Lucky736
macrumors 65816
Careful the spaceship might take off to another state. LMAO.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's 50th Anniversary Finale Revealed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
When will people stop using the "Steve would have" argument?
Last edited:
How do people think of these complaints? I never would have thought of this in a million years.
I'm going to have to disagree with the first sentence
Apple was founded in 1976, their first product came out in 1976 and their first hit product in 1977.
The first Mac wasn’t released until 1984, and didn’t become a success until the late 80s into the early 90s.
She's not a he, that you or I know of.
She's still going strong, but that would be a weird descriptor for her since she's only 30.
She's British, but wasn't part of the British Invasion, unless Gurman was using his own rogue meaning for that.
Jobs could not be ecstatic about her because he died before her debut, unless Gurman was making a very random and bold prediction.
I don't think it's Dua Lipa.
ThomasJL
macrumors 68020
Hey Tim Cook, newsflash: Paul McCartney was a founder of Apple Corps, not Apple Inc. The 50th anniversary of Apple Inc. marks the day of its founding, and thus the celebration should give the most focus and attention to its three founders, only two of whom are still alive—Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne.
Tim Cook is too clueless and mediocre to realize that the 50th anniversary of Apple’s founding should be primarily focused on celebrating its three founders. In addition to Wayne’s other noteworthy contributions, Wayne is the one who typed the legal document for the founding of Apple Inc (then Apple Computer Company). The 50th anniversary marks 50 years to the day since April 1, 1976, when Wayne’s legal document brought Apple into legal existence.
Is Cook so clueless and mediocre that he can’t understand that simple concept?
I have no problem with McCartney being a guest and a performer, and his presence is fitting considering how one of the founders of Apple Inc., Steve Jobs, was a big fan of The Beatles and viewed the four band members’ synergistic differences as a role model for how Apple Inc. should work. However, during this celebration, Wayne deserves far more attention and far more focus than McCartney.
Wayne made important contributions to Apple, and sadly many people don’t know about them. Jobs appreciated and saw the exceptional talent in Wayne, which is why Jobs chose Wayne to be one of the only three founders, as well as why Jobs tried to rehire Wayne on a few occasions after Wayne left. Wayne deserves recognition for his talent. McCartney doesn’t need any more recognition for his musical talent because he has already received more recognition than any other musician of the past 100 years.
McCarntney is a billionaire. Whatever Apple is paying him to appear, Wayne should be payed even more. Wayne is reported to be poor. Cook behaves like someone who hates poor people, so it won’t be surprising if Cook doesn’t want Apple to pay Wayne to appear, and it wouldn’t even be surprising if Cook doesn’t even want Apple to invite Wayne.
Tim Cook is too clueless and mediocre to realize that the 50th anniversary of Apple’s founding should be primarily focused on celebrating its three founders. In addition to Wayne’s other noteworthy contributions, Wayne is the one who typed the legal document for the founding of Apple Inc (then Apple Computer Company). The 50th anniversary marks 50 years to the day since April 1, 1976, when Wayne’s legal document brought Apple into legal existence.
Is Cook so clueless and mediocre that he can’t understand that simple concept?
I have no problem with McCartney being a guest and a performer, and his presence is fitting considering how one of the founders of Apple Inc., Steve Jobs, was a big fan of The Beatles and viewed the four band members’ synergistic differences as a role model for how Apple Inc. should work. However, during this celebration, Wayne deserves far more attention and far more focus than McCartney.
Wayne made important contributions to Apple, and sadly many people don’t know about them. Jobs appreciated and saw the exceptional talent in Wayne, which is why Jobs chose Wayne to be one of the only three founders, as well as why Jobs tried to rehire Wayne on a few occasions after Wayne left. Wayne deserves recognition for his talent. McCartney doesn’t need any more recognition for his musical talent because he has already received more recognition than any other musician of the past 100 years.
McCarntney is a billionaire. Whatever Apple is paying him to appear, Wayne should be payed even more. Wayne is reported to be poor. Cook behaves like someone who hates poor people, so it won’t be surprising if Cook doesn’t want Apple to pay Wayne to appear, and it wouldn’t even be surprising if Cook doesn’t even want Apple to invite Wayne.
Last edited:
Happy_John
macrumors 65816
I’d far rather a product announcement on Wednesday. Even of it’s M5 minis and M5 studios.
So far all of the “anniversary stiff” has been pretty bland, and, more to the point, none of it directly relates to tech and to what made Apple a known company name; making desirable tech that enable people to do stuff.
So far all these “anniversary events” have been people just spectating. Not much ‘creating’ at all.
So far all of the “anniversary stiff” has been pretty bland, and, more to the point, none of it directly relates to tech and to what made Apple a known company name; making desirable tech that enable people to do stuff.
So far all these “anniversary events” have been people just spectating. Not much ‘creating’ at all.
Last edited:
Apple has often celebrated these anniversaries with a one off Mac.
