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 8

post #281 of 372
Edit: reread.
post #282 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

This is where Jobs really lost most of his grip on reality. Without Android, we'd prob be stuck with no multitasking, classic garbage notifications and no cloud-like services. If the Android platform were to suddenly fall into the abyss, you clowns would be wise to hope for a new worthy competitor to rise from the ashes.

Haha, the hubris of the fandroid. Wow, you really believe Android is the savior of Apple, huh? Wow, just wow. You obviously hadn't heard Steve Jobs talking about his cloud vision during 1997 WWDC. You just assume that Apple is copying Google's cloud service? I guess you also think Siri is a "copy" of Google Voice. Even more lulz: you think without Google, Apple lacks a "worthy competitor".

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #283 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

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.

What surprised me is that Sun did not move on this immediately. When I first saw Android and the Dalvik VM and the use of java (lower case intentionally), I immediately thought "Sun is going to freak over this". I would love to know the details behind that story. Oracle maybe too late taking this up now. If there is an Achille's heal with Android it's Java, IMO, not the UX. Other companies have made their on VMs (like IBM) but with Sun licensing. Even Microsoft was given the boot with their J++ product which was found to violate Sun's licensing.

The Samsung issue must have been especially infuriating since Samsung was making most of the parts for iOS devices.

Just to fuel the flames higher - I ask, if Android phones cost the same or more than the iPhone when bundled with a carrier contract, would it be anywhere near as successful?
post #284 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

..... (In reply to: IKOL) ... Your continued, plainly-displayed, ignorance is so pervasive I am getting to the point of believing you are nothing more than an intentional troll.

Ya think ?
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 #285 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

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)?

It was never about the money/revenge .... it was about the lack of integrity displayed by Eric S. and Google. Why should Google be rewarded for it's lack of integrity, by Apple just giving up the fight? It is always difficult to put a price on integrity .... especially if one has none, no ?
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 #286 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

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.

Dont tell me what to do.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #287 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

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


Palm had apps.

Palm had phone capability.

Palm had PDA functionality.

Palm had web browser capability.

"no other system prior" is bs.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #288 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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'm talking about the concept of a touch screen + PDA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.


No you haven't. Your explantion fails. Try harder.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #289 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

Who said that Steve Jobs was always right?

The people who have never once said he was wrong about anything?
post #290 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

I'm talking about the concept of a touch screen + PDA.




No you haven't. Your explantion fails. Try harder.

Your comprehension fails. Give up.
post #291 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

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.

With the speed at which Apple was an is making money, spending the reserves the had to defeat Android (thereby increasing revenues even more) wouldn't have bankrupted them, it would have allowed them to replenish those reserves even quicker.

The only reason Android ramped up as quickly as they did is that of all the major competitors, WinMo, Symbian and BB, Android most quickly assimilated and copied what Apple had. If Jobs had managed to kill Android, then that would have been cash in the bank. It isn't hubris to want to kill Android, it is anger of seeing a product Jobs was intimately involved in developing being ripped off blatantly and good business at the same time.

"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 #292 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

Who said that Steve Jobs was always right?

super late re-reply:

It's not so much people are sitting there chanting he is always right, but they feel the fact that if he says something they think then that somehow validates their thoughts even though his feelings are just that, his.
post #293 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

With the speed at which Apple was an is making money, spending the reserves the had to defeat Android (thereby increasing revenues even more) wouldn't have bankrupted them, it would have allowed them to replenish those reserves even quicker.

The only reason Android ramped up as quickly as they did is that of all the major competitors, WinMo, Symbian and BB, Android most quickly assimilated and copied what Apple had. If Jobs had managed to kill Android, then that would have been cash in the bank. It isn't hubris to want to kill Android, it is anger of seeing a product Jobs was intimately involved in developing being ripped off blatantly.

Yes, because we all know Android and iOS are twins.
post #294 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

I'm talking about the concept of a touch screen + PDA.

Are you still droning on about touch screen which have no similarity to the resistive touch screen iPhones and actual Androids actually use?

