What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Beats By Dr. Dre view!
bestbuygiftadvice.com - Best Buy(R) Twelpforce(TM) Carolers make some noise about Dr. Dre's Beats noise-canceling headphones.
30 Comments
- deadbaby, on 05/10/2009, -1/+18There's only a conflict in so far as the media wants to make one. Both Google and Apple are forward thinking companies that don't dwell on lots of cut throat business practices and corporate paranoia. Google benefits from more mobile search and the iPhone more than any other platform is driving its growth. From the Apple perspective I think they'd rather compete with a company like Google over Microsoft -- partly because they believe Google isn't serious about Android and partly because they are realistic about their market share growth potential. Smart Phones are going to get cheaper. Does Apple want to sell a $50 iPhone? Nope. Does Google want to give away an OS to run on a $50 phone? Absolutely. Seems to me they both benefit from each other's existence at this time. This article is more "us vs. them" / "winner - loser" non-sense. It's entirely possible for two companies to co-exist in the same market successfully.
- dig1x, on 05/10/2009, -3/+15Do no evil? Long long long gone.
Reality must be settling in at GOOG that Wall Street isnt going to give them a pass on that PE ratio forever. - Carpy, on 05/08/2009, -1/+12Areas of competition: OS for smartphones and Browsers would be pretty high on the list.
- theuniversal, on 05/10/2009, -0/+10I am using default OS X browser, Safari now as millions do... I see "Google" at search bar which I can't change in a normal manner.
When I go to McDonald's I can only buy Coke. They won't let me buy Pepsi. Is this anti-competitive? No, a company can team up with whatever other company it wants in a free market. It's only a problem when they have monopoly power. Your comment is getting dugg down because it makes no sense. And calling people idiots won't help. - MikeOSX, on 05/10/2009, -0/+8I can see Schmidt sitting at the end of the meeting table with the tip of an index finger in each ear.
- kanojo1969, on 05/10/2009, -2/+6Your argument is fine in some sort of purely theoretical fantasy land, but in the real world things aren't all fluffy and warm. But that's not the point.
There are a ton of legal issues for senior executives of a behemoth like Google who also sits on the board of directors of another large company who is involved in the same space. It doesn't matter what you think their strategies are now, Schmidt is privy to a ton of highly secret long term strategic plans of both companies that none of us could even imagine.
Only a fool would believe that these plans don't overlap in a ton of different areas.
The idea that he somehow compartmentalises his brain so the two never mix is absurd. If anyone was serious about this he would have to leave one or the other.
Unfortunately this obviously dubious practise is very common in all types of industry - senior, respected individuals get invited to the boards of lots of 'competing' organisations. Nobody complains because they do it too.
Just another example of one rule for the super-rich, and another for everyone else. - NSResponder, on 05/10/2009, -0/+4" I don't understand why the software was this buggy"
Dude, didn't you notice who the vendor was?
-jcr - darkane, on 05/10/2009, -1/+5I'm not sure Seth H. Weintraub fully understands what board meetings are for. They're not gabbing about product development details and trade secrets, and Schmidt would not be the first (or even thousandth) corporate board member to recuse themselves from a meeting due to potential conflicts of interest.
Free apps and services aren't competing with each other. They're ***** free. Not to mention some of those comparisons are really grasping at straws. YouTube versus iTunes? Give me a break.
Also, I'd love to know how the iPhone is Apple's biggest product when the revenue it generates is a drop in the bucket compared to, you know, the whole selling computers thing. Just because you, personally, write about the iPhone more than anything, doesn't automatically make it Apple's biggest product.
If Apple or its stockholders thought it was a problem for Schmidt and Levinson to be on the board, they wouldn't be there anymore. So stop writing your sensationalist blog posts in hopes of getting traffic. - mvest20, on 05/10/2009, -0/+4It seems like based on the article that the only unfair advantage that Google gets is an advantage over Apple. If Apple has no problem with these guys being on the boards of both companies, why should anyone else? The FTC just freaks out about the smallest things, rather than try to, I don't know, keep an eye on bad mortgages or our banking system?
- DanielPhermous, on 05/10/2009, -1/+4Browsers aren't sold and that excludes them legally. (Although I forget the exact wording as to why.)
The same applies tothe rest of the free markets they compete in such as iCal versus GCal. If Android makes the leap to computers, though, then it gets more interesting. - Myztry, on 05/10/2009, -0/+3I think Apple and Google should co-operate on the board level. Microsoft got into it's position with some outright dirty and illegal business play. That can't just be the end of it. Get to the top by cheating, and then insist everything must be played fairly.
Sure, that would increase the chances of a Google/Apple monopoly. But hey - there will always be monopolies to some degree. And if that can't be avoided then I'd at least like a ***** change of monopolist. Not even Presidents get unlimited terms, and frankly the Microsoft monopoly has caused the industry to be all but dead in the water innovation wise for the past two decades, at least.
David can't always beat Goliath. Sometimes there is need for another Goliath to fight on equal terms. - whitesaint, on 05/10/2009, -0/+3Interesting perspective, but I think you're way off. Eric Schmidt being on Apple's board makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And frankly it's frustrating because I don't think any of us can truly figure this out. While for the most part, Google and Apple are complementary, they do clearly compete in web browser and the mobile phone space. And I don't know what you're talking about but I think Apple would absolutely love to sell a $50 iPhone.
The original iPod was $400 freaking dollars, now you can get an iPod Nano for $150 that completely blows the original iPod out of the water. The materials that make up the iPhone will get smaller and cheaper. Not immediately of course but it is going to happen.
While both companies are similar in both culture and technology, Apple needs to kick Eric Schmidt out as he's Google CEO first and Apple board member second. If I were in his position, I would be taking techniques and technology that Apple uses and apply them at Google. It can't be coincidence that both Chrome and Safari use Webkit as their foundation, for example. Let's also not forget that Google started out purely as a web services company that now is venturing more into the operating system and hardware market.
Does Eric Schmidt really have both company's best interest at heart? Doubt it. Will Android and iPhone eventually compete more directly with each other? Of course. Are Safari and Chrome direct competitors? Yup. Are Google and Apple both fundamentally software engineering companies? You bet. - zjbird, on 05/10/2009, -0/+2@northerngeek
"McDs and Coke DON'T COMPETE, Google and Apple do."
No, but Coke and Pepsi do.
"I can leave McDonald's without ever drinking a coke, and my car is not full of empty Coca-Cola cups. If I buy an iPhone I get Google Maps, Google search etc everywhere. How can a competitor manage in that environment."
I can use my iPhone without ever using Google maps or google search engine. I can use the web browser and get whatever I want. But, just as McDonalds makes buying coke a lot more convenient than buying Pepsi, iPhone makes using Google more convenient too.
"McDonald's board doesn't have Coke board members."
The one decent point you made. However, it doesn't have much of a point besides face value. Google is the dominating company for search and maps, already being the most used and convenient. The iPhone merely uses this convenience and works together with Google to give it some spectacular software.
I hate Apple as much as the next guy, but you're being a little ridiculous. - ilgaz, on 05/10/2009, -0/+2If Mr. Google is on Apple's board and OS X users are the _only_ people who can't change default search engine of a default web browser (Safari) from Google to something else, there is really something going on. It is so open that one can tell both companies doesn't have shame.
I _pay_ for Safari/Webkit developers while I buy OS X upgrades, Macs and even iPhone and yet I can't change my search engine to Yahoo but Windows (Safari) users can. They even collect CENTS as they send "from=safari" to Google.
The Google gang stationed at Apple who are in charge of these choices must be kicked out as they already figured Android is rather a failure, a toy, a "me too" thing and guess what will they attack internally? iPhone. - e2superman, on 05/10/2009, -0/+2Man what a conflict of interest. How would I ever trust my CEO when he has his wallet in two companies with overlapping business strategies.
- headortails, on 05/10/2009, -0/+2Yeah, I understand, but I just don't understand their tactics. It just isn't a way to run a business, and to think that most of those there who plan these projects have business degrees.
- Dannymacuk, on 05/10/2009, -0/+2You lost me after the first sentence haha.. that comment was a big grammatical mess
- ZylogZ80, on 05/10/2009, -0/+2Apple's done well so far. There are conflicts of interest here that may only grow deeper, however it should be the decision of the shareholders and no one else. Thus far the board has served Apple well.
- streak, on 05/10/2009, -1/+3Conclusion: the only one on Apple's board who really does anything is Jobs. The rest of the appointees are honorary figureheads.
- inactive, on 05/10/2009, -0/+1Well he wouldn't, would he?
- mvest20, on 05/10/2009, -0/+1You can pick your search engine on OS X also. While you may have fewer choices you can still pick Firefox if you want. Granted, it still has the Google search built into it, but that's because it's the best search engine out there. Not because of some type of competitive advantage.
