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 Reportedly Demands Deletion of Tweet Sent From iPad
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And that would be an excellent reason not to overreact and call so much attention to it.
Agreed, FCC certification was not the reason for Jobs throwing a hissy fit. Not sure why anyone would think it would be, since Jobs himself had already publicly used the iPad on stage. D'oh!
How unprofessional! Tweet me in!
Thanks, you just saved me a bit of typing. But techno Jesus? Only in GarageBand!
Exactly my thoughts, just as above.
It's ironic that while Stevie can use bad language about another tech company, Adobe in public, we cannot say that. And yes, I am aware that you didn't use the same word.
Count me out! You would be surprised, how many times I read similar views on MAcrumors recently. It means nothing and changes nothing, but reflects the current atmosphere about Apple.
Oh man, I'm so sorry... Did you actually report the incident? Cheer up, it's probably better without her. You are the winner!
Thanks, you just saved me a bit of typing. But techno Jesus? Only in GarageBand!
Exactly my thoughts, just as above.
It's ironic that while Stevie can use bad language about another tech company, Adobe in public, we cannot say that. And yes, I am aware that you didn't use the same word.
I think pretty much the entire world would disagree with you!!!
Count me out! You would be surprised, how many times I read similar views on MAcrumors recently. It means nothing and changes nothing, but reflects the current atmosphere about Apple.
Oh man, I'm so sorry... Did you actually report the incident? Cheer up, it's probably better without her. You are the winner!
Godfather - Part II.
He knows that very well. Too well.
That was in the last century! Not in the last decade, in the last century. Things change, the world changes. Even people change. It seems, Jobs' arrogance remains the same. Besides, things were not that Rosy when he left. Things might not be rosy in two years time. It is unsustainable to measure people on their previous achievements. Jobs might stay as long as he serves the shareholders' interests well. When he won't do that, he will have to move on. Upsetting the media and customers hurt business, however. That might just accelerate his departure. Luckily, his illness proved to be treatable and he could return. What the cancer hasn't done, his manner and main legacy, the iPad just might achieve.
It's a very good approach. I suppose, they were already disappointed as Apple chose the NYT for the keynote, despite the obvious Flash problem. I would like to hope that it wasn't intentional.
But to upset a senior figure in a leading newspaper? That takes some arrogance and serious lack of logical thinking.
Let's see... What will the Wall Street Journal think about the iPad? Or about the current CEO? The shareholders care, even if Steven Paul Jobs doesn't
He knows that very well. Too well.
Yes, because the last time Jobs left Apple it did so well.
That was in the last century! Not in the last decade, in the last century. Things change, the world changes. Even people change. It seems, Jobs' arrogance remains the same. Besides, things were not that Rosy when he left. Things might not be rosy in two years time. It is unsustainable to measure people on their previous achievements. Jobs might stay as long as he serves the shareholders' interests well. When he won't do that, he will have to move on. Upsetting the media and customers hurt business, however. That might just accelerate his departure. Luckily, his illness proved to be treatable and he could return. What the cancer hasn't done, his manner and main legacy, the iPad just might achieve.
It's a very good approach. I suppose, they were already disappointed as Apple chose the NYT for the keynote, despite the obvious Flash problem. I would like to hope that it wasn't intentional.
But to upset a senior figure in a leading newspaper? That takes some arrogance and serious lack of logical thinking.
Let's see... What will the Wall Street Journal think about the iPad? Or about the current CEO? The shareholders care, even if Steven Paul Jobs doesn't
I don't know why people keep thinking FCC approval is some sort of magical open process reserved for cell phone technology. Pretty much everything that is powered by electricity needs FCC approval.
I think people are still buying the marketing tactic used by Jobs to announce the original iPhone that they needed to announce it early because of the FCC spilling the beans. You can request complete confidentiality from the FCC until the product is released, companies including Apple do this all the time.
Apple announced early so people had enough time not to renew their existing cell contracts.
He was most likely upset because of who sent it, which meant that suddenly previously private contract negotiations were now very public. This shows Apple's hand which is something Steve Jobs loathes. It complicates ongoing and future negotiations.
Still, it should have come as no surprise. You put an already announced and demonstrated mobile internet device into the hands of a major print and internet press professional for evaluation then are surprised when they use the device as the journalist that they are? I can understand why he got upset, but he really should have been equally upset with himself for what happened. Show a lion some steak and he is going to eat it. Show a techie journalist a new gadget and he is going to play with it.
There is also the possibility that he knew exactly what he was doing when he sent the tweet. He may have been intentionally trying to strengthen the negotiating position of the WSJ. That is something worth getting very upset about.
Still, it should have come as no surprise. You put an already announced and demonstrated mobile internet device into the hands of a major print and internet press professional for evaluation then are surprised when they use the device as the journalist that they are? I can understand why he got upset, but he really should have been equally upset with himself for what happened. Show a lion some steak and he is going to eat it. Show a techie journalist a new gadget and he is going to play with it.
