Man that software has some of the worst UI design I've ever seen - for a premium package costing in the hundreds of pounds it's truly appalling.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Rivalry With Google Gets Personal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Man that software has some of the worst UI design I've ever seen - for a premium package costing in the hundreds of pounds it's truly appalling.
As a former Microsoft employee, I find it deliciously ironic that Google has taken over Microsoft's role as the 800 pound monopolist gorilla. Or I would if it weren't for the fact that Microsoft never had a monopoly on anything -- people always had the choice to buy a Mac.
And they don't have a choice to use Bing, Yahoo, Alta Vista, Ask, Lycos, Maholo or others?
What exactly does Google have a monopoly on? If dominant market makes you a monopoly, then Microsoft was, and still is a monopoly.
I have definitely grown tired of Google's "conquer the world" tactics. I think it's a great search engine, but must Google enter every category of life in order for us to give it more hits?
If I were Steve, I would be taking the Android business personally as well. This would be kinda like GM and Goodyear working together, and then Goodyear says, "I think we'd like to start making cars."
My main overall beef with Google is how it keeps trying to expand everything without charging most of us a dime. Who here has EVER given Google any money? Even when Microsoft was going all nuts in the 1990s, people had to actually buy Windows and Office. You don't have to buy Google Maps, Docs, Earth, Chrome, etc. I can't believe Google can do all of that without violating some anti-trust law. I thought Microsoft did that because it put IE on every Windows computer. When Google starts making deals with Chrome OS and the Chrome browser on computers, how is that any different?
If I were Steve, I would be taking the Android business personally as well. This would be kinda like GM and Goodyear working together, and then Goodyear says, "I think we'd like to start making cars."
My main overall beef with Google is how it keeps trying to expand everything without charging most of us a dime. Who here has EVER given Google any money? Even when Microsoft was going all nuts in the 1990s, people had to actually buy Windows and Office. You don't have to buy Google Maps, Docs, Earth, Chrome, etc. I can't believe Google can do all of that without violating some anti-trust law. I thought Microsoft did that because it put IE on every Windows computer. When Google starts making deals with Chrome OS and the Chrome browser on computers, how is that any different?
I"m pretty sure you spend $499 even with free shipping. In my state, the minimum cost of the iPad is $530 ($500 + tax + free shipping).
Google has created Android for a reason, and that reason is winning, and they will win. Google does not fail.
Android is more flexible than iPhone... and that's something Apple cannot fight given its greed for money (and control).
You also forget that Android is used by many manufacturers, Google's iPhone is just one of them. The big ones are selling many units every day
LMAO. "Google's iPhone." THIS is why Apple is going after them. And rightly so.
+1 Interesting times, I wish more people would make their own objective opinions based on facts, not emotional outcries based on what the "media" feeds the populace.
Congratulations, you win the "dumbest post of 2010" award.
-Google activation is optional. During the setup process just press the button to skip setting up your phone with a Google account and voila.
-Android sales continuing a downward spiral? Please post your source. Where your feces comes from is not a valid source. My sources say Android has doubled its market share while iPhone has just held steady.
-Provide your source Google is paying millions of dollars to Apple to be a search option on the iPhone.
-Provide your logic that Google needs the iPhone. Are desktop searches down to almost nothing or something?
My Palm Vx was pretty much buttonless. Only 5 buttons at the bottom and almost all touch screen. The iPhone seems a lot like a rip-off of this, if you think the Android phones are a rip-off of the iPhone. Palm Vx was released in 1999, 8 years before the iPhone.
The HP IPAQ I had in the early 2,000s was pretty much all touchscreen as well.
I'm not sure why the fanboys can't remember those devices when proclaiming the iPhone such a new and innovative design. Dropping 4 buttons is innovation?
Granted the iPhone's prettier than either of those, but you'd expect that of something 4-8 years down the design path.
Is Google becoming a ravenous rat?
Google is a one hit wonder and they know it.
That is why Google seems to be everywhere, launching or announcing half-assed 2nd-rate wannabe products and throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. They add or change features and modify the business model.
Other than that there is absolutely very little innovation in Google products.
Some Google products have nice features and are actually helpful, but there's nothing that I can think of that can make me say.."wow that's brilliant".
They're good at search (and maybe mail). that's it.
and if you think Google is the model company everyone think they are. Think again. They're one of the most evil companies out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google
iPhone = Android
iPad = Chrome OS Tablet
iTunes = Youtube/Google Video/Google Music Search
Apple App Store = Android Market
Twitter/Facebook = Google Buzz / Orkut
Yahoo Mail!/Hotmail = Gmail (this one's ok but can still be categorized as a "wannabe" product)
MS Office/Outlook = Google Docs/Google Apps
Paypal = Google Checkout
IE/Firefox/Safari = Chrome
Amazon/eBay/Shopping.com = Product Search
Flickr = Picasa
Amazon/Barnes and Noble = Google Books
and so on...
Google is a one hit wonder and they know it.
That is why Google seems to be everywhere, launching or announcing half-assed 2nd-rate wannabe products and throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. They add or change features and modify the business model.
Other than that there is absolutely very little innovation in Google products.
Some Google products have nice features and are actually helpful, but there's nothing that I can think of that can make me say.."wow that's brilliant".
They're good at search (and maybe mail). that's it.
and if you think Google is the model company everyone think they are. Think again. They're one of the most evil companies out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google
iPhone = Android
iPad = Chrome OS Tablet
iTunes = Youtube/Google Video/Google Music Search
Apple App Store = Android Market
Twitter/Facebook = Google Buzz / Orkut
Yahoo Mail!/Hotmail = Gmail (this one's ok but can still be categorized as a "wannabe" product)
MS Office/Outlook = Google Docs/Google Apps
Paypal = Google Checkout
IE/Firefox/Safari = Chrome
Amazon/eBay/Shopping.com = Product Search
Flickr = Picasa
Amazon/Barnes and Noble = Google Books
and so on...
Sites like gizmodo which used to be pretty tech oriented now seems like a tabloid tech site. It's quite annoying when people who used to be pretty unbiased when reporting on new tech now start throwing in their snarky comments and start doing their own speculations on features using terms as "arrogance" and "Ego".
Why is everyone so into manufactured drama?
I agree with the bulk of your post, but it doesn't address my point: that Apple is widely perceived as expensive. And that won't change as long as Apple doesn't sell $200 towers, $250 netbooks, or $400 laptops.
I am not saying they should, nor am I saying Apple is overpriced. In fact, they're not: they simply don't make low-end hardware and only sell mid-range and high-end stuff. Some of their models are actually priced comparably to similar PC hardware (especially with Apple's EDU discount and summertime iPod promotions) and there's some value in OSX, Apple's maglock, oversized touchpad, backlit keyboard, large battery (in a fairly lightweight chassis), firewire, capacitance multitouch, finger-input GUI, etc.
But that's far too nuanced to change Joe six pack's view of Apple as for elitists. And the iPad won't help either. Personally, I think the $499 model is a good deal (I have one reserved), but most people will shrug it off because netbooks at half the price "have a physical keyboard" and "can play flash videos". That the iPad has a superior battery life, low weight, thin chassis, immersive experience, and responsive GUI isn't going to matter to the typical netbook buyer.
Android is open source. Plenty of ROM modders grabbing the AOSP source and making VAST improvements on the OS for the different phones out there. I personally am running the Cyanogen mod on my Nexus One.
There are also plenty of companies making money off of Linux, even though it is open source. Open source doesn't mean free, it means the source code is published for all to review and modify as they'd like under the terms of the licensing agreement the code is released under.
RedHat is a $5.8 billion company making its money off open source. I guess they're evil, aren't they?
You really think it costs Apple $25 to send those things ground??? I have a bridge....
Agreed. I'm one of the few, apparently, that don't like Chrome. And Buzz? What a joke. Bad UI and the initial typical absence of any concern over privacy. Who knows what else dangerous is wrong with it that we are not aware of yet. That's one Google project no one should use.
