5 ms·

> He's most certainly an important historical figure of our time Is he actually though? He was really wealthy, and sold a lot of mobile devices. He was fanboy

> He's most certainly an important historical figure of our time Is he actually though? He was really wealthy, and sold a lot of mobile devices. He was fanboyed over by a lot of mobile device enthusiasts. Of note outside of this - he was a horrible person to work with, and died in large part of lala land medical thinking. Is this what an important historical figure is these days? Historical figures are typically more than just grease in the profit engine of a multinational.

sunshinerag 5y ago
Disagree. What’s wrong with being wealthy and selling a lot of mobile devices. Great accomplishments. By the way he sold iPhones, not generic mobile devices. :)
- theelous3 5y ago
  1. You can't disagree with me because I never said anything was wrong with being wealthy. 2. iphones are the epitome of generic mobile devices, and have been since their second gen. That's an accomplishment in and of its self - but doesn't make what I said very wrong.
roenxi 5y ago
> He was really wealthy, and sold a lot of mobile devices. He created the worlds most profitable company. That deserves some attention. If we demand perfection of role models; then we won't get any. That is why we have them, to some extent - to learn what flaws are safe to ignore as we strive to make the world better.
- theelous3 5y ago
  He was the ceo of the worlds most profitable (for a while) company. Wow amazing. What a role model?
  - rib3ye 5y ago
    It’s observable that it wasn’t “just” about the money for him. He walked away from that company after they sidelined him. Most execs would just rest and vest but instead he rage quit and sunk his own money to save Pixar and spin up NeXT, and at least of those companies had a major cultural impact, so give him a little credit.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    Creating highly profitable companies is the only reliable, repeatable scalable and publicly accessible method available for improving people's lives at a mass scale. You could even put exclamation marks after your "Wow" and it would still be literally amazing and he'd still be a good role model.
    - theelous3 5y ago
      This is an insane statement. Have you ever heard of government? Of non-profits? Of individual work? Publicly funded research? This is the kind of statement I'd expect to hear at one of those libertarian meets where they threaten you with toaster licenses.
      - roenxi 5y ago
        Yes. None of them do as much good as a big network of profitable corporations do. When governments or non-profits have been primarily responsible for feeding people there is often mass starvation, for example. Business is more of a hydra that can do many things effectively simultaneously while a government is limited in focus. There is always a need for more competent CEOs. Publicly funded research and individual effort aren't very powerful either, basically the best an individual can do is make an interesting observation that sets a corporation up to actually run with the idea.
jb1991 5y ago
I find it interesting that you think he was merely grease in a profit engine. Mobile phones existed before the iPhone, but it’s certainly not easy to just come out and make something that is so extraordinarily popular that it changes the industry. And he did that time and time again throughout his career, in different ways. As I noted in another comment, he was probably quite an asshole. And that is unfortunately a trait that has been true of countless major figures throughout all of history. Being an asshole is a rather orthogonal consideration. It’s also remarkable, whether you like him or not, that he took a company on the brink of bankruptcy, and that was so trivial as to hardly matter anymore, and built a foundation that made it the first trillion dollar company in the world. Say what you want, but he was quite a remarkable businessman.
fdeage 5y ago
I never said he was a good person. A certain Adolf from Austria is also certainly an important historical figure. I'm just saying that whether we like him or not, Steve Jobs matters, and that a century from now it will probably be helpful to read stuff about him to understand our society, the same way we might read today about, say, Galileo to understand science in the 17th century. I don't think this qualifies as being a fanboy.
- theelous3 5y ago
  > Steve Jobs matters, and that a century from now it will probably be helpful to read stuff about him to understand our society, the same way we might read today about, say, Galileo to understand science in the 17th century. I don't think this qualifies as being a fanboy. This is... nothing short of outrageous haha. 1. Thinking people will be reading about jobs in 100 years, like we read about Galileo now? 2. Thinking you're not a fanboy, after saying this. Beyond hilarious. > I'm just saying that whether we like him or not, Steve Jobs matters Steve jobs really, _really_ doesn't matter. His death has had essentially zero impact on the broader world. In the world closer to him, it made some people sad, probably many more quite happy, and caused some wealth transfers. The company he ran continues to run in about the same arc you'd have expected it to. Even the stock market doesn't really care he's missing. It took a week or two for stock to recover and grow.
  - fdeage 5y ago
    I wasn't talking about his death specifically, although the fact that so many people wrote about how they felt personally affected definitely says something. Name one CEO who would trigger the same reaction. Also, I also wasn't talking about the legacy of the company he founded, or about the fact that Tim Cook managed to create more shareholder value than he did. I was only thinking about the influence he had, and keeps having, on tech products and companies today.
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      Really, what is there to write about though? His influence on modern technology is almost all flash and no substance. All you need to do to confirm that is look at how technology has stagnated over the past 10 years. The 70s gave us C, the 80s gave us affordable home computers, the 90s gave us desktop metaphors and friendly computers, and the 2000s gave us... the iPhone? The 2010s is even more ephemeral, as his 'legacy' has mostly just encouraged other companies to build their own walled gardens and enforce insane monetization strategies. Bud Tribble said it best: Steve Jobs' greatest attribute was creating a reality distortion field. His demeanor was what made people see the iPod as more than a hard drive with a clickwheel strapped to it, or the Magic Mouse as a legitimate replacement for a traditional pointing device (history knows how that one turned out). Maybe it sounds like I'm being rough on the guy, but it's hard to deny that the majority of his life was dependent on hyperbole and marketing magic. His 'Disneyfication' of the consumer technology is made out to be a lot more sophisticated than it really is. Apple is barely able to hold on to that facade these days as regulators and antitrust organizations start to press them.
dave333 5y ago
He revolutionized the computer industry 3 times with the Apple II, then the Mac, then the iPhone, and the film industry once with Pixar.

