or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › NYT: Steve Jobs feels Google betrayed Apple by mimicking iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NYT: Steve Jobs feels Google betrayed Apple by mimicking iPhone - Page 3

post #81 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I don't see Google doing anything wrong here.

Apple didn't sue Google and Google isn't selling Android. Apple sued HTC. HTC is actually selling the technology, not just showing it off--key to a patent infringement case.

Apple has the patents. Google might have confidential, in-house, prior art dated before Apple filed its patent applications*, but Apple has the patents because Apple published its technology with the US PTO for us all to see. HTC has squat.

*Maybe somebody has time to look up the earliest iPhone patent filing dates, but IIRC they were filed roughly late 2005.
post #82 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

Apple didn't sue Google and Google isn't selling Android. Apple sued HTC. HTC is selling the technology--key to a patent infringement case.

Apple has the patents. Google might have confidential, in-house, prior art dated before Apple filed its patent applications, but Apple has the patents because Apple published its technology with the US PTO for us all to see. HTC has squat.

Motorola, LG. and SE are selling Android phones too; Apple only seemed to get a case of butthurt when the Nexus One came out, which is a primarily Google/HTC collaboration.
post #83 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness View Post

Motorola, LG. and SE are selling Android phones too; Apple only seemed to get a case of butthurt when the Nexus One came out, which is a primarily Google/HTC collaboration.

What do they do? The same finger gestures?
post #84 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post


Well done sprockkets; with our predictably short memories, very few of us remember the prototype Google phone that they touted around just before the iPhone made its debut.

It's looks are a blatant copy, as usual, of the "cellphone du jour" of that actual time, the Blackberry, with some features aping other dominant phones of the time, including the Nokia "N" series. So what we have here is the usual "embrace and extend" cloning strategy of Microsoft dating back to its most evil days, and all this from a company whose motto is "Do No Evil".

Steve Jobs' comments in an interview more than 2 years ago when Android was hinted at were cryptic but clear enough for those aware of their implications: Google had already achieved its objectives of being ubiquitous and unavoidably prevalent in the mobile search business without the Android strategy, he said, a strategy that risked it alienating itself from those who wished to be its partners. Then all that compounded by a foray into touch-screen cellphone hardware with form factors clearly aping the iPhone. All this from a company whose CEO actually sat in on board meetings at Apple Inc where strategy and day-to-day updates on progress would be discussed as a matter of routine... dear, dear, dear me, will Apple never learn the painful lessons of history?

Can't really get any clearer than that what Apple's position would be, and why the special relationship, which in reality never existed at all, had to end.

Now, given the facts and leaving out the emotion, which company would you say is shaping up to be the bad old Microsoft of yore that teamed up with a hardware manufacturer (Compaq) to clone the dominant hardware system of the day (IBM-PC)? What I'm saying is that Compaq is to HTC what Microsoft is to ---- ; fill in the blanks yourselves, people!
post #85 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness View Post

Motorola, LG. and SE are selling Android phones too; Apple only seemed to get a case of butthurt when the Nexus One came out, which is a primarily Google/HTC collaboration.

The NY Times article suggests Apple was unhappy long before the Nexus One and Apple doesn't have to sue every supposed infringer at once.
post #86 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by airmanchairman View Post

Well done sprockkets; with our predictably short memories, very few of us remember the prototype Google phone that they touted around just before the iPhone made its debut.

It's looks are a blatant copy, as usual, of the "cellphone du jour" of that actual time, the Blackberry, with some features aping other dominant phones of the time, including the Nokia "N" series. So what we have here is the usual "embrace and extend" cloning strategy of Microsoft dating back to its most evil days, and all this from a company whose motto is "Do No Evil".

Steve Jobs' comments in an interview more than 2 years ago when Android was hinted at were cryptic but clear enough for those aware of their implications: Google had already achieved its objectives of being ubiquitous and unavoidably prevalent in the mobile search business without the Android strategy, he said, a strategy that risked it alienating itself from those who wished to be its partners. Then all that compounded by a foray into touch-screen cellphone hardware with form factors clearly aping the iPhone.

Can't really get any clearer than that what Apple's position would be, and why the special relationship, which in reality never existed at all, had to end.

Now, given the facts and leaving out the emotion, which company would you say is shaping up to be the bad old Microsoft of yore that teamed up with a hardware manufacturer (Compaq) to clone the dominant hardware system of the day (IBM-PC)? What I'm saying is that Compaq is to HTC what Microsoft is to ---- ; fill in the blanks yourselves, people!

Is that the copy cat of the iPhone in question?
post #87 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by k2director View Post

I hope Apple cleans Google's clock on this. Android is a direct copy of the iPhone, with a few tweaks.

Not Even Close.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #88 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Not Even Close.

What is the phone we are talking about? Does anyone have a link or pic of it and it features?
post #89 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

How people can keep repeating this drivel is beyond me. Jobs asked Xerox if he and Wozniak could use the ideas, and Xerox happily let them. That's not stealing.

And oh by the way, Xerox didn't know what to do with the ideas - they had no clue about adapting the GUI into an actual product. Kind of like Bill Gates, who famously said that people would never use a mouse to control a computer.

J.F.K. said it well, The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #90 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussellSakay View Post

What is the phone we are talking about? Does anyone have a link or pic of it and it features?

No They Don't... Because Google (itself) Doesn't Manufacture Any Phone/Handset Hardware - \

Note: The Closest thing you'll find is the HTC NEXUS ONE

Sounds like Apple somehow sees anything that even looks like competition as some kind of 'sue worthy' threat -
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #91 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

No They Don't... Because Google (itself) Doesn't Manufacture Any Phone/Handset Hardware - \

Note: The Closest thing you'll find is the HTC NEXUS ONE

Sounds like Apple somehow sees anything that even looks like competition as some kind of 'sue worthy' threat -

My friend has that stupid phone.
post #92 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by russellsakay View Post

i was not asking about a google phone i was talking about the phone in question in which jobs is saying is a copy off of the iphone. Which phone is that?

HTC Nexus One
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #93 of 345
post #94 of 345
Google is NOT a technology giant. They're an advertising giant. Everything else up until Android has been offered for free.
post #95 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Sounds like Apple somehow sees anything that even looks like competition as some kind of 'sue worthy' threat -

There is undeniably quite a bit of money involved here, and Apple does have an obligation to its shareholders to protect its intellectual property. Really now, who in their right mind didn't recognize Android as a threat and potential avenue of infringement of Apple's IP when it was announced?
post #96 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

I'll take the next generation search engine by the original designers who made Google what it became over Mahalo, if I had to choose.

http://www.cuil.com/info/management/

Culi has been out for a year or two, and gone nowhere; once I got past the former Google connections, I realized (and so did most people), that Culi's search algorithm is poor.

Google still has the best algorithm, Bing is a distant second. If I really want to find something, I want to use the tool that works the best, not necessarily the morally 'best' one; one monopoly in one area, over one monopoly in another isn't much difference IMO, and given the opportunity, Apple would love to be another Google/MS. 3 evil corporations, the consumer is pretty screwed, they just get their profits in different ways.

OT: However, I can change my search providers in Chrome, and have been warming up to Bing lately.
post #97 of 345
Steve Jobs needs to get over it. So what, they made Android. Anyway, If Apple starts promoting any of Microsoft's technologies such as Bing or Maps. Count me out! Maybe i'm not on the same playing field here because I do not believe Google is evil, I believe they are expanding just like Apple is expanding. Remember Apple used to only make computers then they dived into consumer electronics. Don't you think RIM, HTC, Microsoft, Nokia have a right to get mad at Apple for getting into the phone business if Apple has a right to get mad at Google getting into the phone business. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. It's all business, move on. There's no rules here. Has Steve forgotten about Bill Gates taking cues from their OS in the 80's? Maybe Steve should try on a friendly persona to make less enemies.
post #98 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by nofear1az View Post

Maybe Steve should try on a friendly persona to make less enemies.

That would certainly be one viable approach -
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #99 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by nofear1az View Post

Steve Jobs needs to get over it. So what, they made Android. Anyway, If Apple starts promoting any of Microsoft's technologies such as Bing or Maps. Count me out! Maybe i'm not on the same playing field here because I do not believe Google is evil, I believe they are expanding just like Apple is expanding. Remember Apple used to only make computers then they dived into consumer electronics. Don't you think RIM, HTC, Microsoft, Nokia have a right to get mad at Apple for getting into the phone business if Apple has a right to get mad at Google getting into the phone business. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. It's all business, move on. There's no rules here. Has Steve forgotten about Bill Gates taking cues from their OS in the 80's? Maybe Steve should try on a friendly persona to make less enemies.

Last time I checked, Steve Jobs didn't sit on the board of directors at RIM, HTC, Microsoft, or Nokia.
post #100 of 345
FWIW, you can easily change Safari's default desktop search engine on the fly with add-ons such as Glims (which boasts a lot of other very cool features) or Inquisitor. A lot of posters here have brought up the subject so just thought I'd throw that out, in case anyone's interested.

Back on target: I don't see any ultimate victor in this war, other than the lawyers who will profit from resources that would do better going to R&D... not that I don't support Apple in what I believe to be a just cause. But there will always be those consumers who for what ever reason will not buy Apple no matter what, and those who wouldn't dream of looking anywhere else. The fight will be over those in the middle but there are certainly enough consumers on a global scale to keep both Apple and its myriad competitors afloat for some time to come...

On a related note, Plastic Logic and other supposed tablet vendors have been tripping all over themselves this past week to announce that their upcoming devices will be delayed, in order to assure quality at release-- in other words, none of them can match Apple's tech or the iPad's price point. Will be really interesting to see how big of a deal the 4th generation iPhone turns out to be, and quickly attempts are made to copy it.
Hey, this Kool-Aid is delicious, what do you put in it?!
Reply
Hey, this Kool-Aid is delicious, what do you put in it?!
Reply
post #101 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

How people can keep repeating this drivel is beyond me. Jobs asked Xerox if he and Wozniak could use the ideas, and Xerox happily let them. That's not stealing.

And oh by the way, Xerox didn't know what to do with the ideas - they had no clue about adapting the GUI into an actual product. Kind of like Bill Gates, who famously said that people would never use a mouse to control a computer.

Xerox Star. 1981.

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



Granted, it was expensive as hell - not a consumer product (but Xerox isn't a consumer company) - but neither was the Lisa which came out afterwards.

But whatever - Xerox did "nothing" or "never made an actual product".

Born after 1981 I'm guessing?

GUI was a nonsense argument from the get-go. In the early 80s EVERYONE was putting out GUIs. GEM, VisiOn, The Amiga, christ - even the C64 was getting a GUI - GEOs. I guess EVERYONE stole from Xerox (forgetting Xerox invested in Apple for a tech sharing agreement - then STILL tried to sue and lost).

But that's missing the point.

Have you ever seen a decent UI from Google? EVER? Here's what one of their designers who left for Twitter thought of Google's design crew - compare this to all we've heard about Ive and the rest who spend YEARS on this stuff:

http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/0...ye-google.html

But Apple should just roll over on all those patents? Push for patent reform if you want (it's overdue) but Apple has them - and they warned they were going to enforce them from the day the iPhone was introduced. And when a company with a market-value higher than IBM and Google says they're going to enforce their IP - you might consider the fallout when you decide to ignore it. Still - I'm tired of all the lazy press on this stuff so far. Where's the FUN? I'm still waiting for:

"Steve Jobs is going to make Google his bitch"

Would Apple Insider take some time to add this to it's daily stories sometime - PLEASE? It needs to be put out on the net for future book report searches - at least for the footnotes.

(source: AppleInsider - 03102010 - "Steve Jobs is going to make Google his bitch")
post #102 of 345
To be honest, I just think this is a front for more lawsuits
post #103 of 345
Apple has the premium in house developed hardware, running premium in house developed software.

I see no reason why they can't develop their own search engine?

Seriously think about - buy out the domain and guys at isearch and innovate it like crazy. Mix it up with some mobileme syncing, throw in the maps from placebase and make a really really new way of searching. I dont know, incorporate searching for people? Like the way that isearch currently works. Collaborate with facebook/twitter etc to search for people. Throw in some news/weather. I would love a localized search where I could just type in 'supermarket' and it lists me the supermarkets/dairies in the area. Especially for when you're traveling to a new place. Something like the 'AroundMe' iPhone app. Maybe collaborate with companies that have business listings for that kind of thing. Popularity would also rise consumer wise if they were to offer it free and ad free. Google is primarily a search business but Apple only needs this as a supplement to it's current hardware/software business.

If they did develop something new in search you can bet the media would give it all the advertising/coverage it needs.

I think the whole way google searches is getting quite inundated, and there is room for something new. Just needs some innovation, and obviously there's all new ways of searching out there these days. Something Apple could look at? Maybe even buy some of the companies if the ideas are there. Apple is really the only company that could pull it off, innovation wise and hype/popularity wise. They'd have it as the standard mac/iphone search engine. The engine that searches for everything. I think it's possible?
post #104 of 345
and I'll say it again. Google bought the Android OS, spent millions on it, and now is giving it away to Apple's hardware competitors. Now, they'll also be giving the handset manufacturers hundreds of millions of the Google search dollars too. So it's not even free, it's a net profit for them, without even counting the handset itself.

Giving away an OS is unfair trade. Dumping, in other words. Selling below fair market value. Taking a loss to screw your competitors. And what's worse, Google has the rep of being all open and free and nice, but this really is a stab in the back.

If they want to give away the OS to a non-profit open source Linux place, that's okay. But then the extra revenue they get from all the searches on those phones belongs to the foundation, not to Google. Or else they get into the phone business. But they're pussies, so they don't want to do that -- and they'd have all kinds of potential conflict of interest on that, wouldn't they?

They want to be seen as Santa Claus, but they're the ones profiting from all our identities and private information we leave in Google, and Buzz, and all those web crawlers and cookies.

Their reputation as a cool company has come to an end.
post #105 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post

Xerox Star. 1981.

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



Granted, it was expensive as hell - not a consumer product (but Xerox isn't a consumer company) - but neither was the Lisa which came out afterwards.

But whatever - Xerox did "nothing" or "never made an actual product".

Yeah, but the first part is true. They had all those patents and licensed them to Apple because they weren't going to pursue them. Do you think if the XeroxStar had been a big success they would have given Jobs and Wozniak the licenses?
post #106 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyapple View Post

FWIW, you can easily change Safari's default desktop search engine with add-ons such as Glims (which boasts a lot of other very cool features) or Inquisitor. A lot of posters here have brought up the subject so just thought I'd throw that out, in case anyone's interested.

Hell, just change the Home page to whatever you want. Then you have Bing or Yahoo (Bing) on the page and Google in the box on top.
post #107 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift View Post

Yeah, but the first part is true. They had all those patents and licensed them to Apple because they weren't going to pursue them. Do you think if the XeroxStar had been a big success they would have given Jobs and Wozniak the licenses?

No they didn't - the deal with the stock purchase prior to Apple's 1979 IPO was to examine the IP at PARC. It wasn't a patent license deal - it was an agreement for a tech-demo (one that was half-assed enough that Jobs complained and got a second demo - the one that the Xerox Parc employees panicked about).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I...he_early_years

There's more links but that's the quickest. Note - tour - is different than - team of lawyers drafting specific Intellectual property share on a patent by patent basis - which is what you're inferring. So quit trying to pretend you know anything at all about the history of Xerox and Apple other than

"but Xerox didn't do anything" -which is wrong (now you DIE *punch*)
"but they licensed it" - which is wrong (now you DIE *boot to the head*)

Billy Quan for the WIN!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OAwR...eature=related

Give it up and read some history - it's all over the place. I recommend:


http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Confiden.../ref=pd_cp_b_1


http://www.amazon.com/Return-Little-...8562325&sr=1-1


http://www.amazon.com/Dealers-Lightn...5&sr=1-1-fkmr0
post #108 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

The NY Times article suggests Apple was unhappy long before the Nexus One and Apple doesn't have to sue every supposed infringer at once.

Apple has, I think, the best case for an unfair trade relationship here, with the Google-branded phone. This is not some OS just giveaway, this is an active cooperation.

1. They might be able to intimidate HTC, and also get a quick judgment from the trade body that would grant an injunction against further importation until the validity of the patents is tested. That takes a long time. That's called kicking Google in the nuts.

2. They could get tons of interesting info out there about the HTC/Google relationship. Did Google pay for the phone to be made? Did they show HTC exactly how they wanted it done? Then it's Google's baby, and not poor little HTC.

I really like the software that Google gives away on the web. Many times, that's all you need, though it's seldom the best stuff. I find their interfaces generally suck. I've got Google Wave, but have been completely baffled as to what the hell I want to do with it. Google Voice's interface sucks, and this: I tried to use SkypeIn as one of my phones. But you can't do it, because Skype's answering machine picks up first, leaves no word, and if Skype's not open, nothing shows you that that's happened. I looked and looked for an answer in the help section, but couldn't find a thing. I turned off SkypeIn. Apparently, you can also do it by forwarding the message from Skype back to your original Google number. Then it leaves a message in Google voice. You'd never guess that from Google Voice.

I don't feel the same conflict of interest in the Google experiments with gigabit ethernet. It would be terrific to see a small town transformed by this. Sure, Google makes more money the more we use the Internet, but I don't begrudge them that. They can show us proof of concept, at least, and that might embarrass the other ISPs and propel the FCC to do something. A nationwide ISP for Google? I'm less sure of that. That begins sounding like a monopoly. Their basic business is search. How many times can you say that? They can't own content, because they own the pipes. That's the same law as there should be for the ISPs and cable. If you're a content producer, that's one thing. The pipes can't own the content, because then they can favor one producer over another.

Back in the '40s, the movie theaters were owned by the studios. So if MGM made an expensive turkey, they'd leave it in enough theaters until it got its money back. If they had a hit, they'd keep it in their owned and operated theaters until the audiences started falling, then they'd give it to the other houses. Not surprisingly, the mob was heavily involved in the movie theaters. So the feds broke up the monopoly by forbidding the studios from owning theaters. Made sense then, makes sense now.
post #109 of 345
I used to think that Apple would be OK about Google creating a cheaper phone os that would help kill MS and others. ie Apple at the premium end and Google at the commodity end of things.

This certainly suggest I was wrong. It is certainly going to be a fascinating story to see played out in the coming months and years

And who knows, this might be a turning point, with Google having made their biggest mistake to date?
post #110 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

How people can keep repeating this drivel is beyond me. Jobs asked Xerox if he and Wozniak could use the ideas, and Xerox happily let them. That's not stealing.

And oh by the way, Xerox didn't know what to do with the ideas - they had no clue about adapting the GUI into an actual product. Kind of like Bill Gates, who famously said that people would never use a mouse to control a computer.

Because trolls, like politicians, believe that if you repeat a lie long enough it will eventually be accepted as fact. Unfortunately they are correct. Makes me wonder about historians too, ancient and modern.
post #111 of 345
Apple needs to keep Jobs as a point man for technology and design, but get him the hell out of the CEO position and get someone in there who wont start wars that cant be won, first with MS in the 80s and now with Google.

His design skill is amazing, but to fumble this acquisition, and to fumble the Google alliance in the first place would get any other CEO fired. Not to mention the fact that the iphone has been pretty much stagnate since 2.0, that is 2 yeqars of no real innovation, just catching up with 5 year old Blackberry voice dialing tech. Between Windows Phone 7, the new builds of android and blackberrys webkit based browsers coming soon, Apple and the iPhone will soon be religated to a small minority cult like Apple Mac was in the 90s.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #112 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Because trolls, like politicians, believe that if you repeat a lie long enough it will eventually be accepted as fact. Unfortunately they are correct. Makes me wonder about historians too, ancient and modern.

History is written by the victor.
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #113 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness View Post

Jobs can't be that dense. It's business, boo hoo.

Really, Google wants to control information, and how to deliver it - portal, OS, browser, phones, broadband.

And it's not like Apple is some angelic enterprise either.

Very true. I like many of their products, but as companies, they are both corporate evils. Don't trust either of them!
post #114 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussellSakay View Post

While Mac may be increasing in the market today. By arguing over patents makes Apple look childish and weak.

If you believe this then just stop posting, as you're pissing into the wind. "Arguing over patents"...wtf are they supposed to do? Why did they file patents in the first place? So they could NOT defend them? Please get a grip.
post #115 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

History is written by the victor.

Or more precisely: History is lies written by the victor.
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
post #116 of 345
Apple, if you are that aggrieved, then get into the search business and compete with Google on those terms as well.
post #117 of 345
If I were apple I would have bought out youtube when they had the chance. And then change the entire site to h.264 format. Apple needs to look to influence the industry like that and stop google from banking on its most profitable business: Online Ads.

Apple should make their own search engine. In my opinion apple needs to do the ground work or buy a company that already has a start to infiltrate the web form ground up perspective. Make a search engine that incorporates itunes for the web.

I don't know if iPad will be the hit everyone thinks it will be. For me, I would like to have more computer power in a touch screen configuration.
post #118 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by airmanchairman View Post

Well done sprockkets; with our predictably short memories, very few of us remember the prototype Google phone that they touted around just before the iPhone made its debut.

It's looks are a blatant copy, as usual, of the "cellphone du jour" of that actual time, the Blackberry, with some features aping other dominant phones of the time, including the Nokia "N" series. So what we have here is the usual "embrace and extend" cloning strategy of Microsoft dating back to its most evil days, and all this from a company whose motto is "Do No Evil".

Steve Jobs' comments in an interview more than 2 years ago when Android was hinted at were cryptic but clear enough for those aware of their implications: Google had already achieved its objectives of being ubiquitous and unavoidably prevalent in the mobile search business without the Android strategy, he said, a strategy that risked it alienating itself from those who wished to be its partners. Then all that compounded by a foray into touch-screen cellphone hardware with form factors clearly aping the iPhone. All this from a company whose CEO actually sat in on board meetings at Apple Inc where strategy and day-to-day updates on progress would be discussed as a matter of routine... dear, dear, dear me, will Apple never learn the painful lessons of history?

Can't really get any clearer than that what Apple's position would be, and why the special relationship, which in reality never existed at all, had to end.

Now, given the facts and leaving out the emotion, which company would you say is shaping up to be the bad old Microsoft of yore that teamed up with a hardware manufacturer (Compaq) to clone the dominant hardware system of the day (IBM-PC)? What I'm saying is that Compaq is to HTC what Microsoft is to ---- ; fill in the blanks yourselves, people!

Apple could have shown a prototype even before Google obviously but of course, Apple never shows anything beforehand.

I think Steve feels is is being "Microsofted", like he did years ago with Windows.
post #119 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post

They arent kidding when they say the Droid does more than the iPhone.

Here are just a few of the things that the Droid does that the iPhone doesnt do:

iPhone vs. Droid comparison chart

Thanks for that link
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #120 of 345
dupe,
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › NYT: Steve Jobs feels Google betrayed Apple by mimicking iPhone