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

[DMann]

These are all accurate figures..
MS is currently more profitable than Apple. And deservedly so.

But given we were discussing cellphones. It might be fairer to compare the results of the cellphone divisions, rather than comparing other aspects of corporate performance.

If we tease the numbers apart, Apple's handset-only profits exceed those of Nokia, Microsoft and Google. Which is why I think it is reasonable to assert that Apple is the market leader in this space. The one that other companies are trying to catch.

C.

Let's be mindful that the bulk of MS's profits is still being drawn from their legacy Office Suite, and their long carried-over stranglehold of OS share and licensing garnered by their unethical, illegal monopolistic practices, vendor lock-in, and exclusive OEM deals.

One can easily debate on how deserved these profits are, as they've been attained neither by the merit of consumer choice, producing quality products, or effective advertising.

 

[AidenShaw]

And so the gap widens.

And the gap between having an issue and thinking that there's an issue widens even faster.

What is the harm to the typical consumer if the phone that *she chooses* isn't running the latest build?

None. She wouldn't choose a phone running 1.6 if it didn't have the features that she was looking for in a phone.

The whole "OMG fragmentation" argument is just as weak as the "OMG Verizon CDMA can't talk and surf at the same time" - it's Apple fans seizing on a minor point to knock the competition.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw
My Samsung smartphone is nearly 5 years old​

Preach one thing, do another.

I should have said "when the 20 month upgrade comes around, if you want the new features, get a new one!"

Again, the Apple fans get bent out of shape about the upgrade issue - when most people do not upgrade at the earliest chance if the phones are still meeting their needs. My Samsung is a better phone in these parts than an Iphone on AT&T - and I don't see any phone on the Verizon palette that would meet some need that my Samsung smartphone doesn't already meet.

I'm waiting for the second round of WinMo 7 phones this fall/winter - then I'll upgrade to WinMo 7 or Android.

 

[jfanning]

Age 5 is not an insult ...

Do you really think that is what I was talking about?

Calling people "sheep" just because they like apple's product IS an insult ...

No it isn't, it refers to the fact that people are following other people without thinking for themselves, it refers to the behavior of sheep.

 

[Carniphage]

But the fact that Apple knew that Google had purchased a company that developed an OS for mobile phones prior to the release of the iPhone is also reasonable, and shouldn't have been any surprise to Jobs

Google buy 10s of companies every year. They have cash and invest it in all sorts of projects.
Android was aimed at RIM. After iPhone, Google changed the product and aimed at Apple.

This seems like a hostile move to me. I can't see another interpretation.

But the upshot is vigorous competition that is great for all consumers.

Like I said, Google and Apple might be slugging away like heavyweight boxers, but the blows are landing on Microsoft and Nokia.

C.

 

[Carniphage]

One can easily debate on how deserved these profits are, as they've been attained neither by the merit of consumer choice, producing quality products, or effective advertising.

This view of Microsoft seems to be shared by the markets.

C.

 

[*LTD*]

Let's be mindful that the bulk of MS's profits is still being drawn from their legacy Office Suite, and their long carried-over stranglehold of OS share and licensing garnered by their unethical, illegal monopolistic practices, vendor lock-in, and exclusive OEM deals.

One can easily debate on how deserved these profits are, as they've been attained neither by the merit of consumer choice, producing quality products, or effective advertising.

Perfectly stated. This is exactly what the situation is (and has been for years) with MS: Thinking in terms of 5 years ago, and when that doesn't work, their next mistake . . . trying to copy Apple, poorly, in order to remedy the first mistake.

 

[kdarling]

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.

If you're going to take someone's name in vain, at least do a proper quote.

I didn't say that Apple did not do anything clever. You made that up.

I said that they and Google benefited from starting years after all the long and expensive R&D that other companies did to create the worldwide cell networks, mobile radio chipsets, mobile GPUs, A-GPS support, high resolution mobile displays, etc.

(Just as the other companies in return have benefited from Apple creating a higher public awareness of smartphones.)

 

[ToroidalZeus]

The whole "OMG fragmentation" argument is just as weak as the "OMG Verizon CDMA can't talk and surf at the same time" - it's Apple fans seizing on a minor point to knock the competition.

