With Apple relying on components from major suppliers Qualcomm and Samsung itself, the two hardware platforms are beginning to look more or less identical. The A chip is unique and has an edge, but at some point SnapDragon will catch up. Apple needs to focus on its software shortcomings, specifically Siri, where they are way behind - it baffles me why they don’t invest more into enhancing content, accuracy and relevance of Siri. Just this week, I asked Siri for the location of an out of state University, Siri replied ‘It looks pretty close to you’ with a map that shows a 12 hour drive! There are outright flaws in the software’s logic that even a team of interns could help straighten out.
It's amazing that Andy Rubin is able to continue funding failures and not be in the poor house. The originator of the knockoff iOS flops again.
I consider Rubin as bad as Eric Schmidt in terms of ethics.
I'm not aware of any evidence that indicates Eric Schmidt was "unethical", particularly as concerns his time on Apple's board. FWIW he is not the only Apple board member with an active tie to Google and no one seems to complain about "the other one". IMO there's a whole lotta assumption being tossed about, but the meat is lacking. Seriously lacking.
Andy Rubin on the other hand has a suitcase full of ethics issues following him around, enough to cause Google to lose confidence in him despite the success of Android. Horrid that Google gave him an exit package which is too close to an endorsement of his time there. Poor choice on Google's part to do so and one they seem to realize and not have repeated with Drummond.
The biggest scumbag in tech history is ethical.... sure.
With Apple relying on components from major suppliers Qualcomm and Samsung itself, the two hardware platforms are beginning to look more or less identical. The A chip is unique and has an edge, but at some point SnapDragon will catch up. Apple needs to focus on its software shortcomings, specifically Siri, where they are way behind - it baffles me why they don’t invest more into enhancing content, accuracy and relevance of Siri. Just this week, I asked Siri for the location of an out of state University, Siri replied ‘It looks pretty close to you’ with a map that shows a 12 hour drive! There are outright flaws in the software’s logic that even a team of interns could help straighten out.
The platforms look the same because Android is a KNOCKOFF or Apples iPhone/iPad. This is common sense and expected.
The myth that Apple uses Samsung displays never dies for some reason. iKnockoff users love to repeat this fallacy. Apple uses Apple displays.
With Apple relying on components from major suppliers Qualcomm and Samsung itself, the two hardware platforms are beginning to look more or less identical. The A chip is unique and has an edge, but at some point SnapDragon will catch up. Apple needs to focus on its software shortcomings, specifically Siri, where they are way behind - it baffles me why they don’t invest more into enhancing content, accuracy and relevance of Siri. Just this week, I asked Siri for the location of an out of state University, Siri replied ‘It looks pretty close to you’ with a map that shows a 12 hour drive! There are outright flaws in the software’s logic that even a team of interns could help straighten out.
The platforms look the same because Android is a KNOCKOFF or Apples iPhone/iPad. This is common sense and expected.
The myth that Apple uses Samsung displays never dies for some reason. iKnockoff users love to repeat this fallacy. Apple uses Apple displays.
Simply curious since I have my own inkling, but are your posts meant to be taken seriously?
It's amazing that Andy Rubin is able to continue funding failures and not be in the poor house. The originator of the knockoff iOS flops again.
I consider Rubin as bad as Eric Schmidt in terms of ethics.
He gets investor support. This is the way it works, as someone like him goes Mr. have enough money to start a hardware technology company. He may have ended up with more money that he started this with.
It's amazing that Andy Rubin is able to continue funding failures and not be in the poor house. The originator of the knockoff iOS flops again.
I consider Rubin as bad as Eric Schmidt in terms of ethics.
I'm not aware of any evidence that indicates Eric Schmidt was "unethical", particularly as concerns his time on Apple's board. FWIW he is not the only director with an active tie to Google and no one seems to complain about "the other one". IMO there's a whole lotta assumption being tossed about, but the meat is lacking. Seriously lacking.
Andy Rubin on the other hand has a suitcase full of ethics issues following him around, enough to cause Google to lose confidence in him despite the success of Android. Horrid that Google gave him an exit package which is too close to an endorsement of his time there. Poor choice on Google's part to do so and one they seem to realize and not have repeated with Drummond.
Well, if Schmidt was truly ethical and wanted to avoid the conflict of interest, he would have resigned from Apple's BoD before Google ever became a direct competitor. Like Bob Iger recently did. Instead, he stuck around for another couple years.
But, Google executives clearly have different interpretations of what ethical behavior is, and it's not just confined to Rubin or Schmidt. Brin and Drummond have also engaged in shenanigans with their subordinates. In most companies, that kind of behavior is grounds for dismissal, without any parting gifts.
However, Google's culture seems to have different standards, starting at the top.
Google had a professed interest in developing Android as a phone OS from late in 2014 and bringing the entire project under Google's wing and control in January of 2015. Fact. That was months before Mr Jobs ever gave the iPhone development a green light. It's just as likely his decision was prompted by what he knew Google was doing, probably more so than Google stole the idea from Apple.
When Schmidt joined Apple's board Mr. Jobs was well aware of Google's Android and their work in creating a mobile phone operating system which would of course required phones running that OS. In fact he had it demoed for him as I recall reading some years ago, and he asked Schmidt to serve on the board anyway. Apple had no issue with Mr. Schmidt's ethics, whether you who knew nothing about it is. Steve Jobs was always welcome at Google.
My assumption is he believed he could better influence them by giving one of their execs a seat at the table and a place on stage. The anger began after he found he could not, tho Google did put off activating multi-touch as long as they reasonably could at Mr. Jobs request.
It's amazing that Andy Rubin is able to continue funding failures and not be in the poor house. The originator of the knockoff iOS flops again.
I consider Rubin as bad as Eric Schmidt in terms of ethics.
I'm not aware of any evidence that indicates Eric Schmidt was "unethical", particularly as concerns his time on Apple's board. FWIW he is not the only director with an active tie to Google and no one seems to complain about "the other one". IMO there's a whole lotta assumption being tossed about, but the meat is lacking. Seriously lacking.
Andy Rubin on the other hand has a suitcase full of ethics issues following him around, enough to cause Google to lose confidence in him despite the success of Android. Horrid that Google gave him an exit package which is too close to an endorsement of his time there. Poor choice on Google's part to do so and one they seem to realize and not have repeated with Drummond.
Well, if Schmidt was truly ethical and wanted to avoid the conflict of interest, he would have resigned from Apple's BoD before Google ever became a direct competitor. Like Bob Iger recently did. Instead, he stuck around for another couple years.
But, Google executives clearly have different interpretations of what ethical behavior is, and it's not just confined to Rubin or Schmidt. Brin and Drummond have also engaged in shenanigans with their subordinates. In most companies, that kind of behavior is grounds for dismissal, without any parting gifts.
However, Google's culture seems to have different standards, starting at the top.
Google had a professed interest in developing Android as a phone OS from late in 2014 and bringing the entire project under Google's wing and control in January of 2015. Fact. That was months before Mr Jobs ever gave the iPhone development a green light. It's just as likely his decision was prompted by what he knew Google was doing, probably more so than Google stole the idea from Apple.
When Schmidt joined Apple's board Mr. Jobs was well aware of Google's Android and their work in creating a mobile phone operating system which would of course required phones running that OS. In fact he had it demoed for him as I recall reading some years ago, and he asked Schmidt to serve on the board anyway. Apple had no issue with Mr. Schmidt's ethics, whether you who knew nothing about it is. Steve Jobs was always welcome at Google.
My assumption is he believed he could better influence them by giving one of their execs a seat at the table and a place on stage. The anger began after he found he could not, tho Google did put off activating multi-touch as long as they reasonably could at Mr. Jobs request.
It's amazing that Andy Rubin is able to continue funding failures and not be in the poor house. The originator of the knockoff iOS flops again.
I consider Rubin as bad as Eric Schmidt in terms of ethics.
I'm not aware of any evidence that indicates Eric Schmidt was "unethical", particularly as concerns his time on Apple's board. FWIW he is not the only director with an active tie to Google and no one seems to complain about "the other one". IMO there's a whole lotta assumption being tossed about, but the meat is lacking. Seriously lacking.
Andy Rubin on the other hand has a suitcase full of ethics issues following him around, enough to cause Google to lose confidence in him despite the success of Android. Horrid that Google gave him an exit package which is too close to an endorsement of his time there. Poor choice on Google's part to do so and one they seem to realize and not have repeated with Drummond.
Well, if Schmidt was truly ethical and wanted to avoid the conflict of interest, he would have resigned from Apple's BoD before Google ever became a direct competitor. Like Bob Iger recently did. Instead, he stuck around for another couple years.
But, Google executives clearly have different interpretations of what ethical behavior is, and it's not just confined to Rubin or Schmidt. Brin and Drummond have also engaged in shenanigans with their subordinates. In most companies, that kind of behavior is grounds for dismissal, without any parting gifts.
However, Google's culture seems to have different standards, starting at the top.
Google had a professed interest in developing Android as a phone OS from late in 2014 and bringing the entire project under Google's wing and control in January of 2015. Fact. That was months before Mr Jobs ever gave the iPhone development a green light. It's just as likely his decision was prompted by what he knew Google was doing, probably more so than Google stole the idea from Apple.
When Schmidt joined Apple's board Mr. Jobs was well aware of Google's Android and their work in creating a mobile phone operating system which would of course required phones running that OS. In fact he had it demoed for him as I recall reading some years ago, and he asked Schmidt to serve on the board anyway. Apple had no issue with Mr. Schmidt's ethics, whether you who knew nothing about it is. Steve Jobs was always welcome at Google.
