Google CEO digs into rival tech companies, says industry needs more innovation - Page 4

 

I just told you, why are you asking me again?

 

If you knew anything about Android at all you should know exactly what I'm talking about. You claim Wired targeted their interview for consumers (which is why they left out talking about Google's contributions to the internet and servers). I'm targeting my comment towards programmers/developers. If you don't know anything about software engineering, then there's no point in me going any further. I'm not here to educate you before I can even have a discussion with you.

 

 

You just showed your complete ignorance. Because you can flash a ROM means an OS is open source? ROFL.......ok I'm back.

 

Everyone who develops software knows Android is far from open. Of all the open source projects in the world Android was voted the "least open".

 

You can take Android source code and fully modify it to your needs if you like. This is what Amazon did and also Alibaba in China when they made Aliyun (Google claims Aliyun is an Android fork, Alibaba claims it's a Linux OS that also happens to run Android Apps). When you do this you lose access to many Google services. Funny how Google restricts access to modified versions of Android. Sounds pretty open to me.

 

Android OEM's who make smartphones are members of the OHA, and have strict rules to follow in terms of what they can to do Android. Ask Acer about this when they decided to make a smartphone running Aliyun. Google put the pressure on and prevented Acer from releasing a phone for a company that took Android source code and modified it (like Amazon has done). They did this literally the day before Acer was going to announce the phone. So not only does Google force you to follow their rules, they also prevent you from releasing hardware that runs another OS. Imagine if Google told Samsung they couldn't release any Windows 8 phones?

 

Sorry, but anyone who claims Android is Open Source is an idiot.

Read the report again especially page 41 and by way you shot yourself in the foot long time ago, with this comment below:

 

 

Lies android is fully open source, what is not open source are google apps (gmail, maps, youtube) and the google play store. 

 

ANDROID IS FULLY OPEN. I should know, I have flash many android phones with ASOP. stop spreading lies. 

 

Thats why your viewpoints are not credible!, now you are saying there are degrees of openness, when you stated yourself it was 'FULLY OPEN'.

 

 

factual evidence please, not your twisted mind thoughts!

 

Android isn't licenced under the GNU GPL.  The modifications they made to the Linux kernel were of course released under the GPL (and eventually reincorporated into the kernel as of version 3.7), but the user space, which consists of the Dalvik VM and other Java bits, is licenced under the Apache licence, which doesn't require anyone to open source any bits if they don't want to. 

 

http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html

 

Google has abided by all the licencing terms it's legally bound to.  Maybe do some research before spreading FUD?

 

True, to some extent. But Google is one of a number of innovators in this area.

 

 

 

Now that's taking it to an absurd level. Can you name the specific innovations used by Facebook and Apple that could not be replaced by something else?

 

Chrome is a broken pile of crap. It's right up there with Firefox. Both are resource hogs that can't scale for squat.

 

Without WebKit and LLVM/Clang Chrome nor Chrome OS exists.

 

Without KDE's KHTML Webkit wouldn't exist...

 

Google contributes very well to WebKit. Nothing in WebKit is KHTML/KJS. QtWebKit is a contribution from Nokia that later KDE modifies [begrudgingly] to KParts and their KHTML/KJS kludge which is now getting gutted for a straight QtWebKit. Google didn't start contributing well to WebKit until long after Safari was released.

 

Google splashed with their separation model that every wooed about and then Apple introduced WebKit 2 that stomps on that model and now Google Chrome is adopting a fork of it, plus custom code for their Android [parts they don't open source]. Apple gets called a non-opensource company when it's clear there is plenty of FOSS APSL code around, not to mention without CUPS funding and fully adopting to grow Linux Printing is DOA and that goes for Chrome OS.

 

LLVM/Clang will be the defacto standard compiler for Debian in 2 years, FreeBSD already, OS X already, Chrome OS already, SONY, IBM, Intel shortly, AMD already, Nvidia, CRAY, and much more.

 

The innovations in hardware alone by Apple in advanced manufacturing have completely redesigned markets 99.9999% of the globe don't have a clue about.

I do not know but higher the score the more credible you would be stating, you are FULLY OPEN SOURCE. Now you provide me factual evidence that Google is FULLY OPEN SOURCE, as you stated, since reading your comments, you have tried now state there are OPEN SOURCE, which means completely different.

Seems to attack people, but I not falling for your strategy and still waiting for MORE factual evidence.

 

Seems to me I provided that Android is far from FULLY OPEN SOURCE!

 

Horse crap. Apple dumped that pile of junk and started from scratch. They brought out WebKit and KDE fanbois continue to discuss WebKit as a fork of KHTML/KJS, a real pile of junk code base.

Also keep in mind the V8 Javascript engine was developed by Google.  No doubt one of the reasons JavaScript (and languages that compile to JS) are so popular today. 
 

This is typical CEO speak for "We're not innovating at all but hey look neither are our competitors so Wall Street should ding our competitors and not us." 

I notice a lot of people confuse the words invention and innovation. Some people on this site praise one companies innovations while ignoring another saying it is not important. It seems some people let there hatred/love for one company or another blind them to the truth open your eyes and look at the real innovation these companies are working on. 

 

Besides RIM is the only ones innovating 

"Also keep in mind the V8 Javascript engine was developed by Google. No doubt one of the reasons JavaScript (and languages that compile to JS) are so popular today. "

V8 JavaScript - hmmm. Developed by Google . Intristn. Wonder why they did that ?
Browser security anyone ?
Edited by RobM - 1/17/13 at 11:18pm

Yet another douchebag throwing around the word "innovation" without knowing what it really means. I'm sick to death of this word.

Wow, that may be the most clueless, perspective-lacking and downright dishonest thing I've heard come out of Google since Eric Schmidt walked out of Apple Board meetings with his notes on how to make a phone.

Just two words can destroy his vain efforts at excoriating  Apple on innovation and risk .....  Apple Newton.

@Techstalker Thanks for the links man ¡


Oh Google, you'd do anything, won't you?



link

--

Like trolls on AI, you mean?

Page's comments fall flat on Google's real successes. Yes, they had a better search algorithm than Yahoo & the others & they've kept ahead of pace with their competition in that respect. Though I can't say their search results are always dead on or that accurate in every instance. Google should give greater priority to that extent. That would be Page's Steve Jobs moment when he introduced the Apple Computer or the Macintosh or the iPhone. Every other commercial success is just playing catchup or creating an incremental improvement over the competition. Some people consistently find fault in others where they themselves stumble. Page was really describing Google & why it's really been a 1 trick pony

Cheers !

ironic.

 

Fortunately, there are a lot of experienced programmers on this forum.  

 

Please tell us what IPC mechanism that Google "stole" from Apple.   Has Apple sued them over a patent?   (And no, obviously accidental infringement doesn't count.  That's not stealing, which is the word you used.)

 

Thanks ahead of time for the details.

ROTFLMAO.

Changed browsing forever? Care to explain how that worked? What did Chrome do that changed browsing to any significant extent?

Oh, and btw, please explain how it's a Google innovation when it's based on Webkit with a few UI tweaks.

 

 

Hey Larry, if you didn't want to do something that's basically the same thing, then why did Google come out with Android?  IDIOT.

 

I hope Google finds out that those glasses they are working on are useless and won't be that successful.  I personally wear prescription glasses and would have to buy more expensive Google glasses to use and I am NOT going to do that.  There are enough distractions in life and to have a pair of glasses that further distracts someone by having information popping up in front of them is just distracting and they may find out that it's rather dangerous to wear these glasses.  They might have people walking around bumping into people and things because the glasses are TOO distracting.  Sorry, but I think these Google glasses might turn out to be a dud.

Google was interested in Android well before Apple leaked they were developing a smartphone. IMO Google didn't buy the fledgling Android because of the iPhone.

 

FWIW Android development started in 2003, with Google purchasing them in July of 2005. Apple had no smartphone research going on in 2003 and didn't commit to developing an actual "iPhone" product until sometime in 2006 according to a history. Android certainly wasn't conceived because of anything Apple had in the works as far as I can see.

 

It might even be that one of the reasons Steve Jobs wanted Google on their team was to stay up-to-date on Android development. It's even possible Steve Jobs finally gave a greenlight to the iPhone project after previewing the early Android OS.  Who knows? Not likely anyone here.

Edited by Gatorguy - 1/18/13 at 6:03am

Oh look who's back! Tell you what, when you go back and answer questions I posted in previous threads then I'll spend the time to explain it to you. Otherwise you're a troll not worth spending the time on.

1. You claimed to be an expert on multitouch with "decades" of experience. I called you on it since I started developing with touch screens in 1985. You never replied and left the thread. Several people including myself were wondering where you went.

2. You claimed to work for a Fortune 20 company and worked on the deployment of "thousands" of Android tablets, yet never bothered to explain why or what specific software was being developed for them that made Android the better choice. Again, you left the thread.

You are the typical troll. Say something and disappear. So when you clean up the loose ends then maybe I'll spend some time explaining it to you.

 

Yes, Google was no doubt investing in Android because of worry over Microsoft and their interest in mobile search.  Google's number one priority is to keep their search services up front.  

 

That's why Android looked so much like Windows Mobile at first, with both touch and touchless target devices.  (No, the first Android dev devices did NOT look like Blackberrys.  That's a common mistake that reporters new to smartphones make.  In fact, one was a variation of a known WinMo model.)

 

As for both Google and Apple getting serious about smartphones in 2005, I think it was also a case of the tech time being ripe for smartphones to get even more popular than they were.  (By 2006, there were over 100 million smartphone users in the world.)

I notice he doesn't mention Samsung, Microsoft or even Google. I guess we know which companies they are waiting for to move the industry forward.

Well Larry, how does it feel to push Android that does roughly the same thing as iOS or Google+ that tries to do roughly the same thing as Facebook?

How does he know they aren't? Nobody knew about Project Purple. There's a whole rainbow to get through:

I can Sing a Rainbow
Red and yellow and pink and green, purple and orange and blue

Projects Orange and Blue are probably underway right now.

They do a small number of things well. That last word is quite important. You can do lots of things but if they aren't very good then I'd say that's less satisfying. Maybe some people would be happier with a thousand bronze medals than a handful of gold ones though.

Rightly so, Google+ is no competition to Facebook at all.

And yet curiously Google doesn't have many unique products. Nor are they succeeding with all of them. I wonder what these successful, different products are he's talking about.

 

Best post in this thread. I also enjoy devices from various vendors, I don't care who buids the device that fits me the most. I don't want a 'thermonuclear' something against anyone. Just keep producing awesome devices. And whoever makes the one I like the most, I'm going to buy it. Doesn't matter if it's Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Sony, Google or whatever. The are lot of different people with different needs and it's good that there is competition because that means that one can choose.

"Page gave the examples of YouTube, Chrome, and Android, saying, "If you%u2019re not doing some things that are crazy, then you%u2019re doing the wrong things."

Google didn't create YouTube. They bought it. Their own version didn't get traction.

Google didn't create Chrome. Apple surprised everyone, deviated from Mozilla and chose KHTML. Chrome took Apple's WebKit engine.

Android stole Apple's concept and reused Mac UI concepts. Also built incrementally on Linux and Java. It is the pinnacle of incremental technology. That's why it's free/cheap.

I don't see the innovations they cites in his 3 examples. They are all incremental according to his words.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, Google's Very First Innovation:

 

 

Stealing from Yahoo!.

Wow, good find! First time I'd seen that one. It even pre-dates Google themselves.

Of course Google wants more innovation and less competition.

 

Less competition is good for companies - they have a captive audience meaning they don't have to try so hard.

More competition is good for the consumer - more innovation is required to keep the company on top and relevant.

 

Google became a household name when there was very little competition and they are still riding on that. From the point they have started to compete against other firms they have not repeated their success.

 

This Google troll who keeps bringing up Google Now as an innovation. Predictive searching, really? Have you tried it?

About as random as predictive text can be some times.

Not an innovation, just a derivative of other peoples ideas and work which is pretty much Google's MO.

Hey Larry: how about more innovation, and less talk?

 

I found that hilarious. He actually said "less competition" instead of "less litigation". Maybe he picked a different word than the classic cliché simply to not be the cliché, but I don't think so.

 

He said "less competition" because that's the only way Google can grow. I don't think any company that actually cares about its customers (well, in this case, we have to distinguish customers and actual consumers) would actually want less competition, much less say it out loud.

Answer the question and stop putting on me, I said that your statement was false and proved it. NOT FULLY OPEN SOURCE!