Discussion on:
View:
Show:
I hate to tell you this but in a century Jobs will be a footnote in history. Technology changes and Jobs didn't invent the computer. People today barely know who Turing and Babbage are, many don't. I suspect many people don't know about Daimler and Benz other than as car brands. Hitler and Stalin changed the world but I find even now there are school age children who don't know who they are. Let's put Jobs into proportion as an entrepreneur who had an instinct for the right product at the right time and could see what was coming and act accordingly. The business world is full of those people and they fade into history. Jobs will be recorded but in a century he will be a little spoken of technology business man. People remember wars and disaster, the good things in life are seemingly less resilient.
Respect to Steve Jobs, his family and appreciative of his contribution to the world of tech, but come on - someone needs to pull Jason away from the keyboard and give him some grief counseling - the number of articles posted recently is getting somewhat nauseating - Steve Jobs is getting a bit Princess Diana-ified on this blog!
other than being royalty; what has she done to change the world; more than being a muslims dodi's keep?
I have a feeling you just read the headline and a couple of paragraphs because you seem to have missed these couple of sentences.
"Within 20 years, every tech company is going to be about human-centric product design, and for decades after that I expect they will continue to perfect the idea until its roots at Apple become almost completely obscured. A century from now, it will be historians who will trace the idea back to the Apple co-founder."
"Within 20 years, every tech company is going to be about human-centric product design, and for decades after that I expect they will continue to perfect the idea until its roots at Apple become almost completely obscured. A century from now, it will be historians who will trace the idea back to the Apple co-founder."
Generally we remember what is in our Time. In 100 years, we will not be here to remember Steve Jobs. The Generations to come will have to dig the Well of History to learn what happened Today. Jobs has played his part on this World's Stage and now the Curtain is dropped down. Bravo Steve Jobs ! If there is Life after Death, try your new Technology and give us a sign from where you are. We love you.
As brilliant as Jobs was, I doubt that the technology he helped invent will have much use in the Afterlife. It might help some people to get perspective if they contemplate that for a while.
just as picaso or michael angelo is remember to this day; there will books written, museums, portraits, art, artifacts created in his name by the people he was liked and admired, etc that will keep his legacy and his memory alive; and yes he will be remembered for a long long, long tome ... if he is constantly talked about in history books/movies/ and on history channel just as hitler and mussolini and napolean is constantly talked about; do anyone know about general nelson; anyone ?
His name was actually Michelangelo or Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni if you want his full name, not Michael Angelo although I think there was a streaker by that name who took all his clothes off at a cricket match.
"I hate to tell you this but in a century Jobs will be a footnote in history. "
Which is exactly what the author of the article said. It was not a fawning over the man himself but the legacy that he has established, in the same way that those you and others mentioned also.
Without question, the path to human-centric design has been laid. It is now up to those that are here now, and yet to come, to follow it (or not).
Which is exactly what the author of the article said. It was not a fawning over the man himself but the legacy that he has established, in the same way that those you and others mentioned also.
Without question, the path to human-centric design has been laid. It is now up to those that are here now, and yet to come, to follow it (or not).
Those who seek to master technology must answer the question, "do you want the technology to be your master or you want to use technology to be your own master".
Which one forces you to consistently 'master' it? Which one simply lets you use it without effort?
So, do you want the technology to master you, or do you simply want to use it?
(I guess that -1 vote on my comment means you want the technology to master you.)
So, do you want the technology to master you, or do you simply want to use it?
(I guess that -1 vote on my comment means you want the technology to master you.)
Technological advances furthered by Steve Jobs will always be diluted by the lack of privacy that has emerged from electronic deviceusage. Each user will have to continuously watch what is being said, because it is being recorded, whether we know it or not. What you say, where you go or who you say it to can be used against you.
AI and other un-forseen tech will put humans out to pasture, so, i guess in immediate future. its already happening.with world wide recession, poverty, greed and joblessness. more like genocides, savagery and wars is yet to come!
People are just bumping uglies too much. The problem is they're not using any technology when they're doing it. In my lifetime world population has doubled and quality of life has decreased by about the same amount. Coincidence? I think not!
Jason, you made the point.
Steve Jobs thought needs. He did not think technology: he used technology to propose new ways to communicate, to listen to musik, to get organised ...
And he is the one who has done it with the highest success.
