Did Schmidt tell that Google Now is already submitted to Appstore?
Not directly. But by saying that Apple should be asked implies that they have an answer - they don't have one because they don't have an app so he is wrong. They would need to ask Google.
Schmidt could have been much more accurate by saying "I don't have a precise answer since one is still in development (which I assume one is). We also don't know how long Apple's App approval process will take so there is that."
He could have been far more accurate and made the same app store dig he was trying to make. By just mentioning Apple they imply that Apple has information they do not. Google knows this which makes them dishonest. They lied. Apple can't tell you anything about something they don't have
It's really sad to see how many people are defending this lying, cheating company. Heck, TechCrunch is still running the original article which claims that Apple is holding it up without publishing the statement that Google never submitted it.
No, he was not lying since he didn't say they have submitted. And Google hasn't "admitted" that he was lying either.
No, he was not lying since he didn't say they have submitted. And Google hasn't "admitted" that he was lying either.
He didn't explicitly lie but he said to ask Apple about the approval. Why would he say that unless Google submitted it already? Why would Apple know about any unsubmitted app?
No, he was not lying since he didn't say they have submitted. And Google hasn't "admitted" that he was lying either.
He said that they would need to discuss it with Apple. Since Apple didn't have the app since Google hadn't submitted it what exactly was there to discuss with Apple? Your argument that "Schmidt never said the exact words we submitted to Apple and they haven't approved it" are just as duplicitous and smarmy as Schmidt's
No, he was not lying since he didn't say they have submitted. And Google hasn't "admitted" that he was lying either.
In essence it is absolutely lying, he chose his words extremely carefully, but his intention was to make people believe something that is completely false, and direct blame to another party who bears absolutely no responsibility. If you can't see that, I don't know what to say.
It's like asking me how I did on my assignment, then I respond by "I don't know, ask the prof", when I haven't even done or submitted the assignment at all.
Not directly. But by saying that Apple should be asked implies that they have an answer
He didn't say that either. He is just mentioning that Apple will be a key component in bringing "Google Now" to iOS.
- they don't have one because they don't have an app so he is wrong. They would need to ask Google.
Schmidt could have been much more accurate by saying "I don't have a precise answer since one is still in development (which I assume one is). We also don't know how long Apple's App approval process will take so there is that."
He could have said million different answers. But what he didn't say is that they have already submitted the app.
He could have been far more accurate and made the same app store dig he was trying to make. By just mentioning Apple they imply that Apple has information they do not. Google knows this which makes them dishonest. They lied.
They didn't.
Apple can't tell you anything about something they don't have
He didn't explicitly lie but he said to ask Apple about the approval. Why would he say that unless Google submitted it already? Why would Apple know about any unsubmitted app?
It is a general reply. The "when it will be available" depends on "if apple will approve".
You'll have to ask Apple
is a general statement, not that today you have to check with apple. If you see the video is a more informal interview (where he lauded Apple for its technological innovation and said he has both an iPad and iPad mini). It is the article here (and other places) that added the "app already submitted" statement based on their own comprehension.
In essence it is absolutely lying, he chose his words extremely carefully, but his intention was to make people believe something that is completely false, and direct blame to another party who bears absolutely no responsibility. If you can't see that, I don't know what to say.
It's like asking me how I did on my assignment, then I respond by "I don't know, ask the prof", when I haven't even done or submitted the assignment at all.
Exactly.
Student 1: When will you finish your masters?
Student 2: You'll have to ask my prof. He approves some and doesn't approve some others.
Student 1: Have you submitted your thesis?
Student 2: Not yet.
I don't see any lying in the second sentence. Remember Schmidt didn't say "Ask Apple", he said "You'll have to ask Apple".
He didn't explicitly lie but he said to ask Apple about the approval. Why would he say that unless Google submitted it already? Why would Apple know about any unsubmitted app?
Because he didn't say "Ask Apple", instead "You'll have to ask Apple". It is a general statement implying the app coming out in iOS depends on Apple's approval.
is a general statement, not that today you have to check with apple. If you see the video is a more informal interview (where he lauded Apple for its technological innovation and said he has both an iPad and iPad mini). It is the article here (and other places) that added the "app already submitted" statement based on their own comprehension.
Nonsense.
Interviewer: Will there be an iOS version of Google Now?
Schmidt: You'll have to ask Apple.
*goes*
I: Will there be an iOS version of Google Now?
Apple: No.
I: Why?
A: Google hasn't submitted it. There won't be one unless they submit it.
*comes back*
I: They said no.
S: Okay, we won't submit it then.
Originally Posted by Takeiteasy
Because he didn't say "Ask Apple", instead "You'll have to ask Apple".
The distinction is so subtle that it isn't even there in the first place.
More apps: Just a plain ole lie.
More scalable: A lie. How many apps that run on an Android phone also run on an Android tablet vs how many iPhone apps run on an iPad?
More secure: A lie. Searching for malware, android, iOS, will easily prove that is a lie.
I would expect someone with Google to stretch the truth to make their product look good, but when they spout out-and-out lies, they can be accurately labelled as liars. (In addition to his label as an industrial spy.)
Why this junk fellow has been talking nonsense? Did some do black magic on him? Or, whenever Sergey and Larry give him full bashing, he comes like this and talk nonsense? He is douchebag! He is nonsense.
is a general statement, not that today you have to check with apple. If you see the video is a more informal interview (where he lauded Apple for its technological innovation and said he has both an iPad and iPad mini). It is the article here (and other places) that added the "app already submitted" statement based on their own comprehension.
Nonsense.
Interviewer: Will there be an iOS version of Google Now?
Schmidt: You'll have to ask Apple. *goes*
I: Will there be an iOS version of Google Now?
Apple: No.
I: Why?
A: Google hasn't submitted it. There won't be one unless they submit it.
*comes back*
I: They said no.
S: Okay, we won't submit it then.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeiteasy
Did Schmidt tell that Google Now is already submitted to Appstore?
Not directly. But by saying that Apple should be asked implies that they have an answer - they don't have one because they don't have an app so he is wrong. They would need to ask Google.
Schmidt could have been much more accurate by saying "I don't have a precise answer since one is still in development (which I assume one is). We also don't know how long Apple's App approval process will take so there is that."
He could have been far more accurate and made the same app store dig he was trying to make. By just mentioning Apple they imply that Apple has information they do not. Google knows this which makes them dishonest. They lied. Apple can't tell you anything about something they don't have
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy
Schmidt talks like a politician: You know he's lying because he's moving his mouth.
Yeah but he always seems to be talking out of his ass
No, he was not lying since he didn't say they have submitted. And Google hasn't "admitted" that he was lying either.
He didn't explicitly lie but he said to ask Apple about the approval. Why would he say that unless Google submitted it already? Why would Apple know about any unsubmitted app?
He said that they would need to discuss it with Apple. Since Apple didn't have the app since Google hadn't submitted it what exactly was there to discuss with Apple? Your argument that "Schmidt never said the exact words we submitted to Apple and they haven't approved it" are just as duplicitous and smarmy as Schmidt's
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeiteasy
No, he was not lying since he didn't say they have submitted. And Google hasn't "admitted" that he was lying either.
In essence it is absolutely lying, he chose his words extremely carefully, but his intention was to make people believe something that is completely false, and direct blame to another party who bears absolutely no responsibility. If you can't see that, I don't know what to say.
It's like asking me how I did on my assignment, then I respond by "I don't know, ask the prof", when I haven't even done or submitted the assignment at all.
He didn't say that either. He is just mentioning that Apple will be a key component in bringing "Google Now" to iOS.
He could have said million different answers. But what he didn't say is that they have already submitted the app.
They didn't.
It is a general reply. The "when it will be available" depends on "if apple will approve". is a general statement, not that today you have to check with apple. If you see the video is a more informal interview (where he lauded Apple for its technological innovation and said he has both an iPad and iPad mini). It is the article here (and other places) that added the "app already submitted" statement based on their own comprehension.
Exactly.
Student 1: When will you finish your masters?
Student 2: You'll have to ask my prof. He approves some and doesn't approve some others.
Student 1: Have you submitted your thesis?
Student 2: Not yet.
I don't see any lying in the second sentence. Remember Schmidt didn't say "Ask Apple", he said "You'll have to ask Apple".
Because he didn't say "Ask Apple", instead "You'll have to ask Apple". It is a general statement implying the app coming out in iOS depends on Apple's approval.
Originally Posted by Takeiteasy
is a general statement, not that today you have to check with apple. If you see the video is a more informal interview (where he lauded Apple for its technological innovation and said he has both an iPad and iPad mini). It is the article here (and other places) that added the "app already submitted" statement based on their own comprehension.
Nonsense.
Interviewer: Will there be an iOS version of Google Now?
Schmidt: You'll have to ask Apple.
*goes*
I: Will there be an iOS version of Google Now?
Apple: No.
I: Why?
A: Google hasn't submitted it. There won't be one unless they submit it.
*comes back*
I: They said no.
S: Okay, we won't submit it then.
Originally Posted by Takeiteasy
Because he didn't say "Ask Apple", instead "You'll have to ask Apple".
The distinction is so subtle that it isn't even there in the first place.
Well, if you submit it like that...