Related to ATT smartphones, Engadget has a nicely done article on just how a smartphone comes to market. Did you know that the Android-compatible Motorola Atrix4G was built at ATT's request and to ATT specs? I had no idea the telcos put out bid requests for specific phones with specific features, tho perhaps I should have.
The article is well worth a read if you have a few minutes.
Related to ATT smartphones, Engadget has a nicely done article on just how a smartphone comes to market. Did you know that the Android-compatible Motorola Atrix4G was built at ATT's request and to ATT specs? I had no idea the telcos put out bid requests for specific phones with specific features, tho perhaps I should have.
The article is well worth a read if you have a few minutes.
If that was accurate, it looked like rather a half-assed operation - a couple of guys dreaming up cell phones in a vacuum? Qualifications? Research techniques? Their technical and design teams? I assume they have design teams even if they are only working on features and concepts.
If that was accurate, it looked like rather a half-assed operation - a couple of guys dreaming up cell phones in a vacuum? Qualifications? Research techniques? Their technical and design teams? I assume they have design teams even if they are only working on features and concepts.
From my experience (which has been years ago) most of the requests come from marketing data gained from customers and focus groups. After gathering and analyzing the data, they break out certain features with particular markets to reach and then foward those requests to handset makers (or as the article mentioned a particular handset maker). These people aren't coming up with new tech for phones or anything like that.
From my experience (which has been years ago) most of the requests come from marketing data gained from customers and focus groups. After gathering and analyzing the data, they break out certain features with particular markets to reach and then foward those requests to handset makers (or as the article mentioned a particular handset maker). These people aren't coming up with new tech for phones or anything like that.
Maybe so. In which case the whole process must end up a bit fragmented, with these guys trying to define where the industry will be in 18 months and forwarding focus group conclusions to the actual manufacturers, who, presumably, are independently trying to design cutting-edge phones based on their own ideas.
When you compare that to Apple's way of doing business, I guess the discrepancy in the quality of the results is not surprising.
Maybe so. In which case the whole process must end up a bit fragmented, with these guys trying to define where the industry will be in 18 months and forwarding focus group conclusions to the actual manufacturers, who, presumably, are independently trying to design cutting-edge phones based on their own ideas.
When you compare that to Apple's way of doing business, I guess the discrepancy in the quality of the results is not surprising.
It was (and is) very fragmenting and is the reason you see so many android handsets that have similar features by the same manufacturer come out so closely together. As for the actual manufacturers' independent designs vs. carrier requests, they don't butt heads that much since the carrier requests aren't too difficult to add (keyboards and it's layout, a Facebook/Twitter button, etc.)
It was (and is) very fragmenting and is the reason you see so many android handsets that have similar features by the same manufacturer come out so closely together. As for the actual manufacturers' independent designs vs. carrier requests, they don't butt heads that much since the carrier requests aren't too difficult to add (keyboards and it's layout, a Facebook/Twitter button, etc.)
hmmmm...so I always thought it was the OEMs who needed to get their shit together but it seems both the OEMs and Google need to team up to exercise a level of control at least 50% of what Apple enjoys.
Because this is getting ridiculous. I do love Android but I've always suggested iPhones for first time smartphone owners...their entire system trumps anything on the Android side thus far. You know what you're getting...no 40 phones a year...etc, etc, etc.
I hear HTC is going to focus on fewer better models for handsets...if true, I hope it catches on.
Would it be misrepresenting you to summarize your argument as "we have no evidence for our assumption of what happened so we'll make up for that by requiring anyone questioning our unsubstantiated position to prove that we are wrong"?
That is certainly the argument that I was disputing.
No, there's evidence for it. You can look at the timeline. Schmitt joined the board some time before Android came out, and even before Apple knew Google was working on it, according to reports as to why, and when, he had to recuse himself from some of Apple's business. That's all the indication you need to know that Apple was surprised at Google's doings. Until then, he had full knowledge as to Apple intentions, and even to early information as to what Apple was doing specifically, as he would, as a board member.
When Google, or rather Schmitt said that they changed the focus of Android from the Blacberry, and instead went after the iPhone, they did that major change in record time. That would only be possible if they knew it before it arrived. It's not likely that Jobs would have been so incensed if this wasn't true.
In addition, Andy Rubin was working at Apple before he started Android, before Google bought it. He was working on the project of the software that would eventually be for the iPad, which was dropped so that the iPhone could be developed and introduced first. You think that it's not likely Rubin spoke to Schmitt about all of this both before and after Schmitt joined the board? It's not credible to think otherwise.
Related to ATT smartphones, Engadget has a nicely done article on just how a smartphone comes to market. Did you know that the Android-compatible Motorola Atrix4G was built at ATT's request and to ATT specs? I had no idea the telcos put out bid requests for specific phones with specific features, tho perhaps I should have.
The article is well worth a read if you have a few minutes.
Yes, that's been known for some time. For a long time, manufacturers had no sway with the carriers. The carriers had ALL the power. I've seen many phones that were spec'd for one carrier. Look at Nokia, last year, they had about 225 phone models. Many are variations of some very basic model that they transform to a carrier's request. It's like a manufacturer making a basic chassis, and making individual models for each dealer.
From my experience (which has been years ago) most of the requests come from marketing data gained from customers and focus groups. After gathering and analyzing the data, they break out certain features with particular markets to reach and then foward those requests to handset makers (or as the article mentioned a particular handset maker). These people aren't coming up with new tech for phones or anything like that.
The problem is that focus groups are a crock. One major problem is that when you pay people, give then lunch or dinner, they're liable to say whatever they think you want. One reason for that is that people get put on lists for focus groups. If you get on one, you have a chance of getting on another, and another. As many people are paid up to $250 for a day's work, plus food, it's hard to turn down. Even my own business partner used to do that. But often, he knew nothing about the product, and would ask me questions about it so that he would know what to say. I tried not to help.
It's also dangerous to ask consumers what they want other than for a feature or two. When you get to entire product specs, you find that consumers don't really know what they want. They THINK they do, but they don't. Even on the rare occasion when they do, they don't know how to express it. So manufacturers get poor information they have to interpret, often not very well.
No, there's evidence for it. You can look at the timeline. Schmitt joined the board some time before Android came out, and even before Apple knew Google was working on it, according to reports as to why, and when, he had to recuse himself from some of Apple's business. That's all the indication you need to know that Apple was surprised at Google's doings. Until then, he had full knowledge as to Apple intentions, and even to early information as to what Apple was doing specifically, as he would, as a board member.
When Google, or rather Schmitt said that they changed the focus of Android from the Blacberry, and instead went after the iPhone, they did that major change in record time. That would only be possible if they knew it before it arrived. It's not likely that Jobs would have been so incensed if this wasn't true.
In addition, Andy Rubin was working at Apple before he started Android, before Google bought it. He was working on the project of the software that would eventually be for the iPad, which was dropped so that the iPhone could be developed and introduced first. You think that it's not likely Rubin spoke to Schmitt about all of this both before and after Schmitt joined the board? It's not credible to think otherwise.
OK - we are arguing tangentially to each other here. What you describe is opportunity, not evidence. While I agree that it might be hard to find evidence in a situation like this, it doesn't excuse the need for it. Not in a legal sense, because there is not, and has never been, a legal case involved, nor even an explicit accusation from Apple. But, just because Schmidt may have had the opportunity to have done this and some believe that the outcome can only be explained that way, it still doesn't justify demanding that someone who points this out must prove that he didn't do it.
Anyway, I guess we should agree to disagree here. It's actually a somewhat amusing situation for me, because personally, I think he probably did abuse his position and pass information to Google (for many of the reasons that you do), but I hate sloppy arguments.
OK - we are arguing tangentially to each other here. What you describe is opportunity, not evidence. While I agree that it might be hard to find evidence in a situation like this, it doesn't excuse the need for it. Not in a legal sense, because there is not, and has never been, a legal case involved, nor even an explicit accusation from Apple. But, just because Schmidt may have had the opportunity to have done this and some believe that the outcome can only be explained that way, it still doesn't justify demanding that someone who points this out must prove that he didn't do it.
