Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google CEO Larry Page Talks Apple, Android, Google+

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the what-about-google-buzz dept.

Google 136

Nerval's Lobster writes "Fortune magazine managed to score an exclusive interview with Google CEO Larry Page. While he doesn't reveal a whole lot about the company's future plans—CEOs are great at offering fuzzy generalities, if nothing else—he manages to reveal just a bit about the ongoing competition with Apple, the evolution of search, and monetizing mobile devices. Google's rivalry with Apple has descended into massive lawsuits, but Page doesn't exactly channel Genghis Khan when it comes to his own feelings on the issue. 'I think it would be nice if everybody would get along better and the users didn't suffer as a result of other people's activities,' he told the magazine. 'We try pretty hard to make our products be available as widely as we can. That's our philosophy. I think sometimes we're allowed to do that. Sometimes we're not.'"

cancel ×

136 comments

What is SlashBI for anyway? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42250925)

Is SlashBI just for ad views? Why not just link directly to the article?

Re:What is SlashBI for anyway? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42250999)

Slashdot for bisexuals.

Ack! PTHPPBPTH!! (4, Funny)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42250929)

"Larry Page Talks Apple, Android, Google+"?

Gorbachev Sings Tractors: Turnip! Buttocks!

--
BMO

Re:Ack! PTHPPBPTH!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251195)

Proper laugh out load funny. Cheers BMO :) You made a basement office in East London ring with laughter

Re:Ack! PTHPPBPTH!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251411)

Oh how I loved Bloom County. Snugglebunnies.

Re:Ack! PTHPPBPTH!! (1)

Phreakiture (547094) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251961)

Snugglebunnies!
Snugglebunnies!
Snugglebunnies!
Snu-

Re:Ack! PTHPPBPTH!! (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252519)

Not just snugglebunnies...

*sweaty* snugglebunnies.

--
BMO "Madam, I have to put down something...'

Re:Ack! PTHPPBPTH!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42252107)

Wow, two new pass phrases in one /.!!! (Obligatory, http://xkcd.com/936/)

come on (2, Insightful)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year and a half ago | (#42250947)

Google is rich and powerful. If they were seriously interested in changing patent and copyright laws that stifle innovation, they would put their where their mouth is and lobby for real change. Instead they talk it when it suits them, but they know those some laws can be used to protect their profits. Ergo hypocrisy and no real change.

Re:come on (3, Insightful)

the computer guy nex (916959) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251015)

Google is rich and powerful. If they were seriously interested in changing patent and copyright laws that stifle innovation, they would put their where their mouth is and lobby for real change. Instead they talk it when it suits them, but they know those some laws can be used to protect their profits. Ergo hypocrisy and no real change.

Google just purchased Motorola Mobility for their patent portfolio, and is already using it aggressively vs M$ and Apple. They are playing the game, not changing it.

Re:come on (5, Insightful)

Fastolfe (1470) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251115)

So if Google stood up and said "we're not playing the patent game anymore", and got rid of all of their patents, what do you think would happen? Until the system changes, it would be kind of stupid to just sit back and get destroyed by everyone else's patent litigation. Participation doesn't mean that their primary goal isn't changing the system.

Re:come on (3, Interesting)

the computer guy nex (916959) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251333)

So if Google stood up and said "we're not playing the patent game anymore", and got rid of all of their patents, what do you think would happen? Until the system changes, it would be kind of stupid to just sit back and get destroyed by everyone else's patent litigation. Participation doesn't mean that their primary goal isn't changing the system.

Most believed Google would be using the Motorola patents defensively. Instead they are using the Motorola Mobility patent portfolio to ban everything from smartphones, to tablets, to the Xbox 360.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1112740990/motorola-microsoft-xbox-lawsuit-120312/ [redorbit.com]

Re:come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251497)

The best defense is a good offense. And this is business, so the rules are, make enough money and keep Wall Street happy.
I believe that they're doing well on both counts.

