Support NeoGAF

[sangreal]

what exactly does he felt android stole from apple the UI ...i mean its just some icons and very common navigation conventions...back, menu, home... he ever elaborate ?

I don't know, but the book says the "grand theft" quote came after the introduction of the Nexus One which was long after Android was on the market

 

[Cipherr]

Irrelevant that they were "almost" purely research, because the Xerox Star (Alto) which inspired Apple was a commercialized.



No they didn't. They paid for the visit. Xerox sued Apple for appropriating the technology.

Wow you are right, I actually didnt know about that suit. It bears some striking similarity to the things we see now as well. 'Look and feel' stuff. Lol.

A Xerox spokesman said the company planned to appeal. ''The ruling does not mean Apple hasn't taken substantial portions of the Star and claimed them as their own,'' a statement issued by Xerox said. ''The court merely held, we believe erroneously, that Xerox does not have standing to present facts in support of our contention.''

The Xerox lawsuit is one of many copyright suits that are splitting the computer software industry. A major issue is the right to the screen displays known as graphical user interfaces - a dashboard of sorts by which a user controls the computer.

A key appeal of the Macintosh is its ease of use, thanks in part to a display that allows users to perform tasks by pointing at symbols on the screen and to divide the screen into separate ''windows,'' each containing a different document or program. Now, virtually all computer companies are adopting similar screen displays.

No one disputes that many of the ideas behind such interfaces were born at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center in the 1970's, although the Star was not a marketing success. But the question of how similar one interface has to be to another to constitute copyright infringement remains unanswered.

Xerox had sought to have Apple's Macintosh screen copyrights declared invalid, contending that they were fraudulently obtained because Apple had failed to tell the Copyright Office about Xerox's prior work.

Xerox also accused Apple of unfair competition, saying that Apple's claim to Macintosh screen technology had made it difficult for Xerox to license its technology to other companies. ''Apple is using its copyrights to hold the computer industry hostage by its licensing and litigation practices,'' Xerox, which is based in Stamford, Conn., said in a motion filed in the case.

 

[scorcho]

what exactly does he felt android stole from apple the UI ...i mean its just some icons and very common navigation conventions...back, menu, home... he ever elaborate ?

probably the entire concept of a large capacitive touch interface. that Android has different UI metaphors didn't matter.

 

[kehs]

I don't know, but the book says the "grand theft" quote came after the introduction of the Nexus One which was long after Android was on the market

If that's the case I'm guessing it's pinch to zoom/multi touch related. I remember reading stuff around that time of Google saying "fuck it" and going full hog and adding it to the browser after Cyanogen did it.

 

[rezuth]

No they didn't. They paid for the visit. Xerox sued Apple for appropriating the ideas.

Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if Apple v. Microsoft established that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple. The Xerox case was dismissed, for a variety of legal reasons.

Come on son.

 

[PotatoeMasher]

Apple's entire UI/OS is essentially stolen from Zerox

This group of people would take issue with that:

If you're interested in actually learning the history involved, here's a great primer: http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.p...nterface&sortOrder=Sort by Date&detail=medium

 

[elitehebrew]

http://www.winrumors.com/steve-jobs...ht-bill-gates-ripped-off-other-peoples-ideas/

 

[scorcho]

that Jobs guy was classy.

 

[rezuth]

http://www.winrumors.com/steve-jobs...ht-bill-gates-ripped-off-other-peoples-ideas/

I think "shamelessly" is the keyword here that they leave out of the title.

 

[Cipherr]

Come on son.

Key in your quote is "appeared to be". But when Xerox themselves explained why they sued, they match up with what the guy you quoted claimed, so cmon son yourself.

Xerox sued Apple in December, seeking more than $150 million in damages. It asserted that the screen display of Apple's Macintosh computer unlawfully used copyrighted technology that Xerox had developed and incorporated in a computer called the Star, which was introduced in 1981, three years before the Macintosh.

