Steve Jobs Was Willing To 'Rip Off' Everyone Else… But Was Pissed About Android Copying iPhone?

from the doesn't-computer dept

There’s plenty of talk making the rounds about Steve Jobs’ comments about Android in the authorized biography that’s coming out next week. In it, Jobs apparently makes it clear that he was absolutely furious about Android “ripping off” the iPhone. According to the summary in the Huffington Post:

Walter Isaacson’s authorized biography of Steve Jobs offers an unprecedented look at the Apple co-founder’s battle-cry against Google, a company he thought was guilty of a “grand theft” when it launched its Android operating system, which competes directly with the iPhone and has surpassed it in popularity.

“I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this,” he told Isaacson of the patent lawsuit Apple filed against cell phone manufacturer HTC.

In Isaacson’s “Steve Jobs,” a copy of which was obtained by The Huffington Post, the author recalls that Jobs, who was known for his fierce temper, “became angrier than I had ever seen him” during a conversation about Apple’s patent lawsuit, which by extension also accused Android of patent infringement.

“Our lawsuit is saying, ‘Google you f***ing ripped off the iPhone, wholesale ripped us off,'” Jobs said, according to Isaacson. “I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product.”

This is coming from Steve Jobs, who was inspired by the graphical user interface he saw at Xerox PARC and turned that into the Macintosh. Now, as we’ve noted before, what Jobs was always great at doing wasn’t just taking an idea and copying it, but making it better. But, many would argue that’s the same thing that Google has done with Android. Yes, they clearly took inspiration from the iPhone, but there are some key differences, which many people enjoy. In fact, Steve Jobs pretty much admitted this very fact earlier this year when some of the iPhone’s upgrades appeared to be copied directly from Android.

And that’s kind of the point: part of the way innovation works is that you build on the works of others. That doesn’t just mean wholesale copying, but trying to take what works and improve on it — or take what doesn’t work well and figure out a way to make it work better. Steve Jobs did this many, many times, but so have Google and many other companies. It seems rather hypocritical to get all bent out of shape because others are doing the same thing.

Along those lines, Daring Fireball links to a wonderful discussion on this topic by designer Brian Ford, who discusses the idea of “artists copying or stealing” from one another.

Apple didn?t invent the iPod, they stole the idea and made the music industry their own. The way we buy and listen to music is now shaped almost entirely by Apple?s vision.

Apple didn?t invent the smartphone, they stole the idea and reshaped the industry in their own vision. Yes, Apple has ?copied? bits and pieces of iOS from other sources ?notifications is the obvious example ? but overall, the future of the mobile industry has been shaped by Apple.

Apple didn?t invent the tablet computer, they stole the idea and now iOS is the template for the tablet market.

I completely agree with those points. It’s quite similar to an earlier post we did about the importance of getting it right rather than being first, which pointed to a wonderful comic from Scott Meyer’s Basic Instructions that included this panel:

So I’m at a loss as to Jobs’ complaint against Android. At best, the only logical way to view his complaint is that he was upset that Google didn’t do enough on top of the idea of the iPhone to make Android completely its own. But I think that’s more of a difference in philosophy. Steve Jobs came from a very top down world view, in which the brilliant designers (him, Jonathan Ive, etc.) designed everything perfectly. Google’s world view seems to be more about setting up the system, and then letting others design the improvements. That’s messier, clunkier, and a hell of a lot uglier at first. But in the long run, I think it tends to lead to much greater innovation. Just not the kind of innovation you unveil as “and one more thing…”

In the end, the best way to sum all this up comes from the T.S. Eliot quote that Ford puts at the end of his blog post. Many people have heard the paraphrased version (often copied and attributed to others) that “good artists copy, great artists steal.” But the full T.S. Eliot quote is much more interesting and nuanced:

One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: apple, google

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Steve Jobs Was Willing To 'Rip Off' Everyone Else… But Was Pissed About Android Copying iPhone?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
307 Comments
ryan says:

Mike,
I’ll concede that whether Jobs did the (exact) same thing he’s so upset at other people for doing is open for debate. But it looks to me like you didn’t really understand Brian Ford’s post or (his interpretation of) the T.S. Elliot quote.

(Well, maybe you kinda did, but the fact that you chalk the Apple/Google kerfuffle up to differences in “philosophy” at least shows that you don’t really agree with Ford…)

Los says:

The most important detail that gets left out about why Steve Jobs was so angry about Android is that the then-CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, was sitting on Apple’s board. So to Steve, he took as a slap in the face that here you have this guy representing a company that’ll provide services for our company and now he wants to use ideas that he’s seen from our products and take them back to his company to create a product that’ll now compete with ours? That’s where the “stealing” aspect comes in.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Um no he didn’t. He stole it. Just like he stole the MP3 player. And the tablet. Yes he did steal both. Jobs claims Samsung stole the iPad idea because the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is thin just like the iPad and is a rectangular shape. Apple claims they didn’t steal the iPad idea because their tablet is thinner than the previous tablets. So why when Samsung released a thinner one again, Apple went mental and sued them? The Galaxy Tab 10.1v is still available and not banned in Australia (like the 10.1 is) because it’s thicker than the iPad but otherwise identical to the 10.1. – But Aussies can still get the 10.1 by ordering online from Hong Kong

David Liu (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I’m not saying anything, except stating the fact that Jobs bought the idea from Xerox. And that’s bought, not “bought”. Look it up. Do some due diligence before you state something as fact.

Look people, if we’re going to have a discussion, at least let’s all agree that we should strive to know all the facts of what we’re talking about. This isn’t about choosing a side, but rather showing the truth. It does absolutely no good to have a circle-jerk based on lies and half-truths.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

What they bought was a sneak peak inside Xerox, they didn’t bought anything in special and when they did implement the ideas they got from Xerox, Xerox even sued them and was dismissed. That just sounds like Google taking good ideas from Apple making their own implementation and being scolded by a guy who famously said he had no problems stealing ideas from others.

Apple took the ideas of others shamelessly, and even romanticized it by putting a pirates flag in their headquarters, and now that times has changed and it is no longer cool to be a pirate people try to rewrite history.

Unfortunately most people still remember those early days is not like this happened a hundred years ago, all the kids that loved Apple back then are still alive and well and if most of them get things wrong is because they were fed this BS story directly from Jobs, they were shown those pieces and bits of information as originally intended, nobody had access at that time to what really transpired they only had access to the news, they didn’t had the internet back in the 70’s and 80’s for the masses.

You want to be honest, lets be honest.
Steve Jobs was piece of shit of a human being, he was a great visionary, because he knew what normal people wanted and expected from a product, he was not a engineer he invented nothing, what he did best was take from others and build something he was a master puzzle solver in the tech industry, he was not a puzzle producer, he didn’t know how to make the pieces, or even put them together, but he knew how it should look like when finished.

IRejectUrReality says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Get your facts straight. Steve didn’t buy anything and certainly didnt give any Apple shares away for it. Steve has always been about emulating others and making it better. Xerox’s system wasn’t a commercial product. It was for internal use and wasn’t finished. He “re-envisioned” it as a consumer product that was easier to use than menu based OS’. So now he is angry at people for emulating his phone and making it better. The funny thing is that on the iphone the only thing he brought new to the table was the app store. But even that was an afterthought. He at first had the web based Safari store. The developers are the ones who wanted a native app store. Other than that everything about the iphone was reinvisioned tech from someone else. Just because the popularized something or it’s your first time seeing it doesn’t mean it was their idea. As for Android. It was designed in direct response to Apple. While yes the iphone was a great device you had to use it exactly like Apple wanted you. So that left alot of room for someone to take what was working with the iphone (emulate…) and get rid of the walled garden (and make better).

Michael Long (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Get your facts straight.

“The first successful commercial GUI product was the Apple Macintosh, which was heavily inspired by PARC’s work; Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product.[6] Much later, in the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the “look and feel” of the Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on the same grounds. The lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge dismissed most of Xerox’s complaints as being inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARC_(company)

More here…

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all

Bryan Maynard says:

Re: Re: Apple did not steal from Xerox

Xerox showed their GUI prototype to Apple. Xerox developed it, but had no use for it, so they wanted to sell it to someone else – as they had done many times before.

Xerox also showed their GUI prototype to other companies, but no one was interested. Steve Jobs was the only one who saw the value in a GUI.

I would really love for this “Apple stole the GUI from Xerox” balderdash to stop. It simply isn’t true.

David Liu (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Apple did not steal from Xerox

Uh, not really. Xerox allowed Apple to look at their tech as an explicit agreement that Apple would build a GUI based off that tech in exchange for shares. Eric Schmidt was there as a member of the board, not in order to be allowed inside to steal the tech for another company. That’s a gross conflict of interest, and is completely different from Xerox & Apple.

ahow628 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

What did the timeline look like? If Schmidt had grabbed ideas from the boardroom and launched a copy before Apple had theirs out the door, you might have a point. Even the first Android, which came out well after the first iPhone, didn’t have a multitouch screen and had a keyboard.

Android wasn’t stealing Apple’s ideas and beating them to the punch, it was following them around like a lost little puppy.

MIke says:

Re: Re: Re:

This has to be the stupidest comment on here yet,

Schmidt OBVIOUSLY knew about the iPHone – google produced several of the apps for it that were shown at the demo! Schmidt should have resigned from the board as soon as he decided he was going to steal from Apple.

You need only google for reviews of the LG prada phone to realize it is nothing like the iPhone. It didn’t have multi-touch, it didn’t have a full web browser (you couldn’t even touch to open a link!), the MP3 player didn’t have playlists. The prada came out a couple of months before the iPhone – if you know anything about hardware development, you will know that a product like the iPhone is started YEARS before release.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Response to: Los on Oct 21st, 2011 @ 8:56pm

Yes we can, he is famous for his bad temper.

“We are lucky that Steve Jobs has such a bad temper and doesn?t care about China. If Apple were to spend the same effort on the Chinese consumer as we do, we would be in trouble,” said Liu Chuanzhi, the head of Lenovo, in a Financial Times story.

Source: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/steve-jobs-china-lephone-iphone-mac,10810.html

Many of my favorite Steve Jobs stories feature his anger, as he unleashes his incisive temper on those who fail to meet his incredibly high standards.

Source: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/the-creativity-of-anger/

This are the recent ones, but he also fuelled rivalry between his creative teams to the point the fought food fights with each others on Apple’s grounds, there are stories of him assaulting employee’s before he was canned the first time.

The guy was a good manager, he knew what it needed to be done, but he was not a nice person.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 ugh please

http://blog.gsmarena.com/judge-asks-samsung-lawyers-to-tell-the-ipad-and-galaxy-tab-10-1-apart-takes-them-a-while/

Not bollocks, it is a true story πŸ™‚

Unfortunately for Samsung.

I searched on Google but I was redirected to Bing.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=judge+asks+samsung+lawyers+to+identify+ipad

freak (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 ugh please

Eh, from a distance, I would probably take a long while to tell an iPod and an iPhone apart.

It definitely sounds like a distance, holding the two above your head.
Oh, here, look, a source: “Sullivan […] told Koh she was too far away to see the devices clearly”

It also implies a certain viewing angle; if you can pick which side I get to see, I could also confuse, for example, the bottom of my laptop and the side of my desktop, (which happen to look fairly close to begin with; Vent on upper-left, black. My desktop is in a small tower, so besides the fact that it’s a little longer, the side & bottom are roughly the same size. Sure, the laptop has tons of *little* details, like screws & panels, but you wouldn’t see that from a distance).

Point being: That’s not a good test of anything

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 ugh please

According to some other sources it was 10 feet(3 meters), that is not a long distance.

