So the global mobile ad revenue has more than tripled in two years. What does that tell you?
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
So the global mobile ad revenue has more than tripled in two years. What does that tell you?
So these current Android phones with this form factor are keyboard-only navigation, non-touchscreen devices?
The hot trend among smartphones at that time (2006-2007) was one-handed navigation where one could move around the UI with a D-pad, cursor, or trackball. It was pioneered by PalmOS and BB OS. Microsoft was trying to achieve that with WM5 (somewhat unsuccessfully) and move away from the previous navigation paradigm - stylus. Android, the new entrant at the time attempted to be just like the successful platforms of the time. Of course that was all upended by the original iPhone with its finger based multi-touch interface. It was outrageous! No stylus? How would that work? The rest is history. I think many people forget that up till the Nexus One (I think the original US versions didn't have multitouch either), Google didn't dare include multitouch for fear of infringing Apple's patents.
I don't think Apple even thought that Google would compete with them later on. If that was the case they would have kicked Schmidt way back. And no I don't think Apple had to have an actual partnership with Google for iPhone to be successful. They paid for all Google services, including maps and search, which were all for sale anyway. Google doesn't license those services only to Apple, they license them to everyone. And it certainly is not a too hefty price for Apple.
We actually never saw what could have happened if the partnership didn't break.
And I'm sure there are more than two real answers for possibilities to why Apple created iAds. Probably it's a bit of all.
Which is still nothing if you don't own search. And do you see Apple going into search?
i'm not certain, I don't pay attention to phone with a keyboard, I don't like the added bulk for something I am not going to use. The point was that there are options, which isn't a bad thing.
If apple didn't think advertising would bring them enough money to be worth it they wouldn't do it. They indroduced iads to make money, either directly from the ads or indirectly by using it to entise devs to make free apps. Either way, they saw that controlling this product increased their revenue.
What I'd like to see is Apple roll out its own search service that becomes the default on iOS devices. Instant 50%+ share of the all-important mobile search market (yes, Fandroids, we're counting the iPad and iPod Touch here). Heck, if Microsoft can create Bing, anyone can do it.
It's odd that Google keeps raiding Apple's refrigerator but Apple hasn't kicked Google out of the house.
Steve knew a lot about making the best product.
And he knows that Google makes the best search engine, period. When it comes to search Google does it best. Others have tried and failed. It's going to take a lot of time and energy to wrestle a 10% market share away from them. Toppling them is going to take a lot of time and energy and money, and decades of persistence.
Are you saying Apple invented the smartphone ? Because you do realise :
- The first iPhone wasn't a smartphone, it was a feature phone
- Smartphones existed before the iPhone.
I may have to avoid macrumors for a few months (fat chance, but i'll try if need be) if they are going to start dropping bombshells and spoilers from the Jobs biography.
I intend to buy it and read it, but probably not right the second it drops.
I really didn't need to see this, or any other, spoiler.
Ugh...
I intend to buy it and read it, but probably not right the second it drops.
I really didn't need to see this, or any other, spoiler.
Ugh...
But Android is "borrowed" from iOS. There is no way around that just as iOS is "borrowed" from PalmOS and PalmOS is borrowed from NewtonOS and MacOS, and down the line to caveman hieroglyphics, the original icons and non-verbal communication device. There is nothing new under the sun.
Regarding Android being "cheap," or "ugly," those are subjective terms and people have a right to their opinion. There is no way to prove or disprove these descriptions.
On Android being "Slow," or "buggy," that again depends on each specific user's experience since there are so many versions of Android and not all apps and hardware play nice with every version. Unfortunately, a lot of hardware makers slap in less than capable hardware and that give user's a poor Android experience. But that is a drawback to an "open" system. Every manufacture gets to muck around to create "its" version. It's why Apple users generally have a better experience.
I agree, as a consumer, I like having choices, and competing products to push technology to us faster. But the lead article is regarding business practices, specifically, Jobs, and not user experience regarding one OS or another.
How exactly has innovation been stalled? It still happened. We got the iPhone, iOS, and a competitor born from a company that saw a chance to enter what was essentially a new market, or at least a market being rebooted. Smart phones had always been Blackberrys... big clunky and ugly devices (not to mention expensive tariffs) that few people considered a tool for anything other than business. Apple AND Android changed that. Android is equally as responsible for the smartphone market taking off, because those handsets are cheap/free on the right contracts. This brough a new type of phone to the masses and has brought data costs down as carriers have fought to provide these smart phones. Everything about the last 4 years has completely changed the mobile market, and both companies have a part to play in that.
As for stealing/copying ideas... I'm sorry, but that happens. Just because someone thought of one way to make an input or gesture on a device doesn't mean that others shouldn't be able to use it to some extent, or use a similar concept... why "innovate" for the sake of it when the simplest and most intuitive method is already there? it's like Ferrari patenting the paddle gear shifters and Porsche deciding to put the gear stick on the roof... the aim is to make gear changes easier and faster, not change them for the sake of it.
Think of it this way... If Android had never existed do you honestly believe we would have iOS5 today? If you do you are delusional. Both iOS and Android as software have advanced as quickly as they have thanks to the competition of each other. While Apple is saying "Kill Android", Google are saying "Kill iOS", and that provides us with the perfect market as a consumer. 2 companies trying to best each other means 2 products pushing forwards at a fast pace. Why anyone would want to see any competitor in any market completely fail is beyond me.
I know that this is a pro-Apple forum, but FFS it's not like if Steve Jobs didn't steal many of "his ideas" from prior companies that came before Apple (Xerox for Mac GUI, LG for touchscreen phone, Braun/Dieter Ram for design...).
SJ had serious narcissistic personality issues. The disorder caused him to truly believe that he "invented" ideas that were clearly copied from prior products to a more discerning person. Like all narcissists, he will broadcast his genius and hammer it into the consciousness of those around him, which then results in a serious distortion of facts (aka reality distortion field). This is essentially what "charisma" is - an innate ability (or disorder) to influence those around you through self-marketing and presentation. This pervaded Apple as a company during his years at the helm - Apple is perhaps the best-marketed/-presented company in the world.
So really, what differentiated Apple's products from everyone else is that Steve Jobs saw the importance of presentation, not innovation. If SJ/Apple can be credited with anything, it's that they packaged and marketed their products in a way that no other company has ever done before.
I'm not against SJ in any way. I truly admire how someone can influence an entire world in a way that he has. What I do care about, though, is that I get my facts straight. He didn't innovate, he just convinced you that he did. It works well, and it made Apple a run-away success. If I ever start my own company, I will emulate myself in the same way as SJ to ensure my own success.
SJ had serious narcissistic personality issues. The disorder caused him to truly believe that he "invented" ideas that were clearly copied from prior products to a more discerning person. Like all narcissists, he will broadcast his genius and hammer it into the consciousness of those around him, which then results in a serious distortion of facts (aka reality distortion field). This is essentially what "charisma" is - an innate ability (or disorder) to influence those around you through self-marketing and presentation. This pervaded Apple as a company during his years at the helm - Apple is perhaps the best-marketed/-presented company in the world.
So really, what differentiated Apple's products from everyone else is that Steve Jobs saw the importance of presentation, not innovation. If SJ/Apple can be credited with anything, it's that they packaged and marketed their products in a way that no other company has ever done before.
I'm not against SJ in any way. I truly admire how someone can influence an entire world in a way that he has. What I do care about, though, is that I get my facts straight. He didn't innovate, he just convinced you that he did. It works well, and it made Apple a run-away success. If I ever start my own company, I will emulate myself in the same way as SJ to ensure my own success.
If you own the platform that everybody uses you make the rules. If anyone has learned that the hard way it's Apple. Why would Apple need to go into search to get paid if they had a monopoly.
Again. Look at Apple's history with regards to the iPod. Apple wanted to sell music as cheaply as possible and profit on iPod sales. In other words, Apple was interested in giving away as little profit as possible to the record companies. Once they had the power they started squeezing.
Google didn't want to be in that situation.
When did Android phones/OS come out 6 bloody months after Iphoen was realeased. No wonder he was pissed
imagine you have a family relative in you house for a few days they see all you paperwork or a great idea that would make get you to highest platform you have ever been and you dedicted 2to 3 years putting together only to have this idiot stealing M*************** mole take copies of all of this and then set it up the same thing two weeks later. Wouldn't you be pissed
Last edited by a moderator:
You do know that these devices are available in countries without Verizon and AT&T don't you?
The problem is you're basically suggesting that every company reinvent the wheel each time they want to make a new product. Why does the wheel need reinventing ?
All innovation is built on the shoulders of giants that came before. That's how we move forward by taking existing concepts, refining them, making them more efficient, more elegant.
Apple is the king of doing this. They don't innovate independently at all. They take existing things, make them better, add the Apple "touch" to them and release polished products. They take cues from other products out there, they buy up companies that have good products/services and they merge them into their eco-system.
Doing it the way you suggest would spell the death of Apple really. Apple doesn't invent, Apple innovates.
IF APPLE drops capacitive touchscreen : ok
Bs capacative caused that, lot easier to use. And still isnt about basic gui You can make excuses all day but the rectangular almost all touchscreen gui was released before iphone.
So level headed Mac users with perspective do exist! Yet there are still so very few.
Glad to see that you are still trying to reason with children and childish adults that just got a whiff of technology and sign themselves on to whatever logo happens to be the shiniest.
Brother, they type of attitudes that come from the snippets make me wanna never pick that piece of **** up. I am sure it'll be a good read, but I NEVER want to be associated with the type of people on these forums that take this stuff way too far.
May I'll pick it up in a decade or something, when it's in the bargain bin at Barnes & Nobles.
Yes indeed it is. Watch that quote never show up in the book.
No, It was actually the other way around. Eric Schmidt was invited to the Apple board after Google had acquired Android and started working on a mobile solution. If anything, Eric was there so Apple could keep an eye on Android while they worked on the iPhone. kdarling has a bit of an history about what actually happened, not the paranoia tainted version spewed out on the forums here.
I think that the first point to consider is that it doesn’t matter if you loved Steve or hated him, no one can deny that he was narcissistic. Of course he hated Android and wanted to destroy it, that’s Steve. That’s the attitude that made Apple. That’s why he was forced out of the company and that’s why he was asked to come back. Uncompromising, his way is the only way. He built a great company and made great products.
That being said, I think its crazy to say Android stole from iOS. Apple didn’t invent touch screen, didn’t invent gridded icons,... Apple did put all of those ideas together with their own spin on it, as did Android. Similar, yes, but the stealing argument is like saying Chevy stole from Ford because the Model-T had 4 tires, doors to get in the car, headlights on the front to see at night, a steering wheel to control the car....
Ultimately it comes down to money anyway. Steve Jobs was ruthless, like it or hate it, he did anything he could to sell his product.
Last note: the patent argument is stupid because the patent system is so broken. I borrowed this general patent from this company, and bought this other patent for this other company..... Its all general bs anyway. The patent system was built to protect inventors in a machine age. The software age is a totally different... The system doesn't work, how can you patent and touch movement like pinch to zoom?
That being said, I think its crazy to say Android stole from iOS. Apple didn’t invent touch screen, didn’t invent gridded icons,... Apple did put all of those ideas together with their own spin on it, as did Android. Similar, yes, but the stealing argument is like saying Chevy stole from Ford because the Model-T had 4 tires, doors to get in the car, headlights on the front to see at night, a steering wheel to control the car....
Ultimately it comes down to money anyway. Steve Jobs was ruthless, like it or hate it, he did anything he could to sell his product.
Last note: the patent argument is stupid because the patent system is so broken. I borrowed this general patent from this company, and bought this other patent for this other company..... Its all general bs anyway. The patent system was built to protect inventors in a machine age. The software age is a totally different... The system doesn't work, how can you patent and touch movement like pinch to zoom?
Last edited: