Is that real or photoshopped cause it looks like the Apple watchFast forward to 27seconds in the trailer. Jobs is wearing the Apple Watch:
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.
First Trailer for 'Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine' Documentary Released
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually, while sales of the Palm Treo and Windows Mobile devices were starting to grow, they didn't have the cachet of the Apple brand name to really make them popular. And what Apple developed was a gigantic leap forward in cellphone technology incorporating a lot of earlier ideas into something revolutionary, and that's why Google scrapped its original design for Android and completely redesigned it for primarily touchscreen use with a lot of iPhone like features.
But getting back on topic, it'll be interesting to see will the documentary mention if Jobs' ruthlessness at times reminds people of how earlier business titans had to act the same to advance the company.
Just a friendly reminder:
The biggest problem with your little "ad" here is that it's not entirely accurate. Everything I read suggested Dennis Ritchie's biggest contribution was in porting UNIX to other platforms. Ken Thompson is given the credit for inventing it originally. So I wouldn't say it's safe to say we would not have had UNIX without him. Maybe it wouldn't have gone anywhere, but the original version would still exist. Ken Thompson also invented the "B" programming language, the predecessor to the "C" language so the idea that nothing like C would exist today without Dennis Ritchie is pretty much conjecture. Things would have been different, but how different is anyone's guess. Statements like "We would all read in binary" are obviously abject NONSENSE (again "B" already existed and other languages were created over time as well). You act as if history would have stood still and no one would have done anything with computers what-so-ever without him and that's about as accurate as calling Steve Jobs a Messiah. I'm not trying to diminish Dennis' contributions, but rather simply confront something that is almost political (that is to say carnival like) in its attempt to diminish Jobs own contributions (which were clearly more showmanship and directing than direct creation).
Is that real or photoshopped cause it looks like the Apple watch
it's real. see the official trailer yourself if you don't believe me!
Alex Gibney makes great documentaries. The recent Scientology one was very good. He also did the Enron one which is one of my favorites.
And vice versa, we eventually WOULD have an iPod, a touch screen phone, etc. It's not like tech would come to a grinding halt without him either. So again, why does Ritchie get snubbed?
I think you'll find Apple "became a thing" when they released the first iMac, right after Steve Jobs returned.
So you knew Steve Jobs then? You worked for him? Socialised with him? No? Then keep your biased opinions to yourself, because the only people who can pass judgment are those who actually knew him. Snippets here and there from people who crossed him isn't a true representation of a persons life.
What kind of story would I get if I asked everyone you had issues with, you think it would paint you in a true light?
And what about his nice and friendly side? You know, the side the media and people like you just ignore because it doesn't fit your narrative. Bullcrap sells, nice and friendly doesn't.
Judge thee not lest yea be judged.
Just like the engineers at Boeing, or Ferrari or Ford, or Microsoft don't get the recognition. Enough with the strawman arguments, your defamation of a dead man says more about you than him.
Feel free to achieve half of what Jobs did, then come here and spout your bile.
An iPod like the Zune? Or a tablet like the Kin? Or a touch phone like the Prada? Those things failed, just like your arguments.
Back under the bridge with you.
How about you set up your own blog in tribute for all the unsung designers, engineers, craftsmen, you can cry yourself a river there. Because nobody gives a flying ........
You can, but it doesn't work as well. Edison, Henry Ford come to mind. I think they take the prize when it comes to A holes.
I bought my first Apple in the UK in '91... I worked in publishing, and you had to have one if that was your job. Cost around £1500 for a Mac LCII, if I remember correctly, and because I had it, I got a whole load of work that others couldn't do. Literally paid for itself in a month.
And you make judgements on character flaws of people you have never even met. So in your judgement wouldn't that make you a jerk?
Yeah, undoubtedly it would have taken longer, but it would have happened. Not because the companies were pushing it, but just because it was the next technological step and things like that cannot be held back. Microsoft had the same ideas, but were not smart enough to put different ideas on one phone. Something like the Motorola Q with a streamlined windows interface, but if it had a touchscreen and of course a full size screen. I don't see what in particular was more advanced on the original iPhone, certainly not a gigantic leap but more of a beautiful package and relentless attention to detail and consideration of how easy it was for a non tech person to use. It was the right move as we can see the insane popularity today, even with iOS not changing a huge amount in all these years.
