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 2

post #41 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

IP from that Motorola Mobility acquision?  Like Ad Mob, they were baited into buying and over-paying for the wrong company and got a whole bunch of worthless IP.  They do amazing things at Google though, they are a website right?   1smoking.gif  Super competitive being 6 characters in a url address away from irrelevency at any moment.

Just because Google doesn't choose to aggressively wield Motorola patents to sue others that want to play in the same playpen they do doesn't make the IP worthless. On the contrary it has inestimable value by not being used in protectionist efforts to strip away profit and resources from other companies. If you think Google is simply an ad company you don't pay attention. Perhaps you should do a bit of reading outside of AI or other fan sites.

Here's one that might have a little interest to you:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-22/inside-googles-secret-lab
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/19/13 at 11:57am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #42 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by wigby View Post

Electric mousetraps look nothing like traditional ones but are much more effective. That only comes from thinking outside of the box.

I've tried those and have only caught mice with one that's a improved version of the old one.



You want to catch mice? This is your best bet. I had an electric one and it sat for days without catching one. I put this down and no more than half an hour later did I hear the snap of it catching a mouse.
Edited by dasanman69 - 12/19/13 at 12:01pm
"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 #43 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by wigby View Post
 

Putting the definition of "stealing" aside for the moment, by your assertion, Apple should just copy from Google now and Google from Apple like a ping pong match. That might be how you keep shareholders happy but that's not how you innovate. Sometimes you have to just start over from scratch and focus intently on where you want the consumer experience to be. Nothing truly changes unless there is a chance of losing everything. Google took the obvious and easy way out. Blackberry took the lazy way out. I don't see anyone taking the brave path (except possibly Microsoft - never thought I would write that) except for Apple.

 

Apple DOES copy from Google (and others).  Taking the 'brave path' as you say is idealistically awesome and all (and obviously worked for Apple), but more often than not fails.

post #44 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post


Well what exactly was copied? I don't mean to be a "troll" however you are making a claim and I will like to see some evidence supporting it.

 

Well clearly they stole the following, which Apple invented:

- Rectangular touch screen

- Icons in a grid layout

- Pinch to zoom

post #45 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post

Pretty much confirms everything Jobs claimed - that Android was just a knockoff of iOS and the iPhone. What is interesting though, is that it seems to disprove the allegation that Eric Schmidt, who was on Apple's board at the time, was passing along iPhone information to Google ... at least prior to the public unveiling. Not sure how much the board knew about the iPhone before the unveiling, but it appears the Google engineers didn't know about it beforehand.

 

I am personally not buying this whole story they only found out about what the Iphone looked like after it was announced. Google had the maps and search tool on the first phone, do you think that was done without the android team at google knowing anything about it. I suspect that they saw it long before it was intro and those were the conversation that happen then they turned on the copy machine at that time.

 

The fact they were designing the software for a keyboard based phone explains now why it suck so bad at touch screen usability when it first came out.

post #46 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Complacency is also a big factor. How many businesses have been replaced by another business that really didn't offer anything much different? Too many companies rest on their laurels only to see all go to another company that did things just a little different.

I see your point that it should be noted but I would personally put that under ignorance.

"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 #47 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by wigby View Post

Putting the definition of "stealing" aside for the moment, by your assertion, Apple should just copy from Google now and Google from Apple like a ping pong match. That might be how you keep shareholders happy but that's not how you innovate. Sometimes you have to just start over from scratch and focus intently on where you want the consumer experience to be. Nothing truly changes unless there is a chance of losing everything. Google took the obvious and easy way out. Blackberry took the lazy way out. I don't see anyone taking the brave path (except possibly Microsoft - never thought I would write that) except for Apple.

You obviously chose to ignore Google's [x]Labs, or aren't aware of their existence. You also apparently missed out on Calico. There's few companies brave (or is it stupid) enough to take longer walks in so many fields laying on the razor edge of possibilities than Google.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #48 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post
 

 

So you're saying that any company that is in the middle of developing a product which adjusts to remain competitive is pathetic?   I know you like to live in your Apple bubble and hate every other brand, but the competition is GOOD and not only for Apple, but the entire industry.  Apple has leveraged off of Google and others' ideas/features heavily ever since the first iPhone and to deny it is just plain stupid.

