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 Co-Founder Accuses Jobs of 'Rewriting History' of iPhone and Android
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is a well known quote about the situation you describe:
"A man does not look behind the door unless he has stood there himself." - Du Bois
Exactly. Apple had been working on the iPhone many years before it was announced. Larry is full of ****.
Spaces isn't the best example. Apple didn't claim it was world changing or anything. It was just a feature, and to their credit the first well-done implementation in consumer-friendly OS (no, Linux is not a consumer-friendly OS). If you're going to bitch about Apple creating amazing things which were 'stolen' from someone else, why don't you pick out things like Facetime? That's what everyone else does.
In any case, you'd be just as ignorant as them. Apple may not always be the first to bat with an idea (although in many cases they are), but they are very frequently the first to bat to take a concept and make it truly usable. Video chat on Android, which did come before video chat on the iPhone, is utterly useless as a mainstream tool. Apple released it in such a way that it can one day become accessible to everyone. Not just the tech geek who has the freetime to screw around with broken phone features, but rather your wife, who couldn't care less about Apple, so you can call home while you're away on a business trip and see your child. They brought the fun of Skype to mobile phones.
One thing people who just like to hate Apple without ever really trying to use their products consistently fail to understand is the fundamental benefits of usability and implementation. Anyone can make a trashy phone with a laundry list of features, but it takes a brilliant company to make a phone which combines all those features into something everyone can use and enjoy.
And I think that's the main case made here. The Apple iPhone isn't selling to what people consider Apple Geeks. They never are the reason why something sells like a Million in the first day of release. No. You need the majority of casuals (who are computer shy) to make those numbers. They don't care about Apple anymore than some other company with a decent product.
They just want a product they can easily use and with features they don't have to be a techno brain to access. Oddly enough, Steve's little speech of the crossroads of technology and liberal arts, is key and the thing they do most which the other companies don't.
A different company will spend time thinking of cool ways and screens for which to manually handle your running tasks. Apple will spend just as much time, if not more, trying to figure out how to make it so the user doesn't have to know of the concept. It's all about simplicity with them. But it's stuff like that which brings the non-technical masses to the product.
I was even able to observe the general slowness to adopt into the Smart-devices, by the general public, in the pre-iphone years. The techno-babble scared them. They were like new computers they had to learn. But coming up with a phone so easy, a caveman can use it, is just what gets people to get a Smart-device instead of trying to always go for the simplest cellphone they can find.
Sure, there's some of the casuals so afraid of the technology that they do stick to the simplest cell-phone they can find. Just one that they make calls with, and no other buttons suited to do anything else. But they did manage to get all but the most techo-frightened public.
They just want a product they can easily use and with features they don't have to be a techno brain to access. Oddly enough, Steve's little speech of the crossroads of technology and liberal arts, is key and the thing they do most which the other companies don't.
A different company will spend time thinking of cool ways and screens for which to manually handle your running tasks. Apple will spend just as much time, if not more, trying to figure out how to make it so the user doesn't have to know of the concept. It's all about simplicity with them. But it's stuff like that which brings the non-technical masses to the product.
I was even able to observe the general slowness to adopt into the Smart-devices, by the general public, in the pre-iphone years. The techno-babble scared them. They were like new computers they had to learn. But coming up with a phone so easy, a caveman can use it, is just what gets people to get a Smart-device instead of trying to always go for the simplest cellphone they can find.
Sure, there's some of the casuals so afraid of the technology that they do stick to the simplest cell-phone they can find. Just one that they make calls with, and no other buttons suited to do anything else. But they did manage to get all but the most techo-frightened public.
The image of the original Android phone on the first page: all I can say is she's one ugly dude!
Apple's labs are working full-time designing and testing all sorts of concepts: it's the only way that Apple keeps innovating and staying ahead of the competition. Take an idea and work on it until it is usable and marketable, then hit the world with it.
Apple has been working on iPad for nearly a decade, but chose to test the waters with the revolutionary iPhone. Only as iPhone OS (now iOS) matured did Apple decide to build iPad -- Steve Jobs said as much I think to Walt and his co-presenter at the AllThingsD shindig).
