Jobs: 'I'll spend my dying breath destroying Android' Never one to pussyfoot around his deep hatred for rivals and traitors, Steve Jobs chucked some choice epithets at Google boss Eric Schmidt and his products after the Apple-Google rift opened in 2007. Android made Jobs furious, according to snippets from a new biography Steve Jobs as reported by AP. When the Google mobile OS …
The user interface and user interaction model changed dramatically in response to the events of 10th January 2007.
Anyone who thinks different should just google "Android Prototype". It looked a blackberry, arguably the best/most popular smart phone of the day (in North America).
Button phone to iPhone clone in the space of a couple of years.
This post has been deleted by its author
Your argument seems to be "Apple made a thing, then something similar came along to exploit a similar market, therefore they are ripping off apple". By that logic apple are ripping off... HTC, who released the Wallaby (aka O2 XDA, Qtec 1010 and others) a full four years before the iphone, with a full-featured touch-screen interface. Icons on a grid...
There was a trend towards touch-screens before Apple glot the iphone out. Android was following that trend. Apple was following that trend.
Sorry, you lose. Apple may have marketing success but they did not invent this interface, and they cannot claim they are being ripped off by something that is merely *similar*, yet different enough to be noticeably so, and which is simply following the prevailing paradigm.
but I think the problem is to do with Schmidt may have 'stole' the idea given the access he had in both companies.
Basically if Schmidt wasn't there. There's a chance either Android would never have come by or Google would be launch Android 2 - 3 years after the initial iPhone launch which would've given Apple complete dominance and probably saved Blackberry, Palm and Nokia from going under this quickly.
Well we'd never know, is not like we were there first hand to be able to tell. That's why it's never a good idea to tell anybody else about good ideas.
It was around a long time before iOS and the iPhone sure, but there's a lot more besides the UI to be designed and perfected.
But I would say that Android couldn't have possibly copied the iPhone if it had been released first, but it wasn't. It was released almost a year after.
So Schmidt was obviously waiting to see the finished product and listen in to the strategy that Apple were proposing (he was sitting on the board so was privy to such information). Once the iPhone was a success they knew all to well what to do when launching the Android platform.
Anyone that thinks businesses don't operate like that is seriously deluded. There can be some rather nasty people working at companies at times. People working for one company but secretly directing customers to their own personal company. It's not legal but it happens.
There's nothing inherently illegal about "working for one company but secretly directing customers to their own personal company". It would be a contract matter.
And copying the strategies of succesful companies is nowhere near protected. Otherwise the first guy to buy low and sell high woudl be the only game in town.
Has anyone here checked out IOS5 yet? I installed it over the weekend on 2 iPhones I have at home, and found that IOS5 rips off Android's pull-down notification tab in several ways. Sure, they're cosmetically different, but the underlying structure, and purpose are nearly identical.
Now, don't get me wrong.. I'm no fan of Apple. For that matter, I absolutely hate the iPhone... it's too dumbed-down for my tastes, and I actually *could* like the platform a lot more, if it weren't for their development policy. Maybe their grandparents need technology that will *save them from themselves*, but I don't, and generally I refuse to buy any computing device unless I can hack it, mod it, or otherwise change it. This isn't always the case, but when the possibility is there, I take advantage of it.
Jobs... what an arsehole!
Then using your logic, why wouldn't Mercedes-Benz sue the hell out of every auto manufacturer on the face of the earth, for hundreds, if not thousands of "rip off's"? As much as I hate to admit this, Job's didn't really own the concept of a "smart phone". I distinctly recall RIM, Palm and HP (pocket PC) having similar products pretty much come and go before the iPhone ever showed up on anybody's radar.
In a way this shows that the advertiser giant which our media like to call "tech giant" acknowledged that android infringes on patents held by apple. That's quite revealing and interesting if google offered to settle it with $5 billion.
Say what you like about the man, he has principals and isn't shy to tell it as it is.
... which is why software patents should be scrapped, and why Jobs should have been happy rather than angry.
The right form of protection for software is copyright, as for books. Copying chunks of code is illegal. Creating new code that offers the end-user a similar look and feel, or which solves the same problem using the same mathematics, should be completely legal. Imitation ....
