Yup, you're right. Last time I checked, shortly after the 4S came out, it wasn't there.
The iPhone 4 was there before the 4S came out. At least it was there in the hours leading up the release of the 4S. I was waiting to order from Sprint and was thinking that there was going to be a mistaken rush on the iPhone 4.
I didn't expect this amount of cat fights and mudslinging in our forum. Let's clean things up a bit, all. I'm not trying to hammer you all, but let's put a bit of respect in when we address each other's points. Let's keep our forum an intelligent, respectful place of discussion.
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?
Re: Eric Schmidt at Apple
How much access do the Board of Directors have to Apple Engineering? I'm sure the Board knew Apple was working on an amazing new product... but I doubt they got to see technical drawings, engineering plans, etc. They probably didn't even know it was a phone. Boards handle broad policies and objectives... not product development.
The iPhone project in 2006-2007 was probably the most highly guarded secret inside the walls at Cupertino.
I bet Schmidt saw the iPhone at the very same time the rest of us did... at the keynote.
Meanwhile... Google continued working on Android... and this was the Android Beta --> Link
Remember... that was 10 months after Apple unveiled the iPhone. If Google had insider knowledge of the iPhone and/or Apple's new OS... they wouldn't have bothered with that crappy Android Beta. But they did... because it's all they had.
I doubt Schmidt/Google had any solid information about what Apple was working on... I think that Beta pretty much proves that.
The "copying" happened after the iPhone came out
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
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.
Right on, PhilBoogie.
Apple had obviously been working on the iPhone and its OS for years before we got a chance to see it. And we know Apple likes to make a good impression.
We'll probably never know what Android looked like in 2005 when Google bought it. But my gut feeling is... it wasn't pretty or amazing. And let's remember what smartphones looked like from 2005-2007... Android was most likely gearing up as a competitor to the Palm Treos, Blackberries and Windows Mobile phones of the day. (again... we'll never know for sure)
Apple was developing the iPhone around the same time as Google was developing Android... but Apple completely threw out the smartphone playbook and started from scratch. I doubt Google was thinking that far ahead at that time.
Apple had an interesting advantage because they were designing the software and hardware at the same time... something Google was simply unable to do. Google was making software for other companies' hardware... and hardware doesn't evolve very fast.
Google has some very talented engineers, and they are very good at technology.
The same is true for Apple... but Apple is also very good at design, implementation... and vision.
So Android is for cheapskates or those with limited financial means, is this correct?
obviously.
of course there's exceptions, like that tiny percentage that really wants a big screen or the anti-apple. but only a fool can't see that more than 80% (much more) androids sold are cheaper than the current 3GS price.
How much access do the Board of Directors have to Apple Engineering? I'm sure the Board knew Apple was working on an amazing new product... but I doubt they got to see technical drawings, engineering plans, etc. They probably didn't even know it was a phone. Boards handle broad policies and objectives... not product development.
The iPhone project in 2006-2007 was probably the most highly guarded secret inside the walls at Cupertino.
I bet Schmidt saw the iPhone at the very same time the rest of us did... at the keynote.
Meanwhile... Google continued working on Android... and this was the Android Beta --> Link
Remember... that was 10 months after Apple unveiled the iPhone. If Google had insider knowledge of the iPhone and/or Apple's new OS... they wouldn't have bothered with that crappy Android Beta. But they did... because it's all they had.
I doubt Schmidt/Google had any solid information about what Apple was working on... I think that Beta pretty much proves that.
The "copying" happened after the iPhone came out
Right on, PhilBoogie.
Apple had obviously been working on the iPhone and its OS for years before we got a chance to see it. And we know Apple likes to make a good impression.
We'll probably never know what Android looked like in 2005 when Google bought it. But my gut feeling is... it wasn't pretty or amazing. And let's remember what smartphones looked like from 2005-2007... Android was most likely gearing up as a competitor to the Palm Treos, Blackberries and Windows Mobile phones of the day. (again... we'll never know for sure)
Apple was developing the iPhone around the same time as Google was developing Android... but Apple completely threw out the smartphone playbook and started from scratch. I doubt Google was thinking that far ahead at that time.
Apple had an interesting advantage because they were designing the software and hardware at the same time... something Google was simply unable to do. Google was making software for other companies' hardware... and hardware doesn't evolve very fast.
Google has some very talented engineers, and they are very good at technology.
The same is true for Apple... but Apple is also very good at design, implementation... and vision.
... This means you suck at searching, and implies nothing about the Google search algorithm. ...
It's not really such a great search engine if you have to be an expert on it to get decent results out of it, is it?
The quality of search results from Google has sucked for years now, as they continue to shift the focus of their search algorithms from providing good results to generating revenue, expect this to just get worse.
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"
As I mentioned before, provide statements that prove me wrong.
I remember reading an article from Schidmidt himself saying that the only reason that Google existed was because Google was uncomfortable with the idea of one man having so much power over the mobile phone industry, hence creating competition with Google.
Can you imagine what would have happened if they had have supported Apple instead of deciding to compete against them?
How much access do the Board of Directors have to Apple Engineering? I'm sure the Board knew Apple was working on an amazing new product... but I doubt they got to see technical drawings, engineering plans, etc. They probably didn't even know it was a phone. Boards handle broad policies and objectives... not product development.
The iPhone project in 2006-2007 was probably the most highly guarded secret inside the walls at Cupertino.
I bet Schmidt saw the iPhone at the very same time the rest of us did... at the keynote.
Meanwhile... Google continued working on Android... and this was the Android Beta --> Link
Remember... that was 10 months after Apple unveiled the iPhone. If Google had insider knowledge of the iPhone and/or Apple's new OS... they wouldn't have bothered with that crappy Android Beta. But they did... because it's all they had.
I doubt Schmidt/Google had any solid information about what Apple was working on... I think that Beta pretty much proves that.
The "copying" happened after the iPhone came out
Right on, PhilBoogie.
Apple had obviously been working on the iPhone and its OS for years before we got a chance to see it. And we know Apple likes to make a good impression.
We'll probably never know what Android looked like in 2005 when Google bought it. But my gut feeling is... it wasn't pretty or amazing. And let's remember what smartphones looked like from 2005-2007... Android was most likely gearing up as a competitor to the Palm Treos, Blackberries and Windows Mobile phones of the day. (again... we'll never know for sure)
Apple was developing the iPhone around the same time as Google was developing Android... but Apple completely threw out the smartphone playbook and started from scratch. I doubt Google was thinking that far ahead at that time.
Apple had an interesting advantage because they were designing the software and hardware at the same time... something Google was simply unable to do. Google was making software for other companies' hardware... and hardware doesn't evolve very fast.
Google has some very talented engineers, and they are very good at technology.
The same is true for Apple... but Apple is also very good at design, implementation... and vision.
As I mentioned before, provide statements that prove me wrong.
I remember reading an article from Schidmidt himself saying that the only reason that Google existed was because Google was uncomfortable with the idea of one man having so much power over the mobile phone industry, hence creating competition with Google.
Can you imagine what would have happened if they had have supported Apple instead of deciding to compete against them?
That combo would have been invincible!
They could've been kicked out of the mobile world at the stroke of a pen.
Read Michael Scrip's post for other details as to why the Schmidt/mole conspiracy holds no water.
Also I'm not required to prove you wrong. The burden of proof is on you.
Evidence isn't in the "super mole Schmidt" camp's favor though.
(even to all the Android fans on this Apple forum! May you find something worthy of contributing to rather than just posting on a competitor's website every year!)
They could've been kicked out of the mobile world at the stroke of a pen.
Read Michael Scrip's post for other details as to why the Schmidt/mole conspiracy holds no water.
Also I'm not required to prove you wrong. The burden of proof is on you.
Evidence isn't in the "super mole Schmidt" camp's favor though.
