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

[iBug2]

Which has nothing to do with the look of a Windows grey box, or a BB-style phone - which was the argument made originally. Try to keep up, otherwise you're just wasting both of our time.

As for the GUI, both are operating under the desktop paradigm, so of course they are similar. Like stated, the "box" is only so big and its hard to think outside of established paradigms (and truth be told, neither Apple or Google has, really).

Argument made originally is that Android was influenced by iPhone and iOS. Not that Android was made for a BB style phone (that was tossed in during the thread and wasn't in the starting arguments).

And it's not a relevant argument imho that only so and so can be done in this box, hence nothing can be considered as ripping off because there's only so much one can do.

Sorry but exactly what is a ripoff then? When people sue each other for patent infringements, the case in question usually considers things which are extremely similar. Two chairs for example. It's a chair, how different can it be? So nothing should be considered a ripoff as long as it has 4 legs and you can sit on it? Yet people get sued over chair patents. I think as long as we get someone here who is an expert on patent law we shouldn't dwell into discussions about what is infringement and what isn't or can't be.

----------

The analogy, in the way it is interpreted in the particular discussion, is false however. In short, if said book about how to make a bomb is itself unlawful - or more to the case, infringing - then one could press action against Google. Further, Android IS the implementation, not just the idea.

In short: open or not, if a Google-based product is infringing, Google is liable.

Addendum: That said, and in accordance with the analogy, Google may not bear responsibility for all damages made by third-parties building on Googles infringing implementation. That, however, does not mean that Google itself cannot be addressed directly.

So you are saying that Google's lawyers don't know that and they are just arguing nonsense in court when they say "We are not liable"? I'm not trying to mock you here, it is possible, sometimes lawyers do that as well if the law is ambiguous.

 

[zipster]

Good artists copy, great artists steal.

Go Android! Whip iOS out the game.

 

[gnasher729]

22 people voted this comment negatively.

Macrumors' members (at least a whole lot in this thread) are incredibly ignorant. I find it disgusting and offensive that so many will actually deny a FACT that coolbreeze said.

What "FACT"? Apple paid Xerox $10 million in Apple stock, as agreed before Jobs and Apple's engineers visited PARC. I wonder what that stock would be worth today if Xerox had kept it.

Now you can surely claim that Steve Jobs took advantage of the lethal incompetence of Xerox management who didn't realise what they had and what it was worth. But that isn't theft. And Xerox was quite happy building photocopiers, so they wouldn't have done anything with the tech they had anyway.

 

[divinox]

Argument made originally is that Android was influenced by iPhone and iOS. Not that Android was made for a BB style phone (that was tossed in during the thread and wasn't in the starting arguments).

And it's not a relevant argument imho that only so and so can be done in this box, hence nothing can be considered as ripping off because there's only so much one can do.

Sorry but exactly what is a ripoff then? When people sue each other for patent infringements, the case in question usually considers things which are extremely similar. Two chairs for example. It's a chair, how different can it be? So nothing should be considered a ripoff as long as it has 4 legs and you can sit on it? Yet people get sued over chair patents. I think as long as we get someone here who is an expert on patent law we shouldn't dwell into discussions about what is infringement and what isn't or can't be.

In your original post you said:

"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."

1) Implication is quite clear. So is my argument. Add, or stop wasting time.
2) Actually, it is (a somewhat valid argument). The beauty of paradigms is that its hard to escape them once they mature. If Apple had made a clear break, or revolutionized the paradigm somehow, they would have a point. However, they didn't. Nothing wrong with that, of course. But it makes it somewhat hard to cry foul when others follow.
3) different chairs are different implementations of the same idea. Android and iOS are different implementations of the same idea. Whats your point?

So you are saying that Google's lawyers don't know that and they are just arguing nonsense in court when they say "We are not liable"?

Google's lawyers will do anything to say: We are not liable. Thats their job. Fact of the matter is, the analogy is flawed. Case in point, if i copy X and put it on a FTP server, i have copied X and put it on a FTP server. Thus, my wrongs are two-fold: a) i have copied X (infringing), b) i have distributed copy-of-X (incurred damage).

You really don't need to be a patent lawyer to understand this. Just some common sense and a feel for logic.

addendum:

Analogy is flawed because they equate Android with "a book on how to make a bomb". However, Android isn't a "book on how to make a bomb" (something others could use to build X). Rather, it is a bomb (an infringing X). Of course, if they could make the judge agree that their code is just a book on how to make X (where X is the illegal thing), they would be home free.

