The guys over at Gizmodo recently penned a really good piece on the impending war between Apple and Google.  Jesus Diaz really dove down a few layers and reveals just how love has turned to hate.

Apple has sued Google’s phone manufacturer for infringing on 20 iPhone patents. Not so long ago, Apple and Google were a nice couple. Then, everything went to hell.

The romance began with the iPhone, even while we didn’t know about it in 2006. Back then, Steve Jobs invited Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt to his house, to sit at his table, and have vanilla-frosted cupcakes and tea together. It was instant love.

An Affair to Remember

They happily worked in the iPhone’s 2007 launch. Google gave Apple their maps, their search, and their mail, and Apple gave Google the best spot in their new shiny device. Apple put YouTube into the iPhone and Google made YouTube to work nicely with QuickTime, moving all videos to the h.264 standard (so Apple could avoid that nasty Flash kid). Google even optimized their web apps for the iPhone, and Apple smiled.

And so they played in the new smartphone playground together and giggled at Yahoo and Microsoft and Adobe and everyone else. They were the coolest kids, they told everyone how happy they were, and everyonethought they were the perfect lovers.

The iPhone quickly became a huge success, positioning itself as the future of ubiquitous consumer-oriented computing. Just the kind that Google wants to control to deliver its highly targeted ads. Google noticed the success, and the relationship started to rupture. I can imagine the meeting between Eric, Sergey and Larry: “Whaaaa…? How did they…? Fuck, we need to get into this now.” It was then that Google started to reveal its true face — and their plans for the little company they bought in 2005, helmed by the phone wiz Andy Rubin. They realized that they couldn’t let Apple control the main window to the web. After all, it was their web, not Apple’s.

Google presented Android, their own smartphone operating system made to imitate Apple’s. Not only did they devote resources to create this, but they wanted to give it for free to every manufacturer and carrier. It didn’t take much for Steve Jobs to realize that the romance was over. It was betrayal. Google was his new Microsoft. The real nemesis that could build a new dominant “Windows”, and turn his early success with the iPhone into the new Mac underdog.

That was when all went to hell.

Escalating Conflict

It wasn’t an open war. At the beginning, it all happened behind curtains, like when Apple allegedly stopped multitouch on Android and Google complied, realizing that they might otherwise be stepping into a patent minefield. Like the one the just got into now, with HTC as the proxy.

Steve Jobs couldn’t tie his tongue, however. Back in January 2008, he was already criticizing Google and Android, pointing out that it wasn’t going to be good for anyone. It was the first knife shining in the open, but it wasn’t the last one.

After that, executives at Apple have been pretty clear about what they think about Google, like when Tim Cook said that Google was still trying to catch up with the first iPhone or Jobs gave his blunt-as-bricks opinion on Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” mantra. “It’s bullshit,” he said, a sentiment now shared by many.

It almost feels like this is something personal for Steve Jobs, as if he believed that a fake-smiled Eric Schmidt sat at the Apple’s board, eating his food and drinking his wine, while plotting to kidnap Apple’s baby since the very beginning. It seems the feeling is mutual: Schmidt delivered his own snide against Jobs and his new baby recently, pooping on the iPad as nothing more than a big phone.

Knowing how things developed, it’s surprising that Schmidt stayed on Apple’s board for so long. He resigned on August 2009, just as the war started to go open, first with Google grabbing mobile advertising company AdMob from Apple’s hands(which forced Apple to buying Quattro Wireless). Then with Apple pissing on Google’s parade by stealing Lala, the music streaming service that Larry and Sergei wanted to have.

The love affair was definitely over, and the bitter separation started. Like gangrene, the hate started to spread to every aspect in the relations between the two companies. According to insiders, negotiating the terms for maps in the new iPhone OS and the iPad was a fierce battle, to the point in which Apple went andbought their own charting company at one point. Who knows if that move was part of their poker hand—like the rumors about Apple replacing Google search withBing—or an actual desire to get fully independent from Google.

The War for the Future of Computing

The true war, however, has started today, with the lawsuit against HTC. It names their Windows phones, but that’s just a distracting maneuver. The core example in the lawsuit is Android, and that’s where the real attack is. And by going against HTC, the weakest link in the chain, Apple is not only attacking Google. It’s also giving a warning to every manufacturer out there: If you try to pull a Nexus Two for them, we will launch our missiles against you. Motorola—who confirmed they are working with Google—could be the next one in the list.

