NYT: Steve Jobs feels Google betrayed Apple by mimicking iPhone

1568101118

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 344
    dave k.dave k. Posts: 1,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by elroth View Post


    There's a big history there, at least of Microsoft screwing Apple. One instance is QuickTime. When it was first developed, it was far ahead of any other computer media player. Apple sent Microsoft the code to QuickTime so that the Microsoft OS could interact with it, under strict conditions. Gates then took the code (stole it), copied it into Windows Media Player, and did everything he could to kill QuickTime, including threatening to bankrupt Apple if Apple continued to develop QuickTime for Windows.



    Never heard of that one. If accurate, just how foolish was Apple's management in the past...
  • Reply 142 of 344
    dave k.dave k. Posts: 1,306member
    I am curious if Google's CEO excused himself from any discussions regarding Apple's iPad as well? I find it laughable that Apple executives didn't kick Schmidt off of Apple's board after the first time he pulled his "I need to excuse myself now routine...". What were they thinking?



    Google makes lots and lots of money by having their content displayed on screens... With the industry moving away from traditional computer monitors and onto smart phone, TV, and other smart devices, it makes sense for Google to try and get their search content on those devices, but also push the development/adoption of such devices to benefit them...



    On a funny side note. Google has their phones, tablets, and chrome browser, but what they don't have is a AppleTV clone.... Apparently, the AppleTV was never discussed at Apple's board of director meeting...
  • Reply 143 of 344
    iluviluv Posts: 123member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post




    Google is taking Microsoft's share of the smart phone market that Apple doesn't want.






    Google is trying to kill the iPhone. That is totally evil.



    Can you imagine if they succeeded? You would not be abloe to use your iPhone anymore because it would be dead!
  • Reply 144 of 344
    I kept reading, expecting something beyond the NYT article I'd already read.
  • Reply 145 of 344
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by a_greer View Post


    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.



    Apple sold over 8 million iPhones in the last quarter, at a time when the 3GS is widely considered to be heading into the end of its product life. That's not the kind of performance that gets anybody fired.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by emulator View Post


    I like many of their products, but as companies, they are both corporate evils. Don't trust either of them!



    Respectfully, I'm very tired of this attitude. It's all over the place. People have begun throwing around the word "evil" to describe anything they don't like, for any reason at all. When a "corporation" ? ooh, dirty word! ? starts rounding up people and sending them to death camps, we can talk about evil. Until then, let's lay off the hyperbole. It just clouds the issues and makes conversation tiresome and tedious.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lamewing View Post


    Apple, if you are that aggrieved, then get into the search business and compete with Google on those terms as well.



    Unless you're LexisNexis, there's no such thing as a search business. Searching the Internet is not a way to make money. It makes no more sense to talk about Apple getting into "the search business" than it does to talk about them getting into the "burn cash for heat in the winter" business.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post


    Google may not have brought anything revolutionary to the table, but they are providing an open OS with none of the ridiculous walled garden stuff Apple cripple the iPhone with?



    ?which sucks. It might seem tempting to argue that one product is somehow politically or morally superior to another, but it really doesn't get you anywhere when that product stinks out loud.



    Quote:

    Why can't I [long list of stuff practically no one cares about]



    You know what a bell curve looks like, yeah? Shaped like, well, a bell. People who buy phones ? that is to say, people in general ? fall along a bell curve. At the far left end, we have people who just want to dial; they don't care about voicemail or caller ID or anything else. At the right right end, we have people like, well, you. People who (and I'm sincerely trying to fairly summarize your point of view here) see their phones as toys to be played with. That junk you rattled off is on the far end of the bell curve. Apple could add those features, but it would be a heck of a lot of work. And they'd sell what, eight million and three phones a quarter instead of eight million? Not to mention the fact that adding those things would necessarily make everybody else's phones harder to use and less reliable.



    Quote:

    Android is effectively iPhone without the walls.



    And without ease of use, stability and security. But hey, it's an alternative product, and it's there for that tail end of the bell curve to buy or not. Of course, there's the little matter of infringing Apple's patents that needs to be settled, but I'm sure Google can find ways around those things. After all, being able to install any app you want, regardless of quality or stability, is more important to that segment of the market than ease of use, stability or security anyway, right?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post


    If I'm not mistaken patent holder are obligated to defend them or risk loosing them... Or is that just with TMs?



    The word is "losing," and you're thinking of trademarks. Trademark protection lapses if the owner of the trademark doesn't make a good-faith effort to protect it. That's why words like "aspirin" and "thermos" aren't trademarked any more.
  • Reply 146 of 344
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by davidch14 View Post


    ....

    at best, they are a bunch of hyprocratic smart engineers with great technology and poor leadership (like sun). at worst, they are ruthless corporation stealing from their partners (like ms).



    everyone talks about how smart google employees are. has anyone actually used any of googles products? except for search what has worked really well and doesn't seem to just languish once it is out there?

    google apps? they are taking their sweet time with that but it is better.

    wave? thats a ghostown and deserves the 'beta' tag. 'buzz'? yes that is a big hit too..not. latitude? god. you tube? (oh thats right, their design failed and they bought out youtube instead).



    googles biggest problem is that the founders never had to actually do anything outside the confines of 'school' and think they are still living at stanford. everything is a great new student project.

    google is one bad publicity day from losing big time.
  • Reply 147 of 344
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,823member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post


    Never heard of that one. If accurate, just how stupid was Apple's management in the past...



    Trust betrayed, in hindsight, can make anyone feel (and potentially look,) stupid. Doesn't mean that one is stupid but feelings and truth often enjoy only a tenuous association.
  • Reply 148 of 344
    dave k.dave k. Posts: 1,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    everyone talks about how smart google employees are. has anyone actually used any of googles products? except for search what has worked really well and doesn't seem to just languish once it is out there?





    Gmail, Google Earth, Google Maps to name three...
  • Reply 149 of 344
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post


    yes they should get into the search business, but fire whoever came up with the name 'mobileme'. and MS should fire whoever came up with 'bing'. god i hate those names lol.



    Agree 100%. Add 'iPad' to that. Ridiculous name.
  • Reply 150 of 344
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jbaxter View Post


    I kept reading, expecting something beyond the NYT article I'd already read.



    What do you think the Comment section is all about?
  • Reply 151 of 344
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post


    Gmail, Google Earth, Google Maps to name three...



    you forgot orkut or whatever its called.
  • Reply 152 of 344
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by solipsism

    So let me get this straight. You do think companies should spend money obtaining patents, but when it comes to owning them you don't think they should not protect them? Seriously?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RussellSakay View Post


    They should protect them of course! However making the patents open to the market like shareware would perhaps solve a lot of their problems. If MS uses one of Apple's patents and improves on it, great! Then it would be the same goes for MS if Apple uses that patent instead. I like the open market patent share idea, it allows for people like you or me to take an idea and improve on it without any legal problems.






    A brief excerpt from Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand



    The "profit motive," speaking broadly, means a man's incentive to work in order to gain something for himself ? in economic terms, to make money. By Objectivist standards, such a motive, being thoroughly just, is profoundly moral. Socialists used to speak of "production for use" as against "production for profit." What they meant and wanted was: "production by one man for the unearned use of another."



    http://www.peikoff.com/opar/profit_motive.htm



    *
  • Reply 153 of 344
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post


    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).



    According to Jef Raskin, he arranged the tour of Xerox PARC in order to convince Steve Jobs that a GUI-based computer was worth pursing. It worked so well that Jobs fired Raskin and took over the Mac project himself. What Apple developed for the Mac (and even the Lisa) had virtually no basis for comparison with the Alto. Apple substantially advanced the art of the user interface.



    A lot of people within academia and industry were perusing graphical user interfaces at the time. Apple didn't steal anything, and Microsoft really didn't either. Microsoft's big sin IMO was that with the years and tons of money they had at their disposal to develop their own approach, they utterly failed to advance the art. The first two versions of Windows were beyond laughable, the third only modestly functional, and the fourth an almost complete rip-off of the MacOS. And Windows 95, lest we forget, came more than eleven years after the Mac.
  • Reply 154 of 344
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post


    Gmail, Google Earth, Google Maps to name three...



    i have never looked into it but here is this info from wikip



    EarthViewer 3D, and was created by Keyhole, Inc, a company acquired by Google in 2004 (now called 'google earth')



    Google Maps first started as a software application developed by Lars and Jens Rasmussen for the company Where2. In October 2004 the company was acquired by Google Inc



    but they did go gmail completely in house. and it ain't too bad.
  • Reply 155 of 344
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dave K. View Post


    Never heard of that one. If accurate, just how foolish was Apple's management in the past...



    Additional information above, but the fact is, we don't really know how much of this is accurate. All we really do know is that Apple and Microsoft were embroiled in a patent dispute which dragged on for many years and which involved QuickTime code somewhere at its center. Microsoft ended up dropping a bunch of money on Apple in 1997 to settle it, but they also got access to Apple's patents at the same time.



    The point being, all of Microsoft's current and potential partners know now if they didn't before, how treacherous they can be. If anybody knows how to deal with Microsoft, it's Steve Jobs.
  • Reply 156 of 344
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,860member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TroubleStarter View Post


    This is the part that got my attention the most:



    "Apple believes that devices like smartphones and tablets should have tightly controlled, proprietary standards and that customers should take advantage of services on those gadgets with applications downloaded from Apple’s own App Store.



    Google, on the other hand, wants smartphones to have open, nonproprietary platforms so users can freely roam the Web for apps that work on many devices."



    I have an iPhone and I like it a lot, but I'm always for open standards instead of closed platforms. If not for that, we would still be all working on IBM mainframes and mini-computers.



    Yes, that part got my attention too, but only because it was so revealing of the writer's incredibly naive bias. The idea that Google's goal is that, "users can freely roam the Web for apps that work on many devices," is absurdly mistaken. Google, more than anyone else in the tech industry since Microsoft in its heyday, is all about locking users into Google solutions, controlling people's access to information (even to their own information), and essentially spying on their users for profit.



    Yes, Apple sells proprietary systems. But the idea that Google's systems are open is stretching things more than a bit. And, at least Apple's proprietary systems down try to own you and your data in the way the Google's so-called open systems do, by locking you into their cloud.



    It's also historically inaccurate, to say the least, to state that open systems had anything significant to do with IBM's loss of ascendancy in the tech industry.



    Steve Jobs has come to the realization of who Google are and what they are about, and he's completely spot on in his assessment of them. They are nothing more than a pack of vultures and thieves with no respect for the law, no respect for privacy and no respect for the boundaries of propriety. A thoroughly immoral company with a record of theft of IP and who's only sense of morality is that whatever they can get away with is right.



    As far as stopping them, if Microsoft (read Ballmer) had any sense at all they would shut down Bing and saddle Google with a de facto monopoly in search.
  • Reply 157 of 344
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Yes, Apple sells proprietary systems. But the idea that Google's systems are open is stretching things more than a bit. And, at least Apple's proprietary systems down try to own you and your data in the way the Google's so-called open systems do, by locking you into their cloud.



    Absolutely. The most abused word in the language these days has to be "open" -- to the point where it has become effectively meaningless. These are all proprietary systems. Choose based on what works the best, not on some notional concept of openness. It doesn't really exist.
  • Reply 158 of 344
    Wow, that was a mature and completely technically based response...
  • Reply 159 of 344
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,860member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post


    Android is effectively iPhone without the walls. If you like living in a prison, then keep supporting the iPhone/iPad. If you like Freedom, choose Android.



    It's really hard to comprehend that there are really people out there who are this blindly naive. The walls around the iPhone are for keeping the barbarians out, not for keeping the citizens in. The walls around Android are for making sure the citizens don't ever leave the city with anything of value by making them pass through the Google checkpoints on their way out.



    "All your data are belong to us." -- Eric Schmidt
  • Reply 160 of 344
    Quote:
    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.



    AIR, Jobs, Andy Hertzfeld, Bill Atkinson, and a few others (not including Woz*) visited Xerox PARC to see the Xerox Alto System (Ethernet network, Mouse, Postscript, GUI). PARC was pretty accessible-- I and lots of others took the tour.



    *Woz had left the company and was doing his "US Festival" thing.



    Then Apple made some kind of technology-exchange arrangement with Xerox (licensing? Stock? Investment?) to allow Apple freedom to develop the Mac.



    All the technologies (above) were used in high-end Xerox products under development which never had significant market impact. Many of the originators of the technologies left PARC to form companies such as Adobe, 3Com...



    *
Sign In or Register to comment.