I'm saying a company that decided to develop a product in an entirely new market, that gets totally and completely owned before they can even finish designing it, probably has no idea what they are doing in that market.  Worse considering Google was trying to copy RIM before the iPhone, and couldn't even get in the race.

 

To then abandon those failed efforts, and deploy the same personnel to copy by rote an very innovative product, is not competition.  Android will never be a great OS, because it's designed to look like something else you might pay for, so they can squeeze data for targeted marketing out of you.   That's Google's entire strategy and this is not any kind of competition for Apple.  Google has only developed their ability to fabricate the facade of already popular products, which means they will always be behind the curve on any kind of actual product development.  That ain't any kind of racing, son.

 

This strategy will impress Wall St for a few short years, then lighter more nimble imitation competitors like Facebook and Twitter start to eat Google's actual revenue generating business (ads) while they are pre-occupied with the diminishing returns of blind imitation... oh wait... that's already happening. 

 

In theory maybe competition is good, and maybe someday Apple and iOS will face that, but even putting ungainly glasses on your face won't turn that science fiction into reality.

post #49 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

 Android will never be a great OS, because it's designed to look like something else you might pay for, so they can squeeze data for targeted marketing out of you.   That's Google's entire strategy and this is not any kind of competition for Apple.  Google has only developed their ability to fabricate the facade of already popular products, which means they will always be behind the curve on any kind of actual product development.  That ain't any kind of racing, son.

This strategy will impress Wall St for a few short years, then lighter more nimble imitation competitors like Facebook and Twitter start to eat Google's actual revenue generating business (ads) while they are pre-occupied with the diminishing returns of blind imitation... oh wait... that's already happening. 

In theory maybe competition is good, and maybe someday Apple and iOS will face that, but even putting ungainly glasses on your face won't turn that science fiction into reality.

Did you ever have a career at RIM? Sounds like something their management might have believed about Apple.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #50 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by dam1953 View Post

I recall reading that internally, RIM's first response to the iPhone unveiling was "that's impossible". Based upon their understanding of available tech, RIM believed that the device Jobs demonstrated and claims Jobs made were not technically feasible. This is likely why they were slow in responding. First, RIM had to come to grips with reality.

I am can also tell you that Motorola's internal response was something similar, actually it was oh we could have done that and there is nothing new or innovative in the iphone, Plus apple did not understand what consumers wanted which was a keyboard.

 

Just so people understand Motorola has this phone on the market in China before the iphone came out, yes it had a stylist but it also had a touch display. They never brought it to the US, not clear why, but notice how is look like the Star Trek Tricorder 

 

post #51 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

It's a freaking shame.  Apple had a huge head-start with the iPhone but gave it completely away to Google's Android.  That's the biggest problem with Apple.  They've never quite figured out how to hold onto market share.  Steve Jobs practically gave the keys of the iPhone empire away to Eric Schmidt.  Pure negligence on Steve Jobs part.  I guess his genius didn't quite fathom that he would be completely backstabbed.  iOS's IP was up for grabs and Schmidt quickly grabbed it.  Steve Jobs is now turning over in his grave because "going thermonuclear" turned into an Apple disaster.

 

Now 80% of the world is using Android and Apple is left with some insignificant percentage that makes the entire mobile industry believe that Apple is doomed to oblivion.  Google is now Wall Street's favorite tech company and Apple has become a second-class tech company for investors.  Being the first to have something is nice but it's much better to hold onto the lead and not let anyone take it away.  The entire mobile industry says that Android devices are so much better than iPhones and Android OS offers a far longer features list than iOS.

So you say Apple's iPhone is now pushed to the background by Google's android spyware. 

Sure Google is out front with many, who buy based on low initial cost and not concerned about spyware.

If Apple engaged Google in the spyware business things would really heat up between them.  Fortunately Apple isn't copying that Google feature.

 

Yesterday I met a Microsoft mgr who showed me his iPhone he keeps in an inside pocket, else he gets hell.

 

Whoops bye, have to go to the bank and deposit my winnings from a recent Apple stock sale.

With Apple's industry leading success in the USA, Japan and soon with China Mobile I'm looking forward to more $$$.

post #52 of 216

From Day 1, I always believed Android was a copycat after Schmidt walked out the iPhone event in 2007. Where did he go? Well, he went directly to Google HQ and stopped all android related projects and started a "new" (copying) project as android today...great innovation, Google.

post #53 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).

Notification bar?  Really?  "You've got mail?"

Yes I'm sure there's nothing in Apple's 30+ years of OS developments that was ever close to that...

 

See Apple Newton, the history of Mac OS trackpad and handwriting recognition software/hardware.  Never mind decades worth of R&D into multi-touch.  Then I'll show you a Google CEO contentiously leaving Apple's board and then we'll talk about Google and UI and touch... oh wait... conversation over.

post #54 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

Notification bar?  Really?  "You've got mail?"
Yes I'm sure there's nothing in Apple's 30+ years of OS developments that was ever close to that...

See Apple Newton, the history of Mac OS trackpad and handwriting recognition software/hardware.  Never mind decades worth of R&D into multi-touch.  Then I'll show you a Google CEO contentiously leaving Apple's board and then we'll talk about Google and UI and touch... oh wait... conversation over.

Fortunately for Apple and Microsoft employees and stockholders those two are lead by clearer vision and that view doesn't ignore Google.

Edit: This was considered and "ad-hom" and warranted an infraction??
Edited by Gatorguy - 1/1/14 at 10:59am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #55 of 216

The saddest part of Android is while they modernize the UI to make it on part with the original iPhone, they have keep the archaic JavaVM runtime avenue used on first gen smartphone OS like Symbian and Blackberrys.

post #56 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I see your point that it should be noted but I would personally put that under ignorance.

Agreed but complacency is willful ignorance on a subject matter that one relies and strives on.
"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 #57 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Just because Google doesn't choose to aggressively wield Motorola patents to sue others that want to play in the same playpen they do doesn't make the IP worthless. On the contrary it has inestimable value by not being used in protectionist efforts to strip away profit and resources from other companies. If you think Google is simply an ad company you don't pay attention. Perhaps you should do a bit of reading outside of AI or other fan sites.

Here's one that might have a little interest to you:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-22/inside-googles-secret-lab

Lots of 'skunk' not a lot of 'works'.

Have you even seen the new Mac Pro?  That's shipped and selling out.

 

Google was preparing to sue with those patents, they thought they were buying an arsenal.

Motorola was smart to sell, Google wasted billions and got magic beans.  

 

Also see Ad Mob.  Paying billions for a company that sold ads on iOS, only to lose your previous system level position for data collection on iOS.  It's more stupid from the stupids that brought you Yahoo search by Google.

post #58 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

Have you even seen the new Mac Pro?  That's shipped and selling out.

Both of them sold already? 1wink.gif

I'm kidding but many of the forum members say that without numbers "sold out" doesn't mean a whole lot., and whether 10 or 10,000 it doesn't diminish Google's projects.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #59 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post

Pretty much confirms everything Jobs claimed - that Android was just a knockoff of iOS and the iPhone. What is interesting though, is that it seems to disprove the allegation that Eric Schmidt, who was on Apple's board at the time, was passing along iPhone information to Google ... at least prior to the public unveiling. Not sure how much the board knew about the iPhone before the unveiling, but it appears the Google engineers didn't know about it beforehand.

Well, according to their self-serving account anyway.
post #60 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Did you ever have a career at RIM? Sounds like something their management might have believed about Apple.

Nope.  But I do know some pretty big ad buyers now spending more of their budget on either Facebook or Twitter anything than Google everything.  Their website traffic might not surpass Google's yet, but it's clear the desirable (profitable) traffic isn't at Google search. Part of that might also be related to increasingly skewed search results by Google towards their ad customers, rather than purely traffic based, but still not good for Poodle.  I'm not sure if you'd agree or recognize this as a trend, but I've adjusted my investment portfolio accordingly.  So check back with me in 24-48 months.

 

Droids... :rolleyes: 

post #61 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

In hindsight it was the only decision that made sense. Kudos to the Android team for recognizing it early on rather than trudging forward with what would have been a useless effort. Microsoft, Nokia, and Blackberry took way too long to come to the same realization that touch events were the way forward. Especially Blackberry who at the time had the leading market position on high-end handsets. Android of course may have had a little headstart over the other laggards since they had already started work on a touchscreen smartphone alongside their "Sooner" trackball phone according to reports and press videos from the time.

By the way, wasn't Mr. Jobs less concerned that Google shifted focus to a touch device but instead incensed over their eventual inclusion of multi-touch which happened well after the G1 was intro'd?


Title of article should have been ...

"Gatorguy's reaction to Google's reaction to Apple's iPhone unveiling: 'We're going to have to start over' on Android"

1biggrin.gif

I bet your looking forward to one of the new robots to help with your posts here!
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
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.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
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.
Reply
post #62 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

 I'm not sure if you'd agree or recognize this as a trend, but I've adjusted my investment portfolio accordingly.  So check back with me in 24-48 months.

Now that I'd probably agree with. Since they've crossed $1000 a share I think it's gonna be tough moving a whole lot higher anytime soon. Of course anyone who made a significant investment in them even as late at the first of this year has seen a pretty healthy return. I was not one of those people as usual.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #63 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Title of article should have been ...

"Gatorguy's reaction to Google's reaction to Apple's iPhone unveiling: 'We're going to have to start over' on Android"

1biggrin.gif

I bet your looking forward to one of the new robots to help with your posts here!

If only I live that long 1wink.gif
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #64 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by fallenjt View Post

From Day 1, I always believed Android was a copycat after Schmidt walked out the iPhone event in 2007. Where did he go? Well, he went directly to Google HQ and stopped all android related projects and started a "new" (copying) project as android today...great innovation, Google.

Innovation doesn’t guarantee, and sometimes one can't out innovate what already exists because of technological limitations. How many products have there been that were very innovative and superior to its predecessors yet was never successful? I'm not saying what Google did was right but from a business viewpoint it was the only way to survive in the landscape Apple created.
"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 #65 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

Nope.  But I do know some pretty big ad buyers now spending more of their budget on either Facebook or Twitter anything than Google everything.  

That sounds like an excellent reason for Google to NOT sit back in their comfortable ad space and ignore all other opportunities. I'm pretty sure you'd agree with that wouldn't you?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You obviously chose to ignore Google's [x]Labs, or aren't aware of their existence. You also apparently missed out on Calico. There's few companies brave (or is it stupid) enough to take longer walks in so many fields laying on the razor edge of possibilities than Google.

Every big, lumbering, uncreative tech company has a lab. They're all doing stuff like Google. It's not hard to buy up researchers and their projects when you're flush with cash. The most you can say about it is that Google pays better than Stanford. You hear about Google's research, rather than everyone else's, because Google controls online advertising and has an especially cosy relationship with the media. The most likely outcome of Google taking away so much research from the public sector is that when Google's cash cow dries up, all that research gets flushed away. This happens periodically when big companies do this sort of thing. Google is worse because it publishes less than most.
post #67 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke View Post

Every big, lumbering, uncreative tech company has a lab... Google is worse because it publishes less than most

Apple has a lab too. A few of them in fact. Apple Education Lab, Apple Core Lab, Apple Data-Mining Lab.... They don't publish any more than Google does either. Wierd.
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/19/13 at 1:01pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #68 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Agreed, but recognizing genius is almost as equally as important. Whilst others downplayed the iPhone Google saw that the future of smartphones would be one with a touch screen UI. Those that quickly followed Apple's lead, or copied it are the ones that have flourished, the others are on a downward spiral or no longer exist.

Flourished?

Most Android handset makers are running at a loss or barely scraping by.

With the exception of Samsung who spend billions on hype, Samsung spend more on advertising than the rest make altogether.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #69 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Now that I'd probably agree with. Since they've crossed $1000 a share I think it's gonna be tough moving a whole lot higher anytime soon. Of course anyone who made a significant investment in them even as late at the first of this year has seen a pretty healthy return. I was not one of those people as usual.

I've found that investing in the actual entity is usually more precarious than the side suppliers and associated businesses.  For example: when iOS6/iPhone5 came out, I didn't buy more Apple, I bought Yelp.  It was cheap and pretty likely to see some increase from being the Apple Maps default for data.   Longer term, I'm not sure how it will fair, but so far so good.  :smokey:

post #70 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

I've found that investing in the actual entity is usually more precarious than the side suppliers and associated businesses.  For example: when iOS6/iPhone5 came out, I didn't buy more Apple, I bought Yelp.  It was cheap and pretty likely to see some increase from being the Apple Maps default for data.   Longer term, I'm not sure how it will fair, but so far so good.  1smoking.gif

Sounds like a thoughtful plan.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #71 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post
 

Notification bar?  Really?  "You've got mail?"

Yes I'm sure there's nothing in Apple's 30+ years of OS developments that was ever close to that...

