CNBC Recognizes Steve Jobs as Most Influential Business Leader in the Past 25 Years

[LordVic]

Please, enlighten me.


I live in the real world, where 15+ years ago, you HAD to get a PC. Getting anything else was sad. Today, getting a PC is sad, and you HAVE to get a MacBook.

MS is still a very strong empire because they're so deeply entrenched across the globe with their crappy OS. Time solves this. Their technology and innovations now are crap, and the market just needs to catch up to their lack of innovation. Give it 10 years.

Microsoft offers more than just Windows and Office. They have a very VERY large enterprise level of software and support, from Database back-ends, Data entry systems, Accounting packages and modules, data systems, analytics, reporting services.

They also on top of that offer Services for enterprises. server platforms, Internet Information services

Windows is their most known product. But it's by far not their only thing. Their front consumer face of Windows, Xbox and a few smaller players in the market like the WinPhone and handhelds is only a tiny segment of what they actually have and do.

Are they the only option? no. There are a lot, some do things better, some do things worse, But it's the way that they support, those products which is unrivalled currently in the market.

If all you've ever seen is what desktop users have and argue between Mac and PC, you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. And we all know that Icebergs above water portion is tiny compared to what you can't see underwater.

I'm not going to ever say that 10 years from now Microsoft will be the #1 player still. That could change Tomorrow for all we know.

But as long as Microsoft Continues with their current offerings, there isn't much in the way of offerings out there right now.

 

[reznick]

Apple didnt invent the phone though. I believe that accomplishment rests with Alexander Graham Bell.

thanks for your participation, we'll take it from here..

 

[Dave.UK]

I live in the real world, where 15+ years ago, you HAD to get a PC. Getting anything else was sad. Today, getting a PC is sad, and you HAVE to get a MacBook.

Really? Who decided that PC's are sad and that you have to get a MacBook?

 

[bsolar]

Fairly?

Sadly trademark lawyers tend to be ridiculously protective, in part because if you don't protect your trademark you risk losing it. Anyway I fail to see how this matters with fair or unfair competition. The cease & desist were sent to companies which don't compete with Apple at all: it's clear that the goal is not to damage them as competitors but to protect the trademark (even if without merit).

 

[Dave.UK]

thanks for your participation, we'll take it from here..

Well if your going to spout rubbish, at least try and get some of it correct!

Apple didnt invent the phone.

 

[LordVic]

Really? Who decided that PC's are sad and that you have to get a MacBook?

Image

What I love most about this argument is that the fundamental difference between an apple and a [windows] PC...

Nothing

They're fundamentally the same thing. Throw a different OS on the same hardware and its the same thing. Its like changing the flooring in a house and telling everyone "see, this isnt the same old house I lived in, it's a new house cause the floor is now hardwood!"

 

[Dave.UK]

Sadly trademark lawyers tend to be ridiculously protective, in part because if you don't protect your trademark you risk losing it. Anyway I fail to see how this matters with fair or unfair competition. The cease & desist were sent to companies which don't compete with Apple at all: it's clear that the goal is not to damage them as competitors but to protect the trademark (even if without merit).

Apple dont own the copyright to the image of an Apple.

I think it shows how pompus Apple have become if they believe they do.

 

[Renzatic]

Who said Apple invented the MP3 player? Apple invented the iPod, a breakthrough product.

...which is, for all intents and purposes, an MP3 player.

When people say "Apple didn't invent anything," they're admitting to having a very narrow minded, simplistic view on invention and creation.

Apple invented every product its ever created. They combined existing technologies to invent them. People often mistake those existing technologies with Apple's products. Apples products usually consist of a combination of existing technologies, new innovations, and combining those elements to create something entirely new.


People don't criticize Da Vinci for not inventing paint, yet they criticize Apple for not inventing the phone. Huh?

I think you're the one who takes a very narrow minded, simplistic view on invention and creation.

I give Apple credit for taking the inventions of others and designing something actually good with them. But that in and of itself doesn't make their products inventions. Inventions have to be wholly new, never before seen, which the iPhone isn't. And combining other inventions into one product isn't invention, either. Not unless it uses all these separate parts in incredibly novel, unprecidented ways. If it doesn't, it's iteration and design.