I've given up on trying to figure that out.
I reckon there are just a big bunch of really sad fan boys on all sides who just reflexively down vote everything that even touches on their field of obsession in a negative fashion.
Maybe there are a whole lot of /. refugees who haven't quite figured out that there is no karma whoring here?
There might be a few shills in there too but I don't think there are a lot.
.. when you're selling a £500 phone, impressive though it is, and the opposition, i.e. Android, can be bought at half the price, and are available on phone contracts for next nothing.
A Mac owning friend got a Galaxy S2, because it was £50 on his contract. I got a Motorola Atrix on an 18 month £10 contract (historic), and bought my daughter a slightly used one for £200. It's dual core, has a screen as sharp as an iPhone, but the screen so is so much larger, in a similar size case to the iPhone 4. I couldn't justify waiting for a larger screen iPhone, and gave my iPhone 4 to the missus.
The transition from seamless iTunes/Outlook syncing to the mess that exists on Android was painful, but we've done it, because it was so much cheaper.
We're not talking about the platform as a whole or the back end technology, that's largely irrelevant. It's all about the UI and you can't seriously say that the iPhone UI hasn't inspired Android?
Look at the Android prototype, it's like a Blackberry. Amazing how it suddenly became all touchscreen after the iPhone 1:
http://gizmodo.com/334909/google-android-prototype-in-the-wild
Of course, if you're going to go on about what came first then iOS is built on OSX which is build on NeXT which was around in the 1980s. Android is built on Linux which was released in 1991.
seems to spring to mind unbidden
Does anyone see similarity between iOS components listed above and my ancient Tungsten T3 (grid of icons, lack of buttons, soft keyboard when needed)? Apple may have put them together in a better sleeker way, but they did not invent that stuff. This fits in with earlier Apple history (Xerox work on GUIs anyone). Again, Apple may have combine elements better than others before, and that is to be applauded, but they also often stood on the shoulders of giants.
Whilst I totally agree with your sentiment and the first part of your statement, the second half which you use as a support for your position is erroneous. Apple didn't just copy the Xerox GUI, they bought out the rights to it and also employed the staff who had actually worked on it to develop the original MacOS. It's a not the same as simple plagiarism, and is in fact exactly what Google did with Android - bought out the early development then created something of their own with it.
However, Apple still haven't a leg to stand on by attacking Android over UI issues. Neither can anyone who says Android is a rip-off because it abandoned buttons - I seem to remember a plethora of buttonless touch interface Palm devices and the idea of having an icon-based touchscreen mobile OS UI was commonplace with Win Mobile at the launch of the first iPhone. Simply binning hardware buttons in favour of software isn't a rip-off, it's a logical technological step to improve profits for anyone faced with releasing devices with different localisations. Standardise the hardware and then customise the software - it's nothing new in the technology sector.
It's been said before and it will be said again: take a good look at Android pre- and post the iPhone introduction.
If we really think about it, this iOS vs Android 'war' is pretty pathetic: are some of projecting our inner frustrations onto software? Is this what living in an 'advanced' society does to us? Taking things a step further, why are so many people hating on and ragging on Jobs? What did he ever do to you? Negative comments about Jobs seem to automatically get a bunch of 'thumbs ups'. If you don't like him, then don't talk about him. If you don't like Apple's products don't buy them (same goes to the "Apple-is-best" crowd).
As for Anna Leach, I'll bet she cannot find proof that Jobs actually 'hated' a rival —traitors, maybe but not rivals. Do you know how much energy hate takes up? With so many rivals out there, how would he ever have found the time to manage Apple, Pixar?
Let's enjoy our Sunday and not let all the bitterness and jealousy get the best of us.
Android was in development (publicly), prior to 2007, and Google did buy the company, but prior to the iPhone launch Android was an obvious blackberry rip, top half screen, bottom half keyboard, the interface was also BB inspired, with a dock of apps along the bottom of the tiny screen and a hardware joystick for navigation.
After Apple unveiled the iPhone all that work was basically thrown in the bin and replaced with a full size screen, soft keyboard, capicitive touch screen and a grid of icons.
