5 ms·

Well, let's compare what each of them actually engineered: Woz - Breakout for Atari, the first universal programmable remote, the Apple I, and so on Jobs - ..

Well, let's compare what each of them actually engineered: Woz - Breakout for Atari, the first universal programmable remote, the Apple I, and so on Jobs - ... (had a strong opinion about buttons and money he made off of Wozniak's inventions and his ability to sell them)

scarface74 8y ago
Computer geeks are a dime a dozen (I’m one so no insult intended). An idea is nothing without execution. Jobs proved that he could successfully change multiple industries (animation, music, mobile) without Woz. None of Woz’s ventures have been a success without Jobs. If it was so easy, why couldn’t anyone else in the PC industry do it including companies that were in a much stronger position when Jobs came back in 1997? Even in the animation business, Disney could barely produce a hit while Pixar was producing a string of successes.
- justinjlynn 8y ago
  I can't show you examples of how badly your statements are mistaken if you aren't willing to look for them yourself. Dell (just in time supply chain design and driving the cost of the PC down), Pixar (not related to Jobs until acquisition, certainly not driven by him), Woz (breakout was certainly a success - Jobs was assigned to build the prototype at Atari and essentially stole a large part of Woz's compensation and even then Woz is given credit for the design alongside Bushnell; in a sense it was assigned to Jobs essentially because he was Woz's friend) are all counter examples to your statements. In 1997, anything computer related was experiencing the dot-com boom. It would've been hard to screw up Apple's increasing valuation then, for anyone.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Dell - was far from the cheapest PC manufacturer. Around 1999, Emachines was much cheaper than Dells. They were literally giving computers away to sign up for 3 years worth of internet service. How was Dell doing in 2005? Dell never shipped as many products in their heyday that Apple was shipping by 2010. No one would ever say that Dells logistics were better than Tim Cooks even when shipping 50 million iPods a year, let alone iPhones. Pixar was bought from Lucas and their grand ambition was to make special effects for other movies and commercials. Definitely not to make full length theatrically released movies. In 1997, the Internet was the big thing, but not Apple. Apple was near bankruptcy and didn’t announce its first profit until 2001. Breakout netted Jobs around $3000 from the stories that were told. Not exactly billionaire material.
    - justinjlynn 8y ago
      The point is that Woz was successful without Jobs and that Jobs's Apple was by no means a singular innovator in the field. The point is to say that it's a bit rich to claim what has been claimed in regards to the necessity of Jobs. That said, I do grant that Jobs certainly had skill in gathering the right people and ensuring things got done. What I abhor is the manor in which that was accomplished and the canonisation of Jobs as an individual singularly responsible for everything created by Apple without regard to the hard, bloody work of the hidden legions of staff and burnt out engineers beneath him. For me, personally, the human cost of Jobs's methods far far outweighed the value of what was created; especially when it was likely to have been arrived at independently by others through less destructive methods.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        If it could have been done by others, then why wasn’t it? In 1997, Apple was nearly bankrupt. When the iPod came out in 2001, Apple was just barely eking out a profit. Why couldn’t Microsoft, RIM, Motorola, Google or Nokia do something similar to the iPhone? Even today, with dozens of companies making Android phones, none can create a phone compelling enough that people are willing to pay enough for to make them profitably. But as far as what Jobs did with iTunes, Bill Gates himself praised Jobs.... https://gizmodo.com/5468666/microsoft-knew-they-got-burned-when-itunes-first-launched https://gizmodo.com/5468666/microsoft-knew-they-got-burned-w... Steve Jobs ability to focus in on a few things that count, get people who get user interface right and market things as revolutionary are amazing things. This time somehow he has applied his talents in getting a better Licensing deal than anyone else has gotten for music. ——- Apple without regard to the hard, bloody work of the hidden legions of staff and burnt out engineers beneath him. All of the “burnt out engineers” who worked on the original iPhone could easily write their own ticket for the rest of their life. Given a choice between being able to say that I worked on the original iPhone and that I did yet another software as a service CRUD app, I would much rather have been able to say I worked on the original iPhone.
        justinjlynn 8y ago

