy of facebook.

To which you respond:

Missing. The. Point.

That's just foolish.

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

I explain that it is indeed a copy of facebook.

Some of the UI is copied, but the end result is different. The interactions are different. You really are missing the point, I don't know how else to put it.

My point is not only on the last two paragraphs of post #142, the fact that you brought up "I see no such buttons in real life" tells me that you still don't understand the point.

 

[dethmaShine]

No answer for what? Google+ has similarities to facebook, but I think it's executed better. Again, you're missing the point. I'm beginning to think it's on purpose.

Technologies, methods, art, and literature evolve from what came before it and add something new, something a little bit different. Certain things make sense and should be copied. Do you consider a computer that uses transistors as just copying from whoever did it first? If you want to, go ahead.

1. Google+ now has similarities? I thought you said - it looks nothing like it.
I never talked about execution. I have messed around with Google+. Facebook seams much more realistic and simpler to use. You can put up notes; easy status messages, normal links and location messages; easy group formation for chat, notes, privacy, etc. I don't see hows that bad. But its always physiological feeling that if something is new, its better - it is majorly if its an end of tiring era of the same product used by hordes of people. Nothing wrong with that. But I think Facebook is much better. But we can have opinions.

2. What point am I missing? What point are you referring to? I simply put a counter example of Google being core at the innovation with a Facebook rip-off.

I understand that things are based on each other and involve a lot of ideas from different things. I don't deny that. Obviously there are number of search engines, email clients, chat services, freaking operating systems doing almost the same thing at the kernel level, etc... etc... I know that things are gradual and are based on each other.

But that does NOT mean you ripoff a design. That does not mean you become non-innovative and sheepishly copy designs from other companies. Anybody/company who/that does that is just wrong. Maybe they can come up with something better but its ethically wrong to just copy the design out sheepishly and become a competitor like google always have.

I sincerely believe that being first is just over rated. None of the apple products were first to the market. NONE. (Sorry if I'm missing something out). But they were culmination of a lot of things and put together in the right package.

But again that does not mean, you copy the entire thing from some one else and sell it as yours.

You seem to have a serious denial against any thing google and instead of explaining what's right or wrong, think about your own thoughts that are factually wrong(as been proved).

 

[cmaier]

Some of the UI is copied, but the end result is different. The interactions are different. You really are missing the point, I don't know how else to put it.

"The interactions are different." No they're not. You post the same way. You look at posts the same way. You chat the same way.

They added stuff, but the stuff they didn't add is done in exactly the same way as facebook, when it could have been done any number of other ways and still been just as functional.

It's a copy. You say it's not. We disagree. But it's moronic to keep saying "i'm missing the point" when I point out the flaws in your argument.

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

Some of the UI is copied, but the end result is different. The interactions are different. You really are missing the point, I don't know how else to put it.

My point is not only on the last two paragraphs of post #142, the fact that you brought up "I see no such buttons in real life" tells me that you still don't understand the point.

How did become about comparing UI of FaceBook and Google+. Who cares if the UI looks similar, there is only so much a web designer can incorporate before it resemble another we sites UI. Next thing you will state that it all looks a lot similar to iTunes 3 column approach. Get over it and back on topic, it has nothing to do with copy-cats.

 

[NAG]

Some of the UI is copied, but the end result is different. The interactions are different. You really are missing the point, I don't know how else to put it.

If I may add, you too telling each other you're missing the point – while satisfying – reads largely like two people yelling "Duck season Rabbit season".

I agree with you regarding how you interact with Google+ being different than Facebook (at least that is how I use it). Google+ feels more like you're interacting with groups of people. Facebook feels like a free-for-all where you just throw stuff out there and hope the magic filter doesn't remove it from people's feeds.

