Slashdot Mirror


Redmond Yawning at Apple-Google Alliance?

Debra D'Agostino writes "Despite the media hype around Google CEO Eric Schmidt's appointment to Apple's board, CIO Insight Executive Editor Dan Briody says it's not that big a story. 'Apple and Google are already plenty tight,' he says. Arthur Levinson, CEO of Genentech, has been on both boards for years. And Al Gore and Intuit Chairman Bill Campbell are both Apple board members and advisors to Google. 'While it's fun to speculate about what an Apple-Google alliance could produce (GoogleMacs? MacGoogle? GoogleTunes?) this move is far from an alliance,' Briody writes. 'And even if it were, it wouldn't be first time that two upstart powerhouses have joined forces in an attempt to unseat Microsoft. Remember AOL-Netscape? Boy, they just steamrolled the team from Redmond, didn't they?'"

19 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. Question from a Mac user by NTiOzymandias · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Apple and Google are so tight, where the hell is that Mac-compatible Google Talk voice chat client we were promised a year ago?

    Not to mention... well... ALL the rest of Google's software.

    I'm not blaming Google specifically, mind you.... Apple should hurry up and fix those Javascript bugs in Safari already so that stuff like Writely will finally work.

  2. -1 Troll by 42Penguins · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If there was ever a trolling story, this is it. NPOV anyone?

    1. Re:-1 Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      NPOV anyone?

      It's not Wikipedia, idiot. Crawl back into your mother's basement.

  3. MS Threat by gamer4Life · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No one is going to be a threat to Microsoft until they challenge Windows as an operating system. Microsoft can always include any product they make into their operating system "for free" (actually subsidized by the cost of Windows), and push them out, like what they've done with all before them.

    The key to "beating" Microsoft is the OS. Something that's easy to use, runs on cheap/common hardware, and compatible with current software.

    1. Re:MS Threat by earthbound+kid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Generals always fight the last war."

      The age of the OS is almost over. Remember in the mid-90s, what you did when you wanted a computerized map of some place you'd never been? You went to the store, bought a CD-ROM, put it in your computer, ran the installer, and checked the map. The CD had to be for the right OS (meaning Windows most of the time) or the whole thing wouldn't work.

      How do we check maps now? We go to googlemaps.com. It doesn't matter what OS you use for this.

      The internet is making whole classes of applications that used to be OS-specific OS-independent. Yes, there will always be some programs that are better to do local, but a) there aren't that many of those. b) eventually, there will be good open source replacements for all such apps*.

      *Except for maybe non-casual games.

      The OS Wars are almost over. MS and Apple are both selling OSes that are competing with free, which is damned hard. Old versions of Linux were ugly as sin, but Ubuntu et al. aren't that hard on the eyes. Apple here has the advantage that its OS is subsidized by hardware sales, so it's not as hard for them to turn a profit, but MS is going to face serious challenges once OEMs start seeing how they can cut another couple dollars off the cost of their bottom end computers.

    2. Re:MS Threat by shoma-san · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What planet do you live on? There isn't an OS out there that can or will match Windows in todays marketplace. The original post says "No one is going to be a threat to Microsoft until they challenge Windows as an operating system" and that is the cold hard truth.

      No matter how much you like Redhat or Mandrake or any other flavor of Linux, they're not as supportable as Microsoft or Apple. Remember what it was like before plug and play? Most people couldn't handle installing hardware like speakers and scanners. Driver/Hardware support sucked balls. And it still does for some OS's. And let's not get into the support for Dev's and IT professionals or the books and websites devoted to making peoples lives easier.

      The only company that could topple MS is Apple and Apple continues to refuse or fail at opening up it's OS to other OEM's.

      MS will never be challenged on the OS level until a company out there can bring a competitvie supportable OS to manufacturers.

    3. Re:MS Threat by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The introduction of plug and play ushered in the era for average people to become interested in home computers. It allowed people to add on periphials and increased upgrade potential. This is the reason why Apple did so well for so long until MS ousted them by making their OS avaiable to OEMS. So what you consider a red herring is most likely a driving point for all personal computers today. Ease of use and the ability to change hardware/devices for the average user.

      Apple's lead on the market had nothing to do with "plug and play" features. Apple lead the market because, frankly, they created it. They produced one of the first consumer-directed microcomputers. And the first killer app that made microcomputers important to business (Visicalc - the spreadsheet) was coded and first available for the Apple II. IBM came in and largely on name-recognition began to press in on that market. When IBM lost control of their platform and the "PC" became a commodity is when Apple was really in trouble and Microsoft's fortune climbed. This was all in the days of DOS and (to a lesser extent) Windows 3.x. Win95 is when we first start getting in to "plug and play" for Windows - which was often referred to as "plug and pray" due to it's iffy performance in early iterations.

      That's not to say "plug and play" and usability in general aren't important. But they simply are not the drivers you're making them out to be.


      I've been a IT professional for ten years and Windows IS much easier to support than Linux because the marketshare in the workd of computing is dominated by Windows and most people know how to use it. You don't live in the real world if you can't understand this perspective.


      I've been an IT professional in one form or another for around 16 years. I understand Windows market share. I understand how important familiarity with the Windows platform is to power-users - I've seen them flail and get upset when dealing with a Mac or Linux system (I've been that person myself). But I also realize that in the average end user environment, the greater majority of end users are NOT power users. They know enough to do whatever tasks are required of them (or are interested in doing). The Windows environment changes on them and they adjust. Windows' "ease of use" environment fails them and they call for support.

      I have also used Linux as a desktop environment for around 9 years and notice that the difficult tasks tend to be tasks that are not going to be done by the average end user. Once again - Linux isn't bulletproof... there are annoyances I wish didn't exist. But they are hardly insurmountable. And they hardly make Linux "unsupportable." That is - unless your sole support experience is limited entirely to the Windows platform.
  4. Why? by nascarguy27 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would anyone compare AOL-Netscape to Google-Apple? Aol and Netscape were both failing before they joined. Google and Apple are both doing very well and aren't exactly the same type of merge/join the AOL and Netcape. If memory serves me right AOL bought Netscape. Neither Apple nor Google is buying the other. It's just the CEO of one company serving on the board of another. It happens all the time with businesses.

    --
    Funny createSig(Witty remark, Odd reference)
    {
    return (Funny)remark + (Funny)reference;
    }
  5. Re:so... by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was thinking the same thing. For that matter Google is hardly an upstart.
    Oh wait, maybe he meant "Uppity".

    --
    I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
  6. Re:Slashdot lies. by wass · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I think it's really sad to see the fans to be so rabid at times.


    actually, such silly behavior is no different from the linux and bsd zealotry that is just as prevalent on places like slashdot. But for whatever reason it's somehow cooler to be a linux zealot than a mac fanboi.

    --

    make world, not war

  7. Microsoft's Two Big Weaknesses by Famatra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "MS' sheer size, marketshare along with its diverse involments"

    Microsoft has at least two achilles heels: Windows and Office. This is so since these are the only two money makers for Microsoft, the rest of their 'diverse involments' lose money hand over fist. If Microsoft were to be harmed in either of these two markets then it would be a severe blow.

    I'd guess that the first of these weaknesses that will be exploited is in the Office market since it is easier to switch to another suite, i.e. OpenOffice, then it is to switch operating systems. Switching over to other non-Microsoft products paves the way towards helping people rid themselves of Windows as well.

    1. Re:Microsoft's Two Big Weaknesses by admactanium · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not true. MSN could stand on it's own two feet
      MAYBE it could now. but for many years there was a constant debate in redmond whether or not to even keep msn alive. i know this for a fact because i was peripherally affected by that decision.

      plus, microsoft threw a shit-ton of money at msn search; around $100M if i recall correctly. so to say that msn could "stand on its own" isn't exactly accurate because their search technology would never stand a chance to catch google if they didn't have the rest of the company to cover their enormous losses each year. i don't see any other independant search engines who stand on their own spending that much on their search technology.
  8. Crush Microsoft? by msimm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not likely. Alliance or not. In fact no-ones even ready to challenge them, Apple being the strongest contender, but to do *that* Apple would have to give something up I don't believe their willing to do.

    Namely, their hardward platform. Let OS X/Tiger/Cheetah/whatever run on the same commodity hardware Windows has for ages and watch uses start to drift. Of course there's give and theirs take, Apple will have lost the ability to micromanage the hardware like they always have (mostly for the better I think) but then there are a lot of people like me who have invested heavily in PC hardware (built from commodity/specialized PC parts) who wouldn't dream of scrapping the whole system to change the operating system.

    Then there's the question that *really* puzzles me. I always heard the story of how Apple makes most of its revenue off its hardware sales, and that sounded reasonable enough, then (for testing, my company does web-app development) we get an Apple and find out even point releases are sold seperately as upgrades. Is it just me or does that make it look like Micrsoft is really doing *me* a favor, namely by continuing to update and support their software platform until its end of life?

    Thats a legitimate question by the way. I'm not an Apple basher (I'd pay $120 or whatever the going price is to see if I liked it on PC hardware), I do use Windows (XP Pro, on Workstations) and I manage more Linux servers (RHELu3) then any and all of that combined.

    But in business Micrsoft is kind and not just because its the right OS (although that it and always has been Microsofts target market). Take any mid-sized business, inventory their hardware and tell me how much its going to cost to replace each system? Because you can't just do one, one there, thats where the compatibility issues come in. Say we've got 100 workstation no at EOL, nobody is going to sign off on a purchase order to replace all those functioning systems unless they have a lot of extra cash and a serious bias. Because in business sense it just doesn't add up. Then remember those EOL systems, you know, the ones the interns use, file stores, backup systems, whatever. Companies invest a lot of capitol into a solution like that and you're absolutely right, its going to be hard to topple.

