Is Jobs Anger over Android justified ?

[Crocobill]

Hello everyone,

Open discussion : Steve Jobs offered a seat to Eric Schmidt in Apple's board when he came back to Apple in 1997. Schmidt had to step down when he launched android. Jobs said that Schmidt copied IOS.
Jobs was super angry : "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

What's your opinion about this ?

 

[IOWA]

Hello everyone,

Open discussion : Steve Jobs offered a seat to Eric Schmidt in Apple's board when he came back to Apple in 1997. Schmidt had to step down when he launched android. Jobs said that Schmidt copied IOS.
Jobs was super angry : "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

What's your opinion about this ?

It's all a crock. Virtually everything from iOS is taken from other Operating Systems.

/Threadclosed.

Oh wait, I'm not a mod.

 

[darklide]

Jobs anger over Android was not justified, Android did not steal anything major from Android its called competition.

 

[EarlyMon]

I'm glad you asked Crocobill - maybe together we put this silliness to rest right here and now!

Hello everyone,

Open discussion : Steve Jobs offered a seat to Eric Schmidt in Apple's board when he came back to Apple in 1997. Schmidt had to step down when he launched android. Jobs said that Schmidt copied IOS.
Jobs was super angry : "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

What's your opinion about this ?

That's the Apple party line and doesn't track with what really happened.

From our Phandroid comments, two of us clarify this for a rather specific Apple fan -

Yep, exactly.

Lots of fuzzy thinking out there, so I want to share my response to some from Phandroid comments -

I'm talking about relationship between Google and Apple. Google sat in Apple's board, watched all the development, and pulls out of board and creates competing product by stealing the idea. Unfortunately for Apple, all they have are these stupid patents to protect themselves.

My reply -

That's one view of events, many believe it to be actually correct - if all we have to go on are biased reports on the mechanics of that, that makes sense.

But it's not all we have to go on and industrial history is quite clear.

Remember, Andy Rubin and his posse were heavy into cell phones with a history of good products _sold worldwide_ before Google bought them and centralized and focused the action into the Android initiative.

Android was the culmination of the creators of phones long on the market before Apple even thought of making phones. The historical record shows that clearly, and completely refutes the Apple line that it was whipped up in a frenzy of boardroom theft and backstabbing.

And speaking of protecting intellectual property, lest one be ripped off and their good name and works be dragged down - that is exactly the issue here. Except it's not about rewriting history until the facts are gone and it hilariously comes out Google stole from Apple. It's about the simple fact that Apple stole from Motorola.

Andy Rubin's firm was purchased by Google. Google did not start Android.

So you agree. There was nothing to your claim that Android was a boardroom ripoff of the iPhone.

And also -

"Google" sat in Apple's board...I'm assuming you mean Schmidt. In Steve's (Jobs) own words, he HID the iOS work from him, as he knew that Google will be a competitor. So Google did not copy anything from Apple from those meetings.

Infact, it was Schmidt that quit the Apple board, when Apple started it's anti-competitive practices back then by blocking Google Voice form the App Store.

Sounds like you have some inner sources to confirm exactly what happened. Please bring the proof Schmidt quit the board.

There were a lot more going on than just Google voice and app store. There's nothing about Iphone that was truly new, but the fact that most others copied what was done right about Iphone is clear to anyone.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt Resigns From Apple Board. Surprised? | TechCrunch

The guy went on arguing despite the facts.

Schmidt left because of Apple's restrictive Market practices - and was never allowed in the iPhone meetings.

Google ripping off the iPhone from the Apple boardroom never happened.

Speaking of ripoffs, here's more of the real deal for those who may have missed it.

http://androidforums.com/lounge/440559-apple-losing-moto-patent-lawsuit-injunction.html

 

[THE ANDROID]

It's all a crock. Virtually everything from iOS is taken from other Operating Systems.

/Threadclosed.

Oh wait, I'm not a mod.

Not really. You can't say basic stuff like a mobile phone, web browser, mp3 player, text messaging etc were copied. They're basic stuff.

iPhone was smooth, it worked, it had a pretty UI and wasn't made of cheap plastic except the 3G/3GS.
The only thing that was "copied" was app icons on a black screen.

