´óÏó´«Ã½

Great blog Rory, I think that the open philosophy of google sounds great to tech enthusiasts and the like, but the average person just wants simplicity, and that's what Apple offers in abundance.

I really hope that Google find a way to show your average consumer that locked down platforms aren't good for the market.

seems as relavant here as it is to the Facebook debate. Everyone wants convenience, no-one cares about freedom, until someone oh so conveniently stuffs them and takes away their freedom to do something they actually care about.

Also, who wrote this post? It says up top that it was posted by Alan Connor.

@#1 Apple doesn't offer convenience at all. Have you tried dealing with their abysmal DRM that they put into all of their products? I play Audiosurf, but because some of the tracks sold on the iTunes Store comes in a protected format I can't play the songs I bought on a game I bought without 'illegally' breaking the DRM to export the music to a more helpful format.

It's thickheaded propriety like this that lure people into 'copyright infringement' in the first place.

Why do people put Ape down for the one thing that makes their products less problematic that another well know OS?

Hundreds of other companies have locked or controlled software - cars, White goods, cameras, etc, etc. And is Microsoft Windows open source? If you want an open source system, build it using open source software. If you want a reliable, fuss free one, choose Apple.

It's all down to choice - if you don't like the way a company does business or builds it's products, don't use them.

Good blog Rory.
I like your conclusion that Apple products are for simpletons! (kidding)

I think the competition is excellent for the consumer, having watched the google i/o events, the innovation is excellent. For example, being able to browse the android market and "push" an app to your phone, no tethering, no syncing is a good example.

But I think one of the interesting features of the I/O is overlooked by many, and that is the browser support for phone hardware, so from inside a web page, the developer has access (appropriately permissioned) to features such as the accelerometer, or the camera. Previously these would have needed developer apps to be installed. Now will Apple support these features in the future in Safari, under a consistent API ?
Let's hope so, though some how I think the possibility of negating the Apple app store will prevent them from doing so.

Ease of use is always quoted by apple users, but it is only ease of use in a limited set of functionality. There might be "an app for that", but try taking a picture in low light on an iPhone or listening to an FM Radio. I am sure there'll be responses from people that phones are not cameras and FM Radio is an outdated technology, but for many these are very useful features.

It is an easy pitch from Google that Android is more open, because,well, it is. How many different Android products are out there, if you want a full keyboard you can have one. If you want a huge screen you can have one. The consumers don't just want ease of use, they want quality and choice.

Jobs has always made money by selling a premium product but on the desktop and in the notebook market there's no need for users to upgrade, they have all the power they need, unless you are a video editor.
He may have "invented" a new market with the iPad and deliberately restricted early versions so he can sell upgrades in a few years time, but surely there's only so long the consumers will wear this.

Google's openness is very clear from its work with partners, the Google TV collaboration a prime example. Will the product take off ? I think it has a much greater chance of success than the more closed products we have seen in the past. From what I saw it will run Android so the development options should be impressive, with properly personalised tv will be interesting to see how the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will integrate with it in years to come.

@#5 Apple is neither reliable (any software that can be remotely bricked by its designers is NOT reliable) nor is it fuss-free. Windows may not always be 100% reliable, but on the other hand Microsoft never made it a locked system to a specific type of hardware, which Apple did with its Macs for a long time.

Then of course there's Linux, which is open-source and as reliable and fuss-free as it was made by its developers. Ubuntu still stands as probably one of the most user friendly versions.

And then you have Google. Whilst they're not entirely open-source they're a long way down that road. But they make very high quality services and it just happens to be working out well for them.

I do so love the whole Apple 'It just works' thing because I haven't had that type of experience with iTunes or the iPhone. They are no more or less reliable than Windows these days

Google vs Apple, the world views or very different but frankly I don't understand why I have to choose. I want a system thats both locked down (in terms of privacy and security) but still allows me to have choice.

1. At 5:33pm on 21 May 2010, lookseehear wrote:
Great blog Rory

6. At 7:16pm on 21 May 2010, ac2010 wrote:
Good blog Rory.

3. At 6:41pm on 21 May 2010, _Ewan_ wrote:
Also, who wrote this post? It says up top that it was posted by Alan Connor.

At least it's still seen as good.

