4 ms·

Seems strange to leave out the iPhone product announcement, especially since the iPod announcement was pretty low key ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN0SVBCJ

Seems strange to leave out the iPhone product announcement, especially since the iPod announcement was pretty low key ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN0SVBCJqLs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN0SVBCJqLs ), and was not an obvious hit at the event. Compare that to the iPhone announcement where everyone went wild right then and there, and truly felt like the culmination of Steve's vision of what computing should become (the iPod in retrospect seemed more like a side project that didn't really "mesh" with his general philosophy on computing).

samstave 14y ago
I think the iPod is the spark of the Apple that we know today, and as such is momentous. Given that Apple's stock was ~$9 when the iPod was announced and Apple is now the most valuable company, this really was the first step - and further - we pretty much know the rest of the history after that. It would not necessarily make sense to skip the iPod and jump to the iPhone as it was an iterative revolution that made them what they are now. Some of those steps in the iterations were obvious, some predictable, others surprising but all were mind-blowingly successful.
- tolmasky 14y ago
  I agree the iPod was important to Apple's financial history, but I don't think it was particularly important to Steve (I understand I can't know this for sure), nor does it fit the narrative of what Apple brought to this world. I'm not saying that the iPod announcement should be left out, just that it shouldn't end with it. If the movie's point is that this was the beginning of the turnaround for Apple's financial woes, then it misses the point of what Apple (and Steve) have been trying to do for computing since the beginning. I think this is a common mistake, and could be done even worse by ending the story with the announcement of the iMac for example. If the story focuses on the iPod as the "comeback", then it is really a laymen's interpretation of Apple history, and will be quite disappointing (of course I haven't seen the movie so for all I know there is a completely separate point they want to make which will be great for other reasons). However, if the point is to analyze Steve the man behind Apple, then leaving out the iPhone is a bad start. In a lot of ways, the iPod is the antithesis of the battle Steve and Apple have been metaphorically fighting. The software on the iPod was junk, it was very much a device in the spirit of the way things "used to be done", a product that would have felt equally at home under the Sony brand as the Apple brand. From the Mac to the iPhone and finally the iPad, you can see a clear vision of not having computers be generic hardware with forgettable software, but rather finely crafted hardware in the service of amazing software. Apple's treatment of the iPod post-iPhone (and Fidel's subsequent leaving of the company shortly thereafter) are very telling. I have to disagree whole heartedly that the iPod was a "step" towards the iPhone. The iPhone is very much in the "family tree" of the Mac, and not the iPod. The iPod was ultimately just a toy. Everyone at Apple knew this as well. The iPhone was the next step. Ending the story with the iPod is telling it through the eyes of a financier and not as a technologist or a philosopher or a student of Mr. Jobs. And under any interpretation its hard to argue that it is simply missing the end of the story.
  - samstave 14y ago
    >If the story focuses on the iPod as the "comeback", then it is really a laymen's interpretation of Apple history... Or, it could simply be the setup for a sequel. Leaving time for an intermission to see how well this story is received, how well the actors actually are perceived and providing the funding and traction for the next movie....
  - pohl 14y ago
    I have to disagree whole heartedly that the iPod was a "step" towards the iPhone. It boggles the mind how one could not see it that way. While it isn't a general purpose mobile computer, it is a mobile computer.
  - lukifer 14y ago
    At one point in the iPhone's development, there was an internal battle at Apple on whether to use the iPod OS, or a minified OS X. Many were skeptical that a desktop OS could run well on a pocket device. It seems an obvious leap in hindsight, but it wouldn't have been then. The iPod also established credibility with the public that Apple could do great things beyond making shiny computers. The iPhone (and iPad) probably meant a good deal more to Jobs than the iPod, but I think it's clearly part of the lineage. > a product that would have felt equally at home under the Sony brand as the Apple brand. Jobs admired the founder of Sony a great deal; as they say, this would be a feature, not a bug. :)
    - tolmasky 14y ago
      > The iPod also established credibility with the public that Apple could do great things beyond making shiny computers. The iPhone (and iPad) probably meant a good deal more to Jobs than the iPod, but I think it's clearly part of the lineage. So are a great number of other things that we can draw conclusions about. We could argue that the Apple laptops were incredibly important, as they were the first steps in making OS X run under "mobile conditions". In fact, you could say that the introduction of OS X itself should be on display because it is what runs basically everything Apple does now from desktops to phones to tablets to apple tvs. I could actually make an incredibly academically interesting argument that Pixar was crucial to everything else that happened at Apple because in many ways it restored the credibility of Steve Jobs, and made him fabulously wealthy. However, if you are making a movie that focuses on just 3 events in Jobs life, you probably would not choose the moment he decided to invest in Pixar. Any number of events and devices were precursors to the iPhone. Supposedly this movie is going to be about him preparing for these announcements. He will perhaps be reflecting or ruminating about the importance of what he will present. Prior to the iPhone announcement, Apple and Steve had everything at stake in a way unlike any other event since the Mac, and certainly moreso than the iPod. Had the iPod failed, it would have been just another forgotten Apple consumer electronic, like the Newton or Apple printers. Yes, perhaps that would have then indirectly lead to a domino effect of other products not being created, the iPhone included. But with the announcement of the iPhone, the very meaning and philosophy of the company were put on display. I was on the original iPhone team, and I can distinctly remember the way he would talk about the iPhone before it was released, it meant something more to him. And if you are going to make a biopic about Steve Jobs, the iPhone needs to be a part of that. Just watch him introducing the iPod, and then the way he introduces the iPhone. Think of it another way, if you could go back in time and talk to him before the iPod announcement or the iPhone announcement, which would you choose? Again, I haven't read the script, for I know its covered in some other way. However, just from a surface understanding that it is just going to cover those 3 events in a vacuum, I don't feel very confident about this film. But I will of course reserve judgement until I see it.

samstave 14y ago

I think the iPod is the spark of the Apple that we know today, and as such is momentous. Given that Apple's stock was ~$9 when the iPod was announced and Apple is now the most valuable company, this really was the first step - and further - we pretty much know the rest of the history after that. It would not necessarily make sense to skip the iPod and jump to the iPhone as it was an iterative revolution that made them what they are now. Some of those steps in the iterations were obvious, some predictable, others surprising but all were mind-blowingly successful.

tolmasky 14y ago
I agree the iPod was important to Apple's financial history, but I don't think it was particularly important to Steve (I understand I can't know this for sure), nor does it fit the narrative of what Apple brought to this world. I'm not saying that the iPod announcement should be left out, just that it shouldn't end with it. If the movie's point is that this was the beginning of the turnaround for Apple's financial woes, then it misses the point of what Apple (and Steve) have been trying to do for computing since the beginning. I think this is a common mistake, and could be done even worse by ending the story with the announcement of the iMac for example. If the story focuses on the iPod as the "comeback", then it is really a laymen's interpretation of Apple history, and will be quite disappointing (of course I haven't seen the movie so for all I know there is a completely separate point they want to make which will be great for other reasons). However, if the point is to analyze Steve the man behind Apple, then leaving out the iPhone is a bad start. In a lot of ways, the iPod is the antithesis of the battle Steve and Apple have been metaphorically fighting. The software on the iPod was junk, it was very much a device in the spirit of the way things "used to be done", a product that would have felt equally at home under the Sony brand as the Apple brand. From the Mac to the iPhone and finally the iPad, you can see a clear vision of not having computers be generic hardware with forgettable software, but rather finely crafted hardware in the service of amazing software. Apple's treatment of the iPod post-iPhone (and Fidel's subsequent leaving of the company shortly thereafter) are very telling. I have to disagree whole heartedly that the iPod was a "step" towards the iPhone. The iPhone is very much in the "family tree" of the Mac, and not the iPod. The iPod was ultimately just a toy. Everyone at Apple knew this as well. The iPhone was the next step. Ending the story with the iPod is telling it through the eyes of a financier and not as a technologist or a philosopher or a student of Mr. Jobs. And under any interpretation its hard to argue that it is simply missing the end of the story.
- samstave 14y ago
  >If the story focuses on the iPod as the "comeback", then it is really a laymen's interpretation of Apple history... Or, it could simply be the setup for a sequel. Leaving time for an intermission to see how well this story is received, how well the actors actually are perceived and providing the funding and traction for the next movie....
- pohl 14y ago
  I have to disagree whole heartedly that the iPod was a "step" towards the iPhone. It boggles the mind how one could not see it that way. While it isn't a general purpose mobile computer, it is a mobile computer.
- lukifer 14y ago
  At one point in the iPhone's development, there was an internal battle at Apple on whether to use the iPod OS, or a minified OS X. Many were skeptical that a desktop OS could run well on a pocket device. It seems an obvious leap in hindsight, but it wouldn't have been then. The iPod also established credibility with the public that Apple could do great things beyond making shiny computers. The iPhone (and iPad) probably meant a good deal more to Jobs than the iPod, but I think it's clearly part of the lineage. > a product that would have felt equally at home under the Sony brand as the Apple brand. Jobs admired the founder of Sony a great deal; as they say, this would be a feature, not a bug. :)
  - tolmasky 14y ago
    > The iPod also established credibility with the public that Apple could do great things beyond making shiny computers. The iPhone (and iPad) probably meant a good deal more to Jobs than the iPod, but I think it's clearly part of the lineage. So are a great number of other things that we can draw conclusions about. We could argue that the Apple laptops were incredibly important, as they were the first steps in making OS X run under "mobile conditions". In fact, you could say that the introduction of OS X itself should be on display because it is what runs basically everything Apple does now from desktops to phones to tablets to apple tvs. I could actually make an incredibly academically interesting argument that Pixar was crucial to everything else that happened at Apple because in many ways it restored the credibility of Steve Jobs, and made him fabulously wealthy. However, if you are making a movie that focuses on just 3 events in Jobs life, you probably would not choose the moment he decided to invest in Pixar. Any number of events and devices were precursors to the iPhone. Supposedly this movie is going to be about him preparing for these announcements. He will perhaps be reflecting or ruminating about the importance of what he will present. Prior to the iPhone announcement, Apple and Steve had everything at stake in a way unlike any other event since the Mac, and certainly moreso than the iPod. Had the iPod failed, it would have been just another forgotten Apple consumer electronic, like the Newton or Apple printers. Yes, perhaps that would have then indirectly lead to a domino effect of other products not being created, the iPhone included. But with the announcement of the iPhone, the very meaning and philosophy of the company were put on display. I was on the original iPhone team, and I can distinctly remember the way he would talk about the iPhone before it was released, it meant something more to him. And if you are going to make a biopic about Steve Jobs, the iPhone needs to be a part of that. Just watch him introducing the iPod, and then the way he introduces the iPhone. Think of it another way, if you could go back in time and talk to him before the iPod announcement or the iPhone announcement, which would you choose? Again, I haven't read the script, for I know its covered in some other way. However, just from a surface understanding that it is just going to cover those 3 events in a vacuum, I don't feel very confident about this film. But I will of course reserve judgement until I see it.