Steve Jobs Envisioned the iPad in 1983

[Anuba]

Pure bullcrap. Look at Bill G. vs. Jobs at ATD 2007(?). On stage, Bill G goes on to state that tablets will become mainstream in 5 years (i.e., 2012). Problem with early MSFT tablets is that they went too early to market. (However, i think even they recognized that. Geeks - rather than marketers - as they were, they just did not see it as a reason not to push it anyway). Not that MSFT has an inability of "getting it". Geez, just look at all the exciting things coming out of MSFT research whether its courier, surface, optical screens, perspective based direct eye projections etc. MSFT may not have the taste of Apple, but dont mistake that for an inability of seeing where technology is heading (especially when it is in plain sight, contrary to "popular MR" belief).

Steve Jobs was no more a visionary than anyone else. His strength was looking at existing tech that was useful in theory and making it useful in reality, by employing his OCD-ish drive to keep going until a thing was done right, and to always see it from the end user perspective. A seemingly trivial thing like Apple establishing the term "App(lication)" (now adopted by MSFT in Win 8) rather than Program speaks volumes about the philosophy. "Program" communicates "go away, pesky human, this is between hardware and software". "Application" is user centric and addresses the question "what does this thing do for ME in MY life/work/whatever?"

We could go on and on about how everything Steve ever introduced existed before... how the mouse had been around since the 60's, how mp3 players already existed, how smartphones and tablets and multitouch already existed... but why is it always that it isn't until Apple does it that everyone goes "Ah, THAT's how it's done", and then they all copy it? Because Steve tweaked and tweaked, he tortured everyone involved and had them do 200 different versions so he could reject 199 of them, much like Stanley Kubrick drove everyone bonkers with 50 takes that looked exactly the same to everyone else.
Going the extra mile that only crazy narcissistic asperger's OCD perfectionist freaks will do, is the secret of Apple's success. Because it's what makes things so easy and intuitive to use that you find yourself out of excuses to not utilize them. Since people are inherently lazy and impatient, that final push is the difference between things that become part of our lives and things abandoned by the wayside.
Take the iPhone -- smartphones with internet capability had been around for ages, but only 15% ever bothered to surf on those devices. With the original iPhone, that number soared to 80%. What was the difference? Steve, and all the people he tortured to elevate the concept from clicking on stuff with a stylus to touching the Safari icon with your fingertip and then pinching to zoom.

 

[kdarling]

That's amazing that (Kay) had the general idea for a touchscreen computer that early in history.

Although, from the video, I got the impression that it was supposed to be aimed specifically at the children's market, what with its simple controls.

He may not have been anticipating the ability for people to do serious work on that type of device.

Although Kay often talked about making computers easier for kids to use AND program, the actual title of his first paper on the Dynabook was:

"A personal computer for children of all ages"

While waiting for technology to catch up to building the Dynabook, he went to Xerox PARC and helped build the Alto, that would lead into the Lisa and Macintosh. Later, as an Apple Fellow, he worked on the Newton, whose design he felt got screwed up by too much input from Apple marketing.

Alan Kay was stupidly ahead of his time. Try digging around for videos of him and prepare to be amazed what this guy was coming up with at Xerox and before.

Alan Kay was a true innovator. He was a prime inventor of the GUI, and of object oriented programming. Guys like him are the true changers of this world, even though they get very little publicity as compared to all those who have profited from their work.

As for comparing the Dynabook and iPad, one reporter talked to Kay about the two devices:

Article: So, did the Dynabook influence Steve Jobs and the iPad? “Hard to imagine that it didn't,” Kay said. “Of course, many things in the multi-touch UI, page turning animations, etc. were first done by the group of my friend Nicholas Negroponte at MIT,” Kay said. “The idea of touch screen interaction also goes back to this community, both at PARC and Negroponte's research group at MIT that invented a multi-touch tablet in the 70s. One set of the machines we made, called ‘The NoteTaker,’ had a touch screen.”

So Kay and Jobs have a lasting relationship. There is a particularly interesting event between the two that relates to the iPhone and the iPad. “When Steve showed me the iPhone at its introduction a few years ago and asked me if ‘it was good enough to criticize,’ which is what I had said about the Mac in 1984, I held up my Moleskine notebook and said ‘make the screen at least 5"x8" and you will rule the world,’ Kay said.

Kay does see the Dynabook and iPad as having totally different end user concepts, however. Interestingly, Kay's primary objection to the iPad is the App Store:

Article: “The app-centric way of looking at computing is not a good one in the end for the users. The apps can be individually very good and lots of them are on the iPad, but they needlessly stovepipe and isolate functionality that really should be integratible,” Kay said.

