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

[iBug2]

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".

I disagree. I think rip off arguments are subjective as well. The objective rip off arguments are used in courts for patent infringement suits. We are not in court nor we are blaming anyone for infringing on patents in a discussion board. So any rip off argument which is debated in an internet board is doomed to be subjective. Some people will feel like it's a ripoff and others won't. And nobody has made any legal claims on the issue yet hence I don't see any problems. And nobody is required to side with the law on this either, i.e. Apple may sue Google for infringement, and the judge may rule against Apple, yet people may still think that Apple has been ripped off.

What about plagiarism charges in music industry for example? Most of them don't go to court because they have no case but artists have blamed each other countless times for plagiarism. Should they stop doing that unless they have a case? Or can there be plagiarism without there being enough evidence to support a case? I think the issue here, as always, goes much deeper than what could be discussed purely objectively.

----------

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.

Partly correct.

The correct part: I have no idea what Eric did or did not have access to or the arrangement with Apple and Google.

Incorrect part: I know the actual timeline of events which I quoted. I know when Eric joined the board, I know when iPhone was released, I know when Android has been bought by Google and when it was released.

I also assume that being in a board of a company does supply you with information you otherwise wouldn't have access to. If you claim that Eric does know as much as he would if he wasn't on Apple's board, I find that absurd at best.

Also, everything I suppose is not moot. Remove all suppositions and opinions from this thread and you have a single page of quotations from google searches. Which is ironic in a sense though

 

[samcraig]

[/COLOR]

Partly correct.

The correct part: I have no idea what Eric did or did not have access to or the arrangement with Apple and Google.

Incorrect part: I know the actual timeline of events which I quoted. I know when Eric joined the board, I know when iPhone was released, I know when Android has been bought by Google and when it was released.

I also assume that being in a board of a company does supply you with information you otherwise wouldn't have access to. If you claim that Eric does know as much as he would if he wasn't on Apple's board, I find that absurd at best.

Also, everything I suppose is not moot. Remove all suppositions and opinions from this thread and you have a single page of quotations from google searches. Which is ironic in a sense though

Actually you don't know the timeline of events. You only know what's been made public.

And then you go on to "assume" after that - so again - everything is moot because you are making assumptions based on incomplete data. Which is not only moot - it's technically irresponsible.

Again - the facts is - no one here knows or is qualified to determine the course of events. There's the old expression that there are (at least) three sides to every story - what he said - what the other person said and then truth.

You can keep arguing how you "could" make suppositions and this or that - but at the end of the day - it's all conjecture. So it's moot.

 

[vitzr]

His passion is so inspiring, really.

Passion? Surely you jest...

There are far more accurate descriptors, other than passion.

This was a man, desperate in his waning years, out on a seek & destroy mission, not unlike that other dictator who came to his demise in recent days.

Passion? Far from it, yet the word is appropriate in the context in which he amassed his riches under the cloak of deception known as his $1 annual salary.

A farce his supporters fell for hook line & sinker.

 

[iBug2]

Actually you don't know the timeline of events. You only know what's been made public.

And then you go on to "assume" after that - so again - everything is moot because you are making assumptions based on incomplete data. Which is not only moot - it's technically irresponsible.

Again - the facts is - no one here knows or is qualified to determine the course of events. There's the old expression that there are (at least) three sides to every story - what he said - what the other person said and then truth.

You can keep arguing how you "could" make suppositions and this or that - but at the end of the day - it's all conjecture. So it's moot.

Ok I agree with that it's all conjecture. Obviously I, like everyone else, can only know what's been made public. But according to you, we shouldn't ever discuss anything at all unless we have access to all the facts on the matter. When does something like that ever happen? Especially in tech industry of all things...

I'm gonna try to explain why I don't think this is all moot, by giving examples from various areas:

Take the law. It is a legal strategy for the defense to throw out possible conjectures to simply state "here's what else could have happened". None of those conjectures may hold much water, yet it still puts different possibilities on the table. And it helps to win cases sometimes.

Take positive science, the most objective arena except mathematics. After getting the results to an experiment experimenters discuss the possible interpretations. And all those interpretations are conjectures at that point. To validate them further they take them one by one and try to disprove them by further experiments. The one conjecture which can withstand the most numerous experiments "wins", in a sense of the word, and becomes a theory.

Take medicine. Doctors do differential diagnosis. Which basically means throw out all conjectures which fit the symptoms. And then test further which one of them is the correct one.