My assumption is he believed he could better influence them by giving one of their execs a seat at the table and a place on stage. The anger began after he found he could not, tho Google did put off activating multi-touch as long as they reasonably could at Mr. Jobs request.
iPhone began within Apple as a multitouch tablet project originally, then re-tooled to launch a phone first. They came back to the tablet later.
Original Android was a blackberry styled device. Then they saw iPhone and realized they had to change gears and copy it instead. Fact.
That's essentially true too, Apple had "Project Purple" (or Purple Project depending) that had the goal of producing a portable slab computer likely meant for media consumption, and parts of that project were used fast-tracking the iPhone while pausing tablet/slab computer work.
The fact remains Google started developing the Android smartphone OS before Steve Jobs gave approval to begin that iPhone project. Yes fact.
So when Mr. Jobs signed off on committing to a smartphone he already knew Google had started down the same path, and when Mr. Schmidt was asked to join Apple's board it was with the full knowledge Google was invested in smartphones and OS creation. Partly due to the already-in-development tablet project with what would be useful smartphone components already planned out, and then combined with a greater level of urgency as Apple typically has, they were able to get the iPhone out to market in what was honestly a short timeframe. Google tends to plod and pivot. Waymo is a poster child.
That may not be a fact either. It’s more complicated than that.
It's amazing that Andy Rubin is able to continue funding failures and not be in the poor house. The originator of the knockoff iOS flops again.
I consider Rubin as bad as Eric Schmidt in terms of ethics.
I'm not aware of any evidence that indicates Eric Schmidt was "unethical", particularly as concerns his time on Apple's board. FWIW he is not the only director with an active tie to Google and no one seems to complain about "the other one". IMO there's a whole lotta assumption being tossed about, but the meat is lacking. Seriously lacking.
Andy Rubin on the other hand has a suitcase full of ethics issues following him around, enough to cause Google to lose confidence in him despite the success of Android. Horrid that Google gave him an exit package which is too close to an endorsement of his time there. Poor choice on Google's part to do so and one they seem to realize and not have repeated with Drummond.
Well, if Schmidt was truly ethical and wanted to avoid the conflict of interest, he would have resigned from Apple's BoD before Google ever became a direct competitor. Like Bob Iger recently did. Instead, he stuck around for another couple years.
But, Google executives clearly have different interpretations of what ethical behavior is, and it's not just confined to Rubin or Schmidt. Brin and Drummond have also engaged in shenanigans with their subordinates. In most companies, that kind of behavior is grounds for dismissal, without any parting gifts.
However, Google's culture seems to have different standards, starting at the top.
Google had a professed interest in developing Android as a phone OS from late in 2014 and bringing the entire project under Google's wing and control in January of 2015. Fact. That was months before Mr Jobs ever gave the iPhone development a green light. It's just as likely his decision was prompted by what he knew Google was doing, probably more so than Google stole the idea from Apple.
When Schmidt joined Apple's board Mr. Jobs was well aware of Google's Android and their work in creating a mobile phone operating system which would of course required phones running that OS. In fact he had it demoed for him as I recall reading some years ago, and he asked Schmidt to serve on the board anyway. Apple had no issue with Mr. Schmidt's ethics, whether you who knew nothing about it is. Steve Jobs was always welcome at Google.
My assumption is he believed he could better influence them by giving one of their execs a seat at the table and a place on stage. The anger began after he found he could not, tho Google did put off activating multi-touch as long as they reasonably could at Mr. Jobs request.
iPhone began within Apple as a multitouch tablet project originally, then re-tooled to launch a phone first. They came back to the tablet later.
Original Android was a blackberry styled device. Then they saw iPhone and realized they had to change gears and copy it instead. Fact.
That's essentially true too, Apple had "Project Purple" (or Purple Project depending) that had the goal of producing a portable slab computer likely meant for media consumption, and parts of that project were used fast-tracking the iPhone while pausing tablet/slab computer work.
The fact remains Google started developing the Android smartphone OS before Steve Jobs gave approval to begin that iPhone project. Yes fact.
So when Mr. Jobs signed off on committing to a smartphone he already knew Google had started down the same path, and when Mr. Schmidt was asked to join Apple's board it was with the full knowledge Google was invested in smartphones and OS creation. Partly due to the already-in-development tablet project with what would be useful smartphone components already planned out, and then combined with a greater level of urgency as Apple typically has, they were able to get the iPhone out to market in what was honestly a short timeframe. Google tends to plod and pivot. Waymo is a poster child.
That may not be a fact either. It’s more complicated than that.
With Apple relying on components from major suppliers Qualcomm and Samsung itself, the two hardware platforms are beginning to look more or less identical. The A chip is unique and has an edge, but at some point SnapDragon will catch up. Apple needs to focus on its software shortcomings, specifically Siri, where they are way behind - it baffles me why they don’t invest more into enhancing content, accuracy and relevance of Siri. Just this week, I asked Siri for the location of an out of state University, Siri replied ‘It looks pretty close to you’ with a map that shows a 12 hour drive! There are outright flaws in the software’s logic that even a team of interns could help straighten out.
The platforms look the same because Android is a KNOCKOFF or Apples iPhone/iPad. This is common sense and expected.
The myth that Apple uses Samsung displays never dies for some reason. iKnockoff users love to repeat this fallacy. Apple uses Apple displays.
It is clear that you haven't used Android in a very, very long time. Much less a Huawei or Samsung variant of Android.
It's amazing that Andy Rubin is able to continue funding failures and not be in the poor house. The originator of the knockoff iOS flops again.
I consider Rubin as bad as Eric Schmidt in terms of ethics.
I'm not aware of any evidence that indicates Eric Schmidt was "unethical", particularly as concerns his time on Apple's board. FWIW he is not the only director with an active tie to Google and no one seems to complain about "the other one". IMO there's a whole lotta assumption being tossed about, but the meat is lacking. Seriously lacking.
Andy Rubin on the other hand has a suitcase full of ethics issues following him around, enough to cause Google to lose confidence in him despite the success of Android. Horrid that Google gave him an exit package which is too close to an endorsement of his time there. Poor choice on Google's part to do so and one they seem to realize and not have repeated with Drummond.
Well, if Schmidt was truly ethical and wanted to avoid the conflict of interest, he would have resigned from Apple's BoD before Google ever became a direct competitor. Like Bob Iger recently did. Instead, he stuck around for another couple years.
But, Google executives clearly have different interpretations of what ethical behavior is, and it's not just confined to Rubin or Schmidt. Brin and Drummond have also engaged in shenanigans with their subordinates. In most companies, that kind of behavior is grounds for dismissal, without any parting gifts.
However, Google's culture seems to have different standards, starting at the top.
Google had a professed interest in developing Android as a phone OS from late in 2014 and bringing the entire project under Google's wing and control in January of 2015. Fact. That was months before Mr Jobs ever gave the iPhone development a green light. It's just as likely his decision was prompted by what he knew Google was doing, probably more so than Google stole the idea from Apple.
When Schmidt joined Apple's board Mr. Jobs was well aware of Google's Android and their work in creating a mobile phone operating system which would of course required phones running that OS. In fact he had it demoed for him as I recall reading some years ago, and he asked Schmidt to serve on the board anyway. Apple had no issue with Mr. Schmidt's ethics, whether you who knew nothing about it is. Steve Jobs was always welcome at Google.
My assumption is he believed he could better influence them by giving one of their execs a seat at the table and a place on stage. The anger began after he found he could not, tho Google did put off activating multi-touch as long as they reasonably could at Mr. Jobs request.
iPhone began within Apple as a multitouch tablet project originally, then re-tooled to launch a phone first. They came back to the tablet later.
Original Android was a blackberry styled device. Then they saw iPhone and realized they had to change gears and copy it instead. Fact.
That's essentially true too, Apple had "Project Purple" (or Purple Project depending) that had the goal of producing a portable slab computer likely meant for media consumption, and parts of that project were used fast-tracking the iPhone while pausing tablet/slab computer work.
The fact remains Google started developing the Android smartphone OS before Steve Jobs gave approval to begin that iPhone project. Yes fact.
Cite your claim please. Verge reports Android was in development for two years by 2007, the year iPhone launched. iPhone was in development before that, shifting Project Purple from a tablet to a phone form factor in 2004.
Apple reserved the domain for iPhone in 1999, and Jobs mentioned their intent for Purple as far back as 2002:
"The name was reserved back in 1999 when the company registered the iphone.org domain, just in the spirit of Apple. It was to be given to the market outcome of the Purple 1 project, upon which in 2002, Steve Jobs commented as follows: 'kick-start the market for next-generation mobile phones in the same way that the company's computer popularized personal computing.'"
Meanwhile, Android was shopping itself as a digital camera OS in 2004:
"The early intentions of the company were to develop an advanced operating system for digital cameras, and this was the basis of its pitch to investors in April 2004."
...they later switched to cell phones, and Google bought them in 2005. There the original Android project was a copy of a blackberry-type device, and only after they saw iPhone did they pivot to become an iPhone copy instead. Fact. Android's engineer Chris DeSalvo: "[We] are going to have to start over". So not really sure what your point is. Modern Android is a copy of iPhone, that's a fact and there isn't anything more to it.
If you want to claim Android gets "first" credit earlier, we need to see when that began. But since that was for a blackberry copy and was abandoned, I don't even see the point of that. But that sort of logic Apple can claim the earlier Purple phases as their own start date, even tho they shift at least once as well.
Cite your claim please. Verge reports Android was in development for two years by 2007, the year iPhone launched. iPhone was in development before that, shifting Project Purple from a tablet to a phone form factor in 2004.
Apple reserved the domain for iPhone in 1999, and Jobs mentioned their intent for Purple as far back as 2002:
"The name was reserved back in 1999 when the company registered the iphone.org domain, just in the spirit of Apple. It was to be given to the market outcome of the Purple 1 project, upon which in 2002, Steve Jobs commented as follows: 'kick-start the market for next-generation mobile phones in the same way that the company's computer popularized personal computing.'"
Meanwhile, Android was shopping itself as a digital camera OS in 2004:
"The early intentions of the company were to develop an advanced operating system for digital cameras, and this was the basis of its pitch to investors in April 2004."
...they later switched to cell phones, and Google bought them in 2005. There the original Android project was a copy of a blackberry-type device, and only after they saw iPhone did they pivot to become an iPhone copy instead. Fact. Android's engineer Chris DeSalvo: "[We] are going to have to start over". So not really sure what your point is. Modern Android is a copy of iPhone, that's a fact and there isn't anything more to it.
If you want to claim Android gets "first" credit earlier, we need to see when that began. But since that was for a blackberry copy and was abandoned, I don't even see the point of that. But that sort of logic Apple can claim the earlier Purple phases as their own start date, even tho they shift at least once as well.
Yikes! That one is gonna leave a mark. Gators should always watch out for Strange pythons in the water.
It's amazing that Andy Rubin is able to continue funding failures and not be in the poor house. The originator of the knockoff iOS flops again.
I consider Rubin as bad as Eric Schmidt in terms of ethics.
I'm not aware of any evidence that indicates Eric Schmidt was "unethical", particularly as concerns his time on Apple's board. FWIW he is not the only director with an active tie to Google and no one seems to complain about "the other one". IMO there's a whole lotta assumption being tossed about, but the meat is lacking. Seriously lacking.
Andy Rubin on the other hand has a suitcase full of ethics issues following him around, enough to cause Google to lose confidence in him despite the success of Android. Horrid that Google gave him an exit package which is too close to an endorsement of his time there. Poor choice on Google's part to do so and one they seem to realize and not have repeated with Drummond.
Well, if Schmidt was truly ethical and wanted to avoid the conflict of interest, he would have resigned from Apple's BoD before Google ever became a direct competitor. Like Bob Iger recently did. Instead, he stuck around for another couple years.
But, Google executives clearly have different interpretations of what ethical behavior is, and it's not just confined to Rubin or Schmidt. Brin and Drummond have also engaged in shenanigans with their subordinates. In most companies, that kind of behavior is grounds for dismissal, without any parting gifts.
However, Google's culture seems to have different standards, starting at the top.
Google had a professed interest in developing Android as a phone OS from late in 2014 and bringing the entire project under Google's wing and control in January of 2015. Fact. That was months before Mr Jobs ever gave the iPhone development a green light. It's just as likely his decision was prompted by what he knew Google was doing, probably more so than Google stole the idea from Apple.
When Schmidt joined Apple's board Mr. Jobs was well aware of Google's Android and their work in creating a mobile phone operating system which would of course required phones running that OS. In fact he had it demoed for him as I recall reading some years ago, and he asked Schmidt to serve on the board anyway. Apple had no issue with Mr. Schmidt's ethics, whether you who knew nothing about it is. Steve Jobs was always welcome at Google.
My assumption is he believed he could better influence them by giving one of their execs a seat at the table and a place on stage. The anger began after he found he could not, tho Google did put off activating multi-touch as long as they reasonably could at Mr. Jobs request.
iPhone began within Apple as a multitouch tablet project originally, then re-tooled to launch a phone first. They came back to the tablet later.
Original Android was a blackberry styled device. Then they saw iPhone and realized they had to change gears and copy it instead. Fact.
That's essentially true too, Apple had "Project Purple" (or Purple Project depending) that had the goal of producing a portable slab computer likely meant for media consumption, and parts of that project were used fast-tracking the iPhone while pausing tablet/slab computer work.
The fact remains Google started developing the Android smartphone OS before Steve Jobs gave approval to begin that iPhone project. Yes fact.
Cite your claim please. Verge reports Android was in development for two years by 2007, the year iPhone launched. iPhone was in development before that, shifting Project Purple from a tablet to a phone form factor in 2004.
And from the NYT in 2013 before revisionist history set in. "As early as 2003, a handful of Apple engineers had figured out how to put multitouch technology in a tablet. “The story was that Steve wanted a device that he could use to read e-mail while on the toilet — that was the extent of the product spec,” says Joshua Strickon, one of the earliest engineers on that project. “But you couldn’t build a device with enough battery life to take out of the house, and you couldn’t get a chip with enough graphics capability to make it useful. We spent a lot of time trying to figure out just what to do... given the lack of consensus at Apple about what to do with the (tablet) prototypes he and his fellow engineers developed, he says, he left the company in 2004 thinking it wasn’t going to do anything with that technology "Few even thought about making touch-screen technology the centerpiece of a new kind of phone until Jobs started really pushing the idea in mid-2005. “He said: ‘Tony, come over here. Here’s something we’re working on. What do you think? Do you think we could make a phone out of this?’ ” Fadell says, referring to a demo Jobs was playing with. “It was huge. It filled the room. There was a projector mounted on the ceiling, and it would project the Mac screen onto this surface that was maybe three or four feet square. Then you could touch the Mac screen and move things around and draw on it.” Fadell was aware of the touch-screen prototype, but not in great detail, because it was a Mac product, and he ran the iPod division.... “I understood how it could be done,” Fadell says. “But it’s one thing to think that, and another to take a room full of special, one-off gear and make a million phone-size versions of that in a cost-effective, reliable manner.”
From the start of the project, Jobs hoped that he would be able to develop a touch-screen iPhone running OS X similar to what he ended up unveiling. But in 2005 he had no idea how long that would take. So Apple’s first iPhone looked very much like the joke slide Jobs put up when introducing the real iPhone — an iPod with an old-fashioned rotary dial on it."
Now with all that said it is certainly reasonable to assume some engineer in some office was toying with mobile phones. Afterall Apple had put toes in the water with the Moto one. Google for their part wrote a blog article in 2003 indicating they saw the future of computing in the mobile space so they too were toying with what was possible and how to get there. If you remember Samsung was offered the chance to purchase Danger sometime in the fall of 2004 and didn't take it serious. As far as they were concerned Android had no value. By late 2004 Google had given Danger enough money (via Google Investments) to keep their heads above water for another few weeks and in the first week of 2005 purchased them outright as the cornerstone of what would become a smartphone OS known as Android.
So yeah Google and Apple were both investigating mobile phones long before they committed themselves to it. Steve Jobs would have been aware of it since everyone in tech knew Google had their eyes on the smartphone market as far back as the Spring of 2005 and many understood Google wa already moving that direction in 2003. Since Mr Jobs was a confidante and mentor of the early Google he probably knew the details before long before anyone outside of Google themselves, but of course no one outside of the principals could prove that.
The points I made earlier about why Steve Jobs may have finally acted in mid-2005 stands, as does the claim Google was actively developing Android before Steve Jobs gave the iPhone Project a greenlight to go get 'em.
Schmidt didn't arrive at Apple under false pretenses either which is the other point I made. Steve Jobs knew all about what they had going with Android and what the ultimate goal was, and he was OK with it. So why ask Google if one of their execs would serve on Apple's BoD and partner up on some software if they were both working on phone projects? In 2005 both companies were more afraid of Microsoft and what they might do to lock each of them out if they didn't act fast than whether someday they might find themselves competing with each other. That would be an issue to deal with down the line. For now they both felt they'd be more successful by working together.
Who had some engineer in a back-office working on possibilities (they both did) is far less important than understanding this was not a market Google jumped into after finding out Apple was going to build an iPhone, and that Mr Jobs wasn't blindsided by Android and a Google phone. You and others seem totally ignorant of it at times.
If you were to ask DED and catch him at a calm moment I suspect he'd back me up on 90% of what I just wrote.
Ummm.. No. ... The points I made earlier about why Steve Jobs may have finally acted in mid-2005 stands, as does the claim Google was actively developing Android before Steve Jobs gave the iPhone Project a greenlight to go get 'em.
Schmidt didn't arrive at Apple under false pretenses either which is the other point I made. Steve Jobs knew all about what they had going with Android and what the ultimate goal was, and he was OK with it. So why ask Google if one of their execs would serve on Apple's BoD and partner up on some software if they were both working on phone projects? In 2005 both companies were more afraid of Microsoft and what they might do to lock each of them out if they didn't act fast than whether someday they might find themselves competing with each other. That would be an issue to deal with down the line. For now they both felt they'd be more successful by working together.
Who had some engineer in a back-office working on possibilities (they both did) is far less important than understanding this was not a market Google jumped into after finding out Apple was going to build an iPhone, and that Mr Jobs wasn't blindsided by Android and a Google phone. You and others seem totally ignorant of it at times.
If you were to ask DED and catch him at a calm moment I suspect he'd back me up on 90% of what I just wrote.
Ummmm...not so fast. I don't know if this snip is the 10% that would not be backed up by DED or some of the other parts. Opinions are fair enough as that's what the site is about, but do you really intuit what Jobs allegedly thought, and are you that dismissive of incidental inventions from some mythical back office engineer, like the one you quoted earlier? You know, back office like Woz was way back when, with his minor inventions that had no practical application because you would have to create your own silicon. Well that could never happen then so they must have had no plan, says one of about 18,000 Apple employees at the time.
Yeah, OK. I'm not seeing how you negate the Strange Day facts in that post with storytelling, even from Fadell, even from your own quoted back office engineer.
It's amazing that Andy Rubin is able to continue funding failures and not be in the poor house. The originator of the knockoff iOS flops again.
I consider Rubin as bad as Eric Schmidt in terms of ethics.
When you get a $100 million dollar payout for sexually harassing your employees you have a lot of cash to spread around.
He received 150M stock grant during the initial stages of the investigation and then a 90M exit package upon leaving Google.. Hahaha wow the rich truly take care of each other.
They don't “take care of each other”. They merely support and maintain the sociopathic systems that benefit them. Tearing down these systems would help disassemble the untouchability of such people, and provide consequences (instead of rewards) for egregious antisocial behavior.
Google had a professed interest in developing Android as a phone OS from late in 2014 and bringing the entire project under Google's wing and control in January of 2015. Fact. That was months before Mr Jobs ever gave the iPhone development a green light. It's just as likely his decision was prompted by what he knew Google was doing, probably more so than Google stole the idea from Apple.
When Schmidt joined Apple's board Mr. Jobs was well aware of Google's Android and their work in creating a mobile phone operating system which would of course required phones running that OS. In fact he had it demoed for him as I recall reading some years ago, and he asked Schmidt to serve on the board anyway. Apple had no issue with Mr. Schmidt's ethics, whether you who knew nothing about it is. Steve Jobs was always welcome at Google.
My assumption is he believed he could better influence them by giving one of their execs a seat at the table and a place on stage. The anger began after he found he could not, tho Google did put off activating multi-touch as long as they reasonably could at Mr. Jobs request.
The bottom line is that an ethical person would have turned down the opportunity, recused themselves from sensitive meetings, or resigned to prevent any conflict of interest. That's how ethical people behave, of their own volition, regardless of whether they're forced to, or not.
Acting with principle. Above board. That's how ethical people behave, and Schmidt did none of those things. Nothing you bring up could change that.
+1
And the fact that so many corporations are run not by ethical, principled people, but by sociopaths and other antisocial types, is why regulation is required to keep civilization from collapsing under the abuses of unrestrained capitalism.
Filter out the sociopathy and greed, or regulate the systems so they don’t reward sociopathy and greed. Those are the only set of options. “Do nothing and let the society be turned into a dystopia by sociopaths” is not an option for the sane.
FYI: Essential was founded Nov. 9, 2015. If those investors who just lost almost all of their $330 million had instead bought shares of Apple on that date, they would have nearly tripled their money by now.
FYI: Essential was founded Nov. 9, 2015. If those investors who just lost almost all of their $330 million had instead bought shares of Apple on that date, they would have nearly tripled their money by now.
Then why doesn't everyone just invest their money in Apple?
Comments
The biggest scumbag in tech history is ethical.... sure.
The platforms look the same because Android is a KNOCKOFF or Apples iPhone/iPad. This is common sense and expected.
The myth that Apple uses Samsung displays never dies for some reason. iKnockoff users love to repeat this fallacy. Apple uses Apple displays.
How are you defining 'Apple Display'?
https://www.theverge.com/2013/12/20/5229618/android-started-over-the-day-the-iphone-was-announced
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone#History_and_availability
Apple reserved the domain for iPhone in 1999, and Jobs mentioned their intent for Purple as far back as 2002:
"The name was reserved back in 1999 when the company registered the iphone.org domain, just in the spirit of Apple. It was to be given to the market outcome of the Purple 1 project, upon which in 2002, Steve Jobs commented as follows: 'kick-start the market for next-generation mobile phones in the same way that the company's computer popularized personal computing.'"
https://mobile-review.com/articles/2010/iphone-history3-en.shtml
Meanwhile, Android was shopping itself as a digital camera OS in 2004:
"The early intentions of the company were to develop an advanced operating system for digital cameras, and this was the basis of its pitch to investors in April 2004."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#History
...they later switched to cell phones, and Google bought them in 2005. There the original Android project was a copy of a blackberry-type device, and only after they saw iPhone did they pivot to become an iPhone copy instead. Fact. Android's engineer Chris DeSalvo: "[We] are going to have to start over". So not really sure what your point is. Modern Android is a copy of iPhone, that's a fact and there isn't anything more to it.
If you want to claim Android gets "first" credit earlier, we need to see when that began. But since that was for a blackberry copy and was abandoned, I don't even see the point of that. But that sort of logic Apple can claim the earlier Purple phases as their own start date, even tho they shift at least once as well.
Yikes! That one is gonna leave a mark. Gators should always watch out for Strange pythons in the water.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/06/29/the-story-of-the-original-iphone-that-nobody-thought-was-possible"
And from the NYT in 2013 before revisionist history set in.
"As early as 2003, a handful of Apple engineers had figured out how to put multitouch technology in a tablet. “The story was that Steve wanted a device that he could use to read e-mail while on the toilet — that was the extent of the product spec,” says Joshua Strickon, one of the earliest engineers on that project. “But you couldn’t build a device with enough battery life to take out of the house, and you couldn’t get a chip with enough graphics capability to make it useful. We spent a lot of time trying to figure out just what to do... given the lack of consensus at Apple about what to do with the (tablet) prototypes he and his fellow engineers developed, he says, he left the company in 2004 thinking it wasn’t going to do anything with that technology
"Few even thought about making touch-screen technology the centerpiece of a new kind of phone until Jobs started really pushing the idea in mid-2005. “He said: ‘Tony, come over here. Here’s something we’re working on. What do you think? Do you think we could make a phone out of this?’ ” Fadell says, referring to a demo Jobs was playing with. “It was huge. It filled the room. There was a projector mounted on the ceiling, and it would project the Mac screen onto this surface that was maybe three or four feet square. Then you could touch the Mac screen and move things around and draw on it.” Fadell was aware of the touch-screen prototype, but not in great detail, because it was a Mac product, and he ran the iPod division.... “I understood how it could be done,” Fadell says. “But it’s one thing to think that, and another to take a room full of special, one-off gear and make a million phone-size versions of that in a cost-effective, reliable manner.”
From the start of the project, Jobs hoped that he would be able to develop a touch-screen iPhone running OS X similar to what he ended up unveiling. But in 2005 he had no idea how long that would take. So Apple’s first iPhone looked very much like the joke slide Jobs put up when introducing the real iPhone — an iPod with an old-fashioned rotary dial on it."
Now with all that said it is certainly reasonable to assume some engineer in some office was toying with mobile phones. Afterall Apple had put toes in the water with the Moto one. Google for their part wrote a blog article in 2003 indicating they saw the future of computing in the mobile space so they too were toying with what was possible and how to get there. If you remember Samsung was offered the chance to purchase Danger sometime in the fall of 2004 and didn't take it serious. As far as they were concerned Android had no value. By late 2004 Google had given Danger enough money (via Google Investments) to keep their heads above water for another few weeks and in the first week of 2005 purchased them outright as the cornerstone of what would become a smartphone OS known as Android.
So yeah Google and Apple were both investigating mobile phones long before they committed themselves to it. Steve Jobs would have been aware of it since everyone in tech knew Google had their eyes on the smartphone market as far back as the Spring of 2005 and many understood Google wa already moving that direction in 2003. Since Mr Jobs was a confidante and mentor of the early Google he probably knew the details before long before anyone outside of Google themselves, but of course no one outside of the principals could prove that.
The points I made earlier about why Steve Jobs may have finally acted in mid-2005 stands, as does the claim Google was actively developing Android before Steve Jobs gave the iPhone Project a greenlight to go get 'em.
Schmidt didn't arrive at Apple under false pretenses either which is the other point I made. Steve Jobs knew all about what they had going with Android and what the ultimate goal was, and he was OK with it. So why ask Google if one of their execs would serve on Apple's BoD and partner up on some software if they were both working on phone projects? In 2005 both companies were more afraid of Microsoft and what they might do to lock each of them out if they didn't act fast than whether someday they might find themselves competing with each other. That would be an issue to deal with down the line. For now they both felt they'd be more successful by working together.
Who had some engineer in a back-office working on possibilities (they both did) is far less important than understanding this was not a market Google jumped into after finding out Apple was going to build an iPhone, and that Mr Jobs wasn't blindsided by Android and a Google phone. You and others seem totally ignorant of it at times.
If you were to ask DED and catch him at a calm moment I suspect he'd back me up on 90% of what I just wrote.
Yeah, OK. I'm not seeing how you negate the Strange Day facts in that post with storytelling, even from Fadell, even from your own quoted back office engineer.
They don't “take care of each other”. They merely support and maintain the sociopathic systems that benefit them. Tearing down these systems would help disassemble the untouchability of such people, and provide consequences (instead of rewards) for egregious antisocial behavior.
Wow, another weird occasion where I’m in agreement with something you’ve posted.
+1
And the fact that so many corporations are run not by ethical, principled people, but by sociopaths and other antisocial types, is why regulation is required to keep civilization from collapsing under the abuses of unrestrained capitalism.
Filter out the sociopathy and greed, or regulate the systems so they don’t reward sociopathy and greed. Those are the only set of options. “Do nothing and let the society be turned into a dystopia by sociopaths” is not an option for the sane.