Re:come on (5, Interesting)

Methuseus (468642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251605)

Some people believe that they are trying to get the whole patent system changed by making it unprofitable for anyone else. The more players lobbying to change it,t he better.

Re:come on (5, Insightful)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251669)

How do you use a patent "defensively"? It's like a gun: virtually useless in stopping other bullets, but it can protect you in a firefight by forcing your opponent to worry about not exposing himself to your bullets, and thus adopting a less efficient offensive behaviour. Of course, if your opponent knows you're not going to shoot back, then your gun is entirely useless in aiding your survival. And Microsoft has picked on lots of Android vendors for the last two years with litigation (is it HTC that ended up having to pay them a fee for every device sold?), so I don't see your point.

Re:come on (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252101)

How do you use a patent "defensively"? It's like a gun: virtually useless in stopping other bullets,

Or, like a gun, you can get a REALLY HUGE one, then strut around waggling it in a REALLY obvious manner so that everyone's attention is drawn to it. That way, when opponents are sizing you up (generally what happens before the shooting starts), the have the opportunity to realise that you have a really huge gun and they will get shot with it.

And you can use it defensively by only shooting people who shoot at you first.

I would count a proxy war as shooting first, which is what everyone attaching andriod vendors is.

Re:come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42252871)

Is it just my geographical stance (!=America) or is this metaphor really off target (ha)? A small gun kills you, a large gun kills you. It is not defense having a big gun, or even letting everyone have a gun - it only means more people will get shot.

How did I fare in the "metaphors dragged too far"-category?

Re:come on (1)

snadrus (930168) | about a year and a half ago | (#42253059)

Business plans can be "more-dead" or "just crippled" depending on the impact of patents they go up against. HTC was sued by Microsoft's weak portfolio, so the plan of selling Android phones was just crippled.

Re:come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42252889)

I'd rather have a good gun than a huge one, it'd make it easier to kill the guy with the huge one when he is waving it about.

"Defensively" is such a load of horseshit (1, Insightful)

melted (227442) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252273)

You know where else I have heard about using patents "defensively"? At Microsoft, circa 2001-2002 when I worked there. It was all about using them "defensively" back then. Then Microsoft had found itself struggling in a number of markets and started suing people left and right to extract royalties. Google will do the exact same thing a few years down the road, for the same reason.

It was defensive (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251699)

Read the article you linked to.

Microsoft sued Google, they countersued.

Isn't that defensive use?

Re:come on (5, Insightful)

scot4875 (542869) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251737)

That's the best link you have? One regarding the result of a case that had been pending since before Google bought Motorola? That sure doesn't lend a lot of credence to your claims.

What specific products has Motorola (post-buyout) tried to take off the shelves?

Seriously, try a little harder, bonch. This is just pathetic.

--Jeremy

Re:come on (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251161)

Google just purchased Motorola Mobility for their patent portfolio, and is already using it aggressively vs M$ and Apple. They are playing the game, not changing it.

You need to look at this from the cold war perspective. Neither the US nor the USSR wanted nuclear war, but it would be utterly stupid for either of them to just get rid of their nuclear weapons.

You have to make an agreement where everyone involved weakens their arsenals simultaneously. Until that happens, you must work to increase your arsenal to higher levels than your opponents, or risk being destroyed.

By not entering into cross-licensing agreements, Apple is essentially behaving like North Korea, as if they don't understand the concept of MAD, and just getting all the other nuclear powers angry.

Re:come on (2)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251271)

Google just purchased Motorola Mobility for their patent portfolio, and is already using it aggressively vs M$ and Apple. They are playing the game, not changing it.

You need to look at this from the cold war perspective. Neither the US nor the USSR wanted nuclear war, but it would be utterly stupid for either of them to just get rid of their nuclear weapons.

You have to make an agreement where everyone involved weakens their arsenals simultaneously. Until that happens, you must work to increase your arsenal to higher levels than your opponents, or risk being destroyed.

By not entering into cross-licensing agreements, Apple is essentially behaving like North Korea, as if they don't understand the concept of MAD, and just getting all the other nuclear powers angry.

The world is having more success at disarming Apple than it has with North Korea. Source: http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/12/07/2346246/steve-jobs-patent-on-iphone-declared-invalid [slashdot.org]

Re:come on (1)

halfkoreanamerican (2566687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251763)

Ran out of mod points, but a metaphorical +1 for using North Korea as a reference. Agreed.

Hey Look! It's The Pathetic Apple Troll bonch (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251267)

Still trolling Google stories with an endless number of alt accounts.

http://slashdot.org/~bonch [slashdot.org]

What a loser.

Re:come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251685)

It's hilarious when people expect those who disagree with certain policies or systems to simply self-sacrifice themselves at the alter of death in order to not be a part of it. Doesn't work that way with libertarians who accept unemployment, doesn't work that way with liberals that work for wall street firms, and it doesn't work that way for corporations. Get it out of your head.

Re:come on (1)

kllrnohj (2626947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252895)

You and I clearly have very, very different meanings for the word "aggressively". Microsoft and Apple are both suing Motorola. Google didn't start this fight, so I'm not sure how you can call defending themselves and Android as "using it aggressively".

Re:come on (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251253)

Google is rich in dollars and powerful solely in the tech industry.

FTFY.

Being rich, or even richer than the next guy, doesn't really mean a damn thing when it comes to lobbying for laws and/or the changing of laws. Being powerful in one relatively new industry also doesn't mean a thing, not when the majority of Congress grew up following and living under the shadow of an old entertainment industry currently lobbying against everything Google is lobbying for (hell, they put Ronald Reagan up for president, didn't they?). The record and movie industries are, for a lack of a better term, "friends" with Congress, "old friends" to be exact, and there's no amount of money Google can throw at them to change that fact on an immediate basis. Google and the rest of the tech industry CAN start up their lobbying machines now and maybe change a few minor laws, but there's no way in this generation we're going to shake out all the deeply-entrenched relationships that party leaders and legislators have with the old industries. It's going to take many years and the natural deaths* of a LOT of stodgy old white people before anything changes.

*: Yes, natural death. It'd only take one assassination to turn "Congressperson X's long-term relationship with the movie/music industry" to "a martyr for his/her cause".

Loophole in Google motto (1)

sjbe (173966) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251343)

Ergo hypocrisy and no real change.

Their motto is "don't be evil" which is not the same thing as saying "be a force for good". Maybe they see that as a convenient loophole in their motto.

Seriously, if Google really cared about spreading their products as widely as possible they'd be spending cubic dollars on lobbying for copyright and patent reform. But they don't seem really interested in being a leader in doing this.

Re:Loophole in Google motto (2)

adonoman (624929) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251465)

they'd be spending cubic dollars

No wonder I can't seem to get ahead, all this time I've been using rectangular or cylindrical dollars.

Re:Loophole in Google motto (2)

Fastolfe (1470) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252063)

Seriously, if Google really cared about spreading their products as widely as possible they'd be spending cubic dollars on lobbying for copyright and patent reform. But they don't seem really interested in being a leader in doing this.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/22/google-facebook-spent-record-amounts-on-d-c-lobbying-in-q1-2012/ [techcrunch.com]

Re:come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251429)

Google is rich and powerful. If they were seriously interested in changing patent and copyright laws that stifle innovation, they would put their where their mouth is and lobby for real change. Instead they talk it when it suits them, but they know those some laws can be used to protect their profits. Ergo hypocrisy and no real change.

They have to work in the existing system (like we do) until it's changed; Google and Facebook announced an anti-patent effort in the last week.

If you think they should be doing more, or differently, how about you say what you think they should be doing. Complaining that they're "rich and powerful" is empty at best.

Re:come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251589)

Google DOES lobby for patent reform and has for ages. They're just not as powerful as the other side.

When have patents ever *helped* Google?

Re:come on (2)

kaiser423 (828989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252109)

Google just filed an brief, and brought along a couple of other heavy hitters asking the patent office to reform, and to scrub current patents for overarching generalities like "on the internet". From their brief, it even sounds like they're willing to pay the USPTO some of the cost associated with doing that patent scrub. They are putting their money where their mouth is, but in the meantime you don't win a thermonuclear war (current smartphone market) without some warheads of your own.

Re:come on (1)

kllrnohj (2626947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252869)

They *ARE* lobbying for patent reforms, but just because you lobby doesn't mean it will actually work or that things will change, especially when equally rich and powerful companies are lobbying *against* you.

If you want change elect different politicians. Either those that will do the right thing, or those that are even more corrupt and can be more easily bought by companies.

Apple has a big card they have yet to play (3, Interesting)

the computer guy nex (916959) | about a year and a half ago | (#42250979)

Currently Google is pre-selected as the search engine for iOS devices. We all know Google hardly makes a dime from Android directly - they are an advertising company. Google ironically makes more money from iOS due to the higher usage of iOS devices around the world (and, in turn, more ad impressions).

Something as simple as having the user select their search engine of choice during device setup, and having the list alphabetical (Bing, Google, Yahoo) would cause a significant revenue decline.

If these behind-the-scenes talks with Apple and Google get worse, this will be the big sign.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251013)

Built in ad blocker would probably be more exciting.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42252397)

This would make me very very happy.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251093)

Except iOS doesn't have higher market share. Whomp whomp.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251235)

Not talking about market share, usage share. iOS users generate more web traffic via google search than Android users do

http://www.zdnet.com/ios-users-generate-twice-as-much-web-traffic-as-android-users-7000008292/ [zdnet.com]

http://news.yahoo.com/ios-users-generate-double-traffic-android-users-215354607.html [yahoo.com]

http://gigaom.com/mobile/why-are-android-users-less-engaged-than-ios-users/ [gigaom.com]

Those are from this month. The pattern has remained consistant

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (3, Informative)

ameen.ross (2498000) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251349)

Look like slightly obscure sources to me.
According to statcounter, Android had topped iOS for half a year already, with 32% and 24% market share respectively last month.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (1)

ameen.ross (2498000) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251375)

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251455)

We're not talking market share, we're talking web usage share.

iOS users are using using google search on the web more than Android users are. That's how google is generating more money from iOS users than Android users

Market share has nothing to do with it.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251593)

According to statcounter, Android had topped iOS for half a year already, with 32% and 24% market share respectively last month.

Man, that's ... awful.

For every iOS device sold, there are 3 Androids. Yet the traffic for Android devices is only 50% higher than iOS?

What are people doing with their android phones? Android should be 3 times as much usage as iOS, not 1.5 times as much... or is Android the new "featurephone"?

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (3, Informative)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251759)

Or maybe the iphone is inefficient with its data packing. Or maybe it spies on you more than android and sends more data back to apple. Or maybe android appeals to a wider range of users, including those who don't use their phones constantly.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (3, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251933)

For every iOS device sold, there are 3 Androids. Yet the traffic for Android devices is only 50% higher than iOS? What are people doing with their android phones?

Maybe they are more frequently doing productive things, which tend to be less bandwidth intensive than, say, exchanging party videos and streaming movies. Or maybe Android -- and apps that are popular on Android -- makes more efficient use of bandwidth; the way that Google's voice search does more on the device whereas Siri relies on backend servers for the same functionality. Or maybe -- as was especially confirmed to be a particularly bad problem in the initial release of iOS 6.0, but has been mitigated in subsequent updates -- iOS makes repeated and spurious extra requests for remote resources.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42253177)

iOS users generate more web traffic via google search than Android users do

Note how Chitika Insights doesn't state its methodology.

Grepping User Agent strings for "Mobile Safari" will return every Android phone using the stock browser, for example..

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251391)

No, iOS just has massively higher profits, for both Apple (by virtue of profits on selling the hardware) and Google (by virtue of the fact that more traffic hits Google's servers from iOS devices than from Android devices).

Whomp whomp.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (5, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251633)

Market share doesn't matter. iOS people use the web more. Not all android owners have a nexus or s3. They have cheap phones on cheap contracts which is why they don't surf the net much if at all and avoid paying for apps.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42252295)

We all know that iOS people are vastly superior to others... especially those who use "cheap" Android phones.
iOS people are proud to pay for expensive data plans and pay for apps which are free on Android because they have more money, are more beautiful, and like to show their superior smarts.
Even though iOS market share has been dwindling inexorably downwards (along with Apple profits and stock price), iOS users are very secure in their belief in their superiority and will not be swayed by so-called "facts". The proof of this is that iOS users are superior web users and I also bet that if you really looked at the QUALITY of their web searches, it would show much greater intelligence, smarts, and beauty. It really doesn't matter that the iPhone has never been a very good actual phone or that there have been numerous problems with things such as "antennagate", the new "iLost" application, cameras with streaks, etc. Since iOS users are vastly superior, they can easily overcome these minor difficulties through QUALITY web searches.
All hail Steve Jobs!

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (2)

mosb1000 (710161) | about a year and a half ago | (#42253187)

The parent was saying that while Android is the most popular OS, many buy it on inexpensive phones with inexpensive plans which they don't intend to use for browsing the internet. If the only Android phones on the market were like the GS3 or 1X+, you'd probably see them used for internet access just as much as iPhones. Apple only makes high end phones, so you don't see people buying them just to make phone calls like you do with Android.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252681)

I'm guessing that the iOS people who use the web most would set their search page to google rather than bing though. My mother might find herself using Bing as the default on her iphone if they push that, but I'm not sure she knows that her phone HAS an internet browser. So I'm skeptical that google would lose a huge market share because of that.

I'm also thinking that apple would want to tread lightly after the maps debacle of a PR move. "First maps now the internet! Apple won't let you google anymore, don't upgrade!" making it's way through facebook and twitter is probably something that apple wouldn't want to risk.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251127)

Currently Google is pre-selected as the search engine for iOS devices. We all know Google hardly makes a dime from Android directly - they are an advertising company. Google ironically makes more money from iOS due to the higher usage of iOS devices around the world (and, in turn, more ad impressions).

Are you smoking fucking rock?

— Android (Google Inc.) — 104.8 million units, 68.1 percent share (46.9 percent a year earlier)

— iOS (Apple Inc.'s iPhone) — 26.0 million units, 16.9 percent share (18.8 percent a year earlier)

Get your facts straight, jesus christ.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (1)

the computer guy nex (916959) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251251)

Currently Google is pre-selected as the search engine for iOS devices. We all know Google hardly makes a dime from Android directly - they are an advertising company. Google ironically makes more money from iOS due to the higher usage of iOS devices around the world (and, in turn, more ad impressions).

Are you smoking fucking rock?

— Android (Google Inc.) — 104.8 million units, 68.1 percent share (46.9 percent a year earlier)

— iOS (Apple Inc.'s iPhone) — 26.0 million units, 16.9 percent share (18.8 percent a year earlier)

Get your facts straight, jesus christ.

I said usage marketshare, which has nothing to do with device marketshare.

http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustomb=1 [netmarketshare.com]

Hell even the Slashdot website has 30% more iOS devices than Android.

http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/12/12/04/2125239/android-rules-smartphones-but-which-version [slashdot.org]

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251407)

Calm down, calm down. The Apple fanboys are just reverting to their "holding pattern" behavior, where, when threatened by reality and facts, they stay locked in a certain period of time when Apple was on top of the world. They'll remain there, feeling fully protected from the passage of time, until a messiah comes to save them again. We all saw this back in the late 90s when, in the face of Windows stomping Apple nearly into bankruptcy, the fanboys all seemed to be stuck in the early 90s, praising the glories of earlier Macs BEFORE Win3.1 took off, completely ignoring the advancement of technology and UI design patterns. This only changed when the iPod was released, Apple started picking back up, and the fanboys returned from stasis. Note carefully the large gap in most fans' memories between System 6 and OS X.

So we can expect Apple fans to be talking as if it's still early 2010 for the next few years. As far as they're concerned, Android is limited to the G1, nobody would ever make a phone with that, and the App Store is the only place for apps on any phone. This will most likely continue until Steve Jobs comes back from early retirement to help bring Apple to glory once again, and then they'll conveniently skip over this inconvenient part of the company's history.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251885)

Oh, fuck off and die, geek. Ever notice it's the Apple hate posts that ramble on and on and on and have all the pseudo-religious claptrap? You uber geeks are the dumbest shits walking the Earth and you don't even possess the brain wiring to realize it. Seriously, you operating on the bottom rung of reason and intellect.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251323)

Currently Google is pre-selected as the search engine for iOS devices. We all know Google hardly makes a dime from Android directly - they are an advertising company. Google ironically makes more money from iOS due to the higher usage of iOS devices around the world (and, in turn, more ad impressions).

Can you cite a source for that claim? The numbers Gartner most recently published make that seem extremely unlikely given about 3 times the number of android devices vs iOS. Source: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=2237315 [gartner.com]

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (1)

the computer guy nex (916959) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251363)

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (2)

sunking2 (521698) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251419)

The truth of the matter is Apple users actually use their phones for web surfing more than Android do. There are so many android devices out there that pale in comparison from a hardware/usability stand point that they simply aren't used the same way iPhones and top of the line Android phones are. They are given out for free/on the cheap so why not get one, whether you need or want the capability. I hardly ever use the internet on mine for surfing. Number of units isn't a very good benchmark to use.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251789)

And then there are phones like the galaxy series that match or outclass the iphones in almost every way. there are android phones for everyone. There is only one type of iPhone, your only choice is to get the older one or the newer one.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251409)

What? are you insane? This is no adwantage to apple at all!
To wat apple wants to switch - Bing? some AppleSearch?
Look what fiasco was switching off google maps. Swithing google search off would be suicide - even iNuts won't buy an iPhone after that.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (2)

cjjjer (530715) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251583)

We all know Google hardly makes a dime from Android directly

I dunno about that by licensing the GAPPS they get a cut from the phone maker who uses Android as well developers have to pay to have an account to list their apps under I would say that is making money from Android directly since without it there would be no money coming in at all.

Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251823)

I think Apples customers probably have a limited tolerance for agenda-driven hoop jumping. They aren't all passive sheep you know - look at the rage over iOS Maps. If Apple rolled boulders down the hill at users who wanted to search the web with Google it'd just make iPhones look even more troublesome than already are.

I thought Chromebook would fail (1)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251037)

But they suckered me in with the $249 price, and this little machine is just a ton of fun. Its like Desktop Android - thousands of Android apps. I think they've hit a home run with this little device.

Re:I thought Chromebook would fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251193)

Are you an idiot? Chrome is browser only. No android apps, just HMTL web apps.

Yes, I'm an idiot. (1)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251227)

And, it looks like several thousand Android apps have already been ported to Chrome. So I'm kind of a smart idiot. Like an idiot-savant I guess you could say.

Re:Yes, I'm an idiot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251695)

You're like Raymond Babbitt sans the ability to count cards.

Re:I thought Chromebook would fail (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252193)

Are you an idiot? Chrome is browser only. No android apps, just HMTL web apps.

I've heard from several people that have them now that you can reload them with a real operating system. If true, it's an astounding deal.

