Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Excellent post.

With Google opening up these new fronts in their war with Apple, Apple needs to open one in search. I have always said Apple shouldn't get into search but Google's moves have changed my mind. making Google defend their search business can only help Apple in the other areas.

I think it would be a waste of time for Apple to develop a search engine if their only goal would be to deliver a blow to Google. Google gets a substantial amount of revenue from being the default search on many Apple products. A simple deal with Bing or Yahoo to replace Google would deliver the same effect with considerably less effort on Apple's part.

With growing reports of Google's info gathering and privacy lapses in the last year, I've been migrating off their services. I hadn't used Yahoo in years but was pleasantly surprised at how much it has improved. It's now my default for general web searches and I haven't regretted a single moment of it. Meanwhile, Bing's map and image searches put Google's to shame (though their web search still blows for whatever reason.) Now I just need to find something to get me off the gmail habit and something to replace news.google.com and I will have minimized my Google usage to a more comfortable level.
 
I have a question since Google is all about openness on the internet. If I were a large website why couldn't I use google's adsense and now AdMob for FREE without paying for it ?
Because openness does not imply free stuff. Why is that even a question? Google is all about open technology, but it's a publicly traded company and need to make money somehow.
 
I couldn't disagree agree more - your criteria must be so different than mine, I'd love to know how you conclude that Apple is the new Microsoft, because they in my mind couldn't be more different.

How do you think they are similar? Please explain.
While I don't necessarily agree with "Apple=New Microsoft", I don't think it's that difficult to understand where it's coming from.

Microsoft earned their reputation as big corporate bully mostly through the IE vs. Netscape debacle some 10 years ago. It's all about the idea that Microsoft tried to take over everything by including various applications with the system. Instead of being a mere OS, Windows came to include a web browser, a media player and various other apps that were integrated with the system in ways that gave MS a competitive advantage (apart from the advantage given by the mere fact that these applications were included, so users had no real incentive to look for alternatives). MSN Messenger, WMP, Outlook Express, IE, photo gallery, video editing apps etc... this is what the whole antitrust brouhaha was all about. And to this day, MS is being watched and even forced to keep these apps out of the system. In the EU you have to download stuff like the Mail app, the photo gallery app etc, those aren't allowed to ship with the OS.

Apple has been doing exactly the same thing for years. iTunes, iLife, Time Machine, Safari etc etc... it all comes with the system. And Apple has taken it further than MS ever dared do. iTunes only syncs to iPods/iPhones/iPads, and only lets you buy stuff in-app from the iTunes Store. MS would never dare do such a thing, which is why WMP syncs your music library with just about anything (even USB sticks and cameras) and lets you buy music from third parties directly from WMP.

I believe this is why they're being referred to as "the new Microsoft". The abundance of applications that ship with the OS, and the way these apps tie you to Apple hardware in the form of iPods etc. Apple can fly under the radar because they have a small market share (10% in the US, <5% elsewhere), but if they were one day to hit the magic 39.7% (the threshold for what the EC defines as a "dominant market share"), they would have to go through the same antitrust suit hell that Microsoft experienced in the 90's and be forced to open up everything to everyone.
 
Why ? Because people keep talking about how h.264 cost money. That's why.
Yes. Things cost money. Technologies like h.264 are patented and companies need to pay royalties to use those technologies, much like adsense and AdMob. This has absolutely nothing to being open.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.11) Sprint PPC6850SP)

I don't care for the business model of -- if I lose every last semblance of privacy, maybe Google can get a nickel of profit out of it. Oh wait, gotta go. There's a toy-sized google-phone-controlled paparazzi-copter hovering outside my bedroom window! Just wondering - Can a 'Supersoaker' take down one of those things?
 
dont forget googles os or did they cancel that? any how apple always takes their time a does it right. i mean the iphone is better than all android phones and 4.0/hd is coming soon. also i know for a fact if the :apple: tv wasnt a hobby it would kick ass cause just looking at what hackers can do with 3 year old hardware is amazing.
 
