next »

[isthisthingon]

>Honest, openness and transparency

It's called open source 

Google is way ahead of Apple in this regard, which is something you might consider.

[kurdt]

>Honest, openness and transparency

It's called open source 

Google is way ahead of Apple in this regard, which is something you might consider.

No, open-source is only one of many ways to be honest, open and transparent.

Google is not open-source, they are open-source only when it's convenient for them to leech on open-source developers. It has got nothing to do with being open or transparent. If Google wanted to be open and transparent, all their products would be open-source, not just the ones that they feel are not worth IP and they want more fingers to code for free. Can you tell me a single open-source Google project that wasn't something already available when Google released it?

[isthisthingon]

>Can you tell me a single open-source Google project that wasn't something already available when Google released it?

Go!

But that's a clever way to ask a question which ignores the more important aspect of what they did, for example, with Android.

Android is an operating system for mobile devices that includes middleware  and key applications,[4]  and uses a modified version of the Linux kernel.[5][6][7]  It was initially developed by Android Inc., a firm later purchased by Google, and lately by the Open Handset Alliance.[8]  It allows developers to write managed code in the Java language, controlling the device via Google-developed Java libraries.[9]

The unveiling of the Android distribution on 5 November 2007 was announced with the founding of the Open Handset Alliance, a consortium of 65 hardware, software, and telecom companies devoted to advancing open standards for mobile devices.[10][11] Google released most of the Android code under the Apache License, a free software and open source license.[12]

According to NPD Group, unit sales for Android OS smartphones ranked second among all smartphone OS handsets sold in the U.S. in the first quarter of 2010.[13][14] BlackBerry OS and the Android OS ranked first and second respectively.[15]

Trying to argue that Apple is more open than Google just because you believe the Google Terms of Service is confusing yet the Apple license agreements are honest, clear and unambiguous?  Your logic is hijacked by your opinions I'm afraid.  Google's use of our data as clearly explained in their Privacy Policy is every bit as honest and upfront while being just about as potentially confusing as Apple's license agreements, period.  I wouldn't be so bold to suggest one is more or less clear than the other but by your standards they're both completely open, honest and transparent.

The difference is Google is giving stuff away in exchange for this contract (which clearly benefits Google) and Apple is charging for the same (which clearly benefits Apple * 2).  In addition, Google buys and creates open source projects and gives them out to the world, unlike Apple.  Apple primarily leverages open source, closes it down and then wraps it all up in their predatory licensing schemes that takes once free and open (Apache 2.0 license) and closes it down making it not open, not transparent, and I guess the "honest" aspect is a coin flip 

But Playing Google against friggin Apple in terms of openness and transparency??  

You must be having a huge party up there cuz the booze here ain't that strong 

[kurdt]

Go!

So you are saying that there actually was alternative to release new closed programming language at this stage?

But that's a clever way to ask a question which ignores the more important aspect of what they did, for example, with Android.

Android is an operating system for mobile devices...[15]

Come on, you know it very well that releasing it open-source was the only advantage Google had over Apple. Like I said, open only when convenient.

Trying to argue that Apple is more open than Google just because you believe the Google Terms of Service is confusing yet the Apple license agreements are honest, clear and unambiguous?  Your logic is hijacked by your opinions I'm afraid.  Google's use of our data as clearly explained in their Privacy Policy is every bit as honest and upfront while being just about as potentially confusing as Apple's license agreements, period.  I wouldn't be so bold to suggest one is more or less clear than the other but by your standards they're both completely open, honest and transparent.

I have considered that my logic is clouded by opinions and I have said it before that it's impossible to have logic that's not affected by opinions. Brain simple doesn't work without opinions.

However you are still missing my point. Apple is open and honest about what they offer. Google is not. Apple offers a deal that includes x, z and y. Google offers you a service but fails to disclose the price in appropriate way.

The difference is Google is giving stuff away in exchange for this contract (which clearly benefits Google) and Apple is charging for the same (which clearly benefits Apple * 2).  In addition, Google buys and creates open source projects and gives them out to the world, unlike Apple.  Apple primarily leverages open source, closes it down and then wraps it all up in their predatory licensing schemes that takes once free and open (Apache 2.0 license) and closes it down making it not open, not transparent, and I guess the "honest" aspect is a coin flip 

So now you finally demonstrated that you don't understand what I'm trying to say. I have said it already many times that what the product is, where it came from and how it was made is irrelevant to the offer. Only thing that matters is the clearity of terms. If my logic is hijacked by opinions, your mind has replaced the logic with opinions. It's obvious that you dislike Apple & Microsoft way of doing business but you fail to understand that what Google is doing is much more damaging and predatory. Google is luring people into believing they ask for nothing in return. At least Apple & Microsoft are honest about the fact that there will be costs here, there and everywhere. And you are mixing up consumers, developers and companies. Google is preying on consumers, Apple & Microsoft are preying on companies and developers.

[perkiset]

Man am I confused.

Android would not exist were it not for the utterly opaque and nastily cryptic algos in SEO and Google's ad platforms. There is no opensource about the way that Google actually makes their money. In fact, Google uses their "free services" to enhance the power and impact of their closed-source marketing mechanisms. The fact that Google has opensourced more things than Apple is immaterial: In both company cases, the places where they make their money are not open sourced at all. Google is no angel and is not, in any way, what you would describe as an open source company ITTO - they've simply pushed more things that they don't care about making money from into the open source realm. Note that in doing so, they will have more capability to charge for things that are closed in the future. Their efforts are hardly altruistic - they are based on what, strategically they can deploy, will make them more money.

As does Apple. As does Microsoft. As does Sun. Corporations that are doing open source for altruistic purposes are almost non-existant. They do it as a lost leader for something else. Which is akin to your arguments of, say, a year ago ITTO - give away the easily abundant so that you can charge for the less abundant. The real issue in the case of Google-esque companies is that they have a clever smoke screen of being "open" when what they really mean is "we've put more lost leaders out there than anyone else" yet completely avoid the fact that the search engine algo, for example, is utterly closed and proprietary. The algo that maintains where and when you'll show up as a paid ad, is closed and opaque. And the point of that exercise would be.... profit. What all corporations are about.

So let's consider for a moment: what real benefit does a FOR PROFIT corporation gain by releasing Android to the world? Could it be as a platform to increase the number of eyeballs on their ads? If so, except for a toilet full of Don't Be Evil slogans, how is that any different from Apple - except that Apple has made no such benevolent claims?

Honestly, the argument to me that one corporation is better than another in this realm is just silly. They are CORPORATIONS. They exist to profit. Period. I think this is why the Apple Is The Devil arguments bug me so much: There are few that are any different. And the ones that are, cannot seem to come up with a product that can really go to battle with the Apple juggernaut. Why? Because Apple makes enough money to put the resources into developing what they have developed. And why do they have that money? Because of a closed-loop system and product line. And what do they get by being a closed-loop system and product line? Better products. More sales. More money.

@ Kurdt and the difference between Apple and Google: Spot on. If we choose to confuse volume of open-source lines of code with what I perceive to be your fundamental position, ITTO, then Google could be perceived as being more "open" than Apple. But if we choose to look at actual business practice then I'd have to assert that Apple is more forthcoming about their practice than Google. Pay (X), get (Y). With that is a walled garden for music, apps, books and movies. Period. Don't like it? Don't buy. That's about as straight up as it gets IMO.

[isthisthingon]

Go is an open source project, distributed under a BSD-style license. This document explains how to check out the sources, build them on your own machine, and run them.

>open only when convenient.

You can even call it Free since that's primarily what it is, Free.  We can assume that Free here is used to gain indirect advantages.  Google just like Apple is a money mission.  I wonder if you would see them more favorably if their tag line was: "Google - making as much money as humanly possible, in any way possible, by figuring out what opens your wallet."

>Apple offers a deal that includes x, z and y. Google offers you a service but fails to disclose the price in appropriate way.

Nope wrong.  The only price Apple is disclosing is the charge upfront.  Both companies gain extreme value from what is "clearly" explained in their agreements.  Just because Apple charges upfront and claims an honest exchange: cash for product/service, doesn't change the marketing realities that both employ, Google being far more effective than Apple on this front.  But get that damn iTunes pop-up out of my face and holy shit I'm getting spammed through the nose since I downloaded that song from Apple    Pleeeeeze.

I'll grant that my logic is clouded too since I have emotions and understandings about these things from my view.  But a noble thing about this for you, me and all who passionately engage in this form of dialog is that regardless of pet beliefs we're willing to risk being wrong in the quest for truth.  I'll take wrong and illumination any day over "right" and ignorant.  Some actually prefer the latter, as the scientific method easily confirms.

>At least Apple & Microsoft are honest about the fact that there will be costs here, there and everywhere

Again, the target level or one-to-one employed by Google is every way employed by Microsoft and Apple.  None of these companies are any more or less upfront about this particular revenue stream and Google just happens to be the best at this particular revenue stream.  Claiming that since I demanded $ and exchanged x for it changes nothing about all the other Free value streams that they all actively leverage the best they can.  Google just found a tremendous, game-changing value stream and Apple and Microsoft despise them for this calling them a hypocrites and doing all evil.

Here's what you need to understand about Free and why, irrespective of the motives of the provider, it really is a good thing.  Misuse of Free can be just as bad as the misuse of non-Free with hypocrisy found in both, depending on the situation.  Free, unlike its "honest" non-Free counterpart, can be leveraged by those who literally can't get in the game at all.  It's the digital divide man.  You think the impoverished billions give a rats ass about annoying sizzlin burger pop-ups that appear because Google knows they're starving? 

With Free it's possible to profit and help those who couldn't pay anything anyway.  Determining that the "evil" of Google should be stopped is like a trust-fund college hippy saying "money is the root of all evils."  Those who say money is the root of all evils have never been poor.

>They do it as a lost leader for something else

Hey perks!    I believe you mean "loss" leader.  And I agree with you 100%.  Of course it's a loss leader.  The "freedom" point for me is that this loss leader has a side effect of helping those outside the gate.  Secondarily for me, since I'm more idealist than pragmatist, is the global source support and improvement over time with so many eyeballs on the code.

[perkiset]

@ loss leader, thanks

@ eyeballs on the code: this is a little bit of a fallacy. Who cares if there are eyeballs on code that doesn't really matter in terms of the way that Google will profit off us? If everyone had unrestricted access to gmail code it might be different. If we could all browse the source for the ad engine, that'd be superb. But we can't. Therefore, the code that we can look as is really meaningless in this regard. Darwin is open source. QuickTime is open source. These facts don't seem to change your opinion at all.

I also have a tough time with the notion that people will purchase a Mac and not know that they will need to pay for content if they want to use iTunes. What other hidden charges are you referring to?   

[isthisthingon]

>What other hidden charges are you referring to?   

The same Free charges employed by Google.  One-to-one marketing.  One is just better at it than the other.  Check your inbox

[nop_90]

So let's consider for a moment: what real benefit does a FOR PROFIT corporation gain by releasing Android to the world? Could it be as a platform to increase the number of eyeballs on their ads? If so, except for a toilet full of Don't Be Evil slogans, how is that any different from Apple - except that Apple has made no such benevolent claims?

The concept of cooperations is very old. Except in the past they where called "trading companies". And trading companies where also allowed to do fun things like pirate other competing trading companies ships and raise armies to fight other trading companies.

