Google Sets Its Sights on Apple

[macbookpro13]

I disagree that Google's software is poorly designed compared to Apple's. I love my MPB, iPod, and iPad, but I find myself preferring Google's apps for my everyday use in nearly every instance versus the equivalent Apple native apps. For my needs:

Chrome > Safari
Picasa > iPhoto
Google Docs > iWork
Gmail > Mail
GCal > iCal
Not to mention Google Maps, Google Voice, etc.

The reasons that I prefer the Google apps are speed, accessibility, and functionality. Re: speed, Chrome and Picasa launch almost instantly when I click the icon. It's simply amazing, and they are very snappy overall. I'll take that any day over flashy graphics and animations.

Re: accessibility, like many people, I use a Mac at home and PC at work. This is not by choice, it's the reality of working in today's corporate environment. Being able to access all my Google software and data seamlessly from work or home is incredibly valuable. Apple is not friendly to any platform than their own. For instance, even with iWork.com, I have no way to edit an iWork document on my work PC, where I spend 70% of my waking hours. We live in a cross-platform world, which Apple refuses to recognize.

Re: functionality, Gmail blows away Apple Mail with innovative features like threaded conversations, labels, embedded YouTube ids, etc. I find that Apple's interfaces are sometimes oversimplified, and it takes me a long time to do what I actually want to do. Chrome, though, is a model of powerful simplicity. Not all of the Google apps are equally mature (most are developing rapidly), but most have sharing and collaboration features that truly leverage the web in a way that Apple has only done in a half-assed way so far. Re: Google sharing anonymous data with advertisers, it is not a concern and does me no harm. Plus, I never have to worry about syncing with the web apps.

The net result is that I barely use the much touted iLife suite. OS X is great, but I spend almost all my time in the browser, and I'm willing to bet that a high percentage of people are like me. Unless Apple gets into the cloud in a big way and starts supporting cross-platform mobility between work and home lives (will enterprises ever adopt the Mac platform?), I could see myself moving to the Chrome/Android universe as those offerings mature. I love Apple products, but I simply am not able to live my whole life in their closed ecosystem. Google's products still lack some polish, but they are constantly iterating and it is hard to beat the convenience of their model right now.

Totally agreed. I have a 13" MBP and I really love the hardware (best in the business) and I love OS X, but Google's apps are better than Apple's. Safari is nice and fast, but Chrome is at least just as fast, has a lot more features via extensions, and has nicer, more pleasing UI. Gmail and Google docs have completely replaced the need for a desktop office suite for me. And I prefer it that they are web based since I can access from any computer.

 

[DakotaGuy]

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?

I was going to stop following this soon as it was getting quite long and tedious but this post made me laugh so much.

Well I am glad that my post made you laugh. I enjoy making people laugh, but to be honest Google is going to have the last laugh the longer Apple remains AT&T exclusive. The iPhone has experienced record growth, but staying with one carrier in the U.S. is going to end up in market saturation. The only way to get new customers at a rate fast enough to compete with Android is to branch out to new carriers.

Your right in other parts of the world Apple is open to different carriers, but in the last financial conference call Apple once again stated that in some countries they can do better by staying with one carrier. They never mention a specific country, but it's not too hard to assume they are speaking about the U.S.

Everything you said was correct 3 years ago, but that was then and this is now. If you can explain to me how the iPhone market share will out grow Android in the future by remaining only on AT&T I am all ears.

 

[needthephone]

What I don't like about Google (and others like Skype) is their total denial of all responsibility.

Hey, this is only a beta, if it doesn't work its not our fault, gees what do you expect its free isn't it.

They are happy to reap the rewards but take no responsibility if anything goes wrong.

This same attitude permeates everything they do.

Just Click " I Agree" and nothing is OUR fault!!

Hey, we just provide android, it must be HTC/Motorola/Samsung/ YOUR fault if anything doesn't work.

I'll be honest I haven't looked at an android phone and I hear they are OK but honestly I won't touch them because I know deep down I couldn't rely on it day in day out. They will probably be collecting my personal call history and will soon start playing adverts in the middle of phone calls. Hey John, why not try Pizza Hut down your street, we know you are just 2 minutes away. Or Dan you should hear what John said about you yesterday to Rachel! Upgrade to Evesdropper Pro With Street View (Beta) and know what they say about you behind your back!

Skype are the same, hey use it but you can't rely on it to make emergency phone calls as it may not work.F**k OFF!

This smug buck passing web based businesses engage in (which is what Google is i.e. nothing really real) will be their un doing as in the end no one takes them seriously.

 

[Anuba]

CDMA radios were state of the art for handling more users and bandwidth. That's why GSM adopted a form of CDMA for 3G.

CDMA is a multiplexing technique employed by several different standards. CDMA2000 is the name of the standard Verizon uses. Sometimes it's incorrectly referred to simply as CDMA.

CDMA2000 is older than UMTS, but it has better reach and provides better data service. I thought that was precisely the issue people were having with AT&T...?

What I don't like about Google (and others like Skype) is their total denial of all responsibility.

Hey, this is only a beta, if it doesn't work its not our fault, gees what do you expect its free isn't it.