Also you fail to realise that the iPhone OS was a water downed version of Mac OS X and it's UI. It's a copy of Mac OS X not other manufacturers and last time I checked Apple doesn't pay Microsoft for every iOS device they sell but most Android manufacturers do.

I wouldn't say Android is total copy but where was Android before the iPhone came out. iPhone was the first true smartphone that actually worked. Also everything Android has, the iPhone has had it since 2007 via jailbreaking community.
Pinch to zoom is an Apple original thought.

 

[IOWA]

Not really. You can't say basic stuff like a mobile phone, web browser, mp3 player, text messaging etc were copied. They're basic stuff.

iPhone was smooth, it worked, it had a pretty UI and wasn't made of cheap plastic except the 3G/3GS.
The only thing that was "copied" was app icons on a black screen.

Also you fail to realise that the iPhone OS was a water downed version of Mac OS X and it's UI. It's a copy of Mac OS X not other manufacturers and last time I checked Apple doesn't pay Microsoft for every iOS device they sell but most Android manufacturers do.

I wouldn't say Android is total copy but where was Android before the iPhone came out. iPhone was the first true smartphone that actually worked. Also everything Android has, the iPhone has had it since 2007 via jailbreaking community.
Pinch to zoom is an Apple original thought.

Lol by your logic then EVERYTHING based on OSX is stolen/copied from the UNIX/BSD community. OSX is just a forked version of BSD..

OSX as a whole is compelely taken from something else.

Since iOS is built from OSX ... you do the math.

Although most of us who know tech history pretty decently know how this is ALL of our computer systems as OS's are built.

Also, please define "basic stuff". Swiping to unlock is pretty "basic stuff" to me but no doubt Apple wont waste much time suing people for using something similiar for thier unlock screens despite people using gestures long before iOS ever hit the market.

 

[EarlyMon]

Well, with that, we've moved from did Google copy from Apple boardroom to what is the basis for iOS.

Clearly this now becomes more of a Lounge discussion rather than an Android Lounge one.

Carry on, thanks in advance for keeping polite, etc etc.

 

[Crocobill]

First, I would like to do some self correction.
If wikipedia is right (Eric Schmidt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), Schmidt joined Apple's board in 2006 and not 1997 (Schmidt became Google's chairman in 2001).

Second, I would like to add that there is something that I haven't really figured out yet... Why did Jobs ask Schmidt to join the board in the first place ??
Would you have taken such a decision if you had been in Jobs shoes ?
If his bio is right, Jobs considered that his ideas had been copied several times (Gates copied the Mac os (which one cannot deny), Katzenberg's "Fourmiz" was a copy of Lassetter's "A bug life" (Lassetter made the mistake to pitch him the film while it was in development)).
After all these bad experiences, why did he take such a risk ???

Wasn't it obvious that there would be some overlap with Google which was developing its business in every directions ???
I don't know if Google copied Apple or not.
But my opinion is that, if they did, Jobs is very responsible for that since he is the one who asked Schmidt to join his board!!!

 

[novox77]

Read the Steve Jobs biography. You'll see he was pretty hypocritical his entire career. He sees things the way he wants to, and he will "bend" facts to support his beliefs. The book goes quite into detail regarding his reality distortion field. Steve has equally nasty things to say about Microsoft and Windows back in the day, and Bill Gates had a pretty good comeback for good ol' Steve.

Fact is, everyone copies everyone. Steve jobs borrowed aesthetic elements from all over the place in his designs. But this is standard practice. For him to then say someone is copying his design is pretty hypocritical.

The book so far (I'm at the point where Steve just got tossed from Apple) has been very objective. This is not a book that worships SJ. All of his faults are given very equal time. Only when you understand these faults do you understand why Apple is the way Apple is, and why they have these policies that so many of us Android fans despise. It was all very deliberate and intentional.

 

[Dark Jedi]

One thing to understand is everyone copies everyone.Apple is just as guilty as everyone they accuse.

 

[Orion]

Nothing Apple says or does is ever justified.

 

[EarlyMon]

Second, I would like to add that there is something that I haven't really figured out yet... Why did Jobs ask Schmidt to join the board in the first place ??

That is a key question.

Business schools will list the typical reasons for this sort of thing as somehow having to do with every CEO just supports every other, but I don't buy it in this case.

I think you're asking the right question and I'd like to turn to history to see if helps with any speculation.

There are countless posts hereabout on our forums and others about Microsoft and others, but they all seem to miss a few key points.

First - the Apple ][+ computer was a huge market success and it came with an embedded BASIC called AppleSoft.

AppleSoft was was made by Microsoft, and it was the real basis for MS not going under back in the day - and in making the ][+ work, not just be a bare box like the ][ was.

It was a match made in heaven - but Steveo had the upper hand, and Bill needed him badly.

(I lived those days and bought all the early iron, and subscribed to the newsletters back then. What's on the web about the various early computer clubs is all first-hand memory and experience to me on that stuff.)

Then - comes the Lisa and then the Mac. Again with the Mac, Steve is on stage, and he's got three underlings up there - and one of them is Bill.

Spin forward to the 2000s, and what did we see?

After all the fighting and acrimony, what was the first and only browser you could get working under OS X? Microsoft Explorer for the Mac. What was the key question? Could it run Office? (Yep, Office X.)

Later, Safari. Then, out of nowhere - the Google search widget built in to Safari.

I personally think that Jobs wanted to relieve the days of someone with an influential software firm looking up to him, as an underling - and that's why he pulled out a chair for Schmidt.

Probably, I don't know what I'm talking about. But, Jobs was mighty self-centered, and I don't think he ever got over the burn - and I think he thought that he could get lightning to strike twice and people would again praise him the way he wanted.

Oh well - I don't have the answer, but I still think it's a great question!

 

[DeepEmissions]

why dont you ask IBM if they think Apple stole ideas... lol

If you want to watch an interesting movie about Apple/Microsoft watch "Pirates of Silicon Valley"

 

[Crocobill]

I think it s Xerox we should ask in the first place ? (mouse, graphic interface...)

 

[EarlyMon]

I think it s Xerox we should ask in the first place ? (mouse, graphic interface...)

Apple paid for those - not much, but they did pay.

 

[Crocobill]

Apple paid for those - not much, but they did pay.

True. Xerox invested a bit in Apple in the early days. But as you say, it was not much

 

[Bnice]

Not really. You can't say basic stuff like a mobile phone, web browser, mp3 player, text messaging etc were copied. They're basic stuff.

iPhone was smooth, it worked, it had a pretty UI and wasn't made of cheap plastic except the 3G/3GS.
The only thing that was "copied" was app icons on a black screen.

Also you fail to realise that the iPhone OS was a water downed version of Mac OS X and it's UI. It's a copy of Mac OS X not other manufacturers and last time I checked Apple doesn't pay Microsoft for every iOS device they sell but most Android manufacturers do.

I wouldn't say Android is total copy but where was Android before the iPhone came out. iPhone was the first true smartphone that actually worked. Also everything Android has, the iPhone has had it since 2007 via jailbreaking community.
Pinch to zoom is an Apple original thought.

If you find the UI pretty,just work and smooth, thats your prerogative. Android has been around before google purchased it. Pinch to zoom is not Apple original. Multitouch technology has been around before the iphone. Iphone was also lacking when it first debut, many features was missing from the original iphone that Android have since day one. Now go look at the UI from 2007 to present and tell what so pretty about it.

 

[DeepEmissions]

I think it s Xerox we should ask in the first place ? (mouse, graphic interface...)

you're right! thank you for the correction

 

[SporkLover]

I find this subject interesting as I've debated it quite a few times with a few different folks. First to answer the question: No Steve Job's anger is not validated.

Second, I think All of this hoopla is a great example of why the Copy Right system needs a re-amp. iPhone Vs the world is just one supporting example.

Before the iPhone broke out on the scene smart phones already existed. You could surf mobile web sites, install apps, perform basic computing on the go, etc etc etc. Danger Inc was well on their way onto developing an Eco system for app delivery, and other innovative mobile solutions. The iPhone didn't establish/demonstrate any new technologies when it debuted in the smart phone arena. In fact, the iPhone debuted "crippled". There was no App Store, just pre-loaded software, and it couldn't perform some of the tasks that dumb phones could like MMS. It didn't have GPS, etc etc.

So what did Apple bring to the table with the iPhone that could possibly anger Jobs so much? The idea of "natural interaction" with the smart phone. Up until the iPhone everyone used a scroll ball, dpad, or a stylus to interact with the phone. On windows mobile, if I wanted to scroll through a webpage in the browser, I used a DPad, or pulled out a stylus, found the scroll bar and moved in the direction I wanted. The iPhone changed that. I could now swipe, or I could pinch to zoom. Revolutionary really. Unfortunately for Apple, I don't believe (and neither did the courts) believe that such a basic idea as Gesture controls should be patentable. I believe that is where Jobs anger came from.

So IMO, Apple didn't blaze too many trails in the way of creating new technology, they did the BASF thing of making the existing technologies better. Smartphones are certainly better. App and media delivery eco systems are better. Etc Etc.......

Just my thoughts....

 

[Stuntman]

I believe that Jobs really calculates his outbursts. He is a very good public speaker. No doubt he said many things in an attempt to disrupt Android's momentum.

My impression of Jobs from the various tid bits I have read over the years seem to indicate that Jobs has his own vision of how things should be done and he doesn't take kindly to people who oppose his vision. Jobs feels that Android didn't build a competing product in a way that he feels is fair.

Regardless of whether Jobs' anger is justified, he is clearly upset at Android. He will do and say whatever it takes to harm Android. I wouldn't take anything he says with regard to this issue at face value.

 

[Crocobill]

So IMO, Apple didn't blaze too many trails in the way of creating new technology, they did the BASF thing of making the existing technologies better. Smartphones are certainly better. App and media delivery eco systems are better.

I agree with you.
I think one can also explain the great success of the iphone by Jobs' move to make it also an iPod. This was already a killer product and I admire his vision for that. I mean, a lot of people would have thought : we shouldn't do that, we are going to cannibalize our other products.

But Jobs thought that one shouldn't be scared of cannibalization. Because if you don't cannibalize yourself then it s your competitors, who will cannibalize you

I really agree with you about the fact that Apple didn't really invent anythink with the iphone. But Jobs made a lot of things better within a single phone (the example of Google Maps for Iphone is a good example of that)

 

[TxGoat]

If you go through the history of all the great inventions throughout history, there's always some side note that mentions someone that claims their invention was stolen. IIRC someone claimed that Alexander Graham Bell stole the invention for the telephone. What I tend to notice is that while there's typically one name/face associated with a certain invention/product, there are generally a few people that worked behind the scenes that made it happen.

As far as the book, from the interviews of the author I've seen the weirdest thing is how Steve Jobs was an orphan yet somehow crossed paths with his biological father a few times at the father's restaurant.


I'm sure a lot of people (especially on this forum) tend to despise the man but you have to give him credit for what he brought to the table. Without many of his products, I don't think Windows and the PC would be where it's at, Android probably wouldn't be out there since Google really developed under part of the iPhone.

 

[Crocobill]

If you go through the history of all the great inventions throughout history, there's always some side note that mentions someone that claims their invention was stolen. IIRC someone claimed that Alexander Graham Bell stole the invention for the telephone. What I tend to notice is that while there's typically one name/face associated with a certain invention/product, there are generally a few people that worked behind the scenes that made it happen.

As far as the book, from the interviews of the author I've seen the weirdest thing is how Steve Jobs was an orphan yet somehow crossed paths with his biological father a few times at the father's restaurant.


I'm sure a lot of people (especially on this forum) tend to despise the man but you have to give him credit for what he brought to the table. Without many of his products, I don't think Windows and the PC would be where it's at, Android probably wouldn't be out there since Google really developed under part of the iPhone.

I totally agree

 

[A.Nonymous]

Honestly, from reading about Jobs I think the reality distortion field is a completely accurate description of how he works. He stole ideas from Xerox, Motorola and elsewhere to design a number of Apple products. This point isn't really up for debate as Jobs has flat out admitted it. He stole their ideas, made them better and passed them off as his own. Other people do the exact same thing to him though and he gets angry and bent out of shape about it.

 

[IOWA]

Honestly, from reading about Jobs I think the reality distortion field is a completely accurate description of how he works. He stole ideas from Xerox, Motorola and elsewhere to design a number of Apple products. This point isn't really up for debate as Jobs has flat out admitted it. He stole their ideas, made them better and passed them off as his own. Other people do the exact same thing to him though and he gets angry and bent out of shape about it.

Thats pretty much it.