10 ms·

Will Steve Jobs' final vendetta haunt Google?

23 points by dean 15y ago

jaylevitt 15y ago
"It suggests that Apple, which has pledged to be true to Jobs' vision, may try to derail Android in court." Apple has pledged to be true to Jobs' vision? Really? Because I think we just saw a better-sourced article state that Jobs himself said "Don't ask, 'What would Steve do?'". In fact, if anything, my big wish for Apple now is that they start cooperating with Google. If FaceTime and iMessage were available on Android, and Google Voice native on iPhone (other than Sprint), they could turn the carriers into dumb pipes. It's time.
- masklinn 15y ago
  > If FaceTime and iMessage were available on Android This is about as likely as them licensing iOS to other handset makers. There's little to nothing for Apple in such a move.
  - spot 15y ago
    metcalfe's law disagrees with you.
    - Macha 15y ago
      The increase in value to Facetime would not compensate for the loss in value of iOS with it no longer being an iOS exclusive. Facetime is a free service used by Apple to sell Apple devices. It is not an end to itself.
      - spot 15y ago
        maybe, but "little to nothing" is just plain wrong.
        masklinn 15y ago
        No, if the value of the move to Apple would be at best non-existent and at worst negative, which you've just agreed is a strong possibility, there's little to nothing for Apple in such a move. Apple does not care about metcalfe's law in fine, their goal is not to convert the world to Facetime and iMessage but to use those to drive users to iOS. Network effects play a role in this, but by letting Google build iMessages and Facetime into Android (if Google was even interested in doing such a thing, which they probably wouldn't) they'd only lower the value proposition of iOS: now you can chat with your facetime-enabled iOS-sporting friends without buying and iOS device, meaning you have one less reason to buy an iOS device.
  - vetinari 15y ago
    There is also nothing for Google in such a move. They already have GTalk, complete with audio & video.
- technoslut 15y ago
  >Apple has pledged to be true to Jobs' vision? Really? Because I think we just saw a better-sourced article state that Jobs himself said "Don't ask, 'What would Steve do?'". I don't think that Jobs was alone in his feelings on Google and Android at Apple, whether it's justified or not. I'm reminded of a Gruber article: http://daringfireball.net/2011/07/succeeding_steve_jobs http://daringfireball.net/2011/07/succeeding_steve_jobs "ERIC SCHMIDT. Zero chance. Schmidt is viewed throughout Apple as a traitor, who perhaps used his knowledge of the iPhone, gleaned while then a member of Apple’s board himself, to give Google’s Android effort a leg up. There is a better chance of Apple choosing its next CEO through a raffle of ten golden tickets hidden inside iPad boxes distributed around the globe than that they’d give the job to Eric Schmidt. Wall Street might accept him but Apple rank-and-file would revolt."
trickjarrett 15y ago
While I understand Jobs' anger, I also can't help but remember how the Mouse was "stolen" from Xerox and other such tales in Apple's history. It comes across as "it's okay when I do it but not when Google does."
- emp 15y ago
  The mouse was invented by Doug Engelbart and 'stolen' by Xerox and then 'stolen' by Apple. Apple's mouse was well designed, compact, cheap, reliable, very dependable and consistent in its function. None of this was true of the two previous mice. This is the difference when Apple 'steals'. They are inspired by something poorly executed and create something much better than the inspiration.
- sbuk 15y ago
  I have seen this banded about the internet too much of late and it's about time it stopped, I mean it's not as if the information is out there, is it? The mouse wasn't invented by Xerox. The concept was invented by Doug Engelbart of SRI in the 1960's and first demoed in 1968 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfIgzSoTMOs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfIgzSoTMOs). The GUI was around as a concept before PARC existed. Ivan Sutherland is credited as creating the first working GUI with Sketchpad in, released in 1963 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOZqRJzE8xg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOZqRJzE8xg). You'll notice that the interface ideas found in the Alto and later systems (Star?) by PARC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alto_Neptune_Filemanager.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alto_Neptune_Filemanager.g...) were influenced by those of Engelbart in his demo, or to use your language, "stolen". If you look back further, you'll come across Vannevar Bush, who outlined the majority of what went on to become modern computing in an essay about a conceptual system called 'Memex' in 1945, so I guess using your language, everyone 'stole' from him. As a footnote, Xerox/PARC were remunerated fairly by Apple with 1 million pre-IPO shares, valued at around $7/share which Xerox later sold for $16 million (~$45 million today). Finally, making criticisms like that is fine, but at least get the meme right. Apple were said to have "stolen" the GUI concept that Xerox apparently "invented".
  - jhuni 15y ago
MaxGabriel 15y ago
If you're on a mobile device, it redirects you to the home page of their mobile site. This link to ABC should work http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=14795854 http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=14795854