Don't take my word for it though, google it for yourself.
going b your logic the very first android phone to be released would obviously be a carbon copy of the iphone. Just what the T-mobile G1 is with it's full slide out querty keyboard, four buttons on the front and trackball navigator. oh, wait...
Learn a bit more about mobile pc & phone development. you would find that the iphone is nothing more than an evolution of the windows pocket pc or blackberry devices {and an obvious copy of the palm os interface from 2001), dropping the need for a stylus by making making everything bigger and more finger friendly and simplifying the phone design by focusing on just a screen and ditching a separate keyboard. this proved to be a popular idea, so everyone else followed a similar evolution. Apple didn't invent the smart phone or a touch only interface.
hope it was worth it for you Steve...
How sad to see the most this guy desired on his death bed was to see other people failing... kind of funny when you think of all the stuff Apple "stole" from others in the very same fashion
You usually see people about to die with an altruist view of life, forgiving, forgetting, trying to make the world a little better... not this guy
"You usually see people about to die with an altruist view of life, forgiving, forgetting, trying to make the world a little better... not this guy"
How do you know? Haven't we all said similar things at different times in our life? I hate you, I'll never forgive you, I'll kill you etc... etc... Usually uttered in anger and seldom carried through to our last week, never mind our last breath.
Unless I am mistaken, this article is reporting about something he said long before he died. I haven't seen a report to say that he was still doggedly pursuing this goal for this reason to the day he died. He might have, but I haven't see any such reports. I think it's a bit harsh to pass judgement so absolutely on a man who has, in fairness, very recently died.
Don't get me wrong, I detest Apple's business practises and I strongly believe they came from Steve so I am not a big ol fan boy jumping to the defence of my hero. I just think your post has a little too much unfounded vitriol for a dead man who hardly sought the oppositive of a better world.
.... somebody with an incurable cancer diagnosis says he spend his dying breath doing xyz... seems pretty clear to me that he was well aware he was in the last run... certanily not the same as saying "I hate xyz" in the heat of the moment.
This was a calculated comment from a guy who knew he had short to live to a person who was recording his biography... not a "heat of the moment" kind of comment. Jobs had cancer long before Android was an issue for him.
Regarding passing harsh comment about somebody who just died I respect your opinion.. but honestly I hate how the most horrible people (certainly not Jobs) become almost saints once they pass away.... if there is any justice they should be regarded as what they were... in his case, a hateful, greedy control freak... with a talent for business and marketing....
I do recognize however I am very bitter at the media attention to Jobs and the lack of media attention to Ritchie so I am certainly biased in my opinions
I'm sorry he is dead and I'm sorry he died so young but he didn't invent the stuff he clearly (and therefore frankly arrogantly) thought he had invented. He just used what others invented, provided he could impose his ruthlessly minimalist design ethic on all his company released. That in turn made easy to use products, but he didn't invent it, but it looks very much like he really did believed his own hype.
No wonder he was so convincing when he was deluded enough to even believe it himself. But then who (in his company) would have dared to challenge his views and to have tried to change his perception, by openly question his views when many of his employees were even afraid to get into a lift with him, for fear they would be out of a job by the end of the journey!
They guy was a control freak and that is extremely well documented. That helped him make good minimalist design choices, but its increasingly evident he was deluding even himself about who the real inventors were and that is frankly a disservice and very unfair to the real inventors of the technology Jobs incorporated into his products. But then control freaks are always self centred because ultimately (and almost by definition) they want to control others.
I'm sure his fans won't like what I've said, but then the truth hurts people who want to distort reality (for whatever reason).
Microsoft and Google didn't invented anything either, by your standard.
Most products evolve based on prior work often established by others.
The genius is turning those products in to usable devices that someone would want to by.
The Windows tablet market was a true failure. Apple changed that with iOS and that's innovation.
.....that Android had copied ios.
Let me just say, that's right like Er....
Icons and a touch screen , yes the g1 had icons and a touchscreen.
But then let's see who had these first.....
Cut and paste
Multitasking
Voice control
Flash player ;)
Alternate keyboards
Customizable desktop
Oh hang on, they are different because ios doesn't have all those, or even get them first.
