or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple board member Bill Campbell expects high-tech 'intimate' device era, hints at 'iWatch'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple board member Bill Campbell expects high-tech 'intimate' device era, hints at 'iWatch' - Page 2

post #41 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So Schmidt joined the board 6 months before there was any public information. And it took Google over a year to incorporate the multitouch ideas he stole from Apple.

 

What multi-touch ideas are you talking about?   Pinch zoom?  Flick scrolling?

 

Those were all long known ideas.   Apple didn't invent them.

 

Heck, as we've pointed out before, the Open Linux movement announced them as planned features for their developer phone months before Apple revealed the iPhone.   Not to mention Jeff Han showing off at TED a year before that.

 

Perhaps you meant something else, like bounce back at the end of a page?  That could be copied in about ten minutes after seeing it on stage.  In fact, everything of importance could be copied in a very short time after seeing it on stage.  (And was, even in web based iPhone simulations that appeared shortly after.)

 

Non-developers seem to have this bizarre notion that you need inside information to copy a visual look or action once it's made public.  You do not.   


Edited by KDarling - 4/13/13 at 8:32pm
post #42 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


I am guessing that Google's slowness on multitouch was deliberate. It probably had a lot more to do with the fact that Apple had patented the heck out of it. Plausibly, they were waiting around to see what IP they could sneak past the law. I'll bet that they had multitouch well before 2010 (and soon after the iPhone).


I agree the decision was deliberate. There were rumors at the time that internal strife at Google was the reason - Schmidt didn't want to copy features from iOS because of his perceived conflict whereas Page and Rubin were all for it. But that's just interesting trivia.

 

The key point here is that given the timeline, do you strongly believe the few months of advanced preview that Schmidt might have had were really of material importance? And, if Schmidt was never on the Apple board, would the Android timeline have changed given that the latest they'd have been apprised of multitouch on iOS was Jan 2007? Lest we forget, by the time Android 2.1 was released (I think that was the first version with multitouch), Android was doing rather well already.


Edited by ankleskater - 4/14/13 at 6:00am
post #43 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

What multi-touch ideas are you talking about?   Pinch zoom?  Flick scrolling?

 

Those were all long known ideas.   Apple didn't invent them.

 

Heck, as we've pointed out before, the Open Linux movement announced them as planned features for their developer phone months before Apple revealed the iPhone.   Not to mention Jeff Han showing off at TED a year before that.

 

Perhaps you meant something else, like bounce back at the end of a page?  That could be copied in about ten minutes after seeing it on stage.  In fact, everything of importance could be copied in a very short time after seeing it on stage.  (And was, even in web based iPhone simulations that appeared shortly after.)

 

Non-developers seem to have this bizarre notion that you need inside information to copy a visual look or action once it's made public.  You do not.   

I used to think that's the reason why some people here are so intransigent. But in this instance, the logic of the timeline is so clear that there are only two reasons for the apparent failure to understand: (a) Some members here are indeed pimple-faced kids writing in their PJs. (b) Some here are the same analysts who keep making nonsense predictions. Both are at roughly the same intellectual level as Jr. Agosta.

post #44 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


I am guessing that Google's slowness on multitouch was deliberate. It probably had a lot more to do with the fact that Apple had patented the heck out of it. Plausibly, they were waiting around to see what IP they could sneak past the law. I'll bet that they had multitouch well before 2010 (and soon after the iPhone).

Hasn't it been fairly common knowledge that Google created a multi-touch layer for Android back in 2008 or earlier, but held off on using it at Mr. Jobs/Apple's request? That's what I'd read here and elsewhere before. I also had read Google made the decision to implement it only after Palm introduced multi-touch on the Pre in Jan 2009 and Apple didn't bother challenging them on it. At that point it became pretty obvious multi-touch was a sought-after consumer feature for the latest smartphones and that companies besides Apple would be featuring it.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Palm-introduces-touch-screen-phone-3255225.php

 

What would be Google's motivation for not making use of it after Palm had jumped in? Just to be considerate to Mr. Jobs?

 

It appeared Apple had no intention of using business or legal pressure against anyone but Google to hold off on it and it made no sense from a business standpoint for Google to continue holding it back did it? Apple was already making mild threats against Google even without multi-touch.  They were on the way out of it's most-favored circle anyway with little to no chance of a long-term reliance and partnership IMHO. Apple was always going to call all the shots if they could, and it was clearly going to be Apple's way or the highway in the long-run.

 

Apple isn't to blame for breaking the partnership either. When Jobs and Google's founders first struck up a friendship back in 2001 they did not overlap at all in their business plans. By 2008 the overlap was well under way. Apple couldn't be expected to keep Google in the "circle of trust" if they were going to play in the same markets. The partnership was always going to fail.


Edited by Gatorguy - 4/14/13 at 6:31am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #45 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Hasn't it been fairly common knowledge that Google created a multi-touch layer for Android back in 2008 or earlier, but held off on using it at Mr. Jobs/Apple's request? That's what I'd read here and elsewhere before. I also had read Google made the decision to implement it only after Palm introduced multi-touch on the Pre in Jan 2009 and Apple didn't bother challenging them on it. At that point it became pretty obvious multi-touch was a sought-after consumer feature for the latest smartphones and that companies besides Apple would be featuring it.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Palm-introduces-touch-screen-phone-3255225.php

 

What would be Google's motivation for not making use of it after Palm had jumped in? Just to be considerate to Mr. Jobs?

 

It appeared Apple had no intention of using business or legal pressure against anyone but Google to hold off on it and it made no sense from a business standpoint for Google to continue holding it back did it? Apple was already making mild threats against Google even without multi-touch.  They were on the way out of it's most-favored circle anyway with little to no chance of a long-term reliance and partnership IMHO. Apple was always going to call all the shots if they could, and it was clearly going to be Apple's way or the highway in the long-run.


I think we will never know the exact details of some chapters of this book. But two things are obvious:

 

- The "advantage" Schmidt might have given Google is merely a few months and completely immaterial in the overall timeline.

- This so-called "advantage" was not material to Android's initial rate of adoption.

post #46 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

The key point here is that given the timeline, do you strongly believe the few months of advanced preview that Schmidt might have had were really of material importance?

Yes. And that was one of the key points in my earlier response to you that you (conveniently?) avoided: by obviating the need to go down blind alleys, especially when it comes to a broader roadmap (e.g., ecosystem), it could dramatically compress the time and resources required. In the extreme, it's not dissimilar to learning something from a textbook as opposed to having to learn it by creating the material oneself: which do you think is faster?
post #47 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Hasn't it been fairly common knowledge that Google created a multi-touch layer for Android back in 2008 or earlier, but held off on using it at Mr. Jobs/Apple's request?

Ask ankleskater: he's the one that brought it up.

So I guess you're saying that one of his key counterpoints to my original post is irrelevant or invalid?
post #48 of 54

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Ask ankleskater: he's the one that brought it up.

So I guess you're saying that one of his key counterpoints to my original post is irrelevant or invalid?

That would be true only my key point was the Google couldn't develop multitouch fast enough without help. But it is pretty clear that's not what I wrote.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Yes. And that was one of the key points in my earlier response to you that you (conveniently?) avoided: by obviating the need to go down blind alleys, especially when it comes to a broader roadmap (e.g., ecosystem), it could dramatically compress the time and resources required. In the extreme, it's not dissimilar to learning something from a textbook as opposed to having to learn it by creating the material oneself: which do you think is faster?


I didn't avoid it at all. The timeline renders your argument moot.

 

For reasons we can only guess about, Google didn't release multitouch until a few years after Schmidt allegedly ran back to Google with information about iPhone. Even you agree that the cause of the delay was not technical. So it's crystal clear that if Google did gain a technical advantage between summer of 2006 and Jan 2007, they never capitalized on it. Ergo, no under-the-table advantage for Google by sneaking Schmidt into Apple under their noses. If you still insist otherwise, then there's no point in carrying on a logical debate.


Edited by ankleskater - 4/14/13 at 6:45am
post #49 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

I used to think that's the reason why some people here are so intransigent. But in this instance, the logic of the timeline is so clear that there are only two reasons for the apparent failure to understand: (a) Some members here are indeed pimple-faced kids writing in their PJs. (b) Some here are the same analysts who keep making nonsense predictions. Both are at roughly the same intellectual level as Jr. Agosta.

Great intellectual response.

Oh, wait. There isn't an intellectual response. Just some silly name calling.

Feel free to try to respond to what I wrote if you think you can do so intelligently.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #50 of 54
Quote:

Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

 

1) That would be true only my key point was the Google couldn't develop multitouch fast enough without help. But it is pretty clear that's not what I wrote.

 

 

2)..... it's crystal clear that if Google did gain a technical advantage between summer of 2006 and Jan 2007, they never capitalized on it. Ergo, no under-the-table advantage for Google by sneaking Schmidt into Apple under their noses. If you still insist otherwise, then there's no point in carrying on a logical debate.

 

1) Then I have no idea what you're talking about. (Indeed, your sentence above makes no sense either -- perhaps you'd like to repost by clarifying if a key missing word is 'but' or 'if'?)

 

2) As has been pointed out, it is not Jan of 2007 -- the fact that you choose to ignore does not make that go away. Be that as it may, the reason that 'logical debate' is rendered moot is perhaps because you think that large-scale software development takes place in a series of discrete, independent, sequential steps. I am no software developer (and don't work for one), but from all that I know about it, that's not how the process works.

post #51 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

Even you agree that the cause of the delay was not technical. So it's crystal clear that if Google did gain a technical advantage between summer of 2006 and Jan 2007, they never capitalized on it. Ergo, no under-the-table advantage for Google by sneaking Schmidt into Apple under their noses. If you still insist otherwise, then there's no point in carrying on a logical debate.

I agreed with you on the first page saying that I think it's unlikely given how and when Android developed but in no way do I agree with your statement that it's "crystal clear" Schmidt couldn't have committed any corporate espionage. You can't possibly draw that conclusion, all you can say is that you can't see how any advantage was gained.
Edited by SolipsismX - 4/14/13 at 8:01am

"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 #52 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by John.B View Post

This guy's company has the absolute worst track record when it comes to Mac support, and it is an absolute embarrassment that he is still on Apple's board.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


It should be a question at a shareholders meeting. I agree it is ludicrous that he hasn't been told to get is company 100% Mac (as in on par with Windows version or better) or leave the board. Heck it should very powerful, be able to use iCloud and be fully integrated on all Apple devices.

 

Bill Campbell is not the CEO of Intuit anymore. He doesn't tell Intuit what product to develop or improve anymore than he tells Apple.

 

Campbell is still the Chairman of Intuit, is he not?  Doesn't the CEO report directly to him?  Isn't he responsible for ensuring the CEO of his company is executing a strategic plan?  If he can't manage one employee, maybe he could to back to being a third rate college football coach (12-41-1).

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #53 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

For those bitching about Apple's board members, who cares? 

 

Because other sites and media will use it as propaganda. You didn't think that anybody else would pick up on this story?1oyvey.gif

 

Here's just one example.

 

 

Apple board member believes Google Glass is the start of an intimate tech era

http://www.slashgear.com/apple-board-member-believes-google-glass-is-the-start-of-an-intimate-tech-era-14277755/

post #54 of 54

 

 

Originally Posted by macologist 
 
Him praising Google Glasses gives Google a great Quote to use in the promotion of that Google Product… It'll be like -
 
See how our Friends/Competitors at Apple feel about our products… 
 
Big deal. . . Eric Schmidt prefers to use a Blackberry and doesn't make any attempt to hide it. Sergey Brin will tell anyone who asks that his favorite computer and the one he personally uses is a Mac.  It's not as tho Google Glass competes with a similar Apple product.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Big deal. . . Eric Schmidt prefers to use a Blackberry and doesn't make any attempt to hide it. Sergey Brin will tell anyone who asks that his favorite computer and the one he personally uses is a Mac.  It's not as tho Google Glass competes with a similar Apple product.

Thanks for replying. I didn't know about Eric Schmidt using Blackberry. I'll take your word for it, but either way, it's kind of strange, cause it's another example of  

 

Do As I Say, Not As I Do!  

 

Schmidt is telling the world to use Android Phones, yet he himself is not...

 

Sergey Brin and Mac is not a perfect analogy, because Mac Computer is not a direct competitor of Android. My impression is that Google, at least in the past, considers Windows a bigger enemy than Mac, due to Windows greater market share… 

 

The biggest points I wanted to make in my initial post: 

 

This Intuit guy should be embarrassed that Intuit is disrespecting Mac Customers whom he himself is supposed to serve as a Board of Directors Member!

 

Apple should drill this point to the rest of the world: 

 

Apple has the best Tech Support!

Go  Apple!!!

Reply

Go  Apple!!!

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple board member Bill Campbell expects high-tech 'intimate' device era, hints at 'iWatch'