Eric Schmidt has a PhD from Berkeley in computer science. He was the co-author of lex. He has worked at PARC and Sun, and was hired to two companies to be CEO. Stupid? How many of us qualify to label him as that? I wish I were so stupid.
I don't give a shit if he or anyone else has degrees up their ass... they can still make stupid statements. [ or have you missed the news for your entire life? ]
... and I feel that this particular statement concerning Apple is just that... stupid.
Google bought Android in 2005. If Apple couldn't figure out their intentions until 2009, shame on them. In all the rants ensuing the breakup between Schmidt and Apple, the issue of Schmidt lying to Apple about Google's mobile intentions was never, ever raised. Until there's such evidence, I don't see how we can accuse Schmidt of being deliberately deceptive. And if deception was involved, why has Apple not taken Google to court? They have not been afraid to go after everyone else?
Steve J.'s comment about Google stepping into Apple's space and not the other way around is what I'm basing my speculation upon...
Apple tried going after look and feel in the 80s... fail... so now they are smart enough to go after particular patents.
Sorry but posting an image of keyboard driven phone doesn't prove Android wasn't capable to work in touch-driven phone (which it was). This was just one of the prototypes. Yet you make claim that they were totally clueless and without Apple, there would never be a touch phone.
Doesn't really matter where this started, I am fighting for what the United States and free market stand for. I'd clearly label this a suitable topic, and I think they are suing competition away and charging me the lawyer fee's.
Which "United States and free market" would that be? Because it sounds to me like you are talking out your arse. According to the US Constitution: Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress):
Quote:
"The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Article One of the US Constitution says the free market doesn't mean a free-for-all for someone else's invention.
Eric Schmidt has a PhD from Berkeley in computer science. He was the co-author of lex. He has worked at PARC and Sun, and was hired to two companies to be CEO. Stupid? How many of us qualify to label him as that? I wish I were so stupid.
..and Steve Jobs is a college drop out and yet Steve jobs >>>>>>>> Eric Schmidt
So the hassle comes down to Schmidt's words. I'm not sure how Page and Brin feel about those words but when you look at what Schmidt said it sounds fairly silly to say (if this is indeed what he meant) that Apple has stopped innovating and competing fairly and now the only thing left in Apple's arsenal is fighting in the courtroom to gain the upper hand.
Agree with you Island Hermit. A poor choice in words, more suited for a soundbite.
So true! Schmidt is copying the Conservative politicians most successful tactic of the last decade; if you repeat the same lies enough, most people will believe it. Think; "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and lately "Don't tax the job creators".
So if they keep repeating the message; "Apple doesn't innovate" and millions of people will start repeating it and it will become a "truth".
Seriously, there's a forum for politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
No one has mentioned - why didn't Google support HTC way back at the beginning? If they had any integrity, they would have been involved in defending HTC (and the others) from the start - not after Apple already won.
You note the point perfectly. HTC and other partners are the ones taking the slings and arrows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
Here and elsewhere, Google has been criticized for not defending their Android licensees. Now they are finally speaking up and vowing to defend their allies, as they should. Yet, Schmidt is not only being criticized but is in fact trashed for it. I wonder why some of you need to attack someone you don't know in such a denigrating manner. What is the source of your venom? I love my Apple products; however, I just don't feel the need to spit on the competition of Apple. Is there something wrong with me? Or perhaps some of you need to put on a new pair of glasses to properly see the world? Relax! Chill! Enjoy what you have and let others make their own choices!
So copying someone else's term paper is now a good thing, or to take it to an extreme, if someone steals your car, you're just a whiner if you file a police report when it's so obvious you should just be quiet and go buy another one?
Google would LOVE to see some more innovation without Apple protecting their IP since it would just give them more things to copy.
Remember, it isn't copying, it is innovating! You aren't copying someone's term paper. You are innovating on their term paper. You are stealing their car. You are innovating their car. See how well that works?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrstep
Google isn't doing any evil, they're letting their partners do it for them. See, no moral problem.
BTW, great new case for the Samsung iTab, huh? What a bunch of friggin' copying wankers. You could be handed one of those tablets in that case and not know which product you're holding - which is exactly why these design infringement suit DO have merit. Instead of trying to do their own thing, they keep copying even more. Unreal.