So sure, you can always argue: technically, what he has put on the market is not perfect, you have better technologies out there. But solution-wise for non techies (that still makes more than 80% of the market) there is nothing better out there ... even if he did not take the best technologies.
As Bill Gates said about himself, "I was building software for my own usage", i.e. for the usage of technical people, and he was going further, saying Steve Jobs was building solutions for customers.
This difference is so subtil for techies, that indeed, it will take a long time until we have a majority of human centered entrepreneurs ... and Steve Jobs has certainly been an important milestone on this path ... to human centered technology development.
Christian Dugast
Steve Jobs thought needs. He did not think technology: he used technology to propose new ways to communicate, to listen to musik, to get organised ...
And he is the one who has done it with the highest success.
So sure, you can always argue: technically, what he has put on the market is not perfect, you have better technologies out there. But solution-wise for non techies (that still makes more than 80% of the market) there is nothing better out there ... even if he did not take the best technologies.
As Bill Gates said about himself, "I was building software for my own usage", i.e. for the usage of technical people, and he was going further, saying Steve Jobs was building solutions for customers.
This difference is so subtil for techies, that indeed, it will take a long time until we have a majority of human centered entrepreneurs ... and Steve Jobs has certainly been an important milestone on this path ... to human centered technology development.
Christian Dugast
Well put. Don't know why you got a negative vote other than a MS fanboy. But, I fixed it for the time being. 
Jobs did not further us on the road to world peace, neither did he alleviate child starvation or global warming. He sold gadgets. Extremely succesfully so, tribute where tribute's due, but please let's keep a bit perspective here. As for his statement about putting people first... Xerox Palo Alto Research Centre, 1978. They are the ones that dreamt up the interface which Apple later worked into their original Macs. PARC were the ones who laid the foundations of user-centered design. Jobs superbly marketed the idea. So yes, Jobs was on of the worlds most brilliant marketeers. That is a fantastic achievement in itself, but imho: that's is it.
It was more than marketing. A visionary accomplishes things that look obvious in hindsight only. Yes, in fact Apple did not invent the GUI, or the mouse, or the mp3 player, or the smartphone, or the tablet. Yet even though others saw the PARC research too, he knew how important it was and how to implement it. With the iPod he perfected the mp3 player, with the iPhone he set the smartphone standard, and for years others tried to make a successful tablet, then Steve comes along and says "OK, this is what you were trying to do" and developed the 1st really successful tablet.
A visionary doesn't have to do all of the inventing. Sometimes it's about knowing what to do with the technology.
A visionary doesn't have to do all of the inventing. Sometimes it's about knowing what to do with the technology.
The Apple Newton. Which will forever be the laughing stock of technology. Then there's the Apple Lisa. Which was only for the very well heeled of us.
... when no more than two years after Jobs canceled the device, a dozen companies sprang up to create replacement devices? Please explain to me how a nearly 20-year-old device is still in use by some doctors (its primary if not intended customer)?
Now, I'll agree that the Lisa was grossly overpriced, but at the same time the Lisa was a significant advancement over the original Apple II yet still had some compatibility with it. It was the cost, more than the technology, that killed the Lisa. Both are now 20-year-old history.
Forget? No. I haven't forgotten. Nor have I forgotten what a beast Windows 3.0/3.1 was to use. Nor have I forgotten how I had to teach my foremen and supervisors how to use Windows 95 because I'd been using the MacOS for years previous. I've not forgotten the Blue Screens of Death from the crapware drivers created for poor-quality hardware that Windows was forced to accommodate rather than Microsoft requiring certain hardware specifications. I remember how three different processor and chipset manufacturers went out of business because they couldn't perform right with Windows and even Intel took a big hit when one of their chips had a serious math co-processor error.
If you're going to look at the bad for one brand, you have to look at the bad for the others and compare their severity. The Newton itself was a success--limited, but a success. The Lisa was a failure due to cost and nothing more. The Mac Cube? A media failure more than anything, though I also admit it had a heat problem as did many of Apple's other PCs at the time due to a lack of forced-air cooling. Oddly, only the Cube was canceled and its cancellation was due to cosmetic issues more than technological.
Now, I'll agree that the Lisa was grossly overpriced, but at the same time the Lisa was a significant advancement over the original Apple II yet still had some compatibility with it. It was the cost, more than the technology, that killed the Lisa. Both are now 20-year-old history.
