Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Android Google Apple

Jobs Wanted To Destroy Android 988

hype7 writes "It's clear Steve Jobs didn't pull any punches from the interviews for his forthcoming biography. In the latest release from the book, hosted over at AP, 'Isaacson wrote that Jobs was livid in January 2010 when HTC introduced an Android phone that boasted many of the popular features of the iPhone. Apple sued, and Jobs told Isaacson in an expletive-laced rant that Google's actions amounted to "grand theft." ... "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this." ... 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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jobs Wanted To Destroy Android

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21, 2011 @08:52AM (#37789960)

    Odd coming from someone who stole the GUI and the mouse from Xerox.

    • by Macthorpe ( 960048 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @08:59AM (#37790038) Journal

      Odd coming from someone who stole the GUI and the mouse from Xerox.

      This actually did amuse me. Apparently tapping icons on a phone screen isn't a natural progression from clicking icons on a computer screen, which as you point out Apple didn't come up with in the first place. It's something new and unique and magical that only they could have worked out, so now anybody else that does it has stolen their ideas.

      Of course, he didn't specify which ideas had been stolen, but I struggle to think of anything that the iPhone does which isn't just using a Mac/Windows boiled down to a phone-sized device. I'm sure someone will point one out to me.

      • by itsenrique ( 846636 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:10AM (#37790200)
        Seems like the grid icons are actually from palm pilots, at least they have lots of prior art. Yeah, it was a stylus, and they went to heat based touch.
      • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:23AM (#37790392) Homepage

        From those of us that have used touchscreens for 20 years. Yes tapping an icon is the same as clickong on an icon. It's not revolutionary in any way.

        I had the first Tablet PC, a Dauphin DTR-1 it ran windows 3.11 and acted just like a iPhone except for swipes and gestures.
        Honestly, you think tapping an icon is revolutionary?

      • by Xest ( 935314 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:36AM (#37790612)

        Even outside the context of the copying of Xerox's ideas it's rediculous. Apart from it's UI the iPhone borrowed heavily in every other way from existing phones, or is Job's saying only UIs aren't allowed to have ideas that are a natural progression be utilised in other devices? Even assuming that's the case the iPhone's UI was hardly that groundbreaking, some Windows XP tablets had single click icons and an auto-hiding start bar enabled by default when I tried them as far back as 2003, so single pressing the Windows desktop icons worked in pretty much the same way. If anything the iPhone's standout was merely about polish on existing ideas, why should anyone see Android as any different?

        Of course, the hypocrisy becomes even more galling when you consider iOS5 is full of features copied from Android.

        People who genuinely care about contributing to society like Newton instead use quotes such as the classic "standing on the shoulders of giants" (or however you believe it was originally phrased). They don't have an easily dented ego, they just care about making things better whether improving existing things or coming up with new. This to me just reaffirms that Jobs was an arrogant selfish dick with no care for anything other than his own ego.

        I don't know what the point in releasing these quotes is now though, I'm not one for painting an unrealistic angelic picture of someone just because they're dead, but I also understand that some people would rather any criticism of him at least waits a while until after he's dead. Were these quotes designed to rally anti-Android sentiment by Apple? or were they leaked as a counter to Steve's post-death saint like image painted by the media?

        I suspect people will respond to these quotes based largely on their pre-defined thoughts about Steve anyway, but something strikes me as a little tasteless about digging into them right now, when Apple vs. Android and arguably Steve's death can still be considered current events. It strikes me as a rather misguided attempt to exploit his death one way or another.

        Of course, the other possibility is it's merely about drumming up profits for whoever is publishing his autobiography, but there you have it I guess. Anyone know who is getting the profits for that now? As a somewhat related aside, anyone know what happened to Steve's fortunes? have they all just gone to his family, or did he finally do something charitable with his departing wishes?

        • by mendelrat ( 2490762 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @12:38PM (#37794238)

          People who genuinely care about contributing to society like Newton instead use quotes such as the classic "standing on the shoulders of giants" (or however you believe it was originally phrased). They don't have an easily dented ego, they just care about making things better whether improving existing things or coming up with new. This to me just reaffirms that Jobs was an arrogant selfish dick with no care for anything other than his own ego.

