NYT: Steve Jobs feels Google betrayed Apple by mimicking iPhone - Page 6

I just took a look at the page you linked and saw a picture of the geo paint program. That looks just like MacPaint for the original mac. It is so funny to see this OS. I have never heard of this OS before. I was 9 years old when the Mac came out and was lucky enough to have my Father in the computer sales business and he loved Apple. So we had a Mac when it came out and the Apple II before that. But its funny to see almost a direct copy of the mac OS back in 1986 running on those a C64 and PC's. I can't imagine how this OS would run a on a C64 though. When I first saw your post I thought it was a picture of Lisa OS. Thanks for posting though.

Actually, I'd prefer a designer not know every little piece of crap that goes on behind the scenes - that's the DEVELOPERS JOB (seriously - after all the complaints about devs-playing-designers - you honestly think the reverse is good - seriously?). I've never been happier doing design since all the geek crap I was doing was offloaded to devs. I still provide script and CSS changes in notes - but I don't have to waste my time with it.

This hasn't made AI's links yet - but it's a damn decent article on the iPad's philo from ComputerWorld. At least one writer freakin' gets-it.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...x_Less_is_more

That's my understanding. Apple can try to work out a licensing agreement, but I think that they got burnt with Microsoft.

see Apple vs MS 35 F3d 1435

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c....93-16867.html

[QUOTE=Doug Halfen;1590060]I feel that if Apple were going to embrace "Bing," then Google would have already vanished (at least visibly) from Safari in the 4.0.5 update. Hell hath no fury like Steve Jobs scorned, but the flames haven't yet reached that level.

Truth be told, Bing is still very much a mixed bag (typical of Microsoft); even those people I know who readily embraced it upon launch (all devout PC worshippers -- I mean, Windows users) soon found themselves second-guessing and turning back to Google for "better results." (I personally can't stand Bing. I _much_ prefer Google. Anyone who knows how to really search _well_ on Google can get excellent results pretty quickly.)

Apple is unlikely to take on Google in the search department, at least for sometime. Remember when Apple finished it's agreement to make IE the default browser for the Mac. Word was out that Apple was developing it's own browser and most tech sites thought it would be based on the Firefox engine what we got instead of Web Kit and Safari. Apple is run by VERY smart people that will always surprise us by thinking different, and despite Steve's reported rants and fits or rage there will be no rash decisions being made. Jobs criticism of Google was a warning to Apple's employees about the tech business in general and may have been a way of rallying the troops.

As for the iPHone lawsuits, these were going to happen sooner or later as the copycats started to ship. Apple waited for he biggest target and offender to take on. There might be more to come although even Microsoft has steered clear of creating a complete rip off of the iPhone.

This is the infamous "look and feel" case, which is perhaps not quite what you think it is. Apple was essentially forced to do a license agreement with Microsoft in 1985 for certain elements in the Mac interface, in order to keep Microsoft in the Mac software development business. Microsoft then used this license as a partial defense in the look and feel case, but it's not clear (from the legal discussions I've read) that Apple ever had much of a chance to win, in any event.

No, facts don't support Jobs and your post is contradictory. Apple "officially" entered phone business in 2007. It is not known to public when exactly they started to work on it - probably sooner than Google bought their group, but not by much. Or you think Google entered phone business in the end of 2008 ?

Could not agree more.

It's not about being a developer, it's about having the common sense to update your software when the older version is known to be vulnerable.

Also, that article basically says the iPad is great for people too stupid to figure out technology. Um...that's a valid point to make but hardly a compliment. The idea that only geeks and tinkerers can figure out technology and don't mind its complexity is a myth. Most circles of intelligent people do very well with technology, even circles that are quite far apart from technological fields.

Not this shit again. Apple was INVITED to Xerox PARC. Apple licensed the ideas in exchange for stock ahead of their IPO. Xerox made a killing on that stock investment.

A great deal of R&D still went into the Mac including on the GUI end.

The license granted MS to use Lisa/Mac GUI tech was a grave strategic error because it really should've been a perpetual, renewable license and revenue stream.

To me this proves that technology companies just need to do everything ... phones, computers, Internet services, search, etc.

Steve Jobs needs to get over himself.

I'd like to repeat that, because i don't think Steve's heard it.

Steve Jobs needs to get over himself.

I didn't get the word "stupid" being used, but I'll use it. I think it's stupid to waste time making your computer work instead of doing work WITH it. To some people - who time is worth a LOT of money - using inferior tools that embrace time-wasting complexity is the height of stupid.

But unless you've been in that club I suppose it'd be a bit abstract. If I want to tinker for fun, I've got ancient electronics to play with. If I want to consume media, or get work done - keep the jack-of-all-trades-master-of none toys out of my way.

Best line of the article:

" the result is systems that do everything. They're so feature-rich, so complex, that some people can't get them to do anything."

I'd edit it to say - machines that try to do everything and are effectively doing nothing.

Well, you just regurgitated a lot of the usual buzz-words and mostly sounded like a Droid advertisement. Nothing you said was original and the wording you used was the same everyone uses, so why should I assume you are doing anything but re-stating what you heard in an advertisement?

I'll give you a couple of examples:


You can, there are several. And there are valid design and security reasons for not including the ones that aren't allowed. You probably know this already in fact but don't mention it. Why? Begins with the letters T-R-O-L ...


Here you are making that classic straw man argument. There are mail apps for the iPhone, some from Google themselves, and the built in one supports Google GMail right out of the box. YOu are setting it up however to argue that these don't do it "properly" without mentioning what that is, and then using that to diss the iPhone. This is just total BS Troll-talk also.


Here again, lots of valid reasons why podcatcher was disallowed not the least of which being the contract with AT&T, but you pretend like you don't know that cause you just want to troll.

Basically, you either don't really seem to know anything about this stuff, or you do know about it and are just being a jerk about it so as to have a more troll-isciously tasting post. You can't have it both ways.

I'm kinda coming down on the side of you being an annoying troll-type person as opposed to being just stupid because I just respect your intellect that much.

I guess the threat to microsoft office goes to the core of MS business. office is the reason why the business world is locked into windows and it was engineered to kill its competition. i'm not sure if iwork is a moneymaker for apple - i have a feeling apple wouldn't care if people use google docs, as long as they do it from a mac.

in a hypothetical world where a majority of business users used google docs instead of office, the underlying os really wouldn't matter - even linux would have a chance to finally make some progress. that seems to be the approach that google is taking.

the biggest obstacle to overcome is human inertia. people don't like change.

There are a lot of intelligent people that have better things to do with their time and talent than to learn some arcane interface to a set of features of questionable utility.

How many Movers and Shakers (CEOs, World Leaders, Politicians, Church Elders, etc.) have time to spend on unusable devices?

Could it be that the developers, engineers and designers of these feature-rich Rube Goldbergs are too lazy or lack the insight to examine and understand the needs of the prospective users?

"Less is More" is a philosophy of the Bauhaus Design School that affected art, architecture, design:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...935171,00.html

Heard it twice the first time, Jay.

Thanks for your illuminating contributions thus far. Ain't bad for Post #9.....

+++ qft

i think the success of the iPhone already proves your myth busting argument to be wrong.

Hehe, this really takes me back. I used GEOS extensively in those days as a kid. The first GUI interface I was ever exposed to. I loved it. I had the whole family of GEOS software: GeoFont, GeoPublish, etc.

If I was I an American I would be a little worried about Google. They are taking ideas and tech that was and is being developed at U.S. universities, like fingerworks, without paying for it and giving it away free to companies that then undercut American companies. In this case Apple paid for the technology when they purchased fingerworks, Google and all the rest are just stealing it. And Google is giving this stolen tech. away FREE to anyone that wants it. That is not competition, it is self serving GREED They are taking from the best and brightest in the land and helping to destroy the very means and system that created the innovation in the first place. This is Evil. And to all those people who say this is just business, you can justify almost anything with that logic, even evil.

Is Google becoming a ravenous rat?


Google is a one hit wonder and they know it.

That is why Google seems to be everywhere, launching or announcing half-assed 2nd-rate wannabe products and throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. They add or change features and modify the business model.

Other than that there is absolutely very little innovation in Google products.

Some Google products have nice features and are actually helpful, but there's nothing that I can think of that can make me say.."wow that's brilliant".

They're good at search (and maybe mail). that's it.

and if you think Google is the model company everyone think they are. Think again. They're one of the most evil companies out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google





iPhone = Android

iPad = Chrome OS Tablet

iTunes = Youtube/Google Video/Google Music Search

Apple App Store = Android Market

Twitter/Facebook = Google Buzz / Orkut

Yahoo Mail!/Hotmail = Gmail (this one's ok but can still be categorized as a "wannabe" product)

MS Office/Outlook = Google Docs/Google Apps

Paypal = Google Checkout

IE/Firefox/Safari = Chrome

Amazon/eBay/Shopping.com = Product Search

Flickr = Picasa

Amazon/Barnes and Noble = Google Books

and so on...



apple is the inovator

google is the immitator

I do get the point of your post. However, many of the items listed on the left were NOT Apple products. So the point of your post gets 'lost' in all this information.

The NYT article is really worth reading.

As mentioned in the article, I do hope Apple gives Google a black eye with Bing for their betrayal. Personally, the search results between both engines are not that different. Try it.

People are tired of Google preaching this Don't be evil mantra while acting like the corporate beast that they are. And they are always yapping about open source. Well, it's only because it serves them, i.e. advertising business. And people swallow it because hey, a bunch of geeks can do no evil, right? Well, open your eyes folks.

Why don't they open source their search algorithm if they are so "good".

I changed my default search engine to Bing because I favor Apple. Google is the new Microsoft.

my point: Google products are 2nd rate half-baked products copied from MULTIPLE companies, not just Apple. And Google is willing to do EVIL things if it involves money, like screwing their partners (Motorola Droid vs. Nexus One for example). censorship in china, etc.

Yes indeed, and this is exactly where the Google evilness comes from. Google is in the business of undermining other companies intellectual properties and businesses in order to make profits in the advertising market. They copy other companies technologies and give it away for free in order for Google to make profits in the ads market.

Someone needs to teach Google a lesson by giving away advertising on the Web and Mobile devices for free. That would undermine Googles business and really make them feel the heat.

Someone needs to redefine the advertising market and I think Apple may be just the company to do it.

Time will tell.

Very interesting. Thanks for the link. I had never heard of this search engine before, but it sure looks like an interesting candidate for a buy-out should Apple choose to challenge Google in search. I for one would like to see that happen.

Nice try. I've provided quite a bit of consistent info that happens to contradict you, including the fact that Google was about 2 years later to market than Apple (even longer if you count multitouch), along with some rather important dates associated with just one of Apple's iPhone patents. I therefore think it's about time for you to put up some relevant info.

As another fan of Cuil it may interest other mac users that you can use it instead of Google as your default search in safari...

http://www.cuil.com/info/faqs/guides/safari.php

RED=recommendations

iPhone = Android

iPad = Chrome OS Tablet

iTunes = Youtube/Google Video/Google Music Search

Apple App Store = Android Market

Twitter/Facebook = Google Buzz / Orkut Not really relevant to an apple argument

Yahoo Mail!/Hotmail = Gmail Maybe if you mentioned MobileMe this one would have held more ground

MS Office/Outlook = Google Docs/Google Apps Again iWork would have been better comparison

Paypal = Google Checkout One click in itunes store??

IE/Firefox/Safari = Chrome Just safari would have been enough

Amazon/eBay/Shopping.com = Product Search relevance??

Flickr = Picasa How about iphoto or aperture instead?

Amazon/Barnes and Noble = Google Books Obvious one here iBookstore!!

If you are going to try and make a point try to only use the products that apple makes.

Not much to ad and I do not wish to distract.

I do, however, want to thank all of the posters in this thread (well, most of them anyway) for the best reading on a weekend that I can recall in a long, long time.

Not to mention a lovely stroll down memory lane.

Seconded.

That would, indeed be HUGE. Do unto them......

He won't because he can't. That's the trouble with these uninformed trolls.

that was my reply to a similar post.

That's the same clap trap you posted on Macrumors.

Until Jobs started whining about Google "being evil" it was normal business, now it is a soap opera.

Imagine that there is no Android OS and other multitouch phones. iPhone 3G would cost 599$ with 3 years contract and 3GS would be 999$ with 5 years contract (and a pint of blood for tethering).
Jailbreaking the iPhone would be a felony and copy/paste would (still) be the most wanted iPhone's feature.

Didn't the LG Prada get announced before the iPhone?

http://gizmovil.com/files/2007/05/img_9025.jpg

You people really need to get some new material.

I vaguely remember the judge in this case saying something to the effect, "The desktop GUI arrangement is similar to the arrangement of a 'home's living room' and you can't patent a home's living room!" ergo Apple loses...what a dink!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!