Forget? No. I haven't forgotten. Nor have I forgotten what a beast Windows 3.0/3.1 was to use. Nor have I forgotten how I had to teach my foremen and supervisors how to use Windows 95 because I'd been using the MacOS for years previous. I've not forgotten the Blue Screens of Death from the crapware drivers created for poor-quality hardware that Windows was forced to accommodate rather than Microsoft requiring certain hardware specifications. I remember how three different processor and chipset manufacturers went out of business because they couldn't perform right with Windows and even Intel took a big hit when one of their chips had a serious math co-processor error.
If you're going to look at the bad for one brand, you have to look at the bad for the others and compare their severity. The Newton itself was a success--limited, but a success. The Lisa was a failure due to cost and nothing more. The Mac Cube? A media failure more than anything, though I also admit it had a heat problem as did many of Apple's other PCs at the time due to a lack of forced-air cooling. Oddly, only the Cube was canceled and its cancellation was due to cosmetic issues more than technological.
So you're saying he saw the potential in other technologies, and was successful in selling those technologies to consumers, correct? I'm sorry, but is that not what marketing is?
... you have to put it to market.
Xerox research began the work ... OK ... but you have to admit, they did not finish it.
And finishing a job, this is the last 20% that often makes 80% of the work.
I am myself one of those who developed the Speech Recognition technology, just like the Xerox guys developed GUIs and more.
Did I finish the work on speech recognition? No!
Did Nuance finish the work in making speech recognition accepted by the market (I was one of them)? No!
The Siri recogniser embedded in context of different Apps on the iPhone 4S is the beginning of finishing the work on speech recognition ... but there is still a lot to do there ... I mean to finish the work so that the mass market can make use of it ...
It takes much more than technology to make things happen ... to develop the technology like the Xerox guys did, like I did for speech, is the beginning ... you need the technology, but you need at least as much effort to develop sense for usability and value for this technology as to develop the technology itself.
As analogy, with Steve Jobs we began to leave the pionneer aircraft era of flying (when flying accross the atlantic in the 50s was still very technological driven. ie. unconfortable, bumpy, risky ...) to enter the modern aircraft era of flying, where the technology does not play a role anymore, only service and price guiding customers for their choice .. from aircraft to airlines ...
It took me a very long time (as a technologist) to accept technology is not enough!
We do not need to be jealous or to dismiss the value of understanding the market and the customers ... everybody has his job ....and Steve made a great job to make us move upwards direction needs, usability, value
Xerox research began the work ... OK ... but you have to admit, they did not finish it.
And finishing a job, this is the last 20% that often makes 80% of the work.
I am myself one of those who developed the Speech Recognition technology, just like the Xerox guys developed GUIs and more.
Did I finish the work on speech recognition? No!
Did Nuance finish the work in making speech recognition accepted by the market (I was one of them)? No!
The Siri recogniser embedded in context of different Apps on the iPhone 4S is the beginning of finishing the work on speech recognition ... but there is still a lot to do there ... I mean to finish the work so that the mass market can make use of it ...
It takes much more than technology to make things happen ... to develop the technology like the Xerox guys did, like I did for speech, is the beginning ... you need the technology, but you need at least as much effort to develop sense for usability and value for this technology as to develop the technology itself.
As analogy, with Steve Jobs we began to leave the pionneer aircraft era of flying (when flying accross the atlantic in the 50s was still very technological driven. ie. unconfortable, bumpy, risky ...) to enter the modern aircraft era of flying, where the technology does not play a role anymore, only service and price guiding customers for their choice .. from aircraft to airlines ...
It took me a very long time (as a technologist) to accept technology is not enough!
We do not need to be jealous or to dismiss the value of understanding the market and the customers ... everybody has his job ....and Steve made a great job to make us move upwards direction needs, usability, value
That's completely incorrect about Xerox 'not finishing' the work. The development of a graphical user interface was progressing with or without Apple. Xerox developed the Alto in 1973, though it was only used internally and was considered experimental. They did not feel they had something ready for production release until 1981, when they came out with the Star. Apollo Computer came out with Display Manager, another GUI, that same year. The Unix world had Andrew (1982), Blit (1982) and W (1982?) which led to X (1984).
The initial Apple GUI release was on the Lisa (1983), but was not successful (though it was very similar to the later Mac interface). You can argue that the Macintosh was the first successful system to run a GUI, but it was quickly superseded by the initially more successful and parallel developed interface for the Amiga, Workbench (1985) (It was not the Macintosh that drove the Amiga under, but the success of Windows 3.0 several years later). Windows was also developed in parallel, and it was not until the 1990 Windows 3.0 release that it was successful or that people accused it of being influenced by Macintosh.
