Technically you may be correct but I really think the 'troll' moniker is apt in this case.
Technically you may be correct but I really think the 'troll' moniker is apt in this case.
And use them "for themselves"? Rockstar is a little more than a shell company.
Also, didn't a Google employee basically debunk that "Google had to start from scratch after iPhone was revealed" claim?
Also, link to the original article; http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/the-da...
If Android was, as you seem to think, not a copy of the original iPhone OS, why did it take a further 18 months to release anything after the initial iPhone unveiling?
> Copy and paste was a nothing feature
> ... although its blatantly been influenced by the direction Apple took, it took Google until Jellybean 4.2 to catch up with the quality of implementation of iOS
I don't mean to come off like an ass (but don't really give a shit if I do), but you're just positing your own opinions in the place of the previous poster's opinions, then acting like you've proved some great point. How exactly are you advancing this discussion? Your post is just as useless as the one you're replying to.
I'm as big of an Apple fanboy as there is, but you're making us look bad. Multitasking and copy and paste may just be "trite memes" to gods like you, but mere mortals like me use both of those on a daily basis.
This is equally applicable to your post:
> ... instead of trotting out tired and trite memes because someone has had the temerity to call out your favourite team, don't.
EDIT: And your question,
> If Android was, as you seem to think, not a copy of the original iPhone OS, why did it take a further 18 months to release anything after the initial iPhone unveiling?
is blatantly phrased as a leading question. You're really trying to make it seem as though the only reason to not release anything for 18 months after the iphone announcement was to copy the iphone. Give the the iphone the credit it is due; it revolutionized mobile phones.
How are you so certain that the question in google wasn't "Why rush to compete with a product that just revolutionized the industry when yours clearly pales in comparison?"
Fair enough, Apple continued to work on it, and by all accounts (I don't have one) has managed to make it a fine product. But let's not pretend that it was obvious to everyone that "Apple revolutionised mobile phones" from day one.
It absolutely supported text messaging—at least in the US. Are you from a country where it didn't?
As to my 'leading' question; in context it's totally relevant. I'd like to know. I totally believe your version, although the evidence suggest otherwise. As I noted, Android didn't feel nearly as finished as iOS until 4.2.
By the same logic, the iPhone was just a "copy" of the Windows ME phones (iPaq etc). But with finger instead of a stylus.
Apple's revolution was in their magnificent marketing; and to a secondary degree the way they simplified the complex "enterprise" phones so that anyone could use them, then exploited that to build the App Store. In the short term they were less functional, but in the long term they "offered" exponentially more features (via 3rd parties in the marketplace).