I'm sorry but I seriously doubt Apple would have cut Google out of the mobile advertising game "with the stroke of a pen" especially considering that Apple hasn't done it now (Google makes more revenue on ios products than Android). The only search/mobile ad competition Google had was MS and Apple would NEVER enter the kind of partnership it had with Google since the last time it did so MS burned them pretty dang bad. Instead of throwing huge sums of cash and development hours at Android, Google could have reaped ALL of the revenue benefits of being a partner instead of a competitor.
AT&T now have decent Android-based phones so the excuse regarding only crappy Android phones are on AT&T can't be used. And we obviously can't use the mass exodus from AT&T once other US carriers get the iPhone excuse.
So what gives, Android fans? Are you finally willing to admit the iPhone is the most popular phone or are still holding out to find so quasi-statisitic that pegs iPhone iOS against all Android OS activations for a very specific timeframe?
Can't say if this is the same all over but the US companies I deal with in the Texas/Louisiana area (oil business) just do not regard Android as a reliable OS to base their corporate communications on. It's viewed as "amateur" "hobbyist".
Most were using BB before and were waiting to see what MS came up with but since it has failed to gain traction, are starting to use iPhone. The massive adoption of iPad makes this even more sensible.
1. The quasi-statistic in this article does peg "iPhone iOS against all Android OS activations for a very specific timeframe." Why do you find it worth defending?
2. The real question is if Apple wouldn't have dicked around with AT&T for so long, would Verizon and the other networks in the US show similar statistics. Apple foolishly gave Android a strong foothold at Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile. That's where the Android activations are occurring - and that is what Apple should have stopped in 2008, before the platform took off.
I haven't looked lately, but ATT has traditionally not had very desirable Android phones. I'm frankly surprised by this rumor story - I thought ATT had some good Android phones by now.
I'm not saying the rumor is true or not.
But if it is true, it is a mere outlier for a short amount of time, and says nothing about the overall situation, which is (if I can believe what I read on AI) that Android phones are outselling iOS phones by a 3:1 margin. 75% Android, 25% iOS.
ATT may be losing lots and lots of potential Android sales if the rumored statistic is true. Are they losing customers overall? Or just the high-end Android customers?
I'm sorry but I seriously doubt Apple would have cut Google out of the mobile advertising game "with the stroke of a pen" especially considering that Apple hasn't done it now (Google makes more revenue on ios products than Android). The only search/mobile ad competition Google had was MS and Apple would NEVER enter the kind of partnership it had with Google since the last time it did so MS burned them pretty dang bad. Instead of throwing huge sums of cash and development hours at Android, Google could have reaped ALL of the revenue benefits of being a partner instead of a competitor.
Could have. Not would have. It wouldn't have been smart to let mobile go.
I'm sorry but I seriously doubt Apple would have cut Google out of the mobile advertising game "with the stroke of a pen" especially considering that Apple hasn't done it now (Google makes more revenue on ios products than Android). The only search/mobile ad competition Google had was MS and Apple would NEVER enter the kind of partnership it had with Google since the last time it did so MS burned them pretty dang bad. Instead of throwing huge sums of cash and development hours at Android, Google could have reaped ALL of the revenue benefits of being a partner instead of a competitor.
So they should've put all their eggs in one, however nice, basket?
I still don't see iOS and a Android as true competitors. The two main companies' entire business models are different.
Comments
Sir,
do you live in the UK or germany?
android growth is taking place in poorer countries.
iphone has no chance in these countries..
for those who are saying that apple covers all price points, one word:
-stupids.
sorry, it had to be said.
here the 3GS costs almost 400?.
the average working person earns 450 per month. would you buy it?
there's thousands of smartphones cheaper than that, especially droids.
contracts? in countries like these, only if you are crazy.
happy new year.
So Android is for cheapskates or those with limited financial means, is this correct?
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.
The iPhone 4 was there before the 4S came out. At least it was there in the hours leading up the release of the 4S. I was waiting to order from Sprint and was thinking that there was going to be a mistaken rush on the iPhone 4.
Dude, you are mixing up two separate points. Get some coffee first. It's early.
You define yourself with your choice of words...
Even my pre-teen grandson outgrew calling people "Dude" when he entered fourth grade...
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?
Re: Eric Schmidt at Apple
How much access do the Board of Directors have to Apple Engineering? I'm sure the Board knew Apple was working on an amazing new product... but I doubt they got to see technical drawings, engineering plans, etc. They probably didn't even know it was a phone. Boards handle broad policies and objectives... not product development.
The iPhone project in 2006-2007 was probably the most highly guarded secret inside the walls at Cupertino.
I bet Schmidt saw the iPhone at the very same time the rest of us did... at the keynote.
Meanwhile... Google continued working on Android... and this was the Android Beta --> Link
Remember... that was 10 months after Apple unveiled the iPhone. If Google had insider knowledge of the iPhone and/or Apple's new OS... they wouldn't have bothered with that crappy Android Beta. But they did... because it's all they had.
I doubt Schmidt/Google had any solid information about what Apple was working on... I think that Beta pretty much proves that.
The "copying" happened after the iPhone came out
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.
Right on, PhilBoogie.
Apple had obviously been working on the iPhone and its OS for years before we got a chance to see it. And we know Apple likes to make a good impression.
We'll probably never know what Android looked like in 2005 when Google bought it. But my gut feeling is... it wasn't pretty or amazing. And let's remember what smartphones looked like from 2005-2007... Android was most likely gearing up as a competitor to the Palm Treos, Blackberries and Windows Mobile phones of the day. (again... we'll never know for sure)
Apple was developing the iPhone around the same time as Google was developing Android... but Apple completely threw out the smartphone playbook and started from scratch. I doubt Google was thinking that far ahead at that time.
Apple had an interesting advantage because they were designing the software and hardware at the same time... something Google was simply unable to do. Google was making software for other companies' hardware... and hardware doesn't evolve very fast.
Google has some very talented engineers, and they are very good at technology.
The same is true for Apple... but Apple is also very good at design, implementation... and vision.
So Android is for cheapskates or those with limited financial means, is this correct?
obviously.
of course there's exceptions, like that tiny percentage that really wants a big screen or the anti-apple. but only a fool can't see that more than 80% (much more) androids sold are cheaper than the current 3GS price.
like i said, i can't afford an iphone.
Re: Eric Schmidt at Apple
How much access do the Board of Directors have to Apple Engineering? I'm sure the Board knew Apple was working on an amazing new product... but I doubt they got to see technical drawings, engineering plans, etc. They probably didn't even know it was a phone. Boards handle broad policies and objectives... not product development.
The iPhone project in 2006-2007 was probably the most highly guarded secret inside the walls at Cupertino.
I bet Schmidt saw the iPhone at the very same time the rest of us did... at the keynote.
Meanwhile... Google continued working on Android... and this was the Android Beta --> Link
Remember... that was 10 months after Apple unveiled the iPhone. If Google had insider knowledge of the iPhone and/or Apple's new OS... they wouldn't have bothered with that crappy Android Beta. But they did... because it's all they had.
I doubt Schmidt/Google had any solid information about what Apple was working on... I think that Beta pretty much proves that.
The "copying" happened after the iPhone came out
Right on, PhilBoogie.
Apple had obviously been working on the iPhone and its OS for years before we got a chance to see it. And we know Apple likes to make a good impression.
We'll probably never know what Android looked like in 2005 when Google bought it. But my gut feeling is... it wasn't pretty or amazing. And let's remember what smartphones looked like from 2005-2007... Android was most likely gearing up as a competitor to the Palm Treos, Blackberries and Windows Mobile phones of the day. (again... we'll never know for sure)
Apple was developing the iPhone around the same time as Google was developing Android... but Apple completely threw out the smartphone playbook and started from scratch. I doubt Google was thinking that far ahead at that time.
Apple had an interesting advantage because they were designing the software and hardware at the same time... something Google was simply unable to do. Google was making software for other companies' hardware... and hardware doesn't evolve very fast.
Google has some very talented engineers, and they are very good at technology.
The same is true for Apple... but Apple is also very good at design, implementation... and vision.
That's a well-presented and well-reasoned post!
... This means you suck at searching, and implies nothing about the Google search algorithm. ...
It's not really such a great search engine if you have to be an expert on it to get decent results out of it, is it?
The quality of search results from Google has sucked for years now, as they continue to shift the focus of their search algorithms from providing good results to generating revenue, expect this to just get worse.
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"
As I mentioned before, provide statements that prove me wrong.
I remember reading an article from Schidmidt himself saying that the only reason that Google existed was because Google was uncomfortable with the idea of one man having so much power over the mobile phone industry, hence creating competition with Google.
Can you imagine what would have happened if they had have supported Apple instead of deciding to compete against them?
That combo would have been invincible!
Re: Eric Schmidt at Apple
How much access do the Board of Directors have to Apple Engineering? I'm sure the Board knew Apple was working on an amazing new product... but I doubt they got to see technical drawings, engineering plans, etc. They probably didn't even know it was a phone. Boards handle broad policies and objectives... not product development.
The iPhone project in 2006-2007 was probably the most highly guarded secret inside the walls at Cupertino.
I bet Schmidt saw the iPhone at the very same time the rest of us did... at the keynote.
Meanwhile... Google continued working on Android... and this was the Android Beta --> Link
Remember... that was 10 months after Apple unveiled the iPhone. If Google had insider knowledge of the iPhone and/or Apple's new OS... they wouldn't have bothered with that crappy Android Beta. But they did... because it's all they had.
I doubt Schmidt/Google had any solid information about what Apple was working on... I think that Beta pretty much proves that.
The "copying" happened after the iPhone came out
Right on, PhilBoogie.
Apple had obviously been working on the iPhone and its OS for years before we got a chance to see it. And we know Apple likes to make a good impression.
We'll probably never know what Android looked like in 2005 when Google bought it. But my gut feeling is... it wasn't pretty or amazing. And let's remember what smartphones looked like from 2005-2007... Android was most likely gearing up as a competitor to the Palm Treos, Blackberries and Windows Mobile phones of the day. (again... we'll never know for sure)
Apple was developing the iPhone around the same time as Google was developing Android... but Apple completely threw out the smartphone playbook and started from scratch. I doubt Google was thinking that far ahead at that time.
Apple had an interesting advantage because they were designing the software and hardware at the same time... something Google was simply unable to do. Google was making software for other companies' hardware... and hardware doesn't evolve very fast.
Google has some very talented engineers, and they are very good at technology.
The same is true for Apple... but Apple is also very good at design, implementation... and vision.
Good post.
As I mentioned before, provide statements that prove me wrong.
I remember reading an article from Schidmidt himself saying that the only reason that Google existed was because Google was uncomfortable with the idea of one man having so much power over the mobile phone industry, hence creating competition with Google.
Can you imagine what would have happened if they had have supported Apple instead of deciding to compete against them?
That combo would have been invincible!
They could've been kicked out of the mobile world at the stroke of a pen.
Read Michael Scrip's post for other details as to why the Schmidt/mole conspiracy holds no water.
Also I'm not required to prove you wrong. The burden of proof is on you.
Evidence isn't in the "super mole Schmidt" camp's favor though.
Good post.
Here's another one:
Prove.
Me.
Wrong.
If you lose, piss off to a website that discusses products and services that you enjoy.
I'd hate for you to spend so much of the rest of your life posting about stuff which you believe is inferior.
They could've been kicked out of the mobile world at the stroke of a pen.
Also I'm not required to prove you wrong. The burden of proof is on you.
Really?
You claim and we just accept. Is that how it works?
Provide proof that the burden of proof is on me.
(even to all the Android fans on this Apple forum! May you find something worthy of contributing to rather than just posting on a competitor's website every year!)
Best wishes for all!!!
They could've been kicked out of the mobile world at the stroke of a pen.
Read Michael Scrip's post for other details as to why the Schmidt/mole conspiracy holds no water.
Also I'm not required to prove you wrong. The burden of proof is on you.
Evidence isn't in the "super mole Schmidt" camp's favor though.
I'm sorry but I seriously doubt Apple would have cut Google out of the mobile advertising game "with the stroke of a pen" especially considering that Apple hasn't done it now (Google makes more revenue on ios products than Android). The only search/mobile ad competition Google had was MS and Apple would NEVER enter the kind of partnership it had with Google since the last time it did so MS burned them pretty dang bad. Instead of throwing huge sums of cash and development hours at Android, Google could have reaped ALL of the revenue benefits of being a partner instead of a competitor.
AT&T now have decent Android-based phones so the excuse regarding only crappy Android phones are on AT&T can't be used. And we obviously can't use the mass exodus from AT&T once other US carriers get the iPhone excuse.
So what gives, Android fans? Are you finally willing to admit the iPhone is the most popular phone or are still holding out to find so quasi-statisitic that pegs iPhone iOS against all Android OS activations for a very specific timeframe?
Can't say if this is the same all over but the US companies I deal with in the Texas/Louisiana area (oil business) just do not regard Android as a reliable OS to base their corporate communications on. It's viewed as "amateur" "hobbyist".
Most were using BB before and were waiting to see what MS came up with but since it has failed to gain traction, are starting to use iPhone. The massive adoption of iPad makes this even more sensible.
1. The quasi-statistic in this article does peg "iPhone iOS against all Android OS activations for a very specific timeframe." Why do you find it worth defending?
2. The real question is if Apple wouldn't have dicked around with AT&T for so long, would Verizon and the other networks in the US show similar statistics. Apple foolishly gave Android a strong foothold at Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile. That's where the Android activations are occurring - and that is what Apple should have stopped in 2008, before the platform took off.
I haven't looked lately, but ATT has traditionally not had very desirable Android phones. I'm frankly surprised by this rumor story - I thought ATT had some good Android phones by now.
I'm not saying the rumor is true or not.
But if it is true, it is a mere outlier for a short amount of time, and says nothing about the overall situation, which is (if I can believe what I read on AI) that Android phones are outselling iOS phones by a 3:1 margin. 75% Android, 25% iOS.
ATT may be losing lots and lots of potential Android sales if the rumored statistic is true. Are they losing customers overall? Or just the high-end Android customers?
I'm sorry but I seriously doubt Apple would have cut Google out of the mobile advertising game "with the stroke of a pen" especially considering that Apple hasn't done it now (Google makes more revenue on ios products than Android). The only search/mobile ad competition Google had was MS and Apple would NEVER enter the kind of partnership it had with Google since the last time it did so MS burned them pretty dang bad. Instead of throwing huge sums of cash and development hours at Android, Google could have reaped ALL of the revenue benefits of being a partner instead of a competitor.
Could have. Not would have. It wouldn't have been smart to let mobile go.
I'm sorry but I seriously doubt Apple would have cut Google out of the mobile advertising game "with the stroke of a pen" especially considering that Apple hasn't done it now (Google makes more revenue on ios products than Android). The only search/mobile ad competition Google had was MS and Apple would NEVER enter the kind of partnership it had with Google since the last time it did so MS burned them pretty dang bad. Instead of throwing huge sums of cash and development hours at Android, Google could have reaped ALL of the revenue benefits of being a partner instead of a competitor.
So they should've put all their eggs in one, however nice, basket?
I still don't see iOS and a Android as true competitors. The two main companies' entire business models are different.
I still don't see iOS and a Android as true competitors.
Just like Chrysler and Ford aren't competitors.
The two main companies' entire business models are different.
One's business model is making money, the other's is making ads; you're right about that.