Steve Jobs vowed to 'destroy' Google Android, called it a 'stolen product' - Page 4

Well, we now finally know why Apple is saving up that enormous pile of cash - $80B+ and probably approaching $100B by June.

Google market cap today: $188B

For a hostile takeover you need what percentage of the total value of your target? About 50%, right, and you finance the rest?

Of course for antitrust reasons Apple would have to sell Android to a consortium of Samsung, etc. I bet they would get a really nice price for it! Along with certain "agreements" haha!


Sorry about the headline - I can't edit it.

That's true but the million dollar question is would iOS exist today if it weren't for the crappy mobile OSs that preceded it?

It's not really a matter of judging him. His vindictiveness was very much a part of his entrepreneurial make-up. Apple always kept the 'us against the world' thing going even when they were a large corporatiOn. We all know that great as SJ was he was not a saint. The point is that he must have been deePly hurt by what he saw as a personal betrayal. The fact that he felt so strongly and passionately was part of what endeared him to a lot of people.

Nice contribution.

The fact that you think still somehow think that they're the same tells me you know little -if anything- about Android OS. In fact, I'd be surprised if you'd ever picked one up for more than 5 minutes. I'm sure that you'll tell us all some story about how "you owned some crappy xxxxx" or "I've used my friend's xxxx" and it was just iOS but poopy or something, but I don't believe that. If you watched half the Android 4.0 presentation you'd see how disimilar the two OSes have become. In fact, the only thing they really still have in common is an app store (where the iPhone depends on Apps more), a touch interface, how notifications are handled (which Apple "innovated" from Google), and how folders are made (which Google did steal from Apple). You know nothing of Android. Please, don't act like you do.


/end rant
Sorry, after reading through some of the dumbest posts I've ever seen in the flame-bait article (from BOTH sides) I eventually erupted. Oops.

It was the manner in which it was done as well as the copying. There would be followers, of course. MS is bringing out something that clearly wouldn't have come to pass had it not been for IOS, ditto webOS. And I am sure SJ would have accepted those Fully as legitimate competition. I don't think it was a matter of market leadership particularly. I really think SJ took huge pride in Apples creativity and took the Google theft to heart. I mean he invited Schmidt to the board and mentored Sergey and Larry.

Just look at the 2007 iPhone introduction where Schmidt said,
Then he turns around and copies iPhone...

So then why hasn't he been arrested?

Everything else in history is built by standing on the shoulders of giants. Except Apple products. Apple exists in a void.

The more you know.

No, the difference is Apple paid Xerox for the privilege of using their technology. Xerox welcomed Apple to look things over.

Anyone with iPhone 4s asked Siri...

Siri, what do you think of Android?

What is Siri's reply?
/
/
/

Actually, Android isn't a product. Apple could just shut it down and fire the Google staff including Schit.

I wonder if Steve thought similarly about Windows. It has an obviously similar design to Mac's OS windowed environment. If that was a goal of his, he hasn't done well at destroying Windows mass appeal and adoption.

I think maybe it's the walled garden concept that Steve is so fond of that limits world wide adoption of most of his products. While the iPod is doing better than anything before it (in terms of it's competition) I have a feeling it too will suffer the same fate as the iPhone and Mac; in the grand scheme of things.

This is why I Would never buy an android phone.

Because Steve Jobs was against it? lol.

Great independence there guy.

Oh, not another one...

Why don't you guys at least educate yourselves about Apple's history before you post this tripe on the boards.

Since you seem to be new and not quite so annoying (yet) as some of the others please read these 2 pages and then ask yourself if there's something wrong with your comment:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...ft_Corporation

Hmmm, I have to believe that the FTC would want Android to survive. Since they can veto an acquisition, they would find a way, product or not.

I'm impressed. There is not a SINGLE correct statement in all of your reply. Millions of people own Android devices. Apple has no power to shut it down. Even more, they have no power to fire the employees. What the heck are you even talking about?



That's not necessarily true. While I think the FTC does enjoy Android giving iOS competition, if it is found in violation of too many patents they could either ban it or (more likely) demand that it change a few features. The fact that people often forget (and understandably) is the there are players other than Android and Apple. I know, few people use all of those others combined than iOS or Android by themselves, but there are other mobile platforms out there. Why anyone would use them however is anyone's guess

Follow the thread back.

he means if Apple bought Google. And you know, monopolized pretty much everything.

I somehow missed that post. Oops I'll just leave it up so other people can laugh at my mistakes. That way at least someone gets some joy out of it

Let's just cut to the chase. I'm not going to waste my time with a long winded post about all of the similarities between the OSes (I don't recall seeing anyone say they were the exactly the same, only people making straw man arguments to that effect while defending Android). Why am I not going to waste my time? Because responses like this are what I can expect in return:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGRiTpCji0I

The sum of Android is unique in only that no other mobile OS has exactly the same combination of features or implementation of certain features, but that doesn't make it immune to scrutiny on either lower or higher levels of abstraction when appropriate.

Siri says, "I think differently."

While I disagree that the video sums up the argument, that is a fantastic movie so I will let it be. Well played sir.

That being said, I think the statement you made "no other mobile OS has exactly the same combination of features or implementation of certain features" is entirely correct. A lot of the features are similar (however not the same) on both, and are implemented differently. But I find this similar to cars. Cars all generally have the same design and a lot of the same parts. Some of the extra "bells and whistles" and how they're presented to you completely change the experience you get from each car.

Saved me from having to post much.

His point is pretty much that a Honda Accord is just like a Toyota Camry...except not?

I think he defeated his point unknowingly...sexual maybe...the other part I dunno.

Google has no products using Android. (If Google did, Apple would sue their @ss.) Hence, Android is not a product.


Why don't you read?

In other words:

We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas. - Steve Jobs

You know, like the ones here:

http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

You can't protect an idea - ever. If he thinks he's the only one who can steal ideas he's a big fucking hypocrite.

And what happens when WP7 and it's exact use of multi-touch gestures becomes popular? What happens when Windows 8 comes out? You going to wage war with them too Tim Cook?

And that's why Oracle is suing Samsung, oh wait...

Give me a break... if two cars have internal combustion engines, that to me implies a degree of similarity. Somebody else might want to argue that a difference in cylinder count makes them totally different, and thus the only similarity between them is that they are both vehicles with four wheels. One car might have a radio interface with physical buttons, but the other has a touchscreen. On a fundamental level, are you really going to argue that there is no similarity? The point is that if you take things to a microscopic level you may find something unique, but that doesn't imply that the feature it helps build at a higher level is unique. Likewise, the whole of something may be unique, but that doesn't imply that its subcomponents are entirely original at some lower level of abstraction, thus preventing any logical comparison to another entity.

Your argument was simply that they have nothing in common other than "touch-based with app market". I simply do not agree. Perhaps you should examine your arguments more critically before defending a weak position so vehemently.

I happen to think that Android is a cheap knock-off of iOS, but that's just my own person bias. The real issue has less to do with product, in my opinion, and more to do with business models. Apple, under Steve Jobs, has always followed the 'vertically-integrated' model whereby Apple develops the hardware, software, and most of the distribution channels thus insuring they control the entire customer experience. Google follows the more 'horizontal' model whereby they focus on the software and let others build the hardware and distribution channels. The Google twist on this is that they also 'Open Source' Android thus lowering barriers to entry for handset manufacturers. In this regard, it's a hybrid of the Microsoft and Linux models. Products are easier to compete against than business models.

Having worked at Sun Microsystems, Schmidt (former Sun CTO) learned that the best technology doesn't always win, but that 'open' is better than 'closed'. Now I don't know if Apple's law suits have merit because a) I'm not an IP lawyer and b) I'm not an engineer. According to what I've read, Google violated Sun's (now Oracle's) Java IP by making the Android OS run Java bytecode without licensing Java itself. The issue of Android's copying the iPhone's 'look and feel', without a license from Apple, is murkier. As another poster previously noted the courts set precedent by ruling in Microsoft's favor back in the day. What is 100% clear is that Apple and Google both viewed Mobile as the next computing paradigm and worked diligently to get there first. Apple, as always, led the way. But you know that old saying, 'You can tell who the pioneers are. They are the ones with arrows in their backs'...

They weren't competitors at the time. The moment google entered the mobile os market, schmidt was removed from Apple's board.

At the time, Apple was working closely with Google to beat Microsoft in the search business and how to further integrate Google's services into ios. Jobs and co shared ideas and trade secrets with Schmidt, whom in turn went straight back to Google to implement them into android. In fact, Jobs showed off the iphone concept to Schmidt and talked often about how it would revolutionize the mobile industry.

Love or hate Apple, we all know what the computer industry was like before the Mac, before the ipod, before the iphone, and more recently before the ipad. In terms of features, both companies get ideas from the development community (think notifications). Apple just takes a little bit more time to polish their versions while Google rushes unfinished products out.

With that said, I do think Android is a very viable competitor to ios. And please, I don't want to hear about how android has more market share than iphones. Both platforms have evolved tremendously and you can't really say you like one and hate the other. They're very similar and it really comes down to personal preferences and needs. There are some things in android that I'd like in ios and vice versa. But overall, I've used both and find ios a bit more polished.

Right, Oracle is suing Google. The patent infringement angle might be difficult, but copyright infringement might be easy. Unlike Apple, Oracle might have little-to-no business relationship with Google, so Oracle would feel freer to sue. Apple's approach is to suffocate Android by suing the handset manufacturers. Apple may still sue Google, all in good time. The Motorola acquisition might make it easier for Oracle and Apple.

It's not the cans, it's what you do with them...

Wahol may have been a pop art genius, I don't know that many consider him a particularly well-rounded genius. That makes him a bit one-dimensional. Same with Google and their core of search.

Now, if another artist were to do the same idea (lining up the cans), but with Coke Cans instead of Campbell's soup, while it might have a certain popular appeal, it just wouldn't have the same artistic value and cache -- it's been done before, by Warhol. It might not be strictly illegal -- but it is unworthy and unethical.

So, you have a certain ripping off of Campbell's or Coke, that's life; art imitates life. But if you line your cans up, then also you have the riding on Warhol's idea, which shows you have no originality of your own, even if you mix up the medium and the colors and little bit.

Nothing is stopping an artist from using a Campbell's soup can in a different way... just don't line it up in several rows across the canvas.

So, Xerox's GUI and mouse are like the Campbell's soup can -- there are only so many ways you can interface with a computer. We've added two more since then (and who popularized those and who has the mindshare with it? Apple). You can't reasonably expect someone to go off and try to get people to use their feet or their nose to interface with the computer. No-one, least of all Xerox or Apple, is asking you to.

So, mouse it is! And now touch and voice to boot. No-one says MS shouldn't have used a GUI and a mouse, no-one says Google shouldn't have used touch. Hey, use the heck out of the Campbells soup cans. Use them as a metaphor, whatever. Have fun. Delight us. ...But don't freaking line them up across the canvas and expect to be respected or not get into trouble!

On the surface, most imitators are at least trying to use Coke cans as icons to line up across the canvas -- but it is still awfully imitative of Warhol/Apple. Below the surface, there is a lot more imitation. Samsung is both lining up its cans and using Campbell's soup cans and using the same colors and techniques. They might as well photograph the Warhol canvas at the museum and make a quick buck on the prints of the photograph and just be done with it. Oh, that's right, they did.

iOS is significantly more polished than Android in its current iteration.

Also Apple knew Google was entering the mobile phone industry since at least 2005. It wasn't some out of the blue development after the iPhone was released...the UI changed a bit (hardly as much as people seem to think) after the iPhone was released for logical reasons...hardly as much of a copy as people like to pretend too.

Stock Android pre ICS is the ugliest thing I've seen (shoot me my fellow fandroids if you must) as a stock OS in a long time (not since stock XP then stock Aero windows have I been so happy for themers)

Google's whole strategy is web based, web apps. They only make an OS as a hedge against other tech companies deliberately making their browsers incompatible. They have no love for Android.

eh...everything but your last point can be supported by facts.

Android seems to be a great point of focus for Google and the fact that they actually seem to be listening to their consumers (Albeit slowly) and making necessary changes to the UI/UX as opposed to making under the hood changes that most consumers aren't aware of is a great sign.

End of the day I don't understand the beef between the companies outside of profits...

The beef between the fanboys of each platform is even more irrational.

It is ridiculous. Last time I checked, fine art like a Warhol isn't sold in the canned goods section of a grocery store. A picture of a can of soup is not a rip off of soup.....its art. Android is not making a collage of iPhones, their making iPhone clones. It is distasteful and repugnant and has nothing to do with genius of "stealing" in the context of art. Sheesh, is everyone going to start calling juvenile delinquents "geniuses" because they do lots of stealing?

Android evolves very fast and gets stronger with every iteration.

Apple playing whack a mole legally with trying to end android is a waste of time and money because I honestly believe it wont work.

With android being open it's gained a lot of momentum, to the point where the name android has weight that will endure even after Google starts eliminating disputed patents from its mobile OS.

And what's left, an even stronger competitor that has an even larger market share over which Apple has no legal leverage.

Apple does however have a huge innovation lead, mind share, and the best fusion of hardware and software. These are far better tools for combating android.

Just reading Jobs' quotes fires me up. Damn, hard to believe he's not around. Pity Jobs wasn't more vocal when he opened a can of whoop ass like that. Would have polarised people even more, but it would also have given us a lot more to go on than the very orchestrated (but still venerable) stuff we heard from him post-NEXT.

Anyway, pre-ordered the book on my iPad, look forward to reading it next week. Sounds extremely juicy, but more importantly, poignant and inspirational.

Steve's not perfect, but looking at the flaws could reveal many things too.

there are a lot of people whose self esteem seems dependent on fashions, objects, sports teams, cults, imaginary friends, whatever

they'll attack anyone or anything that threatens their perception of what is best, right, wrong, etc.

before the development of easy to use online discussion systems, they had little outlet for their bile, now they can inflict it upon a far wider audience