- dazzla 15y ago
  Why do so many mobile site redirects get this wrong?
  - sudont 15y ago
    Idiot implementation. If you think about it, there shouldn’t be that much of a difference in markup between mobile and desktop, so serve the same shit, and only change the presentation. I think a lot of engineering groups try to over-complicate this, or simply don’t care. One document, one url, different presentation. I’ve used this to great effect before, in conjunction with media selectors: http://detectmobilebrowsers.com/ http://detectmobilebrowsers.com/
    - dazzla 15y ago
      I think a lot of mobile versions are done via a 3rd party service. Separate web app, domain, etc. But it should be possible to make the redirection smart enough to send you to your original destination on the mobile site.
ahi 15y ago
No, but it will sell books. It's rather gross seeing how many people are trying to make a buck off the guy's death.
- healsdata 15y ago
  I'm not sure if you were referring to the author of the book, but this is an authorized biography with interviews of Steve Jobs. I have no idea who the proceeds go to but this was obviously something Steve Jobs wanted to happen.
jhferris3 15y ago
"This almost sounds like a spiritual leader declaring a jihad on Android as his dying wish" What the hell? Beyond the fact that this is one small part of a book (not the same as him saying it on video or written by himself on a website), there's no way the average joe is going to have his purchasing decision swayed by the opinions of Steve Jobs. Everyone who would already has (or is planning on procuring) an iPhone.
brudgers 15y ago
In April of 2002, I bought a reconditioned Handspring Visor for $69 and an AirPrime PCS Digital Link Springboard module for $19.95 (down from several hundred bucks initially). Though based on pen technology, numbers could be dialed by touch, and short of location based services and a gyroscope it had every major application of a modern smartphone including the iPhone. That's why Job's sanctimony is pretty much bullshit, IMO - the iPhone didn't spring like Athena straight from Job's head. Though it was a significant step forward in the form factor, it was still no more than a step forward. Phone plans, of course, are another matter, and the changes Jobs initiated in those is far more of a factor in Android's success than the implementation details of a touch screen interface (and also explain why I never used my Handspring phone for mobile data during the two and a half years it was my primary phone, and why it was replaced with a Razor rather than another smartphone). [http://www.geek.com/hwswrev/pda/visorphone/ http://www.geek.com/hwswrev/pda/visorphone/] [http://www.visorcentral.com/content/Stories/1246-1.htm http://www.visorcentral.com/content/Stories/1246-1.htm]
- glenra 15y ago
  Well before PalmOS, Apple spent ~100 million dollars developing the Newton which also ended up having most of the major applications of a modern smartphone, including - with the appropriate PCMCIA cards installed in the slot(s) or external devices attached to the serial port - both phone service and location-based services. The first Palm product was a software program that ran on the Newton; the first PalmOS devices were far less capable than Newton. So if you're just going by the feature set, I think Apple wins this one.
  - brudgers 15y ago
    >"I think Apple wins this one." Despite the difficulty I have of foregoing snark in a case where Scully's projects are deemed an Apple win; when it comes to the Newton: Apple != Jobs. Keep in mind that both pen computing and digital organizers predate the Newton by several years - my sister had a RadioShack PC1 years before the Newton. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_computing#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_computing#History] [http://www.trs-80.com/wordpress/trs-80-computer-line/pocket/ http://www.trs-80.com/wordpress/trs-80-computer-line/pocket/]
zrgiu_ 15y ago
No matter what anyone says and the patents involved, no judge in this world will ever ban Android in US or (almost) anywhere else in the world. There are too many manufacturers involved, too many users having phones with the OS, and too many resources spent on this. It's simply too big. Steve Jobs knew that, and giving how a great PR person he was, this might have been just an attempt to put Google's Android in a bad light (which, in the eyes of the non-technical people, he succeeded). Also, no matter what anyone says (brudgers, this is for you), without Apple, we wouldn't have the world full of touch-screen phones we have now. Yes, it is "only" a step forward, but remember, there were already touch-screen phones on the market. And their impact was ZERO. It is apple who built a real user-friendly OS, and conceived hardware that would make the device easy to use. And being honest with ourselves, every other mobile OS after that got it's inspiration from the iPhone OS. Android will be the largest player (in numbers) in the mobile space for a long while because it's simply accessible to everyone. It's Microsoft vs Apple all over again. I sided with Android the day the G1 launched, I never looked back, and I'm not sorry at all. But I will never forget the first iPhone, which started an avalanche.
mattmanser 15y ago
Aside from the Android/iOs thing, the other really interesting thing in the article is that Jobs essentially is part of the reason why so many Google services are shutting down. Not that I disagree with the sentiment behind it, i.e. focus.

