Steve Jobs vowed to 'destroy' Google Android, called it a 'stolen product' - Page 6

Huh, you're right. With my love of higher dimensional stuff, I should've seen that.


Nah, you're right. May as well just ignore them at this point.

Kettle mean pot

Palm TX from 2005


iPhone

Maybe. Maybe not.

The fact that you had to use the word "maybe" confirms that it is troublesome to draw conclusions from this out-of-context snippet. Yeah, I know you were being facetious, but that really only works when you know you are right. But you don't, so it doesn't.

Thompson

deleted

Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 12:27pm

I beg to differ with your conclusion in a big way. While it's true that Google gets no compensation from the handset makers for their use of Android, Google is doing this (and spending much development $$$ on it) for a reason that comes back around to money.

Eventually, the question must arise: "How is that Android experiment working out for you in terms of capturing advertising revenue via Mobile search?" Data exists that can estimate the answer, and Google already knows the cost. One day, there will be a side-by-side comparison in order to determine Android's return on investment.

Thus, they must eventually mention it, unless the stock holders just decide to turn a blind eye and not ask the question.

Thompson

As in every area of life - shockingly - it's the magnitude of the crime that matters. The iOS notification center is activated in a similar way to the Android notification center. It could, quite easily, work a different way. If Google had a patent on the notification center, they could sue Apple, and if Apple lost they could easily fix it. They probably wouldn't lose though, because the way notification center is activated is very similar to the way other tasks are achieved in iOS, and Apple itself created the set of multitouch gestures that define the possibilities in multitouch UIs. Meanwhile, Android owes its entire existence to iOS. It would be a completely different product if iOS had not existed. It's the difference between stealing someone's identity and cleaning out their bank account and taking a grape at the supermarket. So yeah, if you somehow had failed noticed before now, typically the magnitude and, yes, frequency of a crime is both legally and morally relevant.

deleted

Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 12:27pm

deleted

Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 12:27pm

So according to some posters here the fault now isn't that Google copied iOS straight up but rather that, sensing an emerging change in the market, they modified android OS accordingly?

Evil.

Should no one else have joined in on the party apple started?

They changed the game sure but they were never the only players and it's foolish of you to hold fault in Google for playing the game.

I'm not riled up. I like a lot of what Android brings. But where you Android was 'inspired' I see they cloned. Samsung just took it a step further and made the cloning more blatant. Google has certainly done some new and innovative stuff with Android, but at it core, it's foundational UX is meant to mimic the iPhone.

To be fair, I work in RIM-town as a software developer (not at RIM) and until last year Google's Canadian development office was around the corner from me and in that office they have been doing a lot of mobile development, pre-iPhone launch and way before Android. They don't all contribute to Android proper, but certainly are very involved with Android as a platform. We are a fairly small city and developers mingle a lot. The people I've known from the Reqwireless days right up to Google today don't kids themselves the way you do. They are under no illusions that Android was more than inspired, but they are proud of what they have done since to differentiate themselves since.

Is there a video up of that presentation Tim gave in the last picture?

Are you seriously trying to compare that horrible stylus using, shitty browsing, low-rez, clunky, thing with nav arrows to the original iPhone?

Hey now. It doesn't seem to matter if the way it looks or even works is different. Remember?

-_-

2005 had certain technological limitation. Nevertheless, some companies were trying even then. Everyone who followed learned from their experience and example. It's a good thing.

You still don't get it. The Palm and the iPhone have similarities based on features that are common at some level, but at some other level of implementation their differences and merits of said differences can be debated. Some people believe that the differences between certain mobile devices and their respective OSes are trivial when compared at a level that is pertinent to their function, whereas other areas of differentiation create vastly different functionality. You see a great chasm between iOS and Android, others see a tiny crack. Your defense of your perception isn't going to change theirs. Get over it.

Exactly, island hermit. Ignorance is what it is and should be ignored for to feed it only generates more ignorance. And we have enough of that around.

To be fair, the Palm doesn't have rounded corners and has a nifty handgrip shape. Plus the "home" button doesn't look recessed.

The way the game is played, you either avoid stepping on other people's toes or you innovate on top of past innovation extensively enough that you have something other people want, and then you're in a position to negotiate. Google operates by copying something and giving it away for free. Its innovation is in sales. It's also the case that typically people "joining the party" have some connection with the party already, whereas Google is joining because it's worried about revenue for a completely unrelated product, and that's why its IP position is/was so abnormally weak.

I think what Google's doing here is an example of exactly why we need IP law. A company that relies on a revenue stream from a different market, entered another market and copied the IP of another company, simply because it wanted to ensure that company wouldn't become the market leader. If patent trolls are the dark side of having IP law, what Google did is the dark side of not having enforceable IP law, where innovators have their products stolen by companies whose goal is simply to ensure that they don't succeed because they're worried about their own market position.

I don't know what the outcome of all these patent suits will be - I suspect Google will get away with it - but quite apart from the minutiae details of IP law, I think if Google does get away with it, that's every bit as much an injustice as patent trolls who do nothing but collect patents and earn a living suing people.

Nor a capacitive touch screen, nor multitouch, nor a real browser, nor a decent music/audio playback, nor usable screen for mutimedia, nor built in store to buy music.

Apple didn't have a competitor on their board. At the time Apple accepted Google onto the board, Google was not a competitor. As soon as Google became a competitor, they threw them off the board.

If Google had a shred of ethics, Schmidt would have designed the minute Google started talking about getting into mobile phones.


Well, if there were GOOD mobile phones, Apple might have decided that it was a market they didn't want to compete in. Apple might have chosen to go after a different market instead. But who cares? Unless you have a way to change history, the fact is that Apple saw a void a few years ago and went after it.


