Brilliant. You should make some bumper stickers with this.
Not so brilliant.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Eric Schmidt on Google Now for iOS: 'You'll Need to Discuss That With Apple' [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Now that we know it hasn't even been submitted doesn't it make his comments look pretty ingenuous and dickish? Does to me.....
Now refresh my memory - Schmidt was able to do this via what means if he had excused himself from such discussions during board meetings?
Apple provides feedback in the rejection letter. I've heard of rejections ranging from "your table view highlight needs to go away on after tapping because it looks ugly" to "can't encourage piracy."
In the first case, they're expecting a quick bug fix and resubmit. Was quite surprised when it was mentioned to me since it sounds like they were pretty attentive during the review.
In the second case, they're obviously not going to let you submit a bittorrent client no matter how you try to argue it.
And where can you download that 'Apple-inspired' touch interface?
BTW, what does Poodle exactly get out of Android?
That doesn't creep you out more than a little?
Supporting Android is the Uncle Tom position on private data gathering:
"I don't care that massa owns me, as long as he lets me sit in the big house for dinner."
Look at the CNET article everyone is quoting. It says 'Apple told us'. No quotes, no names, nothing. I would really like to see the actual text.
Given that it wasn't submitted, the tin foilers were correct.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-5...le-now-hasnt-been-submitted-to-our-app-store/
I was wrong about the year ok ? I admit that much but.
Research Andy Rubin.
Then research NeXTSTEP.
As far as Torvalds is concerned you would have to ask him so he can deny stealing the kernel.
I think he was still part of the meetings when the first iPhone was shown to the board. It was after those initial meetings that he started to excuse himself from those meetings.
Schmidt was practically the SINGLE reason why SJ ever uttered the word "thermonuclear". As for "glowing" statements from the Board, they mean either of the following:
- every Board statement is "glowing" by definition unless the guy killed someone's mother;
- the Board didn't have yet full information on Schmidt's criminal deeds.
As for "what" was stolen, I can only point you to the before-after iPhone market offerings...there is no need to elaborate more than that.
You mean the grid of icons that have been around since the mid-late 90's in some shape, form, or fashion?
iOS brought a lot of good stuff to the table, but the basics of the interface itself aren't some brand new thing that's never been seen before. It has roots stretching way back.
They're as welcome to partake in my porn and chicken soup recipe collections as much as anyone.
First off, CLASSY!
Secondly, the information Google collects on you isn't really all that specific. The vast majority of it is anonymous, and...well...yeah, I've been through this conversation a thousand times before, and I don't feel like doing it again. Either go read my responses there, or accept my digest version of what Google does:
It's like being a Nielsen family member, but on the internet.
Last edited:
Exactly. He started recusing himself way after the iPhone was shown to the Apple Board...the only ones denying this fact are the Google fans around here.
Oh - by all means - let's believe that one without questioning.
You think.
These are your beliefs. they aren't facts.
And I believe one should elaborate more if one is accusing another of a crime. But don't bother. I do know the crap you're referring to and this doesn't have to turn into yet another thread (more than it has) about the guilt or innocence of Eric Schmidt. I can only point you to the several threads that have already discussed this and how it's been debunked. There is no need to elaborate more than that.
As you seem to know a lot about technology, can you explain in plain words how a GPL source can be stolen if it is used in other project?
Heh, so Google's weird comment was only to spread FUD about the App Store? They certainly tried as much as they could to make it sound like Apple was being a hurdle when it came to allowing Google Now for iOS and that Apple allowing Google Maps was pure luck...
Dirty tricks, Google...
Perhaps if they first submit the App, it will be easier for Apple to approve it...
We will be able to tell if your right once Google decides to submit an iOS app.
Google voice was rejected for using a private API for the proximity sensor.
http://daringfireball.net/2008/11/google_mobile_uses_private_iphone_apis
When Google submits an app, Apple might start accepting it!
More likely because the approved version did not use the private API for the proximity sensor..
It was quite accurate.
It was not unchanged. (See above).
Last edited:
So where are the facts that support your case? The burden of proof is on the person making extraordinary claims. The Google copying Apple thing is part of the historical record and very recent public consciousness.
We've also repeatedly seen Google deny claims of impropriety, only to get caught and admit it later, each time downplaying that they ever 'intended' to do anything wrong. Better known as - Google is consistently full of ****.
So it's really weird that you'd support their statements as truthful, and argue against the blatantly obvious.
Why not? Apple says they did not submit it. Schmidt just made vague references to the App approval process and would not say if one was submitted.