There is also the possibility that he knew exactly what he was doing when he sent the tweet. He may have been intentionally trying to strengthen the negotiating position of the WSJ. That is something worth getting very upset about.
You totally misunderstood my post.
I was not saying Jobs' actions were not arrogant. I'm saying that's who he's always been. The poster I replied to seemed to think this was some kind of unusual behavior from him and suggested this implies he should not be Apple's CEO any longer. That suggestion is absurd because this IS who he is, as I mentioned.
And yes that means he is an a$$hole at times.
Maybe Steve doesn't want the competitors to know who he's visiting and when?
I guess if it became clear that he visited the WSJ before another paper, that could jeopardise relations.
Who knows?
I guess if it became clear that he visited the WSJ before another paper, that could jeopardise relations.
Who knows?
For every person who thinks like that, there's thousands who will buy Apple products simply because of Steve Jobs.
Love him or hate him, he's the driving force behind the way Apple is today.
Sure he's strict, he's power hungry, he's egomaniacal ... but you don't see Steve Jobs when you buy your Mac, return it for a repair, or buy peripherals for it. The money goes into his back pocket, but I wouldn't use a dislike of a CEO (or a liking for that matter) as a basis on whether or not to buy a computer or mobile device.
I don't see the big deal. Anyone can SAY they sent a tweet from an iPad. Just deny it. Jesus Christ. He made it far more public than if he just didn't say anything at all.
Wow...if it's true wtf was the Executive thinking? I would think most companies have a policy not to publicly disclose strategy, future product or acquisitions. These sort of things are considered confidential yet this executive opens his mouth during the meeting? LOL
Maybe they think differently because it's a news paper.
Maybe they think differently because it's a news paper.
Indeed, makes you wonder if the 'drama' was staged, or deliberately overplayed for effect? I was just reading an article claiming the iPad launch buzz was dying down. This resurrects it a little, no?
After this, I imagine WSJ subscribers will be sitting up and taking note (and making the obvious inferences). No doubt they figure large among the targeted early adopters - having piles of ready cash and an insatiable need for up-to-date info.
Who really knows? (but it's fun speculating
)
He's nuts. Glad he's back.
The sad truth, he is nuts and paranoid but dam its what a company needs, considering the crap coming out of other companies. We could use some more Jobs around, then maybe other companies would actually bring out something I like to buy.
1. It trivializes the product. Much marketing and hype are ahead. Jobs does not want them to be behind. The forbidden fruit myth.
2. Media need apple a little more (for now) than the other way.
2. Media need apple a little more (for now) than the other way.
Wow, the first few pages are even funnier than usual for this place.
Why do people read these things, and then become completely convinced that Jobs actually got angry?
"According to X, Jobs got angry at someone"
"SACK HIM!"
Why do people read these things, and then become completely convinced that Jobs actually got angry?
"According to X, Jobs got angry at someone"
"SACK HIM!"
Yeah, that would be a brilliant idea
First of all it is quite doubtful if saving tons of cash in the bank is a good thing over actually using that money to do something great with it. And secondly, success doesn't justify everything. Lately Apple products haven't been exactly revolutionary and build quality is far from what it used to be ...
Steve Jobs and his arrogance makes me dislike Apple ..
T.
LOL. Then just how do you measure as persons achievements? By a crystal ball? Results matter.
Considering Apples rise to power in the music player and smartphone business and their record earnings, Jobs can stay at Apple as long as he likes.
Jobs in not the only dynamic CEO in the world.
Yes, God forbid we upset the media. You do realize this entire story was fabricated by Valleywag, the silicon valley equivalent to Star Magazine?
Oh, please. If Jobs wanted, he could have skipped Murray and dealt directly with Rupert Murdoch, the equally arrogant CEO of News Corp, the Journals parent company. Apparently, theyre friends as Murdoch has made comments about eating dinner at Jobs house.
The Federal Communications Commission only reviews and approves devices sold that operate over the airwaves. You're probably thinking of UL (Underwriter's Laboratories). Since UL is independent, you don't need UL compliance to sell a product. They usually test products for safety (like light switches and receptacles) but you don't need FCC compliance to sell a toaster, for example, unless it has wi-fi.
From what I've read, the FCC doesn't necessary have to grant confidentially however they usually do. I think there is some merit to what Jobs mentioned since the waiting period can be quite long. Confidentially only lasts a few months iirc after the product is approved.
Ha! Yes. Hmmm...
You know, if I were the head of Palm right now, I'd be on the phone with the WSJ and NYT:
"Hey guys, we've been talking with Verizon and Amazon about a WebOS powered slate to deliver your content. And we don't care how much you play with and advertise it. Interested?"
I wouldn't be surprised if the head of Google's Android was already doing the same thing.