A lot of people quote this prototype picture as evidence that google drastically changed android post iphone to copy it. Yet, if you actually look at the OS, it seems that the opposite is true; the core of android remained mostly the same.
This is what google eventually released:
So, show me what has drastically changed, because I don't see it:
The notification system is largely the same as the prototype; they didn't change it to match iOS'.
The desktop was expanded to include widgets; a feature that iOS doesn't have.
The 'desktop' was expanded to fit app icons, which were previously limited to the app launcher dock. It was also made larger to make it more functional as a multimedia device, something that was, at best, as secondary consideration prior to the iPhone (and shitty walkman/MP3 phones don't count)
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
The dock was already in place in the prototype, so its not copied from iOS.
No. Their dock was the home for all app icons. It was the app launcher instead of just a home for the 4 most common apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
The navigation buttons remained the same; they didn't copy iOS' singular home button.
keyboardless phones, were almost unheard of and an major point of derision when the iPhone launched. The Android you show does have a keyboard, but it is obvious the best selling Android models are moving away from dependence on physical keyboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
The prototype was already touch capable, so they didn't lift that from iOS either.
It was not the primary input source. The UI was not built completely around a touch screen. It was not multitouch. It was resistive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
The form factor changed from a candybar QWERTY keyboard to a slide out QWERTY keyboard, so even that is not copied from the iPhone.
The slideout keyboard is an afterthought meant to appease those users that still think they need a physical keyboard, but since the needed to go toward the iPhone-like larger screen, then had to make it a slideout. Otherwise you end up with a 9" long phone. The slideout was copied from Apple, obviously, but it was made necessary by their other rip on Apple, a full screen device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
Now, did the iPhone affected android in ways? Of course, you'll be delusional to think that google didn't consider features in the iPhone prior to releasing Android. However considering how similar the core of the final release of android is to the prototype, you have to be equally as delusional to think that google drastically changed android to be a clone of iOS.
The prototype was more similar, in almost every way to the BlackBerry of it's time. Not surprising, since Android was birthed to be a BB clone and not a iPhone clone. You could hardly look at most Androids and think the are now more similar to BB's than to iPhones (except those BB's that are very obvious reactions to the iPhones success).
How about the Android Market? How about licenses to hardware OEMs to include the Android Market with their phones?
I think you are mistaken. I'm not sure if your point has to do with some definition of "product" that you want to promote, or whether you were dealing with substance.
But the substance is that Google makes big bux from its Android products and from the secondary sales that are garnered via the OEM's customers, the end users.
Steve Jobs said he would spend his "last dying breath" fighting Google's Android mobile operating system because he viewed it as a "stolen product," according to an upcoming biography on the Apple co-founder.
The 'desktop' was expanded to fit app icons, which were previously limited to the app launcher dock. It was also made larger to make it more functional as a multimedia device, something that was, at best, as secondary consideration prior to the iPhone (and shitty walkman/MP3 phones don't count)
Android was always meant to be scalable to full touch. It was conceived to compete with windows mobile after all. That blackberry prototype is but one prototype.
Quote:
No. Their dock was the home for all app icons. It was the app launcher instead of just a home for the 4 most common apps.
And never in the history of stock Android has the dock been home to the four most common apps. -_-
Quote:
keyboardless phones, were almost unheard of and an major point of derision when the iPhone launched. The Android you show does have a keyboard, but it is obvious the best selling Android models are moving away from dependence on physical keyboard.
So?
Quote:
It was not the primary input source. The UI was not built completely around a touch screen. It was not multitouch. It was resistive.
So?
Quote:
The slideout keyboard is an afterthought meant to appease those users that still think they need a physical keyboard, but since the needed to go toward the iPhone-like larger screen, then had to make it a slideout. Otherwise you end up with a 9" long phone. The slideout was copied from Apple, obviously, but it was made necessary by their other rip on Apple, a full screen device.
I'm sure you have evidence of this. Otherwise I feel you may be making shit up -_-
Info: android has and always will be made for multiple form factors. Full touch, sliders, and bb style phones will always exist with Android. There is no flawed one size fits all ideology at play.
Quote:
The prototype was more similar, in almost every way to the BlackBerry of it's time. Not surprising, since Android was birthed to be a BB clone and not a iPhone clone. You could hardly look at most Androids and think the are now more similar to BB's than to iPhones (except those BB's that are very obvious reactions to the iPhones success).
Or those androids thar have the bb form factor...which bb never owned BTW so clone is a poor word choice.
Seems you feel full capacitive touch devices should belong to just one company forever.
Okay, so let's play the hypothetical game. Let's say Android did steal UI elements from iOS.
Are you angry that Android stole those elements?
If you are, are you equally angry at Apple for stealing Android's notification system, or wireless update system, for iOS?
Yes, equally angry, I am not angered.
Both the notification system and the wireless updating are minor enhancements to the overall UX. iOS can and was very successful without either of those. Take them away or leave them and the overall UX is still great and the platform is still popular. You can't say that about the Android, neither the individual features nor the overall UX, because it was lifted wholesale before it was ever launched. Had Android come out before the iPhone, it would have been a total different product.
A clone is not one or two features that are similar. A clone is a massive copying of much or all of the user experience. I never said "Android stole UI elements from iOS", they stole the whole UI (and the UX). Major difference.
Can someone explain why Schmidt was on Apple's board of director and later or at the same time as Google's CEO?
I'm more interested in why he wasn't immediately ousted the second Apple first heard that Google was making a phone instead of the many months he continued to sit there in OTL.
Android was always meant to be scalable to full touch. It was conceived to compete with windows mobile after all. That blackberry prototype is but one prototype.
And never in the history of stock Android has the dock been home to the four most common apps. -_-
majjo referenced how similar the prototype was to today's Android. One example he used was the dock. The dock in the prototype served a totally different purpose as the app launcher. The 'app launcher' now is the icons on the 'desktop'. Can't point a feature show it was planned earlier when the example you are using is completely different.
And it was conceived to compete with BB, not WinMo. RIM was ascendent at that point, WinMo was a joke. But regardless of which it was meant to compete with, BB or WinMO, it's final result was like neither. It took a totally different direction and ended up as an iPhone clone. Think that was a coincidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
So?
So?
Again, majjo referenced how similar the button/controls layout of a released Android is to the prototype, I pointed out their differences. majjo pointed out it was touch screen on the prototype and I pointed out that screen was completely different than what they released and again, ended up being more similar to the iPhone of the day than to the prototype.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
I'm sure you have evidence of this. Otherwise I feel you may be making shit up -_-
Info: android has and always will be made for multiple form factors. Full touch, sliders, and bb style phones will always exist with Android. There is no flawed one size fits all ideology at play.
Only photos of what their prototypes looked like at the time. Notice there are no photos iPhone-like prototypes prior to the iPhone. I wonder why that is.
Given all information that was known about Android prior to the iPhone, there is no reason to even suspect they were considering capacitive touch. If they weren't, and their prototypes seem to bear that out, then they would have had no choice but to include a keyboard. Without a slideout keyboard, they would have been left with a choice of the small screens they showed in their prototypes or a large screen with fixed keyboard that would have been huge. Hence, whatever inspired them to do a larger screen, required them to adapt to a slider keyboard, for any model that kept a keyboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
Or those androids thar have the bb form factor...which bb never owned BTW so clone is a poor word choice.
Who said they owned it? They popularized it. In 2006 you could look and a brandless BB and know instantly it was a BB. The prototypes show who they were trying to copy early on. BB was the cat's meow back then. If one had to copy someone's smartphone, BB would be it at that time. Then suddenly it wasn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
Seems you feel full capacitive touch devices should belong to just one company forever.
Who said that? But to look at other, resistive, touch screens and think they are proof that of someone considering multi-touch, capacitive touch screens is a joke.
Both the notification system and the wireless updating are minor enhancements to the overall UX. iOS can and was very successful without either of those. Take them away or leave them and the overall UX is still great and the platform is still popular. You can't say that about the Android, neither the individual features nor the overall UX, because it was lifted wholesale before it was ever launched. Had Android come out before the iPhone, it would have been a total different product.
