Google hasn't actually practiced that slogan for at least 6 or 7 years. The day they started copying every printed work without permission, that slogan was dead.
What they really should do is bury Android and buy webOS. I just received my daughter's Touchpad and it's really not bad at all. Lacks apps, of course, but that wouldn't take long to fix.
Like the other poster I am not going to spend a lot of time explaining what can be found on plenty of reliable Internet sites, however, the big difference is Apple paid Xerox for the privilege of being inspired. Further, the GUI or the Mouse for that matter was not invented at Xerox. Back in the 1960's, Ivan Sutherland wrote a program called Sketchpad, which is created with being the forefather of the modern GUI. Doug Englebart worked for Stanford Research Institute and was inspired by Sutherland's work. Englebart made further advancements in the area of GUIs and produced the first mouse. Sutherland and Englebart were academics. For instance, Sutherland's work was done for his PhD. Englebart worked for Stanford. Unlike Google just taking Oracle and Apple's IP, Apple licensed Englebart's patents from SRI. In other words, Apple obtained permission and compensated the creator.
Some of the people that worked with Englebart later went on to work for Xerox PARC and expanded on his ideas. Jeff Raskin was a professor at Stanford, the same place Englebart worked. Both were interested in GUI interfaces.
Raskin later went on to work for Apple, and was interested in creating a GUI OS at Apple. From Raskin's work at Stanford and from knowledge of people he knew working at Xerox, he talked Jobs into arranging for a visit at PARC so Raskin could get Jobs interested in the GUI concept. Apple paid Xerox in the form of one million dollars of Apple pre-IPO stock for the visit and to be able to use ideas. Again, do you see the difference here? Apple didn't just take the idea, it paid for it. Further, if you figure out what a million dollars of Apple Pre-IPO stock would be worth today, you would understand Apple paid Xerox well.
More importantly, Xerox's GUI was running on an expense Altos computer inspired by Englebart's work, that Xerox used internally and donated a few machines to universities like Stanford. The reason Xerox didn't sell them is because the machines cost $40, 000 to build.
So, Apple's challenge was to borrow the over all concept of a GUI inspired by Xerox's work, but figure out how to sell a product for what the first Mac cost: namely $2, 450. You can bet Apple did a lot of innovating to shave $38, 000 from the cost. For instance, Xerox's mouse cost $400 to produce. Apple had to figure out how to manufacture a mouse for a mere $30 to $40 to met its desired market price. Keep in mind the Altos had 64K of memory, the Mac 128K.
Apple did as it always does borrow an idea and greatly improve upon it while compensating IP holders. Look at Apple's Siri. It bought Siri, and improved upon it. With its new Notification System, it brought on board the creator of a popular jailbroken iPhone Notification system to improve upon its deficient notification system.
Meanwhile, Google admits in internal documents it took Java without permission, and if you saw the pre iPhone version of Android, and the after version, you'd understand Google redesigned Android to emulate iOS.
What makes Google's actions particularly mean spirited is Google's CEO sat on Apple's Board while Jobs helped Google fend off Microsoft by embracing Google's products while Google's CEO used his inside position on Apple's Board to Google's advantage to undercut Apple. The sad thing is Google isn't making any real money off Android, and had it played its cards right, Apple would have further integrated Google's services into the iPhone solidifying Google's revenue base for less cost.
Ohand all this time I thought an excited Steve Jobs simply went back to Apple and "told" an engineer to make him a mouse of which the engineer had no idea what he was talking about.
I must have read the wrong Internet page and watched the wrong movie. I suppose Issaacson will set us straight.
Thank you for referring to Jobs illness as a "battle" this time rather than a "bout" (as in three previous AI stories). That word trivialized the situation.
And just because he's not always right doesn't make what he said untrue. See what I did there?
Yes you made a logical statement. Your point being?
Extensively using both platforms on a daily basis I don't see how iOS is like Android and vice versa. I see tech inspiring tech and ideas being absorbed and modified time and time again. OEM manipulation of Android source is not Android's problem.
None of the iOS fans are ever in disagreement with Steve BTW which is why in context my comment serves a better purpose.
It is not that simple. The reality is currently Apple needs Google. Google is the undisputed leader in search, and has popular services like Google's map software.
Apple could take legal action against Google, but what is Apple to do if Google retaliates and pull's it's services off the iPhone? That might currently irritate a lot of Apple customers.
Jobs was too smart to let Apple do that until its reliance on Google is not needed. Considering Larry Ellison and Jobs were best friends I wouldn't be surprised if Jobs was behind talking Larry into Oracle buying Sun to obtain the rights to Java so Oracle could sue Google. If Oracle is successful, which appears likely, that will be a huge victory for both Oracle and Apple.
Meanwhile, Apple is slowly weaning its users off Google services. It now allows users to select from Google, Bing, and Yahoo for default search. I use Bing most of the time. Cloud gives people a reason to ditch gmail, which I am slowly doing. Siri works around Google by when possible using third party applications such as Yelp for search services. In the future Siri could be implement to undermine Google even further by putting users directly in touch with product and service providers stepping around Google.
Finally, Apple is suing the heck out of the big Android manufacturers. Along with Microsoft demanding royalties, at some point Android is probably going to be expensive for manufacturers. If Oracle beats Google, Oracle then can also sue Android Hardware manufactures for contributory copyright infringement along with demands for patent royalties.
Android in the future is going to be quite expensive for Google. Apple taking Google on directly would only hurt Apple now, and it doesn't need to take Google on directly to hurt Google. Perhaps in the future when Apple no longer heavily relies on Google's services, it can take the fight directly to Google. Now that is not the smart battle plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
If its illegal, then Apple have a very simple course of action.
SJ must have felt deeply betrayed by Google / Schmidt. Look at the smart phone market prior to the launch of the iPhone and take a moment to recall what just about everybody was saying about the keyboard-less phone. Also bear in mind what google's core business was and still is and then look at Android. Does SJ's sense of betrayal seem out of place?
Ummmm...what did Google innovate? They took a big idea & added a few features to it. They didn't change the way people interact with devices. They didn't change anything.
Not when the word "deity" is involved. Now if he'd called him the Kwisatz Haderach- that would be another story.
So you don't see that calling a successful businessman and an icon in an industry a "deity worshipped by millions" is an obvious exaggeration, simply because of the word deity? Perhaps you can enlighten me as to who has seriously proclaimed the divinity of Jobs.
SJ must have felt deeply betrayed by Google / Schmidt. Look at the smart phone market prior to the launch of the iPhone and take a moment to recall what just about everybody was saying about the keyboard-less phone. Also bear in mind what google's core business was and still is and then look at Android. Does SJ's sense of betrayal seem out of place?
No but the level of vindictiveness does and lack of not anticipating it. What's that saying- "You sleep with the Devil, you wake up in Hell!"
It is not that simple. The reality is currently Apple needs Google. Google is the undisputed leader in search, and has popular services like Google's map software.
Apple could take legal action against Google, but what is Apple to do if Google retaliates and pull's it's services off the iPhone? That might currently irritate a lot of Apple customers.
Jobs was too smart to let Apple do that until its reliance on Google is not needed. Considering Larry Ellison and Jobs were best friends I wouldn't be surprised if Jobs was behind talking Larry into Oracle buying Sun to obtain the rights to Java so Oracle could sue Google. If Oracle is successful, which appears likely, that will be a huge victory for both Oracle and Apple.
Meanwhile, Apple is slowly weaning its users off Google services. It now allows users to select from Google, Bing, and Yahoo for default search. I use Bing most of the time. Cloud gives people a reason to ditch gmail, which I am slowly doing. Siri works around Google by when possible using third party applications such as Yelp for search services. In the future Siri could be implement to undermine Google even further by putting users directly in touch with product and service providers stepping around Google.
Finally, Apple is suing the heck out of the big Android manufacturers. Along with Microsoft demanding royalties, at some point Android is probably going to be expensive for manufacturers. If Oracle beats Google, Oracle then can also sue Android Hardware manufactures for contributory copyright infringement along with demands for patent royalties.
