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

[divinox]

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.

The quote gets an extra dash of funniness now that Apple has launched Siri too. Siri is search. Apple has entered search. In fact, assuming they get their **** together, its probably the best stab that they could ever make. (going head to head quite simply is not happening).

 

[Simmerl]

For the last fours years, every Android user on these boards has been posting about Flash, Flash, Flash non-stop, no matter what the original discussion topic was.

Tell you what, I guess iPhone users don't give a flying toss about Flash because if they did, they would have bought an Android.

You can all stop telling me that I need Flash on my phone, because I clearly haven't missed it a single time in these last four years.

 

[D4F]

For the last fours years, every Android user on these boards has been posting about Flash, Flash, Flash non-stop, no matter what the original discussion topic was.

Tell you what, I guess iPhone users don't give a flying toss about Flash because if they did, they would have bought an Android.

You can all stop telling me that I need Flash on my phone, because I clearly haven't missed it a single time in these last four years.

Powerful you are if know you what others needs are...

 

[divinox]

Not necessarily. Apple is primarily a hardware company, while Google was mostly search. Perhaps Apple didn't see Google as a competitive threat, or perhaps they thought that by inviting Schmidt to the Board they would foster a working business relationship. It isn't odd to see Fortune 500 CEOs on boards of other Fortune 500 companies. It is a little odd if they are both in the same industry, but then again, until recently, Apple and Google didn't compete with each other. Recall that Google provided (and still provides) map and search data to Apple for the iPhone.

Remember, while Schmidt was on the Board, Google didn't actually release anything that was competitive to Apple. It wasn't until he left Apple's board that Google became aggressive at promoting Android. Rightly or wrongly, Jobs likely felt somewhat betrayed by Google's actions in being so aggressive with Android. iOS devices make up about 2/3 of Apple's revenue now, and Google is competing head on with them with Android smartphones and tablets.

Apple is primarily a software company. Google, while having its core in search, is too a software company. By the time Apple invited Schmidt Google had already bought Android. This was publicly known. They needed Google on board, because they needed googles services to have their killer app. Its really that simple.

p.s. its somewhat funny that the man would betray pretty much everyone without even blinking gets upset when others doesn't dump their multi-year investments just because Apple wants exclusivity. Then again, like stated, he wasn't always the most mature of men.

----------

Good job turning around and not addressing the content of my post. You stated something completely ludicrous, and I called you out on it. Your response? To call me a fanboy. Congrats. So what the hell does this mean:

Apple and steve jobs have been a part of the computer Technology But they isolate themselves From the rest of the developers.

Not only does it make no sense from an english/grammar perspective, but it's also verifiably untrue. iOS has the biggest dev community in the phone industry. That's a fact. Don't be all ass-hurt cause you said something wrong and untrue. Oh, and stop randomly capitalizing words in sentences.

...through serendipitous events, one might add. For example, developers were far from happy at the way they were treated at launch. God only knows how iOS would've evolved had pandoras box not been opened by the jail breaking community. While improperly stated, he has a point. Apple has never been known for treating developers well. On the contrary, its closer to the other way around. iOS has a vast community because bees are drawn to honey - and that holds even if there is some vinegar there to spoil the party.

addendum: bees drawn to honey? did i mess that one up, or is that one messed up by default?

 

[iBug2]

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!

Keeping tabs is quite vague. I think my formulation of the situation was more precise, if correct.


Second, I never said Eric joined the board to spy. I said Eric did have access to all kinds of information about iOS and iPhone. So whether he accepted the offer to spy on Apple, or not, he was nevertheless in a position to spy if he wanted. That's the point. You can only counter argue that, Eric was not influenced by what he saw and didn't use any of the ideas while developing the competitor. And if you argue that you gotta back it off, which would be impossible probably, because in case it's true, even Eric himself couldn't be sure whether he was influenced or not.

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 never said it doesn't. I said that Google argues in court that for any patents trademarks copyrights Android violates, Google is not responsible for it but the implementors. Again look at the court quotes I posted.

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).

And yet the quotes I posted were from the Oracle lawsuit, so Google actually did argue that they are not liable for any patent violations.

