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

1246712

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 226
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,453member
    You're welcome, you remind me a young solicitor that knocks on my door trying to sell me crap I don't need, nor am looking for. 

    When you have no interest in reading anything not in agreement with what you wish to believe or take the effort to intelligently counter an argument use the "ignore button" the forum offers. You really don't have to acknowledge anyone at the door unless you want to.
  • Reply 62 of 226
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,453member
    redefiler wrote: »
    Have you even seen the new Mac Pro?  That's shipped and selling out.

    Both of them sold already? ;)

    I'm kidding but many of the forum members say that without numbers "sold out" doesn't mean a whole lot., and whether 10 or 10,000 it doesn't diminish Google's projects.
  • Reply 63 of 226
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    When you have no interest in reading anything not in agreement with what you wish to believe or take the effort to intelligently counter an argument use the "ignore button" the forum offers. You really don't have to acknowledge anyone at the door unless you want to.

    So use it, the ignore button already, guy.

  • Reply 64 of 226
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,525member
    focher wrote: »
    Pretty much confirms everything Jobs claimed - that Android was just a knockoff of iOS and the iPhone. What is interesting though, is that it seems to disprove the allegation that Eric Schmidt, who was on Apple's board at the time, was passing along iPhone information to Google ... at least prior to the public unveiling. Not sure how much the board knew about the iPhone before the unveiling, but it appears the Google engineers didn't know about it beforehand.

    Well, according to their self-serving account anyway.
  • Reply 65 of 226
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Did you ever have a career at RIM? Sounds like something their management might have believed about Apple.

    Nope.  But I do know some pretty big ad buyers now spending more of their budget on either Facebook or Twitter anything than Google everything.  Their website traffic might not surpass Google's yet, but it's clear the desirable (profitable) traffic isn't at Google search. Part of that might also be related to increasingly skewed search results by Google towards their ad customers, rather than purely traffic based, but still not good for Poodle.  I'm not sure if you'd agree or recognize this as a trend, but I've adjusted my investment portfolio accordingly.  So check back with me in 24-48 months.

     

    Droids... :rolleyes: 

  • Reply 66 of 226
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,453member
    So use it, the ignore button already, guy.

    I'm proud to say there's no one I've found in the forum yet who isn't capable of adding something of value to the discussions so I've no use for "ignore" (well there once was was one member on my block list for another reason). I've no doubt you have your own useful contributions to make too and I look forward to reading them.
  • Reply 67 of 226
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,167member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    In hindsight it was the only decision that made sense. Kudos to the Android team for recognizing it early on rather than trudging forward with what would have been a useless effort. Microsoft, Nokia, and Blackberry took way too long to come to the same realization that touch events were the way forward. Especially Blackberry who at the time had the leading market position on high-end handsets. Android of course may have had a little headstart over the other laggards since they had already started work on a touchscreen smartphone alongside their "Sooner" trackball phone according to reports and press videos from the time.

    By the way, wasn't Mr. Jobs less concerned that Google shifted focus to a touch device but instead incensed over their eventual inclusion of multi-touch which happened well after the G1 was intro'd?


    Title of article should have been ...

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

    :D

    I bet your looking forward to one of the new robots to help with your posts here!
  • Reply 68 of 226
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,453member
    redefiler wrote: »
     I'm not sure if you'd agree or recognize this as a trend, but I've adjusted my investment portfolio accordingly.  So check back with me in 24-48 months.

    Now that I'd probably agree with. Since they've crossed $1000 a share I think it's gonna be tough moving a whole lot higher anytime soon. Of course anyone who made a significant investment in them even as late at the first of this year has seen a pretty healthy return. I was not one of those people as usual.
  • Reply 69 of 226
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,453member
    Title of article should have been ...

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

    :D

    I bet your looking forward to one of the new robots to help with your posts here!

    If only I live that long ;)
  • Reply 70 of 226
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,979member
    fallenjt wrote: »
    From Day 1, I always believed Android was a copycat after Schmidt walked out the iPhone event in 2007. Where did he go? Well, he went directly to Google HQ and stopped all android related projects and started a "new" (copying) project as android today...great innovation, Google.

    Innovation doesn’t guarantee, and sometimes one can't out innovate what already exists because of technological limitations. How many products have there been that were very innovative and superior to its predecessors yet was never successful? I'm not saying what Google did was right but from a business viewpoint it was the only way to survive in the landscape Apple created.
  • Reply 71 of 226
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,453member
    redefiler wrote: »
    Nope.  But I do know some pretty big ad buyers now spending more of their budget on either Facebook or Twitter anything than Google everything.  

    That sounds like an excellent reason for Google to NOT sit back in their comfortable ad space and ignore all other opportunities. I'm pretty sure you'd agree with that wouldn't you?
  • Reply 72 of 226
    pokepoke Posts: 506member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    You obviously chose to ignore Google's [x]Labs, or aren't aware of their existence. You also apparently missed out on Calico. There's few companies brave (or is it stupid) enough to take longer walks in so many fields laying on the razor edge of possibilities than Google.

    Every big, lumbering, uncreative tech company has a lab. They're all doing stuff like Google. It's not hard to buy up researchers and their projects when you're flush with cash. The most you can say about it is that Google pays better than Stanford. You hear about Google's research, rather than everyone else's, because Google controls online advertising and has an especially cosy relationship with the media. The most likely outcome of Google taking away so much research from the public sector is that when Google's cash cow dries up, all that research gets flushed away. This happens periodically when big companies do this sort of thing. Google is worse because it publishes less than most.
  • Reply 73 of 226
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,453member
    poke wrote: »
    Every big, lumbering, uncreative tech company has a lab... Google is worse because it publishes less than most

    Apple has a lab too. A few of them in fact. Apple Education Lab, Apple Core Lab, Apple Data-Mining Lab.... They don't publish any more than Google does either. Wierd.
  • Reply 74 of 226
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    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.

    Flourished?

    Most Android handset makers are running at a loss or barely scraping by.

    With the exception of Samsung who spend billions on hype, Samsung spend more on advertising than the rest make altogether.
  • Reply 75 of 226
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Now that I'd probably agree with. Since they've crossed $1000 a share I think it's gonna be tough moving a whole lot higher anytime soon. Of course anyone who made a significant investment in them even as late at the first of this year has seen a pretty healthy return. I was not one of those people as usual.

    I've found that investing in the actual entity is usually more precarious than the side suppliers and associated businesses.  For example: when iOS6/iPhone5 came out, I didn't buy more Apple, I bought Yelp.  It was cheap and pretty likely to see some increase from being the Apple Maps default for data.   Longer term, I'm not sure how it will fair, but so far so good.  :smokey:

  • Reply 76 of 226
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,453member
    redefiler wrote: »
    I've found that investing in the actual entity is usually more precarious than the side suppliers and associated businesses.  For example: when iOS6/iPhone5 came out, I didn't buy more Apple, I bought Yelp.  It was cheap and pretty likely to see some increase from being the Apple Maps default for data.   Longer term, I'm not sure how it will fair, but so far so good.  :smokey:

    Sounds like a thoughtful plan.
  • Reply 77 of 226
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

     

    Notification bar?  Really?  "You've got mail?"

    Yes I'm sure there's nothing in Apple's 30+ years of OS developments that was ever close to that...

     


    And your point is...? How does this relate to what I wrote?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by redefiler View Post


    [...]


     See Apple Newton, the history of Mac OS trackpad and handwriting recognition software/hardware.  Never mind decades worth of R&D into multi-touch.  Then I'll show you a Google CEO contentiously leaving Apple's board and then we'll talk about Google and UI and touch... oh wait... conversation over.


    Apple bought Fingerworks in 2005, just two years before the launch of the iPhone in 2007. Fingerworks itself was founded only in 1998. I'm sure there's a long history of research in touch interfaces at universities and other companies though.

  • Reply 78 of 226
    And Jobs never lifted someone else's idea?

    In his own words!


    What he saw at Xerox was a paradigm shift and he altered the direction of Apple accordingly. Google did the same. Theft is not involved in either case.
  • Reply 79 of 226
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,613member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

     

     

    I am personally not buying this whole story they only found out about what the Iphone looked like after it was announced. Google had the maps and search tool on the first phone, do you think that was done without the android team at google knowing anything about it. I suspect that they saw it long before it was intro and those were the conversation that happen then they turned on the copy machine at that time.


     

    My understanding is the first Google Maps app on iPhone OS (i.e. pre-iOS) were written by Apple to use Google's mapping data.  I assume the same thing holds for Google search.  So yes, in the beginning, Google had no idea what Google Maps on the iPhone, nor the iPhone itself, looked like until the iPhone was introduced.  (Wherein E. Schmidt went scurrying out to catch a cell phone signal so he can call Google HQ right away to stop all development on Android, which is a nice apocryphal story.)

  • Reply 80 of 226
    Originally Posted by TheMule View Post

    In his own word!

     

    So you don’t understand English, is that it?

Sign In or Register to comment.