I see this as Google attacking the cult of personality issue that essentially every social network has (you listen to a select few and largely do not contribute to any discussion). Twitter basically does nothing to combat it and hopes everyone acts like adults (the result is that you can use it however you want but essentially everyone else is following Bieber). Facebook combats this by continually adding new features (Places is their latest, right?...wait polls are), making it messier and messier and filters out most of the stuff by default. Google+ is going more of a Twitter approach but is making the List feature actually usable (Twitter, make Lists usable, darn it). So if anything, it is like Twitter but with better integration with things like photos (which Twitter is probably developing right now, see the last Twitter announcement).

 

[dethmaShine]

Here is the layout on the main page of Facebook and Google+ as far as I see them. Initial impression is that Google+ is much more strict with how many vertical lines there are. Facebook seems to be more willing to throw junk on the screen.

Facebook needs to get better on design. Agreed.

Notable differences are Google+ lacks applications (which I see as a positive).

It's a matter of time. Google will rake in tonnes of revenue through advertising on applications. It's all coming.
The absence of the same gives a professional touch to the product; but as we all know Google is after the consumer - has to be there soon.

Google+ has a more persistent sharing UI on the navigation bar. Facebook's feed controls are limited to "magic" and most recent. Google+'s is by Circle/feed group.

Facebook's recents feed can be updated based on groups but that is based on settings. I like the google implementation better but again its just not the default on Facebook but already a feature.

We'll see if Google needs to automatically remove a lot of the "Bob found a chicken" type feed entries or not. Currently, Google doesn't as Circles good a good enough job of filtering the beta/low level of content on the service.

lolol. I have blocked tonnes of content due to that but I hope Google does a better job of cleaning that junk.

Essentially, Facebook's strategy to deal with noise is to automatically ignore most of it. Google+'s seems to be to group people together so you can easily pay attention to different groups of people as you need. We'll see which one is better.

I don't know why you'd say that as all the functionality is built into Facebook and is quite workable in real time.

Additionally, all the people who say Google+ is a clone, I strongly suggest you look at the html code. Google is doing some interesting stuff and it isn't Flash based, as far as I can see. Facebook seems to be relying heavily on third party plugins (e.g. the new Skype plugin and forcing you to use Flash for Youtube videos).

Well, Facebook does rely on flash but they are constantly converting tonnes of video data to HTML5.
On another note, if I need to check that Google+ is a ripoff of Facebook, I wouldn't be checking the source code - instead the UI layout which is more important. HTML is not a programming language - so code can be easily manipulated and CSS helps a lot. It's no big deal. That's not saying that Google changes some algorithms and dumps Facebook's code with in. It's just that it is irrelevant to the discussion. Hope you mind me saying that.

Yes, I hate the Skype plugin but we will see where it goes. Sounds like a good idea and something big in the works.

 

[darkplanets]

I find it amusing how this devolved into a Google+ thread. Controversy aside, Google+ shares certain organizational similarities to Facebook, but isn't exact. Sure, there's minor differences, however the main conceptualization of the page is rendering after Facebook. It would be naive to assume this was by accident-- they're looking to supplant Facebook, and the only way to do that is to offer what Facebook does easily and in a format recognizable and immediately usable to the current social network cloud. From here they'll attempt to differentiate themselves through features.

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

1. Google+ now has similarities? I thought you said - it looks nothing like it.

Please find where I said that.

Facebook seams much more realistic and simpler to use. You can put up notes; easy status messages, normal links and location messages; easy group formation for chat, notes, privacy, etc. I don't see hows that bad

It's not bad, but I don't think it's representative of how people actually act. Most people behave a certain way, say certain things, and share different topic with different circles of people. Close friends, mere acquaintances, work colleagues. If I want to post some stupid joke I don't want my colleagues to see it but I still want to share it with close friends. I can do that easily. I don't want to share every status update with everyone who is "friends" with me. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Way easier on Google+.

The crux of the argument is this: Google+ took the ideas from facebook that work and are logical, such as the like button. Google adding a +1 button was necessary. If users want our social networks to approximate our actual interaction with people, there has to be some kind of quick way to nod in agreement and to show our like for something. Kudos to facebook for thinking of it first, but I'm not going to fault Google+ for building on the lessons facebook learned (translating real social interaction into online interface elements) and adding more.