NYT: Steve Jobs feels Google betrayed Apple by mimicking iPhone



  • Reply 101 of 344
    caljomaccaljomac Posts: 122member
    To be honest, I just think this is a front for more lawsuits
  • Reply 102 of 344
    Apple has the premium in house developed hardware, running premium in house developed software.

    I see no reason why they can't develop their own search engine?

    Seriously think about - buy out the domain and guys at isearch and innovate it like crazy. Mix it up with some mobileme syncing, throw in the maps from placebase and make a really really new way of searching. I dont know, incorporate searching for people? Like the way that isearch currently works. Collaborate with facebook/twitter etc to search for people. Throw in some news/weather. I would love a localized search where I could just type in 'supermarket' and it lists me the supermarkets/dairies in the area. Especially for when you're traveling to a new place. Something like the 'AroundMe' iPhone app. Maybe collaborate with companies that have business listings for that kind of thing. Popularity would also rise consumer wise if they were to offer it free and ad free. Google is primarily a search business but Apple only needs this as a supplement to it's current hardware/software business.

    If they did develop something new in search you can bet the media would give it all the advertising/coverage it needs.

    I think the whole way google searches is getting quite inundated, and there is room for something new. Just needs some innovation, and obviously there's all new ways of searching out there these days. Something Apple could look at? Maybe even buy some of the companies if the ideas are there. Apple is really the only company that could pull it off, innovation wise and hype/popularity wise. They'd have it as the standard mac/iphone search engine. The engine that searches for everything. I think it's possible?
  • Reply 103 of 344
    swiftswift Posts: 436member
    and I'll say it again. Google bought the Android OS, spent millions on it, and now is giving it away to Apple's hardware competitors. Now, they'll also be giving the handset manufacturers hundreds of millions of the Google search dollars too. So it's not even free, it's a net profit for them, without even counting the handset itself.

    Giving away an OS is unfair trade. Dumping, in other words. Selling below fair market value. Taking a loss to screw your competitors. And what's worse, Google has the rep of being all open and free and nice, but this really is a stab in the back.

    If they want to give away the OS to a non-profit open source Linux place, that's okay. But then the extra revenue they get from all the searches on those phones belongs to the foundation, not to Google. Or else they get into the phone business. But they're pussies, so they don't want to do that -- and they'd have all kinds of potential conflict of interest on that, wouldn't they?

    They want to be seen as Santa Claus, but they're the ones profiting from all our identities and private information we leave in Google, and Buzz, and all those web crawlers and cookies.

    Their reputation as a cool company has come to an end.
  • Reply 104 of 344
    swiftswift Posts: 436member
    Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post

    Xerox Star. 1981.


    Granted, it was expensive as hell - not a consumer product (but Xerox isn't a consumer company) - but neither was the Lisa which came out afterwards.

    But whatever - Xerox did "nothing" or "never made an actual product".

    Yeah, but the first part is true. They had all those patents and licensed them to Apple because they weren't going to pursue them. Do you think if the XeroxStar had been a big success they would have given Jobs and Wozniak the licenses?
  • Reply 105 of 344
    swiftswift Posts: 436member
    Originally Posted by andyapple View Post

    FWIW, you can easily change Safari's default desktop search engine with add-ons such as Glims (which boasts a lot of other very cool features) or Inquisitor. A lot of posters here have brought up the subject so just thought I'd throw that out, in case anyone's interested.

    Hell, just change the Home page to whatever you want. Then you have Bing or Yahoo (Bing) on the page and Google in the box on top.
  • Reply 106 of 344
    Originally Posted by Swift View Post

    Yeah, but the first part is true. They had all those patents and licensed them to Apple because they weren't going to pursue them. Do you think if the XeroxStar had been a big success they would have given Jobs and Wozniak the licenses?

    No they didn't - the deal with the stock purchase prior to Apple's 1979 IPO was to examine the IP at PARC. It wasn't a patent license deal - it was an agreement for a tech-demo (one that was half-assed enough that Jobs complained and got a second demo - the one that the Xerox Parc employees panicked about).

    #1976.E2.80.931980:_The_early_years" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I...he_early_years

    There's more links but that's the quickest. Note - tour - is different than - team of lawyers drafting specific Intellectual property share on a patent by patent basis - which is what you're inferring. So quit trying to pretend you know anything at all about the history of Xerox and Apple other than

    "but Xerox didn't do anything" -which is wrong (now you DIE *punch*)

    "but they licensed it" - which is wrong (now you DIE *boot to the head*)

    Billy Quan for the WIN!


    Give it up and read some history - it's all over the place. I recommend:



  • Reply 107 of 344
    swiftswift Posts: 436member
    Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

    The NY Times article suggests Apple was unhappy long before the Nexus One and Apple doesn't have to sue every supposed infringer at once.

    Apple has, I think, the best case for an unfair trade relationship here, with the Google-branded phone. This is not some OS just giveaway, this is an active cooperation.

    1. They might be able to intimidate HTC, and also get a quick judgment from the trade body that would grant an injunction against further importation until the validity of the patents is tested. That takes a long time. That's called kicking Google in the nuts.

    2. They could get tons of interesting info out there about the HTC/Google relationship. Did Google pay for the phone to be made? Did they show HTC exactly how they wanted it done? Then it's Google's baby, and not poor little HTC.

    I really like the software that Google gives away on the web. Many times, that's all you need, though it's seldom the best stuff. I find their interfaces generally suck. I've got Google Wave, but have been completely baffled as to what the hell I want to do with it. Google Voice's interface sucks, and this: I tried to use SkypeIn as one of my phones. But you can't do it, because Skype's answering machine picks up first, leaves no word, and if Skype's not open, nothing shows you that that's happened. I looked and looked for an answer in the help section, but couldn't find a thing. I turned off SkypeIn. Apparently, you can also do it by forwarding the message from Skype back to your original Google number. Then it leaves a message in Google voice. You'd never guess that from Google Voice.

    I don't feel the same conflict of interest in the Google experiments with gigabit ethernet. It would be terrific to see a small town transformed by this. Sure, Google makes more money the more we use the Internet, but I don't begrudge them that. They can show us proof of concept, at least, and that might embarrass the other ISPs and propel the FCC to do something. A nationwide ISP for Google? I'm less sure of that. That begins sounding like a monopoly. Their basic business is search. How many times can you say that? They can't own content, because they own the pipes. That's the same law as there should be for the ISPs and cable. If you're a content producer, that's one thing. The pipes can't own the content, because then they can favor one producer over another.

    Back in the '40s, the movie theaters were owned by the studios. So if MGM made an expensive turkey, they'd leave it in enough theaters until it got its money back. If they had a hit, they'd keep it in their owned and operated theaters until the audiences started falling, then they'd give it to the other houses. Not surprisingly, the mob was heavily involved in the movie theaters. So the feds broke up the monopoly by forbidding the studios from owning theaters. Made sense then, makes sense now.
  • Reply 108 of 344
    jon tjon t Posts: 131member
    I used to think that Apple would be OK about Google creating a cheaper phone os that would help kill MS and others. ie Apple at the premium end and Google at the commodity end of things.

    This certainly suggest I was wrong. It is certainly going to be a fascinating story to see played out in the coming months and years?

    And who knows, this might be a turning point, with Google having made their biggest mistake to date?
  • Reply 109 of 344
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Originally Posted by elroth View Post

    How people can keep repeating this drivel is beyond me. Jobs asked Xerox if he and Wozniak could use the ideas, and Xerox happily let them. That's not stealing.

    And oh by the way, Xerox didn't know what to do with the ideas - they had no clue about adapting the GUI into an actual product. Kind of like Bill Gates, who famously said that people would never use a mouse to control a computer.

    Because trolls, like politicians, believe that if you repeat a lie long enough it will eventually be accepted as fact. Unfortunately they are correct. Makes me wonder about historians too, ancient and modern.
  • Reply 110 of 344
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Apple needs to keep Jobs as a point man for technology and design, but get him the hell out of the CEO position and get someone in there who wont start wars that cant be won, first with MS in the 80s and now with Google.

    His design skill is amazing, but to fumble this acquisition, and to fumble the Google alliance in the first place would get any other CEO fired. Not to mention the fact that the iphone has been pretty much stagnate since 2.0, that is 2 yeqars of no real innovation, just catching up with 5 year old Blackberry voice dialing tech. Between Windows Phone 7, the new builds of android and blackberrys webkit based browsers coming soon, Apple and the iPhone will soon be religated to a small minority cult like Apple Mac was in the 90s.
  • Reply 111 of 344
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,819member
    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

    Because trolls, like politicians, believe that if you repeat a lie long enough it will eventually be accepted as fact. Unfortunately they are correct. Makes me wonder about historians too, ancient and modern.

    History is written by the victor.
  • Reply 112 of 344
    emulatoremulator Posts: 251member
    Originally Posted by guinness View Post

    Jobs can't be that dense. It's business, boo hoo.

    Really, Google wants to control information, and how to deliver it - portal, OS, browser, phones, broadband.

    And it's not like Apple is some angelic enterprise either.

    Very true. I like many of their products, but as companies, they are both corporate evils. Don't trust either of them!
  • Reply 113 of 344
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Originally Posted by RussellSakay View Post

    While Mac may be increasing in the market today. By arguing over patents makes Apple look childish and weak.

    If you believe this then just stop posting, as you're pissing into the wind. "Arguing over patents"...wtf are they supposed to do? Why did they file patents in the first place? So they could NOT defend them? Please get a grip.
  • Reply 114 of 344
    allblueallblue Posts: 393member
    Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

    History is written by the victor.

    Or more precisely: History is lies written by the victor.
  • Reply 115 of 344
    lamewinglamewing Posts: 742member
    Apple, if you are that aggrieved, then get into the search business and compete with Google on those terms as well.
  • Reply 116 of 344
    If I were apple I would have bought out youtube when they had the chance. And then change the entire site to h.264 format. Apple needs to look to influence the industry like that and stop google from banking on its most profitable business: Online Ads.

    Apple should make their own search engine. In my opinion apple needs to do the ground work or buy a company that already has a start to infiltrate the web form ground up perspective. Make a search engine that incorporates itunes for the web.

    I don't know if iPad will be the hit everyone thinks it will be. For me, I would like to have more computer power in a touch screen configuration.
  • Reply 117 of 344
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    Originally Posted by airmanchairman View Post

    Well done sprockkets; with our predictably short memories, very few of us remember the prototype Google phone that they touted around just before the iPhone made its debut.

    It's looks are a blatant copy, as usual, of the "cellphone du jour" of that actual time, the Blackberry, with some features aping other dominant phones of the time, including the Nokia "N" series. So what we have here is the usual "embrace and extend" cloning strategy of Microsoft dating back to its most evil days, and all this from a company whose motto is "Do No Evil".

    Steve Jobs' comments in an interview more than 2 years ago when Android was hinted at were cryptic but clear enough for those aware of their implications: Google had already achieved its objectives of being ubiquitous and unavoidably prevalent in the mobile search business without the Android strategy, he said, a strategy that risked it alienating itself from those who wished to be its partners. Then all that compounded by a foray into touch-screen cellphone hardware with form factors clearly aping the iPhone. All this from a company whose CEO actually sat in on board meetings at Apple Inc where strategy and day-to-day updates on progress would be discussed as a matter of routine... dear, dear, dear me, will Apple never learn the painful lessons of history?

    Can't really get any clearer than that what Apple's position would be, and why the special relationship, which in reality never existed at all, had to end.

    Now, given the facts and leaving out the emotion, which company would you say is shaping up to be the bad old Microsoft of yore that teamed up with a hardware manufacturer (Compaq) to clone the dominant hardware system of the day (IBM-PC)? What I'm saying is that Compaq is to HTC what Microsoft is to ---- ; fill in the blanks yourselves, people!

    Apple could have shown a prototype even before Google obviously but of course, Apple never shows anything beforehand.

    I think Steve feels is is being "Microsofted", like he did years ago with Windows.
  • Reply 118 of 344
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,693member
    Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post

    They aren?t kidding when they say the Droid does more than the iPhone.

    Here are just a few of the things that the Droid does that the iPhone doesn?t do:

    iPhone vs. Droid comparison chart

    Thanks for that link
  • Reply 119 of 344
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
  • Reply 120 of 344
    oomuoomu Posts: 130member
    apple creates, the industry follows

    I just wish this time, apple will totally and utterly crush the emulator, forcing the industry to compete with SOMETHING DIFFERENT FOR ONCE !
Sign In or Register to comment.