Design is what Apple is good at. Invention, not so much.

 

[bsolar]

Apple dont own the copyright to the image of an Apple.

I think it shows how pompus Apple have become if they believe they do.

It's not a matter of copyright, it's a matter of trademark. I agree that they are attacking the wrong target to protect it, but that's actually common practice definately not limited to Apple, since you can lose your trademark if you fail to actively act to protect it.

 

[reznick]

Microsoft offers more than just Windows and Office. They have a very VERY large enterprise level of software and support, from Database back-ends, Data entry systems, Accounting packages and modules, data systems, analytics, reporting services.

They also on top of that offer Services for enterprises. server platforms, Internet Information services

Windows is their most known product. But it's by far not their only thing. Their front consumer face of Windows, Xbox and a few smaller players in the market like the WinPhone and handhelds is only a tiny segment of what they actually have and do.

Are they the only option? no. There are a lot, some do things better, some do things worse, But it's the way that they support, those products which is unrivalled currently in the market.

If all you've ever seen is what desktop users have and argue between Mac and PC, you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. And we all know that Icebergs above water portion is tiny compared to what you can't see underwater.

Windows and Office apps make up most of their revenue, followed by the back end services you mentioned.


If Microsoft goes back to their roots of being App developers, great. In fact, it looks like they might be headed n that direction.

They will NEVER regain their dominance they held when they owned almost the entire OS market. That will never happen again. That era is coming to a close.

The competitive market in Apps and back end services would never allow such a drastic industry dominance. Can they remain a strong company by being successful in those two areas? Sure! But they'll never be the giant they once were when they dominated the PC market.

This all goes back to Bill Gates vs Steve Jobs being ranked the best business leader in the last 25 years.

Microsoft copied Apples invention, and became the largest company in the world. That is not a sustainable strategy, whereas Apples inventive DNA is. Therefor its a joke to compare Gates to Jobs, or MS to Apple.

One of them regularly creates paradigm shifting inventions. The other copied just ONE of those inventions.

Which is better?

 

[D.T.]

I hope the mods/admins jump in and prevent any further thread derailment, or childish bickering, this has gotten a little ridiculous.

 

[Renzatic]

Microsoft copied Apples invention, and became the largest company in the world. That is not a sustainable strategy, whereas Apples inventive DNA is. Therefor its a joke to compare Gates to Jobs, or MS to Apple.

Apple didn't invent the GUI. Both Jobs and Gates were well aware of what Xerox Parc were working on, and wanted a piece of that action.

...though I would say that Gates did ape some of Apple's designs and APIs when creating Windows. That doesn't mean they stole the GUI outright, just some of their implementations of it.

 

[bsolar]

Apple didnt invent the phone though. I believe that accomplishment rests with Alexander Graham Bell.

Meucci begs to differ. In this case like for many other inventions it's superficial to give full credit to only one "inventor".

 

[LordVic]

Windows and Office apps make up most of their revenue, followed by the back end services you mentioned.


If Microsoft goes back to their roots of being App developers, great. In fact, it looks like they might be headed n that direction.

They will NEVER regain their dominance they held when they owned almost the entire OS market. That will never happen again. That era is coming to a close.

The competitive market in Apps and back end services would never allow such a drastic industry dominance. Can they remain a strong company by being successful in those two areas? Sure! But they'll never be the giant they once were when they dominated the PC market.

This all goes back to Bill Gates vs Steve Jobs being ranked the best business leader in the last 25 years.

Microsoft copied Apples invention, and became the largest company in the world. That is not a sustainable strategy, whereas Apples inventive DNA is. Therefor its a joke to compare Gates to Jobs, or MS to Apple.

One of them regularly creates paradigm shifting inventions. The other copied just ONE of those inventions.

Which is better?

Would you believe you're wrong(i believe it, you probably wont)

from Microsofts 2013 Financial statements

Windows Divisoin operating income of 19.2 B (
Server and Tools Income of 20.2B
Online Services 3.2B
Microsoft Business Business Division 24.7B
Entertainment and Devices 10.1B

Total Revenues of 77.7 B

by breakdown, this actually puts their Windows software (including office products and software geared to individuals) at only 24.7% of their Revenues. giving the rest of their products, the ones you don't seem to think are that important the bulk of 75% of their net revenues.

You're fundamentally wrong

Thus, its very hard to take the rest of your comment seriously until you do some objective unbiased research of your own.

These stats are all taken from Microsofts Auditted 2013 Year financial results.
http://view.officeapps.live.com/op/...tor/reports/ar13/docs/2013_Annual_Report.docx

 

[Dave.UK]

Meucci begs to differ. In this case like for many other inventions it's superficial to give full credit to only one "inventor".

But I hope we can agree that no credit can be given to Apple for inventing the phone!

 

[reznick]

...which is, for all intents and purposes, an MP3 player.

Yes it is. And an MP3 player is a computer. So who invented the MP3 player? Surely nobody, if its just a computer.

We're arguing semantics. In the end we just have different definitions of what invention is.

I think you're the one who takes a very narrow minded, simplistic view on invention and creation.

I give Apple credit for taking the inventions of others and designing something actually good with them. But that in and of itself doesn't make their products inventions. Inventions have to be wholly new, never before seen, which the iPhone isn't. And combining other inventions into one product isn't invention, either. Not unless it uses all these separate parts in incredibly novel, unprecidented ways. If it doesn't, it's iteration and design.

Design is what Apple is good at. Invention, not so much.

Apple DID use separate parts in incredibly novel unprecedented ways. Thats why no phone prior to the iPhone had a remotely similar experience.

And Apple is not just iteration and design. Their products are a combination of great design, technical brilliance, and creative connections.


Zoom out and look at the big picture. You think smartphones went from a tiny niche market to one of the largest industries on the globe because of an iteration and better design? Yea? Thats all it took?

 

[reznick]

Would you believe you're wrong(i believe it, you probably wont)

from Microsofts 2013 Financial statements

Windows Divisoin operating income of 19.2 B (
Server and Tools Income of 20.2B
Online Services 3.2B
Microsoft Business Business Division 24.7B
Entertainment and Devices 10.1B

Total Revenues of 77.7 B

by breakdown, this actually puts their Windows software (including office products and software geared to individuals) at only 24.7% of their Revenues. giving the rest of their products, the ones you don't seem to think are that important the bulk of 75% of their net revenues.

You're fundamentally wrong

Thus, its very hard to take the rest of your comment seriously until you do some objective unbiased research of your own.

These stats are all taken from Microsofts Auditted 2013 Year financial results.
http://view.officeapps.live.com/op/...tor/reports/ar13/docs/2013_Annual_Report.docx

Microsoft Business is Commercial Licensing, which is mostly made up of volume Windows Licensing and Office Licensing. I'm viewing a journalists breakdown of their financial reports. http://www.zdnet.com/apple-google-microsoft-where-does-the-money-come-from-7000026043/

 

[Xiroteus]

It would be nice, but the entire smartphone market has rendered it's verdict. Android/Windows Phone/iOS, Flash burns through battery at an astounding level so much so that no one supports it anymore. HTML5 adoption can't happen soon enough.

The world needs to hurry up a bit. It's a lot better yet there are a few here and there.

 

[reznick]

Apple didn't invent the GUI. Both Jobs and Gates were well aware of what Xerox Parc were working on, and wanted a piece of that action.

...though I would say that Gates did ape some of Apple's designs and APIs when creating Windows. That doesn't mean they stole the GUI outright, just some of their implementations of it.

So Gates and Microsoft knew about GUI irrespective of Apples involvement with it? I'd like to see a source for that.

I know that some of the PARC engineers helped build Windows at Microsoft, but that could have been after they got the Mac prototypes and decided to hire ex-PARC devs to build a GUI OS.

If MS and Apple both knew about GUI independently, I wonder why it took MS 2 more years than Apple to release the product.

