Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

frankly said:
You have no direct knowledge to support what you are saying. You only know when Google started thinking about getting into the phone business because they purchased an outside company to do so.
Click to expand...

And actually we don't know that Google was really thinking about getting into the phone business at that time. They were in the midst of this spaghetti on the wall buy up of all sorts of foundering and failing start ups. Some of which they still haven't done anything with. they might have bought Android thinking about something like, like a tablet computer or even a general computer OS

But your point stands. We have no direct knowledge of anything Apple is up to nor have we because as you note

Apple keeps any product they are working on as secret as possible until it is actually released.
Click to expand...

But anyone with half a brain cell knew that they didn't come up with it the weekend before the announcement and given the complexity the notion that it was at least a good 2-3 years (thus before Google joined the board and perhaps even before the Android buy) in the making on a real level (rather than just 'playing around with the idea')

The real problem with the article is that Jobs is talking about something totally different and Page is trying to brush it off with his dates game.
Jobs comments are about Google choosing to make a phone that is in direct competition with the iphone. ANd this seems to be true. Early reports are that the Android based phones were poised to take on RIM and then, about the same time that Schmidt and friends would be privvy to Apple's ideas, they changed the Android OS to have an iphone like form factor, UI. They even copied the whole App Store notion. Page would like us to believe that they thought up all of this on their own but it's very unlikely. The trouble for Apple is that ideas can't be patented anymore than they can be copyrighted. Only the way they are taken from idea to reality is protected.

That said, Page's sour grapes doesn't cover up that the whole Android system has some major issues that are likely what's keeping it at least than 10%. At least in the US. Perhaps in a year or two they will get it sorted out, perhaps not. We shall see
 
ChazUK said:
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.
Click to expand...

charlituna said:
And actually we don't know that Google was really thinking about getting into the phone business at that time. They were in the midst of this spaghetti on the wall buy up of all sorts of foundering and failing start ups. Some of which they still haven't done anything with. they might have bought Android thinking about something like, like a tablet computer or even a general computer OS

But your point stands. We have no direct knowledge of anything Apple is up to nor have we because as you note



But anyone with half a brain cell knew that they didn't come up with it the weekend before the announcement and given the complexity the notion that it was at least a good 2-3 years (thus before Google joined the board and perhaps even before the Android buy) in the making on a real level (rather than just 'playing around with the idea')

The real problem with the article is that Jobs is talking about something totally different and Page is trying to brush it off with his dates game.
Jobs comments are about Google choosing to make a phone that is in direct competition with the iphone. ANd this seems to be true. Early reports are that the Android based phones were poised to take on RIM and then, about the same time that Schmidt and friends would be privvy to Apple's ideas, they changed the Android OS to have an iphone like form factor, UI. They even copied the whole App Store notion. Page would like us to believe that they thought up all of this on their own but it's very unlikely. The trouble for Apple is that ideas can't be patented anymore than they can be copyrighted. Only the way they are taken from idea to reality is protected.

That said, Page's sour grapes doesn't cover up that the whole Android system has some major issues that are likely what's keeping it at least than 10%. At least in the US. Perhaps in a year or two they will get it sorted out, perhaps not. We shall see
Click to expand...

All good points but I would like to point out that while we don't know when Apple starts working on something because they don't pre-announce we do now know how much earlier they were developing the iPhone due to the reporting from the Wired article I linked to.


KnightWRX said:
What exactly about Android ressembles iPhone ?

I'm seriously at a loss here... Or maybe... Apple doesn't give a hoot about Android, and the "sour relationship" is only something the companies are using to get press time while internally, the relationship goes on ?

Seriously, come back to reality for a bit.
Click to expand...

If you are serious with this post then it is absolutely pointless to continue this conversation with you. You are in complete denial that the iPhone represented a complete change in the smartphone market. It isn't about the surface UI. It is about taking the smartphone in an entirely different direction. EVERYONE else knows that this is the case. This is why every new smartphone is now compared to the iPhone.

You are in some serious denial here if you think different.
 
jfanning said:
A social view, we are living in a time where a lot of people are struggling financially, some very much self inflicted, some the issues was slammed upon them, yet as always we have a few that praise the ability of a few to make an extreme (maybe we could call it an obscene) profit off others.
Click to expand...

This is getting off topic, but who is profiting off others? You seem to think there is a fixed wealth pie that needs to be split up. That's simply not true. A company like Apple grows the pie by creating things that never existed before. They make value and are rewarded for it. The more value that Apple creates the higher their profits, the higher taxes that they pay, the more people they employ, and the list goes on.

If you want to get out of a recession and create jobs you want more companies like Apple who can create value.
 
frankly said:
You are in some serious denial here if you think different.
Click to expand...

No, I'm simply following Apple's advice.