Android in the future is going to be quite expensive for Google. Apple taking Google on directly would only hurt Apple now, and it doesn't need to take Google on directly to hurt Google. Perhaps in the future when Apple no longer heavily relies on Google's services, it can take the fight directly to Google. Now that is not the smart battle plan.
It's not Apple that needs Google. No. Google needs Apple. When Eric Schmidt testified before Congress about alleged antitrust activities at Google, he mentioned iOS brings in a huge chunk of revenue. Google wants to remain the default search engine on iOS.
You are right that Steve Jobs isn't one to fire from the hip. He is laying the foundations to completely get away from Google, which he should, for two reasons. One of them is that Apple should not line a competitor's pockets with cash. Two, Apple should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Competitors source a lot of the components rather than designing them in-house. Apple designs a lot of the components in-house.
Maps is top priority for Apple. I think they should completely get away from Google on that. Making the Maps app themselves is a good first step. Apple should also stop using Google's backend. I believe that PlaceBase and Poly9 are part of this plan.
SJ must have felt deeply betrayed by Google / Schmidt. Look at the smart phone market prior to the launch of the iPhone and take a moment to recall what just about everybody was saying about the keyboard-less phone. Also bear in mind what google's core business was and still is and then look at Android. Does SJ's sense of betrayal seem out of place?
The market adapting accordingly to new and innovative tech is common. Apple invigorated an entire market. They can't own the entire market period. They could be the leader as is the case with iPad but that can't be mad that others make tablets in response. It makes no sense. Fashion works the same way.
So you don't see that calling a successful businessman and an icon in an industry a "deity worshipped by millions" is an obvious exaggeration, simply because of the word deity?
No I don't - especially when anything said unfavorably about him is considered blasphemy.
Comments
So much for "Don't Be Evil."
Google hasn't actually practiced that slogan for at least 6 or 7 years. The day they started copying every printed work without permission, that slogan was dead.
What they really should do is bury Android and buy webOS. I just received my daughter's Touchpad and it's really not bad at all. Lacks apps, of course, but that wouldn't take long to fix.
Like the other poster I am not going to spend a lot of time explaining what can be found on plenty of reliable Internet sites, however, the big difference is Apple paid Xerox for the privilege of being inspired. Further, the GUI or the Mouse for that matter was not invented at Xerox. Back in the 1960's, Ivan Sutherland wrote a program called Sketchpad, which is created with being the forefather of the modern GUI. Doug Englebart worked for Stanford Research Institute and was inspired by Sutherland's work. Englebart made further advancements in the area of GUIs and produced the first mouse. Sutherland and Englebart were academics. For instance, Sutherland's work was done for his PhD. Englebart worked for Stanford. Unlike Google just taking Oracle and Apple's IP, Apple licensed Englebart's patents from SRI. In other words, Apple obtained permission and compensated the creator.
Some of the people that worked with Englebart later went on to work for Xerox PARC and expanded on his ideas. Jeff Raskin was a professor at Stanford, the same place Englebart worked. Both were interested in GUI interfaces.
Raskin later went on to work for Apple, and was interested in creating a GUI OS at Apple. From Raskin's work at Stanford and from knowledge of people he knew working at Xerox, he talked Jobs into arranging for a visit at PARC so Raskin could get Jobs interested in the GUI concept. Apple paid Xerox in the form of one million dollars of Apple pre-IPO stock for the visit and to be able to use ideas. Again, do you see the difference here? Apple didn't just take the idea, it paid for it. Further, if you figure out what a million dollars of Apple Pre-IPO stock would be worth today, you would understand Apple paid Xerox well.
More importantly, Xerox's GUI was running on an expense Altos computer inspired by Englebart's work, that Xerox used internally and donated a few machines to universities like Stanford. The reason Xerox didn't sell them is because the machines cost $40, 000 to build.
So, Apple's challenge was to borrow the over all concept of a GUI inspired by Xerox's work, but figure out how to sell a product for what the first Mac cost: namely $2, 450. You can bet Apple did a lot of innovating to shave $38, 000 from the cost. For instance, Xerox's mouse cost $400 to produce. Apple had to figure out how to manufacture a mouse for a mere $30 to $40 to met its desired market price. Keep in mind the Altos had 64K of memory, the Mac 128K.
Apple did as it always does borrow an idea and greatly improve upon it while compensating IP holders. Look at Apple's Siri. It bought Siri, and improved upon it. With its new Notification System, it brought on board the creator of a popular jailbroken iPhone Notification system to improve upon its deficient notification system.
Meanwhile, Google admits in internal documents it took Java without permission, and if you saw the pre iPhone version of Android, and the after version, you'd understand Google redesigned Android to emulate iOS.
What makes Google's actions particularly mean spirited is Google's CEO sat on Apple's Board while Jobs helped Google fend off Microsoft by embracing Google's products while Google's CEO used his inside position on Apple's Board to Google's advantage to undercut Apple. The sad thing is Google isn't making any real money off Android, and had it played its cards right, Apple would have further integrated Google's services into the iPhone solidifying Google's revenue base for less cost.
Ohand all this time I thought an excited Steve Jobs simply went back to Apple and "told" an engineer to make him a mouse of which the engineer had no idea what he was talking about.
I must have read the wrong Internet page and watched the wrong movie. I suppose Issaacson will set us straight.
You're being deliberately obtuse. Point is simply because he said something doesn't mean it's true.
And just because he's not always right doesn't make what he said untrue. See what I did there?
And just because he's not always right doesn't make what he said untrue. See what I did there?
Yes you made a logical statement. Your point being?
Extensively using both platforms on a daily basis I don't see how iOS is like Android and vice versa. I see tech inspiring tech and ideas being absorbed and modified time and time again. OEM manipulation of Android source is not Android's problem.
None of the iOS fans are ever in disagreement with Steve BTW which is why in context my comment serves a better purpose.
Do you not understand hyperbole?
Not when the word "deity" is involved. Now if he'd called him the Kwisatz Haderach- that would be another story.
Apple could take legal action against Google, but what is Apple to do if Google retaliates and pull's it's services off the iPhone? That might currently irritate a lot of Apple customers.
Jobs was too smart to let Apple do that until its reliance on Google is not needed. Considering Larry Ellison and Jobs were best friends I wouldn't be surprised if Jobs was behind talking Larry into Oracle buying Sun to obtain the rights to Java so Oracle could sue Google. If Oracle is successful, which appears likely, that will be a huge victory for both Oracle and Apple.
Meanwhile, Apple is slowly weaning its users off Google services. It now allows users to select from Google, Bing, and Yahoo for default search. I use Bing most of the time. Cloud gives people a reason to ditch gmail, which I am slowly doing. Siri works around Google by when possible using third party applications such as Yelp for search services. In the future Siri could be implement to undermine Google even further by putting users directly in touch with product and service providers stepping around Google.
Finally, Apple is suing the heck out of the big Android manufacturers. Along with Microsoft demanding royalties, at some point Android is probably going to be expensive for manufacturers. If Oracle beats Google, Oracle then can also sue Android Hardware manufactures for contributory copyright infringement along with demands for patent royalties.
Android in the future is going to be quite expensive for Google. Apple taking Google on directly would only hurt Apple now, and it doesn't need to take Google on directly to hurt Google. Perhaps in the future when Apple no longer heavily relies on Google's services, it can take the fight directly to Google. Now that is not the smart battle plan.
If its illegal, then Apple have a very simple course of action.
Where is it?
None of the iOS fans are ever in disagreement with Steve BTW which is why in context my comment serves a better purpose.
Now I know that you're not always right either.
Ummmm...what did Google innovate? They took a big idea & added a few features to it. They didn't change the way people interact with devices. They didn't change anything.
http://www.designer-daily.com/androi...one-ipad-18040
How is this any different to Apple? they took and idea, and added a few features to it, removed a heap more.
Now I know that you're not always right either.
That was hyperbole in the form of purposeful generalization.
Not when the word "deity" is involved. Now if he'd called him the Kwisatz Haderach- that would be another story.
So you don't see that calling a successful businessman and an icon in an industry a "deity worshipped by millions" is an obvious exaggeration, simply because of the word deity? Perhaps you can enlighten me as to who has seriously proclaimed the divinity of Jobs.
