Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
From Steve Jobs' Biography: "I'm going to destroy Android"
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's rubbed off on certain other people here, notably *LTD*. I can't wait to see, if Apple is dumb enough to move to ARM for Macs, how long it takes him to direct his bitterness towards them. Intel was the best thing to happen to Apple, but for some reason he can't wait to get rid of them.
Jobs would be a psychiatrists dream. All that anger and disrespect is not the mark of a decent human being. He was so arrogant that he wasn't even going to go to the dinner with the President unless Obama called him and invited him. He was as narcissistic as they come.
All it really goes to prove is what I got down rated and bashed for before that Jobs was a horrible person. Great businessman but a horrible person and not someone to achieve to be like.
Yeah. I think that he was a brilliant businessman and had a knack for noticing what customers wanted after his comeback to Apple, but the way he treated people throughout his career was absolutely abysmal. I mean, come on!
I usually just lurk around here but this topic really worths discussion
@guch20
I’ll give you this, iOS is the most polished mobile operating system around, as well as almost other Apple products. But that's what Apple do best, take a device with certain funtions in the market and usually (but not always) better it - and definitely always market it very well. Just look back and you can see my point, iPod's hardly the first portable music/video player in the history, just the most popular because it's arguably the most functional/easy to use..whatever. Technology-wise Apple did add the ring control and a very good music store but that's about it. What if somebody did patent a portable audio player which transfer content from a computer, have a headphone jack, volume and track control, a screen and a rechargeable batt, what's about iPod then?
Likewise with iPhone, certainly not the first mobile phone with a touchscreen, intergrated wifi and GPS, can access e-mail, using the web, listening to music, taking picture and video...The ideas were always there, Apple just improved it in they own ways. As did Google.
Going into details, the app drawer in iOS and Android where user touch an icon to launch an application was there since ancient versions of Windows Mobile circa 2003 - it's certainly a great idea, isn't it, as did the onscreen keypad? So who has the moral high ground here?
Of course you've got valid points : pinch to zoom, slide to unlock were copied from iOS but seriously, those are the superficial ones, not important enough to the whole, and hardly what sold Android. And since we're playing the accusing game, what's the pulldown notification and widget inclusion in the lastest and greatest version of iOS if not a ripoff from Android Day-One. Do you really, honestly think if Android didn't have pinch to zoom and/or slide to unlock then it'd be dead in the water?
No, of course not. Android successes because it's positioned at the right spot, a mobile OS for handset makers can't afford to create their own ecosystem, since Symbian was all but pronounce dead and Windows Phone didn't even exist. For users, it's cheap and it gets the job done.
IMHO, the only idea Google did take from Apple was very important but so vague that no one can patent it, that's it, the mobile ecosystem concept - handset OS together with online services and market for apps and contents. Which Microsoft is doing with Windows Phone, which Palm&HP (webOS), Nokia (OVI) and RIM (AppWorld) tried and failed.
My point here is trashing Android because it's another mobile ecosystem after Apple's iOS is like trashing Linux because it's another computer OS with GUI after Microsoft Windows.
I've been an avid follower of gadget since the first generation of Symbian Windows CE and Symbian S60, yet I'll be the first guy admit that Apple and not anyone else kickstarted the whole mobile revolution with the release of iPhone in 2007, and I appreciate Mr.Jobs for that. But the fact is the whole merry-go-round of Android, WP7, webOS, Maemo, BB...has been keeping 'the revolution' into the foreseeable future and more importantly, benefiting the average users - meaning us. Remember the mess with MMS/Copy&Paste in the £599 iPhone, that's when there are cheaper competions around. What if there's not?
About your comment of “Android user kissing Google ass...” It's no secret how Google makes money with Android - as well as all of their online service, after all the OS is royalty free. Yet ask around and see how many people out there with non-Android phone are using Google search, Gmail and Google Maps...Aren't they sucks, more so because they let Google mine their data yet having to pay full royalty fee for their iOS, WinPhone, Symbian, Blackberry devices? Following your logic, at least Android users have some refund in form of OS license fee!
Shortly before his death, after years of breaking record after record of annual profit, Jobs promised to use every dollars in their $40Bs account to destroy a competitor - and in courtroom no less. What's ethical about that, making those big cat corporate lawyers richer by limiting consumer's choice?
But I'm not qualified to saying legally Google is right or wrong, and I don't even want to mention the infamous mess of U.S patent system. Just let's consider following scenarios:
(a) Cheap, widely available smartphones : a very large userbase can use e-mail, web, gaming with varied experiences/performances of their choice....Floor price about £0 (w/contract) for mainstream handset to £399 for high-end devices (contract free). The cheapest iPhone 4S £499 (no contract). Right about now.
(b) You've got 2 choices : the £299-always-a-generation-behind WP7 handset or the venerable £799 iPhone 4S. Jobs got his way with Android.
Unless one is an Apple's shareholder, (a) is the obvious choice for the mass of us, including most fanatic Apple fanboys.
Lastly, about the technical aspect, I've been hearing the argument "Android copy all/most of iOS" around here many times, from what i know Android mainly comprises of a virtual machine (which only Oracle maybe can claim infringement) atop of Linux kernel (which no one owns). All of Android's software stack are open source (probably some proprietary drivers in particular builds are not so) but the point if even one of them infringes iOS proprietary components then we'd known by now, wouldn't we? Instead, the fuss had mainly been about some element of Samsung custom UI - not Android codebase. So please be kind and enlight me of what really happened.
I made my points, now's your turn.
Last edited:
When Steve Jobs first presented the iPhone he said that the OS in the iPhone was at least "5 years ahead" of any other smartphone OS, so he must have been gutted about what happened with Android which seemed to emerge so quickly and gain momentum after the iPhone had been introduced.
Kudos to him for going after it and for being assertive, with so much at stake no-one can have expected him to just shrug his shoulders and go "oh well".
Kudos to him for going after it and for being assertive, with so much at stake no-one can have expected him to just shrug his shoulders and go "oh well".
What should Jobs have said? That he wants to get along with his competitors?
Go back to lurking.
Apple didn't have any problem moving in on the blackberry market. Phones are competitive market. Consumers want more choices at a better value. Apple is 2 limited. Android is already a better phone with more choices. Wi,,th technology changing as fast as it does I want the option of a new phone every year. I also try to avoid companies with an obscene profit margin. That's why I bought a phone for 300 dollars And pay 45 dollars a month for unlimited access and no contract. If apple wants to compete for my business They can Are for the iphone for 300 dollars and no contract, for 45 dollars a month.
What should Jobs have said? That he wants to get along with his competitors?
Go back to lurking.
I think the point was - it was a comment that didn't need saying. He didn't need to say he wanted to get along nor did he have to pledge to use every available dollar Apple has to destroy ONE competitor.
He could have even said - I have two key goals - to provide amazing innovative products and to destroy android. Or something similar.
But pledging money - especially money that is technically not his to fully control - to just go after one OS is immature at the very least.
What should Jobs have said? That he wants to get along with his competitors?
Go back to lurking.
Something cliché like "....spend my last dying breath for the good of humanity, enjoying family and friends company, fighting with my freak'n cancer, doing hardcore drugs, banging young models..." Basically anything more sensible than trying furiously to destroy a piece of software like it's the second coming of the antichrist.
You've clearly never had anyone steal from you, and then make money from said theft while taking a number of sales away from your own. But hey, it's popular to bag out Steve when he's dead by mocking his morals and ethics; great class there.
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh relax. The point is the extreme at which he seemed to want to go defied even the most basic business sense. Steve was no dummy - and these words were just filled with spite and anger. And if he had said that at a stockholders meeting or if he were still alive when this statement came out I would have most likely immediately called my broker and put in a sell order.
He didn't say he was going to spend his own money to destroy android. He said he was going to spend all of Apple's. Rhetoric or not - that's wacked.
Last edited by a moderator:
I still don't see what is being stolen, android was in development before the iPhone yes they changed the interface but whereas iPhone is walls of apps android is not unless the user decides so. Apple didn't invent multitouch either, they ripped it off and didn't give credit for it. Android is very different than iOS it's a constantly evolving os whereas iOS doesn't make big changes it recently took androids notification system and made it worse.
Apple didn't invent the grid ui in mobiles either that existed before both iPhone and android devices were even a thought. Also google had every right to enter mobile space, apple didn't invent mobile phones and whether it was google or someone else new mobiles would still be created hell Ubuntu just announced by 2014 they will have Ubuntu mobile phones and tablets, does Ubuntu have a right to be in mobile space?
The book is brilliant and I have gained some respect for jobs in how he did business but he was a crummy person who had too much hate in his heart at times and he died a bitter angry man which is even sadder to me. I
Apple didn't invent the grid ui in mobiles either that existed before both iPhone and android devices were even a thought. Also google had every right to enter mobile space, apple didn't invent mobile phones and whether it was google or someone else new mobiles would still be created hell Ubuntu just announced by 2014 they will have Ubuntu mobile phones and tablets, does Ubuntu have a right to be in mobile space?
The book is brilliant and I have gained some respect for jobs in how he did business but he was a crummy person who had too much hate in his heart at times and he died a bitter angry man which is even sadder to me. I
Judging by this post, you haven't read the biography either. You completely missed why he is angry, and don't understand his viewpoint on open versus closed systems.
What exactly was stolen? The utilising of capacitive touchscreen from LG Prada, the icon grid, virtual keyboard or scrolling gesture from WM and PalmOS, the whole concept of a phone with touchscreen/camera/e-mail from half the smartphones in the world before 2007? Things aren't any clearer after 46 pages, are they?
I'm not bagging out Mr.Jobs, like I said above I appreciated him as a great innovator of modern time. But I'm not blindly accept every words of him like it's gospel, as is the case with some people in here. Destroying Android won't improve anything but the already obscene rich bank accounts of Apple and Microsoft, quite the opposite. Rightnow it's the only platform that provides a comparable usability with iOS at half the price, in the meantime enables far more people with limited budget to experience mobile web, e-mail, entertaiment. Which iDevices with all it's coolness and prestige status and fanboyism haven't done and most probably won't ever do.
Theft ? Theft of what ?
----------
The development, the original and the current interfaces of Android are pretty much the same. What did Google change ?
Nothing was stolen and Apple can't destroy Andoid but only fuel their fire. What Steve did do was keep poking a sleeping bear and the bear is smacking back.
In other words, you're calling Steve Jobs a liar and his complaints regarding Android and hardware manufacturers unfounded.
Interesting.
That's one way to put it, another would be saying Steve was misinformed about what Apple actually "invented" and owned as far as IP goes and his complaints were thus greatly exaggerated towards Android and what other manufacturers did.
The only thing anyone in these forums can point out as "stolen" is multi-touch gestures. And frankly, if Google had taken any of these from Apple's patented pool of gestures, they would have gotten sued over patent infringment by now. Apple doesn't own the entirety of multi-touch and adding an input mecanism to Android is not akin to Android being a complete rip-off of iOS.
Android and iOS are different beasts alltogether. One has a customizable UI with tons of widgets/controls that can be set by the user, runs software in a VM environnement, executing JIT compiled bytecode rather than native code and can run off tons of different form factors and use different input mecanism while the other is a more rigid environnement, running mostly off 1 input mecanism and form factor with a strict unbending UI that is consistent and simple.
Steve proved himself not to be the most honest person there is with antenna-gate. So yes most of if not all of his claims are B.S. Here is a strong reason why I say this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj-KS2kfIr0&feature=player_embedded#!http://www.howbler.com/2011/10/apple-controversy-slide-to-unlock.html
Last edited: