NYT: Steve Jobs feels Google betrayed Apple by mimicking iPhone - Page 8

Aren't 4:3 webpages, photos and documents too skinny?

You have more pixels on an iPad screen.

I tried out some netbooks, I even sell Dell Mini 10's after the experience I then bought a 13" MacBook.

The Dell Mini 10 claims 9.5. But we hate Dell. They are lying.

It is Windows. Have fun with your virus.

I think you'll find you're many years out of date. Sorry.

I haven't had a virus on my desktop PC in the best part of a decade, and all I've done to achieve that is a) not be a retard, and b) run free anti-virus suites. (currently running Microsoft security essentials)

Could it be perhaps that the Droid marketting campaign was specifically designed to highlight the iPhone's weaknesses by using common complaints? So yes, those common complaints I share with other frustrated iPhone users. As a panellist said on the most recent TWiT, the iPhone of today is barely any different to the iPhone of 3 years ago. The app store has been the only significant advance in all that time. Why? How could one time Apple defender Leo Laporte have switched to the Nexus One, and never have looked back? When Apple loses the confidence and support of it's most avid cheerleaders, they're losing the plot.

If there is a good GMail app please share. I've tried a few and to be frank, they're awful. the built in mail app's GMail support is incredibly basic, - no search, no offline caching, and no push. It's awful. Given the Job's attitude towards Google of late I can't see it ever getting any better.

Why should AT&T's crappy network affect me in the slightest? I live in the UK, and yet AT&T's limits apply here just the same. It's lowest common denominator stuff, just like the recent stance on banning anything vaguely adult from the app store. AT&T sucks so the whole world must feel the same pain. Thanks Steve.

Just calling me names isn't exactly mature or helpful. By all means try and argue your point, but anything less is redundant.

You live in a Windows world. Windows is the epitome of a closed platform.

History always shows Apple comes out on top after being betrayed by their partners, its only a matter of time before people realize how bad the competing products are to iPads/iPhones. When it comes down to the simple idea that there are different products out there for a reason, not everyone has the same taste. Some folks enjoy Apple products, some do not.

It has Windows too.

Wow. A troll from the other side of the fence. How...original?


Agree with you there. The worst thing that has happened to me are those ad cookies that get into my system every now and then. Nothing that the 2 free scanners/removers I have installed can't handle.

True, but he's made a fortunate doing it.


Ah, the next generation of Mac users. They platform used to be for the best and the brightest. Now its been relegated to mindless fanboys.

it is a constant battle to keep windows patched and up to date out of fear of viruses and other attacks. we get a machine every other day that has been infected. it is a huge pain and time suck. the problem is that most people don't want to spend their days worrying about this stuff.

people who want a computer but don't really know much about them should go with a mac. people who really do know a lot about computers tend to go with macs as well.

people who think they know something about computers go with windows and then claim that viruses are not an issue...

There's no evidence of betrayal at either of these links. Further, since I mentioned all of this in previous posts, I don't think I needed to have any of it pointed out.

Yes it is fortunate that Jobs has made a fortune for Apple.



Many "mindless fanboys" are driving sales for the iMac, Mac Pro, MB and MBP making more money for Apple--wow

Yeh, I got that impression too, but it wasn't worth my time to respond.

What's your point then ?
It is not known since when is Apple in "mobile business" but they released the iPhone in 2007. They acquired Fingerworks in middle of 2005, about the same time Google got Rubin and Android team on board. Schmidt was elected to Apple's board in August 2006, when both companies were in the thick of the "mobile business race"

Note : Schmidt didn't invaded Cupertino, he was invited there (same way Jobs was invited into Xerox offices some decades earlier, but this is another story), and contrary the popular opinion (at least on this forum) it was Apple who benefited most from the partnership...they helped Apple great deal with popularity of Safari and also Google applications on iPhone has lot to do with iPhone success. Just imagine what iPhone would be without YouTube, Maps and GMail ?

Conclusion : both companies are "mobile" before Schmidt came in. Jobs know that and his stance is just a crap.

And now they are trying to kill Apple. They have no loyalty!

Is Steve that slow on the uptake?

It was an obvious mistake to put those people on the board in the first place.

Maybe Steve should return the compliment and copy Google's products. They might be more useful.

This is probably why Steve is so steamed, & rightly so. It is plausible that this will come up in a court case as well, with Apple claiming that Schmidt used his BOD position to gain inside knowledge about the iPhone that could have then been passed on to Google's own team.

Google has long enjoyed a pass as they typically have been given praise for sticking it to Microsoft (whom few like). I have a feeling they are about to have a very different experience if they take a hard stance against Apple. Google has adopted a sort of blind arrogance and if Apple teams up with Microsoft on Bing you will see a market reshaped. Maybe Google thinks they can fall back on Chrome OS if their relations with the two get really bad? Lets face it, Chrome OS is a pathetic joke that has no chance to replace either OS anytime soon. Mark my words, Google's days on top are numbered.

