Apple unveiled the iPhone in January 2007. According to CNN development of the iPhone took 30 months, so development started around May 2004. Google was involved in the development of the iPhone early on. But exactly when is unclear.
Google purchased Android in July 2005. So it's possible that Google bought Android while they are working on the iPhone.
This article also explains the mysterious absence of multitouch until recently on all US Android phones, and lines up nicely with the HTC lawsuit, which appeared shortly after multitouch became enabled on new Android phones.
This is very interesting information indeed, it's rare that we get a glimpse of currently unfolding corporate drama.
This sentence from the article is really poignant, "“Steve, my congratulations to you,” Mr. Schmidt told his corporate ally. “This product is going to be hot.” Mr. Jobs acknowledged the compliment with an ear-to-ear smile." I'm quite moved by this as I can imagine sincere emotions and heartbreak within this story.
If one of these companies is going to prevail in the end, I'd vote for Apple. Assuming one or the other doesn't score a big legal win which makes everything else essentially irrelevant, Apple's big advantage is competency and focus. Apple is constantly honing what it does best and carefully building on that competency. By comparison, Google is flapping around like a pigeon on LSD. They do one thing well, which gives them the freedom do whatever else they want, but they choose too many things to pursue, and so they do nearly all of them poorly.
Unless there was an agreement that the two would not compete but remain complementary partners, and thus, Apple showed Google (Brin, Schmidt, etc) their OS and multi-touch technologies, which Google copied while pretending to be partners.
When I think of the pre-iPhone Android mockups looking like a Blackberry, IMO, Schmidt was either extra shrewd or he didn't steal any of the iPhone ideas that had been in development for years.
edit: Picture supplied by sprockkets. Though it could have been a smaller pic or a hyperlink.
One of the things that I couldn't understand was why Apple and Google each shared BOD members. Seems like Google had more to gain than Apple. Apple has said that they aren't in the not in the search engine business.
I'll tell you why.
When Steve Jobs returned to Apple it was almost dead. He gathered as many friends as possible and made connections throughout the industry. Having the weight of Google on the board was a message to Microsoft "a enemy of my enemy is my friend"
Eric Schmidt is just a opportunist, he saw Steve Job's poor health and thought Apple couldn't go on as well without him, so he jumped into Apple's pond hoping to be lead duck in his market.
Of course Steve survived and now Steve feels betrayed.
One question I have is, what the fsck in hell is the hypocrite environmentalist with a 28 room mansion and 3 30" monitors on his computer doing on the board of Apple anyhow?
To keep the radical left of Greenpeace under control?
You think Steve would have learned his lesson after the way Microsoft burned Apple in the 80's ...
I think that is not so relevant for two reasons:
[1] When Microsoft really burned Apple, Steve wasn't even at Apple. He had no control over that.
[2] The GUI look and feel lawsuit ultimately came down to a contractual, not intellectual property issue.
Unrelated:
One thing I find galling is the way it is setup as Google (open) vs Apple (closed).
But if Google "win", we'll be left with no competition on the software or services side, just the device side.
If Apple "win", we'll still be left with competition on the services side and undoubtably they'll still be competition on the hardware and software side as well.
So the Apple way results in more competition, not less.
Then again... what is that data-center in NC gonna be used for? I certainly don't see the studios flooding Apple with their entire move catalogs in HD... and lets face it e-books just don't take up scads of drive space, certainly not enough to demand such an enormous data center.
I suspect it's going to be Apple's processing "cloud" so all one has to do is carry around a nearly dumb lightweight terminal like a iPad Pro.
The NC data center is centrally located in the most populous region of the US instead of being located a bit more north where the summers are cooler, suggests some things over others.
I suspect Apple will also build a data center on the west coast too with the land they got.
If one of these companies is going to prevail in the end, I'd vote for Apple. Assuming one or the other doesn't score a big legal win which makes everything else essentially irrelevant, Apple's big advantage is competency and focus. Apple is constantly honing what it does best and carefully building on that competency. By comparison, Google is flapping around like a pigeon on LSD. They do one thing well, which gives them the freedom do whatever else they want, but they choose too many things to pursue, and so they do nearly all of them poorly.
This is also an almost perfect description of the difference between OS-X and Linux as well.
OS-X is a focussed, vertically integrated Unix powerhouse that's constantly being refined and extended. Linux is a free, poor man's copy of Unix, which allows gives it the "strength" of wide adoption and distribution, but it's an unfocussed grab-bag of constantly changing ideas that's useless to the average consumer in the end.
Another example is the difference between their respective online offerings. Google almost provides everything that MobileMe does, but each piece is separate from the rest, they don't always work together and it's hard to know what pieces you need. You also have to read a few books to know how to integrate all that stuff into your life. Apple provides less flexibility with MobileMe, but it's straightforward and you don't have to "manage" anything or know anything about how the Internet works.
Apple should be scared of Google.
If Google someday found a good way to sensibly offer their services to the average non-techie consumer, they could easily take over from all the other online service providers. Apple's services on the other hand look good and work well, but they just don't offer what people actually want. It seems to me that while it's possible for Google to somehow acquire design "chops" and to get better at PR and customer support, I don't think Apple will ever figure out the "social side" of the Internet.
I hope Apple cleans Google's clock on this. Android is a direct copy of the iPhone, with a few tweaks.
Apple does a truly usable software keyboard, and suddenly Google has one.
Apple does an app store, and then, oh look, Google introduces one (an utterly crappy one at that).
Apple does multitouch, and wow, here's Google with multitouch.
Apple introduces the iPad, and a few days later: tada, here's Google showing off its concept of a tablet.
Google's only saving grace is that it gives its OS away for free to a bunch of second-tier companies who can't do the heavy lifting themselves. But Google's not bringing anything truly new or revolutionary to the table, and they don't deserve to be recognized as leaders in this particular space...
What I don't want to see Apple do is squander it's war-chest just to one-up Google buying up random companies because it feels Google would be interested in them. I can certainly see Apple buying up companies that provide services that Apple currently relies on Google for... Maps and such and I think I remember Apple buying a map company not that long ago however Apple shouldn't even entertain the idea of rolling their own search engine I just don't see that being a successful venture.
Then again... what is that data-center in NC gonna be used for? I certainly don't see the studios flooding Apple with their entire move catalogs in HD... and lets face it ebooks just don't take up scads of drive space, certainly not enough to demand such an enormous datacenter.
I guess in the end only time will tell... but its mildly disappointing since I would have liked Apple and Google to continue on with collaborative relationship... Now it seems Apple might actually invite Microsoft to play in their reindeer games and I'm sorry but the only company that makes out in a Microsoft collaboration IS Microsoft. Tell me I'm wrong...
I doubt any of those acquisitions will be viewed as random when it comes time to connect the dots. Purchasing a mobile ad company makes perfect sense as it strengthens the ecosystem, especially as it facilitates monetising free apps and the advertising dollars stay in Apple's pot. I'm surprised that SJ hasn't entertained purchasing a company that is on the cutting edge of display technology?e.g., Universal display; it's silly to ignore the importance of such an integral part of electronic devices.
And the data centre in NC? sheer brilliance. The iPad could well become the platform for truly mobile TV and who knows what else. That will require a server farm I'd imagine
I'm sure that Redmond is having wet dreams about becoming Apple's default search engine, but that would be a step backwards and SJ knows that. Once Google stole into apple's orchard with phones, apple may have started developing a search solution that will blows our socks off. Don't forget how everyone whinged about not having cut-and-paste on the iPhone. When Apple finally launched their version, it was better than what was out there. While Google is the cat's meow and as a medical lexicographer I use it all the time, I can think of a dozen ways to improve it. Surely apple can come up with several dozen. Just because something is a de facto standard doesn't mean that it can't be better. But apple won't cut the cord until the time is right.
How many years did it take to develop the iPad? the iPhone? Apple's forte has been to catch everyone off guard. Google may not know about apple's dive into search until the day it launches
Long term, google may regret their cavalier attitude towards gentlemanly behaviour
"And it would present an unlikely sight: Steve Jobs and Apple, running from the arms of Eric Schmidt and Google, into the embrace of Steve Ballmer and Microsoft," the report concluded.
I could have gone all night without having read that and now have that scary image in my mind...
Fortunately, Day Light Savings Time takes effect tonight so there will be one less hour of sleep for me to have a nightmare base upon that image!
Steve, need to stay away from Silicon Valley types on your BoD's... Heck even AlGore's looking good - not...
Who else is on the Board that can betray you Steve? Axe them, now!
You think Steve would have learned his lesson after the way Microsoft burned Apple in the 80's ...
That's right - Microsoft copied their computer operating system and now Google is copying their phone operating system. But it was less predictable than last time since (as Jobs said) Google was not even in the phone business originally, whereas Microsoft was always in the computer business.
Google might be the last word on search right now but Apple would do well to keep a close eye on developments further afield.
Wolfram Research is one company that I'd watch. Founder Steven Wolfram, a brilliant physicist and mathematician, is working hard on the concept of the semantic web. This concept is data driven (as exemplified in http://www.wolframalpha.com/) but by Wolfram's own admission has a long way to go. Apple might look for opportunities to work with Wolfram and possibilities for investment. Semantics might just be too difficult currently to apply to the type of search most people are interested in but if it works, might just provide a next-generational leap in capability.
You think Steve would have learned his lesson after the way Microsoft burned Apple in the 80's ...
You know I was just thinking the same thing, Steve would have learned from the betrayal of Bill Gates. Steve should follow Triple H "Don't trust anyone".
"Apple believes that devices like smartphones and tablets should have tightly controlled, proprietary standards and that customers should take advantage of services on those gadgets with applications downloaded from Apple?s own App Store.
Google, on the other hand, wants smartphones to have open, nonproprietary platforms so users can freely roam the Web for apps that work on many devices."
I have an iPhone and I like it a lot, but I'm always for open standards instead of closed platforms. If not for that, we would still be all working on IBM mainframes and mini-computers.
Remember 90% of the game market ignores Apples existence. What is their motive to comply to the OS X market? Not really that much money in it.
1) MS and Google were writing programs for Macs when their marketshare was much, much lower. And since the market has grown the number of Mac sales and their installed base is more than sufficient to be worth of support.
2) Your changing up your argument now. Your previous suggestion made no mention of Macs or it being an issue of low Mac marketshare, but of MS and Google not writing any SW for Apple.
3) It's foolish to think that publicly traded companies will choose to make less money because of some argument. These company can work together and fight at the same time. They are multi-faceted and complex structures with a simple goal: make money.
4) Just the other week a popular gaming company announced they are porting their popular gaming engine to OS X. Maybe they'll use it for the iPhone OS, but it really doesn't matter as games aren't exactly a good argument against Mac development as a whole as Apple has never supported games well in HW and SW.
Well, if Apple really wants to take a bite out of Google's lunch, they should start to buy up every specialized search engine out there and ally with Bing. They have the money, but I don't think they really want to encroach on Google's turf to really bring the fight to the forefront.
Google doesn't do anything great except search, everything else is underbaked, never will innovate on Apple's level - another copycat. Premium quality will always trump freeware. The fact that Apple looks at Microsoft as an option for search shows that Apple has a special kind of confidence in its own ability to innovate. Remarkable!
Apple should just give users the ability to change the default search engine from Google to something else on Safari and provide several different choices for people to choose from.
Comments
Apple unveiled the iPhone in January 2007. According to CNN development of the iPhone took 30 months, so development started around May 2004. Google was involved in the development of the iPhone early on. But exactly when is unclear.
Google purchased Android in July 2005. So it's possible that Google bought Android while they are working on the iPhone.
This article also explains the mysterious absence of multitouch until recently on all US Android phones, and lines up nicely with the HTC lawsuit, which appeared shortly after multitouch became enabled on new Android phones.
This is very interesting information indeed, it's rare that we get a glimpse of currently unfolding corporate drama.
This sentence from the article is really poignant, "“Steve, my congratulations to you,” Mr. Schmidt told his corporate ally. “This product is going to be hot.” Mr. Jobs acknowledged the compliment with an ear-to-ear smile." I'm quite moved by this as I can imagine sincere emotions and heartbreak within this story.
Unless there was an agreement that the two would not compete but remain complementary partners, and thus, Apple showed Google (Brin, Schmidt, etc) their OS and multi-touch technologies, which Google copied while pretending to be partners.
When I think of the pre-iPhone Android mockups looking like a Blackberry, IMO, Schmidt was either extra shrewd or he didn't steal any of the iPhone ideas that had been in development for years.
edit: Picture supplied by sprockkets. Though it could have been a smaller pic or a hyperlink.
One of the things that I couldn't understand was why Apple and Google each shared BOD members. Seems like Google had more to gain than Apple. Apple has said that they aren't in the not in the search engine business.
I'll tell you why.
When Steve Jobs returned to Apple it was almost dead. He gathered as many friends as possible and made connections throughout the industry. Having the weight of Google on the board was a message to Microsoft "a enemy of my enemy is my friend"
Eric Schmidt is just a opportunist, he saw Steve Job's poor health and thought Apple couldn't go on as well without him, so he jumped into Apple's pond hoping to be lead duck in his market.
Of course Steve survived and now Steve feels betrayed.
One question I have is, what the fsck in hell is the hypocrite environmentalist with a 28 room mansion and 3 30" monitors on his computer doing on the board of Apple anyhow?
To keep the radical left of Greenpeace under control?
You think Steve would have learned his lesson after the way Microsoft burned Apple in the 80's ...
I think that is not so relevant for two reasons:
[1] When Microsoft really burned Apple, Steve wasn't even at Apple. He had no control over that.
[2] The GUI look and feel lawsuit ultimately came down to a contractual, not intellectual property issue.
Unrelated:
One thing I find galling is the way it is setup as Google (open) vs Apple (closed).
But if Google "win", we'll be left with no competition on the software or services side, just the device side.
If Apple "win", we'll still be left with competition on the services side and undoubtably they'll still be competition on the hardware and software side as well.
So the Apple way results in more competition, not less.
Then again... what is that data-center in NC gonna be used for? I certainly don't see the studios flooding Apple with their entire move catalogs in HD... and lets face it e-books just don't take up scads of drive space, certainly not enough to demand such an enormous data center.
I suspect it's going to be Apple's processing "cloud" so all one has to do is carry around a nearly dumb lightweight terminal like a iPad Pro.
The NC data center is centrally located in the most populous region of the US instead of being located a bit more north where the summers are cooler, suggests some things over others.
I suspect Apple will also build a data center on the west coast too with the land they got.
If one of these companies is going to prevail in the end, I'd vote for Apple. Assuming one or the other doesn't score a big legal win which makes everything else essentially irrelevant, Apple's big advantage is competency and focus. Apple is constantly honing what it does best and carefully building on that competency. By comparison, Google is flapping around like a pigeon on LSD. They do one thing well, which gives them the freedom do whatever else they want, but they choose too many things to pursue, and so they do nearly all of them poorly.
This is also an almost perfect description of the difference between OS-X and Linux as well.
OS-X is a focussed, vertically integrated Unix powerhouse that's constantly being refined and extended. Linux is a free, poor man's copy of Unix, which allows gives it the "strength" of wide adoption and distribution, but it's an unfocussed grab-bag of constantly changing ideas that's useless to the average consumer in the end.
Another example is the difference between their respective online offerings. Google almost provides everything that MobileMe does, but each piece is separate from the rest, they don't always work together and it's hard to know what pieces you need. You also have to read a few books to know how to integrate all that stuff into your life. Apple provides less flexibility with MobileMe, but it's straightforward and you don't have to "manage" anything or know anything about how the Internet works.
Apple should be scared of Google.
If Google someday found a good way to sensibly offer their services to the average non-techie consumer, they could easily take over from all the other online service providers. Apple's services on the other hand look good and work well, but they just don't offer what people actually want. It seems to me that while it's possible for Google to somehow acquire design "chops" and to get better at PR and customer support, I don't think Apple will ever figure out the "social side" of the Internet.
Apple does a truly usable software keyboard, and suddenly Google has one.
Apple does an app store, and then, oh look, Google introduces one (an utterly crappy one at that).
Apple does multitouch, and wow, here's Google with multitouch.
Apple introduces the iPad, and a few days later: tada, here's Google showing off its concept of a tablet.
Google's only saving grace is that it gives its OS away for free to a bunch of second-tier companies who can't do the heavy lifting themselves. But Google's not bringing anything truly new or revolutionary to the table, and they don't deserve to be recognized as leaders in this particular space...
What I don't want to see Apple do is squander it's war-chest just to one-up Google buying up random companies because it feels Google would be interested in them. I can certainly see Apple buying up companies that provide services that Apple currently relies on Google for... Maps and such and I think I remember Apple buying a map company not that long ago however Apple shouldn't even entertain the idea of rolling their own search engine I just don't see that being a successful venture.
Then again... what is that data-center in NC gonna be used for? I certainly don't see the studios flooding Apple with their entire move catalogs in HD... and lets face it ebooks just don't take up scads of drive space, certainly not enough to demand such an enormous datacenter.
I guess in the end only time will tell... but its mildly disappointing since I would have liked Apple and Google to continue on with collaborative relationship... Now it seems Apple might actually invite Microsoft to play in their reindeer games and I'm sorry but the only company that makes out in a Microsoft collaboration IS Microsoft. Tell me I'm wrong...
I doubt any of those acquisitions will be viewed as random when it comes time to connect the dots. Purchasing a mobile ad company makes perfect sense as it strengthens the ecosystem, especially as it facilitates monetising free apps and the advertising dollars stay in Apple's pot. I'm surprised that SJ hasn't entertained purchasing a company that is on the cutting edge of display technology?e.g., Universal display; it's silly to ignore the importance of such an integral part of electronic devices.
And the data centre in NC? sheer brilliance. The iPad could well become the platform for truly mobile TV and who knows what else. That will require a server farm I'd imagine
I'm sure that Redmond is having wet dreams about becoming Apple's default search engine, but that would be a step backwards and SJ knows that. Once Google stole into apple's orchard with phones, apple may have started developing a search solution that will blows our socks off. Don't forget how everyone whinged about not having cut-and-paste on the iPhone. When Apple finally launched their version, it was better than what was out there. While Google is the cat's meow and as a medical lexicographer I use it all the time, I can think of a dozen ways to improve it. Surely apple can come up with several dozen. Just because something is a de facto standard doesn't mean that it can't be better. But apple won't cut the cord until the time is right.
How many years did it take to develop the iPad? the iPhone? Apple's forte has been to catch everyone off guard. Google may not know about apple's dive into search until the day it launches
Long term, google may regret their cavalier attitude towards gentlemanly behaviour
"And it would present an unlikely sight: Steve Jobs and Apple, running from the arms of Eric Schmidt and Google, into the embrace of Steve Ballmer and Microsoft," the report concluded.
I could have gone all night without having read that and now have that scary image in my mind...
Fortunately, Day Light Savings Time takes effect tonight so there will be one less hour of sleep for me to have a nightmare base upon that image!
Steve, need to stay away from Silicon Valley types on your BoD's... Heck even AlGore's looking good - not...
Who else is on the Board that can betray you Steve? Axe them, now!
You think Steve would have learned his lesson after the way Microsoft burned Apple in the 80's ...
That's right - Microsoft copied their computer operating system and now Google is copying their phone operating system. But it was less predictable than last time since (as Jobs said) Google was not even in the phone business originally, whereas Microsoft was always in the computer business.
Wolfram Research is one company that I'd watch. Founder Steven Wolfram, a brilliant physicist and mathematician, is working hard on the concept of the semantic web. This concept is data driven (as exemplified in http://www.wolframalpha.com/) but by Wolfram's own admission has a long way to go. Apple might look for opportunities to work with Wolfram and possibilities for investment. Semantics might just be too difficult currently to apply to the type of search most people are interested in but if it works, might just provide a next-generational leap in capability.
You think Steve would have learned his lesson after the way Microsoft burned Apple in the 80's ...
You know I was just thinking the same thing, Steve would have learned from the betrayal of Bill Gates. Steve should follow Triple H "Don't trust anyone".
I don't see Google doing anything wrong here.
No they won't.
Remember 90% of the game market ignores Apples existence. What is their motive to comply to the OS X market? Not really that much money in it.
"Apple believes that devices like smartphones and tablets should have tightly controlled, proprietary standards and that customers should take advantage of services on those gadgets with applications downloaded from Apple?s own App Store.
Google, on the other hand, wants smartphones to have open, nonproprietary platforms so users can freely roam the Web for apps that work on many devices."
I have an iPhone and I like it a lot, but I'm always for open standards instead of closed platforms. If not for that, we would still be all working on IBM mainframes and mini-computers.
Remember 90% of the game market ignores Apples existence. What is their motive to comply to the OS X market? Not really that much money in it.
1) MS and Google were writing programs for Macs when their marketshare was much, much lower. And since the market has grown the number of Mac sales and their installed base is more than sufficient to be worth of support.
2) Your changing up your argument now. Your previous suggestion made no mention of Macs or it being an issue of low Mac marketshare, but of MS and Google not writing any SW for Apple.
3) It's foolish to think that publicly traded companies will choose to make less money because of some argument. These company can work together and fight at the same time. They are multi-faceted and complex structures with a simple goal: make money.
4) Just the other week a popular gaming company announced they are porting their popular gaming engine to OS X. Maybe they'll use it for the iPhone OS, but it really doesn't matter as games aren't exactly a good argument against Mac development as a whole as Apple has never supported games well in HW and SW.
Here are just a few of the things that the Droid does that the iPhone doesn’t do:
iPhone vs. Droid comparison chart