In a meeting last week, Apple Founder Steve Jobs announced that “Google’s motto of ‘don’t be evil’ is BS”. He went on to say that while Apple did not enter the search engine business, Google has gone out of their way to enter the smart phone business. The only conclusion that can be drawn from Steve Jobs’ comments is that he believes that anyone who competes against him must be inherently evil.
We all say stupid things. Moments when we are not thinking clearly, and when we allow the private thoughts that we nurture within our minds to be spoken aloud, only to later realize how foolish they sound. Steve Jobs is a brilliant man. No one can argue otherwise. And so we will chalk this one up to being caught off guard. Even so, I still want to counter his claim that competing against Apple makes Google evil.
There is an attitude the prevails on the Web, a sort of “stick-it-to-the-man-ism” that many of us Internet geeks are infected with. A passion that drives us to create better products than the competition, and to then give them away completely free of charge. We will spend thousands of our own uncompensated hours, developing projects that ultimately grow into platforms that are not only free, but also superior to anything else on the market.
The founders of Google are geeks to the core. Google is the mecca of these opensource activities. Each year Google spearheads a massive effort known as “The Summer of Code”. An annual event that coordinates the efforts of thousands of programmers, as they work to create free software for the rest of the world.
Did Google enter the smartphone market? Yes… but they don’t get paid for it. Google created an opensource (ie free) smartphone operating system known as Android. The first generation was clunky. It was only put on a single T-Moble phone. However the newly released version Android 2.0 is breathtaking and awe inspiring. Every bit as good as the iPhone OS. All it lacked was a quality phone. Enter the Verizon Droid. A powerful phone, running a spectacular operating system. At last, a true iPhone competitor. But with a huge leg up on the competition… that advantage? The software running it is completely free, a la Google.
With several other Android phones either already on the market, or being launched in the near future, the ability for the iPhone to maintain its dominance is in serious question. With the iPhone, an individual is tied to Apple. If they want to keep their apps, they have to upgrade to the next version of the iPhone. Not the case with Android. Because Android runs on several phones, users can potentially purchase an app on one phone, and then down the road, switch phones, even switch carriers while still keeping all their apps.
Best of all, because the software that runs these phones is free, all that users pay for is the hardware, decreasing the purchase price significantly.
Does this make Google evil? Depends I suppose, on your point of view. If you are Steve Jobs, the CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation, who does not like Internet Geeks creating free software that effects their bottom line, then yes, I suppose you could make the argument that Google is evil. I on the other hand fell rather differently. Cheaper, better, even free…. when they could charge, but don’t…
If that is evil, then we need more of it.
February 6th, 2010
There has been a lot of local talk lately about the unfairness of the BCS (Bowl Championship Series). Much of this stems from the fact that one of our local teams was, some believe, robbed of an all out national championship last year. A few local politicians, (Shurtleff, and Hatch) have taken up the issue as they try to “correct something that is unfair and that violates antitrust laws”.
I am not sure what gets my hair standing on end more, the fact that politicians are trying to solve a problem that in no way falls under their jurisdiction, or the absurd suggestion that the Bowl Championship Series in any way resembles a monopoly.
Is the BCS unfair? Clearly. Is it setup in such a way as to favor certain teams? Absolutely. Is that anyone’s business? Nope. And more importantly, though I usually try to avoid such strong language, it is utterly stupid to suggest otherwise.
Is The BCS A Monopoly?
Firstly let’s consider the claims that the Bowl Championship Series is a monopoly, thus violating antitrust laws. What is a monopoly? A monopoly exists when one organization builds up enough influence to drive competitors out of the marketplace. By virtue of their connections, their money, and their clout they are able to step on competitors in such a manner as to stifle both their individual development, as well as by extension the development of our economy.
In order to avoid this from happening, our nation has developed laws and procedures for breaking up any organization that manages to achieve these levels of influence. These laws protect all of us.
But they must be applied with care, and not simply because of anger regarding the outcome of a season where a team did not get the championship that they deserved. There must be real evidence that such a monopoly exists. Can proof of such a monopoly be demonstrated regarding the BCS? Have they gained so much influence in college football, that they now have the ability to squash anyone who tries to compete with them? Of course not. But more importantly, nobody is trying to compete.
And that is really the problem isn’t it. No one is trying to setup a competing system. Very few people like the BCS. Almost everyone wants a playoff system. There would be massive and instantaneous public support if someone… anyone stepped forward and simply set such a system up. It could be done tomorrow. Irregardless of what the BCS did or said, they could not stop it…. ie no monopoly.
If even 20 colleges joined, and if they called it “The National Championship” and if it were done in such a way as to leverage the public’s desire to see a playoff system, it would gain instant support. ESPN would cover it, the teams would play in it, and because it was called “The National Championship” it would be accepted as such.
The BCS would wither and die within a year. It is utterly ridiculous to wine and cry about the BCS being a “monopoly” when no one is attempting to compete against them. The fact that no one is trying to compete does not by default implicate the BCS of breaking antitrust laws.
And by the way, anyone with a loud enough voice could pull it off. ESPN could set it up and call it “The ESPN National Championship” or Walmart or the colleges themselves. It is the easiest solution in the world, and requires no input whatsoever from the BCS. How this escapes certain local politicians quite frankly is rather disappointing.
Does Congress Have Any Business Getting Involved With Sports?
All of that aside, what irritates me more is the fact that so-called conservatives (ie limited government, private party solutions) would have the oxymoronic notion that it is their duty (as political leaders) to fix something that belongs wholly to the private sector.
Let’s suppose that I decide that I am going to invent a new sport. Let’s call it rubber-chicken ball. In my new sport, the rules specifically state that all teams which have players named “Hiram” are spotted 10 extra points at the beginning of each game (since we Hirams need all the help we can get) and that the Utah team is automatically declared the national champion each year, irregardless of our standing at the end of the season.
Now suppose that in 50 years rubber-chicken ball becomes the new national pastime. Does Congress have any business in the rules of a game I invented? Should they pass legislation removing the ten point advantage for Hirams?
Yes, the BCS is unfair. Get over it!! It is none of you dang business. And if you don’t like it, then bi-golly why don’t you call all the colleges tomorrow and setup an alternate system.
January 31st, 2010
I personally own three laptops. This does not include the three other laptops that my wife and kids use. I also have an iPhone, three desktop computers, and several other toys. I believe that this qualifies me as a quintessential techno-geek. I like technology, and am generally willing to spend a little to get it. It is thus not surprising that I was waiting with bated breath for Apple’s big announcement this week where it was widely anticipated that they would announce a new tablet computer. An announcement which once made, left me scratching my head and asking ”why on Earth would I buy that?!”
Apple did indeed announce a tablet computer of sorts… a massive device which they call the “iPad”. It is essentially a very large iPod Touch, which will sell for more than $500. When new technology is introduced I often find myself trying to justify a need to purchase it. ”I need this because…” Such rationalizations then allow me to make the purchase without any feelings of guilt.
When it comes to the iPad, I can’t seem to justify the purchase of it. What would I use it for? I can already do everything this beast does, in a much more portable device… my iPhone. Secondly and more importantly, the simple fact is that I don’t want an iPad. It is gigantic, while not offering any power, nor any options as far as operating systems go.
Apple missed the boat. No one wants a large iPod Touch.
I WOULD love to see a good tablet computer. Something that ran a decent operating system, preferably Linux, but I would settle for Windows or Apple’s OS. Something that I could run actual software on, and not just apps. If I am going to go to the effort of carrying around a mammoth of a device, it darn well better be powerful enough to run full versions of Photoshop, Adobe Flash, OpenOffice, etc.
I will be surprised if this device lasts longer than a year or two before it is scrapped for a more sensible tablet computer.
January 28th, 2010
It was important that the health care bill be defeated, so that the process could once again start over. All though as a nation, we are in desperate need of a health system makeover, the bill before Congress had gone far afield from resembling anything worthwhile.
At a cost of $1.2 trillion, it would have resulted in sky high taxes, while only insuring an additional 12 million people. Several independent studies have reported that covering 12 million people should only cost about $30 billion. Not to mention the numerous backroom deals that were cut with special interest groups. It was a bad bill. I personally want to see real health care reform, and not simply the passage of a bill that is called “health care reform”, and so I am grateful that this monstrosity of a bill was defeated.
It was important that we all united as a nation to bring about the defeat of the health care bill. And we did…. NOW it is time to work together. I am hopeful that this time the leadership on the left will listen to the ideas being put forth by the other side. Ideas that will lower health care costs, without increasing taxes.
As we move forward, it is important to remember that this is about the bill, not about Obama, Reid, or anyone else. The last couple of days, I have heard a few very passionate people allowing themselves to get carried away, becoming vitriolic towards President Obama… towards MY President.
Celebrating the defeat of a terrible bill is understandable. I personally did my own fair share of celebration on the night that Scott Brown won his bid for the US Senate. But we must draw a line when it comes to personal attacks.
We all need to remember that when it comes right down to it, Obama is an honorable patriot, trying very hard to do his best. We work against him where we disagree, but then we must at the end of the day retain our respect and kindness towards him.
Most of my acquaintances have conducted themselves in a very honorable manner in this regard. Those who have not, are out of line, and are contributing to a general breakdown in civility that advances no one’s cause.
January 22nd, 2010
I often question the wisdom 0f sharing my opinions so publicly as I do via this blog. Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying something to the effect of that “it is better to remain quiet and be thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt”.
It is easy to like people whom we do not know. The more we learn about others, the more we begin to realize the differences between them and ourselves. All of us are to some extent or another mistrusting of others. Especially those who believe differently than we do.
I have no doubt that my blog has offended some. Nor do I have any doubt that it has made others think me to be rather foolish. Even more so, I have no doubt that it has educated all to my arrogance, my pride, and to my tendency to boast.
Is it better, as Lincoln suggests, to remain quiet?
Yet each time I consider converting my blog into a private journal, I feel restrained. I teeter on the edge of it constantly, but in the end, my desire to share my thoughts slightly outweighs my fear of others realizing I am not the person that they have believed me to be.
No doubt it is due to the over-sized melon that sits atop my neck that leads to my desire for others to know what I think.
I am indeed a fool. Though I strive to make logical arguments, many of the conclusions that I draw are no doubt wrong. Perhaps some day I will determine that it is far wiser to close my mouth, and hide these truths from everyone else. Until then, I will blog on.
January 3rd, 2010
Previous Posts
