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

[miggitymac]

Google will shift gears so they can try and compete with apple.

Yeah, they sure are having a tough time competing with Apple...

In the span of one year, Android's sales growth increased by 615.1% and its market share has grown from 8.4% to 32.9%.

Yup. Sounds like they're ready to throw in the towel soon.

 

[Harrybarracuda]

Yeah, they sure are having a tough time competing with Apple...

In the span of one year, Android's sales growth increased by 615.1% and its market share has grown from 8.4% to 32.9%.

Yup. Sounds like they're ready to throw in the towel soon.

Actually if you look at the financials, I'm sure Google would like to compete with Apple - but not in selling phones. If they do decide to turn Motorola into a device manufacturing division, that might change though.

 

[miggitymac]

Android approach - gives users immature experimental implementations
iOS approach - gives users only the perfect and fully functional implementations

Right, that's why the MobileMe and iCloud launches went off without a single hitch. Also why their heralded implementation of Siri was released in the Beta stage, which by definition is not perfect, nor fully functional.

 

[wrightc23]

Err, personally I prefer Android to the iPhone although it's undeniable that Android owes it's existence largely to Apple.

I can understand Steve Jobs anger but if he'd survived there are far more positive things for him to have concentrated on than a legal and commerical battle that ultimately would have damaged Apple as much as it's competitors.

 

[AaronEdwards]

By the way, how does anyone know the author of this book isn't just "widening the brim of the hat"?

It's not as if Jobs is around to correct him, is it?

These interviews were taped.

And besides that, you don't think his quotes would be checked?

And finally, why would the author try to change Jobs' quotes, what would he gain from it? The book is going to sell a lot of copies.

 

[Oletros]

Err, personally I prefer Android to the iPhone although it's undeniable that Android owes it's existence largely to Apple.

And how deserves its existence to Apple when it started developing 4 years before the iPhone was presented?

 

[netdog]

Jobs was right. Android was a ripoff of iOS.

 

[adder7712]

Jobs was right. Android was a ripoff of iOS.

I have devices from iOS and Android. I've used both extensively and I honestly can't find any resemblances, unless you count the bloody app drawer...

 

[Oletros]

Jobs was right. Android was a ripoff of iOS.

What is a rip off? Can you give a list of thing or is only a sentiment?

 

[broken1i]

The Android bashing is unnecessary, but it is macrumors so what is there to expect? I've personally used both and enjoyed it. I'm not going to sit here and say that they copied each other because it's a waste of time. I didn't get and android phone and say, "Wow, they copied the iPhone, what losers." Both are great in their own way. I will say the that Android is a bit more flexible for my liking but it's all PREFERENCE people. And yes I enjoyed flash. If Steve Jobs had created Android, I have a feeling a lot of people here would be saying that Android is the best mobile OS on the planet, just a hunch. In the end, competition is good I mean think about how hard it would be for everyone to get a smartphone if Apple only made them. Not everyone can dish out hundreds of dollars on a phone. Be nice guys.

 

[iBug2]

Based upon the fact that Android has been under development longer than iOS, calling Android a "stolen product" must come from a very distorted perception of reality. On the other hand, it's just the typical Apple propaganda that has been working so well for them since the 1980s...

Android before acquired by Google is obviously not a stolen product. People are saying that the version Google shipped is a stolen product, which partly is. While Google was developing Android as a competitor to iOS, their CEO was sitting on Apple's board of directors and overseeing iOS and iPhone development.

Nobody is saying they stole lines of code, but they stole a lot of ideas since Android interface prior to iPhone introduction looked a lot like BB.

 

[Harrybarracuda]

These interviews were taped.

And besides that, you don't think his quotes would be checked?

And finally, why would the author try to change Jobs' quotes, what would he gain from it? The book is going to sell a lot of copies.

A lot more publicity and a lot more sales. Duh!

 

[iBug2]

None of the half dozen, or more, people who responded to that post of mine actually gave a concrete example of something that was actually stolen. Reminds me of all the WMDs in Iraq.

Name me one thing in the iPhone that found its way into Android that was not an obvious extension of a newly-affordable or newly-available technology that anyone could buy from a supplier. Just name one. If it's so obvious that can't be hard, can it?

Are you saying that if Apple decided to go into the search market, and asked Google if one of their VP's can sit on their board for couple of years during the production of their own search engine, do you actually believe Google would be OK with that?

Keep dreaming.

And all the arguments which keep saying that icons in a grid or the dock didn't first appear on the iPhone are irrelevant. Neither did multitouch first appear in iPhone, nor did the gestures, nor did a camera or a web browser. But all of those were put together in a nice way in the iPhone, and basically everything that came after that copied all those features, not just some of them. Nowadays most smartphones have a dock, icons in grid, a home button, multitouch interface and look basically like an iPhone. Whether any of them is patentable or not is again irrelevant. The patent industry is not perfect and is constantly changing. So one doesn't need a patent lawsuit to see something has been ripped off. We are not prosecuting Google or Samsung here, we are criticizing them.

 

[Harrybarracuda]

While Google was developing Android as a competitor to iOS, their CEO was sitting on Apple's board of directors and overseeing iOS and iPhone development.

While Apple was developing iPhone as a competitor to (the older) Android, they had a leading Android exec on their board advising them.

What's the difference?

All of this fantasy makes no difference whatsoever.

Steve Jobs was buried before Flash and Android.

Get over it.

----------

Are you saying that if Apple decided to go into the search market, and asked Google if one of their VP's can sit on their board for couple of years during the production of their own search engine, do you actually believe Google would be OK with that?

Keep dreaming.

I suspect Google would absolutely love it, you moron.

 

[iBug2]

While Apple was developing iPhone as a competitor to (the older) Android, they had a leading Android exec on their board advising them.

Advising them? Are you saying that Schmidth was advising Apple on how to make a phone or mobile OS? Any proof you can offer on this?

Edit: I didn't mean to feed, taking it all back.

----------

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.

But wasn't used for a phone. Mouse was released before Mac, wasn't used for a PC. Same old same old. Basic arguments trying to misdirect people that a company had to have invented everything on their own to be able to be taken advantage of, which is nonsense.

 

[KnightWRX]

Advising them? Are you saying that Schmidth was advising Apple on how to make a phone or mobile OS? Any proof you can offer on this?

Well, after Google bought Android Inc., suddenly Apple felt the urge to invite the CEO of Google to their board of directors, during their development of their own mobile strategy.

What makes you think it wasn't Apple that wanted to keep tabs on what Google was doing and not the other way around ? Why was it Schmidt that was ripping off Apple and not Apple ripping off Google ?

Somehow seems like it could go both ways and to claim either way is "a fact" is quite disingenuous to me. It oozes partisanship and subjectivity to me.

 

[iBug2]

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.

That doesn't make any sense. How can Apple keep an eye on Android development if Eric wasn't actually giving them insider info about his own company, which he is not obligated to do just because he's on their board.

But spying on iPhone and iOS while you are on Apple's board is piece of cake, well, considering all the secrecy around Apple maybe not piece of cake, but still much more easier compared to the first task, which seems improbable.

 

[AaronEdwards]

A lot more publicity and a lot more sales. Duh!

So, you are accusing Jobs' official biographer to embellish and lie to get more publicity and sell more books? Good grief...

What Jobs really would have needed was someone to tone down things, because these comments made by him are going to hurt his image.

 

[iBug2]

Well, after Google bought Android Inc., suddenly Apple felt the urge to invite the CEO of Google to their board of directors, during their development of their own mobile strategy.

What makes you think it wasn't Apple that wanted to keep tabs on what Google was doing and not the other way around ? Why was it Schmidt that was ripping off Apple and not Apple ripping off Google ?

Somehow seems like it could go both ways and to claim either way is "a fact" is quite disingenuous to me. It oozes partisanship and subjectivity to me.

It could go both ways if the situation was totally symmetric, which it wasn't. If Apple also had their CEO on Google board, then I'd say ok, both were spying equally on each other. But it wasn't like that. And of course it oozes subjectivity. This is a discussion board. Without subjectivity there are no discussions as objective truths can't be discussed.

But seeing that people really pay attention to the whole Schmidth argument means that it's actually an important point, that even if Android was/is an entirely different OS than iOS, still the CEO sitting on the board during developing a competitive product is something people don't approve of.

If Apple really brought in Schmidt because they were afraid that Google was developing a competition to their new baby, they wouldn't have done it to spy on Android, which like I said is not doable without Schmidt offering them free insider info. A more probable cause would be just so Schmidt could see what the iPhone is and maybe change his mind about developing a competitor, and instead developing a partnership which could work for both of the companies (Obviously more for Apple than for Google, otherwise it would have happened). So it'd be something like, "forget about Android, we are doing this, so we want to work with you to make this better."

 

[SactoGuy18]

Despite Jobs' arrogant attitude, if you look at Android--even the new Android 4.0 ("Ice Cream Sandwich")--it has a "look and feel" very much akin to iOS in many ways. It's small wonder why Apple is taking legal action against Samsung and HTC (in effect, suing Google by proxy) over this.

I think that's why if the courts rule in favor of Apple and Apple successfully gets recognition from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for its work on iOS, that could effectively cripple Android until Google completely redesigns its interface to be something original. And that's on top of Google facing legal troubles with its unlicensed copy of Java in Android.

This is why Microsoft designed its very distinctive Metro UI for Windows Phone 7.x--that interface looks nothing like iOS, and personally, I personally think Jobs must have in private admired what Microsoft pulled off--a truly original idea for a "smart" cellphone that doesn't trample on the "look and feel" of iOS.

 

[iBug2]

Despite Jobs' arrogant attitude, if you look at Android--even the new Android 4.0 ("Ice Cream Sandwich")--it has a "look and feel" very much akin to iOS in many ways. It's small wonder why Apple is taking legal action against Samsung and HTC (in effect, suing Google by proxy) over this.

Because they can only sue 3rd party handset manufacturers who use Android. Google can't be sued over any patent infringements for Android.

 

[islanders]

expensive

The apple and other smartphones were too expensive for me. The iphone is a great phone. I make it 1 in a year if it gets a bigger screen and is less expensive. 4 now the motorola triumph and virgin mobile prepay unlimited for 45 dollars is very impressive. The interface in operating system is so universal I cant see 1 company claiming ownership and charging excessive fees. There's also no way I could use that small screen.

 

[islanders]

The apple and other smartphones were too expensive for me. The iphone is a great phone. I make it 1 in a year if it gets a bigger screen and is less expensive. 4 now the motorola triumph and virgin mobile prepay unlimited for 45 dollars is very impressive. The interface in operating system is so universal I cant see 1 company claiming ownership and charging excessive fees. There's also no way I could use that small screen.

I like having the 4 buttons to on android. I'm using the voice controls now. All in all everything is very functional. Apple is always my first choice but with a very limited selection or missing features sometimes I look elsewhere. because it's not all about me making someone else rich as all get out.

 

[Harrybarracuda]

So, you are accusing Jobs' official biographer to embellish and lie to get more publicity and sell more books? Good grief...

What Jobs really would have needed was someone to tone down things, because these comments made by him are going to hurt his image.

Yes..... and it will sell a lot more books..... and he's not around to contest it.

Why am I repeating myself?

 

[samcraig]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)


I wonder what the android gang will do when it ceases to ever be upgraded and manufacturers move to windows mobile

Wonder away genius. Most of the people who actually care about OS updates and install them also get a new phone every 2 years (or less). So if Google stopped putting out an update for Android - it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

And if you think Google is going to drop Android - you're ridiculous. They may transition into Chrome like you suggest - but whatever they do - they will continue to have a phone OS.

It's ok though, Marksman - you don't have to buy an Android phone. No one is going to force one into your hand. You can still enjoy the iPhone...