A clone is not one or two features that are similar. A clone is a massive copying of much or all of the user experience. I never said "Android stole UI elements from iOS", they stole the whole UI (and the UX). Major difference.
What about Windows Mobile? That existed, with icons, a desktop, and a "touch experience", long before Apple's iOS. Do you feel that Microsoft "cloned" that from the Apple Newton?
Based on this premise, are you also frustrated that all major car manufacturers have essentially cloned the original Ford Model T?
The 'desktop' was expanded to fit app icons, which were previously limited to the app launcher dock. It was also made larger to make it more functional as a multimedia device, something that was, at best, as secondary consideration prior to the iPhone (and shitty walkman/MP3 phones don't count)
I forgot about the app shortcuts, thanks for pointing that out. My point is that android went from a desktop system to a desktop system. the fact that Apple released the iPhone without a desktop had no effect on it. If google truly wanted to clone iOS, why didn't they remove the idea of a desktop and go with the app drawer as the homescreen?
Quote:
No. Their dock was the home for all app icons. It was the app launcher instead of just a home for the 4 most common apps.
Actually, the dock in cupcake/donut only consisted of the app drawer and no other shortcuts (eg. it was closer to the prototype version than iOS') It wasn't until android 2.1 that they expanded it include app shortcuts. Either way, the point is the concept of the dock can trace its roots back to the prototype, and was not something they added in as a response to iOS. The functionality changed, but that's to be expected; and even then, it wasn't until 2.1 that it resembled iOS' dock.
Quote:
keyboardless phones, were almost unheard of and an major point of derision when the iPhone launched. The Android you show does have a keyboard, but it is obvious the best selling Android models are moving away from dependence on physical keyboard.
The phone I showed is the tmobile G1, which is regarded as the first android phone. I chose that phone because, if google truly redesigned android to be a clone of iOS, it should be most apparent in the very first android phone they release. The first 2 major android devices both had physical keyboards (the G1 and the original Droid). It wasn't until the release of the Nexus 1 that they truly began shifting away from physical keyboards.
Quote:
It was not the primary input source. The UI was not built completely around a touch screen. It was not multitouch. It was resistive.
It was expanded, I don't deny that at all; as a influence from iOS? most likely. Point is while capability was expanded, it already existed in some form from the prototype, and was not something that was hacked on as a response to iOS.
Quote:
The slideout keyboard is an afterthought meant to appease those users that still think they need a physical keyboard, but since the needed to go toward the iPhone-like larger screen, then had to make it a slideout. Otherwise you end up with a 9" long phone. The slideout was copied from Apple, obviously, but it was made necessary by their other rip on Apple, a full screen device.
I think you meant 'The slideout was not copied from Apple...' While apple definitely popularized the large screen candybar form factor, they were not the first to market it. Those phones have existed in 1 form or another for years before the iPhone. Point is Google had the choice to go with the same form factor as the iPhone; they chose not to. They decided to go after the users that wanted a physical keyboard, and thus were probably not going to buy the iphone in the first place.
Quote:
The prototype was more similar, in almost every way to the BlackBerry of it's time. Not surprising, since Android was birthed to be a BB clone and not a iPhone clone. You could hardly look at most Androids and think the are now more similar to BB's than to iPhones (except those BB's that are very obvious reactions to the iPhones success).
Actually, I see android as being closer to symbian than iOS; there are quite a bit of similarities between those two, starting with they are both based around desktops with widgets and shortcuts.
I don't contend that iOS has had an effect on the evolution of Android and vice versa. What I do take issue is with the idea that Android was drastically altered from its prototype form to mimic iOS because many of the UI elements of android can easily trace their roots back to the prototype, and not some huge change made after the release of the iPhone.
Both the notification system and the wireless updating are minor enhancements to the overall UX. iOS can and was very successful without either of those. Take them away or leave them and the overall UX is still great and the platform is still popular. You can't say that about the Android, neither the individual features nor the overall UX, because it was lifted wholesale before it was ever launched. Had Android come out before the iPhone, it would have been a total different product.
A clone is not one or two features that are similar. A clone is a massive copying of much or all of the user experience. I never said "Android stole UI elements from iOS", they stole the whole UI (and the UX). Major difference.
The hypocrisy in this thread amuses me. The question isn't whether or not iOS would still be good without notifications or not. The issue is that THEY IMPLEMENTED IT....in a very Android-like fashion at that (I'm coming from the Galaxy S to the 4S). By your definition they copied. Stop throwing stars saying "is/was very successful without either of those" isn't the best argument to make. Because IF and WHEN iOS falls (had they not been inspired by some competitors features) then most people would be contributing the downfall to not being like Android and doing their own stuff (ironically).
How did Android 'steal' the entire UI? My Nexus S looks NOTHING like iOS. Hmmm?
Think of it this way, IF COPIED OR WAS INSPIRED, WE WOULD NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET. Isn't this why Blockbuster failed? They didn't want to do what "Netflix" because they were doing things their own way. Look at them now.\
I don't get how Apple is always 'original' when they come out with something, but it's gimmick, stupid or copycatish when the competitiors come out.
majjo referenced how similar the prototype was to today's Android. One example he used was the dock. The dock in the prototype served a totally different purpose as the app launcher. The 'app launcher' now is the icons on the 'desktop'. Can't point a feature show it was planned earlier when the example you are using is completely different.
And it was conceived to compete with BB, not WinMo. RIM was ascendent at that point, WinMo was a joke. But regardless of which it was meant to compete with, BB or WinMO, it's final result was like neither. It took a totally different direction and ended up as an iPhone clone. Think that was a coincidence?
Again, majjo referenced how similar the button/controls layout of a released Android is to the prototype, I pointed out their differences. majjo pointed out it was touch screen on the prototype and I pointed out that screen was completely different than what they released and again, ended up being more similar to the iPhone of the day than to the prototype.
Only photos of what their prototypes looked like at the time. Notice there are no photos iPhone-like prototypes prior to the iPhone. I wonder why that is.
Given all information that was known about Android prior to the iPhone, there is no reason to even suspect they were considering capacitive touch. If they weren't, and their prototypes seem to bear that out, then they would have had no choice but to include a keyboard. Without a slideout keyboard, they would have been left with a choice of the small screens they showed in their prototypes or a large screen with fixed keyboard that would have been huge. Hence, whatever inspired them to do a larger screen, required them to adapt to a slider keyboard, for any model that kept a keyboard.
Who said they owned it? They popularized it. In 2006 you could look and a brandless BB and know instantly it was a BB. The prototypes show who they were trying to copy early on. BB was the cat's meow back then. If one had to copy someone's smartphone, BB would be it at that time. Then suddenly it wasn't.
Who said that? But to look at other, resistive, touch screens and think they are proof that of someone considering multi-touch, capacitive touch screens is a joke.
BenQ blackbox.
Apple wasn't alone in it's thoughts and had benQ not ran out of money who knows what we would see
What about Windows Mobile? That existed, with icons, a desktop, and a "touch experience", long before Apple's iOS. Do you feel that Microsoft "cloned" that from the Apple Newton?
Based on this premise, are you also frustrated that all major car manufacturers have essentially cloned the original Ford Model T?
The 'touch experience' was so different that the only similarity is they both have the word touch. My keyboard on my PC is as much as touch interface as a resistive touch interface is. A multitouch interface utilizing a capacitive touch screen has almost no relation to the 'touch experience' that WinMo and prototype Android had.
The Model T in and of itself was not unique. The manufacturing process was what was revolutionary for cars. One would have a valid argument that modern automakers have inherited what Ford started. Would you deny that?
Comments
A lot of people quote this prototype picture as evidence that google drastically changed android post iphone to copy it. Yet, if you actually look at the OS, it seems that the opposite is true; the core of android remained mostly the same.
This is what google eventually released:
So, show me what has drastically changed, because I don't see it:
The notification system is largely the same as the prototype; they didn't change it to match iOS'.
The desktop was expanded to include widgets; a feature that iOS doesn't have.
The 'desktop' was expanded to fit app icons, which were previously limited to the app launcher dock. It was also made larger to make it more functional as a multimedia device, something that was, at best, as secondary consideration prior to the iPhone (and shitty walkman/MP3 phones don't count)
The dock was already in place in the prototype, so its not copied from iOS.