Historically Spain/Portugal was the first countries to "discover" asia for purposes of trading. For 100+ years they kept all routes to asia secret. In the old days the most important man on the ship was not the captain, but the navigator. He was the only guy who had the maps and actually had some vague idea where the ship was. The amount of trade spain was doing was very small.

Britain and Holland wanted to break Spain/Portugal's trade monopoly which was only enforced by secrecy. After some exploration of their own, and by stealing Spanish maps they where able to find a route to Asia.

After Britain found routes to asia, they established a network of safe harbours where ships could replenish thier supplies, trade etc. Most importantly they published maps so other countries could use these trading posts. Where these trading posts free ? No, but the maps where .

If it would not be for Britain, USA would still be a butt fuk place that produced nothing else besides cotton,sugar,tobacco and fish.

As a result of this, 1/3 of the traders in British ports where american. Don't believe me Well why would USA issue a Trade Dollar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Dollar_%28United_States_coin%29
In Asia, US trade dollars where prized, and by some accounts 1/4 to 1/3 of all trade dollars where american.

As a result from opening trade, Britain became the wealthiest nation on earth, and other countries also became very wealthy. Was it because Britain was a "nice country" no, just because they had foresight.

In this regard, Apple is like Spain. While Google is like Britain.
And in the short term like Spain, Apple while get huge profits.
But in the long term, Google will win out.

[kurdt]

You can even call it Free since that's primarily what it is, Free.  We can assume that Free here is used to gain indirect advantages.  Google just like Apple is a money mission.  I wonder if you would see them more favorably if their tag line was: "Google - making as much money as humanly possible, in any way possible, by figuring out what opens your wallet."

Aah, so to you it really doesn't matter what the ways. I think that's where we are different. I like my companies up straight even if they ask money for every little thing and you like hustlers who use cleverly use "Free" to later use their TOS that reserves right to monitor you without actually asking your permission or telling you what's been recorded.

Nope wrong.  The only price Apple is disclosing is the charge upfront.  Both companies gain extreme value from what is "clearly" explained in their agreements.  Just because Apple charges upfront and claims an honest exchange: cash for product/service, doesn't change the marketing realities that both employ, Google being far more effective than Apple on this front.  But get that damn iTunes pop-up out of my face and holy shit I'm getting spammed through the nose since I downloaded that song from Apple    Pleeeeeze.

Whaaat? So there's no difference between that Google sells your info forward and that Apple sends emails after you bought something from their store?

I'll grant that my logic is clouded too since I have emotions and understandings about these things from my view.  But a noble thing about this for you, me and all who passionately engage in this form of dialog is that regardless of pet beliefs we're willing to risk being wrong in the quest for truth.  I'll take wrong and illumination any day over "right" and ignorant.  Some actually prefer the latter, as the scientific method easily confirms.

Well if being ignorant is disapproving the use of unauthorized data mining as business transaction, yes, I am then ignorant.

Here's what you need to understand about Free and why, irrespective of the motives of the provider, it really is a good thing.  Misuse of Free can be just as bad as the misuse of non-Free with hypocrisy found in both, depending on the situation.  Free, unlike its "honest" non-Free counterpart, can be leveraged by those who literally can't get in the game at all.  It's the digital divide man.  You think the impoverished billions give a rats ass about annoying sizzlin burger pop-ups that appear because Google knows they're starving? 

Your example shows you do not think things through. It's not about little facts like Google knowing whether you like burgers or not. It's about the fact that they are a public money greedy company that has access to your life nobody has got before them. To be honest, it's kinda hard for me to understand how you can not see where Google's privacy mining is taking us. If you are so afraid that Apple will tighten their closed ecosystem, you'll soon wake up in the nightmare where your information is out for sale for the highest bidder. And I don't mean they can target ads, I mean all your information, ALL. Then you'll live in a system where everybody is constantly monitored by government, private companies and individuals. What you think happens if you possess wealth and have visited a website that uses Google Adsense/Analytics and content of that website can embarrass you if publicized. It will be the whole new dark ages all over again. And it's very probable that government is not going to be able to stop this and everybody is living under corporate fear.

Sounds like a bad scifi trip? Well, too bad it has already happened. A private corporation has collected intimate private information with identifiers for the past 10 years. Their products have infiltrated majority of websites giving them access to personal data they wouldn't have gotten any other way. They have been just called out for recording wifi traffic. Their only agenda is to produce profit for shareholders. If you want to make it sound even better, you can add something like this: In 2017 a plane crashed near Palo Alto killing most of the board members and founders - rest of the board is picking up the pieces and finding new executives.

It's the digital divide man, however you probably find yourself in the side you didn't want.

Now here's what you need to understand about Free. There's no such thing as Free. Everything has a cost. It might be so small it's unnoticeable in small scale but like they say, one penny is a start of a million. Even Chris Anderson who wrote the book Free understood this. Free can be used right or wrong, yea yea, doesn't matter. There's no such thing as Free. It levels playing field? Yeah, for the first few years it did and then became the market saturation. There's a reason why same old brands just keep going even when there new better ones popping up weekly.

But you are right about the fact that in many ways, Free provides a great starting point for companies that have truly something new to offer.

With Free it's possible to profit and help those who couldn't pay anything anyway.  Determining that the "evil" of Google should be stopped is like a trust-fund college hippy saying "money is the root of all evils."  Those who say money is the root of all evils have never been poor.

So what you are saying is that it's ok to use poor people because they basically have no other choice?

[isthisthingon]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2816893/Radiohead-challenges-labels-with-free-album.html

Aah, so to you it really doesn't matter what the ways. I think that's where we are different. I like my companies up straight even if they ask money for every little thing and you like hustlers who use cleverly use "Free" to later use their TOS that reserves right to monitor you without actually asking your permission or telling you what's been recorded.

These companies are equally hustlers and I prefer neither in terms of the "good" they actually do.  They are corporations and are as blameless as reptiles for eating furry little mammals.  Count on it.  And don't pretend snake x (Apple) has a heart of any kind.  Apple and Google are on such equal, level, money mission playing fields it's crazy we're still discussing this. 

>I like my companies up straight even if they ask money for every little thing

Imagining that you truly know company X is "up straight," regardless of the reason (such as company X charged me for product/service Y so they simply must be honest), is amazing.  You buy a Mac and fill out all the forms.  Your data is stored, r@ped, mined and leveraged to the maximum value by your pet company, Apple.  Google does the same while marching under a banner entitled Free.  I totally get the anger one may feel when faced with the hypocrisy of Free while realizing the non-Freeness that's really taking place.  But open your eyes and realize that noble company A (Apple) has "dishonestly" leveraged your personal, private information in the best way they know how to maximize their value they can leach from your soul.  Google just does it better... for now.  Sorry Apple, you're not the best at everything 

[kurdt]

These companies are equally hustlers and I prefer neither in terms of the "good" they actually do.  They are corporations and are as blameless as reptiles for eating furry little mammals.  Count on it.  And don't pretend snake x (Apple) has a heart of any kind.  Apple and Google are on such equal, level, money mission playing fields it's crazy we're still discussing this. 

>I like my companies up straight even if they ask money for every little thing

Imagining that you truly know company X is "up straight," regardless of the reason (such as company X charged me for product/service Y so they simply must be honest), is amazing.  You buy a Mac and fill out all the forms.  Your data is stored, r@ped, mined and leveraged to the maximum value by your pet company, Apple.  Google does the same while marching under a banner entitled Free.  I totally get the anger one may feel when faced with the hypocrisy of Free while realizing the non-Freeness that's really taking place.  But open your eyes and realize that noble company A (Apple) has "dishonestly" leveraged your personal, private information in the best way they know how to maximize their value they can leach from your soul.  Google just does it better... for now.  Sorry Apple, you're not the best at everything 

You really don't get it. Let me put it this way. I get ZERO promotion material from Apple because a) I never filled out any forms, b) I never opt-in to anything and c) I have never given permission to promote when asked. I get recorded EVERY TIME I visit any sites that uses Google products and a) I never gave my permission and b) my permission was never asked.

Frankly, I'm truly amazed how deep your head is in the sand and how well you have digested the "it's not bad that we monitor everything you do, it's free!".

Let's try this way. Tell me how Apple leverages and rapes the private information they don't have about me? Before you clarify this issue, I really can't see how this conversation can go on without becoming pointless. I just don't understand what is it about Apple that makes it evil. Is it that they want profit or that they take open-source and turn it into products or what is it?

And to clarify from my part, what makes Google evil is their business ethics which are based on current loophole in the law that makes it possible for them to do unauthorized collection of private information. It's not that they make money, it's how they do it. I have absolutely nothing against making profit - without trading we would be still in the stone age. Actually if you want to find one positive side in Google, it's that it demonstrated how much money can be made online. Everybody had a clue but Google was able to demonstrate it in practice. It's just sad that their actions will probably create irreversible damage for the next few generation when the true implications of what they are doing is revealed to general public. Google Analytics has already been declared illegal to use in Germany because it's privacy issues and that's just the first country to take action.

[isthisthingon]

>Let's try this way. Tell me how Apple leverages and rapes the private information they don't have about me?

I wrongly assumed you owned one.  Or if you do yet chose to avoid filling out the registration form or, improbably, used cash and a false identification when purchasing it, well perhaps you're right and Apple is completely unaware of your existence.  That would be their failure, not their "good" behavior.

>Frankly, I'm truly amazed how deep your head is in the sand and how well you have digested the "it's not bad that we monitor everything you do, it's free!".

Everything we do is monitored anyway.  You simply choose to blame the most skilled of the observers and honor the incompetent as if they were above this practice.  They're just less competent, not on higher ground.  Apple is a Cub Scout and Google is an Eagle Scout when it comes to this practice.  You're just not used to your pet company being bested by anyone else.  Apple, on the other hand, reigns supreme in terms of user experience.  That doesn't cause me to freak out.  It's obvious and true.  It's also worth tipping my hat to in recognition, much like you might consider doing for Google in recognition of their mastery of an aspect of business that Apple has yet to fully grasp 

Again, Google's Privacy Policy says it all.  No secrets, no lies.  In fact, unlike Apple, no upfront cash fees either.  Use our service for Free and we'll sell the value of your search behavior to those who believe it's worth paying for.  Maybe it is and maybe it's worth crap.  Only the faith in Free can justify the fronted money for all those potentially worthless web surfers who apparently provide "value" that results in real money.

I despise hypocrisy, especially from the mouths of the righteous.  But all corporations are best understood as essentially equal in terms of good/bad intentions.  Therefore Google=Apple=Microsoft=Oracle=Walmart=Slapchop.  With this in mind, it's far easier to recognize free and open from paid and closed.  If the source is open, for example, none of this subjective dialog can change that fact: it's open.  Trying to argue the noble intentions of company X over company Y is like selling aluminum siding.  It feels foolish and sounds desperate. 

Epilogue:  Apple = Google in terms of "good" intentions, agreed?

[kurdt]

>Let's try this way. Tell me how Apple leverages and rapes the private information they don't have about me?

I wrongly assumed you owned one.  Or if you do yet chose to avoid filling out the registration form or, improbably, used cash and a false identification when purchasing it, well perhaps you're right and Apple is completely unaware of your existence.  That would be their failure, not their "good" behavior.

Well, actually I paid by cash and my identity was never asked. I also didn't choose to send registration to Apple (which they allow unlike some other companies). So to Apple, I only exist to them in their server logs when OSX gets time from time.apple.com but I'm pretty sure that request doesn't send anything like unique identifier and reports what I just did like some browsers.

Everything we do is monitored anyway.  You simply choose to blame the most skilled of the observers and honor the incompetent as if they were above this practice.  They're just less competent, not on higher ground.  Apple is a Cub Scout and Google is an Eagle Scout when it comes to this practice.  You're just not used to your pet company being bested by anyone else.  Apple, on the other hand, reigns supreme in terms of user experience.  That doesn't cause me to freak out.  It's obvious and true.  It's also worth tipping my hat to in recognition, much like you might consider doing for Google in recognition of their mastery of an aspect of business that Apple has yet to fully grasp 

Again, Google's Privacy Policy says it all.  No secrets, no lies.  In fact, unlike Apple, no upfront cash fees either.  Use our service for Free and we'll sell the value of your search behavior to those who believe it's worth paying for.  Maybe it is and maybe it's worth crap.  Only the faith in Free can justify the fronted money for all those potentially worthless web surfers who apparently provide "value" that results in real money.

I'm sorry but no. I use secure VPN to access websites and all message traffic is encrypted so my internet traffic is impossible to monitor. I use RFID protected wallet case which means you can't read my cards etc. I have no outgoing readable signals like bluetooth from my cellphone and other wireless devices encrypt everything and stay hidden. How am I monitored? Our government isn't even capable of to order proper computer system for hospitals, let alone use cameras around the city in automated fashion.

So as you say Apple should follow Google's footsteps on preying it's users all I can do is to shake my head in disbelief. You are advocating something much worse than your closed source agenda. Like I said, privacy policies and terms of services are just legal loophole. Nobody reads them and everybody know it. It's like fine print or disappearing ink on contract. Legal but not right.

Isn't it kinda funny that you first mock me for saying Apple is straight up company because I don't know them and now you expect me to believe that Google somehow obeys their privacy policy? I have no way of knowing they do. It's closed system, I can't inspect the source. I'm sorry but your argument eats itself. No upfront cash because that cash would actually tie them into something?

I despise hypocrisy, especially from the mouths of the righteous.  But all corporations are best understood as essentially equal in terms of good/bad intentions.  Therefore Google=Apple=Microsoft=Oracle=Walmart=Slapchop.  With this in mind, it's far easier to recognize free and open from paid and closed.  If the source is open, for example, none of this subjective dialog can change that fact: it's open.  Trying to argue the noble intentions of company X over company Y is like selling aluminum siding.  It feels foolish and sounds desperate. 

Epilogue:  Apple = Google in terms of "good" intentions, agreed?

Yes well this is kinda obvious. It's impossible for us to know each others, let alone companies intentions but the difference comes in terms what each of us and each company could do. Apple has no possible way of harming anyone in the scale Google will and has harmed. Please do note that I said will and has because in my mind there's no question about future incidents because it has already happened multiple times. You can google more about the people harmed physically in the launch of Buzz unless those results have magically disappeared when ranking algorithm didn't see them relevant or they just felt like they don't want that page in their index.

[perkiset]

There is a subtle but profoundly important difference between checking the "send me marketing info" when you register a Mac (their mail list is opt in) and using google for gmail.

With Apple, I bought a product and chose in or didn't. With MobileMe they a quite clear that my email and data stored in their cloud are not scanned or analyzed, nor sold or used. They make their money by charging me for the service. With google, very tiny and nondescript letters in the EULA say that the information will be mined and used to send me "appropriate sales offers" and such. Apples service is not free, neither is googles. But the scope and durqtion of my deal with apple is quite clear, where with google it really isn't.

This is where the notion of value comes into play, and the question about where Googles version of free may actually be a much more expensive and predatory leach than Apples cash transaction. Apple is a whore. You pay for the service rendered. Google is psycho woman that will extract HER charge in a totally different way at a different time ... Perhaps when you are least expecting it. Like, you know, boil your pet bunny.

Personally I prefer to pay as I go. The cost of free, in many cases, is just too expensive for me.