When I first read the article, I immediately thought that Schmidt definitely had a heads-up on on the iPhone and ran with it. I suppose only Schmidt and Jobs are the only ones that really knew what happened and with Jobs no longer in the picture, Schmidt doesn't have anyone really that can challenge him on stealing Apple's phone idea.
I do agree that it was the Android development team that just couldn't step-up to the challenge. As much as Android has improved since v1.0, it's still a big steaming pile of waste.
Levinson himself would have been in a perfect position to know whether Schmidt and by extension Google was "stealing" from Apple, would he not? I don't believe it was until after Steve Jobs famous "Android is stolen" outburst (according to rumor) that Levinson resigned from Google's BOD. He served on both boards until the end of 2009.
Levinson himself would have been in a perfect position to know whether Schmidt and by extension Google was "stealing" from Apple, would he not? I don't believe it was until after Steve Jobs famous "Android is stolen" outburst (according to rumor) that Levinson resigned from Google's BOD. He served on both boards until the end of 2009.
Not sure if Levinson resigned because of the Schmidt-Jobs spat, or because of the FTC investigation. Sharing directors between two competing companies can be construed as anti-competitive. In fact, I'd venture to say the FTC concern was likely the real cause for Levinson's resignation, given that Al Gore had and has ties to both companies.
I'd seen the same supposition before. That could well be the biggest reason for the resignation at that point in time. I believe there was a couple of reports then regarding FTC concern over Schmidt and Levinson serving at both Apple and Google, with the FTC considering it anticompetitive behavior.
Levinson himself would have been in a perfect position to know whether Schmidt and by extension Google was "stealing" from Apple, would he not? I don't believe it was until after Steve Jobs famous "Android is stolen" outburst (according to rumor) that Levinson resigned from Google's BOD. He served on both boards until the end of 2009.
I don't think anyone will really spill the beans on this. Schmidt was really in the cahoot with Paige and Brin. Maybe he kept it as water-cooler talk with them, and didn't include Google's BOD on it. Perhaps Paige and Brin kept it as a quiet project (one of many) that they work on and decided the time was right?
It just seems that as more news like this comes out, it's hard to not point a finger at Schimdt and say "Yeah, he got caught".
It would make for interesting conspiracy theories.
Apple's BOD have knowledge of products but not necessarily how they are built. We know Schmidt took ideas to Google. It was up to Google's programmers and designers to act on those ideas. Your statement actually shows how technically deficient Google employees are not whether Schmidt stole anything.
Exactly right.
Google were going down the Blackberry clone route when they suddenly changed direction.
Because google could not replicate, what took Apple years to design and engineer is obvious.
Only now is android becoming acceptable as an OS, but it must use higher spec'ed hardware and even then falls short of iOS.
I don't think anyone will really spill the beans on this. Schmidt was really in the cahoot with Paige and Brin. Maybe he kept it as water-cooler talk with them, and didn't include Google's BOD on it. Perhaps Paige and Brin kept it as a quiet project (one of many) that they work on and decided the time was right?
Yes, that must be it. Unless Levinson was really the mole. . .
For Apple, the board needed to see the iPhone. It was a huge and material shift to the business, it would require substantial R&D expenses, it would have a major impact on an existing product line, and it would require substantial corporate ties to other businesses for a long-term. For most things, I would think of it as more of a courtesy than anything else, to show where progress is going.
The CEO gets all the details, but the board has to have enough to know that money isn't being thrown down the drain.
I don't think anyone will really spill the beans on this. Schmidt was really in the cahoot with Paige and Brin. Maybe he kept it as water-cooler talk with them, and didn't include Google's BOD on it. Perhaps Paige and Brin kept it as a quiet project (one of many) that they work on and decided the time was right?
When Google added touch response to Android, it was added on top, rather than as part of the kernel. This is why the lag was rather noticeable. Only in recent versions of Android phones has this lag become unnoticeable (faster hardware or they've finally integrated touch to the kernel; likely the former). This suggests that touch was added as an after thought (rather than something incubated and properly developed until time was right). Furthermore, you can't keep UI (including touch) development as a separate project from an OS that is in development. Finally, Brin and Page, while brilliant computer scientists, are not OS developers, AFAIK. So they wouldn't have directly run a side-project in parallel with (but kept a secret from) Andy Rubin's Android.
My first point also suggests that if Schmidt had indeed passed on secrets about touch to the Android development team, it would have been better integrated from the get-go. Timing and performance suggest that the Android team slapped it on after seeing the first iPhone in action. But I'm purely conjecturing, and I must admit that it would have been unlikely for Schmidt to learn about iOS being all touchy-feely and not passing it on.
Regardless, this is moot. I am 100% certain that Android (and all mobile OSes) would have adopted touch sooner or later. There was no way Apple could have monopolized this regardless of their IP portfolio because of availability of significant prior art (and please don't trot out old products because prior art doesn't have to be shipped products).
Schmidt didn't sneak onto the Apple board. Steve Jobs, knowing that Google was working on Android, invited Schmidt onto the Apple board. Unless you think Jobs was an utter idiot, it's clear that Jobs had some ulterior motive for doing so at that time. Perhaps to find out what Android was doing. Perhaps to pressure Schmidt to stay out of the phone business. In any case, Jobs himself NEVER accused Schmidt of stealing iPhone info while on the board.
More importantly, Apple needed Google's cooperation with APIs to make the iPhone a success. Imagine Apple selling the first iPhone without Google Search, Google Maps, and later, YouTube videos, and Google cell tower locating to make up for the lack of GPS.
Schmidt wasn't even invited onto the Apple board until mid 2006, and didn't begin serving until just a couple of months before the iPhone was shown to everyone on the planet. He had no need to use inside info to be able to come out with Android almost two years later..
Schmidt has said that he walled himself off from the Android project while he was on the Apple BOD. Andy Rubin has complained that this was one of the reasons why Android took so long to finish... he had no access to his main supporter at Google.
Android was clearly intended to compete with Windows Mobile, not Blackberry. Heck, the non-touch development device was a variation of a known Windows Mobile phone. No one at that time thought they could compete with RIM in the enterprise. On other other hand, Google needed a way to keep Bing from becoming the primary mobile search engine.
Windows Mobile came in two flavors: non-touch and touch. That's why Android was intended to support both methods as well.
The lag in early versions had nothing to do with adding touch. It was mostly about the way that the Android designers had enabled cross-window access (which is important for things like widgets).
Schmidt wasn't even invited onto the Apple board until mid 2006, and didn't begin serving until just a couple of months before the iPhone was shown to everyone on the planet. He had no need to use inside info to be able to come out with Android almost two years later..
Good point.
Originally Posted by KDarling
Some points:
The lag in early versions had nothing to do with adding touch. It was mostly about the way that the Android designers had enabled cross-window access (which is important for things like widgets).
One doesn't negate the other. I was referring specifically to UI response to touch. There were other factors, but this lag was indeed in large part due to priority of UI handling. If it was handled at the kernel level like iOS, we'd have seen real time response on day 1 (or rather day 2). This difference between Android and iOS is still visible in how the two OSes handle touch but it's not a visible lag anymore on Android.
Originally Posted by KDarling
Android was clearly intended to compete with Windows Mobile, not Blackberry. Heck, the non-touch development device was a variation of a known Windows Mobile phone. No one at that time thought they could compete with RIM in the enterprise. On other other hand, Google needed a way to keep Bing from becoming the primary mobile search engine.
Was Android equipped to challenge RIM on day one? No. But clearly intended not to? I don't know how you could be so sure unless you sat in on strategic planning meetings at Google. If you did, I'd love to hear more! I do agree that Google's goal/concern was to prevent Bing from taking over.
<span style="line-height:1.231;">Schmidt didn't sneak onto the Apple board. Steve Jobs, knowing that Google was working on Android,</span>
<em style="line-height:1.231;">invited</em>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">Schmidt onto the Apple board. Unless you think Jobs was an utter idiot, it's clear that Jobs had some ulterior motive for doing so at that time. Perhaps to find out what Android was doing. Perhaps to pressure Schmidt to stay out of the phone business. In any case, Jobs himself NEVER accused Schmidt of stealing iPhone info while on the board. </span>
Why must you always make so many shady comments? You know damn they said it was software for mobile devices and Android wasn't revealed to be a mobile OS until long after Schmidt was on the Apple board.
PS: I'm getting sick of cleaning up certain posters shitty markup. I wish AI would set the forum to BB code.
