I think to argue that what he did merely changed commerce or were "shiny toys," is either ultra-naive, or merely ax-grinding.
I brought this up earlier as my mother, a lifelong teacher, talked about the effect it had on her and her students. That is profound, that is universal, and that is a huge contribution to the human race whether you buy his products or own the stock.
Your mother and her students are not the entire universal human race.
The spectrum seems to run the gamut from "fuck this capitalist pig" to "he improved the human race."
Sure, somewhere in the middle, it's enough to say that "he made some cool shit that let other people make some cool shit."
And frankly, for all that 9 billion, he still died a painful death at 56. I think people are partially reacting to that stark reminder of mortality.
In any case, my wife worked for Apple and it'd be incorrect to suggest that he was just a businessman. Dude was as highly invested in the R&D parts of every aspect of the company. I mean, that's partially why he was known to be so tyrannical - he re-orged two departments at Apple - including my wife's - because he didn't like how an email template looked. Dude definitely was a MFer to work for but you can't separate Apple's innovations from Jobs's input. That's not to reduce the contribution of all the other gifted people around him, from Woz to Ive to countless others, but he deserves his due for making Apple into the outlier "anti-corporation corporation" it became.
(And to respond to Horseleech, that's why you can have a seemingly contradictory stance towards Apple vs. Occupy Wall Street. It only works for Apple though and while I think it's fine to point out the implicit hypocrisy, it mostly suggests how, more than any massive corporation on the planet, Apple succeeded in making people forget they were a massive corporation).
Generally speaking, I don't buy Apple products, but to argue that this dude's company didn't change the world is CRAZY. Maybe you hate his products, or his business practices, or whatever. Check out this article from '97, and think about what Jobs has done over the last 15 years. Dude was already a legend at that point, but let me quote for a second:
With its sales sliding steadily, Apple Computer Inc. announced yesterday the resignation of its chairman and chief executive, Gilbert F. Amelio -- a surprising move that casts doubt on whether the company that pioneered the personal computer industry can be revived.
The abrupt ouster of Mr. Amelio, who was hailed as a turnaround specialist when he was named Apple's chairman a year and a half ago, is the latest unsettling development for a company whose recent history has often resembled a corporate soap opera. And like a soap opera, yesterday's resignation left many important questions unanswered: It is unclear whether the move signals a new direction in the turnaround effort or even who will guide the company.
Apple's troubles today are a legacy of technological stagnation, product missteps and management turmoil that several rounds of layoffs and revised corporate strategies have been unable to correct. In December, Apple bought Next Software Inc. for more than $400 million, a company headed by Apple's cofounder, Steven P. Jobs, who had been ousted himself in a 1985 boardroom coup, and brought Mr. Jobs back as an adviser.
When you look at the trajectory since that article, and consider how dominant his company has become, you have to give the man credit. The numbers don't lie, and no matter which one of his employees came up with whichever idea, that dude steered the ship like no other.
I personally think Apple products are wildly overpriced and too inflexible for my needs, but they're also clearly driven by a vision and dedication to user experience, which is rare in a world where almost everything you see and buy was designed by committee. The contributions made under his watch have changed countless industries, and again, I say this as someone who is not an Apple user: You gotta be sipping some pretty strong haterade not to give dude his props.
While I'm not sure a RIP thread is the best place for a debate, I will say this.
I'm a massive Woz fan. I can with ease state that people like Woz and Jef were brilliant. Technically they are on levels very few will ever reach. But that said, those guys could never had accomplished what Steve did. Never.
Did Steve take ideas from others and incorporate them with his own? Most of all things in this world are built upon others brilliance. There are very few original ideas anymore. I can't even imagine a world where Microsoft didn't sell IBM an OS that they didn't even have or any idea of where they were going to get one. While inventing something can make you a visionary, in many cases it's the end game and how you effect the world with your vision.
