R.I.P. Steve Jobs
Comments
-
A shame when anybody dies too early, but lets get a bit real here. He/Apple lucked out when talented British designer "Jonathan Ive" created the Ipod. They would have been wangered otherwise.0
-
Not quite so. There's a lot of naysayers here, but the fact is that he DID turn apple from a company that was truly on the rocks financially, into a global superpower. And it happened before the first iPod, which was actually quite a slow-burner originally.FocusZing wrote:A shame when anybody dies too early, but lets get a bit real here. He/Apple lucked out when talented British designer "Jonathan Ive" created the Ipod. They would have been wangered otherwise.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
Not quite so. There's a lot of naysayers here, but the fact is that he DID turn apple from a company that was truly on the rocks financially, into a global superpower. And it happened before the first iPod, which was actually quite a slow-burner originally.FocusZing wrote:A shame when anybody dies too early, but lets get a bit real here. He/Apple lucked out when talented British designer "Jonathan Ive" created the Ipod. They would have been wangered otherwise.
It's what brought the kids to the brand though, first they bought the Ipod then the Mac's, now they buy the Iphone. The money made from it was ploughed back into R&D to strengthen Apples products.
No question he was a strong charismatic figurehead, who was synonymous with the brand.
0 -
Nope, the imacs were first. That's when they became "cool" again.0
-
yeehaamcgee wrote:Nope, the imacs were first. That's when they became "cool" again.
Like I said the Ipod bought the brand to the young-uns. They were selling in most stores where Imacs were selling in select retail outlets.0 -
Young 'uns don't have the money.0
-
yeehaamcgee wrote:Young 'uns don't have the money.
They did buy the Ipod, when they were young (presents); they got attacted to the brand and now buy a plerophory of Apple brand products when they left school/uni and got jobs. i.e, my brother who pretty much has his own Mac store in his house.0 -
IcarusGreen wrote:Raymondavalon wrote:agg25 wrote:It's not really PC, the jokes flying around about Steve Jobs dying...
Yea, b ut this is the Crudcatcher and PC is not what this is about
The same shyte happened when Jacko died, when Raul Moat died and these kind of jokes will always surface
If you cant to play in the Crud, MTFU, if not, then go to Commuting for a giggle...
I think you missed the joke - "Not really PC"
No, it's not "PC", it's a Mac...0 -
Raymondavalon wrote:IcarusGreen wrote:Raymondavalon wrote:agg25 wrote:It's not really PC, the jokes flying around about Steve Jobs dying...
Yea, b ut this is the Crudcatcher and PC is not what this is about
The same shyte happened when Jacko died, when Raul Moat died and these kind of jokes will always surface
If you cant to play in the Crud, MTFU, if not, then go to Commuting for a giggle...
I think you missed the joke - "Not really PC"
No, it's not "PC", it's a Mac...
hehe....yeah.... :shock:0 -
+ 1001 posts reset by the cruel cruel moderators!
Giant Trance X4 (2010)
Giant SCR 02 (2006)0 -
-
except, most iPod owners use windows, not OSX. And iPod/itunes didn't start making much headway until it appeared on windows.FocusZing wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:Young 'uns don't have the money.
They did buy the Ipod, when they were young (presents); they got attacted to the brand and now buy a plerophory of Apple brand products when they left school/uni and got jobs. i.e, my brother who pretty much has his own Mac store in his house.
IPod was important, yes, but really, the iMac is where the return to sucess started, and notably, OSX.0 -
Agreed, iMac classic + OSX did put Apple back on the map as a serious personal system manufacturer. It supported USB and had Ethernet built in, when this were still "options" on most Windows based PCs
The iPod made them a household name with the younger generation, of which most outside the U.S. weren't even aware Apple made computers.
Another Jobsian paradigm shift was the switch to Intel processors, this horrified the purists, but Intel adorned Apple with tens of millions of dollars to port OSX 10x to x86 architecture; so in essence, the "Big i" part funded the transition. The best thing was that you could use Bootcamp and run Windows and OSX on the boxes.
One thing that has surprised me is that Apple have remained committed to Intel processors and chipsets and haven't released an AMD based system [yet]
That's where Jobs was a genius: His sheer foresight in relation to consumer wants vs. business models0 -
Raymondavalon wrote:Agreed, iMac classic + OSX did put Apple back on the map as a serious personal system manufacturer. It supported USB and had Ethernet built in, when this were still "options" on most Windows based PCs
The iPod made them a household name with the younger generation, of which most outside the U.S. weren't even aware Apple made computers.
Another Jobsian paradigm shift was the switch to Intel processors, this horrified the purists, but Intel adorned Apple with tens of millions of dollars to port OSX 10x to x86 architecture; so in essence, the "Big i" part funded the transition. The best thing was that you could use Bootcamp and run Windows and OSX on the boxes.
One thing that has surprised me is that Apple have remained committed to Intel processors and chipsets and haven't released an AMD based system [yet]
That's where Jobs was a genius: His sheer foresight in relation to consumer wants vs. business models
Mind you Bill gates had the foresight to concentrate on the OS rather than the OS/PC package, which is where Apple nearly faltered. I still don't think the Ipod's role in the turn around of Apples fortunes can be underestimated. When I was at college it was all PC's, Apples just used for the arty farty ghey stuff.0 -
Shouldn't be underestimated, no, I just reckon it's not where their fortunes turned.0
-
yeehaamcgee wrote:Shouldn't be underestimated, no, I just reckon it's not where their fortunes turned.
I guess we could find out by emailing Ste...Arh!0 -
This should explain how the product set reflected on the company's fortunes
The top bar represents £500/share, the August 2011 arrow is at $400/share0 -
Agree with people above that the original iMac was the start of the turn-around for Apple. Then came OSX, then Intel chips.
I had one of the original iPods when they first came out (Mac only). It cost me £350 in Oct 2001. That's about £450 in todays money, so I agree with the poster who said that the kids couldn't afford them at first.
I think the Intel chips, despite initially being slower than the PPC's they replaced, were the real start of the upswing in Apple's fortunes. I had several people at work tell me they were considering getting an iMac (I was the only guy in a 400+ people company with a Mac!) but were unsure if they'd like it. Due to they Intel chip the answer was easy: "Buy it, try it for a month or two; if you don't get on with it you can always wipe it & stick XP on there!"
Steve Jobs was a visionary but not in a 'technical' way. Not really any kind of engineer but someone who knew what you really wanted/needed before you knew it yourself. There was/is a lot of marketing nonsense associated with Apple but like BMW the product has to be good to carry it off.
I like the 'Richest man in the cemetery' quote. 56years is not very old & more than anything else Steve Jobs has enriched my life ( :roll: ) by getting me thinking all day long about my own mortality, what is important in life, my family, friends, health etc, etc, etc.0 -
Is share price the only thing that matters then?0
-
Ahem, (cough), the intel chips were definitely not less powerful than the G5s they replaced (although the succesors to the G5, which are in a roundabout kind of way, found in the Xbox360 and the PS3, were very powerful at the time)0
-
Raymondavalon wrote:This should explain how the product set reflected on the company's fortunes
The top bar represents £500/share, the August 2011 arrow is at $400/share
Don't forget in amongst those prices was the dot come bust, and see the dip in 2009-2010 was when the credit default swaps reality were hitting global economies. No doubt share price will be rocked to the core during the next few years too.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:Ahem, (cough), the intel chips were definitely not less powerful than the G5s they replaced (although the succesors to the G5, which are in a roundabout kind of way, found in the Xbox360 and the PS3, were very powerful at the time)
+ Potato
One of the reasons Apple abandoned the PPC family was due to IBM's lack of commitment of adding new technologies (instructions) within the core and very lethargic road map in respect to power/heat reduction and also reaching the 3.0Ghz mark
The old G5 Macs required mega cooling and the dual processor, dual core G5 workstations required [very unreliable Toshiba manufactured] water cooling.
Apple adapted Intel chips and chipsets in 2005 just after Intel introduced Dual Core technology. At this time they were 1.66, 1.83 and 2.0Ghz Core2 units first seen on the x86 Mac Mini
x86 processors were more efficient, supported 64Bit instructions, consumed less power, thus easier to cool which equaled less acoustic noise.0 -
Sometimes changing the name of your iPod can be fun, I did this earlier:
Without Steve Jobs this would not have been possible, RIP mr Jobs."Youth's a mask, but it don't last
live it long and live it fast."
My dustcap topic:
http://www.bikeradar.com/mtb/forum/view ... &highlight0 -
If we have evolved from the Apple II to the Iphone in just thirty odd years, how long will it be before the machines take over?
0 -
Raymondavalon wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:Ahem, (cough), the intel chips were definitely not less powerful than the G5s they replaced (although the succesors to the G5, which are in a roundabout kind of way, found in the Xbox360 and the PS3, were very powerful at the time)
+ Potato
One of the reasons Apple abandoned the PPC family was due to IBM's lack of commitment of adding new technologies (instructions) within the core and very lethargic road map in respect to power/heat reduction and also reaching the 3.0Ghz mark
The old G5 Macs required mega cooling and the dual processor, dual core G5 workstations required [very unreliable Toshiba manufactured] water cooling.
Apple adapted Intel chips and chipsets in 2005 just after Intel introduced Dual Core technology. At this time they were 1.66, 1.83 and 2.0Ghz Core2 units first seen on the x86 Mac Mini
x86 processors were more efficient, supported 64Bit instructions, consumed less power, thus easier to cool which equaled less acoustic noise.
Yeh, I probably could've phrased it better. :oops:
What I meant was that the initial Intel offerings weren't a great improvement over the G5's & I believe the very first Intel iMac was slower to complete some tasks than it's immediate (G5) predecessor. i.e. the Intel advantage was not initially down to raw speed but more to do with future-proofing & compatibility.0 -
True, it's incredible, isn't it?FocusZing wrote:If we have evolved from the Apple II to the Iphone in just thirty odd years, how long will it be before the machines take over?
Hopefully there'll be another person along who will drive things forward at least partially as much as Jobs and co (as well as Gates and crew) have done. I wonder how today's technology would have ended up if these guys weren't around?
And again, the intel chips were more powerful than the G5s from their first adoption by apple. OSX's runtime libraries however, took a little while to be tweaked for high performance.0 -
f we have evolved from the Apple II to the Iphone in just thirty odd years, how long will it be before the machines take over?
That's backwards, surely?0
