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 to Take on Apple with Open AirPlay Alternative
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was responding directly to a commenter who implied (wrongly) that Apple followed Google into the smartphone arena.
M
Mr.damien
Guest
Again, you have nothing to back up your facts that Apple was obliged to do so and that it was not made because they wanted too as they already done with other projects they own. But anyway, nice try to drawn the fish.
If Apple wanted to do closed source software for web, they could do it. They already are for so much software ...
----------
It's quite amazing to see fandroid telling that Apple is following Google on the smartphone area, especially when Android is here because Eric Schmidt was spying Apple from his role at the board.
----------
No it's NOT facts. You are guessing that Apple would not push back any changes if it was not LGPL and you are telling people that Apple is crap because they were forced to do so, otherwise they won't. It's not the case as I shown you with other projects coming FROM apple totaly and that are totaly open source and free today.
Facts. Cold, unemotinal facts. No love, no hate.
But we could speak about the bad relation of KDE and Apple because the main consern was that Apple wanted to do a neutral web engine while KDE wanted them to push Konqueror.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License
Do you have anything to back your claim or facts are only essential when you want?
Fandroids? Do you insult when it is shown that you're wrong?
Facts :
- KHTML is/was LGPL'ed
- The LGPL forces you to release any source modifications if you distribute binaries
- Apple distributed Webkit in binary form when they released Safari.
So yes, Apple was forced to do it, in the case of Webkit. You're applying emotions to cold hard facts. You even deny the facts.
You're making up things at this point. That's not the gripe the KDE people had at all, especially considering KHTML was already pretty much a Neutral web engine that was easily embeddedable in any applications out there. KDE has been built since the 1.0 days with object re-use in mind. The Kparts architecture and the KIO-slave model were early implementations of very reusable components to build applications fast.
----------
Do you have proof of Eric spying ?
And as for Apple following Google, it's again quite a known fact :
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-08-16/google-buys-android-for-its-mobile-arsenal
Facts, gotta love 'em.
Took me another two seconds to find this.
Anything released underneath the GPL is open sourced and readily available to anyone who wants to use it, with the caveat that anyone who does use it eventually has to release the products using GPLed software as open source as well.
Apple was therefore very obliged as per the terms of the license.
Edit: ...or what Oleteros and WRX said. I need to get into the habit of reading to the bottom of these threads before posting. Or hell, at least the next post down.
Last edited:
WebKit is under LGPL, not GPL. They are very similar but have an important difference. If WebKit were under GPL, then all software that use it (shared/statically linked), e.g. Safari, also need to be under GPL and therefore the source code needs to be released when the binary is distributed/published.
With LGPL, you only need to release the source code of the LGPLed code. The source code of application that uses it does not need to be released as long as the LGPLed code is not statically linked.
A point I already addressed earlier in the thread. If KHTML had been GPL'ed, Apple couldn't have used it because they would then have been forced to release the entire Safari source code to link against the GPL'ed WebKit fork of KHTML.
But all that is moot in the current discussion, as we were discussing "why" Apple released the WebKit source. The reason is simple : the LGPL did not give them the choice in this instance.
iPhone project (Project Purple) was started in 2004, Google bought Android in 2005. How did Apple follow Google?
I'm sorry, do you have links dated 2004 talking about Apple's public acquisition/starting of this project ?
If indeed Apple started the project in 2004 (which all I've read seem to not corraborate as they were still debating a Linux or Darwin based solution in early 2006), if they didn't go public, how did Google even know about it in 2005 ? How did Andy Rubin know about it in 1998 when he founded Danger Inc. or in 2003 when he founded Android Inc. ?
See where I'm going there ? "Google followed Apple" is a bunk statement in light of publicly available information. Are you saying Google followed Apple ? Because if you're not, you have no reason to try to oppose my position on this. Don't be a contrarian and don't move goalposts please.
air play
If Apple misses the boat on this it has lost a huge golden opportunity. I have written to them and got no response many times asking that they forego all the fancy stuff for the future but focus on simplicity at first and make millions by adding one simple function - "bookmark" or go- to. When an advertisement comes on TV that you actually like and want more information about-why is it so hard to simply send the information of the website or special offer to the computer or tablet or phone? Advertisers would pay millions to have the potential buyers actually go to their sites-that's what they are trying to accomplish DUH! I say it again DUH-wake the F up Apple and add this simple function-get pay per clicks or something but WAKE UP. Digital info is embedded into every ad-this should not be difficult.
Nick G
If Apple misses the boat on this it has lost a huge golden opportunity. I have written to them and got no response many times asking that they forego all the fancy stuff for the future but focus on simplicity at first and make millions by adding one simple function - "bookmark" or go- to. When an advertisement comes on TV that you actually like and want more information about-why is it so hard to simply send the information of the website or special offer to the computer or tablet or phone? Advertisers would pay millions to have the potential buyers actually go to their sites-that's what they are trying to accomplish DUH! I say it again DUH-wake the F up Apple and add this simple function-get pay per clicks or something but WAKE UP. Digital info is embedded into every ad-this should not be difficult.
Nick G
You're the only one moving goalposts. I simply said that Apple was already working on the iPhone before Google even bought Android. Nowhere in my statement did I say that Google followed Apple. They both started their projects separately.
