or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Steve Jobs vowed to 'destroy' Google Android, called it a 'stolen product'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Jobs vowed to 'destroy' Google Android, called it a 'stolen product' - Page 7

post #241 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacestation View Post

he was quoting Pablo Picasso.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

Steve Jobs, "Picasso had a saying.. he said, "Good artists copy great artists steal.""


Steve Jobs, the same video - "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

"I invented the rectangle"  - Steve Jobs

"We Bomb you" - USA

Reply

"I invented the rectangle"  - Steve Jobs

"We Bomb you" - USA

Reply
post #242 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post

Google has no products using Android.

How about the Android Market? How about licenses to hardware OEMs to include the Android Market with their phones?

I think you are mistaken. I'm not sure if your point has to do with some definition of "product" that you want to promote, or whether you were dealing with substance.

But the substance is that Google makes big bux from its Android products and from the secondary sales that are garnered via the OEM's customers, the end users.
post #243 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Steve Jobs said he would spend his "last dying breath" fighting Google's Android mobile operating system because he viewed it as a "stolen product," according to an upcoming biography on the Apple co-founder.


One thing we can all learn from this is that hate can be bad for one's health.
post #244 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

The 'desktop' was expanded to fit app icons, which were previously limited to the app launcher dock. It was also made larger to make it more functional as a multimedia device, something that was, at best, as secondary consideration prior to the iPhone (and shitty walkman/MP3 phones don't count)

Android was always meant to be scalable to full touch. It was conceived to compete with windows mobile after all. That blackberry prototype is but one prototype.

Quote:
No. Their dock was the home for all app icons. It was the app launcher instead of just a home for the 4 most common apps.

And never in the history of stock Android has the dock been home to the four most common apps. -_-

Quote:
keyboardless phones, were almost unheard of and an major point of derision when the iPhone launched. The Android you show does have a keyboard, but it is obvious the best selling Android models are moving away from dependence on physical keyboard.

So?


Quote:
It was not the primary input source. The UI was not built completely around a touch screen. It was not multitouch. It was resistive.

So?


Quote:
The slideout keyboard is an afterthought meant to appease those users that still think they need a physical keyboard, but since the needed to go toward the iPhone-like larger screen, then had to make it a slideout. Otherwise you end up with a 9" long phone. The slideout was copied from Apple, obviously, but it was made necessary by their other rip on Apple, a full screen device.

I'm sure you have evidence of this. Otherwise I feel you may be making shit up -_-

Info: android has and always will be made for multiple form factors. Full touch, sliders, and bb style phones will always exist with Android. There is no flawed one size fits all ideology at play.


Quote:
The prototype was more similar, in almost every way to the BlackBerry of it's time. Not surprising, since Android was birthed to be a BB clone and not a iPhone clone. You could hardly look at most Androids and think the are now more similar to BB's than to iPhones (except those BB's that are very obvious reactions to the iPhones success).

Or those androids thar have the bb form factor...which bb never owned BTW so clone is a poor word choice.

Seems you feel full capacitive touch devices should belong to just one company forever.

No.
post #245 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

Okay, so let's play the hypothetical game. Let's say Android did steal UI elements from iOS.

Are you angry that Android stole those elements?

If you are, are you equally angry at Apple for stealing Android's notification system, or wireless update system, for iOS?

Yes, equally angry, I am not angered.

Both the notification system and the wireless updating are minor enhancements to the overall UX. iOS can and was very successful without either of those. Take them away or leave them and the overall UX is still great and the platform is still popular. You can't say that about the Android, neither the individual features nor the overall UX, because it was lifted wholesale before it was ever launched. Had Android come out before the iPhone, it would have been a total different product.

A clone is not one or two features that are similar. A clone is a massive copying of much or all of the user experience. I never said "Android stole UI elements from iOS", they stole the whole UI (and the UX). Major difference.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #246 of 372
Can someone explain why Schmidt was on Apple's board of director and later or at the same time as Google's CEO?
post #247 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipen View Post

Can someone explain why Schmidt was on Apple's board of director and later or at the same time as Google's CEO?