23 points by dean 15y ago

"It suggests that Apple, which has pledged to be true to Jobs' vision, may try to derail Android in court." Apple has pledged to be true to Jobs' vision? Really? Because I think we just saw a better-sourced article state that Jobs himself said "Don't ask, 'What would Steve do?'". In fact, if anything, my big wish for Apple now is that they start cooperating with Google. If FaceTime and iMessage were available on Android, and Google Voice native on iPhone (other than Sprint), they could turn the carriers into dumb pipes. It's time.

masklinn 15y ago
> If FaceTime and iMessage were available on Android This is about as likely as them licensing iOS to other handset makers. There's little to nothing for Apple in such a move.
- spot 15y ago
  metcalfe's law disagrees with you.
  - Macha 15y ago
    The increase in value to Facetime would not compensate for the loss in value of iOS with it no longer being an iOS exclusive. Facetime is a free service used by Apple to sell Apple devices. It is not an end to itself.
    - spot 15y ago
      maybe, but "little to nothing" is just plain wrong.
      - masklinn 15y ago
        No, if the value of the move to Apple would be at best non-existent and at worst negative, which you've just agreed is a strong possibility, there's little to nothing for Apple in such a move. Apple does not care about metcalfe's law in fine, their goal is not to convert the world to Facetime and iMessage but to use those to drive users to iOS. Network effects play a role in this, but by letting Google build iMessages and Facetime into Android (if Google was even interested in doing such a thing, which they probably wouldn't) they'd only lower the value proposition of iOS: now you can chat with your facetime-enabled iOS-sporting friends without buying and iOS device, meaning you have one less reason to buy an iOS device.
- vetinari 15y ago
  There is also nothing for Google in such a move. They already have GTalk, complete with audio & video.
technoslut 15y ago
>Apple has pledged to be true to Jobs' vision? Really? Because I think we just saw a better-sourced article state that Jobs himself said "Don't ask, 'What would Steve do?'". I don't think that Jobs was alone in his feelings on Google and Android at Apple, whether it's justified or not. I'm reminded of a Gruber article: http://daringfireball.net/2011/07/succeeding_steve_jobs http://daringfireball.net/2011/07/succeeding_steve_jobs "ERIC SCHMIDT. Zero chance. Schmidt is viewed throughout Apple as a traitor, who perhaps used his knowledge of the iPhone, gleaned while then a member of Apple’s board himself, to give Google’s Android effort a leg up. There is a better chance of Apple choosing its next CEO through a raffle of ten golden tickets hidden inside iPad boxes distributed around the globe than that they’d give the job to Eric Schmidt. Wall Street might accept him but Apple rank-and-file would revolt."

trickjarrett 15y ago

While I understand Jobs' anger, I also can't help but remember how the Mouse was "stolen" from Xerox and other such tales in Apple's history. It comes across as "it's okay when I do it but not when Google does."

emp 15y ago
The mouse was invented by Doug Engelbart and 'stolen' by Xerox and then 'stolen' by Apple. Apple's mouse was well designed, compact, cheap, reliable, very dependable and consistent in its function. None of this was true of the two previous mice. This is the difference when Apple 'steals'. They are inspired by something poorly executed and create something much better than the inspiration.
sbuk 15y ago
I have seen this banded about the internet too much of late and it's about time it stopped, I mean it's not as if the information is out there, is it? The mouse wasn't invented by Xerox. The concept was invented by Doug Engelbart of SRI in the 1960's and first demoed in 1968 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfIgzSoTMOs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfIgzSoTMOs). The GUI was around as a concept before PARC existed. Ivan Sutherland is credited as creating the first working GUI with Sketchpad in, released in 1963 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOZqRJzE8xg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOZqRJzE8xg). You'll notice that the interface ideas found in the Alto and later systems (Star?) by PARC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alto_Neptune_Filemanager.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alto_Neptune_Filemanager.g...) were influenced by those of Engelbart in his demo, or to use your language, "stolen". If you look back further, you'll come across Vannevar Bush, who outlined the majority of what went on to become modern computing in an essay about a conceptual system called 'Memex' in 1945, so I guess using your language, everyone 'stole' from him. As a footnote, Xerox/PARC were remunerated fairly by Apple with 1 million pre-IPO shares, valued at around $7/share which Xerox later sold for $16 million (~$45 million today). Finally, making criticisms like that is fine, but at least get the meme right. Apple were said to have "stolen" the GUI concept that Xerox apparently "invented".
- jhuni 15y ago