scarface74 8y ago

Computer geeks are a dime a dozen (I’m one so no insult intended). An idea is nothing without execution. Jobs proved that he could successfully change multiple industries (animation, music, mobile) without Woz. None of Woz’s ventures have been a success without Jobs. If it was so easy, why couldn’t anyone else in the PC industry do it including companies that were in a much stronger position when Jobs came back in 1997? Even in the animation business, Disney could barely produce a hit while Pixar was producing a string of successes.

justinjlynn 8y ago
I can't show you examples of how badly your statements are mistaken if you aren't willing to look for them yourself. Dell (just in time supply chain design and driving the cost of the PC down), Pixar (not related to Jobs until acquisition, certainly not driven by him), Woz (breakout was certainly a success - Jobs was assigned to build the prototype at Atari and essentially stole a large part of Woz's compensation and even then Woz is given credit for the design alongside Bushnell; in a sense it was assigned to Jobs essentially because he was Woz's friend) are all counter examples to your statements. In 1997, anything computer related was experiencing the dot-com boom. It would've been hard to screw up Apple's increasing valuation then, for anyone.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Dell - was far from the cheapest PC manufacturer. Around 1999, Emachines was much cheaper than Dells. They were literally giving computers away to sign up for 3 years worth of internet service. How was Dell doing in 2005? Dell never shipped as many products in their heyday that Apple was shipping by 2010. No one would ever say that Dells logistics were better than Tim Cooks even when shipping 50 million iPods a year, let alone iPhones. Pixar was bought from Lucas and their grand ambition was to make special effects for other movies and commercials. Definitely not to make full length theatrically released movies. In 1997, the Internet was the big thing, but not Apple. Apple was near bankruptcy and didn’t announce its first profit until 2001. Breakout netted Jobs around $3000 from the stories that were told. Not exactly billionaire material.
  - justinjlynn 8y ago
    The point is that Woz was successful without Jobs and that Jobs's Apple was by no means a singular innovator in the field. The point is to say that it's a bit rich to claim what has been claimed in regards to the necessity of Jobs. That said, I do grant that Jobs certainly had skill in gathering the right people and ensuring things got done. What I abhor is the manor in which that was accomplished and the canonisation of Jobs as an individual singularly responsible for everything created by Apple without regard to the hard, bloody work of the hidden legions of staff and burnt out engineers beneath him. For me, personally, the human cost of Jobs's methods far far outweighed the value of what was created; especially when it was likely to have been arrived at independently by others through less destructive methods.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      If it could have been done by others, then why wasn’t it? In 1997, Apple was nearly bankrupt. When the iPod came out in 2001, Apple was just barely eking out a profit. Why couldn’t Microsoft, RIM, Motorola, Google or Nokia do something similar to the iPhone? Even today, with dozens of companies making Android phones, none can create a phone compelling enough that people are willing to pay enough for to make them profitably. But as far as what Jobs did with iTunes, Bill Gates himself praised Jobs.... https://gizmodo.com/5468666/microsoft-knew-they-got-burned-when-itunes-first-launched https://gizmodo.com/5468666/microsoft-knew-they-got-burned-w... Steve Jobs ability to focus in on a few things that count, get people who get user interface right and market things as revolutionary are amazing things. This time somehow he has applied his talents in getting a better Licensing deal than anyone else has gotten for music. ——- Apple without regard to the hard, bloody work of the hidden legions of staff and burnt out engineers beneath him. All of the “burnt out engineers” who worked on the original iPhone could easily write their own ticket for the rest of their life. Given a choice between being able to say that I worked on the original iPhone and that I did yet another software as a service CRUD app, I would much rather have been able to say I worked on the original iPhone.
      - justinjlynn 8y ago