Home > Case Studies Solutions > Apple and Google Library Books Search Case Study Solution

Apple and Google Library Books Search Case Study Solution


Apple discussion questions

  1. Should Apple conduct extensive screening of Apps before they are allowed to be sold the App Store? Why or why not?

I agree that Apple must conduct extensive screening before selling the apps. The reason for this is that Apple is using the newest, bolder, hottest and high technology generation. Conducting extensive screening helps Apple guarantee that all apps in the App Store can be trusted since they are reliable. This concerns customer’s information, in particular personal information. In the current generation, presence of high tech technologies comes with ill intents geared towards causing harm for financial gains.  Apps harmful to users’ phones have been reported; having malware providing backdoor that allows for collection of personal information from users. Some apps also draw the phone batteries very fast. As such, Apple must screen its apps before selling them as this ensures users’ safety. Moreover, Apple provide high quality products, and users value high quality technologies in the current era. Majority of Apple’s customers have high expectations on the company’s products as they are loyal knowing that Apple provides best brand gadgets that meet diverse needs of numerous customers.

  1. Do research to determine the current status of the FCC investigation of Apple for banns use of the Adobe Flash software on devices that use the iOS operating system.

Apple’s mission involves designing an operating system suitable for its products, providing the investors insights into future direction of the company, being an icon in mobile products. Adobe Flash produces a multimedia platform called flash, which is 100% proprietary. Adobe authorizes Flash’s pricing, enhancing and other functionalities. It serves currently as benchmark for animations, interactivity and video addition on websites. It is widely accepted that the flash supplements user experience on the web. Apple has had a long term relation with Flash. Both have proprietary products as well as open standards that improves user experience on the web. Mobile devices produced by Apple record high performance, hence the need for low power in executing open standards.

  1. What do you think of Apple’s guideline that says it will reject in app for any content or behaviour that they believe is over the line? Could such a statement be constructed as a violation of the developer’s freedom of speech? Why or Why not?

From my understanding, Apple’s guidelines do not violate freedom of speech from developers as the goal of the company is to develop apps suitable in their production line. Apple has some guidelines for all developers to abide by. So, developers are required to develop apps that are in line with company guideline rather than developers’ guidelines. The decision to reject an app therefore rests on likelihood of the developers violating their freedom of speech. As such, the company rejects apps over their own line and accept those in line. The company solely wants to make sure it produces high quality products that meet users’ diverse needs. In this regard, Apple has a guideline statement that reveals its focus on products that fit over its line.

Google books discussion questions

  1. Do you think that Google should have taken a different approach that would have allowed it to avoid litigation and a lengthy delay in implementing its Book Search Library Project? Please explain your answer

I think that Google ought to have used another method to avoid litigation in addition to long delay in efforts to Apple and Google Library Books Search Case Study Solutionexecute the Book Search Library Project. Since the copyright law protects numerous books, Google need to have found an alternative method and avoid copyright violation problems. Court’s approval of the project means that the project generates profit for all parties involved. To get rid of the litigation, it is vital for Google to appreciate book writers as well as respective publishers. Failure to acknowledge the books means that Google does not provide appropriate benefits and does not respect intellectual property rights. Nonetheless, it is not ethical to implement the Book Search Library Project minus informing book authors and the publishers. The project violates Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), personal information protection act (PIPA) and stop online piracy act (SOPA) regulations on intellectual property rights. Before implementing such a project, it is vital to inform the book authors and publishers. Moreover, all parties need to make an agreement indicating compliance with rules under ACTA, PIPA and SOPA.

  1. As a potential user, are you in favour of or do you oppose the Book Search Library Project? Please explain your answer

I favour implementing the Book Search Library Project as one of the potential users. The project is beneficial to me as it assists in easy searching of specific online books, saving on time required to visit the library. I can easily find book references while conducting research during my study. In addition, I can read the books and increase my knowledge on new things I plan to learn following project implementation.  Nevertheless, implementation of this project is illegal and disadvantages some parties; particularly the publishers and authors. There is an issue of plagiarism, which involves sharing book copies without consent from respective publishers and authors.

  1. Do you think that the proposed settlement gives Google an unfair advantage to profit from creating an online service that allows people to access and search millions of books?

I agree that the settlement projected provide unfair advantage to Google in its efforts to generate revenue from online services. It will be difficult for authors to produce books that reach larger markets as it would be easy for potential users to access the books using Google. As such the publishers may also fail to publish more books. The proposal seems unfair because the settlement allows different users to access the services free of charge. Book authors and respective publishers will gain credits and profits. Their popularity will increase as the books will be widely known on the globe. Thus, it will hinder Google from generating sufficient revenues. In the event that the publishers and authors support the settlement proposed, acknowledgement is only afforded to publishers and writers; and not Google.

Related Posts

Leave a Comment