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.
Tim Cook Opposed Suing Samsung Over Mobile Device Patents
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Steve's childish (and yes, the way he handled it was childish) 'Thermonuclear war on Android jusy highlighted his personality before he was fired from Apple.
He may have been a great marketer, and had great ideas, but despite what is portrayed he hated competition. If he'd had it his way, the iPhone would still be competing with Windows CE.
At some point you just have to step back and say "you know what, screw it - if they want to copy our icon style and have a black border, go ahead" as thats what it amounts to. Fundamentally iOS and Android have never been the same, to claim Android was copying iOS is laughable if you've actually sat and used the two operating systems.
I like Cook, he seems a lot more focused on making Apple do what Apple does best - work with their own products. I still dont think we've really seen any of his work as its still in the pipeline, everything up to the iPhone 5 and iPad Mini would have been in development under Jobs, even the iOS UI and Maps would have been.
One thing that I would like to know:
Would Cook have chosen to develop Apple Maps? It was a Jobs decision when he had a strop and got pissed off with Google. Maybe Cook, with a slightly more calm approach would have come to a better arrangement.
(Note: Dont get me wrong, I love what Jobs achieved, but I'm capable of recognising that like all of us, he was a flawed human being who did make a lot of mistakes - we all do it.)
He may have been a great marketer, and had great ideas, but despite what is portrayed he hated competition. If he'd had it his way, the iPhone would still be competing with Windows CE.
At some point you just have to step back and say "you know what, screw it - if they want to copy our icon style and have a black border, go ahead" as thats what it amounts to. Fundamentally iOS and Android have never been the same, to claim Android was copying iOS is laughable if you've actually sat and used the two operating systems.
I like Cook, he seems a lot more focused on making Apple do what Apple does best - work with their own products. I still dont think we've really seen any of his work as its still in the pipeline, everything up to the iPhone 5 and iPad Mini would have been in development under Jobs, even the iOS UI and Maps would have been.
One thing that I would like to know:
Would Cook have chosen to develop Apple Maps? It was a Jobs decision when he had a strop and got pissed off with Google. Maybe Cook, with a slightly more calm approach would have come to a better arrangement.
(Note: Dont get me wrong, I love what Jobs achieved, but I'm capable of recognising that like all of us, he was a flawed human being who did make a lot of mistakes - we all do it.)
yeah... really??? is this your understanding of the automotive industry? so, the Germans, Austrians, Italians, French, Americans, had nothing or very little to do with innovation?
I guess this is why the internal combustion engines are still called Otto and Diesel engines, in honor of their inventors "Sir" Nikolaus Otto and "Sir" Rudolf Diesel... and the patents held by Maybach, Daimler and Benz were granted in the Germany, right?
That book is the starting to sound like a Bible. That looks like a form of scripture. The Book of Jobs.
If the Jobs biography were written like that, it would've been a far, far more entertaining read.
Yes, but people forget Samsung became the power house it is in large part because of large investments by US companies like Apple and even Dell. Apple gave well over a hundred million dollars to Samsung when it was struggling to 1) beef up its manufacturing capabilities, and 2) ensure a supply of components. Apple can do the same thing with Samsung's competitors.
Moreover, US companies are learning a hard lesson by outsourcing manufacturing. Take ASUS. ASUS convinced Dell to allow it to build its computers. After ASUS had a steady income from making Dell's computers, it decided to build its own computers where it could under cut Dell on pricing since it was a manufacturer.
By virtue of giving Samsung a large part of Apple's parts orders, Samsung became privy to information that allowed it to compete effectively with Apple.
Finally, when Samsung first started competing with Apple's iPhone it made its phones look almost identical. The designs today have changed probably because of Apple's lawsuits. I remember sitting in Best Buy waiting for my girlfriend. I was by a Samsung phone display. In the five minutes I was there two people came up and called it an iPhone.
Jobs already experienced having a friend (Microsoft) use inside information (Microsoft had access to the original Mac OS through a deal with Apple to create Office apps) to copy Apple's product. My only potential disagreement with Jobs is that Microsoft seemed smarter. It has licensing deals from just about everybody including Samsung. So it is making anywhere from 5 to 10 dollars per Android phone sold. Apple could have easily took that approach, and still protected its design patents. Then again APple is a design company. It stands out through design, and protecting the look and feel of its products are important.
Suing Android manufacturers was not a mistake. Jobs viewed Eric Schmidt as using inside information to unfairly compete with Apple's iPhone. That particularly irked Jobs because Bill Gates did the same thing when Jobs trusted Microsoft with inside information concerning the Mac to create Office apps. It is undeniable that Android completely changed to resemble IOS when the iPhone first came out.
Moreover, Apple has always been a design company. The look of its products has always been important for it to stand out in a crowd. When the original iMac came out, Apple successfully sued a Japanese to stop making knock offs.
