
If Android is a "stolen product," then so was the iPhone - tambourine_man
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/if-android-is-a-stolen-product-then-so-was-the-iphone.ars
======
rbarooah
Wasn't Steve Job's comment driven by his belief that Eric Schmidt used his
insider knowledge of the iPhone project to inform the direction of the Android
team?

It seems to me that he wasn't calling it stolen because it was a similar
product - other comments of his indicate that he was was well aware that the
technology would be cloned.

He was calling it stolen because he felt the time-to-market advantage had been
stolen by an insider who breached his trust. I think this is what drove his
animosity.

Android is obviously deeply influenced by the iPhone. The iPhone is obviously
influenced by a whole load of other products (though not to quite the same
extent).

What makes it 'stealing' is whether the influence was underhand or not.

We don't know whether Eric Schmidt did use inside information in breach of
trust, but if he did then Jobs' position seems a lot more supportable.

------
ceejayoz
If you focus only on the single feature that is multi-touch, sure, but it's
the entire package that likely pissed Jobs off.

Pre-iPhone, Android's demo phones looked like a BlackBerry clone:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Android_mobile_phone_platf...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Android_mobile_phone_platform_early_device.jpg)

~~~
bunderbunder
Pre-iPhone, they were also demoing devices that did not look quite so much
like Blackberry clones:

[http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Did_Android_Really_Look_Li...](http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Did_Android_Really_Look_Like_BlackBerry_Before_the_iPhone_)

~~~
ceejayoz
> We're talking November 12 2007

iPhone was announced January 2007 and released June 2007. That's hardly pre-
iPhone.

~~~
tcskeptic
And I think the real point of contention was that Eric Schmidt was a member of
the Apple board starting a year before that and as such had seen early iPhone
prototypes. That in particular is what Jobs was angry about.

~~~
wisty
I can guess why that's a much bigger point of contention.

Steve Jobs must have really sold the board on the viability of next-gen smart
phones: "guys - our work on iPods shows us we are just about at the point
where almost-PC-class processors, RAM, and hard drives can be crammed into a
mobile-phone sized package, without wiping out the battery in 12 hours. You
know what will happen next?"

If that was the reason Google put so much effort into Android, then Google
effectively stole Apple's strategy. Sure, some random Googlers would have
thought of it, but it may not have been sold as well at the top level.
Remember, Steve Jobs was an unbelievably good strategy salesman.

It's inevitable then that Android would follow the market leader - that's what
products do.

~~~
fpgeek
But now you're mixing up the chronology.

Google had already bought Android and bet on next-gen smartphones well before
Eric Schmidt joined the Apple board. And that bet was already serious and
high-level. Schmidt wasn't involved in the acquisition, but Larry Page was.
They were also, correctly, talking about mobile as the "next great frontier of
search". If that wasn't a big deal at Google, I don't know what could be.

------
zefhous
> Jobs called Android a "stolen product," but theft can be a tricky concept
> when talking about innovation.

This article is heartily missing the point.

Android _is_ basically a stolen product. It's a direct successor and
competitor to the iPhone, and the direction of Android in it's current form
has been and is extremely influenced by what Apple has been doing.

Sure, the iPhone is a bunch of "stolen" technologies and ideas, but Apple
brought them together to make something great in a way that had never been
done before. What Apple did took vision, discipline, and execution. _That_ is
what Apple brought to the table, and that is what innovation is.

Nobody was making products that resembled the iPhone before Apple, but now
everyone is trying.

We don't need to get all emotional about this. This doesn't have anything to
do with the quality of the products, it's just the history about how this
stuff came about. You are still free to like Android or WebOS or iOS or
whatever you want. It's fine. Just recognize innovation for what it is.

~~~
wvenable
> Nobody was making products that resembled the iPhone before Apple

That's blatantly false. Every smartphone I owned going back to 2003 resembled
the iPhone. Smartphones of the day either resembled the iPhone or they
resembled the blackberry but both designs were out there in number. After the
iPhone was released almost everyone dropped their blackberry-like designs
(except for RIM).

Apple's innovation was the capacitive multi-touch screen and finger-friendly
interface. I'm not even sure that's a revolution just an evolution of existing
designs.

~~~
nwjsmith
> That's blatantly false. Every smartphone I owned going back to 2003
> resembled the iPhone.

Which phones?

~~~
jerhinesmith
Mine didn't have "phone" capabilities, but the Compaq iPAQs resemble the
iPhone.

This is pretty close to the one I owned around 2002:
[http://img.tomshardware.com/us/2002/04/04/comparison_of_six_...](http://img.tomshardware.com/us/2002/04/04/comparison_of_six_pdas/compaq.jpg)

~~~
YooLi
Looks nothing like the iPhone and _shockingly_ wasn't even a phone.

~~~
wvenable
The first Windows Mobile phones were just WinMo PDAs with cellular radios in
them. So while the iPaq isn't a phone it's the direct predecessor to many of
them.

~~~
fpgeek
The iPaq is a particularly direct predecessor as you could get a GSM/GPRS
sleeve for it.

------
jbrennan
I'm not sure anyone is arguing the iPhone invented all these individual
technologies, and if anyone is claiming that, they shouldn't be as the
evidence is overwhelming to the contrary.

I think the real meat of the argument is "iPhone _synthesized_ all those
individual pieces into something coherent and incredible.". It's kind of like
how the Macintosh and Lisa took the ideas from PARC, perfected them, and
turned them into a real product. I think the stink is being made that Android
is copying that aspect of the iPhone, instead of just a piece or two.

Maybe that's not what's actually being argued, but that's what I think should
be argued at least.

~~~
vibrunazo
I think it's a bit "pushing it" by saying the iPhone was a "big" technological
revolution for having synthesized a few technologies together. Deep down,
every invention is to some level, an evolution over existing inventions. As
many great inventors said throughout history "I can only see this far because
I'm standing in the shoulder of giants".

But sometimes, to better see the whole picture, we need to take a step back
from the drawing board. We, as engineers, like to think that every great
revolution in consumer behavior is due to a technological invention
fundamental to the shift. But if you pay attention you'll notice that Apple's
biggest innovation wasn't technological. The area they excel the most is
marketing. They built a coherent experience from the device interface design,
to the propaganda on TV ads that was powerful enough to convince consumers to
buy their products.

Steve Jobs was a genius. But if you believe he was a genius engineer who you
should try to mimic, then you'll end up making poor technical decisions. He
was a genius marketer who excelled at convincing consumers his products are
worth it. That's what we should take from all this. That's we should learn
from Apple's growth. Marketing matters.

~~~
gnaffle
While he was a genius at marketing, that's not the main lesson to take from
Apple. The main lesson is that it's possible to focus on a few products and
make them work really well. I don't think all the marketing genius in the
world would have made the MacBooks and iPhones a success if they had been
running Windows Vista or Windows Mobile 6 when they were released.

------
infiniteburp
Steve Jobs saying he's going to spend billions and billions on frivolous
lawsuits should make still independent developers wary about getting boxed
into his walled "ecosystem". Perhaps it's time to revise the laws on "thought
property" to declaw the patent and copyright industries. We need more
competition, not more "I have a lot of money therefore I get even more money"
monopolies. Geez. Patent law is just turning into a subsidy for Silicon
Valley.

~~~
fpgeek
Of course, all of those lawsuits might also make independent developers think
that the only "safe" place is his walled "ecosystem". Yes, you pay taxes and
you live at the pleasure of the king, but at least most of the time he's more
interested fighting with the enemies outside than the subjects inside.

------
amartya916
By the way, a much better and more detailed commentary can be found here:
<http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html>

Bill Buxton is currently a Research Scientist at MSR and he more than knows
what he's talking about.

~~~
binarybits
I link to that page in my story. I tried to interview Buxton but Microsoft's
PR people turned me down.

~~~
amartya916
Sorry, I'd missed that link in your article. Although I don't claim to know
him personally, I've interacted with him a few times and I know that he takes
an interest in getting the mainstream tech. media to cover or correct popular
myths (such as Apple pioneering multi-touch). Next time around, drop him an
e-mail. Never hurts to ask, although I know why Microsoft's PR might have
turned you down :).

~~~
binarybits
I did email him. He told me I needed to go through Microsoft PR, and after I
explained the topic of my story Microsoft PR declined to let me talk to him.

------
DanBC
The iPhone isn't even the first thing called an iPhone with a touchscreen that
makes telephone calls and connects to the internet.

From 1997:

([http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dcom.telecom/msg/f62a1ff...](http://groups.google.com/group/comp.dcom.telecom/msg/f62a1ffc289424ba?dmode=source))

~~~
vacri
Well... that's a desktop phone, not a mobile, but true, it's branded an
'iphone', connects to the internet, makes calls, and has apps

<http://aaworldtrade.com/phones-accessories.html>

------
freyrs3
Industries converge around good ideas. This isn't "stealing", its progress.

~~~
nextparadigms
I agree. Apple had a lot of great ideas for their phone, and sooner or later
someone would've copied them to be able to compete in the same type of market,
and then build on that platform. In turn Apple ended up copying some of the
later ideas from their competitors, too.

It's how progress happens. Too bad people are so quick to blame others with
"stealing" when this happens.

------
arjn
Funny how the article mentions the LG Prada pre-dating the iPhone and then
dismisses it. The software would of course be different but the LG Prada's
physical design - full capacitive touchscree etc. - was public knowledge
before the iPhone came out (and they also won a couple of awards for the
design) : <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Prada>

------
discreteevent
Bell Labs and Xerox Parc. I wonder what percentage of the contemporary
computing experience wasn't invented in either of those places.

~~~
Apple-Guy
The problem is, Apple made the unfinished parc products usable, and invented
drag and drop. Here from page 4 of an article:

[http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-
st...](http://obamapacman.com/2010/03/myth-copyright-theft-apple-stole-gui-
from-xerox-parc-alto/4/)

~~~
jff
What's that, Apple-Guy? A website billing itself as "Apple iPhone, iPad 2,
iPod News, Celebrity Mac Users, and More" claims that Apple did all the _real_
, _important_ work? Wow!

------
fudged
I thought 'we' as a tech community had moved passed this. It's been dragged
through the mud time and time again.

~~~
YooLi
Ars must he hurting for some ad impressions.

------
sirclueless
Let me put this in hacker terminology: Have you ever looked at someone else's
product and said, "Well that's stupid, I could remake it in a week and it
would be even better"? But even if that were true, you weren't the one who
took the risk and built the damn thing.

Other people here are talking about "vision" and "innovation" and while these
are certainly things Apple had in abundance, the bottom line is that Samsung's
lack of vision is not what Apple is complaining about. It's all about risk:
Apple took a risk, they pioneered a whole metaphor of a smartphone made of a
giant touchscreen and little packaged apps. They had to convince a whole
legion of consumers that their highly simplified interface was the elegant
solution they needed, and that takes a lot of money and a lot of risk. Now
Apple wants their day in the sun to last as long as possible, they want as
much of the payoff from the risks they took as possible, and they feel
entitled to a degree of exclusivity.

~~~
vacri
The sword cuts both ways - here on HN we've had a number of stories about the
'little guy' who makes a software package (eg cloud music manager), taking the
risk, then apple comes along and implements the same thing, destroying the
little guy. The little guy takes risk that's big from his point of view - does
this mean he's entitled not to be copied by Apple?

------
bane
I swear to god, this would be such a non-issue if people would just stop
acting like human history started with the release date of their favorite
Apple product.

------
51Cards
Re: IBM's 1993 Simon: "The e-mail app even included the ability to click on a
phone number to dial it."

Would that not constitute prior art in one of the patents Apple asserted
against Android recently? I am only vaguely aware of the finer details so I'm
probably mistaken on some point.

~~~
fpgeek
Actually, it would. Apple is asserting a patent (from 1996) against Android's
"Linkify" functionality which does exactly that.

Other prior art would be Ward Cunningham's WikiWikiWeb (1994/1995) for turning
CamelCase into links and, my personal favorite, Netscape Navigator 2.0b1, for
"Live URLs" (that recognized URLs and email addresses in mail and news text
and made them clickable).

I've been following this off and on, and AFAICT, HTC didn't bring up any of
these piece of prior art, which makes me seriously question the quality of
their prior art searches.

------
joenathan
It appears that the majority of people commenting haven't even read the
article...

------
caycep
I suspect it isn't so much the design (although as has been pointed out the
jump from treo-like to iphone-like is telling), but that a member of a board
of directors used his access to proprietary company secrets/internal
information to directly benefit a competitor company - its a conflict of
interest issue at best, and corporate data theft at worst. And I think Jobs
took it personally because the Larry, Sergei, and maybe even Schmidt had
soliticed his mentorship and advice and for them to turn around and do this to
him would seem to me like it would be felt as a personal betrayal.

------
j45
My Palm Treo was the original smartphone. Blackberry, iPhone, and everyone
else stole from that.

No wonder Apple has never sued Palm, or now HP who owns all the IP. Palm had
half the iPhone probably patented lol.

------
noble
How Similar is a Galaxy Nexus to iPhone 4S ? My question is , who is leading
and who is following?

~~~
fpgeek
At this point that depends on what you consider important.

------
shpoonj
This conversation should have ended years ago... Are people really still
bickering?

~~~
wavephorm
We all know software patents are bullshit. The problem is the law doesn't
care, and politicians are paid not to care.

------
sbuk
Ars is getting worse.

~~~
sbuk
As is Hacker News apparently. It's a trollbait article that say nothing of
merit or value. Frankly I'd've said the same were it a story about Android
being a rip off of iOS. You 'haters' of whatever denomination are just
ridiculous and it's about time you all grow the fuck up.

~~~
binarybits
Did you read the article or just the headline? You can disagree with my
conclusions but I think patent policy is an important topic.

~~~
sbuk
How arrogant. Yes I read your opinion piece. As I said, you have said nothing
new. You have added nothing to the debate except for regurgitating the same
old trite arguments to drive yet another pointless flame war over a topic that
is of actual important. And the net result is merely more ill-informed
opinion.

------
YooLi
Poor article. Show multitouch before the iPhone, show "touchable" screens
before the iPhone, conclude the iPhone was just a copy.

Meanwhile all phones since the iPhone look a heck of a lot like it.

~~~
binarybits
I'm pretty sure I didn't say "the iPhone was just a copy."

------
ricardobeat
The article goes a great length to mention other companies' and persons'
accomplishments in the field, all the while completely ignoring Apple's
research on it since the 80s.

They get to the point themselves:

 _Indeed, what made the iPhone such a great product was precisely that Apple
drew together a number of innovations already developed separately—touchscreen
phones, capacitive touchscreens, sophisticated multitouch user interfaces—and
combined them in a product greater than the sum of its parts._

And then Android just imitated that precise sum of parts (full touchscreen,
swipe gestures, on-screen keyboard, apps, desktop-class browser,
accelerometer, great graphics...). Android looked _nothing_ like it is today
before the iPhone OS.