 

And your point is...? How does this relate to what I wrote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post
[...]
 See Apple Newton, the history of Mac OS trackpad and handwriting recognition software/hardware.  Never mind decades worth of R&D into multi-touch.  Then I'll show you a Google CEO contentiously leaving Apple's board and then we'll talk about Google and UI and touch... oh wait... conversation over.

Apple bought Fingerworks in 2005, just two years before the launch of the iPhone in 2007. Fingerworks itself was founded only in 1998. I'm sure there's a long history of research in touch interfaces at universities and other companies though.

post #72 of 216
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.
post #73 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
 

 

I am personally not buying this whole story they only found out about what the Iphone looked like after it was announced. Google had the maps and search tool on the first phone, do you think that was done without the android team at google knowing anything about it. I suspect that they saw it long before it was intro and those were the conversation that happen then they turned on the copy machine at that time.

 

My understanding is the first Google Maps app on iPhone OS (i.e. pre-iOS) were written by Apple to use Google's mapping data.  I assume the same thing holds for Google search.  So yes, in the beginning, Google had no idea what Google Maps on the iPhone, nor the iPhone itself, looked like until the iPhone was introduced.  (Wherein E. Schmidt went scurrying out to catch a cell phone signal so he can call Google HQ right away to stop all development on Android, which is a nice apocryphal story.)

post #74 of 216
Originally Posted by TheMule View Post
In his own word!

 

So you don’t understand English, is that it?

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
post #75 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Just because Google doesn't choose to aggressively wield Motorola patents to sue others that want to play in the same playpen they do doesn't make the IP worthless. On the contrary it has inestimable value by not being used in protectionist efforts to strip away profit and resources from other companies. If you think Google is simply an ad company you don't pay attention. Perhaps you should do a bit of reading outside of AI or other fan sites.

Here's one that might have a little interest to you:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-22/inside-googles-secret-lab

Google is bared from suing using the Motorola patents, they are required to licences any of them patents under FRAND. This was due to the Apple/Motorola suit was already in play at the time of the purchase and it was found out that Motorola was attempting to force Apple into freely license its non SE patent in exchange for the licenses on the SE patents. I Apple told the SEC and DOJ and EU that Motorola was doing this so they put the restriction on Google not to attempt to use the Motorola patents against the industry. So the patent are essentially  worthless except for the FRAND payment they get which Apple has yet to pay their portion.

post #76 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.

get the story straight, he took what he was allowed to take, Xerox management allowed him access and told him he could use it, against the people at Xerox wishes not to allow Apple to have it. Yeah he stole it, but with permission to do so.

post #77 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Google is bared from suing using the Motorola patents, they are required to licences any of them patents under FRAND.
...Apple has yet to pay their portion.

Incorrect. FRAND applies only to those patents deemed essential. That category would probably not include the majority of MM patents. Even in the case of FRAND-pledged IP they aren't precluded from suing to protect their investment. They would only need to avoid requesting injunctions in most (but not all) circumstances for illegitimate use of their intellectual property, often referred to as theft here at AI.

Even with the agreed on limits from DoJ and the EU Google could pull their own Rockstar move, dodge and weave, and assign them to an NPE or "patent troll" for enforcement. Of course they wouldn't so it's a moot point.
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/19/13 at 1:34pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #78 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Flourished?

Most Android handset makers are running at a loss or barely scraping by.

With the exception of Samsung who spend billions on hype, Samsung spend more on advertising than the rest make altogether.

Yes but I'm sure you'll agree that they're still doing better than Palm which no longer exists and RIM that's in a nosedive. One can live quite a while with their nose just over the water but there's virtually no hope for survival if one is underwater and only going deeper.
"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 #79 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.


This one is as old as the infamous quote from Bill Gate "640K ought to be enough for anybody".  The Xerox Gui has nothing do to with the Lisa and original Mac GUI ,the other story about Apple has stole Xerox research is another hard to kill myth, in fact Apple has pay Xerox Corp with shares to use some of their research, and everything SJ and apple's engineer saw at Xerox Parc facility has been retaught from scratch.  They created the first 100% graphical home computers with no specialized graphical hardware, using only software AKA Quickdraw to replicate graphical function from the 100 000$ Xerox prototype.


Edited by BigMac2 - 12/19/13 at 1:38pm
post #80 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jobs 
I will spend my last dying breath if I need to...
Android killed Kenny!
Ask me about.... The 80's!
Reply
Ask me about.... The 80's!
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