The market hasn't woken up to the damage done to Google's business model by Apple doing its own Maps.
When you consider the value of the data Google was collecting from iOS users [you know, the folks who carry credit cards and spend 4x Android users on apps and media], Apple hit them where it hurts.
There's a war between Apple and Google and right now and Google is far, far more vulnerable to an attack from Apple. Apple can cut off their access to the most valuable mobile analytics and data on the planet. That strikes at the heart of Google's business model. Spotlight in iOS 8 and Yosemite is yet another salvo:
Why is there a need for a war? Google's business model doesn't really overlap Apple's and vice-versa. It's not as tho Google is taking away Apple device sales as they sell everything they can produce quarter after quarter and lead the world in profitability (ignoring oil). Outside of controlling the entire computer market and sucking up every last dollar of profit what more could Apple wish for? Apple and Google could peacefully co-exist, and in fact actually assist each other, if they choose. The "war" was of Steve Jobs making IMHO and hopefully Tim Cook has a different mindset.
Such a trollish comment. Google are a cynical company which Apple are doing well to move away from. Their adolescent mindset originates from Schmidt and Page. Until those two go, there is no chance that their culture will change.
Talk of war is so much fluff. Apple are simply treating Google in the manner which they deserve: one of extreme caution.
Such a trollish comment. Google are a cynical company which Apple are doing well to move away from. Their adolescent mindset originates from Schmidt and Page. Until those two go, there is no chance that their culture will change.
Talk of war is so much fluff. Apple are simply treating Google in the manner which they deserve: one of extreme caution.
Ah, so a lapse in judgment by Mr. Jobs, Arthur Levinson, and Bill Campbell lead to the Apple partnership and sharing of board members then.
I said nothing of the sort. You are either being intentionally disingenuous or misreading what was written. What I said was Android was originally intended to blunt Microsoft's mobile plans. MS was already trying to push Google off the desktop and they didn't want the same to happen in mobile. Android was Google's plan for relevancy. An Apple iPhone wasn't even in the picture when Google began investing in the project in late 2004/early 2005. It wasn't even a twinkle in Steve Jobs eye. It was months later when Jobs was eventually convinced the iPhone was viable and development given the green light as an offshoot of the iPad "Project Purple". FACT that even DED would agree with.
There's absolutely no doubt that once the iPhone was official Mr. Jobs made it an issue that Google would be unable to ignore with threats of retaliation and eventually even war. It became personal. But that does not change the fact that Android was never intended to be an attack on Apple. It's simply revisionist bull* to make the assertion it was. That Mr. Jobs tirades and threats made sure Apple could not be ignored in the years since doesn't change history. Google never threatened war nor envisioned Android as a way of hurting Apple. There was zero benefit to them to do so. You've got things confused.
As I said several posts back you should perhaps research a bit more.
Blame the dead guy eh? Classy. You somehow skipped quite a bit between the iPhone becoming official and "Jobs made it an issue that Google would be unable to ignore with threats of retaliation and eventually even war." In case you forgot, google's mole eric schmidt was on Apple's board prior to and after the iPhone's announcement. You're also ignoring that android underwent a significant redesign after the iPhone release, and google realized that they had to "start over" (in the words of a google engineer) specifically in reaction/competition/attack against the iPhone. It seems like you're the one who is confused, again.
They must be mixing some magic mushrooms in with the kool aid over in mountain view.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/181269/apple-maps-launch-on-the-web-in-new-find-my-iphone-beta-displacing-google/40#post_2561433" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Gatorguy</strong> <a href="/t/181269/apple-maps-launch-on-the-web-in-new-find-my-iphone-beta-displacing-google/40#post_2561433"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /><br /><br />I said nothing of the sort. You are either being intentionally disingenuous or misreading what was written. What I said was Android was originally intended to blunt Microsoft's mobile plans. MS was already trying to push Google off the desktop and they didn't want the same to happen in mobile. Android was Google's plan for relevancy. An Apple iPhone wasn't even in the picture when Google began investing in the project in late 2004/early 2005. It wasn't even a twinkle in Steve Jobs eye. It was months later when Jobs was eventually convinced the iPhone was viable and development given the green light as an offshoot of the iPad "Project Purple". <strong>FACT that even DED would agree with.</strong><br /><br />There's absolutely no doubt that once the iPhone was official Mr. Jobs made it an issue that Google would be unable to ignore with threats of retaliation and eventually even war. It became personal. But that does not change the fact that <strong>Android was never intended to be an attack on Apple.</strong> It's simply revisionist bull* to make the assertion it was. That Mr. Jobs tirades and threats made sure Apple could not be ignored in the years since doesn't change history. Google never threatened war nor envisioned Android as a way of hurting Apple. There was zero benefit to them to do so. You've got things confused.<br /><br />As I said several posts back you should perhaps research a bit more.</div></div><p> </p><p>Blame the dead guy eh? Classy. You somehow skipped quite a bit between the iPhone becoming official and "Jobs made it an issue that Google would be unable to ignore with threats of retaliation and eventually even war." In case you forgot, google's mole eric schmidt was on Apple's board prior to and after the iPhone's announcement. You're also ignoring that android underwent a significant redesign after the iPhone release, and google realized that they had to "start over" (in the words of a google engineer) specifically in reaction/competition/attack against the iPhone. It seems like you're the one who is confused, again.</p><p> </p><p>They must be mixing some magic mushrooms in with the kool aid over in mountain view.</p>
It seems you've been on magic mushrooms. By your own admission android changed dramatically in implementation only after the iPhone was released. Eric the mole as you call him was a bloody bad mole if android was only changed in direction after everyone else knew about the iPhone and how good it was compared to the competition. Before that all the effort was going into the version to compete against BlackBerry.
Then again from Steve's statement about Eric's resignation it seems Eric was recusing himself (as required) from more and more meetings because of conflicts of interest. So how much Eric and thus google knew about what was going on for the iPhone is just a matter of conjecture as none of us know exactly how much he was privy to.
It seems you've been on magic mushrooms. By your own admission android changed dramatically in implementation only after the iPhone was released. Eric the mole as you call him was a bloody bad mole if android was only changed in direction after everyone else knew about the iPhone and how good it was compared to the competition. Before that all the effort was going into the version to compete against BlackBerry.
Then again from Steve's statement about Eric's resignation it seems Eric was recusing himself (as required) from more and more meetings because of conflicts of interest. So how much Eric and thus google knew about what was going on for the iPhone is just a matter of conjecture as none of us know exactly how much he was privy to.
It seems you've been on magic mushrooms. By your own admission android changed dramatically in implementation only after the iPhone was released. Eric the mole as you call him was a bloody bad mole if android was only changed in direction after everyone else knew about the iPhone and how good it was compared to the competition. Before that all the effort was going into the version to compete against BlackBerry.
Then again from Steve's statement about Eric's resignation it seems Eric was recusing himself (as required) from more and more meetings because of conflicts of interest. So how much Eric and thus google knew about what was going on for the iPhone is just a matter of conjecture as none of us know exactly how much he was privy to.
I never said he was a good mole.
I have a mole theory.
Schmidt knew about the iPhone early on and knew that he couldn't do anything about it too soon, as it would look suspicious. So behind the scenes, he quietly changed Android's direction, so that Google were able to introduce their touchscreen relatively quickly and therefore catch up quicker. And as I recall, people at the time were surprised by Google's speed at changing Android's UI.
Schmidt knew about the iPhone early on and knew that he couldn't do anything about it too soon, as it would look suspicious. So behind the scenes, he quietly changed Android's direction, so that Google were able to introduce their touchscreen relatively quickly and therefore catch up quicker. And as I recall, people at the time were surprised by Google's speed at changing Android's UI.
Just a theory.
ROFTL!
How's this one: Schmidt knew all about the iPhone and its interface. He was smart enough to know not to move too fast tho (just as you said) so he actually sent everything he knew about it over to Palm so that they could get to work on their version of multi-touch for the Pre. That paved the way for a Google excuse to offer it themselves some months later when Apple didn't go after Palm. Very sneaky and well-planned. That Schmidt is a pretty smart guy.
ooohh. . . or maybe this: Schmidt figured out early on that his position as Google CEO would draw attention when Android started using some of the secret Apple tech they had stolen from Apple labs. So instead of Schmidt it was a tag-team of Levinson and Campbell, also Google directors, who took turns feeding the latest to Page and Rubin while Eric would make sure everyone took note that he recused himself from Apple board discussions on upcoming products. But to make sure that any potential suspicions would fall on him rather than the true conspirators he used Google's entrenched network of paid bloggers to start rumors of his work as a mole, taking a bullet for the team. Dang good plan that worked perfectly don't you think? Jobs never suspected who the true moles were letting them continue their spy work for a few more months.
