Apple will probably replace everything Google does—including search—as soon as they can do it effectively. I think when Steve Jobs said that he was pissed because Google went after the phone business but they didn't go after the phone business it was a clear message that Apple would be going after Google's core businesses. Maps will probably come first and then full search after Siri leaves beta. They may even use the Siri name as their search brand. One can't be sure what Apple's going to do but with Jobs as mad as he was at Google you can bet they're going to do something.
I think you're right. It's the only way to deal with a company like Google that still sees the world through old internet goggles--a place where everyone's hard work is free for the taking. Fight fire with fire. Even if Apple gets only a portion of Google's business, the message will have been sent. Nothing is free; there is a price to pay.
What is really sad is believing that Schmidt stole from Apple while on their board........having access to all that information.....signing all those non disclosure agreements. Apple being aware of all this so they would be able to know EXACTLY what information he had and what could come from Google that even came close! Do you not think they had a legal team watching every step Schmidt made while on their board? Do you think Apple so naive? Do you not think Apple scrutinized ALL of his actions and every move he made? So tell me then why hasn't Apple taken Schmidt to court???? They have sued everyone else to protect their intellectual property...why not sue him? Because they can't prove anything...or else they would! If Schmidt stole ideas from Apple then where are they?
Steve was there, you were not. Who knows more about what happened, you sitting in Arizona or the guy in the room? Steve said it was stolen. I think his view has slightly more cred than yours.
Your original question was "What did they steal exactly?" So I pointed that out to you in my previous post. Now you are asking a very different question. You are asking about Apple's legal strategy of attacking manufacturers instead of Google. Legal strategy is something I know nothing about. Apple's lawyers probably determined that the best way to attack Android was by going after the people who actually sell it. I don't know for sure.
Oh no it was quite relevant you see. Perhaps Apple didn't go after Google after all as they don't have a case against Android as a whole? If that's the case, then the common assertion that Google stole everything from Apple goes out the window. Why resist the easy win and kill off Android once and for all since the opportunity presents? The lawsuits against Android OEMs like Samsung are a tad different actually. For example, the single patent Samsung was found guilty of infringing in the Netherlands relates to some "bouncy" effect in Samsung's Touchwiz Gallery app. They have since rectified that.
So let's drop the ridiculous claim that Android is a completely stolen product of Apple shall we?
Steve was there, you were not. Who knows more about what happened, you sitting in Arizona or the guy in the room? Steve said it was stolen. I think his view has slightly more cred than yours.
I am not disputing or disagreeing with that.....re read my comments throughout the WHOLE thread.....
What does your statement have to do with anything that was discussed in the thread? You weren't there yet you are making statements....
... Perhaps Apple didn't go after Google after all as they don't have a case against Android as a whole? ... So let's drop the ridiculous claim that Android is a completely stolen product of Apple shall we?
Again, I am not a lawyer. I don't know legal strategy. Android is not a completely stolen product. Only parts of Android use patented Apple technology and patented Oracle technology.
Evidence continues to point to Apple actively developing a 3D mapping surface through a combination of acquisitions and in-house development, with recent rumors suggesting that the iPhone maker has acquired a Swedish 3D mapping company.
Any and all new mapping solutions are eagerly anticipated by me.
However, I wonder if it might have been better for a more open company to have bought out the Swedes. I fear that any solution Apple implements will be restricted to use on Apple products, unlike Google and M$'s approach, which seems to be open to licensing.
So are we to assume this will come out with iOS 6.0 or will they debut it mid-iOS-cycle with the iPad 3? This would look mighty impressive on an iPad 3 with or without a HiDPI display, but this seems more like a feature for a new version of iOS.
HiDPI and 3D mapping... what sort of horsepower would that take? It sounds like the iPad will really need that 20nm tech being developed by TSMC to prolong battery life.
Again, I am not a lawyer. I don't know legal strategy. Android is not a completely stolen product. Only parts of Android use patented Apple technology and patented Oracle technology.
Right, the parts that weren't stolen from Apple were stolen from Oracle.
I'll have to go back and re-read the story... I could have sworn it was about 3D mapping technology... I must have hit the wrong link or something...
Yeah... I feel guilty making posts about the technology -- when this thread, obviously, is about every legal, political and ethical wrong committed by Google and Apple.
Why not bash Apple for stealing Sherlock and widgets....
So, the evidence that Google acquired Android because Schmidt, while on the Apple Board, learned that Apple was going into the phone business, while circumstantial, is pretty damning...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb
Schmidt joined Apple's board 4 months before the iPhone was announced.
Pwnage at its best
Indeed; Android was acquired by Google exactly 1 year before Schmidt joined Apple's board of directors!
The problem is Google still has the most extensive streetview data because they've been collecting it for years.
Like someone above, I don't use streetview all that much but it's a nice to have for many folks.
I really like to use Google Streeview. It's great for casing out neighborhoods and security. Honestly, before I go anywhere in NYC I usually check out where things are located by using street view so I can get familiar with landmarks and such. It's a shame that Apple has so much money and doesn't do the sort of stuff that Google routinely does. Apple has enough money to launch some freaking military style satellites to grab visual ground data that should easily surpass what Google maps already has.
Even using just a tiny, tiny part of that $81 billion dollars for mapping services could really do a lot for Apple device users considering Apple doesn't want to give anything back to shareholders directly. I truly don't understand why Google can afford to do these services and Apple can't. High-definition mapping would be such a huge content draw unique to Apple devices which could really drive sales.
Any and all new mapping solutions are eagerly anticipated by me.
However, I wonder if it might have been better for a more open company to have bought out the Swedes. I fear that any solution Apple implements will be restricted to use on Apple products, unlike Google and M$'s approach, which seems to be open to licensing.
That is the main advantage Apple has over their competitors - high quality integration of apps, services and devices. They are in a race to build out the ecosystem and making theirs proprietary is the opposite strategy from Google who knows that would never work for them since everything they release is half baked. Google has to give Android away since they could never compete if they had to sell it.
The one exception is maps where Google is ahead of everyone else. That said, I still think the interface to Google maps is complete garbage. If Apple had access to the same amount of data I'm sure they could come up with a much nicer app. For people who really rely on maps for their daily usage, Android and Google maps makes sense, but for the large majority of common mobile computing tasks Apple has them beat by a mile.
For the sake of the consumer, I wish those two compnies could work together but at this point that seems impossible.
So are we to assume this will come out with iOS 6.0 or will they debut it mid-iOS-cycle with the iPad 3? This would look mighty impressive on an iPad 3 with or without a HiDPI display, but this seems more like a feature for a new version of iOS.
The demo videos indicate that the C3 technology performs well on the current iDevices (as does Siri, apparently).
I think it may come sooner rather than later -- iOS 6 that is! There are structural changes to iOS that are necessary to enable Apple to open up Siri to developers -- inter-app communication and system/app sandboxing, for 2 examples. This technology already exists in Mac OS X -- but has not, yet, been migrated to iOS,
I suspect that Apple will not be able to get a 9.7" display with Retina density in adequate quantities for a 1-2 Q release of an iPad 3.
If that is true, then Apple may choose to release a higher-PPI display that is not an integer multiple of the iPhone 4/4S.
This too, would require some system-wide changes to iOS -- resolution-independence, for one.
Then, there is this whole AirPlay AppleTV iOS thingie -- we're only on the second page of chapter 1 with this technology.
Imagine multiple players playing a game on their iPads to the AppleTV -- or just between iPads.
Then extrapolate what this could mean in the classroom, lecture hall, meeting room, operating room, etc.
And, I want a touch-manipulatable "Back To My Lion (Mac)" on my iPad.
I believe that iOS 6 development is well underway -- and suspect we'll see a developer preview/beta SDK in January-February 2012... along with an iPad 3 announce/ship.
...It is very important for iOS to get and hold the major attention and efforts of 3rd-party developers.
It is a requirement anytime a board is in session for everything to be recored. This is done either by video/audio or by a admin assistant in person at the meetings. Afterward the meeting minutes are distributed and posted for the all the board to see for clarity and context. Then the next meeting they review the minutes of the last meeting for context and to keep the discussions on point.
Again....if Apple had any evidence they would sue. They have done this over and over again.
Steve said he would spend Apple's billions destroying Android. If they had one shred of proof or discussion they could bring to court then they would.
Are you a lawyer? I own my own corporation and neither my corporate attorney or accountant told me to tape record any Audio/Visual portions of any meetings I ever have (and I do have multiple shareholders whom I hold meetings with).
You need to "record" one meeting per year, where you write down the attendance and that you all resolved to continue operations. But this is just all in writing it is not an actual recording of the actual meeting. It says something like "In attendance are X, Y, and Z. It is resolved by unanimous vote to re-elect all the officers, and continue operations... blah blah blah" You aren't actually transcribing any conversations here.
Boards can also have informal meetings where they can get together and talk about things without recording anything. As someone who has dealt with not just my own company but other people's companies I can tell you that recording things people say in corporate meetings all the time is just about never practiced, and it is certainly not a requirement. It is also not uncommon for a board members of a company to give a prospective investor/advisor a tour of the company and show things off. Or for two board members to visit departments and see what they are up to. None of this again is recorded.
I like how all of a sudden everyday people turn into corporate lawyers and business executives when a discussion of something related comes up.
If you say its a requirement that the meetings audio/video be recorded, post proof (i.e. the statute or regulation that states this).
Also, the idea that a company would know literally EVERYTHING a person on its board had known or been exposed to is absurd. There may be some records about certain things, if they attended some meetings where attendance was taken, but the idea that literally everything gets recorded is completely insane. They dont have a team of lawyers and bodyguards following every executive around, despite what some people believe here.
Comments
Apple will probably replace everything Google does—including search—as soon as they can do it effectively. I think when Steve Jobs said that he was pissed because Google went after the phone business but they didn't go after the phone business it was a clear message that Apple would be going after Google's core businesses. Maps will probably come first and then full search after Siri leaves beta. They may even use the Siri name as their search brand. One can't be sure what Apple's going to do but with Jobs as mad as he was at Google you can bet they're going to do something.
I think you're right. It's the only way to deal with a company like Google that still sees the world through old internet goggles--a place where everyone's hard work is free for the taking. Fight fire with fire. Even if Apple gets only a portion of Google's business, the message will have been sent. Nothing is free; there is a price to pay.
Watch this post get murdered.
No, watch it get ignored except by dittos for other droidbois.
What is really sad is believing that Schmidt stole from Apple while on their board........having access to all that information.....signing all those non disclosure agreements. Apple being aware of all this so they would be able to know EXACTLY what information he had and what could come from Google that even came close! Do you not think they had a legal team watching every step Schmidt made while on their board? Do you think Apple so naive? Do you not think Apple scrutinized ALL of his actions and every move he made? So tell me then why hasn't Apple taken Schmidt to court???? They have sued everyone else to protect their intellectual property...why not sue him? Because they can't prove anything...or else they would! If Schmidt stole ideas from Apple then where are they?
Steve was there, you were not. Who knows more about what happened, you sitting in Arizona or the guy in the room? Steve said it was stolen. I think his view has slightly more cred than yours.
The saddest and most naïve/turn a blind eye thing is that you DON'T believe that.
Indeed. But I don't waste my time shedding a tear for them. Life's too important to waste on people like that.
Your original question was "What did they steal exactly?" So I pointed that out to you in my previous post. Now you are asking a very different question. You are asking about Apple's legal strategy of attacking manufacturers instead of Google. Legal strategy is something I know nothing about. Apple's lawyers probably determined that the best way to attack Android was by going after the people who actually sell it. I don't know for sure.
Oh no it was quite relevant you see. Perhaps Apple didn't go after Google after all as they don't have a case against Android as a whole? If that's the case, then the common assertion that Google stole everything from Apple goes out the window. Why resist the easy win and kill off Android once and for all since the opportunity presents? The lawsuits against Android OEMs like Samsung are a tad different actually. For example, the single patent Samsung was found guilty of infringing in the Netherlands relates to some "bouncy" effect in Samsung's Touchwiz Gallery app. They have since rectified that.
So let's drop the ridiculous claim that Android is a completely stolen product of Apple shall we?