Jobs clearly knows that they are playing for the domination of the future of computing, the Next Big Thing. And he doesn’t want this one to end like the Macintosh-Windows War. This time he has a huge lead, and he has the deep pockets to fight for it, whether that means new product development, strategic acquisitions or all-out legal battles. In the most recent Apple shareholder meeting, he clearly said this: They will use their huge mountain of cash to do everything necessary, every “bold move” needed to keep their lead, and have the whole enchilada for themselves.

There’s no doubt that Jobs will use every single of Apple’s 40 billion dollars to trump Google’s plans, and keep their massive market share in the mobile device and applications world. But for that he will need a strong cloud structure and to get deep into the social aspect of the web. Of the latter, they got nothing. On the former, MobileMe is still a half-baked solution, and iWork.com beta has failed to gain any real traction. Maybe Apple’s traditional enemy—Microsoft—would be able to help there. And maybe getting together with Facebook would slap Google where it hurts more.

On the other side, Google has the lead in the cloud, except for their failed social efforts, which are the target of jokes and extreme criticism. At the same time, while technically good, Android has failed to match the momentum of the iPhone. Android’s app marketplace is still tiny compared to the App Store—and low quality too, by comparison. Apple has an easier time wooing app developers at this point, and that is a big advantage.

Overall, it seems like the two ex-lovers are in a technical tie, and are getting dirtier and bloodier by the day. Sometimes, love ends up like this.

Source: Gizmodo

“We don’t know how to build a $500 computer that’s not a piece of junk.”

“Netbooks aren’t better at anything.”

Those two quotes are both from Apple CEO Steve Jobs. The first was during an earnings call in late 2008 when Jobs fielded a question about why Apple wasn’t cutting prices amid the rising success of netbooks. The second came on Wednesday as Jobs was unveiling the iPad.

Apple has made it clear all along that they had no plans to build a netbook. And true to their word, they haven’t. But that doesn’t mean that Apple didn’t feel there was a need for a device that resided in between a full laptop and a mobile phone — in fact, that’s squarely where Apple is positioning the iPad. With it, they feel that they’ve created a $500 (for the baseline version) device that is superior to every netbook out there.

Meanwhile, Google has decided to target the market in between the laptop and the mobile phone as well. But whereas Apple is anti-netbook, Google is very pro-netbook — they just want to make them better. That’s the reason behind Google OS, as Google clearly laid out during its unveiling event late last year.

And so yes, we once again have Google and Apple on a collision course.

Now, it remains to be seen if people who buy an iPad will do so instead of buying a netbook. At first, I’m not so sure that will be the case. But it stands to reason that eventually, this will happen. And as Jobs’ comments on stage on Wednesday made abundantly clear, that’s Apple’s idea too. In their eyes, you shouldn’t buy a cheap, underpowered PC, you should buy an iPad, their anti-netbook.

Google, which plans to release its first Chrome OS-based netbooks in time for the holiday season next year, can’t like that plan too much. They have promised that netbooks that run Chrome OS will be better than current netbooks because they’re dictating certain minimum requirements (such as big keyboards) to manufacturing partners. But Chrome OS netbooks won’t be able match the sex appeal of the iPad’s multi-touch screen. However, what they can offer is a familiar experience (much more like a traditional laptop then an iPad), and that will be appealing to a lot of people.

And what’s interesting is that for either of the two to be massive hits, they both will need consumers to continue to feel comfortable moving away from traditional software applications such as Microsoft Office. But their plans to get consumers to do that are very different. Google wants everyone to move towards doing everything on their apps in the cloud. Apple, as they made clear with their overly-long iWork for iPad demo on Wednesday, wants everyone to move towards using iPhone OS-based apps.

And that’s why this battle coming at the end of this year will be interesting to watch. Both Apple and Google are very popular with consumers, but their offerings are very different — while aiming for the same market. And as two companies that were once as close as could be, it’s also interesting to watch the tension and awkwardness as they now compete in an ever-growing number of areas.

