Twenty years sounds just about right for such a fundamental societal change. They tend to take about twenty years to go from conception and lobbying to legislature and mainstream. [/QUOTE]
Then you didn't read them very carefully if you did at all.
The DED takeaway from the first link: ...the only remaining competitor who could be thrown at Apple’s iPhone would have to be larger than life and come riding in from the heavens on a mysterious dark horse.
That leaves the fantastically valued Google as the only candidate for taking on the iPhone... The main problem facing pundits chanting their hope that the GPhone will attack Apple’s position is that Google has no interest in taking Apple’s iPhone down. Google is working to broaden its search services into mobiles, but the iPhone is already a Google ally, prominently featuring Google Maps integration and Google search integration in its browser as the default search option."
From the second DED blog article link: "In 2005, Google purchased a startup named Android, which had been in business for nearly two years. The secretive startup was known only to be working on software for mobile phones. It was being run by a who’s who of mobile industry veterans, including Andy Rubin, the founder of Danger... The first product from the group would be Android, a mobile operating system built on the Linux kernel...
In October 2007, I (DED) printed the Great Google GPhone Myth, taking apart the idea that Google would be directly competing against the iPhone, and describing that Google was really working on a free alternative to Windows Mobile as a conduit for getting its search and related services on a broader variety of mobiles. Google’s services were already on the iPhone."
"Google wasn’t getting into the phone handset business at all; it was only making sure that its mobile search products would not risk being marginalized by the threat of Windows Mobile on phones in the same way Microsoft had been working to leverage its PC monopoly to push Google search off the Windows desktop..."
And from the third DED article. By now the third version of the iPhone (3GS) was already being sold.: "I think Google is a fantastic company on many levels, ranging from its commitment to supporting open, interoperable software development to its core business model that effectively churns out free (well, ad-supported) services that almost always work well and are quite reliable. I use Google’s services every day. I earn some money from Google AdSense from the properties that publish my articles. While I think the tech media sometimes gives Google a free pass in some areas where it deserves scrutiny, Google’s track record in playing fair, in supporting the environment, in treating its employees well, in not immediately selling out in human rights issues to gain access to China, and many other areas is much better than most of its peers."
Delusional my butt. DED supported the points I made just as I said he did.
Paul94544 before you was saying Apple didn't know Google was making a mobile OS. You refuted him by saying Google wasn't competing with Apple, they were competing with Microsoft. But, I'm not looking at this from Google's perspective. I'm not saying Google was between a rock and hard place, they were competing against Microsoft, what could the do, they weren't trying to hurt Apple but they had to copy Apple to fend off Microsoft. That's not my point and it wasn't the original point which you must have missed because you were looking at it from Google's standpoint. The original post was just saying that Apple didn't know Google was developing it. Some other people also brought this up, and you said they probably did, but you don't really know. When they called you on it, you said they had to copy because their first phone would have been unsuccessful - admitting Google's fault. You dismiss Apple until you're cornered into admitting a fault of Google and then you say it blatantly to look unbias, like your personality is to just say the facts.. Why else would you say something negative about both camps? But, that's not much of a smokescreen. For reasons stated above.
"Like many established companies faced with a disruptive technology, BlackBerry doubled down. And lost." -- Philip Elmer-DeWitt In tech, as in life, willingness to change and roll with punches is the only to stay relevant -- no matter how comfortable things now might be. As for mistakes and wrong turns, don't worry about them. Only those who never try can have the luxury of making no mistakes -- and they can keep it.
Again, what guarantee is there that those apps would be allowed onto the app store? Google could have very easily found itself shut out from the mobile world, and took steps to ensure that didn't happen.
There's no guarantees in life, and I'm sure Google thought they were doing themselves a favor with Android. The reality is that Android has cost them tens of billions for only a trickle of revenue while damaging their relationship with Apple, a major partner who controls access to hundreds of millions of the most valuable customers. It also lost them a huge chunk of the mobile maps market which they otherwise would have had nearly 100% market share in. From the point of view of a Google shareholder, Android's about as screwed up as a strategy can be, unless of course you're the kind of shareholder who hates money and just wants to own some market share.
