Rumor: iPhone made up 66% of sales at AT&T corporate stores, Android 9% - Page 4

Android in 2005 is not the same as Android OS that came out in 2008. There are many ways in which Google could have used that mobile OS. From vending machines to in-car systems and so on. What proof do you have that Google bought Android with plans to use it as a phone OS back in 2005. I have seen none. What I have seen is Google switch Android's focus on many occasions to suit various changes in the market. They even locked down Android at one point. Not exactly a well honed idea they are working with.

Maybe ConradJoe will have some insights for us.

Time will tell. 2012 is the first full year of Larry Page CEO. We'll see if he continues to streamline and focus Google.

Hand over fist? Trying the old desperate trick of putting words into someone's mouth and then attacking them?

Financial disaster? Hardly

Well established? Hardly. This is based on anecdotes. Yes, the anecdotes are from Google itself. But people here seem to think Google executives are dishonest SOBs. Why believe them when it suits your purpose? If one understands how corporate acquisitions are carried out, one would understand that it didn't happen as simply as Brin or Page just proceeding without anyone else knowing.


Again, this is a reasonable extrapolation but hardly well established. You really need to fact-check. But why bother if it does not suit your thesis.


Like hell it is. You throw the words "well established" around like it is bottled water.


Search. Mobile OS. AI-based navigation system. Google+. Are these all counted as one trick? Oh you're talking about the fact that they monetize all of them from selling ads? In that case, Apple is a one-trick pony because they make money mostly from manufacturing goods and selling them for a profit. Stupid Apple - just a pathetic one-trick pony regardless of how many iDevices and Macbooks it produces. Same old, same old. Just repeating same old trick of designing and selling computers and devices year after year, decade after decade. Someone needs to save Apple before it's too late.


Spaced out, circular logic indeed.

If you want to keep spouting that Google is stupid and evil on all counts, go ahead. For your sake, I really hope you're just acting intransigent because you think it gives the appearance of intelligence, and don't actually believe everything you write.

Sigh ...

Doesn't a post like this violate the user agreement?

http://9to5mac.com/2011/09/21/google...om-apples-ios/
This link shows where the 2/3s statement comes from which was part of sworn testimony in front of a government body.

No.. I'm pointing out his/her faulty logic.

The burden of proof is always on those making a claim not those who deny a claim made without evidence and even in the face of contradictory evidence.

Actually... we don't know what Android looked like back then.

Android Beta wasn't revealed until November 2007... 10 months after the iPhone. And it still looked like Blackberry OS.

I have a feeling Google will never show a timeline of photos of Android's development.

Actually, you're disguising a personal attack as a 'lesson'. Nothing more, nothing less.

And given it matches well with web utilization stats, it makes sense. I am sure you believe what you want to in spite of data.

No I'm using an extreme example of why his/her logic is flawed.

According to GTR it is up to her/him to provide evidence that what I said is incorrect.

Also...don't quote mine me if what you quote skews my point. It's another dishonest tactic in debates especially on an internet forum.

It was made as a mobile phone OS.

That's not an extreme example. It's a personal attack. There are literally thousands of other negatives you can't disprove that would have worked as an example, but you went right for the 'you molest boys and girls' for the attack value.

As for not quoting 'mine me', I cut it down to the part I found in bad taste. I'm not going to quote 2 pages of an online discussion just to get to your insult to another board member, the insult itself is enough.

I guess we have vastly different definitions of "bombard"

If you're offended, do something about it. I use shock-worthy tactics to get my points across. If you want to cry about it being a veiled personal attack and not an undeniable proof of GTRs faulty logic then that's on you.

Yes. Billions out and 100's of million in. You claim Google has found a clever way to monetize Android. I claim it is a money sink. MMI's purchase. Android's purchase. IBM Patent purchases. The list goes on. Yes I own both AAPL and GOOG. I am glad to see Larry reigning in many of the Google projects and getting some focus.


Don't you mean Google's CEO? Yes, it is well established.


Again, you choose not believe the published on the record data when it does not hold to your world view. Unless you are saying Google will lie to the Senate.


Touched a nerve? You don't like adding up all those financials do you? Might hurt your world view. Add what Google has been paying to try and protect Android and see where you get. It is a big number. Really really big.


Yep. One trick. Are you telling me Google lies on their financials (and to Senate committees)?

MobileOS? What is the monetization?
Google+? What is the monetization?
Google Nav (hardly AI based)? What is the monetization?

Google Search? Dude, that is the cash cow. The rest is like Apple's iTunes revenue. Small.


And you can worship everything Google does as unfettered brillance. Do I think Google is Evil? Since they did Google Books and the wholesale copyright theft of millions of works HELL YES. As evil and BP and the most corrupt of oil companies. I have no idea how Larry Page thought Google Books was even remotely legal, ethical, right or a good idea.

Stupid on all accounts? Nope. They have an amazing search technology. They had great fast follower status on Android but I think they have made some very serious legal/financial missteps that have cost them dearly financially and will continue to cost them for years to come.

And yes, I have used Android quiet a bit. Has some nice aspects. Has lots of not nice aspects.

iOS has lots of nice aspects. it has some not nice aspects.

For usage, iOS is much more pleasant to use.

Very well then, let's shift the burden of proof: you disprove the theory that Schmidt took iPhone knowledge to Google to the Android project. No cop outs that it's circumstantial, that it took 2 years, etc. Prove, in painstaking details, how and why Eric Schmidt could not have possibly taken insider information to Google about the iPhone.


See, you can't win that side of the argument either.

Great idea for a courtroom ploy!

Defendant:
"Your honor, let's shift the burden of proof and disprove the theory the prosecuting attorney did it"

I have adblock, so I can't see what you're talking about.

Why doesn't everyone have adblock? Seriously. No ads. Ever!

Indeed. I remember a few years back being confused at seeing people complain on YouTube that they had to watch ads before the video actually played. Not to mention the pop-up ads during the videos.

I've had Click2Flash and AdBlock since they were first available, so I never knew that was the case.

While I understand it's hard to prove/disprove a negative or non-facts/perceptions; you could help your cause with some(more?) published facts/timelines etc(contradictory evidence). Granted I skimmed these through these posts... So if contradictory evidence was given I apologize.

I have Block Pop-Up WIndows, and Ghostery and Click-To-Flash extensions. That suits me just fine. All the other ads that appear on sites aren't as in-your-face so I can easily ignore them. Does anyone actually click on Google's suggestions?

Once a user is banned there is little sense in replying to them.

So he was "kicked out of the mobile world at the stroke of a pen. "

Too soon?

Who cares?

Was it due to one particular post/thread or just an overall pattern of being too aggressive? Just curious.

Ah, there lies the rub. Schmidt didn't tell the Senate that Google generated 2/3 out mobile ad revenue from iOS. It was something close to that fact, but not quite - hence my point about this being one of the most misunderstood factoids in 2011.


I'm not referring to maps, dude.

Did I say that? I have stated my share of concerns about Google tactics. Similarly, I have spoken up against Apple and iOS when I felt it was right.


Now I call that fair and open-minded commentary.

That's really not a reasonable demand - the basic tenet of "innocent until proven guilty" requires the party making the accusation to be responsible for supplying some evidence, and to some level, proof, that the accusation is true.

And that was AbsoluteDesignz's point, even if made a bit clumsily; you can't just make an accusation, provide no evidence, and then shout "prove that's not true".

It most likely was due to a post that included a veiled but way harsh personal insult.

Like I said, it was a reasonable extrapolation but it is oh so important not to distort what was truly stated, and what wasn't. I feel it is important to be precise in this instance, since Schmidt's statement in the Senate hearing on this issue has been consistently distorted, here and elsewhere.

BB clone? In hardware perhaps (which was not Google's doing), but not the software. But I agree Android then was a distant ancestor of what it is today.

But what is distorted? Google makes most of its revenue in search/mobile advertising. Google acknowledges that 2/3s of its mobile searches are from ios devices AND third party studies backs that up. It's not like someone is saying, "2/3s of web search comes from ios devices therefore Google is selling nukes to Iran."

I'm sure that was it, but it was obviously a construct to prove logical absurdity, and not a real insult. To construe it any other way is either disingenuous or not very bright.

It's not surprising that Android likely changed course after iOS appeared, but does anyone have any data to suggest that both were not originally independently under development as phone OSs?

Oh, I understand what he was trying to do, but it seemed way harsh and extreme (IMHO obviously).

They are! Damn. Wait til MacRumor's gets hold of that. Paired with the 40% return rate on Android smart-phones claim that originated there, Google is doomed!

Lol. That return rate article was pretty hilarious. Maybe the "source" for the Iran article can come from an anonymous Sprint employee.

And in courts around the world, one patent at a time, Apple is proving that bits and pieces of the Android OS infringe on iOS. Is this not the court agreeing that Android has infringed (outside the tech world known as 'stolen') parts of Apple's patented intellectual property? If more and more of these infringement cases fall Apple's way, the Android will be shown to be a blatant rip off.

Steve Jobs himself ranted to Eric Schmidt about Android being a 'stolen product'. Steve knew a thing or two about having his company's properties stolen before, which was probably why he was so adamant about Google not pinching Apple's IP this time.

Except that wasn't the allegation. It wasn't whether or not Google copied Apple. The allegation was that Eric Schmidt personally gave details of Apple's iPhone plans to Google. IMHO this is pretty unlikely as everyone knew Google was working on Android even before Schmidt joined Apple so therefore he would not have been given details of the iPhone project (Schmidt had to excuse himself whenever the board discussed the iPhone). The most he could have done is confirm rumors that Apple was working on a phone. Schmidt probably had to wait for the public unveiling to see what the design and UI looked like.

All it really demonstrates is that any software program, much less an entire OS, is only a collection of hundreds or thousands, or tens of thousands of different ideas put together in a unique way. Yet with some of those individual ideas likely given patents somewhere in year's past for a different need in a different product by someone perhaps working on a totally unrelated issue to yours, your product can be ripped asunder no matter how uniquely it was developed, or how creative the idea.

That's what software patents do. It matters little if your finished product is original if there's one idea buried in there that someone thought of before. . . which is darn likely.

But that's the hand that's been dealt and the cards get played.

Not in this case since the ideas being defended although started in a different product category are still being implemented by the same company in a different product category that competes with the infringer. It's not Apple's fault that it had decades of experience in desktop computing that it then used in mobile computing.