<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Curated hypocrisy: How Google camouflages its attacks on Apple</title>
	<atom:link href="http://counternotions.com/2010/05/17/curation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://counternotions.com/2010/05/17/curation/</link>
	<description>Musings on strategic design by Kontra, a veteran design and management surgeon, perennially in search of complex problems to operate on.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 May 2012 13:37:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg</title>
		<link>http://counternotions.com/2010/05/17/curation/#comment-4418</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greg]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2010 16:34:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://counternotions.wordpress.com/?p=895#comment-4418</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is human nature to be dissatisfied. Some individuals more than others are well nigh impossible to please, no matter how much one tries to accommodate their wishes.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is human nature to be dissatisfied. Some individuals more than others are well nigh impossible to please, no matter how much one tries to accommodate their wishes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Antizzy</title>
		<link>http://counternotions.com/2010/05/17/curation/#comment-4300</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Antizzy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 20:49:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://counternotions.wordpress.com/?p=895#comment-4300</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google is hypocritical. They want you to &quot;have a choice&quot; in hardware. What they fail to mention is that they want to have their android OS on all that hardware, allowing them to ensure their advertising will have a place in the future as the world moves away from desktop search. 

On a touchscreen device, the hardware does not matter nearly as much as the OS, and google wants their OS on ALL hardware. 

This is not the first time in history freedom has been used to condemn something, even though it has nothing to do with the condemned. Reminiscent of 1984 the book, where there are situations where the character is forced to reaffirm his allegiance to the state and what is &quot;free,&quot; similarly google are trying to leverage such a tactic, and I believe that is far more wrong than any curation apple provides for us. 

I think people are excited about these things because people realize we are at a turning point in history, and everyone wants to have a part in dictating the &quot;laws&quot; of this new age. 

Apple users don&#039;t condemn android users. Android users seem to do so about apple. As apple users we enjoy our experience but don&#039;t mind if others don&#039;t because we know deep down that they are missing out. It seems that android users are bitter that a platform other rhan their own can have such loyalty.

There is no us Vs them in apple culture. There is no need to associate apple though publicity as &quot;the choice of the free world&quot; becuase the quality of apple products and the user experience speak for themselves.  

Meanwhile google masquerades in this &quot;righteous&quot; guise.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google is hypocritical. They want you to &#8220;have a choice&#8221; in hardware. What they fail to mention is that they want to have their android OS on all that hardware, allowing them to ensure their advertising will have a place in the future as the world moves away from desktop search. </p>
<p>On a touchscreen device, the hardware does not matter nearly as much as the OS, and google wants their OS on ALL hardware. </p>
<p>This is not the first time in history freedom has been used to condemn something, even though it has nothing to do with the condemned. Reminiscent of 1984 the book, where there are situations where the character is forced to reaffirm his allegiance to the state and what is &#8220;free,&#8221; similarly google are trying to leverage such a tactic, and I believe that is far more wrong than any curation apple provides for us. </p>
<p>I think people are excited about these things because people realize we are at a turning point in history, and everyone wants to have a part in dictating the &#8220;laws&#8221; of this new age. </p>
<p>Apple users don&#8217;t condemn android users. Android users seem to do so about apple. As apple users we enjoy our experience but don&#8217;t mind if others don&#8217;t because we know deep down that they are missing out. It seems that android users are bitter that a platform other rhan their own can have such loyalty.</p>
<p>There is no us Vs them in apple culture. There is no need to associate apple though publicity as &#8220;the choice of the free world&#8221; becuase the quality of apple products and the user experience speak for themselves.  </p>
<p>Meanwhile google masquerades in this &#8220;righteous&#8221; guise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>http://counternotions.com/2010/05/17/curation/#comment-4298</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 17:30:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://counternotions.wordpress.com/?p=895#comment-4298</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Remind me how I can use OS X or the iPhone OS on non-Apple branded computers / phones? I believe that goes against the EULA for both OS X and iPhone OS, no?

Plus, we both know Google supports far more open-source projects than Apple does. A great example is Webkit, like you mention! Since the introduction of Chrome, Google has made far more commits to Webkit (via their Chromium open-source browser) than Apple has made (via Safari).

