Steve Jobs was so angered by Android and HTC that he reportedly told then …

Walter Isaacson's forthcoming biography of Steve Jobs is on a kind of crypto-PR tour, having magically landed in the hands of a gaggle of journalists well in advance of its publication. Said journalists are furiously typing with one hand and flipping pages with the other, bringing us glimpses of the year's most anticipated biography of a recently deceased mega-icon of technology. Yesterday, for instance, it was revealed that Jobs regretted delaying potentially life-extending surgery in the very early days of his diagnosis with pancreatic cancer. Now in a wide-ranging survey of the biography, the AP reports that Jobs' disdain for Android was much greater than that for any other competitive product.

According to Isaacson, Steve Jobs' reaction to the January 2010 unveiling of the HTC smartphone lineup was fury. Calling it "a great theft," Jobs supposedly proclaimed, "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. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

Jobs meant it. Apple would kick off the lawsuits shortly thereafter, and the company hasn't been ignored itself. Countersuits have been filed, and as we have reported on Ars, just about everyone is suing everyone else.

Of course, lawsuits are usually made to be settled, but Jobs was having none of it. Meeting with then-Google CEO Eric Schmidt, a man who for years sat on Apple's board before Android made that no longer possible, Jobs told Schmidt that money wasn't going to make it right. "I don't want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won't want it," Jobs reportedly said. "I've got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that's all I want." And with that, the door to any possible settlement was slammed shut. We wonder if Jobs' passing will open the door to lawsuit settlements down the road.

Isaacson's book, Steve Jobs will hit store shelves on Monday, October 24, and the Ars review of the book will be up shortly thereafter, so keep an eye out for it.

583 Reader Comments

First of all, the code is different, save for parts that were legally permitted to be copied, such as webkit. The similarities are mostly in superficial UI elements, and it's an independent implementation of it.

You are absolutely right, the code is different, so Google is not guilty of copyright infringement.An independent implementation of somebody else's innovations with only superficial and inconsequential changes is the dictionary definition of patent infringement and of the more colloquial term of rip-off.

The dictionary definition of patent infringement says nothing about whether or not the implementation is derived independently, and implementation of innovations someone else came up with is usually not patent infringement. Most innovations do not receive patents, and even those that do have their patents expire. Furthermore, your definition would be inclusive of licensing a patent.

As for the patents themselves, they should not have been granted for obviousness and because most if not all of them are not patentable subject matter.

Quote:

If you believe Google had no other way to compete because the innovation was obviously the only technically possible way to implement a mobile touch-screen user interface, I suggest taking a look at Windows Phone.

WP7 almost certainly infringes a ton of Apple patents as well. However, MS and Apple are buddy buddy and have already engaged in plenty of cross-licensing already, so there wouldn't be a lawsuit.

Blackberry contributed two very important features: mobile messaging and mobile e-mail.Their overall contributions to the evolution of computing is nowhere near the same league as Apple or Microsoft because they didn't make much difference to most people.

The first Nokia mobile computing device was released a few weeks ago: the Nokia N9. All previous products were just phones. Nokia was and continues to be very innovative, but in the phone business.

Linux wasn't, isn't and will never be innovative. Linux is the greatest example of the zombies left by Microsoft in its wake.

Alfa_Spider wrote:

Or perhaps 'notable' requires that it elicit a shriek of glee from you.

It requires that sort of response from everyone that sees it for the first time.

Jobs attitude towards Android is probably more revealing about him than any real issues about Android. All of the controversy about Apple and Android suffers from a lack of clarity about the details of the intellectual property issues. Apple's success is in large part built off the details of its user interface implementations. It is quite reasonable for them to want to protect the distinguishing features of their designs that are at the core of their brand identity. There is some rationale to Job's emotions if in fact HTC did copy the details of Apple's UI and try to create a product with an identical look and feel as Apple's.There are another set of issues regarding touch user interfaces. Apple apparently holds a number of patents relating to touch UI technology. But, if Jobs expected to use these patents to monopolize touch technology, he was out of step with the rest of the industry. It is certainly reasonable for Apple to expect compensation for the value of this technology. But the practice in the industry has generally been to license technology patents essentially on FRAND terms.Beneath all of these issue is the technology involved in Android. Android is essentially some extensions to Java, Linux, and the GNU system functionality. This technology was certainly not stolen from Apple. Nor are Apple's contributions to software technology on a different scale than those who created the foundation components that Android is built on.

Also, I find it kind of funny that the iPhone runs "iOS," which any network engineer will tell you is similar to the name of Cisco's IOS operating system, used for decades in its routers and switches. I'm betting Apple has to pay them royalties to use the name. So much for originality and theft and all that.

I would say that there isn't much room for feeling betrayed or angry if your business partner was making moves into the same market one year before you even partnered with him.

Thanks for the info. At the time Android was purchased, did it resemble the GUI or feature similar functional concepts as iPhone OS?

I feel there must have been some sense of understanding amongst Schmidt, Jobs and Apple about not directly competing in the same space given that Apple was only four months away from releasing the iPhone and deep in it's development. Just as Google wouldn't want Schmidt on the board of any company that is planning to do it's own search & advertising It's just so surprising that Jobs would willingly invite an in-development competitor to be a part of the team and learn all about their trade secrets. It will be interesting to learn more about this dynamic once the book is released.

I'm guessing personal attacks = rational discourse is some sort of axiom to you.And Windows 95 is an Apple product to you.

Suggesting that the iPhone was the only notable innovation for a decade seems to suggest that Apple has been the only one capable of innovating in a major way.

Quote:

Blackberry contributed two very important features: mobile messaging and mobile e-mail.Their overall contributions to the evolution of computing is nowhere near the same league as Apple or Microsoft because they didn't make much difference to most people.

Your metric is idiotic. Blackberry laid a lot of the groundwork for smartphones. It was a niche market, but you pretty much have to have a niche market before you can have a mass market.

Quote:

The first Nokia mobile computing device was released a few weeks ago: the Nokia N9. All previous products were just phones. Nokia was and continues to be very innovative, but in the phone business.

Symbian would definitely be considered mobile computing, unless you have very strict standards for computing, in which case the iPhone likely wouldn't apply.

Quote:

Linux wasn't, isn't and will never be innovative. Linux is the greatest example of the zombies left by Microsoft in its wake.

You clearly don't what the hell you are talking about. Linux played a major role in the internet as we know it, and it's in a ton of embedded devices, from DVRs to GPS to HDTVs to many other things.

Quote:

It requires that sort of response from everyone that sees it for the first time.

Well, I thought the iPhone was a piece of shit when I first saw it, and it seemed to hold true when I got an iPod Touch secondhand for really cheap. I will give it credit for being the best alarm clock I've ever owned, but outside of that, it's garbage to me. By your logic, the iPhone was not innovative.

Ha! you don't spend much time reading the ars boards...or any internet boards. The anonymity brings out highly base behavior.

For some reason, it always ends up much less about an on-going conversation where people exchange thoughts and ideas and more about how someone knows more and is vastly more intelligent than someone else...and that someone is an idiot.

What bothers be about the comments here is the hypocrisy. I don't think anyone doubts that Google followed Apple's lead when designing aspects of Android. I wonder if Apple followed Diamond's lead with MP3 players?

What's this - a card-deck shaped MP3 player with circular controls, proprietary adapter and an LCD screen on the front? I'm sure the iPod's resemblance is simply coincidence?

This is the reality of business. There are significant costs inherent to coming up with a new product without knowing whether or not consumers will like it. This "testing of the water", if successful, paves an easy path for your competitors to follow. It also gives you a 'first mover advantage' that the ubiquity of the iPhone clearly shows Apple has enjoyed.

Why isn't the notification system in iOS 5 something revolutionary, rather than using a near duplicate of Android's? If Google copied iOS by using icons, which had been previously employed by every GUI on the market, how can you excuse the use of a legitimately original UI element? The omission of such points is why I've dismissed nearly every Apple fanboy post thus far. No rational person argues that Google didn't borrow from iOS's successes when finalizing, but it's staggering how many people deny that Apple has been equally guilty of the exact same thing.

The dictionary definition of patent infringement says nothing about whether or not the implementation is derived independently, and implementation of innovations someone else came up with is usually not patent infringement. Most innovations do not receive patents, and even those that do have their patents expire. Furthermore, your definition would be inclusive of licensing a patent.

That's just a nitpick. My argument stands.

knbgnu wrote:

As for the patents themselves, they should not have been granted for obviousness and because most if not all of them are not patentable subject matter.

Wishful thinking is not an argument.

knbgnu wrote:

WP7 almost certainly infringes a ton of Apple patents as well. However, MS and Apple are buddy buddy and have already engaged in plenty of cross-licensing already, so there wouldn't be a lawsuit.

That sounds reasonable, I suspect Microsoft probably licenses some multitouch patents from Apple, just like Nokia does.Apple is willing to license a small subset of their multitouch patents to competitors, but wants to maintain exclusivity for the rest.Android infringes on patents in both categories, that's why it is the only competitor that looks so similar and that is being pursued in the courts.

Your argument was the dictionary definition of patent infringement and rip-off. Your definition had very little to do with the actual definition of patent infringement or rip-off.

Quote:

Wishful thinking is not an argument.

It's not wishful thinking, other than hoping that patent system will actually work the way it's supposed to, since it rarely does. These patents are quite obvious and software is inherently abstract (hence the "soft" part of the name), and thus not patentable. Both of these elements are grounds for invalidation of the patents, but it unfortunately takes a lot of work to invalidate a patent.

Quote:

That sounds reasonable, I suspect Microsoft probably licenses some multitouch patents from Apple, just like Nokia does.Apple is willing to license a small subset of their multitouch patents to competitors, but wants to maintain exclusivity for the rest.Android infringes on patents in both categories, that's why it is the only competitor that looks so similar and that is being pursued in the courts.

MS and Apple have a Mutual Assured Destruction situation going on, so either could do just about anything they wanted without too much concern for a lawsuit, with the worst situation being an insignificant change in cash flow between the two behemoths. Google doesn't have a 'nuclear' patent portfolio, so they (or their partners) end up subject to lawsuits.

I'm guessing personal attacks = rational discourse is some sort of axiom to you.And Windows 95 is an Apple product to you.

Suggesting that the iPhone was the only notable innovation for a decade seems to suggest that Apple has been the only one capable of innovating in a major way.

Apology accepted.

knbgnu wrote:

windwalker wrote:

Blackberry contributed two very important features: mobile messaging and mobile e-mail.Their overall contributions to the evolution of computing is nowhere near the same league as Apple or Microsoft because they didn't make much difference to most people.

Your metric is idiotic.

Let's try to avoid insults.

knbgnu wrote:

Blackberry laid a lot of the groundwork for smartphones. It was a niche market, but you pretty much have to have a niche market before you can have a mass market.

So you're agreeing that their contribution was minor.

knbgnu wrote:

windwalker wrote:

The first Nokia mobile computing device was released a few weeks ago: the Nokia N9. All previous products were just phones. Nokia was and continues to be very innovative, but in the phone business.

Symbian would definitely be considered mobile computing, unless you have very strict standards for computing, in which case the iPhone likely wouldn't apply.

Symbian had potential, but was too limited and clunky to be used by most people as a computing platform. There were enthusiasts that tried (including me), but it didn't really work as a computing platform.

knbgnu wrote:

windwalker wrote:

Linux wasn't, isn't and will never be innovative. Linux is the greatest example of the zombies left by Microsoft in its wake.

You clearly don't what the hell you are talking about.

Let's keep it civil, shall we?

knbgnu wrote:

Linux played a major role in the internet as we know it, and it's in a ton of embedded devices, from DVRs to GPS to HDTVs to many other things.

That doesn't make it innovative, that makes it a commoditized building block.

knbgnu wrote:

windwalker wrote:

It requires that sort of response from everyone that sees it for the first time.

Well, I thought the iPhone was a piece of shit when I first saw it, and it seemed to hold true when I got an iPod Touch secondhand for really cheap.

Your personal anecdote doesn't invalidate the larger, general point.

knbgnu wrote:

I will give it credit for being the best alarm clock I've ever owned, but outside of that, it's garbage to me.

Although you qualify it as garbage it seems that it is good enough for you to spend some of your hard earned cash on it, to consider it to be the best at fulfilling an important need and to use it daily.If the only utility you get out of it is the alarm clock, I wonder why you haven't sold it and bought a cheaper, single purpose alarm and kept the rest of the money?

Would you also consider the best car, the best music player, the best TV or the best vacuum cleaner you've ever owned also to be garbage if they had been designed by Apple or another company you dislike?

I'm guessing personal attacks = rational discourse is some sort of axiom to you.And Windows 95 is an Apple product to you.

Suggesting that the iPhone was the only notable innovation for a decade seems to suggest that Apple has been the only one capable of innovating in a major way.

Apology accepted.

