Are you just hating or can you put some evidence to your claim? Like the patent about the glass stairs in Apple stores: Where did SJ steal that from? Just saying, does your post have another message than you hating a dead person?
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.
Steve Jobs Exhibit on Display at U.S. Patent Office Museum
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Are you just hating or can you put some evidence to your claim? Like the patent about the glass stairs in Apple stores: Where did SJ steal that from? Just saying, does your post have another message than you hating a dead person?
We miss you, Steve!
This is very awesome. Ahh the things you can accomplish when you dare to dream and take risks.
This is very awesome. Ahh the things you can accomplish when you dare to dream and take risks.
Without Steve Jobs, Dennis Ritchie wouldn't have a personal computer to program on.
("Without lamps there'd be no light..." - Bender... hey, someone would have quoted this eventually)
Are you just hating or can you put some evidence to your claim? Like the patent about the glass stairs in Apple stores: Where did SJ steal that from? Just saying, does your post have another message than you hating a dead person?
Well, thats the other half... the non-innovations like glass stairs. Stolen innovations, and non-innovations. There, i said it. Seriously though, Jobs were a great thinker, but a fairly poor do-er. Awesome marketer, not so awesome inventor. That doesn't make him less brilliant, or less important. Face it, he was no Leonardo. He was a smart man, smart enough to realize his own short-comings and surround himself with other smart people that could turn his vision into reality.
To all the haters!
If you are uncertain how intellectual property works from a copyright and authorship perspective, go to your next community college and ask a professor how much input a typical lead researcher has on a paper when graduate assistance are working on it as well. SJ had the ideas and the resources being the right staff of engineers to invent the things he patented. If you think that is wrong, look as sculptures "made" by painters: They make a model and give it to a sculpturing company which upscales it to the dimension needed. No one ever claimed that the painter was not the intellectual owner of the piece of art. Same with lead architects: They don't do one blueprint - they have an army of architects and technical drawers to do that. They might have made a painting and a paper model.
Now, of course, you would claim since SJ didn't spend 2000h/week programming code and making prototypes, he is not the intellectual owner even though he filed for the patents because it was his "idea." Well, you have fun with this set of mind, I go by who has the vision and the means to get them put into reality "invented" it.
If you are uncertain how intellectual property works from a copyright and authorship perspective, go to your next community college and ask a professor how much input a typical lead researcher has on a paper when graduate assistance are working on it as well. SJ had the ideas and the resources being the right staff of engineers to invent the things he patented. If you think that is wrong, look as sculptures "made" by painters: They make a model and give it to a sculpturing company which upscales it to the dimension needed. No one ever claimed that the painter was not the intellectual owner of the piece of art. Same with lead architects: They don't do one blueprint - they have an army of architects and technical drawers to do that. They might have made a painting and a paper model.
Now, of course, you would claim since SJ didn't spend 2000h/week programming code and making prototypes, he is not the intellectual owner even though he filed for the patents because it was his "idea." Well, you have fun with this set of mind, I go by who has the vision and the means to get them put into reality "invented" it.
hmm personal computers existed before the mac.
Did anything steve jobs created existed before C/Unix was created?
A private nonprofit organization that gets more than 25% of its funding from government grants (as evidenced by thier financial statements if anybody bothered to check out what they are proselytising on before hand)...
I think this would be picked up on if this was an exhibit about sergey and larry or bill gates, don't you?
And that's the hard part.
No, seriously. If it wasn't, household Linux machines would have taken massive market share years ago.
So what's wrong with remembering the people who did things no one else could do? The fact that so few got it right only proves how rare those people are.
I'm still puzzled what people mean by "stolen" ideas. I often ask what ideas specifically had been stolen, and not one example turns out to be, in fact, a stolen idea.
The truth behind the GUI is that Apple struck a deal with Xerox. Microsoft licensed the results from Apple. Nobody "stole" the GUI, but people love a sensational sounding story more than the mundane realities of licensing deals and growth by acquisition or out of court settlements (which for all intents and purposes put the dispute to bed as far as the property owners are concerned)... so there'll always be this (false) idea floating around that Steve Jobs stole ideas.
Did his vision improve upon some relatively broad concepts that are unpatentable? Yes. Did he knowingly patent any specific design that was already claimed by another inventor? No.
To me Ive was always a better designer then Jobs was. And Ive deserves a tribute to his design genius not Jobs. Wait . . . . Ive already had one exhibition dedicated to him.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/27/apple_design_guru_featured_in_german_exhibition.html
I'm cool with an exhibition for Jobs design talent. But in my mind Ive is far superior in this aspect.
I found some photos of the Johnny Ive exhibition.
https://plus.google.com/photos/102252607656084484062/albums/5645596802075948497
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/27/apple_design_guru_featured_in_german_exhibition.html
I'm cool with an exhibition for Jobs design talent. But in my mind Ive is far superior in this aspect.
I found some photos of the Johnny Ive exhibition.
https://plus.google.com/photos/102252607656084484062/albums/5645596802075948497
You're exaggerating a bit.
C and UNIX are not essential pre-requisites to something like the iPhone and iPad. It's not like only C and UNIX would make it work.
Apple (and NeXT) used those because they already used heavily in the industry and were familiar, which meant availability of skilled developers and existing code already out there to reuse. It was more out of convenience than anything else.
Yes, Dennis Ritchie designed two important pillars of iOS / OSX, but let's not claim we owe their existence to him.
Are we really going to become shortsighted jerks because of the debt? Some government money goes to the arts attacking that funding when it gets used for something like this is short sighted in my opinion. This is a defensible project not just because it is about Steve Jobs but because it is a well made and thought out exhibit.
I hear this one a lot, and it always bugs me. It's true that Jobs wasn't an engineer, he didn't invent the hardware or software. However, he made most of the big decisions about how the hardware and software should _work_. He relied on engineers to make it happen, but the vision was his. It's like the director of a movie, they don't design the costumes or the sets, they (usually) rely on a cinematographer to operate the camera, etc. So why do they get the credit for the movie? Because it was their vision of how it should be made.
Stolen was a bad word on my behalf, then again, i was not the one to use it in first place. Lets say re-used, or did-not-invent. As for Xerox and Apple it needs be said however that Xerox disagreed with Apples continued use of WIMP et co. (Similarly to Apples later disagreement with Microsoft, come Windows). Not that it matters, really, but since we're in the business of speaking truth.
Love Gates take on it all, by the way:
(the following not written by Gates).
In November 1983, we heard that Microsoft made a surprising announcement at Comdex, the industry's premier trade show, held twice a year in Las Vegas. Microsoft announced a new, mouse-based system graphical user interface environment called Windows, competing directly with an earlier environment announced by Personal Software called "Vision". They also announced a mouse-based option for Microsoft Word. When Steve Jobs found out about Windows, he went ballistic.
"Get Gates down here immediately", he fumed to Mike Boich, Mac's original evangelist who was in charge of our relationships with third party developers. "He needs to explain this, and it better be good. I want him in this room by tomorrow afternoon, or else!"
And, to my surprise, I was invited to a meeting in that conference room the next afternoon, where Bill Gates had somehow manifested, alone, surrounded by ten Apple employees. I think Steve wanted me there because I had evidence of Neil asking about the internals, but that never came up, so I was just a fascinated observer as Steve started yelling at Bill, asking him why he violated their agreement.
"You're ripping us off!", Steve shouted, raising his voice even higher. "I trusted you, and now you're stealing from us!"
But Bill Gates just stood there coolly, looking Steve directly in the eye, before starting to speak in his squeaky voice.
"Well, Steve, I think there's more than one way of looking at it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it."
"Get Gates down here immediately", he fumed to Mike Boich, Mac's original evangelist who was in charge of our relationships with third party developers. "He needs to explain this, and it better be good. I want him in this room by tomorrow afternoon, or else!"
And, to my surprise, I was invited to a meeting in that conference room the next afternoon, where Bill Gates had somehow manifested, alone, surrounded by ten Apple employees. I think Steve wanted me there because I had evidence of Neil asking about the internals, but that never came up, so I was just a fascinated observer as Steve started yelling at Bill, asking him why he violated their agreement.
"You're ripping us off!", Steve shouted, raising his voice even higher. "I trusted you, and now you're stealing from us!"
But Bill Gates just stood there coolly, looking Steve directly in the eye, before starting to speak in his squeaky voice.
"Well, Steve, I think there's more than one way of looking at it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it."
Well, UNIX was developed at Bell Labs, actually... but the typical programmer today doesn't use UNIX on a terminal/mainframe configuration.
