PDA

View Full Version : Steve Jobs Ponders His Legacy In Never-Before-Seen 1994 Video




MacRumors
Jun 18, 2013, 08:13 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/18/steve-jobs-ponders-his-legacy-in-never-before-seen-1994-video/)


EverySteveJobsVideo (via The Loop (http://www.loopinsight.com/2013/06/18/steve-jobs-on-his-legacy-1994/)) today released a never-before-seen video of Steve Jobs (http://youtu.be/zut2NLMVL_k) in 1994, while he was at NeXT, pondering his legacy in the personal computer field and whether he thought he would be remembered for his work in the future.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/06/jobs1994.jpg
While Jobs is primarily talking about his accomplishments with Macintosh and personal computing, his thoughts could easily translate to iPhone, iPod and iPad as well.

The video was provided by the Silicon Valley Historical Association (http://www.siliconvalleyhistorical.org) and is a clip from a 60-minute documentary built around a 20-minute interview they had with Jobs back in 1994. The film, called "Steve Jobs: Visionary Entrepreneur" focuses on Jobs giving advice to young entrepreneurs:
Steve Jobs was asked to give advice to young entrepreneurs who wanted to go out and start their own businesses. He talks about risk and the willingness to fail, the role of building illegal blue boxes prior to founding Apple Computer, and his philosophy on how to approach life.Atari founder Nolan Bushnell, who hired Jobs to work at Atari, is also present in the full documentary and talks about both Jobs and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak.

zut2NLMVL_k
"Steve Jobs: Visionary Entrepreneur" is available on the Silicon Valley Historical Association's website (http://www.siliconvalleyhistorical.org/#!steve-jobs-film/c1x1c) as a $14.99 download, a $24.99 DVD or a $4.99 audio track.

Article Link: Steve Jobs Ponders His Legacy In Never-Before-Seen 1994 Video (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/18/steve-jobs-ponders-his-legacy-in-never-before-seen-1994-video/)



Jaredly
Jun 18, 2013, 08:20 PM
Jobs would be happy to know that the apple 1 is considered a piece of art and that somebody bought it for some obnoxious price (I forgot the exact amount).

GeekLawyer
Jun 18, 2013, 08:20 PM
Absolutely fascinating.

I may have to get a copy of this documentary/interview.

bacaramac
Jun 18, 2013, 08:26 PM
I wonder how many people in history have the logical insight that jobs had on technology. It's weird how you can watch a 20 year old clip and it still be relevant. This isn't the first clip where Jobs' statements have remained relevant years later.

unlimitedx
Jun 18, 2013, 08:30 PM
You will always be remembered for your vision and work, Steve!

cualexander
Jun 18, 2013, 08:33 PM
Interesting how he was incorrect though. In another 4 years, the original iPhone will be 10 years old, and while he was correct that it is not usable anymore, it will still go down in history as the phone that started the smartphone revolution. The same way the iPad revitalized the tablet market and the iPod revolutionized the portable music market.

iPadPublisher
Jun 18, 2013, 08:46 PM
I've heard that Steve was pretty amazing with analogies that would help you understand what he's saying... this sure is a good example of that. :)

----------

Interesting how he was incorrect though. In another 4 years, the original iPhone will be 10 years old, and while he was correct that it is not usable anymore, it will still go down in history as the phone that started the smartphone revolution. The same way the iPad revitalized the tablet market and the iPod revolutionized the portable music market.

But I think that was his point exactly... he built the first major layer of "Smart Phone Mountain" but already his own company, and others, have contributed their layers on top, and that initial piece, anyway, isn't seen or used by anyone... he wasn't saying that it wouldn't be remembered or go down in history for its worth, but more that because the technology moves so quickly, the iPhone 1 is but a distant memory already, not even ten years later. Where an architect can be remembered for his amazing church for hundreds of years later, because it still stands, and is still a church to this day. :apple:

TMar
Jun 18, 2013, 08:49 PM
Interesting how he was incorrect though. In another 4 years, the original iPhone will be 10 years old, and while he was correct that it is not usable anymore, it will still go down in history as the phone that started the smartphone revolution. The same way the iPad revitalized the tablet market and the iPod revolutionized the portable music market.

No it will not. Not outside the extremest Apple fan base. People in 30 years aren't going to look back with fawn memories of the original iphone. Old technology is lost on all the the geekiest of people.

cualexander
Jun 18, 2013, 08:53 PM
No it will not. Not outside the extremest Apple fan base. People in 30 years aren't going to look back with fawn memories of the original iphone. Old technology is lost on all the the geekiest of people.

I disagree. I think he's correct that most people in the tech industry won't be remembered, but love him or hate him, Steve Jobs has left a remarkable legacy for the world in general. The original Mac is almost 30 and people still remember it.

TMar
Jun 18, 2013, 08:58 PM
I disagree. I think he's correct that most people in the tech industry won't be remembered, but love him or hate him, Steve Jobs has left a remarkable legacy for the world in general. The original Mac is almost 30 and people still remember it.

So most people remember the original mac? Again most people not just tech junkies. Plus we are not talking about people in tech being remember but the tech itself.

cualexander
Jun 18, 2013, 09:04 PM
So most people remember the original mac? Again most people not just tech junkies. Plus we are not talking about people in tech being remember but the tech itself.

I would say so. I personally grew up in school with early macs as the only computer. I guess it's different for different generations. But my overall point is that his personal legacy is much bigger than he made it out to be.

pgiguere1
Jun 18, 2013, 09:07 PM
Reminded me of that meme

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt1ksebalD1qcc8ul.jpg

tbobmccoy
Jun 18, 2013, 09:08 PM
I still use my iphone original generation... Every time I sell my most recent iphone to upgrade, I'm on my old school iphone for a short amount of time :)

AlBDamned
Jun 18, 2013, 09:15 PM
So most people remember the original mac? Again most people not just tech junkies. Plus we are not talking about people in tech being remember but the tech itself.

I think you have a fairly narrow view of things.

A lot of people don't remember the original Apple 1 or Macintosh because it wasn't of relevance in their lifetime (1977...). However, when you speak to a lot of people who like technology, and that's not just uber geeks these days, about things that started major technology revolutions - PCs, the first mobiles, the first tablets etc - people are interested, do like talking about it etc. The first iPhone will go down in history as a pivotal point in technology, telco and cultural history. Sure it will seem archaic in 10-20 years, but it won't be forgotten, nor will people dismiss its relevance. It was huge, it remains huge 6 years later.

TMar
Jun 18, 2013, 09:18 PM
I would say so. I personally grew up in school with early macs as the only computer. I guess it's different for different generations. But my overall point is that his personal legacy is much bigger than he made it out to be.

As did I but if you were to ask a large group of people to give you even one spec off it MOST would not know even that. It's our generation where most people might know it but my much older or younger cousins probably don't. That was kinda his point from the clip was that technology doesn't age gracefully. There's not going to be a museum of technology that MOST people are going to want to travel to see.

When everyone is dead and gone that was alive when the iphone launched, the remaining people are not going to be that interested in it. He will be remember for this contribution, his contributions will not be remember because they don't stand the test of time, that was his point.

cualexander
Jun 18, 2013, 09:22 PM
As did I but if you were to ask a large group of people to give you even one spec off it MOST would not know even that. It's our generation where most people might know it but my much older or younger cousins probably don't. That was kinda his point from the clip was that technology doesn't age gracefully. There's not going to be a museum of technology that MOST people are going to want to travel to see.

When everyone is dead and gone that was alive when the iphone launched, the remaining people are not going to be that interested in it. He will be remember for this contribution, his contributions will not be remember because they don't stand the test of time, that was his point.

http://techland.time.com/2011/10/11/apple-products-at-the-smithsonian/

I rest my case.

TMar
Jun 18, 2013, 09:27 PM
I think you have a fairly narrow view of things.