What a twonk that man was....
So what's new?
He may have had deep hatred for rivals and traitors, but he never refrained from stiffing his comrades, friends or partners.
And had Lasseter and his team hadn't performed their magic (despite Jobs' efforts to the contrary), Jobs would have long been forgotten, and died a mere millionaire has been.
LOL, from what I can see both Google and Apple make smartphones (like Ford and Toyota make cars), and Apple are the ones stealing stuff.
I mean iOS5 steals Android notifications, it steals Androids voice control, iOS4 stole Android's multi-tasking and folders.
I’m betting that iOS6 will steal Android widgets.
So how’s that mission to destroy Android going then Steve???? Not very well it seems....
Android steals Mac notification, voice control, multi-tasking and widgets .
Ah, maybe the first tablet was the Newton? No, it was the in the Movie 2001, right?
Did you know Edison didn't invent the light bulb...
"Edison did not invent the first electric light bulb, but instead invented the first commercially practical incandescent light." - wikipedia
Did you know Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile... he just made it practical to buy and use.
Steve Jobs did the same for MP3 players (iTunes), iPhone and iPad.
The X Windows system to be precise, Jobs did with that what Android did with the IPhone. I'm sure that like X, the IPhone was a genuinely innovative product, and Android ripped off some key design elements and repackaged these at a much lower price point. But that is how technology gets from early expensive adoptions to mass markets, and Apple have taken as much or more from others than has been taken from them.
What exactly was Jobs accusing them of stealing? Seriously, I mean specifically.
If he's accusing them of robbing the idea of installing apps on a phone, Symbian and WinMob have him beat there. If it's touch screens, then once again WinMob has it beat. The only thing that really sticks out is the app store. If that's what it is he thinks was 'stolen', then some guy with a webpage full of Java midlets has him beat (RIP my Nokia N90). Maybe I'm missing the point and this is purely about patents for outrageous 'features' such as "touch screen scrolling", etc...
Yes, it changed drastically from prototype stage to the final product... I've never seen that happen before!
You could argue that Apple "stole" their design from the WinMo phones HTC has been producing for years. In the end, IMHO, they are very different.
And I second the comment above about Apple copying Android's notification bar in iOS 5. But, in the end, such features do get passed around technology as it evolves. This doesn't mean they are copying, exactly.
And I would point out, too, the blatant copying Apple pulled in it's early days. Pot, meet Kettle.
And the Apple and Mac didn't rip off Xerox's desktop paradigm that had clickable icons, programs running in separate windows, a mouse pointer, etc.,etc.?
And Steve Jobs didn't STEAL the labour and lives of sweatshop workers in poor nations, driving 14 recently to commit suicide? One suicide attempt failed and the person ended up in hospital paralysed from the waist down with multiple-organ damage.
Sweatshop labour does NOT develop an economy because the workers never earn enough to stimulate domestic demand - it's 100% EXPLOITATION.
Just what was Steve Jobs' contribution to the development of the computer? I don't see one. I just see a man who stole from others, who sold retail products I've never used and don't need.
And let's not forget it was his partner, Steve Wozniak, who did all the real work building the first Apple computers.
I'm no Apple fan, and no fan of production processes in the far east (though I like most others benefit from them). My understanding though was that the suicide rate for the company producing iphones was comparable to the general population in China... and that the number was high as they have a large number of employees. Just sayin'.
is that a bigger arse than Bill Gates?
You might hate him but love or hat him, his company has changed the way we interact with technology.
Sure, hardly any of the things they did were truly original, but you can't get away from the fact that they put it all together and produced stuff that 'just worked' (well mostly). They raised the bar. A bar that many other manufacturers are struggling to get over.
So, by all means hate him but you ave to admire him all the same.
Complete Arse?
Hardly.
