In its search for new markets and revenue, Google seems to be taking a bite out of Apple.

For months the two companies have competed in the mobile-phone market thanks to Google’s Android operating system, and that competition is fiercer now that Google has stamped its logo on the back of the Nexus One (designed by Google and manufactured by HTC). Despite some differences, the new Google smartphone looks a lot like an iPhone.

There’s competition on other fronts as well, including the operating system business.

In its initial blog post in July, Google positioned Chrome OS as “an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks.” That alone could harm Apple if Chrome-powered netbooks take sales away from Mac laptops. But now there’s talk about both Chrome and Android being used on tablet devices that could compete with Apple’s just announced iPad.

Concept of what a Google tablet might look like (source: Google)

There have been no product announcements, but Google’s Chrome Web site is displaying “visual explorations of how a Chrome OS tablet UI (user interface) might look in hardware.” The illustrations provide only a vague idea of what such a tablet might be like, but their very existence indicates that Google may be eyeing the market that Apple hopes to bust open.

Just in case one tablet operating system isn’t enough of a threat to Apple, Google is potentially going after the iPad with two operating systems at once. Android, in addition to Chrome, could also be used to create a potential iPad killer.

At last month’s Consumer Electronics Show, MSI displayed a 10-inch tablet running Google’s Android operating system.

It’s important to emphasize that neither the Google concept drawings nor the MSI prototype represents a real product. But what they do represent is the possibility, and perhaps the intention, of Google to quickly enter the tablet marketplace.

To be sure, there are important differences between Apple and Google. Apple is more focused and disciplined — it works long and hard on a very small number of products and keeps quiet about them until they’re almost ready for prime time. Then, with great fanfare, Steve Jobs announces them to the world and puts them on sale shortly thereafter.

Google throws lots of things against the wall to see what sticks. The company’s experimental culture is so strong that employees are allowed to devote 20 percent of their time to any project that strikes their fancy, some of which actually see the light of day as products or services.

Apple’s formula — at least with the iPhone — worked like a charm. The hype was followed by a product that delighted most early reviewers and customers. And although I questioned in last week’s column whether the iPad can live up to its hype, I acknowledge that it is an innovative product that might do well when it hits the market.

Google’s approach is usually to pre-announce months in advance and rely on partners like HTC (and now Motorola) to build devices around its open source software. Unlike the first iPhone, the initial Android phone — the HTC G1 — got tepid reviews. But with the release of the Motorola Droid and Google’s Nexus One, Android is starting to win fans and respect.

Google’s initial foray into the browser market was also a bit disappointing but that, too, is starting to change. When the Chrome browser came out, it was a bit faster than market leaders Internet Explorer and Firefox but not nearly as versatile because it lacked support for extensions that allow third parties to add functionality. However, Google recently released a beta version of Chrome that fixes that problem.

Last month Chrome overtook Apple’s Safari as the third-place browser behind Internet Explorer and Firefox, according to Net Applications. As more extensions become available and more people download the newer version, I’m confident its market share will continue to grow.

The biggest difference between Apple and Google has to do with control. Apps for both the iPhone and iPad will be distributed through Apple and be vetted and approved by Apple before being made available to users. Google has a more open approach, allowing anyone to create an app for their phone or their computer operating system.

The democrat (small d) in me sides with Google. But the part of me that’s concerned about safety and security understands the advantages of having a company like Apple examine the applications for its devices.

Mostly I’m just glad to see these two talented and resourceful companies compete with each other and, of course, Microsoft, which was once thought to be a monopoly but is now struggling to compete with both Google and Apple.

This post is adapted from a column by Larry Magid that appeared in the San Jose Mercury News

by Larry Magid

As I think about last week’s Apple iPad announcement, I recall PC-maker Lenovo showing off its IdeaPad U1 Hybrid at the Consumer Electronics Show in January.

The IdeaPad is an interesting cross between a laptop and a tablet. Unlike other tablet PCs, the screen actually peels away from the base station. In laptop mode it runs Windows 7. But when you use the screen by itself in “slate mode,” it runs a home-grown Lenovo operating system that’s optimized for use without a keyboard.

I thought it was cool and it was a clever-enough idea to win CNET’s best-of-show award for computers and hardware. Still, there wasn’t a great deal of buzz around the product. And, despite its rather weird design, I didn’t see a lot of press either praising or damning it. It was just an interesting idea from a company that makes some of the most respected laptops on the market.

Contrast that with Apple’s iPad announcement. The amount of pre-announcement hype was out of control. The blogosphere and even the mainstream press had a feeding frenzy speculating over what Apple would unveil. Apple was officially mum, but it’s likely someone in the company was leaking bits and pieces to help build anticipation. There was even a report in TechCrunch ahead of the announcement claiming that Steve Jobs was overheard saying it “will be the most important thing I’ve ever done.” When Jobs finally took the stage to unveil the iPad, he called it “magical and revolutionary.”

With all of this hype in the back of my head, I was one of hundreds of tech journalists to show up at Yerbe Buena Center in San Francisco on Wednesday to find out what all the fuss was about. The street in front of the building was crowded with TV satellite trucks and the press — many arriving hours early — were anxiously speculating about exactly what Jobs would pull out of his hat.

The answer is the now much-written-about iPad, which is getting a mixed reception from the press and those who are Tweeting and blogging about it. Writing in Thursday’s Mercury News, my colleague Troy Wolverton said he wants to buy one but “just not yet.” He’s waiting for version 2.0, which he hopes will support Adobe’s Flash and allow multi-tasking.

My take on the device was less charitable. In my CBSNews.com post, I called it “underwhelming.”

But my verdict has to be put into the context of all the hype. Had Apple called this device the “Ipod Touch 2,” I would have praised it as a really good follow up to an excellent product. I would have still questioned whether there is a market for a device that’s too big to put in your pocket but not as easy to type on as a laptop, but I would have given Apple the benefit of the doubt, just as I did with Lenovo.

It’s great to innovate, it’s great to introduce new ideas to the market and it’s great to “throw it against the wall and see if it sticks.” After all, experimentation, including experiments that fail, are an important part of what drives innovation.

But this was more than just experimenting with a new concept. To begin with, the concept isn’t new. There have been dozens of tablets or slate computers and none of them has been able to attract more than a niche audience.

I was at the Comdex computer show in 2000 when Bill Gates introduced the tablet PC. A year later Gates predicted that the tablet “would become the most popular form of PC within five years.”

Of course Jobs’ tablet PC is different than the ones built to Gates’ specifications. For one thing, the iPad is mostly about content consumption, and it’s built on the successful foundation of several generations of iPods, iPhones and Apple’s iTunes and iPhone Apps stores. Apple is also doing content deals with book publishers to assure plenty of stock for its new iBook Store that will compete with Amazon.com towards Apple’s goal of turning the iPad into a book and periodical reader.

The content, the elegant design, reasonable starting price ($499 for one with 16 GB of storage and no 3G modem) of the iPad and Apple’s superb marketing skills all bode well for this new device. Yet, I’m one of many people who came away a little skeptical and a bit disappointed, not because it’s not a good device but because it didn’t (perhaps couldn’t) live up to all the hype.

I pretty much expected it to look and work like it does, but I also expected Jobs to delight the crowd with “one more thing” that would make me want to rush out and get one of my own as soon possible. That didn’t happen.

This column first appeared in the San Jose Mercury News