Steve Jobs Said He'd 'Go Thermonuclear War' On Google Over iPhone 'Theft'

[taming]

I was wrong--the book is agency priced.

[vaughnmr]

"Isaacson writes that Jobs had attempted to persuade Google not to develop a mobile operating system to rival Apple's own by promising the company it would have access to the iPhone and prime real estate on the device."

Android as a company was started in 2003, bought by Google in 2005. The iphone was released in 2007, as was AOSP. Android was already developed by the time iphone came out.

[PKFFW]

All I know for sure is that Jobs was a good marketer, both of Apple in general and of himself in particular.

I don't have any idea which technologies he dreamed up himself or outright stole(I'm sure it was probably a bit of both) so I have no idea if he was the innovation god so many seem to think.

[Wickedkitten]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

"Isaacson writes that Jobs had attempted to persuade Google not to develop a mobile operating system to rival Apple's own by promising the company it would have access to the iPhone and prime real estate on the device."

Android as a company was started in 2003, bought by Google in 2005. The iphone was released in 2007, as was AOSP. Android was already developed by the time iphone came out.

The first iPhone that was released was actually the third prototype and the first one that that Steve was happy to release. They had been working on it for years before it was released.

[vaughnmr]

Originally Posted by Wickedkitten

The first iPhone that was released was actually the third prototype and the first one that that Steve was happy to release. They had been working on it for years before it was released.

And Windows Mobile 6 was released months before the iphone, with touchcreens and icons galore.

So the latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine has excerpts from the book; a book I have not intention of buying. I had no idea what an ass Jobs had been when his girlfriend became pregnant back back in the late 1970s. Denying he was the father and forcing his girlfriend and their daughter to live on welfare while he became a millionaire. Only acknowledging that the child was his when a DNA paternity test established it.

[emilikins]

I'm not going to buy it, though I peeked at the public library holdings: 15 copies, hold list of 92 right now. Of course, they don't have the books in yet. I put my name down, because I'm curious. I'm sure the books will be in rough shape by the time I get one, or maybe I'll luck out and get a reordered copy. My curiosity will probably have waned by that point, but I'm not even remotely curious enough to buy it now.

[dbeman]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

Yeah, and he was just lucky to become a billionaire. (Oh, no, there's no luck involved - he "stole" the ideas.)

Come on, Jobs was no god (and not even a Thomas Edison), but to say that he added nothing to modern society is disingenuous at best. But no amount of evidence is going to convince you otherwise. Anti-Apple zealots are just as bad as Apple fanboys.

QFT. Whether or you call him an innovator, an inventor, a god, a carnival hawker or a thief; the fact of the matter is that someone who is "not special" doesn't create a multimillion dollar company (Apple), turn another company into a multimillion dollar company (Pixar), and then return to the original company, which was in dire financial straits, and turn it into a billion dollar company.

If anyone else on these boards has been able to accomplish even one of these things, then you may cast the first stone.

That being said, I have no interest in reading his biography. I learned all I need to know about Steve Jobs from the segment 60 Minutes aired about him the weekend after he died.

[HistoryWes]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

Yeah, and he was just lucky to become a billionaire. (Oh, no, there's no luck involved - he "stole" the ideas.)

Come on, Jobs was no god (and not even a Thomas Edison), but to say that he added nothing to modern society is disingenuous at best. But no amount of evidence is going to convince you otherwise. Anti-Apple zealots are just as bad as Apple fanboys.

Jobs was very much a Thomas Edison. Edison was accused (and probably was guilty) of stealing many other people's ideas. That was not to say he didn't have ideas of his own, he did, but his contribution was making all those ideas what they are today. Jobs was very much like that... Doesn't mean I would want to hang out with him... either of them.

[howyoudoin]

Edison rolling in his grave.

Jobs ran a company that employed people to design and invent stuff.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HistoryWes

Jobs was very much a Thomas Edison. Edison was accused (and probably was guilty) of stealing many other people's ideas. That was not to say he didn't have ideas of his own, he did, but his contribution was making all those ideas what they are today. Jobs was very much like that... Doesn't mean I would want to hang out with him... either of them.

I agree. Edison "borrowed" many an invention and made them his own. A true genius and contemporary of Edison was Nikola Tesla. He should be the one we read about in school. Edison even screwed him over. How sad.

[RichL]

So what did I learn from these facts?

Tesla, the greatest inventor of the century (my opinion of course) was mediocre at choosing underlings and a lousy business man.

Edison was good at picking underlings, a good inventor, better innovator and superb business man.

Jobs was good at choosing the underlings he needed (but just okay at keeping them), a superb innovator, an unknown as an inventor, a superb business man and a showman that could give P.T. Barnum a run the his money.

Gates was every bit as good as Jobs but where Jobs filled all those shoes at once Gates filled them sequentially.

What I learned is this. If a person is moderately good at creating or innovating and outstanding as a business man and showman (Edison was no slouch as a showman either) they can become household names of great respect and wealthy to boot. If, on the other hand someone is a great inventor and innovator but a lousy business man they will become a pauper with a household name of derision.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by RichL

What I learned is this. If a person is moderately good at creating or innovating and outstanding as a business man and showman (Edison was no slouch as a showman either) they can become household names of great respect and wealthy to boot. If, on the other hand someone is a great inventor and innovator but a lousy business man they will become a pauper with a household name of derision.

That pretty much sums it up.

[HappyMartin]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

That pretty much sums it up.

Agreed.

What we still have to explain, or account for, is the current prevalent, mostly western idea, that originality and innovation are characteristics deserving of the highest accolades and respect.

It is a historical anomaly and one we tend accept unquestioningly.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by RichL

Edison was good at picking underlings, a good inventor, better innovator and superb business man.

Actually Edison missed out on quite a few big movements because he insisted on sticking with his original inventions. AC vs DC. Records vs cylinders. Film projection vs peephole booths. He refused to develop film projection because he was convinced that his Kinetoscope would be more profitable. He could have been a much more successful businessman that he was, but he wouldn't accept other people's ideas.
The Edison museum is really worth a visit, if you are in the right part of the US. (Not sure I'd bother with the house though.)

He was also, it seems, a very unpleasant man, and a ruthless businessman.
Some examples:

Another of Edison's assistants was Nikola Tesla. Tesla claimed that Edison promised him $50,000 if he succeeded in making improvements to his DC generation plants. Several months later, when Tesla had finished the work and asked to be paid, he said that Edison replied, "When you become a full-fledged American you will appreciate an American joke." Tesla immediately resigned.

In 1902, agents of Thomas Edison bribed a theater owner in London for a copy of A Trip to the Moon by Georges Méliès. Edison then made hundreds of copies and showed them in New York City. Méliès received no compensation. He was counting on taking the film to the US and recapture its huge cost by showing it throughout the country when he realized it had already been shown there by Edison. This effectively bankrupted Méliès.