This guy's company has the absolute worst track record when it comes to Mac support, and it is an absolute embarrassment that he is still on Apple's board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
It should be a question at a shareholders meeting. I agree it is ludicrous that he hasn't been told to get is company 100% Mac (as in on par with Windows version or better) or leave the board. Heck it should very powerful, be able to use iCloud and be fully integrated on all Apple devices.
Bill Campbell is not the CEO of Intuit anymore. He doesn't tell Intuit what product to develop or improve anymore than he tells Apple.
Occasionally, board members may facilitate collaborations between companies. But, in general, not only do they have no influence over product development, they often don't know about upcoming products until launch date is nigh. Let's face it - in many cases, the board members don't even know the existing products of their companies. Bill Campbell didn't have much influence over product development at Intuit when he was the CEO and certainly has none now.
As for shareholders, while they can ask any questions they want, they do not vote on product development.
It's ludicrous and in fact dumbfounding for people to fail to understand this and make silly suggestions.
Wait, if Steve hired and fired the board, how can they still hire and fire him?
Please learn a little bit about topics before spouting off. The board hires and fires the CEO. The shareholders select the board. The CEO's role in selecting the board is to propose names to the shareholders. See that little thing on your proxy documents every year saying "would you like to vote for xxx for a board position"?
For those bitching about Apple's board members, who cares? Not like these people are included in day to day decisions or product strategy at Apple, they're just there for show or for various other political reasons. They have no management roles and their influence is minimal to non-existent. They don't make product decisions, so I wouldn't worry about it. Its more for investors and shareholders.
There's more than that. It's also very symbolic. Having someone on the board who clearly shows disdain and lack of support for Apple's products is an insult to everyone using those products.
The board also gains inside information to future products that is not public. That can be very important to competitors. Look at what Schmidt did with Android.
FINALLY. I can't believe how far behind they are on this project.
Well, they were going to move some of the hardware team over to the sexbot project, but found out that most of the engineers were still living in their parents' basement and didn't know anything about sex. /s
The board also gains inside information to future products that is not public. That can be very important to competitors. Look at what Schmidt did with Android.
Wonder what Arthur Levinson brought back to Apple about Android and Google...
Please learn a little bit about topics before spouting off.
The board also gains inside information to future products that is not public. That can be very important to competitors. Look at what Schmidt did with Android.
Schmidt joined the board in summer of Aug 2006. IPhone was unveiled in early 2007. Android was not revamped to incorporate multitouch until 1.5 years later. If you want to believe the 4-month "head-start" that Schmidt "might" have given Android engineers in changing their development course is really significant, then you are once again revealing how a techno-ignorant amateur shouldn't comment on engineering topics with such conviction. To quote someone here, "please learn a little bit about topics before spouting off."
The board also gains inside information to future products that is not public. That can be very important to competitors. Look at what Schmidt did with Android.
I agree with ankleskater. As I've argued before, the frames to the known development of Android simply don't add up for Schmidt to be the spy people make him out to be.
Apple's board needs a serious revamp. Many of them seem well past their sell-by date. Gore? The Avon lady? This guy who's involved with a software company whose stuff sucks on the Mac? Head of an aging clothing company? A missile peddler?
I don't know that it can happen any time soon, though. They tend to be a self-perpetuating lot, and last a long time. Look at HP (until the past couple of days).
Ha! The last time I saw Coach Bill was 1988 -- unlike me, he has really aged in those 25 years
Schmidt joined the board in summer of Aug 2006. IPhone was unveiled in early 2007. Android was not revamped to incorporate multitouch until 1.5 years later. If you want to believe the 4-month "head-start" that Schmidt "might" have given Android engineers in changing their development course is really significant, then you are once again revealing how a techno-ignorant amateur shouldn't comment on engineering topics with such conviction. To quote someone here, "please learn a little bit about topics before spouting off."
So Schmidt joined the board 6 months before there was any public information. And it took Google over a year to incorporate the multitouch ideas he stole from Apple.
So Schmidt joined the board 6 months before there was any public information. And it took Google over a year to incorporate the multitouch ideas he stole from Apple.
Just what's so impossible about that timeline?
You've just bowled me over with your density. This time, the fact that you are not technically competent or knowledgeable is not an excuse.
As a stock holder I would greatly appreciate it if board members would keep thier mouths shut. They do the company no service by broadcasting possible new product categories in advance.
It is true to say when Steve Jobs was alive he kept them in line and they were silent.
So Schmidt joined the board 6 months before there was any public information. And it took Google over a year to incorporate the multitouch ideas he stole from Apple.
Just what's so impossible about that timeline?
You've just bowled me over with your density. This time, the fact that you are not technically competent or knowledgeable is not an excuse.
And you've just bowled me over with your facetiousness. Why do you think a whole year wouldn't be more than sufficient time to produce a first-level competing software product? Especially with Andy Rubin on board, and the level of human capital and financial resources that Google has? If nothing else, how many blind alleys might they have avoided walking down, saving them many months, if not years? Do you know a lot about software development in organizations like these?
They already have that it's called iPod nano give it a strap put it on your wrist the only thing they should make it do is get power from the person wearing it beats the hell out of chargers
They already have that it's called iPod nano give it a strap put it on your wrist the only thing they should make it do is get power from the person wearing it beats the hell out of chargers
Bill Campbell is not the CEO of Intuit anymore. He doesn't tell Intuit what product to develop or improve anymore than he tells Apple.
Occasionally, board members may facilitate collaborations between companies. But, in general, not only do they have no influence over product development, they often don't know about upcoming products until launch date is nigh. Let's face it - in many cases, the board members don't even know the existing products of their companies. Bill Campbell didn't have much influence over product development at Intuit when he was the CEO and certainly has none now.
As for shareholders, while they can ask any questions they want, they do not vote on product development.
It's ludicrous and in fact dumbfounding for people to fail to understand this and make silly suggestions.
Thank you for the reprimand. My bad. I totally missed the part where he wasn't ever involved in any decision making regarding Mac version of Inuit's stuff whilst on Apple's board. Not my area of interest really other than from the 'it works on a Mac POV'. Accounting I always left to my accountants.
And you've just bowled me over with your facetiousness. Why do you think a whole year wouldn't be more than sufficient time to produce a first-level competing software product? Especially with Andy Rubin on board, and the level of human capital and financial resources that Google has? If nothing else, how many blind alleys might they have avoided walking down, saving them many months, if not years? Do you know a lot about software development in organizations like these?
Don't know where you mean by a year. This is what I know: Schmidt joined board in August. IPhone introduced in Jan. If Schmidt didn't join Apple's board, Google still would have learned much about iOS in early 2007. So Schmidt gave Google a maximum of 5 months head start in previewing the iPhone. But that's only if you assume (a) an Apple board meeting was held right after Schmidt joined and (b) the board got to see multitouch in action during such a meeting. It's very likely that Schmidt never saw the iPhone in action until September, October, November or even December.
Here is more of what I know - Android was NOT rebuilt bottom to top after they learned of iOS. For example, they did not rebuild the kernel to incorporate multitouch but instead added it as a service one layer above, which explains the noticeable lag that only disappeared in recent versions of Android phones.
No question, Google can do a lot in a few months (let alone your mythical year). But they didn't rush to bring iOS features such as multitouch into Android until well after Jan 2007, rendering irrelevant the few months of preview that Schmidt (might) have given them.
p.s. As an example, pinch-to-zoom first appeared on Android in early 2010. IMHO, given how you schooled me on Google's ample resources, it should not take them 3 years to develop this gesture. So does it really matter that Schmidt "stole" this concept from an Apple board meeting in Aug 2006 or Google saw it for the first time in Jan 2007? Also IMO, they more than likely saw this and other multitouch features in Jeff Pan's TED presentation in Aug 2006 (interesting coincidence, isn't it?), if they weren't aware of it already from academic HMI publications. What Apple did was make everyone realize timing was ripe to implement this on a mobile device. When did Google wake up to this - Aug 2006 or Jan 2007? Do those few months matter?
They already have that it's called iPod nano give it a strap put it on your wrist the only thing they should make it do is get power from the person wearing it beats the hell out of chargers
I have some spare keyboards if you need one with a working period key...
You've just bowled me over with your density. This time, the fact that you are not technically competent or knowledgeable is not an excuse.
The fact that you can't read a calendar is even more amazing.
Schmidt was on the Apple Board 5 months before the iPhone came out. That gave them a MINIMUM of 5 months head start (even without a board meeting, information is usually provided to new board members). On top of that, the iPhone introduction in January didn't release all the information about the product - only a few highlights. The phone didn't actually hit the market until the end of June, 2007. So Schmidt gave them almost a year head start.
Or maybe you're complaining about the time before the implemented multitouch. I guess you're suggesting that Google is so incompetent that they couldn't possibly copy multitouch in just a year and a half? Nonsense.
In reality, whether you like it or not, Schmidt's presence on Apple's board gave Google a head start. Whether it's 5 months or 12 months or 2. 5 years, it clearly gave them an advantage that RIM and Microsoft, didn't have.
Don't know where you mean by a year. This is what I know: Schmidt joined board in August. IPhone introduced in Jan. If Schmidt didn't join Apple's board, Google still would have learned much about iOS in early 2007. So Schmidt gave Google a maximum of 5 months head start in previewing the iPhone. But that's only if you assume (a) an Apple board meeting was held right after Schmidt joined and (b) the board got to see multitouch in action during such a meeting. It's very likely that Schmidt never saw the iPhone in action until September, October, November or even December.
Absolute nonsense. While the iPhone was introduced in January, 2007, it didn't hit the market until June, 2007. So Schmidt gave Google almost a year head start.
And even if there wasn't a board meeting during that year, Board members get information even outside of board meetings.
Here is more of what I know - Android was NOT rebuilt bottom to top after they learned of iOS. For example, they did not rebuild the kernel to incorporate multitouch but instead added it as a service one layer above, which explains the noticeable lag that only disappeared in recent versions of Android phones.
No question, Google can do a lot in a few months (let alone your mythical year). But they didn't rush to bring iOS features such as multitouch into Android until well after Jan 2007, rendering irrelevant the few months of preview that Schmidt (might) have given them.
p.s. As an example, pinch-to-zoom first appeared on Android in early 2010. IMHO, given how you schooled me on Google's ample resources, it should not take them 3 years to develop this gesture. So does it really matter that Schmidt "stole" this concept from an Apple board meeting in Aug 2006 or Google saw it for the first time in Jan 2007? Also IMO, they more than likely saw this and other multitouch features in Jeff Pan's TED presentation in Aug 2006 (interesting coincidence, isn't it?), if they weren't aware of it already from academic HMI publications. What Apple did was make everyone realize timing was ripe to implement this on a mobile device. When did Google wake up to this - Aug 2006 or Jan 2007? Do those few months matter?
In an industry that changes this quickly, a year most certainly CAN matter. Even a few months could matter.
So why are you so keen to deny the possibility that Google did have some advantage from Schmidt's presence on the board.
You've just bowled me over with your density. This time, the fact that you are not technically competent or knowledgeable is not an excuse.
Or maybe you're complaining about the time before the implemented multitouch. I guess you're suggesting that Google is so incompetent that they couldn't possibly copy multitouch in just a year and a half? Nonsense.
I am guessing that Google's slowness on multitouch was deliberate. It probably had a lot more to do with the fact that Apple had patented the heck out of it. Plausibly, they were waiting around to see what IP they could sneak past the law. I'll bet that they had multitouch well before 2010 (and soon after the iPhone).
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
This guy's company has the absolute worst track record when it comes to Mac support, and it is an absolute embarrassment that he is still on Apple's board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
It should be a question at a shareholders meeting. I agree it is ludicrous that he hasn't been told to get is company 100% Mac (as in on par with Windows version or better) or leave the board. Heck it should very powerful, be able to use iCloud and be fully integrated on all Apple devices.
Bill Campbell is not the CEO of Intuit anymore. He doesn't tell Intuit what product to develop or improve anymore than he tells Apple.
Occasionally, board members may facilitate collaborations between companies. But, in general, not only do they have no influence over product development, they often don't know about upcoming products until launch date is nigh. Let's face it - in many cases, the board members don't even know the existing products of their companies. Bill Campbell didn't have much influence over product development at Intuit when he was the CEO and certainly has none now.
As for shareholders, while they can ask any questions they want, they do not vote on product development.
It's ludicrous and in fact dumbfounding for people to fail to understand this and make silly suggestions.
Please learn a little bit about topics before spouting off. The board hires and fires the CEO. The shareholders select the board. The CEO's role in selecting the board is to propose names to the shareholders. See that little thing on your proxy documents every year saying "would you like to vote for xxx for a board position"?
There's more than that. It's also very symbolic. Having someone on the board who clearly shows disdain and lack of support for Apple's products is an insult to everyone using those products.
The board also gains inside information to future products that is not public. That can be very important to competitors. Look at what Schmidt did with Android.
Well, they were going to move some of the hardware team over to the sexbot project, but found out that most of the engineers were still living in their parents' basement and didn't know anything about sex. /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The board also gains inside information to future products that is not public. That can be very important to competitors. Look at what Schmidt did with Android.
Wonder what Arthur Levinson brought back to Apple about Android and Google...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Please learn a little bit about topics before spouting off.
The board also gains inside information to future products that is not public. That can be very important to competitors. Look at what Schmidt did with Android.
Schmidt joined the board in summer of Aug 2006. IPhone was unveiled in early 2007. Android was not revamped to incorporate multitouch until 1.5 years later. If you want to believe the 4-month "head-start" that Schmidt "might" have given Android engineers in changing their development course is really significant, then you are once again revealing how a techno-ignorant amateur shouldn't comment on engineering topics with such conviction. To quote someone here, "please learn a little bit about topics before spouting off."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Wonder what Arthur Levinson brought back to Apple about Android and Google...
Given Levinson's background, a better speculation might be what kind of drugs he supplied both boards.
I agree with ankleskater. As I've argued before, the frames to the known development of Android simply don't add up for Schmidt to be the spy people make him out to be.
Ha! The last time I saw Coach Bill was 1988 -- unlike me, he has really aged in those 25 years
Based on what you know, is he talking a bit more than in the past?
So Schmidt joined the board 6 months before there was any public information. And it took Google over a year to incorporate the multitouch ideas he stole from Apple.
Just what's so impossible about that timeline?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
So Schmidt joined the board 6 months before there was any public information. And it took Google over a year to incorporate the multitouch ideas he stole from Apple.
Just what's so impossible about that timeline?
You've just bowled me over with your density. This time, the fact that you are not technically competent or knowledgeable is not an excuse.
It is true to say when Steve Jobs was alive he kept them in line and they were silent.
And you've just bowled me over with your facetiousness. Why do you think a whole year wouldn't be more than sufficient time to produce a first-level competing software product? Especially with Andy Rubin on board, and the level of human capital and financial resources that Google has? If nothing else, how many blind alleys might they have avoided walking down, saving them many months, if not years? Do you know a lot about software development in organizations like these?
Thank you for the reprimand. My bad. I totally missed the part where he wasn't ever involved in any decision making regarding Mac version of Inuit's stuff whilst on Apple's board. Not my area of interest really other than from the 'it works on a Mac POV'. Accounting I always left to my accountants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
And you've just bowled me over with your facetiousness. Why do you think a whole year wouldn't be more than sufficient time to produce a first-level competing software product? Especially with Andy Rubin on board, and the level of human capital and financial resources that Google has? If nothing else, how many blind alleys might they have avoided walking down, saving them many months, if not years? Do you know a lot about software development in organizations like these?
Don't know where you mean by a year. This is what I know: Schmidt joined board in August. IPhone introduced in Jan. If Schmidt didn't join Apple's board, Google still would have learned much about iOS in early 2007. So Schmidt gave Google a maximum of 5 months head start in previewing the iPhone. But that's only if you assume (a) an Apple board meeting was held right after Schmidt joined and (b) the board got to see multitouch in action during such a meeting. It's very likely that Schmidt never saw the iPhone in action until September, October, November or even December.
Here is more of what I know - Android was NOT rebuilt bottom to top after they learned of iOS. For example, they did not rebuild the kernel to incorporate multitouch but instead added it as a service one layer above, which explains the noticeable lag that only disappeared in recent versions of Android phones.
No question, Google can do a lot in a few months (let alone your mythical year). But they didn't rush to bring iOS features such as multitouch into Android until well after Jan 2007, rendering irrelevant the few months of preview that Schmidt (might) have given them.
p.s. As an example, pinch-to-zoom first appeared on Android in early 2010. IMHO, given how you schooled me on Google's ample resources, it should not take them 3 years to develop this gesture. So does it really matter that Schmidt "stole" this concept from an Apple board meeting in Aug 2006 or Google saw it for the first time in Jan 2007? Also IMO, they more than likely saw this and other multitouch features in Jeff Pan's TED presentation in Aug 2006 (interesting coincidence, isn't it?), if they weren't aware of it already from academic HMI publications. What Apple did was make everyone realize timing was ripe to implement this on a mobile device. When did Google wake up to this - Aug 2006 or Jan 2007? Do those few months matter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko1357
They already have that it's called iPod nano give it a strap put it on your wrist the only thing they should make it do is get power from the person wearing it beats the hell out of chargers
I have some spare keyboards if you need one with a working period key...
The fact that you can't read a calendar is even more amazing.
Schmidt was on the Apple Board 5 months before the iPhone came out. That gave them a MINIMUM of 5 months head start (even without a board meeting, information is usually provided to new board members). On top of that, the iPhone introduction in January didn't release all the information about the product - only a few highlights. The phone didn't actually hit the market until the end of June, 2007. So Schmidt gave them almost a year head start.
Or maybe you're complaining about the time before the implemented multitouch. I guess you're suggesting that Google is so incompetent that they couldn't possibly copy multitouch in just a year and a half? Nonsense.
In reality, whether you like it or not, Schmidt's presence on Apple's board gave Google a head start. Whether it's 5 months or 12 months or 2. 5 years, it clearly gave them an advantage that RIM and Microsoft, didn't have.
Absolute nonsense. While the iPhone was introduced in January, 2007, it didn't hit the market until June, 2007. So Schmidt gave Google almost a year head start.
And even if there wasn't a board meeting during that year, Board members get information even outside of board meetings.
In an industry that changes this quickly, a year most certainly CAN matter. Even a few months could matter.
So why are you so keen to deny the possibility that Google did have some advantage from Schmidt's presence on the board.
I am guessing that Google's slowness on multitouch was deliberate. It probably had a lot more to do with the fact that Apple had patented the heck out of it. Plausibly, they were waiting around to see what IP they could sneak past the law. I'll bet that they had multitouch well before 2010 (and soon after the iPhone).