Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Without Steve's 'emotion' maybe not so much.

It's an ignorant, or inexperienced or poor businessperson who thinks emotion isn't part of and doesn't fuel business ... it's all about emotion and without it there wouldn't be any profits to speak off. IMO.

I know lots of ignorant businessmen who are quite wealthy. They conduct business rationally, not with their heart. Hatred seldom does anyone or any business any good. I wonder how the shareholders would feel if Steve spent their $80 billion on a personal crusade? Or would they all have that same emotion?
 
Oh look, another thread full of "Android is a copy of iOS" without any shred of insight into what Android actually copied from iOS. :rolleyes:

What a waste of 5 pages.
 
"For a lot of companies, it’s useful for them to feel like they have an obvious competitor and to rally around that."

By the same Larry Page Logic, that quote above means that they don't have a competitor in android, by which he is saying that android can't and isn't able to compete with Apple, even though they have tried.

The same way page thinks that Steve Jobs' "Thermonuclear war is a heartwarming handshake"

Reality check... Page is an idiot.

Yep, idiot, he just revolutionized searching and have been instrumental in shaping the web as we know it today. Google's unique approach to searching was groundbreaking yet so obviously simple when you think about it now that it's happened.
When Jobs kept talking about how internet was the new big thing while never actually doing anything relevant on the web Google changed it on a fundamental level.

He's clearly not an idiot.

It's so funny how people on these forums always keep calling non-Apple individuals (be it businessmen or public servants or whatever) idiots when the individual you call idiot is clearly much smarter than yourself.
 
Okay. I want to know what you think Apple invented. I mean what they came up with entirely on their own that had never been seen before.

Touchscreens? They've been around for years.

App stores? Same case. Hell, Steam has been around since, what, 2002?

PDA devices that can make and receive phonecalls? Ditto

The iPhone isn't so much an entirely new invention, rather a series of them implemented well. Apple wouldn't be where they are today if it weren't for influences and breakthroughs outside the company they could build upon for their own products. It's the way of the technological world.

...yet if anyone tries to do the same, build off Apple's own breakthroughs and offer up different implementation of their ideas, everyone gets up in arms about it and shouts to the heavens that they're shamelessly ripping off the company. When it comes right down to it, the whole Apple vs. The World thing is nothing but double standards and hypocrisy.

Apple often gets credited with creating "game-changing" devices that just happen to come to market before anyone else has the same great idea.

As for Apple vs Android... it would have been cool if you could buy an Android phone on June 29, 2007. Unfortunately... none existed yet. You couldn't buy an Android phone until 16 month later.

Same for tablets... was there an Android tablet in stores on April 3, 2010? No there was not. The first Android tablet wasn't available until 6 months later... and the "real" Android tablets came out 4 months after that. (other tablets like Playbook and Touchpad were even later)

Also... if all Apple does is just make a new implementation of something someone else did before... isn't that what everyone else does too?

You're right... Apple wasn't the first to make a touchscreen phone or a tablet. All those devices existed before in some fashion.

So why is it a slam against Apple when they make a "derivative" new product... and not the other guys?

If the iPad is just a new implementation of the tablets that came before... isn't that what every other tablet is too?
 
Who the hell cares? Too many fanyboys hating on product that people actually like. I have a Galaxy Nexus because I love the big screen, LTE and the fact that the phone is completely open for me to load custom ROMs onto. I love my iPad 3 because it's the best tablet experience possible and the screen is the best on the market.

I want the best product possible who ever it's from. I want competition because in the end it benefits the consumer. I don't want to live in a world dominated by one company. I have respect for iPhone users but it's not for me at this time.

Sorry for the rant but there's too much hating going on.
 
Um, 'fraid that was Jobs. But please, feel free to misinterpret that settlement again. And again.



And again.

'fraid it wasn't Jobs. May I suggest Google to help you along? Once you've done your homework do the right thing and send a "thank you" card to Bill Gates for making sure you can enjoy Apple wares today.

Edit: I saved you the trouble. Hear the words from the man himself. You're welcome.

http://www.businessinsider.com/appl...10#1997-partnering-with-the-enemy-microsoft-1
 
Google+ Mr Page?
Pot --> Kettle --> black

Like, say, not changing your smartphone platform from a BlackBerry/Windows Mobile competitor to an iPhone competitor, just because the iPhone began gaining traction? Hey, wait a minute…

I wanted to vomit when I read that part lol! I won't even go on for pages like I could about how disgustingly opposite to the truth that is haha! :roll eyes:

Larry = Delusional

:apple:
 
Too bad Tim Cook is not as principled.

