Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
From Steve Jobs' Biography: "I'm going to destroy Android"
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Without doubt he'd probably still be alive today if, like any normal rational person he'd had it operated on the moment it was detected and a treatment offered to him.
You would do that would you not? as would I.
If you have any form of cancer, and a doctor offers you treatment do deal with it, you snatch the opportunity the second it's offered. You don't reject the idea and then spend the following, almost year I believe thinking about it.
With cancer, that would often be the difference between life and death.
As was said about, if he made the right choices with product design and offering "other" customers what THEY wanted as opposed to his typical, you should be using what "I" tell you. Then he could have stopped Android almost dead in it's tracks.
It's his mistakes that have allowed the Android platform to grow and surpass the iPhone.
So one statement from his, thats off the record, makes you reasses your entire opinion of the man, his accomplishments, legacy, and positive traits? Incredible. Imagine if someone judged you by something you said once in your life, after your death. We've all said a million things that we wouldn't want the whole world knowing about. Steve doesn't have that luxury. He said this to one person in perhaps a moment of high emotion, he didn't announce it to the world. Incredible, how lacking perspective people can be. You act as if you found out he murdered someone. Maybe there's some things that Steve knew, that you and I don't to evoke that reaction.
I was thrown back when he passed away since he did help in the creation of revolutionary products.
But by trying to put down Android and all the years he had been using Apple graphs to misleadingly show Window's decline, that is unprofessional for a CEO.
There's a lot of error with this phone with the buttons being on the bottom easily tapping them while simply holding it in your hand and bringing you back to the home screen which will be very frustrating with anyone using this garbage and poor designed phone.
This isn't a phone this is just another get out of the box BS money shark hungry corporation by microsoft. What is this their 50-100th phone out already and it's only been a couple years? They really aren't going anywhere. Just people who are blind from their products but look around the flaws that might pick up and deals with it in the long run say a few weeks of frustration with the buttons and lag.
Er .. um . [looks left] ..[looks right] .
Yes! [runs and hides from the wrath of the Fanboy]..
I think not being able to use the entire Internet on an Internet browser is a real issue and one that I found and find particularly irksome. Especially in the early days of the iPhone and iPad and or course Safari!
Yes, a lot of (especially large corporate) websites have now updated to iPad and iPhone friendly versions.
However, I feel that this in itself is not just an issue Apple (Mr Jobs) had with Flash (Adobe..) but more with controlling industry standards.
HTML5 anybody?
No?
Well lets see how long you are prepared to lose customers using the most advanced, sought after and fastest growing mobile Internet platform in the world.
Nothing wrong with that, as an aggressive business plan. Wish I had the gonads to make that kind of business decision.
Seen it all before with Apple and will see it all the time. Dont we just love to hate that about them?
I can imagine the board meeting now "The world can do without USB and Firewire."
Thunderbolt anybody....?'
Nothing new to see here, move along ..
Without a doubt he'd be alive today? Unbelievable. Do you know ANYTHING about cancer? You're ****ing insane. The rest of your post isn't worth reading. If he made the 'right choices with product design'? You mean, as opposed to the wrong choices, the ones that miraculously brought a company out of near bankruptcy to the most valuable in the world, while revolutionizing a few industries in the process? Those choices? What 'choice' would have stopped android 'dead in its tracks'? Absolutely NOTHING would have done that. Android is installed on almost every single smartphone that is NOT an iPhone- nothing could have stopped it from gaining marketshare. Unless you wanted Apple to license iOS to other manufacturers- is that it?
I swear, you sound as if you were born yesterday. Some of you have no perspective, humility, or understanding of the industry. The saddest part is that you're actually serious.
That's par for the course for an American CEO.
You should know by now financial and performance keynote slides are all smoke and mirrors.
"We outgrew the Windows platform this quarter! We're totally beating them!"
Sure, but you only sold 12 million units, compared to 400 million units on Windows.
And thats why Apple cannot destroy Android, ultimately. Consumer choice.
It doesn't matter if Android is available, as long as Apple keeps a good user base and eco-system, iPhone is here to stay. Both smartphone OSes can live together.
Android will continue to feed off iPhones features, and vice versa. The consumer wins. Each smartphone OS will improve, each copying off each other, and each having their own unique features that will appeal to the consumer. The same thing has happened in desktop operating systems, and the same thing will happen in the smartphone arena. Including a consolidation of Android manufacturers... some manufacturers will drop Android in favour of other platforms, and other manufacturers just give up altogether ( as we saw in the PC market ).
I am happy with my Android devices. I would seem that if Windows Phone would possibly be an alternative for me, but there are things about WP that I do not like.
So far, I haven't found any input method to be anywhere near as efficient as a physical keyboard. Perhaps the voice input will one day, but it has the disadvantage of the lack of privacy. Until the physical keyboard is no longer the most efficient input method for the majority, it will still be an option that people would want.
There have been quite a few phones with keyboards released over the past year that leads me to believe that there is enough of a market for them for the near future at least. Many of them I would be happy to have if I needed a new phone when they were released.
I have looked at some of the keyboard solutions for the iPad. I simply liked what Asus came up with for their tablet more so than the iPad + any third party keyboard.
I just don't see how a keyboard is non-optimal for most iPad usage. I mostly surf the web and do participate in many discussion forums such as this. I have on occasion used the on screen keyboard on my Eee Pad when I only need to type a few words and did not feel like connecting the keyboard dock. I find the on screen keyboard rather inefficient as an input method. I have tried out the iPad at the Apple store as I was researching which tablet to buy. I frankly cannot see how a touch screen keyboard for a tablet is a good input method.
Perhaps, I'm just amongst the older generation who still uses physical keyboards. I doubt that I am in the minority. I'm sure almost everyone here has a computer or laptop and use a keyboard as an input method quite often.
Am I amongst the small minority who wants to use a tablet instead of my laptop to participate in forums such as this?
I think Android is a bit like Windows: it has more versions, more experimental features, less style and runs on many more devices, thus it's seeing more adoption. But I honestly don't think that it offers a better experience, it just offers a cheaper way for people to get a smartphone. The fact that it's open source makes is really messy and fragmented, taking away its unique style and allowing people to do whatever they want with it. iOS doesn't have features that people want, but features that work well with what people need, since people often don't know what they need.
I agree that Android has copied almost everything from iOS, but their user experience still isn't at all like iOS.
I agree that Android has copied almost everything from iOS, but their user experience still isn't at all like iOS.
Unprofessional for a CEO? It was personal words to someone. That has nothing to do with professionally as a CEO. It was his opinion. He didn't get on a stage and say these words.
I agree.
I believe he was told - You are terminal but we can prolong what life you have. But the prolonging might have some nasty side effects. So it became a quality vs quantity of life question. A very tough one. I think that's why he put off the conventional medicine for so long. He wanted time to do his passion, the job at Apple, before he was forced to take the convention medicine.
----------
The enemy of your enemy is your friend?
Yup. This.
I especially love the new notification bar in iOS. Very novel. Oh... wait...
Ah yes, the notification bar. Just like the Winbots have Alt-Tab, the Fandroids can cling to the notification bar as a singular shining beacon of originality floating in a sea of replication.
Considering how many ideas Jobs stole and pawned off as his own, that's a bit rich. Look how many Android features have been incorporated into iOS in a desperate attempt to keep up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
Steve Jobs: Good artists copy great artists steal
"We have always been shameless about stealing ideas"
Guess it just shows how age and cooporate greed can change a person.
Steve Jobs: Good artists copy great artists steal
"We have always been shameless about stealing ideas"
Guess it just shows how age and cooporate greed can change a person.
The quantity of technical and historical ignorance in this thread is absolutely astoundingeven by recent MacRumors standards.
Jobs was an interesting guy on many levels and I think I'm going to get a copy of this book. Personally, I like his attitude here irrespective of whether or not I agree with his position. It's far more interesting than many alternative reactions.
I think too many people here are trying to apply a really simple label to a complex guy. Steve Jobs wasn't a "good guy" or a "bad guy." He was a genius. He was a tyrant. He was creative. He was ruthless. He had an absolute gift to see coming trends in technology and the way people interact with technology. He was passionate, sometimes to fault, about his ideas.
Xerox is the prime example of what made Jobs different from throngs of engineers out there. Engineers make cool stuff all the time. Labs are full of neat concepts and ideas that never get much further. Jobs was good at seeing what things could become and how people would use them.
He'll be missedthe good and the bad. The tech world is certainly less interesting without him.
It's pretty clear the basically everyone here making blanket remarks about whether he was "good" or "bad" hasn't read much history. You should try it out sometimes. The real great men and women of history are far more interesting than the simplistic caricatures society at large tends to apply to them. Jobs is no exception.
Jobs was an interesting guy on many levels and I think I'm going to get a copy of this book. Personally, I like his attitude here irrespective of whether or not I agree with his position. It's far more interesting than many alternative reactions.
I think too many people here are trying to apply a really simple label to a complex guy. Steve Jobs wasn't a "good guy" or a "bad guy." He was a genius. He was a tyrant. He was creative. He was ruthless. He had an absolute gift to see coming trends in technology and the way people interact with technology. He was passionate, sometimes to fault, about his ideas.
Xerox is the prime example of what made Jobs different from throngs of engineers out there. Engineers make cool stuff all the time. Labs are full of neat concepts and ideas that never get much further. Jobs was good at seeing what things could become and how people would use them.
He'll be missedthe good and the bad. The tech world is certainly less interesting without him.
It's pretty clear the basically everyone here making blanket remarks about whether he was "good" or "bad" hasn't read much history. You should try it out sometimes. The real great men and women of history are far more interesting than the simplistic caricatures society at large tends to apply to them. Jobs is no exception.
Which part of Android copied iOS
Go to YouTube and search for D8 2007 where Walt Mossberg interviewed Steve Jobs and Bill Gates together. Watch the whole interview, and you'll know what Steve meant when he said Google stole Apple's idea and put it on Android. For reference, watch MacWorld 2007 keynote where Steve Jobs revealed the original iPhone.
Now, turn back the clock and look at what Android was before iPhone came about in 2006-2007. It was a copy of Blackberry. In fact all smartphones were copied Blackberry .... Palm Treo, Nokia on Symbian S60, Samsung were licensing S60 then. I think HTC (initially known as dopod) was on Android.
Then in 2008 HTC manufactured G1, then Nexus One in 2010, Google's first phone, for Google.... and it looked like iOS.
iOS version 1.0 was at least 5 years ahead of any OS (WinMo6 or S60, BBOS 5.0) in 2007. Apple and Google were partners still.
Then in 2008, iOS version 2 came about. iOS SDK was released to developers. iPhone 3G was sold worldwide. Demand was so high that Apple couldn't meet them. And then came Android out of nowhere, to supersede matured OS like WinMo 6, and BBOS 5 (until then still didnt know what hit them). How did they do it?
So, which idea did Steve refer to that Google stole it to make Android?
If i am not wrong, Steve is referring to web API which allows custom apps to access data off internet. Steve was talking to Walt in D8 2007 about how Apple engineers were working with Google on the map apps, which until then, Google maps was only on the browser. Steve said Apple built a custom app that feeds data off Google map database via API and realize that they could do so much more than what Google could achieve using the same set of data, via browser. That' what the iPhone and all the Smartphones are working with now... web data feeding custom built mobile apps via API. Before that, you need data from the internet, you launch the browser, and go to a URL to get that data. That's what Google is anyway - Internet Seach company that relies on the browser for all their apps. ... even their Chromebook. Except Android, where it's copying what Apple does ... building custom app that access web data via APIs.
Anyway, the only way to destroy Android is through litigation. Apple couldnt destroy Windows then (a copy of MacIntosh OS). I am sure they can't destroy Android now.
Go to YouTube and search for D8 2007 where Walt Mossberg interviewed Steve Jobs and Bill Gates together. Watch the whole interview, and you'll know what Steve meant when he said Google stole Apple's idea and put it on Android. For reference, watch MacWorld 2007 keynote where Steve Jobs revealed the original iPhone.
Now, turn back the clock and look at what Android was before iPhone came about in 2006-2007. It was a copy of Blackberry. In fact all smartphones were copied Blackberry .... Palm Treo, Nokia on Symbian S60, Samsung were licensing S60 then. I think HTC (initially known as dopod) was on Android.
Then in 2008 HTC manufactured G1, then Nexus One in 2010, Google's first phone, for Google.... and it looked like iOS.
iOS version 1.0 was at least 5 years ahead of any OS (WinMo6 or S60, BBOS 5.0) in 2007. Apple and Google were partners still.
Then in 2008, iOS version 2 came about. iOS SDK was released to developers. iPhone 3G was sold worldwide. Demand was so high that Apple couldn't meet them. And then came Android out of nowhere, to supersede matured OS like WinMo 6, and BBOS 5 (until then still didnt know what hit them). How did they do it?
So, which idea did Steve refer to that Google stole it to make Android?
If i am not wrong, Steve is referring to web API which allows custom apps to access data off internet. Steve was talking to Walt in D8 2007 about how Apple engineers were working with Google on the map apps, which until then, Google maps was only on the browser. Steve said Apple built a custom app that feeds data off Google map database via API and realize that they could do so much more than what Google could achieve using the same set of data, via browser. That' what the iPhone and all the Smartphones are working with now... web data feeding custom built mobile apps via API. Before that, you need data from the internet, you launch the browser, and go to a URL to get that data. That's what Google is anyway - Internet Seach company that relies on the browser for all their apps. ... even their Chromebook. Except Android, where it's copying what Apple does ... building custom app that access web data via APIs.
Anyway, the only way to destroy Android is through litigation. Apple couldnt destroy Windows then (a copy of MacIntosh OS). I am sure they can't destroy Android now.
There has been a great deal of speculation about what ultimately led to the cause of his death. There was a story where a doctor claimed that he should have chosen the operation rather than the change in his diet. That doctor did not personally examined Jobs, so it is just more speculation.
I would be interested in what Jobs has to say about his cancer and what led to his decision. There may have been risks in many of the options he had for treating his cancer. I would hope that he did not make an unwise choice about his treatment. It would be a shame if a wiser choice would have meant he would still be alive today. Until we know, I would hesitate to criticise him on his decision on this matter.
Ah yes, the notification bar. Just like the Winbots have Alt-Tab, the Fandroids can cling to the notification bar as a singular shining beacon of originality floating in a sea of replication.
Not to mention all the small companies that Apple buys up so that they become iPhone-exclusive, then claimed they invented it. Like Siri.
A lot of people said those things when Firefox came out, "I can't browse the full web, some websites are Internet explorer only!" and whose fault was that? Web designers/developers making bad choices. Nowadays that problem is gone as it would happen to this new one of flash.