Google Co-Founder Accuses Jobs of 'Rewriting History' of iPhone and Android

[KnightWRX]

Have you noticed that you are the only one here that is seeing it that way and yet you think everyone else misunderstands what is going on?

Are you saying I'm the only one that bothered to read and comprehend the context of the article ?

Apple's Jobs recently told a conference that Google was responsible for the change in the relationship between the two companies because Google elected to compete with Apple's iPhone by developing the Android smartphone software.

This is what Larry's quote is in context of. Read it again, slowly, carefully. You'll see that it is exactly the way I see it in my other posts and "everyone else" (your quote not mine) seems to be misunderstanding.

 

[Lord Vader]

Is this what all fanboys do when they can't debate an argument based on facts?

I guess it's easier to convince yourself you are correct when you consistently ignore external points of views.

No that's what all people should do, because arguing with him is a waste of time.

Your post is a good demonstration of fragmentation because I'm having a really hard time following your thought process

When i bought my iPod touch it was running 2.0 out of the box. Later Apple released 3.0 and I had no problems updating to 3.0. Now Apple released 4.0 and with some features missing (JB solves that) i was bale to update to 4.0.

That's the problem with Android, because it's up to carriers and phone manufacturers. G1 is perfect example of this fragmentation.

 

[Max(IT)]

Nokia business is selling phones, as many as possible. Definitely not spamming. Just like Apple is into computers, iPods, iPhones to sell as many as possible. Nokia recently have been targetting poorer countries - which is a damned good strategy - there is a lot of opportunity / plenty of consumers.

Nokia make phones that appeal to consumers, that is why they are #1. Nokia creates phones and consumers buy them.

Consumers like iPhones, iPods and computers, that is why they buy them. Should we call Apple spamming the consumer with iPods? Of course not.

How many iPod models on the market? 3?
How many Nokia phones on the market, covering basically the same product class, with just some cosmetics changes between models?
That is spamming the market ...

You are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be fragmented in your post. Being fragmented does not mean that old hardware does not run the latest OS. Being fragmented means that CURRENT hardware either doesn't or can't run the latest OS. Google has a HUGE problem with the Android market because manufacturers are releasing devices right now that have versions of the Android OS that are not the current version. Heck, even the same manufacturer releases models with different versions. And there is no guarantee that they will be updated. And on top of that some of the manufacturers are even installing a different Android UI replacements like Sense and Motoblur. Let's take a look at Android phones that either being released (or already have been released) this year.

• Acer, June, v2.1
• Garmin Garminfone, June, v1.6
• HTC, v2.1
• LG, March, May, and June, v1.6
• Motorola, 1.5, 1.5 (upgradable to 2.1), 1.6, 2.1, 2.2
• Pantech, v2.1
• Samsung, v2.1
• Sony Ericsson, v1.6

Heck, I could have just listed Motorola's plans to demonstrate how darn fragmented the Android market is.

Now, every iOS device released after the release of iOS 4 will have iOS 4 on it. The same thing happened when version 3 came out and the same thing will happen when version 5 comes out. Will some older devices not be able to upgrade or take advantage of all the new features? Sure but NO NEW devices will have this problem. You can not say that on the Android side and that is fragmentation.



What rich features did Google create for the iPhone? Did you miss the part when he said that it was Apple that wrote the iPhone Maps and YouTube applications? Once again, Apple wrote those apps, not Google.

Absolutely right.
Motorola alone is the demonstration of what fragmentation means.

Actually, being "fragmented" to the average user would mean that a phone won't run the apps that she wants.

The average user couldn't care less whether the phone runs Android 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 or 11.11. If the phone can surf, check email, and actually reliably make and receive voice telephone calls - most people will be satisfied.

The focus on "run the latest OS" is a bizarre bit of PC-think. Apple has realized this with IphoneOS4 and is dropping older Iphones.

The industry model is "if you want new features, buy a new phone". Apple's bean counters will figure this out very quickly.

