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 5

post #161 of 242
this might have been said elsewhere as I didn't read every post, but it seems that beyond a touch screen only device (the hardware) the key thing with the iphone and iOS are "features" like the apps & itunes store infrastructure as well. that was really an idea Apple developed way beyond anything else at the time.

Also all you have to do is take a look at the quote directly...

"a little bit of rewriting history."

A little bit? How do you re-write history a little bit? either you do or you don't. You did or you didn't. I know I sound like yoda, but it's the truth. Page is full of crap. Google stole all of the best features from iOS and Iphone hardware and integrated it into Android. They even tried to copy itunes. sad really.

Sure they were working on a Blackberry/ NOKIA clone before Iphone, but once Iphone was out that was the the new "it" device & OS to copy.

The only person that should be pissed is SJ. The rest of the world should benefit from the competition. Apple will always make the best device/ OS combo. Period. it's their ethos and they've got the power to leverage the development of the OS and hardware at the same time. No one can really copy that. Add itunes and the app store etc etc. It'll be hard for Google to kill the iphone and their track record to date is the proof IMO. Droid apps don't make money like Apple store apps, publishers aren't clamoring to be on droid devices. Maybe in a bunch of ears if Apple falls asleep at the wheel, but I don't think Job's sleeps personally. Just look at the guy.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #162 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Underhill View Post

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!!



Don't walk behind me, because I might not lead. Don't walk in front of me because I might not follow follow. Walk beside me so that we might be friends.
-camus

I now that's not exactly right, but it's still funny.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #163 of 242
Kudos to Neil Hughes for such a well written article!!!!!! There has been an increasing prevalence of news articles on AI that have fact peppered with opinions which IMO which takes away from the journalistic integrity of the site. This article was spot on. Other AI writers should take note.


Back on topic. I'm not why we have so many arguments about who copied who. Jobs said he was pissed because Google entered the phone market. Page has responded by saying they had full intentions of entering the phone market before the iPhone, which appears to be 100% true.

We could assume that Jobs wasn't actually upset because Google entered the phone market, but because they copied so much of the iPhone... but that's irrelevant because Page isn't trying to refute that.

The next line out of Page's mouth should have been "I can see why Steve is pissed at all the stuff we copied though" and then everyone wouldn't be arguing so much!
post #164 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

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.

That's right, and neither did I. But if you want to criticize, then do so to Bloomberg who reported the Xbox results. I merely quoted them in response to another poster's misinformation.

You, of course, can interpret them as you wish.
post #165 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

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.

Snarky? Looked in the mirror lately?

You've shown yourself devoid of anything worth my continued engagement with you on this since you refuse to acknowledge any of the points I made. So I'll just assume you have nothing and move on.
post #166 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.

Maybe you were responding to somebody else, as I haven't mentioned anything about Google or Blackberry.
post #167 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

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

While you're Googling, why don't you Google the Newton?

And simply employing the idea of a full-screen GUI does not a useable and innovative product make. Neither does it make you the leader, the innovator or the *first* (gee we can't credit Motorola, or whomever with first cell phone -- after all Alexander Graham Bell invented the phone over 100 years before, so there!). No, while you are talking about who copied what, see the Newton, years ahead of its time (but not so commercially viable -- for instance, no iTunes store then). For cryin' out loud, Apple was working on GUIs 30 years ago; 15 years before MS went graphical at all with Windows 3.1 thanks to deep access to the Classic Mac OS.

And you want to talk about Multimedia support? Who are the pioneers of multimedia support? MS can't even get typography and font-rendering correct. Give me a break. So, you'll say it is a big deal that some unreleased MS product touts higher specs, like full HD output... but then everyone who tries to use it will still spend 15 minutes trouble-shooting it each and every time, trying to get it show up on the TV or projector screen (restarting, changing screen settings in a control panel that you can't find, etc.) -- it's inevitable. Powerpoint is like the first Flashcard app that ever shipped with Macs in the 80's. Now Keynote is on the iPad, and iMovie is on the iPhone. Are PDFs considered multimedia? Let's have some system level support for that. Multimedia support, pffft! I don't know what you're smoking.

