Google CEO Larry Page says rivalries with Apple & Amazon hurt users - Page 2

Pretty much.

I love some of google services, mainly because its usually the best "free" option in most cases.  But there's nothing "friendly" about the way the do business.

An oft-repeated claim that doesn't even make sense.

First off, Jobs _NEVER_ accused Schmidt of stealing anything from board meetings.  He only went "thermonuclear" three years after the iPhone debut, when Google finally turned on multi-touch.   At that point, Jobs called Google copiers... as if Apple had invented multi-touch, which they did not.

Google bought Android back in mid-2005.  Suddenly Apple became very interested in making a phone as well and started creating the first iPod based UI test mules.  A year later, Apple _invites_ Schmidt to their board.   Who was spying on whom?

Finally, Schmidt was only in a few months' meetings (at which we don't even know if he was shown anything... heck, Apple didn't even show the iPhone to the CEO of Cingular until late December 2006) before the iPhone debut in 2007.   After that, anyone could copy it.  You sure didn't need someone invited to the Apple board to do that.

It was symbiotic, as Apple needed Google's help.  By Nov 2006 the iPhone had no Maps app.  It sure didn't have cell location or YouTube, either.  They had to rush to add the Maps before the debut two months later, and that only happened because Google bent over backwards to help them.   No doubt Schmidt helped.   Can you imagine the debut without Maps?  It was a major feature.   So was YouTube and location services later that year.

Everyone looks at others' stuff.   For example, it took a 7" Samsung tablet to convince Apple and Jobs to do the iPad Mini.

It's like Apple having their CEO on Google's board while planning to build a search engine to compete head to head with Google's. Google knew what they were doing and they kept Eric as close to Apple as they could until right before they went public with their iOS clone. Greasy and dishonest to say the least.

from Wired: It began back in 2002, soon after the iPod, when Jobs realized that the convergence of mobile phones and music players would force Apple to get into the mobile phone business.

An oft-repeated claim that doesn't even make sense.

First off, Jobs _NEVER_ accused Schmidt of stealing anything from board meetings.  He only went "thermonuclear" three years after the iPhone debut, when Google finally turned on multi-touch.   At that point, Jobs called Google copiers... as if Apple had invented multi-touch, which they did not.

Google bought Android back in mid-2005.  Suddenly Apple became very interested in making a phone as well and started creating the first iPod based UI test mules.  A year later, Apple _invites_ Schmidt to their board.   Who was spying on whom?

Finally, Schmidt was only in a few months' meetings (at which we don't even know if he was shown anything... heck, Apple didn't even show the iPhone to the CEO of Cingular until late December 2006) before the iPhone debut in 2007.   After that, anyone could copy it.  You sure didn't need someone invited to the Apple board to do that.

It was symbiotic, as Apple needed Google's help.  By Nov 2006 the iPhone had no Maps app.  It sure didn't have cell location or YouTube, either.  They had to rush to add the Maps before the debut two months later, and that only happened because Google bent over backwards to help them.   No doubt Schmidt helped.   Can you imagine the debut without Maps?  It was a major feature.   So was YouTube and location services later that year.

Everyone looks at others' stuff.   For example, it took a 7" Samsung tablet to convince Apple and Jobs to do the iPad Mini.

Interestingly, Apple's current Chairman of the Board was also on both Apple and Google's board from 2004-2009.   Should people accuse him of stealing ideas from Google?    Hardly.  Board members are smarter than that.  If anything happened on either side, they would've been booted off and legal action taken.

Interestingly, Apple's current Chairman of the Board was also on both Apple and Google's board from 2004-2009.   Should people accuse him of stealing ideas from Google?    Hardly.  Board members are smarter than that.  If anything happened on either side, they would've been booted off and legal action taken.

Google's CEO was sitting on Apple's board, being privy to Apple's plans and products while at the same time planning to compete with their "partner" by producing basically a clone of Apple's work. That is beyond a sh*tty thing to do to your "partner". Eric, should have "excused himself" from Apple's board long before, while stating that they were planning to compete "head to head" with Apple... but then again think of all of the intel he wouldn't have been able to gather if he did that.

Eric Schmidt was essentially a mole on Apple's board. Google wanted to be sure that their maps, search and YouTube was on Apple's devices so they could harvest user data AND gain insight on Apple's products and plans. Had Apple known what Google was planning, their is no way in hell that Eric Schmidt would have been allowed anywhere near the Apple campus let alone sit on their board. Steve was furious because he was betrayed by a snake posing as a partner.

from Wired: It began back in 2002, soon after the iPod, when Jobs realized that the convergence of mobile phones and music players would force Apple to get into the mobile phone business.

yes, they would show a third party an internal device before they show the Board. I don't know if you know anything about Boards, but they are involved at a high level at what the business goals are. I assume an iPhone fitted that criteria.

can you imagine it without Maps? i know ,so tragic because other phones had maps at the time, what no?

