Google's CEO was sitting on Apple's board, being privy to Apple's plans and products while at the same time planning to compete with their "partner" by producing basically a clone of Apple's work.
So what you are saying is that Apple's board is incompetent, got it. Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering.
Know what, Larry? Users don't actually give a shit. All these company-driven declarations about what you *think* users really want, are just that: company-driven propaganda.
THE PROOF IS IN THE PRODUCT. Apple products = insane demand, lineups, and the hunger for more. WITH or WITHOUT Google Maps and Streetview.
Make Android suck a little less on tablets, and then *maybe* you can talk about what users actually want, you imbecile.
I always thought competition was *Good* for the consumers? Maybe Mr Page would prefer a monopoly or a cartel? That would definitely help...... someone !!
maybe , now that Eric isnt a trojan horse on the board anymore, they cant "predict" what the next big thing is and are hoping a chance to glance over the shoulder at someone else's answer sheet... coggers (yes thats a legit expression in Ireland)
I was always wondering why Eric S. was left to sit on Apple's board for such a long time after Android came out. Does anyone know? Why was he not booted immediately?
FFS, quit whining Larry and instead tell us your complete plan for making everything better.
If your curious about the answer, listen to the interview, or read the synopsis over at Fortune. This was just the smallest and least important "click-bait" snippet from it.
An oft-repeated claim that doesn't even make sense.
First off, Jobs _NEVER_ accused Schmidt of stealing anything from board meetings. He only went "thermonuclear" three years after the iPhone debut, when Google finally turned on multi-touch. At that point, Jobs called Google copiers... as if Apple had invented multi-touch, which they did not.
Google bought Android back in mid-2005. Suddenly Apple became very interested in making a phone as well and started creating the first iPod based UI test mules. A year later, Apple _invites_ Schmidt to their board. Who was spying on whom?
Finally, Schmidt was only in a few months' meetings (at which we don't even know if he was shown anything... heck, Apple didn't even show the iPhone to the CEO of Cingular until late December 2006) before the iPhone debut in 2007. After that, anyone could copy it. You sure didn't need someone invited to the Apple board to do that.
It was symbiotic, as Apple needed Google's help. By Nov 2006 the iPhone had no Maps app. It sure didn't have cell location or YouTube, either. They had to rush to add the Maps before the debut two months later, and that only happened because Google bent over backwards to help them. No doubt Schmidt helped. Can you imagine the debut without Maps? It was a major feature. So was YouTube and location services later that year.
Everyone looks at others' stuff. For example, it took a 7" Samsung tablet to convince Apple and Jobs to do the iPad Mini.
Wow, I'm surprised you could fit so many misrepresentations of facts into a single post. It's a nice little fairy tale you present, but...
First off, you are just making this part up. It's a nice little tale you are telling, but, frankly, I don't think you are in a position to have this knowledge. I doubt very much that Jobs was fine with Android until they turned on multitouch, and your little tale contradicts what I have heard. But, at least I'm not pretending I have the inside story. Please don't make stuff up and pass it off as facts. We already have another poster here who does that and we don't need another.
The "Android" Google bought in 2005 bears no resemblance to the Android we know today. The only thing they have in common is the name. So, this other OS called "Android", that Google bought in 2005, is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I'm sure you know that, but thought that you could get away with saying it anyway. You didn't. So give up that story too.
Since this part of your fiction depends on the first, we'll just dismiss it as part of the tale.
This next paragraph is perhaps the most entertaining, a beautiful little "just so" story. But, the idea that Google did the heavy lifting so the iPhone could be born is beyond ludicrous. There would have been an iPhone even if Google had never existed. Google's only involvement was to steal everything they could from it. So enough of this fantasy as well.
Lastly, "Everyone looks at others' stuff" != "Everyone steals others' stuff". And, yes, you were certainly attempting to promote that equivalence. You failed, miserably.
If you're going to post here, try to be a little more honest, less disingenuous, than your posts to date. As I said above, we already have more than enough people coming here to spin fictitious versions of reality. We don't need any more of that.
I was always wondering why Eric S. was left to sit on Apple's board for such a long time after Android came out. Does anyone know? Why was he not booted immediately?