Re:I thought Chromebook would fail (3, Interesting)

Sedated2000 (1716470) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251345)

I got one of the chromebooks google shipped out for testing. I love it a lot more than I thought I would. It is the laptop I read sites/chat/watch youtube on before sleep. Very light, very quiet and it doesn't generate a lot of heat.

100GB of free cloud space (1)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251787)

ain't bad either.

Re:I thought Chromebook would fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42252023)

But I can do all of that on a $200 tablet device instead of a $249 crappy laptop (I realize you got yours for free, but most people can't). The tablet has the advantage of doubling as a nice e-Reader in bed, etc. where a laptop is sort of crappy for that use case. If you have a lot of typing to do - yeah, laptop. If you just use it for content consumption like you mentioned with some email - the tablet generally is better.

Nerval's Lobster... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251049)

Did anybody notice that Nerval's Lobster [slashdot.org] gets most of his submissions published on the front page, no matter how asinine they are? Works for Slashdot indeed...

Philosophy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251053)

'We try pretty hard to make our products be available as widely as we can. That's our philosophy."
 
It's not a philosophy at all to Google. It's a business model. Let's call a spade a spade.

Re:Philosophy? (4, Interesting)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251101)

It's not a philosophy at all to Google. It's a business model.

The two are not mutually exclusive. And, actually, its not a business model; it may be either a philosophy, or the core principal of a business model, or both, but its not, in and of itself, a business model, any more than "collect underpants", by itself, is.

Re:Philosophy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251505)

Nothing but shill talk. You fanbois really know how to pour it on thick.

Re:Philosophy? (3, Informative)

Fastolfe (1470) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251123)

It's not a philosophy at all to Google. It's a business model. Let's call a spade a spade.

It can be both. People don't cease to be passionate about things when they become employed.

Re:Philosophy? (2)

Noughmad (1044096) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251137)

No, it really is a philosophy.

If it were their business model, their products would actually be available, but in reality they are not. Nexus 4's and 10's are impossible to come by anywhere. Nexus 7's cost 280 euro here. Music and movies on Google Play are not avaible except in USA and some parts of Europe, not even all of EU is covered. Developers from Slovenia (such as myself) cannot publish paid apps on the Play Store.

Re:Philosophy? (2)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251453)

Nexus 4's and 10's are impossible to come by anywhere.

LG and Samsung make those respectively, not Google.

Nexus 7's cost 280 euro here.

Should Asus really be expected to give the hardware away for free?

Music and movies on Google Play are not avaible except in USA and some parts of Europe, not even all of EU is covered.

Thanks to restrictions imposed by the copyright holders.

Venting frustrations is good, but it's better when directed to the right places.

He left out something important! (1)

bogaboga (793279) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251061)

'We try pretty hard to make our products be available as widely as we can. That's our philosophy. I think sometimes we're allowed to do that. Sometimes we're not.'"

He should have stated: -

I think sometimes we're allowed to do that. Sometimes we're not, because of our perceived one sided revenue model as interpreted by the some in the newspaper industry [rt.com] for example.

Re:He left out something important! (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251861)

The proper FTFY for the statement is:

"We try pretty hard to make our users be available as widely as we can to our adwords partners. That's our philosophy. I think sometimes we're allowed to do that. Sometimes we're not."

He learned to be a diplomat. (2)

epSos-de (2741969) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251301)

Larry Page is never exact recently, he learned to keep his mouth shut, becasue his stock will drop, if he said something that is not good or something that let's people speculate about troubles.

He prints his own money now. So he is basically set, if he just keeps his real thoughts to himself.

I liked him (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251365)

in Led Zeppelin/ Glad to see he got a new gig.

XOR Interview? (1)

korbulon (2792438) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251403)

A bit of an aside, but what the hell is really meant by "exclusive" interview? That there were no other interviewers in the room?

Re:XOR Interview? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251753)

It means that the interviewee is not publicly chatting with any other outlet. It can also be made more specific, such as the "exclusive interview with Michelle Obama on the subject of Australian copyright law."