Again, the only way to counter argue to that is to claim that their lawyers are talking nonsense.

 

[iBug2]

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.

Stop dodging the answers then.

First of all nobody has judged Android apart from the hardware OEM's put out. Android as software doesn't mean anything to anyone. As long as it sits on an ftp server, it's just lines of code. When it starts making into the hands of users can people only see something. And we all have been talking about the implementation of Android for smartphones. So nobody is talking about other electrical appliances which use Android either.

And the point is quite clear. When you hold a Samsung or HTC phone and use it, the whole interaction with the phone, be it being multitouch, using the same gestures as the original iPhone, the dock in certain implementations, or the organization of icons, everything together, feels uncannily like an iPhone.

And yes, that part is subjective of course. Maybe you don't feel like that, but I do when I play with my friends Android phones.
And I'm not arguing that any of this is a patent violation. That's for courts and lawyers to deal with.

 

[macsmurf]

And yes, that part is subjective of course. Maybe you don't feel like that, but I do when I play with my friends Android phones.
And I'm not arguing that any of this is a patent violation. That's for courts and lawyers to deal with.

...So it's a feeling more than a rational argument. That's fair enough.

BTW, the most probable reason Apple aren't suing Google is because they don't think they can win.

 

[KnightWRX]

Not necessarily.

You missed the thick sarcasm. Google didn't aggressively start pushing Android when Apple shipped iPhone, they didn't even release anything for another close to 2 years after the first iPhone announcement.

And Google is not primarily a search company, they're a services company. Already in 2006 they had tons of online applications like you pointed out yourself. Some of these services competed with MobileMe even, so yes, they already were in competition on some fronts.

In the end, it's quite baseless to conclude as a fact that Eric was on Apple's board to copy iPhone. First he didn't need to, Google had 23 months between the release of the G1 and the announcement of the iPhone. Second, it was Apple who invited him, so it's not like he asked to be there just to spy on them like some pretend.

That was the whole point, to close down this idiotic discussion about Eric using his position on the board to spy on Apple.

----------

Keeping tabs is quite vague. I think my formulation of the situation was more precise, if correct.

Second, I never said Eric joined the board to spy. I said Eric did have access to all kinds of information about iOS and iPhone. So whether he accepted the offer to spy on Apple, or not, he was nevertheless in a position to spy if he wanted. That's the point. You can only counter argue that, Eric was not influenced by what he saw and didn't use any of the ideas while developing the competitor. And if you argue that you gotta back it off, which would be impossible probably, because in case it's true, even Eric himself couldn't be sure whether he was influenced or not.

But then, Eric is not an engineer, programmer or anything that actually does work on Android. If Andy Rubin sat on Apple's board, you might have a vague point with your indirect influence.

As it stands, you have no leg to stand on with this argument. It's just a way to make yourself somehow feel good about iOS vs Android in your chosen side (and why you feel the need to pick a side and argue for it is quite beyond me).

I never said it doesn't. I said that Google argues in court that for any patents trademarks copyrights Android violates, Google is not responsible for it but the implementors. Again look at the court quotes I posted.

And yet the quotes I posted were from the Oracle lawsuit, so Google actually did argue that they are not liable for any patent violations.

Again, the only way to counter argue to that is to claim that their lawyers are talking nonsense.

They are. Lawyers can claim anything they want in court papers, it doesn't mean it's true.

Anyway, is this going to be like everytime you argue a point ? You'll just run in circles until we give up ? Because that's what you're doing here... Constantly repeating the same debunked points. History debunks you, facts debunk you and all you have is the same opinion you keep trying to repeat as fact. Drop it, you have no point, you have an opinion. Stick to it if you want, but I find it quite a bit paranoid on the side (Eric stoles the preeeeeeecious! come on).

 

[iBug2]

...So it's a feeling more than a rational argument. That's fair enough.

BTW, the most probable reason Apple aren't suing Google is because they don't think they can win.

They are rational arguments ignited by feelings. Nothing I've written is irrational by any means of the word. But the fact that I'm sitting on this board talking about this stuff is due to my feelings about the topic, yes.

But rational arguments don't mean much either. Both sides can have rational arguments yet a verdict won't be reached, and that's because people have different feelings/opinions/attitudes about the subject to begin with.

 

[iBug2]

But then, Eric is not an engineer, programmer or anything that actually does work on Android. If Andy Rubin sat on Apple's board, you might have a vague point with your indirect influence.

As it stands, you have no leg to stand on with this argument.

Eric not being an engineer is irrelevant imho. The overall idea of what a smartphone should be, everything going into the basic design principles, how the marketplace should be etc, all the strategic decisions on iPhone and iOS are far more important than seeing the actual engineering process or having an understanding on that, but that's my opinion of course.

I have a leg in this argument as much as anyone opposing it. I can't prove Eric was not influenced as anyone else can't prove he wasn't. But yes, this is a good point for the ones arguing my side because of Eric's position in the whole thing. If you forget the whole debate, and pick two companies A and B and A's CEO was on B's board, and later on that B came up with a competitor to A, without knowing anything else, people would immediately think that the CEO did some spying. It's not really an artificial argument to think of.

(and why you feel the need to pick a side and argue for it is quite beyond me).

You have been arguing against me on this topic just as long. Think of the reasons you have been doing that, and most probably I have been doing it for the same reasons. Hence, it's really not beyond you.

They are. Lawyers can claim anything they want in court papers, it doesn't mean it's true.

Doesn't mean it's not true either. So I suppose we'll have to wait and see if their argument holds or not.

 

[macsmurf]

They are rational arguments ignited by feelings

It seems irrational to claim that Schmidt had exclusive access to information about the iPhone that was of any use to Google. It seems much more likely that someone as paranoid as Steve Jobs simply wouldn't talk to the board about the design - and why should he? The board are not designers.

Not to mention that you don't have a shred of evidence to back up your story.

You should be very suspicious of whether your arguments are actually rational when they are ignited by feelings and you don't have any concrete evidence suggesting you're right.

 

[iBug2]

Anyway, is this going to be like everytime you argue a point ? You'll just run in circles until we give up ? Because that's what you're doing here... Constantly repeating the same debunked points. History debunks you, facts debunk you and all you have is the same opinion you keep trying to repeat as fact. Drop it, you have no point, you have an opinion. Stick to it if you want, but I find it quite a bit paranoid on the side (Eric stoles the preeeeeeecious! come on).

You haven't debunked anything I said. You can't debunk opinions, and everything else I quoted were facts I quoted from various other sources. You can't debunk facts as long as they are true. And if they are not true, they were not my facts so I'm not being debunked in any case.

And you are sadly mistaken if I ever tried to veil my opinions as facts. I never ever do that.

Whether you think my opinions are paranoid is the most irrelevant thing ever. This is not a discussion about the nature of people's opinions in a psychiatry forum.

 

[KnightWRX]

Stop dodging the answers then.

First of all nobody has judged Android apart from the hardware OEM's put out. Android as software doesn't mean anything to anyone.

Well, aside from all the owners of Nexus phones, users of Cyanogen Mod ROMs and owners of Honeycomb tablets. Since all those are plain vanilla Android.

I guess they don't count uh ? Or maybe... just maybe, you don't exactly understand the Android eco-system ? That's cool too, I don't hang around Windows Phone 7 stuff, I don't know about it, I don't care about it, but I'm not going to sit here all day and claim X and Y about it. Why do you for Android if you don't know about it ?

As long as it sits on an ftp server, it's just lines of code. When it starts making into the hands of users can people only see something. And we all have been talking about the implementation of Android for smartphones. So nobody is talking about other electrical appliances which use Android either.

And for smartphones, I'm asking what you feel makes it a blatant rip-off of iOS. You say I dodge the answer, you managed to type 3 paragraphs without giving it...

Why ?

And the point is quite clear. When you hold a Samsung or HTC phone and use it, the whole interaction with the phone, be it being multitouch, using the same gestures as the original iPhone, the dock in certain implementations, or the organization of icons, everything together, feels uncannily like an iPhone.