No. Their dock was the home for all app icons. It was the app launcher instead of just a home for the 4 most common apps.
The navigation buttons remained the same; they didn't copy iOS' singular home button.
keyboardless phones, were almost unheard of and an major point of derision when the iPhone launched. The Android you show does have a keyboard, but it is obvious the best selling Android models are moving away from dependence on physical keyboard.
The prototype was already touch capable, so they didn't lift that from iOS either.
It was not the primary input source. The UI was not built completely around a touch screen. It was not multitouch. It was resistive.
The form factor changed from a candybar QWERTY keyboard to a slide out QWERTY keyboard, so even that is not copied from the iPhone.
The slideout keyboard is an afterthought meant to appease those users that still think they need a physical keyboard, but since the needed to go toward the iPhone-like larger screen, then had to make it a slideout. Otherwise you end up with a 9" long phone. The slideout was copied from Apple, obviously, but it was made necessary by their other rip on Apple, a full screen device.
Now, did the iPhone affected android in ways? Of course, you'll be delusional to think that google didn't consider features in the iPhone prior to releasing Android. However considering how similar the core of the final release of android is to the prototype, you have to be equally as delusional to think that google drastically changed android to be a clone of iOS.
The prototype was more similar, in almost every way to the BlackBerry of it's time. Not surprising, since Android was birthed to be a BB clone and not a iPhone clone. You could hardly look at most Androids and think the are now more similar to BB's than to iPhones (except those BB's that are very obvious reactions to the iPhones success).
Android stole UI elements from iOS.
Okay, so let's play the hypothetical game. Let's say Android did steal UI elements from iOS.
Are you angry that Android stole those elements?
If you are, are you equally angry at Apple for stealing Android's notification system, or wireless update system, for iOS?
he was quoting Pablo Picasso.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
Steve Jobs, "Picasso had a saying.. he said, "Good artists copy great artists steal.""
Steve Jobs, the same video - "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
Google has no products using Android.
How about the Android Market? How about licenses to hardware OEMs to include the Android Market with their phones?
I think you are mistaken. I'm not sure if your point has to do with some definition of "product" that you want to promote, or whether you were dealing with substance.
But the substance is that Google makes big bux from its Android products and from the secondary sales that are garnered via the OEM's customers, the end users.
Steve Jobs said he would spend his "last dying breath" fighting Google's Android mobile operating system because he viewed it as a "stolen product," according to an upcoming biography on the Apple co-founder.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
One thing we can all learn from this is that hate can be bad for one's health.
The 'desktop' was expanded to fit app icons, which were previously limited to the app launcher dock. It was also made larger to make it more functional as a multimedia device, something that was, at best, as secondary consideration prior to the iPhone (and shitty walkman/MP3 phones don't count)
Android was always meant to be scalable to full touch. It was conceived to compete with windows mobile after all. That blackberry prototype is but one prototype.
No. Their dock was the home for all app icons. It was the app launcher instead of just a home for the 4 most common apps.
And never in the history of stock Android has the dock been home to the four most common apps. -_-
keyboardless phones, were almost unheard of and an major point of derision when the iPhone launched. The Android you show does have a keyboard, but it is obvious the best selling Android models are moving away from dependence on physical keyboard.
So?
It was not the primary input source. The UI was not built completely around a touch screen. It was not multitouch. It was resistive.
So?
The slideout keyboard is an afterthought meant to appease those users that still think they need a physical keyboard, but since the needed to go toward the iPhone-like larger screen, then had to make it a slideout. Otherwise you end up with a 9" long phone. The slideout was copied from Apple, obviously, but it was made necessary by their other rip on Apple, a full screen device.
I'm sure you have evidence of this. Otherwise I feel you may be making shit up -_-
Info: android has and always will be made for multiple form factors. Full touch, sliders, and bb style phones will always exist with Android. There is no flawed one size fits all ideology at play.
The prototype was more similar, in almost every way to the BlackBerry of it's time. Not surprising, since Android was birthed to be a BB clone and not a iPhone clone. You could hardly look at most Androids and think the are now more similar to BB's than to iPhones (except those BB's that are very obvious reactions to the iPhones success).