MaxGabriel 15y ago

If you're on a mobile device, it redirects you to the home page of their mobile site. This link to ABC should work http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=14795854 http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=14795854

dazzla 15y ago
Why do so many mobile site redirects get this wrong?
- sudont 15y ago
  Idiot implementation. If you think about it, there shouldn’t be that much of a difference in markup between mobile and desktop, so serve the same shit, and only change the presentation. I think a lot of engineering groups try to over-complicate this, or simply don’t care. One document, one url, different presentation. I’ve used this to great effect before, in conjunction with media selectors: http://detectmobilebrowsers.com/ http://detectmobilebrowsers.com/
  - dazzla 15y ago
    I think a lot of mobile versions are done via a 3rd party service. Separate web app, domain, etc. But it should be possible to make the redirection smart enough to send you to your original destination on the mobile site.

ahi 15y ago

No, but it will sell books. It's rather gross seeing how many people are trying to make a buck off the guy's death.

healsdata 15y ago
I'm not sure if you were referring to the author of the book, but this is an authorized biography with interviews of Steve Jobs. I have no idea who the proceeds go to but this was obviously something Steve Jobs wanted to happen.

jhferris3 15y ago

"This almost sounds like a spiritual leader declaring a jihad on Android as his dying wish" What the hell? Beyond the fact that this is one small part of a book (not the same as him saying it on video or written by himself on a website), there's no way the average joe is going to have his purchasing decision swayed by the opinions of Steve Jobs. Everyone who would already has (or is planning on procuring) an iPhone.

brudgers 15y ago

In April of 2002, I bought a reconditioned Handspring Visor for $69 and an AirPrime PCS Digital Link Springboard module for $19.95 (down from several hundred bucks initially). Though based on pen technology, numbers could be dialed by touch, and short of location based services and a gyroscope it had every major application of a modern smartphone including the iPhone. That's why Job's sanctimony is pretty much bullshit, IMO - the iPhone didn't spring like Athena straight from Job's head. Though it was a significant step forward in the form factor, it was still no more than a step forward. Phone plans, of course, are another matter, and the changes Jobs initiated in those is far more of a factor in Android's success than the implementation details of a touch screen interface (and also explain why I never used my Handspring phone for mobile data during the two and a half years it was my primary phone, and why it was replaced with a Razor rather than another smartphone). [http://www.geek.com/hwswrev/pda/visorphone/ http://www.geek.com/hwswrev/pda/visorphone/] [http://www.visorcentral.com/content/Stories/1246-1.htm http://www.visorcentral.com/content/Stories/1246-1.htm]

glenra 15y ago
Well before PalmOS, Apple spent ~100 million dollars developing the Newton which also ended up having most of the major applications of a modern smartphone, including - with the appropriate PCMCIA cards installed in the slot(s) or external devices attached to the serial port - both phone service and location-based services. The first Palm product was a software program that ran on the Newton; the first PalmOS devices were far less capable than Newton. So if you're just going by the feature set, I think Apple wins this one.
- brudgers 15y ago
  >"I think Apple wins this one." Despite the difficulty I have of foregoing snark in a case where Scully's projects are deemed an Apple win; when it comes to the Newton: Apple != Jobs. Keep in mind that both pen computing and digital organizers predate the Newton by several years - my sister had a RadioShack PC1 years before the Newton. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_computing#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_computing#History] [http://www.trs-80.com/wordpress/trs-80-computer-line/pocket/ http://www.trs-80.com/wordpress/trs-80-computer-line/pocket/]

zrgiu_ 15y ago

No matter what anyone says and the patents involved, no judge in this world will ever ban Android in US or (almost) anywhere else in the world. There are too many manufacturers involved, too many users having phones with the OS, and too many resources spent on this. It's simply too big. Steve Jobs knew that, and giving how a great PR person he was, this might have been just an attempt to put Google's Android in a bad light (which, in the eyes of the non-technical people, he succeeded). Also, no matter what anyone says (brudgers, this is for you), without Apple, we wouldn't have the world full of touch-screen phones we have now. Yes, it is "only" a step forward, but remember, there were already touch-screen phones on the market. And their impact was ZERO. It is apple who built a real user-friendly OS, and conceived hardware that would make the device easy to use. And being honest with ourselves, every other mobile OS after that got it's inspiration from the iPhone OS. Android will be the largest player (in numbers) in the mobile space for a long while because it's simply accessible to everyone. It's Microsoft vs Apple all over again. I sided with Android the day the G1 launched, I never looked back, and I'm not sorry at all. But I will never forget the first iPhone, which started an avalanche.

mattmanser 15y ago

Aside from the Android/iOs thing, the other really interesting thing in the article is that Jobs essentially is part of the reason why so many Google services are shutting down. Not that I disagree with the sentiment behind it, i.e. focus.