 

[iBug2]

What "FACT"? Apple paid Xerox $10 million in Apple stock, as agreed before Jobs and Apple's engineers visited PARC. I wonder what that stock would be worth today if Xerox had kept it.

Now you can surely claim that Steve Jobs took advantage of the lethal incompetence of Xerox management who didn't realise what they had and what it was worth. But that isn't theft. And Xerox was quite happy building photocopiers, so they wouldn't have done anything with the tech they had anyway.

Apple stock in the 80's were in 2-3$. So assuming 3$, 10 million would buy 3.3 million stocks, which would be worth 1.3 billion today, approximately 10% of Xerox's total equity today

 

[iBug2]

In your original post you said:

"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."

That's not the start of the argument, I've been on this thread since page 1. You could have clarified that further. Anyway that's just a typical issue with long threads, nothing worth to waste time on it.

3) different chairs are different implementations of the same idea. Android and iOS are different implementations of the same idea. Whats your point?

My point was exactly that different chairs are different implementations of the same idea and Android and iOS are different implementations of the same idea. Hence, if people can sue each other over chair patents, they can sue each other over mobile OS's as well. Just because the implementation is clearly defined through the boundaries of the box itself doesn't mean you can't infringe on the ideas going into it.

Google's lawyers will do anything to say: We are not liable. Thats their job. Fact of the matter is, the analogy is flawed. Case in point, if i copy X and put it on a FTP server, i have copied X and put it on a FTP server. Thus, my wrongs are two-fold: a) i have copied X (infringing), b) i have distributed copy-of-X (incurred damage).

You really don't need to be a patent lawyer to understand this. Just some common sense and a feel for logic.

Logic and law don't mix really. Even I know that. And that's because the law is not a fixed entity and it's constantly changing and there can be conflicting results coming from two parts of law all the time. And I think that's what's happening here. If what you say is true, i.e. if Google is liable, then Google's clauses with 3rd party vendors may be illegal to begin with, i.e. they shouldn't have existed in the first place. Then why do they? If the law is fixed on something, can you make a deal with someone else circumventing that law? Maybe you can, again I'm not a lawyer.

1) Implication is quite clear. So is my argument. Add, or stop wasting time.
2) Actually, it is (a somewhat valid argument). The beauty of paradigms is that its hard to escape them once they mature. If Apple had made a clear break, or revolutionized the paradigm somehow, they would have a point. However, they didn't. Nothing wrong with that, of course. But it makes it somewhat hard to cry foul when others follow.

Well, Apple did make a clear break, like you say, as big as it could be done in the confines of this smartphone design. I don't think anyone would argue that they didn't change the smartphone industry.

You are right that it's hard to escape once a paradigm matures, that's why Apple did an amazing job when they released a multitouch smartphone for the first time, when all smartphones used a physical keyboard and a mouse ball. That design had matured and it was really hard to escape yet it changed, extremely quickly even. I'm not arguing that it was only Apple that could have done this and who knows, if they didn't do it maybe someone else would have, or maybe nobody would have for another few years. That's not the point, they were the first to do it and it was a big and welcome change.

 

[kdarling]

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.

So you're saying that a Google CEO actually helped mold iOS and the iPhone into a success, then later used his same ideas on his own product?

Look, folks:

Jobs only complained that Google started to copy Apple AFTER the iPhone came out and everyone saw it for the first time.

Apple has never claimed that Google stole anything while Schmidt was on their board.

(It's doubtful he was shown anything to start with, plus he deliberately kept himself away from the Android project. Otherwise it'd be a legal mess.)

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.

If that's true, then that also indicates that they had no prior knowledge and did not copy until _after_ the iPhone came out.

You can't have it both ways.

People are getting themselves riled up over something that almost certainly never happened.

 

[KnightWRX]

It could go both ways if the situation was totally symmetric, which it wasn't.

You're right and on to something. Apple invited Eric and not the other way around. If Eric had asked to be on board, then we could conclude to spying, but since it's Apple that did the inviting, it's actually Apple that wanted to keep tabs on Google!

Good work Watson.

----------

Someone explained that back in the thread how that could happen. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the exact details of the law on this, but there's a clause in Android's agreement with 3rd party manufacturers that Google can't be sued because Android used on some handset infringes on some patents.

So wait, if Android itself doesn't violate Apple patents/trademarks/copyright so that Apple can't sue Google directly, that means you've just said Android was not influenced by iOS.

I'm glad you're finally seeing the light in all of this.

Because if Android the OS as produced by the Open Handset Alliance was a direct rip-off of iOS, Apple could bypass all these OEM lawsuits and go straight to the source like Oracle did for their Java patents (not code violations, stop reading Florian, he was wrong about those).

----------

You can find that clause somewhere in this thread. Someone posted it, should be in the first 15 page if I remember correctly. So yes, it exists, or that someone made it up. I'm vetting for the former.

That clause you're talking about is the end-user agreement. Apple has the same clause in all their agreements. It's not the OEM license at all.

But that's moot, every piece of software has a liability disclaimer clause. This is not unique to Android and has nothing to do with Apple's right to sue Google directly. It just means OEMs can't ask Google to indemnify them if Apple sues them for infringements that are a result of Google's software.

People are getting themselves riled up over something that almost certainly never happened.

Exactly. I don't get why people that are customers of Apple would go so far as to get emotional over "copying" they can't quite pinpoint when asked (no one has yet stated what if anything Android "copied" from iOS, only vague notions of a BB type form factor becoming an "iPhone" form factor that has been debunked numerous times showing that Android is form factor agnostic).

The facts :

1992: Andy Rubin leaves Apple.

1999: Andy founds Danger Inc, which is guess what, a company that works on mobile phones. They make an OS called Hiptop. Flextronics manufactures a hardware design of Danger and in 2002, we get the Danger Hiptop phone :

(oh look at that form factor...)

2003: Andy Rubin starts Android Inc. to work on an undisclosed mobile project.

SEEKING A MOBILE EDGE. In a 2003 interview with BusinessWeek, just two months before incorporating Android, Rubin said there was tremendous potential in developing smarter mobile devices that are more aware of its owner's location and preferences. "If people are smart, that information starts getting aggregated into consumer products," said Rubin.

2005: Google buys Android Inc. with strong hints that Android is cellphone software like Andy produced in his days with Danger Inc. :

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2005/tc20050817_0949_tc024.htm

Google has been toiling to make its services more appealing to people who access the Net over cell phones and other mobile devices.

2006 : Apple invites Eric Schmidt to Apple's board of directors. Note all the work and history already behind Android being an actual competitor to what would become the iPhone.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/200...-Schmidt-Joins-Apples-Board-of-Directors.html

2007 : Apple introduces the iPhone.

2008 June : Apple ships their second iPhone, the iPhone 3G.

2008 November : Google introduces the first Android phone, the T-mobile G1 / HTC Dream :

Now, we have a full history. Look at 2 things here :

- The HTC Dream, the first Android phone to market and the Danger Hiptop / T-Mobile Sidekick... anyone seeing something there ? Did the iPhone really influence Android development ? Android is software and it looks to me Andy had a certain vision of hardware already in mind for the initial release and that was his previous design done by Danger. Android was then released on a variety of form factors, including the HTC Magic that was a touch screen only phone, but only on things like the Motorola Charm, the HTC Chacha which are BB type phones, the Xperia Pro, Xperia Pro Mini which are sliders, the Xperia Play which is a god damn PSP phone. iPhone the hardware influenced Android the Software ? What ... ?

- Notice the UI on the HTC Dream screenshot. Does that look like iOS ?

So I ask this to iBug2 and others that keep saying Android is a rip-off or influenced or whatever by the iPhone and iOS :

What the hell are you guys seeing that we're not seeing ? What part of Android "feels" or "looks" copied/influenced by iOS ? Android the software, not the hardware OEMs put out, what part of the Android Operating System did Eric Schmidt "steal" from Apple if ever he did such a thing ? Stop dodging the damn question.

EDIT : Let the down ranking of a factual post begin. Seriously folk, if you're going to downrank, this one time I will ask this : Reply to my post and tell me exactly what makes you feel like my post is negative. Have some guts, you have a right to your opinion.

 

[KnightWRX]

double.

 

[rockrigo]

one of the main attraction points for OEMs with Android was the fact that it was made to adapt to more than one form factor/input type

 

[Harrybarracuda]

Pointless. 40 pages and they're still spouting the same, unsubstantiated garbage.

Might as well leave them to it.

 

[SactoGuy18]

No. MSFT designed Metro because they thought it made sense. They would have had no second thought sticking with the desktop paradigm (used in e.g. WM) if they wanted to. They simply thought this way was better, and i am inclined to agree with MSFT on that. Apple may have taken the desktop paradigm from the 80's and perfected it. Its still the look and feel we've had for the past few decades. There are generally very little room for out-of-the-box thinking within established paradigms. iOS is really no different.

And Metro was developed that way following the interface that MS started with Windows Media Center for XP way before the iPhone was released

I think given Microsoft already gone through the legal wringer in the late 1990's, if Microsoft was going to design a phone OS to replace the failed earlier Windows Phone versions, they had to design something that was definitely not going to trample on Apple's iOS "look and feel" (it should be noted that Apple unveiled the iOS design with the first iPhone long before Android 1.0 beta was released on November 2007). Borrowing some elements from Windows Media Center in Windows XP and using a modified version of the original Zune interface, the resulting Metro UI for Windows Phone 7.0 didn't look anything close to iOS, and you have to admit it was a pretty original design that has gained a lot of "polish" with Windows Phone 7.5 ("Mango").

 

[divinox]

That's not the start of the argument, I've been on this thread since page 1. You could have clarified that further. Anyway that's just a typical issue with long threads, nothing worth to waste time on it.

I don't care if you so started in Texas. I commented on a specific statement you made. Simple, really.

My point was exactly that different chairs are different implementations of the same idea and Android and iOS are different implementations of the same idea. Hence, if people can sue each other over chair patents, they can sue each other over mobile OS's as well. Just because the implementation is clearly defined through the boundaries of the box itself doesn't mean you can't infringe on the ideas going into it.

One cannot sue over ideas, only over implementations. When people sue over chair patents, they sue over implementations. If implementations indeed are different, Apple have no claim.

As for the box, it is what it is. And patent law is agreeing with me on that.

Logic and law don't mix really. Even I know that. And that's because the law is not a fixed entity and it's constantly changing and there can be conflicting results coming from two parts of law all the time. And I think that's what's happening here. If what you say is true, i.e. if Google is liable, then Google's clauses with 3rd party vendors may be illegal to begin with, i.e. they shouldn't have existed in the first place. Then why do they? If the law is fixed on something, can you make a deal with someone else circumventing that law? Maybe you can, again I'm not a lawyer.

Why do you insist on mixing things up? Logic dictates if an argument is valid. The argument made by Google was not. The analogy was false. Plain and simple. And no, fallacious arguments are not valid in court either - believe it or not.

As for the clauses, no. They would not be illegal. They could, however, be invalid. Not sure about the legal term in english, but i know there is one for the whole rights-one-cannot-waive-through-contract-or-whatever.

Well, Apple did make a clear break, like you say, as big as it could be done in the confines of this smartphone design. I don't think anyone would argue that they didn't change the smartphone industry.

If anything, they broke with the non-touch paradigm, not the desktop-paradigm. What one then has to ask oneself is this: should Apple have monopoly rights to touch-interface phones? i think not - first, for the sake of competition, and second, because things were already heading that way.

You are right that it's hard to escape once a paradigm matures, that's why Apple did an amazing job when they released a multitouch smartphone for the first time, when all smartphones used a physical keyboard and a mouse ball.

Problem is, all phones weren't. Fact of matter, Apples real contribution was in highlighting (once more) that nowadays its all about software (Steves words, really). Thing is though, Apple is not the only company in the world that knows how to do software.

That design had matured and it was really hard to escape yet it changed, extremely quickly even. I'm not arguing that it was only Apple that could have done this and who knows, if they didn't do it maybe someone else would have, or maybe nobody would have for another few years. That's not the point, they were the first to do it and it was a big and welcome change.

First or not, they successfully disrupted the market. But thats about that. I fail to see how that in itself should give Apple exclusive rights to a market.

----------

I think given Microsoft already gone through the legal wringer in the late 1990's, if Microsoft was going to design a phone OS to replace the failed earlier Windows Phone versions, they had to design something that was definitely not going to trample on Apple's iOS "look and feel" (it should be noted that Apple unveiled the iOS design with the first iPhone long before Android 1.0 beta was released on November 2007). Borrowing some elements from Windows Media Center in Windows XP and using a modified version of the original Zune interface, the resulting Metro UI for Windows Phone 7.0 didn't look anything close to iOS, and you have to admit it was a pretty original design that has gained a lot of "polish" with Windows Phone 7.5 ("Mango").