" but you can't get away from the fact that they put it all together and produced Kate Winslet's tits proferring cold lager, changing the way we interact with ourselves and each other for ever"
Getting really sick of hearing this spouted as fact without any kind of evidence. Yes, yes you can get away from it. Macs aren't very good and cost too much. ipods were plain crap for several years and cost too much. Now they work(tm) but still cost too much. iTunes is still crap. Ipads are lovely but don't do anything. And they cost too much. iPhones are reportedly not very good at making phonecalls. And they cost too much. And their service is the shits. Seriously, awful, awful company with awful products.
Like many others, I'm sure, my experience of digital media started with mainaining a RealAudio archive parallel with my Minidisc collection, before moving to mp3s and a chinese knock-off of the Sony solid state players that predated the ipod by several years. I used players like that right up until I got my Berry with, of all the magical things, an SD-card slot.
Apple, let us be clear, did not change the way I interact with technology one iota. And I know I'm not alone.
Of course, Jobs over looks the fact that just about everything Apple did was, by the definition he applies to others, "stolen". The fact is that Jobs took what others did first, and refined it into his products to produce things that were even better.
... you can get the upgraded Wildfire S for about 1/4 the price of an iPhone. It's an entry level smartphone. I've got one, it's pretty good value, but it's never going to compete with a device costing 4 times as much. If you want an Android handset that out performs the iPhone 4S, you'll have to spend at least 1/2 as much on one. LOL
It surely cannot be the Wildfire that HTC got showered with praise for because it brought a level of build quality to the sub-£300 price point that had not been seen at what was then regarded as the low-price end of smartphone space? Or the same Wildfire that was the very first phone to have Wifi at that price point? The same phone that a large number of reviewers described as a break-through in terms of the specs on what was then an entry level phone pricewise - that Wildfire? I do not know which piece of shit you bought but it cannot possibly be the same Wildfire as the one I bought as my introduction to "smarphonery".
He's wrong about docs but google does have too many adequate products. He's wrong about android though, and has no right to call it stolen since he incorporated android features into the iphone.
Google's main weakness compared to Apple is marketing, and showing how amazing their products really are. I saw a video about Lion and thought that the thing to send files to other Mac owners on your network was pretty cool. Then I shared a document in google docs. It was only later that I realised I'd done what a Lion user could do, but I didn't need my friend to be on a mac, on my network or even online. Google docs has the superior sharing and collaboration method, but it lacks the wow factor that Apple creates.
...when all those Apple II clones threatened to destroy Apple. He discovered that Apple's legal department could make more money than the rest of the business, by securing damages from clone-makers.
But the Apple II was entirely made from off-the-shelf components. Only the circuit-board and the boot program (in ROM) were defensible as IP. As Apples became more sophisticated, it became possible to make a functionally-identical device which didn't directly copy anything.
Apple's now very large legal department therefore began to focus on "look and feel" litigation. This was also fairly successful, although they were unable to prevent Microsoft beating the pants off them with Windows, which was about as obvious a copy of the Mac OS as you could imagine.
Jobs' obsession that lawyers pwn engineers seems to have been with him until his death. I hope he was wrong. But then, I'm an engineer. Maybe lawyers and marketeers like Jobs do more to enhance the human experience than we do. I hope not.
It's a real shame that he was so hateful. I have some level of compassion because he was a sick man, and that might have had an impact. But it's that type of over the top diva behavior that reflects on Apple fanboys and their condescending stance on the rest of us.
Just imagine for a second that Android was not there. Apple would swallow the entire smartphone business and there would be no competition, no improvement, no open-source alternatives, and always a systematic heavy profit cut on app developers, and discrimination for those who can't afford 600$ devices. Plus you would have an even greater tax evasion scheme than the one already in place for Apple. That's why men of vision like Steve should always be challenged and sometimes put in their place. And Android puts Apple back in its place, the place of people who crave a standing at all cost but have no clue about what a sustainable IT environment is about. Of course the Iphone is a nice phone and all that Apple developed has value. But it's important to put in leash that religion. Because thinking different is about having different choices. How many Iphone/Ipad users go even as far as pressuring their friends and families to buy Apple products? We've all seen it.
RIP Steve, but make no mistake, if Apple sets out to leverage its capital and destroy legitimate businesses, it will be its undoing. Already they're doing it with litigation. But with the new ARM chips that can process desktop OSes and Android and the Koreans pushing hard, and user demand, things will change. It's important to stand up for freedom because this concept is something that applies to technology, not just to legal babble.
