
Google vs iPhone and Facebook - brilliant
http://scripting.com/stories/2010/08/04/googleVsIphone.html
======
mattparcher
“I was disappointed that the iPhone wasn’t... a phone that ran Mac software.”

What? I admire Dave Winer’s idealism, but really?! Would anyone else enjoy
using the full Mac OS X interface on the iPhone? (Ignoring the iPhone’s
performance and power limitations, which negate this possibility.)

Does he _really_ want a phone to run applications that were designed for
_much_ larger screens, with mice and keyboards?

If you know how to write a Mac app, it’s not a terrible leap to write an
iPhone app. If you want compatibility with Mac apps, look for iPhone apps like
OmniFocus, Things, &c. that have been retooled for a mobile use case. If
anything, the iPad comes closest in this regard, with some of it’s near-
desktop-class apps, e.g. iWork, OmniGraphSketcher, OmniFocus, OmniGraffle, &c.

~~~
earcar
Exactly. The touch paradigm is completely different than the mouse and
keyboard one, phone usage patterns are completely different than that of a
Mac, the distance from the screen is different, proportions are all
different... Imagine looking at a Mac application, that has to be displayed in
ultra high resolution in a small phone, in direct sun or while running and
trying to click that 3x3 millimeters button to close the window.

An application's phone interface has to be different than the desktop one, and
since there is no programmatic way to adapt the desktop interface to the
phone, it has to be rethought and then reimplemented.

------
mikecane
The thing about Google is that it is like a hyperactive child who can't
concentrate. NOTHING ever gets FINISHED.

1) Why can't I delete ALL spam in GMail at once? 2) Why do the numbers for my
Bookshelves in Google Books disappear? 3) Why bother to OCR tons of books if
you have no intention of cleaning up all the errors?

Those are just three that hit me personally.

But it makes me wonder what a mess the long-delayed and ever-upcoming Google
Editions will be like -- which independent bookstores all think will save them
from being wiped out by eBooks.

~~~
auxbuss
Re: 1: Go to the Spam folder and click the Delete All Spam link.

~~~
mikecane
Thanks for the help -- but that link must only exist for advanced GMail. I use
the HTML version because it is wicked fast on my PC and there is nothing like
that I've ever seen.

~~~
mikecane
I see the downvotes. Unfortunately, I have no spam at this time so a
screensnap would be useless because people would say the option shows up only
when there is spam. What a time not to have spam!

~~~
dablya
I can't speak for the people that downvoted you, but I found your use of
"advanced" a bit off... According to google what you call advance is standard
and html only is basic. So, you're missing some features in the basic version,
and use that as your primary argument for google not being able to finishing
anything...

------
AlexMuir
"It's as if Google, not knowing who is winning the war, is fighting it
everywhere, just in case it turns out that's where the true enemy is hiding."

That's a great quote. It seems that once a company becomes undisputed champion
of a particular area they redeploy their resources trying to find something
else to dominate.

Eg Microsoft nailed the desktop, then went chasing the Internet and mobile.
FAIL

Aol had a good grip on Internet access, then went to become a destination
site, or content generator. FAIL

Google dominate search and advertising, now going for mobile, desktop
(chrome), social. ONGOING

Facebook own social networking - where is their folly going to be? Fb credits?

Any other examples?

~~~
ergo98
>That's a great quote. It seems that once a company becomes undisputed
champion of a particular area they redeploy their resources trying to find
something else to dominate.

Or they realize that their domination is fragile.

Google worried about the mobile space because it was an area where they could
be cut entirely out if one commercial interest dominated, even if their
product was what users wanted, had the best features, whatever. With Android
it's notable that it's _intentionally_ a very "fragmented" ecosystem, and the
reality is that any of the vendors have the full right to pull Google hooks
right out of the product if they so desired.

One company dominating mobile is a threat to their search business in a way
that could completely undermine their entire business model, especially as the
mobile space continues to gain relevance. Note that Android did originally
target the RIM ecosystem as the original indications were that RIM would
dominate.

Google worries about social media in the same way: To a lot of people Facebook
is, sadly, becoming "the net". Businesses, from big to small, advertise their
Facebook page more than even their own websites. People email and message on
Facebook, game, read and post reviews, and so on.

It is a serious threat to search, which of course means it's a threat to
advertising: Google's model is built around a long-tail, very distributed web,
and Facebook is completely turning that upside down.

I think Google has far less interest in dominating these areas than they want
to simply shake things up to avoid anyone else dominating.

~~~
AlexMuir
I don't think mobile search/advertising threatens web search - it's a new
industry. People aren't going to search less on their PC because they have a
phone that allows them to search. Google moved into mobile because they wanted
that additional opportunity, not because their old one was shrinking.

Likewise with Facebook - though the threat there is that more people sitting
on Facebook = less people looking at Google ads.

I think there's a difference between a threat to existing dominance and a
threat to future opportunity.