What was distant was the familiarity of Samsung’s counsels with the products they should be defending, the Galaxy and the iPad have a lot of minor differences specially that round button in the middle of the iPad that everyone can see it, if this case is based on the “moron in a hurry” Samsung probably is screwed, but they should not be, the design is just common sense, it is not innovative or ground breaking by any means, that was not what made the iPad something good it was also what was inside the software, that is what no other tablet had before, that design I think is not even original at all and it is just surprising that they got a patent on that design without nobody challenging that.

Still it doesn’t change the story and how the Judge in that case made those lawyers look bad.

freak (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 ugh please

I agree besides the fact that 3 meters is “not a long distance” to identify something from. We’re talking about pieces of plastic that are supposed to be 1 foot away from your nose. Maybe if we were discussing a billboard, or a type of furniture.

From 10 feet away, you can’t make out the screws & panels on the laptop bottom, and if viewed from the right angle, my laptop could be confused with my desktop.

David Liu (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 ugh please

3 meters is just around 3 armlengths. That’s about the length across a wide table. I’m not sure how you’d mistake a laptop with your desktop, and I would say most laptops are visually distinct from each other at that difference.

Not that I think that tablets nowadays, all which are basically a slab with a big screen slapped on it can really be all that visually distinct from the top, but you sorta have to look at what tablets looked like before the iPad came around and notice that tablets pre-iPad looked pretty much nothing like it.

Michael Long (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 ugh please

“… but they should not be, the design is just common sense, it is not innovative…”

First, look up the actual definition of innovation.

Second, it may be “common sense” now, but look at the design language used before iPhone and iPad, and after.

If it was “obvious”, why did 99% of the products out there screw it up?

freak (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 ugh please

“If it was “obvious”, why did 99% of the products out there screw it up?”

I’ll give you the same answer I give everyone who questions design in computers.

You don’t hire [X] to do the work of a skilled [Y], except in the case where we do, in fact, hire programmers to design interfaces.

Should we expect a programmer to be skilled, or see what is obvious, in the field of graphics/interface design?

Michael Long (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 ugh please

I was taking exception to the statement, “…the design is just common sense, it is not innovative or ground breaking by any means…”

Or to throw in an aphorism, “Common sense is hardly common.”

And no, most consumer products are designed… by committee checking off all of the features they want. Then they’re run past management, and focus groups, and then the guy next to the water cooler has his say. The end result is almost always a homogenized mess.

Steve’s genius lay in cutting past all of that. He also pushed his people to do it better, and not take the first, or second, or even the fifteenth easy answer.

freak (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 ugh please

Yes. And that’s the statement I thought you were arguing.

In the design field, we can see that the designs are obvious, because of the very large number of previous ideas that were expressed, like say, that tablet in the film, 2001, that are what apple is claiming is being infringed upon and stolen.

And if what you say is true, and mine not, that still brings me to the same conclusion: something that is and would have been obvious to designers, was not done correctly for the other 99% because it was not in fact, skilled workers who were working on the part that required them.

Even if they’re down the chain and doing the grunt work, if you tell programmers how to program, and you don’t know how to program, you’re going to end up with something horrible, or the least, very unoriginal. I assume the same goes for most any profession, including design.

duffmeister (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 ugh please

Obvious does not equal easy. Ask any programmer.

There were many failed attempts to do what Jobs did, he just had ability to make it successful. If his design was above reproach why had it changed and/or been improved? I still feel there is so much more that can come out of the platform that in 10 years we will see what Jobs did as a great step forward but still a primitive attempt to make a great tablet/phone. The one thing you can be sure of with technology, it will progress and be based on the ideas that came before it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 ugh please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tablet_PC, from 2001 well before the 2010 launch of the iPad.

Apart from the color I do see round corners and a a frame encircling the LCD don’t you?

What that is not enough?

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2008/04/webdt-520-tablet-pc-sits-well-in-vehicles/

Again rounded corners with a frame encircling the LCD!

That is not enough?

Search for ebooks and see all the designs that people had before and a lot of them had, again, rounded corners encircling the viewing part of it.

How is that not colon sense?

Even in the 80’s you can find PDA’s with that same designs guidelines.

Now why 99% screwed up?
GUI functionality.
It was not about the exterior alone that even a picture frame could have been the inspiration for it.

You think the design of the exterior had anything to do with the functionality, with the easy of use?

That is where Microsoft screwed up badly before, that is where Palm fucked up and many others before it including Apple numerous times before.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 ugh please

http://www.google.com/search?q=star+trek+voyager+pads&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&gbv=1

Star Trek Voyager had a lot of iPads at the time.
What do you think a pad(tablet or whatever name you want to call it) should look like?

Most people will get a frame with glass in the middle how is that not common sense?

And according to design trends today and since at least 2000 everything should have rounded corners.

Doubt?
http://www.tuvie.com/
Look for yourself and get some pointers.

The place Apple succeed where others failed was the usability interface, that was what made it useful, want to see the difference try using a LG Prada the old models and see the difference in usability although it came out before the iPhone and was a huge success, it was nowhere near the usability of the first iPhone.

Want to see a true competitor to Apple?
Look at the interface of the Windows Mobile Mango apparently is not only sexy but is also easy to use, but probably will fail, Microsoft doesn’t have fans anymore, they stopped caring about people a long time ago and even though they are trying to get people back to like them I’m not sure at this point in time it will make a difference for this one great product of theirs, because it is also pricey for manufacturers.

What made Apple good was the design and usability combo.
It was cute, but nothing people didn’t saw before specially in Asia, but it was also crammed with useful things that others thought people didn’t care about it in a phone and that was innovative.

The iPhone is the first true “usable” pocket computer anybody can have and of course marketing, Asian manufacturers were arrogant and didn’t care to cater to Americans at the time because they thought Americans and Europeans didn’t care about phones.

So yes, a black rounded corner frame with a piece of glass in the middle is just common sense from a design point of view and it has been so for a long time, there are many picture frames with the exact shape the iPhone or the iPad have, but what is inside that is what makes all the difference and you couple that with great showmanship and you get success, but Apple did have something that others don’t have and that is a fan base, those that will defend it no matter what it does to them Apple can do no wrong, they are the ones that helped Apple spread the word of a good product to others, they were the ones doing personal demonstrations to colleagues at work and at home making believer out of the non-believers, something the PRADA didn’t had, something the PS3 is loosing.

Maybe the best way to put it is to say. “You just need to listen to the people who buy”, transform them into fans and you will succeed, threat them like crap and they will leave you alone. Jobs mask in public was a very different one from the one he used in private, he didn’t show his anger in public, that is poison it kills the goodwill, it kills your market he knew that and he was very careful even when talking to his detractors.

Beauty + hardware/software control + usability + fans = success.

There is where Apple succeeded where others failed, even Microsoft.

fogbugzd (profile) says:

There were a lot of things that other companies have “preemptively copied” from Apple. The most recent example I can think of are drop-down notifications which Android had the audacity to copy from Apple a few years before Apple put them in IOS 5. (I work with a bunch of Apple fan-boys who are always citing things that Windows/Android/RIM have copied from Apple. Sometimes those are things that Apple copied, and I refer to the phenomenon as “preemptively copying from Apple.” So far they haven’t caught on to what I mean by preemptive copying.)

Kyleish says:

Re: Response to: fogbugzd on Oct 21st, 2011 @ 8:58pm

Haha! A preemptive copy of Apples pull down notification system a few years before it was released? What a freaking joke! You think it’d take Apple years to develop a pull down notification system? They took the idea from Android. And that’s fine. It’s also not the first pull down notification system, not even on a phone, and neither Google or Apple invented it, so your assssumption is ridiculous anyway. I think it’s funny how you can’t even fathom that Apple could borrow/steal/copy something, and when they do, you assume they must have been copied from years prior. Even if your statement was true, Apple didn’t invent that notification system anyway, the idea was already stolen. And it should be like that. That’s how things progress. Imagine if Ford was the only car who owned the rights to the steering wheel? Who’d lose out on advancement of products? We would.

freak (profile) says:

Re: Re: Response to: fogbugzd on Oct 21st, 2011 @ 8:58pm

Reading failure.

Fog mentions he uses this as an argument against apple fanboys who are angry, or at least argue that, android/RIM/windows copied something from the iPhone, when it is, in fact, the other way around.

In other words, he’s not attacking the iPhone, he’s attacking the iFans. I don’t think he’s angry about the iPhone copying things either, or at least that is something that is beyond the scope of his post.

Transbot9 (profile) says:

More or Less.

This is along the lines of things that I’ve ran across with Mac Cultists. Not Mac Users, because there are plenty of Mac users that are more than willing to admit that there are flaws and issues with Apple and some of their products.

I am fine with Apple products. I am not fine with Apple’s carefully cultivated image, which drives me away from their products (although for many folk, it does just the opposite). One thing that I get tired of (especially being in the graphics industry) of hearing about how supposibly innovative Apple is. Apple is brilliant at marketing and selling their image. Fortunatly, Jobs decided back when Bill Gates put him back in charge of Apple that the company needed to produce decent-to-high quality goods and was able to use an image he created in order to bring Apple not only back to life, but to rather lucrative profitability. Steve Jobs was a good business man. He was able to create and leverage an image to force open new markets in the tech industry, able to bring about many changes that quite a few nerds knew (or at least hoped) about. For that I am willing to give him props. Anything beyond that I feel is not justified. Apple intentionally creates closed systems, requires to give approval in order to bring almost any item to market, and exerts as close to tolitarian control over their brand as possible.

One thing I wonder is if Apple is going to take the fight against Android over to Microsoft when Windows 8 comes out. They probably will – but if they do, Microsoft has a serious chunk of “Prior Art” back when they had their Slate PC agenda about a decade ago, which partially failed because of both the technology not quite being there yet and Microsoft not really understanding their consumer base.

David Liu (profile) says:

Re: More or Less.

They still make quality goods. I think that by just saying that they’re brilliant at marketing goods and selling their image, you forget the fact that the goods that they make are still quality products.

And honestly, the closed walled garden isn’t really much of a complaint to most people, especially not to me, a mobile app developer. The most I’ve ever experienced out of their closed system was a complaint that I submitted a shitty app and that I should follow their UI guidelines to make it a less shitty app, which was actually a good thing since it was my first app ever and it WAS pretty bad. At worst, they acted like an editor to make my app better, and it WAS better in the end.

Overall, I feel that the closed system cultivates a better culture of apps in the app store than the open Android market, and thus gains from it.

JEDIDIAH says:

Re: Re: More or Less.

> They still make quality goods. I think that by
> just saying that they’re brilliant at marketing
> goods and selling their image, you forget the
> fact that the goods that they make are still quality
> products.

Nope. I never forgot. I just bought some of their stuff. That quickly got me over any sort of undeserved admiration I might have had for Apple or their products.

Their build quality is highly overrated and so are their design ideas and so-called innovation.

Transbot9 (profile) says:

Re: Re: More or Less.

Well, like I said – it is not the products I have issue with. What I take issue with is the claims that they are “innovative” and promote “openess and creativity” when their actions are just the opposite. Those claims show up more from mac cultists than from the company.

Apple demands a lot of control and insist on a closed platform. It does save them a lot of the issues that Microsoft runs across (such as 3rd party hardware manufacturers that don’t create updated drivers when a new OS comes out). There are pros and cons, and I am willing to give credit where it is due. But when a room mate that I had at the time (a decade ago) insisted that “Macs are superior” fatally crashed his Mac more often than my computer that was running Windows ME, I started questioning (Side note: While Windows ME is considered the worst version of Windows ever, there was one worse: Windows 98 Second Edition Upgrade Disk; Win98SE clean install is fine, but the upgrade…oi).

