Did Google just "Microsoft" Apple?

[milani]

Confusing title, I know. But seriously though, hear me out.

Remember way back when Microsoft was developing software for Apple? And remember how Gates assured Jobs that "Windows" was no threat to Apple. It was good old fashioned stab in the back moment, to be sure.

My question is this: has Google gone and effectively done the same thing? Yes, Google has less to do with the APIs that drive the iPhone's software, but Apple relies on Google in terms of maps, to a large degree Safari searching, and YouTube. Now that Google has developed a rival OS, has Apple been stabbed in the back the same way they were by Microsoft? Thoughts?

 

[randymac88]

Apple relies on Google in terms of maps, to a large degree Safari searching, and YouTube. Now that Google has developed a rival OS, has Apple been stabbed in the back the same way they were by Microsoft? Thoughts?

I don't think so. Maps are a dime a dozen and can be replaced fairly easily. And Youtube is so not necessary for this phone (for me at least), given the already-existing mobile web version of youtube. I think Apple is just fine without it.

 

[GoCubsGo]

I'm not quite there yet either. Nor am I at in a place where I want to use Microsoft as a verb. Give it time and perhaps this will be the case. This new move from Apple about saying the application store rejection letters fall under the NDA is just one step towards making it possible for Google to "Microsoft" Apple.

 

[cellocello]

I guess we'll have to see what happens as Google moves from being a 'services provider' to being a 'product maker'.

Google's a pretty unique position (a position that didn't even exist back in the day of good ol' Micro-soft and Apple Computers Inc.); we'll see how they handle it in the coming months and years.

 

[scaredpoet]

My question is this: has Google gone and effectively done the same thing? Yes, Google has less to do with the APIs that drive the iPhone's software, but Apple relies on Google in terms of maps, to a large degree Safari searching, and YouTube. Now that Google has developed a rival OS, has Apple been stabbed in the back the same way they were by Microsoft? Thoughts?

I think you're thinking too much into this.

First off, I think we can widely acknowledge that it isn't Microsoft's fault that Apple went through rough times and lost market share in the late '80s/early '90s. A lot of that has to do with poor management decisions, and poor management of the software development teams. In fact, even Steve Jobs himself would agree that Microsoft saved Apple's rear-end when it was needed most. Apple may not exist today if it weren't for Microsoft investing a sizable amount in Apple to keep it going. Microsoft may be regretting that move just a bit, but that's a whole other topic for discussion.

Anyway, Google is competing now, but at the same time I think they're fully aware that they still need interoperability with other phone platforms, including WM and iPhone, to retain their ubiquity. Android might do well for itself, but mobile devices are not desktop computers, and they will not all run Android. Google still needs to make itself "compatible" with competing platforms that will continue to coexist.

An important thing to note: the iPhone has an installed userbase of 5 million. Until October 22, Google's installed Android user base is zero. It would not be wise of them to do pull the plug on the iPhone's interdependence.

P.S.: the web browser in Android is based on Apple's WebKit. So Android does have some things to owe a bit of thanks to Apple for.

 

[milani]

I think you're thinking too much into this.

First off, I think we can widely acknowledge that it isn't Microsoft's fault that Apple went through rough times and lost market share in the late '80s/early '90s. A lot of that has to do with poor management decisions, and poor management of the software development teams. In fact, even Steve Jobs himself would agree that Microsoft saved Apple's rear-end when it was needed most. Apple may not exist today if it weren't for Microsoft investing a sizable amount in Apple to keep it going. Microsoft may be regretting that move just a bit, but that's a whole other topic for discussion.

Anyway, Google is competing now, but at the same time I think they're fully aware that they still need interoperability with other phone platforms, including WM and iPhone, to retain their ubiquity.

An important thing to note: the iPhone has an installed userbase of 5 million. Until October 22, Google's installed Android user base is zero. It would not be wise of them to do pull the plug on the iPhone's interdependence.

Good points, but I was more so talking about the simple fact that Microsoft was designing software exclusively for Apple, and then decided instead to take that software (and what they learned about the OS from developing it) and rebrand it as their own software in order to directly compete with Apple. This seems to me to be more or less what Google has done. I'm not worried about it, and I only thought of it now, so please don't take this as a "the sky is falling" kind of thread. Just had a though, and wondered if it occurred to anyone else.

 

[Small White Car]

Not at all the same.

Apple was shocked when they found out Microsoft was going behind their backs and trying to compete with them. Not only that, but competing against something Apple mistakenly thought they had locked up in a legal contract.

In this situation, not only does Apple not think they own things like maps or YouTube on a cell phone, they are fully expecting Google to be working on their own things. They've known about Google's plans for years and continued to work with them on all sorts of merged projects. Everything Apple has done over the last few years was done with the knowledge that Google was working on something similar.

Your theory is that Google "took" software. Well, if they did do this, they did it while Apple knew what they were working on. With Microsoft, they didn't have that knowledge so they weren't careful about what they shared.

 

[barkomatic]

Google isn't even charging carriers to use its mobile OS. Their interest is in having something Google on as many mobile devices as possible to bring in ad revenue. Although android devices might the *first* to get cool new apps made by Google. Ultimately, its in Googe's interest to supply iphone owners with content as well. This won't cause a rift between Apple and Google. Apple was well aware that Google was developing a mobile OS.

 

[IJ Reilly]

In fact, even Steve Jobs himself would agree that Microsoft saved Apple's rear-end when it was needed most. Apple may not exist today if it weren't for Microsoft investing a sizable amount in Apple to keep it going. Microsoft may be regretting that move just a bit, but that's a whole other topic for discussion.

This is not true.

Good points, but I was more so talking about the simple fact that Microsoft was designing software exclusively for Apple, and then decided instead to take that software (and what they learned about the OS from developing it) and rebrand it as their own software in order to directly compete with Apple.

Neither is this.

Apple was shocked when they found out Microsoft was going behind their backs and trying to compete with them. Not only that, but competing against something Apple mistakenly thought they had locked up in a legal contract.

Or this.

It's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about this topic when so many of the "facts" supplied in support of arguments are just plain wrong.

 

[Aurial]

I'm maybe being stupid here but I really can't see this issue that everyone seems to be batting around the forums today that Google has taken something from Apple?

I watched the demo of the G1 OS today and I can honestly say that with the exception of the scrolling system being the same as that of the iPhone (i.e. put your finger on the screen and drag the page around) I can't see anything at all that is similar in the interface to that of the iPhone. In fact looking at it makes me think more of the UIQ interface, which pre-dates the iPhone anyway.

As for Google Maps and Youtube, these things have not been exclusive to the iPhone for a long long time, if indeed they ever were. Any handset capable of running java apps can use google maps as they have both java and Symbian OS clients which are free downloads. Most smartphones have Youtube clients also, as the videos themselves are easy to link to.

Apple has lost nothing in terms of technology or exclusivity of any feature provided by Google as a result of the Android OS being released.

 

[milani]

This is not true.



Neither is this.



Or this.

It's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about this topic when so many of the "facts" supplied in support of arguments are just plain wrong.

Care to enlighten me?

 

[IJ Reilly]

Care to enlighten me?

Sure but the rolleyes don't help.

Microsoft did not "save" Apple. This is myth, based on nothing but the constant repetition of the myth. Apple saved Apple.

Microsoft never wrote software "exclusively" for Apple. They were writing software long before they ever did so for the Mac.

As for Microsoft going "behind Apple's back" to compete, I can't even imagine what this could be referencing, so it's difficult to respond more fully.

 

[madfresh]

I wouldn't say so. There's so many players and competition in this market that no one will attain the dominance Microsoft has in the PC market.

 

[svndmvn]

can anyone remind me what software was Microsoft making for Apple and then "made it their own" stabbing Apple in the back
I just remember Apple and Microsoft being in competition pretty much since the beginning and maybe Apple used MS's Internet explorer and some other stuff

 

[milani]

Sure but the rolleyes don't help.

Microsoft did not "save" Apple. This is myth, based on nothing but the constant repetition of the myth. Apple saved Apple.

Microsoft never wrote software "exclusively" for Apple. They were writing software long before they ever did so for the Mac.

As for Microsoft going "behind Apple's back" to compete, I can't even imagine what this could be referencing, so it's difficult to respond more fully.

Sorry for the roll-eyes, but your response was meant to be confrontational, and so I replied in kind. Anyway, I was under the impression that, under contract, Microsoft was designing some software exclusively for Apple. Perhaps I'm wrong, I can't say for sure.

As to the third comment, Microsoft absolutely went behind Apple's back - they stole parts of - if not the entire concept of - the OS (which Apple previously stole from Xerox). It's documented.

 

[deimos256]

Didnt Apple and microsoft both essentially "steal" software and some hardware concepts from xerox?

 

[svndmvn]

Bad artists copy. Great artists steal (Pablo Picasso)
that said, is this really just about the "mouse" thing? I pretty much just watched "Pirates of Silicon Valley" and a few interviews, wasn't born yet in the early 80s, but I thought Xerox didn't know what to do with the idea in their hands so Apple used it, Microsoft did the same, competing with Apple.

 

[NT1440]

Didnt Apple and microsoft both essentially "steal" software and some hardware concepts from xerox?

it was my understanding that xerox thought it would go no where in the "thats neat but we can never sell it way" and let the apple guys have a look. After that apple went and added some things like drop down menus, released it, and the OS as we know it today was born.

It seems there is way to much missinformation out there, so no one really knows the real story (myself included).

 

[IJ Reilly]

Sorry for the roll-eyes, but your response was meant to be confrontational, and so I replied in kind. Anyway, I was under the impression that, under contract, Microsoft was designing some software exclusively for Apple. Perhaps I'm wrong, I can't say for sure.

As to the third comment, Microsoft absolutely went behind Apple's back - they stole parts of - if not the entire concept of - the OS (which Apple previously stole from Xerox). It's documented.

It wasn't meant to be confrontational; sorry it looked that way. More like disgusted to have to play the constant game of whack-a-mole with these myths.

Microsoft produced three early Mac applications: Multiplan, Excel and Word. The first of these was already available for other platforms. I have never heard that any of them were meant to be "exclusive" to the Mac. I don't recall exactly when Excel for the PC came out, but it was a point of distinction for some time that the Mac had the best spreadsheet application. Not that anyone expected that to last forever.

As for the GUI, nobody owned the concept, which is important to remember whenever the myth is trotted out that Apple "stole" the idea from Xerox. It wasn't completely original to them, either. It took Microsoft five years to come up with something even marginally functional, but Microsoft had released the first version of Windows in 1985. They licensed some of the interface elements from Apple, under duress as the story goes.

 

[firewood]

Google's CEO is on Apple's board of directors. He thus has a legal responsibility to Apple shareholders (SOX laws) as well as his own.

Genentech's CEO is on both boards and can independently make sure that both companies are playing fair and legal with each other.

 

[deimos256]

It wasn't meant to be confrontational; sorry it looked that way. More like disgusted to have to play the constant game of whack-a-mole with these myths.

Microsoft produced three early Mac applications: Multiplan, Excel and Word. The first of these was already available for other platforms. I have never heard that any of them were meant to be "exclusive" to the Mac. I don't recall exactly when Excel for the PC came out, but it was a point of distinction for some time that the Mac had the best spreadsheet application. Not that anyone expected that to last forever.

As for the GUI, nobody owned the concept, which is important to remember whenever the myth is trotted out that Apple "stole" the idea from Xerox. It wasn't completely original to them, either. It took Microsoft five years to come up with something even marginally functional, but Microsoft had released the first version of Windows in 1985. They licensed some of the interface elements from Apple, under duress as the story goes.

That would be why I quoted stole, i didnt mean it in it's purest form.

 

[milani]

It wasn't meant to be confrontational; sorry it looked that way. More like disgusted to have to play the constant game of whack-a-mole with these myths.

Microsoft produced three early Mac applications: Multiplan, Excel and Word. The first of these was already available for other platforms. I have never heard that any of them were meant to be "exclusive" to the Mac. I don't recall exactly when Excel for the PC came out, but it was a point of distinction for some time that the Mac had the best spreadsheet application. Not that anyone expected that to last forever.

As for the GUI, nobody owned the concept, which is important to remember whenever the myth is trotted out that Apple "stole" the idea from Xerox. It wasn't completely original to them, either. It took Microsoft five years to come up with something even marginally functional, but Microsoft had released the first version of Windows in 1985. They licensed some of the interface elements from Apple, under duress as the story goes.

It's my fault; sorry if I was a bit harsh. I've been having a bad day, and I kind of took it out on you. Sorry man! And thanks for the information. I guess it's hard to tell where rumors end and truth begins in some cases! I just kind of feel like Apple's getting short ended, because they rely on Google quite a bit, and for Google to go and develop their own Android platform - well I just worry that some of the innovations Google makes for its own platform, that would have otherwise gone to the iPhone, might now not. Maybe I'm off base - I hope I am! I was just kind of thinking that this situation sort of reminded me of the Apple Microsoft era, where I was under the impression Microsoft was kind of working for Apple - developing the applications you listed - but at the same time was developing a rival platform. Kind of a paradoxical relationship, at least it seems that way to me anyway.

 

[ki2594]

Google and Apple trust each other with a lot. Google wouldn't lose there name by ditching apple in anyway like that. There still developing for every mobile OS, like i think blackberry's street view came out last week for google maps, and the iPhone should shortly follow.

 

[Jonnyfive]

Confusing title, I know. But seriously though, hear me out.

Remember way back when Microsoft was developing software for Apple? And remember how Gates assured Jobs that "Windows" was no threat to Apple. It was good old fashioned stab in the back moment, to be sure.

My question is this: has Google gone and effectively done the same thing? Yes, Google has less to do with the APIs that drive the iPhone's software, but Apple relies on Google in terms of maps, to a large degree Safari searching, and YouTube. Now that Google has developed a rival OS, has Apple been stabbed in the back the same way they were by Microsoft? Thoughts?

You know that's really interesting... I didn't see it that way but I can kind of see it. This seems very much what microsoft did to apple back in the day...
very interesting.

 

[Rybold]

Google is competing now, but at the same time I think they're fully aware that they still need interoperability with other phone platforms, including WM and iPhone, to retain their ubiquity. Android might do well for itself, but mobile devices are not desktop computers, and they will not all run Android. Google still needs to make itself "compatible" with competing platforms that will continue to coexist. ...iPhone has an installed userbase of 5 million.

Well said. Any one, single cell phone maker has no where near a majority market share. Even if ten million people buy google phones, there will still be hundreds of millions of people that don't have google phones. If Google wants to reach the largest number of people, then they need to remain committed and fair to all of the different types of cell phones.