I'm more interested in why he wasn't immediately ousted the second Apple first heard that Google was making a phone instead of the many months he continued to sit there in OTL.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #248 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

Sheesh, is everyone going to start calling juvenile delinquents "geniuses" because they do lots of stealing?

No. Juvenile delinquents are "great artists" because they do lots of stealing.
post #249 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Android was always meant to be scalable to full touch. It was conceived to compete with windows mobile after all. That blackberry prototype is but one prototype.
And never in the history of stock Android has the dock been home to the four most common apps. -_-

majjo referenced how similar the prototype was to today's Android. One example he used was the dock. The dock in the prototype served a totally different purpose as the app launcher. The 'app launcher' now is the icons on the 'desktop'. Can't point a feature show it was planned earlier when the example you are using is completely different.

And it was conceived to compete with BB, not WinMo. RIM was ascendent at that point, WinMo was a joke. But regardless of which it was meant to compete with, BB or WinMO, it's final result was like neither. It took a totally different direction and ended up as an iPhone clone. Think that was a coincidence?


Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

So?
So?

Again, majjo referenced how similar the button/controls layout of a released Android is to the prototype, I pointed out their differences. majjo pointed out it was touch screen on the prototype and I pointed out that screen was completely different than what they released and again, ended up being more similar to the iPhone of the day than to the prototype.



Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

I'm sure you have evidence of this. Otherwise I feel you may be making shit up -_-

Info: android has and always will be made for multiple form factors. Full touch, sliders, and bb style phones will always exist with Android. There is no flawed one size fits all ideology at play.

Only photos of what their prototypes looked like at the time. Notice there are no photos iPhone-like prototypes prior to the iPhone. I wonder why that is.

Given all information that was known about Android prior to the iPhone, there is no reason to even suspect they were considering capacitive touch. If they weren't, and their prototypes seem to bear that out, then they would have had no choice but to include a keyboard. Without a slideout keyboard, they would have been left with a choice of the small screens they showed in their prototypes or a large screen with fixed keyboard that would have been huge. Hence, whatever inspired them to do a larger screen, required them to adapt to a slider keyboard, for any model that kept a keyboard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Or those androids thar have the bb form factor...which bb never owned BTW so clone is a poor word choice.

Who said they owned it? They popularized it. In 2006 you could look and a brandless BB and know instantly it was a BB. The prototypes show who they were trying to copy early on. BB was the cat's meow back then. If one had to copy someone's smartphone, BB would be it at that time. Then suddenly it wasn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Seems you feel full capacitive touch devices should belong to just one company forever.

Who said that? But to look at other, resistive, touch screens and think they are proof that of someone considering multi-touch, capacitive touch screens is a joke.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #250 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipen View Post

Can someone explain why Schmidt was on Apple's board of director and later or at the same time as Google's CEO?

Companies do this all the time....not entirely ethical in some cases.....but.......
post #251 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Yes, equally angry, I am not angered.

Both the notification system and the wireless updating are minor enhancements to the overall UX. iOS can and was very successful without either of those. Take them away or leave them and the overall UX is still great and the platform is still popular. You can't say that about the Android, neither the individual features nor the overall UX, because it was lifted wholesale before it was ever launched. Had Android come out before the iPhone, it would have been a total different product.

A clone is not one or two features that are similar. A clone is a massive copying of much or all of the user experience. I never said "Android stole UI elements from iOS", they stole the whole UI (and the UX). Major difference.

What about Windows Mobile? That existed, with icons, a desktop, and a "touch experience", long before Apple's iOS. Do you feel that Microsoft "cloned" that from the Apple Newton?

Based on this premise, are you also frustrated that all major car manufacturers have essentially cloned the original Ford Model T?
post #252 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipen View Post

Can someone explain why Schmidt was on Apple's board of director and later or at the same time as Google's CEO?

Standard business practice. As long as there's no business conflict, the theory is that companies benefit from cross-fertilization of ideas.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #253 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Yes, equally angry, I am not angered.

Both the notification system and the wireless updating are minor enhancements to the overall UX. iOS can and was very successful without either of those. Take them away or leave them and the overall UX is still great and the platform is still popular. You can't say that about the Android, neither the individual features nor the overall UX, because it was lifted wholesale before it was ever launched. Had Android come out before the iPhone, it would have been a total different product.