Carniphage said:
After iPhone was launched, Google changed their recipe. They added a full-screen touch interface and we never saw Android on the tiny-screen phones that they claimed would be important.
Click to expand...

But again, LG was first with a full-screen touch interface, not Apple. I already addressed this point.
 
frankly said:
All good points but I would like to point out that while we don't know when Apple starts working on something because they don't pre-announce we do now know how much earlier they were developing the iPhone due to the reporting from the Wired article I linked to.
Click to expand...

According to the Wired, WSJ and NYT timelines which were derived from insider interviews, Apple first secretly approached Cingular in February 2005, and Verizon in Summer 2005.

Google quietly but publicly bought Android in August 2005. Its leader was one of the Sidekick designers and everyone knew they were working on another mobile OS.

Apple didn't begin actual iPhone hardware development until Thanksgiving 2005. The iOS port from OSX began a couple of months later in early 2006.

There is no first here. Like many other things, it was an idea whose time had come. Several companies were publicly exhibiting all touch and multi-touch phone designs during the 2005-2006 timeframe. The only real question was who could put one out first and get the most publicity. This is one reason why Jobs revealed the iPhone six months before sales began.
 
Carniphage said:
LG had a full-screen phone. But it was a crude - resistive touch screen on a monochrome display.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PSvpPXppXA

But how is that relevant? When Google suddenly shifted it's design, it wasn't in response to the LG-Prada was it?

C.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the Prada when you say it was a "full-screen phone. But it was a crude - resistive touch screen on a monochrome display."

The Prada had a colour display and was the "first mobile phone with a capacitive touchscreen.". In the video you've posted it even shows colour images, not monochrome.

If I have misconstrued your post then I apologise.
 
ChazUK said:
Are you referring to the Prada when you say it was a "full-screen phone. But it was a crude - resistive touch screen on a monochrome display."

The Prada had a colour display and was the "first mobile phone with a capacitive touchscreen.". In the video you've posted it even shows colour images, not monochrome.

If I have misconstrued your post then I apologise.
Click to expand...

Should have said - Monochrome interface. Never knew it was capacitive!

What a waste!

C.
 
KnightWRX said:
Monochrome interface ? What does that even mean ?
Click to expand...

It means the default interface is presented in a full range of colours ranging from white to black. All the way through grey.

They sold a million units of that phone, which shows - one of the iPhone ingredients I mentioned. But the Prada was a very different recipe - which is a point that Knight seems to struggle with.

C.
 
Carniphage said:
Should have said - Monochrome interface. Never knew it was capacitive!

What a waste!

C.
Click to expand...

That was a black theme from what I can tell. In kdarling's link the video shows it running other themes with more colour (thankfully!). How ugly that black theme looks.

gsmarena_s016.jpg


EDIT:
I wonder if Google stole the widget idea from LG looking at the Prada vids...... :eek:
 
Carniphage said:
Do you mind if I edit you again?
Click to expand...

Why that edit ? We know who was first, it was LG. And you seriously have yet to say what exactly Google copied from iPhone. What they "re-engineered" exactly.

I took the time to answer each of your arguments, pointing out the market was already doing it before Apple.
 
KnightWRX said:
Why that edit ? We know who was first, it was LG. And you seriously have yet to say what exactly Google copied from iPhone. What they "re-engineered" exactly.

I took the time to answer each of your arguments, pointing out the market was already doing it before Apple.
Click to expand...

Wow - you really like stuffing your strawmen don't you?

LG was definitely the first to sell a phone with a big screen. But that is just one ingredient. Just cramming some meat inside some bread does not mean you invented the Big Mac - as we all know, there's actually more to it than that.

Here's Gizmodo's review of the Prada:

http://gizmodo.com/261172/settling-this-iphone-vs-lg-prada-nonsense


LG had the form factor right, but utterly screwed up the rest of the device. I knew someone who bought one, thinking they were getting the same thing as an iPhone.

Hey but that does not matter eh? Bread + Mashed meat = Big Mac!


C.
 
Carniphage said:
LG had the form factor right, but utterly screwed up the rest of the device.
Click to expand...

Why do I need to ask the same question again ? Please, what is the rest ? I addressed all your specifics up to now, be it OS UI, Phone form factor or Infrastructure around the phone.

Keep the points coming. Next ingredient please. I've been asking for over a page now. You keep dodging... :rolleyes:
 
KnightWRX said:
Why do I need to ask the same question again ? Please, what is the rest ? I addressed all your specifics up to now, be it OS UI, Phone form factor or Infrastructure around the phone.

Keep the points coming. Next ingredient please. I've been asking for over a page now. You keep dodging... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

How many more times. Apple did not originate the ingredients. They came up with the recipe.