"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 #295 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

The people who have never once said he was wrong about anything?

Haggar, you know am not one that is afraid to call out Apple sheep and have been in many heated discussions with the blind fanboies here. But in this case, defending Jobs attitude of being wronged really isn't difficult. He was right.

"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 #296 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Haggar, you know am not one that is afraid to call out Apple sheep and have been in many heated discussions with the blind fanboies here. But in this case, defending Jobs attitude of being wronged really isn't difficult. He was right.

Was he though?

was he wronged? possibly...was he betrayed? not likely.

was he as wronged as he seems to think? (grand theft) not likely.

Think about this...Apple joined the mobile phone game in 2007...not before, not after...2007 (they may have been working on something for a bit longer, but they came to be official in 2007.

Google joined the mobile phone game in 2008...not before...not after...10/21/2008.

Tell me how this quote by Steve makes sense, "We didnt enter the search market, but they entered the mobile phone market. Dont be mistaken, they want to kill the iPhone. But we wont let them" as if Apple had some sort of monopoly over it...as if Google had absolutely NO RIGHT to enter the market...and as if Google, by directly competing in the smartphone market was conspiring to destroy Apple.

Sounds like the ramblings of a paranoid egomaniacal technological genius to me.

Like I said on page one, Steve, as great as the man was and will be remembered as for a LONG time, was still an egomaniac.

A lot of great men are.
post #297 of 372
I really wish Steve Jobs had watched this video and understood it: http://devour.com/video/everything-is-a-remix-part-3/
post #298 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

I really wish Steve Jobs had watched this video and understood it: http://devour.com/video/everything-is-a-remix-part-3/

That is brilliant...everyone should watch that.
post #299 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Was he though?

was he wronged? possibly...was he betrayed? not likely.

was he as wronged as he seems to think? (grand theft) not likely.

Think about this...Apple joined the mobile phone game in 2007...not before, not after...2007 (they may have been working on something for a bit longer, but they came to be official in 2007.

Google joined the mobile phone game in 2008...not before...not after...10/21/2008.

Tell me how this quote by Steve makes sense, "We didn’t enter the search market, but they entered the mobile phone market. Don’t be mistaken, they want to kill the iPhone. But we won’t let them" as if Apple had some sort of monopoly over it...as if Google had absolutely NO RIGHT to enter the market...and as if Google, by directly competing in the smartphone market was conspiring to destroy Apple.

Sounds like the ramblings of a paranoid egomaniacal technological genius to me.

Like I said on page one, Steve, as great as the man was and will be remembered as for a LONG time, was still an egomaniac.

A lot of great men are.

See, I don't read that as him saying google had no right. I read as him saying to Apple employees, "don't be complacent and think google is our friend here, there are competing with us and trying got kill our product". Google was a partner and ally and Schmidt was a trusted friend and advisor and on the Apple board. To go from that position to a direct competitor that borrowed more than a little would piss anyone off, egomaniac or not. There may be a lot of quotes one could dig up to show he was egomaniacal, but that one does not show that in the least. It shows a man that felt he was ripped off and was ripped off by a friend.

At what level of 'inspiration' from iOS would you accept that the Android UX was lifted from iOS? Would it only be if it is a mirror image, pixel for pixel, gesture for gesture, paradigm for paradigm, concept for concept?

"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 #300 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

I really wish Steve Jobs had watched this video and understood it: http://devour.com/video/everything-is-a-remix-part-3/

What made you think Jobs didn't get it? One can copy to learn from the experience BUT when all you do is copying someone else and NOT inventing or creating something new or even improving... here lies the problem.

Regarding, Apple taking Xerox's "commercially" not viable GUI computer and turning it more affordable and user friendly Macintosh...this video, in hindsight, oversimplified the creative process that took placed at Apple. "Copy-Transformation-Combine"...really??? What about the hard work of testing, experimentation, and even failures? Without Jobs pushing ease of use and Wozniak's smarts in the early days, we would not have seen an affordable PC for years and everything else that followed it. This linear video is fine for art class 101 but failed to explain the actual thinking-experimenting process and having the right people in the right places that LEADS to innovation.


Here's another example of Android copying...
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19736_7...d-alternative/
post #301 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

At what level of 'inspiration' from iOS would you accept that the Android UX was lifted from iOS? Would it only be if it is a mirror image, pixel for pixel, gesture for gesture, paradigm for paradigm, concept for concept?

TouchWhiz
post #302 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techboy View Post



Here's another example of Android copying...
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19736_7...d-alternative/

3rd party app purposefully made to mimic Siri (even going as far as to be named iriS/Siri)
post #303 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

The people who have never once said he was wrong about anything?

Talk about a straw man.
post #304 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

Talk about a straw man.

Methinks you don't know what s strawman argument is.
post #305 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkgx1 View Post

Why is Apple fracking with Samsung anywho? Do they NOT make the processors in the phones? Do they NOT hold VALUABLE patents?

None that Apple needs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by linkgx1 View Post

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 posting. Read. Learn. THEN you can post.

I've already explained multiple times the difference between using an idea which is not protectable and copying an implementation which is protected by intellectual property rights. Are you refusing to understand that because you're intellectually incapable of comprehending that simple concept or because you're intentionally trolling?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Methinks you don't know what s strawman argument is.

Actually, he does - and he used the term correctly. You appear to be the one who is babbling about things you don't understand.
"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 #306 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

None that Apple needs.




Stop posting. Read. Learn. THEN you can post.

I've already explained multiple times the difference between using an idea which is not protectable and copying an implementation which is protected by intellectual property rights. Are you refusing to understand that because you're intellectually incapable of comprehending that simple concept or because you're intentionally trolling?



Actually, he does - and he used the term correctly. You appear to be the one who is babbling about things you don't understand.

The fact that "people who think Steve jobs is infallible" wasn't used in place of any other argument and then argued against then no, he did not use it correctly.
post #307 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Palm had apps.
Palm had phone capability.
Palm had PDA functionality.
Palm had web browser capability.
"no other system prior" is bs.

Enjoy your little world where absolutely nothing makes sense and you feel that you can ignore what people are saying any time you wish.

I don't know a single person that takes you seriously. It's more embarrassing to the community than anything else that you keep posting this nonsense.

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 #308 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

With the speed at which Apple was an is making money, spending the reserves the had to defeat Android (thereby increasing revenues even more) wouldn't have bankrupted them, it would have allowed them to replenish those reserves even quicker.

The only reason Android ramped up as quickly as they did is that of all the major competitors, WinMo, Symbian and BB, Android most quickly assimilated and copied what Apple had. If Jobs had managed to kill Android, then that would have been cash in the bank. It isn't hubris to want to kill Android, it is anger of seeing a product Jobs was intimately involved in developing being ripped off blatantly and good business at the same time.

But there is a point where one has to decide (at this point) is it worth following this path instead of just using the $$$ to innovate and continue to do well in the market. If Apple is making a profit and their stock is going up, then keep doing positive things. I would hate to see Apple blow all their money just get revenge because Jobs was angry. At a certain point it is no longer good business sense.
post #309 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

It was never about the money/revenge .... it was about the lack of integrity displayed by Eric S. and Google. Why should Google be rewarded for it's lack of integrity, by Apple just giving up the fight? It is always difficult to put a price on integrity .... especially if one has none, no ?

It isn't about Google's integrity (or lack of). It isn't about Google being rewarded. It is about Jobs being willing to unnecessarily squander Apple's assets on trying to bring down a competitor versus just using those funds in a positive manner. Perhaps Jobs should have tried to gain a deeper understanding of his chosen religion/life philosophy.

There are more ways for Apple to "fight" Google than just use every nasty trick in the business to take them down. That integrity road goes both ways.
post #310 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

I'm not diminishing his accomplishments I'm saying he isn't always right.

No kidding...do you know anyone that is? Like I said...what's your point?
post #311 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

How is this any different to Apple? they took and idea, and added a few features to it, removed a heap more.

What phone worked like an iPhone before the iPhone? Android? Android was on the way to becoming a BB knock off. How about some examples?
post #312 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

But there is a point where one has to decide (at this point) is it worth following this path instead of just using the $$$ to innovate and continue to do well in the market. If Apple is making a profit and their stock is going up, then keep doing positive things. I would hate to see Apple blow all their money just get revenge because Jobs was angry. At a certain point it is no longer good business sense.

That would certainlybe the rainbows and puppy dogs approach. The reality is why should spend money on research and innovation if they believe Android will just copy it. They would effectively be funding Android R&D. Spending money to stop what they saw as theft would be more productive in many ways. If they. Believed that Android was meant to kill the iPhone using their own work, then no, it would make no sense to assist in that effort by getting out of the way and paying to assist in improving Android.

"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 #313 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post

No kidding...do you know anyone that is? Like I said...what's your point?

Considering the title of this article I figured my point was obvious. There I go giving people too much credit. My bad.

My point is that Mr. Jobs feelings aren't necessarily correct.

"What feelings" you ask? His feelings on Android. Like the title mentions.
post #314 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by linkgx1 View Post

Why is Apple fracking with Samsung anywho? Do they NOT make the processors in the phones? Do they NOT hold VALUABLE patents?

Apple designed the processor in the iPhone, Samsung is the manufacturer.
post #315 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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

FYI, the resolution of that thing equaled the iphone, with winmob already having 640x480 screens. The browser in that thing could render webpages just fine - it was much better than the pathetic IE4 in winmob. In fact, it could download prc files from the web browser and install them without a computer either, oh snap.

The point is, the iphone isn't a totally new device, they didn't come up with the multi-touch gestures completely, and as usually, innovated in key areas. If Steve is so upset with someone taking his ideas, what about all the others's ideas he "stole" before him?
post #316 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets View Post

FYI, the resolution of that thing equaled the iphone, with winmob already having 640x480 screens. The browser in that thing could render webpages just fine - it was much better than the pathetic IE4 in winmob. In fact, it could download prc files from the web browser and install them without a computer either, oh snap.

The point is, the iphone isn't a totally new device, they didn't come up with the multi-touch gestures completely, and as usually, innovated in key areas. If Steve is so upset with someone taking his ideas, what about all the others's ideas he "stole" before him?

What about the color depth of the display, or even that allowed by the OS? Did the browser render a majority of web pages even remotely close to what a desktop browser would (hint: the answer in the case of Palm's Blazer is NO, and I say that from experience)? Since these devices already had what others claim made the iPhone better, what was the adoption rate of Palm and Windows Mobile devices in comparison to all other phones at that time?

The issue is not whether smartphones and PDAs existed prior to the iPhone. The issue is whether or not the competition unethically leveraged the work that Apple put into hitting so many of the right notes with the iPhone. The individual ideas were not entirely new, but the functionality and accessibility of the whole were roundly hailed as a revolution in the mobile industry. Just because the pieces existed before doesn't diminish what it took to put them together.

I don't think Steve Jobs was adamant that nobody else was allowed to make a smartphone. I think he was pissed at what he perceived to be negligible differentiation in aspects of the competition's implementation. His perception was his reality, and he had more knowledge of what conversations took place than any of us do, whether you'd like to admit that or not.
post #317 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by iKol View Post

To what?

Having a clue. Pretty obvious, really. Then again I suppose it's not surprising your ignorant about that too.

Quote:
Whatever.

Indeed. Thank goodness the board has an ignore function - quite handy, really.
post #318 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Speaking of Nokia ( I know, I know!), SockRolid posted a timeline of mobile device evolution above, which I think is very incomplete without the NIT 770 from 2005.

Wasn't that a DED image, he likes to rewrite history, there are a lot of devices missing from it
post #319 of 372
Sounds like he didn't like having competition.
post #320 of 372

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 12:26pm
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'