Schmidt knew about the iPhone early on and knew that he couldn't do anything about it too soon, as it would look suspicious. So behind the scenes, he quietly changed Android's direction, so that Google were able to introduce their touchscreen relatively quickly and therefore catch up quicker. And as I recall, people at the time were surprised by Google's speed at changing Android's UI.
Just a theory.
ROFTL!
ROFTL? Is that a bark or are you just pleased to see my post?
Schmidt knew about the iPhone early on and knew that he couldn't do anything about it too soon, as it would look suspicious. So behind the scenes, he quietly changed Android's direction, so that Google were able to introduce their touchscreen relatively quickly and therefore catch up quicker. And as I recall, people at the time were surprised by Google's speed at changing Android's UI.
Just a theory.
That's certainly plausible. There are a number of scenarios that would work out in google's favor by having a mole on Apple's board. Judging by google's antagonistic, petty, and hyper-competitivie stance towards Apple post-mole, it seems clear that google's intent was to subvert Apple's position in the tech market, likely motivated by a delusional sense of entitlement for having come up with a search algorithm, which they capitalized on with hardly any sense of integrity. If anyone wants to sell illegal prescription drugs from Canada, google's your ad agency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I loved seeing your post. An opportunity to post a little humor on a slow Sunday evening is always appreciated.
What's humorous are your continued attempts at trolling.
Edit: Why don't you just concede that Apple is the better company? You clearly have enough knowledge to see that this is true. Google has the potential to be a good company, but not if its current practices and juvenile attitudes are continually rationalized by yourself and other google fans.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/181269/apple-maps-launch-on-the-web-in-new-find-my-iphone-beta-displacing-google/40#post_2563642" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Benjamin Frost</strong> <a href="/t/181269/apple-maps-launch-on-the-web-in-new-find-my-iphone-beta-displacing-google/40#post_2563642"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /><br /><br />I have a mole theory.<br /><br />Schmidt knew about the iPhone early on and knew that he couldn't do anything about it too soon, as it would look suspicious. So behind the scenes, he quietly changed Android's direction, so that Google were able to introduce their touchscreen relatively quickly and therefore catch up quicker. And as I recall, people at the time were surprised by Google's speed at changing Android's UI.<br /><br />Just a theory.</div></div><p> </p><p>That's certainly plausible. There are a number of scenarios that would work out in google's favor by having a mole on Apple's board. Judging by google's antagonistic, petty, and hyper-competitivie stance towards Apple post-mole, it seems clear that google's intent was to subvert Apple's position in the tech market, likely motivated by a delusional sense of entitlement for having come up with a search algorithm, which they capitalized on with hardly any sense of integrity. If anyone wants to sell illegal prescription drugs from Canada, google's your ad agency. </p><p> </p><div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/181269/apple-maps-launch-on-the-web-in-new-find-my-iphone-beta-displacing-google/40#post_2563657" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Gatorguy</strong> <a href="/t/181269/apple-maps-launch-on-the-web-in-new-find-my-iphone-beta-displacing-google/40#post_2563657"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /><br /><br />I loved seeing your post. An opportunity to post a little humor on a slow Sunday evening is always appreciated.</div></div><p> </p><p>What's humorous are your continued attempts at trolling.</p><p> </p><p>Edit: Why don't you just concede that Apple is the better company? You clearly have enough knowledge to see that this is true. Google has the potential to be a good company, but not if its current practices and juvenile attitudes are continually rationalized by yourself and other google fans.</p>
I wouldn't say Gatorguy is trolling. He responds to statements with reasoning why he had that standpoint. If anything he's an asset to this forum, even if it's a rebuttal to some of the more outlandish Apple fawning that can happen whereby Apple can do no wrong and everything/everybody else is wrong wrong wrong. It must be hard for Gatorguy to be a troll when he is actually bringing something positive to this forum. Imho.
I wouldn't say Gatorguy is trolling. He responds to statements with reasoning why he had that standpoint. If anything he's an asset to this forum, even if it's a rebuttal to some of the more outlandish Apple fawning that can happen whereby Apple can do no wrong and everything/everybody else is wrong wrong wrong. It must be hard for Gatorguy to be a troll when he is actually bringing something positive to this forum. Imho.
If you take what gg is saying at face value, then you are making valid points, all of which I would agree with. However, gg has demonstrated a pattern of spinning information and omitting relevant information in order to make his points. Between his sometimes innocuous, and sometimes informative posts (which I have learned from; thanks for those gg), gg has clearly shown a preference for his agenda (to bolster google) over getting to the truth, which qualifies him as a troll, IMO.
To say that we need google fans to come here and troll in order to "balance" things out has always seemed ridiculous to me. It's like saying Apple needs competitors in order to innovate. At best it might accelerate certain discussions, but we certainly don't need trolls in order to be critical of Apple.
If you take what gg is saying at face value, then you are making valid points, all of which I would agree with. However, gg has demonstrated a pattern of spinning information and omitting relevant information in order to make his points. Between his sometimes innocuous, and sometimes informative posts (which I have learned from; thanks for those gg), gg has clearly shown a preference for his agenda (to bolster google) over getting to the truth, which qualifies him as a troll, IMO.
To say that we need google fans to come here and troll in order to "balance" things out has always seemed ridiculous to me. It's like saying Apple needs competitors in order to innovate. At best it might accelerate certain discussions, but we certainly don't need trolls in order to be critical of Apple.
Could you link an example or two of what you consider "omitting information" or where you've felt I've promoted an agenda rather than looking for the truth? Perhaps you've misread or perhaps you've found a legitimate issue in some instances. I'd like to know what they are.
Could you link an example or two of what you consider "omitting information" or where you've felt I've promoted an agenda rather than looking for the truth? Perhaps you've misread or perhaps you've found a legitimate issue in some instances. I'd like to know what they are.
I don't feel like sifting through a bunch of old posts, rehashing old arguments, or getting into prolonged discussions about this, so my reply to you is going to be limited. As for omitting information, you seemed to do a good job of that in saying that android was not meant to be competitive against Apple (when it clearly was, as stated by google employees), and then trying to blame Steve Jobs who "made it an issue" while ignoring/omitting: 1) the context that google was getting evidence (direct, indirect, or both) via eric schmidt that likely influenced android's development and 2) the evidence that google significantly changed the direction of android's development in reaction to the iPhone being released, thus making it competitive to iPhone. As for promoting an agenda, in addition to the last example, you often spin information, and I'm not the only one who's noticed this.
I don't feel like sifting through a bunch of old posts, rehashing old arguments, or getting into prolonged discussions about this, so my reply to you is going to be limited. As for omitting information, you seemed to do a good job of that in saying that android was not meant to be competitive against Apple (when it clearly was, as stated by google employees), and then trying to blame Steve Jobs who "made it an issue" while ignoring/omitting: 1) the context that google was getting evidence (direct, indirect, or both) via eric schmidt that likely influenced android's development and 2) the evidence that google significantly changed the direction of android's development in reaction to the iPhone being released, thus making it competitive to iPhone. As for promoting an agenda, in addition to the last example, you often spin information, and I'm not the only one who's noticed this.
Fair enough as I probably wouldn't take the time to do so either unless I already had an idea where to look.
Anyway, as far as yours or anyone else's claim that Eric Schmidt was taking Apple secrets back to share with Google it's simply an urban myth with no factual basis. No one with Apple ever hinted at it, no blogger with connections to Apple ever hinted at it, and there's no evidence whatsoever that you or anyone else has offered other than he was "in the right place at the right time" if he had wanted to.
I also did not "blame" Steve Jobs. What I said was that whether Google wanted to ignore comment made by him or not it became impossible to ignore and his reaction meant Google now had to deal with Apple too.
On to the reason for the purchase and initial development of Android by Google. It had nothing to do with Apple, much less meant to harm them. Period. There was no iOS or iPhone back then, nor had Steve Jobs even green-lighted developing one. We're talking about 2004/2005, absolutely-no-doubt-about-it pre-iPhone. Pretend all you want that Google was going after Apple. This is one of those instances where DED and I agree. Google was worried about Microsoft, not Apple. After Jobs reaction now Google had to worry about Apple as well.
Did Google change their hardware-build focus after seeing the iPhone? They obviously and clearly did. Apple had a great idea and had Google not recognized it they would have been pulling a Blackberry and sliding towards irrelevancy, and before they barely started. But to offer proof they weren't going after Apple they purposely avoided activating the already built-in multi-touch capability, the iPhone's premier feature, at the request of Mr. Jobs. The first Android phone, the G1, was intentionally crippled, with the function stripped out even tho it was there. If they were trying to hurt Apple why would they handicap their initial efforts? Palm sure didn't and they ended up being the impetus for Google finally activating multi-touch in late 2009 when Apple let it ride. Yet again not doing so would have been a step backwards towards irrelevance with other competing platforms now offering it. Simple common sense sir.