What "feels" like the iPhone ? Just touching icons ? What about all previous phones that you touched icons on then ? Gestures ? You mean like clicking a mouse is a rip-off of Apple's mouse because you clicked a mouse on Apple hardware before you did on PC ?

Supporting a hardware device is copying now ? Android has support for multi-touch screens, that makes it a rip off of iOS ? That's your answer ? It also has support for hardware keyboards, keypads, capacitative buttons, etc... tons of stuff iOS doesn't support. When iOS starts supporting these, Android will become a copy ?

And yes, that part is subjective of course. Maybe you don't feel like that, but I do when I play with my friends Android phones.
And I'm not arguing that any of this is a patent violation. That's for courts and lawyers to deal with.

No, you're arguing it's blatant copying and a rip-off. Yet can't point to anything. I guess we know what you mean now : Multi-touch support, that's what Android "ripped off". So because Apple bought these shiny new multi-touch screens from some Asian part manufacturer, no one else is allowed to lest they be just a copycat.

All Linux WM are the same too I guess because you interact with all of them with mouses and keyboards ? Yeah, I can definately see the ressemblance between AfterStep and FVWM now.

I get it now, you don't have an answer. That's maybe because there is none. Android and iOS are as different as can be. You just feel because you can interact with both using a multi-touch screen, that makes them one and the same, and frankly, that just sounds like you're grasping for answer.

You say I dodge the answer, but you keep giving out this vague answer. I want precise details of what you think is copying. "A vague feeling because of using a multi-touch screen to interact with both" sure doesn't sound like "Blatant copying" and "a direct rip-off". Tone down the partisanship ?

----------

You haven't debunked anything I said. You can't debunk opinions

No, I can't debunk opinions, I can debunk however the way you state that opinion as a fact. That is what has been debunked here, you're constant positioning of your opinion as plain fact.

"Eric Schmidt stole from iOS"
"Android is a rip-off of iOS because of it"

etc.. etc...

I've debunked plenty of what you said simply because you keep stating your opinion as fact. You might not feel you do it, but that's the way your posts come off. If we just take your "opinion", it seems historical fact that Eric sat on Apple's board and took iOS ideas straight to Android.

----------

You have been arguing against me on this topic just as long.

The difference is I haven't picked a side. I'm arguing for objectivity. You keep siding with Apple and Steve. I don't give a hoot about Google and Eric. You just think I do because I'm arguing against you and you have picked a side. I'm on no one's side but the truth.

And frankly, your opinion is that, your opinion, it's not the truth. Get evidence to back it up before you state it as a fact.

 

[iBug2]

It seems irrational to claim that Schmidt had exclusive access to information about the iPhone that was of any use to Google. It seems much more likely that someone as paranoid as Steve Jobs simply wouldn't talk to the board about the design - and why should he? The board are not designers.

Not to mention that you don't have a shred of evidence to back up your story.

You should be very suspicious of whether your arguments are actually rational when they are ignited by feelings and you don't have any concrete evidence suggesting you're right.

Everyone's arguments are ignited by feelings. Hence, you can't judge an arguments rationality on that. The more feelings are involved the less rational they are, but that's not set in stone either. For example, the way I look at other people's arguments and try to judge the amount of emotions going into them is the use of profanity, mockery, etc. If someone is arguing using Ad hominem then he/she most certainly has emotional attachments to the topic as well. People arguing by purely rational motivations will mock or swear at anyone else. And that's almost everyone in this board. Just pick one user and look at all the previous posts, you'll most likely find lots of Ad hominem. Taken that into consideration, I suddenly seem one of the most rational posters in this board.

Also, I never "claimed" Eric was given specific exclusive access to iPhone and iOS. I only said he was in a position to be able to be given that information.

Claiming such a thing would not be irrational either though. It would still be a rational thing to claim given the reasons behind it, it just wouldn't be provable.

And you are right, given Jobs's policy of secrecy it's possible that Eric didn't know much about the details of iPhone or iOS. It's also possible he did.

Although, I think Eric should have resigned long before 2009 if only for avoiding any kind of accusations later on.

 

[KnightWRX]

Everyone's arguments are ignited by feelings.