SJ must have felt deeply betrayed by Google / Schmidt. Look at the smart phone market prior to the launch of the iPhone and take a moment to recall what just about everybody was saying about the keyboard-less phone. Also bear in mind what google's core business was and still is and then look at Android. Does SJ's sense of betrayal seem out of place?
No but the level of vindictiveness does and lack of not anticipating it. What's that saying- "You sleep with the Devil, you wake up in Hell!"
It is not that simple. The reality is currently Apple needs Google. Google is the undisputed leader in search, and has popular services like Google's map software.
Apple could take legal action against Google, but what is Apple to do if Google retaliates and pull's it's services off the iPhone? That might currently irritate a lot of Apple customers.
Jobs was too smart to let Apple do that until its reliance on Google is not needed. Considering Larry Ellison and Jobs were best friends I wouldn't be surprised if Jobs was behind talking Larry into Oracle buying Sun to obtain the rights to Java so Oracle could sue Google. If Oracle is successful, which appears likely, that will be a huge victory for both Oracle and Apple.
Meanwhile, Apple is slowly weaning its users off Google services. It now allows users to select from Google, Bing, and Yahoo for default search. I use Bing most of the time. Cloud gives people a reason to ditch gmail, which I am slowly doing. Siri works around Google by when possible using third party applications such as Yelp for search services. In the future Siri could be implement to undermine Google even further by putting users directly in touch with product and service providers stepping around Google.
Finally, Apple is suing the heck out of the big Android manufacturers. Along with Microsoft demanding royalties, at some point Android is probably going to be expensive for manufacturers. If Oracle beats Google, Oracle then can also sue Android Hardware manufactures for contributory copyright infringement along with demands for patent royalties.
Android in the future is going to be quite expensive for Google. Apple taking Google on directly would only hurt Apple now, and it doesn't need to take Google on directly to hurt Google. Perhaps in the future when Apple no longer heavily relies on Google's services, it can take the fight directly to Google. Now that is not the smart battle plan.
It's not Apple that needs Google. No. Google needs Apple. When Eric Schmidt testified before Congress about alleged antitrust activities at Google, he mentioned iOS brings in a huge chunk of revenue. Google wants to remain the default search engine on iOS.
You are right that Steve Jobs isn't one to fire from the hip. He is laying the foundations to completely get away from Google, which he should, for two reasons. One of them is that Apple should not line a competitor's pockets with cash. Two, Apple should try to be as self-sufficient as possible. Competitors source a lot of the components rather than designing them in-house. Apple designs a lot of the components in-house.
Maps is top priority for Apple. I think they should completely get away from Google on that. Making the Maps app themselves is a good first step. Apple should also stop using Google's backend. I believe that PlaceBase and Poly9 are part of this plan.
SJ must have felt deeply betrayed by Google / Schmidt. Look at the smart phone market prior to the launch of the iPhone and take a moment to recall what just about everybody was saying about the keyboard-less phone. Also bear in mind what google's core business was and still is and then look at Android. Does SJ's sense of betrayal seem out of place?
The market adapting accordingly to new and innovative tech is common. Apple invigorated an entire market. They can't own the entire market period. They could be the leader as is the case with iPad but that can't be mad that others make tablets in response. It makes no sense. Fashion works the same way.
That was hyperbole in the form of purposeful generalization.
Are you using hyperbole when you claim that Android has little in common with iOS as well?
Apple has been vindicated and proven right time and time again by winning legal court battles against Samsung and HTC.
Holy shit, that's intense. Can't fucking wait to read this book. You just gotta admire the passion in this.
A couple of the author's other biographies are supposed to be excellent. IIRC, they are about Franklin and Einstein.
Are you using hyperbole when you claim that Android has little in common with iOS as well?
No because aside from a few core similarities the platforms are not common.
So you don't see that calling a successful businessman and an icon in an industry a "deity worshipped by millions" is an obvious exaggeration, simply because of the word deity?
No I don't - especially when anything said unfavorably about him is considered blasphemy.