Anyway, the OS side isn't any better - where it differs, it's generally more complicated and less polished.
Samsung and their "approved" partners are no different than Google. Theft is theft and I had a thread about that before Apple even sued wondering why action wasn't being taken on it. I'm glad now it is because they've already got the suit in and the level of copying is clearly ridiculous at this stage.
You honestly believe Steve Jobs wasn't aware of what Google was doing with Android? And there's a claim by Apple that Schmidt violated NDA's? Apple management certainly hoped they wouldn't aggressively push Android as a mobile OS free for use. And Mr. Jobs probably was disappointed when they showed him their initial mockups and made it clear they were moving forward. But they were very open with Apple from all the reports I've seen, even inviting Apple engineers into the Google labs. And I'd be shocked if Mr. Jobs didn't pick Andy Rubin's brain for iPhone ideas. No, I don't think Schmidt was stealing from Apple. Steve Jobs would have failed Apple stockholders if he thought that was going on and didn't immediately remove him from the board. That he stayed on until 2009, when he voluntarily resigned, should be proof enough that he wasn't slinking around the Apple back corridors.
As for the original Google mockup that's mentioned every time this comes up, even Blackberry's don't look like Blackberry's from three years ago. It was an obvious choice to go with a touchscreen once Apple had shown it would be accepted by consumers. \ Surely you're not arguing that only Apple has the right to a touchscreen, or that every other phone manufacturer should have stubbornly clung to an old inferior interface. Big cans of worms. . .
So AFAIK, Steve Jobs has never said Eric Schmidt was stealing anything from Apple/doing things behind his back. It all came down to Google becoming a competitor and less valuable to Apple as a hedge against Microsoft. I'd imagine it was "do things our way or the highway".
Makes a better story to claim theft tho. . .
As CEO, Steve Jobs doesn't get any say on who is on Apple's board of directors, that is up to the shareholders. Further, since it is the board of directors that chooses the CEO, it would be a conflict of interest to have the decision up to Jobs. Its pretty clear that Steve was very pissed about Android when he saw they were including Apple patented tech, such as pinch to zoom, but he couldn't "fire" Schmidt. Thats why he held iPad development from parts of the board (i.e. Schmidt) until he could garner enough support from the rest of the board/shareholders to force Schmidt out. Legal proceedings against Schmidt probably haven't happened because he probably didn't technically break any law, or there is alot of gray area, but what he did was definitely unethical
Steve J.'s comment about Google stepping into Apple's space and not the other way around is what I'm basing my speculation upon...
Apple tried going after look and feel in the 80s... fail... so now they are smart enough to go after particular patents.
I agree that's a good statement to rationalize around. But Jobs didn't go as far as saying Schmidt stole secrets from them, which is what some here are accusing (not you, I believe). My point (also raised by one or two others, I think) is that Apple has never ever accused Google of outright infringement or thievery. If so, what facts would support us making such accusations (again, not directed at you, Mr. Hermit)?
As CEO, Steve Jobs doesn't get any say on who is on Apple's board of directors, that is up to the shareholders.
Of course Jobs has a lot of say. Shareholders vote for or against directors. But if Jobs suggests for an individual to be nominated, I doubt they wouldn't be at least considered. To say Jobs doesn't have any say is not true of how any company runs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane08
Further, since it is the board of directors that chooses the CEO, it would be a conflict of interest to have the decision up to Jobs. Its pretty clear that Steve was very pissed about Android when he saw they were including Apple patented tech, such as pinch to zoom, but he couldn't "fire" Schmidt.
Steve Jobs is considered the most iconic and powerful CEO in tech. If he suspects someone of stealing secrets from Apple, how can anyone believe he couldn't get enough board support to not only kick that individual off the board but also to go after him legally?
Pssst - here's a tip: I hear he's a Satan worshiper too! And a space alien!
Godwin's Law in three....two...
I was holding back, but I agree. It's time.
Earlier I suggested that "Apple would rather litigate than innovate" was quickly becoming a mantra for the Android camp. Had I taken it a step further I would have added that the nazi's and hitler enjoyed spreading propaganda too.
Seriously though, I wanna see a picture of Schmidt (or just about any notable person) feeding on dead kittens.
