Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 5, 2012, 12:53 PM   #101
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nunyabinez View Post
Does this sound like a man who agrees with your interpretation of the "timeline"
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.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 12:55 PM   #102
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Feel free however to not believe the facts.
Why change my mind when saying "Google copied" over and over again is so much easier?
Renzatic is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 12:56 PM   #103
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by benthewraith View Post
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.
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...
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 12:56 PM   #104
Khaaaaaaaaaan
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Madision, WI
So I'm thinking he means that settling something the "adult way"equals:

CELEBRITY DEATHMATCH!

2 go in...but only *1* comes out!
Khaaaaaaaaaan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 12:59 PM   #105
bbeagle
macrumors 65816
 
bbeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by unlinked View Post
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.
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 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 01:03 PM   #106
notjustjay
macrumors 603
 
notjustjay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbeagle View Post
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.
"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/softwa...ctions-1100048
__________________
.
notjustjay is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 01:14 PM   #107
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbeagle View Post
There is nothing out there that says Google offered Apple turn-by-turn directions at any price.
Sure there is, plenty even. Apple biased news source even say so :

http://allthingsd.com/20120926/apple...ed-directions/
Quote:
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.
So yes, Google did offer the feature, at a price. Apple wasn't willing to pay.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 01:26 PM   #108
DrSkywalker
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by terryzx View Post
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?
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.
DrSkywalker is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 01:30 PM   #109
cclloyd
macrumors 68000
 
cclloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Alpha Centauri A
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorinlynx View Post
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.
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.
__________________
iPhone 5 Sprint w/ iOS 7.0.4 Jailbroken
iPad mini Retina w/ iOS 7.0.4 Jailbroken
MacBook Pro Retina Early 2013
cclloyd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 01:36 PM   #110
notjustjay
macrumors 603
 
notjustjay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cclloyd9785 View Post
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.
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.
__________________
.
notjustjay is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 01:38 PM   #111
bbeagle
macrumors 65816
 
bbeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
So yes, Google did offer the feature, at a price. Apple wasn't willing to pay.
According to the 'unnamed source', Google did NOT offer what Apple wanted - an unbranded turn-by-turn map feature.

Quote:
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.
bbeagle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 01:40 PM   #112
JAT
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mpls, MN
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
Why change my mind when saying "Google copied" over and over again is so much easier?
"Imitated" is too hard to spell.
__________________
-- Spiky
JAT is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 01:47 PM   #113
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbeagle View Post
According to the 'unnamed source', Google did NOT offer what Apple wanted - an unbranded turn-by-turn map feature.
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.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAT View Post
"Imitated" is too hard to spell.
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.
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 01:58 PM   #114
axonic labs
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
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.
Here is the full quote:
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.
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.
axonic labs is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 02:05 PM   #115
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nunyabinez View Post
Does this sound like a man who agrees with your interpretation of the "timeline"
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LagunaSol View Post
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?
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.
kdarling is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 02:29 PM   #116
bbeagle
macrumors 65816
 
bbeagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Don't move goalposts
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 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 02:32 PM   #117
unlinked
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbeagle View Post
There is nothing out there that says Google offered Apple turn-by-turn directions at any price.
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.
unlinked is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 02:40 PM   #118
aerok
macrumors 65816
 
aerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbeagle View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Kangmlee Photography Blog
Macbook Pro 13 - iPhone 5S - iPad Air - Samsung Note 8
aerok is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 02:40 PM   #119
unlinked
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbeagle View Post
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.
Here is your initial claim :
"Google refused to license turn-by-turn directions to Apple."
unlinked is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 02:42 PM   #120
aerok
macrumors 65816
 
aerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by unlinked View Post
Here is your initial claim :
"Google refused to license turn-by-turn directions to Apple."
We already refuted that, since he was wrong, ''it never happened'' apparently
__________________
Kangmlee Photography Blog
Macbook Pro 13 - iPhone 5S - iPad Air - Samsung Note 8
aerok is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 02:48 PM   #121
koruki
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Zealand
Sounds better than the Korean way
__________________
RIP Mr. Steve Jobs 1955 - 2011.
15" rMbp 2014, 64GB iPhone 5, Shure SE846
koruki is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 02:56 PM   #122
LagunaSol
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post
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.
Yes, Google did them a real favor. Saints, they are.
LagunaSol is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 03:01 PM   #123
johnhope
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: LA
Copying other's successes is not an adult behaviour.
So Eric stop telling crap.
johnhope is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 03:03 PM   #124
LagunaSol
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post
In any event, the timeline shows why it's so incredibly stupid to claim that Schmidt had to steal anything.
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.
LagunaSol is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2012, 03:03 PM   #125
kdarling
macrumors Demi-God
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
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.
kdarling is offline   5 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt Says Android is 'Pretty Clearly' Winning the Mobile War with Apple MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 383 Feb 10, 2014 09:50 AM
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt Posts Guide on Converting to Android from iPhone MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 326 Dec 8, 2013 05:27 AM
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt Says Relationship with Apple 'Improving' MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 179 Jul 21, 2013 10:23 AM
It ain't just Apple: Eric Schmidt of Google on coporate taxation VulchR Politics, Religion, Social Issues 28 May 29, 2013 05:57 PM
Eric Schmidt: Google Hasn’t Submitted A Native Google Maps App To Apple (Yet) mcfinch iPhone 4 Sep 25, 2012 03:12 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:17 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC