PDA

View Full Version : Steve Jobs Dead: Apple Co-Founder Dies At 56



Pages : [1] 2

scumonkey
October 5th, 2011, 09:03 PM
Steve Jobs, Apple co-founder and former CEO, has died at the age of 56.
Apple has posted this statement on its website (http://www.apple.com/stevejobs/):

Apple has lost a visionary and creative genius, and the world has lost an amazing human being. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to know and work with Steve have lost a dear friend and an inspiring mentor. Steve leaves behind a company that only he could have built, and his spirit will forever be the foundation of Apple. If you would like to share your thoughts, memories, and condolences, please email rememberingsteve@apple.com
this is a developing story

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/steve-jobs-dead_n_997223.html

dtolman
October 5th, 2011, 09:16 PM
Shocking. Knew he was sick, but not that sick :(

One of the few people where adjectives like Visionary, Genius, Titan seem weak. He'll be remembered a century from now like Edison, Bell, or Tesla.

mariab
October 5th, 2011, 10:05 PM
I was hoping he wasn't that sick, but I felt otherwise. Visionary indeed. When CDs first came out I thought, this is the musical format I'll listen to forever. I thought it was perfect. No rewinding, waiting, crappy sound, & when blanks came out I was thrilled I could put my own hand-picked songs on one cd.

When the ipod came out I wanted no part of what I saw as the techno-slave revolution. Heads buried in whatever the latest gadget that came out that people eagerly waited for hours in line. So when my sister got one I was curious & was just flipping through it, & was hooked after a few questions. My head's not buried in it because I have an adapter for my car stereo & a portable am/fm combo at home. By the time I warm up to the iphone they will have come out with something even more advanced. He really was a visionary.

MidtownGuy
October 6th, 2011, 01:59 AM
Sad and sobering. If you're healthy, you are blessed. Period.

Rest in Peace, Mr. Jobs.

lesterp4
October 6th, 2011, 02:03 AM
As I use my iphone I am sad to hear this. We are of the same era (baby boomers).

Ninjahedge
October 6th, 2011, 10:01 AM
Actually he was VERY sick. There were pictures of him recently that made him look like death warmed over.

I feel bad for him, he left too soon.

BUT, and here is an important thing to remember. He was just another man. A brilliant one that made things happen.

The fact that people are putting bunches of flowers outside RETAIL STORES strikes me as a kind of social disconnect to the reality of the situation. He was not a relative, and although many will say he is instrumental to their way of living, that is only on the surface.

If society showed half as much concern over social issues as it does over a man that basically made a good phone (I know, I am simplifying for illustration) we would be in a much better world.


May he rest in peace, now let him rest.

Daquan13
October 6th, 2011, 10:51 AM
http://www.nypost.com/rw/SysConfig/WebPortal/nypost/images/nyp_logo_230x32.png (http://www.nypost.com/) Updated: Thu., Oct. 6, 2011, 9:42 AM http://www.nypost.com/images/icon_home.png


Fans, business leaders remember Apple co-founder Steve Jobs

By LONNIE NEMIROFF, CHRISTINE PARKER and TIM PERONE

Last Updated: 9:42 AM, October 6, 2011.

Posted: 1:08 AM, October 6, 2011.

He was an entrepreneur who transcended business to become a household name.

Apple co-founder Steve Jobs’ death was mourned by his fellow business leaders as well as politicians, celebrities and everyday people whose lives were fundamentally improved by his products.

Maggie Hindie, 36, who was outside the Apple Store on Fifth Avenue last night, said Jobs’ legacy -- which includes his brave battle against pancreatic cancer -- stretches beyond his products.

“Steve Jobs, no matter what, kept fighting the fight. He is an inspiration for all of us to go for our ideas,” she said.

SOME OF STEVE JOBS' GREATEST INNOVATIONS (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/some_of_steve_jobs_greatest_innovations_ak0QV0rkMK 26uCMWBlBC2I)

GEEK GOD WHO RULED THE WORLD (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/geek_god_who_ruled_the_world_ITc8OhTAcS62R0Rscks82 L)

TIMELINE OF STEVE JOBS' LIFE (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/timeline_of_steve_jobs_life_2YzmDloh1xUHOSxjcSLQON )

APPLE CO-FOUNDER STEVE JOBS LOSES CANCER BATTLE (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mourning_tech_legend_yapk5dvKLnuucsYUFaBnuN)

Josh Abella, 34, a lawyer from Manhattan, said he couldn’t imagine the world without Jobs’ imprint.

“He built the future,” Abella said. “We are living in a world he created.”

Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, whose company was often perceived as Apple’s chief rival, offered his condolences to Jobs’ family and friends.
“We’ve lost a unique tech pioneer and auteur who knew how to make amazingly great products,” Allen said.

“Steve fought a long battle against tough odds in a very brave way. He kept doing amazing things in the face of all that adversity.”

PHOTOS: STEVE JOBS (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/steve_jobs_pntFmcHbUZHGHLdekeOpEI)

VIDEOS:

STEVE JOBS' LEGACY (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/item_Qv27IC4KOK637k4RVTGlCJ)

US FANS PAY TRIBUTE TO JOBS (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/item_yUgf0DBowMNnaYhZXSjNxO)

OBAMA REMEMBERS STEVE JOBS (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/item_U5OjDufFB4ia0N2ao6ESkK)

Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp., which owns The Post, said, “We lost one of the most influential thinkers, creators and entrepreneurs of all time. Steve Jobs was simply the greatest CEO of his generation.

“While I am deeply saddened by his passing, I’m reminded of the stunning impact he had in revolutionizing the way people consume media and entertainment.

“My heart goes out to his family and to everyone who had the opportunity to work beside him in bringing his many visions to life,” Murdoch said.
Jobs’ death also touched the next generation of tech giants he helped inspire.


Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg said that Jobs’ innovations helped spur his social-networking site:

“Thanks for showing that what you build can change the world.”
“Steve Jobs will be remembered in the same vein as Einstein, Ford and John Lennon,” Become.com CEO Michael Yang Tweeted.

tim.perone@nypost.com


NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc.

nypost.com , nypostonline.com , and newyorkpost.com are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.

Copyright 2011 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy (http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/national/we_live_in_world_he_created_kbXbW1vGli0Fls7zJmmoXI #) | Terms of Use (http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/national/we_live_in_world_he_created_kbXbW1vGli0Fls7zJmmoXI #)




Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/we_live_in_world_he_created_kbXbW1vGli0Fls7zJmmoXI #ixzz1a0d5v2HR

mariab
October 6th, 2011, 02:51 PM
Wanna bet they missed the irony?



http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/zlPS3GYDUHtd2gafJh6YNw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7aD04MDt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/152/2011/04/13/lookout-placed-630x80_020423.jpg (http://wirednewyork.com/blogs/lookout/)


Westboro announces protest of Steve Jobs’ funeral–with an iPhone


http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/fOtA75O9Ur5Hqbb9QRvxvA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTQwO3E9ODU7dz00MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/152/2010/12/09/blogger-goodwin-38_205852.jpeg

By Liz Goodwin (http://wirednewyork.com/blogs/author/liz-goodwin/) | The Lookout (http://wirednewyork.com/blogs/lookout/) – 3 hrs ago


Westboro Baptist Church--best known for its reviled anti-gay protests of American soldiers' funerals (http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134194491/high-court-rules-for-military-funeral-protesters)--announced last night on Twitter that its members will be picketing the funeral of Apple founder Steve Jobs.

"He had a huge platform; gave God no glory & taught sin," Westboro leader Margie Phelps tweeted--from her iPhone.
Let's hope that Phelps has managed to resist her own iPhone's magical powers to "teach sin."
http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/CuVqt5Y6nbx49KG.CkoFZw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/thelookout/Screen-shot-2011-10-06-at-11.14.16-AM.png

eddhead
October 6th, 2011, 02:54 PM
eff these people. Of coruse they do not get the irony, they are way too thick

Really, this stuff is getting old.

Ninjahedge
October 6th, 2011, 03:15 PM
You wonder what you can throw at them that would not give them the ability to sue.....

Eggs can be really nasty when left on paint, don't ya know.....

lofter1
October 6th, 2011, 03:39 PM
Get a mass of folks, encircle them at a safe & legal distance and drown them in noise. Engulf them in music & song. Make it so their rancid voices are unheard.

MidtownGuy
October 6th, 2011, 04:03 PM
The fact that people are putting bunches of flowers outside RETAIL STORES strikes me as a kind of social disconnect to the reality of the situation. He was not a relative, and although many will say he is instrumental to their way of living, that is only on the surface.

Agreed.
I Just walked down Fifth Ave. and there was a mass of people laying flowers in front of the Apple retail store, and taking pictures of other people laying those flowers. I like my mac too, people, but isn't a simple R.I.P. enough for someone who basically just sold you things? I respected the guy's ideas and agree that he was a brilliant merchandiser, but Holy CRAP!!! Spend the money on a donation to a hospital or something if you feel that overwhelmed.

Ninjahedge
October 6th, 2011, 04:46 PM
How about a donation to Cancer research.

You know, the thing that KILLED him?

eddhead
October 6th, 2011, 05:24 PM
Agreed.
I Just walked down Fifth Ave. and there was a mass of people laying flowers in front of the Apple retail store, and taking pictures of other people laying those flowers. I like my mac too, people, but isn't a simple R.I.P. enough for someone who basically just sold you things? I respected the guy's ideas and agree that he was a brilliant merchandiser, but Holy CRAP!!! Spend the money on a donation to a hospital or something if you feel that overwhelmed.

Completely agree.

Daquan13
October 7th, 2011, 12:56 AM
Jobs authorized biography so his kids can know himhttp://por-img.cimcontent.net/api/assets/bin-201110/f069-NEWS-US-APPLE-JOBS.jpg File photo of Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs at the end of the iPhone OS4 special event at Appl...

By Alistair Barr and Poornima Gupta, Reuters

Thu Oct 6, 6:14 PM EDT

Steve Jobs, in pain and too weak to climb stairs a few weeks before his death, wanted his children to understand why he wasn't always there for them, according to the author of his highly anticipated biography.

"I wanted my kids to know me," Jobs was quoted as saying by Pulitzer Prize nominee Walter Isaacson, when he asked the Apple Inc co-founder why he authorized a tell-all biography after living a private, almost ascetic life.

"I wasn't always there for them, and I wanted them to know why and to understand what I did," Jobs told Isaacson in their final interview at Jobs' home in Palo Alto, California.

Isaacson said he visited Jobs for the last time a few weeks ago and found him curled up in some pain in a downstairs bedroom. Jobs had moved there because he was too weak to go up and down stairs, "but his mind was still sharp and his humor vibrant," Isaacson wrote in an essay on Time.com that will be published in the magazine's October 17 edition.

Jobs died on Wednesday at the age of 56 after a long battle with a rare form of pancreatic cancer.

Outpourings of sympathy swept across the globe as state leaders, business rivals and fans paid respect to the man who touched the daily lives of countless millions through the Macintosh computer, iPod, iPhone and iPad.

Jobs had struggled with health issues but said very little about his battle with cancer since an operation in 2004. When he stepped down in August, handing the CEO reins to long-time operations chief Tim Cook, Jobs said simply that he could no longer fulfill his duties as chief executive.

Apple has been similarly guarded about the circumstances of his death, saying only that their chairman was surrounded by his wife Laurene and immediate family. Jobs had four children from two relationships.

Funeral arrangements have not been disclosed and it is uncertain when the company will hold a planned "celebration" of Jobs' life. Officials in Sacramento said there will be no state or public funeral.

SOMBER MOOD

From Tokyo and Paris to San Francisco and New York, mourners created impromptu memorials outside Apple stores, from flowers and candles to a dozen green and red apples on Manhattan's Fifth Avenue.

At corporate headquarters in the heart of Silicon Valley on Thursday, employees -- current and former -- gathered with their families under an overcast sky to pay their respects at a makeshift memorial on a driveway leading up to the entrance.

"He was a very private person, but he's everywhere in the products he created," said Glenn Harada, a
22-year-old former Apple employee. "He didn't work alone but none of this could have happened without him."

Employees said they went on with business, but with an undercurrent of sadness. Grief counselors on the payroll had reached out to Apple workers, a spokesman said.

"Deep down there's sadness," said Cory Moll, a part-time Apple employee who had tried to organize a union. "We have lost someone who touched us all."

With his passion for minimalist design and a genius for marketing, Jobs laid the groundwork for Apple to continue to flourish after his death, most analysts and investors say.

But Apple still faces challenges in the absence of the man who was its chief product designer, marketing guru and salesman nonpareil. Phones running Google's Android software are gaining share in the smartphone market, and there are questions about what Apple's next big product will be.

The launch of the iPhone 4S -- at the kind of gala event that became Jobs' trademark -- was a letdown to many fans earlier this week, underscoring how Jobs' showmanship and uncanny instincts will be missed.

But Wall Street analysts said Cook's new team-based approach and operational savvy will keep the company on track -- at least for now.
Apple shares ended down just 0.23 percent at $377.37, though that underperformed the broader U.S. market.

"It didn't come as a shock," said Terry Donoghue, an Apple technical writer, whose department boss called an hour-long meeting to reminisce about Jobs. "It's still hard for a lot of people."

JOBS' ESTATE: CONFIDENTIAL?
Jobs, in his trademark uniform of black mock-turtleneck and blue jeans, was deemed the heart and soul of a company that rivals Exxon Mobil as the most valuable in America.

With an estimated net worth of $7 billion -- including a 7 percent stake in Walt Disney Co -- it was not known how Jobs' estate would be handled.
The entrepreneur had sometimes been criticized for not wielding his enormous influence and wealth for philanthropy like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. His death revived speculation that some of his estate might be donated to cancer research groups or hospitals.

California law requires a will to be filed in probate court within 30 days of death.

Jobs and his wife placed at least three properties into trusts in 2009, which legal experts say is a sign he may have been preparing his assets to remain confidential upon his death.

Placing stock and real estate into trusts can both minimize estate taxes upon a person's death, and keep them from being publicly disclosed in probate court, said John O'Grady, a trusts and estates attorney in San Francisco.

Jobs was given up for adoption soon after his birth in San Francisco to an American mother, Joanne Carole Schieble, and a Syrian-born father, Abdulfattah "John" Jandali.

A college dropout, Jobs started Apple Computer with friend Steve Wozniak in his parents' garage in 1976.
"I do feel like I did when John Lennon was killed. Also JFK and Martin Luther King. Like Steve Jobs, they gave us hope," Wozniak said on his Facebook page.

Jobs changed the technology world in the late 1970s, when the Apple II became the first personal computer to gain a wide following. He did it again in 1984 with the Macintosh, which built on breakthrough technologies developed at Xerox Parc and elsewhere to create the personal computing experience as we know it today.

The rebel streak that was central to his persona got him tossed out of Apple in 1985, but he returned in 1997 and after a few years began the roll-out of a troika of products -- the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad -- that again upended the established order in major industries.

(Additional reporting by Michael Miller, Jennifer Saba, Sinead Carew and Liana Baker in New York; Scott Malone in Columbus, Ohio; Sarah McBride in Cupertino; Poornima Gupta and Dan Levine in San Francisco; Edwin Chan in Los Angeles; Matt Cowan in London; and Amy Pyett in Sydney; editing by John Wallace, Tiffany Wu and Matthew Lewis)

(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2011. Check for restrictions at: http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp

MidtownGuy
October 7th, 2011, 02:05 AM
not wielding his enormous influence and wealth for philanthropy like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.

I don't like that.

lofter1
October 7th, 2011, 10:39 AM
STEVE JOBS, 1955-2011: A TRIBUTE FROM NORMAN FOSTER (http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/24800)

Architect's Newspaper blog (http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/24800)
October 6, 2011

The world learned last night of the untimely death of Apple mastermind Steve Jobs, who succumbed to a rare cancer he had been fighting for some time. Jobs’ architect, Norman Foster, was slow to acknowledge the commission of Apple’s new Cupertino, CA headquarters (http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/21934), but he was appropriately quick to offer his condolences. Below, read Foster’s tribute to the innovator who helped push the boundaries of both technology and industrial design.

With my colleagues I would like to pay tribute to Steve Jobs. Like so many millions our lives have been profoundly and positively influenced by the innovations pioneered by Steve and Apple, names which are inseparable.

We were greatly privileged to know Steve as a person, as a friend and in every way so much more than a client. Steve was an inspiration and a role model. He encouraged us to develop new ways of looking at design to reflect his unique ability to weave backwards and forwards between brand strategy and the minutiae of the tiniest of internal fittings. For him no detail was small in its significance and he would be simultaneously questioning the headlines of our project together whilst he delved into its fine print.

He was the ultimate perfectionist and demanded of himself as he demanded of others. We are better as individuals and certainly wiser as architects through the experience of the last two years and more of working for him. His participation was so intense and creative that our memory will be that of working with one of the truly great designers and mentors.

Norman Foster
Architect
Chairman + Founder of Foster + Partners

Daquan13
October 7th, 2011, 10:51 AM
I've never heard of a church picketing someone's funeral before.

MidtownGuy
October 7th, 2011, 12:27 PM
The do it to gay folks all the time.

scumonkey
October 7th, 2011, 02:57 PM
...and to soldiers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

Walked by the apple store in the MPD ,and they have nearly covered the windows in little yellow post it's
with short messages written by upset passersby.

Staten Island Love
October 7th, 2011, 04:29 PM
This Staten Island artist protested in front of their church:

http://photos.silive.com/advance/2011/04/scott_lobaido_unveils_protest.html

http://scottlobaido.com/phelps-portrait-auction

Ninjahedge
October 7th, 2011, 04:53 PM
We are getting OT.

This is not about the WBC....

Daquan13
October 7th, 2011, 09:26 PM
Thanx, Ninja! I agree!

In MY book, if a preson dies, then sadly, so be it.

Nothing else can be done except to bid the person fairwell and pay your respects to him or her having gone off into the heavens. In most cases, I DO respect the dead. I'd never denounce or picket attending a funeral under normal circumstances, even if it was the friend or relative of a friend.

Daquan13
October 7th, 2011, 11:23 PM
Report: Jobs funeral Friday, ceremony private

Fri Oct 7, 4:52 PM EDT

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the funeral for Apple co-founder Steve Jobs is being held Friday.

The newspaper cited an unnamed person familiar with the matter. The person described the ceremony as a small private gathering. The person would not say where or when Friday the funeral is taking place.

Apple would say only that no public funeral services are planned. Apple has invited the public to send memories, thoughts and condolences to rememberingsteve(at)apple.com

Jobs died Wednesday at 56. Apple Inc. announced no cause of death, but Jobs had been diagnosed with a rare pancreatic cancer seven years ago and had a liver transplant in 2009.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

nick-taylor
October 10th, 2011, 11:41 AM
Shocking. Knew he was sick, but not that sick

One of the few people where adjectives like Visionary, Genius, Titan seem weak. He'll be remembered a century from now like Edison, Bell, or Tesla.To compare Jobs to true innovators such as Edison, Bell or Tesla, surely must be a joke?

The reasons for the commercial success of Apple are the renovation and refinement of several established products, driven by design, interface and brand. Yet the responsibility for these elements originates not from Jobs, but the likes of Schiller, Ive, Forstall and Mansfield. Yet I would still struggle to compare any of these individuals to the likes of Tesla and other drivers of humanity. Steve Jobs was a shareholder and CEO of a corporate giant that produced highly desired consumer products with high margins.

What makes the situation more farcical is that the guy wasn't particularly nice. As already mentioned Jobs didn't believe in charity (he cancelled all donations when he returned to Apple), and it was only last month under the new CEO that Apple began a scheme to match employee charity donations.

Jobs even lied in court (claiming he was 'infertile') to avoid making contributions to the upbringing of his own daughter. You then have his erratic and juvenile people management skills and how he treated friends like Steve Wozniak.

Ultimately I think it’s a damning verdict on society and the dominance of consumerism if someone like Jobs can be held aloft by many. It’s interesting, because Professor Ralph Steinman who was also a fellow victim of pancreatic cancer, and passed away shortly before Jobs only received mention in the media because he died less than a week before he was due to receive his Nobel prize. Yet Professor Steinman’s work and discoveries within the field of the human immune system will have unparalleled benefits for untold number of people for decades, if not centuries to come.

eddhead
October 10th, 2011, 01:40 PM
I recently posted this on a different thread here, but to reiterate, while it is true Jobs did not invent the PC, it is also true that Henry Ford did not invent the automobile either. That does not mean he was not an innovator. Ford's contribution was the actualization of his vision; he made it possible for everyday working class Americans to a car much in the same way that Jobs made it possible for everyday working class people to own a PC.

Jobs did not invent the personal computer, but his was the first commercially viable unit with a graphic interface. He envisoned a time when the personal computer would be a common household appliance used to facilitate common household tasks, and virtually created an industry geared toward that end. PC's existed before Jobs but they were for the use of hobbyists, and enthusiasts, not everyday lay people.

Technology is not an end to itself; it is about products and proliferation. Sure, the Xerox Perc preceded Apple II. But How many Xerox Perc's were actually sold? Jobs vision was his genius

ZippyTheChimp
October 10th, 2011, 01:51 PM
Ford doesn't belong in that group either. He was an industrialist.

Ford and Jobs belong in the same group.

ZippyTheChimp
October 10th, 2011, 02:03 PM
Yet the responsibility for these elements originates not from Jobs, but the likes of Schiller, Ive, Forstall and Mansfield..And Douglas Engelbart. Way ahead of his time.

eddhead
October 10th, 2011, 02:08 PM
I agree. But they were both men of great vision, and innovators in their own right.

ZippyTheChimp
October 10th, 2011, 02:16 PM
^
That's true, but neither were first-order inventors.

Teno
October 10th, 2011, 02:23 PM
The entrepreneur had sometimes been criticized for not wielding his enormous influence and wealth for philanthropy like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. His death revived speculation that some of his estate might be donated to cancer research groups or hospitals.

“As a founder of (charity) (Product)RED, I’d like to point out that Apple’s contribution to our fight against AIDS in Africa has been invaluable. Through the sale of (RED) products, Apple has been (RED)’s largest contributor to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria — giving tens of millions of dollars that have transformed the lives of more than two million Africans through H.I.V. testing, treatment and counseling. This is serious and significant. And Apple’s involvement has encouraged other companies to step up,” Bono wrote.

Irish Central (http://www.irishcentral.com/news/U2s-Bono-defends-Apples-Steve-Jobs-lack-of-philanthropy-129402108.html)

Teno
October 10th, 2011, 02:54 PM
To compare Jobs to true innovators such as Edison, Bell or Tesla, surely must be a joke?

The reasons for the commercial success of Apple are the renovation and refinement of several established products, driven by design, interface and brand. Yet the responsibility for these elements originates not from Jobs, but the likes of Schiller, Ive, Forstall and Mansfield. Yet I would still struggle to compare any of these individuals to the likes of Tesla and other drivers of humanity. Steve Jobs was a shareholder and CEO of a corporate giant that produced highly desired consumer products with high margins.

Edison, Bell, nor Tesla were the first people to think of their ideas. There were other people working on the same technologies at the same time. All of these men were standing on the shoulders and on the ideas of the accumulated knowledge before them.

You are very naive if you think that Edison, Bell, and Tesla were literally the only people working on what they invented. And that there was literally no one else working with them.

Edison and Bell were also businessmen and industrialists. Edison built the largest energy company in the world at the time. Bell created the largest telecommunications company in the world at the time.

Steve Jobs was not an engineer or software designer. He was a man who had the vision to harness these disciplines and put all of the pieces together in a way that created powerful tools that were accessible to average every day people.




What makes the situation more farcical is that the guy wasn't particularly nice. As already mentioned Jobs didn't believe in charity (he cancelled all donations when he returned to Apple), and it was only last month under the new CEO that Apple began a scheme to match employee charity donations.

What does being a nice person have to do with being an innovative genius?

Jobs was a very private man, he didn't want to be a public philanthropist. So his own philanthropic activity really is unknown.

Fabrizio
October 10th, 2011, 02:57 PM
If anyone thinks Bell was the first to think of his idea.... then say "hello" to Antonio Meucci:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/17/humanities.internationaleducationnews

MidtownGuy
October 10th, 2011, 04:47 PM
Ciao Antonio! We think Italians are the niftiest!


As already mentioned Jobs didn't believe in charity (he cancelled all donations when he returned to Apple), and it was only last month under the new CEO that Apple began a scheme to match employee charity donations.

Jobs even lied in court (claiming he was 'infertile') to avoid making contributions to the upbringing of his own daughter. You then have his erratic and juvenile people management skills and how he treated friends like Steve Wozniak.

I didn't know these tidbits. I think it's good to be honest about people when they pass on, instead of trying to compose some kind of hagiography.

Teno
October 10th, 2011, 04:53 PM
People and life are complicated. Jobs had his troubles and shortcomings like every other human being who walks this planet.


I didn't know these tidbits. I think it's good to be honest about people when they pass on, instead of trying to compose some kind of hagiography.

MidtownGuy
October 10th, 2011, 04:55 PM
Exactly! That's what we're saying.

eddhead
October 10th, 2011, 05:27 PM
That's true, but neither were first-order inventors.

Exactly, which is why I equate Jobs with Ford and not with inventors like Edison.



Steve Jobs was not an engineer or software designer. He was a man who had the vision to harness these disciplines and put all of the pieces together in a way that created powerful tools that were accessible to average every day people.


Exactly right.

Teno
October 10th, 2011, 05:36 PM
I disagree with that distinction. One can come up with an idea.

If that person cannot manifest the idea and get it out into the world for people to use it. What good is the idea?



Exactly, which is why I equate Jobs with Ford and not with inventors like Edison.

eddhead
October 10th, 2011, 05:45 PM
I disagree with that distinction. One can come up with an idea.

If that person cannot manifest the idea and get it out into the world for people to use it. What good is the idea?

If you read my prior posts, you'll find that I agree with that statement and for that matter everything else you wrote. In fact a lot of what you wrote directly reflects post 26. Technology is about products and proliferation. The technology is not a ends to itself but rather only useful to the extent that people actually use it.

Again, that was Jobs' genius. He envisioned a society where the PC would be like a common household appliance used to help everyday people to solve everyday problems. And he created products that to fit that demand. He basically 'productized' the technology.

ZippyTheChimp
October 10th, 2011, 06:20 PM
People that have an idea, and then create first-order technology that spawns entire industries, and completely change society are at a different plane than people like Jobs.

He didn't invent the mouse. He didn't develop software. The components for his devices were developed elsewhere.

Technology was driving society in the direction to where we are now, Jobs or not. Before the personal computer, there were already educational and business computer networks. I worked with them as early as 1970. The lack of processing power, the need to be hooked up to a mainframe, prevented them from becoming personal. The same thing with handheld devices. They've been around for decades, but were called car-phones, because they were too big to carry around. Advances in battery design, processors, transmission networks, and display screens are what put them in our pockets.

nick-taylor
October 10th, 2011, 06:46 PM
Edison, Bell, nor Tesla were the first people to think of their ideas. There were other people working on the same technologies at the same time. All of these men were standing on the shoulders and on the ideas of the accumulated knowledge before them.

You are very naive if you think that Edison, Bell, and Tesla were literally the only people working on what they invented. And that there was literally no one else working with them.

Edison and Bell were also businessmen and industrialists. Edison built the largest energy company in the world at the time. Bell created the largest telecommunications company in the world at the time.

Steve Jobs was not an engineer or software designer. He was a man who had the vision to harness these disciplines and put all of the pieces together in a way that created powerful tools that were accessible to average every day people.

What does being a nice person have to do with being an innovative genius?

Jobs was a very private man, he didn't want to be a public philanthropist. So his own philanthropic activity really is unknown.History is littered by claims to inventions by others; some being credible others less so. Yet what has Steve Jobs innovated? His claim to fame should be reflected by his role as a CEO, and having a team that extracted exceptional returns for shareholders; there is nothing innovative in doing that.

As mentioned previously, the true powerhouses behind the emergence of Apple as one of the world's most successful corporate entities is principally down to individuals such as Schiller, Ive, Forstall and Mansfield. Indeed, many employees of Apple have made contributions that we may never know about.

I think once the dust has settled, I think Apple can achieve even more without the borderline masochistic managerial approach of Jobs.


I believe that a true innovative genius not only makes innovative/new products, processes or services but does so in the process of being a good person. Jobs was neither of those. Swearing at employees, public humiliation, and generally being a tool to family and close friends is not what I would call being a good person.

Jobs closed his short-lived charity foundation, on the basis that he was busy with his business interests. He also axed Apple's philanthropic programmes, which have only just begun to be reintroduced by Cook (the new CEO).

I also quote this interesting line from your 'Irish Central' website: 'Through the sale of (RED) products'. I see no mention of Apple making a donation, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if its actually the royalties that U2 would have received for the association, going directly to their charitable efforts. We also would have seen something in the financial reports to illustrate such charitable donations in the tens of millions.

The principle reason we know he wasn't a philanthropist over the last few years (anomalous or otherwise) is that there hasn't been a deterioration of his net worth as you would expect, as has been the case with Buffett and Gates. Hopefully posthumously the case will change, but then he did try to claim in court that he was sterile to avoid contributing for the upbringing of his own daughter so who knows.

Teno
October 10th, 2011, 08:15 PM
People that have an idea, and then create first-order technology that spawns entire industries, and completely change society are at a different plane than people like Jobs.

What exactly is a "first order technology".

Edison nor Tesla discovered electricity. They were not the first people to conduct electricity. They were the most influential in making electricity useful and accessible to everyone.

Alexander Graham Bell was not the first person to work with capturing audio waves or the first to send/receive communication over wired electrical pulses. He was the most influential in making it usable and accessible to everyone.

George Eastman was not the first person to use photochemical photography. He was the most influential in making photography usable and accessible to everyone.



He didn't invent the mouse. He didn't develop software. The components for his devices were developed elsewhere.

No Steve Jobs did not invent the idea of the personal computer, the graphical user interface, or the mouse.

But he did invent the Macintosh. The Macintosh was very different from any other PC at the time. Under Jobs guidance the Maciontosh team developed their own graphical user interface, they developed their own mouse. Everything about the Macintosh was custom designed.

When the original Macintosh launched it was the first computer to come standard with a mouse. At the time there were people who criticized the mouse as a useless toy.

The Macintosh changed the way everyone developed personal computers and what they were able to do.


Technology was driving society in the direction to where we are now, Jobs or not.

This is not true. At all.

Prior to the Macintosh, computers interfaces were primarily command line driven. After the Macintosh everyone quickly adopted graphical user interfaces we use today.

Windows is a direct copy of Mac OS.


The same thing with handheld devices. They've been around for decades, but were called car-phones, because they were too big to carry around. Advances in battery design, processors, transmission networks, and display screens are what put them in our pockets.

The irony of your statement is in the fact that the company that marketed the first usable handheld general computing device was Apple.

http://thoughts.birdahonk.com/files/apple-newton.jpg

The Apple Newton 1993


Apple co-developed a mobile processor for the Newton called the Advanced RISC Machine. Today ARM processors power every mobile device we use.

Prior to the iPhone. The Blackberry was the most popular mobile device. Everyone made phones that looked like Blackberry phones. Now everyone copies the iPhone.

http://daringfireball.net/misc/2011/08/white-android-prototype.jpg

The original Android Phone.

ZippyTheChimp
October 10th, 2011, 09:00 PM
Edison nor Tesla discovered electricity. They were not the first people to conduct electricity. They were the most influential in making electricity useful and accessible to everyone.


No Steve Jobs did not invent the idea of the personal computer, the graphical user interface, or the mouse.

But he did invent the Macintosh. The Macintosh was very different from any other PC at the time.Electricity changed the world of the 19th century.

The Macintosh didn't change the world. If it wasn't developed, the modern age of electronics may have taken a different course, but would be essentially the same. . If you tried to equate electricity and the Mac 100 years from now, it would be ridiculous.

The two things most responsible for our modern age, not just computers, but just about everything are this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor) leading to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor).


How did George Eastman get into this? He's closer to Steve Jobs, but neither of them are in the same ballpark as Edison.

Teno
October 10th, 2011, 09:43 PM
History is littered by claims to inventions by others; some being credible others less so. Yet what has Steve Jobs innovated? His claim to fame should be reflected by his role as a CEO, and having a team that extracted exceptional returns for shareholders; there is nothing innovative in doing that.

Steve's skill was in taking concepts that already existed. He had the skill to polish and refine them and make them usable and accessible to everyone.

No one else in the consumer electronics industry has his eye for aethictic design and usability.


As mentioned previously, the true powerhouses behind the emergence of Apple as one of the world's most successful corporate entities is principally down to individuals such as Schiller, Ive, Forstall and Mansfield. Indeed, many employees of Apple have made contributions that we may never know about.

Of course he did not do it all by himself. The point is that all of these people worked to create what was ultimately Steve's vision.



I think once the dust has settled, I think Apple can achieve even more without the borderline masochistic managerial approach of Jobs.

Apple did not have Steve Jobs for about 13 years (1985-1998). Over that time Apple almost went out of business. Becasue the people who ran Apple, ran it much like how every other computer company is run.

During Steve's absense he went on to found a company called Next Step and another comapny called Pixar.

At Next he created an entirely new graphical user interface that was so advanced that in 1989 it required a nearly $10,000 computer to run it.

Later when Steve Jobs returned to Apple the Next OS he developed became the basis of OS X. Literally what Jobs envisioned in 1989 is the basis of what powers today's Mac's, iPhone, and iPad.


I believe that a true innovative genius not only makes innovative/new products, processes or services but does so in the process of being a good person. Jobs was neither of those. Swearing at employees, public humiliation, and generally being a tool to family and close friends is not what I would call being a good person.


That is your opinion. I think the people who were closest to him and knew him best would be of better authority to say.

The general consensus is that Jobs was a hard task master. He pushed everyone beyond their limits. In his younger years it can be argued that his ego and attitude were out of control and is the reason he was fired from Apple.

After his return to Apple. He went on a slash and burn to trim Apple down and get it back to the company he envisioned. That slashing and burning pissed a lot of people off. Was this the right thing to do? We see the results.



The principle reason we know he wasn't a philanthropist over the last few years (anomalous or otherwise) is that there hasn't been a deterioration of his net worth as you would expect, as has been the case with Buffett and Gates. Hopefully posthumously the case will change, but then he did try to claim in court that he was sterile to avoid contributing for the upbringing of his own daughter so who knows.

I don't think that is an inidicator of anything other than Jobs didn't give the majority of his money away.

Jobs personal fortune has never approached anywhere near that of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.

He hasn't taken a direct salary from Apple since the mid 80's.

I posted that article because Bono has been very adament on imploring the rich to help the less fortunate.He praised Jobs efforts.

Simply because we don't fully understand what he may have done, does not automatically mean he did nothing.

ZippyTheChimp
October 10th, 2011, 09:50 PM
The two things most responsible for our modern age, not just computers, but just about everything are this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor) leading to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor).Oops. I left out Jack Kilby and the Integrated Circuit, which fits in between the two.

Teno
October 10th, 2011, 11:18 PM
The two things most responsible for our modern age, not just computers, but just about everything are this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor) leading to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor).

Those are extremely important parts that have made modern computers possible. If the average person has:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Transistorer_%28croped%29.jpg
This

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Intel_4004.jpg
This

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Diopsis.jpg

and this sitting on their desk. How are they going to use them to get any work done?



How did George Eastman get into this? He's closer to Steve Jobs, but neither of them are in the same ballpark as Edison.

You are right they did not electrocute animals to help discrete their competitors.

ZippyTheChimp
October 10th, 2011, 11:23 PM
So you think those two devices only had an effect on how we sit at a desk and work with computers?

ZippyTheChimp
October 10th, 2011, 11:29 PM
I wasn't the one who even brought this up, but you should keep track of your contradictions.


What does being a nice person have to do with being an innovative genius?

Of course followed by.....



You are right they did not electrocute animals to help discrete their competitors.

Teno
October 10th, 2011, 11:51 PM
Electricity changed the world of the 19th century.

Today anyone with a connection to the internet has more access to information than any human has had in our history. I cannot see that being any less revolutionary.

This couldn't be done with hardware alone. The reason Apple is where it is today is because of its software design.


The Macintosh didn't change the world. If it wasn't developed, the modern age of electronics may have taken a different course, but would be essentially the same. If you tried to equate electricity and the Mac 100 years from now, it would be ridiculous.

http://www.vintagecomputer.net/ibm/5150/5150_A/sn0239462/thm_IBM-5150_sn0239462_screen-ROMver.JPG

This is what the average computer interface looked like before the popularity of the Macintosh. This was designed by engineers and mostly used by hobbyists and tech geeks. Most people would not be able to understand or use this. Computers at this point had no artistry, no design aesthetic, no human connection.


http://mobile.osnews.com/img/18875/da.gif

The original Mac OS did change the world,

This was the beginning of desktop publishing.

This was the beginning of computer digital imaging.

This was the beginning of digital audio workstations.

This was the beginning of nonlinear video editing.

This is the start of over a billion people having access to each other as well as limitless access to information.

Teno
October 10th, 2011, 11:58 PM
I wasn't the one who even brought this up, but you should keep track of your contradictions.

I'm not sure what you mean. That statement wasn't addressing you.




Of course followed by.....

Well I said being an innovative genius doesn't mean you were a nice person.

ZippyTheChimp
October 11th, 2011, 12:18 AM
Today anyone with a connection to the internet has more access to information than any human has had in our history. I cannot see that being any less revolutionary.Today's access to information was not dependent on Steve Jobs. As I've said previously, if you took him out of the equation, today's world would not be much different. It would still be a massive consumer society driven by many players.

Jobs was a big part of it, but putting him at a level with Edison is ridiculous.

nick-taylor
October 11th, 2011, 08:23 AM
Steve's skill was in taking concepts that already existed. He had the skill to polish and refine them and make them usable and accessible to everyone.

No one else in the consumer electronics industry has his eye for aethictic design and usability.

Of course he did not do it all by himself. The point is that all of these people worked to create what was ultimately Steve's vision.

Apple did not have Steve Jobs for about 13 years (1985-1998). Over that time Apple almost went out of business. Becasue the people who ran Apple, ran it much like how every other computer company is run.

During Steve's absense he went on to found a company called Next Step and another comapny called Pixar.

At Next he created an entirely new graphical user interface that was so advanced that in 1989 it required a nearly $10,000 computer to run it.

Later when Steve Jobs returned to Apple the Next OS he developed became the basis of OS X. Literally what Jobs envisioned in 1989 is the basis of what powers today's Mac's, iPhone, and iPad.

That is your opinion. I think the people who were closest to him and knew him best would be of better authority to say.

The general consensus is that Jobs was a hard task master. He pushed everyone beyond their limits. In his younger years it can be argued that his ego and attitude were out of control and is the reason he was fired from Apple.

After his return to Apple. He went on a slash and burn to trim Apple down and get it back to the company he envisioned. That slashing and burning pissed a lot of people off. Was this the right thing to do? We see the results.

I don't think that is an inidicator of anything other than Jobs didn't give the majority of his money away.

Jobs personal fortune has never approached anywhere near that of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.

He hasn't taken a direct salary from Apple since the mid 80's.

I posted that article because Bono has been very adament on imploring the rich to help the less fortunate.He praised Jobs efforts.

Simply because we don't fully understand what he may have done, does not automatically mean he did nothing.Piggybacking off the work of far more important people at Apple, doesn't somehow award him the status of being an innovator. What it illustrates is that he was good at being a CEO and generating returns, which is what he should be acknowledged for.

Steve Jobs didn't found what is now known as Pixar, he acquired it from George Lucas, and there the true powerhouses of the business were Lasseter and Catmull. This idolisation and false-awarding of credit is getting tiresome.

I feel that if the likes of Jonathan Ive (the lead designer behind the majority of Apple's designs over the last decade) and Steve Forstall (brought over from NeXT and regarded as the principal architect of OS X) saw your posts they'd feel a tad depressed that Jobs is being awarded the credit.

Jobs probably was nice to a select few, but screwing over friends, colleagues and business partners (credit to Wozniak he forgave Jobs) was common-place. What boggles the mind is that in recent days a few media articles have been celebrating Jobs being a jerk! Due to the Stasi-like overlord presence Jobs' had (look at what happened when there were potential leaks of hardware), and NDA's, I suspect we'll see more people open up about the real Jobs without having to conceal their identity.

I wonder how much tax Jobs paid on his $1 salary...

The issue wasn't making cuts which were more than reasonable; it was the lack of reintroduction; which has only occurred because Apple has a new CEO and Jobs was in a poor state to do anything about it. Jobs or Apple didn't donate any money – your source alludes to the position that they sold consumer electronics for which royalties were paid to Bono's charitable efforts. I think it would have been more effective had Bono in-between his tax-dodging pushed Jobs towards signing up to the Giving Pledge (http://givingpledge.org/#enter).

Ninjahedge
October 11th, 2011, 01:02 PM
Flat out and simple.

Jobs was a CEO. A really great CEO (in terms of the shareholders). But that is it.

HE did not envision everything about Apple, he took parts that were there and molded it to the proper consumer outlet and succeeded on many, but NOT all, of his projects.

I never knew anything about him, or his charity, or his home life. I simply know what he had and what he made of it. Comparing a man who found a consumer vein and tapped it to ones who took our knowledge base at their times and pushed it through a wall that many had not been able to before is rather shallow.

The ONLY people I see doing this are ones that seem to think they need to raise the maker of their rather expensive and NON CRITICAL electronic toys to the level of Godhood to explain their absolute need to spend so much money on something that is really not that needed (as such).

The same that put flowers for a dead man that had nothing to do with their life in any meaningful manner, outside the doors to a retail establishment selling more of his companies goods.

The whole thing makes me a bit ill. Our vision is that myopic we cant tell a philanthropist from a mogul. We are the social equivalent of Mr Magoo.

eddhead
October 11th, 2011, 02:30 PM
I keep coming back to this. Jobs was not a hardware or software engineer. He was a visionary who understood the potential power for modern household computing before virtually anyone else did. He did not invent the devices but by virtue of his vision, he made it possible for laypeople to use them. Modern computing today would not be what it is without the likes of Steve Jobs. That makes him more than just a CEO, it makes him a technological innovator of major league proportions. He took a device that enthusiasts and techno-geeks used and created something that my mother uses. Does that make him Edison? Probably not but not that far off either. Again, more like Ford.

Oh, and by the way, how did Lucas do with Pixar before he sold it to Jobs? How big a success was it?

Ninjahedge
October 11th, 2011, 03:17 PM
"Visionary" is a bit back-patty.

Anybody who sees things is a visionary, by literal definition. He was more a tough arsed businessman with technical knowledge. I give him respect for what he did, but the problem is too many people are putting him on the shoulders of others that deserve the praise as much, if not more.

As for the Pixar comment, it wasn't Steve that made the animation better. He just handled the marketing. So lay credit where credit is due.

MLK Jr. was a visionary. Steve was just a good businessman.

eddhead
October 11th, 2011, 05:33 PM
He was a visionary in that he envisoned a society where everyday people would avail themselves to sophisticated computing capabilities to accomplish common household tasks. Than he created devices to enable that vision. No one was thinking in those terms 30 years ago. Yes computers existed before Jobs but were not user friendly and designed for the layperson. What he did changed the way we live and if you don't think so, think about what your life was like before you owned a pc. That makes him a true visionary, not a 'back-patty' whatever that is.

BTW, I put Gates in the same category.

Teno
October 11th, 2011, 06:10 PM
Today's access to information was not dependent on Steve Jobs. As I've said previously, if you took him out of the equation, today's world would not be much different. It would still be a massive consumer society driven by many players.

Well you have to keep it all in its proper perspective. Today its easy to think that it would have all worked out this way. But it took a long time and a lot work for things to be the way they are.

Jobs did not invent the graphical user interface. But he did invent the first graphical user interface that was popular and widely used.

There were a lot of companies working on their own versions of graphical user interfaces. None of them became as popular are as widely used.

The next one that did become popular and widely used was Windows '95. That was 11 years after Mac OS.

Doesn't that give some context and indication to how challenging these things are to make?



Jobs was a big part of it, but putting him at a level with Edison is ridiculous.

Ultimately history will judge that.

Teno
October 11th, 2011, 06:40 PM
Piggybacking off the work of far more important people at Apple, doesn't somehow award him the status of being an innovator. What it illustrates is that he was good at being a CEO and generating returns, which is what he should be acknowledged for.

Steve Jobs didn't found what is now known as Pixar, he acquired it from George Lucas, and there the true powerhouses of the business were Lasseter and Catmull. This idolisation and false-awarding of credit is getting tiresome.

I feel that if the likes of Jonathan Ive (the lead designer behind the majority of Apple's designs over the last decade) and Steve Forstall (brought over from NeXT and regarded as the principal architect of OS X) saw your posts they'd feel a tad depressed that Jobs is being awarded the credit.

Agreed that Jobs aligned himself with extremely talented people. There was a reason for that.

Was Jonathan Ive creating iconic iPods, iMac's, iPhone's, iPad's before he worked with Steve Jobs?

Was Scott Forestall building an operating system that was 10 years ahead of its time before he worked with Steve Jobs?

What memorable or iconic products did Apple create when Steve Jobs was not there? The company nearly went out of business in his absense.

What was Pixar doing before Jobs aquired it? To give you a hint they were not making award winning films.

What has Steve Wozniac been doing for the past 30 years? Why do you think Jobs should have kept him around?


What boggles the mind is that in recent days a few media articles have been celebrating Jobs being a jerk! Due to the Stasi-like overlord presence Jobs' had (look at what happened when there were potential leaks of hardware), and NDA's, I suspect we'll see more people open up about the real Jobs without having to conceal their identity.

And for some strange reason people kept working with him and admired him.


I wonder how much tax Jobs paid on his $1 salary...

The rest of your post drifted off into a diatribe unsubstantiated pettiness and being mean spirited, IMHO.

Teno
October 11th, 2011, 07:03 PM
Flat out and simple.

Jobs was a CEO. A really great CEO (in terms of the shareholders). But that is it.

This does not at all go with what people who worked with him every day describe what he was like. Should we listen to you or them?


HE did not envision everything about Apple, he took parts that were there and molded it to the proper consumer outlet and succeeded on many, but NOT all, of his projects.

He created Apple. How was everything not his vision? What part was there that he did not put there?


I never knew anything about him, or his charity, or his home life.

You don't say..........


Comparing a man who found a consumer vein and tapped it to ones who took our knowledge base at their times and pushed it through a wall that many had not been able to before is rather shallow.

He wasn't making sunglasses or blue jeans. He created devices that empowered people to learn, create, share, and communicate in ways beyond what had been previously possible.


The ONLY people I see doing this are ones that seem to think they need to raise the maker of their rather expensive and NON CRITICAL electronic toys to the level of Godhood to explain their absolute need to spend so much money on something that is really not that needed (as such).

You really feel that in this day in age a computer is a non critical electronic toy?

I don't hear of anyone considering him a god. Just giving appreciation for what he accomplished.

Whether you want to give him credit or not. Any computing device you are using today works the it works because of his influence on the larger computer market. Just giving him his due credit.


The whole thing makes me a bit ill. Our vision is that myopic we cant tell a philanthropist from a mogul. We are the social equivalent of Mr Magoo.

Hmmm..........can't the same person be both a philanthropist and a mogul?

Teno
October 11th, 2011, 07:09 PM
The interesting thing about Microsoft and Gates.

Is that MS Office and Windows are largely their two most successful and most popular products. They make so much money on those two that it cancels out all of the money they loose on their long list of products that fail.


BTW, I put Gates in the same category.

ZippyTheChimp
October 11th, 2011, 07:16 PM
Modern computing today would not be what it is without the likes of Steve Jobs.As I've said, Steve Jobs was one of many who helped develop modern computing, but he doesn't stand a head above the others. Steve Jobs computers would go no where if the WWW wasn't developed, and that language would have nowhere to go without physical networks.

The driving forces behind the movement of data are processing power and network capacity. They are measured by two laws:

(Gordon) Moore's Law
(Gerald) butters' Law

The idea of a personal computer network existed long before Jobs. See a 1945 paper in Atlantic Monthly by Vannevar Bush, As We May Think. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_We_May_Think)

This doesn't happen without the invention of the IC. Before that, engineers carried slide rules on their belts; afterwards, cheap pocket calculators that did the same thing. The march toward the home computer was inevitable, but you needed access to get them there. I've seen computers move off expensive, dedicated t-cxrs onto the copper pair-wire in virtually every home. Cheap telephone-call access to a high capacity network and cheap mass-produced processors are what revolutionized computing.

Steve jobs was important, but the idea of putting him, well....

http://krapps.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/SteveJobsGod.jpg

I think we need two posthumous miracles before we can proceed further. :)

Fabrizio
October 11th, 2011, 07:47 PM
...animated cartoons and amusement parks existed before Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse and Disneyland.… Autos exited before Henry Ford's Model A and T… cameras existed before George Eastman's Brownie… ...These guys were able to synthesize and distill what came before them into products that were new and relevant and captured the public's imagination. That was Job's genius. He left a real mark on the culture. No small feat.

eddhead
October 11th, 2011, 07:51 PM
Well said.

ZippyTheChimp
October 11th, 2011, 08:02 PM
We've agreed that Henry Ford was no Edison, and George Eastman was no Edison.

I assume we can conclude that Walt Disney was no Edison.

You can put Steve Jobs in that group.

I think I might put Eastman slightly above Jobs.

eddhead
October 11th, 2011, 08:34 PM
Well, Edison didn't exactly invent or discover electricity either but to you point, I think most (but not all) of us agree that Jobs is more like Ford than Edison. Still how many Fords come along in a generation?



As for the Pixar comment, it wasn't Steve that made the animation better. He just handled the marketing. So lay credit where credit is due.



The point is Pixar was not commercially viable before Jobs took it over. Good intentions and potential only get you so far. Again, Jobs had a vision for Pixar that surpassed anything Lucas aspired to, and realized that vision.

Teno
October 11th, 2011, 08:39 PM
As I've said, Steve Jobs was one of many who helped develop modern computing, but he doesn't stand a head above the others. Steve Jobs computers would go no where if the WWW wasn't developed, and that language would have nowhere to go without physical networks.

Chicken or the egg?

Tim Berners-Lee the guy who created the world wide web as we know it today. Used Next computer systems that Jobs created in the late 80's

Tim wrote parts of the first version of the HTML language on Next Step OS. He wrote the first browser on Next Step OS and used a Next computer as the first world wide web server.

So Tim Berners-Lee needed a software platform to develop WWW before there was a WWW.


This doesn't happen without the invention of the IC.

I am in complete agreement with you that the integrated circuit is of extreme importance.

At the same time people don't interact with circuits. People interact with the casing, the buttons, the software. Jobs wanted the circuits to act in service to what people do.

Apple currently has a team of 1000 people working on integrated chips for its iPhone and iPad. Because they want the chips and circuit to serve the needs of the software and the user.

Apple pruchased two semiconductor chip design companies. P.A. Semi and Intrinsity to build its own in house chip engineers and designers


Steve jobs was important, but the idea of putting him, well....

A bit over the top, wouldn't you say?

Teno
October 11th, 2011, 08:42 PM
What history source are you using to put Edison on such a high level?

What Edison accomplished was very different from what Ford accomplished, and both very different from what Jobs accomplished. The possibility of life has changed because of what they all did.

Exactly how are you making a comparison of what was most important?


We've agreed that Henry Ford was no Edison, and George Eastman was no Edison.

I assume we can conclude that Walt Disney was no Edison.

You can put Steve Jobs in that group.

I think I might put Eastman slightly above Jobs.

Teno
October 11th, 2011, 08:47 PM
Exactly :)


The point is Pixar was not commercially viable before Jobs took it over. Good intentions and potential only get you so far. Again, Jobs had a vision for Pixar that surpassed anything Lucas aspired to, and realized that vision.

MidtownGuy
October 11th, 2011, 09:01 PM
He was a visionary in that he envisoned a society where everyday people would avail themselves to sophisticated computing capabilities to accomplish common household tasks. Than he created devices to enable that vision. No one was thinking in those terms 30 years ago.

When I was a child visiting Disney World there were dioramas in the World of Tomorrow showing people sitting in various rooms of their homes using computing systems to do simple household tasks. This was about 30 years ago. I think this concept goes back much farther than Jobs.

I just don't see him as some huge culture and society-changing visionary.

Teno
October 11th, 2011, 09:10 PM
Well on Star Trek they were using pads. But those were fictional devices that didn't actually work. The idea wasn't new but no one knew how to make one that people could actually use.

http://www.inventinginteractive.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/PADD_2370s.jpg

Steve Jobs vision was actually creating a pad that worked and people could use everyday in their lives. You don't see that changing culture and society?





When I was a child visiting Disney World there were dioramas in the World of Tomorrow showing people sitting in various rooms of their homes using computing systems to do simple household tasks. This was about 30 years ago. I think this concept goes back much farther than Jobs.

I just don't see him as some huge culture and society-changing visionary.

eddhead
October 11th, 2011, 09:11 PM
When I was a child visiting Disney World there were dioramas in the World of Tomorrow showing people sitting in various rooms of their homes using computing systems to do simple household tasks. This was about 30 years ago. I think this concept goes back much farther than Jobs.

I just don't see him as some huge culture and society-changing visionary.

I cannot attest to the timing of your visit to future world, but Apple II which was the platform that made real home computing possible came out in 1977, or 35 years ago. Coincidence?

Jobs was clearly a culture changing visionary. His devices lead the way to a change in how we think and how we live.

ZippyTheChimp
October 11th, 2011, 09:13 PM
A bit over the top, wouldn't you say?Yes. Isn't it familiar?


What history source are you using to put Edison on such a high level?Do you think I considered this only since this thread was opened? The world doesn't revolve around this thread.


What Edison accomplished was very different from what Ford accomplished, and both very different from what Jobs accomplished. The possibility of life has changed because of what they all did.

Exactly how are you making a comparison of what was most important?The fallacy is making direct comparisons between events in different eras.

In my opinion, the influence of Edison on his time was much greater than that of Jobs during his time. I consider the development of processors to be the groundbreaking achievement of this age. They made computers powerful, small, and cheap. And not just personal computers.

Steve Jobs existed in that environment, but he did not create it. He was important, but not the defining figure. I'm not sure there is one person that fits the title.

If you have a need for Jobs to be that icon, well that's your opinion, and I doubt anyone is going to change it.

Teno
October 11th, 2011, 09:13 PM
When Steve heard I was starting Seva in 1980, he called me up and gave me the first sizable donation to help build eye hospitals in India and do a survey of blindness in Nepal. We couldn’t have built Seva without him. He was an advisor for years. He stayed involved even as Apple took all of his time; for example, when I went to Nepal to do a nationwide survey of blindness, I had no way of analyzing the data in country and it was inappropriate to try to bring it back to the University of Michigan where I was professor.

Steve called me and said he was going to send me an Apple II with VisiCalc software to do the first round of epidemiological study in Nepal. He was very interested in how we could use that data to build a program. He sent us a very early Apple II, probably single digits in the serial number. He said, “I've got an Apple in my room I'm going to send you with this amazing thing called a Corvus hard drive. It’s got tremendous capacity. It’s all the most capacity in the market. It’s 5 megs.”

How Barefoot Teen Steve Jobs Helped Cure 3 Million Blind People (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steve-jobs-cure-blind-246760)

ZippyTheChimp
October 11th, 2011, 09:17 PM
I cannot attest to the timing of your visit to future world, but Apple II which was the platform that made real home computing possible came out in 1977, or 35 years ago.Did you buy one?

Teno
October 11th, 2011, 09:30 PM
Yes. Isn't it familiar?

Only familiar in the sense of general snarkines and cynicism.


Do you think I considered this only since this thread was opened? The world doesn't revolve around this thread.

I'm not sure what you are talking about.




In my opinion, the influence of Edison on his time was much greater than that of Jobs during his time. I consider the development of processors to be the groundbreaking achievement of this age. They made computers powerful, small, and cheap. And not justpersonal computers.

Steve Jobs existed in that environment, but he did not create it. He was important, but not the defining figure. I'm not sure there is one person that fits the title.

If you have a need for Jobs to be that icon, well that's your opinion, and I doubt anyone is going to change it.

You may not really understand what Steve Jobs did and how the electronics industry as a whole has followed the aesthetic design lead of Apple.

As I stated before if someone has a transistor or integrated circuit sitting on their desk. How are they going to use it to get any work done? People require intuitive easy to use software that unleashes the power of that transistor or integrated circuit.

What Steve Jobs was skilled at was taking all of these disciplines and parts of computer science. All of these advanced technologies and match them together in such away that is easily accessible and easy to use for the average person.

This is a skill that very few in the technology industry have. This skill has indeed created the electronic world that we live in today. There are countless numbers of software designers and web designers admittedly follow the design aesthetic of Apple.

ZippyTheChimp
October 11th, 2011, 09:33 PM
^
Were you there at the time?

ZippyTheChimp
October 11th, 2011, 09:55 PM
When Steve heard I was starting Seva in 1980, he called me up and gave me the first sizable donation...What's this; I thought it was not relevant? When nick-taylor brought this subject up, your response was:
What does being a nice person have to do with being an innovative genius?

I think you're trying too hard. But as long as it's on the table, isn't it a little cheesy for a multi-billionaire to claim that his little guys can't get the job done just to avoid responsibility for his daughter?

nick-taylor
October 12th, 2011, 06:47 AM
Agreed that Jobs aligned himself with extremely talented people. There was a reason for that.

Was Jonathan Ive creating iconic iPods, iMac's, iPhone's, iPad's before he worked with Steve Jobs?

Was Scott Forestall building an operating system that was 10 years ahead of its time before he worked with Steve Jobs?

What memorable or iconic products did Apple create when Steve Jobs was not there? The company nearly went out of business in his absense.

What was Pixar doing before Jobs aquired it? To give you a hint they were not making award winning films.

What has Steve Wozniac been doing for the past 30 years? Why do you think Jobs should have kept him around?

And for some strange reason people kept working with him and admired him.

The rest of your post drifted off into a diatribe unsubstantiated pettiness and being mean spirited, IMHO.Would Steve Jobs have developed the iPod without Ive, would OS X even exist if not for Forstall? As a great CEO (with questionable people skills), Jobs was able to utilise these individuals and their talents, skills and ideas to develop high margin products and services, ultimately delivering a significant return for shareholders. He was a great CEO, not some miraculous innovator with the Midas touch.

History is littered with mean spirited managers and business leaders; many people can withstand the humiliation and abuse. Others succumb and part company, although unusually, many of Apple’s non-retail employees are party to strict NDA's.

When the arcade title Breakout was being developed, Jobs and Wozniak had an agreement that any potential bonus would be split 50/50. Yet when Jobs received the $5,000 bonus he lied to Wozniak that they had only received $700; i.e. Wozniak received $350, when really he should have got $2,500. That's fraud. Credit to Wozniak though, he forgave Jobs, but had Wozniak found out earlier and been less forgiving, Jobs probably would have ended up with a criminal conviction and Apple might not have evolved into what is has become.

Despite having far less wealth than Jobs, Wozniak outside of Apple became a philanthropist and helps schools both in monetary and technical support. He even set up his own 'Wozzie Award' for educational excellence.

Jobs brought Pixar because they were making hardware and software programs to generate computer graphics. To advertise the capabilities of their products they had been developing short films, but it was because of the work of Lasseter and Catmull (and their connections at Disney), that they went into feature film production a decade later (Toy Story).


http://i.imgur.com/DjqMN.jpg

Ninjahedge
October 12th, 2011, 10:08 AM
Again, we keep coming back to square one.

People somehow believe that a touchpad and a music player are world changing devices that one man was responsible for.

What keeps getting ignored in this, and other discussions, is the admission that IT WAS NOT HIM ALONE. For some strange reason, even admitting that he had a TEAM of brilliant guys working with/for/under him is somehow an insult to his Godly visage.

It is this unwillingness to even share any credit that makes me discredit most of what is said in any of these exchanges.

NOBODY has said that Jobs was not smart, or that he was not a gifted CEO, or that he did not make Apple what it is today, but yet somehow saying that he did not change the world is an insult.

Go fig.

eddhead
October 12th, 2011, 11:03 AM
Did you buy one?

No, But how is that relevant? FOr one thing I was 17 at the time. And I never claimed that Apple II became a common household appliace, only that it set the stage of upcoming home computing generation. IT was the realization of a vision that gained commercial traction over time.

eddhead
October 12th, 2011, 11:11 AM
Again, we keep coming back to square one.

People somehow believe that a touchpad and a music player are world changing devices that one man was responsible for.

What keeps getting ignored in this, and other discussions, is the admission that IT WAS NOT HIM ALONE. For some strange reason, even admitting that he had a TEAM of brilliant guys working with/for/under him is somehow an insult to his Godly visage.

It is this unwillingness to even share any credit that makes me discredit most of what is said in any of these exchanges.

NOBODY has said that Jobs was not smart, or that he was not a gifted CEO, or that he did not make Apple what it is today, but yet somehow saying that he did not change the world is an insult.

Go fig.

I suspect Edison also had a talented team working with him at Menlo Park, men like Nikloa Tela http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla who was an "important contributor to the birth of commercial electricity". In fact there is a lot of evidnce that Edison 'borrowed' much of Telsa's work. That does not take away from his genius.

Ninjahedge
October 12th, 2011, 12:18 PM
Um, we are talking marketing versus mechanical and electrical engineering.

Science ALWAYS bases its work on the work of others. Again, apples and rutabagas.

Fabrizio
October 12th, 2011, 12:20 PM
Is anyone here so dumb as to think Jobs came up with Apple's gadgets all on his own?

Jobs was the Maestro.

Arturo Toscanini got all the credit too (for waving a stick around).... not the guy playing the oboe.

ZippyTheChimp
October 12th, 2011, 12:34 PM
No, But how is that relevant? FOr one thing I was 17 at the time. And I never claimed that Apple II became a common household appliace, only that it set the stage of upcoming home computing generation. IT was the realization of a vision that gained commercial traction over time.There is an assumption here that computers were nothing but toys, and were waiting for Jobs to come along and make them relevant.

When I said that hardware and networks were the driving force that changed the world,, I also said that it was not just computers, and certainly not what we today call personal computers. But I'll stay within the computer realm, and give you a few examples of how things changed.

For a little background, you can look at the history of Thompson Ramo Wooldridge (TRW) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRW), a significant presence in the Cold War and aerospace. What came out of this in 1964 was that Simon Ramo, along with George Bunker of Martin-Marietta, became president of a subsidiary, the Bunker Ramo Corp. In that year, they produced a computer using integrated circuits called the BR 123 AN/UYK-3. It was the primary computer used by US Navy ships. The company also began supplying video display terminals and networks to financial companies.

By 1971. one of their principle customers was the newly formed NASDAQ. It was the world.s first electronic trading exchange, and the first to offer online trading. It completely changed the securities industry, which no longer could be competitive as a10AM to 3PM operation. Overnight trading began, and worldwide exchanges became closely linked.

The same thing happened in the money-market. In 1969, Neil Hirsch, a 21 year old employee of Merrill-Lynch, noted the use of computer terminals to trade stocks, and founded the Telerate Corp, which dealt with the commercial paper market. The market was volatile, and before Telerate, phone calls had to be made to select groups who set rates. Telerate opened the market by making the information available on a computer network. They grew quickly and within a few years, needed capital. Cantor Fitzgerald bought a stake in the company, adding US Treasury securities to the list. Telerate is now owned by Dow Jones.

All the large brokerage houses and investment banks had extensive computer networks linking their branch locations to a master site. The packet-switched data network (shared) that today allows computers to talk to each other was an emerging technology, so all of these networks were what were called private-lines or dedicated-networks. The computing power had not yet been sufficiently reduced in size, so the data was processed by mainframes connected to a company central site.

These companies were our customers. We provided and maintained most of the networks, and IBM most of the computers, but there were other players. It transformed the business world, and made it truly global. And as the switched network became more sophisticated, we knew where all this was headed, and it was all before Steve Jobs.

That's why I can't really pick out a dominant before-after person for the era; it's more a before-after product.

eddhead
October 12th, 2011, 12:35 PM
Prospero’s Tempestuous Family

By MAUREEN DOWD (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/maureendowd/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
WASHINGTON

Abdulfattah “John” Jandali is a casino manager outside Reno, so he knows about odds.

And he must wonder sometimes: What are the odds of a Sunni Muslim immigrant from Syria producing two dazzling American talents, a son who transformed the world of technology and a daughter who lit up the world of literature, and ending up estranged from both?

Of the many memorable photos that have been published since Steve Jobs died, the most poignant was in The Wall Street Journal on Monday.
The picture itself wasn’t anything special, not like the intimate portraits of Jobs by Diana Walker that appeared in Time magazine. This was just a head shot of Jobs staring out, with rimless glasses, aquiline nose, receding hairline and intense brown eyes.

It mesmerized because of its juxtaposition to a head shot of Jandali, Jobs’s 80-year-old biological father, who stared out with the same rimless glasses, aquiline nose, receding hairline and intense brown eyes.

Jandali told The Journal that, over the last year, he periodically sent some e-mails to the son he never met, wishing him happy birthday or better health. He said he got a couple of short replies, including a “Thank you.” But a Jobs family friend disputes that.

Jandali, a widower, reads books on an iPad and uses an iPhone 4. But the father of Jobs never met the father of Apple. The closest he got was downloading videos of Jobs introducing Apple products. He didn’t even learn Jobs was his son until around 2005.

When Jandali was pursuing his doctorate in political science at the University of Wisconsin in the early ’50s, he fell in love with a fellow graduate student named Joanne Schieble. She became pregnant, but her family did not approve of her relationship with a Syrian, so she put up her son for adoption. The boy was raised by Paul Jobs, a high-school dropout and machinist for a laser company in Los Altos, Calif., and Clara Jobs, an accountant.

Once Joanne’s disapproving father died a couple of years later, she married Jandali. They had a daughter, who grew up to be Mona Simpson, the novelist.

The couple divorced after a few years and Joanne and Mona lived in Green Bay, Wis., feeling as though Jandali had abdicated his role in their lives. Jandali told The Journal that he had tried to reach Mona after he heard of Jobs’s death, but she did not respond. He keeps a publicity shot of his daughter that he downloaded from the Internet, framed, on his desk.

“If I talked to him,” he said of his son, “I don’t know what I would have said to him.”

Like Shakespearean drama, where fathers haunt and where siblings are swept apart by a shipwreck only to learn later that the other is still alive, Steve and Mona met only in their mid-20s. Jobs began the hunt for his biological mother in his teens and was ready to give up, he told The Times’s Steve Lohr, when he finally discovered at age 27 that he had a younger sister.

He was thrilled that she was an artist because he liked to think of himself as one. The computer whiz kid and the literary whiz kid grew close.
Simpson mined the theme of missing fathers for her critically acclaimed novels “Anywhere But Here” and “The Lost Father.” She also wrote a novel inspired by her famous brother, “A Regular Guy,” which casts a gimlet eye on Jobs, who specialized in hot-cold emotional roller-coaster rides.

It’s about an emotionally disconnected, fruit-loving Silicon Valley biotech entrepreneur named Tom Owens, “a guy in jeans, barefoot in the boardroom.” He lives in a barely furnished mansion once owned by a copper baron, as Jobs did; he loses control of his company to suits, as Jobs did; he tried to decide whom to marry by asking friends which of his two girlfriends was more beautiful, as Jobs did; he belatedly forms a relationship with his out-of-wedlock daughter, as Jobs did.

Simpson begins with the simple devastating sentence: “He was a man too busy to flush toilets.”

She focuses on the painful central question about Jobs: How does the abandoned become the abandoner? When he cast off his own infant daughter he was the same age his parents were when they cast off him.

Three years after the novel came out in 1996, Lisa Brennan-Jobs, the daughter Jobs had with an old girlfriend, wrote a searing piece for The Harvard Advocate about how it took her two years to get up the courage to read her aunt’s book, which contains details like Jane (Lisa’s doppelganger) forging her father’s signature on her Harvard application.

“He was away on business, and it had to be done,” Lisa writes, adding about Mona: “It is a rare experience to find that someone unexpected has been holding captive moments of my past. She watched me when I was younger, sneaking contraband miniskirts and makeup into my locker, and later, during middle and high school, she was one of my primary confidants. I didn’t know that as I sought her consolations and took her advice, she, too, was taking. It was apparently a trade.”

The roman à clef jangled nerves in the family, but Mona and Steve were close again when he was dying.

Beyond the gushing encomiums for the Prospero of Palo Alto, there roiled a family tempest that might have even shocked Shakespeare.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/opinion/prosperos-tempestuous-family.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

eddhead
October 12th, 2011, 12:36 PM
Um, we are talking marketing versus mechanical and electrical engineering.

Science ALWAYS bases its work on the work of others. Again, apples and rutabagas.

Jobs constributions go way beyond marketing. I would repeat them, but my posts are becoming redundant.

@ Zip

I never said Jobs invented the computer. What I did say was he envisioned a society where common everyday folk would use one, and was instrumental in realizing that vision. Business applications are one thing .. the Wang I used in the office which had a dos green screen, when I first entered the workforce is a far cry in terms of layperson useability to the household PC we use today.

Ninjahedge
October 12th, 2011, 01:52 PM
Jobs contributions also fall short of actual intellectual game changers and continuously comparing him to such is an insult to them.

Somehow whenever a person is given a share of respect, there will be those that think that is somehow not enough. Thinking of him as a world changer is a bit too complimentary being as he only contributed, at least in the general public awareness, to a consumer item that was more concerned about the color of their earphones than actual usability (compatibility being the apple issue that has always been a sore spot).

So that fine line between gifted administrator and "visionary" has not, in many others minds besides my own, been crossed by him in any ways but the most transient. Time will tell if the revamping of pre-existing ideas into a more consumer friendly form had any more impact than how it is described.

Few, in my opinion, will look back and say "hey, if Jobs had not made the iPod, we would NEVER have this!".

eddhead
October 12th, 2011, 02:12 PM
^^ Look, I am no a Jobs groupie or anything, but to call him am adminstrator waaaay undercuts his contributions. As to you other points, would we say that if not for Edison we would never have house hold electricity, or phonographs or whatever? I hve to think someone would have come along.

Ninjahedge
October 12th, 2011, 02:20 PM
/me shrugs.

ZippyTheChimp
October 12th, 2011, 02:24 PM
I never said Jobs invented the computer. What I did say was he envisioned a society where common everyday folk would use one, and was instrumental in realizing that vision.I never suggested that anyone thought that Jobs invented the computer.

I have given Jobs his due in several posts. What I find over-the-top is the suggestion that Jobs defined the era, that he was the icon that made it all happen.

That is simply not true. He was not the first to envision a society of personal computer use. Although I worked primarily with business systems, the Bell System was a consumer driven company. We all knew where this was headed. The defining changes that made it all possible occurred before Jobs.

To me, this doesn't diminish Jobs at all, but it doesn't fit a narrative that some find important.

Ninjahedge
October 12th, 2011, 02:28 PM
I bet you didn't put flowers at the Apple Store!!!!


I bet you did not even leave a STICKY NOTE!!!!!!

eddhead
October 12th, 2011, 02:31 PM
@ zip
Understood, however knowing where something was heading, and actually getting it there are two different things. At the end of the day, I guess history will judge, but I will go back to my original thought. To me, he was more akin to Ford than to Edison. But that is not a bad thing.

@ NH
Alas, I did not.

ZippyTheChimp
October 12th, 2011, 02:37 PM
@NH:

Nope, but I did smack down (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25058&p=372916&viewfull=1#post372916) Gregory T (the chief) when Jobs was at death's door.

MidtownGuy
October 12th, 2011, 02:48 PM
So is the guy who is "waving a stick around" as a conductor (Arturo Who? to the masses) on the same level as a Mozart or Beethoven who composed the music ? What an untenable analogy. Everyone knows the latter two names, no matter how uneducated they may be in classical music, because THEY ARE TWO OUT OF A HANDFUL that changed classical music forever. Not the guy with the stick.

Jobs was just the guy with the stick.

eddhead
October 12th, 2011, 02:48 PM
Wow. If you think Jobs is just waiving the stick, you are seriously undermining his influence on modern day household computing. I mean that is like comparing Arturo Who? to Henry Ford.

eddhead
October 12th, 2011, 02:52 PM
Maybe I am being densem but I don't get that one.

MidtownGuy
October 12th, 2011, 02:52 PM
Steve Jobs is NOT a Visionary; Get Off the Bandwagon Cultists

http://www.forbes.com/sites/benzingainsights/2011/09/02/steve-jobs-is-not-a-visionary-get-off-the-bandwagon-cultists/

Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) used to be a terrible company. I remember when I was in grade school and the only places that had Mac computers were schools. Not even high schools, just elementary and middle schools. Then all of a sudden, in 2001, the iPod was released and all hell broke loose.

Apple is now heralded; no Steve Jobs is heralded as the most innovative guy on earth. Apparently everyone thinks he created the iPod, which eventually led to the iPhone and iPad. Guy must be a genius, right? I am sure Jobs was sitting on the couch, watching TV, when all of a sudden his brain twitched and he proclaimed “eureka.” The rest is apparently history.

(To see whether Netflix is finally screwed, click here.)

Unfortunately, that is all a lie. Steve Jobs did not have the foresight to recognize that big money lied in personal entertainment. Apple did not have the time and energy to try to come up with groundbreaking ideas. The company was trying its hardest to revamp its computing products, and was actually failing miserably.

The mastermind was a guy named Tony Fadell, who actually left Apple a few years ago. Fadell worked for Philips’ (NYSE: PHG) Strategy and Ventures Division and attempted to develop ‘digital audio strategies.’ After his time at Philips, he started his own company called Fuse to further develop his vision: the iPod.

After venture capital funding ran out, Fadell pitched his ideas to companies, and Apple happened to latch on. At the time, Apple was having trouble with selling its computers, and Jobs spent most of his time trying to figure out ways to boost hardware sales. When Fadell came to Apple, his selling point was that his partners at PortalPlayer already had the software written, so Apple would not have to devote time to development.

(To see how to profit from real-time news with Benzinga Pro, click here.)

Unfortunately for Apple cultists, the guy responsible for bringing Fadell on board was not Steve Jobs either. It was a man named Jon Rubinstein, who now works for HP (NYSE: HPQ). Steve Jobs ultimately oversaw the project, but only because it was regarded as highly classified material. To be fair, Jobs spent a lot of time working with the iPod team, helping to refine its design and user interface. This does not mean he came up with the idea; he just helped oversee it and make it better.