I don't recall reading any news that Tim Cook has dropped all lawsuits against Google's trade dress violations. there are rumors he might be willing to settle but those are just rumors.

Not to mention that Tim was Steve's right hand. If he had had an issue with the suits he would have said so and forced Steve to explain his reasonings. If he didn't agree with them he wouldn't likely wait 6 months after he got full and unencumbered control to start the process of suiting it all day.
 
I would never characterize Jobs' emotional reactions as "for show". He had a long history of actually hating things. His hatred of the status quo drove him.
 
Sounds like a plausible reason.. it would certainly get your employees motivated against a common cause.
 
It was either for show, or Jobs was a hypocrite.

Quote from Jobs from the Isaacson book:

"Picasso had a saying - `good artists copy, great artists steal' - and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

Great IDEAS. Which are not actually a protected item under much of the IP law. You can't copyright an idea. Patents for ideas are no being approved as a matter of course anymore, only those that are a hell of a unique idea.

One could argue that the idea is a touchscreen phone with internet software included. But the look etc is the execution of the idea and thus could be protected, which is the tact that Apple took when they applied for Trade Dress and the tact that was accepted when the patent was approved.

----------

There are huge personality differences between wealth creators and wealth managers.

Steve Jobs = wealth creator
Tim Cook = wealth manager


given that a major part of Tim's original job was making the deals that made the products possible, I wouldn't say he was just a manager
 
I don't think so...

No Larry, his foot; your a88 = destiny.

Only problem -- he didn't have enough strength (physically) to accomplish it. So he did the next > best >thing: Help guide Apple to being one of the most successful companies EVER in the business, and keeping you in D-E-N-I-A-L every step of the way.

Google Pizza anyone?
 
Steve was kind of a maniac. He hated or loved everything. He exploded at the MobileMe developers, so of course he's going to hate Android.

Absolutely agree, most people in the tech industry seem to have been very afraid of Steve, but still very much respected him.

How do you know?

This question has been addressed. Please read the thread.
 
I love reading the forum threads in regards to Android news. It really shows how obsessed and defensive some people are over a brand; Apple.
 
I often wonder about that...

You know how secretive Apple is with the public... does that secrecy extend to their Board Members?

Do they get to come down into the secret labs and get their hands on unreleased products?

Lots of Apple's Board Members are from other companies.. not just Eric Schmidt. I'm sure the Board is busy with lots of executive-level stuff... not exactly new products.

Steve knew Google bought Android in 2005... I'm pretty sure Steve never said "Hey Eric... look at this!"

Maybe we'll find out in Schmidt's biography.

well seeing how Al gore (board member) claimed we were getting two devices (when the 4s actually came out), id go with a big NO.
 
Google is slapping Android on practically everything - next will be your refrigerator
UGH, it's already on a Fridge, Toaster, Washer, and dryer!

Google them, and you will find them very easily. It's hard to take a company seriously when they go and slap their OS on everything like that yet their phones take forever to get simple updates.

touch_revolution_android_2.jpg
 
Apple often gets credited with creating "game-changing" devices that just happen to come to market before anyone else has the same great idea.

Apple is an ergonomics company. They might not necessarily make something first, but what they do make is usually considerably sleeker and more consumer friendly than the competition.

The iPhone was a game changer in the sense that it brought a bunch of various ideas together, and combined them into a package that was novel, easy to use, and accessible. Still, it wasn't invented in a vacuum. It was built upon years of technological innovations culled from outside the company.

So now that Apple has popularized the touchscreen smartphone, does that mean they get exclusive rights to the concept for the next 50 years? Are other companies no longer allowed the same advantages as Apple? Aren't allowed to use Apple innovations the way Apple used other companies innovations?

As for Apple vs Android... it would have been cool if you could buy an Android phone on June 29, 2007. Unfortunately... none existed yet. You couldn't buy an Android phone until 16 month later.

Who cares? No...wait. I think the better answer to that question would be "why care at all"?

Same for tablets... was there an Android tablet in stores on April 3, 2010? No there was not. The first Android tablet wasn't available until 6 months later... and the "real" Android tablets came out 4 months after that. (other tablets like Playbook and Touchpad were even later)

The same answer above applies here. What if Android were in development during that time, and wasn't fortunate enough to release first? Does that still make them a copycat? Hell, even if it was a flat out ripoff, a knee jerk response to Apple's success, it still brings enough to the table to differentiate it, and make things more interesting for the mobile scene. They're competition. Competition breeds innovation. Innovation brings improvements. Improvements that would take considerably longer to come about if there weren't any competition to work against.

It doesn't matter how much Apple's feelings were hurt because someone "copied" their ideas. All I care about is, hey, I've got a new notification system in iOS5 that doesn't bug the hell out of me.

