Well I think you missed what this is all about. Apple has a hard time taking Android down so they are attacking HTC and Samsung indirectly attacking Google. They even joined other companies to buy Nortel Networks patents.
So in fact Apple could be suing for patents they bought without innovating. But ofcourse the same could be said about Google when there bid was accepted.
It's all a stupid game where innovation is the real loser.
I didn't mean to say I had a strong opinion about who was more innovative or whatever. It's just a clever use of language to flip the usual narrative (Android is a cheaper, "open" version of iOS) against them.
But, bear in mind that the iPhone was only ANNOUNCED in 2007, not developed - in fact rumors of an iPad-like device (the basis of the iPhone interface) were circulating for almost a decade prior to the iPhone's announcement. During that time, Schmidt was on the board of Apple, and was certainly in a position to benefit from knowledge of Apple's mobile strategy.
So in short, it is plausible and likely that Apple began working on a touch screen phone years before Google even considered purchasing Android.
And correct me if I'm wrong but, weren't the early models of Google's phone based on a blackberry-like design with a half screen / half keyboard front? And wasn't it not until Apple unveiled the iPhone that Android began to take on its present form?
You're whole position here is divorced from reality. Google bought Android in 2005--two years before Apple released the iPhone. How could Android possibly have been a strategic response to a product that didn't exist and wouldn't become a large-scale commercial success until almost four years later (because the iPhone didn't become a big hit until the 3g)?
And I'd really like to see an explanation for your claim of Google "ripping off tons of features." So far all I've seen from Apple are overly-broad patent assertions and some rather absurd claims on copyright of look-and-feel. Worse, Apple is making the claims against handset makers--not Google--as you seem to be implying.
Err, seems like I should have been much more explicit. I was unaware of the sensitivity here. I'm not saying I agree with Apple, just that out in the real world they've done a pretty good job of creating a conventional wisdom around the idea that Android phones are the cheaper version of Apple phones.
I didn't imply that Google was being sued; it's Google's executive speaking in the article.
One more time, I'm really not taking a position about who's copying who. Definitely learning a lesson about nuance in this context though.
Sorry if I came across harshly, but your original comment seemed a bit like astroturfing. And to be entirely honest, I agree strongly with what Schmidt's saying (minor nit: he's not a Google executive anymore).
Apple has done some really tremendous work on design, integration, and polish with the iPhone, and they deserve all the success it's brought them. But the fact is that their (along with Nokia and Microsoft's) responses to competition from Android have been to threaten, litigate, and abuse a broken patent system. That's not innovation, and it's definitely not a healthy pattern for the industry as a whole.
Not at all, I understand what you're saying and should have been clearer in the first place. Re: Schmidt, he's not CEO anymore, but I think he's still the Executive Chairman or something, right?