Google's move to touch-based Android devices is definitely a "me-too" move.
Apple's labs are working full-time designing and testing all sorts of concepts: it's the only way that Apple keeps innovating and staying ahead of the competition. Take an idea and work on it until it is usable and marketable, then hit the world with it.
Apple has been working on iPad for nearly a decade, but chose to test the waters with the revolutionary iPhone. Only as iPhone OS (now iOS) matured did Apple decide to build iPad -- Steve Jobs said as much I think to Walt and his co-presenter at the AllThingsD shindig).
Google's move to touch-based Android devices is definitely a "me-too" move.
No...
And I know that, really...
I don't even know why I bother.
There must be something wrong with me.
This board never ceases to entertain me.
Google puts out a phone and every Apple Fan Boy yells foul. Calling Google lame for just following in Apple's footsteps. We find out that Google was working on the idea first, and Apple just got the product to market sooner, and now it's Google shut up.
LMAO. Love it.
Google puts out a phone and every Apple Fan Boy yells foul. Calling Google lame for just following in Apple's footsteps. We find out that Google was working on the idea first, and Apple just got the product to market sooner, and now it's Google shut up.
LMAO. Love it.
Your's got to be the funniest post of the day?
No physical keyboard? I guess you have a look at it again.
Also, apple copied the bigger screen? So you mean, making a bigger screen product is like copying other companies? You knew that there were computers/tablets/PDA's during that era? I mean, are you serious?
I doesn't really matter. Both companies are very innovative and constantly bring new ideas to the market place.
The whole AJAX thing was pretty much driven by Google, although they didn't invent it.
If FreeBSD didn't exist, OS X would not have been the OS it is today.
Google's work on webbased applications is cutting edge, even today.
The major innovation Apple made with the iPhone was IMHO the App store which, by the way, is very similar to various package managers on the Linux platform. What Apple saw was a way to make it somewhat profitable but mainly as a way to drive the sale of the phones, just like iTunes was a way to drive iPod sales. Also, there is a significant lockin effect.
The biggest invention Google ever made was a scalable indexing solution paid for by ads.
Android vs. iPhone is pretty much a showdown between open and closed. That's what makes it interesting. The rest is details.
The whole AJAX thing was pretty much driven by Google, although they didn't invent it.
If FreeBSD didn't exist, OS X would not have been the OS it is today.
Google's work on webbased applications is cutting edge, even today.
The major innovation Apple made with the iPhone was IMHO the App store which, by the way, is very similar to various package managers on the Linux platform. What Apple saw was a way to make it somewhat profitable but mainly as a way to drive the sale of the phones, just like iTunes was a way to drive iPod sales. Also, there is a significant lockin effect.
The biggest invention Google ever made was a scalable indexing solution paid for by ads.
Android vs. iPhone is pretty much a showdown between open and closed. That's what makes it interesting. The rest is details.
Android as we now think of it existed in NAME ONLYit was a mobile OS, yes, but for a NON-touch-based blackberry-like phone with a small screen. You know.... the kind of device everyone assumed was where the future lay, until Apple showed a different future. (Yes, I know they had the Newton AGES ago, but putting it all together into something that really worked WELL for people began with the iPhone.)
Where Google copied Appleand Jobs is rightis in making an iPhone-style touch OS for touch-centric hardware.
Copying the iPhone transformed the Android project. Just Google for the pre-iPhone Android prototype photos. Look at the hardware AND the OS from back then. Then look at Android AFTER the iPhone came along.
Im glad people are copying Apple and bringing competitionthis will make my iPhone better! But Jobs isnt the one re-writing history.
EDIT - Here is Android (mimicking RIM, not Apple) before the iPhone:
![]()
Exactly
No, but it's a good thing Wallpapers, Folders, Multi-tasking and Copy/Paste were, or Apple might never have given them to their users. So Apple clearly took some ideas from Android too it seems.
How the almighty leader becomes the meek follower.
Bad examples (except for Multi-tasking) since the ideas were actually on hacked iPhones long before the Android. You are correct in saying that Apple might not have given them to users had it not been on the Android. Certainly multi-tasking would have been delayed indefinitely which is why the iOS 4 implementation has a rushed quality to it. You should have used FaceTime and I’d have also added cloud sync which is the single greatest feature the iPhone will steal from the Android ;-)
No, but one company clearly invented multi-touch and the touchscreen smartphone, and the other company clearly invented cloud-syncing of the phone. It also depends on your definition of the "smartphone"—the MP3 player was around well before the first iPod is (I know, I used three of them before I bought the iPod on the month of its first release). That's the issue with innovation, it can seem incremental or revolutionary depending on your perspective—my perspective is it’s both.
Also, Nokia is poorly positioned as while marketshare is high their revenue has been outpaced by competitors (and their profit clearly outpaced by Apple). RIM is also poorly positioned because while they have a huge and nice vertical (business), that vertical is going to diminish and they don’t really have a response.
I would argue that if you want to argue "best in market" you'd have to look to the future, not the past or present. Neither Nokia or RIM have that future, instead it belongs to Apple (single unit sales) and Google (overall market share). It's clear that both companies know this which is why they’re sniping at each other (and stealing from each other). If you want to talk "fighting over crumbs" you’d be talking about Microsoft (Kin) or the Palm (Pre). :-D
As for me, I own an iPhone and am not interested in the Android. Still, I'd admit that Google is far better positioned. After all, the iPhone needs Google (maps and search), but Google doesn't need anything from Apple other than ideas to steal. Given the licensing on the Android (Google makes no money off that), it makes me wonder if this isn't going to be a war worth winning—I really don’t see carriers accepting giving cloud and mobile ad revenue to Google once there are no players other than Google #1 and Apple #2. At least with Apple, you know what you’re paying up front.
True, but what about this. Android phones looked like blackberry competoirs in prototype status. The final version came out about a year after the first iPhone shipped to customers. This android phone (G1) had a large touch screen and all. I do find it hard to believe that they though if having a large iPhone like touch screen. Then again Apple dd copy LG by using a large touch screen on a phone with little amount of physical bottoms.
invention
almost all technologies inspire one another. even human race creating fire. 2 stones were used to create it. or facebook, which is an old concept creating content(photo or text) and posting it so people can reply in public platform. in reality it is a very simple technology(software) but why do you think we all bought in to it. because it was what we humans needed in the world wide web, more social communication.
what apple did in its history of products was applying different technologies under one device better than everybody. and they are still doing their best.
simple is that.....
almost all technologies inspire one another. even human race creating fire. 2 stones were used to create it. or facebook, which is an old concept creating content(photo or text) and posting it so people can reply in public platform. in reality it is a very simple technology(software) but why do you think we all bought in to it. because it was what we humans needed in the world wide web, more social communication.
what apple did in its history of products was applying different technologies under one device better than everybody. and they are still doing their best.
simple is that.....
Yes LG (Prada) was first, but let me add another important fact:
Google knew that Andy Rubin – from Danger Inc – had some really new and innovative ideas – search for the BusinessWeek interview – at the same time Apple was pushing its second line of *iPod's out to consumers, and thus it is very unlikely that Apple was even thinking about phones.
Also. Let me debunk this so called 'Safari tablet' rumor because I happen to know the Safari team lead, who is supposed to have worked on it before the iPhone, but that project was only started in late 2006 and thus I call BS.
* The iPod is not even an Apple original, but was, luckily for Apple, denied by other manufacturers like Phillips.
Please re-read my post. The SE800/900 gave the user the option to remove the physical keyboard, leaving the phone with touch screen only ( plus a few buttons on the side ), see the screenshot below.
No physical keyboard - yup? I guess you'll have to look again...
You can search on Google to see that Jobs liked these SonyErcisson phones.
Oh how funny. Hang on, they're both Yanks so they rewrite History as second nature anyway don't they? Anyone who's watched any Hollywood World War 2 movie will know that's the case, so why all the fuss?
Schmidttface will next say he invented the WWW, and Jobs the world's first computer.
Sheesh!
Schmidttface will next say he invented the WWW, and Jobs the world's first computer.
Sheesh!