Apple are liars. The truth about Apple, Google, AT&T and the FCC

[Da_Funk]

Im surprised that more people here are using IE than Firefox.

Why?

I use internet explorer because it works just fine and I've used it for years. Why would I need to use firefox? A few cute features that I'd never use aren't enough to sway me.

 

[S O F I]

Fortunately Microsoft itself did the right thing by letting people at least in Europe choose the browser they want to use after installing Windows 7.

perhaps because of anti-trust lawsuits and billion-dollar fines?

 

[Preach]

My post got deleted, but at the end of the day, I've been a happy and loyal customer to Microsoft for years. I have no reason to change. Now I purchased an iPhone, and it's functions leave me happy. I've seen Mac's in action and I am enthused with what I've seen. I appreciate Apple's business model, and I appreciate the concept and freedom of PC's. That coupled with the aforementioned fact that Windows (and other MS products for that matter - Office is great) has always delivered for me are reasons why I'm loyal to Microsoft. And if Apple continue to make products that tailor to my needs I may continue to purchase them. I believe in staying with what I know, whereas some people like to live on the edge of technology. It's just two different points of view.

As for lies, I believe in privacy. Someone mentioned earlier how Apple should be able to choose what products they like to be included in their services. Accusing them of lies is sort of edgy imo, because I don't really know if they really need to make a statement at all. The fact that they made one and that it's questionable may be a fact, but why that warrants any attention beyond reading it and saying "oh." is beyond me tbh. I guess if you look at it strategically, it's a way of getting the fans' demands through, because like people mentioned, Apple will probably accept the application now anyway.

 

[Bobby Sands]

Why?

I use internet explorer because it works just fine and I've used it for years. Why would I need to use firefox? A few cute features that I'd never use aren't enough to sway me.

correct me if im wrong but arent most viruses, trojan horses, malware etc designed to target vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer because most people use it as their web browser. Thats a good enough reason to use something else.

 

[Bobby Sands]

perhaps because of anti-trust lawsuits and billion-dollar fines?

yea lol. it wasnt out of the kindness of their heart thats for sure.

 

[masta247]

perhaps because of anti-trust lawsuits and billion-dollar fines?

But thanks to EU they were supposed to leave Windows 7 without an internet browser at all.
They added the possibility for users to install firefox, opera or ie from the installation menu which was not forced. I know that it's better for them but I just mean that it's nice that there's an option to pick what you want now.

correct me if im wrong but arent most viruses, trojan horses, malware etc designed to target vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer because most people use it as their web browser. Thats a good enough reason to use something else.

Yeah it is incredibly exploited. IE is the main source of virus/trojan/malware infection soon after downloading junk via emule/torrents.
Plus it's annoying to use compared to other browsers.

 

[Casey]

....and it continues. I believe Google will have agreements like this with at least 10 more hardware manufacturers in a year's time.

Google says Sony will install its Chrome browser on some PCs -- latimes.com

It's worth noting that this is how Windows became the biggest operating system - Microsoft struck lots of individual deals with all the hardware manufacturers.

Since Google will have strong business relationships with all these manufacturers for their browser - it makes logical sense that the same will happen for their OS further down the line.

It makes no difference to me if people doubt this, because it will still happen. I'm just calling it ahead of time.

Oh yeah, and:

Android closing in on BlackBerry, taking share from iPhone*|*Android and Me

 

[Rukas]

Meh.

I live in the now. Just upgraded to Mac OSX 10.6 Snow Leopard and BlackBerry OS 5.0 leaked. That is all I care about right now and nothing is fucking with that combo.

For the record Snow Leopard cost me $29 and BB OS was free. I can live with paying a developer 30 bucks for a new OS that is what it should cost to keep them in business and doing they're thing.

How is Google going to make money off of a free OS? Incorporate ads? No thanks.

But hey, if it turns out good, Im all for it, innovation is great, and you cant expect to stick with one way of doing things forever, but right now its Mac OSX and Blackberry for me.

 

[masta247]

Well, it seems to be a complicated scheme this time from google.
Chrome is supposed to be a unix-like open source so the source code will be out this year for open communities to work on it meaning that we'll see plenty variations.
However from what I understand the original Chrome OS will be released next year and it will be preinstalled on new netbooks and laptops and then desktop PC's (since it will run on all x86 processors).
I believe that the point is not to get money off their operating system but to take a fair share putting down Microsoft and Apple and ending the "expensive operation systems era". Of course it's not as simple as that and there are no charity workers at google.

See, Google is one of the most powerful companies worldwide yet you don't directly pay them for anything. Almost every service they offer is pretty well made and free. Even youtube, gmail is probably the only commercial email service that don't send its users any kinds of spam.
And it also is indeed one of the best email systems from the technical point of view, the user interface and integrated services, the capacity of your inbox etc - everything top level.

Buying a netbook/computer now you pay about 200$ more just because it has an included Windows/Mac OS. Sure you could search for one with Linux but no free Linux distribution was strong enough to be taken seriously and it's quite rare to find it preinstalled on a brand new laptop simply because no powerful company decided to release a free OS.
If Google makes major deals with computer manufacturers you'll have a choice to buy a PC for it's normal price or about 200$ cheaper with a full Google OS. Picture that - the system could be free to download/obtain for casual people but deals could mean for example 10-15$ from hardware manufacturers per preinstall of Google OS.

Google Chrome OS means a strong connection with other services and development of a whole infrastructure for its users limiting other "important players" in the OS market.
The second biggest problem hurting Linux platforms is that they can barely run any software natively. They usually have to run them through Windows emulators meaning much worse performance.
If a free OS is good enough, popular enough to make most software developers optimize their programs for it why would people still buy a system for their computer?
And Windows doesn't get every program written for it because it's the best OS on the market - it's because a huge majority of people are using it and developers want to make money/reach the most users. Mac Os and other Unix platforms are still not as relevant so for example most video game manufacturers don't bother porting games. That could change dramatically if there was another huge player getting at least a similar share of users as Windows. Then add all those open source variations of Chrome OS with totally different user interfaces that will be actually based on Chrome OS core meaning that more advanced users will be able to get a system of their own choice running everything like Google's OS which at that time should have a bunch of commercial software written for it.

In other words most people underestimate Google. I think that they're aming incredibly high with Chrome OS and it has a quite realistic chance to take over a huge share in the OS war soon after its release. Especially if its innovations turn out to be really that awesome - Google claims that it's created "from nothing" and will look differently and work differently than any popular system. From totally different system of 'windows' to 'desktop' which will be pretty much an online desktop, a few second booting time meaning a different memory management and hdd utilization - it is supposed to be innovative, free and backed up by a powerful company with big plans that usually turned out to work. It's a hit or miss but if it succeeds it can turn out to be a really massive hit.

 

[Rukas]

Buying a netbook/computer now you pay about 200$ more just because it has an included Windows/Mac OS. Sure you could search for one with Linux but no free Linux distribution was strong enough to be taken seriously and it's quite rare to find it preinstalled on a brand new laptop simply because no powerful company decided to release a free OS.

Ok, this is wrong.

Firstly, netbooks dont come with Mac OSX, ever, as Apple doesnt make netbooks.

Secondly, MOST netbooks do come with Unix, because Asus runs the netbook market, and they have a free unix based OS running their netbooks. I bought one for my mom a couple months ago, I then wiped it and deleted a hacked to shit "lite" version of Windows XP on it.

If Google makes major deals with computer manufacturers you'll have a choice to buy a PC for it's normal price or about 200$ cheaper with a full Google OS. Picture that - the system could be free to download/obtain for casual people but deals could mean for example 10-15$ per preinstallation of their system from hardware manufacturers.

My only problem with that is MOST people would rather a Windows box than anything else right now because the casual user needs MS Office because they cant use Open Office. Most people are retarded you see. So the people that could actually run a Unix based system are smart enough to buy a custom built machine anyway and save more money that way.

Who buys prebuilt machines nowadays? Casual users. And casual users want Windows.

I ONLY see this working in the laptop market, and even then limited to the netbooks, and that is exactly what Google is doing right now.

Hey 5 years from now, sure go for it, we'll see where the game is once people get used to using the Google OS, but right now it wont be anything major.

Then Google Chrome OS means a strong connection with other services and development of a whole infrastructure for Google Chrome Os users limiting other "important players" in the OS market.
The second biggest problem for Linux platforms is that they can barely run any software natively. They usually have to run them through Windows emulators meaning much worse performance.
If a free OS is good enough, popular enough to make most software developers optimize their programs for it why would people still buy a system for their computer?

I just dont see it happening though. I dont see major software developers moving to a Unix platform if they havent done so already with the "success" of Ubantu.

In other words most people underestimate Google. I think that they're aming incredibly high with Chrome OS and it has quite realistic chances to take over a huge share in the OS war soon after its release. Especially if its innovations turn out to be really that awesome - Google claims that it's created "from zero"

Well its based on Unix so that's a lie.

and will look different and work different than already popular systems from totally different system of 'windows' to 'desktop' which will be pretty much an online desktop.

Which means one of two things.

1. It will end up just looking the same as any other Unix install with just a different "skin."

2. It will be so radically different that it will scare of the casual user.

Since 2. will also make it harder to develop for, Im expecting 1.

It's a hit or miss but if it succeeds it can turn out to be a really massive hit.

Hey, Im all for it. Im just keeping expectations low.

And for now, Im focused on the Mac world for my day to day computing.

 

[Rukas]

Oh and for the record, in regards to browsers, I recommend all Mac users check out Camino. Its developed on Mozilla so works a lot like Firefox but is lightening fast and smooth on Mac. I had some problems with Firefox on my Macbook and checked it out and wow am I impressed. It's a lot better than Chrome too.

 

[masta247]

Ok, this is wrong.

Firstly, netbooks dont come with Mac OSX, ever, as Apple doesnt make netbooks.

Yeah but Chrome OS in not aimed exclusively at netbooks.

My only problem with that is MOST people would rather a Windows box than anything else right now because the casual user needs MS Office because they cant use Open Office. Most people are retarded you see. So the people that could actually run a Unix based system are smart enough to buy a custom built machine anyway and save more money that way.

Google probably wants to change that so people will start prefering Google over Microsoft.

Who buys prebuilt machines nowadays? Casual users. And casual users want Windows.

Right now sure. But what if there's a popular system that can do everything like Windows, it's popular and it's free?

Hey 5 years from now, sure go for it, we'll see where the game is once people get used to using the Google OS, but right now it wont be anything major.

Yeah I'm only speculating.

I just dont see it happening though. I dont see major software developers moving to a Unix platform if they havent done so already with the "success" of Ubantu.

Ubuntu is only 'successful' because of a group of people who were against Windows and wanted a free operating system. Most people don't even know what it is and are afraid to try. I think that only something totally new and appealing from a powerful company could end Microsoft's monopoly.

Well its based on Unix so that's a lie.
Which means one of two things.

I don't know if it's Unix-based or if it's just Unix-like with a new core. However even if it's made like an original Unix it still can be a totally different system.
Most Linux systems are made to resemble Windows or Mac Os so it's easier for people to use it.

1. It will end up just looking the same as any other Unix install with just a different "skin."

2. It will be so radically different that it will scare of the casual user.

Yes but if it's new and totally different but intuitive, fast and easy to use that would mean a huge success.

Hey, Im all for it. Im just keeping expectations low.

I on the contrary have based everything on what Google said. I believe that they want/expect things to work the way I think they do.
It can either work or be just another casual Unix build like Ubuntu just backed up by a bigger company. If it ends on netbooks surely it will be nothing that big but I see that they are already talking about it working on laptops, tablets and desktop Pc's.
I'm just saying that not knowing what it is, how it works and looks only keeping in mind what we know from Google and their business moves it has a huge potential.
And at that point these are only speculations.

 

[Casey]

Update....Apple definately lied. Check it

Google: Apple's a Liar, Did Reject Google Voice iPhone App - Google - Gizmodo

The juicy stuff in Google's response to the FCC about the Google Voice iPhone app that we couldn't read? Apple's a lying liarface, because they did reject the app. UPDATE: Apple responds, denies.

If you remember Apple gave the FCC this gem of a response: "Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved..." They didn't reject it, they simply hadn't approved it. Right.

Google's pulled the confidentiality request off its response to the FCC's inquiry, and they say it was rejected. There are some other noteworthy morsels in the full doc (PDF), like that Phil Schiller himself broke the news on July 7 they were rejecting GV to Google's VP of Engineering and Research Alan Eustace, and that part of the reason Apple rejected Google Latitude is that they were actually afraid it might replace the core Maps application, since it offered new features Maps didn't have.

It's absolutley amazing to see this kind of fear on Apple's part, given the position they're in with the iPhone. Because that's what these two rejections boil down to: fear. Still, things could get way more interesting, so stay tuned

 

[ARon]

Apple is incredible

[YOUTUBE]Nx7v815bYUw[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Casey]

Lmfao!

 

[Casey]

Google Releases A Nuke. Apple Won’t Win This Fight.

Well, something clearly broke down behind the scenes in the ongoing Apple/Google negotiations over Google Voice on the iPhone, because Google released one of two nukes it has been holding back. In a letter to the FCC today, Google disclosed previously unpublished information about Apple’s rejection of their Google Voice application.

There’s no longer any question – either Google or Apple is flat out lying to the FCC:

Apple: “Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it.”

Google: “Apple representatives informed Google that the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone”

Our position is that Apple is the one full of it, which we stated way before this new information from Google. And it isn’t just he said/she said – Apple’s story doesn’t add up.

But Apple is standing firm, and even today told press that they haven’t rejected the Google Voice application, despite what Google says.

This doesn’t end here. As we’ve speculated, Apple will capitulate and accept the application with a few minor tweaks to save face. Because if they don’t we’ve heard Google has yet another nuke waiting on the sidelines – a screen shot of the actual rejection notice via the iPhone developers admin with the formal rejection. At that point, Apple will no longer be able to rely on nuances and misdirection. The FCC and everyone else will know that they lied in a government investigation.

We’re offering a free TechCrunch tshirt to any Google employee that forwards that screenshot to us. No questions asked.

Isn't it a crime to lie in a government investigation? I'm fairly certain it must be. If so...Apple could face a serious fine over this.

I don't understand how they can still lie about it when they KNOW there is a ton of evidence that proves that they are lying. Like this article states.... Google obviously have the evidence showing the app was rejected.

Something's not adding up. Apple have been backed into a corner through fear of Google and their shady tactics. They've been lying about it since before the investigation started and they're still lying. I don't get it.

 

[Eric]

WHY is this thread 6 pages long??!!!! I dont have that kind of attention span!! Pls cliff notes me so I can respond.

 

[masta247]

guys at Apple are funny with their lies.
Same story with Opera browser. Opera said that they made a mobile browser directed at Iphones but Apple rejected that.
Apple denied lol:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Opera-Web-Browser-Denied-in-the-App-Store-96861.shtml

I also love this section lmao:

http://www.iphonehacks.com/iphone_apps_banned_or_removed/

Iphone Apps banned or removed

 

[Casey]

WHY is this thread 6 pages long??!!!! I dont have that kind of attention span!! Pls cliff notes me so I can respond.

1. Apple are running scared of Google's Android mobile OS, because Android is better than the iPhone OS and has taken a ton of smartphone market share and will easily overtake Apple if the current growth rate increases, which it will because in many countries there are multiple major carriers with Android phones and they're all selling by the shitload. Even in the US every major carrier now has an Android phone except AT&T, who want one but risk pissing off Apple if they do.

2. Apple rejected a Google App, "Google Voice" from their app store for no valid reason. The CEO of Google was formerly on the Apple board of directors but stepped down over it, which fucks Apple, because Google now have no hesitations when it comes to making sure Android begins to dominate the smartphone market over the iPhone.

3. The FCC called a government investigation into why Apple had rejected this app. The letter that Apple submitted was full of lies and twisted to try and disguise the fact that Apple are running scared of Google. The stuff that they were claiming was very much completely untrue. The first post of this thread quotes the letter, with explanations of why it doesn't make any sense. I suggest you at least read the first post in this thread.

It was also pretty insulting to Apple's own userbase. Even hardcore iPhone fanboys like Michael Arrington from TechCrunch abandoned the iPhone and went to Android because of this. Apple are losing more and more support every day, and not just from their userbase, from bloggers, media, and most importantly, developers, who were already switching to Android because it's easier to code for, it's an open platform with more capabilities and potential, and there's no ridiculous approval process to get your software into the download market, unlike Apple.

4. It's now known that Apple lied in the government investigation, which aside from being morally wrong and insulting to their own userbase, makes them look weak and also opens them up for a large fine and investigation, since it's illegal to lie in a government investigation. Google obviously have the evidence to backup the fact that Apple blocked the app for no good reason.

That's the gist of it.

 

[linx]

Well.. i'm glad i'm not the only satisfied G1 user.. lol. Maybe next we can do a "must have apps" thread or something.