Regardless, if they were planning to go from a "partner" to competing "head on" with Apple in the exact same space, Eric should have resigned from Apple's board long before he did.

I agree with that.  For that matter, Eric should've left the moment he realized that Steve was trying to play on Schmidt's admiration for him, in order to try to stop Android.  Remember, Eric idolized Jobs.

The fact is, Schmidt didn't sneak onto the board.  Jobs, even knowing that Google was working on a phone, invited him. 

For anyone who needs to see a conspiracy, the evidence overwhelmingly points to Jobs wanting to know what Google was doing, and to try to convince them to not do anything similar.

Regardless, if they were planning to go from a "partner" to competing "head on" with Apple in the exact same space, Eric should have resigned from Apple's board long before he did. The fact that he hung around as long as he possibly could before resigning from the board speaks pretty loudly. He was gathering intel. Any way you slice it, the way that Google handled this is greasy and no way to treat your "partner". As I said, if Apple's CEO sat on their board all the while planning compete head on with them in search, it would be equally greasy. Come on! Google basically cloned iOS for crying out loud.

Uh yeah, but Apple wasn't competing with them in head to head in search, so what's your point?

What a bunch of self-serving BS from this sociopath. Yeah, Larry, it's a shame that everyone won't just roll over and let you control everything, a real shame.

Wow, I'm surprised you could fit so many misrepresentations of facts into a single post. It's a nice little fairy tale you present, but...

First off, you are just making this part up. It's a nice little tale you are telling, but, frankly, I don't think you are in a position to have this knowledge. I doubt very much that Jobs was fine with Android until they turned on multitouch, and your little tale contradicts what I have heard. But, at least I'm not pretending I have the inside story. Please don't make stuff up and pass it off as facts. We already have another poster here who does that and we don't need another.

The "Android" Google bought in 2005 bears no resemblance to the Android we know today. The only thing they have in common is the name. So, this other OS called "Android", that Google bought in 2005, is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I'm sure you know that, but thought that you could get away with saying it anyway. You didn't. So give up that story too.

Since this part of your fiction depends on the first, we'll just dismiss it as part of the tale.

This next paragraph is perhaps the most entertaining, a beautiful little "just so" story. But, the idea that Google did the heavy lifting so the iPhone could be born is beyond ludicrous. There would have been an iPhone even if Google had never existed. Google's only involvement was to steal everything they could from it. So enough of this fantasy as well.

Lastly, "Everyone looks at others' stuff" != "Everyone steals others' stuff". And, yes, you were certainly attempting to promote that equivalence. You failed, miserably.

If you're going to post here, try to be a little more honest, less disingenuous, than your posts to date. As I said above, we already have more than enough people coming here to spin fictitious versions of reality. We don't need any more of that.

Yet users keep wanting more Apple gear.

Know what, Larry? Users don't actually give a shit. All these company-driven declarations about what you *think* users really want, are just that: company-driven propaganda. 

THE PROOF IS IN THE PRODUCT. Apple products = insane demand, lineups, and the hunger for more. WITH or WITHOUT Google Maps and Streetview. 

Make Android suck a little less on tablets, and then *maybe* you can talk about what users actually want, you imbecile.  

Wow, I'm surprised you could fit so many misrepresentations of facts into a single post. It's a nice little fairy tale you present, but...

If you're going to post here, try to be a little more honest, less disingenuous, than your posts to date. As I said above, we already have more than enough people coming here to spin fictitious versions of reality. We don't need any more of that.

Your reply is right on target.  Note that he cleverly used the words that Google "turned on multitouch" to make it looking like Google had this feature in Android from the beginning not stealing/copying from the iPhone. 

I would work on taking your own advice.

Some people blindly repeat Jobs' clever comment that Apple wasn't getting into search, without stopping to think about it.

Google's business isn't search.   It's selling ads.  Search is just one primary way of doing that.   Apple now also sells ads.   Apple is indeed competing with Google's business.

Google didn't write the original iPhone apps.  They provided APIs and Apple wrote their own apps.

Don't forget Apple's penchant for secrecy.  Even inside Apple, only a tiny few developers ever saw the iPhone hardware and software together.

Cheers!

because it appears no one else does.

Except that they aren't competing head-on with Apple. Google uses services to expand their advertising revenues. Apple sells hardware, with the software side being a necessary evil in some cases, at least in my view. Other than both offering an OS the two business plans don't have much in common really.