Google founder accuses Apple's Steve Jobs of 'rewriting history'

178101213

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 244
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Haggar View Post


    Did Apple design and manufacture the LCD panel and touchscreen used in the iPhone?



    Technically, yes. They bought the company that developed the specific multi-touch technology making it Apple's explicitly, then specced the LCD panels manufacture to a contractor.



    Google built an operating system then they partnered with a phone manufacturer. HTC designed, specced, and built the "Google" phone, getting much Google assistance to get the hardware integrated with the OS. Google never built the phone, nor did they spec or design the hardware.
  • Reply 182 of 244
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bobborries View Post


    First to market a popular device wins in the memory of the consumer's history.



    Apple First's
    • First Color PC (Apple II $1,200) 1977

    • First PC with consumer Disk Drive 1978 Apple

    • First Spreadsheet (killer app) Visicalc 1979 Apple

    • First PC with 3.5 inch disks 1983 Apple

    • First consumer GUI 1984 Apple

    • First PC with Mouse 1984 Apple

    • First PC with drawing pad 1984 Apple

    • First Consumer hard drive 10 megs 1984 Apple

    • First PC with Microsoft Word 1984 Apple

    • First Laser Printer 1985 Apple

    • First PC with Midi 1985 Apple

    • First Personel Network appletalk 1985 Apple

    • First PC with SCSI 1986 Apple

    • First with rewritable optical storage Apple sc 1988

    • First PC with CD-ROM Drive Apple 150 1991

    • First PC with ethernet built in 1991 Quadra

    • First Consumer Digital Camera Quicktake 100 1994

    • First PDA (Newton) 1993 before the Palm PDA and Pocket PC

    • First PC with usb 1998 iMac

    • First PC without Floppy Disk iMac!

    • First PC conpany to reach a $1 billion annual sales rate Apple

    • First WiFi 1999 Apple Airport

    and yet it's Bill Gates who gets all the credit.



    THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU A MILLION TIMES

    FINALLY COMPLETE ANSWERS TO ALL THESE IDIOTIC BASELESS RANTS HERE WITH NOTHING TO BACK IT UP WITH ... u r the FRIGGIN MAN

    I can now log off the post without having to read any further. YAYYYYYYYYY.
  • Reply 183 of 244
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    I would disagree. How do you know I'm not in the phone business? There's no way for you to tell and on no other evidence you should rightfully conclude that I am not.



    WTF I never said anything about you and the phone business. You need to untangle you post reply process.







    Quote:

    Reportedly. For at least a couple of years. How many? All innuendo and guesswork. Until a company announces something, they're not 'in' the market.



    EDIT: The other 'reported' but is that it wasn't a phone in the first instance. It was a tablet.





    There you are incorrect. A company is in the market whenever they spend R&D on a product or potential product, even if they never ship anything. As to your ambiguous insinuation I was being coy. I specifically said back to at least 2003! Can't you read?



    As for the tablet report, that was Steve onstage at All Things Digital this spring, and he didn't say anything about the timeframes of when they set the tablet aside and started the push on the phone. BUT! Steve also said, again on the stage at All Things Digital, but in 2004, that he was pleased bu the things Apple didn't ship, which apparently a finished PDA tablet (which by the way was all over the rumor circuit from 2002 to early 2004). The decision to kill the project was in when??? Shall I dare say it now?? Can you handle it?? 2003!



    Now please put 2+2 together into 4 and come to a very strong implied inference extrapolated from factual statements that the PDA tablet cancellation in 2003 was when Steve said ee put the tablet back on the shelf to do the phone first.



    Thus I can safely rest on my earlier statement of Apple reportedly, but not officially confirmed to be, working on a phone as early as 2003. And even if you want to quibble and say that 2003 has to be considered 2004 for over-conservative reasons, that's still more than a year before Google bought Android.
  • Reply 184 of 244
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bitzandbitez View Post


    THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU A MILLION TIMES

    FINALLY COMPLETE ANSWERS TO ALL THESE IDIOTIC BASELESS RANTS HERE WITH NOTHING TO BACK IT UP WITH ... u r the FRIGGIN MAN

    I can now log off the post without having to read any further. YAYYYYYYYYY.



    Nice 'list'... pity this pattern of 'first' appears to have ceased over a decade ago...
  • Reply 185 of 244
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    Well said. And it's kind of inevitable. Sooner or later, every smartphone will resemble iPhone, and every tablet will resemble iPad. That's not what Steve Jobs is angry about. Of course there would be imitators. It's the fact that Google was a partner in iPhone's development and had access to early prototypes. I guess now Steve must know how Xerox PARC felt



    Doesn't Steve Jobs like to quote Pablo Picasso: "Good artists copy, but great artists steal"?



    Yes. But in order to do credit to the original source you have to adhere to the spirit that Picasso said it in. And that had nothing to do with imitation or imitation with slight derivation of others work. It had to do with "stealing" concepts from other domains and incorporating the concepts into original art.



    Apple "stole" the idea of a phone, and incorporated it onto a tiny portable computer. Apple "stole" ideas from human interface design and applied them to software GUI representations...



    PARC again. To oversimplify a bit -- Apple got permission from Xerox for that whole thing because Xerox managers didn't have any clue about what they had. Did Apple later take legal advantage of Xerox's ignorance, yes. Just like Gates did the same to Apple with the Windows licenses. Unfortunately that's business. But there the similarity ends, Apple innovated and made the Xerox ideas into something far more advanced. Microsoft only imitated and made small isolated derivations.
  • Reply 186 of 244
    firefly7475firefly7475 Posts: 1,502member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bitzandbitez View Post


    FINALLY, The best post here about who came 1st...

    THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU A MILLION TIMES

    FINALLY COMPLETE ANSWERS TO ALL THESE IDIOTIC BASELESS RANTS HERE WITH NOTHING TO BACK IT UP WITH ... u r the FRIGGIN MAN

    I can now log off the post without having to read any further. YAYYYYYYYYY.



    And to think I've spent all this time thinking it was the chicken.



    God damn it.
  • Reply 187 of 244
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    It's too bad that some people can only read poetry as prose.



    Yes, and although I'm not sure that's poetry, the same sentiment applies to isolated gems of wisdom.
  • Reply 188 of 244
    firefly7475firefly7475 Posts: 1,502member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    It's patently obvious that Apple came up with a completely new approach to phones and that Android (as well as every other manufacturer on the market practically), is frantically copying that design and that approach.



    Copied... past tense. These days Google seem hell bent on adding features that separate Android from the iPhone.
  • Reply 189 of 244
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    oops!
  • Reply 190 of 244
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post


    ? Xerox Park



    Correction: Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center)



    Thanks for the overall sentiment and vote of confidence though!
  • Reply 191 of 244
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    There you are incorrect. A company is in the market whenever they spend R&D on a product or potential product, even if they never ship anything. As to your ambiguous insinuation I was being coy. I specifically said back to at least 2003! Can't you read?.



    No, YOU are incorrect. By definition, a company is in the market if they sell a product into a given market. Before that, they can say that they're exploring a market or evaluating whether they should participate in a market or doing R&D in a given market.



    Of course, that's irrelevant. What we know is that Apple introduced a phone before Google did. We know that both companies must have spent some time doing R&D before releasing their product. We know that before the iPhone came out, Google's R&D revolved around RIM phones and after the iPhone came out, Google's R&D switched to phones that looked much like the iPhone.



    Draw your own conclusions.
  • Reply 192 of 244
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bitzandbitez View Post


    THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU A MILLION TIMES

    FINALLY COMPLETE ANSWERS TO ALL THESE IDIOTIC BASELESS RANTS HERE WITH NOTHING TO BACK IT UP WITH ... u r the FRIGGIN MAN

    I can now log off the post without having to read any further. YAYYYYYYYYY.





    and let's not forget the FIRST FULLY CAPABLE TOUCH SCREEN DEVICE

    without a KEYBOARD and remember ALL THE HATERS YELLING where's the KEYBOARD???!!@??!?



    NO ONE WILL EVER USE A PHONE W/O a KEYBOARD??? , oh really...



    so why are all the others playing copycat and not ADMITTING IT???



    urrrrrgh... I'm going to make my chicken, or pull my chicken which ever comes 1st.



    re: Originally Posted by bobborries

    First to market a popular device wins in the memory of the consumer's history.



    Apple First's

    First Color PC (Apple II $1,200) 1977

    First PC with consumer Disk Drive 1978 Apple

    First Spreadsheet (killer app) Visicalc 1979 Apple

    First PC with 3.5 inch disks 1983 Apple

    First consumer GUI 1984 Apple

    First PC with Mouse 1984 Apple

    First PC with drawing pad 1984 Apple

    First Consumer hard drive 10 megs 1984 Apple

    First PC with Microsoft Word 1984 Apple

    First Laser Printer 1985 Apple

    First PC with Midi 1985 Apple

    First Personel Network appletalk 1985 Apple

    First PC with SCSI 1986 Apple

    First with rewritable optical storage Apple sc 1988

    First PC with CD-ROM Drive Apple 150 1991

    First PC with ethernet built in 1991 Quadra

    First Consumer Digital Camera Quicktake 100 1994

    First PDA (Newton) 1993 before the Palm PDA and Pocket PC

    First PC with usb 1998 iMac

    First PC without Floppy Disk iMac!

    First PC conpany to reach a $1 billion annual sales rate Apple

    First WiFi 1999 Apple Airport



    and yet it's Bill Gates who gets all the credit.
  • Reply 193 of 244
    luisdiasluisdias Posts: 277member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    While you're asking people to fire their neurons, I think the word you're after is 'segue' and you would typically do so between two things. I'm not a grammar expert, but I did expect to see a phrase like 'segue into <whatever argument>' . Because it means a transition between two states, you would normally describe both states. Otherwise, the statement makes no sense.



    I'm not an english speaking person myself, but even I know what a Segway is. It's synonymous to "bullshit non-sequitur". Care to learn things before you go around and shoot about it.



    Quote:

    I think there are two truths to the argument.



    Firstly, Google was (at least publicly) in the phone business before Apple.



    Second, Apple got the touch screen thing right first and others (including Android, it seems) have tried to copy it. It is debatable whether they did the touch screen first in that particular form factor - the LG Prada is a product that was announced more or less contemporaneously. Given Apple's secrecy, it is unlikely that LG would have known about Apple's endeavours in this respect.



    Anyone who still views this as a "who got their phone development first" and as a "touch screen" thing still doesn't get it. It's about "look and feel". It's been about look and feel since the 80s. You cannot deny that android "looks and feels" pretty much like the iOS. And sure enough, the first screenshots we had of Android did *not* look and feel like the iOS.



    Quote:

    But again the debate doesn't really make much sense - Android is about software and the iPhone is about the complete package.



    It doesn't make sense if you don't want it to make sense. Perhaps you will teach us how windows was never really a competitor to the macintosh, since windows was a software and the mac was all about "the complete package".
  • Reply 194 of 244
    luisdiasluisdias Posts: 277member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chopper View Post


    So, "an oasis surrounded by a big dry desert of ideas and execution" you say? Interesting then that...



    Bloomberg reports that Microsoft's Xbox Live service brought in $1.2 billion revenue for the fiscal 2009 year.



    For the year ended June 30th, about 12.5 million Xbox Live users paid an annual fee to play games online which Bloomberg says would account for about $600 million in revenue. Xbox Live COO Dennis Durkin says on top of that, sales of DLC, movies and TV topped subscription revenue for the first time ever, and by a significant margin, leading us to the final $1.2 billion figure.



    Success with Xbox Live is key to Microsoft's Entertainment division, which has seen slow sales of Zune media players, slow smartphone sales, and a barely profitable Xbox 360 console, which sees most of its profit from software and accessory sales.



    Adds Matt Rosoff, an analyst at Directions on Microsoft: "Xbox Live has helped sell a lot of consoles and created a lot of loyalty. Everyone has been talking about Microsoft?s inability to innovate, but this is a pretty good example where they have innovated. They timed it just right with this one."



    If accurate, revenue would have jumped from $800 million in 2008, a pretty hefty increase.





    So Xbox hardware and accessories do make a profit, albeit "barely" (iTunes anyone?), while Xbox Live has increased its revenue by 50% to $1.2B year to year. Big dry desert of ideas and execution? Only if you're in complete denial, I'd suggest.





    Really, sometimes I don't understand what some kind of people here smoke.



    Precisely when I was making the point that the XBox was a very good exception to the rule that "MS Sucks", here you come with even more evidence that this is actually the case, while believing that you are refuting me. Fucking hilarious.



    Go get more of that weed and stop the embarrassment of yourself.





    Quote:

    But one swallow does not a Summer make, and MS has a very long row to hoe with WinPhone 7 (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphors - ).



    My exact fucking point. I am still agnostic on how I feel about the Windows Phone 7 series, if it will be a success or not. Rumors don't look good (see the Kin debacle), but I'll obviously wait and see.



    Quote:

    I notice that you freely admit to hating certain corporations. How does that make you any better than those accused of hating Apple? Just curious.



    Not one bit. Of course, you still have to make the case that these people are actually "bad" in some sort of a pathetic way. What's wrong with hating a company? I hate microsoft, sure, although not on an obsessive way - I could see myself buying an XBox, for instance.



    It's the kind of hatred that you'll see amongst people being forced to use a product, and being conned and milked, again and again and again...



    Now, please go search for me in Microsoft threads trolling their forums on how their product "sucks", etc. Good riddance on that and when you do find me in such places perhaps you'll have a point.



    Until then, all of your rationale is just garbage.
  • Reply 195 of 244
    luisdiasluisdias Posts: 277member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


    Paying for something doesn't always mean you didn't steal it.



    I mean, how low must you bend yourself to get the tiniest point?



    Xerox made a deal. They knew (or shouldave known) what they were selling. MS was more devious than Apple. But that's long gone history.
  • Reply 196 of 244
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    Copied... past tense. These days Google seem hell bent on adding features that separate Android from the iPhone.



    Um, like what?

    It's clear that hardware makers like Motorola and HTC are adding features every 3 weeks to compete with iPhone, but what has Google added recently to the Android OS that wasn't in the original Android release? The only thing I'm aware of is their attempts to catch up to Apple on UI look & feel (Froyo). Prior to that, they enabled multitouch. I've heard more recently that Google wants to have their own online music and book store for Android phones to sync with. As far as I can tell, they're still trying to copy what Apple has already delivered.
  • Reply 197 of 244
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post


    Xerox made a deal. They knew (or shouldave known) what they were selling. MS was more devious than Apple. But that's long gone history.



    It's not history because it's not accurate.
  • Reply 198 of 244
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,031member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post


    I'm not an english speaking person myself, but even I know what a Segway is. It's synonymous to "bullshit non-sequitur". Care to learn things before you go around and shoot about it.



    Firstly, I apologise - I did not know you were not an English speaker. Nevertheless, it's not impollte to again point out you are incorrect. Google will help.



    Quote:

    Anyone who still views this as a "who got their phone development first" and as a "touch screen" thing still doesn't get it. It's about "look and feel". It's been about look and feel since the 80s. You cannot deny that android "looks and feels" pretty much like the iOS. And sure enough, the first screenshots we had of Android did *not* look and feel like the iOS.



    The substantive question was - "who is in the market first?" It's all about interpretation. Everything is. I don't recall conflating the two things you are talking about and if I did that wasn't the intention.



    So who was in the market first: Google, who purchased a mobile operating system in 2005 (?), or Apple, who released the iphone in 2007?



    On reflection I would defer to jragosta's view - it's all bluff and bluster till you bring something to the table. On that note, Apple was probably first to market.



    That does not deny, however, that Google was looking for involvement in that space much earlier than the release of iPhone. No one knows for sure how long Apple was at it. We do know for sure when Google bought Android.



    Quote:

    It doesn't make sense if you don't want it to make sense. Perhaps you will teach us how windows was never really a competitor to the macintosh, since windows was a software and the mac was all about "the complete package".



    It doesn't make sense because you do not compare apples and oranges. No denying that Apple's software is superior at this point. If you want to frame the argument that way, then go ahead. I won't argue with you on who has the better software. I think that much is pretty clear.



    But don't forget that Android Operating System has to be sufficiently ambivalent about the hardware it runs on to work correctly. Apple has a clear advantage in this respect it has only a handful of reference points to deal with. This is clearly a differentiator. Could Apple have achieved the same with 300 different iOS models and still achieve a cohesive user experience? Regardless of the clear choice that Apple has made in this respect, I think it's debatable whether it could.
  • Reply 199 of 244
    I don't even understand what the argument is against. Google bought Android before the Iphone came out, before Schmidt joined the BOD.



    Google became involved in phone os product development in very late 2005. It doesn't matter what it looked like at any time since then -- Google doesn't design HW, their OS works on whatever kinds of phones handset makers want to build. Otherwise, none of them would use it. Its not rocket science.



    Google bought Android to compete in the phone market, whatever that looked like, at any point in time, from that point until the sun burns out. Whatever form is popular, whatever handset type people want. From late 2005 onward, they were planning on making a go of it, which is kind of why Jobs statement makes no sense. That everyone didn't even include Apple at the time. They chose to compete in the phone market, they didn't choose to compete with Apple. Apple was not in the phone market when Google decided to compete in it, when purchasing Android.



    They are competing for OS marketshare, period. It will work on any popular form factors that come out.



    Did Google make sure Android worked on the handset type that was popular in 2006, RIM flavor? Of course. Thats what handset makers wanted. Did they then make it work in the next flavor they wanted, the touchscreen only that Apple popularized? of course. If Asus comes out with a phone that looks like a banana that becomes popular, they'll make it work on there too.



    Google bought Android right before Apple came out with the Nano -- its first device with both an LCD screen and flash memory. It was a LONG time ago.
  • Reply 200 of 244
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,031member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post


    I mean, how low must you bend yourself to get the tiniest point?



    Xerox made a deal. They knew (or shouldave known) what they were selling. MS was more devious than Apple. But that's long gone history.



    Xerox sued over the interface. What was the outcome? I don't know the full backstory.



    http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/bu...e+xerox&st=nyt



    Facts are not universal. Everything that passes through the mush between your ears is interpreted. I could say the the stock market has risen 4 points today and you might conclude 'so what'. Then I could tell you that market started the day at 8 points and it means something else entirely.



    Two people writing about the same thing can give apparently misleading accounts of the 'facts', without either being 'wrong'. It's up to you as to who you believe.
Sign In or Register to comment.