Re:XOR Interview? (1)

korbulon (2792438) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252047)

Not chatting with any other outlet - at that specific time. But seems to me he could turn around from that first interview right after and give another "exclusive" interview. Like most things in the news these days, an expression entirely bereft of actual information. Journalistic aspartame.

Re:XOR Interview? (1)

SolitaryMan (538416) | about a year and a half ago | (#42253279)

This is true, but with high profile busy people like Larry, every such interview is exclusive and hard for a journalist to get.

If Larry wanted to tell something to the press, he wouldn't do it in "exclusive" interview, he would hold a press-conference. So the value for the reader (or viewer) usually is that the interviewee does not get to pick the questions and they can get into any topic more deeply via followups.

That's TRON... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251489)

He fights for the users.

They're friends when it suits (1, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251595)

They have no problem teaming up with apple to buy up Kodak patents. That and the Motorola deal show they aren't against patents. They're just like everyone else. I can't believe people still think they try to do the right thing. If they really wanted to do that they can start paying fair taxes.

Re:They're friends when it suits (1)

gutnor (872759) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252033)

At last somebody noticed. Samsung and Apple are very happy to build custom made factories. Apple and Google are still friend for a variety of different venture.

Of course they are all competitors and kicking each other in the balls when it is profitable, but mostly all 3 companies have 3 different approaches and are happy to help each other for mutual benefit. All those talk about betrayal, war, hate, ... is just business as usual blown out of proportion "for fun and profit".

"Monetizing" (1)

water-and-sewer (612923) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251683)

I think monetizing is my new, most-hated word. (It used to be "premium.") Both are lame-o marketing speak. Why not just call monetizing what it is: Trying to make a profit off something. As for premium, it's intended to convey some sense of privilege or exclusivity, but it's too frequently used for utterly banal things, like "points" in some stupid marketing scheme.

I'm having a hard time getting through the rest of the article because of that word.

It's not exactly breaking my heart that companies are having a hard time figuring out how to make an even bigger profit off of a gadget that's already been sold to consumers. How about some device, that when you buy it, it turns your sister into a crackwhore in the service of the company that sold you the device? I'm being facetious, but I think some of these companies, if they could come up with such a technology, would have no trouble making this the reality. (They could then sell "premium" sister-services, some restrictions may apply, not valid in all states, yadda yadda yadda).

get real (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42251687)

If he really cared about the users that suffered, maybe Eric Schmidt shouldn't have sat on the board of Apple and ripped off Apple's ideas...

Zzzzz (0)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about a year and a half ago | (#42251909)

Who cares? Geeks take this shit way too seriously. Channel Genghis Khan? WTF does that even mean? He should behead the interviewer with a war axe? Actually, that would be pretty awesome, and a good distraction from the liquidation of civilization. Put it in a circus tent and sell lots of bread products.

Re:Zzzzz (1)

Korruptionen (2647747) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252161)

"distraction from the liquidation of civilization." Thank you. Thought I was the only one who saw it this way.

"Widely available" (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252439)

We try pretty hard to make our products be available as widely as we can. That's our philosophy.

So, where's the Google Talk client for iOS?

Re:"Widely available" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42253233)

So, where's the Google Talk client for iOS?

You bought into the Apple Dream.

If Apple don't provide what you need, you don't need it.

It is not beholden on Google or anyone else to compensate for your choices in life.

Re:"Widely available" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42253257)

We try pretty hard to make our products be available as widely as we can. That's our philosophy.

So, where's the Google Talk client for iOS?

" I think sometimes we're allowed to do that. Sometimes we're not."

Evolution of search (1)

amanaplanacanalpanam (685672) | about a year and a half ago | (#42252677)

I'd be happy if they would just fix the blasted domain crowding. Filling 60% of the results with different pages all on the same domain is usually not useful.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...