A clone is not one or two features that are similar. A clone is a massive copying of much or all of the user experience. I never said "Android stole UI elements from iOS", they stole the whole UI (and the UX). Major difference.

The hypocrisy in this thread amuses me. The question isn't whether or not iOS would still be good without notifications or not. The issue is that THEY IMPLEMENTED IT....in a very Android-like fashion at that (I'm coming from the Galaxy S to the 4S). By your definition they copied. Stop throwing stars saying "is/was very successful without either of those" isn't the best argument to make. Because IF and WHEN iOS falls (had they not been inspired by some competitors features) then most people would be contributing the downfall to not being like Android and doing their own stuff (ironically).

How did Android 'steal' the entire UI? My Nexus S looks NOTHING like iOS. Hmmm?


Think of it this way, IF COPIED OR WAS INSPIRED, WE WOULD NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET. Isn't this why Blockbuster failed? They didn't want to do what "Netflix" because they were doing things their own way. Look at them now.\

I don't get how Apple is always 'original' when they come out with something, but it's gimmick, stupid or copycatish when the competitiors come out.
post #254 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

majjo referenced how similar the prototype was to today's Android. One example he used was the dock. The dock in the prototype served a totally different purpose as the app launcher. The 'app launcher' now is the icons on the 'desktop'. Can't point a feature show it was planned earlier when the example you are using is completely different.

And it was conceived to compete with BB, not WinMo. RIM was ascendent at that point, WinMo was a joke. But regardless of which it was meant to compete with, BB or WinMO, it's final result was like neither. It took a totally different direction and ended up as an iPhone clone. Think that was a coincidence?



Again, majjo referenced how similar the button/controls layout of a released Android is to the prototype, I pointed out their differences. majjo pointed out it was touch screen on the prototype and I pointed out that screen was completely different than what they released and again, ended up being more similar to the iPhone of the day than to the prototype.




Only photos of what their prototypes looked like at the time. Notice there are no photos iPhone-like prototypes prior to the iPhone. I wonder why that is.

Given all information that was known about Android prior to the iPhone, there is no reason to even suspect they were considering capacitive touch. If they weren't, and their prototypes seem to bear that out, then they would have had no choice but to include a keyboard. Without a slideout keyboard, they would have been left with a choice of the small screens they showed in their prototypes or a large screen with fixed keyboard that would have been huge. Hence, whatever inspired them to do a larger screen, required them to adapt to a slider keyboard, for any model that kept a keyboard.


Who said they owned it? They popularized it. In 2006 you could look and a brandless BB and know instantly it was a BB. The prototypes show who they were trying to copy early on. BB was the cat's meow back then. If one had to copy someone's smartphone, BB would be it at that time. Then suddenly it wasn't.


Who said that? But to look at other, resistive, touch screens and think they are proof that of someone considering multi-touch, capacitive touch screens is a joke.

BenQ blackbox.

Apple wasn't alone in it's thoughts and had benQ not ran out of money who knows what we would see
post #255 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shidell View Post

What about Windows Mobile? That existed, with icons, a desktop, and a "touch experience", long before Apple's iOS. Do you feel that Microsoft "cloned" that from the Apple Newton?

Based on this premise, are you also frustrated that all major car manufacturers have essentially cloned the original Ford Model T?

The 'touch experience' was so different that the only similarity is they both have the word touch. My keyboard on my PC is as much as touch interface as a resistive touch interface is. A multitouch interface utilizing a capacitive touch screen has almost no relation to the 'touch experience' that WinMo and prototype Android had.

The Model T in and of itself was not unique. The manufacturing process was what was revolutionary for cars. One would have a valid argument that modern automakers have inherited what Ford started. Would you deny that?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #256 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Good to see another useless thread on AI.

Lets see.

A. Steve Jobs is dead.

B. Google/Android is still running strong.

No matter what happens to Google, "A" will still apply.

It's not useless ... if it causes people to comment on it ..... as you just did.
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #257 of 372
Appleinsider pisses me off. They're just flame baiters. I don't even know why I come here.....

















To fight!
post #258 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

It's not useless ... if it causes people to comment on it ..... as you just did.

I wonder if Mr. Jobs is in Android Hell.
post #259 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

BenQ blackbox.

Apple wasn't alone in it's thoughts and had benQ not ran out of money who knows what we would see

Indeed, who knows what we would have seen. It is too bad they couldn't come to market with a product. It is too bad they never make it as a product and then made it a success. It is too bad they couldn't have then taken that device and created an ecosystem around it that spurred further success.

Apple did.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #260 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Steve Jobs said he would spend his "last dying breath" fighting Google's Android mobile operating system because he viewed it as a "stolen product," according to an upcoming biography on the Apple co-founder.

Cannot wait until the book comes out to see how it ends.
post #261 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Indeed, who knows what we would have seen. It is too bad they couldn't come to market with a product. It is too bad they never make it as a product and then made it a success. It is too bad they couldn't have then taken that device and created an ecosystem around it that spurred further success.

Apple did.

Point being technology was moving with or without Apple. Apple moved it along faster sure but everyone seems to feel the world would've collapsed without Apple.
post #262 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

The 'touch experience' was so different that the only similarity is they both have the word touch. My keyboard on my PC is as much as touch interface as a resistive touch interface is. A multitouch interface utilizing a capacitive touch screen has almost no relation to the 'touch experience' that WinMo and prototype Android had.

The Model T in and of itself was not unique. The manufacturing process was what was revolutionary for cars. One would have a valid argument that modern automakers have inherited what Ford started. Would you deny that?

To answer you in reverse, no, I absolutely agree that all modern cars inherit from the Model T--and that the Model T inherited from previous vehicles; steam-powered cars, which inherited from 4-wheeled buggies, and so on.

I disagree that WinMo was significantly different, or offered a significantly different experience, though. Yes, a stylus was needed (but not required, I used a resistive screen for many years with my fingers alone), but the experience wasn't dramatically different. The UI was different, and it wasn't nearly as accurate, but I could use iOS as it is now with a resistive screen the same way (albeit a much less nice experience.)

Isn't this argument akin to Windows vs. OS X? Different experiences that are essentially the same? Both use the concept of "Windows" in the OS, as does Linux, etc. to represent viewing panes.
post #263 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Point being technology was moving with or without Apple. Apple moved it along faster sure but everyone seems to feel the world would've collapsed without Apple.

Exactly. Everything happened as it should happen and hasn't happened any other way. Even with the absence of Apple, tech seems to still go on. I mean, look at how Android phones are progressing in ways that Apple HASN'T influenced. Super AMOLED, Kevlar, thinnest phone, face unlock, notifacatoins, wifi sync, etc.

Apple may have moved the industry foward, like Blackberry and Palm did....but that does NOT meat it's the end all of be alls.
post #264 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arasu View Post

Cannot wait until the book comes out to see how it ends.

LOLZ, your'e too funny!
post #265 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

I always thought that quote should be attributed to TS Eliot, from “Philip Massinger,” The Sacred Wood.
"One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest." Source

The innovation is that Picasso said it so everyone could consume it, not just aficionados of poetry. It's not uncommon for the inventor of an idea to not get widespread popular culture credit if they weren't able to communicate it adequately. Many important laws, principles and theories named for those that applied and communicated them clearly, not those that actually published them first.

I'm sure Picasso knew exactly what he was doing as he minimized and simplified the idea to it's core.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #266 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Point being technology was moving with or without Apple. Apple moved it along faster sure but everyone seems to feel the world would've collapsed without Apple.

Certainly not me. But we would be looking at a completely different Android if Apple hadn't done the iPhone first.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #267 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The Huffington Post has also obtained a copy of the book and reports that Jobs' long-time rival Bill Gates found him "weirdly flawed as a human being," saying that he was fascinated by his tendency to be "either in the mode of saying you were shit or trying to seduce you."

I find this quote from Bill Gates to be the most interesting thing from the story, in spite of all the back and forth between Android vs IOS on these boards.

It would seem that Steve's habit of saying what's on his mind ... and not holding anything back ... is unfamiliar territory for Bill. If you've watched enough video of B. Gates you'll notice what makes him, according to several sources, "a great poker player". His "poker face" never reveals what he's thinking, and so it's difficult trying to read him. Steve Jobs,otoh, tells you exactly what's on his mind, whether you like it or not.

For me, at least, I'll take Steve's way each and every time. You don't have to waste time trying to figure out what he "really means" ..... he tells you directly .... much more efficient and "open".
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #268 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Certainly not me. But we would be looking at a completely different Android if Apple hadn't done the iPhone first.

So?

10characters
post #269 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by iKol View Post

Again sounds like you should never allow a competitor on you board in the first place. Looks like trying to gang up on RIM and MSFT simply backfired.

Your continued, plainly-displayed, ignorance is so pervasive I am getting to the point of believing you are nothing more than an intentional troll. You seem to know a fair chunk of recent Apple related tech history, but have almost all the facts other than the timeline wrong. Ignorance isn't that simultaneously successful and pathetically clueless.

As for the direct factual response to the above post, Google was not a competitor with Apple when Schmidt joined the board. Google bought Android Inc in 2005 when it was a small tech startup making a better pager. Android the phone OS didn't show up publicly until almost 2008, and immediately it was obvious in the PR runup showing off previous development that the previous secret development of Andropid was in BlackBerry lookalike prototypes, and the secret prototypes became iPhone knockoffs in 2006/2007. That is when Google became a competitor, and the only reasonable conclusion I see is that Schmidt fed the Android team iPhone information before he started recusing himself from Apple iPhone related board business.

You can't ignore the timelines, they are quite public. You can't ignore the trace of events in the internet, the Wayback Machine does not lie. You are obviously savvy enough to know of the events, yet you chose to ignore all of the actual facts surrounding the events. And have repeatedly dismissed other posts that have attempted to educate you. So I expect you to continue the troll road technique and reject/ignore this post too. But your willfulness isn't left unaddressed so that it might unfairly snare others.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #270 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

So?

10characters

So then it is ridiculous to fault Jobs for feeling that Android copied heavily from the iPhone and for being livid that Schmidt betrayed him. I have ben responding to those that have trying to deny or minimize the 'influence' that the iPhone had on Android as we know it.

There was no phone like the iPhone prior to it's release. Once it came out, suddenly there was a platform that mimicked what made the iPhone unique, the total package. Who wouldn't feel they were ripped off and by a ally and board member?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #271 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Point being technology was moving with or without Apple. Apple moved it along faster sure but everyone seems to feel the world would've collapsed without Apple.

Your tendency towards strawman hyperbole is getting incredibly stale. The winners dictate the direction of the game. Apple was winning in 2007. In my opinion it is fair to say they helped steer the competition in many ways. It is purely speculative to say what Android would have become if the iPhone had not been received so well. Luckily we don't actually have to speculate, because history shows us that the iPhone was released first, it was incredibly popular, and gradually feature sets across the industry tend towards convergence based on what is popular. Google and Apple have each had their turns being first to market with new features, but Apple set the benchmark for what people wanted before Android even got out of the gate.
post #272 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Your continued, plainly-displayed, ignorance is so pervasive I am getting to the point of believing you are nothing more than an intentional troll. You seem to know a fair chunk of recent Apple related tech history, but have almost all the facts other than the timeline wrong. Ignorance isn't that simultaneously successful and pathetically clueless.

As for the direct factual response to the above post, Google was not a competitor with Apple when Schmidt joined the board. Google bought Android Inc in 2005 when it was a small tech startup making a better pager. Android the phone OS didn't show up publicly until almost 2008, and immediately it was obvious in the PR runup showing off previous development that the previous secret development of Andropid was in BlackBerry lookalike prototypes, and the secret prototypes became iPhone knockoffs in 2006/2007. That is when Google became a competitor, and the only reasonable conclusion I see is that Schmidt fed the Android team iPhone information before he started recusing himself from Apple iPhone related board business.

You can't ignore the timelines, they are quite public. You can't ignore the trace of events in the internet, the Wayback Machine does not lie. You are obviously savvy enough to know of the events, yet you chose to ignore all of the actual facts surrounding the events. And have repeatedly dismissed other posts that have attempted to educate you. So I expect you to continue the troll road technique and reject/ignore this post too. But your willfulness isn't left unaddressed so that it might unfairly snare others.

So you're suggesting Steve Jobs was a pussy pushover who allowed Schmidt to steal all his secrets and get away with it?

I thought you respected Steve -_-
post #273 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexualintellectual View Post

Your tendency towards strawman hyperbole is getting incredibly stale. The winners dictate the direction of the game. Apple was winning in 2007. In my opinion it is fair to say they helped steer the competition in many ways. It is purely speculative to say what Android would have become if the iPhone had not been received so well. Luckily we don't actually have to speculate, because history shows us that the iPhone was released first, it was incredibly popular, and gradually feature sets across the industry tend towards convergence based on what is popular. Google and Apple have each had their turns being first to market with new features, but Apple set the benchmark for what people wanted before Android even got out of the gate.

So you disagree with Steve?
post #274 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

So then it is ridiculous to fault Jobs for feeling that Android copied heavily from the iPhone and for being livid that Schmidt betrayed him. I have ben responding to those that have trying to deny or minimize the 'influence' that the iPhone had on Android as we know it.

There was no phone like the iPhone prior to it's release. Once it came out, suddenly there was a platform that mimicked what made the iPhone unique, the total package. Who wouldn't feel they were ripped off and by a ally and board member?

I don't fault jobs I disagree with him.

For such an obvious trend setter he got angry often at his trends being successful. o.O

And android didn't copy heavily from the iPhone. They were inspired by it like any sane company was.

If BMW comes out with a car that changes the game and Daimler-Chrysler decides to make products to compete with this amazing new car are they copycats? Or businessmen?
post #275 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

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

Ignorance.

Apple is suing Samsung & HTC because Apple claims Samsung & HTC are selling products that use Apple patents without license.

Oracle is suing Google because Oracle claims Google is creating and distributing software that violates oracles copyrights and licensing. Oracle is trying to prove that Google coding of the Dalvik JVM directly hurt Oracles Mobile Java licensing.

The thing that is in common is Android and Google having created it. But Apple and Oracle have business in different parts of the overall software / hardware market which means they seek legal relief in those parts of the market they know best first. If Apple and Oracle are successful you can be guaranteed they will take those precedents and conduct far wider court actions against the remainder of the offending parties.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #276 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

So you disagree with Steve?

These are the last bytes on AI's server that I am going to waste on you. I imagine that being a dense prick on the internet provides you with some sick satisfaction, but I'm done being one of your enablers.

Ban away, mods.
post #277 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

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.

I guess we can all now figure out why you aren't running a major tech company. Maybe you should brush up on what makes for a revolution and what doesn't.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #278 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by sexualintellectual View Post

These are the last bytes on AI's server that I am going to waste on you. I imagine that being a dense prick on the internet provides you with some sick satisfaction, but I'm done being one of your enablers.

Ban away, mods.

Ban me for what now?

Point is you agreed with me that Apple jump started the industry and as always competitors followed suit. Steve on the other hand felt competitors pretty much had no right to take his lead. And doing so was tantamount to grand theft.

So what is it? Grand theft or jump starting/inspiring am industry?
post #279 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Ban me for what now?

I think he wants to be banned for outright insulting other members.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #280 of 372
This type of hubris is what kills companies.

Jobs was willing to sacrifice everything Apple has to destroy Google/Android. That is INSANE. Which makes more sense, to lose some $$$ from sales lost to Google/Android or to potentially bankrupt Apple for the sake of revenge (and yes, it is revenge)?

This, IMO, was serious blind spot of Job's. I also find it bothersome that Apple chooses to sue/attack the manufacturers of Android devices instead of suing Google directly. Attacking Google/Android via proxy seems childish. It seems a way to get revenge on Google and then take out the competition in one fell swoop.

There should be far fewer lawsuits. Apple should be suing Google as well as Samsung (due to other patent violations other than those in Android) NOT companies that choose to sell Android products. Very tacky. I say this as a shareholder (tiny tiny shareholder) and a customer.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Steve Jobs vowed to 'destroy' Google Android, called it a 'stolen product'
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Steve Jobs vowed to 'destroy' Google Android, called it a 'stolen product'