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.
Walter Isaacson Says Jobs' Rage Over Android Was Real
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is attributed to him, certainly not to Steve Jobs. In any event, you could build a skyscraper on the irony of that debate.
If you have used a Galaxy S II, then I would like to refer you to the following link:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/psychosomatic
That should sum up why you don't find the SII to be smooth, and think it is jittery.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/psychosomatic
That should sum up why you don't find the SII to be smooth, and think it is jittery.
In my experience - and I'm talking as somebody with more than 20 years of professional IT experience and more than 30 years of computer usage - Windows is MUCH more robust than OS X, and compared to the enterprise network features of Windows 7 Professional or the Windows Server family, OS X can at best compete with the Windows Home Editions. OS X just wasn't made to be used in a large network and it also wasn't designed to be customizable.
I don't know what Windows versions some of the people here have used and I certainly do not know -where- they've used them. But I know for a statistically proven fact (based upon the reports of our network monitoring servers) that the Windows clients and servers in my company crash even less often than our Linux servers - and Linux is an extremely reliable platform. But I have to admit that the Linux machines that crash more often run some VERY special software that was written in-house and operates too close to the hardware, the other boxes run public Internet services and are under constant attack.
I don't think I would even try to use OS X where we currently use Windows Server or Ubuntu Server LTS. But I'm not alone there. As we all know, not even Apple runs its own data centers on OS X - the company uses Oracle's Solaris instead. So if Apple does not eat its own dog food, why should anybody else?
Also, Apple does not support its OS releases long enough. Ubuntu LTS versions receive five years of guaranteed support. Microsoft supports its software even longer. Apple only supports its last two OS releases and you can be happy if an OS release receives three years of continuous support - and in the real world, servers and their software have to run longer than that.
Google Isn't Going Anywhere
Personally I believe Google is helping Apple by producing substandard quality. The market will separate the good from the bad.
Personally I believe Google is helping Apple by producing substandard quality. The market will separate the good from the bad.
Google Inc. (GOOG) -NasdaqGS
632.32 2.83(0.45%) Apr 5, 4:00PM EDT|After Hours: 633.70 1.38 (0.22%) Apr 5, 7:54PM EDT
Apple Inc. (AAPL) -NasdaqGS
633.68 9.37(1.50%) Apr 5, 4:00PM EDT|After Hours: 634.34 0.66 (0.10%) Apr 5, 7:59PM EDT
I am more than happy to discuss the merits and pitfalls of Apple devices.
While you say Apple users are aggressive, I find the Android users here to be nothing but two faced. They scream "fanboy" the second anyone dares to have a different opinion to them and crack piss poor attempts at belittling jokes. They tend to ram their own opinion, while insinuating your own is completely wrong, back in your face with a complete sense of superiority.
It's like they believe Android IS the best, has NO faults, and is beyond reproach, while any posts to the contrary are taken as wrong. These people can't actually see they are the very thing they proclaim to loathe.
----------
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...
I know that Android is not hardware, it is an OS. Although I have to say your post is possibly the single most refreshing and enjoyable Android slanted post I've read in my time on MacRumors.
Informative, well written, not belittling, and sensibly contributing to an actual discussion.
I played around with a Galaxy Tab II running (I think) ICS today, and it wasn't at all what I'd consider a "substandard product". The framerate on the UI wasn't quite as smooth as my iPad, but the infamous lag everyone talks about here? It was nonexistent. Overall, it wasn't a vastly different experience than the iPad. Hardly the clunky, virus ridden, crashy OS it's made out to be around here.
Then again, that's what some people here say about Windows, which I know for a fact isn't true. Guess I should take what some of you say about other platforms with a grain of salt.
Contextless!? Didn't you see the post I was quoting? The poster claimed to be a game developer but apparently one who knows nothing about resolution independence since (s)he thinks the only way to develop for different resolutions is to manually make code for each one
My post had no slant. Neither towards Android or iOS. You mistake me for someone else. I am a neutral and objective observer.
Didn't you ever hear Stephen Colbert say "Reality has a well known liberal bias?"
The truth is when people don't want to hear things, they accuse it of being in bed with their "enemies"-I didn't see you say once that Android was better than iOS or vice versa. All you did was show familiarity with the platform.
I'd compare it to again saying that Steve Jobs was all about the money and hiring people with visions. How dare I say that? Why, Woz himself said Apple wouldn't have existed without Jobs. True. And Woz would've given it away. True again. But it would've been created, and we probably would've been where we are now had that happened.
Besides, if Steve Jobs wasn't so protective of his baby (Mac OS), then odds are all computers nowadays would be running Mac instead of Windows. That was Job's mistake, not Sculley's. Jobs from day 1 wanted to control computers with HIS vision, except, he never invented anything. And while I use OS X and iOS, I think at the end of the day, Microsoft will reexert themselves simply because OS X is still a small segment of the US computer market (let alone the worldwide market) and iOS is still a small segment of the global markets in smartphones. Yes, they're more profitable on a per unit basis. But Apple is unwilling to license its assets, which was their undoing in the 1980s and will be their undoing with iOS in the end (The fact Apple refused to sell their products outside of AT&T due to a stupid decision is one of the main reasons Android wasn't dead on arrival and was able to overtake RIM).
Apple is riding high now, and its like mega-Sculley. But Sculley was sunk by Jobs's legacy himself: Not as charismatic, not a person who knew how to make money from tech. Jobs got lucky because someone stole the iPod from creative, and he wanted to only make it work with Mac OS-had Jobs gotten his way and the designers lost that argument, Apple probably would've ended up closing shop and giving all the money back to relevant parties since only about 4% of the market would've had access to iTunes and iPods, without which it is senseless to talk about iOS devices anyway.
Lets be honest, here. Steve Jobs wasn't an idiot. He knows darn well that the technology behind OS X was borrowed, copied, and stolen too.
Apple didn't invent any if the technologies behind iOS or OSX... and its hard to believe this is true after Apple started taking cues from android as well. If they honestly believed that they did, then they'd place their faith in a jury and would be suing Google....not every Android manufacturer under the sun.
Apple didn't invent any if the technologies behind iOS or OSX... and its hard to believe this is true after Apple started taking cues from android as well. If they honestly believed that they did, then they'd place their faith in a jury and would be suing Google....not every Android manufacturer under the sun.
Well no offense, but you could also be a clueless developer who thought that that code snippet was a good idea.
Anyway, I need to get back to Haskell... None of this if statement nonsense for me.
----------
iOS and Mac OSX's core, right up to the OpenSTEP-like Foundation Frameworks came from NeXT, a company Steve Jobs created...
Oops.
Last edited:
I've always been under the impression that they didn't have any other choice. Apple went to Verizon first, who ended up booting them out the door because they wanted too much control of the platform. AT&T gave them the go ahead, but required them to keep the iPhone exclusive to their network for X amount of years.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm rather hazy on the subject, but I believe that's what happened. Apple probably would've given it to every network that would take it, given the chance.
That is the most uneducated statement from anyone in the last month. When you don't know about something, don't talk, eh?
That is more correct. Apple's mistake was less with the lack of multiple carrier choices, but more due to being first. Nobody else wanted to budge on it until *after the fact* and the iPhone was shown to be a huge success. Google's android got a technical free ride because Apple's device was already a major success and the other carriers were *now* willing to bend to the idea of getting an OS that is as similar to iPhone's as possible. Android also, at first, allowed a bit more control for the companies as to what goes in it. Thus the fragmentation issues, especially early on.
Apple could've just released the phone as compatible in my view, and then let the market decide, and sue if the networks wouldn't allow it. Signing up for AT&T wasn't mandatory-no need for a contract.
I think even the most diehard Apple & Android zealots are missing the bigger picture.
Android ROCKS in terms of customization and overall UI look, navigation and feel.
iOS is stale. The homescreen is cluttered and just a pain to look at and use. You have to press too many buttons to get simple things done and jailbreaking is just the solution most users give to solve the plethora of aching problems that come with it.
But in the end, Android will NEVER have the ecosystem that iOS commands. Not just apps, but the entire Apple/Macintosh/iOS/iTunes environment.
Granted, I've been spoiled by the Android handsets and the screen sizes that make the iPhone look puny and pathetic . . . but I miss being able to just use a device and apps from one company to do my everyday tasks and not the 5 or 6 that I have to deal with on my Android.
Android ROCKS in terms of customization and overall UI look, navigation and feel.
iOS is stale. The homescreen is cluttered and just a pain to look at and use. You have to press too many buttons to get simple things done and jailbreaking is just the solution most users give to solve the plethora of aching problems that come with it.
But in the end, Android will NEVER have the ecosystem that iOS commands. Not just apps, but the entire Apple/Macintosh/iOS/iTunes environment.
Granted, I've been spoiled by the Android handsets and the screen sizes that make the iPhone look puny and pathetic . . . but I miss being able to just use a device and apps from one company to do my everyday tasks and not the 5 or 6 that I have to deal with on my Android.
I disagree and would argue that Android is terrible in overall UI look and feel relative to other OS. It does well in terms of customization of those items, but just moving around my Android phone, I get dismayed by how bad and laggy it feels compared to my wife's iPhone and my other phone which is Windows Phone 7. Even with ICS, it still doesn't quite match the other two platforms in feel. it just feels jerky. Not to mention the overall fit&finish of the UI feels almost amateurish, at least in this aspect ICS is a big improvement, unless you have Samsung update which still shoves the terribly garrish Touchwiz on top.
LOL, thats hilarious. Good developers dont need to worry about screen size. Its never been an issue on desktop applications but iOS fanboys seem to think its a major problem on a phone..
Its crazy how obsessed people are with bashing Android for whatever reason.
According to insiders, Verizon never "booted" Apple out. They simply kept replying that they couldn't agree to Apple's terms. So after a year of trying to sign up Verizon, Apple finally just stopped calling and fell totally in bed with AT&T.
Note that AT&T wasn't exactly jumping up and down to sign up either. They didn't even agree on a contract until mid-2006, a half year into the iPhone project... a full year after Apple first approached Verizon... and a year and a half after Apple first approached AT&T.
Remember, Apple had nothing to show anyone back in 2005, and their previous "iTunes phone" collaboration with Motorola, the ROKR, was a dismal failure.
Agreed, I think Apple would've loved to have had both AT&T and Verizon signed up.
Without Verizon though, Apple had no real leverage against AT&T. Thus AT&T was able to force an exclusivity deal that was incredibly in their favor... and which allowed Android and its users like HTC and Samsung to have almost five years of free time to gather strength in the U.S.