7 ms·

I think you might be missing the point.I'm not sure why you think that Gruber says or condones saying ["We pioneered that - how dare they!"] Gruber explicitly

by credo 16y ago

I think you might be missing the point.I'm not sure why you think that Gruber says or condones saying ["We pioneered that - how dare they!"] Gruber explicitly says that it is fair for Google to compete with Apple and to copy the iPhone. He is making the point that it is reasonable for Apple to compete with Google (in ads). Here is the excerpt >>It wasn’t unfair for Google to decide to compete directly against and copy ideas from the iPhone. That’s competition. It may be angering to Apple, but it’s not out of bounds. >>What’s goofy is the idea that Google would do this — to aggressively change Android from a BlackBerry/Windows Mobile competitor into an iPhone competitor — and that anyone would expect Apple not to retaliate, to instead just sit there and take it and allow all other aspects of their previous buddy-buddy corporate relationship with Google to continue as though nothing had changed.

mortenjorck 16y ago
>>What’s goofy is the idea that Google would do this — to aggressively change Android from a BlackBerry/Windows Mobile competitor into an iPhone competitor — and that anyone would expect Apple not to retaliate, to instead just sit there and take it and allow all other aspects of their previous buddy-buddy corporate relationship with Google to continue as though nothing had changed. Gruber is drawing an arbitrary distinction here that never really existed. RIM and Microsoft have been in the process of adapting in the very same way: Look at the BlackBerry Storm or Windows Phone 7. Are RIM and MS suddenly changing markets? No, they're just evolving to meet consumer demand, same as Google did.
- rayval 16y ago
  Good point. If Google did as Gruber suggested, and compete with Blackberry instead of iPhone, they would still end up in the same place (touch screen smartphones), because these are all converging to a consensus view of user experience design. The differences are in quality of execution.
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
Follow the link to his earlier blog post "Google started this": Bullshit. Google started this. It was Google that turned its sights on the iPhone. [...] They made their bed, now they have to sleep in it. There’s no question it’s a dick move on Apple’s part. But what’s the argument against it? That Google gets a pass for being dicks to Apple, and Apple ought to just sit there and take it? What is Gruber suggesting that Google shouldn't get a pass for being dicks about here? I understand what he's saying Apple are being dicks about, and it's not competing in ads. It's a dick move to begin competing in ads and start by banning your main competitor's product from the market you control.
- silversmith 16y ago
  "It's a dick move to begin competing in ads and start by banning your main competitor's product from the market you control." This has always puzzled me. Why would they NOT do it? Apple does not control smartphone market - they control iPhone market, a subset of smartphone market. They have made the product, the supporting infrastructure for it, how are they obliged to allow competition in there? For example, some time ago I bought a Canon printer. There was a booklet packed with it, telling me what inks can be used with it - all were of Canon brand. Now, I know there are some third parties selling inks for Canon printers, and without a doubt they would like to be featured in those booklets, preferably with the notice that their ink is of comparable quality while costing far less. But Canon is not including them - is that a dick move too? Yes, you can happily use X ink in your Canon printer. And you can run X adds in your iPhone apps. But those inks would not be sold in Canon stores. And the same way, Apple can choose not to distribute those apps in their Appstore. Last time I checked, neither iPhone platform, nor Appstore were public domain :)
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    Not advertising 3rd party inks: fair enough. Putting stern warnings about how they may not be as high quality as your own: getting dodgy. Installing DRM chips into your ink so that you can't use 3rd party supplies at all, nor refill your own 1st party inks and sue anyone who succesfully works around this under the DMCA: definitely a dick move. Have you not noticed the widespread uproar about the price gouging on ink supplies? Your example of what's an appropriate business move is a textbook case illustrating the opposite. The fact that you're more pro-Apple than Gruber on this should be a sign that you're out in the left-field. You'll need better arguments than inkjet manufactures do it too and the iPhone isn't public domain if you want to be convincing. Unless your argument is that not only can corporations do whatever they want but we have to like it too.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
lionhearted 16y ago
> I think you might be missing the point. I got his point, I just think he's wrong. He says Google shifting from trying to compete from Blackberry/Microsoft to competing with Apple was basically an act of war, so Apple is justified in fighting back in the ad market. I think that's wrong for three reasons - first, Google didn't go after Apple, they're building things people want. Their devices resemble Apple's more than Blackberry's because Apple is also doing what people want, whereas Blackberry isn't. Second, it wasn't an act of war/betrayal/attack/breach of the Apple/Google business relationship (which Gruber implies). Third, Apple are kind of being pricks pulling the rug out from a company after Google acquires them. They can do that because it's their business, but it's not justified as some sort of retaliatory measure. It is justified as business if they want, it's kind of prick-ish, but it's their right to do. So, I understood, I just thought some of his points were wrong. I agree with him about not having comments on his site though - except in rare instances with a carefully built commenting community, comments become just noise and take away from a site. I like Gruber and have learned some really good stuff from him. I'm just not with him on this one.
- gaius 16y ago
  That's kinda sorta not true tho' - BlackBerries account for 40% of the smartphone market. If you were going after the biggest slice of the pie, they're who you'd target.
  - telemachos 16y ago
    I always end up wondering how can a company have so much of the market and so little of the buzz? (Of course, if you can maintain that level of market share, it may not matter.)
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      They sell to corporations. Citigroup and similar companies give their employees blackberries and generic dell laptops. Their employees are sufficiently un-excited about it that there is no buzz.
babar 16y ago
I always thought the difference now between Apple and Google is that Apple is competing through licensing whereas Google is trying to compete through technology. This is what makes people question Apple - refusing Google Voice and Flash through the app store approvals, refusing Flash cross-compiling and Google/AdMob ads through the developer's license. Google usually comes across as being more open and willing to compete through the actual marketplace instead of in court, which I think appeals more to most developers and technologists. And I don't think Gruber is making a coherent point here. Why even argue about who started it? That just comes across as whining and a ultimately a semantic argument. Of course companies will compete - let's talk about the implementations, what is best for consumers, and which is best for developers.

by credo 16y ago

mortenjorck 16y ago

>>What’s goofy is the idea that Google would do this — to aggressively change Android from a BlackBerry/Windows Mobile competitor into an iPhone competitor — and that anyone would expect Apple not to retaliate, to instead just sit there and take it and allow all other aspects of their previous buddy-buddy corporate relationship with Google to continue as though nothing had changed. Gruber is drawing an arbitrary distinction here that never really existed. RIM and Microsoft have been in the process of adapting in the very same way: Look at the BlackBerry Storm or Windows Phone 7. Are RIM and MS suddenly changing markets? No, they're just evolving to meet consumer demand, same as Google did.

rayval 16y ago
Good point. If Google did as Gruber suggested, and compete with Blackberry instead of iPhone, they would still end up in the same place (touch screen smartphones), because these are all converging to a consensus view of user experience design. The differences are in quality of execution.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago

Follow the link to his earlier blog post "Google started this": Bullshit. Google started this. It was Google that turned its sights on the iPhone. [...] They made their bed, now they have to sleep in it. There’s no question it’s a dick move on Apple’s part. But what’s the argument against it? That Google gets a pass for being dicks to Apple, and Apple ought to just sit there and take it? What is Gruber suggesting that Google shouldn't get a pass for being dicks about here? I understand what he's saying Apple are being dicks about, and it's not competing in ads. It's a dick move to begin competing in ads and start by banning your main competitor's product from the market you control.

silversmith 16y ago
"It's a dick move to begin competing in ads and start by banning your main competitor's product from the market you control." This has always puzzled me. Why would they NOT do it? Apple does not control smartphone market - they control iPhone market, a subset of smartphone market. They have made the product, the supporting infrastructure for it, how are they obliged to allow competition in there? For example, some time ago I bought a Canon printer. There was a booklet packed with it, telling me what inks can be used with it - all were of Canon brand. Now, I know there are some third parties selling inks for Canon printers, and without a doubt they would like to be featured in those booklets, preferably with the notice that their ink is of comparable quality while costing far less. But Canon is not including them - is that a dick move too? Yes, you can happily use X ink in your Canon printer. And you can run X adds in your iPhone apps. But those inks would not be sold in Canon stores. And the same way, Apple can choose not to distribute those apps in their Appstore. Last time I checked, neither iPhone platform, nor Appstore were public domain :)
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  Not advertising 3rd party inks: fair enough. Putting stern warnings about how they may not be as high quality as your own: getting dodgy. Installing DRM chips into your ink so that you can't use 3rd party supplies at all, nor refill your own 1st party inks and sue anyone who succesfully works around this under the DMCA: definitely a dick move. Have you not noticed the widespread uproar about the price gouging on ink supplies? Your example of what's an appropriate business move is a textbook case illustrating the opposite. The fact that you're more pro-Apple than Gruber on this should be a sign that you're out in the left-field. You'll need better arguments than inkjet manufactures do it too and the iPhone isn't public domain if you want to be convincing. Unless your argument is that not only can corporations do whatever they want but we have to like it too.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

lionhearted 16y ago

> I think you might be missing the point. I got his point, I just think he's wrong. He says Google shifting from trying to compete from Blackberry/Microsoft to competing with Apple was basically an act of war, so Apple is justified in fighting back in the ad market. I think that's wrong for three reasons - first, Google didn't go after Apple, they're building things people want. Their devices resemble Apple's more than Blackberry's because Apple is also doing what people want, whereas Blackberry isn't. Second, it wasn't an act of war/betrayal/attack/breach of the Apple/Google business relationship (which Gruber implies). Third, Apple are kind of being pricks pulling the rug out from a company after Google acquires them. They can do that because it's their business, but it's not justified as some sort of retaliatory measure. It is justified as business if they want, it's kind of prick-ish, but it's their right to do. So, I understood, I just thought some of his points were wrong. I agree with him about not having comments on his site though - except in rare instances with a carefully built commenting community, comments become just noise and take away from a site. I like Gruber and have learned some really good stuff from him. I'm just not with him on this one.

gaius 16y ago
That's kinda sorta not true tho' - BlackBerries account for 40% of the smartphone market. If you were going after the biggest slice of the pie, they're who you'd target.
- telemachos 16y ago
  I always end up wondering how can a company have so much of the market and so little of the buzz? (Of course, if you can maintain that level of market share, it may not matter.)
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    They sell to corporations. Citigroup and similar companies give their employees blackberries and generic dell laptops. Their employees are sufficiently un-excited about it that there is no buzz.

babar 16y ago

I always thought the difference now between Apple and Google is that Apple is competing through licensing whereas Google is trying to compete through technology. This is what makes people question Apple - refusing Google Voice and Flash through the app store approvals, refusing Flash cross-compiling and Google/AdMob ads through the developer's license. Google usually comes across as being more open and willing to compete through the actual marketplace instead of in court, which I think appeals more to most developers and technologists. And I don't think Gruber is making a coherent point here. Why even argue about who started it? That just comes across as whining and a ultimately a semantic argument. Of course companies will compete - let's talk about the implementations, what is best for consumers, and which is best for developers.