Apple wasn't alone in it's thoughts and had benQ not ran out of money who knows what we would see
Indeed, who knows what we would have seen. It is too bad they couldn't come to market with a product. It is too bad they never make it as a product and then made it a success. It is too bad they couldn't have then taken that device and created an ecosystem around it that spurred further success.
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.
Indeed, who knows what we would have seen. It is too bad they couldn't come to market with a product. It is too bad they never make it as a product and then made it a success. It is too bad they couldn't have then taken that device and created an ecosystem around it that spurred further success.
Apple did.
Point being technology was moving with or without Apple. Apple moved it along faster sure but everyone seems to feel the world would've collapsed without Apple.
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?
To answer you in reverse, no, I absolutely agree that all modern cars inherit from the Model T--and that the Model T inherited from previous vehicles; steam-powered cars, which inherited from 4-wheeled buggies, and so on.
I disagree that WinMo was significantly different, or offered a significantly different experience, though. Yes, a stylus was needed (but not required, I used a resistive screen for many years with my fingers alone), but the experience wasn't dramatically different. The UI was different, and it wasn't nearly as accurate, but I could use iOS as it is now with a resistive screen the same way (albeit a much less nice experience.)
Isn't this argument akin to Windows vs. OS X? Different experiences that are essentially the same? Both use the concept of "Windows" in the OS, as does Linux, etc. to represent viewing panes.
Point being technology was moving with or without Apple. Apple moved it along faster sure but everyone seems to feel the world would've collapsed without Apple.
Exactly. Everything happened as it should happen and hasn't happened any other way. Even with the absence of Apple, tech seems to still go on. I mean, look at how Android phones are progressing in ways that Apple HASN'T influenced. Super AMOLED, Kevlar, thinnest phone, face unlock, notifacatoins, wifi sync, etc.
Apple may have moved the industry foward, like Blackberry and Palm did....but that does NOT meat it's the end all of be alls.
I always thought that quote should be attributed to TS Eliot, from “Philip Massinger,” The Sacred Wood.
"One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest."
The innovation is that Picasso said it so everyone could consume it, not just aficionados of poetry. It's not uncommon for the inventor of an idea to not get widespread popular culture credit if they weren't able to communicate it adequately. Many important laws, principles and theories named for those that applied and communicated them clearly, not those that actually published them first.
I'm sure Picasso knew exactly what he was doing as he minimized and simplified the idea to it's core.
Point being technology was moving with or without Apple. Apple moved it along faster sure but everyone seems to feel the world would've collapsed without Apple.
Certainly not me. But we would be looking at a completely different Android if Apple hadn't done the iPhone first.
The Huffington Post has also obtained a copy of the book and reports that Jobs' long-time rival Bill Gates found him "weirdly flawed as a human being," saying that he was fascinated by his tendency to be "either in the mode of saying you were shit or trying to seduce you."
I find this quote from Bill Gates to be the most interesting thing from the story, in spite of all the back and forth between Android vs IOS on these boards.
It would seem that Steve's habit of saying what's on his mind ... and not holding anything back ... is unfamiliar territory for Bill. If you've watched enough video of B. Gates you'll notice what makes him, according to several sources, "a great poker player". His "poker face" never reveals what he's thinking, and so it's difficult trying to read him. Steve Jobs,otoh, tells you exactly what's on his mind, whether you like it or not.
For me, at least, I'll take Steve's way each and every time. You don't have to waste time trying to figure out what he "really means" ..... he tells you directly .... much more efficient and "open".
Again sounds like you should never allow a competitor on you board in the first place. Looks like trying to gang up on RIM and MSFT simply backfired.
Your continued, plainly-displayed, ignorance is so pervasive I am getting to the point of believing you are nothing more than an intentional troll. You seem to know a fair chunk of recent Apple related tech history, but have almost all the facts other than the timeline wrong. Ignorance isn't that simultaneously successful and pathetically clueless.
