PDA

View Full Version : Time Magazine Names Steve Jobs Among 20 Most Influential Americans of All Time




MacRumors
Jul 26, 2012, 09:53 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/26/time-magazine-names-steve-jobs-among-20-most-influential-americans-of-all-time/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/07/time_all_time_100_influential-150x204.jpg

Time yesterday released a list of the 20 most influential Americans of all time (http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/25/the-20-most-influential-americans-of-all-time/), with Apple founder Steve Jobs making the cut for inclusion in the list. Jobs is the final entry on the chronologically-sorted list that includes such figures as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Henry Ford, and the Wright brothers.Jobs was a visionary whose great genius was for design: he pushed and pushed to make the interface between computers and people elegant, simple and delightful. He always claimed his goal was to create products that were "insanely great." Mission accomplished.The new Time feature is part of a promotion for the publication's new book covering what it judges to be the 100 most influential people of all time, a list that also includes Jobs.

Time also releases annual lists of the world's most influential people, with Apple CEO Tim Cook and Jobs' biographer Walter Isaacson making the 2012 list (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/04/18/tim-cook-and-walter-isaacson-named-to-times-list-of-100-most-influential-people/) back in April.

Article Link: Time Magazine Names Steve Jobs Among 20 Most Influential Americans of All Time (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/26/time-magazine-names-steve-jobs-among-20-most-influential-americans-of-all-time/)



Michaelgtrusa
Jul 26, 2012, 09:54 AM
He deserves the title. 

Navdakilla
Jul 26, 2012, 09:55 AM
What a surprise :rolleyes:

kavika411
Jul 26, 2012, 09:58 AM
Hold on, Time, I'm gonna let you finish, but Beyoncé is one of the most influential Americans of all time... OF ALL TIME!

clukas
Jul 26, 2012, 09:59 AM
not much of a surprise to be honest. Well done steve!

rendevouspoo
Jul 26, 2012, 09:59 AM
He deserves the title. 

I agree, but if he is on the list..how is Gates not?

Sixtafoua
Jul 26, 2012, 10:00 AM
I agree, but if he is on the list..how is Gates not?

Because gates isn't dead.

AustinIllini
Jul 26, 2012, 10:02 AM
Because gates isn't dead.

Sad, but true.

ristlin
Jul 26, 2012, 10:03 AM
because gates isn't dead.

They may add him soon enough. The guy not only created one of the most successful companies in history, but he is also leading the charge in tackling global problems through his foundation.

kalsta
Jul 26, 2012, 10:03 AM
Anyone who is honest about how Apple has influenced technology, since it's beginnings in the 1970s right through to the current day, could surely not argue with that.

Edit: Sorry, that was a bit of a silly thing to say. The list is educated speculation at best, so of course people can argue about it!

Serelus
Jul 26, 2012, 10:03 AM
Wait till the linux enthusiasts get here, "Oh steve gets to become one of the most influential americans? But Dennis ritchie(Developer of C) goes unnoticed"

Not getting the difference between the 2 people, sigh...

RawBert
Jul 26, 2012, 10:05 AM
I saw The 100 Most Influential People in the World ofAll-Time (book) at a supermarket on July 4. I picked it up, saw the price ($16), and placed it back down.

macnerd93
Jul 26, 2012, 10:07 AM
Of course :)

In 100 years time he's gonna be talked about in the history books

kdarling
Jul 26, 2012, 10:09 AM
Unbelievable. Clearly a bone thrown to today's kids.

Jobs belongs in an influential list for sure, but not within the top 20 of all time.

Might as well also put Ron Popeil in the top 20 list (at least he actually invented some of the stuff he sold).

mrgraff
Jul 26, 2012, 10:09 AM
Mother Teresa was Albanian, not American. I am sure she would make it into the list of the 100 most influential Albanians.

I wonder if Sitting Bull would appreciate being listed as an influential American.

srxtr
Jul 26, 2012, 10:11 AM
And his picture's smack in the middle at the top of the cover too.

Way to go!

mantan
Jul 26, 2012, 10:12 AM
I agree, but if he is on the list..how is Gates not?

Gates should be on there. He had just as much influence on technology, especially in American business. Additionally his work as a philanthropist had influence beyond the marketplace.

srxtr
Jul 26, 2012, 10:12 AM
I agree, but if he is on the list..how is Gates not?

While Gates probably achieved just as much as Jobs, he was not as influential (as Jobs).

Edit: IMO

Ping Guo
Jul 26, 2012, 10:14 AM
Ben Franklin doesn't make the list but Jobs does?

Edit: Neither do James Madison, writers like Mark Twain, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, and Hemingway, etc.

Sensation
Jul 26, 2012, 10:16 AM
He was a very good thief

Flood123
Jul 26, 2012, 10:17 AM
Helped lead the united states to victory over the brits and was the first president of the united states. Freed the slaves. Built and flew the first airplane. Created the first assembly line. Developed the iPod .
There is no doubt he was a great man, but to be in those ranks? I'm undecided on that. But hey, my opinion doesn't matter because I didn't write the article. It just seems like putting skrillex or jam master J on a greatest guitar player of all time list.(which actually happened.)

miniroll32
Jul 26, 2012, 10:17 AM
This is quite funny when you consider how much of that 'influence' has been misplaced on his shoulders.

kalsta
Jul 26, 2012, 10:18 AM
I agree, but if he is on the list..how is Gates not?
They may add him soon enough. The guy not only created one of the most successful companies in history, but he is also leading the charge in tackling global problems through his foundation.

I think it depends on how you define 'influence'. Millions of people use Microsoft products like Windows and Word every day, so in a sense that's a massive impact. But if you measure influence by the difference you would see had that person not been around, I suspect Steve would be leagues ahead of Bill. Without Steve, no Apple, no Lisa, no Macintosh, and therefore no Windows. Sure, others would have picked up on similar concepts in time—technology has a way of evolving—but when you look at history, you can see the chain of events and how frequently Jobs was pushing the industry forward.

Sensation
Jul 26, 2012, 10:18 AM
Sad, but true.

Why do you want Gates dead? He did brilliant work at Microsoft and is now trying to make the world a better place. :confused:

Hastings101
Jul 26, 2012, 10:18 AM
hold on, time, i'm gonna let you finish, but beyoncé is one of the most influential americans of all time... Of all time!

of all time!!

Bezetos
Jul 26, 2012, 10:21 AM
With all due respect but... top 20... of all time?

I understand that being influential has nothing to do with how much good they have done, how important they were to our society and simply refers to their "influence" and popularity, but still, within the top 20? Top 100 - sure, but 20?

It's just utterly weird to see him amongst Martin Luther King, Albert Enstein, Abraham Lincoln and Louis Armstrong... I can probably think about 50 more influential people before I even start considering Jobs.

samcraig
Jul 26, 2012, 10:21 AM
Sad, but true.

Disgusting comment. You should honestly be embarrassed you posted that

Unbelievable. Clearly a bone thrown to today's kids.

Jobs belongs in an influential list for sure, but not within the top 20 of all time.

Might as well also put Ron Popeil in the top 20 list (at least he actually invented some of the stuff he sold).

I tend to agree.

jamesryanbell
Jul 26, 2012, 10:25 AM
Muhammed Ali making that list is a massive, massive joke. Seriously.

Bezetos
Jul 26, 2012, 10:25 AM
While Gates probably achieved just as much as Jobs, he was not as influential (as Jobs).

Edit: IMO

IMO Gates achieved even more than Jobs, however I agree that he wasn't as influential as Jobs was impeccable at marketing himself.

thejadedmonkey
Jul 26, 2012, 10:26 AM
Time Magazine's crazy.

I mean I know he's not America, but Kihara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobutoshi_Kihara) did as much for Sony as Jobs did for Apple.

voyagerd
Jul 26, 2012, 10:32 AM
Yay Steve!

Michaelgtrusa
Jul 26, 2012, 10:34 AM
I agree, but if he is on the list..how is Gates not?

Gates should be.

hobo.hopkins
Jul 26, 2012, 10:39 AM
Well-deserved. I think Gates should also be on the list, but probably won't be considered for now since his work is still ongoing.

AustinIllini
Jul 26, 2012, 10:41 AM
Disgusting comment. You should honestly be embarrassed you posted that.

I'm sorry, but it's true. If Steve Jobs were still alive or had died five years ago, he would not be on this list.

I hate Windows, but I know Bill Gates is more deserving than Steve Jobs to be on this list.

I forgot the commandment "Thou shall not sayeth negative things about our lord and savior Steve Jobs". Seriously, wake up, people.

nfl46
Jul 26, 2012, 10:42 AM
Hold on, Time, I'm gonna let you finish, but Beyoncé is one of the most influential Americans of all time... OF ALL TIME!

Really? Of ALL time? You will put Beyonce before Madonna, Whitney or Mariah Carey? :eek:

Edit: But of ALL people, you would want Beyonce's name on the list before Michael Jackson? He definitely had a fair shot at the Top 20 list.

IJ Reilly
Jul 26, 2012, 10:47 AM
Unbelievable. Clearly a bone thrown to today's kids.

Jobs belongs in an influential list for sure, but not within the top 20 of all time.

Might as well also put Ron Popeil in the top 20 list (at least he actually invented some of the stuff he sold).

He also invented the infomercial, and what a great contribution that was to American culture and society. It slices! It dices!

I realize you make the little joke, but there's some real truth to it. It's very difficult to accurately assess the importance of anyone's contributions to history so close to the events. We won't know if Jobs really belongs in the pantheon of influential Americans for decades from now, when we can determine how much of what he accomplished had lasting impact. Time is good at selling books but they are lousy at history.

miniroll32
Jul 26, 2012, 10:47 AM
Without Steve, no Apple, no Lisa, no Macintosh, and therefore no Windows.

An what about the 'other' Steve - Wozniak?

Bezetos
Jul 26, 2012, 10:48 AM
Really? Of ALL time? You will put Beyonce before Madonna, Whitney or Mariah Carey? :eek:

Edit: But of ALL people, you would want Beyonce's name on the list before Michael Jackson? He definitely had a fair shot at the Top 20 list.

At first I thought you were trying to be funny, but now I think you didn't get the joke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_MTV_Video_Music_Awards#Kanye_West_controversy_and_debated_incidents).

AustinIllini
Jul 26, 2012, 10:48 AM
Edison doesn't belong on this list either. He owes everything to Nikola Tesla

JHankwitz
Jul 26, 2012, 10:48 AM
Of course :)

In 100 years time he's gonna be talked about in the history books

Unfortunately, the history books will likely portray him the way he will be presented in the upcoming movie about him. Likely sensationalized fiction. History has always been written by the biased survivors.

AJClayton
Jul 26, 2012, 10:49 AM
This is going to sound really picky (and it is, I know) but that Time cover says "People" and according to the article on Mac Rumors the list is of "Americans".

Perhaps it makes it clearer inside the publication? I know that if a magazine here in the UK did that it would be burned in the streets internationally for only including us Brits (slight exaggeration, but you get my point).

I'm not saying a list of Americans only isn't right - Time is a US publication after all - however I think it should make it clear on the cover.

OK. I'll get my coat. I'm going to lots of minus points now I can just feel it. :D

Edit - Oh it's gone! Did Mac Rumors remove the "Vote Down" button just for me?

JHankwitz
Jul 26, 2012, 10:51 AM
Edison doesn't belong on this list either. He owes everything to Nikola Tesla

Edison took Telsa and other theory and turned it into practice and common use that changed the world, just like Steve.

samcraig
Jul 26, 2012, 10:51 AM
I want to apologize. I actually read your statement incorrectly. It sounded - at first as if you were suggesting it was sad that Gates wasn't dead (i.e. he should be).

I don't believe in the commandment you presented :)

Sorry about that...


I'm sorry, but it's true. If Steve Jobs were still alive or had died five years ago, he would not be on this list.

I hate Windows, but I know Bill Gates is more deserving than Steve Jobs to be on this list.

I forgot the commandment "Thou shall not sayeth negative things about our lord and savior Steve Jobs". Seriously, wake up, people.

BornAgainApple
Jul 26, 2012, 10:51 AM
Of course :)

In 100 years time he's gonna be talked about in the history books

You mean history E-books? ;)

nfl46
Jul 26, 2012, 10:52 AM
At first I thought you were trying to be funny, but now I think you didn't get the joke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_MTV_Video_Music_Awards#Kanye_West_controversy_and_debated_incidents).

Glad it was a joke and sarcasm. No way Beyonce is more influential than Michael Jackson.

IJ Reilly
Jul 26, 2012, 10:57 AM
This is going to sound really picky (and it is, I know) but that Time cover says "People" and according to the article on Mac Rumors the list is of "Americans".

Perhaps it makes it clearer inside the publication? I know that if a magazine here in the UK did that it would be burned in the streets internationally for only including us Brits (slight exaggeration, but you get my point).

I'm not saying a list of Americans only isn't right - Time is a US publication after all - however I think it should make it clear on the cover.

OK. I'll get my coat. I'm going to lots of minus points now I can just feel it. :D

Edit - Oh it's gone! Did Mac Rumors remove the "Vote Down" button just for me?

Time publishes all kinds of lists of this ilk. Here's their international 100 list:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2111975,00.html

BTW, I have not found the full American 100 list. Anybody else?

Technarchy
Jul 26, 2012, 10:57 AM
An what about the 'other' Steve - Wozniak?

He probably would have been at best a middle management drone at HP, or some other California tech company and you wouldn't know his name.

foodog
Jul 26, 2012, 10:59 AM
They may add him soon enough. The guy not only created one of the most successful companies in history, but he is also leading the charge in tackling global problems through his foundation.

More like padding pockets of the Pharmaceutical companies the Gates Foundation is in bed with.

