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: android, copying, innovation, iphone, ripping off, stealing, steve jobs
Companies: apple, google


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Gomi No Sensei, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:03pm

    finally

    I am so glad the timer between when someone dies, and when you can utter truths or opinions about them without receiving criticism for it being too soon has expired.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    ryan, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:36pm

    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...)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 22 Oct 2011 @ 11:39am

      Re:

      But it looks to me like you didn't really understand Brian Ford's post or (his interpretation of) the T.S. Elliot quote.

      Are you going to explain it to him (and everyone), or just throw a rock and leave?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Michael S, 30 Oct 2011 @ 9:48pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Los, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:56pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:37pm

      Re:

      Steve did it to Xerox didn't he?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        David Liu (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 11:19pm

        Re: Re:

        He didn't steal it. Jobs bought it from Xerox in exchange for a large amount of Apple shares. Sounds like a licensing agreement, and not stealing.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 11:46pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You mean like when Apple sued Microsoft after having licensed the GUI to them?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation

          That kind of a deal?

          LoL

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          OrganizdKaoz (profile), 22 Oct 2011 @ 12:57am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Was ripping the Mac project off from Jef Raskin and then taking credit for its creation himself also a licensing agreement?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 5:54am

          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

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Doug, 22 Oct 2011 @ 6:36am

          Re: Re: Re:

          This whole subject is an article and argument about originality.

          It sounds like you are admitting that what Jobs "bought" from Xerox wasn't his idea and that He merely acquired it Google's approach was no different.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            David Liu (profile), 22 Oct 2011 @ 3:58pm

            Re: Re: Re: 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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 8:44pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Ron, 23 Oct 2011 @ 11:58am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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,)

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2011 @ 1:00pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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."

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Ron, 26 Oct 2011 @ 9:21pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Wow so some people who are not willing to give their name are bad mouthing someone. What a surprise.

                    I think I'll take the opinion of the hundreds of business and political leaders who don't agree with your mindless hate.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Sacredjunk, 4 Jun 2013 @ 11:55pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      >Wow so some people who are not willing to give their name are bad mouthing someone. What a surprise.

                      What do you expect when their opinion is on a company always ready to sue?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Mike42 (profile), 23 Oct 2011 @ 5:37pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2011 @ 7:39pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Well the Android 4.0 compared to the iOS 5 resembles nothing what Google initially copied from Apple, so what is your point?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          IRejectUrReality, 22 Oct 2011 @ 8:04am

          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).

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Michael Long (profile), 22 Oct 2011 @ 8:47am

            Re: Re: Re: 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

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Bryan Maynard, 22 Oct 2011 @ 7:53am

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 9:02am

          Re: Apple did not steal from Xerox

          Exactly Xerox allowed them inside to peak and they copied what they could, and the Google executive was allowed inside Apple and copied what he could in a sense there are some similarities there.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            David Liu (profile), 22 Oct 2011 @ 4:08pm

            Re: Re: 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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 8:22pm

              Re: Re: Re: 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?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Tom, 23 Oct 2011 @ 2:10pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: 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)

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2011 @ 7:22pm

        Re: 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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2011 @ 8:27pm

          Re: Re: 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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ahow628 (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:36pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2011 @ 8:29pm

        Re: Re:

        Yep, like Jobs was following Xerox like a little puppy.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Jamie (profile), 24 Oct 2011 @ 7:45pm

        Re: Re:

        It's commonly known that Eric Schmidt recused himself from board meeting while the iPhone was being discussed. He might have known that an Apple phone was coming, but that was probably about it.

        If he'd known any more than this, I'm sure that Schmidt and Google would already have been the target of a very large Apple lawsuit.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:40pm

      Re:

      They should have made him sign some sort of non-competition agreement (not sure if thats the right name, just something saying "dont take this info and use it to compete with us). Too bad, so sad Steve didn't think of doing this, maybe he could have prevented it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      nobody, 22 Oct 2011 @ 1:59am

      Re:

      Schmidt didn't even know about the iPhone before it was released. Total BS on the behalf of Jobs.

      he iPhone was basically a copy of the LG PRada.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        MIke, 22 Oct 2011 @ 10:27am

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 8:19pm

          Re: Re: 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?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Mike, 23 Oct 2011 @ 2:31pm

            Re: Re: Re: 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!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2011 @ 8:30pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              It doesn't matter, what is patented is the design not the inner workings.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2011 @ 8:31pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Apple is suing Samsung for the design not how it works.
              So LG should sue Apple and get royalties from them for using their designs.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 8:20pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Do a search for phones using a time constraint and you will see, how Apple stole a lot of ideas.

          There is no hiding that.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Jj, 22 Oct 2011 @ 4:37am

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

      This is exactly right. You can't understand his anger without understanding this crucial fact.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 5:57am

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Jj, 22 Oct 2011 @ 4:37am

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

      This is exactly right. You can't understand his anger without understanding this crucial fact.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      KB, 22 Oct 2011 @ 8:03am

      Re:

      It's all REALLY about EGO and GREED.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      sup da, 22 Oct 2011 @ 9:29am

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

      Sounds like a trip jobs took to xerox. When he toured the place and stole ideas

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Ron, 22 Oct 2011 @ 10:35am

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

        Please stop spreading this lie. In order to see what they had in their lab, Xerox was allowed to buy millions of dollars of pre-IPO stock in Apple.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 8:16pm

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

          Not millions, a million dollars worth of stock.
          Then they made something and Xerox tried to sue them, it sounds a lot like the story behind the iPhone and Android phones.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:57pm

    ugh please

    being inspired is one thing.. carbon copying someone else is another. Jobs had his creations plagarized by more other people than anyone else, no wonder he was angry. Samsung copied the ipad right down to the freaking box, people have no shame. Just another of mikey's stupid rants.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The Groove Tiger (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:25pm

      Re: ugh please

      Down to the rounded corners, you mean (and the menu-inna-grid, unconceivable).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:39pm

      Re: ugh please

      Why should they?
      Until very recently as recently as the 80's Americans copied everything they could from others.

      Heck, stealth technology came from Russia.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:55am

        Re: Re: ugh please

        Fuck steve jobs

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2012 @ 2:04am

        Re: Re: 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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 10:24pm

      Re: ugh please

      If that was true then why did Apple have to Photoshop the evidence provided to 2 different courts in 2 different lawsuits in order to make them look more alike?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 11:37pm

        Re: Re: ugh please

        Samsung Galaxy is awfully similar to the iPad the judge asked the Samsung counsel to point it out and they took 10 min to point out the right one.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 12:53am

          Re: Re: Re: ugh please

          All tablets look the same from the allotted distance

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 2:30am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: ugh please

            Yes they all look alike, that is what makes this so nonsensical, is like getting a tire and asking people to differentiate between them from a distance, I doubt anybody could do it.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          The eejit (profile), 22 Oct 2011 @ 2:17am

          Re: Re: Re: ugh please

          That's bollocks, and you know it. Having actually held them side-by-side, the only similarity is in the rounded corners. literally nothing else is comparable.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 2:25am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: ugh please

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              freak (profile), 22 Oct 2011 @ 5:00am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 6:05am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  freak (profile), 22 Oct 2011 @ 7:14am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Michael Long (profile), 22 Oct 2011 @ 9:01am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    freak (profile), 22 Oct 2011 @ 9:07am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Michael Long (profile), 22 Oct 2011 @ 9:22am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        freak (profile), 22 Oct 2011 @ 9:50am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          freak (profile), 22 Oct 2011 @ 10:05am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ugh please

                          Egh, I feel bad applying this idea directly to apples products.

                          I don't really know enough about the specifics.

                          I maintain however, that it is fully possible for 99% to get obvious ideas wrong in a computer device by the mismanagement or under-importance of the design team.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    duffmeister (profile), 22 Oct 2011 @ 9:08am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 9:51am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Ron, 23 Oct 2011 @ 2:13pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ugh please

                      Are you really stupid enough to think that overall shape is the main issue?

                      Did Samsung have to steal Apple's icons? etc etc etc

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        freak (profile), 23 Oct 2011 @ 5:45pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ugh please

                        Remind me, again, what exactly are they suing over, and what was the point trying to be proven with the anecdote of the lawyer being unable to tell her product apart from a distance?

                        Learn to threaded mode?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2011 @ 7:42pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ugh please

                        The icons are not Samsung's problem it is not their design, it is not their product, that would be Google.

                        Since it is not and the court papers make it very clear that what it is in question here is the shape of the tablet I find it amusing that you are so ignorant of the facts.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 9:51pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ugh please

                    www.google.com/search?q=star+trek+voyager+pads&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&sour ce=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.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Kirion, 22 Oct 2011 @ 9:42am

          Re: Re: Re: ugh please

          Will you recognize brand of TV panel from few meters?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Z, 22 Oct 2011 @ 4:49pm

          Re: Re: Re: ugh please

          http://www.geekosystem.com/galaxy-tab-ipad-lawyers-cant-tell/

          Sorry, but it didn't took them 10 mins.
          They were subject to telling which one was which... from 10 feet away.
          Sure 10 feet isn't that far away, but watching someone holding a black rectangle over its head makes it hard for people to tell.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        JBDragon, 24 Oct 2011 @ 11:38am

        Re: Re: ugh please

        How come the Lawyers on the Defense couldn't tell the 2 Tablets apart from 10 feet away?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      some dude, 22 Oct 2011 @ 2:36am

      Re: ugh please

      Seriously? If you believe that, you deserve to get ripped off by the latest trendy electronic fashion accessory.

      It looks similar, I guess, if you tweak the dimensions and doctor the images. Which is what Apple ended up doing, so there's that, I suppose.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      step, 22 Oct 2011 @ 9:32am

      Re: ugh please

      Steve jobs stole shit too so stfu your messiah is dead fan boy!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Chimpy, 22 Oct 2011 @ 3:16pm

      Re: ugh please

      The author agrees that Jobs had his ideas stolen. The point of the article is that he was also an idea thief. It doesn't have anything to do with Samsung (who I agree "slavishly" ripped off the iPad). Just another of Anonymous Coward's stupid arguments...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      wscaddie56, 24 Oct 2011 @ 12:26pm

      Re: ugh please

      OK, name one thing Steve Jobs invented.

      So if Jobs does it, iPod/iPhone/iPad, it's inspiration but if you take inspiration from an Apple product it's copying.

      I must not be smart enough to understand the nuance of this argument.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      counsel, 16 Nov 2011 @ 4:10pm

      Re: ugh please

      "Down to the freaking box..." except the size and shape were different. Did Apple copy the design of the electronic frame?

      Even Jobs talked about imitating others... I guess he thought it was fine to imitate others but not have others imitate him...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Steve, 21 Feb 2012 @ 2:49pm

      Re: 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,

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Happy Steve is dead, 8 May 2014 @ 2:20pm

      Re: ugh please

      Stop blowing your Jobs figurine. Jobs stole just like everyone.

      Your sex idol is a h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    fogbugzd (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 8:58pm

    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.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Transbot9, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:09pm

      Re:

      As you can tell by my rant below, I concure completely. :D

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      xebikr (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 11:57pm

      Re:

      This video is full of them... and it's hilarious.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq-e0getf4M

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Kyleish, 22 Oct 2011 @ 8:00am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        freak (profile), 22 Oct 2011 @ 9:10am

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Steve, 21 Feb 2012 @ 3:06pm

        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."

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

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      programmer?, 13 Feb 2016 @ 5:47pm

      Re:

      LOL. That's pretty funny.... the fan boys get it

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Transbot9, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:07pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      David Liu (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:20pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Marcel Gommans, 22 Oct 2011 @ 11:40am

        Re: Re: More or Less.

        Apple makes great products, but sells them for extreme prizes. And although OS X is a fine OS, the base is 'stolen' from bsd.......

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        JEDIDIAH, 22 Oct 2011 @ 5:06pm

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Transbot9, 22 Oct 2011 @ 9:41pm

        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).

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        ian, 12 Sep 2012 @ 6:40pm

        Re: Re: More or Less.

        You mean cultivates apps that fit Apple's image and nothing else? I believe that's known as fascism. I have yet to find an app on iTunes that is better than the Google versions... Just sayin'

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:38pm

      Re: More or Less.

      nah, apple wont care about windows 8 because no one will care about windows 8

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      DGI, 22 Oct 2011 @ 1:02pm

      Re: More or Less.

      I find this comment far more insightful than the essay it's responding to.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    David Liu (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:29pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Oct 2011 @ 9:49pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        David Liu (profile), 21 Oct 2011 @ 11:14pm

        Re: Re:

        /shrug. It's also the "nice" thing about speaking ill about the dead. They can't argue back.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rusty, 4 Jun 2013 @ 8:33pm

        Re: 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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 2:39pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        David Liu (profile), 22 Oct 2011 @ 4:22pm

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 8:52pm

          Re: Re: Re: Counterpoint

          Well, then Apple is as much guilty as any other party, they ripped off others shamelessly.

          Are you old enough to remember this?
          http://www.soundman.com/MACINTOSH/Apple%20pirate%20flag.JPG

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Oct 2011 @ 9:10pm

          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

          Furt her 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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            David Liu (profile), 23 Oct 2011 @ 8:42am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2011 @ 12:47pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2011 @ 8:49pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 23 Oct 2011 @ 12:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: 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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Carl, 23 Oct 2011 @ 4:53pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]