Steve Jobs is not a visionary. He happened to employ people who recognized an innovation capable of changing the personal entertainment landscape. Jobs is a smart man; after all, he is net worth is in the billions and he was capable of sustaining Apple’s explosive growth.

Regardless of his accomplishments, I am tired of people proclaiming their love for the man, solely on the notion that he is the greatest innovator ever. The man could run and market his company, and that is about it. He did not have crazy visions and insights into entertainment; he was a computer nerd who could manage people. Nothing more and nothing less.

Feel free to comment and convince each other that 1) Steve Jobs is the most brilliant innovator and that 2) you’re not an Apple cultist.

eddhead
October 12th, 2011, 02:58 PM
Steve Jobs is NOT a Visionary; Get Off the Bandwagon Cultists

http://www.forbes.com/sites/benzingainsights/2011/09/02/steve-jobs-is-not-a-visionary-get-off-the-bandwagon-cultists/

Steve Jobs is not a visionary. He happened to employ people who recognized an innovation capable of changing the personal entertainment landscape. Jobs is a smart man; after all, he is net worth is in the billions and he was capable of sustaining Apple’s explosive growth.

"Happened to employ??" All great companies happen to employ great people. Edison employed talanted people too. So did Ford. So what? Does that make him less of a visionary? Sorry but I don't think so.

He understood the commercial viability of the devices created under the Apple brand. That makes him a visionary.

MidtownGuy
October 12th, 2011, 02:59 PM
But those were fictional devices that didn't actually work. The idea wasn't new but no one knew how to make one that people could actually use.

So now he is the one who knew how to make one? NOPE.

Not even that. Other people figured it out. HE didn't come up with the idea, and didn't come up with the reality either. He was the CEO. An excellent marketer and appropriator of ideas.

MidtownGuy
October 12th, 2011, 03:01 PM
He understood the commercial viability of the devices created under the Apple brand. That makes him a visionary.

I guess "visionary" is open to interpretation as to how liberally you want to apply that word.

MidtownGuy
October 12th, 2011, 03:03 PM
[QUOTE=eddhead;378965]"Happened to employ??" All great companies happen to employ great people. Edison employed talanted people too. So did [QUOTE]

for example, (from the article) the guy responsible for bringing Fadell on board was not Steve Jobs either. It was a man named Jon Rubinstein

eddhead
October 12th, 2011, 03:11 PM
^^ who worked for Jobs...

Anyway, here is another twist on how history might view Jobs from the Harvard Crimson. I don''rt really buy this one either, but it is interesting reading. It speaks to how Jobs expanded upon ideas to create products that were commercially viable where none existed before.

Professors Reflect on Steve Jobs' Accomplishments

By Radhika Jain (http://wirednewyork.com/writer/1206442/Radhika__Jain/),

CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

The death of Steve Jobs on Wednesday shook Apple, its devoted customer base, and aspiring entrepreneurs. But as the world reflects on Jobs’ legacy, one Harvard professor says that remembering the iconic genius primarily as an innovator would be a mistake.

“I don’t think what Jobs did was so much innovation,” said computer science professor of practice James H. Waldo, explaining that many of Apple’s products—from the first Macintosh user interface to the iPod and iPhone—simply expanded concepts that already existed.

Instead, Waldo said, Jobs revolutionized technology by making it beautiful—and trusting the consumer to pay for that aesthetic.

“He had a deep-seated sense of design. [He] took things that others had done and made them far more elegant and more beautifully realized,” Waldo said. “People have talked about that as innovation, but really what it is, is a sense of art and craftsmanship.”

Other professors agreed that calling Jobs’ vision “art” is not an overstatement.

“He was one of the first people, in my opinion, that basically included design and his aesthetics in the thinking of technology,” said Visual and Environmental Studies Lecturer Allen Sayegh.

Today, slim white earbuds are ubiquitous in fitness rooms and on buses. MacBook screens glow from every other seat in the average Harvard lecture hall. Apple permeates the culture of any community with access to computers, but at one point, Sayegh said, even Jobs’ choice for the company name was a novel and bold move.

“Everybody was naming their products product numbers,” he said. “[‘Apple’ was] counter-intuitive at that point.”

But Jobs’ faith in his personal vision was one of his keys to success, according to Neal Doyle, coordinator of the new Harvard Innovation Lab.

“He was uncompromising in his mission, he had absolute certainty in his project, and an eternal drive and optimism for seeking the best,” Doyle said.
Since Jobs returned to the company in 1997, Apple has unleashed a continuous barrage of products that have changed the way people use computers, talk on the phone, and buy and listen to music.

“He’s one of the best public speakers ever,” Doyle said. “It was him selling the product as much as the product that made you compelled to buy it.”

This “consumerization” of computer technology is Jobs’ greatest legacy, according to Eddie Kohler, associate professor of computer science.

But Founding Director of the Harvard Initiative in Innovative Computing Alyssa A. Goodman said the pace Jobs set for frequent technology updates raises concerns about the longevity of information on computers—and necessitates the creation of new ways to preserve information.

“I don’t want to blame him for the culture that doesn’t care about it, but the extremely rapid pace of innovation—it’s sort of like politics. No one thinks about the long term,” she said. “It’s unpopular in Silicon Valley to talk about long-term longevity. His influence was to create more and more of this culture who wants to do the next great thing tomorrow.”

Members of that Silicon Valley culture are currently mourning the loss of a beloved leader in the way they know best—Goodman said her Twitter feed had been flooded with commemorations of Jobs’ life.

“It’s like a god died,” Goodman said.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/10/7/jobs-one-harvard-apple/?print=1

Ninjahedge
October 12th, 2011, 03:19 PM
"Visionary" is someone who makes a radical departure from the status quo. To my knowledge, it does not even mean a person who DOES anything to make it happen!

It is the imaginitive guy that looks at something from a completely different perspective, kicks it at an odd angle and develops a whole new branch of development or thinking. Jobs did not do this.

He is a progressive technological management officer, if you want to get verbose. He saw what he had, what he needed, and employed it productively to yeild a positive net result.

He did not invent the portable player, or touch screens, or MP3's, or online music sales, or the mouse, or the pad (which is really just a larger extension of previous attempts in an underpowered era combined with current cell phone technology/interfaces). If he was sitting around in 1940 looking at mechanical calculators and slide rules and saw tablet computing then maybe he would be a "visionary".

In today's world, he was just a guy lucky enough to have the resources and the power to be able to actually move forward with the plans that many other visionaries had spouted for the past 10 years.

So getting back to basics. He was a multifaceted technically literate businessman and manager that got things done. But comparing him to Edison, Bell, Heisenberg, and even Ford is a bit of a stretch (Ford is definitely in the same category, but looking at the times, Ford kicks just about every other progressive CEO to the floor and back).

But for some reason people take that as if you just defamed their mother.



BTW Edd, this is not directed at you. I sense a moderate Apple/SJ supporter, but not a fanboi. The problem is, these discussions usually get polarized and even moderates get pushed to the diametrically opposing side of what others may believe.

Sorry if it seems like I am coming down on you!

eddhead
October 12th, 2011, 03:34 PM
It is cool, you're right I am not a fanboi, just someone who is interested in how history will view the life of Steve Jobs (I do own a macbook but I am not a fanatic about it)

I just think he is more than what you are attributing to him.

MidtownGuy
October 12th, 2011, 03:49 PM
I've used macs since grade school (apple II) and much later I owned my first one, which was the original bondi blue iMac. I still have the first white, round flat screen iMac in my closet, in perfect working condition. I have 2 apple laptops (first the white macbook, and now a Macbook Pro). I also have a huge mac tower with a 30 inch apple monitor as my desktop. So I do love my macs, just to let you know where I am coming from.

BUT...
I just don't think waving a stick around makes you the visionary. It does make you the boss. (For what that's worth, which to be fair, is often worth quite a bit). But "visionary" as I said, in my opinion, is being applied too loosely here.


So getting back to basics. He was a multifaceted technically literate businessman and manager that got things done.

Total agreement.

ZippyTheChimp
October 12th, 2011, 04:03 PM
It seems to me that a lot of stuff about Steve Jobs on the internet is similar to the stuff about Ron Paul.

eddhead
October 12th, 2011, 05:27 PM
OK, I'll bite....

Teno
October 12th, 2011, 05:28 PM
What's this; I thought it was not relevant? When nick-taylor brought this subject up, your response was:

I said being nice has nothing to do with being an innovative genius.

I posted this story showing that Jobs did do philanthropy work but was not public about it. My point to nick-taylor is that Jobs was not interested in being a public philanthropist, we don't know what he may have or may not have done.


I think you're trying too hard. But as long as it's on the table, isn't it a little cheesy for a multi-billionaire to claim that his little guys can't get the job done just to avoid responsibility for his daughter?

That was his personal business with his family. Has nothing nothing to do with me.

Teno
October 12th, 2011, 05:34 PM
No Jobs could not have done any of these things without the talented people he worked with. As no person is successful because of or by themselves, its always a team effort.

But at the same time looking at this list of success who is the one person common to it all?



Would Steve Jobs have developed the iPod without Ive, would OS X even exist if not for Forstall? As a great CEO (with questionable people skills), Jobs was able to utilise these individuals and their talents, skills and ideas to develop high margin products and services, ultimately delivering a significant return for shareholders. He was a great CEO, not some miraculous innovator with the Midas touch.

Jobs brought Pixar because they were making hardware and software programs to generate computer graphics. To advertise the capabilities of their products they had been developing short films, but it was because of the work of Lasseter and Catmull (and their connections at Disney), that they went into feature film production a decade later (Toy Story).

Teno
October 12th, 2011, 05:41 PM
Again, we keep coming back to square one.

People somehow believe that a touchpad and a music player are world changing devices that one man was responsible for.

The iPod, iPhone, iPad all did happen under the leadership of one man. No he did not create them all by himself.


What keeps getting ignored in this, and other discussions, is the admission that IT WAS NOT HIM ALONE. For some strange reason, even admitting that he had a TEAM of brilliant guys working with/for/under him is somehow an insult to his Godly visage.

Would that team of brilliant guys have created and marketed those products without Jobs?


It is this unwillingness to even share any credit that makes me discredit most of what is said in any of these exchanges.
NOBODY has said that Jobs was not smart, or that he was not a gifted CEO, or that he did not make Apple what it is today, but yet somehow saying that he did not change the world is an insult.

Go fig


You are making a false argument here. No one is saying that Jobs did it all by himself.

What he was and his contributions are clear. Interviews of people who worked with him every day clearly describe that what comes out of Apple is directly Jobs vision. He had his hand and opinion in every aspect of everything. He pushed everyone to do things beyond what they thought was possible.

ZippyTheChimp
October 12th, 2011, 05:43 PM
OK, I'll bite....More there than the reality.

Fabrizio
October 12th, 2011, 05:44 PM
The iPod, iPhone, iPad all did happen under the leadership of one man.

^My point about the great conductor.


I said being nice has nothing to do with being an innovative genius..

They used to use the term "mad genius".

Now-a-days geniuses are expected to be "nice".

ZippyTheChimp
October 12th, 2011, 05:44 PM
He pushed everyone to do things beyond what they thought was possible.Jesus!

Teno
October 12th, 2011, 05:48 PM
Are you implying that I said Jobs defined the era. Something I've never said.

I don't think any one man defines any one particular era. As that one man did not accomplish anything by himself.

What I am saying is that Jobs was more influential than anyone else at taking highly sophisticated technology and making it intiutive and easy to use for the average person.

Because highly sophisticated technology became simple and easy to use that opened up a whole new world of access, information and creativity.


I have given Jobs his due in several posts. What I find over-the-top is the suggestion that Jobs defined the era, that he was the icon that made it all happen.

Teno
October 12th, 2011, 05:53 PM
You can only be labelled as Jesus if you are known to have high expectations and accomplishment.


Jesus!

ZippyTheChimp
October 12th, 2011, 05:53 PM
^
That is your opinion. I've given you several reasons why other factors were involved in "opening up a whole new world..."

I've also said that I doubted that you would accept it.

What experience have you had with this era? Or are you just looking backwards with a predisposition?

ZippyTheChimp
October 12th, 2011, 05:54 PM
You can only be labelled as Jesus if you are known to have high expectations and accomplishment.Well, we know where you stand.

eddhead
October 12th, 2011, 06:05 PM
What I am saying is that Jobs was more influential than anyone else at taking highly sophisticated technology and making it intiutive and easy to use for the average person.

Because highly sophisticated technology became simple and easy to use that opened up a whole new world of access, information and creativity.

Add in Gates and I agree completely.

ZippyTheChimp
October 12th, 2011, 06:07 PM
Steve Jobs is NOT a Visionary; Get Off the Bandwagon CultistsThe OS was based on Unix, developed by AT&t Bell Labs in the late 1950s. AT&T was prohibited by the Justice Dept from profiting from computers, so Unix was used in company machinery. It was sourced out to research agencies and universities (Stanford University Network). Sun Microsystems built workstations on the Unix platform. The utility of Unix for small computers was tied to the release of the Intel 386 processor.

Ninjahedge
October 12th, 2011, 06:07 PM
You can only be labeled as "Messiah" if you have etc etc etc....

You can't be called "Jesus" unless you are named Jesus.

Fabrizio
October 12th, 2011, 06:11 PM
To the quote eddhead posted... also this...written pages and pages ago:




As I stated before if someone has a transistor or integrated circuit sitting on their desk. How are they going to use it to get any work done? People require intuitive easy to use software that unleashes the power of that transistor or integrated circuit.

What Steve Jobs was skilled at was taking all of these disciplines and parts of computer science. All of these advanced technologies and match them together in such away that is easily accessible and easy to use for the average person.

Jobs mariginalized the computer-geek. I think some people are still smarting over it.

ZippyTheChimp
October 12th, 2011, 06:22 PM
Those who have read this entire thread will instantly realize that the computer before Jobs was hardly marginalized. The developments during that era changed the world.

MidtownGuy
October 12th, 2011, 06:37 PM
I guess he did all that with some dancing silhouettes and dangling white cords. In other words, an ad blitz.

So let me get this straight...he didn't actually write the software, or come up with any original ideas on his own for the hardware either, but was really really good at making it all look cool....that is not a visionary, that's like the computer equivalent of J-Lo with smart looking spectacles instead of a big booty. Some sampling here and there, a team to polish up the product from make-up to packaging, and the help of a fawning media. Voila. A pop culture juggernaut is born.

Teno
October 12th, 2011, 07:37 PM
"So is it possible for you to innovate like Apple? You need a leader who prioritizes new product innovation. The CEO needs to be someone who looks out to the horizon and consistently sets a vision of innovation for the organization that he or she is willing to support completely with people, funds, and time. Further, that leader needs to be fluent in the language of your customer and the markets in which you compete. If the CEO cannot be this person, then he or she needs to be willing to trust that role to a senior executive and give that person the authority and latitude to effectively oversee the new product development process."

"This is straight from Jobs’ mouth: We do no market research. They scoff at the notion of target markets, and they don’t conduct focus groups. Why? Because everything Apple designs is based on Jobs’ and his team’s perceptions of what they think is cool."

"Jobs hires really smart people, and he lets them loose—but on a leash, since he overlooks it all with an extremely demanding eye. If you’re seeing visions of the “Great Eye” from J.R.R. Tolkien’s books, then you probably wouldn’t be too far off."


"If you have heard stories of Jobs discarding finished concepts at the very last minute, you understand why the team operates in this manner. It’s part of their corporate DNA of grueling perfection."

"They say Jobs had the marble for the floor at the New York Apple store shipped to California first so he could examine the veins. He also complained about the chamfer radius on the plastic case of an early prototype of the Macintosh. You had better believe, given the 10 to 3 to 1 approach for design, that every shadow, every pixel is scrutinized. It’s in their DNA.

You Can't Innovate Like Apple (http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/publications/magazine/6/4/you_cant_innovate_like_apple)

"Jobs himself is a crucial part of the formula. He's unique among big-time hardware CEOs for his hands-on involvement in the design process. Even product-design experts marvel at the power of the Jobs factor."

"Steve Jobs doesn't want good design. He wants great design, and my method will never give you that. That takes a rare leader, who can bring both the cohesion and commitment and style. And Steve has it."

Apple's Blueprint for Genius (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_12/b3925608.htm)

eddhead
October 12th, 2011, 08:13 PM
I guess he did all that with some dancing silhouettes and dangling white cords. In other words, an ad blitz.

So let me get this straight...he didn't actually write the software, or come up with any original ideas on his own for the hardware either, but was really really good at making it all look cool....that is not a visionary, that's like the computer equivalent of J-Lo with smart looking spectacles instead of a big booty. Some sampling here and there, a team to polish up the product from make-up to packaging, and the help of a fawning media. Voila. A pop culture juggernaut is born.
How much of the automobile did Henry Ford actually invent?

Teno
October 12th, 2011, 08:17 PM
So lets back up and look at the time line.

1984-Jobs leads the team that creates the Macintosh. The first Pc to commercially use a graphical user interface and mouse. It took another 11 years for their to emerge another comparable computer platform with Windows '95.

1989-Jobs leads the team that creates Next Step OS. Which is 10 years before its time. Next Step is the foundation for Mac OS X and iOS used on the iPhone and iPad.

2001-Jobs leads the team that creates the iPod+iTunes. It wasn't the first mp3 player or music store. But the combination became so popular that they've dominated the music player market for 10 years.

2007-Jobs leads the team that creates the iPhone. Today the iPhone is the number one selling phone in the US. Every other popular brand of phone is modeled after it.

2010-Jobs leads the team that creates the iPad. Microsoft has been attempting to create a tablet market since 2001. Over a 10 year period they've perhaps sold 10's of thousands of their tablets. In a year and a half Apple has sold over 30 million iPad's.



So this is the story you guys have of Steve Jobs and his work at Apple. He is an asshole who is a great businessman and a great marketer.

Despite the fact that he is an asshole he seems to be able to hire the absolute best people and take credit for all their hard work.

Why do all of these insanely great people work for an asshole? Why can't other companies seem to hire any of these people, where they can be free to create the iPod, iPhone, and iPad without being under the tyranny of Jobs?

Over the past 35 years every company Jobs has been apart of has created ground breaking and revolutionary work. Apple, Next, Pixar.

From what you guys are saying over the span of 35 years Jobs just happened to be in the right place around the right people and little of it was directly atribuatble to him. That is one lucky SOB.

Which is a more plausible story. Jobs is one of the luckiest men in history. Or he actually was very talented visionary?

eddhead
October 12th, 2011, 08:17 PM
Those who have read this entire thread will instantly realize that the computer before Jobs was hardly marginalized. The developments during that era changed the world.

The computer was not marginalized. Computer geeks were marginalized. You no longer need to master COBOL and other computer languages or even dos to use one. What Jobs and his contemporaries did was make the computer accessible to everyone.

As I posted previously, I used a Wang computer with Lotus 1-2-3 when I first entered the work force. It ran off dos. I am am by no means technically literate and the best i could do was master a few simple commands to generate very simple reports. And I had to learn that. f That was the extent of my skill set on a pc. Compare that with the knowledge that entry level employees come into the workforce with today. It is the commercially viable graphic user interface that made all of that possible.

MidtownGuy
October 12th, 2011, 08:31 PM
"How much of the automobile did Henry Ford actually invent?"

I'm not going to take a stand on that because I know very little about Ford. Less than I know about Leonardo DaVinci or Copernicus. I haven't tried to compare Ford to Jobs, but a quick glance at wikipedia says this:

In 1891, Ford became an engineer with the Edison Illuminating Company. After his promotion to Chief Engineer in 1893, he had enough time and money to devote attention to his personal experiments on gasoline engines. These experiments culminated in 1896 with the completion of a self-propelled vehicle which he named the Ford Quadricycle. He test-drove it on June 4. After various test-drives, Ford brainstormed ways to improve the Quadricycle.[8]

Also in 1896, Ford attended a meeting of Edison executives, where he was introduced to Thomas Edison. Edison approved of Ford's automobile experimentation; encouraged by him, Ford designed and built a second vehicle, completing it in 1898.
---

^It seems a case could be made. Just as a case could possibly be made for Jobs, but personally I'm just not agreeing with it.

The graphical interface: can you honestly argue that it would not have been developed as a logical next step in computing? People are inherently visual. It was going that way with or without him. How else are you going to make it easier for people to use? Hieroglyphics?

MidtownGuy
October 12th, 2011, 08:38 PM
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/242033/graphical-user-interface-GUI

There was no one inventor of the GUI; it evolved with the help of a series of innovators, each improving on a predecessor’s work. The first theorist was Vannevar Bush (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/86116/Vannevar-Bush), director of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development, who in an influential essay, “As We May Think,” published in the July 1945 issue of The Atlantic Monthly (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/41182/The-Atlantic-Monthly), envisioned how future information gatherers would use a computer-like device, which he called a “memex,” outfitted with buttons and levers that could access vast amounts of linked data—an idea that anticipated hyperlinking. Bush’s essay enchanted Douglas Engelbart (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/187881/Douglas-Engelbart), a young naval technician, who embarked on a lifelong quest to realize some of those ideas. While at the Stanford Research Institute (now known as SRI International), working on a U.S. Department of Defense grant, Engelbart formed the Augmentation Research Center. By the mid-1960s it had devised a set of innovations, including a way of segmenting the monitor screen so that it appeared to be a viewpoint into a document. (The use of multiple tiles, or windows, on the screen could easily accommodate different documents, something that Bush thought crucial.)

Engelbart’s team also invented a pointing device known as a “mouse (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/395079/mouse),” then a palm-sized wooden block on wheels whose movement controlled a cursor on the computer screen. These innovations allowed information to be manipulated in a more flexible, natural manner than the prevalent method of typing one of a limited set of commands.

PARC
The next wave of GUI innovation occurred at the Xerox Corporation’s Palo Alto (California) Research Center (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/706263/Xerox-PARC) (PARC), to which several of Engelbart’s team moved in the 1970s. The new interface ideas found their way to a computer workstation called the Xerox Star (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/650716/Xerox-Star), which was introduced in 1981. Though the process was expensive, the Star (and its prototype predecessor, the Alto) used a technique called “bit mapping (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/67175/bit-mapping)” in which everything on the computer screen was, in effect, a picture. Bit mapping not only welcomed the use of graphics but allowed the computer screen to display exactly what would be output from a printer—a feature that became known as “what you see is what you get,” or WYSIWYG (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/650293/WYSIWYG). The computer scientists at PARC, notably Alan Kay, also designed the Star interface to embody a metaphor: a set of small pictures, or “icons,” were arranged on the screen, which was to be thought of as a virtual desktop. The icons represented officelike activities such as retrieving files from folders and printing documents. By using the mouse to position the computer’s cursor over an icon and then clicking a button on the mouse, a command would be instantly implemented—an intuitively simpler, and generally quicker, process than typing commands.

Macintosh to Windows

In late 1979 a group of engineers from Apple (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/30632/Apple-Inc), led by cofounder Steven P. Jobs, saw the GUI during a visit to PARC and were sufficiently impressed to integrate the ideas into two new computers...

...It was only after 1990, when Microsoft released Windows 3.0 OS, with the first acceptable GUI for International Business Machines Corporation (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/290732/International-Business-Machines-Corporation-IBM) (IBM) PC-compatible computers, that the GUI became the standard interface for personal computers (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/452928/personal-computer-PC). This in turn led to the development of various graphical interfaces for UNIX and other workstation operating systems.

ZippyTheChimp
October 12th, 2011, 08:38 PM
The computer was not marginalized. Computer geeks were marginalized. I think you're missing the point here, or maybe you're not. Your posts are contradictory.

If, as you said, to want to put jobs on a par with Henry Ford, that's fine. Jobs was important, but the developments that sparked the age we live in came before Jobs.

But the cultists want something more, so expect a flurry of Apple commercials.

ZippyTheChimp
October 12th, 2011, 08:39 PM
The graphical interface: can you honestly argue that it would not have been developed as a logical next step in computing? People are inherently visual. It was going that way with or without him. How else are you going to make it easier for people to use? Hieroglyphics?Absolutely.

Teno
October 12th, 2011, 08:51 PM
Actually Xerox created the first graphical user interface. That was what inspired Jobs to use it. Xerox was never able to successfully market their software.

There were many graphical user interfaces developed in the 80's and 90's. None were as popular and widely used as Mac OS. At least not until 1995.


The graphical interface: can you honestly argue that it would not have been developed as a logical next step in computing? People are inherently visual. It was going that way with or without him. How else are you going to make it easier for people to use? Hieroglyphics?

MidtownGuy
October 12th, 2011, 08:59 PM
Again:

"It was only after 1990, when Microsoft released Windows 3.0 OS, with the first acceptable GUI for International Business Machines Corporation (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/290732/International-Business-Machines-Corporation-IBM) (IBM) PC-compatible computers, that the GUI became the standard interface for personal computers (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/452928/personal-computer-PC)"

and

"By 1995, when Microsoft released its even more intuitive Windows 95 OS, not only had components of the GUI become synonymous with computing but its images had found their way into other media, including print design and even television commercials."

MidtownGuy
October 12th, 2011, 09:00 PM
"inspired" Jobs? If that's the word you insist on using, I guess...I would say it's what he adopted that already existed, and made some modifications to, with his team.


Xerox was never able to successfully market their software.

Back to his talent for marketing. I don't think that was ever in dispute.

MidtownGuy
October 12th, 2011, 09:03 PM
Engelbart (in Douglas Engelbart (American inventor) (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/187881/Douglas-Engelbart#ref672441))American inventor whose work beginning in the 1950s led to his patent for the computer mouse, the development of the basic graphical user interface, and groupware. Engelbart won the 1997 A.M. Turing Award, the highest honour in computer science, for his “inspiring vision of the future of interactive computing and the invention of key technologies to help realize this vision.”

Teno
October 12th, 2011, 09:05 PM
Inspired by the idea. He didn't use any of Xerox's work or code.

The Macintosh team had to develop their graphical user interface from the ground up. They had to then create their own operating system. Mac OS was better than what Xerox did and is the reason why it was successful.

Again to show you how difficult that was. It took 11 years for Windows '95.


"inspired" Jobs? If that's the word you insist on using, I guess...I would say it's what he adopted that already existed, and made some modifications to, with his team.

Teno
October 12th, 2011, 09:22 PM
double post

Teno
October 12th, 2011, 09:50 PM
Here is a video of Steve Jobs in 1997. This is at a point where Apple as a company is in a nose dive. Steve is giving a talk to Apple employees and developers about what he would do if he were in charge of Apple. What Apple needs to do to turn things around.

Apple WWDC '97 Steve Jobs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3LEXae1j6EY)

A few months after this Steve is made CEO of Apple again.


Two very important predictions Steve makes in this talk.

He talks about the handheld mobile devices at the time. He says that the Apple Newton and the Palm Pilot both suck. For one he says that writing on a handheld device is a terrible input method. He says you need a keyboard. The other point he makes as that handheld devices need to always be connected to the internet. This was 1997 long before smart phones were widely available and at the time mobile phones themselves were not yet ubiquitous.

The other very important point he makes is about computers that are networked together. He says at Next they were working on networking all computers to a server. So that people can go anywhere log into the server and download all of their information without having to carry everything on localized storage. You no longer have to worry about file system, folders or where you put things. You no longer had to worry about your computer crashing and loosing everything.

The current vision of the networked computing idea Steve talked about exists today in mobile devices. The far majority of mobile device apps are just front end user interfaces that download information off of the internet. Very little of that information is saved on the device itself. In 1997 Steve was talking about networking computers together with gigabit ethernet. Wifi did not exist yet. Wireless networking was still in its infancy.

This year Apple is taking the networked information idea Steve talked about in 1997 to a whole new level with iCloud.


http://im.tech2.in.com/gallery/2011/jun/icloud_syncs_070923583792.jpg


There are no more file systems and folders to manage. It doesn't matter where you save something, you just start an app and there's your data. Here are your pictures, your music, your documents and movies. Here are your apps and maps and all the things you care about. You don't need to look for them, or move them from place to place. There's no more manual syncing. No more worrying about backups. No more dragging and dropping one thing from one place to another. All you have to do now is hit the power button. That's it.

iCloud Is a Bigger Deal Than You Think: It’s the Future of Computing (http://gizmodo.com/5848834/icloud-is-a-bigger-deal-than-you-think-its-the-future-of-computing)

MidtownGuy
October 12th, 2011, 10:09 PM
Inspired by the idea. He didn't use any of Xerox's work or code.


A rather bold and debatable assertion:

"There is still some controversy over the amount of influence that Xerox's PARC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_PARC) work, as opposed to previous academic research, had on the GUIs of Apple's Lisa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lisa) and Macintosh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Macintosh), but it is clear that the influence was extensive, because first versions of Lisa GUIs even lacked icons. These prototype GUIs are at least mouse driven, but completely ignored the WIMP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIMP_%28computing%29) ( "window, icon, menu, pointing device") concept. Rare screenshots of first GUIs of Apple Lisa prototypes are shown here (http://www.pegasus3d.com/apple_screens.html) and here (http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Busy_Being_Born.txt&topic=User%20Interface&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium). Note also that Apple engineers visited the PARC facilities (Apple secured the rights for the visit by compensating Xerox with a pre-IPO purchase of Apple stock) and a number of PARC employees subsequently moved to Apple to work on the Lisa and Macintosh GUI. However, the Apple work extended PARC's considerably, adding manipulatable icons, a fixed drop-down menu bar and drag&drop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag%26drop) manipulation of objects in the file system (see Macintosh Finder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_Finder)) for example. A list of the improvements made by Apple to the PARC interface can be read here (http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=On_Xerox,_Apple_and_Progress.txt&topic=Software%20Design&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date) (folklore.org) It's hard to say which particular features were originated in which project, though. Jef Raskin warns that many of the reported facts in the history of the PARC and Macintosh development are inaccurate, distorted or even fabricated, due to the lack of usage by historians of direct primary sources."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface

MidtownGuy
October 12th, 2011, 10:11 PM
He talks about the handheld mobile devices at the time.

Woopee do... an idea definitely not new. And one surly destined to evolve with or without him.

Anymore old Star Trek screen-shots?

MidtownGuy
October 12th, 2011, 10:17 PM
The other very important point he makes is about computers that are networked together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network)

How prominently does Jobs figure in the history and development of networking?

What important point was he making that was not already under consideration elsewhere and already under development for quite some time?

Having his finger on the zeitgeist of where networking was already going, well, that's not so incredibly visionary, is it?

Fabrizio
October 13th, 2011, 05:10 AM
The computer was not marginalized. Computer geeks were marginalized.

When I wrote that comment... well, you saw the response. How in the world could I respond in turn?

---

Anyway: my hat is off to Jobs for devising sophisticated gagets that are simple to operate and aestheically pleasing. Thanks for doing away with beige/grey plastic. Thanks for the one-stop world for my everything that is technological. Thanks for practically doing away with instruction manuals. Thanks for the fact that I don't have to call somebody's 16 year old cousin to come over here and set up the friggin' things. Thanks that the company has eliminated excruciatingly boring computer talk. And no viruses! Thanks for the stores that look like Armani shops but with helpful staff that answer all your stupid questions.

The computer is so important to me in work and communication...that Jobs took the current technology, worked out the kinks and rough edges, made it beautifull to boot, allowing the free flow of work and creativity without impediments... well, for me any way... I consider Jobs a visionary. It was his company, he was orchestrating it... so thanks to him.

Yes, I know Dick Tracy had an IPhone... and they IPads at the 1964 World's Fair... but Jobs actually delivered the goods.

Ninjahedge
October 13th, 2011, 09:49 AM
MTG, as was said, he was never truly a "visionary", but more of one who did have his fingers in the right places. He took what was already available, combined it with the talent needed, and modified current technology so that it would fit in a more comprehensive package.

I see his role not so much as a fashion designer, but a man who knew not only what pants matched what shirt, but how to sell that to the people who never thought of buying it in the first place.

Again, a talented individual, but not in the areas that many a semi-tech would like to put him.

nick-taylor
October 13th, 2011, 10:16 AM
No Jobs could not have done any of these things without the talented people he worked with. As no person is successful because of or by themselves, its always a team effort.

But at the same time looking at this list of success who is the one person common to it all?I see the same CEO/investor.

Yet you can't help yourself - you go on to talk about Jobs and cloud computing, something that hasn't just been thought about for a long time, but actually commercially avaialble from the likes of Amazon, Google and Microsoft for sometime. Ironically iCloud is being hosted by Microsoft's (Azure) and Amazon's (Web Service) cloud computing platforms!

Ninjahedge
October 13th, 2011, 11:05 AM
But Nick! this will be different!

It will be MUCH easier to use and everyone will be happy about it and all Apple products will automaticically be able to connect to it and all you have to do is pay a small fee.............. wait a sec.

Why does that sound so familiar.......


​~SONY~

eddhead
October 13th, 2011, 11:09 AM
I think you're missing the point here, or maybe you're not. Your posts are contradictory.

If, as you said, to want to put jobs on a par with Henry Ford, that's fine. Jobs was important, but the developments that sparked the age we live in came before Jobs.

But the cultists want something more, so expect a flurry of Apple commercials.

If those are my options , I put him on par with Henry Ford. BUt I think it is more complicated than that. Still, I do not equate him with Edison.

MTG, how many Parc's ect.. were actually sold or put into commercial use? And why do you suppose there weren't more?

Ninjahedge
October 13th, 2011, 11:51 AM
Meh. I think Ford was more of a revolutionizer. His introduction of the car to the common man (making it affordable and introducing concepts like the assembly line) changed the industry forever.

Apple has done good, but nothing as revolutionary. Innovative? Maybe. A good combo of tech, HF and HR that mark the sign of a good product launch and management for sure....

So I would put him in the same category, just not on the same level.


BTW, do not take this too hard. It is very difficult in this day and age to do the same kind of steps that others made during the age of change. Back then ONE businessman could be a focal point in the change of an industry. Now, not so easy. So while Jobs may have played a role and influenced the general direction we went, we were already on that road in the first place...

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 12:21 PM
MTG, how many Parc's ect.. were actually sold or put into commercial use? And why do you suppose there weren't more?

I see it as a continuation of the same innovative path of development, and not as some kind of shortcoming or failure at PARC, that had to be "fixed" over at Apple (by Jobs and his magic wand?).

The PARC group had a technological vision.

Brand new technology, as with any new step forward, has to be refined and needs a chance to evolve. The seed had already been planted. It's important to remember that some of the people from the PARC group were the same ones that continued their work on the same concepts over at Apple. The development evolved to a certain point, and wider dissemination was the next natural phase.

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 12:35 PM
Again, a talented individual, but not in the areas that many a semi-tech would like to put him.

I agree. That's why we see people thanking Steve Jobs for computing without viruses when they have no idea about the longer history of UNIX and the origins of the Mac OS.

"Below are some of the reasons why Apple Macintosh computers do not have as many viruses as Microsoft Windows.
1. Newer Macintosh operating systems, such as the Mac OS X, is built on the Unix kernel, which is one of the oldest and most secure operating systems available.
2. Microsoft Windows is used by a lot more people than the Apple Mac OS. Because more people use Microsoft Windows, it is a much better target than Apple computers.
3. Most of the computer virus writers are more familiar with the IBM platform and Microsoft Windows, which means its easier for them create a virus for that platform.
4. Many of the tools and scripts used to help users create viruses or other malware are designed for Microsoft Windows."

^ http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000737.htm (http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000737.htm) ^So, what part of this should we specifically thank Jobs for?

When I hear people thank, thank, thanking Jobs for everything from minimalist stores (nope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Store)) to no virus computing (nope (http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000737.htm)) to the color of the plastic (never mind Jonathan Ive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ive)), I just have to laugh. There is so much ignorance, and so little accurate information about the real story behind this stuff.

And why does Steve Wozniak get so little mention in the breathless thanking of Jobs? More ignorance, I suppose.

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 12:40 PM
You wouldn't even know Wozniak was actually the CO-FOUNDER of Apple. No...it was just Steve Job's company and he was the one orchestrating it all. Uh huh.

Ninjahedge
October 13th, 2011, 12:49 PM
The thing that kind of irritates me is, here is this billionaire that is dying from cancer, but even that will not persuade him to set up some funding to research the very thing that is killing him so that others would not share the same fate.

It is not as if this took him overnight....

Am I wrong on this? Is there a Steve Jobs Cancer Research Fund?

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 12:56 PM
I don't understand it either.

Ninjahedge
October 13th, 2011, 01:05 PM
Maybe it is in his will.

maybe he just wanted to make sure he had enough money to try and save himself before he set up any funds for anyone else..... :rolleyes:

(In contrast: Michael J Fox...)

eddhead
October 13th, 2011, 01:21 PM
No one ever said he was a nice man. Or maybe he contribututed to an existing fund anonymously.

Fabrizio
October 13th, 2011, 01:30 PM
This from the NYTimes covers some of the things that have been covered here. An excerpt:

The Power of Taking the Big Chance
By STEVE LOHR
Published: October 8, 2011


STEVE JOBS, technologist and tastemaker of modern digital culture, described himself as a captain of product design, inspiring his teams of workers, as he once said, to go “beyond what anyone thought possible” and to do “some great work, really great work that will go down in history.”

And he did, time and again. Mr. Jobs did not make the technology himself; he led the teams that did, prodding, cajoling and inspiring. His track record as a business team leader is unique — as Apple’s Macintosh, iPod, iPhone and iPad testify. In two stints at Apple, he made computers into coveted consumer goods and transformed not only product categories, like music players and cellphones, but also entire industries, like music and mobile communications.
Mr. Jobs even failed well. NeXT, a computer company he founded during his years in exile from Apple, was never a commercial success. But it was a technology pioneer. The World Wide Web was created on a NeXT computer, and NeXT software is the core of Apple’s operating systems today.
Part of Mr. Jobs’s legacy will be the lessons learned by those who worked closely with him over the years. Here are just a few:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/business/steve-jobs-and-the-power-of-taking-the-big-chance.html

( Steve Lohr writes the "Bits" blog for the NYTimes)

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 01:42 PM
^well, that seals it then! (Steve Lohr, thanks to you too!!!)

Good grief. What breathless lionizing... "he made computers into coveted consumer goods and transformed not only product categories, like music players and cellphones, but also entire industries, like music and mobile communications."

He, He, He. Never mind the historical facts. Either He was the next coming of Jesus or it's just easier and makes better writing to heap credit on one man... when entire industries were clearly destined to move forward, with or without him.

Fabrizio
October 13th, 2011, 01:43 PM
But of all of the articles about Jobs that I've read after his death,... this is the one that resonates the most with me. I wrote in another thread about how I felt Apple harks back the era of great American industrial design. I compared it to Knoll, still operating today:

How Jobs Put Passion Into Products


By JAMES B. STEWART
Published: October 7, 2011

In the early 1990s Compaq Computer was the technology darling of the day, and PC sales were surging. Dell was promoting its build-on-demand model, Gateway computer shipped its products in boxes with Holstein cow markings, and I.B.M. had introduced the ThinkPad with its Little Tramp marketing campaign. Apple’s Macintosh was introduced during the 1984 Super Bowl but was considered a marginal outlier with its quirky proprietary operating system.

About this time I had lunch with Bill Gates, who dismissed PCs as nothing but components held together by plastic and screws manufactured on low-cost assembly lines, a commodity business with narrow profit margins. The future belonged to software and semiconductor makers like Microsoft and Intel, where the real innovation was going on.

This made sense to me, and as the years unfolded, Mr. Gates seemed prescient. The PC makers were mostly reduced to commodity producers; I.B.M. sold off the ThinkPad, Hewlett-Packard bought Compaq and may now abandon the business; Gateway was sold off and the brand has all but vanished. Apple nearly went under. But today, the exception is so glaring as to have stood Mr. Gates’s prediction on its head: Apple’s operating profit margins have grown (to over 33 percent), and Apple’s market capitalization of $347.3 billion this week is bigger than that of Microsoft and Intel combined.

Of all Steve Jobs’s accomplishments, this, to me, remains both the simplest and the most astonishing. How did he take a commodity — to borrow from the novelist Tom Wolfe, the “veal gray” plastic boxes that once weighed so heavily on both our desks and spirits — and turn it into one of the most iconic and desirable objects on the planet?

“Steve Jobs and Apple never — ever — wanted to be a low-margin commodity producer,” Donald Norman, a former vice president for advanced technology at Apple and author of “Living With Complexity,” told me this week. “Even the Apple II had some charm to it. It was the first personal computer that had professional industrial designers. Before that they were designed strictly by engineers, and they were ugly. Steve was always, if not an artist, then someone who was charmed by style. He had this dream of something beautiful. If it was going to cost more, it didn’t matter. This was in his genes.”

Paola Antonelli, senior curator of architecture and design at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, recalled buying a 1990 Macintosh Classic and taking it back to Italy. “When I got home, I took it out of that brown, padded carrying case with the rainbow-colored Apple logo on it and put it on my desk in Milan. It was like a little pug dog looking at me. It wasn’t just something I worked with; it kept me company. It had such personality and such life.”

My own conversion came much later. When I came across the MacBook Air, I thought it the single most elegant technology product I’d ever encountered, and not just because it looked good. Its light weight and paper-thin design made it easy to carry while offering all the functions and keyboard of a full-size PC. Even the packaging was so beautiful that I couldn’t bring myself to discard it. Now I refer to it as my third arm and can’t imagine life without it.

Mr. Jobs “had an exceptional eye for design, and not just an eye, but an intelligence for design,” Ms. Antonelli said. “We don’t talk just about the looks, but how objects communicate: The specific shape, how it feels in the hand, under the fingers, how you read it in the eye and the mind. This is what Steve cared passionately about.”

MoMA has 25 Apple products in its permanent design collection. And like many great artists, Mr. Jobs’s near-dictatorial control of Apple made possible the pursuit of perfection. “If you’re a visionary, and a dictator, you can take risks and be consistent,” Ms. Antonelli said. “NeXT was a risk and a beautiful failure. It brought him back to Apple. The dynamics of Apple and Steve’s personality and the course of history made for this perfect alignment of the stars.”

Also like many artists (Frank Lloyd Wright comes to mind), Mr. Jobs was legendarily difficult at times. “He has always been focused, driven, demanding and, as a result, very difficult and abrasive,” Mr. Norman said. “This abrasiveness in the early days was too extreme and was destructive of the company. John Sculley had to fire him. When Steve came back, he had matured. He still had a demanding vision of perfection, but he brought focus. He was slightly less abrasive. He was brilliant at understanding what a product should be and he was a dictator.”

”It takes a unique person to do this,” Mr. Norman continued. “He micromanaged, which goes against all conventional wisdom about management. He went to product reviews every week. He’d say, ‘Move that two pixels over.’ A C.E.O. telling you to move something a pixel? Then he’d come back a month later, and say, ‘I told you to move that. Why didn’t you?’ That’s a unique characteristic. He cared about details and he remembered.”
Multimedia

Mr. Jobs made no secret of his focus on design; in a Jan. 24, 2000, interview, Fortune magazine asked if it was an “obsession” and whether it was “an inborn instinct or what?”

“We don’t have good language to talk about this kind of thing,” Mr. Jobs replied. “In most people’s vocabularies, design means veneer. It’s interior decorating. It’s the fabric of the curtains and the sofa. But to me, nothing could be further from the meaning of design. Design is the fundamental soul of a man-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers of the product or service. The iMac is not just the color or translucence or the shape of the shell. The essence of the iMac is to be the finest possible consumer computer in which each element plays together. ... That is the furthest thing from veneer. It was at the core of the product the day we started. This is what customers pay us for — to sweat all these details so it’s easy and pleasant for them to use our computers. We’re supposed to be really good at this. That doesn’t mean we don’t listen to customers, but it’s hard for them to tell you what they want when they’ve never seen anything remotely like it.”

For all his accolades, this aspect of Mr. Jobs was hard for many business people to understand, or to copy. Go into a computer store today, and there’s a bland array of mostly indistinguishable keyboards and monitors — and then there’s Apple. Ditto the cellphone stores.

“Most people underestimate his grandeur and his greatness,” Gadi Amit, founder and principal designer of New Deal Design in San Francisco, told me. “They think it’s about design. It’s beyond design. It’s completely holistic, and it’s dogmatic. Things need to be high quality; they have to have poetry and culture in each step. Steve was cut from completely different cloth from most business leaders. He was not a number-crunching guy; he was not a technologist. He was a cultural leader, and he drove Apple from that perspective. He started with culture; then followed with technology and design. No one seems to get that.”

It’s hard to find parallels. Braun and Olivetti in Europe had beautiful designs but never had Apple’s success. Mr. Amit mentioned Italy’s Enzo Ferrari, the racecar driver and founder of the Ferrari sports car manufacturer. “Apple has the status that Ferrari has in Italy,” Ms. Antonelli said. “It’s a source of national pride and of pride for every employee. You get to that stature only if you created something so fundamental that everyone loves.”

Mr. Amit says he believes Mr. Jobs’s legacy will be “the blending of technology and poetry. It’s not about design per se; it’s the poetic aspect of the entire enterprise. Compared to Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, he’s in a different class. I think this is a revolutionary shift. Jobs is a revolutionary character. He shifted the industry and changed our lives through this amalgamation of culture and technology. If you’re looking for C.E.O.’s of this caliber, you have to look outside the engineering and business schools. That is truly revolutionary.”

Apple now faces competition on nearly every front, and whether it can maintain its competitive edge without Mr. Jobs is a pressing question, especially for Apple shareholders and customers. But everyone I spoke to agreed that Mr. Jobs himself was irreplaceable.

“He was really unique, brilliant, demanding and difficult,” Mr. Norman said. “Like him or not, it doesn’t matter; he redefined the music industry, the cellphone industry, computers and animation. You cannot deny the impact he had on the company, the industry and our culture.”


About the author James B. Stewart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B._Stewart

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/business/how-steve-jobs-infused-passion-into-a-commodity.html

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 01:46 PM
^There is so much in that article to be put into more accurate, realistic perspective that one hardly knows where to begin. I guess "go back and read the thread" pretty much covers lots of it.

And BTW...all the magazines at the corner pharmacy have him on the cover...I guess joining the established chorus is a great way to get your share of the eyeballs and the sales to be made from a grand campaign of exaltation.

eddhead
October 13th, 2011, 02:11 PM
There is so much in that article to be put into more accurate, realistic perspective that one hardly knows where to begin. I guess "go back and read the thread" pretty much covers lots of it.

And BTW...all the magazines at the corner pharmacy have him on the cover...I guess joining the established chorus is a great way to get your share of the eyeballs and the sales to be made from a grand campaign of exaltation.

"he made computers into coveted consumer goods and transformed not only product categories, like music players and cellphones, but also entire industries, like music and mobile communications.".

IN terms of the bold, maybe not singularly, but he was certainly instrumental in doing just that.

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 02:26 PM
I agree...he and many, many other folks working in those same industries.
---

I do understand the tendency for human beings to simplify things when assigning responsibility or praise to any endeavor.

It doesn't mean such attribution is any more accurate, or not regrettably exaggerated...just more simple and marketable into a sound bite.

Can it be that Jobs' talent for marketing and credit-grabbing has extended posthumously to his own eulogization?

eddhead
October 13th, 2011, 02:41 PM
I agree...he and many, many other folks working in those same industries.
---

I do understand the tendency for human beings to simplify things when assigning responsibility or praise to any endeavor.

It doesn't mean such attribution is any more accurate, or not regrettably exaggerated...just more simple and marketable into a sound bite.

Can it be that Jobs' talent for marketing and credit-grabbing has extended posthumously to his own eulogization?

Many were involved but only a few had the (here's that word again) vision and leadership necessary to make conceive and realize that transformation. Jobs and Gates were the two most instrumental to me. .

Ninjahedge
October 13th, 2011, 02:44 PM
No, just his desire for control, attention and money.

You make more money (publicity) eulogizing a liked individual than rationally examining him.

I was a little sick that the Discovery Channel is doing something on him using the frigging Mythbusters...... (And no, they were not busting, they were kissing).

ENOUGH!

Hes DEAD already! Christ, we pay more attention to a man who made a more attractive electronic recreation device than we do to our own world leaders! (myopic fascination)

Ninjahedge
October 13th, 2011, 02:48 PM
Many were involved but only a few had the (here's that word again) vision and leadership necessary to make conceive and realize that transformation. Jobs and Gates were the two most instrumental to me. .

I think they were the focal points, to be sure, but not the "visionaries" that made it so. Again, splitting hairs and muddling definitions.

I also think that if many of these stories would putting the simple adjoiner "One of" to the beginning of most of the statements they are making, it would be received with a lot better benevolence. "He was ONE OF the men responsible for.....yadda yadda yadda".

The only time I have heard this used is when they seek to group him with, back to square one, Einstein and Edison.....

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 04:06 PM
Yes Xerox Parc was of big influence on the design of Mac OS. So much so that Apple gave Xerox shares of Apple's IPO.

If Xerox had anything of real value to steal, the first question I would ask is why didn't Xerox ever market a computer system?



A rather bold and debatable assertion:

"There is [B]still some controversy over the amount of influence that Xerox's PARC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_PARC) work, as opposed to previous academic research, had on the GUIs of Apple's Lisa and Macintosh,

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 04:33 PM
I've got pics of what the most popular phones looked like before the iPhone.

http://pdfcafe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/BlackBerry-Curve-8350i-300x253.jpg http://www.tic-tok.net/store/product_images/g/740/treo_650_sprint_z1_56790__32553_zoom.jpg http://r.phonedog.com/shared/images/items/6032-main-medium-samsung-blackjack-2-sgh-617-black.jpg


On January 2007 when the iPhone was introduced. There was no indication that anyone had any plans of making a phone remotely like the iPhone.