- awwsnap, on 05/10/2009, -0/+1poor understanding of what anti-competitive behavior is, buried.
come back to me when you are FORCED to purchase Apple computers as opposed to one running Windows Vista. Also, are you in a habit of using a search engine besides Google? that's unusual. - NSResponder, on 05/10/2009, -0/+1"I just don't understand their tactics"
Shipping buggy software isn't a tactic, it's incompetence. Microsoft is doing the best they can, and the best they can do is rather pathetic.
-jcr - headortails, on 05/10/2009, -0/+0omg lol :( I feel so stupid now.
- bergs77, on 05/11/2009, -1/+0"When I go to McDonald's I can only buy Coke"
This argument didn't work for Windows and IE why should it for Apple? - northerngeek, on 05/10/2009, -5/+1Some differences:
McDs and Coke DON'T COMPETE, Google and Apple do. And then they cooperate. And then they compete.
McDonald's board doesn't have Coke board members.
We know that McDonald's and Coke have a deal- McDoanld's buys coke and gets a good price, does Apple sell it's search area to Google for one browser but not another (Mac vs PC), and when I go to ANY McDonald's it's Coke, but the same is not true of Safari.
I can leave McDonald's without ever drinking a coke, and my car is not full of empty Coca-Cola cups. If I buy an iPhone I get Google Maps, Google search etc everywhere. How can a competitor manage in that environment.
I don't wish to appear like a fanboy but considering the choice Apple offers I'd take a Microsoft device any day.... or Linux :) - ilgaz, on 05/10/2009, -12/+8I am using default OS X browser, Safari now as millions do... I see "Google" at search bar which I can't change in a normal manner.
Even MS IE shows some nag screen in first launch to pick a favourite search engine. While on it, you can pick Yahoo search on Windows Safari, it has preference.
Really funny thing, I somehow pay for Safari while buying OS X and yet Windows users can pick their search engine. IMHO it is also bad for Google, people generally hate the choices made for them, by others without any option to change. - Leo55, on 05/10/2009, -8/+3IMO i don't think any director in Apple makes any "informed decisions". They all wait to collect that fat bonus at the end of the year. Whatever makes jobs(tim cook for now) happy is the informed decision.
- ilgaz, on 05/10/2009, -9/+3If Apple and Google has such irrational idiots as fans who fascistically tries to censor comments, tides are changing for both companies.
- headortails, on 05/10/2009, -8/+2No one is going to be able to compete with iPhone especially since the community and developers of 3rd party application outweigh the competition. Not only that, but Apple is really the only company that includes 3rd party applications. I mean there are phones out there that can also benefit with 3rd party applications, but the attention Apple brings forth really helps the product. In terms of buying it, and for the developers sake. I find it hard to believe that it's THIS hard to knock Apple off its pedestal. I know that Zune and iPhones shouldn't even be compared because they're different products, but what bothers me is how unprepared Microsoft is.
(lol I'm going into the Zune, sorry!)
If Microsoft prepared the Zune marketplace before releasing their first Zune product (Zune30), and add a couple of new creative things that Apple didn't have it would make the device a lot more interesting. When I say prepared I meant have deals with Record Companies, Movie Companies, ect. before releasing the device. They still to this day, NOT include an option for buying movies. All they were doing was making viral advertisements of birds, peacocks, and abstract images. Oh, wow so kewl. No, that doesn't gain attention. Sorry, but Bjork isn't mainstream. Also if you're going to release a device with wireless capability, I think it's stupid to not extend its capabilities as much as you can. If it can wirelessly sync from the computer, why can't you wirelessly connect to MSN messenger? The Wireless feature was probably the only advantage Microsoft had, but they ruined it because they didn't develop it properly. If you're going to add a feature in a device, you should maximize the potential.
I actually love my Zune30 that I still have to this day, but if you're going to compete with a device that sells millions by throwing parties at colleges... lyke omfg... it isn't going to do *****. I don't understand why the software was this buggy (Zune30 era), since they're a major corporation and they're the leading front of operating systems. They should have enough feedback from users already to build a software that is easy to use, slick, and works. To be honest I actually prefer the Zune software than iTunes, but I can understand why a lot of individuals hate it.
All I have to say is that giant corporations have enough money for the ideas, advertisements, and features. I don't think Microsoft considers Apple a threat, which is highly conceited, and they should crack down on this before it's too late. Apple's popularity is going to keep dominating, unless more businesses take on more risks. Microsoft's petty excuse of a risk, is not good enough. They should stop being cheap, and put out more money in their products. People will buy it if it can do everything the technology has to offer today, plus more. WE NEED INNOVATION not kewl abstract designs. Apple took a huge risk, and look where they're now.
This really has nothing to do with this article really, but I just felt like saying it. lol
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is