Steve J.'s comment about Google stepping into Apple's space and not the other way around is what I'm basing my speculation upon...
That SJ comment is classic example of his "distortion of reality field". As far as I know, Apple never produced any mobile phones (except the joint product with Motorola). They never made public that they are developing iPhone until it was announced, so they entered the mobile business in that January 2007 keynote.
On the other hand, the information that Android, a creator of mobile OS, has been acquired by Google was public information since 2005, so technically, Google entered the mobile business before Apple and thus it might be ES pissed at SJ, not other way around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Apple tried going after look and feel in the 80s... fail... so now they are smart enough to go after particular patents.
As said earlier, the only great thing about the patent lawsuits is that majority of those ridiculous patents get voided by the court. Boy they patented it, but they know both multitouch and pinch-to-zoom is prior art and will be primal candidate for such dismissal, if ever brought to court.
Google acquired Android in 2005. Surprised about them releasing a mobile OS in 2008 ? Really?
Ridiculous.
The only surprise is that it took them so long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless
That SJ comment is classic example of his "distortion of reality field". As far as I know, Apple never produced any mobile phones (except the joint product with Motorola). They never made public that they are developing iPhone until it was announced, so they entered the mobile business in that January 2007 keynote.
On the other hand, the information that Android, a creator of mobile OS, has been acquired by Google was public information since 2005, so technically, Google entered the mobile business before Apple and thus it might be ES pissed at SJ, not other way around.
The point that you're both missing is that before the iPhone came out, Android phones looked like a cheap copy of the Blackberry.
After the iPhone came out, Android started looking like a copy of iOS.
Comments
Eric Schmidt has a PhD from Berkeley in computer science. He was the co-author of lex. He has worked at PARC and Sun, and was hired to two companies to be CEO. Stupid? How many of us qualify to label him as that? I wish I were so stupid.
I don't give a shit if he or anyone else has degrees up their ass... they can still make stupid statements. [ or have you missed the news for your entire life?
... and I feel that this particular statement concerning Apple is just that... stupid.
Google bought Android in 2005. If Apple couldn't figure out their intentions until 2009, shame on them. In all the rants ensuing the breakup between Schmidt and Apple, the issue of Schmidt lying to Apple about Google's mobile intentions was never, ever raised. Until there's such evidence, I don't see how we can accuse Schmidt of being deliberately deceptive. And if deception was involved, why has Apple not taken Google to court? They have not been afraid to go after everyone else?
Steve J.'s comment about Google stepping into Apple's space and not the other way around is what I'm basing my speculation upon...
Apple tried going after look and feel in the 80s... fail... so now they are smart enough to go after particular patents.
Have you tried to read what I wrote ?
Sorry but posting an image of keyboard driven phone doesn't prove Android wasn't capable to work in touch-driven phone (which it was). This was just one of the prototypes. Yet you make claim that they were totally clueless and without Apple, there would never be a touch phone.
BTW, have you ever seen this ?
http://bit.ly/mZCtDB
Looks like prior art to me, perhaps it was Apple who was stealing..what you say ?
Yeah I read what you wrote. Typical android garbage.
Bottom line:
Google = 2nd rate copy cats who's main goal is to serve us crappy ads and spyware
Android = crappy, 2nd rate iOS copy cat
Doesn't really matter where this started, I am fighting for what the United States and free market stand for. I'd clearly label this a suitable topic, and I think they are suing competition away and charging me the lawyer fee's.
Which "United States and free market" would that be? Because it sounds to me like you are talking out your arse. According to the US Constitution: Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress):
"The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Article One of the US Constitution says the free market doesn't mean a free-for-all for someone else's invention.
Eric Schmidt has a PhD from Berkeley in computer science. He was the co-author of lex. He has worked at PARC and Sun, and was hired to two companies to be CEO. Stupid? How many of us qualify to label him as that? I wish I were so stupid.
..and Steve Jobs is a college drop out and yet Steve jobs >>>>>>>> Eric Schmidt
Eric Schmidt is an idiot.
So the hassle comes down to Schmidt's words. I'm not sure how Page and Brin feel about those words but when you look at what Schmidt said it sounds fairly silly to say (if this is indeed what he meant) that Apple has stopped innovating and competing fairly and now the only thing left in Apple's arsenal is fighting in the courtroom to gain the upper hand.
