Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Oct 2011 23:17 UTC, submitted by jello
Apple So, how serious is the legal battle between Apple and the various Android phone makers, really? Surely, it's just logical business sense that's behind it, right? Calculated, well-planned precision strikes designed to hurt Android where simply making better, more innovative products isn't enough? Well, no, not really. We already knew Steve Jobs took this personal - now we know just how personal.
Thread beginning with comment 493626
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: So I guess that...
by jackeebleu on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 01:04 UTC in reply to "So I guess that..."
jackeebleu
Member since:
2006-01-26

Karma, has nothing to do with it. Schmidt sat on the board of Apple. Saw the product pipeline for years to come, and then suddenly the product offering change from Google changes. Google announces that they are going to release a smartphone that was initially supposed to look like a BB, but ended up looking like an iPhone, Cloud based apps, a tablet, and a unified OS. Just coincidence huh?

You can Google any of claims if you like, they are all true.

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[2]: So I guess that...
by WorknMan on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 01:10 in reply to "RE: So I guess that..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Schmidt sat on the board of Apple. Saw the product pipeline for years to come, and then suddenly the product offering change from Google changes. Google announces that they are going to release a smartphone that was initially supposed to look like a BB, but ended up looking like an iPhone, Cloud based apps, a tablet, and a unified OS. Just coincidence huh?


Doesn't really matter; these operating systems are constantly stealing features from each other (iOS5 stole Android notifications from Android, while ICS stole the new folder creation stuff from iOS, and also stole Fizzy Lifting Drinks from WebOS and WP7).

This whole 'who copied who' shit is getting old, especially in the smartphone realm, and it really needs to be buried once and for all. Even if you could prove indefinitely which one copied more, it still doesn't matter, because people are going to use what they want to use regardless of where it was copied from.

Arguing over this stuff is like competing in the special olympics ...

Edited 2011-10-22 01:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: So I guess that...
by djrikki on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 12:23 in reply to "RE[2]: So I guess that..."
djrikki Member since:
2011-09-02

Well put.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: So I guess that...
by leos on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 01:26 in reply to "RE: So I guess that..."
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Karma, has nothing to do with it. Schmidt sat on the board of Apple. Saw the product pipeline for years to come, and then suddenly the product offering change from Google changes. Google announces that they are going to release a smartphone that was initially supposed to look like a BB, but ended up looking like an iPhone, Cloud based apps, a tablet, and a unified OS. Just coincidence huh?

You can Google any of claims if you like, they are all true.


Exactly. I'll copy this post from reddit which sums it up:

""He's spot on. There's plenty of ways a $150b+ company can make a mobile OS, see Windows Phone for example.
Google bought Android when it was a BlackBerry clone, and when iPhone debuted they turned it into an iOS clone, no one can seriously deny this"

The problem is not solely that Android was just an iPhone clone. It's that Apple and Google had a very close relationship before that so this was a pretty serious stab in the back. Hence the personal vendetta.
This is not about copying a little feature here and there. This is about turning around to go after a former partner's main strategy. Like as if Apple had gone and made a search engine.

Android is not fundamentally innovative. Of course there are good features (ie, notification system) but it's no major change in design. At least a platform like Windows Phone thought about the whole experience and tried to make something different.

Edited 2011-10-22 01:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Innovation, in the end, really doesn't matter. As has been demonstrated by the numerous arguments over innovation both here and elsewhere on the internet very few people even agree on what is or is not innovative. Ultimately people choose the product that is most attractive to them according to their criteria. If you want to argue about phones argue about their features, performance, things that actually matter rather than a pretty pointless history lesson on who did something the first the most number of times ( if that's how one person chooses to define innovation).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: So I guess that...
by Nth_Man on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 08:40 in reply to "RE[2]: So I guess that..."
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

> Cloud based apps,
Google has been developing cloud based apps for many years. What did people expect from Google? Not to use them?

> a tablet,
Did people expect Google to give up markets?

> and a unified OS
So Google has not diverse OS like Chrome and Android?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: So I guess that...
by Nth_Man on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 08:45 in reply to "RE[2]: So I guess that..."
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

> Android was just an iPhone clone.

"Besides a mobile phone, the major applications were a calendar, address book, world clock, calculator, note pad, e-mail, and games. It had no physical buttons to dial with. Instead customers used a touchscreen to select phone numbers with a finger".

It was an invent from Apple? No.
http://www.retrocom.com/bellsouth_ibm_simon.htm
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&pr...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: So I guess that...
by phoudoin on Mon 24th Oct 2011 18:20 in reply to "RE[2]: So I guess that..."
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Google bought Android when it was a BlackBerry clone, and when iPhone debuted they turned it into an iOS clone, no one can seriously deny this


Yeah, a clone that can't even run apps made for iOS, or even have some compatibily at SDK level, not even the same language to develop for.

Something weird happened to the definition of "clone" word in the IT. Now, just sharing a vague physical shape make a product a "clone", an illegal copy of another one.

All this is not getting silly, it *IS*.
Since far too long.

Too many people seems trapped in a distortion field.

This is about turning around to go after a former partner's main strategy. Like as if Apple had gone and made a search engine.[/quote]

First, show us a contract signed between Apple and Google saying none of them will walk on the shoes of the other one. No contract, no deal. No deal, no promise. That a big player think that some one friendly company will always be is really be a uber naive businessman.

Second, nothing forbid Apple to make a search engine.
I even wonder why they didn't yet. Shy?
Difficulty? No unoccupied market share to claim first?

[q]Android is not fundamentally innovative.


As 99.9999% of software code. Even iOS, MacOS X, Windows, Linux share a large portion of software design that were written decades ago.
Under iOS, there is an UNIX layer.
Same for MacOS X. Apple invent none of them.
But without them, no iDevice, zero.

What Android did is to put a fast quasi-java runtime and write an orthogonal framework that doesn't need to learn a language only used by one company products (Objective C). Suddently, all java coders could see a new opportunity, when they didn't with Apple ecosystem.
This kind of choice also matter.

Of course there are good features (ie, notification system) but it's no major change in design.


You mean, not like the lack of multitasking in iOS until 3.0? Or system-wide copy&paste?
Sure, multitasking, aka the ability to NOT have to restart from scratch what you were doing before you accept to answer that call is not a major change in design for a smartphone operating system. It was so fun without multitasking, so true.

Yeah, right.
Sorry, but sporting an apple logo is not a major design change anymore. The same apply to huge margin.
And consumer started to see that since a year.
What did Apple innovate since?
Their latest innovation is whinning about stealers.
Indeed, that's a very big change, for a company that started to gain profit by copying Xerox WIMP design.

At least a platform like Windows Phone thought about the whole experience and tried to make something different.


Which has yet miss success, mostly because smartphone users are now expecting user interface they already how to use and are fluent with, like before others users were hooked to Windows and less ready to try something different like... a Mac.

How ironic.

Apple innovate. They create a new design paradigm, so great that nobody can think to use a smartphone that won't be a touch device and behave similar to the new paradigm.

But they are hangry that their paradigm is copied!?
It's the price of success.

For some people, being successful and rich is never enough. They want to be the only one successful and rich?

Won't work. Never had, never will.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: So I guess that...
by JAlexoid on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 02:37 in reply to "RE: So I guess that..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Saw the product pipeline for years to come, and then suddenly the product offering change from Google changes.


1st point: How about timing? Touch oriented Android was presented for the first time a very long time after iPhone was released. First device was released a year and 3 months after iPhone was released. almost 2 years after iPhone was announced. If Schmidt had any insider information, wouldn't Android be touch oriented from the start?

2nd point: Schmidt was CEO of a company that publicly bought Android in 2005, when he was asked by Steve to join Apple's board in 2006.

3rd point: There is such a thing called industrial espionage and trade secrets. If Schmidt committed industrial espionage, then the trial would have been quick. However, with all that fury no accusations were made. Only nutters online allege it.

4th point: Steve said that iPhone was developed in secret.

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[2]: So I guess that...
by tylerdurden on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 03:05 in reply to "RE: So I guess that..."
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Android was founded in '02, and then it was acquired by Google in '04/'05. Apple started the development of the iPhone in '05.


So either Schmidt has time traveling abilities, or you have fallen into the famous Steve Jobs reality distortion field.

Reply Parent Score: 12

RE[3]: So I guess that...
by twitterfire on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 08:08 in reply to "RE[2]: So I guess that..."
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


So either Schmidt has time traveling abilities, or you have fallen into the famous Steve Jobs reality distortion field.


The man was ill and was raving and delusional because of medication.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: So I guess that...
by frderi on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 09:08 in reply to "RE[2]: So I guess that..."
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

As noted earlier, Android pre-iPhone was a BlackBerry clone, not an iPhone clone. Google had inside information on what the iPhone would be like, and took this inside info to steer their Android effort in another direction so they could compete with the iPhone before others.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: So I guess that...
by TechGeek on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 03:22 in reply to "RE: So I guess that..."
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Karma, has nothing to do with it. Schmidt sat on the board of Apple. Saw the product pipeline for years to come, and then suddenly the product offering change from Google changes. Google announces that they are going to release a smartphone that was initially supposed to look like a BB, but ended up looking like an iPhone, Cloud based apps, a tablet, and a unified OS. Just coincidence huh?

You can Google any of claims if you like, they are all true.


Lets be honest about something. When you sit on the board of a company, there are a lot of eyes on you. As Schmidt worked for Google, he would not, and was not, privy to any discussions that would have been a conflict of interest. To do so would have put Schmidt personally in the cross hairs of a multi billion dollar law suit. Lots of boards from lots of companies have members on other boards. While Schmidt probably knew Apple was working on a phone, he would not have had any first hand knowledge of the actual design.

EDIT: To suggest otherwise is laughable considering the secrecy of Apple about their products. Do you really think Steve Jobs would allow a competitor a preview of what they were building?

Edited 2011-10-22 03:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: So I guess that...
by jackeebleu on Sun 23rd Oct 2011 00:53 in reply to "RE[2]: So I guess that..."
jackeebleu Member since:
2006-01-26

They weren't a competitor at that time. As Jobs stated at All Things D with Walt Mossberg, " We didn't go out and build a search engine did we?" And if anyone thinks that people sitting on the BOD don't get to sees working prototypes of future products, you obviously are tards.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: So I guess that...
by pgeorgi on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 19:49 in reply to "RE: So I guess that..."
pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

a smartphone that was initially supposed to look like a BB, but ended up looking like an iPhone

In case you're referring to that devboard picture that floats around on the web: devboards look like that, keyboard and all.

It's simply easier to debug these boxes with real keys instead of relying on a metric ton of software just to be able to enter "reboot".

I'm not saying that there wasn't such a deliberate move (no idea), but that picture is not a good proof.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: So I guess that...
by andydread on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 20:57 in reply to "RE: So I guess that..."
andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

Karma, has nothing to do with it. Schmidt sat on the board of Apple. Saw the product pipeline for years to come, and then suddenly the product offering change from Google changes. Google announces that they are going to release a smartphone that was initially supposed to look like a BB, but ended up looking like an iPhone, Cloud based apps, a tablet, and a unified OS. Just coincidence huh?

You can Google any of claims if you like, they are all true.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

Reply Parent Score: 1