Steve was there, you were not. Who knows more about what happened, you sitting in Arizona or the guy in the room? Steve said it was stolen. I think his view has slightly more cred than yours.
I am not disputing or disagreeing with that.....re read my comments throughout the WHOLE thread.....
What does your statement have to do with anything that was discussed in the thread? You weren't there yet you are making statements....
... Perhaps Apple didn't go after Google after all as they don't have a case against Android as a whole? ... So let's drop the ridiculous claim that Android is a completely stolen product of Apple shall we?
Again, I am not a lawyer. I don't know legal strategy. Android is not a completely stolen product. Only parts of Android use patented Apple technology and patented Oracle technology.
Evidence continues to point to Apple actively developing a 3D mapping surface through a combination of acquisitions and in-house development, with recent rumors suggesting that the iPhone maker has acquired a Swedish 3D mapping company.
Any and all new mapping solutions are eagerly anticipated by me.
However, I wonder if it might have been better for a more open company to have bought out the Swedes. I fear that any solution Apple implements will be restricted to use on Apple products, unlike Google and M$'s approach, which seems to be open to licensing.
So are we to assume this will come out with iOS 6.0 or will they debut it mid-iOS-cycle with the iPad 3? This would look mighty impressive on an iPad 3 with or without a HiDPI display, but this seems more like a feature for a new version of iOS.
HiDPI and 3D mapping... what sort of horsepower would that take? It sounds like the iPad will really need that 20nm tech being developed by TSMC to prolong battery life.
Again, I am not a lawyer. I don't know legal strategy. Android is not a completely stolen product. Only parts of Android use patented Apple technology and patented Oracle technology.
Right, the parts that weren't stolen from Apple were stolen from Oracle.
I'll have to go back and re-read the story... I could have sworn it was about 3D mapping technology... I must have hit the wrong link or something...
Yeah... I feel guilty making posts about the technology -- when this thread, obviously, is about every legal, political and ethical wrong committed by Google and Apple.
Why not bash Apple for stealing Sherlock and widgets....
The possibility of using this technology in flight sims and games is mind boggling!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNemPTHOKWg
...
So, the evidence that Google acquired Android because Schmidt, while on the Apple Board, learned that Apple was going into the phone business, while circumstantial, is pretty damning...
Schmidt joined Apple's board 4 months before the iPhone was announced.
Pwnage at its best
Indeed; Android was acquired by Google exactly 1 year before Schmidt joined Apple's board of directors!
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009...Directors.html
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...0949_tc024.htm
Hey, maybe Apple hired Schmidt so that he would tell them secrets from the development of Android at Google!
Back on topic
The possibility of using this technology in flight sims and games is mind boggling!
Apple Flight Simulator.
?
Somehow doesn't instill the same confidence in me as something boring like "Microsoft Flight Simulator".
Heaven knows apples aren't known for their aeronautical capabilities.
The problem is Google still has the most extensive streetview data because they've been collecting it for years.
Like someone above, I don't use streetview all that much but it's a nice to have for many folks.
I really like to use Google Streeview. It's great for casing out neighborhoods and security. Honestly, before I go anywhere in NYC I usually check out where things are located by using street view so I can get familiar with landmarks and such. It's a shame that Apple has so much money and doesn't do the sort of stuff that Google routinely does. Apple has enough money to launch some freaking military style satellites to grab visual ground data that should easily surpass what Google maps already has.
Even using just a tiny, tiny part of that $81 billion dollars for mapping services could really do a lot for Apple device users considering Apple doesn't want to give anything back to shareholders directly. I truly don't understand why Google can afford to do these services and Apple can't. High-definition mapping would be such a huge content draw unique to Apple devices which could really drive sales.
Any and all new mapping solutions are eagerly anticipated by me.
However, I wonder if it might have been better for a more open company to have bought out the Swedes. I fear that any solution Apple implements will be restricted to use on Apple products, unlike Google and M$'s approach, which seems to be open to licensing.
