Google founder accuses Apple's Steve Jobs of 'rewriting history' - Page 3

This is the age old debate of "individuals matter -- there are certain Great People who have big effects on the course of events" vs "individuals don't matter -- the path of history is inevitable, and the relevance of individuals is an illusion". As usual, I think truth is somewhere in between. I think there are a lot of "false idols" out there -- people who are characterized as great individuals (or great companies) in the sense that they had some big effect that they didn't really have.

But I also think there are individuals (either people or organizations) that really do matter -- that make things substantially different than they would have otherwise been. I think Steve Jobs as a person, and Apple as a company, are genuine examples of that phenomenon. As we all know, the GUI was developed at PARC and was languishing because powerful but clueless people at Xerox did not see what was in front of them. As we all know, it took Microsoft 10 years to catch up to Apple, and that was with the competitive pressure from Apple. If there was no Apple and no Steve Jobs then there could have been a very meaningful delay in the arrival of computing as we now know it. And sure, one can resort to the argument that it would have *eventually* have happened, but a delay of 10 years has real consequences for a lot of people -- making a major contribution 10 years earlier than later makes a big difference.

You can also see examples in other contexts. What if in October 2001 the US president decided to spend $1 trillion on achieving energy independence instead of $1 trillion on war? Whether you think that would have been a good decision or a bad decision, there is no doubt in my mind that it would have been a very DIFFERENT decision than the one that was made, and that (for better or for worse), we would be living in a very different world than we live in today. My goal here is not to start a political fight -- I can imagine arguments for why it's better to spend $1 trillion on war and arguments for why it's better to spend $1 trillion on energy independence -- but one thing that is clear, is that those are very different decisions, and so the individual who makes that decision has the potential to profoundly influence things. Sure, you can argue that 100 years from now, it's inevitable that we'll end up doing X, Y, or Z --- but how quickly we get there, and how we get there, matters tremendously to a lot of people. To ignore that, and to glibly argue that "oh, eventually, in the long run, we would have ended up in the same place", is just plain silly, in my view.

Sure, although to be fair, Google has done almost nothing new lately. The huge thing it has done after search that was quite big was Gmail. Then what? Android, as much as Chrome OS or the browser itself, are just cheap open-sourced knock-offs of what's being innovated elsewhere. Not that such things aren't a boon for the open source movement. I think that part is great.

The only thing that Google does good is analytics (i.e. search) based algorithms. They do this better than anyone else. They are learning enough and taking a very interesting "holistic" approach towards translation on one hand and subtitle automatic reader on the other, and google voice recognition. These technologies are really inspiring and I think they will eventually reach such a tipping point of quality that they can "change the world", yet again.

But it won't happen this year. In the meantime, Google is either buying stuff (Google Earth, Google Docs, etc.) or making irrelevant projects (Google Wave anyone??!!? Google TV, etc).

It is ironic that Apple was originally in the computer business but decided to throw itself into the personal music business. And personal media player business. And the set-top box business.

And then Apple later entered the phone business.

Companies do this all the time. Microsoft diversified, just like Apple did, just like Google did with purchasing the Android company and releasing the OS freely and publicly.

And considering that Google/Android were working on various prototypes of phones, including touch-screen and keyboard-predominant designs, it is fairly obvious that Page is correct in his assertion.

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.

What google could do right now.


1) invent time machine
2) go back in time (about 2006 or early 2007?)
3) show us an Android prototype that looks and acts like the 2007 iPhone.
4) history changed.

Zzzz . . . .

Another "let's just throw in a bigger camera" example.

So why the fuck are you missing the point?!?


... Perhaps, but your link is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and uninforming, at its best. WTF are you trying to do here, teaching us about Windows CE for chrissakes? How old are you? How old do you take us to be?

The question relevant to this thread is not your pathetic segway of "Apple didn't do this first!!", who was never the fucking point, but how Apple, by showing its own unique vision of what a phone should look and feel like, and how they actually executed it so perfectly, diverted the smartphone market to the direction Apple was going.

Your idea that the history is somehow "inevitable" is mind-blowingly stupid and lame. In its deepest corners, it's nothing but a pathetic excuse to do nothing worthwhile in your life and not strive for perfection in what you do, because, after all, the future is "inevitable".

It just ain't so. Yes, the phones would probably have still "gone" the direction they went, but amazingly slower. Had the iPhone not reached the market, Android would look like a RIM wannabe, and we would be stuck with smartphones with keyboards and little screens. Perhaps we would look now at Android and say what an handsome OS it is, rather than belittle for their huge issues and its blatant second place to the iOS.

According to your own theory of history, if there was less competition (from the innovation leader Apple), the market would have been in the same spot of innovation today! Well that's just idiotic and flies in the face of basic economics 101.


Yes, that's why they nuked Windows Mobile and started from scratch to get a better "look and feel". And I guess that Apple's iPhone success had nothing to do with that... I mean wtf.


Arguing on what? That PDAs existed before the iPhone? That you're brilliant in Segwaying arguments? Who cares about that debate? PDAs existed and Palm still ended up dead.


Not only irrational, but hilariously blind and impervious to any degree of brain power. Please, turn on your neurons for once.

*facepalm*


A hundred billion dollar company invents "dual-microphone phone design for noise cancellation", and that's your example of something Google has done as lately. I'm stunned.

Apple got all their Mac and iPhone ideas from Star Trek, from the 3.5 inch floppy disk to iPad.

In order to qualify as a loss leader, a money losing product must generate significant revenue and profits for another product.

XBox hasn't done so.

A true example of a loss leader would be iTunes. It only makes a small profit relative to the costs of maintaining it. However, without it, Apple would not be likely to have sold the millions of iPods and iOS devices that it has.

I would like to see him back up his assertion with some proof that Google was as far along in the development process as Apple. Thinking and talking about doing something is a far cry from actually doing it. "Working on it" can mean anything. I suspect that they didn't actually give the go ahead to do their phone platform until the Schmidt got a good look at it while on the Apple board, and that much of what it turned out to be was the result of studying the released iPhone and its success. Talk is cheap. Let's see some substantiation, or some journalists with the cojones to ask such a question.

Google's business strategy stinks of MS. Reactionary, but definitely not visionary

Apple released iphone and mobile os--couple years later Google releases android.
Apple had apps store--Google later produces Android app site.
Apple had iTV--Google plans to release some TV derivative
Apple released ipad--next year Google will have android tablet.
Apple had iTune for years--Google just announced music service.

Apple has a very solid and secure business model which is untouchable. It is a rock. Even a couple of hiccups in product launch does not change the loyal Apple consumers. Like me, they have suffered from the results of poor customer service, market fragmentation, incompatibility, and bad operating system from years of experience dealing with MS. Been there, done that. There is nothing Google promises that we want--nothing except search. Google attempts to compete on Apple's terms their has been laughable, and giving away Android OS for free is not a very smart business strategy.

Google on the other hand has a very fragile business model, with a soft underbelly. If Apple decides they had enough, they have a very large server farm which can be used to turn on Google. There is nothing really extra special about search algorithm. Heck even the pathetically incompetent MS can put on a pretty good show with Bing. If Apple decides to cut the knees off Google, they will make a very efficient, elegant search algorithm that they can put on all their OSX and iOS which will beat the pants off Google. Just for spite, Apple could do it as a loss leader and suck Google dry. No advertising income, no Google.

Google also realizes their vulnerability. Like MS, they are trying to diversify their business, and like MS, they are burning money on projects with no return. Why do you think their stock is doing so poorly.

JoeG

they sell mice and webcams XD

Thank you! Sheesh, these last few posts of people trying to validate the XBox's existence as a loss leader has been painful to read.

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 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.

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

It's not completely irrational to think that they or someone else might have. (And, most likely, it would have been someone else. Google has zero history of that sort of innovation.) But it is completely irrational to maintain that they would necessarily have, and that the iPhone form factor being the standard for phones today was inevitable, whether Apple released the iPhone or not. And it's even more irrational given that it's been pointed out to you that the phone industry was forging ahead in a completely different direction at the time of the iPhone release, until the iPhone caused an abrupt change in direction.

Oh, also, it's irrational to base your argument on the mere pre-existence of touchscreen devices.

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

Who cares if a tree falls in the forest unheard or unseen? As far as I am concerned, it did not happen. Google can claim that they invented the warp drive, but until they can manufacture and show to all that it ACTUALLY works, who cares what they say. Google has a habit of talking the talk, but often not not walking the walk, much like MS.

JoeG

Just out of curiosity, why do you actually use this forum?

I hate the iPhone antenna thing, and Apple's response. But I like many other Apple products. It seems you just use this forum to "vent" your own personal issues. And the fact that you keep coming back and repeating yourself tells me whatever you hope you achieve isn't working out for you.

we all know google got into the phone business BEFORE apple when they bought android in 2005 well BEFORE the first iphone came out in 2007.

but this is android in 2007

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/android-h...ild-334909.php

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/12/a...f-androids-ui/

not quite dude. they licensed itunes for the ROCKR unit.. they didn't have anything to do with the design.. did you ever use it.. it was like a cheap knockoff of itunes.

You are probably correct about the "public" part, but you would only need to research NDAs regarding telecom products Apple was working on to help determine an assumed "start" date.

Apple collaborated with Motorola. technically speaking, Apple was in the phone business first.

My guess? It's probably tough being ignorant, while living in your Mom's basement, with no one to play with except your imaginary friends.

Good grief! Don't confuse him with facts.

I don't think comparing Microsoft to a 100 year crisis in the banking sector is helping your ( and daharder's) argument. Giving xbox a crutch for 10 years seems more indicative of a more serious condition than just a broken leg.

Perhaps less jaded I could find that funny, but I am serious when I ask why he uses the forum. It seems to me that he has a disposition to look at the world in a negative way because of unresolved personal issue. I similarly look at the way some people always make excuses for everything Apple does, every time, in a similar light. Apple do great things and they also do dumb things. It's nice to sometimes acknowledge that. It keeps us all honest.

That guy always goes negative. If I was like that I wouldn't see the point in investing so much time on the forum, which leads me to think there are deeper psychological troubles at play. I'm not a doctor, and it's not a personal attack. It's just my honest opinion.

For the record: they only call it a hobby because it never took off they way they imagined it could have. It's about managing expectations. It's about PR.

How to draw a long bow.

Yes, they are showing quarterly profits now for the Xbox division, but my point is, the were not posting profits for many quarters before that. It's not so much a matter of accounting methods as it is the fact that the division lost money big time for years before it started becoming profitable, so they have a lot of sunk costs to cover before anyone can call the Xbox a success. Just try to imagine if Apple launched a major new product that wasn't making a profit in its first quarter of availability, let alone for years afterwards. Nobody would call that a success. Investors would have a conniption fit.

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

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

No, that is not ironic.


Now this is ironic.

Does it really matter who's in the phone business first?

The fact is Android changed from a Blackberry Clone to an iPhone Clone.

However you cut it Android is a clone of something.

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.

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 - ).

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.

Somebody needs to learn the difference between revenue and profit.

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.

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.

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.

You're right. Because without the iPhone, they could have always gone back to the newton for inspiration.