6 ms·

I like John Gruber, and I upvoted this article, but this point: > Look at those 2007 Android designs compared to the original 2007 iPhone. Now compare a 2010 A

I like John Gruber, and I upvoted this article, but this point: > Look at those 2007 Android designs compared to the original 2007 iPhone. Now compare a 2010 Android design to a current iPhone. Don’t tell me Google’s mobile strategy hasn’t changed. I mean, he's totally right. It did change. But it wasn't to knock off Apple, it's because Google is building what consumers want and demand now. Apple can say, "We pioneered that!" That's true. But they can't say, "We pioneered that - how dare they!" Because that's misplaced. Consumer preference has shifted, and yes, that's due in large part because of Apple's actions. But Apple gets into trouble when they start thinking, "People want iPhones and these jerks are copying our iPhone" - because consumers don't necessarily want iPhones. They want well-designed devices which are fun and intuitive to use. Apple helped reveal that path, but they don't exactly get to plant a flag in the ground and say that's theirs now, forever, and how dare anyone else build well-designed devices with intuitive touchscreen interfaces. Any other company I'd shrug at the misplaced righteous indignation, but Apple really should know better, since they got into this with Microsoft over "look and feel" last decade over GUI. The reaction was the same, "How dare Microsoft try to give people Apple-like stuff!" But that's wrong. Microsoft gave people what they wanted, which was pretty and and more intuitive navigation. It's like - when you introduce a new general standard, you can't really own it. It's out there. You get a massive head start, but then people will start using that standard and innovating on it. Traditionally what companies with the head start do is cut prices to lock in market share and make it impossible for people to compete, but Apple runs on crazy margins, so they refuse to do this, get angry at whoever is making something that fills similar needs for a lower price than them, and then lose their market. And now they're doing it again.

joshsharp 16y ago
I came here to post exactly the same sentiment. Claiming Android could've competed against Blackberry instead is disingenuous - why would Google set themselves up to challenge a second-rate user experience when it could aim to be the best?
- archon810 16y ago
  At this same exact moment, in an alternate universe, Gruber is making the exact same point about Android going after Blackberry instead of Apple, and poor Blackberry because Android intruded on their business so unexpectedly. Give me a break, John.
  - tcskeptic 16y ago
    I don't believe his point is really "Poor Apple" it seems to be more that his point is, iAds is fair.
- isleyaardvark 16y ago
  When it first came out it could've. RIM didn't think they had a second-rate user experience, don't people remember all the talk about physical keyboards? As far as I can tell, the first touchscreen Android phone came out in late 2009 (HTC Magic, according to this: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/google-android-htc-touch,news-3494.html http://www.tomsguide.com/us/google-android-htc-touch,news-34...) That's a full two years after the release of the iPhone. It took time for Google to start competing on the iPhone's turf, and that's why the relationship changed.
  - robin_reala 16y ago
    That was the first touch-only Android device (although it came out in July), but the G1 had a touch screen and that came out in Oct 2008.
fix3r 16y ago
I don't think that the sentiment was that no one should copy it, but rather that, by copying it, Apple will see them as a legitimate target.
erikstarck 16y ago
Also, one has to remember that Google doesn't make the phones, the device manufacturers do. These are in turn under pressure from the operators/carriers to come out with designs that consumers like. It's not like Google can decide exactly what the phones will look like.
- gthank 16y ago
  You can't have a touchscreen phone without OS support.
  - zaphar 16y ago
    And you won't have OS support unless hardware manufacturers push for and ask for it. It's driven by both sides. The point is that Apple wasn't the only company who saw the touchscreen revolution coming. They were just the first to execute. Android since it's open source and has participation from multiple hardware vendors allowed many of them to catch up. I'm frankly surprised this is framed as Google vs Apple. It's actually a textbook case of the free-market adapting and competition continuing. It means the free market is working. Which makes me happy. I can now get a decent smartphone on the Carrier of my choice at a price I can afford. If the IPhone was the only game in town I'd still be stuck with a blackberry. I was not in love with my blackberry I had it because I loved it. I am in love with my Android phone though.
credo 16y ago
I think you might be missing the point.I'm not sure why you think that Gruber says or condones saying ["We pioneered that - how dare they!"] Gruber explicitly says that it is fair for Google to compete with Apple and to copy the iPhone. He is making the point that it is reasonable for Apple to compete with Google (in ads). Here is the excerpt >>It wasn’t unfair for Google to decide to compete directly against and copy ideas from the iPhone. That’s competition. It may be angering to Apple, but it’s not out of bounds. >>What’s goofy is the idea that Google would do this — to aggressively change Android from a BlackBerry/Windows Mobile competitor into an iPhone competitor — and that anyone would expect Apple not to retaliate, to instead just sit there and take it and allow all other aspects of their previous buddy-buddy corporate relationship with Google to continue as though nothing had changed.
- mortenjorck 16y ago
  >>What’s goofy is the idea that Google would do this — to aggressively change Android from a BlackBerry/Windows Mobile competitor into an iPhone competitor — and that anyone would expect Apple not to retaliate, to instead just sit there and take it and allow all other aspects of their previous buddy-buddy corporate relationship with Google to continue as though nothing had changed. Gruber is drawing an arbitrary distinction here that never really existed. RIM and Microsoft have been in the process of adapting in the very same way: Look at the BlackBerry Storm or Windows Phone 7. Are RIM and MS suddenly changing markets? No, they're just evolving to meet consumer demand, same as Google did.
  - rayval 16y ago
    Good point. If Google did as Gruber suggested, and compete with Blackberry instead of iPhone, they would still end up in the same place (touch screen smartphones), because these are all converging to a consensus view of user experience design. The differences are in quality of execution.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  Follow the link to his earlier blog post "Google started this": Bullshit. Google started this. It was Google that turned its sights on the iPhone. [...] They made their bed, now they have to sleep in it. There’s no question it’s a dick move on Apple’s part. But what’s the argument against it? That Google gets a pass for being dicks to Apple, and Apple ought to just sit there and take it? What is Gruber suggesting that Google shouldn't get a pass for being dicks about here? I understand what he's saying Apple are being dicks about, and it's not competing in ads. It's a dick move to begin competing in ads and start by banning your main competitor's product from the market you control.
dieterrams 16y ago
I agree with this, but instead of saying Apple gets angry, we might as well acknowledge that it's basically Steve who gets angry. These things are sort of his babies, after all, and he takes it personal. But you know, if you'd put a lot of effort into honing an interface light years ahead of the competition, and someone you saw as a friend/ally/colleague suddenly decided to ape that UI without having put in any of the work, you'd probably take it personal too.
- alxp 16y ago
  If the end result of you getting angry is that you end up building a better product (iAds), well, then you're Steve Jobs and it's what makes you different from most other people.
  - dieterrams 16y ago
    Definitely. Steve wouldn't be the kind of guy to get angry over this if he wasn't so passionate about building a better product. I imagine he's just as angry that the Android UI is basically a second-rate knockoff. (Sorry if this makes some people angry.) If Google had developed a UI derivative of, but also indisputably better than iPhone OS's, Jobs would have respected them for it. I guess it's not at all clear from my comment, but I agree with lionhearted insofar as his description of Apple's (or Steve's) motives are basically right. I'm not sure if I agree with their method of retaliation (blocking AdMob from targeting), but I do think they're justified in feeling angry about having their UI innovations ripped off. They don't get to hold onto them forever, but when their work advances the industry by that much, they deserve a level of deference, the same way deserving patent-holders do. Funnily enough, it's Microsoft that chose not to develop a derivative UI this time, with Windows Phone 7. Something tells me that that UI is going to get old fast, but at least they attempted to innovate and be original.
    - blinks 16y ago
      > I imagine he's just as angry that the Android UI is basically a second-rate knockoff. [citation needed] I used an iPhone for a couple years, got a G1 and used it for a while, got a Nexus One and used it for a while, used the iPhone for a little while longer, and then switched back to the Nexus One for good. My preference is Android (for a myriad of reasons, including the UX); got anything non-anecdotal that speaks to this, or at least a (neutral) third-party authority on UX?
patrickk 16y ago
"But it wasn't to knock off Apple, it's because Google is building what consumers want and demand now." Consumers want and demand touchscreen smartphones with large screens and no keypads precisely because Apple trained people to want them. Google is knocking off Apple, just like Microsoft knocked off Apple with the GUI computer interface. (Apple trained people to want them too). And it's not just Google. You can hardly turn around without tripping over another iPhone knockoff (large touchscreen, no keypad) from Nokia, RIM, Samsung and basically everyone else. EDIT: Not sure why this is being downvoted - name a touchscreen smartphone that people were raving about before the iPhone? Pointing this out doesn't make me a fanboy. The iPhone wasn't the first of it's kind, but it was the first touchcscreen smartphone people were nuts for. See the number of sales and downloads on the App store compared to anywhere else. Or the fact that despite being locked down, and bundled with shitty carriers, people were still willing to endure that to own an iPhone.
- biafra 16y ago
  The Sony Ericsson P800 (2003) had a touchscreen and me my friends were raving about it :-) I still used it in 2007 when my E70 was in repair.
stcredzero 16y ago
it wasn't to knock off Apple, it's because Google is building what consumers want and demand now In retrospect, doesn't it seem like Google should have emphasized the original Android phones and gone after Blackberry's market share? I think Google wants more corporate mindshare. The part of the world's data that both badly needs organization and has big flows of money associated with it is in the hands of big corporations. By differentiating themselves as the "business-oriented" smartphone, they could have eaten Blackberry's lunch or scared them into partnership while still chipping away at Apple with the Multitouch phones. Then again, consumer demand is perhaps the way for newcomers to enter the corporate market.
timae 16y ago
In response to: > But Apple gets into trouble when they start thinking, "People want iPhones and these jerks are copying our iPhone" and >The reaction was the same, "How dare Microsoft try to give people Apple-like stuff!" I think Apple's position on this has been misinterpreted over the years. They don't have any problem with copying good ideas from others and don't have the "how dare they" attitude towards Microsoft (or Google) that people seem to think. What I believe annoyed them over the years was that Microsoft took the basic premise of their stuff, made it worse (i.e. produced a "third-rate" product as Jobs has called it), and was winning with this strategy (because, they felt, that "enterprise" was making the purchasing decisions and that they were suffering from the layer between them and the consumers). On Google, they're competition, so they're competing with them. The Eric Schmidt angle might make it a bit different, but largely I get the sense that Apple respects what Google does, believes they make great products, and is focused on beating them in the market where they both compete.
- cheald 16y ago
  I think you're wrong. > "We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours." -- Steve Jobs, regarding the recent Apple vs HTC lawsuit. That's about as cut-and-dried "how dare they" as it comes, particular when examined in the context of the lawsuit.
  - timae 16y ago
    Seriously? This is a quote on protecting a patent. In other words, they have a piece of paper that legally prevents a competitor from copying a specific innovation. That's different from whining "how dare you" when you copy an idea in a perfectly legal way. For some context, watch this video, specifically 0:35-0:46 and 2:50-3:43. It's a younger and more "pissed off" Steve Jobs than we know today, however his feelings are clear: He's not against copying ideas, adding value to them, and producing a wonderful product. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK7TQVFSA1Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK7TQVFSA1Y
Gormo 16y ago
Apple is especially open to criticism here because in all of these cases, Apple was by no means the originator of the innovations. We're all familiar with the Xerox GUI saga, and I saw multi-touch UIs demonstrated in TED videos several years before the iPhone came out. But Apple also deserves some praise: their unique strength has been in designing commercially viable products that integrate technologies that are still very early in the adoption curve, providing the marketing force that's needed to push new tech into the mainstream. They've also been very effective at breaking the logjam in established industries that have held back certain innovations (digital music distribution and consumer smartphones come to mind). This has been enormously valuable for the technology industry as a whole, and has often opened the frontier for Microsoft, Google, and others. We probably wouldn't have Android devices now if Apple hadn't used their marketing prowess to get the phone carriers to accept the entire category.

