Google CEO Larry Page Talks Apple, Android, Google+ 136
Nerval's Lobster writes "Fortune magazine managed to score an exclusive interview with Google CEO Larry Page. While he doesn't reveal a whole lot about the company's future plans—CEOs are great at offering fuzzy generalities, if nothing else—he manages to reveal just a bit about the ongoing competition with Apple, the evolution of search, and monetizing mobile devices. Google's rivalry with Apple has descended into massive lawsuits, but Page doesn't exactly channel Genghis Khan when it comes to his own feelings on the issue. 'I think it would be nice if everybody would get along better and the users didn't suffer as a result of other people's activities,' he told the magazine. 'We try pretty hard to make our products be available as widely as we can. That's our philosophy. I think sometimes we're allowed to do that. Sometimes we're not.'"
Ack! PTHPPBPTH!! (Score:5, Funny)
"Larry Page Talks Apple, Android, Google+"?
Gorbachev Sings Tractors: Turnip! Buttocks!
--
BMO
Re:Ack! PTHPPBPTH!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Here... let me help you....
http://i44.tinypic.com/20rl4is.jpg [tinypic.com]
You have now been enlightened.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Snugglebunnies!
Snugglebunnies!
Snugglebunnies!
Snu-
Re: (Score:2)
Not just snugglebunnies...
*sweaty* snugglebunnies.
--
BMO "Madam, I have to put down something...'
come on (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google is rich and powerful. If they were seriously interested in changing patent and copyright laws that stifle innovation, they would put their where their mouth is and lobby for real change. Instead they talk it when it suits them, but they know those some laws can be used to protect their profits. Ergo hypocrisy and no real change.
Google just purchased Motorola Mobility for their patent portfolio, and is already using it aggressively vs M$ and Apple. They are playing the game, not changing it.
Re:come on (Score:5, Insightful)
So if Google stood up and said "we're not playing the patent game anymore", and got rid of all of their patents, what do you think would happen? Until the system changes, it would be kind of stupid to just sit back and get destroyed by everyone else's patent litigation. Participation doesn't mean that their primary goal isn't changing the system.
Re:come on (Score:4, Interesting)
So if Google stood up and said "we're not playing the patent game anymore", and got rid of all of their patents, what do you think would happen? Until the system changes, it would be kind of stupid to just sit back and get destroyed by everyone else's patent litigation. Participation doesn't mean that their primary goal isn't changing the system.
Most believed Google would be using the Motorola patents defensively. Instead they are using the Motorola Mobility patent portfolio to ban everything from smartphones, to tablets, to the Xbox 360.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1112740990/motorola-microsoft-xbox-lawsuit-120312/ [redorbit.com]
Re:come on (Score:5, Interesting)
Some people believe that they are trying to get the whole patent system changed by making it unprofitable for anyone else. The more players lobbying to change it,t he better.
Apple too! (Score:2)
Re:come on (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you use a patent "defensively"? It's like a gun: virtually useless in stopping other bullets, but it can protect you in a firefight by forcing your opponent to worry about not exposing himself to your bullets, and thus adopting a less efficient offensive behaviour. Of course, if your opponent knows you're not going to shoot back, then your gun is entirely useless in aiding your survival. And Microsoft has picked on lots of Android vendors for the last two years with litigation (is it HTC that ended up having to pay them a fee for every device sold?), so I don't see your point.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you use a patent "defensively"? It's like a gun: virtually useless in stopping other bullets,
Or, like a gun, you can get a REALLY HUGE one, then strut around waggling it in a REALLY obvious manner so that everyone's attention is drawn to it. That way, when opponents are sizing you up (generally what happens before the shooting starts), the have the opportunity to realise that you have a really huge gun and they will get shot with it.
And you can use it defensively by only shooting people who shoot at
Re: (Score:2)
"Defensively" is such a load of horseshit (Score:2, Insightful)
You know where else I have heard about using patents "defensively"? At Microsoft, circa 2001-2002 when I worked there. It was all about using them "defensively" back then. Then Microsoft had found itself struggling in a number of markets and started suing people left and right to extract royalties. Google will do the exact same thing a few years down the road, for the same reason.
It was defensive (Score:1)
Read the article you linked to.
Microsoft sued Google, they countersued.
Isn't that defensive use?
Re:come on (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the best link you have? One regarding the result of a case that had been pending since before Google bought Motorola? That sure doesn't lend a lot of credence to your claims.
