For Steve Jobs, it's not business. It's personal. This week, during a rare public chat at a conference in Southern California, the Apple boss let slip that a sweeping change to the iPhone SDK terms of service was made in a very personal fit of anger — a fit that lingers, more than four months on. The change was made in reaction …
Steve didn't mince his words this time
Watch this - it's entertaining (whether you are a "hater" or an Apple fanboi)
Based on this video, I think it's fair to say he's pissed off at Gizmodo too!1!
Wow, this is ultra-ultra-rare. Also, he's very thin
This is very interesting.
Is it just me or does Steve look ill, like he's dying. Or is that just age? (I'm not intending to be unkind, just curious)
Re: Is it just me or does Steve look ill, like he's dying.
Me thinks it's time to sell Apple stock.
I think they have succession plans..
It would be extremely silly if they didn't. However, the problem with succession is when to trigger it, because the markets will always draw a conclusion one way or the other, and Apple is at present a one-man controlled company, like MS was.
It depends on how well Jobs chooses his successor, and how he brings he or she into the limelight - not easy. If he finds someone with the same drive and principles it would be a good idea to pick up the stock while it dips. However, the wrong choice will turn the company slowly into an also-ran, a bit like MS has lost the last vestiges of drive. You don't just need someone with drive and (in the case of MS) an ability to BS, you also need someone with genuine vision - innovation isn't easy if the boss doesn't see it..
Give the guy a break?
First he had the Mac OS stolen out from under him with Microsoft's Windows, and now he has umpteen parasites copying everything Apple creates in the mobile space literally as soon as it becomes known.
So yeah, he has a right to be pissed.
He has the right to be annoyed, yes. But his knee jerk reactions help no one but Apple and cause untold problems for the vast majority of "law abiding" developers.
He should stop acting like a 5 year old before he alienates everybody.
>and now he has umpteen parasites copying everything Apple creates in the mobile space literally as soon as it becomes known.
Yep, its just not fair. How can you compete in a market where people steal your ideas years before you have them. Nokia, HTC et al and their pesky time-machines.....b6s.
Nokia filed a lawsuit against Apple and Apple responded.
"Apple described, in its filing on Friday, negotiations that date from 2007 -- including Nokia's royalty offers, which at one point rose three-fold"
Nokia requested the current going rate and Apple refused, so Nokia upped the price as the iPhoney was already on the market. The response that Apple provided stated that the Nokia patents are essential in manufacturing mobile phone. So Apple has admitted that they have stolen from Nokia. So who copied who first? Apple copied Nokia first and foremost.
Apple Stole MAC OS
LOL - Microsoft didn't steal MAC OS.
Both of Apple and Microsoft STOLE it from Xerox.
A right to be pissed, but needs to grow up if hes going to keep running the company. Its unproffesional and is causing problems now he is in a world beyond selling shiny boxes (that admitidly worked well) to a small market. He is going to distroy apple if he carries on like this.
@AC - re: annoyed
Yeah, because it's all about the developers. Put the user first, as Apple does and things will make more sense.
That old chestnut
Not worthy of comment really, except get your 'facts' straight regarding Apple and Xerox.
Not recognizing it's true value and believing it to be useless.......Xerox basically gave it away.
Apple didn't steal anything from Xerox: they just head-hunted the Xerox team's key people and let them do whatever they wanted, so long as the result was very, very similar to the Xerox Star OS.
Not stealing, just drawing heavy inspiration from your former employer...
To be fair, Xerox basically asked for it by neither licencing the Star system, nor exploiting it themselves, or even releasing the source code for everyone to use. They repeated the same blunder with Smalltalk, which is why we're lumbered with Java and garbage like C++ today.
So, although I absolutely do believe that Lisa/Mac was a rip-off, it was one that had to happen because Xerox were clearly clueless about what to do with their inventions. If Apple could find a way to deliver those ideas to the user again (as they used to with products like HyperCard) then I'd buy one in an instant.
But Jobs' control-freakery has totally overcome him and the idea of empowering developers is now anathema to him. And if he's scared of empowering developers, what chance do mere users have? Basically, they can buy the car with the welded bonnet and like it or they can jump off a cliff as far as Jobs is concerned.
Apple licenced Xerox Parcs software.
It was Microsoft that stole it.
"The original Macintosh system software was partially based on the Lisa OS, previously released by Apple for the Lisa computer in 1983 and, as part of an agreement allowing Xerox to buy shares in Apple at a favorable rate, it also used concepts from the Xerox PARC Xerox Alto, which Steve Jobs and several other Macintosh team members had previewed."
It's not as simple as that. Apple did give Xerox shares to have a tour and take "inspiration" from what they saw. They got no code, only ideas. Ideas that they later hired ex-Xerox staff to develop. Xerox clearly had no idea what they were doing or what they had invented in either the WIMP interface or Smalltalk programming system. They never formally licensed any specific technology, at least not until it was far too late to get into the market they had facilitated.
In a similar manner, MS were allowed access to the early Macs, including source code, from which they got a lot of ideas for Windows. But, as with Mac Vs Star/Alto, there was no expectation on the part of the demonstrating side that this should result in a clone of any sort.
Neither Xerox or Apple has any real grounds for complaint, IMO. Users, on the other hand probably do.
I think you missed the punchline there Lance 3, and incase you didnt, maybe you should consider some form of exotic stress relief.
The whole thing about Nokia / HTC stealing st. steves ideas "before he has them" combine with the "time machine" remark might lead one to believe that the entire statement made by AC - 02:59 was made in jest, poking fun at the situation, its a little known behavioral characteristic we like to call humor..
...or - a simpler explanation - both AC and Lance 3's comments were awaiting moderation at the same time. So no sense of humour failure, just a conclusion being jumped to by you.
Is that all he did?
I'm surprised that Apple didn't revoke Furry's development license. I would have if I were Steve. But I'm not.
Yiff in hell.
Sent from my iPhone.
"First he had the Mac OS stolen out from under him with Microsoft's Windows"
Don't trot that old chesnut out again. Apple assisted Microsoft (unintenionally) by waving the big stick at DR's GEM, hey presto MS's serious competitor is nobbled by Apple. No sympathy.
Let Us Not Forget ...
... Microsoft gave Apple $millions to stay in business. Not exactly a purely goodwill gesture, but MS did keep Apple alive for whatever reason.
If you have a competitor you get an easier ride from the monopolies people ;-)
Oh, and it meant being able to sell Office for the platform, just for a few more copies
"Apple has banned all device data collection — whether permission is asked or not"
Why would any software need to send information about the device it's on, where it is located etc? The software can detect that itself if it needs to, surely? The only other reason I can think of is simply *spamtastic*
what about anti-theft apps ?
There are a number of anti-theft apps out there that combine device and location information to make stolen devices tracable, does this ban affect those ?
Where's the OS??
Why isn't the OS complaining when "rogue" software is trying to access this information?
Uses for device data
Each generation of the hardware has introduced new features. Lets say you want to do something in your software that will only work in the latest generation or two (or may be much less useful on older devices). It would be useful to know how many of your users will actually be able to take advantage of the feature.
Now snooping on the users location seems much less justifiable. What legitimate reason would you have to collect data at a resolution that would allow you to identify users as working in a particular building?
... from an analytics point of view is probably only initally zero'd down to say a post/zip code area so that the company collecting the data can place the user in an ABC group. In this instance though they probably saw some device data that was extremely interesting and decided to narrow it down even further.
this is business and if you think that protecting intellectual property is acting like 5 yo, then i think you should express your frustration in your own blog. maybe someone will give a damn.
I know that some in here don't put forward constructive ideas. the majority of ElReg commentators would down vote anything coming from apple or Steve jobs for that matter without giving it a proper thought and some aren't even hiding their childish reasoning.
You were proved wrong more than once about what apple can do. so if you want to sound like a "know it all" then be consistent and less bias.
the difference between apple and those bashing it is quite simple. one is moving one and the other is barking.
i chose to be on the side of those who work in producing innovative products as opposed to pointless whiners.
"... protecting intellectual property is acting like 5 yo, ..."
It's one thing to act to protect intellectual property, another to try to protect it like a 5-year old...
This is part of a trend. At this point, sane software companies should consider whether it is in their interests to develop for a platform whose terms change at the whims of its CEO. Man-years of work can go down the toilet just because Jobs does not like it.... It's the only platform with this kind of risk.
Kam @ Apple
Which AC were you pointing your insightful, yet equally barking, remarks at?
Its always funny when people make accusations of bias. You are quite correct in that people will down vote a postive comment about apple in a heart beat. Ironically, they will also downvote a negative one just as much (and I know this from experience).
Given that the two reactions appear to be fairly balanced I dont think there is a majority pro- or anti-apple stance here. On the other hand, if you make an ill informed, ranting diatribe type comment you will get downvotes with or without a reference to apple.
However, I await your "constructive ideas."
"i chose to be on the side of those who work in producing innovative products as opposed to pointless whiners."
So that means you'd be against a multi-national hardware manufacturer stifling software innovation on their device by creating chaos for (what essentially are) their business partners.
If App developers don't know what is, and what is not allowed on the device from one day to the next how can they possibly make any investment decisions? Small, innovative companies can be effectively destroyed because Apple have not sat down and properly thought through the consequences of their actions.
That's all that people want...for Apple to behave like a responsible, mature corporation, that treats its business partners with the same respect that Apple expects from them.
You gotta be kidding. Your god just said it was NOT business but was personal. Can't you guys even read?
Or you can go develop for increasing versions of Android handsets, all with seriously fewer numbers than the iPhone.
It's not great that someone's development effort might go unmarketed and unsold, but the reasons are that Apple puts the user first, not the developer. If you want to work with a company that puts developers first, go back to the 90s and work with Microsoft products.
Erm... isn't Android outselling the iPhone?
At least it was the last time I checked.
I think you might need to re-think who has the bigger platform.
Please stop for the love of your god stop
Don't care, unfrendly to developers, end
And as a consumer a company that puts *me* first above everything else, that's the company who will get my hard earned money.
ME - the consumer. I'm the important one, not you, or anyone else.
Me me me? Wrong!
I think you'll find that the most important people in any business (Apple included) are its shareholders.
If I had Apple stock, I'd be bloody furious with all their wonky business decisions!
I'm pissed off about this, too. How dare a company -- any company -- demand to embed something that collects data about what I am doing, without telling me, as a consumer, first? That is totally no go.
I, the consumer, have a right to privacy (guaranteed to me by my home country's constitution). No company, anywhere, has the right to collect my data without my express, written consent. Data meaning anything detailing what I do online, offline or wherever else. Flurry are completely ignoring my rights. Toss them into the bottomless pit, sue them unto the seventh generation, destroy those ****holes. I want my privacy, and I shall fight to keep it.
Eternal vigilance may be the price for freedom, but the price for what Flurry and their likes (there are many!) are trying to do should be long, long personal suffering... and maybe, if they repent, a merciful death.
re: AC @ 2:59 GMT - Actually...
ACTUALLY --- you probably gave them your consent when you clicked "agree" on that license agreement... Well, you DID read it first, didn't you? No? Shame on you.
Yeah, down with Google. Oh, you're talking about another company that takes your privacy.
Are you new here?
"Yeah, down with Google. Oh, you're talking about another company that takes your privacy."
No, you don't get it. The rule, here, is that, if it's Google, randomly collecting stray bits of unencrypted data as they drive by, then they are an evil, advert-driven, monster. If it's some Chicken-shit developer in San Francisco who makes snoop software, for a device that most of the readers have an obsession about not-owning, then he's a hero, and a champion of truth.
After all, if people weren't obessed with leaking rumours about possible devices - to people who are obsessed with expresing why they won't own one of those devices - websites like the register would have less to report about, and, thus, less space to attach advertising to. (And people whose business is based around selling advertising are Good People, right?)
I'm sure if you go and look for it, you'll find there's a Wikipedia entry on "How To Read the Register and Maintain All Your Delusions at the Same Time".
"How to Read the Register and Maintain All Your Delusions at the Same Time"
Creating it now, honest!
I hate that too
Me thinks Señor Jobs doesn't like the Hermano Mayor style competition. Could it be Jobs is, in secret, Winston Smith? I'm feeling faint, mas tequila camarera!
So iPads allowed apps to clandestinely collect and send information about their location and whatever, and now they can't because Apple couldn't keep their internal development private. Can someone explain how I am supposed to trust Apple devices with my private infomation when their entire security effort seems to consist only as a policy document?
Sent from my Android
"how I am supposed to trust Apple devices with my private infomation when their entire security effort seems to consist only as a policy document?"
That's a good question. As an Android user, you will know that when you install any 3rd party software on your device, you are given clear notice of the permissions that the app may request of the OS before the install is allowed, in the form of a small checklist: Grabbing your location, posting info back to the internet, that kind of thing.
There are perfectly legitimate reasons why an app might need to communicate where you are to a remote server, but users need to be informed of and give their content to such functionality in a clear, familiar and unambiguous manner.
If Steve has his way, your IPad will be phoning home to Cupertino as a matter of course when you are out and about, with the intent of serving targeted ads up to you. And judging by their recent patent applications they want to be the only ones in the world allowed to do this.
But that's alright isn't it, because it's Apple doing the snooping and - coincidentally - coining in the revenue.
"...how I am supposed to trust Apple devices with my private infomation ..."
Because the god said to and when he speaks and commands ... you obey. You don't think, you don't collect $200 you just do as you're told. Simple.
Where do you think these ads will be served? On the homescreen? Get real. Do you have any proof that the iPad is going to be giving iPad owners the "backdoor google"?
"if someone gets their iphone/ipad stolen we would prefer they buy a new one rather than be able to find the old one"
so long as
it doesn't happen more than4 times. Thats the life time limit......