If this market between laptops and smartphones proves big enough, perhaps the two frenemies can once again find a common ground and band together to defeat their common enemy: Microsoft. But the obvious strategy for this used to be that Google would attack Microsoft from the bottom with its Chrome OS netbooks, while Apple attacked from the top with their premium computers, leaving Microsoft squeezed in the middle. With the iPad now clearly aimed at netbooks thanks to its pricing and Apple’s positioning, everything is different.[TechCrunch]

Our Take: Get ready to watch a true battle of the titans.  First Google launched the phone and its OS, not they are going after a similar use as the iPad via competitors in the netbook space.  Should be fun to watch, and in the end, we win.

Source: TechCrunch / RP

iPad - More?

Bear with me on this one, alright? It’s a long shot, but part of me thinks this is a set up. Apple hasn’t gone over things like how notifications work, they didn’t address multitasking, and in some places, it felt like Steve & Co. purposely rushed over certain areas in the announcement.

What if there is going to be an iPhone SDK event/announcement before the Apple iPad actually hits stores? Apple said “late March” for the non-3G unit to be available and that’s curiously right when Apple usually holds its iPhone/iPod OS SDK events and where we’d most likely see iPhone OS 4.0 appear. Is it possible this is just to get the ball moving and Apple has some bigger stuff up its sleeve already? Multitasking, redone notifications, and a whole lot more, coming to both the iPhone platform as well as the iPad? Now, why release an SDK based on iPhone OS 3.2 and have devs code for that and then have to redo it, you might be asking, but iPhone 4.0, if it was announced in March would probably be a beta and not released to the public until June/July. That would give developers time to redo any applications for full 4.0 compatibility. Plus, the general public would get iPhone OS 3.2 while developers concurrently used iPhone OS 4.0 and developed for both that and the iPad. Maybe just wishful thinking, but heck, it would make sense. [boygeniusreport]

Our Take: There must be.  Everyone seems to forget that Apple completely ignored one of the most obvious uses of the device, magazines.  And surely, apart from a few hardware misses like a camera, the majority of the other shortfalls are software related.  We think big changes are still in store for the device.

Source: Boygeniusreport / RP

iCAll (VoIP)

Great news for the VoIP world: iCall, the maker of the iCall VoIP iPhone app that can catch a GSM call and flip it over to WiFi, has issued a press release saying that the new iPhone SDK allows for VoIP over 3G cellular connections.

Previously such calls had to be made over WiFi, since AT&T’s network (or someone well acquainted with AT&T’s network) didn’t think it was man enough to take the VoIP traffic. Interestingly, iCall says its 3G-friendly VoIP app is available now, and is the first and only such app in the App Store — which seems like some pretty quick turnaround on everyone’s part, but apparently the 3G restriction wasn’t anything to do with the software itself, but instead a server-side block. We just tested this out and it totally works, and while we’ll be looking for more verification that the ban has indeed been lifted, it sounds like it’s time for some cheaply connected international parties in the streets.

Our Take: For conducting business overseas or especially for when you are overseas, VoIP can save a mountain of cash.  Before, it required WIFI, not that the new SDK is allowing it over 3G, the use-ability is greatly enhanced.  Hey, always looking to save a buck.

Source: PR Newswire / Engadget / PR

Apple iPad

I watched multiple screens doing instant reviews of the new Apple iPad, and on first blush I came away dazzled by the systems sleek UI, compact size and broad functionality.

Now that the dust has settled, I like others writing reviews, are starting to have a few mixed feeling and just wish Apple had not left out a few very important features.  What follows below are a few of the primary complaints about the iPad:

1) The touch keyboard.  Looks really hard to use seeing how the tablet has no desk based orientation.  I know they have an attachable keyboard, and I understand why they had to include one. But…

2) No Camera

3) No Multitasking.  Apple has been promising this for the iPhone for years and it was simply amazing that it was not included on a computer in this form factor.

4) Adapters.  Not much included in the way of adapters.  Seems we will have this cool 1.5 pound tablet and 9 pounds of cables, cameras, and assorted attachments.

5) No video out.  Huge miss here and something found in the tiniest of cameras.

That touches on a few of the complaints I see spinning the web and other media.  Do I think it will inhibit the device from adoption?  NO  Do I see Apple making hardware and software enhancements at a scale quicker than other Apple products? YES

And not the big question.

Will I be buying one for myself, as a self confirmed Apple homer… Of course.  It is so completely outstanding on the book and in-device media front, that I could see myself dragging this on the plane hands down over other devices, including those I already own from Apple.

Source: RP

Apple event is do to start in 15 minutes.  Please see earlier post sorting via Apple for preferred places to attend.

Source: RP

Apple Invite

The teaser for Apple’s press event, “Come see our latest creation,” has a double meaning. Content creators, not gadget freaks, will be the biggest target of Apple’s Wednesday press conference.

Although most of the speculation has centered on a tablet device that will likely be announced at the event, Apple CEO Steve Jobs probably has bigger plans in mind. (Click for live coverage of the Apple event, which starts 10 a.m. Pacific time on Jan. 27.)

Apple’s goal is to offer a new platform for content creators to reinvent books, magazines and online content — in addition to offering a new avenue for content producers to make money. That platform will likely be far broader than just a tablet device, and will extend to every device or computer that iTunes touches.

HTML5 and iTunes will form the centerpieces of Apple’s new content strategy. The new iTunes content will not be packaged as apps sold through the App Store, though Apple will likely provide a tablet app for displaying new content created with this new platform, and developers will still be free to create apps. Instead, HTML content will be presented similar to the way iTunes currently presents enhanced music and video content.

“The focus is going to be on content creation and participation,” a technologist with close ties to Apple told Wired.com. “If the tablet is going to be an answer to things like the Kindle, which are purely about consumption, what you’re going to see is Apple is going to be full-blown about creation.”

Our source said he inferred the arrival of an HTML5-and-iTunes book platform based on a combination of knowledge from Apple and his own analysis of news reports.

By creating a business platform for content producers, Apple would be recycling a winning strategy for its iPhone’s App Store: the genius of crowdsourcing. Apple opened up a software development kit to third-party developers to code for the iPhone and sell their apps through the iTunes App Store. The result? 100,000 apps and counting, a lucrative industry worth over $1 billion, and a 30 percent cut for Apple with each sale.

Apple has sold more than 6 billion songs through iTunes, and the software comes bundled with all new Apple, Dell, and Hewlett-Packard computers. That means publishers who sell through iTunes have access to an enormous potential market.

Already, iTunes LP utilizes HTML5 and JavaScript code to present richer album experiences that can include cover art, liner notes, lyrics and more, in addition to music. ITunes Extras works in a similar way with movies. Both take advantage of a browser built in to the iTunes application to present multimedia content.

An iTunes book involving HTML5 would be a logical extension of the platform to create similar rich-media wrappers for e-books and e-magazines. But why stop at the covers?

Content creators could use HTML5 and JavaScript to create well-designed, interactive content. That could be as simple as an illustrated and code-enhanced story or as complex as a fancy digital magazine packed with video and audio.

It could also change classroom learning. Textbook material could incorporate multimedia and social networking elements as easily as any web page currently can.

(Fans of Adobe and its Flash platform are likely to be disappointed, since Apple’s support for Flash has been anemic at best, and is nonexistent in iTunes LP and iTunes Extras.)

Then, instead of deploying that content on a website and asking for donations or trying to sell ads, creators could deploy their web pages-cum-e-books to the iTunes store, where a built-in retail apparatus takes care of collecting payments as small as $1 while Apple holds on to what looks like a reasonably small 30-percent cut.

A recent Wall Street Journal story suggests that Apple is in last-minute negotiations with book publishers, urging them to adopt a model where most books are priced at $13 or $15, instead of the $10 that prevails on Amazon’s Kindle e-book store.

By distributing through iTunes, creators would have access to users on any of Apple’s platforms, including the iPhone, iPod Touch, MacBooks, desktop PCs, or possibly even the Apple TV. Even more significantly, iTunes users on Windows PCs would also be part of the available market.

And sure, that content will no doubt look good on a tablet, too. Our guess is the tablet will have exclusive functions for displaying iTunes book content in a special way, which will be one of the gadget’s main selling points (among other new, yet-to-be-known features, of course).

In one fell swoop, a move like this would give content creators easy-to-use and powerful tools for creating interactive content, and give them a way of making a living from it, too.

That’s the kind of thing — not some shiny gadget — that Apple CEO Steve Jobs would say “will be the most important thing I’ve ever done.” [Wired]

Source: Wired