4 ms·

An executive of one company isn't likely going to complement another company. They're going to do everything in their power to downgrade products of their comp

by canistr 15y ago

An executive of one company isn't likely going to complement another company. They're going to do everything in their power to downgrade products of their competition. I really don't think it makes a difference whether your friend worked for RIM, Google, Microsoft, Nokia, or HP because all of Apple's competitors followed this exact train of thought for several years.

fossuser 15y ago
With the notable exception being Google who immediately changed the direction android was going to account for the innovations Apple had developed. RIM and Microsoft laughed the iPhone off and now wonder why Google and Apple are so far ahead.
- canistr 15y ago
  I think it's more that Google was hovering around from the start with the G1. So the improvements they made were incremental on that brand new platform but Microsoft and RIM would need a revolution to be able to catch up to the iPhone and G1 at that point in the game. The problem is that all the old players were left in the dust because they had too much momentum on their old platforms. It's like hitting the breaks when you are going 100 mph. For Google and Apple, they were going 0-60 pretty quickly and then just slowly came up and surpassed the incumbents.
  - killerswan 15y ago
    IIRC Android was in development at a company Google bought even before the iPhone launched. Early prototypes looked like a Blackberry, not like an Android: they adjusted dramatically.
    - Steko 15y ago
      You could say Google was just smarter and they probably were but I think their main advantage here was having no established product bringing in billions. This freed executives to look at the market objectively and pick the future winners. There's a Steve Jobs quote about what happens when the sales guy starts running the show at tech companies that's relevant here. Even if it's not the CEO, too much of a company's top brass can get wedded to yesterday's products.
  - sjs 15y ago
    The G1 wasn't the start. http://techcrunch.com/2007/12/17/android-prototype-lets-hope-looks-can-be-deceiving/ http://techcrunch.com/2007/12/17/android-prototype-lets-hope...

by canistr 15y ago

fossuser 15y ago

With the notable exception being Google who immediately changed the direction android was going to account for the innovations Apple had developed. RIM and Microsoft laughed the iPhone off and now wonder why Google and Apple are so far ahead.

canistr 15y ago
I think it's more that Google was hovering around from the start with the G1. So the improvements they made were incremental on that brand new platform but Microsoft and RIM would need a revolution to be able to catch up to the iPhone and G1 at that point in the game. The problem is that all the old players were left in the dust because they had too much momentum on their old platforms. It's like hitting the breaks when you are going 100 mph. For Google and Apple, they were going 0-60 pretty quickly and then just slowly came up and surpassed the incumbents.
- killerswan 15y ago
  IIRC Android was in development at a company Google bought even before the iPhone launched. Early prototypes looked like a Blackberry, not like an Android: they adjusted dramatically.
  - Steko 15y ago
    You could say Google was just smarter and they probably were but I think their main advantage here was having no established product bringing in billions. This freed executives to look at the market objectively and pick the future winners. There's a Steve Jobs quote about what happens when the sales guy starts running the show at tech companies that's relevant here. Even if it's not the CEO, too much of a company's top brass can get wedded to yesterday's products.
- sjs 15y ago
  The G1 wasn't the start. http://techcrunch.com/2007/12/17/android-prototype-lets-hope-looks-can-be-deceiving/ http://techcrunch.com/2007/12/17/android-prototype-lets-hope...