Google's Schmidt: Apple responding to Android with lawsuits, not innovation

145791012

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 228
    bilbo63bilbo63 Posts: 285member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Giffen View Post


    Has Google EVER actually been innovative and created something new?



    They copied internet search from other search engines...



    They copied maps from other map sites....



    Gmail? copied...



    Android? copied...



    How do they think they have the virtue to assail Apple as not being innovative. Every computer and every smartphone and every tablet today is a direct result of what Apple created out of thin air.



    Uhm, I agree with much of your post, but "thin air"? Seriously?



    Xerox and others played a pretty big role in the development of the modern GUI. Apple innovates and they inspire others... But they are also inspired by the innovations of others.



    Apple is a great "forward-looking" company and do terrific work. Apple pushes the envelope and pushes the entire industry forward, but Apple isn't the only company that can think up good ideas.
  • Reply 122 of 228
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by John.B View Post


    Well, at least we've identified the Eric Schmidt apologist on the thread.



    I am pretty sure Harbinger is Schmidt. It is all hersay at this point, we may never really know.
  • Reply 123 of 228
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,980member
    I wonder if Google has a patent on its search engine. And will it defend its patent.
  • Reply 124 of 228
    bilbo63bilbo63 Posts: 285member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post


    It's not about "copying" every detail. It's about copying specific implementations. See my post above and check out Samsungs doc connector.



    It could be said that Palm inspiration came from the newton. I don't think Palm or Visor's (which used palm OS) were much akin to the iPhone except in form factor. The visor actually had a phone adapter and mobile internet in one device before either.



    I just remember the palm OS was very very different VS Android which other than being a terrible copy is still a copy of iOS in specific ways.



    I said it earlier. We'll see how this turns out, but we already have clues that it's not going to be a case of at least some of Apple's claims not to be supported.



    The work that goes into designing a tee shirt hardly compares the the dollars spent on R & D in the tech sector. Look at the smartphones prior to the iPhone and compare them to the smartphones that we enjoy today. Outside of Microsoft's Windows phone7 they all strongly resemble the iPhone both in form factor, appearance and they way that they work.
  • Reply 125 of 228
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Giffen View Post


    Has Google EVER actually been innovative and created something new?



    They copied internet search from other search engines...



    Did you ever use any of those other search engines? Most were slow, all had horrible visual design. Many included advertisers paid links in the search results, along with banner ads and big slow-to-load ads along the side panels. Relevancy was atrocious. Google transformed the search experience with both exceptional speed, exceptionally relevant results and a better advertising model.



    Quote:

    Gmail? copied...



    Lots of sites had webmail sure, but GMail was transformative - not so much because it has labels instead of folders - but because it gave orders of magnitude more email space. Back when GMail launched it gave users 1GB of mail space, hotmail back then I believe offered 2MB and Yahoo 4MB.



    Innovation doesn't just mean making something wholly new, it means making something transformatively better. Much of Google's innovation is in its infrastructure, which allows it to deliver web services with unequalled scale, reliability and performance.



    There are plenty of bad things that can be reasonably said about Google, but claiming that they have never innovated isn't one of them.
  • Reply 126 of 228
    Google's definition of innovation:



    Google+ has a 'celebrity acquisition plan'



    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/soc...google.verify/



    ROFL PATHETIC!
  • Reply 127 of 228
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,580member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    You're such a funny guy Anonymouse. Every time you use that line of reasoning with me or someone else it cracks me up.



    At least you lighten up the mood around here.



    And yet, despite numerous opportunities to deny that you are working for Google, you haven't done so.
  • Reply 128 of 228
    If you didn't copy Apple's IP you'd have nothing to worry about, but we know that's not the case. So pay up or shut up
  • Reply 129 of 228
    tleviertlevier Posts: 104member
    Eric was just caught off guard. He thought he was in an innovation competition and he didn't realize he was in a "Whole Market" competition that involved laws and litigation.
  • Reply 130 of 228
    brainlessbrainless Posts: 272member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post


    Yep, Eric is worried, as he should be.



    In my book what he did behind Apples back while serving on the board of directors is tantamount to corporate espionage. He's a weasel of the nth degree.



    OMG, this is beyond funny. How you explain that ES got to the Apple's Board of Directors ? Do you think he bribed Jobs or something, or perhaps wore an invisible suit, sitting in the corner and recorded everything ? It was move of Apple as they thought it might help them...as you probably know, Apple was deep in trouble in that time.

    Information about Google acquiring Android was public, so it was no secret to Apple that Google was creating their own mobile OS...yet Apple decided to do no move, and it is Schmidt who takes all the blame, even if it is not clear if he really "stole" anything during his BOD stay ?



