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.
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.
But I've never heard anyone say "I love my Android", people talk about how clever it is, but the brand doesn't seem to resonate nearly as much, and it's not as clear what it says as a lifestyle accessory.
Second, in my experience, people react to it with a "So you're a DIY-er, huh?" That is, people are aware, however vaguely, of the opensource/hacker vibe that the brand carries. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "what it says as a lifestyle accesory," but I think it is.
(Btw, you had your +1 at "Jay-Z mentions...")
Up here in Mass, I tend to see Android devices being carried by unpleasant, street hoodlum types, which I guess to be a consequence of and reinforce the "iPhone knockoff" image associated with them.
This is exactly how it was with the Danger handsets 5-7 years ago, simply because they were great for power-texters, had a camera and were way, way cheaper than BlackBerries. And yes, as a result they were great for conducting street business -- don't be all shocked if that's true of Loopt as well.
I love my Nexus One. I love the Android platform. I wouldn't say "I love my Android", because it doesn't make any more sense than saying "I love my Windows" (whereas a Mac user would easily say "I love my Mac", as the hardware and software are a deal package).
The "Droid" brand is starting to change that, though. People are referring to all manner of Android phones as "Droids". It's a name that is being used to refer to both the platform and the hardware. I could easily see it gaining the same kind of brand mindshare that the iPhone and Blackberry brands have.
That's because you don't buy an "Android". I've heard tons of people say "I love my Droid" or "I love my Nexus One".
The buzz I meant was media buzz. Among users, I think Blackberry has plenty. Their users are fanatical. (Stephen Fry had an article on this a bit back, as I recall.)
(Don't run for where the ball is, run for where the ball is going to be. Or however that saying goes.)
Strikes me as a generic sports/life tip: anticipate and be there first.
Edit: Gauius's reply suggests I'm probably dead wrong about the movie. Never knew where the quote came from. Thanks.
I've been doing some BB development lately using a Storm II. Compared to the iPhone 3GS, it's a flying turd. I wonder if these BlackBerry lovers just haven't tried an iPhone or Android device.
Maybe I would think differently if I was testing on a keyboard device like a Bold, but I can't imagine it would change my opinion that much.
There's a lot of people out there who love physical keyboards and who must type with their thumbs!
Android was Google seeing a rich opportunity to take uncertain ground from Apple and now it's a dance to find a stable boundary line. One smart, if risky, way to get another couple moves to extend that line is to attack them somewhere else. Even Google has limited attention. Best, for Apple, is that this attack strengthens their smartphone position. It sounds really clever to me.
EDIT: I don't normally respond to downvotes, but I find it odd that at least three people have disagreed without anyone explaining how this very factual comment is wrong. If there's something factually or logically wrong in my comment, we would all be better off if you'd explain the truth rather than (or as well as) downvote.
Let's compare to Apple, who doesn't have a majority share in any competitive market besides portable music players and digital music distribution. The actual share of revenues from these businesses is a small and shrinking fraction of Apple's income. The portable music player business is collapsing in the face of evolving consumer smart phones and mobile internet devices like the iPod Touch, and the digital music distribution is an insignificant part of Apple's revenue. All the areas in which Apple is making all their profits are either nascent markets like consumer tablets and mobile internet devices, or Apple is a relatively small player. To imply that Apple can use their position in these markets it doesn't dominate to unfairly move into other established markets needs a bit more supportive evidence than that.
Apple also has disproportionate influence even in markets where it is not a monopoly.
As for Apple's skill in managing media exposure and marketing, that's certainly not an area in which they can hope to have any kind of monopoly.
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.
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 :)
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.
And if you are not doing research before purchase, there are only two options: either the product/sum you are going to spend is not that important to you, or you are about to get a valuable lesson.
Any way, I'm not trying to campaign for Apple, Google or Gruber here - I am trying to point out that this is how the market works. If you would rather have it differently, join/start a political party.
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.
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.
As far as I can tell, the first touchscreen Android phone came out in late 2009 (HTC Magic, according to this: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/google-android-htc-touch,news-34...) That's a full two years after the release of the iPhone. It took time for Google to start competing on the iPhone's turf, and that's why the relationship changed.
Give me a break, John.
I'm frankly surprised this is framed as Google vs Apple. It's actually a textbook case of the free-market adapting and competition continuing. It means the free market is working. Which makes me happy. I can now get a decent smartphone on the Carrier of my choice at a price I can afford. If the IPhone was the only game in town I'd still be stuck with a blackberry. I was not in love with my blackberry I had it because I loved it. I am in love with my Android phone though.
> But Apple gets into trouble when they start thinking, "People want iPhones and these jerks are copying our iPhone"
and
>The reaction was the same, "How dare Microsoft try to give people Apple-like stuff!"
I think Apple's position on this has been misinterpreted over the years. They don't have any problem with copying good ideas from others and don't have the "how dare they" attitude towards Microsoft (or Google) that people seem to think. What I believe annoyed them over the years was that Microsoft took the basic premise of their stuff, made it worse (i.e. produced a "third-rate" product as Jobs has called it), and was winning with this strategy (because, they felt, that "enterprise" was making the purchasing decisions and that they were suffering from the layer between them and the consumers).
On Google, they're competition, so they're competing with them. The Eric Schmidt angle might make it a bit different, but largely I get the sense that Apple respects what Google does, believes they make great products, and is focused on beating them in the market where they both compete.
> "We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours." -- Steve Jobs, regarding the recent Apple vs HTC lawsuit.
That's about as cut-and-dried "how dare they" as it comes, particular when examined in the context of the lawsuit.
For some context, watch this video, specifically 0:35-0:46 and 2:50-3:43. It's a younger and more "pissed off" Steve Jobs than we know today, however his feelings are clear: He's not against copying ideas, adding value to them, and producing a wonderful product.
I specified "In the context of the lawsuit" quite particularly. I know that it's about patent claims, but it's about paper-thin patent claims which are transparently "how dare you" saber-rattling, not a legitimate defense of significant trade secrets.
The video you linked only makes the dichotomy more stark. Apple's attitude, based on historical observation, has been "Copying ideas and adding value is great...when we do it. If you try it from us, get ready for Lawyerfest 2010."
Before arguing the validity of patents, the point you were trying to make is that Apple has a "how dare they" attitude towards Microsoft and Google as they enter into markets which Apple first resides. I'm saying it's not that. They expect others to come into the PC market, they expect others to come into the touchscreen smartphone market. When they get there, they compete with them. Their tiff with Microsoft in the 90's, in my opinion, was not that they made an OS with a GUI, rather that they made an inferior OS with a GUI which lacked originality and innovation and ended up with 95% market share.
Consumers want and demand touchscreen smartphones with large screens and no keypads precisely because Apple trained people to want them.
Google is knocking off Apple, just like Microsoft knocked off Apple with the GUI computer interface. (Apple trained people to want them too). And it's not just Google. You can hardly turn around without tripping over another iPhone knockoff (large touchscreen, no keypad) from Nokia, RIM, Samsung and basically everyone else.
EDIT: Not sure why this is being downvoted - name a touchscreen smartphone that people were raving about before the iPhone? Pointing this out doesn't make me a fanboy. The iPhone wasn't the first of it's kind, but it was the first touchcscreen smartphone people were nuts for. See the number of sales and downloads on the App store compared to anywhere else. Or the fact that despite being locked down, and bundled with shitty carriers, people were still willing to endure that to own an iPhone.
I still used it in 2007 when my E70 was in repair.
But Apple also deserves some praise: their unique strength has been in designing commercially viable products that integrate technologies that are still very early in the adoption curve, providing the marketing force that's needed to push new tech into the mainstream. They've also been very effective at breaking the logjam in established industries that have held back certain innovations (digital music distribution and consumer smartphones come to mind).
This has been enormously valuable for the technology industry as a whole, and has often opened the frontier for Microsoft, Google, and others. We probably wouldn't have Android devices now if Apple hadn't used their marketing prowess to get the phone carriers to accept the entire category.
In retrospect, doesn't it seem like Google should have emphasized the original Android phones and gone after Blackberry's market share? I think Google wants more corporate mindshare. The part of the world's data that both badly needs organization and has big flows of money associated with it is in the hands of big corporations.
By differentiating themselves as the "business-oriented" smartphone, they could have eaten Blackberry's lunch or scared them into partnership while still chipping away at Apple with the Multitouch phones.
Then again, consumer demand is perhaps the way for newcomers to enter the corporate market.
I guess it's not at all clear from my comment, but I agree with lionhearted insofar as his description of Apple's (or Steve's) motives are basically right. I'm not sure if I agree with their method of retaliation (blocking AdMob from targeting), but I do think they're justified in feeling angry about having their UI innovations ripped off. They don't get to hold onto them forever, but when their work advances the industry by that much, they deserve a level of deference, the same way deserving patent-holders do.
Funnily enough, it's Microsoft that chose not to develop a derivative UI this time, with Windows Phone 7. Something tells me that that UI is going to get old fast, but at least they attempted to innovate and be original.
[citation needed]
I used an iPhone for a couple years, got a G1 and used it for a while, got a Nexus One and used it for a while, used the iPhone for a little while longer, and then switched back to the Nexus One for good.
My preference is Android (for a myriad of reasons, including the UX); got anything non-anecdotal that speaks to this, or at least a (neutral) third-party authority on UX?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOgOP_aqqtg
> got anything non-anecdotal that speaks to this, or at least a (neutral) third-party authority on UX?
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/iphone-vs-...
http://www.google.com/search?q=iphone+android+customer+satis...
U.S. iPhone users have the highest customer satisfaction, despite having greater dissatisfaction with their carrier, AT&T, which is responsible for a pretty big portion of a phone user's experience.
> Look at those 2007 Android designs compared to the original 2007 iPhone. Now compare a 2010 Android design to a current iPhone. Don’t tell me Google’s mobile strategy hasn’t changed.
I mean, he's totally right. It did change. But it wasn't to knock off Apple, it's because Google is building what consumers want and demand now.
Apple can say, "We pioneered that!" That's true. But they can't say, "We pioneered that - how dare they!" Because that's misplaced. Consumer preference has shifted, and yes, that's due in large part because of Apple's actions.
But Apple gets into trouble when they start thinking, "People want iPhones and these jerks are copying our iPhone" - because consumers don't necessarily want iPhones. They want well-designed devices which are fun and intuitive to use. Apple helped reveal that path, but they don't exactly get to plant a flag in the ground and say that's theirs now, forever, and how dare anyone else build well-designed devices with intuitive touchscreen interfaces.
Any other company I'd shrug at the misplaced righteous indignation, but Apple really should know better, since they got into this with Microsoft over "look and feel" last decade over GUI. The reaction was the same, "How dare Microsoft try to give people Apple-like stuff!" But that's wrong. Microsoft gave people what they wanted, which was pretty and and more intuitive navigation.
It's like - when you introduce a new general standard, you can't really own it. It's out there. You get a massive head start, but then people will start using that standard and innovating on it. Traditionally what companies with the head start do is cut prices to lock in market share and make it impossible for people to compete, but Apple runs on crazy margins, so they refuse to do this, get angry at whoever is making something that fills similar needs for a lower price than them, and then lose their market. And now they're doing it again.