Do your research... here is one short article. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110919/02495316002/is-gates-foundation-really-looking-new-ways-to-tackle-big-health-problems-when-its-hiring-pharma-execs.shtml

AustinIllini
Jul 26, 2012, 10:59 AM
I want to apologize. I actually read your statement incorrectly. It sounded - at first as if you were suggesting it was sad that Gates wasn't dead (i.e. he should be).

I don't believe in the commandment you presented :)

Sorry about that...

Shoot. My bad. I am really made about Bill Gates not being on the list because of all the time and money he puts into philanthropy.

hogo
Jul 26, 2012, 11:01 AM
What's with all the Gates love? He built Microsoft on stolen ideas. From apple.

G51989
Jul 26, 2012, 11:04 AM
What's with all the Gates love? He built Microsoft on stolen ideas. From apple.

What's with all the jobs love? He built apple on stolen ideas from xerox ;)

Ppl also like gates because he's just a damn good, very charitable person. He does lots of good.

hogo
Jul 26, 2012, 11:06 AM
What's with all the jobs love? He built apple on stolen ideas from xerox ;)

Ppl also like gates because he's just a damn good, very charitable person. He does lots of good.

Wow, a decade or two ago, I knew no one that would've said that. Cheers to his charity work, and apparent public face lift.

GermanyChris
Jul 26, 2012, 11:07 AM
Umm no Mr. Jobs is not one of the 20 most influential people or Americans of all time. I wouldn't even put him in the top 100 then nor would I add Linus, RMS, or Gates.

zombiecakes
Jul 26, 2012, 11:08 AM
If you think about it I dont think he was very "influential" at all as I cant think of any other CEOs that started doing what he did. 99% of CEOs still value cost over quality and still think focus groups, not designers are right. Apple's products were influential but Steve Jobs as a person is unique among the business school CEOs and nobody seemed influenced by him, they all probably thought he was crazy spending so much money on a metal computer when he could have used plastic.

Bezetos
Jul 26, 2012, 11:08 AM
Without Steve, no Apple, no Lisa, no Macintosh, and therefore no Windows.

Here we go again...


What's with all the Gates love? He built Microsoft on stolen ideas. From apple.
..and again.

kalsta
Jul 26, 2012, 11:09 AM
This is going to sound really picky (and it is, I know) but that Time cover says "People" and according to the article on Mac Rumors the list is of "Americans".

Perhaps it makes it clearer inside the publication? I know that if a magazine here in the UK did that it would be burned in the streets internationally for only including us Brits (slight exaggeration, but you get my point).

I'm not saying a list of Americans only isn't right - Time is a US publication after all - however I think it should make it clear on the cover.

If you reread the article you'll see it talks about two lists—the '20 most influential Americans of all time', and the '100 most influential people of all time'.

Umm no Mr. Jobs is not one of the 20 most influential people or Americans of all time. I wouldn't even put him in the top 100 then nor would I add Linus, RMS, or Gates.

And yet here we all are, spending our hours using the technology they brought to the world, and debating their influence.

hogo
Jul 26, 2012, 11:12 AM
Here we go again...



..and again.

Yes, again.

mr.steevo
Jul 26, 2012, 11:13 AM
Really? Of ALL time? You will put Beyonce before Madonna, Whitney or Mariah Carey? :eek:

Edit: But of ALL people, you would want Beyonce's name on the list before Michael Jackson? He definitely had a fair shot at the Top 20 list.

Celine Dion.

kalsta
Jul 26, 2012, 11:16 AM
Without Steve, no Apple, no Lisa, no Macintosh, and therefore no Windows.

Here we go again...

Did you have a point you wanted to make?

Rogifan
Jul 26, 2012, 11:17 AM
Unbelievable. Clearly a bone thrown to today's kids.

Jobs belongs in an influential list for sure, but not within the top 20 of all time.

Might as well also put Ron Popeil in the top 20 list (at least he actually invented some of the stuff he sold).

Waiting for you to show up. Glad to see you don't disappoint. :)

IJ Reilly
Jul 26, 2012, 11:17 AM
Wow, a decade or two ago, I knew no one that would've said that. Cheers to his charity work, and apparent public face lift.

Keeping in mind that a lot of the money he's giving away now was won by illegal means. Also keeping in mind that the Gates Foundation, for the good it does, is also run a lot like Microsoft was in the day. Not that Bill Gates wasn't and isn't influential. Influence isn't necessarily a qualitative thing. We also don't know that Gates is not on the 100 list.

RoelJuun
Jul 26, 2012, 11:18 AM
What's with all the Gates love? He built Microsoft on stolen ideas. From apple.

The ultimate fanboy *********.

G51989
Jul 26, 2012, 11:19 AM
Wow, a decade or two ago, I knew no one that would've said that. Cheers to his charity work, and apparent public face lift.

So, donating billions and billions and billions to medical research, food banks, missions, releife and education efforts, starting the bill and melinda gates fondation, and pledgling to give 95percent of your wealth to charity by the time you die?

Yes, I'm sure he's doing all of that to help a public image

GermanyChris
Jul 26, 2012, 11:20 AM
If you reread the article you'll see it talks about two lists—the '20 most influential Americans of all time', and the '100 most influential people of all time'.



And yet here we all are, spending our hours using the technology they brought to the world, and debating their influence.

All written in a language they didn't create, nor was the computer novel during their time.

Ritche and Von Neumann are more influential computer guy's.

Rogifan
Jul 26, 2012, 11:22 AM
Just look at some of Time's man/person of the year covers and you'll know a list from them doesn't mean squat. Plus these all time lists are silly because it's impossible to get agreement from everyone on who deserves to be on the list and who doesn't. Just like when they do these greatest movies or albums or musicians of all time lists.

nick_elt
Jul 26, 2012, 11:22 AM
I agree, but if he is on the list..how is Gates not?

well in my opinion he was a great businessman but hardly influential. Possibly what excell and word has done for business could get him on there but im not sure how much input he had. If anyone knows please reply. We all know the Jobs had huge amount of input on all products while he was in charge.

IJ Reilly
Jul 26, 2012, 11:24 AM
If you reread the article you'll see it talks about two lists—the '20 most influential Americans of all time', and the '100 most influential people of all time'.

Good catch. The list of 20 Americans is drawn from 100 worldwide. I guess the debate that could be started now is whether Americans should occupy one-fifth of the slots.

Rogifan
Jul 26, 2012, 11:26 AM
If you think about it I dont think he was very "influential" at all as I cant think of any other CEOs that started doing what he did. 99% of CEOs still value cost over quality and still think focus groups, not designers are right. Apple's products were influential but Steve Jobs as a person is unique among the business school CEOs and nobody seemed influenced by him, they all probably thought he was crazy spending so much money on a metal computer when he could have used plastic.
Ah but what about all the iSheep and fanboys who drink the Apple kool-aid? Surely Steve was influential there, no? :D

kenbrickley
Jul 26, 2012, 11:27 AM
Umm no Mr. Jobs is not one of the 20 most influential people or Americans of all time. I wouldn't even put him in the top 100 then nor would I add Linus, RMS, or Gates.

Well, the personal computer has been a major technological achievement (perhaps as influential to society as the invention of the printing press) ... you have to give someone the recognition for that ... one could argue who best deserves that recognition ... Gordon Moore for the microprocessor ... Bill Gates for the Operating System ... or Steve Jobs and Wozniak for the personal computer ... pick your poison :)

mr.steevo
Jul 26, 2012, 11:27 AM
What's with all the Gates love? He built Microsoft on stolen ideas. From apple.

Please.

Do you believe Steve Jobs invented the mouse?

ristlin
Jul 26, 2012, 11:31 AM
More like padding pockets of the Pharmaceutical companies the Gates Foundation is in bed with.

Do your research... here is one short article. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110919/02495316002/is-gates-foundation-really-looking-new-ways-to-tackle-big-health-problems-when-its-hiring-pharma-execs.shtml

:eek: You call that research?

I don't disagree that they have had mixed results and took questionable steps to get there, but there have been dozens of organizations over the decades that have followed philanthropy "by the book" also with mixed results. Furthermore, several of the Foundation's programs have made significant positive impact. Millennium scholarships and strides toward a Malaria vaccine.

nick_elt
Jul 26, 2012, 11:32 AM
Celine Dion.

Canadian no?

kalsta
Jul 26, 2012, 11:33 AM
Plus these all time lists are silly because it's impossible to get agreement from everyone on who deserves to be on the list and who doesn't. Just like when they do these greatest movies or albums or musicians of all time lists.

You're right… it's all a bit silly, but hey, it gives us something to argue about.

To truly measure someone's influence on the world, you would need to see how different the world is over time if that person had never existed. Unless we develop the means to explore a parallel Universe where Steve didn't exist, that's never going to happen.

nick_elt
Jul 26, 2012, 11:35 AM
What's with all the jobs love? He built apple on stolen ideas from xerox ;)

Ppl also like gates because he's just a damn good, very charitable person. He does lots of good.

I like Apple, Steve Jobs and all their products. but surely all this everyone stole from Apple come from fanboys that wernt alive in the 80's. Go do some research ppl before slagging off the other companies. Apple IS big brother now.

wikus
Jul 26, 2012, 11:35 AM
Hold on, Time, I'm gonna let you finish, but Beyoncé is one of the most influential Americans of all time... OF ALL TIME!

Why can't I downrank this comment?

Bezetos
Jul 26, 2012, 11:35 AM
Did you have a point you wanted to make?
Well, isn't it obvious? That once again Apple fans argue that Microsoft stole something from Apple while Apple clearly based their work on Xerox achievements and the whole situation is controversial?

I've seen these discussions a million times now.

AustinIllini
Jul 26, 2012, 11:38 AM
What's with all the Gates love? He built Microsoft on stolen ideas. From apple.

And built a huge charity organization that helps hungry people in Africa.

michealwillard
Jul 26, 2012, 11:42 AM
A more burning question:

So Albert Einstein having US citizenship for the last 15 years of his life makes him American? I mean I'd be more than thrilled to claim him as one of us, but it seems like they made some stretches to get people on this list, when someone such as Bill Gates could easily be on there.

GermanyChris
Jul 26, 2012, 11:43 AM
Well, the personal computer has been a major technological achievement (perhaps as influential to society as the invention of the printing press) ... you have to give someone the recognition for that ... one could argue who best deserves that recognition ... Gordon Moore for the microprocessor ... Bill Gates for the Operating System ... or Steve Jobs and Wozniak for the personal computer ... pick your poison :)

Actually I don't need to give credit..

The PC would have evolved with out Woz, Jobs, or Gates the star proves that.

The printing press would be more influential as it spurred on literacy in the world. The PC spurred communication in the same way. I'll leave it to you to decide which is more important.

Dr. Moore, while being an innovator simply took Harvard architecture to it's logical conclusion. Much the same way IBM took Von Neumann to it's logical conclusion.

JGowan
Jul 26, 2012, 11:44 AM
He was a very good thiefYou put the FU in FUn. Thanks for taking a dump on Steve.

GermanyChris
Jul 26, 2012, 11:47 AM
You put the FU in FUn. Thanks for taking a dump on Steve.

Because Mr. Jobs would never take a dump on someone right..he was all sweetness and light. :rolleyes:

Bezetos
Jul 26, 2012, 11:48 AM
Gordon Moore for the microprocessor ... Bill Gates for the Operating System ... or Steve Jobs and Wozniak for the personal computer ... pick your poison :)

The first successfully mass marketed personal computer was the Commodore PET.

Apple II was the first successful marketed personal computer with a colour screen.

Let's stick to the facts.

IJ Reilly
Jul 26, 2012, 11:50 AM
Well, isn't it obvious? That once again Apple fans argue that Microsoft stole something from Apple while Apple clearly based their work on Xerox achievements and the whole situation is controversial?

I've seen these discussions a million times now.

Yeah, but I think a million times is conservative estimate. Apple didn't "clearly" base their work on Xerox. They hardly did at all, in fact. The only thing Xerox actually accomplished was building a proof-of-concept for a GUI-based computer. Neither Xerox nor Apple invented the concept, and nothing Apple did thereafter resembled the work at Xerox in more than the most superficial way. Apple moved the ball far down the field to the point where it made a difference. FWIW, the question of whether Microsoft "stole" ideas from Apple or anyone else isn't very important. The real "sin" against technology committed by Microsoft was taking the 11 years after the release of the Mac to develop a product that advanced the concept not one iota.

yakapo
Jul 26, 2012, 11:54 AM
George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr, Thomas Edison, E. Hemingway, Thurgood Marshall, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B Anthony, Einstein, John Adams, A.G. Bell, Henry Ford, James Madison, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson... that's about 15 in no specific order.

Jobs in the top 20? Absurd. Any historians on here that could finish that list for me?

/imo

rendevouspoo
Jul 26, 2012, 11:55 AM
well in my opinion he was a great businessman but hardly influential. Possibly what excell and word has done for business could get him on there but im not sure how much input he had. If anyone knows please reply. We all know the Jobs had huge amount of input on all products while he was in charge.

You can't forget his out of this world charitable donations.

Bezetos
Jul 26, 2012, 11:55 AM
Yeah, but I think a million times is conservative estimate. Apple didn't "clearly" base their work on Xerox. They hardly did at all, in fact. The only thing Xerox actually accomplished was building a proof-of-concept for a GUI-based computer. Neither Xerox nor Apple invented the concept, and nothing Apple did thereafter resembled the work at Xerox in more than the most superficial way. Apple moved the ball far down the field to the point where it made a difference. FWIW, the question of whether Microsoft "stole" ideas from Apple or anyone else isn't very important. The real "sin" against technology committed by Microsoft was taking the 11 years after the release of the Mac to develop a product that advanced the concept not one iota.

Again. This has been discussed a million times over many, many years. There is no point to argue about it again because both sides have strong arguments.

Kaibelf
Jul 26, 2012, 11:56 AM
Hold on, Time, I'm gonna let you finish, but Beyoncé is one of the most influential Americans of all time... OF ALL TIME!

Okay.... that was brilliant. Period. And you owe me a new keyboard because I spit out my water on my desk when I read it. :eek:

IJ Reilly
Jul 26, 2012, 11:58 AM
George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr, Thomas Edison, E. Hemingway, Thurgood Marshall, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B Anthony, Einstein, John Adams, A.G. Bell, Henry Ford, James Madison, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson... that's about 15 in no specific order.

Jobs in the top 20? Absurd. Any historians on here that could finish that list for me?

/imo

I am a historian but I wouldn't bother with lists. They are arbitrary by their very nature. I as said above, Time is good at selling books but they are pretty lousy at history.

kenbrickley
Jul 26, 2012, 11:58 AM
Actually I don't need to give credit..

The PC would have evolved with out Woz, Jobs, or Gates the star proves that.

The printing press would be more influential as it spurred on literacy in the world. The PC spurred communication in the same way. I'll leave it to you to decide which is more important.

Dr. Moore, while being an innovator simply took Harvard architecture to it's logical conclusion. Much the same way IBM took Von Neumann to it's logical conclusion.

We can say in hindsight that the PC would have evolved anyway but when you consider IBM had such low confidence in it that they farmed out the PC's two most critical components to upstart new companies (the microprocessor to Intel and the OS to Microsoft) turning both of those companies into major new corporate powerhouses I am not sure how much longer it would have took.

Considering that PC's have fundamentally changed how we work, communicate, and play I would argue they are actually more influencial than the printing press or at least near the same level of importance.

Also, it is human nature to assign great achievements to one person who gets there first or most publically. So just as Gutenberg gets the credit for inventing the printing press (even though the Chinese had printing for 1000 years before that) and Newton gets the credit for discovering Gravity and inventing Calculus, we can assign the PC to someone. Personally I think it should go to all three people - Moore, Gates, and Jobs. As I said these things are always subjective but the transition of the computer from the isolated hobby of a few long hair types to one of the most critical elements of modern society is a great achievement and deserves acknowledgement ... regardless of who we give it to ;)

kalsta
Jul 26, 2012, 11:59 AM
Well, isn't it obvious? That once again Apple fans argue that Microsoft stole something from Apple while Apple clearly based their work on Xerox achievements and the whole situation is controversial?

I've seen these discussions a million times now.

You seem to have missed the point. This isn't a patent lawsuit we're debating this time—it's about influence, and I was just speculating about who had the greater influence between Bill and Steve. I don't think it's really possible to say who had the greatest influence with any certainty, but what I stated was true… If there was no Steve Jobs, there would be no Apple, hence no Lisa, no Macintosh and no Windows (at least not in the same manner and timeframe, since Windows was really conceived and developed as a response to the Mac). I also went on to say that similar concepts would have arrive in time, and yes, there were of course other people who influenced Steve Jobs and Apple, and other people who influenced them, and so on, and so forth.

Again the question of influence really boils down to this… How different would the world be if a certain person had never existed? It's not an easy question to answer. I don't think anyone would question Albert Einstein's inclusion in the top 100 list, yet who's to say other people wouldn't have soon developed very similar theories had he never existed? Who's to say what might have happened had that butterfly not flapped its wings in the Amazon?

beowuff
Jul 26, 2012, 12:00 PM
While Jobs may or may not be debatable, they put Edison on but not Tesla?!?
FAIL!

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

Kaibelf
Jul 26, 2012, 12:00 PM
I agree, but if he is on the list..how is Gates not?

I think part of it also has to deal with the fact that, for all his successes, he didn't really capture people's imaginations. They think of him as providing the tools they use for work, whereas they see Jobs as a Willy Wonka of sorts, with showmanship, fun, and joy. Look at Pixar's success to see what I mean. You really feel like Steve Jobs' heart was in everything.

IJ Reilly
Jul 26, 2012, 12:03 PM
Again. This has been discussed a million times over many, many years. There is no point to argue about it again because both sides have strong arguments.

I think it's interesting to see how many discussions seem to gravitate to this debate. It's the big black hole of any discussion involving technology (even remotely). Even more fascinating to me is how a grasp of the basic facts doesn't seem to stand in the way of having a strong opinion about what happened.

TSE
Jul 26, 2012, 12:04 PM
Someone's probably already mentioned this, but Einstein? Really? Didn't he live most of his life in Germany?

GermanyChris
Jul 26, 2012, 12:10 PM
We can say in hindsight that the PC would have evolved anyway but when you consider IBM had such low confidence in it that they farmed out the PC's two most critical components to upstart new companies (the microprocessor to Intel and the OS to Microsoft) turning both of those companies into major new corporate powerhouses I am not sure how much longer it would have took.

Considering that PC's have fundamentally changed how we work, communicate, and play I would argue they are actually more influencial than the printing press or at least near the same level of importance.

Also, it is human nature to assign great achievements to one person who gets there first or most publically. So just as Gutenberg gets the credit for inventing the printing press (even though the Chinese had printing for 1000 years before that) and Newton gets the credit for discovering Gravity and inventing Calculus, we can assign the PC to someone. Personally I think it should go to all three people - Moore, Gates, and Jobs. As I said these things are always subjective but the transition of the computer from the isolated hobby of a few long hair types to one of the most critical elements of modern society is a great achievement and deserves acknowledgement ... regardless of who we give it to ;)

This is why I don't really want to give credit to any of them...

Remember IBM was not the only manufacturer of computers at that time..I'll point again to the Xerox Alto, and Star..PC's as we know today would have happened..

lemoncrsh
Jul 26, 2012, 12:20 PM
;)Because gates isn't dead.

Bezetos
Jul 26, 2012, 12:22 PM
I think it's interesting to see how many discussions seem to gravitate to this debate. It's the big black hole of any discussion involving technology (even remotely). Even more fascinating to me is how a grasp of the basic facts doesn't seem to stand in the way of having a strong opinion about what happened.
Agreed. Most statements are very strong, e.g. "Microsoft STOLE from Apple", "Apple BLATENTLY COPIED Xerox in a mercenary way" etc..

theosib
Jul 26, 2012, 12:26 PM
I admire(d) Steve Jobs and agree that he was very influential. But come on! There have been many other people who have had undeniable influences on American economy and culture. Being somewhat ignorant, I'm not even going to be able to come up with all that many really good ones, but they're at least comparable to Steve Jobs. Some examples:

- Albert Einstein (although he was an immigrant)
- Various other scientsts (Murray Gell-Mann, Richard Feynman, etc.)
- Bill Gates
- Ralph Nader
- Frank Lloyd Wright
- James Watson
- Elvis Presley
- Jonas Salk
- Walt Disney
- Alexander Graham Bell
- The Wright Brothers
- Andrew Carnegie
- Henry Ford
- John Rockerfeller
- Thomas Edison
- Martin Luther King Junior
- Weird Al Yankovic (it has been said that an artist knows they've made it if Weird Al makes a parody of one of their songs)

JAT
Jul 26, 2012, 12:30 PM
Gotta love stupidity of humans. Thoughts:

Jefferson vilified. But Edison not. Typical. They both belong, though.

Ali? Probably accurate about influence, but god I wish that was wrong. What is wrong with people? If they need an athlete to round things out, why not Jackie? Or Babe?

Jobs? Seems early. Leading the first to really influence a change to GUI/personal computing and leading the first real popular tablet format is certainly influential, I think, but the tablet thing hasn't even fleshed out, yet. Maybe 20 years from now he would belong, we'll see.

We sure have romanticized Sitting Bull.

Louis. I really need to buy some albums.

Ben? Where are you, Ben?

JGowan
Jul 26, 2012, 12:30 PM
I think he rightly deserves to be on the list. He was THE reason the computer that Woz built ever made into the stores. Woz wanted to give this stuff away (!) -- at the helm, he transformed computers; Hollywood and the 3D animation part of it with Pixar (which is a huge part of hollywood these days) digital sales of music, movies, books and all manners of digital content; the Apple stores are legendary and are enjoying a growth like no other (including biggest retail sales numbers per square foot); brought to the world the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad, which have sold 410 million thus far, about 45 million just in the last 3 months (http://www.technobuffalo.com/companies/apple/410-million-ios-devices-sold-to-date-45-million-in-q3/). Those devices, especially the iPad, have revolutionized those ares far beyond what anyone would've imagined. The iPad is not only a device used to casually read a book, but is used daily in education, sales and the medical fields. Influential? Absolutely. We have just scratched the surface. There is a reason why Apple went from just about bankrupt to the biggest company in the world in 15 years... Steve Jobs. There has been no businessman or tech proponent like him ever. We are certainly in the technology revolution and will be from now on and he is a gigantic reason.

-----------------------------------

By the way...

Ali should be on the Sports List, if they had one. By the way, some are saying here that you have to be dead to be on the list (generally when arguing for Gates' inclusion)... Muhammad Ali is alive.

Lists are so arbitrary anyway that we shouldn't get bent out of shape when someone is included and someone else was overlooked.

JAT
Jul 26, 2012, 12:31 PM
I think it's interesting to see how many discussions seem to gravitate to this debate. It's the big black hole of any discussion involving technology (even remotely). Even more fascinating to me is how a grasp of the basic facts doesn't seem to stand in the way of having a strong opinion about what happened.
Seems a basic inability to use adjectives properly. Maybe most people weren't paying attention in 3rd grade.

kdarling
Jul 26, 2012, 12:35 PM
Well, the personal computer has been a major technological achievement (perhaps as influential to society as the invention of the printing press) ... you have to give someone the recognition for that ... one could argue who best deserves that recognition ... Gordon Moore for the microprocessor ... Bill Gates for the Operating System ... or Steve Jobs and Wozniak for the personal computer ... pick your poison :)

That's a tough one.

Of course, Moore did not invent the microprocessor, Gates did not invent OSes, and Jobs and Wozniak did not invent the personal computer, but they all had a large influence on history.

I don't think we can give any single person the recognition. As with so many computer-related things, it took the synergy of many contributors.

We'd also have to define "personal computer". I've always enjoyed reading Blinkenlight's list that goes back to the 1940s. Read here (http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml), although they wouldn't all fit the name of "modern personal computers".

paul4339
Jul 26, 2012, 12:39 PM
one has to remember that this is Time magazine and they still have sell magazines... so by just including the same old presidents and social activists would be boring for sales.

They probably included Jobs because he's a modern figure, his death made recent headlines, he's controversial/colorful (make for a good article) and of course, his impact on the Personal Computer, Music, Motion picture/animation, Phone and Mobile computing industries.

IJ Reilly
Jul 26, 2012, 12:42 PM
Seems a basic inability to use adjectives properly. Maybe most people weren't paying attention in 3rd grade.

My entire memory of the third grade consists of melting crayons on the radiators. I never quite recovered from third grade.

Kidding aside, I think most Americans would agree with Henry Ford's opinion of history, even if they've never heard it before. (A google exercise for the curious.) That's how Time can get away with naming someone who died only last year as one of the 20 most influential people in all of American history.

rendevouspoo
Jul 26, 2012, 12:46 PM
By the way, some are saying here that you have to be dead to be on the list (generally when arguing for Gates' inclusion)... Muhammad Ali is alive.

I'm still unsure why Ali is on the list. Gates, however, deserved to be on dead OR alive. They guy created the company that has products in dang near every single business/house in the US. Business was made easier because of microsoft. People make a lot of money off Microsoft as well. Then, you get into the whole eradication of polio in certain countries that he had his hand in. I just saw a topic on Reddit that states that Bill Gates has given more money to charity than the 8th richest person in America has in his bank accounts.

IJ Reilly
Jul 26, 2012, 12:58 PM
I'm still unsure why Ali is on the list. Gates, however, deserved to be on dead OR alive. They guy created the company that has products in dang near every single business/house in the US. Business was made easier because of microsoft. People make a lot of money off Microsoft as well. Then, you get into the whole eradication of polio in certain countries that he had his hand in. I just saw a topic on Reddit that states that Bill Gates has given more money to charity than the 8th richest person in America has in his bank accounts.

Gates put his money into the polio eradication effort, but he does not deserve any special credit for it beyond joining into a successful program that was started decades earlier by others. Those others won't make any of Time's lists, but they gave more of themselves than Bill Gates ever did.

See Henry Ford reference, above.

kenbrickley
Jul 26, 2012, 12:59 PM
That's a tough one.

Of course, Moore did not invent the microprocessor, Gates did not invent OSes, and Jobs and Wozniak did not invent the personal computer, but they all had a large influence on history.

I don't think we can give any single person the recognition. As with so many computer-related things, it took the synergy of many contributors.

We'd also have to define "personal computer". I've always enjoyed reading Blinkenlight's list that goes back to the 1940s. Read here (http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml), although they wouldn't all fit the name of "modern personal computers".

Well that is always the ultimate question ... do we reward the first item ... or the item that makes the thing part of the consciousness ... with Gutenberg it is easier because he made several paradigm shifts at the same time ... he used his movable print printing press to print a very popular book (the Bible) in a publically accessible language (German) ... prior to that time Bibles would have been in Latin only ... and thereby ushered in a new age of communication

The various PC incarnations that came prior to the 1970's were all interesting technical achievements and were definitely the motivation of the various people that invented the modern computer age ... however it wasn't until the Personal Computer became user friendly enough for the average consumer who knew nothing about electronics and programming that it became a true game changing product ... for me the TRS 80 was my first exposure to a computer ... the Apple II+ my first sophisticated computer ... and the Compaq my first work computer ... I have a soft spot in my heart for all three because of that.