Woopee do... an idea definitely not new. And one surly destined to evolve with or without him.

Anymore old Star Trek screen-shots?

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 04:48 PM
How prominently does Jobs figure in the history and development of networking?

He wasn't a prominent part of the development of networking. And nothing i said implied that he was. You completely miss the point.

Jobs wasn't talking about the networking technology itself. He was talking about the advnatages of having computers networked to a server that contained all of your vital information.

His point was that large companies were able to take full advantage of networking technology. He had the vision to deliver that same advantage to the average common consumer.


What important point was he making that was not already under consideration elsewhere and already under development for quite some time?

If you watch the video he gave a very important example.

Jobs gave an example of how long and how difficult it had been for the computer industry to adopt plug and play. He talked about how it took over 5 years to get everyone on board. You have to get Microsoft, Intel, Dell, Compaq, Hewlet Packrd, Packard Bell, Gateway. You have to get them all to agree on how plug and play would work. That took years to work out.

Because Apple builds its own software and hardware. When Apple decided to implement plug and play it took a much shorter amount of time to get it to market.

That exwample was to highlight the point that Apple is in a great position to implement computer networking in the way that he described without having to wait for the rest of the computer industry to catch up.


Having his finger on the zeitgeist of where networking was already going, well, that's not so incredibly visionary, is it?


The fact that it was going to eventually happen wasn't the point. It was the fact that Apple had all of the tools in place to implement it faster than anyone else. Jobs was smart enough to see where things were headed and point Apple in that direction sooner than the general computer market.

Apple was the first computer company to drop floppy drives and parallel ports. Apple was the first to implement USB, optical disk drives, Firewire, and WiFi as standard into all of their computers. The computer industry at large thought they were crazy. In truth they were ahead of the curve.

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 04:50 PM
What's the point of technological vision that never makes it to market and no one really uses?



The PARC group had a technological vision.

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 04:55 PM
I see the same CEO/investor.

Did you watch the video? What CEO/investory have you ever heard talk exactly like that?


Yet you can't help yourself - you go on to talk about Jobs and cloud computing, something that hasn't just been thought about for a long time, but actually commercially avaialble from the likes of Amazon, Google and Microsoft for sometime. Ironically iCloud is being hosted by Microsoft's (Azure) and Amazon's (Web Service) cloud computing platforms!


iCloud isn't really like what Amazon, Google, or Microsoft is doing. Their cloud services were developed specifically to augment their own software products and services.

iCloud is cloud computing for EVERY software product service on your iOS device. It is intended to back up ALL of your shared content.

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 04:58 PM
Actually iCloud is a free service to every iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad.


But Nick! this will be different!

It will be MUCH easier to use and everyone will be happy about it and all Apple products will automaticically be able to connect to it and all you have to do is pay a small fee.......

Ninjahedge
October 13th, 2011, 05:00 PM
really Teno?

A 2 minute search on the net yielded this one:

14257

While not exactly an iPhone Clone, it is definitely no CrackBerry.

How about this:

14258

Or this:
14259

There may be more here http://www.freshphones.info/2007/01/

(http://www.freshphones.info/2007/01/)All you need to do is an images search for "cell phone 2007".

They may not have hit the mark as square as the iPhone, but saying there were none like it is a fallacy.

Ninjahedge
October 13th, 2011, 05:02 PM
Actually iCloud is a free service to every iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad.

And how much do you pay for your product? And how many formats will it run? And what components will work with it?

Apple is one of the most guarded and proprietary systems out there. For a company that makes a minority of machines in the world, for it to be making the most money indicates its profit margin on products sold.

eddhead
October 13th, 2011, 05:05 PM
really Teno?

A 2 minute search on the net yielded this one:

14257

While not exactly an iPhone Clone, it is definitely no CrackBerry.

How about this:

14258

Or this:
14259

There may be more here http://www.freshphones.info/2007/01/

(http://www.freshphones.info/2007/01/)All you need to do is an images search for "cell phone 2007".

They may not have hit the mark as square as the iPhone, but saying there were none like it is a fallacy.

The LG looks kind of like one of my old phones which was definetly NOT a smart phone.

Fabrizio
October 13th, 2011, 05:15 PM
#2... is the Giorgio Armani phone for Samsung.

Yeah... that was definitely an indicator of things to come.

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 05:25 PM
The LG looks kind of like one of my old phones which was definetly NOT a smart phone.

The point is Teno posted about the look of the phones. We can discuss the technology of "smart phones" as well, and still find that Jobs was not singularly behind it. The look either, for that matter! Again: where is the mention of Jonathan Ive (design genius behind the iEverything) in all of these breathless tributes to what Jobs supposedly did. My god...at least a mention for Christ's sake.



I've got pics of what the most popular phones looked like before the iPhone.


Jonathan Ive was the leading designer and conceptual mind behind the iPhone. The iMac as well. Kudos to him. An extremely talented industrial designer.

As for the touch screen interface, that was not conceived by Jobs either.

I don't see a design revolution...but rather an evolution....screens on mobile devices kept getting bigger, until they covered the whole front of the device. I think this is a natural progression, and in any case, where is the evidence it came from the vision of Jobs? unless you have some kind of link to back up such an assertion? Plenty of information and products going back many years tell a different story.


Jobs wasn't talking about the networking technology itself. He was talking about the advnatages of having computers networked to a server that contained all of your vital information.

Oh yeah right....before Jobs gave his speech, computer engineers across the world never had that in mind. This is nonsense.


Apple was the first computer company to drop floppy drives and parallel ports. Apple was the first to implement USB, optical disk drives, Firewire, and WiFi as standard into all of their computers. The computer industry at large thought they were crazy. In truth they were ahead of the curve.

Of course I acknowledge that Apple was ahead of the curve on aspects of their computers...but my point all along has been a rejection of the bombastic exaggeration of Steve Jobs' centrality to all of these innovations. This is where YOU are missing the point: that Jobs absorbs the credit for what a large team of people accomplished, many of whom seem to exceed him in talent when it comes to technological vision, actual invention, and the specific industrial design genius that made it all attractive. Jonathan Ive, Wozniak, and the others already mentioned.

eddhead
October 13th, 2011, 05:31 PM
This is where YOU are missing the point: that Jobs absorbs the credit for what a large team of people accomplished, many of whom seem to exceed him in talent when it comes to technological vision, actual invention, and the specific industrial design genius that made it all attractive. Jonathan Ives, Wozniak, and the others already mentioned.

I am sure you can say the dame thing about Edison (and no, I do not but Jobs in Edison's league), Ford, and others accomplished, i.e. that they worked within the confines of large teams to accomplish thier innovations. That does not take away from their influence.

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 05:32 PM
The Giorgio Armani phone...nice...but it wasn't WHITE! Oh my God, no! A Jobs-ian (er...Ive-ian?) revolution was needed!

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 05:34 PM
That does not take away from their influence.

well, "influence" is a lot more reasonable of a word than the other bombastic descriptions of what he actually did.

(Furthermore, I don't think it's any more or less historically accurate to give guys like Ford all the credit either.) What I would like passed on is the WHOLE story, not necessarily a totally different story. But that makes for far less compelling (and overly complicated?) magazine articles, cultural sound bites...and funerals.

Fabrizio
October 13th, 2011, 05:35 PM
I am sure you can say the dame thing about Edison (and no, I do not but Jobs in Edison's league), Ford, and others accomplished, i.e. that they worked within the confines of large teams to accomplish thier innovations. That does not take away from their influence.

Whoa.... wait a minute. What are you telling me? I honestly thought Jobs designed everything.

I had visions of him tinkering in the basement until all hours.

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 05:44 PM
Whoa.... wait a minute. What are you telling me? I honestly thought Jobs designed everything.

I had visions of him tinkering in the basement until all hours.

^ and eradicating computer viruses from Macs too! thanks thanks thanks, Steve!

Ninjahedge
October 13th, 2011, 05:45 PM
BTW, if I remember right, USB was something that Apple tried to shun. I will have to document this (so I am not putting much weight behind it) but I seem to remember that some models came only with the proprietary Firewire port.....

Also, getting rid of the floppy sounds all all and good, until you see how many people still had a lot of their programs and other stuff still ON the floppy. I was never a fan of the 1.44 myself, having programs that required 20-30 disks to install, but to have a change forced on you by a manufacturer is rather irritating and dictatorial.

But this actually makes the thread drift a bit OT... back on target. Steve was great at what he did. But what he did was not invent. He deserves much credit, but this posthumous exaltation is a bit superfluous and, quite frankly, rather self serving as those that seem to be praising the most also purchase the most.

The better the man was, the more the purchases are deemed "worthy" and not just a needless expense on a fancy designer toy (iPod....).

Not saying this is all, but a persons guilt at expenditure is often waylaid by reassurance that their purchases were well "worth it".

Ninjahedge
October 13th, 2011, 05:46 PM
BTW, you don't wanna know what he was tinkering with.......


I always wondered what happened to Peter Pan.....

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 05:48 PM
he was tinkering with Pantone chips...he was trying to migrate us all away from grey and beige.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 06:04 PM
"Below are some of the reasons why Apple Macintosh computers do not have as many viruses as Microsoft Windows."

"Dave Schroeder, a senior systems engineer at the University of Wisconsin, launched his contest Monday by setting up a fully-patched Mac mini hosting a Web page, and challenging attackers to have at it."

"The mini garnered attention and lots of traffic, said Schroeder, who logged 4,000 attempts. The machine weathered two DoS attacks, various Web exploit scripts, SSH dictionary attacks, and untold probes by scanning tools, he added.

"There were no successful access attempts of any kind during the 38 hour duration of the test," he crowed."

Hack My Mac (http://www.informationweek.com/news/181502078)


When I hear people thank, thank, thanking Jobs for everything from minimalist stores (nope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Store))

Whose idea was the Apple store?

Apple: America's best retailer (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/03/19/8402321/)


to no virus computing (nope (http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000737.htm))

What virus has widely attacked OS X?


to the color of the plastic (never mind Jonathan Ive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ive)),

Well we've posted articles where people who work at Apple describe Apple's design process. Where in that description do they ever say Jonathan Ive has the last word on anything?


I just have to laugh. There is so much ignorance, and so little accurate information about the real story behind this stuff.

Indeed............


And why does Steve Wozniak get so little mention in the breathless thanking of Jobs? More ignorance, I suppose.

Becase Woz did not take Apple from a company at the edge of going out of business and turn it into the most valuable tech company in the world.

nick-taylor
October 13th, 2011, 06:07 PM
Did you watch the video? What CEO/investory have you ever heard talk exactly like that?

iCloud isn't really like what Amazon, Google, or Microsoft is doing. Their cloud services were developed specifically to augment their own software products and services.

iCloud is cloud computing for EVERY software product service on your iOS device. It is intended to back up ALL of your shared content.I don't know whether it is your blind ignorance towards Apple or jaundiced view of the wider world, but Amazon, Google and Microsoft are years ahead of Apple in cloud computing. Cloud-based laptops (Chromebooks) are available, while cloud-apps and cloud-based storage has been around for some time.

You are correct though - Amazon and Microsoft aren't like iCloud - they're more than that - that's why iCloud utilises Microsoft's Azure and Amazon Web Service platforms.

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 06:14 PM
1) Those were not the most popular phones in 2007.

2) Those were not smart phones. Those phones generally ran a very rudimentary touch screen interface usually based on java or flash.

3) Why do you think those phones are no longer used? They were craptastic!



really Teno?

A 2 minute search on the net yielded this one:

They may not have hit the mark as square as the iPhone, but saying there were none like it is a fallacy.

Ninjahedge
October 13th, 2011, 06:29 PM
1) You did not say the most popular. You said there were none.

2) One was a "smart phone" possibly two. Did you look at the specs on all of them?

3) You are missing the point AGAIN. You said "Nothing was around, la la la la, look at all that was there" but yet in 2 minutes I found three that resembled the iPhone at the time.

Your point was that he was a visionary that changed the world with something COMPLETELY different, my point was that similar products existed. His just "hit the mark" a bit better.

Apple Hack:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9018138/_10k_hack_challenge_winner_says_Vista_s_code_more_ secure_than_Mac_s

http://www.zdnet.com.au/mac-os-x-hacked-under-30-minutes-139241748.htm

T (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9018138/_10k_hack_challenge_winner_says_Vista_s_code_more_ secure_than_Mac_s)eno, just stop.

Apples may be good machines, but they are not the Hand of God, and Steve was not his messenger.

Fabrizio
October 13th, 2011, 06:30 PM
The Giorgio Armani could also spray cologne. Not even the IPhone can do that.

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 06:53 PM
The point is Teno posted about the look of the phones. We can discuss the technology of "smart phones" as well, and still find that Jobs was not singularly behind it. The look either, for that matter! Again: where is the mention of Jonathan Ive (design genius behind the iEverything) in all of these breathless tributes to what Jobs supposedly did. My god...at least a mention for Christ's sake.

I wasn't simply talking about the way the phone looked but also how it functioned. I've never said Jobs was singularly the mastermind of anything. He was the visionary leader of the team that developed it.



Jonathan Ive was the leading designer and conceptual mind behind the iPhone. The iMac as well. Kudos to him. An extremely talented industrial designer.

Show me an article where someone who had any access to Apple's development process explain that Jonathan Ive singularly had all of these good ideas by himself.


As for the touch screen interface, that was not conceived by Jobs either.

I didn't say he was. What you do have to understand is that there are several different types of touch screen technologies and they are not all equal. The iPhone uses a capacitive touch screen. They are more expensive and were rarely used in 2007. Now of course every touch screen phone uses it.


I don't see a design revolution...but rather an evolution....screens on mobile devices kept getting bigger, until they covered the whole front of the device. I think this is a natural progression, and in any case, where is the evidence it came from the vision of Jobs? unless you have some kind of link to back up such an assertion? Plenty of information and products going back many years tell a different story.

In 2002, shortly after the first iPod was released, Jobs started thinking about developing a phone. He saw millions of Americans lugging separate phones, BlackBerrys, and — now — MP3 players; naturally, consumers would prefer just one device. He also saw a future in which cell phones and mobile email devices would amass ever more features, eventually challenging the iPod's dominance as a music player. To protect his new product line, Jobs knew he would eventually need to venture into the wireless world.

Jobs had reason to be confident. Apple's hardware engineers had spent about a year working on touchscreen technology for a tablet PC and had convinced him that they could build a similar interface for a phone. Plus, thanks to the release of the ARM11 chip, cell phone processors were finally fast and efficient enough to power a device that combined the functionality of a phone, a computer, and an iPod.

The conversation about which operating system to use was at least one that all of Apple's top executives were familiar with. They were less prepared to discuss the intricacies of the mobile phone world: things like antenna design, radio-frequency radiation, and network simulations. To ensure the iPhone's tiny antenna could do its job effectively, Apple spent millions buying and assembling special robot-equipped testing rooms. To make sure the iPhone didn't generate too much radiation, Apple built models of human heads — complete with goo to simulate brain density — and measured the effects. To predict the iPhone's performance on a network, Apple engineers bought nearly a dozen server-sized radio-frequency simulators for millions of dollars apiece. Even Apple's experience designing screens for iPods didn't help the company design the iPhone screen, as Jobs discovered while toting a prototype in his pocket: To minimize scratching, the touchscreen needed to be made of glass, not hard plastic like on the iPod. One insider estimates that Apple spent roughly $150 million building the iPhone.

The Untold Story: How the iPhone Blew Up the Wireless Industry (http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/magazine/16-02/ff_iphone?currentPage=all)




Oh yeah right....before Jobs gave his speech, computer engineers across the world never had that in mind. This is nonsense.

In 2007 no one was putting it into action.


Of course I acknowledge that Apple was ahead of the curve on aspects of their computers...but my point all along has been a rejection of the bombastic exaggeration of Steve Jobs' centrality to all of these innovations. This is where YOU are missing the point: that Jobs absorbs the credit for what a large team of people accomplished, many of whom seem to exceed him in talent when it comes to technological vision, actual invention, and the specific industrial design genius that made it all attractive. Jonathan Ive, Wozniak, and the others already mentioned.

What you seem to miss in the articles posted where the people who worked with Jobs are giving him credit for pushing everyone to create the things that Apple made. That is all I am acknowledging.

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 07:04 PM
I agree with that.


Many were involved but only a few had the (here's that word again) vision and leadership necessary to make conceive and realize that transformation. Jobs and Gates were the two most instrumental to me. .

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 07:30 PM
1) You did not say the most popular. You said there were none.

"I've got pics of what the most popular phones looked like before the iPhone."


2) One was a "smart phone" possibly two. Did you look at the specs on all of them?

The phones I posted were smart phones: Blackberry, Palm, Windows Mobile.

The phones you posted were for people who liked looking like they have a smart phone but either did not really need one or could not really afford one.


3) You are missing the point AGAIN. You said "Nothing was around, la la la la, look at all that was there" but yet in 2 minutes I found three that resembled the iPhone at the time.

They were touch screen phones, but that alone does not make them like the iPhone. Those phones were crap.


Your point was that he was a visionary that changed the world with something COMPLETELY different, my point was that similar products existed. His just "hit the mark" a bit better.

After the introduction of the iPhone every crappy phone OS was abandoned.

Most everyone has adopted Android which was created by a guy who used to work at Apple.

Palm dropped its aging Treo OS and built webOS which was created by a guy who used to work at Apple.

MS dropped its aging Windows Mobile OS and has adopted Metro as its mobile OS interface.

Blackberry dropped its aging BB OS and bought QNX.


Apple Hack:
no, just stop.

If you pay close attention all of those successful OS X attacks are from people who had direct root access to the computer. Not remote access that a successful virus, malware, or trojan would require.


Apples may be good machines, but they are not the Hand of God, and Steve was not his messenger.

I never said they were.

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 07:45 PM
BTW, if I remember right, USB was something that Apple tried to shun. I will have to document this (so I am not putting much weight behind it) but I seem to remember that some models came only with the proprietary Firewire port.....

Apple wanted to promote Firewire over USB because Firewire is a superior connector protocol.

But no Apple did not shun USB. Apple has been using USB standard on every Mac since 1998.


Also, getting rid of the floppy sounds all all and good, until you see how many people still had a lot of their programs and other stuff still ON the floppy. I was never a fan of the 1.44 myself, having programs that required 20-30 disks to install, but to have a change forced on you by a manufacturer is rather irritating and dictatorial.

Seeing as Apple sold millions of iMacs, it seemed to work out fine.

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 08:00 PM
I don't know whether it is your blind ignorance towards Apple or jaundiced view of the wider world, but Amazon, Google and Microsoft are years ahead of Apple in cloud computing. Cloud-based laptops (Chromebooks) are available, while cloud-apps and cloud-based storage has been around for some time.

Do you understand what iCloud does? In what way is Amazon, Google, and Microsoft years ahead?

Chrome OS is primarily tied to Google's services. This is not what iCloud does.


You are correct though - Amazon and Microsoft aren't like iCloud - they're more than that - that's why iCloud utilises Microsoft's Azure and Amazon Web Service platforms.

Microsoft's Azure and Amazon Web Service platforms are just back end servers, they have nothing to do with the front facing user interface. Lots of different companies use both Microsoft's Azure and Amazon Web Service, the systems themselves have little to do with how they are used.

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 08:03 PM
ME:
When I hear people thank, thank, thanking Jobs for everything from minimalist stores (nope)...

TENO:
Whose idea was the Apple store?

The article you linked to doesn't exactly say, but anyway my "nope" was not referring to the idea of just HAVING a store....I was referring to the design...how they look... a response to this statement: "my hat is off to Jobs...thanks for the stores that look like Armani shops but with helpful staff" in post #142. From the article, Ronald Johnson and Mickey Drexler are directly responsible for the look of the stores and how they run.

TENO:
If Xerox had anything of real value to steal, the first question I would ask is why didn't Xerox ever market a computer system?

First of all, are you saying Xerox had nothing of value in its innovative GIU interface?....and second of all, what are you talking about, "steal"? I said there was an evolution, and that the visionary seed was not sown by Jobs.

ME:
to no virus computing (nope)

Again, you completely missed the point. The complete sentence (thanks for lifting the phrase out of context) was:

ME:
When I hear people thank, thank, thanking Jobs for everything from minimalist stores (nope) to no virus computing (nope) to the color of the plastic (never mind Jonathan Ive), I just have to laugh.

MEANING: JOBS was not the one to thank for these things such as no-virus computing...NOT suggesting that Macs have a "widely attacked OS X". The reasons why Macs are less attacked are listed, and none of them have to do with Jobs personally.

TENO:
Well we've posted articles where people who work at Apple describe Apple's design process. Where in that description do they ever say Jonathan Ive has the last word on anything?

Now who said Ive had the"last word"? Not me. Of course the boss has that. But Ive was responsible for the design. The colors, features, shapes that we recognize. Not Jobs. When you have one of the worlds foremost industrial designers bringing you a prototype that looks brilliant, do you say "Nay"?

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 08:06 PM
The phones I posted were smart phones: Blackberry, Palm, Windows Mobile.

The phones you posted were for people who liked looking like they have a smart phone but either did not really need one or could not really afford one.

Keep moving the goal post.

lofter1
October 13th, 2011, 08:27 PM
I am sure you can say the dame thing about Edison (and no, I do not but Jobs in Edison's league), Ford, and others accomplished, i.e. that they worked within the confines of large teams to accomplish thier innovations.


Don't leave out Michaelangelo. You think he did his masterpieces all by himself?

eddhead
October 13th, 2011, 08:57 PM
I don't place Jobs in Michaelangelo's league either.

ZippyTheChimp
October 13th, 2011, 09:15 PM
Is he canonized yet?

Oh OK, I'll check back later.

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 09:17 PM
First of all, are you saying Xerox had nothing of value in its innovative GIU interface?....and second of all, what are you talking about, "steal"? I said there was an evolution, and that the visionary seed was not sown by Jobs.

I didn't say they had nothing of value. I'm saying if they had a polished viable product, why didn't they market it?



From the article, Ronald Johnson and Mickey Drexler are directly responsible for the look of the stores and how they run.

JOBS was not the one to thank for these things such as no-virus computing...NOT suggesting that Macs have a "widely attacked OS X". The reasons why Macs are less attacked are listed, and none of them have to do with Jobs personally.

Now who said Ive had the"last word"? Not me. Of course the boss has that. But Ive was responsible for the design. The colors, features, shapes that we recognize. Not Jobs. When you have one of the worlds foremost industrial designers bringing you a prototype that looks brilliant, do you say "Nay"?

Take a movie director for example.

The movie director generally does not write the script.

The movie director does not act out all of the characters.

The movie director does not light the scenery.

The movie director does not operate the camera.

The movie director does not load film into the camera.

The movie director does not make the actors costumes.

The movie director does not cook the food and feed the crew.

The movie director does not record the sound.

The movie director generally does not edit the film.

The movie directors job is to lead a team of people who perform all of these tasks to ultimately create the finished movie which is the directors vision as a whole.

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 09:19 PM
Have you ever used the LG Prada?


Keep moving the goal post.

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 09:49 PM
Don't leave out Michaelangelo. You think he did his masterpieces all by himself?

Well, lofter, let us know who helped prepare the sketches of Mary and strike the marble on the Pietá...so we can give that uncelebrated stranger some of the proper credit too.

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 09:53 PM
The movie director does not act out all of the characters...blah blah blah...The movie directors job is to lead a team of people who perform all of these tasks to ultimately create the finished movie which is the directors vision as a whole.

And at the end of every single movie, they are properly credited...in fact the actors and actresses are often more widely known than the director. So in many ways that whole movie analogy falls apart miserably.

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 09:53 PM
Have you ever used the LG Prada?


dunno...have you ever whistled dixie in the rain?:cool:

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 09:58 PM
You want the name of everyone who worked on Apple product credit on the product they worked on?

Who else does that?


And at the end of every single movie, they are properly credited...in fact the actors and actresses are often more widely known than the director. So in many ways that whole movie analogy falls apart miserably.

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 10:02 PM
You want the name of everyone who worked on Apple credit on every product?

Every product... LOL. His face isn't even on every product (though we might expect that any day now, the way events are being described). Straw Man alert!

No...I want a realistic description of the man and what he did at the end of his movie (his life)...with proper credit going where credit is due...not some kind of bombastic feel-good nonsense that places him on a mile-high pedestal.

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 10:11 PM
Well with a movie. Even though many people worked on it. If the movie is great the director gets most of the credit. If the movie sucks the director gets most of the blame.



No...I want a realistic description of the man and what he did at the end of his movie (his life)...with proper credit going where credit is due...not some kind of bombastic feel-good nonsense that places him on a mile-high pedestal.

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 10:18 PM
As I said, the movie analogy falls apart very quickly. It's just flawed. When someone thinks of the 1963 movie Cleopatra, do they think of Elizabeth Taylor, or do they think of some director guy called Mankiewicz? An educated, complete description of the contributions made to the movie would include both, of course.

A more modern example...if you went on 34th Street and asked people whether they liked "Salt" and what is the name of a person associated with it...do you think they would mostly come up with the name Angelina Jolie, or Director Phillip Noyce? You see, applying this analogy to developments at Apple is not tenable.

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 10:40 PM
For people who understand how movies are made they will know that Angelina Jolie's involvement in Salt was minimal. She was not apart of two thirds of the process needed to make the movie. While the Director is present for all of it.

No I believe the movie analogy applies you simply choose to be obtuse and argumentative about everything.



You see, applying this analogy to developments at Apple is not tenable.

Teno
October 13th, 2011, 10:44 PM
Such a thought provoking response.


dunno...have you ever whistled dixie in the rain?:cool:

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 10:50 PM
She was not apart of two thirds of the process needed to make the movie. While the Director is present for all of it.

LOL!! But you just finished saying :

"The movie director generally does not write the script.

The movie director does not act out all of the characters.

The movie director does not light the scenery.

The movie director does not operate the camera.

The movie director does not load film into the camera.

The movie director does not make the actors costumes.

The movie director does not cook the food and feed the crew.

The movie director does not record the sound.

The movie director generally does not edit the film. "



***And now, suddenly he is present for all of it!! ***



No I believe the movie analogy applies you simply choose to be obtuse and argumentative about everything.

Pot, meet kettle!!:D

MidtownGuy
October 13th, 2011, 10:51 PM
Such a thought provoking response.

One silly blurb of nonsense deserves another.

If you want to keep moving the goal post around, just for the sake of being argumentative, expect more such provocative responses.

MidtownGuy
October 14th, 2011, 12:40 AM
I suppose we could go back and forth for a month of Sundays about how each of us defines the word "visionary" and whether Jobs fits the bill. Whether his work should be compared to Michelangelo, and so forth.

We could talk forever about the nature of hierarchy, leadership, innovation, etc...

but there are other, darker aspects of the company he left behind that should be mentioned...it's not like they are the only company manufacturing their goods with poorly paid child labor, but if we are going to be forced to absorb all of the ridiculous canonization that's sweeping the mediascape about Jobs, why not get some of the other side. There's a one man show coming to town and I'd really like to see it.
---

The Agony and Ecstasy of Mike Daisey

A one-man show about Apple's dark side.

Eight days ago, I received a call from the monologist Mike Daisey, whom I’ve been speaking with lately out of an interest in his work. The call was unexpected, and Daisey sounded weary and out-of-sorts. I wasn’t surprised by his mood. Since July of 2010, in cities from Hyderabad to Vancouver to Washington, Daisey has been performing an ambitious and heartfelt work titled The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs, and 45 minutes earlier the news had arrived that Jobs was dead.

Many people who’d never met Jobs felt surprisingly bereft, but for Daisey the emotions were compounded by the fact that he wasn’t just contending with the loss of a ubiquitous public figure—he was dealing with the loss of the man who had occupied his brain for the better part of two years.

Much longer than that, actually. As Daisey explains in his show, a taped version of which he sent me this summer, he's been obsessed with Jobs ever since the 1980s, when, as a geeky adolescent in northern Maine, he spent hours tinkering with his parent’s new Apple IIc. “I am an Apple aficionado,” he intoned in that performance in his booming, voluble baritone. (Daisey performs without a script, so every performance is different.) “I am an Apple partisan. I am an Apple fanboy. I am a worshipper in the cult of Mac! I have been to the House of Jobs; I have walked through the stations of his cross; I have knelt before his throne!”

And yet Daisey’s relationship to Jobs and Apple has become significantly more complicated than that of his countless co-religionists, and those complications significantly more public. The bit about his Apple bona fides in “The Agony and the Ecstasy” is more disclaimer than boast, the ecstatic preface to what follows: an agonized narrative of his disillusionment and a vigorous effort to coax others out of the fold.

As Daisey told the story this summer, the germ of his doubt was a series of photographs taken at the Chinese factory where the iPhone is manufactured, inadvertently left on a device bound for America, and posted to an Apple discussion forum. The photographs were mundane—a worker on an assembly line, a cavernous factory floor—but they led Daisey to ask a question that he’d never considered before: How and where are these gadgets he adores, these marvels of industrial design and technological innovation, made?

This question in turn led Daisey on a gutsy adventure. With few leads and no journalistic credentials, he traveled to Shenzhen, in southern China, and, posing as a businessman, he infiltrated the heavily restricted, heavily guarded “special economic zone” where nearly all of the world’s electronics are produced. More than half of our electronics, including Apple’s, are made by a single company, Foxconn, at a single facility that employs 420,000 workers—a factory as populated as the city of Atlanta.

Despite dire risk (an AP photographer caught taking pictures outside Foxconn had recently been detained and beaten for two days before being released to his embassy), Daisey managed to interview dozens of these workers. He interviewed girls as young as 12 who worked crushing hours; he interviewed a man whose hand had been twisted into a claw from overuse; he interviewed a woman who had been blacklisted merely for requesting overtime pay.

In his show, Daisey is hardly shy in apportioning blame for these iniquities. He wants to implicate everyone: not just Beijing but the American companies that had requested and helped engineer the Shenzhen manufacturing hub; technology journalists who either ignored the labor question or, worse, allowed themselves to be duped by propaganda (Daisey is especially scornful about the author of a feckless Wired cover story (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/02/ff_joelinchina/all/1) from earlier this year: he calls him a “useful idiot,” Lenin’s term for the easily manipulable); and American consumers, himself included, who mindlessly salivate over the newest device yet remain in willful ignorance about the supply chain that delivers it to their doorstep.

But the primary target of Daisey’s show, as the title suggests, is the one person who had the power, the courage, and the financial clout to change things for the better. Steve Jobs was once idealistic and progressive, or at least he had pretensions along these lines. He spent time in an Indian ashram, he dropped acid, he pored over The Whole Earth Catalog; he studied Buddhism; he claimed that his countercultural roots were central to his thinking. Sure, he made that statement while working as the billionaire CEO of a publicly traded multinational corporation, but the crux of his charisma was his unpredictability! If anyone had the ability and authority to effect a sea change in “how we make our shit,” as Daisey put it, it was Jobs, and The Agony and the Ecstasy was delivered like an open letter. More than that, it was a letter-writing campaign. Until August, when Jobs resigned as Apple’s CEO, each performance ended with the distribution of Jobs’ email address to every member of the audience, and a plea to write to the man Daisey called “the only leader I have ever followed” about the issues raised.

And now Jobs was dead, and Daisey didn’t know what it meant. The show was set to begin its big Off-Broadway run at the Public Theater in less than a week. Given the tremendous outpouring of grief associated with Jobs’ death, the fog of hagiography already descending, how would an audience response to such fervent, unflinching criticism? Would Daisey have to rework the show?

“What are you going to do?” I asked.

“I don’t know,” he said. “But I’ll tell you one thing. Whatever I perform is going to be more emotionally charged than ever. It’s inevitable.”
---

The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs has its official New York premiere on Tuesday, Oct. 18, but it began in previews on Oct. 11, and that night I went to see how Daisey had managed to assimilate Jobs’ death into the work. Ten minutes before the show was to start, I ran into Jean-Michele Gregory, Daisey’s wife and director, on a riser in the audience, milling around and greeting friends in a slim black dress. I asked her whether Daisey had been laboring over his outline in the week since we’d spoken. “He’s been laboring over his outline for the last hour or so,” she said. This, I knew, was typical of Daisey: His style is to think deeply about something for days, weeks, months, and only scribble something down at the last moment. He prefers the impromptu, the improvisational, the extemporaneous—whatever makes the proceedings less like a set piece and more like a conversation. It usually makes for exciting theater.

When the show began (to the famous Mac OS chime), Daisey was seated at a sleek aluminum table with a raised glass top—a piece of furniture you might find holding MacBooks, iPads, and cloud-white wireless keyboards at any Apple Store in the world—in front of a simple metal framework lined with LCD lights. It was a striking if obvious design choice, but far more striking, as always, was the sight of Daisey himself. He is an immense man, a nearly cuboid presence with soft, thick hands, a round second chin, and an aircraft carrier of a brow that sweats extravagantly as he performs. Yet Daisey can be subtle and graceful in his movements. Sitting alone in the dark before a show, with only a few sheets of paper and a glass of water in front of him, he signals to the lighting technician that he is ready to begin by raising his palms to shoulder height and then lowering them slowly, gently, like a yoga instructor, to the surface.

But that is when Daisey wants to be graceful. More often he wants to be blunt, concussive, and obscene. The Public show began, as it had in the performance I’d already heard, with a kind of shock wave—Daisey launching at full volume and headlong into a comic anecdote set in the Chungking Mansions, a massive, chaotic commercial complex in Kowloon, Hong Kong, where Daisey seeks out a gnarled, gold-toothed pirate to hack into his iPhone. It is a brief, theme-setting episode, an overture, but for me it quickly banished any suspicion that Daisey would be markedly changing his tone for this run.

As a performer, Daisey’s two dominant modes have long been a kind of gonzo irreverence and a compassionate, engagé earnestness—a mix of Hunter S. Thompson and Reinhold Niebuhr. One of the big questions I had walking into the theater was whether Jobs’ death would compel Daisey to emphasize the latter at the expense of the former. It didn’t seem I had anything to worry about. Indeed, I was surprised to find that Jobs’ death didn’t appear to have convinced Daisey to change anything. For the vast majority of show—two hours without intermission—The Agony and the Ecstasy was much as I, and probably most of Daisey’s prior audiences, had already experienced it. As is true of many of Daisey’s monologues, the story was told in a back-and-forth style. He alternated between the half-bumbling, half-harrowing narrative of his travels abroad and the narrative of Jobs’ rise to prominence; his abrupt fall from grace in 1985, when he was ousted by Apple’s board of directors; and his subsequent struggles, his return to Apple, and his ascendance to world-historical status.

All that appeared to have changed were the tenses: Jobs now “was,” not “is.” This injected a mote of tension and confusion into the show, as if we were all trying to talk and think in final terms about a friend who had died but whose presence lingered on … but just a mote. But for the magnetic and massive figure in my line of vision, I might have been back in my office, listening to the show again on iTunes.

And so it went, pleasurably, and still stirringly. Critics often remark on Daisey’s comic acumen, but it’s important to qualify this observation by reference to the type of comic performer Daisey calls up. It isn’t Zero Mostel, whom he resembles in body shape and (I suspect, were he to rise from his table) in the physicality of his movements. Nor is it Spalding Gray, whom he resembles in his inexhaustible articulateness and his willingness to mine his own experiences for dramatic material. Rather, the comic performers Daisey most resemble are the pure, political, and profane stand-up greats, those unsettling, often self-destructive forces—people such as Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, and, above all, Bill Hicks—whose best performances are at once convulsively funny and deeply unsettling.

Like these performers, Daisey is a ranter—but a controlled ranter. There is a kind of mad, prophetic urgency in what he has to tell, a sense that he is delivering news, and like all prophetic news it bears hearing more than once. Indeed, it probably should be heard more than once, like the message in a sermon. Over the course of the long run of “The Agony and the Ecstasy,” critics have charged Daisey with naïveté and liberal hectoring: globalization is the how business is done now. Without Apple—or Samsung, or Hewlett Packard, or Microsoft, or any of the other dozens of companies that have outsourced their manufacturing to Asia—those poor laborers would be on the streets, or toiling in the fields like serfs. Is that what he wants? Is that what he would have happen?

Daisey responds with simple, stark, and unignorable first-hand experience: He’s been to China. He’s seen the children “worked like beasts of burden.” He’s seen the ruined bodies and the ruined lives and he’s seen the nets—acts of “corporate responsibility,” he calls them acidly—erected beneath the factory roofs to catch the would-be suicides. He’s seen this “Stalinist wet dream,” and he intends to tell you all about it, so that you know and can’t forget. Yet he is shrewd enough to make you laugh as he tells you, so that you’re primed for the slip of the knife.

On Tuesday, I knew the outline, I knew the best anecdotes, I even knew the best descriptions, and I was grateful to hear it for a second time. But then Daisey came to the end, and once again I knew nothing. All along he had refused to temper his implication of Jobs in how Apple’s products were made. Placing Jobs’ story side-by-side with his travels to Shenzhen was itself an indictment. And yet, because these sections were conceived while Jobs was still alive, and therefore still capable of decision—of staging another one of his dramatic press conferences, effecting another momentous shift in the zeitgeist, in how we view technology, commerce, the world—they continued to feel imbued with the sense of possibility and hope. Jobs, one couldn’t help magically believing, might redeem himself yet.

Then, in the last minutes of this new version of the show, Daisey at last addressed Jobs’ death directly, and the tone shifted abruptly. With a mournful calm that crescendoed slowly in intensity, Daisey told how, in the moments after he heard the news—shortly before he called me—he sat in his darkened apartment and reread the dozens of emails Jobs had sent those members of Daisey’s audience who’d heeded his plea to contact the great man. In both the earlier and this new incarnation of the show Daisey notes how unusual these emails are: Can you imagine Bill Gates directly answering his critics? Sam Walton? Jamie Dimon?

And yet Daisey no longer sounded so impressed by Jobs’ accessibility. Indeed, he sounded let down, angry, even bitter. Jobs knew, he said. Of course he knew. This was a man who was celebrated for keeping a vigilant watch over all the minutiae, all the piddling details. He made it his business to know. And that meant, unforgivably, that he had chosen not to act. “Mike doesn’t appreciate the complexity of the situation,” Jobs sometimes replied to his new correspondents. This supposed techno-libertarian renegade, this poster child for the melding of microchips and humanist values, had become just another billionaire sophist. He turned his back on his ideals.

And so Daisey, appropriately and inevitably, now ended his performance by turning his back on Jobs. That oracle has gone silent. The only people to whom he can now appeal are his audience members, and he did so on the verge of tears, in a pitch just shy of brutal. “Steve made his choice. I wonder what you will choose,” he said. “When you sit in front of the laptop, you will see the blood welling up between the keys, because they were made by hands—human hands, hands of children.” It was an impassioned and aggrieved addition, and the audience squirmed until the lights came on.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2011/10/the_agony_and_the_ecstasy_of_steve_jobs_reviewed_. single.html

Fabrizio
October 14th, 2011, 05:25 AM
I wrote in another thread about Jobs:


I agree with you on your last point. Where Apple doesn't remind me of the great era I spoke of... it's the fact that they manufacture all of these great products overseas (as does nearly everyone else). So no...in that sense, Jobs is not another Henry Ford.

Info in the above article is old news. It doesn't matter whether it's electronic equipment or the clothes you are wearing...if it's manufactured in societies like China or India, expect the worst, no matter how cool and progressive the company seems to be. Is anyone so naive as to think otherwise?

This news is as earth-shattering as finding out that Steve Jobs did not design everything.

In the meantime:

Jobs was a visionary but no, not Jesus.

nick-taylor
October 14th, 2011, 10:56 AM
Do you understand what iCloud does? In what way is Amazon, Google, and Microsoft years ahead?

Chrome OS is primarily tied to Google's services. This is not what iCloud does.

Microsoft's Azure and Amazon Web Service platforms are just back end servers, they have nothing to do with the front facing user interface. Lots of different companies use both Microsoft's Azure and Amazon Web Service, the systems themselves have little to do with how they are used.iCloud provides iOS users the ability to store and process data, much in the way that Microsoft, Dropbox, Amazon, Google and others have been offering for sometime. The inability for Apple to host their own cloud platform is a clear illustration that the business is significantly behind on the cloud front.

Platforms like Azure and Web Service are the backbone for a wide range of cloud services. How do you think Google Docs, Skydrive, Cloud Drive, Office 365, Exchange Online, etc... function?

eddhead
October 14th, 2011, 11:31 AM
Exactly who has compared Jobs work to Michaelangeo? Or tried to cannonize him? Or indicated he was anything but a leading 20th century figure who was insturmental in ushering in the new technology era? He was a technology leader, product design expert, and yes a person of vision, but Christ, no one claimed he was Einstein.

Ninjahedge
October 14th, 2011, 01:09 PM
No, because Ironically being called Einstein is less cool. Even an insult in some ways.... :(

Teno
October 14th, 2011, 01:29 PM
You seem to have a lot of trouble with the concept of a leadership and team dynamic.

The leader doesn't have to perform each and every task, that is the purpose of having a team.

Everyone on the team is looking to the leader for LEADERSHIP on their specific task.

Again overtly obtuse and unnecessarily argumentative about everything.


LOL!! But you just finished saying :

***And now, suddenly he is present for all of it!! ***

Teno
October 14th, 2011, 01:32 PM
Asking you if you've ever used the phone is a silly blurb?

The LG Prada was one of the phones Ninja listed. If you've never used one before how do you know its qualities and similarities to the iPhone?





One silly blurb of nonsense deserves another.

If you want to keep moving the goal post around, just for the sake of being argumentative, expect more such provocative responses.

ZippyTheChimp
October 14th, 2011, 01:50 PM
The Agony and Ecstasy of Mike Daisey

A one-man show about Apple's dark side.

So Jobs is the Anti Christ?

Teno
October 14th, 2011, 01:54 PM
iCloud provides iOS users the ability to store and process data, much in the way that Microsoft, Dropbox, Amazon, Google and others have been offering for sometime.

In fact iCloud does not work that way. iCloud performs its functions in the background automatically, the user doesn't directly interact with it really at all.

You edit a document that you have saved on your iPad and your Mac. iCloud automatically syncs the edits you've made.

Take a picture on your iPhone. iCloud automatically syncs the picture to your iPad and Mac.

Download a song onto your iPad, iCloud automatically syncs the song to your iPhone and Mac.

iCloud service is open to third party software developers to sync content across the iPhone, iPad, and computer.

What service does Microsoft, Amazon, or Google offer that does exactly that?


The inability for Apple to host their own cloud platform is a clear illustration that the business is significantly behind on the cloud front.

Apple built a $1 billion dollar - 500,000 square foot data center in North Carolina to host iCloud.

http://www.cultofmac.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/apple_NC_datacenter_2.png

They already have plans to build another one right next to it.




Platforms like Azure and Web Service are the backbone for a wide range of cloud services. How do you think Google Docs, Skydrive, Cloud Drive, Office 365, Exchange Online, etc... function?

Giants like Google and Facebook build their own data centers. But its not necessary or financially prudent for every company to spend billions building data centers. Using Microsoft or Amazon's service just makes sense.The rest of your question I don't understand.

While you keep pushing this point. Can you actually post any actually facts that Apple is using Azure or Amazon Web Service?

Ninjahedge
October 14th, 2011, 02:59 PM
Teno, the point is you keep trying to elevate Apple to something it is not.

This happens with ANYTHING apple in your discussions. Whether it be iCloud, iPod or iJobs.

I have never heard a single critical word from you about anything Apple, ever. The sign that someone is a fan, but not a fanboi, is their willingness to admit their own favorites failings WITHOUT having to point a finger and qualify it with a "but THEY do it to...".

You have good points, but your reasoning and judgement seems to be iClouded.

Fabrizio
October 14th, 2011, 03:07 PM
Discuss the issues with lucid arguments rather than dishing the poster.

Ninjahedge
October 14th, 2011, 03:51 PM
Discuss the issues with lucid arguments rather than dishing the poster.

I would appreciate not to be told what to do from someone more guilty of the described mannerism than any other.

It is not your JOB or your DUTY.

After 220 posts on a subject that never deserved it, it has become apparent that "lucid arguments" will not dissuade an emotional devotee. Unfortunately, if the desire of said person is to convince others of the validity of their statements, that hope is not likely to happen when arguments such as the ones presented in the form they are given, are used.

This goes for Love, Politics AND Product Placement. ;)

Fabrizio
October 14th, 2011, 04:07 PM
More of the same.

Ninjahedge
October 14th, 2011, 04:13 PM
I ain't reading the second one bubbie.

BotD for the first, but to read a second post by you after I confront you on something?

I isn't that stupid. :rolleyes:

Teno
October 14th, 2011, 04:30 PM
Teno, the point is you keep trying to elevate Apple to something it is not.

You have good points, but your reasoning and judgement seems to be iClouded.

What level am I elevating Apple to? I've never said Steve Jobs is God or Jesus or any of those things. Those are things you guys have said.



After 220 posts on a subject that never deserved it, it has become apparent that "lucid arguments" will not dissuade an emotional devotee.

You feel like you've made a lucid argument? You guys haven't really had posted any empirical evidence to the contrary of what I've said about Steve Jobs.

I've posted links, stories from people who worked with Jobs, and a video of Jobs himself describing what Apple would do years before any of those things came to fruition.

eddhead
October 14th, 2011, 04:43 PM
I am not an apple junkie or anything. I own a macbook and nothing else. But I agree with virtually everything Teno has posted on this thread.

No one said Jobs was a great humanitarian, or Jonas Salk. And like I said, I do not think he was the equivlient of Edison. But he was a technology leader who alont with a few (very) select others, led the pc, internet, and mobile phone technology era.

Ninjahedge
October 14th, 2011, 04:49 PM
Jobs =/= "Visionary"
Jobs =/= the sole inventor/talent/driving force of Apple
Apple =/= The inventor of interactive personal technology (smartphone/touchscreen)

Like I said, Teno has good points, then he just keeps heaping other stuff on top of it. The example is the iPhone where he claims that only CrackBerry was around and that no other phones even remotely resembled. Based on that distortion, he claimed Apple, in short, rules. THEN he takes THAT and attributes it to Jobs.

I don't think anybody is denying Jobs' ability or his worth, or Apple's accomplishments in the sense of pushing the tech envelope more into the mainstream, but it all depends on how much push, innovation, and direct credit you give to whom.

Teno
October 14th, 2011, 06:19 PM
I agree. :)


I am not an apple junkie or anything. I own a macbook and nothing else. But I agree with virtually everything Teno has posted on this thread.

No one said Jobs was a great humanitarian, or Jonas Salk. And like I said, I do not think he was the equivlient of Edison. But he was a technology leader who alont with a few (very) select others, led the pc, internet, and mobile phone technology era.

Teno
October 14th, 2011, 06:27 PM
Jobs =/= "Visionary"
Jobs =/= the sole inventor/talent/driving force of Apple
Apple =/= The inventor of interactive personal technology (smartphone/touchscreen)

I can agree that the success of Apple is thanks to a lot of really talented people.

Still take note that Apple itself nearly went out of business without Steve Jobs.

Without Apple, Steve Jobs was busy creating Next (which later became Mac OS X - iOS) and leading Pixar as it became a Hollywood powerhouse.


Like I said, Teno has good points, then he just keeps heaping other stuff on top of it. The example is the iPhone where he claims that only CrackBerry was around and that no other phones even remotely resembled. Based on that distortion, he claimed Apple, in short, rules. THEN he takes THAT and attributes it to Jobs.

The most popular smart phones in 2006 were the Blackberry, Palm Treo, and Windows Mobile. Those were the three phones I posted.

Ninja the phones you posted were not smart phones. The touch screen was about the only thing they had in common with the iPhone. Even with that they were not using the same touch screen technology by any measure. The argument you are making is like saying there is little difference between a Yugo and a Ferrari simply because they both have an engine and four wheels.

Teno
October 14th, 2011, 06:37 PM
Another example of Apple's influence on the industry as a whole. Apple is suing Samsung for copying the design of the iPad and violating Apple's intellectual property.


In the United States, District Judge Lucy Koh repeatedly mentioned the visual similarities between Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Apple's iPad. In one instance, reported by Reuters, she held up both tablets side-by-side, and challenged Samsung's attorneys to tell them apart. One Samsung attorney, standing 10 feet away, said she couldn't tell the difference at that distance. Another Samsung lawyer picked the correct answer a moment later.

Koh is now considering whether to ban Samsung's tablets from the U.S. market for the duration of the patent infringement trial. Fortunately for Samsung, Koh made a "tentative" decision not to ban the Tab based on Apple's "utility" patents, but she may still allow an injunction based on the similar designs. Apple will have to establish the validity of its design patents if it wants the Galaxy Tab 10.1 removed from store shelves.

Overseas, Samsung's luck has been worse. The Galaxy Tab 10.1 has already been banned in Australia and Germany.

Apple-Samsung Patent Battle: Apple's Totally Winning (http://techland.time.com/2011/10/14/apple-samsung-patent-battle-apples-totally-winning/)


Here is the reason why the Samsung lawyer could not tell the difference between the Galaxy Tab and the iPad.

Samsung Does Not Copy Apple At All… Sure (http://www.cultofmac.com/116250/samsung-does-not-copy-apple-at-all-sure/)

nick-taylor
October 15th, 2011, 09:11 AM
In fact iCloud does not work that way. iCloud performs its functions in the background automatically, the user doesn't directly interact with it really at all.

You edit a document that you have saved on your iPad and your Mac. iCloud automatically syncs the edits you've made.

Take a picture on your iPhone. iCloud automatically syncs the picture to your iPad and Mac.