David Liu (profile) says:

Mike, you actually make a great point here. We have to remember Android’s market traction has been crazy great for the last year or two. Before then, Android was only doing somewhat so-so against the iPhone, and we all know what the Android prototypes looked liked before the iPhone was released. So Jobs reaction here seems pretty justified in that context; it seemed like Android was just doing its best to make a copy in order to take away from iPhone’s success.

If he had a few more years down the line, and see Android take the features and make it into their own product, make it into their own culture, their own platform beyond the shadow of the iPhone, I would certainly think that Job’s thoughts on the matter would be different than what we saw here.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

If he had a few more years down the line, and see Android take the features and make it into their own product, make it into their own culture, their own platform beyond the shadow of the iPhone, I would certainly think that Job’s thoughts on the matter would be different than what we saw here.

That’s the nice thing about speaking for/saying you know the mind of someone who is dead, you can never be proven wrong.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Counterpoint

As a counterpoint I would suggest you look up the LG Prada. That phone came out in 2006…. Yet if you were to show people those two phones, people tell me that the Prada has to be a ripoff of iphone.

What I think most US based people don’t know is that touch screen only phones have been around for awhile… and the features on phones in places like Japan have blown around phones in the US for years. Its only that the US finally discovered this.

David Liu (profile) says:

Re: Re: Counterpoint

Well, I looked at it and it didn’t seem all that alike. But given that in 2006, the state of cellphones looked more like flip phones or ones with keypads, I suppose an iPhone could look like a ripoff of the LG Prada or vice versa.

But that’s not really what I was talking about. In the main context of the article itself, the bad thing isn’t copying or stealing whatever. It’s when all you do when you copy just for the sake of copying and doing it to make a ripoff of someone else. We all know those about those cheap chinese knockoff products; that’s what’s bad (artistically speaking).

An iPhone may have copied and stolen stuff from a lot of places, but there’s no way I’d call it an LG Prada, and that’s because they took all that stuff and made it into their own product, and not an LG Prada.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Counterpoint

Don’t be dishonest the LG Prada came out earlier than the iPhone and it “looks and feels” like an iPhone.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/29/apple-iphone-vs-lg-prada-separated-at-birth-part-2/

Who copied who? Is that not a rip off?

More, according to some the problem is not even the copying, is that Android is so disruptive to their business that they want it to have a price at any cost even if it means filling lawsuits that goes nowhere.
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-real-reason-apple-is-suing-samsung-2011-4

Further use Google and search for ebook and see the designs people came up with, or Tablet computer, or tablet PC or PDA.

Even Star Trek had those pads and the design is awfully a lot like a modern day tablet or smartphone today.

Furthermore there is nothing wrong with the cheap Chinese ripoff’s either they serve a low market end and they allow more companies to survive in the ecosystem which translates to more choices, besides those knockoff’s also have features that no others have they don’t do exact copies, every ripoff has its original features something that Apple should really appreciate since they ripped off everybody else OS’s in the iOS 5.

David Liu (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Counterpoint

I’m not sure how I am being dishonest. I don’t think the LG Prada looks anything like the iPhone. If anything, the phone looks like a smaller Droid 3 (slide out keyboard and all), and I would never mistake a Droid 3 for an iPhone.

I also wouldn’t call a grid of icons a ripoff, since I’m pretty sure Macs have had grids of icons a long time way before the LG Prada came out…

Or are you trying to argue that their colors look kinda similar? I guess they would be similar, when the colors are all blown out from a bad camera pic taken years ago.

Anonymous Coward says:

Now one great thing Microsoft did was the new interface they put on their mobile OS, that one is just great and probably will be copied soon, then Apple fanboys can just cry about how Apple was terrific.

There is no more Jobs to guide Apple design, that should worry them.

There is no more hippies on Apple, the last one died recently and unfortunately he was the one who understood what people wanted because he was just as ignorant as the people who use their devices.

You don’t put a engineer to design interfaces he will screw it up trying to cram every bit of functionality in it.

MrWilson says:

I had made the same general observation about Jobs’ hypocrisy regarding copying, but my bigger issue was that he quit being a Christian in his youth because of his empathy for poor children who were supposedly damned because they weren’t Christians, but years later when he’s amassed wealth, not only does he not make charitable donations, but his arrogance is so great and his ego so bruised that he claims to be willing to waste $40 billion on lawyers just to settle a petty grudge instead of using some of it to help the children he supposedly once cared about.

Why is it that Jobs had a cult following and Bill Gates was almost universally mocked, yet Gates comes out looking like a better human being? Oh yeah, because Bill Gates has given billions to his foundation and other charitable organizations. Jobs could have built so much more than shiny gadgets, walled gardens, dictated user experiences, and a massive ego.

harbingerofdoom (profile) says:

Re: Re:

gates gets mocked the way he does because M$ has always had the lions share of the desktop market place… and he did whatever he had to in order to make sure that it wasnt going to slip away….including doing just enough to keep apple in the game during the late 90’s (lots of people forget that 150mil investment M$ made back then when apple was on the brink of failure).

but the one thing that gates never did was care much about cultivating an image. unlike jobs for whom image was just as important as having a perfect product. yes, jobs was a control freak nutbag who yelled at google on a late sunday afternoon because the yellow in one of the o’s wasnt the right shade, but he was every bit demanding when it came to the public image and promoting his vision of what the name “Apple” means to its customers as well.

jobs and Apple are a cult of personality (no, not the song…but that is a kick-ass song to be sure)

MrWilson says:

Re: Re: Re:

Jobs was not his wife and what amount he might have given was a pittance compared to his wealth.

If he gave anonymously, then you couldn’t know that he actually donated. I’d like some evidence for that claim.

He also declined to give away half his wealth like Gates and Buffett. It’s not like he took it with him.

David Liu (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If he gave anonymously, then you couldn’t know that he actually didn’t donate. It works both ways. You can’t vilify a man based on evidence you don’t have. He has stated in the past that he donated privately, so there’s that. I think his word has at least SOME clout there.

And you don’t know what he did with his wealth. Agreeing to the pledge and giving away half your wealth when you die are two separate things.

MrWilson says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“If he gave anonymously, then you couldn’t know that he actually didn’t donate.”

Okay, then by that logic you should take my word for it that I have the biggest dick in the world, give billions of dollars to starving homeless children every year, and I can turn invisible if no one is watching me. After all, you have no evidence do refute these claims so they must be true.

David Liu (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Giving away money is also a full-time job. It’s not like you just write a check for $1 billion dollars and that’s it. You do due diligence. You make sure that the charities that you are giving to are trustworthy. You make sure that the charities are effective. You make sure that the money you’re donated will be used correctly. It goes on and on. I don’t see why delegating those tasks to his wife would diminish any contributions he made.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Nope it is not, Woz choose what to do and to whom he was to give something but that is Woz, Jobs was not that guy and everyone knows it, he probably just choose at random from someone else who adivised him of something, or he probably donated to hippie causes and to some monasteries in India.

We may never know for certain I doubt he even trusted his most close relatives and friends is not like the guy was a saint or anything, he was known for his tantrums and bad temper.

cybernia (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Jobs does donate. He did so mostly anonymously, but also through his wife. His wife sits on the board of many non-profit groups and charities.”

Please check your facts first.”

Really? Show me these facts. I haven’t been able to find any and apparently neither has anyone else. Do you have the names of the charities his wife is involved with? Neither his wife’s name nor his shows up on any charity list.

Ron says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Since you are so concerned about other people – how much of your time/money have you given you charity? Jobs worked for free for the last decade (no wages, no stock options to vest) and made the most successful companies in america providing for literally tens of thousands of good careers for people. What have you done that was so valuable to this country?

Anyway, since you are so concerned about Steve Jobs:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=laureen+jobs+charity

MrWilson says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“Since you are so concerned about other people – how much of your time/money have you given you charity?”

While this is a valid question, the expectation that those who have less (I’m assuming Cybernia isn’t a billionaire) should be expected to give as much as those who have orders of magnitude more is just silly.

Jobs had the opportunity to change millions of lives for the better instead of just making shiny expensive, planned-obsolescence-ridden devices to garner a culture of cool and wield megalomaniac powers of user experiences.

Tom says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

>>”Since you are so concerned about other people – how much of your >>time/money have you given you charity?”

>While this is a valid question, the expectation that those who have less (I’m >assuming Cybernia isn’t a billionaire) should be expected to give as much as >those who have orders of magnitude more is just silly.

My guess is that Cybernia probably worked fewer hours per week than Steve Jobs and would have more time to donate time for a worthy cause. If Steve had retired from Apple, you might have had a point. When he is running a company of tens of thousands of people, it isn’t unreasonable to assume he doesn’t have time for much charity work. Since it was Cybernia (and others) who throw stones at Steve Jobs for not donating time to charity, if they haven’t donated their time to charity work, then they are just sanctimonious hypocrites.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

It’s not so much time, it’s money and as far as we know, Jobs gave diddly. We hear much speculation about how he “might” have given privately, but that’s all it is, speculation. His wife won’t even talk about it now that he’s gone. If he was giving all this money anonymously and there is this whole controversy after his death about it, you would think his widow would try and clear it up and set the record straight. She hasn’t.

Please explain why Jobs disbanded the charity division at Apple and never brought it back?

“When he is running a company of tens of thousands of people, it isn’t unreasonable to assume he doesn’t have time for much charity work.”

Boy, that is something else. He single handedly ran the company and oversaw those tens of thousands? Man, you really did drink the Kool-Aid.

Did he oversee those thousands of Chinese who work for slave wages assembling his products? Did he step in and try and change conditions at the plant when workers started committing suicide due to the working conditions?

Where was Saint Jobs when all this was/is happening? That he didn’t step in and try and change it just goes to show what baloney his whole Buddhist, hippie ethos always was.

In Buddhism, one idea is that what owns/has should be used for the benefit and happiness of those less fortunate. Doesn’t sound much like Steve, does it?

But as far as charity goes, he had a lot more to give than then average person. He could have afforded to donate hundreds of millions to make life better for those less fortunate. But he didn’t. In fact, he rebuffed Gates and Buffet when they asked if he’d chip in his fortune to help those in dire need around the world.

cybernia (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

First, I’m not a billionaire, but I help when I can. Second, okay, I was wrong about his wife.

But she came into that marriage with that mindest, he didn’t have it. When he re-took the helm at Apple he discontinued their charity division and never revived it. And why why did he rebuff Gates’ and Buffet’s call to donate his fortune like they did?

There used to be a thing called “noblesse oblige” among the rich. Jobs’ wasn’t a practitioner of that.

As to your comment, “providing for literally tens of thousands of good careers for people.”

That’s rich. Tell that to the workers in China who assemble Apple products and work for slave wages and in horrid conditions. It’s so bad workers have been committing suicide and the company, Foxconn now makes new workers sign pledges that they won’t commit suicide.

As an innovator he was brilliant. As a human being he was a douche. Oh and there is this little quote. A management science prof at Stanford, Robert Sutton wrote a book called the “No Asshole Rule.” He is quoted as saying, “As soon as people heard I was writing a book on assholes, they would come up to me and start telling a Steve Jobs story. The degree to which people in Silicon Valley are afraid of Jobs is unbelievable. He made people feel terrible; he made people cry.?

And I read this snarky headline recently, “While Steve Jobs is being considered for sainthood, a program funded by Bill and Melinda Gates is credited with preventing 100,000 new AIDS cases in India.

I loved the end of that article where they talk about donating 1st generation iPads that people turned in when upgrading. They donated products which cost them nothing to donate.

Mojo says:

Well come on, think about it – any mobile OS based on a touch screen is going to look like the next one. There are just so many ways the base operation can function!