Really glad to see changes or innovative, simplified, unmarketable, tremendous "competitive market with the changes"......

I predict that more 'new' Apple users will jump ship. By new, I mean those who got the iPhone due to the buzz it had created.

I consider myself one of the 'new' Apple users. While the iPhone is a great phone (intuitiveness, easy-to-use, apps, etc), I'm getting frustrated with the Apple-way of doing things that is affecting me. The shunning of the Flash is one example, limitations to sync-ing music is another. For users in Singapore, we cannot even buy music from ITunes.

I can't wait for the end of the year when my contract expires. I will be switching to an Android phone when that happens. There's nothing unique about the iPhone anymore.

Your comment regarding Wireless synching on the iPhone is only partially true. You cannot sync your entire music collection wirelessly from Apple, but you can download songs, podcasts, and applications and so on from iTunes over the air.

In practice the only difference between a full sync and Apples current offering is that if you needed to restore your iPod/iPhone if it was lost/stolen/damaged you cannot do so wirelessly, you need the backup from your computer. It will be interesting to see how these companies handle the legal and distribution issues of a full cloud sync. Storing someone’s questionably sourced MP3 collection could create some legal liabilities.

From another perspective Apple will allow you to re-download your iTunes should your backups fail, but if the songs are no longer in the store, then they cannot restore these. If these songs disappear from the catalogue, will they also disappear from the cloud? Don't forget what happened when Google pulled the plug on Google Video, all those people lost the ability to access their paid for, but DRM encumbered content.

Oddly enough purchasing songs and apps wirelessly and later syncing to iTunes is what made the device so successful. This was impossible (or at least inconsistent) on Windows Mobile, Zune and other competing devices. The iPhone/Touch removed the strong link between your desktop computer and your Smartphone.

Apple is (and always has been) a hardware manufacturer that adds value to the kit it sells by bundling software to make 'insanely great' products (Steve Jobs' phrase). The vertical integration of hardware and software is one of the reasons why, on the whole, Apple products 'just work'. Further integration with services such as the iTunes Store, the App Store and Mobile Me extend 'the Apple experience' beyond the device in a way that many users find convenient (think of them as the online equivalent of the supermarket).

The fact that the resulting hardware+software system is 'closed' is hardly a surprise, because if Apple made it completely 'open' they would be cutting their own corporate throats, by ensuring that hardware from other manufacturers would do the same job. IBM did that with the IBM PC, and lived to regret it. I doubt that many consumers are hugely concerned about this at the device level, because that's what makes things 'just work'. The closed nature of the App Store and the App development process may prove more problematic in the long run.

@#4 complains about DRM. (S)he is a long way behind the times. The iTunes store has been offering DRM-free content for ages, where the content-provider permits. The real issue with DRM lies with the record companies, film studios, TV production companies and other content providers. At least Apple's Fair-Play allows use on more than one machine!

It will be interesting to see what happens to Android. If past experience is anything to go by the success or failure of a platform like this depends on the extent to which hardware and software can be made to work together in harmony to provide non-technical end-users with products that they find attractive. Most end-users don't care what operating system runs on their 'phones, so they won't go out looking for "an Android 'phone" any more than they go looking for "a Symbian 'phone" or "a Windows Mobile 'phone" now. Until one of the hardware manufacturers gains a good reputation, and a high profile brand image, to rival that of the Apple iPhone, uptake of the Android platform will be slow, no matter how much better it is.

In my opinion, open-source development is where it's at.
Whereas Apple has proprietary applicationsm, it’s limited thereby.
The public has been quick to notice this. Apple is fine if you want simplicity.e.g. Apple's iPhone browser is good, but I'd much rather have Adium running on it, and there's non-compatibility.
IPhone users and Google Android users have commonalities re use patterns and demographics, but Google is far more flexible, which I think will hurt Apple in the long-run, especially as Android grows.
Android will vacuum up users by
- proprietary and
- open-source application development.
Meanwhile Apple's iPhone serves only proprietary.
I don’t really know if Apple cares, as long as it has its loyal base; but in the long run creativity, experimentation and innovation will add up in Google’s side.