Google has a FAQ response to this...

Google doesn't take the common convention and meaning of "beta." In traditional software, the "beta" label tends to mean "unfinished" or not ready for full usage. However, Google "beta" represents the location our products are in their life cycle. Google believes in iterative development, getting our products out quickly and getting feedback from our users to drive constant improvement. From day 1, our products are built for reliability and scale - two of the things 'beta' typically does not cover. In some sense, our products are always in 'beta' as they are constantly evolving and changing with user feedback, technology innovation, and business needs. Google's hosted deployment model and large user base makes this possible.

Having said that, we realized it's a frequent question and we are working to take components of Google Apps out of 'Beta'. This will represent a level of product maturity and massive market adoption, however of course you'll continue to see ongoing innovation across all of Google Apps.

In other words, they're using the term beta to describe the opposite of a beta.
A beta is software that's feature complete, but not yet ready for primetime.
A Google "beta" is never feature complete, but always ready for primetime, apparently.

 

[paja]

Moving on.....

100% Google & Microsoft Free!

 

[Rocketman]

On the one hand Google is more open than Apple, but on the other hand that makes it practical and easy for China to block searches and Pakistan to prevent anti-Muslim content from being visible.

That is the opposite of free speech and free information as a constant lean on dictatorships to have their citizens eventually become sovereign.

The other side of the coin is we have default sovereignty as stated in our constitution, but it is constantly being eroded by an avalanch of laws, regulations, standards, and codes.

There is no freedom anywhere. It seems to me that is a bigger problem than anyone cares to even address much less solve.

The internet was a devastatingly annoying delay and hinderance to it, however. Bravo!

Rocketman

 

[AlmostThere]

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 free, as in speech, is not necessarily free as in beer. You pay for the traffic google sends you and if that is not worthwhile, then you can stop advertising with them. If you advertise via AdMob, and not iAd, note that it is Apple not Google that will prevent you from seeing the ROI on your investment. iAd does not tolerate competition.

 

[AlmostThere]

On the one hand Google is more open than Apple, but on the other hand that makes it practical and easy for China to block searches and Pakistan to prevent anti-Muslim content from being visible.

That is the opposite of free speech and free information as a constant lean on dictatorships to have their citizens eventually become sovereign.

Strewth ... Google had to experiment in some countries to see if bringing some information to the masses, albeit censored as they all knew, made a difference or not. Ultimately, they tried to make a difference, and way more than any other company. Check out Sergey Brin's comments on the matter.

Pop quiz on the same issue ... how many Americans / Western Europeans can name something about Tiananmen Square OTHER than the 1989 massacre? There is also more to history than our own propaganda.

 

[AlmostThere]

What I don't like about Google (and others like Skype) is their total denial of all responsibility.

Hey, this is only a beta, if it doesn't work its not our fault, gees what do you expect its free isn't it.

Good luck chasing Apple for damages if your Mac crashes and you lose all your valuable data. Beta is just a name ... if Mac OS X was all that, they would put their money where their mouth is and guarantee data integrity.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Moving on.....

100% Google & Microsoft Free!

Can you find everything you need on the net without these two? IMO the other search engines (except maybe Yahoo) are pretty weak compared to Google or even Bing.

 

[TroyBoy30]

awsome, i prefer google apps

 

[AlmostThere]

Follow the $$$$$. Apple is only limiting what goes on the iTune store.

Apple has already limited the web experience by blocking Flash, which offers functionality not yet supported by HTML5 and is something available on every other platform ... what's next?

 

[Skoal]

Google's "openness" basically means all your privacy is "open to us"! While I admire some of Google's products I have no doubt every step they take in the free and open philosophy is taken to get your goodies!

People like free stuff and they will not bother to look behind the curtain. They will simply walk through it without even a peek first.

 

[jaw04005]

H.264 is not free. For companies to include the technology in their applications (like Firefox) they would have to pay royalty fees. Something Mozilla cannot afford to do.

Sort of true. Mozilla and Opera both could easily afford 5 million per year. The last I looked Mozilla was making 20+ million per year just on Google search. What Mozilla and Opera don't mention is that if the OS maker licenses h.264 they can tap into that for FREE. So, 99.9% of their customers (Mac and Windows) would never have a problem with h.264 even if MPEG LA decided to charge.

The same for mobile.

Edit: "In 2006 the Mozilla Foundation received $66.8 million in revenues, of which $61.5 million is attributed to "search royalties"."

 

[Aldaris]

I love my commercial free computing experience...

I'm thinking of getting rid of google altogether if they are not gonna play nice.

 

[MacCurry]

Apple made thier bed and now they can sleep in it. If the iPhone wasn't exclusive to AT&T nobody would care about Android. Maybe the rumors of it going to Verizon are true, but right now Apple is leaving a massive amount of customers behind. I upgraded to a HTC Incredible because of the lack of iPhone on Verizon (I have a financial incentive to stay with Verizon over switching to AT&T). Even though I do like aspects of Android, I'll most likely switch to an iPhone should it come to Verizon even if it means paying the early termination fee. I'm willing to bet a lot of customers who aren't Apple fans and just looking for a cool phone won't.

And Apple screwed itself by calling the Apple TV a hobby for so many years. It might be all about the mobile OS today, but tomorrow the battle will be for the living room.

Apple is letting Google gain ground it should never have been in position to take.

I absolutely agree. The next iPhone should have multiple radios in it to work on worldwide GSM, CDMA and all frequencies of 3G. It should be sold for $399 unlocked and $199 on an AT&T contract. A lot of people like myself who are on T-Mobile or Verizon would jump on the opportunity to have an officially unlocked iPhone.

 

[Rocketman]

Google politely invites you to repeatedly "opt-in" to small compromises on your privacy and invisibility.

You are asked to fixate on polite and opt-in, and not on the greater issues of privacy and invisibility.

Opt-out. If you can possibly control yourself.

Rocketman

 

[Anuba]

Apple has already limited the web experience by blocking Flash, which offers functionality not yet supported by HTML5 and is something available on every other platform ... what's next?

Now that Adobe and Google are buddies facing a common enemy, they could always come up with ways to screw with Apple together... launch new Flash-based must-have services, add Flash-based deluxe features to Google services (Gmail, calendar etc) so that iPad/iPod/iPhone users can only access the basic functionality, give Flash content higher scores in search results so that Apple users will have to plow through an ocean of blue lego pieces before they get to any viewable content...

 

[marksman]

Well I am glad that my post made you laugh. I enjoy making people laugh, but to be honest Google is going to have the last laugh the longer Apple remains AT&T exclusive. The iPhone has experienced record growth, but staying with one carrier in the U.S. is going to end up in market saturation. The only way to get new customers at a rate fast enough to compete with Android is to branch out to new carriers.

Your right in other parts of the world Apple is open to different carriers, but in the last financial conference call Apple once again stated that in some countries they can do better by staying with one carrier. They never mention a specific country, but it's not too hard to assume they are speaking about the U.S.

Everything you said was correct 3 years ago, but that was then and this is now. If you can explain to me how the iPhone market share will out grow Android in the future by remaining only on AT&T I am all ears.

In what way and for what reason do you think Apple has any interest in competing with Android on a unit by unit basis? Google makes no direct revenue off each android phone sold, and Apple makes a lot.

Apple is about making the most dollars not the most units.

 

[entatlrg]

The biggest statement Google could make is the release of their own official OS and a full line of new, (Google) Laptops to compete with Apple's OS and Apple'ss computers ... that would be front page news.
Could be in the works, who knows.

Google is a business making money for it's shareholders, that's the idea. They see the success of iphone, ipad etc and they'd like to ride the shirt tales of that, dirty business who knows there's arguments from all angles.

But - Apple has done me no wrong, closed OS, this and that with the iphone and on and on ... bottom line Apple stuff works, it's simple/fun to use, it costs more but it lasts longer in my experience and very importantly Apple's products not only last long, tend to hold their value but they're a pleasure to use along the way too.

 

[Sabenth]

I agree with jobs, Google's 'Don't be Evil' crap, it's bull*****!!
I liked it when Google & Apple were close, imagine the great results we could have seen... Now, it's just Google copying.
I have more respect for Microsoft now, than I ever have.

eh google and apple were in the same league microsoft did what it new mass distrabution now these days there a little slow on that mark apple and google are up in arms cause of the fact google saw a chance and took it ok not in a clean manner apples gonna fall on there arse again and then spring up again or remain on the floor as per usual they opend up to much and thats whats caused the whole issue with the app store stuff adobe with flash its about apple keeping up with google

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

Apple needs to release a iTunes server for the home complete with streaming and metadata.

Think WMCE but with AppleTV and Front row.

 

[pharmx]

Apple has already limited the web experience by blocking Flash, which offers functionality not yet supported by HTML5 and is something available on every other platform ... what's next?

Apple doesn't control the web, so how exactly have they limited the web experience for anyone not using a Mac or iDevice? If anything, they've limited the Apple experience, since only people who use Apple products were affected by the blocking of Flash.

Now imagine what would happen if Google decided to block certain features or services...

 

[pharmx]

Now that Adobe and Google are buddies facing a common enemy, they could always come up with ways to screw with Apple together... launch new Flash-based must-have services, add Flash-based deluxe features to Google services (Gmail, calendar etc) so that iPad/iPod/iPhone users can only access the basic functionality, give Flash content higher scores in search results so that Apple users will have to plow through an ocean of blue lego pieces before they get to any viewable content...

Are Google and Adobe really friends though? I'm getting mixed signals from Google.

On the one hand they're embracing Flash and even incorporating it into their browser....but on the other hand, they're rolling out VP8 which is sure to hurt Flash.

At any rate, the Google vs. Apple battle will get much more interesting once Microsoft weighs in, especially if they decide to help both. Imagine MS helping Apple on the internet side, while helping Google in the mobile device space. The ramblings of my overactive imagination aside, there really is a lot at stake here for whomever "wins".

 

[acurafan]

apple and MS? well it won't be the first time.

better late then never for jobs to drop that "i'm a mac" campaign berating Windows.