          Newton was just as petty and and seemed to have a *staggeringly* large ego, despite his famous quote you mention. You can get an idea of his craziness from his Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org], though to get a better idea just google around to see plenty of fun stories about Newton's interations with Leibnitz (Math), Hooke (Optics), and Flamsteed/Halley (Astronomy). I'm sure there are more I'm forgetting, too.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:03AM (#37790090)

      If by "stole" you mean "bought and used with permission" then yes, you are correct.

    • by h00manist ( 800926 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:17AM (#37790304) Journal

      Steve Jobs:
      "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
      "Good artists copy; great artists steal."

      http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/452150-bill-gates-isnt-too-bothered-by-piracy/ [neowin.net]

      Bill Gates:
      "It's easier for our software to compete with Linux when there's piracy than when there's not."
      "Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though," Gates told an audience at the University of Washington. "And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

      Ariel Katz, a law professor at the University of Toronto and an expert on the economics of piracy:
      "Microsoft benefits from piracy, then says, 'If you think prices are high, blame the Chinese, because they are the thieves,' "

      "They like us to feel guilty — to think that piracy is wrong and immoral. Economically, it's not necessarily true, but it resonates with the public."

    • by capnkr ( 1153623 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:34AM (#37790584)
      Ah! "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine, too..." That attitude seems pretty common of late. That Jobs had it to such a degree is surprising because he has so often been promoted as being a long-time Buddhist. So why would he not simply be happy with the success he already had, and let karma take care of the rest? Becoming 'livid' and authoring 'expletive-laced' emails are not examples of someone walking the Middle Way. Going "thermonuclear" *certainly* isn't either, lol.
      I hope that he worked this conflict out and achieved some semblance of nirvana prior to his death.
  • by nani popoki ( 594111 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @08:52AM (#37789966) Homepage
    from Xerox PARC and other places. Google was simply following in Apple's grand tradition of stealing any IP that wasn't nailed down too tightly.
  • How do we work this (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anrego ( 830717 ) * on Friday October 21, 2011 @08:53AM (#37789968)

    On one hand, yes, the features probably are largely stolen.

    On the other hand, that’s kind of how technology evolves.

    Locking down products and ideas to the person who originally introduced them doesn’t work patents don’t work and I don’t think a free for all would either (copying something is always cheaper than development). So what is the solution here?

    • by aXis100 ( 690904 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:01AM (#37790058)

      What features were stolen?

      Icons in a grid? Nokia phones had those for years.
      On-screen keyboard? Palm had those since day dot.
      Multipoint touch gestures? I remember seeing those in Minority Report

      • by kangsterizer ( 1698322 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:08AM (#37790164)

        Android preemptively copied the notification drop-down and that is outrageous!

      • by itsenrique ( 846636 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:13AM (#37790236)
        Mod this UP-- what was REALLY stolen? Look, I'm not out to rain on apple fan's picnics. It's just that people are acting like the iPhone was this big revolutionary tech item when really it was just another device with a big difference: it was polished as hell, marketed well, and easy to develop for.
        • by acomj ( 20611 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @10:13AM (#37791336) Homepage

          There were so many slab based finger gestured multi-touch phones with almost no buttons before the iphone. Really?

          The ability to install applications without going through the carrier buy in was pretty novel too.

              And Eric Schmidt was on the apple board, and at the iphone intro so google knew were this was going. If you look at andriod prototypes before the iphone, they are basically blackberrys.

          One expects the ideas to be copied eventually, but not verbatim. I think Jobs was in the right to be pissed. They worked on this thing for years. Even microsoft came up with a different UI, which I think is better for everyone than to have companies just cloning.

          • by caseih ( 160668 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @10:44AM (#37792072)

            If I recall correctly, yes there was a slab-like device before the iPhone. Can't remember it's name though. Hopefully someone can help me here.

            But in any case, the iPhone came largely because the technology to do a slab phone came of age. This had nothing to do with Apple; the technology (capacitive touch screens, multi-touch) was developed by various companies, such as Synaptics. The processors required for the iPhone were also first developed outside Apple. Even a couple of years before the iPhone launch it is unlikely the iPhone could have even existed. Really all we had that was affordable were fairly slow processors and resistive touch screens that needed styluses. Remember the Palm?