Anyway, I guess we should agree to disagree here. It's actually a somewhat amusing situation for me, because personally, I think he probably did abuse his position and pass information to Google (for many of the reasons that you do), but I hate sloppy arguments.
There's something called circumstantial evidence, some of which I presented, though there is a lot more. People have been hanged on less.
The problem is that focus groups are a crock. One major problem is that when you pay people, give then lunch or dinner, they're liable to say whatever they think you want. One reason for that is that people get put on lists for focus groups. If you get on one, you have a chance of getting on another, and another. As many people are paid up to $250 for a day's work, plus food, it's hard to turn down. Even my own business partner used to do that. But often, he knew nothing about the product, and would ask me questions about it so that he would know what to say. I tried not to help.
It's also dangerous to ask consumers what they want other than for a feature or two. When you get to entire product specs, you find that consumers don't really know what they want. They THINK they do, but they don't. Even on the rare occasion when they do, they don't know how to express it. So manufacturers get poor information they have to interpret, often not very well.
I'm not sure if you think I'm advocating for focus groups. I'm definitely not hence my comment to Gatorguy that the article gave me bad memories (nightmares actually lol). Also, the clients I had mainly only used the participants for small features (as you stated) and usage patterns.
I'm not sure if you think I'm advocating for focus groups. I'm definitely not hence my comment to Gatorguy that the article gave me bad memories (nightmares actually lol). Also, the clients I had mainly only used the participants for small features (as you stated) and usage patterns.
No, I wasn't. I just wanted to get that off my back. It's bothered me for so many years, on several levels since I encountered it when I began my career in 1969 in advertising and fashion photography. They found I was majoring in psychology and biology, and so I ended up helping in writing surveys and other ad hoc marketing areas.
Surveys too can be a problem. Most are well intentioned, but some are done for the pure purpose of advertising. MS did a lot of those. I would get calls at home from some marketing company doing a survey, and I used to participate, as I did that work. But while the questions begin properly, after a while they become MS favored. Questions are asked that realistically can be answered in only one way. Then they use those results as published "in a survey done by----MS products were judged superior", or some such nonsense.
No, I wasn't. I just wanted to get that off my back. It's bothered me for so many years, on several levels since I encountered it when I began my career in 1969 in advertising and fashion photography. They found I was majoring in psychology and biology, and so I ended up helping in writing surveys and other ad hoc marketing areas.
Surveys too can be a problem. Most are well intentioned, but some are done for the pure purpose of advertising. MS did a lot of those. I would get calls at home from some marketing company doing a survey, and I used to participate, as I did that work. But while the questions begin properly, after a while they become MS favored. Questions are asked that realistically can be answered in only one way. Then they use those results as published "in a survey done by----MS products were judged superior", or some such nonsense.
You are giving me PTSD. The reason surveys take a turn for the worse is because the client has a specific objective and it shows in the questions eventually. Third Party sources used to be better but waaay questionable now.
No, I wasn't. I just wanted to get that off my back. It's bothered me for so many years, on several levels since I encountered it when I began my career in 1969 in advertising and fashion photography. They found I was majoring in psychology and biology, and so I ended up helping in writing surveys and other ad hoc marketing areas.
Surveys too can be a problem. Most are well intentioned, but some are done for the pure purpose of advertising. MS did a lot of those. I would get calls at home from some marketing company doing a survey, and I used to participate, as I did that work. But while the questions begin properly, after a while they become MS favored. Questions are asked that realistically can be answered in only one way. Then they use those results as published "in a survey done by----MS products were judged superior", or some such nonsense.
My understanding is that Apple have never used focus groups or surveys in this way. If that is indeed correct, then it is a good illustration that they are at best unnecessary, and, at worst, a really bad idea.
In addition, Andy Rubin was working at Apple before he started Android, before Google bought it. He was working on the project of the software that would eventually be for the iPad, which was dropped so that the iPhone could be developed and introduced first. You think that it's not likely Rubin spoke to Schmitt about all of this both before and after Schmitt joined the board? It's not credible to think otherwise.
Wikipedia says Andy Rubin worked for Apple 1989-1992.
That's back when Steve Jobs was gone. Steve also said they were working on the fundamentals of the iPad in the early 2000's.... not the early 1990's
I seriously doubt Apple was working on anything to do with the iPad while Andy Rubin was there.
Hell... Apple was selling this kind of computer when Andy worked there:
No, there's evidence for it. You can look at the timeline. Schmitt joined the board some time before Android came out, and even before Apple knew Google was working on it, according to reports as to why, and when, he had to recuse himself from some of Apple's business. That's all the indication you need to know that Apple was surprised at Google's doings. Until then, he had full knowledge as to Apple intentions, and even to early information as to what Apple was doing specifically, as he would, as a board member. . .
Some off Mel's other "circumstantial evidence" falls apart on closer inspection too. Rumors that Google might be entering the phone business have been around since 2004. http://theponderingprimate.blogspot....s-to-go.html\\
Claiming Apple didn't know about Google and Android. Garbage! It was reported in Bloomberg for crying out loud, August of 2005.
All of those stories (I have more if you need 'em) were published before Schmidt became a member of Apple's BOD.
Pushing the idea that Apple, and particularly Steve Jobs "who took long walks with Google's founders discussing business" didn't know about Android development or Google's plans to enter the smartphone business, and doing so with a straight face, is plain silly.
When all is said and done you have an Eric Schmidt, asked to join Apple's board in spite of Google's purchase of Android and telegraphed smartphone and mobile plans. Who was trying to use who?
Comments
The article is well worth a read if you have a few minutes.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/15/h...cenes-part-on/
Related to ATT smartphones, Engadget has a nicely done article on just how a smartphone comes to market. Did you know that the Android-compatible Motorola Atrix4G was built at ATT's request and to ATT specs? I had no idea the telcos put out bid requests for specific phones with specific features, tho perhaps I should have.
The article is well worth a read if you have a few minutes.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/15/h...cenes-part-on/
Carriers requesting certain specs and features in a phone from handset makers isn't new and was very, very common before the iPhone was released.
Carriers requesting certain specs and features in a phone from handset makers isn't new and was very, very common before the iPhone was released.
What did you think of the article overall?
What did you think of the article overall?
It was ok although it did bring up horrible memories of when I had Cingular and bellsouth as marketing clients. Lol.
What did you think of the article overall?
If that was accurate, it looked like rather a half-assed operation - a couple of guys dreaming up cell phones in a vacuum? Qualifications? Research techniques? Their technical and design teams? I assume they have design teams even if they are only working on features and concepts.
If that was accurate, it looked like rather a half-assed operation - a couple of guys dreaming up cell phones in a vacuum? Qualifications? Research techniques? Their technical and design teams? I assume they have design teams even if they are only working on features and concepts.
From my experience (which has been years ago) most of the requests come from marketing data gained from customers and focus groups. After gathering and analyzing the data, they break out certain features with particular markets to reach and then foward those requests to handset makers (or as the article mentioned a particular handset maker). These people aren't coming up with new tech for phones or anything like that.
From my experience (which has been years ago) most of the requests come from marketing data gained from customers and focus groups. After gathering and analyzing the data, they break out certain features with particular markets to reach and then foward those requests to handset makers (or as the article mentioned a particular handset maker). These people aren't coming up with new tech for phones or anything like that.
Maybe so. In which case the whole process must end up a bit fragmented, with these guys trying to define where the industry will be in 18 months and forwarding focus group conclusions to the actual manufacturers, who, presumably, are independently trying to design cutting-edge phones based on their own ideas.
When you compare that to Apple's way of doing business, I guess the discrepancy in the quality of the results is not surprising.
Maybe so. In which case the whole process must end up a bit fragmented, with these guys trying to define where the industry will be in 18 months and forwarding focus group conclusions to the actual manufacturers, who, presumably, are independently trying to design cutting-edge phones based on their own ideas.
When you compare that to Apple's way of doing business, I guess the discrepancy in the quality of the results is not surprising.
It was (and is) very fragmenting and is the reason you see so many android handsets that have similar features by the same manufacturer come out so closely together. As for the actual manufacturers' independent designs vs. carrier requests, they don't butt heads that much since the carrier requests aren't too difficult to add (keyboards and it's layout, a Facebook/Twitter button, etc.)
It was (and is) very fragmenting and is the reason you see so many android handsets that have similar features by the same manufacturer come out so closely together. As for the actual manufacturers' independent designs vs. carrier requests, they don't butt heads that much since the carrier requests aren't too difficult to add (keyboards and it's layout, a Facebook/Twitter button, etc.)
hmmmm...so I always thought it was the OEMs who needed to get their shit together but it seems both the OEMs and Google need to team up to exercise a level of control at least 50% of what Apple enjoys.
Because this is getting ridiculous. I do love Android but I've always suggested iPhones for first time smartphone owners...their entire system trumps anything on the Android side thus far. You know what you're getting...no 40 phones a year...etc, etc, etc.
I hear HTC is going to focus on fewer better models for handsets...if true, I hope it catches on.
Would it be misrepresenting you to summarize your argument as "we have no evidence for our assumption of what happened so we'll make up for that by requiring anyone questioning our unsubstantiated position to prove that we are wrong"?
That is certainly the argument that I was disputing.
No, there's evidence for it. You can look at the timeline. Schmitt joined the board some time before Android came out, and even before Apple knew Google was working on it, according to reports as to why, and when, he had to recuse himself from some of Apple's business. That's all the indication you need to know that Apple was surprised at Google's doings. Until then, he had full knowledge as to Apple intentions, and even to early information as to what Apple was doing specifically, as he would, as a board member.
When Google, or rather Schmitt said that they changed the focus of Android from the Blacberry, and instead went after the iPhone, they did that major change in record time. That would only be possible if they knew it before it arrived. It's not likely that Jobs would have been so incensed if this wasn't true.
In addition, Andy Rubin was working at Apple before he started Android, before Google bought it. He was working on the project of the software that would eventually be for the iPad, which was dropped so that the iPhone could be developed and introduced first. You think that it's not likely Rubin spoke to Schmitt about all of this both before and after Schmitt joined the board? It's not credible to think otherwise.
Related to ATT smartphones, Engadget has a nicely done article on just how a smartphone comes to market. Did you know that the Android-compatible Motorola Atrix4G was built at ATT's request and to ATT specs? I had no idea the telcos put out bid requests for specific phones with specific features, tho perhaps I should have.
The article is well worth a read if you have a few minutes.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/15/h...cenes-part-on/
Yes, that's been known for some time. For a long time, manufacturers had no sway with the carriers. The carriers had ALL the power. I've seen many phones that were spec'd for one carrier. Look at Nokia, last year, they had about 225 phone models. Many are variations of some very basic model that they transform to a carrier's request. It's like a manufacturer making a basic chassis, and making individual models for each dealer.
From my experience (which has been years ago) most of the requests come from marketing data gained from customers and focus groups. After gathering and analyzing the data, they break out certain features with particular markets to reach and then foward those requests to handset makers (or as the article mentioned a particular handset maker). These people aren't coming up with new tech for phones or anything like that.
The problem is that focus groups are a crock. One major problem is that when you pay people, give then lunch or dinner, they're liable to say whatever they think you want. One reason for that is that people get put on lists for focus groups. If you get on one, you have a chance of getting on another, and another. As many people are paid up to $250 for a day's work, plus food, it's hard to turn down. Even my own business partner used to do that. But often, he knew nothing about the product, and would ask me questions about it so that he would know what to say. I tried not to help.
It's also dangerous to ask consumers what they want other than for a feature or two. When you get to entire product specs, you find that consumers don't really know what they want. They THINK they do, but they don't. Even on the rare occasion when they do, they don't know how to express it. So manufacturers get poor information they have to interpret, often not very well.
No, there's evidence for it. You can look at the timeline. Schmitt joined the board some time before Android came out, and even before Apple knew Google was working on it, according to reports as to why, and when, he had to recuse himself from some of Apple's business. That's all the indication you need to know that Apple was surprised at Google's doings. Until then, he had full knowledge as to Apple intentions, and even to early information as to what Apple was doing specifically, as he would, as a board member.
When Google, or rather Schmitt said that they changed the focus of Android from the Blacberry, and instead went after the iPhone, they did that major change in record time. That would only be possible if they knew it before it arrived. It's not likely that Jobs would have been so incensed if this wasn't true.
In addition, Andy Rubin was working at Apple before he started Android, before Google bought it. He was working on the project of the software that would eventually be for the iPad, which was dropped so that the iPhone could be developed and introduced first. You think that it's not likely Rubin spoke to Schmitt about all of this both before and after Schmitt joined the board? It's not credible to think otherwise.
OK - we are arguing tangentially to each other here. What you describe is opportunity, not evidence. While I agree that it might be hard to find evidence in a situation like this, it doesn't excuse the need for it. Not in a legal sense, because there is not, and has never been, a legal case involved, nor even an explicit accusation from Apple. But, just because Schmidt may have had the opportunity to have done this and some believe that the outcome can only be explained that way, it still doesn't justify demanding that someone who points this out must prove that he didn't do it.
Anyway, I guess we should agree to disagree here. It's actually a somewhat amusing situation for me, because personally, I think he probably did abuse his position and pass information to Google (for many of the reasons that you do), but I hate sloppy arguments.
OK - we are arguing tangentially to each other here. What you describe is opportunity, not evidence. While I agree that it might be hard to find evidence in a situation like this, it doesn't excuse the need for it. Not in a legal sense, because there is not, and has never been, a legal case involved, nor even an explicit accusation from Apple. But, just because Schmidt may have had the opportunity to have done this and some believe that the outcome can only be explained that way, it still doesn't justify demanding that someone who points this out must prove that he didn't do it.
Anyway, I guess we should agree to disagree here. It's actually a somewhat amusing situation for me, because personally, I think he probably did abuse his position and pass information to Google (for many of the reasons that you do), but I hate sloppy arguments.
There's something called circumstantial evidence, some of which I presented, though there is a lot more. People have been hanged on less.
The problem is that focus groups are a crock. One major problem is that when you pay people, give then lunch or dinner, they're liable to say whatever they think you want. One reason for that is that people get put on lists for focus groups. If you get on one, you have a chance of getting on another, and another. As many people are paid up to $250 for a day's work, plus food, it's hard to turn down. Even my own business partner used to do that. But often, he knew nothing about the product, and would ask me questions about it so that he would know what to say. I tried not to help.
It's also dangerous to ask consumers what they want other than for a feature or two. When you get to entire product specs, you find that consumers don't really know what they want. They THINK they do, but they don't. Even on the rare occasion when they do, they don't know how to express it. So manufacturers get poor information they have to interpret, often not very well.
I'm not sure if you think I'm advocating for focus groups. I'm definitely not hence my comment to Gatorguy that the article gave me bad memories (nightmares actually lol). Also, the clients I had mainly only used the participants for small features (as you stated) and usage patterns.
I'm not sure if you think I'm advocating for focus groups. I'm definitely not hence my comment to Gatorguy that the article gave me bad memories (nightmares actually lol). Also, the clients I had mainly only used the participants for small features (as you stated) and usage patterns.
No, I wasn't. I just wanted to get that off my back. It's bothered me for so many years, on several levels since I encountered it when I began my career in 1969 in advertising and fashion photography. They found I was majoring in psychology and biology, and so I ended up helping in writing surveys and other ad hoc marketing areas.
Surveys too can be a problem. Most are well intentioned, but some are done for the pure purpose of advertising. MS did a lot of those. I would get calls at home from some marketing company doing a survey, and I used to participate, as I did that work. But while the questions begin properly, after a while they become MS favored. Questions are asked that realistically can be answered in only one way. Then they use those results as published "in a survey done by----MS products were judged superior", or some such nonsense.
No, I wasn't. I just wanted to get that off my back. It's bothered me for so many years, on several levels since I encountered it when I began my career in 1969 in advertising and fashion photography. They found I was majoring in psychology and biology, and so I ended up helping in writing surveys and other ad hoc marketing areas.
Surveys too can be a problem. Most are well intentioned, but some are done for the pure purpose of advertising. MS did a lot of those. I would get calls at home from some marketing company doing a survey, and I used to participate, as I did that work. But while the questions begin properly, after a while they become MS favored. Questions are asked that realistically can be answered in only one way. Then they use those results as published "in a survey done by----MS products were judged superior", or some such nonsense.
You are giving me PTSD. The reason surveys take a turn for the worse is because the client has a specific objective and it shows in the questions eventually. Third Party sources used to be better but waaay questionable now.
No, I wasn't. I just wanted to get that off my back. It's bothered me for so many years, on several levels since I encountered it when I began my career in 1969 in advertising and fashion photography. They found I was majoring in psychology and biology, and so I ended up helping in writing surveys and other ad hoc marketing areas.
Surveys too can be a problem. Most are well intentioned, but some are done for the pure purpose of advertising. MS did a lot of those. I would get calls at home from some marketing company doing a survey, and I used to participate, as I did that work. But while the questions begin properly, after a while they become MS favored. Questions are asked that realistically can be answered in only one way. Then they use those results as published "in a survey done by----MS products were judged superior", or some such nonsense.
My understanding is that Apple have never used focus groups or surveys in this way. If that is indeed correct, then it is a good illustration that they are at best unnecessary, and, at worst, a really bad idea.
In addition, Andy Rubin was working at Apple before he started Android, before Google bought it. He was working on the project of the software that would eventually be for the iPad, which was dropped so that the iPhone could be developed and introduced first. You think that it's not likely Rubin spoke to Schmitt about all of this both before and after Schmitt joined the board? It's not credible to think otherwise.
Wikipedia says Andy Rubin worked for Apple 1989-1992.
That's back when Steve Jobs was gone. Steve also said they were working on the fundamentals of the iPad in the early 2000's.... not the early 1990's
I seriously doubt Apple was working on anything to do with the iPad while Andy Rubin was there.
Hell... Apple was selling this kind of computer when Andy worked there:
No, there's evidence for it. You can look at the timeline. Schmitt joined the board some time before Android came out, and even before Apple knew Google was working on it, according to reports as to why, and when, he had to recuse himself from some of Apple's business. That's all the indication you need to know that Apple was surprised at Google's doings. Until then, he had full knowledge as to Apple intentions, and even to early information as to what Apple was doing specifically, as he would, as a board member. . .
Some off Mel's other "circumstantial evidence" falls apart on closer inspection too. Rumors that Google might be entering the phone business have been around since 2004. http://theponderingprimate.blogspot....s-to-go.html\\
Claiming Apple didn't know about Google and Android. Garbage! It was reported in Bloomberg for crying out loud, August of 2005.
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...0949_tc024.htm
Rumors of an actual phone in development started appearing in the press in mid-2006, with even the high-profile Engadget getting in on the stories.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/03/a...lk-wifi-phone/
All of those stories (I have more if you need 'em) were published before Schmidt became a member of Apple's BOD.
Pushing the idea that Apple, and particularly Steve Jobs "who took long walks with Google's founders discussing business" didn't know about Android development or Google's plans to enter the smartphone business, and doing so with a straight face, is plain silly.
When all is said and done you have an Eric Schmidt, asked to join Apple's board in spite of Google's purchase of Android and telegraphed smartphone and mobile plans. Who was trying to use who?