Steve Jobs Biography describes Jobs as hell bent on destroying Android

[SAWYER]

found this here
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=449275

The biography on the life of Steve Jobs is about to be released on Monday and is simply titled, “Steve Jobs.” The book is being written by Walter Isaacson and provides new insight on Jobs and not only his falling out with Google’s Eric Schmidt but the Android operating system Schmidt helped commission as an answer to Apple’s iOS.

According to the book, to say Jobs was never happy with the idea of Android would be an understatement. So much in fact that Mr. Jobs was actually hell bent on destroying Android back in January 2010 when HTC and Google unveiled the Nexus One According to Isaacson, Jobs compared Google’s new device to the equivalent of “grand theft.” The book further quotes Jobs as saying,

Quote:
“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.”

The Associated Press who got some eyes on time with the book said,

Quote:
Jobs used an expletive to describe Android and Google Docs, Google’s Internet-based word processing program. In a subsequent meeting with Schmidt at a Palo Alto, Calif., cafe, Jobs told Schmidt that he wasn’t interested in settling the lawsuit, the book says.

“I don’t want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won’t want it. I’ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that’s all I want.” The meeting, Isaacson wrote, resolved nothing.




As was noted by gocorps, the captain and gsaldivar, the last thread about this was moved in from off-topic and was a firestorm. I locked it because it was not a productive discussion. I understand the comments from Mr. Jobs will annoy Android users, but let's keep the whole thing in perspective and discuss what this might mean for the future of Apple and Samsung and Android and Google.

Thanks
Moderator PM

 

[gsaldivar]

Incoming shitstorm in 3... 2... 1...

 

[Capt Caveman]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2200190

 

[gorcorps]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2200190

If you read the thread you linked to, you'll see it was locked with the specific note to start a new cleaner thread.

Back on topic:

I'm still shocked that anybody considers this news. Do people expect competitors to get along and hold hands while prancing through wild flowers? No... they want to end each other and take all the business for themselves. It's the way things work. Ford will always hate Chevy, Pepsi will always hate Coke, and Apple will always hate Google (Android specifically).

There are many interesting things Jobs did and/or said. This IMO isn't one of them. I just don't get it...

 

[MrX8503]

If I was Steve Jobs I would be pissed too, but there isn't really anything Apple can do about Android. Most likely Eric Schmidt got iOS ideas while on the Apple board. Android was heading towards the Blackberry route, as that was one of the most popular smartphone platforms. A BB style OS made sense.

After the release of iPhone 2007, Android did a complete 180 even though iOS wasn't a market leader at the time. Google made the right decision in axing the BB OS direction and today we have Android, which is quite a bit different than iOS now. However, I do believe iOS influenced the early developments of Android.

 

[AstroManLuca]

This just in: many inventions are based on or inspired by previous inventions. Do you think Apple just pulled iOS out of their ass? You can keep going back and look at previous mobile OSes such as Windows Mobile, Palm OS, and even Apple's own Newton OS.

And I am totally fine with that. People don't live in a box. You can't expect one product to be completely and utterly different from a competing product. And you can't expect an inventor or a company to continue trying to market their original invention when a competitor comes along and changes the game. All you can do is hope that it stops at inspiration and doesn't involve actually stealing code.

 

[Mopetar]

At this point there's no real way to stop it. Any legal approach is going to take several years and the only real winners are going to be the lawyers on both sides.

The only viable approach is to make a better product and beat the competition that way.

 

[her209]

Should Apple take their own advice and stop stealing ideas from others too?

 

[swanysto]

Should Apple take their own advice and stop stealing ideas from others too?

Exactly. It is sad he was so bitter. Companies use ideas other companies have all the time, it is how products and competition get better.

 

[poofyhairguy]

One thing I have respected more about Microsoft than Apple in this whole deal is that Microsoft's lawsuits have been targeted at taking away Android's "free" advantage because in MS's opinion Android shouldn't be free because it steals ideas from them. At least they admit Android can exist though.

Meanwhile with Apple we knew before this quote that Jobs wanted Android to not exist and he wasn't willing to cut a deal. This is HIGHLY anticompetitive behavior that ended up hurting Apple.

In the long run it seems that MS was smarter because Jobs made a wrong assumption. Jobs assumed that Apple could just say no to any deal and that was that- Android's freedom couldn't be bought. He was too arrogant to realize that their WAS a price that could free Android- namely the billions needed to buy patents Apple violated to create a situation of mutually assured destruction.

If Apple would have been open to a settlement early on THEY could have pocketed billions and they could have maybe controlled how similar Android was. Maybe a deal where 4 billion buys you most of it, but in no way can any Android device have a horizontal app drawer for example.

Job's fallacy was that he thought he could own the concept of the iPhone (an all touch screen capacitive phone) when in the lawsuits it seems like Android's overall makeup gets a pass, just some elements of some of the design and skins are being found to infringe. Courts don't like anticompetitive behavior either, and they aren't going to let Apple hold back the entire smartphone market just because Apple thinks they should be the only touchscreen icon-based phone.

What is funny is that you don't see Apple and MS go after each other. Surely WM7 is ripping off iOS almost as bad as Android (full touchscreen phone, app store, etc.) and surely iOS infringes one of MS's more basic patents. Yet they never fight. That shows the true motives of each: MS doesn't care about iOS because it doesn't have a price advantage, and Apple doesn't care about WM7 because it is not what is giving iOS real competition right now.

I hate to say it, but on this one (of two) thing(s), maybe it is good that Steve is gone and hopefully Apple will back off the ledge as they discover the courts won't allow them to remove a competitor (for the record the other thing was Steve's desire to kill real OSes and replace them with walled gardens).

 

[Mopetar]

Saw this posted in a Slashdot story about the same topic and thought it was an interesting take on the whole issue:

I think Steve's grudge was not just about the "copying" but about the betrayal story behind it. Google's CEO was part of Apple's board of directors. He was aware of what was going there, and he either lied to everyone at Apple about their phone OS plans, or went on their backs and told the Android team what was Apple's take and made them drop the BlackBerry race and go Touch.

Steve trusted Schmidt, just like he trusted Gates about MacOS, and he suffered the same fate (I do have to admit, for such a secretive man, he should had known better.) I guess the difference is now Apple having enough money to pursue infinite legal battles and a spice of leftover grude of the last time this happened.

Samsung's case is likely more specific, too. Samsung is a big manufacturer of iDevice parts and it's likely enthrusted with a lot of design information. There are supposed to be division walls that prevent this type of secret information from spreding into divisions that compete with client's interest, but witnesses in the current lawsuits have pointed at there being leaks on such walls. So thats another company they must feel betrayed by.

You may notice, despite the noise that went about when Palm Pre with WebOS was announced, there was no real legal battle there. I doubt it had much to do with Palms ability to use their patents to defend themselves and more with the fact that they had no presonal grudge there, just business interests.

It is easy for us to say how childish, and counter productive these lawsuits can be, but its hard to understand it without actually standing in their shoes. Try just to imagine a smaller case scenario of equal personal impact. Perhaps a co-worker stealing credit or stealing your job and being rewarded for it. A comic book artist creating a character or story to have a friend rip it off and publish it with small alterations. Heck, there was no lawsuit there, but look at the Babylon 5 vz Deep Space 9 issue. It still is possible to find remnants of Straczynski early 90s web and usenet rantings expressing his anger at the plagiarism.

When you are the victim of these idea thefts, it can be extremely upsetting. When it is done by a trusted business partner or friend, it can be insanely infuriating. It does not matter how good the competition is for the industry, or the alternatives for the consumers, your emotions will go highwire. The closest your relationship to the individual or entity in question the worse will be.

Dont take me worng, I am very sad for Job's passing, but with him gone I predict the current cases may keep going for the next couple of years, but in about 2 years, maybe just 1, we will start seeing settlements and a reduction of said cases. The momentum will be carried for at least a year or two, but after that, I take it we will see more willingness to do settlements. Not saying lawsuits are going to stop. Just as Microsoft protects their "business interest" and patents, Apple will likely be the same way, they will just not try to be as destructive about it.

Originally posted by Tharsman on Slashdot.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Exactly. It is sad he was so bitter. Companies use ideas other companies have all the time, it is how products and competition get better.

Kind of Ironic isn't it. Steve Jobs said "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
and "Good artists copy; great artists steal." That was his take on Picaso saying "Lesser artists borrow; great artists steal"

Steve Jobs = hypocrite

 

[Dulanic]

Kind of Ironic isn't it. Steve Jobs said "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
and "Good artists copy; great artists steal." That was his take on Picaso saying "Lesser artists borrow; great artists steal"

Steve Jobs = hypocrite

That was my biggest issue /w Apple. Not that iOS is bad or isn't better for some people. No one product can be perfect for every person. My issue has always been that it was run by the worlds largest hypocrite. Do as I say or I will sue the living shit out of you!

Everyone knows both companies have used ides from others. Anyone who doesn't think so is fooling themselves. Apple uses Android ideas and Android uses Apple ideas.

 

[s44]

Actually, I'm pretty sure it was Stravinsky who said that. Not that it matters.

 

[kubani1]

hmm, the slashdot theory makes a lot of sense, but i hope those resources directed at lawsuits could be put somewhere more worthwhile, like my pocket.

 

[MrX8503]

I think Steve Jobs is rightfully upset. This is different from taking ideas from another competitor. Steve trusted a business partner, this case Eric Schimdt, with iOS details. Eric then takes the R&D that Apple spent time/money on and applies it to the Android project, halting its BB OS look-alike roadmap. I'm sure Steve felt betrayed and Android's booming success probably didn't feel too good either.

No other competitor saw the potential of iOS, except Google, because they had inside intel. Thus Google was the only one to act swiftly while WinMo, BB OS, and Symbian wasted away.

 

[Dulanic]

I think Steve Jobs is rightfully upset. This is different from taking ideas from another competitor. Steve trusted a business partner, this case Eric Schimdt, with iOS details. Eric then takes the R&D that Apple spent time/money on and applies it to the Android project, halting its BB OS look-alike roadmap. I'm sure Steve felt betrayed and Android's booming success probably didn't feel too good either.

No other competitor saw the potential of iOS, except Google, because they had inside intel. Thus Google was the only one to act swiftly while WinMo, BB OS, and Symbian wasted away.

It is not that simple. Let's go with some timelines... Eric was on the apple board from 2006-2009. Google had already bought Android in 2005 which is before he was on the board. Why did Apple put him on the board in the first place when they knew google bought android in 05? In addition Eric was saying that smart phones were the future back in 2003.

SEEKING A MOBILE EDGE. In a 2003 interview with BusinessWeek, just two months before incorporating Android, Rubin said there was tremendous potential in developing smarter mobile devices that are more aware of its owner's location and preferences. "If people are smart, that information starts getting aggregated into consumer products," said Rubin.

So who is to say that wasn't where Jobs got the idea? Keep in mind I am by no means saying that is the case. But I do not think google "stole" the idea of a smartphone from Apple when they had bought Android in 05 and had talked about the idea previous to the iphone.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I don't believe the Slashdot angle. When Eric was on the Apple board he had a legal liability to that board that is very specific. If Jobs really thought that Eric used his access via the board to put together Android then Jobs could have taken Eric to the cleaners and could have stopped Android that way by saying it was really Apple property. Few legal responsibilities are are rigorous as the duty of a board member. Apple wouldn't be suing about rectangles if their thought that Eric did something wrong.

What Jobs was upset about is that all of Apple's patents couldn't give him exclusive rights to the world's only modern smartphone.

 

[hanoverphist]

I'm still shocked that anybody considers this news. Do people expect competitors to get along and hold hands while prancing through wild flowers? No... they want to end each other and take all the business for themselves. It's the way things work. Ford will always hate Chevy, Pepsi will always hate Coke, and Apple will always hate Google (Android specifically).

on this part alone, you are not totally correct. i work in a fairly specialized market, and there are only so many companies doing what i do in my area. we all know each other, we all try to get "in" with the customers the other guys have, and we are pretty competitive. we dont hate each other, we have had to work together on many occasions and, while there is the competition banter back and forth, we will likely end up at lunch together, or at a bar afterward. some less than savory people in some companies create more animosity than others, but that usually works itself out with the customers voting with their dollars. hate is never there tho. i have no reason to think those guys are any different, just because their bank accounts are a bit bigger. business is business, hate doesnt usually make money.

 

[alent1234]

I don't believe the Slashdot angle. When Eric was on the Apple board he had a legal liability to that board that is very specific. If Jobs really thought that Eric used his access via the board to put together Android then Jobs could have taken Eric to the cleaners and could have stopped Android that way by saying it was really Apple property. Few legal responsibilities are are rigorous as the duty of a board member. Apple wouldn't be suing about rectangles if their thought that Eric did something wrong.

What Jobs was upset about is that all of Apple's patents couldn't give him exclusive rights to the world's only modern smartphone.

except for the software there was nothing in there that was unique to apple

all the cell phone makers are just glorified systems integrators that take parts that other companies make, put it together and write the software. apple goes a few steps beyond that in having some of their components custom made based on changes they make like in the A4/A5 CPU's

not like apple made the touch screen. someone made it, pitched it to apple, steve liked it, bought a software company for the input software and everyone else took parts from OS X to make iOS

that's why SJ was so against flash. the app store is a feeder business to their hardware. other companies like UPS do the same thing with low margin products to get people to buy the higher margin stuff. apple is just executing right

 

[roguerower]

When I first bought an Ipod Nano back in '07 (I think) I thought it was a great product. iTunes was shit, but the nano itself was great. As Apple began to change and become more petty towards Microsoft (the whole Mac v. PC thing really irritated me...Mac is a PC you idiots!) and then Android I made a cognizant decision to stop using it and I picked up a Zune to replace the nano. I loved the software and I feel (to this day) that the interface is just as good as the iPod's. Since that day I have swore off ever purchasing an Apple product. I don't use iTunes, I don't own an iPod, iTouch, iPhone, nor do I own a Macbook.

That said, there are times that I wish that I did own an iPhone because of ease with which even morons can use it, but that would require buying an Apple product, something I refuse to do. I refuse to support a company that publically & willfully uses anti-competitive practices based upon absurd "patents" a.k.a. napkin drawings to try and close off access to the market. I also refuse to support a company that takes something already in play, spins it, and claims it as their own (i.e. Optimus).

There are few things that I can control, but where my money goes is one.

 

[alent1234]

i'm going all apple little by little

this whole idea of buying only the original creator is dumb. historically the person who creates something new is the last to profit from it because the second and third people to improve it are the ones who have a product that the mass market adopts

 

[Anubis]

except for the software there was nothing in there that was unique to apple

i tried to point this out yesterday and got screamed at for it. the idea of a touch screen smart phone was not unique to apple. others were working on the same thing at the same time. the big advantage apple had was also being a software company where LG and Samsung were mostly hardware

the iphone worked smoothly while the LG and SS offerings did not so it basically won out

Google a software company already working on a smartphone OS recogonizes that the market is going to shift based on the popularity of the iphone. So they shift their design to a touch type design and come up with a touch interface that while similar in function to ios is nearly entierly different inside.

Google not being a hardware company gives the OS to the hardware companys to put on phones, thus android is created

 

[MrX8503]

It is not that simple. Let's go with some timelines... Eric was on the apple board from 2006-2009. Google had already bought Android in 2005 which is before he was on the board. Why did Apple put him on the board in the first place when they knew google bought android in 05? In addition Eric was saying that smart phones were the future back in 2003.

So who is to say that wasn't where Jobs got the idea? Keep in mind I am by no means saying that is the case. But I do not think google "stole" the idea of a smartphone from Apple when they had bought Android in 05 and had talked about the idea previous to the iphone.

Its probably not that simple, but the "stolen" idea in question is not about a smartphone, its about HOW a smartphone should function and what a smartphone SHOULD be. I'm not sure why Eric was on the Apple board, but if Google followed their original Android roadmap, their flagship phones would still have physical qwerty keyboards. This is why the G1 had a slide out keyboard and now every Nexus phone after it no longer has this.

Android's UI was built upon physical keys, which is why on screen menus haven't been introduced until ICS.

 

[Fire&Blood]

Meh, no mobile device can function without 2 features taken from PC's, early smartphones and PDA's: accelerometer and on screen keyboard.
Luckily the inventors weren't patent trolls when they came up with those.

Pure hypocrisy, to claim something was stolen when every smartphone out there relies on those 2 features and can't function without them.