You know, I don't think it gets pointed out enough that Eric Schmidt is really, really creepy. He's like Steve Balmer without the endearing dorkiness.
People tend to think of Google as the house that Larry and Sergey built, but my suspicion is that Google's recent penchant for coming off as sinister or at least disconcertingly indifferent to normative human values is all Schmidt. He seems just tonally off, as when he talks about our amusing attachment to old-fashioned ideas of "privacy", or answers criticisms of Google's data mining with a flippant "if you have something to hide, you must be doing something bad."
I mean, CEOs of giant companies don't generally seem like an easy-going, affable crowd or anything, and God knows Jobs is a legendary asshole, but Schmidt just has the weird vibe of a creepy kid who never really grew up and now has access to the levers of power and it makes him squint and giggle.
Seriously, just because the development hardware and UI were different than what was released ACCORDING TO GIZMODO OF ALL RELIABLE SOURCES, you think they totally scrapped old Android and wrote the entire new OS from scratch? Somehow I doubt it. I also doubt you have ever worked in a development environment. Products evolve both before and after release. Companies watch their competition and market place and they also keep up with technology trends with their suppliers and potential suppliers.
OK, they kept the linux kernel, and some of the telephony code, but, yeah, they pretty much scrapped what they had and started over. It's an uncomfortable truth, I guess, if you're enamored with Google/Android, but no amount of smoke and mirrors will hide the fact that Android is totally and completely a cheap knockoff of the iPhone.
You know, I don't think it gets pointed out enough that Eric Schmidt is really, really creepy. He's like Steve Balmer without the endearing dorkiness.
People tend to think of Google as the house that Larry and Sergey built, but my suspicion is that Google's recent penchant for coming off as sinister or at least disconcertingly indifferent to normative human values is all Schmidt. He seems just tonally off, as when he talks about our amusing attachment to old-fashioned ideas of "privacy", or answers criticisms of Google's data mining with a flippant "if you have something to hide, you must be doing something bad."
I mean, CEOs of giant companies don't generally seem like an easy-going, affable crowd or anything, and God knows Jobs is a legendary asshole, but Schmidt just has the weird vibe of a creepy kid who never really grew up and now has access to the levers of power and it makes him squint and giggle.
Yeah, he's definitely sociopathic, with a Napoleon complex.
OK, they kept the linux kernel, and some of the telephony code, but, yeah, they pretty much scrapped what they had and started over. It's an uncomfortable truth, I guess, if you're enamored with Google/Android, but no amount of smoke and mirrors will hide the fact that Android is totally and completely a cheap knockoff of the iPhone.
not sure how much underneath was changed but it is sure obvious that they shifted gears away from the blackberry copy to the iphone copy...
not sure how much underneath was changed but it is sure obvious that they shifted gears away from the blackberry copy to the iphone copy...
It's clear that nothing the user sees is the same as what they were working on. The entire UI layer, at least, was completely scrapped and rewritten. It might be a bit of an exaggeration to say that only the kernel and telephony code were kept, but it's not much of one. Two completely different Androids.
There is no need to delve into what was in development. What Schmidt stated is accurate. Google bought Android before there was an iPhone, there it was around sooner. The fact that there was some iProd device at Apple they were planning to call the iPhone doesn?t really count. Neither does the fact that Google had to make Android an OS, and then redesign it in 2007 after they saw that they could no longer copy the BB OS/WinMo OS development style if they wanted to be viable. Based on his words (his focus only on Apple) he is correct.
Why is it that you can note the above but when I did it, I get shouted down, like in this shitstorm
Why even have a default? Just present a text box when Mobile Safari starts up asking what you would like to be your search method.
Oh, I know why, because Apple cannot make money selling default rights to a company. They want to add an inconvenience for users so they can line their pockets.
It's not an inconvenience at all. It's a handful of taps to change it, permanently.
Google, like it or not, is the best of the search engines. Hardly inconvenient, and when you're getting the the best search to PAY YOU MONEY to be the default, you'd be an utter fool not to take it.
where I expressed a similar view and got railed on.
1) It’s hard to tell which post and posters you mean specifically as you linked to the entire thread which contained 7 pages. If you click on the number of to the right of each post it opens up that post with a URL that goes directly to it.
2) If you mean Hiro and Luis Diaz, they aren’t the same posters from this thread. But it could also be the way the info was related. It looks like you used more subjective terms than I used in my post.
3) I also tried to be objective by saying Schmidt is technically correct, yet pointed out the timeline that shows, at least in my opinion, that he is being disingenuous in his statement. Note that bigdaddyguido does appear, at least in my opinion, with my assessment even though I made mention of the question he asked me in his post regarding how Android looking pre-iPhone.
4) Also, there are certain familiarity with posters. It’s human nature. I know if I read something from certain posters and either don’t get it or what I would expect from their post is not what I expect that I should probably read it again instead of moving on as I know how how they feel on certain topics and how they typically write. Usually, this is an error on my reading comprehension when that happens… and it does happen.
It's an uncomfortable truth, I guess, if you're enamored with Google/Android,
Yeah, 'cus I am such an Android fanboi I have 3 iPhones and exactly 0 Android phones. Or maybe I am comfortable enough with my choice of phone that I don't need to distort reality to force into my own world view and justify my purchasing decisions.
No matter what it looked like and how close to market it was or wasn't, Google was working on a Phone and all this BS about Google stabbing Apple in the back by entering the phone market after the iphone came out is pure crap.
If that is your level of understanding, there is no point in debating with you, but the there is a huge difference between the iPhone and iPhone OS 1.x and the iPhone 3G/3GS and 2.x and 3.x. No apps, no push mail, no corporate mail support, no data security (remote wipe), no MMS, no 3G, no copy and paste, no voice dialing, horrible camera, etc.
The first iphone had a neat user interface and a great mobile browser and music app, and a revolutionary unlimited data plan from AT&T. Other than that it "sucked." I guess that means it did not "totally suck" but it did not deliver as much as it showed potential.
I guess what I would say is the form factor and UI has changed very little in iPhone . Apple knew what it wanted in a phone and did it. They didnt copy an existing form factor or UI as NOBODY was doing what the iphone does. Have they added features? Of course. In this day and age if you left a product alone for 2 years, you may as well sell tin cans for people to communicate with. I think it seems pretty valid to say google saw how revolutionary the iPhone was, scrapped the majority of what android was going to be (UI, intended form factor, everything), and pretty blatantly copied iPhone os.
I've been using Bing ever since Google screwed internet users over with its attempted end-run on Net Neutrality. I've never had any of the problems you're talking about, and always get what I'm looking for when performing a search (and I use search engines a lot). My guess is you're doing it wrong.
Ha! Good one... That's one of the reasons I switched to the Mac. It seems that with microsoft problems, I'm always "doing it wrong".
Oh, I know why, because Apple cannot make money selling default rights to a company. They want to add an inconvenience for users so they can line their pockets.
Let me ask you a question.
Why is it wrong for a business to do something that makes them money?
it's hardly an inconvenience if someone wants to change the default provider to Bing or the others.
Android was around earlier? Shmidt must have been frequenting the golden gate park (aghm... those people "standing" next to McDonalds not offering any herbal substances). Android ANNOUNCED its CONCEPT earlier, but was by no means earlier, unless you consider the Danger roots and Dalvik VM as Android.
If you look at early android builds it looking like Symbian at time time. Crap UI, barely any touch, physical keyboard and trackball. The only thing it had was a decent web browser and a few apps like calendar to help you along.
iPhone was in development at least since 05, and even then was virtually unchanged from iOS we use today in terms of basic functionality or UI. It is to this day the most usable and straight forward UI on the market in my opinion.
Yeah, 'cus I am such an Android fanboi I have 3 iPhones and exactly 0 Android phones. Or maybe I am comfortable enough with my choice of phone that I don't need to distort reality to force into my own world view and justify my purchasing decisions.
No matter what it looked like and how close to market it was or wasn't, Google was working on a Phone and all this BS about Google stabbing Apple in the back by entering the phone market after the iphone came out is pure crap.
Well, you seem to have taken my comments about an uncomfortable truth a bit more personally than they were intended, although, you do seem a bit uncomfortable with it. But, the truth is that Android is a cheap iOS knockoff, no matter what you wish to believe, and there's no way around that, uncomfortable as it may be to accept.
If that is your level of understanding, there is no point in debating with you, but the there is a huge difference between the iPhone and iPhone OS 1.x and the iPhone 3G/3GS and 2.x and 3.x. No apps, no push mail, no corporate mail support, no data security (remote wipe), no MMS, no 3G, no copy and paste, no voice dialing, horrible camera, etc.
The first iphone had a neat user interface and a great mobile browser and music app, and a revolutionary unlimited data plan from AT&T. Other than that it "sucked." I guess that means it did not "totally suck" but it did not deliver as much as it showed potential.
I'm afraid you have no understanding of the important features of the iPhone at all. They've all been there right from the start, and everyone else is scrambling to copy them as fast as they can. All the things you mention are merely enhancements, add-ons, but the concept of the phone itself was basically there from the beginning.
Comments
People tend to think of Google as the house that Larry and Sergey built, but my suspicion is that Google's recent penchant for coming off as sinister or at least disconcertingly indifferent to normative human values is all Schmidt. He seems just tonally off, as when he talks about our amusing attachment to old-fashioned ideas of "privacy", or answers criticisms of Google's data mining with a flippant "if you have something to hide, you must be doing something bad."
I mean, CEOs of giant companies don't generally seem like an easy-going, affable crowd or anything, and God knows Jobs is a legendary asshole, but Schmidt just has the weird vibe of a creepy kid who never really grew up and now has access to the levers of power and it makes him squint and giggle.
Seriously, just because the development hardware and UI were different than what was released ACCORDING TO GIZMODO OF ALL RELIABLE SOURCES, you think they totally scrapped old Android and wrote the entire new OS from scratch? Somehow I doubt it. I also doubt you have ever worked in a development environment. Products evolve both before and after release. Companies watch their competition and market place and they also keep up with technology trends with their suppliers and potential suppliers.
OK, they kept the linux kernel, and some of the telephony code, but, yeah, they pretty much scrapped what they had and started over. It's an uncomfortable truth, I guess, if you're enamored with Google/Android, but no amount of smoke and mirrors will hide the fact that Android is totally and completely a cheap knockoff of the iPhone.
You know, I don't think it gets pointed out enough that Eric Schmidt is really, really creepy. He's like Steve Balmer without the endearing dorkiness.
People tend to think of Google as the house that Larry and Sergey built, but my suspicion is that Google's recent penchant for coming off as sinister or at least disconcertingly indifferent to normative human values is all Schmidt. He seems just tonally off, as when he talks about our amusing attachment to old-fashioned ideas of "privacy", or answers criticisms of Google's data mining with a flippant "if you have something to hide, you must be doing something bad."
I mean, CEOs of giant companies don't generally seem like an easy-going, affable crowd or anything, and God knows Jobs is a legendary asshole, but Schmidt just has the weird vibe of a creepy kid who never really grew up and now has access to the levers of power and it makes him squint and giggle.
Yeah, he's definitely sociopathic, with a Napoleon complex.
OK, they kept the linux kernel, and some of the telephony code, but, yeah, they pretty much scrapped what they had and started over. It's an uncomfortable truth, I guess, if you're enamored with Google/Android, but no amount of smoke and mirrors will hide the fact that Android is totally and completely a cheap knockoff of the iPhone.
not sure how much underneath was changed but it is sure obvious that they shifted gears away from the blackberry copy to the iphone copy...
not sure how much underneath was changed but it is sure obvious that they shifted gears away from the blackberry copy to the iphone copy...
It's clear that nothing the user sees is the same as what they were working on. The entire UI layer, at least, was completely scrapped and rewritten. It might be a bit of an exaggeration to say that only the kernel and telephony code were kept, but it's not much of one. Two completely different Androids.
There is no need to delve into what was in development. What Schmidt stated is accurate. Google bought Android before there was an iPhone, there it was around sooner. The fact that there was some iProd device at Apple they were planning to call the iPhone doesn?t really count. Neither does the fact that Google had to make Android an OS, and then redesign it in 2007 after they saw that they could no longer copy the BB OS/WinMo OS development style if they wanted to be viable. Based on his words (his focus only on Apple) he is correct.
Why is it that you can note the above but when I did it, I get shouted down, like in this shitstorm
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=111227
where I expressed a similar view and got railed on.
Why even have a default? Just present a text box when Mobile Safari starts up asking what you would like to be your search method.
Oh, I know why, because Apple cannot make money selling default rights to a company. They want to add an inconvenience for users so they can line their pockets.
It's not an inconvenience at all. It's a handful of taps to change it, permanently.
Google, like it or not, is the best of the search engines. Hardly inconvenient, and when you're getting the the best search to PAY YOU MONEY to be the default, you'd be an utter fool not to take it.
Why is it that you can note the above but when I did it, I get shouted down, like in this shitstorm
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=111227
where I expressed a similar view and got railed on.
1) It’s hard to tell which post and posters you mean specifically as you linked to the entire thread which contained 7 pages. If you click on the number of to the right of each post it opens up that post with a URL that goes directly to it.
2) If you mean Hiro and Luis Diaz, they aren’t the same posters from this thread. But it could also be the way the info was related. It looks like you used more subjective terms than I used in my post.
3) I also tried to be objective by saying Schmidt is technically correct, yet pointed out the timeline that shows, at least in my opinion, that he is being disingenuous in his statement. Note that bigdaddyguido does appear, at least in my opinion, with my assessment even though I made mention of the question he asked me in his post regarding how Android looking pre-iPhone.
4) Also, there are certain familiarity with posters. It’s human nature. I know if I read something from certain posters and either don’t get it or what I would expect from their post is not what I expect that I should probably read it again instead of moving on as I know how how they feel on certain topics and how they typically write. Usually, this is an error on my reading comprehension when that happens… and it does happen.
It's an uncomfortable truth, I guess, if you're enamored with Google/Android,
Yeah, 'cus I am such an Android fanboi I have 3 iPhones and exactly 0 Android phones. Or maybe I am comfortable enough with my choice of phone that I don't need to distort reality to force into my own world view and justify my purchasing decisions.
No matter what it looked like and how close to market it was or wasn't, Google was working on a Phone and all this BS about Google stabbing Apple in the back by entering the phone market after the iphone came out is pure crap.
The first iphone had a neat user interface and a great mobile browser and music app, and a revolutionary unlimited data plan from AT&T. Other than that it "sucked." I guess that means it did not "totally suck" but it did not deliver as much as it showed potential.
I guess what I would say is the form factor and UI has changed very little in iPhone . Apple knew what it wanted in a phone and did it. They didnt copy an existing form factor or UI as NOBODY was doing what the iphone does. Have they added features? Of course. In this day and age if you left a product alone for 2 years, you may as well sell tin cans for people to communicate with. I think it seems pretty valid to say google saw how revolutionary the iPhone was, scrapped the majority of what android was going to be (UI, intended form factor, everything), and pretty blatantly copied iPhone os.
I've been using Bing ever since Google screwed internet users over with its attempted end-run on Net Neutrality. I've never had any of the problems you're talking about, and always get what I'm looking for when performing a search (and I use search engines a lot). My guess is you're doing it wrong.
Ha! Good one... That's one of the reasons I switched to the Mac. It seems that with microsoft problems, I'm always "doing it wrong".
Oh, I know why, because Apple cannot make money selling default rights to a company. They want to add an inconvenience for users so they can line their pockets.
Let me ask you a question.
Why is it wrong for a business to do something that makes them money?
it's hardly an inconvenience if someone wants to change the default provider to Bing or the others.
Why not allow the user to decide which search engine they prefer to use - as with the browser on your personal computer? And maps as well?
.
You CAN choose who you want to use as your search engine.
If you look at early android builds it looking like Symbian at time time. Crap UI, barely any touch, physical keyboard and trackball. The only thing it had was a decent web browser and a few apps like calendar to help you along.
iPhone was in development at least since 05, and even then was virtually unchanged from iOS we use today in terms of basic functionality or UI. It is to this day the most usable and straight forward UI on the market in my opinion.
Yeah, 'cus I am such an Android fanboi I have 3 iPhones and exactly 0 Android phones. Or maybe I am comfortable enough with my choice of phone that I don't need to distort reality to force into my own world view and justify my purchasing decisions.
No matter what it looked like and how close to market it was or wasn't, Google was working on a Phone and all this BS about Google stabbing Apple in the back by entering the phone market after the iphone came out is pure crap.
Well, you seem to have taken my comments about an uncomfortable truth a bit more personally than they were intended, although, you do seem a bit uncomfortable with it. But, the truth is that Android is a cheap iOS knockoff, no matter what you wish to believe, and there's no way around that, uncomfortable as it may be to accept.
The first iphone had a neat user interface and a great mobile browser and music app, and a revolutionary unlimited data plan from AT&T. Other than that it "sucked." I guess that means it did not "totally suck" but it did not deliver as much as it showed potential.
I'm afraid you have no understanding of the important features of the iPhone at all. They've all been there right from the start, and everyone else is scrambling to copy them as fast as they can. All the things you mention are merely enhancements, add-ons, but the concept of the phone itself was basically there from the beginning.