Now if you were to say Google today is competing with Apple in some areas I would 100% agree with you. But that's not the way Google and Android started out. Fact.
If you feel up to refuting any of this go for it. If you have facts to contradict anything then link away. Otherwise it's just a difference of opinion without facts on your side. Hardly rises to the level of trolling, tho perhaps you have your own definition of it that includes "I don't like what you said".
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/181269/apple-maps-launch-on-the-web-in-new-find-my-iphone-beta-displacing-google/40#post_2563729" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>singularity</strong> <a href="/t/181269/apple-maps-launch-on-the-web-in-new-find-my-iphone-beta-displacing-google/40#post_2563729"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /><br /><br />I wouldn't say Gatorguy is trolling. He responds to statements with reasoning why he had that standpoint. If anything he's an asset to this forum, even if it's a rebuttal to some of the more outlandish Apple fawning that can happen whereby Apple can do no wrong and everything/everybody else is wrong wrong wrong. It must be hard for Gatorguy to be a troll when he is actually bringing something positive to this forum. Imho.</div></div><p> </p><p>If you take what gg is saying at face value, then you are making valid points, all of which I would agree with. However, gg has demonstrated a pattern of spinning information and omitting relevant information in order to make his points. Between his sometimes innocuous, and sometimes informative posts (which I have learned from; thanks for those gg), gg has clearly shown a preference for his agenda (to bolster google) over getting to the truth, which qualifies him as a troll, IMO.</p><p> </p><p>To say that we need google fans to come here and troll in order to "balance" things out has always seemed ridiculous to me. It's like saying Apple needs competitors in order to innovate. At best it might accelerate certain discussions, but we certainly don't need trolls in order to be critical of Apple.</p>
Aah you just want Apple fans (what defines an Apple fan? At what level of fandom "allows" you the privelage to come to this forum?). Taking that attitude just ensures over time you get less and less real discussion and more self reinforcement of Apple=good everything else=bad. Gatorguy may come across to some as a rabid google fan (which I don't believe he is is) but he adds so much to the discussions because he has a different point of view. If trolling is adding to the discussion I hope he carries on. :thumbup:
…what defines an Apple fan? At what level of fandom "allows" you the privelage to come to this forum?
Anyone, who believes anything they wish, as long as they’re intelligent enough to actually present the point they’re making (or pretending to believe). Trolls aren’t. We don’t need people who spew FUD, lies, or hoaxes.
Comments
Such a trollish comment. Google are a cynical company which Apple are doing well to move away from. Their adolescent mindset originates from Schmidt and Page. Until those two go, there is no chance that their culture will change.
Talk of war is so much fluff. Apple are simply treating Google in the manner which they deserve: one of extreme caution.
Ah, so a lapse in judgment by Mr. Jobs, Arthur Levinson, and Bill Campbell lead to the Apple partnership and sharing of board members then.
They've got their lakes confused.
I said nothing of the sort. You are either being intentionally disingenuous or misreading what was written. What I said was Android was originally intended to blunt Microsoft's mobile plans. MS was already trying to push Google off the desktop and they didn't want the same to happen in mobile. Android was Google's plan for relevancy. An Apple iPhone wasn't even in the picture when Google began investing in the project in late 2004/early 2005. It wasn't even a twinkle in Steve Jobs eye. It was months later when Jobs was eventually convinced the iPhone was viable and development given the green light as an offshoot of the iPad "Project Purple". FACT that even DED would agree with.
There's absolutely no doubt that once the iPhone was official Mr. Jobs made it an issue that Google would be unable to ignore with threats of retaliation and eventually even war. It became personal. But that does not change the fact that Android was never intended to be an attack on Apple. It's simply revisionist bull* to make the assertion it was. That Mr. Jobs tirades and threats made sure Apple could not be ignored in the years since doesn't change history. Google never threatened war nor envisioned Android as a way of hurting Apple. There was zero benefit to them to do so. You've got things confused.
As I said several posts back you should perhaps research a bit more.
Blame the dead guy eh? Classy. You somehow skipped quite a bit between the iPhone becoming official and "Jobs made it an issue that Google would be unable to ignore with threats of retaliation and eventually even war." In case you forgot, google's mole eric schmidt was on Apple's board prior to and after the iPhone's announcement. You're also ignoring that android underwent a significant redesign after the iPhone release, and google realized that they had to "start over" (in the words of a google engineer) specifically in reaction/competition/attack against the iPhone. It seems like you're the one who is confused, again.
They must be mixing some magic mushrooms in with the kool aid over in mountain view.
Then again from Steve's statement about Eric's resignation it seems Eric was recusing himself (as required) from more and more meetings because of conflicts of interest. So how much Eric and thus google knew about what was going on for the iPhone is just a matter of conjecture as none of us know exactly how much he was privy to.
LOL! Pip'd by Singularity
It seems you've been on magic mushrooms. By your own admission android changed dramatically in implementation only after the iPhone was released. Eric the mole as you call him was a bloody bad mole if android was only changed in direction after everyone else knew about the iPhone and how good it was compared to the competition. Before that all the effort was going into the version to compete against BlackBerry.
Then again from Steve's statement about Eric's resignation it seems Eric was recusing himself (as required) from more and more meetings because of conflicts of interest. So how much Eric and thus google knew about what was going on for the iPhone is just a matter of conjecture as none of us know exactly how much he was privy to.
I never said he was a good mole.
I have a mole theory.
Schmidt knew about the iPhone early on and knew that he couldn't do anything about it too soon, as it would look suspicious. So behind the scenes, he quietly changed Android's direction, so that Google were able to introduce their touchscreen relatively quickly and therefore catch up quicker. And as I recall, people at the time were surprised by Google's speed at changing Android's UI.
Just a theory.
ROFTL!
How's this one: Schmidt knew all about the iPhone and its interface. He was smart enough to know not to move too fast tho (just as you said) so he actually sent everything he knew about it over to Palm so that they could get to work on their version of multi-touch for the Pre. That paved the way for a Google excuse to offer it themselves some months later when Apple didn't go after Palm. Very sneaky and well-planned. That Schmidt is a pretty smart guy.
ooohh. . . or maybe this: Schmidt figured out early on that his position as Google CEO would draw attention when Android started using some of the secret Apple tech they had stolen from Apple labs. So instead of Schmidt it was a tag-team of Levinson and Campbell, also Google directors, who took turns feeding the latest to Page and Rubin while Eric would make sure everyone took note that he recused himself from Apple board discussions on upcoming products. But to make sure that any potential suspicions would fall on him rather than the true conspirators he used Google's entrenched network of paid bloggers to start rumors of his work as a mole, taking a bullet for the team. Dang good plan that worked perfectly don't you think? Jobs never suspected who the true moles were letting them continue their spy work for a few more months.
ROFTL? Is that a bark or are you just pleased to see my post?
I loved seeing your post. An opportunity to post a little humor on a slow Sunday evening is always appreciated.
I have a mole theory.
Schmidt knew about the iPhone early on and knew that he couldn't do anything about it too soon, as it would look suspicious. So behind the scenes, he quietly changed Android's direction, so that Google were able to introduce their touchscreen relatively quickly and therefore catch up quicker. And as I recall, people at the time were surprised by Google's speed at changing Android's UI.
Just a theory.
That's certainly plausible. There are a number of scenarios that would work out in google's favor by having a mole on Apple's board. Judging by google's antagonistic, petty, and hyper-competitivie stance towards Apple post-mole, it seems clear that google's intent was to subvert Apple's position in the tech market, likely motivated by a delusional sense of entitlement for having come up with a search algorithm, which they capitalized on with hardly any sense of integrity. If anyone wants to sell illegal prescription drugs from Canada, google's your ad agency.
I loved seeing your post. An opportunity to post a little humor on a slow Sunday evening is always appreciated.
What's humorous are your continued attempts at trolling.
Edit: Why don't you just concede that Apple is the better company? You clearly have enough knowledge to see that this is true. Google has the potential to be a good company, but not if its current practices and juvenile attitudes are continually rationalized by yourself and other google fans.
Is that so, Mr. Rolling On The Floor Laughing Hyena…
????
I wouldn't say Gatorguy is trolling. He responds to statements with reasoning why he had that standpoint. If anything he's an asset to this forum, even if it's a rebuttal to some of the more outlandish Apple fawning that can happen whereby Apple can do no wrong and everything/everybody else is wrong wrong wrong. It must be hard for Gatorguy to be a troll when he is actually bringing something positive to this forum. Imho.
If you take what gg is saying at face value, then you are making valid points, all of which I would agree with. However, gg has demonstrated a pattern of spinning information and omitting relevant information in order to make his points. Between his sometimes innocuous, and sometimes informative posts (which I have learned from; thanks for those gg), gg has clearly shown a preference for his agenda (to bolster google) over getting to the truth, which qualifies him as a troll, IMO.
To say that we need google fans to come here and troll in order to "balance" things out has always seemed ridiculous to me. It's like saying Apple needs competitors in order to innovate. At best it might accelerate certain discussions, but we certainly don't need trolls in order to be critical of Apple.
Could you link an example or two of what you consider "omitting information" or where you've felt I've promoted an agenda rather than looking for the truth? Perhaps you've misread or perhaps you've found a legitimate issue in some instances. I'd like to know what they are.
I don't feel like sifting through a bunch of old posts, rehashing old arguments, or getting into prolonged discussions about this, so my reply to you is going to be limited. As for omitting information, you seemed to do a good job of that in saying that android was not meant to be competitive against Apple (when it clearly was, as stated by google employees), and then trying to blame Steve Jobs who "made it an issue" while ignoring/omitting: 1) the context that google was getting evidence (direct, indirect, or both) via eric schmidt that likely influenced android's development and 2) the evidence that google significantly changed the direction of android's development in reaction to the iPhone being released, thus making it competitive to iPhone. As for promoting an agenda, in addition to the last example, you often spin information, and I'm not the only one who's noticed this.
Fair enough as I probably wouldn't take the time to do so either unless I already had an idea where to look.
Anyway, as far as yours or anyone else's claim that Eric Schmidt was taking Apple secrets back to share with Google it's simply an urban myth with no factual basis. No one with Apple ever hinted at it, no blogger with connections to Apple ever hinted at it, and there's no evidence whatsoever that you or anyone else has offered other than he was "in the right place at the right time" if he had wanted to.
I also did not "blame" Steve Jobs. What I said was that whether Google wanted to ignore comment made by him or not it became impossible to ignore and his reaction meant Google now had to deal with Apple too.
On to the reason for the purchase and initial development of Android by Google. It had nothing to do with Apple, much less meant to harm them. Period. There was no iOS or iPhone back then, nor had Steve Jobs even green-lighted developing one. We're talking about 2004/2005, absolutely-no-doubt-about-it pre-iPhone. Pretend all you want that Google was going after Apple. This is one of those instances where DED and I agree. Google was worried about Microsoft, not Apple. After Jobs reaction now Google had to worry about Apple as well.
Did Google change their hardware-build focus after seeing the iPhone? They obviously and clearly did. Apple had a great idea and had Google not recognized it they would have been pulling a Blackberry and sliding towards irrelevancy, and before they barely started. But to offer proof they weren't going after Apple they purposely avoided activating the already built-in multi-touch capability, the iPhone's premier feature, at the request of Mr. Jobs. The first Android phone, the G1, was intentionally crippled, with the function stripped out even tho it was there. If they were trying to hurt Apple why would they handicap their initial efforts? Palm sure didn't and they ended up being the impetus for Google finally activating multi-touch in late 2009 when Apple let it ride. Yet again not doing so would have been a step backwards towards irrelevance with other competing platforms now offering it. Simple common sense sir.
Now if you were to say Google today is competing with Apple in some areas I would 100% agree with you. But that's not the way Google and Android started out. Fact.
If you feel up to refuting any of this go for it. If you have facts to contradict anything then link away. Otherwise it's just a difference of opinion without facts on your side. Hardly rises to the level of trolling, tho perhaps you have your own definition of it that includes "I don't like what you said".
Aah you just want Apple fans (what defines an Apple fan? At what level of fandom "allows" you the privelage to come to this forum?). Taking that attitude just ensures over time you get less and less real discussion and more self reinforcement of Apple=good everything else=bad. Gatorguy may come across to some as a rabid google fan (which I don't believe he is is) but he adds so much to the discussions because he has a different point of view. If trolling is adding to the discussion I hope he carries on. :thumbup:
Anyone, who believes anything they wish, as long as they’re intelligent enough to actually present the point they’re making (or pretending to believe). Trolls aren’t. We don’t need people who spew FUD, lies, or hoaxes.