"Personal computer" prior to the Apple II is a term that is relatively inapplicable, as the computers prior to Apple II were not functionally accessible and programmable in the way we think of today. So, what I was saying is that what would Dennis Ritchie be doing today (prior to his passing) without the enormous market for personal computing in the consumer space that Apple basically created?
Nobody's saying Dennis Ritchie's contributions aren't notable... but an idea is only as useful as its implementation/application. Dennis Ritchie created something useful, but didn't manage (or really have the opportunity to, and that's not his fault) the resources necessary to see through a vision of personal computing that few people had the foresight to imagine.
Programmers see the world in terms that are relevant to them. But Steve Jobs saw the world in terms of what is relevant to the people who would make use of those resources and how they might do so five, ten, fifteen, twenty years into the future.
When I wrote a proposal on internet music distribution in the mid-90s, very few people understood the large implications of how the internet would change our lives. At that point, people only had begun to use graphical web browsers, fewer used computers for media, and search engines were still in relative infancy.
Engineers are very important to the scheme of things, but on a different level than someone like Steve Jobs. It doesn't make him more or less important than Dennis Ritchie. It's comparing oranges and, well, Apples.... His role isn't comparable to Ritchie's nor vice-versa.
But to put perspective on it.... We're long gone from the days when one engineer (Steve Wozniak) knew and worked on every single component inside a computer. By sheer growth of complexity, on orders of magnitude, engineers today are focused on very small parts of the puzzle. So think about this: What engineer would have looked at all the various pieces of the net, of computing, of mobile devices, of telecommunications, and have thought "Siri Personal Assistant"?
Even the World Wide Web was born on one of Steve's machines (Sir Tim Berners-Lee wrote it on a NeXT workstation). John Sculley has noted that if he had the vision to understand in 1985 what Hypercard really was (a hypertext language), Apple could have created the WWW almost ten years before Berners-Lee did. Sculley laments this as one of his biggest failures.
THAT is why Steve Jobs is hailed as a genius. From iMac to iPod to iPhone to iPad to Siri and beyond, his ability to see how the pieces fit together in ways other people just don't yet picture.... Steve Jobs was the most consistent and prolific visionary of our time, there since the beginning of the personal computing revolution that put tools in our hands that HP and IBM never imagined would be useful to the average consumer.
Last edited:
"This exhibit commemorates the far-reaching impact of Steve Jobs' entrepreneurship and innovation on our daily lives,"
Everybody gets it except guys like you. The competition gets it, patent office gets it, Zuck gets it, Larry and Serge get it, anybody who matters gets it. But not you.
I agree about Ritchie and your entire statement. But he'll be remembered hugely in circles of people that actually have a brain. Is it more important to have the masses love you, or the elite circle that require true genius to earn their admiration? The former is kind of empty calories
Its not a matter of giving credit, its a matter of being accurate in credit giving. If you look at the credits of a movie, it won't say "this movie was made by X", rather its a whole list of names, where the director is but one. Does the director play a large part, of course. So does a conductor, and, so did Jobs. Still...
What's up with everyone using these nicknames and first names of all these famous tech people people. "Zuck gets it." Get over it, he's not your beer drinking buddy dude. It's so lame. Just like when people get all, "man Steve wouldn't have wanted this." As if you have even been in the same room with these people...
There's some debate as to whether or not this conversation actually took place in the manner above... and it's still not a useful anecdote because Apple didn't steal the Xerox PARC team. They paid a large sum of money to Xerox to acquire a few PARC researchers and Smalltalk along with it, as Xerox, even the PARC engineers, didn't really understand what to do with it.
This is no different than executives from Korg going to Yamaha and making a deal to acquire the researchers Yamaha had snagged from Sequential Circuits as it was about to go under... The next machine Korg made was the Wavestation, a direct descendant of the Prophet-5 synthesizer. Nobody "stole" anything from anyone.
In both cases it was an acquisition of talent and patents. Period. In fact, that Gates story is so romanticized it's overlooked that Microsoft not once but TWICE was granted licenses (however stupid this was on Apple's part) to the Mac OS GUI in order to develop the first applications for Mac, including Multiplan and Word.
Last edited:
He prolly stole 150 of the patents, people need to realize Jobs is way overrated as an inventor, he didnt engineer *****. All he did was come up with ideas how about giving credit to the people who actually engineered the tech to make the iPhones possible most o the credit would go to samsung engineers. Get off his d!ck people! we now continue are normal broadcast of brainwashed fanboys comments.