Agree with you Island Hermit. A poor choice in words, more suited for a soundbite.
So true! Schmidt is copying the Conservative politicians most successful tactic of the last decade; if you repeat the same lies enough, most people will believe it. Think; "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and lately "Don't tax the job creators".
So if they keep repeating the message; "Apple doesn't innovate" and millions of people will start repeating it and it will become a "truth".
Seriously, there's a forum for politics.
No one has mentioned - why didn't Google support HTC way back at the beginning? If they had any integrity, they would have been involved in defending HTC (and the others) from the start - not after Apple already won.
You note the point perfectly. HTC and other partners are the ones taking the slings and arrows.
Here and elsewhere, Google has been criticized for not defending their Android licensees. Now they are finally speaking up and vowing to defend their allies, as they should. Yet, Schmidt is not only being criticized but is in fact trashed for it. I wonder why some of you need to attack someone you don't know in such a denigrating manner. What is the source of your venom? I love my Apple products; however, I just don't feel the need to spit on the competition of Apple. Is there something wrong with me? Or perhaps some of you need to put on a new pair of glasses to properly see the world? Relax! Chill! Enjoy what you have and let others make their own choices!
It isn't competition if it is theft. Look if Google wants to do nothing but copy, I suppose that can be their choice, but don't call it innovation. Doing search after half a dozen others, being sued by Oracle, Apple and others about various Android related "copying", that isn't innovation regardless. You don't end up in a six front war because you are out innovating the planet. You end up in it because you are stealing from everyone.
So copying someone else's term paper is now a good thing, or to take it to an extreme, if someone steals your car, you're just a whiner if you file a police report when it's so obvious you should just be quiet and go buy another one?
Google would LOVE to see some more innovation without Apple protecting their IP since it would just give them more things to copy.
Remember, it isn't copying, it is innovating! You aren't copying someone's term paper. You are innovating on their term paper. You are stealing their car. You are innovating their car. See how well that works?
Google isn't doing any evil, they're letting their partners do it for them. See, no moral problem.
BTW, great new case for the Samsung iTab, huh? What a bunch of friggin' copying wankers. You could be handed one of those tablets in that case and not know which product you're holding - which is exactly why these design infringement suit DO have merit. Instead of trying to do their own thing, they keep copying even more. Unreal.
Anyway, the OS side isn't any better - where it differs, it's generally more complicated and less polished.
Samsung and their "approved" partners are no different than Google. Theft is theft and I had a thread about that before Apple even sued wondering why action wasn't being taken on it. I'm glad now it is because they've already got the suit in and the level of copying is clearly ridiculous at this stage.
You honestly believe Steve Jobs wasn't aware of what Google was doing with Android? And there's a claim by Apple that Schmidt violated NDA's? Apple management certainly hoped they wouldn't aggressively push Android as a mobile OS free for use. And Mr. Jobs probably was disappointed when they showed him their initial mockups and made it clear they were moving forward. But they were very open with Apple from all the reports I've seen, even inviting Apple engineers into the Google labs. And I'd be shocked if Mr. Jobs didn't pick Andy Rubin's brain for iPhone ideas. No, I don't think Schmidt was stealing from Apple. Steve Jobs would have failed Apple stockholders if he thought that was going on and didn't immediately remove him from the board. That he stayed on until 2009, when he voluntarily resigned, should be proof enough that he wasn't slinking around the Apple back corridors.
As for the original Google mockup that's mentioned every time this comes up, even Blackberry's don't look like Blackberry's from three years ago. It was an obvious choice to go with a touchscreen once Apple had shown it would be accepted by consumers.
So AFAIK, Steve Jobs has never said Eric Schmidt was stealing anything from Apple/doing things behind his back. It all came down to Google becoming a competitor and less valuable to Apple as a hedge against Microsoft. I'd imagine it was "do things our way or the highway".
Makes a better story to claim theft tho. . .
As CEO, Steve Jobs doesn't get any say on who is on Apple's board of directors, that is up to the shareholders. Further, since it is the board of directors that chooses the CEO, it would be a conflict of interest to have the decision up to Jobs. Its pretty clear that Steve was very pissed about Android when he saw they were including Apple patented tech, such as pinch to zoom, but he couldn't "fire" Schmidt. Thats why he held iPad development from parts of the board (i.e. Schmidt) until he could garner enough support from the rest of the board/shareholders to force Schmidt out. Legal proceedings against Schmidt probably haven't happened because he probably didn't technically break any law, or there is alot of gray area, but what he did was definitely unethical
Steve J.'s comment about Google stepping into Apple's space and not the other way around is what I'm basing my speculation upon...
Apple tried going after look and feel in the 80s... fail... so now they are smart enough to go after particular patents.
I agree that's a good statement to rationalize around. But Jobs didn't go as far as saying Schmidt stole secrets from them, which is what some here are accusing (not you, I believe). My point (also raised by one or two others, I think) is that Apple has never ever accused Google of outright infringement or thievery. If so, what facts would support us making such accusations (again, not directed at you, Mr. Hermit)?
As CEO, Steve Jobs doesn't get any say on who is on Apple's board of directors, that is up to the shareholders.
Of course Jobs has a lot of say. Shareholders vote for or against directors. But if Jobs suggests for an individual to be nominated, I doubt they wouldn't be at least considered. To say Jobs doesn't have any say is not true of how any company runs.
Further, since it is the board of directors that chooses the CEO, it would be a conflict of interest to have the decision up to Jobs. Its pretty clear that Steve was very pissed about Android when he saw they were including Apple patented tech, such as pinch to zoom, but he couldn't "fire" Schmidt.
Steve Jobs is considered the most iconic and powerful CEO in tech. If he suspects someone of stealing secrets from Apple, how can anyone believe he couldn't get enough board support to not only kick that individual off the board but also to go after him legally?
But I thought Facebook was also the enemy du jour since they're making an app to bypass the app store.
Man, with so many perceived enemies to hate it must make an Apple zealot's head cave in trying to keep 'em all straight.
I don't think the zealots are keeping 'em straight, which is why many posts don't make sense.
Really?
Ah, the descent continues.
Next up: how Schmidt eats kittens for breakfast.
Pssst - here's a tip: I hear he's a Satan worshiper too! And a space alien!
Godwin's Law in three....two...
I was holding back, but I agree. It's time.
Earlier I suggested that "Apple would rather litigate than innovate" was quickly becoming a mantra for the Android camp. Had I taken it a step further I would have added that the nazi's and hitler enjoyed spreading propaganda too.
Seriously though, I wanna see a picture of Schmidt (or just about any notable person) feeding on dead kittens.
Steve J.'s comment about Google stepping into Apple's space and not the other way around is what I'm basing my speculation upon...
That SJ comment is classic example of his "distortion of reality field". As far as I know, Apple never produced any mobile phones (except the joint product with Motorola). They never made public that they are developing iPhone until it was announced, so they entered the mobile business in that January 2007 keynote.
On the other hand, the information that Android, a creator of mobile OS, has been acquired by Google was public information since 2005, so technically, Google entered the mobile business before Apple and thus it might be ES pissed at SJ, not other way around.
Apple tried going after look and feel in the 80s... fail... so now they are smart enough to go after particular patents.
As said earlier, the only great thing about the patent lawsuits is that majority of those ridiculous patents get voided by the court. Boy they patented it, but they know both multitouch and pinch-to-zoom is prior art and will be primal candidate for such dismissal, if ever brought to court.
Google acquired Android in 2005. Surprised about them releasing a mobile OS in 2008 ? Really?
Ridiculous.
The only surprise is that it took them so long.
That SJ comment is classic example of his "distortion of reality field". As far as I know, Apple never produced any mobile phones (except the joint product with Motorola). They never made public that they are developing iPhone until it was announced, so they entered the mobile business in that January 2007 keynote.
On the other hand, the information that Android, a creator of mobile OS, has been acquired by Google was public information since 2005, so technically, Google entered the mobile business before Apple and thus it might be ES pissed at SJ, not other way around.
The point that you're both missing is that before the iPhone came out, Android phones looked like a cheap copy of the Blackberry.
After the iPhone came out, Android started looking like a copy of iOS.