or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › New products are presented to Apple's board 6-18 months prior to launch
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New products are presented to Apple's board 6-18 months prior to launch

post #1 of 40
Thread Starter 
Members of Apple's Board of Directors are sometimes informed about new products up to a year and a half before they are unveiled to the public, the board's chairman has revealed.

Arthur Levinson


Arthur D. Levinson, former CEO of Genentech and current chairman of Apple's board, spoke at the Stanford Graduate School of Business on Tuesday. In his comments, summarize by Fortune, he revealed that Apple's board does not usually have much input in the creation of the company's products.

Members of the board are typically presented with new Apple products 6 to 18 months before they are revealed publicly, Levinson said. He added that if a product is shown to the board with enough time before launch, sometimes the opinions of board members are taken into account with the final product.

In addition, he said if a board member has expertise in a specific area related to a product, their opinion may wield more influence. But beyond that, he said a good board will not get in the way of a company's CEO or executive team.

"The board is not there to define product specs," Levinson told the students at Stanford. "It's there as a sounding board, it's there as a resource, and ultimately, the board is there to hire and fire the CEO."

Late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs once publicly referred to input from the board on new products when unveiling the clip-on iPod nano in 2010. In unveiling the small touchscreen device, Jobs revealed that one of the members of the Apple board planned to use it as a wristwatch.

Those plans proved prescient: A number of accessories that turned the sixth-generation iPod nano into a wristwatch would eventually hit the market, though Apple never made such an accessory itself.

Watch
The Wrist Jockey is one of many iPod nano watch bands that hit the market.


Levinson was named the chairman of the Apple Board of Directors in November of 2011, following the passing of company co-founder Steve Jobs. Levinson has served as co-lead director on Apple's board since 2005, and has served on three board committees ? audit and finance; nominating and corporate governance; and compensation.

In addition to serving on Apple's board, Levinson is also chairman of Genentech., Inc., a biotech firm he led as chief executive from 1995 to 2009. He's also a member of the board of directors at pharmaceutical firm Roche.
post #2 of 40
TMI, especially from a board member. I don't need to know this information and board members should be keeping this information secret. Of course, this now makes sense why Google got such a big step with mobile devices and why Steve Jobs was so mad. They had a year to work things out before everybody else found out about the iPhone.
post #3 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

TMI, especially from a board member. I don't need to know this information and board members should be keeping this information secret. Of course, this now makes sense why Google got such a big step with mobile devices and why Steve Jobs was so mad. They had a year to work things out before everybody else found out about the iPhone.

Yep, that was really a snakey thing Schmidt did to Apple! 

post #4 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Yep, that was really a snakey thing Schmidt did to Apple! 

 

Probably for "years" Google knew Apple is thinking about a phone with a touchscreen and no keypad.

 

I think Google also knew Apple is a closed ecosystem and there is demand for an "open" platform that Google could control.

post #5 of 40

This tidbit, while surprising from an Apple perspective, is unsurprising given the source. When Levinson was at Genentech, he was known as a genuine, honest and inspiring mentor, along with being a brilliant scientist. He encouraged the younger scientists to stay on and hold on to their stock options during Genentech's darker days. Quite a few may not be millionaires today without his advice. All to say, this sort of honest, anecdotal and yet unrevealing insight is what his friends and acquaintances expect from him.

post #6 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

Of course, this now makes sense why Google got such a big step with mobile devices and why Steve Jobs was so mad. They had a year to work things out before everybody else found out about the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Yep, that was really a snakey thing Schmidt did to Apple! 

Based on how long it took Google to come to market with Android, what it looked like even right after the announcement of the iPhone, and how poor of an OS it was when it finally launched I have a hard time believing Schmidt stole anything relevant to give to Google.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #7 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



Based on how long it took Google to come to market with Android, what it looked like even right after the announcement of the iPhone, and how poor of an OS it was when it finally launched I have a hard time believing Schmidt stole anything relevant to give to Google.

I'm only replying to your first posting....

 

Apple's BOD have knowledge of products but not necessarily how they are built. We know Schmidt took ideas to Google. It was up to Google's programmers and designers to act on those ideas. Your statement actually shows how technically deficient Google employees are not whether Schmidt stole anything.

post #8 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

I'm only replying to your first posting....

Apple's BOD have knowledge of products but not necessarily how they are built. We know Schmidt took ideas to Google. It was up to Google's programmers and designers to act on those ideas. Your statement actually shows how technically deficient Google employees are not whether Schmidt stole anything.

1) I don't know why Huddler infrequently does duplicate posts.

2) I can see that. Excellent counter-argument.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #9 of 40

Good to hear from Art, such a key player at both Genentech and Apple.

Because he was so inspirational at Genentech, both as a bench scientist

and as CEO, Dr. Levinson would actually make for a fantastic Apple CEO

if, ahem, something were to happen ...

 

Genentech, very early on, recognized the primacy of Apple gear and

adopted it en masse even before Jobs' return -- he considered it

an actual competitive advantage over other biotech firms.   Indeed,

early Genentech, as the granddaddy of an enitre industry, moved faster

than any other propeller-head outfit I've seen at bringing to fruition key

products in addition to allowing for unfettered good science.

 

And, as a company trying to concentrate on the long-term good,

GNE/DNA also had to steer thru the minefield of Wall St. fickleness --

the Apple board of directors knows the financial games very well.

 

Lastly for now, although this is not primarily the place for overly personal

anecdotes, I know an incredible Genentech contributor who developed

a little program called "Gmail" ...

 

--retiarius

 

P.S.  Google is still "wet behind the ears" in all areas of leadership,

product output, and user-interface savvy compared to Apple, methinks.

post #10 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

I'm only replying to your first posting....

Apple's BOD have knowledge of products but not necessarily how they are built. We know Schmidt took ideas to Google. It was up to Google's programmers and designers to act on those ideas. Your statement actually shows how technically deficient Google employees are not whether Schmidt stole anything.

I'd agree and add perhaps the show and tell the BOD gets doesn't go all the deep into the software side. Isn't it the case that Google were caught napping regarding the iPhone's touch interface and had to bolt that onto their mini keyboard based interface? Or is that another apocryphal tale?
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #11 of 40
It's hard for me to really take these comments too seriously given that he came to the board post Jobs. He can speak to how things are now, sure. But I take any comments from previous eras with a bit of salt

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #12 of 40

One of the keys to the success of any possible iWatch is the iPod nano.  By increasing its size, Apple has largely eliminated the market for 3rd party wrist straps for the new nano.  This clears the path for an Apple-branded wrist-wearable iDevice.  If Apple had kept the nano at its watch-like size, it would have cannibalized sales of the (possible future) wrist-wearable iDevice.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #13 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

It's hard for me to really take these comments too seriously given that he came to the board post Jobs. He can speak to how things are now, sure. But I take any comments from previous eras with a bit of salt


Not true.

post #14 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

It's hard for me to really take these comments too seriously given that he came to the board post Jobs. He can speak to how things are now, sure. But I take any comments from previous eras with a bit of salt

 

Re-read the article: he was named chaiman post-Jobs (he replaced Steve!), but is member of the board since 2000 and co-lead of the board since 2005.

 

You should be sent to work in salt mines for comments like that.

post #15 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Yep, that was really a snakey thing Schmidt did to Apple! 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post

 

Probably for "years" Google knew Apple is thinking about a phone with a touchscreen and no keypad.

 

I think Google also knew Apple is a closed ecosystem and there is demand for an "open" platform that Google could control.


Funny that everyone blames Schmidt but no one blames Levinson, who served on both the boards of Apple and Google. But then, the know-it-alls here all remember this, I am sure.

post #16 of 40
In other news, the FBI reports a sharp uptick in the kidnapping and torture of Apple board members, especially during travel in South Korea.
post #17 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post

 

Re-read the article: he was named chaiman post-Jobs (he replaced Steve!), but is member of the board since 2000 and co-lead of the board since 2005.

 

You should be sent to work in salt mines for comments like that.


I'm sure, being an Apple know-it-all, he doesn't have to read the article to know the history of the board. ;-)


Edited by stelligent - 2/20/13 at 11:43am
post #18 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

It's hard for me to really take these comments too seriously given that he came to the board post Jobs. He can speak to how things are now, sure. But I take any comments from previous eras with a bit of salt

 

Just so you know, Art Levinson joined the Apple Board in 2000... co-chairman since 2005.

 

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/11/15en-US-Apple-Names-Arthur-D-Levinson-Chairman-of-the-Board.html

 

Re: Google. Schmidt, IMHO, did rip off Apple's fundamental idea of a "blank canvas" phone with an OS that can adapt and change to the user/programmers needs. It's the brilliant concept that is akin to when Apple took the PARC window's concept and figured out overlapping windows (regioning, I believe it's called). Except Apple did it with permission.
 

post #19 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



Based on how long it took Google to come to market with Android, what it looked like even right after the announcement of the iPhone, and how poor of an OS it was when it finally launched I have a hard time believing Schmidt stole anything relevant to give to Google.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

I'm only replying to your first posting....

 

Apple's BOD have knowledge of products but not necessarily how they are built. We know Schmidt took ideas to Google. It was up to Google's programmers and designers to act on those ideas. Your statement actually shows how technically deficient Google employees are not whether Schmidt stole anything.


When I first read the article, I immediately thought that Schmidt definitely had a heads-up on on the iPhone and ran with it.  I suppose only Schmidt and Jobs are the only ones that really knew what happened and with Jobs no longer in the picture, Schmidt doesn't have anyone really that can challenge him on stealing Apple's phone idea.

I do agree that it was the Android development team that just couldn't step-up to the challenge.  As much as Android has improved since v1.0, it's still a big steaming pile of waste. 
 

post #20 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post

Probably for "years" Google knew Apple is thinking about a phone with a touchscreen and no keypad.

I think Google also knew Apple is a closed ecosystem and there is demand for an "open" platform that Google could control.

You can't "control" an open platform.
You can, however, control an "open" platform.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #21 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010 View Post

... and there is demand for an "open" platform that Google could control.

A bit of an oxymoron there?

post #22 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

 


When I first read the article, I immediately thought that Schmidt definitely had a heads-up on on the iPhone and ran with it.  I suppose only Schmidt and Jobs are the only ones that really knew what happened and with Jobs no longer in the picture, Schmidt doesn't have anyone really that can challenge him on stealing Apple's phone idea.

I do agree that it was the Android development team that just couldn't step-up to the challenge.  As much as Android has improved since v1.0, it's still a big steaming pile of waste. 
 

Levinson himself would have been in a perfect position to know whether Schmidt and by extension Google was "stealing" from Apple, would he not? I don't believe it was until after Steve Jobs famous "Android is stolen" outburst (according to rumor) that Levinson resigned from Google's BOD. He served on both boards until the end of 2009.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Levinson himself would have been in a perfect position to know whether Schmidt and by extension Google was "stealing" from Apple, would he not? I don't believe it was until after Steve Jobs famous "Android is stolen" outburst (according to rumor) that Levinson resigned from Google's BOD. He served on both boards until the end of 2009.


Not sure if Levinson resigned because of the Schmidt-Jobs spat, or because of the FTC investigation. Sharing directors between two competing companies can be construed as anti-competitive. In fact, I'd venture to say the FTC concern was likely the real cause for Levinson's resignation, given that Al Gore had and has ties to both companies.

post #24 of 40

I'd seen the same supposition before. That could well be the biggest reason for the resignation at that point in time. I believe there was a couple of reports then regarding FTC concern over Schmidt and Levinson serving at both Apple and Google, with the FTC considering it anticompetitive behavior.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #25 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Levinson himself would have been in a perfect position to know whether Schmidt and by extension Google was "stealing" from Apple, would he not? I don't believe it was until after Steve Jobs famous "Android is stolen" outburst (according to rumor) that Levinson resigned from Google's BOD. He served on both boards until the end of 2009.


I don't think anyone will really spill the beans on this.  Schmidt was really in the cahoot with Paige and Brin.  Maybe he kept it as water-cooler talk with them, and didn't include Google's BOD on it.  Perhaps Paige and Brin kept it as a quiet project (one of many) that they work on and decided the time was right?

It just seems that as more news like this comes out, it's hard to not point a finger at Schimdt and say "Yeah, he got caught".

It would make for interesting conspiracy theories. :)

post #26 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

I'm only replying to your first posting....