Knowing nothing about boards of directors as I do, I imagine it's something to do with an equivalent of tenure or simply a contract with a set term or something.
An oft-repeated claim that doesn't even make sense.
First off, Jobs _NEVER_ accused Schmidt of stealing anything from board meetings. He only went "thermonuclear" three years after the iPhone debut, when Google finally turned on multi-touch. At that point, Jobs called Google copiers... as if Apple had invented multi-touch, which they did not.
Google bought Android back in mid-2005. Suddenly Apple became very interested in making a phone as well and started creating the first iPod based UI test mules. A year later, Apple _invites_ Schmidt to their board. Who was spying on whom?
Finally, Schmidt was only in a few months' meetings (at which we don't even know if he was shown anything... heck, Apple didn't even show the iPhone to the CEO of Cingular until late December 2006) before the iPhone debut in 2007. After that, anyone could copy it. You sure didn't need someone invited to the Apple board to do that.
from Wired: It began back in 2002, soon after the iPod, when Jobs realized that the convergence of mobile phones and music players would force Apple to get into the mobile phone business.
yes, they would show a third party an internal device before they show the Board. I don't know if you know anything about Boards, but they are involved at a high level at what the business goals are. I assume an iPhone fitted that criteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
It was symbiotic, as Apple needed Google's help. By Nov 2006 the iPhone had no Maps app. It sure didn't have cell location or YouTube, either. They had to rush to add the Maps before the debut two months later, and that only happened because Google bent over backwards to help them. No doubt Schmidt helped. Can you imagine the debut without Maps? It was a major feature. So was YouTube and location services later that year.
can you imagine it without Maps? i know ,so tragic because other phones had maps at the time, what no?
and now that it is being exorcised from iOS, it's whining about it too.
This!
Google is ad based so its giving away software and dumping hardware at cost. They are market destroyers, if you let them be they will bankupt the entire tech industry. In fact it may be already too late. And google is the ultimate big brother, its spies on everything you do from emails to web searches to GPS location.
"That's something I try not to do," Page said. "I don't try to rally my company in that way because I think that if you're looking at somebody else, you're looking at what they do now, and that's not how again you stay two or three steps ahead."
If your curious about the answer, listen to the interview, or read the synopsis over at Fortune. This was just the smallest and least important "click-bait" snippet from it.
I really don't see anything more in here [your link] than above about how he plans to make things better between the companies.
Saying this, "We thought that the mobile experiences really needed a rethink, right? That was correct. It's been very successful.", makes me feel he is just goading Apple to respond.
Nah... Larry is just whining with no real solutions for the real world... he doesn't really want to get along, unless he's in complete control, of course.
[I actually see twinges of megalomania in that conversation]
and now that it is being exorcised from iOS, it's whining about it too.
Pretty much.
I love some of google services, mainly because its usually the best "free" option in most cases. But there's nothing "friendly" about the way the do business.
Really? Larry thinks that Amazon is a technology company? Wall Street seems to think it's a retail company. That's why Amazon's P/E is so big. Wall Street understands retail. Technology not so much.
Comments
FFS, quit whining Larry and instead tell us your complete plan for making everything better.
... and I don't want to hear any shit where Google is the victim in all of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63
Google's CEO was sitting on Apple's board, being privy to Apple's plans and products while at the same time planning to compete with their "partner" by producing basically a clone of Apple's work.
So what you are saying is that Apple's board is incompetent, got it. Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering.
Yet users keep wanting more Apple gear.
Know what, Larry? Users don't actually give a shit. All these company-driven declarations about what you *think* users really want, are just that: company-driven propaganda.
THE PROOF IS IN THE PRODUCT. Apple products = insane demand, lineups, and the hunger for more. WITH or WITHOUT Google Maps and Streetview.
Make Android suck a little less on tablets, and then *maybe* you can talk about what users actually want, you imbecile.
I always thought competition was *Good* for the consumers? Maybe Mr Page would prefer a monopoly or a cartel? That would definitely help...... someone !!
maybe , now that Eric isnt a trojan horse on the board anymore, they cant "predict" what the next big thing is and are hoping a chance to glance over the shoulder at someone else's answer sheet... coggers (yes thats a legit expression in Ireland)
Google's basic business plan is:
1. rip off/scrape everybody else's stuff.