So, yeah, he is right. They did indeed sue for use of tech Apple saw and in turn used.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

probably the entire concept of a large capacitive touch interface. that Android has different UI metaphors didn't matter.

mmmmm thats kinda stretching it...touch screen is nothing new neither is the way you navigate thru iOS, reminds me of old jrpg inventory screens. must be how they packaged them all together.

 

[Cipherr]

mmmmm thats kinda stretching it...touch screen is nothing new neither is the way you navigate thru iOS, reminds me of old jrpg inventory screens. must be how they packaged them all together.

Which is likely why we haven't seen any suits from Apple against Google for Android. With as much venom as he had in those statements, if he had a clear path to kill them off in the courts, I have no doubt he would have went for it.

 

[kehs]

Which is likely why we haven't seen any suits from Apple against Google for Android. With as much venom as he had in those statements, if he had a clear path to kill them off in the courts, I have no doubt he would have went for it.

There's no suits against Google because Android is given away for free.

What's 40% royalties of Zero?

 

[rezuth]

Key in your quote is "appeared to be". But when Xerox themselves explained why they sued, they match up with what the guy you quoted claimed, so cmon son yourself.



So, yeah, he is right. They did indeed sue for use of tech Apple saw and in turn used.

Okay, that is what they claim. The judge asked for evidence and witnesses. Can you link me up to them for the case?

I would also like to add this:

Xerox was allowed to buy pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for engineer visits and an understanding that Apple would create a GUI product.

You people make it sound like Apple fooled those guys, which is clearly not the case from all that I can gather.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Guys, someone would have eventually made an incredible video game system full of classic games to get us out of the '80s video game market crash, right? So Nintendo, whatever.

Actually, yes. As somebody who was a teen during the crash, it was clear that the markety was still there for the people willing to take the risks. Nintendo took the risks (congrats, props to them) but with it they came up with restrictive licensing to help fend off another glut (the cause of the crash). It wasn't the software that Nintendo made that brought games back to retail, it was persistence, and a model which had the benefit of giving them enormous control and a share of 3rd party profits.

Games were in no way threatened with exctinction.

 

[andycapps]

Which is likely why we haven't seen any suits from Apple against Google for Android. With as much venom as he had in those statements, if he had a clear path to kill them off in the courts, I have no doubt he would have went for it.

This makes more sense.. It sounds like sour grapes to me and wanting to bury a competitor, which is all completely understandable.. Especially given his personality.

 

[Cipherr]

Okay, that is what they claim. The judge asked for evidence and witnesses. Can you link me up to them for the case?

I would also like to add this:



You people make it sound like Apple fooled those guys, which is clearly not the case.

Its not just what they claimed, its what they officially stated as the basis of their suit. An suit they lost, but that was the reason for the suit, so Sangreal was right.

As for the source, theres plenty. Here is a newspaper: http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...9whAAAAIBAJ&sjid=v2MEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1956,5110309 Theres plenty more, just google it. And the NYTimes coverage: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-suit-against-apple-barred.html

 

[rezuth]

Its not just what they claimed, its what the officially stated as the basis of their suit. An suit they lost, but that was the reason for the suit, so Sangreal was right.

As for the source, theres plenty. Here is a newspaper: http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...9whAAAAIBAJ&sjid=v2MEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1956,5110309 Theres plenty more, just google it. And the NYTimes coverage: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-suit-against-apple-barred.html

I'm talking about what the judge of the case asked for. Not some sources that they sued Apple.

"He gave Xerox 30 days to come up with the evidence and a list of witnesses."

 

[felipeko]

There's no suits against Google because Android is given away for free.

What's 40% royalties of Zero?

Yet, Oracle is suing.

And Apple doesn't even want money anyway (as Steve Jobs said), they want injuctions.
Suing Google would probably be a better way to secure injuctions.

 

[Cipherr]

I'm talking about what the judge of the case asked for. Not some sources that they sued Apple.

"He gave Xerox 30 days to come up with the evidence and a list of witnesses."

Google it?

Yet, Oracle is suing.

And Apple doesn't even want money anyway (as Steve Jobs said), they want injuctions.
Suing Google would probably be a better way to secure injuctions.

Yep:

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.

Somehow I get the feeling money or stock wouldn't have sated him here.

 

[KtSlime]

There's no suits against Google because Android is given away for free.

What's 40% royalties of Zero?

Yeah, Google is free to copy many things because they earn their money not from the sale of those things, but from the sale of advertisement space. Google is not stupid, and they know they can get away with many things because their source of income is essentially protected.

How Apple will go after Android is with Siri. Google can copy Siri, but unless they add a couple second audio advertisement after X many requests or only have their voice control/AI direct to a google page they are cutting off a major portion of their only revenue. In fact, if Siri is popular, I can see Google losing money on their agreement with Apple to be the default search engine within a few years.

When Google says that they don't think people should be talking to their phone, what they really are saying is if people are talking to their phone people aren't looking at their phone. And if people aren't looking at their phone, Google ain't making money.

 

[Divvy]

Yeah, Google is free to copy many things because they earn their money not from the sale of those things, but from the sale of advertisement space. Google is not stupid, and they know they can get away with many things because their source of income is essentially protected.

How Apple will go after Android is with Siri. Google can copy Siri, but unless they add a couple second audio advertisement after X many requests or only have their voice control/AI direct to a google page they are cutting off a major portion of their only revenue. In fact, if Siri is popular, I can see Google losing money on their agreement with Apple to be the default search engine within a few years.

When Google says that they don't think people should be talking to their phone, what they really are saying is if people are talking to their phone people aren't looking at their phone. And if people aren't looking at their phone, Google ain't making money.

You do realize of course that Android has basically had most of Siri's features for many iterations now? Now to mention several apps on the market that do nearly the same thing?

 

[andycapps]

Yeah, Google is free to copy many things because they earn their money not from the sale of those things, but from the sale of advertisement space. Google is not stupid, and they know they can get away with many things because their source of income is essentially protected.

How Apple will go after Android is with Siri. Google can copy Siri, but unless they add a couple second audio advertisement after X many requests or only have their voice control/AI direct to a google page they are cutting off a major portion of their only revenue. In fact, if Siri is popular, I can see Google losing money on their agreement with Apple to be the default search engine within a few years.

When Google says that they don't think people should be talking to their phone, what they really are saying is if people are talking to their phone people aren't looking at their phone. And if people aren't looking at their phone, Google ain't making money.

Won't be much of a leg to stand on there if Apple does sue them. Siri has been around for some time before Apple acquired it. Voice search has been around on Android since 1.6. Programs that do what Siri does on Android are already there, though not baked into the OS like Siri is. The live voice to text that is in ICS now is a pretty big advancement of what they have.

 

[lunarworks]

Xerox had a $30,000 research computer that they honestly didn't know what to do with. Management considered it a threat to their core paper-based document business, so they never actively pursued the computer business. If the nerds at PARC hadn't been given a licence to do whatever they please, it probably would have never been developed to begin with.

If Xerox management hadn't had their heads stuck up their asses, they'd be one of the leading computer companies today.

 

[sangreal]

Okay, that is what they claim. The judge asked for evidence and witnesses. Can you link me up to them for the case?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3538913398421433687&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

You people make it sound like Apple fooled those guys, which is clearly not the case from all that I can gather.

I don't think I said that. Xerox obviously did not win their lawsuit, however it is a fact that Apple did not license the ideas from Xerox (as was stated in the post I was replying to)

 

[StopMakingSense]

Key in your quote is "appeared to be". But when Xerox themselves explained why they sued, they match up with what the guy you quoted claimed, so cmon son yourself.

So, yeah, he is right. They did indeed sue for use of tech Apple saw and in turn used.

This article is confusing. It was a copyright lawsuit? That's kinda odd. (though kinda makes sense in that the caselaw in those days involving software copyright was pretty primative)

So what, did Apple license patents and then Xerox try to sue for copyright infringement after the fact when the Macintosh was a big splash?

V. confusing.

 

[planar1280]

MODS should change the OP to Steve Jobs Biography |OT| as we have 2 new excerpts from Jobs in the book


Steve Jobs on Bill Gates: 'Basically Unimaginative'

Steve Jobs had a lot of admirers in the technology industry, as the outpouring of condolences on the night of his death showed. But the feeling wasn't always mutual. In particular, his thoughts about Bill Gates, the longtime head man at Apple arch-rival Microsoft, aren't very favorable, according to an excerpt of Walter Isaacson's upcoming biography.
Reported by The Huffington Post, which got an advance copy of the book, Jobs says he found Gates "fundamentally odd" and "weirdly flawed" as a person. Although Jobs recognized Gates as a shrewd businessman, he never thought of the Microsoft chief as an inventor.
"He really never knew much about technology," Jobs is quoted as saying. But he had an amazing instinct for what works. Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he's more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology. He just shamelessly ripped off other people's ideas."
The comments may strike many as ironic, as Jobs and Apple are often criticized for taking the fundamental ideas for what became the Macintosh computer from the Xerox PARC system. A common criticism of Apple's iconic products like the iPod and iPhone is that the company didn't invent such technologies as portable music players and multitouch screens—it just refined and repackaged them.

For his part, Gates has had nothing but posthumous praise for the former Apple CEO, at least publicly. On the night of his death, Gates said, "The world rarely sees someone who made such a profound impact." Gates also attended the private memorial Apple held on its Cupertino campus on Wednesday.
Although sometimes acrimonious, Jobs' relationship with Gates had a number of thaws over the years. Jobs famously declared a truce in the Microsoft-Apple cold war shortly after returning to the company in 1997, brokering a deal where Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple in a five-year arrangement that saw Internet Explorer become the default browser on Apple computers for a time. Gates appeared live on a projector screen while Jobs delivered his keynote, to which some in the crowd responded with boos.
Years later, Jobs and Gates shared a stage in person at the AllThingsD conference in 2007 (see video below). Gates almost didn't appear as Jobs had earlier compared using iTunes on a Windows PC to "giving a glass of ice water to somebody in hell." Once put together however, the complimented each other: Jobs said Gates "was really focused on software before anyone else had a clue." On the other side, Gates said Jobs' accomplishments were "phenomenal" and praised the his efforts on the Macintosh.
Isacsson's book also reveals that Jobs invited Gates to his Palo Alto, California, home just months before his death, according the The New York Times. In May, Gates visited Jobs for a few hours, though the two talked more about their families than tech. Jobs observed Gates was "happier than I've ever seen him."
Jobs died Oct. 5, 2011, after a long battle with cancer. Isaacson is due to appear on this Sunday's 60 Minutes in advance of his book going on sale Monday.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2395106,00.asp#fbid=dhZtoLU2ay8


On Obama: You are a one-term president (For clarity of the nitpickers: "You are 'headed' for a one-term presidency")

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66537.html

Steve Jobs told President Barack Obama he was “headed for a one-term presidency,” citing the U.S.’s competitive disadvantages with China and a “crippled” education system, a new biography of the former Apple CEO indicates.

“You’re headed for a one-term presidency,” Jobs told Obama in a meeting last year where he asserted that the White House needed to be more friendly toward business, according to the Huffington Post, which obtained a copy of Walter Isaacson’s forthcoming book, “Steve Jobs.”

Jobs also told Obama that “regulations and unnecessary costs” put the United States at a competitive disadvantage with China, where companies can build factories more cheaply.

The recently deceased Jobs also told Obama that the education system was “crippled by union work rules,” according to Isaacson. Jobs proposed principals be able to hire and fire teachers based on merit, and to extend the length of both the school day and academic year.

