Google Phone Could Drive Apple Into Allegiance With Microsoft 325
rsmiller510 writes "A BusinessWeek report suggests that the Nexus One release marks the latest volley in an escalating war between Google and Apple, one that could force Apple into working more closely with Microsoft. 'When companies start to imitate one another, it's usually either an extreme case of flattery—or war. In the case of Google and Apple, it's both. Separated by a mere 10 miles in Silicon Valley, the two have been on famously good terms for almost a decade. ... Now the companies have entered a new, more adversarial phase. With Nexus One, Google, which had been content to power multiple phonemakers' devices with Android, enters the hardware game, becoming a direct threat to the iPhone. With its Quattro purchase, Apple aims to create completely new kinds of mobile ads, say three sources familiar with Apple's thinking. The goal isn't so much to compete with Google in search as to make search on mobile phones obsolete. ... Some analysts believe the Apple-Google battle is likely to get much rougher in the months ahead. Ovum's Yarmis thinks Apple may soon decide to dump Google as the default search engine on its devices, primarily to cut Google off from mobile data that could be used to improve its advertising and Android technology. Jobs might cut a deal with—gasp!—Microsoft to make Bing Apple's engine of choice, or even launch its own search engine, Yarmis says."
This makes perfect sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple is a great company, but they are not large enough to build their own search engine, advertising platform, and back end services to run them. Microsoft's search (bing), advertising platform, and back end services are all designed for partnering - its the core business model.
of course, Microsoft will compete with Apple in the phone space at some point in the future (we are clearly uncompetitive now...), but if Apple is going to be in bed with a competitor, its much better that it be Microsoft rather than google - better for both companies. I mentioed this to Symbolset [slashdot.org] in a post here [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Never going to happen, the Apple market is not the phone market but the mac market which is directly competing with microsoft (PC front). They have more than enough capital to create their own search engine and plenty of popular opinion to market it. Not to mention that the whole Apple fanism is based on the belief that MS stole their software.
There are plenty of search engines out there Yahoo comes to mind.
Re:This makes perfect sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed, there has been such a longstanding history of apple versus pc(Microsoft) and Microsoft versus apple bashing in the recent past that if anything like this was going to happen, it would take a lonnnng wait before that mindset was out of consumers minds. Not only would it muck up years of work priming the marketplace to pit one against the other, but it would require that Microsoft allow the mainstream to consider Apple equivalent and Apple would have to effectively dump the "we're shinier and trendier than those balding business dweebs" tact that they've invested millions in imprinting on the 18-34 demographic.
Not saying such a thing could NEVER happen; However it would be a huge deadweight loss for both companies current marketing strategies, between Apples image play and Microsoft's attempts to make Apples offerings appear irrelevant, that I can't see EITHER company even considering it in the short term.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In my case, you're completely wrong about that. The quibble about MS pinching Apple's software is old news (~1988?) and nobody gives a shit any more. I happen to quite like the fact that OS X behaves like a conventional Unix box if I pull up a terminal window.
Microsoft has persisted in imposing its own standards and interfaces, which just don't suit the way I work.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the first part, I don't see bing or other ms stuff becoming the standard default on any Apple products, ever. When you take a step back and look at the big picture, the major innovation is that bing is a search interface with a pretty photo behind it. Yahoo would be an easy call, they need the money and they're a whole lot better in terms of basic trustworthiness as a promise-delivering company.
But on this:
Not to mention that the whole Apple fanism is based on the belief that MS stole their software.
I'm not sure where this comes from, but it's ridiculous. Sure, any new Windows release in
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This makes perfect sense (Score:5, Interesting)
MS sells licences to the Wintel box-pushers who move product by the megapallet every year; but have shitty margins. Apple sells relatively modest volumes to people willing to pay for their substantial margins. Both parties lack the ability and/or interest to push into the other's camp. MS is largely incapable of capturing the "premium" market that Apple has(both because of its own software, and because of the PC OEMs' somewhat chintzy engineering). Apple has absoutely no way of substantially expanding its market share without ghastly violence against its margins, and Steve's attitude toward backwards compatibility would not be a hit in the corporate world.
Google, on the other hand, is basically interested in scorched-earthing the margins on hardware, software, and connectivity in order to make it cheaper for consumers to look at Adwords.
I'm not saying that an MS alliance is in Apple's future. There are plenty of wannabe search engines that don't completely suck, and could be made to work well enough for phone purposes that Apple could chose from. However, I would say that MS is less counter-intuitive than it looks. The Apple/MS rivalry is dramatic; but largely stable. It is basically just a dispute over how to divide up the PC market. Google, on the other hand, would be happy to nuke that entire market if it made access to their internet advertising incrementally cheaper.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google, on the other hand, is basically interested in scorched-earthing the margins on hardware, software, and connectivity in order to make it cheaper for consumers to look at Adwords.
No, that isn't how the Google founders think, not at all. Their primary interest is to ensure that phones are powerful enough to use Google services on, and relatively open in terms of access to apps and content. None of the above necessarily makes them a direct competitor to Apple. In fact you will note that Google has supported the iPhone at least as well as Android with their own development (although Apple has been a bit lukewarm on apps like Google Voice). Besides, if they were trying to suck the m
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple can and will do anything they stick their mind too.
Except write an operating system with preemptive multitasking.
Re:This makes perfect sense (Score:4, Insightful)
And Microsoft better announce *something* regarding Windows Mobile soon. They're already on life support, it's not going to be long before someone pulls the plug on the whole division.
Microsoft has committed to continuing Windows Mobile for industrial devices even if they completely fail in the smartphone market. They'll just continue working on it for rugged handheld computers built by Motorola for the likes of Fedex etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Where's my CDMA droid?!
Committed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We do need more competition. Understandably when you competitors are Google and Microsoft, that's enough to put off a lot of people.
Re:This makes perfect sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...they are not large enough to build their own search engine, advertising platform, and back end services to run them.
Sure they are. They can do it easily. As a matter of fact, I think Apple's brand is so strong, if they created their own search engine, they'd crush Google and Bing.
A search engine is nothing more than algorithms and marketing to get folks to use it and get the subsequent advertising revenue - the hardware and programming involved and its costs are not a factor. Actually, having a search engine driven by Macs would be a hell of a marketing gimmick.
As far as talent in regards to the search algorithms, that'
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A search engine is nothing more than algorithms and marketing to get folks to use it and get the subsequent advertising revenue - the hardware and programming involved and its costs are not a factor.
Yes, the algorithms are probably the hardest bit, which is what confuses me about your statement: Google has spent a lot of time and money hiring smart people specifically to develop search algorithms, and Apple hasn't. How exactly does that put Apple in a spot to "crush" Google, again?
I also think Apple doesn't have the in-house expertise to build and maintain the hardware/software required to provide a search product equivalent to Google's. Maybe someone could make the case that it's "not a factor" to G
Re:This makes perfect sense (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Plus they would have a big customer to sell servers to (themselves...).
To clarify, I mean if they actually tried to make a meaningful competitor.
Re: (Score:2)
And Google has a much higher penetration in the search engine market than Apple in the OS or smartphone market; RIM is still the strongest player.
Re:This makes perfect sense (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think it makes sense, and I say this for a variety of types of reasons. First, Jobs seems like the sort of guy who holds a grudge, and he seems to not like Microsoft. That's just my read on the situation, but I wouldn't guess that he'd be eager to jump into bed with Microsoft without a strong reason.
Second, it doesn't make sense to jump to Bing just because Google releases a phone. It only makes sense if Bing is better than Google. If you think about it, as long as the iPhone and Google phones are using the same maps, searches, etc., then it can't be counted as an advantage for Google. People can't say, "Well I want to buy an Android phone because they use Google for their search engine. The iPhone uses [whatever], and I don't like it as much." So if Apple were to switch to something else, it really needs to be better. Not just arguably better or "some people think it's a little better," but decisively better in a way that Apple can count it as an advantage. I know Microsoft is offering payoffs for anyone who switches to Bing (not criticizing here, Google also pays for placement), but Apple tends to focus on customer experience as the most important thing, and I can't see Jobs opting for a substandard solution even if it came with a big cash bonus. Apple doesn't need the cash. And so far, I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that Bing is decisively superior to Google.