I'd rather die by my decisions than from the decisions of others. It's convenient to think that Apple would've remained a loyal partner but Google didn't have that luxury. Yes Android has cost them much but how much higher would that cost be if they didn’t make Android, and Apple made its own maps to compete with Google's?
If you think that scenario would've been unlikely then just look at all the developers that Apple has screwed by adding the function of the devs app into iOS. Overnight those devs lost that income.
They are doing exactly that, and they are more successful at it than with Android, last I heard.
Google make more money off iOS than off their entire Android platform.
Tell that to dasanman, he was trying to make a point that Google needed an OS in case Apple/Microsoft locked them out. And they'd be in danger of being unsuccessful. I said there's no way of knowing what would have happened in that alternate universe. You think they would have been, maybe that interests him somehow?
And as a big business do you have the luxury to wait and see if you get locked out, or do you take measures to ensure that you're not? Everyone here is either ridiculing Blackberry for not acting fast enough, or criticizing Google for acting at just the right time.
Paul94544 before you was saying Apple didn't know Google was making a mobile OS. You refuted him by saying Google wasn't competing with Apple, they were competing with Microsoft. But, I'm not looking at this from Google's perspective. I'm not saying Google was between a rock and hard place, they were competing against Microsoft, what could the do, they weren't trying to hurt Apple but they had to copy Apple to fend off Microsoft. That's not my point and it wasn't the original point which you must have missed because you were looking at it from Google's standpoint. The original post was just saying that Apple didn't know Google was developing it..
Of course Apple knew Google was developing a mobile OS. In fact talk of a "Google Phone" rather than just an OS had surfaced before Schmidt was even asked to join Apple's BOD. Heck the carriers, T-Mo specifically, were shown prototypes in mid-2006 (there were three different hardware builds being shown, one with an emphasis on touchscreen control). By the fall of 2006 those stories had made it to the mainstream media and even connected to a partnership with Orange. How could Apple and Mr. Jobs not have known about it? You really think they were so clueless about what was going on in mobile? If so that doesn't speak well for your opinion of Apple and their management.
No IMHO Mr. Jobs and Apple knew Google's interest in and development of a mobile OS for smartphones and it factored in to their determination it was beneficial to them if they added Eric Schmidt to the board.
What many did and/do not seemto appreciate is the extreme difficulty to create a mobile operating system comparable to Apple’s iOS. This is particularly in light of the impediments, e.g., Jobs demand for secrecy; patents, that Jobs put in place to ensure and impede anyone from doing so; a lack of understanding and/or denial to accept Jobs visionaries.
Firstly, Apple's iOS is built around Apple's OS X, 'built on technologies developed at NeXT between the second half of the 1980s and Apple's purchase of the company in late 1996.
Jobs started to think about a mobile phone in 2002, shortly after the first iPod was released.
Top executives and a highly selective group of Apple engineers started working on Project Purple around 2003.
[Full] Development of what was to become the iPhone began in 2004, when Apple started to gather a team of 1000 employees to work on the highly confidential "Project Purple”. By the way, 'Apple CEO Steve Jobs steered the original focus away from a tablet, like the iPad, and towards a phone.
However, 'mobile chips had grown more capable and could theoretically now support some version of the famous Macintosh OS. But it would need to be radically stripped down and rewritten; an iPhone OS should be only a few hundred megabytes, roughly a 10th the size of OS X.'
Before they could start designing the iPhone, Jobs and his top executives had to decide how to solve this problem. Engineers looked carefully at Linux, which had already been rewritten for use on mobile phones, but Jobs refused to use someone else's software. They built a prototype of a phone, embedded on an iPod, that used the clickwheel as a dialer, but it could only select and dial numbers — not surf the Net.
So, in early 2006, just as Apple engineers were finishing their yearlong effort to revise OS X to work with Intel chips, Apple began the process of rewriting OS X again for the iPhone.’
And nearly a year and a half later and after spending a ‘$150 million', the first iPhone was launched with extreme success in mid 2007.
However, not without the typical deluge of naysayers and competitors declaring its demise and promises to do better, each and every iteration.
And here in mid 2015, nearly a decade later, we are still waiting. NOT.
Comments
Originally posted by [B]spheric[/B]
Twenty years sounds just about right for such a fundamental societal change. They tend to take about twenty years to go from conception and lobbying to legislature and mainstream.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed !
Paul94544 before you was saying Apple didn't know Google was making a mobile OS. You refuted him by saying Google wasn't competing with Apple, they were competing with Microsoft. But, I'm not looking at this from Google's perspective. I'm not saying Google was between a rock and hard place, they were competing against Microsoft, what could the do, they weren't trying to hurt Apple but they had to copy Apple to fend off Microsoft. That's not my point and it wasn't the original point which you must have missed because you were looking at it from Google's standpoint. The original post was just saying that Apple didn't know Google was developing it. Some other people also brought this up, and you said they probably did, but you don't really know. When they called you on it, you said they had to copy because their first phone would have been unsuccessful - admitting Google's fault. You dismiss Apple until you're cornered into admitting a fault of Google and then you say it blatantly to look unbias, like your personality is to just say the facts.. Why else would you say something negative about both camps? But, that's not much of a smokescreen. For reasons stated above.
In tech, as in life, willingness to change and roll with punches is the only to stay relevant -- no matter how comfortable things now might be. As for mistakes and wrong turns, don't worry about them. Only those who never try can have the luxury of making no mistakes -- and they can keep it.
I'd rather die by my decisions than from the decisions of others. It's convenient to think that Apple would've remained a loyal partner but Google didn't have that luxury. Yes Android has cost them much but how much higher would that cost be if they didn’t make Android, and Apple made its own maps to compete with Google's?
If you think that scenario would've been unlikely then just look at all the developers that Apple has screwed by adding the function of the devs app into iOS. Overnight those devs lost that income.
And as a big business do you have the luxury to wait and see if you get locked out, or do you take measures to ensure that you're not? Everyone here is either ridiculing Blackberry for not acting fast enough, or criticizing Google for acting at just the right time.
No IMHO Mr. Jobs and Apple knew Google's interest in and development of a mobile OS for smartphones and it factored in to their determination it was beneficial to them if they added Eric Schmidt to the board.
[Full] Development of what was to become the iPhone began in 2004, when Apple started to gather a team of 1000 employees to work on the highly confidential "Project Purple”. By the way, 'Apple CEO Steve Jobs steered the original focus away from a tablet, like the iPad, and towards a phone.
However, 'mobile chips had grown more capable and could theoretically now support some version of the famous Macintosh OS. But it would need to be radically stripped down and rewritten; an iPhone OS should be only a few hundred megabytes, roughly a 10th the size of OS X.'
Before they could start designing the iPhone, Jobs and his top executives had to decide how to solve this problem. Engineers looked carefully at Linux, which had already been rewritten for use on mobile phones, but Jobs refused to use someone else's software. They built a prototype of a phone, embedded on an iPod, that used the clickwheel as a dialer, but it could only select and dial numbers — not surf the Net.
So, in early 2006, just as Apple engineers were finishing their yearlong effort to revise OS X to work with Intel chips, Apple began the process of rewriting OS X again for the iPhone.’
And nearly a year and a half later and after spending a ‘$150 million', the first iPhone was launched with extreme success in mid 2007.
However, not without the typical deluge of naysayers and competitors declaring its demise and promises to do better, each and every iteration.
And here in mid 2015, nearly a decade later, we are still waiting. NOT.
Blackberry didn't understood that they should forget about keyboards that's why they will have lot of loss again and again