You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.
Biographer Says Jobs' Anger Toward Android Was Real

Biographer Says Jobs' Anger Toward Android Was Real

April 5, 2012
Former Apple CEO's Steve Jobs' anger toward Google's Android mobile operating system was real and legitimate, according to biographer Walter Isaacson. Earlier this week, current Google CEO Larry Page was quoted in a Bloomberg Businessweek article saying that Jobs' anger documented in Isaacson's book was "just for show" and that competing against Android served Apple's interest. But MacRumors points to MacWorld UK coverage of a lecture that the "Steve Jobs" author gave in the United Kingdom that detailed the situation. And in the talk, Isaacson said that Jobs' anger was not an act. Jobs was apparently motivated to make sure that the iPhone and iPad system was not copied by Google just as Microsoft copied the Mac OS GUI and became the dominant player in the PC arena:
Isaacson emphasized that Steve Jobs believed in a closed system, where you control the hardware to go with the software. When Bill Gates took Apple's graphical user interface that was bad enough, but what really infuriated Jobs was that Gates licensed the interface out "promiscuously", to Dell and Compaq, and IBM, and so on. As a result, "Microsoft ended up being dominant."
As is well known, Jobs was then forced out of Apple only to return and help the company rise to dominance once again:
"Jobs does the integrated system again, iPod, iPad, and it works, but what happens? Google rips it off. It's almost copied verbatim by Android. And then they license it around promiscuously. And then Android starts surpassing Apple in market share, and this totally infuriated him. As he said, it wasn't a matter of money. He said: 'You can't pay me off, I'm here to destroy you.'"
But while Jobs' dislike of Android was real, Isaacson said that current Apple CEO Tim Cook will take a different tact with Google and Android by settling the lawsuit. Are you all that surprised that Isaacson discounted Page's "version" of events? I can't say I am. (Image via

Related articles