Android docs reveal before iPhone, Google's plan was a Java button phone

1234568

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 175
    Absolutely and why Apple has taken them to court.

    Unfortunately, it appears that you can take whatever you want, confuse consumers if you're fast enough, create a "dead-ringer copy" (pun intended) and drag the innovator through the dirt by paying off media outlets and purchase channels to push your copy-cat device.

    THAT is what is so despicable about Samsung.

    THAT is what is so very frustrating for Apple fans and should be looked down upon by any and all a technophile.

    THAT is what is at stake here for future tech gadgets and serious innovation.

    The very demanding profession of engineering is at stake, because you will not be paid much more than those that only reverse engineer your products and science. Your timespan to recoup investment (ROI) is not 1, 2, 5, or even 20 years... it just became about 6 months.

    I personally can't wait for some of the new devices Apple has rumored to actually come to market... especially wearables. At this point everyone "knows" it can't be protected no matter what Apple files in the way of patents, trademarks or copyrights. No matter what those wearables may be or look like, "exact copies" (lookalikes really) will be on the market within 6 months. At this point it wouldn't even surprise me to see a "faux Apple logo" being legally sold and "marketed" from assorted blog and media outlets. The faux logo was the only thing missing from the first Samsung Galaxy packaging and accessories if anyone cares to remember.

    This whole scam is surely far more frustrating for Apple employees and engineers: they are expected... no... demanded to recreate/redefine another device/market every 6 months... or else they are DOOMED! Some of those employees and engineers have a lot of their sweat, tears and hard sacrifice paid in stock options and benefits that are tied to the market well-being of Apple. Who's going to want to do this anymore, when it's easier to skip over to Google or Samsung's new SV spy office and reverse engineer/scan what their colleagues at Apple created ... for the same compensation... maybe more! Former Apple engineers are quite valuable I've heard.

    Software, trade dress, and assorted tech patents and protections aren't ideal at the moment and should be reformed. The powers that be better have something planned to stem the tide of "court sanctioned IP theft", or this is going to be the last straw that broke America's back.

    You've handed manufacturing on a silver platter to Mexico, Latin America and most of all Asia. You allow massive holes in your tax code to allow even Apple to drive a truck with billions through them without recourse. So now you're on the road to allowing massive reverse engineering of your IP to be sold alongside your American innovations for practically nothing, calling into question why anyone would want to study math, physics and engineering.

    In summary, it's not Apple that is doomed. Technology and innovation itself is doomed if this injustice is allowed to proceed in the direction it seems to be heading. You will be "communizing" tech... rather than democratizing it. Is that really what we want?

    The definition of injustice encapsulated in a nutshell.
  • Reply 142 of 175
    Here's my explanation of why Apple is suing Samsung rather than Google.  It has to do with an element of patent law termed I<span style="color:rgb(63,69,73);line-height:1.4em;">ndirect Infringement.  </span>


    First, let's speak about direct infringement:

    <span style="color:rgb(63,69,73);line-height:1.4em;">Google, when it markets and sells its Nexus line of phones and tablets incorporating Android, can be accused of direct infringement of Apple's patents. Direct infringement is the act of developing and selling a product that infringes another company's patent. If Google never sold a Nexus device, but merely kept Android in a lab somewhere, then there would be no evidence that Google directly infringed Apple's patents; there would truly be no harm done and so no reason for Apple to litigate against Google. But Google does sell Android devices and so could be sued by Apple over parts of Android Apple feels infringes its patents.  However, the fact that Google sells relatively few Nexus devices means that the harm done by Google's direct infringement is relatively minor.</span>


    <p style="border:0px;color:rgb(63,69,73);margin-bottom:15px;">Now let's discuss indirect infringement.</p>

    <p style="border:0px;color:rgb(63,69,73);margin-bottom:15px;">If a company develops a technology, in this case Google's development of Android, and then licenses that technology to another company (doesn't matter for what licensing fee or no fee at all) and the licensing company (Samsung, for example) then incorporates that technology into its products, that company can be accused of indirect infringement. Of course, the company would have to be reasonably aware that the licensed technology infringed another company's patents. And it's the responsibility of the licensor to inform its licensees of any potential areas for infringement. But it's reasonable, given the high visibility and awareness of the presence of patents in the consumer electronics industry, that Google knew Android contained technology Apple would claim as its intellectual property and it's reasonable that Samsung would also know this, so there's little argument that could be made Samsung didn't know this.  Therefore, Samsung can be accused of indirect infringement, which carries the same burden of damages as does direct infringement. And since Samsung is the company that sells the most product containing technology Apple claims as their intellectual property, it's Samsung, not Google, that represents the most damage to Apple and therefore reasonable that Apple would sue Samsung rather than Google.</p>

