

Steve Jobs On Android - px
http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/01/steve-jobs-on-googles-android-betrayal-my-sex-life-is-pretty-good/

======
CitizenKane
Steve Jobs says Apple "created" WebKit. That wording makes it sounds like it
started from nothing. But it didn't, WebKit was forked from the KHTML project
in 2002 and later diverged (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webkit#Origins>).
One might say WebKit evolved out of KHTML.

~~~
Legion
>> Steve Jobs says Apple "created" WebKit. That wording makes it sounds like
it started from nothing.

That wording is also more TechCrunch's than Steve's.

Steve's words:

> Well Chrome is not... you know. And it's based on webkit, work we did at
> Apple.

> Almost every modern browser is based on webkit... Nokia, Palm, Android, RIM
> has one... and of course ours.

> We've created a real competitor to IE. In the mobile space it's #1.

(link: <http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/01/steve-jobs-live-from-d8/>)

While that still takes more credit than I'd care to see, "work we did at
Apple" definitely is a softer statement than "Apple 'created' WebKit". Even
though the word "created" does come up a couple of sentences later...

~~~
dieterrams
After watching some of the video footage, I noticed that Engadget's
transcription is often highly paraphrased. So I transcribed directly from one
of the D8 videos:

    
    
      Steve: We took a tiny little open source project, and we
      created what's called "WebKit" out there, and we did an
      interesting thing for Apple: we put it in open source.
    

So it turns out that he _did_ say they "created" WebKit, but he also points
out that it was created using an existing open source project.

Turns out this thread was a lot of hubbub over nothing, as I suspected. Unless
someone wants to gripe about KHTML being described as "tiny little".

~~~
nailer
> and we created what's called "WebKit" out there, and we did an interesting
> thing for Apple: we put it in open source.

He's acting like Apple had a choice about the licensing of someone else's
work.

~~~
dieterrams
When you choose to build off a LGPLed project, you are choosing to open source
the work you put into it. They could have easily chosen not to build off a
LGPLed project.

Stop fishing for perceived slights. This is petty, and a waste of the
internet.

~~~
nailer
When you chose to use an OSS project, you choose to follow the license, sure.

But what Jobs said - 'we put it in open source' - implies that it KHTML wasn't
already OSS.

~~~
dieterrams
Dear god, did you completely fail to read the first part of the quote? How can
he imply that KHTML wasn't already open source when he _specifically refers to
it as open source?_

The "interesting thing for Apple" is that they chose to put their efforts into
an open source project in the first place. Apple, the company that likes to
control its software as much as possible. This is all he's saying. Don't read
anything more into it than that.

~~~
nailer
Yes I did. The full quote is:

> Steve: We took a tiny little open source project, and we created what's
> called "WebKit" out there, and we did an interesting thing for Apple: we put
> it in open source.

which doesn't serve any value beyond simply saying:

"We took a tiny little open source project, and worked on it."

Steve adding 'we created what's called "WebKit" out there, and we did an
interesting thing for Apple: we put it in open source' makes no sense - it's
either:

\- redundant (KHTML was already LGPLed, so obviously Apple's patches would be)

\- implying Webkit was something 'created' by Apple that Apple had choice over
their licensing with.

To me it seems the latter, which is somewhat disingenuous. You obviously
disagree. Invoking spiritual beings is unnecessary.

~~~
dieterrams
I refer you to my previous comment:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1397514>

Let me break it down a bit further. WebKit is an Apple-initiated project. It
is the web counterpart to Apple's native UIKit framework. If they wanted to,
they could have made WebKit closed source, eschewing the use of KHTML
entirely. They were in no way obligated to use KHTML as a starting point. And
for a company like Apple, you can be sure the decision to tie themselves to
the LGPL was not undertaken lightly.

In choosing to use the LGPLed KHTML project as the basis for WebKit, they
_chose_ to put _WebKit_ in open source. They did exactly what Steve Jobs said
they did, no disingenuity required.

Sure, maybe he could have ordered his phrases more clearly, but he's speaking
off the cuff here.

~~~
nailer
> If they wanted to, they could have made WebKit closed source, eschewing the
> use of KHTML entirely.

Yes, I understand what you're saying - Apple made a choice about what product
to use and was aware of the licensing implications.

Apple got to make one choice: use KHTML or something else. As soon as they
chose KHTML, the choice of licensing was made for them. Saying 'we open
sourced it' implies Apple made the choice to open source it. They did not.
They were obligated to by the fact the people who made the code licensed it
that way.

Linksys got to make one choice: use Linux or something else. As soon as they
chose Linux, the choice was made for them.

Job's already mentioned that Apple chose to use an OSS app. Saying they 'chose
the licensing for it' is wrong: they didn't, someone in the KDE project made
that decision. Apple abided by the rules, they didn't create them.

~~~
dieterrams
Let me try this again.

Let's say we form a company to develop a web layout engine. We haven't made
anything yet, and we're wondering if it would be better to make our layout
engine closed source or open. We decide to go with open. Why? Because we're
fed up with having to support slow, non-standards-compliant browsers for our
web apps. If our fast, standards-compliant layout engine is open source, maybe
more browsers will use it, and web development will be less sucky for us in
the future.

It turns out that there's already some great open source code called KHTML
that we can build on to create our engine, and it's licensed with the LGPL.
Well, that's no problem, because we decided our layout engine was going to be
open source anyway. So why not fork it? We don't have to, but it's good code,
so we might as well. Thus, our open source layout engine ends up being based
on KHTML. _But it was not our decision to use KHTML that made our engine open
source._ _We_ decided that it was going to be open source, irrespective of
whether we decided to use KHTML.

Likewise, Apple chose whether or not WebKit would be open source, irrespective
of whether they decided to use KHTML.

You seem to be making the argument that Apple just decided to base WebKit on
KHTML without much concern for the licensing implications, and inadvertently
ended up "stuck" with a WebKit that must adhere to the LGPL. Hence, Steve Jobs
is disingenuously suggesting that WebKit was intentionally open source. And
what I'm saying is, given Apple's long history of tight control over its
software, not to mention their willingness to rewrite their software from
scratch, that assumption just isn't credible. Whereas they have credible,
self-interested motives for creating an open source layout engine, just like
Google has credible self-interested motives for making Android open source.

~~~
nailer
> You seem to be making the argument that Apple just decided to base WebKit on
> KHTML without much concern for the licensing implications

No.

I'm saying 'we used something OSS! Then we decided to make it OSS!' is either
nonsensical or misleading.

~~~
dieterrams
Well, I tried my best.

~~~
nailer
I didn't think it was that hard to understand. Do you get what I'm saying now?

~~~
dieterrams
I've always gotten what you've been saying. You seem to be completely
incapable of getting what I'm saying. And I'm certain you have to ability to
get what I'm saying, but I think you just really, really don't want to. Or
you're trolling. Not really sure at this point.

~~~
nailer
>>> You seem to be making the argument that Apple just decided to base WebKit
on KHTML without much concern for the licensing implications

>I've always gotten what you've been saying.

Clearly you haven't.

OTOH, if you think I've misunderstood or mischaracterized anything you've
said, you haven't said so.

Anyway, I give up.

------
bsiemon
Why do people try to turn normal business competition into some sort of Cain
and Able story?

~~~
staunch
That's actually pretty accurate when it comes to Steve Jobs. First it was him
and Gates and then him and Schmidt. In both cases it was a close relationship
followed by backstabbing.

------
philwelch
"My sex life is pretty good"? What does that even mean?

~~~
zain
Engadget's live coverage has more context. It isn't quite a non-sequitor like
TechCrunch says -- Walt actually asked Jobs about his relationship with
Google, and Jobs made a joke.

    
    
      6:49PM Walt: How's your relationship?
      6:49PM Steve: My sex life is pretty good.
    

<http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/01/steve-jobs-live-from-d8/>

~~~
pavs
fracking TC and its linkbait shit. TC goes back to my hosts file.

~~~
desigooner
Arrington trying to vye for some more clicks IMO

------
iamelgringo
Speaking as a someone who's worked as an ER nurse for 18 years... Steve looks
like hell.

I'm guessing he's down to about 120lbs. More pics here:
<http://d8.allthingsd.com/speakers/steve-jobs/#slideshow-1-32> I know it's a
touchy subject, but holy crap. I did a double take when I saw the pictures of
him. He is not a well man.

~~~
Perceval
Vegans have a hard time (re)gaining weight.

~~~
robotron
Can you back that up? I know all those vegan carbs have to be going
somewhere...

------
arfrank
I found the most interesting part to be right at the end. Apple is a hardware
company first, and one market where they already have some expertise is in
displays. I realize it's not the exact same technology for TVs, but to think
that Apple would not at least give it a shot, with an iTunes backend providing
content seems like a missed opportunity in another multibillion dollar market.
I figure the next "revolutionary" Apple product will be a "smart" TV.

~~~
shivanand
... And one that won't let you watch "porn" aka anything that slams apple?!
I'm sure it will be awesome like the iPad and I'll buy one (btw)

------
staunch
Is there a video of this available yet?

~~~
davidhperry
Some clips are beginning to appear on allthingsd.com.

------
shivanand
Why isn't anyone talking about the inability to install non-apple approved
apps on the iPhone, the iPad, pretty soon apple tv, and I'm sure in about a
couple of year all apple devices. Isn't this a major issue? The inability to
have access to apps that steve doesn't necessarily approve of?

As I write this on my iPad, I wonder how long it will be before I'm not
allowed to type certain words on apple "soft" keyboards?

Steve stance on the reasons for disallowing apps also concerns me. It would ok
if he does this to create a monopoly (which is really what the store is, for
all intents and purposes), but what scares me is that he claims he does it for
"people"

... And Walt and Sara, just like last time, didn't think that was an important
enough issue to press upon. Kudos for asking about the gizmodo issue though

~~~
stanleydrew
Uhh, a lot of people are talking about that stuff. All the time.

~~~
shivanand
True, but nobody who has access to steve wants to call him out on that?

------
andreyf
_Just because we're competing with someone doesn't mean we have to be rude._

Great point in light of Google's last IO announcements along the lines of _we
discovered we can use the internet to sync Android_.

~~~
sp332
To be clear, that statement was making fun of the current state of Android.
The next sentence was an apology for not having the functionality earlier.

