or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google's reaction to Apple's iPhone unveiling: 'We're going to have to start over' on Android
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google's reaction to Apple's iPhone unveiling: 'We're going to have to start over' on Android - Page 4

post #121 of 216

I love so much the android hate posts in this forum. Apple doesn't care about you, Google doesn't care about you. They just want you to buy their products. And by the way, if there wasn't any copying, there wouldn't be any innovation.

post #122 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogueDogRandy View Post

wow, the droid dorks really have their panties in a wad today.

Yup...and the 'spin' cycle is nudging 11 to counter and rewrite history even as we speak. 1biggrin.gif
post #123 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post
 

 

Going to just step in here for the 99.9% here. Google stole all of Apple's IP.  Duh.

 

But seriously, I agree with you. Obviously Google responded to the iPhone through mimic of design, generally speaking, as they well should have.  The iPhone and iOS ushered in a new standard of smart phone design and following that lead was necessary.  Regardless of Jobs' grandiose delusion of burying Google over "stealing", competition is good, healthy and necessary.  Doubtful that iOS would have evolved to what it is today without said competition. 

 

Google stole all of Apple's IP...  but I think many people extend the iPhone to encompass much more than the tremendous but limited IP added to it.

 

The iPhone borrowed far more technology than it added.  That's how it works.  Technology builds on technology and you move forward from there.  Apple's iPhone did not invent the CPU, touch screen, Gorilla glass, plastic, wireless communication- and if you remove those there isn't much of a product left.  Apple added an elegant form, multitouch, and bounceback and attempted with those to block anyone else from advancing their products.  They failed at obstructing competition for the most part, but at the same time are getting healthy legal settlements from it.

 

Google recognized mobile as the future.  Microsoft laughed at it.  Google's fear at the time was Microsoft, not Apple.  Everyone at that time still kind of thought of Apple as a niched small fry.  Google was worried MS would take things seriously, and inevitably get the same 90ish percent market share they had in the PC market.  Since MS had just tried to kick Google out of Windows, Google was faced with having a fabulous search product with no platform control.  They started Android well before the iPhone was released primarily in response to that threat- but the iPhone was just one of those eye poppers.  They were the quickest to realize the old phone market was gone and they needed to enter the new phone market.

post #124 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


That video is great, Gatorguy. But the iPhone announcement was January 2007... 11 months earlier.

Where are the Android touch interface demos from 2006 ?

I agree with nagromme... where is the evidence about Google's touchscreen ambitions prior the the iPhone announcement?

I think it's pretty obvious what direction Android was originally going to take for it's first consumer smartphone. It would be silly to dispute the intent. It' was not going to be a primarily touch-centric device and instead was focused on the more typical keyboard/pad entry. As the book claims, the iPhone changed the focus and put the first Android smartphone introduction on hold for several months.

As far as whether there was also a group already working on a touch interface before the iPhone was demo'd perhaps the upcoming book might shed light on it. I'd suspect there was at least some development taking place on a touch control interface from almost the beginning but that's just my guess. Video evidence? I'm not aware anything anywhere prior to the Nov/07 intro, and that one demos some touch features. That doesn't' mean an even earlier one doesn't exist I suppose but I've not ever seen one.

From what I've read the first public touch-enabled release of Android to developers was m3 which didn't happen until Nov/07. By February/08 they were up to m5 and by then it looked much more like a touchscreen phone, no physical keyboard needed at all.
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/20/13 at 5:56am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #125 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

Absolutely!

It didn't look like anyone was ready to throw out the old rulebook and make something new. Palm released a few more Treos and Centros all the way through 2008. Palm didn't take the next step until they hired some new talent... created a brand new OS... and released the Palm Pre. Would they have done that if the iPhone didn't launch? I agree with you... I think it would have been more of the same ol' same ol'

It's the same story for RIM. They were very successfully making the types of phones they've always made. They were the kings of the QWERTY email phone. It was business as usual. Then Apple had a little announcement.

Do we honestly think the abysmal Blackberry Storm was on their roadmap prior to the iPhone announcment? I don't think so... it looked like they threw it together at the last minute. RIM was the 2nd company who was caught flatfooted by Apple and the next generation of smartphones.

Agreed, if BlackBerry had taken a little more time and released the z10 instead of the Storm they'd probably still be a major player, and Palm would also be around if they had made a more inspiring piece of hardware than the Pre. They rushed to compete and in doing so caused the opposite effect they were aiming for.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #126 of 216

The part that burns me the most is the phone icon.


Same color, same handset, same angle.


Couldn't they have AT LEAST used a little circle with holes for an skeuomorphic dialer, or a old-style phone shape, or even a tiny "phone" shape with a little antenna sticking out of the top right (like a candy-bar phone?).

 

Or even a different color for it?

 

Or even a different location?

 

That green phone icon in the same spot is what makes it totally shameless.

 

One must copy if that's all there is, but they could've at least "spun-it" a LITTLE.


And they had to steal the dock-concept too?

 

-retch.

post #127 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I think it's pretty obvious what direction Android was originally going to take for it's first consumer smartphone. It would be silly to dispute the intent. It' was not going to be a primarily touch-centric device and instead was focused on the more typical keyboard/pad entry. As the book claims, the iPhone changed the focus and put the first Android smartphone introduction on hold for several months.

As far as whether there was also a group already working on a touch interface before the iPhone was demo'd perhaps the upcoming book might shed light on it. I'd suspect there was at least some development taking place on a touch control interface from almost the beginning but that's just my guess. Video evidence? I'm not aware anything anywhere prior to the Nov/07 intro, and that one demos some touch features. That doesn't' mean an even earlier one doesn't exist I suppose but I've not ever seen one.

From what I've read the first public touch-enabled release of Android to developers was m3 which didn't happen until Nov/07. By February/08 they were up to m5 and by then it looked much more like a touchscreen phone, no physical keyboard needed at all.

We all know that Google had a ton of wacky skunk work projects going all the time. Total shotgun approach. I suspect few saw the light of day. To dig one up that happened to be at least in the right direction, now seen in hindsight, is very clever of you. The issue is though, obviously that wasn't what Google was going to launch until Apple blew the lid off everything. Which is precisely what the OP was about, an admission of exactly that.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #128 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

We all know that Google had a ton of wacky skunk work projects going all the time. Total shotgun approach. I suspect few saw the light of day. To dig one up that happened to be at least in the right direction, now seen in hindsight, is very clever of you. The issue is though, obviously that wasn't what Google was going to launch until Apple blew the lid off everything. Which is precisely what the OP was about, an admission of exactly that.

Here's an interesting post from someone who says she was one of the 2006 Android team members. (Edit: verified Dianne Hackborn) According to her there were two parallel phone interface developments. One was "Sooner" which was the one intended for the earliest release and used an existing design and hardware (and the one mentioned in the book excerpt) while "Dream", a touchscreen version, was being worked on at the same time, and before the iPhone announcement.

"From a software perspective, Sooner and Dream were basically the same -- different form-factors, one without a touch screen -- but they were not so different as this article indicates and the switch between them was not such a huge upheaval.

The main reason for the differences in schedule was hardware: Sooner was a variation of an existing device that HTC was shipping, while Dream was a completely new device with a lot of things that had never been shipped before, at least by HTC (new Qualcomm chipset, sensors, touch screen, the hinge design, etc). So Sooner was the safe/fast device, and Dream was the risky/long-term device.

However the other factor in this was the software. Work on the Android we know today (which is what is running in that Sooner) basically started around late 2005 / early 2006. I got to Google at the beginning of 2006, and it was around that time we started work on everything from the resource system through the view hierarchy, to the window manager and activity manager that you know today. Some work on stuff we have today (like SurfaceFlinger) was started a bit earlier, but also after Google acquired Android.

Even if there was no iPhone, there is a good chance that Sooner would have been dropped, since while it was a good idea to get Android out quickly from a hardware perspective, the software schedule was much longer. I don't recall the exact dates, but I believe the decision to drop Sooner was well before the iPhone announcement... though we continued to use it for quite a while internally for development, since it was the only semi-stable hardware platform we had. If nothing else, it helped remove significant risk from the schedule since software development could be done on a relatively stable device while the systems team brought up the new hardware in parallel.

So what you see running on that Sooner is the same Android that would run on Dream. This is one of the reasons we have the -notouch resource qualifier, for the UI select a touch-based or non-touch interface depending on the device. Also at that point most of the widgets you see in the UI (lists and such) are the ListView and GalleryView we have today, and would already be able to react to touch input if they received it. And the software on there was using our layout managers to resize the UI elements to match the screen size.

However that build may not have things in it like actually running apps in multiple processes. 1wink.gif That was one of the lagging implementations in Android, which was increasingly making the hardware schedule for Sooner not match the software schedule for Android. I think almost everyone on the team was relieved when Sooner was dropped, just because it gave some relieve on the core software schedule.

Imagine if Sooner had gone out at a reasonable time before Dream, say a year before. This was when we released the preview SDK. We had a mad dash to get the SDK somewhat cleaned up for that, but did lots of iterations on it in the following months. We had barely gotten multiple processes working (it was so close you still see remnants of our single process environment in the SDK with Application.onTerminate).

During the time from when the SDK came out to when the G1 shipped, we spent many many months working on stabilizing, optimizing, and productizing the platform. This was a platform that had never been shipped before, with a lot of pretty unusual designs -- up until near the end, you had to wonder "is this actually going to work?"

We also had a long lead time required in stabilizing the platform before shipping the device. Partly because of uncertainty of how everything would work together, partly because the team hadn't shipped a device before and didn't know the tricks we do now for tuning the release schedule. At the time we shipped the device, we even felt like we had to assume that what we shipped on the ROM was it, and we would never be able to deliver an update to it!

So be careful when you look at screen shots. People who aren't programmers, understandably, see a UI and take that to be all there is to know. We should know however that what is behind the part you can see is actually a lot more complicated, stuff you could never realize just from what you see with your eyes. People throwing up pictures of a UI they have played with and coming to conclusion that explain what is going on behind the scenes may get some things wrong. 1wink.gif"

http://www.osnews.com/thread?517243
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/20/13 at 8:00am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #129 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

Google stole all of Apple's IP...  but I think many people extend the iPhone to encompass much more than the tremendous but limited IP added to it.

The iPhone borrowed far more technology than it added.  That's how it works.  Technology builds on technology and you move forward from there.  Apple's iPhone did not invent the CPU, touch screen, Gorilla glass, plastic, wireless communication- and if you remove those there isn't much of a product left.  Apple added an elegant form, multitouch, and bounceback and attempted with those to block anyone else from advancing their products.  They failed at obstructing competition for the most part, but at the same time are getting healthy legal settlements from it.

Google recognized mobile as the future.  Microsoft laughed at it.  Google's fear at the time was Microsoft, not Apple.  Everyone at that time still kind of thought of Apple as a niched small fry.  Google was worried MS would take things seriously, and inevitably get the same 90ish percent market share they had in the PC market.  Since MS had just tried to kick Google out of Windows, Google was faced with having a fabulous search product with no platform control.  They started Android well before the iPhone was released primarily in response to that threat- but the iPhone was just one of those eye poppers.  They were the quickest to realize the old phone market was gone and they needed to enter the new phone market.

Agreed, and there was no other way for Google to ensure that all those mobile devices would be used to do Google searches unless they released their own OS. It's absolutely true that their first phone was a BB/Treo clone but they were smart enough to see the paradigm shift Apple had created and Google adjusted their business plan accordingly. Business is dog eat dog and Palm has already been devoured and there's not much left of BB and while many will say that going with Android hasn't helped the likes of Motorola, LG, HTC, etc they are surviving and the longer they survive the more of a chance they have to become profitable like Samsung.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #130 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

That video suggests that although google had to redesign the UI for touch, some of the plumbing of the OS was already in place when google first heard about the iPhone. The guy demonstrates several features characteristic of modern-day android, such as an early version of the notification bar as well as what seems like an early incarnation of the intents system for passing data between apps (contacts to maps in the video).


And that demo is from Nov 2007, almost a year after the iPhone was introduced. A video of what they were working on *before* the introduction would be a lot more useful.

When in doubt read the instructions.
Reply
When in doubt read the instructions.
Reply
post #131 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scannall View Post


And that demo is from Nov 2007, almost a year after the iPhone was introduced. A video of what they were working on *before* the introduction would be a lot more useful.

A video of what Apple is working on before they introduce it would be helpful too. Then they wouldn't need to rely on hiring each others engineers to keep up with the latest skinny. 1wink.gif

EDIT: Interesting tidbit tho slightly OT. The new Ubuntu touchscreen tablet is utilizing a layer of open-source Android code and Google-developed SurfaceFlinger for it's touch interface.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTMwODg
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/20/13 at 7:28am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #132 of 216

I suspect he was angered mostly because Google was supposed to be a "partner."

post #133 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by leesmith View Post

I suspect he was angered mostly because Google was supposed to be a "partner."

Agreed but it's too foolish to rely on the success of your business on another company. Sure every iPhone initially would use Google to search but what if Apple turned around and decided to use a competitor as the default search engine?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #134 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by reroll View Post

And by the way, if there wasn't any copying, there wouldn't be any innovation.

A common misunderstanding among fandroids is copying = innovation.

"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 #135 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMule View Post

And Jobs never lifted someone else's idea?

In his own words!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpMeFh37mCE

What he saw at Xerox was a paradigm shift and he altered the direction of Apple accordingly. Google did the same. Theft is not involved in either case.

"real artists steal" - Pablo Picasso

"real artists ship" - Steve Jobs
post #136 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

A common misunderstanding among fandroids is copying = innovation.

True but one can improve on a current innovation. Innovation isn't a easy thing to do and most things that we currently buy and use are only but improvements on a long ago innovation?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #137 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Not to excuse any copying or parent infringement, but I wonder what Steve Jobs expected to happen after the iPhone launched. That he got so angry about Android would seem to suggest that he thought the rest of the mobile industry would... just carry on as it always had? Let Apple run away with every prize?

Maybe it's the benefit of hindsight, but given how good the iPhone was (to paraphrase SJs own words: "five years ahead of the competition"), it seems pretty much inevitable that the iPhone would trigger some degree of following/inspiring/copying.

Again, not excusing it, just wondering if SJ was as genuinely surprised and angered by it as much as his "thermo-nuclear war" comments would suggest.


I think I remember it was more along the lines of a gentleman's agreement; Google wouldn't go into products like Apple, and Apple wouldn't start doing search and other Google categories at the time. So "we won't do a phone" and then of course they did a phone.

 

You would at least kick the Google guy off your board during certain proprietary meetings.

post #138 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaporland View Post


"real artists steal" - Pablo Picasso

"real artists ship" - Steve Jobs

Android doesn't look much like iOS (I'm referring to stock android, not samsung's Touchwiz skin), and they are even more different if you look under the hood.  I'd say that Google has "stolen" in the sense of Steve Jobs and made their OS their own. 

post #139 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post


I think I remember it was more along the lines of a gentleman's agreement; Google wouldn't go into products like Apple, and Apple wouldn't start doing search and other Google categories at the time. So "we won't do a phone" and then of course they did a phone.

You would at least kick the Google guy off your board during certain proprietary meetings.

That doesn't sound right. Google was working on a smartdevice OS long before they partnered with Apple on the iPhone (and before the iPhone project was given a go-ahead). Mr Jobs would have been aware of it too, just as most of the industry was. I've never seen mention of any expectation that Android would be dropped as a condition of Google supplying maps and other services to the iPhone.

The addition of Google services is a big part of what made the iPhone almost immediately successful, so it's not as tho it was a one-way street. Without Google's help it would have been a tough road for Apple IMO. Neither Nokia or Microsoft would have stepped in to offer services to a company hoping to steal their breath away. TomTom didn't have a map company at the time so they wouldn't have been any help and Yahoo was barely relevant in search.

EDIT: By the way, there are much longer excerpts available outside of AI. Here's one of them:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/the-day-google-had-to-start-over-on-android/282479/
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/20/13 at 10:47am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #140 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


You ever play Tic-Tac-Toe?

 

A strange game.  The only winning move is not to play.

post #141 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

Google stole all of Apple's IP...  but I think many people extend the iPhone to encompass much more than the tremendous but limited IP added to it.

The iPhone borrowed far more technology than it added.  That's how it works.  Technology builds on technology and you move forward from there.  Apple's iPhone did not invent the CPU, touch screen, Gorilla glass, plastic, wireless communication- and if you remove those there isn't much of a product left..

You do realize Apple licensed and/or purchased the tech. They didn't steal it nor did they "borrow" it.
post #142 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

You do realize Apple licensed and/or purchased the tech. They didn't steal it nor did they "borrow" it.

Took a little prompting from a some of the IP holders (ie Nokia, Elan etc.) and they've yet to license some other pieces of IP used in the iPhone (ie Motorola Mobility) tho they acknowledge the patents are used by the product.

Of course sometimes a company doesn't know there's patent licenses to be negotiated until the patent owner contacts them. It's not as tho they're all clear and specific. Other times a manufacturer may be aware of potentially applicable patents but it's ignored until the owner complains, and sometimes they complain loudly (VirnetX). And too, not all claims of infringement or demands for royalties are valid to begin with. It's an field filled with mines.
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/20/13 at 11:46am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #143 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephane36 View Post

Before iPhone's public unveiling, Google did not have access to specifics about it, despite Schmidt being an Apple trustee at the time.

But Schmidt knew something huge was underway:
- Apple was pouring huge resources in a phone project
- Jobs was convinced this project would be a revolution for the industry and I am pretty sure it showed when he was talking to people he was trusting. That and how Blackberry was utter crap for him.
- According to Jobs it was bigger than the first Mac.

Schmidt is not stupid. He knew !damn well Apple was on the verge of delivering a new kind of phone far above what BB had to offer at the moment, hence far superior to Google own prototypes. Plus, Jobs despised physical keyboard and Apple had many patent about multi-touch technology.

Also, Apple was already in talk to use GoogleMaps: how many handsets were able to display GoogleMaps at 640x480px and let users interact with it without a keyboad in 2006 ?

Google had huge hints at what the iPhone was capable of and what it would not be in no small part thanks to Schmidt so, it is really naive to think they did not use this knowledge to move Android development in new directions (if just to cover a worst case scenario%u2026) well before Apple unveiled the iPhone%u2026 And it would not have been possible if Schmidt had not been working with Jobs on a daily basis at this time%u2026

Google may not have stolen the iPhone "features" by se but they had enough inside info to be much more prepared than their competitors and pour much more resources to back their project and ensure it would, one day, lead the competition by a wide margin%u2026

It is interesting to re-watch SJ's iPhone keynote. Schmidt comes off as a complete Judas. He is despicable.
post #144 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

Calico isn't a project, more of a subdirectory where they keep the personal medical data they've gleamed.   It's called a database, and doctors, hospitals and health insurance companies already use them.  In fact they've been using them since before Sergey Brin started picking all that stuff out of his face.  How do you think Larry Ellison affords to pick all the stuff out of his face?

I'm sure Google labs is wonderful, but you know, lot's of companies do website development, this isn't very special... they are still... just a website.

I realize you're poking a bit of fun. For visitors or less well-read AI members that missed the sarcasm I'll link a fairly recent article on Calico. To say that the medical community sees a lot of promise in what it may be able to accomplish is an understatement and it's attracting a lot of talent.

http://medcitynews.com/2013/12/indicators-googles-calico-anti-aging-project-wont-pie-sky/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #145 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

 

Google stole all of Apple's IP...  but I think many people extend the iPhone to encompass much more than the tremendous but limited IP added to it.

 

The iPhone borrowed far more technology than it added.  That's how it works.  Technology builds on technology and you move forward from there.  Apple's iPhone did not invent the CPU, touch screen, Gorilla glass, plastic, wireless communication- and if you remove those there isn't much of a product left.  Apple added an elegant form, multitouch, and bounceback and attempted with those to block anyone else from advancing their products.  They failed at obstructing competition for the most part, but at the same time are getting healthy legal settlements from it.

 

Google recognized mobile as the future.  Microsoft laughed at it.  Google's fear at the time was Microsoft, not Apple.  Everyone at that time still kind of thought of Apple as a niched small fry.  Google was worried MS would take things seriously, and inevitably get the same 90ish percent market share they had in the PC market.  Since MS had just tried to kick Google out of Windows, Google was faced with having a fabulous search product with no platform control.  They started Android well before the iPhone was released primarily in response to that threat- but the iPhone was just one of those eye poppers.  They were the quickest to realize the old phone market was gone and they needed to enter the new phone market.

 

Parts don't sell. How a product works & how someone uses it is also a huge part in what a product is & how well it will be received. Your statement seems to trivialize that point. So Google saw mobile as the future before Apple? BS. Apple was thinking about mobile devices before Google even existed. Apple beat Google to the Market by 2 years with their MULTI-TOUCH product & fluid interface. So I guess Apple just threw the thing together overnight?

post #146 of 216

In April 2003 at the "All Things Digital" executive conference, Jobs expressed his belief that tablet PCs and traditional PDAs were not good choices as high-demand markets for Apple to enter, despite many requests made to him that Apple create another PDA. He did believe that cell phones were going to become important devices for portable information access, and that what cell phones needed to have was excellent synchronization software. The 1st iPhone came out in 2007. Jobs said they had been working on it for about 3 years. That makes the timeline for the iPhone start at about 2004 (probably earlier). Apple was thinking about mobile devices before Google was even a company. It doesn't matter what goes on behind the scenes if the product is not useable. This notion that somehow the UI is just something trivial is nonsense.

post #147 of 216

Google acquired Android Inc. on August 17, 2005

post #148 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


That doesn't sound right. Google was working on a smartdevice OS long before they partnered with Apple on the iPhone (and before the iPhone project was given a go-ahead). Mr Jobs would have been aware of it too, just as most of the industry was. I've never seen mention of any expectation that Android would be dropped as a condition of Google supplying maps and other services to the iPhone.

The addition of Google services is a big part of what made the iPhone almost immediately successful, so it's not as tho it was a one-way street. Without Google's help it would have been a tough road for Apple IMO. Neither Nokia or Microsoft would have stepped in to offer services to a company hoping to steal their breath away. TomTom didn't have a map company at the time so they wouldn't have been any help and Yahoo was barely relevant in search.

EDIT: By the way, there are much longer excerpts available outside of AI. Here's one of them:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/the-day-google-had-to-start-over-on-android/282479/

Google acquired Android Inc. on August 17, 2005. Apple started work on the iPhone in 2004.

Including a maps app on the first iPhone was not even part of the company’s original plan as the phone’s unveiling approached in January 2007. Just weeks before the event, Mr. Jobs ordered a mapping app to show off the capabilities of the touch-screen device.

Two engineers put together a maps app for the presentation in three weeks, said a former Apple engineer who worked on iPhone software, and who declined to be named because he did not want to speak publicly about his previous employer. The company hastily cut a deal with Google to use its map data.

post #149 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post

Google
 acquired Android Inc. on August 17, 2005. Apple started work on the iPhone in 2004.

Including a maps app on the first iPhone was not even part of the company’s original plan as the phone’s unveiling approached in January 2007. Just weeks before the event, Mr. Jobs ordered a mapping app to show off the capabilities of the touch-screen device.

Two engineers put together a maps app for the presentation in three weeks, said a former Apple engineer who worked on iPhone software, and who declined to be named because he did not want to speak publicly about his previous employer. The company hastily cut a deal with Google to use its map data.

According to interviews Steve Jobs signed off on doing the iPhone project in the latter half of 2005, not that it matters. Apparently Google wasn't alone (or Apple wasn't alone) in recognizing the market was ripe for a new direction in mobile phones and both came to that realization at about the same time even though prompted by different challenges. As history showed Apple came up with the better initial design, but both company's ideas ended up changing the landscape of the entire mobile segment. Not a bad showing for an ad company and a computer company neither of whom had a background in mobile phones.
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/20/13 at 7:40pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #150 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

According to interviews Steve Jobs signed off on doing the iPhone project in the latter half of 2005, not that it matters. Apparently Google wasn't alone (or Apple wasn't alone) in recognizing the market was ripe for a new direction in mobile phones and both came to that realization at about the same time tho prompted by different challenges. As history showed Apple came up with the better initial design, but both company's ideas ended up changing the landscape of the entire mobile segment. Not a bad showing for an ad company and a computer company neither of whom had a background in mobile phone yet took parallel paths.

It's also worth noting that Apple planned on selling entire devices... whereas Google was more interested in the software and selling ads.

Like you said... different challenges.

And also different business models.
post #151 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


According to interviews Steve Jobs signed off on doing the iPhone project in the latter half of 2005, not that it matters. Apparently Google wasn't alone (or Apple wasn't alone) in recognizing the market was ripe for a new direction in mobile phones and both came to that realization at about the same time even though prompted by different challenges. As history showed Apple came up with the better initial design, but both company's ideas ended up changing the landscape of the entire mobile segment. Not a bad showing for an ad company and a computer company neither of whom had a background in mobile phones.

 

Development of what was to become the iPhone began in 2004, when Apple started to gather a team of 1000 employees to work on the highly confidential "Project Purple". The only reason the timeline matters is that you stated otherwise. You stated that Google started development of Android before Apple released the iPhone. Yeah, that may be technically true, but misleading. Apple started working on the iPhone before Google purchased Android. Therefore Apple was developing a phone (hardware & software) before Google had an OS for a phone or a phone for that matter. Google did not build it first phones & did not design the hardware. Apple's been designing hardware, software & interfaces for over 30 years. As history shows Apple was well ahead of what Google was doing & planning. Which makes you wonder what did they see at Apple, before the iPhone's launch.
post #152 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post

Development of what was to become the iPhone began in 2004, when Apple started to gather a team of 1000 employees to work on the highly confidential "Project Purple". The only reason the timeline matters is that you stated otherwise.

Since an accurate timeline is so important to you let me assist in straightening it out. Some of the other folks here already know this. Project Purple's assignment was not to produce a smartphone. It was formed to create the iPad. Over the following year, 2005, engineers from that "Project Purple" development team began lobbying Steve Jobs to consider a new smartphone using some of the tech they were developing for the iPad. Initially he resisted.

Eventually in the latter part of 2005 after several weeks/months of convincing Jobs finally bought into the idea Apple could build it's own smartphone and one unlike anything the market had ever seen. He finally gave them a go-ahead, committed resources and Apple began earnest development on what would become the iPhone. That would have been 2 years or so after the Android Project began and at around the same time as Google closed on the Android purchase in July of 2005. Apple should have been aware that Google was working on a mobile phone OS, but perhaps their engineers and Mr Jobs didn't do all that much reading. In any case Google would not have pursued Android because Apple was creating the iPhone. They probably weren't yet.

Since I know there's folks here with a stock of tinfoil it's not beyond reason that Google's Android purchase helped push Mr. Jobs to commit to the iPhone, perhaps even leading to his decision that Google's Eric Schmidt should join Apple's board the next year. 1hmm.gif

...or maybe Google and Apple just arrived at the same point at at about the same moment and neither had any idea the other was doing the same thing. Better?
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/21/13 at 8:21am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #153 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


I realize you're poking a bit of fun. For visitors or less well-read AI members that missed the sarcasm I'll link a fairly recent article on Calico. To say that the medical community sees a lot of promise in what it may be able to accomplish is an understatement and it's attracting a lot of talent.

http://medcitynews.com/2013/12/indicators-googles-calico-anti-aging-project-wont-pie-sky/

With a clear and sober mind I say that Google + health care is the single worst idea of the 21st century. It's leagues worse than Twitter + Banking.

 

I'd further claim (with 100% verifiable accuracy) that any bureaucracy, insurance billing schemes and/or 3rd parties that get between patients and purchasing medical products & services, are also all terrible ideas.

 

A blink ago in human history, a lot of influential and important people thought Ponce de Leon's anti-aging research was promising too, and it helped secure lot of funding. In fact it's really super easy for mysticism, woo and bad science fiction to be 'promising' when they're totally unburdened with the process of 'delivering'.

post #154 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

With a clear and sober mind I say that Google + health care is the single worst idea of the 21st century. It's leagues worse than Twitter + Banking.

I'd further claim (with 100% verifiable accuracy) that any bureaucracy, insurance billing schemes and/or 3rd parties that get between patients and purchasing medical products & services, are also all terrible ideas.

A blink ago in human history, a lot of influential and important people thought Ponce de Leon's anti-aging research was promising too, and it helped secure lot of funding. In fact it's really super easy for mysticism, woo and bad science fiction to be 'promising' when they're totally unburdened with the process of 'delivering'.

Then you were serious?? I'm frankly surprised.

Further I've no idea why you're attaching "insurance billing schemes" or getting between "patients and purchasing medical services" to a discussion of Calico. I'm not aware Calico wants anything to do with getting in the insurance industry. Do you have some other source that indicates that's what their goal is or was that part of your post just a red herring?

Personally I think you're just confused. Perhaps you should read about them again, or more likely for the first time.
https://plus.google.com/108880830087528406119/posts/22aWigXdYab
http://medcitynews.com/2013/12/indicators-googles-calico-anti-aging-project-wont-pie-sky/
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/21/13 at 6:21am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #155 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Since an accurate timeline is so important to you let me assist in straightening it out. Some of the other folks here already know this. Project Purple's assignment was not to produce a smartphone. It was formed to create the iPad. Over the following year, 2005, engineers from that "Project Purple" development team began lobbying Steve Jobs to consider a new smartphone using some of the tech they were developing for the iPad. Initially he resisted.

Eventually in the latter part of 2005 after several weeks/months of convincing Jobs finally bought into the idea Apple could build it's own smartphone and one unlike anything the market had ever seen. He finally gave them a go-ahead, committed resources and Apple began earnest development on what would become the iPhone. That would have been 2 years or so after the Android Project began and at around the same time as Google closed on the Android purchase in July of 2005. Apple should have been aware that Google was working on a mobile phone OS, but perhaps their engineers and Mr Jobs didn't do all that much reading. In any case Google would not have pursued Android because Apple was creating the iPhone. They probably weren't yet.

Since I know there's folks here with a stock of tinfoil it's not beyond reason that Google's Android purchase helped push Mr. Jobs to commit to the iPhone, perhaps even leading to his decision that Google's Eric Schmidt should join Apple's board the next year. 1hmm.gif

...or maybe Google and Apple just arrived at the same point at at about the same moment and neither had any idea the other was doing the same thing. Better?

 

Revisionist histories always start with "maybe".You seem to just make things up.

http://allthingsd.com/20120803/apples-scott-forstall-on-how-project-purple-turned-into-the-iphone/

 

http://www.imore.com/apple-senior-vice-presidents-phil-schiller-and-scott-forstall-share-brief-pre-history-iphone-and

 

Also they started working on the tablet in 2003 & shifted to the iPhone in 2004. Do you think that statements that you make are not easily researched with a couple of key strokes? Google purchased Android after Apple already started development on the iPhone. Those are the facts so everything that you have somehow surmised here is based on fantasy. It has nothing to do with tinfoil hats.

 

...or maybe Google and Apple just arrived at the same point at at about the same moment and neither had any idea the other was doing the same thing. Better?

 

Except they didn't & you have nothing to back that up. The headline of this article alone makes this statement you made just look silly & the rest of the article just backs that up. The purchase of Android had nothing to do with the initial development of the iPhone.

 

Android was unveiled in 2007 along with the founding of the Open Handset Alliance: a consortium of hardware, software, and telecommunication companies devoted to advancing open standards for mobile devices. The first Android phone (HTC Dream) was sold in October 2008. The timeline does matter because your very loosely based on the truth argument depends on getting the facts wrong.

 

Google acquired Android Inc. on August 17, 2005. Apple started work on the iPhone in 2004. Hey, Google the HTC Dream. It wasn't even close to what Apple produced with the first iPhone...but yeah they had a similar vision. /s


Edited by Splif - 12/21/13 at 8:55pm
post #156 of 216

Thanks for those two links.

I knew the basic story from Steve Jobs' interview at the D Conference in 2010... about how they were working on a glass touchscreen tablet device first... then decided to work on a phone instead.

But it's nice to hear some details about what went on back then.

It's fascinating to read about the measures they took to keep it a secret... even inside their own company.

Again... thanks for the links... I hadn't seen those before.
post #157 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post

Revisionist histories always start with "maybe".You seem to just make things up.

Also they started working on the tablet in 2003 & shifted to the iPhone in 2004. Do you think that statements that you make are not easily researched with a couple of key strokes?
...or maybe Google and Apple just arrived at the same point at at about the same moment and neither had any idea the other was doing the same thing. Better?
Except they didn't & you have nothing to back that up.

I see there's competing timeline stories then...
Perhaps Project Purple or the Purple Project depending on who's reporting it, did start sometime in 2004. And perhaps the iPhone leg of it didn't begin until 2005. One doesn't have to be wrong for the other to be right. Thanks for the first link that attempted to put a date on it. Here's yet another article or two offering timelines.

"As early as 2003, a handful of Apple engineers had figured out how to put multitouch technology in a tablet. “The story was that Steve wanted a device that he could use to read e-mail while on the toilet — that was the extent of the product spec,” says Joshua Strickon, one of the earliest engineers on that project. “But you couldn’t build a device with enough battery life to take out of the house, and you couldn’t get a chip with enough graphics capability to make it useful. We spent a lot of time trying to figure out just what to do.” Before joining Apple in 2003, Strickon had built a multitouch device for his master’s thesis at M.I.T. But given the lack of consensus at Apple about what to do with the prototypes he and his fellow engineers developed, he says, he left the company in 2004 thinking it wasn’t going to do anything with that technology...

Few even thought about making touch-screen technology the centerpiece of a new kind of phone until Jobs started really pushing the idea in mid-2005.

From the start of the project, Jobs hoped that he would be able to develop a touch-screen iPhone running OS X similar to what he ended up unveiling. But in 2005 he had no idea how long that would take. So Apple’s first iPhone looked very much like the joke slide Jobs put up when introducing the real iPhone — an iPod with an old-fashioned rotary dial on it. The prototype really was an iPod with a phone radio that used the iPod click wheel as a dialer. “It was an easy way to get to market, but it was not cool like the devices we have today,” Grignon says.

The second iPhone prototype in early 2006 was much closer to what Jobs would ultimately introduce. It incorporated a touch-screen and OS X.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/and-then-steve-said-let-there-be-an-iphone.html

and this one:
At conference D in 2010, Steve Jobs was asked why the Apple phone had made its appearance before the tablet. His reply was: "I'll tell you. Actually, it started on a tablet first. I had this idea about having a glass display, a multi-touch display you could type on. I asked our people about it. And six months later they came back with this amazing display. And I gave it to one of our really brilliant UI guys. He then got inertial scrolling working and some other things, and I thought, 'my god, we can build a phone with this' and we put the tablet aside, and we went to work on the phone."

In early 2004, Apple has no phone-related work going on; instead, it has a tablet computer in design. The project takes its normal course and in the meantime the Motorola and iTunes phone story, started in the summer, unfolds. When in January 2007 Steve Jobs makes a public announcement at MacWorld, according to which it took his company 2.5 years to develop the phone, he's not being very sincere. Another year, devoted to the development of a touch-sensitive screen and some UI elements for a tablet computer, is not being taken into account. That work began in 2004. Codenamed the Purple 2, the phone project itself was born in 2005, not without some contribution from Motorola. The latter, however, was not about any technologies, know-how or whatsoever. The company's "help", or rather one coming from its top management, took the shape of the joint work on the music product that was not to Apple's likings. Inability to meet the presentation deadlines, refusal to provide the best models, i.e. the RAZR, - all those problems got accumulated....

However, it is exactly February 2005 that can be considered as the beginning of the Purple 2 project; Steve Jobs becomes determined to create his own phone after the meeting....

http://mobile-review.com/articles/2010/iphone-history3-en.shtml

... Footnote: Again it really matters not in the big picture but Google purchased Android in July 2005. It didn't hit the blogs until a month later, reported on the date you mentioned at BusinessWeek..
"Google bought Android in July for an undisclosed sum. The upstart adds to Google's collection of talent and technology that it hopes to apply to this critical segment. "Wireless is the next frontier in search," says Scott Ellison, analyst at research outfit IDC."
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-16/google-buys-android-for-its-mobile-arsenal

Both companies appear to have started their phone projects at about the same time then, with Apple getting in ahead of Google by four or five months. So was my original comment totally accurate?

"That doesn't sound right. Google was working on a smartdevice OS long before they partnered with Apple on the iPhone (and before the iPhone project was given a go-ahead). Mr Jobs would have been aware of it too, just as most of the industry was. I've never seen mention of any expectation that Android would be dropped as a condition of Google supplying maps and other services to the iPhone."

For the part in parentheses probably not. After reading a whole lot more it looks as tho Apple started iPhone development perhaps 5 months before Google brought the Android team on board, and 6 months or more before I had mistakenly believed. Thanks for sending me on the research trail to try and sort dates out. Sincerely. Thank you.

But Google was highly unlikely to have any idea of Apple's iPhone development and wouldn't have made any agreement with Apple not to develop one of their own while Apple almost assuredly was aware of Android, started in 2003, and Google's purchase of them.
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/22/13 at 2:40pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #158 of 216
The problem with Google is that they just have no taste. What do you expect from a company that's run by nerds for nerds?
post #159 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

... Footnote: Again it really matters not in the big picture but Google purchased Android in July 2005. It didn't hit the blogs until a month later, reported on the date you mentioned at BusinessInsider. Both companies appear to have started their phone projects at about the same time then, with Apple getting in ahead of Google by four or five months.

According to your linked articles I'm seeing this timeline:

Apple did a lot of work in 2003-2004 to develop touchscreen technology
In February 2005 Steve had a secret meeting with Cingular... and Project Purple 2 was greenlit... Apple decides to build a phone
By September 2005 there are 200 engineers and other Apple employees involved
In November 2005 Apple hires wireless specialists since Apple doesn't have wireless expertise
And at the end of 2005 the iPhone project is at full speed

Meanwhile in Mountain View... Google purchases Android in July 2005... and they begin their journey.

You're right... Apple had a 4 or 5 month head start... especially in hardware. By the time the ink dried on Google's acquisition of the Android software... Apple already had a ton of engineers developing their own hardware and software.

Then in 2006... both companies were making prototypes. Apple worked throughout 2006, from prototype to final design, to develop what would become the multi-touch iPhone we all saw at MacWorld in January 2007.

Google's prototypes in 2006 looked like a Blackberry... and Google expected Android to be certified by carriers between June 1st and August 31st of 2007, at which point it'd be released to manufacturers.

But that didn't happen.

Clearly there was some kind of "oh shit" moment when we hear "We're going to have to start over" from members of the Android team immediately after the iPhone announcement.

Maybe it didn't happen exactly like that... but something pushed back Google's launch of their phone by another YEAR.

Apple and Google may have started their smartphone projects within a few months of each other... but it sounds like Google had a "do-over" in the process.
post #160 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

According to your linked articles I'm seeing this timeline:

Apple did a lot of work in 2003-2004 to develop touchscreen technology
In February 2005 Steve had a secret meeting with Cingular... and Project Purple 2 was greenlit... Apple decides to build a phone
By September 2005 there are 200 engineers and other Apple employees involved
In November 2005 Apple hires wireless specialists since Apple doesn't have wireless expertise
And at the end of 2005 the iPhone project is at full speed

Meanwhile in Mountain View... Google purchases Android in July 2005... and they begin their journey.

You're right... Apple had a 4 or 5 month head start... especially in hardware. By the time the ink dried on Google's acquisition of the Android software... Apple already had a ton of engineers developing their own hardware and software.

Then in 2006... both companies were making prototypes. Apple worked throughout 2006, from prototype to final design, to develop what would become the multi-touch iPhone we all saw at MacWorld in January 2007.

Google's prototypes in 2006 looked like a Blackberry... and Google expected Android to be certified by carriers between June 1st and August 31st of 2007, at which point it'd be released to manufacturers.

But that didn't happen.

Clearly there was some kind of "oh shit" moment when we hear "We're going to have to start over" from members of the Android team immediately after the iPhone announcement.

Maybe it didn't happen exactly like that... but something pushed back Google's launch of their phone by another YEAR.

Apple and Google may have started their smartphone projects within a few months of each other... but it sounds like Google had a "do-over" in the process.

I don't know that it was so much a do-over on the software side as it was about what hardware it would be put on. The iPhone absolutely was a game-changer, no doubt about that at all. Google recognized it and better yet reacted faster than Microsoft, Motorola, Blackberry, Nokia and most anyone else already in the space.

What Google had envisioned for it's first Android entry just wasn't going to cut it so it was a quick pivot to "Dream", forget "Sooner". Considering it's Google and their fun naming conventions I'm surprised they didn't call Dream "Later" instead.1biggrin.gif
That was pretty much what was said in my first post in this thread:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161257/googles-reaction-to-apples-iphone-unveiling-were-going-to-have-to-start-over-on-android#post_2448108

Had Google made the unwise choice of building the phones themselves they might still be trying to get their first one to market. Instead they were pragmatic about what they could do (they have some of the best engineers on the planet) and what would be best left to those with hardware experience. So separate development paths for Google and Apple paralleling each other to the same market.
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/22/13 at 10:03am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Google's reaction to Apple's iPhone unveiling: 'We're going to have to start over' on Android
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google's reaction to Apple's iPhone unveiling: 'We're going to have to start over' on Android