Schmidt: Google is the 'inverse' of Apple Eric Schmidt likes to say that Google is a fundamentally "open" company, and according to the man himself, this means that Google is the anti-Apple. "With the Apple model — which works extremely well, as I know as a former Apple board member — you have to use their development tools, their platform, their software, their …
If Google is so open why would not it opensource its network tech? Or its new (and quite lousy, the older one was better) ad selection and search algos? Guess not.
It is as closed as Apple and even then some. Apple is at least closed in the simple classic corporate sense. It is not creepy to the point where 1984 looks like optimistic positive thinking poetry.
Open source their search engine? You couldn't possibly be that daft, could you?
Yeah! Google isn't open unless they give their product away for free for their competition to copy! Yeah!
While we're at it, Intel should be forced to share their R&D with AMD or else they aren't "open". Music companies won't be "open" until they endorse file sharing.
Open hasn't lost it's meaning, there are just a lot of people out there using it who aren't all there in the head. Open means freedom and open means choices. It means that for any given application type or purpose, there are at least two options. The example Schmidt gave is a good one. On Google's platforms you can choose between HTML5 or Flash or write your own as far as they care. On Apple's platform you can use one and only one, HTML5. If you don't like it, too bad. That is the opposite of freedom, the opposite of choice, the opposite of open.
Yes, standardization of protocols is a good thing, but only if done (semi) willingly. That's what "do no evil" means. It means they want to prod us in the right direction, but they won't stop you from making bad choices.
They'll try to give you the best choices for search results, but won't force you to choose them and click the links. They'll give you a good platform for mobile computing, but won't force you into a hardware configuration or brand/model. They'll even let you hold the phones in any way you'd like.
And now him, using the ages-old trick of separating companies into two groups, Us vs. Them. Along with the philosophy of The Enemy of Our Enemy is Our Friend with Adobe. This is getting ridiculous, and just like Politics, those at either end of the spectrum is bat-shit crazy and those in the middle end up getting drowned out.
"Open is the new free was the old black" is about the spreading abuse of the meaning of words. However, I see a slight difference in that "free" in English had a long history of having a large number of senses and a wide range of meanings suitable for all sorts of unrelated contexts. In contrast, most of the meanings of "open" and "black" are recent and rather arbitrary extensions, and therefore I regard them as larger semantic abuses.
Get down with it, eh?
While true that their core business model is advertising, which lends itself to a data collection and market analytics mindset, you obviously don't know much about Google if you say they aren't a technology company.
They design their own processors for the millions of servers they run for crying out loud. It's an ARM architecture, sure, but they are as involved in hardware as some component manufacturers.
What is wrong with augmenting humanity? You know what augment means, right?
Augment:
1.) To increase, make larger or supplement;
2.) To slow the tempo or meter, e.g. for a dramatic or stately passage;
3.) To increase an interval by a half step (chromatic semitone);
4.) To increase the largest interval in a triad, especially a fifth or a sixth, by a half-step (chromatic
semitone)
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/augment
Obviously Google isn't writing music, so they're using it as definition number one. What is wrong with supplementing humanity? Anything or anyone who is on a mission to fix our flaws and shortcomings should be lauded. Google is going for the "improved lifestyle" and "improved information access" angle now, but sooner or later it will get more physical. How about a Google mech suit, a la Iron Man without the weapons.
What matters is how best to monetize your ideas. Like, Apple's closed iPhone platform was the obvious choice for mobile app devs wanting to make a fast buck while the shine lasted, but something else was always going to come along and take the shine eventually. You can't choose which brand or platform to monetize with simply based on it's openness. Consumers don't care about openness, they just want the next fad. To make money you have to give the consumers what they want and consumers do not care if its on an open or closed platform. Only the geek minority care about such things.
"You can't choose which brand or platform to monetize with simply based on it's openness. Consumers don't care about openness, they just want the next fad."
That's easy for you to say, since you are obviously sane. You have forgotten that the "free and open" crowd are not sane, and do not want you to monetize anything. Unless you're Redhat, for some reason.
"Only the geek minority care about such things."
In fact it's actually a (vocal) minority of the geek minority, grown up sensible people just care if shit works the way it is supposed to, and don't mind paying for things.