@topperfalkon ALL Apple's music has been DRM free for a little over a year. It may be in AAC format rather than MP3 but that is done for reasons of quality. AAC is a successor format to MP3 and delivers better quality for the same bit rate.

Windows Media Player, Real Player and most music player software on PCs can now read AAC formats successfully (so you're not tied into iTunes). However the protected music content is no longer sold by Apple and was NOT a unique thing to Apple. Anyone remember Microsoft PlaysForSure?

DRM was put in at the request of the Record Companies and was something that software companies didn't want to bother with (it cost them money to develop it and then play the cat and mouse game with file sharers)

If phones running Android can undercut the Apple iPhone in price it will eventually become the market leader. iPhones & Blackberries (nice though they are) are ridiculously expensive.
HTC, Motorola and Samsung phones running Android are aimed at the mass market. (The HTC Desire is a nice piece of kit too.) It's inevitable that Android will start to pull ahead of the Apple OS.

Meanwhile the world leader remains Nokia's Symbian OS. The real competition this decade could well be between Android and Symbian, whilst Apple relies on its loyal, if niche, group of users; much as it does with its PCs.

Alan Connor.

"In every area where it's now confronting Apple, Google is determined to paint a picture of itself as the friendly, open giant which just wants to help .."

and it has the open APIs to back this up; even the mighty M$ had to make concessions (cf Office 2010) because of Google Docs.

as BluesBerry (#14) says: "..open-source development is where it's at."

While Android will suppress iPhone some point in the future in terms of shipping volume, suspect it will become another Symbian platform. Phone manufacturers have no interest in Google's philosophy, they are more into saving cost of software development by getting a ready made, strong branded phone operating system, then customise it to their hardware to gain advantage of others using the same OS. Think HTC and Sony Ericsson.

No manufacturers are going to "standardise" to 2.5 screen, so some third party software is no going to work on all android phone. So the more phone model using Android will mean more segmentation of the platform, making 3rd party development painful down the line.

Topperfalkon wrote:

"Apple doesn't offer convenience at all. Have you tried dealing with their abysmal DRM that they put into all of their products? I play Audiosurf, but because some of the tracks sold on the iTunes Store comes in a protected format I can't play the songs I bought on a game I bought without 'illegally' breaking the DRM to export the music to a more helpful format."

Apple does not use DRM for their music. They stopped doing that over a year ago! They also double the audio quality when they did that.

"It's thickheaded propriety like this that lure people into 'copyright infringement' in the first place."

No, it's just an immature and criminal mentality that leads people to take something without paying for it!

ac2010 wrote:

"The consumers don't just want ease of use, they want quality and choice."

The iPods, the iPhone and the Macs offer "ease of use," most certainly they offer"quality" and they are a "choice" for the consumer. Apple has been extremely successful because they have been giving consumers what they otherwise so many consumers would not be buying their products!

"He may have "invented" a new market with the iPad and deliberately restricted early versions so he can sell upgrades in a few years time, but surely there's only so long the consumers will wear this."

All companies do that and will continue to do that so long as the market can tolerate it. Apple is not a charity. It is running a business.

"Google's openness is very clear from its work with partners, the Google TV collaboration a prime example. Will the product take off ?"

So Apple has never collaborated with "partners?"

Apple has been doing that long before Google even existed!

"I think it has a much greater chance of success than the more closed products we have seen in the past. From what I saw it will run Android so the development options should be impressive, with properly personalised tv will be interesting to see how the ´óÏó´«Ã½ will integrate with it in years to come."

You are not the average consumer so you are looking at it from a different perspective. It is a perspective that clouds your judgment on what will and what will not be successful.

PapaKilo2Charlie #18.

"No manufacturers are going to "standardise" to 2.5 screen, so some third party software is no going to work on all android phone."

well written applications just work, if "some third party software" doesn't, consumers will vote with their feet/wallets.

@lookseehear wrote:

Great blog Rory, I think that the open philosophy of google sounds great to tech enthusiasts and the like, but the average person just wants simplicity, and that's what Apple offers in abundance.

I really hope that Google find a way to show your average consumer that locked down platforms aren't good for the market.

. . .

If "locked down platforms" weren't good for the market, then Google would not have been in any position to to make the splash they're hoping to make. Or do you believe that their juxtaposing themselves against competitors -- in this case Apple -- is simply a marketing coincidence?

PapaKilo2Charlie, Fragmentation is what your talking about. This is being addressed by google in the next few releases, but even so its not that bad anyway. screen size isnt an issue now since apps work on different resolutions.

Apples problem isnt the control it has of its system with regard to competitive apps and app choice, its about its moralising and control of what you can use your devices for. There is no excuse for that. Banning apps on moral grounds does nothing to increase the platforms reliability, its just pure censorship, its that simple.

@7. At 9:09pm on 21 May 2010, Topperfalkon wrote:

5 Apple is neither reliable (any software that can be remotely bricked by its designers is NOT reliable) nor is it fuss-free. Windows may not always be 100% reliable, but on the other hand Microsoft never made it a locked system to a specific type of hardware, which Apple did with its Macs for a long time.

Then of course there's Linux, which is open-source and as reliable and fuss-free as it was made by its developers. Ubuntu still stands as probably one of the most user friendly versions.

And then you have Google. Whilst they're not entirely open-source they're a long way down that road. But they make very high quality services and it just happens to be working out well for them.



My reply:
Sadly it's not as simple as that.
Apple is largely based on open source code:
* Darwin -the kernel behind OS X- is based upon a hodge-podge of 3 different varieties of UNIX.
* Then there's CUPS (Common Unix Printing System) - which was a GPL product brought by out Apple in 2007 after having used it in OS X for a number of years previously.
* Safari -Apple's web browser- uses a webkit engine which is a project Apple forked from khtml (the rendering engine behind the open source browser 'Konquorer', which is shipped as part of the KDE software suite)

So Apple have a history of taking existing ideas and source code and then rebranding it as their own (and often inside a walled garden that didn't previously exist with the open source projects).
Sure, sometimes Apple improve upon the original project (as they did with webkit). Sometimes they feed their contributions back to the open source community (webkit, CUPS). And othertimes they just play lip service (as demonstrated by the farce that is Darwins open source community).

As for Google. I don't think you can even categorise them independently as you had done as they're even more reliant on open source than Apple are.
However Google /DO/ feed their code back to the community. Whether it's Android (where users can and have ported it to a variety of "unathoraised" hardware freely), Chomium (the Linux open source fork of Chrome) or some of their lesser known products too (IIRC Google Public DNS is intended to be open source but I'm yet to find the code)

Sure, many of Google's flagship products (GMail, Google search engine, etc) are propitiatory and closed, but the services are still free so long as you're happy to lose a little freedom (which then raises the question: just how much does remaining anonymous mean to you?). So to Google, platforms such as Android, Chrome and ChromeOS can be justified given away for free as they're considered a gateway to Google's indexing services (GMail, search engine, etc).

As for Linux, I'm not really convinced Ubuntu is the most user friendly of Linux distros. Mark Shuttleworth - head of Canonical - has some pretty dreadful design ideas. So while I'm grateful for the exposure and investment he's able to bring to Linux that no other desktop distribution has been able to match, I think he also steals the limelight from some (in my opinion) more deserving products. However, the beauty of Linux is it's freedom - so if you don't like Ubuntu, then there's a dozen other distributions that other the same but slightly different.

18. At 01:43am on 23 May 2010, PapaKilo2Charlie wrote:
While Android will suppress iPhone some point in the future in terms of shipping volume,

My reply:
Android already has in the US.

You said:
No manufacturers are going to "standardise" to 2.5 screen, so some third party software is no going to work on all android phone. So the more phone model using Android will mean more segmentation of the platform, making 3rd party development painful down the line.

My reply:
That's complete rubbish. You don't write apps for a screen size, you write it for a platform and then adjust the interface to support the display screen.

I see two issues with Apple that you don't see with Google
1 Overpriced goods (apple has never been reasonably priced)
2 Security so high that it becomes inconvenient (eg iPhone bluetooth)

I have just ordered a HTC Desire (google android OS) phone and if google ever release a tablet PC I will give it some consideration if the price warrants it.

@AllenT2

I don't think I have ever read such deluded fanboy tripe.

Apple didn't "invent" the iPad. Microsoft have been playing with Tablet PC's for years. It's only Job's brainwashed armies of "tell us what to buy now Steve" isheep have brought it to the forefront.