Nope. My arguments are ignited by logic and objectivity. I don't feel anything towards Android, towards iOS, towards Apple or towards Google. Why do you feel the need to put emotional energy towards faceless corporations and their products ?

Although, I think Eric should have resigned long before 2009 if only for avoiding any kind of accusations later on.

Hindsight is always 20/20. I think Eric himself probably feels he should have just never accepted the board position. If I was paranoid myself, I'd say it was an elaborate trap set up by Steve and Apple to make any attempt by Google to enter the mobile market with Android as seen like they were copying and stealing from Apple.

But that wouldn't be quite rational now would it ?

 

[islanders]

I am not an Apple fanboy by any means. I tire of this simplistic opposition of Apple vs Google, or this equally tired idea that Apple isolates itself from developers, or that developers are the saviors of a tech company. No matter how talented your developers, the trick is to come up with products that customers want. AOL, RIM, MySpace, Nokia and other companies all had their day in the sun. Yahoo is faltering now. Netflix stumbled.

Consumers can be surprisingly fickle. Steve Jobs did an amazing job in not just anticipating consumer taste, but also in shaping it. Anybody, in any company, who can do that, has a good chance of succeeding.

Of course there's been a lot of speculation about apple after steve jobs. As far developers and how apple will go forward I wonder if they will keep a tight integration between their software and hardware. Android has a multitude of hardware developers and software developers. The hardware is already 2 limited on the iphone. The screen is too small. and depending on how much you invest in software you have to be very careful what platform you choose. As far as the community it has degraded with ifanboys who live with their mom and have a 200 dollar iphone bill every month.

Edit. I try to buy what is the best value to help bring down prices. Sent from my droid using voice commands

 

[Otaviano]

Apple is primarily a software company. Google, while having its core in search, is too a software company. By the time Apple invited Schmidt Google had already bought Android. This was publicly known. They needed Google on board, because they needed googles services to have their killer app. Its really that simple.

Sorry but Apple is primarily a hardware company, not a software company. They chose to maintain strict control of the software because it makes their hardware better. However to call Apple a software company is just way off base.

 

[KnightWRX]

Sorry but Apple is primarily a hardware company, not a software company. They chose to maintain strict control of the software because it makes their hardware better. However to call Apple a software company is just way off base.

Apple is a vertical systems integrator. They are both a software and hardware company. It's off base to call Apple either a hardware vendor or a software vendor only.

 

[iBug2]

No, you're arguing it's blatant copying and a rip-off. Yet can't point to anything. I guess we know what you mean now : Multi-touch support, that's what Android "ripped off". So because Apple bought these shiny new multi-touch screens from some Asian part manufacturer, no one else is allowed to lest they be just a copycat.

How have I not pointed out to anything? I keep pointing out to various points and you think that none of them justify copying. That's simply a difference of opinion. Yes I do think that using the same gestures on a multitouch screen to interact with your phone is a rip off. You don't. Fine.

All Linux WM are the same too I guess because you interact with all of them with mouses and keyboards ? Yeah, I can definately see the ressemblance between AfterStep and FVWM now.

When one of the major difference between the phones before iPhone and after iPhone is the way you interact with it, it holds more water than mouse on multiple Linux WM's.

I get it now, you don't have an answer. That's maybe because there is none.

There is one, you just don't think it's enough. Fine.

Android and iOS are as different as can be. You just feel because you can interact with both using a multi-touch screen, that makes them one and the same

I never said one and the same. But it makes them very similar in usage yes. Especially when you consider the gestures.

You say I dodge the answer, but you keep giving out this vague answer. I want precise details of what you think is copying. "A vague feeling because of using a multi-touch screen to interact with both" sure doesn't sound like "Blatant copying" and "a direct rip-off". Tone down the partisanship ?

Quote me when I said blatant copying. Tone down the misquotes?

A vague answer is still an answer. Are you looking for the type of answer which could be used in court to sue Google?

No, I can't debunk opinions, I can debunk however the way you state that opinion as a fact. That is what has been debunked here, you're constant positioning of your opinion as plain fact.

"Eric Schmidt stole from iOS"
"Android is a rip-off of iOS because of it"

etc.. etc...