Clearly, MS still hasn't gotten it right -- who buys Windows Mobile smartphones? Why did HP ditch Windows for Palm OS? Now you want to reference Pocket PCs? Lol: I don't like the way Windows works with all the power you can throw at it on the desktop, why would I want Windows crammed into my pocket? Puke.

Clearly, competitors of Apple are indeed several years behind Apple, and trying to copy them like heck. Apple is the only one to successfully port a scaled version of their desktop to other platforms and processors, and Apple has completely adapted that OS to a touch-based interface. Touch is not a hacked add-on to a desktop-type OS, like MS Windows Mobile / Phone 7, which still depends too much on the desktop metaphor and tries to cram that onto a mobile device. Apple is the only one with a viable, scalable OS that takes us into the next wave of computing evolution; everyone else is waiting to see which way Apple leads, as usual.

When Windows Phone 7 finally comes out, let's take note of all the dropped features and listen to all the excuses, per usual. Sounds like they have already said that copy and paste is not a biggie -- after all the flack Apple got, how rich is that? The iPhone: launched 2007, now on iOS 4; still waiting for the competition. Who cares what MS was "working on", or what concept videos MS can creatively spin out of the imaginations of their design committees -- where's the Courier? Where's the Kin? Where's the phone that sells 3 million in its opening weekend?
post #168 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post

rant...

Wow... You must have really been in the front line a decade ago when people actually cared about the Apple/Microsoft rivalry

Microsoft don't seem to stand on Apple's toes at all these days. In fact, a lot of features in Windows 7 and Windows Phone 7 are clearly a homage to OSX an iOS.

I'd suggest toning it back a notch and waiting until WP7 is actually released before pilling on the hate! IMO it looks to have some interesting features (or at least, as you point out, the mock-ups do!)

In the very least... if Apple like to stay ahead of the curve, it can only be a win for us if the curve keeps moving forward!
post #169 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

... 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"?

It's too bad that some people can only read poetry as prose.
post #170 of 242
Google searches are getting worse and worse.

In the early days, it was almost scary how Google seemed like it could read your mind and return perfect info given only vaguely-worded search terms. Now, it seems that big companies have gamed the PageRank system and searches have devolved into requests for obliquely related ads.

Instead of maintaining the quality of searches, they've haphazardly bolted on small companies and irrelevant services. Do YouTube, Picasa and SketchUp have anything to do with search? Google Docs and GMail has nothing to do with helping us search, it just lets Google know more about us. I'm apprehensive about what they are doing with the info they are collecting about me -- I think targeted advertising is the least nefarious thing they could be doing with it.
post #171 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.

I really wish people would stop commenting on topics they don't understand.

Being profitable most certainly DOES mean the same thing as making a profit - by definition.

You're confused because you're comparing different time periods. You are correct that being profitable this year doesn't mean that you were profitable over the last 5 year period, but that's not what you are saying.

Saying something is profitable requires a time period. If it was profitable in a given time period then it made a profit in that time period. End of discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

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.

You're glossing over some very important financial information and giving people a very wrong impression. Both profit and free cash flow have a meaning when used appropriately. For that matter, there are times when EBITDA is more important than either (although EBITDA is fairly close to free cash flow).

Your last statement is 100% wrong, though. To say that free cash flow is the only thing that matters is not accurate. For example, try filing our taxes on the basis of free cash flow rather than net income - and you'll find yourself facing an audit (not to mention paying far more taxes than you should).

Each financial metric has its place. If someone doesn't understand the difference, they shouldn't be commenting on financial topics, so don't encourage them with very superficial simplification like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Paying for something doesn't always mean you didn't steal it.

Well, since you're referring to Apple's access to Xerox, why not be specific as to what Apple stole and how they stole it rather than making silly generalizations?

Apple had an agreement with Xerox. Both Apple and Xerox upheld their side of the agreement, so the trade was completed.

