

Ask HN: Are we too lenient on Google and Apple? - dnsworks

It seems to me that the geek hoi polloi would be up in arms over the shenanigans that Apple and Google have been pulling over the last year if they were Microsoft. Apple's monopolistic practices over iPhone applications and clone makers for example. Also Google's privacy invasions including Eric Schmidt's dismissal of the notion that people have a right to privacy.<p>Do we cut Apple and Google far too much slack just because they have cooler products than and are not Microsoft?
======
docgnome
Some of us don't cut Apple any more slack. I am rather tired of the free pass
they seem to get from others. They are probably worse than MS in terms of
vendor lock-in but just don't have a large enough market share to bully people
around.

~~~
slyn
"They are probably worse than MS in terms of vendor lock-in but just don't
have a large enough market share to bully people around."

?

In the past couple years they created a cross platform multi-vendor open
standard for GPU computing, they took a big risk by launching the iPhone
without support for flash and have continued to be basically the only major
company giving adobe any pressure to improve its shit-tastic platform, they
have (granted extremely slowly) improved their iPhone development program from
basically non-existant to acceptable in a sadistic way (and if the trend
continues it might actually be good within a year or two), they mostly got rid
of DRM from iTunes, and most recently they opened up their SDK for making the
iTunes LP things (which will likely be of importance when (if ever) the
iTablet/iSlate comes out).

The only two (somewhat related) things Apple does that I would classify as
vendor lock-in are 1: XCode, and therefore OS X, is required for iPhone
development, and 2: You need a Mac to run OS X. I would consider these to be
more of an issue if Apple preemptively put a stop to #2 through activation
checks or some WGA-esque program, but they don't. As long as you aren't going
around selling preinstalled copies of OS X on non-Apple hardware, Apple could
seemingly care less.

Microsoft in recent history hasn't been bad either, they still have WGA, and
there was the whole OOXML thing, but other than those two things I can't think
of anything they have done that has caused an e-uproar. Personally I would put
the two (Apple and MS) roughly equal to each other in terms of Evil.

~~~
Niten
"The only two (somewhat related) things Apple does that I would classify as
vendor lock-in are 1: XCode, and therefore OS X, is required for iPhone
development, and 2: You need a Mac to run OS X."

What about the fact that they actively sabotage efforts to make the iPod work
with music library managers other than iTunes, or to make iTunes work with MP3
players other than the iPod?

~~~
philwelch
A lot of this is overplayed. You use a security flaw in iTunes/iPod/iPhone to
connect to it, Apple closes the security flaw. Apple decides to change how any
of these components interface to each other, third party stuff stops working.

Frankly, I would be very surprised if Apple cared at all about things like
gtkpod working or not. There is some simplification of effort involved when
Apple assumes that iTunes and iPod are an integrated system that doesn't need
to talk to anything else, and if you don't want to buy into that ecosystem
there are tons of viable competitors. Deliberately positioning your products
as a closed system is fine. Apple has better things to do than worry about
backwards compatibility with iTunes/iPod external API's.

------
mechanical_fish
The word "monopoly" is often abused. Neither Apple nor Google have one. There
are other phones than the iPhone. There are other MP3 players than the iPod.
There are other computers than Macs. There are even other search engines than
Google, as Microsoft will be happy to tell you.

Things were different back in the old days. One reason why people seem so much
more relaxed about things is that the alternatives are so much easier to find
than they used to be.

~~~
Tichy
Alternative search engines don't help much when you need traffic to your web
site. Alternative MP3 players don't help much when you want to sell mobile
apps. (Note: I don't like the "monopoly" cries either).

~~~
MikeCapone
The difference between Google, for example, and Microsoft is that if Google
start doing horrible things, people can switch their homepage pretty quickly.
Switching OS is very very very very hard for the average computer user.

------
ThinkWriteMute
_Eric Schmidt's dismissal of the notion that people have a right to privacy._

Wow, started out with word twisting, now it's up to out right lying about what
he said? That's impressive.

~~~
dnsworks
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't
be doing it in the first place" -- Eric Schmidt, 12/2009

~~~
litewulf
Have you seen the full quote?

"I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to
know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. If you really need
that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines–including Google–do
retain this information for some time and it’s important, for example, that we
are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible
that all that information could be made available to the authorities."

In this context, and not in the pull-quote part everyone loves, I think his
meaning is quite clear. Your expectation of privacy is flawed because of the
legal system you (probably) operate within. I'm trying to imagine what you
want him to say: "We think privacy is important so we ignore federal laws for
geek cred WHOOO". Does that seem like a prudent thing to say as the CEO of a
major American firm?

~~~
credo
No law compels Google to retain user information.

It is misleading to suggest that Google isn't deliberately retaining
information and that it is just trying to comply with the law. The law only
states (in some circumstances) that any "retained" information must be
provided to the govt

~~~
ThinkWriteMute
Which has what to do with the out of context quote?

I've seen this fifty times now:

"Google says no one can have privacy!" "No, that's not what he said. He said
not to use public things if you want to remain private." "Well then Google
shouldn't retain user information!" "OK, but what does that have to do with
you making misleading comments about what he said?" "-1"

~~~
credo
what is misleading about what I said ?

please answer that without making up any quotes.

------
GHFigs
This may surprise you, but there are intelligent and rational people who
aren't personally offended by the same things you are.

