Google Chairman Eric Schmidt Says Apple and Google Will Resolve Issues 'the Adult Way'

Nunyabinez said:

Does this sound like a man who agrees with your interpretation of the "timeline"

Click to expand...

He can disagree all he wants with the timeline, but that's what it is. I have provided sources showing Google's 2005 acquisition, the founding in 2003, Andy Rubin's history with Danger Inc. already making Mobile phone OSes since 1998, etc... but what's the point, this stuff has been posted dozen of times in these threads.

The timeline is not at question.

kdarling also already explained, with sources, tons of time that when Steve said that, he was misunderstanding what Apple owned. Those comments came not after Eric left Apple in 2009, they came in 2010, when Google enabled Multi-touch in the US version of the Nexus One. At the time, Apple was working towards getting the trademark on Multi-touch and Steve erroneously thought Apple owned patents on the whole of it. The trademark was denied and Apple never owned patents on the whole of a technology that has been in existence since 1983.

Feel free however to not believe the facts.

KnightWRX said:

Feel free however to not believe the facts.

Click to expand...

Why change my mind when saying "Google copied" over and over again is so much easier?

benthewraith said:

It hasn't. And any who've thoroughly used both an iPhone and an Android knows their operating systems aren't the same. Other than the Samsung case here in the US, Apple has lost ground in most other countries. $1 billion is a slap on the wrist to Samsung.

Click to expand...

No to mention one of the patents which Samsung was found to infringe in the US decision has been invalidated 2 months ago. Then there's all the other issues that Samsung has brought up and that a hearing tomorrow should give us a clearer view. Then there's the jury foreman's misunderstanding of prior art...

So I'm thinking he means that settling something the "adult way"equals:

CELEBRITY DEATHMATCH!

2 go in...but only *1* comes out!

unlinked said:

Now back to "refused to license turn-by-turn directions" , you mean they were willing to license but not at terms Apple would agree to.

Click to expand...

There is nothing out there that says Google offered Apple turn-by-turn directions at any price.

Irregardless, it is completely within Apple's rights to do it's own proprietary solution. Google was caught without a back-up plan.

bbeagle said:

There is nothing out there that says Google offered Apple turn-by-turn directions at any price.

Irregardless, it is completely within Apple's rights to do it's own proprietary solution. Google was caught without a back-up plan.

Click to expand...

"Irrespective"

And I've read in numerous places that in order to get turn by turn, Apple would have been required to provide Google Latitude as well, which they were not willing to do:

http://www.techradar.com/news/softw...gle-maps-over-turn-by-turn-directions-1100048

bbeagle said:

There is nothing out there that says Google offered Apple turn-by-turn directions at any price.

Click to expand...

Sure there is, plenty even. Apple biased news source even say so :

http://allthingsd.com/20120926/apple-google-maps-talks-crashed-over-voice-guided-directions/

Google’s thinking, the search giant, which had invested massive sums in creating that data and views it as a key feature of Android, wasn’t willing to simply hand it over to a competing platform.

And if there were terms under which it might have agreed to do so, Apple wasn’t offering them. Sources tell AllThingsD that Google, for example, wanted more say in the iOS maps feature set. It wasn’t happy simply providing back-end data. It asked for in-app branding. Apple declined. It suggested adding Google Latitude.

Click to expand...

So yes, Google did offer the feature, at a price. Apple wasn't willing to pay.

terryzx said:

Wouldn't it be nice if all these cell phone makers (etc) would get together and play nice and share ideas that we all could profit from while they also each make their own profits from utilizing each other's shared patients?

Click to expand...

How about if you have a great and innovative idea that you want to profit from, you do so without having to worry about some @sshole stealing your ideas without your permission?

Apple is clearly in the right. If they wanted to gift it to the world (like Mercedes did with crumple zones), then great - but they should be under no obligation to do so.

zorinlynx said:

Saying that Google stole Apple's ideas for Android is like saying that the second car maker to come along stole the first one's ideas by using wheels and seats.

Things like touch scrolling, icons, etc. were the natural progression of cel phones in general. Not to mention, Apple has copied their share of features, too, like the notification center.

Click to expand...

Whether it was the natural progression or not, it was still their original idea.


Example: Humans are bound to get faster than light travel someday. Do you think the inventor of the method/machine will patent it? You're damn right he will.

cclloyd9785 said:

Whether it was the natural progression or not, it was still their original idea.

Example: Humans are bound to get faster than light travel someday. Do you think the inventor of the method/machine will patent it? You're damn right he will.

Click to expand...

Sure, but who's to say that someone else isn't going to find the same solution independently? That doesn't mean they copied it.

For example, who invented the telephone? Alexander Graham Bell, right? Actually, two different inventors were both converging on similar solutions at right around the same time. Both Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray invented basically the same thing. One of them popularized it first and in today's world could have patented the heck out of it; that doesn't mean that the other one copied him.

KnightWRX said:

So yes, Google did offer the feature, at a price. Apple wasn't willing to pay.

Click to expand...

According to the 'unnamed source', Google did NOT offer what Apple wanted - an unbranded turn-by-turn map feature.

And if there were terms under which it might have agreed to do so, Apple wasn’t offering them. Sources tell AllThingsD that Google, for example, wanted more say in the iOS maps feature set. It wasn’t happy simply providing back-end data. It asked for in-app branding. Apple declined. It suggested adding Google Latitude.

Click to expand...

Renzatic said:

Why change my mind when saying "Google copied" over and over again is so much easier?

Click to expand...

"Imitated" is too hard to spell.

bbeagle said:

According to the 'unnamed source', Google did NOT offer what Apple wanted - an unbranded turn-by-turn map feature.

Click to expand...

You said Google didn't offer it, at any price. Don't move goalposts, just recognized you might have missed that Google did offer and Apple just weren't willing to pay the price for it.

Of course, in Apple's defense, this is before they knew what a fiasco their own Maps solution would be.

----------

JAT said:

"Imitated" is too hard to spell.

Click to expand...

Imitation, again, has nothing to do with patents. It's simply because "infringed on the patents of Apple" is too long to type and requires understanding that patents can be infringed without direct copying, or imitation or even knowledge of said patents.

If I give you a rock to move by an inch, a log of wood and a pole to do it with, you'll probably use the log to make a makeshift lever with the pole to move the rock. If I give your neighbor the same, don't tell him about how you did it, he'll probably end up with the same solution.

He would be guilty of infringing your patents, without having copied you, imitated you or even having knowledge that you had to do the same kind of exercise.

KnightWRX said:

If you read that quote properly, he's equating himself to Larry Page and Tim Cook to Steve Jobs.

IE, Eric was CEO of Google while Steve was CEO of Apple, and now Larry is CEO of Google while Tim is CEO of Apple

... sad that this has to be pointed out to you. Some of you guys really always want Google to be bad guys or something ? What did you think he meant ? I don't know why I bother reading the comments on these articles, it's always the same culprits trying to paint Google in a negative light.

I sure long for the days when Apple and Google were best pals. At least the forums weren't filled with such vitriol.

Click to expand...

Here is the full quote:

I think both Tim [Cook, Apple's CEO] and Larry [Page, Google's CEO], the sort of successors to Steve [Jobs] and me if you will, have an understanding of this state model. When they and their teams meet, they have just a long list of things to talk about.

Click to expand...

I read that as him saying Tim and Larry are successors to Steve and himself and it feels like he is equating himself to Steve Jobs. He could have simply said "I think both Tim and Larry have an understanding of this state model. When they and their teams meet, they have just a long list of things to talk about." and that would be enough to make his point. Just my 2 cents.

Nunyabinez said:

Does this sound like a man who agrees with your interpretation of the "timeline"

Click to expand...

Actually it does. It helps if you first know the timeline, of course.

Jobs publicly dismissed Android as not being a threat right up until early 2010, years after Android phones had gone on sale, and months after Schmidt had left.

Jobs only went "thermonuclear" in 2010 after Google finally enabled multi-touch. Apparently he thought Apple had an exclusive claim to it. He was, of course, misinformed.

LagunaSol said:

Is anyone really naive enough to believe that Google's Android team didn't start some serious retooling of their OS after first seeing the iPhone in January 2007?

Click to expand...

Or at least a reordering of their priorities away from the keyboard version, although insiders claim that happened before the iPhone came out.

In any event, the timeline shows why it's so incredibly stupid to claim that Schmidt had to steal anything. The iPhone was shown off IN PUBLIC early enough (Jan 2007) for anyone to copy it in a year if they wanted. Heck, there were Javascript UI emulations within weeks.

Also, Schmidt didn't even get to sit on the board until late 2006, and we know that a couple of months before the iPhone was shown off, Jobs still didn't think they had a working product. It's doubtful he showed the board anything until it worked right. That's the kind of guy he was. He didn't even show it to AT&T's CEO until late December 2006, and AT&T had signed an exclusive contract six months prior!

Moreover, people forget the huge advantage that having Google on the board gave Apple. The iPhone didn't even have Maps in November 2006, but Google worked with them to get them on before the iPhone debut. Imagine selling the first iPhone without Google Search, Google Maps, and later, YouTube and Google cell tower locating to make up for the lack of GPS.

KnightWRX said:

Don't move goalposts

Click to expand...

This is EXACTLY what you are doing.

For example...

Apple: We would like turn-by-turn directions. how much?
Google: Free. But only if you put a 1" Google logo on the back of your phone.

This is NOT what Apple wanted.

It's much the same as you go on ebay:
KnightWRX: I would like to buy your phone. How much?
Me: Free. But only if I can sleep with your girlfriend.

bbeagle said:

There is nothing out there that says Google offered Apple turn-by-turn directions at any price.

Click to expand...

Sure there is. Nothing official by either Google or Apple. Everything about the situation said by anyone on the internet is speculation , rumor or unnamed sources.

bbeagle said:

This is EXACTLY what you are doing.

For example...

Apple: We would like turn-by-turn directions. how much?
Google: Free. But only if you put a 1" Google logo on the back of your phone.

This is NOT what Apple wanted.

It's much the same as you go on ebay:
KnightWRX: I would like to buy your phone. How much?
Me: Free. But only if I can sleep with your girlfriend.

Click to expand...

Now you're just overreacting... Your analogy is way off.

More like:

Apple: We would like turn-by-turn directions. how much?
Google: Same but we would like Google Latitude included

bbeagle: I would like to add a case to the phone I bought earler. How much?
KnightWRX: Free. But you'll have to use my branded headphones.

bbeagle said:

This is EXACTLY what you are doing.

For example...

Apple: We would like turn-by-turn directions. how much?
Google: Free. But only if you put a 1" Google logo on the back of your phone.

This is NOT what Apple wanted.

It's much the same as you go on ebay:
KnightWRX: I would like to buy your phone. How much?
Me: Free. But only if I can sleep with your girlfriend.

Click to expand...

Here is your initial claim :
"Google refused to license turn-by-turn directions to Apple."

unlinked said:

Here is your initial claim :
"Google refused to license turn-by-turn directions to Apple."

Click to expand...

We already refuted that, since he was wrong, ''it never happened'' apparently

Sounds better than the Korean way

kdarling said:

Imagine selling the first iPhone without Google Search, Google Maps, and later, YouTube and Google cell tower locating to make up for the lack of GPS.

Click to expand...

Yes, Google did them a real favor. Saints, they are.

Copying other's successes is not an adult behaviour.
So Eric stop telling crap.

kdarling said:

In any event, the timeline shows why it's so incredibly stupid to claim that Schmidt had to steal anything.

Click to expand...

Forget the stealing argument. How about the ethics of sitting on a company's board while formulating your own competitive product for the company you run? Forget swipes and icons. What about strategic decision-making? Long-term vision? Discussions with carrier partners? You know, insider information that a Board is privy to? You think Schmidt wouldn't have been tossed out on his ear had the Board been able to peer into a crystal ball and see the Android of 2012?

Not that Schmidt has proven he could be trusted by a wife. Er, I mean, partner.

Weasel is as weasel does.

Since some people like to look for conspiracies, I'm surprised they haven't brought up some of the other board members at the time:

• Schmidt was in some ways the least likely to steal inside info. He admired Jobs, and it's known that he recused himself from iPhone meetings. Andy Rubin even mentioned that Android got delayed because Schmidt... who was his boss and thus more likely to give him developer assets... partitioned himself off from Android while he was on the Apple board.
  
  
• Al Gore was a long term Google senior advisor who's been on the Apple board since 2003. (Cue X-Files music.)
  
  
• Art Levinson has been on the Apple board since 2000, and was ALSO on the Google board of directors from 2004-2009. Now he's Chairman of the Apple Board. How come nobody brings him up?
  
  
• How about a reverse plot? After all, Jobs invited Schmidt to the board, knowing that Google had bought Android. Was it to try to sway Google not to put out a competing device? Or to spy on them through Schmidt? Heck, Apple didn't even get serious about working on the iPhone until about a month after Google bought Android. Talk about suspicious timing.

In other words, people can spin things all sorts of silly ways. Sometimes the simplest answer makes the most sense: the most influence came _after_ the iPhone was publicly shown off in January 2007. No spies needed at all.