A lot of people don't remember the original Apple 1 or Macintosh because it wasn't of relevance in their lifetime (1977...). However, when you speak to a lot of people who like technology, and that's not just uber geeks these days, about things that started major technology revolutions - PCs, the first mobiles, the first tablets etc - people are interested, do like talking about it etc. The first iPhone will go down in history as a pivotal point in technology, telco and cultural history. Sure it will seem archaic in 10-20 years, but it won't be forgotten, nor will people dismiss its relevance. It was huge, it remains huge 6 years later.

Again not my point of view per se but what his point in the clip was. The first HDD was huge, first use of the WWW was huge but again MOST people don't know or really care about the details of it. His point in the clip is most people will not glare at a phone 200 years later with awe like they would a piece of art.

So if you think I have a narrow view of things, then you believe SJ does too because I'm just agreeing with him.

dec.
Jun 18, 2013, 09:28 PM
http://techland.time.com/2011/10/11/apple-products-at-the-smithsonian/

I rest my case.

I'll add a

http://www.moma.org/collection/artist.php?artist_id=22559

TMar
Jun 18, 2013, 09:33 PM
http://techland.time.com/2011/10/11/apple-products-at-the-smithsonian/

I rest my case.

Kind of a week point to rest on. Again MOST people are not that interested in it. Never did I say that nobody was interested in it. They have always had old technology, from Edison to IBM to Motorola and people will look at them. It doesn't mean people at any real interest in it.

cualexander
Jun 18, 2013, 09:37 PM
Kind of a week point to rest on. Again MOST people are not that interested in it. Never did I say that nobody was interested in it. They have always had old technology, from Edison to IBM to Motorola and people will look at them. It doesn't mean people at any real interest in it.

Apple is not MOST technology. The whole point of Apple is bringing tech to the masses, there are 400 million iOS devices sold. That's not insignificant.

EDIT: 600 million. I was watching an old keynote the other day.

kbfr08
Jun 18, 2013, 09:45 PM
Never before seen? I guess that's true if you've never seen it, but the SVHA has been selling the video for months now

wlow3
Jun 18, 2013, 09:48 PM
Evidently this company marketed this before under the title "Steve Jobs - Secrets of Life." Under the new title it had been posted at Amazon and someone wrote a rather scathing review of it because Jobs only takes up about 15 minutes of the total runtime and the rest is filler, so buyer beware. You can find the interview part sans filler under the original title online (I'm not going to give a link because I don't want it taken down) and it shows probably the same 15 minutes worth of the Jobs part. Also know that mostly he does not say much that you have not already heard (blue box story, etc.) except that starting young is easier for an entrepreneur because you have less on balance to risk and that you have to be willing to fail and you have to be willing to pick up the phone and ask for what you need of people (i.e., cold call).

TMar
Jun 18, 2013, 09:55 PM
Apple is not MOST technology. The whole point of Apple is bringing tech to the masses, there are 400 million iOS devices sold. That's not insignificant.

EDIT: 600 million. I was watching an old keynote the other day.

Depending on where you get you statistics the was over 1 billion computers in use at the end of 2008.

I believe this conversation has come to and end with you believing that Apple's technology is somehow more valuable that any other in the world just because it.. has a fruit on it? Your fanboyism is hanging out, please put it away. Apple doesn't posses breathtakingly head of the pack technology, the brand following by the masses is a fad. The things with fads is that they fade overtime and Apple will be back to being just another tech company just like the rest.

kalsta
Jun 18, 2013, 10:09 PM
Interesting clip! But then again, I don't remember seeing a clip of jobs speaking that wasn't interesting.

What jumps out to me here is how little nostalgia Jobs shows for his past achievements, looking back at the Macintosh (which was his baby project). I suppose his unceremonious departure from Apple might have something to do with that, but I think that was also part of his personality and a factor in his success—his ability to leave the past behind and focus on the next great thing.

Little did he know that in two or three years his NeXTSTEP OS was about to breathe new life into the Macintosh brand!

cualexander
Jun 18, 2013, 10:11 PM
Depending on where you get you statistics the was over 1 billion computers in use at the end of 2008.

I believe this conversation has come to and end with you believing that Apple's technology is somehow more valuable that any other in the world just because it.. has a fruit on it? Your fanboyism is hanging out, please put it away. Apple doesn't posses breathtakingly head of the pack technology, the brand following by the masses is a fad. The things with fads is that they fade overtime and Apple will be back to being just another tech company just like the rest.

Yeah, they are pretty insignificant. They are only the second largest information technology company in the world...That's not fanboyism, it's fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_information_technology_companies

Samsung beat them, but go ahead and try to get ANYONE on the street to tell you who founded Samsung. This is a pointless conversation because the facts stand behind me.

Arfdog
Jun 18, 2013, 10:19 PM
I wonder how many people in history have the logical insight that jobs had on technology. It's weird how you can watch a 20 year old clip and it still be relevant. This isn't the first clip where Jobs' statements have remained relevant years later.

I think you'll find that almost every public interview Steve has given, there's a wealth of insight. I am not joking either. Everytime I listen to him, I seem to get an infusion of insight, logic, and common sense as it relates to technology. Steve knew where technology was going at every step in his life.

Some say he dictated technology, but that's foolish. You can't dictate something if nobody buys it and loves it like people love Apple products. That means Steve knew the recipe to make awesome computers and computing devices and he also envisioned how to make them inviting to use.

TMar
Jun 18, 2013, 10:45 PM
Yeah, they are pretty insignificant. They are only the second largest information technology company in the world...That's not fanboyism, it's fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_information_technology_companies

Samsung beat them, but go ahead and try to get ANYONE on the street to tell you who founded Samsung. This is a pointless conversation because the facts stand behind me.

And who was the second largest before them? And before them? The fanboyism is that you can't see someone will be second/first largest after them. That's the problem with fanboyism is that you can't see anything past being part of the "camp" that's "on top". I have the facts of history on my side and that's better than any pseudo 'facts' you bring up.

"Apple has sold 600,00 iOS devices, proof!" How many windows computer have been sold? Where are they at now? Downward trend. Circuit city, Best Buy, Sears, IBM, Nintendo, Dell, HP, being at the top doesn't guarantee you anything in the long run. In fact some would say being on top is the cause of a lot of falls.

iMikeT
Jun 18, 2013, 10:51 PM
There's always One More Thing.....

cualexander
Jun 18, 2013, 10:59 PM
And who was the second largest before them? And before them? The fanboyism is that you can't see someone will be second/first largest after them. That's the problem with fanboyism is that you can't see anything past being part of the "camp" that's "on top". I have the facts of history on my side and that's better than any pseudo 'facts' you bring up.

"Apple has sold 600,00 iOS devices, proof!" How many windows computer have been sold? Where are they at now? Downward trend. Circuit city, Best Buy, Sears, IBM, Nintendo, Dell, HP, being at the top doesn't guarantee you anything in the long run. In fact some would say being on top is the cause of a lot of falls.

You still don't get it. Even non-tech people know who Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are. It doesn't matter if they go to the bottom of the list tomorrow, their impact on the world, not just the tech industry will live on, which is contrary to the view Steve had of himself in 1994. Steve has 313 patents to his name. Do you know of Alexander Graham Bell? Do you still use his original phone?

Klae17
Jun 18, 2013, 11:06 PM
This is front page worthy.

TMar
Jun 18, 2013, 11:32 PM
Please stop reading just the parts you want to read. Either take my posts in context or stop typing.

You still don't get it. Even non-tech people know who Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are. It doesn't matter if they go to the bottom of the list tomorrow, their impact on the world, not just the tech industry will live on, which is contrary to the view Steve had of himself in 1994. Steve has 313 patents to his name. Do you know of Alexander Graham Bell? Do you still use his original phone?

As did I but if you were to ask a large group of people to give you even one spec off it MOST would not know even that. It's our generation where most people might know it but my much older or younger cousins probably don't. That was kinda his point from the clip was that technology doesn't age gracefully. There's not going to be a museum of technology that MOST people are going to want to travel to see.

When everyone is dead and gone that was alive when the iphone launched, the remaining people are not going to be that interested in it. He will be remember for this contribution, his contributions will not be remember because they don't stand the test of time, that was his point.

It wasn't the view of himself that he questioned but how his works compared to others over time. He also wasn't questioning how his contributions would be viewed, he knew that. What he questioned was something more physical, tangible. Nothing you make in technology stands the time the same way a painting, sculpture or architecture does. He knew anything he produced would be landfill in years.

PS Please get your thoughts in order, you're all over the place.

Drunken Master
Jun 18, 2013, 11:40 PM
This has to be a record time for a thread devolving into a cheap argument.

TMar
Jun 18, 2013, 11:48 PM
This has to be a record time for a thread devolving into a cheap argument.

Almost 4 hours is a record? That's silly.

Anonymous Freak
Jun 18, 2013, 11:52 PM
Jobs would be happy to know that the apple 1 is considered a piece of art and that somebody bought it for some obnoxious price (I forgot the exact amount).

No, he wouldn't. When he was alive, he sought to dismiss the history of Apple, even the parts he was instrumental in. He did barely anything to acknowledge the 20th anniversary of the original Macintosh, a machine that he was absolutely fanatical in the design of. The Apple 1 even less so - as it wasn't even "his" design - it was Woz's. The Macintosh is the machine that was most directly Jobs', and once it was obsolete, he never looked back. And that's exactly what he was saying in this. He was saying that his work *SHOULDN'T* be considered art, long-term. It should be considered "insanely great" in its time, then discarded when its time has passed.

IJ Reilly
Jun 18, 2013, 11:55 PM
No it will not. Not outside the extremest Apple fan base. People in 30 years aren't going to look back with fawn memories of the original iphone. Old technology is lost on all the the geekiest of people.

And who appreciates old art but art geeks? And where do you find that old art? In museums, which wasn't the place where it was originally created to be seen.

Steve was also a little off in his analogy to great architecture. Most of the ancient architecture we assume today was always appreciated went through long periods when it was neglected at best, and more likely seen as hopelessly outdated and obsolete. That's why so much of it has been destroyed.

Technology may have certain problems associated with its longterm appreciation, but to assume that nobody will ever care about old tech after it has outlived its functional life is probably incorrect.

cualexander
Jun 18, 2013, 11:56 PM
Please stop reading just the parts you want to read. Either take my posts in context or stop typing.





It wasn't the view of himself that he questioned but how his works compared to others over time. He also wasn't questioning how his contributions would be viewed, he knew that. What he questioned was something more physical, tangible. Nothing you make in technology stands the time the same way a painting, sculpture or architecture does. He knew anything he produced would be landfill in years.

PS Please get your thoughts in order, you're all over the place.

I responded to that point. The smithsonian has a collection of his physical works in their archives. He said "No one will see your sediment." The original iPhone will still be seen. Look in any history museum, and you'll see record players, old radios, old TVs, etc. They are obsolete and I never have owned an old black and white television from the 50s, but I've seen them in museums. The same thing will be true of the iPhone and iPod and the Mac, which was one of the first personal computers ever released. Those devices were milestones in history. No one will care about the Galaxy S3 in 30 years, because it was just another smartphone, but the iPhone was the original multi-touch smartphone. He changed the mobile and music industries forever.

TMar
Jun 18, 2013, 11:58 PM
No, he wouldn't. When he was alive, he sought to dismiss the history of Apple, even the parts he was instrumental in. He did barely anything to acknowledge the 20th anniversary of the original Macintosh, a machine that he was absolutely fanatical in the design of. The Apple 1 even less so - as it wasn't even "his" design - it was Woz's. The Macintosh is the machine that was most directly Jobs', and once it was obsolete, he never looked back. And that's exactly what he was saying in this. He was saying that his work *SHOULDN'T* be considered art, long-term. It should be considered "insanely great" in its time, then discarded when its time has passed.

OMG get your logical thoughts out of here. There's no place for 2 of us. How dare you watch the clip and take it all in context and read no more into than what he said!

IJ Reilly
Jun 19, 2013, 12:02 AM
I think you'll find that almost every public interview Steve has given, there's a wealth of insight. I am not joking either. Everytime I listen to him, I seem to get an infusion of insight, logic, and common sense as it relates to technology. Steve knew where technology was going at every step in his life.

Some say he dictated technology, but that's foolish. You can't dictate something if nobody buys it and loves it like people love Apple products. That means Steve knew the recipe to make awesome computers and computing devices and he also envisioned how to make them inviting to use.

Steve had a great talent for communicating his own point of view in a seductive and persuasive manner. Much of his success can be attributed to that talent. Whether he is communicating true insights while he has you mesmerized is not necessarily the same thing. It's worth keeping in mind that a card trick is still a card trick, even if it looks like real magic.

TMar
Jun 19, 2013, 12:08 AM
And who appreciates old art but art geeks? And where do you find that old art? In museums, which wasn't the place where it was originally created to be seen.

Steve was also a little off in his analogy to great architecture. Most of the ancient architecture we assume today was always appreciated went through long periods when it was neglected at best, and more likely seen as hopelessly outdated and obsolete. That's why so much of it has been destroyed.

Technology may have certain problems associated with its longterm appreciation, but to assume that nobody will ever care about old tech after it has outlived its functional life is probably incorrect.

Where did I say nobody? Old art is only in museums? Architecture, if it lasted the test of time in spite of neglect.... Again he's talking about functionality and usability of them later comparable to tech of the current time.

----------

I responded to that point. The smithsonian has a collection of his physical works in their archives. He said "No one will see your sediment." The original iPhone will still be seen. Look in any history museum, and you'll see record players, old radios, old TVs, etc. They are obsolete and I never have owned an old black and white television from the 50s, but I've seen them in museums. The same thing will be true of the iPhone and iPod and the Mac, which was one of the first personal computers ever released. Those devices were milestones in history. No one will care about the Galaxy S3 in 30 years, because it was just another smartphone, but the iPhone was the original multi-touch smartphone. He changed the mobile and music industries forever.

"And appreciated by that rare geologist" and taking things out of context to fit your argument.

darbus69
Jun 19, 2013, 12:08 AM
No it will not. Not outside the extremest Apple fan base. People in 30 years aren't going to look back with fawn memories of the original iphone. Old technology is lost on all the the geekiest of people.

you are so off base, how can you be on these forums and hold this opinion is beyond me. visionary he was, and visionary you are not...

TMar
Jun 19, 2013, 12:11 AM
you are so off base, how can you be on these forums and hold this opinion is beyond me. visionary he was, and visionary you are not...

And how can you be that dense to not read the whole thread. How some of you believe that SJ's is himself, Apple, Mac's, iOS devices at the same time and have the inability the separate all them is beyond me.

cualexander
Jun 19, 2013, 12:12 AM
Where did I say nobody? Old art is only in museums? Architecture, if it lasted the test of time in spite of neglect.... Again he's talking about functionality and usability of them later comparable to tech of the current time.

----------



"And appreciated by that rare geologist" and taking things out of context to fit your argument.

And the "rare geologist" in this case is the majority of the first world. Listen, I understand what he is saying, and I fully agree with his analogy. I just don't think it applies to him specifically. That was my point.

macs4nw
Jun 19, 2013, 12:22 AM
What an absolutely spot-on analogy about the sedimentary rock layers.
Only a genius would come up with that!

IJ Reilly
Jun 19, 2013, 12:37 AM
Where did I say nobody? Old art is only in museums? Architecture, if it lasted the test of time in spite of neglect.... Again he's talking about functionality and usability of them later comparable to tech of the current time.

I was responding to Steve's point, which I took to mean that when old tech is gone, it's just gone (buried under layers of rock is about as gone as it gets).

Where did you get only in museums? What I am saying is, the reference point for the art has changed. None of the great ancient art we see in museums today was created to be displayed in museums. As for architecture, survival has shockingly little to do with the quality of the original creation. Survival of buildings is almost aribitrary.

As I said, Steve was a master persuader. He wasn't necessarily right just because he sounds so convincing.

Giuly
Jun 19, 2013, 12:56 AM
The "never seen before" part doesn't go for all of us. :rolleyes: It also comes with a giggle in correlation with the biography cover, but I spare that one out of piety.

Also, most of it has been covered in the "The thing about Microsoft is that they have absolutely no taste" interview.

the8thark
Jun 19, 2013, 01:22 AM
Jobs looked terrible there. Huge beard and looked a little fat. Sure his words were amazing as always. But his looks, well he could have done better then that (at the time)

ryansimmons323
Jun 19, 2013, 01:52 AM
I always think it's amazing how Steve still makes the news almost at least once a week in some way another. Just last week with the eBooks business for example. Incredible considering it's been around 18 months since he passed away.

TMar
Jun 19, 2013, 02:19 AM
Again separate his legacy from that of the technology. No analogy needed. The hardware is moot and unimportant. He wanted to be know for the the direction he pushed technology not a specific piece of hardware. Would you rather be know years later for a outdated piece of hardware or a shift in what mobile computing is? He wasn't diminishing himself but saying you're not going to be know for making a 'thing' if it's just another thing.

And the "rare geologist" in this case is the majority of the first world. Listen, I understand what he is saying, and I fully agree with his analogy. I just don't think it applies to him specifically. That was my point.

jlc1978
Jun 19, 2013, 02:22 AM
I disagree. I think he's correct that most people in the tech industry won't be remembered, but love him or hate him, Steve Jobs has left a remarkable legacy for the world in general. The original Mac is almost 30 and people still remember it.

I agree - people may remember and even use the descendants of the technology but quickly forget the people who created or popularized it. After all, how many people would recognize the names Sarnoff, Farnsworth, Watt, Marconi, or Eads?

dankedieter
Jun 19, 2013, 02:39 AM
Interesting how he was incorrect though. In another 4 years, the original iPhone will be 10 years old, and while he was correct that it is not usable anymore, it will still go down in history as the phone that started the smartphone revolution. The same way the iPad revitalized the tablet market and the iPod revolutionized the portable music market.

Still sporting my old iphone 1. Everything still works surprisingly well, though nobody makes apps for it anymore :( I'm excited to finally upgrade!

I will definitely be holding on to mine forever. Definitely a big step in the history of tech.

nukiduz
Jun 19, 2013, 02:42 AM
He and his ability to put products, the industry, technology and life in perspective are certainly missed.

Mike MA
Jun 19, 2013, 02:50 AM
These thoughts do exactly match his forward-thinking attitude.

Mactendo
Jun 19, 2013, 04:32 AM
I responded to that point. The smithsonian has a collection of his physical works in their archives. He said "No one will see your sediment." The original iPhone will still be seen. Look in any history museum, and you'll see record players, old radios, old TVs, etc. They are obsolete and I never have owned an old black and white television from the 50s, but I've seen them in museums. The same thing will be true of the iPhone and iPod and the Mac, which was one of the first personal computers ever released. Those devices were milestones in history. No one will care about the Galaxy S3 in 30 years, because it was just another smartphone, but the iPhone was the original multi-touch smartphone. He changed the mobile and music industries forever.

But these museums are for tech fans. Majority of people holding a mobile phone won't know anything about Steve's contribution or origins of Apple.
Like there're museums showing the history of vessels, but do we, not vessel fans, know without Googling who invented and built the first steamer? Do we appreciate the inventors of electric engines/cars when we take a ride on a subway train? Do we know their names? Can we say when was the very first ride or how this original train looked exactly? Will we even consider it as important inventions 500 years later when we will make daily flights to other planets? Most people will never know such things neither ask themselves those questions. They'll just use the current technology and take it for granted. But at the same time most people can and will appreciate the architect who built Sacre Coeur or Eiffel Tower. Simply by passing by or seeing a picture of a beautiful building. Even if they don't know the name of the architect a lot of people 500 years later still can see, enjoy his creation and think "yes, that guy was a genius".

So in the global sense in technology field it's true that after years "no one will see your sediment."

But Steve was a great guy, he created fantastic products and he will be remembered by many (albeit not most) of Apple users for a long time if Apple will follow his vision and build new life changing things upon his foundation.

ValSalva
Jun 19, 2013, 04:56 AM
He may not have been the nicest human being to be around but he had a gift. And there has yet to be an interview with him that does not fascinate.

JustMartin
Jun 19, 2013, 05:34 AM
I think the important thing is the company. Not what it used to make, but whether it still making exciting stuff that people want to buy. In 50 or 100 years time, I suspect that this era will be known for PCs, Windows, Mice with only a few people being aware of distinctions between Apple, Windows or Gem. In the same way that people in general aren't very interested in the original IBM tabulating machines or whatever happened to Digital.

And very few people will be displaying Apple Lisas as objets d'art in the corner of their living room.

But, if Apple are still around and significant in 100 years time and still retaining their values. Then, that surely is the kind of legacy that Steve would have wanted.

philosopherdog
Jun 19, 2013, 07:11 AM
Equally so the work any engineer does on computer technology is already standing on the shoulders of thousands of years of people who spent their lives working out bits and pieces of the math, philosophy, science, art that goes into any computer. When you hold an iPhone you're holding the culmination of culture that extends back to the mists of time. When you think of it that way you're getting all these devices at an incredible bargain. You're simply not paying for most of the zillions of person hours that culminate in this device.

iJawn108
Jun 19, 2013, 07:12 AM
I love Steve's beard here

cualexander
Jun 19, 2013, 07:18 AM
But these museums are for tech fans.

The Smithsonian National Museum of American History is for tech fans? I thought it was for people who liked history. My mistake.

bbeagle
Jun 19, 2013, 07:50 AM
There's not going to be a museum of technology that MOST people are going to want to travel to see.


I very much doubt that. There are people who enjoy museums, to learn about our past. I enjoy seeing the really old like greek statues, egyptian mummies, and dinosaur bones, but I also really enjoy more modern history like Alexander Graham Bell's phone or equipment and the first 'modern' board games like the history of Monopoly. No matter what subject, there will be history museums for it, and Steve Jobs will be remembered there as a part of that history, along with countless others.


When everyone is dead and gone that was alive when the iphone launched, the remaining people are not going to be that interested in it. He will be remember for this contribution, his contributions will not be remember because they don't stand the test of time, that was his point.

'Don't stand the test of time?' what baloney is that? Did egyptian mummies not stand the 'test of time', in that we don't bury people that way anymore, thus we should discount all that and not show them in history? What in the world are you saying?

The Mac, the original iPhone, and the original iPad will definitely be in history museums along with pictures of Steve Jobs. That's a given. No Samsung anything will be in museums yet, nothing is unique enough.

Just like the 'Ford Model T' was not the first car, it's given the prime real estate in history museums because it was the first popular car for the masses, and really started the automobile generation. This is exactly what the iPhone and iPad did for their genres. 'Windows' is the Model T of the computer field, not the Mac.

Glideslope
Jun 19, 2013, 07:58 AM
Steve, I miss you. :apple:

----------

He may not have been the nicest human being to be around but he had a gift. And there has yet to be an interview with him that does not fascinate.

Nice Avitar. Another person I miss. :)

iGrip
Jun 19, 2013, 08:06 AM
http://techland.time.com/2011/10/11/apple-products-at-the-smithsonian/

I rest my case.

Try to view the gallery.

"Page not found."

Anonymous Freak
Jun 19, 2013, 08:21 AM
OMG get your logical thoughts out of here. There's no place for 2 of us. How dare you watch the clip and take it all in context and read no more into than what he said!

:D

I'm just proud to be one of the "rare geologists" he refers to. :p

(The rest of this post is not directed toward TMar, but to the naysayers:)
Yes, there are people who will appreciate his works for a long time, but they will be the exception, not the rule. If you cover up the "Apple" branding on an Apple II, and show it to a random iPhone+Mac user now, they won't have a clue what it is. Same with the original Macintosh. Very possibly even the original gumdrop iMac. Show it to someone who only has an iDevice, no Mac? Even less likely.

And don't say "but everyone I know..." You're someone who comes to MacRumors, you are automatically an outlier, and very likely your friends and family are at least influenced by you as well.

fatespawn
Jun 19, 2013, 08:25 AM
No, Steve won't be remembered for a particular product. He'll be remembered for his process and progress. The Apple 1, original Macintosh, G3's, G4's G5's, OSX 10.1,2,3,4… original iPod, etc…. These are obsolete.

But those innovations led to entirely different paths for technology. Henry Ford didn't invent the automobile. He just created a cost efficient way to get it in the hands of the common person. iPod, iTunes, iPhone, iMac, iPad all turned the direction of the marketplace - in fact, they invented new markets that didn't exist before! I'm waiting for the next "new marketplace" to be developed by Apple, but I'm not optimistic. The new Mac Pro is not "innovative". It's a good tool, but it's just existing tech in a new package.

Innovation happens when you create something that didn't exist before. That's what Steve did. That was his vision. Like Henry Ford, Steve didn't invent the Apple I, MP3 players, Cell Phones or Tablets. He made them truly functional. He made us say "Oh, THAT's why I need it…" That's what he'll be remembered for.

mrgraff
Jun 19, 2013, 08:28 AM
I also see a man who was removed from Apple, trying to distance himself from a then nearly bankrupt company, and determined to sell the Next to the world by trying to convince us that the Mac is not only obsolete but irrelevant.

someguyinca
Jun 19, 2013, 08:33 AM
Anyone else notice the poor grammar in the intro slide?

Gasu E.
Jun 19, 2013, 08:40 AM
So most people remember the original mac? Again most people not just tech junkies. Plus we are not talking about people in tech being remember but the tech itself.

I'm not sure what you mean by "most people". People who were not born or old enough to be aware of much aren't going to remember things. I was working at the time, and the first Mac made an immediate impact. I certainly think most professional people of the time who would have been PC users were aware of it; and if aware of it then, would certainly remember it, as it was unique, highly-publicized and iconic. Now, many people thought it was a "toy" vs. stock IBM PCs running DOS, but that's a different issue.

kingtj
Jun 19, 2013, 08:53 AM
You also have to pick the correct examples, to find Apple products that WERE relevant in people's daily lives.

For example, the original Apple 1? A very poor choice from the standpoint that most people never used one, or remember it. It was, after all, the FIRST home computer -- solid at a time when most people had no idea what one did or why they'd want to own it.

However, talk to the average person about the Apple //e (and maybe show them a photo if the name doesn't ring a bell), and you'll often get a reaction of, "Oh, yeah! I used those back in school! Our computer lab was full of those!", or "That's the first computer I ever used in summer camp.... Played Oregon Trail on it all the time in the library."

Another group of people will likely remember the original Macintosh as the computer they first used all the time in college.

Younger generations will likewise have some memories related to more recent models of the iMacs, since those are so commonly found in schools today.

With so many iPhones in use world-wide, it will surely be remembered for decades to come, too -- even if only as nostalgia (similar to the way older people remember the rotary dial phone with a smile, while acknowledging it was a step forward to see it go away).


I think you have a fairly narrow view of things.

A lot of people don't remember the original Apple 1 or Macintosh because it wasn't of relevance in their lifetime (1977...). However, when you speak to a lot of people who like technology, and that's not just uber geeks these days, about things that started major technology revolutions - PCs, the first mobiles, the first tablets etc - people are interested, do like talking about it etc. The first iPhone will go down in history as a pivotal point in technology, telco and cultural history. Sure it will seem archaic in 10-20 years, but it won't be forgotten, nor will people dismiss its relevance. It was huge, it remains huge 6 years later.

----------

I might upset a few Apple die-hards out there with this statement, but IMO, the garbage Apple pawned off on the public as "superior computers" in the mid 1990's is what drove me right back to Windows PCs.

When they canned Jobs, the company didn't really have any suitable successors in the wings, able to lead the company forward. Innovation stagnated and the only redeeming value left in the products was based on the things the Jobs era company initially created for them.

NeXT may not have succeeded either, but it wasn't for lack of a quality product. I think ultimately, NeXT only died off because of a very limited market of potentially interested customers who also had the financial ability to buy them. (At that time, most of the people who really "got" the computer revolution and were focused on it were younger kids/teens/twenty-somethings who didn't have a lot of disposable income.)

I recall some guys running a very successful little ISP in the 90's using all old NeXT hardware they purchased used after the hardware was discontinued. It was very reliable gear.


I also see a man who was removed from Apple, trying to distance himself from a then nearly bankrupt company, and determine to sell the Next to the world by trying to convince us that the Mac is not only obsolete but irrelevant.

UnfetteredMind
Jun 19, 2013, 09:00 AM
Evidently this company marketed this before under the title "Steve Jobs - Secrets of Life." Under the new title it had been posted at Amazon and someone wrote a rather scathing review of it because Jobs only takes up about 15 minutes of the total runtime and the rest is filler, so buyer beware. You can find the interview part sans filler under the original title online (I'm not going to give a link because I don't want it taken down) and it shows probably the same 15 minutes worth of the Jobs part. Also know that mostly he does not say much that you have not already heard (blue box story, etc.) except that starting young is easier for an entrepreneur because you have less on balance to risk and that you have to be willing to fail and you have to be willing to pick up the phone and ask for what you need of people (i.e., cold call).

Thank you for posting this. I appreciated watching the full 15+ minutes, much better than the small snippet presented here. Grabbed it while I could as well :)

RichCoder
Jun 19, 2013, 09:22 AM
Interesting video, but I think Steve Jobs got it wrong. He is like Henry Ford, the Wright Brothers and others that were the first to create things that everyone uses and will continue to use in one form or another. PEople like them will be known for centuries. I don't think he was giving himself enough credit. It was nice to see his humble side though.

-rich

Mactendo
Jun 19, 2013, 09:25 AM
The Smithsonian National Museum of American History is for tech fans? I thought it was for people who liked history. My mistake.

Read the rest of my post. Also how many Macs (as showpieces) there're in the large world museums (non tech/computer museums)?

IJ Reilly
Jun 19, 2013, 10:00 AM
The Smithsonian National Museum of American History is for tech fans? I thought it was for people who liked history. My mistake.

No mistake, but as I've been saying, artifacts placed in museums have changed their frame of reference. They are not are being viewed the same context as when they were current. This is not a small point, as Steve seems to be saying that technological objects effectively disappear after their useful life ends. This is not entirely true. If they are significant, they may well remain, but in an altered frame of reference. What those frames of future reference will be, we can hardly know. That's for the future to decide. Steve didn't know. He was only guessing.

----------

Interesting video, but I think Steve Jobs got it wrong. He is like Henry Ford, the Wright Brothers and others that were the first to create things that everyone uses and will continue to use in one form or another. PEople like them will be known for centuries. I don't think he was giving himself enough credit. It was nice to see his humble side though.

-rich

The interview was from 1994, before he returned to Apple. Those were his wilderness years. To me, it's clear he was trying to justify himself, partly by devaluing his contributions to Apple, of which he was no longer a part. I would not mistake this for humility.

Yvan256
Jun 19, 2013, 10:57 AM
I'm pretty sure most of us weren't alive in those days. But if I say Ford Model T most of us have at least an idea of what I'm talking about.

The Mac and the iPhone will be remembered. Maybe not forever, but for the next few decades at least.

BoxBrownie
Jun 19, 2013, 11:13 AM
Living in Australia, I have no idea what the iPhone 1 looks like because it never arrived here. I do remember the first iPhone we ever got however and that will be remembered for a while. I think what Steve is trying to say is, making computers is not the same as painting Mona Lisa. :)

bedifferent
Jun 19, 2013, 12:31 PM
Who would have though only 10 years later he would be diagnosed with one of the most severe forms of cancer? He passed young, leaving behind loved ones and a legacy in his prime. It hits home for everyone, life is too short and no matter the money, can't be bought. Enjoy it, use all this tech to actually connect to loved ones, not through 1's and 0's, but in person, before it's too late.

pacalis
Jun 19, 2013, 12:47 PM
I'm sorry to say but Steve misunderstands the renaissance. The artifacts of that era that are remembered are not the products, but outcomes of the patronage of wealthy families.

For example, the Medici's were bankers and textile traders, but we remember them not because their products stood the test of time, but because they used their wealth to expand social pursuits in art, music, science, religion and medicine. They also built some nice palaces.

Now take what Bill Gates is doing with his foundation in education, disease eradication and development and we may indeed be experiencing a new type of renaissance.

IJ Reilly
Jun 19, 2013, 01:13 PM
I'm sorry to say but Steve misunderstands the renaissance. The artifacts of that era that are remembered are not the products, but outcomes of the patronage of wealthy families.

For example, the Medici's were bankers and textile traders, but we remember them not because their products stood the test of time, but because they used their wealth to expand social pursuits in art, music, science, religion and medicine. They also built some nice palaces.

Now take what Bill Gates is doing with his foundation in education, disease eradication and development and we may indeed be experiencing a new type of renaissance.

Wealthy families, governments, and the church -- which were essentially one and the same thing. Much great art and architecture was destroyed for the same reason it was created, because it ran afoul of changes in power or taste. What survives might be thought of as timeless to us today, but that's mostly an accident of history.

Bill Gates as the new Medici? Yikes, I wish I'd thought of that.

cgk.emu
Jun 19, 2013, 01:44 PM
...won't be able to fire it up and see what it was like?? I fired up my Apple IIGS the other day. Works fine.

----------

So most people remember the original mac? Again most people not just tech junkies. Plus we are not talking about people in tech being remember but the tech itself.

I agree. Go ask a teen using an iPad to give even a brief overview of Apple's original machines/tech and they'd have the same stare my dog would give me if I asked him a question expecting a response in English...

I think what a lot of folks around these forums forget is that their experience is not the collective user experience. We tend to know and care way more about Apple stuff than the average consumer. Just because we know doesn't mean the market as a whole knows...or cares.

cheesyappleuser
Jun 19, 2013, 02:32 PM
And who was the second largest before them? And before them?
Easy. Who is the fastest man running 100m? Who is the second fastest? And the third fastest?

I agree it is harsh for those, because they spend most of their life training for it, but people (besides the ones who actually like that sort of thing, like we do at MacRumors) don't remember them. That's how things are supposed to work, unfortunately.

Tikatika
Jun 19, 2013, 11:46 PM
I miss him.

pacalis
Jun 20, 2013, 07:13 AM
Wealthy families, governments, and the church -- which were essentially one and the same thing. Much great art and architecture was destroyed for the same reason it was created, because it ran afoul of changes in power or taste. What survives might be thought of as timeless to us today, but that's mostly an accident of history.

Bill Gates as the new Medici? Yikes, I wish I'd thought of that.

I agree generally, but this "accident of history" is overused. There are a lot of things that survive today because they are exceptional, either in their quality or utility. Most of renaissance art that is preserved today was highly valued in it's own time. But that's tangential to my point: the things that we remember about the renaissance are not the commercial products but arise from the way the wealthy deployed their resources.

As far as the next, you did think of that. The comparison is odd given that the Medici refers to a multi-generational family. But, and time will tell, Gates is fairly unusual in that he is deploying his money in a way that might have a transformative impact on global health and education. There hasn't been something quite like this before, though you might make some comparison with the Rockefeller, Hughes or Carnegie.

Last, the comment about layers I did think was pretty interesting. While the products obsolesce, the technology doesn't - it becomes ubiquitous and helps build the next layer.

IJ Reilly
Jun 20, 2013, 10:41 AM
I agree generally, but this "accident of history" is overused. There are a lot of things that survive today because they are exceptional, either in their quality or utility. Most of renaissance art that is preserved today was highly valued in it's own time. But that's tangential to my point: the things that we remember about the renaissance are not the commercial products but arise from the way the wealthy deployed their resources.

As far as the next, you did think of that. The comparison is odd given that the Medici refers to a multi-generational family. But, and time will tell, Gates is fairly unusual in that he is deploying his money in a way that might have a transformative impact on global health and education. There hasn't been something quite like this before, though you might make some comparison with the Rockefeller, Hughes or Carnegie.

Last, the comment about layers I did think was pretty interesting. While the products obsolesce, the technology doesn't - it becomes ubiquitous and helps build the next layer.

I think most people don't realize that few ancient buildings that survive to the present day did so in anything close to their original form, or that many buildings fell for reasons that had nothing do with their architectural qualities. All architecture goes through periods where it viewed as obsolete, or it is simply in the way of something else. The result is more often than not alteration or demolition. Describing survival as an accident of history is appropriate, particularly when we are referring to ancient buildings. The concept of deliberate preservation is a modern one. It didn't occur to anyone until the middle of the 19th century.

Art is a somewhat different matter, but what I was saying about art is that its frame of reference changes. Most art was not created to be displayed in museums. It was created for other purposes (ecclesiastical, mainly), to be seen in a different context.

The Medici family... money makes power, and power makes right. A pretty close approximation to the way Gates is regarded today. I am not a huge fan of the Gates Foundation. If you've ever heard Melissa Gates talk about the foundation's efforts you will recognize that she's a lightweight who gets to espouse her limited wisdom in front of an audience only because of the money Bill made. Yet they get to bend health and education policies to their agenda. A good thing? Not in my book.

I don't think Steve was necessarily wrong with the layers analogy, I note only that he was leaving something out. He was being somewhat self-serving in dismissing everything he'd done previously, primarily (as I see it) because at that time he wasn't doing it anymore. In particular, he described the Mac as "nearly obsolete." This was three years before he returned to Apple, where (lo and behold) he did not treat the Mac as obsolete. And here were are, nearly 20 years later, and the Mac is stronger than ever.

That was Steve was doing his reality-bending trick. A master magician at work. Buckets of respect for him. It was a great talent, but it's still a trick.

pacalis
Jun 20, 2013, 07:53 PM
I think most people don't realize that few ancient buildings that survive to the present day did so in anything close to their original form, or that many buildings fell for reasons that had nothing do with their architectural qualities. All architecture goes through periods where it viewed as obsolete, or it is simply in the way of something else. The result is more often than not alteration or demolition. Describing survival as an accident of history is appropriate, particularly when we are referring to ancient buildings. The concept of deliberate preservation is a modern one. It didn't occur to anyone until the middle of the 19th century.

Art is a somewhat different matter, but what I was saying about art is that its frame of reference changes. Most art was not created to be displayed in museums. It was created for other purposes (ecclesiastical, mainly), to be seen in a different context.

The Medici family... money makes power, and power makes right. A pretty close approximation to the way Gates is regarded today. I am not a huge fan of the Gates Foundation. If you've ever heard Melissa Gates talk about the foundation's efforts you will recognize that she's a lightweight who gets to espouse her limited wisdom in front of an audience only because of the money Bill made. Yet they get to bend health and education policies to their agenda. A good thing? Not in my book.