Since these lists are by their nature subjective there can't be a right or wrong answer ... does Jobs belong on a list of most influential Americans ... depends on how long the list is ... top 20 is probably somewhat high ... ultimately I think Gates, because of his foundation, is going to end up at the top of the lists of influential businessmen - right up there with Alfred Nobel (probably the most influential businessman of all time because of HIS foundation) ... at least that is MY opinion :)

rendevouspoo
Jul 26, 2012, 01:07 PM
Gates put his money into the polio eradication effort, but he does not deserve any special credit for it beyond joining into a successful program that was started decades earlier by others. Those others won't make any of Time's lists, but they gave more of themselves than Bill Gates ever did.

See Henry Ford reference, above.

Of course he just fronted the money for eradication. Still, that is 100% more than 99.99999% of the population did. Through his philanthropy, he has made a world of difference in many different countries. He has made peoples lives better. He didn't just invent a cool mp3 player.

JAT
Jul 26, 2012, 01:10 PM
Of course he just fronted the money for eradication. Still, that is 100% more than 99.99999% of the population did. Through his philanthropy, he has made a world of difference in many different countries. He has made peoples lives better. He didn't just invent a cool mp3 player.

You people sure worship money.

Rogifan
Jul 26, 2012, 01:13 PM
You're right… it's all a bit silly, but hey, it gives us something to argue about.

To truly measure someone's influence on the world, you would need to see how different the world is over time if that person had never existed. Unless we develop the means to explore a parallel Universe where Steve didn't exist, that's never going to happen.
That's why it's impossible. No one can say with certainty what would have happened had person x not been born or not did what they did with their life. And with hindsight being 20/20 it's easy to look at something and say it's inevitable someone would have done X if Y had never been around.

And of course Time magazine isn't going to put some tech geek on there the average joe probably has never heard of so we get Steve Jobs. I mean if you walked up to someone on the street and asked them who Doug Engelbart was how many would be able to tell you?

rendevouspoo
Jul 26, 2012, 01:16 PM
You people sure worship money.

No, it's just that 'we people' realize that money HAS to be a factor when getting things done. Do you think all of those kids in Africa and other poor countries would have gotten help without Gates, Buffets, and other incredible people? Absolutely not.

I'd much rather a filthy rich person to actually help someone (Gates, Buffet) than someone who didn't do anything to help (Jobs) make a list of this magnitude. That said, it's PERFECTLY fine for someone not to give to charity. It's just a no-brainer as to which was/is the better person.

IJ Reilly
Jul 26, 2012, 01:18 PM
Of course he just fronted the money for eradication. Still, that is 100% more than 99.99999% of the population did. Through his philanthropy, he has made a world of difference in many different countries. He has made peoples lives better. He didn't just invent a cool mp3 player.

If you look into it you will find that literally millions of people contributed both money and time to this effort long before Gates came on the scene. Hundreds of millions were raised from people around the world with nothing like his means, and lots of them also travelled to places like India and Nigeria to administer the doses themselves. Don't mistake this for a lack of gratitude for the Gates Foundation support, it certainly helped put the effort over the top, but it is a bit galling to hear him getting all the credit when he was a relative latecomer to the cause. He has lots of money, and that's fine, but others had the vision, and that was essential.

rendevouspoo
Jul 26, 2012, 01:22 PM
but others had the vision, and that was essential.

I'm just saying that Gates money was also essential. Without his billions, the help wouldn't have been near as much.

Sensation
Jul 26, 2012, 01:28 PM
You put the FU in FUn. Thanks for taking a dump on Steve.

You mad bro? Cry some more

Mr. Milk
Jul 26, 2012, 01:30 PM
I'd vote for Monica Lewinsky and Saddam Hussein (as an immigrant.. ha)...

Apart from the joke..

<-- Louis Armstrong
--> Elvis Presley

<-- Muhammad Ali
--> Bill Gates

JAT
Jul 26, 2012, 01:31 PM
No, it's just that 'we people' realize that money HAS to be a factor when getting things done. Do you think all of those kids in Africa and other poor countries would have gotten help without Gates, Buffets, and other incredible people? Absolutely not.
King, Jr. accomplished his contributions without money being a factor. Teresa, same. Pulling examples out of our asses isn't going to solve anything. You put too much emphasis on the cash, I can tell just from these few posts.

Answer this: Say there's a kid helped to beat polio 2 years ago. What's happening to his life now? Is he well fed? Is he still alive? Did the myriad other problems in these countries go away for him?

We need far more than these foundations can accomplish, I don't care how much cash is infused.

rendevouspoo
Jul 26, 2012, 01:35 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation

mr.steevo
Jul 26, 2012, 01:36 PM
Canadian no?

Oui.

Mattie Num Nums
Jul 26, 2012, 01:39 PM
This is such a stretch. Jobs had an amazing 10 year run or so but many others have greater pull and power in this country than Jobs. One could say Gates holds way more influence due to his Social involvement. Many still see Jobs as a egotistical, self centered, and money hungry. He is one of the greatest Tech influences, but total Americans of all time??? BS.

MLK
Elvis Pressley
Bill Gates
Warren Buffet
FDR
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Nicola Tesla (getting his props decades later!)
Abraham Lincoln
Henry Ford
Wright Brothers
Howard Hughes
Albert Einstein
Alexander Graham Bell

... just to name a few.

IJ Reilly
Jul 26, 2012, 01:49 PM
I'm just saying that Gates money was also essential. Without his billions, the help wouldn't have been near as much.

Important in the latter stages of the campaign, but not essential. Hundreds of millions had already been raised over the twenty years before he became involved, and polio had already been defeated in all but three countries. The Gates contributions were challenge grants, incidentally. He was matching contributions made by the relatively small donors who were already actively involved. But we can see how this works now, can't we? One rich person is automatically more essential than millions of not rich people.

rendevouspoo
Jul 26, 2012, 01:50 PM
Lol okay.

Rogifan
Jul 26, 2012, 01:52 PM
Norman Borlaug should be on this list.

freedevil
Jul 26, 2012, 01:54 PM
A more burning question:

So Albert Einstein having US citizenship for the last 15 years of his life makes him American? I mean I'd be more than thrilled to claim him as one of us, but it seems like they made some stretches to get people on this list, when someone such as Bill Gates could easily be on there.

U.S. Citizenship makes you American. So yes, he was an American.

vampyr
Jul 26, 2012, 01:55 PM
Couldn't agree more..

DrumApple
Jul 26, 2012, 01:57 PM
Pfft, no Ben Franklin or Bill Gates? Weak. And Einstein wasn't technically an American.

kenbrickley
Jul 26, 2012, 01:59 PM
Wow ... if the whole Gates vs Jobs debate is so contentious, people must have really loved Joel Steins 100 of All Time on the Time website ... he chose neither Jobs nor Gates but Mark Zuckerberg :D

I think that Gates foundation deserves some credit ... people can argue all they want about being too money focused but money is how our world operates right now and if you have a lot of it then you have a lot of influence ... the Gates foundation because of its availability to funds can actually guide research in ways that used to be in the purview of governments only ... that is a lot of power and I don't think we can fully evaluate the Gates legacy yet ... it is too early for that

However, if he uses his resources effectively and he makes appropriate provisions after his death I think 100 years from now the 2 most influential businessmen of all time will be Alfred Nobel and Bill Gates ;)

SeattleMoose
Jul 26, 2012, 02:00 PM
A list like this is always going to be driven by those who compile it and their own biases and politics.

But I do agree with Jobs being on list. But PLEASE replace Edison with Tesla. Edison was a pale imitation of Tesla, who single-handedly invented our modern electrical infrastructure and much more. In fact I would rate him the #1 most influential person in American history. Modern society literally runs on the devices/concepts he engineered/pioneered and brought to market. I don't understand why he is always passed over in these type of lists.

sha4000
Jul 26, 2012, 02:17 PM
Important in the latter stages of the campaign, but not essential. Hundreds of millions had already been raised over the twenty years before he became involved, and polio had already been defeated in all but three countries. The Gates contributions were challenge grants, incidentally. He was matching contributions made by the relatively small donors who were already actively involved. But we can see how this works now, can't we? One rich person is automatically more essential than millions of not rich people.

Whatever the case he put his money where his mouth is so even though I understand your argument I don't understand why your going to such great length to sort of discredit what has been done. Ppl on this forum ( and I'm not referring to you ) praise SJ with reckless abandon for what he has done with Apple and I don't have a problem with that. To each his own. But what has he actually done to help anyone besides himself and Apple?

----------

Important in the latter stages of the campaign, but not essential. Hundreds of millions had already been raised over the twenty years before he became involved, and polio had already been defeated in all but three countries. The Gates contributions were challenge grants, incidentally. He was matching contributions made by the relatively small donors who were already actively involved. But we can see how this works now, can't we? One rich person is automatically more essential than millions of not rich people.

Whatever the case he put his money where his mouth is so even though I understand your argument I don't understand why your going to such great length to sort of discredit what has been done. Ppl on this forum ( and I'm not referring to you ) praise SJ with reckless abandon for what he has done with Apple and I don't have a problem with that. To each his own. But what has he actually done to help anyone besides himself and Apple? I bought into Apple 10 years ago when I got my clamshell and was sold even though I still owned a PC bcuz it was still a less expensive option. I've had the clamshell, PowerBook,2 ibooks and the MBP since then and truly love them and OSX even though love is probably too strong a word.

shulerg
Jul 26, 2012, 02:19 PM
Muhammad Ali in the Top 20 is just embarrassing...

Where are Tesla and Oppenheimer? Steve in the Top 50? Definitely. Top 20 is a stretch.

denaliOnDubs
Jul 26, 2012, 02:20 PM
Awesome.

sha4000
Jul 26, 2012, 02:24 PM
Important in the latter stages of the campaign, but not essential. Hundreds of millions had already been raised over the twenty years before he became involved, and polio had already been defeated in all but three countries. The Gates contributions were challenge grants, incidentally. He was matching contributions made by the relatively small donors who were already actively involved. But we can see how this works now, can't we? One rich person is automatically more essential than millions of not rich people.

Whatever the case he put his money where his mouth is so even though I understand your argument I don't understand why your going to such great length to sort of discredit what has been done. Ppl on this forum ( and I'm not referring to you ) praise SJ with reckless abandon for what he has done with Apple and I don't have a problem with that. To each his own. But what has he actually done to help anyone besides himself and Apple? I bought into Apple 10 years ago when I got my clamshell and was sold even though I still owned a PC bcuz it was still a less expensive option. I've had the clamshell, PowerBook,2 ibooks and the MBP since then and truly love them and OSX even though love is probably too strong a word. Anyway I think both are influential in their own right but if I had to choose I would go with Gates. I'm not trying to discount your opinion I'm just genuinely interested in why you feel that way. For the record I read the forums slot and you are one of the more recognizable and informed posters IMO even though I don't always agree so I'm not challenging your wealth of knowledge on such matters. Thx

Mad-B-One
Jul 26, 2012, 03:12 PM
IMO Gates achieved even more than Jobs, however I agree that he wasn't as influential as Jobs was impeccable at marketing himself.

I don't know about that. When Gates presented Windows, he could let the audience wait for years until Windows 3 came out - finally - halfway doing what Gates promised. He saved the IBM compatible PC with that hat trick. Gates might keep very private, but in self marketing, he was not bad either. Especially in getting Microsoft to where it is now, his personal marketing was the key.

VenusianSky
Jul 26, 2012, 03:17 PM
Time magazine once named Earth, "planet of the year". I would like to know which other planets they considered for this honor and why they were even considered.

I would have Carl Sagan on that list before Steve Jobs (and maybe others).

AustinIllini
Jul 26, 2012, 03:38 PM
U.S. Citizenship makes you American. So yes, he was an American.

Well his home country certainly didn't claim him.

-TYLER
Jul 26, 2012, 03:50 PM
Not gonna lie, never even heard of Steve jobs until he died.

smoledman
Jul 26, 2012, 03:52 PM
Jobs is the most brilliant designer of all time.

Rogifan
Jul 26, 2012, 03:55 PM
However, if he uses his resources effectively and he makes appropriate provisions after his death I think 100 years from now the 2 most influential businessmen of all time will be Alfred Nobel and Bill Gates ;)What does charity have to do with whether you were a good businessman or not? Where is it required that someone who rightfully earns a fortune has to give it away? To me that's just feel-good PC crap.

koruki
Jul 26, 2012, 04:05 PM
Unbelievable. Clearly a bone thrown to today's kids.

Jobs belongs in an influential list for sure, but not within the top 20 of all time.

Might as well also put Ron Popeil in the top 20 list (at least he actually invented some of the stuff he sold).

Since when did Influenctial list become the Inventor list? :confused:

Judas1
Jul 26, 2012, 04:06 PM
Really?:confused: He made pretty consumer products. Consumers are ridiculously fickled. They will continue to move on to newer and prettier things. In a few decades, who'd even remember what an iphone is or what it looked liked. Not knocking Steve Jobs as much as I am knocking the importance of consumer products, and in particular, one brand that happens to be popular at that time.

kenbrickley
Jul 26, 2012, 04:09 PM
What does charity have to do with whether you were a good businessman or not? Where is it required that someone who rightfully earns a fortune has to give it away? To me that's just feel-good PC crap.

I didn't say "good" businessman ... I said "influential" ... Steve Jobs was an exceptional businessman and an extraordinary marketer (if I could make presentations at even 10% of Jobs ability I could be a great presenter) ... however, Alfred Nobel is still affecting business, science, and art more than 100 years after his death (through the prizes his foundation awards yearly) ... that is VERY "influential" ... Gates could very well end up in the same mode depending on what he does with his foundation

I tend to view Jobs in kind of the same category as Frank Lloyd Wright or Gaudi ... they made design interesting and practical ... Since Gates was briefly the richest man on the planet and nearly the richest man in history I think one could arguably say he was as "good" a businessman as there is going to be for the near future. Of course that also assumes that one doesn't take the approach of "A Christmas Carol" where Scrooge is admonished by Marley's ghost that "mankind should have been my business". Although I don't think charity is mandatory I have no problem giving a person props for engaging in it (full disclaimer I work in corporate sustainability ;) )

Personally I think that anyone who receives the most influential of all time moniker should have been dead for at least 20 years ... if someone is still considered "influential" 20 years after they are not around to personally influence then that is pretty "influential" ;)

G51989
Jul 26, 2012, 04:16 PM
Jobs is the most brilliant designer of all time.