------
MikeCapone
I think it's pretty clear why geeks tend to go easier on them: they make good
products.

When Google and Apple start making products that are on par with Microsoft
products, I'm pretty sure they'll be just as reviled.

------
almost
There is usually at least one comment putting forward this idea for every
story about Apple or Google and I wouldn't say it's particularly
controversial. "we" are a collection of people, many of us with differing
ideas on many subjects.

------
jsz0
Microsoft does basically all the same things but doesn't provide me with any
upside like Google & Apple. The Xbox/Zune are locked down walled gardens like
the iPhone. Microsoft has had a history with DRM-ed audio files just like
Apple. Windows is commercial software with an EULA/TOS attached to it just
like OSX. If Bing gets a subpoena for user information they'll comply because
it's the law. Personally I don't feel like Google, Apple or Microsoft have
ever invaded my privacy. So yeah, all things being equal of course I'm going
with the company that does provide me a better product/service.

------
blhack
_Also Google's privacy invasions including Eric Schmidt's dismissal of the
notion that people have a right to privacy._

I'm sorry, but I understood his comment on this to mean "You can't put stuff
on a server you don't own without...putting stuff on a server you don't own".

I wouldn't lump Google in with Apple at all...google, at least to me, still
isn't doing any evil. Apple on the other hand leaves me speechless.

~~~
dnsworks
Everything is on a server in Google's world. They're even giving out free
operating systems with the expectation that all of your data will end up
residing on their servers anyways.

~~~
GHFigs
You're handwaving the part where this is presumed to be bad.

It may seem obvious to you, but it isn't to everyone, and the process of
explaining why exactly you think that is probably more useful than asking
people to be more upset about it. Why is having all of my data on Google's
servers bad? I keep all of my money in a bank without trouble, and that would
seem to be at least as important as my data. What makes Google evil?

~~~
dnsworks
What if I told you that your bank gave detailed descriptions of your
purchasing activities to the federal government, while simultaneously selling
that data to the advertising agencies who represent the companies you do
business with? Would you find that to be evil? Because in both cases, it's
true.

~~~
rapind
I thought they fought the first point in court, and you didn't mention that
the data selling is anonymous. Seems like a pretty conscientious way to do
evil...

------
eplanit
Back in the 1990s, I remember a phrase that circulated. It's memorable because
at the time it rang so incredibly true. It was a remark about how the market
and industry regarded the Titan Microsoft, and went: "Whenever Bill Gates
throws a dart at a wall, everyone races to the wall to paint a target around
that dart". Yes, M$ had gained such stature, and Bill such celebrity, that
many a blind eye was turned toward their technology, marketing practices, and
other less-than-wonderful aspects.

Today, Google (peer'd by Apple) is the new Microsoft (IBM is the new General
Motors, but that's a different topic). And yes, everyone again seems to be
racing to draw targets around the arrows they've shot.

It's not amazing (though bitterly disappointing) to see consumers accept
limits from vendors: changes in rules of 'ownership', accepting lock-in with
cell carriers, etc....but it _is_ amazing to me how developers accept (and
even embrace) Apple's re-definition of software development and platform
control. Maybe it's a generational thing -- but, a _vendor_ decides if you get
to write/sell software?!!?

------
sker
Not only that, but anything released by Apple or Google is omg awesome and
fantastic, and anything released by Microsoft is another me-too product, no
matter how innovative it actually is.

~~~
panic
What innovative products has Microsoft released recently?

~~~
vorador
Songsmith, Surface.

------
ErrantX
As someone who never "hated" MS in the first place I am amused to see the
recent spate of anti-Google posting.

I think... people have fads and at the moment Google is getting to be on
certain individuals radars. I have to say I will just continue using products
I think are cool and useful and keep an eye on their practices (without
getting too excitable about certain, umm, things).

------
gcaprio
Ironically, I just blogged about this, except with FB in the place of Google:
[http://blog.1530technologies.com/2009/12/where-is-the-
disgus...](http://blog.1530technologies.com/2009/12/where-is-the-disgust-for-
facebook-google.html)

I remain confident that a portion of the success of Google has come from the
fact that they came along at the peak of anti-MS fever in the industry. People
were yearning for someone other than MS and jumpped on to Googles wagon and
haven't looked back. Everything Google does is spun as the ultimate good. Even
though if MS launched hotmail and had the phrase 'scanning the users email to
tailor ads', people would have erupted.

------
Semiapies
Weird: I see a lot of complaining about - and outright accusations toward -
Google on HN. Every ad-scammer's complaint about Google not directing half the
internet to look at eir site (much less booting them off of AdSense) gets
taken remarkably seriously and sympathetically here. Every conspiracy theory
gets lot of attention.

------
zitterbewegung
I think people tend to associate slack with quality. If a product is better
than the average then people will tend to give it more slack. But this isn't
uniform to everyone. Not everyone will give a value greater than zero for the
slack.

------
csomar
This community is Anti-MS (not all, but many); so you'll find a lot here that
hates Microsoft and loves Google.

~~~
Tichy
But MS is the underdog now...

------
drhowarddrfine
"Google's privacy invasions..."

Could I have a list, with details, of these privacy invasions?

"the shenanigans that Apple and Google have been pulling"

Is that your opinion or fact? Were they mis-steps, mistakes or shenanigans?

Are you bringing these popular topics up because you read about all this on
forums or do you have facts?