Kay believes it would be better to sell "objects" that work together, and can be integrated by the user to do what they want. I agree with him. Back in the 1980s I was building GUI objects that could be strung together to make powerful apps. In a much more minor way, this is an attraction of Android, in that the user at least gets to choose which app handles each type of object or action request: emails, web, maps, calls, etc.

 

[entatlrg]

Steve Jobs was no more a visionary than anyone else. His strength was looking at existing tech that was useful in theory and making it useful in reality, by employing his OCD-ish drive to keep going until a thing was done right, and to always see it from the end user perspective. A seemingly trivial thing like Apple establishing the term "App(lication)" (now adopted by MSFT in Win 8) rather than Program speaks volumes about the philosophy. "Program" communicates "go away, pesky human, this is between hardware and software". "Application" is user centric and addresses the question "what does this thing do for ME in MY life/work/whatever?"

We could go on and on about how everything Steve ever introduced existed before... how the mouse had been around since the 60's, how mp3 players already existed, how smartphones and tablets and multitouch already existed... but why is it always that it isn't until Apple does it that everyone goes "Ah, THAT's how it's done", and then they all copy it? Because Steve tweaked and tweaked, he tortured everyone involved and had them do 200 different versions so he could reject 199 of them, much like Stanley Kubrick drove everyone bonkers with 50 takes that looked exactly the same to everyone else.
Going the extra mile that only crazy narcissistic asperger's OCD perfectionist freaks will do, is the secret of Apple's success. Because it's what makes things so easy and intuitive to use that you find yourself out of excuses to not utilize them. Since people are inherently lazy and impatient, that final push is the difference between things that become part of our lives and things abandoned by the wayside.
Take the iPhone -- smartphones with internet capability had been around for ages, but only 15% ever bothered to surf on those devices. With the original iPhone, that number soared to 80%. What was the difference? Steve, and all the people he tortured to elevate the concept from clicking on stuff with a stylus to touching the Safari icon with your fingertip and then pinching to zoom.

Well said, thanks for taking the time to write that.

The discounting of Steve Jobs around by some people here is sickening. He's passed away, let it go, give him credit for what he did do and respect that.

 

[flameproof]

What he envisioned wasn't the iPad, it was the Newton. A good idea, but totally disfunctional and bug ridden. Later Palm made it into a working product.

To believe he though about an iPad in 1983 is plain stupid.

 

[Namjins]

I love hearing these old recordings. It is fantastic to see what people were seeing and thinking. To see the fruits of their dreams in my lifetime.

 

[Ochyandkaren]

Darwin is not my favorite topic, so i might be wrong in saying that you are mistaken. Darwins claim to fame is and was never the theory of evolution, but rather the mechanism through which evolution is explained: i.e., natural selection. Prior to Darwins seminal work, it was commonly believed that traits developed in response to the environment were passed on the future generations. Darwin showed them wrong (in fact, he flipped this view up side down). That was his main contribution to science.

What did i wrote:

Darwin demonstrated with field-work what an English gentleman working in Indonesia already filled in a paper, a paper he send to Darwin, i just do not remember his name.
If you google it you will find it.
Theory of evolution is the theory that explains the mechanism.

----------

We cannot. That is the point people are trying to drive home. Jobs said "fluff". Fluff that others had already said. Thus, we have no reason to assume that he "envisioned the iPad in 1983".

Second, even if he didnt say fluff and actually were on point, carefully elaborating on his concept in effect describing the ipad, that in itself would probably still not qualify as particularly visionary, given that others were saying similar things and exploring the very same trends.

The teleporter example is spot on, actually. Even if a write up a detailed technical paper on its inner and outer workings, i would hardly be a visionary if what i wrote were essentially other peoples words regurgitated through my pen.

That said, if Jobs would have achieved the latter (not saying fluff) the head line would at least be correct. Then we could safely say that Jobs indeed envisioned the iPad in 1983. As it stands, i call baloney. Doesnt stop him from having a basic idea of where technology is heading though, just like i am not stopped from thinking about future trends in manufacturing or travel.

Nonsense!

Why did i provided many examples of geniuses that did not arrive first at an idea?

And how can you single out the first person who thought about anything.
It is Just absurd, absurd.

 

[Ochyandkaren]

Get a clue, please. Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke worked on 2001: A Space Odyssey concurrently. Kubrick's screenplay was finished before the novel.