But wasn't a designer, or an engineer, or even a programmer, he was a user. And a good marketer.

Abyssgh0st
Jul 26, 2012, 04:16 PM
I'm a Jobs fanboy, but c'mon, no Gates? And Ali? Maybe it's because I wasn't alive, but I honestly don't think Ali belongs on the list. If we're talking about African American athletes, how about Jackie Robinson?

The admission of Tesla (unless we're talking about US born only, later citizenship excluded) is sickening.

Antares
Jul 26, 2012, 04:20 PM
Hold on, Time, I'm gonna let you finish, but Beyoncé is one of the most influential Americans of all time... OF ALL TIME!

Agreed. Absolutely disgusted if true. There have easily been/are a million more influential Americans than her.

Earendil
Jul 26, 2012, 04:25 PM
Helped lead the united states to victory over the brits and was the first president of the united states. Freed the slaves. Built and flew the first airplane. Created the first assembly line. Developed the iPod .


Having not read what they say about Jobs, I'm guessing the iPod is not the reason.

Jobs was one of the first people to say that computers should be a consumer product, that kids and parents should use, not just big business. That was the goal of Aple in the early years, to produce machines that were not only useful in the house, but were affordable in the house. THAT is visionary, AND he pushed to make it happen, and it did. Surely we would have ended up with computers in the home, but credit should go to the first person to stand up and actually make it happen.

Also, Henry Ford didn't invent the Assembly line. He was the first person to use it to produce cars though, and he improved upon the idea. Not "Revolutionary", but the first man to do it, and thus change people's lives from that point on.

Edison wasn't the first one to create a light bulb, he was the first to make it feasible to produce and use in ones home. And Abe Lincon didn't free the slaves. History shows that it's an awesome thing to remember him by, but his motivation was as much or more about other political aspects and issues as it was slavery.

The same can be said of Jobs. Did he dream up everything that we associate with him? No. Did he do it alone? Of course not. But did he dream big and spend his life trying to make his dream come true? Yes. And his dream coming true, regardless of how many people it took to make it happen, has changed the way we live and interact with the world.

----------

But wasn't a designer, or an engineer, or even a programmer, he was a user. And a good marketer.

He was a dreamer. Those are the people we celebrate, people who dream bigger and encourage other people to make it happen. Few of the people on that list actually used their own hands, and only their hands, to enact the things they are associated with. But its arguably true that without those dreamers, things would have turned out very different.

smoledman
Jul 26, 2012, 04:26 PM
But dreamers like Jobs need hard-core engineers like Woz.

kenbrickley
Jul 26, 2012, 04:34 PM
But dreamers like Jobs need hard-core engineers like Woz.

The opposite is also true though ... there is a reason that the inventor of Jello died poor where the marketer that bought his invention died a millionaire ;) ... sometimes the engineers are too practical for their own good ... they need a dreamer to inspire them to true greatness or find the greatness in their invention :)

rendevouspoo
Jul 26, 2012, 04:36 PM
Jobs is the most brilliant designer of all time.

wat?

Earendil
Jul 26, 2012, 04:38 PM
But dreamers like Jobs need hard-core engineers like Woz.

Quite right. But realized dreams create change and influence, not solid work. There a thousands of amazing engineers out there without dreams. You need a dreamer to come along and push a great worker to produce something amazing. Woz has admitted as much, no matter the finally state of their relationship. Woz has said that Steve pushed him to do things that he at the time thought and told Jobs were impossible. Jobs believed in the dream enough to tell Woz it needed to happen anyway, and to try. It worked.

Also, this is a ranking of influential people, right? Not "great people"?
I don't understand the Gates v. Jobs debate here. Giving money, even to a good cause, does not equal influence. I think few people, as powerful and good as Gates is, would consider him a dreamer or idea man.

rendevouspoo
Jul 26, 2012, 04:38 PM
What does charity have to do with whether you were a good businessman or not? Where is it required that someone who rightfully earns a fortune has to give it away? To me that's just feel-good PC crap.

You don't have to give it all away. If you don't, however, and the other guy does, you will be less respected. Gates has given 28 billion to charity and is still filthy rich. He's just a good dude. Job, on the other hand, was a bully to the industry and an *******. Does that make him a bad business man? Absolutely not. In fact, he was probably a better one because of it.

All that said, Jobs is on the list because he is a popular name right now and dead. Time is out to make money, and the people of MR and the Apple fans will buy this addition.

ABoyAndHisMac
Jul 26, 2012, 04:42 PM
Dennis Ritchie? The fact that you KNEW you needed to explain who he was says it all.

kdarling
Jul 26, 2012, 04:45 PM
Jobs was one of the first people to say that computers should be a consumer product, that kids and parents should use, not just big business. That was the goal of Aple in the early years, to produce machines that were not only useful in the house, but were affordable in the house. THAT is visionary, AND he pushed to make it happen, and it did.

Affordable? Jobs' goal was to make money, and that's why Apple products were so much more expensive from the very beginning.

Only the more affluent households in the late 70s and early 80s could afford an Apple II or Mac, with their thousand to several thousand dollar prices.

Surely we would have ended up with computers in the home, but credit should go to the first person to stand up and actually make it happen.

Jobs and Apple did not do that. Not even close.

Tandy, Commodore and Atari did, at least in the USA... the UK had their own inexpensive devices as well... with home computers that mass consumers could actually afford:

350044

IJ Reilly
Jul 26, 2012, 04:50 PM
Whatever the case he put his money where his mouth is so even though I understand your argument I don't understand why your going to such great length to sort of discredit what has been done. Ppl on this forum ( and I'm not referring to you ) praise SJ with reckless abandon for what he has done with Apple and I don't have a problem with that. To each his own. But what has he actually done to help anyone besides himself and Apple? I bought into Apple 10 years ago when I got my clamshell and was sold even though I still owned a PC bcuz it was still a less expensive option. I've had the clamshell, PowerBook,2 ibooks and the MBP since then and truly love them and OSX even though love is probably too strong a word. Anyway I think both are influential in their own right but if I had to choose I would go with Gates. I'm not trying to discount your opinion I'm just genuinely interested in why you feel that way. For the record I read the forums slot and you are one of the more recognizable and informed posters IMO even though I don't always agree so I'm not challenging your wealth of knowledge on such matters. Thx

Just so it's clear, I'm not discrediting anyone. The purpose of my remarks is to answer the argument that Bill Gates should be on this list due to his humanitarian efforts. Pretty quickly this morphs into the argument that he was the man responsible for the worldwide polio eradication project. This seems to be what most people believe, because his is the only name anyone is likely to hear in connection with it. The millions of people who been having pulling smaller but significant (to them) sums from their own pockets for decades before, you don't hear about. And they, not Bill Gates, are also the people who put their boots on the ground in polio hotspots like India and Nigeria. I know quite a few of these people personally, and to me they are far more "influential" than Bill Gates.

Earendil
Jul 26, 2012, 04:50 PM
You don't have to give it all away. If you don't, however, and the other guy does, you will be less respected. Gates has given 28 billion to charity and is still filthy rich. He's just a good dude. Job, on the other hand, was a bully to the industry and an *******. Does that make him a bad business man? Absolutely not. In fact, he was probably a better one because of it.


...which would also make him and what he produces influential. But this Time Magazine isn't about being Influential, it's about being a good person, right? Oh...


All that said, Jobs is on the list because he is a popular name right now and dead. Time is out to make money, and the people of MR and the Apple fans will buy this addition.

Or because the man has influenced a lot of things.

rendevouspoo
Jul 26, 2012, 04:57 PM
Or because the man has influenced a lot of things.

What are 'all the things'? I'll give him the iPod.

Earendil
Jul 26, 2012, 05:07 PM
What are 'all the things'? I'll give him the iPod.

While the iPod certainly has helped transform the entire music industry, I wouldn't count that. How about the idea that powerful $20,000 computers used for corporate calculations had a practical use in the home, and that one should be built cheaply enough that little Jimmy could use one in his home? Yeah, Apple made that happen, and it was a relatively novel idea.

Ken Olsen in 1977, founder of DEC:
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home"

That same year Apple released the Apple II.

mankar4
Jul 26, 2012, 05:08 PM
If steve were to deserve being on this list, it would be for his early pioneering of GUI, not for his more recent work. While is more recent work (iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc) is incredible and game changing, its not top 20 americans ever stuff.

MacDav
Jul 26, 2012, 05:09 PM
[QUOTE=rendevouspoo;15334069]I agree, but if he is on the list..how is Gates

Bill Gates is still alive.

Earendil
Jul 26, 2012, 05:22 PM
If steve were to deserve being on this list, it would be for his early pioneering of GUI, not for his more recent work. While is more recent work (iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc) is incredible and game changing, its not top 20 americans ever stuff.

I'm not so sure that's true. The people on that list were "Game Changers". What they did in and of themselves isn't all that amazing, but the incredible ripples it had through industry and consumer life is huge. Henry FOrd didn't invent the automobile, or the Assembly line. But he believed that he could make vehicles cheaper and get them into the average persons hands, and he did. The turning point in vehicles was thus what Ford did.

You can not study personal computers without seeing the impact of Apple in the early years. Additionally, I doubt you could write a paper in 50 years on the history of the Music industry, the cell phone industry, or the computer industry, without mentioning what Apple did.

If I look at the way I navigate my life today vs 15 years ago, it's vastly different. And it's different in large part because of what Apple has done. I'll leave you with a few good Steve Jobs quotes, and importantly, their year.

"You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new." Jobs 1989

"The most compelling reason for most people to buy a computer for the home will be to link it to a nationwide communications network. We're just in the beginning stages of what will be a truly remarkable breakthrough for most people -- as remarkable as the telephone" Jobs 1985

"We're gambling on our vision, and we would rather do that than make "me too" products. Let some other companies do that. For us, it's always the next dream." Jobs 1984

Flood123
Jul 26, 2012, 05:28 PM
Also, Henry Ford didn't invent the Assembly line. He was the first person to use it to produce cars though, and he improved upon the idea. Not "Revolutionary", but the first man to do it, and thus change people's lives from that point on.


I stand corrected.

TallGuy1970
Jul 26, 2012, 05:32 PM
Hold on, Time, I'm gonna let you finish, but Beyoncé is one of the most influential Americans of all time... OF ALL TIME!

Ha! A pop singer? Most influential? Ha! :rolleyes:

rendevouspoo
Jul 26, 2012, 05:36 PM
While the iPod certainly has helped transform the entire music industry, I wouldn't count that. How about the idea that powerful $20,000 computers used for corporate calculations had a practical use in the home, and that one should be built cheaply enough that little Jimmy could use one in his home? Yeah, Apple made that happen, and it was a relatively novel idea.

Ken Olsen in 1977, founder of DEC:
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home"

That same year Apple released the Apple II.

Post #151 on this page pretty much debunks your theory.

Kr00
Jul 26, 2012, 05:44 PM
Why do you want Gates dead? He did brilliant work at Microsoft and is now trying to make the world a better place. :confused:

I think he might be mistaking Gates for Ballmer. Nobody would give a crap if that douche waddled off this planet.

Earendil
Jul 26, 2012, 05:52 PM
Affordable? Jobs' goal was to make money, and that's why Apple products were so much more expensive from the very beginning.

Only the more affluent households in the late 70s and early 80s could afford an Apple II or Mac, with their thousand to several thousand dollar prices.


Citation needed for what you're smoking?
Based on limited knowledge of events, 1977 was the turning point for personal computers in the home. They went from having "kit" included in the name, to being fully functional machines that didn't require an engineer to maintain or make use of. The 3 biggest computers in the revolution were the Apple II, The Commodore PET, and the Tandy TRS-80.

Do you know when Apple was founded? 1976. Steve Jobs was all of 22 years old in 1977, and Apple was competing against companies MUCH larger than them. Can you honestly sit there and tell me that these hippy kids with a passion for computers and ideas were out there to make a cheap quick buck of of rich people? HONESTLY?! Because if you know that little about the computer revolution, than this discussion is basically over :cool:


Jobs and Apple did not do that. Not even close.

Tandy, Commodore and Atari did, at least in the USA... the UK had their own inexpensive devices as well... with home computers that mass consumers could actually afford:


Your graph does not show who the computers were sold to, or what kind of computers they were. And again with the Apple started with a couple kids in 1976, not as established electronic companies. What they pulled off then, and continued to pull off for the next decade was nothing short of amazing. The fact that we are here even discussing something that took place 35 years ago is amazing.

----------

Post #151 on this page pretty much debunks your theory.

No it doesn't. It shows a graph that starts about the time Apple was founded as a company, and doesn't show who the sales were too. And the difference is, while other large companies might have tried to jump in there, they are now all dead, or exited the business in the next 10 years. Quote me someone at Trendy that had half the passion for consumers that Apple did in the early years. No doubt others were there, but Apple pulled it off and had a HUGE amount of influence. And it's influence that we're talking about here, right?

Doctor Q
Jul 26, 2012, 06:02 PM
TIME needs another proofreader.

A masterly politician, Lincoln held the Union cause together through a long and bloody conflict. ... He was slain just after the Confederacy urrendered, but his mighty task was done.

kenbrickley
Jul 26, 2012, 06:03 PM
As an aside, Henry Ford was also somewhat disdainful of the concept of giving the customer what they wanted judging by his famous quote, "If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse" ... consumers didn't know they wanted a computer until they became cheap enough to put one in your house (and Steve Jobs helped there) ...

although I used a TRS 80 at a friend's house before we got our Apple II+ there was a world of difference between the Apple and the IBM PC (the only comparable product available at the time) both in terms of price and performance ... the color screen was a very cool feature at the time and we had the additional benefit of a 10 MB hard drive (also a cool and uncommon feature at the time in the home environment)

It is a valid debate as to whether Jobs is the in the top 20 "influential" of all time because history does tend to change ones position. But I would definitely agree that he was very influential at the start of true "home" computing ... don't discount all the Apple Computers that they gave to schools in those days either ... there is a reason that alot of kids in the late 70's and early 80' had only seen Apples (or the cheaper alternatives their parents bought) ... the PC dominance only came later when Intel and MS got their act together and started pushing the Wintel platform forward to become the dominant PC platform

Another measure of influence is that when I worked for Intel in the 90's they didn't care about AMD then but they tracked Apple, even with their 5% of the market ... one could argue you have a fair amount of influence if the person who owns 90% of the market (which Intel was close to back then) is monitoring you (the holder of only 5%) :)

AidenShaw
Jul 26, 2012, 07:26 PM
Interesting - Sitting Bull and Cassius Clay are ranked up there with Jobs.

But in 50 years, Sitting Bull and Cassius Clay will still be on the list, and it will be "Jobs who?" - and probably Ellen Degeneres will be on the list instead.

AFDoc
Jul 26, 2012, 07:47 PM
Unbelievable. Clearly a bone thrown to today's kids.

Jobs belongs in an influential list for sure, but not within the top 20 of all time.

Might as well also put Ron Popeil in the top 20 list (at least he actually invented some of the stuff he sold).

Agreed. I can name 10 from the medical field right now and I can roll off 10 other non medical field people. I wouldn't put SJ in the top 50 of all time. He did some cool stuff but didn't cure polio, fly, make the car, go to space, ect ect.

kdarling
Jul 26, 2012, 07:52 PM
Based on limited knowledge of events, 1977 was the turning point for personal computers in the home.

My own knowledge isn't limited. I homebrewed (as in, designed and wired each chip by hand) my own personal computer in 1979. I had complete sets of Byte, Kilobaud and Dr Dobbs. (People who were there, know what those are.)

They went from having "kit" included in the name, to being fully functional machines that didn't require an engineer to maintain or make use of. The 3 biggest computers in the revolution were the Apple II, The Commodore PET, and the Tandy TRS-80.

The PET didn't sell so well. The Apple II even less for a long time, and it was never a majority seller.

The Apple II with 4K cost $1300 and didn't include a monitor.
The TRS-80 cost $600 with monitor.
Later home computers from Atari and Commodore dropped even lower.
Guess which ones kickstarted the mass consumer home computer revolution?

1977:

Apple sold 600 Apple IIs.
Tandy sold 100,000 TRS-80s.

1978:

Apple sold 7,600 Apple IIs.
Tandy sold 150,000 TRS-80s.

1979:

Apple sold 35,000 Apple IIs.
Tandy sold 200,000 TRS-80s.
Atari sold 100,000 of their 400/800 models.

1980:

Apple sold 78,000 Apple IIs
Tandy sold 225,000 TRS-80s.
Atari sold 200,000 of theirs.

By 1981, the IBM PCs were arriving, and they sold in overwhelming numbers. (Out of all the original home computers, the Commodore 64 sold best, hitting 17 million units.)

By the end of 1985, Steve Jobs was kicked out of Apple, and had no direct home computer influence for a decade.

Your graph does not show who the computers were sold to, or what kind of computers they were.

Not sure what you're thinking, but anyone who was in the hobby at the time knows that they were all personal computers.

And again with the Apple started with a couple kids in 1976, not as established electronic companies.

A lot of people did that, including me and my friends. Computer startups were a dime a dozen. I grant you that Jobs outlasted us :)

The fact that we are here even discussing something that took place 35 years ago is amazing.

The fact that people have such a warped view of computer history is amazing, and a big reason why oldtimers like me who lived through it stick around.

Before newcomers who haven't read the thread jump in, btw, I'm not saying Jobs didn't have a large overall influence. This is only about the myth that he and Apple single-handedly started the home computer revolution.

AidenShaw
Jul 26, 2012, 08:12 PM
Agreed. I can name 10 from the medical field right now and I can roll off 10 other non medical field people. I wouldn't put SJ in the top 50 of all time. He did some cool stuff but didn't cure polio, fly, make the car, go to space, ect ect.

If Jobs hadn't been an egotistical billionaire, he would have died in 2009 when his spreading cancer collapsed his liver and other systems.

But, he "gamed" the system and bought a new liver in Tennessee, and lived for a couple of more years. (Read how_did_steve_jobs_get_his_liver ( http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/01/how_did_steve_jobs_get_his_liver.html))

I wonder what family lost a husband or wife because Steve Jobs bought a liver that would have saved them.

IMHO, Jobs should be banned from any "greatest" list because of that shameless use of money over common sense.

And seriously, why would making shiny toys put anyone on the "greatest" list? Why not include the 1950's auto designers who decided that "tail fins" were the greatest?

sha4000
Jul 26, 2012, 08:55 PM
Just so it's clear, I'm not discrediting anyone. The purpose of my remarks is to answer the argument that Bill Gates should be on this list due to his humanitarian efforts. Pretty quickly this morphs into the argument that he was the man responsible for the worldwide polio eradication project. This seems to be what most people believe, because his is the only name anyone is likely to hear in connection with it. The millions of people who been having pulling smaller but significant (to them) sums from their own pockets for decades before, you don't hear about. And they, not Bill Gates, are also the people who put their boots on the ground in polio hotspots like India and Nigeria. I know quite a few of these people personally, and to me they are far more "influential" than Bill Gates.

ok I can better understand where you're coming from seeing as though you know some of the Ppl that laid the ground work and definitely did the dirty work. These Ppl should get their names mentioned every time the subject is brought up. Thx for the insight.

fitshaced
Jul 26, 2012, 08:57 PM
I'm confused by the title of this list. Influential seems to mean positively influential to Time magazine. If that's why they wanted, they should have called it that. Plenty of Americans have been far more influential than Steve Jobs. Albeit for the wrong reasons. I'll leave off names that come to mind.

AidenShaw
Jul 26, 2012, 09:09 PM
ok I can better understand where your coming from seeing as though your know some of the Ppl that laid the ground work and definitely did the dirty work. These Ppl should get their names mentioned every time the subject is brought up. Thx for the insight.

Would you mind restating this in English? It's hard to understand what you're (yes, "you are" is abbreviated to "you're") saying with all the mistakes.

sha4000
Jul 26, 2012, 09:25 PM
Would you mind restating this in English? It's hard to understand what you're (yes, "you are" is abbreviated to "you're") saying with all the mistakes.

Are you really trying to chastise me about my grammar? Obviously it's supposed to say "you're" and "you" and I wouldn't consider that unreadable. For Christ sake I posted from my phone and didn't pay attention to what Swype inserted. Fixed it for you.

AidenShaw
Jul 26, 2012, 09:33 PM
Are you really trying to chastise me about my grammar? Obviously it's supposed to say "you're" and "you" and I wouldn't consider that unreadable. For Christ sake I posted from my phone and didn't pay attention to what Swype inserted. Fixed it for you.

It's "Christ's sake" if you're religious.

And who is "Swype"?

If you can't pay attention to what you post, why should we?

oBMTo
Jul 26, 2012, 10:00 PM
Jobs in before Gates is a joke. No argument about it.

sha4000
Jul 26, 2012, 10:05 PM
It's "Christ's sake" if you're religious.

And who is "Swype"?

If you can't pay attention to what you post, why should we?

Would you knock it off already. First of all I was not responding to you in my original post so why should YOU even care. I guess you never heard of the Swype keyboard. I'm pretty sure you're the only person that was bothered by the misspelled words so what do you mean by "we" . A mistake was made so now plz move on. I'm not one of the kids that you are used to responding to so get back on topic or move on to something more to your liking.

QwertyJuan
Jul 26, 2012, 10:30 PM
So Gates donates like 30B dollars to aid underprivileged people, and has vowed to donate ALL of his money to charity before he dies(could very possibly be in excess of 150B before it's all said and done, as he currently STILL has about 60B to his name and he's still fairly young) and yet he doesn't make the list?? But some hippy that did NOTHING to better humanity does?

Who cares that both of these men built multi-billion dollar companies?? What matters most is humanitarian practices, which Bill Gates will FAR surpass what any one individual has EVER done in their entire lives.

QwertyJuan
Jul 26, 2012, 10:46 PM
I'd ALSO like to know how Alexander Bell made the list of most influential "Americans" when he was born(AND raised) in Scotland and spent as much time in Canada than he did in New England??

G51989
Jul 26, 2012, 11:21 PM
He is worthy of 20 most influential Americans of all time.It is so sad that he passed away.I admire him so much.

How is Steve Jobs worthy, and Bill Gates isn't? Bill Gates did/does alot more good for this world than Steve did.

----------

So Gates donates like 30B dollars to aid underprivileged people, and has vowed to donate ALL of his money to charity before he dies(could very possibly be in excess of 150B before it's all said and done, as he currently STILL has about 60B to his name and he's still fairly young) and yet he doesn't make the list?? But some hippy that did NOTHING to better humanity does?

Who cares that both of these men built multi-billion dollar companies?? What matters most is humanitarian practices, which Bill Gates will FAR surpass what any one individual has EVER done in their entire lives.

This.

I don't understand why people say " oh he just gives people money, he isn't really helping "

Bill Gates sees a charity, or people in need, or medical research with a lack of funds, or just people in need in general, or a cause that needs help.

So, there's monetary gain for Bill? Nope. He digs into his pockets, and hands out billions to those who need. it.

Who else gives away that kind of wealth? Steve Jobs sure didnt. In fact, Steve Jobs was an Elitist, he HATED the poor.

Why is there so much Bill Gates love? Even on a mac fourm?

Easy, its super easy to love a guy who's only care in the world at this point is helping people in need. By the time he's dead, he will have probably given away 100B billion ( yes, its totally possible, hes only in his 50s, still one of the richest men in the world, still rakes in cash, and super rich after giving away almost 30 billion dollars to the needy? ).

Its hard to hate Bill Gates after all the good he's done so far.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444840104577549391070706650.html

Oh hey! He's pledged 3.9 billion dollars in the past year alone to AIDS research.

Who did Steve ever help?

Bill Gates:

http://dougsaunders.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/BillMelindaGates.jpg

http://iflair.biz/afriqinter/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/foundation.jpg

Gives billions to the poor, and yeah he isn't out in the trench's all the time, but I've followed the fondation over the years, and trust me. When he can, he gets invovled, gets his hands dirty, and pitch's in. In Addition to the billions given away every year.

What kind of guy gives away more money in a year to charity than some countries are worth? No matter how rich you are, I really do think it takes a HUGE heart, and a good mindset to do what he's doing.


Sorry, Bill Gates Deserves a spot on that chart, not Steve jobs. Not to mention bill gates built the most ground shaking OS of all time, its the OS that the majority of the computers in the world run on, Windows. I would say thats more of an accomplishment than making a tablet with 1 button.

MacSince1990
Jul 27, 2012, 02:10 AM
not much of a surprise to be honest. Well done steve!

He can't hear you, he's dead. And wouldn't have given a **** about you or your opinion even if he were alive and could hear it.

----------

He is worthy of 20 most influential Americans of all time.It is so sad that he passed away.I admire him so much.

Why?

----------

So Gates donates like 30B dollars to aid underprivileged people, and has vowed to donate ALL of his money to charity before he dies(could very possibly be in excess of 150B before it's all said and done, as he currently STILL has about 60B to his name and he's still fairly young) and yet he doesn't make the list?? But some hippy that did NOTHING to better humanity does?

Who cares that both of these men built multi-billion dollar companies?? What matters most is humanitarian practices, which Bill Gates will FAR surpass what any one individual has EVER done in their entire lives.

Couldn't agree more.

AJClayton
Jul 27, 2012, 03:11 AM
If you reread the article you'll see it talks about two lists—the '20 most influential Americans of all time', and the '100 most influential people of all time'.

You're absolutely right. Got a feeling the wording might've been changed as I'm sure that's not how it read when I posted my comment.

Then again, it was late... ;)

kalsta
Jul 27, 2012, 05:12 AM
You're absolutely right. Got a feeling the wording might've been changed as I'm sure that's not how it read when I posted my comment.

Then again, it was late... ;)

Nah, I read it before you posted your comment and it always said that. I remember because when I first looked at the picture (before reading the article in full) I thought the exact same thing as you. Yes, our minds can play tricks on us when the hour is late. :)

Bezetos
Jul 27, 2012, 05:32 AM
Oh hey! He's pledged 3.9 billion dollars in the past year alone to AIDS research.

Who did Steve ever help?

What's more, when Steve Jobs returned to Apple, he stopped all donations to charities because he said "Apple's products will bring more good to humanity".

This is the essence of what I hate about Apple and Steve Jobs.

kalsta
Jul 27, 2012, 05:33 AM
How is Steve Jobs worthy, and Bill Gates isn't? Bill Gates did/does alot more good for this world than Steve did.

----------

This.

I don't understand why people say " oh he just gives people money, he isn't really helping "

Bill Gates sees a charity, or people in need, or medical research with a lack of funds, or just people in need in general, or a cause that needs help.



Who did Steve ever help?

Bill Gates:

Image (http://dougsaunders.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/BillMelindaGates.jpg)

Image (http://iflair.biz/afriqinter/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/foundation.jpg)

Gives billions to the poor, and yeah he isn't out in the trench's all the time, but I've followed the fondation over the years, and trust me. When he can, he gets invovled, gets his hands dirty, and pitch's in. In Addition to the billions given away every year.

What kind of guy gives away more money in a year to charity than some countries are worth? No matter how rich you are, I really do think it takes a HUGE heart, and a good mindset to do what he's doing.

Why has this become a debate about who's the better person? This isn't the '20 Most Saintly Americans of All Time' list. It's wonderful what Bill has chosen to do with his wealth. He is an outstanding example to others, and it's right to recognise him for it. And hey, given the amount of people whose lives have been improved through his charity, maybe he should be on the list. But it's obvious why Steve was chosen—because of his contribution to the computer industry primarily, but now also his influence on mobile phones, consumer devices, media consumption, etc.

Sorry, Bill Gates Deserves a spot on that chart, not Steve jobs. Not to mention bill gates built the most ground shaking OS of all time, its the OS that the majority of the computers in the world run on, Windows. I would say thats more of an accomplishment than making a tablet with 1 button.

Calling Windows 'the most ground shaking OS of all time' is just fanciful nonsense. Sorry, but it is. Were you around when Windows first came out? It was an absolute joke, and it took many years for it to slowly catch up to the Mac. Catch up it eventually did, but how is that 'ground shaking'? Its market dominance had nothing to do with how good the product was, and it brought nothing new to the table. Bill is a very, very successful business man, but like Steve has been quoted as saying, he isn't a very creative individual.

foodog
Jul 27, 2012, 06:34 AM
:eek: You call that research?

I don't disagree that they have had mixed results and took questionable steps to get there, but there have been dozens of organizations over the decades that have followed philanthropy "by the book" also with mixed results. Furthermore, several of the Foundation's programs have made significant positive impact. Millennium scholarships and strides toward a Malaria vaccine.

I didn't call that research. If you read what I said here is ONE short article. There are lots of others hence, the do research part. It isn't about mixed results it is about being self serving.

----------




Calling Windows 'the most ground shaking OS of all time' is just fanciful nonsense. Sorry, but it is. Were you around when Windows first came out? It was an absolute joke, and it took many years for it to slowly catch up to the Mac. Catch up it eventually did, but how is that 'ground shaking'? Its market dominance had nothing to do with how good the product was, and it brought nothing new to the table. Bill is a very, very successful business man, but like Steve has been quoted as saying, he isn't a very creative individual.

I was and it was little more than Dosshell.

johnybarkerr
Jul 27, 2012, 07:40 AM
They may add him soon enough. The guy not only created one of the most successful companies in history, but he is also leading the charge in tackling global problems through his foundation.

kalsta
Jul 27, 2012, 08:25 AM
IMHO, Jobs should be banned from any "greatest" list because of that shameless use of money over common sense.

And seriously, why would making shiny toys put anyone on the "greatest" list? Why not include the 1950's auto designers who decided that "tail fins" were the greatest?

It's not a who's "the greatest" list. And to those arguing for saint-status of Bill Gates, it's not a who's "the best bloke" list either… It's a who's the most influential list. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but to try and dismiss the impact of Apple's products by comparing them to tail fins on cars is just silly. The Mac introduced consumers to a GUI and mouse. The impact of those things alone is phenomenal. (Of course Jobs didn't invent these things—that's not the point. No one person did. He simply recognised the potential, and forced his team of engineers to make it happen.) The Mac flipped a whole industry on its head (along with software companies like Aldus and Adobe) with the desktop publishing revolution—introducing us to WYSIWYG type (another thing we all take for granted now) and the Apple LaserWriter printer.

If we skip ahead many years to these 'shiny toys' as you call them… It's interesting to note yet again that Apple did not invent the music player, or the smart phone, or the tablet computer, and yet somehow it managed to succeed where others failed. Calling them shiny toys and glossing over all the professional uses for a moment—even as toys, you can't deny their impact. My own kids (ages 5 to 14) have used the iPad to compose and produce their own music. It's incredible what they're able to do on it, and without any tuition from adults—they just pick it up and off they go. Multiply that by who knows how many other kids around the world. I probably sound like I'm just regurgitating Apple's own marketing here, but if you take a look you'll see it's true. These devices are influencing a whole generation of kids, providing a platform for thousands of developers, and influencing every other manufacturer of similar devices. And I haven't even discussed the iTunes store yet and the influence that has had on the music industry.

Debate the merits of all these things by all means… and debate the role of other people besides Steve in developing these products… but comparing them to 'tail fins'? Seriously?

GermanyChris
Jul 27, 2012, 08:52 AM
It's not a who's "the greatest" list. And to those arguing for saint-status of Bill Gates, it's not a who's "the best bloke" list either… It's a who's the most influential list. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but to try and dismiss the impact of Apple's products by comparing them to tail fins on cars is just silly. The Mac introduced consumers to a GUI and mouse. The impact of those things alone is phenomenal. (Of course Jobs didn't invent these things—that's not the point. No one person did. He simply recognised the potential, and forced his team of engineers to make it happen.) The Mac flipped a whole industry on its head (along with software companies like Aldus and Adobe) with the desktop publishing revolution—introducing us to WYSIWYG type (another thing we all take for granted now) and the Apple LaserWriter printer.

If we skip ahead many years to these 'shiny toys' as you call them… It's interesting to note yet again that Apple did not invent the music player, or the smart phone, or the tablet computer, and yet somehow it managed to succeed where others failed. Calling them shiny toys and glossing over all the professional uses for a moment—even as toys, you can't deny their impact. My own kids (ages 5 to 14) have used the iPad to compose and produce their own music. It's incredible what they're able to do on it, and without any tuition from adults—they just pick it up and off they go. Multiply that by who knows how many other kids around the world. I probably sound like I'm just regurgitating Apple's own marketing here, but if you take a look you'll see it's true. These devices are influencing a whole generation of kids, providing a platform for thousands of developers, and influencing every other manufacturer of similar devices. And I haven't even discussed the iTunes store yet and the influence that has had on the music industry.

Debate the merits of all these things by all means… and debate the role of other people besides Steve in developing these products… but comparing them to 'tail fins'? Seriously?

Not the first to market with the GUI so not an introduction..

Not the first with WYSIWYG no introduction there..

The laserwriter was not the first to market so not really the first at desktop publishing.

Mr. Job's was d**k head who understood markets but more importantly he understood computers as user would because he was no more then that.

He just is not one of the 20 most influential Americans of all time period..

Goratrix
Jul 27, 2012, 08:58 AM
How about the idea that powerful $20,000 computers used for corporate calculations had a practical use in the home, and that one should be built cheaply enough that little Jimmy could use one in his home? Yeah, Apple made that happen, and it was a relatively novel idea.

No, Jack Tramiel (of Commodore) and Sir Clive Sinclair made that happen.

Renzatic
Jul 27, 2012, 09:14 AM
As much as I hate to say it, Kalsta's right.We can argue the merits and goodness of Steve Jobs all we want, what he did, what he didn't do, what he's contributed to society. It doesn't matter. What does is his current reputation, which is huge and well regarded. He's the golden calf darling of the tech industry. Regardless of his contributions to the humanities (or lack thereof), he was a helluva CEO, and most everyone in the industry looks up to him and the mini juggernaut of a company he built.

I don't think history is going to judge ole Steve too kindly, but right now, he's the post mortem man of the hour.

kalsta
Jul 27, 2012, 09:58 AM
Not the first to market with the GUI so not an introduction..

The Apple Lisa was before the Mac of course, but it was too expensive and flopped. If you're referring to the Xerox Star, it was very expensive and a commercial flop too. It's the Macintosh that got the word out there, and Jobs more than anyone else was the man behind the Mac. Jobs wanted to price it cheaply (which might surprise some people here), and although Sculley pushed the price up, it was still far more affordable than the others. Wikipedia calls the Mac 'the first commercially successful personal computer to feature a mouse and a graphical user interface'.

Not the first with WYSIWYG no introduction there..

The laserwriter was not the first to market so not really the first at desktop publishing.

Okay, please educate me then, what other system before the Mac was being used for desktop publishing—with WYSIWYG type and art from screen to print? I've never claimed Jobs and Apple invented each component of the system. What they did was bring it all together in a way no one else was able to do. The Mac was foundational to the desktop publishing revolution. But feel free to try and prove that statement false.

Renzatic
Jul 27, 2012, 10:07 AM
Okay, please educate me then, what other system before the Mac was being used for desktop publishing—with WYSIWYG type and art from screen to print? I've never claimed Jobs and Apple invented each component of the system. What they did was bring it all together in a way no one else was able to do. The Mac was foundational to the desktop publishing revolution. But feel free to try and prove that statement false.

These are things the Xerox Star was built to handle, and came out a few good years before the Mac and the Lisa.

Though, like you said, it was a commercial flop, it was the first GUI system with a WYSIWYG setup.

sash
Jul 27, 2012, 10:22 AM
Well earned, not that many folks managed to influence our life on such a profound scale.

kalsta
Jul 27, 2012, 10:24 AM
These are things the Xerox Star was built to handle, and came out a few good years before the Mac and the Lisa.

Though, like you said, it was a commercial flop, it was the first GUI system with a WYSIWYG setup.

If the Mac was the only product Jobs ever had a hand in, then okay… we might attribute more influence to people at Xerox, etc. But when you start to look at how many areas of influence the man had over his career… that's when I find many of the views expressed here perplexing.

Do I respect Steve Jobs as a person? In a lot of ways, no—it seems to me he generally placed progress before people, and that's not something I personally aspire to. But I can't deny that he achieved a hell of a lot in his short time here—more in one career than most of us would achieve if we had 20 lifetimes to do it—and although we can only really speculate about this, I'd bet you my MacBook Pro that the world would be quite a different place now had Steve Jobs never existed. That's how I'm defining the word 'influence' anyway.

Renzatic
Jul 27, 2012, 10:50 AM
If the Mac was the only product Jobs ever had a hand in, then okay… we might attribute more influence to people at Xerox, etc. But when you start to look at how many areas of influence the man had over his career… that's when I find many of the views expressed here perplexing.

You could say that Xerox was the influence behind the influence. With them, we wouldn't have Macs or Windows machines as we know them now. Credit where credit is due.

Do I respect Steve Jobs as a person? In a lot of ways, no—it seems to me he generally placed progress before people, and that's not something I personally aspire to. But I can't deny that he achieved a hell of a lot in his short time here—more in one career than most of us would achieve if we had 20 lifetimes to do it—and although we can only really speculate about this, I'd bet you my MacBook Pro that the world would be quite a different place now had Steve Jobs never existed. That's how I'm defining the word 'influence' anyway.

As you can see from my quote above, I pretty much agree with you. I thought Steve was an absolute bastard, but I can't deny that he and Apple are responsible for bringing a ton of interesting technologies to the public at large. The Mac wasn't the first GUI based system, the iPhone wasn't the first touchscreen based phone, and the iPad wasn't the first tablet. But they were the easiest to use and best selling amongst their tech contemporaries (well, the iDevices were anyway, the Mac was more of an early start contender).

Like him or not, he has been an influential force in the industry.

nick_elt
Jul 27, 2012, 11:07 AM
Oui.

In The states are Canadians considered American? Or just ppl from usa? Serious question

Renzatic
Jul 27, 2012, 11:16 AM
In The states are Canadians considered American? Or just ppl from usa? Serious question

Okay, kinda confused by what you mean, but...

In the US, Canadians are Canadians, which are exactly like people from the US, but they have to have a passport, and aboot moose maple syrup.

Earendil
Jul 27, 2012, 11:22 AM
In The states are Canadians considered American? Or just ppl from usa? Serious question

When people in the US say "Americans", they are very rarely talking about the Americas (north/central/south continent). In part I'm sure because of ignorance, and in part because the context usually doesn't apply to rather culturally different people to the south. For example, as an American if I say "people in America are a bunch of geographical dunces" I'm not actually talking about Brazil.

I have spent time in a few Central American countries, namely Gautemala and Costa Rica, and in both countries they will refer to "The Americas" to mean the continent. But to them the name of our country is "Estados Unidos" (United States).

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say there are two factors besides ignorance that lead to us calling ourselves Americans (of a country, not a continent). First, we are the "United States of America". My state is WA (*high five BC*), so I am in one of those united states, but what is the name of the country? Well it wouldn't be a stretch for someone to assume that the country is then America. We are the United States of the country America. Wrong, but not an altogether hard thing to come up with grammatically. Second, I don't think we have a clean way of saying our nationality. People from Canada are Canadians. People from Mexicans. People from the United States of America are...? United Statians? US-ians? At to those two things the ignorance and laziness of "Americans" and you get what probably comes across as arrogance self centeredness, when it really isn't. We do have that too though :)

[/end giantasstangent]

kalsta
Jul 27, 2012, 11:30 AM
You could say that Xerox was the influence behind the influence. With them, we wouldn't have Macs or Windows machines as we know them now. Credit where credit is due.

Indeed!

Renzatic
Jul 27, 2012, 11:33 AM
Ignorance? Laziness? Nah. It's simple convenience. If you live in North America, you refer to the individual countries, America (called such because United States and United Statesian doesn't exactly roll off the tongue quite as easily), Mexico, or Canada. If you're referring to Mesoamerica or South America, you call them, appropriately enough, Meso or Middle America, or South America unless stating the specific name of a country there.

And why we call ourselves Americans is for the same reason I stated above. United Statesian is awkward as hell.

So if you're from the US or Canada, you refer to people from the US as Americans. If you're from Mexico, and are a particularly smart smartass like this one friend of mine is, you refer to US Americans as gringos from gringolandia.

kalsta
Jul 27, 2012, 11:44 AM
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say there are two factors besides ignorance that lead to us calling ourselves Americans (of a country, not a continent). First, we are the "United States of America". My state is WA (*high five BC*), so I am in one of those united states, but what is the name of the country? Well it wouldn't be a stretch for someone to assume that the country is then America. We are the United States of the country America. Wrong, but not an altogether hard thing to come up with grammatically. Second, I don't think we have a clean way of saying our nationality. People from Canada are Canadians. People from Mexicans. People from the United States of America are...? United Statians? US-ians? At to those two things the ignorance and laziness of "Americans" and you get what probably comes across as arrogance self centeredness, when it really isn't. We do have that too though :)

[/end giantasstangent]

Nice response! It might have been a 'giantasstangent', but it's nice to see someone's honest question get answered respectfully and with good humour. Doesn't always happen that way on MR.