    I'm still not sure what Apples strategy is with the move to Intel, but so far it seem clear that moving into Micrsofts territory is not on the map. Things could change, I'd like that, or Redmond could be the 10,000 lb gorilla they aren't willing to challenge.

    --
    Quack, quack.
    1. Re:Crush Microsoft? by maztuhblastah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think Steve is happy that he's the one making the decisions. It's amazing how many times I see this sort of thing parroted, apparently without people realizing what effect this would have on Apple. Seriously, think about this for a second.

      1) What is the primary problem with Windows stability? One word: drivers. There is no way that a company, even one with as many resources as MS, can support every possible config out there. Windows would be a hell of alot more stable if people didn't run it on so many crappy rigs. Unfortunately, they do, and MS gets the bad press for it. True, they contribute to the problem, but you'd have no idea how many times I've seen a BSOD induced by bad RAM or a shitty driver. You probably can guess how many people blame that on MS instead of their decision to buy third-rate hardware. If Apple released OS X for generic PC's, then this would undoubtedly be a problem. I do not doubt for a second, that many people here could build machines with hardware combos that work well with OS X. I also know that most average users won't build their own system, let alone pick components that will work perfectly with OS X.

      2) Developers. Balmer wasn't lying when he made his "developers, developers" speech. They really are what makes a successful OS... well... successful. If OS X is released for generic x86 boxes, think about it from a developer's standpoint. Suddenly, developers have two PC markets to target. Those with Windows, and those with OS X. Now, as much fun as it imagine that the majority of users will dump Windows (and all their applications, etc.) and flock to run OS X and OS X only, it is very much a dream. Instead, many people will dual-boot OS X and Windows. Now, switch back to developer perspective for a minute... You know that most OS X PC users have Windows anyways, therefore, does it make sense to make a special OS X PC version of your software? No. Instead, you drop _all_ OS X support, and tell the users to simply boot into Windows when they want to use your software. Suddenly, as most dev. houses follow this trend, we see the majority of application support for OS X just shrivel up and die. Not good. For a practical example of this, witness OS/2's integration with Windows 3.1 and the effect it had on developers.

      3) Hardware. Apple is a hardware company. Repeat that: Apple is a hardware company. They happen to know how to make great software, and, as a result have gained recognition for it's ease of use. However, despite their software-making abilities, hardware makes up over 80% of their revenues. What's in that other 20%? iTunes Music Store sales, boxed copies of OS X, etc. In short, without hardware (and I mean actual computers and iPods), Apple can't survive. Period. As optimistic as it is to assume that OS X PC could take on MS well enough to replace hardware as a revenue stream, it is just not going to happen. Also, if anyone could buy and install OS X on a commodity PC, why would they buy the shiny boxes for 10-20% more?

  9. nothing to see here by Pliep · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, it's just a CEO that sits around a board meeting a couple of times per year giving advice. It's NOT a merger, it's NO co-operation in products, there IS NO alliance.

    It's just that the media and a lot of lame bloggers make a big hype out of this. Everybody else just yawns along with Redmond.

  10. Re:Slashdot lies. by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ....but as far as the rest of humanity is concerned, there aren't many things that are less cool....

    You're kidding right? Do you really think most of the world can tell what particular sub-genus of nerd you fit into?

    Clue for you - we're all just computer guys to most people.

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  11. Re:so... by kahrytan · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Apple Computer is NOT an upstart. Hell, Apple started the home personal computer. Though, some may argue that issue.

    Google is an upstart company. They are relatively new and have large sums of cash. Apple has alot of cash on hand but they have been around awhile.

    --
    \
  12. AOL Never Wins (rightly so) by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    AOL-Netscape? How about AOL-TimeWarner?

    Anyone that partners with AOL goes down the tubes. If AOL were a /. user, they'd have infectiously bad karma. They're posts would not only immediately drop off the radar, but would cause all parent posts, like parent companies, to tank as well.

    An "iGapple" company would at least be the guy who always gets "first post", and sums up the entire following reaction in 1 line. The number of their +5 moderations would eventually get so boring, that the only thing newsworthy would be the 3's and 4's.

    It's not even apples and oranges, it's Special Ed versus Superman.

    --
    I8-D
    1. Re:AOL Never Wins (rightly so) by Fordiman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod parent up. Seriously.

      AOL: We abuse our users! They don't know any better! We put in place some false protections that are actually worse than the problems they cause themselves (quite a feat, if we say ourselves)!
      Netscape: Ok, we'll offer our browser for free! ??? Profit! (this model works better when its open source. Instead of paying lots of developers and bandwidth, you pay for a couple of lead developers and bandwidth)

      Apple: We sell the best price point for high-end hardware and personal mp3 players (but indevices on the market. We package it with a seriously customized Unix distro. We have a zealotously faithful fanbase. We work hard to keep them faithful.
      Google: We are the gatekeepers of the internet. Others try to move in, but we persevere through sheer quality of service. And unobtrusive advertising.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1