I noticed that too.
(Also the YouTube icon and maps icon are a giveaway as to the older firmware.
Couple that with the stock placement- iOS5/6 is different- along with the stock mic icon, within the folder, all are 'tells' this is iOS4.)
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.
CNBC Recognizes Steve Jobs as Most Influential Business Leader in the Past 25 Years
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I noticed that too.
(Also the YouTube icon and maps icon are a giveaway as to the older firmware.
Couple that with the stock placement- iOS5/6 is different- along with the stock mic icon, within the folder, all are 'tells' this is iOS4.)
All of those photos you posted... are you suggesting something contradictory to what you stated here?
I think I agree with those that have Gates above Jobs. What Jobs has done has been incredibly impressive. But 25 years starts in 1989. The entire 90's were dominated by Windows. Because of that domination, they are still the ones dominating the computer world today. (Computer, not electronics)
The personal consumer electronics device has been entirely redefined by Apple. But the world being the technological beast that it has become owes a lot to the work of Gates and Microsoft. Apple got that ball rolling, but Windows is what made the entire world able to communicate in the same format.
It's a fun debate whoever you chose. They both have made it possible for me to type this on my 2013 intel MBA.
The personal consumer electronics device has been entirely redefined by Apple. But the world being the technological beast that it has become owes a lot to the work of Gates and Microsoft. Apple got that ball rolling, but Windows is what made the entire world able to communicate in the same format.
It's a fun debate whoever you chose. They both have made it possible for me to type this on my 2013 intel MBA.
Sure, for business anyone ruthless enough will make it.
How about the human factor, since humans created business (and then let it run amok, giving cute names to obfuscate the often anti-human aspect to SOME of its behavior...)
Jobs was a great businessman. No problem. So are Gates, Zuckerberg, and others that make it to the top and it doesn't matter how they got there.
----------
There used to be an old saying - Nobody lost a job because they used Microsoft products.. Gates and his company did touch a lot of lives, often in good ways. Not always, but that's par for the course in free market economics. So did Jobs, and everyone else in business - whether they become king of the hill or not.
Speaking of copying, Jobs copied Xerox's GUI and mouse. He liked to copy but threw loud fits when others copied (e.g. Android, a platform Apple would later be copying dozens of features from...)
He also hated the fact that Flash let people play games for free, while Apple's store was charging 99 cents for every sale (for which Apple would get 30% off the top, even though they did not develop the software being sold for that low low price.)
How about the human factor, since humans created business (and then let it run amok, giving cute names to obfuscate the often anti-human aspect to SOME of its behavior...)
Jobs was a great businessman. No problem. So are Gates, Zuckerberg, and others that make it to the top and it doesn't matter how they got there.
----------
There used to be an old saying - Nobody lost a job because they used Microsoft products.. Gates and his company did touch a lot of lives, often in good ways. Not always, but that's par for the course in free market economics. So did Jobs, and everyone else in business - whether they become king of the hill or not.
Speaking of copying, Jobs copied Xerox's GUI and mouse. He liked to copy but threw loud fits when others copied (e.g. Android, a platform Apple would later be copying dozens of features from...)
He also hated the fact that Flash let people play games for free, while Apple's store was charging 99 cents for every sale (for which Apple would get 30% off the top, even though they did not develop the software being sold for that low low price.)
If it wasn't for things link the iPod and iPhone, people wouldn't have their Android devices they love so much. So yeah , even they have Steve to thank. Apple continued to push innovation and others followed suit. Steve made the company an industry leader for music, phones, tablets etc. Even computers and design. Steve and Jony were a huge force to be reckoned with when Steve was still alive. Now Jony is playing that role. But no other company has the amount of talent floating around Apple. Sure there are tons of great people in other tech companies but the shear force of what Apple brings to the table is just not found elsewhere.
Regardless of your other points, this is just flat wrong. Jobs hated Flash because it's a massively inefficient and insecure technology. He gave Adobe THREE YEARS to make a version of Flash for mobile devices that didn't kill the battery and they failed miserably. It's so bad that even Android abandoned flash.
So you are giving a lot of excuses why Apple isn't as big as it could have been compared to MS:
- Apple being weak and Steve not working at Apple
- Apple software only eing legally allowed on Apple hardware
- Gates killing competitors
Your intention was to refute my claim, but in stead you ended up agreeing with me.
Again, the method of measurement and the criteria matter here, but if we are speaking about influencing the world it is Gates that has won from Steve. There isn't a spot on this planet where Windows or MS Dos isn't the major OS. >90% of businesses run office. All the businesses that you as a person visit for groceries, plane tickets, cars or whatever run MS software. Don't mistake me for a MS fanboy. I hate my work laptop (Windows 7) with a passion. But where Microsoft has penetrated the capillaries of the planet, Apple still hasn't entered many markets yet.
If we speak about consumer experience, then Apple is only making a big dent since about 2003-2004. Compare that to Microsoft, which became market leader somewhere in the eighties or maybe even before. That is 40 years of market dominance in computing compared to 10 years of disruption in new markets by Apple.
I love Apple products and will be one of the first to buy an iWatch and retina MBP, but please let's remain realistic about the importance of Apple overall and not be blinded by the incredible success of the last 1-0 years.
Very depressing and very true. Should have also shown the RAM usage meters along with a spinning beach ball on Mavericks. Actually, there are a lot of other failures missing. I really tried to think Tim Cook would be a good CEO, but I've lost all hope by now.
----------
Bill Gates's software touches us? More like punches us in the face
If it weren't for Windows, those would all run some *nix OS or an IBM OS. And Firefox instead of IE! All he did was take the biggest slice of the pie, not developing anything revolutionary or even progressive. Just a semi-monopoly in the software market.
----------
According to whatever books I have read on it, including the Steve Jobs biography, the original Mac GUI looked nothing like the Xerox one. It's just that they took the idea of having a GUI.
Last edited:
Yet he seemed to have nothing against HTML5 games
Flash has gotten slower and slower with each new version since the beginning. Like the other poster said, Flash was so bad that it even disappeared from Android. And Flash never worked well on Macs either. Big thanks to Jobs for killing it once and for all.
P.S. Even all these pointless fancy new HTML5 and CSS things appearing on new webpages slow down old computers. The new "web" is the no. 1 reason why old computers become obsolete.
----------
Agreed. I never understood what was so special about her other than that she hosted a very popular show.
I'd put them tied, myself. Gates realized the computer revolution, and was responsible for putting a computer in every home. Jobs did the same thing with the smartphone and tablet. While you could argue that the latter wouldn't have happened without the former, I ultimately see them both as being equally as important.
Though I do think we'll remember Jobs a little more fondly. Mostly because, and excuse me for being crass for a second, he had the "good fortune" of dying at the height of his career. Sucks for him personally, but it'll do wonders for his legacy. He didn't have to suffer through a period of decline that ends up tarnishing his image a bit, like Gates did with the antitrust hearings, and MS' stagnation in the 00's.
What Apple is going through now would've happened with Cook or Jobs at the helm. The bigger the splash your company makes, the higher the expectations for that company to continue making big splashes. Thing is, no single company can continue producing huge industry changing events time after time like MS did in the 90's, and Apple did in 2007-2011. Eventually, they'll end up disappointing everyone when they go from being truly innovative, to simply iterating on their previous innovations. It's an inevitability. But to Job's advantage, he avoided that downswing altogether, and we'll always remember him as The Innovator because of it.
I agree with everything you wrote, except that I would push Apple to 2001-2011 to include the iPod generation.
I agree with everything you wrote, except that I would push Apple to 2001-2011 to include the iPod generation.
Yeah, I guess you could throw the iPod in there, though I wouldn't consider it nearly as earth shattering as the iPhone and iPad were.
Xerox introduced the desktop metaphor itself and GUI elements like windows, menus, radio buttons, checkboxes and icons... that's much more than just the abstract idea of a GUI.
That last one is damning to Cook.
The recognition as the most INFLUENTIAL is well-deserved. Not the best, not the smartest, not the most successful, but influential? Yes. Carl Icahn would not have dreamed of yanking Steve's chain like he does Cook's. Sad, really. Cook may be a great VP but he is not CEO quality.
The best minds of the world?
Too late. He's still dead.
Btw, he was a Buddhist.
He didn't believe in God.
Well, not at least until he was dying.
Then he thought there was a 50/50 chance there was a God.
I guess he wanted half a ticket on the afterlife express.
Whatever.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/steve-jobs-biography-religious-views-changed-due-to-cancer-59153/
Touches the lives without anybody noticing is not influential.
The most ubiquitous operating system is not the most influential business leader.
Bill Gates has been a great leader and he is number two on the list.
But his being in the right place at the right time gave him a head start.
Steve Jobs lead apple from the verge of bankruptcy to most profitable/valuable
tech company.
I don't know or care if Steve Jobs deserves the top spot, but just because
a 30 year old OS is good enough to run ATM machines
and a ten year old OS is good enough for most businesses' needs
doesn't make it influential.
It's not that Windows is 'good enough' to run ATMs and businesses; it's that Windows does run ATMs and businesses.
That is 'influence'.
It would still be a nice option to have on all phones. Since some sites are SLOW in using something else I still require it from time to time.