I don't think Steve was necessarily wrong with the layers analogy, I note only that he was leaving something out. He was being somewhat self-serving in dismissing everything he'd done previously, primarily (as I see it) because at that time he wasn't doing it anymore. In particular, he described the Mac as "nearly obsolete." This was three years before he returned to Apple, where (lo and behold) he did not treat the Mac as obsolete. And here were are, nearly 20 years later, and the Mac is stronger than ever.

That was Steve was doing his reality-bending trick. A master magician at work. Buckets of respect for him. It was a great talent, but it's still a trick.

A nice way to summarize Gates and I agree with you. The point I was trying to make is many years from now, if Malaria is cured and education policy takes a turn in a way that seems similar to the mission of his foundation, we may see Gates (for good or for bad) being referred to as a transformative figure of his time (though so much else is going on).

On architecture, you have to cut some slack. Pyramids, the places that define the center of Florence, Morgan's house in NYC, the mansions on the bluffs in Rhode Island, Versailles - some things get preserved because they are exceptional. I'm not disagreeing with you that architecture gets torn down, ripped apart and re-purposed (i.e. all the ancient 7 wonders), but survival odds are definitely changed by the qualities of the artifact, meaning that it isn't all random (i.e accidental).

I get your point about Steve. My main point is that his framing of this time, and this industry, as not a renaissance is comparing apples (commercial products) and oranges (novel pursuits funded by the sale of the products). Perhaps you're making the argument that those were so intertwined 500 years ago that the distinction I'm making isn't important, but I wouldn't buy that the Medici as a whole are known for advancing humanist thought which values divergent, rather than purely commercial interests.

Arfdog
Jun 21, 2013, 12:12 AM
Steve had a great talent for communicating his own point of view in a seductive and persuasive manner. Much of his success can be attributed to that talent. Whether he is communicating true insights while he has you mesmerized is not necessarily the same thing. It's worth keeping in mind that a card trick is still a card trick, even if it looks like real magic.

What is "true" insight? We are talking user interfaces, not the discovery of gravity; there is no singularly true insight to consumer products. Thus "true" insight is how Steve and other inspiring leaders can envision how millions of people really want a PC to work.

And if you are trying to say the Mac, Ipod, Iphone, and Ipad are card tricks..... well you might need to rethink your argument.

Arfdog
Jun 21, 2013, 12:29 AM
That was Steve was doing his reality-bending trick. A master magician at work. Buckets of respect for him. It was a great talent, but it's still a trick.

This refrain keeps showing up. You're really comparing Steve to a snake oil salesman. How much do you think a great snake oil salesman actually earns in sales? When was the last time you heard of a billionaire snake oil salesman? You know why you haven't? It's probably because he's selling.... snake oil.

If Steve could make his billions selling dirt, I think he would have gone that route since dirt needs much less capital investment and R&D.

Supa_Fly
Jun 21, 2013, 01:00 AM
Interesting how he was incorrect though. In another 4 years, the original iPhone will be 10 years old, and while he was correct that it is not usable anymore, it will still go down in history as the phone that started the smartphone revolution. The same way the iPad revitalized the tablet market and the iPod revolutionized the portable music market.

Wow ... delusional!

The iPhone was LATE in the smartphone revolution.
Symbian S60/UIQ/EPOC ... Windows Mobile Smartphone Edition, BlackBerry all created the revolution, song its praises very well long before Apple entered the foray ... in fact THEY'RE the REASON Apple entered into the market! Ever wonder WHY the iPad was developed first yet announced and shipped several years LATER?! Hmm.

Took iPhone 3 yrs to get basic PIM right ... going by your statement I've quoted above I highly doubt you know the P.I.M. acronym.

The iPhone brought on the evolution of the smartphone revolution ...
unifying: proper media consumption, good pictures (though SonyEricsson matched this for years! before and after; Nokia included and STILL reigns in this field), and mobile music and unified application delivery, along with showing manufacturers the falsehood of carrier branding!!

The iphone did NOT bring REAL web browsing like Jobs stated in the original iPhone announcment. Notice why he chose that particular and unpopular business Nokia S60 "E61" device? It's because it featured WebKit browsing ... created by Apple and a Google employee to create KTHML WebKit. Actually the Nokia N80 S60 2nd Edition device was the VERY first smartphone/phone to have a webkit based browser ... Nokia called it "nokia browser".

----------

I think most people don't realize that few ancient buildings that survive to the present day did so in anything close to their original form, or that many buildings fell for reasons that had nothing do with their architectural qualities. All architecture goes through periods where it viewed as obsolete, or it is simply in the way of something else. The result is more often than not alteration or demolition. Describing survival as an accident of history is appropriate, particularly when we are referring to ancient buildings. The concept of deliberate preservation is a modern one. It didn't occur to anyone until the middle of the 19th century.

Art is a somewhat different matter, but what I was saying about art is that its frame of reference changes. Most art was not created to be displayed in museums. It was created for other purposes (ecclesiastical, mainly), to be seen in a different context.

The Medici family... money makes power, and power makes right. A pretty close approximation to the way Gates is regarded today. I am not a huge fan of the Gates Foundation. If you've ever heard Melissa Gates talk about the foundation's efforts you will recognize that she's a lightweight who gets to espouse her limited wisdom in front of an audience only because of the money Bill made. Yet they get to bend health and education policies to their agenda. A good thing? Not in my book.

I don't think Steve was necessarily wrong with the layers analogy, I note only that he was leaving something out. He was being somewhat self-serving in dismissing everything he'd done previously, primarily (as I see it) because at that time he wasn't doing it anymore. In particular, he described the Mac as "nearly obsolete." This was three years before he returned to Apple, where (lo and behold) he did not treat the Mac as obsolete. And here were are, nearly 20 years later, and the Mac is stronger than ever.

That was Steve was doing his reality-bending trick. A master magician at work. Buckets of respect for him. It was a great talent, but it's still a trick.

He stated the "Macintosh" was obsolete .. not the Mac. ;) semantics of course but maybe he was honest and serious because he saw Desktop Publishing as a thing to common, and that Workstations - the purpose for being that is NeXT to replace that when he returned to Apple:
24 PowerMac G3's sourcing video content in real time shown off.
XServes announced and shown off in similar fashion,
Power Mac G5 debuted with applomb in a BOMB and now the NEW MAC PRO.

on "Macintosh" exists ... just Mac ... since he's now cool grown up and taking charge.

cualexander
Jun 21, 2013, 06:28 AM
Wow ... delusional!

The iPhone was LATE in the smartphone revolution.
Symbian S60/UIQ/EPOC ... Windows Mobile Smartphone Edition, BlackBerry all created the revolution, song its praises very well long before Apple entered the foray ... in fact THEY'RE the REASON Apple entered into the market! Ever wonder WHY the iPad was developed first yet announced and shipped several years LATER?! Hmm.

Took iPhone 3 yrs to get basic PIM right ... going by your statement I've quoted above I highly doubt you know the P.I.M. acronym.

The iPhone brought on the evolution of the smartphone revolution ...
unifying: proper media consumption, good pictures (though SonyEricsson matched this for years! before and after; Nokia included and STILL reigns in this field), and mobile music and unified application delivery, along with showing manufacturers the falsehood of carrier branding!!

The iphone did NOT bring REAL web browsing like Jobs stated in the original iPhone announcment. Notice why he chose that particular and unpopular business Nokia S60 "E61" device? It's because it featured WebKit browsing ... created by Apple and a Google employee to create KTHML WebKit. Actually the Nokia N80 S60 2nd Edition device was the VERY first smartphone/phone to have a webkit based browser ... Nokia called it "nokia browser".[COLOR="#808080"]



You are delusional, not me. Those were niche devices. Windows mobile was crap. So was Symbian. Capacitive multi-touch changed the game. Before that, everything was resistive touch, which was junk. iPhone changed the game. Show me the TIME Magazine article about the S60 being the best device ever, oh yeah, it doesn't exist.

IJ Reilly
Jun 21, 2013, 08:17 PM
A nice way to summarize Gates and I agree with you. The point I was trying to make is many years from now, if Malaria is cured and education policy takes a turn in a way that seems similar to the mission of his foundation, we may see Gates (for good or for bad) being referred to as a transformative figure of his time (though so much else is going on).

On architecture, you have to cut some slack. Pyramids, the places that define the center of Florence, Morgan's house in NYC, the mansions on the bluffs in Rhode Island, Versailles - some things get preserved because they are exceptional. I'm not disagreeing with you that architecture gets torn down, ripped apart and re-purposed (i.e. all the ancient 7 wonders), but survival odds are definitely changed by the qualities of the artifact, meaning that it isn't all random (i.e accidental).

I get your point about Steve. My main point is that his framing of this time, and this industry, as not a renaissance is comparing apples (commercial products) and oranges (novel pursuits funded by the sale of the products). Perhaps you're making the argument that those were so intertwined 500 years ago that the distinction I'm making isn't important, but I wouldn't buy that the Medici as a whole are known for advancing humanist thought which values divergent, rather than purely commercial interests.

On Gates and his foundation: his health initiative was not really his health initiative. He has funded a polio eradication effort started and funded for more than a decade by others. Not that the additional money wasn't appreciated, but to paint him as the brainchild of this concept is to give him too much credit. Maybe the future will forget this, as the present seems to have overlooked it. In education, Gates had the brilliant idea that what every student needed was smaller schools, so he funded a whole lot of smaller schools. Turns out, smaller schools do not improve academic performance. And so on. Cart, meet horse.

Some great, ancient buildings proved difficult to destroy, not that people didn't try. The Sphinx had its face blown off by French troops who used it for target practice. The Parthenon is ruinous today because the Turks occupying Athens in the 17th century thought it was a good place to store gun powder. It is really remarkable how little anyone cared for ancient buildings, even some that seem so obviously great to us today, until very recently.

As for the Renaissance, I think it's worth keeping in mind that it was in general a period when art, education, and science became widely appreciated. I don't know that it can be attributed to any one family.

----------

What is "true" insight? We are talking user interfaces, not the discovery of gravity; there is no singularly true insight to consumer products. Thus "true" insight is how Steve and other inspiring leaders can envision how millions of people really want a PC to work.

And if you are trying to say the Mac, Ipod, Iphone, and Ipad are card tricks..... well you might need to rethink your argument.

No, I am not saying that. Clearly.

This refrain keeps showing up. You're really comparing Steve to a snake oil salesman. How much do you think a great snake oil salesman actually earns in sales? When was the last time you heard of a billionaire snake oil salesman? You know why you haven't? It's probably because he's selling.... snake oil.

If Steve could make his billions selling dirt, I think he would have gone that route since dirt needs much less capital investment and R&D.

No, I am not saying that. Clearly.

pacalis
Jun 22, 2013, 03:46 PM
Wow ... delusional!

The iPhone was LATE in the smartphone revolution.
Symbian S60/UIQ/EPOC ... Windows Mobile Smartphone Edition, BlackBerry all created the revolution, song its praises very well long before Apple entered the foray ... in fact THEY'RE the REASON Apple entered into the market! Ever wonder WHY the iPad was developed first yet announced and shipped several years LATER?! Hmm.


iPhone wasn't late or early, it was just right.

There are a lot of metaphors for for this, crossing the chasm, dominant design, but it was the first phone to bring together the right mix of features and production volume. That's why phones since have been so similar, I don't see it so much as they copying the iphone (i.e all the features existed elsewhere in some feature phone or another) as much as industry and consumer began to understand the requisite mix of features a smartphone needed to have to sell in large volume.

pacalis
Jun 22, 2013, 05:49 PM
On Gates and his foundation: his health initiative was not really his health initiative. He has funded a polio eradication effort started and funded for more than a decade by others. Not that the additional money wasn't appreciated, but to paint him as the brainchild of this concept is to give him too much credit. Maybe the future will forget this, as the present seems to have overlooked it. In education, Gates had the brilliant idea that what every student needed was smaller schools, so he funded a whole lot of smaller schools. Turns out, smaller schools do not improve academic performance. And so on. Cart, meet horse.


I think we're agreeing on Gates. I didn't mean to paint Gates as a brainchild, all I was saying is that he's applying his fortune in a way that has the potential/purpose for non-commercial/social outcomes. This is very similar to what is generally understood to have happened during the renaissance, whatever the unique motivations of those families.

But separately, this is also something that I see as a great failing of Jobs - his legacy has been primarily developed through his commercial interests (and in that way, individually his experience is indeed unlike the renaissance). And I feel the same way about many other successful men - Larry Ellison, Warren Buffet etc... I don't get how they can be so successful on the one hand, and not have social ambitions on the other. So separately, while I may not always agree with the social interests and investments of those Soros' or the Bloomberg's of this world, I can better identify with them (instead of Jobs, Buffet, Ellison etc..) in that they are using their resources to shape society in a way that they think is better.

Also, I get that you take interest in the preservation of buildings, but that seems to be getting a bit to narrow and specific given the context of this thread.

IJ Reilly
Jun 23, 2013, 01:14 AM
I think we're agreeing on Gates. I didn't mean to paint Gates as a brainchild, all I was saying is that he's applying his fortune in a way that has the potential/purpose for non-commercial/social outcomes. This is very similar to what is generally understood to have happened during the renaissance, whatever the unique motivations of those families.

But separately, this is also something that I see as a great failing of Jobs - his legacy has been primarily developed through his commercial interests (and in that way, individually his experience is indeed unlike the renaissance). And I feel the same way about many other successful men - Larry Ellison, Warren Buffet etc... I don't get how they can be so successful on the one hand, and not have social ambitions on the other. So separately, while I may not always agree with the social interests and investments of those Soros' or the Bloomberg's of this world, I can better identify with them (instead of Jobs, Buffet, Ellison etc..) in that they are using their resources to shape society in a way that they think is better.

Also, I get that you take interest in the preservation of buildings, but that seems to be getting a bit to narrow and specific given the context of this thread.

Point taken. It's interesting, the contrast between the two. Gates during his working career seemed far more interested in selling stuff than in making the stuff special. Driving competitors out of the way of him selling more stuff, by underhanded and even illegal means if necessary, was a perfectly acceptable method of doing business to him. Jobs wanted to change the world, to bend the arc of history, one product at a time. Money was a tool for that sort of change. Gates then turned much of his amassed fortune to charity, when Jobs, as far as we know, donated relatively little. Maybe Gates is doing a kind of penance, in the way Carnegie did for his ruthless business practices? And Jobs felt he'd already made the impact he'd envisioned? A working theory.

Didn't Buffet start that program of asking super-wealthy people like himself to leave half of their fortunes to charity when they died?

We got onto old buildings as a way of addressing the question of how present-day things get valued by the future, since Jobs made this analogy in the video clip. What one generation cares about may or may not translate into the next one. Jobs made it sound like a cinch to know what kinds of things stand the test of time and what does not. His analogy doesn't hold up to real-world testing, is my point.

otismotive77
Jun 23, 2013, 03:14 PM
he looks awesome in that beard, it's really sad we couldn't save him, miss you steve.

macreviewz
Jun 24, 2013, 01:55 AM
I hear what you just said friend. Yet, your passion, your vision, your efforts, your ways - will be regarded timeless.

Patience, friend - we will speak about you in hundreds and hundreds of years to come!

Enjoy Nextel. Your next job will be legendary!:apple: