Steve Jobs vowed to 'destroy' Google Android, called it a 'stolen product' - Page 2

Don't forget Reader, from Safari.

This is interesting:


Ive is the new Jobs?

Also the cases against Samsung mentioned were specifically against Samsung and not against Android itself...worth noting.

I have- volumes. You on the other hand make accusatory statements but don't clarify your position. Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

Really now? Apple owns offline web pages?

Also camera from lockscreen existed in 3rd party apps before iOS 5...cannot be called an Apple invention simply because they integrated it into stock iOS

You're dignifying this iKol person's uninformed drivel!?

We can argue whether the “theft” was a good thing for the world—and if someone makes a truly great Android variant (Amazon? someone?) that is truly different from Apple (not just the occasional spec bullet point or clever UI detail) then that’s going to look a lot like a Yes! I think it could happen, and I hope it does.

But theft it was, from Steve’s understandable view. It truly was not Google innovation, but Google copying. (The way they’ve copied lots of popular things, always aiming to control the world’s ad space, which is their life blood.) The level of unique and original innovation Apple built on top of Xerox’s foundation was revolutionary. What Google built by mimicking iPhone? Not nearly as different, not nearly as revolutionary. Still a good way to sell users to advertisers, though!

Nope, just that it appeared in Safari in iOS 5, then again it is based on Apple's open source Webkit.

Why should I take the time to educate you? Go back to your "volumes" is the best advice I can give.

Right and go back to your barn is the best advice I can give you.

I bow my head in silent contemplation, reflecting on the life and wisdom of Steve Jobs.

Not for nothing....accomplish what he's accomplished. Take that into consideration.


He may not be a prophet but he's certainly a deity to millions.

One step at a time...

Why do I get the feeling that I'm going to be reading references to these comments from belligerent crazed android fanboys from now until the end of eternity.

Apple is out to get android! They can't innovate so they litigate! We have proof! The iPhone wasnt original anyway, there had been phones before, and touch screens before, Prada, blah blah, you can't patent touching things, apple evil, blah blah blah, all they do is sue, Steve jobs said so...

How is anything you said good at anything more than face value?

I can name a shitload of bad men who've done great things (not saying he's bad) doesn't make them always right.


And the fact that he's a deity to millions is a bad thing as far as I'm concerned.

Will we get to see the temple built in our lifetime? That's was the weirdest comment I've heard - beyond.....
Probably the last thing SJ ever wanted people to view him as.

I'll probably catch a lot of flak for this, but its hard for me to see eye to eye with SJ on this issue considering how different android proper is from iOS.

Now, if android came out looking like samsung's Touchwiz 3, then yeah, I would wholeheartedly agree with SJ; but as it stands, I don't see much similarity between the two.

I believe that is what Red Oak is referring to.
Oracle should win their lawsuit against Google and Android should go away (As a gift to Steve).

I would agree that Android core has diverged into it's own thing in recent years (though Samsung is doing it's best to keep it as iOS-like as possible). Doesn't change the fact that it came about from Schmidt's insider knowledge, and that's what caused Jobs to be pissed off and betrayed.

Never underestimate the power of medication especially for pain to make one nasty or cranky. Who knows what else was going on - if he was having extreme reactions to medication.

Absolutely! ... and those who fail to understand that Android 'proper' shares little-to-nothing with the iPhone OS/iOS other than they both happen to be mobile operating systems, are largely delusional.

He's right. Remember the switcheroo that Google did to him. Sneaky.

Oh and Apple will destroy them proper and legal!

And some people on this forum have the nerve to call me a troll for constantly bashing and attacking the pile of crap that is known as Android.

At least we know who Steve Jobs agrees with!

Steve Jobs also had some nice words for Obama I read, he's done with.

The Android/iOS debacle reminds me of another case of blatant theft from Apple.

An older case… back in the early days…

"Yes, the Microsoft case, we know."

Oh, no, not that one. This case is from 1999.

eMachines' eOne. I can only IMAGINE the rage Jobs must have felt when he opened up a magazine to see THIS gaudy monstrosity staring back at him:



Apple went on to sue eMachines for everything they had, effectively ruining them. eMachines was purchased by Gateway, which was purchased by Acer.

Scan courtesy of a 1999 copy of ToyTime.com magazine that I just found in my house.

In other words, he was a friggin' ROCK STAR!!

He took a cold box of silicon, plastic and metal and gave it personality. Something that makes one want to, and not have to, use it.

And then took it 100 steps further and did it to a smartphone.


Go ahead, say it. He didn't invent Siri. No, but half the things Edison perfected and brought to the masses weren't invented by him, either, but you thought he was a great, inventive man when they taught you about him in school, I bet.

Do you not understand hyperbole?

Ummmm...what did Google innovate? They took a big idea & added a few features to it. They didn't change the way people interact with devices. They didn't change anything.
http://www.designer-daily.com/androi...one-ipad-18040

Here ya go zippy
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py...d_Progress.txt

If its illegal, then Apple have a very simple course of action.

Where is it?

Like the other poster I am not going to spend a lot of time explaining what can be found on plenty of reliable Internet sites, however, the big difference is Apple paid Xerox for the privilege of being inspired. Further, the GUI or the Mouse for that matter was not invented at Xerox. Back in the 1960's, Ivan Sutherland wrote a program called Sketchpad, which is created with being the forefather of the modern GUI. Doug Englebart worked for Stanford Research Institute and was inspired by Sutherland's work. Englebart made further advancements in the area of GUIs and produced the first mouse. Sutherland and Englebart were academics. For instance, Sutherland's work was done for his PhD. Englebart worked for Stanford. Unlike Google just taking Oracle and Apple's IP, Apple licensed Englebart's patents from SRI. In other words, Apple obtained permission and compensated the creator.

Some of the people that worked with Englebart later went on to work for Xerox PARC and expanded on his ideas. Jeff Raskin was a professor at Stanford, the same place Englebart worked. Both were interested in GUI interfaces.

Raskin later went on to work for Apple, and was interested in creating a GUI OS at Apple. From Raskin's work at Stanford and from knowledge of people he knew working at Xerox, he talked Jobs into arranging for a visit at PARC so Raskin could get Jobs interested in the GUI concept. Apple paid Xerox in the form of one million dollars of Apple pre-IPO stock for the visit and to be able to use ideas. Again, do you see the difference here? Apple didn't just take the idea, it paid for it. Further, if you figure out what a million dollars of Apple Pre-IPO stock would be worth today, you would understand Apple paid Xerox well.

More importantly, Xerox's GUI was running on an expense Altos computer inspired by Englebart's work, that Xerox used internally and donated a few machines to universities like Stanford. The reason Xerox didn't sell them is because the machines cost $40, 000 to build.


So, Apple's challenge was to borrow the over all concept of a GUI inspired by Xerox's work, but figure out how to sell a product for what the first Mac cost: namely $2, 450. You can bet Apple did a lot of innovating to shave $38, 000 from the cost. For instance, Xerox's mouse cost $400 to produce. Apple had to figure out how to manufacture a mouse for a mere $30 to $40 to met its desired market price. Keep in mind the Altos had 64K of memory, the Mac 128K.

Apple did as it always does borrow an idea and greatly improve upon it while compensating IP holders. Look at Apple's Siri. It bought Siri, and improved upon it. With its new Notification System, it brought on board the creator of a popular jailbroken iPhone Notification system to improve upon its deficient notification system.

Meanwhile, Google admits in internal documents it took Java without permission, and if you saw the pre iPhone version of Android, and the after version, you'd understand Google redesigned Android to emulate iOS.

What makes Google's actions particularly mean spirited is Google's CEO sat on Apple's Board while Jobs helped Google fend off Microsoft by embracing Google's products while Google's CEO used his inside position on Apple's Board to Google's advantage to undercut Apple. The sad thing is Google isn't making any real money off Android, and had it played its cards right, Apple would have further integrated Google's services into the iPhone solidifying Google's revenue base for less cost.

No, they can't comprehend. They have no idea about the Apple/Mac experience.

Google will never do anything interesting or truly different...in that respect yes. No it never ends because it happens all the time.

So much for "Don't Be Evil."

...you don't know very much about the topic you brought up. Do some quick research.

Tip: use your Infernetz!

Here's a shocker for you...people are not perfect. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people that think you're an asshole. Same for me & probably most in this forum. How does that diminish his accomplishments. People are complex creatures. Grow up.

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

Who said that Steve Jobs was always right?

That is pretty... pretty blatant that is. I'm sure Microsoft trolls would've defended it with "So Apple owns translucent plastic now?"

Damn, you people sure are feeding the trolls tonight.

You're being deliberately obtuse. Point is simply because he said something doesn't mean it's true.