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.
Google Sets Its Sights on Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is Google joking? I mean seriously, all this "1984" talk and "the man, draconian future" nonsense. Is Google ***** kidding?
They have probably one of the strongest monopolies in the entire tech industry. Yes, more than Microsoft, since Apple computers have been more competition for them than ever. Google, one company, two men and a mole of a CEO, controlling ALL our information, and being very insensitive towards users privacy. Google is the single biggest hypocrite I've ever heard, they're just jumping on the anti-Apple bandwagon to get all the douche Google fanboys cheering on the sidelines, not even realizing that Google exemplifies EVERYTHING they are saying about Apple, in the worst of ways.
My Google how you've changed.
They have probably one of the strongest monopolies in the entire tech industry. Yes, more than Microsoft, since Apple computers have been more competition for them than ever. Google, one company, two men and a mole of a CEO, controlling ALL our information, and being very insensitive towards users privacy. Google is the single biggest hypocrite I've ever heard, they're just jumping on the anti-Apple bandwagon to get all the douche Google fanboys cheering on the sidelines, not even realizing that Google exemplifies EVERYTHING they are saying about Apple, in the worst of ways.
My Google how you've changed.
I disagree. If we were talking about one product or product line, I would agree with you, but that simply isn't the case anymore. Both companies have diversified so much, that I think that by trying to compete on all fronts, we'll just end up with subpar products across the board as money is spread thin. I think consumers will be caught in the crossfire, not to mention confused.
For everyone's sake, I hope you're right though.
Just this last week I decided to un-Google my online life. The creepy, sinister, and downright cheesy nature of Google just gave me the heeby-jeebies once too often.
Chrome browser is fast and warm, but Apple isn't mining my data when I use Safari.
Picasa was easy to navigate, but iPhoto is prettier.
Google Documents was convenient, but so incredibly ugly and impossible to format or convert properly.
Gmail was fine, but for the first time this week I started using Apple's MailApp (after using Hotmail for ten years and Gmail for the last few), and suddenly I have no idea how I've put up with web mail for so long.
Google is choking the internet with ugly blighted ads, but Apple's iAd plan of going with quality over quantity gets my vote.
There are people on this thread calling for Apple to "go head-to-head" with Google, but that's not where it's at. It's better to have 10% market share (either in hardware, software, or advertising) and have huge profits than it is to be a blight on the world like Google is becoming, and Microsoft has been, despite their own profits.
I'll give Microsoft credit for one thing, though. They've always been about dominating markets for the purpose of making money. I don't like that approach, but I can respect it. Google's aim is to own every single last piece of your life so they can make money. I do not respect that. It's gross and anti-human.
Somehow Google has made me see Microsoft as a corporation with integrity. Never in my wildest dreams did I see that coming. Nice job, Google. Thanks. You accomplished something, anyway.
Apple should just keep on doing what it's been doing: creating a walled garden of useful, aesthetically-pleasing hardware and software products for people who recognize quality and will pay a premium for it.
I've been paying that premium since my first Macintosh Plus, and I'll keep paying it because I'll go with quality and integrity over crap and duplicity every time.
Chrome browser is fast and warm, but Apple isn't mining my data when I use Safari.
Picasa was easy to navigate, but iPhoto is prettier.
Google Documents was convenient, but so incredibly ugly and impossible to format or convert properly.
Gmail was fine, but for the first time this week I started using Apple's MailApp (after using Hotmail for ten years and Gmail for the last few), and suddenly I have no idea how I've put up with web mail for so long.
Google is choking the internet with ugly blighted ads, but Apple's iAd plan of going with quality over quantity gets my vote.
There are people on this thread calling for Apple to "go head-to-head" with Google, but that's not where it's at. It's better to have 10% market share (either in hardware, software, or advertising) and have huge profits than it is to be a blight on the world like Google is becoming, and Microsoft has been, despite their own profits.
I'll give Microsoft credit for one thing, though. They've always been about dominating markets for the purpose of making money. I don't like that approach, but I can respect it. Google's aim is to own every single last piece of your life so they can make money. I do not respect that. It's gross and anti-human.
Somehow Google has made me see Microsoft as a corporation with integrity. Never in my wildest dreams did I see that coming. Nice job, Google. Thanks. You accomplished something, anyway.
Apple should just keep on doing what it's been doing: creating a walled garden of useful, aesthetically-pleasing hardware and software products for people who recognize quality and will pay a premium for it.
I've been paying that premium since my first Macintosh Plus, and I'll keep paying it because I'll go with quality and integrity over crap and duplicity every time.
