

Will Steve Jobs' final vendetta haunt Google? - dean
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501366_162-20124319.html

======
brudgers
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.visorcentral.com/content/Stories/1246-1.htm>]

~~~
mattmanser
Were you around when the iPhone came out? Do you remember the day you first
saw it? As it frustrates me people reinventing history. I remember seeing an
iPhone for the first time. It was literally a total game changer,
revolutionary is a fair word and I use it rarely.

It was _years_ ahead of _anything_ else on the market. The UX was incredible.
Everything just worked without incredibly complicated interfaces and clicking
a million different options.

You're not looking at the whole product hard enough. The UX is what made it so
incredible. The fact it was touch based when everyone said there wasn't a
market or that it was too expensive was an added bonus rather than the main
feature. But that multi-touch screen enabled Apple to make a truly gorgeous
UX. The way it all ties together. The little (and totally un-noticable) UX
features that just make it all work so well but you don't notice them any more
because they're so ubiquitous because Android copied them all.

Specific examples:

1\. The web browser. I remember being incredulous at the time. Nonsense! I
said. Viewing normal websites on a mobile? It'll be unusable! Phooey! Then my
friend passed me his iPhone and I played with the wonderful pinch and zoom. I
switched websites using the on screen keyboard that unobtrusively appeared
like magic when I clicked on the address. I was astounded. And totally proved
wrong. They were very nascent at the time. People used to have to make
websites specifically for browsers and no-one really bothered. My old company
did for their browser based application (quite revolutionary at the time) and
it was an extremely limited subset of functionality. See your own link, the
first one, for how useless the first attempts were. What on earth are those
little icons in the top right corner?

And Apple just walked into a market they had no experience with and, Plop!
Incredible mobile web browser straight out the gate.

2\. The home screen. You could customise it! And move stuff around. And it's
accessible without pressing back 20 times! Wow. No longer were you locked into
having the media player as option 8 that you had to press 9 buttons to get to.
Gah, those old phone screens still make me shudder. They pretty much exposed
every setting as a gigantic list on your home screen. And there were so many
options. I still feel a little surprised every time I open the iPhone's
general settings.

3\. The contacts book, no phone before the iPhone had a usable contact book.
It was a list. If you were lucky you could search. But that would probably be
at least a few button presses on top of the search.

4\. Text message interface. Totally different to how other phones did it,
conversation based instead of just a list (see your own link for how it used
to be done).

5\. The email tie-in. A simple UX for emails? Nice little notifications? Push?
In a consumer phone? It's not a blackberry? Incredible!

6\. The media player. An intuitive interface for playing or manipulating
playing songs? And iTunes! Crap as it may be in today's eyes, it was so much
better than the crud that came bundled with other phones at the time.

7\. The microphone, volume controls and phone answering.

8\. The 'silent' mode switch. Faffing around through about 10 actions to turn
on silent mode? No more, one tactile feedback switch with the added bonus that
you can run your thumb over it in your pocket to see if silent mode is on.

9\. The synch just worked. You just plugged it in and it worked. In the 3 or 4
years that the other manufacturers had computer tie-in they'd managed to
produce every conceivable piece of rubbish synching software you could
imagine. The iPhone was the first phone I saw anyone actually bother to synch
with their computer.

10\. The wi-fi. It has wifi? No way. And it just works? Not 20 minutes
fiddling, it just worked. And it did amazingly smart things like use the wifi
for email and browsing when you were near a known network. This. Is. Amazing.
The reason it had this incredible feature was because it had a mobile browser
that would have caned your mobile data plan which were restrictive to say the
least. Other phones didn't have wifi connections.

The list is much, much longer than this. There's just so many little tweaks
and incredible modifications they made to how a mobile phone should operate
that beggar belief that anyone would claim it's just a 'step', it was a
gigantic leap.

Phone manufacturers were total failures when it came to the actual software
for their phones. Total and utter failures. They couldn't do it! The UX was
always horrific. The iPhone changed that permanently.

It reinvented usable mobile phones. Before that everyone just used a tiny
subset of the capabilities because they were so god-damn complicated.

And Android took it all. Copied it. This is what Android looked like when the
iPhone came out, it looked like every other phone on the market, a terrible
UX, with absolutely no vision:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJHYqE0RDg>

I've said before, credit where due to the android team for changing direction
so fast and so well, but they lifted that OS from Apple, no doubt in my mind.

NB: I'm not an Apple fanboi, I only have an iPhone. But to dismiss the iPhone
as a 'step' is absurd to me.

~~~
brudgers
> _"Viewing normal websites on a mobile? It'll be unusable!"_

What the iPhone changed was data plans and that's what made websites viewable
on a mobile phone because the one you get is no longer by necessity a stripped
down version - Yes, using a touchscreen provides a better experience, but the
browser on my old Nokia with S60v3 is entirely functional for browsing.

I would mention the advantage the standard file system Symbian offers when it
comes to moving data back and forth between devices or printing as compared
with iTunes or Zune, but anyone who had a PalmOS device would already be
familiar with them.

