Google map played a big role in making iPhone very appealing. If Google held back Google map and only introduced it to Android, I think there would be a lot of people switching from iPhone to Android. Apple knows this...the reason they bought a mapping company.
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
Google is the biggest pirate in the tech world.
1. Google Books project - copying books without permission of the writers, forcing them into "licensing agreements".
2. YouTube showing copyrighted videos.
A company who steals millions of books and videos certainly doesn't mind stealing a couple of good design points from Apple.
Competition is good if it is fair. Unfair competition (which involves stealing, copying without permission, giving away other's work for free) is not.
1. Google Books project - copying books without permission of the writers, forcing them into "licensing agreements".
2. YouTube showing copyrighted videos.
A company who steals millions of books and videos certainly doesn't mind stealing a couple of good design points from Apple.
Competition is good if it is fair. Unfair competition (which involves stealing, copying without permission, giving away other's work for free) is not.
Sorry, correction of facts - the Maps app is created by Apple, not Google. It uses Google Maps API, and since it is a free app, Google cannot prohibit Apple from using the Maps API. In addition, there are other maps companies who would be happy to supply maps data to Apple.
And I just wonder why fandroids are ignoring your clever post
Because there was nothing clever about his post to begin with ?
First he managed to get the Google founder wrong, attributing this story to Sergei Brin when it's Larry Page's comment that are being posted.
Next he managed to get Positioning confused with Entering. Google entered the market in 2005 with the purchase of Android. That fact was already very clear to the industry when Apple decided to put Eric Schmidt on the board in 2006. This is what we are discussing here.
The VP comments were made as far as positioning was concerned. You can work on a product for a while before you decide on exactly how you're going to push and market it on the open market.
Both comments are complimentary, not opposites since they don't even talk about the same thing.
So no, nothing clever, and nothing worth replying to. It's just another frustrated kool-aid drinker like yourself that is trying to grasp at straws so that Steve wasn't wrong, again. Does it physically hurt when Steve is wrong ? Seeing some of you guys react, you must be in pain or something.
Is that why Apple is in distant 3rd place in market share ?
What are YOU speaking about !?!
Apple is in 3rd place basically with a SINGLE MODEL, while Nokia is spamming the market with a mess of craphones all over the world.
Because there was nothing clever about his post to begin with ?
First he managed to get the Google founder wrong, attributing this story to Sergei Brin when it's Larry Page's comment that are being posted.
Next he managed to get Positioning confused with Entering. Google entered the market in 2005 with the purchase of Android. That fact was already very clear to the industry when Apple decided to put Eric Schmidt on the board in 2006. This is what we are discussing here.
The VP comments were made as far as positioning was concerned. You can work on a product for a while before you decide on exactly how you're going to push and market it on the open market.
Both comments are complimentary, not opposites since they don't even talk about the same thing.
So no, nothing clever, and nothing worth replying to. It's just another frustrated kool-aid drinker like yourself that is trying to grasp at straws so that Steve wasn't wrong, again. Does it physically hurt when Steve is wrong ? Seeing some of you guys react, you must be in pain or something.
Speaking about fandroids ...
Google "entered the market" with NOTHING in 2005 ...
First Android based phones was released well after iPhone ...
Speaking about fandroids ...
Google "entered the market" with NOTHING in 2005 ...
First Android based phones was released well after iPhone ...
Uh, NOTHING ? Educate yourself :
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2005/tc20050817_0949_tc024.htm
And for the record : I don't even own an Android phone. I actually own an iPhone 3GS. I'm not a fanboy of anything. These are well known facts. Larry is right, Steve is wrong in this instance. Deal.
Is this a joke or are you really this clueless about the state of the smartphone industry prior to the release of the iPhone? You don't really think that just being a touch-only interface or having an SDK is the reason the iPhone turned the smartphone industry on its head, do you?
And you are not seriously trying to say that in 2007 there was a mobile browser that was as good as or better than Safari on the iPhone are you?
Then please, instead of questionning, feel free to correct me.
I was dabbling in J2ME since 2002 on Sony Ericsson phones, my carrier was selling games in an app store since then, based on either Symbian (which SE licensed from Nokia) or J2ME, touch screen interfaces and phones pre-date iPhone and Opera was a reality before Safari, just less popular than WAP based browsers used on most non-smartphones using GPRS networks.
