or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Biographer says Steve Jobs was legitimately infuriated by Android
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Biographer says Steve Jobs was legitimately infuriated by Android

post #1 of 217
Thread Starter 
Biographer Walter Isaacson has disputed Google CEO Larry Page's assertion that Steve Jobs only said disparaging remarks about its Android mobile operating system to rally his own employees.

Page's comments came from an interview this week in which he said he believed Jobs's hatred of Android was merely "for show." The Google CEO suggested that the comments from Jobs served the best interests of Apple in giving its employees something to fight against.

Those comments were in contrast to what Jobs told Isaacson for his biography of the Apple co-founder. In their conversations, Jobs called Android a "stolen product," and vowed to use his "last dying breath" to "destroy" it.

After hearing Page's interpretation of Jobs's words, Isaacson spoke out this week in a speech at the Royal institution of Great Britain. Isaacson said he felt that Android had ripped off many of his ideas found in the iPhone and iPad, and that his ire was very real, according to Macworld.

"It's almost copied verbatim by Android," Isaacson said. "And they license it around promiscuously. And then Android starts surpassing Apple in market share, and this totally infuriated him. It wasn't a matter of money. He said, 'You can't pay me off, I'm here to destroy you.'"

The biographer also predicted that current Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook will use a different approach than Jobs, who vowed to "go thermonuclear war" to stop Android. Isaacson instead believes that Cook will eventually settle Apple's Android-related lawsuits.



A similar take was offered in a recent cover story by Bloomberg Businessweek, which revealed that Apple has communicated recently with Samsung about potentially settling the multitude of lawsuits between the two companies. Author Paul M. Barrett said Cook doesn't share Jobs's desire to "(lay) all foes to waste," and that he instead views the courtroom as a "necessary evil."

Apple has not sued Google directly over Android, but has taken on a number of Google's partners who ship devices running the Android mobile operating system. In addition to Samsung, other companies involved in litigation are HTC and and Motorola Mobility, the latter of which is owned by Google.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 217
I'm inclined to think Larry Page is delusional to think Steve didn't mind the rip off!
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #3 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

...
"It's almost copied verbatim by Android," Isaacson said...

Unless Isaacson can show what exactly is copied verbatim by Android, he is full of shit.
post #4 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Unless Isaacson can show what exactly is copied verbatim by Android, he is full of shit.

*cough

Andriod before iPhone; Andriod after iPhone.
post #5 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobodyy View Post

*cough

Andriod before iPhone; Andriod after iPhone.

*cough

verbatim
post #6 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Unless Isaacson can show what exactly is copied verbatim by Android, he is full of shit.

If you look at what Google (or anybody) did pre-iPhone and post-iPhone it is hard not to agree with Isaacson. Verbatim has to be viewed as an ambiguous term, here, of course.
post #7 of 217
If it's so ovbious a cut and dry rip-off then why hasn't it been stopped and ordered to cease and desist already?
post #8 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

If you look at what Google (or anybody) did pre-iPhone and post-iPhone it is hard not to agree with Isaacson. Verbatim has to be viewed as an ambiguous term, here, of course.

We've had this argument a thousand times already; just look up the "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy.
post #9 of 217
"they license it around promiscuously"

Did he just call the Android team a bunch of sluts?
post #10 of 217
So mr. Page is a liar? Why am I not surprised?
post #11 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

We've had this argument a thousand times already; just look up the "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy.

If you look at android before and after iPhone it looks pretty damning, prima facie.
post #12 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Why am I not surprised?

Because of confirmation bias.
post #13 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

If you look at android before and after iPhone it looks pretty damning, prima facie.

Have a second look then.
post #14 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Because of confirmation bias.

Or because AllThingD article show you can not trust mr. Page's words?
post #15 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

*cough

verbatim

Are you joking? Look at the screens, and it's pretty obvious. Schmitt himself said that when they first bought Android, they were going to model it off the Blackberry, but then when Apple had the iPhone, they changed it to model that instead.

This is an old argument. If you can't see the differences in form and function, they perhaps you aren't looking.
post #16 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Because of confirmation bias.

Please, don't try to sound as though you know what you're talking about, because you don't.
post #17 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by OriginalG View Post

"they license it around promiscuously"

Did he just call the Android team a bunch of sluts?

The OS has been whoring around no doubt.
post #18 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Have a second look then.

Prima facie indicates something is self evident at first look. My second look was damning also.
post #19 of 217
Currently Tim Cook is ridinig the success and waves of what Steve Jobs placed in the pipeline for Apple.

Cook though is obviously not going to have the same drive and passion about apple as steve did, and his approach to settle with google is an obvious indicator.

i think Jobs would be dissapointed in how Cook is handling the things he fought for.

Cook should drop the nuke on Google. I'm pretty sure scott forstall would have kept to steves vision!

Cook in a few years will be another sculley.
Apple!

Think Different
Reply
Apple!

Think Different
Reply
post #20 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Or because AllThingD article show you can not trust mr. Page's words?

Does it now? Did the author claim so, or is this your imagination?
post #21 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

...My second look was damning also.

Then you must be myopic. Heal thyself.
post #22 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Unless Isaacson can show what exactly is copied verbatim by Android, he is full of shit.

Larry? Is that you Larry?

No it can't be, because even Larry knows he shamelessly ripped off the iPhone...
post #23 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Please, don't try to sound as though you know what you're talking about, because you don't.

Ditto.
post #24 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileMe View Post

Cook though is obviously not going to have the same drive and passion about apple as steve did, and his approach to settle with google is an obvious indicator.

I think settlement could be good for Apple, provide they're the one who get financial benefit of course. How is it not good for Apple if they could add cost into Android? Destroying Android just isn't a reality.
post #25 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Are you joking? Look at the screens, and it's pretty obvious. Schmitt himself said that when they first bought Android, they were going to model it off the Blackberry, but then when Apple had the iPhone, they changed it to model that instead.

This is an old argument. If you can't see the differences in form and function, they perhaps you aren't looking.

There are many similarities; there is no word-for-word copying. Android does not take code from iOS.
post #26 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


The biographer also predicted that current Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook will use a different approach than Jobs, who vowed to "go thermonuclear war" to stop Android. Isaacson instead believes that Cook will eventually settle Apple's Android-related lawsuits.





[ View article on AppleInsider ]

so they lucked out, IMO Tim Cook has "bigger fish to fry".
post #27 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Then you must be myopic. Heal thyself.

As opposed to having my head burried in the sand like you.
post #28 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Does it now? Did the author claim so, or is this your imagination?

How is it my imagination when the article shows mr. Page's words is not what we think it should means? In other words, he is slimey.
post #29 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Have a second look then.

But don't just look at what information was publicly available and when. Remember, Schmitt as an Apple board member may have gotten information about the iPhone long before it was ever publicaly revealed and may have been using that info to influence the path Android took. So even if a feature appeared on Android first doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't copied from the iPhone.

So unless you are privy to what information Schmitt had access to and when, vs when you found out about it, any arguments about what is self-evident is pointless and second looks are only second guesses...also pointless.
post #30 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileMe View Post

a) i think Jobs would be dissapointed in how Cook is handling the things he fought for.

b) Cook should drop the nuke on Google. I'm pretty sure scott forstall would have kept to steves vision!

a) SJ himself said, not to run Apple saying "what would SJ do" but rather, do what they thought was right.

b) It's harder said than done since Patents can only take you thus far, you cannot take both devices to court and say "see... it looks the same." Besides, Android had so much distribution that the courts would most probably rule that it will hurt the consumer should Android be halted, and this one thing will overrule all chances in discontinuing Android.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #31 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

...
So unless you are privy to what information Schmitt had access to and when, vs when you found out about it, any arguments about what is self-evident is pointless and second looks are only second guesses...also pointless.

Exactly.
post #32 of 217
Larry Page has NO CLUE what Steve was thinking or what Tim may do... In all likelihood, part of Tim's legal team already has the charges placed..... What a short-sighted child....
post #33 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

There are many similarities; there is no word-for-word copying. Android does not take code from iOS.

The Philips/Magnavox Odyssey2 game K.C. Munchkin took no code from Atari's 2600 console port of Pac-Man, came out the year before, and had a number of innovative features not found in the original Namco Pac-Man, but Atari still won the lawsuit (on appeal).
post #34 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileMe View Post

Currently Tim Cook is ridinig the success and waves of what Steve Jobs placed in the pipeline for Apple.

Cook though is obviously not going to have the same drive and passion about apple as steve did, and his approach to settle with google is an obvious indicator.

i think Jobs would be dissapointed in how Cook is handling the things he fought for.

Cook should drop the nuke on Google. I'm pretty sure scott forstall would have kept to steves vision!

Cook in a few years will be another sculley.

are you kidding... Steve Jobs recommended Tim Cook for CEO, and made sure(and trusted him) by giving him a golden handshake of like 500 million dollars(stock options) after 10 years... just so he would follow Steve's vision for five years. IMO. if anything Steve Jobs knew people, thus Tim Cook was the only person that Steve Jobs would trust with the job.
post #35 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I'm inclined to think Larry Page is delusional to think Steve didn't mind the rip off!

No, just kidding himself. Page has said that he looked up to Jobs, who was already a legend in Silicon Valley by the time Page and Brin go Google started. Besides, Jobs was very gracious to Page personally, might may have colored his remarks. Also that Page wasn't the one who was siphoning off ideas and technology from Apple.

"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 #36 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post

The Philips/Magnavox Odyssey2 game K.C. Munchkin took no code from Atari's 2600 console port of Pac-Man, came out the year before, and had a number of innovative features not found in the original Namco Pac-Man, but Atari still won the lawsuit (on appeal).

Apple should sue then.

Coming back to my original comment, I contested specifically the word verbatim. I'm not interested in getting sucked deeper in yet another general "Android was stolen" discussion.
post #37 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Unless Isaacson can show what exactly is copied verbatim by Android, he is full of shit.

Isaacson wasn't basing his statement off of his technical knowledge of mobile operating systems, he was paraphrasing what Steve Jobs said to him. And the whole point of this most recent squabble is not the validity of the claims that Android ripped-off iOS, but that SJ was doing it for show. Isaacson was simply pointing out that right or wrong, SJ was truly pissed of and that he (SJ) believed that it was a wholesale copy. What you are asking for is for SJ to explain why he believed that he got ripped-off (and I believe that he really thought that), but unless you have a Ouija Board all you're going to get is Isaacson's report of how sincerely upset SJ was.
post #38 of 217
Can people just stop with this bullshit? All these assholes just want a few seconds in the spotlight leeching off the SJ name and trying to convince people THEY know what he meant. The guy is dead, leave him alone with his words and stop trying to fucking reinterpret them to your own benefit.
post #39 of 217
Page - one of history's great revisionists. I'm just awaiting his tales of how the Nazis were the misunderstood "good guys" in a certain World War ...
post #40 of 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Have a second look then.

You're right. On second look, it's obvious that it's a big coincidence that the post 2007-Android looks and acts like the iPhone.

"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Biographer says Steve Jobs was legitimately infuriated by Android