Comments on: Microsoft passes the “choice” bludgeon against Apple to Google

By: PIF 300

PIF 300 — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:33:54 +0000

I wouldn’t call Google evil. They’re a business and like every business they are here to make money. They’ve also given us a vast information network that we use everyday…so evil no, smart business…yes.

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 14:24:05 +0000

Yeah, right. You’re not aware, apparently, that Apple makes Mac Pro, iMacs, MacBook Pros, MacBooks and iPads. And that’s not even iPods, TV, wireless base stations (that are top sellers to even non-Apple users) etc.

Nine out of 10 Oscar contenders for documentaries (and lots of mainstream movies) were done on Apple’s software. Quicktime is ubiquitous. Webkit is used in lots of Linux and Windows web browsers, and it’s open source and wouldn’t be nearly as good as it is without Apple’s input.

The list goes on and on to make what you’re saying about Apple is patently false. But that never stopped the astroturfers and trolls who seem to think their open source software is some kind of holy grail. And anyone who does not accept their orthodoxy is duped by the big bad evil company Apple.

Get a reality adjustment dude. You’re is really twisted.

By: Saravanan S

Saravanan S — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 11:18:40 +0000

Well Articulated post. Google is definitely going Microsoft’s way. Google now is definitely EVIL.

By: AdamC

AdamC — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:05:47 +0000

That was, the paradigm is different this time round.

In a years’s time we will know who gets to eat crow.

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:17:50 +0000

Last I checked, I didn’t see Apple holding guns to people’s heads making them buy their products. And no doubt that’s what galls Barry and his ilk most of all. Superior products, that are plenty open for most people’s purposes, and nobody is forced to buy them.

Yeah, that’s evil. Right. I think George Orwell had a term for that kind of saying the opposite of what is real.

By: Kontra

Kontra — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 01:37:56 +0000

You may find this video interview with Jon Rubinstein a few months after the intro of Pre rather interesting. Some bits about his Apple days and, obviously, delusional prospects of his creation.

By: Deanston

Deanston — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:51:52 +0000

I think they competed for the same 3rd spot in the smartphone market behind Apple and RIM. In hindsight Sprint may not have offered the exclusivity protection Palm sought. If the Pre had been popular enough Palm might have licensed WebOS or made a successful move to Verizon. Now every anti-Apple manufacturer is on the Android bandwagon, what handset maker will pay for a phone OS? Sprint already has the Hero, now the Nexus One is going there too, while Verizon is practically giving the Pre away.

RIM already won the competition with Palm even before the iPhone came out. Then Apple’s success really blind-sided Palm and hindered their comeback, but Google cut off all remaining plays and went for the jugular.

By: Tom B

Tom B — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:33:32 +0000

“People need to take note that it is not the iPhone, but Android that is destroying Palm today”

You say that because they compete on the same network?

By: Deanston

Deanston — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:57:03 +0000

People need to take note that it is not the iPhone, but Android that is destroying Palm today. The effect of such “choice” is stifling competition and killing any potential innovation from smaller players, the same way IE killed Netscape. Calling Apple “un-open” is just a way to distract the public and government from looking at the real monopoly play.

By: rd

rd — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:28:18 +0000

What is most galling thing about Google
is that they are using WebKit and LLVM
than have the balls to attack Apple about
open source.
I see google using open source
not actually leading it.