Google's Schmidt says Apple and Android struggle is the 'defining fight in the industry today'

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 155
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,774member
    Maybe he should be ceo of Apple now.
  • Reply 102 of 155


    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

    Maybe he should be ceo of Apple now.


     


    Google's founders wanted Steve Jobs to be their CEO.




    Can you imagine? So that when Steve came back to Apple, he would have been bringing not only the OS to save them, but also the search engine to not only tear down Yahoo!, but become the foundation for what would become Spotlight within OS X itself.


     


    And NONE of this crap would be happening now. "Google" would just be an old name of a product within Apple.


     


    Of course, you'd have to think of the tradeoffs. There'd probably be no self-driving car initiative (the one that has still yet to be released or show anything for), no advertising (so, probably some actual privacy), no… 

  • Reply 103 of 155
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Excellent suggestion! 

    Thanks for noticing my main point! ;-)
  • Reply 104 of 155
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 22,910member


    I nearly always do. You seldom mince words even if you and I don't often agree.

  • Reply 105 of 155
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    These behemoths end up extinct vis-à-vis MS. Stay stong and carry on.



    You are delusional if you think Microsoft has a chance at the consumer handset market.  MS made its money by having a shitty operating system that was adopted by businesses and needed a team of IT staff to keep it running.  The IT staff and MS are interdependent on each other to ensure their existence in a corporate environment.  I'm confident that business will continue to print money for the foreseeable future. However, MS and the bufoons running that company have zero chance of being a player in the consumer electronics market.  


     


    Here are the reasons: First, Microsoft can't pimp its software because Android is free.  Why would anyone pay for MS software when they can get Android for free?  Secondly, MS can't compete in the hardware business because they don't have consumer electronics distribution channels, they don't have an attractive brand, and they don't have a high volume manufacturing machine in place.


     


    MS is desperately trying both approaches, but they are failing.  They partnered with Nokia, which has manufacturing and distribution channels, but Nokia is on its way down.  If MS wanted to succeed, it should have partnered with a company with growth potential, like Samsung and they should have done it in 2008.  Of course, MS wasn't ready in 2008 (mostly because it didn't have its CEO sitting on the board of Apple to get inside information that could be used to betray apple).  In the market today, companies with growth potential will not use MS software unless it is free like Android.  With regard to the second approach, they are trying to manufacture their own hardware and set up stores, but it is too little too late.  Apple had stores to sell other products like iPods and the accessories that go with them (and their own line of computers).  It was quite easy to add tablets and phones to the existing culture.  In contrast, MS has a chicken vs egg problem.  It can't justify thousands of stores without hundreds of millions in sales, but it can't get hundreds of millions in sales without thousands of stores.  Google on the other hand had a different way to make money off its free OS (i.e., advertising) and it was the first one to partner with companies that had manufacturing and distribution channels (because it had inside knowledge of the Apple products).


     


    Anyone that thinks there is any competition between Apple and Microsoft doesn't understand the current market.    

  • Reply 106 of 155
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by shadash View Post


     


    This has got to be the dumbest question of the whole interview.  There is no way Apple would let this guy near the CEO position.  Not to mention Google already removed Schmidt (supposedly a promotion) as CEO and Apple kicked him off the board.  And Schmidt's response about the "most cash" is really quite a commentary on his leadership of Google vis-a-vis Jobs.  So why would any of those three companies want this joker as CEO?  



    I'm not an expert on Schmidt, but don't you think calling him a "joker" is a bit off the mark.  Steve Balmer is a joke, but what has Schmidt done to deserve to be placed in the same category?  Hasn't Google been successful under Schmidt? The fact that Schmidt was a scoundrel for using his position on the board at Apple to position Google to compete with Apple doesn't make him a joker.  It makes him a dirty SOB.  Nevertheless, it was a shrewd thing to do and hugely benefited Google.  I don't think it disqualifies him for running any those companies.  


     


    In fact, maybe Apple should hire Schmidt.  I'm sure he would have no problem throwing Google under the bus if Apple paid him some money to do it.  Hey, business is business right.

  • Reply 107 of 155
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by reefoid View Post


    Err, maybe because Schmidt did nothing wrong?  Makes me laugh whenever this is brought up.  Please, show me some solid evidence that Schmidt did anything underhand whilst on the Apple board.  And by evidence I don't mean hearsay and the thoughts of paranoid posters on this forum.


     


    People seriously need to stop posting this piece of FUD.



