Google's reaction to Apple's iPhone unveiling: 'We're going to have to start over' on Android

2456712

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 226
    neo42 wrote: »
    Going to just step in here for the 99.9% here. Google stole all of Apple's IP.  Duh.

    But seriously, I agree with you. Obviously Google responded to the iPhone through mimic of design, generally speaking, as they well should have.  The iPhone and iOS ushered in a new standard of smart phone design and following that lead was necessary.  Regardless of Jobs' grandiose delusion of burying Google over "stealing", competition is good, healthy and necessary.  Doubtful that iOS would have evolved to what it is today without said competition. 

    Well what exactly was copied? I don't mean to be a "troll" however you are making a claim and I will like to see some evidence supporting it.
  • Reply 22 of 226
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    Why is it now logical? I have read for years and year on many sites that Google had been working on touch-based versions of the released Android long before Apple announce the iPhone.

     

    I bet there's some misleading sense in which something vaguely like that could be said and be true in an unimportant way. I'd love to see the evidence about what Google was REALLY doing with Touch before they suddenly went so closely iPhone-like. Is that something that gets repeated with reliable links or screenshots, or just Fox News-style myth that gets repeated on forums? I've heard that too, but if I ever saw a link it made no impression on me--and I'll immediately stop crediting Apple with the modern smartphone if I see evidence to point toward Google coincidentally doing the same thing.

     

    (I'd think every phone compnay was doing "something" with touch: you could say PDAs have had some sort of touch ever since the Newton, and some  old-style PDA/"smartphones" too. Every laptop as well, since Apple popularized the trackpad. "Touch-based" in theory could be like DaVinci's helicopter: all wrong, but he could claim to have done something!)

  • Reply 23 of 226
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,453member
    nagromme wrote: »
    I bet there's some misleading sense in which something vaguely like that could be said and be true in an unimportant way. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">I'd love to see the evidence about what Google was REALLY doing with Touch before they suddenly went so closely iPhone-like. Is that something that gets repeated with reliable links or screenshots, or just Fox News-style myth that gets repeated on forums? I've heard that too, but if I ever saw a link it made no impression on me--and I'll immediately stop crediting Apple with the modern smartphone if I see evidence to point toward Google coincidentally doing the same thing.

    From about the 3 min mark on there's some touch interface demos. This particular video is from early Nov 2007.


    OSNews also had a somewhat Android-friendly article about the same thing (doesn't make the claims necessarily wrong despite the slant) .
  • Reply 24 of 226
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,167member
    Well what exactly was copied? I don't mean to be a "troll" however you are making a claim and I will like to see some evidence supporting it.

    You have to work on that Korean - English translation software. It isn't working too well. You have your tenses mixed up. :p
  • Reply 25 of 226
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

     

     

    Going to just step in here for the 99.9% here. Google stole all of Apple's IP.  Duh.

     

    But seriously, I agree with you. Obviously Google responded to the iPhone through mimic of design, generally speaking, as they well should have.  The iPhone and iOS ushered in a new standard of smart phone design and following that lead was necessary.  Regardless of Jobs' grandiose delusion of burying Google over "stealing", competition is good, healthy and necessary.  Doubtful that iOS would have evolved to what it is today without said competition. 


     

    Mimic of design?  As they should have?  That's utterly pathetic.  If we are to believe Google's stated development timeline, their own creation was a total failure and a pretty big sign that they should have picked a different market to enter.  Maybe now they wouldn't be faced with embarrassing and precarious position of being at Samsung's mercy for continued existence in the low end of the market, where usage stats barely blip the radar.  Worse considering, that there are no licensing fees to collect for Android and their only profit is personal data from the least valuable segment of the internet market from a commerce/advertising perspective.  

     

    The iPhone announcement should have been a wake up call for Google to get out of OS development, because this admission crystalizes that they had no idea what they are doing, and were totally in over their heads.  Google would probably been a better company had they focused on their strengths, than mistaking rote duplication for competition.  A much wiser strategy than looking at your own failed, un-shippable work and then saying, "scratch all this, we'll just copy Apple".  This poor decision making process is further reflected in their meager IP portfolio and spastic acquisition strategy.  

  • Reply 26 of 226
    nagromme wrote: »
    I bet there's some misleading sense in which something vaguely like that could be said and be true in an unimportant way. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">I'd love to see the evidence about what Google was REALLY doing with Touch before they suddenly went so closely iPhone-like. Is that something that gets repeated with reliable links or screenshots, or just Fox News-style myth that gets repeated on forums? I've heard that too, but if I ever saw a link it made no impression on me--and I'll immediately stop crediting Apple with the modern smartphone if I see evidence to point toward Google coincidentally doing the same thing.</span>


    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">(I'd think every phone compnay was doing "something" with touch: you could say PDAs have had some sort of touch ever since the Ne</span>
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">wton, and some  old-style PDA/"</span>
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">smartphones" too. Every laptop as well, since Apple popularized the trackpad. "Touch-based" in theory could be like DaVinci's helicopter: all wrong, but he could claim to have done something!)</span>
  • Reply 27 of 226
    Andy Rubin: Holy crap ....

    Yes, that's exactly how he talks! One piece of shit copcat moron of century!
  • Reply 28 of 226

    It's a freaking shame.  Apple had a huge head-start with the iPhone but gave it completely away to Google's Android.  That's the biggest problem with Apple.  They've never quite figured out how to hold onto market share.  Steve Jobs practically gave the keys of the iPhone empire away to Eric Schmidt.  Pure negligence on Steve Jobs part.  I guess his genius didn't quite fathom that he would be completely backstabbed.  iOS's IP was up for grabs and Schmidt quickly grabbed it.  Steve Jobs is now turning over in his grave because "going thermonuclear" turned into an Apple disaster.

     

    Now 80% of the world is using Android and Apple is left with some insignificant percentage that makes the entire mobile industry believe that Apple is doomed to oblivion.  Google is now Wall Street's favorite tech company and Apple has become a second-class tech company for investors.  Being the first to have something is nice but it's much better to hold onto the lead and not let anyone take it away.  The entire mobile industry says that Android devices are so much better than iPhones and Android OS offers a far longer features list than iOS.

     

    I don't know why authors have to keep dredging up such a painful memory about how Google's Android ruined Apple's iPhone business.  It just makes Apple look completely incompetent as a tech company.  Tim Cook certainly doesn't have the skills to get Apple out of this huge hole while Android just gets stronger by the day.  The student surpassed the master and there's no turning back the hands of time.  All us Apple shareholders have to keep eating crow and truthfully speaking, the taste sucks.  Honestly, it's rather embarrassing to see such a wealthy hardware company get blown away by a lesser company offering a completely free OS.

  • Reply 29 of 226
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,453member
    redefiler wrote: »
     If we are to believe Google's stated development timeline, their own creation was a total failure and a pretty big sign that they should have picked a different market to enter...
    The iPhone announcement should have been a wake up call for Google to get out of OS development, because this admission crystalizes that they had no idea what they are doing, and were totally in over their heads.  This poor decision making process is further reflected in their meager IP portfolio and spastic acquisition strategy.  

    Yes, it's quite sad and telling that consumers just never accepted Android as a competitive answer to iOS. :rolleyes: Then there's all that worthless IP. . . 20,000 patents + and counting.
  • Reply 30 of 226
    wigbywigby Posts: 688member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

     

     

    Going to just step in here for the 99.9% here. Google stole all of Apple's IP.  Duh.

     

    But seriously, I agree with you. Obviously Google responded to the iPhone through mimic of design, generally speaking, as they well should have.  The iPhone and iOS ushered in a new standard of smart phone design and following that lead was necessary.  Regardless of Jobs' grandiose delusion of burying Google over "stealing", competition is good, healthy and necessary.  Doubtful that iOS would have evolved to what it is today without said competition. 


    Putting the definition of "stealing" aside for the moment, by your assertion, Apple should just copy from Google now and Google from Apple like a ping pong match. That might be how you keep shareholders happy but that's not how you innovate. Sometimes you have to just start over from scratch and focus intently on where you want the consumer experience to be. Nothing truly changes unless there is a chance of losing everything. Google took the obvious and easy way out. Blackberry took the lazy way out. I don't see anyone taking the brave path (except possibly Microsoft - never thought I would write that) except for Apple.

  • Reply 31 of 226
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,979member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    The New Oxford American Dictionary 3rd edition defines genius as "exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability" and "a person who is exceptionally intelligent or creative, either generally or in some particular respect." To me, that's just being talented but I define genius as being something else entirely. My definition is "being able to express something unique and have it immediately be seen as the only viable model going forward." That is what we saw in 2007 with the iPhone.

    Agreed, but recognizing genius is almost as equally as important. Whilst others downplayed the iPhone Google saw that the future of smartphones would be one with a touch screen UI. Those that quickly followed Apple's lead, or copied it are the ones that have flourished, the others are on a downward spiral or no longer exist.
  • Reply 32 of 226
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Agreed, but recognizing genius is almost as equally as important. Whilst others downplayed the iPhone Google saw that the future of smartphones would be one with a touch screen UI. Those that quickly followed Apple's lead, or copied it are the ones that have flourished, the others are on a downward spiral or no longer exist.

    No argument here on the importance of recognizing paradigm shifts but I would say hubris and ignorance are the probably the two most common reasons not to notice it. Blackberry né RiM basically said inconceivable until they drank their own lidocaine powder. Steve Jobs is rare in that he saw the future many, many times in his life. From the future of personal computing to what Wozniak could offer, to the GUI that Xerox saw only as skunkworks, to the Pixar, and on and on up through his death as I'm sure there are things that still haven't come to fruition. Not that Jobs was infallible, his naming choices were definitely crap. MacMan? Really?


    PS: Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
  • Reply 33 of 226
    For a second there, from the title, I thought "starting over" was about Apple's 64-bit chip...
  • Reply 34 of 226
    neo42neo42 Posts: 287member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

     

     

    Mimic of design?  As they should have?  That's utterly pathetic.  If we are to believe Google's stated development timeline, their own creation was a total failure and a pretty big sign that they should have picked a different market to enter.  Maybe now they wouldn't be faced with embarrassing and precarious position of being at Samsung's mercy for continued existence in the low end of the market, where usage stats barely blip the radar.  Worse considering, that there are no licensing fees to collect for Android and their only profit is personal data from the least valuable segment of the internet market from a commerce/advertising perspective.  

     

    The iPhone announcement should have been a wake up call for Google to get out of OS development, because this admission crystalizes that they had no idea what they are doing, and were totally in over their heads.  Google would probably been a better company had they focused on their strengths, than mistaking rote duplication for competition.  A much wiser strategy than looking at your own failed, un-shippable work and then saying, "scratch all this, we'll just copy Apple".  This poor decision making process is further reflected in their meager IP portfolio and spastic acquisition strategy.  


     

    So you're saying that any company that is in the middle of developing a product which adjusts to remain competitive is pathetic?   I know you like to live in your Apple bubble and hate every other brand, but the competition is GOOD and not only for Apple, but the entire industry.  Apple has leveraged off of Google and others' ideas/features heavily ever since the first iPhone and to deny it is just plain stupid.

  • Reply 35 of 226
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Yes, it's quite sad and telling that consumers just never accepted Android as a competitive answer to iOS. image Then there's all that worthless IP. . . 20,000 patents + and counting.

    IP from that Motorola Mobility acquision?  Like Ad Mob, they were baited into buying and over-paying for the wrong company and got a whole bunch of worthless IP.  They do amazing things at Google though, they are a website right?   :smokey: Super competitive being 6 characters in a url address away from irrelevency at any moment.

     

    But your right about customers never accepting Android.  Seems it even lies dormant on the majority of cell phones its shipped on.  

    I'm sure Google is making great use of the Android targeted ads for the bottom 15% of mobile consumers, sounds like a total win.

  • Reply 36 of 226
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,979member
    wigby wrote: »
    Sometimes you have to just start over from scratch and focus intently on where you want the consumer experience to be. Nothing truly changes unless there is a chance of losing everything.

    You act like that's something that can easily be done. It is not and sometimes there's only one good way to accomplish something which is the 'tried and true' method. For instance the best mouse traps are the ones that most closely resemble the original mouse traps and I've tried them all. In this case Apple found out what works and what closely resembles it is what is popular, and the efforts of others trying to be different has not been beneficial.
  • Reply 37 of 226
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    From about the 3 min mark on there's some touch interface demos. This particular video is from early Nov 2007.



     

    That video suggests that although google had to redesign the UI for touch, some of the plumbing of the OS was already in place when google first heard about the iPhone. The guy demonstrates several features characteristic of modern-day android, such as an early version of the notification bar as well as what seems like an early incarnation of the intents system for passing data between apps (contacts to maps in the video).

  • Reply 38 of 226
    wigbywigby Posts: 688member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    You act like that's something that can easily be done. It is not and sometimes there's only one good way to accomplish something which is the 'tried and true' method. For instance the best mouse traps are the ones that most closely resemble the original mouse traps and I've tried them all. In this case Apple found out what works and what closely resembles it is what is popular, and the efforts of others trying to be different has not been beneficial.

    Electric mousetraps look nothing like traditional ones but are much more effective. That only comes from thinking outside of the box.

  • Reply 39 of 226
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,979member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    No argument here on the importance of recognizing paradigm shifts but I would say hubris and ignorance are the probably the two most common reasons not to notice it. Blackberry né RiM basically said inconceivable until they drank their own lidocaine powder. Steve Jobs is rare in that he saw the future many, many times in his life. From the future of personal computing to what Wozniak could offer, to the GUI that Xerox saw only as skunkworks, to the Pixar, and on and on up through his death as I'm sure there are things that still haven't come to fruition. Not that Jobs was infallible, his naming choices were definitely crap. MacMan? Really?


    PS: Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

    Complacency is also a big factor. How many businesses have been replaced by another business that really didn't offer anything much different? Too many companies rest on their laurels only to see all go to another company that did things just a little different.
  • Reply 40 of 226
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,453member
    redefiler wrote: »
    IP from that Motorola Mobility acquision?  Like Ad Mob, they were baited into buying and over-paying for the wrong company and got a whole bunch of worthless IP.  They do amazing things at Google though, they are a website right?   :smokey:  Super competitive being 6 characters in a url address away from irrelevency at any moment.

    Just because Google doesn't choose to aggressively wield Motorola patents to sue others that want to play in the same playpen they do doesn't make the IP worthless. On the contrary it has inestimable value by not being used in protectionist efforts to strip away profit and resources from other companies. If you think Google is simply an ad company you don't pay attention. Perhaps you should do a bit of reading outside of AI or other fan sites.

    Here's one that might have a little interest to you:
    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-22/inside-googles-secret-lab
Sign In or Register to comment.