And keep breathing, kind of important. Oh and raise my family not trying and run from my own son and deny my paternity. Being a good father far out weighs anything Steve'o may have accomplished.
"Sorry son, I dis-own you but look at this cool phone".
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.
Hmmm... I don't think Tim Cook is failing at all. Last September I commented on here that I wondered what Tim Cook really felt about these lawsuits. If Isaacson is right then we can see that Tim would rather just end this lawsuit chapter at Apple (not that there won't be others) and move forward with a new Apple.
In my opinion, Steve's vision should have stayed in the lab with Ive. The idea of trying to destroy Android is just stupid. Go the same route as Microsoft, get as many $$$ as you can from licensing fees and put that money into developing projects that will destroy Android on the sales playing field.
Coming back to my original comment, I contested specifically the word verbatim. I'm not interested in getting sucked deeper in yet another general "Android was stolen" discussion.
You've conveniently removed the word "almost" from the original quote. He was also talking about ideas, not code.
I find it very ironic that he said he would fight them to the death.
No No, he said "his last dying breath". There lies the irony and Steve's ultimate failure. Not only did he not destroy Android, his predecessor has already hinted at ending these suits which will allow Android to live on forever.
Apple rarely has the big original idea. They take something that's already out there, e.g. GUI, MP3 player, smart phone, tablet and do what no one else was able to do--they do it right. Then everyone copies them. Apple stays in front by continuing to do it better than anyone else. Windows has never been able to catch Mac OS.
From what I've seen so far, Tim Cook and the Apple crew are going to keep Apple in front. I certainly hope so. If they don't we'll have to settle for Android, Windows, et al. How utterly sad and pathetic that would be.
I think a settlement would be fine. As long as it included a clause requiring Google to issue a $100 million TV and web ad campaign where they admit to having stolen the IP and refer to themselves as common criminals. Perhaps the real individuals who made the decisions to steal the concepts should appear in the ads and thus be labeled directly as the criminals they are.
The idea of trying to destroy Android is just stupid. Go the same route as Microsoft, get as many $$$ as you can from licensing fees and put that money into developing projects that will destroy Android on the sales playing field.
Steve was not right about everything.
I'm not sure that either strategy makes sense.
Fighting Android in the manner thus far employed has been spectacularly ineffective.
But licensing the tech would dilute the iProduct's exclusivity and added value. There are many unique aspects to iOS and to license those, IMO and seemingly in the opinion of Apple's suits too, would not be the path to maximizing profits. My guess is that Apple has considered that option seriously, and that their projections show that it is not the path to the highest total profits.
They currently get a premium price for their hardware. If the differentiating factors were to show up in popular-priced products, then the premium might vanish.
I think a settlement would be fine. As long as it included a clause requiring Google to issue a $100 million TV and web ad campaign where they admit to having stolen the IP and refer to themselves as common criminals. Perhaps the real individuals who made the decisions to steal the concepts should appear in the ads and thus be labeled directly as the criminals they are.
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?
Because it is not illegal to copy general designs or ideas. There are some things, obviously, that can be patented and copyrighted, but "a touch screen based device" is not patentable, and neither is a touch based user interface. Unless they are both extremely specific in implementation.
I would assume Steve Jobs was more pissed off because a close "partner" who at the time was more interested in competing with RIM and Microsoft, took Apple's ideas and decided to change course and compete directly with Apple. These were people Steve Jobs mentored and one of which sat on Apple's board. No one would have cared if Google stuck the their original plan and released a device that was similar to the Blackberry. Instead, they saw that Apple had invented a new multi-touch based UI paradigm and decided to do the same thing.
I think it probably also irked Steve Jobs that Google unleashed a half-assed attempt and it became popular, repeating Microsoft's old tactics of just getting it on the market and worry about aesthetics later, if at all ever.
Fighting Android in the manner thus far employed has been spectacularly ineffective.
But licensing the tech would dilute the iProduct's exclusivity and added value. There are many unique aspects to iOS and to license those, IMO and seemingly in the opinion of Apple's suits too, would not be the path to maximizing profits. My guess is that Apple has considered that option seriously, and that their projections show that it is not the path to the highest total profits.
They currently get a premium price for their hardware. If the differentiating factors were to show up in popular-priced products, then the premium might vanish.
Huh? The competition is using it anyway! What the hell do you think these lawsuits are all about. If Apple is unable to stop them then they should at least get paid for it.
I didn't say that Apple should open its labs to the competitors.
What a despicable excuse for a human being you are. Making fun of the dead? Really? How low can a person go? I think you are living (unfortunately) proof!
What a despicable excuse for a human being you are. Making fun of the dead? Really? How low can a person go? I think you are living (unfortunately) proof!
Just hit the little red exclamation mark below your username and let the mods know what you think of this guy.
Comments
Sure. I bet that's the only thing you did.
And keep breathing, kind of important. Oh and raise my family not trying and run from my own son and deny my paternity. Being a good father far out weighs anything Steve'o may have accomplished.
"Sorry son, I dis-own you but look at this cool phone".
*cough
almost
...
I expected this comment an hour ago. "Almost verbatim" is a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it?
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.
Hmmm... I don't think Tim Cook is failing at all. Last September I commented on here that I wondered what Tim Cook really felt about these lawsuits. If Isaacson is right then we can see that Tim would rather just end this lawsuit chapter at Apple (not that there won't be others) and move forward with a new Apple.
In my opinion, Steve's vision should have stayed in the lab with Ive. The idea of trying to destroy Android is just stupid. Go the same route as Microsoft, get as many $$$ as you can from licensing fees and put that money into developing projects that will destroy Android on the sales playing field.
Steve was not right about everything.
Unless Isaacson can show what exactly is copied verbatim by Android, he is full of shit.
You don't have eyes, do you?
Apple should sue then.
Coming back to my original comment, I contested specifically the word verbatim. I'm not interested in getting sucked deeper in yet another general "Android was stolen" discussion.
You've conveniently removed the word "almost" from the original quote. He was also talking about ideas, not code.
vowed to use his "last dying breath" to "destroy" it.
How did that work out for you Steve?
Sent from my Android phone.
You dumb fu**
Neither strategy worked for Steve'o, if you haven't noticed, he is no longer with us.
No one else see the irony in SJ's statements?
I find it very ironic that he said he would fight them to the death.
You dumb fu**
I find it very ironic that he said he would fight them to the death.
No No, he said "his last dying breath". There lies the irony and Steve's ultimate failure. Not only did he not destroy Android, his predecessor has already hinted at ending these suits which will allow Android to live on forever.
From what I've seen so far, Tim Cook and the Apple crew are going to keep Apple in front. I certainly hope so. If they don't we'll have to settle for Android, Windows, et al. How utterly sad and pathetic that would be.
The idea of trying to destroy Android is just stupid. Go the same route as Microsoft, get as many $$$ as you can from licensing fees and put that money into developing projects that will destroy Android on the sales playing field.
Steve was not right about everything.
I'm not sure that either strategy makes sense.
Fighting Android in the manner thus far employed has been spectacularly ineffective.
But licensing the tech would dilute the iProduct's exclusivity and added value. There are many unique aspects to iOS and to license those, IMO and seemingly in the opinion of Apple's suits too, would not be the path to maximizing profits. My guess is that Apple has considered that option seriously, and that their projections show that it is not the path to the highest total profits.
They currently get a premium price for their hardware. If the differentiating factors were to show up in popular-priced products, then the premium might vanish.
I think a settlement would be fine. As long as it included a clause requiring Google to issue a $100 million TV and web ad campaign where they admit to having stolen the IP and refer to themselves as common criminals. Perhaps the real individuals who made the decisions to steal the concepts should appear in the ads and thus be labeled directly as the criminals they are.
You forgot the /s tag.
I expected this comment an hour ago. "Almost verbatim" is a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it?
No it isn't. Verbatim means word for word. Almost verbatim means almost word for word. Look it up in the future if you're unsure.
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?
Because it is not illegal to copy general designs or ideas. There are some things, obviously, that can be patented and copyrighted, but "a touch screen based device" is not patentable, and neither is a touch based user interface. Unless they are both extremely specific in implementation.
I would assume Steve Jobs was more pissed off because a close "partner" who at the time was more interested in competing with RIM and Microsoft, took Apple's ideas and decided to change course and compete directly with Apple. These were people Steve Jobs mentored and one of which sat on Apple's board. No one would have cared if Google stuck the their original plan and released a device that was similar to the Blackberry. Instead, they saw that Apple had invented a new multi-touch based UI paradigm and decided to do the same thing.
I think it probably also irked Steve Jobs that Google unleashed a half-assed attempt and it became popular, repeating Microsoft's old tactics of just getting it on the market and worry about aesthetics later, if at all ever.
I'm not sure that either strategy makes sense.
Fighting Android in the manner thus far employed has been spectacularly ineffective.
But licensing the tech would dilute the iProduct's exclusivity and added value. There are many unique aspects to iOS and to license those, IMO and seemingly in the opinion of Apple's suits too, would not be the path to maximizing profits. My guess is that Apple has considered that option seriously, and that their projections show that it is not the path to the highest total profits.
They currently get a premium price for their hardware. If the differentiating factors were to show up in popular-priced products, then the premium might vanish.
Huh? The competition is using it anyway! What the hell do you think these lawsuits are all about. If Apple is unable to stop them then they should at least get paid for it.
I didn't say that Apple should open its labs to the competitors.
Atleast I can crawl, Steve, not so much.
What a despicable excuse for a human being you are. Making fun of the dead? Really? How low can a person go? I think you are living (unfortunately) proof!
What a despicable excuse for a human being you are. Making fun of the dead? Really? How low can a person go? I think you are living (unfortunately) proof!
Just hit the little red exclamation mark below your username and let the mods know what you think of this guy.
You forgot the /s tag.
Because it wasn't.