Google Chairman 'Not Too Worried' About Apple Lawsuits Over Android

[a.gomez]

Apple lost to NOKIA and now pay them fees - Apple is in the same spot as HTC with 3 S3 patents (that now HTC owns thanks to VIA) and will need to license them from HTC - is that the end of iPhone? no, to think that would be idiotic.

People making to much of this - and Eric Schmidt knows it.

 

[kdarling]

Android would probably look like BlackBerry OS (just look at the original screenshots) if iOS hadn't been released. But Eric was taking notes at those board meetings.

Jobs has never accused Schmidt of stealing info from board meetings during iPhone design.

Jobs has only complained about Google copying Apple _AFTER_ the iPhone came out, specifically starting in 2008 with the more touch-oriented Android Dream version. Then he really got mad in 2009 when Android enabled pinch to zoom, something that Jobs mistakenly thought was patented by Apple.

Apple owes Google a lot for their help with the initial iPhone, from Google Maps, to builtin search, to Google using up resources to convert YouTube videos so the iPhone could play them.

No doubt that help (and wanting to keep an eye on Android's progress) were reasons why Jobs invited Schmidt onto the Apple board halfway through the iPhone's design.

 

[Benjamins]

Darned Apple. Wish they were "innovators." Everything out of Cupertino's just the same ol' same ol'. Nothing new. Clones & ripoffs. Been there, done that. Yawn.

It's like a Chinese company created a KIRF iPhone, added a SD card slot.
Apple sues them, and they turn around and say Apple is not innovating.

LOL Google.

 

[dethmaShine]

Jobs has never accused Schmidt of stealing info from board meetings during iPhone design.

I must be totally uninformed, but why would he accuse Schmidt 'during' the iPhone design?

Jobs has only complained about Google copying Apple _AFTER_ the iPhone came out, specifically starting in 2008 with the more touch-oriented Android Dream version. Then he really got mad in 2009 when Android enabled pinch to zoom, something that Jobs mistakenly thought was patented by Apple.

Hmm. Sounds right, but how do you know those are the only two things Google copied. The way the blew up the BBOS and transformed into iPhoneOS is quite noticeable. Maybe not to some people; but surely it is to almost everyone in the world.

Apple owes Google a lot for their help with the initial iPhone, from Google Maps, to builtin search, to Google using up resources to convert YouTube videos so the iPhone could play them.

What does that imply? Does that mean Google will copy everything. Apple did thank Google for their services in 2007 during the keynote. I don't see Google thanking Apple for letting them copy iPhoneOS.

No doubt that help (and wanting to keep an eye on Android's progress) were reasons why Jobs invited Schmidt onto the Apple board halfway through the iPhone's design.

Why do you make that point every time there's a discussion about this?

So what he invited him to the Apple board. It does not imply that he's now allowed to steal?

 

[SPUY767]

Is Eric T. Mole flapping his gums again?

What is it *this time*, Eric? It's not enough you ripped off Apple something serious, but you then have to point an accusatory finger at them. Apple made your market for you and for everyone else. And they're still doing it.

Apple is the one that has been doing all the "innovating" in the first place. Not little UI changes, but redefinitions of entire markets, and the creation of new ones. With stuff that at first blush baffles everyone, until Apple shows them it's "safe" to jump in.

Android would probably look like BlackBerry OS (just look at the original screenshots) if iOS hadn't been released. But Eric was taking notes at those board meetings.

First came the iPhone. Then, out of nowhere, everything else looked like an iPhone. Everyone else introduced an App Store modelled on the REAL App Store.

Apple releases the iPad. Then every other tablet out there (the also-rans suddenly got back into the game, I wonder why) started looking like an iPad. Well, alright, they *tried* to look like an iPad. But all they really provide is comic relief in doing so.

No wonder Steve was monumentally pissed at Eric.

Apple has been getting ripped off since 2007. They are now responding because there is too much out there that violates their IP. The infringements have reached critical mass. Apple is now looking to clean up the game. This is normal.

I am waiting for the typical drivel that says, "Android was around before the iPhone." Which is true, Android was around pre iPhone, and it makes the point all the more damning when you consider the pre-iPhone version of Android versus the post-iPhone version of android.

 

[Erwin-Br]

I must be totally uninformed, but why would he accuse Schmidt 'during' the iPhone design?

*Slaps forehead* He means Jobs did not accuse Schmidt of stealing the ideas that were unveiled in the time he was still on board at Apple. Jobs did not accuse him of that AFTER he left Apple.

 

[kenypowa]

Apple isn't responding to competition with lawsuits, it's responding to to theft of its protected innovations with lawsuits. The Google statement is twist on Steve Jobs comment the other day that its competitors would rather steal its ideas than pursue their own innovations and compete. The problem with it though is that it doesn't work well turned around on Apple, who just won the first round in the patent case affirming that it was Apple that was the innovator and had the property right.

Guess you never heard that Apple infringed on S3's patents and HTC happens to own S3.

 

[Drunken Master]

Is Eric T. Mole flapping his gums again?

What is it *this time*, Eric? It's not enough you ripped off Apple something serious, but you then have to point an accusatory finger at them. Apple made your market for you and for everyone else. And they're still doing it.

Apple is the one that has been doing all the "innovating" in the first place. Not little UI changes, but redefinitions of entire markets, and the creation of new ones. With stuff that at first blush baffles everyone, until Apple shows them it's "safe" to jump in.

Android would probably look like BlackBerry OS (just look at the original screenshots) if iOS hadn't been released. But Eric was taking notes at those board meetings.

First came the iPhone. Then, out of nowhere, everything else looked like an iPhone. Everyone else introduced an App Store modelled on the REAL App Store.

Apple releases the iPad. Then every other tablet out there (the also-rans suddenly got back into the game, I wonder why) started looking like an iPad. Well, alright, they *tried* to look like an iPad. But all they really provide is comic relief in doing so.

No wonder Steve was monumentally pissed at Eric.

Apple has been getting ripped off since 2007. They are now responding because there is too much out there that violates their IP. The infringements have reached critical mass. Apple is now looking to clean up the game. This is normal.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

[kenypowa]

Android before iPhone

Edit: Sorry 0815, I should have read the entire thread before posting.

And Android after iPhone.

 

[polbit]

To sum up this tread:

Apple = giant corporation that innovates and cares about the users, and is out to make the world a better place, with a genius of Steve Jobs

Google (but any other competitor fits here too) = giant corporation that steals, doesn't care about the users, is out to make nothing but money, with an idiot(s) at the helm

Do I have this about right?

I'm old enough to remember the same idiotic fanaticism with 8-bit Atari vs. Commodore wars (or Sinclair vs. Commodore for our European members), or Amiga vs. Atari ST vs. Mac wars, etc., etc., etc...

I applaud Apple for being able to create such an army of blind followers - it is certainly good for business, allows them to keep their high margins and make a boatload of money. As a stockholder, I say "Bravo!" Keep it going, keep hating other companies, and keep worshiping the One and Only.

 

[ChazUK]

Why do you make that point every time there's a discussion about this?

So what he invited him to the Apple board. It does not imply that he's now allowed to steal?

Do you not think Apple were a little naive getting so close to Google considering this was public knowledge in 2005?

I personally think it was inevitible that smartphones were moving to a more touch based design with the advent of the Prada and iPhone in 2007 bringing capacitive touchscreen technology into handsets. Symbian on its own has gone through various evolutionary phases and with the speed the team who develop Android have moved since 2008, its no shock that Android has developed how it has in such a short time.

The early prototypes were based on a Windows Mobile hardware base but the joy of prototypes and early development is that it isn't final and can change.

Would everyone be happy today if Android was still based on the original prototype hardware?

 

[Starry]

Wrong thread. Sorry, now I look like an idiot.

 

[dethmaShine]

Do you not think Apple were a little naive getting so close to Google considering this was public knowledge in 2005?

I personally think it was inevitible that smartphones were moving to a more touch based design with the advent of the Prada and iPhone in 2007 bringing capacitive touchscreen technology into handsets. Symbian on its own has gone through various evolutionary phases and with the speed the team who develop Android have moved since 2008, its no shock that Android has developed how it has in such a short time.

The early prototypes were based on a Windows Mobile hardware base but the joy of prototypes and early development is that it isn't final and can change.

Would everyone be happy today if Android was still based on the original prototype hardware?

I think that's the reason Apple cannot sue Google for anti-trust. They invited the enemy themselves. No wonder ****'s happening them.

As for the increasing technology, it was getting better for everyone not just for Apple as you have stated. I wonder why Apple was the one that changed the entire game. Lets not forget that Palm's webOS couldn't do much even though it had the same technology as Apple's; so there must be something unique there; don't you think?

 

[KnightWRX]

Nah, Android will die when Larry Ellison drives a stake thru it's heart for ripping off Java.

And how will he do that pray tell ? You do know that the lawsuit is going very badly for Oracle right now right ?

http://www.dailytech.com/Google+Get...+Bad+News+in+Antitrust+Probe/article21997.htm

And Android after iPhone.

Image

Exactly, I laugh each time 0815 and others bring up that dumb argument. Android is software. It is not a phone design, it's an OS to run on mobile and not so mobile devices. It doesn't care about screen size, buttons, case layouts. That's for hardware manufacturers, of which Google isn't one, to make.

There are many form factors in the Android world. Blackberry styled, full touch screen style, sliders, heck Sony even makes one that looks like a PSP Go.

How is it "Android", a piece of software, copied the iPhone, a piece of hardware and how is a picture of a phone style that is still being produced (Motorola is also introducing one like those soon) a proof of that ?

Laughable argument from petty people that have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to Android. Their goal is not to learn, it is to bash. It's much easier to destroy than to create I guess.

I personally think it was inevitible that smartphones were moving to a more touch based design with the advent of the Prada and iPhone in 2007 bringing capacitive touchscreen technology into handsets.

2007 ? Try around 2003 :

iPhone didn't come up with the "full touch screen" based device thing on its own...

Apple very much builds on the shoulders of giants all the time. They copy and are copied, crying victim over it is a bunch of hypocrisy on their part.

 

[msimpson]

And how will he do that pray tell ? You do know that the lawsuit is going very badly for Oracle right now right ?

http://www.dailytech.com/Google+Get...+Bad+News+in+Antitrust+Probe/article21997.htm




Exactly, I laugh each time 0815 and others bring up that dumb argument. Android is software. It is not a phone design, it's an OS to run on mobile and not so mobile devices. It doesn't care about screen size, buttons, case layouts. That's for hardware manufacturers, of which Google isn't one, to make.

There are many form factors in the Android world. Blackberry styled, full touch screen style, sliders, heck Sony even makes one that looks like a PSP Go.

How is it "Android", a piece of software, copied the iPhone, a piece of hardware and how is a picture of a phone style that is still being produced (Motorola is also introducing one like those soon) a proof of that ?

Laughable argument from petty people that have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to Android. Their goal is not to learn, it is to bash. It's much easier to destroy than to create I guess.

If you think the iPhone is only a piece of hardware, then I guess you have never heard of iOS?

You seem to be the one who doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

[jacobj]

Google is perhaps the most arrogant company on the face of this planet. It's starting to annoy me.

It is an interesting arc: the new innovator full of hope; then the realization that the incumbent is so sure of their position that they fail to defend themselves (they continue to evolve mediocre products and assume that their success is due to their brilliance, not because of their dominance) and finally the new boy has so much success they fail to notice that they have reached the peak and are now the incumbent on the descending slope.. Google has failed to notice that their current successes are temporary and that their main source of income will continue until the landscape changes so much that an upstart identifies a way to pull the whole rug from beneath their feet.. It won't be Apple, but then Google's minor victories over Apple as they stand at the moment are temporary and are not generating anything like the income Apple's innovations are.

One last point: Apple has certainly incorporated a few ideas of Android into iOS, howeve they always have taken ideas from others; however Android development is still on the back foot; honeycomb is new. google are behind the bleeding edge, but are arrogant enough to believe that they are on it's sharpest point. I'd be thinking of selling my google shares on reading eric's comments: the company is clearly on the road to failure.

What has made SJ so unique is his understanding of this cycle and his ability to take Apple to ever higher peaks. He is unique; though and i fear his departure and Apple's return to the mainstream management style.

 

[kenypowa]

There are many form factors in the Android world. Blackberry styled, full touch screen style, sliders, heck Sony even makes one that looks like a PSP Go.

I am actually shocked how much resemblance between HTC ChaCha (Status) and the Android prototype share. Even the numeric keypad is in the same position! Maybe Google should sue HTC for copying its prototype, but then again it is probably made by HTC in the first place.

 

[Porco]

I hate all this litigation, but I do think Apple have a stronger case than many.

I've not liked Schmidt since he gave that interview where he basically said (paraphrasing) that 'if you haven't got anything to hide you have nothing to be afraid of, so give us your data for selling please, nom nom nom....' (again: paraphrasing).

I do generally like Google though, and I think Android is good competition for Apple. I hope lawsuits get resolved and both companies get the chance to innovate rather than litigate - the only ones who really benefit from the latter are the lawyers.

 

[err404]

Exactly, I laugh each time 0815 and others bring up that dumb argument. Android is software. It is not a phone design, it's an OS to run on mobile and not so mobile devices. It doesn't care about screen size, buttons, case layouts. That's for hardware manufacturers, of which Google isn't one, to make.

To be fair; Apple is suing the hardware manufacturers, not Google.

 

[godzilla1200]

Innovation? Android would not exist if it wasn't for the iPhone. Just look at all the phones before the iPhone came out, and then look at EVERY phone after it came out: ALL LOOK THE SAME. Every company tried to copy Apple, after the iPhone, every phone became multitouch, the OS in every phone resembles in some way to the iOS.

The same can be said about the iPad. Before the iPad how many tablets existed? Some companies such as Toshiba tried but failed. Then came the iPad, with multitouch, iOS, and look at EVERY tablet in the market today. They are all the same, why? because they are all copying the iPad, and if the iPad hadn't been made, I am 100% sure that any of the tablets wouldn't exist either, or at least would be completely different. So don't come and say that Apple is crying with lawsuits instead of innovations.

EVERYONE is trying to play catch up with Apple in the phone/tablet market.

 

[Damon Hill]

I'll just put this right here: Business Insider: "How the iPhone changed smartphones forever"

 

[*LTD*]

To be fair; Apple is suing the hardware manufacturers, not Google.

Wait until The Consortium (from the Nortel Patent win) settles in and takes stock of what they have and what Google probably doesn't.

 

[samcraig]

Those posting pictures of early models of Android phones would like you to think that a phone is simply manufactured like that (finger snapping sound) and that the second the iPhone was released, all the copycats just magically appeared. Things don't work that fast.

Having worked for a major manufacturer of cell phones, I can tell you that it takes years. And most companies are developing several phones at once. And some get killed. Some morph into others. And so on.

There were touch-based smart phones as early as 2000. So it's natural that phone manufacturers were EVOLVING the technology and their hardware.

When the iPhone was released in 2007, it wasn't immediately embraced (reviewers/press) as a smartphone either because it lacked the ability to install apps beyond what came pre-installed with iOS (it didn't handle exchange accounts either, for example). It WAS the first phone to use multi-touch, though.

Point is - the talk of how there'd be no smartphones (or even that there were no smartphones before Apple) without Apple is just ridiculous. And wishful thinking for some.

And the notion that phone manufacturers rushed "clones" to market as soon as they saw the iPhone is also ridiculous if you know ANYTHING about R&D, manufacturing, etc of cellular devices.

 

[*LTD*]

I'll just put this right here: Business Insider: "How the iPhone changed smartphones forever"

You shouldn't need to put that up. But some folks could use a little reminder.

Point is - the talk of how there'd be no smartphones (or even that there were no smartphones before Apple) without Apple is just ridiculous. And wishful thinking for some.

Yeah, there would be smartphones without Apple. Not sure how "smart" they'd be though. We saw the state of the industry before the iPhone. I'm quite sure most of us would like to forget all about that period. The changes that happened were so sudden and profound it was like night and day. The landscape looked totally different. But not everyone was pulling off the cloning effort that well.

And the notion that phone manufacturers rushed "clones" to market as soon as they saw the iPhone is also ridiculous if you know ANYTHING about R&D, manufacturing, etc of cellular devices.

What R&D? Apple had already done it for everyone. Yes, manufacturers rushed clones to market (and it showed), just like they rushed tablets to the market after the iPad (and it shows - boy does it ever.)

Did THIS take a lot of R&D??

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/reviews/2010/11/worst-gadget-ever-ars-reviews-a-99-android-tablet.ars

And how about THIS thing:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/19/blackberry-storm-review/

How many hard months of careful and inspired R&D did it take to push out and pinch off THAT log of fail?

 

[err404]

The same can be said about the iPad. Before the iPad how many tablets existed?

The iPad launch always makes me laugh. I haven't seen a product announcement generate that much raw internet rage in a long time. The media panned the announcement and sites like engadget got so bad that they had to disable the comment system while things cooled down.
And look at where things are 18 months later. The iPad is an unqualified success. Some people want to claim it was an evolutionary product, but revolutionary is more accurate. It rebooted the tablet market segment. Cut deeply into the netbook segment and sent the competition scrambling to cash in on the success.