 

[Renzatic]

Yes it is. And an MP3 player is a computer. So who invented the MP3 player? Surely nobody, if its just a computer.

We're arguing semantics. In the end we just have different definitions of what invention is.

Sorta, but not really. An MP3 player is a very specific type of computer, designed to do one thing. The very first one could be considered an invention. The iPod was an iteration upon that very first one.

This was one of the first commercially available MP3 players, the Diamond Rio. It came out in '98.

This is the first iPod. 2001.

As you can see, they're both more similar than they are different. The iPod certainly looks a helluva lot better. Does some things better as well. But it's still an iterative product. It's major differences are in design and usability, not in base functionality or technology.

...which, one again, is what Apple does best.

Apple DID use separate parts in incredibly novel unprecedented ways. Thats why no phone prior to the iPhone had a remotely similar experience.

And Apple is not just iteration and design. Their products are a combination of great design, technical brilliance, and creative connections.

Not really. You can see the entire history of the smartphone market by looking at the iPhone. Every little bit and piece that's on it has its genesis somewhere else.

What the iPhone did was take those odds and ends and make a smooth, cohesive experience out of it.

Don't think I'm saying Apple has an easy time of it, and just takes from everyone else. They don't. What they do is very, very difficult, and requires tons of research and care to get that perfect experience and stylish design down.

But they don't invent. They take other peoples inventions and make them work. They're ultimately one part of a very long process.

Zoom out and look at the big picture. You think smartphones went from a tiny niche market to one of the largest industries on the globe because of an iteration and better design? Yea? Thats all it took?

It wasn't because the iPhone was entirely new. It was because the iPhone was the Smartphone's killer app. They didn't make the smartphone. They made the smartphone cool.

 

[reznick]

So you are. Is changing the goalposts... You start with "stealing an idea isn't ideal for long-term business success".. MS still here proves YOU ARE WRONG!...

then.. move.onto..

let's see what happens in the next ten years... Is everything non Apple so wrong in your life that you have to come on forums and spout twaddle... So in 2024 when MS celebrate 50years on the go.. nit bad really as.it's. Not a sustainable business idea... What are you gonna be posting then.. gates only gave 20 billion to save dieing African kids.. .the tight get!... Well that wud be 20 billion more than jobs ever gave!

Thievery is not a sustainable business model, especially in creative fields like Tech.

Of course they're still huge 40 years later...it was the biggest robbery of all time. Hundreds of billions worth. A thief can live the rest of his life comfortably after robbing a swiss bank.

"Is everything non Apple so wrong in your life that you have to come on forums and spout twaddle" No, I just see Gates getting way too much praise in general, and feel an obligation to say something about it because his success was at the expense of the true innovators.


Jobs donated billions as well. He just didn't attach his name to it (which is how charity should be). Only after he died, did his wife reveal that Jobs was a significant contributor in many philanthropic areas.


Not to mention Jobs was too busy inventing products that could change millions of peoples lives over night. Gates stole, didn't have the skills to invent anything else, so he did what any rational man in his position would do: Give his money away to a good cause.

 

[Renzatic]

So Gates and Microsoft knew about GUI irrespective of Apples involvement with it? I'd like to see a source for that.

Here's one of many

I know that some of the PARC engineers helped build Windows at Microsoft, but that could have been after they got the Mac prototypes and decided to hire ex-PARC devs to build a GUI OS.

If MS and Apple both knew about GUI independently, I wonder why it took MS 2 more years than Apple to release the product.

That would require you to go back through the entire history of computers. To sum it up basically, Jobs wanted a platform, with the OS and hardware itself being a part of a single package. Gates saw the future as one OS tied across different platforms. Regardless of which ever one you believe is right, Gate's vision of the future would've taken longer to realize.

...and it really did, because PCs didn't get up to snuff until the late 80's, early 90's, and Windows didn't get halfway decent until Windows 3.11. Apple had a huge advantage there for awhile, though the PC ultimately won first prize.