Why must you always make so many shady comments? You know damn they said it was software for mobile devices and Android wasn't revealed to be a mobile OS until long after Schmidt was on the Apple board.
Wow. Are you as rude in person as well, or only when you can hide behind the internet?
Read again. I said, "Perhaps to find out what Android was doing. Perhaps to pressure Schmidt to stay out of the phone business." I didn't say everyone knew it was a mobile OS. Even if it was just radical mobile search and interaction software, it could have a huge effect on Jobs' project.
However, certainly those of us in the wireless mobile field figured they had an OS in the works. It made no sense for the same developers who had created Danger Inc and the Sidekick, to suddenly drop years of work and interest in making a phone OS.
Heck, some of us at first thought that they were creating an alternate OS that could actually be installed in place of Windows Mobile on then current handsets. No need to buy anything new.
Wow. Are you as rude in person as well, or only when you can hide behind the internet?
<span style="line-height:1.231;">Read again. I said, "</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;background-color:rgb(241,241,241);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Perhaps to find out what Android was doing. Perhaps to pressure Schmidt to stay out of the phone business." </span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;"> I didn't say everyone knew it was a mobile OS. Even if it was just radical mobile search and interaction software, it could have a huge effect on Jobs' project.</span>
However, <span style="line-height:1.231;">c</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">ertainly t</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">hose of us in the wireless mobile field figured they had an OS in the works. It made no sense for </span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">the same developers who had created Danger Inc and the Sidekick, to suddenly drop years of work and interest in making a phone OS. </span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Heck, some of us at first thought that they were creating an alternate OS that could actually be installed in place of Windows Mobile on then current handsets. No need to buy anything new.</span>
1) Only "rude" to people that can't be straightforward or honest.
2) You can say that you "knew" back in 2005 that Android was going to be an OS despite word to the contrary but it's doubtful you did anything more than make an off the cuff comment or wish they would make a modern OS. Let's remember that they were broke from Android when Google bought them and Danger was a failure.
3) Let's also remember Google buys of lot companies, had never before built an OS, and that any trusted board member that feel there is a conflict-of-interest are required to recuse themselves from meetings. This is likely where Steve took issue with Schimdt. Principles and ethics, not something that can easily be proven, but a breach of trust nonetheless.
TMI, especially from a board member. I don't need to know this information and board members should be keeping this information secret. Of course, this now makes sense why Google got such a big step with mobile devices and why Steve Jobs was so mad. They had a year to work things out before everybody else found out about the iPhone.
We will never know the actual circumstances that led to Google's development of Android as the mobile OS it is today. Apple would have had imitators sooner or later regardless. As long as iOS continues to improve and add value to beautiful hardware, they will do fine. The only way to compete with free is to produce superior products that people will actually want, not settle for. Apple continues to excel in this area.
Considering what a perfectionist he was, I wonder when Jobs showed the iPhone to the Apple directors.
It seems likely that he didn't show them before about Nov-Dec 2006, which would be seven or eight months before product sales launch. Let's work backwards:
Jun 2007 - launch
Jan 2007 - first public display
Dec 2007 - first viewing by Cingular's CEO
Quote:
During a visit to Las Vegas last December for a rodeo event, Cingular Wireless chief executive Stan Sigman received a welcome guest: Steve Jobs.
The Apple Inc. chief stopped by Mr. Sigman's Four Seasons hotel suite to show off the iPhone, a sleek cellphone designed to surf the Web and double as an iPod music player.
The phone had been in development by Apple and Cingular for two years and was weeks away from being revealed to the world. And yet this was the first time Mr. Sigman got to see it.
- WSJ, Feb 2007
Nov 2007 - work begins on integrating Google Maps
Fall 2007 - (Sep,Oct,Nov) Jobs is not happy with development progress:
Quote:
It was a late morning in the fall of 2006. Almost a year earlier, Steve Jobs had tasked about 200 of Apple's top engineers with creating the iPhone. Yet here, in Apple's boardroom, it was clear that the prototype was still a disaster. It wasn't just buggy, it flat-out didn't work. The phone dropped calls constantly, the battery stopped charging before it was full, data and applications routinely became corrupted and unusable. The list of problems seemed endless. At the end of the demo, Jobs fixed the dozen or so people in the room with a level stare and said, "We don't have a product yet."
The effect was even more terrifying than one of Jobs' trademark tantrums. When the Apple chief screamed at his staff, it was scary but familiar. This time, his relative calm was unnerving. "It was one of the few times at Apple when I got a chill," says someone who was in the meeting.
The ramifications were serious. The iPhone was to be the centerpiece of Apple's annual Macworld convention, set to take place in just a few months.
My guess is that he would not have shown the board until it was a reliably working device.
Considering he didn't even show the Cingular (AT&T) CEO until December, not long after getting Maps, it would seem likely that was also about the time that it was working well enough to demo to the Board...although still almost a half year away from mass production.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010
... and there is demand for an "open" platform that Google could control.
A bit of an oxymoron there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
When I first read the article, I immediately thought that Schmidt definitely had a heads-up on on the iPhone and ran with it. I suppose only Schmidt and Jobs are the only ones that really knew what happened and with Jobs no longer in the picture, Schmidt doesn't have anyone really that can challenge him on stealing Apple's phone idea.
I do agree that it was the Android development team that just couldn't step-up to the challenge. As much as Android has improved since v1.0, it's still a big steaming pile of waste.
Levinson himself would have been in a perfect position to know whether Schmidt and by extension Google was "stealing" from Apple, would he not? I don't believe it was until after Steve Jobs famous "Android is stolen" outburst (according to rumor) that Levinson resigned from Google's BOD. He served on both boards until the end of 2009.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Levinson himself would have been in a perfect position to know whether Schmidt and by extension Google was "stealing" from Apple, would he not? I don't believe it was until after Steve Jobs famous "Android is stolen" outburst (according to rumor) that Levinson resigned from Google's BOD. He served on both boards until the end of 2009.
Not sure if Levinson resigned because of the Schmidt-Jobs spat, or because of the FTC investigation. Sharing directors between two competing companies can be construed as anti-competitive. In fact, I'd venture to say the FTC concern was likely the real cause for Levinson's resignation, given that Al Gore had and has ties to both companies.
I'd seen the same supposition before. That could well be the biggest reason for the resignation at that point in time. I believe there was a couple of reports then regarding FTC concern over Schmidt and Levinson serving at both Apple and Google, with the FTC considering it anticompetitive behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Levinson himself would have been in a perfect position to know whether Schmidt and by extension Google was "stealing" from Apple, would he not? I don't believe it was until after Steve Jobs famous "Android is stolen" outburst (according to rumor) that Levinson resigned from Google's BOD. He served on both boards until the end of 2009.
I don't think anyone will really spill the beans on this. Schmidt was really in the cahoot with Paige and Brin. Maybe he kept it as water-cooler talk with them, and didn't include Google's BOD on it. Perhaps Paige and Brin kept it as a quiet project (one of many) that they work on and decided the time was right?
It just seems that as more news like this comes out, it's hard to not point a finger at Schimdt and say "Yeah, he got caught".
It would make for interesting conspiracy theories.
Google were going down the Blackberry clone route when they suddenly changed direction.
Because google could not replicate, what took Apple years to design and engineer is obvious.
Only now is android becoming acceptable as an OS, but it must use higher spec'ed hardware and even then falls short of iOS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
I don't think anyone will really spill the beans on this. Schmidt was really in the cahoot with Paige and Brin. Maybe he kept it as water-cooler talk with them, and didn't include Google's BOD on it. Perhaps Paige and Brin kept it as a quiet project (one of many) that they work on and decided the time was right?
Yes, that must be it. Unless Levinson was really the mole. . .
Time to "fire" Arthur D. Levinson... Loose lips sink ships.
seriously.... is there any surprise here?
or maybe people post comments here have zero experience in the runnings of a normal company?
if i was a board member of a company and *wasn't* informed about developing products, i'd be pretty nervous/annoyed/suspicious
It's the board's duty to give input and know what the company is doing, especially at something the size of Apple.
Why do people think that products are developed in the weeks before its launch??
Parts of a company this size are working on items that will be released in years, and some that will never see the light of day.
Probably working on iOS 8 and OS X 10.10 right now.
Come on guys, a pinch of common sense here !
Next Story: Large Company X has a Management Structure with employees actually reporting to their Manager !!!
The CEO gets all the details, but the board has to have enough to know that money isn't being thrown down the drain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
I don't think anyone will really spill the beans on this. Schmidt was really in the cahoot with Paige and Brin. Maybe he kept it as water-cooler talk with them, and didn't include Google's BOD on it. Perhaps Paige and Brin kept it as a quiet project (one of many) that they work on and decided the time was right?
When Google added touch response to Android, it was added on top, rather than as part of the kernel. This is why the lag was rather noticeable. Only in recent versions of Android phones has this lag become unnoticeable (faster hardware or they've finally integrated touch to the kernel; likely the former). This suggests that touch was added as an after thought (rather than something incubated and properly developed until time was right). Furthermore, you can't keep UI (including touch) development as a separate project from an OS that is in development. Finally, Brin and Page, while brilliant computer scientists, are not OS developers, AFAIK. So they wouldn't have directly run a side-project in parallel with (but kept a secret from) Andy Rubin's Android.
My first point also suggests that if Schmidt had indeed passed on secrets about touch to the Android development team, it would have been better integrated from the get-go. Timing and performance suggest that the Android team slapped it on after seeing the first iPhone in action. But I'm purely conjecturing, and I must admit that it would have been unlikely for Schmidt to learn about iOS being all touchy-feely and not passing it on.
Regardless, this is moot. I am 100% certain that Android (and all mobile OSes) would have adopted touch sooner or later. There was no way Apple could have monopolized this regardless of their IP portfolio because of availability of significant prior art (and please don't trot out old products because prior art doesn't have to be shipped products).
Some points:
Schmidt didn't sneak onto the Apple board. Steve Jobs, knowing that Google was working on Android, invited Schmidt onto the Apple board. Unless you think Jobs was an utter idiot, it's clear that Jobs had some ulterior motive for doing so at that time. Perhaps to find out what Android was doing. Perhaps to pressure Schmidt to stay out of the phone business. In any case, Jobs himself NEVER accused Schmidt of stealing iPhone info while on the board.
More importantly, Apple needed Google's cooperation with APIs to make the iPhone a success. Imagine Apple selling the first iPhone without Google Search, Google Maps, and later, YouTube videos, and Google cell tower locating to make up for the lack of GPS.
Schmidt wasn't even invited onto the Apple board until mid 2006, and didn't begin serving until just a couple of months before the iPhone was shown to everyone on the planet. He had no need to use inside info to be able to come out with Android almost two years later..
Schmidt has said that he walled himself off from the Android project while he was on the Apple BOD. Andy Rubin has complained that this was one of the reasons why Android took so long to finish... he had no access to his main supporter at Google.
Android was clearly intended to compete with Windows Mobile, not Blackberry. Heck, the non-touch development device was a variation of a known Windows Mobile phone. No one at that time thought they could compete with RIM in the enterprise. On other other hand, Google needed a way to keep Bing from becoming the primary mobile search engine.
Windows Mobile came in two flavors: non-touch and touch. That's why Android was intended to support both methods as well.
The lag in early versions had nothing to do with adding touch. It was mostly about the way that the Android designers had enabled cross-window access (which is important for things like widgets).
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Some points:
Schmidt wasn't even invited onto the Apple board until mid 2006, and didn't begin serving until just a couple of months before the iPhone was shown to everyone on the planet. He had no need to use inside info to be able to come out with Android almost two years later..
Good point.
Originally Posted by KDarling
Some points:
The lag in early versions had nothing to do with adding touch. It was mostly about the way that the Android designers had enabled cross-window access (which is important for things like widgets).
One doesn't negate the other. I was referring specifically to UI response to touch. There were other factors, but this lag was indeed in large part due to priority of UI handling. If it was handled at the kernel level like iOS, we'd have seen real time response on day 1 (or rather day 2). This difference between Android and iOS is still visible in how the two OSes handle touch but it's not a visible lag anymore on Android.
Originally Posted by KDarling
Android was clearly intended to compete with Windows Mobile, not Blackberry. Heck, the non-touch development device was a variation of a known Windows Mobile phone. No one at that time thought they could compete with RIM in the enterprise. On other other hand, Google needed a way to keep Bing from becoming the primary mobile search engine.
Was Android equipped to challenge RIM on day one? No. But clearly intended not to? I don't know how you could be so sure unless you sat in on strategic planning meetings at Google. If you did, I'd love to hear more! I do agree that Google's goal/concern was to prevent Bing from taking over.
Why must you always make so many shady comments? You know damn they said it was software for mobile devices and Android wasn't revealed to be a mobile OS until long after Schmidt was on the Apple board.
PS: I'm getting sick of cleaning up certain posters shitty markup. I wish AI would set the forum to BB code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Why must you always make so many shady comments? You know damn they said it was software for mobile devices and Android wasn't revealed to be a mobile OS until long after Schmidt was on the Apple board.
Wow. Are you as rude in person as well, or only when you can hide behind the internet?
Read again. I said, "Perhaps to find out what Android was doing. Perhaps to pressure Schmidt to stay out of the phone business." I didn't say everyone knew it was a mobile OS. Even if it was just radical mobile search and interaction software, it could have a huge effect on Jobs' project.
However, certainly those of us in the wireless mobile field figured they had an OS in the works. It made no sense for the same developers who had created Danger Inc and the Sidekick, to suddenly drop years of work and interest in making a phone OS.
Heck, some of us at first thought that they were creating an alternate OS that could actually be installed in place of Windows Mobile on then current handsets. No need to buy anything new.
1) Only "rude" to people that can't be straightforward or honest.
2) You can say that you "knew" back in 2005 that Android was going to be an OS despite word to the contrary but it's doubtful you did anything more than make an off the cuff comment or wish they would make a modern OS. Let's remember that they were broke from Android when Google bought them and Danger was a failure.
3) Let's also remember Google buys of lot companies, had never before built an OS, and that any trusted board member that feel there is a conflict-of-interest are required to recuse themselves from meetings. This is likely where Steve took issue with Schimdt. Principles and ethics, not something that can easily be proven, but a breach of trust nonetheless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53
TMI, especially from a board member. I don't need to know this information and board members should be keeping this information secret. Of course, this now makes sense why Google got such a big step with mobile devices and why Steve Jobs was so mad. They had a year to work things out before everybody else found out about the iPhone.
i completly agree with what u have to say
----------------------------------------------------
Loans Against Property
Considering what a perfectionist he was, I wonder when Jobs showed the iPhone to the Apple directors.
It seems likely that he didn't show them before about Nov-Dec 2006, which would be seven or eight months before product sales launch. Let's work backwards:
Jun 2007 - launch
Jan 2007 - first public display
Dec 2007 - first viewing by Cingular's CEO
Quote:
During a visit to Las Vegas last December for a rodeo event, Cingular Wireless chief executive Stan Sigman received a welcome guest: Steve Jobs.
The Apple Inc. chief stopped by Mr. Sigman's Four Seasons hotel suite to show off the iPhone, a sleek cellphone designed to surf the Web and double as an iPod music player.
The phone had been in development by Apple and Cingular for two years and was weeks away from being revealed to the world. And yet this was the first time Mr. Sigman got to see it.
- WSJ, Feb 2007
Nov 2007 - work begins on integrating Google Maps
Fall 2007 - (Sep,Oct,Nov) Jobs is not happy with development progress:
Quote:
It was a late morning in the fall of 2006. Almost a year earlier, Steve Jobs had tasked about 200 of Apple's top engineers with creating the iPhone. Yet here, in Apple's boardroom, it was clear that the prototype was still a disaster. It wasn't just buggy, it flat-out didn't work. The phone dropped calls constantly, the battery stopped charging before it was full, data and applications routinely became corrupted and unusable. The list of problems seemed endless. At the end of the demo, Jobs fixed the dozen or so people in the room with a level stare and said, "We don't have a product yet."
The effect was even more terrifying than one of Jobs' trademark tantrums. When the Apple chief screamed at his staff, it was scary but familiar. This time, his relative calm was unnerving. "It was one of the few times at Apple when I got a chill," says someone who was in the meeting.
The ramifications were serious. The iPhone was to be the centerpiece of Apple's annual Macworld convention, set to take place in just a few months.
- Wired history
My guess is that he would not have shown the board until it was a reliably working device.
Considering he didn't even show the Cingular (AT&T) CEO until December, not long after getting Maps, it would seem likely that was also about the time that it was working well enough to demo to the Board...although still almost a half year away from mass production.