Steve Jobs

[JRoss]

Why is everyone so idolizing him? Yes, it's sad when someone dies, and I guess that he did a lot for the tech industry, but he's hardly the revolutionary that people make him out to be. He didn't invent anything, just made nice versions of what was out there.

Before he died the man was notorious for cruelty to his employees, and was best known online for his daily illegal park jobs at the Apple HQ.

I just don't get it.

 

[SmoothieX]

The laying of flowers in front of Apple stores was a little much, I totally agree.

If all goes according to plan, in a few minutes, the sun will rise where I live, yet again.

 

[Sean Aaron]

I suspect because it's rare for a corporate head to have an appealing public image and be so strongly identified with a company as was the case here. I expect if Larry Ellison died you'd see similar statements from the tech industry, though considering Oracle isn't consumer software you wouldn't see quite the public outpouring.

Other than the usual "pancreatic cancer isn't something I would wish on anyone" sentiment, I felt nothing about his passing. Screwing his supposed "friend" Wozniak out of money over something as trivial as building Breakout machines for Nolan Bushnell was a major dick move, though that was a long time ago so maybe he mellowed with age; his illness might also have given him perspective. Since I don't personally know the man it's hard to make a statement like "what an asshole," though.

 

[DarthTom]

Why is everyone so idolizing him? Yes, it's sad when someone dies, and I guess that he did a lot for the tech industry, but he's hardly the revolutionary that people make him out to be. He didn't invent anything, just made nice versions of what was out there.

Before he died the man was notorious for cruelty to his employees, and was best known online for his daily illegal park jobs at the Apple HQ.

I just don't get it.

Here are some infamous ancedotes about Job's "style:"

"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?" Jobs asked the MobileMe team after gathering them in an Apple auditorium. After someone provided the correct answer, Jobs reportedly said, "So why the f**k doesn't it do that?"

Jobs then told the team that they should "hate each other for having let each other down,"

 

[ALF]

Cantankerous corporate movers and shakers, innovative as they may be, =/= my heroes.

 

[Guartho]

He didn't invent anything, just made nice versions of what was out there.

Patents with Steve's name on them.

Some technology analysts and Apple veterans say the number of patent filings in Mr. Jobs’s name may have been lifted, in part, by the company’s efforts to further bolster the image of the visionary chief executive.

“Apple may have reasons for wanting to have Steve’s names on patents,” said David B. Yoffie, a professor at the Harvard Business School who has studied the technology industry for decades.

But patent experts say Apple was not likely to have added Mr. Jobs’s name simply for public relations purposes.

“If you put someone’s name who didn’t participate, your patent could be invalidated,” said Mark Lemley, a law professor at Stanford University.

original article

 

[Brolan]

What ticked me off is some tech reporter on NPR said Jobs "invented the personal computer" and "can you imagine the world now without personal computers?"

There is so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to begin. Wozniak was the brains behind the Apple 1. And there were so many other computers being designed and built, that there was no way the personal computer era would have been halted if Woz and Jobs had never existed.

 

[Sean Aaron]

True; if I'm not mistaken the Commodore PET often gets credit for being the first PC, doesn't it?

 

[DarthTom]

True; if I'm not mistaken the Commodore PET often gets credit for being the first PC, doesn't it?

Technically according to this website it was the Simon:

Blinkenlights.com

Edmund Berkeley first described Simon in his 1949 book, "Giant Brains, or Machines That Think" and went on to publish plans to build Simon in a series of Radio Electronics issues in 1950 and 1951. Simon touched such pioneering computer scientists as Ivan Sutherland, who went on to influence development of interactive graphical personal computers.

But what I find more interesting is the actual more functional model was the IBM 5100. A 65k unit cost $19,000 at the time, way out of the price range of most 1975 users.

IBM 5100, introduced in September 1975, was IBM's first personal computer, but it was priced too high for most people to have considered. Pricing was as follow

 

[ManOnTheWave]

Here are some infamous ancedotes about Job's "style:"

"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?" Jobs asked the MobileMe team after gathering them in an Apple auditorium. After someone provided the correct answer, Jobs reportedly said, "So why the f**k doesn't it do that?"

That's the same thing I said as a consumer.

 

[CorporalClegg]

He didn't invent anything, just made nice versions of what was out there.

Patents with Steve's name on them.

Some technology analysts and Apple veterans say the number of patent filings in Mr. Jobs’s name may have been lifted, in part, by the company’s efforts to further bolster the image of the visionary chief executive.

“Apple may have reasons for wanting to have Steve’s names on patents,” said David B. Yoffie, a professor at the Harvard Business School who has studied the technology industry for decades.

But patent experts say Apple was not likely to have added Mr. Jobs’s name simply for public relations purposes.

“If you put someone’s name who didn’t participate, your patent could be invalidated,” said Mark Lemley, a law professor at Stanford University.

original article

Most are design patents that cover the look and feel of a product, rather than utility patents

That says it all right there.

 

[JarodRussell]

Anyone know how much of the 4S sales goes to cancer research?

 

[Lindley]

Most are design patents that cover the look and feel of a product, rather than utility patents

That says it all right there.

Does it? Keep in mind that most technologies are invented well before someone drags them into the mainstream by making them easy to use. That's a very important step for any technology and should not be discounted.

 

[Squiggy]

Most are design patents that cover the look and feel of a product, rather than utility patents

That says it all right there.

Which is arguably the main reason why people want any product. No one would want an iPhone if it was in a Motorola brickphone case.

 

[Candlelight]

The best part is when he comments about the property of ideas.

Regarding the perpetual case against Samsung:

"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."

And yet...

"Good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

 

[JarodRussell]

Saw this today, and it seemed to be so fitting.

 

[Sean Aaron]

And yet...

"Good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

Clearly Samsung are not artists and Apple is.

 

[Guartho]

Most are design patents that cover the look and feel of a product, rather than utility patents

That says it all right there.

Woz says he did much more than just incremental improvements (and the implication is more than look and feel as well)

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dK_XEGrzHUo[/yt]

 

[Tom Hendricks]

There is a difference between stealing an idea and taking something and copying it part and parcel.

The best part is when he comments about the property of ideas.

Regarding the perpetual case against Samsung:

"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We’ve decided to do something about it. We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours."

And yet...

"Good artists copy, great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

 

[tomalak301]

I really wasn't sure it was appropriate to bring this up, but I'm going to and going to try and be respectful about it.

A lot of people criticize Bill Gates and Microsoft for a wide variety of reasons and that's fair. However, one thing I do respect Bill Gates for the most is how much he has given to charity and his foundation throughout his career. Last week I was wondering if Steve Jobs gave to charity, and what I read was the opposite. He didn't give very much, and even cancelled Apple's charitable initiatives. I mean for all the money that guy made and how expensive things at Apple seem to be, he wasn't big on charity like other big corporate names.

I wonder what the reaction will be when Bill Gates unfortunately passes away. Is he is controversial figure, sure, but that doesn't mean giving the competition a free pass. Hopefully there are no double standards, but I was really surprised to read how little Jobs and Apple donated.