Third, Apple makes a lot of hay from making Microsoft the butt of jokes. Whenever Microsoft screws up or fails at anything, it helps reinforce their image as bumbling idiots, which in turn helps reinforce Apple's image as slick/cool geniuses. Every partnership they have with Microsoft serves to undercut that, and announcing that Apple is actively switching to a Microsoft product because of its superiority would be dangerous to Apple's image.
I'm sure that Apple's relationship is uneasy, but I doubt it has turned to decisively to outright war that Apple would shoot itself in the foot to hurt Google. If I had to make a prediction, it would be that you'd see the introduction of Apple-branded alternatives without cutting out Google's products. Look at how they've dealt with Microsoft Office as an example (introducing iWork and supporting Exchange with Mail/iCal/Address book while still relying on MSOffice). I wouldn't doubt Apple's ability to create a search engine. I would sooner question whether they wanted to send people all over the country developing the maps for a Google Maps competitor, and whether they're actually interested in being as involved in advertising as Google is.
Re: (Score:2)
Third, Apple makes a lot of hay from making Microsoft the butt of jokes. Whenever Microsoft screws up or fails at anything, it helps reinforce their image as bumbling idiots, which in turn helps reinforce Apple's image as slick/cool geniuses.
I hope Apple and MS team up just so I can see all the "I'm a PC/Mac" commercial spoofs that will result.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You mean like Justin Long and John Hodgeman beating up Brent Spiner?
Or making sweet, sweet, manly love!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Advertising is a critical part of launching a new publishing platform that includes magazines and newspapers. I don't think that necessarily means that Apple is launching a search engine, but even if it does, it doesn't necessarily follow that Apple will follow Google's model and extract ad revenue from the search engine - Apple could be perfectly happy with simply keeping the data out of Google's hands.
Also, Apple recently acquired Placebase, a Google competitor. Not sure if they have street view, but they
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This makes perfect sense (Score:5, Informative)
Grudge? Microsoft essentially saved Apple by loaning it much needed $$$.
Not exactly a loan. Microsoft bought a bunch of Apple stock. Common wisdom at the time was that Microsoft needed to prop up some kind of paper tiger competitor to avoid further anti-trust restrictions.
But anyway that was after Jobs left and before he returned. When Apple started becoming successful again, Microsoft dropped Exchange support from their MacOS office suite and stopped developing IE. It doesn't seem like a friendly relationship. Apple still wants Microsoft Office for OSX for marketing purposes, and they want ActiveSync licenses for their iPhones. I don't see the relationship getting much closer than that.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't give Apple cash. Jobs negotiated a deal with them where they purchased $150 million in Apple stock. This was smart by Jobs, because it forced MS to continue development of Office for Mac because if MS dropped it, the stock would take a hit and it would hurt MS.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Grudge? Microsoft essentially saved Apple by loaning it much needed $$$
First, there was no loan. Microsoft bought $150 million of non-voting Apple stock.
Second, Apple had around $4 billion in cash or cash-equivalents at the time. They didn't need the money from selling that stock to Microsoft.
The purpose of the transaction was not to give money to Apple, but rather to show that Microsoft was serious about supporting Apple (particularly by continuing to develop and sell Office Mac) for the next few years.
Re: (Score:2)
This makes no sense at all (Score:3, Interesting)
[Apple] are not large enough to build their own search engine
Completely wrong. Actually, they already have their own search engine, it's called Spotlight and it works well.
I'm pretty sure they could build some data centers and have a product quickly.
Now, Apple has always worked on profitable markets. I'm pretty sure web search has not enough profit margins for them to consider to enter into that market.
If anything, you will get applesearch through your MobileMe account : paying customers, smaller datacenters because not anyone can access the search engine; no ads, in
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple is a great company, but they are not large enough to build their own search engine
Man... Apple's market cap is the same as Google. They're both about 2/3rd of MS's market cap.