Why would he apologize to you when I was the one who mentioned that your obsession with Apple seems to blind you to any innovation not associated with Jobs?

I thought the iPhone was marvelous when it came on the scene. I've also been impressed with other developments in the mobile and smartphone world in the last decade. I thought Palm was pretty impressive before it lost its way.

That was not an apology. It appears you've blinded yourself to all innovation that didn't come from Apple and I pointed that out.

Quote:

So you're agreeing that their contribution was minor.

Groundwork is not minor. Groundwork is rooted in the same metaphor as foundation, you know, the part of a building that, without, the building will not stand.

knbgnu wrote:

Symbian had potential, but was too limited and clunky to be used by most people as a computing platform. There were enthusiasts that tried (including me), but it didn't really work as a computing platform.

That seems to contradict what you said, although it may have just been ambiguous wording.

Quote:

That doesn't make it innovative, that makes it a commoditized building block.

Cheap mass production is responsible for a lot of changes. The contribution of Henry Ford wasn't a better quality car, but a car that could be cheaply reproduced on a massive scale. Of course, GLAMP servers often have great uptime and make up a huge portion of high end computing, so there's a lot to it besides just being widely and cheaply available. Of course, a lot of this is behind the scenes stuff (GNU/Linux makes up a huge share of Hollywood render farms as well)

Quote:

Your personal anecdote doesn't invalidate the larger, general point.

You chose those poor words yourself. Your larger general point about what makes a notable innovation is horribly misguided. Notable is defined as 'worthy of attention or notice.' The closest your definition comes is 'noted', as in 'having received attention or notice.' However, there are substantial differences between what should receive attention and what does get attention.

Quote:

Although you qualify it as garbage it seems that it is good enough for you to spend some of your hard earned cash on it, to consider it to be the best at fulfilling an important need and to use it daily.If the only utility you get out of it is the alarm clock, I wonder why you haven't sold it and bought a cheaper, single purpose alarm and kept the rest of the money?

I already had an alarm clock, but I found at the iPod touch works better since it has an alarm sound, which is better at waking me than beeping. I bought it for about 40 bucks iirc, and the value of keeping it is greater than the value of selling it, especially since it's a few generations old by now. It functions as an alarm clock very well, it does worse than a post-it note but better than my dumbphone for a grocery list, and it allows me emergency access to the web if my other machines are for some reason incapacitated.

Quote:

Would you also consider the best car, the best music player, the best TV or the best vacuum cleaner you've ever owned also to be garbage if they had been designed by Apple or another company you dislike?

No. Webkit is a damn good rendering engine. CUPS is quite nice as well. Parties other than Apple have played significant roles in it, but Apple is still a major contributer. Microsoft makes good mice.

Quote:

Fortunately, logic doesn't work like that.

Actually it does. You defined innovation as requiring certain criteria. The iPhone did not meet your given criteria. Therefore, the iPhone is not innovative given the logic you used.

Design - industrial, GUI, furniture, automotive, architectural, web, et al. - is an ongoing conversation and is highly empirical. Whatever the industry, designers take what's come before and integrates it into new original designs. There are, of course, instances of outright copying.

Jobs, perhaps naively, thought that the iPhone combination of integrating existing ideas and new innovations more elegantly than anything before would have a longer uniqueness period prior to competitor's catching up.

It's possible that the Android group independently came up with similar UI ideas. It's also possible they were heavily influenced by Apple's innovative ideas for the iPhone. Either way, Jobs was taken aback that a company with which Apple had close ties to was the one to do it so quickly following the iPhone.

In the end, such competition benefits the users - good for iOS users and android users. The brain-bashing on this forum is absurd.

It appears you've blinded yourself to all innovation that didn't come from Apple and I pointed that out.

I appreciate your concern. Shall we get back on topic?

knbgnu wrote:

Groundwork is not minor. Groundwork is rooted in the same metaphor as foundation, you know, the part of a building that, without, the building will not stand.

Let's not veer too much into metaphors.Anyway, I disagree. Most people have no use for a foundation, but for a house. In the same way, they have no use for half-baked products rushed to market.And I still disagree with the notion of RIM having anything to do with innovation in the mobile computing space. Their innovations to date are relevant for ordinary mobile phones only.QNX is their ticket into the mobile computing market.

knbgnu wrote:

That seems to contradict what you said, although it may have just been ambiguous wording.

In that case, try reading again.

knbgnu wrote:

Cheap mass production is responsible for a lot of changes. The contribution of Henry Ford wasn't a better quality car, but a car that could be cheaply reproduced on a massive scale. Of course, GLAMP servers often have great uptime and make up a huge portion of high end computing, so there's a lot to it besides just being widely and cheaply available. Of course, a lot of this is behind the scenes stuff (GNU/Linux makes up a huge share of Hollywood render farms as well)

That's all great, but it is unrelated to innovation.

knbgnu wrote:

You chose those poor words yourself. Your larger general point about what makes a notable innovation is horribly misguided. Notable is defined as 'worthy of attention or notice.' The closest your definition comes is 'noted', as in 'having received attention or notice.' However, there are substantial differences between what should receive attention and what does get attention.

That's all nitpicking again, and my point again stands.

knbgnu wrote:

I already had an alarm clock, but I found at the iPod touch works better since it has an alarm sound, which is better at waking me than beeping. I bought it for about 40 bucks iirc, and the value of keeping it is greater than the value of selling it, especially since it's a few generations old by now. It functions as an alarm clock very well, it does worse than a post-it note but better than my dumbphone for a grocery list, and it allows me emergency access to the web if my other machines are for some reason incapacitated.

Wow, that is a tremendous amount of value you're getting from such a small investment. Not only are you using it every day, but you carry it with you and rely on it to make your life easier and for access to information.In spite of all of this, you consider it to be a piece of garbage inferior to a post-it note.Care to explain further?

knbgnu wrote:

windwalker wrote:

Would you also consider the best car, the best music player, the best TV or the best vacuum cleaner you've ever owned also to be garbage if they had been designed by Apple or another company you dislike?

No. Webkit is a damn good rendering engine. CUPS is quite nice as well. Parties other than Apple have played significant roles in it, but Apple is still a major contributer. Microsoft makes good mice.

Interesting. Do you like anything that isn't free or open source?

knbgnu wrote:

windwalker wrote:

Fortunately, logic doesn't work like that.

Actually it does. You defined innovation as requiring certain criteria. The iPhone did not meet your given criteria. Therefore, the iPhone is not innovative given the logic you used.

I had to troll a bit, I am tired of everyone crying about the guy dying, whoopity doo, a rich guy that invented super trendy overpriced gadgets died of cancer, plenty of folks who were likely better people than Jobs die of cancer every day and Jobs gets a million tears from a hundred thousand Apple fanboys. Even if you really like his products, this much crying over a guy that you have likely never met, and likely do not even know, is just kinda sad. He's dead, mostly because he didn't have the sense to seek out real proven treatment, get the fuck over it.

Maybe it was better if you didn't reply to what I wrote. Because this entire statement paints you as a tool that is bankrupt of basic human characteristics like compassion or empathy. How about you get the fuck over it and stop acting like a sociopath in discussions about a deceased man you don't like who was the CEO of a company that made products you don't buy. You can take your attitude about how others should feel about the death of a very successful, inspirational, and influential person, and shove it straight up your ass.

Let's not veer too much into metaphors.Anyway, I disagree. Most people have no use for a foundation, but for a house. In the same way, they have no use for half-baked products rushed to market.

I'm generally not too big on dependence on metaphors, but this one is pretty solid. Try selling someone a house without a foundation. The foundation isn't sexy and exciting, but it's very important, and you can't go further without it. That seems to be your underlying flaw. You confuse innovation with sexy. You might be right in that there was no sexy technology for a decade, but that doesn't sound as convincing as notable innovation.

Quote:

And I still disagree with the notion of RIM having anything to do with innovation in the mobile computing space. Their innovations to date are relevant for ordinary mobile phones only.QNX is their ticket into the mobile computing market.

My understanding is that they are still the best in regards to email, which is why RIM isn't dead yet. I'm sure there are plenty of other great things about them, which is why they were pretty much the entirety of the US smartphone market prior to the release of the iPhone.

Quote:

That's all great, but it is unrelated to innovation.

New changes that allow us to do things well is generally what we look for in innovation. Innovation might strictly be 'new changes', but we tend to not care about new changes that don't have a useful purpose.

Quote:

That's all nitpicking again, and my point again stands.

No, your point is misguided garbage.

Quote:

Wow, that is a tremendous amount of value you're getting from such a small investment. Not only are you using it every day, but you carry it with you and rely on it to make your life easier and for access to information.In spite of all of this, you consider it to be a piece of garbage inferior to a post-it note.Care to explain further?

I didn'don't use it every day. I've been opting for my somewhat inferior (as an alarm clock) dumbphone as an alarm clock lately because I can't be bothered to hunt down the cable that charges the iPod touch. I only carry it around when I can't find a post it note and/or writing utensil and don't trust my memory for making. Also, don't get me wrong, I only consider it inferior to a post-it note for a grocery list. Post it notes are horrible PMPs and horrible web browsers, so the iPod touch has it handily beat at those things.

Quote:

Interesting. Do you like anything that isn't free or open source?

Sure. I enjoy quite a few proprietary video games, as well as a great deal of media that is not freely licensed.

Quote:

Nitpicking the meaning of words will not get us anywhere.

I'm not nitpicking the meaning of words. I'm applying your bad definition of 'notable invention,' hopefully in a manner that makes it evident to you that it IS a bad definition.

It's pathetic that Microsoft, with all their development power, copied the finger touch oriented UI principles from Apple, isn't it?

Like pinch to zoom? That is like copying right click to open a new tab.

No one can claim that any of these companies create 100% original products but Google has by far been the worst when it comes to smartphones. WP7 and IOS both have distinctive looks and Google is copying both of them.

There are some very original GUI interfaces in the open source world so I don't see why a giant corp like Google always has to copy when small teams of volunteers can create interfaces without cloning.

In fact... the reality is, there is a definite grain of truth to his grievance that he was being plaigiarized.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means. And if it did, you'd still be wrong--Google no more copied the iPhone than did Apple copy anyone else. The nature of innovation is building upon existing ideas. No idea comes from a vacuum. Anyway, iPhone and Android aren't even similar product categories.

iPhone and Android are not even similar product categories? Ok...I am obviously not talking to someone rational, leave alone someone who could patronizingly tell me what plaigiarism means. EDIT: if you want to get pedantic... then iOS vs Android. And iPhone Vs. typical Android phones.

Read the history... read the rational arguments people have posted. years of work... and someone take it all and sets up a competitor in 10 months.

They aren't in similar product categories. iPhone is a physical software/hardware product, Android is a base operating system that (to my knowledge) is never installed without some degree of customization. I don't think I'm splitting hairs here since, on Apple's side, one company is responsible for the entire product (iPhone), whereas on the Android side, many companies are involved. If you want to compare Apples to Apples then let's discuss iOS vs Android. I'm really not interested in arguing iPhone vs whichever aggregate of Android phones best suits your arguments.

Quote:

Quote:

EDIT: I'll tell you what is hypocritical...being a ghould behind an internet connection and a keyboard when you would not have the guts to do it in real life because people would see you for the sick back-biter you are.

Pot, meet kettle.

No...not really. I am not back-stabbing someone who cannot reply. And I would very gladly tell a ghoul that he was a ghoul to his face.[/quote]

Huh? I had plenty of criticism for Jobs when he was alive. Don't be ridiculous. I hope people continue to analyze my life after I'm gone--it would be too bad if people bound themselves to some pseudo-religious notion that everything I did was fantastic and no one can speak ill of my actions just because I'm dead.

Quote:

Also.... errr... you are not just humanizing Steve Jobs... you are trying to make him look BAD...when he was not. Then you disegenuously claim it's all about a down to earth view of the man. No one is perfect..but Steve Jobs WAS great. And you are not. Is that what rankles you? Ofcourse not. heh.

Personal attacks, huh? I think you think I'm "trying to make him look bad" because he is some deity in your mind. If you don't attribute so much personal attachment to a specific brand, you won't feel so purposeless when it becomes known that Steve-o was an ordinary human who made ordinary human mistakes sometimes.

Quote:

And... if what bugs you is that he has too many admirers..or that people think too highly of him....stop being petty. He's lucky... let him be. Try not to be envious.

Not envious. The dude was obsessed. I'm going to stick with enjoying my life in the real world, where I'm happy. This is hard for some to swallow, but some of us don't need hordes of worshipers in order to enjoy our lives.

Quote:

Yes there are people that view him almost like a cult leader... so what? Just because they are messed up do you have to go to the other extreme?

I'm not going to extremes, I'm stating that he was a human. Real humans realize that just because Jobs wasn't God, he doesn't necessarily have to be Satan. Steve wasn't God, nor was he Satan--he was just a slightly crazy human who made mistakes. I'm truly sorry for you if you can't accept that he didn't live a perfect life.

The first Nokia mobile computing device was released a few weeks ago: the Nokia N9. All previous products were just phones. Nokia was and continues to be very innovative, but in the phone business.

Symbian would definitely be considered mobile computing, unless you have very strict standards for computing, in which case the iPhone likely wouldn't apply.

Symbian had potential, but was too limited and clunky to be used by most people as a computing platform. There were enthusiasts that tried (including me), but it didn't really work as a computing platform.

Even if you specificly aren't able to use it, doesn't negate the fact that symbian is a old computing platform. With that yardstick there aren't any, as there are lots of people that aren't able to use any of them. And apparently you are completely unaware of the predessors of N9. Granted they werent phones, but they still were linux based computing platforms. Look up N770 for example, from 2005.

Anyone else get the impression that Steve was a bit nuts? He was ultra obsessive and had to have things his way. (Here's to the crazy ones…but literally.) In many ways his personality was good for Apple but in some ways it was bad.

Yup, seems to me he was as out of touch with Real Life(tm) as his fanboys are.But what you could expect from someone who skips a surgery to treat a tumor with natural herbs and meditation ?

You got it right. Perhaps that's the take home from Job's death, there is no substitute for real cancer treatment. Its very unpleasant, but it has the best chance of working.

Anyone else get the impression that Steve was a bit nuts? He was ultra obsessive and had to have things his way. (Here's to the crazy ones…but literally.) In many ways his personality was good for Apple but in some ways it was bad.

Yup, seems to me he was as out of touch with Real Life(tm) as his fanboys are.But what you could expect from someone who skips a surgery to treat a tumor with natural herbs and meditation ?

You got it right. Perhaps that's the take home from Job's death, there is no substitute for real cancer treatment. Its very unpleasant, but it has the best chance of working.

Yup. I don't care about who supposedly copied who and by extension how religiously fanatic one is to a deity/company logo. What I do care about is the fact that a very innovative and capable entrepreneur decided to waste time by exploring 'alternative' therapies before going through the processes with someone who actually did more then just a 6 month course in 'alternative medicine'. Time he apparently didn't have to waste.

Don't get me wrong, i'm all for a greater understanding of the natural world (which is ironically what science is all about) through as non-invasive means as possible and 'thinking outside the box' etc. But I can't be the only one that would rather hedge their bets with the more 'mainstream' medical profession. Y'know, just in case...

It took me a long time but eventually I realized this is exactly why people so rabidly defend Google.

Well... you have to learn don't you? You however have come to wrong conclusion - people defend something that they strongly associate with. All fanboys respond aggressively to attacks on their brand because they associate with the brand and feel that the attack on the brand is an attack on their personality.

No you really don't see this with Apple fanboys. Not this kind of rabid, callous behavior that spews insults over and over again based on misinformation and a poor understanding of history.

You most definitely never saw this with Apple fanboys or to such a degree.

And so came the dark age of Microsoft. Remember that? It was scary and boring.

I suspect that the vast majority of the engineers working on Android at Google sincerely believe that they are working to ensure everyone will be using an open platform in the future of mobile computing.It's a noble goal, but by ripping off Apple, they are unwittingly pushing us into the dark age of Google where advertisements will be pestering us everywhere we go.

Jesus, this is such a salient point. This is the religious equivalent of Google thinking they're doing god's work. "It's all for the greater good. We're open-sourcing it!"

I wonder, do you think Brin and Page will ever acknowledge how they stole from Jobs (using Schmidt) the *exact same way* Gates did? Do you think it bothers them at all deep down?

Unlike the tools who comment at various tech blogs Brin and Page are most definitely knowledgeable about the computer industry's history. In fact they lived through it. They were witnesses to the dark age of computer OS's, and the vile that spewed forth towards Gates for ushering it in. And yet here they are are doing essentially the same thing as Gates did. Give away your OS for free, provide massive incentives to carriers to use your product, and crush the competition with sheer numbers. I suspect however they're noe aware they're rationalizing their crime (both ethical and legal) for "noble goals".

Unfortunately their approach has set back the mobile industry for years. Look at what's happened to the cell phone industry. No one is innovating with Android now. It's all the same god-awful iPhone form: giant touchpanel capacitive display. No one is willing to even *try* something new.