Why? First of all, do you really think Apple would've wanted to open that can of worms? Second, do you think that Apple would have even the slightest of a chance to win vs. MSFT in a case where MSFT would - simply put - just say: Were just doing what we've always been doing. Its the desktop, with a smaller screen. Jesus, F. Christ. :- )

That said, yes, Metro is original. It's not "the desktop", and i applaud them for that. Whether or not they'll succeed remains to be seen, but i am thankful for them trying something new. After all, some would argue that the desktop metaphor reached its limits a decade ago - and I'm, once more, inclined to agree.

(which does not, by any standards, mean that the desktop metaphor is bad, or passé, it just means that we've reached "the end of the road" so to speak. If we are to move further, we need something new.)

 

[AppleScruff1]

Snip:

You're right and on to something. Apple invited Eric and not the other way around. If Eric had asked to be on board, then we could conclude to spying, but since it's Apple that did the inviting, it's actually Apple that wanted to keep tabs on Google!


What the hell are you guys seeing that we're not seeing ? What part of Android "feels" or "looks" copied/influenced by iOS ? Android the software, not the hardware OEMs put out, what part of the Android Operating System did Eric Schmidt "steal" from Apple if ever he did such a thing ? Stop dodging the damn question.

Outstanding post. Very well stated. Unfortunately some here don't like facts.

 

[andrewlgm]

I wonder how well the iPod line would be doing if Creative had not decided to settle when apple stole their interface and file organization structure from the Zen line...

This is tech. What would steve do? Destroy Microsoft because Gates copied their interface? Destroy every company because they copied apple's first laptop? Have you people seen the new laptops out of every major maker? They are all copies of macbook pros and airs.

Android is going nowhere. It's going to surpass the iphone and if it doesn't - it's going to keep up really well with it in terms of innovation because they're going to keep copying forever!

 

[AaronEdwards]

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

Why am I repeating myself?

I guess because I'm amazed at the accusation you're making...

 

[zap2]

Android is going nowhere. It's going to surpass the iphone and if it doesn't - it's going to keep up really well with it in terms of innovation because they're going to keep copying forever!

I think for Jobs, the reason Google's copying of Android hurt so much was because Google and Apple were working together on the same team against Microsoft, RIM, Nokia and Palm.

Then Google took ideas from Apple and put them into Android. Google was working on Android pre-iPhone was made public, but Google had some inside info. Once the iPhone was made public, Apple's cards were on the table, and Google could use their ideas to guide Android's development track.

I'm not saying what Google did bothers me, but I'm also not saying it was right. However it did make for a better market place for consumers. I'd be consider what the market place would look like if Google hasn't licensed their software, so everyone had an Apple like software solution. Frankly Windows Mobile, BBOS and even Symbian device were lacking.

 

[D4F]

Really ?

https://market.android.com/details?...1bGwsMSwyLDEsImNvbS5hZG9iZS5mbGFzaHBsYXllciJd

Says right there there's 10,000,000-50,000,000 million installs. Are you saying there's 200,000,000 - 1,000,000,000 Android devices out there ?

EDIT: look at the rating on that thing, I thought Flash sucked on Android

Haha I love those posts yet none will get adressed correctly... they fade silently... Then a new argument will appear only to be abolished few seconds later and... off we go with something else ahaha.

Don't stress Knight. You're in a very iClouded Minds territory

 

[KnightWRX]

Then Google took ideas from Apple and put them into Android.

Everyone keeps saying that. No one ever says which ideas though.

 

[kdarling]

Well, Apple did make a clear break, like you say, as big as it could be done in the confines of this smartphone design. I don't think anyone would argue that they didn't change the smartphone industry.

Apple had the extreme advantage of having nothing to make a clear break from; no years of legacy phones for them to stay compatible with.

Of course, that has changed now. Just like manufacturers before them, they've become locked into their original UI paradigm that customers are used to, plus they have legacy low resolution screens to support for a while.

You are right that it's hard to escape once a paradigm matures, that's why Apple did an amazing job when they released a multitouch smartphone for the first time, when all smartphones used a physical keyboard and a mouse ball.

Apple deserves full credit for being the first to actually market a mass consumer finger friendly phone, along with apps that also took advantage of touch. However...

Millions of us were using touchscreen phones for at least a half decade before the iPhone (and touch PDAs for years before that). We had Google Maps, Slingplayer, web browsers and a choice of thousands of apps. What we didn't have, at least in the mass consumer space, was a UI that was totally geared towards fingers, on a screen large enough to handle it.

