or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google founder accuses Apple's Steve Jobs of 'rewriting history'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google founder accuses Apple's Steve Jobs of 'rewriting history' - Page 4

post #121 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

No, that's not being fair at all.

One example? Dual-microphone phone design for noise cancellation, something that was directly copied by Apple for the iPhone 4.

That wasn't Google's doing, that was HTC, the equipment manufacturer. You need to pick more carefully.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #122 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesw View Post

Maybe he should spend some time fixing their f'ups in China instead of all this non-sense.

Boy, Did Google Blow It In China

This morning came news that China has renewed Google's license to operate in the country.

That seemed like good news--Google wins the China standoff!--until it was revealed that Google's China search engine will now be censoring its entire list of web pages, instead of just the ones that the Chinese government found objectionable.

http://blogs.forbes.com/firewall/201...mepagechannels

Yes, Google was working on Android. but their phones looked like this. Apple has always been the innovator. Google is a one-trick pony that just adds features and increase specs but doesn't innovate.


That phone looks like my DuraLabel handheld label maker
post #123 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper View Post

You mean Motorola was in the phone business first, while Apple was in the iTunes business first. And we all remember how "successful" that little innovation was.

If licensing iTunes to Motorola is your idea of Apple being in the phone business then you're just desperate to try to win a point. Enjoy your delusion.

Exactly -
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #124 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Somebody needs to learn the difference between revenue and profit.

Not sure if that was in response to my post since you didn't reference it, but I'll take the opportunity to repeat the bolded references to profit in that post.

That's profit. And there was also that reference to a 50% increase in revenue from Xbox live to $1.2B year to year. I imagine some of that revenue will be profit.

But you could go on record as stating that you believe none of that revenue will be profit.

I look forward to that categorical claim.
post #125 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster;

Complete and utter bullshit. Sorry, but I actually am a geek who kept up with what was the latest and greatest before the iphone was ever out. A simple google search for what microsoft was doing in 1999 found this for cryin out loud: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...ricssonpr.mspx Everyone can crap on windows mobile all they want (even when they've never even worked with it for a second) but it's true: Apple pretty much copied MS in a LOT of ways, and if they hadn't come out with the iphone, phones would have still gone in the direction they're going today. Full screen PDA's with multimedia support, internet browsing, the list goes on. And if you think I'm full of shit, please tell me what Windows Mobile copied from Apple. You can't, because it was first.

I've been in this debate plenty of times. People who never paid any attention to PDA's until the iphone came out are absolutely confident in arguing with me over this.

The bottom line is, I'm not completely irrational in thinking Google would have made Android into what it is without the iphones existence. Someone hurry up and invent a way to look into alternate realities for f's sakes

I guess you are to young to remember that winmo's precursor wince was microsofts reaction to apples newton os. You know, that full screen PDA with Internet browsing? Universally acknowledged to be the FIRST PDA - a term coined by then Apple CEO John Scully?

Back to geek school for some history lessons!
post #126 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Firstly, Google was (at least publicly) in the phone business before Apple.

Firstly, publicly means nothing in this statement, the qualifier publicly is only a self serving attempt to make the statement a tautology knowing Apple didn't announce iPhone until Jan 07.

Apple was working on the iPhone for at least a couple years before it's announcement, reportedly but not officially confirmed back into 2003.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #127 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesw View Post

do you know when Apple started working internally on an iPhone prototype? NO. so unless you do, you don't have a clue.

Well, until they actually show something to the market, then there's no evidence at all they're in that market. I thought that much was clear when I alluded to the LG Prada.

Calm down, it's not a race. As Apple has shown, it's not who is first, but who does it better.
post #128 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesw View Post

do you know when Apple started working internally on an iPhone prototype? NO. so unless you do, you don't have a clue.

And the irony is that you don't actually understand that the same applies to you, or you wouldn't have made that post.

Amazing.
post #129 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

That wasn't Google's doing, that was HTC, the equipment manufacturer. You need to pick more carefully.

Did Apple design and manufacture the LCD panel and touchscreen used in the iPhone?
post #130 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Firstly, publicly means nothing in this statement, the qualifier publicly is only a self serving attempt to make the statement a tautology knowing Apple didn't announce iPhone until Jan 07.

I would disagree. How do you know I'm not in the phone business? There's no way for you to tell and on no other evidence you should rightfully conclude that I am not.

Quote:
Apple was working on the iPhone for at least a couple years before it's announcement, reportedly but not officially confirmed back into 2003.

Reportedly. For at least a couple of years. How many? All innuendo and guesswork. Until a company announces something, they're not 'in' the market.

EDIT: The other 'reported' but is that it wasn't a phone in the first instance. It was a tablet.
post #131 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper View Post

Not sure if that was in response to my post since you didn't reference it, but I'll take the opportunity to repeat the bolded references to profit in that post.

That's profit. And there was also that reference to a 50% increase in revenue from Xbox live to $1.2B year to year. I imagine some of that revenue will be profit.

But you could go on record as stating that you believe none of that revenue will be profit.

I look forward to that categorical claim.

No, that's revenue. Says so right in the part you quote, repeatedly, even the part where you added emphasis.

Beyond that please don't attribute ridiculous arguments to me, even if you choose to make them yourself.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #132 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesw;

WRONG. Technically speaking, Apple was in the phone business FIRST.



Remember the Motorola Rockr? The very first mobile phone with iTunes. Technology sites reporting on collaborations between Motorola and Apple as far back as December 2004.

January 7, 2005 - Motorola previews iTunes phone

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


August 17, 2005 - Google buys Android

http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...0949_tc024.htm

I would argue that the rockr was simply steve jobs payback for motorola failing to push the PowerPC to 3ghz.
post #133 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper View Post

That's profit. And there was also that reference to a 50% increase in revenue from Xbox live to $1.2B year to year. I imagine some of that revenue will be profit.

Learn the definitions of revenue and profit.
You will then have the possibility of making a persuasive argument without
having to rely on your imagination.
post #134 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Looks like ole Stevie and his AT&T minions will be making a bit of 'history' soon enough... http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/ga...iphone-ATT.pdf



The funny part is, iPhone is the only phone people give a shit enough to sue.
post #135 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesw View Post

Maybe he should spend some time fixing their f'ups in China instead of all this non-sense.

Boy, Did Google Blow It In China

This morning came news that China has renewed Google's license to operate in the country.

That seemed like good news--Google wins the China standoff!--until it was revealed that Google's China search engine will now be censoring its entire list of web pages, instead of just the ones that the Chinese government found objectionable.

http://blogs.forbes.com/firewall/201...mepagechannels

Yes, Google was working on Android. but their phones looked like this. Apple has always been the innovator. Google is a one-trick pony that just adds features and increase specs but doesn't innovate.


Thanks Dave for making the most important point of all in this.

The trolls has goldfish memory. If Google is willing to publicly rip-off the iPhone and then try to play it off as their own, they have absolutely no corporate honor or integrity, are telling everyone their too stupid to notice this, and are obviously enjoying it because they keep up the incredibly lame PR attempts. I think from a public perspective, Apple's corporate behavior is the polar opposite - which probably forms some of the basis for their making of superior products.

Why does Google act the same whenever they've been caught collecting data promised to remain confidential? They make the pledge, then Schmidt says nobody is entitled to privacy from his company, or "oops we didn't mean to collect this, but we weren't really planning to sell it, like the other stuff we said we wouldn't sell". I challenge anyone to find an instance when Google has demonstrated any kind of commitment to any policy or even shred of integrity to their statements. These aren't bugs in products, or debates about missing features, this is just plain, abysmal corporate direction. If they don't value integrity there, it's pretty safe to assume there's little pride in their engineering.

Just goes to show... telemarketers are all scum.
post #136 of 242
no matter how crappy the Rockr was and how small Apple's involvement, it showed that they were at least in the mobile business several months before Google had ANYTHING running on a mobile device.


And don't forget Apple had the iPod (a mobile device ) years before Google bought Android.
post #137 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

No, that's revenue. Says so right in the part you quote, repeatedly, even the part where you added emphasis.

Beyond that please don't attribute ridiculous arguments to me, even if you choose to make them yourself.

Apparently I didn't make myself clear...

"Success with Xbox Live is key to Microsoft's Entertainment division, which has seen slow sales of Zune media players, slow smartphone sales, and a barely profitable Xbox 360 console, which sees most of its profit from software and accessory sales."

Notice that reference to profit, not revenue. You know, that part where I "added emphasis" in my original post? Even without Xbox Live, the Xbox and its accessories make a profit.

On top of that profit, MS generates revenue from its Xbox Live services. Note that it's separate to the profit from its console and accessories. And as I pointed out previously, I believe that the revenue from Xbox Live will return additional profit to MS's Xbox division.

If you disagree that MS also make a profit from Xbox Live, then I'd appreciate you saying so. Otherwise, I'll assume that you agree that MS make a profit from Xbox Live on top of the profit it makes on its hardware, software and accessories.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

You'll notice also that I didn't attribute any argument to you, merely questioned whether you believe that MS don't make a profit. Your dismissive comment under my original post doesn't make that or anything else clear.

As you can see, I have a good understanding of profit and revenue, your comment notwithstanding.
post #138 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Learn the definitions of revenue and profit.
You will then have the possibility of making a persuasive argument without
having to rely on your imagination.

See my reply to Dr Millmoss. And for the record, I was quoting the Bloomberg piece with emphasis on those parts that were relevant to the post I was responding to.

The out-take is that contrary to some opinions voiced in this thread, the Xbox is indeed a profitable venture to MS even though it currently contributes stuff-all to its bottom line. The Xbox Live growth suggests that that might well change in the near future.

I hope that clarifies my position.
post #139 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino View Post

Google's pre-iPhone Android prototype with a keyboard speaks volumes about what their engineers were thinking.

You're right, touch-screens were previously available. Palm had them. The first touch-screen smartphone I know of was the Palm-OS based Handspring Treo (before Palm bought Handspring.) It was not a market changer. People disliked the Graffiti interface and hated the on-screen keyboard even worse. Handspring (and then Palm) actually had to add keyboards to their devices, relegating the touch screen to little more than cursor-positioning and menu-selection.

You may also remember all the criticism from the press when the iPhone was first announced. Everybody insisted that the lack of the mechanical keyboard was doomed to failure, because nobody has ever been successful with one in the past.

It was only after iPhone sales went through the roof that the conventional wisdom changed and manufacturers started considering the possibility of a device with a touchscreen-only interface.

Ditto for multi-touch. The first most people ever heard of this tech was a video by Jeff Han in 2006. Nobody was talking about it, let alone shipping products before then. Then we saw some Apple patent filings for multi-touch input devices and everybody started talking about it.

So I agree with "anonymouse" when he says that a multuitouch-based Android phone was not inevitable. Without the presence of the iPhone, they could very easily have gone in a different direction, releasing a product completely different from what ended up shipping.

Yup. chronster usually is a good foil around here, but he's off-track on this one.

And again it's not about absolute firsts, though i'm glad someone above mentioned the Newton. I suppose in usual fashion before long someone will mention Xerox labs.

As for the X-Box, take the discussion somewhere else imo.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #140 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper View Post

Notice that reference to profit, not revenue. You know, that part where I "added emphasis" in my original post? Even without Xbox Live, the Xbox and its accessories make a profit.

You absolute IDIOT !!

Being Profitable (barely) is not the same as making a profit on something.
Lets make this VERY VERY simple for you :

Say you start a business and for the first 5 years you make 1m Loss per year. Now you are down 5m. In year six, you start to see a profit of 100,000. Now you are profitable in what you are doing. ( PLEASE note the "ABLE" part on the end )
But you are still at an over all loss of 4,900,000.
profitABLE does NOT equal profit.

Ask the Underpants Gnomes. At least they understand more than you. I think there is a question mark over steps 1, 2, and 3 with you.
post #141 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by BartBuzz View Post

After reading thru these posts it's comforting to know I'm not the only one who thinks the Android looks like an iPhone wannabe. Like they say, imitation is the greatest form of flattery. But I'd rather have the real thing.

That's not surprising since AppleInsider is one of the premier Apple Fanboi sites on the internet.
Fragmentation is not just something we have to acknowledge and accept. Fragmentation is something that we deal with every day, and we must accept it as a fact of the iPhone platform experience.

Ste...
Reply
Fragmentation is not just something we have to acknowledge and accept. Fragmentation is something that we deal with every day, and we must accept it as a fact of the iPhone platform experience.

Ste...
Reply
post #142 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanie248 View Post

You absolute IDIOT !!

Being Profitable (barely) is not the same as making a profit on something.
Lets make this VERY VERY simple for you :

Say you start a business and for the first 5 years you make 1m Loss per year. Now you are down 5m. In year six, you start to see a profit of 100,000. Now you are profitable in what you are doing. ( PLEASE note the "ABLE" part on the end )
But you are still at an over all loss of 4,900,000.
profitABLE does NOT equal profit.

Ask the Underpants Gnomes. At least they understand more than you. I think there is a question mark over steps 1, 2, and 3 with you.

Another example of attacking the poster in lieu of a rational argument. You assume, without any basis whatsoever, that the Xbox has not yet recovered its investment and attempt to use that total speculation to re-define profitability.

You might as well claim the iPhone 4 isn't profitable to Apple because the sales so far cannot have covered the development costs and manufacturing, marketing and shipping.

The personal insult was unnecessary but seems increasingly to be the standard OP for certain irrational Apple Faithful who seem incapable of retaining some sense of proportion. Welcome to my ignore list.
post #143 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesw View Post


Yes, Google was working on Android. but their phones looked like this. Apple has always been the innovator. Google is a one-trick pony that just adds features and increase specs but doesn't innovate.


Yeah this is the way I understand history too. Hardly like the Droids like the iPhone.
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - a bumper sticker

Never quote idiots, they just clog up...
Reply
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp

Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. - a bumper sticker

Never quote idiots, they just clog up...
Reply
post #144 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper View Post

You might as well claim the iPhone 4 isn't profitable to Apple because the sales so far cannot have covered the development costs and manufacturing, marketing and shipping.

No one has said that iPhone was making a 'profit' yet.

In any event, this is the kind of nonsense that pervades forums (in all fairness, it's not just you) when people don't understand the difference between free cash flow and profit.

The latter is an often meaningless term. The former is all that really matters.
post #145 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesw View Post

no matter how crappy the Rockr was and how small Apple's involvement, it showed that they were at least in the mobile business several months before Google had ANYTHING running on a mobile device.


And don't forget Apple had the iPod (a mobile device ) years before Google bought Android.

Apple routinely invests several years into prototype projects that eventually spin off into other skunk works projects which find their way into the consumer space, with research 5-10 years in fruition.
post #146 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Apple routinely invests several years into prototype projects that eventually spin off into other skunk works projects which find their way into the consumer space, with research 5-10 years in fruition.

exactly.
post #147 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

That's not surprising since AppleInsider is one of the premier Apple Fanboi sites on the internet.

Thanks for the compliment. I have to admit since switching to Apple products I have enjoyed computers and electronic gadgets more than ever. Unfortunately, I don't have an iPhone since I'm not willing to dump Verizon. But I love my iPod Touch. BTW, is fanboi a french word?
post #148 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper View Post

And the irony is that you don't actually understand that the same applies to you, or you wouldn't have made that post.

Amazing.

Google's R&D must suck really bad because the first time they got a chance to show their take on smartphone, they showed the world a blackberry clone.
post #149 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper View Post

Apparently I didn't make myself clear...

If you want to know my view of this, you could look at my post on the previous page. Post number 111 if you need help finding it. Or you could continue to assume that my views are more convenient for your snarky rants. Your choice.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #150 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

Google's R&D must suck really bad because the first time they got a chance to show their take on smartphone, they showed the world a blackberry clone.

ROFL
post #151 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by BartBuzz View Post

BTW, is fanboi a french word?

You're asking g3pro?

The guy wouldn't know the answer if it hit him in the face. (Oh, he'd miss the sarcasm too.....)
post #152 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

This is the crux of the issue. Its more about inspiration than timing.
Yes, Google was working on phones before the iPhone.
Once the iPhone was introduced however, Google did a 180 and copied the iPhone.

Google will be releasing Chrome OS this fall.
I guarantee you it will look nothing like the early demos?
Why?
Because Apple has unveiled the iPad and now Mountain View has a successful reference design from which to work from.

Well said. And it's kind of inevitable. Sooner or later, every smartphone will resemble iPhone, and every tablet will resemble iPad. That's not what Steve Jobs is angry about. Of course there would be imitators. It's the fact that Google was a partner in iPhone's development and had access to early prototypes. I guess now Steve must know how Xerox PARC felt

Doesn't Steve Jobs like to quote Pablo Picasso: "Good artists copy, but great artists steal"?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #153 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post

You're referring to the XBox 360 which has lost Microsoft millions of dollars (subsidized by their Windows and Office monopolies) and has the highest recall rate in the industry? Yes, it's a fun product, but as a business model it sucks.

News Flash, Gaming consoles have and will always be a money losing enterprise. They are actually sold for less than what it costs to build, so why build them? Because MS, Sony, and Nintendo get at least $10 per game sold.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #154 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Well said. And it's kind of inevitable. Sooner or later, every smartphone will resemble iPhone, and every tablet will resemble iPad. That's not what Steve Jobs is angry about. Of course there would be imitators. It's the fact that Google was a partner in iPhone's development and had access to early prototypes. I guess now Steve must know how Xerox PARC felt

Doesn't Steve Jobs like to quote Pablo Picasso: "Good artists copy, but great artists steal"?

Didn't Apple license the Xerox Parc Interface - and Microsoft just rip it off ?

There's copying with integrity and there's stealing
post #155 of 242
I think tech companies are prototyping things all the time, that's not the same as being "in the business." Apple was clearly selling phones to the general public before Google, that is what I would call "in the business," and that is all Jobs claimed.
post #156 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic8Ball View Post

Didn't Apple license the Xerox Parc Interface - and Microsoft just rip it off ?

There's copying with integrity and there's stealing

Paying for something doesn't always mean you didn't steal it.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #157 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by replicant View Post

Interesting. They probably feel that the public opinion is shifting one them in Apple's favor.

Daring Fireball had an interesting post showing the Android prototype before the iPhone appeared. Steve Jobs was right when he said that Google copied the look and feel of the iPhone. Just take a look at that Android prototype and the Google phones you see today.

Rewriting history? I don't think so.

thanks man for clearing this up here, folks are getting all the facts twisted and this is what really happended... as for the preceding post that has an incorrect image take a lQQK at this GOOGLE PROTOTYPE...

[IMG]file:///Users/bitzandbitez/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///Users/bitzandbitez/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/moz-screenshot-1.png[/IMG]
post #158 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesw View Post

Maybe he should spend some time fixing their f'ups in China instead of all this non-sense.

Boy, Did Google Blow It In China

This morning came news that China has renewed Google's license to operate in the country.

That seemed like good news--Google wins the China standoff!--until it was revealed that Google's China search engine will now be censoring its entire list of web pages, instead of just the ones that the Chinese government found objectionable.

http://blogs.forbes.com/firewall/201...mepagechannels

Yes, Google was working on Android. but their phones looked like this. Apple has always been the innovator. Google is a one-trick pony that just adds features and increase specs but doesn't innovate.


are you sure its not this prototype:

post #159 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

News Flash, Gaming consoles have and will always be a money losing enterprise. They are actually sold for less than what it costs to build, so why build them? Because MS, Sony, and Nintendo get at least $10 per game sold.

It is because console makers charge on a per game sold basis that the hardware is so unreliable. They make it cheap with substandard parts so kids can afford it. The is endemic with the 360. Sony tried the opposite approach with the PS3, after years of cheap hardware on the PS1 and PS2 and it hurt them for this generation. The XBOX division was losing money for almost a decade and that was taking into consideration per game sold figures. It has only been until recently that the XBOX has been in the black.
post #160 of 242
And I remember the days when Apple and Google, together, were going to conquer the world.

"A fickle heart is the only constant in this world"

Sigh!!
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google founder accuses Apple's Steve Jobs of 'rewriting history'