It is my understanding that Apple had a contract with AT&T that guaranteed them exclusivity for a time period. I'm sure they would have loved to jumped to other carriers earlier, but it may not have been an option.
Sure, in hindsight, Apple left a door wide open for Android. Of course, Apple thought they would be dealing with Palm, Nokia, Windows Phones and Blackberry as their main competition in the smartphone arena--how were they to expect a full blown competitor to rise up from Android so quickly? It is almost as if Google had inside information on Apple's phone plans...
Plus, it isn't as if Apple didn't ask Verizon back in 2006 whether they wanted to carry the iPhone.
Remember that back in those days, the carriers wielded the power, and didn't like being told by Apple that they couldn't install their own applications or branding on the phone. No one knew whether it would even sell. AT&T took a chance on the phone, agreed to Apple's terms regarding pricing, branding, and marketing, and in return got an exclusive contract.
Plus, it isn't as if Apple didn't ask Verizon back in 2006 whether they wanted to carry the iPhone.
Remember that back in those days, the carriers wielded the power, and didn't like being told by Apple that they couldn't install their own applications or branding on the phone. No one knew whether it would even sell. AT&T took a chance on the phone, agreed to Apple's terms regarding pricing, branding, and marketing, and in return got an exclusive contract.
Exactly. And again, Apple would have looked even more like geniuses if Android had not sprung up--they were destroying the other competition and would have had plenty of time to finish the exclusive contract and spread to other carriers...
Well, your math is bad for two reasons. First, sales do not equate to revenue. Apple gets roughly a $400 subsidy per phone, while other makers get smaller ones, $200-300 generally. So while both may sell for $200 subsidized, the amount going to the maker is higher for Apple generally.
Secondly though, in the other direction, there's no reason to drool over the revenue implications of this report since it is such a small sliver of total sales, not to mention the fact that it's from "unnamed sources" and thus there's no reason to actually believe it. Plus the fact that the giggle test tells you it's not a correct story.
I know people who giggle at anything. Doesn't mean this isn't correct.
We should be expecting iPhone sales at AT&T to dwarf those anywhere else. Several reasons. They have been selling them the longest. So they have the most iPhone users. That means they have the most iPhone users needing and wanting to upgrade their iPhone.
In fact, here in the US, they are the only company that has iPhone customers qualified to upgrade at the full discounted price.
Then, they are also, because of that long time customer base, the only company to carry all three current iPhones.
Verizon has the 4S and the 4. Sprint only has the 4S.
So AT&T has more iPhones at more prices than any other US phone company.
And, of course, T-Mobile doesn't sell them at all, though that day seems to be coming closer.
Verizon has the 4S and the 4. Sprint only has the 4S.
I believe Sprint also had the iPhone 4 8GB as of the iPhone 4S release. Can't verfiy that now as I have two dates pissed in using my phone right now. Double booked.
I believe Sprint also had the iPhone 4 8GB as of the iPhone 4S release. Can't verfiy that now as I have two dates pissed in using my phone right now. Double booked.
I don't think so, but I'll check.
Yup, you're right. Last time I checked, shortly after the 4S came out, it wasn't there.
It is my understanding that Apple had a contract with AT&T that guaranteed them exclusivity for a time period. I'm sure they would have loved to jumped to other carriers earlier, but it may not have been an option.
Sure, in hindsight, Apple left a door wide open for Android. Of course, Apple thought they would be dealing with Palm, Nokia, Windows Phones and Blackberry as their main competition in the smartphone arena--how were they to expect a full blown competitor to rise up from Android so quickly? It is almost as if Google had inside information on Apple's phone plans...
I don't believe they did ... More than likely Apple wanted the simplicity of being able to produce one device they could sell worldwide at first, to scale up and keep costs down. Then once they hit a certain point they could move to multiple devices, as they did.
And I disagree that Apple left the door open for Android... Microsoft and Nokia did. Remember, Android didn't take off until it was deemed that WinMo 6.5 was complete crap - that was summer of 2009, almost a year after Android was released. And it absolutely exploded internationally after Nokia's efforts to release a modern OS began stalling.
It is almost as if Google had inside information on Apple's phone plans...
It does seem like someone, maybe on Apple's board of directors or something could have studied Apple's road map and design strategy for the iPhone, and then took that information to Google all while pretending to be friends with a guy who's dying of cancer... Na, no one could be that big of a scumbag.
It does seem like someone, maybe on Apple's board of directors or something could have studied Apple's road map and design strategy for the iPhone, and then took that information to Google all while pretending to be friends with a guy who's dying of cancer... Na, no one could be that big of a scumbag.
It does seem like someone, maybe on Apple's board of directors or something could have studied Apple's road map and design strategy for the iPhone, and then took that information to Google all while pretending to be friends with a guy who's dying of cancer... Na, no one could be that big of a scumbag.
You can convince yourself of all that...but then you make Apple, Steve, everyone else on the board...etc...look like complete idiots...
Why do you hate Apple so much?
OR...you know...Google having bought Android in 2005...Schmidt being invited to the board in 2006...noted as not being allowed in meetings when the iPhone was being discussed due to conflict of interest...leaving the board on good terms...etc. It is more likely that any and all similarities between iOS and Android came from the iPhone actually being on the market over a year BEFORE the first Android device hit the market.
You can say that Android was inspired by the iPhone...which is obvious as the entire industry was inspired by it...but to suggest that Apple is a bunch of blithering idiots is just appalling.
I don't believe they did ... More than likely Apple wanted the simplicity of being able to produce one device they could sell worldwide at first, to scale up and keep costs down. Then once they hit a certain point they could move to multiple devices, as they did.
And I disagree that Apple left the door open for Android... Microsoft and Nokia did. Remember, Android didn't take off until it was deemed that WinMo 6.5 was complete crap - that was summer of 2009, almost a year after Android was released. And it absolutely exploded internationally after Nokia's efforts to release a modern OS began stalling.
Android didn't take off until November of 2009 with the Droid...before that it was practically a dud.
Reality suggests that Android doesn't even really compete with iOS...sure it may try and some phones do but it seems to be replacing aging platforms and dumbphones with more regularity than anything Apple.
The battle of the platforms is pretty much manufactured as both platforms are seeing unprecedented growth with Android obviously in the lead with marketshare because, well, it fits more niches
You can convince yourself of all that...but then you make Apple, Steve, everyone else on the board...etc...look like complete idiots...
Why do you hate Apple so much?
OR...you know...Google having bought Android in 2005...Schmidt being invited to the board in 2006...noted as not being allowed in meetings when the iPhone was being discussed due to conflict of interest...leaving the board on good terms...etc. It is more likely that any and all similarities between iOS and Android came from the iPhone actually being on the market over a year BEFORE the first Android device hit the market.
You can say that Android was inspired by the iPhone...which is obvious as the entire industry was inspired by it...but to suggest that Apple is a bunch of blithering idiots is just appalling.
I fail to see how a number of people being deceived by a person placed in a position of trust is defined as being 'a bunch of blithering idiots'.
It would be interesting to get the opinion of Larry, Sergey, and Bill Gates on this subject.
Buying Android in 2005 doesn't prevent them from copying anything after that date. Unless some evidence could be given proving it was advanced to the point of being 'iOS-like' before the iPhone came out.
Eric Schmidt was actually fully aware of the iPhone's development. It was the iPad's development he was kept out of.
And we all know how Google got caught flat-footed in THAT department, don't we?
I fail to see how a number of people being deceived by a person placed in a position of trust is defined as being 'a bunch of blithering idiots'.
It would be interesting to get the opinion of Larry, Sergey, and Bill Gates on this subject.
Buying Android in 2005 doesn't prevent them from copying anything after that date. Unless some evidence could be given proving it was advanced to the point of being 'iOS-like' before the iPhone came out.
Eric Schmidt was actually fully aware of the iPhone's development. It was the iPad's development he was kept out of.
And we all know how Google got caught flat-footed in THAT department, don't we?
So tell me...why is all of this only fanboy speculation and nothing official has ever been stated, in all of the lawsuits, and even Mr. Holds-his-tongue-for-no-one Jobs has never said anything about Schmidt himself leaking internal secrets to Google?
Jobs may have felt post iPhone, Android was a "Stolen product" but he never ever ever ever once declared anyone a thief...why?
So why is it that only iPhanbois come out with this ridiculous theory?
Why nothing official?
Why did it take Google 2+ years after Schmidt being on the board to "copy" the iPhone if Schmidt had insider knowledge for a year pre-iPhone?
