For a moment put aside your current opinions of the products you use from either Apple or Google. Consider that you have inherited a small sum of money and you are limited to investing it in either Google or Apple for the next ten years.

Which one would you invest in and why?

Thanks.

Edited: Pick one investment - Google or Apple - you think will have the highest return over the next 10 years. I've already made (and acted on) my own decision. If you've got to pick just one of them, which one would you pick?

Do I have to pick one?

I'm an iPhone owner, and hate Android's fragmentation. But I love Google's services. They own my soul, except when it comes to my handset choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by ssaint04

Do I have to pick one?

Indecision is the key to flexibility!

I'll split mine, 75% Google, 25% Apple. Why, I think Google has more going for itself.
Hedge bet....LOL!

On the phone side, I gotta say Google, just for the hardware options. Most of my Android friends have all got current phones to better suit their needs. Most of my iPhone friends have all got the same phone...

For the tablet, it's the same argument, though Android is playing catchup for the near future...

From the computer side, I would say Windows our Linux, again, because of the hardware options and choices (who actually buys a computer to install OSx on it?).

Love Apple hardware though!

Google = Open source, multiple hardware options, backward compatibility with Web apps (despite the fact that the apps I really want to see are packaged ones), instant boot, fast performance, low disk space requirement, instant Web

Apple = Proprietary, locked to a specific vendor, planned obsolescence, not-as-instant boot, slow performance on Macs with OS upgraded, DVD-sized disk space requirements, Web apps and installed apps separated instead of accessible by the same UI

It's perfectly clear, according to business practices, who I would choose. Of course, what I could also do (as a fallback) is share my idea of the "stock-out" exploit with a newly-created software labor union (and then use it on an unethical company like Apple or Microsoft):

• Tell all the union members to purchase stock in the company -- enough to gain a majority in shares
• Use the majority vote to fire the corrupt, unethical, greedy, anticompetitive executives and place more modest union members in power (who would support FOSS)

Originally Posted by Kenny_Strawn

Google = Open source, multiple hardware options, backward compatibility with Web apps (despite the fact that the apps I really want to see are packaged ones), instant boot, fast performance, low disk space requirement, instant Web

Apple = Proprietary, locked to a specific vendor, planned obsolescence, not-as-instant boot, slow performance on Macs with OS upgraded, DVD-sized disk space requirements, Web apps and installed apps separated instead of accessible by the same UI

It's perfectly clear, according to business practices, who I would choose. Of course, what I could also do (as a fallback) is share my idea of the "stock-out" exploit with a newly-created software labor union (and then use it on an unethical company like Apple or Microsoft):

• Tell all the union members to purchase stock in the company -- enough to gain a majority in shares
• Use the majority vote to fire the corrupt, unethical, greedy, anticompetitive executives and place more modest union members in power (who would support FOSS)

I see a lot of confirmation bias here.

FOSS doesn't automatically make something better. It just isn't profitable. Anyone with 2 eyes can see that Google only uses FOSS to prop up their proprietary money maker.... Ads notice how everything they come up with FOSS is designed to push you towards their ad based services and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that in my eyes.

But to come up here and make Google out as a crusader for good when they are playing the FOSS community like a pawn in order to further their proprietary services like Gmail, Youtube, etc is incredibly naive.

This is what makes Google ethically the worst out of the 3. Apple doesn't use OSS to push people towards their products they use it and contribute back. Microsoft will straight up tell you that they are in it to make money and have no interest in FOSS whatsoever. Google is the friend that is using you because you have a new toy.

Lastly to jump on my FOSS doesn't necessarily make something better argument because I didn't elaborate well. Browsers are currently the only FOSS products that can hold a candlelight to their proprietary counterparts.

Office and iWork are considerably more polished than LibreOffice.

Windows and OSX are vastly more user friendly than even Ubuntu.

Gimp is good but Photoshop still kills it.

Not to say this will always be true but just pointing it out.

I happen to think that you're wrong InlineSkate, but you're entitled to your wrong opinion. Windows and OSX are not any more user friendly than Ubuntu, Mint, AriOS, Fedora, Fusion, that is merely "Your" perception! I have switched alot of people to Open/Libre Office and have been told that it is much more intuitive than MS Office could ever hope to be.
So you see it's all a matter of perception.

Mr. Moderator:

You can close or lock this thread at this point. I've learned what I needed to.

Thanks,

6sigma