Very well said!!
Schmidt is a schiester ... Google's arrogance will catch up with them ...
***** talk like that makes one want to stop using google's services ...
Last edited:
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.
Google Chairman 'Not Too Worried' About Apple Lawsuits Over Android
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Very well said!!
Schmidt is a schiester ... Google's arrogance will catch up with them ...
***** talk like that makes one want to stop using google's services ...
Hearsay and innuendo counts as "very well said"?
Apple fans might want to believe certain things, but that doesn't make them true.
As someone that worked int he industry then...
You have to admit that the "smart phones" that existed were poor to mediocre at the time. They were clumsy, buggy, slow, clumsy (did I say that) and poorly executed. The iPhone, while not as extensible as the existing smart phones, was fluid, stable and easy to use. It offered great apps for the ones that were there.
You have to admit that the "smart phones" that existed were poor to mediocre at the time. They were clumsy, buggy, slow, clumsy (did I say that) and poorly executed. The iPhone, while not as extensible as the existing smart phones, was fluid, stable and easy to use. It offered great apps for the ones that were there.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)
It is hard to take anyone serious who claims the smartphone market was anything but garbage before the iPhone. All it proved there was a pent up demand where people would subject themselves to horrible phones and interfaces until someone introduced a real product.
These are the discussions we had leading up to the iPhone launch. That people would still be having that opinion 4 years later tells you what kind of huge anti apple bias they have. Smartphones ALL sucked in 2006.
It is hard to take anyone serious who claims the smartphone market was anything but garbage before the iPhone. All it proved there was a pent up demand where people would subject themselves to horrible phones and interfaces until someone introduced a real product.
These are the discussions we had leading up to the iPhone launch. That people would still be having that opinion 4 years later tells you what kind of huge anti apple bias they have. Smartphones ALL sucked in 2006.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
I had a good experience with my smartphones pre-iPhone.
Most enjoyable were the P800/P900 (Symbian UIQ), XDA II & HTC Wizard (WinMo) and the best S60 phone of the time, the Nokia N95.
The amazing thing is that all all 3 of these platforms are either dead (UIQ), dying (Symbian) or have been transformed into an almost new platform (WinMO/WP7).
So much has happened since I owned and used those devices but to claim that they were garbage, I simply can't agree with that. I just see early smartphones the first baby steps to what we have now.
marksman said:
I had a good experience with my smartphones pre-iPhone.
Most enjoyable were the P800/P900 (Symbian UIQ), XDA II & HTC Wizard (WinMo) and the best S60 phone of the time, the Nokia N95.
The amazing thing is that all all 3 of these platforms are either dead (UIQ), dying (Symbian) or have been transformed into an almost new platform (WinMO/WP7).
So much has happened since I owned and used those devices but to claim that they were garbage, I simply can't agree with that. I just see early smartphones the first baby steps to what we have now.
prior art
And if you fight then you patent might be invalidated by prior art that too is the way law works in the USA.
And that is what almost always happens to software patents as there has not been any real inventions in software development since the 60th, early 70th.
And if you fight then you patent might be invalidated by prior art that too is the way law works in the USA.
And that is what almost always happens to software patents as there has not been any real inventions in software development since the 60th, early 70th.
Right. And Apple is now also implementing features in iOS 5 that Android has had since version 1.0. Apple has clearly lost the advantage, they're no longer ahead of the pack. When I compare the Samsung Galaxy S2 or even S1 to the latest iPhones - or any other new Android phone -, the only debatable area where the iPhone --might-- still have an advantage is its casing; especially in the software department, iOS is far behind Android, and iOS is also still restricted as hell.
There are reasons why Android devices outsell iOS devices, and most of those reasons have nothing to do with the price.
This year, for the first time, you will see that the iPhone 5 (or 4s or whatever) won't even be able to catch up with by then almost one year old Android devices.
I disagree with that, but IMHO most inventions have come from academia.
The main problem with software patents seem to be that they seem to be approved with almost no scrutiny at all but that they are still powerful weapons simply because of the cost of getting them invalidated.
I'd be much more positive if the patents very actually required to be innovative to a higher degree.
For example: One of the patents Apple accuses HTC of ingringing describes the process of identifying telephone numbers, dates, and email addresses in free form text. An idea I believe was first brought to the public by Lotus Agenda. The really difficult and potentially inventive part of such an application is the analyzing techniques, and yet the patent doesn't describe the analysis. Instead it has pages of end user flow charts and UI screens that are utterly generic.
That's one of the patents people in this thread applaud. Apple is indeed a very innovative company but people are going all mushy over a context sensitive menu that pops up when you click some target. It's ridiculous.
Last edited:
Android is fine, I'm still on 1.6 G1 but it's an appliance like my toaster oven it works and I don't think about it. I'll get an iphone 5 when they come out as it's replacement.
But they still make alot of money for apple. I looked at the Samsung the other day if was fine but nothing special.
Last edited:
And this all becomes even more absurd when you consider that WebOS came from an ex-Apple exec who pursued the idea of basing a mobile device's app development on HTML, JavaScript and CSS--something Apple tried to push at first with the iPhone but was met with outcries for a real SDK. I'm not saying Apple should get credit for WebOS's notifications, but it's funny how much is rooted in the development of the iPhone and it makes it even more ironic that Apple gets accused of "ripping off" Android.
Every single person I know who owns an Android phone bought it because of the price or because it was the closest thing to an iPhone available on their carrier. Every single one. No Android owners I know bought it because of dogmatic adherence to "openness" or ideological high-mindedness or because they exhaustively compared specs and made "informed" decisions about the hardware. Price and non-availability of the iPhone. That's the Android success story in a nutshell. Stop kidding yourself that some anti-Apple crusade or the lofty ideals of FOSS or an impressive spec list mean anything outside the cozy bubble of reality geeks live in. To the average consumer, that's all meaningless.
Last edited:
A lot of sad people then.
Here where I live people tend to advance as technology goes and iPhone isn't on top of that list cause of that reason. Yeah a lot of people use it but because they choose to not because it's the "cool" thing to have.
Androids are very good. You can choose with keyboard, larger, smaller screen, better sound, battery and etc... Every single person I know (quite a few devs as well) choose their devices very wisely based on their needs and honestly you see more androids that iPhone which some cost more than the iPhone.
Your world seems like a ****** place from my perspective. People almost forced to buy stuff they don't like cause they can't afford something what they want.
If iPhone 5 or whatever it's going to be called doesn't bring some significant features even more people I know will go to Android. I develop for iOS so I'm kinda stuck with the platform at least for a while but honestly iPhone is not a leader anymore.
Same old, same old...
I know plenty of people that have Android phones because they want flexibility and bigger screens, etc. To insinuate that Android buyers only do so based on price is illogical and unfounded.
But the point here isn't to debate what OS is better or not (people can vote with their wallets), it is to debate whether Google is able to defend itself against patent lawsuits.
Increasingly, I've been moving to "Bing" as my default search engine as it seems like Google has decided to go the way of the "dark side"... being a bully in areas they can get away with doing so, stealing private information from wi-fi networks, and stealing IP from virtually every major company on the planet.
Initially it seemed like their intent was good -- to provide alternatives to draconian solutions from long-in-the-tooth companies. But, more and more it seems like Google is either incapable or unwilling to develop products/services with their own intellect. They'd rather just see what everyone else is doing and try to do it a little better. That only works for so long. If you truly don't take risks by innovating -- really bringing something new to market -- all you end up doing is pi$$ing everyone off and setting yourself up for lawsuits. That seems to be what is at work here.
Ultimately, Google is going to need somebody truly innovative at the helm... not just a guy that pretends to be on your side than stabs you in the back the first chance they get.
Judging by the list of companies suing Google (MS, Apple, Oracle) and their respective portfolios, I would say that Google should REALLY worry about that... their entire OS business model could be toast a lot sooner than we think and they'll be forced to pass those additional costs on to consumers and businesses...
I know plenty of people that have Android phones because they want flexibility and bigger screens, etc. To insinuate that Android buyers only do so based on price is illogical and unfounded.
But the point here isn't to debate what OS is better or not (people can vote with their wallets), it is to debate whether Google is able to defend itself against patent lawsuits.
Increasingly, I've been moving to "Bing" as my default search engine as it seems like Google has decided to go the way of the "dark side"... being a bully in areas they can get away with doing so, stealing private information from wi-fi networks, and stealing IP from virtually every major company on the planet.
Initially it seemed like their intent was good -- to provide alternatives to draconian solutions from long-in-the-tooth companies. But, more and more it seems like Google is either incapable or unwilling to develop products/services with their own intellect. They'd rather just see what everyone else is doing and try to do it a little better. That only works for so long. If you truly don't take risks by innovating -- really bringing something new to market -- all you end up doing is pi$$ing everyone off and setting yourself up for lawsuits. That seems to be what is at work here.
Ultimately, Google is going to need somebody truly innovative at the helm... not just a guy that pretends to be on your side than stabs you in the back the first chance they get.
Judging by the list of companies suing Google (MS, Apple, Oracle) and their respective portfolios, I would say that Google should REALLY worry about that... their entire OS business model could be toast a lot sooner than we think and they'll be forced to pass those additional costs on to consumers and businesses...
Absolutely. And well said (typed). It doesn't make someone an Apple "hater," "troll," or "basher" to acknowledge the history and look at it holistically instead of through tunnel vision ignoring all of the outside influences, etc.
No - not all smart phones sucked in 2006. And the rest of your comment above is a bit ridiculous. People subjected themselves to horrible phones? You write that as if people were miserable and didn't like the phones they were using yet tolerated it.
That's what I find silly. It's EASY to say that in hindsight and to look back and say "how could we have done what we did on those phones" - much like a child today wouldn't fathom researching a paper at a LIBRARY instead of googling. That doesn't mean people subjected themselves to a miserable experience. There was no alternative.
And new technology tends to be fun and exciting. I remember how excited people were about palm pilots - and how groundbreaking the Palm VII was - because it could connect to the "internet" and had apps that delivered clippings - from anywhere without syncing.
I used a Palm treo for a few years before the iPhone existed - as did so many people and it was an amazing experience in comparison to dumb phones and even other smart phones at the time.
I am not diminishing iPhone's place in history - the iPhone was evolutionary or revolutionary depending on your viewpoint.
One of the most annoying things on a thread like this or on MacRumors in general is that some people honestly believe that life and technology didn't exist before Apple introduced the iPod, iPhone and iPad. They've certainly changed the way many people work and live - along with the marketplace for the competition.
Not the same thing at all. Apple tried to push highly sandboxed server based web pages. Palm WebOS apps have access to the entire system and are packaged and sold and loaded just like a native app. (I wrote several for my family.)
Hold on. Not fair, and it just muddies your other possibly good points.
The unintentional collection of WiFi packets during the few seconds that Google mapping trucks passed by unsecured hotspots, was simply the same kind of non-malicious programming goof-up that Apple had with their overly large cache of location information.
I keep saying it: I loved my 2005 Samsung i730. It was incredibly fast (520Mhz cpu, which I had overclocked to nearly 700Mhz at times. Nice GPU as well. I ported Direct3D apps to it and they worked great.)... I had useful 3G apps on it such as Google Maps and Slingplayer that weren't available for years on the iPhone... and I had it customized with third party tools such as a Visual Task Manager that showed a thumbnail of each running app like WebOS later had. So I was quite happy.
Heck, even back in 2000 I was surfing the web on a Jornada 720 PDA with CDPD aerial card. Full IE 4 on a 640x240 screen gave the user the "real internet" in ways that even the later iPhone could not... because there was almost no need to horizontally scroll with that setup at that time. Certainly no need to zoom in and out.
We didn't have much eye candy, but we sure had fun for years while Apple sat things out until the market and tech had matured.
Last edited:
I'm arguing that Android is following an integrated HW/OS development model to a much larger extent than you acknowledge. This is evident with Honeycomb specifically targeting tablets and the awkwardness of various dual screen attempts.
The Android dev team has a pretty obvious concept on mind for the hardware layout (see Nexus One) and the more a manufacturer strays from that intention, the worse the end user experience becomes.
While certainly wider than Apple's, Android does have a hardware vision. It is better off for having that focus.
*yes a vendor could use the core to build their own off-shoot UI/Form Factor, but this requires far more effort and developer collaboration than using the default ~4" touchscreen UI.
Honeycomb is a tablet OS. Again, various tablets are free to have various
Dual screen attempts work. The fact that the Android devs never wrote support for dual screens does not make Android some kind of vertically integrated product. It is very much a hardware agnostic operating system, exactly like Linux or the BSDs or Solaris.
As a hardware vendor, it is your job to write in support for your hardware.
The UI is not built for inches. No pixel based UIs are. They are built for resolutions, of which Android supports many, from very low 320x240 up to the newer 960x640 models. Honeycomb supports even higher pixel counts since it is made for tablets.
People need to stop looking at Android through iOS painted glasses. Both OSes work off different paradigms and are intended for different purposes. iOS is very much part of a vertically integrated solution. Android is hardware agnostic. Both methods have virtues and problems. The fact that a certain Android handset shares the iPhone's form factor does not make Android a copy of iOS.
I think it really depends on your preference to gauge who the "leader" is. The #1 question is "what is your must-have feature?". I'll give you some examples:
1) Must have 4G --> Android
2) Must have Battery Life --> iPhone
3) Must have great camera --> Toss up, but many argue iPhone takes best pics even though some Android devices have the same lens (maybe HDR or something that happens after the lens -- who knows)
4) Must have legal easy-to-use music, movies, and books --> iPhone
5) Must allow me to load any app I want --> Android (or jailbroken iPhone)
6) Must have tons of quality apps available --> iPhone
7) Must have tons of quality games available --> iPhone
8) Must have Netflix -> Toss up. Sure iPhone has Netflix, but six Android devices that are comparably priced have it too (though not all to the dismay of many existing Android owners).
** CORRECTION/UPDATE: As of today, Engadget reports Netflix app to work on 24 Android devices. **
9) Must have a no-brain wireless-to-TV-or-speakers streaming solution --> iPhone
10) Must not be created by Apple --> Android
I put #10 in their for fun since there are definitely folks that think that way. Anyway, I work every day tinkering with computer systems to make them bend to my will for my company's customers. I do this on Windows, Linux, AIX -- I do it with Oracle and DB2 and SQL Server. I get paid lots of money to deal with this stuff. I prefer iOS because when it comes to personal computing I want things to just be easy -- I don't want tons of config options. I don't want to have rig it up to have some feature that an iOS device has. I just want somebody to put together for me and make it work since nobody is paying me to config and maintain my phone or tablet. So coming from somebody who is very technically savvy, I prefer the operating system that was designed for the folks who are not savvy. I'll wait for Apple's wireless syncing in iOS 5 so I don't have to bother jailbreaking my iPhone and installing third-party stuff on my computer and phone. I just don't need my phone to be another source of work -- i want it to be a source of enjoyment.
EDIT:
11) Must have a physical keyboard --> Android
12) Must have a choice of screen sizes --> Android
13) Must have a UI that immediately responds to touch --> iPhone
14) Must have a fruit logo on it --> iPhone
I added #14 because some people think that way too.
Last edited:
Come to think about it, it is the same here. Everyone I know without an iPhone is either because it was not available or they could not afford it. No other reasons.
This is why the iPad is such a smashing success. With no carrier issues and Apple aggressively pricing it, the took away those two issues from consumers and that is why they literally own the entire tablet market.
I'm sorry but I find this straw man far more annoying. The point isn't that Apple created everything, it's that Apple created a new way of using these things and brought it to the mainstream. It's such a joke to me now listening and reading tech blogs and people int he industry pretend that virtual keyboards are the best way to go when they couldn't stop shrieking that people would never give up their precious QWERTYs back when the first iPhone was introduced. So was Apple the first to introduce a soft keyboard? Of course not. They just created the best one that made it feasible for other companies to sell the public on using them.
The iPhone was revolutionary and absolutely created the smartphone market we see today. Not only did it change the way people viewed smartphones, it also trained the public to be comfortable paying an additional data charge each month, which was monumental to the industry.
Would you even try to argue that mobile browsing meant anything prior to mobile Safari?
And yeah, sure, there was a bunch of phones in production before the iPhone. And those companies could not get it right until Apple. Hey, just like tablets, right? That's why the market is flooded with worthy non-Apple tablets, right? right.
Let's just stop with the "Apple created everything" meme. The truth is they did indeed revolutionize the industry and changed just about everything. There would absolutely be a smartphone market if Apple never produced a single iPhone. And they'd all look like BlackBerry clones cause the thinking before Apple was that no one would ever use a virtually keyboard, no one would want to read the web on such a tiny screen, etc.
Complete opposite for me, I'm seeing the Galaxy S II in more and more hands each day and see plenty of Samsung and HTC Android/Windows phones amongst people I know.
Every single person who has an Android/Windows phone that I know could easily have got an iPhone for the same or less than they are paying and as the iPhone is available on all major UK networks, that isn't even a factor.
I will say that anecdotal posts like yours, mine and Inkwamp's couldn't ever explain why either platform sells as well as it is in the worldwide market.
yeah that argument in my book breaks down when you look at AT&T and Verizon. They can get the iPhone, have high end android phones that OMG sell and sell well. Hell Verizon has Android phones than cost MORE than the iPhone and they are selling.
Now it does depend on the crowd you are around. If you look at my CS classes for example of the phone OS iOS is only out numbers palm at this point. WP7 has passed it and I see more of those than iPhones.
Android is the largest share and ask them why they chose Android it was because they could customize the hell out of it. Blackberry is 2nd place. Then you have WP7 followed by iOS. It took WP7 6 months but it has gained enough of a foot hold to pass iOS in these circles.
The people on Android interested in iPhone is pretty much nill. Chose Android because it offered what they wanted.
Yeah, at my work, I know a few that ditched their iPhones like a bad habit for Android handsets because those handsets had features that the iPhone didn't have. One guy I know who's a big gamer ditched his iPhone for the Xperia Play as soon as it landed on Rogers.
Hint : Outside of the Apple sphere, people still shop for a phone based on their wants and needs, not the logo printed on it. The iPhone isn't anything special really, it's just a phone with an Apple printed on it. Android handsets, RIM handsets, Nokia handsets, they provide the same features and in the case of the Android, the same cluttered mess of an app store (really, 450,000 apps ? How many of those are actually useful ?
)