Think what you want to think and pat yourself on the back for picking a Mac all you want, I can't stop you. All I can say is that I personally have not had a dreadful experience with viruses. Did I say that applies to all Windows machines? No. Windows has viruses because they hold that 90% of the market, so it's logical that there will be more viruses. I've also had no issues keeping my machine up to date. Then again, I'm a personal user (you sound like an IT user) so pressing the yes button when it askes if I want the latest patch is much less exhausting to me.

But if you're having as many issues as you say, then you might want to check with the hardware that's between the monitor and the chair for the user of that machine. Most issues tend to start there, regardless of what OS you have.

Back to the topic at hand.

Well if the sales have anything to do with "mindless fanboys" there are more and more of them each quarter---go to:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...n_quarter.html

check it out!!

You were originally arguing Google was in the mobile business before Apple and Apple is invading Google's area. Now you seem to concede Google was in the mobile business at least no later than Apple--nevermind the widespread rumors in 2004, that Apple was developing a phone or that Apple was actually selling mobile phones 2 years before Google--so it should be considered a tie and Google's actions in the mobile marketplace irrelevant.

In that sense, you are right: the question of which company was in the mobile market first doesn't matter for the purposes of understanding why Apple/Jobs would feel threatened or betrayed by Google.

What matters is who owns what IP and who is infringing. Wrapped up in this is an ethical question about whether Google's CEO should have been sitting on Apple's board if Google was or intended to infringe on Apple's IP, even if Google's CEO recused himself from board meetings that involved the iPhone. Would Steve Jobs have taken any of Google's founders under his wing if he knew he was helping create a more powerful enemy (infringer)?

Apple has a big bag o'patents on the iPhone and has touted this widely, even at consumer events like MacWorld ("And boy have we patented it!" -- S. Jobs, Jan. 2007)

More recently, Google rolled out multitouch to Android devices in Dec. 2009, despite Apple's patent application for a "multipoint touchscreen" filed May 6, 2004. Apple was awarded patent no. 7,663,607 for said "multipoint touchscreen" on February 16, 2010. Apple filed suit against HTC on March 2, 2010.




The iPhone would arguably have been a bigger/earlier success without YouTube, because YouTube made the device look more like a glorified toy. GMail is a privacy nightmare and far from being everyone's platform of choice for e-mail. Maps is indeed a very nice addition to the iPhone, but arguably not the main reason for its success: the iPod touch is a tremendous success without Maps. Note as well, Apple was promoting Google by including these features on the iPhone.

If 2 years is a long time in technology fields, then the Xerox-Apple "controversy" is ancient history. Suffice it to say, if Xerox had had IP that it wanted to protect, it could have.


So far, your arguments and statements are entirely incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.

That's the most stupid comment here. You don't even know the difference between Java and Javascript

... as well as Linux

The forum assigns that title to all moderators. It assigns no authority to topical opinions.


The main issues you highlighted are Apple's control and the greed of the phone companies. The latter I'll answer next. Apple try to be in control by locking down their hardware/software platform. This means no other hardware manufacturers can be compatible with the App Store. Locked in developers, locked in content.

The devices only work with itunes. Check out the iPad ads:

http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/ipod.html

"Feed your iPad.
Its easy to fill your iPad with music. Tap iTunes to browse millions of songs in the iTunes Store and download new music directly to your iPad."

To some it's evil (competitors who can't break in), to others it's the only way it could work (e.g for developers who spend a couple of weeks making an app and making millions).


How is an email different from an SMS message? They charge you per text but you can send as many emails as you want. How is a voice call different from a Skype call? It's all just data. The Telecoms businesses grow to the point where it's about coverage and then they can and do charge what they like. What are you going to do about it? If you only have a choice between 1-2 providers and it's either that you have no communications or expensive bills, you have very little choice in the matter.

Locking you into 2 year contracts should be made illegal. What if their service after 6 months is terrible? You have to pay up for your entire remaining contract to be able to go somewhere else. That's extortion. I have dealt with a number of phone companies over the years and my experience leads me to one conclusion... evil, the lot of them.


iPad can't boot up near instantly either - they can both wake up from sleep instantly though. Also, netbooks can play video for 10 hours:

http://channel.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=22670


I think Apple as a business works that way. I don't think deep down that's all that Jobs is. It's smart to take enough money to allow you to focus on your passion in life and that's what he's done. He would take more than $1 for a salary if money was his main driving force and he certainly wouldn't say or do some of the things he does. People call him arrogant but everyone who submits an opinion with the intent for others to hear (yes that includes me) has a level of arrogance to think that opinion deserves to be heard possibly in conflict with someone else's.


Don't knock the turtle necks. They are actually really functional. You get long sleeves so your arms don't get cold, they are black so they go with anything you wear, you don't have to really iron them like a shirt, they stretch to fit. I think if we as a society had to agree on a common utilitarian uniform, the turtle necks would be voted in.

Sure it will do what you are doing now more comfortably, but does it do all that you use your MacBook to do? Or do you go back to your MacBook when you run into one of the iPad's limitations with something you want to do?

If you are still using the MacBook for some of your tasks, and are just using the iPad to replace those tasks that you do on the MacBook that the iPad can also do, then you haven't sacrificed any capability for simplicity. You still have all the capability you had before, in exchange for the same amount of complexity, if not even more. You still need to know how to use the MacBook, but now you also need to know how to use another device. If anything this adds to complexity.

Why should contracts be illegal? Contracts are two way, they are there for both parties, you should be reading them before signing them, if you don't like it, don't sign it, you weren't forced to sign it. If a mobile company is unable to provide an adequate service then you should be able to get out of your contracts, your local consumer protection laws should help you get out of it also.

Contracts are only fair if both sides have the same negotiating power.

The power to walk without signing is pretty profound.

Once someone locks themselves into a specific position the negotiating power necessarily goes down commensurately. So if you only want an iPhone, you pretty much give up your negotiating power. But that is an explicitly made personal decision before the contract is ever placed in front of them, so I don't think there's any unfair negotiating power there at all.

Seems they are-

You are not forced to sign a contract with a mobile company, if you don't agree with the terms, don't sign it.

The link you posted doesn't say anything about 10 hours of video playback. It says-


I guarantee it won't play videos for 10 hours.

You would be comfortable tossing a netbook in a briefcase or bag, while still turned on, and moving around? Unless it has a SSD or flash memory, probably not a good idea, thus requiring one to turn it on and off, while the iPad would simply need to be in standby.

Can you guarantee that iPad will play video for 10 hours?

According to Apple, and I'm sure their legal department, it does. I'll bet Apple had downplayed the battery life, and it will play video well over 10 hours.

I'm not asking Apple, I'm asking you. Can YOU guarantee that iPad will play video for 10 hours?

Can you guarantee that the their will be a tomorrow? Don't be obtuse, you know very Apple has been using a real world friendly metric for battery measurements for many years while no one else but Sony has followed suit.

Yes, I guarantee it. Happy? Years and years of owning Apple products have convinced me that when they give a battery estimate for any product, they are either spot on, or lowball the figures, so that everyone is surprised it lasts longer than advertised.

Um...so because you have the power to walk away, that means both parties have the same negotiating power and the contracts are fair? So you are saying contracts are only unfair when someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to sign it? You can't think of any other scenarios?

Wireless providers and consumers are obviously not equals in the contract. Wireless providers do not operate in a perfectly competitive market and each have considerable market power, and it is very easy for them to tacitly collude (not necessarily illegally, just tacitly) due to how few of them there are. Thus it is easy for them to all offer very similar terms giving consumers little to no alternative options to choose from. When there are so many individuals on one side and so few firms on the other, it is very easy for the side with the few to have an advantage over the side with many.

Learn to read first if you want to argue. I said the Jobs statement about "they entered (ours) mobile business, not us entering (theirs) search" is bullshit. Apple officially entered the mobile phone business when they announced the iPhone. They probably entered the business about the time they bought Fingerworks, but at that time Google had Android and Rubin. So they arguably entered mobile at the same time - Jobs (and you) are lying there.

More important, Schmidt entered the BOD of Apple long time after they both were deep in mobile business - Jobs is either idiot or he was aware of Android. They still let Schmidt in, as they felt the partnership with Google is valuable to them, not other way around. Another Jobs lie.



Any evidence for this or is it just your feeling based on fact YOU hate YouTube and GMail ?
Lets pretend you are correct - please explain why on earth Apple invited Schmidt to their BOD ? The timing is clear : they needed Google's apps for iPhone and they were well aware that Google is sort of competitor in mobile business then. Rubin used to work for Apple - they knew he was with Google for years.

You still believe Jobs lies and ignore the facts ?

Oh, I expect Jobs knew all about Google's acquisition of Android, Inc. in July 2005. And Google would have known all about Apple's multitouch patent applications before 2006. And Google knew all about how competitive the iPhone would be at least 2 years before the first Android device came to market.


Why not partner with Google, if you want to provide iPhone owner's with the best possible experience (or the best selling experience) at the time? Perhaps it was a way to convince Google to pay Apple even more for the privilege of being on the iPhone.



If you were alive in 2007, you could have read many a criticism about the iPhone being a toy, with the presence of YouTube being a major reason. All of Google's services, including gmail, are frequently criticized over their privacy concerns.


Maybe he expected Schmidt, and in turn Google, to be rational and respectful of Apple's IP. Who knows if this has anything to do with it, but I'm sure you've heard the saying, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."


Would that make it okay for Google to infringe?


I didn't say that. I believe we can all be viewed as a mass of contradictions, though. And I'd say Apple/Jobs has been very forthright about its mobile IP.

Oh, and I believe Google has infringed on some of Apple's patents. You seem to be doing everything you can to distract from the real crux of the situation.

Are you telling me that you are forced to accept the terms of a mobile contract? No you are not, the mobile companies present their contract covering services, pricing, and conditions, from this you have the choice of accepting it, or refusing it, you are not forced into either of those two decision. If you accept it and they can't live up to their end of the contract then demand to be taken out of the contract without, without cost. If you don't have consumer laws to back this up, I am really sorry for you.


Maybe you should be taking your concerns to your local consumer rights group, all mobile companies have contracts, and as I have said, none of them are forcing you to sign it. But if you do, as I have said, you have consumer rights (well you should do anyway),