Funny you mention that. I read that when Steve jobs saw Android, he was so pissed at Eric, that untill Eric was finally kicked off the board, anything about the iPad was specifically kept from Eric. F'ing theves!!
That would imply Google wasn't trying to hide much from Mr. Jobs either. Apparently it was a two way street.
What about conflict of interest? A member of the board of directors is supposed to look out for the best interests of the corporation he is representing. If he cannot because of a conflict of interest, he is obliged to recuse himself. If he doesn't, he is liable to civil and criminal prosecution.
I have no specialist knowledge of how boards work, never having sat on one, but I have read that one reason Eric Schmidt resigned from the Apple board was that he was having to recuse himself so often. That would suggest that he was doing the right thing, at least legally. I don't doubt that there would have been some knowledge gleaned that would have helped Google in their future plans. Schmidt must have known something to have known when to recuse himself. Of course, him recusing himself would tell other board members something too.
Anyway, I don't think it is fair to suggest he did anything illegal or underhand. By all accounts that I have read, he is a decent guy.
He was recusing himself after Apple had already launched the iPhone. So he had knowledge of it before the public did. Steve Jobs being upset once Google launched Android is a clear sign he felt Google learned from Apple and used that knowledge to help build Android.
Schmidt had to recuse himself from any discussion of the iPhone's future road map once Google began the Android project.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grouty2
I have no specialist knowledge of how boards work, never having sat on one, but I have read that one reason Eric Schmidt resigned from the Apple board was that he was having to recuse himself so often. That would suggest that he was doing the right thing, at least legally. I don't doubt that there would have been some knowledge gleaned that would have helped Google in their future plans. Schmidt must have known something to have known when to recuse himself. Of course, him recusing himself would tell other board members something too.
Anyway, I don't think it is fair to suggest he did anything illegal or underhand. By all accounts that I have read, he is a decent guy.
I have no specialist knowledge of how boards work, never having sat on one, but I have read that one reason Eric Schmidt resigned from the Apple board was that he was having to recuse himself so often. That would suggest that he was doing the right thing, at least legally. I don't doubt that there would have been some knowledge gleaned that would have helped Google in their future plans. Schmidt must have known something to have known when to recuse himself. Of course, him recusing himself would tell other board members something too.
Anyway, I don't think it is fair to suggest he did anything illegal or underhand. By all accounts that I have read, he is a decent guy.
I think you make a very fair point. Two related observations. One, companies with resources (like Google does) have lots of ways to obtain intelligence on what competition is up to. Two, if as is alleged, Schmidt is somehow implicated, then someone at Apple -- perhaps SJ himself -- is guilty of very poor judgment in putting him on the board.
In my experience how much the board knows about what is going on varies from company to company. I imagine in Apple they know very little beyond, "we're going to make a phone".
I suspect Eric and Steve talked at a more detailed level. Google was to Steve then kind of how Adobe was to him in the early days. Both got greedy and stabbed Apple in the back.
So they sat on a completed, fully ready product for 4 years?
No.
They worked on the iPad concept and technology but it was not "ready for market".
I am pretty sure you are mostly correct but I think it was just as important or maybe even more so that the ecosystem that Apple envisioned to support the iPad was not in place. Without the ecosystem in place to support the iPad, I don't think the iPad would have been accepted much better than the tablets that preceded it.
"Lower-than-expected Xoom sales prompt Apple iPad competitors to delay tablets"
The only people who "expected" moto xoom sales to be any better than they were are the delusional minds at motorola who actually thought everyone was going to run out and blow $800 on a device that is suppose to be direct competition to a device you can buy for $500 at entry level. And don't get me started on the contract they initially tried to rope you into with Verizon.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Xoom is packed with some exciting features but they certainly don't act like they want it in the hands of the common Joe. After being very excited at the prospect of owning a Xoom; here I sit typing this message with an iPad and that's all because Motorola wasn't willing to be price competitive.
For the other iPad competitors I say this. Fear not, just release hardware with specs similar to the Xoom and don't act like total morons with the pricing and you'll be fine.
If you researched this before commenting, I think you will find out pretty quickly that it wasn't so much that Moto didn't want to be competitively priced, The problem for Moto and others was and is that they have a tough time being competitively priced because of Apple's aggressive pricing and volume purchasing power.