What specific products has Motorola (post-buyout) tried to take off the shelves?
Seriously, try a little harder, bonch. This is just pathetic.
--Jeremy
Re:come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Google just purchased Motorola Mobility for their patent portfolio, and is already using it aggressively vs M$ and Apple. They are playing the game, not changing it.
You need to look at this from the cold war perspective. Neither the US nor the USSR wanted nuclear war, but it would be utterly stupid for either of them to just get rid of their nuclear weapons.
You have to make an agreement where everyone involved weakens their arsenals simultaneously. Until that happens, you must work to increase your arsenal to higher levels than your opponents, or risk being destroyed.
By not entering into cross-licensing agreements, Apple is essentially behaving like North Korea, as if they don't understand the concept of MAD, and just getting all the other nuclear powers angry.
Re: (Score:3)
Google just purchased Motorola Mobility for their patent portfolio, and is already using it aggressively vs M$ and Apple. They are playing the game, not changing it.
You need to look at this from the cold war perspective. Neither the US nor the USSR wanted nuclear war, but it would be utterly stupid for either of them to just get rid of their nuclear weapons.
You have to make an agreement where everyone involved weakens their arsenals simultaneously. Until that happens, you must work to increase your arsenal to higher levels than your opponents, or risk being destroyed.
By not entering into cross-licensing agreements, Apple is essentially behaving like North Korea, as if they don't understand the concept of MAD, and just getting all the other nuclear powers angry.
The world is having more success at disarming Apple than it has with North Korea. Source: http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/12/07/2346246/steve-jobs-patent-on-iphone-declared-invalid [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"There is a diffrence between pushing an old lady out of the way of a bush, and pushing one in front of a bus, to catagorize both as pushing around old ladies is wrong".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to increase your arsenal to higher levels than your opponents. You just need to increase it to the level at which your second strike will overwhelm the other sides defenses and wipe them out. Of course that level might increase over time but you don't need to have a larger arsenal than your opponents.
Hey Look! It's The Pathetic Apple Troll bonch (Score:1)
Still trolling Google stories with an endless number of alt accounts.
http://slashdot.org/~bonch [slashdot.org]
What a loser.
Re: (Score:1)
You and I clearly have very, very different meanings for the word "aggressively". Microsoft and Apple are both suing Motorola. Google didn't start this fight, so I'm not sure how you can call defending themselves and Android as "using it aggressively".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the cases you're referring to started before Google took over Motorola, right?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Google is rich in dollars and powerful solely in the tech industry.
FTFY.
Being rich, or even richer than the next guy, doesn't really mean a damn thing when it comes to lobbying for laws and/or the changing of laws. Being powerful in one relatively new industry also doesn't mean a thing, not when the majority of Congress grew up following and living under the shadow of an old entertainment industry currently lobbying against everything Google is lobbying for (hell, they put Ronald Reagan up for president, didn't they?). The record and movie industries are, for a lack of a
Loophole in Google motto (Score:2)
Ergo hypocrisy and no real change.
Their motto is "don't be evil" which is not the same thing as saying "be a force for good". Maybe they see that as a convenient loophole in their motto.
Seriously, if Google really cared about spreading their products as widely as possible they'd be spending cubic dollars on lobbying for copyright and patent reform. But they don't seem really interested in being a leader in doing this.
Re: (Score:3)
they'd be spending cubic dollars
No wonder I can't seem to get ahead, all this time I've been using rectangular or cylindrical dollars.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, if Google really cared about spreading their products as widely as possible they'd be spending cubic dollars on lobbying for copyright and patent reform. But they don't seem really interested in being a leader in doing this.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/22/google-facebook-spent-record-amounts-on-d-c-lobbying-in-q1-2012/ [techcrunch.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They *ARE* lobbying for patent reforms, but just because you lobby doesn't mean it will actually work or that things will change, especially when equally rich and powerful companies are lobbying *against* you.
If you want change elect different politicians. Either those that will do the right thing, or those that are even more corrupt and can be more easily bought by companies.
Apple has a big card they have yet to play (Score:3, Interesting)
Something as simple as having the user select their search engine of choice during device setup, and having the list alphabetical (Bing, Google, Yahoo) would cause a significant revenue decline.
If these behind-the-scenes talks with Apple and Google get worse, this will be the big sign.