            So no, the other poster who mentioned this is right. The iPhone's real innovation was simply the polish of the device, the smoothness of the software (no lag, drags right with your finger), and the eventual ideal of the app store--which in itself wasn't that novel but simply very well executed, and largely enabled by the state of technology at that day.

            As for the UI, have you used Android extensively? The UI looks similar in some respects, kind of like how OS X and Windows look similar in some respects, but the actual behavior of the UI is very different. Icons on the screen can only behave in so many different ways. Android's use of the menu and back buttons is different than iOS, though. After using my Android phone for a long time, I find my iPod Touch to be quite hard to use, or at least annoying. For example, I have to move my fingers to the top of the iOS screen to hit a back icon instead of just hitting the phone's convenient back button (some form of fits law I suppose). Probably just preference, as I know many Windows users find the OS X interface to be frustrating. My only point here is that after using both UIs for a long time, I don't find them to be copies of each other in too many non-obvious aspects.

      • by ahankinson ( 1249646 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:33AM (#37790570)
        It's quite likely that any patents Palm has are in part derived from -- guess who -- Apple, since Palm was essentially a spin-off from the Newton project. And Newton had icons on a grid before Palm even existed.

        And Apple bought the company that first commercialized multi-touch gestures (Fingerworks), so they likely own the patents on that too.
      • by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:33AM (#37790572)
        Well generally before the iPhone, Android phones were just like other smart phones like Windows Mobile and RIM in that they had physical keyboards and a pointing device. There was touch but it was underutilized. Multi-touch existed at the time but only in demos as far as I knew and not in a phone. I believe Apple was the first to use multi-touch instead of a keyboard. The other thing I'm not sure about is whether Android exposed the details of the filesystem to the user. In Windows Mobile, everything was made to mimic Windows like directories and files, etc. iPhone did away with that and their design focused more on applications and little to no exposure of files. I don't know if those were the ideas but multi-touch using capacitance in a cellphone patent was awarded to Apple last year.
    • by Doctor_Jest ( 688315 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:08AM (#37790184)

      "Stolen" implies that a bunch of masked bandits from Google raided Apple's Cupertino HQ and pilfered the vault of all the valuable iPhone widgets and touch screens.

      Spring-boarding off of the iPhone (and doing some things better) is what Android did. Jobs sounded like he didn't want competition from something that might lap his phone. Rather than innovate ("great artists steal"), he decided to throw down the lawsuit hammer (or at least try to), thereby making Apple nothing more than Microsoft or IBM with a hip wardrobe fetish.

      Everything these days comes from previous innovations.... there are a few exceptions, but most of the time true progress comes from expanding or improving an existing product or idea. Jobs did that with the iPhone, but it seems he didn't want anyone else to do so... That's what's broken here. (And I do agree that patents need reform just as much as copyright.)

      • by Antisyzygy ( 1495469 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:57AM (#37791044)
        Steve Jobs is just a big narcissistic, hypocrite asshole. After having stolen everyone else's ideas to make his iPhone, he actually had the nerve to complain that people stole his ideas (if they even were his ideas, he probably believed they were)? Im sorry, but the more I learn about this guy the more I think he was just a user and a twat, and doesn't deserve his fame.
    • by Tharsman ( 1364603 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @10:57AM (#37792340)

      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.

  • by Tsingi ( 870990 ) <graham.rick@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Friday October 21, 2011 @08:53AM (#37789972)

    Can't make a phone, AAPL thought of it first?

    Like the GUI and everything else, and Disney invented Snow White. It's all bullshit.

  • Karma? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Spykk ( 823586 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @08:54AM (#37789994)
    I've never really bought into the whole Karma concept, but things like this make you wonder.
    • by Jaqenn ( 996058 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:45AM (#37790794)
      I'm more astounded by this:

      "I've asked [Jobs why he didn't get an operation then] and he said, "I didn't want my body to be opened...I didn't want to be violated in that way," Isaacson recalls. So he waited nine months, while his wife and others urged him to do it, before getting the operation, reveals Isaacson. Asked by Kroft how such an intelligent man could make such a seemingly stupid decision, Isaacson replies, "I think that he kind of felt that if you ignore something, if you don't want something to exist, you can have magical thinking...we talked about this a lot," he tells Kroft. "He wanted to talk about it, how he regretted it....I think he felt he should have been operated on sooner."

      Which means that the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field ultimately claimed the life of it's creator.