Every car more or less looks like every other car on the road. It’s just the way an object which performs THAT function is going to look.

I’ll eat my (and your) hat if someone shows me a hand held smartphone centrered on touch-screen input that behaves and looks dramatically different from an iPhone.

Michael Long (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“Every car more or less looks like every other car on the road. It’s just the way an object which performs THAT function is going to look.”

If you were at all familiar with the history of the automobile, you’d no doubt be aware of all of the wheels, levers, tillers, pedals, knobs, cranks, and other devices people thought up to control their vehicles. Or the 4-wheel, 2-wheel, 3-wheel forward, 3-wheel back, 1-wheel designs.

It’s been largely standardized NOW (and not always for the better), but back in the day it when all of this stuff was still being developed it wasn’t obvious at all.

And then there’s the small thing of figuring out how to do it well…

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I believe 4 wheels was always the standard ever since that first wagon appeared that were pushed by actual horses.

Here are 79 examples of 3-wheeled motor vehicles, though some could more properly be considered more like motorcycles than cars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Three-wheeled_motor_vehicles

Oh, and they were generally pulled by horses, not pushed, though I’m sure somebody somewhere actually did put the cart before the horse.

Rekrul says:

So I’m at a loss as to Jobs’ complaint against Android.

It’s simple: All companies/organizations have a double-standard and what’s OK for them to do to others isn’t OK for others to do to them.

A few examples…

Disney – Has used public domain stories as the basis for its movies, but refuses to let anything it has created pass into the public domain.

Microsoft – Will happily use the threat of patents, which they won’t even show anyone, to bully other companies into giving them money, but when sued for patent infringement themselves, with a clear-cut patent, they try to weasel out of it.

ICE – Seizes websites that they say are offering infringing material, and then uses anti-piracy videos created by someone else, without permission.

So it’s really not hard to understand why Job thought it was OK to copy things from other companies, but blew a fuse when they copied from Apple.

crobi says:

Man, you compare the Xerox thing with the iPhone. That’s amazing, in business the two situation not even close to be the same.

The graphic interface was abandoned by Xerox because they do not feel this is relevant.

Jobs paid the concept with the full acceptance of Xerox.

And Steve Jobs was not sitting on the board of Xerox πŸ˜‰

When the iPhone was reveal the first time in 2007, Google scrap android because at that time Android look like a lot the blackberry system, the smartphone in the wind at that time. And then they rework android for a year and a half to compete with the iPhone. Just look at the camera app in android, the same look for the button, the same move of each button when you turn the phone.

Apple didn’t invent the tablet categories but all other like microsoft did it wrong, they suppose a tablet can be successful with an OS made to be use by a mouse. Everybody was wrong. apple went out with the iPad and a dedicated OS and then everyone was lost in the dust. Even Google need to make a tablet version of android quickly because all other company including samsung rush to put a smartphone OS in a tablet. They just want to put something in the market very fast, the quality? box we will see after πŸ˜‰ With the result we know in the tablet.

For the phone, android got a chance in the US because the iPhone was only available with ATT. Elsewhere in the world Android is not at a high market share.

For the notification, if Apple copies android, I think at Apple they talk about this and said, there is so much iPhone like in android, we can pick something from android. I agree totally with Steve Jobs

vikram333 (profile) says:

Google was on Apple's board

The difference is that Google had Schmidt on the board of Apple and from that vantage betrayed Apple’s and Jobs’ trust. That is what pissed him off.

I agree that innovation comes from earlier efforts and that we stand on each others efforts.

But to compare iOS to Android in terms of innovation is laughable. The notification screen and such that Apple copied are minor compared to the entire platform that Android successfully emulated from iOS.

There is a reason why before iPhone phones worked and looked a certain way and what they looked like after.

Actually I give MSFT credit here, they didn’t simply ape Apple and tried some interesting things with Windows Phone. Android is a wholesale clone outside of a few minor differences, and as I said earlier, Jobs is mad at how Google did it.

Michael Long (profile) says:

Re: Re: Google was on Apple's board

“You do understand that Android under the hood is a different beast all together from the iOS don’t you?”

This keeps getting repeated like it means something. WebOS is different under the hood, and they managed to create their own interface. WP7 is different under the hood, and they managed to create a completely new interface concept.

Why then, is Android different under the hood, and yet Google managed to completely copy the entire UI and UX?

whatever says:

So sad

So sad that poeple just don’t get.

Has there been improvements from the first version of android? Yes.

But the original? The first version of Android? Innovation? Added value to what IOS started in major ways and significant ways? Nope.

Its easy to say there is add value/innovation now, but the issue was always to get to market fast and before anyone else say Microsoft with Windows 7 and WebOS, they had to steal and steal big and do with with such limited added value to boot. The bad poet if you will.

That is the issue. If Google like MS started from scratch, took homage with what Steve Jobs/Apple has blaze in the smartphone market, than fine, then indeed they took their time view each service and option and improve the experience from the ground up based on the inspiration of IOS fine. But that is not what happen.

If you really want to look at how inspiration looks like look at Windows Phone 7. No need to rip everything off wholesale there and still present a great experience and they are only at version 1.5 (7.5).

What version is Android at with ICS, 4.0? Versus IOS 4.+?

No Google very much wanted to steal the market based on how their version 1.0 looks, not how their 4.0 looks.

Again, easy to say now its added value that is how innovation should look like, but people is talking about IOS 4.+ versus Android 4.+.

Hey look, IOS 4.+ takes ideas from Android 3.+, that’s proof of competitive innovation!

But how does Android at its very inception 1.0 versus ISO 1.0 so innovated the smartphone OS versus say Windows Phone 7 1.0+?

The lack of understanding that it’s not the final end result that is so damning for Android, it’s that the beginning is so damning for Android. In the beginning they were just the bad poet and nothing else.

Chris Pratt (profile) says:

Totally missing the point...

It’s not about “inspiration”. Android pre-existed the iPhone, but it looked *nothing* like it does today until after the iPhone. In fact Android was more a facsimile of BlackBerry at the time. Jobs was pissed because Android saw the success of the iPhone and made itself more iPhone-like to then compete against the iPhone, and rightly so.

Windows Phone 7, while not hugely successful yet, proves that you can make a good phone UI that doesn’t just copy everything the iPhone does. Pretty sure that Jobs didn’t have a problem with WP7. Microsoft did what Apple did: they took an existing idea and made it their own. Google took an existing idea and nothing more.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Totally missing the point...

Gnome 3 is about take on Apple’s design.
http://www.gnome.org/gnome-3/

Android actually is quit different from the iOS and in many ways more useful if you know how to configure it.

Quote:

I’ve talked about many of these standout Android features before: turn-by-turn directions, widgets, extensive voice commands, no-size-fits-all hardware. But where Android also excels is in the little things. You can attach files to an e-mail–shocking, I know. You can create shortcuts to contacts, navigation instructions and bookmarks on the homescreen.

Widgets!Widgets!And for all Apple’s talk about Twitter integration, Android’s been doing allowing it for years in a way that’s miles ahead. Tap the “share” button in an Android Web browser, for instance, and you’ll see options for Twitter, Facebook, Google+ or any other app on your phone that accepts shared URLs.

Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/241436/ios_5_vs_android_similar_features_different_approaches.html

So I can only guess that you never used an Android before.

You can even use it for free in your own computer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjD5any2C8Q

Shocking I know.

Michael Long (profile) says:

Re: Re: Totally missing the point...

“I’ve talked about many of these standout Android features before: turn-by-turn directions, widgets, extensive voice commands…”

Turn-by-turn is a navigation app bundled with the system. Voice commands didn’t appear until 2.2 Froyo (and a year after the iPhone 3GS shipped with them).

Widgets? Hey, yeah they added widgets. Wow. Innovation at it’s finest. But it’s lipstick on a pig. The number of UI/UX elements and behaviors copied verbatim far outweighs the changes.

Paul Danger Kile (user link) says:

The iPhone is the Real Rip Off

Android was in development before the iPhone was released. The iPhone was obviously the inspiration for the Android launcher’s look. The launcher is a tiny part of the OS.

The iPhone is very much like those Microsoft handhelds from a few years ago, only turned 90-degrees, which were like the Handspring, which was like the Palm Pilot, etc. Android lets you choose between the MS orientation, and the iPhone’s orientation.

Apple rejected Google Voice right around the time of the Android G1’s release. Google could obviously survive that, but many other app developers couldn’t, and Apple rejects many of those too.

Chris Pratt (profile) says:

Re: The iPhone is the Real Rip Off

Seriously? Going to go with that, huh? The iPhone was revolutionary. No one contends that point (except apparently you). Whether or not you believe Android copied it or not is one thing, but saying that the iPhone is a rip-off of Android or anything else is nothing short of pure psychosis.

freak (profile) says:

Re: Re: The iPhone is the Real Rip Off

Well, you have reading failure, and I also think the iPhone is somewhat less than revolutionary. ‘somewhat’

Now, the iPhone’s marketing, sure, I can accept that as something special, but to call it ‘revolutionary’ when I’m pretty sure smartphones would have eventually become common anyways? Eh.

roosevelt says:

Apple paid Xerox--but Google's CEO spied on unreleased products

Apple paid Xerox for the right to inspect its non-public technology–it gave it pre-IPO stock options (that, today, would be worth billions). That’s hardly “theft.” By contrast, Google copied UI concepts via its CEO/spy, the ever-creepy Eric Schmidt.

IRejectUrReality says:

Re: Apple paid Xerox--but Google's CEO spied on unreleased products

Other than having an app store I dont see any similarities between the two. The Whole look and feel of the OS’ are completely different. And furthermore while I can agree that there would have “initially” been no Android (there was Android in development but it changed drastically after ios) without there first being an iPhone, it’s been Apple who has been playing catch-up. That goes for features, specs, and hardware. IOS hasn’t changed it’s look and feel since it’s inception yet Android is constantly reinventing itself. So my point is regardless of how it started or who initially influenced it, it has become it’s own vastly different product. If it was still waiting on Apple to innovate and then copying those ideas maybe your argument would be relevant. But it’s not. It’s always doing things first (even though sometimes they should wait- I mean who needs quad-core when you havent even maximized the potential of dual-core), while Apple nickel and dimes it’s features out because they know people will buy their products regardless.

Pc says:

You lost me at the point you said Android was better than iOS. Lol! πŸ™‚

I believe Steve was more angry with the parts that were “blatantly stolen” from Apple. I remember, in particular, he thought the gesture controls on Android were a straight rip off from Apple.

With that said, ther could be some irony considered the history of Apple. However, that irony doesn’t preclude a person like Jobs to get angry. Every leader in this position SHOULD get angry. If they were complacent I’d be a little worried.

duffmeister (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Gestures existed in many different areas before of linux for example

On screen keyboards existed before in key access machines for example

Orientation changing existed before see the gateway tablet/laptop

Android / iOS are completely different under the hood for the programming

An app store existed before see steam for a game app store that existed before

The basic shape and form of the tablet was predicted in the film 2001 (look for the scene where the guy is having a video chat while eating using a tablet)

Many of the features of tablets were predicted by the Knight Ridder company in 1994

So much of what is being claimed here as innovation was really just seeing what was coming and being the first to incorporate all of the different things into a single device. Is it forward thinking, good business sense, and even raising the bar for the whole industry, yes. Is it innovative, new, or even novel, I don’t think so. I hate to bring out a trite quote from Star Trek but “in every revolution there is one man with a vision.” He may have been the visionary to combine it first, but it was only a matter of time until someone made the obvious combination of technologies. Does this make Jobs special, no, he was just first.

