The watch industry is already all too familiar with being the poster child of Paradigm Shift victimization with the whole Timex story. They aren't likely to go through that twice.
The Apple Watch isn't the next iPhone or iPod.
I wasn't the one who decided Google/Android should be included in the conversation. Then again aren't they always dragged in, and not by me?
You are the Google ascribed expert on site, though my recollection is that Android started out as a camera OS, and was redirected to a phone OS at Google.
Why exactly do we need a Google expert on site anyway? What exactly do you get out of this defense of the Empire?
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.
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
They don't make any money off Android, and pretty much no one else does either. Sure, they have market share but that hasn't proven to be a very compelling metric when gauging business success.
Let me rephrase then - Samsung. they adapted, rim failed.
You are the Google ascribed expert on site, though my recollection is that Android started out as a camera OS, and was redirected to a phone OS at Google.
Yes, it's started out as a camera OS. It's focus was switched to development as a phone operating system sometime in 2004, which is why Google took an interest in it by investing, then buying it outright early in 2005.
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.
Googles engineers said under oath they changed their plans once they saw iPhone. What they didn't say, and what we'll never know, is how much advance notice they got from their ceo.
Googles engineers said under oath they changed their plans once they saw iPhone. What they didn't say, and what we'll never know, is how much advance notice they got from their ceo.
So yes, they can both be true. Duh.
Wasn't the testimony that they first saw the iPhone during the presentation from Steve Jobs on stage, which prompted their rethinking of what it would take to be successful?
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?
Yeah and here's what it looked like before your boys got out the Xerox:
...it was a BB clone, not an iPhone clone. That is, until they copied Apple.
Wasn't the testimony that they first saw the iPhone during the presentation from Steve Jobs on stage, which prompted their rethinking of what it would take to be successful?
So they say. As their ceo sat on the Apple board. We'll never know, that's for certain.
So they say. As their ceo sat on the Apple board. We'll never know, that's for certain.
Common sense says it didn't happen, nor did Apple think so either. He remained on Apple's BOD nearly three more years, until August of 2009 and may have been around even a bit longer but for the FTC raising questions about the close cooperation between Google and Apple including the sharing of Board members (interlocking directorates). Schmidt wasn't the only one serving both.
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?
That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at things. Google was quite capable of capturing some/all of the mobile ad revenue of Windows/iPhone without going to the enormous expense of making Android and defending it by buying worthless patents for billions of dollars. Showing that Android is finally generating a trickle of revenue, even if true, does not mean that Android has "paid off" by any stretch of the imagination.
If this is a payoff, it surely is a poor excuse for one. Google has created a huge and chaotic machine in Android that is barely paying off even for users, let alone the manufacturers of devices and developers. Time has not been kind to Google in this pursuit, and there are clouds on the horizon from non-traditional competitors.
That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at things. Google was quite capable of capturing some/all of the mobile ad revenue of Windows/iPhone without going to the enormous expense of making Android and defending it by buying worthless patents for billions of dollars. Showing that Android is finally generating a trickle of revenue, even if true, does not mean that Android has "paid off" by any stretch of the imagination.
Microsoft's web services compete directly with Google's. From Google's perspective it would have been extremely risky to go all in on Windows with no backup strategy when MS could easily shut off the pipe by e.g. switching the search engine to Bing. Similarly with iOS, since Apple ultimately decides what services to partner with and dictates the terms of such partnerships.
I wrote about this years ago, as it's a classic case of marketing myopia, and not understanding their core business model. BB "thought" they were in the phone business, when actually they were in the secure communication business.
When iPhone and Android came out and took off, RIM had one chance: Take their secure messaging platform and port it to iOS and Android and Windows phone as apps.
If they had done that soon enough, they stood to own the secure corporate cross-platform messaging world. Need to send a secure message to your coworker? And you're on iOS and he's on Android? No problem. Just send it. It's going through a BB server, paid for by your $10/month BBM secure subscription service.
Instead, BB focused on building handsets with buttons, then a new OS and handsets without buttons, and then, finally, they focused on their crown-jewel, the BBM platform.
Common sense says it didn't happen, nor did Apple think so either. He remained on Apple's BOD nearly three more years, until August of 2009 and may have been around even a bit longer but for the FTC raising questions about the close cooperation between Google and Apple including the sharing of Board members (interlocking directorates). Schmidt wasn't the only one serving both.
Common sense doesn't say anything at all on the possibility that Schmidt guided his product team leveraging what he heard at Apple.
