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 3

post #81 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

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.)

And youtube? Did Apple write that app as well?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #82 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
 

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.

Did Google need "permission" from Apple to compete? The term "stealing" applies to copyrights, which protect literal code, and patents, which cover specific implementations of an idea. Yes, Google changed Android's user interface to support multitouch. But Apple owns -- at least in principle, if the patent system worked correctly -- not the concept of multitouch itself, but rather their particular implementation of it. 

post #83 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

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.
That's not exactly the full story though. Apple had permission to tour the labs, but not to wholesale lift the ideas from Xerox PARC and make the Lisa and the Mac (debateable how much was "copied" and how much was "inspired by"). Xerox ultimately did end up suing Apple for infringement, but they'd taken so long to realise what they'd let slip through their fingers that the case was thrown since it had passed the three year statute of limitations. If Xerox had filed suit in time who knows what the court would have found, the tech world could be very different.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #84 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.

Theft is not involved in Apple/Xerox case because Xerox got 1 M$ worth of Apple shares for touring Jobs and al. at the PARC.

Google did not ask for anything nor did they pay anything. That is stealing. Plain and simple.
post #85 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

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.

How do you steal something with permission?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

And youtube? Did Apple write that app as well?

Yes.

"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 #86 of 216
But but but an Android alternate was touch based! There's a difference between what Apple did with touch than what others were attempting to do at the time.

(Catching up on the comments)
post #87 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Yes.

And did Apple convert the content for mobile viewing as well?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #88 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


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?

 

They set out to make a knock-off OS, first of RIMs then Apple to support their ad business.  It was a poor and lazy strategy, and it's weakened their primary business.

 

Compared to Apple who has only increased Mac sales and market share by adding iDevices, and an OS X based mobile OS.

post #89 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.

No.  Apple paid Xerox for the tech with stock.  They didn't even get access to Xerox PARC until they had 'paid' Xerox.  The UI technology was used to supplement Apple's existing technology.  

 

Google just repackaged Linux with un-licensed Sun/Oracle code.  Theft is the primary technology component of Android.  Google has a nasty habit of Microsofting technology, taking a publicly licensed standard, adding a proprietary feature (think bloating IMAP fro Gmail), destroying cross-compatibility and then claiming the whole thing as their own invention.

post #90 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

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

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.

I think you're forgetting about Newtons and track pads, not to mention Apple's long history of products regarding UI input going back to the early 80's.  Touch and multitouch were around before touch screens, and Apple has been at it for decades, well established with both product/patent hits and misses.

post #91 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm proud to say there's no one I've found in the forum yet who isn't capable of adding something of value to the discussions so I've no use for "ignore" (well there once was was one member on my block list for another reason). I've no doubt you have your own useful contributions to make too and I look forward to reading them.

Have you read some of the comments? Some are too troll worthy to be ignored (ironically).
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.

Others have said it already.
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. 

Really, so Apple couldn't have relied on 30 yrs in the PC industry to improve the iPhone?
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.

Again Apple has years of experience with PCs and how to improve them. We know for sure that without the iPhone, Android would be a blackberry clone.
post #92 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).

No multi-touch...and it's more like Blackberry competitor with physical keyboard and touch IU. Google and other phone manufacturers never expected a kick-ass iPhone with that kind of interface: multitouch, full web browser, "an iPod, a phone and an internet communication device" all in one. Therefore, they panicked and cancelled all their smartphone projects with physical keyboard and no multitouch.

post #93 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

They set out to make a knock-off OS, first of RIMs then Apple to support their ad business.  It was a poor and lazy strategy, and it's weakened their primary business.

Compared to Apple who has only increased Mac sales and market share by adding iDevices, and an OS X based mobile OS.

And it would've been better for them to not do anything and leave themselves open to getting screwed by Apple? Yes what they did was lazy but even if their primary business is weakened it's nowhere near what would've happened if Apple decided it suddenly didn't need it services. What would be your response if Google hadn't made Android, kept all their services only on Apple devices and one day the headline reads "Google on it's heels because Apple decides to switch to make default competing services"?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #94 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.

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.

post #95 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post
 

Did Google need "permission" from Apple to compete? The term "stealing" applies to copyrights, which protect literal code, and patents, which cover specific implementations of an idea. Yes, Google changed Android's user interface to support multitouch. But Apple owns -- at least in principle, if the patent system worked correctly -- not the concept of multitouch itself, but rather their particular implementation of it. 

You sounds like a Samsung developer. Oh yeah...let somebody else do the thinking and come out with a product, we just need to "change" ours to support whatever feature like "theirs".  If that's not copying, I don't know what is.

post #96 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


And it would've been better for them to not do anything and leave themselves open to getting screwed by Apple? Yes what they did was lazy but even if their primary business is weakened it's nowhere near what would've happened if Apple decided it suddenly didn't need it services. What would be your response if Google hadn't made Android, kept all their services only on Apple devices and one day the headline reads "Google on it's heels because Apple decides to switch to make default competing services"?

Of all the things in this world, they decided to do something that were horrible at?  There was nothing else they could have put their efforts into?  You do realize that since Google, we are still at pop-ups and banner ads, while their search has gotten much worse.  And the only way they tried to get better at this, was by trying to steal from Apple instead of RIM and make a second fiddle/also ran iteration?

 

Then again, this is what Page and Brin did with Yahoo to found Google, they even found a similar silly, baby-talk term to name the company.

post #97 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If only I live that long 1wink.gif


Oh come on ... I'm sure there's a Boston Dynamics team already working on your assistant. I have to say I love the one you can kick and it keeps coming back. Wait a minute .... 1wink.gif
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #98 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

Of all the things in this world, they decided to do something that were horrible at?  There was nothing else they could have put their efforts into?

And miss out on all the mobile searches people do? Thank god you're not their CEO. I personally do 99% of my searches from my phone and I'm sure I have plenty of company. I get no pop ups and no banner ads.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #99 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


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.

 

Gatorguy,

 

You don't speak with much authority.

 

Google bought Moto when it did because Carl Icahn was an aggressive investor, and he and the Moto CEO made noise about going after other Android OEM's for patent infringement. This was anathema to Google, and forced their hand, at a premium.

 

As for IP usable in negotiations with other corporations such as MS, Apple and Nokia, Google doesn't have any. If they did, they would have used it by now.

 

Microsoft will end up getting money licensing IP to Moto/Google, just like they have from most of the other Android OEM's.

post #100 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.

Ah, I did not realize this was Idiot Day on AI.

 

Happy Idiot Day, all!

post #101 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

And did Apple convert the content for mobile viewing as well?

Not sure what you mean by "covert ... for mobile viewing". What does "for mobile viewing" refer to, exactly?

"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 #102 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

So your explanation for Google not wielding their patent portfolio is they they'd rather be the white knight in shining armor. :lol: How utterly asinine! Sorry to burst your bubble but no corporation with any hope of staying in business would pay several billion dollars for a company that's losing money if it didn't think there was something of value. Google was shaking in its boots seeing how its Android licensees were being forced to fork over cash to Microsoft in patent royalties. Google feared for the long-term liability of the Android platform. Motorola was losing money. It was trying to sell itself. Google made an offer to Motorola and was laughed out of the boardroom with a warning that Motorola would sell to Microsoft. Motorola's treasure trove of patents going to Microsoft was the stuff of nightmares to Google. In order to avoid this, Google ate crow and forked over $12.5 billion. 

 

Google's hope was to be able to utilize Motorola's patent portfolio. In fact why don't you try to explain what "inestimable value" there is to be had in not using aggressively using Motorola's patent portfolio? I can't think of any explanation, but I digress. The bottom line in all this is that Google paid a huge amount of money for a company that was losing money and had a patent portfolio that probably wasn't the treasure trove Google thought it to be. 

 

Also, what exactly does the link about Google's secret lab prove? The type of company Google is is defined by their financials, and you look at the financials and you'll find out that Google is as of now nothing more than an ad company. It's the majority of their sales. I don't care if Google makes a perpetual motion machine in their secret laboratories. What matters is if there's a viable product on the market.  

post #103 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post
 

 

Well clearly they stole the following, which Apple invented:

- Rectangular touch screen

- Icons in a grid layout

- Pinch to zoom

 

I'm sorry...where is the big idea in what Google has created? Where was the aha moment. Apple did all the heavy lifting & Google added a few features that kind of piggybacked off of existing ideas & somehow they deserve credit for what? You're right Apple did absolutely nothing. There was absolutely no thinking going on in the development of the iPhone. No blueprint for others to follow. Where's Google's blueprint? Everyone else was going to do it anyway, right?...but they didn't. It's a lot easier to build a platform when someone shows you how. It doesn't mean you've created anything unique. Of course you think, from your comment, there was nothing unique about the iPhone.

post #104 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.

How is that a problem?
Their market share for phones before June 2007 was exactly zero point zero percent, and every year they sell more and more phones than the year before.

"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 #105 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post

So your explanation for Google not wielding their patent portfolio is they they'd rather be the white knight in shining armor. lol.gif  How utterly asinine! Sorry to burst your bubble but no corporation with any hope of staying in business would pay several billion dollars for a company that's losing money if it didn't think there was something of value. Google was shaking in its boots seeing how its Android licensees were being forced to fork over cash to Microsoft in patent royalties. Google feared for the long-term liability of the Android platform. Motorola was losing money. It was trying to sell itself. Google made an offer to Motorola and was laughed out of the boardroom with a warning that Motorola would sell to Microsoft. Motorola's treasure trove of patents going to Microsoft was the stuff of nightmares to Google. In order to avoid this, Google ate crow and forked over $12.5 billion. 

Google's hope was to be able to utilize Motorola's patent portfolio. In fact why don't you try to explain what "inestimable value" there is to be had in not using aggressively using Motorola's patent portfolio? I can't think of any explanation...

Let's compare evidence then shall we?

1. Google has been around for about 16 years now. Is it reasonable to believe no other search or ad provider has purposefully or accidentally used Google IP without permission over those 16 years? Then how many of it's search competitors have they sued over the years?
2. Prior to closing on the Motorola Mobility deal Google controlled 2000+ patents, give or take a few, in several different arenas. Companies with far far fewer patents still attack other players, even bigger ones. How many of those patents did Google use in legal actions against its competitors up to that point?
3. Motorola started several infringement actions over numerous patents against a few different techs prior to Google taking the reins of MM. After Google purchased them many new IP cases has Motorola Mobility filed?
4. Prompted by MM saber-rattling Google removed the threat of further MM patents attacks from the tech landscape, preventing a further ramp-up in the IP wars and a waste of millions in over-reaching royalties and legal fees. Google's IP may even have been the impetus behind Apple making a surprise cross-license agreement with HTC.

Now what evidence do you have for your claim that Google intended to aggressively attack Apple or MS or Nokia or anyone else once they had their hands on Moto IP, and that was the plan all along? What proof can you offer that Google's IP is worthless?
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/19/13 at 6:48pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #106 of 216
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
Prompted by MM saber-rattling Google removed the threat of further MM patents attacks from the tech landscape…

 

This reads so much like a press release, it’s painful.

 

At least two lawsuits from Motorola, by the way.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #107 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

This reads so much like a press release, it’s painful.

At least two lawsuits from Motorola, by the way.

Which new IP infringement claim lawsuits are in progress, filed by Motorola Mobility since May of last year TS?
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/19/13 at 6:58pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #108 of 216
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post
Which new IP infringement suits have been filed by Motorola Mobility since May of last year TS?

 

1. February. Get your own acquisitions straight.

2. http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/google-files-patent-lawsuit-against-apple/

 

And that’s all it needs. Note the title. GOOGLE. Not Motorola, even. Because no one else is stupid enough to pretend they’re separate companies.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #109 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

1. February. Get your own acquisitions straight.
2. http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/google-files-patent-lawsuit-against-apple/

And that’s all it needs. Note the title. GOOGLE. Not Motorola, even. Because no one else is stupid enough to pretend they’re separate companies.

You had the year right at least. The purchase closed about the 21st of May, 2012
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/google-closes-12-5-billion-deal-to-buy-motorola-mobility/

,,, and the article you linked is titled "MOTOROLA FILES PATENT LAWSUIT AGAINST APPLE, AIMS TO BLOCK U.S IMPORTS OF ITS PRODUCTS", not Google files suit against Apple.

... and it appears Google may have stepped in a couple weeks later to tell MM to drop the ITC complaint. Or perhaps MM had their own reasons. It may even be connected to Apple's out-of-the-blue licensing agreement with HTC just a month later. In any event at MM's request the ITC dismissed it in October of last year so there isn't any new lawsuit against Apple. So what was the other one of the two you thought you knew about?
Edited by Gatorguy - 12/19/13 at 7:51pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #110 of 216

Can anyone explain to me why Apple isn't going nuclear on Google?

 

When do the lawsuits finally begin?

 

Are they waiting until the Samsung suits are over? I've always thought that those suits were just practice.

post #111 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post

Can anyone explain to me why Apple isn't going nuclear on Google?

When do the lawsuits finally begin?

Are they waiting until the Samsung suits are over? I've always thought that those suits were just practice.

You ever play Tic-Tac-Toe?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #112 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post
 

Can anyone explain to me why Apple isn't going nuclear on Google?

 

When do the lawsuits finally begin?

 

Are they waiting until the Samsung suits are over? I've always thought that those suits were just practice.

Apple is picking its targets, and not for the money. The $900 million current total in judgements against Samsung amounts to no more than a few days of profits for Apple in this fiscal year. The objective of legal action is to enforce patents that will pull Samsung's underpants down around their ankles, disrupting their device sales in various geographic markets and watching them fall on their ass businesswise.

 

BTW, after Christmas, keep your eyes peeled for someone on the street actually wearing a Galaxy Galaxy Gear smartwatch. Then tell me if they look like some dweeb who stumbled off the set of The Big Bang Theory.

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #113 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post

…then tell me if they look like some dweeb who stumbled off the set of The Big Bang Theory.

Woah there! No need to make this personal.

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #114 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I was going to say the same thing, but you beat me to it. Well said. Blackberry (RIM), Microsoft, and Nokia just buried their heads in the sand and thought they could keep their existing smartphone OS's while the iPhone sucked all the air out of the room. Only Google and Palm reacted quickly enough -- and Palm stumbled on execution.

I felt bad for Palm.

This is the phone Palm announced just 2 days before the iPhone announcement in 2007:




It just shows how behind other companies were. None of them were thinking about the next big thing. Palm spent all that time building yet another Treo instead of creating something new.

And that lack of vision was the cause of their demise.
post #115 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


... and it appears Google may have stepped in a couple weeks later to tell MM to drop the ITC complaint. Or perhaps MM had their own reasons. It may even be connected to Apple's out-of-the-blue licensing agreement with HTC just a month later. In any event at MM's request the ITC dismissed it in October of last year so there isn't any new lawsuit against Apple. So what was the other one of the two you thought you knew about?

So Google could say stop it but can't say go ahead and sue? You keep saying they're separate so Google shouldn't have any say.
post #116 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

I felt bad for Palm.

This is the phone Palm announced just 2 days before the iPhone announcement in 2007:




It just shows how behind other companies were. None of them were thinking about the next big thing. Palm spent all that time building yet another Treo instead of creating something new.

And that lack of vision was the cause of their demise.

Well, looks that way in hindsight, but the market was very different before the iPhone. If the iPhone didn't exist, that Windows Mobile-powered Palm Treo would have done just fine competing for a piece of the "mobile email warrior" market with RIM, and the rest of us would continue to carry separate feature phones (I had a Moto RAZR) and an iPod for songs, because yes, smartphones were bulky and crippled, and nobody thought of them as serious computing devices. If you'd had told me that in 6 years, I'd go from a slow, Java Brew flip phone to a 64-bit pocket computer capable of playing Infinity Blade III and recording and playing 1080p HD movies, I could scarcely believe that. But that's where we are today.

"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 #117 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Well, looks that way in hindsight, but the market was very different before the iPhone. If the iPhone didn't exist, that Windows Mobile-powered Palm Treo would have done just fine competing for a piece of the "mobile email warrior" market with RIM

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.
post #118 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


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.

 

Fantasyland that you have created.

 

"Google won't use it's superpowers for evil" doesn't cut it with stockholders.

 

As Google and its Android partners see more and more infringement actions from the likes of MS, Nokia, and Apple, there won't be any Motorola IP to negotiate with. Motorola just doesn't have much, if any, non SEP of value.

 

I'm going to quite enjoy Nokia attacking Google and Android OEM's on map and navigation IP infringement. Google just can't stomach having to pay licensing fees for Android, though it isn't as if most of the Android OEM's aren't licensing IP from MS as is.

 

But Google maps and navigation are very much cross platform, and that could get very expensive.

post #119 of 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

I bet there's some misleading sense in which something vaguely like that could be said and be true in an unimportant way. I'd love to see the evidence about what Google was REALLY doing with Touch before they suddenly went so closely iPhone-like. Is that something that gets repeated with reliable links or screenshots, or just Fox News-style myth that gets repeated on forums? I've heard that too, but if I ever saw a link it made no impression on me--and I'll immediately stop crediting Apple with the modern smartphone if I see evidence to point toward Google coincidentally doing the same thing.

(I'd think every phone compnay was doing "something" with touch: you could say PDAs have had some sort of touch ever since the Newton, and some old-style PDA smartphones too. Every laptop as well, since Apple popularized the trackpad. "Touch-based" in theory could be like DaVinci's helicopter: all wrong, but he could claim to have done something!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

From about the 3 min mark on there's some touch interface demos. This particular video is from early Nov 2007.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJHYqE0RDg

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?

Speaking of 2006... here is what Google was working on at the time: The Verge

From the Verge article: "the baseline specs required two soft menu keys, indicating that touchscreens weren't really in the plan at all."

And from this article we're all commenting on... "We're going to have to start over"

"Starting over" implies that they're throwing out what they've been working on... and creating something new.

If Android was always a touchscreen OS... why were they starting over?

We've now seen a few pictures and drawings of Blackberry-esqe prototypes... but no touchscreen prototypes dating before the iPhone.

I wonder why that is...
post #120 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?

Speaking of 2006... here is what Google was working on at the time: The Verge

From the Verge article: "the baseline specs required two soft menu keys, indicating that touchscreens weren't really in the plan at all."

And from this article we're all commenting on... "We're going to have to start over"

"Starting over" implies that they're throwing out what they've been working on... and creating something new.

If Android was always a touchscreen OS... why were they starting over?

We've now seen a few pictures and drawings of Blackberry-esqe prototypes... but no touchscreen prototypes dating before the iPhone.

I wonder why that is...

"You mean we get to kill the keypad and use the entire screen?" would have been a few hours coding for a larger screen if in fact Android was fully touch capable.

 

As you have stated, it wasn't.

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