What I'm trying to say is, stating conjectures (suppositions) isn't a moot thing. It just shows different sides to the story. Given the exact same data, different people come up with different conjectures. And each of them will be biased unless someone has access to everything, which is equivalent to having access to the solution.

And here everyone is doing the exact same thing. I look at the data I've been given. I subjectively think that Samsung or HTC did rip Apple off, so my judgement is not purely against Android but it's implementation by 3rd party vendors from the start and I don't care which part of that rip off is Google's responsibility and which part the vendors. I only judge the final product.

Then I look at the fact that Google CEO was on the board of Apple during the development of Android and the iPhone, and I suppose subjectively that he could have used his position to his advantage. I don't think this is an outrageous/crazy assumption either.
This doesn't conflict with other people's assumption that Apple could have used Eric's position to their advantage either. And I think that it should have been both happening at the same time because neither Jobs nor Eric are stupid. Yet I don't think Apple's advantage for having Eric on board was to spy on Android, but it was a completely different type of advantage, like using Google's services exclusively for their phone to make it better.

 

[divinox]

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.

Apples core competence is in software. Granted, they rely on vertical integration to really make their software pop - but don't be mistaken. Software is king. Heck, Jobs said it himself, several times too.

Thus, you're reasoning is turned up side down. They choose to maintain strict control of the hardware because it makes their software better. After all, when Apple licensed their core competence out back in the days, they did not license out the hardware. They licensed out OS X. And if they were to license out "the iPhone", it surely would be iOS not the physical device itself.

Then, of course, as KnightWRX put it, they're an integrator. Doesn't change whats said above though. Software is at the core. Hardware is the prism that allows it to shine.

 

[samcraig]

Ok I agree with that it's all conjecture. I don't agree that it's moot. Obviously I, like everyone else, can only know what's been made public. But according to you, we shouldn't ever discuss anything at all unless we have access to all the facts on the matter. When does something like that ever happen?

No - like other that have pointed out - I am all for discussion as long as people realize they are stating opinions and not facts. The problem is - most people are stating their opinions as if they were facts. I might be arguing semantics. Maybe people just are so accustomed to leaving out the words "I think" or "In my opinion" or "Personally..." But they go a long way when having these discussions.

Again - too many people state things as facts which are are not. IE - Android is stolen from iOS. Or Android's UI is not as good as iOS. Not only aren't these facts - but they are clearly subjective opinions which 9 times out of ten are rooted in blind fanaticism for which ever company one seems "loyal" to.

Personally - I am technologically agnostic. The right tool for the right job. I also understand and fully accept that my use case is MY use case and not everyone else's. My experiences are my experiences and others may differ.

Too often on these boards - people are egocentric and think/believe that what they know and experience can be applied to everyone in the world.

As I said earlier. It gets tiresome.

 

[iBug2]

No - like other that have pointed out - I am all for discussion as long as people realize they are stating opinions and not facts. The problem is - most people are stating their opinions as if they were facts. I might be arguing semantics. Maybe people just are so accustomed to leaving out the words "I think" or "In my opinion" or "Personally..." But they go a long way when having these discussions.

Yes but I'm not one of those people, or at least I don't think I'm one of those people. Like I said before, every time I post something, I check and re check the post to make sure I never stated my opinion as fact. It's always possible that I forget to add "imho" "I think" "I feel like" etc, but it's never my aim to deliberately mislead people. This is one point I feel very strongly about and you can check all my previous posts for it on any topic here.

Personally - I am technologically agnostic. The right tool for the right job.

I'm not. I strongly feel like Apple should exist and never go down. I don't feel like it because I don't think anyone else can produce the right tools for the job. They are doing it right now with Android for example. But Apple to me stands for an entirely different principle, which no other company seems to share, which in a way makes Apple unique in tech world, and that is the attention to detail in design and simplicity in usage. I don't think there are any laptops which look as amazing as a MacBook Air or any phones which look as classy as the iPhone 4.

I also don't think Windows is as easy to use as OS X or as elegant, I have used both for a long time. Can't say anything about Linux though.

And I feel like, if Apple were to go down, none of the remaining companies would fill Apple's shoes, because they don't seem to care about those two principles as much as Apple does. Surely we'd be able to continue the work we have been doing using their products, but that's not the same thing.

And I'm not thinking about the inconvenience to relearn the ropes even. That's much less important.

Too often on these boards - people are egocentric and think/believe that what they know and experience can be applied to everyone in the world.

As I said earlier. It gets tiresome.

Indeed, but it's equally wrong to say that experience, opinions, suppositions don't mean anything and have no place in a discussion. As long as they are stated as such, I think they are as important as the facts people quote.

 

[KnightWRX]

I'm not. I strongly feel like Apple should exist and never go down.

Really ? I feel that if Apple ever makes a product that I don't like, I won't buy it. I also feel that if down the road they stop making useful products, I will switch away from their offerings without blinking.

I'm technological agnostic in that I use whatever I think is best. In some cases, this is Apple right now. In some others, Apple is far down the list (not all the products are useful or well thought for my needs).

Every company has a right to exist and every company needs to work at never going down. None deserve a free ride and no consumer should ever be blind to the reality that every company can fail at times or all together at some point.

----------

Indeed, but it's equally wrong to say that experience, opinions, suppositions don't mean anything and have no place in a discussion. As long as they are stated as such, I think they are as important as the facts people quote.

They have no place if they are simply slander and libel (depending on if said or written). What you keep doing is libel against Eric Schmidt.

 

[samcraig]

I'm not. I strongly feel like Apple should exist and never go down. I don't feel like it because I don't think anyone else can produce the right tools for the job. They are doing it right now with Android for example. But Apple to me stands for an entirely different principle, which no other company seems to share, which in a way makes Apple unique in tech world, and that is the attention to detail in design and simplicity in usage. I don't think there are any laptops which look as amazing as a MacBook Air or any phones which look as classy as the iPhone 4.

And I feel like, if Apple were to go down, none of the remaining companies would fill Apple's shoes, because they don't seem to care about those two principles as much as Apple does. Surely we'd be able to continue the work we have been doing using their products, but that's not the same thing.

And I'm not thinking about the inconvenience to relearn the ropes even. That's much less important.

I'm not sure if you misunderstood what I wrote or not. So I'll rephrase. I think that competition is good and healthy. I think that different strokes for different folks. I don't wish Apple to fail. I don't wish Amazon, Google, etc to fail either. It's not personal to me. And if Apple is your brand of choice - great. I happen to be all Apple myself at home and at work (well at work I have VMFusion and use Windows as well). I enjoy the Apple experience - but I never had issues with the Windows experience either. Both are good platforms and serve their purposes.

Again - I don't make technology "personal." I don't believe for Apple to succeed others must fail. I don't think that Flash must die because Apple says no one needs Flash. And so on. As long as we have CHOCIES - everyone wins.

I don't like the idea of monopolies. And unfortunately - many posters here would sincerely like Apple to "rule them all" being the only portal for entertainment and technology.

No thanks.

 

[kdarling]

Yeah, it sucked for the people at PARC to have received millions in Apple stock ...

Xerox was not given any stock. They got the right to buy 100,000 shares of pre-IPO Apple stock. Xerox paid $1.5 million for those shares in August 1979. It went public in late 1980, split, and they sold 800,000 shares in Oct 1981 for $6,776,000, for a relatively meager profit of ~$5.2 million. They should've held onto it.

...in exchange for patent rights for their unused and incomplete GUI.

Xerox did not give away any patent rights. They say they licensed Apple to create a single device, the Lisa. Apple later claimed that anything done after that belonged to them, not Xerox, which is what caused Xerox to sue them.

"In November of 1979, Steven Jobs, then-president of Apple, visited PARC with other Apple employees for a demonstration of Smalltalk. On June 9, 1981, Xerox granted Apple a license pursuant to which Apple agreed to "participate in a project with the Learning Research Group at PARC/Xerox for the purpose of implementing the Smalltalk-80 language and system on a hardware system to be developed by [Apple]." Shortly thereafter, Apple began developing its "Lisa" computer for use with Smalltalk. " - Xerox v Apple lawsuit, 1990

 

[singlestick]

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

Speculation is a pointless exercise in trying to read the future. Nobody knows what will happen at Apple down the road. It's funny, I listened to a number of tech podcasts about this, and in the end, all of the tech "experts" were indulging in fantasies about how they would run Apple.

The screen may be too small, or competing devices may be getting too large to hold comfortably in the hand. It all comes down to consumer preference.

Nothing you do as a single consumer brings down prices. It's all about aggregate demand. And even here, it is inconsistent. Verizon, AT&T, and other carriers do all they can to keep their charges high, despite the increasing numbers of users.

The notion of a "tech community" is overblown, as is your comment about Ifanboys. But some people need to look at things from the prism of an immature school kid.

 

[iBug2]

Really ? I feel that if Apple ever makes a product that I don't like, I won't buy it. I also feel that if down the road they stop making useful products, I will switch away from their offerings without blinking.

I'm technological agnostic in that I use whatever I think is best. In some cases, this is Apple right now. In some others, Apple is far down the list (not all the products are useful or well thought for my needs).

And I agree 100% and I feel like Apple never should go down. Those two things are not contradictory. Quote further down what you have quoted for the reasons. I can't be more clear than that.

I also don't buy everything Apple makes. I haven't bought an iPad, nor am I planning to in the future. Same with Apple TV or most of the software they offer.

Every company has a right to exist and every company needs to work at never going down. None deserve a free ride and no consumer should ever be blind to the reality that every company can fail at times or all together at some point.

I never implied that Apple should be given a free ride. The fact that I don't want Apple to go down doesn't mean they shouldn't work on it. How do you even get that from what I said?

They have no place if they are simply slander and libel (depending on if said or written). What you keep doing is libel against Eric Schmidt.

No.

Nothing I have said about Schmidt could have been categorized as libel.

Libel:

A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

Slander:

the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation

So for libel/slander to happen, I had to accuse Eric for stealing and then someone had to prove that what I claimed was false.

I'm neither accusing him for stealing, I'm simply stating the fact that he could have stolen due to his position, nor is anyone proving me that he didn't steal.

So none of the two requirements for libel/slander are existent here.

 

[MacAddict1978]

I'd love to see your facts. I've had iPhones and Android phones. My current Android phone outlasts an iPhone, even with the mysterious power of flash to drain the battery. I've seen other phones that wouldn't last as long.

Either way, you're speaking in hyperbole. Accusing me of whatever nefarious plan you think I have cooked up because I would dare take an objective look at something -- it's pretty amusing, cheers on that.

Still waiting on what exactly makes Android a direct ripoff of iOS. If your idea of ripoff means "has multiple pages of icons you can click on a touchscreen", then I guess you're right. If you've ever done anything beyond that on either Android or iOS, it would be tough to stand on that argument without coming off as either dense or heavily biased.

Still waiting? Okay Mr. Too lazy to research, where do we start?

1. IOS was first proposed to be Linux based, but then they decided to make a stripped down version of OSX. The Apple brewed concept of how to re-tool Linux into a phone OS is IDENTICAL to what Google did.... and.... Google magically hired people from Apple who had been on that project.
2. Eric Scmidt Also had inside knowledge
3. It isn't technically correct to call Android identical... I mean, it is a different OS. No one would say that IOS is that awful insult to an OS. Anroid is more like an OS on an OS which it what makes it clunky, however, all the interface concepts, frameworks, APIS, etc. were totally ripped off.
4. Android was a half baked idea that went from concept to production extremely fast... a feat not possible without having had ripped off Apple. If they'd started from scratch, Android wouldn't have hit the market for at least another two years. They were courting hardware partners before they even had a working version of the software. Things that make you go hmmm.

Apple was not first to market with a smart phone, or even a touch screen. Technically, they didn't invent multi-touch, but they did buy Fingerworks, the company who did so they yes, owned that tech. Tell me how Google, a software company (if you can even call them that really) managed to come up with all the under the hood tech that drives Android devices that fast without copying?

They bloody hired people from Apple with insider knowledge, and had their CEO on Apple's board.

 

[iBug2]

I'm not sure if you misunderstood what I wrote or not. So I'll rephrase. I think that competition is good and healthy. I think that different strokes for different folks. I don't wish Apple to fail. I don't wish Amazon, Google, etc to fail either. It's not personal to me. And if Apple is your brand of choice - great. I happen to be all Apple myself at home and at work (well at work I have VMFusion and use Windows as well). I enjoy the Apple experience - but I never had issues with the Windows experience either. Both are good platforms and serve their purposes.

Again - I don't make technology "personal." I don't believe for Apple to succeed others must fail. I don't think that Flash must die because Apple says no one needs Flash. And so on. As long as we have CHOCIES - everyone wins.

I don't like the idea of monopolies. And unfortunately - many posters here would sincerely like Apple to "rule them all" being the only portal for entertainment and technology.

No thanks.

I don't wish Google to fail either, or Amazon, both are companies I absolutely love. Again, love. I'm emotionally attached to companies, products, etc. Many of them.

