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.
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.
What's the difference between Apple innovating on the Xerox mouse and Google innovating on Apple's iPhone? More Patents filed now than then? Just sayin.....
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.
There's a difference between taking an existing product, examining it for its strengths, and adapting them to your own product. This is what Jobs referred to. What Schmidt did was theft of trade secrets, something explicitly illegal in the US. He used his inside knowledge of Apple's in-development products to give his own company an advantage.
If its illegal, then Apple have a very simple course of action.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iKol
What's the difference between Apple innovating on the Xerox mouse and Google innovating on Apple's iPhone? More Patents filed now than then? Just sayin.....
Probably Schmidt was aware of the iPhone project and Google made the decision to purchase Android based on that. The story Google tells about Larry Page purchasing Android without Schmidt's knowledge sounds like they're trying to cover their ass.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Oh and Apple will destroy them proper and legal!
At least we know who Steve Jobs agrees with!
Steve Jobs also had some nice words for Obama I read, he's done with.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you not understand hyperbole?
What's the difference between Apple innovating on the Xerox mouse and Google innovating on Apple's iPhone? More Patents filed now than then? Just sayin.....
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
Obviously.
Here ya go zippy
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py...d_Progress.txt
There's a difference between taking an existing product, examining it for its strengths, and adapting them to your own product. This is what Jobs referred to. What Schmidt did was theft of trade secrets, something explicitly illegal in the US. He used his inside knowledge of Apple's in-development products to give his own company an advantage.
If its illegal, then Apple have a very simple course of action.
Where is it?
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.
What's the difference between Apple innovating on the Xerox mouse and Google innovating on Apple's iPhone? More Patents filed now than then? Just sayin.....
Do you not understand hyperbole?
No, they can't comprehend. They have no idea about the Apple/Mac experience.
So Google is the new Microsoft and Schmidt has replaced Bill Gates.
Good lord- it never ends.
Google will never do anything interesting or truly different...in that respect yes. No it never ends because it happens all the time.
Probably Schmidt was aware of the iPhone project and Google made the decision to purchase Android based on that. The story Google tells about Larry Page purchasing Android without Schmidt's knowledge sounds like they're trying to cover their ass.
So much for "Don't Be Evil."
Obviously.
...you don't know very much about the topic you brought up. Do some quick research.
Tip: use your Infernetz!
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.
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.
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.
I'm not diminishing his accomplishments I'm saying he isn't always right.
Who said that Steve Jobs was always right?
The Android/iOS debacle reminds me of another case of blatant theft from Apple.
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.
That is pretty... pretty blatant that is. I'm sure Microsoft trolls would've defended it with "So Apple owns translucent plastic now?"
Who said that Steve Jobs was always right?
You're being deliberately obtuse. Point is simply because he said something doesn't mean it's true.
Who said that Steve Jobs was always right?
Men of straw