~~~
ergo98
>I don't think mobile search/advertising threatens web search - it's a new
industry

I imagine someone in the buggy whip industry said that when cars started to
hit the road. A more adept business mind would have probably try to adapt
their business for the obvious future.

Mobile devices are getting more powerful and more usable. Google is a hundred-
plus-billion dollar company built around search. The landscape of how people
search is changing. Of course they need to pay very close attention to it, not
for today but for tomorrow. Voice search on mobile devices is brilliant, as an
aside.

>I think there's a difference between a threat to existing dominance and a
threat to future opportunity.

Indeed, when you're a small company that's the general thought process. Google
is a very large, very successful company. They don't want to be AOL or MySpace
or Excite@Home. They want to continue to be successful by adapting to the
world, and ensuring that the world adapts with them. Their Android initiative
has no hope of ever making them any more than rounding figures on their
balance sheet, but it does ensure that they remain engaged in search and
mobile advertising.

It's interesting that you mentioned Microsoft because almost everything
Microsoft does can be tracked back to concern about Windows and/or Office.
Microsoft got into gaming not because they saw it as a lucrative opportunity
(they've been pissing away billions on it), but because gaming and convergence
represented a beachhead that could upset their domination of the home. It goes
on and on and on.

------
csomar
> This would be a late-but-interesting zig to Apple's zag, esp if (shudder)
> they open sourced Windows. Don't worry, it'll never happen.)

I wonder why people want MS windows to be Open Source. Actually, it's very
flexible and customizable from top to bottom. I don't have an idea about
Windows Mobile, but the fact that HTC has integrated their HTC sens in it,
means that it has a great degree of flexibility.

I wonder why do you want Windows to be Open Source when you can pretty much
customize anything.

------
ergo98
"Apple has never tried to lock-out their competitors, they've never designed
their product strategies for market share."

This statement is absolutely crazy insane.

Of course Apple design their product strategies for market share. EVERYTHING
about how the iPhone was delivered to the advertisement to the application
model is built specifically for building market share, and locking it in,
building a network effect where it replicates even against alternatives. While
people like to conveniently pretend that the Apple/AT&T relationship is some
sort of anchor around Apple's feet, in reality it is the reason the iPhone
shot to dominance so quickly, AT&T going all in on the iPhone, putting
tremendous muscle (and nationwide coverage) behind a single device in a manner
never before seen. Even Verizon's laggardly response was nowhere near as
committed.

The iPod, iTunes, the iPad -- it's all about marketshare and lock in, and it
has served Apple quite well, making it the largest most valuable tech company
in the world.

I'm finding many of these "of course Android was going to overtake the iPhone"
articles extremely curious. 6 months ago there was no "of course". One year
ago, a very large portion of the tech industry was singing a very, very
different tune, chuckling publicly about the futile efforts of the awkward
upstart. While I suppose you need to adapt with the changing reality though,
please don't insult everyone by revising the past.

~~~
easyfrag
I think he meant "dominant" market share, of course a new product needs a plan
to create and/or take market share. But Apple (under Jobs anyway) is much more
interested in profit share, nowadays they own maybe 5-10% of the computer
market but their profit/unit dwarfs any other manufacturer.

On the lock-in I'm with you, but I do think the whole iTunes store/Fairplay
was a happy accident that the music companies forced Apple to do. The music
companies inadvertently helped Apple lock consumers into the iP*d platform,
Apple leveraged it for the app store that pundits/developers were demanding
(remember when iPhone first came out and the outrage about having to use web
apps?)

~~~
ergo98
>But Apple (under Jobs anyway) is much more interested in profit share

Microsoft blazed a trail of both incredible profit margins _and_ dominant
market shares. I have absolutely no doubt that Apple was dreaming of the same
scenario.

I do think there is a bit of lost perspective in all of this. Just a mere six
months ago when people discussed Android desperately clawing for a slice of
marketshare, universally there were comments that everyone everybody knows
owns an iPhone, and no one owns an Android device. Effectively there was a
short period where the iPhone absolutely owned the smartphone arena (I simply
ignore RIM phones as generally they're work provided, or they're purely used
as messaging phones, neither of which really qualifies). Major organizations
were turning significant focus on iPhone applications: If you didn't have an
iPhone, you were simply a second class citizen. Case in point -- CIBC here in
Canada that spend millions of dollars advertising their iPhone application,
while their terrible mobile web site withered.

------
drivebyacct2
Cheap punches at Android's flashiness with no details or actual complaints?
Check. Endorsing Apple's review policy for magically making apps better, which
is of course silly. Check. Refusing to understand that companies make money on
OSS and that Google even competeing with Facebook is better than sitting there
allowing them to grow as an advertising competitor. Check.

Why did I read this article?

