Google CEO resigns from Apple’s board Hrush
Apple announced today that Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, will be stepping down from Apple’s board. This is a welcome announcement as it is well past time for Schmidt to go. Schmidt joined Apple’s board back in 2006, at a time when Apple and Google didn’t compete at all.
Today Apple and Google compete in multiple arenas:
- Safari vs. Chrome Browser
- iWork.com vs. Google Docs
- iPhone vs. Android
- Mac OS X vs. Chrome OS
- MobileMe vs. Goog whatever
We’ve long known that Schmidt recused himself from all iPhone related discussions during Apple’s board meetings. Given the list above, it’s hard to imagine that Schmidt didn’t have to scurry out the boardroom every two minutes.
Personally, I’ve been expecting this announcement for some time now. I believe, however, that competition is just one of many factors that lead to this announcement.
Apple and Google have completely opposing philosophies. Apple makes products that consumers line up to shell out cash for; Google makes products that only a sliver of consumers would ever be willing to pay for.
In other words, Apple makes top-notch products that people open their wallets wide for. Google makes stuff that no one will ever, ever, pay for (except with their privacy) and charges third parties (advertisers) instead of consumers.
Google’s customers are advertisers; everyone else is just a user. Apple’s customers are people that happily pay Apple to purchase and use their products.
These are not just opposing paradigms, they’re conflicting paradigms because Apple actually puts their users first so they can sell more products. Google, on the other hand, just about pretends to care about users so they can sell more advertisements.
Apple puts users first? Say what? On which planet? When they remove Google Voice apps from their store? When they decide what you get to run on hardware you’ve bought? They do make pretty hardware and software but let’s not pretend that they give any more of a damn that any other large corporation…
I think you are being very condescending of Google. You cannot disagree that the Google Voice app thing must have been the tipping point, like Gautam said above. Apple has been trigger-happy with third-party apps on the store – is that caring about users, or themselves?
Apple and Google just have very different business models – and they are not conflicting. Google generally believes in giving stuff out for free (some of their services are paid even for end users), while Apple believes in charging users. Apple’s is a more traditional industrial-age business model, while Google has been very successful in innovating in today’s era. Successful enough for sure. There’s no right or wrong.
I don’t think Google just pretends to care about users. Their business model _depends_ on caring about users. If they don’t care about their users, they stop earning money pretty directly. Both of them have to put their users first, irrespective of their business model.
It’s commendable that they are still able to stick to their guns about putting users first in these recessionary times. Not many companies can claim to do so. Definitely doesn’t reflect badly on Google!
Now that’s taking fanboyism a bit too far, IMO. Consumers line up to pay cash for the products, sure. And they line up again when they come out with an upgrade, and you need to dump your existing, perfectly good computer to switch from 10.3 to 10.4 of the operating system. And you can’t upgrade your browser from version 1 to 2 until you upgrade your OS to 10.4. They sure love their customers, they do. They _are_ a gullible lot.
gautam–I’m not saying Apple’s running the AppStore perfectly as there seem to be a ton of things they can improve, but I think it’s useful to keep in mind that the iPhone and the AppStore are the first of their kind. Never before in the history of mobile telephony has the balance of power shifted from the telcos to developers and users.
Given the newness of this model, I believe having applications approved before they go on sale is the right approach. There are just too many risks otherwise–buggy apps that crash phones, malicious apps that take over phones and networks or insecure apps that compromise your phone and data. Who would you blame if an app you installed caused your phone to stop working? That’s right, you’d blame Apple.
Rakesh–it’s simply naive to think that the Google Voice incident is the "tipping point," you mustn’t have heard that the FTC is conducting an investigation into possible collusion between Google and Apple because of their boards’ compositions.
Joseph–I’ve used Apple’s computers for over two decades now and can honestly say that I run most of them into the ground. I have a 7-year old Titanium PowerBook that runs perfectly. In fact, I’ve almost never felt any pressure to "dump my perfectly good computer" as most OS updates have been backwardly compatible. Also, Safari 4 runs on 10.4 and 10.5. If you’re still running Safari 1, then it probably *is* time for you to upgrade…
Yes, there is a difference — it’s called different business models.