Why was Android post iPhone initially mapped to fit a more BB style form factor (it was always hardware agnostic btw, so touch, was always possible)?
You are asking for incredible leaps of logic and an almost young-earth-creationist level of reality denial in order for this stupid as hell theory to actually be taken seriously.
The fact that SOOOO many of you think this is true with ZERO evidence and even evidence that mostly counteracts this ridiculously retarded theory is pathetic at best.
Why has NO ONE in the know ever implicated Schmidt? Ever? Not once?
Why didn't Apple put a full stop to Android immediately if they could with such damning info that has ZERO evidence and zero support from those in the know?
Again, if Jobs was willing to go thermonuclear for 3 years now...why did he not see this through before he died if he was so passionate about it?
Moral of the story, the super mole Schmidt theory makes those who believe it look like short-bus riding half brain dead morons...and makes Apple look SUPER incompetent.
So which is it? Is Apple retarded (As long as all the iPhatbois who believe it)? or maybe, just maybe...as evidence seems to point, Schmidt was not a mole.
So tell me...why is all of this only fanboy speculation and nothing official has ever been stated, in all of the lawsuits, and even Mr. Holds-his-tongue-for-no-one Jobs has never said anything about Schmidt himself leaking internal secrets to Google?
Jobs may have felt post iPhone, Android was a "Stolen product" but he never ever ever ever once declared anyone a thief...why?
So why is it that only iPhanbois come out with this ridiculous theory?
Why nothing official?
Why did it take Google 2+ years after Schmidt being on the board to "copy" the iPhone if Schmidt had insider knowledge for a year pre-iPhone?
Why was Android post iPhone initially mapped to fit a more BB style form factor (it was always hardware agnostic btw, so touch, was always possible)?
You are asking for incredible leaps of logic and an almost young-earth-creationist level of reality denial in order for this stupid as hell theory to actually be taken seriously.
The fact that SOOOO many of you think this is true with ZERO evidence and even evidence that mostly counteracts this ridiculously retarded theory is pathetic at best.
Why has NO ONE in the know ever implicated Schmidt? Ever? Not once?
Why didn't Apple put a full stop to Android immediately if they could with such damning info that has ZERO evidence and zero support from those in the know?
Again, if Jobs was willing to go thermonuclear for 3 years now...why did he not see this through before he died if he was so passionate about it?
Moral of the story, the super mole Schmidt theory makes those who believe it look like short-bus riding half brain dead morons...and makes Apple look SUPER incompetent.
So which is it? Is Apple retarded (As long as all the iPhatbois who believe it)? or maybe, just maybe...as evidence seems to point, Schmidt was not a mole.
Why is anybody who counters a point that you provide on this forum a 'fanboy/phanboi/phatboi'?
Why did it take Google 2+ years after Schmidt being on the board to "copy" the iPhone if Schmidt had insider knowledge for a year pre-iPhone?
Probably because they didn't work on it with their heart, without wanting to create a wonderful product. They had to reverse engineer the iPhone, and that will take longer than creating a product from scratch, I believe.
And the technology Apple used in making the iPhone comes from so many years of experience something that Google totally lacks. They make very simple products but implement it in a massive way. Hats off for that, but they don't focus. Even Steve told them to get rid of all the crap products they have and focus on a few one that are worthwhile, they still haven't taken that advise. Ok, that advise was from this year, so who knows how long it takes for them to truly understand what Steve meant.
At any rate, I think their products totally suck. And totally lack taste, similar to Microsoft. Even their search engine; if I tell it to give me results with publications from last month, it comes back with 2 year old articles, for whatever reason. Perhaps jragosta can give me lessons on how to search properly.
I only like street view, although you will need a house number for your criteria as trying to walk down a street takes forever. Oops, off topic, again. Sorry.
Wow, 66%! I truly understand Apples' believe in simplicity. Just goes to show with this returning Samsung customer, but to the wrong AT&T store. Why are they split between consumer and corporate? Phew, on topic again.
Probably because they didn't work on it with their heart, without wanting to create a wonderful product. They had to reverse engineer the iPhone, and that will take longer than creating a product from scratch, I believe.
