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?
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.
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?
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
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
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'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.
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 $$$ to innovate and continue to do well in the market. If Apple is making a profit and their stock is going up, then keep doing positive things. I would hate to see Apple blow all their money just get revenge because Jobs was angry. At a certain point it is no longer good business sense.
It was never about the money/revenge .... it was about the lack of integrity displayed by Eric S. and Google. Why should Google be rewarded for it's lack of integrity, by Apple just giving up the fight? It is always difficult to put a price on integrity .... especially if one has none, no ?
It isn't about Google's integrity (or lack of). It isn't about Google being rewarded. It is about Jobs being willing to unnecessarily squander Apple's assets on trying to bring down a competitor versus just using those funds in a positive manner. Perhaps Jobs should have tried to gain a deeper understanding of his chosen religion/life philosophy.
There are more ways for Apple to "fight" Google than just use every nasty trick in the business to take them down. That integrity road goes both ways.
But there is a point where one has to decide (at this point) is it worth following this path instead of just using the $$$ 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.
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?
Comments
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.
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?
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/
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
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)
The people who have never once said he was wrong about anything?
Talk about a straw man.
Talk about a straw man.
Methinks you don't know what s strawman argument is.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 $$$ to innovate and continue to do well in the market. If Apple is making a profit and their stock is going up, then keep doing positive things. I would hate to see Apple blow all their money just get revenge because Jobs was angry. At a certain point it is no longer good business sense.
It was never about the money/revenge .... it was about the lack of integrity displayed by Eric S. and Google. Why should Google be rewarded for it's lack of integrity, by Apple just giving up the fight? It is always difficult to put a price on integrity .... especially if one has none, no ?
It isn't about Google's integrity (or lack of). It isn't about Google being rewarded. It is about Jobs being willing to unnecessarily squander Apple's assets on trying to bring down a competitor versus just using those funds in a positive manner. Perhaps Jobs should have tried to gain a deeper understanding of his chosen religion/life philosophy.
There are more ways for Apple to "fight" Google than just use every nasty trick in the business to take them down. That integrity road goes both ways.
I'm not diminishing his accomplishments I'm saying he isn't always right.
No kidding...do you know anyone that is? Like I said...what's your point?
How is this any different to Apple? they took and idea, and added a few features to it, removed a heap more.
What phone worked like an iPhone before the iPhone? Android? Android was on the way to becoming a BB knock off. How about some examples?
But there is a point where one has to decide (at this point) is it worth following this path instead of just using the $$$ 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.
I bow my head in silent contemplation, reflecting on the life and wisdom of Steve Jobs.
While you are bowing your head and looking in that direction let us know when your testicals drop.
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.
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.
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?