Most people see "oh but Apple has only 10% market share" and don't realize that they're making a killing on the hardware they're selling, which is why should they grab "only" 20% of the market they'd be much bigger than MS.
Apple is today nearly as big as MS, let them reach 15% market share and their market cap shall equal that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if Apple is going to be in bed with a competitor, its much better that it be Microsoft rather than google
Not with respect to search. Look, there's a reason that Google dominates the search market despite the large number of alternatives, and it has nothing to do with Microsoft-style marketing and lock-in. Google is simply so much better a search engine than any other, for general-purpose (as opposed to domain-specific) search, that for years there's been no reason to use anything else. Apple or any other
Re:This makes perfect sense (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is a great company, but they are not large enough to build their own search engine, advertising platform, and back end services to run them.
Most people said they had no business trying to build a cell phone, either.
Ooopth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I dunno... I disagree. Apple's partnerships with Microsoft have always ended badly.
On top of that, it's not like Google is really advertising the Nexus One (hence the "poor" sales), so I dont see how it would drive anyone to do anything. The article would have been more correct if it discounted the Nexus One and simply grouped all Android phones as the driving force.
That aside, Google's "search everywhere on the phone - or the web" search seems better than anything Microsoft has to offer. And Apple's cu
Bing on an Apple product? (Score:2, Funny)
So. Android it is, then. That was an easy decision.
Re:Bing on an Apple product? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, a company whose entire business is predicated on cool can't partner with uncool. Uncool is contagious. Cool isn't.
Re:Bing on an Apple product? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you provide an example? I ran a couple searches on Google, and the links provided went directly to the appropriate site.
Is it possible that the problem is with something Microsoft is doing on the subdomain you were searching? I read something were the author was referenced Microsoft doing something fishy to block/confuse Google searches to some of their sites, but it was light on details so I never figured out what he was referencing. Just wondering if the two might be related.
Re:Bing on an Apple product? (Score:5, Informative)
It does do that. For example googling for "Slashdot" returns a link that on mouse over show as "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot" in the status bar, but in fact is http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=3&ved=0CBkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSlashdot&rct=j&q=slashdot&ei=-FJTS6eACaKmnQOhmKCTCg&usg=AFQjCNEZ2izp-RcQ2rEPNchi1qS-mPpnRA [google.com]
It does this both logged in and logged out.
Re:Bing on an Apple product? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Bing on an Apple product? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bing on an Apple product? (Score:4, Informative)
When you click on it, you actually go to the redirector, which counts the click (to rank things people click on higher) and then bounces you to the right place. I think that the href in the link loads pointing to the redirector and then the JavaScript rewrites it to point to the real site so that the status bar and copy work.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bing on an Apple product? (Score:4, Interesting)
The onmousedown bit calls a JavaScript function to do that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The onmousedown bit calls a JavaScript function to do that.
Fuller details and explanation here [seo4uk.com]. Apparently Google's been doing it since 2003.
The "Customise Google" Firefox extension includes options for stripping click tracking from Google search results, but I don't think it works; even with the extension active, search pages still include the onmousedown="return clk(this.href,"... code.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Addendum: if it's any comfort, Bing and Ask do exactly the same: in Bing search results, the code for a link to Slashdot is:
<a href="http://slashdot.org/index.pl" onmousedown="return si_T('&ID=SERP,140.1')"><strong>Slashdot</strong>: News for nerds, stuff that matters</a>
In Ask it's:
<a id="r0_t" href="http://slashdot.org/" onmousedown="return fp(this,{en:'te',io:'0',b:'a001',tp:'d',ec:'1',ex:'tsrc%3Dvnru'},'false',0)" class="L4" target="_blank" ><b>Slashdot</b> Stories (10)</a>
Yahoo and AltaVista are more obvious because they change the URL. Google, Bing, and Ask, track every click too; they're just better at hiding it.
Re: (Score:2)
Example:
Try this search:
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=test [google.ca]
When I right click on the first result and select "Copy Link Location" this is copied into clipboard:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.test.com%2F&rct=j&q=test&ei=oVVTS-OLLZDaNvi07ckK&usg=AFQjCNH21KLjC0CBkjon2DwD_CZ0HApLMw&sig2=XUrAwjyb2j3qHcQzz4LwTg [google.ca]
While the actual
Re: (Score:2)
Try this search:
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=test [google.ca] [google.ca]
When I right click on the first result and select "Copy Link Location" this is copied into clipboard:
I did that, and here's the output from my clipboard:
http://www.test.com/
Someone else [slashdot.org] has apparently discovered that what you're describing only happens in Firefox. Maybe it's Mozilla's fault? Or maybe there's an extension that's doing this?
Re: (Score:2)
I have a gmail account, and I've never seen it, even when signed in. Signed in just now and tested, and I get the normal link. Maybe it's a setting somewhere?
Re: (Score:2)
I just tried this and the only links that went through google were the ones in the "Did you mean ..." section. In the "Results" section (for the words exactly as I typed them), the links are direct to the target website.
Re: (Score:2)
Try clicking "copy link" (Firefox) and then mouse-over the link again. Your clipboard will contain the long redirected version, which will now also appear on mouse over.
Blocking javascript removes this behavior and leaves you with normal links.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. I tried this in a browser that doesn't have script blocking as well as as my default (Firefox). I don't have javascript blocking in Firefox -- only flashblock.
Re: (Score:2)
I copied my search from Google and pasted it into Bing. I got pretty much the same results
FWIW, just replaced "google" with "bing" in the URL (or vice versa) -- the rest of the URL layout remains the same for all the types of searches I've tried.
Re: (Score:2)
I went to google and did a search. I realized quickly that at some point over the last few years Google has changed the way their links work. They no longer are a link to the site you want...
That's interesting...I did a search and 20% of the links are direct and the rest are what you describe. I couldn't spot any pattern in which links were direct/indirect.
Anyway, if I'm making bookmarks, I usually just copy the URL of the document I end up at after all the redirects, because sometimes the site I'm going to redirects me to a different page than the Google URL anyway. It doesn't seem like that much of an inconvenience, even though I do wonder what's up with the redirects in the search results.
Let me play Linux fanboi (Score:5, Funny)
I haven't used M$ or Apple since 1935 except for at work, when i play games or when I want to do anything except browse the web.
OpenMoko! OpenMoko!
i may not be able to run apps but I can mod my phones OS... if only I knew how to code.
i don't believe this for a second (Score:4, Insightful)
This conspiracy theory is half baked. Google's core business is search. And based on what we've seen from the Nexus One so far, apple has nothing to fear whatsoever from google in the mobile phone market. The Nexus One hardware is nice, but the software is crap. It's not even remotely a threat to apple's iPhone market. And don't forget that apple sells computers and mp3 players too. This is not enough for apple to ally with Microsoft. They tried that once before, and they got IE for mac out of it. They've learned from that mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
isn't google's core business advertising ?
Re: (Score:2)
Not the MS-Apple deal I would expect (Score:5, Interesting)
I see very little chance of Apple using Bing as the default search provider on the iPhone. More likely they'd want MS to provide ultra compatible Office apps for the iPhone to help them get into the business smartphone market, competing directly with RIM / Blackberry.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a rumor that Apple is developing a version of iWork for the rumored tablet, so I'm not sure they'd even be all that interested in Microsoft making an iPhone office suite.
I think it's most likely that Apple doesn't trust Microsoft and won't partner with them except out of necessity. The relationship between the companies has been antagonistic from the start. Later, Microsoft screwed them with IE and the Mac BU over at Microsoft has been doing a crappy job for years. Their programs are all slow, c
I have a very hard time buying this (Score:5, Insightful)
Jobs thinks everything Microsoft does is second-rate. He won't team up with them for that reason alone, never mind the fact that Apple has been burned by trusting Microsoft in the past, and I can't see that mistake being made again.
~Philly
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, Microsoft is at the top of the game economically. Microsoft never got the smartphone right, and they went five iterations of WinCE/Windows Mobile before they got the PDA right. For a PDA-only device I prefer Windows Mobile to the iPhone. For a "convergence" device (PDA + Phone) I prefer the iPhone.
However, Apple almost failed with the iPhone; they just didn't get it and initially released it with the intent of never offering an SDK, but
Why on earth is everyone so hung up on Nexus One? (Score:5, Interesting)
Its really not that much different from going to the HTC website and clicking buy now and being directed to a web seller of any given phone as well as the carriers who sell them.. all google is REALLY doing here is creating a platform they can use to advertise android.. by that I mean.. when Verizon is done spamming millions of Droid Does! ads.. Android is left with being just another handset in the carriers collection of handsets.. by creating a direct way of buying , they have more importantly created a direct "sales conduit" that showcases Android and only android devices..
For all intents and purposes this is no different than the ADP1 and ADP2 only now rather than buying unlocked, you buy them with tmobile service, which was the only place the unlocked dev phones worked in 3g anyhow.
If Google was trying to be a gamechanger, they would have become an MVNO buying bandwidth from t-mobile, and reselling it (at reduced rates) in exchange for advertising/collecting demographic data from all the buyers, possibly even going with a pure GoogleVoice device that was IP only and no actual telephone service..
Now if they would just fix the fragmented Android mess of a landscape, do away with the half-assed java applets and move to entirely native apps.. as well as license SenseUI from HTC OR convince HTC to offer its app stack over the marketplace.. they could almost become a decent size player in the mobile space.. until then.. MS/Nokia and Apple will contine to eat their lunch.. Pity that Google didn't buy Palm and kill the Pre before it shipped as it too is hurting Android's long term viability as a platform.
MicroApple ? must be desperate... (Score:2)
Apple and Google reminds me of an old joke where the Husband cuts "his attributes" to "annoy" the wife... in this case Apple is the Husband, and Google is the wife, but beside the joke.
Apple must be desperate if this is considered, maybe they thought to be "invincible" and they got Nokia upset, now they have Google gnawing at the heel and this is another one. I cannot believe Microsoft sheer luck, Bing has any success by bribe, (vendors being paid to have Bing set), SW monopoly (IE8 having Bing as default s
Re: (Score:2)
and just to annoy Microsoft I search for "google chrome" using Bing (you would be amazed at the variety of responses :-)
Such as?
"mee too" Marketing (Score:2)
This was once called "mee too"—marketing and should be taken as a sign of incompetent marketing (an)droids at work.
CC.
Nope, it is called competition. (Score:2)
Second comers to profitable markets are a fact of life.
Apple itself was a second comer to music players and mobile phones.
So to call Apple imitators with derogatory terms ignores the reality of trying to sell a successful product: trying first what seems to be working elsewhere.
Buy, not build (Score:5, Interesting)
Google bought a mobile ad company called AdMob.
Apple bought a mobile ad company called Quattro.
Whatever happened to doing things in-house?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From what I've heard, Apple was in talks with AdMob before Google purchased them. I also heard a rumor that Apple bought Lala because Google was in negotiations to purchase them.
Neither company has much overlap into the business areas of the other, but both are large and experiencing incredible growth. I believe that they're both very afraid of each other, though. If Apple were to run away with mob
Google versus Everyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
And what is it with people loving to predict the demise of the iPhone? Years ago it was the iPod killer and the only company that was able to kill the iPod was Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
When you're the fastest gun in the west, everyone comes to challenge you.
It was the same with WWI and WWII aces. Once you got to be top ace everyone on the other side would be gunning for you.
Another solution for Apple (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"To avoid Microsoft Apple could buy whatever is left of AltaVista...."
Two bags of potato chips and an old 386 in a closet?
Re: (Score:2)
Ain't Gonna Happen (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple has shown a clear desire to not remain glued to Microsoft. This is evident with the release of iWork and the dead-end path of the Office products on the Apple platform.
Because of my position, I have almost every handheld and PDA device that hits the market. As a seasoned .NET developer, I am biased towards Microsoft. However, that being said, the Windows Mobile platform is horrible. Even on devices like Samsung's Omnia, it is sluggish and cumbersome at best. Memory management is a nightmare.
The only realistic path is for the Windows Mobile platform to die off or be revamped from scratch. At most they may build a mobile version of Office for iPhone and Android but even that is a stretch.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple has shown a clear desire to not remain glued to Microsoft. This is evident with the release of iWork and the dead-end path of the Office products on the Apple platform.
Because of my position, I have almost every handheld and PDA device that hits the market. As a seasoned .NET developer, I am biased towards Microsoft. However, that being said, the Windows Mobile platform is horrible. Even on devices like Samsung's Omnia, it is sluggish and cumbersome at best. Memory management is a nightmare.
The only realistic path is for the Windows Mobile platform to die off or be revamped from scratch. At most they may build a mobile version of Office for iPhone and Android but even that is a stretch.
You're correct on all fronts. Apple no longer needs Microsoft, period. This is a desperate plea for BusinessWeek investors long on Microsoft hoping Apple will save a dead ship floating in the ocean spinning in a circle. Microsoft has burned out all of it's fuel and is just going in circles. The stock is in a holding pattern [it's split too many times] between 25-32 for the past 5+ years. It's going no where.
Re: (Score:2)
lol...don't become a business analyst
The enemy of your enemy is... (Score:2)
What nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Changing the default iphone search back to Google (Score:2)
Changing the default iphone search back to Google..
There sure will be an app for that.
BusinessWeek are MORONS (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple and MS have worked together for years! (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, not overtly, but consider Apple's market position: They make shiny white boxes that are overpriced and pander to a small segment of the market. They have a fifth of the computer market and are not trying to expand, mostly because their vertically integrated business model makes it difficult to increase manufacturing. The Mac Mini proved that they had a cap on their production, and they cannot sell their OS alone without suffering greatly in their business model.
And Microsoft's position: They hold 80% of the market and cannot change. This isn't a problem because many large segments of customers are businesses that strongly desire an unchanging OS. MS has demonstrated a near-unbelievable commitment to binary compatibility and enterprise support, cementing its position. It hasn't been able to keep a strong grasp on the netbook and desktop market in recent years, though.
Now, where's the cooperation? Simple. Microsoft uses its deep pockets and inertia to continue to push itself as the dominant, common, utilitarian operating system, while Apple continually compares its products favorably to Microsoft's and portrays its systems as being hip, cool, modern, and fun. We've all seen the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" commercials, and they're representative of the mentality Apple tries to inspire in its commercials, being the small underdog fighting against the big man. Remember "Think Different?"
One Slashdotter has a mangled Voltaire quote in his sig about Apple and MS, but in my opinion it's backward. "If there were no Microsoft, it would be necessary for Apple to create one." However, this will never happen, because Microsoft's power to endure is ridiculous. Just like IBM wasn't destroyed in the decades prior, Microsoft can't be brought down by hordes of Apple fans, or waves of Linux supporters.
Of course, I'm really just re-analysing the premises of World Domination 201 here, but it's not like anybody here has read it, right?
Apple customers are sick+tired of an M$ experience (Score:4, Insightful)
thank goodness it is real competition and not (Score:2, Flamebait)
Allegiance or alliance? (Score:2)
If Apple were in allegiance with Microsoft, we'd have Apple becoming subservient to Microsoft. I think the word here should be alliance, as allies are partners working together, and generally should treat each other as equals. However, given Microsoft's history of treating its "allies", the word 'allegiance' may well become more apt as well.
Switching to Bing would cost too many customers (Score:3, Interesting)
A good chunk of the iPhone market share stems from customers that are fed up with Windows Mobile and similar crap. I doubt that those would be too happy to be driven back into the hell hole they've just escaped.
Jobs is clever enough not to risk that. He might be tempted but he's not an idiot.
Doubtful. (Score:5, Interesting)
This story sounds like fluff intended to stir the pot. I'm sure people at Apple are keeping their eye on Google and certainly they must realize that your average consumer can only remain loyal so long before they start craving something new and different. However, to suggest that they'll somehow be driven to work with Microsoft simply because of a threat from Google seems ridiculous at best.
Apple is a hardware maker, first and foremost, while both Google and Microsoft are software companies. And Apple has the advantage over the other two that they do also very good resources on the software side. This ensures that in this market Apple will always have the advantage because of far superior integration. Software and hardware is developed concurrently under a unified visions. The other guys basically develop the software then find a vendor to provide a phone that meets certain requirements. And because both Microsoft and Google provide their OSs for a variety of phones it inherently means their systems are compromised. It's far more difficult to provide a unified, closely maintained platform and an integrated app store. And Apple has managed to keep very tight control over their phone despite offering it on AT&T. Most other smartphones are crippled by the garbage service providers dump on there, and I'm not sure the hardware makers have the luxury of making demands.
For Microsoft, and presumably Google once their OS becomes more widespread we are going to see the same kinds of issues with PCs. Apple again wins with integration. The others have to make do with whatever the hardware makers decide to include with the OS.
As for the search engines, those are pretty much irrelevant. Google and Bing are pretty much the only top tier search engines out there. From my experience they produce results of comparable quality. What matters, however is advertising and web apps especially for businesses. One of the big reasons we use Google at my company is because the analytics and extensive marketing resources, and obviously, because it's currently got the biggest market share. I think Microsoft is at a disadvantage here mainly because they're still a more traditional software developer although they obviously have the resources and the experience. In this market Apple is really a non-entity. They've got great OSs and perhaps an app or two that stand out and that's it. I routinely use their iWork suite and am not impressed by it at all. It's no more intuitive than Office and is generally less powerful. Office is still the better suite.
I think ultimately the question is, is Apple looking to compete directly with Google and MS. I realize that the pundits are always clamoring for this sort of direct competition with anything that's even remotely similar but at this point I don't yet see it. It would be a very different focus for Apple. I do think if they were going to take this route it would make sense that they acquired a smaller search engine company and then work on it internally. Partnerships don't always turn out well for Apple and they don't really sync well with the company's focus on integration.
Nimroddery Alert (Score:3, Insightful)
Has BusinessWeek learned nothing about Apple over the last 13 years?
Apple does not need to be the only or number one product in a sector to make money. It's nice when they are, because they really, really, make money when it happens. So Google now makes a phone. It is not likely to harm the phone with the better interface as much as the phones with lousy or no interface.
Meanwhile, Google pays Apple for the customers it delivers. I'm sure if Microsoft wants to pay, Apple will cordially listen, but it won't say yes just to frost off Google. They'll say yes if the green comes in from Redmond.
What about RIM? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see Apple doing this, while I think MS might make a step in this direction the culture at Apple is typically to avoid these kinds of partnerships. The few times they have tried this, the results have been less than satisfactory.
It's more likely Microsoft will buy someone outright like RIM -- the Windows Mobile platform isn't going anywhere, so the best play is to acquire the industry leader and integrate that with the Windows operating system. There are a few technical barriers for a roadmap like this (eg: BlackBerry is a Java platform), but it will give MS the mindshare it needs to dominate the mobile space.
It remains to be seen what kind of role Google can play in the mobile device market. While Android has some compelling features, it's not nearly as polished as the Apple iPhone nor does it have the maturity of something like the BlackBerry. More importantly, Google is not yet an innovator in the mobile device market - they have copied may of the ideas that are already there and may in fact still be technologically outpaced by the next generation of Apple's iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
+1
Re: (Score:2)
I think MS is being hamstrung by the 90's mentality, when one company did the OS, another hardware, and yet another software. And nobody really did content. End result: shitty user experience, flexible but complicated uses, compatibility issues, difficulties getting content...
Apple does OS, Hardware, Software, and content distribution (as a step to doing content ?) and reaps huge benefits from that, from easier development to better user experience to network effects. The issue is getting people to accept l
Re: (Score:2)
At the very most Apple would allow users to change their search engine
Apple already allows this.
Re: (Score:2)