And the technology Apple used in making the iPhone comes from so many years of experience something that Google totally lacks. They make very simple products but implement it in a massive way. Hats off for that, but they don't focus. Even Steve told them to get rid of all the crap products they have and focus on a few one that are worthwhile, they still haven't taken that advise. Ok, that advise was from this year, so who knows how long it takes for them to truly understand what Steve meant.
At any rate, I think their products totally suck. And totally lack taste, similar to Microsoft. Even their search engine; if I tell it to give me results with publications from last month, it comes back with 2 year old articles, for whatever reason. Perhaps jragosta can give me lessons on how to search properly.
I only like street view, although you will need a house number for your criteria as trying to walk down a street takes forever. Oops, off topic, again. Sorry.
Wow, 66%! I truly understand Apples' believe in simplicity. Just goes to show with this returning Samsung customer, but to the wrong AT&T store. Why are they split between consumer and corporate? Phew, on topic again.
I agree with that.
Google products are functional but they are, unfortunately, designed by engineers, and this is very, very obvious when you use them. They are usable, but not intuitive.
I do not know if this is true, but the implication is that the corporate stores mostly want activations and customers who will be happy and loyal to AT&T so they push iPhones. Resellers, OTOH, don't care about the long term and only want the sale and whatever commission they can get so they push other phones.
My wife worked for an AT&T 'authorized retailer' for a time, and what you theorized is exactly what she said happens. Their sales staff gets nothing for iPhone sales on their commission, so they were told to push anything but an iPhone.
She no longer works there because she wouldn't participate in other shady activities her manager encouraged to raise their store's commissions. Suffice it to say, if you buy/upgrade a phone from an 'authorized retailer', watch your bill for features you didn't ask to be added.
Probably because they didn't work on it with their heart, without wanting to create a wonderful product. They had to reverse engineer the iPhone, and that will take longer than creating a product from scratch, I believe.
You believe wrong. It doesn't even make sense to make a general comparison. But you're clearly not an engineer and so, I forgive you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
And the technology Apple used in making the iPhone comes from so many years of experience something that Google totally lacks. They make very simple products but implement it in a massive way.
What, pray tell, does that mean - making simple products but implementing it in a massive way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Hats off for that, but they don't focus. Even Steve told them to get rid of all the crap products they have and focus on a few one that are worthwhile, they still haven't taken that advise. Ok, that advise was from this year, so who knows how long it takes for them to truly understand what Steve meant.
You're regurgitating standard anti-Android, anti-Google rhetoric and anecdotes without understanding or applying context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Even their search engine; if I tell it to give me results with publications from last month, it comes back with 2 year old articles, for whatever reason.
This means you suck at searching, and implies nothing about the Google search algorithm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
I agree with that.
Google products are functional but they are, unfortunately, designed by engineers, and this is very, very obvious when you use them. They are usable, but not intuitive.
As Jobs would say, they do not 'get it'.
I'm afraid you don't get it. These direct iOS/Android comparisons are outdated. First of all, Google does not make most of the Android phones. Second, Android has evolved into something that can no longer be regarded as a single OS, or even a single smartphone platform. Gruber put it best: "Android is not a single platform. It’s a common foundation upon which platforms can be built."
The iOS/Android landscape has changed. A direct comparison is outdated. So it's time you people evolve in your debate too. Otherwise, you just sound like old folks debating Bird v. Magic, or just people who do not get what the *fork* you're talking about.
My wife worked for an AT&T 'authorized retailer' for a time, and what you theorized is exactly what she said happens. Their sales staff gets nothing for iPhone sales on their commission, so they were told to push anything but an iPhone.
She no longer works there because she wouldn't participate in other shady activities her manager encouraged to raise their store's commissions. Suffice it to say, if you buy/upgrade a phone from an 'authorized retailer', watch your bill for features you didn't ask to be added.
This is an inaccurate, unfounded and uninformed accusation. "Authorized reseller" is a general term that includes many disparate companies and stores. You simply cannot lump them all together and fire a single accusation to castigate them all. Shame on you.
Why is anybody who counters a point that you provide on this forum a 'fanboy/phanboi/phatboi'?
Anyone who disagrees with me is not a fanboi. Anyone who believes something about an Apple competitor, that has no supporting evidence aside from circumstantial, that was never mentioned by Apple itself and despite facts pointing counter to their feelings is labeled a fanboy.