Microsoft just patented a "modular cell phone" idea with the ability for example to remove the keyboard and replace it with a gamepad or battery. But it's unlikely we'll ever see it. Every manufacturer must conform to MSFT's specifications. No one, especially MSFT, wants to take a risk. They just sit back, pack the latest internal components into an iPhone form factor, install an iOS rip-off, and let the money roll in.

But the practice in the industry has generally been to license technology patents essentially on FRAND terms.

FRAND terms are used within an industry to foster a particular industry standard, generably to promote interoperability. Do you have have any support at all for the assertion they are used outside of standard setting organizations? Tell me about your planet: Does Intel license its process technologies on FRAND terms? Does Microsoft license its xBox technologies on FRAND terms? On Earth companies only charge FRAND terms when contributing to industry standards, otherwise they use their patents to add value to and differentiate themselves, build their brands, and distribute profits to their shareholders. Perhaps you mean cross-licensing deals where equal value is exchanged, there is a fair amount of that. But only a tiny fraction of commerce in technology patents resembles FRAND.

Brin and Larry had no problem just ripping off the iPhone even though they were oh so respectful of Jobs, to the point that they originally wanted him as their CEO? How did they rationalize that exactly? "We're making it open for everyone. Screw the system!"

Android development could not rationally be considered to have "stolen" anything that Apple produced from the holy inspiration of their singular muse.

Please, just let it go. Android isn't going anywhere. You need to accept that some people like having options, and your favorite mobile OS isn't the only acceptable solution for everyone in the universe.

The funniest part about all this for me is the varying degrees of "innovation" and "stealing" people are willing to accept.

Let's review a common discussion point: Android vs. iOS development. Android started before the iPhone came out. Of course, it looked different under the first implementation. This seems to be the argument, right? Here's the question no one asks: how much of the underlying code changed at that point? How much of the work that went into Android suddenly was invalidated. Look, I don't deny that Android had features close in looks to iOS...but then again, a grid of icons is not exactly a distinct look (yes, I know iOS is more than that).

I think this is the problem. Each design decision can be contextualized, phrased, and compared in different ways. Heck, a grid of icons can be found in mobile devices as far back as palm. It is still "innovative" just because the screen was based on finger touch, not stylus touch? Is it innovative because the icons are now in color? I'm not making an argument here, merely pointing out that we can judge this a lot of ways.

Does Android have visual similarities to iOS? Yup, except for the widgets and live wallpapers and (long list of minor details). iOS, of course took a lot of the functionality from Windows Mobile devices, such as email, touch screen, music syncing and (insert equally long list here). Of coure Microsoft relied upon...see why this doesn't get us anywhere?

Everyone has stolen from everyone. Everyone has learned from everyone. Which is which? Did iOS "steal" from Androids notifications...or did they learn from them and implement a similar system. Did Google "steal" the idea of swiping to remove individual notifications from CM7, or did they learn that this is what people wanted?

Point being, it's all relative, and the more you really argue on one side, the more you show your own position is not free from bias.

Me? I don't care. I think Microsoft had the first smartphone I could use. Apple's iPhone mimicked the functionality of the device, but did it much better. It that learning or stealing? Don't care, it was an improvement for everyone. Android came and looked similar to iOS, but was built on different technology and offered things not found in iOS? Is that learning or stealing? Don't care, both products improved as a result. WP7 came alone, borrowing concepts from both and attempting to forge new ground with their hubs. Did they steal from the others, or learn from them? Don't care, all products improved. iOS5 and ICS came out this year, offering features that were already found in WP7 and WP7.5. Did they "steal" ? I really, really don't care. Good ideas get implemented in new ways after someone adapts them to their own understanding of the problem.

Seriously guys...every tech company has a list as long as their arm of people they've learned from/stolen from. It's really a good thing for us.

Seriously guys...every tech company has a list as long as their arm of people they've learned from/stolen from. It's really a good thing for us.

Correct, but for all the "good" it's done US, the costs of all this litigation however hasn't been as grand a benefit, and depending upon the outcome it could be even less so. "Borrowing" only works when the participants don't take a Dirty Harry, "Feeling lucky, punk?" approach to the whole thing.

Ken Fisher / Ken is the founder & Editor-in-Chief of Ars Technica. A veteran of the IT industry and a scholar of antiquity, Ken studies the emergence of intellectual property regimes and their effects on culture and innovation.