Google: Bing is our competitor, Apple is not

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s Alan Murray, Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt talked a little about his company’s competitors, and its 'partners'. Whilst the Wall Street Journal asked some rather strange and seemingly uneducated questions, Google’s CEO was more than happy to name Bing as a major competitor without the interviewer even mentioning Bing.

Schmidt refers to Bing as a "well-run, highly-competitive search engine" and thinks that the press have wrongly forgotten about Microsoft. With the recent 'innovation' that’s been happening over at Google’s labs, it’s quite clear that they’re watching Bing very closely.

It seems that despite all the hype surrounding Google’s Android platform, Google is not (publicly) naming Apple as a competitor, instead they claim that the consumer giant a major partner. This is quickly explainable, as during the interview, Schmidt talks about the deals that they have in place with Apple and having search on the iPhone is obviously an important deal for Google to have. However, time will likely see this relationship deteriorate as Google further moves into Apple territory with Google TV and other pending products. When asked about the applications market that Apple pioneered, Schmidt thinks that HTML 5 and other web-technologies will eventually spell the end of closed, platform-specific applications, a view that many others agree with.

Source: WSJ: The Big Interview (via LiveSide.net)

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Learning from 4chan's vendetta

Next Story

Apple in legal battle over the use of "pod"

30 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Schmidt thinks that HTML 5 and other web-technologies will eventually spell the end of closed, platform-specific applications, a view that many others agree with.

That's how things went in the desktop era because application distribution was decentralized, immobile, and sometimes unsafe.

In the common mobile ecosystem however, apps are distributed through a central store/market thus giving users a trusted source to get "apps" from. Also, since most apps are storing their data on the cloud, mobility is no longer a problem.

Some might argue that the web won over native applications on the desktop because it was architecture-neutral, yet web applications still suffer from fragmentation and developers still complain about cross-browser support. Fragmentation didn't really disappear on the web, it only shifted from one platform (machine language) to another (user's choice of a browser).

There's no reason to believe that history will repeat itself in the mobile era. For all I know, native apps are becoming more and more popular.

From all the money-thirsty corporations i have ever known, google seems to be the less greedy one. I cant see society stalls for another decade just because Microsoft were the monopoly. Since Google became a dominant competitor in whichever market they entered - things became better for the end-user; exactly like Schmidt said and I truly feel that. Make it the Search platform, Docs, Mail, Android.

Google rocks and screw all the distrustful people over there excusing their ego for google being evil.

What web services did MS screw people over with? I am seriously curious. I know they charge a bunch for Office, Windows, etc, but I dont remember them ever having any monopoly on web services.

And anyways, MS has a ton of free services that compete with Google. I am not going to get into who is better, but they both have a ton of free services. By the way, I do hope you know that Google does charge for things. Their services may be free for personal use, but just like any company, they will charge businesses for certain things.

autobon said,
What web services did MS screw people over with? I am seriously curious. I know they charge a bunch for Office, Windows, etc, but I dont remember them ever having any monopoly on web services.

And anyways, MS has a ton of free services that compete with Google. I am not going to get into who is better, but they both have a ton of free services. By the way, I do hope you know that Google does charge for things. Their services may be free for personal use, but just like any company, they will charge businesses for certain things.

who has a monoply on web services? If you say Google you are so wrong. I've seen many articles of people improving on Google services and getting hired by Google. They even create APIs for all their web services.

Saying Google has a monoply on web services, is like saying Linus Torvald has a monoply on Linux distros.

Another thing, of course Google is going to charge for business! Business are profiting from Google services. You wouldn't want me sleeping over for free while I invited and charged other to take my spot, you'd want a cut.

autobon said,
What web services did MS screw people over with?

Do you think MS's web services would be free if google didn't exist? MS will tap every last pound out of you given half the chance. At the moment google's free services are making it virtually impossible for MS to charge anything. The same applies to Linux and netbooks, for MS sold the OEMS xp dirt cheap to monopolise the market and stave off the threat of open source, but now they can charge almost anything because people are hooked on it. MS the drug dealer lol.

autobon said,

I am seriously curious. I know they charge a bunch for Office, Windows, etc, but I dont remember them ever having any monopoly on web services.

They'll use their desktop monopoly to exploit new markets like they do for all their products.

autobon said,

And anyways, MS has a ton of free services that compete with Google.

Again, do you think they would be free to ordinary users if MS could get away with charging for them? If google didn't exist, they wouldn't be free, in fact if google didn't exist, they wouldn't have even created any web services, for their real money maker is the traditional office suite.

autobon said,

Their services may be free for personal use, but just like any company, they will charge businesses for certain things.

They offer a premium version of docs for businesses, but there's no obligation for businesses to use them. They can just as easily use the free versions.

Now lets look at what microsoft does. It offers free/student editions of things to lock developers/users into their proprietary platform, then when they really want to use them for something, it charges them nice big fees,
I know which company i'd rather do business with and it certainly wouldn't be microsoft.