 

[BaldiMac]

Would you believe you're wrong(i believe it, you probably wont)

from Microsofts 2013 Financial statements

Windows Divisoin operating income of 19.2 B (
Server and Tools Income of 20.2B
Online Services 3.2B
Microsoft Business Business Division 24.7B
Entertainment and Devices 10.1B

Total Revenues of 77.7 B

by breakdown, this actually puts their Windows software (including office products and software geared to individuals) at only 24.7% of their Revenues. giving the rest of their products, the ones you don't seem to think are that important the bulk of 75% of their net revenues.

You're fundamentally wrong

Thus, its very hard to take the rest of your comment seriously until you do some objective unbiased research of your own.

These stats are all taken from Microsofts Auditted 2013 Year financial results.
http://view.officeapps.live.com/op/...tor/reports/ar13/docs/2013_Annual_Report.docx

Microsoft Business Division is 90% Office licensing revenue. So Windows and Office are 60% of their revenue and combine for more than 100% of their operating income (since other divisions lost money). If you include Windows Server as "Windows", the numbers are even greater.

Maybe you could take his comment more seriously now.

 

[reznick]

Sorta, but not really. An MP3 player is a very specific type of computer, designed to do one thing. The very first one could be considered an invention. The iPod was an iteration upon that very first one.

This was one of the first commercially available MP3 players, the Diamond Rio. It came out in '98.

Image

This is the first iPod. 2001.

Image

As you can see, they're both more similar than they are different. The iPod certainly looks a helluva lot better. Does some things better as well. But it's still an iterative product. It's major differences are in design and usability, not in base functionality or technology.

...which, one again, is what Apple does best.



Not really. You can see the entire history of the smartphone market by looking at the iPhone. Every little bit and piece that's on it has its genesis somewhere else.

What the iPhone did was take those odds and ends and make a smooth, cohesive experience out of it.

Don't think I'm saying Apple has an easy time of it, and just takes from everyone else. They don't. What they do is very, very difficult, and requires tons of research and care to get that perfect experience and stylish design down.

But they don't invent. They take other peoples inventions and make them work. They're ultimately one part of a very long process.



It wasn't because the iPhone was entirely new. It was because the iPhone was the Smartphone's killer app. They didn't make the smartphone. They made the smartphone cool.

Your reasoning is actually very logical, and you did a good job at backing it up.

It seems in your case it would be very difficult to find pure examples of invention. If we keep looking at the predecessors of all inventions we eventually get to the natural elements of the universe.

Which is why I consider Apples products to be inventions. You know, it's not like they took the parts of that 1998 MP3 player in your post, and rearranged the parts to make a better MP3 player. They introduced entirely new parts to the system that were never a part of MP3 players before. Isn't that invention? The click-wheel was totally original. Isn't that invention?

----------

Microsoft Business Division is 90% Office licensing revenue. So Windows and Office are 60% of their revenue and combine for more than 100% of their operating income (since other divisions lost money). If you include Windows Server as "Windows", the numbers are even greater.

Maybe you could take his comment more seriously now.

----------

Here's one of many



That would require you to go back through the entire history of computers. To sum it up basically, Jobs wanted a platform, with the OS and hardware itself being a part of a single package. Gates saw the future as one OS tied across different platforms. Regardless of which ever one you believe is right, Gate's vision of the future would've taken longer to realize.

...and it really did, because PCs didn't get up to snuff until the late 80's, early 90's, and Windows didn't get halfway decent until Windows 3.11. Apple had a huge advantage there for awhile, though the PC ultimately won first prize.

The link doesn't necessarily say that Gates did or didn't learn about GUI before Apple introduced it to them. I guess it depends on when Microsoft officially saw the Mac for the first time: Was it before or after Xerox' Star was publicly revealed?

Also its possible a PARC engineer spilled the beans to him before he saw the Mac. I guess too many question marks, and only Gates and a few people around him truly know.

 

[chriscrk]

We miss you Steve

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Many of the things posted there, he supervised. I'd imagine most products as of last year, and things that haven't come out yet such as the iWatch, might have been things that he supervised and looked at himself.