Google founder accuses Apple's Steve Jobs of 'rewriting history'

17891012

Comments

  • Reply 221 of 244
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,865member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    So the concept of a desktop, widgets, live wallpapers, folders and mifi was taken from the iPhone?

    That's news to me.



    No, the features they didn't steal from the iPhone they stole from the Mac.
  • Reply 222 of 244
    djmikeodjmikeo Posts: 180member
    Before the iphone, touchscreen phones were really, stylus-touchscreen phones. The majority of the phones needed a stylus pen because the phone os did not have a way to easily input text/numeric values or even edit without a stylus or a physical keyboard in addition to the pseudo-touch screens that were around.

    Apple pioneered the expanding virtual keyboard for entry. The magnifying lens used for editing also was pioneered by apple. No other manufacturer had anything similar as an easy to use input method that truly just used the touch of your finger.
  • Reply 223 of 244
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    Really? I guess you're unfamiliar with the (highly successful) X-Box 360.



    The XBox franchise has only recently seen black ink - primarily because the behemoth of Redmond couldn't be troubled to build boxes without needing to set aside millions? or was it BILLIONS to cover the poor architecture of the XBox hardware. And of course learning from that lesson, they delivered the stunning competent but poorly delivered Zune, which only managed to knock-out aging also-rans in the mp3 player market. Oh yes, and then we have the equally stunning demonstration of Windows on a tablet that suddenly wasn't porting Windows anymore, and the incredibly disappearing KIN project. The only thing holding Xbox in place is Redmond's ability to those billions at keeping games exclusive to the platform, and trimming costs on producing the hardware. They have added some cool features but features alone will not carry XBox forward as a specialty platform for long. Messr. Ballmer obviously missed Messr Gates memo on convergence as a target, and instead Ballmer is busy fragmenting the product line in order to get "Window" on as many diverse devices as possible. So that when the moneymaking machine that is Windows Server/Desktop and Office, creaks to a stop there will be enough ubiquity on as many devices that the moniker "Windows" will be effectively meaningless.



    Likewise Google, who seem hellbent to mimic the strategy, has failed to understand the dark side of Microsoft's success. You cannot innovate to your delivered base. You can only deliver incremental updates, and hope that nothing makes your end users too uncomfortable (witness ME, NT, Bob, etc). That has been the dark backside of Microsoft's "success", for which the consumer is the one paying the price. Google has NO vested interest in maintaining support for any of it's previous charges, so good-bye to Android 1.5, 1.6 as meaningful operating platforms. Google is hoping that if they can continually "innovate" Android - that is keep new added features and new functionality in the face of the consuming public, that the consuming public will ignore the inconvenience of having to wait the carriers or device makers to update the existing installed base. It is not in their interest to do so however: they WANT you to have to buy a new device to upgrade to the latest Android OS - it's embedded in their business plan and plays into Google's strategy. Meanwhile consumers pile up used phones in drawers, and pay continual upgrade and renewal fees as they activate each new Android phone - giving the carriers an unprecedented revenue stream far beyond their outrageous rates for data and services paid by quiescent consumers.



    Seriously you have nothing better to offer than a feeble neener-neener - XBOX RULEZ in this forum? How pathetic of you.
  • Reply 224 of 244
    nolivingnoliving Posts: 90member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Booga View Post


    You're referring to the XBox 360 which has lost Microsoft millions of dollars (subsidized by their Windows and Office monopolies) and has the highest recall rate in the industry? Yes, it's a fun product, but as a business model it sucks.



    It used to have the highest recall rate in the industry, its recall rate is significantly lower then what it was 3 years ago.



    There live service for the Xbox is a money maker, their live service is the undisputed king for online entertainment for home consoles
  • Reply 225 of 244
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    No, the features they didn't steal from the iPhone they stole from the Mac.



    Riiight. So no other PC OS had folders or Widgets right?



    And what does it say about Apple that they never put their own desktop UI on to the iPhone? Even in 2010 Apple thinks you can't handle a desktop and widgets.
  • Reply 226 of 244
    str1f3str1f3 Posts: 573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Noliving View Post


    It used to have the highest recall rate in the industry, its recall rate is significantly lower then what it was 3 years ago.



    The recall rate is lower recently because they didn't change the parts until new models were introduced. MS knew of the potential of the red ring of death well before the 360 was even released. They allowed the for the manufacturing and parts to become cheaper before they made any change.



    This is the reason that consoles are built on cheap parts and later come out with newer or slimmed down models that are built with better parts.



    XBOX Live is a money maker and a good example of how a closed, paid for environment is sometimes better than the open alternative.
  • Reply 227 of 244
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,971member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    Riiight. So no other PC OS had folders or Widgets right?



    And what does it say about Apple that they never put their own desktop UI on to the iPhone? Even in 2010 Apple thinks you can't handle a desktop and widgets.









    Apple Desktop 1984





    Windows Desktop 1985



    Look Ma, no folders in Windows. Apple was first.



    Apple could have put desktop on iPhone, but they saw what a kludge Windows Mobile was and chose to do it differently.
  • Reply 228 of 244
    applebookapplebook Posts: 350member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    Riiight. So no other PC OS had folders or Widgets right?



    And what does it say about Apple that they never put their own desktop UI on to the iPhone? Even in 2010 Apple thinks you can't handle a desktop and widgets.



    See Robin's post.
  • Reply 229 of 244
    sensisensi Posts: 346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Well, yes, and Apple was obviously also working on phones long before the unveiling of the iPhone, as Eric Schmidt discovered when he joined Apple's board.



    Google had already bought Android Inc. in 2005, Schmidt joined Apple's board on 2006...
  • Reply 230 of 244
    sensisensi Posts: 346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mistergsf View Post


    If Google was working on a phone long before the iPhone, wouldn't it be easy to prove? Obviously they would have detailed documentation of their R&D.



    The proofs are all over to be seen, like the little fact that Google has bought Android inc. back in 2005, but strangely Apple insider is hiding the -not fitting its partisan opinion- facts from its readers views...



    Quote:

    2005, August 17th: Google buys Android. "Rubin & Co. have sparingly described the outfit as making software for mobile phones...One source familiar with the company says Android had at one point been working on a software operating system for cell phones."



    2006, August 28th: A full year after Google buys Android, Eric Schmidt, Googles CEO, is elected to Apple's Board of Directors.



    2006, December: The BBC and The Wall Street Journal both write articles on Google entering the smartphone business. (...)



    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/07/...iting-history/
  • Reply 231 of 244
    londonlondon Posts: 24member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iReality85 View Post


    Wow, do you have any concept of business? A product that sells at a loss is called a loss leader, and this practice is widely employed, intensionally, across many companies and many industries. The reasons are many, but since the topic has turned to discussing the XBox 360, lets discuss the PS3. Just imagine if Sony had sold the PS3 at a price that would have "paid it's bills," according to you. The sticker price would end up being much too high for consumers to swallow for a gaming system. So Sony took massive losses, at least initially. I believe it was publically noted this spring that Sony, after 2-3 years, finally broke even on each system it sells. Point is, loss leaders are a necessary way of doing business in industries. Microsoft isn't the only company that "loses money year after year" on its flagship products.



    "Loss leader" is not the same as long-term negative profit pricing. Loss leaders are what Wal-Mart offers to get you in the door, knowing that if you buy a $9 DVD, you'll probably buy enough undercounted goods to make up for it. Neither Sony kind of had that strategy, hoping to sell enough Sony-produced titles to recoup their losses. MS does not appear to have that strategy. What, if any, strategy their Xbox unit had is unclear. However you look at it, MS's consumer-facing efforts do not demonstrate any corporate aptitude at designing and marketing to consumers instead of IT professionals.
  • Reply 232 of 244
    londonlondon Posts: 24member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post


    I'm not an english speaking person myself, but even I know what a Segway is. It's synonymous to "bullshit non-sequitur". Care to learn things before you go around and shoot about it.







    Anyone who still views this as a "who got their phone development first" and as a "touch screen" thing still doesn't get it. It's about "look and feel". It's been about look and feel since the 80s. You cannot deny that android "looks and feels" pretty much like the iOS. And sure enough, the first screenshots we had of Android did *not* look and feel like the iOS.







    It doesn't make sense if you don't want it to make sense. Perhaps you will teach us how windows was never really a competitor to the macintosh, since windows was a software and the mac was all about "the complete package".



    No, segue just means moving from one part to another. It doesn't have any common connotation of "bullshit non-sequitur." For example, a conversation might segue from the weather to food, or politics to culture. Music might segue from a loud, fast part to a quiet slow part. Dictionaries are the non-native speaker's friend.



    A Segway, however, is one of those weird gyroscopically people movers. Not the same thing as segue.
  • Reply 233 of 244
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    ...And what does it say about Apple that they never put their own desktop UI on to the iPhone? Even in 2010 Apple thinks you can't handle a desktop and widgets.



    I deal with a lot of new Mac users, maybe it's just the crowd I'm getting, but they are seriously confused by the Dock, Stacks, Spaces, and don't usually use many Widgets. There's almost always accidental Untitled new folders on the desktop, and because of the multi-touch resizing of icon sizes the folders and icons on the desktop are always visually very tiny.



    These new Mac users seem to be getting dumber, pretty much like the human race right now.



    Or, like I said, maybe it's just the crowd I'm getting, because they wouldn't come for guidance if they had learnt everything quite fast.



    I'm no genius, but I have observed maybe 2-3 years ago most new Mac users and casual browsers at the retail shop grasped OS X concepts a tad quicker.
  • Reply 234 of 244
    majjomajjo Posts: 574member
    I don't know how everyone can claim "Android is a blatant rip off of the iPhone!" because I just don't see it being true.



    First of all Android itself is a smartphone OS, so it must be compared to the iPhone OS, not the phone itself. And I don't see how anyone can say Android, as an OS, is a rip off of the iOS. the look and feel of the two are so completely different. With Android, you have multiple homescreens, widgets, a completely different notification system, the list goes on.
  • Reply 235 of 244
    chopperchopper Posts: 246member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post


    Really, sometimes I don't understand what some kind of people here smoke.



    Precisely when I was making the point that the XBox was a very good exception to the rule that "MS Sucks", here you come with even more evidence that this is actually the case, while believing that you are refuting me. Fucking hilarious.



    Go get more of that weed and stop the embarrassment of yourself.



    My exact fucking point. I am still agnostic on how I feel about the Windows Phone 7 series, if it will be a success or not. Rumors don't look good (see the Kin debacle), but I'll obviously wait and see.



    Not one bit. Of course, you still have to make the case that these people are actually "bad" in some sort of a pathetic way. What's wrong with hating a company? I hate microsoft, sure, although not on an obsessive way - I could see myself buying an XBox, for instance.



    It's the kind of hatred that you'll see amongst people being forced to use a product, and being conned and milked, again and again and again...



    Now, please go search for me in Microsoft threads trolling their forums on how their product "sucks", etc. Good riddance on that and when you do find me in such places perhaps you'll have a point.



    Until then, all of your rationale is just garbage.



    I think anger management might be of some assistance to you LuisDias. You stoop to insult over my post in which I attempt to point out that some people in the investment arena seem to think MS is successful outside of its Windows/Office core earners.



    If I misunderstood your point, then I happily apologise. So you were saying that Xbox is in fact another MS success. That's great. I believe that Bloomberg agree with you. Frankly, I don't know either way, but if you say it's true, then who am I to argue?



    But it seems to be the case that you believe I'm a MS supporter. My post, with its "warts and all" inclusion from the Bloomberg piece, not cherry-picking the pro-MS bits, shows that I too am agnostic. So why the personal attack?



    One of the things about this site I note is that there seems to be a willful ignorance about truth. That there's a tendency for people in the main to allow posters to make unsubstantiated, often fallacious claims about the points at issue without correction. Why is that? Is it better to believe some untruth because it fits in with what we want to believe?



    I guess I'd rather see the truth, whatever that may be. And if I'm proven wrong, then my intellect will embrace that and I will accept the fact that the world isn't flat, that Santa doesn't actually exist and that OS X is a beautiful but flawed operating system.



    If you can honestly claim that somehow it's OK to hate Ford because you're a GM fan, then you live in an intellectual and emotional universe that I cannot begin to understand.



    I don't understand your closing sentence about MS, trolling their forums, and how their OS sucks. If you can find some comment by me that Apple or its OS sucks, link to it. But since I've never believed or said any such thing, good luck.



    My rationale is, I believe, at least rational.
  • Reply 236 of 244
    firefly7475firefly7475 Posts: 1,502member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post


    If there is a day that Android competes on a UI level and App Store level with Apple then the iPhone is in serious trouble.



    I don't think so. Apple were never destined have majority market share in the phone market.



    They might settle around 20% or so of the smartphone market which will continue to increase as a percentage of the overall phone market, but I think that's it. No one ever expected Apple growth to continue until they replaced everyone else!



    The important thing is who those 20% of phone users are, and more importantly how much of a premium they are willing to pay for Apple products and services. I remember reading somewhere that Apple made more profit than any other phone manufacturer.
  • Reply 237 of 244
    shaminoshamino Posts: 527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by London View Post


    "Loss leader" is not the same as long-term negative profit pricing. Loss leaders are what Wal-Mart offers to get you in the door, knowing that if you buy a $9 DVD, you'll probably buy enough undercounted goods to make up for it. Neither Sony kind of had that strategy, hoping to sell enough Sony-produced titles to recoup their losses. MS does not appear to have that strategy. What, if any, strategy their Xbox unit had is unclear. However you look at it, MS's consumer-facing efforts do not demonstrate any corporate aptitude at designing and marketing to consumers instead of IT professionals.



    Are you sure about that. It's been my understanding that the business model for all game consoles is to sell the consoles for cheap and make up the difference selling games and accessories.



    As far as I know, the Wii is the only modern game console that actually sold consoles at a profit from day-1. All the other recent consoles (PS2, PS3, XBox and XBox360) started out selling consoles at a loss. I'm pretty sure the PS2 became profitable later on, as manufacturing costs dropped. I don't know if the PS3 has reached that point yet. I think the original XBox was discontinued before it became profitable. Don't know about the 360.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


    I don't think so. Apple were never destined have majority market share in the phone market. ... The important thing is who those 20% of phone users are, and more importantly how much of a premium they are willing to pay for Apple products and services. I remember reading somewhere that Apple made more profit than any other phone manufacturer.



    This has always been Apple's strategy - focus on profit, not market share. There are two roads to profit - move more product than everybody else or sell a product good enough to command a premium price. Apple usually tries for the latter.



    I, personally, think it's a good plan. Going for market share means you end up having to play the game of cutthroat pricing, forcing your business model to focus on minimizing costs. You can't make an exceptional product with that model, and you end up being no different from your competition.



    As a consumer, I wish everybody would follow Apple's model. I'd love to have a wide selection of exceptional products to choose from instead of a wide selection of nearly-identical products, like you have in the PC market.
  • Reply 238 of 244
    brainlessbrainless Posts: 272member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    The answer to that question is irrelevant to your argument. Google was obviously going in a very different direction before Android. And the touchscreen phones of the time were not generating enormous buzz. Given the popularity of the Blackberry at the time, and Google's obvious initial decision to copy it, a large segment of the smartphone industry, would have looked very different for some time. Touchscreen phones might have eventually become the prevailing design, or they might not have, or they might at least not have by now.



    It's easy to argue the inevitability of history in retrospect, which you have, but, such an argument is meaningless unless you can definitively show why is was inevitable, which you haven't. Simply throwing out a vague, "consumers were responding positively," does not lend your assertion much support at all..



    However, looking at the dominant phones at time, and the fact that Google was heading down the same path as those, makes it entirely plausible that phones would not have been what they are today. It may also be plausible that they would have, but it certainly cannot be asserted with any certainty.





    iPhone is just a blatant rip-off of the first touch phone on the market, IBM Simon



    It is funny that all your reasoning about where the Google was heading with Android is based on one published photo of (one of many) prototype(s). Unlike iPhone, Android is an OS project, so they put it on whatever hardware they can get cheap at this time. As Page mentioned the main point was to have a phone connected to the internet, with a decent browser (and Apple just beat them to the market on that).



    But that guy asked you a question and you never answered, isn't that rude ?
  • Reply 239 of 244
    brainlessbrainless Posts: 272member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sensi View Post


    Google had already bought Android Inc. in 2005, Schmidt joined Apple's board on 2006...



    Yeah this is an important point in timing which makes a lots of the arguments here irrelevant.



    Just repeat : Google was already in phone business and it was a public information before Apple INVITED Schmidt to the board of directors (its not that he forced his way there or bribed Apple to let him in, it was clearly Apple's move)



    But it is even more funny than that. iOS and Mac OS X are based on NEXTStep, while Android has its roots in BeOS (many core engineers from Be work with Android team), which was the first choice of the OS for Apple to replace the aging System 7, before they can't settle on the price and turned to NEXTStep and Jobs intstead.



    So it is NEXT vs. Be round two ;-)
  • Reply 240 of 244
    ihxoihxo Posts: 567member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Brainless View Post


    iPhone is just a blatant rip-off of the first touch phone on the market, IBM Simon



    lol now you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Sign In or Register to comment.