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

16791112

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 226
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    I realize you're poking a bit of fun. For visitors or less well-read AI members that missed the sarcasm I'll link a fairly recent article on Calico. To say that the medical community sees a lot of promise in what it may be able to accomplish is an understatement and it's attracting a lot of talent.



    http://medcitynews.com/2013/12/indicators-googles-calico-anti-aging-project-wont-pie-sky/

    With a clear and sober mind I say that Google + health care is the single worst idea of the 21st century. It's leagues worse than Twitter + Banking.

     

    I'd further claim (with 100% verifiable accuracy) that any bureaucracy, insurance billing schemes and/or 3rd parties that get between patients and purchasing medical products & services, are also all terrible ideas.

     

    A blink ago in human history, a lot of influential and important people thought Ponce de Leon's anti-aging research was promising too, and it helped secure lot of funding. In fact it's really super easy for mysticism, woo and bad science fiction to be 'promising' when they're totally unburdened with the process of 'delivering'.

  • Reply 162 of 226
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,586member
    redefiler wrote: »
    With a clear and sober mind I say that Google + health care is the single worst idea of the 21st century. It's leagues worse than Twitter + Banking.

    I'd further claim (with 100% verifiable accuracy) that any bureaucracy, insurance billing schemes and/or 3rd parties that get between patients and purchasing medical products & services, are also all terrible ideas.

    A blink ago in human history, a lot of influential and important people thought Ponce de Leon's anti-aging research was promising too, and it helped secure lot of funding. In fact it's really super easy for mysticism, woo and bad science fiction to be 'promising' when they're totally unburdened with the process of 'delivering'.

    Then you were serious?? I'm frankly surprised.

    Further I've no idea why you're attaching "insurance billing schemes" or getting between "patients and purchasing medical services" to a discussion of Calico. I'm not aware Calico wants anything to do with getting in the insurance industry. Do you have some other source that indicates that's what their goal is or was that part of your post just a red herring?

    Personally I think you're just confused. Perhaps you should read about them again, or more likely for the first time.
    https://plus.google.com/108880830087528406119/posts/22aWigXdYab
    http://medcitynews.com/2013/12/indicators-googles-calico-anti-aging-project-wont-pie-sky/
  • Reply 163 of 226
    splifsplif Posts: 592member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Since an accurate timeline is so important to you let me assist in straightening it out. Some of the other folks here already know this. Project Purple's assignment was not to produce a smartphone. It was formed to create the iPad. Over the following year, 2005, engineers from that "Project Purple" development team began lobbying Steve Jobs to consider a new smartphone using some of the tech they were developing for the iPad. Initially he resisted.



    Eventually in the latter part of 2005 after several weeks/months of convincing Jobs finally bought into the idea Apple could build it's own smartphone and one unlike anything the market had ever seen. He finally gave them a go-ahead, committed resources and Apple began earnest development on what would become the iPhone. That would have been 2 years or so after the Android Project began and at around the same time as Google closed on the Android purchase in July of 2005. Apple should have been aware that Google was working on a mobile phone OS, but perhaps their engineers and Mr Jobs didn't do all that much reading. In any case Google would not have pursued Android because Apple was creating the iPhone. They probably weren't yet.



    Since I know there's folks here with a stock of tinfoil it's not beyond reason that Google's Android purchase helped push Mr. Jobs to commit to the iPhone, perhaps even leading to his decision that Google's Eric Schmidt should join Apple's board the next year. image



    ...or maybe Google and Apple just arrived at the same point at at about the same moment and neither had any idea the other was doing the same thing. Better?

     

    Revisionist histories always start with "maybe".You seem to just make things up.

    http://allthingsd.com/20120803/apples-scott-forstall-on-how-project-purple-turned-into-the-iphone/

     

    http://www.imore.com/apple-senior-vice-presidents-phil-schiller-and-scott-forstall-share-brief-pre-history-iphone-and

     

    Also they started working on the tablet in 2003 & shifted to the iPhone in 2004. Do you think that statements that you make are not easily researched with a couple of key strokes? Google purchased Android after Apple already started development on the iPhone. Those are the facts so everything that you have somehow surmised here is based on fantasy. It has nothing to do with tinfoil hats.

     

    ...or maybe Google and Apple just arrived at the same point at at about the same moment and neither had any idea the other was doing the same thing. Better?

     

    Except they didn't & you have nothing to back that up. The headline of this article alone makes this statement you made just look silly & the rest of the article just backs that up. The purchase of Android had nothing to do with the initial development of the iPhone.

     

    Android was unveiled in 2007 along with the founding of the Open Handset Alliance: a consortium of hardware, software, and telecommunication companies devoted to advancing open standards for mobile devices. The first Android phone (HTC Dream) was sold in October 2008. The timeline does matter because your very loosely based on the truth argument depends on getting the facts wrong.

     

    Google acquired Android Inc. on August 17, 2005. Apple started work on the iPhone in 2004. Hey, Google the HTC Dream. It wasn't even close to what Apple produced with the first iPhone...but yeah they had a similar vision. /s

  • Reply 164 of 226
    splif wrote: »

    Thanks for those two links.

    I knew the basic story from Steve Jobs' interview at the D Conference in 2010... about how they were working on a glass touchscreen tablet device first... then decided to work on a phone instead.

    But it's nice to hear some details about what went on back then.

    It's fascinating to read about the measures they took to keep it a secret... even inside their own company.

    Again... thanks for the links... I hadn't seen those before.
  • Reply 165 of 226
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,586member
    splif wrote: »
    Revisionist histories always start with "maybe".You seem to just make things up.

    Also they started working on the tablet in 2003 & shifted to the iPhone in 2004. Do you think that statements that you make are not easily researched with a couple of key strokes?
    ...or maybe Google and Apple just arrived at the same point at at about the same moment and neither had any idea the other was doing the same thing. Better?
    Except they didn't & you have nothing to back that up.

    I see there's competing timeline stories then...
    Perhaps Project Purple or the Purple Project depending on who's reporting it, did start sometime in 2004. And perhaps the iPhone leg of it didn't begin until 2005. One doesn't have to be wrong for the other to be right. Thanks for the first link that attempted to put a date on it. Here's yet another article or two offering timelines.

    "As early as 2003, a handful of Apple engineers had figured out how to put multitouch technology in a tablet. “The story was that Steve wanted a device that he could use to read e-mail while on the toilet — that was the extent of the product spec,” says Joshua Strickon, one of the earliest engineers on that project. “But you couldn’t build a device with enough battery life to take out of the house, and you couldn’t get a chip with enough graphics capability to make it useful. We spent a lot of time trying to figure out just what to do.” Before joining Apple in 2003, Strickon had built a multitouch device for his master’s thesis at M.I.T. But given the lack of consensus at Apple about what to do with the prototypes he and his fellow engineers developed, he says, he left the company in 2004 thinking it wasn’t going to do anything with that technology...

    Few even thought about making touch-screen technology the centerpiece of a new kind of phone until Jobs started really pushing the idea in mid-2005.

    From the start of the project, Jobs hoped that he would be able to develop a touch-screen iPhone running OS X similar to what he ended up unveiling. But in 2005 he had no idea how long that would take. So Apple’s first iPhone looked very much like the joke slide Jobs put up when introducing the real iPhone — an iPod with an old-fashioned rotary dial on it. The prototype really was an iPod with a phone radio that used the iPod click wheel as a dialer. “It was an easy way to get to market, but it was not cool like the devices we have today,” Grignon says.

    The second iPhone prototype in early 2006 was much closer to what Jobs would ultimately introduce. It incorporated a touch-screen and OS X.
    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/and-then-steve-said-let-there-be-an-iphone.html

    and this one:
    At conference D in 2010, Steve Jobs was asked why the Apple phone had made its appearance before the tablet. His reply was: "I'll tell you. Actually, it started on a tablet first. I had this idea about having a glass display, a multi-touch display you could type on. I asked our people about it. And six months later they came back with this amazing display. And I gave it to one of our really brilliant UI guys. He then got inertial scrolling working and some other things, and I thought, 'my god, we can build a phone with this' and we put the tablet aside, and we went to work on the phone."

    In early 2004, Apple has no phone-related work going on; instead, it has a tablet computer in design. The project takes its normal course and in the meantime the Motorola and iTunes phone story, started in the summer, unfolds. When in January 2007 Steve Jobs makes a public announcement at MacWorld, according to which it took his company 2.5 years to develop the phone, he's not being very sincere. Another year, devoted to the development of a touch-sensitive screen and some UI elements for a tablet computer, is not being taken into account. That work began in 2004. Codenamed the Purple 2, the phone project itself was born in 2005, not without some contribution from Motorola. The latter, however, was not about any technologies, know-how or whatsoever. The company's "help", or rather one coming from its top management, took the shape of the joint work on the music product that was not to Apple's likings. Inability to meet the presentation deadlines, refusal to provide the best models, i.e. the RAZR, - all those problems got accumulated....

    However, it is exactly February 2005 that can be considered as the beginning of the Purple 2 project; Steve Jobs becomes determined to create his own phone after the meeting....

    http://mobile-review.com/articles/2010/iphone-history3-en.shtml

    ... Footnote: Again it really matters not in the big picture but Google purchased Android in July 2005. It didn't hit the blogs until a month later, reported on the date you mentioned at BusinessWeek..
    "Google bought Android in July for an undisclosed sum. The upstart adds to Google's collection of talent and technology that it hopes to apply to this critical segment. "Wireless is the next frontier in search," says Scott Ellison, analyst at research outfit IDC."
    http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-16/google-buys-android-for-its-mobile-arsenal

    Both companies appear to have started their phone projects at about the same time then, with Apple getting in ahead of Google by four or five months. So was my original comment totally accurate?

    "That doesn't sound right. Google was working on a smartdevice OS long before they partnered with Apple on the iPhone (and before the iPhone project was given a go-ahead). Mr Jobs would have been aware of it too, just as most of the industry was. I've never seen mention of any expectation that Android would be dropped as a condition of Google supplying maps and other services to the iPhone."

    For the part in parentheses probably not. After reading a whole lot more it looks as tho Apple started iPhone development perhaps 5 months before Google brought the Android team on board, and 6 months or more before I had mistakenly believed. Thanks for sending me on the research trail to try and sort dates out. Sincerely. Thank you.

    But Google was highly unlikely to have any idea of Apple's iPhone development and wouldn't have made any agreement with Apple not to develop one of their own while Apple almost assuredly was aware of Android, started in 2003, and Google's purchase of them.
  • Reply 166 of 226
    jccjcc Posts: 213member
    The problem with Google is that they just have no taste. What do you expect from a company that's run by nerds for nerds?
  • Reply 167 of 226
    gatorguy wrote: »
    ... Footnote: Again it really matters not in the big picture but Google purchased Android in July 2005. It didn't hit the blogs until a month later, reported on the date you mentioned at BusinessInsider. Both companies appear to have started their phone projects at about the same time then, with Apple getting in ahead of Google by four or five months.

    According to your linked articles I'm seeing this timeline:

    Apple did a lot of work in 2003-2004 to develop touchscreen technology
    In February 2005 Steve had a secret meeting with Cingular... and Project Purple 2 was greenlit... Apple decides to build a phone
    By September 2005 there are 200 engineers and other Apple employees involved
    In November 2005 Apple hires wireless specialists since Apple doesn't have wireless expertise
    And at the end of 2005 the iPhone project is at full speed

    Meanwhile in Mountain View... Google purchases Android in July 2005... and they begin their journey.

    You're right... Apple had a 4 or 5 month head start... especially in hardware. By the time the ink dried on Google's acquisition of the Android software... Apple already had a ton of engineers developing their own hardware and software.

    Then in 2006... both companies were making prototypes. Apple worked throughout 2006, from prototype to final design, to develop what would become the multi-touch iPhone we all saw at MacWorld in January 2007.

    Google's prototypes in 2006 looked like a Blackberry... and Google expected Android to be certified by carriers between June 1st and August 31st of 2007, at which point it'd be released to manufacturers.

    But that didn't happen.

    Clearly there was some kind of "oh shit" moment when we hear "We're going to have to start over" from members of the Android team immediately after the iPhone announcement.

    Maybe it didn't happen exactly like that... but something pushed back Google's launch of their phone by another YEAR.

    Apple and Google may have started their smartphone projects within a few months of each other... but it sounds like Google had a "do-over" in the process.
  • Reply 168 of 226
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,586member
    According to your linked articles I'm seeing this timeline:

    Apple did a lot of work in 2003-2004 to develop touchscreen technology
    In February 2005 Steve had a secret meeting with Cingular... and Project Purple 2 was greenlit... Apple decides to build a phone
    By September 2005 there are 200 engineers and other Apple employees involved
    In November 2005 Apple hires wireless specialists since Apple doesn't have wireless expertise
    And at the end of 2005 the iPhone project is at full speed

    Meanwhile in Mountain View... Google purchases Android in July 2005... and they begin their journey.

    You're right... Apple had a 4 or 5 month head start... especially in hardware. By the time the ink dried on Google's acquisition of the Android software... Apple already had a ton of engineers developing their own hardware and software.

    Then in 2006... both companies were making prototypes. Apple worked throughout 2006, from prototype to final design, to develop what would become the multi-touch iPhone we all saw at MacWorld in January 2007.

    Google's prototypes in 2006 looked like a Blackberry... and Google expected Android to be certified by carriers between June 1st and August 31st of 2007, at which point it'd be released to manufacturers.

    But that didn't happen.

    Clearly there was some kind of "oh shit" moment when we hear "We're going to have to start over" from members of the Android team immediately after the iPhone announcement.

    Maybe it didn't happen exactly like that... but something pushed back Google's launch of their phone by another YEAR.

    Apple and Google may have started their smartphone projects within a few months of each other... but it sounds like Google had a "do-over" in the process.

    I don't know that it was so much a do-over on the software side as it was about what hardware it would be put on. The iPhone absolutely was a game-changer, no doubt about that at all. Google recognized it and better yet reacted faster than Microsoft, Motorola, Blackberry, Nokia and most anyone else already in the space.

    What Google had envisioned for it's first Android entry just wasn't going to cut it so it was a quick pivot to "Dream", forget "Sooner". Considering it's Google and their fun naming conventions I'm surprised they didn't call Dream "Later" instead.:D
    That was pretty much what was said in my first post in this thread:
    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161257/googles-reaction-to-apples-iphone-unveiling-were-going-to-have-to-start-over-on-android#post_2448108

    Had Google made the unwise choice of building the phones themselves they might still be trying to get their first one to market. Instead they were pragmatic about what they could do (they have some of the best engineers on the planet) and what would be best left to those with hardware experience. So separate development paths for Google and Apple paralleling each other to the same market.
  • Reply 169 of 226
    splifsplif Posts: 592member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    I don't know that it was so much a do-over on the software side as it was about what hardware it would be put on. The iPhone absolutely was a game-changer, no doubt about that at all. Google recognized it and better yet reacted faster than Microsoft, Motorola, Blackberry, Nokia and most anyone else already in the space.



    What Google had envisioned for it's first Android entry just wasn't going to cut it so it was a quick pivot to "Dream", forget "Sooner". Considering it's Google and their fun naming conventions I'm surprised they didn't call Dream "Later" instead.image

    That was pretty much what was said in my first post in this thread:

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161257/googles-reaction-to-apples-iphone-unveiling-were-going-to-have-to-start-over-on-android#post_2448108



    Had Google made the unwise choice of building the phones themselves they might still be trying to get their first one to market. Instead they were pragmatic about what they could do (they have some of the best engineers on the planet) and what would be best left to those with hardware experience. So separate development paths for Google and Apple paralleling each other to the same market.

     

    Except that is not what you consistently insinuate. You seem to want us to believe that somehow Google's entrance into the phone market was on parallel with Apple's vision or the product that Apple bought to market. It was not. A lot of companies already entered the market before Apple or Google. There is no new vision in entering a market. Jobs mentioned entering the market in 2003, it was a natural evolution from the iPod. A Blackberry clone is not visionary device & It was a do over on the software side for Google. What you said in your first post is not where you're logic took you in all of your consequent posts. Somehow you are trying to muddy the water of who did what when. Okay, Apple started working on the iPad in 2003, Which is a mobile touch device. So if we look at it from that perspective & your timeline, Google stated working on touch assisted devices 2 years later. Which of course is nonsense but, that is your timeline. If Apple started working on the tablet in 2003 then the must have discussed the tablet well in advance of 2003. The first link that I posted quoted Scott Forstall directly about the iPhone timeline. I tend to believe him over Mobile-review.com. Having a visionary product is not the same as being pragmatic. For christ sakes I think I saw Dell show off some kind of touch assisted device before Google did. When Google had there "Oh Sh*t" moment who's blueprint did they follow. They didn't say "Oh sh*T" Apple beat us to market with what we were already developing. The quote is "we are going to have to start over." You do know what start over means (& also what it implies), right?