It never ceases to amaze me how little the phandroid shills know about intellectual property.

IDEAS can not be protected by trademarks, patents, copyright, trade dress or any other intellectual property rights. Ideas are free for the world to use - so there's nothing wrong with Jobs' statement.

IMPLEMENTATION, OTOH, can be protected by trademarks, copyright, patents, trade dress, and so on. Google, Samsung, HTC, etc have copied Apple's implementation. It's not the fact that they used the same ideas that's an issue. It's the fact that they chose to use exactly the same implementation as Apple.


If they violate Apple's patents, then Apple very well might.


Exactly. If Samsung wanted to paint a picture of an iPhone and have it displayed at the Louvre, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The claim that Samsung's phones can copy the iPhone because they're art is insane.


Nonsense. Apple has an unrelenting drive to improve their own products even when there's no real competition. Mac OS improved significantly from 1982 to 1990 - even though Windows didn't yet exist. Similarly, look at the early iPhones. iPhone 3G and 3GS were marked improvements over the original iPhone even though there was no real competition. iPad 2 was a major improvement over the original - again, even though there was no competition.

Now, competition might tell Apple where to focus their energies and might have an impact on future products, but claiming that Apple would not have improved without competition is absurd. Apple's efforts are largely directed at making the greatest products that existing technology can handle. From a business perspective, the faster they can improve existing products, the more rapidly customers replace their existing products - even if there's no competition.


No. It's the difference between 'stealing' an idea which is not protected and stealing an implementation which is.

It is also the difference between buying rights to use a technology from a willing seller (Siri or Xerox, for example) and simply taking it without permission (Google, Samsung)


ROTFLMAO.

If you want to cite the Palm TX, you really should show the Newton from around 1992. That's far more similar to the TX than the TX is to the iPhone.

Steve Jobs can destroy me anytime.....

You see?

He wanted to stifle competition.

Samsung i330

Circa 2002

Fixed.


APPLE OBVIOUSLY COPIED THIS. THIS IMAGE IS IRREFUTABLE PROOF.

Seriously, stay out of this argument. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Didn't Android have wireless synching a couple years before iOS, among other features?

Are Apple products 100% original ideas that Jobs pulled out of his ass with no influences?

Hypocrite much?

Go back and read my last post.

There's a big difference between using an idea and an implementation. Apple does the former. Google thrives on the latter.

So what is the difference then? Explain it. Clearly.



You cant say that Apple was the originator/inventor of a touch screen based PDA + phone.

There is nothing "revolutionary" Apple has done at least on the product side.

What they HAVE "revolutionized" is in the way ordinary people now knew of a technology product.

All of this was thanks to Apple's marketing team, aka the fluff.

what implementations has Android "Stolen" btw?

Android is no more "stolen" from iOS than iOS is "stolen" from Windows Mobile, which is to say Windows Mobile is "stolen" from Palm.

Oh, good. Glad we cleared that up. Except no one is saying that, so your argument is meaningless.


Define "knew of". What does "knew of" mean to you?


Except nope. It pretty much entirely hinges on iPhone OS and its ability to do what no other system prior had.

Not Picasso, but T.S. Elliot.

For those unable to see the distinction:
http://brianericford.tumblr.com/post.../great-artists

This was linked to by Gruber, whom I completely detest, but he is right. And Ford is dead on when he says the T.S. Elliot's comment is "the most apt description of the difference between Apple’s vision for iOS and Google’s for Android I’ve ever read." It really is.

And they all are stolen from Apple's Newton.

And the Palm kind of looks like this. Hmmm.

A lot of people quote this prototype picture as evidence that google drastically changed android post iphone to copy it. Yet, if you actually look at the OS, it seems that the opposite is true; the core of android remained mostly the same.

This is what google eventually released:


So, show me what has drastically changed, because I don't see it:

The notification system is largely the same as the prototype; they didn't change it to match iOS'.
The desktop was expanded to include widgets; a feature that iOS doesn't have.
The dock was already in place in the prototype, so its not copied from iOS.
The navigation buttons remained the same; they didn't copy iOS' singular home button.
The prototype was already touch capable, so they didn't lift that from iOS either.
The form factor changed from a candybar QWERTY keyboard to a slide out QWERTY keyboard, so even that is not copied from the iPhone.

Now, did the iPhone affected android in ways? Of course, you'll be delusional to think that google didn't consider features in the iPhone prior to releasing Android. However considering how similar the core of the final release of android is to the prototype, you have to be equally as delusional to think that google drastically changed android to be a clone of iOS.

Is your argument that because Apple created the Newton in 1987 (or thereabout), that no designer of mobile technology should be able to use any abstract idea involved in it? Form, function, design, color, input, output, etc.?

This argument is ridiculous. Would you argue that Ford should claim intellectual property on the Model T, and that all other vehicles are stealing from his design?

Is that really your agument? Or do you simply want someone to acknowledge that Android has derived in some way from an Apple Newton?

Are you still droning on about touch screens? The capacitive touch screens are one of the ways Apple set their iPhone apart (unlike that resistive POS you pasted). Were there other phones using capacitive touch? Maybe, but none implemented it in a user-friendly, intuitive, multi-touch manner the way Apple did. No one. You can't say that about Android because there is always the iPhone getting in the way.

I already did.

Ideas can not be legally protected. It is impossible to get a valid copyright, patent, trademark, or design patent on an ideal.

IMPLEMENTATION can be patented, trademarked, copyrighted, etc - so it is legally protectable.

There is nothing legally wrong with using an idea. It IS wrong to use an implementation which is protected by intellectual property laws.

Example:

Idea: connecting devices wirelessly

Implementation: Using a specific circuitry and specific radio wave communication covered by patent xxxxxxxxx.