I suspect he was angered mostly because Google was supposed to be a "partner."
Agreed but it's too foolish to rely on the success of your business on another company. Sure every iPhone initially would use Google to search but what if Apple turned around and decided to use a competitor as the default search engine?
What he saw at Xerox was a paradigm shift and he altered the direction of Apple accordingly. Google did the same. Theft is not involved in either case.
A common misunderstanding among fandroids is copying = innovation.
True but one can improve on a current innovation. Innovation isn't a easy thing to do and most things that we currently buy and use are only but improvements on a long ago innovation?
Not to excuse any copying or parent infringement, but I wonder what Steve Jobs expected to happen after the iPhone launched. That he got so angry about Android would seem to suggest that he thought the rest of the mobile industry would... just carry on as it always had? Let Apple run away with every prize?
Maybe it's the benefit of hindsight, but given how good the iPhone was (to paraphrase SJs own words: "five years ahead of the competition"), it seems pretty much inevitable that the iPhone would trigger some degree of following/inspiring/copying.
Again, not excusing it, just wondering if SJ was as genuinely surprised and angered by it as much as his "thermo-nuclear war" comments would suggest.
I think I remember it was more along the lines of a gentleman's agreement; Google wouldn't go into products like Apple, and Apple wouldn't start doing search and other Google categories at the time. So "we won't do a phone" and then of course they did a phone.
You would at least kick the Google guy off your board during certain proprietary meetings.
Android doesn't look much like iOS (I'm referring to stock android, not samsung's Touchwiz skin), and they are even more different if you look under the hood. I'd say that Google has "stolen" in the sense of Steve Jobs and made their OS their own.
I think I remember it was more along the lines of a gentleman's agreement; Google wouldn't go into products like Apple, and Apple wouldn't start doing search and other Google categories at the time. So "we won't do a phone" and then of course they did a phone.
You would at least kick the Google guy off your board during certain proprietary meetings.
That doesn't sound right. Google was working on a smartdevice OS long before they partnered with Apple on the iPhone (and before the iPhone project was given a go-ahead). Mr Jobs would have been aware of it too, just as most of the industry was. I've never seen mention of any expectation that Android would be dropped as a condition of Google supplying maps and other services to the iPhone.
The addition of Google services is a big part of what made the iPhone almost immediately successful, so it's not as tho it was a one-way street. Without Google's help it would have been a tough road for Apple IMO. Neither Nokia or Microsoft would have stepped in to offer services to a company hoping to steal their breath away. TomTom didn't have a map company at the time so they wouldn't have been any help and Yahoo was barely relevant in search.
Google stole all of Apple's IP... but I think many people extend the iPhone to encompass much more than the tremendous but limited IP added to it.
The iPhone borrowed far more technology than it added. That's how it works. Technology builds on technology and you move forward from there. Apple's iPhone did not invent the CPU, touch screen, Gorilla glass, plastic, wireless communication- and if you remove those there isn't much of a product left..
You do realize Apple licensed and/or purchased the tech. They didn't steal it nor did they "borrow" it.
You do realize Apple licensed and/or purchased the tech. They didn't steal it nor did they "borrow" it.
Took a little prompting from a some of the IP holders (ie Nokia, Elan etc.) and they've yet to license some other pieces of IP used in the iPhone (ie Motorola Mobility) tho they acknowledge the patents are used by the product.
Of course sometimes a company doesn't know there's patent licenses to be negotiated until the patent owner contacts them. It's not as tho they're all clear and specific. Other times a manufacturer may be aware of potentially applicable patents but it's ignored until the owner complains, and sometimes they complain loudly (VirnetX). And too, not all claims of infringement or demands for royalties are valid to begin with. It's an field filled with mines.
Before iPhone's public unveiling, Google did not have access to specifics about it, despite Schmidt being an Apple trustee at the time.
But Schmidt knew something huge was underway:
- Apple was pouring huge resources in a phone project
- Jobs was convinced this project would be a revolution for the industry and I am pretty sure it showed when he was talking to people he was trusting. That and how Blackberry was utter crap for him.
- According to Jobs it was bigger than the first Mac.
Schmidt is not stupid. He knew !damn well Apple was on the verge of delivering a new kind of phone far above what BB had to offer at the moment, hence far superior to Google own prototypes. Plus, Jobs despised physical keyboard and Apple had many patent about multi-touch technology.
Also, Apple was already in talk to use GoogleMaps: how many handsets were able to display GoogleMaps at 640x480px and let users interact with it without a keyboad in 2006 ?
Google had huge hints at what the iPhone was capable of and what it would not be in no small part thanks to Schmidt so, it is really naive to think they did not use this knowledge to move Android development in new directions (if just to cover a worst case scenario%u2026) well before Apple unveiled the iPhone%u2026 And it would not have been possible if Schmidt had not been working with Jobs on a daily basis at this time%u2026
Google may not have stolen the iPhone "features" by se but they had enough inside info to be much more prepared than their competitors and pour much more resources to back their project and ensure it would, one day, lead the competition by a wide margin%u2026
It is interesting to re-watch SJ's iPhone keynote. Schmidt comes off as a complete Judas. He is despicable.
Calico isn't a project, more of a subdirectory where they keep the personal medical data they've gleamed. It's called a database, and doctors, hospitals and health insurance companies already use them. In fact they've been using them since before Sergey Brin started picking all that stuff out of his face. How do you think Larry Ellison affords to pick all the stuff out of his face?
I'm sure Google labs is wonderful, but you know, lot's of companies do website development, this isn't very special... they are still... just a website.
I realize you're poking a bit of fun. For visitors or less well-read AI members that missed the sarcasm I'll link a fairly recent article on Calico. To say that the medical community sees a lot of promise in what it may be able to accomplish is an understatement and it's attracting a lot of talent.
Google stole all of Apple's IP... but I think many people extend the iPhone to encompass much more than the tremendous but limited IP added to it.
The iPhone borrowed far more technology than it added. That's how it works. Technology builds on technology and you move forward from there. Apple's iPhone did not invent the CPU, touch screen, Gorilla glass, plastic, wireless communication- and if you remove those there isn't much of a product left. Apple added an elegant form, multitouch, and bounceback and attempted with those to block anyone else from advancing their products. They failed at obstructing competition for the most part, but at the same time are getting healthy legal settlements from it.
Google recognized mobile as the future. Microsoft laughed at it. Google's fear at the time was Microsoft, not Apple. Everyone at that time still kind of thought of Apple as a niched small fry. Google was worried MS would take things seriously, and inevitably get the same 90ish percent market share they had in the PC market. Since MS had just tried to kick Google out of Windows, Google was faced with having a fabulous search product with no platform control. They started Android well before the iPhone was released primarily in response to that threat- but the iPhone was just one of those eye poppers. They were the quickest to realize the old phone market was gone and they needed to enter the new phone market.
Parts don't sell. How a product works & how someone uses it is also a huge part in what a product is & how well it will be received. Your statement seems to trivialize that point. So Google saw mobile as the future before Apple? BS. Apple was thinking about mobile devices before Google even existed. Apple beat Google to the Market by 2 years with their MULTI-TOUCH product & fluid interface. So I guess Apple just threw the thing together overnight?
In April 2003 at the "All Things Digital" executive conference, Jobs expressed his belief that tablet PCs and traditional PDAs were not good choices as high-demand markets for Apple to enter, despite many requests made to him that Apple create another PDA. He did believe that cell phones were going to become important devices for portable information access, and that what cell phones needed to have was excellent synchronization software. The 1st iPhone came out in 2007. Jobs said they had been working on it for about 3 years. That makes the timeline for the iPhone start at about 2004 (probably earlier). Apple was thinking about mobile devices before Google was even a company. It doesn't matter what goes on behind the scenes if the product is not useable. This notion that somehow the UI is just something trivial is nonsense.
That doesn't sound right. Google was working on a smartdevice OS long before they partnered with Apple on the iPhone (and before the iPhone project was given a go-ahead). Mr Jobs would have been aware of it too, just as most of the industry was. I've never seen mention of any expectation that Android would be dropped as a condition of Google supplying maps and other services to the iPhone.
The addition of Google services is a big part of what made the iPhone almost immediately successful, so it's not as tho it was a one-way street. Without Google's help it would have been a tough road for Apple IMO. Neither Nokia or Microsoft would have stepped in to offer services to a company hoping to steal their breath away. TomTom didn't have a map company at the time so they wouldn't have been any help and Yahoo was barely relevant in search.
EDIT: By the way, there are much longer excerpts available outside of AI. Here's one of them:
Google acquired Android Inc. on August 17, 2005. Apple started work on the iPhone in 2004.
Including a maps app on the first iPhone was not even part of the company’s original plan as the phone’s unveiling approached in January 2007. Just weeks before the event, Mr. Jobs ordered a mapping app to show off the capabilities of the touch-screen device.
Two engineers put together a maps app for the presentation in three weeks, said a former Apple engineer who worked on iPhone software, and who declined to be named because he did not want to speak publicly about his previous employer. The company hastily cut a deal with Google to use its map data.
[SIZE=16px]<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google" style="background-image:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);" target="_blank" title="Google">Google</a> acquired Android Inc. on August 17, 2005. Apple started work on the iPhone in 2004.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=16px]<span style="color:rgb(87,74,66);line-height:1.4em;">Including a maps app on the first iPhone was not even part of the company’s original plan as the phone’s unveiling approached in January 2007. Just weeks before the event, Mr. Jobs ordered a mapping app to show off the capabilities of the touch-screen device.</span>
[/SIZE] [SIZE=16px]Two engineers put together a maps app for the presentation in three weeks, said a former Apple engineer who worked on iPhone software, and who declined to be named because he did not want to speak publicly about his previous employer. The company hastily cut a deal with Google to use its map data.[/SIZE]
According to interviews Steve Jobs signed off on doing the iPhone project in the latter half of 2005, not that it matters. Apparently Google wasn't alone (or Apple wasn't alone) in recognizing the market was ripe for a new direction in mobile phones and both came to that realization at about the same time even though prompted by different challenges. As history showed Apple came up with the better initial design, but both company's ideas ended up changing the landscape of the entire mobile segment. Not a bad showing for an ad company and a computer company neither of whom had a background in mobile phones.
According to interviews Steve Jobs signed off on doing the iPhone project in the latter half of 2005, not that it matters. Apparently Google wasn't alone (or Apple wasn't alone) in recognizing the market was ripe for a new direction in mobile phones and both came to that realization at about the same time tho prompted by different challenges. As history showed Apple came up with the better initial design, but both company's ideas ended up changing the landscape of the entire mobile segment. Not a bad showing for an ad company and a computer company neither of whom had a background in mobile phone yet took parallel paths.
It's also worth noting that Apple planned on selling entire devices... whereas Google was more interested in the software and selling ads.
According to interviews Steve Jobs signed off on doing the iPhone project in the latter half of 2005, not that it matters. Apparently Google wasn't alone (or Apple wasn't alone) in recognizing the market was ripe for a new direction in mobile phones and both came to that realization at about the same time even though prompted by different challenges. As history showed Apple came up with the better initial design, but both company's ideas ended up changing the landscape of the entire mobile segment. Not a bad showing for an ad company and a computer company neither of whom had a background in mobile phones.
Development of what was to become the iPhone began in 2004, when Apple started to gather a team of 1000 employees to work on the highly confidential "Project Purple". The only reason the timeline matters is that you stated otherwise. You stated that Google started development of Android before Apple released the iPhone. Yeah, that may be technically true, but misleading. Apple started working on the iPhone before Google purchased Android. Therefore Apple was developing a phone (hardware & software) before Google had an OS for a phone or a phone for that matter. Google did not build it first phones & did not design the hardware. Apple's been designing hardware, software & interfaces for over 30 years. As history shows Apple was well ahead of what Google was doing & planning. Which makes you wonder what did they see at Apple, before the iPhone's launch.
Development of what was to become the iPhone began in 2004, when Apple started to gather a team of 1000 employees to work on the highly confidential "Project Purple". The only reason the timeline matters is that you stated otherwise.
Since an accurate timeline is so important to you let me assist in straightening it out. Some of the other folks here already know this. Project Purple's assignment was not to produce a smartphone. It was formed to create the iPad. Over the following year, 2005, engineers from that "Project Purple" development team began lobbying Steve Jobs to consider a new smartphone using some of the tech they were developing for the iPad. Initially he resisted.
Eventually in the latter part of 2005 after several weeks/months of convincing Jobs finally bought into the idea Apple could build it's own smartphone and one unlike anything the market had ever seen. He finally gave them a go-ahead, committed resources and Apple began earnest development on what would become the iPhone. That would have been 2 years or so after the Android Project began and at around the same time as Google closed on the Android purchase in July of 2005. Apple should have been aware that Google was working on a mobile phone OS, but perhaps their engineers and Mr Jobs didn't do all that much reading. In any case Google would not have pursued Android because Apple was creating the iPhone. They probably weren't yet.
Since I know there's folks here with a stock of tinfoil it's not beyond reason that Google's Android purchase helped push Mr. Jobs to commit to the iPhone, perhaps even leading to his decision that Google's Eric Schmidt should join Apple's board the next year.
...or maybe Google and Apple just arrived at the same point at at about the same moment and neither had any idea the other was doing the same thing. Better?
Comments
Agreed but it's too foolish to rely on the success of your business on another company. Sure every iPhone initially would use Google to search but what if Apple turned around and decided to use a competitor as the default search engine?
A common misunderstanding among fandroids is copying = innovation.
"real artists steal" - Pablo Picasso
"real artists ship" - Steve Jobs
True but one can improve on a current innovation. Innovation isn't a easy thing to do and most things that we currently buy and use are only but improvements on a long ago innovation?
Not to excuse any copying or parent infringement, but I wonder what Steve Jobs expected to happen after the iPhone launched. That he got so angry about Android would seem to suggest that he thought the rest of the mobile industry would... just carry on as it always had? Let Apple run away with every prize?
Maybe it's the benefit of hindsight, but given how good the iPhone was (to paraphrase SJs own words: "five years ahead of the competition"), it seems pretty much inevitable that the iPhone would trigger some degree of following/inspiring/copying.
Again, not excusing it, just wondering if SJ was as genuinely surprised and angered by it as much as his "thermo-nuclear war" comments would suggest.
I think I remember it was more along the lines of a gentleman's agreement; Google wouldn't go into products like Apple, and Apple wouldn't start doing search and other Google categories at the time. So "we won't do a phone" and then of course they did a phone.
You would at least kick the Google guy off your board during certain proprietary meetings.
"real artists steal" - Pablo Picasso
"real artists ship" - Steve Jobs
Android doesn't look much like iOS (I'm referring to stock android, not samsung's Touchwiz skin), and they are even more different if you look under the hood. I'd say that Google has "stolen" in the sense of Steve Jobs and made their OS their own.
That doesn't sound right. Google was working on a smartdevice OS long before they partnered with Apple on the iPhone (and before the iPhone project was given a go-ahead). Mr Jobs would have been aware of it too, just as most of the industry was. I've never seen mention of any expectation that Android would be dropped as a condition of Google supplying maps and other services to the iPhone.
The addition of Google services is a big part of what made the iPhone almost immediately successful, so it's not as tho it was a one-way street. Without Google's help it would have been a tough road for Apple IMO. Neither Nokia or Microsoft would have stepped in to offer services to a company hoping to steal their breath away. TomTom didn't have a map company at the time so they wouldn't have been any help and Yahoo was barely relevant in search.
EDIT: By the way, there are much longer excerpts available outside of AI. Here's one of them:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/the-day-google-had-to-start-over-on-android/282479/
You ever play Tic-Tac-Toe?
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
You do realize Apple licensed and/or purchased the tech. They didn't steal it nor did they "borrow" it.
Took a little prompting from a some of the IP holders (ie Nokia, Elan etc.) and they've yet to license some other pieces of IP used in the iPhone (ie Motorola Mobility) tho they acknowledge the patents are used by the product.
Of course sometimes a company doesn't know there's patent licenses to be negotiated until the patent owner contacts them. It's not as tho they're all clear and specific. Other times a manufacturer may be aware of potentially applicable patents but it's ignored until the owner complains, and sometimes they complain loudly (VirnetX). And too, not all claims of infringement or demands for royalties are valid to begin with. It's an field filled with mines.
It is interesting to re-watch SJ's iPhone keynote. Schmidt comes off as a complete Judas. He is despicable.
I realize you're poking a bit of fun. For visitors or less well-read AI members that missed the sarcasm I'll link a fairly recent article on Calico. To say that the medical community sees a lot of promise in what it may be able to accomplish is an understatement and it's attracting a lot of talent.
http://medcitynews.com/2013/12/indicators-googles-calico-anti-aging-project-wont-pie-sky/
Google stole all of Apple's IP... but I think many people extend the iPhone to encompass much more than the tremendous but limited IP added to it.
The iPhone borrowed far more technology than it added. That's how it works. Technology builds on technology and you move forward from there. Apple's iPhone did not invent the CPU, touch screen, Gorilla glass, plastic, wireless communication- and if you remove those there isn't much of a product left. Apple added an elegant form, multitouch, and bounceback and attempted with those to block anyone else from advancing their products. They failed at obstructing competition for the most part, but at the same time are getting healthy legal settlements from it.
Google recognized mobile as the future. Microsoft laughed at it. Google's fear at the time was Microsoft, not Apple. Everyone at that time still kind of thought of Apple as a niched small fry. Google was worried MS would take things seriously, and inevitably get the same 90ish percent market share they had in the PC market. Since MS had just tried to kick Google out of Windows, Google was faced with having a fabulous search product with no platform control. They started Android well before the iPhone was released primarily in response to that threat- but the iPhone was just one of those eye poppers. They were the quickest to realize the old phone market was gone and they needed to enter the new phone market.
Parts don't sell. How a product works & how someone uses it is also a huge part in what a product is & how well it will be received. Your statement seems to trivialize that point. So Google saw mobile as the future before Apple? BS. Apple was thinking about mobile devices before Google even existed. Apple beat Google to the Market by 2 years with their MULTI-TOUCH product & fluid interface. So I guess Apple just threw the thing together overnight?
In April 2003 at the "All Things Digital" executive conference, Jobs expressed his belief that tablet PCs and traditional PDAs were not good choices as high-demand markets for Apple to enter, despite many requests made to him that Apple create another PDA. He did believe that cell phones were going to become important devices for portable information access, and that what cell phones needed to have was excellent synchronization software. The 1st iPhone came out in 2007. Jobs said they had been working on it for about 3 years. That makes the timeline for the iPhone start at about 2004 (probably earlier). Apple was thinking about mobile devices before Google was even a company. It doesn't matter what goes on behind the scenes if the product is not useable. This notion that somehow the UI is just something trivial is nonsense.
Google acquired Android Inc. on August 17, 2005
That doesn't sound right. Google was working on a smartdevice OS long before they partnered with Apple on the iPhone (and before the iPhone project was given a go-ahead). Mr Jobs would have been aware of it too, just as most of the industry was. I've never seen mention of any expectation that Android would be dropped as a condition of Google supplying maps and other services to the iPhone.
The addition of Google services is a big part of what made the iPhone almost immediately successful, so it's not as tho it was a one-way street. Without Google's help it would have been a tough road for Apple IMO. Neither Nokia or Microsoft would have stepped in to offer services to a company hoping to steal their breath away. TomTom didn't have a map company at the time so they wouldn't have been any help and Yahoo was barely relevant in search.
EDIT: By the way, there are much longer excerpts available outside of AI. Here's one of them:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/the-day-google-had-to-start-over-on-android/282479/
Google acquired Android Inc. on August 17, 2005. Apple started work on the iPhone in 2004.
Including a maps app on the first iPhone was not even part of the company’s original plan as the phone’s unveiling approached in January 2007. Just weeks before the event, Mr. Jobs ordered a mapping app to show off the capabilities of the touch-screen device.
Two engineers put together a maps app for the presentation in three weeks, said a former Apple engineer who worked on iPhone software, and who declined to be named because he did not want to speak publicly about his previous employer. The company hastily cut a deal with Google to use its map data.
According to interviews Steve Jobs signed off on doing the iPhone project in the latter half of 2005, not that it matters. Apparently Google wasn't alone (or Apple wasn't alone) in recognizing the market was ripe for a new direction in mobile phones and both came to that realization at about the same time even though prompted by different challenges. As history showed Apple came up with the better initial design, but both company's ideas ended up changing the landscape of the entire mobile segment. Not a bad showing for an ad company and a computer company neither of whom had a background in mobile phones.
It's also worth noting that Apple planned on selling entire devices... whereas Google was more interested in the software and selling ads.
Like you said... different challenges.
And also different business models.
According to interviews Steve Jobs signed off on doing the iPhone project in the latter half of 2005, not that it matters. Apparently Google wasn't alone (or Apple wasn't alone) in recognizing the market was ripe for a new direction in mobile phones and both came to that realization at about the same time even though prompted by different challenges. As history showed Apple came up with the better initial design, but both company's ideas ended up changing the landscape of the entire mobile segment. Not a bad showing for an ad company and a computer company neither of whom had a background in mobile phones.
Since an accurate timeline is so important to you let me assist in straightening it out. Some of the other folks here already know this. Project Purple's assignment was not to produce a smartphone. It was formed to create the iPad. Over the following year, 2005, engineers from that "Project Purple" development team began lobbying Steve Jobs to consider a new smartphone using some of the tech they were developing for the iPad. Initially he resisted.
Eventually in the latter part of 2005 after several weeks/months of convincing Jobs finally bought into the idea Apple could build it's own smartphone and one unlike anything the market had ever seen. He finally gave them a go-ahead, committed resources and Apple began earnest development on what would become the iPhone. That would have been 2 years or so after the Android Project began and at around the same time as Google closed on the Android purchase in July of 2005. Apple should have been aware that Google was working on a mobile phone OS, but perhaps their engineers and Mr Jobs didn't do all that much reading. In any case Google would not have pursued Android because Apple was creating the iPhone. They probably weren't yet.
Since I know there's folks here with a stock of tinfoil it's not beyond reason that Google's Android purchase helped push Mr. Jobs to commit to the iPhone, perhaps even leading to his decision that Google's Eric Schmidt should join Apple's board the next year.
...or maybe Google and Apple just arrived at the same point at at about the same moment and neither had any idea the other was doing the same thing. Better?