  • Reply 170 of 226
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Splif View Post

     

     

    Except that is not what you consistently insinuate. You seem to want us to believe that somehow Google's entrance into the phone market was on parallel with Apple's vision or the product that Apple bought to market. It was not. A lot of companies already entered the market before Apple or Google. There is no new vision in entering a market. Jobs mentioned entering the market in 2003, it was a natural evolution from the iPod. A Blackberry clone is not visionary device & It was a do over on the software side for Google. What you said in your first post is not where you're logic took you in all of your consequent posts. Somehow you are trying to muddy the water of who did what when. Okay, Apple started working on the iPad in 2003, Which is a mobile touch device. So if we look at it from that perspective & your timeline, Google stated working on touch assisted devices 2 years later. Which of course is nonsense but, that is your timeline. If Apple started working on the tablet in 2003 then the must have discussed the tablet well in advance of 2003. The first link that I posted quoted Scott Forstall directly about the iPhone timeline. I tend to believe him over Mobile-review.com. Having a visionary product is not the same as being pragmatic. For christ sakes I think I saw Dell show off some kind of touch assisted device before Google did. When Google had there "Oh Sh*t" moment who's blueprint did they follow. They didn't say "Oh sh*T" Apple beat us to market with what we were already developing. The quote is "we are going to have to start over." You do know what start over means (& also what it implies), right?


     

    During one interview at All things digital, SJ said the iPad development has begun before the iPhone in the early 2000.  Apple has switch their focus on a phone product because of helps they could get from carriers. 

  • Reply 171 of 226
    splifsplif Posts: 592member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BigMac2 View Post

     

     

    During one interview at All things digital, SJ said the iPad development has begun before the iPhone in the early 2000.  Apple has switch their focus on a phone product because of helps they could get from carriers. 


    The truth is out there. It's easy to find & yet we always get this revisionist history nonsense. Look, I could care less what people use. It's a free market make your choice. What I have issues with is the constant muddying up of facts or that somehow a feature like Notification center is somehow on the same level as a paradigm shifting idea, designing the hardware to help that occur, building an actual platform & ecosystem. Imagine all the thinking that others did not have to do because of the iPhone. How does it work, how should it work, how do we do this or that etc., etc., etc. Of course none of that counts with some people. They have the idea that somehow a snowflake is the same as an avalanche because they both contain snow.

  • Reply 172 of 226
    apple v. samsung 12/19/2013 12:33 PM
    [I]"That is logical. Android developers knew the market changed from the product they where making to the apple iPhone. You have to adapt or fail. Google choice was simple adapt.but please do tail me what was stolen from the iPhone?"[/I]

    Actually many things, it's just hard to acknowledge it now since these features are now looking obvious to us... I'am talking about scrolling (remember scrolling bars in Symbian/winmo?), toggles, lockscreen and many similiar stuff/ideas which makes the UI so user-friendly. If google already had it's touch UI interface with the same features the HTC G1 has (before iPhone announcement), they wouldn't need to hold it's debut for another YEAR. You know what, OK, let's say A YEAR is needed for manufacturing and testing, but guess what? We can't see any Android touch UI based prototypes or OS screenshots/drawings from that time which would look at least remotely similiar to G1. For me it's quite clear that they had to rework the entire touch interface looking at the new iOS, and that's what this is all about.

    And to requote Dianne Hackborn's (who worked/works at Google) words posted in previous page, she's saying that UI is not the main aspect of the OS. We may or may not agree, but that's not the case and it won't change the fact that UI is one of the main reasons people buy iPhones in the first place. As to the other big chunk of text saying the Google already had some kind of touch UI before iPhone was released, I've already answered to that...
  • Reply 173 of 226
    smoger wrote: »
    apple v. samsung 12/19/2013 12:33 PM
    "That is logical. Android developers knew the market changed from the product they where making to the apple iPhone. You have to adapt or fail. Google choice was simple adapt.but please do tail me what was stolen from the iPhone?"