Seriously, please explain what exactly the iPhone did turned the smartphone industry on its head when we're still struggling to even define what a smartphone is... All Apple did was package up everything and market it right to get it to sell and get used. All that stuff was already out there, Apple just took the bits and pieces they thought were good and made iPhone.
This is not a knock on Apple, this is what they've always done. Wait for people to get the work done, take, package, sell. Then the fans get in and pretend Apple invented everything, showing their ignorance of the true market innovators.
And I say again: NOTHING.
nothing to make a phone call, nothing to surf the web. nothing.
First Android based smartphone was released WELL AFTER the iPhone.
This is a fact.
And for the record: you are not a fanboy, you are just an "iPhone basher", this is a well known fact
Larry is wrong. Deal.
Explain the prototypes being shown in this thread then, by your own collegues in the iPhone is best defense Squad ?
I'll say it again : you're ignorant because you don't want Steve to be wrong. Answer me. Does it hurt you physically when Steve is wrong ? Inquiring minds want to know why the reality distortion is so strong in you...
Omg, are you really comparing those crap things to the iPhone experience ?
Are you really comparing Opera with Safari?
That's really hilarious !
Explain the prototypes being shown in this thread then, by your own collegues in the iPhone is best defense Squad ?
I'll say it again : you're ignorant because you don't want Steve to be wrong. Answer me. Does it hurt you physically when Steve is wrong ? Inquiring minds want to know why the reality distortion is so strong in you...
Would you like me to explain the difference between a PROTOTYPE and an actually selling production model like the original iPhone ?
No, I'm sure you know pretty well, but you are just spreading bs like you usually do just to prove to be right ...
Because there was nothing clever about his post to begin with ?
First he managed to get the Google founder wrong, attributing this story to Sergei Brin when it's Larry Page's comment that are being posted.
Next he managed to get Positioning confused with Entering. Google entered the market in 2005 with the purchase of Android. That fact was already very clear to the industry when Apple decided to put Eric Schmidt on the board in 2006. This is what we are discussing here.
The VP comments were made as far as positioning was concerned. You can work on a product for a while before you decide on exactly how you're going to push and market it on the open market.
Both comments are complimentary, not opposites since they don't even talk about the same thing.
So no, nothing clever, and nothing worth replying to. It's just another frustrated kool-aid drinker like yourself that is trying to grasp at straws so that Steve wasn't wrong, again. Does it physically hurt when Steve is wrong ? Seeing some of you guys react, you must be in pain or something.
Are you serious? You determine entering the market with buying a mobile operating system? So because Apple created theirs in house should we say that they "entered" the market the second they started working on that system? That is absurd on its face. Google entered the market when they released their first phone. Period.
And the fact that you can't see the opposition of the two statements by Larry and Vic is also absurd. Vic's quote was labeled as him "explaining why the company made Android." Google can buy all the software companies they want, they can create in house projects till they are blue in the face, they can create prototypes as often as their geeky hearts desire, but until they release an actual product they are not part of the game. The fact is that their product was so inspired by an iPhone and so not inspired by their own prototypes that it is ridiculous.
Now I don't have a problem with them copying the iPhone. I think it has led to greater competition and a continuous leapfrogging of features that only serves to benefit the consumers. What I do have a problem with is Larry acting like this isn't the case. I have a problem with him acting like Google would have figured this out on their own if Apple had never created the iPhone. That is absurd to the nth degree.
- Apple is the company that has invested the most in creating the damn browser engine that Google is now using for the phones.
- Have you looked at the UI on ANY of Google's other products? They are a company run by engineers and it shows. Look at the web Gmail interface. I use Gmail as my main email provider but while the service works great on the back end the web interface is embarrassing. When I occassionally have to use it I almost throw up a bit in my mouth
Sorry for the original misattribution to Brin but I simply didn't look back to the original page. Do you actually think it is that important to the facts of my post?
You're completely misunderstanding the topic. You're seeing it as a "Google got there first" thing, where Larry is claiming to pre-date the iPhone.
This isn't the topic being discussed here, except by people who are physically hurt when Steve is wrong.
What is being discussed here is how Steve can claim that the Google-Apple relationship got soured because Google made a phone and Eric "spied" on them from inside while Google was very public a year before Eric even was on the board that they were in the game for Mobile OSes and the Phone market with their acquisition of Android Inc and Andy and his team.
