Lets be realistic, there was nothing Blackberry or any other company could have done about combatting Apple.
Google seemed to do an ok job of it -- their engineers testified that once they saw the iPhone, they changed their design and product in order to be more like it. doing so saved their skins..
They were pretty much the only ones to react instantly, and it still took them a few years (not until the 4.X series) before they had a 1.0-worthy product. Blackberry as we all know put its head in the sand. And given how Steve Ballmer sized up the threat, it's not too surprising that Windows Phone has gone basically nowhere despite technically being quite respectable nowadays:
They were pretty much the only ones to react instantly, and it still took them a few years (not until the 4.X series) before they had a 1.0-worthy product. Blackberry as we all know put its head in the sand. And given how Steve Ballmer sized up the threat, it's not too surprising that Windows Phone has gone basically nowhere despite technically being quite respectable nowadays:<iframe width="640" height="385" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/eywi0h_Y5_U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
I think saying 'instantly' under estimates Eric the Shitts's involvement. They had advance knowledge thanks to his seat on Apple's board so were already reacting. That was Steve's take judging by his reaction. Had RIM had an equally evil person on Apple's board for a few years perhaps history would be different.
Lets be realistic, there was nothing Blackberry or any other company could have done about combatting Apple.
Google seemed to do an ok job of it -- their engineers testified that once they saw the iPhone, they changed their design and product in order to be more like it. doing so saved their skins..
They were pretty much the only ones to react instantly, and it still took them a few years (not until the 4.X series) before they had a 1.0-worthy product. Blackberry as we all know put its head in the sand.
Blackberry still had a chance but botched it with the godawful Storm. Had the come out with the Z10 instead it would've been a different story.
Google seemed to do an ok job of it -- their engineers testified that once they saw the iPhone, they changed their design and product in order to be more like it. doing so saved their skins..
Well that can't be true. Everyone knows Schmidt stole iPhone information from Apple and took it back to Google before the iPhone was even released. Of course Google engineers already knew all about it. They didn't have to wait until it was officially revealed....
Or is it that Schmidt didn't steal anything in the first place so Google engineers really were surprised when they saw it, needing to do a reboot of their interface. Both scenarios being true certainly doesn't make sense.
I don’t disagree that driverless cars may happen in the distant future and in closely prescribed circumstances (in otherwise pedestrianised city centres, for example)
There are driverless bigrigs ready to be deployed on the nations highways now. It's such an immediate threat that the Teamsters are already battling it.
Driverless cars will happen in the not so distant future.
If you look at the companies that came out on top in the post-iPhone disruption era, the ones who copied the iPhone (and iOS) the quickest won. Fast followers like Google, Samsung, LG managed to thrive (even though the Android 1.X-era devices were crap), while laggards like Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia didn't come to market with their copies until it was too late. Palm might have been able to compete, but stumbled in execution and developer relations. It is interesting to note that Microsoft, RIM, Nokia, and Palm were the smartphone incumbents before the iPhone, and Google and Apple had zero percent share before 2007. The iPhone flipped the entire smartphone market by changing what people wanted from a phone.
If there isn't already, there will one day be a business school case-study on what to do when Apple enters your market. The company that will be the focus of that study will be Nike. First, partner with Apple. Then, about a year before the Watch comes out, get out of the fitness band business and focus on fitness software. Nike even let Apple hire away some of the Nike Fuelband engineers, no lawsuit on the horizon.
Subsititue Microsoft for Apple and pick any of a list of other companies and products, and you get the same logical result. To me this raises a host of issues, obviously not all of them entirely positive either for Apple or their partners.
SJ mentioned Apple just need to command a 1% of that market when introducing the iPhone (something like that, please correct if I'm wrong) such humble and realistic comment back then that all the others make fun of! Now who has the last laugh....
I wonder if this in some small way contributed to the mindset of those who didn't recognize the full threat of the iPhone until it was too late. If you're already inclined to believe that your dominant position will never end, it might be especially easy to dismiss a new competitor who only claims to be aiming for 1% of "your" market.
Blackberry executives were hardly the only ones who didn't understand the market that Apple would tap with the iPhone. Every other executive in the cell phone business seems to have been caught flat-footed.
There's no excuse either. I spent the two years before the iPhone came out looking for something that'd do the sorts of things I needed. None did. All seemed to be focused on created new income sources for cell companies.
If you look at the companies that came out on top in the post-iPhone disruption era, the ones who copied the iPhone (and iOS) the quickest won. Fast followers like Google, Samsung, LG managed to thrive (even though the Android 1.X-era devices were crap), while laggards like Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia didn't come to market with their copies until it was too late. Palm might have been able to compete, but stumbled in execution and developer relations. It is interesting to note that Microsoft, RIM, Nokia, and Palm were the smartphone incumbents before the iPhone, and Google and Apple had zero percent share before 2007. The iPhone flipped the entire smartphone market by changing what people wanted from a phone.
Not really. Nobody besides Apple has 'won' since the iPhone came out. Google has achieved some good market share numbers with Android, but behind that is the reality that they make little to no money off each Android user, while Android development and the Moto purchased have drained them of tens of billions of dollars. Samsung has a few good quarters, but that gravy train is coming to a screeching halt with the commoditization of Android, leaving Samsung pretty much where they started- good market share, poor profits. Nobody else has made any significant money at all post iPhone.
Well that can't be true. Everyone knows Schmidt stole iPhone information from Apple and took it back to Google before the iPhone was even released. Of course Google engineers already knew all about it. They didn't have to wait until it was officially revealed....
Or is it that Schmidt didn't steal anything in the first place so Google engineers really were surprised when they saw it, needing to do a reboot of their interface. Both scenarios being true certainly doesn't make sense.
Who is saying that Schmidt stole an iPhone prototype? Talk about a straw-man argument. Schmidt was shown the door after the iPhone was release, once he made it clear that he was going to clone the iPhone.
Who is saying that Schmidt stole an iPhone prototype? Talk about a straw-man argument.
Yes your comment is the epitome of strawman since not even I said anything about folks believing he stole an actual iPhone. :rolleyes:
Hell, when Schmidt was asked to join Apple's board Jobs and Company knew Google was developing a mobile OS that might compete with them eventually. Who in the industry didn't know? Perhaps Apple thought by keeping Google close by they could better control them, maybe convince them to at least slow down by dangling a couple of carrots. Dunno. In any event Google's development of Android predated even Apple's start of the iPhone project, with investment starting in 2004. Before you say yeah, but... but... Project Purple! that was not a team working on the iPhone but instead the iPad, a totally different product aimed at a different market with different purposes. The Apple acknowledged timelines peg iPhone development getting the green-light around mid 2005.
Further, if commenters here really want to argue that Apple was hurt and surprised that Google was making their own mobile OS they apparently don't have much regard for Apple's management and their intelligence. Likely no one else in the valley was surprised nor should they have been. Google had talked about it even before buying Android.
No, IMHO Schmidt's invite to Apple's board was a calculated gambit on their part. Apple wasn't blindsided. They're much too smart and connected for that.
All we know about driverless cars is that they run fine in perfectly good conditions. When a company like Google tells you that they have never ever ever crashed, I feel that they have never ever ever been tested properly. Most of the reasons why you test is to catch the bugs, of course, and I don't think Google has produced perfect software in any of their products, certainly not in version 1.
For that reason , outside limited routes and sequestered roads deliberately designed for driverless cars, I don't see this taking off.
Note my timeframe. By 2040, testing and bug-fixing should be thoroughly done. You know, 25 years is a loooooong time.
Yes your comment is the epitome of strawman since not even I said anything about folks believing he stole an actual iPhone.
Hell, when Schmidt was asked to join Apple's board Jobs and Company knew Google was developing a mobile OS that might compete with them eventually. Who in the industry didn't know? Perhaps Apple thought by keeping Google close by they could better control them, maybe convince them to at least slow down by dangling a couple of carrots. Dunno. In any event Google's development of Android predated even Apple's start of the iPhone project, with investment starting in 2004. Before you say yeah, but... but... Project Purple! that was not a team working on the iPhone but instead the iPad, a totally different product aimed at a different market with different purposes. The Apple acknowledged timelines peg iPhone development getting the green-light around mid 2005.
Further, if commenters here really want to argue that Apple was hurt and surprised that Google was making their own mobile OS they apparently don't have much regard for Apple's management and their intelligence. Likely no one else in the valley was surprised nor should they have been. Google had talked about it even before buying Android.
No, IMHO Schmidt's invite to Apple's board was a calculated gambit on their part. Apple wasn't blindsided. They're much too smart and connected for that.
DED wrote an article years ago refuting almost everything you have to say, I won't bore you with the details, it is YOU who are writing revisionist history , but then again you will never change your views because you have an agenda
DED wrote an article years ago refuting almost everything you have to say, I won't bore you with the details, it is YOU who are writing revisionist history , but then again you will never change your views because you have an agenda
You should find that year's old article too. Your memory is faulty. Contrary to what you think Daniel opined that Android wasn't intended as an Apple competitor, instead clearly envisioned as a way for Google not have it's hand's tied by Microsoft's mobile plans. He and I actually agreed. How about that?
Edit: Here I'll do the grunt work for you. Here's what DED really believed and proudly wrote about Google, Android and the "Google phone" as iPhone competitor years ago in 2007. Just months after the iPhone was introduced wasn't it? http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/10/20/the-great-google-gphone-myth/
Comments
Lets be realistic, there was nothing Blackberry or any other company could have done about combatting Apple.
Google seemed to do an ok job of it -- their engineers testified that once they saw the iPhone, they changed their design and product in order to be more like it. doing so saved their skins..
They were pretty much the only ones to react instantly, and it still took them a few years (not until the 4.X series) before they had a 1.0-worthy product. Blackberry as we all know put its head in the sand. And given how Steve Ballmer sized up the threat, it's not too surprising that Windows Phone has gone basically nowhere despite technically being quite respectable nowadays:
Different set of circumstances.
I think saying 'instantly' under estimates Eric the Shitts's involvement. They had advance knowledge thanks to his seat on Apple's board so were already reacting. That was Steve's take judging by his reaction. Had RIM had an equally evil person on Apple's board for a few years perhaps history would be different.
Blackberry still had a chance but botched it with the godawful Storm. Had the come out with the Z10 instead it would've been a different story.
Or is it that Schmidt didn't steal anything in the first place so Google engineers really were surprised when they saw it, needing to do a reboot of their interface. Both scenarios being true certainly doesn't make sense.
Driverless cars will happen in the not so distant future.
If you look at the companies that came out on top in the post-iPhone disruption era, the ones who copied the iPhone (and iOS) the quickest won. Fast followers like Google, Samsung, LG managed to thrive (even though the Android 1.X-era devices were crap), while laggards like Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia didn't come to market with their copies until it was too late. Palm might have been able to compete, but stumbled in execution and developer relations. It is interesting to note that Microsoft, RIM, Nokia, and Palm were the smartphone incumbents before the iPhone, and Google and Apple had zero percent share before 2007. The iPhone flipped the entire smartphone market by changing what people wanted from a phone.
If there isn't already, there will one day be a business school case-study on what to do when Apple enters your market. The company that will be the focus of that study will be Nike. First, partner with Apple. Then, about a year before the Watch comes out, get out of the fitness band business and focus on fitness software. Nike even let Apple hire away some of the Nike Fuelband engineers, no lawsuit on the horizon.
Subsititue Microsoft for Apple and pick any of a list of other companies and products, and you get the same logical result. To me this raises a host of issues, obviously not all of them entirely positive either for Apple or their partners.
SJ mentioned Apple just need to command a 1% of that market when introducing the iPhone (something like that, please correct if I'm wrong) such humble and realistic comment back then that all the others make fun of! Now who has the last laugh....
I wonder if this in some small way contributed to the mindset of those who didn't recognize the full threat of the iPhone until it was too late. If you're already inclined to believe that your dominant position will never end, it might be especially easy to dismiss a new competitor who only claims to be aiming for 1% of "your" market.
There's no excuse either. I spent the two years before the iPhone came out looking for something that'd do the sorts of things I needed. None did. All seemed to be focused on created new income sources for cell companies.
If you look at the companies that came out on top in the post-iPhone disruption era, the ones who copied the iPhone (and iOS) the quickest won. Fast followers like Google, Samsung, LG managed to thrive (even though the Android 1.X-era devices were crap), while laggards like Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia didn't come to market with their copies until it was too late. Palm might have been able to compete, but stumbled in execution and developer relations. It is interesting to note that Microsoft, RIM, Nokia, and Palm were the smartphone incumbents before the iPhone, and Google and Apple had zero percent share before 2007. The iPhone flipped the entire smartphone market by changing what people wanted from a phone.
Not really. Nobody besides Apple has 'won' since the iPhone came out. Google has achieved some good market share numbers with Android, but behind that is the reality that they make little to no money off each Android user, while Android development and the Moto purchased have drained them of tens of billions of dollars. Samsung has a few good quarters, but that gravy train is coming to a screeching halt with the commoditization of Android, leaving Samsung pretty much where they started- good market share, poor profits. Nobody else has made any significant money at all post iPhone.
Well that can't be true. Everyone knows Schmidt stole iPhone information from Apple and took it back to Google before the iPhone was even released. Of course Google engineers already knew all about it. They didn't have to wait until it was officially revealed....
Or is it that Schmidt didn't steal anything in the first place so Google engineers really were surprised when they saw it, needing to do a reboot of their interface. Both scenarios being true certainly doesn't make sense.
Who is saying that Schmidt stole an iPhone prototype? Talk about a straw-man argument. Schmidt was shown the door after the iPhone was release, once he made it clear that he was going to clone the iPhone.
Hell, when Schmidt was asked to join Apple's board Jobs and Company knew Google was developing a mobile OS that might compete with them eventually. Who in the industry didn't know? Perhaps Apple thought by keeping Google close by they could better control them, maybe convince them to at least slow down by dangling a couple of carrots. Dunno. In any event Google's development of Android predated even Apple's start of the iPhone project, with investment starting in 2004. Before you say yeah, but... but... Project Purple! that was not a team working on the iPhone but instead the iPad, a totally different product aimed at a different market with different purposes. The Apple acknowledged timelines peg iPhone development getting the green-light around mid 2005.
Further, if commenters here really want to argue that Apple was hurt and surprised that Google was making their own mobile OS they apparently don't have much regard for Apple's management and their intelligence. Likely no one else in the valley was surprised nor should they have been. Google had talked about it even before buying Android.
No, IMHO Schmidt's invite to Apple's board was a calculated gambit on their part. Apple wasn't blindsided. They're much too smart and connected for that.
Note my timeframe. By 2040, testing and bug-fixing should be thoroughly done. You know, 25 years is a loooooong time.
Sure there was, they could have been like Google and just change things by copying Apple.
Darwin: the thing that does not adapt to its changing environment goes extinct.
case in point: modern technological civilization re: global warming, note I didn't say the human race THAT will probably survive
Yes your comment is the epitome of strawman since not even I said anything about folks believing he stole an actual iPhone.
Hell, when Schmidt was asked to join Apple's board Jobs and Company knew Google was developing a mobile OS that might compete with them eventually. Who in the industry didn't know? Perhaps Apple thought by keeping Google close by they could better control them, maybe convince them to at least slow down by dangling a couple of carrots. Dunno. In any event Google's development of Android predated even Apple's start of the iPhone project, with investment starting in 2004. Before you say yeah, but... but... Project Purple! that was not a team working on the iPhone but instead the iPad, a totally different product aimed at a different market with different purposes. The Apple acknowledged timelines peg iPhone development getting the green-light around mid 2005.
Further, if commenters here really want to argue that Apple was hurt and surprised that Google was making their own mobile OS they apparently don't have much regard for Apple's management and their intelligence. Likely no one else in the valley was surprised nor should they have been. Google had talked about it even before buying Android.
No, IMHO Schmidt's invite to Apple's board was a calculated gambit on their part. Apple wasn't blindsided. They're much too smart and connected for that.
DED wrote an article years ago refuting almost everything you have to say, I won't bore you with the details, it is YOU who are writing revisionist history , but then again you will never change your views because you have an agenda
Edit: Here I'll do the grunt work for you. Here's what DED really believed and proudly wrote about Google, Android and the "Google phone" as iPhone competitor years ago in 2007. Just months after the iPhone was introduced wasn't it?
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/10/20/the-great-google-gphone-myth/
Not enough? How about another, this one from 2008
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/08/25/will-googles-android-play-dos-to-apples-iphone/
Still not buying in? How about yet another, now 2009
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/10/21/gartners-presumptuous-coronation-of-android-as-the-windows-of-smartphones/
Pay particular attention to the latter part of the article, "Let me say what I REALLY think"
Do yourself a favor and "get bored with the details" before replying. I'm not the one promoting a revisionist history sir.
Blah, blah, blah
This article is about the decline of BB. Take your Android history lesson to some other thread where somebody cares.