    Actually many things, it's just hard to acknowledge it now since these features are now looking obvious to us... I'am talking about scrolling (remember scrolling bars in Symbian/winmo?), toggles, lockscreen and many similiar stuff/ideas which makes the UI so user-friendly. If google already had it's touch UI interface with the same features the HTC G1 has (before iPhone announcement), they wouldn't need to hold it's debut for another YEAR. You know what, OK, let's say A YEAR is needed for manufacturing and testing, but guess what? We can't see any Android touch UI based prototypes or OS screenshots/drawings from that time which would look at least remotely similiar to G1. For me it's quite clear that they had to rework the entire touch interface looking at the new iOS, and that's what this is all about.

    And to requote Dianne Hackborn's (who worked/works at Google) words posted in previous page, she's saying that UI is not the main aspect of the OS. We may or may not agree, but that's not the case and it won't change the fact that UI is one of the main reasons people buy iPhones in the first place. As to the other big chunk of text saying the Google already had some kind of touch UI before iPhone was released, I've already answered to that...

    LG prada is a full touch device which came out before iphone. It included finger scrolling.

    What you are implying is that Apple is the one that first invented touch device. It is as ridiculous as saying that apple invented the rectangular form factor.

    Apple just took existing tech and make it popular. First Android has more dissimilarity to ios including pull down notification, widget and app drawer, hard buttons. The only common thing between them is the touch UI. But then again apple didn't invent touch UI.

    If we are talking about copying then Apple is the one that blatantly copy android UI later on like pull down notification, holo UI.
  • Reply 174 of 226
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,826member
    LG Prada did not have flick scrolling, and certainly not acceleration and rubber banding, it used scroll bars.

    [URL]http://gizmodo.com/233468/lg-prada-phone-ui-walkthrough[/URL]

    Plus, it was announced just a couple of months before the iPhone, Apple didn't have time to copy it, even if they'd wanted to.
  • Reply 175 of 226
    crowley wrote: »
    LG Prada did not have flick scrolling, and certainly not acceleration and rubber banding, it used scroll bars.

    http://gizmodo.com/233468/lg-prada-phone-ui-walkthrough

    Plus, it was announced just a couple of months before the iPhone, Apple didn't have time to copy it, even if they'd wanted to.

    Apple didn't invent flick scrolling either. If you want to be so nitty gritty then Apple stole and copied flick scrolling in the iPhone. Maybe apple implemented it first in a phone (I am not even sure of that)

    IPhone did not have pull down notification then but now it has. Maybe Google didn't invent pull down notification but it implemented first. Using your reasoning logic apple also copied android. You cant say no here otherwise you will sound hypocritical.
  • Reply 176 of 226
    splifsplif Posts: 592member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zerobim08 View Post





    Apple didn't invent flick scrolling either. If you want to be so nitty gritty then Apple stole and copied flick scrolling in the iPhone. Maybe apple implemented it first in a phone (I am not even sure of that)



    IPhone did not have pull down notification then but now it has. Maybe Google didn't invent pull down notification but it implemented first. Using your reasoning logic apple also copied android. You cant say no here otherwise you will sound hypocritical.

    It's like I said in my previous post. Some people always come back to Notification center as if their main argument. A snowflake is the same as an avalanche.

  • Reply 177 of 226
    splif wrote: »
    <div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/161257/googles-reaction-to-apples-iphone-unveiling-were-going-to-have-to-start-over-on-android/160#post_2449659" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>zerobim08</strong> <a href="/t/161257/googles-reaction-to-apples-iphone-unveiling-were-going-to-have-to-start-over-on-android/160#post_2449659"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /><br /><br />Apple didn't invent flick scrolling either. If you want to be so nitty gritty then Apple stole and copied flick scrolling in the iPhone. Maybe apple implemented it first in a phone (I am not even sure of that)<br /><br />IPhone did not have pull down notification then but now it has. Maybe Google didn't invent pull down notification but it implemented first. Using your reasoning logic apple also copied android. You cant say no here otherwise you will sound hypocritical.</div></div><p>It's like I said in my previous post. Some people always come back to Notification center as if their main argument. A snowflake is the same as an avalanche.</p>

    That's your argument. What avalanche? Looks like android is the avalanche. Apple has a slight head start but now android has 4 to 5 times more market share than iphone.

    Apple may have jump start (but not invent) the touch device trend just like Nokia has popularized the smartphone trend with its mass market Symbian phones. Android then took the smartphone trend even further.
  • Reply 178 of 226
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,826member
    zerobim08 wrote: »
    Apple didn't invent flick scrolling either. If you want to be so nitty gritty then Apple stole and copied flick scrolling in the iPhone. Maybe apple implemented it first in a phone (I am not even sure of that)

    IPhone did not have pull down notification then but now it has. Maybe Google didn't invent pull down notification but it implemented first. Using your reasoning logic apple also copied android. You cant say no here otherwise you will sound hypocritical.
    How is that my "reasoning logic"? My reasoning is that stealing and copying are actions that require time and intent, not just a precedent.

    Flick scrolling existed before the iPhone you say? Maybe it did, but if you want to say that Apple stole or copied it with credibility then you need to do two things:
    1. State where it existed before the iPhone
    2. Show a direct link or evidence that Apple used knowledge of the pre-existence to inform the iPhone.

    Apple copied a pull down gesture from Android you say? And I'm hypocritical if I say otherwise? Well thanks for implying I'm a hypocrite before even giving me a chance to reply. Actually I'd say that notifications appearing in an area of a screen predates Android; see menu bars and system trays on the desktop. Also, gestures, drawers and logs of events have existed for a long time too. That Android got there first in putting the banners and a pull down drawer at the top of the screen I'd consider mainly a question of timing for implementing an obvious feature. So did Apple copy Android, or did they just take a bit longer to get to an obvious idea? At the very least it's debateable.

    That Google and Samsung's hardware and software designs were inspired by the iPhone is not so debatable. Clearly they were. Released internal communications have shows that to be the case.
  • Reply 179 of 226
    A common misunderstanding among fandroids is copying = innovation.

    Well Apple did get some inspiration from android for its notification bar, and then built on it to make it its own. Same thing for the flat interface from iOS7. I don't see an issue it's great. It would be stupid to ignore good ideas from other companies. And I'm a fandroid, and an apple fanboy, and a Microsoft fan when they make great products.
  • Reply 180 of 226
    crowley wrote: »
    zerobim08 wrote: »
    Apple didn't invent flick scrolling either. If you want to be so nitty gritty then Apple stole and copied flick scrolling in the iPhone. Maybe apple implemented it first in a phone (I am not even sure of that)

    IPhone did not have pull down notification then but now it has. Maybe Google didn't invent pull down notification but it implemented first. Using your reasoning logic apple also copied android. You cant say no here otherwise you will sound hypocritical.
    How is that my "reasoning logic"? My reasoning is that stealing and copying are actions that require time and intent, not just a precedent.

    Flick scrolling existed before the iPhone you say? Maybe it did, but if you want to say that Apple stole or copied it with credibility then you need to do two things:
    1. State where it existed before the iPhone
    2. Show a direct link or evidence that Apple used knowledge of the pre-existence to inform the iPhone.

    Apple copied a pull down gesture from Android you say? And I'm hypocritical if I say otherwise? Well thanks for implying I'm a hypocrite before even giving me a chance to reply. Actually I'd say that notifications appearing in an area of a screen predates Android; see menu bars and system trays on the desktop. Also, gestures, drawers and logs of events have existed for a long time too. That Android got there first in putting the banners and a pull down drawer at the top of the screen I'd consider mainly a question of timing for implementing an obvious feature. So did Apple copy Android, or did they just take a bit longer to get to an obvious idea? At the very least it's debateable.

    That Google and Samsung's hardware and software designs were inspired by the iPhone is not so debatable. Clearly they were. Released internal communications have shows that to be the case.

    That's the hypocrisy there. When android used flick scrolling you said it copied from Apple but when apple used pull down notification you said it is not copying but apple is inspired and innovate.

    It is also hypocrisy to say flick scrolling is a new invention and not a natural progression of finger scrolling but the pull down notification is just a natural progression which apple would think of eventually.
Sign In or Register to comment.