Walter Isaacson Says Jobs' Rage Over Android Was Real

[Scottgfx]

I thought it was elementary to determine screen/resolution sizes for doing any sort of graphics programming and making calculations accordingly. I learned that when I was a kid. It is terrible programming practice if you create code specific to a given resolution or screen size.

Great in theory, but in practice, not as much.

Compare iPad apps to Android tablet apps. Just take the phone app and scale it up for a tablet. Yeah! Works great, or does it?

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-news/ipad-apps-vs-android-tablet-apps-side-by-side-comparison/6781

Graphic elements are mostly still bitmap, arbitrary scaling is possible, but takes more GPU power, and usually doesn't look as clean as a native resolution image, or a bitmap scaled 200%. I suspect that in the future, more interface design (chrome) will be vector based. It just takes more processing power to rasterize that stuff on-the-fly.

----------

And completely missing the point, unfortunately.

I didn't know you had one.

 

[Renzatic]

I didn't know you had one.

Yeah. Shocked me a bit, too.

 

[Scottgfx]

Yeah. Shocked me a bit, too.

Well, when you can verbalize it, let us know.

 

[Renzatic]

Well, when you can verbalize it, let us know.

Okay. Geez. I'll tell you. Sigh.

Anyone anyone here mentions how "buggy" and "third rate" Windows is these days, they're usually referring to problems that haven't existed on the platform since the days of Windows 3.1, or 95. Constant BSOD's, programs crashing and bringing down the whole OS .dll hell, registry issues, ect. I think one guy here griped about how stupid it was that you had to log out to the DOS prompt to install a network card driver on Windows 7 once. These problems haven't existed in forever. Windows these days is about 99.9% as stable as OSX.

These old, old, old issues that have long since been fixed and are constantly brought up are about as stupid as people griping about Macs only having one mouse button. You know, it's a problem that hasn't existed in forever, and going on about it does nothing more than expose your ignorance.

So there.

 

[EmlynDewar]

So are Apple fanboys when it comes to being on the defensive against Android. This 'war' is ridiculously stupid. Its as if Apple fanboys had their iPhones taken away from them... or will have them taken away.

This obsessive mindless devotion to a BRAND is pathetic.

Agree, threads like these are often painful (but still amusing) to read.
So much wild inaccuracy, finger pointing and crying.

 

[d3k]

Actually, I get plenty of professional usage out of my currently not-at-all jailbroken iPad. It's an excellent device for taking notes, doing quick edits, and generally keeping track of my day. I can remote into any PC I need to, and even keep track of security cameras through it. It even has access to a scaled back but still capable rev of Photoshop to do some light photo editing.

As is, the iPad is an excellent device for professionals. So why would I want to jailbreak it? Well...mostly to play old DOS and Nintendo games. Very professional. Indeed.

I guess I wasn't too clear on what I meant by professional. I was hoping the content of the rest of my post hinted at technology professional. Taking notes, editing documents, doing quick little photo edits is pretty much part of any persons day, down to high school students. I would say in this day in age, if your device can't at least do all of those things you mentioned, then it's a terrible device.

People, for example, can use their devices for surveying cell towers and positioning equipment, network footprinting, security assessments, etc. Even basic tunneling isn't available on an Apple device. At least vpn support is present on Apple devices, thank god. It's quite easy to do advanced things on a mobile device, these days with a device that allows it. Apple doesn't provide that.

Sure there is dedicated equipment and software for doing all of those things, including all of the things you mentioned, but the majority of this thread is people comparing the power and availability of power on these devices. Apple has very little of that power. Jailbroken iOS devices does, and so does Android. Which leads me again to say:

Apple devices are consumer products, for your every day kind of user..

 

[the read]

Except that your narrative has no basis in fact:

First, this headline from "All Things D"
"iPhone Outselling All Other Smartphones Combined at Sprint and AT&T"

http://allthingsd.com/20120402/iphone-outselling-all-other-smartphones-combined-at-sprint-and-att/

Also, you blame Jobs for letting Windows *eventually* surge ahead. The Mac was released in 1984, Jobs was gone about a year later. There's about a decade where Jobs had no influence on what happened to the Mac.

