7 ms·

Do we really have to go down that same path that we went down with Microsoft vs. Apple? Each company should be held responsible for their own, singular actions.

Do we really have to go down that same path that we went down with Microsoft vs. Apple? Each company should be held responsible for their own, singular actions. If Google is doing wrong, then Google is at fault, let's not pass the blame to Apple, or vice-versa. Honestly, it's in the media's best interest for fanboys on each side to be at war with each other, not anyone else's. If you like an Android phone, use Android, if you prefer an iPhone, use an iPhone. It doesn't need to be a point of contention. Both companies have made mistakes, but we needn't go "Oh, you think Google is evil? Well, let me tell you about Apple". The truth is, it's hard to not be "evil" and have the insane amount of revenue's that these companies both share. Of course, this all depends on how you interpret "evil". Steve Jobs famously said: "We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose. We have to embrace a notion that for Apple to win, Apple has to do a really good job".

magicalist 15y ago
It doesn't stop this topic from being completely inane, but he's really talking about the tech community's reaction to these stories, not the facts themselves. He gets a little lost in the weeds, but I think the real points are: - "dear tech news sites: you are terrible reporters" - "dear tech news site readers: you guys lap this stuff up, so we only have ourselves to blame" witness, for instance, the meteoric rise of this post on HN's front page.
aclimatt 15y ago
That's missing the point of the article, which his update was added to clarify. This article is NOT saying "why is everybody angry at Google for being evil? We can't forget about all these other evil companies!" That's the common problem a lot of articles like this one run into, but not this one specifically. Tim's point is that "Google is /not/ evil. Google is doing something that may seem evil, but is in fact not. Google could do something in the future that may end up as evil, but that has yet to happen. To compare, let me show you an example of actual evil. [Enter Apple.]" Apple is used to demonstrate what, in his opinion, actual evil looks like and how that differs from what Google is doing, therefore making Google's actions not evil. The Apple example (which could be Ford or Monsanto, doesn't matter) does not serve to to excuse Google.
- beatle 15y ago
  A few points: -Google is also in the hardware business (Chromebooks) and soon (Motorola). -Google is the target of several antitrust and patent lawsuits. Two years ago, Google offered to buy Yelp, but the talks broke down. Last year, Google introduced Places, a Yelp-like service for listing businesses and collecting consumer reviews. A Google search for a restaurant often displays the Places entry — linked to a map, user reviews and other services — ahead of Yelp. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/technology/googles-to-face-congressional-antitrust-hearing.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/technology/googles-to-face... Actually here's a more complete (& funny) list from http://brianshall.com/content/google-are-pussies http://brianshall.com/content/google-are-pussies Yelp gets popular? Copy their info, shove Yelp to the bottom of the page and put Google Places and reviews at the top. Groupon won't sell? Spend billions from other businesses to destroy them. Twitter and Facebook innovate on search? Take their content, whine when they try and stop you then spend billions to prevent their growth and hopefully destroy them. Apple working on a touchscreen smartphone? Spend billions from another business and copy everything you can, down to swipes and apps. Need a smartphone operating system with Java. Take Java and use it for your own ends. Need a location mapping technology and Skyhook won't sell? Spend billions from your monopoly profits and strongarm your partners and drive Skyhook out of business. Buy up the big travel search sites. Claim you are open source but share nothing related to what your business claims to be about -- search, and nothing related to how you make your money -- advertising Claim you are open and standards based but control who gets access to your smartphone operating system Like all rich monopolists, they spend millions hiring high priced lobbyists and public relations teams inside the Beltway -- for their direct benefit The list goes on...
  - zak_mc_kracken 15y ago
    > Two years ago, Google offered to buy Yelp, but the talks broke down. Last year, Google introduced Places, a Yelp-like service for listing businesses and collecting consumer reviews. So... what? At least they tried to buy the technology before building it in-house, which is more than what most companies do. Apple has run out of businesses a lot of companies by stealing their ideas outright and shipping them as part of MacOS (Konqueror widgets, Spotlight, etc...).
zak_mc_kracken 15y ago
> "We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose. We have to embrace a notion that for Apple to win, Apple has to do a really good job". That's a typical politically correct answer from Jobs. I work at Apple and I can tell you from the inside that back then (and today), the intent is both "Let's make a great product" and "Let's kill the competition" (used to be Microsoft, now it's both Microsoft and Google). How successful you think the iPhone would be today without Android? The answer: it would probably have a 95% monopoly, instead of a distant 20% third place. Apple did quite well, but make no mistake: they would have done spectacularly better without Android.

magicalist 15y ago

It doesn't stop this topic from being completely inane, but he's really talking about the tech community's reaction to these stories, not the facts themselves. He gets a little lost in the weeds, but I think the real points are: - "dear tech news sites: you are terrible reporters" - "dear tech news site readers: you guys lap this stuff up, so we only have ourselves to blame" witness, for instance, the meteoric rise of this post on HN's front page.

aclimatt 15y ago

That's missing the point of the article, which his update was added to clarify. This article is NOT saying "why is everybody angry at Google for being evil? We can't forget about all these other evil companies!" That's the common problem a lot of articles like this one run into, but not this one specifically. Tim's point is that "Google is /not/ evil. Google is doing something that may seem evil, but is in fact not. Google could do something in the future that may end up as evil, but that has yet to happen. To compare, let me show you an example of actual evil. [Enter Apple.]" Apple is used to demonstrate what, in his opinion, actual evil looks like and how that differs from what Google is doing, therefore making Google's actions not evil. The Apple example (which could be Ford or Monsanto, doesn't matter) does not serve to to excuse Google.

beatle 15y ago
A few points: -Google is also in the hardware business (Chromebooks) and soon (Motorola). -Google is the target of several antitrust and patent lawsuits. Two years ago, Google offered to buy Yelp, but the talks broke down. Last year, Google introduced Places, a Yelp-like service for listing businesses and collecting consumer reviews. A Google search for a restaurant often displays the Places entry — linked to a map, user reviews and other services — ahead of Yelp. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/technology/googles-to-face-congressional-antitrust-hearing.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha25 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/technology/googles-to-face... Actually here's a more complete (& funny) list from http://brianshall.com/content/google-are-pussies http://brianshall.com/content/google-are-pussies Yelp gets popular? Copy their info, shove Yelp to the bottom of the page and put Google Places and reviews at the top. Groupon won't sell? Spend billions from other businesses to destroy them. Twitter and Facebook innovate on search? Take their content, whine when they try and stop you then spend billions to prevent their growth and hopefully destroy them. Apple working on a touchscreen smartphone? Spend billions from another business and copy everything you can, down to swipes and apps. Need a smartphone operating system with Java. Take Java and use it for your own ends. Need a location mapping technology and Skyhook won't sell? Spend billions from your monopoly profits and strongarm your partners and drive Skyhook out of business. Buy up the big travel search sites. Claim you are open source but share nothing related to what your business claims to be about -- search, and nothing related to how you make your money -- advertising Claim you are open and standards based but control who gets access to your smartphone operating system Like all rich monopolists, they spend millions hiring high priced lobbyists and public relations teams inside the Beltway -- for their direct benefit The list goes on...
- zak_mc_kracken 15y ago
  > Two years ago, Google offered to buy Yelp, but the talks broke down. Last year, Google introduced Places, a Yelp-like service for listing businesses and collecting consumer reviews. So... what? At least they tried to buy the technology before building it in-house, which is more than what most companies do. Apple has run out of businesses a lot of companies by stealing their ideas outright and shipping them as part of MacOS (Konqueror widgets, Spotlight, etc...).

zak_mc_kracken 15y ago

> "We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose. We have to embrace a notion that for Apple to win, Apple has to do a really good job". That's a typical politically correct answer from Jobs. I work at Apple and I can tell you from the inside that back then (and today), the intent is both "Let's make a great product" and "Let's kill the competition" (used to be Microsoft, now it's both Microsoft and Google). How successful you think the iPhone would be today without Android? The answer: it would probably have a 95% monopoly, instead of a distant 20% third place. Apple did quite well, but make no mistake: they would have done spectacularly better without Android.