  • re steve (Score:3, Insightful)

    by binarylarry ( 1338699 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @08:56AM (#37790012)

    I'm going to fucking kill Google. I've done it before and I will do it again.


  • by sethstorm ( 512897 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:00AM (#37790046) Homepage

    As much as he wanted to destroy Android, it sounds like Steve Jobs became the guy on the telescreen in their 1984 commercial.

    (Design) Purification Directive?

  • by RyuuzakiTetsuya ( 195424 ) <taiki@[ ].net ['cox' in gap]> on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:00AM (#37790054)

    Don't forget what Android looked like pre-iPhone [andrewwarner.com]

    If Android had launched like that, the iPhone would've destroyed it. Yes, phones before the iPhone had capacitive touch, but no one was doing multitouch. Or at least, not on a wide scale like Apple did.

    • by slim ( 1652 ) <john@hartnup . n et> on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:08AM (#37790172) Homepage

      Because multitouch was not at that point cheap enough to manufacture.

      Apple had the manufacturing power to bring it down to a certain price (and they'd honed that on the iPod Touch). But even they couldn't bring it down to the kind of price normal people would pay.

      Fortunately for Apple, they don't need to bring prices down to "normal people" levels -- they have a following of wealthy aficionados who will pay premium prices.


    • by mjwx ( 966435 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:16AM (#37790282)
      REMEMBER what the Iphone looked like pre-LG Prada. [engadget.com] So, do you want to admit that:
      1. Ideas develop simultaneously.
      2. Apple stole the LG Prada designs.

      Either way, it proves your point is full of crap.

      I'm sorry that you're upset that Android it better, but please you're just embarrassing yourself here.
      • iPhone and the Prada really don't really look all that much alike to me? I mean, they both have touch screens with keypads on them to dial numbers, but ... beyond that, there's no great similarity.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:50AM (#37790880)

        You are wasting your time. Apple zealots lie to themselves about everything tech related. They simply cannot comprehend the fact Apple basically rip off everyone else, and make a shinier product with exceptional marketing.

        Apple still aren't paying for wireless patents, something pretty critical to cellular technology, their OS was taken from a free UNIX clone, the touch screens have been around since the 90s, coverflow was taken from an open source media player on the Nokia N700, portable music devices have been around since the 80s and merely evolve to each generation of playback technology. Early apple ipods wouldn't even play mp3s, Apple decided everyone had to use another format. App stores have been around in the guise of Linux and BSD distros since the 90s, and pay for apps was being done by Lindows years before Apple copied the idea. All the tech inside their devices is made by someone else, they basically pick components out of catalogs and put them together, nothing innovative here. The CPUs are merely ARMs with extensions. Proprietary ICs has been around since the early 80s. If you want enough of them, or pay enough, fabs will do anything you want with their stock ICs.

    • by should_be_linear ( 779431 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:27AM (#37790474)
      Image is just another FUD. There is no uniform "Android Phone Design". Android is open OS, so HW looks any way anyone wants to create. Right now, there are many Android devices with HW keyboard, just like one on your "before" photo. Problem with iPhone is that it never created any "miracle" new technology, like Google did for Web search. They only packed together several existing ideas into nice package, knowing anyone competitor can do that. Another problem for Apple was that Google invested big time in open phone OS (Android), so iPhone competitors came with nice alternatives much sooner then Apple expected. I bet that Apple hoped competition will come mostly from RIM and Nokia, and will look quite desperate comparing Apple products, especially software-wise.
    • by Miamicanes ( 730264 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @10:17AM (#37791416)

      > but no one was doing multitouch.

      That was mainly because touchscreen controllers historically exposed only a single X and Y location to applications, and made their own internal decisions about how to handle multiple simultaneous rows & columns. Plenty of people realized 5-10 years ago that even "simultaneous" touches would involve one finger making contact a fraction of a millisecond before the other(s), and that you could intelligently make certain rectangular assumptions by simply noting which row & column made contact first & tracking their relative state throughout the gesture IF the damn touchscreen controller allowed you to see ALL the selected rows & columns instead of just a single (usually, random) pair.

      Ironically, it was a cost-cutting move that made multitouch initially possible. Atmel simplified their touchscreen controller and eliminated the logic that attempted to decide which row and column to send, and instead simply reported all of them... and did it at a sufficiently high refresh rate that a program paying close attention could figure out which x and y came first, and which x & y came second. Ergo, hacked multitouch on first-gen Android phones (and the first iPhones). New controllers added additional logic to track touch order and automate the association of coordinates with fingers, but really, multitouch was kind of like using RGB LEDs for video and picture display -- people thought of the idea LONG before some crucial hardware element needed to make it work existed commercially. Pinch-zooming? OK, maybe Apple deserves a cookie. Multitouch soft keyboards that can recognize a soft shift key located off on the corner where it won't cross a row or column with the virtual letter keys? Yawn. Endless discussions about it way back in the Samsung SPH-i300 era (the i300 was the first PalmOS phone that used the LCD as its graffiti input area and pretty much introduced soft keyboards to PDA phones).

  • Kindergarten (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tp1024 ( 2409684 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:05AM (#37790122)
    It's my idea. Don't you dare to use MY idea. No, I don't care if somebody just came up with it. It was MY idea.

    No, it's not your idea. It's everybody's idea.

    Standing on the shoulders of giants - where there is room for everyone - people decided to knock everybody down to the ground who dares to scale them, because they think that only they are entitled to make use of the work of earlier generations.

    The opposite of a developing country, is a stagnating country. And stagnation is what we are seeing.
    • Re:Kindergarten (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Antisyzygy ( 1495469 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:29AM (#37790514)
      Jobs was an egotistical asshole, and a deluded one as well. Only a fucking idiot wouldn't realize the iPhone was designed by "stealing" ideas from its predecessors and science fiction movies, then polishing it. Apparently Jobs was a fucking idiot.
    • by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @10:35AM (#37791850)

      Jobs accuses everyone of theft. He did it with MS and he did it with Google. Shame he was such an IP and patent fascist.

      He was your typical American CEO. He's all take, mine-mine-mine, and fuck you. The fact that the base of all his OS's are built on open principles and open source doesn't matter to him. He's allowed to take and he's allowed to own ideas like sorting with a linked list, but no one else.

  • by hodet ( 620484 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:09AM (#37790192)
    Isn't the free market a bitch sometimes.
  • by mjwx ( 966435 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:15AM (#37790266)

    The book delves into Jobs' decision to delay surgery for nine months after learning in October 2003 that he had a neuroendocrine tumor — a relatively rare type of pancreatic cancer that normally grows more slowly and is therefore more treatable. Instead, he tried a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbal remedies and other treatments he found online, and even consulted a psychic.

    He seems to be a poster child for alternative medicine.

    Exactly how not to treat a perfectly treatable cancer.

    If, the author is telling the truth. Whilst I'm not Mr Jobs' biggest fan, I do have to take this source with a huge grain of salt given it was published after his death. OTOH, it would fit with Mr Jobs' narcissism to have a scathing biography ready-written for his demise.

    • by joh ( 27088 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:26AM (#37790458)

      This cancer is not "perfectly treatable". It grows slowly, yes, but it has a habit of invisibly metastizing, recurring and finally killing people.

      And Jobs seemed to have waited with surgery only until it was clear that the tumour wouldn't shrink. He then had surgery, radiation treatment, liver transplantation and everything scientific medicine could do for him.

      If you look at the surgery he had you will see that this is the most drastic rearrangement of your anatonomy that is routinely done during cancer treatment. Hesitating here is perfectly understandable.

      But yes, maybe he would have lived longer if he hadn't waited. Maybe not.

      • by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @10:37AM (#37791912)

        >This cancer is not "perfectly treatable".

        Except this particular cancer was relatively easily treatable with surgery.

        >And Jobs seemed to have waited with surgery only until it was clear that the tumour wouldn't shrink.

        How was it going to shrink exactly? The homeopathic bullshit he was engaged in wasn't going to do anything anyway. He signed his own death warrant.

        >But yes, maybe he would have lived longer if he hadn't waited. Maybe not.

        All facts point to yes, he would have. Oh well, that's his decision. I can't stop people from killing themselves, but we can at least use him as a cautionary tale for those who are entranced by woo medicine.

    • by Antisyzygy ( 1495469 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:30AM (#37790532)
      If he actually did those things, he's not as smart as I thought he was.
    • by Sez Zero ( 586611 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:45AM (#37790782) Journal
      I understand this is an authorized biography [macrumors.com], so I'm sure Steve Jobs knew at least what it contained. Maybe he didn't care because he knew he was dying.

      But I definitely understand his perspective that he could beat the cancer. Imagine his ego (and I really am trying not to sound insulting), but this is a man with his own distortion field who was very successful in his chosen field. I've heard similar stories about NFL players; because of the all the work and strong sense of self importance must have to be so dedicated to compete at the highest level, to a degree you think you're invincible. "That career ending injury was terrible for that other guy; but that couldn't happen to me."

      A man that believed he could put a dent in the universe probably believed he could beat cancer on his own. I know if I get cancer I'm doing exactly what the doctor tells me, but that's also probably why I'm not the head of a multi-billion dollar company either.
      • by Fubari ( 196373 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @03:27PM (#37797178)

        I know if I get cancer I'm doing exactly what the doctor tells me, but that's also probably why I'm not the head of a multi-billion dollar company either.

        The veneer of certainty that conventional doctors present can certainly comforting, but is - in its own way - a kind of reality distortion field.
        Be careful about doing exactly what any single doctor tells you - research, be informed, get 2nd opinions, all that time consuming stuff.
        For example, I've read about thyroid issues where the plan is to nuke it (literally, with radioactive iodine) to kill off the thyroid tissue. I would save that for like Plan Q, maybe - after plan A, B, C etc... didn't work out.
        (if I can believe what they wrote about Jobs delaying treatment, that is simply regrettable wishful thinking - then again, I didn't know that a subset of pancreatic cancer was actually survivable - I thought it was pretty much a fatal, quick and unpleasant end).
        Anyway, thankfully I haven't had to deal with cancer issues in my family... but I would research the hell out anything that did turn up.

  • by joh ( 27088 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:15AM (#37790268)

    and to some he was like a devil.

    In reality he was just successful. But then this is more than most slashdotters will ever be.

    Come on guys, if you don't like fanbois don't turn into anti-fanbois. It's just the other side of the same coin. Quasi-religious hate and spite is in no way different than quasi-religious fanboidom. It's irrational, emotional and makes you look incredibly silly.

  • Such a hypocrit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stumbles ( 602007 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:19AM (#37790320)
    That he was; its OK for Apple/Jobs to steal ideas from others but oohhhh boy, watch out if others tried to steal his.
  • by Vinegar Joe ( 998110 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:19AM (#37790322)

    Why hasn't Steve rolled away the stone?

  • by markhahn ( 122033 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:19AM (#37790326)

    The ONLY thing Apple has ever done is push the trend towards good graphics. They didn't invent anything, just showed that it could be done well, and that people liked it. the Mac did this, producing a mass-market GUI with reasonably consistent UI rules. the Next basically pushed the resolution and depth of the display, demonstrating the advantage of both. the iPod/iPhone showed that even small displays could use the same basic metaphors with touch.

    None of these took place in a vacuum; all of them were extrapolations of work others had done. part of Job's big sell is to convince Appleheads that they were the chosen people, that they had just just a superior product, but a product in a unique category.

    Of course Jobs wanted to kill Android - its existence violates the ridiculous marketing mystique he spent billions to create. It's a religious war.

    It's also totally immoral. There's simply no way to defend one company saying "no, you must not create good products". And since nothing Apple created came from nowhere, there is no legal basis for claiming some kind of IP monopoly (patent, copyright, trademark, designmark).

    Jobs was the Pope of the Church of Apple, and he must have been just as frustrated as Catholic popes were during the reformation.

    • The ONLY thing Apple has ever done is push the trend towards good graphics.

      No, they've done quite a bit more. They pushed an end product that was well thought out and (mostly) finished. Not the slapped together Dell garbage with extra weird buttons on the keyboard that don't actually do something. (Mostly) adhered to human interface guidelines.

      Apple has really raised the bar in terms of people's expectations of how high tech things work. That is the one striking thing that other manufacturers don't get. They think they can take a tablet, slap some sort of GUI on it, make some half assed 'store' and sit back. They just don't go the extra mile.

      Is Apple perfect at it? Hardly. Personally, I don't buy an Apple product until at least the second, and preferably the third, revision. They make really stupid decisions at times. But they do manage to put some nice stuff together. It's more than just good graphics, more than just rounded rectangles.

  • Is that right? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrCrassic ( 994046 ) <deprecated AT ema DOT il> on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:22AM (#37790374) Journal
    "Good artists borrow; great artists steal." -Steve Jobs [youtube.com]

    Android might have "ripped [them] off wholesale," but the truth is that Android delivers a great smartphone OS to everyone instead of everyone that can save enough for an iPhone with its special data/voice plan. Did they really expect OEMs to do like RIM and just sit there while Apple designs and builds awesome hardware from the same factories they use?

    Plus, Apple's products are amazing until you start "thinking different." Then you run into HUGE walls. Example: In Android, I can install an application that controls battery usage by controlling all interfaces on the phone. This seems to be impossible on the iPhone, which is bad because there are days when it will use most of the battery in less than half a day and others in about two days. Another example is adding a Windows print queue on OS X, though this might have been made easier with Lion. I'm not sure.

    His frustrations are thinly warranted, though I do agree that most of Google's products are either crappy or great for two months after release. It would be great if they made APIs along with their products, but I suppose that's not the Google way.
  • by Harold Halloway ( 1047486 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @09:31AM (#37790542)

    I'm sorry he's dead but I'm not sorry he's gone.

  • by VeryVito ( 807017 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @10:17AM (#37791410) Homepage

    Speaking NOT as a fanboy, but as a gadget fan:

    In hindsight, it's easy to say the iPhone is just another smartphone, but at the time it was introduced, it was nothing like any phone that came before it. Yes, its individual features -- touch screen, icons, internal antenna, multitouch UI, etc., all existed -- but until the iPhone came along, they had not been put together quite like this before (To use the hackneyed "car" metaphor: wheels, internal combustion engines and axles predate the automobile, but this doesn't mean the car was nothing new when it came along).

    Just look at marketing materials from the major carriers in 2006 -- flip phones and candy bars were the typical (practically only) form factors available before the iPhone was revealed in January 2007. It took very little time for all that to change, but when it comes right down to it -- there was nothing akin to the modern smartphone before the iPhone.

    It's pretty silly to suggest today's wide array of multi-touch handheld computers have nothing to do with its design and success.

    • by Daetrin ( 576516 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @11:09AM (#37792628)
      O RLY? I didn't actually know about it until someone posted it earlier in this article, but the LG Prada [wikipedia.org] came out shortly before the iPhone and they look very similar [engadget.com]. In fact LG accused Apple of copying their phone since they revealed it as part of a design competition (and won) several months prior to the announcement of the iPhone.

      So it seems to me either that Apple stole the idea and polished it up, or as has often the case in history, technology was headed in a certain direction and several people came up with similar ideas at the same time, and Apple just made the most popular implementation of that idea.
  • by aristotle-dude ( 626586 ) on Friday October 21, 2011 @11:47AM (#37793428)

    Google users be they on Android or when you use gmail, google search etc... are not seen by Google as their customers. You are seen by Google as their product which they sell the advertisers. The "free" services they provide you is like feed to a cattle which is why Eric Schmitt has so little respect for privacy of users of google services. If you are fine with being viewed as cattle and fine with having to upgrade your handset to get the latest release let alone a specific feature then stick with Android if you want.

    For all of the "faults" that some of you would see concerning Apple's behaviour, they are a customer/consumer focused company. The average consumer is who they see to be their customer and they are interested in selling products and services to those customers.

    Despite all of the grousing about siri being only an iPhone 4S feature, look at the comparison of the iPhone 3GS getting almost all of the features of iOS 5 despite having been released over two years ago originally and iOS 5 even brought features from iOS 4 that were previously iPhone 4 exclusive to the 3GS like custom alert tones. Given that they rolled out that feature on the 3GS, I would guess that iOS 6 will bring Siri to the iPhone 4 when the iPhone 5 comes out.

    Show me a single Android handset that was released even 6 months ago that is user upgradable to the latest Android version without any rooting or other hacks regardless of your carrier.

    Android handsets are cheap and disposable and because of this, they want you to continue buying new versions and that is why they will not offer updates to firmware for anything but the latest model (if even that). This all stems back to the fact that they don't see you as their customer. They see you as a channel for advertising revenue.

In English, every word can be verbed. Would that it were so in our programming languages.