Also, you say that for every person who likes Apple products, there's one who doesn't? 50% market share would be pretty sweet. There was even a story recently that about half of all households had at least one Apple product.

Congratulations on completely misunderstanding the basic points raised and introducing irelivent details.

No one is disputing Apple's large market share or successes as a company? Your defensive response only suggests you have no grounded opinion. Let me try to simplify for you! Apple are a great innovative company that have struggled to maintain monopoly of the markets they have created because of the three points previously raised in my last post.

Message recieved? Maybe we can stay on subject?

 

[Scottgfx]

Okay. Geez. I'll tell you. Sigh.

These old, old, old issues that have long since been fixed and are constantly brought up are about as stupid as people griping about Macs only having one mouse button. You know, it's a problem that hasn't existed in forever, and going on about it does nothing more than expose your ignorance.

So there.

Sure. While I do recognize that Windows has made tremendous improvements, It still is not the same clean, functional user experience that the Mac has been. I've just built a new PC system and have placed Win 7 on it. A lot less crap popping up and annoying me when I'm trying to do something. It hasn't completely gone away though.

Another thing I notice is how things are animated. Apple has gone to great lengths to smoothly and cleanly animate the window elements. When something moves, it has weight. It seems to move with purpose. When Win7 flies a window around, it has a klunk or thud. It's a small thing, but I think it shows a lack of attention to detail.

I'll give you a PS/2 model 60, Win 2.1, Adobe Illustrator, Aldus Pagemaker and let you figure out how to get *both* programs to print to the same Postscript printer. Also, configure the 4 Megabyte memory card to work... period. It can be done, but it isn't obvious or easy, but probably in a way was fun to hack.

So for my own Windows exploits, I'll say this... Derp!
Sorry to bug you tonight.

 

[the read]

Sure. While I do recognize that Windows has made tremendous improvements, It still is not the same clean, functional user experience that the Mac has been. I've just built a new PC system and have placed Win 7 on it. A lot less crap popping up and annoying me when I'm trying to do something. It hasn't completely gone away

Some may argue that Lion is now becoming bloated. It's certainly less stable than previous OSX. My Mac mini continually lags on many basic tasks, and having to uncheck "reopen windows when logging back in" is getting very tedious. But I admit, still an improvement on Windows 7.

 

[Scottgfx]

Congratulations on completely misunderstanding the basic points raised and introducing irelivent details.

No one is disputing Apple's large market share or successes as a company? Your defensive response only suggests you have no grounded opinion. Let me try to simplify for you! Apple are a great innovative company that have struggled to maintain monopoly of the markets they have created because of the three points previously raised in my last post.

Message recieved? Maybe we can stay on subject?

No, I reread and you state that Apple can not dominate because they are not licensing the OS, (i.e. putting it on other hardware) and other various reasons that are related to the Windows domination of personal computers. A paradigm that doesn't directly relate to smartphones, but one that many have tried to apply.

Android, while may be selling as well or better than iPhone, who is it being sold to? From the market data that keeps coming out, a majority of Android users use the device as a feature-phone and little else. The carriers are directing the rank-and-file customers to these phones and they don't know what can be done with them. I'm not saying that the phones are bad, I'm saying that the phones are being pushed to people that would be just as happy with an old Nokia. The majority of Android handsets are still running Gingerbread. That's analogous to people not just using, but *buying* new PCs with Windows 98 preinstalled on them today.

 

[Renzatic]

I guess I wasn't too clear on what I meant by professional. I was hoping the content of the rest of my post hinted at technology professional. Taking notes, editing documents, doing quick little photo edits is pretty much part of any persons day, down to high school students. I would say in this day in age, if your device can't at least do all of those things you mentioned, then it's a terrible device.

People, for example, can use their devices for surveying cell towers and positioning equipment, network footprinting, security assessments, etc. Even basic tunneling isn't available on an Apple device. At least vpn support is present on Apple devices, thank god. It's quite easy to do advanced things on a mobile device, these days with a device that allows it. Apple doesn't provide that.

Sure there is dedicated equipment and software for doing all of those things, including all of the things you mentioned, but the majority of this thread is people comparing the power and availability of power on these devices. Apple has very little of that power. Jailbroken iOS devices does, and so does Android. Which leads me again to say:

Apple devices are consumer products, for your every day kind of user..

Hmm. You have a point. I have seen some incredibly indepth, what I'd consider high end professional, apps on the app store, but there are still quite a few places where the iPad is, by default, a little lacking.

See, I think of the iPad as (besides a media consumption device) either a data entry point, or an on-the-go portal to a much more powerful machine. For me, it fulfills the role of that netbooks were supposed to. I don't expect to do any nose-to-the-grindstone serious work on it. I have my desktop for that. But for prepping towards this serious work, organizing all my bits and pieces, it excels.

Admittedly, I should've thought a little more broadly about what a professional device entailed. But as is, It might fall short on quite a few specific use cases that the machine is otherwise capable of, but can't do because Apple are such incredible tightasses over their app store requirements. But I still think it's an excellent device out of the box. and offers up plenty of power for the usual professional types.

 

[d3k]

Some may argue that Lion is now becoming bloated. It's certainly less stable than previous OSX. My Mac mini continually lags on many basic tasks, and having to uncheck "reopen windows when logging back in" is getting very tedious. But I admit, still an improvement on Windows 7.

Dashboard and Launchpad need to gtfo my computer.

I experience stability issues as much on my Mac as I do Windows. About the same for me.


Won't be long till OSX turns our machines into a gigantic iPads. Oh man I can't wait to play Match the Picture puzzles on a 27" touchscreen. Launchpad will be a treat.

 

[Renzatic]

Sure. While I do recognize that Windows has made tremendous improvements, It still is not the same clean, functional user experience that the Mac has been. I've just built a new PC system and have placed Win 7 on it. A lot less crap popping up and annoying me when I'm trying to do something. It hasn't completely gone away though.

Another thing I notice is how things are animated. Apple has gone to great lengths to smoothly and cleanly animate the window elements. When something moves, it has weight. It seems to move with purpose. When Win7 flies a window around, it has a klunk or thud. It's a small thing, but I think it shows a lack of attention to detail.

The UI experience has always been Apple's bread and butter, and the one thing I'd put OSX above Windows on. It's not that Windows is terrible. I can navigate through it quickly and get to pretty much anything I need in a snap of a figure. But it's not as homogenous as OSX. Everything feels a little jumbled together in comparison. It works, yeah. But it lacks "the experience", to sound kinda horribly corny here.

Or to sound even more corny, you could say that Windows gives you a platform, and OSX gives you an environment. Everything is a little more smooth on a Mac and fits together a little better, but I can ultimately get stuff done equally as well on either/or. Really, I only have a slight preference towards one over the other.

Also, I kinda like the Windows 7 animations. I think they're pretty smooth.

So for my own Windows exploits, I'll say this... Derp!
Sorry to bug you tonight.

You interrupted my lazy reverie. I'll never forgive you.

 

[the read]

No, I reread and you state that Apple can not dominate because they are not licensing the OS, (i.e. putting it on other hardware) and other various reasons that are related to the Windows domination of personal computers. A paradigm that doesn't directly relate to smartphones, but one that many have tried to apply.

Android, while may be selling as well or better than iPhone, who is it being sold to? From the market data that keeps coming out, a majority of Android users use the device as a feature-phone and little else. The carriers are directing the rank-and-file customers to these phones and they don't know what can be done with them. I'm not saying that the phones are bad, I'm saying that the phones are being pushed to people that would be just as happy with an old Nokia. The majority of Android handsets are still running Gingerbread. That's analogous to people not just using, but *buying* new PCs with Windows 98 preinstalled on them today.

The mobile technology industry is still in its infancy. Android is a more cost effective device and because of this it will eventually dominate with the masses, even if most people with an Andriod would rather own an Apple device. Android will eventually solve its many problems and the ussr base will start to use the device with a more explorative mindset. 3rd party developers and partnering hardware companies will aid its progress in the long run. But lets face it, both Android and IOS have benefits and weaknesses. They could both learn from each other, and the idea that 1 will dominate is void.

I originally responded to the idea that Jobs could spend Apple's money to kill Android. I do not believe this could have been possible.

 

[WeegieMac]

Now you're going off-topic. What did Android the copy? You fail at mentioning anything.

And the whole Android ressembling Blackberry (Not RIM, an OS cannot ressemble a company) is not a fact, it is a hypothesis created by bunch of whiners using leaked screenshots.

And nowhere did Jobs mention that Schmidt copied sitting on the board, another stupid created assumption.

You need REAL concrete facts. Deal with it.

You fail at getting the point.

Look at Android when Google first bought it, which was before the iPhone hit the market. It resembled the RIM interface in terms of both hardware and software. It's sometimes difficult for people to remember what it was back "back then", but I'm sure you can try.

The iPhone came out, it was like nothing any mobile phone had been before. People need to stop thinking the above statement simply means touchscreen phones, as I am more than aware there was hideous, unresponsive, touch screen phones from LG and Sony Ericsson way before iPhone. You would need to be either a) stupid, b) naive, or c) probably both to think that Schmidt wasn't sitting enviously looking at Apple's work on the iPhone and iPhone OS (at the time) as he knew what Google were doing with their acquired Android framework OS.

Android evolved over the time iPhone and iOS came to market, you can clearly see the transformation from Android prototypes where the interface was nothing like the iPhone to where it resembled the iPhone more than more and brought over a similar feature set (pinch to zoom, rotate for landscape mode). Sure, again, other phones done this kind of thing in a far more basic and inferior (poor performance) manner, but if it's "no big deal" then why did Google not have a similar performance and feature set version of Android then, when they had a RIM focused approach to how Android would look. The iPhone and iOS inspired Google to what Android should be.

And yes, Jobs did hide the development of the iPad from Schmidt as he didn't trust him when Android eventually evolved into the same feature set and interface design as the iPhone. Six months after Schmidt left Apple due to growing competition between Google and Apple, the iPad launched. It is fact that Jobs did not trust Schmidt enough after seeing what Android became during Schmidt's time on the Apple board when he was privy to information and prototypes.

The fact that no Android tablet can touch the iPad, in both looks and sheer UI performance, proves that Google struggled to grasp the concept of how a smartphone OS could and should translate to a tablet.

The reason I don't like Android myself, and this is regardless of the spec of the device, is that the things lag more than iOS and the screens are never as responsive. I also loathe that from a development standpoint in term of web design and apps, you need to think about potentially hundreds of specifications and determine whether the app will perform well enough to justify being on a particular model as well as different screen resolutions, sizes, etc.

A lot of people of an Android persuasion on here are pretty two faced and self opinionated. You cannot have a serious discussion because anything they see as Pro Apple and Anti Android is wrong, yet they shove their own pedantic opinions back as fact while labelling people "fanboys" like some immature school child. I don't like Android, as a consumer, because it is an inferior, fragmented, experience and that is because it's entire life it's tried to be a version of something else (iOS) instead of be it's own product with it's own merits (other than being "open source", if that floats your boat).

 

[Tarzanman]

You need to pick up a current, high end android device. You clearly haven't touched one in over a year.

You fail at getting the point.

Look at Android when Google first bought it, which was before the iPhone hit the market. It resembled the RIM interface in terms of both hardware and software. It's sometimes difficult for people to remember what it was back "back then", but I'm sure you can try.

The iPhone came out, it was like nothing any mobile phone had been before. People need to stop thinking the above statement simply means touchscreen phones, as I am more than aware there was hideous, unresponsive, touch screen phones from LG and Sony Ericsson way before iPhone. You would need to be either a) stupid, b) naive, or c) probably both to think that Schmidt wasn't sitting enviously looking at Apple's work on the iPhone and iPhone OS (at the time) as he knew what Google were doing with their acquired Android framework OS.

Android evolved over the time iPhone and iOS came to market, you can clearly see the transformation from Android prototypes where the interface was nothing like the iPhone to where it resembled the iPhone more than more and brought over a similar feature set (pinch to zoom, rotate for landscape mode). Sure, again, other phones done this kind of thing in a far more basic and inferior (poor performance) manner, but if it's "no big deal" then why did Google not have a similar performance and feature set version of Android then, when they had a RIM focused approach to how Android would look. The iPhone and iOS inspired Google to what Android should be.

And yes, Jobs did hide the development of the iPad from Schmidt as he didn't trust him when Android eventually evolved into the same feature set and interface design as the iPhone. Six months after Schmidt left Apple due to growing competition between Google and Apple, the iPad launched. It is fact that Jobs did not trust Schmidt enough after seeing what Android became during Schmidt's time on the Apple board when he was privy to information and prototypes.