Down here on the other end of the world, we take 'Americans' to mean U-S-Asians too. :)

nick_elt
Jul 27, 2012, 11:49 AM
Yeh I didnt man to start anything, I have always thought of Americans as just ppl from the states, but I had a brain blank and started to question myself if I was meant to include the Canadians. Its all pretty simple, despite being slightly incorrect.

:)

Renzatic
Jul 27, 2012, 11:53 AM
Blame the founding fathers for giving the country such a generic name. :mad:

Earendil
Jul 27, 2012, 11:53 AM
I really don't think people here understand history or the definition of influence. I seem to seem a few reoccurring themes:

To be influential, you have to do good things, or be a good person. Not true.
To be influential, you have to do things alone, in a vacuum of ideas. Not true.
To be influential, if doesn't count if you are spreading someone elses idea. Not true.

Look at all the people on the list, and the influence they are known for is nothing they did alone or in a vacuum. Was George Washington the first to come up with the idea of Democracy? No. Did he fight the way against the British alone? No. Was fighting the British even his idea? No. Was he one of the best Military minds of the last milleniam? No.
But did he take what he knew and what he believed in, stand up, and spread those ideas? Causing change in the way people think for hundreds of years to come? Yes.

Okay, how about Lewis and Clark. Did they do it alone? No, they had a crew of like 40 people. Were they the first ones to the west coast? Of course not, disregarding the natives, the Spanish had been there long before. Could they have done it without the natives? Rather unlikely. But did they take what they knew and what they believed in, stand up, and spread those ideas? Causing change in the way people think for hundreds of years to come? Yes.

I've already spouted off about Abe Lincon and Henry Ford, so let's go to Thomas Edison. Well there is a prick if you've met one. The man could rival Jobs in arrogance and self righteousness with ease. Did he invent the Lightbulb? Nope. Did he may it commercially viable? Yep. From the Times article:
"Edison’s true genius lay in his ability to bring mass brainpower to the process of invention. The laboratory and workshop he established in Menlo Park, N.J., in 1876 — his “invention factory” — put him at the center of a critical mass of assistants with backgrounds in multiple areas of science, engineering and skilled labor. It was essentially America’s first industrial R&D facility, the forerunner of a modern-day geeks-in-a-garage skunkworks."
Does that sound like a guy that worked in a vacuum? Pulling out of thin air the ideas that influenced generations, and working them alone? Nope. But did he take what he knew and what he believed in, stand up, and spread those ideas? Causing change in the way people think for hundreds of years to come? Yes.

Did Martin Luther King come up with his ideas himself? Was he the first to say "Hey guys, I have this strikingly new idea!" ? Did he cause change all by himself? No. Was he the only one to get up infront of crowds and speak for change? No. But did he take what he knew and what he believed in, stand up, and spread those ideas? And did he succeed? Causing change in the way people think for hundreds of years to come? Yes.

Not American, but let's take another popular historical figure, Hitler. Was he a good man? Did he work alone? Were all his ideas his own? Was he the first man in history to think the way he did? The answer to all is no. But he was influential because he actually stood up and took action, and succeeded. That man sparked a lot of (negative) change, and because of it we would consider him "influential" even if he didn't influence the world the way he wanted to.

For Jobs to be on this list he doesn't need to have worked in a vacuum. He doesn't need to have worked alone, or on new ideas. He only needs to have sparked the change, and devoted his life to his passions and ideas, and succeed at them. No one works in a vacuum.

If you haven't seen it yet, I would suggest you go watch the "Everything is a remix" video series. It'll take you all of 30 minutes to watch. However if you only have 10, check out Part 3 (of 4) (http://vimeo.com/25380454). I promise you'll be entertained :)

kdarling
Jul 27, 2012, 12:07 PM
You could say that Xerox was the influence behind the influence. With them, we wouldn't have Macs or Windows machines as we know them now. Credit where credit is due.

Going deeper, I prefer to concentrate on the people themselves. Many of them would've found a way to get their ideas in use, no matter which company.

For example, Larry Tessler and 15 of his fellow Xerox workers, who jumped ship to go work on the Lisa... all because Apple was willing to make their ideas into a commercial product.

Likewise, later on, many of the top Apple engineers left with Steve Jobs to work at NeXT, because they would be allowed to put their ideas into reality.

Still later on, some Apple employees left to join Palm, to work on WebOS and implement some of the wonderful UI innovations there.

--

In 1981, BYTE magazine did an entire issue on Smalltalk and the work being done at Xerox PARC. It was just a matter of time before that would catch the attention of a personal computer company and get put into practice.

For that matter, Jef Raskin deserves credit for dragging Steve Jobs over to see the Xerox GUI in the first place. If he hadn't done that, the Lisa would've been a boring green screen machine and the Mac would've been more like the C64.

--

It's the same story as the electric light, radio, automobiles, airplanes, TV, microprocessors, home computers, GUIs and other hugely influential technologies. They were not dependent on a single inventor or company or CEO, but rather on the technology landscape itself being ripe. The timing and details would've changed, but they would still have come out.

kalsta
Jul 27, 2012, 12:16 PM
I really don't think people here understand history or the definition of influence. I seem to seem a few reoccurring themes:

To be influential, you have to do good things, or be a good person. Not true.
To be influential, you have to do things alone, in a vacuum of ideas. Not true.
To be influential, if doesn't count if you are spreading someone elses idea. Not true.



For Jobs to be on this list he doesn't need to have worked in a vacuum. He doesn't need to have worked alone, or on new ideas. He only needs to have sparked the change, and devoted his life to his passions and ideas, and succeed at them. No one works in a vacuum.

Well said and bravo. Let's hope that becomes the most influential post of the thread and we have no more pictures of Bill Gates holding babies.

----------

For that matter, Jef Raskin deserves credit for dragging Steve Jobs over to see the Xerox GUI in the first place. If he hadn't done that, the Lisa would've been a boring green screen machine and the Mac would've been more like the C64.

And let's not forget to thank the person who introduced Jef Raskin's mum to Jef Raskin's dad! If they hadn't got together and conceived little Jef, then who knows but we could all still be using C64s.

(As it happens, I did use my C64 again just last year—dusted it off to show my kids what kind of computer their old Dad used to have. I thought they'd probably yawn after 5 minutes and go back to their iPods, but as it turned out they enjoyed it, and I still get asked occasionally if they can play the 'old computer'. Not bad for an old girl sporting 64 kB of memory!)

kalsta
Jul 27, 2012, 12:34 PM
It's the same story as the electric light, radio, automobiles, airplanes, TV, microprocessors, home computers, GUIs and other hugely influential technologies. They were not dependent on a single inventor or company or CEO, but rather on the technology landscape itself being ripe. The timing and details would've changed, but they would still have come out.

I think that's more or less true… but sometimes the details are important. I can't remember where I read this or who said it, but the writer was discussing operating systems and made the point that those little annoyances (the devils in the details if you like) might not seem like much at first, but they start to compound as you encounter them again and again. One thing Apple does well (and I think this is largely Jobs' perfectionist influence) is to give very careful thought to the details. These are the things you, the user, may not notice or even think about until you pick up a competitor's device and then you go… ah… I see they didn't quite nail this scrolling action, or touch gesture, or whatever it is. So Apple develops a reputation for making things easier to use, and generally I think that's warranted. As many designers have observed, the solutions which seem the most obvious once designed, were not always so obvious.

Earendil
Jul 27, 2012, 12:53 PM
Well said and bravo. Let's hope that becomes the most influential post of the thread and we have no more pictures of Bill Gates holding babies.

Thanks :)

Of course, none of those ideas or facts were discovered or produced by myself. I just took the time to write it down, because I have a passion (http://xkcd.com/386/). Now we wait and see if I succeed :)

The only thing I didn't add, that I meant to, is that it is normal in our society to polarize historical figures. They either invented everything and were saints, or were the devil incarnate. Everyone has forgotten or doesn't care how Edison got to be the figure he is today, but fewer people have forgotten what recent figures like Jobs went through, and what they built off of. In time, people will forget about Xerox and other important figures in the early years of the personal computer, and all that will be remembered is Apple and Steve not because Steve made that happen, but because people choose to have selective memories.

If I have any problem with Jobs being on that list, it is not because of what or how he did what he did. He matches everyone else on that list with ease, especially for his age! No, my problem would only be that influence is best measured over time, and compared to many of those figures, not much time has passed. But given the time we have observed so far, there is no doubt that Jobs has influenced people, culture, and society.

dlsife
Jul 27, 2012, 01:38 PM
If people believe this, our educational system is failing us worse than originally thought.

VenusianSky
Jul 27, 2012, 01:57 PM
Blame the founding fathers for giving the country such a generic name. :mad:

United States of America doesn't seem generic to me, especially for the time. Actually, sounds pretty specific. Union of states that are located in the region of land named America. North and South America were not officially identified as separate continents until after the United States was named. There was just America. The nation of Canada wasn't established until much later as well.

kenbrickley
Jul 27, 2012, 02:07 PM
Blame the founding fathers for giving the country such a generic name. :mad:

Actually when you consider our history it is not that generic ... at the time of our founding many States considered themselves independent entities in a kind of federated alliance ... we had to fight a war to resolve ourselves into a unified country ... as Shelby Foote so eloquently put it, "Prior to the Civil War we referred to ourselves as the United States 'are' ... after the Civil War we became the United States 'is' ... the Civil War transformed us from an 'are' to an 'is'" ;)

Gemütlichkeit
Jul 27, 2012, 02:50 PM
Ben Franklin doesn't make the list but Jobs does?

Edit: Neither do James Madison, writers like Mark Twain, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, and Hemingway, etc.

No one would buy the magazine if it was full of predictable people. Time Magazine is throwing Jobs among others on this list to stir the pot and cause commotion about their magazine.

VenusianSky
Jul 27, 2012, 03:20 PM
Actually when you consider our history it is not that generic ... at the time of our founding many States considered themselves independent entities in a kind of federated alliance ... we had to fight a war to resolve ourselves into a unified country ... as Shelby Foote so eloquently put it, "Prior to the Civil War we referred to ourselves as the United States 'are' ... after the Civil War we became the United States 'is' ... the Civil War transformed us from an 'are' to an 'is'" ;)

Way off topic, but...

Civil War didn't transform us from 'are' to an 'is'. We are still a union of states with individual governments and laws (at least my pay stub and driver's license tells me that). Civil War just showed that people whom opposed slavery were better at fighting wars than people that supported slavery.

clukas
Jul 28, 2012, 02:58 AM
He can't hear you, he's dead.

Well done Einstein. He probably would not give a **** about your opinion either.

kdarling
Jul 28, 2012, 06:07 AM
Way off topic, but...

Civil War didn't transform us from 'are' to an 'is'. We are still a union of states with individual governments and laws (at least my pay stub and driver's license tells me that). Civil War just showed that people whom opposed slavery were better at fighting wars than people that supported slavery.

The Civil War wasn't over slavery per se. Lincoln didn't even free the slaves until near the end, and in fact, most Northerners refused to fight for such a reason.

More importantly, slavery was already a doomed institution because of the coming Industrial Revolution. Farming machines would soon be replacing field workers, just as machines were going to replace horses.

The war was over State's Rights vs a strong Federal government. For better or worse, the USA ended up with the latter. That's where the quote came from about 'are' vs 'is'.

The North won because it was already industrialized.

IJ Reilly
Jul 28, 2012, 03:11 PM
The Civil War wasn't over slavery per se. Lincoln didn't even free the slaves until near the end, and in fact, most Northerners refused to fight for such a reason.

More importantly, slavery was already a doomed institution because of the coming Industrial Revolution. Farming machines would soon be replacing field workers, just as machines were going to replace horses.

The war was over State's Rights vs a strong Federal government. For better or worse, the USA ended up with the latter. That's where the quote came from about 'are' vs 'is'.

The North won because it was already industrialized.

The Emancipation did not occur until the war was nearly over not because the war was not really about slavery. All of the issues that led up to the war being fought were based on the question of slavery, most particularly about whether the territories had the choice of being admitted as states as slave or free. Emancipation was done at that point because Lincoln knew that it would be divisive and controversial in the north had it occurred earlier. He understood that if the war became about freeing black people that the war would lose a great deal of the support it needed in the north to be successfully fought.

The North won partially because of industrialization, yes, but also because it was far more populous, and more unified.

VenusianSky
Jul 29, 2012, 10:00 PM
The Civil War wasn't over slavery per se. Lincoln didn't even free the slaves until near the end, and in fact, most Northerners refused to fight for such a reason.

More importantly, slavery was already a doomed institution because of the coming Industrial Revolution. Farming machines would soon be replacing field workers, just as machines were going to replace horses.

The war was over State's Rights vs a strong Federal government. For better or worse, the USA ended up with the latter. That's where the quote came from about 'are' vs 'is'.

The North won because it was already industrialized.

My comment about the Civil War wasn't to be taken so literally. Yes, the south wanted to be independent from northern law/government. Slavery was one issue. Southern farms, like cotton, had much business because of slavery. To take that away meant that businesses would have to pay "real" wages for manual labor. Farmers would have to pay and learn to operate industrial machines. Something I'm sure many were reluctant to do. Anyways, the north was better at fighting wars because the south lost, whatever may contributed to that.

MacSince1990
Jul 31, 2012, 10:16 PM
Well done Einstein. He probably would not give a **** about your opinion either.

Obviously...