Re: (Score:2)
Built in ad blocker would probably be more exciting.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Except iOS doesn't have higher market share. Whomp whomp.
Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
We all know that iOS people are vastly superior to others... especially those who use "cheap" Android phones.
iOS people are proud to pay for expensive data plans and pay for apps which are free on Android because they have more money, are more beautiful, and like to show their superior smarts.
Even though iOS market share has been dwindling inexorably downwards (along with Apple profits and stock price), iOS users are very secure in their belief in their superiority and will not be swayed by so-called "facts
Re: (Score:3)
The parent was saying that while Android is the most popular OS, many buy it on inexpensive phones with inexpensive plans which they don't intend to use for browsing the internet. If the only Android phones on the market were like the GS3 or 1X+, you'd probably see them used for internet access just as much as iPhones. Apple only makes high end phones, so you don't see people buying them just to make phone calls like you do with Android.
Well played, AC, well played! lol (Score:2)
I'm amazed that such a beautiful piece of parody was modded into oblivion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also thinking that apple would want to tread lightly after the maps debacle of a PR move. "First maps now the internet! Apple won't let you google anymor
Who are "they"? (Score:2)
The meaning of "they" is not very clear. Does "they" mean all Android users? You might say I'm trying to misunderstand what you said. But would you and anyone else who read your statement see a difference in the following statement?
Some Android users have cheap phones on cheap contracts... At the same time, other Android users have expensive phones on expensive contracts because they surf the net , a lot, and ....
Re: (Score:2)
Low-end Android phones aren't a bad thing. But when people say things like Android has 65% or whatever of the market that it's not really comparable
Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (Score:4, Informative)
Look like slightly obscure sources to me.
According to statcounter, Android had topped iOS for half a year already, with 32% and 24% market share respectively last month.
Re: (Score:2)
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201111-201211 [statcounter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be interested to find out with what statistics you have to back up that claim.
By the way, statcounter doesn't count anything BUT web usage share.
Re: (Score:3)
Man, that's ... awful.
For every iOS device sold, there are 3 Androids. Yet the traffic for Android devices is only 50% higher than iOS?
What are people doing with their android phones? Android should be 3 times as much usage as iOS, not 1.5 times as much... or is Android the new "featurephone"?
Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (Score:4, Informative)
Or maybe the iphone is inefficient with its data packing. Or maybe it spies on you more than android and sends more data back to apple. Or maybe android appeals to a wider range of users, including those who don't use their phones constantly.
Re:Apple has a big card they have yet to play (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe they are more frequently doing productive things, which tend to be less bandwidth intensive than, say, exchanging party videos and streaming movies. Or maybe Android -- and apps that are popular on Android -- makes more efficient use of bandwidth; the way that Google's voice search does more on the device whereas Siri relies on backend servers for the same functionality. Or maybe -- as was especially confirmed to be a particularly bad problem in the initial release of iOS 6.0, but has been mitigated in subsequent updates -- iOS makes repeated and spurious extra requests for remote resources.
Re: (Score:3)
is Android the new "featurephone"?
For appropriately inexpensive Android devices, yes. Yes it is.
There are plenty of people out there who don't want or can't afford a data plan. For those people, their Android phone is a feature-phone. You can take pictures, send texts/pictures, make calls, etc. They don't use mapping or other Internet services--they have a GPS in their car or figure out there directions from an Internet-connected computer.
My roomate's nephew was in a similar boat. When I bought my iPhone 4S, I jailbroke and unlocked my
Re: (Score:1)
Man, that's ... awful.
For every iOS device sold, there are 3 Androids. Yet the traffic for Android devices is only 50% higher than iOS?
What are people doing with their android phones? Android should be 3 times as much usage as iOS, not 1.5 times as much... or is Android the new "featurephone"?
What's the retention rate for Android versus iOS? If the average Android user is replacing their phone every six months and the average iOS user every year to get newer models, then Android usage would be unusually high.
Re: (Score:1)
Paperweights?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Currently Google is pre-selected as the search engine for iOS devices. We all know Google hardly makes a dime from Android directly - they are an advertising company. Google ironically makes more money from iOS due to the higher usage of iOS devices around the world (and, in turn, more ad impressions).
Are you smoking fucking rock?
— Android (Google Inc.) — 104.8 million units, 68.1 percent share (46.9 percent a year earlier)
— iOS (Apple Inc.'s iPhone) — 26.0 million units, 16.9 percent share (18.8 percent a year earlier)
Get your facts straight, jesus christ.
I said usage marketshare, which has nothing to do with device marketshare.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustomb=1 [netmarketshare.com]
Hell even the Slashdot website has 30% more iOS devices than Android.
http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/12/12/04/2125239/android-rules-smartphones-but-which-version [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Currently Google is pre-selected as the search engine for iOS devices. We all know Google hardly makes a dime from Android directly - they are an advertising company. Google ironically makes more money from iOS due to the higher usage of iOS devices around the world (and, in turn, more ad impressions).
Can you cite a source for that claim? The numbers Gartner most recently published make that seem extremely unlikely given about 3 times the number of android devices vs iOS. Source: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=2237315 [gartner.com]
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustomb=1 [netmarketshare.com]
Honestly I thought this was pretty common knowledge around the techy community.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And then there are phones like the galaxy series that match or outclass the iphones in almost every way. there are android phones for everyone. There is only one type of iPhone, your only choice is to get the older one or the newer one.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Google's testimony before Congress good enough?
http://9to5mac.com/2012/03/29/apple-generates-four-times-more-revenue-for-google-than-android-devices/ [9to5mac.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Chromebook would fail (Score:2)
Yes, I'm an idiot. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you an idiot? Chrome is browser only. No android apps, just HMTL web apps.
I've heard from several people that have them now that you can reload them with a real operating system. If true, it's an astounding deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
100GB of free cloud space (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Philosophy? (Score:5, Interesting)
The two are not mutually exclusive. And, actually, its not a business model; it may be either a philosophy, or the core principal of a business model, or both, but its not, in and of itself, a business model, any more than "collect underpants", by itself, is.
Re:Philosophy? (Score:4, Informative)
It's not a philosophy at all to Google. It's a business model. Let's call a spade a spade.
It can be both. People don't cease to be passionate about things when they become employed.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it really is a philosophy.
If it were their business model, their products would actually be available, but in reality they are not. Nexus 4's and 10's are impossible to come by anywhere. Nexus 7's cost 280 euro here. Music and movies on Google Play are not avaible except in USA and some parts of Europe, not even all of EU is covered. Developers from Slovenia (such as myself) cannot publish paid apps on the Play Store.
Re: (Score:3)
Nexus 4's and 10's are impossible to come by anywhere.
LG and Samsung make those respectively, not Google.
Nexus 7's cost 280 euro here.
Should Asus really be expected to give the hardware away for free?
Music and movies on Google Play are not avaible except in USA and some parts of Europe, not even all of EU is covered.
Thanks to restrictions imposed by the copyright holders.
Venting frustrations is good, but it's better when directed to the right places.
He left out something important! (Score:2)
'We try pretty hard to make our products be available as widely as we can. That's our philosophy. I think sometimes we're allowed to do that. Sometimes we're not.'"
He should have stated: -
I think sometimes we're allowed to do that. Sometimes we're not, because of our perceived one sided revenue model as interpreted by the some in the newspaper industry [rt.com] for example.
Re: (Score:2)
"We try pretty hard to make our users be available as widely as we can to our adwords partners. That's our philosophy. I think sometimes we're allowed to do that. Sometimes we're not."
He learned to be a diplomat. (Score:2)
He prints his own money now. So he is basically set, if he just keeps his real thoughts to himself.
I liked him (Score:1)
in Led Zeppelin/ Glad to see he got a new gig.
XOR Interview? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, but with high profile busy people like Larry, every such interview is exclusive and hard for a journalist to get.
If Larry wanted to tell something to the press, he wouldn't do it in "exclusive" interview, he would hold a press-conference. So the value for the reader (or viewer) usually is that the interviewee does not get to pick the questions and they can get into any topic more deeply via followups.
They're friends when it suits (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
At last somebody noticed. Samsung and Apple are very happy to build custom made factories. Apple and Google are still friend for a variety of different venture.
Of course they are all competitors and kicking each other in the balls when it is profitable, but mostly all 3 companies have 3 different approaches and are happy to help each other for mutual benefit. All those talk about betrayal, war, hate, ... is just business as usual blown out of proportion "for fun and profit".
"Monetizing" (Score:2)
I think monetizing is my new, most-hated word. (It used to be "premium.") Both are lame-o marketing speak. Why not just call monetizing what it is: Trying to make a profit off something. As for premium, it's intended to convey some sense of privilege or exclusivity, but it's too frequently used for utterly banal things, like "points" in some stupid marketing scheme.
I'm having a hard time getting through the rest of the article because of that word.
It's not exactly breaking my heart that companies are ha
Re: (Score:2)
I don't quite understand the objection. You think we should keep using a seven word phrase instead of a simple single word? That seems...pointless.
I'll grant that the concept isn't necessarily a pleasant one, but it isn't necessarily unpleasant either. And its implications, both fortunate and un-, are shared by that seven word phrase. Unlike "premium", which is definitely used to be misleading, "monetize" seems refreshingly straightforward to me.
I'll admit that the word has unpleasant associations for me, d
Zzzzz (Score:1)
Who cares? Geeks take this shit way too seriously. Channel Genghis Khan? WTF does that even mean? He should behead the interviewer with a war axe? Actually, that would be pretty awesome, and a good distraction from the liquidation of civilization. Put it in a circus tent and sell lots of bread products.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I got downmodded. Oh well.
"Widely available" (Score:3)
We try pretty hard to make our products be available as widely as we can. That's our philosophy.
So, where's the Google Talk client for iOS?
Re: (Score:2)
We try pretty hard to make our products be available as widely as we can. That's our philosophy.
So, where's the Google Talk client for iOS?
There are many Google Talk clients for iOS. One of the many advantages of choosing a standard chat protocol (XMPP) for Google Talk is that Google doesn't have to create clients for every platform to make the product available there. Google's product is available on iOS.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many Google Talk clients for iOS.
Yes, and all of them suck. Half don't have push notifications, for example; the other half implement them flakily
One of the many advantages of choosing a standard chat protocol (XMPP) for Google Talk is that Google doesn't have to create clients for every platform to make the product available there.
If only it was so easy. Take push notifications as an example - that's server-side logic, and you need it for the app to receive and collect messages when it is in the background. A third party can only implement it by having their servers connect to Google ones using your login/password (for which you have to give it to them!). So Google is the only one who can implement that securely.
Then also,
Re: (Score:2)
I never claimed that they're beholden to me; it was Page who said that they "try pretty hard to make our products be available as widely as we can".
Re: (Score:2)
Followed by: "Sometimes we're allowed to do that. Sometimes we're not."
So why is there no Google Talk client for iOS? Maybe Apple won't let them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that, if Apple were to reject any Google app during review, we'd hear about it. Heck, they didn't even reject Maps (yet?), and there's already plenty of speculation about that.
Also, it's unclear why Apple would let them put in GMail, G+ etc, but not GTalk. Far more likely that it was never submitted. Which wouldn't really surprise me, given that they don't even have a supported desktop client app on Windows or OS X. Which is very unfortunate, since it is otherwise the single best messaging s
Re: (Score:2)
if Apple were to reject any Google app during review, we'd hear about it. Heck, they didn't even reject Maps (yet?), and there's already plenty of speculation about that.
I'm not an expert on EULA's, but it wouldn't surprise me to find there is a section that says, "If your app is rejected, you cannot tell the world or we will discontinue all of your apps." Would it be worth it to Google to lose GMail, G+, etc. by publicly complaining about GTalk getting nixed?
Note that Apple hasn't rejected Maps but we haven't heard anything about it...
Also, it's unclear why Apple would let them put in GMail, G+ etc, but not GTalk.
Because it duplicates functionality in iMessage?
Far more likely that it was never submitted.
I tend to agree, don't get me wrong. Occam's Razor and all. But as a fan of conspiracy th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an expert on EULA's, but it wouldn't surprise me to find there is a section that says, "If your app is rejected, you cannot tell the world or we will discontinue all of your apps."
I doubt that's the case, since there has been a steady stream of "WTF, my app is rejected" stories from all corners, including some bigger names.
Because it duplicates functionality in iMessage?
Yes, but then GMail also duplicates the functionality of the built-in Mail app. On the other hand, Apple has allowed many other IM clients into the store, so it doesn't seem that they count generic IM functionality as a duplicate of iMessage (which makes sense, since they use different networks which are not compatible, so one is really not a drop-in replacement fo
Evolution of search (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It's got to be. Smart we may be, but Business Intelligence wouldn't be a fit here.