Just because Google wants to give out products for free and charge advertisers doesn’t mean it doesn’t put users first. If users didn’t find value in Google’s product offerings Yahoo & AOL would still be the kings of Internet.
On a separate note, I can bet a very large number of people will be willing to pay for GMail even if they made it paid.
Hrush, my sister uses the Mac I was talking about. It runs OSX 10.3.9… and that’s as far as it goes. It comes with Safari 1.something, and she can’t upgrade it without buying a new OS, which her computer won’t support, she was told. And you’re right, there’s definitely a lot of life left in the one she has. It isn’t like she doesn’t have other options in browsers, but she’s a fangirl
I’m no Microsoft fan, but they get flak for not _forcing_ users to upgrade to IE8. Apple not allowing their users to upgrade a free product seems a bigger crime.
On the other hand, Google does make some crap products… but they’re all free. Take their best product so far, free Gmail vs a $99/year .mac mail? Really? People actually line up to pay for that? I’ve never seen it in action… but it must be one hell of a killer product if it’s worth that much.
Joseph–your sister sounds like she’s using a PowerPC based machine, that’s something Apple moved away from when they switched from PowerPC chips to Intel chips.
Most software manufacturers will stop supporting older architectures after a certain time period, especially when there is major change to underlying hardware architecture.
My guess is that people pay for MobileMe because it lets you sync *all* your computers and iPhones/iPod Touches seamlessly over the air. Email is just one of the features of MobileMe’s offerings and certainly not the most compelling.
What I was getting at is that Apple has a knack for making stuff that people are willing to pay for. Google has no clue how to make anything that people are willing to pay for. Eventually, the two paradigms were bound to conflict and, today, they did.
"Google, on the other hand, just about pretends to care about users so they can sell more advertisements."
Coming up with products like Chrome, Adnroid and now OS – all targeted for a better "web" experience instead of antique methodologies, Google definitely cares about users’ online experience.
biased opinions are biased
Shabeer Naha–you’ve just underscored the point. The only reason they created Chrome and Android was so that they could sell more ads.
And what’s wrong with selling ads? Thats their killer product, or service if you will.
I haven’t seen many firsts from Apple. They tend to get 80% of the product right, market it in the most brilliant manner and walk away with a killing.
The one FIRST that I can credit them for – first time you could buy an MP3 player with a (pretty crap) rechargeable battery without being able to actually change that battery once it was at end of life.
I don’t expect Apple moved hardware architecture because it was ‘better for the users’. They had access to that same architecture for a good 10 years already – did they just stumbled upon something entirely new that no one knew before which made it ‘better for the users’?
Apple does not make top notch products – Apple does sell a top notch story. Everything from the ground up is driven by marketing – built to sell, not built to be the best.
Anyone who’s ever used the iPhone for more than 3 days will tell you its largely useless as a phone – it’s harder to type on than other touch screen phones (even Samsung phones have better typing facilities) and the earliest versions couldn’t do simple things like Forward an SMS – imagine missing out on these key points if you’re so damn concerned about usability. BUT, the iPhone is an amazingly cool gadget.
The features are not unique to it – several other digital devices play music, video, display images, have a calendar, some games thrown in, etc. So what makes it cool – the UI.
The one thing Apple did innovate on was how users interacted with their digital device. That’s what sold the original iPod – that damn circular navigation system. Its not the easiest to use – Microsoft beat them to that with the trackpad on Zune – but it is damn cool. It looks cool – it feels cool.
Their laptops and desktops are routinely inexplicably expensive for the hardware they pack in. Their OS doesn’t come cheap either. Applications for their OS are hard to find and I haven’t seen Apple lift a finger to improve that situation (consider the Microsoft Developer Programme over the years) – who gives a fig about what apps are available when we make the coolest looking OS and throw a pretty hardware shell around it? Why, possibly users do. Ummm..
So if Apple REALLY put their users ahead of commercial considerations, they should be in the business of developing the finest audio video player, finest phone, finest user experience on computers, and so on. Which plainly is not a viable business to be in.
So Apple, I surmise, is hanging their products on the thin thread of cool. They are in the business of defining cool, being it and then selling it. They are in the business of selling the most desirable product available, not the best product available. Infact, they could sell dish washing soap if they wanted to – their products and services are merely are incidental to their business model.
Coming back to Google, there’s nothing wrong in selling advertising. Everyone needs it – the advertisers, the publishers, even the advertisees (if I may call me that). They make advertising more relevant – they even put the traditional arbitrary pricing of advertising to the acid test by opening it up to the market WITHOUT a floor price! Took a lot of guts to float that I may tell you – just try going to a bank and saying hey, let your customers decide the interest rate that they should pay on the loan, or going to a telecom company and saying, Hey let your customers decide how much they should pay for their phone calls.
Google turned an entire industry topsy turvy with a single ground-breaking product. Why should they be concerned more with users than their advertisers? All business logic dictates that Google should care sufficiently about users to the extent that drives business value for them i.e. increases the possibility of driving ad revenues to that user base. So put out a relatively better email experience, garner a bunch of users, and publish ads to them.
Whats funny in this logic is that Google is required to put their users ahead of advertisers so that the user experience is ahead of what competition can offer. If Google cared more about the ads you would see them charge a million dollars for a site capture on their SE homepage. Quite unlike an Apple who happily co-brands their iPod with the likes of U2.
Google does not claim to be the best at anything. Clearly, they do not pretend to be putting their users ahead of all other considerations. But I do see Apple and Apple-fanboys singing that BEST tune and pretending to give a damn about their users. Hah, humbug!
*phew*
Dhruv–here’s a very brief list of firsts from Apple:
* first personal computer
* first color monitor
* first computer to come with a Floppy Disk Drive
* first mouse
* first point and click user interface ever shipped
* first speech technology
* first animation technology
* first plug and play
* first laser printer
* first foreign language upport
* first color matching screen, scanner, printer
* first sound support
* first color matching screen, scanner, printer
* first sound input
* first virtual reality environment on a PC
* first computer to ship with a 3.5" Disk Drive
* first computer to ship with a CD-Rom
* first computer to ship with Built in Networking
* first handheld computer/PDA
And that list doesn’t even consider the last ten years.
And I bet you’re the first person to ever think that the iPod was sold because of its clickwheel. The iPod rose to dominance because it was the only MP3 player that came bundled with amazing software and an unbeatable method for purchasing and managing music online.
I’ve used an iPhone for over six months now and it is the best phone I have ever owned. Period.
With respect to Apple’s pricing, if people want to buy cheaper computers, they always have options. A BMW has the same parts as a Maruti-engine, radiator, carburettor etc.-but its more expensive. If the difference in BMW and Maruti’s pricing is explicable, then Apple’s pricing is explained by the same reasoning.
And for the record, Google’s auctions all come with a minimum bid; there very much is a floor price. They also come with dozens of new beta launches, such as "broad-match" that are all opt-out and explicitly designed to help spend ad budgets faster and more frivolously.
A little correction:
Most of that list is actually IBM or zerox palo alto research centre(PARC) products. Apple bought/copies all/most these technologies. They were sometimes the first ones to put these technologies in commercial use though.
first personal computer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micral
Floppy: http://inventors.about.com/od/computersandinternet/a/FloppyDisk.htm
first laser printer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_printer#History
CTPC–Having something that runs in a research laboratory is not the same as shipping it. Apple was the first to ship these pieces of technology.
Hrush – "Google has no clue how to make anything that people are willing to pay for" – so what? They still are one of the very profitable companies around. And that is one trait they share with Apple.
But here we are more of comparing apples with oranges (pun not intended
Both the companies have been revolutionary in their own right. No doubt Apple turned the tables on the telecom business & whatever they have acheived with the iPhone (in so less a time), even established players like Nokia can only dream of. (Nokia has been touting its phones as ‘mobile computers’ for abt 4 years now with their N/E Series – but I’m not sure if anyone humored them) But take the iPhone – when Apple calls it a mini computer, anyone who has owned it would second it.
Coming to Google, they have revolutionised the way people sought information, free email, etc. And if you are aware of what Google Voice is capable of, I’m sure you would agree that it’s going to do more good than harm. People are touting it to revolutionize telephony – with free SMS, cheap international calls, etc (please don’t harp abt Skype et al being already present). If Apple is so good at knowing what’s ‘good for consumers’, I’m still at my wits end on why this app got rejected (taking down VoiceCentral & another similar app with it). The above incident’s got more to do with what ‘best for AT&T’.
Just to give another example – iPhone in India. Consumers are paying 29-30K for it & are still locked for 1 whole year with the carrier. They are stuck with miserabe 2G connectivity, are subjected to horrendous customer service (both Airtel & Vodafone are ill equipped at this). Indian consumers (like many countries outside US) are shortchanged with the iPhone primarily because Apple never bothered to play hard ball with the carriers & give a deal that is ‘best for consumers’. It knew it had a darn good phone in its hand & knew how much in demand it was (given the thriving black market) & so simply went ahead & launched the phone anyway.
So lets not glorify Apple & put them on a pedastal saying they have the consumer’s best interests at heart. They do whatever Steve Job mandates as ‘best for the consumer’.
Bottom line being, both Google & Apple are successful companies and are making tonnes of money. Who cares where they are making it from – the end user or the advertiser.
Lol, I was going to voice in for Google but I saw much love in the comments for it, and for Microsoft.
Diwant–and people talk about fanboys…
Just a quick look back since my last comment & reply from Hrush.
"Shabeer Naha–you’ve just underscored the point. The only reason they created Chrome and Android was so that they could sell more ads."
Hasn’t Chrome been just awesome so far ? Im using it more than FireFox replacing the latter almost completely.
I can create Android apps, but I cant create iPhone apps because I don’t have a Mac (Apple’s SDK seems to work only a Mac).
Well i just registered pn your forum i hope to find and share some great info, a lil of me im from sudamerica i got a lil website of <a href=http://www.ecuadesign.net>diseño web</a> thats web design in english u might check out sometime . Well im a very friendly person u can pm anything u want.I mean a spanish english translation or anything just send a pm
Over the years, many different people have loved, and purchased, <a href=http://www.traneairconditionersprices.com>Trane air conditioners</a> because of their ability to provide them with comfort, ventilation, and a controlled in-door climate – and because of their ability to do so while still managing to save them money.
The home – It's just common sense that <a href=http://www.traneairconditionersprices.com>air conditioners</a> are essential in providing the adequate ventilation that makes a home comfortable enough to live in, and play in. By installing this type of unit on your residential property, you and your loved ones can can enjoy the summer months in a wonderfully controlled climate – which is also cost-controlled, as well. And one of the things that makes those hot summer days cooler, is the feeling of living in a perfect paradise, while you are still saving money!
A tanning salon – A tanning salon is supposed to be a nice relaxing place in which your customers can come in order to get a healthy golden brown color. But face it – for those who frequent your business during the summer months, getting that tan "indoors" can often times become overwhelmingly stifling if the <a href=http://www.traneairconditionersprices.com>air conditioner</a> is "out of order" all the time.
So there you have just a few of the places you can use <a href=http://www.traneairconditionersprices.com>Trane air conditioning</a> to get comfort and adequate ventilation. And, as you have probably realized, there are many more places they can be installed, besides the ones in this article. But anywhere you put them, one thing is for sure, and that is the comfortable feeling you will get upon seeing a decrease in your electric bill.
A <a href=http://www.daikinairconditioners.org>Daikin central air conditioner</a> is more expensive then the window units so a homeowner would need to save their money or budget for a large outdoor unit that cools the entire home. Of course the cheaper route would be the small, window cooling systems but this would require the entire family to stay in one room in order to keep cool over the long, hot summer. Also central cooling units are now more reasonably priced for families and there are also financing available for well qualified applicants, so central air conditioners are more affordable than in the past. <img>http://www.daikinairconditioners.org/smilies/smilie.gif</img>