People said that about Microsoft too 90s-2000s. Now look at how Microsoft Research is shutting down in silicon valley with little to show for all the advanced research.
Apple had its own Advanced Technology Group, and mostly what it accomplished was basic research that other companies appropriated and profited from. And a decade before that Xerox was funding advanced research that largely only ended up benefiting other companies.
So when you say Google is repeating the same moonshot stuff and that you believe this will all work out well, I have to wonder what your confidence is based on.
What you say is true, but I didn't say I "believe this will all work out well".
I did point out what I think Googles mode of operation is.
They could hit the jackpot and they are trying to, but that doesn't mean they have to succeed.
Someone else mentioned that 'the way they do it' is also essential, and I agree with that, Google doesn't seem to be very successful and a bit naive.
But it could be that they are not showing everything they can and that they surprise us all.
Not if you have breast cancer and are stuck in a hospital bed 24/7. So excuse me if I don't have much of a life right now, I would be more than happy to exchange mine for yours, believe me. I defend those products which I personally own and enjoy and I don't willy nilly choose this technology either, I happen to actually know what I'm doing and want. So I ask you why do people find it necessary to put down those things that they don't use, will ever use or for that matter have ever used. Every time there is thread about Google, Samsung, Microsoft, heck, anything that isn't Apple, there is literally one snide comment after another, not even clever ones at that. I think adding a little balance to the conversation at least makes it a little more interesting or should I just join in on all of the negativity for the sake parity.
Sorry to hear you have cancer. I hope you recover.
Your right that a balanced view is better, but it's sometimes hard to be balanced especially considering the amount of negative press Apple receives.
Have you noticed the few odd folks here that spend all day on AI defending anything that is a anti to Apple? Pretty weird way to spend your days IMHO.
Not if you have breast cancer and are stuck in a hospital bed 24/7. So excuse me if I don't have much of a life right now, I would be more than happy to exchange mine for yours, believe me. I defend those products which I personally own and enjoy and I don't willy nilly choose this technology either, I happen to actually know what I'm doing and want. So I ask you why do people find it necessary to put down those things that they don't use, will ever use or for that matter have ever used. Every time there is thread about Google, Samsung, Microsoft, heck, anything that isn't Apple, there is literally one snide comment after another, not even clever ones at that. I think adding a little balance to the conversation at least makes it a little more interesting or should I just join in on all of the negativity for the sake parity.
I think the problem with Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Blackberry and Nokia is that their leaders have all offered snide remarks about Apple at one time or another.
I think Microsoft is a good candidate for redemption, as Ballmer is mostly gone and Natella seems much more pro-Apple.
Blackberry also show signs of redemption; CarPlay and the two old leaders who attacked Apple have gone.
Samsung are the worst of the lot. Not only have they attacked Apple, but they have no morals. I don't see them arising from purgatory for a long time.
Google are almost as bad. They're unusual, however. I think that Schmidt was the secret to their success. Now he's gone, they're floundering. And I don't see Page as especially anti-Apple; he's too dreamy for that.
Nokia are fine and have shown repentance. I just remember their leader throwing an iPhone on the floor and mocking Apple once.
Have you noticed the few odd folks here that spend all day on AI defending anything that is a anti to Apple? Pretty weird way to spend your days IMHO.
Ah, I think I finally understand why you lash out at imagined sleights on your favored device provider, sometimes in anger and sometimes making it much too personal.
You've confused commenters that don't join in making fun of Google or Android, too often with FUD or even better add silly schoolyard names like Crapdroid or Scamdung, as being anti-Apple. So not being anti-Google (enough) or anti-Windows or anti-"other OS" means the post and therefor poster must be Apple-hating in your view. Is it kind of a "circle the wagons" thing, kill every Indian before they can get you and if you aren't thinking like us you must be an Indian?
Heck I 'm amazed when some of the staunchest Apple supporters here turn on each other when one of them makes a rare comment perceived as not supporting Apple, perhaps even "favoring the Indian". I've seen it happen to Mel, Anant, Soli and IIRC even you on at least one occasion.
I would have thought Apple being one of the richest and most successful companies on the planet would begin toning down the underdog mentality that drives a small but loud segment of the fan base to see users of other techs as enemies ready to jump out at every corner and from behind every bush with weapons drawn.
Apple the underdog disappeared years ago, but some folks are still living out the past I guess.