Quote me saying those exact things where I stated them as fact.

You might not feel you do it, but that's the way your posts come off.

Possible, I'm not superman. I always re-read my posts and edit them before I post just to avoid this kind of things later on. But I'm certain that not all my posts come off that way, because if I miss some things on the way, it'll be the exception, not the rule.

If we just take your "opinion", it seems historical fact that Eric sat on Apple's board and took iOS ideas straight to Android.

Again, quote me stating for a fact that Eric stole. I kept saying over and over that Eric was in a position to steal if he wanted. I honestly don't remember stating as a fact that he stole.

The difference is I haven't picked a side. I'm arguing for objectivity. You keep siding with Apple and Steve. I don't give a hoot about Google and Eric. You just think I do because I'm arguing against you and you have picked a side.

You do give a hoot. People who don't give a hoot, even if something false is being argued, wouldn't delve into a discussion to correct it. They wouldn't even read such discussion to begin with.

I'm on no one's side but the truth.

No you are not. You have objected to quotations from Google lawyers claiming that they are talking nonsense. You are not a lawyer nor a judge. Nor you do have access to the entire court proceedings, yet this did not stop you from taking a side on a matter where you have limited information. And that's just one example.

 

[iBug2]

Nope. My arguments are ignited by logic and objectivity. I don't feel anything towards Android, towards iOS, towards Apple or towards Google. Why do you feel the need to put emotional energy towards faceless corporations and their products ?

Ok, this is something hilarious, I can't really let this one go.

Why do you think I feel the "need" to put emotional energy towards corporations and products?

Why the usage of the word "need"?

Actually, the simple observation is that I do put emotional energy towards corporations and products. That's the only information you have.

So if you simply ask "why do you put emotional energy towards corporations and products?", it's just an honest question.

But you add the word "need" to belittle me, to almost demote me to the level of junkies, which have a need for substance.

So the way you ask the question includes judgement. And judgements are not rational. So that question is not objective at all.

Edit: I obviously mean personality judgements when I say judgements are not rational. Court judgements can be rational sometimes I suppose.

 

[KnightWRX]

You do give a hoot. People who don't give a hoot, even if something false is being argued, wouldn't delve into a discussion to correct it. They wouldn't even read such discussion to begin with.

I don't give a hoot about Google and Android, I do however give a hoot about the following :

- Opinions stated fact
- Biased subjectivity presented as cold objectivity
- Steve being an ass about competition.

All reasons I am reading and responding to this thread. None that are partisans. If Steve had said "I'm going to destroy BlackBerry" or "I'm going to destroy webOS", I'd still be here, still arguing that no one is ripping off iOS and that the man was delusional about what IP he did or didn't own or invent.

Multi-touch gestures are not some kind of iOS exclusive and people using them are not copying or ripping off iOS. History is against anyone who claims otherwise, opinion or not.

And frankly, input mecanisms is quite the weak argument to go claiming the entirety of Android as a rip-off of iOS.

No you are not. You have objected to quotations from Google lawyers claiming that they are talking nonsense. You are not a lawyer nor a judge. Nor you do have access to the entire court proceedings, yet this did not stop you from taking a side on a matter where you have limited information. And that's just one example.

Yes, because frankly they make no sense. If Google writes the code that infringes on a patent and distributes said code, they are liable for the patent infringement, no matter what their license says. Licenses are not the word of law. The lawyers can argue all they want that it's the OEMs who are infringing, but if the feature belongs to code written by Google, they are inducing said infringement and could be sued.

The point is, Apple would have sued Google directly if they had something. All they have though is stuff they can sue the OEMs with. Look at the patents/trademarks used against the OEMs, all stuff that is subject only to OEM modification (the scroll behavior in Samsung's version of the picture gallery app, not something found on stock Android, the icon backgrounds Samsung added that Apple feels infringes on their trademarked icon designs, etc.. etc..).

Again, lawyers can argue whatever they want, that doesn't make it fact. You can't therefor state as fact what you did. All I'm arguing here. I don't think they are right, courts will decide it, but something is darn sure : You have no facts here and the clauses you point to as a "negative" against Android are the same in every software vendor's licenses, including Apple's. So hardly a "negative" when it's just industry boiler-plate.

But you add the word "need" to belittle me, to almost demote me to the level of junkies, which have a need for substance.

That's your subjective opinion of my post. I did not use the word need for that. I used the word need because you keep coming back and arguing in circles for things that have been debunked, trying to rephrase them to make them seem like new arguments.

Sounds irrational to me. And with irrationality comes a sort of "need". Anyone who felt no "need" to be emotionally attached would have quite long ago. Like I should have. It's always like this with you. You will argue for pages and pages about nothing and inconsequential points (Eric stoles the precious!).

I guess I should just ignore you from now on. It doesn't seem like you ever contribute anything constructive, only subjective, veiled opinions that are pro-Whatever-Steve-Said-Today.

 

[iBug2]

I don't give a hoot about Google and Android, I do however give a hoot about the following :

- Opinions stated fact
- Biased subjectivity presented as cold objectivity
- Steve being an ass about competition.

All reasons I am reading and responding to this thread. None that are partisans. If Steve had said "I'm going to destroy BlackBerry" or "I'm going to destroy webOS", I'd still be here, still arguing that no one is ripping off iOS and that the man was delusional about what IP he did or didn't own or invent.

All those reasons you listed are subjective reasons. You are against opinions stated as fact, so am I. But that's not a rational reason. It's purely subjective. It's about how you feel about the topic. There's no law saying "you should look out for opinions stated as facts". So you do it, or I do it because it irks me when that's done. Purely subjective.

- Biased subjectivity presented as cold objectivity (Same thing as above)

- Steve being an ass about competition. The wording makes it subjective, again. You think Steve is an ass, meaning you are judging Steve's behavior as a person. This is not an objective judgement because Steve was not indicted in any court of law for being an ass. It's the way you "feel" about people who act like Steve does. And I agree with Steve, again, because I think I'd have acted the way he did given the same situation. It's always possible that the situation as has been told to us by PR is purely distorted and maybe Steve didn't really feel that way, but only acted that way for marketing purposes. That's not for me to know. I can only try and see how I acted were I in his shoes, having the information I've been given.

Multi-touch gestures are not some kind of iOS exclusive and people using them are not copying or ripping off iOS. History is against anyone who claims otherwise, opinion or not.

Sorry but doesn't Apple actually own patents to some of the Multitouch gestures? Isn't that the reason they bought Fingerworks? To own their patents on the gestures?

And frankly, input mecanisms is quite the weak argument to go claiming the entirety of Android as a rip-off of iOS.

Again, wording. Input mechanism is not just a weak argument but a crazy one to claim the entirety of Android was a rip off. But it's a decent argument to claim that part of it was one, imho.

Yes, because frankly they make no sense. If Google writes the code that infringes on a patent and distributes said code, they are liable for the patent infringement, no matter what their license says. Licenses are not the word of law. The lawyers can argue all they want that it's the OEMs who are infringing, but if the feature belongs to code written by Google, they are inducing said infringement and could be sued.

The point is, Apple would have sued Google directly if they had something. All they have though is stuff they can sue the OEMs with. Look at the patents/trademarks used against the OEMs, all stuff that is subject only to OEM modification (the scroll behavior in Samsung's version of the picture gallery app, not something found on stock Android, the icon backgrounds Samsung added that Apple feels infringes on their trademarked icon designs, etc.. etc..).

Again, lawyers can argue whatever they want, that doesn't make it fact. You can't therefor state as fact what you did. All I'm arguing here. I don't think they are right, courts will decide it, but something is darn sure : You have no facts here and the clauses you point to as a "negative" against Android are the same in every software vendor's licenses, including Apple's. So hardly a "negative" when it's just industry boiler-plate.

I asked you if they are talking nonsense, and you said "Yes". You didn't say "I think so". So the way you stated it was like fact that they are arguing nonsense. Which may be true, but you are in no position to know, or maybe you do if you have insights into haw the law works on that matter.

And I agree with you on that. It doesn't make sense to me either. If you infringe on some patents, you should be liable whether you implemented them or not. But that's my logic talking. The law may be different than what I think it should be.

 

[iBug2]

That's your subjective opinion of my post. I did not use the word need for that. I used the word need because you keep coming back and arguing in circles for things that have been debunked, trying to rephrase them to make them seem like new arguments.

Of course it's my subjective opinion of your post. What other type of "opinions" can I have? But you are again being totally subjective. You have not debunked anything. You are stating it like a fact, like we are in a court of law and someone actually ruled against me. This did not happen. That's just an illusion. You can't prove you have debunked something unless I state something where you have actual proof that what I stated in incorrect. That did not happen in this discussion. I'm not trying to rephrase anything to make them seem like new arguments. That's your subjective opinion of my posts. You are finding motives which I may not have, they are purely illusory.
What I have been saying has not changed simply because I have not changed my opinion on the subject during these 42 pages. Do you think that I should have changed my opinion long ago because you disagreed with me?

Sounds irrational to me. And with irrationality comes a sort of "need". Anyone who felt no "need" to be emotionally attached would have quite long ago. Like I should have.

It's again the same irrational argument. How do you figure with irrationality comes a sort of need? Can you quote on some literature on that? I'm simply asking because even though I'm not a psychology major, I have had a keen interest in psychology so it's what I read in my free time, and never have I seen such a claim in a textbook.

I'm reformulating your sentences without the use of word need.
"Anyone who was not emotionally attached would have quit long ago."

And I agree with this. I have not quit, in fact I delved into this discussion to begin with, because I was emotionally attached to this debate.

But I disagree with the need part. I don't think I feel a need to do this.

It's always like this with you. You will argue for pages and pages about nothing and inconsequential points (Eric stoles the precious!).

You are right about one thing. I do argue pages and pages about inconsequential points But that's something I like to do, which isn't against the law or ethics. I like to pick on small details and argue against them. And I feel like most discussions are about them anyway. To argue the big picture would require too much information which people are not privy to in the tech business. So I pick a small part which I feel can be argued more or less and dwell on it. But that's not a rule or anything. I do it from time to time, not necessarily always.

Although here comes the belittling again with Eric stole the precious. The precious was something Gollum needed and without it, he couldn't exist. It's again the same irrational claim. Simple emotional attachment and Gollum's attachment are things entirely different. That's why Frodo was able to give it up, but Gollum couldn't. It was a moral of the book.

----------

I guess I should just ignore you from now on. It doesn't seem like you ever contribute anything constructive, only subjective, veiled opinions that are pro-Whatever-Steve-Said-Today.

Really? I can remember just 2 weeks ago you and me both argued against people who claimed that the next iPhone should be named iPhone 5. And we had the exact same arguments. So if I never contribute anything constructive, only subjective veiled opinions, then that means whenever you agreed with me in the past, you did the same thing?

Not to mention I have argued against Apple's/Steve's decisions countless times since I joined this forum in 2005. Although I must say that the times I agree with Apple have been more numerous though.

 

[KnightWRX]

Really? I can remember just 2 weeks ago you and me both argued against people who claimed that the next iPhone should be named iPhone 5. And we had the exact same arguments. So if I never contribute anything constructive, only subjective veiled opinions, then that means whenever you agreed with me in the past, you did the same thing?

Yes, the difference is I can be objective when it is required. When discussing things like "What do you think the next iPhone should be called", objectivity need not really apply. Sure you can back your opinion with facts (generational naming, release calendars, etc.. etc..) but the plain fact is the discussion is doomed to subjectivity from the beginning because frankly, Apple could call it whatever the heck they feel like and there's nothing much we can do about it (there's just no logic behind marketing, hence the 4S we got).

Not so with a discussion about "Android is a direct rip-off of iOS".

 

[samcraig]

I said Eric did have access to all kinds of information about iOS and iPhone. So whether he accepted the offer to spy on Apple, or not, he was nevertheless in a position to spy if he wanted.

You honestly have no idea what Eric did or did not have access to. You have no idea what his arrangement with Apple and Google was. You have no idea of what the actual timeline of events is. So really - everything you suppose is moot. End of story.