There also seems to be a growing minority of actual consumers (the gen Y entitle-tards) who insist on banging the "FREE! OPEN!" drum without actually having a solid understanding of what any of it means. Mostly they just like free stuff - because the internet teaches them that everything is free - and they genuinely don't appear to understand that big corps exist for the single reason of making cash.
Google - who as was pointed out above are first and foremost a marketing shop - know this, and it is most likely this demograph as well the more ill informed of the geek boys that they are targeting with all their cheerleading of their ill defines (and illusory) openness.
Android for instance is open to precisely one group of people. Cell carriers. And yet the droid fanbois exist in droves, all singing from the "Google is open" hymn sheet. And these people call out Apple users for being sheep. Curious.
> In fact it's actually a (vocal) minority of the geek minority,
> grown up sensible people just care if shit works the way
> it is supposed to, and don't mind paying for things.
Yes. This includes simple nonsense like saving things, printing things, moving them around, decoding whatever I happen to have, viewing any website or putting a single album on a PMP.
The Apple fanboys are desperately trying to redefine the term "geek".
Not getting in my way when I want to do something is a very key element of "shit working the way it's supposed to".
Installing VLC on a Mac does not make you a geek.
"Android for instance is open to precisely one group of people. Cell carriers."
Yeah, but don't tell that to the app developers and the hardware manufacturers who are all making netbook and tablet hardware running Android. They're all just being conned and don't know it yet. Android is only for cell phones.
/sarcasm for those without any English comprehension skills.
If the age of DOS taught us anything it's that consumers are not free to pick up the next fad without openness. Closed systems trap customers and prevent them from using the next fad.
This is why MacOS was such a smashing success all these decades. [/sarcasm]
Sadly you are probably right :(
However, I still try to educate friends (and anyone who will listen) about the implications of their choices in terms of who "owns" their digital future, and why data sovereignty and open standards will eventually matter to them both for the freedom to choose, and the resulting costs.
That's the thing, openness is what allows them to catch the next fad.
What is the next fad is some app that doesn't pass the Apple test to get on the platform? Then Apple and everyone who bought in to their app development fails. When your platform is open, you're guaranteed to have access to the next fad, instead of just having a chance of it being placed within your walled garden.
I think Schmidt uses the term 'open' in the sense of 'not locked down'... 'open house' style.
I don't think he's ever used it (and nor should he) in the sense of 'transparent' or 'everything is visible to the public'. Google's inner workings are trade secrets with enormous monetary value. Those are never going to be public information, and nor should they be.
But it doesn't detract from the other type of 'openness'.
Google are not open, they are a "data rape" company first and foremost.
Everyone who uses their products from searches to mail to apps (probably Android as well), is "used" in whatever way they can data pimp you. So they make advertising revenue.
Or maybe he just means they are honest that they "data rape" you, where as Apple are not as open?
Open as in "you are not locked down, and can decide your self". It's core money making business system are not open, but otherwise Google is pretty much open.
Apple one the other hand is total lock you in. If Steve wants you pray to him 10 times a day, and throw money to his general direction, or even jump down the tall building, you have no choice but do what he says, if you are in the Apple "happy camp".
"Apple one the other hand is total lock you in. If Steve wants you pray to him 10 times a day, and throw money to his general direction, or even jump down the tall building, you have no choice but do what he says, if you are in the Apple "happy camp"."
Are you not clever enough make a coherent argument without the bullsh!t hyperbole? Or is it that your "argument" doesn't stack up without it? I use Apple kit and have encountered NO restrictions that prevent me from doing what I want with it, ever. You bet I'm happy with that.
Try removing Internet Explorer from your Windoze box next time you're bored, eh?
Please forgive Google for not caring enough to test their code with a browser that makes up less than 5% of the population. Probably less than 1% too, but I'm too lazy to look up the exact number.
Honestly I wouldn't expect Google to support a browser with less % than Chrome. It's just a bad business decision. That'd be like Chevy offering to do free maintenance on Hondas. Just doesn't make sense.