I also don't think for Apple to succeed others must fail. History has shown us that. Then again, it's possible that in long term, maybe they have to fail for Apple to succeed. Competition doesn't have to go forever. Somewhere along the road someone might just lose.

I think Flash must die (or at least every single Flash website should have a non-flash alternative). I have hated flash right from the start, years before iPhone existed. Any time I hit a flash website, my experience was much slower, it could crash the browser or simply stall (that can be due to the implementation of it on Mac OS but that was my experience).

Flash was for me, always, a hindrance to get to the information I want from that website. So whenever there was a html alternative I always chose to browse that.

Can't say the same about flash games though, I have played some really fun ones on the road. But that's another story.

But in any case, I'd be happier if web was free of anything that slows it down.

I don't like monopolies either. I don't want Apple to rule them all. I never even thought about such a thing probably. On the contrary I'm constantly fearing that Apple will eventually go down, because it happened before and I witnessed it since I was an Apple user starting 1987. So it's perfectly natural for me to fear that it might happen again.

 

[rockrigo]

sometimes I feel like I somehow found my way onto a Fox News forum

 

[benthewraith]

Wow, girl. You needs to do some research.

Oh wait, I'm sure you somehow always wind up with the magical Android phones that magically never have any of the battery problems that the rest of them do. Yeah, that's gotta be it. It couldn't possibly be that you're full of crap and trying to convince people to ignore the facts.

Somehow I think it's you who's full of crap.

 

[KnightWRX]

No.

Nothing I have said about Schmidt could have been categorized as libel.

Libel:

A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

Slander:

the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation

So for libel/slander to happen, I had to accuse Eric for stealing and then someone had to prove that what I claimed was false.

I'm neither accusing him for stealing, I'm simply stating the fact that he could have stolen due to his position, nor is anyone proving me that he didn't steal.

So none of the two requirements for libel/slander are existent here.

So because you're only "hinting" at it without evidence and saying that's just your opinion, that makes it ok ?

Until you have proof that it did happen, it didn't. Nothing in Android even suggest Eric took ideas from Apple. Thus your statement that he did is false. Hence, no matter your opinion, your repeated attacks against his integrity are libel.

That's my opinion of it. You are the one that actually has to live with it.

 

[jcrewhunk]

Book Release Midnight! Cheapest Place to Buy is . . .

Steve Jobs book comes out at midnight i found the cheapest to be Amazon:

Here is the Link

 

[iBug2]

So because you're only "hinting" at it without evidence and saying that's just your opinion, that makes it ok ?

Until you have proof that it did happen, it didn't. Nothing in Android even suggest Eric took ideas from Apple. Thus your statement that he did is false.

If I actually stated such thing, it still wouldn't be false until someone proves that it is. And I never stated that he did steal. There's a difference between an accusation and libel. An accusation can be true/false. A libel is only when the accusation is shown/known to be false. And I keep saying that I never stated it as an actual accusation.

Hence, no matter your opinion, your repeated attacks against his integrity are libel.

No they are not libel. I already quoted the meaning of libel and what I have been doing don't fit the meaning of the word. And that part is not opinion, it's just looking at the meaning of the word.

That's my opinion of it. You are the one that actually has to live with it.

You sound like it's something of a burden on my conscience. But if I actually falsely accused the man, and that accusation actually caused a defamation, that would hurt me personally. I'm not a psychopath after all.

 

[KnightWRX]

1. IOS was first proposed to be Linux based, but then they decided to make a stripped down version of OSX. The Apple brewed concept of how to re-tool Linux into a phone OS is IDENTICAL to what Google did.... and.... Google magically hired people from Apple who had been on that project.

Citation needed.

And.. what about Meego/Maemo and OpenMoko then ? Are they to concepts taken from Apple's work ?

2. Eric Scmidt Also had inside knowledge

Citation needed.

3. It isn't technically correct to call Android identical... I mean, it is a different OS. No one would say that IOS is that awful insult to an OS. Anroid is more like an OS on an OS which it what makes it clunky, however, all the interface concepts, frameworks, APIS, etc. were totally ripped off.

Which frameworks ? Which interface concepts ? Which APIs ?

4. Android was a half baked idea that went from concept to production extremely fast... a feat not possible without having had ripped off Apple. If they'd started from scratch, Android wouldn't have hit the market for at least another two years. They were courting hardware partners before they even had a working version of the software. Things that make you go hmmm.

What do you mean by extremely fast ? It took 5 years from Andy founding Android Inc. to market. Andy worked on embedded software for mobile devices from 1999 with Danger Inc. to a shipping phone in 2002 (T-mobile sidekick) before even touching Android.

What was ripped off from Apple ? Again :

Citation needed.

Apple was not first to market with a smart phone, or even a touch screen. Technically, they didn't invent multi-touch, but they did buy Fingerworks, the company who did so they yes, owned that tech.

Fingerworks invented multi-touch ? Citation needed.

Tell me how Google, a software company (if you can even call them that really) managed to come up with all the under the hood tech that drives Android devices that fast without copying?

By buying a startup by a man who had worked on all that tech since 1999 ? Andy Rubin. That's the man behind Android, with experience in mobile tech and phones going back to 1999 as documented by his startup : Danger Inc.

They bloody hired people from Apple with insider knowledge, and had their CEO on Apple's board.

No, again, other way around, Apple had Google's CEO on their board. They invited him. He didn't ask to be there.

iBug2 : This is exactly what we're talking about. Posts like these. Yours might be more nuanced, but you come off the same as this guy : someone with vague knowledge of the true history/facts behind Android, but that makes assumptions and subjective statements that in the end are defamatory towards Google, their project and their old CEO.

----------

If I actually stated such thing, it still wouldn't be false until someone proves that it is

Sorry, not the way it works. You make an assertion, burden of proof is on you.

And since it's bloody impossible to prove a negative, no one here can provide proof that "Eric did not steal ideas". It's up to you to prove that he did if you want to make the accusation, even if only "hinting" at it.

 

[iBug2]

iBug2 : This is exactly what we're talking about. Posts like these. Yours might be more nuanced, but you come off the same as this guy : someone with vague knowledge of the true history/facts behind Android, but that makes assumptions and subjective statements that in the end are defamatory towards Google, their project and their old CEO.

Sorry but I tend to think I'm a bit more than 'nuanced' compared to this post. If I come off the same as this guy, that's about you more than me, I think. I do everything I can to not sound like that post.

Sorry, not the way it works. You make an assertion, burden of proof is on you.

Depends on the country you are in. In USA you are right, in UK you are wrong. For example in USA if someone makes an accusation about a misrepresentation of facts, he has to prove that the other party actually did that. But in UK if I claim that you misrepresented some facts about me, you have to prove that you didn't. I obviously don't know which one of these legal philosophies is the most common one, yet both exist.

And since it's bloody impossible to prove a negative, no one here can provide proof that "Eric did not steal ideas". It's up to you to prove that he did if you want to make the accusation, even if only "hinting" at it.

And I haven't made that accusation so I don't have to prove anything.

Although you raise an important point. Even in the way I said it, I may have a burned of proof on something entirely different.

When I say "Eric could have stolen due to his position", I don't imply he stole, but I imply that Eric's position is one that allowed such theft. And that has to be proven of course and in that case I can't prove that. I just assume that being in a companies board would give you some useful insider knowledge on such matter.

 

[KnightWRX]

Sorry but I tend to think I'm a bit more than 'nuanced' compared to this post. If I come off the same as this guy, that's about you more than me, I think. I do everything I can to not sound like that post.

Sorry, but that's how you come off to me. You made several erroneous or blatantly wrong claims and stuck to them until refutted with proof. And you fail to provide citations to back up claims you make.

Again, my opinion of your posts.

Depends on the country you are in.

The rules of debate are universal. Macrumors is not a court of law. In debate, you make an assertion, you have the burden to provide proper backing. Stating an opinion as fact is not acceptable, ever.

So, you want to claim "Eric was in position to steal information", however nuanced you're trying to be, you have the burden to prove he did, or otherwise you have no point and thus your insistence on this non-fact is quite insulting to everyone around here.

We've wasted countless pages trying to ascertain why you stick to that point and keep poking at it. It seems you want to make sure we don't forget this in some sort of bid to prove your opinion of Android as being a rip-off based on... wait what was it, a single input mecanism... is a fact.

Tiring. Waste of time.

 

[iBug2]

Sorry, but that's how you come off to me. You made several erroneous or blatantly wrong claims and stuck to them until refutted with proof. And you fail to provide citations to back up claims you make.

Again, my opinion of your posts.

You keep saying that I actually claimed blatantly wrong things, yet you didn't quote any of them. So according to you, if you claim that I made wrong claims, isn't the burden of proof on you to actually prove that I did? It works both ways.

I cited all the necessary things for things I claimed as fact. I cited court documents when I claimed that Google lawyers argued that clause, I cited dates when I claimed stuff on history, and the rest of the other stuff I posted was opinion.

The rules of debate are universal. Macrumors is not a court of law. In debate, you make an assertion, you have the burden to provide proper backing. Stating an opinion as fact is not acceptable, ever.

Sorry but can you point to somewhere where the rules of debate are written?

And I again implore you to quote me where I stated an opinion as fact. Until you do, you are, what did you say, libeling against me. (According to you, not me).

So, you want to claim "Eric was in position to steal information", however nuanced you're trying to be, you have the burden to prove he did, or otherwise you have no point and thus your insistence on this non-fact is quite insulting to everyone around here.

If I claim Eric was in position to steal, I don't have the burden to prove that he did steal. "He was in a position to steal" is worlds apart from "he stole".

In a bank robbery, the manager or the security guard may have been in a position to steal. So it's always a possibility. That doesn't mean they stole it.

We've wasted countless pages trying to ascertain why you stick to that point and keep poking at it. It seems you want to make sure we don't forget this in some sort of bid to prove your opinion of Android as being a rip-off based on... wait what was it, a single input mecanism... is a fact.

Tiring. Waste of time.

I stick to that point because it's my opinion. Why do you keep implying that I should have somehow changed my opinion without being given any additional facts which I didn't know about in the first place?

Sum it up, indeed it's been tiring.

I won't change my opinion on Schmidt, the opinion being that he could have used his position to his advantage. That's not gonna change unless someone can actually prove that he didn't, which like you said is impossible. And that's not because I want to somehow vilify him. I would have felt this way about any two companies which were producing competitive products and yet one's CEO was on another one's board.

Btw even if someone proved that Schmidt stole some ideas using his position, he still isn't guilty of anything. He wasn't there illegally. He's privy to any information he was given and is free to use it any way he wants, unless there were some legally binding documents. So the whole discussion about Schmidt has no legal background whatsoever. It's purely about ethics. Whether he should have been there or not etc.

And I can't change my opinion on that Android+3rd party vendors ripped off Apple. I can't change it because that part is 100% subjective. Ripping off is not a clearly defined expression. For many of us, the similarities between Android phones and iPhone are enough to be called a rip off, and for you and many others it is not. And that's the end of it.

What you have been trying to do all this thread was to make people give you specifics on how exactly Apple has been ripped off, and when they did give you specifics, you said that they can't be considered rip offs. Like multitouch getting into smartphone, or the gestures, or the icons or whatever examples people have come up with. Yet those can't be considered as a rip off "for you".

And any arguments about whether it was Apple who invented those things or simply bought them/copied them or whatever are irrelevant. We are discussing what others have ripped off from Apple. We are not discussing what Apple ripped off from others, which is more than plenty as well yet is not a part of the discussion.

 

[KnightWRX]

And any arguments about whether it was Apple who invented those things or simply bought them/copied them or whatever are irrelevant. We are discussing what others have ripped off from Apple.

Think about these 2 statements for a while, realise why they are illogical. If Apple did not invent something, then people can't be "ripping off" Apple, since Apple is not the source.

A point you've been ignoring since the beginning and that has tainted your opinion.

Should I just move you to ignore or are you going to stop wasting my time ?

 

[iBug2]

Think about these 2 statements for a while, realise why they are illogical. If Apple did not invent something, then people can't be "ripping off" Apple, since Apple is not the source.

No. They can. You can purchase patents and whoever infringes on them is infringing on your IP, not the company you purchased. Hence, there's nothing illogical about that.

A point you've been ignoring since the beginning and that has tainted your opinion.

Not really, I haven't ignored that point whenever it was pointed out.

Should I just move you to ignore or are you going to stop wasting my time ?

If you think I have been wasting your time, you should have ignored me 40 pages ago, or at least that's what I would have done.

I haven't stopped discussing or ignored anyone because I kept getting some important information during this long thread. For example I didn't know the details on Xerox Parc and Apple, I didn't know anything about Google's defense in court and that liability clause, I didn't know many of the things you quoted about the different versions of Android implementations etc and many other things for sure.

I'm not saying all that could have been learned in a much shorter time with much less words, no point arguing that, but I think this thread for me wasn't a complete waste of time.