You fail at getting the point.
Look at Android when Google first bought it, which was before the iPhone hit the market. It resembled the RIM interface in terms of both hardware and software. It's sometimes difficult for people to remember what it was back "back then", but I'm sure you can try.
Yes it is, because a lot of people keep calling a OS, a piece of software, a "RIM like" interface, which is a hardware form factor (the blackberry style PDA/Phone).
Obviously, a lot of confused folk about what is and isn't Android, how it changed and didn't change.
Android is very much Android. If anything, it is inspired by Andy Rubin's previous work at his own Danger Inc. on the Hip top software/hardware. But Android is not hardware. It has no "iPhone" form factor or "BB" form factor.
A lot of you people claiming there even was a transition in Android between these form factors are missing the entire point of thing : A piece of software, namely an operating system distribution that is hardware agnostic.
Android today and still the same as it was :
Yes, that phone was released in the later 2.x days of Android. Funny how for a phone that doesn't have a "RIM" like interface ? Don't you people get it by now ? You're not even discussing the UI or the software, you're discussing the OEM's choice of hardware! That's a big world of difference between the hardware a OS runs on and the actual OS...
I don't even know why I bother with this crap anymore. It's not like you people even want to understand this stuff. You hate Android because Steve "hated" Android (according to Isaacson who wants you to plop down cash for his turd of a book).
BTW, this is Android 1.0 :
This is Ice Cream Sandwich, Android 4.0 :
Both are pretty much the same. Widgets, application launchers that can be positionned anywhere on screen according to user input. The UI didn't change much, except for its theming and styling. The core of it has remained the same. The core of it is also quite different from iOS' UI. Here for reference :
Rigid icon grid, no way to move things around as the icons place themselves linearly, completing existing rows and pages before creating new ones. This is minimalist, it is recognizable from one device to the other.
The design goals with both these UIs are quite different. Andy and Google went with user customization in mind, making the device the users device'. Apple went with a different approach, a strict UI that is unbending to a user' will so that any user that picks up any iOS device will instantly recognize how to use it efficiently.
Both approaches have merit, both target different audiences. To claim one is a copy of the other or vice versa is inane. It's ignorant of every aspect of the design of both and it ignores the fundamental differences between the systems. To tie any particular software to a device form factor is also quite inane and simplistic view of software development. It lacks understanding of the whole thing. It's very "consumerish" and shows a great lack of understanding for the technical details. Almost as if we were talking with laymen...