And by project I mean crap they throw against the wall that doesn't slide off...slide off immediately, that is.
Your posts are always fun.
First, Apple's own Newton is more similar to the iPhone than either of the things you point at (and has an earlier date, too). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_Newton_and_iPhone.jpg
Second, judging similarity, design quality, or innovation by the number of buttons is silly.
Slightly off topic, but worth responding to...
The iPhone was the first phone (I'm aware of) that had a capacitance touchscreen, multitouch, effective finger-input GUI, visual voice mail, and a 3.5" HVGA screen in a <5 ounce <0.5" thin chassis (previously, there were smaller phones and phones with larger screens, but not both).
Over the years I owned and used 14 WinCE and PalmOS touchscreen PDAs (starting with the USR Pilot 1000), and Apple coming up with the hardware and software to allow users to ditch the stylus was a huge innovation.
The iPhone was the first phone (I'm aware of) that had a capacitance touchscreen, multitouch, effective finger-input GUI, visual voice mail, and a 3.5" HVGA screen in a <5 ounce <0.5" thin chassis (previously, there were smaller phones and phones with larger screens, but not both).
Android's market share is growing exponentially. Some analysts are predicting it will be the dominant smartphone OS by 2013. Where the heck do you come up with it's spiraling downwards and will continue to do so?
I'm also curious how you think Google's going to take over your life if you use Android. You don't have to have a google account to use an Android phone.
I'm pretty certain that Apple has as much information, if not more, about you than Google has if you're an iPhone user with an iTunes account, a MobileMe email account, etc.
The difference between Apple and Google in privacy terms is that Google is up front and public about what information they gather, and what they plan to do with it (sell targeted ads). Who knows what kind of things Apple does with all the personal location, email, app purchase, etc, data they gather about you.
Google's also under constant scrutiny by EVERYONE in regards to privacy issues and the like. No one even thinks about that stuff with Apple, or even Yahoo (for the users of Yahoo search and email and chat, etc).
I used to be paranoid about Google, but when you think it through, there are dozens of other companies that have all kinds of information about you: your bank, your doctor, your cable company, your phone company, your grocery store (with those club cards)...and the FBI/CIA or whatever agency your paranoid about can, and has in the past, gone to all of those sources to get anything they want about you. Take off the tinfoil and got on with life.
A trick? Really? Would you care to share with us, the ignorant masses, what this trick is about, then?
All good points. It's just that most of these entities you mention are separate for the most part. Google is a monolith that will have more information about us than all these organizations combined. It's this attitude of giving up and/or rationalizing away control over privacy that Google banks on.
Cry baby Apple!
Apple can give but they cannot take ... just a bunch of greedy sore ass losers who like to be competitive but don't like others doing the same!
I love Apple products and the product route Jobs has taken is good (although not revolutionary anymore, quite the opposite); but its business morals and sense of fair play stink!
Its like British politics; if only there were an alternative to crap MS and up their own arse Apple ..... no doubt if there were Apple would moan!!!!
Apple can give but they cannot take ... just a bunch of greedy sore ass losers who like to be competitive but don't like others doing the same!
I love Apple products and the product route Jobs has taken is good (although not revolutionary anymore, quite the opposite); but its business morals and sense of fair play stink!
Its like British politics; if only there were an alternative to crap MS and up their own arse Apple ..... no doubt if there were Apple would moan!!!!
That's too bad for you. I use Yahoo! on my desktops and Bing on my
mobile - both seem to be as fine as Google in my limited anecdotal
testing (if I can't find something with Yahoo! or Bing - I'll try
Google - seldom does Google find something that the others didn't).
That's easy! Stop using Google
Did that long ago, except for Google Earth. That's cool.
Violating patents that are easy to get around is not competition, its being lazy and stealing. IF you want a feature in your product, implement it in a way that you actually came up with rather than copying the protected ways companies who actually create their implementations do.