I don't hold any particular favour of one side or the other, but a bit of history may explain Steve's anger: For several years, while Apple were developing the iPhone, one of the senior board members at Google was non-exec on the board of Apple. It's inconceivable (I use the word, I know what it means!) that the Google guy didn't know about the development of the iPhone. Google then bought a company making a phone OS.
I make no suggestion of wrong-doing, but I can see how someone in Steve's position would be really, really pissed off.
Google bought a pre-existing phone OS in August 2005, the year Apple started the R&D that would lead to the iphone. But did they steal anything? Android was already in development, so it's no that. Apple didn't have a business model around a phone at that time, so it's not that either. Have they stolen anything since? The concepts and design of the iphone already existed in various products so it's impossible to say Google stole from Apple or that Apple did not themselves steal. The Android business model seems to be moving closer to Apple's, with the release of Google Books and Google Music, but similar business models are competition, not theft.
I was trying to make a point that I am not making a judgment, but maybe I didn't do too well. I'm not accusing anyone of stealing anything, these accusations are made again and again by many people about various different developments in IT history (MS ripped off Apple, Apple ripped off Xerox, etc, etc.) and it's usually without all of the pertinent facts. I was merely trying to say why Steve might have been so pissed off. I will add to what I said - and again, I'm not accusing anyone of stealing anything - that the OS which is now Android was purchased by Google when it was a Blackberry-a-like, it is currently an iOS-a-like, or at least it is sufficiently similar to be accused of that.
........apparently felt that once Apple had produced a smartphone OS nobody else thereafter had the right to produce another new one. Apart from anything else one would have to be braindead to confuse iOS and Android. The latter is very clearly *not* a copy of the former.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Apple's core business is shifting tin, whilst Google's is selling information. I can understand why any business would get cheesed off for any product to eat into their marketshare but with Google now in the mix, the customer is the real winner as we now have more choice. Both companies have now keep each other on their toes and we become the main beneficiaries as Apple and the Andriod touting manufacturers bring out new innovations to attract us buyers.
It would have been nicer if Steve saved his breath and used that big pile of cash his company is sitting on to reduce the price of their hardware.
in the early 90's they had the decency to place the start menu at the bottom as opposed to the top and use different style icons to maximise or close windows. In other words they tried to make it look and feel different.
Contrast this with Android which is a blatant iOS clone. If it wasn't for Androids clunky, lag ridden UI most layfolk would have great difficulty in telling the two OS's apart.
Android has contributed nothing towards innovation in computing. Other more creative teams at Google should be embarrassed at being associated with what can only be regarded as a parasite OS.
To be fair, having a button on a form of menu bar has been done many times. The key difference between Windows and Mac OS at the time, was that Mac OS's menu bar contained the menu for the current, in focus, app; whereas the Windows menu bar contained buttons for each currently running application, the menu was within the window of the individual application.
But beyond the technical aspect, Android contributed "difference"... as in "we're entitled to think (really) different and we never want to be or think like you".
For some people, encompassing our full and varied individual nature, choices and thinking outside of the dogma of a religious-like leader is important. For some people, this is called liberty, freedom, creativity, sustainability or just being who we are.
Not sure in your clichéd eden that such a fruit still tastes something...
...is how he turned from evil to super-evil. I mean previously he cheated on Wozniak for personal gain. That's evil, but at least understandable. However with his second time at Apple he tried to deliberately destroy the world, starting with the old Apple. For example he gave orders for everything bearing the old Apple logo to be removed. Including historical documents. Luckily much of that was given to museums.
Maybe the trigger was Apple buying Next.
Steve Davies 3, how did Jobs raise the bar if others did all the work? The iPhone, for example, uses hardware manufactured by others.
As for software, it's UNIX that raised the bar, that's why the Mac OS is 100% Unix compliant, NOT the other way around.
You forget - or don't know - why PCs use Microsoft's clunky OS. It's because IBM entered the microcomputer market late and needed a computer in a hurry. Ordinarily, it would have used its own processor and written its own operating system, but it didn't have time. Of course, had IBM done that, we wouldn't be using IBM PC clones today; instead, Gary Kildall's CP/M might have endured, and Bill Gates consigned to oblivion, where he rightly belongs.
It was Gary Kildall who raised the bar, not Steve Jobs, by doing all the pioneering work in microcomputer OSes, including inventing the BIOS, still used in PCs today. Had IBM NOT cheated Gary, PCs would be using a descendent of CP/M today, and they'd likely be much nicer machines to use.
Search YouTube for "Gary Kildall Special [PART 1 OF 3]"
Part 2 - towards the end - gives the truth about how Bill Gates ended up with the PC Desktop monopoly (by having IBM sell a cheap clone of Kildall's OS that Gates bought vs an overpriced CP/M - overpriced by IBM to destroy it).
Also Google without quotation marks: "Gary Kildall and Collegial Entrepreneurship Dr Dobb's Journal"
Also search youtube for "Christmas Shopping 1983: What To Get A Hacker For Christmas!", an episode of "Computer Chronicles" which Gary Kildall co-presented in the 1980s. Steve Jobs was - and Bill Gates is - too full of his own self-importance to do anything so commonplace as that.
Unlike Gates and Jobs, Gary comes across as a likeable person.
@Maliciously Crafted Packet, and the Apple Mac was a blatant rip off of Xerox's desktop. Beauty is skin deep. It's not the appearance that matters - it's how it performs! The iPhone, anyway, continues to use icons, etc., exactly as designed by Xerox in the 1970s. And who invented the touch-screen? It wasn't apple!
Just incredible that Jobs & Apple get so much credit for so little.
Bad luck comes in threes, or so my mother-in-law keeps telling me.. so far we have the Windows was a ripoff of the Mac OS thing (which was proven by the fact it was just as shite and unreliable, even games machines like the Amiga, Atari ST and Archimedes were far superior to either) and then Android rips off the iPhone (allegedly).
So I wonder what is going to be no. 3. Who is going to do a number on them next.. iPad clones are just an extension of the Android vs iPhone thing, so that doesn't count and Vista/7/8 etc is just an extension of the ongoing OS clone issue. So my thought is Larry Ellison is going to try to out-martyr Steve Jobs. Perhaps make an attempt to recruit actual apostles or maybe orchestrate a genuine resurrection 3 days after his eventual passing.
How can Android rip off the iPhone when the iPhone is a hardware device, whereas Android is just an operating system? Android uses a Linux Kernel, OpenGL, SQLite, XML, Java, Webkit open source browser engine, etc., etc. - it's NOT a rip off! The iPhone is just a portable computer. Smartphones are all portable computers. What did the iPhone originally have that was so unique?
You could equally argue that the iPod ripped off the Sony Walkman - the idea, anyway - yet you don't hear people complain that no one should be allowed to make another Walkman-type device.
Portable computers existed before the iPhone, so did touchscreens, and so did mobile phones with colour displays. Once upon a time there was REAL innovation.
heh id like to see apple take down android i really would hahaha. news flash apple the reason why android is doing so well is cause it has more selection and choice. unlike apple who prefer to stick with a premium iphone piece of junk that other phones on android are capable of doing better. if apple wants to take android down there gonna have to go through google because they made it. and apple are claiming the copycats are htc samsung motorola heh what about sony lg etc. look ast the market share apple only has roughly 20 odd percent android has near 50 percent. i wonder why maybe because androids are more affordable than apples. plus android phones reduce in price take the galaxy s 2 it was priced near 500 quid now its under 400. apples iphone 4s is between 499 and up over.
Dudes. The poor guy has been dying for years. I think I would be somewhat pissed off and ranty if my health was so poor. So he said some unadvisable things. Give the guy a break.
P.S. I don't think Apple invented smart phones, or the point and click UI, or what ever. What they did do how ever is make them work for the man in the street. I've been using and developing Linux since 95 and other OSs (non windows) much longer. However my computers at home are OSX because they just work. I bought an iPod because when I looked at MP3 players it was the one that was easiest to use with my stuff. So when it came time for a smart phone I bought the iPod with the cellphone built in. I didn't buy the first one because it didn't do 3G. I currently have an iPhone 4 which I bought outright so I wasn't tied to a contract. I won't be getting the 4S because the 4 does everything I want it to do. In a year's time I will look again to see what there is.
I've tried Android and in isolation its a good system now (it took until 2.2 for it to get good). My problem with Android is its just too damn messy when trying to work with other devices. And that's the crux. I know you can get device X for less money than the iPhone. So what if I save 200 quid. That's a few hours of my time. If I save a few hours over the life of the phone by spending that money then its worth buying the more expensive devices. For me time is my scarce resource, not cash.
Any wish from such evil one, cannot be good. There is nothing would surprise me, not even it was revealed Mr Jobs was behind of all of the so called "terrorist groups", and it was Mr Jobs, those terrorists worship as their God.
As I said before, the world is a better place without him. Just let him go, we need to move on.
not only did he see himself better than the pc market he wanted to control how we used phones, total ass, macintosh screwed over the kids in the 80`s now iphone imac and idontgiveaflyingfcuk tries to do it again, we need something that kids are allowed to play with so we invent better not something that takes us back to the 90`s
I remember trialing a corporate service in about 2001, a handspring phone with a gsm data modem attached at the back and surfing the web (incredibly slowly mind). not a million miles from iphone as a user experience. of course add years of improvement in mobile processing, color screen, grafics co-processors etc you get something slicker. but the basics was there.
... of all the ignorant little twats posting here right now about Jobs who are COMPLETELY clueless.
The reason Android even exists is because Apple opened the Smart Phone market up, the reason you are using a mouse with a computer is because of Apple, using gorgeous fonts again because of Apple.
What people take for granted everyday yet criticise it pisses me off.
Typical if the Android/ Linux/ OpenFailBoy community.
What's that? They did? Can't be possible.
http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/top-10-features-apple-stole-windows-966
http://www.newser.com/story/120671/apple-stole-my-idea-student.html
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/10/07/how-apple-stole-1-of-intels-greatest-weapons.aspx
Remember PalmOS? A handheld touch screen, with icons.
Just add gestures, kinetic scrolling and you have most of the elements of the iphone user interface.
Move the system bar/notification bar to the top and you have a bunch of elements of android notification bar.
Expand the user interface to a larger panel and you have an ipad or android tablet.
The special sauce in the Apple product is the attention to the details in the hardware, and the integration with itunes, which you either love, hate or accept. None of the individual features are new or magic, the "reinvention" is the way it's a converged device.
@Eponymous Cowherd, thanks for link. Wow, talk about pretentious. I'm not at all impressed by the Mac's outward appearance. I really don't know why people get so excited about the look of Apple's products - baffles me! The look is modern - i.e. very minimalist! - NOT at all like a grand cathedral, as Jobs would have us believe. All I want, anyway, is a professional, stable operating system - NOT the computer equivalent of a fur coat.
As for Mac's "stylish" keyboard - forget looks! - I use the old, buckling-spring IBM Model 'M' keyboard. For anyone who's interested: Google "unicomp customizer 101" and for general info. about the original Model 'M' keyboards: clickykeyboards(dot)com - they last a lifetime!
Cherry blue keyboards are similar to the buckling springs, apparently, but require less force to depress a key. I've not used one - yet!
The Mac is a copy of a computer. I think the original architects of the computer should sue Apple and prevent everyone else from making computers.
Electronic ink was a REAL innovation. Xerox (or, rather, an engineer at Xerox) came up with the idea first. You have a load of tiny plastic balls - one half of each ball is painted black; the other half is painted white - and then you use magnetism to flip each ball to its black or white side, thus creating a screen of pixels. No need for backlighting and it's easy on the eye - just like ink on paper - BRILLIANT!
However, Xerox's management delayed investing in the idea and that allowed another firm to re-invent the wheel and hit the marketplace first - "Eink" as it's known.
PS Credit goes to Von Neumann for designing the particular type of architecture still used in computers today, but others came up with the design first. It's mentioned in the book "Electronic Brains" by Mike Hally.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
