or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google's Schmidt: Apple responding to Android with lawsuits, not innovation
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google's Schmidt: Apple responding to Android with lawsuits, not innovation - Page 6

post #201 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The point that you're both missing is that before the iPhone came out, Android phones looked like a cheap copy of the Blackberry.

After the iPhone came out, Android started looking like a copy of iOS.

And that's a surprise? Which mobile phone OS didn't transition to a touchscreen w/gestures? It's not as tho it wasn't a logical next step.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #202 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

And that's a surprise? Which mobile phone OS didn't transition to a touchscreen w/gestures? It's not as tho it wasn't a logical next step.

Then why is it that no one did it until after the iPhone came out?
"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 #203 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Then why is it that no one did it until after the iPhone came out?

Because they were the first?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #204 of 228
deleted
post #205 of 228
What a scumbag this clown is. He's really talking to himself and to google, the new evil! A pathetic little man.
post #206 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Every single one of those existed before Android was released on a device.

Side question

Given the possibility/probability that Schmidt was "undercover" while at Apple; and given that Android and most of its hardware iterations copied Apple property rights, does anyone know or conjecture that Apple will at some point unleash the lawyers on Schmidt/Google? Or will they be content to sue Samsung/HTC?
post #207 of 228
Apple Not Innovating?!?!? If Not for Apple's Innovation There would be NO ANDROID. While was Apple was innovating Schmidt was on the Apple Board of Directors and stealing ideas from Apple thus Android!

Similar to the "Macintosh/Windows" war!
post #208 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alladdinn View Post

Side question

Given the possibility/probability that Schmidt was "undercover" while at Apple; and given that Android and most of its hardware iterations copied Apple property rights, does anyone know or conjecture that Apple will at some point unleash the lawyers on Schmidt/Google? Or will they be content to sue Samsung/HTC?

It's easier to sue a hardware manufacturer, because that has the potential big hammer of the ITC disallowing imports.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #209 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

But I thought Facebook was also the enemy du jour since they're making an app to bypass the app store.

Man, with so many perceived enemies to hate it must make an Apple zealot's head cave in trying to keep 'em all straight.

How thoughtful of you to take the time to keep track of the cares of "Apple zealots".
"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 #210 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The point that you're both missing is that before the iPhone came out, Android phones looked like a cheap copy of the Blackberry.

After the iPhone came out, Android started looking like a copy of iOS.

Before iPhone came out, Android phones looked like ...?

Really? I admit I missed that. So did Google. So did Apple. So did everyone else who thought the first Android phone came out in late 2008, after the iPhone. So, can we see a picture of this crappy pre-iPhone Android phone?
post #211 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alladdinn View Post

Side question

Given the possibility/probability that Schmidt was "undercover" while at Apple; and given that Android and most of its hardware iterations copied Apple property rights, does anyone know or conjecture that Apple will at some point unleash the lawyers on Schmidt/Google? Or will they be content to sue Samsung/HTC?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecameramanny View Post

Apple Not Innovating?!?!? If Not for Apple's Innovation There would be NO ANDROID. While was Apple was innovating Schmidt was on the Apple Board of Directors and stealing ideas from Apple thus Android!

Similar to the "Macintosh/Windows" war!


The more you try to depict Schmidt was a spy stealing secrets from Apple, the more you are making out Apple executives to be idiots who were easily duped. Is that what you all think? Personally, I have more respect for Apple than that. After all, I find it hard to believe such easily duped executives could turn out such an amazingly successful quarter. Either that, or Schmidt was brilliant (and ergo, not an idiot). Which is it?
post #212 of 228
Edit- deleted
post #213 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless View Post

That SJ comment is classic example of his "distortion of reality field". As far as I know, Apple never produced any mobile phones (except the joint product with Motorola). They never made public that they are developing iPhone until it was announced, so they entered the mobile business in that January 2007 keynote.

On the other hand, the information that Android, a creator of mobile OS, has been acquired by Google was public information since 2005, so technically, Google entered the mobile business before Apple and thus it might be ES pissed at SJ, not other way around.

As said earlier, the only great thing about the patent lawsuits is that majority of those ridiculous patents get voided by the court. Boy they patented it, but they know both multitouch and pinch-to-zoom is prior art and will be primal candidate for such dismissal, if ever brought to court.

You're pretty damned sure of yourself but that doesn't mean shit to me unless you can prove that you are either Steve J., Eric S. or a patent lawyer who has worked directly with the cases you have mentioned.

So keep spouting bullshit if you want but to me it just sounds like blah blah blah until you can prove some credentials to me.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #214 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Because they were the first?

And by this logic we can confidently predict that Apple will never innovate. After all, no matter what they do we can just claim that it was the next obvious step and they just happened to get there a little sooner. And who can prove that wrong? We can't generate a control world with a different history to check.

For that matter we can conclude that no one innovates anywhere, ever, since we can always fall back on "was gong to happen anyway, someone just happened to be first" without fear of alt universe contradiction. Which renders it meaningless, of course, but it must be a comfort to the credulous and weak minded.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #215 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

It didn't work in the other thread and it's not going to fly here either...

Yeah, what does it even mean anyway?
post #216 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Google's approach to IP is different, partly because they are primarily a server side firm. Mostly rather than patent something such as their search-rank algorithm, they will prefer to keep it as a trade secret. They do have patents for example on MapReduce, but most of their IP crown jewels like BigTable and GFS are closely held secrets.

Actually they wont patent the algorithm BECAUSE it would be to easy to do it some other way(go around). Its better for them that you dont KNOW the algorithm so you will have to do the same research and trial by error as they have done over the years.

I think they do have some patents on search though. Googles search algo is constantly changing and is largely also politics so it reminds me more of coca cola and a recipe. Its not worth getting int patented if its too easy to go copy parts and go around infringing the patent so its not applicable. Its not just largely known how they sort their searches. There are a lot of info on this on the web but it definately is not the whole truth... As an advertising seller also money and politics seem to matter (atleast the money side:Google has had to admit this, they have denied it for a very long time).
post #217 of 228
Mere mortals such as us will never know what really transpired in the boardrooms, and who knew what when. I guess I just believe that if Steve Jobs felt comfortable saying, "And boy, have we patented it!" in the 2007 iPhone keynote, he must have felt pretty justified that Apple was bringing something new to the table.
post #218 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The point that you're both missing is that before the iPhone came out, Android phones looked like a cheap copy of the Blackberry.

After the iPhone came out, Android started looking like a copy of iOS.

The point you are missing is that one leaked photo of single prototype of early Android device doesn't define the entire product. There were other prototypes, including ones with full touch screen. This is no invention of Apple, not by far. I used to have Symbian phone with touch screen long before iPhone.
Android had a full touch screen mode from the day one.

Make no mistake, I still consider iPhone a breakthrough product that affected all of the competition. It proved that phone with large touch screen will be accepted well by masses, if done right. This is nothing that can be patented, though.
post #219 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

You're pretty damned sure of yourself but that doesn't mean shit to me unless you can prove that you are either Steve J., Eric S. or a patent lawyer who has worked directly with the cases you have mentioned.

So keep spouting bullshit if you want but to me it just sounds like blah blah blah until you can prove some credentials to me.


Don't have to be SJ or ES or lawyer or anyone else. Just check the facts. Android acquired by Google in 2005, this information available to public. Rubin is known as author of another mobile phone, so it is known that Google is in mobile business from 2005.

iPhone was made available to public during the Keynote in 2007. Prior that there were no mobile phones produced by Apple.

Those are the facts.

Was it really Apple's business ? I think it wasn't.
post #220 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

And by this logic we can confidently predict that Apple will never innovate. After all, no matter what they do we can just claim that it was the next obvious step and they just happened to get there a little sooner. And who can prove that wrong? We can't generate a control world with a different history to check.

For that matter we can conclude that no one innovates anywhere, ever, since we can always fall back on "was gong to happen anyway, someone just happened to be first" without fear of alt universe contradiction. Which renders it meaningless, of course, but it must be a comfort to the credulous and weak minded.

Were you sleeping thru your logic classes at University?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #221 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless View Post

Don't have to be SJ or ES or lawyer or anyone else. Just check the facts. Android acquired by Google in 2005, this information available to public. Rubin is known as author of another mobile phone, so it is known that Google is in mobile business from 2005.

iPhone was made available to public during the Keynote in 2007. Prior that there were no mobile phones produced by Apple.

Those are the facts.

Was it really Apple's business ? I think it wasn't.

Those are "your" facts... and you wouldn't know a fact if it slapped you in the face. Unless you're Steve or Eric you haven't got a clue as to who knew what and when.

I know... you read it on the internet...
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #222 of 228
deleted
post #223 of 228
The intelligence level of this article has now gone below the trolling level...
Here's my take: I love the people who said Apple only innovates. Then someone brought in the 5 things iOS 5 copied from Android (I only agree with 3 of those) and someone defended it with "Those were the next logical step in tech." So Android transitioning to touch screen devices ISN'T the next logical step? You can't have it both ways. While I agree that Android only exists because of Apple's iOS success, to say that every Android phone is a copy of the iPhone is absolutely stupid. Google isn't suing Apple over their "new" Notification Center despite the fact that it is a COMPLETE rip off of an Android function (there's not even a debate with it). Competition is GREAT for us (I don't know why so many Android and iOS fans get at each others throat). Let them innovate MORE stuff, not just sue each other into oblivion. I hate lawyers
TalkAndroid anyone?
Reply
TalkAndroid anyone?
Reply
post #224 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

Google doesn't have any patents on them.

Google has less than 500 patents, including stellar ones like the one on the doodle.

That's correct. That's because Google, like HTC is an engineering company and has a distaste for patents. I expect that like Sun which had the same DNA, it will be forced to start patenting the large number of innovations they have come up with over the past decade just to ward off patent trolls.

It's not coincidental that while Apple has been pretty much sitting on its laurels for the past couple of years, Android has gone leaps and bounds beyond iOS. About once a year, Apple attempts to narrow the gap with a new version and within a couple of months it starts widening again.

There is no doubt that Android was influenced by the original iPhone, just like there is no doubt that iOS4 and especially iOS5 has been heavily influenced by Android. Apple, I think has realized that they simply can't catch up and have resorted to lawsuits. They lost one to Kodak a couple of days ago. 8 out of 10 patents were thrown out against HTC and they implicitly admitted to having stolen Nokia's patents by paying them off.

It doesn't spell doom for Apple, but merely reflects their current status of being technologically overwhelmed.
post #225 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Those are "your" facts... and you wouldn't know a fact if it slapped you in the face. Unless you're Steve or Eric you haven't got a clue as to who knew what and when.

I know... you read it on the internet...

FYI, a good summary page on Google mobile market rumors can be found here:
http://searchengineland.com/gphone-t...timeline-10996

In a nutshell, the first patent filing by Google for mobile specific tech dates from 2001. Rumors of Google's interest in a mobile OS and related smartphones began in 2004. Android of course purchased in 2005. By 2007 there were reportedly 5 prototype Android phones with various sizes and hardware configurations being shown to Open Handset Alliance members, and yes at least one used a touchscreen. Some others may have too, dunno.

But of course no one at Apple would have been aware of any of these news items when Eric Schmidt was invited to serve on the Board. It might make someone question who was using who.

And FWIW, the "Blackberry" type Android prototype so often mentioned here actually became the Palm Pre Pro, an HTC release powered by. . . Microsoft!
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #226 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

FYI, a good summary page on Google mobile market rumors can be found here:
http://searchengineland.com/gphone-t...timeline-10996

In a nutshell, the first patent filing by Google for mobile specific tech dates from 2001. Rumors of Google's interest in a mobile OS and related smartphones began in 2004. Android of course purchased in 2005. By 2007 there were reportedly 5 prototype Android phones with various sizes and hardware configurations being shown to Open Handset Alliance members, and yes at least one used a touchscreen. Some others may have too, dunno.

But of course no one at Apple would have been aware of any of these news items when Eric Schmidt was invited to serve on the Board. It might make someone question who was using who.

And FWIW, the "Blackberry" type Android prototype so often mentioned here actually became the Palm Pre Pro, an HTC release powered by. . . Microsoft!

Don't get me wrong... I'm not on either side of this other than to say none of us will ever know the real truth... otherwise I wouldn't have put Schmidt in the equation. You can read all sorts of crap on the internet (which I have) but, still, no one will ever know other than SJ and/or ES about who knew what and when... and what prompted SJ to say what he said... that was my point... the reason behind SJ's comment about entering Apple's space. To say that it was Steve's ability to distort reality is bullshit unless you have intimate knowledge of who knew what and when.

[ on edit: Apparently Jobs was angry over the fact that Google demonstrated pinch to zoom... a key feature of iOS... and this prompted Job's comment (apparently... I read it on the interent).

http://www.businessinsider.com/steve...schmidt-2011-4
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #227 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Don't get me wrong... I'm not on either side of this other than to say none of us will ever know the real truth... otherwise I wouldn't have put Schmidt in the equation. You can read all sorts of crap on the internet (which I have) but, still, no one will ever know other than SJ and/or ES about who knew what and when... and what prompted SJ to say what he said... that was my point... the reason behind SJ's comment about entering Apple's space. To say that it was Steve's ability to distort reality is bullshit unless you have intimate knowledge of who knew what and when.

Agreed Island Hermit. To the best of my knowledge no one here knows what the current relationship between Google and Apple is, much less what prompted the partnership and resultant split. Most of the anger at Google by some Apple fans is simply because Steve Jobs (seemed he) was angry at them IMHO. No other factual basis for it since there's been no declaration from any of the 1st team players as to what really occurred over what timeline.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #228 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Agreed Island Hermit. To the best of my knowledge no one here knows what the current relationship between Google and Apple is, much less what prompted the partnership and resultant split. Most of the anger at Google by some Apple fans is simply because Steve Jobs (seemed he) was angry at them IMHO. No other factual basis for it since there's been no declaration from any of the 1st team players as to what really occurred over what timeline.

I put an edit on my earlier comment that I'm sure you've seen by now. Apparently Steve was hot but I'm still wondering who knew what and when...
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Google's Schmidt: Apple responding to Android with lawsuits, not innovation
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google's Schmidt: Apple responding to Android with lawsuits, not innovation