    Despite what many think, circumstantial evidence is admissible in court (see Federal Rules of Evidence section 401).  The circumstantial evidence in this case is reasonably adequate. Android was a blackberry knockoff and then became an iOS knockoff 3 years before the rest of the industry could produce an iOS knockoff.  There is no way Android came to market so fast and so good without working on it prior to the iPhone release.  We're just now seeing MS release a knockoff and RIM won't have their knockoff until next year.  Those three years were absolutely critical. 


     


    The argument that Apple and Google compete in different markets doesn't hold water.  There are many people that would pony up for an iPhone if there weren't a suitable alternative.  The argument that Apple can't meet demand is also baseless.  Apple only fails to make demand at launch.  What about the other 3-12 months of the year.  That is when Apple would have kept selling more devices but for Google.  Apple may have had 60-80% of the market right now, but for Schmidt's breach of fiduciary duty to Apple shareholders.

  • Reply 108 of 155
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    (1) Samsung is the only OEM making money from it. Samsung is the only one benefitting from it.

    (2) So that's why HTC is dying a slow death, selling less and less, making less and less, loosing more and more. Same with Motorola. Same with Sony.

    I understand that right know, Samsung is the only one really copying apple (thanks to their skin), but since all other OEMs are dying and samsung represents the success of android, they must pay for that. Also, not long ago, pretty much any OEMs used a lot of copyrighted UI features, thinking that apple wasn't strong enough to going head on against all of them. XDA roms still show a huge lack of respect for copyrighted/patented UI features. Android is based on lack of respect and crime.

    Google should do something about this. Custom apps should be allowed, skins? No.

    I would really like to play with a Nexus phone.

    Google nor any manufacturer can control what a dev makes their ROM look like. Check out MIUI ROMS, they're made by Chinese devs and looks even more like iOS than Touchwiz did. HTC made the mistake of releasing a very nice phone on Tmobile and releasing crap on ATT and VZW.
  • Reply 109 of 155
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 22,910member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ash471 View Post


    Despite what many think, circumstantial evidence is admissible in court (see Federal Rules of Evidence section 401).  The circumstantial evidence in this case is reasonably adequate. Android was a blackberry knockoff and then became an iOS knockoff 3 years before the rest of the industry could produce an iOS knockoff.  There is no way Android came to market so fast and so good without working on it prior to the iPhone release.  We're just now seeing MS release a knockoff and RIM won't have their knockoff until next year.  Those three years were absolutely critical.



    Ash, do yourself a favor and check when Schmidt became a member of Apple's board and then when the iPhone and it's features were publicly announced by Apple. Then tell me how you arrive at that giving Google a three year head start on MS and Blackberry even if he had an iPhone hidden in his back pocket the first day he walked out of the boardroom at Apple.


     


    (hmmmm... Aug. 29, 2006 to January 7th, 2007 is how long?)

  • Reply 110 of 155
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    ash471 wrote: »
    There is no way Android came to market so fast and so good without working on it prior to the iPhone release.  We're just now seeing MS release a knockoff and RIM won't have their knockoff until next year.  Those three years were absolutely critical.

    iPhone introduced & shown to the world January 2007, for sale June 2007. First Android phone for sale, October 2008. It wasn't that great either. How is getting a touch screen Android out nearly two years later an impossible thing?
  • Reply 111 of 155


    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

    How is getting a touch screen Android out nearly two years later an impossible thing?


     


    Because they're not Apple. That's really part of it.


     


    Look, Google had Android in 2005! They had that stuff, the knockoff of BlackBerryOS, the foundation for the entire phone OS, all the way back then. And they threw all that UI out the door when the iPhone knowledge came to them (however it came). And even then, when the first Android phone went out the door, it didn't have multitouch. It's astonishing how much time seems to have been wasted when you compare it with Apple's development. 


     


    And now it's really just churning out the absolute bare minimum crap possible as fast as humanly possible. And there's penetration; because of perceived price. 

  • Reply 112 of 155
    Get ready for Godwyn:

    I think a lot of hatred leveled at Schmidt, is because of his Germanic last name and uncanny resemblance to the Nazi commandant in Indiana Jones - Raiders of the Lost Ark.

    [IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/14291/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
  • Reply 113 of 155

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by perpetual3 View Post




    Dichotomously polarizing people into two extreme categories, while conceptually convenient, fails to accurately describe reality.  In fact, these kind of statements distort the truth, and historically and philosophically, contribute to the wide scope of problems which characterize the human condition.



     


    The generalization made is not only "conceptually convenient" it's mostly true, it's easy to understand and it gets to the point.


