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

[kilcher]

Of course they're going to say they're not worried but any company that's not worried about the patent/sue-crazy environment that's developing is, well, crazy and not being responsible. Right or wrong it's a reality and something that needs to be dealt with one way or another.

 

[jacobj]

I like the presence of competition and how that forces Apple to stay on their toes. Apple are innovative, but having people on their heels is a good thing. I choose not to buy android because I have the whole apple ecosystem and love the lack of thought that I need to have. I have even thought of ditching Sky (UK) as I can save money buying tv from iTunes.

However there are issues and sometimes Apple is slow to respond. The long and short of it is that everyone I know that has bought into the apple ecosystem and tried something else has come back, not because others were substandard, but because management and sourcing of content was too much hassle.

 

[Dbrown]

Your analogy failed because Sharp didn't create an entire market for its product, Apple did. You keep saying "Apple made it popular." Well, yes, that's not a minor point. It wasn't an accident that the iPhone was popular. They changed the way people view smartphones and the way they used them.

And exactly how didnt sharp create a new market for LCDTV? Until Sharp came along the LCDTV market was nonexistent . All the same points you make for apple "revolutionizing" the smartphone market apply to Sharp. I mean you could say the same for every company that was first.

There was not a very big smartphone market at the time, and to even suggest that slab touchscreen phones were starting to hit and Apple jumped on it is either completely ignorant of history or purposely misleading. I'll let you choose which.

But there was a smartphone market, and the very existence of LG prada being developed independently from apple shows that the industry was developing ideas for slab touchscreen devices. It would have been just a matter of time before that form factor would have been adopted by the industry (for the simple fact to get people to upgrade their devices). Apple was the first company to make it popular, which isnt all that remarkable because someone has to be first.

People weren't interested in smartphones and paying a premium to own them until the iPhone.

People weren't interested in LCD TV and paying a premium until Aquos came along either.

I have no problem giving apple credit where credit is due... Apple did in fact singlehandedly create the tablet market today.

 

[pacmacman]

And exactly how didnt sharp create a new market for LCDTV? Until Sharp came along the LCDTV market was nonexistent . All the same points you make for apple "revolutionizing" the smartphone market apply to Sharp. I mean you could say the same for every company that was first.

Look, this analogy is dead. It was bad to begin with, I'll throw you one more bone on it and you can chew it to your heart's content: comparing the LCDTV market with the smartphone market is just dumb.

Enjoy.

But there was a smartphone market, and the very existence of LG prada being developed independently from apple shows that the industry was developing ideas for slab touchscreen devices. It would have been just a matter of time before that form factor would have been adopted by the industry (for the simple fact to get people to upgrade their devices). Apple was the first company to make it popular, which isnt all that remarkable because someone has to be first.

You really don't know anything about the history of the smartphone market. You've been twisting yourself into pretzels trying to "prove" the iPhone was incidental to its mainstream acceptance. You've argued that Apple was simply "first" and thus no big deal that it broke the floodgates, while insisting that the LG Prada was first as well. What's curious about that is the LG Prada did not usher in the current smartphone market we see, so even by your own definition simply being first doesn't cut it. Whoops.

Honestly, I've spoken to some pretty diehard Android guys and I've yet to run into any one of them who would deny that the iPhone created the current market today. I'm not calling you a diehard Android guy, I have no idea. Just illustrating that your argument is more illogical and extreme than those put forth by people who actively hate Apple.

People weren't interested in LCD TV and paying a premium until Aquos came along either.

I have no problem giving apple credit where credit is due... Apple did in fact singlehandedly create the tablet market today.

You mean they took a previously small niche and exploded it by offering a their version of a product (a tablet in this case) that was functional, accessible, and priced well?

Sounds familiar.

(I bet in a couple of years when there are some good Android, Windows, and WebOS tablets on the market you'll be back here insisting that Apple didn't create this market, they were simply "first". Not a big deal, someone had to be first!)

 

[Dbrown]

Look, this analogy is dead. It was bad to begin with, I'll throw you one more bone on it and you can chew it to your heart's content: comparing the LCDTV market with the smartphone market is just dumb.

Enjoy.

You cant even refute a single point.

You really don't know anything about the history of the smartphone market. You've been twisting yourself into pretzels trying to "prove" the iPhone was incidental to its mainstream acceptance. You've argued that Apple was simply "first" and thus no big deal that it broke the floodgates, while insisting that the LG Prada was first as well. What's curious about that is the LG Prada did not usher in the current smartphone market we see, so even by your own definition simply being first doesn't cut it. Whoops.

Try to understand what i'm saying. Apple didnt engineer any of the parts that go into the iphone. Touchscreen, digitizer, SOC, etc... all these things were made by other companies to be used in mobile phones. So the technology existed and was going to be used in a phone whether or not appple made an iphone. Phones were already heading in that direction, apple was in the right place, right time. Apple made the slab touchscreen popular... that is not revolutionary as you suggest. And also apple "created" the current smartphone market is also false.

You mean they took a previously small niche and exploded it by offering a their version of a product (a tablet in this case) that was functional, accessible, and priced well?

Sounds familiar.

Previous tablets were really PCs with a touch interface. They are in no way comparable to current tablets and dont even compete in the same space. Two completely different markets.

(I bet in a couple of years when there are some good Android, Windows, and WebOS tablets on the market you'll be back here insisting that Apple didn't create this market, they were simply "first". Not a big deal, someone had to be first!)

Why would I change my mind? There was no market for consumer tablets prior to ipad.

 

[jacobj]

Try to understand what i'm saying. Apple didnt engineer any of the parts that go into the iphone. Touchscreen, digitizer, SOC, etc... all these things were made by other companies to be used in mobile phones. So the technology existed and was going to be used in a phone whether or not appple made an iphone. Phones were already heading in that direction, apple was in the right place, right time. Apple made the slab touchscreen popular... that is not revolutionary as you suggest. And also apple "created" the current smartphone market is also false.

People miss the point regrading the Apple revolutions. Apple do not bring new hardware to the market, they bring complete solutions. I had many conversations with people when the iPhone came out regarding the idea that Apple had no idea what it was doing in the market: the argument (even from Nokia) was that Apple was new. My argument was that the lack of adoption of n technology in the smartphone space was a software issue, not a hardware one and that Apple had been in that game longer than most.

I hate to say it, but I was right. Other smartphone manufacturers only showed signs of surviving against Apple when someone else provided the software. RIM and Nokia did not embrace that new software and they are failing.

So the question is, did Google innovate or did Eric choose to start the project based on what he thought was a threat he saw coming in from Apple? Let's not forget that he was on the board at Apple at the time and would have been privy to the project. I am not saying that he copied specific ideas, but was the project concept as a whole? Nobody discusses this point much.

So who will win? Both. There is room in this market for both.

PS as for the tablet comment: it made me laugh. Again you see the old tablets as being different to the new. You miss the point: some old style tablets sold because people with money were trying the experiment, knowing that they wanted something like the device they we buying, but not understanding how they would use it. It took Apple to define that piece of hardware and software and now people are buying the in their millions. You miss the whole point about what Apple does and why it succeeds. So do most of the anti-apple posters here: you all seem so pent up and determined to prove that we are all mindless sheep with little intellect and valid opinion of our own that you forget to see what is clear before you. If you were phones I would brand you all Nokias. ;-)

 

[pacmacman]

You cant even refute a single point.

You'd have to have one first.

Try to understand what i'm saying. Apple didnt engineer any of the parts that go into the iphone. Touchscreen, digitizer, SOC, etc... all these things were made by other companies to be used in mobile phones. So the technology existed and was going to be used in a phone whether or not appple made an iphone. Phones were already heading in that direction, apple was in the right place, right time. Apple made the slab touchscreen popular... that is not revolutionary as you suggest. And also apple "created" the current smartphone market is also false.

Listen, as I've said, you simply don't know what you're talking about. I've said repeatedly "Apple revolutionized the market" yet you're still babbling about touch screens. I didn't suggest, intimate, argue, pretend, perform a puppet show even suggesting Apple invented smartphones. Yet now THAT is your plan of attack? Is it that you realize you've been wrong all along and the tank is empty so it's time to change gears and hope I don't notice? It's called a "straw man" and you seem to be all stocked up.

You haven't made a single convincing argument. To even suggest that the smartphone market would look identical to what it does now without the iPhone isn't even worth a second thought. That you don't even understand your comments about the iPad and how it could relate to the iPhone pretty much proves you're completely out of your depth here.

 

[pacmacman]

People miss the point regrading the Apple revolutions. Apple do not bring new hardware to the market, they bring complete solutions. I had many conversations with people when the iPhone came out regarding the idea that Apple had no idea what it was doing in the market: the argument (even from Nokia) was that Apple was new. My argument was that the lack of adoption of n technology in the smartphone space was a software issue, not a hardware one and that Apple had been in that game longer than most.

I hate to say it, but I was right. Other smartphone manufacturers only showed signs of surviving against Apple when someone else provided the software. RIM and Nokia did not embrace that new software and they are failing.

So the question is, did Google innovate or did Eric choose to start the project based on what he thought was a threat he saw coming in from Apple? Let's not forget that he was on the board at Apple at the time and would have been privy to the project. I am not saying that he copied specific ideas, but was the project concept as a whole? Nobody discusses this point much.

So who will win? Both. There is room in this market for both.

PS as for the tablet comment: it made me laugh. Again you see the old tablets as being different to the new. You miss the point: some old style tablets sold because people with money were trying the experiment, knowing that they wanted something like the device they we buying, but not understanding how they would use it. It took Apple to define that piece of hardware and software and now people are buying the in their millions. You miss the whole point about what Apple does and why it succeeds. So do most of the anti-apple posters here: you all seem so pent up and determined to prove that we are all mindless sheep with little intellect and valid opinion of our own that you forget to see what is clear before you. If you were phones I would brand you all Nokias. ;-)

But da smartphonez already were maded so Apple didn't do nuttin!

Great post!

And to expand on the last portion a bit, it seems strange that Apple haters have this need now to rewrite history. What is the problem with giving Apple the credit for creating what we're seeing now? I love this market. I love that Android exists, that Windows was forced to create a new (and really cool) OS from the ground up. The problem, I think, is that they read a statement like "Apple revolutionized the market" as "Apple makes the only device anyone should ever own." They're too fixated on constantly proving how awful they think Apple is, which really just boils down to preference. I honestly don't see iOS being better than Android, just different. Both OS's more or less do the same things, so it's just a matter of how they go about doing it. At that point, it's up to the individual user to decide which "how" works best for them. But this isn't ever good enough in this arguments. No no no, Apple sucks and people only buy their products because of marketing, they're dumb, they're sheep, etc.

 

[Andyftw]

.

.