    There is a positive thing about these lawsuits, that those ridiculous patents, that clearly cover insane broad concepts or prior art, hopefully get examined by the court and get voided as a result.
  • Reply 131 of 228
    jacksonsjacksons Posts: 244member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post


    You mean this case? How could you possibly confuse this with Apple's case? How dare you accuse samsung of copying anyone!







    Speaking of copying...



    http://technologer.net/2011/03/03/di...a-from-incase/
  • Reply 132 of 228
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post


    I wonder Google has a patent on its search engine. And will it defend its patent.



    Google's approach to IP is different, partly because they are primarily a server side firm. Mostly rather than patent something such as their search-rank algorithm, they will prefer to keep it as a trade secret. They do have patents for example on MapReduce, but most of their IP crown jewels like BigTable and GFS are closely held secrets.
  • Reply 133 of 228
    So what he is saying is Apple shouldn't sue when someone copies them. They should innovate, make a product so much better than your previous product (which was copied) so people will only buy the new product and not the previously innovative copied product? I think?
  • Reply 134 of 228
    zaim2zaim2 Posts: 45member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FriedLobster View Post


    Remember Fandroids. Android used to look like this BEFORE Google COPIED the iPhone.









    From that to this:





    The first official Android phone, HTC G1 (released October 2008)



    Compared to this:





    iPhone 1 (Released in 2007)







    I think some of you need your eyes tested. Even multitouch gestures only came to Android with the Nexus One in January 2010, 2 and a half years after the iPhone did it.



    Schmidt being on the board is shady, but I'm not seeing what they copied.
  • Reply 135 of 228
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,120member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post


    Serious answer, he was privy to all sorts of high level privileged info as both a board member and business partner during most of the years that Apple was developing the iPhone. He was able to jumpstart a skunkworks in Google and feed Andy Rubin Apples touchscreen MO and other design/business plans. All in secret, in violation of his non-disclosure.

    .

    .

    .

    For the record, Eric still smarts from when Jobs ripped him a new one.



    That is lots of guesses. It is well know Eric recused himself on many planning meetings before, at and after the iPhone was introduced.



    Given Eric had no idea that Page had even bought the company Android and Eric sees the future of Google more aligned with ChromeOS, I have always found these stories suspect.
  • Reply 136 of 228
    bilbo63bilbo63 Posts: 285member
    I wonder how many times Eric Schmidt got caught cheating off his neighbor's paper in school?
  • Reply 137 of 228
    jcozjcoz Posts: 251member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nickmccally View Post


    This is so sad really. You guys think that these phones are copies? REALLY?



    I've never used on that made me think "man this is as good as my iphone"



    Lets all pay one company a licensing fee to make tee shirts, because one company should own the right. Lets me one company own licensing for laptops so NO ONE but one company can making portable computers. If anything, Apples inspiration came from PALM years ago. This is ridiculous you guys are agreeing with having another monopoly in the USA. I guarantee that HTC wins this time round.



    And who was it that started that company?.....where did they come from? Can't remember......
  • Reply 138 of 228
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,980member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zaim2 View Post


    From that to this:





    The first official Android phone, HTC G1 (released October 2008)



    Compared to this:





    iPhone 1 (Released in 2007)







    I think some of you need your eyes tested. Even multitouch gestures only came to Android with the Nexus One in January 2010, 2 and a half years after the iPhone did it.



    Schmidt being on the board is shady, but I'm not seeing what they copied.



    This is eerily similar to what Microsoft did to the Windows OS.
  • Reply 139 of 228
    brainlessbrainless Posts: 272member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patranus View Post


    Funny coming from the guy who responded to iOS with theft.







    LOL



    The guy headed JAVA at Sun and *somehow* ended up with something exactly like JAVA.

    The guy was on the board of Apple and *somehow* ended up with something that looks exactly like an iPhone.



    This guy is laughable.



    Have you seen this :



    http://www.htc.com/cz/product/chacha/specification.html



    This is actual Android device, released in 2011.



    The fact that old photo of android prototype had a thumbnail keyboard, which was popular at that time, and seems still has enough fans that it is worth releasing new model now, doesn't automatically mean, that Android in 2007 was only capable running on the keyboard-driven phone. There was a touchscreen support from the very beginning.
  • Reply 140 of 228
    maccherrymaccherry Posts: 924member
    Eric Schmidt is using the word innovation out of context. Google doesn't do a damn thing but make the software that piggybacks on massively produced, subsidized hardware.

    Apple on the other hand makes their mobile OS and their hardware(to an extent).

    Apple has 100% control of iSO while their competitors ain't got jack!
Sign In or Register to comment.