Steve Jobs

Wallace1492

Sad to see the founder of Apple passing.

However, he was considered an egomaniac, had a very "agressive" management style. He also banished philanthropic donations from Apple, and denied that a daughter he had was his as he was sterile, which he wasn't.

I would rather be poor but happy.

UndercoverElephant

Considering his wealth and power, he wan't particularly an egomaniac; as for aggressive, well, he was no Steve Balmer. What he was was single-minded and usually right.

One of the few true greats of the technology industry, had the ability to make high-tech products that were cool, rather than just plain geeky.

Mr Plum

Very sad, died far too young and way before his time. iRIP.

Somewhat ironic that he died of PC though...

DonDaddyD

I side with UE.

Listening to LBC today I'm not sure I can compare him to Edison, Bell, Brunel but I think their revered greatness came afterwards when their significance was more remembered and appreciated than immediately experienced.

Still to say anything less than the guy was a pioneer a leading force of the digital age is to do him an injustice.

I don't know the man to comment on his relationship with family members or alleged family members, I don't know him personally to say what his personality was like nor did I work under him to comment on his management style.

Everyone has their less than redeeming factors.

What I do know is that everyday of my waking life I use something that this man created, invented, developed or introduced.

And for that I'm thankful.

chadders81

His life did not flash before his eyes.

Apple products do not support Flash.

sketchley

Jokes about Steve Jobs are very non-PC....

sketchley

What's it going say on his tombstone?

iDead maybe?

Paul E

Chadders81 wrote:

His life did not flash before his eyes.

Apple products do not support Flash.

Inappropriate and wrong, my macbook pro plays flash as has every mac I have used.

If you had said all off Apples mobile type products I would have aggreed but you said Apple products meaning them all which is wrong.

Flash is not very good these days anyway, there are other things that don't rape battery life that do the same things or better which is what Steve was trying to drive forwards.

His vision of things will live on a long long time.

chadders81

Paul E wrote:

Chadders81 wrote:

His life did not flash before his eyes.

Apple products do not support Flash.

Inappropriate and wrong, my macbook pro plays flash as has every mac I have used.

If you had said all off Apples mobile type products I would have aggreed but you said Apple products meaning them all which is wrong.

Flash is not very good these days anyway, there are other things that don't rape battery life that do the same things or better which is what Steve was trying to drive forwards.

His vision of things will live on a long long time.

I'm really sorry.

lostboysaint

Chadders81 wrote:

Paul E wrote:

Chadders81 wrote:

His life did not flash before his eyes.

Apple products do not support Flash.

Inappropriate and wrong, my macbook pro plays flash as has every mac I have used.

If you had said all off Apples mobile type products I would have aggreed but you said Apple products meaning them all which is wrong.

Flash is not very good these days anyway, there are other things that don't rape battery life that do the same things or better which is what Steve was trying to drive forwards.

His vision of things will live on a long long time.

I'm really sorry.

For Paul I assume. I didn't realise he was so close to him.

el_presidente

Sketchley wrote:

Jokes about Steve Jobs are very non-PC....

Say what you like, he never got a virus

el_presidente

Sketchley wrote:

What's it going say on his tombstone?

iDead maybe?

iRP

pastey_boy

the guy was a marketing genius who brainwashed a generation into buy repackaged existing products, this flurry of sympathy is typical of the modern world. although sad that the man died of a horrendous illness at a young age i think people need to get a grip. just read the comment at the bottom of this page, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15193922. people are talking like they have just lost a child !!!!!!!

joelsim

I can't comment on him as a person as I have no idea.

His products were revolutionary though and have had a huge impact on the world.

MonkeyMonster

he did some good things, some quite groovy and died earlier than the average due to a really nasty form of cancer. i suspect he did some not so good things too.

Wallace1492

He got on the rollercoaster at exactly the right moment. He did not invent the wheel, he made a version of it, but it was lovely, and innovative and did what people wanted and looked good.

He (and his team) came up with a product that has sold supremely well. From that he has become hugely wealthy.

But he was doing things that already existed, just packaged and marketed them well - yes a very shrewd businessman, but an inventer? Not really. (IMHO)

But denying his own daughter (fact, not alleged) and stopping all philanthropic donations. Not good. Sad story.

Wallace1492

Joelsim wrote:

I can't comment on him as a person as I have no idea.