Go read again my post : The writer worked on the movie.
Kubrick's build the scenery ( as with all his movies ), the writer input was always present.

Actually Clarke was already a visionary even before meeting Kubrick, which was a great artist but whose work does not equals Clarke’s remarkable vision - just ask NASA.

OH!

and this post:

I wrote - Read books, please.
Writer Arthur C. Clarke wrote 2001: A Space Odyssey.

And Indians were writing science-fiction thousands years before europeans, involving UFOs, robots and all kind of today futurism.


Again the post did NOT say - Steve Jobs and Apple invented ’’Tablets’’.
Because he did singled out the writer input.
I did not wrote that the writer did write about a tablet, that was Bezetos dishonesty at play.

 

[divinox]

Steve Jobs was no more a visionary than anyone else. His strength was looking at existing tech that was useful in theory and making it useful in reality, by employing his OCD-ish drive to keep going until a thing was done right, and to always see it from the end user perspective. A seemingly trivial thing like Apple establishing the term "App(lication)" (now adopted by MSFT in Win 8) rather than Program speaks volumes about the philosophy. "Program" communicates "go away, pesky human, this is between hardware and software". "Application" is user centric and addresses the question "what does this thing do for ME in MY life/work/whatever?"

We could go on and on about how everything Steve ever introduced existed before... how the mouse had been around since the 60's, how mp3 players already existed, how smartphones and tablets and multitouch already existed... but why is it always that it isn't until Apple does it that everyone goes "Ah, THAT's how it's done", and then they all copy it? Because Steve tweaked and tweaked, he tortured everyone involved and had them do 200 different versions so he could reject 199 of them, much like Stanley Kubrick drove everyone bonkers with 50 takes that looked exactly the same to everyone else.
Going the extra mile that only crazy narcissistic asperger's OCD perfectionist freaks will do, is the secret of Apple's success. Because it's what makes things so easy and intuitive to use that you find yourself out of excuses to not utilize them. Since people are inherently lazy and impatient, that final push is the difference between things that become part of our lives and things abandoned by the wayside.
Take the iPhone -- smartphones with internet capability had been around for ages, but only 15% ever bothered to surf on those devices. With the original iPhone, that number soared to 80%. What was the difference? Steve, and all the people he tortured to elevate the concept from clicking on stuff with a stylus to touching the Safari icon with your fingertip and then pinching to zoom.

First of, MSFT have used the term App (and application) for what now, a decade? Second, things dont always play out like that (Apple has several misses, and others have successes that Apple seeks to follow). Third, Jobs did not invent the stylus free experience, nor pinch to zoom.

That said, he usually had good taste. And good timing. And even still, he almost blew the iPhone completely. After all, lets stay true to history shall we?

----------

Although Kay often talked about making computers easier for kids to use AND program, the actual title of his first paper on the Dynabook was:

"A personal computer for children of all ages"

While waiting for technology to catch up to building the Dynabook, he went to Xerox PARC and helped build the Alto, that would lead into the Lisa and Macintosh. Later, as an Apple Fellow, he worked on the Newton, whose design he felt got screwed up by too much input from Apple marketing.



Alan Kay was a true innovator. He was a prime inventor of the GUI, and of object oriented programming. Guys like him are the true changers of this world, even though they get very little publicity as compared to all those who have profited from their work.

As for comparing the Dynabook and iPad, one reporter talked to Kay about the two devices:



Kay does see the Dynabook and iPad as having totally different end user concepts, however. Interestingly, Kay's primary objection to the iPad is the App Store:



Kay believes it would be better to sell "objects" that work together, and can be integrated by the user to do what they want. I agree with him. Back in the 1980s I was building GUI objects that could be strung together to make powerful apps. In a much more minor way, this is an attraction of Android, in that the user at least gets to choose which app handles each type of object or action request: emails, web, maps, calls, etc.

Kay is certainly right. That said, the problem is not the app store, per se. The two can be combined, so to speak. Look for example at what MSFT are doing. While hardly full fledged, their approach is signicantly more open. As we move forward, these are things that need be resolved.

Maybe, progress made in the s.c. internet of things will lead the way.

----------

What did i wrote:

Darwin demonstrated with field-work what an English gentleman working in Indonesia already filled in a paper, a paper he send to Darwin, i just do not remember his name.
If you google it you will find it.
Theory of evolution is the theory that explains the mechanism.

1) You make the claim, you google.
2) Yes and No. Survival of the fittest (in the Darwinian sense) is a theory of evolution. Historically, there have been several; in fact, there still is. Alternative mechanisms, has as already stated, been proposed.

Nonsense!

Why did i provided many examples of geniuses that did not arrive first at an idea?

And how can you single out the first person who thought about anything.
It is Just absurd, absurd.

Nonsense my ass. Learn to read. And write. Then try again.

 

[Ochyandkaren]

Nonsense my ass. Learn to read. And write. Then try again.

:: Indeed, Why there is proof-reading?
Again English is not my mother-language ( scrub to 02:20 to see my point ), but in this neck of the woods grammar is not the gist - ideas are, and i have no time for proof-reading and working.
And again this is not a strip-show, we are discussing, can you stick with it?


Charles Darwin theory IS no longer a theory/hypothesis, It is already proven.

1) You make the claim, you google.

Not a claim, it is a fact ( only the internet often holds NOT al the facts ). Throughout the history of science there is a proneness of ignoring those which actually come first to a revolutionary idea but somehow could not take it to the public.

Stay ignorant, not my problem.

 

[Jibbajabba]

No, I think everyone here owns a PC.

I don't ...

 

[afrowq]

Go read again my post : The writer worked on the movie.
Kubrick's build the scenery ( as with all his movies ), the writer input was always present.

Actually Clarke was already a visionary even before meeting Kubrick, which was a great artist but whose work does not equals Clarke’s remarkable vision - just ask NASA.

OH!

and this post:

I wrote - Read books, please.
Writer Arthur C. Clarke wrote 2001: A Space Odyssey.

And Indians were writing science-fiction thousands years before europeans, involving UFOs, robots and all kind of today futurism.


Again the post did NOT say - Steve Jobs and Apple invented ’’Tablets’’.
Because he did singled out the writer input.
I did not wrote that the writer did write about a tablet, that was Bezetos dishonesty at play.

I don't even understand what you're saying. Go read an English book.

 

[Ochyandkaren]

Lack of Sophistication Indeed!

I don't even understand what you're saying. Go read an English book.

Our own lack of understanding often mirrors our own limitations to grasp the context.

Like i wrote before, watch this piece from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, At least until 02:20 mins .

 

[Anuba]

"Apple's strategy is really simple. What we want to do is we want to put an incredibly great computer in a book that you can carry around with you and learn how to use in 20 minutes. That's what we want to do and we want to do it this decade," says Jobs. "And we really want to do it with a radio link in it so you don't have to hook up to anything and you're in communication with all of these larger databases and other computers."

This whole "computer in a book" idea appears to be what Sculley kept pushing for after he got rid of Steve. He started up a project called "Knowledge Navigator", which was to be "a tablet the size of an opened magazine", and had a couple of videos made showing a mockup of the product. It's essentially an 'iPad in a book' and it's operated Siri-style.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRH8eimU_20

So again, I don't think "visionary" is the correct label. I think lots of people over the years have envisioned products like the iPad and iPhone, I think the vision was there long before the "iPads" in Kubrick's 2001. But it took Steve's iron fist to actually get the devices designed and brought to market. The world doesn't care who invented what, it doesn't care if some tech geek in a lab or a basement had some proof-of-concept prototype of some technology in 1981 or 1842 or 2000 BC. Steve whipped his team into making stuff actually look and work like they do in the movies and put them in the hands of the consumer. That's what matters.

 

[Ochyandkaren]

This whole "computer in a book" idea appears to be what Sculley kept pushing for after he got rid of Steve. He started up a project called "Knowledge Navigator", which was to be "a tablet the size of an opened magazine", and had a couple of videos made showing a mockup of the product. It's essentially an 'iPad in a book' and it's operated Siri-style.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRH8eimU_20

So again, I don't think "visionary" is the correct label. I think lots of people over the years have envisioned products like the iPad and iPhone, I think the vision was there long before the "iPads" in Kubrick's 2001. But it took Steve's iron fist to actually get the devices designed and brought to market. The world doesn't care who invented what, it doesn't care if some tech geek in a lab or a basement had some proof-of-concept prototype of some technology in 1981 or 1842 or 2000 BC. Steve whipped his team into making stuff actually look and work like they do in the movies and put them in the hands of the consumer. That's what matters.

No human is an Island, after all. It is so obvious.
“Computer in a book” is probable Apple’s reason de’ete form the start, in 1976.

I think to understand Apple’s commitment to technology sometimes requires emptying ourselves of some preconceived ideas., like:


- What innovations really means?
- Is creativity always linear?


And we should always check history for similar events.

 

[afrowq]

Our own lack of understanding often mirrors our own limitations to grasp the context.

Like i wrote before, watch this piece from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, At least until 02:20 mins .

What do John Stewart and Iran have to do with the fact that Stanley Kubrick (and also probably his art director, prop master, and/or production designer) visualized a tablet computer in 1968? You are making no sense. I'm going to assume you're mixing conversations and confusing me with someone else.

Please, don't tell people to "go read a book" when you're not up to par on the source material or the source language itself.

 

[ibrainch]

My reflections on Apple one year after Steve: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/iqbal-brainch/the-soul-of-apple_b_1937235.html

 

[kdarling]

Isn’t that being a visionary?

Like an architect needs a structural engineer or a composer who cannot play and need musicians, still the composer can envision the sounds.

In those examples, the architect and composer have skills. Jobs had no technical skills whatsoever, which is partly why he got fired from Apple in the first place. Jobs was more like the PR rep or manager for a band; he didn't create the songs or play the music, but he could pick which songs would make money and sell the band's image. And that's fine.

--

My beef with him (and others with the power and money to create such a book) is that they sat on their thumbs for 27 years!

When Jobs came back to Apple, he killed off any big projects that couldn't make money in the short term. He killed the Newton, he killed Hypercard, he dissolved the Apple Technology Group for deep R&D.

Heck, Jobs spent years telling his staff that tablets weren't good for anything other than web surfing in the bathroom.

That's not being innovative. That's being safe and ostrich like. So no, I don't want to hear about Jobs, because he mostly parroted what he heard from others or what he thought the crowd wanted to hear.

I want to hear about the REAL innovators. The Apple insiders who pushed for the apps that Jobs thought were unnecessary. I want to hear about the actual Apple engineers who came up with the GUI that made Jobs sit up and pay attention to touchscreen devices:

In the Jobs' biography, there's an interesting section about how the multi-touch interface came about. Jobs' version of course made himself the center, by asking for a prototype keyboard. But...

Jony Ive had a different memory of how multi-touch was developed.

He said his design team had already been working on a multi-touch input that was developed for the trackpads of Apple’s MacBook Pro, and they were experimenting with ways to transfer that capability to a computer screen.

They used a projector to show on a wall what it would look like. “This is going to change everything,” Ive told his team.

But he was careful not to show it to Jobs right away, especially since his people were working on it in their spare time and he didn’t want to quash their enthusiasm.

“Because Steve is so quick to give an opinion, I don’t show him stuff in front of other people,” Ive recalled. “He might say, ‘This is ****,’ and snuff the idea. I feel that ideas are very fragile, so you have to be tender when they are in development. I realized that if he pissed on this, it would be so sad, because I knew it was so important.”

Ive set up the demonstration in his conference room and showed it to Jobs privately, knowing that he was less likely to make a snap judgment if there was no audience. Fortunately he loved it. “This is the future,” he exulted.

It was in fact such a good idea that Jobs realized that it could solve the problem they were having creating an interface for the proposed cell phone.

- Steve Jobs, by Walter Isaacson

 

[Dgail]

1983

He accomplished that except for one thing: you can learn to use an iPad in TWO minutes!

Could he have been referring to the MacBooks and MacBook pros as we now know them? In 1983 I started using PCs in graduate school, largely because IBM had made a huge computer endowment to MIT that year. The only things that were available at that time were clunky desktops that required floppy disks, (remember DOS?) and a new luggable with a 5"screen.

Missing you Steve, RIP!

 

[Ochyandkaren]

In

those examples, the architect and composer have skills. Jobs had no technical skills whatsoever, which is partly why he got fired from Apple in the first place. Jobs was more like the PR rep or manager for a band; he didn't create the songs or play the music, but he could pick which songs would make money and sell the band's image. And that's fine.

I used those as parallelisms, skills acquired in academia you mean?
Remember Einstein remark : Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Wasn’t he famous according to many as a magician of some kind, someone who distorts people perception in order to manipulate them?
That is a management skill.

Composers deals with sound relationship with space. So the example holds ground.
An architect which grasps no structural engineering knowledge, which deals with the relationship between form/space, a skill musicians have ( unlike Calatrava, is limited to an structural engineer input/limitations ).
Peole like Hendrix and Muddy Waters did not study music, but were able to front ensembles.
Again all those examples sorely to explain that creativity is indeed a stream of consciousness, a collective database if you will.
Jobs gathered well educated people and was able to coach them.


That is an intrinsic skill, and Jobs did gather well educated people around him, to squeeze out the good juice out.

My beef with him (and others with the power and money to create such a book) is that they sat on their thumbs for 27 years!

When Jobs came back to Apple, he killed off any big projects that couldn't make money in the short term. He killed the Newton, he killed Hypercard, he dissolved the Apple Technology Group for deep R&D.

Heck, Jobs spent years telling his staff that tablets weren't good for anything other than web surfing in the bathroom.

That's not being innovative. That's being safe and ostrich like. So no, I don't want to hear about Jobs, because he mostly parroted what he heard from others or what he thought the crowd wanted to hear.

I want to hear about the REAL innovators. The Apple insiders who pushed for the apps that Jobs thought were unnecessary. I want to hear about the actual Apple engineers who came up with the GUI that made Jobs sit up and pay attention to touchscreen devices:

In the Jobs' biography, there's an interesting section about how the multi-touch interface came about. Jobs' version of course made himself the center, by asking for a prototype keyboard. But...

I do discord totally with you.

Again what being an innovator means?

For how long there is a battery, since the Persians created one.
So, no modern batteries ( to this day batteries share the same ancient concept, only the use of new materials makes a difference ) cannot be labeled innovations. Because according with your logic they are based on ancient tech. - meaning a much-worn and regurgitated idea.
The Hubble Space Telescope, because telescope mirrors still are made using the same ancient technique as the telescope used by Galileo Galilei cannot be an innovation also according with your logic.

…

How come a Gyroscope is an innovation ( how could a satellite functions well without it? ) if it existed in the ancient world and in different cultures around the world - again the stream of consciousness.

People like Calatrava have a studio with many architects, so their input in Calatrava’s work is zero.
In the end it is Calatrava signature that engraves the work, the studio’s name hardly mentioned.
How is that!?

But hey, you believe Jobs had no skills what-so-ever.
It looks like you believe in the self-made-man myth

Heck, Jobs spent years telling his staff that tablets weren't good for anything other than web surfing in the bathroom.

Funny, actually until the iPsd that was true!
Design is the correlation between form/shape and usage/function, no wonder it is a multidisciplinary work.

 

[faroZ06]

I don't ...

So you just do all of your emails and stuff on an iPad or someone else's PC?

 

[Ochyandkaren]

So you just do all of your emails and stuff on an iPad or someone else's PC?

iPad is a personal computer ( pc )
Same with all the so called but not so smart smartPhones.

I believe the naming Mac as with iPad instead of tablet was made to set those machines apart from those produced by the cartels that sells Windows based PCs.
It was a clever choice, tho.
no wonder Apple’s machines are now cloned ad nauseam.

 

[Ochyandkaren]

What do John Stewart and Iran have to do with the fact that Stanley Kubrick (and also probably his art director, prop master, and/or production designer) visualized a tablet computer in 1968? You are making no sense. I'm going to assume you're mixing conversations and confusing me with someone else.

Please, don't tell people to "go read a book" when you're not up to par on the source material or the source language itself.

Context, context and please be honest.

You yelled for me to learn to write and to go read books in english, ( i learned English on my own, by just reading books, i barely speaks the language with anyone ).

That piece/video ( and you know well ) did contextualize understanding as not related to language, but with sophistication/patience.

 

[Geekbabe]

Seeing this makes me quite sad as we approach the 1 yr anniversary of Steve's passing. RIP Mr Jobs, you are missed

 

[Ochyandkaren]

Seeing this makes me quite sad as we approach the 1 yr anniversary of Steve's passing. RIP Mr Jobs, you are missed

And the vitriol brewing still towards him.
Funny thing he did never sells Apple as his vision, but as a collective one, as it is always.
Any creative stance is a coalescence of collective inputs ( not often explicit, obviously ).

Anthony Braxton • “The subject of human creativity is not an ethnic-centric ( selfCentered ), but a composite subject.” •

 

[samcraig]

And the vitriol brewing still towards him.
Funny thing he did never sells Apple as his vision, but as a collective one, as it is always.
Any creative stance is a coalescence of collective inputs ( not often explicit, obviously ).

Anthony Braxton • “The subject of human creativity is not an ethnic-centric ( selfCentered ), but a composite subject.” •

Not that I have vitriol against Steve Jobs - but please enlighten me as to what time limit is set for not having it?

I'm pretty sure there are historical figures throughout history that people still hate with a passion even though they have died decades ago.