LoveThePenguin said,

Do you think MS's web services would be free if google didn't exist? MS will tap every last pound out of you given half the chance.

Do you remember Hotmail ever being a paid service? And Gmail doesn't exist yet.

LoveThePenguin said,

They'll use their desktop monopoly to exploit new markets like they do for all their products.

Really? So you are saying that Xbox outsold PlayStation because Microsoft own Windows and Office?

LoveThePenguin said,

if google didn't exist, they wouldn't have even created any web services, for their real money maker is the traditional office suite.

So you are excluding OpenOffice.org because it's not web based?

day2die said,

Do you remember Hotmail ever being a paid service? And Gmail doesn't exist yet.

Yet there was a plethora of free web mail services from yahoo etc.

day2die said,

Really? So you are saying that Xbox outsold PlayStation because Microsoft own Windows and Office?

That's precisely what I'm saying. They had already locked many developers into their proprietary directx graphics platform, so they naturally capitalised on the desktop monopoly by leveraging the same SDK used on windows. Everything they do relies in one way or another on the windows monopoly. Can't you see that? It might be that the xbox has outgrown that now to a certain extent, but when it first came out it was very reliant on its large number windows based directx developers.

day2die said,

So you are excluding OpenOffice.org because it's not web based?

Google had something which MS didn't, namely, an office platform which didn't require a local client application, and was operating system independent. Openoffice competes in the local client space, not the web, where MS didn't have any significant services (besides hotmail) before google came along.

LoveThePenguin said,

Yet there was a plethora of free web mail services from yahoo etc.

You've just contradicted yourself. You've said that Microsoft wouldn't have any free service if Google doesn't exist.

LoveThePenguin said,

They had already locked many developers into their proprietary directx graphics platform, so they naturally capitalised on the desktop monopoly by leveraging the same SDK used on windows.

So OpenGL doesn't exist?

LoveThePenguin said,

Openoffice competes in the local client space, not the web, where MS didn't have any significant services (besides hotmail) before google came along.

So what? Does people need cloud office?

Google still get my vote and thats only because they made so many services free for all. When MS had no real competition they tried to get every penny they could out of people with their web services. Maybe Google arrived at a time when to charge for their service would have made no sense or maybe they just rebelled against the infrastructure in place at the time.. I just always expect a slap in the face after using a free MS service after a few months.

Orange Battery said,
Google still get my vote and thats only because they made so many services free for all. When MS had no real competition they tried to get every penny they could out of people with their web services. Maybe Google arrived at a time when to charge for their service would have made no sense or maybe they just rebelled against the infrastructure in place at the time.. I just always expect a slap in the face after using a free MS service after a few months.

So you rather trade your entire privacy for some free service?

day2die said,

So you rather trade your entire privacy for some free service?

Are microsoft's privacy policies that different from google's? How do you think they make money through bing?

LoveThePenguin said,

Are microsoft's privacy policies that different from google's? How do you think they make money through bing?

Do you see Microsoft reading my email?

day2die said,

So you rather trade your entire privacy for some free service?

what privacy do you still have? your birthday? your id? if some one wants to know, it's so easy to find out.

I call BS of course Google is competing with both Apple and Microsoft in big way. Hence why Eric Schmidt was kicked off of Apple's Board

Melfster said,
I call BS of course Google is competing with both Apple and Microsoft in big way. Hence why Eric Schmidt was kicked off of Apple's Board

I am sure you didn't really watched the video. Eric has answered that question. Listen what he said again. He is CEO and he gave calculated sensible answer to all the questions unlike monkey steve. He is not there for no reason.

Melfster said,
I call BS of course Google is competing with both Apple and Microsoft in big way. Hence why Eric Schmidt was kicked off of Apple's Board

He stepped down from the board based on how many meetings he had to excuse himself from for competing products.

It's interesting to see them actually mention Bing... Though I don't see how they could still consider Apple a "partner" at this point... lol

Not surprising. It has to be scary for Google that Bing + Yahoo is about half the size of Google. I am waiting for HTML5 version of Bing to rollout next month.

thenonhacker said,
News like this on a Friday night will not get noticed easily! Try Monday morning posts = Many Comments Guaranteed!
It will be old news by then...

thenonhacker said,
News like this on a Friday night will not get noticed easily! Try Monday morning posts = Many Comments Guaranteed!

I'd rather get my news when it's still current instead of having it reported late so people that don't check as often get it while it's at the top.

thenonhacker said,
News like this on a Friday night will not get noticed easily! Try Monday morning posts = Many Comments Guaranteed!

Yup, let's post every batch of news every Monday morning.

thenonhacker said,
News like this on a Friday night will not get noticed easily! Try Monday morning posts = Many Comments Guaranteed!

They can scroll down the page if they want to... lol

Glendi said,

Yup, let's post every batch of news every Monday morning.

I LOL'd. I'm a sarcastic person, too.

What I meant was posting on Monday morning is better than posting on a Friday night.

thenonhacker said,
What I meant was posting on Monday morning is better than posting on a Friday night.
For what purpose is it "better"?