Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Some context that may be helpful for nerds whose heads are exploding at the idea that Google "stole" iOS (which is based on FreeBSD, which is inspired by Danger, &c &c): Schmidt was on Apple's board, apparently never disclosed his intent for Google to go head-to-head with Apple on an extremely similar product, and was surely privy to many confidential details about Apple's product plans.

View on HN

Here's the thing: If it was such a big problem, why was Schmidt allowed to join Apple's board in the first place?

Schmidt was elected to Apple's board in August 2006, a year after Google bought Android (and over a year after Apple started work on the iPhone). Unlike Apple, Google's smartphone ambitions weren't secret. Could they seriously expect Schmidt to file everything he learned about Apple's smartphone plans in an unmarked section of his brain that he didn't use when he was at his day job?

I thought Schmidt also left the room when they discussed the iPhone.

"Google's smartphone ambitions weren't secret."

Techcrunch the day Eric Schmidt resigned from Apple's board:

"back in August 2006 when he took the seat Google had virtually nothing even remotely competing with Apple’s core products and services. "

http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/03/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-res...

Considering both the iPhone and Android were still in development at the time, the statement holds true. If potential products stopped CEOs from joining other companies' boards, then no one outside the company could ever join a board.

Yeah I'm not disputing the statement from Techcrunch. I'm disputing the "google's smartphone ambitions weren't secret".

2005: Android is a "mobile software company"

2007: Android prototypes look like blackberrys

2008: G1 launches as a iphone knock off with noticeable differentiation (horiz slider).

2009: Droid first high end Android smartphone, another horizontal slider

Jan 2010: Google releases a Google branded straight up iphone clone, Jobs flips out.

Android was more than a "mobile software company".

They were known at the time to be a re-assembly of parts of the Danger team working on a smartphone OS. To me, that's enough to know where Google's ambitions were pointing. The huge volume of "Google phone" rumors that started long before Android was unveiled says to me that plenty of other people saw that too.

I just don't see how, too anyone paying attention, "Google is working on a Danger-inspired smartphone OS" doesn't automatically imply "Google is working on something that could easily crash right into the iPhone."

Schmidt joined the board in August 2006 with the iPhone being announced and demo'ed in January 2007, including a Google Maps app, which must have been developed in collaboration with Google. It seems likely that collaboration and the negotiations surrounding it started well before Schmidt joined the Apple board - the board seat as some sort of mole-like vector of information seems far-fetched. Both companies clearly had an interest in the mobile market (Google bought Android in 2005), with the carriers being their common adversary.

Maybe there's more in the book but given Jobs's penchant for fact-bending, hyperbole and, what's the polite word again, 'mercurial nature' it's hard to really tell what the source of the falling out is. Maybe Jobs didn't expect Google to go after high-end devices or form the Open Handset Alliance. Maybe Google was unhappy with how closed Apple wanted to keep their platform. Just look at how close the dates of things like Apple's iPhone release, OHA announcement, Google spectrum-bidding, Apple iPhone SDK announcement, etc, are. There was obviously a lot going on and it probably had very little to do with *BSD origins or information available at board meetings.

> Maybe Google was unhappy with how closed Apple wanted to keep their platform.

If you really believe Google desired openness for reasons more altruistic than strategic, try running your phone with Android compiled entirely from source.

Google releases source for perhaps two thirds of what matters with the consumer experience. Apple releases source for perhaps one third.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com