Or those androids thar have the bb form factor...which bb never owned BTW so clone is a poor word choice.
Seems you feel full capacitive touch devices should belong to just one company forever.
No.
Okay, so let's play the hypothetical game. Let's say Android did steal UI elements from iOS.
Are you angry that Android stole those elements?
If you are, are you equally angry at Apple for stealing Android's notification system, or wireless update system, for iOS?
Yes, equally angry, I am not angered.
Both the notification system and the wireless updating are minor enhancements to the overall UX. iOS can and was very successful without either of those. Take them away or leave them and the overall UX is still great and the platform is still popular. You can't say that about the Android, neither the individual features nor the overall UX, because it was lifted wholesale before it was ever launched. Had Android come out before the iPhone, it would have been a total different product.
A clone is not one or two features that are similar. A clone is a massive copying of much or all of the user experience. I never said "Android stole UI elements from iOS", they stole the whole UI (and the UX). Major difference.
Can someone explain why Schmidt was on Apple's board of director and later or at the same time as Google's CEO?
I'm more interested in why he wasn't immediately ousted the second Apple first heard that Google was making a phone instead of the many months he continued to sit there in OTL.
Sheesh, is everyone going to start calling juvenile delinquents "geniuses" because they do lots of stealing?
No. Juvenile delinquents are "great artists" because they do lots of stealing.
Android was always meant to be scalable to full touch. It was conceived to compete with windows mobile after all. That blackberry prototype is but one prototype.
And never in the history of stock Android has the dock been home to the four most common apps. -_-
majjo referenced how similar the prototype was to today's Android. One example he used was the dock. The dock in the prototype served a totally different purpose as the app launcher. The 'app launcher' now is the icons on the 'desktop'. Can't point a feature show it was planned earlier when the example you are using is completely different.
And it was conceived to compete with BB, not WinMo. RIM was ascendent at that point, WinMo was a joke. But regardless of which it was meant to compete with, BB or WinMO, it's final result was like neither. It took a totally different direction and ended up as an iPhone clone. Think that was a coincidence?
So?
So?
Again, majjo referenced how similar the button/controls layout of a released Android is to the prototype, I pointed out their differences. majjo pointed out it was touch screen on the prototype and I pointed out that screen was completely different than what they released and again, ended up being more similar to the iPhone of the day than to the prototype.
I'm sure you have evidence of this. Otherwise I feel you may be making shit up -_-
Info: android has and always will be made for multiple form factors. Full touch, sliders, and bb style phones will always exist with Android. There is no flawed one size fits all ideology at play.
Only photos of what their prototypes looked like at the time. Notice there are no photos iPhone-like prototypes prior to the iPhone. I wonder why that is.
Given all information that was known about Android prior to the iPhone, there is no reason to even suspect they were considering capacitive touch. If they weren't, and their prototypes seem to bear that out, then they would have had no choice but to include a keyboard. Without a slideout keyboard, they would have been left with a choice of the small screens they showed in their prototypes or a large screen with fixed keyboard that would have been huge. Hence, whatever inspired them to do a larger screen, required them to adapt to a slider keyboard, for any model that kept a keyboard.
Or those androids thar have the bb form factor...which bb never owned BTW so clone is a poor word choice.
Who said they owned it? They popularized it. In 2006 you could look and a brandless BB and know instantly it was a BB. The prototypes show who they were trying to copy early on. BB was the cat's meow back then. If one had to copy someone's smartphone, BB would be it at that time. Then suddenly it wasn't.
Seems you feel full capacitive touch devices should belong to just one company forever.
Who said that? But to look at other, resistive, touch screens and think they are proof that of someone considering multi-touch, capacitive touch screens is a joke.
Can someone explain why Schmidt was on Apple's board of director and later or at the same time as Google's CEO?
Companies do this all the time....not entirely ethical in some cases.....but.......
Yes, equally angry, I am not angered.
Both the notification system and the wireless updating are minor enhancements to the overall UX. iOS can and was very successful without either of those. Take them away or leave them and the overall UX is still great and the platform is still popular. You can't say that about the Android, neither the individual features nor the overall UX, because it was lifted wholesale before it was ever launched. Had Android come out before the iPhone, it would have been a total different product.
A clone is not one or two features that are similar. A clone is a massive copying of much or all of the user experience. I never said "Android stole UI elements from iOS", they stole the whole UI (and the UX). Major difference.
What about Windows Mobile? That existed, with icons, a desktop, and a "touch experience", long before Apple's iOS. Do you feel that Microsoft "cloned" that from the Apple Newton?
Based on this premise, are you also frustrated that all major car manufacturers have essentially cloned the original Ford Model T?
The 'desktop' was expanded to fit app icons, which were previously limited to the app launcher dock. It was also made larger to make it more functional as a multimedia device, something that was, at best, as secondary consideration prior to the iPhone (and shitty walkman/MP3 phones don't count)
I forgot about the app shortcuts, thanks for pointing that out. My point is that android went from a desktop system to a desktop system. the fact that Apple released the iPhone without a desktop had no effect on it. If google truly wanted to clone iOS, why didn't they remove the idea of a desktop and go with the app drawer as the homescreen?
No. Their dock was the home for all app icons. It was the app launcher instead of just a home for the 4 most common apps.
Actually, the dock in cupcake/donut only consisted of the app drawer and no other shortcuts (eg. it was closer to the prototype version than iOS') It wasn't until android 2.1 that they expanded it include app shortcuts. Either way, the point is the concept of the dock can trace its roots back to the prototype, and was not something they added in as a response to iOS. The functionality changed, but that's to be expected; and even then, it wasn't until 2.1 that it resembled iOS' dock.
keyboardless phones, were almost unheard of and an major point of derision when the iPhone launched. The Android you show does have a keyboard, but it is obvious the best selling Android models are moving away from dependence on physical keyboard.
The phone I showed is the tmobile G1, which is regarded as the first android phone. I chose that phone because, if google truly redesigned android to be a clone of iOS, it should be most apparent in the very first android phone they release. The first 2 major android devices both had physical keyboards (the G1 and the original Droid). It wasn't until the release of the Nexus 1 that they truly began shifting away from physical keyboards.
It was not the primary input source. The UI was not built completely around a touch screen. It was not multitouch. It was resistive.
It was expanded, I don't deny that at all; as a influence from iOS? most likely. Point is while capability was expanded, it already existed in some form from the prototype, and was not something that was hacked on as a response to iOS.
The slideout keyboard is an afterthought meant to appease those users that still think they need a physical keyboard, but since the needed to go toward the iPhone-like larger screen, then had to make it a slideout. Otherwise you end up with a 9" long phone. The slideout was copied from Apple, obviously, but it was made necessary by their other rip on Apple, a full screen device.
I think you meant 'The slideout was not copied from Apple...' While apple definitely popularized the large screen candybar form factor, they were not the first to market it. Those phones have existed in 1 form or another for years before the iPhone. Point is Google had the choice to go with the same form factor as the iPhone; they chose not to. They decided to go after the users that wanted a physical keyboard, and thus were probably not going to buy the iphone in the first place.
The prototype was more similar, in almost every way to the BlackBerry of it's time. Not surprising, since Android was birthed to be a BB clone and not a iPhone clone. You could hardly look at most Androids and think the are now more similar to BB's than to iPhones (except those BB's that are very obvious reactions to the iPhones success).
Actually, I see android as being closer to symbian than iOS; there are quite a bit of similarities between those two, starting with they are both based around desktops with widgets and shortcuts.
I don't contend that iOS has had an effect on the evolution of Android and vice versa. What I do take issue is with the idea that Android was drastically altered from its prototype form to mimic iOS because many of the UI elements of android can easily trace their roots back to the prototype, and not some huge change made after the release of the iPhone.
Can someone explain why Schmidt was on Apple's board of director and later or at the same time as Google's CEO?
Standard business practice. As long as there's no business conflict, the theory is that companies benefit from cross-fertilization of ideas.
Yes, equally angry, I am not angered.
Both the notification system and the wireless updating are minor enhancements to the overall UX. iOS can and was very successful without either of those. Take them away or leave them and the overall UX is still great and the platform is still popular. You can't say that about the Android, neither the individual features nor the overall UX, because it was lifted wholesale before it was ever launched. Had Android come out before the iPhone, it would have been a total different product.
A clone is not one or two features that are similar. A clone is a massive copying of much or all of the user experience. I never said "Android stole UI elements from iOS", they stole the whole UI (and the UX). Major difference.
The hypocrisy in this thread amuses me. The question isn't whether or not iOS would still be good without notifications or not. The issue is that THEY IMPLEMENTED IT....in a very Android-like fashion at that (I'm coming from the Galaxy S to the 4S). By your definition they copied. Stop throwing stars saying "is/was very successful without either of those" isn't the best argument to make. Because IF and WHEN iOS falls (had they not been inspired by some competitors features) then most people would be contributing the downfall to not being like Android and doing their own stuff (ironically).
How did Android 'steal' the entire UI? My Nexus S looks NOTHING like iOS. Hmmm?
Think of it this way, IF COPIED OR WAS INSPIRED, WE WOULD NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET. Isn't this why Blockbuster failed? They didn't want to do what "Netflix" because they were doing things their own way. Look at them now.
I don't get how Apple is always 'original' when they come out with something, but it's gimmick, stupid or copycatish when the competitiors come out.
majjo referenced how similar the prototype was to today's Android. One example he used was the dock. The dock in the prototype served a totally different purpose as the app launcher. The 'app launcher' now is the icons on the 'desktop'. Can't point a feature show it was planned earlier when the example you are using is completely different.
And it was conceived to compete with BB, not WinMo. RIM was ascendent at that point, WinMo was a joke. But regardless of which it was meant to compete with, BB or WinMO, it's final result was like neither. It took a totally different direction and ended up as an iPhone clone. Think that was a coincidence?
Again, majjo referenced how similar the button/controls layout of a released Android is to the prototype, I pointed out their differences. majjo pointed out it was touch screen on the prototype and I pointed out that screen was completely different than what they released and again, ended up being more similar to the iPhone of the day than to the prototype.
Only photos of what their prototypes looked like at the time. Notice there are no photos iPhone-like prototypes prior to the iPhone. I wonder why that is.
Given all information that was known about Android prior to the iPhone, there is no reason to even suspect they were considering capacitive touch. If they weren't, and their prototypes seem to bear that out, then they would have had no choice but to include a keyboard. Without a slideout keyboard, they would have been left with a choice of the small screens they showed in their prototypes or a large screen with fixed keyboard that would have been huge. Hence, whatever inspired them to do a larger screen, required them to adapt to a slider keyboard, for any model that kept a keyboard.
Who said they owned it? They popularized it. In 2006 you could look and a brandless BB and know instantly it was a BB. The prototypes show who they were trying to copy early on. BB was the cat's meow back then. If one had to copy someone's smartphone, BB would be it at that time. Then suddenly it wasn't.
Who said that? But to look at other, resistive, touch screens and think they are proof that of someone considering multi-touch, capacitive touch screens is a joke.
BenQ blackbox.
Apple wasn't alone in it's thoughts and had benQ not ran out of money who knows what we would see
What about Windows Mobile? That existed, with icons, a desktop, and a "touch experience", long before Apple's iOS. Do you feel that Microsoft "cloned" that from the Apple Newton?
Based on this premise, are you also frustrated that all major car manufacturers have essentially cloned the original Ford Model T?
The 'touch experience' was so different that the only similarity is they both have the word touch. My keyboard on my PC is as much as touch interface as a resistive touch interface is. A multitouch interface utilizing a capacitive touch screen has almost no relation to the 'touch experience' that WinMo and prototype Android had.
The Model T in and of itself was not unique. The manufacturing process was what was revolutionary for cars. One would have a valid argument that modern automakers have inherited what Ford started. Would you deny that?
Good to see another useless thread on AI.
Lets see.
A. Steve Jobs is dead.
B. Google/Android is still running strong.
No matter what happens to Google, "A" will still apply.
It's not useless ... if it causes people to comment on it ..... as you just did.