From Steve Jobs' Biography: "I'm going to destroy Android"

[BigDukeSix]

If I remember correctly, it seemed like Android only got invented because Verizon could not carry the iPHone when it was introduced, and they needed something to compete with ATT at the time. If the iPhone had been introduced on all carriers right from the start, it would have been game over right then.

 

[iBug2]

Sorry - do you work at Apple or Google? Do you know the exact timing of when Jobs said to Google their apps were crap? Do you know the exact words Jobs used to "entice" Google to join Apple as a business partner.

Just because Jobs says in a soundbite that Apple didn't go into the search business doesn't mean he didn't start the competition and/or "Ill Feeling" Google might have felt.

I know if someone treated me or implied that I needed them more than they needed me - that wouldn't sit well.

No one here is really capable of stating the true nature of events that took place. So you can say that both my argument and your argument are completely moot anyway.

Then we should stop all arguing and maybe shut down this site as well? People argue with the information that are given to them and there's nothing wrong with that. We aren't deciding to shut down or penalize google or apple with this information. We are only arguing.

 

[subsonix]

Okay, so which areas where Apple makes money are we allowed to count and which ones don't really count to better suit your argument? Can I get a list?

This is pretty clear.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1257364/

 

[samcraig]

The money Apple makes from advertisements is so small compared to their actual revenue, we can disregard it. Apple can exist without advertisement. Google can't. Google's almost only revenue is advertisement.

Not because they didn't want to. So this point is silly. Just because they haven't succeeded where Google has in advertising doesn't mean they didn't want to. Why else did they buy an ad company? THINK.

They wanted to compete with Google AND they wanted to make as much as Google could via advertising creating yet another revenue stream.

You think iAds was a "hobby" ? LOL

 

[Shivetya]

All this talk about who copied who

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/11/iphone-and-lg-ke850-separated-at-birth/

and

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/29/apple-iphone-vs-lg-prada-separated-at-birth-part-2/


Both phones came out before the iphone... so the use of icons (including a phone icon) aren't Apple's origination.

Apple just did it better

 

[Pro31]

Just like a typical Windows PC that IMO lacks the polish and finish of a Mac running OS X -- so it is with Android vs. the iPhone.

Most Apple die-hards are picky people about the products they use. If everything in the specs is equal between the Apple and the non-Apple product but the Apple one scrolls the icons around more smoothly, we'll pay more for the Apple version, thanks. Some people don't get that and think it's "crazy". Others see it as having the wisdom and taste to demand better.....

I think this is true. I am more picky with my phone than my computer. I think mainly because I have to use Windows a lot to work on things. So, a lot of times I just used boot camp and ran windows anyways. For my next laptop I am considering just a windows laptop because really, the price difference is pretty substantial. I love my macbook pro, but I just cant justify paying $2400+ on a laptop with the same or less specs that a 1000 windows one.

 

[iBug2]

Why? Because I think Apple would rather make the money than letting Google have it. Apple bought an add company, created an add product, and disallowed third parties collecting user statistics (third party as in Google) - even without a monopoly. If Apple had a monopoly they might have decided to take over the add business all together or at least demand a sizable cut for letting Google advertise on their products. Google would have no choice but to comply.

Jobs was a brilliant and ruthless businessman. There is no way he wouldn't have used an obvious advantage. Look at iTunes.

I don't think it's that easy. Apple was using almost all google services in their phones, and for those services was paying google a lot of money to begin with. We need to know the legal stuff to be certain if Apple could take advantage of google that easily. But it doesn't really seem plausible. Apple would be making so much more money if Android did not exist anyway, just due to selling much more iPhones, they wouldn't even care about the extra revenue which would come from ads, which are nothing compared to iPhone sales revenue.

 

[glap1922]

Just like a typical Windows PC that IMO lacks the polish and finish of a Mac running OS X -- so it is with Android vs. the iPhone.

Most Apple die-hards are picky people about the products they use. If everything in the specs is equal between the Apple and the non-Apple product but the Apple one scrolls the icons around more smoothly, we'll pay more for the Apple version, thanks. Some people don't get that and think it's "crazy". Others see it as having the wisdom and taste to demand better.....

I ahve had both iphones and android phones, I prefer the look of android. I don't like having my home screen full of icons (which is something I also prefer from OSX), so android allows me to have a smooth, minimalistic home page with only the time and date, and I can keep my apps elsewhere. I don't think the iphone scrolls any quicker than my android phone, everything is smooth. Battery life is fine, but not excellent. I have no problem spending more, especially since the iphone doesn't cost more, but a lot of apple fans refuse to see value in anything else, and that is a problem.

 

[Rafterman]

I think we could win much more than just this if there was more differentiation and risk taking in the market.

But there is only so much you can do with an OS interface. Only so many features you can add to an OS. Only so many shapes and sizes that phone and tablets can be. Exactly how much more can be done with OS's with current technology that hasn't been done already?

The current smartphone, whether it be iPhone, Android, blackberry, etc is already nearing the pinnacle of of design with current technology. We will soon start needing new technologies if we want to see true "innovation".

 

[glap1922]

This is pretty clear.

Image

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1257364/

I'm sorry, perhaps you misunderstand. The point is all revenue counts, not just the parts the support someones argument.

 

[subsonix]

Not because they didn't want to. So this point is silly. Just because they haven't succeeded where Google has in advertising doesn't mean they didn't want to. Why else did they buy an ad company? THINK.

They run a completely different kind of business, Google's customers aren't their users, they mine their users data and sell that to their customers. Apples fundamental business is in selling computer (of different kind) hardware.

 

[hot spare]

Again, Apple isn't saying "don't compete with us". They are saying "compete with us using your own ideas".

Which actually is ten times better than people innovating "off" each other.

I doubt that. Apple NEVER likes competition. Nor do apple fanboys will ever say ANTHING remotely decent about competing companies. There is NOT a single apple fanboy who thinks differently. Business aside, APPLE in it's DNA only lives by the vision of Hitler. Only me should be there, no matter what I need to do. Kill, bury, murder - do whatever you need to do, but simply finish off others. They have a lot of passion, but no humanity or compassion. I mean what does it say about the guy who refused to paternity of his own child: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Brennan-Jobs

There are humans, and there are apple fanboys. They are not the same entity. I can happily live if I know that someone else is buying a iphone. I doubt any apple fanboy will able to tolerate anyone using anything apart from i-devices.

They are like the supports of a football (football as in soccer in US) club fans. No matter how bad they lose, how bad they play, how much they cheat, these guys will continue to say their team is the best. Fanatics by design and mentality.

 

[minimo3]

Original Android direction before iPhone was released

Keyboard, non-touchscreen, Blackberry-like

 

[kntgsp]

Not because they didn't want to. So this point is silly. Just because they haven't succeeded where Google has in advertising doesn't mean they didn't want to. Why else did they buy an ad company? THINK.

They wanted to compete with Google AND they wanted to make as much as Google could via advertising creating yet another revenue stream.

You think iAds was a "hobby" ? LOL

Just like "iPod Hi-Fi" was a "hobby"

I still remember the keynote with Jobs trying his hardest to spin marketing for a $350 boombox.

If something succeeds Apple (and many other companies) label it a huge success that they poured mountains of time into to, etc etc.

If something fails despite all the marketing spin, Apple (and many other companies) say "it was just a hobby"

 

[BowTheMan89]

Yeah, God knows if Apple took the same exact insides from the iPhone 4S, but put them in a new shell, Android would be all like "No!!!1! We're gonna stop copying now! Bummer dude!! Weaksauce forever!!!"

Well actually yes. Android is currently thriving off the larger screen market, not because people who want a larger screen necessarily want android but becuase its the only option out there. My brother for example has MASSIVE hands, wants a bigger screen and wants an iPhone but had to settle for a GS II.

Bigger screen iPhone along side the 4S would have done a lot to damage androids growing popularity.

 

[iBug2]

Not because they didn't want to. So this point is silly. Just because they haven't succeeded where Google has in advertising doesn't mean they didn't want to. Why else did they buy an ad company? THINK.

They wanted to compete with Google AND they wanted to make as much as Google could via advertising creating yet another revenue stream.

You think iAds was a "hobby" ? LOL

Are you kidding me? Make as much as google through advertising? Nobody can do that. For that you need a competitor to google search and tons of other internet services google offers.

The most Apple could do was to make as much money as google did from advertising in mobile phones through the apps, which doesn't even take into account the entire web advertisements google would still keep making through mobile browsing.

You must be deluded to think that iAds was there to compete with Google even in the mobile advertisement market, let alone the entire advertisement market.

iAds existed because people wanted to advertise in iOS. That's it.

 

[subsonix]

I'm sorry, perhaps you misunderstand. The point is all revenue counts, not just the parts the support someones argument.

Id say that the argument is weak if it can be proven that the revenue is insignificant enough to not even get a category of it's own.

 

[WiiDSmoker]

Android 1. Steve Jobs 0.

 

[glap1922]

Image

Keyboard, non-touchscreen, Blackberry-like

There are still android phones that look like this, but like other form factors as well, so hardware manufacturers also created them. The software, which is android, actually looks fairly similar to how it looks today.

 

[iBug2]

I doubt that. Apple NEVER likes competition. Nor do apple fanboys will ever say ANTHING remotely decent about competing companies. There is NOT a single apple fanboy who thinks differently. Business aside, APPLE in it's DNA only lives by the vision of Hitler. Only me should be there, no matter what I need to do. Kill, bury, murder - do whatever you need to do, but simply finish off others. They have a lot of passion, but no humanity or compassion. I mean what does it say about the guy who refused to paternity of his own child: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Brennan-Jobs

There are humans, and there are apple fanboys. They are not the same entity. I can happily live if I know that someone else is buying a iphone. I doubt any apple fanboy will able to tolerate anyone using anything apart from i-devices.

They are like the supports of a football (football as in soccer in US) club fans. No matter how bad they lose, how bad they play, how much they cheat, these guys will continue to say their team is the best. Fanatics by design and mentality.

And what's your argument? That this is a bad thing? I think fanboyism is one of the things that makes Apple exist. They pour tons of money to create fanboys, and it works. That much money poured into Jonathan Ive's design team is to keep fanboyism at its peak imho. People has to "love" Apple products to become fanboys. And to love a product it really has to look really cool. And that coolness factor certainly is not cheap. Look at all the product placements Apple does on TV and movies. People's TV icons using Apple products etc.

I think it's actually a nice thing.

 

[k995]

"Apple acquired Fingerworks and its multi-touch technology in 2005. by Jefferson Y. Han in 2005 predates these, but Apple did give multi-touch wider exposure through its association with their new product and were the first to introduce multi-touch on a mobile device.

So yes, any multitouch phone of today (which is almost all of the top models) are riding on the risk Apple took.

So? Multitouch was minor detail . The statement was gui, and there were clearly very simular gui's released on mobile smartphone BEFORE iphone was released.

----------

Like, the whole idea af the smartphone. Being on Apple's Board, Google knew about Apple's plan for the iPhone since it's inception. Then despite nondisclosure agreements, started copying and producing product based Apple's ideas.

You mean google stole an idea that was already being sold for years? How stupid do you think google is?

 

[glap1922]

Id say that the argument is weak if it can be proven that the revenue is insignificant enough to not even get a category of it's own.

Okay. 2 business compete. Each can make $100. Business A relies on Business B. Business B realizes they can force out Business A and increase their revenue to $105. They will do this. Any good business would. That was the point.

 

[iBug2]

So? Multitouch was minor detail . The statement was gui, and there were clearly very simular gui's released on mobile smartphone BEFORE iphone was released.

Minor detail? Are you kidding me? The whole interaction with the phone is a "minor detail"?

Let all these 3rd party manufacturers start shipping their Android phones with styluses and let's see if they can sell a single product.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Amused how so many here are either P.O.'d, shocked, rattled, or otherwise aghast that Steve Jobs was an aggressive fighter and competitor when it came to business. Clearly lots of wannabe "bidness" people here w/ absolutely no clue what it means to run a company like Apple that lives and dies on its innovations. (See where Palm is today for your answer).

So Jobs wanted to "destroy" Android. BFD. What do you think Android wants to do with iOS? Why do you think Android came into being in the first place - to win a blue ribbon at the Mountain View High School science fair?

 

[samcraig]

They run a completely different kind of business, Google's customers aren't their users, they mine their users data and sell that to their customers. Apples fundamental business is in selling computer (of different kind) hardware.

Are you kidding me? Make as much as google through advertising? Nobody can do that. For that you need a competitor to google search and tons of other internet services google offers.

The most Apple could do was to make as much money as google did from advertising in mobile phones through the apps, which doesn't even take into account the entire web advertisements google would still keep making through mobile browsing.

You must be deluded to think that iAds was there to compete with Google even in the mobile advertisement market, let alone the entire advertisement market.

iAds existed because people wanted to advertise in iOS. That's it.

First - I think it's obvious that I meant mobile advertising - but forgive me for not clarifying.

Second - I completely disagree - Apple bought their mobile advertising company to make sure no one else got it and then planned on using it as a revenue stream to exclude google.

iAds existed because people wanted to advertise in iOS? Really? Advertisers could already advertise in any app they wanted if the developer wanted to include ads. Where are iAds in iOS other than in apps from developers.

They thought they could compete and they also thought that by controlling the entire experience they could deliver better mobile ads. Only it backfired because the costs were high, the return wasn't that great and Apple's editorial control was a nightmare to deal with. Agencies have enough issues trying to get their client to agree to their creative/etc. On top of that, Apple wanted to have control over both agency and client. The approval process was enormous.

But don't think for a second that Jobs and Apple didn't think iAds would be an incredible revenue stream. You only have to look at they keynote to see how excited they were and all the potential they saw.

I think you're deluded to think that Apple just thought they could make a few extra bucks with iAds. That's not why a company spends millions on a new revenue stream and markets it so heavily.