would there have been android without iphone?

[theeedude]

There might not have been Android if iPhone had a more open app ecosystem. The main reason for Google developing Android is fear that Apple would have the power to lock them out of iPhone.

 

[Pliablemoose]

There might not have been Android if iPhone had a more open app ecosystem. The main reason for Google developing Android is fear that Apple would have the power to lock them out of iPhone.

Um, I don't think that argument holds any water at all, particularly when you look at development/purchase dates, etc...

 

[QueBert]

Hmm I know I said I was done, but that last comment was so inane, I'd like to leave you with this...

If they sucked so bad, you (and/or your company) would not have kept purchasing them. People keep purchasing them in droves, apparently including yourself, so either they don't suck or they are masters of deception to be fooling people all decade.

One way or another, despite your opinion of the platform, it is #1 in the US by a wide margin, so the platform as a whole, from the company's perspective, clearly does not suck. You cannot argue with this in any sort of intelligent manner, so please do yourself a favor and don't try.

Done for good this time, send me a postcard when you get back to the bridge.

BB's are great for email, they suck pretty hard for everything else. I literally know 1 person who bought a BB. Everyone else I know with one were given it to them by their work. I've owned a BB, and honestly unless email is your top priority no way in hell I'd recommend one to anyone I know. And even then I would suggest alternatives. If Google had tried to copy BB it would have been utterly disastrous. The companies that account for most of RIM's market share are the types that don't change something unless it's absolutely needed. Google with a BB device would have been like Microsoft with the Kin.

 

[tatteredpotato]

Um, I don't think that argument holds any water at all, particularly when you look at development/purchase dates, etc...

Well it doesn't but it's the reason Google made Android; they knew Apple would get a large marketshare and would be willing to shut them out, like with the Google Voice situation.

 

[tatteredpotato]

....Google with a BB device would have been like Microsoft with the Kin.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, let's not go too far now.... you're comparing BB to Kin?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

BB's are great for email, they suck pretty hard for everything else. I literally know 1 person who bought a BB. Everyone else I know with one were given it to them by their work. I've owned a BB, and honestly unless email is your top priority no way in hell I'd recommend one to anyone I know. And even then I would suggest alternatives. If Google had tried to copy BB it would have been utterly disastrous. The companies that account for most of RIM's market share are the types that don't change something unless it's absolutely needed. Google with a BB device would have been like Microsoft with the Kin.

exactly. companies don't like change unless absolutely necessary.

of course deeko is probably in HS and doesn't know jack shit about the real world.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Well it doesn't but it's the reason Google made Android; they knew Apple would get a large marketshare and would be willing to shut them out, like with the Google Voice situation.

Once again, wrong, Google bought Android in 2005.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2005/tc20050817_0949_tc024.htm



Eric Schmidt used inside info he learned while on Apple's board to shape Android into a competing OS:

Apple

Schmidt was elected to Apple's board of directors on August 28, 2006. On August 3, 2009 it was announced that Schmidt would resign his board member position at Apple due to conflict of interests and the growing competition between Google and Apple

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_E._Schmidt

 

[tatteredpotato]

Once again, wrong, Google bought Android in 2005.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2005/tc20050817_0949_tc024.htm

Whatever progress Android Inc would have made at that point was rather minimal in a "big picture" sense. Google bought a startup that had begun the project and took it over so as far as I'm concerned, Android is a Google-Developed project.

Eric Schmidt used inside info he learned while on Apple's board to shape Android into a competing OS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_E._Schmidt

While it's highly likely this is true, you can't know for sure what info he got. That quote only mentions that he eventually resigned from the board, but once Android was made public Schmidt excused himself from any meetings that involved the iPhone due to conflict of interest anyways.

 

[Deeko]

Its really cute that our troll is resorting to (quite untrue) personal attacks, all because I don't abhor a cell phone company that he does. That is truly pathetic. Grow up, child.

Quebert - there are certainly other redeeming qualities to Blackberry devices (keyboard quality, battery life, most notably), however, as I told the troll, this thread is not about Blackberry so there is no reason to get into that whole debate.

When Android was first developed, Blackberry and Windows Mobile were king. So they were making an OS that fit that mold. Had they released a version of Android like that a couple of years earlier, it had a shot to do very well, and chances are they would have molded it into something that fit the current design as time went on.

The Kin is an entirely different situation. The biggest issue with the Kin is the price point. It didn't mesh with their target audience.

 

[DivideBYZero]

nice of you to assume that the S2 is my only experience with bb's.
before that, i've had a 9700, 8830 and 8100. the only change the S2 brings is a touch screen.
like i said, the whole platform sucks.

oh yeah, forgot about my first bb. the one with the scrolling wheel on the right side. that one sucked too.

Keep on topic or deal with people calling you a Troll.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Yet another fanboy shit-fight thread.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Its really cute that our troll is resorting to (quite untrue) personal attacks, all because I don't abhor a cell phone company that he does. That is truly pathetic. Grow up, child.

Quebert - there are certainly other redeeming qualities to Blackberry devices (keyboard quality, battery life, most notably), however, as I told the troll, this thread is not about Blackberry so there is no reason to get into that whole debate.

When Android was first developed, Blackberry and Windows Mobile were king. So they were making an OS that fit that mold. Had they released a version of Android like that a couple of years earlier, it had a shot to do very well, and chances are they would have molded it into something that fit the current design as time went on.

The Kin is an entirely different situation. The biggest issue with the Kin is the price point. It didn't mesh with their target audience.

awww... thought you were "done for good" with this thread.

battery life... guess you've never used a Storm 2. want to know what good battery life means? check out the iphone 4.

 

[MJinZ]

did apple pave the way for android?

Yes.

Android was Google seeing a potential market ripe for competition.

iPhone was Apple seeing a mass of joeschmoe Americans ripe for the raping graphical experience, that otherwise, would not have terribly enjoyed up to that point.

 

[rudeguy]

Its really cute that our troll is resorting to (quite untrue) personal attacks, all because I don't abhor a cell phone company that he does. That is truly pathetic. Grow up, child.

Quebert - there are certainly other redeeming qualities to Blackberry devices (keyboard quality, battery life, most notably), however, as I told the troll, this thread is not about Blackberry so there is no reason to get into that whole debate.

When Android was first developed, Blackberry and Windows Mobile were king. So they were making an OS that fit that mold. Had they released a version of Android like that a couple of years earlier, it had a shot to do very well, and chances are they would have molded it into something that fit the current design as time went on.

The Kin is an entirely different situation. The biggest issue with the Kin is the price point. It didn't mesh with their target audience.

Don't forget that BlackBerry reception is 2nd to none.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Yes.

Android was Google seeing a potential market ripe for competition.

iPhone was Apple seeing a mass of joeschmoe Americans ripe for the raping graphical experience, that otherwise, would not have terribly enjoyed up to that point.

Yeah, that, corporations have feelings and are warm & cuddly & shit...

 

[tatteredpotato]

Yes.

Android was Google seeing a potential market ripe for competition.

iPhone was Apple seeing a mass of joeschmoe Americans ripe for the raping graphical experience, that otherwise, would not have terribly enjoyed up to that point.

Google only made Android to ensure that users could access their services. Google didn't want this massive mobile market to get monopolized by Apple (or RIM, Palm, MS, or whoever else is on top that week) who would be willing to shut them out. Google makes a product to sell it's services, whereas Microsoft makes services to sell it's product. That's why you won't see Microsoft port Zune Pass/XBL to Android or iOS, but you see Google give away the OS and make Google Apps available on as many platforms as possible.

 

[Deeko]

Google only made Android to ensure that users could access their services. Google didn't want this massive mobile market to get monopolized by Apple (or RIM, Palm, MS, or whoever else is on top that week) who would be willing to shut them out. Google makes a product to sell it's services, whereas Microsoft makes services to sell it's product. That's why you won't see Microsoft port Zune Pass/XBL to Android or iOS, but you see Google give away the OS and make Google Apps available on as many platforms as possible.

Pretty much. Just about everything Google does is oriented around the idea of A) getting more people to use their search and/or B) gathering more data to improve the quality of their search/ads.

 

[Oyeve]

The way I see it none of the current devices are the best. BB is great for strict email, iphone for ease of use and apps and android for open market apps and dev. They are what they are. None are perfect but each does what it does. I personally have a BB curve 2 and just use it for work email. I also have a droid for all my hacking and fun stuff as well as the occasional phone use, and I have a tmo behold 2 for my personal phone use. I dont carry all tree at once, its always my tmo behold 2 with either the droid or the curve 2. I also carry my 160gb ipod classic for music. Why all these gadgets? Because none can do all 3 great at the same time. All android phones suck in the music dept. The iphone is good at music but the phone portion sucks, imo (NYC att is weak). The droid sucks in the music and phone dept but excels in the dev dept. and email is not too bad. the BB is great at email but sucks, IMO, in music and web, And the ipod is just the best music player out there. When someone comes out with a gadget that excels in music and dev I will look into that. Until then they all serve their purpose and will be great at some things and suck at other.

 

[QueBert]

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, let's not go too far now.... you're comparing BB to Kin?

No, I'm comparing anyone who tries to directly compete with RIM as the Kin. Big cooperations make up the majority of BB users. And big ass companies don't switch technologies, even if a far better one comes along. Because they have too much money invested in one + new technology = untested. It would take a RIM competitor years to gain the trust of a large company. Look how popular RIM is with the business sector, they've been around for a long time now. Yet, you haven't seen anyone try to release a BB like device. And for good reason.