That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at things. Google was quite capable of capturing some/all of the mobile ad revenue of Windows/iPhone without going to the enormous expense of making Android and defending it by buying worthless patents for billions of dollars. Showing that Android is finally generating a trickle of revenue, even if true, does not mean that Android has "paid off" by any stretch of the imagination.
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/
Not enough? How about another, this one from 2008
ww.roughlydrafted.com/2008/08/25/will-googles-android-play-dos-to-apples-iphone/
Do yourself a favor and "get bored with the details" before replying. I'm not the one promoting a revisionist history sir.
Unfortunately I took the bait and read your articles… They don't make the point you were trying to make. Shame on me. You're getting a little delusional gator guy. It's time you admit your google bias.
Comments
Maybe you should read it.
I wasn't the one who decided Google/Android should be included in the conversation. Then again aren't they always dragged in, and not by me?
You are the Google ascribed expert on site, though my recollection is that Android started out as a camera OS, and was redirected to a phone OS at Google.
Why exactly do we need a Google expert on site anyway? What exactly do you get out of this defense of the Empire?
So what DED writes is gospel?
Let me rephrase then - Samsung. they adapted, rim failed.
Googles engineers said under oath they changed their plans once they saw iPhone. What they didn't say, and what we'll never know, is how much advance notice they got from their ceo.
So yes, they can both be true. Duh.
Yeah and here's what it looked like before your boys got out the Xerox:
...it was a BB clone, not an iPhone clone. That is, until they copied Apple.
So they say. As their ceo sat on the Apple board. We'll never know, that's for certain.
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?
Android was ultimately a hedge for their investments in other platforms that they had little control over (first Windows then iOS), a moat around their ad platform. And if this story has any substance (http://blog.gsmarena.com/android-reportedly-overtakes-ios-mobile-ad-revenue-first-time/), their gambit appears to have paid off.
Android was ultimately a hedge for their investments in other platforms that they had little control over (first Windows then iOS), a moat around their ad platform. And if this story has any substance (http://blog.gsmarena.com/android-reportedly-overtakes-ios-mobile-ad-revenue-first-time/), their gambit appears to have paid off.
That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at things. Google was quite capable of capturing some/all of the mobile ad revenue of Windows/iPhone without going to the enormous expense of making Android and defending it by buying worthless patents for billions of dollars. Showing that Android is finally generating a trickle of revenue, even if true, does not mean that Android has "paid off" by any stretch of the imagination.
Android was ultimately a hedge for their investments in other platforms that they had little control over (first Windows then iOS), a moat around their ad platform. And if this story has any substance (http://blog.gsmarena.com/android-reportedly-overtakes-ios-mobile-ad-revenue-first-time/), their gambit appears to have paid off.
If this is a payoff, it surely is a poor excuse for one. Google has created a huge and chaotic machine in Android that is barely paying off even for users, let alone the manufacturers of devices and developers. Time has not been kind to Google in this pursuit, and there are clouds on the horizon from non-traditional competitors.
Let Google wallow in this glorious "success".
That's a pretty simplistic way of looking at things. Google was quite capable of capturing some/all of the mobile ad revenue of Windows/iPhone without going to the enormous expense of making Android and defending it by buying worthless patents for billions of dollars. Showing that Android is finally generating a trickle of revenue, even if true, does not mean that Android has "paid off" by any stretch of the imagination.
Microsoft's web services compete directly with Google's. From Google's perspective it would have been extremely risky to go all in on Windows with no backup strategy when MS could easily shut off the pipe by e.g. switching the search engine to Bing. Similarly with iOS, since Apple ultimately decides what services to partner with and dictates the terms of such partnerships.
I wrote about this years ago, as it's a classic case of marketing myopia, and not understanding their core business model. BB "thought" they were in the phone business, when actually they were in the secure communication business.
When iPhone and Android came out and took off, RIM had one chance: Take their secure messaging platform and port it to iOS and Android and Windows phone as apps.
If they had done that soon enough, they stood to own the secure corporate cross-platform messaging world. Need to send a secure message to your coworker? And you're on iOS and he's on Android? No problem. Just send it. It's going through a BB server, paid for by your $10/month BBM secure subscription service.
Instead, BB focused on building handsets with buttons, then a new OS and handsets without buttons, and then, finally, they focused on their crown-jewel, the BBM platform.
Only by then it was much too late.
Common sense doesn't say anything at all on the possibility that Schmidt guided his product team leveraging what he heard at Apple.
Then what's your theory?
Unfortunately I took the bait and read your articles… They don't make the point you were trying to make. Shame on me. You're getting a little delusional gator guy. It's time you admit your google bias.
The theory is they were trying to create what they have now. A bunch of cheap phones that generate revenue by selling user data.