Download a song onto your iPad, iCloud automatically syncs the song to your iPhone and Mac.

iCloud service is open to third party software developers to sync content across the iPhone, iPad, and computer.

What service does Microsoft, Amazon, or Google offer that does exactly that?

Apple built a $1 billion dollar - 500,000 square foot data center in North Carolina to host iCloud.

They already have plans to build another one right next to it.

Giants like Google and Facebook build their own data centers. But its not necessary or financially prudent for every company to spend billions building data centers. Using Microsoft or Amazon's service just makes sense.The rest of your question I don't understand.

While you keep pushing this point. Can you actually post any actually facts that Apple is using Azure or Amazon Web Service?Cloud computing features have been around for ages. Take GoogleDocs - not only is the document hosted in the cloud, but it can be edited online by something like fifty people simultaneously. Amazon's and Google's cloud music service works around the restrictions of iCloud by being played through devices that utilise something as basic as adobe flash (as in Amazons’ case) or a web browser (as in Googles’ case).

Microsoft, Amazon and Google aren't even the only ones to provide cloud services. There are dozens of companies providing corporate SaaS services through the likes of Azure and other platforms.

That's technically Apples' third data centre (although the first two aren't to my knowledge compliant for cloud networking), but I'll leave this here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/02/icloud_runs_on_microsoft_azure_and_amazon/

A key reason is resilience - you don't concentrate your cloud data centres in one locale for the simple reason that if the area is hit by a severe power outage, fire, etc... the whole system woud go down. If your sole cloud data facility is destroyed; you've lost a lot of people's information.

Now a 500,000sq ft facility may sound impressive - but Microsoft has twenty four 700,000sq ft cloud networked facilities across the globe (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/windowsazure/archive/2010/08/09/20-nodes-available-globally-for-the-windows-azure-cdn.aspx). Cloud infrastructure like that, and that provided by Google, Amazon, and other cloud service providers takes years to implement.


Jobs was a great CEO who produced excellent returns for shareholders. He wasn't visionary or an inventor.

Ninjahedge
October 16th, 2011, 09:44 PM
"Apple's Totally Winning"

Like, really?

No WAY!

eddhead
October 17th, 2011, 11:37 AM
He wasn't visionary or an inventor.

I guess Henry Ford wasn't a visionary either.

Ninjahedge
October 17th, 2011, 12:46 PM
Not as much as with the true inventors, but more so than with Steve.


Do we need a chart?

Teno
October 17th, 2011, 08:50 PM
Cloud computing features have been around for ages. Take GoogleDocs - not only is the document hosted in the cloud, but it can be edited online by something like fifty people simultaneously.

Yes I know cloud computing as been around for a long time. Apple's first version of cloud services was iTools in 2000.

Yes I've used Google Docs. My point is that it does not work the same way as iCloud. I'm not saying one is necessrily superior over the other. But iCloud is definitley different.

With Google Docs you have to log into Google's service to use it.

iCloud is service agnostic. As long as the app supports iCloud syncing, it automatically syncs the document across all of your devices within the app itself.


Amazon's and Google's cloud music service works around the restrictions of iCloud by being played through devices that utilise something as basic as adobe flash (as in Amazons’ case) or a web browser (as in Googles’ case).

Flash itself has nothing to do with cloud services.



That's technically Apples' third data centre (although the first two aren't to my knowledge compliant for cloud networking), but I'll leave this here:

You are the one who claimed Apple cannot support their own cloud platform.



Now a 500,000sq ft facility may sound impressive - but Microsoft has twenty four 700,000sq ft cloud networked facilities across the globe

I wasn't making a comparison of who has the largest data centers. Apple is not primarily an internet or software services company. The software services Apple does implement are mostly intended to compliment their hardware products.



Jobs was a great CEO who produced excellent returns for shareholders. He wasn't visionary or an inventor.

Did you watch the video from 1997. Show me another CEO talking about taking his company in a particular direction in that way.

Teno
October 17th, 2011, 09:07 PM
Yes.........

Apple sells 4 million iPhone 4S units in first weekend (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20121273-17/apple-sells-4-million-iphone-4s-units-in-first-weekend/)


"Apple's Totally Winning"

Like, really?

No WAY!

nick-taylor
October 18th, 2011, 09:44 AM
Yes I know cloud computing as been around for a long time. Apple's first version of cloud services was iTools in 2000.

Yes I've used Google Docs. My point is that it does not work the same way as iCloud. I'm not saying one is necessrily superior over the other. But iCloud is definitley different.

With Google Docs you have to log into Google's service to use it.

iCloud is service agnostic. As long as the app supports iCloud syncing, it automatically syncs the document across all of your devices within the app itself.

Flash itself has nothing to do with cloud services.

You are the one who claimed Apple cannot support their own cloud platform.

I wasn't making a comparison of who has the largest data centers. Apple is not primarily an internet or software services company. The software services Apple does implement are mostly intended to compliment their hardware products.

Did you watch the video from 1997. Show me another CEO talking about taking his company in a particular direction in that way.So I can access the iCloud without an Apple ID? Does that also mean that I don't have to use iTunes with the iCloud for my music?

The Google Cloud isn't restricted to Google products/services. With Google Cloud Connect, you can have simultaneous editing of a single document by several users even if they are working in third party applications such as Microsoft Word. To my knowledge you can't upload/sych Word/Excel, etc... docs with the iCloud from within the application.

I think you misunderstood me - while the iCloud requires iTunes, Amazon's cloud music platform can be played on any device with Flash. Flash isn't as restrictive or cumbersome as iTunes, and can subsequently be utilised across far more platforms and devices.

Apple can't host their own cloud platform - firstly because they lag significantly behind in developing cloud data centre infrastructure and secondly relying on a single data centre is folly for the sole reason if it was destroyed in a freak disaster you'd be neck-high in doodah. Hence Apple are using Amazon and Microsoft. There is nothing wrong in Apple piggybacking off the cloud infrastructure of other corporate entities, but trying to take the credit for the whole job is in poor taste.

I'm not going to waste an hour of my time to come to the same conclusion that I already have: Steve Jobs was a good CEO. Overall I'm not sure what is more depressing - your sycophantic behaviour towards a person you most likely never knew or erroneously crediting accomplishments of others to him.

I’m not sure if you’ve ever seen that funny video where some Britney Spears fan has a mental breakdown – but that is how I (and I suspect others here) imagine you.

Ninjahedge
October 18th, 2011, 10:13 AM
Yes.........

b (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20121273-17/apple-sells-4-million-iphone-4s-units-in-first-weekend/)lah blah blah

You missed the point, ENTIRELY.

eddhead
October 18th, 2011, 11:18 AM
Overall I'm not sure what is more depressing - your sycophantic behaviour towards a person you most likely never knew or erroneously crediting accomplishments of others to him.

I’m not sure if you’ve ever seen that funny video where some Britney Spears fan has a mental breakdown – but that is how I (and I suspect others here) imagine you.

Those comments are unduly personal and harsh. The poster is simply making his case that Jobs has a place in history as an innovator and technology leader. You don't have to agree with him, and of course are free to make your case on the merits of the facts but I see no call for personal insults and attacks. Perhaps I have missed something; has he/she insulted you?

Ninjahedge
October 18th, 2011, 11:47 AM
edd, I don't think he insulted nick, but it gets frustrating when you try to discuss one topic and most of the responses come back a bit off mark and definitely biased.

Is this something to insult on? Nope. But taken with more than a grain of salt can lead one to an idea about how they are perceived outside their own circle of support.

eddhead
October 18th, 2011, 12:06 PM
syncophant? Britney Spears on a breakdown? Really?

I don't see it that way.

nick-taylor
October 18th, 2011, 12:48 PM
Those comments are unduly personal and harsh. The poster is simply making his case that Jobs has a place in history as an innovator and technology leader. You don't have to agree with him, and of course are free to make your case on the merits of the facts but I see no call for personal insults and attacks. Perhaps I have missed something; has he/she insulted you?I think he has insulted logic and the due process of awarding credit where due.

I have no problem allocating entitled credit to Steve Jobs as a great CEO and investor (although his people management skills may have come across as a bit off on some occassions); but this idea that he was directing global technology trends, while at the same time ignoring the contributions of hundreds, if not thousands of people not just at Apple but at other organisations over the decades is flatout wrong.

Ninjahedge
October 18th, 2011, 02:14 PM
But Brittany was hot!!!!(Was).....

Teno
October 18th, 2011, 03:57 PM
So I can access the iCloud without an Apple ID? Does that also mean that I don't have to use iTunes with the iCloud for my music?

The purpose of the Apple ID is to securely give iCloud permission to sync your private content. You have to set up an iCloud account to give iCloud permission to access your content after that you don't have to directly interact with iCloud anymore.

At this point no other music service uses iCloud. Apple had to get permission from the record labels to allow syncing over iCloud. Not sure how that would work out for anyone else.


The Google Cloud isn't restricted to Google products/services. With Google Cloud Connect, you can have simultaneous editing of a single document by several users even if they are working in third party applications such as Microsoft Word.

Google Connect allows simultaneous editing of a Google doc through Word, you are not editing the actual Word doc.

With iCloud editing a Word doc on one device will automatically edit the same Word doc across all devices connected to iCloud and have that same Word doc.


To my knowledge you can't upload/sych Word/Excel, etc... docs with the iCloud from within the application.

Only because MS does not support iCloud. The service is available to them if they chose to use it.

MS doesn't have a version of Office for iOS at all. Office is singularly Microsoft's biggest selling product. There are nearly 250 million iOS devices out in the world. Out of spite and denial, MS is leaving money on the table.


I think you misunderstood me - while the iCloud requires iTunes, Amazon's cloud music platform can be played on any device with Flash. Flash isn't as restrictive or cumbersome as iTunes, and can subsequently be utilised across far more platforms and devices.

Flash and iTunes are two very different types of technology intended to perform two different functions. They are not comparable at all. There are advantages and disadvantages to both methods.

The reason Amazon uses Flash is to build one music player that works across all platforms that can be locked down behind DRM. Music on iTunes does not have DRM, you are free to do with it whatever you choose.



Apple can't host their own cloud platform - firstly because they lag significantly behind in developing cloud data centre infrastructure and secondly relying on a single data centre is folly for the sole reason if it was destroyed in a freak disaster you'd be neck-high in doodah. Hence Apple are using Amazon and Microsoft. There is nothing wrong in Apple piggybacking off the cloud infrastructure of other corporate entities, but trying to take the credit for the whole job is in poor taste.

I cannot comment on that as I have no knowledge of how Apple implements its cloud data infrastructure. They've never publicly said how they do it. Unless you have some inside information about it, I don't see how you can know that either.



I'm not going to waste an hour of my time to come to the same conclusion that I already have: Steve Jobs was a good CEO. Overall I'm not sure what is more depressing - your sycophantic behaviour towards a person you most likely never knew or erroneously crediting accomplishments of others to him.

Sure, that is your choice.

What accomplishments do you feel I am erroneously giving him credit for?


I’m not sure if you’ve ever seen that funny video where some Britney Spears fan has a mental breakdown – but that is how I (and I suspect others here) imagine you.

I'm not sure how that relates to a video of Steve Jobs saying where he wanted to take Apple in the future.

Teno
October 18th, 2011, 04:00 PM
I specifically give him credit for what he accomplished. I think those accomplishments are pretty straightforward. Many arguments here say that someone would have eventually figured those things out. While there is no evidence to support that.



I think he has insulted logic and the due process of awarding credit where due.

I have no problem allocating entitled credit to Steve Jobs as a great CEO and investor (although his people management skills may have come across as a bit off on some occassions); but this idea that he was directing global technology trends, while at the same time ignoring the contributions of hundreds, if not thousands of people not just at Apple but at other organisations over the decades is flatout wrong.

Teno
October 18th, 2011, 04:41 PM
Thank You edd


Those comments are unduly personal and harsh. The poster is simply making his case that Jobs has a place in history as an innovator and technology leader. You don't have to agree with him, and of course are free to make your case on the merits of the facts but I see no call for personal insults and attacks. Perhaps I have missed something; has he/she insulted you?

nick-taylor
October 19th, 2011, 08:47 AM
The purpose of the Apple ID is to securely give iCloud permission to sync your private content. You have to set up an iCloud account to give iCloud permission to access your content after that you don't have to directly interact with iCloud anymore.

At this point no other music service uses iCloud. Apple had to get permission from the record labels to allow syncing over iCloud. Not sure how that would work out for anyone else.

Google Connect allows simultaneous editing of a Google doc through Word, you are not editing the actual Word doc.

With iCloud editing a Word doc on one device will automatically edit the same Word doc across all devices connected to iCloud and have that same Word doc.

Only because MS does not support iCloud. The service is available to them if they chose to use it.

MS doesn't have a version of Office for iOS at all. Office is singularly Microsoft's biggest selling product. There are nearly 250 million iOS devices out in the world. Out of spite and denial, MS is leaving money on the table.

Flash and iTunes are two very different types of technology intended to perform two different functions. They are not comparable at all. There are advantages and disadvantages to both methods.

The reason Amazon uses Flash is to build one music player that works across all platforms that can be locked down behind DRM. Music on iTunes does not have DRM, you are free to do with it whatever you choose.

I cannot comment on that as I have no knowledge of how Apple implements its cloud data infrastructure. They've never publicly said how they do it. Unless you have some inside information about it, I don't see how you can know that either.

Sure, that is your choice.

What accomplishments do you feel I am erroneously giving him credit for?

I'm not sure how that relates to a video of Steve Jobs saying where he wanted to take Apple in the future.

I specifically give him credit for what he accomplished. I think those accomplishments are pretty straightforward. Many arguments here say that someone would have eventually figured those things out. While there is no evidence to support that. The questions were referring to your original claim that somehow when using Google's Cloud, you are tied down, but that somehow the iCloud breaks free from these constraints, that the (and I quote you) "iCloud is definately different....you have to log into Google's service to use it....the iCloud is service agnostic".

That is clearly incorrect, because you need an Apple ID and you are restricted in the services that can use the iCloud, e.g. you need iTunes, Pages, etc...

Microsoft Office file extensions are compatible with the Google Cloud, the difference is that I can connect with the Google Cloud via Microsoft Office, but am unable to connect to the iCloud unless I restrict myself to iWork. Microsoft didn't make Google Cloud Connect for Microsoft Office, so why should they make an application for Apple?

Do you have a source clarifying that the reason Microsoft Office products aren't on iOS devices is because of 'spite and denial'. I suspect the real reason is mostly related to the different platform nature (absence of a keyboard and mouse), processing requirements and Windows 8 development, after all if Microsoft was such a dastardly corporation why did they launch Microsoft Office for Macs!

Amazon utilise Flash because it is a very basic multimedia platform that is embedded in the majority of web browsers/OS's, subsequently it can be accessed exceptionally easily across numerous computer environments. iTunes is a software programme which needs certain requirements to operate sufficiently.

I already provided a source that clearly stated that Apple are utilising the services of Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services for their cloud platform. Apple isn’t incompetent to realise that they can't rely on a single data centre.

Your post history in this thread is littered with whimsical comical attempts at directing credit solely to Jobs. Whether that be trying to align the invention of the Macintosh to Jobs (Jef Raskin and others given no mention), that it was Jobs that turned Pixar into a feature film producer (ignoring the contributions of Lasseter and Catmull) or that Jobs developed Next OS (Forstall would question that). Lately you've tried to state that somehow Jobs is behind the cloud computing revolution, when Apple is a late and lagging participant.

The overarching problem is that you and egghead consistently muddle Job's 'vision' with his actual management position as a CEO and investor, while relegating the achievements of others to marginal/non-existant roles. A classic trait of your posts is that you only ever refer to Jobs and Apple, never Ive, Forstall, Raskin, Wozniak, Lasseter, etc... (unless responding when their names have been mentioned) and other people that made Apple and other businesses successful. Instead you merge their achievements and work into a false edifice labelled Steve Jobs, and discarding the true geniuses away like contaminated cadavers.

I can't envision this thread going any further what with the baseless fantatical claims being made, but as I said originally in this thread - it's a damming verdict on society and the dominance of consumerism if someone like Jobs can be held aloft by many. There are far more deserving people that we should be looking up to, whether that be charity workers, scientists working on cures for diseases, etc...

Fabrizio
October 19th, 2011, 09:03 AM
Besides being a visionary of personal computing, Jobs was also, as the times describes him, a "genius of the storefront".

How Jobs worked with his architect, his vision and influence on design:

A Genius of the Storefront, Too
NYTIMES
By JAMES B. STEWART
Published: October 15, 2011


WHEN the architect Peter Bohlin arrived for his first meeting with Steve Jobs, he wore a tie. “Steve laughed, and I never wore a tie again,” Mr. Bohlin recalled.
Thus began a collaboration that has extended from Pixar’s headquarters, completed in 2001, to more than 30 Apple Stores (and counting) around the globe, all with design work by Mr. Bohlin and his firm, Bohlin Cywinski Jackson — and Mr. Jobs himself.

“The best clients, to my mind, don’t say that whatever you do is fine,” Mr. Bohlin said last week, a few days after Mr. Jobs’s death. “They’re intertwined in the process. When I look back, it’s hard to remember who had what thought when. That’s the best, most satisfying work, whether a large building or a house.”

Just as Mr. Jobs transformed the notion of the personal computer and the cellphone, he left an indelible stamp on architecture, especially the retail kind, traditionally a backwater of the profession.

“No one in commercial architecture has ever channeled a product into architecture for a client the way Peter did for Apple,” said James Timberlake, a founding partner of KieranTimberlake, who is now designing the new American embassy in London. “Most commercial architecture is under-detailed, under-edited and under-budgeted. It’s gross and ugly, and most of it is an eyesore on the American landscape.”

The work of Mr. Bohlin and his colleagues for Apple, by contrast, is sleek, transparent, inviting, technologically advanced — and expensive. In many ways, the retail architecture is simply the largest box in which an Apple product is wrapped, and Mr. Jobs was famously attentive to every detail in an Apple product’s presentation and customer experience.

The extensive use of glass in structures like Apple’s cube on Fifth Avenue, between 58th and 59th Streets in Manhattan, its cylinder in the Pudong district of Shanghai or its soaring market hall on the Upper West Side of Manhattan have become so distinctive that Apple is seeking to patent the glass elements. Mr. Bohlin’s firm has won 42 awards for its work for Apple, and Mr. Bohlin himself was awarded the American Institute of Architects’ gold medal in 2010.

In their years working together, Mr. Jobs and Mr. Bohlin, who is 74, appeared to have achieved a rare chemistry.
Mr. Jobs was “a very public person,” Mr. Timberlake observed. “That’s in contrast to Peter. He’s not a Frank Lloyd Wright or a Philip Johnson. He doesn’t sweep into a room and take over. You go to a design meeting, and it’s more like a fireside chat.”

A  TEAM led by Karl Backus at Bohlin Cywinski Jackson learned early on to approach Mr. Jobs with alternatives. “He liked to be presented with options and would often make very insightful suggestions,” recalled Mr. Backus, who lives in California and focuses full time on Apple work. “We all enjoyed the collaboration.”

The notion of glass as Apple’s signature architectural statement first appeared in the staircase in its store in SoHo, housed in a historic building.

“We had a two-story space, which is a great challenge to get people to go up or down,” Mr. Bohlin said. “So we thought of glass. Steve loved the glass stairway idea. He got it. You make magic. We made these stairs that were quite ethereal.”

Just as Mr. Jobs obsessed over Apple products, he pushed Mr. Bohlin to make the glass structures ever more refined and pure.

“We got James O’Callaghan involved. He’s brilliant, a British structural engineer with offices in New York and London,” Mr. Bohlin said. “Now we’re cantilevering the stairs from top to bottom.”

In the newest Apple store, in Hamburg, Germany, the stairs float in space, attached only at the top and bottom. The fittings are embedded in the glass, “so you get this magical sleek profile when you look up the wall.” Mr. Bohlin said.

“This is the kind of detail Steve wanted,” he added. “We’ve been driving for this, doing more and more with less and less. This has been a vision of architecture since earlier in the last century. Modernism, some people would argue, is doing more with less. Steve wanted us to push the edge of technology, but it had to be comfortable for people. Sometimes that idea got lost in modernism. It’s an interesting challenge, how to marry the two.”

Apple’s use of glass in retail architecture emerged as a design and branding element at its Fifth Avenue store, which opened in 2006. The site had the initial challenge of luring customers into an underground plaza that had been notoriously inhospitable as a retail destination. The solution was a pristine glass cube and staircase flooded with natural light.

“We came to the conclusion it had to feel inevitable,” Mr. Bohlin said. “The adjacent G.M. Building has a tall, narrow facade, and its best aspect is directly across from the Plaza Hotel. Everything in the area is rectangular. So we thought of a square of light. It looks easy, but it wasn’t.”

Customers started lining up 42 hours before the store opened, and lines have formed ever since, with crowd control often required to prevent overcrowding. The building is now being renovated and expanded. In keeping with Mr. Bohlin’s and Mr. Jobs’s never-ending quest to achieve more with less, a new cube will feature larger glass panes and fewer visible connecting elements.

Despite its popular and critical success, Mr. Bohlin and Apple have not simply repeated the glass cube in other cities. The new Apple store in Shanghai is a glass cylinder using huge seamless panels of curved glass. Like the cube on Fifth Avenue, it leads to a large underground space, but in contrast, the area around it isn’t rectilinear, and the most prominent local landmark, a towering television tower, is located at an oblique angle to the shopping plaza.

“We had the idea of a circle,” Mr. Bohlin said. “Steve said, ‘Why isn’t the entire plaza around the entrance a circle?’ I said that was a great idea, but that’s beyond our control. The plaza was already under construction. Somehow he got the developer to agree to redesign and redo it. I don’t know how he did it.”

More recently, Mr. Bohlin has used glass to create what he calls “great market halls,” such as the Upper West Side store at 66th Street and Broadway.

“We’re doing a number of those,” he said. “The glazed lid. Can it be detailed any more delicately? I’m not sure. We continue to press that. Steve was a great client in this regard. He would not discourage innovation that was within his vision of what Apple is or he is.”

FOR someone as fascinated — some would say obsessed — by design and architecture as Mr. Jobs, it’s surprising that he lived in a relatively modest Tudor-style house in Palo Alto, Calif., built by a developer, and never lived in a house he helped to design. That might have changed had he lived a while longer. He and Mr. Bohlin had been at work for years on plans for a new house when Mr. Jobs died.

“He was so busy and, of course, ill, so it was unlikely he’d ever live there,” Mr. Bohlin said. “But he loved the site. It wasn’t a very large house, and we don’t know if he thought we were finished. I remember when Steve first hired us, he said: ‘I hired you because you’ve done very good large buildings, and you’ve done great houses.’ If you’re doing houses, then you’re thinking about the subtleties of a building.’ ”

Mr. Bohlin continued: “I remember that so clearly, and I was impressed that he appreciated that.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/business/steve-jobs-a-genius-of-store-design-too.html

Ninjahedge
October 19th, 2011, 11:25 AM
Not reading the full article, I will say that Apple (not necessarily Steve by his lonesome) did a great job on marketing.

For a small sect of the tech public that was on the fringe, he related directly and garnered their unwavering support regardless of actual technical merit of the products being sold (not dissing here, but their ads are more like BOSE than Yamaha....). the only downside being an alienation of the solid tech core out there (Some ads that were used about 8 or so years ago showing people questioning the sanity of anyone using a PC over a Mac....)

But then compound that with a showcase of product line in the realm of Apple stores (which also irritate me. You have enough money, in profit, to be able to afford that kind of space?). It both makes me admire and resent the company along the same lines as designer goods (LV or Prada, for instance). The bags themselves may be better than the K-Mart special, but not 1000% better (as evidenced by price tag).

So the resentment of the big glass box is not lying on the shoulders of Steve or Apple itself, but more on the people who see the pretty storefront as an indication of quality. Unfortunately, a lot of people do NOT make this separation. Either hating Apple for doing this, or elevating Apple to some emotional high ground untouchable for "common" criticism.

So, while this is a definite sign of excellent marketing, it is also a continuing sad commentary on the nature of sheeple to be more influence by what others may think of what they own and use than what they may actually need themselves.

Is that all people? (lofter?). No! But unfortunately, as with many consumer decisions, few are actually made from the mind by those that use it. Most are made with the gut or the "heart".

Unfortunately, the "heart" sucks when it comes to setting up a NAS... ;)

Fabrizio
October 19th, 2011, 12:00 PM
Some ads that were used about 8 or so years ago showing people questioning the sanity of anyone using a PC over a Mac....

But reading your post... who is the one here being pompous and judgemental?



a continuing sad commentary on the nature of sheeple

It just might be that there are millions of people buying the products that are genuinely happy with them, have made comparisons before spending their money, and feel the quality, performance, and style is unequaled.

Also: the stores are not frivolous. The service the shops provide (genius bar) is unique and genuinely useful.

And that the company spends big money on grand architecture and luxurious surroundings is in the great tradition of retailing. Enter the great old department stores of NYC.