A couple of things come to mind. Steve Jobs may have felt he had more influence over Google than he actually did, thinking that keeping them "in the fold" might slow any plans they had for Android. And too, how better to keep up with Google's mobile planning than to have management on board with them? It's also obvious to me that Apple needed Google's products and cooperation for the iPhone to be the product that Mr. Jobs envisioned at the time.
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
No.
Was it wrong to not give credit where credit is due, to shameless copy (or "let" the OEMs do it) UI animations, UI functionality, etc.? yes.
At this point, Android =/= Google, Android is much more Samsung than Google. Only Samsung makes money from it.. How many more months can other OEMs handle and support this loosing business?
That's just what he eventually did. He was apparently willing to live with Google's Android development as long as they drew the line at multi-touch. When Palm introduced the feature and Apple chose for whatever reason not to go after them for it, Brin and Company decided they needed to do the same if they were to compete. That's the part that really set Mr. Jobs off. IMO Google was doing what they felt was best for their business, just as Apple was. There's no friends in business.
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
Tallest Skil's post has to be among the top 3 funniest posts I've ever seen here, and I can't even think of any others right now.
The funniest part is the pause it takes to figure out what is. It took me 0.5 seconds to recognize Jeff G and then 1.0 seconds to get the scene.
Then 0.000001 seconds to come up with the line.
I don't even want to cheapen it by typing it.
Well done Sir!
[Too Bad it was necessary].
(1) Samsung is the only OEM making money from it. Samsung is the only one benefitting from it.
(2) So that's why HTC is dying a slow death, selling less and less, making less and less, loosing more and more. Same with Motorola. Same with Sony.
I understand that right know, Samsung is the only one really copying apple (thanks to their skin), but since all other OEMs are dying and samsung represents the success of android, they must pay for that. Also, not long ago, pretty much any OEMs used a lot of copyrighted UI features, thinking that apple wasn't strong enough to going head on against all of them. XDA roms still show a huge lack of respect for copyrighted/patented UI features. Android is based on lack of respect and crime.
Google should do something about this. Custom apps should be allowed, skins? No.
I would really like to play with a Nexus phone.
the solid evidence was in the goracle trail , showing the google made a massive UI change when Schmidt was on the board and saw the iphone. It was went from a blackberry clone to an iphone clone, there was no dual design path, just one that changed radically. This is why Jobs felt betrayed and was saying to Schmidt "you stole from us".
That's not evidence, that's just your view of things - one that many will disagree with.
Google were working on Blackberry style phone with physical keyboards and a stylus, prior to 2007, the year the iPhone was released. Fact. The Android OS was written with no multitouch UI. Fact. Nine months after the iPhone was released, Google announced their iPhone like multitouch phones. Fact. The reason for the touch lag was because the multitouch UI was hastily written over the top of the original Android OS, not written into it. (A total rewrite would have put them a further year behind). Fact. These things are all fact. The fact google were heading down the blackberry path with their phones before the iPhone was developed, then did a 180° and followed exactly what Apple did while Schmidt was on the Apple board, is clear as the nose on your face. Why do your type deny it? Steve Jobs wouldn't claim iOS was stolen by a friend if he didn't actually know it to be true. Steve Jobs wouldn't have declared thermonuclear war on google just on hearsay.
The only FUD being practiced is from those denying that it happen.
Do yourself a favour and read some FACTS. http://www.phonearena.com/news/Steve-Jobs-vowed-revenge-on-Eric-Schmidt-over-Android_id23152
And where in any of that does it state that Schmidt abused his position while on the Apple board? Nowhere. I'm not disputing the fact that Android was influenced by iOS, just this crap that it was Schmidt that did it. Nobody, ever, anywhere or at any time has provided any sort of evidence that this happened, its all just conjecture and hearsay.
Just because you can't afford a contractless Galaxy S 3. Tsssk.
Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.
Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.
That's not evidence, that's just your view of things - one that many will disagree with.
And where in any of that does it state that Schmidt abused his position while on the Apple board? Nowhere. I'm not disputing the fact that Android was influenced by iOS, just this crap that it was Schmidt that did it. Nobody, ever, anywhere or at any time has provided any sort of evidence that this happened, its all just conjecture and hearsay.
I think Schmidt would have been convicted very, very fast, if it so were.
Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.
Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.
Excellent suggestion!
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
That statement grates on me like the meatbags people who say, "People who have their movies, music, and applications pirated don't lose anything."
Google's founders wanted Steve Jobs to be their CEO.
Can you imagine? So that when Steve came back to Apple, he would have been bringing not only the OS to save them, but also the search engine to not only tear down Yahoo!, but become the foundation for what would become Spotlight within OS X itself.
And NONE of this crap would be happening now. "Google" would just be an old name of a product within Apple.
Of course, you'd have to think of the tradeoffs. There'd probably be no self-driving car initiative (the one that has still yet to be released or show anything for), no advertising (so, probably some actual privacy), no…
I nearly always do. You seldom mince words even if you and I don't often agree.
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
These behemoths end up extinct vis-à-vis MS. Stay stong and carry on.
You are delusional if you think Microsoft has a chance at the consumer handset market. MS made its money by having a shitty operating system that was adopted by businesses and needed a team of IT staff to keep it running. The IT staff and MS are interdependent on each other to ensure their existence in a corporate environment. I'm confident that business will continue to print money for the foreseeable future. However, MS and the bufoons running that company have zero chance of being a player in the consumer electronics market.
Here are the reasons: First, Microsoft can't pimp its software because Android is free. Why would anyone pay for MS software when they can get Android for free? Secondly, MS can't compete in the hardware business because they don't have consumer electronics distribution channels, they don't have an attractive brand, and they don't have a high volume manufacturing machine in place.
MS is desperately trying both approaches, but they are failing. They partnered with Nokia, which has manufacturing and distribution channels, but Nokia is on its way down. If MS wanted to succeed, it should have partnered with a company with growth potential, like Samsung and they should have done it in 2008. Of course, MS wasn't ready in 2008 (mostly because it didn't have its CEO sitting on the board of Apple to get inside information that could be used to betray apple). In the market today, companies with growth potential will not use MS software unless it is free like Android. With regard to the second approach, they are trying to manufacture their own hardware and set up stores, but it is too little too late. Apple had stores to sell other products like iPods and the accessories that go with them (and their own line of computers). It was quite easy to add tablets and phones to the existing culture. In contrast, MS has a chicken vs egg problem. It can't justify thousands of stores without hundreds of millions in sales, but it can't get hundreds of millions in sales without thousands of stores. Google on the other hand had a different way to make money off its free OS (i.e., advertising) and it was the first one to partner with companies that had manufacturing and distribution channels (because it had inside knowledge of the Apple products).
Anyone that thinks there is any competition between Apple and Microsoft doesn't understand the current market.
This has got to be the dumbest question of the whole interview. There is no way Apple would let this guy near the CEO position. Not to mention Google already removed Schmidt (supposedly a promotion) as CEO and Apple kicked him off the board. And Schmidt's response about the "most cash" is really quite a commentary on his leadership of Google vis-a-vis Jobs. So why would any of those three companies want this joker as CEO?
I'm not an expert on Schmidt, but don't you think calling him a "joker" is a bit off the mark. Steve Balmer is a joke, but what has Schmidt done to deserve to be placed in the same category? Hasn't Google been successful under Schmidt? The fact that Schmidt was a scoundrel for using his position on the board at Apple to position Google to compete with Apple doesn't make him a joker. It makes him a dirty SOB. Nevertheless, it was a shrewd thing to do and hugely benefited Google. I don't think it disqualifies him for running any those companies.
In fact, maybe Apple should hire Schmidt. I'm sure he would have no problem throwing Google under the bus if Apple paid him some money to do it. Hey, business is business right.
Err, maybe because Schmidt did nothing wrong? Makes me laugh whenever this is brought up. Please, show me some solid evidence that Schmidt did anything underhand whilst on the Apple board. And by evidence I don't mean hearsay and the thoughts of paranoid posters on this forum.
People seriously need to stop posting this piece of FUD.
Despite what many think, circumstantial evidence is admissible in court (see Federal Rules of Evidence section 401). The circumstantial evidence in this case is reasonably adequate. Android was a blackberry knockoff and then became an iOS knockoff 3 years before the rest of the industry could produce an iOS knockoff. There is no way Android came to market so fast and so good without working on it prior to the iPhone release. We're just now seeing MS release a knockoff and RIM won't have their knockoff until next year. Those three years were absolutely critical.
The argument that Apple and Google compete in different markets doesn't hold water. There are many people that would pony up for an iPhone if there weren't a suitable alternative. The argument that Apple can't meet demand is also baseless. Apple only fails to make demand at launch. What about the other 3-12 months of the year. That is when Apple would have kept selling more devices but for Google. Apple may have had 60-80% of the market right now, but for Schmidt's breach of fiduciary duty to Apple shareholders.
Despite what many think, circumstantial evidence is admissible in court (see Federal Rules of Evidence section 401). The circumstantial evidence in this case is reasonably adequate. Android was a blackberry knockoff and then became an iOS knockoff 3 years before the rest of the industry could produce an iOS knockoff. There is no way Android came to market so fast and so good without working on it prior to the iPhone release. We're just now seeing MS release a knockoff and RIM won't have their knockoff until next year. Those three years were absolutely critical.
Ash, do yourself a favor and check when Schmidt became a member of Apple's board and then when the iPhone and it's features were publicly announced by Apple. Then tell me how you arrive at that giving Google a three year head start on MS and Blackberry even if he had an iPhone hidden in his back pocket the first day he walked out of the boardroom at Apple.
(hmmmm... Aug. 29, 2006 to January 7th, 2007 is how long?)
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
Because they're not Apple. That's really part of it.
Look, Google had Android in 2005! They had that stuff, the knockoff of BlackBerryOS, the foundation for the entire phone OS, all the way back then. And they threw all that UI out the door when the iPhone knowledge came to them (however it came). And even then, when the first Android phone went out the door, it didn't have multitouch. It's astonishing how much time seems to have been wasted when you compare it with Apple's development.
And now it's really just churning out the absolute bare minimum crap possible as fast as humanly possible. And there's penetration; because of perceived price.
Dichotomously polarizing people into two extreme categories, while conceptually convenient, fails to accurately describe reality. In fact, these kind of statements distort the truth, and historically and philosophically, contribute to the wide scope of problems which characterize the human condition.
The generalization made is not only "conceptually convenient" it's mostly true, it's easy to understand and it gets to the point.
I get Anan's point...and he also responded with relevant facts/statistics.
Sometimes, people need to just absorb/understand the point being made (unless it's at the expense of unnecessary hate, violence or oppresion...which it obviously wasn't) instead of taking it personally.
Because they're not Apple. That's really part of it.
Look, Google had Android in 2005! They had that stuff, the knockoff of BlackBerryOS, the foundation for the entire phone OS, all the way back then. And they threw all that UI out the door when the iPhone knowledge came to them (however it came). And even then, when the first Android phone went out the door, it didn't have multitouch. It's astonishing how much time seems to have been wasted when you compare it with Apple's development.
And now it's really just churning out the absolute bare minimum crap possible as fast as humanly possible. And there's penetration; because of perceived price.
Heck TS, you almost sound as tho you're on the side that Schmidt didn't steal a darn thing from Apple. Three years after the iPhone was announced before Android had multi-touch? Two years after the iPhone before they could even get a smartphone to market at all? Geesh a good thief woulda had better secrets than that.
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
I'm not really seeing it. You must be crazy.
Thing about copying is that when that's all you know how to do, you can't do very much else very well at all.
Maybe they should have copied the tricks of Daniel Ocean.
I've never seen Chrome bundled with 3rd party software, nor that it's installed without their knowledge, but it's certainly possible someone has. Which software is installing Chrome behind users' backs?. Perhaps you're thinking of that Ask Toolbar, which isn't the easiest thing to get rid of?
EDIT: I just noticed several pages back that you've already had fun with the Ask Toolbar. That's a particularly sneaky install. I've seen it buried a few pages in. The Yahoo Toolbar is another that seems to appear out of nowhere.
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
melior diabolus quem scies
"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012
