Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Look Back At the Career of Steve Jobs

Unknown Lamer posted more than 3 years ago | from the remember-when-he-wasn't-evil dept.

Businesses 324

Zothecula writes with a rather extensive piece in Gizmag about Steve Jobs's various business endeavors. From the article: "Revered by many, hated by some, but respected by most, the indisputable fact remains that Steve Jobs is the most successful business leader of his generation and quite possibly of all time. The numbers are impressive in themselves but the most remarkable aspect of his success is how it was achieved. Though he remains at Apple, the end of his tenure as CEO is the end of an era and an opportunity to try and grasp just exactly what it is he did and what lessons there are for all of us 'trying to make a dent in the universe.'"

cancel ×

324 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

iPod was a side project (1)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258306)

I like how when Apple introduced the iPod, they thought of it as practically a novelty. IIRC, I think they targeted 10,000 sales.

Re:iPod was a side project (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258362)

Bullshit, if that were the case then why did they build it with an intentionally obfuscated file system, and why did they develop proprietary software to act as the only means of getting data on or off of it? Why develop a proprietary cable instead if using USB, or even their own Firewire? For a "side project" they sure went through a lot of extra effort to lock it down and keep it proprietary, especially considering that MP3 players were already common devices with established standards when it came out.

Re:iPod was a side project (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258382)

It *was* Firewire, originally.

Re:iPod was a side project (0)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258422)

True, but it wasn't a standard firewire connection. It's was firewire with a unique connector, meaning you couldn't use a standard firewire cable without an adapter.

Re:iPod was a side project (2)

xjerky (128399) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258532)

Um, NO. It was a standard firewire connector on both ends. http://media.techeblog.com/elephant//ul/23125-450x-r_5.jpg [techeblog.com] I know, because I owned one. And, at first the filesystem was NOT obfuscated, to boot. the filenames were merely truncated, not turned into random four-letter filenames like it did later on.

Re:iPod was a side project (1)

Colourspace (563895) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258560)

You know what? You're right.

Re:iPod was a side project (2, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258944)

Um, NO. It was a standard firewire connector on both ends. http://media.techeblog.com/elephant//ul/23125-450x-r_5.jpg [techeblog.com] [techeblog.com] I know, because I owned one. And, at first the filesystem was NOT obfuscated, to boot. the filenames were merely truncated, not turned into random four-letter filenames like it did later on.

So you mean they added the proprietary connector and obfuscated filesystem as a value-added feature later on?

I see...

Re:iPod was a side project (1)

xjerky (128399) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258960)

Not as a value-added feature, but they were added to the newer models as of the iPod 3G, yes.

Re:iPod was a side project (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259172)

The FIrewire connector was removed because whilst contemporary Macs all had Firewire, very few PCs did. So they switched to a USB connector at the computer end of the cable. They created the dock connector at the iPod end because they wanted to add video out, and that's not possible with a standard USB connector.

So yes, it was a value added feature. More compatible with PCs plus it supported video.

Re:iPod was a side project (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258578)

True, but it wasn't a standard firewire connection. It's was firewire with a unique connector, meaning you couldn't use a standard firewire cable without an adapter.

It was a standard firewire port. It was one of those 6-pin standard jobs that can supply 12W of power (up to 48V, .25A. And yes, Macs have been known to fry Firewire hubs that way. 12V was more typical though).

Only on the 3rd gen did Apple switch to the Dock connector which enabled USB as well, but through a proprietary cable.

Hell, many Firewire PC cards were 6-pins (though 12V max). Many laptops came with the more common 4-pin variety which didn't supply any power. Enough that Apple supplied a 4-to-6 pin adapter.

Re:iPod was a side project (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258872)

The 6 pin connection is Firewire, the 4 pin connection is i.Link

Both connections are in the IEEE 1394a amendment.

Re:iPod was a side project (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258444)

Because it's Apple and that's what they do. It's not as if there aren't many cheap devices that do some or all of the above in lots of technological areas. Lots of businesses have been rather slow on picking up the open standards stuff as a means of making money.

Re:iPod was a side project (2, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259022)

Lots of businesses have been rather slow on picking up the open standards stuff as a means of making money.

Being "slow" is one thing. How long has Apple been making iPods and other handheld devices now?

I think after a decade of stubbornly sticking with proprietary connections, you stop saying that they're just being "rather slow on picking up the open standards stuff".

Or maybe I'm wrong. When do you see Apple adopting "the open standards stuff"? 2013? 2018?

I'll tell you one thing: a certain person is going to have to be safely scattered over the Pacific Ocean near Cupertino before that day ever comes.

I would be surprised if the words, "We'll adopt open standards over my dead body" have not been uttered at least a few times in Apple HQ since 1997.

Re:iPod was a side project (2)

fullmetal55 (698310) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258468)

originally it wasn't an obfuscated file system, originally it didn't require proprietary software, originally it was firewire. heck my old iPod was the first generation with the proprietary cable, (called a dock port at the time as the iPod shipped with a docking station) it still connected via firewire. and MP3 players weren't that common in 2001, especially in the gigabyte range. 128 mb players were shipping, but were expensive novelties. you do realize this was 10 years ago right? I had a 20 gb creative Nomad before that and that thing was huge (by today's standard, at the time it was the same size and shape as a CD player) and a piece of junk, if the original original ipods worked on PCs I would have had one of them instead.

First (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258308)

Can we hold off on all this retrospect until he's actually dead.

Re:First (1)

heptapod (243146) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258354)

Soon. [tmz.com]

Obligatory...(sorry couldn't resist) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258512)

He's just pining for the fjords.

hooray! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258332)

Steve Jobs gives people who pursue marketing and sales as professions hope that they will make mad bank sometime in their lifetime.

I really hope his death is painful.

Re:hooray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258830)

As do I yours. Some of us in sales and marketing have the same ideals as you, having come from hardware and software design backgrounds. You cunt.

Re:hooray! (0)

Colourspace (563895) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258908)

Actually fuck posting AC, here I am again, cunty. Grow up.

RIP Steve Jobs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258358)

Truly an american icon. Our prayers are with his family and friends. Hope he is in a better place now.

Biggest tight wad of all time (0, Troll)

dave562 (969951) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258368)

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258500)

The best thing he could do with the money (if he is not going to leave it to his heirs, and BTW, inheritance tax is real theft) is "donate" it to somebody who already has a lot of money and is running a successful company or to set up an investment fund to have the money invested into various start up businesses.

OTOH he could just burn it, wouldn't have to pay any inheritance tax at all and it would be something different for a change.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258574)

Wow. It's a good thing you're poor.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258800)

Why? There is no moral advantage to more business.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (1, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258906)

I don't understand, what would you rather do? You are talking about actual investment capital, that is made from work of an individual, this is definitely the most moral way of saving money - working for it, as opposed to how gov't creates it - printing/borrowing (inflating and stealing from you now or borrowing - forcing deferred taxes upon those, who will pay them in the future for the spending done now.)

What do you mean "no moral advantage to more business"?

I can actually turn this right around and say that it is the most moral thing that can be done - investment into more business. Do you know what investment (deferred consumption) got for people? Everything you have and you use in your life is done from one form of investment or another. All products and services that market demands and market wants to buy and to pay for (when I say market, I mean individuals, who also have to work to exchange their work for yours), all of those products and services need to be produced.

The more competition there is in every sector the better. Would Steve Jobs benefit from less government involvement into health care and insurance in terms of regulations, taxes and subsidies? Of-course he would. Who can say what the state of medical advancements would have been by now if it was not for government regulations that destroy competition? Maybe his (and other people's) problem could be actually fixed for real if government was not allowed to interfere with the medical field. Government interference with the electronics and other technology fields is less than with medical, and look what happened in 40 years with computers. Computers are more powerful than ever and cheaper than ever.

Same applies to all technologies, as technology improves, it frees up more of the human time and reduces costs as well as it creates better, quicker, safer ways of delivering whatever the need is, so in case of cancers for example, it is possible to fight many cancers without surgery, with just certain types of drugs, which is a clear advancement in everything - from technology itself, to the difficulty of recovery, to amount of work that needs to be done, etc.

Without government interference and with more private investment that is the outcome - more competition, more choice, better choices, lower prices.

So I don't know what you would do with money, but the best way to spend money is to generate more business opportunities via investment AFAIC, I think it actually is the most moral thing that can be done. You cannot raise standard of living with hand outs, but if you create a business and a product, you do in fact increase standard of living for many.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (1, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259056)

You could turn around and say this, and you'd still be a running dog lackey libertarian fool. Investment strategies are understood very well, and the power of cogent capitalism. It needs oversight because there are assholes out there that think nothing of the lives of others and what their product methodologies can do to fuck them up. You need oversight because you're not trustworthy, and the greed motive makes quote unquote "moral" decisions for many abberant capitalists, just like it does for abberant socialists.

So, be careful of that high horse there, fella. We need conscience and scrutiny to prevent the assholes from taking over.

Oh, wait....

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (5, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258834)

Inheritance tax is not theft. It is a very progressive tax in that it serves to prevent the perpetuation of wealth, free of tax, in wealthy families and are “a certain corrective against the development of a race of idle rich”.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258968)

I've often thought that the USA way of taxing is a lot better than the Canadian way. In the US, money that you really don't deserve (inheritance, lotteries, etc.) is taxed quite hard but the money that you earn or invest (to create jobs) is not. In Canada, it is the reverse - lottery wins and other winfalls are not taxed at all but the money you actually earn is way, way over taxed.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259170)

Some of the earnings are taxed, note I have no state income tax in Alaska, other states vary in income tax rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax#In_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]

But were I to win a million dollars in Las Vegas or from a Lottery, the IRS automatically gets 25%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery_jackpot_records#United_States [wikipedia.org]

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (-1, Troll)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258978)

. It is a very progressive tax in t

- so because you think it is "progressive", somehow this implies it's not theft? AFAIC "progressive" literally means theft.

There is another huge problem with this type of tax of-course - to be paid, holdings must be liquidated. So in case of Jobs this would literally mean that his shares would have to be sold off, it's a forced sell off, the prices would go down by a large amount, and I imagine that the biggest proponent of wealth tax - Buffet, would come in and feast on this sale. It's his business after all, to buy businesses sold on fire sales due to inheritance tax.

Should a man not be able to leave the money he made over the course of his life to his family? If you believe that, then you obviously are not on the same frequency as I am, because I believe in private property. Of-course this is none of my business, what Jobs does, but the principle of the thing matters.

Do you also believe that money would be better spent by government, rather than by private business? That is just sick, and I gave my answer to a similar question here. [slashdot.org]

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (5, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259140)

I see you failed American History of the 20th century.

Progressivism as a political movement emerged in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them.

Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR and LBJ are noted Progressives.

I believe that the Estate Tax system, even if the Bush cuts are repealed, will not lead to all of an estate's wealth going to the government, at the same time with an Estate Tax, it does not create a noble class of ultra wealthy land owners. I don't see government spending and welfare as an evil.

Reasonable tax regimes don't lead to the abolishment of private property, the 1950s saw the highest post-WW2 tax rates in the United States and also the lowest unemployment rates.

A progressive tax is a tax by which the tax rate increases as the taxable base amount increases. Income taxes are progressive as are Estate Taxes, sales taxes are regressive in that everyone pays the same percentage, leading to the poor paying a greater share of their disposable income.

So in no way does "progressive", either in politics or tax systems mean theft.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258852)

The best thing he could do with the money (if he is not going to leave it to his heirs, and BTW, inheritance tax is real theft) is "donate" it to somebody who already has a lot of money and is running a successful company or to set up an investment fund to have the money invested into various start up businesses.

OTOH he could just burn it, wouldn't have to pay any inheritance tax at all and it would be something different for a change.

I'd rather see inheritance taxes than people gaining wealth due to nothing more than an accident of birth. Especially since money = political power^w speech, why should some people inherit a greater say in the political process than others. Seems the founding fathers fought a revolution against inherited political standing.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (0, Troll)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259004)

The correct fix to the money in political speech of-course is to stop government from dictating to the businesses, from counterfeiting fiat, setting interest rates, starting illegal wars, etc. That's the way to get money out of the political process - don't let the government do anything that deals with wealth redistribution and there will be no reason to give money to government if you just want your specific business agenda to be subsidized and competition destroyed.

As long as government regulates/taxes/subsidizes business, basically controls outcomes in business, some of that business will be government.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258514)

Wouldnt keeping it in stocks be investing into the economy? Huh, did you think of that?

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258518)

There are no records of public donations.
 
  Does not mean he never donates, just means if he does it's for the sake of donating, not as an action of PR.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (4, Insightful)

markjhood2003 (779923) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258550)

Perhaps Jobs just prefers to donate anonymously, as many of us do.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258648)

I would imagine if Steve Jobs publicly worked towards a cause, however, it would add quite a bit more to the cause than mere money.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (4, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258754)

Perhaps Jobs just prefers to donate anonymously, as many of us do.

