Print 53 comment(s) - last by retrospooty.. on Jan 21 at 1:17 PM

Google's Larry Page
In short, he said their products could be better

It's not uncommon for rivals to bash one another, so Google co-founder and CEO Larry Page took a couple of jabs at Facebook and Apple in a recent interview.

In an interview with Wired, Page discussed how he wants Google to come up with some "moon shots," or far-out ideas such as the company's self-driving vehicles that recently achieved 30,000 accident-free miles.

However, Page also took the opportunity to throw a few insults at rivals Facebook and Apple. Google's social network, Google+, has been working to gain the amount of users that Facebook has while Google's Android operating system competes with Apple's iOS.

While Page recognizes that Facebook is a heavyweight in the social arena, he said, "They're also doing a really bad job on their products … we're actually doing something different [from Facebook]. I think it's outrageous to say that there's only space for one company in these areas."

Page may be a little sore that Google, which launched in 2011, hasn't quite lived up to the hype of it potentially being a Facebook rival. There are currently 500 million registered users on Google+ and only about 125 million are active monthly (compared to Facebook's one billion monthly active users as of October 2012).

Rather than become a Facebook rival, though, it looks more like Google+ has become a product incorporated into Google's search.

In November of last year, Google's Vice President of Product Bradley Horowitz spoke with Business Insider about Google+, also taking a jab at Facebook. Specifically, he targeted the social network's use of advertisements, where they're forced into people's news feeds. He even went as far as comparing Facebook ads to a guy with a sandwich board popping in between a father and his daughter during an important conversation. 

"We don't have to make next week's payroll by jamming ads at users," said Horowitz.

In the recent Wired interview, Page also had something to say about Apple's product practices. While Apple is another huge player in the mobile space, Page thinks its products are limited. 

"You know, we always have these debates: we have all this money, we have all these people, why aren't we doing more stuff?" said Page. "You may say that Apple only does a very, very small number of things, and that's working pretty well for them. But I find that unsatisfying."

Earlier this week, it was reported that Google's Nexus 7 tablet market share was greater in Japan than Apple's iPad. Market research firm BCN conducted a survey in Japan last December, and out of 2,400 consumer electronics stores in Japan, the iPad had 40.1 percent of the market while Google's Nexus 7 claimed 44.4 percent.

Source: Wired

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Ironic, or hypocritical?
By NellyFromMA on 1/18/2013 12:29:29 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe it's just me, but isn't sort of ironic / hypocritical that Google of all companies - who employs the most aggressive ad-driven business model of any major tech player in recent memory - would call out Facebook for its ad model?

I'm sure I'll get downvoted for daring to mention it, but seriously, this is just Google getting cranky because it has a credible competitor in the ad market, not because facebook ads are in any real way any worse than Google's.

Ads in general are annoying, but the difference between Google Ads and FB ads are so minute from an end-user perspective that I can't help but this BS when Larry Page comments as such.

RE: Ironic, or hypocritical?
By menting on 1/18/2013 1:20:40 PM , Rating: 5
i actually find facebook's ads more intrusive than Google's

RE: Ironic, or hypocritical?
By ERROR666 on 1/18/2013 1:45:33 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, google's ads are not as annoying as facebook. Not that I care about "social network" sites, but google+ looks much cleaner.

By justcommonsense on 1/18/2013 11:03:43 PM , Rating: 3
Frankly, Google ads and Facebook ads is 2 different animal. When google gave us their services for free, they own the services, so they can put as many ads as they wanted, yet they didn't. They gave users ads that relevant to each user.

FB on the other hand also gave the service for free, but the way how the service worked annoyed the users when FB forced the ads without any relevance to the users. FB accounts are very similar to blog accounts, it is personal in nature, although both free services, yet the policies are polar opposites.

FB forced the ads to the users whom opened the account assuming it's a private page. Google's blog services on the other hand respect the private nature of the blog, they offer the users a way to monetize the blogs, sharing the ads revenue through adsense, in which the users has the control to choose what kind of ads they want to take.

"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki