by Conrad MacIntyre
By Conrad MacIntyre
Our position is that somebody’s making money on this pirated content and it should be possible to identify those people and bring them to justice
Seems like an appropriate time to haul out an oldie, but goodie — my piece on piracy from February 2012.
The question is: will Apple accept [Google's maps app]?
I disagree. The question is: what are we giving up? Maps needs access to some rather important information. Like your address book (Contacts) and location data. This means that Maps can report back to Google routes you use on a regular basis as well as stores and other shopping opportunities nearby. People you know, and things they're into will help Google provide you with eerily specific ad targeting. I just don't know that I want Google to have access to where I am at any given time (when I'm getting directions). I also doubt that I want Google to know who I am friends with, but I require Facebook for my job, so I just assume I've already lost that battle.
Short of the long is this: we are for sale. And the more info Google has about us, the more valuable we are to Google's customers.
More from Paul Sawer:
The latest version of Jelly Bean also lets people add multiple users and switch between them instantly from the lockscreen
Hey Apple, you listening?
Google Now is its “intelligent personal assistant” for Android, an app that uses a natural-language UI to answer questions, make recommendations, and perform other key actions.
Oh, come on!
This is the problem with these self-righteous stands. Time ends all promises, eventually. And the result is extreme hypocrisy even though you’re just doing what your rivals are doing.
Nailed it.
Fraser Speirs on the Nexus 7:
Many reviewers have said that the Nexus 7 made them want Apple to build a 7" iPad. I disagree. The Nexus 7 has made me want a slightly bigger iPhone.
One thing everyone agrees on: it doesn't make them want the device they have in their hands. Telling.
In a statement on Facebook, [Dead Trigger] developer Madfinger Games says that even at $0.99, the piracy rate on Android devices was "unbelievably high."
So high, in fact, that they gave up and made the game free. I'm sure this story will go a long way in helping developers choose Android first, as predicted by Eric Schmidt:
Six months from now you’ll say the opposite. Because ultimately applications vendors are driven by volume. And the volume is favored by the open approach that Google is taking.
That deadline has come and gone. Developers aren't drawn to platform size, but to a sustainable business model. Developers will go where the money is. And it's, apparently, not on Android.
Asa Mathat writing for some publication on Google's recent patent woes:
In attempting to fend off Apple and Microsoft’s suits against Motorola Mobility and advancing its own patent litigation against both companies, Google, which is facing a lot of regulatory scrutiny in the U.S. and abroad over what some allege is abuse of SEPs, has been arguing that proprietary non-standardized technologies that become ubiquitous due to their popularity with consumers should be considered de facto standards.
What Google's doing here is encouraging the filing of more patents. Phantom patents. Companies will need to patent something, anything, whether they ever intend to make it or not just so that if the day should come that they make something needing the technology or process described in the patent they have it in their portfolio, ready to go. If, like Apple, a company values secrecy or showmanship (or both) they will be rendered unable to participate in the tech landscape in that way without filing a bazillionty fake/misleading patents or setting up shell corporations to do the same thing.
In short, Google is promoting patent-trollism.
Jim Dalrymple on Google's recent patent assertions:
So, Let me get this straight. Apple spent billions of dollars researching the best interface for mobile devices and patented their findings. Those methods of interacting with a mobile device became so popular, Google illegally integrated them in its inferior Android operating system.
I was going to comment on this, but Jim nails it. Google knows that they stole Apple's ideas and they are terrified because Apple will win with their recent mother of all patents decision.
MG Siegler on the Google Nexus 7 tablet:
I’m about to do something I don’t do often — something I always said I’d do if the product deserved it. Something some people seem to think I’m incapable of: praise a Google product — an Android-based Google product, no less.
Solid review. This is one of a rare breed of balanced reviews of a tech product that is 1) made by Apple or 2) competes with a product made by Apple. This gives me great hope for the viability of an iPad Mini now that I can clearly see the use-case for a well-made smaller tablet.
The Nexus 7 back plate just doesn't clean; very susceptible to dye. The white model was a terrible idea.
Click on the link and look at the photo. Imagine if the first iPods (or any iPods for that matter) got this disgusting looking after normal use.
Google sent out the following to Chrome Extension Developers via email:
We are updating our ad policies to allow extensions to monetize through ads.
Now, slide over to the Chrome Web Store's 'Popular' section and notice that two of the top seven extensions are "AdBlock" and "Adblock Plus". I wonder if they'll monetize through ads?
AppleInsider reporting that iOS is responsible:
The 65.27 percent share of Apple's iOS platform, which is found on the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch, was up from 62.65 percent in May. Apple's share has steadily risen, growing from a 53 percent position in August of 2011.
Apple's next closest competitor in mobile browsing market is Google's Android platform, which took 19.73 percent in the month of June. Android has also seen its share grow since last August, when it took 15.98 percent of mobile browsers.
Okay, so what? Filter that stat through the lens of this stat and it becomes much more impressive (Joel Mathis, reporting for Macworld):
ComScore’s report, released this week, was based on a survey of 30,000 smartphone subscribers. The company reported that Apple’s iOS platform ranked second to Google’s Android platform—31.9 percent to 50.0 percent, though Apple’s 1.7 percent growth in share from February to May doubled Google’s gain during that time.
Ewan Spence on the strategy for Google's loss-leading Nexus 7:
The Nexus 7 strategy is based around the Google Play store, where apps, music, and media can be purchased and consumed on the new 7 inch tablet. As a launch offer every tablet will come with free credit to spend in the Play Store – once you buy something the hope must be you’ll keep on buying with your own money.
Interesting, but it doesn't really jibe with what is well know about Android's users (Gene Minster, via Apple Insider):
In other words, it appears that Apple has roughly 85-90% market share in dollars spent on mobile applications
Should be interesting to see how this shakes down, but suffice to say that I doubt upsetting your hardware partners to try and make it up in purchases from a customer base that aren't big spenders may not be the best bet.
John Naughton, writing about Apple case against Googorola getting thrown out:
This is a landmark judgment, one of those moments when someone – in this case an eminent judge rather than a small child – points out that the emperor is indeed stark naked. Patent wrangling between technology companies has become both pathological and pointless. It is also a gross abuse of intellectual property law that uses the courts as tools for gaining competitive advantage. The people who should be deciding whether Apple's phones are better – more functional, reliable, easier to use – than Motorola's are consumers, not judges. By striking a blow for common sense in what had become a madhouse, Posner has set a really encouraging precedent.
I agree with the specific example and, furthermore, believe the entire patent system to be horribly flawed. That said, there needs to be a way to stop people (Samsung, I'm looking at you) from blatantly stealing everything Apple does. Like phones, tablets, Siri, and "ultrabooks"(read: MacBook Air Clones). I don't know for sure what that is, but something needs to change.
Killian Bell reports on the new crop of iPad Mini rumors:
iPad mini will feature a 7.85-inch IGZO display from Sharp, and will start at just $249.
With that kind of price tag, the iPad mini is in a perfect position to fend off any threat from the recently released Google Nexus 7, or the upcoming Kindle Fire 2. Sure, it’s $50 more expensive than its $199 competitors, but you can bet you’ll get a lot more bang for your buck.
I'm holding my breath.
Well, when you're wrong, you're wrong. M.G. Seigler:
As for Steve Jobs implying Apple could never do a smaller tablet because users would have to whittle down their fingers to use it — welcome to Steve Jobs and Apple. Jobs saying that was just as good of an indication that Apple may eventually move into the space. And now it sure looks like they’re getting ready to.
There is just too much buzz coming from too many sources to be based on pure speculation at this point. I still feel like Jobs was right about a 7-inch tablet being a "tweener" but I'll surely be playing with one when (if) it comes out.
Emily Price on the new Google Nexus Q:
The Q isn’t on sale just yet, and that’s probably a really good thing. In its current form the software is too buggy to make it worth using at all, much less shelling out $300 for.
If you’re looking for something to stream video, there are other options out there that can get the job done for a lot less money. Some of those competing devices also offer more forms of content — Netflix, Hulu, and Spotify — than the Q can currently handle.
Where do I sign up?
Ben Brooks discussing Google's recent patent application that can scan the background of calls and pictures to serve up more relevant ads:
Yes of course this is just a patent application, but come on this is seriously creepy.
A patent application shows where the company's focus is. Apple's recent patent discovery covers a remote that adapts to the task at hand.
One accompany is trying to benefit consumers, one company is trying to use consumers. I forget which is which.
[E]ven though everyone here makes money off of Android, iPhones and iPads are everywhere.
In a separate article, The Verge confirmed with Rubin that Google’s “activation” numbers include each unique device only once, and don’t count based-on-Android-but-not-using-the-Google-experience devices like the Kindle Fire or Barnes and Noble Nook.
This gives Google's numbers a lot more credibility with me. But why not just state this clearly from the outset? Something about this seems off.
Apple has sold a little over 50 million cumulative iPads to date. Just me or does it seem like you see a lot more than five iPads per Android tablet in the wild?
I have never seen an Android tablet in the wild. Ever.