As for the direct factual response to the above post, Google was not a competitor with Apple when Schmidt joined the board. Google bought Android Inc in 2005 when it was a small tech startup making a better pager. Android the phone OS didn't show up publicly until almost 2008, and immediately it was obvious in the PR runup showing off previous development that the previous secret development of Andropid was in BlackBerry lookalike prototypes, and the secret prototypes became iPhone knockoffs in 2006/2007. That is when Google became a competitor, and the only reasonable conclusion I see is that Schmidt fed the Android team iPhone information before he started recusing himself from Apple iPhone related board business.
You can't ignore the timelines, they are quite public. You can't ignore the trace of events in the internet, the Wayback Machine does not lie. You are obviously savvy enough to know of the events, yet you chose to ignore all of the actual facts surrounding the events. And have repeatedly dismissed other posts that have attempted to educate you. So I expect you to continue the troll road technique and reject/ignore this post too. But your willfulness isn't left unaddressed so that it might unfairly snare others.
So then it is ridiculous to fault Jobs for feeling that Android copied heavily from the iPhone and for being livid that Schmidt betrayed him. I have ben responding to those that have trying to deny or minimize the 'influence' that the iPhone had on Android as we know it.
There was no phone like the iPhone prior to it's release. Once it came out, suddenly there was a platform that mimicked what made the iPhone unique, the total package. Who wouldn't feel they were ripped off and by a ally and board member?
Point being technology was moving with or without Apple. Apple moved it along faster sure but everyone seems to feel the world would've collapsed without Apple.
Your tendency towards strawman hyperbole is getting incredibly stale. The winners dictate the direction of the game. Apple was winning in 2007. In my opinion it is fair to say they helped steer the competition in many ways. It is purely speculative to say what Android would have become if the iPhone had not been received so well. Luckily we don't actually have to speculate, because history shows us that the iPhone was released first, it was incredibly popular, and gradually feature sets across the industry tend towards convergence based on what is popular. Google and Apple have each had their turns being first to market with new features, but Apple set the benchmark for what people wanted before Android even got out of the gate.
Your continued, plainly-displayed, ignorance is so pervasive I am getting to the point of believing you are nothing more than an intentional troll. You seem to know a fair chunk of recent Apple related tech history, but have almost all the facts other than the timeline wrong. Ignorance isn't that simultaneously successful and pathetically clueless.
As for the direct factual response to the above post, Google was not a competitor with Apple when Schmidt joined the board. Google bought Android Inc in 2005 when it was a small tech startup making a better pager. Android the phone OS didn't show up publicly until almost 2008, and immediately it was obvious in the PR runup showing off previous development that the previous secret development of Andropid was in BlackBerry lookalike prototypes, and the secret prototypes became iPhone knockoffs in 2006/2007. That is when Google became a competitor, and the only reasonable conclusion I see is that Schmidt fed the Android team iPhone information before he started recusing himself from Apple iPhone related board business.
You can't ignore the timelines, they are quite public. You can't ignore the trace of events in the internet, the Wayback Machine does not lie. You are obviously savvy enough to know of the events, yet you chose to ignore all of the actual facts surrounding the events. And have repeatedly dismissed other posts that have attempted to educate you. So I expect you to continue the troll road technique and reject/ignore this post too. But your willfulness isn't left unaddressed so that it might unfairly snare others.
So you're suggesting Steve Jobs was a pussy pushover who allowed Schmidt to steal all his secrets and get away with it?
Your tendency towards strawman hyperbole is getting incredibly stale. The winners dictate the direction of the game. Apple was winning in 2007. In my opinion it is fair to say they helped steer the competition in many ways. It is purely speculative to say what Android would have become if the iPhone had not been received so well. Luckily we don't actually have to speculate, because history shows us that the iPhone was released first, it was incredibly popular, and gradually feature sets across the industry tend towards convergence based on what is popular. Google and Apple have each had their turns being first to market with new features, but Apple set the benchmark for what people wanted before Android even got out of the gate.