When I read the term "augmented version of humanity" all I can see is that scene in the Matrix, where Neo wakes up in the real world, comes out of the battery pod and sees all the millions of other humans in their pods
I fear the real inner workings of Google's search machine are in fact powered from the assimilated minds and bodies of thousands and thousands of humans, all linked up to the internet. And we'll all happily let them jack that plug into the back of necks because they'll tell us that it's okay, they've used open technology to build it
Pick your software/service, pay the price (privacy/money). Why do people get upset when companies make money out of them? If you want something you will pay for it some way or another. "Open" is just another way of saying, we know how to get money out of this some other way.
The varying degrees of Open/Free/Closed that exist are only different by the amount of value they provide.
If the inner workings of search were completely open, then their search engine would be useless. The first few pages of any query would be full of spam due to SEO people gaming the system.
If the core Android apps were open source (gmail, browser), then you could be encouraged to install themed, gimmicky derivatives that would look out for credit card details, etc. and forward them on transparently to scammers.
Just common sense, really.
"Trying to do your day to day on an iPad is like living in North Korea."
... is precisely why you aren't supposed to.
And I don't about you, but I'm pretty sure my iPad isn't starving its citizens to death, trying to develop nuclear weapons or torpedoing foreign shipping in blatant acts of war. YMMV, apparently.
hear hear I agree.
It seems to only be the last 20 years or so that for some reason we don't just care about the product, buut somehow need to have our value system mirrored in the bloke that owns the company or 'the company values'... I mean WTF is that about ?
'company values' is such a nonsense 90s+ phrase anyway.
When did it become the norm to anthropomorphize companies. It's just madness.
Back when Apple were Motorola-based there was a joke that went "Using a Mac is like shaving with a bowling pin. Using Windows is like juggling with razors."
That's still basically true - the Apple philosophy is to close things up in order to ensure security and reliability. It's not perfect, of course, but it is a significant safeguard against the kind of instability Windows is famous for. The problem is, preventing rogue programs from taking the system down means preventing some things that the user actually wants.
The open philosophy says that if you point a gun at your foot and pull the trigger, it will shoot you. It is therefore your responsibility to know what you're aiming your gun at before pulling the trigger.
Apple's philosophy is perfect for the 99% of people who just want to browse the web, read emails and write documents. The 1% of people who actually know what they're doing on a computer should use a more open system.
Notice that this leaves 0% of the market for Windows, which is a closed system without any of the protection Apple gives. Sorry Micro$oft.
> Apple's philosophy is perfect for the 99% of people
> who just want to browse the web, read emails and
> write documents.
...except proper Macs still retain the ability to blow your foot off. It's functionality that is very easy to get too. The system isn't restricted at all.
Yet despite of all of this, Macs were allegedly perfectly suitable for the n00b consumer (at least until before the iPad came along).
This is because the Unix foundation that MacOS is built on is not prone on doing stupid things and neither is the shiny happy user facing part. Don't be an idiot is a sufficient guiding principle. You don't have to lock things down and treat people like babies.
This new Apple fanboy idea that 99% of people are too stupid to use a Mac or similar systems like it should deeply offend just about everyone.
In hardware, software and firmware models there ain't no "Open" and "Closed" stuff and to think so is oxymoronic.
All that exists is slightly more closed/less open and slightly less closed/more open.
To extend to Open/Closed as binary-like alternatives is an extrapolation far too far (so there!)
It is more along lines of NNW or NW rather than E or W (so double there!) :-)
You must be one of the fanboy. What part of your brain doesn't understand you get shafted by Steve every time you buy/use one of iCrap?
Can you use iphone without iTune? Can you just drag and drop some songs to you ipod without some extra software? Can you keep what ever the file name you wanted (why mypm3.mp3 must be changed to xyzw.m4a once it was "transfered" to ipod)? Why would you feel great even you cannot use the product you paid by your own hard earned money, they way you wanted? Can you buy/install app to your crap phone/pad without itune?
Apple can brick your phone if you jail break it. I can root my phone, google won't give a damn one way or other.
Everything google does, is open (as you have choice). You can google search from any browser. If you use gmail, you can access from any browser.
AND, in what universe would I need to remove IE from Linux?
Is your IQ double digit yet?
"Apple's philosophy is perfect for the 99% of people who just want to browse the web, read emails and write documents. The 1% of people who actually know what they're doing on a computer should use a more open system."
Or just fire up terminal on their Apple and use it's BSD underpinnings...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