Scott Forstall testified about the beginnings of the iPhone and talked about how in 2003 they began work on a tablet and in 2004 switched to the iPhone.
http://www.imore.com/apple-senior-vice-presidents-phil-schiller-and-scott-forstall-share-brief-pre-history-iphone-and
http://www.redmondpie.com/scott-forstall-reveals-how-apple-started-working-on-the-iphone-way-back-in-2004-as-part-of-project-purple/
Hum, how can I be moving goalposts when you jumped into a conversation that was already on-going for a few pages ? You just didn't get the context of the discussion. You think I moved goalposts, but that's where they were all this time. This whole sub-thread started because someone precisely stated Google followed Apple into mobile OSes.
You really like jumping into these sub-threads just to contradict me without having a clue about the context uh ? You do it each and every time. I've already told you it's getting tiring.
You said it's a known fact that Apple followed Google into mobile OS'. I pointed out that the iPhone project began before Google bought Android. Neither followed each other into mobile OS'. What context do I need?
Obviously I agree with your statement that Google didn't follow Apple. If nothing else, I just provided some meaningful information about the iPhone project's start date.
EDIT: I read it as this:
Random Guy-> Eric Schmidt stole ideas while on the board and followed Apple into phones (wrong).
KnightWRX-> Apple 'followed' Google because Google publicly acquired Android before the iPhone was started (wrong).
I was just saying that the iPhone project started in 2004, before the Android acquisition. I just meant that neither followed one another. Maybe you also meant that but didn't express it in a way that I understood?
Last edited:
I was hyperboling to show the other poster that his "facts" were all screwed up. Hence why the context is important, or you just look like a contrarian.
The fact remains though, from publicaly available information, Apple "followed" Google, as they didn't admit to working on a mobile phone until 2007, Google however had publicaly acquired Android in 2005.
(yes, I know neither followed each other. Getting into the mobile space around 2005-2007 was simply a smart move as that was obviously where technology was heading, and frankly, in 2012, anyone can see both Google and Apple were right to pursue this business, Microsoft having missed that boat...).
Well, it's hard to tell when you just say that Apple followed Google because Android was acquired in 2005 and then defend it by saying you didn't think any major work was going on with the iPhone until 2006. Regardless, I just found it a bit confusing because it comes off like you're saying Google began first.
Until the trial I think it would have been fair and reasonable to assume Android started first, but now we know that the iPhone actually began first.
EDIT: Also want to point out that I never thought you meant followed as in "Hey, they're making phones! We should too!" I just thought you were saying that Google began first.
I don't think anyone has come up with something that will satisfy all consumer needs in that area, yet.
Well unfortunately that's true - Apple still don't understand that in the age of Web 2.0 openness and accessibility are key.
----------
Which does not necessarily mean that Apple was working on the iPhone before Google started working on phones. But that's a different topic.
It's not hard to tell at all. There are little Arrow icons in quotes to bring you to that post. Use them to follow the conversation up to its initial post to understand the context. You don't have to dig through the thread manually.
And Google was supposed to know that... how ? Android was started in 2003 btw, by a guy that was doing mobile software for another company called Danger Inc., which he founded himself in 1998. Danger Inc. shipped the HipTop software for the T-mobile Sidekick, a phone that shipeed in 2001. I'd say Andy Rubin had quite a head start on Apple, even if we account for "post-trial" knowledge.
No definately, if you have to absolutely say one "started first", Android is it. However, the truth is most probably that both are independant endeavours by smart companies seeing where they need to go to be relevant.
I was simply pointing out to the poster, that publicly, Google "started" first. Hence, Google can't have been following Apple, has no one knew of Apple's plans except Apple people.
What do you mean using a cable? From your iPhone? From you notebook? What? I can't imagine either being a good solution for most homes. I have three AppleTVs and two Airport Express units. I can send audio to all of them with Airplay from my Mac, my iPod Touch or even other AppleTV units and video to the three AppleTV units (even my Gen1 ATVs have been retrofitted for full video Airplay with a 3rd party app). I can even sync all the audio for a whole house party mode. How would a "cable" help here at all? It wouldn't. Even my guest bedroom is set up. A guest can play music or sound from their own iPhone or iPod Touch to the room's speakers directly.
The core question here is why does it matter who started first? To paraphrase WRX...
The whole point of whoever started first becomes a dead issue once you realize this, only good for internet points and empty bragging rights. If Apple iOS started in 2003, and Google started what eventually became Android in 2004, then...well...so? It's not like Google could copy them, considering no one outside of Apple had any idea they were working on a mobile platform. All you gleam from that is the two companies had a similar idea at roughly the same time.
...but we constantly have to engage in the who copied who circle jerk every chance we get around here, so it goes on and on and on and on and on and...
I believe this argument comes up often when some posters post the uninformed opinion (as fact) that Eric Schmidt stole iOS and brought it back to Google.
I can definately see Eric dressed in black with a ski mask, tasing a couple of Apple security goons and going to the "Mainframe room" to download "iOS onto a USB stick". The progress bar was probably moving at roughly the same pace as the incoming heavily armed security and finished just in time for Eric to make a quick getaway which Steve came in the room only to see a screen that said "Download 100% complete".
He also probably injected a virus into the core Apple mainframe, disrupting their entire operation for a couple of minutes to help him make his espace.
He used a Liquid Metal Sandisk Cruzer Titanium stick btw.
Brilliant!
ETA: I heard Eric also stole Steve's lunch often from the community fridge. He is EVIL!
Universal integration was the great prophecy driving computers.
It wasn't what the computer was, it was what the computer can and will be.
I ignored the inherent flaw, which has been feverishly and blatantly (of recent) embraced.. That all people--up to and including corporations--are terrible.
Just waiting for the day of the Free Chromebook.
In which case they can take on a new slogan...
In the words Dave Chapel: Gotcha, bitch!