OK, lets take a look who is winning in these areas:

Apple TV <-> Google TV
Google TV

iTunes <-> Wireless Android Music Syncing
Wireless Syncing

iAds <-> Google Ads / Admob
Google Ads

h.264 <-> WebM/VP8
h.264

iPhone OS <-> Android OS
Android OS (Maybe different when next iphone and os 4 comes out)

Honestly, this is what I would do now to get the best of all worlds:

Buy a Mac clone (hackintosh) from my local Craigslist dealer and watch Google TV on it. Get a HTC Incredible on the verizon network and sync my music wirelessly.

Ha. Google wins. Open always wins, even though closed might be better, open always wins. Apple = closed.
 
OK, lets take a look who is winning in these areas:

Apple TV <-> Google TV
Google TV
How is Google winning with an unreleased product?

iTunes <-> Wireless Android Music Syncing
Wireless Syncing
LOL wut? How are you calculating who is winning? I don't think either way is exactly beating the other, but I do think Wireless syncing is nicer than going through USB.

iAds <-> Google Ads / Admob
Google Ads
Well of course the tried and true well established product will beat something that isn't even out yet.

h.264 <-> WebM/VP8
h.264
based on what?

iPhone OS <-> Android OS
Android OS (Maybe different when next iphone and os 4 comes out)
Based on what?

Honestly, this is what I would do now to get the best of all worlds:

Buy a Mac clone (hackintosh) from my local Craigslist dealer and watch Google TV on it. Get a HTC Incredible on the verizon network and sync my music wirelessly.

Ha. Google wins. Open always wins, even though closed might be better, open always wins. Apple = closed.

That was a lot of rambling for one person.

Nothing in life is free.

Including Google endeavors.

I feel like you just refuted your own point.
 
My problem with Google's claim to openness vis-à-vis Apple is that they are in no real position to enforce it. Is Google going to revoke licenses of Android to handset makers who refuse to push updates to existing phones? Is Google going to go after the telecoms if they exploit customers for myriad features built into Android? What kind of leverage do they have with content makers for GoogleTV?

Google makes a lot of great stuff, Google is very innovative. I just remain deeply skeptical that their corporate culture will allow them to deliver everything that they demo.
 
I'm interested to know why you think this is the same company that started with a couple of phone hackers and a very open developer community. It seems like all they do today is absorb other companies and use technologies made elsewhere to power a great synergy computer lifestyle where all aspects of the interface are approved by Apple.

The company, and especially Steve Jobs has always been very controlling. It was the point of frustration for Apple fans back in the day as well. The attitude is what persists. even though the circumstances may have been different.

The best example I can give offhand is from this story from the design of the original Mac.
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.p...Hardware&sortOrder=Sort by Date&detail=medium

Apple's other co-founder, Steve Jobs, didn't agree with Jef about many things, but they both felt the same way about hardware expandability: it was a bug instead of a feature. Steve was reportedly against having slots in the Apple II back in the days of yore, and felt even stronger about slots for the Mac. He decreed that the Macintosh would remain perpetually bereft of slots, enclosed in a tightly sealed case, with only the limited expandability of the two serial ports.

Burrell was afraid the 128Kbyte Mac would seem inadequate soon after launch, and there were no slots for the user to add RAM. He realized that he could support 256Kbit RAM chips simply by routing a few extra lines on the PC board, allowing adventurous people who knew how to wield a soldering gun to replace their RAM chips with the newer generation. The extra lines would only cost pennies to add.

But once again, Steve Jobs objected, because he didn't like the idea of customers mucking with the innards of their computer. He would also rather have them buy a new 512K Mac instead of them buying more RAM from a third-party. But this time Burrell prevailed, because the change was so minimal. He just left it in there and no one bothered to mention it to Steve, much to the eventual benefit of customers, who didn't have to buy a whole new Mac to expand their memory.

A tightly controlled user experience. Sound familiar?

arn
 
I feel like you just refuted your own point.

Not at all.

My point was Google is talking about "openness" when in fact within 3 years they will have created the same closed environment people complain Apple has. The only difference is Google is deceiving people about it.