joshsharp 16y ago

I came here to post exactly the same sentiment. Claiming Android could've competed against Blackberry instead is disingenuous - why would Google set themselves up to challenge a second-rate user experience when it could aim to be the best?

archon810 16y ago
At this same exact moment, in an alternate universe, Gruber is making the exact same point about Android going after Blackberry instead of Apple, and poor Blackberry because Android intruded on their business so unexpectedly. Give me a break, John.
- tcskeptic 16y ago
  I don't believe his point is really "Poor Apple" it seems to be more that his point is, iAds is fair.
isleyaardvark 16y ago
When it first came out it could've. RIM didn't think they had a second-rate user experience, don't people remember all the talk about physical keyboards? As far as I can tell, the first touchscreen Android phone came out in late 2009 (HTC Magic, according to this: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/google-android-htc-touch,news-3494.html http://www.tomsguide.com/us/google-android-htc-touch,news-34...) That's a full two years after the release of the iPhone. It took time for Google to start competing on the iPhone's turf, and that's why the relationship changed.
- robin_reala 16y ago
  That was the first touch-only Android device (although it came out in July), but the G1 had a touch screen and that came out in Oct 2008.

fix3r 16y ago

I don't think that the sentiment was that no one should copy it, but rather that, by copying it, Apple will see them as a legitimate target.

erikstarck 16y ago

Also, one has to remember that Google doesn't make the phones, the device manufacturers do. These are in turn under pressure from the operators/carriers to come out with designs that consumers like. It's not like Google can decide exactly what the phones will look like.

gthank 16y ago
You can't have a touchscreen phone without OS support.
- zaphar 16y ago
  And you won't have OS support unless hardware manufacturers push for and ask for it. It's driven by both sides. The point is that Apple wasn't the only company who saw the touchscreen revolution coming. They were just the first to execute. Android since it's open source and has participation from multiple hardware vendors allowed many of them to catch up. I'm frankly surprised this is framed as Google vs Apple. It's actually a textbook case of the free-market adapting and competition continuing. It means the free market is working. Which makes me happy. I can now get a decent smartphone on the Carrier of my choice at a price I can afford. If the IPhone was the only game in town I'd still be stuck with a blackberry. I was not in love with my blackberry I had it because I loved it. I am in love with my Android phone though.

credo 16y ago

I think you might be missing the point.I'm not sure why you think that Gruber says or condones saying ["We pioneered that - how dare they!"] Gruber explicitly says that it is fair for Google to compete with Apple and to copy the iPhone. He is making the point that it is reasonable for Apple to compete with Google (in ads). Here is the excerpt >>It wasn’t unfair for Google to decide to compete directly against and copy ideas from the iPhone. That’s competition. It may be angering to Apple, but it’s not out of bounds. >>What’s goofy is the idea that Google would do this — to aggressively change Android from a BlackBerry/Windows Mobile competitor into an iPhone competitor — and that anyone would expect Apple not to retaliate, to instead just sit there and take it and allow all other aspects of their previous buddy-buddy corporate relationship with Google to continue as though nothing had changed.

mortenjorck 16y ago
>>What’s goofy is the idea that Google would do this — to aggressively change Android from a BlackBerry/Windows Mobile competitor into an iPhone competitor — and that anyone would expect Apple not to retaliate, to instead just sit there and take it and allow all other aspects of their previous buddy-buddy corporate relationship with Google to continue as though nothing had changed. Gruber is drawing an arbitrary distinction here that never really existed. RIM and Microsoft have been in the process of adapting in the very same way: Look at the BlackBerry Storm or Windows Phone 7. Are RIM and MS suddenly changing markets? No, they're just evolving to meet consumer demand, same as Google did.
- rayval 16y ago
  Good point. If Google did as Gruber suggested, and compete with Blackberry instead of iPhone, they would still end up in the same place (touch screen smartphones), because these are all converging to a consensus view of user experience design. The differences are in quality of execution.
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
Follow the link to his earlier blog post "Google started this": Bullshit. Google started this. It was Google that turned its sights on the iPhone. [...] They made their bed, now they have to sleep in it. There’s no question it’s a dick move on Apple’s part. But what’s the argument against it? That Google gets a pass for being dicks to Apple, and Apple ought to just sit there and take it? What is Gruber suggesting that Google shouldn't get a pass for being dicks about here? I understand what he's saying Apple are being dicks about, and it's not competing in ads. It's a dick move to begin competing in ads and start by banning your main competitor's product from the market you control.

dieterrams 16y ago

I agree with this, but instead of saying Apple gets angry, we might as well acknowledge that it's basically Steve who gets angry. These things are sort of his babies, after all, and he takes it personal. But you know, if you'd put a lot of effort into honing an interface light years ahead of the competition, and someone you saw as a friend/ally/colleague suddenly decided to ape that UI without having put in any of the work, you'd probably take it personal too.

alxp 16y ago
If the end result of you getting angry is that you end up building a better product (iAds), well, then you're Steve Jobs and it's what makes you different from most other people.
- dieterrams 16y ago
  Definitely. Steve wouldn't be the kind of guy to get angry over this if he wasn't so passionate about building a better product. I imagine he's just as angry that the Android UI is basically a second-rate knockoff. (Sorry if this makes some people angry.) If Google had developed a UI derivative of, but also indisputably better than iPhone OS's, Jobs would have respected them for it. I guess it's not at all clear from my comment, but I agree with lionhearted insofar as his description of Apple's (or Steve's) motives are basically right. I'm not sure if I agree with their method of retaliation (blocking AdMob from targeting), but I do think they're justified in feeling angry about having their UI innovations ripped off. They don't get to hold onto them forever, but when their work advances the industry by that much, they deserve a level of deference, the same way deserving patent-holders do. Funnily enough, it's Microsoft that chose not to develop a derivative UI this time, with Windows Phone 7. Something tells me that that UI is going to get old fast, but at least they attempted to innovate and be original.
  - blinks 16y ago
    > I imagine he's just as angry that the Android UI is basically a second-rate knockoff. [citation needed] I used an iPhone for a couple years, got a G1 and used it for a while, got a Nexus One and used it for a while, used the iPhone for a little while longer, and then switched back to the Nexus One for good. My preference is Android (for a myriad of reasons, including the UX); got anything non-anecdotal that speaks to this, or at least a (neutral) third-party authority on UX?

patrickk 16y ago

"But it wasn't to knock off Apple, it's because Google is building what consumers want and demand now." Consumers want and demand touchscreen smartphones with large screens and no keypads precisely because Apple trained people to want them. Google is knocking off Apple, just like Microsoft knocked off Apple with the GUI computer interface. (Apple trained people to want them too). And it's not just Google. You can hardly turn around without tripping over another iPhone knockoff (large touchscreen, no keypad) from Nokia, RIM, Samsung and basically everyone else. EDIT: Not sure why this is being downvoted - name a touchscreen smartphone that people were raving about before the iPhone? Pointing this out doesn't make me a fanboy. The iPhone wasn't the first of it's kind, but it was the first touchcscreen smartphone people were nuts for. See the number of sales and downloads on the App store compared to anywhere else. Or the fact that despite being locked down, and bundled with shitty carriers, people were still willing to endure that to own an iPhone.

biafra 16y ago
The Sony Ericsson P800 (2003) had a touchscreen and me my friends were raving about it :-) I still used it in 2007 when my E70 was in repair.

stcredzero 16y ago

it wasn't to knock off Apple, it's because Google is building what consumers want and demand now In retrospect, doesn't it seem like Google should have emphasized the original Android phones and gone after Blackberry's market share? I think Google wants more corporate mindshare. The part of the world's data that both badly needs organization and has big flows of money associated with it is in the hands of big corporations. By differentiating themselves as the "business-oriented" smartphone, they could have eaten Blackberry's lunch or scared them into partnership while still chipping away at Apple with the Multitouch phones. Then again, consumer demand is perhaps the way for newcomers to enter the corporate market.

timae 16y ago

In response to: > But Apple gets into trouble when they start thinking, "People want iPhones and these jerks are copying our iPhone" and >The reaction was the same, "How dare Microsoft try to give people Apple-like stuff!" I think Apple's position on this has been misinterpreted over the years. They don't have any problem with copying good ideas from others and don't have the "how dare they" attitude towards Microsoft (or Google) that people seem to think. What I believe annoyed them over the years was that Microsoft took the basic premise of their stuff, made it worse (i.e. produced a "third-rate" product as Jobs has called it), and was winning with this strategy (because, they felt, that "enterprise" was making the purchasing decisions and that they were suffering from the layer between them and the consumers). On Google, they're competition, so they're competing with them. The Eric Schmidt angle might make it a bit different, but largely I get the sense that Apple respects what Google does, believes they make great products, and is focused on beating them in the market where they both compete.

cheald 16y ago
I think you're wrong. > "We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours." -- Steve Jobs, regarding the recent Apple vs HTC lawsuit. That's about as cut-and-dried "how dare they" as it comes, particular when examined in the context of the lawsuit.
- timae 16y ago
  Seriously? This is a quote on protecting a patent. In other words, they have a piece of paper that legally prevents a competitor from copying a specific innovation. That's different from whining "how dare you" when you copy an idea in a perfectly legal way. For some context, watch this video, specifically 0:35-0:46 and 2:50-3:43. It's a younger and more "pissed off" Steve Jobs than we know today, however his feelings are clear: He's not against copying ideas, adding value to them, and producing a wonderful product. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK7TQVFSA1Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK7TQVFSA1Y

Gormo 16y ago

Apple is especially open to criticism here because in all of these cases, Apple was by no means the originator of the innovations. We're all familiar with the Xerox GUI saga, and I saw multi-touch UIs demonstrated in TED videos several years before the iPhone came out. But Apple also deserves some praise: their unique strength has been in designing commercially viable products that integrate technologies that are still very early in the adoption curve, providing the marketing force that's needed to push new tech into the mainstream. They've also been very effective at breaking the logjam in established industries that have held back certain innovations (digital music distribution and consumer smartphones come to mind). This has been enormously valuable for the technology industry as a whole, and has often opened the frontier for Microsoft, Google, and others. We probably wouldn't have Android devices now if Apple hadn't used their marketing prowess to get the phone carriers to accept the entire category.