Michael Long (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

That’s right. They made a new UI/UX with a different presentation, that groups things differently, that thinks about apps differently, that behaves differently.

WebOS has a different design and set of behaviors too, though it doesn’t diverge as much as WP7.

Just shows that you can innovate and create something new… or clone the hell out of something once someone else has done all of the work.

whatever says:

Re: To stifle the competition...

That knives cuts both ways. Why copy someone so blatantly if you have all these innovative ideas to begiin with.

First your product model is to give it away and second you have to beat everybody to market either MS with their new mobile OS or beating Apple to get on more carriers than ATT at the time.

So it was never about competition or innovation on Google’s part, it was seeing an opportunity to copy and then enter markets faster and steal the market by timing not with anything that they could make up on their own.

They pull that off brillantly no doubt.

But by reaping the rewards they will now have to suffer the consequences. If they are right they have nothing to worry about.

But I think this whining about competition through litigation from Google is exactly that. They know exactly that they did. But they balance the hit that they are currently taking from litigation verus time to market and they decided time to market was more important.

cybernia (profile) says:

Re: Re: To stifle the competition...

You missed my point or I yours. Anyway, my point was that less than the copying thing, Jobs was more interested in stifling competition. I mean, they claim patent rights to the “rectangle?” Sheesh.

If, as Apple and Job say, their products are so vastly superior, then why worry if someone copies it? If your product is that much better, it should win in the marketplace, no?

And, even if the competing product is cheaper, well…Jobs is on record as saying he doesn’t want those customers anyway.

whatever says:

Re: Re: Re: To stifle the competition...

I do get your point.

I think Apple is going to let the best product win or compete against peole making effort to make the best product. That would not be Andorid.

But I think they’re going to punish any competitor that is trying to get away with copying their product.

You can think the lawsuits and cross licensing is silly all you want, but the courts and the manufacturers are entertaining it. And the answer is so simple, Google could just indemnify their partners.

But based on this article we are talking about Google ripping off Apple overall UI/UX. That Apple is asking for an injunction in one juristiction based on one patent is just par for the course. This is how it’s always going to be done as long as the courts entertains it.

And frankly I don’t care what Apple does. They are a company of self interest as anyone else. Just like Google, seeing an opportunity and taking it, damn the consequences.

Well take your medicine and stop whining about it.

cybernia (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 To stifle the competition...

The problem is, they don’t want to compete. As I said elsewhere here, I think the copying thing is merely a smokescreen when the real objective is to cut out the competition by any means necessary. If they do have the superior product, it shouldn’t matter if someone copies their GUI. The superior product should win out, no?

They are always touting how superior their products are so the fact there are inferior products out there that look like theirs should only reinforce that point.

I wish I could think of an example, but through the years we’ve all seen commercials for products where the basic thrust is, “Why have a copy when you can have the original?”

My biggest problem is that Jobs himself said he wanted to crush the competition. And you are correct, they are a company of self interest as anyone else. Where I veer off is that they have this image among the faithful and prospective customers that they aren’t. That is dangerous considering their mission to create a closed, proprietary system. Rather than embrace freedom of information, they seek to restrict it.

We have seen how Jobs refused to sanction apps that he doesn’t approve of, that have nothing to do with quality.

whatever says:

Re: Re: Re:3 To stifle the competition...

That’s the third time you’re saying it and I’m just going to have to disagree.

Having and building the best product does not mean you can’t go after people in litigatoin.

Plus the fact that when Android did first come out it copied everything IOS did, but badly. The only different was that they were in markets that Apple wasn’t. They filled a need, by copying Apple.

I guess we’ll have to see if Apple ends up suing MS as well, as they were the only other inventive/innovators in the smartphone OS development in the current generation. But they haven’t yet.

But I don’t think they will.

But to bring this back to the original point of this whole article. Jobs was pissed from the beginning that Android copied them, it wouldn’t matter if Android had the lowest market share, I think Apple would still go after them.

Your point fails becausee as far as this article is concern Jobs was pissed at Google from the beginning, not due to stifling competition. You can view it that way, but that’s not how the timing happened.

As for the peanut gallery. Don’t care. This is how these litigations go in established markets. You don’t have to think it’s fair, it’s again, par for the course.

This is part of doing business and they throw out a whole bunch of points to sue on and see which sticks. The problem is what Apple is throwing is sticking as far as the courts are concern.

Worse yet, the manufacturers has so little faith in Andorid they are cross licensing whenever someone comes along with something similar. Talking about MS of course.

Samsung being the latest even made it a point to mention they do not have faith in Google to resolve their issues with patent defense.

And Andorid is not the actually point of litigatoin? Really? Then why is Google whining at all? Why complaint about mistakes that your partners are making not your OS? Seriously? There is still people out there that think this is not about Android?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 To stifle the competition...

Based on what you said you are more lost that a blind in a shootout.

Apple is suing Samsung for hardware designs choices.

Apple was able to get a patent on a black rounded corner frame and that is what they are using to sue others.

They didn’t sue Google, they probably loose, if they did.

whatever says:

Re: Re: Re:3 To stifle the competition...

And guess what, Apple got way with it.

Now I’m sure MS patented all their design “innovations” as well creating Windows 7’s OS and bully for them if they get away with it too.

But where are the design patents for Android? Didn’t Google innovate Android from the ground up and patent everything they can think of as they did the design? No?

That’s not only bad of them but stupid. If they so believe they innovated the whole UI/UX, then this would be a good time to put those patents on the open market and not charge anyone for it and now anyone can use the UI/UX.

No? Because they had nothing orignal to patent or had the foresigtht to do so? Either way, that was very stupid of them for not doing it wouldn’t you say?

Ron says:

Re: To stifle the competition...

The issue is that it is 10 times easier to copy than to create something new. To make a new product like the iPhone, you have to make literally thousands of decisions and when some of those don’t work out, you have to spend more money and try other approaches. Once you copy, you can see what works and save yourself the time and money. The problem is that nothing advances if you don’t reward innovation.

cybernia (profile) says:

Re: Re: To stifle the competition...

I’m not talking about innovation here. Of course it should be rewarded. I’m talking about using design as a smokescreen to stifle competition.

If your product is the superior product, then it shouldn’t matter that people are making cheap knock-offs. Let the consumer decide if they want an actual iPhone/iPad or something that looks like an iPhone/iPad.

It’s interesting that the fight is all about design and not whether the iPhone/iPad is superior technologically, because that’s the bottom line.

Ron says:

Re: Re: Re: To stifle the competition...

>If your product is the superior product, then it shouldn’t matter that people are making cheap knock-offs. Let the consumer decide if they want an actual iPhone/iPad or something that looks like an iPhone/iPad.

So, it should be OK for a Chinese company to make counterfeit products of American/European brands? Sorry I disagree. They are made to look similar to trick the consumer – it rips off the consumer and it rips off the creator who invested the time/money to create something.

Has Apple sued Microsoft for their phone? No. Microsoft didn’t make it their business model to steal the look/feel of the iPhone.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 To stifle the competition...

Why not? Europe did it, America did it and now somehow because they are on the top it is suddenly wrong?

Yah right.

It is ok to rip off others in this context, it is not ok to have monopolies.

And Apple will never sue Microsoft, they don’t want to have to fend off Venture Capital or have their suppliers suddenly stopping doing business with them.

rotorboy says:

missing the point

I don’t think there is a rational mind out there that doesn’t see the hypocrisy in Steve being angry at Google for “stealing the iphone”, but feeling perfectly entitled to do so for his and Apple’s benefits.

The problem was that STEVE never saw it that way, but then again, most ego-maniacal megalomaniacs rarely do. They often feel that they are allowed to do things simply because “they are them”, but that others shouldn’t be allowed to copy them, since “they are them”.

To be fair, it was steve’s ego-maniacal megalomania and singularity of focus, and fear of both, that allowed apple to be refocused after having lain on death’s doorstep itself in 1997, so there is SOME good in such atrocious behavior. Either way, hopefully both Android and Apple will continue to both innovate and “steal” from each other, allowing the rest of us to reap the benefits of “combined thinking”.

Michael Long (profile) says:

Re: missing the point

“I don’t think there is a rational mind out there…”

No true Scotsman, much?

Regardless, I think “most rational people” would be upset if they worked one a project for three years, had a friend and advisor in another field that knew about it, and even provided services for it… and who then turned around and copied all of your best ideas they could so they could jump into the market with you.

Anonymous Coward says:

I might hear flack for this but I’m going to take umbrage with one thing: That Steve Jobs did it better, I don’t agree in any sense.

I’ve never liked his or apple employee’s designs and never had a use for his products. As to such I’ve never bought an apple product period. I found I can get much of what I want done with other OSs. The only need I have ever had for apple was the fact that in helping friends who have these products, I’ll do some research for them to help them out. And this is also coming from somone who’s first experience on a computer using a MAC learning LOGO and guiding a little turtle on screen.

Grapesnotsour says:

Wow the haters don't fact check.

Okay so someone who has intimate knowledge about how iPhone goes to work on the droid and it magically changes to be exactly lile the iPhone when it started out as a blackberry clone, yeah no reason to see any copying there.

I wonder how many people here can break down the Droid OS down to its core to really see how similar they are? No, any one… Bet you Apple did. But yes Apple is rich and big so they are in the wrong alwayse.

Apple did not invent a lot of tech,they bought it and then brought it up to the standards that make it a world changer.

Hate all you want but the GUI, the mouse, the mp3 player, the smart phone and the tablet PC did not truly become a revolution until they were a part of Apple. You can’t chang the world sitting on a shelf.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Wow the haters don't fact check.

The MP3 is due to others not Apple, what they did was create the iTunes, the MP3 was a success long before the iPod, remember the RIO?

The GUI interface and mouse you can attribute the success to the masses to Microsoft that although not the first was the one truly that made it affordable to everyone through the PC which left Apple behind in the dust.

Now about smartphones and tablet computers yep Apple brought it to the attention of the masses but Android is the one everyone is buying not Apple.

freak (profile) says:

Re: Re: Wow the haters don't fact check.

Oh, hey, good call on the shifting goal posts.

If apple made GUI a revolution by being the first, then definitely not-apple (RIM?) made the smartphone revolution ;p

I think I’ll leave it at “Apple had a positive impact on each of these things”, and not try to figure out the magnitude.

JEDIDIAH says:

Re: Re: Re: Wow the haters don't fact check.

Apple’s early adoption (relative to Microsoft) of the GUI really didn’t do squat for the industry. The fact that Apple nearly went out of business in the MS-DOS days handily demonstrates that.

The industry was largely unchanged until Microsoft finally decided to get around to pushing the idea.

Others invented it even if Apple pushed it to consumers first.

Other companies even tried to “copy Apple” in those days for all the good it did them. Their GUIs didn’t do any better competing against MS-DOS in the market than Apple’s did.

Iactuallycanread says:

Re: Re: Wow the haters don't fact check.

Yes, small little gadgets like rio appealed to the geek market, but the iPod brought it to mass markets in a way no other device really had or has since.

Windows did not really make its break until the 90s well after Apple had a good strong base in the market. The thing that changed is that Jobs left and Apple stagnated and did not innovate. Windows grew and improved and became the norm.

I hate to break or to you but people are buying Apple in record numbers, there is still no single device that has the market share of the iPad or the iPhone. Android has many devices that spread acros s more networks, most of which are sub par (I have had several) some of which are very very good as well. The price and spread effect these numbers, but the fact is many many people think Apple first when it comes to these devices.

You can garble facts all you want to make yourself feel be better, but the fact of the matter is Apple is an awesome company that was run by a great man who brought a lot of below the radar ideas into the light of the main stream.