Yes because you sound completely different with your 'only tech geeks care about upgrading' argument

Again, the Apple fans get bent out of shape about the upgrade issue - when most people do not upgrade at the earliest chance if the phones are still meeting their needs. My Samsung is a better phone in these parts than an Iphone on AT&T - and I don't see any phone on the Verizon palette that would meet some need that my Samsung smartphone doesn't already meet.

Windows 95 is able to get e-mail and surf the web and even has office 97 on it, why would anyone EVER want to upgrade? I guess all those people who bought windows 98+ were stupid because their old OS 'already met their needs.'

 

[MorphingDragon]

And the gap between having an issue and thinking that there's an issue widens even faster.

What is the harm to the typical consumer if the phone that *she chooses* isn't running the latest build?

None. She wouldn't choose a phone running 1.6 if it didn't have the features that she was looking for in a phone.

The whole "OMG fragmentation" argument is just as weak as the "OMG Verizon CDMA can't talk and surf at the same time" - it's Apple fans seizing on a minor point to knock the competition.

Don't underestimate the consumer's knowledge or intent.

Also, don't factor out the sales clerk. I know guys at the place I work that can talk somebody up from a 32" $1k LCD screen to a 52" LED Samsung screen costing $3K+!

 

[*LTD*]

No it isn't, it refers to the fact that people are following other people without thinking for themselves, it refers to the behavior of sheep.

Exactly. The average Windows user.

 

[AidenShaw]

Windows 95 is able to get e-mail and surf the web and even has office 97 on it, why would anyone EVER want to upgrade? I guess all those people who bought windows 98+ were stupid because their old OS 'already met their needs.'

Replace "Windows 95" with "Windows XP" - and it applies to the current situation with Vista/Windows7.

Just like with phones, most people don't upgrade their computer operating systems. They upgrade old computers, and the new computers come with the current OS. Nobody is "stupid" for upgrading the OS if it has some features that they want, nor are they "stupid" for sticking with a system that meets their needs.

The typical MacRumours reader is not a typical computer user. The majority of Apple users are on 10.5, 10.4 and older systems - not 10.6.

The whole "fragmentation" issue is a minor one that troubles geeks who want to be on the leading edge. (...and Apple fans who are looking for anything to blow out of proportion to knock Android)

As the Steve would say, "to most people fragmentation is a non-issue".

Don't underestimate the consumer's knowledge or intent.

Also, don't factor out the sales clerk. I know guys at the place I work that can talk somebody up from a 32" $1k LCD screen to a 52" LED Samsung screen costing $3K+!

Yes - but those clerks are powerless to get to the people who don't walk in the door. They only get to talk to the people who are questioning their current setups.

 

[jfanning]

Google buy 10s of companies every year. They have cash and invest it in all sorts of projects.
Android was aimed at RIM. After iPhone, Google changed the product and aimed at Apple.

Again, you seem to be talking with an Apple slant, are you defending a company again?

 

[Mal]

The typical MacRumours reader is not a typical computer user. The majority of Apple users are on 10.5, 10.4 and older systems - not 10.6.

Actually, last I heard, Apple’s penetration with 10.6 was pretty overwhelming, in the 70-80% range at least, which is unheard of for adoption of a software update.

Regardless though, please read back over your posts and at least attempt to see the double-speak coming in every post. Within one post you claim something isn’t an issue, then bash Apple for (supposedly) having that same problem. Make up your mind, unless you are (as I have supposed for a long time) just a troll.

jW

 

[KnightWRX]

Regardless though, please read back over your posts and at least attempt to see the double-speak coming in every post. Within one post you claim something isn’t an issue, then bash Apple for (supposedly) having that same problem. Make up your mind, unless you are (as I have supposed for a long time) just a troll.

Uh ? You misunderstand him. While he is very anti-apple biased in most everyone of his posts, he didn't bash Apple here. He simply stated that Apple suffers from the same fragmentation that Android does.

He's actually pointing out the double speak of the Apple Defense Squad in this respect.

Fragmentation is a non-issue as long as your system is able to fallback properly. Developers are the ones that have to deal with it, not users, and on Android, the system is well built for it, having had different hardware platforms from day 1.

 

[AidenShaw]

Actually, last I heard, Apple’s penetration with 10.6 was pretty overwhelming, in the 70-80% range at least, which is unheard of for adoption of a software update.

