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

[cumanzor]

Interesting, but you've got to have a huge ego to think that you are smarter than Google and know better about Google than Google.

For instance if Android tries to break into the Chinese market and their government continues to "democratize" the nation, that would be a huge success for Google who sooner or later would take over the search engine market through Android. And by that adding a couple 100 million new people to their Ads. Which also would lead to Chinese people starting to use Google on their iPhones, Windows phones etc as the rest of the world. Or worst Google actually purchasing Alibaba or whatever search giants they have over there.

That might be their plan for all we know.



Google and Android is here to stay for at least 5 years. The growth is too high and the investments from App-developers, Samsung, Sony, Motorola, HTC, ZTE, Huawei (the two latter being Chinas two biggest and HTC Taiwans biggest) etc is too big for it to die in the close future.


With all that said, my point is we have no clue. If we did, we'd most likely not be posting here and instead capitalizing of this knowledge.

Wait a second... can't you see that these arm chair analysts are much much better than a multi bilion dollar company? I'm sure they can come up with a search algorithm any time they want, not to mention a browser, an email service, a whole services platform.

God damn it MacRumors. I thought these place had changed for the better, but seeing the voting rations, and the irrational, almost pathological, hate for a product you don't even use I see this place is as bad or even worse than before.

To any wishing Google's or MS's destruction, or from the other side, wishing Apple's demise now that Jobs is gone..... don't hold your breaths, your arm chair analyst degrees don't give authority over nothing.

 

[Dbrown]

Tell you what: Prove me wrong. Tell me, EXACTLY, what is wrong with my analysis. Point out to me the magical revenue stream that Google is going to realize via Android that is going to make all this go away. Point to a single statement or report that shows - anywhere - that Google is making any kind of serious money from Android. You can't - because it doesn't exist.

Well since you're so smart and know more about google than google knows about itself, why does google continue to invest in android if it makes no money from it?

 

[vrDrew]

With Google, things are a bit more nebulous. To you and I, you could say they're primarily a service company. But their services are all given away for free, so how are they making any profit?

If someone offers you an investment, and explains the way they make money using the word "nebulous" - Run like hell.

I understand very well how Google makes money. They sell display advertisements that show up when people use their search engine and some of their other tools. (They make a small amount of money from licensing, but not enough to be significant.)

But for the purposes of this discussion, ask yourself this question: How much less (or more...) would Google make if Android simply didn't exist?

We know, by Google's own admission that total "mobile search" revenue (ie. advertising revenue generated by ALL users of smartphones) comes to about $800 million in 2011. We also know, again according to Google, that roughly two thirds of that is generated by people using iOS (ie. Apple) mobile devices.

Does the fact that Android exists on smartphones make people more likely to use Google's money-making search engine on their PCs and laptops? Maybe. But thats difficult to explain. Maybe its "nebulous"

Then we have the theory that Google is amassing all this personal information on its users, and is assembling this incredbily valuable portfolio of personal data on people that it (presumably at some point in the future) is going to sell to advertisers in exchange for a huge payout.

We'll ignore the somewhat frightening implications of that theory, and concentrate on the elephant in the room. If we assume that there are more Android users than iOS users, and yet iOS still yields two thirds of Mobile Search revenue, doesn't that suggest that iOS is better for Google's purposes than Android? Doesn't that suggest that, on a user-by-user basis that iOS users are more than twice as likely to engage in the sort of activity that makes money for Google?

 

[samcraig]

If someone offers you an investment, and explains the way they make money using the word "nebulous" - Run like hell.

I understand very well how Google makes money. They sell display advertisements that show up when people use their search engine and some of their other tools. (They make a small amount of money from licensing, but not enough to be significant.)

But for the purposes of this discussion, ask yourself this question: How much less (or more...) would Google make if Android simply didn't exist?

We know, by Google's own admission that total "mobile search" revenue (ie. advertising revenue generated by ALL users of smartphones) comes to about $800 million in 2011. We also know, again according to Google, that roughly two thirds of that is generated by people using iOS (ie. Apple) mobile devices.

Does the fact that Android exists on smartphones make people more likely to use Google's money-making search engine on their PCs and laptops? Maybe. But thats difficult to explain. Maybe its "nebulous"

Then we have the theory that Google is amassing all this personal information on its users, and is assembling this incredbily valuable portfolio of personal data on people that it (presumably at some point in the future) is going to sell to advertisers in exchange for a huge payout.

We'll ignore the somewhat frightening implications of that theory, and concentrate on the elephant in the room. If we assume that there are more Android users than iOS users, and yet iOS still yields two thirds of Mobile Search revenue, doesn't that suggest that iOS is better for Google's purposes than Android? Doesn't that suggest that, on a user-by-user basis that iOS users are more than twice as likely to engage in the sort of activity that makes money for Google?

Perhaps for mobile search. And perhaps that is the statistic now. But maybe Google believes it can dominated the market. Every company has to start somewhere. Apple didn't have 2/3rd of mobile search at launch, did it?

Also - whatever the situation is with Google and Android - I, for one, am glad that there are choices and that mobile OS isn't a monopoly. For many obvious reasons that don't need to be listed.

As angry or frustrated or whatever emotion people feel over Google and Android - at the very least - they should realize the competition - no matter how big or small is good for the consumer and for the industry as a whole. You don't have to choose Google or Android - but be glad that there are alternatives. Not everyone can afford (nor do many people want) Apple products and iOS. That's just a reality. Millions of people aren't even using smart phones. Wishing ill on companies like Nokia, Rim, and the like is just silly as a) it doesn't really affect you personally and b) those companies DO serve a purpose.

My .02.

 

[macsmurf]

But for the purposes of this discussion, ask yourself this question: How much less (or more...) would Google make if Android simply didn't exist?

The answer is not very interesting and doesn't shed light on anything in particular. The question Google undoubtedly asked themselves was: "How much would Google make in 2015 if iOS had a monopoly on mobile devices as opposed to backing an alternative mobile OS?"

Mobile advertising is a nascent market at the moment - just as internet search was when Google started. If you don't show due diligence you end up as the record companies.

 

[polaris20]

I would love to know exactly which ideas were "stolen".

Have you ever looked at a Galaxy S?

 

[D4F]

Have you ever looked at a Galaxy S?

So I bet your car has square wheels right cause this is exactly where you are heading...

 

[Aduntu]

A smartphone is commonly (and was commonly at the time) defined as a phone that supports data connection and transfer and could be extended through 3rd party applications.

The iPhone failed the "3rd party applications" test on launch being limited to web applications which were in and of themselves quite limited in what they could accomplish (prior to the whole HTML5 movement, no WebSockets, no local storage, no offline support, no rich UI capabilities).

Commonly doesn't make it an industry standard definition. There was no standard definition for smartphone, and arguing that is simply arguing semantics.

 

[Oletros]

Have you ever looked at a Galaxy S?

Yap, and Jobs was talking about an HTC phone, no a Samsung phone and he was talking about Android as an OS not a physical design of a phone

So I repeat, what ideas has taken Android from iOS

 

[adder7712]

Have you ever looked at a Galaxy S?

What does Samsung have to do with this? Jobs was talking about software.

 

[samcraig]

Have you ever looked at a Galaxy S?

You should learn the difference between a PHONE and an OS. Then get back to us

 

[vitzr]

When I step back, setting aside the specifics of hardware, software, who owns the patents, and who copied who. The thousands of posts in MacRumors reveal a deep hatred towards Google, and a Religious Like Following of Steve Jobs & Apple.

And... Like every other religious conflict or war in this world, nothing is likely to change soon.

Very little of this is based on technical merit, and it's related advantages.

 

[daxomni]

When I step back, setting aside the specifics of hardware, software, who owns the patents, and who copied who. The thousands of posts in MacRumors reveal a deep hatred towards Google, and a Religious Like Following of Steve Jobs & Apple. And... Like every other religious conflict or war in this world, nothing is likely to change soon. Very little of this is based on technical merit, and it's related advantages.

It seemed that the Apple fans had no problem with Google prior to their falling out with the Kim Jong Jobs.

 

[Savor]

Jobs engaged in a shouting match with Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page in 2008 over Google’s release and push behind Android.

Nexus One: Story

Jobs was apparently deeply angered after HTC introduced the Nexus One in January 2010, arguing that Android's features amounted to "grand theft."

“I don’t want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won’t want it. I’ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that’s all I want,” Schmidt recalled Jobs telling him in the meeting, which Isaacson wrote, resolved nothing. A Google spokesman declined to comment.

One of the most interesting points in this whole chapter was Jobs’s passionate fury on the topic — especially from a man not known for holding his temper.

Isaacson happened to be interviewing Jobs at his home in Palo Alto, Calif. the week Apple filed the HTC lawsuit in 2010, and wrote that “he became angrier than I had ever seen him.” Jobs told him that “Our lawsuit is saying ‘Google, you f---ing ripped off the iPhone, wholesale ripped us off.’” He also said he was willing to spend “every penny of Apple’s” then-$40 billion in cash to “right this wrong,” and he vowed to “destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product.”

To me, Google had all the RIGHT to enter cell phone market even if Apple never attempted to get into search. So what IF Apple didn't want to compete in Google's territory? Should that ban Google of entering something they want to compete in? Google had bought Android Inc in 2005. There was already talks Google would enter the cell phone market before the first iPhone was released.

If it came to patent disputes, I wouldn't argue it. Apple has all the rights to defend their patents especially their "multi-touch", something Android didn't have in the earlier days right out of the box.

But SJ acted way too sensitive when Android eventually blew up in the phone market and become a cheaper alternative to iOS considering there wasn't much out there coming from Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia. After he saw the Nexus One, he knew Google was serious about this and had deep enough pockets to compete. Ironically, that phone flopped in sales. It became more of a "cult classic" being branded and sold by Google themselves (sorry, G1), but it broke down the doors for many "superphones" that we see today with a 1GHz processor.

In fact, Android has kept companies like Samsung, HTC, Motorola, SE, and LG still relevant just because those companies aren't really software makers in their core. No Android, and the market would either be a monopoly by Apple where anti-trust laws will haunt their ass like it did to Microsoft, or even more fragmentation because there would be over a half dozen different OSes with every company trying to make their own software. Google and their money is what glues them.

 

[adder7712]

Image


Nexus One: Story


Image



To me, Google had all the RIGHT to enter cell phone market even if Apple never attempted to get into search. So what IF Apple didn't want to compete in Google's territory? Should that ban Google of entering something they want to compete in? Google had bought Android Inc in 2005. There was already talks Google would enter the cell phone market before the first iPhone was released.

If it came to patent disputes, I wouldn't argue it. Apple has all the rights to defend their patents especially their "multi-touch", something Android didn't have in the earlier days right out of the box.

But SJ acted way too sensitive when Android eventually blew up in the phone market and become a cheaper alternative to iOS considering there wasn't much out there coming from Microsoft, RIM, and Nokia. After he saw the Nexus One, he knew Google was serious about this and had deep enough pockets to compete. Ironically, that phone flopped in sales. It became more of a "cult classic" being branded and sold by Google themselves (sorry, G1), but it broke down the doors for many "superphones" that we see today with a 1GHz processor.

In fact, Android has kept companies like Samsung, HTC, Motorola, SE, and LG still relevant just because those companies aren't really software makers in their core. No Android, and the market would either be a monopoly by Apple where anti-trust laws will haunt their ass like it did to Microsoft, or even more fragmentation because there would be over a half dozen different OSes with every company trying to make their own software. Google and their money is what glues them.

I didn't expect SJ to say the F-word!

I can understand SJ's mentality, obviously a competitor would want to beat the other but I can safely say he exaggerated the claimed plagiarism.

 

[Savor]

Jobs also took exception to the acts of a former key Apple engineer, Jon Rubinstein, who left the company after Jobs took the side of Apple designer Jony Ive in an argument over a product change. After finding out that Rubinstein had left Apple to go to competitor Palm, Jobs apparently became furious and attempted to intercede.

Recalling the situation, Jobs later told Isaacson: "the fact that they completely failed salves that wound."

I'm glad Walter Isaacson didn't try to sugar coat Steve's personality since it can turn sour in a heartbeat. I can understand the many shouting matches he had with his competitors and employees. Like watching Hell's Kitchen with Chef Gordon Ramsey.

But the thing I hated was how VINDICTIVE he still was in his last days especially to Jon Rubinstein (iPod creator). I can understand siding with Jony Ive, but without iPod, Apple would not be where they are today. Steve was upset when Jon moved to Palm. Then Steve was happy when Palm/webOS failed. Ungrateful.

Even when he was dying, he sounded bitter toward every person that crossed his path. He had more rivals than hip hop artists with a book full of disses to several people. Bill Gates, John Sculley, Michael Eisner, Gil Amelio, Michael Dell, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt, and so on. The only person he complimented was Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Hewlett. Seemed like he hated everybody that didn't think like him. Disney, Intel, Facebook, and HP got the compliments. Instead of trashing his enemies and wanting to wipe them all out like he was Michael Corleone in the end of The Godfather, he should have used the time to get surgery earlier or be a better daddy to all his daughters.

The arrogance and "magical thinking" that made him great is what ended his life alot sooner too.

 

[samcraig]

I'm glad Walter Isaacson didn't try to sugar coat Steve's personality since it can turn sour in a heartbeat. I can understand the many shouting matches he had with his competitors and employees. Like watching Hell's Kitchen with Chef Gordon Ramsey.

