Print 45 comment(s) - last by jabber.. on Feb 12 at 4:26 AM

Apple chief executive Steve Jobs and Google chief executive Eric Schmidt enjoy a cozy relationship thanks to Mr. Schmidt being on Apple's board of trustees. If recent reports hold true, that relationship may have played a key role in Google choosing to bend to Apple's will and not include multi-touch in its G1 phone. By doing so it protected its relationship and protected itself from an Apple lawsuit.  (Source: Venture Beat)
Google's smart phone may have been a little smarter were it not for an Apple intervention, according to sources

As a legal showdown between Apple and Palm mounts over Palm's use of multi-touch technology, which Apple recently gained a patent on, new details are emerging about Apple's efforts to prevent its competitors from offering multi-touch.

Many have wondered why Google's G1 smartphone, the first smartphone to run on Google's new Android OS, didn't feature multi-touch.  Going up against the iPhone, many considered Google's omission of multi-touch to be an unusual slip for the company.

However, according to newly emerging details reported on Venture Beat, the omission was intentional and triggered by strong-arming from Apple.  According to a key Android development team member, Apple demanded early in the development of the phone and OS that Google disable multi-touch.  And Google, which has a relatively healthy financial relationship with Apple despite competition in some sectors, complied out of concern of damaging the pair's business relationship and possible legal action from Apple.

The source expresses relief that Google caved to Apple's demands.  He points to the potential mess that Palm is in with the Pre phone and says that Google did the smart thing in playing by Apple's rules.

Google and Apple share a great deal of business, with Google tailoring its maps and search products for Apple systems, including the iPhone.  Google's chief executive, Eric Schmidt, is also on Apple’s board of directors.  The cozy relationship would seem to give Google extra incentive to meet Apple's alleged demands.

 The G1 and Android have both been shown to be multi-touch capable, but the functionality is disabled or not fully implemented in different parts of the design, puzzling many users.  Now it appears there is finally an answer to this mystery.

The key question that remains is whether Google will continue to bend to Apple's will, or whether multi-touch will become such an essential technology that it will be forced to include in its future smart phones, at the risk of incurring Apple's wrath. 

Google’s future dealings with multi-touch will likely hinge on Palm's success in defending its right to use multi-touch on the Pre.  A Palm loss would seem to make Google less inclined to go against the grain, while a victory would likely embolden it.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Motoman on 2/10/2009 3:48:53 PM , Rating: 5
Well, I'll second that - for these reason and many others. Apple can go screw itself.

By amanojaku on 2/10/2009 3:58:23 PM , Rating: 5
Apple is too busy screwing its customers.

By othercents on 2/10/2009 5:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if this could be considered monopolistic anti competitive attitude that Apple is taking. Instead of making a reasonable offer to allow Google or Palm to use multi touch they just threaten them with lawsuits.


By dnd728 on 2/10/2009 5:32:14 PM , Rating: 5
I'm gonna patent sitting down while using the computer. It will enable PC users longer work time.

By amanojaku on 2/10/2009 7:09:02 PM , Rating: 5
Oh, no you don't! You're infringing on my patent, which was sitting down while watching the TV, which will enable viewers longer BS time! You're just re-packaging it!

Wait... Are those TWO eyes? AND a nose?!? WTF!!!

By A Stoner on 2/10/2009 4:06:17 PM , Rating: 5
Apple, Sony are the two big electronics people I refuse to buy. Sony is constantly trying to make proprietary connections and then trying to get money from everyone in order for them to be able to interface with thier components, ending up forcing customers to overpay for Sony specific and Sony only usable accessories. They did that with a memory format, video connection on their home theater systems. Apple does the same thing, buy an iPod and you are stuck only being able to buy iPod specific accessories. McDonalds is on my f list for serving kangaroo meat in third world nations when I was a kid, I have a very long memory when it comes to corporations I will not do business with. Dell is pretty close to being on my do not buy from list, as they are making me jump through hoops to get my laptop fixed even though I paid for the best available 4 year warranty they offered, the video card experiences sproadic glitches and because I cannot reproduce it while I am on the phone with them, it does not exist.