"Unheard of" for sure - the adoption rate is just under 50% according to one source:

Mac OSX (total) 5.16%
Mac OSX 10.6 2.47%
Mac OSX 10.5 1.90%
Mac OSX 10.4 0.64%
Mac OSX (no version reported) 0.12%
Mac OSX Mach-O 0.03%​

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10

If you have reliable statistics that say otherwise, please post a link.

 

[MorphingDragon]

"Unheard of" for sure - the adoption rate is just under 50% according to one source:

Mac OS X (total) 5.16%
Mac OS X 10.6 2.47%
Mac OS X 10.5 1.90%
Mac OS X 10.4 0.64%
Mac OS X (no version reported) 0.12%
Mac OS X Mach-O 0.03%​

I'd imagine that most OSes apart from XP have under 50% penetration in their respective market.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10

If you have reliable statistics that say otherwise, please post a link.

My arse provides reliable statistics.

 

[AidenShaw]

I'd imagine that most OSes apart from XP have under 50% penetration in their respective market.

No argument - but I was responding to Mal's claim that "Apple’s penetration with 10.6 was pretty overwhelming, in the 70-80% range at least". Just under 50% is pretty good, but not overwhelming.

My arse provides reliable statistics.

Please post a high resolution JPEG of your statistics.

 

[mdatwood]

No it isn't, it refers to the fact that people are following other people without thinking for themselves, it refers to the behavior of sheep.

It's human nature to 'fit in.' There really are not many choices when it comes to picking an OS so they are bound to follow someone else when they pick a computer. Does that mean they didn't make the choice themselves? I can't answer for anyone else, but my last MBP that I purchased I thought long and hard about leaving Apple because of quality issues. When I surveyed the market I couldn't find anything better, so I had to pick the lesser of all the evils.

Android was aimed at RIM. After iPhone, Google changed the product and aimed at Apple.

This seems like a hostile move to me. I can't see another interpretation.

It's called good business. Why aim your future product at the dying competitor? When the iPhone came out the UI was quickly seen as the new high bar so everyone took whatever they were working on and switched gears UI wise.

Windows 95 is able to get e-mail and surf the web and even has office 97 on it, why would anyone EVER want to upgrade? I guess all those people who bought windows 98+ were stupid because their old OS 'already met their needs.'

Actually I've been running into this situation a lot at work. The only reason we are upgrading from WinXP and Win2000 server is because MS stopped support (no security patches and artificial software limits like when you can't install the latest .net sdk on an older systems). Those systems have met our needs just fine and MS has artificially forced us to upgrade, it has nothing to do with stupid users.

Uh ? You misunderstand him. While he is very anti-apple biased in most everyone of his posts, he didn't bash Apple here. He simply stated that Apple suffers from the same fragmentation that Android does.

He's actually pointing out the double speak of the Apple Defense Squad in this respect.

Fragmentation is a non-issue as long as your system is able to fallback properly. Developers are the ones that have to deal with it, not users, and on Android, the system is well built for it, having had different hardware platforms from day 1.

I agree. There is already fragmentation in the iPhone ecosystem. I think Gruber noted text rendering differences with both the 3GS and iPhone4 running iOS4 presumably because of the higher resolution screen on the iPhone4.

 

[frankly]

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.

Actually it makes a great deal of difference if the company you are purchasing from is profitable. It means that they will be in business years from now to offer upgrades, fixes, accessories, and other things for the product you purchased. A company that is losing money, like Nokia

http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/nokias-profits-drop-90-in-q1-2009/

may not be in business for long after you buy a phone from them. And if they aren't making a profit then that is less money to spend on each of their devices. So the chances of your particular device seeing an upgrade or a bug fix becomes less and less. Believe me, I've seen this problem first hand. I owned a Treo 700p prior to my first iPhone, the 3G. It was PAINFUL waiting for Palm to upgrade that device and even when they did they never addressed all of the issues. Palm customers were also promised a major upgrade to the OS year after year and this was eventually cancelled when they made the move to WebOS which would not work on any existing devices.

THAT is the difference between a company that is making money and one that is struggling to stay afloat. It makes a HUGE difference to the consumer.

Ever since switching to the iPhone I am on cloud 9 with the way the OS runs out of the gate and the new features that get added with each upgrade. This is like night and day when compared with my Palm Treo and my Blackberry before that.

It's called good business. Why aim your future product at the dying competitor? When the iPhone came out the UI was quickly seen as the new high bar so everyone took whatever they were working on and switched gears UI wise.


I agree. There is already fragmentation in the iPhone ecosystem. I think Gruber noted text rendering differences with both the 3GS and iPhone4 running iOS4 presumably because of the higher resolution screen on the iPhone4.

First, those that are coming out against Google in this thread are not disputing that this was a good business decision. We are also saying that it creates good competition that improves both platforms. What we are disputing is what Larry said, that Google was first. That is simply not true.

Second, what are you talking about with "fragmentation in the iPhone ecosystem" and then you mention text rendering differences between models?????? That is NOT fragmentation. That is called a new model? Do you think that fragmentation is created simply by releasing a new product? That would be insane.

Fragmentation is when products are released concurrently with a varitey of different versions of the OS.



As an aside, I just love how all of the Apple haters completely ignored my post that shined light on exactly how wrong Larry Page was in the original post that this thread is based on. Ever since I posted that this thread has taken a detour into a bunch of other nonsense.

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/10499674/

 

[MorphingDragon]

Please post a high resolution JPEG of your statistics.

Why'd you have to go and say that? ¬_¬

 

[AidenShaw]

Actually I've been running into this situation a lot at work. The only reason we are upgrading from WinXP and Win2000 server is because MS stopped support (no security patches and artificial software limits like when you can't install the latest .net sdk on an older systems).

Windows *2000* ...

Yes, MS is ending support for OS versions released 10 years ago.

MS is not dropping support now for XP.

•Support for Windows XP with Service Pack 2 (SP2) will end on July 13, 2010. To continue support, make sure you've installed Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3).

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/help/what-does-end-of-support-mean​

So, Windows XP was released when OSX 10.1 (Puma) was current. MS is dropping support for the Windows XP service pack version that came out during the Tiger release. The service pack version that came out during Snow Leopard is still supported.

It's quite amusing to see an Apple fan complaining that Microsoft doesn't support older OS versions. I don't see many people running Puma these days....

 

[Lord Vader]

Every iPhone or iPod touch had at least two official major OS updates from Apple. That's more than enough for a phone or music player.Every new iPod touch or iPhone comes with latest OS. Andoid phones come with different UI, screen size and resolution, with and without keyboards. That's fragmentation dear trolls.

 

[Carniphage]

If you're going to take someone's name in vain, at least do a proper quote.

I didn't say that Apple did not do anything clever. You made that up.

I said that they and Google benefited from starting years after all the long and expensive R&D that other companies did to create the worldwide cell networks, mobile radio chipsets, mobile GPUs, A-GPS support, high resolution mobile displays, etc.

(Just as the other companies in return have benefited from Apple creating a higher public awareness of smartphones.)

I did respond to your original post and quote directly. Instead of responding to the post you are replying to a precis of my thread in which I paraphrase your post down to one sentence for brevity.

If I got the jist wrong I apologize.

C.

 

[ChazUK]

Every iPhone or iPod touch had at least two official major OS updates from Apple. That's more than enough for a phone or music player.Every new iPod touch or iPhone comes with latest OS. Andoid phones come with different UI, screen size and resolution, with and without keyboards. That's fragmentation dear trolls.

I've gone from the HTC Hero to the Nexus One and also own the Dell Streak and an Archos 5 IT and none of the apps I've purchased are unusable on any of the devices. How many apps have you been forced to stop using due to fragmentation on your Android devices?

Despite the different features and functions of each device, they all work fine.

As for software updates, the G1 (mentioned earlier) went from Android 1.0 to Android 1.5 then 1.6 respectively with extra features and functions each OS had to offer. If "at least two official major OS updates" is the de-facto standard, the G1 that got panned earlier had two major official updates.

 

[Lord Vader]

I've gone from the HTC Hero to the Nexus One and also own the Dell Streak and an Archos 5 IT and none of the apps I've purchased are unusable on any of the devices. How many apps have you been forced to stop using due to fragmentation on your Android devices?

Despite the different features and functions of each device, they all work fine.

As for software updates, the G1 (mentioned earlier) went from Android 1.0 to Android 1.5 then 1.6 respectively with extra features and functions each OS had to offer. If "at least two official major OS updates" is the de-facto standard, the G1 that got panned earlier had two major official updates.

What about "comes with latest OS"? Fail one step and that's it. 1.6 in 2010? That's clearly not fragmentation.