Originally Posted by Brainless
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"
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.
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 ?
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.
Conclusion : both companies are "mobile" before Schmidt came in. Jobs know that and his stance is just a crap.
So far, your arguments and statements are entirely incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.