Lying Google bastards

Remember last week when Android engineering VP, Hiroshi Lockheimer, testified in the Apple vs. Samsung trial and lied his ass off saying, “Google did not look to copy the iPhone when it designed Android.” Lies.

Android.before.iPhone



  • http://www.laugh-eat.com/ kyron

    better evidence is testimony from android engineers themselves:

    Chris DeSalvo’s reaction to the iPhone was immediate and visceral. “As a consumer I was blown away. I wanted one immediately. But as a Google engineer, I thought ‘We’re going to have to start over.’”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/the-day-google-had-to-start-over-on-android/282479/

  • GFYantiapplezealots

    This is well known and one of the many reason I hate Google. Bunch of evil hypocrites over there.

  • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

    You have to separate the phone design [which absolutely changed] from the phrase “designed Android”. Android’s core design pretty much stayed the same [evolved of course] but features were added: touch, keyboard, etc.

    The grid of icons was there before the iPhone.

    • http://www.laugh-eat.com/ kyron

      im not sure that moving from a button-based OS to a touch-based OS isnt a core design change. it’s the primary way the OS is interacted with and is pretty major.

      • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

        It is a core implementation change, sure, but look at the design of Android before and after. Home still, to this day, has the same UI language and the drawer is still a list of icons.

        I 100% agree Android changed, for the better, after the iPhone announcement but the statement above said “when it designed Android” which is hugely different than “when we designed the first Android phone.”

        • http://www.laugh-eat.com/ kyron

          sounds like mental gymnastics to me. here, let me squint my eyes and twist my head just so….

          • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

            You absolutely could be right. I’m a super-logical person and sometimes it makes me see things in a different light, no matter how many hoops I mentally jump through.

          • http://www.laugh-eat.com/ kyron

            what that becomes is a rationalization, aka cognitive dissonance. it’s to be avoided.

            as usual, gruber nails it:

            http://daringfireball.net/2014/04/no_one_said_following_is_easy

          • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

            Disagree. It allows me to not look at things with blind emotion.

          • http://www.laugh-eat.com/ kyron

            “blind emotion” about cell phones. hahahah. no sir, when you need to perform mental gymnastics to believe something, youre only lying to yourself. seriously learn something about your condition:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

          • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

            Why so serious? I wasn’t saying you had blind emotion.

            Quite the sensitive bunch.

    • Billy Razzle

      “We’re going to have to start over” seems pretty clear.

      • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

        It is. The one developer thought that but they didn’t do that. [major distinction]

        • http://www.laugh-eat.com/ kyron

          but they did. the android spec went from no-touch in August ’06 (pre-iPhone) to touch-required in ’07 (post-iPhone). sure touchscreens existed before but in one swoop iPhone showed them how it should all be put together properly. they definitely started over and in the recent android exec’s testimony he said it took them insane hours to pull it off. the iPhone opened their eyes.

          • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

            Going to touch isn’t a restart.

          • shady2001

            oh please.. “going touch” sounds so easy. but it’s a fundamental change, having impact on everything from UI, navigation concept down to the API. i’m sorry, but you’re not that super-logical as you want to be,

          • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

            I just searched the page and didn’t find an instance of me saying it was easy. It just didn’t constitute starting over.

            [see my comment below regarding Gruber's quote]

          • shady2001

            right, it’s not easy as you made it sound with saying “going to touch”. it’s a fundamental change and as such, it is starting over. nothing prevents car builders to make cars fly. up to now they just don’t know how to do it without solving a ton of problems.

          • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

            I’ll duplicate this for you here.

            “The product was designed with the presence of discrete physical buttons as an assumption. However, there is nothing fundamental in the products [sic] architecture that prevents the support of touch screens [sic] in the future.”

            Using your analogy, the car (Android) could already fly (use touch). Google chose not to include it in the initial spec but after the iPhone released they made it mandatory as the primary input.

            See Gruber’s post. He pulls the quote quite clearly. It isn’t a stretch I’m making up.

          • shady2001

            it’s the tiny word “could” that makes the big difference. let’s say google had touch in mind and concept. why did they choose not to include it before the iphone? well, any argument can be given here, the most simple one being: they just didn’t know how to make it fly. there were touchscreen phones before the iphone (using resistive touch). it just didn’t work well.

          • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

            Sure, could be any reason why they withheld but the point is touch was possible in Android already. They didn’t have to start over to add touch.

          • http://www.laugh-eat.com/ kyron
            See Gruber’s post. He pulls the quote quite clearly. It isn’t a stretch I’m making up.

            and he goes on to show why it was copying. you just ignored the rest you didnt want to see.

          • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

            Yep, he sure did. See what he said specifically though.

            “The word copying is pejorative, so let’s just call it following.”

            Then:

            “Of course Android followed the iPhone’s lead. But what else was Google to do?”

            You’re jumping around though. Following or copying, call what you want, doesn’t constitute starting over if the code already exists for a feature.

          • http://www.laugh-eat.com/ kyron
            It just didn’t constitute starting over.

            yet google themselves testified: “We’re going to have to start over”. youre talking about of your ass, as usual.

          • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

            One developer on the team exclaimed that, not the company.

          • http://www.johncblandii.com John C. Bland II

            Since you linked to Gruber, here is the quote he pulled:

            “The product was designed with the presence of discrete physical buttons as an assumption. However, there is nothing fundamental in the products [sic] architecture that prevents the support of touch screens [sic] in the future.”

            ^ Nothing prevented touch screen, it just wasn’t included. Again, no starting over.

          • http://www.laugh-eat.com/ kyron
            Again, no starting over.

            again, android engineers: “We’re going to have to start over”.

            youre only lying to yourself.

  • StruckPaper

    Do we actually believe the entire company of Google is made up of dirty bastards who would lie and lie and lie? Or could there be more than one side to this story?

  • Name

    Icons? Is that the whole argument? What a completely pathetic article.