Also... if all Apple does is just make a new implementation of something someone else did before... isn't that what everyone else does too?

Pretty much. There's usually a prime mover type, of course. But really, why even concern yourself with who did what first? It's a stupid game to play.

You should be more interested in all the neat new stuff that's coming out every day, rather than what your personal favorite company did before everyone else.

So why is it a slam against Apple when they make a "derivative" new product... and not the other guys?

I'm not slamming Apple here. I'm slamming all the people who flap their mouth and bash everyone else who claims Apple are the sole innovators in an industry of copycats. It's a dumb argument, based upon complete and total ignorance. Apple is ultimately one company in a huge, huge, HUGE field of them. They do come up with their own neat ideas and innovations, but they also use others innovations equally as much to make their Phonebook Pros, and Macpads, and doohickey whatnots. Why should they get a pass when others don't?

If the iPad is just a new implementation of the tablets that came before... isn't that what every other tablet is too?

Yup. The iPad is derived from the old PC tablets that have been around since forever. But they went in a slightly different direction with their tablet and made one that people actually wanted to buy. Apple brought their own good ideas to an old idea and improved upon it. Now everyone else is taking Apple's good ideas and trying to improve upon them.

Anyway, blah blah blah. This has gone on long enough. Long story short, Apple uses the cool stuff other people have done, and sometimes the cool stuff they come up with gets used by other people. Arguing about who did what first is a big waste of time.

----------

UGH, it's already on a Fridge, Toaster, Washer, and dryer!

Google them, and you will find them very easily. It's hard to take a company seriously when they go and slap their OS on everything like that yet their phones take forever to get simple updates.

What are you talking about "ugh"? That's awesome! It's like we live in the future or something. :p

I can't wait until my fridge berates me for running low on bacon. Cuz you know the next step after that is gonna totally be Moon Cars.
 
UGH, it's already on a Fridge, Toaster, Washer, and dryer!

Google them, and you will find them very easily. It's hard to take a company seriously when they go and slap their OS on everything like that yet their phones take forever to get simple updates.

Image

Thats awesome, I didn't know Google was developing all these variations of Android. They're obviously responsible for all these devices with Android. Derp.
 
Did he do the interview for Bloomberg on April 1st? That's the only plausible explanation.

First I hear Ashton will be portraying Steve in a biopic, and now this news. Perhaps the Mayans were right to end the calendar this year. LOOK FOR THE SIGNS PEOPLE!!!
 
probably just one of the many tantrums Jobs threw, wonder if he cried after too

I often wonder about that...

You know how secretive Apple is with the public... does that secrecy extend to their Board Members?

Do they get to come down into the secret labs and get their hands on unreleased products?

Lots of Apple's Board Members are from other companies.. not just Eric Schmidt. I'm sure the Board is busy with lots of executive-level stuff... not exactly new products.

Steve knew Google bought Android in 2005... I'm pretty sure Steve never said "Hey Eric... look at this!"

Maybe we'll find out in Schmidt's biography.

A board of directors wouldn't exactly be getting a tour of Apple's secret labs, but they would be privy to product road maps and anything in which the company is spending money on (this includes budets, salaries, anything money related).

Apple had 2 teams working on a Mobile platform. The first was exactly what Android was, an OS slapped ontop of Linux for all intent and purpose. They did have a working product... but then another team proposed the idea of taking OSX and shrinking it. So while you read about it being a battle of passion between two teams, there is also money being spent while these teams duke it out creating concepts and prototypes. That requires money to be spent... to which the board is most likely aware of without any technical details being known.

However, while that tries to answer your question... in this specific case... Jobs screwed up and SHOWED the product to him. This is where his passion about it being a totally stolen product comes into play, because Eric Schmidt did get behind the scenes access to a product. They were good friends, and it wasn't the kind of thing Jobs would have thought in a million years Google would even touch. When Apple decided to go with a version of OSX for the foundation and scrapped using Linux, Google turned their ovens on and started baking gingerbread men and all sorts of other confections in their labs.

The reason this is becoming a patent war and not a suit against industrial espionage is that Linux itself is open source and free for anyone to tinker and play with. It runs ATM machines, there are other half baked OS-es out there based on it's code, and nothing about the GUI is particularly proprietary to anyone at this point. However, many of the features of Android were... like multi-touch and some other things.

As a stand alone product, Android is awful. It's an abortion on the inside as far as an OS goes... but Google gives it away... further murking the waters as to what recourse Apple could have because they don't charge for it (despite making money off of it) which is why you saw Apple not going after Google in the beginning, but Google's hardware partners. Which didn't work.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.