Wuuh Wuuuuuhh? Yeah. Okay. And Apple really didn't invent the iPad. It was Jonathan Ives, and some guy Steve Jobs used to beat regularly down in the cubicle department. Just a couple of guys who worked there.
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
Wuuh Wuuuuuhh? Yeah. Okay. And Apple really didn't invent the iPad. It was Jonathan Ives, and some guy Steve Jobs used to beat regularly down in the cubicle department. Just a couple of guys who worked there.
The LG Prada wasn't too bad of a phone. And Android has been around for quite a while, as a mobile platform. Much longer than iOS. Taking features and using them isn't stealing. It's marketing and innovation for everyone. People have free market to buy whatever the hell they want. I can get a Google TV or a Panasonic TV, just because they both have apps doesn't mean I'm gonna say Google stole Panasonic's idea, or vice versa.
Yeah, it doesn't really matter though (besides the fact that AAPL is up and GOOG is down). Good thing I just got some AAPL yesterday.
You are simply wrong. Apple did not use any technology from Xerox. They got to look at the Alto for a few of hours. The Mac project was already underway at Apple at the time, and the visit was arranged by project head Jef Raskin as a way of persuading Steve that a GUI was feasible. Like some of the people working at Xerox PARC, Raskin also had academic background in these concepts.
First of all, mere ideas are not enough to be intellectual property, it's the execution and result that counts as intellectual property and secondly, not one of the ideas you listed were unique new innovations by Apple. "Easy to use mobile platform"? Yeah I'm sure before iPhone the idea behind all phones was "complex and unnessecarily defficult to use". Lockscreen, what? All phones have lock screens, many of them better than the iPhone. Notifications in Android didn't look or function like iOS until recently, when iOS copied it from Android. Gaming on the go was invented by Nintendo 30 years ago with Game & Watch.
If you paid any attention to phones and concept phones back in the 2006 it was obvious that full touchscreen was exactly where phones were going, Apple just sped up the whole race. And "the whole idea of apps", smartphones had applications before, it was one thing that defined a smart phone. In fact, the lack of it was a major critique of the original iPhone
I can add Facebook to that list. Several apps but most notably Facebook is unresponsive during a second after opening ( not launching, resuming). It shows content but it doesn't respond to my gestures at all. Also when swiping right on the home screen to get to Spotlight it hangs for a split second. Most annoyingly though is typing in a textarea in Safari, like I'm doing now. The keyboard is seriously lagging. It registers my input, but the action and visual feedback lags dramatically. Trying to scroll within the textarea is also a complete nightmare.
First of all, if I thought there was a risk for such a thing I wouldn't invite a CEO from a company that was developing their own mobile OS and sencondly if what you say had happened I would take him to court because it's a crime committed.
Note that Jobs did the opposite to both of these. Schmidt was invited even when it was known Google had purchased Android and neither Jobs nor anyone else at Apple ever even accused Schmidt of misusing his knowledge
Good luck that means not buying any more Apple products you know.
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.
Yup. If I've read everything correctly, Xerox only licensed Apple to use the GUI for the Lisa. Then Jobs turned around and start using it for the Mac. Xerox waited forever and a day to sue, and they lost because of statute of limitations.
Then MS does the same thing to Apple, who in turn sues over the oh so infamous Look and Feel, and promptly get a goodly portion of their ass handed to them (they got to keep the trash can, though).
So what you have here are two cutthroat companies who basically took other people's ideas and made them their own. While poor ole Xerox Parc, inventor of the GUI, the mouse, laser printers, and damn freaking ethernet, gets left in the dust.
I've always heard something about stocks being traded for rights to technology and whatnot, but okay. Lets assume you're right. Apple had a vague idea for a graphical interface, so they go tour the company that already had a fully functional one for them to check out and play with at will. They then return home, and make the Mac and it's GUI OS inspired their experiences there. They're innovative geniuses!
And here we are, screaming about Schmidt allegedly doing the same. Here's a guy who already had an idea for a smartphone. He goes to Apple, sees the neat things they've done, and supposedly goes back to Google to create a product based what he saw there. And yet ole Schmidt, he's a scumbag for doing it.
Lots of favoritism going on here, huh?
You are spreading misinformation. Apple did not license anything from Xerox. Nothing, meaning zero.
Apple did license elements of the Mac GUI to Microsoft, however, which is probably why they lost the "look and feel" lawsuit.
And once and for all, Xerox did not "invent" the GUI, or the mouse for that matter. They did squander all of their early work on both. And that was nobody's fault but their own.
Actually my experience is the opposite. My iPhone 4 always freezes or jolts the animation at some-point during useage. My friends Samsung Android jobby (not sure of the exact model) is smooth as a babies bottom.
At least he was able to form constructive arguments to form his opinion and not post flame-bait post like you are.
In exchange for Apple's team being allowed to see the work going on at PARC, Xerox was provided with an opportunity to buy pre-IPO shares in Apple. No licenses were granted, just a peek. You should actually look at the differences between what Xerox had accomplished with the Alto and what Apple accomplished with the Mac before you decide who was the innovator.
Okay, you're right. They didn't directly license anything from Xerox. Rather, they gave them stock and used the advice of their engineers to build their own.
But while they might not have "invented" the GUI, they were the very first company to implement the idea into a fully functional environment. Years before Apple did.
Long story short. Apple didn't create, or were even the first, to implement technologies they're usually given credit for. They improved upon the ideas of others. So why do they get a pass around here for doing so, while anyone else doing the same is labeled a blatant copycat?
He wanted money. I suggest you read Wozniak's statements over the years as opposed to people who really like Jobs for making a lot of money. Wozniak was the main visionary for Apple products. Jobs, according to Wozniak, was much more interested in the business side. Again, money. Money for the sake of having money and security. A secure Apple meant secure wealth when he was younger. Same as older. Why else would Jobs care about Disney? Simple; he sold Pixar for money. He was involved with Disney for money. Money. Money. Money. Money.
You're right, he probably wasn't passionate about technology in the slightest. It was only a means of buying mansions and yachts.
Yawn.
I'm not going to be answerable for anyone's opinions but my own. I don't know whether Google has "improved upon" anyone's ideas. That debate really doesn't interest me.
But what I do know is that Apple certainly improved upon the ideas they saw at Xerox PARC. Xerox took an idea from academic theory to proof of concept. Apple took it from proof of concept to commercially viable product. These are both big leaps. Apple's response to the Xerox technology wasn't "we can do that." It was, "we can do that a hell of lot better." And they did.
FWIW, my big complaint about Microsoft wasn't that they ripped Apple off, but that even after 11 years of diddling around, they couldn't seem to do something clearly better than what Apple had already done. To me that seemed tragic at the time. I mean, if Apple had taken the four years after they visited Xerox to develop a warmed-over version of the Alto, then I think nobody would have been very impressed. More to the point, the history of computing would not have changed. For sure Microsoft wasn't capable of making that leap.
Tim Cook decisions
So far, Tim Cook's decisions could mostly be adjusting some things that Steve didn't have time to really address: working conditions in china, stock options, ongoing litigation with google.
I think they could all end up being totally sound decisions.
The only thing would be that they all line up on the "nice" side. It'll be cool if he pulls out a can of whoop ass on something. It will even things up a bit.
So far, Tim Cook's decisions could mostly be adjusting some things that Steve didn't have time to really address: working conditions in china, stock options, ongoing litigation with google.
I think they could all end up being totally sound decisions.
The only thing would be that they all line up on the "nice" side. It'll be cool if he pulls out a can of whoop ass on something. It will even things up a bit.
But you gotta like the part about Woz being the real visionary behind Apple's products. You know, the guy who didn't do a lick of work at Apple after 1979. Even Woz says that without Steve, Apple would never have existed, and that goes back to when they were developing the first Apple computer. Woz would have given it all away for nothing. Jobs envisioned something a wee bit more ambitious. We'd all have been way better off if Woz had his way. This site could be called "AmigaRumors" and about six people would be registered.