or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google founders wanted to hire Steve Jobs as company's first CEO
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google founders wanted to hire Steve Jobs as company's first CEO - Page 2

post #41 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCE View Post

Please google "Wired iPhone article". You'll find an article from Wired magazine that talks about the history of the iPhone. As per that article (and other sources), Apple started work on the iPhone in February 2005.

- HCE

I do not know what I find more amusing, the fact you believe "Wired" or the fact you think anybody could pull off making a cell phone in 2 years. It took Motorola over 2 years to create the Droid and they have a much longer history of making and testing phones than Apple and didn't have to create the operating system. I'm sure Apple was working on iPhone 4 before the 3G was released. Apple started to work on the iPad around the time they released the original iPod. The iPhone was an outgrowth of that project. Just because it was a low level research project doesn't mean they were not working on it.
Brian
post #42 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye in Fla View Post

I do not know what I find more amusing, the fact you believe "Wired" or the fact you think anybody could pull off making a cell phone in 2 years. It took Motorola over 2 years to create the Droid and they have a much longer history of making and testing phones than Apple and didn't have to create the operating system. I'm sure Apple was working on iPhone 4 before the 3G was released. Apple started to work on the iPad around the time they released the original iPod. The iPhone was an outgrowth of that project. Just because it was a low level research project doesn't mean they were not working on it.
Brian

That's a good point! In 2007, Google had an orginization in place and an existing product, the iPhone, to reverse engineer -- yet it took them 2 years to develop the Android OS component only.

Yet, from scratch, Apple, supposedly, developed the hardware and OS in only 2 years...

I don't think so...

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #43 of 53
Steve Jobs would not have made a good CEO of Google. Their philosophy is completely different from Jobs'. Steve wants to build insanely cool things you can touch and feel, with a great user experience. These aren't really areas that Google wants to pursue.

"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 #44 of 53
Pure Google tripe. Apple's iOS is just an OS X derivative, which is derivative of NEXT's operating system work. Steve Jobs was working in operating systems long before websites and search engines existed, and Googles twerps were in grade school. Clearly they can't compete, so they copy and cheat. Snore.
post #45 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-J View Post

But to think that iOS is not fragmented is to deny reality.

You're still banging that fragmentation drum?
post #46 of 53
Google is lobotomized already, but this move would be a huge disaster for us end users. Anyone but BJobs please

I smell it already out of BJobs mouth:
"Just a 5$ monthly subscription fee for this amazing (blah blah blah ) search engine"
post #47 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

You're still banging that fragmentation drum?

"Nope"
post #48 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-J View Post

"Nope"

post #49 of 53
People of the World !

Wondering why this bitterness when the evolution of technology is making life beautiful - faster & better than ever before.

Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Page & Sergey Brin all individuals of exemplar ability & intellectual energy. Their collective energies culminate in the creation of solutions that make the world a better place. In ways, beyond what we can comprehend, their organizations, have evolved a universe of opportunities for mankind.

These organizations have been the engines of creation, magically manifesting mechanisms that create a lot of value & wealth for the world.

Gates energized Apple with US $ 250 M in 1998.

Jobs mentored Google.

Google gears the globe.

These organization seem competitors on the Stock Market but beyond it, they compliment each others creation very seamlessly.

This is absolutely natural healthy evolution.

Traditionally every GURU has handed his students all his experience & expertise to enable the student evolve & excel him to make the world a better place. Jobs is a guru for Page & Erin, their hero, their inspiration. He has done his bit to guide Google & it shows !

So why this unnecessary bitterness ? Is it to appease/entertain the tiny tribe of financial investors ?

This is exactly what is happening in the context of Gates, Jobs & Page, Erin would do well to channel their collectively energy, inspiring people to collaboratively create value, to make the world a better place.

Neither Microsoft nor Apple or Google can be the single dominant source of solutions for the world. Despite all their efforts their contribution to the world is still FRACTIONAL, for a magnitude of mankind awaits an opportunity to experience their creation.

I do not hold stocks of MS, Apple or Google but as a stake holder I love harnessing their technology to help the world do business.

I believe millions of stake holders like me & you share a seamless synergy of energy with these great men & together we all need to make the world a better place 1 day at a time.
post #50 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality View Post

Self-centered and commercialized?

I am sick and tired of people making Google and its management out to be some sort of saints. I have been waiting for the right opportunity to respond. Here it is.

Google is as much of a business as Apple is, simple as that. At the end of the day, if a business can't make money, they're gonna have to close up shop. The bottom line is all that matters. If Google isn't trying to make as much money as possible, something is wrong with its managers, because they aren't running a business.

Let's take Google's decision to pull out of China. Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google's co-founders, remarked that operating Google in China under censorship went against their motto of "don't be evil." However, by pulling out of China, Google threw away a chance at a market with strong potential. Let Page and Brin call it an ethical decision all day long, but at the end of the day, if Google is missing out on a money-making opportunity, they made a bad business decision, simple as that, and the shareholders got shafted.

Another example is Android. Google's higher-ups, including Google CEO Eric Schmidt, are using the so-called "open" nature of Android to further their image as saints taking a tough stand against the evil Steve Jobs. Well I have news for them and everyone else buying that garbage. If Google could be handling the Android business better, such as selling Android instead of giving it away for free, then they're making a mistake. Google's shareholders are going to want to see profits. Let Schmidt call himself a saint all day long. Shareholders are gonna ask him one thing: Where's the money?

Google is quite profitable, and it will continue to remain profitable. Consistently making money should take precedence over everything else. So to say that Google would have become "self-centered and commercialized" under Steve Jobs is meaningless.
post #51 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

That's a good point! In 2007, Google had an orginization in place and an existing product, the iPhone, to reverse engineer -- yet it took them 2 years to develop the Android OS component only.

Yet, from scratch, Apple, supposedly, developed the hardware and OS in only 2 years...

I don't think so...

.

The difference being that Apple had to get it's software to run on one platform. Google had to get it's software to run on as many handsets, with as many vendors as possible. The latter is a significantly more challenging objective. Context is important.

Also, as much as that lovely picture of a Nokia E series/Blackberry type device gets passed around, it's bares reminding that the first commerically avaialable phone was the HTC Dream not some proof of concept. Waving that pic around is like saying the Moto ROKR was the foundation on which the iPhone was built. And the G1 did have several differentiators against the iPhone. The big ones being a keyboard, a desktop and hard buttons (including a trackball)....things the iPhone might never have.

In any event, for all these accusations, it'd be pretty hard to compare iOS and Android today. The only thing the UI concepts have in common is that they are touch based. Other than that, there are fundamental differences. The desktop, the widgets, the notification blind, the lack of a need to plug-in to a computer on Android, all make a huge difference in how you use your phone. Repeating these accusations ad nauseam doesn't make them true. And simply shows that you haven't used an Android device for more than 5 minutes in the last year and a half. But I suppose if you consider a grid of apps some kind of fantastic innovation well then I guess Android isn't just copying the iPhone but also my 4 year old Sony Ericsson in my closet. That had a grid of apps too. And what about everybody ripping off that LG Prada? That had a nice touch UI and a grid of apps. Heck, it looks a tad iPhone-esque....except it came out a month before.
post #52 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye in Fla View Post

I do not know what I find more amusing, the fact you believe "Wired" or the fact you think anybody could pull off making a cell phone in 2 years. It took Motorola over 2 years to create the Droid and they have a much longer history of making and testing phones than Apple and didn't have to create the operating system. I'm sure Apple was working on iPhone 4 before the 3G was released. Apple started to work on the iPad around the time they released the original iPod. The iPhone was an outgrowth of that project. Just because it was a low level research project doesn't mean they were not working on it.
Brian


Except the Droid was not the first Android phone. The G1 was. And if your assertions hold, that means HTC began working on the G1 in 2006. So was HTC ripping off the iPhone a year before it got released?
post #53 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by 801 View Post

He won't have to leave Apple to run a search engine based company like Google once they get that cloud finished. They moved into one of his markets first, so I think turnabout will be fair game.
Just thinkin...

Just because it's Apple doesn't mean it'll stick. How many non-Apple fans, use Safari as their primary browser on their desktop/PC? Heck, I love my Mac, but I use Chrome on it and so does every Mac user in my family (they're actually the ones who got me to switch). And before that I used Firefox. So just 'cause it's Apple doesn't mean it'll attract a huge following.

And the thing about most search engines is that they need users to improve. And even that iOS installed base won't be enough to drive improvements on any Apple search engine....especially when compared to Google's base of users. I wish Apple luck, because any sort of improvement in technology should be welcome, but I can't see Apple pulling off what Microsoft and Yahoo haven't been able to, despite having billions invested. Bing sucks in the US. And the further away you move from the US, the more Bing degrades in relevance, at an exponential rate. The beauty of Google is that it works consistently in most regions of the world and in many languages. People forget that part.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gescom View Post

Google is lobotomized already, but this move would be a huge disaster for us end users. Anyone but BJobs please

I smell it already out of BJobs mouth:
"Just a 5$ monthly subscription fee for this amazing (blah blah blah ) search engine"

Don't knock the idea. Worked out well for MobileMe. Apple users are a special breed. They'll pay for services that other users will get for free. All Apple has to do is throw in a bit of value added and promise not to run ads (kind of implausible now that Apple's into advertising) and they might well be able to get away with charging $5 per month.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google founders wanted to hire Steve Jobs as company's first CEO