So then it is ridiculous to fault Jobs for feeling that Android copied heavily from the iPhone and for being livid that Schmidt betrayed him. I have ben responding to those that have trying to deny or minimize the 'influence' that the iPhone had on Android as we know it.
There was no phone like the iPhone prior to it's release. Once it came out, suddenly there was a platform that mimicked what made the iPhone unique, the total package. Who wouldn't feel they were ripped off and by a ally and board member?
I don't fault jobs I disagree with him.
For such an obvious trend setter he got angry often at his trends being successful. o.O
And android didn't copy heavily from the iPhone. They were inspired by it like any sane company was.
If BMW comes out with a car that changes the game and Daimler-Chrysler decides to make products to compete with this amazing new car are they copycats? Or businessmen?
And that's why Oracle is suing Samsung, oh wait...
Ignorance.
Apple is suing Samsung & HTC because Apple claims Samsung & HTC are selling products that use Apple patents without license.
Oracle is suing Google because Oracle claims Google is creating and distributing software that violates oracles copyrights and licensing. Oracle is trying to prove that Google coding of the Dalvik JVM directly hurt Oracles Mobile Java licensing.
The thing that is in common is Android and Google having created it. But Apple and Oracle have business in different parts of the overall software / hardware market which means they seek legal relief in those parts of the market they know best first. If Apple and Oracle are successful you can be guaranteed they will take those precedents and conduct far wider court actions against the remainder of the offending parties.
These are the last bytes on AI's server that I am going to waste on you. I imagine that being a dense prick on the internet provides you with some sick satisfaction, but I'm done being one of your enablers.
Comments
To fight!
It's not useless ... if it causes people to comment on it ..... as you just did.
I wonder if Mr. Jobs is in Android Hell.
BenQ blackbox.
Apple wasn't alone in it's thoughts and had benQ not ran out of money who knows what we would see
Indeed, who knows what we would have seen. It is too bad they couldn't come to market with a product. It is too bad they never make it as a product and then made it a success. It is too bad they couldn't have then taken that device and created an ecosystem around it that spurred further success.
Apple did.
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 ]
Cannot wait until the book comes out to see how it ends.
Indeed, who knows what we would have seen. It is too bad they couldn't come to market with a product. It is too bad they never make it as a product and then made it a success. It is too bad they couldn't have then taken that device and created an ecosystem around it that spurred further success.
Apple did.
Point being technology was moving with or without Apple. Apple moved it along faster sure but everyone seems to feel the world would've collapsed without Apple.
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?
To answer you in reverse, no, I absolutely agree that all modern cars inherit from the Model T--and that the Model T inherited from previous vehicles; steam-powered cars, which inherited from 4-wheeled buggies, and so on.
I disagree that WinMo was significantly different, or offered a significantly different experience, though. Yes, a stylus was needed (but not required, I used a resistive screen for many years with my fingers alone), but the experience wasn't dramatically different. The UI was different, and it wasn't nearly as accurate, but I could use iOS as it is now with a resistive screen the same way (albeit a much less nice experience.)
Isn't this argument akin to Windows vs. OS X? Different experiences that are essentially the same? Both use the concept of "Windows" in the OS, as does Linux, etc. to represent viewing panes.
Point being technology was moving with or without Apple. Apple moved it along faster sure but everyone seems to feel the world would've collapsed without Apple.
Exactly. Everything happened as it should happen and hasn't happened any other way. Even with the absence of Apple, tech seems to still go on. I mean, look at how Android phones are progressing in ways that Apple HASN'T influenced. Super AMOLED, Kevlar, thinnest phone, face unlock, notifacatoins, wifi sync, etc.
Apple may have moved the industry foward, like Blackberry and Palm did....but that does NOT meat it's the end all of be alls.
Cannot wait until the book comes out to see how it ends.
LOLZ, your'e too funny!
I always thought that quote should be attributed to TS Eliot, from “Philip Massinger,” The Sacred Wood. Source
The innovation is that Picasso said it so everyone could consume it, not just aficionados of poetry. It's not uncommon for the inventor of an idea to not get widespread popular culture credit if they weren't able to communicate it adequately. Many important laws, principles and theories named for those that applied and communicated them clearly, not those that actually published them first.
I'm sure Picasso knew exactly what he was doing as he minimized and simplified the idea to it's core.
Point being technology was moving with or without Apple. Apple moved it along faster sure but everyone seems to feel the world would've collapsed without Apple.
Certainly not me. But we would be looking at a completely different Android if Apple hadn't done the iPhone first.
The Huffington Post has also obtained a copy of the book and reports that Jobs' long-time rival Bill Gates found him "weirdly flawed as a human being," saying that he was fascinated by his tendency to be "either in the mode of saying you were shit or trying to seduce you."
I find this quote from Bill Gates to be the most interesting thing from the story, in spite of all the back and forth between Android vs IOS on these boards.
It would seem that Steve's habit of saying what's on his mind ... and not holding anything back ... is unfamiliar territory for Bill. If you've watched enough video of B. Gates you'll notice what makes him, according to several sources, "a great poker player". His "poker face" never reveals what he's thinking, and so it's difficult trying to read him. Steve Jobs,otoh, tells you exactly what's on his mind, whether you like it or not.
For me, at least, I'll take Steve's way each and every time. You don't have to waste time trying to figure out what he "really means" ..... he tells you directly .... much more efficient and "open".
Certainly not me. But we would be looking at a completely different Android if Apple hadn't done the iPhone first.
So?
10characters
Again sounds like you should never allow a competitor on you board in the first place. Looks like trying to gang up on RIM and MSFT simply backfired.
Your continued, plainly-displayed, ignorance is so pervasive I am getting to the point of believing you are nothing more than an intentional troll. You seem to know a fair chunk of recent Apple related tech history, but have almost all the facts other than the timeline wrong. Ignorance isn't that simultaneously successful and pathetically clueless.
As for the direct factual response to the above post, Google was not a competitor with Apple when Schmidt joined the board. Google bought Android Inc in 2005 when it was a small tech startup making a better pager. Android the phone OS didn't show up publicly until almost 2008, and immediately it was obvious in the PR runup showing off previous development that the previous secret development of Andropid was in BlackBerry lookalike prototypes, and the secret prototypes became iPhone knockoffs in 2006/2007. That is when Google became a competitor, and the only reasonable conclusion I see is that Schmidt fed the Android team iPhone information before he started recusing himself from Apple iPhone related board business.
You can't ignore the timelines, they are quite public. You can't ignore the trace of events in the internet, the Wayback Machine does not lie. You are obviously savvy enough to know of the events, yet you chose to ignore all of the actual facts surrounding the events. And have repeatedly dismissed other posts that have attempted to educate you. So I expect you to continue the troll road technique and reject/ignore this post too. But your willfulness isn't left unaddressed so that it might unfairly snare others.
So?
10characters
So then it is ridiculous to fault Jobs for feeling that Android copied heavily from the iPhone and for being livid that Schmidt betrayed him. I have ben responding to those that have trying to deny or minimize the 'influence' that the iPhone had on Android as we know it.
There was no phone like the iPhone prior to it's release. Once it came out, suddenly there was a platform that mimicked what made the iPhone unique, the total package. Who wouldn't feel they were ripped off and by a ally and board member?
Point being technology was moving with or without Apple. Apple moved it along faster sure but everyone seems to feel the world would've collapsed without Apple.
Your tendency towards strawman hyperbole is getting incredibly stale. The winners dictate the direction of the game. Apple was winning in 2007. In my opinion it is fair to say they helped steer the competition in many ways. It is purely speculative to say what Android would have become if the iPhone had not been received so well. Luckily we don't actually have to speculate, because history shows us that the iPhone was released first, it was incredibly popular, and gradually feature sets across the industry tend towards convergence based on what is popular. Google and Apple have each had their turns being first to market with new features, but Apple set the benchmark for what people wanted before Android even got out of the gate.
Your continued, plainly-displayed, ignorance is so pervasive I am getting to the point of believing you are nothing more than an intentional troll. You seem to know a fair chunk of recent Apple related tech history, but have almost all the facts other than the timeline wrong. Ignorance isn't that simultaneously successful and pathetically clueless.
As for the direct factual response to the above post, Google was not a competitor with Apple when Schmidt joined the board. Google bought Android Inc in 2005 when it was a small tech startup making a better pager. Android the phone OS didn't show up publicly until almost 2008, and immediately it was obvious in the PR runup showing off previous development that the previous secret development of Andropid was in BlackBerry lookalike prototypes, and the secret prototypes became iPhone knockoffs in 2006/2007. That is when Google became a competitor, and the only reasonable conclusion I see is that Schmidt fed the Android team iPhone information before he started recusing himself from Apple iPhone related board business.
You can't ignore the timelines, they are quite public. You can't ignore the trace of events in the internet, the Wayback Machine does not lie. You are obviously savvy enough to know of the events, yet you chose to ignore all of the actual facts surrounding the events. And have repeatedly dismissed other posts that have attempted to educate you. So I expect you to continue the troll road technique and reject/ignore this post too. But your willfulness isn't left unaddressed so that it might unfairly snare others.
So you're suggesting Steve Jobs was a pussy pushover who allowed Schmidt to steal all his secrets and get away with it?
I thought you respected Steve -_-
Your tendency towards strawman hyperbole is getting incredibly stale. The winners dictate the direction of the game. Apple was winning in 2007. In my opinion it is fair to say they helped steer the competition in many ways. It is purely speculative to say what Android would have become if the iPhone had not been received so well. Luckily we don't actually have to speculate, because history shows us that the iPhone was released first, it was incredibly popular, and gradually feature sets across the industry tend towards convergence based on what is popular. Google and Apple have each had their turns being first to market with new features, but Apple set the benchmark for what people wanted before Android even got out of the gate.
So you disagree with Steve?
So then it is ridiculous to fault Jobs for feeling that Android copied heavily from the iPhone and for being livid that Schmidt betrayed him. I have ben responding to those that have trying to deny or minimize the 'influence' that the iPhone had on Android as we know it.
There was no phone like the iPhone prior to it's release. Once it came out, suddenly there was a platform that mimicked what made the iPhone unique, the total package. Who wouldn't feel they were ripped off and by a ally and board member?
I don't fault jobs I disagree with him.
For such an obvious trend setter he got angry often at his trends being successful. o.O
And android didn't copy heavily from the iPhone. They were inspired by it like any sane company was.
If BMW comes out with a car that changes the game and Daimler-Chrysler decides to make products to compete with this amazing new car are they copycats? Or businessmen?
And that's why Oracle is suing Samsung, oh wait...
Ignorance.
Apple is suing Samsung & HTC because Apple claims Samsung & HTC are selling products that use Apple patents without license.
Oracle is suing Google because Oracle claims Google is creating and distributing software that violates oracles copyrights and licensing. Oracle is trying to prove that Google coding of the Dalvik JVM directly hurt Oracles Mobile Java licensing.
The thing that is in common is Android and Google having created it. But Apple and Oracle have business in different parts of the overall software / hardware market which means they seek legal relief in those parts of the market they know best first. If Apple and Oracle are successful you can be guaranteed they will take those precedents and conduct far wider court actions against the remainder of the offending parties.
So you disagree with Steve?
These are the last bytes on AI's server that I am going to waste on you. I imagine that being a dense prick on the internet provides you with some sick satisfaction, but I'm done being one of your enablers.
Ban away, mods.