All I can say about this huge mess is I trust Apple with my personal data a LOT more than I do Google. And this IS what this is about. Gathering data about users.
I watched the Keynote. Android Intent sounds cool but then I started to think things through a bit and I decided that I need to see more uses. The Navigation thing is cool but I've already changed how I search for places. I simply fire up my app "Where to" and I search for a location. Once I find that location sending it to my Navigon is a simple choice. So I rarely would be searching from a browser on the desktop and then sending to my phone. Ditto for the next demo where they sent a webpage over to their phone or something like that. Been doing that since I got Instapaper which works easily with a bookmarklet.
Google's done well here with Android but the Lala purchase, the Siri purchase and Apple's movement on iPhone OS shows they've identified where the puck is going to be and are skating rapidly towards it.
I think Google woke up and realized that Apple could squeeze them out of business if it made an effort --- in the long run. With Apple controlling the hardware, OS, Software that runs on the OS (with respect to iProducts), Media and App Stores, Safari browser and then iAd...all they would need to do is grab the marketshare in this mobile wave like MS grabbed the PC wave and it would be game over for Google.
I mean, we can already see Microsoft is dying a slow death with PCs...obviously the TV and Mobile markets are where the growth is at...and Apple is doing as good a job as anybody (if not better). Since they control all those pieces they could dictate Google out of there...that's why Google is so keen to get into competition with Apple. Microsoft just isn't cutting it like they used to (e.g. retiring the GetAMac campaign).
I mean, we can already see Microsoft is dying a slow death with PCs...obviously the TV and Mobile markets are where the growth is at...and Apple is doing as good a job as anybody (if not better). Since they control all those pieces they could dictate Google out of there...that's why Google is so keen to get into competition with Apple. Microsoft just isn't cutting it like they used to (e.g. retiring the GetAMac campaign).
Lets look at this....
Apple TV - Google TV
Apple did this first. (Google setting sights on Apple)
iTunes - Wireless Android Music Syncing
I don't know how wirlelessly syncing with someone iTunes library is detrimental to Apple in any way. Apple may end up selling MORE music if Android users are able to easily sync with iTunes. (No target either side.)
iAds - Google Ads / Admob
Aem... Google did ads first.... (Apple set sights on Google)
h.264 - WebM/VP8
H.264 is not entirely an Apple product and Google also support and use h.264. (No target either side.) Google's opennes means "Everyone is inclusive" remember!
iPhone OS - Android OS
Google bought Android INC in 2005.. Did no one see Android coming?(Google publicly bought Android INC first)
Sensationalistic article is sensational.
I totally agree with you mate.
Iphone has lost it's wow factor.Iphone OS is really showing its age with all that small yearly updates. I think that apple must try give consumers what they want, not wait Job wants for them.
I believe the Google versus Apple fight is gonna give the consumer great products from both companies.
I agree 101%
As Apple user I simply LOVE everything Google has done so far and is about to do in near future...
Who knows - one day I might even replace my MBP with Google Book Pro of some sort...
I know for sure that I much rather have their version of TV and mobile OS
Seriously! I used to like Google because it had a simple interface and didn't try to trick you with the paid search results like Yahoo did.
Now Google has decided to go all Alexander and conquer every domain possible. My problem with Google isn't that, but the fact that Google is going about it by not charging the end user a dime for anything. Even Microsoft charged you for Windows and Office. Google is going to leverage its power in search over ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING until another company or a government stops it. I liked the idea someone else had of Apple working with Yahoo to take on Google.
Eric Schmidt is acting like a spurned ex-girlfriend, running around trying to get all his remaining friends involved in his little lover's quarrel. Dude is seriously pathetic. Grow the **** up, Eric.
You just cannot compare Apple TV to anything, it's nothing more than a crappy media player. 720p? What were they smoking? It was a dead product in its zero hour just like the boombox, another nice failure on day one. And the man mentioned the words boombox and audiophile in the same sentence in his presentation. What a joker.
I have to say, as a user i like openness, the vast majority of the software i use on a daily basis is open source.
But apple have quality on their side, one of the things keeping me in the apple camp as far as personal computers are concerned is how high quality their hardware is, bundle minimal crap ware with their OS, and well, very few PC manufactures have the same 'feel' as a piece of apple hardware, so i'm somewhat willing to pay the premium it entails.
I am feeling very apprehensive about iOS however, i suppose i can understand a few of the restrictions, because even already,iOS is inundated with crapware, and my ipod touch is very slick, but i fear for OSX.
If jobs' starts putting similar restrictions that the iPhone is suffering onto the desktop operating system, hell, i'm jumping ship.
But apple have quality on their side, one of the things keeping me in the apple camp as far as personal computers are concerned is how high quality their hardware is, bundle minimal crap ware with their OS, and well, very few PC manufactures have the same 'feel' as a piece of apple hardware, so i'm somewhat willing to pay the premium it entails.
I am feeling very apprehensive about iOS however, i suppose i can understand a few of the restrictions, because even already,iOS is inundated with crapware, and my ipod touch is very slick, but i fear for OSX.
If jobs' starts putting similar restrictions that the iPhone is suffering onto the desktop operating system, hell, i'm jumping ship.
The commenter you responded to said that Google's swipes at Apple are evidence that Apple is doing well. You're only proving his point by linking to a video of Jobs taking a swipe at Microsoft. Or did you mean to suggest that Microsoft was not doing well in 2006? While I didn't keep an especially close watch, I'm pretty sure their absolute dominance of the desktop PC market was very much in tact for that entire year.How do you explain this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-2C2gb6ws8
Taking swipes at the competition during keynotes is not new with the recent Google I/O keynote....
EDIT: Also, ROFL @ Steve's "all redmond try to do is copy Google and Apple" at the end.
Apple is still in a great position. Google still outsources hardware development and production to other companies and thus has only limited control.
I cannot imagine that Logitech and Sony will let themselves be totally dictated into what to do by Google.
Apple has total control over both hardware and software, so expect that to be the big differentiator between them and Google et al.
I cannot imagine that Logitech and Sony will let themselves be totally dictated into what to do by Google.
Apple has total control over both hardware and software, so expect that to be the big differentiator between them and Google et al.
Apple have dithered around for so long with the Apple TV they deserve to be beaten by the Google TV.
Customers have flooded Apple with requests for what the Apple TV should really do, and it looks like Google have listened.
I use my Apple TV all the time, but it's ridiculously frustrating that we cannot watch programmes streamed over the web (such as Sky or BBC iPlayer).
I will certainly consider buying a Google TV if they do a good job of it.
It will be interesting to see how popular the Google TV becomes - because Apple certainly give the impression that it's a fairly niche market and most people aren't interested, but perhaps that's because if it's major limitations (eg. I'm a Sky subscriber and entitled to free web streaming, so why should I pay to buy TV episodes on the Apple TV when it should let me stream them for free. Same goes for the BBC, as a UK resident we get free access to the iPlayer. I currently have the hassle of having to plug my MacBook Pro into my TV to watch the iPlayer when my Apple TV just sits there unable to provide.
I hope that the lack of real progress with the Apple TV is because Apple has been prepping a MAJOR new release in time to compete with the Google TV. I somehow doubt it though unfortunately. Every time they release an update it feels like a relief they haven't discontinued it, given their apparent lack of motivation.
Customers have flooded Apple with requests for what the Apple TV should really do, and it looks like Google have listened.
I use my Apple TV all the time, but it's ridiculously frustrating that we cannot watch programmes streamed over the web (such as Sky or BBC iPlayer).
I will certainly consider buying a Google TV if they do a good job of it.
It will be interesting to see how popular the Google TV becomes - because Apple certainly give the impression that it's a fairly niche market and most people aren't interested, but perhaps that's because if it's major limitations (eg. I'm a Sky subscriber and entitled to free web streaming, so why should I pay to buy TV episodes on the Apple TV when it should let me stream them for free. Same goes for the BBC, as a UK resident we get free access to the iPlayer. I currently have the hassle of having to plug my MacBook Pro into my TV to watch the iPlayer when my Apple TV just sits there unable to provide.
I hope that the lack of real progress with the Apple TV is because Apple has been prepping a MAJOR new release in time to compete with the Google TV. I somehow doubt it though unfortunately. Every time they release an update it feels like a relief they haven't discontinued it, given their apparent lack of motivation.
do people seriously not see how they are being played here??? google and apple both know full well that this "fight" means big bucks for both companies.
I was just pointing out that taking jabs at the opposition is nothing unusual. How anyone can come to the conclusion that two competing parties who take digs at each other concludes that one is doing better than the other is beyond me.
I take it that steve's "google is evil ********" jibe also means Google are on to a winner too?
To think that **** talking your competition makes them more successful in any way is absurd.
No need to panic. Apple's intention has never been to have the most popular or best selling product, they want to have the best product and the most appealing one.
As long as Android phones continue to look like a piece of crap with all their cheap plastic I don't care how many features the OS has. The new iPhone looks gorgeous, so I'll buy that.
Google has never been about quality, all they do is play the numbers game, being everywhere and earning everywhere, but there's nothing that they do particularly well. That's not how Apple works, they focus on a few things and try to do them right.
Apple is still growing every quarter and I can't see why this should change.
As long as Android phones continue to look like a piece of crap with all their cheap plastic I don't care how many features the OS has. The new iPhone looks gorgeous, so I'll buy that.
Google has never been about quality, all they do is play the numbers game, being everywhere and earning everywhere, but there's nothing that they do particularly well. That's not how Apple works, they focus on a few things and try to do them right.
Apple is still growing every quarter and I can't see why this should change.
I think that while Google is competing directly against Apple, Google's stuff is way lower quality and very badly designed compared to Apple's software. I had a look at my friend's Android phone a few weeks ago and the OS is just a mess, it's seriously lame compared to the iPhone. Then there's the GMail web interface, which is a huge mess as well, full of features I will never use, making it the opposite of simple and minimalistic.
The only things I like from Google are:
I'm not sure if Google TV will work. I'm saying that until a company releases an all-in-one TV screen, that has a built in decoder that works for all TV providers worldwide (impossible), with a built in DVD player and hard drive recorder, and make all that cheap and with an interface that's easy to use, a fast boot time and fast switching between channels and some useful features, Television is just going to keep sucking hard, no matter what.
The only things I like from Google are:
- Google Search
- Google Maps
- The Google Chrome Browser (only on PC since Safari is bad on PC)
I'm not sure if Google TV will work. I'm saying that until a company releases an all-in-one TV screen, that has a built in decoder that works for all TV providers worldwide (impossible), with a built in DVD player and hard drive recorder, and make all that cheap and with an interface that's easy to use, a fast boot time and fast switching between channels and some useful features, Television is just going to keep sucking hard, no matter what.
From what I can see, Google is offering openness and choice in their solutions/software/products. It seems they are just a counterpart to Apple, who don't offer openness or choice.
So while Google isn't really innovative, they are very needed. Can't imagine a world where Apple is controlling all software and hardware, telling exactly what you are allowed to do with it.
So while Google isn't really innovative, they are very needed. Can't imagine a world where Apple is controlling all software and hardware, telling exactly what you are allowed to do with it.
It is not a horse race. I repeat, it is not a horse race.
Nearly everyone, disappointingly, frames the competition between Apple and Google as something that is by necessity the same as the '80s, in which Windows "won" and all other platforms "lost." Maybe Apple and Google are thinking of it exactly that way, maybe they're just talking about it that way, but even if that's true, it's not the reality.
This is not the '80s. It would be entirely possible for both sides to "lose," depending on their definition of loss. Or, phrased differently, for both sides could win.
Apple could very easily end up with a solid 25% market share, Google with 40%, and another company or companies with 35%. If that 25% of the market is made up of higher end devices purchased by people who like a curated, vertically integrated system, then Apple might consider that a resounding success. 25% of the future's mobile computing market is massive, and could sustain a large company.
Google, likewise, could have 40% or more and consider that a loss, because it's not 100%, if they're playing for all the marbles. Or they could consider that a resounding success.
I'm not saying there's no chance the world will go 100% in one direction and one company will "win", but I am saying that I find that unlikely. The world has steadily crept toward a platform agnostic core with a lot of platform-specific add-ons depending on user preference. It is, frankly, quite likely that no company will ever be able to leverage themselves into the monopoly position MS managed to, and if that artificial constraint on progress and diversity doesn't happen there's no reason for a device or OS monoculture to exist.
Again, if Apple had 20% market share and a strictly curated, tightly integrated system with less features and freedom than Android, I might well still buy such a device.
It's almost exactly the same as the video game space--I can spend a pile of money on a fancy Windows gaming rig for the flashiest and newest, with a lean toward online and FPS gaming, or I can buy a PS3 for a tightly integrated system with more software constraints but that is in exchange easier to keep running, cheaper, and more stable. Or I can buy a Wii for an entirely different sort of gaming and an even more heavily curated and tightly-integrated experience. Or I can buy all three.
And that's before you even toss much of the web into the mix.
There have been between 3-4 gaming "cultures," and an even larger number of "platforms" when you count handhelds, for the past 30 years. While Sega "lost" neither MS, Sony, nor Nintendo has "won" during that time, and it's unlikely a single player will.
Or try pre-iPhone cell phones. Leaving aside carrier-forced stupidity and crappy web experience and only looking at them as phones, you have many devices from many companies, and no "winner" in the war. 95% of all phones are not and haven't really ever been made by Motorola, Sony-Ericson, or any other single company. All make somewhat compatible products with different features for different preferences, and nobody expects a single device maker to "win". Or cars--it's not like Ford "won", nor does anyone expect there to eventually only be one car company.
Sure, Google wants to have android on 100% of devices, whoever makes them, but I don't think that's going to happen. I could be wrong, but there's hardly a guarantee.
It's called competition, it's good to have it back, and I'm looking forward to it.
Nearly everyone, disappointingly, frames the competition between Apple and Google as something that is by necessity the same as the '80s, in which Windows "won" and all other platforms "lost." Maybe Apple and Google are thinking of it exactly that way, maybe they're just talking about it that way, but even if that's true, it's not the reality.
This is not the '80s. It would be entirely possible for both sides to "lose," depending on their definition of loss. Or, phrased differently, for both sides could win.
Apple could very easily end up with a solid 25% market share, Google with 40%, and another company or companies with 35%. If that 25% of the market is made up of higher end devices purchased by people who like a curated, vertically integrated system, then Apple might consider that a resounding success. 25% of the future's mobile computing market is massive, and could sustain a large company.
Google, likewise, could have 40% or more and consider that a loss, because it's not 100%, if they're playing for all the marbles. Or they could consider that a resounding success.
I'm not saying there's no chance the world will go 100% in one direction and one company will "win", but I am saying that I find that unlikely. The world has steadily crept toward a platform agnostic core with a lot of platform-specific add-ons depending on user preference. It is, frankly, quite likely that no company will ever be able to leverage themselves into the monopoly position MS managed to, and if that artificial constraint on progress and diversity doesn't happen there's no reason for a device or OS monoculture to exist.
Again, if Apple had 20% market share and a strictly curated, tightly integrated system with less features and freedom than Android, I might well still buy such a device.
It's almost exactly the same as the video game space--I can spend a pile of money on a fancy Windows gaming rig for the flashiest and newest, with a lean toward online and FPS gaming, or I can buy a PS3 for a tightly integrated system with more software constraints but that is in exchange easier to keep running, cheaper, and more stable. Or I can buy a Wii for an entirely different sort of gaming and an even more heavily curated and tightly-integrated experience. Or I can buy all three.
And that's before you even toss much of the web into the mix.
There have been between 3-4 gaming "cultures," and an even larger number of "platforms" when you count handhelds, for the past 30 years. While Sega "lost" neither MS, Sony, nor Nintendo has "won" during that time, and it's unlikely a single player will.
Or try pre-iPhone cell phones. Leaving aside carrier-forced stupidity and crappy web experience and only looking at them as phones, you have many devices from many companies, and no "winner" in the war. 95% of all phones are not and haven't really ever been made by Motorola, Sony-Ericson, or any other single company. All make somewhat compatible products with different features for different preferences, and nobody expects a single device maker to "win". Or cars--it's not like Ford "won", nor does anyone expect there to eventually only be one car company.
Sure, Google wants to have android on 100% of devices, whoever makes them, but I don't think that's going to happen. I could be wrong, but there's hardly a guarantee.
It's called competition, it's good to have it back, and I'm looking forward to it.
If Google are allowed to, and are successful in becoming market leader, in the markets it's targeting then the sheer volume of information held in a number of different areas will be frightening.
People moan about Facebook and how it doesn't take privacy seriously enough, but just wait until Google owns almost every service you use to search the web, buy music, watch video, make a call, check email, etc.
They will quite possibly have information about every aspect of your day to day life and your habits, ie: when you log in, what you search for, favourite sites, people you call most, etc.
Obviously this data is collated today by other companies including in my case O2, Apple, etc ... but imagining Google having ALL that information about my digital day to day life is quite frightening.
People moan about Facebook and how it doesn't take privacy seriously enough, but just wait until Google owns almost every service you use to search the web, buy music, watch video, make a call, check email, etc.
They will quite possibly have information about every aspect of your day to day life and your habits, ie: when you log in, what you search for, favourite sites, people you call most, etc.
Obviously this data is collated today by other companies including in my case O2, Apple, etc ... but imagining Google having ALL that information about my digital day to day life is quite frightening.
LOL. You've been listening too much to propaganda. Google is not more open than Apple. They both have their areas where they protect their profit interests. Both companies are in this business for profit.