Is Android a stolen product?

Before he died, Steve Jobs stated that he believed Android to be a ‘stolen’ product. This has caused a massive controversy across the internet and a lot of folks are seriously upset by the statement. Is Android a stolen product, or was this just a statement by Mr. Jobs surrounding a personal agenda?

When the Steve Jobs biography was published, a loud outcry from the collective readers went up. “Android is a stolen product!” they shout. But where did this idea come from? Why would someone, let alone a major tech mogul like Jobs, say that Android was stolen? The Android operating system (OS) was first developed by a company called Android, Inc. in Pala Alto, California back in 2003. At the time, Android, Inc. was comprised of a number of high profile developers, like Andy Rubin and Nick Sears. Both of them had a ton of experience in various tech fields as well as in the cellular phone industry. At that time, Android, Inc. announced publicly that it was working on software for mobile phones. That’s all they stated. There was a heavy air of secrecy around the company and what they were working on, and speculations ran rampant.

Rumors and speculations also had a huge injection of fresh interest when, also in 2003, Rubin reported a lack of funds and was bailed out by technology giant Steve Perlman. Perlman, it is said, gave a ten thousand dollar infusion of capital to Rubin and even turned down an official stake in the company. Looking back, one has to wonder if he didn’t want his name tied into the knot of folks who would be at the forefront of the coming conflict.

In 2005, Google acquired Android, Inc. and the communications rumor mill shifted into full grind mode. Google made no announcement at the time of what their intentions were for the company they had just acquired and so speculation that they would enter the mobile phone market were thrown about like tennis balls at Wimbledon. The project went forward apparently as planned and while the occasional bit of news was released, little in the way of press was actually given to the public at the time. Some assumed that Google was interested in integrating its search features in mobile phones and others believed that Google was attempting to develop an entire handset, not just software. In 2007 Google was reported as having filed several patents in the area of mobile phone technology. Then, on November 5th of 2007, the Open Handset Alliance was announced and released their first product: Android, a platform for cellular and other mobile phones that was announced as “a revolution in mobile technology” by many in the industry. The first iPhone was unveiled earlier that same year in January by Mr. Jobs and Apple. In his biography, years later, Mr. Jobs states’, “I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank [at the time ... this has grown massively since], to right this wrong. I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”

Looking back at the early development of the argument, it reads like the opening chapters of a mid-90s spy novel. Technology company versus technology company. Parallel development of similar products and release of said products within less than a year of each other. This is a story we have seen before. Atari computers versus Commodore computers, for example. Playstation versus Xbox, IBM versus Apple, and further back. Ford versus Chevrolet, Shwinn versus Huffy, Joe’s Catapult’s versus Tony’s Trebuchets. OK, I made up the last one, but the point is clear. The world of technology has nearly always thrived on centralized conflicts between two major competitors in any given field of study and development. Why do I bring this up? The point I want to make is that while it may seem like a big deal when you’re buried under the details of the conflict, in the grand scheme of things it’s not really that surprising or important. Not to the average cellular phone user, at any rate. Despite the conflict between Apple and Google over the similarities between iOS and Android OS, the fact remains that the average user of either platform doesn’t experience much in the way of fallout or blowback from it. We are all still able to use our selected devices, and the functionality for each has improved and expanded over time. One might even argue that the long history of great minds thinking alike, especially in the area of intellectual properties like technology and tech theory, means that it’s more likely that both products stemmed from some unknown and un-credited source in history before Mr. Jobs or Mr. Rubin ever talked to anyone about it. In the end result, both products have become the major players in the cellular world, including the area of hardware to support and drive the operating systems. The average person on the street has, in fact, benefitted from the conflict, as each company strives to provide new and better innovations than the other.

So, my answer to the question “Is Android a stolen product,” is as follows:

Who cares? I know I paid three hundred dollars for my phone, so it’s not stolen from my point of view.

This may seem silly, to some, but my point is that the conflict itself really only affects the bigwigs involved at the top in any really negative way. As users of the technologies, we have reaped benefits from the ongoing lack of resolution between the two companies and their respective products. Sure, there may be something you can do on an iPhone that you can’t do on an Android or vice versa, but the products have become affordable, reliable, and indispensible to most of us, and that means, from my view, that Apple and Google are both winners in this conflict. So the question of theft is moot. Besides which, there simply isn’t enough evidence presented on either side for any real decision to be made, which is why they have both waffled back and forth in various courts over various details of the conflict, but the real heart of the matter has never been resolved. It seems likely that it won’t be resolved any time soon, and if history is an example, we will reap the rewards of it for years to come. Let them go at each other, as long as we get to keep our smartphones, it’s not a problem.

Until next time, my friends!