There are people out there with completely legitimate beefs with Jobs. Lisa and Woz could be at the top of those list. But I'm pretty sure those guys love the guy more that the rest of us. Like I said before, he was far from a perfect human being.
But making the argument that he wasnt a visionary is just deluded IMO.
And I'm not sure what bringing up the wallstreet thread is about... I for one am not against corporations. I'm about responsibility and accountability.
The day any major bank treats me with the same respect that I get when I deal with Apple, I'll eat my hat.
And I'm not sure what bringing up the wallstreet thread is about... I for one am not against corporations. I'm about responsibility and accountability.
The day any major bank treats me with the same respect that I get when I deal with Apple, I'll eat my hat.
Apple didn't create complicated financial instruments that led to the tanking of the US economy. Apple isn't creating a media conglomeration that is directly dictating the agenda of your news sources. Apple isn't gouging you on services you need to remain physically healthy.
They did, however, put that personal computer on your desk. And in your pocket. But no one's forcing you to buy one.
It's worth mentioning that There was a time, in the not so distant past, that you simply could not run music/video/art programs on pc's. Anyone who struggled through IRQ settings in the 90's know the time. Apple, the platform I would estimate 90% or more of all recording studios, movie post and edit houses run on, positioned itself not there accidentally. I would like to think it was jobs' passion for music and art that made him not overlook the arts intersecting with technology. It may not have been him directly, but I'll be damned if ANY microsoft product is worth a damn in a professional arts environment.
I remember in 1998 when we snuck into the USC library to do the artwork for our first album they had 250 pc's and 1 mac. You had to sign a wait list to use the mac. Why? The mac was the only one that had a scanner and was running photoshop.
It didn't know a computer could be stable until I bought my first Mac in 02.
If it was just about the engineers and not the leadership, Apple would have been fine in Jobs' absence. It obviosly wasn't. The grave dancing at this point is an interesting look.
The question as to whether to mourn the loss and celebrate his life is simple to me: what would life be like if had Job's chosen a different path? I would probably be trying to get THE DRIVERS for my new Soundblaster 1000. Meh.
what would life be like if had Job's chosen a different path? I would probably be trying to get THE DRIVERS for my new Soundblaster 1000. Meh.
The personal computer wouldn't exist. What dudes are missing here, is that before Apple, computers were do-it-yourself kits that only tech nerds could assemble and use. Or they were massive corporate machines. There was no such thing as the personal computer for the layman. Apple created the mouse. Apple created the graphical user interface. Without Apple, you'd need to be writing DOS line code to use your computer right now. But you wouldn't even have one to begin with.
My sincerest condolences go to his family, friends and colleagues. It's pretty clear that he was a phenomenally successful businessman and the head of a company who make extremely good products, many of which have become much loved (I write this from my trusty MacBook Pro).
He did not, however, change the world. This is an accolade bandied about by those in the business of making money to make themselves feel even more important. Pointing this out is not hating, it is providing some perspective. The iPod did not change the world.
Question: I'm just wondering what the threshold would be for "world changing"? I'm not saying the iPod crosses that line, but it raises an interesting question as to what innovations would actually qualify.
Question: I'm just wondering what the threshold would be for "world changing"? I'm not saying the iPod crosses that line, but it raises an interesting question as to what innovations would actually qualify.
For me, the key word is "world", which suggests a far broader range of people than just the single-figure percentage of the world's population who can afford to buy expensive electronic gadgets.
How about advances in medicine, in inoculation and vaccinations?
Question: I'm just wondering what the threshold would be for "world changing"? I'm not saying the iPod crosses that line, but it raises an interesting question as to what innovations would actually qualify.
Can products that are unaffordable to the vast majority of people on this planet change the world?
Rofl at dudes on a music board saying the iPod didnt change the world.
I suspect most Jobs haters don't own apple products. And thus don't see the big deal in his passing, or see it as another extension of teh fanboy. Dudes need to go back to updating norton or downloading new drivers or some shit.
Let's also not forget that Atari, another California og and NASA are also responsible for the turn in compact personal computing as much as IBM, Xerox and TI's Ic's which got computers down from one room tube based card punchers to what we know today.
To me changing the world is possible by shifting the worlds understanding - the ipod did so by generally convincing everyone that ALL of the music they have ever loved in their life can be carried around in their pocket and backed up. Again, dudes on a music forum hating on the ipod? ORLY?
Question: I'm just wondering what the threshold would be for "world changing"? I'm not saying the iPod crosses that line, but it raises an interesting question as to what innovations would actually qualify.
Can products that are unaffordable to the vast majority of people on this planet change the world?
I'm not arguing with you, just dialoguing back:
So does that mean the automobile hasn't changed the world? Or airplanes?
Don't get me wrong, I think people throw around "changed the world" rather easily. What they mean is "changed MY world" but that's not the same thing as "the world"
No. Before Apple, nobody even thought there was any reason for a layman to own a computer in the first place. IBM was at the forefront of creating computers. Apple came up with the idea that everyday people could have computers of their own. They then created the interface technology to allow everyday people to use computers. Then they sold the idea of having your own computer to the public. No Apple, and you, me, and everyone we know would never have even used a computer before, unless you were a business technician.
Not everybody has an internet connection. Has the internet changed the world? Without the personal computer, the internet would still be a government defense project.
Question: I'm just wondering what the threshold would be for "world changing"? I'm not saying the iPod crosses that line, but it raises an interesting question as to what innovations would actually qualify.
Can products that are unaffordable to the vast majority of people on this planet change the world?
I'm not arguing with you, just dialoguing back:
So does that mean the automobile hasn't changed the world? Or airplanes?
Don't get me wrong, I think people throw around "changed the world" rather easily. What they mean is "changed MY world" but that's not the same thing as "the world"
These are excellent points, and yes, they changed the world. So have computers.
Shall we go on to whether they changed the world for the better?
1. He changed music, how we interact with technology, etc. Nuff respect.
2. He was a helluva manger and grew Apple ridiculous, i.e. You gotta respect the hustle; stuff like this basically:
Unherd said:
When you look at the trajectory since that article, and consider how dominant his company has become, you have to give the man credit. The numbers don't lie, and no matter which one of his employees came up with whichever idea, that dude steered the ship like no other.
The latter, IMO, is weak to me. Ellison grew Oracle pretty crazy; Milken is/was a sick investor; Icahn sure knows how to valuate a company; Welch can manage his ass off. etc. Sorry, these are not necessarily reasons to respect anyone on a personal level. I mean, it MAY be a reason, but it's not an obvious reason for many people.
And yeah, this kind of cheerleading IS kinda incongruent with the Wall Street protests cheerleading (not saying whoever posted this was also cheerleading in the Wall Street thread; just making a point.).
I gotta respect a dude for making his company successful, himself rich, and his shareholders rich? Why exactly?
Now you wanna talk about his contributions to music, tech, etc., that's another argument. Not hating.
The list is much longer than computers. We could debate on so many levels of his influence and the direct result of his vision.
I'm not sure even where to begin... Affordable to average humans???
ipod's aside.
Ummm, his actions are a direct result of how much of the world is buying it's media now. He transformed the distribution and marketing of music today.
Movies, TV, Books, Magazines. He is a major reason of the way we purchase media around the world.
I mean shit, the CEO of Miramax just stated before Jobs died that Apple is a bigger threat to movie industry than piracy and he went on to talk about Apple's effect in the music business.Think about that for a moment. A bigger threat than piracy...
Look at what he did with Pixar. Jobs bought it from Lucas for $5 million only to built it into one of the best film studios in the world. Only to sell it to Disney for over $7 Billion and put him as Disney's largest individual shareholder.
Comments
Your mother and her students are not the entire universal human race.
Sure, somewhere in the middle, it's enough to say that "he made some cool shit that let other people make some cool shit."
And frankly, for all that 9 billion, he still died a painful death at 56. I think people are partially reacting to that stark reminder of mortality.
In any case, my wife worked for Apple and it'd be incorrect to suggest that he was just a businessman. Dude was as highly invested in the R&D parts of every aspect of the company. I mean, that's partially why he was known to be so tyrannical - he re-orged two departments at Apple - including my wife's - because he didn't like how an email template looked. Dude definitely was a MFer to work for but you can't separate Apple's innovations from Jobs's input. That's not to reduce the contribution of all the other gifted people around him, from Woz to Ive to countless others, but he deserves his due for making Apple into the outlier "anti-corporation corporation" it became.
(And to respond to Horseleech, that's why you can have a seemingly contradictory stance towards Apple vs. Occupy Wall Street. It only works for Apple though and while I think it's fine to point out the implicit hypocrisy, it mostly suggests how, more than any massive corporation on the planet, Apple succeeded in making people forget they were a massive corporation).
GTFOHWTBS
Generally speaking, I don't buy Apple products, but to argue that this dude's company didn't change the world is CRAZY. Maybe you hate his products, or his business practices, or whatever. Check out this article from '97, and think about what Jobs has done over the last 15 years. Dude was already a legend at that point, but let me quote for a second:
When you look at the trajectory since that article, and consider how dominant his company has become, you have to give the man credit. The numbers don't lie, and no matter which one of his employees came up with whichever idea, that dude steered the ship like no other.
I personally think Apple products are wildly overpriced and too inflexible for my needs, but they're also clearly driven by a vision and dedication to user experience, which is rare in a world where almost everything you see and buy was designed by committee. The contributions made under his watch have changed countless industries, and again, I say this as someone who is not an Apple user: You gotta be sipping some pretty strong haterade not to give dude his props.
RIP
I'm a massive Woz fan. I can with ease state that people like Woz and Jef were brilliant. Technically they are on levels very few will ever reach. But that said, those guys could never had accomplished what Steve did. Never.
Did Steve take ideas from others and incorporate them with his own? Most of all things in this world are built upon others brilliance. There are very few original ideas anymore. I can't even imagine a world where Microsoft didn't sell IBM an OS that they didn't even have or any idea of where they were going to get one. While inventing something can make you a visionary, in many cases it's the end game and how you effect the world with your vision.
There are people out there with completely legitimate beefs with Jobs. Lisa and Woz could be at the top of those list. But I'm pretty sure those guys love the guy more that the rest of us. Like I said before, he was far from a perfect human being.
But making the argument that he wasnt a visionary is just deluded IMO.
And I'm not sure what bringing up the wallstreet thread is about... I for one am not against corporations. I'm about responsibility and accountability.
The day any major bank treats me with the same respect that I get when I deal with Apple, I'll eat my hat.
Apple didn't create complicated financial instruments that led to the tanking of the US economy. Apple isn't creating a media conglomeration that is directly dictating the agenda of your news sources. Apple isn't gouging you on services you need to remain physically healthy.
They did, however, put that personal computer on your desk. And in your pocket. But no one's forcing you to buy one.
I remember in 1998 when we snuck into the USC library to do the artwork for our first album they had 250 pc's and 1 mac. You had to sign a wait list to use the mac. Why? The mac was the only one that had a scanner and was running photoshop.
It didn't know a computer could be stable until I bought my first Mac in 02.
If it was just about the engineers and not the leadership, Apple would have been fine in Jobs' absence. It obviosly wasn't. The grave dancing at this point is an interesting look.
The question as to whether to mourn the loss and celebrate his life is simple to me: what would life be like if had Job's chosen a different path? I would probably be trying to get THE DRIVERS for my new Soundblaster 1000. Meh.
The personal computer wouldn't exist. What dudes are missing here, is that before Apple, computers were do-it-yourself kits that only tech nerds could assemble and use. Or they were massive corporate machines. There was no such thing as the personal computer for the layman. Apple created the mouse. Apple created the graphical user interface. Without Apple, you'd need to be writing DOS line code to use your computer right now. But you wouldn't even have one to begin with.
My sincerest condolences go to his family, friends and colleagues. It's pretty clear that he was a phenomenally successful businessman and the head of a company who make extremely good products, many of which have become much loved (I write this from my trusty MacBook Pro).
He did not, however, change the world. This is an accolade bandied about by those in the business of making money to make themselves feel even more important. Pointing this out is not hating, it is providing some perspective. The iPod did not change the world.
The personal computer changed the world.
For me, the key word is "world", which suggests a far broader range of people than just the single-figure percentage of the world's population who can afford to buy expensive electronic gadgets.
How about advances in medicine, in inoculation and vaccinations?
Can products that are unaffordable to the vast majority of people on this planet change the world?
Thankyou, IBM?
I suspect most Jobs haters don't own apple products. And thus don't see the big deal in his passing, or see it as another extension of teh fanboy. Dudes need to go back to updating norton or downloading new drivers or some shit.
Let's also not forget that Atari, another California og and NASA are also responsible for the turn in compact personal computing as much as IBM, Xerox and TI's Ic's which got computers down from one room tube based card punchers to what we know today.
To me changing the world is possible by shifting the worlds understanding - the ipod did so by generally convincing everyone that ALL of the music they have ever loved in their life can be carried around in their pocket and backed up. Again, dudes on a music forum hating on the ipod? ORLY?
I'm not arguing with you, just dialoguing back:
So does that mean the automobile hasn't changed the world? Or airplanes?
Don't get me wrong, I think people throw around "changed the world" rather easily. What they mean is "changed MY world" but that's not the same thing as "the world"
No. Before Apple, nobody even thought there was any reason for a layman to own a computer in the first place. IBM was at the forefront of creating computers. Apple came up with the idea that everyday people could have computers of their own. They then created the interface technology to allow everyday people to use computers. Then they sold the idea of having your own computer to the public. No Apple, and you, me, and everyone we know would never have even used a computer before, unless you were a business technician.
You are tripping.
These are excellent points, and yes, they changed the world. So have computers.
Shall we go on to whether they changed the world for the better?
That is a valid argument. One for another day, I hope.
1. He changed music, how we interact with technology, etc. Nuff respect.
2. He was a helluva manger and grew Apple ridiculous, i.e. You gotta respect the hustle; stuff like this basically:
The latter, IMO, is weak to me. Ellison grew Oracle pretty crazy; Milken is/was a sick investor; Icahn sure knows how to valuate a company; Welch can manage his ass off. etc. Sorry, these are not necessarily reasons to respect anyone on a personal level. I mean, it MAY be a reason, but it's not an obvious reason for many people.
And yeah, this kind of cheerleading IS kinda incongruent with the Wall Street protests cheerleading (not saying whoever posted this was also cheerleading in the Wall Street thread; just making a point.).
I gotta respect a dude for making his company successful, himself rich, and his shareholders rich? Why exactly?
Now you wanna talk about his contributions to music, tech, etc., that's another argument. Not hating.
I'm not sure even where to begin... Affordable to average humans???
ipod's aside.
Ummm, his actions are a direct result of how much of the world is buying it's media now. He transformed the distribution and marketing of music today.
Movies, TV, Books, Magazines. He is a major reason of the way we purchase media around the world.
I mean shit, the CEO of Miramax just stated before Jobs died that Apple is a bigger threat to movie industry than piracy and he went on to talk about Apple's effect in the music business.Think about that for a moment. A bigger threat than piracy...
Look at what he did with Pixar. Jobs bought it from Lucas for $5 million only to built it into one of the best film studios in the world. Only to sell it to Disney for over $7 Billion and put him as Disney's largest individual shareholder.
Trippin'