The G1 was a clone, droids have sice began to get their own footing have become their own devices, but take it from some one who had one from day one, it was a clone.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Wow the haters don't fact check.

Well since Jobs left the building recently every body can be sure Apple will go down the drain again is that not right?

If the Rio mp3 didn’t brought it to the masses why the RIAA sued them?

Apple was more suscessfull granted, but the popularization of MP3 was not something that came out of Apple’s headquarters, they were not the first to be popular, they were the most suscessful ones and furthered the popularity of mp3 players with great suscess no doubt, Apple stole the wholesale idea and did their thing, just like Google did it to the iPhone.

Now explain how a greater number of people using Android makes Apple more popular?

Iactuallycanread says:

Re: Re: Wow the haters don't fact check.

Yes, small little gadgets like rio appealed to the geek market, but the iPod brought it to mass markets in a way no other device really had or has since.

Windows did not really make its break until the 90s well after Apple had a good strong base in the market. The thing that changed is that Jobs left and Apple stagnated and did not innovate. Windows grew and improved and became the norm.

I hate to break or to you but people are buying Apple in record numbers, there is still no single device that has the market share of the iPad or the iPhone. Android has many devices that spread acros s more networks, most of which are sub par (I have had several) some of which are very very good as well. The price and spread effect these numbers, but the fact is many many people think Apple first when it comes to these devices.

You can garble facts all you want to make yourself feel be better, but the fact of the matter is Apple is an awesome company that was run by a great man who brought a lot of below the radar ideas into the light of the main stream.

The G1 was a clone, droids have sice began to get their own footing have become their own devices, but take it from some one who had one from day one, it was a clone.

Michael Long (profile) says:

Re: Re: Wow the haters don't fact check.

“…the MP3 was a success long before the iPod, remember the RIO?”

LOL. The RIO? A success? Barely an hour’s worth of music on a 32MB Flash device that cost $200? Yep. That sucker really flew off the shelves.

Might as well talk about the “success” of the Creative NOMAD Jukebox. It weighed nearly a pound with it’s 2.5″ 6GB drive, ran for an astounding 4 hours [sarcasm] on it’s NiCad battery, and retailed for $500.

Yep. People bought those things in droves too…

Brooks (profile) says:

What a cheap and dishonest article

I had written TechDirt off a while ago, and it looks like I made the right choice. But this linkbait worked and hit Techmeme, so I had to chime in.

Red flags should always go up for writers when they find themselves saying they don’t understand what they’re writing about. To wit:

So I’m at a loss as to Jobs’ complaint against Android. At best, the only logical way to view his complaint is that he was upset that Google didn’t do enough on top of the idea of the iPhone to make Android completely its own.

So we’ve got a 1000 word rant about Jobs’ hypocrisy, and buried in it is this nugget where the writer kind of hints at sort of partly getting Jobs whole point.

Yes, most of Apple’s success came from building on others’ work and doing it enough better that it stood out commercially. That’s what they did, from the Apple II to the iPhone. It’s an utter straw man to suggest that Jobs or anyone else said otherwise. Straw men are cheap, but I guess this one was necessary to establish the hypocrisy the writer set out to find/create.

Android is largely a clone of iOS. Yes, it has evolved a bit away from that, and if you’re a geek some of the insides are very different. But the look and the way you interact with it are flat out copies. Not copies with substantial or even trivial improvements, but simple mechanical copies.

It’s especially apparent when you look at pre-iPhone and post-iPhone Android screenshots:
http://random.andrewwarner.com/what-googles-android-looked-like-before-and-after-the-launch-of-iphone/

And that’s what Jobs was saying. Yes, if Android had changed the paradigm the way Windows Phone 7 did, he wouldn’t have been so upset. It was the slavish duplication without even the attempt to think about or improve the UX that upset him.

I’m going to give TechDirt the benefit of the doubt and assume that this article was consciously intended to cash in on Steve Jobs’ death by posting something controversial, and that the writer knew the dishonesty involved in setting up the “hypocrisy” argument. And I guess it worked. Congratulations!

JEDIDIAH says:

Re: What a cheap and dishonest article

PhoneOS is largely a bog standard GUI with a limited featureset that makes it look like a throwback to the early 90s. The whole finger control thing comes off very much like the single mouse button approach of Apple in the 80s. Once you get beyond the bright and shiny veneer it’s not nearly as revolutionary as a lot of people like claim it is. Even some of the more “impressive” “gestures” are little more than finger equivalents of click and drag.

Of course many (probably most) probably aren’t going to see it for what it really is as they don’t really understand any technology on anything but the most superficial level.

Tim K (profile) says:

Jobs = Hypocrite

Jobs should retroactively go back and sue himself… quoting Picasso first….

“Good artists copy, great artists steal.”

and then adding his own words…

“We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CW0DUg63lqU#!

Yeah, its OK if WE (Apple) take your ideas, but its not OK if YOU take our ideas. Seems like Jobs was both a hypocrite and a crybaby.

cybernia (profile) says:

Re: Re: Jobs = Hypocrite

It depends what you mean by “bought” and “stole.” Xerox allowed Apple to “use” their GUI in return for 100,000 shares of pre-IPO stock at $10/share.

Apple then realized Xerox hadn’t copyrighted their GUI, so they did. So, they now controlled all the licensing. Now, you can say it’s all legal since Xerox didn’t copyright it, but what Apple did was a real dick move.

Bob Battle says:

law not copycat

The only real issue is whether Apple played fair with regard to patents and copyrights. regretably they are not given a fair shake on inventing the look and feel of their software. The other side of the coin it that the patent office is a total mess, with people getting patents they dont deserve and are obvious, and then great ideas not being patentable. So we get a bunch of lawyers involved and productivity really goes to hell. No wonder the Chinese are trouncing us. and ps. this discussion is still titled is really POOR TASTE. The man is dead. talk about the company and not the man when he cant defend or clarify what he meant.

Mentis says:

Steve jobs saw Xerox interface only after it came out in the public market. But Eric Schmidt saw iphone 2 years before it became public, by virtue of being a director of the Apple board. Do you see this difference? You know how much that 2 years of headway matters for an innovative product? Nothing but Schimdt stole the iphone’s 2 year headway, so he should be sent to jail. Why android came to market 2 years before windows phone 7 or palm pre or blackberry storm?

villagehiker (profile) says:

Speculation at Best

Steve was amazingly creative and surprisingly private. He did charitable giving without this left hand knowing about the activities of his right hand, the means advocated by the Way?the one applauded by his very faithful friends in U2 and Coldplay. Encouraged by entreating companions such as these, Steve likely entered eternity through the Gate of Grace.

Michael Long (profile) says:

What a cheap and dishonest article

“… it’s not nearly as revolutionary as a lot of people like claim it is …”

Right. That’s why the smartphones sitting on the shelf in the store today look exactly the same as they did prior to the release of the iPhone.

Or not. iPhone was an inflection point in the industry. A shift away from the small-screen keyboard-heavy stylus-based WCE and Palm and Blackberry designs into what’s NOW the modern touch-based smartphone.

And it was a major paradigm shift in the consumer space, which prior to iPhone was dominated by the RAZR and other flip and candy-bar styled feature phones.

Pre-iPhone. Post iPhone.

iPhone quite literally changed — revolutionized — an entire industry.

Michael Long (profile) says:

Jobs = Hypocrite

Actually, Xerox granted Apple and Apple’s engineers to a three-day “pass” at PARC in return for the right to purchase $1,000,000 worth of Apple’s pre-IPO stock. It was agreed that Apple could develop new products based on what they saw.

The PARC Alto was the basis for much of what became the Lisa and the Mac OS, but Apple added quite a few things over and above the original design, and simplified many others.

Apple’s patents were based on their innovations.

Apple’s copyrights on design were another matter, but one has only to look at the original Alto to see just how much the Mac OS diverged.

IRejectUrReality says:

What a cheap and dishonest article

They didnt revolutionize anything you mentioned in your post. You ifans need to learn how to differentiate between popularizing and innovating. Jobs and Co. we great salesmen but good marketing chops does not equal innovation. I will forever give them credit for creating the app store (which does equate to a game changing, paradigm shift in the smartphone world), and for having currently the most complete and best (only?) hardware, software, and service platform available.

Ron says:

Re:

>What they bought was a sneak peak inside Xerox, they didn’t bought anything in special and when they did implement the ideas they got from Xerox, Xerox even sued them and was dismissed.

The differences between the $30,000+ research workstation they saw and the eventual Mac were immense – from the trash can, to pull down menus, the app centric focus, the controls on windows, the overall design language, etc. It isn’t surprising they lost that lawsuit. Take a look at WebOS – you wouldn’t confuse it with iOS. Take a look at Metro – same deal. When you copy everything down the very icons, you deserve to be put out of business (I’m looking at you Samsung)

>Apple took the ideas of others shamelessly, and even romanticized it by putting a pirates flag in their headquarters, and now that times has changed and it is no longer cool to be a pirate people try to rewrite history.

OK, I get it, you are a troll and pretending to be stupid. Just in case there is anyone who believes you, the pirate flag was because this was basically a guerilla project and it was an attack against the bureaucracy of the rest of the corporation. (i.e. the often quoted “Would you rather be in the navy or be a pirate?)

>more trollish stuff…
>…Steve Jobs was piece of shit of a human being,
well that is your opinion. I think it would be wise for the rest of us to ignore you since your opiion isn’t shared by anyone who actually knew and worked with him (including his family, neighbors, employees, competitors, every major business leader on the planet, presidents, etc. etc,)

Anonymous Coward says:

Counterpoint

But that’s not really what I was talking about. In the main context of the article itself, the bad thing isn’t copying or stealing whatever. It’s when all you do when you copy just for the sake of copying and doing it to make a ripoff of someone else. We all know those about those cheap chinese knockoff products; that’s what’s bad (artistically speaking).

That is the issue that people are trying to show with links to the LG Prada. If you were to use both the first generation Iphone (2007) and the LG Prada (2006), you wouldn’t really notice that many differences. Icon’s in a grid, dial pad was the same. Touch screen on the front.

The difference between the LG Prada and the Iphone comes down to small features. The difference between the Iphone (2007) and Android (2008 G1) come down to small features.

So who copied who? Or are we just witnessing the evolution of technology.

Anonymous Coward says:

Counterpoint

I’m not sure how I am being dishonest. I don’t think the LG Prada looks anything like the iPhone. If anything, the phone looks like a smaller Droid 3 (slide out keyboard and all), and I would never mistake a Droid 3 for an iPhone.

The point that you were making is that Android copied too much from the Iphone. Yet what people are pointing out here is that a 2006 phone has many of the same features and usability of both Android (2008) and Iphone (2007).

Boil the phones down to only the features that are ‘different’ from one to another and look at whats left. The list of ‘new’ ideas with an Iphone or an Android are not that long.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

>>>well that is your opinion. I think it would be wise for the rest of us to ignore you since your opiion isn’t shared by anyone who actually knew and worked with him (including his family, neighbors, employees, competitors, every major business leader on the planet, presidents, etc. etc,)

Robert Sutton, author of “The No Asshole Rule,” was quoted in Fortune Magazine: “As soon as people in Silicon Valley heard I was writing a book on the downsides of assholes, I had many people — I mean hundreds, and quite a few who were or had been very close to him — immediately start telling me Steve Jobs stories.”

Wired, 2003 in an article about an Apple reunion: “Everyone has their Steve-Jobs-the-asshole story,” said one attendee, who asked not to be named.”

Ron says:

Re:

>…First, I’m not a billionaire, but I help when I can.

By your standard I shouldn’t believe it until I see your tax returns and interview people you have helped. But actually it is none of our business how you give to charity just as it is none of our business how Jobs did. He worked for free the last 10 years or so of his life (no salary, no vesting options) – how much did Bill Gates get paid the last ten years at Microsoft? There is a reason Gates made tens of billions off of Microsoft and Jobs made about 2 billion off of Apple.

>… And why why did he rebuff Gates’ and Buffet’s call to donate his fortune like they did?

He said in that 1985 playboy(?) that giving tons of money to children is about the worst thing you can do to them. he also said that giving away money intelligently is a full time job that he would do as he got older. Unfortunately he didn’t live that long….

>As to your comment, “providing for literally tens of thousands of good careers for people.”

That’s rich. Tell that to the workers in China who assemble Apple products and work for slave wages and in horrid conditions. It’s so bad workers have been committing suicide and the company,
===

Apple employs tens of thousands of people in the USA and these are high paying jobs. Apple as about the last manufacturer to move to China (remember all the complaints in the 90s about overpriced Apple products? Well eventually Apple had to move to China like everyone else for assembly.) These jobs in China are MUCH better than any job with a local manufacturer and that is why FoxConn has no problem filling up those factories. And while the media loves to cover any and everything about Apple, the reality is that the suicide rate in those factories is less than the overall suicide rate in China and even less than the overall suicide rate in America.

Tom says:

Apple did not steal from Xerox

“Lets see Xerox wanted to be part of Apple’s board and allowed them to tour their facilities, Google wanted to get a part of Apple and had a man there who as a member of the board had access to all Apple’s secrets.

Where is the difference?”

ha ha. Let’s see… Apple let Xerox buy a ton of Pre-IPO stock in what everyone knew was going to be the hottest IPO in years. Apple took the inspiration of the GUI (WYSIWYG and he mouse) and created something quite a bit different. i.e. no one would ever confuse the two.

Google had a member of the board who saw what Apple was doing, had their team change direction 180 degrees and produce a copy. Their partners have gone even further and blatantly copied things that they knew were patented and even copied the damn icons!! They didn’t have to do this – they could have done what WebOS or Microsoft did and innovate at least a little – they chose to copy for some reason – I assume because that was easier. (I am sure that there are now hundreds of engineers at Google copying the AI elements of Siri right now)

Ron says:

Re:

“…if he was giving all this money anonymously and there is this whole controversy after his death about it, you would think his widow would try and clear it up and set the record straight. She hasn’t.”

Unbelievable.

You criticize someone who just lost their spouse (and has a couple pre-college kids) for not addressing a fake controversy in your mind? What the hell is wrong with you?

Seriously – you need to get over it… It isn’t your fucking money.

Mike says:

Re:

“The hardware design was the same, and if Apple could patent that design and sue Samsung why LG can’t sue Apple for the same thing?”

Since the hardware was totally different, I really don’t know where you are going with this. The software was also totally different. With the prada you couldn’t even click on web links to open them!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Holy Crow! Your defense is that Foxconn has less suicides than the general Chinese and American populations? How about the idea that a factory shouldn’t have any suicides at all due to its working conditions? For Pete’s sake, they installed netting to prevent suicides and made workers sign a pledge they wouldn’t commit suicide.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Its not a fake controversy and its been an issue for years.

“But the lack of public philanthropy by Mr. Jobs — long whispered about, but rarely said aloud — raises some important questions about the way the public views business and business people at a time when some ‘millionaires and billionaires’ are criticized for not giving back enough while others like Mr. Jobs are lionized,” Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote in The New York Times shortly after the Apple CEO stepped down” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/07/the-history-of-steve-jobs_n_998325.html

Ron says:

Re:

“Holy Crow! Your defense is that Foxconn has less suicides than the general Chinese and American populations? How about the idea that a factory shouldn’t have any suicides at all due to its working conditions? “

OK, why not, I’ll feed the troll…

You may not be aware of this, anonymous coward, but people commit suicide all over the world. Whether it be rock stars with more money than you will ever see or college students with their whole life ahead of them, or doctors, or factory workers. Suicide is not a rational response to the problems in your life the underlying cause is chemical imbalances in the brain- but I suspect in higher stress environments more people will commit suicide. If the suicide rate is lower than the rest of China, it would be a strange argument to make that the factory conditions are horrible.

You also know that these same factories make the Kindle, Samsung phones, etc etc right? Do you care, or is it only Apple that you are obsessed about?

Carl says:

Counterpoint

“That is the issue that people are trying to show with links to the LG Prada. If you were to use both the first generation Iphone (2007) and the LG Prada (2006), you wouldn’t really notice that many differences. Icon’s in a grid, dial pad was the same. Touch screen on the front.

The difference between the LG Prada and the Iphone comes down to small features. The difference between the Iphone (2007) and Android (2008 G1) come down to small features. “

Please research the prada a little before going any further…

The prada shipped about the same time as the iPhone, not 2006.

The prada couldn’t browse the full internet (you couldn’t even touch links to open them), you couldn’t create playlists, it didn’t have any kind of multi-touch, etc etc etc. There is a reason no one cared about the prada when it came out.

Once Verizon realized that they had screwed up by losing the iPhone they jumped on the android bandwagon, but without iPhone, all phones would probably suck as much as they did in 2006.

Mike42 (profile) says:

Re:

Just in case anyone believes you, I took notice that you do not note any of your sources, and you were proven wrong on one.

You sound like either a PR man from Apple, or another fanboi.

Having written my first program on an AppleIIe, and purposly never touched one again, I can tell you from my experience that Apple has always been a crap company with amazing marketing. They have taken some mildly complex user interfaces (mp3 player, smartphone) and dumbed them down to consumer-electronics level, at the expense of flexibility and power. The IPad is a big IPhone that you use like a clipboard. It doesn’t do much beyond surf the web and read/write e-mails, but it doesn’t matter. That’s all most consumers do. And Apple has name recognition, so consumers will buy it. When they say, “Post-PC era”, they mean cheap, powerful, flexible machines are going the way of the dinosaur, hello trendy web appliance.
So let’s be clear. Apple makes technology simple, at the cost of power, flexibility, and your wallet.

cybernia (profile) says:

Re:

I didn’t realize I wasn’t signed in. The Foxconn factory in question is dedicated to making Apple products.

All you have to do is Google “Foxconn working conditions” and you will see story after story about the conditions in that plant.

I’m against any US company allowing those conditions, but Apple is especially of concern to me specifically due to the saint-like reputation of Jobs, which he in no way deserves. If any other CEO engaged in the kind of behavior he did, they’d be vilified, and rightly so.

He was saluted by the OWS protesters and that really bothered me. Apple is no different than the company they are attacking.

From what I have read here and elsewhere, my fears are justified. All kinds of excuses are made for his actions and behavior by the faithful.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

No, he did not. Apple had permission to use the technology in exchange for compensation to Xerox. Google’s problem is they didn’t get permission from all of the patent holders before they started. Now Microsoft is shaking down Android manufactures. This seems to be a problem with Google, they didn’t work out all the legal issues before starting to scan books, they didn’t get rights to content before Google TV, etc. Granted to get all those things worked out before hand would take a long time, and Apple and Microsoft may not have let them use it anyway since they had no patents of their own to deal with, but to blame Apple because Google didn’t get rights to use Apple’s property is ridiculous.

Anonymous Coward says:

Counterpoint

Not really, it was the first generation.

Look at the Android, it evolved and have more capabilities than the iPhone has, you can put attachments on emails on the Android but not on the iPhone, you can have animated screensavers on the Android which are not possible on the iPhone, the Android had voice commands well before the Siri and it has dozens of comparable apps now.

The first iPhone didn’t had cut and paste capabilities it didn’t had a lot of things that are common today thus it mean people wouldn’t do it?

The LG PRADA was the first one to market, it had things no other phones had in its time and the new models have addressed all those issues you talk about it.

I’m sure if it was not Apple it was going to be another player in the field.

Specially with open source tools that keep evolving at a hard pace forcing manufacturer’s to keep up or die.

Anonymous Coward says:

ugh please

That is not true, there were a lot of designs before Apple’s that used that same guidelines.

You can find them in Star Trek, eBooks readers, PDA’s and even other tablets.

Nokia had a series of designs demonstrating in 2006 how things could look like and surprise, touchscreens everywhere, with rounded corners.

http://www.yugatech.com/blog/toys-gadgets/nokia-aeon-the-concept-phone/

In 2011 the new sensation is the new transparent materials that can be used to create touchscreens.

http://nokiainnovation.com/2011/10/future-nokia-windows-phones-could-leave-you-speechless/

Now who is the one firm that actually have products in the market using transparent monitors?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/186240/samsung_shows_off_seethrough_screens_at_ces.html

Is not Apple.

Anonymous Coward says:

ugh please

That is not true, there were a lot of designs before Apple’s that used that same guidelines.

You can find them in Star Trek, eBooks readers, PDA’s and even other tablets.

Nokia had a series of designs demonstrating in 2006 how things could look like and surprise, touchscreens everywhere, with rounded corners.

http://www.yugatech.com/blog/toys-gadgets/nokia-aeon-the-concept-phone/

In 2011 the new sensation is the new transparent materials that can be used to create touchscreens.

http://nokiainnovation.com/2011/10/future-nokia-windows-phones-could-leave-you-speechless/

Now who is the one firm that actually have products in the market using transparent monitors?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/186240/samsung_shows_off_seethrough_screens_at_ces.html

Is not Apple.

Anonymous Coward says:

Apple did not steal from Xerox

???

No they didn’t copy the icons, they where inspired by those of Apple’s and more probably copied them from Gnome 3 or KDE.

http://kde-look.org/index.php?xcontentmode=22×27&PHPSESSID=30c3d75f13a0c90d1184443dce6c80c5
http://gnome-look.org/index.php?xcontentmode=120×121&PHPSESSID=86b918e73a981f1842eb0b003e2411d4

The one thing you will notice is that although all the various icons can be different they all look the same and they all are put in grid like patterns to be shown, and this has been happening for decades now.

So what is the better way to show icons on a screen?
Putting them in a grid to be shown.

Is that copying or just common sense?

Google Android under the hood was totally different that is why Apple never sued them.

That is why Apple even now it is not suing Google because they probably loose instead they are going after the box producer(Samsung) that made the mistake of using a black round corned frame to put the Android inside.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

If that was a real problem Apple and Microsoft would never happened.

Apple stole a lot from others and Microsoft too, both are famous for their thieving.

You want to watch the video of Jobs saying that they shamelessly steal ideas from others and calling Microsoft a copier instead of an innovator?

Oh the irony.

“We shamelessly steal ideas from others”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
Source: Triumph of The Nerds – PBS (1996)

In that same piece he calls Microsoft a copier.

Anonymous Coward says:

Counterpoint

Lets get this straight when you say “others copied(stole)” from Apple it doesn’t matter how much they stole, it was still copying and unnectical, but when pointed out that Apple’s designs are not innovative and have been around from quite some time suddenly it is all in the details?

How can you say that with a straight face?

AndyD273 (profile) says:

ugh please

I just have to say, you must have freakishly long arms.
Not that I’m a wiz a converting meters to yards.

But as as estimate, a meter is slightly longer than a yard.
I’m roughly average sized, but my arms are not close to a yard long.

I just hope that the Samsung lawyer got his perscription checked. Yes they are a slightly similar shape, but there are a lot of differences. Most obvious being the home button.
The judge should hold up a vision chart at right about the same distance. That seems only right. You have to establish all baseline parameters before a true scientific test.

Joseph Duarte says:

Disagree

I disagree with this, when he saw the GUI at Xerox there was no personal computer with a GUI, never-mind the MacIntosh GUI. There were many MP3 Players and I owned many , but none like the iPOD and iTunes, there were tablets, yes, but nothing remotely like the iPad. All of this not to mention the user experience form day one. The thing that pisses Jobs the most is not necessarily that they copied Apple implementation of those ideas but that they could not even improve on Apple. Not to mention that he trusted Microsoft with the MacIntosh to write software and they turned around and ripped off the OS, and Google had their CEO on the Apple board with access to Apple’s ideas and the same with Samsung.

Anonymous Coward says:

Disagree

Really, Google didn’t improve nothing?
So why is Apple copying Google now?

Android 4.0 is better than the iOS 5, apparently someone is not the number one anymore.

Samsung is copying Apple?
Do you understand the breadth and capabilities of Samsung?

They manufacture thousands of products, Apple does a dozen.

If this crap keeps going on, Asian manufacturer’s will start patenting every single piece of crap that they do and will transform American tech industries into ex-tech companies.

Anonymous Coward says:

Apple suing Samsung is like Japan attacking Pearl Harbour, they have no idea how powerful the otherside really is.

Asia produces everything, they design a lot, almost all the new things are coming out of there in the tech world and they want to start making Asian countries start making giant pools of patents?

That will end well. Just not for Americans.

Onnala (profile) says:

Counterpoint

The unavailing of the LG Prada took place in 2006 while the iphone was unveiled in 2007.

The Prada sold about 1M units in the first 18 months. So it was a well received phone.

So, given that it is an older phone and LG wasn’t making a music player, is the ability to make a play list a ‘big’ or a ‘small’ feature? Or a feature that would have been added in by software if the phone had become wildly popular?

All I see is evaluation of technology.

nasch says:

To stifle the competition...

Jobs was pissed from the beginning that Android copied them, it wouldn’t matter if Android had the lowest market share, I think Apple would still go after them.

But they haven’t gone after them, right? Unless I’m mistaken, Apple has not sued Google, and hasn’t sued anyone over the Android operating system.

There is still people out there that think this is not about Android?

If it’s about Android, then I would conclude that they decided they don’t have a legal case against Google or Android, and so have to find a more roundabout way to attack it in the courts.

whatever says:

To stifle the competition...

Or setting precedence when they do after Goolge.

Again par for the course. You work your way up the chain. It’s how it’s always been done.

But guess who can force a fight? Google, by indemnify their partners.

But why even put the focus on Android with their silly patent whining? If these are truely mistakes being made by their partners, I would think Google want nothing to do with it.

Imagine what a kick in the nuts this is for manufacturers. Google pretents to have their back, but when the chips are down, when they cross license with MS and perhaps eventually with Apple. they have to give up something of theirs while Google gives up nothing.

But Google has already threw their hat in the ring by giving HTC… cowards way of doing it I think. Take over the lawsuit for HTC and indemtifiy them.

But there will be no choice now that they are buying Motorola Mobility. Finally we’ll see what the results will be. I’m going to laugh my ass off if Google sells off MM to avoid a fight with Apple.

Unless of course if Google folds like a house of cards. Imagine if in discovery Apple finds a high level Google Exec or programming team email indicating they knew exactly that they were infringing on Apple patents but they did it anyway, like the email that came out for the Oracle lawsuit.

I can’t wait, cause things are just starting to get interesting. I hope nobody settles.

whatever says:

To stifle the competition...

Correction…

The following…
But Google has already threw their hat in the ring by giving HTC… cowards way of doing it I think. Take over the lawsuit for HTC and indemtifiy them.

Should be…
But google has already threw their hat in the ring by giving HTC some patents, but I think that’s the cowards way of doing things, they should take over the lawsuit for HTC and indemtifiy them.

Sorry.

whatever says:

To stifle the competition...

You’re talking about what you know about the Apple lawsuits.

From what we know, the MS law suits relates to Android. Plus Google’s complaint about them. Samsungs own comment that they don’t think Google can do anything to prevent it much less fight it.

If what you say is true, than indeed Google should step up and indemntify their partners, because than the current lawsuits has nothing to do with them.

At the very least you indemtify your partners where law suits realted to Andriod, but some how they don’t. Why is that? :/

Fed says:

Jobs = Hypocrite

This is ridiculous. Where are you coming up with this garbage?

Except for the most basic of ideas (WYSIWYG and a mouse), the two weren’t very close at all. If you used a Mac, you would have been pretty confused if you sat down in front of an ALto. Considering that Samsung copied everything down to the icons, it is hard to tell the difference between them and the iPhone.

Fred says:

Wow the haters don't fact check.

“Apple’s early adoption (relative to Microsoft) of the GUI really didn’t do squat for the industry.”

No. Once you saw the Mac, you realized that this was how all computers would someday operate. The fact that without Jobs, the company floundered and that it took Gates about 6 years to copy just shows what a breakthrough it was.

Fred says:

Re:

“…The Foxconn factory in question is dedicated to making Apple products.”
“All you have to do is Google “Foxconn working conditions” and you will see story after story about the conditions in that plant.”

Funny. One of the first pages talks about HP, Dell and Apple looking into Foxconn working conditions. So much for only Apple using them.

You can choose to hate Apple if you like – just stop with the lies. I don’t have time to disprove all your false statements.

cybernia (profile) says:

Re:

There are a few factories, one of them is dedicated to Apple products. But many electronics companies have their products made by Foxconn.

I just saw a one man show/monologue the other night, “The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs” that is about Foxconn and Jobs/Apple. The guy, Mike Daisy who is an Apple fan, describes visiting those factories, and talking to workers, former and current.

At the end, he talks about how Steve Jobs turned his back on the working conditions when he was singularly in a position to force change due to his power and position. He spoke of the “denialism” of Apple fans and how it turns out that Steve Jobs wasn’t the guy they thought he was.

Michael S says:

Re:

I disagree Ryan. Right before, the author says the full quote is more nuanced, which to me implied understanding the full breath of Android. I hate how Apple is going after Samsung, but they are in essence a bad artist who has ripped off Apple and iOS, while Cyanogen Mod is a good poet that is making Android better and different than iOS. So different that Apple has decided to take some of TD’s work and bring it into the fold if iOS5. I think some of TD’s work is actually so intuitive that it will be a standard in smart phones for years to come which is why they have built up such a large following.

patent litigation (user link) says:

in defense of Jobs

In Jobs’s defense, and as patent expert Gene Quinn pointed out recently, Google seems to get sued over Android for patent infringement with inordinate frequency. At first I thought that this must merely be because Android has been such a successful and popular product. But, as Quinn implied, maybe it’s really due to the questionable quality of Android’s underlying IP. Or perhaps it’s a bit of both.

Fjord Prefect says:

I don’t know. Could it be because Eric Schmidt was on Apple’s board of directors, and then once he got a peek at Apple’s device began to steer Google’s own phone development towards a product more like the iPhone and less like the Blackberry-style device they were developing? Maybe that’s why Steve’s pissed, because Apple did all that R&D for their own competitor’s benefit.

Steve says:

ugh please

Apple did not make the first tablet, I believe the first one was made by either compaq or microsoft. Apple also copied the design of the first palms to make their newtons.

Jobs was a greedy guy who wanted it all. He manufactured his products in Chinese sweatshops to make a few more bucks, he developed his own music format so his songs could not be played on other players, even the cord for iPods/phones/pads is proprietary.

I’ve been ussing Mac’s for about 20 years, they are the best and Jobs was a genius, a whining genius though,

Steve says:

Response to: fogbugzd on Oct 21st, 2011 @ 8:58pm

“Haha! A preemptive copy of Apples pull down notification system a few years before it was released? What a freaking joke! You think it’d take Apple years to develop a pull down notification system? They took the idea from Android. And that’s fine.”

Ummmm It really was a joke, A joke you didn’t get.

Filipe says:

Apple vs Google

Quite honestly…. they are both great products. Apple does have an edge, but google is great too. At the end of the day all of this is ultimately great for the consumer! I personally would HATE to only have to choose from just an apple product manopoly and vice versa. The fact that there are various products on the market from various companies, ultimately only benefits the consumer whether it be in price or enjoyment. I think they are both great… some people like Google some like Apple ultimately it gives people the choice. Makes it interesting!

Opens the market… not to mention it forces these companies to offer better more competitive prices!

Kevin Cody (user link) says:

let's talk about something a bit more "current"

The dude is dead. Worm food. The long dirt nap. His PISSEDness is a non-starter BECAUSE he’s dead. Unfortunate for the author this story seems to filled with the same illogic over-and-over stole everything, then it says bit and pieces in the following or preceding statement. can’t really be both ways.
But i don;t know for sure about the whole thing, it lose my attention – nothing new here.

Jake Snaker says:

stupid

Amazes about all the rich assholes out there. They think they own part of the world. Copy this or copy that. It’s a child’s game. Large children with boatloads of dough, while other children in the world are starving.

The Iphone is nothing more than a tiny laptop with a built in cell phone. Doesnt even need the stinking data plan to work. But people are duped into catering to cell providers to have one. Its a fashion trend..totally unnecessary. Steve Jobs is good at legally robbing people..just like Microsoft. And they wonder why we have pirating….go figure. We’re tired of working hard for our money just to become “dependent” on technology that is created with the sole purpose of finding a way to get our money. Money truly is the root of all evil.

Anonymous Coward says:

ugh please

Wrong. Stealth technology didn’t come from Russia. The guy who helped pioneer electromagnetic radiation deflection equations came from Russia, and that helped in the development of stealth technology.

Get your facts straight. As a point of fact, the Soviet Union (and now China) was renowned for research and development “on the cheap”; ie. waited till the West developed it and then steal it.

Rusty says:

Re:

Don’t care too much for it.
1. There are many things other than reason that push people to speak out, most of them completely unrelated to the subject.
2. Steve Jobs was human, and therefore was flawed. But no matter what people can say, and no matter how he did it, he did succeed in making a great name for himself, and he did change the world.

Roman says:

Wrong understanding.

Reading the title.. You are not getting it. Before Android, Apple and Microsoft worked together and borrowed from each other with no big problems, no? Jobs didn’t mind the inspiration people take from Apple. What he minded was that Apple, embraced google as friends, who are not competing with them, and taught them everything about iPhone and what makes it a good phone. Then, in a few months, Google went off and made the same thing (same looking thing). I think that if you look at how Jobs treated Microsoft, even thought they borrowed a lot too, you will see that he didn’t mind that all that much, he was ok with that. “We need to get read of this belief that in Order for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose” ~ Steve Jobs, late 90’s

Guy who does not want to be sued by Greedy Apple C (user link) says:

Jobs made a business out of stealing from others.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-14/nokia-apple-payments-to-nokia-settle-all-litigation.html
just one example. The technology used for the user-interfaces on all of their touchscreens was stolen from nokia violating patent rights. Almost all of Jobs “Saving graces” were more or less “stolen graces” that he used with full knowledge that he could tie up lawsuits in red-tape and countersuits and continue to push product and rake-in profits. They can dress him up all they want but many people who worked for him “hated him” and he was prone to firing people who didn’t cower and bow and praise him. Have a difference of opinion? well then hit the bricks buddy. He was a jackwagon being dressed up as a shining knight through selective advertising and proprietary innovations that he didn’t have patent rights for to begin with.
I will say one thing that apple products have made a lot of… All the apple smartphones and smart products make some really stupid people… People who somehow can drive from point A to point B without crashing into a building -but somehow cannot add 2+3 or perform simple functions of thought. This makes figuring out how to do anything that has easy-to-read instructions posted right on them an impossible task. Apple makes new stupid people every day. Do they have an app for that? Maybe it is in development at Nokia or Google and just hasn’t been “acquired” from them yet.

Faisa says: