“Google is an advertiser. The product they sell is *you* and everything they do is about getting more from you so they can sell it on.”

There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it’s important to remember when you see more free stuff coming from Google. As with any company, it’s worth remembering how they make their money when you look at any products they produce.

Open source has a valuable role to play. Consumer commodity is not that role.

However, I’m going to make the majority of my decisions with empirical data, and the minority of my decisions with hope and idealism and the innocence of a child.

I’ve found that to be a good balance for making my mortgage payment on time and keeping food on the table.

Chrome is a prototype. Safari is a full browser. Both are based on WebKit.

Everybody is ganging up on Microsoft unnecessarily. Microsoft will die soon. Not falter and fade; die. It will be quick, painful, and unexpected by everybody – though it shouldn’t be. I’ve watched the tech world since the mid seventies as a spectator and user. The pattern of failure is clear. Obsolescence is an unforgiving and very grim reaper. Microsoft is toast.

I’m betting that back in college days Allen and Gates used to leave Ballmer to explain the mess in the host’s dorm the next day. These things have a pattern about them. Ballmer will be the one who always gets left holding the bag.

My point is that even though I pay for the Apple service, there are numerous areas where the free-of-charge Google service just offers more. I believe this is a direct consequence of the business models: Google only make money when I use the service, so they put a lot of effort in having it accessible from as many different scenarios as possible. Apple need only focus on making a single service, featureful enough and good enough to get me to renew my subscription.

I wouldn’t discount Android just yet; it’ll be interesting to see what handset manufacturers come up with, particularly in markets where carriers don’t have the leverage they do in the US.

Android makes it easier for manufacturers to catch up with to the iPhone, and one of them just might be able to do so. The manufacturers define and control the final product, not Google. We all benefit from better choices and increased competition.

“People went absolutely crazy because it was “reading their email” – everyone I know has a GMail account now and no one cares about the unobtrusive and relevant ads that are displayed.”

people stopped giving a shit? i guess that really does make it all better, then. where do i sign up…

No. Only the ones that can’t make ends meet by making good products resort to advertising. Because it makes good products so much less. By advertising, I mean something that was paid by a different company to be on there. The Apple logo on a MacBook isn’t advertising, it’s branding. A recipe on a box of noodles that calls for the sauce made by the same company isn’t advertising as much as cross-selling.

But do you ever buy a box of cereal, and on the side of the box is a section about the latest Ford Trucks? How about a hammer, and it’s labeled with a list of restaurants?

Remember, way back when? When someone asked Steve Jobs about why Macs don’t carry Intel Inside stickers? The answer is the same reason as why Macs don’t have shovelware loaded on them: Apple’s in the business of selling a good product to you, not selling you to some advertiser. That way, there’s not a conflict of interests.

Open-Source does not necessary means inconsistent user interfaces. With Chrome, Google has delivered the future in terms of user interface for the web, it is far superior to anything that came before and everyone is going to copy: Microsoft, Mozilla and of course Apple. The requirement for mobile devices is less clutter, more content and Google is doing this right.

Sure Apple design is a bit better than Android on a few things, this is Apple’s strength after all. But Android will power many more devices beyond the G1. Android has already shown many really useful features that are really well designed, easy to use, and will make it stick much longer than you believe.

Android is also a key component of Google strategy against Microsoft Office. Apple is not Google’s target. The target is dominance over the mobile web, for this you need a platform that developers will adopt and embrace, no strings attached.

Don’t count Open-Source out just yet because of the failure of the Linux desktop so far. Linux has unique strengths when it comes to mobile devices, unencumbered with the legacy of Windows desktop applications, and unleashed with the slick Chrome user interface.

Maybe I’m wierd… but advertising just doesn’t bother me that much. As long as it is unobtrusive and relevant, which has been key to Google’s advertising policy since day one. Remember when GMail came out? People went absolutely crazy because it was “reading their email” – everyone I know has a GMail account now and no one cares about the unobtrusive and relevant ads that are displayed.

I like strings. Without strings there is no consistent user interface. Without strings there is no guarantee the next version of the OS won’t break my phone. Without strings, no one assumes any responsibility for my device being functional.

I’ll take my strings. So will most consumers. Android may be popular among a subset of propellerheads, but that won’t keep it alive long. The fix has to stay in business long enough to do some good. The Android may be technologically advanced, but then so is Blu-Ray, and it will be dead soon too.

Personally I prefer Open-Source even when sponsored by Google because Open-Source always remains open to delivery without strings attached.

I really don’t like Apple iPhone jail and anti-competitive practices.

IMHO iPhone is broken and Android is the fix.