Maybe this is how they unveil the first foldable iPhone. One way to justify the exorbitant price 🤣🤣🤣
Maybe this is how they unveil the first foldable iPhone. One way to justify the exorbitant price 🤣🤣🤣
Happy_John
macrumors 65816
"Let me just say he's still going strong, was part of the British Invasion and [Steve] Jobs would've been ecstatic," Gurman said about the headliner.
1976.
I’l literally p**s myself laughing if it turns out to be John Lydon.
But yeah, McCartney sounds like a “safe” (if very expensive)choice. Pink Floyd would fit the timeline better, but the place fir Dave Gilmour to show up would have been at the London Apple HQ, for very obvious reasons.
jaysabol
macrumors member
You're leaving out a lot of Apple history pre-Mac. I had my Apple IIe for 24 years.
Happy_John
macrumors 65816
No, it really didn’t.
It was the Apple II that put Apple on the map.
It was the success of the Apple II that bankrolled both the Lisa and the Macintosh.
Last edited:
joecomo
macrumors 65816
I still have the old U2 Album infecting every possible device - a real zombie
He’s American, though. The Monkees were an American band. The only non-American was Davy Jones.
Happy_John
macrumors 65816
And Davey Jones isn’t the most musically important David Jones. But the important one’s not with us anymore :-(
It’s going to have to be someone “big”, or else it’s going to be “meh”. An ex-Beatles, a Rolling Stone, etc
Please, please, please NOT U2. ( and the “British” tag would be even more tone-deaf).
SidricTheViking
macrumors 6502
You know Apple can remove the U2 album permanently for you. Just give Apple Support a call and one of their advisors will be happy to oblige.
In 2006, Apple was ramping up into what looked like a really bright future, with a charismatic leader who thought he still had at least 15 years left to run the company and make a mark on society, with the iPhone and iPad poised to do just that. In 2026, Apple has a leader on the verge of retirement (or at least a move to the board), who probably isn't having a good time dealing with the current administration's demands, and a product line that is still great but there isn't a path to reformat society the way Apple did in the 2007-12 period. This might explain why the celebration is more inward looking and focused on maintaining the company...Apple isn't hungry to revolutionize the world anymore, it's a money making machine that makes great products (overall) and is likely to continue doing that for a while.
Of course, it's not really clear what the next tech revolution is right now, but it doesn't seem like it's going to come through Apple this time, especially not when there isn't a true visionary leading the country. Let's be fair, Cook is excellent at what he does, and he's overall done well as CEO, but he's not Steve Jobs (which he'll freely admit), and I don't really see a Jobs in tech anywhere, they all seem to be out to make money off of products and improving people's lives is a secondary feature. When tech companies put profits behind making our lives better, we'll see some change, but I don't expect it anytime soon...and of the big tech companies I really think only Apple is still capable of it, despite the focus on products and profits they have the kernel to pull something special off.
Billy_Bob
macrumors regular
Maybe they'll surprise everyone on April by releasing a new Apple //gs+, able to run all the old Apple][ and Apple /// software? Thanks to emulation and miniaturization, Apple could release the new/old computer as a USB key that plugs into your Mac and lets it function transparently as an Apple //, pre-loaded with thousands of old games and utilities that have fallen into the public domain over the decades.
No, of course they won't do that. Timmy doesn't have the imagination for that. But it would be cool. Even if they charged a memorial-appropriate $50 for it.
And the best part if they DID do that? Given the April 1 anniversary, everyone would assume it was an April Fool's prank and not a genuine homage to the computer whose wild success made the Mac possible.
Billy_Bob
macrumors regular
This is such a common misunderstanding of Jobs. Jobs wasn't an altruist. He believed that "great artists ship" and was hyper-focused on releasing profitable hardware and software. The difference is that Jobs believed in releasing hardware and software sufficiently excellent that people would pay a justifiable premium for it.
Remember, Jobs killed the Newton project because it was unprofitable, even though it was an incredible (and constantly improving) tech achievement that was improving people's lives. Jobs brought the Newton technology back into R&D, and refined it until it could be redeployed in truly profitable touchscreen devices like the iPhone and iPod Touch.
It's the brilliant Steve Wozniak, not the marketer Steve Jobs, who would have bankrupted Apple by focusing on improving people's lives and releasing innovative technology with minimal regard for profit. Supply chain Tim is more like Jobs than many today like to admit.
Happy_John
macrumors 65816
I you want a livestream of Thomas The Tank Engine? Ringo’s yer man!
More seriously, all of these celebrations are very generic. Nothing about them is anything to do with Apple except Apple is bankrolling them and providing the venue (and inviting the audience).
I would have thought they’d make more of a link between the content if the events and the history of the company itself.
Last edited:
Happy_John
macrumors 65816
I’d agree with that. Wozniak was and is still far more interested in tech purely because it’s interesting tech, and noticing people’s lives. That’s what he’s been doing for the past few decades.
Jobs really was interested in business. He liked being a “name”. Wozniak really wasn’t. He just liked stuff he thought was cool.
Last edited:
SFjohn
macrumors 68030
Incorrect, Apple began with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_I
Happy_John
macrumors 65816
Yes, but it was the Apple II that made “ Apple the startup in a garage” into “Apple Computer”.