He was recusing himself after Apple had already launched the iPhone. So he had knowledge of it before the public did. Steve Jobs being upset once Google launched Android is a clear sign he felt Google learned from Apple and used that knowledge to help build Android.
Schmidt had to recuse himself from any discussion of the iPhone's future road map once Google began the Android project.
In a situation like this, the appearance of integrity is almost more important than the real thing. The whole thing sticks in a lot of peoples' craw, and that's all the proof we need that Schmidt should have left Apple's board sooner.
Just as a thought experiment, suppose the situation was reversed?Steve Jobs was on Google's board all the time they were working on preliminary designs for the gPhone. Apple had been working on some chiclet-keyed monstrosity, but then lo and behold, a year after the gPhone launches to enormous acclaim, Apple comes out with a phone that looks an awful lot like a gPhone....
Would people be willing to cut him the same slack they appear to be willing to cut Schmidt? I think to ask the question is to answer it. It would be the crime of the century!
I can't help feeling these are just the normal problems any new product has. It doesn't matter who the manufacturer is, you should always exercise caution before buying a first gen product.
The first iPhone lacked 3G and cut & paste, the iPad released without multitasking, the orginal Android G1 phones were really bad. Yes the Xoom is missing LTE, we are still waiting for a cheap 16GB wifi version, and bug fixes in honeycomb; but as long as these issues get fixed I think they'll be quickly forgotten and then the real competition can begin.
The first iPhone did not have 3G, cut/paste, or multitasking by design. Apple did not promised any of those things. iOS is released as a complete OS that does what Apple says it does. Apple continues to add functionality along the way.
Honeycomb is an incomplete OS that over-promises and under-delivers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando
The first iPhone lacked 3G and cut & paste, the iPad released without multitasking.....
Don't put out an $800 model when your competitor with tens of thousands of tablet apps has a $500 model.
Don't put out that model with your best advantages--flash, LTE, and SD card support--not working.
A $400 wifi model like ASUS is going to put out would have made the most sense and even then it would not have sold that well with no apps. $350 would have been the price point to go for.
Their best bet for profit would have been to follow Best Buy and become an Apple Authorized Reseller and resell the iPads. They would have pushed more tablets that way.
The first iPhone did not have 3G, cut/paste, or multitasking by design. Apple did not promised any of those things. iOS is released as a complete OS that does what Apple says it does. Apple continues to add functionality along the way.
Honeycomb is an incomplete OS that over-promises and under-delivers.
And Google will continue to add functionality to Android along the way and 6 to 12 months down the line no one will care the first version was missing functionality. What I am saying this battle is only just beginning, don't dismiss the threat from Android to easily.
And Google will continue to add functionality to Android along the way and 6 to 12 months down the line no one will care the first version was missing functionality. What I am saying this battle is only just beginning, don't dismiss the threat from Android to easily.
They will, but it misses his point. Apple hasn?t made it a habit of making promises and stating ?soon? so many times that you?re better off waiting for Godot.
There are some examples, like the white iPhone, FaceTime being released as open, and Resolution Independence in early features of Leopard (or was it Tiger). The difference I see with those items is that they didn?t affect a consumer?s decision prior to purchase. Apple removed RI from their site long before the GM was finalized. I guess you can say some waited for the white iPhone and are now sore but I think that?s a pretty weak argument in comparison to their competition?s promises of ?soon?.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Quote:
Originally Posted by 512ke
It's very interesting how successful Android phones are yet how unsuccessful are Android tablets.
It's very interesting how successful Windows laptops are yet how unsuccessful are Windows tablets.
I guess when you don?t make an OS to suit the primary I/O you?re gonna run into problems.
And Google will continue to add functionality to Android along the way and 6 to 12 months down the line no one will care the first version was missing functionality. What I am saying this battle is only just beginning, don't dismiss the threat from Android to easily.
Unless the court decides it is best to stop all sales of Android devices until the Oracle vs. Google lawsuit is decided. Then what?
Comments
Funny you mention that. I read that when Steve jobs saw Android, he was so pissed at Eric, that untill Eric was finally kicked off the board, anything about the iPad was specifically kept from Eric. F'ing theves!!
That would imply Google wasn't trying to hide much from Mr. Jobs either. Apparently it was a two way street.
That would imply Google wasn't trying to hide much from Mr. Jobs either. Apparently it was a two way street.
google did what gates did to steve ,
pretended to be best buddies and then stabbed steve in the back .
eric looks so weak and low class .
a million showers won't wash the stink off.
>>>>>
the IPAD by itself can be copied
but no one yet owns all the side pieces that make the ipad the fastest selling product ever .
when o when will xoom ever get its own itunes or app store to mate with ??
9
What about conflict of interest? A member of the board of directors is supposed to look out for the best interests of the corporation he is representing. If he cannot because of a conflict of interest, he is obliged to recuse himself. If he doesn't, he is liable to civil and criminal prosecution.
I have no specialist knowledge of how boards work, never having sat on one, but I have read that one reason Eric Schmidt resigned from the Apple board was that he was having to recuse himself so often. That would suggest that he was doing the right thing, at least legally. I don't doubt that there would have been some knowledge gleaned that would have helped Google in their future plans. Schmidt must have known something to have known when to recuse himself. Of course, him recusing himself would tell other board members something too.
Anyway, I don't think it is fair to suggest he did anything illegal or underhand. By all accounts that I have read, he is a decent guy.
Schmidt had to recuse himself from any discussion of the iPhone's future road map once Google began the Android project.
I have no specialist knowledge of how boards work, never having sat on one, but I have read that one reason Eric Schmidt resigned from the Apple board was that he was having to recuse himself so often. That would suggest that he was doing the right thing, at least legally. I don't doubt that there would have been some knowledge gleaned that would have helped Google in their future plans. Schmidt must have known something to have known when to recuse himself. Of course, him recusing himself would tell other board members something too.
Anyway, I don't think it is fair to suggest he did anything illegal or underhand. By all accounts that I have read, he is a decent guy.
I have no specialist knowledge of how boards work, never having sat on one, but I have read that one reason Eric Schmidt resigned from the Apple board was that he was having to recuse himself so often. That would suggest that he was doing the right thing, at least legally. I don't doubt that there would have been some knowledge gleaned that would have helped Google in their future plans. Schmidt must have known something to have known when to recuse himself. Of course, him recusing himself would tell other board members something too.
Anyway, I don't think it is fair to suggest he did anything illegal or underhand. By all accounts that I have read, he is a decent guy.
I think you make a very fair point. Two related observations. One, companies with resources (like Google does) have lots of ways to obtain intelligence on what competition is up to. Two, if as is alleged, Schmidt is somehow implicated, then someone at Apple -- perhaps SJ himself -- is guilty of very poor judgment in putting him on the board.
It's very interesting how successful Android phones are yet how unsuccessful are Android tablets.
Android phones are all but given away, the tablets are not.
In my experience how much the board knows about what is going on varies from company to company. I imagine in Apple they know very little beyond, "we're going to make a phone".
I suspect Eric and Steve talked at a more detailed level. Google was to Steve then kind of how Adobe was to him in the early days. Both got greedy and stabbed Apple in the back.
What goes around comes around.
So they sat on a completed, fully ready product for 4 years?
No.
They worked on the iPad concept and technology but it was not "ready for market".
I am pretty sure you are mostly correct but I think it was just as important or maybe even more so that the ecosystem that Apple envisioned to support the iPad was not in place. Without the ecosystem in place to support the iPad, I don't think the iPad would have been accepted much better than the tablets that preceded it.
"Lower-than-expected Xoom sales prompt Apple iPad competitors to delay tablets"
The only people who "expected" moto xoom sales to be any better than they were are the delusional minds at motorola who actually thought everyone was going to run out and blow $800 on a device that is suppose to be direct competition to a device you can buy for $500 at entry level. And don't get me started on the contract they initially tried to rope you into with Verizon.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Xoom is packed with some exciting features but they certainly don't act like they want it in the hands of the common Joe. After being very excited at the prospect of owning a Xoom; here I sit typing this message with an iPad and that's all because Motorola wasn't willing to be price competitive.
For the other iPad competitors I say this. Fear not, just release hardware with specs similar to the Xoom and don't act like total morons with the pricing and you'll be fine.
If you researched this before commenting, I think you will find out pretty quickly that it wasn't so much that Moto didn't want to be competitively priced, The problem for Moto and others was and is that they have a tough time being competitively priced because of Apple's aggressive pricing and volume purchasing power.
He was recusing himself after Apple had already launched the iPhone. So he had knowledge of it before the public did. Steve Jobs being upset once Google launched Android is a clear sign he felt Google learned from Apple and used that knowledge to help build Android.
Schmidt had to recuse himself from any discussion of the iPhone's future road map once Google began the Android project.
In a situation like this, the appearance of integrity is almost more important than the real thing. The whole thing sticks in a lot of peoples' craw, and that's all the proof we need that Schmidt should have left Apple's board sooner.
Just as a thought experiment, suppose the situation was reversed?Steve Jobs was on Google's board all the time they were working on preliminary designs for the gPhone. Apple had been working on some chiclet-keyed monstrosity, but then lo and behold, a year after the gPhone launches to enormous acclaim, Apple comes out with a phone that looks an awful lot like a gPhone....
Would people be willing to cut him the same slack they appear to be willing to cut Schmidt? I think to ask the question is to answer it. It would be the crime of the century!
The first iPhone lacked 3G and cut & paste, the iPad released without multitasking, the orginal Android G1 phones were really bad. Yes the Xoom is missing LTE, we are still waiting for a cheap 16GB wifi version, and bug fixes in honeycomb; but as long as these issues get fixed I think they'll be quickly forgotten and then the real competition can begin.
Honeycomb is an incomplete OS that over-promises and under-delivers.
The first iPhone lacked 3G and cut & paste, the iPad released without multitasking.....
And is pretty much synonomous with 'exhume'.
BaZoomga!!!
Don't put out an $800 model when your competitor with tens of thousands of tablet apps has a $500 model.
Don't put out that model with your best advantages--flash, LTE, and SD card support--not working.
A $400 wifi model like ASUS is going to put out would have made the most sense and even then it would not have sold that well with no apps. $350 would have been the price point to go for.
Their best bet for profit would have been to follow Best Buy and become an Apple Authorized Reseller and resell the iPads. They would have pushed more tablets that way.
The first iPhone did not have 3G, cut/paste, or multitasking by design. Apple did not promised any of those things. iOS is released as a complete OS that does what Apple says it does. Apple continues to add functionality along the way.
Honeycomb is an incomplete OS that over-promises and under-delivers.
And Google will continue to add functionality to Android along the way and 6 to 12 months down the line no one will care the first version was missing functionality. What I am saying this battle is only just beginning, don't dismiss the threat from Android to easily.
It's very interesting how successful Android phones are yet how unsuccessful are Android tablets.
It's very interesting how successful Windows laptops are yet how unsuccessful are Windows tablets.
And Google will continue to add functionality to Android along the way and 6 to 12 months down the line no one will care the first version was missing functionality. What I am saying this battle is only just beginning, don't dismiss the threat from Android to easily.
They will, but it misses his point. Apple hasn?t made it a habit of making promises and stating ?soon? so many times that you?re better off waiting for Godot.
There are some examples, like the white iPhone, FaceTime being released as open, and Resolution Independence in early features of Leopard (or was it Tiger). The difference I see with those items is that they didn?t affect a consumer?s decision prior to purchase. Apple removed RI from their site long before the GM was finalized. I guess you can say some waited for the white iPhone and are now sore but I think that?s a pretty weak argument in comparison to their competition?s promises of ?soon?.
It's very interesting how successful Android phones are yet how unsuccessful are Android tablets.
It's very interesting how successful Windows laptops are yet how unsuccessful are Windows tablets.
I guess when you don?t make an OS to suit the primary I/O you?re gonna run into problems.
And Google will continue to add functionality to Android along the way and 6 to 12 months down the line no one will care the first version was missing functionality. What I am saying this battle is only just beginning, don't dismiss the threat from Android to easily.
Unless the court decides it is best to stop all sales of Android devices until the Oracle vs. Google lawsuit is decided. Then what?
Could this be because Google did not get a early preview of the iPad the way they got an early preview of the iPhone?
Best first post in a thread for 2011. It's pretty undeniable now what a rip-off job Google did with Android for smartphones.
It's very interesting how successful Android phones are yet how unsuccessful are Android tablets.
Yup, one is stolen technology, the other is attempts at innovation. I'll leave you all to figure out which is which.