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 493631
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: So I guess that...
by leos on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 01:26 UTC 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[4]: So I guess that...
by JAlexoid on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 02:46 in reply to "RE[3]: So I guess that..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The confusion arises from inventive vs innovative.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: So I guess that...
by leos on Sat 22nd Oct 2011 16:30 in reply to "RE[3]: So I guess that..."
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Innovation, in the end, really doesn't matter.


I agree. And I'm not even arguing that Android has now surpassed the iPhone in many ways. It's not relevant. The point is, it didn't start out as a fundamentally innovative idea, and thus you can understand Steve's attitude. Doesn't matter what is happening now, this was a reaction to events from 3 years ago.

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[4]: So I guess that...
by frderi on Mon 24th Oct 2011 23:20 in reply to "RE[3]: So I guess that..."
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

> 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.

OSX and Linux are very different systems. Both are based on Unix, but Mac OS X uses a different kernel called Mach, which was developed from scratch by Avie Tevanian, a NeXT engineer. Mach differs in design philosophy when compared to traditional UNIX and Linux kernels, as the former are monolithic, while OSX is a hybrid kernel.

Also, iOS (and Mac OS X) have a completely different set of programming API's (Cocoa), an unique display manager (Display PDF) and a desktop (Finder). The closest thing to cocoa you have in the Linux space is GNUStep, which is essentially an incomplete re-implementation of YellowBox/Cocoa under linux which nobody uses.

Also, over the years, most of the UNIX based system tools which run under the hood in Mac OS X (and are part of Darwin) have been replaced with Apple-developed alternatives. Launchd is one small example, to replace the cron/init stuff from UNIX. A bigger example is the compiler, where GCC has been replaced by Clang/LLVM.

The only thing which is more or less the same consistently between UNIX, Linux and Mac OS X are the BSD userland tools and X11 window system, which make you able to run UNIX and X11 applications on these systems. Both are an optional install for Mac OS X and not really required to boot the system.

Edited 2011-10-24 23:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1