Apple offers quality? I'm not seeing (or hearing) that either. the iPod is by far the worst sounding player on the market, considering that playing music is it's primary function, that's not good. As for quality. Have you seen iPhone failure rates? 30% according to SquareTrade.

Everything Apple offer is overpriced locked-down trash aimed at consumers that fall for slick marketing.

@MarkG #27

'the iPod is by far the worst sounding player on the market'

I think you need to research this statement before you make it. What HiFi rate it at 5/5, The Gagdet Show rate it 4/5 above the Sony Walkman. I could go on.

Also, The IPad is not a Tablet PC, nor does it pretend to be.

Don't forget that Google has made mistakes too. We all love Buzz don't we???
Then there was the time they interpreted Micheal Jacksons death as a virus attack!

The grass isn't always greener on the other side.

"Vic Gundotra quotes the boss of Android Andy Rubin warning of "a future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our only choice. That's a future we don't want!" "

Now that's a cheap shot. I like Google and respect their software, but there's no need for that. As far as I know, Apple have made Google the ONLY search engine available on the iPhone. I wonder if that upsets Google as it effectively means there's no /choice/ other than to use Google?

Since when is anyone compelled to buy Apple products? Since when have US citizens been forced to buy phones that only work on AT&T networks? I have been using Apple stuff since 1988. All the products I have bought have always been more expensive to buy, but I have always had the choice of buying something else. If you don't want to pay the price of a Mercedes for a Mercedes, pay the price of a Fiesta for a Fiesta.

#30 As far as I know, Apple have made Google the ONLY search engine available on the iPhone.

Not so - you can change the default search engine on the iPhone. In fact, if I remember correctly, there was even talk of them making Bing the default earlier this year.

@MyVoiceinYrHead

Do you understand how the GadagetShow works? Their ratings are not based upon product quality, it's based on who provides what for the competitions, and who advertises during the breaks.

The fact you need to use the Gadgetshow as a reference site for iPod sound quality (or lackof) speaks volumes..

It's also interesting to read the WhatHi-Fi review, it doesn't even mention sound quality, whereas almost all other reviews do.. Hmmm, sounds like it was reviewed on features rather than performance.. or the review was bought and the mag glossed over mentioning sound quality for fear of tarnishing their reputation.

Hi everyone,
Google is great,dont get me wrong,
but personally I think that they need a lot more
time to get where Apple is.
We cannot limit our consideration and judgements
only based on 2 phones operating systems!
Apple does much more and they do it very well!
When(may be not far in the future)google will start
to do amazing operating system for computers
and fantastic quality phone hardware I will consider them
as strong contender on every front.
Until then....Apple here I come!

Looks like Google definitely wants to take head on with Apple. just check out the jabs at Apple by Google at the Google IO keynote. Unbelievable....

In many ways Google are more dangerous to freedom in a broad sense than Apple can be, for the most basic of reasons: more users, more data. I'm sure I'm not alone in failing to be reassured by 'do no evil', since Google gets to decide what constitutes evil.

On the user front, Google's search engines had 88% of UK market share (and 65% US) in Oct/Nov 2009, according to Impact Media. 76% of UK adults accessed the Internet in the same year, according to the ONS. Assuming most of them use a search engine, using Google to search must be among the most ubiquitous of life experiences in the UK, and is probably the single activity most Internet users worldwide have in common, bar China perhaps. Use of Apple products and services is nothing like so pervasive, and it doesn't seem to be Apple's philosophy that gets copied so much as its gadgetry.

I don't see much sign of Google wanting to offer a flexible user experience in search. A few weeks ago the country-specific radio buttons disappeared from www.google.co.uk and the formatting of the search results changed. There's no option to revert back to the old style page. Then there are the ever-increasing number of google doodles, inflicted on me whether I want them or not. Yes, there are workarounds, and other search engines - but what gets to me is that Google quite deliberately offers no support for user choice, thinking it knows best.

Google is a company that tracks every move you make, every link you click, they read every email you send and even drive cars down your street to take pictures of where you live. Android will grab more market share because it's easy to give away what is essentially free version of the iPhone OS. Android is fragmented, has terrible battery life, is sure to have security problems, but the new breed of Google fanboys will still sing its praises. Apple fought hard to get rid of the DRM imposed by the record labels in the iTunes store; they have thousands of free, stable, not battery draining apps in their app store; they lead the way in environmental responsibility as well as innovation, they created the open Webkit... Google's raison d'etre is to collect information about you and sell it, whereas Apple's is to sell you high quality, reliable and easy to use products.

36. At 5:16pm on 24 May 2010, markbriton wrote:
Google is a company that tracks every move you make, every link you click, they read every email you send....

My reply:
Wrong and wrong.
They only track links you click on their own site. But then every website tracks links you click on their website.
Also Google only tracks e-mails sent and recieved via Google Mail (so e-mails between Hotmail and Yahoo mail, for example, will be invisible to Google).


You said:
Android is fragmented, has terrible battery life, is sure to have security problems,

My reply:
fragmented: True,
bad battery life: Android's battery life is down the the handset and on the whole no worse than every other smartphone (the iPhone's isnt amazing either)
Security: the highly speculative tone you used proves you have no basis for that statement and now just looking for reasons to dislike Android.


You said:
but the new breed of Google fanboys will still sing its praises.

My reply:
Aye, there are fanboys for every platform. But that doesn't mean you should distort the facts to counter their arguments.

You said:
Apple fought hard to get rid of the DRM imposed by the record labels in the iTunes store;

My reply:
They also fought hard to monopolise the market - using methods such as threatening record labels that signed up to Amazon. So Apple are no angels in the music industry.

You said:
[iPhone has] have thousands of free, stable, not battery draining apps in their app store;

My reply:
So does Android and webOS. Windows Mobile may not have an app store (yet), but that too has thousands of free, stable and economical apps too. The iPhone is far from alone in this field.

You said:
they lead the way in environmental responsibility as well as innovation,

My reply:
Environmental responsibility?! Proof please?
And as for innovation, most of their ideas are already established products but with a nicer case and cleaner interface. That's not innovation, that's just improving upon the current.


You said:
they created the open Webkit...

My reply:
Actually they didn't. webkit is a fork of khtml which is an open source project from the KDE team. In fact, the only reason webkit is still open source is because the original khtml is GPL (which is a product licence that demands any revisions of the product remain open source).
So no, Apple didn't create webkit. They forked it. The underlying and originating code is *NOT* Apples.

You said:
Google's raison d'etre is to collect information about you and sell it, whereas Apple's is to sell you high quality, reliable and easy to use products.

My reply:
This is the first accurate thing you've posted. However the two points are not mutually exclusive (ie you can collect information and sell it and still package your easy to use products in a high quality and reliable interface.
Just as Apple can use their existing products to collect information about you and sell it.

@markbriton

Congratulations, you raised the FUD level to new highs. Steve Jobs will be so proud of you. However not one single word bares any resemblance to reality...

I assume you are pretty mad at Google for making an OS that's 10x better in handsets than are 1/3rd of the price than your beloved status symbol.

ahh. whatever happened to windows. sigh, lol

Both organisations have their merits though one does have to wonder why they sport bizarre behaviours in users and staff such as "inserting rougue code" or damning other formats.Is it because they are American and America is used to having its own way in things?

Hopefully, we will see a competing European organisation. Nokia used to be there but with Ovi and non existent Apps Store is proven to have lost the plot. They just cannot deliver smooth apps download or functions people really need like dual sims, seamless VOIP and onboard satnav. Sad.

I really do wish we would not forget the true philosophies behind these companies - to make as much money as possible for their owners or shareholders. It really is as simple as that. All other stated 'benefits to society', 'personal freedom' (of choice or whatever) are secondary. Just as long as we remember that.

@MarkG I'm not sure how you've calculated your 1/3 of the price - a quick look at o2's store for example doesn't back this up. As for ten times better, well I suppose that's subjective. As for denying everything I said, perhaps have a look through Google's privacy policies one day before you cosy up to the ad men.

@Laumars I'm glad you agree on some of my points. I should have been more specific by saying Google reads all your gmail emails, perhaps I should be clear that Google only collects vast amounts of personal data from you when you use their own services (with the exception of Street View where you are given no choice).

You also didn't disagree that Apple fought to remove DRM, and as for seeking to monopolise a market, that is what every good business on the planet seeks to do (including Google, where they have succeeded in search and online advertising) so I'm not sure why it's noteworthy. As I'm sure you know, the 'threatening' behaviour you refer to was in the context of record labels wanting to increase their prices, which Apple eventually compromised on. As for proof that they have led the way in environmental issues, they led the way in removing toxic chemicals from their products, which was widely reported. Greenpeace rank them as 5th overall 'greenest' tech company, with Nokia at numner 1. They don't rank Google or HTC.

I'm sure that Android will (continue to, in the US) have greater market share than Apple, since they give away their products (seemingly) for free, so that's a no-brainer. I just hope that they are subjected to as much scrunity as Apple, especially from people as knowledgable as you. This 'Apple is Big Brother' argument, fanned by Google, is silly. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

@markbriton

The best Android handset on the market is 1/3rd of the price of an iPhone when I checked on Orange earier, it's 10x better too.

I mean, an OS that does not multi-task, someone want to tell markbriton and Steve Jobs this is 2010 not 1985....

@markg Sorry to drag this on, but could you be a bit more specific in terms of which phone you're referring to and at what price? iPhone OS 4.0 which has been announced and will be released in a matter of weeks adds "multi-tasking" if you mean the ability to run some tasks performed by third party apps in the background. Unlike Android, existing users will be able to upgrade to this when released (admittedly multi-tasking will only work on the 3GS and the yet to be released iPhone). I'm not sure why you're referencing 1985 specifically - that's 11 years before your beloved Google was even born - I'd love to hear your explanation.

42. At 2:32pm on 25 May 2010, markbriton wrote:
@Laumars I'm glad you agree on some of my points. I should have been more specific by saying Google reads all your gmail emails, perhaps I should be clear that Google only collects vast amounts of personal data from you when you use their own services (with the exception of Street View where you are given no choice).

My reply:
But that's the same as most other online services these days - it's just Google are better at turning that data into targeted advertisements.
And Google aren't the only ones who have pictures of your house. MS (for example) have their own satellites photos with their competing product range to Google Maps.

Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't be wary of Google because of this - but I am saying that we shouldn't assume Google are the bad guys for doing so either. The fact is, your personal information and surfing statistics are stored in countless locations from ISP logs to apache server logs to your own computers web cache. The internet was never a private place despite what people might believe. All Google did was found a way to take this data and make money from it.

You said:
You also didn't disagree that Apple fought to remove DRM, and as for seeking to monopolise a market, that is what every good business on the planet seeks to do (including Google, where they have succeeded in search and online advertising) so I'm not sure why it's noteworthy.

My reply:
I like the way you've conveniently ignored the point I've made about Apple's aggressive and down-right unfair business tactics to obtain their market share. Thus in a conversation where you're highlighting Apple as a more ethical company to Google, my point is extremely relevant.
However, if you just want to list technical accomplishments that Apple have provided free to their customers then I have a very long list of free and open source products Google have to their name (as opposed to just removing an invasive deterrent which should never have been included in a paid-for product to start with - such as Apple did with DRM)

You said:
As I'm sure you know, the 'threatening' behaviour you refer to was in the context of record labels wanting to increase their prices, which Apple eventually compromised on.

My reply:
Actually that's not it. I'm talking about Apply bullying record labels not to sign up to Amazon's Daily Deals:

I suggest you read up a little more on Apple's business practices as their ruthlessness is widely reported :)

You said:
As for proof that they have led the way in environmental issues, they led the way in removing toxic chemicals from their products, which was widely reported. Greenpeace rank them as 5th overall 'greenest' tech company, with Nokia at numner 1. They don't rank Google or HTC.

My reply:
Google isn't ranked in that list because Google aren't a manufacturer!
In fact, it's going to be hard to compare the two companies in this respect because their environment impact will be so vastly different (Google's will be more raw energy consumption with data centres where as Apple obviously have manufacturing element).
However, I'm pleased to read that Apple are taking the environment seriously.


You said:
I'm sure that Android will (continue to, in the US) have greater market share than Apple, since they give away their products (seemingly) for free, so that's a no-brainer. I just hope that they are subjected to as much scrunity as Apple, especially from people as knowledgable as you.

My reply:
Oh definitely. Google should be watched very closely. However, at the moment, Apple's business practices are more of a concern. But I do totally agree that Google should be under *at least* the same level of scrutiny as Apple (though more so in my opinion due to the data they store).
And as for smartphone market share - Android will always have an advantage over the iPhone as Google's mobile OS is multi-platform. So you're right there as well. However it was Apple's choice to lock their platforms down this much. So all Google have done is given people what they wanted - a stable yet powerful platform without the ties to one specific phone, brand nor company (aside Google obviously).
In many ways - it's the Apple vs IBM/Microsoft all over again. Apple lost that war and so they'll eventually lose this one if they continue to spiral inwards with lock in's and so forth. (which is actually a shame as I'd rather see a competitive market)


You said:
This 'Apple is Big Brother' argument, fanned by Google, is silly. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

My reply:
I've never called Apple "Big Brother". Quite the opposite in fact. I find it's mostly Apple fanboys trying to overstate the iPhones marketshare and importance on the current market that suggest Apple or the iPhone genus is the "big brother" of mobile technology. Sure, they're big players, but just one of many and still only a fraction of Nokia's dominance.

Apple used to be a good boy till some time back, but now they want to be everywhere and they want everyone come to their feet. That's what they doing in almost every business they do.

Our business ran on Windows-based systems for nearly five years. With more and more updates coming from what was regarded as beta product sold as release, the management finally decided to ditch the entire system and go with an Apple-based solution. In just over two years the 'up' time has been phenomenal and the number of updates have been both trivial and easy to implement. Productivity has increased and employee satisfaction has been measurably higher.

The issue with Google is that it wants to own your data - just as MS wants to do with the new Office products. You will always have the Apple camp, the MS camp and the 'others' camp, it is like comparing water with fire, however the new Intel Macs with Snow Leopard offer compatibility at a level never seen before and this should worry the Wintel brigade more than anything else. Google is just another search engine with delusions of grandeur. I hope that people wake up and realise that dumping your data in some faceless cloud system is like handing over your passport to a known criminal and then complaining when you are done for a crime you say you did not commit.

Apple vs Google - only in the media world.

MarkG wrote:


"Apple didn't "invent" the iPad. Microsoft have been playing with Tablet PC's for years. It's only Job's brainwashed armies of "tell us what to buy now Steve" isheep have brought it to the forefront."

Where did I say they invented the simplistic idea of a computer tablet?? They most certainly designed their iPad.

"Apple offers quality? I'm not seeing (or hearing) that either. the iPod is by far the worst sounding player on the market, considering that playing music is it's primary function, that's not good. As for quality. Have you seen iPhone failure rates? 30% according to SquareTrade."

The quality of a Mac computer whether it is in the form of a MacBook, iMac, Mac Mini or Mac Pro is quite obvious. For example, you can not find an all in one computer like an iMac with such an amazing 27" IPS LCD running 2560-by-1440 resolution. Competitors simply do not exist.

Then we can go on to the Mac operating system, not to mention the superior support you get. I have never had a more stable and reliable operating system other than the Macs OSx. My iMac was the first computer I have ever owned that has never crashed on me. The quality is evident in many ways.

As for the iPod that is your contention but it is certainly is not what you will hear from the many professional reviews that you can read online. The only people that make such a claim are those that are obviously biased against Apple devices, as you clearly are with the emotionalism you are displaying.

"Everything Apple offer is overpriced locked-down trash aimed at consumers that fall for slick marketing."

Hmm, "locked-down trash?" See what I mean about emotionalism?

And "slick marketing?" Where? Apple actually does not market very much. Most of their business comes from word of mouth from satisfied customers.

Don't get so worked up over the subject my friend because in the end we are talking about machines. A little perspective would be helpful.

By the way, I use both Macs and Windows PCs. I can look at them objectively and what I have said is simply my experience. Apple makes great computers and other devices. It's as simple as that.

Don't forget that Google has
made mistakes too We all love Buzz don't we???
Then there was the time they interpreted Micheal Jacksons death as a virus attack!
The grass isn't always
greener on the other side.