sunshinerag 5y ago

Disagree. What’s wrong with being wealthy and selling a lot of mobile devices. Great accomplishments. By the way he sold iPhones, not generic mobile devices. :)

theelous3 5y ago
1. You can't disagree with me because I never said anything was wrong with being wealthy. 2. iphones are the epitome of generic mobile devices, and have been since their second gen. That's an accomplishment in and of its self - but doesn't make what I said very wrong.

roenxi 5y ago

> He was really wealthy, and sold a lot of mobile devices. He created the worlds most profitable company. That deserves some attention. If we demand perfection of role models; then we won't get any. That is why we have them, to some extent - to learn what flaws are safe to ignore as we strive to make the world better.

theelous3 5y ago
He was the ceo of the worlds most profitable (for a while) company. Wow amazing. What a role model?
- rib3ye 5y ago
  It’s observable that it wasn’t “just” about the money for him. He walked away from that company after they sidelined him. Most execs would just rest and vest but instead he rage quit and sunk his own money to save Pixar and spin up NeXT, and at least of those companies had a major cultural impact, so give him a little credit.
- roenxi 5y ago
  Creating highly profitable companies is the only reliable, repeatable scalable and publicly accessible method available for improving people's lives at a mass scale. You could even put exclamation marks after your "Wow" and it would still be literally amazing and he'd still be a good role model.
  - theelous3 5y ago
    This is an insane statement. Have you ever heard of government? Of non-profits? Of individual work? Publicly funded research? This is the kind of statement I'd expect to hear at one of those libertarian meets where they threaten you with toaster licenses.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      Yes. None of them do as much good as a big network of profitable corporations do. When governments or non-profits have been primarily responsible for feeding people there is often mass starvation, for example. Business is more of a hydra that can do many things effectively simultaneously while a government is limited in focus. There is always a need for more competent CEOs. Publicly funded research and individual effort aren't very powerful either, basically the best an individual can do is make an interesting observation that sets a corporation up to actually run with the idea.

jb1991 5y ago

I find it interesting that you think he was merely grease in a profit engine. Mobile phones existed before the iPhone, but it’s certainly not easy to just come out and make something that is so extraordinarily popular that it changes the industry. And he did that time and time again throughout his career, in different ways. As I noted in another comment, he was probably quite an asshole. And that is unfortunately a trait that has been true of countless major figures throughout all of history. Being an asshole is a rather orthogonal consideration. It’s also remarkable, whether you like him or not, that he took a company on the brink of bankruptcy, and that was so trivial as to hardly matter anymore, and built a foundation that made it the first trillion dollar company in the world. Say what you want, but he was quite a remarkable businessman.

fdeage 5y ago

I never said he was a good person. A certain Adolf from Austria is also certainly an important historical figure. I'm just saying that whether we like him or not, Steve Jobs matters, and that a century from now it will probably be helpful to read stuff about him to understand our society, the same way we might read today about, say, Galileo to understand science in the 17th century. I don't think this qualifies as being a fanboy.

theelous3 5y ago
> Steve Jobs matters, and that a century from now it will probably be helpful to read stuff about him to understand our society, the same way we might read today about, say, Galileo to understand science in the 17th century. I don't think this qualifies as being a fanboy. This is... nothing short of outrageous haha. 1. Thinking people will be reading about jobs in 100 years, like we read about Galileo now? 2. Thinking you're not a fanboy, after saying this. Beyond hilarious. > I'm just saying that whether we like him or not, Steve Jobs matters Steve jobs really, _really_ doesn't matter. His death has had essentially zero impact on the broader world. In the world closer to him, it made some people sad, probably many more quite happy, and caused some wealth transfers. The company he ran continues to run in about the same arc you'd have expected it to. Even the stock market doesn't really care he's missing. It took a week or two for stock to recover and grow.
- fdeage 5y ago
  I wasn't talking about his death specifically, although the fact that so many people wrote about how they felt personally affected definitely says something. Name one CEO who would trigger the same reaction. Also, I also wasn't talking about the legacy of the company he founded, or about the fact that Tim Cook managed to create more shareholder value than he did. I was only thinking about the influence he had, and keeps having, on tech products and companies today.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    Really, what is there to write about though? His influence on modern technology is almost all flash and no substance. All you need to do to confirm that is look at how technology has stagnated over the past 10 years. The 70s gave us C, the 80s gave us affordable home computers, the 90s gave us desktop metaphors and friendly computers, and the 2000s gave us... the iPhone? The 2010s is even more ephemeral, as his 'legacy' has mostly just encouraged other companies to build their own walled gardens and enforce insane monetization strategies. Bud Tribble said it best: Steve Jobs' greatest attribute was creating a reality distortion field. His demeanor was what made people see the iPod as more than a hard drive with a clickwheel strapped to it, or the Magic Mouse as a legitimate replacement for a traditional pointing device (history knows how that one turned out). Maybe it sounds like I'm being rough on the guy, but it's hard to deny that the majority of his life was dependent on hyperbole and marketing magic. His 'Disneyfication' of the consumer technology is made out to be a lot more sophisticated than it really is. Apple is barely able to hold on to that facade these days as regulators and antitrust organizations start to press them.

dave333 5y ago

He revolutionized the computer industry 3 times with the Apple II, then the Mac, then the iPhone, and the film industry once with Pixar.