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

17891113

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 244
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,982member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. Majestykl View Post


    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 DID design their own hardware. Just because it failed in the marketplace doesn't mean they didn't hope for it to succeed. Also, do you really maintain that the Android OS would be designed the way it is today had there never been an iPhone? That all those details and design were just out there in the zeitgeist, ripe for the plucking by any phone maker? It's a radically different paradigm, and the notion that two companies working independently came up with it at the same time is hard to swallow. Someday we'll know more when the tell-all books get written. But for now, we must rely on common sense and logic.
  • Reply 202 of 244
    luisdiasluisdias Posts: 277member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djsherly View Post


    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.



    Well then you will apologize my impoliteness to tell you to go and learn it again. I did *not* meant "segue" but "segway", and if you might lose one cent of a minute in the nets (and know where to find it, ah!) you will learn the meaning of "segway" as used uninformally.





    Oh.... heck. Try the urban dictionary.



    Quote:

    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?



    Clearly, because you can't compare oranges with apples, all you are left is apples to apples. Because you do not know when apple started to develop its mobile thing, you cannot compare the buying of a company by Google to the presentation of an ended product by Apple.



    One could even understand that when Apple launched the iPhone in June 2007, it was not only a hardware device, but also a software device, while Android only reached the market in the fall of that year... and they only had to bother with the software.



    Maths are simple. Until they reach some kind of denialosphere...



    Quote:

    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.



    Exactly.



    Quote:

    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.



    No one knows if there are unicorns or not. The fact that some "things" are possible does not mean that they are true, and Larry Page should know better. What does he know about Apple's starting point on the iPhone? Jobs already stated that the iPhone started as a Tablet instead, and only afterwards, when Jobs looked at a thing called "rubberband" he stated that a phone could be built around this concept. When was this? Surely Jobs knows this answer, but Larry? Come on.





    Quote:

    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.



    I'm glad that you are using the exact words I am, it means we are thinking alike.



    Quote:

    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.



    Well, you can state this, and yet we can also agree that Google didn't have to cope with a real hardware of their own. They knew what was going to be on the market and they made a OS around that "nebulous" concept. It's also not Google's responsibility to drive Android to every phone. Every manufacturer has still to put Android on their phones and make their own skin on top of the OS...
  • Reply 203 of 244
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    First to put a gyroscope in a phone...



    ...you were saying?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    Nice 'list'... pity this pattern of 'first' appears to have ceased over a decade ago...



  • Reply 204 of 244
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,031member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post


    Well then you will apologize my impoliteness to tell you to go and learn it again. I did *not* meant "segue" but "segway", and if you might lose one cent of a minute in the nets (and know where to find it, ah!) you will learn the meaning of "segway" as used uninformally.





    Oh.... heck. Try the urban dictionary.



    Well I do stand corrected. I've yet to see reference to that term beyond the urban dictionary.
  • Reply 205 of 244
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    Google DID design their own hardware. Just because it failed in the marketplace doesn't mean they didn't hope for it to succeed. Also, do you really maintain that the Android OS would be designed the way it is today had there never been an iPhone? That all those details and design were just out there in the zeitgeist, ripe for the plucking by any phone maker? It's a radically different paradigm, and the notion that two companies working independently came up with it at the same time is hard to swallow. Someday we'll know more when the tell-all books get written. But for now, we must rely on common sense and logic.



    I thought I was pretty clear, actually I was very clear -- of course Android changed based on the iphone. As did all the HW designs. As did all other OS's. And if some other new form factor came out from someone else tomorrow and crushed, they'd all change again (as would Apple).



    None of that really has anything to do with what Jobs said, and what Page was speaking to. if Android hadn't copied anything from Apple, if they had bought Android and come out with a banana shaped phone that sold like the Kin -- they'd still be competitors. The POINT is, and its a point without meaning to anyone I think but Apple guys, who want to believe otherwise for God knows what reason -- is they decided to enter this market and compete for market share before Apple had a product. If Apple hadn't existed, they'd be trying to dethrone RIM and MS instead. Their product direction has been heavily influenced by Apple, as Apple, subsequent to Googles purchase of Android, released a great phone that sold like hotcakes.



    You have an argument, but it's against some other assertion, not mine. And it has nothing to do with either Jobs or Pages public statements.
  • Reply 206 of 244
    macrrmacrr Posts: 488member
    I liked the XBOX360 when I had it. But at the end of the day I didn't see the value in the xbox live yearly cost... which seems to be a windows thing. You always pay some associated cost for critical features whether you want them or not. Sort of like having to pay for AV on a windows box. These gaming machines are nothing without internet connectivity. You can't get patches, play with friends, etc. Plus the fucking thing sounded like a rocket engine in my living room. I had to seal it up in a cabinet to drown it out.



    But regardless if it got to be somewhat profitable for MSFT, they still had this to contend with:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...wZk&refer=home



    1+ billion USD recall. That assuredly put them in a much larger hole in a very competitive market. So that hole is potentially worse than face value. Plus, you absolutely run the risk of MSFT flipping the switch because they judge it not worth the money drain any longer. I'd say it would take pressure from another PS3 type of competitive console butchering market share for that to happen. then I bet the extinction of the XBOX360 would be on everyone's mind. So where would that leave xbox360 owners? They done it before with music, hardware, software... Besides that possibility, Microsoft has done some shitty things with obtaining exclusive releases for DLC for major games shutting Sony users of said cross-platform games out entirely. But hey- The game dev played ball with it.. but no one says how much they got in return from MSFT. So there's all kinds of shady shit going on. I mean- it is a technology war of sorts.



    Sony is no better in many ways. Probably lots more ways. But who cares?



    When it comes to consoles I just want to carjack hookers and run them over when I'm done with them. It's all about the software.
  • Reply 207 of 244
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,982member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. Majestykl View Post


    The POINT is, and its a point without meaning to anyone I think but Apple guys, who want to believe otherwise for God knows what reason -- is they decided to enter this market and compete for market share before Apple had a product. If Apple hadn't existed, they'd be trying to dethrone RIM and MS instead.



    Points taken. But neither we Apple boys nor you know with certainty what Google had in mind when they acquired Android. It could have been to poach talent, stop a technology that could pose a future threat, stop others from acquiring it, etc.



    I take Steve's word at face value, you take Google's. It's easy for me to understand where Steve is coming from because of his experience with the way MS marginalized the MacOS by making Windows available on any hardware. To me, it looks very much like Google taking a play out of MS's book.
  • Reply 208 of 244
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,982member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by winst View Post


    Apple has been, and choose to be a Product Company. Google see itself as a Platform Company. Android is an extension of Google's search platform. Steve Jobs has admitted that he never saw Apple compete with platforms, maybe that was why Microsoft won the desktop platform war.



    Or maybe Microsoft won the platform battle, while the war has moved on to other fronts, which Apple is currently winning.

    Soon, in the average CE consumer's daily life a desktop OS may be as relevant as server software. The Mobile OS battle is where the action is. And MS is not even in the fight. They may beat the pants off Google and Apple in the long run. Who can say? Life is long, software is short.
  • Reply 209 of 244
    cgrisarcgrisar Posts: 54member
    All quite futile discussions.



    Who did develop first?

    Who bought first?



    Doesn't matter. Even Apple is not always first in the ballgame. Heck, Apple didn't develop iTunes, they bought it, then turned it into a fantastic closed, PC-synchronization, business model.



    Google wasn't first at developing a smartphone? Who cares? They're doing a marvelous job at turning Android into an open cloud-centric business model.



    Let's see which model will win. Let's see if Apple can make the shift to cloud-based computing. Let's see if Apple can open up. Let's see if it can compete againt 160000 activations a day. I hope it can, but I see a possible road to failure ... A road that has been taken before.
  • Reply 210 of 244
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,982member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cgrisar View Post


    Let's see if it can compete againt 160000 activations a day. I hope it can, but I see a possible road to failure ... A road that has been taken before.



    That road has led to where we are today. Hardly failure.



    If Apple changes to take on its competitor's business model, it won't be what has made it a great company anymore.
  • Reply 211 of 244
    wilwil Posts: 170member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cgrisar View Post


    All quite futile discussions.



    Who did develop first?

    Who bought first?



    Doesn't matter. Even Apple is not always first in the ballgame. Heck, Apple didn't develop iTunes, they bought it, then turned it into a fantastic closed, PC-synchronization, business model.



    Google wasn't first at developing a smartphone? Who cares? They're doing a marvelous job at turning Android into an open cloud-centric business model.



    Let's see which model will win. Let's see if Apple can make the shift to cloud-based computing. Let's see if Apple can open up. Let's see if it can compete againt 160000 activations a day. I hope it can, but I see a possible road to failure ... A road that has been taken before.



    The problem with Goggle's model that a lot of people especially tech and geeks are ignoring is this. Who gets to support the non techie customer when Android gets into Windows like adoption rate considering that a lot pro-Android OS supporters have basically dismissed the fragmentation issue which is already becoming an issue .
  • Reply 212 of 244
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    ... or was that LG's KE850 PRADA (since it was the first official all-touch-screen phone) ?



    Not really, both were released within 6 months of each other, so there is definitely development happening on both at the same time.
  • Reply 213 of 244
    applebookapplebook Posts: 350member
    Among the first touchscreen smartphones made was by HTC.



    Apple clearly didn't invent touchscreen phones; however, the assumption that the market would be almost exactly how it is today even without the existence of the iPhone is absurd.



    Apple made the iPhone's touchscreen WORK. Without Apple's demonstration that a touchscreen smartphone could work really well and sell like hotcakes, few would have gone so heavily in this direction.



    It's the same thing with tablets. Of course they have been around for over a decade. Without the iPad, do you think that all of these companies - Samsung, LG, ASUS, Acer, HP, now possibly RIM too - would invest so much into the concept? Hardly.
  • Reply 214 of 244
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cgrisar View Post


    All quite futile discussions.



    Who did develop first?

    Who bought first?



    Doesn't matter. Even Apple is not always first in the ballgame. Heck, Apple didn't develop iTunes, they bought it, then turned it into a fantastic closed, PC-synchronization, business model.



    Google wasn't first at developing a smartphone? Who cares? They're doing a marvelous job at turning Android into an open cloud-centric business model.



    Let's see which model will win. Let's see if Apple can make the shift to cloud-based computing. Let's see if Apple can open up. Let's see if it can compete againt 160000 activations a day. I hope it can, but I see a possible road to failure ... A road that has been taken before.



    Apple doing what it does, there won't be any failure on any major level, even if Android becomes the Windows of smartphones.
  • Reply 215 of 244
    luisdiasluisdias Posts: 277member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by applebook View Post


    Among the first touchscreen smartphones made was by HTC.



    Apple clearly didn't invent touchscreen phones; however, the assumption that the market would be almost exactly how it is today even without the existence of the iPhone is absurd.



    Apple made the iPhone's touchscreen WORK. Without Apple's demonstration that a touchscreen smartphone could work really well and sell like hotcakes, few would have gone so heavily in this direction.



    It's the same thing with tablets. Of course they have been around for over a decade. Without the iPad, do you think that all of these companies - Samsung, LG, ASUS, Acer, HP, now possibly RIM too - would invest so much into the concept? Hardly.



    Bingo. Apple has sold more iPads in two months than all the other companies combined sold "tablets" for ten years. Now try and guess which kind of "product" package type will be cloned... Windows 7 on tablets? Don't make me laugh.
  • Reply 216 of 244
    krabbelenkrabbelen Posts: 243member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    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.



    Also, I am wondering about what access Apple actually had to the work at Xerox Parc. There doesn't seem to be a lot of information on it. Is it a simply a case that they got a tour and got to attend an open house one day; they saw a working prototype of a GUI and mouse, and said, "hey we really have to do this"; and then they went out and did it?



    Because, for sure, it is documented that MS had Apple's actual OS code open in front of them for years. MS got access as part of the agreement to make MS Office for the Mac (before Windows). Apparently MS took what they learned and practically copied and pasted it right into Windows 3.1. That's the impression we get, and MS having this direct access without a good contract is what made Jobs angry.
  • Reply 217 of 244
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post


    Also, I am wondering about what access Apple actually had to the work at Xerox Parc. There doesn't seem to be a lot of information on it. Is it a simply a case that they got a tour and got to attend an open house one day; they saw a working prototype of a GUI and mouse, and said, "hey we really have to do this"; and then they went out and did it?



    Because, for sure, it is documented that MS had Apple's actual OS code open in front of them for years. MS got access as part of the agreement to make MS Office for the Mac (before Windows). Apparently MS took what they learned and practically copied and pasted it right into Windows 3.1. That's the impression we get, and MS having this direct access without a good contract is what made Jobs angry.



    See post #181. Your questions are answered there.
  • Reply 218 of 244
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member
    Larry's right. Google's been talking about phones as internet portals for years. Well before they bought Android or the iPhone came along.



    The difference is philosophical. For Google a phone is a tool to access the internet. A means to an end. For Apple the phone is all that matters as a hardware compnay. They cared about selling phones. That's anti-thetical to Google's goals of selling as many smartphones as possible at as low a price as possible. Not possible for Apple as a hardware company. A falling out was inevitable.
  • Reply 219 of 244
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by davesw View Post




    Yes, Google was working on Android. but their phones looked like this. Apple has always been the innovator. Google is a one-trick pony that just adds features and increase specs but doesn't innovate.







    So the concept of a desktop, widgets, live wallpapers, folders and mifi was taken from the iPhone?

    That's news to me.
  • Reply 220 of 244
    str1f3str1f3 Posts: 573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    Larry's right. Google's been talking about phones as internet portals for years. Well before they bought Android or the iPhone came along.



    The difference is philosophical. For Google a phone is a tool to access the internet. A means to an end. For Apple the phone is all that matters as a hardware compnay. They cared about selling phones. That's anti-thetical to Google's goals of selling as many smartphones as possible at as low a price as possible. Not possible for Apple as a hardware company. A falling out was inevitable.



    You're right but I think it's also inevitable that they will eventually compete on these fronts as well.



    If the iPhone is going to continue to be a success in the future they will either have to compete with cloud based solutions from Google or MS (potentially) or have better integration with their software.



    As of today Apple has no first party solution for:

    -Google Maps

    -Google Nav

    -Google Voice w/ free SMS

    -Android's mobile wifi hotspot tethering

    -free calendar, contact, mail alternatives



    Doing it Apple's way will yield far better features for products but it's also far more exensive since google's offerings are free.



    If there is a day that Android competes on a UI level and App Store level with Apple then the iPhone is in serious trouble. This coming from someone who still believes the iPhone is still better overall.
Sign In or Register to comment.