PS. Personally, I think that many other manufacturers went too far at first following Apple's fingers-only support. We're starting to see the backlash with more devices adding back fine pen capability as well. It's just too handy. Matter of fact, so are trackpads. It's a lot easier to scroll by making tiny movements that don't cover the screen you're looking at.

 

[samcraig]

Apple had the extreme advantage of having nothing to make a clear break from; no years of legacy phones for them to stay compatible with.

Of course, that has changed now. Just like manufacturers before them, they've become locked into their original UI paradigm that customers are used to, plus they have legacy low resolution screens to support for a while.



Apple deserves full credit for being the first to actually market a mass consumer finger friendly phone, along with apps that also took advantage of touch. However...

Millions of us were using touchscreen phones for at least a half decade before the iPhone (and touch PDAs for years before that). We had Google Maps, Slingplayer, web browsers and a choice of thousands of apps. What we didn't have, at least in the mass consumer space, was a UI that was totally geared towards fingers, on a screen large enough to handle it.

PS. Personally, I think that many other manufacturers went too far at first following Apple's fingers-only support. We're starting to see the backlash with more devices adding back fine pen capability as well. It's just too handy. Matter of fact, so are trackpads. It's a lot easier to scroll by making tiny movements that don't cover the screen you're looking at.

I have no idea why you are getting downvoted for providing unemotional and factual responses.

But if anything is certain on here - there are plenty of MR posters who have no regard for the honest truth or facts. And that is not only sad - but it becomes tiresome.

 

[rockrigo]

I wonder how many people have multiple accounts just to downrank these kinds of posts

 

[divinox]

I think for Jobs, the reason Google's copying of Android hurt so much was because Google and Apple were working together on the same team against Microsoft, RIM, Nokia and Palm.

Then Google took ideas from Apple and put them into Android. Google was working on Android pre-iPhone was made public, but Google had some inside info. Once the iPhone was made public, Apple's cards were on the table, and Google could use their ideas to guide Android's development track.

I'm not saying what Google did bothers me, but I'm also not saying it was right. However it did make for a better market place for consumers. I'd be consider what the market place would look like if Google hasn't licensed their software, so everyone had an Apple like software solution. Frankly Windows Mobile, BBOS and even Symbian device were lacking.

Thing is though, without Google we probably wouldn't have had an iPhone to begin with. Well, ok, they could've partnered with MSFT i guess. But still, Google was in many ways the killer app for the feature phone that was iPhone.

Jobs and his team knew this. Thats why they got Schmidt (literally) on board. They knew what they got themselves into, and if they shared any crucial info they obviously must've felt it was worth it - its not like Googles investment in Android was a secret. Also, they couldn't for a thought have thought that no one would follow in their tracks if they did indeed have a hit on their hands.

To be frank, i really don't get what the whining is all about. Seems a bit juvenile to me. Then again, i guess Jobs wasn't always the most mature of men.

----------

Everyone keeps saying that. No one ever says which ideas though.

Didn't you hear, its in the totality. Its impossible to pick anything out.

 

[Atlantico]

I wonder how many people have multiple accounts just to downrank these kinds of posts

Yeah, seem quite likely - since the torrent of downvoting appears only on specific posts; namely the posts that dispassionatly and reasonably point out the flaws in the arguments of the fantbois.

One fanboi creates five or six extra accounts and when he gets pissed off at one or two especially good points that completely bury said fanbois argument: boom.

Downvoted. A lot.

...... personally I've seen no evidence that Google has copied anything from Apple. Steve Jobs was just pissed off that Google also went into the "phone business" as he put it, because Apple didn't go into the "search engine business".

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/857406/

Which is a strange thing to say, since Google bought Android in 2005, so Steve must have been in quite a bubble if it surprised him that Google was going into the phone business... or perhaps he thought Google purchased tech companies for the same reason as Apple - to bury them and discontinue whatever they were working on.

 

[Savor]

Android couldn't technically be a "stolen product" if it the company existed in 2003 and bought by Google in 2005.

Jobs once pitted Fadell vs Fortsall in a bake-off. The two possibilities were a Linux-based operating system or a Mac OS X based one. Jobs expected the former to win. Didn't happen. He chose Scott's design.

Had Jobs chose Fadell's, Apple could have introduced Android before Android.