If it's not positive light, it's gotta be negative light. I'll be happy when people move on and quick blowing everything Jobs' related out of proportion.
Why Steve Jobs' Car Never Had a License Plate
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
That's sarcasm right?Danny91 said:
Do you have a link to that? I'm not being a dick, I'm genuinely interested if thats true, don't know much about Apple or Steve Jobs, and he truly was an asshole if thats true.MasterOfHisOwnDomain said:
Well I guess now this quote from him makes a little more sense:
"Well if you don't like it, why don't you come over here and MAKE me move my car? Oh wait! You can't! 'Cuz you're HANDICAPPED! AH HA HA HA HA!"
Hard to put that on a poster.
"Well if you don't like it, why don't you come over here and MAKE me move my car? Oh wait! You can't! 'Cuz you're HANDICAPPED! AH HA HA HA HA!"
Hard to put that on a poster.
The thing I notice most about people who "hate" Steve Jobs or Apple is that they know almost nothing about the details of computer history, whether it was the events of the 80s or the events of the last 4 years. They also find ways to rationalize why Apple's products are successful and have the highest satisfaction ratings, such as deriding their consumers as stupid "sheep" or part of a "cult".minuialear said:
While I'm not in the mood to go into a history lesson, the most recent example of this is the iPad. After Jobs introduced it onstage, everyone who hated Apple reveled in how it was just a "giant iPhone". How it was useless without buttons or stylus control, or a full PC OS. Even Apple fans had trouble understanding the point of the device. But now those same critics say it was "obvious". They rationalize the endless stream of copycats by saying the design form was "inevitable", the use of a mobile OS sans stylus as "predictable".
I've only rattled off a few of the rationalizations, but there are many others that are used in an attempt to diminish Apple's and Jobs's accomplishments. I'm sure when/if the Apple TV comes out and is successful, by 2015 people will be screaming bloody murder over Apple's lawsuits against copycats and how the future of TV design was "obvious", or how Apple stole it from others.
The one positive in all of this is that the true history of computers and especially Silicon Valley has been well-documented in numerous books, biographies and first person accounts. Even if none of you read the Steve Jobs biography (and it's fairly obvious none of you have so far), for example, the information will always be there. Whether it's about how Gates stole from Mac OS and employed ruthless and oftentimes illegal tactics to crush his competitors (a new Windows update "accidentally" caused all the competitions' software to crash- oops), or how Jobs was a douche and quite cruel to certain people, truth shines a light on all dimensions of history. And thankfully, the truth is and always will be out there.
As for Steve Jobs, in my opinion the truth is that for as long he lived you could quote him, disagree with him, glorify or vilify him. About the only thing you couldn't do was ignore him. Because he changed things.
First of all I never said I "hate" Steve Jobs, and secondly, you can't honestly deny that many of the products that Apple has made popular aren't as innovative as people claim they are. People act as though Jobs "invented" the mp3 player or like OSX is a fresh new operating system, when both happened to be cosmetic changes more so than technologically innovative change (and the former relied on the fact that some people who came up with the idea first weren't smart enough to keep their patents active).sonicmerlin said:
Please cite some of these, because I've never seen any "critics" say these things...?
Also, again, I'd argue changing stylus touch to finger touch and downgrading the power of the OS are design and business choices, not innovative inventive choices. Forget thinking about whether the product is capable of anything; I'm talking about how inventive it truly is, when you get down the the bottom of things. It's not the product itself that's impressive, but the business model for it, coupled with the design choices tacked onto existing products. I know enough about tech history to be fairly confident that if we went down a list of Apple products made famous under Jobs, the majority fall under this category.
Which isn't to say those components aren't important for a product, but I was commenting on innovation, not business practices.
Sigh... and thus begins the history lesson. The iPod's success wasn't because of its form factor. The device didn't even sell that well until 2003. Steve himself pointed out Apple's innovation wasn't in the iPod. He said the device was nothing special, but what was different was the software. Up until the iPod companies had been trying to give people the ability to control and manage their music on the device itself. Apple realized people would prefer to do it on their computer- thus iTunes was born in 2001. This seems counter-intuitive, but Jobs was right. Not coincidentally, iPod sales started their upward trajectory when iTunes was ported to Windows in 2003.minuialear said:
Another thing I've noticed is how bizarrely selective Apple haters' memories are.
http://mikeabundo.com/2010/01/28/ipad-iphone/
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/18374
One of the comments: "It's like bad April Fools joke. I can't believe Apple has released this crap. Who's gonna carry around this oversized iPod? and what for?"
This wasn't a unique criticism: http://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=ipad+giant+iphone
That simple google search lists numerous tech blogs making the same observation. The iPad was also described as a giant iPod Touch.
I don't think you understand what was happening in the market at the time, nor do you understand the difficulty of rethinking an entire industry paradigm.
Here's another comment from the blog I previously linked to: "Why would you prefer a giant iPod when you can carry around a light and more powerful notebook that does everything? Seriously, holding the iPad at all times or leaning over it is ' fail'. How are you supposed to type on it when you don't have the third hand to hold it? And they are using a super crippled OS that's limited in so many ways."
This was not a unique criticism. Many, *many* people were repulsed by the idea of using a mobile OS on a tablet. You still see people screaming about how useless such an expensive device is when you can just get a laptop for significantly cheaper.
Here's an interview with Bill Gates on the iPad several months after it first launched:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GxLS7PqEbM
He illustrates a criticism Jobs made of competitors. They all wanted to shrink a PC onto a tablet, with all the features and complexities of a typical desktop PC- including the stylus. Jobs had the choice of using a massively stripped down OS X or creating an entirely new OS. He also didn't bother basing it on Linux like Google did. Apple engineers created it entirely from scratch.
Another thing to remember is that Apple applied for a generic patent on an iPad like multitouch device back in 2004. As Steve described during an interview in 2010 with Mossberg, when Steve saw what his engineers were doing on a tablet (inertial scrolling, pinch to zoom), he instantly realized how revolutionary this would be on a phone. So he shelved the tablet idea until later and released the iPhone. He discusses that here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdbvAdINPPA&feature=related
Yet another reality most people forget is how Jobs manhandled the wireless industry, specifically AT&T, into letting Apple sell their device untouched by the carriers. It was a complete shift in dynamics. Up until then the cartel of telcos used phones as bait to get people onto their network. Phone manufacturers had zero power. Jobs turned the entire system on its head. His competence as a salesman was unrivaled in the tech industry.
What's interesting is that people seem to think we've finally arrived at the endpoint of user interface innovation. No one realizes the core of the mobile revolution is still evolving. Nokia's smartphone design team leader actually had a great lecture about this and how he wanted to continue advancing ease of use with the N9 and Meego OS. http://www.meegoexperts.com/2011/09/marko-ahtisaaris-speech-%E2%80%98patterns-human-interaction%E2%80%99-copenhagen-design-week/ (Here's a WSJ interview: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904332804576538291349152466.html?mod=rss_asia_whats_news&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
And would you look at this? Apple has its own plans for the future: http://www.theipadfan.com/patent-reveals-apple-ipad-physical-buttons/
Once this comes out I'm sure others will follow, and everyone will say it was "obvious". But really it's not. None of it is. It takes effort, time, money, and perseverance. What Steve Jobs was able to do in terms of talent scouting, decision making, marketing, and selling while simultaneously revolutionizing multiple industries has simply never been done before in the history of capitalism, and possibly will never be replicated.
I have no misconceptions about the quality of his character or his lack of generosity towards others. He was a very flawed human being. But then so are so many others that humanity idolizes.
I'm guessing you didn't know Einstein was a chronic and violent wife-beater? http://oudeis23.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/einstein-arrested-twice-in-1906-for-domestic-violence/
As for Jobs, I'm simply aware of the vision and breakthroughs he brought to the mass consumer market multiple times.
And this goes back to my first point. Unlike as in Einstein's time, history has been recorded in far more detail. The truth won't be forgotten for those who care to look for it.
Eh, the cult of Apple gets you laptops, PCs, and Phones.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Scientology just bankrupts you.
I'll take the side that gets me some hardware at least
.
With all that extra cash in profits the man made from selling those iMacs, well of course he had money to spend. The formula was probably easy too:
Get elitists to justify dropping huge sums of money on parts that honestly do not cost that much money = loopable profit.
Get elitists to justify dropping huge sums of money on parts that honestly do not cost that much money = loopable profit.
As much as I love Apple products (Yes I am a fanboy) I never worshipped Jobs and this makes me think even less of him
You can skip the history lesson with me, I've already taken that class, what I do want to see though, is the articles you referenced where critics against the ipad eventually realize it's worth, as I can't think of a single use that can't be done better by other machines, and you failed to mention any in your reply to the guy that asked the same question.sonicmerlin said:
I see a lot of Apple's works as experiments, some successes, some failures, and I'd applaud that, if we could recognize which category their products fall into.
So...this isn't so much a "loophole" as it is like spending a large amount of money regularly to stay in a window period. If it were the same car, then I'd be impressed.
I respect his contributions to the field of computer science, and I still think the world would be a more unpleasant place to live for Jobs's absence, but... Wow, what a douche. The more I learn about Jobs's personal life, the more I dislike him on a personal level.
I don't mind if you move the goal posts. Here's another link: http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2010/05/ive-changed-my-mind-about-the-ipad.htmlWarachia said:
"May 27 2010
"I got an iPad for our home when the wifi version first came out. I used it for a day and then wrote a post about the iPad on the iPad. I was not very enthusiastic about the device. At the end of the review I said:
'Over time it may turn into a mainstream computing platform but I don't think it is there yet and I don't think Apple has the kind of hit on its hands that it had with the iPhone.'
Over the past week, I have fallen in love with the thing. And so I am telling you why."
Here's a nifty Ars Technica article about getting work done on the iPad titled "Masochist me? An Ars writer's iPad-only workday": http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/09/doable-or-not-my-experience-with-working-for-ars-on-the-ipad.ars
A little snippet: "The initial proposition seemed crazy. I was sure it was not possible to work this way. My job as a writer and editor here at Ars depends on (too much) serious multitasking with multiple open windows. I wasn't sure I'd even be able to successfully write full articles with proper formatting, links, images, and HTML using only iPad apps. And let's not even talk about the Ars CMS?many of us at Ars have attempted to use it from our iPhones in the past; it has always ended in tears.
So imagine my surprise when a day on the iPad actually worked."
Here's a simple google search with plenty more examples: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=i+was+critical+of+the+ipad+changed+my+mind&oq=i+was+critical+of+the+ipad+changed+my+mind&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1064l1064l0l1408l1l1l0l0l0l0l103l103l0.1l1l0
I'm aware you don't understand why it would be useful, or why anyone would buy it. Even most Apple fans had the same problem when the iPad was introduced. But the record sales of the iPad 2 are indicative of massive popular support.
That's the thing about innovation. It's not expected, nor does it make sense on first glance. Jobs's greatest inspiration and hero was Edwin H. Land, the genius domus of Polaroid Corporation and inventor of instant photography. He once said ?Every significant invention must be startling, unexpected, and must come into a world that is not prepared for it. If the world were prepared for it, it would not be much of an invention.?
The two of them met a couple times, and they mirrored each others' sentiments about their inventions: "Dr. Land was saying: ?I could see what the Polaroid camera should be. It was just as real to me as if it was sitting in front of me, before I had ever built one.? And Steve said: ?Yeah, that?s exactly the way I saw the Macintosh.?" This is why Apple never bothered with focus groups or consumer research.
It's also one of the reasons Google has been so unsuccessful in differentiating beyond search. Very similar to the Jobless Apple in the 90s, Google has hundreds of research projects with amazing technology all running wild in different directions... but in the end very little to show for it. That's the reason Google CEO Larry Page went to Jobs and asked him for advice in 2010 despite knowing how angry Jobs was for Google's rip-off of Android. And guess what? Despite the "thermonuclear war" comment bandied about on the net, Jobs pondered over the request for a while, called Larry back and told him to come over so he could give him some advice. Why? Because, as Isaacson wrote in the biography, Jobs wanted to pass on the experience and wisdom he had gained over the years the same way his predecessors like Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard did. He felt it was his responsibility to pass the torch, so to speak.
As for the iPad, if you don't understand its usefulness, then you can either ignore it or buy/borrow one and earnestly use it for a while. Maybe it's not for you. Obviously Apple doesn't have 100% marketshare. That's fine.
Ultimately that's not the issue. It's people, including those just above me, who selectively ignore or forget the details of history to vilify those they have irrational grudges against. It's like a European who hated Napoleon Bonaparte while claiming the general was simply "lucky" in his conquests.
Ultimately what makes me most disappointed are the people who don't understand or don't care. I admired Jobs's desire to change industries. When you put his ambitions and accomplishments into perspective, you begin to realize what the business industry lost, what America lost. How many people these days are so driven by inspiration rather than pure greed?
Jobs told Isaacson that he wanted to "contribute to the stream of human knowledge and progress". Jobs ALSO mentioned in his biography that he admired Zuckerberg for not "selling out". In an interview with Mossberg he described how you have to be insane to persevere even through the failures and downs of one's quest to change the world. A rational person would sell and exit, enjoying the bounties of his new wealth, rather than risking failure and stressing over the future.
It's fitting then, that Jobs continued to upend industries and create entirely new markets even as cancer was slowly draining the life out of him. And yet people find this a reason to criticize him for not spending enough time with his family.
I guess I shouldn't care so much what others think. I know Jobs didn't. That's probably why he was so successful. It's a darn shame though. There are no more acid-dripping, India-visiting, rule-breaking hippies making it to the top in business. I doubt we'll ever see another Steve Jobs. Personally, that's why I felt sad when he died.