It's not even a matter of opinion. No solid facts support the Eric Schmidt mole "theory"
Comments
It is my understanding that Apple had a contract with AT&T that guaranteed them exclusivity for a time period. I'm sure they would have loved to jumped to other carriers earlier, but it may not have been an option.
Sure, in hindsight, Apple left a door wide open for Android. Of course, Apple thought they would be dealing with Palm, Nokia, Windows Phones and Blackberry as their main competition in the smartphone arena--how were they to expect a full blown competitor to rise up from Android so quickly? It is almost as if Google had inside information on Apple's phone plans...
Plus, it isn't as if Apple didn't ask Verizon back in 2006 whether they wanted to carry the iPhone.
Remember that back in those days, the carriers wielded the power, and didn't like being told by Apple that they couldn't install their own applications or branding on the phone. No one knew whether it would even sell. AT&T took a chance on the phone, agreed to Apple's terms regarding pricing, branding, and marketing, and in return got an exclusive contract.
Plus, it isn't as if Apple didn't ask Verizon back in 2006 whether they wanted to carry the iPhone.
Remember that back in those days, the carriers wielded the power, and didn't like being told by Apple that they couldn't install their own applications or branding on the phone. No one knew whether it would even sell. AT&T took a chance on the phone, agreed to Apple's terms regarding pricing, branding, and marketing, and in return got an exclusive contract.
Exactly. And again, Apple would have looked even more like geniuses if Android had not sprung up--they were destroying the other competition and would have had plenty of time to finish the exclusive contract and spread to other carriers...
Well, your math is bad for two reasons. First, sales do not equate to revenue. Apple gets roughly a $400 subsidy per phone, while other makers get smaller ones, $200-300 generally. So while both may sell for $200 subsidized, the amount going to the maker is higher for Apple generally.
Secondly though, in the other direction, there's no reason to drool over the revenue implications of this report since it is such a small sliver of total sales, not to mention the fact that it's from "unnamed sources" and thus there's no reason to actually believe it. Plus the fact that the giggle test tells you it's not a correct story.
I know people who giggle at anything. Doesn't mean this isn't correct.
In fact, here in the US, they are the only company that has iPhone customers qualified to upgrade at the full discounted price.
Then, they are also, because of that long time customer base, the only company to carry all three current iPhones.
Verizon has the 4S and the 4. Sprint only has the 4S.
So AT&T has more iPhones at more prices than any other US phone company.
And, of course, T-Mobile doesn't sell them at all, though that day seems to be coming closer.
Verizon has the 4S and the 4. Sprint only has the 4S.
I believe Sprint also had the iPhone 4 8GB as of the iPhone 4S release. Can't verfiy that now as I have two dates pissed in using my phone right now. Double booked.
I believe Sprint also had the iPhone 4 8GB as of the iPhone 4S release. Can't verfiy that now as I have two dates pissed in using my phone right now. Double booked.
I don't think so, but I'll check.
Yup, you're right. Last time I checked, shortly after the 4S came out, it wasn't there.
It is my understanding that Apple had a contract with AT&T that guaranteed them exclusivity for a time period. I'm sure they would have loved to jumped to other carriers earlier, but it may not have been an option.
Sure, in hindsight, Apple left a door wide open for Android. Of course, Apple thought they would be dealing with Palm, Nokia, Windows Phones and Blackberry as their main competition in the smartphone arena--how were they to expect a full blown competitor to rise up from Android so quickly? It is almost as if Google had inside information on Apple's phone plans...
I don't believe they did ... More than likely Apple wanted the simplicity of being able to produce one device they could sell worldwide at first, to scale up and keep costs down. Then once they hit a certain point they could move to multiple devices, as they did.
And I disagree that Apple left the door open for Android... Microsoft and Nokia did. Remember, Android didn't take off until it was deemed that WinMo 6.5 was complete crap - that was summer of 2009, almost a year after Android was released. And it absolutely exploded internationally after Nokia's efforts to release a modern OS began stalling.
It is almost as if Google had inside information on Apple's phone plans...
It does seem like someone, maybe on Apple's board of directors or something could have studied Apple's road map and design strategy for the iPhone, and then took that information to Google all while pretending to be friends with a guy who's dying of cancer... Na, no one could be that big of a scumbag.
It does seem like someone, maybe on Apple's board of directors or something could have studied Apple's road map and design strategy for the iPhone, and then took that information to Google all while pretending to be friends with a guy who's dying of cancer... Na, no one could be that big of a scumbag.
Don't you mean a Schmidt-head?
It does seem like someone, maybe on Apple's board of directors or something could have studied Apple's road map and design strategy for the iPhone, and then took that information to Google all while pretending to be friends with a guy who's dying of cancer... Na, no one could be that big of a scumbag.
You can convince yourself of all that...but then you make Apple, Steve, everyone else on the board...etc...look like complete idiots...
Why do you hate Apple so much?
OR...you know...Google having bought Android in 2005...Schmidt being invited to the board in 2006...noted as not being allowed in meetings when the iPhone was being discussed due to conflict of interest...leaving the board on good terms...etc. It is more likely that any and all similarities between iOS and Android came from the iPhone actually being on the market over a year BEFORE the first Android device hit the market.
You can say that Android was inspired by the iPhone...which is obvious as the entire industry was inspired by it...but to suggest that Apple is a bunch of blithering idiots is just appalling.
I don't believe they did ... More than likely Apple wanted the simplicity of being able to produce one device they could sell worldwide at first, to scale up and keep costs down. Then once they hit a certain point they could move to multiple devices, as they did.
And I disagree that Apple left the door open for Android... Microsoft and Nokia did. Remember, Android didn't take off until it was deemed that WinMo 6.5 was complete crap - that was summer of 2009, almost a year after Android was released. And it absolutely exploded internationally after Nokia's efforts to release a modern OS began stalling.
Android didn't take off until November of 2009 with the Droid...before that it was practically a dud.
Reality suggests that Android doesn't even really compete with iOS...sure it may try and some phones do but it seems to be replacing aging platforms and dumbphones with more regularity than anything Apple.
The battle of the platforms is pretty much manufactured as both platforms are seeing unprecedented growth with Android obviously in the lead with marketshare because, well, it fits more niches
You can convince yourself of all that...but then you make Apple, Steve, everyone else on the board...etc...look like complete idiots...
Why do you hate Apple so much?
OR...you know...Google having bought Android in 2005...Schmidt being invited to the board in 2006...noted as not being allowed in meetings when the iPhone was being discussed due to conflict of interest...leaving the board on good terms...etc. It is more likely that any and all similarities between iOS and Android came from the iPhone actually being on the market over a year BEFORE the first Android device hit the market.
You can say that Android was inspired by the iPhone...which is obvious as the entire industry was inspired by it...but to suggest that Apple is a bunch of blithering idiots is just appalling.
I fail to see how a number of people being deceived by a person placed in a position of trust is defined as being 'a bunch of blithering idiots'.
It would be interesting to get the opinion of Larry, Sergey, and Bill Gates on this subject.
Buying Android in 2005 doesn't prevent them from copying anything after that date. Unless some evidence could be given proving it was advanced to the point of being 'iOS-like' before the iPhone came out.
Eric Schmidt was actually fully aware of the iPhone's development. It was the iPad's development he was kept out of.
And we all know how Google got caught flat-footed in THAT department, don't we?
I fail to see how a number of people being deceived by a person placed in a position of trust is defined as being 'a bunch of blithering idiots'.
It would be interesting to get the opinion of Larry, Sergey, and Bill Gates on this subject.
Buying Android in 2005 doesn't prevent them from copying anything after that date. Unless some evidence could be given proving it was advanced to the point of being 'iOS-like' before the iPhone came out.
Eric Schmidt was actually fully aware of the iPhone's development. It was the iPad's development he was kept out of.
And we all know how Google got caught flat-footed in THAT department, don't we?
So tell me...why is all of this only fanboy speculation and nothing official has ever been stated, in all of the lawsuits, and even Mr. Holds-his-tongue-for-no-one Jobs has never said anything about Schmidt himself leaking internal secrets to Google?
Jobs may have felt post iPhone, Android was a "Stolen product" but he never ever ever ever once declared anyone a thief...why?
So why is it that only iPhanbois come out with this ridiculous theory?
Why nothing official?
Why did it take Google 2+ years after Schmidt being on the board to "copy" the iPhone if Schmidt had insider knowledge for a year pre-iPhone?
Why was Android post iPhone initially mapped to fit a more BB style form factor (it was always hardware agnostic btw, so touch, was always possible)?
You are asking for incredible leaps of logic and an almost young-earth-creationist level of reality denial in order for this stupid as hell theory to actually be taken seriously.
The fact that SOOOO many of you think this is true with ZERO evidence and even evidence that mostly counteracts this ridiculously retarded theory is pathetic at best.
Why has NO ONE in the know ever implicated Schmidt? Ever? Not once?
Why didn't Apple put a full stop to Android immediately if they could with such damning info that has ZERO evidence and zero support from those in the know?
Again, if Jobs was willing to go thermonuclear for 3 years now...why did he not see this through before he died if he was so passionate about it?
Moral of the story, the super mole Schmidt theory makes those who believe it look like short-bus riding half brain dead morons...and makes Apple look SUPER incompetent.
So which is it? Is Apple retarded (As long as all the iPhatbois who believe it)? or maybe, just maybe...as evidence seems to point, Schmidt was not a mole.
So tell me...why is all of this only fanboy speculation and nothing official has ever been stated, in all of the lawsuits, and even Mr. Holds-his-tongue-for-no-one Jobs has never said anything about Schmidt himself leaking internal secrets to Google?
Jobs may have felt post iPhone, Android was a "Stolen product" but he never ever ever ever once declared anyone a thief...why?
So why is it that only iPhanbois come out with this ridiculous theory?
Why nothing official?
Why did it take Google 2+ years after Schmidt being on the board to "copy" the iPhone if Schmidt had insider knowledge for a year pre-iPhone?
Why was Android post iPhone initially mapped to fit a more BB style form factor (it was always hardware agnostic btw, so touch, was always possible)?
You are asking for incredible leaps of logic and an almost young-earth-creationist level of reality denial in order for this stupid as hell theory to actually be taken seriously.
The fact that SOOOO many of you think this is true with ZERO evidence and even evidence that mostly counteracts this ridiculously retarded theory is pathetic at best.
Why has NO ONE in the know ever implicated Schmidt? Ever? Not once?
Why didn't Apple put a full stop to Android immediately if they could with such damning info that has ZERO evidence and zero support from those in the know?
Again, if Jobs was willing to go thermonuclear for 3 years now...why did he not see this through before he died if he was so passionate about it?
Moral of the story, the super mole Schmidt theory makes those who believe it look like short-bus riding half brain dead morons...and makes Apple look SUPER incompetent.
So which is it? Is Apple retarded (As long as all the iPhatbois who believe it)? or maybe, just maybe...as evidence seems to point, Schmidt was not a mole.
Why is anybody who counters a point that you provide on this forum a 'fanboy/phanboi/phatboi'?
Why did it take Google 2+ years after Schmidt being on the board to "copy" the iPhone if Schmidt had insider knowledge for a year pre-iPhone?
Probably because they didn't work on it with their heart, without wanting to create a wonderful product. They had to reverse engineer the iPhone, and that will take longer than creating a product from scratch, I believe.
And the technology Apple used in making the iPhone comes from so many years of experience something that Google totally lacks. They make very simple products but implement it in a massive way. Hats off for that, but they don't focus. Even Steve told them to get rid of all the crap products they have and focus on a few one that are worthwhile, they still haven't taken that advise. Ok, that advise was from this year, so who knows how long it takes for them to truly understand what Steve meant.
At any rate, I think their products totally suck. And totally lack taste, similar to Microsoft. Even their search engine; if I tell it to give me results with publications from last month, it comes back with 2 year old articles, for whatever reason. Perhaps jragosta can give me lessons on how to search properly.
I only like street view, although you will need a house number for your criteria as trying to walk down a street takes forever. Oops, off topic, again. Sorry.
Wow, 66%! I truly understand Apples' believe in simplicity. Just goes to show with this returning Samsung customer, but to the wrong AT&T store. Why are they split between consumer and corporate? Phew, on topic again.
Probably because they didn't work on it with their heart, without wanting to create a wonderful product. They had to reverse engineer the iPhone, and that will take longer than creating a product from scratch, I believe.
And the technology Apple used in making the iPhone comes from so many years of experience something that Google totally lacks. They make very simple products but implement it in a massive way. Hats off for that, but they don't focus. Even Steve told them to get rid of all the crap products they have and focus on a few one that are worthwhile, they still haven't taken that advise. Ok, that advise was from this year, so who knows how long it takes for them to truly understand what Steve meant.
At any rate, I think their products totally suck. And totally lack taste, similar to Microsoft. Even their search engine; if I tell it to give me results with publications from last month, it comes back with 2 year old articles, for whatever reason. Perhaps jragosta can give me lessons on how to search properly.
I only like street view, although you will need a house number for your criteria as trying to walk down a street takes forever. Oops, off topic, again. Sorry.
Wow, 66%! I truly understand Apples' believe in simplicity. Just goes to show with this returning Samsung customer, but to the wrong AT&T store. Why are they split between consumer and corporate? Phew, on topic again.
I agree with that.
Google products are functional but they are, unfortunately, designed by engineers, and this is very, very obvious when you use them. They are usable, but not intuitive.
As Jobs would say, they do not 'get it'.
I do not know if this is true, but the implication is that the corporate stores mostly want activations and customers who will be happy and loyal to AT&T so they push iPhones. Resellers, OTOH, don't care about the long term and only want the sale and whatever commission they can get so they push other phones.
My wife worked for an AT&T 'authorized retailer' for a time, and what you theorized is exactly what she said happens. Their sales staff gets nothing for iPhone sales on their commission, so they were told to push anything but an iPhone.
She no longer works there because she wouldn't participate in other shady activities her manager encouraged to raise their store's commissions. Suffice it to say, if you buy/upgrade a phone from an 'authorized retailer', watch your bill for features you didn't ask to be added.
Probably because they didn't work on it with their heart, without wanting to create a wonderful product. They had to reverse engineer the iPhone, and that will take longer than creating a product from scratch, I believe.
You believe wrong. It doesn't even make sense to make a general comparison. But you're clearly not an engineer and so, I forgive you.
And the technology Apple used in making the iPhone comes from so many years of experience something that Google totally lacks. They make very simple products but implement it in a massive way.
What, pray tell, does that mean - making simple products but implementing it in a massive way?
Hats off for that, but they don't focus. Even Steve told them to get rid of all the crap products they have and focus on a few one that are worthwhile, they still haven't taken that advise. Ok, that advise was from this year, so who knows how long it takes for them to truly understand what Steve meant.
You're regurgitating standard anti-Android, anti-Google rhetoric and anecdotes without understanding or applying context.
Even their search engine; if I tell it to give me results with publications from last month, it comes back with 2 year old articles, for whatever reason.
This means you suck at searching, and implies nothing about the Google search algorithm.
I agree with that.
Google products are functional but they are, unfortunately, designed by engineers, and this is very, very obvious when you use them. They are usable, but not intuitive.
As Jobs would say, they do not 'get it'.
I'm afraid you don't get it. These direct iOS/Android comparisons are outdated. First of all, Google does not make most of the Android phones. Second, Android has evolved into something that can no longer be regarded as a single OS, or even a single smartphone platform. Gruber put it best: "Android is not a single platform. It’s a common foundation upon which platforms can be built."
The iOS/Android landscape has changed. A direct comparison is outdated. So it's time you people evolve in your debate too. Otherwise, you just sound like old folks debating Bird v. Magic, or just people who do not get what the *fork* you're talking about.
My wife worked for an AT&T 'authorized retailer' for a time, and what you theorized is exactly what she said happens. Their sales staff gets nothing for iPhone sales on their commission, so they were told to push anything but an iPhone.
She no longer works there because she wouldn't participate in other shady activities her manager encouraged to raise their store's commissions. Suffice it to say, if you buy/upgrade a phone from an 'authorized retailer', watch your bill for features you didn't ask to be added.
This is an inaccurate, unfounded and uninformed accusation. "Authorized reseller" is a general term that includes many disparate companies and stores. You simply cannot lump them all together and fire a single accusation to castigate them all. Shame on you.
Why is anybody who counters a point that you provide on this forum a 'fanboy/phanboi/phatboi'?
Anyone who disagrees with me is not a fanboi. Anyone who believes something about an Apple competitor, that has no supporting evidence aside from circumstantial, that was never mentioned by Apple itself and despite facts pointing counter to their feelings is labeled a fanboy.
It's not even a matter of opinion. No solid facts support the Eric Schmidt mole "theory"