That is the main advantage Apple has over their competitors - high quality integration of apps, services and devices. They are in a race to build out the ecosystem and making theirs proprietary is the opposite strategy from Google who knows that would never work for them since everything they release is half baked. Google has to give Android away since they could never compete if they had to sell it.
The one exception is maps where Google is ahead of everyone else. That said, I still think the interface to Google maps is complete garbage. If Apple had access to the same amount of data I'm sure they could come up with a much nicer app. For people who really rely on maps for their daily usage, Android and Google maps makes sense, but for the large majority of common mobile computing tasks Apple has them beat by a mile.
For the sake of the consumer, I wish those two compnies could work together but at this point that seems impossible.
So are we to assume this will come out with iOS 6.0 or will they debut it mid-iOS-cycle with the iPad 3? This would look mighty impressive on an iPad 3 with or without a HiDPI display, but this seems more like a feature for a new version of iOS.
The demo videos indicate that the C3 technology performs well on the current iDevices (as does Siri, apparently).
I think it may come sooner rather than later -- iOS 6 that is! There are structural changes to iOS that are necessary to enable Apple to open up Siri to developers -- inter-app communication and system/app sandboxing, for 2 examples. This technology already exists in Mac OS X -- but has not, yet, been migrated to iOS,
I suspect that Apple will not be able to get a 9.7" display with Retina density in adequate quantities for a 1-2 Q release of an iPad 3.
If that is true, then Apple may choose to release a higher-PPI display that is not an integer multiple of the iPhone 4/4S.
This too, would require some system-wide changes to iOS -- resolution-independence, for one.
Then, there is this whole AirPlay AppleTV iOS thingie -- we're only on the second page of chapter 1 with this technology.
Imagine multiple players playing a game on their iPads to the AppleTV -- or just between iPads.
Then extrapolate what this could mean in the classroom, lecture hall, meeting room, operating room, etc.
And, I want a touch-manipulatable "Back To My Lion (Mac)" on my iPad.
I believe that iOS 6 development is well underway -- and suspect we'll see a developer preview/beta SDK in January-February 2012... along with an iPad 3 announce/ship.
...It is very important for iOS to get and hold the major attention and efforts of 3rd-party developers.
It is a requirement anytime a board is in session for everything to be recored. This is done either by video/audio or by a admin assistant in person at the meetings. Afterward the meeting minutes are distributed and posted for the all the board to see for clarity and context. Then the next meeting they review the minutes of the last meeting for context and to keep the discussions on point.
Again....if Apple had any evidence they would sue. They have done this over and over again.
Steve said he would spend Apple's billions destroying Android. If they had one shred of proof or discussion they could bring to court then they would.
Are you a lawyer? I own my own corporation and neither my corporate attorney or accountant told me to tape record any Audio/Visual portions of any meetings I ever have (and I do have multiple shareholders whom I hold meetings with).
You need to "record" one meeting per year, where you write down the attendance and that you all resolved to continue operations. But this is just all in writing it is not an actual recording of the actual meeting. It says something like "In attendance are X, Y, and Z. It is resolved by unanimous vote to re-elect all the officers, and continue operations... blah blah blah" You aren't actually transcribing any conversations here.
Boards can also have informal meetings where they can get together and talk about things without recording anything. As someone who has dealt with not just my own company but other people's companies I can tell you that recording things people say in corporate meetings all the time is just about never practiced, and it is certainly not a requirement. It is also not uncommon for a board members of a company to give a prospective investor/advisor a tour of the company and show things off. Or for two board members to visit departments and see what they are up to. None of this again is recorded.
I like how all of a sudden everyday people turn into corporate lawyers and business executives when a discussion of something related comes up.
If you say its a requirement that the meetings audio/video be recorded, post proof (i.e. the statute or regulation that states this).
Also, the idea that a company would know literally EVERYTHING a person on its board had known or been exposed to is absurd. There may be some records about certain things, if they attended some meetings where attendance was taken, but the idea that literally everything gets recorded is completely insane. They dont have a team of lawyers and bodyguards following every executive around, despite what some people believe here.
Bonus video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNemPTHOKWg
Great video... nice find!
It occurs to me that with all those drones flying about -- we may end up with better 3D maps of Kabul and Islamabad than Paris and Rome