Jobs also suggested that Obama meet with several other CEOs who could talk about the needs of innovative firms, but in a characteristic huff, Jobs declared his intention to skip the event when the White House added additional names to the list.

Jobs also objected to the menu of that meeting, telling a venture capitalist that shrimp, cod and lentil salad was “far too fancy” and objecting to a chocolate truffle dessert. The White House overruled him, according to the book, citing the president’s fondness for cream pie.

According to the Huffington Post copy of Isaacson’s book, Jobs was reluctant to take a meeting with Obama without a personal invitation from the president. A five-day standoff ensued due to his stubborn insistence on this point, despite his wife’s exhortation that Obama “was really psyched to meet with you.” They eventually met at the Westin hotel at the San Francisco airport.

Jobs talked with Obama on the phone several times after that, according to Isaacson, and later offered to help with the creation of political ads for Obama’s 2012 campaign.

I found Jobs comment on Gates' philanthrophy offensive and cancelled my pre-order for the book. instead I donated, 18$ to Bill and Melinda Gates foundation

 

[KtSlime]

Won't be much of a leg to stand on there if Apple does sue them. Siri has been around for some time before Apple acquired it. Voice search has been around on Android since 1.6. Programs that do what Siri does on Android are already there, though not baked into the OS like Siri is. The live voice to text that is in ICS now is a pretty big advancement of what they have.

I don't think Apple would sue google if they ripped off Siri. A major point of Siri is to keep people from asking Google questions, if Google doesn't get the questions, Google doesn't make money. Very easy concept to grasp.

Divvy: did you read what I wrote? Who cares if google had some voice control, before, voice control is likely a very hard thing to defend as an idea. What matters is Google getting less page views, and in that regards Siri is likely to be a great success.

 

[scorcho]

what i find somewhat interesting is that Woz wasn't among the people that Jobs invited over to his home during the final months. supposedly the two haven't seen each other face to face in years, and only rarely had phone conversations.

I don't think Apple would sue google if they ripped off Siri. A major point of Siri is to keep people from asking Google questions, if Google doesn't get the questions, Google doesn't make money. Very easy concept to grasp.

again, considering how voice-enabled Android already is, there is little need to say that Google is 'ripping off' Siri. and, technically, doesn't Siri rely on Google's backend for web-related questions? i know you can ask the software to use Bing instead, but Google is still the default search provider.

iOS has had voice control for a while, too. It was different than Siri, though.

limited voice control. Android could handle dictation and creating/responding to text messages

 

[sangreal]

Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he's more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology. He just shamelessly ripped off other people's ideas."

Gold, Jerry, Gold...

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You do realize of course that Android has basically had most of Siri's features for many iterations now? Now to mention several apps on the market that do nearly the same thing?

iOS has had voice control for a while, too. It was different than Siri, though.

 

[andycapps]

I don't think Apple would sue google if they ripped off Siri. A major point of Siri is to keep people from asking Google questions, if Google doesn't get the questions, Google doesn't make money. Very easy concept to grasp.

Divvy: did you read what I wrote? Who cares if google had some voice control, before, voice control is likely a very hard thing to defend as an idea. What matters is Google getting less page views, and in that regards Siri is likely to be a great success.

That remains to be seen. We'll have to see if a majority of 4S users use it on a long term basis or if it's a novelty thing for most. Keep in mind, Siri is not on 3G, 3GS, or 4 phones. Also, Android has passed iPhone and isn't slowing down so I don't think Google is losing sleep over losing ad views from Siri's popularity.

Also, what scorcho said.

 

[Cipherr]

I don't think Apple would sue google if they ripped off Siri. A major point of Siri is to keep people from asking Google questions, if Google doesn't get the questions, Google doesn't make money. Very easy concept to grasp.

Divvy: did you read what I wrote? Who cares if google had some voice control, before, voice control is likely a very hard thing to defend as an idea. What matters is Google getting less page views, and in that regards Siri is likely to be a great success.

I think you are severely underestimating the growth of smartphones, and how many extra 'page hits' everyone having a smartphone will generate, versus the 'loss of page hits' from voice control technology friend.

Any loss hits from voice commands will be completely offset by smartphones global saturation leading to the worlds population always having a web browser in their pockets. How on earth you could think otherwise is beyond me. Web traffic as a whole will rise rise rise as smartphones saturate more and more of the world, and Siri and voice commands effect on that will be a tear drop in an ocean by comparison. Google knows this, and thats why they have even gone as far as to push their own voice command system, its not nearly as big of a threat to their bottom line as you seem to think it is.

 

[Divvy]

I don't think Apple would sue google if they ripped off Siri. A major point of Siri is to keep people from asking Google questions, if Google doesn't get the questions, Google doesn't make money. Very easy concept to grasp.

Divvy: did you read what I wrote? Who cares if google had some voice control, before, voice control is likely a very hard thing to defend as an idea. What matters is Google getting less page views, and in that regards Siri is likely to be a great success.

Sorry, what I meant was that google already has services like Siri running and they wouldn't have to do anything except market them better. I don't believe they'd lose any money as much of what voice interface accomplishes is through services that google offers like search, email, maps etc..

 

[Deleted member 17706]

On Obama: You are a one-term president

Why do people love to twist quotes to make them as sensational as possible? Seeing it a ton in this thread.

 

[water_wendi]

Gold, Jerry, Gold...

Now i wish Jobs had lived to see the news of the malaria vaccine. It probably would not have mattered though.

 

[KtSlime]

what i find somewhat interesting is that Woz wasn't among the people that Jobs invited over to his home during the final months. supposedly the two haven't seen each other face to face in years, and only rarely had phone conversations.

again, considering how voice-enabled Android already is, there is little need to say that Google is 'ripping off' Siri. and, technically, doesn't Siri rely on Google's backend for web-related questions? i know you can ask the software to use Bing instead, but Google is still the default search provider.

limited voice control. Android could handle dictation and creating/responding to text messages

If was an important word in my sentence. I don't think you can really rip off Siri - as an idea. 'talk to something as if it were a person' IMO isn't really protectable in court. Siri uses web search (Google is default) as a last resort. As Apple improves Siri, Siri is likely to fall back on Google less.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

iOS and WP7 are both equally fluid. Both operate at a smooth 60 fps and deliver very responsive controls. I also greatly respect both of them as they each followed their own vision and delivered something new. WP7 is a triumph, as far as I'm concerned, as it did NOT attempt to copy the iOS model. It's quite unique and well designed.

Android, however, has always had that homebrew Linux feel to me. It's not polished at all and even the fastest hardware delivers an inconsistent experience. Definitely not a fan. Something like Android is well suited to a PC environment, but for a mobile phone I don't much care for it.

"Not polished at all" is a huge overstatement. And your comment on repsonsiveness sounds like the experience on the earliest models, not recent ones.

I notice a pause here and there, but nothing that would mar my experience. I only really notice them when I'm looking for them.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

what i find somewhat interesting is that Woz wasn't among the people that Jobs invited over to his home during the final months. supposedly the two haven't seen each other face to face in years, and only rarely had phone conversations.

again, considering how voice-enabled Android already is, there is little need to say that Google is 'ripping off' Siri. and, technically, doesn't Siri rely on Google's backend for web-related questions? i know you can ask the software to use Bing instead, but Google is still the default search provider.

limited voice control. Android could handle dictation and creating/responding to text messages

Not if the user has a different search engine set up. All it does is turn your voice into text and throw it at a search engine.

 

[Jenga]

Bill is basically unimaginative and has never invented anything, which is why I think he's more comfortable now in philanthropy than technology. He just shamelessly ripped off other people's ideas."

keep on truckin steve

 

[planar1280]

Why do people love to twist quotes to make them as sensational as possible? Seeing it a ton in this thread.

did you read the first sentence?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

"Not polished at all" is a huge overstatement. And your comment on repsonsiveness sounds like the experience on the earliest models, not recent ones.

I notice a pause here and there, but nothing that would mar my experience. I only really notice them when I'm looking for them.

Until you get used to something better, if you're anything like this guy (and me).

did you read the first sentence?

"You are heading for a one-term presidency" and "You are a one-term president" mean the same thing to you?

It's not nitpicking, this is fundamentally twisting the meaning of the quote. There's no finality in "you are heading for a one-term presidency". It's a warning with undertones of wanting to help.

 

[whatsinaname]

probably the entire concept of a large capacitive touch interface. that Android has different UI metaphors didn't matter.

Umm, wasn't the LG Prada the first to show that concept? A whole 6 months before the first iPhone was revealed to the public?

 

[Cipherr]

"Not polished at all" is a huge overstatement. And your comment on repsonsiveness sounds like the experience on the earliest models, not recent ones.

I notice a pause here and there, but nothing that would mar my experience. I only really notice them when I'm looking for them.

"Clunky, Laggy and Unresponsive" will be used to describe Android until the end of its days. It will never go away, it was much more valid long long ago. Much less so now. But itll never go away.

"Walled garden, restrictive as hell, only good for the technically challenged" is something people will always say about iOS, never going to go away, now matter how much more freedom from the iTunes the latest OS brings, no matter how much more they open it, refine it, It will never go away.

 

[Jenga]

"Clunky, Laggy and Unresponsive" will be used to describe Android until the end of its days. It will never go away, it was much more valid long long ago. Much less so now. But itll never go away.

"Walled garden, restrictive as hell, only good for the technically challenged" is something people will always say about iOS, never going to go away, now matter how much more freedom from the iTunes the latest OS brings, no matter how much more then open it, refine it, It will never go away.

well jobs is gone so maybe RMS was right and apple will see the light

 

[nib95]

MODS should change the OP to Steve Jobs Biography |OT| as we have 2 new excerpts from Jobs in the book


Steve Jobs on Bill Gates: 'Basically Unimaginative'



http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2395106,00.asp#fbid=dhZtoLU2ay8


On Obama: You are a one-term president (For clarity of the nitpickers: "You are 'headed' for a one-term presidency")

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66537.html



I found Jobs comment on Gates' philanthrophy offensive and cancelled my pre-order for the book. instead I donated, 18$ to Bill and Melinda Gates foundation

Wow...

Anyway, say what you will but Gates' contribution to the world will be of infinite more importance to me personally for his philanthropic contributions. Though he's probably had much more of an impact to technology and business too, with PC's, Windows, Microsoft Office etc.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

wasn't that after Apple failed in litigation and Microsoft agreed to buy non-voting Apple stock and commit to bring Office to the Mac?

that's also the time when Jobs came back and declared the Apple-Microsoft war dead.

I know this is a complete side note, but I wonder how many people know that Office was written for Mac first and that Windows' primary reason for existing pre 3.0 was as a platform for porting Excel to the PC.

 

[Blackhead]

"Clunky, Laggy and Unresponsive" will be used to describe Android until the end of its days. It will never go away, it was much more valid long long ago. Much less so now. But itll never go away.

"Walled garden, restrictive as hell, only good for the technically challenged" is something people will always say about iOS, never going to go away, now matter how much more freedom from the iTunes the latest OS brings, no matter how much more they open it, refine it, It will never go away.

The iTunes usb syncing restriction is low on the list of reasons why iOS is described as a walled garden... Am where did you get the impression that Apple is making the OS more open? If anything Apple keeps trying to lock it down more!

 

[triplestation]

Google assassinated Steve Jobs with Ricin confirmed.

 

[sangreal]

wasn't that after Apple failed in litigation and Microsoft agreed to buy non-voting Apple stock and commit to bring Office to the Mac?

that's also the time when Jobs came back and declared the Apple-Microsoft war dead.

No, Microsoft licensed some gui elements from apple for Windows 1.0