I don't remember if Xerox ever sued over the matter, but I do know that Apple never lost a law suit over the matter. So one of two things is true:

1. Xerox was content that the agreement had been followed and didn't sue.
or
2. Xerox sued and lost.

Either way, it is clear that Apple didn't steal anything - no matter how many times you uneducated, Apple-bashing haters make your silly accusations.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #172 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Consumers? Who are they? Microsoft has no history of being able to sell any consumer products. And they make so much money from Windows + Office that they don't dare try.

Really? I guess Xbox and all the Microsoft web cams, keyboards, mice, and other accessories don't count? FAIL...
post #173 of 242
Are you aware of where the term "PDA" came from and what it was being used to describe?

Here's a hint, think renowned, 17th century physicist, think apple falling on head, think different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

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.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #174 of 242
It's interesting to see how loaded this site is with fanboys. Any mention of anything negative at all about Apple or his Steve-ness gets trounced upon. So much for honest, frank, and thoughtful discussion...
post #175 of 242
Like the one's that first appeared on Nokia phone's or prior to that on bluetooth headsets among other things, you mean that noise cancelling, dual microphone technology?

What did Google have to do with HTC's implementation on some models?

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.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #176 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post

It's interesting to see how loaded this site is with fanboys. Any mention of anything negative at all about Apple or his Steve-ness gets trounced upon. So much for honest, frank, and thoughtful discussion...

Excuse me? Hmmm, what's the thoughtful and honest response to blatant lies and the attempt to rewrite history...

Actually I think the "fanboys" responses have been incredibly measured, thoughtful and honest:
the responses are full of dates, names, facts and figures, point by point to counter each hyperbolic, crazy, unsubstantiated lie. If there was a little good-natured "negative bantering" and good points of argument from the Apple critics, please point them out; we seem to have missed them. As soon as fact and figures and names and dates come back at them, the critics start yelling "fanboy", never fails. If you want to defend both

Like the Xerox Park thing that gets trotted out every five minutes by MS Fanboys. Or, "Apple products aren't suitable for the workplace" (meanwhile, the businesses that do their homework and switch are moving ahead). Same old groundless talking points. As soon as there is the least suggestion that MS (or Google) is unoriginal and lacks taste, someone's gotta try to tar Apple with all the same brushes. That's honest, frank and thoughtful, let me tell you. Trouble is, it's not always a simple preference for one company's tools over another company's tools: no-one thinks Apple is perfect, but it is on record that MS is unethical, ruthless and cares little for making great products for their customers. It's a fact, sorry; deal with it. I would imagine that defending both the products and the conduct of MS, in addition to getting any work done on a PC, would be a full time job, especially since all the talking points have been debunked for years -- sorry if we get a little testy about replying to these same tired old talking points year after year while MS has seemingly moved backwards.

Can we not refer to documented history, rebuttal with facts and move on? We would be happy to see some actual discussion for once; "discussion" usually comes to grinding halt right after the first rebuttal from Apple "fanboys". Come on, then...

• Xerox Park
• Newton
• Direction Google was going in before they saw the iPhone
• any relevance whatsoever that MS may have in the Mobile space going forward...

...we're waiting.
post #177 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.

This seems like a stretch to me.

The concept of using dual microphones to cancel noise has been around almost as long as microphones have been in existence. With a two second Google search I can find instances of the tech being used for mobile phones from 2007. I'm sure if I really searched I could find a phone using it years before that.

When people talk about Google copying Apple's iPhone, they mean copying the whole style and the basic setup of the thing, which Apple did in fact invent/originate. It's just a plain fact that when the iPhone came out there were no phones anything like it. Period.

It's also a fact that a few years later, practically every smartphone on the market has switched to a capacitive touchscreen approach with few or no buttons, and multi-touch. It's patently obvious that Apple came up with a completely new approach to phones and that Android (as well as every other manufacturer on the market practically), is frantically copying that design and that approach.

I'm not sure why this thread even goes past the first page where someone else made a very similar remark. Anyone who thinks this is even up for discussion just hasn't been paying attention these last few years.
post #178 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper View Post

Snarky? Looked in the mirror lately?

You've shown yourself devoid of anything worth my continued engagement with you on this since you refuse to acknowledge any of the points I made. So I'll just assume you have nothing and move on.

Ha ha, nice dodge. So much easier than acknowledging that you don't want to know what I actually said if it gets in the way of your rant.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #179 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper View Post

... So I'll just assume ... you have nothing ... and move on.

Denial, projection, and avoidance in one fell swoop.
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 #180 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Well, since you're referring to Apple's access to Xerox, why not be specific as to what Apple stole and how they stole it rather than making silly generalizations?

Apple had an agreement with Xerox. Both Apple and Xerox upheld their side of the agreement, so the trade was completed.

I don't remember if Xerox ever sued over the matter, but I do know that Apple never lost a law suit over the matter. So one of two things is true:

1. Xerox was content that the agreement had been followed and didn't sue.
or
2. Xerox sued and lost.

Either way, it is clear that Apple didn't steal anything - no matter how many times you uneducated, Apple-bashing haters make your silly accusations.

We don't know what if any agreement Apple had with Xerox. In some versions of the story, Xerox is given an opportunity to buy pre-IPO shares of Apple, which apparently did happen, but it's far from clear if this had any connection to the Xerox PARC visit. All we really know is that Apple requested a visit to Xerox PARC in 1979, when the Mac project development was beginning. Jef Raskin (then head of the Mac team) always contended that he arranged the show-and-tell for the purpose of convincing Steve that a GUI was worth pursuing. Others disputed Raskin later, but this always sounded like office politics to me. The facts were, shortly afterwards, Raskin was squeezed out and Steve took over the Mac project personally.

The other fact we know is that no single person or company "invented" the GUI. The idea had been floating around in academia for years. Many of the people working at Xerox PARC were academics and at Xerox they got the money and freedom to chase that idea. They gets credit for figuring out how to implement the GUI on an actual, working computer. Apple gets credit for figuring out how to implement the GUI on an actual working computer that a person could purchase. Both were major accomplishments.

Now as for Xerox suing Apple. Yes, they did, in the midst of Apple suing Microsoft over their use of Mac-like graphics in an early version of Windows. This is the infamous "look and feel" suit. The Xerox case was dismissed, and Apple lost their case against Microsoft. End of story, more or less. The real lesson is that we should not get so worked up about who invented what. Unless those ideas are patentable, then they are just ideas that anyone can use, or build upon, which is how science is supposed to work. It's pretty much the definition of progress.

My big problem with Microsoft isn't that they "copied" the Mac, but that with ten years to work on a GUI for DOS, what they came up with wasn't much more than a lukewarm clone of the Mac. That just showed a lack of vision, and arguably, even competence. What it also illustrated, for all who had any interest in seeing it, was Microsoft's corporate strategy -- which then and for a long time afterwards -- was making "just good enough" products. They didn't have to break any new ground to remain dominant, so they perfected mediocrity. With all of their money and talent and opportunity to do so much more, this always seemed almost criminal to me. Unfortunately for them (and us) this formula worked too well and too long. The legacy is, today Microsoft continues to struggle to find an approach to the market that doesn't assume entitlement.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #181 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

Did Apple design and manufacture the LCD panel and touchscreen used in the iPhone?

Technically, yes. They bought the company that developed the specific multi-touch technology making it Apple's explicitly, then specced the LCD panels manufacture to a contractor.

Google built an operating system then they partnered with a phone manufacturer. HTC designed, specced, and built the "Google" phone, getting much Google assistance to get the hardware integrated with the OS. Google never built the phone, nor did they spec or design the hardware.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #182 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobborries View Post

First to market a popular device wins in the memory of the consumer's history.

Apple First's
  • First Color PC (Apple II $1,200) 1977
  • First PC with consumer Disk Drive 1978 Apple
  • First Spreadsheet (killer app) Visicalc 1979 Apple
  • First PC with 3.5 inch disks 1983 Apple
  • First consumer GUI 1984 Apple
  • First PC with Mouse 1984 Apple
  • First PC with drawing pad 1984 Apple
  • First Consumer hard drive 10 megs 1984 Apple
  • First PC with Microsoft Word 1984 Apple
  • First Laser Printer 1985 Apple
  • First PC with Midi 1985 Apple
  • First Personel Network appletalk 1985 Apple
  • First PC with SCSI 1986 Apple
  • First with rewritable optical storage Apple sc 1988
  • First PC with CD-ROM Drive Apple 150 1991
  • First PC with ethernet built in 1991 Quadra
  • First Consumer Digital Camera Quicktake 100 1994
  • First PDA (Newton) 1993 before the Palm PDA and Pocket PC
  • First PC with usb 1998 iMac
  • First PC without Floppy Disk iMac!
  • First PC conpany to reach a $1 billion annual sales rate Apple
  • First WiFi 1999 Apple Airport

and yet it's Bill Gates who gets all the credit.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU A MILLION TIMES
FINALLY COMPLETE ANSWERS TO ALL THESE IDIOTIC BASELESS RANTS HERE WITH NOTHING TO BACK IT UP WITH ... u r the FRIGGIN MAN
I can now log off the post without having to read any further. YAYYYYYYYYY.
post #183 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

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.

WTF I never said anything about you and the phone business. You need to untangle you post reply process.



Quote:
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.


There you are incorrect. A company is in the market whenever they spend R&D on a product or potential product, even if they never ship anything. As to your ambiguous insinuation I was being coy. I specifically said back to at least 2003! Can't you read?

As for the tablet report, that was Steve onstage at All Things Digital this spring, and he didn't say anything about the timeframes of when they set the tablet aside and started the push on the phone. BUT! Steve also said, again on the stage at All Things Digital, but in 2004, that he was pleased bu the things Apple didn't ship, which apparently a finished PDA tablet (which by the way was all over the rumor circuit from 2002 to early 2004). The decision to kill the project was in when??? Shall I dare say it now?? Can you handle it?? 2003!

Now please put 2+2 together into 4 and come to a very strong implied inference extrapolated from factual statements that the PDA tablet cancellation in 2003 was when Steve said ee put the tablet back on the shelf to do the phone first.

Thus I can safely rest on my earlier statement of Apple reportedly, but not officially confirmed to be, working on a phone as early as 2003. And even if you want to quibble and say that 2003 has to be considered 2004 for over-conservative reasons, that's still more than a year before Google bought Android.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #184 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitzandbitez View Post

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU A MILLION TIMES
FINALLY COMPLETE ANSWERS TO ALL THESE IDIOTIC BASELESS RANTS HERE WITH NOTHING TO BACK IT UP WITH ... u r the FRIGGIN MAN
I can now log off the post without having to read any further. YAYYYYYYYYY.

Nice 'list'... pity this pattern of 'first' appears to have ceased over a decade ago...
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #185 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"?

Yes. But in order to do credit to the original source you have to adhere to the spirit that Picasso said it in. And that had nothing to do with imitation or imitation with slight derivation of others work. It had to do with "stealing" concepts from other domains and incorporating the concepts into original art.

Apple "stole" the idea of a phone, and incorporated it onto a tiny portable computer. Apple "stole" ideas from human interface design and applied them to software GUI representations...

PARC again. To oversimplify a bit -- Apple got permission from Xerox for that whole thing because Xerox managers didn't have any clue about what they had. Did Apple later take legal advantage of Xerox's ignorance, yes. Just like Gates did the same to Apple with the Windows licenses. Unfortunately that's business. But there the similarity ends, Apple innovated and made the Xerox ideas into something far more advanced. Microsoft only imitated and made small isolated derivations.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #186 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitzandbitez View Post

FINALLY, The best post here about who came 1st...
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU A MILLION TIMES
FINALLY COMPLETE ANSWERS TO ALL THESE IDIOTIC BASELESS RANTS HERE WITH NOTHING TO BACK IT UP WITH ... u r the FRIGGIN MAN
I can now log off the post without having to read any further. YAYYYYYYYYY.

And to think I've spent all this time thinking it was the chicken.

God damn it.
post #187 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

It's too bad that some people can only read poetry as prose.

Yes, and although I'm not sure that's poetry, the same sentiment applies to isolated gems of wisdom.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #188 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

It's patently obvious that Apple came up with a completely new approach to phones and that Android (as well as every other manufacturer on the market practically), is frantically copying that design and that approach.

Copied... past tense. These days Google seem hell bent on adding features that separate Android from the iPhone.
post #189 of 242
oops!
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #190 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post

Xerox Park

Correction: Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center)

Thanks for the overall sentiment and vote of confidence though!
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #191 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

There you are incorrect. A company is in the market whenever they spend R&D on a product or potential product, even if they never ship anything. As to your ambiguous insinuation I was being coy. I specifically said back to at least 2003! Can't you read?.

No, YOU are incorrect. By definition, a company is in the market if they sell a product into a given market. Before that, they can say that they're exploring a market or evaluating whether they should participate in a market or doing R&D in a given market.

Of course, that's irrelevant. What we know is that Apple introduced a phone before Google did. We know that both companies must have spent some time doing R&D before releasing their product. We know that before the iPhone came out, Google's R&D revolved around RIM phones and after the iPhone came out, Google's R&D switched to phones that looked much like the iPhone.

Draw your own conclusions.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #192 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitzandbitez View Post

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU A MILLION TIMES
FINALLY COMPLETE ANSWERS TO ALL THESE IDIOTIC BASELESS RANTS HERE WITH NOTHING TO BACK IT UP WITH ... u r the FRIGGIN MAN
I can now log off the post without having to read any further. YAYYYYYYYYY.


and let's not forget the FIRST FULLY CAPABLE TOUCH SCREEN DEVICE
without a KEYBOARD and remember ALL THE HATERS YELLING where's the KEYBOARD???!!@??!?

NO ONE WILL EVER USE A PHONE W/O a KEYBOARD??? , oh really...

so why are all the others playing copycat and not ADMITTING IT???

urrrrrgh... I'm going to make my chicken, or pull my chicken which ever comes 1st.

re: Originally Posted by bobborries
First to market a popular device wins in the memory of the consumer's history.

Apple First's
First Color PC (Apple II $1,200) 1977
First PC with consumer Disk Drive 1978 Apple
First Spreadsheet (killer app) Visicalc 1979 Apple
First PC with 3.5 inch disks 1983 Apple
First consumer GUI 1984 Apple
First PC with Mouse 1984 Apple
First PC with drawing pad 1984 Apple
First Consumer hard drive 10 megs 1984 Apple
First PC with Microsoft Word 1984 Apple
First Laser Printer 1985 Apple
First PC with Midi 1985 Apple
First Personel Network appletalk 1985 Apple
First PC with SCSI 1986 Apple
First with rewritable optical storage Apple sc 1988
First PC with CD-ROM Drive Apple 150 1991
First PC with ethernet built in 1991 Quadra
First Consumer Digital Camera Quicktake 100 1994
First PDA (Newton) 1993 before the Palm PDA and Pocket PC
First PC with usb 1998 iMac
First PC without Floppy Disk iMac!
First PC conpany to reach a $1 billion annual sales rate Apple
First WiFi 1999 Apple Airport

and yet it's Bill Gates who gets all the credit.
post #193 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

While you're asking people to fire their neurons, I think the word you're after is 'segue' and you would typically do so between two things. I'm not a grammar expert, but I did expect to see a phrase like 'segue into <whatever argument>' . Because it means a transition between two states, you would normally describe both states. Otherwise, the statement makes no sense.

I'm not an english speaking person myself, but even I know what a Segway is. It's synonymous to "bullshit non-sequitur". Care to learn things before you go around and shoot about it.

Quote:
I think there are two truths to the argument.

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

Second, Apple got the touch screen thing right first and others (including Android, it seems) have tried to copy it. It is debatable whether they did the touch screen first in that particular form factor - the LG Prada is a product that was announced more or less contemporaneously. Given Apple's secrecy, it is unlikely that LG would have known about Apple's endeavours in this respect.

Anyone who still views this as a "who got their phone development first" and as a "touch screen" thing still doesn't get it. It's about "look and feel". It's been about look and feel since the 80s. You cannot deny that android "looks and feels" pretty much like the iOS. And sure enough, the first screenshots we had of Android did *not* look and feel like the iOS.

Quote:
But again the debate doesn't really make much sense - Android is about software and the iPhone is about the complete package.

It doesn't make sense if you don't want it to make sense. Perhaps you will teach us how windows was never really a competitor to the macintosh, since windows was a software and the mac was all about "the complete package".
post #194 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper View Post

So, "an oasis surrounded by a big dry desert of ideas and execution" you say? Interesting then that...

Bloomberg reports that Microsoft's Xbox Live service brought in $1.2 billion revenue for the fiscal 2009 year.

For the year ended June 30th, about 12.5 million Xbox Live users paid an annual fee to play games online which Bloomberg says would account for about $600 million in revenue. Xbox Live COO Dennis Durkin says on top of that, sales of DLC, movies and TV topped subscription revenue for the first time ever, and by a significant margin, leading us to the final $1.2 billion figure.

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.

Adds Matt Rosoff, an analyst at Directions on Microsoft: "Xbox Live has helped sell a lot of consoles and created a lot of loyalty. Everyone has been talking about Microsofts inability to innovate, but this is a pretty good example where they have innovated. They timed it just right with this one."

If accurate, revenue would have jumped from $800 million in 2008, a pretty hefty increase.


So Xbox hardware and accessories do make a profit, albeit "barely" (iTunes anyone?), while Xbox Live has increased its revenue by 50% to $1.2B year to year. Big dry desert of ideas and execution? Only if you're in complete denial, I'd suggest.


Really, sometimes I don't understand what some kind of people here smoke.

Precisely when I was making the point that the XBox was a very good exception to the rule that "MS Sucks", here you come with even more evidence that this is actually the case, while believing that you are refuting me. Fucking hilarious.

Go get more of that weed and stop the embarrassment of yourself.


Quote:
But one swallow does not a Summer make, and MS has a very long row to hoe with WinPhone 7 (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphors - ).

My exact fucking point. I am still agnostic on how I feel about the Windows Phone 7 series, if it will be a success or not. Rumors don't look good (see the Kin debacle), but I'll obviously wait and see.

Quote:
I notice that you freely admit to hating certain corporations. How does that make you any better than those accused of hating Apple? Just curious.

Not one bit. Of course, you still have to make the case that these people are actually "bad" in some sort of a pathetic way. What's wrong with hating a company? I hate microsoft, sure, although not on an obsessive way - I could see myself buying an XBox, for instance.

It's the kind of hatred that you'll see amongst people being forced to use a product, and being conned and milked, again and again and again...

Now, please go search for me in Microsoft threads trolling their forums on how their product "sucks", etc. Good riddance on that and when you do find me in such places perhaps you'll have a point.

Until then, all of your rationale is just garbage.
post #195 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Paying for something doesn't always mean you didn't steal it.

I mean, how low must you bend yourself to get the tiniest point?

Xerox made a deal. They knew (or shouldave known) what they were selling. MS was more devious than Apple. But that's long gone history.
post #196 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

Copied... past tense. These days Google seem hell bent on adding features that separate Android from the iPhone.

Um, like what?
It's clear that hardware makers like Motorola and HTC are adding features every 3 weeks to compete with iPhone, but what has Google added recently to the Android OS that wasn't in the original Android release? The only thing I'm aware of is their attempts to catch up to Apple on UI look & feel (Froyo). Prior to that, they enabled multitouch. I've heard more recently that Google wants to have their own online music and book store for Android phones to sync with. As far as I can tell, they're still trying to copy what Apple has already delivered.

"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 #197 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post

Xerox made a deal. They knew (or shouldave known) what they were selling. MS was more devious than Apple. But that's long gone history.

It's not history because it's not accurate.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #198 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post

I'm not an english speaking person myself, but even I know what a Segway is. It's synonymous to "bullshit non-sequitur". Care to learn things before you go around and shoot about it.

Firstly, I apologise - I did not know you were not an English speaker. Nevertheless, it's not impollte to again point out you are incorrect. Google will help.

Quote:
Anyone who still views this as a "who got their phone development first" and as a "touch screen" thing still doesn't get it. It's about "look and feel". It's been about look and feel since the 80s. You cannot deny that android "looks and feels" pretty much like the iOS. And sure enough, the first screenshots we had of Android did *not* look and feel like the iOS.

The substantive question was - "who is in the market first?" It's all about interpretation. Everything is. I don't recall conflating the two things you are talking about and if I did that wasn't the intention.

So who was in the market first: Google, who purchased a mobile operating system in 2005 (?), or Apple, who released the iphone in 2007?

On reflection I would defer to jragosta's view - it's all bluff and bluster till you bring something to the table. On that note, Apple was probably first to market.

That does not deny, however, that Google was looking for involvement in that space much earlier than the release of iPhone. No one knows for sure how long Apple was at it. We do know for sure when Google bought Android.

Quote:
It doesn't make sense if you don't want it to make sense. Perhaps you will teach us how windows was never really a competitor to the macintosh, since windows was a software and the mac was all about "the complete package".

It doesn't make sense because you do not compare apples and oranges. No denying that Apple's software is superior at this point. If you want to frame the argument that way, then go ahead. I won't argue with you on who has the better software. I think that much is pretty clear.

But don't forget that Android Operating System has to be sufficiently ambivalent about the hardware it runs on to work correctly. Apple has a clear advantage in this respect it has only a handful of reference points to deal with. This is clearly a differentiator. Could Apple have achieved the same with 300 different iOS models and still achieve a cohesive user experience? Regardless of the clear choice that Apple has made in this respect, I think it's debatable whether it could.
post #199 of 242
I don't even understand what the argument is against. Google bought Android before the Iphone came out, before Schmidt joined the BOD.

Google became involved in phone os product development in very late 2005. It doesn't matter what it looked like at any time since then -- Google doesn't design HW, their OS works on whatever kinds of phones handset makers want to build. Otherwise, none of them would use it. Its not rocket science.

Google bought Android to compete in the phone market, whatever that looked like, at any point in time, from that point until the sun burns out. Whatever form is popular, whatever handset type people want. From late 2005 onward, they were planning on making a go of it, which is kind of why Jobs statement makes no sense. That everyone didn't even include Apple at the time. They chose to compete in the phone market, they didn't choose to compete with Apple. Apple was not in the phone market when Google decided to compete in it, when purchasing Android.

They are competing for OS marketshare, period. It will work on any popular form factors that come out.

Did Google make sure Android worked on the handset type that was popular in 2006, RIM flavor? Of course. Thats what handset makers wanted. Did they then make it work in the next flavor they wanted, the touchscreen only that Apple popularized? of course. If Asus comes out with a phone that looks like a banana that becomes popular, they'll make it work on there too.

Google bought Android right before Apple came out with the Nano -- its first device with both an LCD screen and flash memory. It was a LONG time ago.
post #200 of 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post

I mean, how low must you bend yourself to get the tiniest point?

Xerox made a deal. They knew (or shouldave known) what they were selling. MS was more devious than Apple. But that's long gone history.

Xerox sued over the interface. What was the outcome? I don't know the full backstory.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/bu...e+xerox&st=nyt

Facts are not universal. Everything that passes through the mush between your ears is interpreted. I could say the the stock market has risen 4 points today and you might conclude 'so what'. Then I could tell you that market started the day at 8 points and it means something else entirely.

Two people writing about the same thing can give apparently misleading accounts of the 'facts', without either being 'wrong'. It's up to you as to who you believe.
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'