VP8 won't be free. Android and Chrome OS aren't free. There is nothing "open" about Google at all.

Unless you consider Google tracking your every move freedom.
 
...I believe this is why they're being referred to as "the new Microsoft". The abundance of applications that ship with the OS, and the way these apps tie you to Apple hardware in the form of iPods etc....

Microsoft is a software company. Apple is a hardware company. Without an OS the hardware is nothing, so Apple builds an OS and puts apps on it, which work with the hardware they manufacture. If they didn't, the hardware would be useless, nothing more than an expensive door stop.

I don't see the parallel between a hardware company providing apps with the OS they build and ship on their hardware with a software company that tied you in to their world when they ended up on every non-artist business desk.

Microsoft is all about taking open standards and making them proprietary and locking you in with their ubiquity. Apple is all about user experience and open standards. The two companies could not be more different in my mind.
 
I am glad that Android is here as a robust competitor offering device and more importantly carrier choice.

I think this is pretty disingenuous. I mean at the time Verizon rejected Apple, pretty much everyone rejected Apple.

It was an exclusive deal with Cingular (now AT&T) or bust. The alternative was no iPhone on any network in the US. Then after seeing Apple vilified and the success of the iPhone Verizon had to get in the game, because despite their often touted superior network they still risked losing customers, hence Google partnership and the Droid.

If Apple was so diametrically opposed to carrier choice, how does this explain all the places in the world where iPhone is on multiple carriers?


Being labeled "Big Brother" by Google is like being called a racist by Hitler.

Google controls and mines more personal data and tracks more personal habits to maximize advertising than anyone. They own massive amounts of satellite imagery and have it linked to everyone's address, with images of your front door. This is tied to your name, phone number, and other personal data and habits. They will be in your living room monitoring and providing your TV and tracking your music tastes. They gobble up books and digitize them with out permission.

Apple is Big Brother? Truly hilarious. Since Google was probably making unauthorized digital copies of "1984", you would think they had at least read it.

I was going to stop following this soon as it was getting quite long and tedious but this post made me laugh so much. :)
 
Google is trying to bait apple into a war that apple can't win. Google makes it money off ad's apple makes it money off selling hardware. So apple can't just give people everything they want at onece or the people would not comeback and buy a new product. Google can do this because they are not making thier money of the hardware they are making thier money off ads. and if you own a google product you are locked down just as much as if you buy an apple product. you are going to be using google search google maps and all the other stuff google has.
 
Is Google going to open a customer support center with people answering phones or is all customer support going to be delegated to device manufacturers?

The more Google enters this space where their name is associated with things, especially if they front and center against Apple, they are going to step this up. Although Apple does have some CSR issues, they are really good.

What happens when there is an issue with my Google Android phone? Do I call HTC? Do I call Verizon? Can I call Google? What happens when HTC says it's a software thing? Or Verizon says it's an HTC thing?

The more open Google makes things, the less they control day to day things. This creates a situation that could be very bad for Google if they want more name recognition for this stuff.
 
Microsoft is a software company. Apple is a hardware company. Without an OS the hardware is nothing, so Apple builds an OS and puts apps on it, which work with the hardware they manufacture. If they didn't, the hardware would be useless, nothing more than an expensive door stop.
Hardware with an OS and nothing more on it is hardly "useless", which both Apple and Microsoft proved (before 2000 and 1998, respectively). Their systems didn't ship with squat except maybe TextEdit and Notepad.exe. Everything else you had to get from third parties. Microsoft then used their position as OS vendor as leverage to gain control of the web browser market, the media player market, the instant messaging market etc by adding such applications to the system, which killed of various third parties and prevented new ones from gaining traction. That's what "being Microsoft" means in general usage. That's what all the antitrust stuff against Microsoft is about. That's why Netscape, Opera and others keep running to the European Commission to stop Microsoft from killing their businesses. What else did you think "being Microsoft" meant? Being lazy? Being big?
 
Google does not know how to turn a good idea into a polished end-user product. Most of their services are in beta forever. I interviewed with Google, and even my interviewers mentioned the fact that everything seems to stay in beta forever. The only thing that Google does well is search, and search is the only real generator of ad revenue for them. They are now trying to branch out with their ad placements to other areas, but the bottom line is that the end goal is always ad revenue and not the product itself. However, only the smartest people work for Google, and as long as Google makes a lot of money and can afford to employ the smartest people, Google will be a real threat to the market share for any competitor, including Apple.

What Apple should do is accept the challenge from Google and compete with Google head-to-head, including search. Search is the only thing that is missing from the Apple's product portfolio, and I believe they don't have to look in far places. Yahoo is right down the road from them.

To me, Google has turned into an evil entity - the one that turns on its old friend and stabs him in the back. I want to take sides and vote with my computing patterns, including search. I do not want to go exclusively to Google any time I need to find something, but frankly, Google is the only real authority in search. I wish Apple would buy Yahoo and turn it into a real search competitor to Google.


Very good assessment of things. Only one thing I would correct you on. Microsoft and Yahoo! have entered into a "strategic partnership" for Search. They are being melded together as we speak. Most likely before the Holiday Season of this year, all the advertising side of things will be under Microsoft's Adcenter control. Yahoo! and Microsoft will be trying to combine forces to deal with Google, but this means Yahoo! is much less likely to be available as a buyout target for Apple to get into search.

Someone needs to get into search, but I would say Apple shouldn't do it unless they have a revolutionary plan. Google treats its advertisers like crap, something most people here don't know. Most people who spend money on Google search ads would love to spend it with just about anyone else if they had a choice. Problem is Google does have a dominant position in search traffic and ad network traffic, and thus they can do what they want and they do. Until someone else can capture a substantial number of eyeballs to compete with Google nothing will change.

The good news is, if someone comes up with a way to seriously start competing with Google on search and their ad network, advertisers and publishers will leave Google in a second. I can't reiterate enough how poorly Google treats the people that pay them all that money to keep them in business. People want to talk about Apple bullying and such, if Apple treated its consumers 1/10th as poorly as Google treats its advertisers and publishers, they would have no customers.
 
Google is calling Apple Big Brother?! Are you kidding me?! That's like Beijing accusing the U.S. of human rights abuses as they harvest organs from political dissidents. Google is the most Big Brother entity on the planet! All that's missing is the Google chip, but with their cell phone OS give-aways, they are on their way to tracking our every move and speech.

I know what you mean. How about Google getting caught sampling Wi-Fi user data without permission, or how they have most of the major cities in America mapped down to their street level. Plus they control the world's information in a sense with their search engine. It doesn't get much more Big Brother than that. Apple does record and use iTunes user data to be fair, but that's in the user agreement. Google driving around in vans and collecting Wi-Fi data without anyone knowing is just wrong. They scare me way more than Microsoft ever did. I'm glad to see competition in the technology sector, but I think before too long we'll have another monopoly on our hands, and I don't mean from Apple.
 
What happens when there is an issue with my Google Android phone? Do I call HTC? Do I call Verizon? Can I call Google? What happens when HTC says it's a software thing? Or Verizon says it's an HTC thing?

This is exactly why Apple prefers a closed system. They control the hardware and the software to give you an optimal experience. This is also why they need to distance themselves from AT&T. This exclusivity B.S. needs to end right now. I hate the fact that my Apple iPhone runs more efficiently in a foreign country than in the country it was conceived in (notice I said conceived and not built).
 
When one compares usage of iPhone OS vs. Android one must count iPod and iPad use as well. When comparing phones, one needs to do this on a phone by phone comparison. By these measures, Apple is quite happy with where they are re: market share, and even happier re: profit comparisons. With OS4, a new phone, and a possible move to Verizon this fall, Apple will leave their competitors in the dust. And, they know it.

The iPad will also steak out a huge lead in the tablet area that will be near impossible to overcome as well. Further, iAds will move into a huge 100 million plus world-wide device market on day one. That is why Google is so frightened right now.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.