 

[MrX8503]

Android and iOS were developed around the same time. I think we would still have Android today, but maybe it would look different if the iPhone wasn't around.

 

[akugami]

did apple pave the way for android?

There would be Android. The development of both occured in nearly the same time frame. The question should have been would Android have the GUI it does now if not for the iPhone.

Well of course there are, but they were not designing an all touch interface from the get go. I don't think anyone outside of Apple knows the roadmap they followed, but I assume that they chose touchscreen pretty early on and worked from there. When Apple unveiled the iPhone in early '07, Google needed to revamp their design strategy.

I believe that the iPad was what they were working on before the iPhone. They just transitioned the tablet touchscreen GUI to a phone sized device and delayed the tablet device.

However at the end of the day, Android is a strong competitor to iPhone, strong in some areas, weak in others and competition is good. Hopefully it will lead to an actual notification system on the iPhone, and maybe Home Screen information.

Absolutely Android has pushed the iPhone forward. Anyone who doesn't think that Android has pushed for certain features to be present on the iPhone because Android had it or were going to have it is delusional. Probably the last major weak point aside from beefing up the iPhone's multi-tasking abilities is the push notification.

Pretty much. Just about everything Google does is oriented around the idea of A) getting more people to use their search and/or B) gathering more data to improve the quality of their search/ads.

I actually had a similar conversation with someone who works for Google. It's pretty much guaranteed that any project Google pursues is with the goal of using it to sell more ads.

 

[theeedude]

Once again, wrong, Google bought Android in 2005.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2005/tc20050817_0949_tc024.htm



Eric Schmidt used inside info he learned while on Apple's board to shape Android into a competing OS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_E._Schmidt

They bought something called Android, but it wasn't the Android we know now.
Google makes money off search and various ad supported services, not Android itself. Android is only needed as a platform for those services that is not under control of Apple. It's insurance against Steve Jobs' ego. If choice of apps to run on iOS was up to users and not under Apple's control, there would be no need for Android.

 

[TheStu]

They bought something called Android, but it wasn't the Android we know now.
Google makes money off search and various ad supported services, not Android itself. Android is only needed as a platform for those services that is not under control of Apple. It's insurance against Steve Jobs' ego. If choice of apps to run on iOS was up to users and not under Apple's control, there would be no need for Android.

See, saying stuff like that makes it seem like Android is the great white knight here to save us from the evil Apple (always read in these circumstances as Steve Jobs) oppressors. And it simply isn't true. No one can say for sure what would have happened if Apple hadn't decided to review all apps before they were put onto the store. I would imagine that we would have an App Store much more similar to the Market, both in good and bad.

We would have even more choices than we have today, but how many more fart apps would we have, how many copyright infringing ringtone apps would we have? How many different payment methods would we have?

There are benefits to the Apple App Store, my card is on file with them, I know that I can trust them, I know that the apps I am downloading are (almost certainly) not going to take my personal information and use it maliciously, I know that it isn't going to crash my phone, I have a great deal of peace of mind.

I am not saying that all Android apps are going to take my money, punch me in the face, break my phone and then kick my dog. I am not even saying that any of them will (though those ringtone apps might), all i am saying is that with the App Store, I know that they won't.

 

[Deeko]

They bought something called Android, but it wasn't the Android we know now.
Google makes money off search and various ad supported services, not Android itself. Android is only needed as a platform for those services that is not under control of Apple. It's insurance against Steve Jobs' ego. If choice of apps to run on iOS was up to users and not under Apple's control, there would be no need for Android.

From Google's point of view? I disagree.

Android provides a *wealth* of data gathering opportunities for Google. While it is true that a manufacturer can change the default search/maps/mail clients away from Google's, lets be serious...they don't, not in any successful form. So while there's nothing stopping Apple from switching to Bing search or Mapquest maps, Google can rest assured that their platform will use Google services.

Its not about what apps you can run, open/close etc - its about the services you use on the phone.

 

[akugami]

See, saying stuff like that makes it seem like Android is the great white knight here to save us from the evil Apple (always read in these circumstances as Steve Jobs) oppressors. And it simply isn't true. No one can say for sure what would have happened if Apple hadn't decided to review all apps before they were put onto the store. I would imagine that we would have an App Store much more similar to the Market, both in good and bad...

One thing that some ignore is the fact that the software market for smartphones was abysmal before the iPhone. Sure, you had devices like Blackberry and Symbian (I used to own an N81 and N85) but the app support was mediocre. Another issue is that the smartphone software market is different from the personal computer software market just like the games console software market is different. And speaking of consoles, the way they approve and sell their software is amazingly similar in concept (even if the delivery medium is different) to Apple's iTunes store isn't it? But hey, Apple is the new Evil Empire so let's just ignore that inconvenient little fact.