The fact that no Android tablet can touch the iPad, in both looks and sheer UI performance, proves that Google struggled to grasp the concept of how a smartphone OS could and should translate to a tablet.

The reason I don't like Android myself, and this is regardless of the spec of the device, is that the things lag more than iOS and the screens are never as responsive. I also loathe that from a development standpoint in term of web design and apps, you need to think about potentially hundreds of specifications and determine whether the app will perform well enough to justify being on a particular model as well as different screen resolutions, sizes, etc.

A lot of people of an Android persuasion on here are pretty two faced and self opinionated. You cannot have a serious discussion because anything they see as Pro Apple and Anti Android is wrong, yet they shove their own pedantic opinions back as fact while labelling people "fanboys" like some immature school child. I don't like Android, as a consumer, because it is an inferior, fragmented, experience and that is because it's entire life it's tried to be a version of something else (iOS) instead of be it's own product with it's own merits (other than being "open source", if that floats your boat).

 

[WeegieMac]

You need to pick up a current, high end android device. You clearly haven't touched one in over a year.

Samsung Galaxy S2 is praised by the Android fan base, but the screen is nowhere near as responsive as the iPhone's and there is noticeable, albeit not frequent jumping/stuttering when moving between menus. And yes, I have used more than one handset, before the old "it may have been faulty/rooted/full argument is broken out again.

You clearly think you know my personal experience. As a consumer, I do not like the Android experience or UI. Why do Android users take it so hard when others don't like their platform? I take it someone decided opinions don't matter anymore.

 

[the read]

Samsung Galaxy S2 is praised by the Android fan base, but the screen is nowhere near as responsive as the iPhone's and there is noticeable, albeit not frequent jumping/stuttering when moving between menus. And yes, I have used more than one handset, before the old "it may have been faulty/rooted/full argument is broken out again.

You clearly think you know my personal experience. As a consumer, I do not like the Android experience or UI. Why do Android users take it so hard when others don't like their platform? I take it someone decided opinions don't matter anymore.

My iPone 4 also jumps and staggers from time to time. It also has a bunch of other frustrating features, from a limiting OS to failing hardware. I've been through 4 iPhones in 12 moths all with the same problem. Add to the fact that Apple limit certain features like Siri to only the latest models, feels like apple just want to punish its ussr base. Makes you question whereas Apple's loyalty to the ussr. Do I think it's better than Android, at some things yes but not everything.

Apple are far from perfect. In my experience Apple users tend to be far more aggressive when discussing alternatives and without any real exposure to the tech. Especially on this site. But it does make entertaining reading.

My next phone will not have an Apple logo on it. Each to their own.

 

[Angelo95210]

The Idea of a smart, but easy to use, Mobile platform, the lockscreen, Notifications, gaming on the go, among many other things.

Notifications are actually stolen by Apple from the Android platform...

 

[Lennholm]

- Different resolutions and screen size is a joke. As a developer, making games, you have a system of math to calculate where objects are on the screen, animations, etc. I have to manually do this for all the screen size I want to have my game run on? How much money I have to spend to buy all the different devices? Ridiculous. In iOS, I just know the size is 320x480 or 1024x768, and i'm good to go. I'll know my game will run just fine on all iPod touch, all iPhones, all iPads.

Ah yes, I can just picture your "system of math" to position objects on the screen:

if (viewport.width == 480){

    object.posX = 100;

} else if (viewport.width == 520){

    object.posX = 120;

} else if (viewport.width == 640){

    object.posX = 180;

} else if ...

...

 

[KnightWRX]

You fail at getting the point.

Look at Android when Google first bought it, which was before the iPhone hit the market. It resembled the RIM interface in terms of both hardware and software. It's sometimes difficult for people to remember what it was back "back then", but I'm sure you can try.

Yes it is, because a lot of people keep calling a OS, a piece of software, a "RIM like" interface, which is a hardware form factor (the blackberry style PDA/Phone).

Obviously, a lot of confused folk about what is and isn't Android, how it changed and didn't change.

Android is very much Android. If anything, it is inspired by Andy Rubin's previous work at his own Danger Inc. on the Hip top software/hardware. But Android is not hardware. It has no "iPhone" form factor or "BB" form factor.

A lot of you people claiming there even was a transition in Android between these form factors are missing the entire point of thing : A piece of software, namely an operating system distribution that is hardware agnostic.

Android today and still the same as it was :

Yes, that phone was released in the later 2.x days of Android. Funny how for a phone that doesn't have a "RIM" like interface ? Don't you people get it by now ? You're not even discussing the UI or the software, you're discussing the OEM's choice of hardware! That's a big world of difference between the hardware a OS runs on and the actual OS...

I don't even know why I bother with this crap anymore. It's not like you people even want to understand this stuff. You hate Android because Steve "hated" Android (according to Isaacson who wants you to plop down cash for his turd of a book).

BTW, this is Android 1.0 :

This is Ice Cream Sandwich, Android 4.0 :

Both are pretty much the same. Widgets, application launchers that can be positionned anywhere on screen according to user input. The UI didn't change much, except for its theming and styling. The core of it has remained the same. The core of it is also quite different from iOS' UI. Here for reference :

Rigid icon grid, no way to move things around as the icons place themselves linearly, completing existing rows and pages before creating new ones. This is minimalist, it is recognizable from one device to the other.

The design goals with both these UIs are quite different. Andy and Google went with user customization in mind, making the device the users device'. Apple went with a different approach, a strict UI that is unbending to a user' will so that any user that picks up any iOS device will instantly recognize how to use it efficiently.

Both approaches have merit, both target different audiences. To claim one is a copy of the other or vice versa is inane. It's ignorant of every aspect of the design of both and it ignores the fundamental differences between the systems. To tie any particular software to a device form factor is also quite inane and simplistic view of software development. It lacks understanding of the whole thing. It's very "consumerish" and shows a great lack of understanding for the technical details. Almost as if we were talking with laymen...

 

[Blomkvist]

Jobs was the wealth creator, and now Cook will act as the wealth keeper.
As much as I would like Cook to go on with the thermonuclear war on Android, with his role as wealth keeper he will likely settle and make compromises.

But part of me continues to think that it would be fun to see Jobs truly try to destroy the Android platform with Apple's cash.

No need to "destroy" Android with cash...innovation will work quite well.

And in general to this whole article: who cares? This ensuing discussion is a lot like the sophomoric game console wars that happen with each generation. "My game system is better than yours because...XYZ." I think it's good to have multiple products from multiple companies. It gives the consumer choice and more importantly it fosters innovation.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Ah yes, I can just picture your "system of math" to position objects on the screen:

if (viewport.width == 480){

    object.posX = 100;

} else if (viewport.width == 520){

    object.posX = 120;

} else if (viewport.width == 640){

    object.posX = 180;

} else if ...

...

Your lack of math skills are showing.

It is possible (in fact its quite easy if you have a strong understanding of Linear Algebra) to make resolution independent graphics systems using Matrices and Linear Algebra, which is in fact how 3D graphics work. It is quite easy to adapt the concepts if you think of a 2D item as a textured quad on a plane instead of an image.

 

[Boisv]

I understand that.

What companies do today is first spend their money on R&D to make a master, then make the money back by selling COPIES.

What it'd be nice if they did instead is if they sold the MASTER, and then gave away copies for free. How you sell the master is a tricky thing, but there have been some advancements in that area (for example, something like Kickstarter). But there should be much more R&D spent on how to sell 1 master copy vs. selling individual copies of software.

(Obviously the master is much more expensive than a single copy... it's equal to whatever they earn, it should be similar to # of expected copies sold * price of copy.)

Software should strive to be as good as possible, but software with DRM is worse than software without DRM. It causes hassle for a legitimate user, including slowing down their computer, incompatibility issues, issues with installing on more than one computer, etc. etc.

So then who do they sell the master to?

 

[Lennholm]

Your lack of math skills are showing.

It is possible (in fact its quite easy if you have a strong understanding of Linear Algebra) to make resolution independent graphics systems using Matrices and Linear Algebra, which is in fact how 3D graphics work. It is quite easy to adapt the concepts if you think of a 2D item as a textured quad on a plane instead of an image.

Your inability to comprehend sarcasm is showing.