4 ms·
A case could be made... From wikipedia: He was the original angel investor, first chairman, and second CEO for Apple Computer, Inc., providing critical early f
by packetslave 3y ago
A case could be made... From wikipedia:
He was the original angel investor, first chairman, and second CEO for Apple Computer, Inc., providing critical early funding and managerial support. At the company's founding, Markkula owned 26% of Apple, equivalent to each of the shares owned by cofounders Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak.
- birdyrooster 3y agoFine! I guess I have to reconsider what a founder is.
- GauntletWizard 3y agoWhen Apple Computer was founded, it's cap table contained three people - Jobs, Woz, and Markkula. That seems like a reasonable definition of cofounder, even if he wasn't an active participant in the company.
- jjtheblunt 3y agoWhat about Ronald Wayne? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Wayne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Wayne
- GauntletWizard 3y agoWouldn't deny him either, as he was there at the beginning, though of a slightly different iteration. By the time the "modern" apple computer corporation had formed, though, he was out. Lots of people are founders in title and historical reconning. I keep seeing Aaron Schwartz listed as a founder of Reddit, and I personally agree - he was the first employee in legal fact, but he was there before there was a product, which makes him a founder in an important sense.
- 7e 3y agoThat’s not true at all. Apple was founded in 1976. Nine months later Markkula was added to the cap. table, in 1977, thanks to his investment. Early investor and employee, yes, founder, no.
- rvz 3y agoYes. Investor in Apple, rather than 'third co-founder' as the title is complete clickbait.
- ravenstine 3y agoDon't tell that to all the people who believe Elon Musk founded Tesla.
- justrealist 3y agoElon's experience at Tesla is a great example of why the technicals of who incorporated the original entity doesn't matter.
- 7e 3y agoAre you kidding? Without the founders Tesla would not have existed. They took the risk and had the vision. Musk then came in later as an opportunist.
- kortilla 3y agoTesla would not exist without Musk either. It was on life support even with Musk nearly going bankrupt throwing money into it while he was running it.
- 7e 3y agoAre you kidding? Without the founders Tesla would not have existed. They took the risk and had the vision. Musk then came in later as an opportunist. Definitions very much matter. Truth matters.
- justrealist 3y agoI'm going to assume this is a good-faith confusion about the history of Tesla, so I'll link to it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tesla,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tesla,_Inc. The company existed for 6 months before Musk became involved. It had no product, no prototype, and not even a real design for a product. It took most of a decade to turn that into a real car, all of which time Elon was involved.
- sgt 3y agoTrue. Yet there wouldn't be a Tesla today without Elon. Arguably that is a kind of founder in its own right.
- sgt 3y agoMaybe they made him solder a resistor.
- jdswain 3y agoWell apparently he did write a check book balancing program for the Apple II, so by that measure he probably wrote more code than Steve Jobs.
- smadge 3y agoThe article also says he was the third employee after Jobs and Wozniak.
- hyperthesis 3y agoowner != founder
- sangnoir 3y agoHe wasn't just an owner, though. Being 3rd on the payroll, 1st CEO and having as much shares as the other 2 co-founders definitely blurs the line (and crosses over into co-founder territory, IMO). Additionally, depending when when incorporation happened, he may even be officially a cofounder (and not just a logical one)
- dclowd9901 3y agoJeez, 26% of $3 trillion?!