 
 
 
B.C. Tietjens

B.C. Tietjens

Born and raised overseas in a military family, B.C. Tietjens visited and lived in many places all over the world. He has worked on a number of publications and enjoys writing for different audiences, on such diverse subjects as relationships, technology, prestidigitation, self-improvement, entertaining children, and biographical stories. He currently writes primarily for Freewaregenius and enjoys the heck out of it.
November 22, 2011
B.C. Tietjens
22
flattr this!
  • Dario

    That is quite hypocritical of Steve Jobs to point fingers at others claiming they stole something. If you have seen the documentary “Triumph of the Nerds”, you see how Steve Jobs visited Xerox and was so impressed by the interactive interface they were working on and how people can interact with these “windows” with a “mouse” (something new as well), that he asked for a demo copy from Xerox. They were stupid enough to give him a demo copy and Steve had his team working overtime to re-create what he has seen in the demo and add some of his own touches. They even copied the mouse.

  • http://icesnakesemporium.blogspot.com Morely Dotes

    Steve Jobs was an opportunist and a snake-oil salesman as well as a hypocrite. Apple’s OS X is based on BSD; it’s much more clearly a “stolen” product than Android.

  • The Dude Abides

    I see Apple just stole the concept of over the air updates from Android.

  • Dawn

    He sounds (sounded) like several Artists I know. (Not artists, Artists. The attitude is different.) If anyone does something even remotely similar to anything they’ve created, even when it’s coincidental or a minor thing or the obvious way to do something or identical because you both were inspired by the same older source, they tend to become angry because “someone stole my IDEAS!” and they feel like they’re being ripped off. (One went so far as to claim that their friend was copying them for using a common, popular mythological creature, because the Artist used that creature in their own work a lot.) An Artist’s Ideas, as you know, are sacred, magical, fragile things, and must never be infringed upon….

    Yeah, there’s a reason why you can’t copyright ideas and concepts.

  • B.C. Tietjens

    Thanks for reading and for posting your comments, everyone. This article was a lot of fun to research and write, and it wouldn’t have been possible without the readership of Freewaregenius.

  • http://carbonize.co.uk Carbonize

    Surely the real question is if he really felt like that why did he never say so publicly and instead only let it be told in his autobiography? The conclusion I come to is he knew he was talking out of his backside and would not only be ripped to shreds by the press and Android users but quite possibly be taken to court for defamation. This is why he only let it be known after his death so there could be no comeback.

    As others have stated Apple are the real thieves. Just how much open source code have they used over the years without honouring the licensing or even giving back to the projects?

  • Anonymous

    Dear Samner – Thanks for your wise article .

    It raises questions to ponder about: right and wrong, moral, historical disputes, relevancy, and so forth.

    As you know I learn for my MPP deg. and believe this article maybe should be taught and may be of benefit in Public Policy schools

    Have a great day
    Elioz

    • Samer

      @ Elioz: this article was actually written by my colleague Benjamin, so my wisdom had nothing to do with it ;)

      But I am glad you like it.

  • http://www.minicani.net Christian Guthermann

    Funny that I read this today, I was thinking about this claim by Steve Jobs while on my way to work this morning.

    I think Steve Jobs was pissed because he wanted his “premium” product (the iOS) to be available only to people with a lot of money, and when Android came out having the same (if not more) quality than his product, and being available to people from all wallet sizes, then that meant the people who had his product would no longer be “elite”.

    Of course, I say all this cause I’ve always been pissed about how much mac products cost, when you can have the same quality product for half the price if you take a different route.

    Mac is good, I know. But why does it have to be so expensive? Why should I be forced to buy a Mac product for every peripheral i want to add to my already owned mac product?

    I don’t know if everything I’m saying is correct, but that’s how I feel :P thanks for bearing with me on this comment :)

  • http://carbonize.co.uk Carbonize

    Here’s an advert that I think is slightly relevant.

  • http://www.minicani.net Christian Guthermann

    @Carbonize Lol! I could never get a Samsung… I’m creative. That’s so true :P

  • lei

    @Carbonize lol! Such a clever advert! Brilliant!

    • Samer

      @ Carbonize: check this out as well

  • http://www.kvisoft.com/ Flipbook Maker

    I also think not only Android but many other systems are copying Apple after I tried their products. Apple should be the NO.1.

  • http://www.kvisoft.com/ Flipbook Creator

    I also think not only Android but many other systems are copying Apple after I tried their products. Apple should be the NO.1.

  • http://carbonize.co.uk Carbonize

    @Flipbook Creator – I do hope you are being sarcastic. Apple has a history of copying other peoples work. Apple claims Microsoft stole the idea of the windowed operating system from them and yet Apple stole it from Xerox. Android was being developed years before Apple even thought about making a mobile phone it just took Google buying it to get it out there.

  • Yoopy

    After hearing this megalomaniacal rant, it has to be said Steve Jobs was always a hypocrite. It’s amazing how the fanboys have convenient memories on how often Jobs spoke out of his rear, as Carbonize put it

    He is on record both saying publicly and running an ad saying something to the effect “PowerPC is faster than Intel. Period.” And yet not so long after he switched the entire line of Macs to Intel chips, and then waxed lyrical about them. Then so did his fanbase and the sycophantic mac media, flipping on a dime, after years of sneering at Intel.

    It turned my stomach at the time and exposed, once and for all, how blind and just plain vapid a personality cult can make people.

    And let’s not forget his other gem. He is on record dismissing tablets as a rich man’s toy, a useless niche product. This despite its small yet growing use in hospitals at the time. Then… along came the iPad, a less functional version of the tablet pc. The fashionistas gobbled it up.

    Just because he’s gone I think it would be hypocritical to remain silent when he’s claimed as a visionary. He wasn’t. He was an autocratic, profoundly narcissistic nincompoop who stole other people’s ideas (he did it to his own employees repeatedly by some accounts) and repackaged them to flog as a hot new idea to the brainwashed. It isn’t that Apple products are better, it’s that they’re better packaged and presented than competitors.

    But he was a stunningly good salesman. Can’t argue that. He sold snake oil to millions of shallow status-and possessions-obsessed fashionistas who actually think owning a piece of slick-looking plastic crap, assembled by slaves in China, can make you cooler. This despite a recent survey that showed that about half of iPad buyers leave it gathering dust, unused, on a shelf. No doubt this survey was a Microsoft or Samsung or LG plot to the fanboys.

    It’s amazing what mediocre iCrap you can peddle using the emperor’s new clothes effect. After all, you’re not cool if you don’t like iCrap!

  • Dominik

    There’s no doubt Steve Jobs contributed to the industry. His relentless drive helped push the envelope in certain technologies so that Apple was the first to make them mainstream (though in most cases it was just a matter of time before the industry was going to be there too).

    But in a way he was a technological Hitler. He had a certain vision of beauty, a way things should be done, his own version of technological utopia. However, everything that was different, needed to be destroyed and wiped from the face of the earth.

    Hearing him say what he did about Android really struck me as hypocritical and narcissistic and I hope it was just him having a bad day or the sickness speaking because otherwise it’s harder to respect him as a person.
    In the whole iPhone vs the world discussion, I really don’t think Apple did anything technologically revolutionary. What they did do, is take existing technologies and make them work together like no one else could with the processing power available at the time. That’s the advantage apple has with its strict and closed system, they can squeeze the last ounce of performance out of the hardware and make it work exactly how they want it to. But it was just a matter of time before the industry would get there especially when computing resources became smaller and lighter. Ironically their closed system factored in to them almost going under in the 90s and even more ironically it was Microsoft that helped bail them out.

    Overall Google so far seems like the least anti-competitive player from the super-big tech companies and I just really hope it stays that way.

  • http://carbonize.co.uk Carbonize

    @Domonik – Not sure what you mean by, “His relentless drive helped push the envelope in certain technologies so that Apple was the first to make them mainstream (though in most cases it was just a matter of time before the industry was going to be there too)”

    LG made a touchscreen phone before Apple did and there were plenty of touchscreen pocket computers out before the iPad. A British guy patented the idea of a portable music device storing music in memory way back in the 80′s. As far as I can see there is little innovation or originality from Apple other than knowing how to market their products.

  • Dominik

    @Carbonize Yeah, that’s why I didn’t use the word innovation and said that IMO Apple didn’t do anything that was technologically revolutionary. They used existing technologies and made them work together more seamless than most competitors. They were able to do that because they have full control over the hardware, so naturally they can squeeze more out of it. The downside of that of course is a lot less flexibility and no variety (both categories in which android rules). And though I do think Steve’s drive helped the industry and mainstream adopt certain technologies a bit faster then they otherwise might have, I don’t think he did that much of anything we wouldn’t have seen anyways.

  • Doc

    “Shwinn versus Huffy,” Schwinn.

  • Shavit

    Ladies and gentlemen, the iPhone will be dead and past tense faster than anyone dreams sof and unfortunately Mr Hypocrit will not be here to feel the big fall. I always hated him and his products. And another word – Americans don’t realize that Apple is mainly “America” while 99% of the world is Windows….and so it will be for a long long time. Thanks to Microsoft every child can use a PC . According to Jobs only the fancy well paid could afford n Apple Laptop and Apple never really promoted literacy in comparison to Gates & co.