His products were revolutionary though and have had a huge impact on the world.

So were products by Messerschmit, Mitsubishi, Grumman, and Hawker!

joelsim

I don't think it was all about marketing, he was consumer-focused, simple as.

Everything Apple produce has an interface that is second to none and makes the others look like product-led idiots.

Even down to the packaging. Which on my MacBook Air was just so damn well done...even the cellophane wrap had been thought about and looked a million dollars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUXnJraKM3k

il_principe

Wallace1492 wrote:

He got on the rollercoaster at exactly the right moment. He did not invent the wheel, he made a version of it, but it was lovely, and innovative and did what people wanted and looked good.

He (and his team) came up with a product that has sold supremely well. From that he has become hugely wealthy.

But he was doing things that already existed, just packaged and marketed them well - yes a very shrewd businessman, but an inventer? Not really. (IMHO)

But denying his own daughter (fact, not alleged) and stopping all philanthropic donations. Not good. Sad story.

Not an inventor - maybe you should have a look at his patents... http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/24/technology/steve-jobs-patents.html

As for philanthropy - well there's Bono's project red which Apple have been involved in, and who knows what else, just because people don't crow about their philanthropy, doesn't mean they don't give money - in fact there's a good article about that at Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2011/08/30/on-charity-steve-jobs-has-a-right-to-remain-silent/

veronese68

I was talking to a chap that worked for Microsoft whilst on holiday. He said how funny it is that the people there just didn't 'get' Apple. The whole thing about design, packaging and all that was completely lost on them. They were just too geeky and didn't understand style.
I read somethnig a while ago that basically said although Microsoft is known as the evil empire the way Apple ties you to their products and updates is far more controlling. If you unblock your iPhone and put something on it they don't like. Next time you connect to iTunes you have a stylish paperweight.
I still think it's sad to hear of someone dying young of an unpleasant disease. Can't get too emotional as I don't know the bloke.

sent from my iPhone

kelsen

Wallace1492 wrote:

Sad to see the founder of Apple passing.

However, he was considered an egomaniac, had a very "agressive" management style. He also banished philanthropic donations from Apple, and denied that a daughter he had was his as he was sterile, which he wasn't.

I would rather be poor but happy.

But yet, sooooo shiny...

Wallace1492 wrote:

how much for a new 3g iPhone?

Wallace1492

kelsen wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Sad to see the founder of Apple passing.

However, he was considered an egomaniac, had a very "agressive" management style. He also banished philanthropic donations from Apple, and denied that a daughter he had was his as he was sterile, which he wasn't.

I would rather be poor but happy.

But yet, sooooo shiny...

Wallace1492 wrote:

how much for a new 3g iPhone?

Yep, liking the products has nothing at all to do with liking his business/personal ethics.

rolf_f

Can't see his legacy lasting that long in terms of influence. He made attractive white things that are irritatingly un open. They are designed with, even by IT industry standards, a depressingly cynical built in instant obsolesence. Good looking tat that is designed to be chucked in the bin in under a year. Ultimately, his influence has been negative.

Still, RIP and all that.

dhope

Rolf F wrote:

Can't see his legacy lasting that long in terms of influence. He made attractive white things that are irritatingly un open. They are designed with, even by IT industry standards, a depressingly cynical built in instant obsolesence. Good looking tat that is designed to be chucked in the bin in under a year. Ultimately, his influence has been negative.

Still, RIP and all that.

Hmm, agree that it's annoying and closed, and I've never owned (nor know how to use, despite being a techie) a Mac nor an iPod.
I do have an iPhone though because they're undeniably (no, disagree and you're wrong) the best mobile devices created in the last 5 years and have dragged the rest of the mobile phone industry into this century.
Having gone from Nokias to Sony Ericssons, HTCs running Windows Mobile, back to an N95 and then back to an old Sony Ericsson because both the N95 and Windows Mobile were so hateful to use, the fact that everyone has been forced to raise their game to respond to a horribly closed but superbly designed UI (even, much as I hate the buzzwordiness of it, user experience) will benefit in the long term, even if the iPhone falls away in the next few years.

secretsam

I'm sad to see anyone die young. I'm not a big apple fan but he turned them round big style, and for that he should be praised.

Whether he was a 'good human being' is another matter. But I certainly don't view him as some sort of deity, that's for sure, but it's sad nonetheless.

rick_chasey

It's a strange day when a CEO of an enormous business gets the kind of eulogies Jobs has today.

Especially during a recession, when the firm is aimed at the expensive end.

rolf_f

BBC Radio 4 came up with a corker of stupid journalism last night. They commented on the fact that his products had "transformed many peoples lives". Now, with the best will in the world, I can understand that some folk love all things Apple and that's fine (me, I don't like control freaks but there you go) but how desperately sad would you need to be to be able to say that your life has been transformed by Apple products (unless you made a business out of it but I don't think that was what the comment was meant to imply)? I mean - how can your life have been transformed by the fact that your laptop has a shiny white paintjob? Or that your MP3 player has a particularly slick interface?

sketchley

My life was nearly transformed by iPad last night. It was being used by the driver of car across tower bridge who was swerving all over the road and nearly had me off. His window was open so I shouted at him and he stopped, well gave the pad to his passenger at least. As the window was open I really wish I'd ridden passed grab it and thrown it in the Thames.

redhanded

The "stopping philanthropic donations" thing has been doing the rounds.

The full story is that it was done in 1997 when Apple was 90 days from bankruptcy.

redhanded

Wallace1492 wrote:

But he was doing things that already existed, just packaged and marketed them well - yes a very shrewd businessman, but an inventer? Not really. (IMHO)

But denying his own daughter (fact, not alleged) and stopping all philanthropic donations. Not good. Sad story.

Stopping philanthropic donations refers to what happened in 1997 when Apple was 90 days from bankruptcy. Hardly surprising they were cut then, is it?

"Just packaging and marketing" is also missing the point IMO. To illustrate - I bought a Creative mp3 player about 6 months before the first iPod was released. I thought the Creative was the best available product at the time but it was still sh!te. A total dogs dinner of a product. Awful user interface, difficult to use and the design was just a copy of a portable CD player. Now that didn't really bother me as I'm a bit of a geek and like playing with new tech but there was no way the Creative would have become a mass market consumer product. When I first saw an iPod, my reaction was - wow - now that is what an mp3 player should be like. The Creative went on eBay the next day.

Now Creative had access to all the same technology as Apple, and I'm sure Creative didn't sit down and decide to design a sh!te product, but they still did.

Creative just copied the design of a portable CD player. Apple had the design objective that the product should be usable if it was held in one hand. That is one reason why Apple dominated the mp3 player market and Creative, despite having product before Apple, went nowhere.

sketchley

redhanded wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

But he was doing things that already existed, just packaged and marketed them well - yes a very shrewd businessman, but an inventer? Not really. (IMHO)

But denying his own daughter (fact, not alleged) and stopping all philanthropic donations. Not good. Sad story.

Stopping philanthropic donations refers to what happened in 1997 when Apple was 90 days from bankruptcy. Hardly surprising they were cut then, is it?

"Just packaging and marketing" is also missing the point IMO. To illustrate - I bought a Creative mp3 player about 6 months before the first iPod was released. I thought the Creative was the best available product at the time but it was still sh!te. A total dogs dinner of a product. Awful user interface, difficult to use and the design was just a copy of a portable CD player. Now that didn't really bother me as I'm a bit of a geek and like playing with new tech but there was no way the Creative would have become a mass market consumer product. When I first saw an iPod, my reaction was - wow - now that is what an mp3 player should be like. The Creative went on eBay the next day.

Now Creative had access to all the same technology as Apple, and I'm sure Creative didn't sit down and decide to design a sh!te product, but they still did.

Creative just copied the design of a portable CD player. Apple had the design objective that the product should be usable if it was held in one hand. That is one reason why Apple dominated the mp3 player market and Creative, despite having product before Apple, went nowhere.

It's not perfect design though. The audio quality was on the early iPod at least not great, use it with some decent cans and it was not very good at all. I have Sony MP3 from the similar time period sound quality is far superior. This is where Apple often fail in my opinion and the design over substance argument kicks in, an personal music player should have sound quality right at the top of the list. How did the sound quality on your creative compare to the iPod after all you brought it play music didn't you?

Also those little white in ear head phone, look great, but the leak sound like crazy. Next time you hear an impossibly loud "personal" stereo on PT look at the head phones, 99% of the time they'll be the little white Apple ones. That just poor design and really should of been thought through as most people will listen to music on PT, sound leakage should have been considered.