[Perceval]

Well, you know that Apple will be unwilling to make a "cheaper" phone. They are in the 'premium computing device' business—i.e. they'll never sell something perceived as cheap, they'll never cut features in order to get the price down.

I think what we're seeing here is partly a tragic flaw in Steve Jobs's persona. He obviously has an issue when he feels that his innovation has been ripped off. What we may be seeing here is a replay of the 'look and feel' type dispute between Jobs and Gates. Jobs felt that his innovation was simply ripped off by a cheaper, tasteless knockoff (and in a sense he was right). In the end, there was nothing Jobs could do about it. Now he feels like the same thing happened. Just as Jobs had shown Gates his ideas in confidence and was then ripped off, Jobs likely feels the same way about Schmidt--he took Schmidt into his confidence, allowed him to be privy to Jobs's vision, and now Google is producing graceless copies of what he's worked so hard on.

Obviously Google's side of the story may be true—they bought Android and developed it for a long time, well before the iPhone was revealed. Apple doesn't necessarily have a right to prevent other companies from copying touch interfaces and other aspects of the iPhone that were unique when it was first introduced. But if I were Steve Jobs I might feel like the same thing that happened to me in the early '90s is in danger of happening to me again in the late '00s / early '10s. It's one of those fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me situations, and I'm sure it's frustrating for Jobs at a time when he's rightly perceived as being at the top of his game.

[matasar]

While it's nice to build a cool narrative around Steve Jobs and a long time "tragic flaw," this doesn't hold up. Steve Jobs was not at Apple when they sued Microsoft. It was filed in 1988[1], and Jobs was forced out of Apple in 1985 [2].

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso.... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs

[Perceval]

You're right that the lawsuit itself was not Jobs's personal doing, but the acrimonious personal dispute between Jobs and Gates certainly was about 'look and feel' and the perception that Gates knocked off Jobs's innovation. Gates was brought in by Jobs and shown his project in order to get Microsoft on board for Mac software. Then Gates came out with what Jobs thought was an imitation of the Mac UI, an imitation he believed that Gates could only have done by copying what Jobs had shown him.

Jobs's perceptions in that case or in the current case with Schmidt may not be accurate or just, but that doesn't mean they don't play an important psychological role in Apple's current strategy toward HTC, Google, and Microsoft.

[nkassis]

while Pirates of Silicon valley was a cool movie, it wasn't exactly a good recount of the whole affair. In fact, Microsoft really mostly took their idea from the same exact place Apple did, Xerox. They even hired many Xerox employees to work on Windows.

Jobs seems incapable of believing that two companies can come up with similar products at the same time. The iPhone did not include any technology not already available elsewhere. It was the package as a whole that made it innovative.

[megaduck]

While I agree with your sentiments, it should be pointed out that Steve Jobs had nothing to do with the 'look and feel' lawsuit against Microsoft.

'Apple Computer, Inc. vs. Microsoft Corporation' was filed in 1988, and finally resolved in 1994. Steve Jobs was at NeXT the whole time.