Google is the company that has hundreds of products in perpetual beta; then cancels them. He has the balls to say to Steve Jobs that Apple is not doing enough stuff? F--K OFF Larry.
38 of the 40 interview paragraphs and hundreds of sentences and quotes made no mention at all of Steve Jobs or Apple, yet somehow 4 of the 5 total sentences that did became the focal point of the comments here:
“He (Steve Jobs) would always tell me, You’re doing too much stuff. I’d be like, You’re not doing enough stuff.”
“It’s unsatisfying to have all these people, and we have all these billions we should be investing to make people’s lives better. If we just do the same things we did before and don’t do something new, it seems like a crime to me.”
So what was the fifth one? “What Steve said is right – you, Larry, can only manage so many things.”
Wow, I'd never imagine Larry Page could fit so much Apple hate into five sentences. :rolleyes:
Apparently you did not read the interview, quietly linked by the AI author. You should as it's not as simple as the way it's presented in the AI thumbnail view of it.
38 of the 40 interview paragraphs and hundreds of sentences and quotes made no mention at all of Steve Jobs or Apple, yet somehow 4 of the 5 total sentences that did became the focal point of the comments here:
“He (Steve Jobs) would always tell me, You’re doing too much stuff. I’d be like, You’re not doing enough stuff.”
“It’s unsatisfying to have all these people, and we have all these billions we should be investing to make people’s lives better. If we just do the same things we did before and don’t do something new, it seems like a crime to me.”
So what was the fifth one?
“What Steve said is right – you, Larry, can only manage so many things.”
Wow, I'd never imagine Larry Page could fit so much Apple hate into five sentences.
Uh, yeah, noone assumed he was talking about Steve the whole time. This article was about that specific portion of the interview, so obviously the relevant quote will be highlighted. Regardless of what else he says about other topics, it's fair to comment on that quote.
The anger against him is well merited, I read the whole interview twice from the original. He tries to paint himself in great positive light as some kind of saint that thought would be a "crime" to not help others by using his "billions" by contrasting it to SJ, the apparent cynic who only focused on his business and doing the few things he thought they could do and who told him you are doing too much.
So eventually Lar understood that he SJ was right and that he'd spread himself too thin via using his billions to help others, while apple instead succeeded because they only did a few things, and certainly didn't help others as honorable do no evil google has done via stealing other people's ip, spying on users, and littering the web with the worst type of ads created by mankind. Of course since all that is summed up as talking out of your behind, while at the same time contrasting your noble self to a visionary who's passed away, the f. offs to him are very well deserved indeed.
And in addition I am sure that if he actually told Steve that it's a crime to hold on to my billions and not help the world with them, of course Steve would have replied how exactly are you helping the world with them Larry? But Larry Page decides to not disclose the full discourse and leave it at that, so he can be painted in a positive light, and have apple painted in a negative light. I am sure that if said discourse was after they 'd been caught spying on apple at their campus Steve would have used the f. word too.
Why, it's an inevitable conclusion. Fossil fuels are running out, so in the very near future when all cars are electric, especially within a metropolitan area, autonomous driving cars specifically taxis's will more than likely become reality. I have no doubt that the streets will contain some sort of grid layer, where cars will draw it's power from, very close to how wireless mobile phone charging is accomplished .
There's a self driving car already, with minimal user intervention it's called a train. And if anyone doesn't want or can't drive, or is in a hurry, or is ill, or etc., they take a cab. Buses are useful too to meet people. Google disguises stupid ideas to begin with as some sort of innovation to benefit mankind. They are offering solutions to problems that don't exist, google glass, google driver-less cars, what's next? The google self opening wine bottle, the google auto walking shoes, google auto put on shirts, the list is endless if one has his mind set to create some needless crap so they can claim they are spending r&d money they are making out of spying on user data and tracking them. The google self using computer. A computer that uses (and abuses) itself with a great warranty and auto combustion date.
Also what makes you think trucks won't be replaced? The tech for removing drivers in trucks is further along than cars. Creating trains of trucks where only the first truck has a driver is a long way through testing.
You are just thinking about the journey. How would self driving trucks get into distribution centers and loading docks?
This difference in simplicity versus multiplicity reminds me of a sort of old-school versus new-school perspective. Growing up, I remember my educators frequently saying to me "don't be a jack of all trades and a master of none."