That is the point. Apple knew Google was coming up, they had a great relationship with Google knowing about Android. Android was not a big secret. So something else soured the relationship (which is not on a technical level, seeing how iOS 4 still ships with Youtube and Google maps).
This is what Larry Page said (not Sergei Brin) when asked by a journalist. That is all this is. No other claims were made. Larry simple said "Apple and the industry knew about Android in 2005". He's right.
Speaking of prototypes, the 'Courier' can be categorized within a new league of prototypes: 'The Conceptual Prototype.'
Others include 'Project Natal' and MS's 'Multitouch Mice,' all of which are merely place setters conjured up for the sake of projecting the image that "we got it out there first!", and for creating the illusion that "Our concept videos actually can be realized."
Google entered the market only after they released their first phone, agreed.
That said, the Android UI leaves much to be desired. Following the footsteps of a successfully integrated software/hardware company without the foundational levels, layers, and capable resources to do so isn't easy.
Although Google has faired better than MS in this 'knock-off' arena, they've got a lot more refining to do, as well as an increasingly fragmented future to deal with.
Stating that their phones were "inspired" by the iPhone design would be putting it, well... gently.
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/
http://www.apple.com/iphone/softwareupdate/
Do you expect that IphoneOS5 will run on anything older than an Iphone4? I would be surprised if it does.
Phones aren't computers with 4 to 6 year productive life spans - when the 20 month upgrade comes around, get a new one!
IphoneOS4 has ruined "fragmentation" as a reason for Apple fans to knock Android. Reality breaks through the distortion field.
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.
There's a big difference between Google API maps that Apple can add for free and the rich feature Google created for iPhone. What Google did with its map, no other map company could come close at that time. I still think if those features were first show cased on an Android, Android would had stolen some Apple users.
Eric Schmidt had a privileged relationship with Jobs and Apple while Google had him as a member of Apple's board of Directors. Jobs had personal conversations about undisclosed information regarding the iPhone for I don't know how long before the thing came out...more than likely Jobs convinced Schmidt that internet enabled smart phones were significant, if made well, to begin with. Apparently there was no bidirectional conversation and nothing was mentioned about Google taking any kind of mobile technology seriously, probably because it was a pet project Google didn't consider seriously until Apple laid the phone industry standards to waste.
Google was much more interested in trying to take over the desktop with their ChromeOS which never took hold. (no surprises there)
Google was much more interested in trying to take over the desktop with their ChromeOS which never took hold. (no surprises there)
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? You chose to make fun of me twice now for attributing the quote to the wrong Google founder. Well, at least I got what he was saying right. Here is the quote once again from page 1:
On Thursday, Google's Page suggested that Jobs' assessment was "a little bit of rewriting history."
"We had been working on Android a very long time, with the notion of producing phones that are Internet enabled and have good browsers and all that because that did not exist in the marketplace," Page said. "I think that characterization of us entering after is not really reasonable."
Google had a "notion" to build this type of device. Well having a notion and actually doing it are two different things. And when Google did decide to put their money where their mouth was the PROTOTYPE they released was just like everything else that was out at the time, so they didn't do what he is now claiming that they WANTED to do. They didn't make a product that did not exist.
Apple did make that product. And when Google saw how unbelievably incredible and different it was they, just like almost everyone else (Steve Ballmer excluded), knew that it was the future. THAT is when they decided to make Android in the form that you see it today.
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.
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.
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. You have NO IDEA when Apple started thinking about getting into the phone business because Apple keeps any product they are working on as secret as possible until it is actually released.
This is a good article for those participating in this thread to read:
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/magazine/16-02/ff_iphone
The money quote:
Wired said:
And this:
Wired said:
Anyone that still thinks Google was the first one to get into the phone industry after reading that article is just being obtuse.
Your post is a good demonstration of fragmentation because I'm having a really hard time following your thought process
You're right about the average user though and that average user will care when they buy a BRAND NEW phone and it can't run the apps that they want. That is what happens on the Android side. This does not happen on the Apple side. Period.
And you'll have to explain the last part of your post about iPhone stagnation because I have no idea what you are trying to say there.
The "fragmentation" of iOS isn't even close to Android.
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.