The problem with companies like Apple getting this kind of copyright is that Apple does not share, it does not license, it just likes to be isolated and insulated.

By segerstein on 2/10/2009 4:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
The two computer companies I admire are H-P and Sun Microsystems. Good products, good quality and reliability.

By emboss on 2/10/2009 11:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
Seconded, as long as you're talking about their higher end gear. Both HP and Sun have made some cheap'n'nasty "entry level" stuff, and Sun does sometimes get a bit aggressive (eg: the whole NetApp thing, though it's pretty hard to tell who started it there).

Apart from a NEC SCSI enclosure and a Dell monitor, pretty much all my large-brand stuff is either Sun or HP (though all of it's from ebay or similar :) ). And I try to collect a bit of the unusual stuff from both companies (SunRay, JavaStation, zx2000, etc). I've even got all the interconnect and a rack from an AlphaServer SC supercomputer ...

On the other hand, the nice stuff from HP and Sun will set you back a decent chunk of change, and it's getting harder for them to compete against the likes of Dell selling on razor-thin margins.

Sun is also one of the more engineering-focused vendors around, which is why they tend to come out with unusual things every so often (Thumper, Niagara, Blackbox, etc). Unfortunately, it also means that they're not all that good at the financial side of things, which is a problem right now ...

By mfed3 on 2/10/2009 4:30:08 PM , Rating: 4
THANK YOU!! 100% agree.

Apple and Sony will never get a dime from me.

By afkrotch on 2/11/2009 11:41:54 AM , Rating: 2
Good luck with that. Sony has quite an extensive repertoire. TVs, stereos, movies, tv shows, games, music, commercial machinery, commercial robotics, anime, manga, etc.

I bet last year or even just this year, you've bought a Sony product or contributed to Sony making money. Watch Jeopardy? That's Sony. Bond movies? That's Sony.

Sony will and probably has gotten a dime from you...on several occasions.

By Cru on 2/10/2009 5:46:32 PM , Rating: 4
Lol, I stopped buying from Dell when they pulled sponsorship from Phelps. If they're allowed to express political opinion economically, then I shall do the same.

I remember reading an article in 2004 that stated that big name Japanese companies like Sony in particular would start charging a premium for their electronics because they knew their reputation for electronics would allow it. Sony has gone hog wild with this strategy ever since.

At this point, I look at Apple and Sony products like I look at extremely attractive women - that it's external, and under the hood you'll find a whole mess of things you don't like.

By 67STANG on 2/10/2009 11:53:46 PM , Rating: 2
Dell has a thing about picking pot heads don't they? Didn't the "Hey dude! You got a Dell!" guy get busted selling or buying weed a few years back?

By afkrotch on 2/11/2009 11:32:53 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, this arguement is kind of retarded. Hey, stop buying a car. Those parts for your specific car only work on your specific car. A Zebra pen has zebra pen specific refills. Those HP printers have only HP specific print cartridges.

Any electronic company is going to try to get consumers to only buy their products.

I don't buy Apple cause it's products are usually overpriced compared to competitors and I like Windows more than OSX anyways. Buying a Mac, then loading Windows on it, kind of defeats the purpose of buying a Mac.

As for the iPod, it's specific accessories has more to do with it's overall dimensions/design. You can't buy a Zune case and put it on an iPod. But you can buy a Griffin iPod case and use it or whoever else makes iPod cases.

The connection is specific though, but not sure why a regular USB connection on it wouldn't have been fine. The same can be said about the Zune also or many other mp3 players.

My problem is Apple attempting to push around it's competitors with ridiculous patents that somehow get passed. I partially understand getting these stupid patents, so that another company doesn't grab them up also and then try to sue your ass. But just share out something as simple as this. That or charge a very low fee for others to use it.

It's like patenting a goodbye wave. At times like this, I hope someone else owns this patent, sues the hell out of Apple, then shares out the patent to Apple's competitors for free.

"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home
Related Articles

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki