NYT: Steve Jobs feels Google betrayed Apple by mimicking iPhone

17810121318

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 344
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    Google Goggles, Google Voice Search and Google Talk... to name three more brilliant (and FREE) Google services -



    "and FREE"... yea, and be sure to say hello to mickey, donald and goofy while you're at the park.
  • Reply 182 of 344
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tomozj View Post


    I agree with your final point, would love to ditch my Google Account in favour of MobileMe for tighter integration with my iPhone/Mac (bookmark, contact, photo syncing etc.).



    It should just be a benefit of owning an Apple product - free like Mac OSX is free when you buy a new Mac.



    I suspect that MobileMe will continue to be "pay-to-play" (charged for).



    However, it will evolve to be a cloud repository for all your files:



    1) iTunes purchases-- music, TV, Movies, etc,

    2) Your personal iLife files-- photos, home movies, etc.

    3) your email and chats

    4) your social network

    5) your TimeMachine style backup files for any/all of your home, work and mobile devices





    Think about it:



    Apple could backup each iTunes purchase with just the ID# of the main file on Apple's servers-- easy, with no large storage/bandwidth requirement..



    The other files could be handled in the same way that TimeMachine (and other remote backup services) work now: Initial total-BU + incremental BU.



    You would have secure access to all your stuff anytime, anywhere on any authorized device.



    You could share designated files with your social network.



    You would have the additional assurance of a "remote backup" in case of system failure or upgrading devices.





    I can see Apple offering a Free Trial which includes iTunes purchase BU and, say, email and several gig of iPhotos.



    Then, for the other, you just choose the size/bandwidth that fits you best.



    *
  • Reply 183 of 344
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by davidch14 View Post


    "and FREE"... yea, and be sure to say hello to mickey, donald and goofy while you're at the park.



    That's It... You guys really need some new material -
  • Reply 184 of 344
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Absolutely. The most abused word in the language these days has to be "open" -- to the point where it has become effectively meaningless. These are all proprietary systems. Choose based on what works the best, not on some notional concept of openness. It doesn't really exist.



    Also, the Internet ain't what it used to be anyway. This isn't 1989 anymore, the Internet itself is closed and controlled if you want to judge it by the original meaning of the term "open." You can't really be anonymous on the Internet anymore, and there are few uncensored parts left. Both the USA and China (and probably others), mine the Internet daily for information on their own citizens and spy on you using the same "open" infrastructure.



    The idea that any part of the Internet is somehow open, free and unfettered nowadays is just bunk really. You are better off with a private company like Apple keeping your information than you are with an "open" solution like Google if you are interested in any kind of privacy or control over your data.
  • Reply 185 of 344
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    According to Jef Raskin, he arranged the tour of Xerox PARC in order to convince Steve Jobs that a GUI-based computer was worth pursing.



    Microsoft's big sin IMO was that with the years and tons of money they had at their disposal to develop their own approach, they utterly failed to advance the art. The first two versions of Windows were beyond laughable, the third only modestly functional, and the fourth an almost complete rip-off of the MacOS. And Windows 95, lest we forget, came more than eleven years after the Mac.



    Yep - Raskin was instrumental in getting the tour (that's in the link I cited). Getting people like Alan Kay was a better catch tho. Speaking of prior art, no one's brought up all of Palm's patents or for that matter - patents done for the Newton. The Newton may finally pay off after all.



    No argument with Windows tho. I'm guessing between the PC architecture - and perhaps a desire to avoid lawsuits early on (much like Google's multi-touch-less initial versions of Android), the first versions of Windows were horrible. I was always impressed with GEOs tho - all that functionality in a 64kb package that worked GOOD:









    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOS_(8...rating_system)
  • Reply 186 of 344
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    Google Goggles, Google Voice Search and Google Talk... to name three more brilliant (and FREE) Google services -



    There is also Google Groups and Google Website for business use.
  • Reply 187 of 344
    foo2foo2 Posts: 1,077member
    Apple's legal team might have been waiting for this shoe to drop before filing its first lawsuit: Apple filed a patent application for a "multipoint touchscreen" on May 6, 2004. The application describes interactions with a capacitive touch panel. Patent no. 7,663,607 was finally awarded on February 16, 2010. Apple's lawsuit against HTC was filed exactly 2 weeks later.



    Jobs was very forthright in proclaiming at MWSF 2007 that over 200 patents had been filed for the iPhone. Furthermore, the standard time to publish for patent applications is 18 months from the date of filing, to help prevent so-called "submarine" patents, yet Apple requested even faster publication for several of its applications. This can be seen as an intentional, almost collegial effort by Apple to inform potential competitors about its intentions, so they don't go wasting time and money developing something that has no future outside Apple.



    I'd be surprised if Google has much (or any) prior art for multitouch dating before May 6, 2004.



    With several important patents in hand and a well-advertised product development pathway, I'd say Apple has taken the high road and stands a very good chance of prevailing against HTC.
  • Reply 188 of 344
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post


    Was that really the best retort you could come up with? No reasoned argument, no bullet points, no facts and figures... not even an amusing anecdote!



    Really poor effort.



    When you have a valid argument why Android isn't a better OS than the iPhone OS, please check back.



    Well everything you said was either inaccurate or just troll-bait, so what did you expect him to answer?
  • Reply 189 of 344
    If apple bough Nintendo, they would have more games for ipad and iphone plus they could put the iTunes store on Wii which works like apple tv -more big movie companies would sign up as their share of the home entertainment market increases. let google and ms fight over search.
  • Reply 190 of 344
    brainlessbrainless Posts: 272member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jobs


    We did not enter the search business. They entered the phone business



    This is classic Jobs bullshit. He can't be serious to say that.



    Apple entered the iPhone business in 2007 when they introduced iPhone. In that time, Google already had its Android division long integrated. They haven't entered the Phone business any later than iPhone.
  • Reply 191 of 344
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by easy288 View Post


    Considering that Apple stole the gui idea for the Mac from Xerox PARC, I don't think that he should now complain that others steal ideas from Apple! This is the tech world. Every company steals ideas from everybody else. Manufacturers will provide what people want, even if it is a similar product.



    Why does this meme persist? Xerox took Apple in and showed them the GUI development team and what they were doing. Xerox didn't copyright, patent or license any of it early on because they couldn't see how it would be usable in the core copying business. Quite willingly Xerox said use whatever you see, then Apple hired several of the disaffected Xerox engineers who saw an opportunity to get their work used.



    Fast forward a few years when Xerox decided to rebrand itself as a document management company instead of a copier company. Suddenly new management recognized the technology sharing of past years was a mistake, and took several cases to court, including one against Apple. IIRC they didn't win any of them because there were no legal claims actually made before any of the supposed infringement happened.



    It's not being stolen from when you show off to your peers and say go ahead and make your own version because I'm not going to use it. It's bad business.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    All the technologies (above) were used in high-end Xerox products under development which never had significant market impact. Many of the originators of the technologies left PARC to form companies such as Adobe, 3Com...



    Eventually but not until well after the change in philosophy for Xerox. Products in the late-mid to late '80s, well after Macintosh OS had been shipping and providing feedback on how useful that GUI technology actually was.
  • Reply 192 of 344
    bspearsbspears Posts: 147member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RussellSakay View Post


    They should protect them of course! However making the patents open to the market like shareware would perhaps solve a lot of their problems. If MS uses one of Apple's patents and improves on it, great! Then it would be the same goes for MS if Apple uses that patent instead. I like the open market patent share idea, it allows for people like you or me to take an idea and improve on it without any legal problems.



    iPad uses only Safari, that is why the comment about FireFox.



    This would only make sense in a universe where everyone is altruistic and no one was interested in profit or success.
  • Reply 193 of 344
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
  • Reply 194 of 344
    foo2foo2 Posts: 1,077member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Brainless View Post


    This is classic Jobs bullshit. He can't be serious to say that.



    At least superficially, the facts support Jobs.



    Quote:

    Apple entered the iPhone business in 2007 when they introduced iPhone.



    You think the iPhone just sprang into existence in January 2007? Seriously.



    As noted earlier in this thread, Apple filed a patent application for multitouch on a capacitive display panel in May 2004, for which a patent was awarded Feb. 16, 2010.



    Quote:

    In that time, Google already had its Android division long integrated. They haven't entered the Phone business any later than iPhone.



    Apple was actually selling iPhones 2 years before the first Android devices appeared in the market.
  • Reply 195 of 344
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,713member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RussellSakay View Post


    There is also Google Groups...



    Google Groups started as a Usenet archive that Google got its hands on and slapped a cheesy web interface onto, nothing particularly innovative by them there -- Usenet dates back to practically the birth of the Internet. (circa 1980, for those who think the Internet started with the WWW.)
  • Reply 196 of 344
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post


    Apple's legal team might have been waiting for this shoe to drop before filing its first lawsuit: Apple filed a patent application for a "multipoint touchscreen" on May 6, 2004. The application describes interactions with a capacitive touch panel. Patent no. 7,663,607 was finally awarded on February 16, 2010. Apple's lawsuit against HTC was filed exactly 2 weeks later.



    Jobs was very forthright in proclaiming at MWSF 2007 that over 200 patents had been filed for the iPhone. Furthermore, the standard time to publish for patent applications is 18 months from the date of filing, to help prevent so-called "submarine" patents, yet Apple requested even faster publication for several of its applications. This can be seen as an intentional, almost collegial effort by Apple to inform potential competitors about its intentions, so they don't go wasting time and money developing something that has no future outside Apple.



    I'd be surprised if Google has much (or any) prior art for multitouch dating before May 6, 2004.



    With several important patents in hand and a well-advertised product development pathway, I'd say Apple has taken the high road and stands a very good chance of prevailing against HTC.



    Very interesting, and informative post. I think you're on to something here.
  • Reply 197 of 344
    kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


    Well everything you said was either inaccurate or just troll-bait, so what did you expect him to answer?



    Oh pish. What did I say that was inaccurate?



    You need to try harder.
  • Reply 198 of 344
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by oomu View Post


    apple creates, the industry follows



    I just wish this time, apple will totally and utterly crush the emulator, forcing the industry to compete with SOMETHING DIFFERENT FOR ONCE !



    So what did Apple create? The touchscreen phone? No. A OS for a phone? No. A app store? No. They just took existing technologies and put it into a pretty little package.
  • Reply 199 of 344
    solareinsolarein Posts: 143member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post


    Have you ever seen a decent UI from Google? EVER? Here's what one of their designers who left for Twitter thought of Google's design crew - compare this to all we've heard about Ive and the rest who spend YEARS on this stuff:



    http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/0...ye-google.html



    I'd just like to point out that this guy's site has been hacked by spammers: http://stopdesign.com/about



    Not exactly his fault, outdated Wordpress installations are vulnerable to this sort of thing. But still pretty embarrassing for a bigshot designer who supposedly knows a bit about technology.
  • Reply 200 of 344
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DoctorBenway View Post


    Yep - Raskin was instrumental in getting the tour (that's in the link I cited). Getting people like Alan Kay was a better catch tho. Speaking of prior art, no one's brought up all of Palm's patents or for that matter - patents done for the Newton. The Newton may finally pay off after all.



    No argument with Windows tho. I'm guessing between the PC architecture - and perhaps a desire to avoid lawsuits early on (much like Google's multi-touch-less initial versions of Android), the first versions of Windows were horrible. I was always impressed with GEOs tho - all that functionality in a 64kb package that worked GOOD:









    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOS_(8...rating_system)



    I just took a look at the page you linked and saw a picture of the geo paint program. That looks just like MacPaint for the original mac. It is so funny to see this OS. I have never heard of this OS before. I was 9 years old when the Mac came out and was lucky enough to have my Father in the computer sales business and he loved Apple. So we had a Mac when it came out and the Apple II before that. But its funny to see almost a direct copy of the mac OS back in 1986 running on those a C64 and PC's. I can't imagine how this OS would run a on a C64 though. When I first saw your post I thought it was a picture of Lisa OS. Thanks for posting though.
Sign In or Register to comment.