Apple's lawsuits have also have had some success in that Samsung has in fact stopped knocking the look of the iPhone off so directly. Suing also told other competitors they would be spending a lot of money in legal fees if they didn't make their devices look different than Apple's. If Jobs made a mistake, in my mind it was not entering more Microsoft like deals where the manufacturers paid a licensing fee.
you can't get back a stolen design unless you can go back in time. They sue for damages done by stolen designs. The product has been made from stolen designs you can't change that, you can only be paid damages from the thief.
----------
so you wouldn't be PO'ed if someone ripped off your hard work and not just hard work, your very passion.
----------
exactly my thoughts, but you got guts bringing it up here since a lot of people on this forum don't realise that a lot of hard work goes into design.
I remember back in 2005 before I was aware of all this and before I was even a designer myself. A friend of mine had a chinese rip off iPod and for about 4 months I thought it was an official iPod. When I discovered it wasn't the Apple version I was shocked because it looked almost identical. So there you go, I was admiring a stolen design and at Apple's cost. Hence why they sue for damages. Again people would never understand that unless trained in art or have a logical mind.
Samsung advertises their flagship phone in a commercial where a woman copies her co-worker's report and passes it off as her own. Is that considered ethical in a chaebol?
Oh, God. Not this again.
If Steve Jobs thought Schmidt was using his position to strengthen his own platform, then his "thermonuclear war" would've included suing the everliving hell out of the guy.
Instead, he went after Samsung.
And it's not like Jobs ever kept his feelings a secret. If he actually truly believed Schmidt stole directly from him, he would've been lambasting the guy every chance he got. Instead, he had nothing but nice things to say about him up until the day he died.
So please, lets all put this "Schmidt directly stole from Apple" fantasy to rest. Because that's exactly what it is. A fantasy. It has absolutely zero basis in reality.
And lets not get into the MS stole the GUI from Apple business. In fact, lets put this whole Apple Victimhood thing as deep in the dirt as we possibly can. It's really annoying, and only spoken from a position of ignorance.
I'm a huge Matrix fan so no spoiler there but thanks, I never finished watching the Harry Potter movies!
I'm a huge Matrix fan so no spoiler there but thanks, I never finished watching the Harry Potter movies!
Don't worry. I was still talking about the Steve Jobs biography.
Guy had an interesting life.
I would have liked to see Jonny Ive become CEO. If Apple is a design company, no one epitomises design more than Ive. He was the figure behind the products that took Apple to where it is today. He probably wasn't eligible because he's British, but I suspect also that he didn't want the role.
Tim Cook doesn't interest me. He hasn't said anything that doesn't sound scripted or predictable. He doesn't have the stage presence or RDF that Steve had. If Apple recognises that they stuffed up so badly with maps then why are they still so bad more than six months later? Are they saving all the fixes for a big update Maps 2 in iOS 7? If they aren't it's a bit worrying...
Tim Cook doesn't interest me. He hasn't said anything that doesn't sound scripted or predictable. He doesn't have the stage presence or RDF that Steve had. If Apple recognises that they stuffed up so badly with maps then why are they still so bad more than six months later? Are they saving all the fixes for a big update Maps 2 in iOS 7? If they aren't it's a bit worrying...
As a person who (with Woz) started the company from scratch, and who personally and jointly, had many patents to his name, that fact could be expected, understood, and even forgiven.
Cook on the other hand, not having as much direct and creative input on the designs, can look at things more from a practical and business perspective, which is probably better for APPLE in the long run. Too much time, energy and $$$ wasted, which could all be better spent on product development.
It's better to win the war, than winning a few battles.
Honestly, if you want Ives to continue doing what he does best, you don't want him as the CEO. If he's running the entire company, he wouldn't have time to spend in the design labs.
I'm not talking about who came up with the car first. After all Apple didn't invent the first microprocessor, computer, MP3 player, Smart phone or Tablet, but they had major innovations in these fields.
I'm talking more about who took "what" idea from us. Under bad management by the late 60's/70's we were practically giving our designs and ideas away, especially our motorcycle designs to the Japanese.
To put it into perspective in the 1930's Britain had over 350 different car manufactures, in more recent years LTI "London Taxi's International" was the only one left in British ownership, now thats gone too. If Apple aren't careful they could make some serious mistakes. That was my point.
----------
Yeah and thats what happened to our industry under abysmal bad management. BSA Motorcycles were practically giving the designs away to the likes of Honda and Yamaha and them companies had the money to spend improving and perfecting upon our original designs. We didn't bother and we was surpassed.
----------
Pretty sure in the 50's & 1960's Jaguar wasn't unreliable & awful and this is my point. During this period they made stuff like the D-Type Jaguar, E-type Jaguar and the Jaguar MkII. Possibly some of the most legendary cars of all time. Jaguar became rubbish and junk when it was swallowed up into british Layland and they replaced the E-type with the XJS.
All you have to do is look at an E-type. Even Enzo Ferrari called it the beautifulest car ever made. So much so they were inspired by it in someway when building the 250 GT California, apart from the wider grille they do look quite similar.
Last edited:
This is quite an interesting discussion.
I know you didn't mean to compare Apple to the invention of the automobile itself several decades earlier, to which Britain's contribution was limited at most compared to other countries, but you get the point - also, in terms of innovation or manufacturing in that decade, British cars were not so edgy as you'd like to think, national sentiments apart. And how much of Britain's temporary commercial success was due to the steep recovery Germany, Japan, France and Italy had to face in the post-war, plus the steep growth and transformation of consumer spending and habits in those years in other parts of the world, should be discussed too. And a high number of artisanal auto shops is no proof of global market dominance... in fact, its possible that such an unconsolidated auto industry brought its demise on itself, and would've made any defense impossible.
What I'm trying to say is that it's more complicated than that.
But just for the sake of argument, even if world wide British auto supremacy in those days were true, how would you propose they protect and saved it? What specifically could've they done in terms of intellectual property in those days? There was nothing the british car manufacturers could do to forcefully stop competition and the erosion of it's supposed relevance in a world market. The same way there is little copyright-wise Apple can do to stop the inevitable new inexpensive consumer tablets, smartphones, computers, etc.
So anyway, the comparison of Apple's patent fights and supply chain conundrums, to the fate of the late british automotive industry in the 60s, to support an argument for stricter intellectual property madness is still terrible. In any case, it supports the opposite: the fact that Apple will go down, sooner or later, as have any other dominant figures in every industry, if it doesn't reinvents itself. That other dominant players, technologies and concepts will rise regardless of who came up with them. And that if they do what you propose - vigorously suing everybody that threatens them over simple BS, keeping the control freak philosophy Steve Jobs imposed, and isolating customers to hold on to their patents and markets... they will just keep putting themselves into smaller boxes... the faster and harder they will fall.
IMO, Tim Cook's reluctance is justified. Plus in the end, they will loose all those lawsuits, one way or another.
Cheers!
Last edited:
If that were true, why did Apple not sue Google?
You do realize that every time someone has spun that line they have been proven wrong by looking at images of Android before and after iOS came out. Remember, Android was demoed on a full size touch screen over a year before the iPhone was announced - Google it.
Other than that, would you care to share evidence to back up the claim that Android changed after iOS was released?
In any case, even if it did it means very little. You dont see Google suing Apple for stealing their notification bar.
I agree, and even to this day, there are computers and phones that dont look half as good as Apples.
Yup, the Galaxy S was really the only handset that was a nockoff - it looked very similar to the 3G/s. However since that, they have looked nothing like Apple handsets at all.
Either Jobs is an idiot or this is a distorted recount of what happened. Google bought Android long before Schmidt was named to the Apple board.
"Google buys Android " 2005
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-5837102-7.html
"Apple appoints Schmidt to Apple Board " 2006
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/200...-Schmidt-Joins-Apples-Board-of-Directors.html
It is more likely that Jobs wanted to give Schmidt inside info about how the iPhone was so insanely great that Google should stop exploring phone OS opportunities and just concentrate on enabling Apple's phone. Jobs didn't want Google's billions to be bankrolling a "free OS" alternative. Any "free OS" would do exactly to mobile phones what DOS/Windows did to MacOS.
It is also undeniable that companies like LG had prototype phones long before the iPhone came out that had large screens with fewer buttons. If Google was running around pitching their upcoming OS to several phone vendors they would also get NDA access to at least a few prototypes for a variety of manufacturers.
Certainly Schmidt knew how deep the competition was going to be with Apple. There is nothing to indicate that he came back and gave detailed specs to the Android team. Well any more than Jobs came back and gave specs of Xerox's GUI to Apple folks. Primarily he would have only observed that Apple was on the same track as LG , Motorola , and others.
Because Jobs is more out to suppress competition for a time as opposed to being compensated for the patents. One primary reason Samsung didn't settle was the huge price tag Apple threw on top for licenses. At some point the size of the price actually leads to a suit. Piss folks off they will sue you back. The fact that Apple is using lots of FRAND patents without paying along with the giant bucket of money that just seems to collect for no reason (not going to spend it on anything that large) is also pissing folks off.
Links, please, unless you mean this video dating from the SDK preview release in November 2007 - 6 months after the iPhone launch - in which half of the demo is on a blackberry-like device and the other half shows an advanced prototype which, if you look with your eyes turned on, is still primarily controlled with off-screen buttons and jog wheels (look e.g. at 3:08 - 3:13). All we see is a partially touch-enabled web browser and a rotating globe demo.
I'm not saying that Apple is entitled to its silly patents, but trying to deny that Android did a major design U-turn after the iPhone launch is just ridiculous.
Agreed - that's the problem with the patent system - Samsung deserved a slap for the Galaxy S1 (and the first Galaxy Tab 10) but by the time the wheels of justice have finished grinding they will be ancient history, and Samsung have long since started coming up with their own ideas. It's like hitting a puppy 3 dog years after it has crapped on the floor.
Its a macrumors expert, theyre all "on the inside" and dont need to bother with things like sources!
No, you can't.
1. There was no design stolen. If it were stolen then how could Apple use it?
2. Who want's the same design, EVER?