He didn't die, he just upgraded or downgraded, depending on what religion you subscribe to.
Some good news finally. Now if the same thing would happen to the remainder of Apple :-)
Both died too early... It was the kidneys which killed Jay and Liver/pancreas that killed Jobs...your right there some people burn like bright stars
"The candle that burns twice as bright, burns half as long"
Steve jobs
rest in peace ,a great leader
thoughts to his family friends
Surely we belong to the creator and to him shall we return.Actually, I think Steve was a Buddhist... So I guess he will be reincarnated (dependant on which type of buddhisim he was into) :)
Rest in peace Steve.
... cnn ... research ...
Actually, I think Steve was a Buddhist... So I guess he will be reincarnated (dependant on which type of buddhisim he was into) :)
Likewise, NeXTStep was cool, MacOS was atrocious. Nobody really remembers, or more likely wants to remember MacOS before OSXHeresy! Classic MacOS was awesome. Way more character than that funky Unix thing they're using now.
Heresy! Classic MacOS was awesome. Way more character than that funky Unix thing they're using now.
I think he was awesome and hope he will rest in peace......
The personal computer
The mp3 players
The graphical user interface
Online music stores
Tablet computers
and more...
Disgusting people!
http://idle.slashdot.org/story/11/10/06/144221/phelps-clan-tweets-intent-to-picket-jobs-funeral-via-iphone
I used to hate Macs, but they really improved after 2000. Expensive still, and until recently rather useless for gaming, but very good hardware - even with the Intel transition.
RIP Steve.
MacOS was atrocious.
Absolutely. Classic MacOS was a pile of crap. I did make a lot of money back in the day fixing macs though as no repair shop in town would touch them.
That was a quote from the Qur'an. It's what Muslims say whenever anyone dies, regardless of the deceaseds personal beliefs.Oh! Well in that case +1 :)
It's a mark of respect like "Rest in peace".
I'd say the intel transition was one of their best moves...MacOS before OSX was so bad it never deserved to live as long as it did!
I'd say the intel transition was one of their best moves...
It was lulzworthy after spending a decade bashing Intel to see them whip around and give big gay hugs to x86 processors, but yeah, the Intel transition was without a doubt their shrewdest technological move.I'd say "commercial" rather than "technological." But yeah, pretty hilarious for them to do such a sudden 180...
I'd say the intel transition was one of their best moves...
It was lulzworthy after spending a decade bashing Intel to see them whip around and give big gay hugs to x86 processors, but yeah, the Intel transition was without a doubt their shrewdest technological move.
Intel Mac==PC
true Macs are PPC for me and justify the extra cost.
No choice G5 CPU into slim Powerbook casing was never going to happen so....x86 migration begun.
We're probably getting off-topic here, but I agree with Digiman. It's true that Macs used off-the-shelf parts before the switch (though that goes all the way back to the original 128K Macintosh, so I don't see it as any kind of "betrayal" of unstated principles,) but the CPU is rather a key component of a computer, and for the first two incarnations, the Mac had a CPU that was as nice as anything else about the computer, inside or out.
Yes, there were probably solid business reasons for the switch,
but the fact remains that x86 is just plain ugly, and the only reason it's faster is because of all the revenue that can be poured back into R&D on it.
You can get a more powerful machine for cheaper with x86, yes,
but for those of us whose horsepower needs are still around what a high-end G4 or a G5 can provide, it's still nice to know that there are computers that are actually nice under the hood.
It was lulzworthy after spending a decade bashing Intel to see them whip around and give big gay hugs to x86 processors, but yeah, the Intel transition was without a doubt their shrewdest technological move.
Back on topic, his showmanship certainly improved over the years but nobody can deny his enthusiasm for technology, even at the start.
Here, Steve demonstrates the original OSX
:)
Was a key component, back when operating systems and applications used large amounts of assembler. Now it's a commodity component like anything else, you use the CPU that makes the most sense for the hardware you are building, not because it is a particular family; the software that will run on it can always be recompiled for your target.You say that like it somehow makes an ugly architecture un-ugly. Yes, compilers can make any high-level language essentially usable on any Turing-complete architecture with sufficient memory. That's beside the point. Kludgey is still kludgey and elegant is still elegant, whether or not most people care about it. Some of us still like to use assembler, if only for hobby purposes. Some of us still care about these things.
It's 2011, not 1992. I used to hate x86 too. That's all it really was, just hate for the sake of it. The truth is that like it or not, the "x86" has risen above every reasonable technical criticism that's ever been levelled against it. First it was too slow and would never survive the RISC revolution. Which it did, just fine. Turned out that all the main architectural features of RISC don't actually require a reduced instruction set in order to implement. Then it was all "it will never survive the 64-bit revolution". Erm no, if anything, it's the most popular 64-bit platform in existence, likewise the most popular multi-core platform.I don't give a damn about historical turf wars. I've looked at the architecture, both in its original "some day I'll be a real 32-bit chip!" incarnation and in its later forms, and I just plain don't care for it. Too few registers and an almost-but-not-quite orthogonal approach to using them that's never entirely disappeared, for one thing. (At least they seem to have finally ditched the last vestiges of memory segmentation in x64.)
Which is what the vast majority of consumers want and hence what any business that wants market share will aim for.Aaand when did we start judging quality by commercial success? If we judged movies by their box-office, Transformers 2 would be a masterpiece.
You say that like it somehow makes an ugly architecture un-ugly. Yes, compilers can make any high-level language essentially usable on any Turing-complete architecture with sufficient memory. That's beside the point. Kludgey is still kludgey and elegant is still elegant, whether or not most people care about it. Some of us still like to use assembler, if only for hobby purposes. Some of us still care about these things.
Besides, architectures do still make a difference today, if less so than in the past - or weren't you paying attention when Android x86 became a full-fledged project rather than a simple cross-compile, because the original was heavily optimized for ARM?
I don't give a damn about historical turf wars. I've looked at the architecture, both in its original "some day I'll be a real 32-bit chip!" incarnation and in its later forms. Too few registers and an almost-but-not-quite orthogonal approach to using them that's never entirely disappeared, for one thing. (At least they seem to have finally ditched the last vestiges of memory segmentation in x64.)
...snip...
Aaand when did we start judging quality by commercial success? If we judged movies by their box-office, Transformers 2 would be a masterpiece.
Yes, that being that Motorola then IBM could not compete in either performance or cost with the relentless advances being made over on the intel side. Intel macs didn't just appear; intel builds of OSX are as old as their PPC counterparts, just kept under wraps for several years. Apple could see the writing on the wall for desktop PPC way back then and wanted to make sure they had a clean exit strategy. Apple stuck with PPC for as long as it was feasible and not a second longer. If anything, given hindsight, I am a bit surprised they never jumped sooner, considering they already had the OS ready.
Heresy! Classic MacOS was awesome. Way more character than that funky Unix thing they're using now.
I'm a tinkerer.
Back on topic, his showmanship certainly improved over the years but nobody can deny his enthusiasm for technology, even at the start.
Here, Steve demonstrates the original OSX
[youtube]j02b8Fuz73A[/youtube]
:)
Want to know what made Steve Jobs great? He understood technology:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob_GX50Za6c&sns=em
Intel Mac==PC
Amiga NG shows PPC is expensive alternative, true Macs are PPC for me and justify the extra cost.
128k Mac and iTunes store are perfect Steve Jobs ideas made real. Neither is the best but both were first and inspirational to many rivals.
Back on topic, his showmanship certainly improved over the years but nobody can deny his enthusiasm for technology, even at the start.
Here, Steve demonstrates the original OSX
[youtube]j02b8Fuz73A[/youtube]
:)
Hi,
I hated Apple, Macs, and anything made by Steve Jobs, his computers really where not the tech magic that everybody says it was. Compared to Amiga the original MAC ...
Rest in peace Steve, you made it possible that Microsoft and Billy Boy was not the only computer system on the face of the Earth. I just wonder if he was in charge of Commodore what he would have done for the Amiga.
R.I.P
Since folks love to play "what if?" around here, if Jobs had not returned to Apple, would it have collapsed like Commodore?
I don't think I've spent a penny on a single thing Apple produced.
True Amigas are 68k then. PPC was never adopted by commodore for Amiga os3.1.
Guys, get real. Steve didn't invent anything, Steve didn't design anything. They have designers and research department. We did not lose anything.
True but Commodore went long before PPCs became mainstream computer processors. Apple were still on 68k when CBM went.
I think naturally, Commodore would have moved to PPC, even if it was a couple of years after Apple. It's the natural progression...
Not sure what that has to do with Apple or Mr. Jobs......
C= was allready planning with non-68k (and non-PPC) CPUs for "Hombre". AFAIR we would have ended up with PA-RISC.
Not sure what that has to do with Apple or Mr. Jobs......
Guys, get real. Steve didn't invent anything, Steve didn't design anything. They have designers and research department. We did not lose anything.
The two saving events for Apple were Jobs' return and Microsoft's huge infusion of cash.
As I often say, Apple is still alive because Microsoft decided to let them live.
Steve Jobs personally visited Bill Gates to negotiate this deal. It is rumored he opened the conversation with "together, Microsoft and Apple own 100% of the desktop market". Jobs had the ability to talk almost anyone into almost anything. This was the key to his success. Microsofts financial investment was soon repaid an not as significant as one might think, but the symbolic value of the partnership had a lot of impact. The first iMac would have happened without Steve, and maybe even the iPod. But the market would perhaps have reacted differently and investors money might have been to scarce to make any of it the great hit it all has become now.
So... am I the only one here who thinks he kept Apple from reaching it's full potential for killing the clone market?
Could be seen either way, really. Had they not, the market would have been flooded with half assed Mac clones, tarnishing the whole name. Ever buy a POS PC with Windows on it, and curse Windows daily? - then build your own system and find out it's not half bad? I have. Apple having the HW on lockdown with the OS seems to have served them quite well, so who knows how it would have gone if Jobs didn't can the program in the late 1990's. It's given them a pretty much universal user experience offering, anyways.
Apple is a HW company, and I think we can all agree the prices for their systems/devices are very high. Apple has a high artsy fartsy fanboy appeal that I think may have been diminished by a clone market.
The Ipad is a laptop killer?That's just the talking point of tablet junkies, they're totally going to kill laptops and desktops dead, any day now even. Just you wait and see!
Maybe for you.
I still want a keyboard (and I want one larger then a Cell phone has).
So far, nothing has replaced my computers.
That's just the talking point of tablet junkies, they're totally going to kill laptops and desktops dead, any day now even. Just you wait and see!
Could be seen either way, really. Had they not, the market would have been flooded with half assed Mac clones, tarnishing the whole name. Ever buy a POS PC with Windows on it, and curse Windows daily? - then build your own system and find out it's not half bad? I have. Apple having the HW on lockdown with the OS seems to have served them quite well, so who knows how it would have gone if Jobs didn't can the program in the late 1990's. It's given them a pretty much universal user experience offering, anyways.
Apple is a HW company, and I think we can all agree the prices for their systems/devices are very high. Apple has a high artsy fartsy fanboy appeal that I think may have been diminished by a clone market.
That's just the talking point of tablet junkies, they're totally going to kill laptops and desktops dead, any day now even. Just you wait and see!
The days of one computer per household or person ended back around turn of the century.Who said anything about one computer per household? Lots of people have laptops as well as desktops, yes - because laptops provide all of the functionality of a lower-spec desktop system in a portable form factor. Tablets provide a subset of the functionality of a smartphone - in a form factor only somewhat smaller than a laptop.
Virtually all tech people have a smart phone, tablet, laptop and desktop. Each has it's strengths and drawbacks.This is true. For instance, tablet strengths: it is smaller than a laptop, and generally has better battery life than larger laptops. Tablet drawbacks: much less storage space, no more RAM, no more horsepower, and higher price-for-performance than a laptop, controlled software market, and no keyboard.
But it's not a replacement for any of my other gadgets. It's brilliant when you want to explain something to someone on the fly, check your stocks or play angry birds.So, uh, which of those things can you not already do with a smartphone?
@EDanaII
I know what you are saying here, but you need to think back to 1997. The desktop market was dead, MicroSoft had the desktop. Apple had a mass of undifferentiated desktop product lines and was losing money fast (I believe the quote was "Apple had 90 days before bankruptcy").
Steve Jobs had to figure out some way to get money into Apple, and fast. The Apple clones were cheaper and "better" than anything apple could build, as they were built using standard PC parts/cases/keyboard/etc... Getting a $10 royalty per machine sold, when those machines only occupied 3% market share was not going keep apple afloat. Steve did kill the clone market but he did it by increasing the licence cost.
IIRC, Apple was getting $75 royalty for OS8 and $75 royalty for the hardware clone. $150 @ machine would easily have kept Apple a float even with their inferior hardware not to mention new hardware (PIOS 1 which had room for 4 PPC CPUs) that was in the pipeline. Problem is Jobs was a complete control freak, that is bottom line why he killed AIM, he couldn't conceive of giving up control of Apple, even if it was going to a future winner. I will point out that at the time Jobs killed off the AIM (renamed OS8 to OS9 which wasn't covered under the existing agreements with IBM/Motorola), Motorola's StarMax line was ready to be open for business.
@Dammy
Thats exactly the problem, Apple would not have been the No1 vendor of MacOS-HW by the end of the century and it's very questionable wether the transition to NextStep (aka OSX) would have worked out.
What if those clone-makers (representing 70% or more of the market) had put their weight behind something like BeOS or a revamped WindowsNT-PPC ?
OSX allmost killed Apple as it were, but under such circumstances....
And OSX is the only thing that made the Mac "sensible" after 2003 or so.
@dammy and EDanaII
I am speaking with 20/20 hindsight here, at the time I was very much thinking as you were that Apple needed to clone and expand the Mac platform independant of Apple... Problem is, I couldn't see the future as well as Jobs... And let's be fair he got it right, for Apple at any rate.
-edit- I forgot to add that every Apple product line is now built on the NeXTStep platform (if we exclude the legacy iPods)... iPod touch, Mac, iPad and iPhone all built on NeXTStep, amazing when you think about it!
Depends what you consider as "Apple being successful". Clone market was peanuts to Apple financially, initially $50 a license. Now they sell you $500 of PC parts jammed into their machines for $1200 (minimum, base model iMac).
I'd love to know where we buy these $500 non-Apple iMacs
@ bloodline
I don't disagree with what you are saying, however, what I'm saying is that Jobs could have done BOTH differentiate itself AND keep the clone market alive. These are not mutually exclusive propositions. :)
I tend to agree with Dammy, Jobs killed the clone market because he couldn't exercize the kinds of control he wanted over it.
Mind you, I'm not badmouthing the man, I just think that Apple would have been even more successful if they'd dared allow themselves to compete within their own market.
@tone007
Problem is that once you start comparing with "simplier" PC your comparision becomes unfair.
Their simply is more developing and manufactoring cost involved in an iMac as there is in mATX puter useing offtheshelf components.
Wether you want to pay those extra cost for that extra mile is only significant cos Apple doesn't offer consumer PC in a standard form factor.
It isn't terribly difficult to make a Hackintosh if you prefer to use OS X on non Apple HW.
Actually, I think Steve was a Buddhist.
In business, only bastards succeed.
'According to Tate he “regularly belittled people, swore at them, and pressured them until they reached their breaking point. In the pursuit of greatness he cast aside politeness and empathy. He verbal abuse never stopped.”'
Not quite the humility a devotee of Siddhartha Gautama should display eh?
In business, only bastards succeed.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2011/10/10/steve-jobs-was-a-jerk-good-for-him/
'According to Tate he “regularly belittled people, swore at them, and pressured them until they reached their breaking point. In the pursuit of greatness he cast aside politeness and empathy. He verbal abuse never stopped.”'Well, if someone believes they are a follower of a particular faith who are we, as outsiders, to judge? I believe the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy applies here...
Not quite the humility a devotee of Siddhartha Gautama should display eh?
In business, only bastards succeed.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2011/10/10/steve-jobs-was-a-jerk-good-for-him/
Well, if someone believes they are a follower of a particular faith who are we, as outsiders, to judge? I believe the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy applies here...
-edit- and yes I also believe Steve Jobs was an arsehole, that doesn't alter the respect I have for how he took Apple from nothing to the most valuable company in the world :)
Great as Jobs achievements were, his works will be forgotten by both the masses and the nerds in 30 years time.
By contrast, the achievements of Dennis Ritchie have never been known by the masses yet in 30 years the nerds will still remember him and his works.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/16/john-naughton-dennis-ritchie-unix?newsfeed=trueOddly the article focuses on Unix... when IMHO C was his greater gift to the world... this is not to put down Unix, but rather to emphasise the importance of C.
Odd the article focuses on Unix... when IMHO C was his greater gift to the world... this is not to put down Unix, but rather to emphasise the importance of C.
Oddly the article focuses on Unix... when IMHO C was his greater gift to the world... this is not to put down Unix, but rather to emphasise the importance of C.
The more I think about this the more I feel that had Richie died at any other time, his death would have gone even more unnoticed... At least with his death so close to Jobs' the mainstream news was prepared to write about pioneers of the tech world.
Even in death, Jobs was a facilitator :lol: ;)
Sorry Bloodline but i don't agree that Jobs turned around and single handedly save Apple from oblivion. I think the success of the imac was just luck and nothing else. Steve Jobs did nothing. He especially didn't predict that consumers would go crazy for aesthetics over function like people claim he did.He terminated all of Apple's multitude of undifferentiated product lines, he replaced them with a pretty but simple (plug in and go) one size fits all computer, he killed off MacOS Classic development and replaced it with NeXTStep. Brought in Tim Cook to sort out Apple's production and supply lines, he pushed Apple into retail and he realised that The desktop market was basically dead... Moving Apple to mobile devices and consumer electronics, with a coherent Eco system.
Sorry but Apple really gets up my tickler... ;)
He terminated all of Apple's multitude of undifferentiated product lines, he replaced them with a pretty but simple (plug in and go) one size fits all computer, he killed off MacOS Classic development and replaced it with NeXTStep. Brought in Tim Cook to sort out Apple's production and supply lines, he pushed Apple into retail and he realised that The desktop market was basically dead... Moving Apple to mobile devices and consumer electronics, with a coherent Eco system.
Piss you off or not, these were bold moves for a nearly bankrupt computer company ;)
The Pippin was just another stupid "multimedia" game console like the 3D0 or CDi. The Twentieth-Anniversary Macintosh is an overpriced, under-specced, ugly pile of shιt. And the G4 Cube looked cool as hell but didn't offer anything a contemporary Power Mac G4 didn't.
Shame about the Newton and the clone market, though.
Little Claws
He said he met employees as young as 12 years old. He met others in their 20s whose hands had devolved into claws, their joints disintegrated after years of 12-hour-plus days.
“It’s like carpal tunnel on a level we’ve never seen,” he said, describing the pressure on the nerve in the wrist that supplies feeling and movement to parts of the hand.[Unquote]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-18/steve-jobs-gets-dissected-by-muckraking-word-spewing-hulk-theater-review.html
http://images.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/pdf/Apple_SR_2011_Progress_Report.pdf
64 facilities had violations in engineering controls. For example, we
found machines that were missing safety devices, such as gear guards
or pulley guards.
95 facilities had violations in administrative controls. For example,
facilities did not conduct regular safety inspections, and workers who
performed specialized tasks did not have legally required licenses or
certifications.
54 facilities had workers who were not wearing appropriate personal
protective equipment (PPE), such as earplugs, safety glasses, and dust
masks. In some instances, the facility had not provided the appropriate
safety equipment. In others, the workers neglected to use the
equipment or were using it improperly.
47 facilities did not have appropriate first-aid supplies for emergency
situations. For example, there were no eyewash stations in areas where
chemicals were used or stored.
78 facilities did not have properly maintained fire detection and
suppression equipment. For example, access to some fire hydrants
or fire extinguishers was blocked, and some fire extinguishers were
placed on the ground.
81 facilities did not have adequate exit paths for emergency
situations. For example, we found narrow evacuation aisles or locked
emergency exits.
The reports of terrible conditions at Foxconn aren't Apple's doing by any stretch, it's just the nature of the beast.
Steve Jobs did nothing.