I always felt it was too limiting to view things that way. But as I've matured I've realized you need both in any realm. If no one takes the time to focus obsessively and singularly on mastering something, then eventually all trades would descend to a level of mediocrity void of enough quality to even attract the jacks.
Google is the company that has hundreds of products in perpetual beta; then cancels them. He has the balls to say to Steve Jobs that Apple is not doing enough stuff? F--K OFF Larry.
I'm trying to think of one way Google has even marginally improved anyone's lives? They're throwin money at things that fail and copying everyone who moves a muscle. How is that improving society? The first thing he should do is acknowledge Steve's world changing influence, then humbly accept whatever knowledge he can get. The difference between Steve and Larry, is Steve was focused on helping people, Larry focused on good intentions. Steve would move heaven and earth to get a useable, functioning computer in your hands (thank the Lord he succeeded). Put the power of a computer in the hands of every person on earth, not just smart people, not just tech heads, not just corporate managers, but everyone who can drag their finger across a screen has the power to communicate, consume arts, and learn about the world. Now that's world changing.
I'm trying to think of one way Google has even marginally improved anyone's lives? They're throwin money at things that fail and copying everyone who moves a muscle. How is that improving society? The first thing he should do is acknowledge Steve's world changing influence, then humbly accept whatever knowledge he can get. The difference between Steve and Larry, is Steve was focused on helping people, Larry focused on good intentions. Steve would move heaven and earth to get a useable, functioning computer in your hands (thank the Lord he succeeded). Put the power of a computer in the hands of every person on earth, not just smart people, not just tech heads, not just corporate managers, but everyone who can drag their finger across a screen has the power to communicate, consume arts, and learn about the world. Now that's world changing.
Your kidding right, Google Search, what did we have before that, Lycos, WebCrawler, Excite, AltaVista, etc. yeah, admit it or not but Google Search redefined how we used the web. Nowadays we have decent options like DuckDuckGo, Bing, Yahoo, etc. but I got to tell you when I'm working, as in coding, I always use Google as nothing finds what I want faster than Search. A lot of these projects that you say fail are actually things that employees start. Google's internal infrastructure is setup as such that they encourage their employees to come with new ideas. If there good enough than they go on their site as a beta service, if it fails it doesn't mean Google doesn't know what their doing, most of the time these projects get migrated into something else anyway. The only thing it really costs Google for these so called failed services is network usage, server time, and employee hours, all things that Google has an abundance of.
There's a self driving car already, with minimal user intervention it's called a train. And if anyone doesn't want or can't drive, or is in a hurry, or is ill, or etc., they take a cab. Buses are useful too to meet people. Google disguises stupid ideas to begin with as some sort of innovation to benefit mankind. They are offering solutions to problems that don't exist, google glass, google driver-less cars, what's next? The google self opening wine bottle, the google auto walking shoes, google auto put on shirts, the list is endless if one has his mind set to create some needless crap so they can claim they are spending r&d money they are making out of spying on user data and tracking them. The google self using computer. A computer that uses (and abuses) itself with a great warranty and auto combustion date.
Not enough coffee, but your statement made me have a visual of a Looney Toons cartoon with Google replacing ACME on all of the boxes and products.
Your kidding right, Google Search, what did we have before that, Lycos, WebCrawler, Excite, AltaVista, etc. yeah, admit it or not but Google Search redefined how we used the web. Nowadays we have decent options like DuckDuckGo, Bing, Yahoo, etc. but I got to tell you when I'm working, as in coding, I always use Google as nothing finds what I want faster than Search. A lot of these projects that you say fail are actually things that employees start. Google's internal infrastructure is setup as such that they encourage their employees to come with new ideas. If there good enough than they go on their site as a beta service, if it fails it doesn't mean Google doesn't know what their doing, most of the time these projects get migrated into something else anyway. The only thing it really costs Google for these so called failed services is network usage, server time, and employee hours, all things that Google has an abundance of.
That's all good and well Relic, and I agree in part, but they need to have the vision on top of where they are going and end up creating something useful. Because every company has or aims to have their people innovate. The vision at the top is clearly very much lacking. One picture of Larry Page aping at this wedding with the glasses speaks volumes. Of course google redefined search, because above all, and I remember myself the first time I used it at uni and then getting everyone to use it, was that it was simple and effective, clutterless UI that highlighted the actual words you looked for, or via using the near, not, ""etc. operator you used to find them.
But since then they 've redefined privacy invasion and are also inexplicably crippling their search via removing useful features like search forums and user groups. And don't get me started on android, their support, or lack there off, etc. etc. Their search engine stuff based on some advanced data mining (also studied that at Uni) algorithms I am quite sure his CS prof dad had some input in was, about 16 years ago, that's about 100 in the tech world... But after that you need a business plan, a vision of where you are going, you need to create a desktop os that's worth it's salt, products, build on privacy and security for your users and devs, choose not 10,000 but 1 product that's your own creation to market and sell, they 've done f. all in terms of that. What's their pride and joy? A mail web client? Copying the idiocy that Zuckerberg came up with, and having it fail?
Let's not forget the discussion started by Page making a huge faux pas, to say the least. Nobody came here in an uncalled for way to attack him, all the more so when Schmidt personifies the evil google so to speak. Seems though that Page isn't too far off. What he said in this interview, any way you cut it, was incredibly stupid thing, again, to say the least. He deserves all the anger and f. offs that have come his way. I for once, will make a point any of my future dev projects to stay well clear of anything google, and if I have to release anything for their platform, that will be as a courtesy to the users who not knowing any better bought in, and of course it will be prioritised at the very bottom of my list, if at all. All the money Larry Schmidt (not a mistake) might have he can't talk down on anyone as if they were an idiot and can't see through their rubbish, and of course he can't offend Steve's memory by painting himself the innovator and humanitarian that's just spreading himself too thin with all the great humanitarian projects on his table, and apple some sort of money grabbing product making machine.
All the best, and thanks for your continued contrarian input.
Comments
What you say is true, but I didn't say I "believe this will all work out well".
I did point out what I think Googles mode of operation is.
They could hit the jackpot and they are trying to, but that doesn't mean they have to succeed.
Someone else mentioned that 'the way they do it' is also essential, and I agree with that, Google doesn't seem to be very successful and a bit naive.
But it could be that they are not showing everything they can and that they surprise us all.
Sorry to hear you have cancer. I hope you recover.
Your right that a balanced view is better, but it's sometimes hard to be balanced especially considering the amount of negative press Apple receives.
I think the problem with Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Blackberry and Nokia is that their leaders have all offered snide remarks about Apple at one time or another.
I think Microsoft is a good candidate for redemption, as Ballmer is mostly gone and Natella seems much more pro-Apple.
Blackberry also show signs of redemption; CarPlay and the two old leaders who attacked Apple have gone.
Samsung are the worst of the lot. Not only have they attacked Apple, but they have no morals. I don't see them arising from purgatory for a long time.
Google are almost as bad. They're unusual, however. I think that Schmidt was the secret to their success. Now he's gone, they're floundering. And I don't see Page as especially anti-Apple; he's too dreamy for that.
Nokia are fine and have shown repentance. I just remember their leader throwing an iPhone on the floor and mocking Apple once.
You've confused commenters that don't join in making fun of Google or Android, too often with FUD or even better add silly schoolyard names like Crapdroid or Scamdung, as being anti-Apple. So not being anti-Google (enough) or anti-Windows or anti-"other OS" means the post and therefor poster must be Apple-hating in your view. Is it kind of a "circle the wagons" thing, kill every Indian before they can get you and if you aren't thinking like us you must be an Indian?
Heck I 'm amazed when some of the staunchest Apple supporters here turn on each other when one of them makes a rare comment perceived as not supporting Apple, perhaps even "favoring the Indian". I've seen it happen to Mel, Anant, Soli and IIRC even you on at least one occasion.
I would have thought Apple being one of the richest and most successful companies on the planet would begin toning down the underdog mentality that drives a small but loud segment of the fan base to see users of other techs as enemies ready to jump out at every corner and from behind every bush with weapons drawn.
Apple the underdog disappeared years ago, but some folks are still living out the past I guess.
Apparently you did not read the interview, quietly linked by the AI author. You should as it's not as simple as the way it's presented in the AI thumbnail view of it.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/3173f19e-5fbc-11e4-8c27-00144feabdc0.html
38 of the 40 interview paragraphs and hundreds of sentences and quotes made no mention at all of Steve Jobs or Apple, yet somehow 4 of the 5 total sentences that did became the focal point of the comments here:
“He (Steve Jobs) would always tell me, You’re doing too much stuff. I’d be like, You’re not doing enough stuff.”
“It’s unsatisfying to have all these people, and we have all these billions we should be investing to make people’s lives better. If we just do the same things we did before and don’t do something new, it seems like a crime to me.”
So what was the fifth one?
“What Steve said is right – you, Larry, can only manage so many things.”
Wow, I'd never imagine Larry Page could fit so much Apple hate into five sentences. :rolleyes:
Apparently you did not read the interview, quietly linked by the AI author. You should as it's not as simple as the way it's presented in the AI thumbnail view of it.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/3173f19e-5fbc-11e4-8c27-00144feabdc0.html
38 of the 40 interview paragraphs and hundreds of sentences and quotes made no mention at all of Steve Jobs or Apple, yet somehow 4 of the 5 total sentences that did became the focal point of the comments here:
“He (Steve Jobs) would always tell me, You’re doing too much stuff. I’d be like, You’re not doing enough stuff.”
“It’s unsatisfying to have all these people, and we have all these billions we should be investing to make people’s lives better. If we just do the same things we did before and don’t do something new, it seems like a crime to me.”
So what was the fifth one?
“What Steve said is right – you, Larry, can only manage so many things.”
Wow, I'd never imagine Larry Page could fit so much Apple hate into five sentences.
Uh, yeah, noone assumed he was talking about Steve the whole time. This article was about that specific portion of the interview, so obviously the relevant quote will be highlighted. Regardless of what else he says about other topics, it's fair to comment on that quote.
The anger against him is well merited, I read the whole interview twice from the original. He tries to paint himself in great positive light as some kind of saint that thought would be a "crime" to not help others by using his "billions" by contrasting it to SJ, the apparent cynic who only focused on his business and doing the few things he thought they could do and who told him you are doing too much.
So eventually Lar understood that he SJ was right and that he'd spread himself too thin via using his billions to help others, while apple instead succeeded because they only did a few things, and certainly didn't help others as honorable do no evil google has done via stealing other people's ip, spying on users, and littering the web with the worst type of ads created by mankind. Of course since all that is summed up as talking out of your behind, while at the same time contrasting your noble self to a visionary who's passed away, the f. offs to him are very well deserved indeed.
And in addition I am sure that if he actually told Steve that it's a crime to hold on to my billions and not help the world with them, of course Steve would have replied how exactly are you helping the world with them Larry? But Larry Page decides to not disclose the full discourse and leave it at that, so he can be painted in a positive light, and have apple painted in a negative light. I am sure that if said discourse was after they 'd been caught spying on apple at their campus Steve would have used the f. word too.
Where will the grid layer draw its power from ?
There's a self driving car already, with minimal user intervention it's called a train. And if anyone doesn't want or can't drive, or is in a hurry, or is ill, or etc., they take a cab. Buses are useful too to meet people. Google disguises stupid ideas to begin with as some sort of innovation to benefit mankind. They are offering solutions to problems that don't exist, google glass, google driver-less cars, what's next? The google self opening wine bottle, the google auto walking shoes, google auto put on shirts, the list is endless if one has his mind set to create some needless crap so they can claim they are spending r&d money they are making out of spying on user data and tracking them. The google self using computer. A computer that uses (and abuses) itself with a great warranty and auto combustion date.
You are just thinking about the journey. How would self driving trucks get into distribution centers and loading docks?
Moonbeams and unicorn farts, the same place all the crazies who think we're just going to abandon all fossil fuels overnight expect.
I always felt it was too limiting to view things that way. But as I've matured I've realized you need both in any realm. If no one takes the time to focus obsessively and singularly on mastering something, then eventually all trades would descend to a level of mediocrity void of enough quality to even attract the jacks.
Google is the company that has hundreds of products in perpetual beta; then cancels them. He has the balls to say to Steve Jobs that Apple is not doing enough stuff? F--K OFF Larry.
I can imagine Steve Jobs had the same response.
I'm trying to think of one way Google has even marginally improved anyone's lives? They're throwin money at things that fail and copying everyone who moves a muscle. How is that improving society? The first thing he should do is acknowledge Steve's world changing influence, then humbly accept whatever knowledge he can get. The difference between Steve and Larry, is Steve was focused on helping people, Larry focused on good intentions. Steve would move heaven and earth to get a useable, functioning computer in your hands (thank the Lord he succeeded). Put the power of a computer in the hands of every person on earth, not just smart people, not just tech heads, not just corporate managers, but everyone who can drag their finger across a screen has the power to communicate, consume arts, and learn about the world. Now that's world changing.
Your kidding right, Google Search, what did we have before that, Lycos, WebCrawler, Excite, AltaVista, etc. yeah, admit it or not but Google Search redefined how we used the web. Nowadays we have decent options like DuckDuckGo, Bing, Yahoo, etc. but I got to tell you when I'm working, as in coding, I always use Google as nothing finds what I want faster than Search. A lot of these projects that you say fail are actually things that employees start. Google's internal infrastructure is setup as such that they encourage their employees to come with new ideas. If there good enough than they go on their site as a beta service, if it fails it doesn't mean Google doesn't know what their doing, most of the time these projects get migrated into something else anyway. The only thing it really costs Google for these so called failed services is network usage, server time, and employee hours, all things that Google has an abundance of.
The trailer part. Unless they automate the trailer somehow. Plus distribution center lots aren't mapped.
There's a self driving car already, with minimal user intervention it's called a train. And if anyone doesn't want or can't drive, or is in a hurry, or is ill, or etc., they take a cab. Buses are useful too to meet people. Google disguises stupid ideas to begin with as some sort of innovation to benefit mankind. They are offering solutions to problems that don't exist, google glass, google driver-less cars, what's next? The google self opening wine bottle, the google auto walking shoes, google auto put on shirts, the list is endless if one has his mind set to create some needless crap so they can claim they are spending r&d money they are making out of spying on user data and tracking them. The google self using computer. A computer that uses (and abuses) itself with a great warranty and auto combustion date.
Not enough coffee, but your statement made me have a visual of a Looney Toons cartoon with Google replacing ACME on all of the boxes and products.
Your kidding right, Google Search, what did we have before that, Lycos, WebCrawler, Excite, AltaVista, etc. yeah, admit it or not but Google Search redefined how we used the web. Nowadays we have decent options like DuckDuckGo, Bing, Yahoo, etc. but I got to tell you when I'm working, as in coding, I always use Google as nothing finds what I want faster than Search. A lot of these projects that you say fail are actually things that employees start. Google's internal infrastructure is setup as such that they encourage their employees to come with new ideas. If there good enough than they go on their site as a beta service, if it fails it doesn't mean Google doesn't know what their doing, most of the time these projects get migrated into something else anyway. The only thing it really costs Google for these so called failed services is network usage, server time, and employee hours, all things that Google has an abundance of.
That's all good and well Relic, and I agree in part, but they need to have the vision on top of where they are going and end up creating something useful. Because every company has or aims to have their people innovate. The vision at the top is clearly very much lacking. One picture of Larry Page aping at this wedding with the glasses speaks volumes. Of course google redefined search, because above all, and I remember myself the first time I used it at uni and then getting everyone to use it, was that it was simple and effective, clutterless UI that highlighted the actual words you looked for, or via using the near, not, ""etc. operator you used to find them.
But since then they 've redefined privacy invasion and are also inexplicably crippling their search via removing useful features like search forums and user groups. And don't get me started on android, their support, or lack there off, etc. etc. Their search engine stuff based on some advanced data mining (also studied that at Uni) algorithms I am quite sure his CS prof dad had some input in was, about 16 years ago, that's about 100 in the tech world... But after that you need a business plan, a vision of where you are going, you need to create a desktop os that's worth it's salt, products, build on privacy and security for your users and devs, choose not 10,000 but 1 product that's your own creation to market and sell, they 've done f. all in terms of that. What's their pride and joy? A mail web client? Copying the idiocy that Zuckerberg came up with, and having it fail?
Let's not forget the discussion started by Page making a huge faux pas, to say the least. Nobody came here in an uncalled for way to attack him, all the more so when Schmidt personifies the evil google so to speak. Seems though that Page isn't too far off. What he said in this interview, any way you cut it, was incredibly stupid thing, again, to say the least. He deserves all the anger and f. offs that have come his way. I for once, will make a point any of my future dev projects to stay well clear of anything google, and if I have to release anything for their platform, that will be as a courtesy to the users who not knowing any better bought in, and of course it will be prioritised at the very bottom of my list, if at all. All the money Larry Schmidt (not a mistake) might have he can't talk down on anyone as if they were an idiot and can't see through their rubbish, and of course he can't offend Steve's memory by painting himself the innovator and humanitarian that's just spreading himself too thin with all the great humanitarian projects on his table, and apple some sort of money grabbing product making machine.
All the best, and thanks for your continued contrarian input.