Obviously both Apple and Google have proprietary things, but Apple is FAR more controlling than Google is.

http://code.google.com/
http://code.google.com/opensource/]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Remind me how I can use OS X or the iPhone OS on non-Apple branded computers / phones? I believe that goes against the EULA for both OS X and iPhone OS, no?</p>
<p>Plus, we both know Google supports far more open-source projects than Apple does. A great example is Webkit, like you mention! Since the introduction of Chrome, Google has made far more commits to Webkit (via their Chromium open-source browser) than Apple has made (via Safari).</p>
<p>Obviously both Apple and Google have proprietary things, but Apple is FAR more controlling than Google is.</p>
<p><a href="http://code.google.com/" rel="nofollow">http://code.google.com/</a><br />
<a href="http://code.google.com/opensource/" rel="nofollow">http://code.google.com/opensource/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>http://counternotions.com/2010/05/17/curation/#comment-4297</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 17:24:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://counternotions.wordpress.com/?p=895#comment-4297</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Really? Haha, the whole article is about how someone called the iPad a &quot;curated computing&quot; experience. And then proceeds to show that Google&#039;s search engine algorithm is proprietary and therefore Google has a &quot;curated search engine.&quot;

Comparing OS X and iPhone OS to Google&#039;s search engine algorithm would be a better comparison because both are the key to each company&#039;s success. Apple sells computers and iPhones because their software is excellent; Google is able to get lots of advertising revenue because their search engine algorithm is excellent. 

The app store barely makes Apple any money, and the contents of the app store (all of the apps) are NOT (except for iWork and a few other apps) created by Apple. They could keep the app store and allow 3rd party apps on the iPhone without losing money (or they could just open up the app store completely without losing money).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Really? Haha, the whole article is about how someone called the iPad a &#8220;curated computing&#8221; experience. And then proceeds to show that Google&#8217;s search engine algorithm is proprietary and therefore Google has a &#8220;curated search engine.&#8221;</p>
<p>Comparing OS X and iPhone OS to Google&#8217;s search engine algorithm would be a better comparison because both are the key to each company&#8217;s success. Apple sells computers and iPhones because their software is excellent; Google is able to get lots of advertising revenue because their search engine algorithm is excellent. </p>
<p>The app store barely makes Apple any money, and the contents of the app store (all of the apps) are NOT (except for iWork and a few other apps) created by Apple. They could keep the app store and allow 3rd party apps on the iPhone without losing money (or they could just open up the app store completely without losing money).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>http://counternotions.com/2010/05/17/curation/#comment-4296</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 17:18:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://counternotions.wordpress.com/?p=895#comment-4296</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You&#039;re right, and I exercised that option. I own a Google Nexus One. But that does not change the fact that I would like to be able to use an iPhone with Google Voice, but am unable to because Apple has a closed app store.

This is like the argument that Facebook makes about privacy, essentially that &quot;we don&#039;t force you to sign up with us; therefore, EVERYTHING you share is by choice.&quot; Well of course it is by choice that we sign up for Facebook, but why can&#039;t we have the choice to share only SOME items that WE CHOOSE?

Apple does not owe me anything, no, you are right. But that is not exactly a counter-argument to my opinion, you&#039;re just running away from the heart of the issue; namely, that Apple owns the app store and therefore does WHATEVER THE FUCK it wants to with it. What if countries operated like that?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re right, and I exercised that option. I own a Google Nexus One. But that does not change the fact that I would like to be able to use an iPhone with Google Voice, but am unable to because Apple has a closed app store.</p>
<p>This is like the argument that Facebook makes about privacy, essentially that &#8220;we don&#8217;t force you to sign up with us; therefore, EVERYTHING you share is by choice.&#8221; Well of course it is by choice that we sign up for Facebook, but why can&#8217;t we have the choice to share only SOME items that WE CHOOSE?</p>
<p>Apple does not owe me anything, no, you are right. But that is not exactly a counter-argument to my opinion, you&#8217;re just running away from the heart of the issue; namely, that Apple owns the app store and therefore does WHATEVER THE FUCK it wants to with it. What if countries operated like that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vsp</title>
		<link>http://counternotions.com/2010/05/17/curation/#comment-4289</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[vsp]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 May 2010 08:17:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://counternotions.wordpress.com/?p=895#comment-4289</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google is hiding behind the &quot;do no evil&quot; and &quot;open source&quot; masks to commit nefarious activities on others. When caught it always pleaded that no harm was done and that everyone was making a fuss over nothing. Google is dangerous. It wants to control every channel of the world&#039;s information and in doing so, it is prepared to remove every obstacle that gets into its way. What better way to endear itself to the unsuspecting public than to pretend that it is giving away free goodies to everyone? Nothing is free. Google peddles information to the highest bidder to earn obscene ads profits from advertisers, which pushes the cost to the final consumers. Also Google restricts competition on those whose space it decides to kill off. A small competitor whose product is superior to Google&#039;s good-enough free goodies cannot be expected to ward off Google&#039;s use of money diplomacy.

Another potential backlash of Google&#039;s cavalier and wild wild West method of competition is that it would transform America&#039;s corporations into mediocre don&#039;t-take-the-risk breed of businesses. As was exemplified by Microsoft&#039;s monopoly over the OS market, every manufacturer that jumped on the Window&#039;s bandwagon decided to stop innovating and to just produce commodity-type PC boxes. They contracted out the design and production of the PC boxes to Asian competitors and just slapped their labels on the boxes to distinguish themselves from the rest. In the end it is a loss to America and a gain to Asian competitors as they move up the value chain. Google is repeating the same mistake of Microsoft and this will affect badly on America&#039;s competitiveness.

Since Google&#039;s stranglehold on the world&#039;s information is enormous, the bad it could do with all the information is unimaginable. It could use its clout to punish those who oppose it. It can also punish governments and act as a Fifth Column to its own country to further its own agendas. Google is evil … its wings must be clipped before the world is trapped inside the Google&#039;s gulag.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google is hiding behind the &#8220;do no evil&#8221; and &#8220;open source&#8221; masks to commit nefarious activities on others. When caught it always pleaded that no harm was done and that everyone was making a fuss over nothing. Google is dangerous. It wants to control every channel of the world&#8217;s information and in doing so, it is prepared to remove every obstacle that gets into its way. What better way to endear itself to the unsuspecting public than to pretend that it is giving away free goodies to everyone? Nothing is free. Google peddles information to the highest bidder to earn obscene ads profits from advertisers, which pushes the cost to the final consumers. Also Google restricts competition on those whose space it decides to kill off. A small competitor whose product is superior to Google&#8217;s good-enough free goodies cannot be expected to ward off Google&#8217;s use of money diplomacy.</p>
<p>Another potential backlash of Google&#8217;s cavalier and wild wild West method of competition is that it would transform America&#8217;s corporations into mediocre don&#8217;t-take-the-risk breed of businesses. As was exemplified by Microsoft&#8217;s monopoly over the OS market, every manufacturer that jumped on the Window&#8217;s bandwagon decided to stop innovating and to just produce commodity-type PC boxes. They contracted out the design and production of the PC boxes to Asian competitors and just slapped their labels on the boxes to distinguish themselves from the rest. In the end it is a loss to America and a gain to Asian competitors as they move up the value chain. Google is repeating the same mistake of Microsoft and this will affect badly on America&#8217;s competitiveness.</p>
<p>Since Google&#8217;s stranglehold on the world&#8217;s information is enormous, the bad it could do with all the information is unimaginable. It could use its clout to punish those who oppose it. It can also punish governments and act as a Fifth Column to its own country to further its own agendas. Google is evil … its wings must be clipped before the world is trapped inside the Google&#8217;s gulag.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cadillac88</title>
		<link>http://counternotions.com/2010/05/17/curation/#comment-4283</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cadillac88]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 May 2010 17:28:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://counternotions.wordpress.com/?p=895#comment-4283</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lukas- Tim Bray said it best. I admire the vigor of your language. And you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, even if it has paralysed your brain from thinking up your own solutions to all the conflated and infatated problems in your head. Try not to worry about the complex apps thing so much. It&#039;s driving us nuts.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lukas- Tim Bray said it best. I admire the vigor of your language. And you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, even if it has paralysed your brain from thinking up your own solutions to all the conflated and infatated problems in your head. Try not to worry about the complex apps thing so much. It&#8217;s driving us nuts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Davies</title>
		<link>http://counternotions.com/2010/05/17/curation/#comment-4276</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ian Davies]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 May 2010 08:02:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://counternotions.wordpress.com/?p=895#comment-4276</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;I find your way of arguing disappointingly unconvincing.&quot;

Lukas, that&#039;s the second time (at least) in this thread that you&#039;ve made a point of argument, and then denied ever making it when someone presents a contradictory statement.

*You* used the term &quot;a lot&quot; to describe how many developers were unhappy with Apple&#039;s Appstore policies. Kontra simply called you on that statement by highlighting the *fact* that as a percentage of developers out there, the number who have publicly stated they are unhappy is negligent. i.e. not &quot;a lot&quot;. His &quot;challenge&quot; as you put it, was simply for you to back up your claim.

The idea that this state of affairs would damage Apple, while perhaps not explicit in your argument, was most certainly *implicit* in your argument, so to deny that on the basis that you never actually said those specific words is grossly disingenuous.

Don&#039;t bother replying. This thread has become a nonsense and I won&#039;t be coming back to it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I find your way of arguing disappointingly unconvincing.&#8221;</p>
<p>Lukas, that&#8217;s the second time (at least) in this thread that you&#8217;ve made a point of argument, and then denied ever making it when someone presents a contradictory statement.</p>
<p>*You* used the term &#8220;a lot&#8221; to describe how many developers were unhappy with Apple&#8217;s Appstore policies. Kontra simply called you on that statement by highlighting the *fact* that as a percentage of developers out there, the number who have publicly stated they are unhappy is negligent. i.e. not &#8220;a lot&#8221;. His &#8220;challenge&#8221; as you put it, was simply for you to back up your claim.</p>
<p>The idea that this state of affairs would damage Apple, while perhaps not explicit in your argument, was most certainly *implicit* in your argument, so to deny that on the basis that you never actually said those specific words is grossly disingenuous.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t bother replying. This thread has become a nonsense and I won&#8217;t be coming back to it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kontra</title>
		<link>http://counternotions.com/2010/05/17/curation/#comment-4264</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kontra]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 22:34:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://counternotions.wordpress.com/?p=895#comment-4264</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;em&gt;&quot;Where did you get to &quot;close to 200,000&quot; number?&quot;&lt;/em&gt;

Apple has passed the 100,000 developers mark long time ago. I think some time ago they had publicly announced 125,000 devs. For a quick comparison, the Android market has 1/4 of the App Store&#039;s apps and 180,000 devs, as announced by Google yesterday. It&#039;d be highly unlikely for Apple to have fewer than 100,000 devs as you stated.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>&#8220;Where did you get to &#8220;close to 200,000&#8243; number?&#8221;</em></p>
<p>Apple has passed the 100,000 developers mark long time ago. I think some time ago they had publicly announced 125,000 devs. For a quick comparison, the Android market has 1/4 of the App Store&#8217;s apps and 180,000 devs, as announced by Google yesterday. It&#8217;d be highly unlikely for Apple to have fewer than 100,000 devs as you stated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David V.</title>
		<link>http://counternotions.com/2010/05/17/curation/#comment-4263</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David V.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 22:28:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://counternotions.wordpress.com/?p=895#comment-4263</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Lukas:
&quot;Search for “Twitter”. Look at all the apps that appear before Twitterrific, including one app which “uses the special sensors in your iPhone or iPod touch to measure your current emotional state.” &quot;

Okay, that admittedly not great.  But not useless either: Lots of useful apps are still on the first screen.  Also, when I type &quot;twitter&quot; the auto-suggest system puts &quot;twitterific&quot; in #3 and &quot;twitterific premium&quot; in #6.


&quot;Browsing by category is utterly useless, because the categories are too coarse. Unless something appears in the Top Paid or Top Free lists, you can’t get to it.”

The &quot;top&quot; lists are not short.  I have found lots of apps by browsing by category, looking at top lists, and checking out staff picks.

I&#039;m not disagreeing that there is room for improvement, but I do think there is some &quot;curating&quot; going on.


&quot;I’m not sure what you’re seeing on your iPhone, but on mine, browsing for apps is useless, and searching typically returns a ton of crap.&quot;

I don&#039;t browse on the phone app much; I use iTunes for that.  Lately, I have also used the iPad app.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Lukas:<br />
&#8220;Search for “Twitter”. Look at all the apps that appear before Twitterrific, including one app which “uses the special sensors in your iPhone or iPod touch to measure your current emotional state.” &#8221;</p>
<p>Okay, that admittedly not great.  But not useless either: Lots of useful apps are still on the first screen.  Also, when I type &#8220;twitter&#8221; the auto-suggest system puts &#8220;twitterific&#8221; in #3 and &#8220;twitterific premium&#8221; in #6.</p>
<p>&#8220;Browsing by category is utterly useless, because the categories are too coarse. Unless something appears in the Top Paid or Top Free lists, you can’t get to it.”</p>
<p>The &#8220;top&#8221; lists are not short.  I have found lots of apps by browsing by category, looking at top lists, and checking out staff picks.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not disagreeing that there is room for improvement, but I do think there is some &#8220;curating&#8221; going on.</p>
<p>&#8220;I’m not sure what you’re seeing on your iPhone, but on mine, browsing for apps is useless, and searching typically returns a ton of crap.&#8221;</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t browse on the phone app much; I use iTunes for that.  Lately, I have also used the iPad app.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