But the thing I hated was how VINDICTIVE he still was in his last days especially to Jon Rubinstein (iPod creator). I can understand siding with Jony Ive, but without iPod, Apple would not be where they are today. Steve was upset when Jon moved to Palm. Then Steve was happy when Palm/webOS failed. Ungrateful.

Even when he was dying, he sounded bitter toward every person that crossed his path. He had more rivals than hip hop artists with a book full of disses to several people. Bill Gates, John Sculley, Michael Eisner, Gil Amelio, Michael Dell, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt, and so on. The only person he complimented was Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Hewlett. Seemed like he hated everybody that didn't think like him. Disney, Intel, Facebook, and HP got the compliments. Instead of trashing his enemies and wanting to wipe them all out like he was Michael Corleone in the end of The Godfather, he should have used the time to get surgery earlier or be a better daddy to all his daughters.

The arrogance and "magical thinking" that made him great is what ended his life alot sooner too.

One wonders how much the disease was to blame for all of this. I'm not blaming the cancer - but who knows sincerely how much pain he was in daily, etc and that definitely affects decisions, attitude, etc - no matter how "zen" you might think you are. Add that on top of an already mercurial personality...

But you know what - as the book points out - he was a cry baby often when he didn't get his way. And as he got older - the tantrums became these vendettas.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Commonly doesn't make it an industry standard definition. There was no standard definition for smartphone, and arguing that is simply arguing semantics.

You are right about how suggesting that "commonly" is arguing semantics, but a short wikipedia search (and any related phone search in any search engine) reveals that the term smartphone refers to any device that, like Knight said, can make phone calls and has other features as well.

The early revisions were just PDAs that made phone calls therefore had calendaring, a calculator, address book, notepads, etc. The Nokia 9210 was the one I remember back in 2000 as being hot stuff, because it had a color screen, them any quickly jumped on the bandwagon for the Palm Treo in 2002. And again, the Treo had features that many smartphones are now just getting with Ice Cream Sandwich and iOS5

 

[samcraig]

You are right about how suggesting that "commonly" is arguing semantics, but a short wikipedia search (and any related phone search in any search engine) reveals that the term smartphone refers to any device that, like Knight said, can make phone calls and has other features as well.

The early revisions were just PDAs that made phone calls therefore had calendaring, a calculator, address book, notepads, etc. The Nokia 9210 was the one I remember back in 2000 as being hot stuff, because it had a color screen, them any quickly jumped on the bandwagon for the Palm Treo in 2002. And again, the Treo had features that many smartphones are now just getting with Ice Cream Sandwich and iOS5

Agreed. I'm fascinated with the passion of some people who insist Apple has to have created/standardized/defined what a smart phone is forgetting all too conveniently that we HAD smart phones and they were called as such well before 2007. It's not a question of finessing semantics.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Agreed. I'm fascinated with the passion of some people who insist Apple has to have created/standardized/defined what a smart phone is forgetting all too conveniently that we HAD smart phones and they were called as such well before 2007. It's not a question of finessing semantics.

Yes, and just like you said in another thread, it doesn't take a doctor of psychology to see that it's the ones (the few) that associate some mental faculty to the tech they buy and support that are causing all of the problems.

They some how feel slighted because someone proves Apple marketing or their own self-perception to be false. They don't want the Apple RDF pulled down.

 

[androidlovers]

why he hate android that much, Did he to afraid to fight android in smartphone and tablet market ?

 

[fpsBeaTt]

Yes, and just like you said in another thread, it doesn't take a doctor of psychology to see that it's the ones (the few) that associate some mental faculty to the tech they buy and support that are causing all of the problems.

They some how feel slighted because someone proves Apple marketing or their own self-perception to be false. They don't want the Apple RDF pulled down.

Are people this intellectually inept really able to use a computer of some kind?

 

[AidenShaw]

why he hate android that much, Did he to afraid to fight android in smartphone and tablet market ?

He just thought that Apple invented multi-touch - even though it was published in peer-reviewed journals in the early 1980s.

 

[adder7712]

why he hate android that much, Did he to afraid to fight android in smartphone and tablet market ?

I don't know. The community however, just hates things for the sake of hating.

 

[Tarzanman]

I didn't expect SJ to say the F-word!

I can understand SJ's mentality, obviously a competitor would want to beat the other but I can safely say he exaggerated the claimed plagiarism.

Are you kidding? Read the biography. Steve Jobs cursed all the time. Usually at his own underlings.

Yes, he definitely exaggerated the claims. Jobs was pissed off that he would have to compete against a product that capitalized upon iOS's weaknesses. It wasn't closed, it was inexpensive and it had a built-in back end to the cloud, the direction that Jobs thought that computing was heading (and apple had yet to go).