    <p style="border:0px;color:rgb(63,69,73);">Finally, Apple's action against Samsung is also a salvo against Google. When licensing technology for use in an end product, as Samsung licensed Android for use in its phones and tablets, a smart company will insist that the licensing agreement include an indemnity clause, where the licensor (Google) agrees to indemnify the licensee (Samsung) in the event the incorporated technology is found to do harm. If Samsung has such language in the license agreement with Google, then Samsung will be able to go after Google to recover damages it is forced to pay Apple. Then Google and Samsung can fight it out between them with respect to which infringing parts came from Android and which were later added by Samsung on top of Android (slide to unlock, for example, appears to be a Samsung addition). To Apple, it matters not how the subsequent battle between Samsung and Google unfolds; Apple, if successful in its lawsuit against Samsung, will have recovered damages from the entity that was proximate in causing the most damages. </p>

    <p style="border:0px;color:rgb(63,69,73);"> </p>

    <p style="border:0px;color:rgb(63,69,73);">Dilger and other columnists and analysts may be excused for not speaking to the indirect infringement angle as to the reason Apple is going after Samsung; I wouldn't expect these folks to be especially conversant in patent law. However, it does cast some light on Mueller that he hasn't made this point. Given that it's a point in favor of Apple behaving rationally in its actions, one must wonder why such an obvious point about patent law would fail to warrant mention.</p>

    Very insightful, thank you! I learn something new here every day.
  • Reply 143 of 175
    drblank wrote: »
    I think Steve should have mentioned the fact that it was also a mobile applications device in addition to the other three.  That would have been even more effective in his presentation.

    The App Store came a year later.
  • Reply 144 of 175
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    The App Store came a year later.

     

    WebApps were immediately available.

     

    Goodbye Flash, hello HTML 5.

  • Reply 145 of 175
    chipsy wrote: »

    In the case of Eric Schmidt he did excuse himself for the iPhone meetings of the board, that became clear with the communication by Apple when Schmidt quit the board.
    “Eric has been an excellent Board member for Apple, investing his valuable time, talent, passion and wisdom to help make Apple successful,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple’s Board.”

    There are two stories going around, the one about Eric Schmidt knowing about the iPhone before release and that of Android suddenly changing course after the presentation of the iPhone (which DED is making an attempt to defend here). Both stories can't be right at the same time, they contradict each other. If Eric Schmidt saw the iPhone before release then Google wouldn't be surprised. It's one or the other or neither, but the Eric Schmidt story seems very unlikely to be true.

    Both stories can certainly be true. If Schmidt knew about the iPhone before its release and promptly changed Android's direction, it would look as though he had spied on Apple. By waiting until the iPhone was released, he could avoid that charge.
  • Reply 146 of 175
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,522member
    Both stories can certainly be true. If Schmidt knew about the iPhone before its release and promptly changed Android's direction, it would look as though he had spied on Apple. By waiting until the iPhone was released, he could avoid that charge.

    Huh?? After the iPhone was released everyone knew about it. If Schmidt kept whatever he knew to himself and didn't share it with the Android guys, at least until it was public knowledge. . . well just sayin.
  • Reply 147 of 175
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Do you think Apple would have invited him to serve as a director if there were questions about his honesty and ethics?

    Anyway. if you want to know a bit more about him this article has some background.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/eric-schmidt-is-the-executive-chairman-of-google-really-the-arrogant-defender-of-tax-avoidance-that-his-critics-claim-8418153.html

    People change. Remember the Steve Jobs/Schmidt cafè chat? The falling out was widely publicised.
  • Reply 148 of 175
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,522member
    People change. Remember the Steve Jobs/Schmidt cafè chat? The falling out was widely publicised.

    I can't remember the details of what that conversation supposedly was. What were they talking about?
  • Reply 149 of 175
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I can't remember the details of what that conversation supposedly was. What were they talking about?

    How the Giants were doing that year. Android, most likely.
  • Reply 150 of 175
    iPhone was unveiled at the beginning of 2007. 
    Schmidt left Apple’s board in late 2009 after Google's release of ChromeOS.

    A lot happened in those roughly 30 months, a period of time longer than it took Google to launch Android. 

    Google started denigrating the iPhone and tying its features (like Maps) to Android. Apple had to compete directly against Android, even as Schmidt was making dismissive, arrogant comments about how Android would/was/will destroy iOS. So he had to go. 

    There were more strategies to leak after the iPhone shipped than at launch. Where would Apple take the iPhone SDK? iOS 3? iOS 4? What about the iPad? Had Schmidt stayed, it would have been harder for Apple to stay ahead of Android. 

    Since his departure, Apple has earned all the money in mobile, even if the media and Android Enthusiasts have decided Android was winning because it was serving the low end of the market.

    History is interesting but the future is even more so. For instance, how will Google take the high end back from Apple after failing to even get the low middle with the failure of Moto X, Nexus 7, etc? And what will happen to Android if Apple releases a low end iPhone to sell in developing countries?

    I find those questions far more interesting and relevant than "what do predisposed fans who didn’t have any real access to the relevant facts think about Schmidt’s role in his position on Apple’s board?" I leave that to GatorGuy and the rest of the Android spin-defense team.

    Well said, Sir.
  • Reply 151 of 175
    roly wrote: »
    Oh that'd be awesome!!!


    Originally Posted by Marvin


    What I'd rather see as an outcome of the lawsuits is not any financial exchange but for Google to be forced to put a message somewhere inside Android that says 'inspired by Apple' and it would be somewhere Android users would have to see it frequently.

    I'd prefer to see a message on Android devices saying:

    This is a pale imitation of Apple's flagship OS, hastily scrambled together because we are thieves with no moral compass.
  • Reply 152 of 175
    hill60 wrote: »
    WebApps were immediately available.

    Goodbye Flash, hello HTML 5.

    They never took off though, until they found their home as Android apps.
  • Reply 153 of 175
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Huh?? After the iPhone was released everyone knew about it. If Schmidt kept whatever he knew to himself and didn't share it with the Android guys, at least until it was public knowledge. . . well just sayin.

    The implication I was trying to make was that if Schmidt got advance warning of the iPhone, he could have forewarned Google, who could then have reformulated their strategy behind closed doors, before explicitly announcing their abrupt change of direction in April 2007.
  • Reply 154 of 175
    gatorguy wrote: »
    I can't remember the details of what that conversation supposedly was. What were they talking about?

    Oh, I can't remember the details-ask DED for those. But as I recall, it was supposed to be about Jobs unsuccessfully trying to persuade Schmidt to do something. It might have been the Maps issue; was Jobs annoyed that Google weren't providing Apple with the same level of maps that Android were getting?
  • Reply 155 of 175
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    The implication I was trying to make was that if Schmidt got advance warning of the iPhone, he could have forewarned Google, who could then have reformulated their strategy behind closed doors, before explicitly announcing their abrupt change of direction in April 2007.

     

    There was 5 months pre-public announcement in January of 2007 since Schmidt joined the board in '06. There was 22 months post announcement since Android 1.0 was released with the G1. Anyone who has used Android 1.0 should know that it was far from anything but a hastily put together response to the iPhone...it sucked...it was no threat. And Android had no legs until the Moto Droid which was a success due to Advertising (which Verizon hastily destroyed).

     

    I just don't get how the Schmidt thing makes sense in context of timeline...nor do I get what it's supposed to prove. Everything is possible exactly as it happened without the added step of corporate espionage. It's borderline ad hominem  or whatever the appropriate fallacy is.

  • Reply 156 of 175

    When are moderators going to stop holding my posts?

  • Reply 157 of 175
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    jungmark wrote: »
    How the Giants were doing that year. Android, most likely.

    Eli threw 3 home runs, but then threw an interruption. :lol:
  • Reply 158 of 175
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,522member
    The implication I was trying to make was that if Schmidt got advance warning of the iPhone, he could have forewarned Google, who could then have reformulated their strategy behind closed doors, before explicitly announcing their abrupt change of direction in April 2007.

    Ah, gotcha now. So Rubin may have faked being surprised to throw off those who might have suspected Schmidt. Well I suppose anything is possible, including Eric Schmidt doing just what he should have and keeping his two positions separate just like Levinson and Campbell supposedly did.
  • Reply 159 of 175
    I miss my Palm Treo. That thing was literally a brick,
    I also miss my Palm Pre.
    I often wish Apple would release a small, simple phone just to mess with the market.

    F
  • Reply 160 of 175
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    junkdrop1 wrote: »
    I miss my Palm Treo. That thing was literally a brick,
    I also miss my Palm Pre.
    I often wish Apple would release a small, simple phone just to mess with the market.

    F

    Mess with which market, exactly? 2013 had 1B smartphone buyers; the end of the dumb phone is near:

    1000


    http://readwrite.com/2013/08/14/the-death-of-the-dumb-phone-is-near#awesm=~oBw18mYjkuMVV4
    http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/13/smartphones-outsell-dumb-phones-globally/
Sign In or Register to comment.