X Window didn't show any particular influence from other GUIs until FVWM95 was released, which blatantly imitated Windows 95.
The GUI was coming, with or without Apple.
The same thing is true of most of Apple's success stories, but at least with mp3 players, tablets, and to a lesser extent with phones you can make the argument that Apple's effort was the first to be polished enough to really tap the potential market, and was thus imitated. That is Apple's biggest strength, polishing technology used in previously released products to make it more appealing to the masses.
The initial Apple GUI release was on the Lisa (1983), but was not successful (though it was very similar to the later Mac interface). You can argue that the Macintosh was the first successful system to run a GUI, but it was quickly superseded by the initially more successful and parallel developed interface for the Amiga, Workbench (1985) (It was not the Macintosh that drove the Amiga under, but the success of Windows 3.0 several years later). Windows was also developed in parallel, and it was not until the 1990 Windows 3.0 release that it was successful or that people accused it of being influenced by Macintosh.
X Window didn't show any particular influence from other GUIs until FVWM95 was released, which blatantly imitated Windows 95.
The GUI was coming, with or without Apple.
The same thing is true of most of Apple's success stories, but at least with mp3 players, tablets, and to a lesser extent with phones you can make the argument that Apple's effort was the first to be polished enough to really tap the potential market, and was thus imitated. That is Apple's biggest strength, polishing technology used in previously released products to make it more appealing to the masses.
Commercially, that is. I don't argue most of your statement, but I would point out that Alto was still essentially a CLI with graphical features, not the other way around and it wasn't until Steve Jobs' comments (exclamations!) that Xerox even considered commercializing it--too late.
Amiga? Honestly I have no argument with them and I really wish they'd done better than merely survive as long as they did; there are people who still consider Amiga to be the best of the best. Every few years you hear about a new attempt at a come-back, but now they have so much inertia going against them that to even make a move in the market they need to come up with a real game-changing machine that can compete with Apple on its own ground. Amiga and Apple used to use the same basic hardware--the 68K-series processor in particular--and each performed like the GUI was specifically made for them. Unfortunately, when Apple split to the PPC chip, Amiga stuck with the 68K series and faded into near-invisibility. I'm not saying either Apple or Amiga was correct in their decision, but had they stayed parallel, Amiga might still have a visible market.
Yes, I will agree that the GUI was still on its way, but Apple made it viable before anyone else even thought it useful. Now Apple has brought the TUI into existance and again people are saying "it's too niche", "it's only good for mobile devices." Microsoft doesn't think so. Hewlett-Packard, Sanyo, Samsung and nearly every other PC manufacturer doesn't think so. Why do supposedly informed techies think so?
Amiga? Honestly I have no argument with them and I really wish they'd done better than merely survive as long as they did; there are people who still consider Amiga to be the best of the best. Every few years you hear about a new attempt at a come-back, but now they have so much inertia going against them that to even make a move in the market they need to come up with a real game-changing machine that can compete with Apple on its own ground. Amiga and Apple used to use the same basic hardware--the 68K-series processor in particular--and each performed like the GUI was specifically made for them. Unfortunately, when Apple split to the PPC chip, Amiga stuck with the 68K series and faded into near-invisibility. I'm not saying either Apple or Amiga was correct in their decision, but had they stayed parallel, Amiga might still have a visible market.
Yes, I will agree that the GUI was still on its way, but Apple made it viable before anyone else even thought it useful. Now Apple has brought the TUI into existance and again people are saying "it's too niche", "it's only good for mobile devices." Microsoft doesn't think so. Hewlett-Packard, Sanyo, Samsung and nearly every other PC manufacturer doesn't think so. Why do supposedly informed techies think so?
The Amiga was more successful as a home computer than the Macintosh until Windows 3.0 came out (1990). That's the way it was. It's no surprise considering the prices (Amiga was much cheaper than competing systems; Macs were cheaper than PCs). I was there. I remember. Also, the GUI was viable before it caught on (the failure of Apple Lisa alone proves that). The Amiga being initially more successful than the Mac just proves that the Mac was not responsible for the rise of the GUI. It was happening anyway.
Incidentally, Amiga had already declined before the switch to PowerPC. If Commodore were still viable at the time, they may have switched, but they didn't have the resources to pull something like that off.
The touch user interface really is only really practical for mobile devices (and some other uses). Desktop devices are much more practical and comfortable to use with a mouse and keyboard, and a keyboard is still king when it comes to data entry.
Why is a touch user interface impractical for a desktop? It's because either the interface would have to be moved up to the screen or the screen would have to be moved down to the interface. Neither one of those things is acceptable from an ergonomic standpoint. (Besides that, people sometimes want their hands not to get in the way of the screen while they are working.)
Touch UIs are practical for when the proportion of watching the screen to entering data is very high, so entering data doesn't tire you out (like for media playing or running a production machine), or for devices which you hold in your hand while you are using them, especially devices that you hold in one hand and operate with the other. There may be other practical uses, but the desktop, particularly data entry, is certainly not one of them.
Whether an interface that successfully bridges the gap between utility for keyboard and mouse usage and touch usage is possible is a different question. I'm not sure about that one way or the other. I know that a bunch of different people are trying to do that.
Incidentally, Amiga had already declined before the switch to PowerPC. If Commodore were still viable at the time, they may have switched, but they didn't have the resources to pull something like that off.
The touch user interface really is only really practical for mobile devices (and some other uses). Desktop devices are much more practical and comfortable to use with a mouse and keyboard, and a keyboard is still king when it comes to data entry.
Why is a touch user interface impractical for a desktop? It's because either the interface would have to be moved up to the screen or the screen would have to be moved down to the interface. Neither one of those things is acceptable from an ergonomic standpoint. (Besides that, people sometimes want their hands not to get in the way of the screen while they are working.)
Touch UIs are practical for when the proportion of watching the screen to entering data is very high, so entering data doesn't tire you out (like for media playing or running a production machine), or for devices which you hold in your hand while you are using them, especially devices that you hold in one hand and operate with the other. There may be other practical uses, but the desktop, particularly data entry, is certainly not one of them.
Whether an interface that successfully bridges the gap between utility for keyboard and mouse usage and touch usage is possible is a different question. I'm not sure about that one way or the other. I know that a bunch of different people are trying to do that.
I was there at the intro of the Mac. I sold more Macs to home users than I ever did to businesses. I only sold 1 Lisa and it was to a home user. I beg to differ, the Mac was the sole reason of the rise of the GUI.
The Amiga came out about a year after the Macintosh. It didn't copy the Macintosh. It was developed in parallel. It also had a GUI driven operating system. It proceeded to outsell the Macintosh for the first five years or so that it was out. I'm not saying that the Macintosh was not a home computer (it certainly was not a business aimed machine), but it was only the most popular home computer with a GUI for about a year (when it was the only one with a GUI), and the product that superseded it was already coming before the Macintosh came out. The Macintosh was never the best selling home computer on the market (perhaps because of expense, but nonetheless, it wasn't).
The GUI was on its way. Even Windows development started before Macintosh came out. It just didn't work very well until 3.0. The GEM GUI was also released around the same time as the Amiga, but Apple claimed they had modified the GUI in imitation of the Lisa interface and sued them over "look and feel."
The GUI was on its way. Even Windows development started before Macintosh came out. It just didn't work very well until 3.0. The GEM GUI was also released around the same time as the Amiga, but Apple claimed they had modified the GUI in imitation of the Lisa interface and sued them over "look and feel."
Christian, and a few others, are hitting the nail right on the head. But it is evident that the "Jobs haters" can't see beyond their own blind prejudices.
"It took me a very long time (as a technologist) to accept technology is not enough!" Hullalujia! I have held that particular inspiration for a few decades now. Tech is exciting, incredibly interesting, absorbing. But it really isn't enough. On its own tech enslaves. I see this even today, everywhere I look. Human-centric technology is the only that will liberate and empower, not only the fit and able but, more particularly the disabled and disadvantaged.
It is too easy to down-vote and shout down those who hold/held the vision and the realisation of the simple truths about technology.
"It took me a very long time (as a technologist) to accept technology is not enough!" Hullalujia! I have held that particular inspiration for a few decades now. Tech is exciting, incredibly interesting, absorbing. But it really isn't enough. On its own tech enslaves. I see this even today, everywhere I look. Human-centric technology is the only that will liberate and empower, not only the fit and able but, more particularly the disabled and disadvantaged.
It is too easy to down-vote and shout down those who hold/held the vision and the realisation of the simple truths about technology.
I don't see what else besides marketting as Steve's achievements. Human centric? Locking down their products and acting like they own them while charging us a premium sum is human centric? I'd call it profit centric. He knows how to make money with technology I'd give him that. But he didn't contribute to the tech world. Apple didn't even manufacture their own products.
((I don't see what else besides marketing as Steve's achievements))
You certainly don't.
You certainly don't.
Google:
"Tim Berners-Lee on Steve Jobs"
"Stephen Wolfram on Steve Jobs"
"John Lasseter on Steve Jobs"
"Jack Welch on Steve Jobs"
There's this thing called Google...ever heard of it?
"Tim Berners-Lee on Steve Jobs"
"Stephen Wolfram on Steve Jobs"
"John Lasseter on Steve Jobs"
"Jack Welch on Steve Jobs"
There's this thing called Google...ever heard of it?
I don't think there is anyone who does not understand that Steve Jobs sold only consumer gadgets. He is not being remembered for that. He was a creative genius who created some amazing gadgets, he was one of the greatest turn around stories of our times, and he was an inspiring leader.
He was able to realize the value of the interface created by Xerox PARC. Remember unlike many "great" companies, he did not steal it Xerox was paid for it in Apple shares.
No one said that he created world peace, solved the hunger problem or fixed global warming. There are people who did that and were and are and I hope will be recognized for their achievements. We are simply recognizing a man for his achievements - So, Please don't behave like an ass....le. You can wait for a few days to do that.
He was able to realize the value of the interface created by Xerox PARC. Remember unlike many "great" companies, he did not steal it Xerox was paid for it in Apple shares.
No one said that he created world peace, solved the hunger problem or fixed global warming. There are people who did that and were and are and I hope will be recognized for their achievements. We are simply recognizing a man for his achievements - So, Please don't behave like an ass....le. You can wait for a few days to do that.
Get it straight. Did he created them or sold them? The interface is not the only thing they sold. Inspiring leader? Have you read any interviews with his former staff? He was a fearsome leader. He ruled with tyranny. He was a straight to the point and get it done right type of guy. He led quite a number of successful marketing campaigns and from my point of view is a style of a great leader. But he is not someone who created an OS from scratch like Bill did or contribute to tech like IBM did. He bought, rebrand and sold his products. THAT is what he is good at. I'm giving him the correct recognition while most of you called him the god of geeks or something similar to that. He wasn't a geek. He just simply knows how to get things done and what needs to be done. He don't understand the technical value of technology freedom. He just say things to make sure his product sells. I'm not bashing Steve. I'm just trying to correct people's perception of him. He is a great leader. Not a tech contributor.
((He ruled with tyranny...but he is not someone who created an OS from scratch.))
So what?
Henry Ford, who admittedly was no genius, employed smarter people to build his cars. Disney let others do all the drawing. Both relentless tyrants. Both paradigm shifters. You, in your jealous rage are the only one who mentions God or other deitys. Take a nap.
So what?
Henry Ford, who admittedly was no genius, employed smarter people to build his cars. Disney let others do all the drawing. Both relentless tyrants. Both paradigm shifters. You, in your jealous rage are the only one who mentions God or other deitys. Take a nap.
((So, Please don't behave like an ass))
LOL, perhaps that's his way of contributing to the "World Peace" that he's so obviously committed to.
LOL, perhaps that's his way of contributing to the "World Peace" that he's so obviously committed to.
Perhaps he wasn't as brilliant with innovation as you are with downplaying, and maybe he didn't resolve world peace (as you might someday) but his devices certainly granted me peace of mind.
As an early adopter of the iPhone, I would display my art on the "gadget" to art galleries and garner exhibitions.
Today, storyboard presentations on iPads help to sell animation pilots, which also don't feed the world - just my family. Condemning products that you don't care to use in such a way, says more about "you" than it does about the man who produced them.
As an early adopter of the iPhone, I would display my art on the "gadget" to art galleries and garner exhibitions.
Today, storyboard presentations on iPads help to sell animation pilots, which also don't feed the world - just my family. Condemning products that you don't care to use in such a way, says more about "you" than it does about the man who produced them.
He did much more than simply "sell gadgets." The interface that Xerox built wasn't usable until Jobs got it. It was still pretty complicated. He "humanized" it. He also had the vision to know it would really help ordinary people be able to use a computer. Xerox did not! Their management team didn't think it was worth anything as they wanted to give it away. So, he didn't just "sell" the GUI. he had the vision to know it was exactly what would allow the computer to be usable by the average Joe and he wrote the rules on how the interface should interact with humans. You gave him credit but I guess you dismissed the rest of his vision as gadget selling.
get a grip Jason. your role as CAC (Chief Apple Cheerleader) is enough to make me yak. There have been so many more advancements, so many more inventions that have had a much bigger impact than the packaging and user centric advancements that he made to advance these gadgets.
I think 10 years in the future, Jobs will be remembered by his failed strategy to fight open standards and try to contain his customers by controlling them. Much in the same way Microsoft stifled progress for a time by trying to exploit market share by fighting open standards, and like Nokia lost the mobile phone leadership position by flogging a pseudo standard OS.
I just don't see your point. Apple has an iPhone which is reasonably thin, and has a touch screen that makes it kinda cool to use, and a high resolution screen which is necessary to see anything on a small device, oh yes, and a application development toolset that developers are now realizing is a pain, partly because Apple has the role of Big Brother and if you even hint that there are defects, you (might) be banned for life from support (which is necessary for survival).
I can't argue with the financial success of Jobs strategy, but it is a short term "exploit the market lead" strategy that is now starting to bleed. Jobs is a brilliant marketeer, that for some reason (unknown to me) attracted a cult following from certain personality types. But to the majority of people in the world, he is not some mythical genius that invented the future - he is a company leader that has had many failures and many successes who repackaged a variety of other technical advances into a successful gadget.
This pupply love idolization of Jobs continues to baffle me. You're like some religious zealot and Jobs is your God. Get some help.
I think 10 years in the future, Jobs will be remembered by his failed strategy to fight open standards and try to contain his customers by controlling them. Much in the same way Microsoft stifled progress for a time by trying to exploit market share by fighting open standards, and like Nokia lost the mobile phone leadership position by flogging a pseudo standard OS.
I just don't see your point. Apple has an iPhone which is reasonably thin, and has a touch screen that makes it kinda cool to use, and a high resolution screen which is necessary to see anything on a small device, oh yes, and a application development toolset that developers are now realizing is a pain, partly because Apple has the role of Big Brother and if you even hint that there are defects, you (might) be banned for life from support (which is necessary for survival).
I can't argue with the financial success of Jobs strategy, but it is a short term "exploit the market lead" strategy that is now starting to bleed. Jobs is a brilliant marketeer, that for some reason (unknown to me) attracted a cult following from certain personality types. But to the majority of people in the world, he is not some mythical genius that invented the future - he is a company leader that has had many failures and many successes who repackaged a variety of other technical advances into a successful gadget.
This pupply love idolization of Jobs continues to baffle me. You're like some religious zealot and Jobs is your God. Get some help.
I think the general consesus is the same everywhere its time to get off the whole steve jobs binge....and listen up to some facts...most people that own a cellphone dont own a iphone...most people that own a computer dont own an apple....journalists and media organizations are the only ones that use apple anymore and thats probably the only reason we are hearing about him so much right now. 100 years from now...people will talk about Bill Gates...microsoft.....not jobs or apple or someone who can come up with a snazzy commercial campaign.
one of the most successful businessman, while Steve Jobs will be remembered as one of the greatest Innovator. Steve Jobs' legacy will be carried on as products become more user friendly. Bill Gates was able to sale more, making him a better marketer, and will be remember as one of the person responsible for bringing computer to the masses.
But he pushed others to be better so we all, including this Windows tech, own better products. With no Apple, Windows might still be crashing regularly like the old Win9x operating systems. Their might not be an Android OS. He helped accelerate technological development and for that we did all benefit.
The general consensus is that Jobs changed the way we do things.
Fact 1) Most people that own a cellphone don't own an iPhone: True--but without the iPhone how many of those users would be using Android now, Hmmm? Android wouldn't even exist and most consumers would still be using feature phones.
Fact 2) Most people that use a computer don't own an Apple: But before Steve Jobs how many of those people would be using their computers at home, as compared to the previous enterprise-only computing environment? Who remembers the old arguments that, "People don't need a computer in the home?"
As far as that argument of, "...journalists and media organizations are the only ones that use apple anymore," is quite obviously false when you consider that Apple is selling more and more computers every year, showing growth anywhere from 2x to 12x that of any other brand for the last 5 years while Windows itself is seeing a slow reduction in user base even when comparing Win7's growth to all previous versions' decline.
Yes, Gates will get his mention for putting computers in the users' hands, but Jobs will be seen as one of the triggers and innovators of change in how those computers were used.
And I don't see a rebuttal to go with that "-1 votes" somebody put up. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's any less true.
Fact 1) Most people that own a cellphone don't own an iPhone: True--but without the iPhone how many of those users would be using Android now, Hmmm? Android wouldn't even exist and most consumers would still be using feature phones.
Fact 2) Most people that use a computer don't own an Apple: But before Steve Jobs how many of those people would be using their computers at home, as compared to the previous enterprise-only computing environment? Who remembers the old arguments that, "People don't need a computer in the home?"
As far as that argument of, "...journalists and media organizations are the only ones that use apple anymore," is quite obviously false when you consider that Apple is selling more and more computers every year, showing growth anywhere from 2x to 12x that of any other brand for the last 5 years while Windows itself is seeing a slow reduction in user base even when comparing Win7's growth to all previous versions' decline.
Yes, Gates will get his mention for putting computers in the users' hands, but Jobs will be seen as one of the triggers and innovators of change in how those computers were used.
And I don't see a rebuttal to go with that "-1 votes" somebody put up. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's any less true.
Even though I partially disagree with you.
I don't really see Jobs as much of an innovator in technology (Smart phones already existed, pads already existed, MP3 players already existed). He was mostly just good at marketing. He did however, encourage competition and the technology advancements that come from the competition, for that, I am grateful.
I don't really see Jobs as much of an innovator in technology (Smart phones already existed, pads already existed, MP3 players already existed). He was mostly just good at marketing. He did however, encourage competition and the technology advancements that come from the competition, for that, I am grateful.
The biggest accomplishment of Steve's was the ability to "humanize" technology. He was the only one in the industry concerned with making it usable by the masses rather than all the techs. That's why they wrote the book (Human Interface Guidelines). Did Bill or any other technology company concern themselves with making it usable by non-techs... Well of course they didn't. And they still don't care.
Not directing this at you but all those that think that he stole the idea from Xerox get a clue... Quit listening to the media! He tried paying for it and they wouldn't have it. I believe they got shares for it but the management at Xerox had about as much vision as Bill does and didn't think it would fly. Who had the vision to know it would fly!!!
Not directing this at you but all those that think that he stole the idea from Xerox get a clue... Quit listening to the media! He tried paying for it and they wouldn't have it. I believe they got shares for it but the management at Xerox had about as much vision as Bill does and didn't think it would fly. Who had the vision to know it would fly!!!
"Android wouldn't even exist and most customers would still be using feature phones."
That's incorrect since Android was in development before the iPhone came out. However, you could easily make the argument that Android would be a lot different than it is if it weren't for the iPhone. Would it have been so successful? I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know. I'm pretty sure it would have been different. Who knows, without the iPhone perhaps RIM would have been wildly successful with smartphones (smartphones were coming with or without Apple).
Home computers were coming, with or without Apple as well. The Altair predated the Apple I, and was the same type of thing. The Commodore PET and the TRS-80 came out the same year as the Apple II (they didn't get the idea from Apple). Both Commodore and Tandy sold more computers to home users than Apple did for several years, especially at the lower end of the market. Steve Jobs is not even close to the initiator of the home computer market.
Jobs and Gates are both examples of successful businessmen more so than innovators or people with new ideas. Steve Jobs is the 'great polisher,' but even that didn't really pay off until the iPod came out.
That's incorrect since Android was in development before the iPhone came out. However, you could easily make the argument that Android would be a lot different than it is if it weren't for the iPhone. Would it have been so successful? I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know. I'm pretty sure it would have been different. Who knows, without the iPhone perhaps RIM would have been wildly successful with smartphones (smartphones were coming with or without Apple).
Home computers were coming, with or without Apple as well. The Altair predated the Apple I, and was the same type of thing. The Commodore PET and the TRS-80 came out the same year as the Apple II (they didn't get the idea from Apple). Both Commodore and Tandy sold more computers to home users than Apple did for several years, especially at the lower end of the market. Steve Jobs is not even close to the initiator of the home computer market.
Jobs and Gates are both examples of successful businessmen more so than innovators or people with new ideas. Steve Jobs is the 'great polisher,' but even that didn't really pay off until the iPod came out.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