The fact that IphoneOS upgrades to older Iphones were possible reflects the stagnation of the Iphone platform - hardware-wise the Iphone4 is the first substantial change in the platform.

Don't cry "Android fragmentation" - that whine will soon bite you in the butt.

Oh my God, you performed seriously in the ancient art of mirror climbing...

So when speaking about iPhone fragmentation means you cannot install latest os in a 3 years old model, but when you speak about Android "who cares about os, people just wanna make phone calls, email, web surfing" ???
Uao, very good point

No that's what all people should do, because arguing with him is a waste of time.

Lol

 

[Carniphage]

Is that why Apple is in distant 3rd place in market share ?

In the entire cellphone market, Apple is a drop of water in the ocean.

Some of you guys need to step out of the reality distortion field. Apple is not leading the market. Not by a longshot.

Fact check.
Apple is the single most profitable handset manufacturer on the planet. It is now significantly ahead of Nokia - and this year that gap is set to widen even more.

It is always a mistake to use marketshare as a proxy for success. Companies cannot spend marketshare. They cannot re-invest marketshare. Companies that pursue marketshare over profitability end up nosediving into irrelevance.

Profitability matters, which is why Nokia is taking such a kicking despite their enormous market share.

C.

 

[DMann]

Apple also has "an increasingly fragmented" future to deal with.

Note

iOS 4 works with iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, and iPhone 3G. Not all features are compatible with all devices. For example, multitasking is available only with iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS.

http://www.apple.com/iphone/softwareupdate/​

Yeah, so?

Notice the added features which are compatible on the 3G:

Folders
Threaded mail
iTunes playlist creation/editing
5x digital zoom
iBooks - PDFs
Photos: sort by albums, events, faces, and places
Spell check
Spotlight search
Game Center

I suppose Android phones' various OSs and features can somehow be updated in this fashion.

Do you expect that IphoneOS5 will run on anything older than an Iphone4? I would be surprised if it does.

I'd be very surprised if iOS5 didn't run on the 3GS, and to a limited degree, on the 3G.

Phones aren't computers with 4 to 6 year productive life spans - when the 20 month upgrade comes around, get a new one!

Gen 1 iPhone runs iOS3 quite productively, especially considering that it's a 4 year old phone - which is more than one might say about the Google G1.

IphoneOS4 has ruined "fragmentation" as a reason for Apple fans to knock Android. Reality breaks through the distortion field.

Riiiiight.

The level of fragmentation of an Android Phone, each stuck with its original OS/firmware/bug's/missing features/as is/forever, is somehow comparable to the iPhone, each with at least three years of OS updates/firmware updates/bug fixes/added features?

We won't even discuss app compatibility across the diversely fragmented Android platform - OS versions and various 'fragmented' hardware, feature sets, form factors, screen resolutions, input mechanisms, etc.

Nor to mention that the Linux platform itself is highly susceptible to fragmentation, with its lack of consistency across the broad spectrum of Linux distros.

You are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be fragmented in your post. Being fragmented does not mean that old hardware does not run the latest OS. Being fragmented means that CURRENT hardware either doesn't or can't run the latest OS. Google has a HUGE problem with the Android market because manufacturers are releasing devices right now that have versions of the Android OS that are not the current version. Heck, even the same manufacturer releases models with different versions. And there is no guarantee that they will be updated. And on top of that some of the manufacturers are even installing a different Android UI replacements like Sense and Motoblur. Let's take a look at Android phones that either being released (or already have been released) this year.

• Acer, June, v2.1
• Garmin Garminfone, June, v1.6
• HTC, v2.1
• LG, March, May, and June, v1.6
• Motorola, 1.5, 1.5 (upgradable to 2.1), 1.6, 2.1, 2.2
• Pantech, v2.1
• Samsung, v2.1
• Sony Ericsson, v1.6

Heck, I could have just listed Motorola's plans to demonstrate how darn fragmented the Android market is.

Precisely.

In attempting to equate a molehill to an enormous mountain in terms of fragmentation of platform and hardware, (handset and feature set which Google has no control of) clearly, this demonstrates more than a fundamental misunderstanding.

Now, every iOS device released after the release of iOS 4 will have iOS 4 on it. The same thing happened when version 3 came out and the same thing will happen when version 5 comes out. Will some older devices not be able to upgrade or take advantage of all the new features? Sure but NO NEW devices will have this problem. You can not say that on the Android side and that is fragmentation.

Quite true - as long as Apple designs its own OS/hardware, fragmentation will be held to a minimum.

OTOH, with Android and its permutations of OS versions, hardware sets, feature sets, etc. fragmentation is prone to progress.

Your post is a good demonstration of fragmentation because I'm having a really hard time following your thought process

My thoughts, exactly.

The "fragmentation" of iOS isn't even close to Android.

Not even remotely close.

First most of that isn't fragmentation but disabled features in order to sell new Phones. Background running is probably the only feature that would remotely touch the fragmentation category and even then the app would still function the same as it did on iOS 3.

Second even right now there are only 3 'real' different hardware versions of the iPhone and 2 different OSs.

Finally most apps don't need the extra ram or faster cpu of the 3GS (or 4) so bc with the older iPhone and 3G is still very high.

Well said.

The act of attempting to equate a missing/disabled feature in an update, no less, with another platform's multiple levels of fragmentation falls far off the sensibility chart.

When i bought my iPod touch it was running 2.0 out of the box. Later Apple released 3.0 and I had no problems updating to 3.0. Now Apple released 4.0 and with some features missing (JB solves that) i was bale to update to 4.0.

So much for obsolescence with Apple's products.

That's the problem with Android, because it's up to carriers and phone manufacturers. G1 is perfect example of this fragmentation.

A great example, indeed.

Oh my God, you performed seriously in the ancient art of mirror climbing...

So when speaking about iPhone fragmentation means you cannot install latest os in a 3 years old model, but when you speak about Android "who cares about os, people just wanna make phone calls, email, web surfing" ???
Uao, very good point

Lol

Backpedalling, at its finest.

 

[macsmurf]

Have you noticed that you are the only one here that is seeing it that way and yet you think everyone else misunderstands what is going on?

He's not , though. He one of the few who'll actually try argue with you guys.

I actually find the blatant ignorance and the invention or gross distorsion of facts entertaining. That's why I don't get involved too much.

 

[jfanning]

Fact check.
Apple is the single most profitable handset manufacturer on the planet. It is now significantly ahead of Nokia - and this year that gap is set to widen even more.

Fact check.

As a consumer it isn't in my best interest for a company to be making an obscene profit off me, so trying to push that as a measure of their success doesn't really cut it.

 

[Carniphage]

Fact check.

As a consumer it isn't in my best interest for a company to be making an obscene profit off me, so trying to push that as a measure of their success doesn't really cut it.

Business Thesis.

Apple makes OBSCENE PROFITS by offering POOR VALUE to its customers.

JFanning
aged 5 (communist)



You really have not thought that argument through have you? Profitable companies become so by offering great products and services that people are willing to pay for. When companies offer weak products their profitability declines. See US Auto Industry.

C.

 

[Lord Vader]

Business Thesis.

Apple makes OBSCENE PROFITS by offering POOR VALUE to its customers.

JFanning
aged 5 (communist)

 

[jfanning]

Business Thesis.

Apple makes OBSCENE PROFITS by offering POOR VALUE to its customers.

JFanning
aged 5 (communist)

Starting personal insults, a great example of having no argument...

You really have not thought that argument through have you? Profitable companies become so by offering great products and services that people are willing to pay for. When companies offer weak products their profitability declines. See US Auto Industry.

This is totally different from what you originally said, it you have a point stick to it. You claimed Apple was making more profits than anyone. I don't care if a business is profitable, I care when they make obscene profits with or without care for their customers. I hope you understand this large difference.

 

[Carniphage]

Starting personal insults, a great example of having no argument...


This is totally different from what you originally said, it you have a point stick to it. You claimed Apple was making more profits than anyone. I don't care if a business is profitable, I care when they make obscene profits with or without care for their customers. I hope you understand this large difference.

Check back in the thread.
It went like this....
Kdarling: Apple did not do anything clever. They are just standing on the shoulders of giants.
Me: If that's true, how come these giants have not been successful in their response to Apple.
KnightWRX: Apple are *not* successful in this market. They are number 3
Me: They are number 1 in terms of profit. Which at the end of the day is what matters.
You: Profit is not an indicator of success. OBSCENE profits more so.
Me: LOL. Of course profit is an indicator of success.
You: Don't laugh at me! More wittering.

Please explain the difference between "profit" and "obscene profit". And then kindly explain how you have arrived at the conclusion that Apple's profits did not arise from their success in delivering consumer value.


C.

 

[jfanning]

Check back in the thread.
It went like this....
Kdarling: Apple did not do anything clever. They are just standing on the shoulders of giants.
Me: If that's true, how come these giants have not been successful in their response to Apple.
KnightWRX: Apple are *not* successful in this market. They are number 3
Me: They are number 1 in terms of profit. Which at the end of the day is what matters.
You: Profit is not an indicator of success. OBSCENE profits more so.
Me: LOL. Of course profit is an indicator of success.
You: Don't laugh at me! More wittering.

Please explain how this little speech of yours counteracts the fact that the profits Apple makes are obscene?

Please explain the difference between "profit" and "obscene profit". And then kindly explain how you have arrived at the conclusion that Apple's profits did not arise from their success in delivering consumer value.

here you go...

profit |ˈpräfit|
noun
a financial gain, esp. the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something : pretax profits | his eyes brightened at the prospect of profit.
• advantage; benefit : there's no profit in screaming at referees from the bench.

obscene |əbˈsēn|
adjective
(of the portrayal or description of sexual matters) offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency : obscene jokes | obscene literature.
• offensive to moral principles; repugnant : using animals' skins for fur coats is obscene.

Do a search on obscene profits by corporates, here is an example

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/31/shell-posts-obscene-profi_n_84221.html


And as for customer value, I am an Apple customer, with several Macs, and several iPods, but every day I think less and less of them, so as for value I could swap to another brand of machine with no loss of this so called "customer value"

 

[Lord Vader]

Please explain how this little speech of yours counteracts the fact that the profits Apple makes are obscene?




here you go...



Do a search on obscene profits by corporates, here is an example

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/31/shell-posts-obscene-profi_n_84221.html


And as for customer value, I am an Apple customer, with several Macs, and several iPods, but every day I think less and less of them, so as for value I could swap to another brand of machine with no loss of this so called "customer value"

Tell me you are joking.

 

[Carniphage]

Please explain how this little speech of yours counteracts the fact that the profits Apple makes are obscene?

That wasn't a speech, it was a short form summary of my part in the thread. It was for context.

As far as I can tell, this thread seems to be about the commercial rivalries about two commercial entities. Your view "as a consumer" on the "obscene" nature of Apple's profits seems to be a bit irrelevant.

Apple has arrived in the cellphone market and in three short years has owned it. In commercial terms, that story it is pretty remarkable.

I think it is comical that you have decided to interpret this in "moral" terms. But it is your right to do so. But given this is not a monopoly. It's an open competitive market, it's hard to see how you can come to that conclusion.

C.

 

[jfanning]

As far as I can tell, this thread seems to be about the commercial rivalries about two commercial entities. Your view "as a consumer" on the "obscene" nature of Apple's profits seems to be a bit irrelevant.

Does it? That is your viewpoint, and I'm afraid you aren't the only one in the world with a viewpoint.

Apple has arrived in the cellphone market and in three short years has owned it. In commercial terms, that story it is pretty remarkable.

Owned it? Made a huge profit, but as a consumer that is far from a definition of "owned" that I would take.

I think it is comical that you have decided to interpret this in "moral" terms. But it is your right to do so. But given this is not a monopoly. It's an open competitive market, it's hard to see how you can come to that conclusion.

I think it is comical how you defend a company, for that is what Apple is, a company, they don't care about you, they care about making as much money as possible, some take it too far. But since there are tonnes of little sheep in this world willing to over pay for an item they don't care.

 

[jfanning]

Tell me you are joking.

About what?

 

[Carniphage]

I think it is comical how you defend a company, for that is what Apple is, a company, they don't care about you, they care about making as much money as possible, some take it too far. But since there are tonnes of little sheep in this world willing to over pay for an item they don't care.

Ah I see!
This is the Apple-are-only-successful-because-they-are-greedy-and-people-are-sheeplike-and-stupid argument.

Never heard that one before.

I bet Apple's commercial rivals are constantly wondering why Apple gets all those rich stupid customers while they have to endure discriminating and penniless ones. I am certain the Chairman of Nokia shakes his fist in the general direction of Cupertino each morning.

Me, I don't expect companies to care about me. If I was naive enough to wait for that, I would have to wait a long time. But I do reward exceptional products and services with my custom. But should those companies screw-up, I switch brands in a heartbeat.

And as someone with a business, I am always interested to see how some companies succeed while others seem so utterly clueless.

So to get back on thread. It's interesting that the only company properly competing with Apple in the cellphone market.... is Google. Not a cellphone veteran at all. In fact, many of the established cellphone makers have effectively lost control of their market in just a few years. Losing money for shareholders, and having to ruin livelihoods by shedding people from their workforce.

Thank goodness there is no negative moral dimension to their commercial failure.

C.

 

[Lord Vader]

About what?

Everything.

 

[jfanning]

Ah I see!
This is the Apple-are-only-successful-because-they-are-greedy-and-people-are-sheeplike-and-stupid argument.

Never heard that one before.

Again, you are defending a company, why are you enacting such a response to any criticism of Apple?

I bet Apple's commercial rivals are constantly wondering why Apple gets all those rich stupid customers while they have to endure discriminating and penniless ones. I am certain the Chairman of Nokia shakes his fist in the general direction of Cupertino each morning.

He might do, and do I care? No I don't, should I care? No I don't. You see I spend my money where it best benefits me, no one else.

Me, I don't expect companies to care about me. If I was naive enough to wait for that, I would have to wait a long time. But I do reward exceptional products and services with my custom. But should those companies screw-up, I switch brands in a heartbeat.

In NZ they have an advertising campaign for a beer company, I think it would be fitting to your last comment, yeah right.

And as someone with a business, I am always interested to see how some companies succeed while others seem so utterly clueless.

Again, you are changing your story, you are now using the word succeed, this is a soft word, in what capacity are you defining "succeed"?

So to get back on thread.

Actually the thread title is "Google Co-Founder Accuses Jobs of 'Rewriting History' of iPhone and Android".

 

[jfanning]

Everything.

You've lost me, what are you talking about?

 

[Carniphage]

Again, you are defending a company, why are you enacting such a response to any criticism of Apple?

I am not really. You are attacking Apple, and I am making fun of that.

Actually the thread title is "Google Co-Founder Accuses Jobs of 'Rewriting History' of iPhone and Android".

So your tiresome tirades about the evil nature of Apple-like capitalism is relevant to this how?

Both companies (Apple and Google) are doing relatively well in the cellphone space. Apple were certainly the first to market with a product. Google came to market second with the G1 - a product that seems to have been re-engineered in the light of Apple's success. Google changed their design from a Blackberry killer to an iPhone killer.

So Jobs' assertion that Google trod on Apple's toes (and not vice versa) seems reasonable.

Correct or not, it is Apple's *interpretation* of events that makes this interesting. Apple perceives Google's actions as openly hostile - and has escalated the conflict.

This isn't a bad thing.

For consumers, competition in this space is great news. And in truth as long as the competition is vigorous, both companies will prosper. Apple and Google might be throwing big punches, but they all will be landing on Microsoft and Nokia.

C.

 

[*LTD*]

How I like proving you wrong each time :

And yet you keep coming back with this weird fantasy...

Ask your Canadian friends here on MR. You're in Quebec, you should know this already.

Reception is fine up here. Do you expect full bars in every single location you set foot into?? Next time I'm in the deep woods in Northern Ontario and I lose two bars I'll think about how right you were.

Duh.

 

[KnightWRX]

KnightWRX: Apple are *not* successful in this market. They are number 3

Wait, where did I say they weren't successful ? I said they weren't market leader. Maybe you should understand what it is you're talking about before putting words in people's mouths...

And profits ? A measure of success for shareholders maybe, for consumers, it just means you paid too much for your product. A company with low volume and high profit is selling you stuff for too much.

When you look at the single biggest complaint levied at Apple, what is it ? Stuff is too expensive. Quoting their profits is not helping people come over, it's doing the contrary, strengthening their belief that Apple is a rip off.

And why bring profits into the picture when the initial context was "Apple is a market leader". Profits don't make you a leader at all, so you just tried to change the subject. What is the problem with you people and context ?

Ask your Canadian friends here on MR. You're in Quebec, you should know this already.

Reception is fine up here. Do you expect full bars in every single location you set foot into?? Next time I'm in the deep woods in Northern Ontario and I lose two bars I'll think about how right you were.

Duh.

I'm 20 minutes outside of Montreal or 25 km away from downtown. Not 5 hours away from all civilization.

 

[Carniphage]

Wait, where did I say they weren't successful ? I said they weren't market leader. Maybe you should understand what it is you're talking about before putting words in people's mouths...

I directly responded to your post. Which you missed, You are commenting on a precis of your post. I am sorry if you don't feel this reflects your position.

You described Apple's place as a "drop in the ocean" as I recall.

This is a funny way to describe the company that makes more money than any other company in the cellphone space.

And profits ? A measure of success for shareholders maybe, for consumers, it just means you paid too much for your product. A company with low volume and high profit is selling you stuff for too much.

Here we go again.

People with no understanding of business seem to think that Apple is pulling some kind of con with its profits. Please explain how *any* company makes more money by offering poor value and over-charging.

If the trick was that simple, I think everyone would do it.

Profitability is by far the best indicator of leading a market. This is why there is so much concern for Nokia's plunge into the low end. It has ceased to lead the market. It has settled for the low-end. All it is leading is a race to the bottom.

Ask the people at Nokia, if you guys are leading the market, how come a company with a fraction of the unit sales is making more money than you?

C.

 

[KnightWRX]

I directly responded to your post. Which you missed, You are commenting on a precis of your post. I am sorry if you don't feel this reflects your position.

You described Apple's place as a "drop in the ocean" as I recall.

This is a funny way to describe the company that makes more money than any other company in the cellphone space.

Again, I don't find "making" money to be any kind of metric of industry involvement and importance. Apple represents low single digit share of the cellphone market, 3rd place in the "smartphone" category.

And you responded to my post while ignoring context. CONTEXT is important. Otherwise, you sound like a fool that just wants to contradict me.

Context people, it's important. When you respond, make sure you understand the context so that your response actually means something.

Here we go again.

People with no understanding of business seem to think that Apple is pulling some kind of con with its profits. Please explain how *any* company makes more money by offering poor value and over-charging.

Image. Not all value is in the product itself my short-sighted friend. Marketing, image and inflated hype can lead to big sales of products with low return on investment.

Maybe it's you who doesn't quite understand the business. Never launch a line of designer clothes

And we've now gone very far from the initial conversation about Apple being Market Leader because C. doesn't understand a little word called Context and decided to take my "Apple is not #1" as a "Apple is in the ******* and is not successful". Black and white polarization outside of context wins again!

And people call me a troll...