Steve Jobs Still Involved in Apple, Still Expected to Return in June

[freebooter]

I just hope Jobs' brush with death brings him to his senses and he makes Apple release a mid-priced tower.

I don't mean to be crass. I speak as someone who has had at least a dozen brushes with death (falls, drownings, cars, bears, not quite frozen rivers, poisoning, etc, etc) . Sadly, I'm still a fool....

 

[AHDuke99]

Good news for me and all the other AAPL shareholders, if true. If Steve were to show up during WWDC as a surprise at the end, I'd be happy man. If he retires in June, I'm selling it all and buying it back once the stock tanks to $50/share or so.

 

[MacTheSpoon]

I really hope he comes back looking completely fit and happy, that would be awesome. It'd be great if the questions of his health then went away forever.

Unfortunately, though, I don't expect it'll happen - as least as far as the rumors go. At best he'll come back looking slightly better. But he'll never look as fit as he did before his cancer operation, thanks to that Whipple procedure. He's always going to look quite thin, because of the digestion problems it causes.

And so people are always going to be spreading little rumors about his health from now until he retires. Such a drag.

 

[Virgil-TB2]

Don't really understand how Steve "was particularly involved in the user interface of the new iPhone operating system" considering the user interface differences between 2.0 and 3.0 are relatively minor and revolve around tweaking of features...

What a ridiculously dumb comment.

known new features in 3.0 for which getting the interface right is crucial? ...

• spotlight
• cut/copy/paste
• new camera/video app

(plus whatever we don't know about like a possible new compass app)

Even the first two of these could easily be considered crucial parts of the OS that are important to get right. In reality, Steve has to sign off on pretty much all UI stuff before it gets implemented.

 

[tailu]

What a ridiculously dumb comment.

known new features in 3.0 for which getting the interface right is crucial? ...

• spotlight
• cut/copy/paste
• new camera/video app

(plus whatever we don't know about like a possible new compass app)

Even the first two of these could easily be considered crucial parts of the OS that are important to get right. In reality, Steve has to sign off on pretty much all UI stuff before it gets implemented.

agreed..

 

[sjo]

Windows and Palm are both putting an end to it. Both will have their own app store within a year and I'm pretty sure both will be closed. Complete openness has been the reason why these phones have always been unstable. Their phones constantly have to be rebooted. The best way for malware makers to attack you phones is through unsigned apps. The only one left doing this is android and symbian. You have already seen some malware for android come out (even within their app store).

there's difference in having an appstore and forcing the usage of appstore as sole means of obtaining and installing apps.

symbian shows that malware can be controlled through making the apps traceable, you don't need the kind of approval process apple is forcing on developers. that's decision is purely business driven (and nothing wrong with business driven decisions, apple is a business).

 

[kdarling]

Windows and Palm are both putting an end to it. Both will have their own app store within a year and I'm pretty sure both will be closed.

The stores might be closed, but I doubt Microsoft at least will stop you from installing anything you wish.

Checking apps for stability is a good thing, and I don't think people fault Apple for that.

Being an app censor is an entirely different story.

 

[puckhead193]

i'm glad he's still active with apple. Its a good sign, hopefully he'll be back by WWDC to deliver the keynote

 

[Virgil-TB2]

... Being an app censor is an entirely different story.

I'm against all censorship, but I can never understand why people are so against Apple for censoring the app store when everything else is censored more.

Any censorship is crazy to me, but TV shows and radio are all very heavily censored, all the main Internet sites like YouTube, eBay, Amazon, and pretty much all newspapers and media sites as well. Why is Apple's censorship any different?

The whole "Apple is censoring the app store" deal, (beyond the basic banning of any sex, nudity and swearing that the average prudish American finds offensive), is a meme that originates from a small bunch of whiny, shady app developers with a giant axe to grind. As despicable as any censorship should be to all of us, Apple isn't really doing doing anything unusual at all here.

It seems like "crocodile tears" to me, to cry about the censorship in the app store but at the same time to swallow worse censorship from all the major media outlets day after day.

 

[Virgil-TB2]

... apple ist quiete self-confident, but sometimes, it feels more like arrogance. especially if +50% of your "public statements" imply that "the rest" (ms, whoever) of your competitors make bad products, and therfor you are the only one who knows how ANYTHING should be made ...

It's not arrogance if you are right though.

All this talk of Apple's "arrogance" kind of misses the mark for me. In the first place they have always been exactly the same attitude wise that they are now, so it's nothing new. In the second place, it *is* just a quiet confidence and not arrogance at all. If Apple says their stuff is so much better than brand X, and it is, it's a simple statement of fact, not arrogance.

 

[napabar]

That is not success; relatively speaking, considering all things they have going for them now that they didn't have in, say, 1999 -- it's an EPIC FAIL. And if it weren't for the iPods, iPhones, the iPhone store, AppleTV, MobileMe and the rest of their products that aren't computers, they'd still be struggling like they were in the 90's.

Uh, that's like saying if it wasn't for Windows and Office, Microsoft would be struggling.

Your logic=EPIC FAIL

 

[Eric S.]

According to the Wall Street Journal's sources, Apple remains "much the same" as before Steve Jobs' departure

That would be too bad. Nothing against SJ and I hope he gets well, but I'd like to see Apple reverse some of its more unfortunate trends. To wit: computer products suffering due to the priority placed on consumer electronics, the neurotic compulsion with minimalism and "thinness," and the removal of features (like Firewire) for marketing reasons.

 

[Anuba]

Microsoft aren't in the hardware business. Apple is a hardware company. If you want to compare their market share, do it to their primary competitors, HP, Dell, Acer, Asus, etc...

Call it what you will - Microsoft's marketshare, the PC's marketshare, Winbloze, beige boxes, I don't care -- the fact remains that Apple is after the customers who go for the non-Mac option (which tends to be a PC running Windows) because it's the only place to get new customers from. Yet people keep insisting (as an argument against suggestions that Apple should think about cutting their prices) that nooo, Apple aren't after that marketshare at all. As if they're too cool to be bothered. When the fact is that Apple are all over those customers like horny teenage boys.

These discussions tend to descend into petty arguments about things that are completely besides the point (I see we're already on "but Microsoft doesn't make hardware!" ), so I'll go back to the post I originally commented on:

If I understand you, you want Apple to reverse the policies that has made them so successful these past 10 years.

Which was in response to:

I'd like to see Apple re-tool the symbiosis of OSX with hardware and allow other manufacturers to legally use the OS. I'd like to see Apple offer more choices in their own family of computers. I'd like to see Apple offer more options for upgrade by consumers for more products than just the Mac Pro. I'd like to see Apple lower prices across the board.

I.e. the exact same thing that all Apple fans except the apologists have been saying all along.

rdowns' suggestion, then, being that Apple owes their success over the past ten years to NOT lowering their prices and NOT offering a diverse product range.

My view is the opposite: These policies are exactly what has prevented the Mac from becoming the hit it should be by now, given the reasons I mentioned earlier (25 years, Vista sucks, relentless advertising, overrepresentation in product placement, the Mini, iPod/iTunes/iPhone halo effect etc etc). It's not just that their prices are too high for riff-raff -- that's perfectly alright. The problem, I feel, is that some of their computers are so overpriced that people who can afford them are racking their brains trying to justify the purchase. I keep going back and forth myself, go in and configure a Mac Pro and go "OK, well, it's within budget"... then I think for a second and go "Wait... no! The nerve of these bastards, who do they think they're fooling", and I'm off to Dell's configuration page again.

Uh, that's like saying if it wasn't for Windows and Office, Microsoft would be struggling.

That's gotta be the worst analogy I've heard this year, and it's April already. Those two products are the backbone of Microsoft's business, one has been around for 24 years, the other for 20 years. Not even close to Apple's software, phones and portable music players, products they started making in this millennium, 25 years after they started a computer company.

 

[napabar]

To wit: computer products suffering due to the priority placed on consumer electronics, the neurotic compulsion with minimalism and "thinness,"

Hmmm....sounds like Apple's MO to me. Not sure what the problem is.

Maybe your just not cool enough to be a Mac person.

 

[sam10685]

People that care about nothing but money better start buying stock now.

 

[KnightWRX]

Call it what you will - Microsoft's marketshare, the PC's marketshare, Winbloze, beige boxes, I don't care -- the fact remains that Apple is after the customers who go for the non-Mac option (which tends to be a PC running Windows) because it's the only place to get new customers from. Yet people keep insisting (as an argument against suggestions that Apple should think about cutting their prices) that nooo, Apple aren't after that marketshare at all. As if they're too cool to be bothered. When the fact is that Apple are all over those customers like horny teenage boys.

It's funny how petty arguments seem to always follow your derogatory comments (Apple = EPIC FAIL, using your own capitalization)... . Maybe you should stop making them in the first place and the conversations won't degenerate ?

So ... are you saying that Honda is epic fail, because compared to all other car makers, it only has a small part of the market ? . They're essentially going for the "car buying public". Maybe if they offered a gas-guzzling pick-up truck...

 

[napabar]

My view is the opposite: These policies are exactly what has prevented the Mac from becoming the hit it should be by now, given the reasons I mentioned earlier (25 years, Vista sucks, relentless advertising, overrepresentation in product placement, the Mini, iPod/iTunes/iPhone halo effect etc etc). It's not just that their prices are too high for riff-raff -- that's perfectly alright. The problem, I feel, is that some of their computers are so overpriced that people who can afford them are racking their brains trying to justify the purchase. I keep going back and forth myself, go in and configure a Mac Pro and go "OK, well, it's within budget"... then I think for a second and go "Wait... no! The nerve of these bastards, who do they think they're fooling", and I'm off to Dell's configuration page again.

You're forgetting the intrinsic value of the Mac OS itself. Comparing specs to specs is not the only measure of whether or not Macs are over-priced. Owning a Mac is more than your what you paid for your processor speed. It's a lifestyle, and it's not for everybody. Personally, I like that Apple puts a premium on their machines. I don't want the Mac to have a 90% share. I like being part of an elite group. I'm proud of it. Call me a snob? Maybe so, but I like things the way they are. Apple doesn't need 90% market share to be wildly successful and profitable. Besides, they already have those kinda numbers with the iPod!

 

[Anuba]

You're forgetting the intrinsic value of the Mac OS itself. Comparing specs to specs is not the only measure of whether or not Macs are over-priced.

Been there, done that. The value of MacOS isn't in dispute, the problem is that it doesn't even begin to account for the >$1000 discrepancy between a Mac Pro and a server-grade professional PC with near-identical specs.

I like being part of an elite group.

An elite group? Nah, that would be something akin to owning a Ferrari or a Rolls-Royce. You're on a computer platform with a 10% marketshare in the US, which makes the Mac 5 times more common than a Volkswagen.

 

[napabar]

Been there, done that. The value of MacOS isn't in dispute, the problem is that it doesn't even begin to account for the >$1000 discrepancy between a Mac Pro and a server-grade professional PC with near-identical specs.


An elite group? Nah, that would be something akin to owning a Ferrari or a Rolls-Royce. You're on a computer platform with a 10% marketshare in the US, which makes the Mac 5 times more common than a Volkswagen.

Your comparison is vague. Please slap up an exact model of PC your are comparing the Mac Pro to. Let's get it on the table. Remember, when the Mac Pro debuted, it was cheaper than a comparable PC from Dell. Even Dell had to admit it.

When 90% of the world uses Windows, 10% is an elite group.

 

[Stately]

May God bless you in your recovery Steve !

 

[Jayomat]

It's not arrogance if you are right though.

All this talk of Apple's "arrogance" kind of misses the mark for me. In the first place they have always been exactly the same attitude wise that they are now, so it's nothing new.

I never said it is a "new" phenomenon. apple has, and always will have this attitude. it's their "style", the way they feel about themselves.

In the second place, it *is* just a quiet confidence and not arrogance at all. If Apple says their stuff is so much better than brand X, and it is, it's a simple statement of fact, not arrogance.

cmon, that sounds fanboyish

but, EVEN IF they make the best products (IF!)....imagine the following situation:

you're working at company X as a Y (it really doesn't matter). You're doing a really good job, even your collegues consider you as one of the best workes there.
BUT, you will be a pain in the *** for everyone if you're just talking about how great you are, and how bad the others suck.... It just doesn't matter how good you are, you just don't talk about it on every occasion.... that's all... only posers do that because they have to cover up their weak spots.... that's where their "arrogant images" comes from..

PS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-2C2gb6ws8 (that *is* not just "quiete confidence", it's an embarrasing and pathetic extract of a keynote. IMHO!)

 

[Revelation78]

So you want Apple to go back to, prior to the return of Steve, when they did license out MSC OS to third parties, and the company almost went bankrupt?

I like how people keep bringing this notion up that Apple should allow their OS to be installed on other PC's - they claim it'll only make them money. Look back 18 years ago when Apple almost ceased existing and ****.

So let Apple release its OS to other manufacturers, Apple will go out of business and then we'll have no Mac OS, only windows. The other option is Apple charges third parties $400-500 to install Mac OS, and guess what - it now costs more to own a PC with Mac OS than is does with Windows.

 

[Ted13]

Also, I don't know if it was a good thing to reveal that Steve Jobs had an active role in the company during his leave. Things seemed to go pretty smoothly when Steve was gone, but now we hear that Steve was helping the whole time. Many will get the continue to think that Steve equals Apple equals Steve which is not good for the company should he really retire.

OK, one more time, addressing all similar comments: Steve Jobs may die, he may be forced to quit due to really bad health, but he isn't going to retire, not for the next 15-20 years minimum. Steve's life is Apple. He will not retire willingly.

 

[KnightWRX]

So you want Apple to go back to, prior to the return of Steve, when they did license out MSC OS to third parties, and the company almost went bankrupt?

I like how people keep bringing this notion up that Apple should allow their OS to be installed on other PC's - they claim it'll only make them money. Look back 18 years ago when Apple almost ceased existing and ****.

So let Apple release its OS to other manufacturers, Apple will go out of business and then we'll have no Mac OS, only windows. The other option is Apple charges third parties $400-500 to install Mac OS, and guess what - it now costs more to own a PC with Mac OS than is does with Windows.

That's the problem with this generation, their grasp on history is weak. They don't get that most of the "change" they are proposing is not anything new, but more along the line of "been there, done that, didn't work".

 

[sflocal]

Exactly. Apple will stay a closed, proprietary shop that does not play well with others.

You want a Bangkok red-light-district where anything goes, where you can load anything, accept that your smartphone may get compromised and unstable in an anarchist environment, by all means go to the other players... you...will...not...be...missed.

Look at the amount of crap already out on the App Store? Many people (including folks here) complain about how bad it is. And that is for a "closed" system! And you want Apple to open it up even more? Not going to happen. As far as the general iPhone community is concerned, we hope it remains that way.

Most folks are completely satisfied with the way Apple is running their "closed" ecosystem. If it keeps the trash out, I'm all for it.

It's only the very vocal 1% minority whiners that make are raising a stink with it.