    I get Anan's point...and he also responded with relevant facts/statistics.


    Sometimes, people need to just absorb/understand the point being made (unless it's at the expense of unnecessary hate, violence or oppresion...which it obviously wasn't) instead of taking it personally.

  • Reply 114 of 155
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 22,910member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Because they're not Apple. That's really part of it.


     


    Look, Google had Android in 2005! They had that stuff, the knockoff of BlackBerryOS, the foundation for the entire phone OS, all the way back then. And they threw all that UI out the door when the iPhone knowledge came to them (however it came). And even then, when the first Android phone went out the door, it didn't have multitouch. It's astonishing how much time seems to have been wasted when you compare it with Apple's development. 


     


    And now it's really just churning out the absolute bare minimum crap possible as fast as humanly possible. And there's penetration; because of perceived price. 



    Heck TS, you almost sound as tho you're on the side that Schmidt didn't steal a darn thing from Apple. Three years after the iPhone was announced before Android had multi-touch? Two years after the iPhone before they could even get a smartphone to market at all? Geesh a good thief woulda had better secrets than that. 

  • Reply 115 of 155


    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

    I think a lot of hatred leveled at Schmidt, is because of his Germanic last name and uncanny resemblance to the Nazi commandant in Indiana Jones - Raiders of the Lost Ark.



     


    I'm not really seeing it. You must be crazy.


     






    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

    Geesh a good thief woulda had better secrets than that. 


     


    Thing about copying is that when that's all you know how to do, you can't do very much else very well at all.


     


    Maybe they should have copied the tricks of Daniel Ocean.

  • Reply 116 of 155
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    Get ready for Godwyn:

    I think a lot of hatred leveled at Schmidt, is because of his Germanic last name and uncanny resemblance to the Nazi commandant in Indiana Jones - Raiders of the Lost Ark.

    700

    Maybe, but I think it is because he gnaws the heads off of puppies.
  • Reply 117 of 155
    hftshfts Posts: 386member
    kermitos wrote: »
    So can you tell me what are those programs that installed chrome to you without users authorization?

    None to me, as I steer right away from Google crap, bu thanks for your concern.
    Read post 37, it explains it, come on now, don't be lazy
  • Reply 118 of 155
    hftshfts Posts: 386member
    So much animosity and hate towards this man and Google. This is almost as bad as our political system. Does a certain product that we use define us as a people? Walking around with that white/silver piece of fruit on your phone or laptop garner so much pride and conviction. I appreciate a good product, but at the end of the day its just not as important as you guys make it out to be.
    Apple is great company. Google is also a great company. They are both going to be pushing one another to the benefit of those who care about innovative mobile technology.
    Fan boys of both platforms are so myopic and ridiculous. My belief is that, if one guy enjoys his IPhone, that's great. Then another guy should be able to enjoy his Galaxy Nexus or Galaxy S3 without being looked down upon.
    Come on now! Its not that serious.

    Oh please spare us your drivel. Lumping evil Google with Apple only makes you appear silly. Run along now.
  • Reply 119 of 155
    hftshfts Posts: 386member
    reefoid wrote: »
    Err, maybe because Schmidt did nothing wrong?  Makes me laugh whenever this is brought up.  Please, show me some solid evidence that Schmidt did anything underhand whilst on the Apple board.  And by evidence I don't mean hearsay and the thoughts of paranoid posters on this forum.

    People seriously need to stop posting this piece of FUD.

    I'm so tired of you android supporters asking for proof. When we ask for your proof none is given. I hope you understand now.
  • Reply 120 of 155
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 22,910member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post



    Mr. Schmidt, are you able to differentiate Chrome installations by users that directly downloaded your Chrome package and those installations that were sneakily included in other programs and defaulted to download outside of the user's direct knowledge?

    I've removed Chrome on so many PC's that users had no idea what is was for, and how it got on their machines. I consider Chrome more crapware than software simply because of how devious it gets put on people's computers.

    Shame on Google, andth vendors that included package in their software as a default download.


    I've never seen Chrome bundled with 3rd party software, nor that it's installed without their knowledge, but it's certainly possible someone has. Which software is installing Chrome behind users' backs?. Perhaps you're thinking of that Ask Toolbar, which isn't the easiest thing to get rid of?


     


    EDIT: I just noticed several pages back that you've already had fun with the Ask Toolbar. That's a particularly sneaky install. I've seen it buried a few pages in. The Yahoo Toolbar is another that seems to appear out of nowhere.

Sign In or Register to comment.