This.

Steve Jobs has a publicity problem. It's basically at the point where the news goes wild everytime he breathes. His every action is scrutinized and criticized and commented and such 10 times over.

Now imagine how it applies should he not give anonymously. If he gave to a pro-gay-rights group, he'd have half the US population cheering him, half the population jeering him (and death threats). Ditto if it was a religious organization. Or minority group. Or whatever he honestly believes in. The act of donation would basically bring on such a wrath of coverage and commentary that really, I doubt even the charity itself would want that sort of scrutiny (especially since it often takes away from whatever goal they want to accomplish).

He gives anonymously, the charities respect that (and thankful the media doesn't go over their charity) and life goes on.

Hell, given his Spartan lifestyle (does he have a couch yet?), he may be giving a ton away - he certainly doesn't have a need for money.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (3, Insightful)

macwhizkid (864124) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258676)

I feel kind of uncomfortable judging anyone about what they may have/have not done for charity. Jobs is a relatively private person when it comes to his personal life and a pretty deep thinker. Yes, he has no public record of philanthropy. Who's to say he doesn't do it privately or hasn't set up his will for postmortem charitable contributions?

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet bank on their reputations as front men for their charitable organizations. That's their right and they do a lot of good work. But that's not the only way to do it.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (2)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258840)

FTR, agree with most of your post.

> Yes, he has no public record of philanthropy.
Philanthropy is not a black or white issue. His salary at Apple was $1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-dollar_salary [wikipedia.org]

> Who's to say he doesn't do it privately or hasn't set up his will for postmortem charitable contributions?
Exactly.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (3, Insightful)

jdavidb (449077) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258740)

That's right â" Steve Jobs, worth $5.1 billion, has no public record of philanthropy.

I am all for encouraging charitable giving, but this is not a respectful way to do it. This is attempting to impose a value judgment ("People should have a public record of philanthropy") rather than talking about why charitable giving is a good idea and why the potential donor might be interested.

Regardless of whether he has given or not, Steve Jobs has served the public admirably. He has created wonderful products that people are willing to pay for, so obviously his service must have been valuable to some people. We live in a Jetsons age thanks to Steve Jobs. I haven't even bought an Apple product in eight years, but I'm still benefiting from the impact his company's designs have had on the industry.

I think it would be spectacular if Steve's billions were now spent looking for a cure for the medical conditions that are plaguing him. Doing so might seem "selfish," but would in fact serve the public yet again. Extending Jobs' lifespan would be a wonderfully fitting reward for the valuable service he has already provided for the world.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (1, Interesting)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258778)

Oh look, parasites demanding food! Let me note that the people who run change.org would directly benefit from any money tsunamis unleashed by their challenge. And they are for-profit [webcitation.org] , making their demands unusually self-serving even by the weak standards of the charity industry.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (4, Insightful)

Co0Ps (1539395) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258806)

Personally I don't believe in charity. You can't just throw money on social problems and have them magically disappear. History has shown that time and time again. It's feels more like an American cultural phenomenon where people expects celebrities to make shallow statements on how "world peace is great" and donate some money "to the cause". I'm not a big fan of Steve Jobs but the fact that he hasn't thrown away his money on some temporary Africa projects and rather invested them in the economy (the real eradicator of poverty) doesn't affect my view on him negatively the slightest bit.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (0)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258970)

How do you call a CEO with a salary of $1/ year a tightwad (especially in today's day and age of CEO's earning hundreds of times what the average person makes)? Oh, he made tons and tons of money but he drew an annual salary less than what you spend on coffee in the morning. Not to mention, as others have already pointed out, he may well be donating substantial amounts anonymously.

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259048)

Anyone with enough resources to pay themselves in dividends and stock options would be stupid to take a large annual salary. Capital gains taxes are significantly less than income taxes.

It could be that Steve Jobs donates anonymously. If that is the case, it should be pretty easy for you guys to find some press releases or other PR material where Steve Jobs is at least speaking positively about groups he feels strongly about. Surely there is a lot of that information out there. Right?

I tried to search for some and this is what I came across.

http://www.stephenthomas.ca/steve-jobs-hates-good-it/ [stephenthomas.ca]

Re:Biggest tight wad of all time (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259062)

In fact, Jobs even went so far as to eliminate corporate philanthropy programs at Apple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Philanthropy [wikipedia.org]

That is not the behavior of someone who agrees with charitable giving, anonymous or otherwise.

Nah. Let's be serious (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258390)

Bill Gates, was never fired, Microsoft has better market, more value and far more in people's lives. Now that Bill doesn't direct MS we all known what happened. I like Jobs but the phrase "the most successful business leader of his generation and quite possibly of all time." is a fallacy. Thomas Edison, Henry Ford come first easily.

Re:Nah. Let's be serious (1)

CongealedSalad (1001838) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258428)

Uhh, Ford and Edison are not of his generation.

Re:Nah. Let's be serious (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258526)

Uhh, he was referring to the "possibly of all time" bit?

Re:Nah. Let's be serious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258546)

Dipshit, you obviously missed the "and quite possibly of all time ." part of the quote.

At least read what was written before you reply to it.

Re:Nah. Let's be serious (-1, Flamebait)

CongealedSalad (1001838) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258610)

Wow, you should really get laid or something. Calm down, breathe... there you go.

Re:Nah. Let's be serious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258720)

We won't forgive you for your negligence in this matter. You have made a mistake, and now you must apologize to everybody here.

Re:Nah. Let's be serious (4, Funny)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258864)

Wow, you should really get laid or something.

Are you offering to help? Else it's something like telling a burning man, "You really ought to put that out."

Re:Nah. Let's be serious (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258774)

I like Jobs but the phrase "the most successful business leader of his generation and quite possibly of all time." is a fallacy.

Agreed. For one, there are 42 people in the United States alone worth more than he is. The statement about Jobs is obviously from a fanboy, due to the fact it was claimed as an "indisputable fact". I didn't see a comparison with Carlos Slim, or Sam Walton, or Larry Ellison, or even Bill Gates for that matter. Just a claimed "indisputable fact".

Re:Nah. Let's be serious (4, Insightful)

Karlt1 (231423) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258846)

Agreed. For one, there are 42 people in the United States alone worth more than he is. The statement about Jobs is obviously from a fanboy, due to the fact it was claimed as an "indisputable fact". I didn't see a comparison with Carlos Slim, or Sam Walton, or Larry Ellison, or even Bill Gates for that matter. Just a claimed "indisputable fact".

A business leader should be judged by how well he led his business (shocking I know). What other CEO brought a company from the brink of bankruptcy to being the most valuable company in the world (based on market cap)?

Re:Nah. Let's be serious (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258992)

Also one could argue that before the sale to Disney, Pixar was the undisputed leader of CGI film animation.

I know what's Bill been really doing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37259054)

Guys, every know and then there's an anonymous linux kernel contribution... got it? :)

"The Life and Career of Steve Jobs" (3, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258396)

The Life and Career of Steve Jobs [youtube.com] , from Next Media Animation in Tapei. Enjoy.

This just in - iCloud DOESN'T stream music (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258404)

LOL - all the iDrones assumed that iCloud was going to let them stream their music but they forgot that Apple products are always limited toys.

If Apple was as good at writing good software as they are at deputizing homosexuals iCloud would stream music instead of just sucking dick.

Re:This just in - iCloud DOESN'T stream music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258474)

Apple never said it streamed music, they made that quite clear at WWDC.

Poor streaming fool (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258950)

When the network gets choppy you are going to wish you bought devices that actually aimed at storing data locally instead of relying ONLY on the "cloud".

With iCloud you get the best of both worlds - any media you want on-demand, but stored away so you can really access it any time you want.

Vision (5, Interesting)

macwhizkid (864124) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258416)

Regardless of what you think of Mr. Jobs' company's products, you must admit the man had an almost unparalleled vision for the future.

In a hyper-connected world of ethics-free corporate drones apathetic about anything past this quarter's profits and stock price, Jobs stood apart by having a 5, 10, perhaps even 20 year plan for Apple that he ruthlessly pursued at the expense of anything standing in the way (be it under-performing employees or products). As a commenter last week put it, he set out to make a dent in the universe, and actually did it.

Enjoy your retirement, Mr. Jobs, you've bloody well earned it.

Re:Vision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258662)

he ruthlessly pursued at the expense of anything standing in the way (be it under-performing employees or products)

or users or developers...

Re:Vision (0)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258818)

In a hyper-connected world of ethics-free corporate drones apathetic about anything past this quarter's profits and stock price, Jobs stood apart by having a 5, 10, perhaps even 20 year plan for Apple that he ruthlessly pursued at the expense of anything standing in the way (be it under-performing employees or products). As a commenter last week put it, he set out to make a dent in the universe, and actually did it.

Do you really think Jobs has some sort of moral code? He's a narcissist; everything he does is for his own self-aggrandizement.

Re:Vision (3, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259184)

Do you really think Jobs has some sort of moral code? He's a narcissist; everything he does is for his own self-aggrandizement.

Asking whether Jobs is a rock star CEO or just another self-aggrandizing sociopath is like asking whether Coke is a beverage or just another soft drink.

No I don't (0, Offtopic)

ubergeek65536 (862868) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259010)

I don't have to admire the man in any way, shape, or form. IMHO, Making obscene amounts of money doesn't make a man great. Apple certainly hasn't made my life any better, I don't own a single Apple product and most likely never will.

Re:No I don't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37259094)

Ummm... I think it kind of goes without saying that you would have to actually own an apple product in order for them to have made your life any better. And who said making obscene amounts of money was what made him great? He's great because he's visionary, regardless of whether you agree with his vision.

Re:No I don't (0)

ubergeek65536 (862868) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259150)

He's great because he's visionary, regardless of whether you agree with his vision.

Hitler was a visionary too; I don't admire him either.

He Didn't Sell Out Had Great Ideas And Was Lucky (4, Insightful)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258424)

He did what he wanted and he had good ideas. He didn't compromise. He was kind of a dick at times but he was generally right and he knew it, and stuck to his ideals.

He had the luxury of being in a position to do that. It was only when he lost that ability that he got fired. He left. Apple sank. When he went back it was on his terms.

I think he was in the right place at the right time with some damn good ideas about how to build computers and products. But without the initial products to launch everything, courtesy of Steve Wozniak, Jobs would have been all dressed up with nowhere to go without getting even luckier.

Re:He Didn't Sell Out Had Great Ideas And Was Luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258694)

It was only when he lost that ability that he got fired. He left. Apple share price rose such that Jobs sold out all but one share for $70.5 million which would have been worth $120 million under the Sculley peak. When he went back it was on his terms.

I think he was in the right place at the right time with some damn good ideas about how to build computers and products. But without the initial products to launch everything, courtesy of Steve Wozniak, Jobs would have been all dressed up with nowhere to go without getting even luckier.

Fixed that for you.
Apple was a basket case because of him. Sculley fixed it for a time then the 20th century caught up with Apple and they only had a crap OS to sell on machines that were dearer and worse than those they allowed to be built under license.

Re:He Didn't Sell Out Had Great Ideas And Was Luck (0)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258752)

Didn't sell out? I've felt like they sold out ever since the iPod. I spent the 90s hoping Apple would go somewhere, but I didn't want that somewhere to be based on MP3 players, locked into an amazingly shitty media player. I'm still happy for Apple, and am glad they're helping to erode MS' monopoly on the desktop, but I don't much respect their products these days. OSX is okay, but not great.

Re:He Didn't Sell Out Had Great Ideas And Was Luck (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258860)

but I didn't want that somewhere to be based on MP3 players, locked into an amazingly shitty media player.

Apple has moved past that. Why can't you? All the newest stuff is way past the iPod era.

Going forward with iCloud, you almost never even have to use iTunes...

Re:He Didn't Sell Out Had Great Ideas And Was Luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37259024)

you almost never even have to use iTunes...

Almost?

Let me know when they finally vanquished it for good and I'll jump on board.

Re:He Didn't Sell Out Had Great Ideas And Was Luck (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37259102)

Wow. What a crying little bitch you are. Fucking bitter and against everything.
 
You must lead a shitty life.
 
Get that telephone pole out of your ass and maybe you'll have something worthwhile to say.

Pre-deceased (2)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258426)

All the articles I've read have an *obituary* feel to them. It's like he's already dead except his body hasn't read the news yet.

Re:Pre-deceased (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258566)

Nah we havent had the iXpire product recall on him yet. Conclusive proof why engineers not designers should make things afterall if he user changable batteries there wouldnt be a problem!

Legacy: greatest hypocrite of our generation (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258442)

I will always remember Jobs as the greatest hypocrite technology has ever known. Yet somehow worshiped as an innovation loving, creativity coddling, God among artists. For some odd reason all of these people think the i in i products stands for them.

1984 commercial, iPhone.

"We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
"They are shamelessly copying us." (Re: Microsoft)
"Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal"

misdirected (-1, Offtopic)

Genda (560240) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258470)

Our society it predicated on making a mark on the universe. We are obsessed with painting the scenery with our big fat egos. Its kind of sad and pathetic. You don't see astronomers with ego issues for the most part, because they have a fair sense of man's importance in the big picture. Until we get over ourselves (as individual selves), our focus won't be contributing to a future worth living in for human beings, and with 7,000,000,000 on the planet now, perhaps its a good time to make this shift while there still is a future left for human beings. As for Steve, good run, you did some amazing things. You also did some heinous things. All in all, you deserve the great respect of a man with a vision and the courage to see it through. God speed.

Re:misdirected (3, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258976)

Our society it predicated on making a mark on the universe. We are obsessed with painting the scenery with our big fat egos. Its kind of sad and pathetic.

I don't see your concern here. Humans are, among other things, capable of changing the universe profoundly, not merely making a mark on it. It's not magical. Any intelligent, self-reproducing machine could do the same.

You don't see astronomers with ego issues for the most part, because they have a fair sense of man's importance in the big picture.

They don't. Ask them where humanity will be in a billion years. The question is unanswerable.

Until we get over ourselves (as individual selves), our focus won't be contributing to a future worth living in for human beings, and with 7,000,000,000 on the planet now, perhaps its a good time to make this shift while there still is a future left for human beings.

What shift? To a humbler, unambitious useless creature which will die off in time, leaving no trace? What reason is there for you to issue this call to seven billion people, if you're intent on being so humble? Maybe you should practice what you preach? Or maybe you should eat your words.

Re:misdirected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37259096)

...You don't see astronomers with ego issues...

Well, if you include astrophysicists as well as astronomers, history is littered with big egos from from Galileo to Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawkings,... There are big egos in most fields don't think any field is immune. Once you get the bright lights shining, there are many who leap into the spotlight and linger there far beyond their area of expertise and competence because of their egos...

Ten Times (-1, Troll)

ericdano (113424) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258502)

Ten Times the man Bill Gates is. Bill Gates is now trying to buy his way to people liking him.

Re:Ten Times (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258540)

Bill Gates has saved more lives than any man this century. I do not see Steve Jobs fighting malaria or donating to charity. He is not trying to have people like him. They already do as his reputation as CEO when he quit. True Steve Jobs is a better CEO in my opinion, but I would respect him more if he felt that having all that money meant he should put it to good use. I respect Warren Buffet too for donating half his money to the Gates Foundation and promising to give away the rest of his fortune to other events when he retires.

Re:Ten Times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258674)

I beg to differ [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Ten Times (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258784)

More than Jonas Salk? More than Charles Drew? More than Alexander Fleming?

Re:Ten Times (1)

yodleboy (982200) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258652)

yeah because an endless parade of shiny gadgets that billions of people will never see is SOOO much more worthy than spending your own money to fight disease, poverty and illiteracy on a global scale. Bill isn't trying to buy his way to anything. Hey, maybe Steve gives privately, but the fact that Bill Gates gives publicly doesn't give Steve some moral high ground.

Re:Ten Times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258792)

>Bill Gates is now trying to buy his way to people liking him

Who gives a shit. His money is saving lives. Do I like him more? No. But I love where his money is going.

And really, his money is ours, so in a way is us who are saving the lives. Pat yourself on the back. I did that when I couldn't be bothered to try to get the microsoft tax back on my laptop when I installed linux on it.

Re:Ten Times (3, Interesting)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259084)

Ten Times the man Bill Gates is. Bill Gates is now trying to buy his way to people liking him.

You realize Steve Jobs isn't going to sleep with you, right? I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Bill Gates never fathered an illegitimate child and then refused to acknowledge it was his. People already like Bill Gates for the fact that he was essentially responsible for bringing personal computers into homes, regardless of how you may feel about his business practices.

If you want to talk about "likability", talk to people like Wozniak, John Sculley, or anyone else that worked directly with Jobs.

That's not to suggest that he ever became easy to work for. Jobs is even known to yell at company directors. Asked how she dealt with her boss, former Apple PR chief Laurence Clavere once told a colleague that before heading into a meeting with Jobs, she embraced the mindset of a bullfighter entering the ring: "I pretend I'm already dead." (Clavere says today that she doesn't recall making the comparison but notes that "working with Steve is incredibly challenging, incredibly interesting. It was also sometimes incredibly difficult.")

Often Jobs would suddenly "flip," taking an idea that he'd mocked (maybe your idea) and embracing it passionately - and as his own - without ever acknowledging that his view had changed. "He has this ability to change his mind and completely forget his old opinion about something," says a former close colleague who asked not to be named. "It's weird. He can say, 'I love white; white is the best.' And then three months later say, 'Black is the best; white is not the best.'"

I challenge you to find a single account from someone who personally knows Bill Gates who claims that the man is unlikeable.

How about? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258508)

Does the article cover the date Steve had with goatsecx?

Why do we care to memorialize a thief and a liar? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258608)

Steve Jobs contributed nothing to Apple's early success, merely being present with money when Woz developed the technology.
Jobs contributed nothing to Apple's Lisa or Macintosh, instead stealing the design from Xerox. Jobs contributed nothing to NeXT, he merely bankrolled it.
Mac OS X is built on stolen GPL and Open Source projects where Jobs is paying the developers to be silent about it and never releases their changes
back into the community. Jobs is a liar and a thief and if he is remembered at all, this is how he should be remembered.
Every OS X installation is a stolen Linux installation. We must not forget or forgive this treachery.
Apple must be destroyed for the sake of the Open Source world. and I will not rest until justice is done!

Cool story, bro! (1)

Xaedalus (1192463) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258730)

It's so awesome that reading it makes me feel like a koala farted a rainbow in my brain.

Re:Why do we care to memorialize a thief and a lia (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258758)

Mac OS X is built on stolen GPL and Open Source projects where Jobs is paying the developers to be silent about it and never releases their changes
back into the community. Jobs is a liar and a thief and if he is remembered at all, this is how he should be remembered.

No it is not and Apple gives back: http://www.opensource.apple.com/

Every OS X installation is a stolen Linux installation. We must not forget or forgive this treachery.
Apple must be destroyed for the sake of the Open Source world. and I will not rest until justice is done!

OS X is not based on Linux it is based on NeXTSTEP which in turn is based the Carnegie Mellon Mach kernel with elements of BSD thrown in.

Re:Why do we care to memorialize a thief and a lia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258816)

OS X is based on FreeBSD. FreeBSD ain't Linux, and it ain't GPL.

Re:Why do we care to memorialize a thief and a lia (2)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#37259158)

ROFL. "Jobs contributed nothing to NeXT, he MERELY BANKROLLED IT."

Please tell me this was snark! LOL I'm sure there are a lot of cool ideas out there that we'll never see because they were never "merely" bankrolled.

"Steve Jobs remains Disney's largest shareholder" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258698)

That fact says everything one needs to know about Steve Jobs.

Steve Jobs legacy (-1, Troll)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#37258700)

He, along with Larry Ellison set the douchebag CEO bar very high.

relocate men from afghanistan+pakistan to somalia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37258770)

to help with the worlds' biggest body count, & to help a few million (mostly children) survive.

that would help the mideastern etc... countries in seeing we're not just all about us all the time. plus, they would gladly trade some of the natural resources we crave, to see our goodwill side expand, while our life0cidal tendencies deflate.

most of us have at least one uncle omar, or are one. if we can allow for that (our faults), why not also act in kind, in spite of business & religious neogod holycostal depopulation persuasions. the next 'election' could be an easy bet, or not be held at all?

disarm. tell the truth. feed the hungry. get off the oil & weapons binges. those are the mathematically & spiritually correct options now. one would not need to be an under informed geopolitical scientist theologian to deduce those figures. reading the teepeeleaks etchings also helps. for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way.... see you there.

Not the most successful businessman of all time. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37259012)

Rockefeller easily beats him for that (who most people would think of), but the slightly more obscure, though overwhelmingly beat-the-piss-out-of-Jobs-in-business-hands-down, fellow is Anton Fugger who was estimated to be worth about $1.3 trillion in modern dollars.

Re:Not the most successful businessman of all time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37259194)

The Summary says "Of his Generation" - neither Rockefeller or Anton Fugger are really in the same generation as Mr. Jobs.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?