If you take tablets as a for instance. Microsoft made two failed attempts at tablet devices before the iPad, the courier and the kin. Apple actually created the iPad on the back of a challenge to Microsoft to show them how it should've been done. Microsoft just didn't have the vision. Microsoft argued that their tablets didn't need an email client. The rest is history.
Yes, most likely all these device would've come to be, but not in the form we see them now. It was Apple who saw touch devices required mulititouch, accelerometers, proximity sensors and a strong OS to back it all up, as well as the need for productive Apps.
Anyone can think up a concept for a new product, but to have it intergrated with the important things it should do, takes more than just an idea. You have to keep thinking outside the box to the point where ideas become science fiction. You have envisage the future, then set about creating it. That's the difference between just a product and a great product.
I believe it is a paradigm that it's the only way to make a company thrive. That's kind of XX century management style, we will see how long that kind of managerial behavior will dominate during this century.
As a leader of any enterprise you will need to deal with people and conflicts, it's expected and in many instances you have to fight to win, and you can do it without being disrespectful.
The iPhone touch screen tech was the best out there in responsiveness and precision, the App Store and SDK did make a significant leap in the industry how Apps are develop and commercialized.
Microsoft was on the right track IMO, but the hardware and software had not matured enough. iOS was necessary due to size, weight, battery life, etc so it had to be a scaled down OS. Thankfully Microsoft has progressed on and provided a tablet as thin, light and battery life as the ipad without having to sacrifice having a full OS, and the surface line is gaining traction as one of their best selling divisions. I HIGHLY agree with you, the surface line would not have existed in it's current form if it wasn't for the competition from the ipad, but then again the ipad would not have existed in it's current form if not for the pioneering companies like Microsoft had done prior to that. At the end of the day technology isn't just a single company having ideas come out of nowhere, it's more of a conglomeration and constant refining of ideas and Apple has proven themselves the masters of that. All of those other ideas would have came around eventually, and we can only surmise what ideas did NOT make it because of Apple. Things like stylus support, or something as insanely evolutionary as continuum which is the complete opposite direction Apple takes with iOS, these things wouldn't exist without other companies innovating, and in spite of Apple not implementing them. I definitely recognize the incredible job Apple did in single handedly making the tablet ubiquitous, but at the same time lament the dumbification of the tablet as a computer because of the ipad.
Plus I had an email client on my windows tablets, not sure which one you used. I do see Apple as very innovative, but at the same time they bank a lot on marketing and brand loyalty which puts blinders on many. Apple's genius is in this strategy, convincing their customers they need 3 devices, a smartphone, a tablet and a computer so they can rake in triple the profit, sheer genius.
True, the screen was head and shoulders above anything else. The app store is also a great point, that was quite revolutionary. But neither was unprecedented. Multi touch screens were around since the 80s. Multi touch and pinch to resize elements, pictures, even maps were around years before the iPhone. App stores were around as well, Handango had an on phone app store which in spirit wasn't much different, although Apple was genius IMO in their profit split with the developers.
Once again I'm not denying that Apple completely revolutionized the smartphone market, but it was through implementation and refinement of existing ideas. Sometimes the sentiment I gather is that Apple invented all these things and deserves that credit. These things would have improved on their own, or matured into different iterations, but Apple greatly accelerated the process. Just because the technology was clunky doesn't mean it wouldn't mature without the existence of Apple.
Not really all started back in the late 70s early 80s
http://www.edn.com/electronics-blog...makes-instant-millionaires--December-12--1980
As a public figure, the way anyone remembers him is an opinion that deserves to be considered.
I haven't judged anyone, my comment was simply a response to someone who categorically dismiss statements from people who worked with Jobs and don't describe him flatteringly.
Can you prove that we'd never have touchscreen phones or tablets without Jobs? Why do you conveniently ignore the same valid argument against Jobs?