The recipe was this:

Candybar form factor phone.
Buttonless full screen multi-touch interface using gestures for scrolling - zooming and the like. Capactive input
A full unix-based core os supporting robust-pre emptive multi-tasking.
On top of this was a general-purpose application development system which allows rapid development of model-view-controller style applications.
A hardware GPU for all the graphical heavy lifting.
Robust email / web browser and media applications.

That's the recipe. The peers of the iPhone had one or two of these elements - but Apple was the first to bring these parts together in a user-accessible whole.

Or are you proposing that the Android team simply decided to copy LG?


C.
 
Technically the LG prada was not the first "Touch Screen Phone. There were others like the Sony Ericsson p800, Also some of the iPaq's had touchscreens as well back around 2000-2001.

And lots of ideas get copied does it matter who is first? Or who took the idea and vision and made it better? :D
 
Carniphage said:
How many more times. Apple did not originate the ingredients. They came up with the recipe.

The recipe was this:

Candybar form factor phone.
Buttonless full screen multi-touch interface using gestures for scrolling - zooming and the like. Capactive input
A full unix-based core os supporting robust-pre emptive multi-tasking.
On top of this was a general-purpose application development system which allows rapid development of model-view-controller style applications.
A hardware GPU for all the graphical heavy lifting.
Robust email / web browser and media applications.

That's the recipe. The peers of the iPhone had one or two of these elements - but Apple was the first to bring these parts together in a user-accessible whole.
Click to expand...

Seems to me Android used a different recipe since they have ingredients Apple doesn't have :

- Screen widgets for fast access to common information like weather, time/date, media controls and other
- User customizable Wallpapers, and animated Wallpapers to provide the user with some form of personalisation
- Multi-tasking to permit running many applications at the same time.

So no, I still don't see how Android just copied Apple and called it a day anymore than Apple copied the rest of the industry and called it a day. :rolleyes:
 
Carniphage said:
These are tough economic times. The UK is just barely climbing out of a recession with fairly crappy growth rates.

Profitable companies create wealth - they don't destroy it. They are the engines which power economic recovery.
Click to expand...

And how much of this profit from Apple stays in the UK?

Carniphage said:
Profitability is not exploitation. But I am guessing you have never run a business?
Click to expand...

Again, can you please get some reading lessons, I haven't said I am against profits, but I'm sure you will ignore that statement again like you always do.
 
mdatwood said:
If you want to get out of a recession and create jobs you want more companies like Apple who can create value.
Click to expand...

You need to go back and read these in context, the likes of Apple, BP, Shell, Dell etc don't share wealth, they don't create jobs in a significant manner, they funnel funds from one location to another.
 
KnightWRX said:
Seems to me Android used a different recipe since they have ingredients Apple doesn't have :
Click to expand...
They did try to change the recipe. But not significantly.

KnightWRX said:
So no, I still don't see how Android just copied Apple and called it a day anymore than Apple copied the rest of the industry and called it a day. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Oh more smileys!
This is not about plagiarism - but you seem to think it is.

It's about going after the exact same market by following the same basic strategy. Time for a new simile.

It's like this. You and I can't be best friends, after you have tried to shag my wife. You don't have to wear the *exact* same cologne. It's the intention that matters. It's the violation of trust.

Do you see the difference?

C.
 
Carniphage said:
They did try to change the recipe. But not significantly.



Oh more smileys!
This is about plagiarism - but you seem to think it is.

It's about going after the exact same market by following the same basic strategy. Time for a new simile.

It's like this. You and I can't be best friends, after you have tried to shag my wife. You don't have to wear the *exact* same cologne. It's the intention that matters. It's the violation of trust.

Do you see the difference?

C.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your efforts but you are soooooo wasting your time. He will never get it. He doesn't see how Android in its current form is a take off on the iPhone. If he doesn't see that then there really is no point in talking to him. Your energy would be much better spent elsewhere at this point.
 
Carniphage said:
It's like this. You and I can't be best friends, after you have tried to shag my wife. You don't have to wear the *exact* same cologne. It's the intention that matters. It's the violation of trust.

Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...

The problem is you shouldn't have married the woman I was already shagging on the side. Of course, I was tag teaming her with a few industry partners too, seeing how she's been around for about 20 years... Maybe you should've picked another woman if exclusivity in shagging was your goal.

Capiche ?

frankly said:
I appreciate your efforts but you are soooooo wasting your time. He will never get it. He doesn't see how Android in its current form is a take off on the iPhone. If he doesn't see that then there really is no point in talking to him. Your energy would be much better spent elsewhere at this point.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you guys could explain why instead of just repeating your "Android was re-engineered into an iPhone copy" mantra... But I guess not. We had something going there with Carniphage's "But they change the form factor to a full screen touchscreen phone, like iPhone!" Of course, after we completely destroyed his notion about that being an actual iPhone exclusive or first, he changed his tune...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back