2. slap ads on it.
3. then give it all away for "free" to anyone.
4. then data mine everyone that takes any of it.
5. and sell them to advertisers.
but let's all be friends!
seriously, Google IS evil.
and now that it is being exorcised from iOS, it's whining about it too.
I was always wondering why Eric S. was left to sit on Apple's board for such a long time after Android came out. Does anyone know? Why was he not booted immediately?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoda
Could this guy be a bigger putz? I'm sure these multi billion dollar companies always have the user in mind first.... what a crock of shit.
That's why he is known as "Larry, the Rat." Looks like one, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
FFS, quit whining Larry and instead tell us your complete plan for making everything better.
If your curious about the answer, listen to the interview, or read the synopsis over at Fortune. This was just the smallest and least important "click-bait" snippet from it.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/12/11/larry-page/
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
An oft-repeated claim that doesn't even make sense.
First off, Jobs _NEVER_ accused Schmidt of stealing anything from board meetings. He only went "thermonuclear" three years after the iPhone debut, when Google finally turned on multi-touch. At that point, Jobs called Google copiers... as if Apple had invented multi-touch, which they did not.
Google bought Android back in mid-2005. Suddenly Apple became very interested in making a phone as well and started creating the first iPod based UI test mules. A year later, Apple _invites_ Schmidt to their board. Who was spying on whom?
Finally, Schmidt was only in a few months' meetings (at which we don't even know if he was shown anything... heck, Apple didn't even show the iPhone to the CEO of Cingular until late December 2006) before the iPhone debut in 2007. After that, anyone could copy it. You sure didn't need someone invited to the Apple board to do that.
It was symbiotic, as Apple needed Google's help. By Nov 2006 the iPhone had no Maps app. It sure didn't have cell location or YouTube, either. They had to rush to add the Maps before the debut two months later, and that only happened because Google bent over backwards to help them. No doubt Schmidt helped. Can you imagine the debut without Maps? It was a major feature. So was YouTube and location services later that year.
Everyone looks at others' stuff. For example, it took a 7" Samsung tablet to convince Apple and Jobs to do the iPad Mini.
Wow, I'm surprised you could fit so many misrepresentations of facts into a single post. It's a nice little fairy tale you present, but...
First off, you are just making this part up. It's a nice little tale you are telling, but, frankly, I don't think you are in a position to have this knowledge. I doubt very much that Jobs was fine with Android until they turned on multitouch, and your little tale contradicts what I have heard. But, at least I'm not pretending I have the inside story. Please don't make stuff up and pass it off as facts. We already have another poster here who does that and we don't need another.
The "Android" Google bought in 2005 bears no resemblance to the Android we know today. The only thing they have in common is the name. So, this other OS called "Android", that Google bought in 2005, is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I'm sure you know that, but thought that you could get away with saying it anyway. You didn't. So give up that story too.
Since this part of your fiction depends on the first, we'll just dismiss it as part of the tale.
This next paragraph is perhaps the most entertaining, a beautiful little "just so" story. But, the idea that Google did the heavy lifting so the iPhone could be born is beyond ludicrous. There would have been an iPhone even if Google had never existed. Google's only involvement was to steal everything they could from it. So enough of this fantasy as well.
Lastly, "Everyone looks at others' stuff" != "Everyone steals others' stuff". And, yes, you were certainly attempting to promote that equivalence. You failed, miserably.
If you're going to post here, try to be a little more honest, less disingenuous, than your posts to date. As I said above, we already have more than enough people coming here to spin fictitious versions of reality. We don't need any more of that.
Originally Posted by dillio
I was always wondering why Eric S. was left to sit on Apple's board for such a long time after Android came out. Does anyone know? Why was he not booted immediately?
Knowing nothing about boards of directors as I do, I imagine it's something to do with an equivalent of tenure or simply a contract with a set term or something.
Yeah OK! Google! Just let everyone put ads across all your services for FREE, otherwise, you are hurting the users!
Oh, Larry... You are such a cut-up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
An oft-repeated claim that doesn't even make sense.
First off, Jobs _NEVER_ accused Schmidt of stealing anything from board meetings. He only went "thermonuclear" three years after the iPhone debut, when Google finally turned on multi-touch. At that point, Jobs called Google copiers... as if Apple had invented multi-touch, which they did not.
Google bought Android back in mid-2005. Suddenly Apple became very interested in making a phone as well and started creating the first iPod based UI test mules. A year later, Apple _invites_ Schmidt to their board. Who was spying on whom?
Finally, Schmidt was only in a few months' meetings (at which we don't even know if he was shown anything... heck, Apple didn't even show the iPhone to the CEO of Cingular until late December 2006) before the iPhone debut in 2007. After that, anyone could copy it. You sure didn't need someone invited to the Apple board to do that.
from Wired: It began back in 2002, soon after the iPod, when Jobs realized that the convergence of mobile phones and music players would force Apple to get into the mobile phone business.
yes, they would show a third party an internal device before they show the Board. I don't know if you know anything about Boards, but they are involved at a high level at what the business goals are. I assume an iPhone fitted that criteria.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
It was symbiotic, as Apple needed Google's help. By Nov 2006 the iPhone had no Maps app. It sure didn't have cell location or YouTube, either. They had to rush to add the Maps before the debut two months later, and that only happened because Google bent over backwards to help them. No doubt Schmidt helped. Can you imagine the debut without Maps? It was a major feature. So was YouTube and location services later that year.
can you imagine it without Maps? i know ,so tragic because other phones had maps at the time, what no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr
Google's basic business plan is:
1. rip off/scrape everybody else's stuff.
2. slap ads on it.
3. then give it all away for "free" to anyone.
4. then data mine everyone that takes any of it.
5. and sell them to advertisers.
but let's all be friends!
seriously, Google IS evil.
and now that it is being exorcised from iOS, it's whining about it too.
This!
Google is ad based so its giving away software and dumping hardware at cost. They are market destroyers, if you let them be they will bankupt the entire tech industry. In fact it may be already too late. And google is the ultimate big brother, its spies on everything you do from emails to web searches to GPS location.
"That's something I try not to do," Page said. "I don't try to rally my company in that way because I think that if you're looking at somebody else, you're looking at what they do now, and that's not how again you stay two or three steps ahead."
I think Page missed Google I/O 2010.
Originally Posted by Steven N.
…I think that if you're looking at somebody else…
Hypocrisy in its purest form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr
Google's basic business plan is:
1. rip off/scrape everybody else's stuff.
2. slap ads on it.
3. then give it all away for "free" to anyone.
4. then data mine everyone that takes any of it.
5. and sell them to advertisers.
but let's all be friends!
seriously, Google IS evil.
and now that it is being exorcised from iOS, it's whining about it too.
I just exorcised from iOS Google Search...I'm trying DuckDuckgo App and changed the default Search engine to Bing. F Google!
I don't like anything MS on my devices but I prefer MS to Google for some reason right now!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
If your curious about the answer, listen to the interview, or read the synopsis over at Fortune. This was just the smallest and least important "click-bait" snippet from it.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/12/11/larry-page/
I really don't see anything more in here [your link] than above about how he plans to make things better between the companies.
Saying this, "We thought that the mobile experiences really needed a rethink, right? That was correct. It's been very successful.", makes me feel he is just goading Apple to respond.
Nah... Larry is just whining with no real solutions for the real world... he doesn't really want to get along, unless he's in complete control, of course.
[I actually see twinges of megalomania in that conversation]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr
Google's basic business plan is:
1. rip off/scrape everybody else's stuff.
2. slap ads on it.
3. then give it all away for "free" to anyone.
4. then data mine everyone that takes any of it.
5. and sell them to advertisers.
but let's all be friends!
seriously, Google IS evil.
and now that it is being exorcised from iOS, it's whining about it too.
Pretty much.
I love some of google services, mainly because its usually the best "free" option in most cases. But there's nothing "friendly" about the way the do business.
Really? Larry thinks that Amazon is a technology company?
Wall Street seems to think it's a retail company. That's why Amazon's P/E is so big.
Wall Street understands retail. Technology not so much.