Apple's BOD have knowledge of products but not necessarily how they are built. We know Schmidt took ideas to Google. It was up to Google's programmers and designers to act on those ideas. Your statement actually shows how technically deficient Google employees are not whether Schmidt stole anything.
Exactly right.
Google were going down the Blackberry clone route when they suddenly changed direction.
Because google could not replicate, what took Apple years to design and engineer is obvious.
Only now is android becoming acceptable as an OS, but it must use higher spec'ed hardware and even then falls short of iOS.
post #27 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


I don't think anyone will really spill the beans on this.  Schmidt was really in the cahoot with Paige and Brin.  Maybe he kept it as water-cooler talk with them, and didn't include Google's BOD on it.  Perhaps Paige and Brin kept it as a quiet project (one of many) that they work on and decided the time was right?

 

Yes, that must be it. Unless Levinson was really the mole. . .

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #28 of 40

Time to "fire" Arthur D. Levinson... Loose lips sink ships.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #29 of 40

seriously.... is there any surprise here?

 

or maybe people post comments here have zero experience in the runnings of a normal company?

 

if i was a board member of a company and *wasn't* informed about developing products, i'd be pretty nervous/annoyed/suspicious

 

It's the board's duty to give input and know what the company is doing, especially at something the size of Apple.

 

Why do people think that products are developed in the weeks before its launch?? 

 

Parts of a company this size are working on items that will be released in years, and some that will never see the light of day.

 

Probably working on iOS 8 and OS X 10.10 right now.

 

Come on guys, a pinch of common sense here !

 

Next Story: Large Company X has a Management Structure with employees actually reporting to their Manager !!!

post #30 of 40
For Apple, the board needed to see the iPhone. It was a huge and material shift to the business, it would require substantial R&D expenses, it would have a major impact on an existing product line, and it would require substantial corporate ties to other businesses for a long-term. For most things, I would think of it as more of a courtesy than anything else, to show where progress is going.

The CEO gets all the details, but the board has to have enough to know that money isn't being thrown down the drain.
post #31 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


I don't think anyone will really spill the beans on this.  Schmidt was really in the cahoot with Paige and Brin.  Maybe he kept it as water-cooler talk with them, and didn't include Google's BOD on it.  Perhaps Paige and Brin kept it as a quiet project (one of many) that they work on and decided the time was right?
 

 

When Google added touch response to Android, it was added on top, rather than as part of the kernel. This is why the lag was rather noticeable. Only in recent versions of Android phones has this lag become unnoticeable (faster hardware or they've finally integrated touch to the kernel; likely the former). This suggests that touch was added as an after thought (rather than something incubated and properly developed until time was right). Furthermore, you can't keep UI (including touch) development as a separate project from an OS that is in development. Finally, Brin and Page, while brilliant computer scientists, are not OS developers, AFAIK. So they wouldn't have directly run a side-project in parallel with (but kept a secret from) Andy Rubin's Android.

 

My first point also suggests that if Schmidt had indeed passed on secrets about touch to the Android development team, it would have been better integrated from the get-go. Timing and performance suggest that the Android team slapped it on after seeing the first iPhone in action. But I'm purely conjecturing, and I must admit that it would have been unlikely for Schmidt to learn about iOS being all touchy-feely and not passing it on.

 

Regardless, this is moot. I am 100% certain that Android (and all mobile OSes) would have adopted touch sooner or later. There was no way Apple could have monopolized this regardless of their IP portfolio because of availability of significant prior art (and please don't trot out old products because prior art doesn't have to be shipped products).


Edited by stelligent - 2/20/13 at 4:19pm
post #32 of 40

Some points:

 

  • Schmidt didn't sneak onto the Apple board.  Steve Jobs, knowing that Google was working on Android, invited Schmidt onto the Apple board.  Unless you think Jobs was an utter idiot, it's clear that Jobs had some ulterior motive for doing so at that time.  Perhaps to find out what Android was doing.  Perhaps to pressure Schmidt to stay out of the phone business.  In any case, Jobs himself NEVER accused Schmidt of stealing iPhone info while on the board. 

 

  • More importantly, Apple needed Google's cooperation with APIs to make the iPhone a success.  Imagine Apple selling the first iPhone without Google Search, Google Maps, and later, YouTube videos, and Google cell tower locating to make up for the lack of GPS. 

 

  • Schmidt wasn't even invited onto the Apple board until mid 2006, and didn't begin serving until just a couple of months before the iPhone was shown to everyone on the planet.   He had no need to use inside info to be able to come out with Android almost two years later..

 

  • Schmidt has said that he walled himself off from the Android project while he was on the Apple BOD.  Andy Rubin has complained that this was one of the reasons why Android took so long to finish... he had no access to his main supporter at Google.
 
  • Android was clearly intended to compete with Windows Mobile, not Blackberry.   Heck, the non-touch development device was a variation of a known Windows Mobile phone.  No one at that time thought they could compete with RIM in the enterprise.  On other other hand, Google needed a way to keep Bing from becoming the primary mobile search engine.

 

  • Windows Mobile came in two flavors:  non-touch and touch.  That's why Android was intended to support both methods as well. 

 

  • The lag in early versions had nothing to do with adding touch.  It was mostly about the way that the Android designers had enabled cross-window access (which is important for things like widgets).
post #33 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Some points:

 

  • Schmidt wasn't even invited onto the Apple board until mid 2006, and didn't begin serving until just a couple of months before the iPhone was shown to everyone on the planet.   He had no need to use inside info to be able to come out with Android almost two years later..

 

Good point.

 

Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Some points:

 

  • The lag in early versions had nothing to do with adding touch.  It was mostly about the way that the Android designers had enabled cross-window access (which is important for things like widgets).

 

One doesn't negate the other. I was referring specifically to UI response to touch. There were other factors, but this lag was indeed in large part due to priority of UI handling. If it was handled at the kernel level like iOS, we'd have seen real time response on day 1 (or rather day 2). This difference between Android and iOS is still visible in how the two OSes handle touch but it's not a visible lag anymore on Android.

 

Originally Posted by KDarling View Post
 
  • Android was clearly intended to compete with Windows Mobile, not Blackberry.   Heck, the non-touch development device was a variation of a known Windows Mobile phone.  No one at that time thought they could compete with RIM in the enterprise.  On other other hand, Google needed a way to keep Bing from becoming the primary mobile search engine.

 

 

Was Android equipped to challenge RIM on day one? No. But clearly intended not to? I don't know how you could be so sure unless you sat in on strategic planning meetings at Google. If you did, I'd love to hear more! I do agree that Google's goal/concern was to prevent Bing from taking over.

post #34 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Some points:

  • Schmidt didn't sneak onto the Apple board.  Steve Jobs, knowing that Google was working on Android,
    invited
    Schmidt onto the Apple board.  Unless you think Jobs was an utter idiot, it's clear that Jobs had some ulterior motive for doing so at that time.  Perhaps to find out what Android was doing.  Perhaps to pressure Schmidt to stay out of the phone business.  In any case, Jobs himself NEVER accused Schmidt of stealing iPhone info while on the board. 

Why must you always make so many shady comments? You know damn they said it was software for mobile devices and Android wasn't revealed to be a mobile OS until long after Schmidt was on the Apple board.



PS: I'm getting sick of cleaning up certain posters shitty markup. I wish AI would set the forum to BB code.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #35 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Why must you always make so many shady comments? You know damn they said it was software for mobile devices and Android wasn't revealed to be a mobile OS until long after Schmidt was on the Apple board.

 

Wow.  Are you as rude in person as well, or only when you can hide behind the internet?

 

Read again.  I said, "Perhaps to find out what Android was doing.  Perhaps to pressure Schmidt to stay out of the phone business."   I didn't say everyone knew it was a mobile OS.  Even if it was just radical mobile search and interaction software, it could have a huge effect on Jobs' project.

 

However, certainly those of us in the wireless mobile field figured they had an OS in the works.  It made no sense for the same developers who had created Danger Inc and the Sidekick, to suddenly drop years of work and interest in making a phone OS.  

 

Heck, some of us at first thought that they were creating an alternate OS that could actually be installed in place of Windows Mobile on then current handsets.  No need to buy anything new.

post #36 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Wow.  Are you as rude in person as well, or only when you can hide behind the internet?

Read again.  I said, "
Perhaps to find out what Android was doing.  Perhaps to pressure Schmidt to stay out of the phone business."  
 I didn't say everyone knew it was a mobile OS.  Even if it was just radical mobile search and interaction software, it could have a huge effect on Jobs' project.


However, c
ertainly t
hose of us in the wireless mobile field figured they had an OS in the works.  It made no sense for 
the same developers who had created Danger Inc and the Sidekick, to suddenly drop years of work and interest in making a phone OS.  


Heck, some of us at first thought that they were creating an alternate OS that could actually be installed in place of Windows Mobile on then current handsets.  No need to buy anything new.

1) Only "rude" to people that can't be straightforward or honest.

2) You can say that you "knew" back in 2005 that Android was going to be an OS despite word to the contrary but it's doubtful you did anything more than make an off the cuff comment or wish they would make a modern OS. Let's remember that they were broke from Android when Google bought them and Danger was a failure.

3) Let's also remember Google buys of lot companies, had never before built an OS, and that any trusted board member that feel there is a conflict-of-interest are required to recuse themselves from meetings. This is likely where Steve took issue with Schimdt. Principles and ethics, not something that can easily be proven, but a breach of trust nonetheless.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #37 of 40
All thus makes you wonder: did Levinson ever have recuse himself from board discussion at either company?
post #38 of 40
We will never know the actual circumstances that led to Google's development of Android as the mobile OS it is today. Apple would have had imitators sooner or later regardless. As long as iOS continues to improve and add value to beautiful hardware, they will do fine. The only way to compete with free is to produce superior products that people will actually want, not settle for. Apple continues to excel in this area.
post #39 of 40

Considering what a perfectionist he was, I wonder when Jobs showed the iPhone to the Apple directors.

 

It seems likely that he didn't show them before about Nov-Dec 2006, which would be seven or eight months before product sales launch.  Let's work backwards:

 

Jun 2007 - launch

Jan 2007 - first public display

Dec 2007 - first viewing by Cingular's CEO

 

Quote:

During a visit to Las Vegas last December for a rodeo event, Cingular Wireless chief executive Stan Sigman received a welcome guest: Steve Jobs.

 

The Apple Inc. chief stopped by Mr. Sigman's Four Seasons hotel suite to show off the iPhone, a sleek cellphone designed to surf the Web and double as an iPod music player.

 

The phone had been in development by Apple and Cingular for two years and was weeks away from being revealed to the world. And yet this was the first time Mr. Sigman got to see it. 

 

- WSJ, Feb 2007

 

Nov 2007 - work begins on integrating Google Maps

 

Fall 2007 - (Sep,Oct,Nov) Jobs is not happy with development progress:

 

Quote:

It was a late morning in the fall of 2006. Almost a year earlier, Steve Jobs had tasked about 200 of Apple's top engineers with creating the iPhone. Yet here, in Apple's boardroom, it was clear that the prototype was still a disaster. It wasn't just buggy, it flat-out didn't work. The phone dropped calls constantly, the battery stopped charging before it was full, data and applications routinely became corrupted and unusable. The list of problems seemed endless. At the end of the demo, Jobs fixed the dozen or so people in the room with a level stare and said, "We don't have a product yet."

 

The effect was even more terrifying than one of Jobs' trademark tantrums. When the Apple chief screamed at his staff, it was scary but familiar. This time, his relative calm was unnerving. "It was one of the few times at Apple when I got a chill," says someone who was in the meeting.

 

The ramifications were serious. The iPhone was to be the centerpiece of Apple's annual Macworld convention, set to take place in just a few months.

 

- Wired history

 

My guess is that he would not have shown the board until it was a reliably working device.  

 

Considering he didn't even show the Cingular (AT&T) CEO until December, not long after getting Maps, it would seem likely that was also about the time that it was working well enough to demo to the Board...although still almost a half year away from mass production.

post #40 of 40
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post
Considering what a perfectionist he was, I wonder when Jobs showed the iPhone to the Apple directors.

 

I vaguely remember reading it was two weeks before launch… But maybe that was just when he wasn't happy with performance, as you mentioned. Shouldn't go by me.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › New products are presented to Apple's board 6-18 months prior to launch