j_r_

It seems to me like you want to suggest, that Google is copying Apple here. (If not, ignore this post.)

I remember using a Nokia smartphone back in 2004. It already had the application icon grid, colored icons, it had maps, it had navigation, a web browser, email and an mp3 player. The quality of the software was poor, the hardware was cheap and underpowered, there was no multi-touch and, of course, the network was slow and too expensive to actually use.

Sure, Apple took the smartphone and actually turned it into a mobile computer that was a pleasure to use. Also the timing was right.

Google did not add as much value as Apple to the state of the art. But Apple certainly copied older smartphones feature-for-feature as well, then they made this into a great experience.

But to suggest that now Apple has somehow the exclusive right to produce phones that are not on the level of smartphone from 2006 and older is just wrong.

Yes, but there is no train of thought from semiconductors to stupid ideas about eugenics. There _is_ one from anti-socialist rhetoric to killing members of a left party.

Thanks, that did it for me.

I'm getting the "you device is not eligible for requested build" error in iTunes. Never had this before. Anyone here who did successfully activate?

Well, it seems to me that the author makes some kind of moral argument out of the whole thing in a David vs. Goliath kind of way. Certainly both are (huge) corporations but I still trust Google more. They still seem to have a sane leadership which I'm not so sure about with Facebook. Maybe I just don't like Zuckerberg ... He just is not the kind of underdog that I would like to succeed. (Edit: Neither is Google, but the author makes it look like Facebook should be support in a way.)

Just think about what market Google entered in the first place. It was a market with things like altavista.com being the dominant search engines.

Facebook was first, so now it has squatters rights? I don't think so.

I disagree.

First, Google has a decent track record in keeping personal data and advertising separate. For example they claim that their tracking cookie used across the web is not connected in any way to your Google profile. They can make use of a lot of data to show decent ads. Whereas Facebook will obviously make use of all your data because that's all they have.

2. Google makes most of its money by showing ads based on search terms you search for. They also use recent mails in GMail for ads within Gmail. They do not depend on any revenues from Google+. They likely see it as a defensive measure against Facebook which seriously threatens its real revenue model. Their competitive advantage is context, not primarily information about users. Again, for Facebook ads within the social network based on personal information are their sole competitive advantage.

It makes more sense to trust Google, at least as far as I am concerned.