Please don't get me wrong, I remember when the iPhone came out, I tried to
figure out how to get a manager's to work with Exchange.

~~~
r00fus
Seriously. When the iphone came out, I had a Treo 650, was quite happy with it
though I did not care to spend 45$/mo for mobile data tha VZ wanted.

However the iphone's mandatory Data plan was $20/mo... and it was much more
capable and svelte? SOLD

------
jaylevitt
"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
> 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
metcalfe's law disagrees with you.

~~~
Macha
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
maybe, but "little to nothing" is just plain wrong.

~~~
masklinn
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.

------
MaxGabriel
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>

~~~
dazzla
Why do so many mobile site redirects get this wrong?

~~~
sudont
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/>

~~~
dazzla
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.

------
zrgiu_
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.

------
jhferris3
"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.

------
ahi
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
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.

------
trickjarrett
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."

~~~
sbuk
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>). 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>). 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.g...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alto_Neptune_Filemanager.gif))
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
The point is Apple is a great marketer. The extent to which they are an
innovator, on the other hand, is often exaggerated.

~~~
sbuk
I know what the point is, but I'd say that the extent to which their
innovations are understated borders on the ridiculous. The only people I ever
see _really_ overstating Apple's contributions are those that are refuting the
fact.

<rant>We live in amazing times technologically, with amazing gadgets that I
could only dreamed of when I was a kid, yet many commenters, with little of
their own to crow about, have what can only be described as entitlement
issues. The problem seems to be that Apple are now a success, perceived to be
abusive by a very small bout incredibly vocal minority and individuals feel
the need to knock 'em down a peg or two. Yes, some of their contributions,
like many other businesses are overstated (Google didn't invent search and
neither did they release Android out of altruism for instance); however the
extent that some go to to discredit one of the most influential tech
businesses of the last 50 years is churlish.</rant>

~~~
jhuni
Apple has never been credited with anything in the first place, so there is
nothing to discredit. Even at their very foundation, Apple stole innovations
from the workers at Xerox PARC, and then they went on to perpetuate DRM
malfeatures and intellectual property / artificial scarcity, through iTunes,
the appstore, etc. For more information see this link:

<http://www.loper-os.org/?p=316>

The difference that Apple has with Google is fundamental. Apple distributes
artificially stupid malware and Google distributes free software and
intelligent cloud services. In this context, I will take Google and Android
over Apple and iOS any day.

~~~
sbuk
"Even at their very foundation, Apple stole innovations from the workers at
Xerox PARC" You betray you ignorance with that line alone. The workers at
Xerox PARC stole those same ideas from people like Engelbart and Sutherland,
at the very least Apple paid for them. They also employed a few PARC alumni
too.

For the final time _Xerox did not invent the UI _or_ even WIMP_ , they were
contributors; just like Apple and Microsoft are.

As for your unbelievably asinine remark; Google distributes "free software and
intelligent cloud services". I'm not one for name calling generally, but how
that could be construed for anything other the blind fandroid nonsense is
beyond me. You are under the mis apprehension that Google act out of altruism.
They don't. The offer their services for free for the purpose of gathering
data about you to sell to the highest bidder. The rest of us know that AAPL,
MSFT and GOOG are not the paragons of virtue that you clearly seem to think
that they are, but some of the absolute bullshit that is being present as fact
(like the opinion piece that you link to) is verging on stupefying. The facts
are out there. Here is a head
start,[http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/wiki/uploads/HCIPapers/h...](http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/wiki/uploads/HCIPapers/horn-
raskin-apple-recollections.html), now go and learn something about the
industry you work in.

~~~
jhuni
Dear sbuk,

After the cold war, the military cut off most of its funding to AI research,
resulting in the AI winter. Without that source of funding, we have to look
for the next best source, which is big corporations. Google is one of the best
examples of such a corporation because they deliver AI services to billions of
users every day.

Now is google a "paragon of virtue"? Hell no, nor is any institution in
capitalism for that matter, however, we should still recognise _allies of
virtue_ and in a way I would say that Google is one such example, not only
through their support of AI but also through their support of software
freedom.

For example, the Android project, lead by Google is an essential part of the
free software movement and really the good option on mobile devices. And well
Anrdoid 3.0 isn't entirely free, Replicant largely fixes that, and Anrdoid 4.0
largely resolves any of these issues. Apple iOS, on the other hand, isn't even
comparable, because it is full of DRM malfeatures.

 _The workers at Xerox PARC stole those same ideas from people like Engelbart
and Sutherland, at the very least Apple paid for them._

The workers at Xerox PARC never "stole" anything, they hired lots of people
from the nearby SRI organisation which first released most of the features of
the GUI during the mother of all demos.

 _just like Apple and Microsoft are._

Before, Microsoft and Apple, the GUI was essentially the exclusive business of
a few private individuals, and the "contribution" of Microsoft and Apple was
to make it into a tool of screwing over millions of people. The thing they
"contributed" to is their bank account, not technology.

 _The offer their services for free for the purpose of gathering data about
you to sell to the highest bidder._

Then don't provide Google's services with data you don't want them to have.
That's pretty simple. At least Google isn't selling stupid DRM ridden devices
like Apple is.

 _like the opinion piece that you link to_

What is your objection to that piece?

------
mattmanser
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.

