Steve Wozniak on Apple, Leopard and Jailbreaking the iPhone

[gmanrique]

great engineer does not equate to great visionary

He did not create the concept of the PC, neither the UI that Macs have since inception. He designed what he was, mostly, told.

I read Wozniak's autobiography and he still is with Apple but doesn't really "work". He gets paid the lowest salary an engineer makes. Without him the computer wouldn't be around so he is a great visionary, but in terms of business, he said himself in his book he never would want to be a manager type.

 

[gmanrique]

hmm, no.

Nobody is arguing his engineering achivements from 30 years ago. (Yes, I said engineering, and not visionary. His vision at the time was not the PC until a couple of people talk to him and convinced him to do something like that).

What we, or at least me, argue with this, oh so glorified interview, is the idiotic comments that now seem to be taken as the gospel when in fact make no sense. Such jewels like:

"The real dreams of how it will work for someone who knows nothing about the computer have been lost and don't get addressed anymore." (Him included in those not 'addressing' this issue)

"I don't think anything revolutionary is close on the horizon, but I guess you never know."

"Eventually, I would love a little computer with a camera that recognizes me, and I can throw a lot of little gestures at it, and it responds to what I say and do. It will be very hard to create a computer that can understand our voice and our rhythm."

I feel so enlightened with his quotes.

BTW, his authority to speak is lessen by his comments, not by this forum comments.

There are a few books that anyone who purports to know about Apple's history should read. They don't give you the simplistic and sanitized version of history that's propagated as gospel through various forums - they give you everything, dirty laundry and all. Why read it? Any real fans of Apple owe it to themselves to acquire a complete and honest picture of a company that has clearly meant a lot to them on a personal level. And, more to the subject at hand, this picture is essential to understanding Steve Wozniak and where he comes from. The books are:

West of Eden - Frank Rose
Accidental Millionaire - Lee Butcher
The Little Kingdom: The Private Story of Apple Computer - Michael Moritz

Steve Wozniak earns his right to be heard by being one of the main reasons that this forum even exists for you to post in. The reason his work with the Apple I and II receives such enduring acclaim, acclaim that can seem obnoxious to a younger generation (as evidenced by some of the posts in this thread), is that it stands in its own league as an engineering achievement. Consider the meaning of that idiom: in its own league. It's not enough to know that he "designed the innards of the Apple II," because that doesn't provide the proper context to what he did. The other two computers of the famous 1977 trio, the Commodore PET and the Radio Shack TRS-80, were designed and produced by established companies. The Apple II's motherboard, its architecture, its resident programming language, its expansion slots and amazingly efficient disk controller that, more than any other components, were responsible for the machine's (and thus Apple's) success - all of this was engineered by one man. There was absolutely no precedent in the computer industry for anything like it; old-timers and knowledgeable geeks recognize the true magnitude of Wozniak's contribution, even after younger folk and the popular media have sloughed it off and now mindlessly perpetuate a legend that they themselves do not understand. I find it hilarious that people are actually debating the appropriateness of him offering public opinions on the company - he's vetted. He's got his cred. Without the Apple II, there would have been no Mac, and that alone qualifies him to offer up his opinions at any time. What he's done since the Apple II, or whether he has an active role in Apple or even the computer industry in general, is irrelevant. It's disappointing that he hasn't continued to fully apply his engineering genius in greener pastures, but that in no way lessens his authority to speak.

 

[Roderick Usher]

What we, or at least me, argue with this, oh so glorified interview, is the idiotic comments that now seem to be taken as the gospel when in fact make no sense. Such jewels like:

"The real dreams of how it will work for someone who knows nothing about the computer have been lost and don't get addressed anymore." (Him included in those not 'addressing' this issue)

Exposing functionality is a continuing challenge for any operating system, be it OS X, Windows, Linux, or anything else. For people that know nothing about computers - and there will continue to be a lot of them for many years to come - there's still considerable room for improvement. This goal may have come to him late, after it first became clear that personal computers were truly mass-market, but that doesn't invalidate him espousing it. I don't see what's worth ridicule here.

"I don't think anything revolutionary is close on the horizon, but I guess you never know."

"Eventually, I would love a little computer with a camera that recognizes me, and I can throw a lot of little gestures at it, and it responds to what I say and do. It will be very hard to create a computer that can understand our voice and our rhythm."

The question was big-picture: "Beyond touch, how would you like to see user interfaces evolve?" There are only so many ways to go once you're talking about that large of a scale. Aside from telepathy, gestures and speech would be the most effortless way to interact with a computer. If you want a better answer, ask a better question, for example, what remains to be done within the scope of 2D interfaces? He actually alludes to specifics in an earlier question about the "intuitiveness" of Apple-written applications - if I'd been the interviewer, I would have pursued that line of inquiry, digging out details: okay, Woz, regarding the incomprehensible icons and hidden functionality, exactly how would you rectify that?

One of the problems I have with Woz interviews is that he's asked the same general questions over and over again. Some interviewees are better than others at taking a subpar question and running with it to a more interesting place, and for the sake of readers, a good interviewer needs to be aware of that and adapt to flush out better answers (though ideally the questions would be better to begin with). Take his commentary on the iPhone. Naturally, his response reflects his longstanding love of Apple II-style open platforms, which history has shown the public has a voracious appetite for (Apple II, PC compatibles, third-party apps on other cell phones). Why not have him expound on that? What's the true role and relevance of an open platform, and how can it be generalized to other devices? How does this square with meeting the cutoff between design elegance and overly-restrictive functionality, and what is Apple's record in that regard? There's meat to be mined from his brain, if only there were a real effort to do so.

So many of the remarks in this thread are assertions about Wozniak himself rather than actual analysis of his answers. They're like a muted version of FOX Newsian attacks on the character of someone that disagrees with that network's views. If you disagree, then disassemble the substance of the message, not the man. Although the interviewers' questions are weak, there are some responses in there that deserve dissection in a real debate of ideas. Anything else is crap.

 

[MikeTheC]

I'm getting really tired of the misplacement of discussion topics on this board.

This thread is a perfect example of a topic of discussion which is polarizing, and is simply degenerating into a huge flaming rant.

Immediately after posting this reply, I'm going to recommend to the admins this thread be locked, and that future such threads, however tempting not be allowed to be made Page 1 threads.

You folks really need to grow up and get a life. And maybe, just maybe, at least some of you would benefit from doing some basic Research 101 before opening your ignorant pie holes.

 

[EagerDragon]

There are a few books that anyone who purports to know about Apple's history should read. They don't give you the simplistic and sanitized version of history that's propagated as gospel through various forums - they give you everything, dirty laundry and all. Why read it? Any real fans of Apple owe it to themselves to acquire a complete and honest picture of a company that has clearly meant a lot to them on a personal level. And, more to the subject at hand, this picture is essential to understanding Steve Wozniak and where he comes from. The books are:

West of Eden - Frank Rose
Accidental Millionaire - Lee Butcher
The Little Kingdom: The Private Story of Apple Computer - Michael Moritz

Steve Wozniak earns his right to be heard by being one of the main reasons that this forum even exists for you to post in. The reason his work with the Apple I and II receives such enduring acclaim, acclaim that can seem obnoxious to a younger generation (as evidenced by some of the posts in this thread), is that it stands in its own league as an engineering achievement. Consider the meaning of that idiom: in its own league. It's not enough to know that he "designed the innards of the Apple II," because that doesn't provide the proper context to what he did. The other two computers of the famous 1977 trio, the Commodore PET and the Radio Shack TRS-80, were designed and produced by established companies. The Apple II's motherboard, its architecture, its resident programming language, its expansion slots and amazingly efficient disk controller that, more than any other components, were responsible for the machine's (and thus Apple's) success - all of this was engineered by one man. There was absolutely no precedent in the computer industry for anything like it; old-timers and knowledgeable geeks recognize the true magnitude of Wozniak's contribution, even after younger folk and the popular media have sloughed it off and now mindlessly perpetuate a legend that they themselves do not understand. I find it hilarious that people are actually debating the appropriateness of him offering public opinions on the company - he's vetted. He's got his cred. Without the Apple II, there would have been no Mac, and that alone qualifies him to offer up his opinions at any time. What he's done since the Apple II, or whether he has an active role in Apple or even the computer industry in general, is irrelevant. It's disappointing that he hasn't continued to fully apply his engineering genius in greener pastures, but that in no way lessens his authority to speak.

I see you been using time machine.

I agree the man did something useful WAY-BACK-IN-TIME (30+ years ago) and was one of the founders.

Yet that does not mean that he is still competent enough to do the same type of miracle today, given all the new technology.

Also being a GREAT (if you can call him that) eng, doe not mean that he can sell gloves to a man with no hands like Steve can.

It also does not mean that he has the vision to take a company like Apple to the next level.

He did good and deserves our respect, but that does not mean that what he has to say today is good for Apple and it does not mean that it is well informed either.

If you all want to treat it like a God, please built him a cult church and don't drink the coolaid.

 

[Roderick Usher]

This thread is a perfect example of a topic of discussion which is polarizing, and is simply degenerating into a huge flaming rant.

My last two posts, especially the second, were partly intended to salvage this thread and spark some substantial discussion - they're neither degenerate nor flaming.

You folks really need to grow up and get a life. And maybe, just maybe, at least some of you would benefit from doing some basic Research 101 before opening your ignorant pie holes.

That, on the other hand...

 

[EagerDragon]

I'm getting really tired of the misplacement of discussion topics on this board.

This thread is a perfect example of a topic of discussion which is polarizing, and is simply degenerating into a huge flaming rant.

Immediately after posting this reply, I'm going to recommend to the admins this thread be locked, and that future such threads, however tempting not be allowed to be made Page 1 threads.

You folks really need to grow up and get a life. And maybe, just maybe, at least some of you would benefit from doing some basic Research 101 before opening your ignorant pie holes.

Sounds like you just stepped down to the same level, relax.

 

[HamishInsanish]

Cut the guy some slack!

We don't have a whole lot of right to critique what Woz has to say – regardless of the fact that in his absence someone else would have inevitably accomplished what he did, he was the one building the the first Apple as Steve was already trying to sell it. First, he's not an enemy of Apple, so he's not trying to attack the company. He may be criticizing where Apple (and the PC industry) is headed, but if you interpret it more macroscopically it's constructive criticism; this guy never fell into feud with technology.

Lets lend him some credit for maintaining his the originality of Apple ideas, and for continuing to personify (with Job's help) the authenticity of Apple's revolutionary mandate that began over of 30 yrs ago now. Leave the guy alone, respect him for what he stands for, and just aspire @ best to achieve even a fraction of what he helped set in motion.

 

[gmanrique]

Not a very productive post for the thread.

At least we are trying to determine what was so great on that interview to make it a Fist Page News.

I'm getting really tired of the misplacement of discussion topics on this board.

This thread is a perfect example of a topic of discussion which is polarizing, and is simply degenerating into a huge flaming rant.

Immediately after posting this reply, I'm going to recommend to the admins this thread be locked, and that future such threads, however tempting not be allowed to be made Page 1 threads.

You folks really need to grow up and get a life. And maybe, just maybe, at least some of you would benefit from doing some basic Research 101 before opening your ignorant pie holes.

 

[HamishInsanish]

Re:

Hey you know what, lol.. I didn't even think of that. I guess it's more of a "Ok Steve, you're a cool and respectable guy, but take it easy man" sort of issue. Odd case of Apple-bashing that should only be raising eyebrows @ best.

I just read some pretty nasty responses in here to begin with that I wouldn't particularly agree with.

At least we are trying to determine what was so great on that interview to make it a Fist Page News.

 

[Roderick Usher]

IYet that does not mean that he is still competent enough to do the same type of miracle today, given all the new technology.

Why does it matter whether he's pulling off Apple II-level feats today?

Also being a GREAT (if you can call him that) eng, doe not mean that he can sell gloves to a man with no hands like Steve can.

It also does not mean that he has the vision to take a company like Apple to the next level.

Is this related to the ludicrous side topic of making him CEO? Heh, I wasn't even thinking about that - the idea is so absurd it's not even worth discussion. Besides, his fitness for a senior management position has absolutely no bearing on the merits of the ideas he talks about in the interview.

He did good and deserves our respect, but that does not mean that what he has to say today is good for Apple and it does not mean that it is well informed either.

So let's take it apart. As I said in my second post above, there's been precious little talk about what he actually said in the interview, mostly because it's way easier to criticize or dismiss the man himself, in the troll-style you see on talking-head TV shows. The only reason I outlined his historical impact on Apple was to establish the basis of his credibility; however, even if one doesn't accept that, it's a far more constructive, interesting, and intelligent discussion to look at the substance of his interview responses.

 

[HamishInsanish]

Re: Not a very productive post for the thread.

BTW, That was my first post on the site, bud. Nevermind Woz: Next time you have something to say, remind me to call into question the validity of your freedom of speech. It was probably put on the front page as a matter of simple interest, not because it was crying out for debate. Have a great day.

At least we are trying to determine what was so great on that interview to make it a Fist Page News.

 

[Roderick Usher]

BTW, That was my first post on the site, bud.

Whoa, I just went back and read it:

regardless of the fact that in his absence someone else would have inevitably accomplished what he did,

In all seriousness, I ask: what is the basis for this statement? If one looks, I mean really looks, at the level of his accomplishment (see my first post above), this contention looks very, very unlikely, to put it mildly. One must remember the context of late '70s technology, and the type of engineering that was taking place at the time in both personal and corporate environments, to understand the improbability and significance of what he did. Plus, "inevitably" implies a gradual process, and speed was everything in those days of the fledgling market.

 

[HamishInsanish]

Re: Not a very productive post for the thread.

Eghad!! So sorry, gmanrique – didn't even see who you were quoting! Yeah, You've got to grow up yourself, MikeTheC. I hope the only thing that gets polarized is you from this site, because as I said before we all have a right to our opinions and the information age is moving so quickly it's full of interpretation.

BTW, Go Woz *pushes up cieling, stirs vat*

At least we are trying to determine what was so great on that interview to make it a Fist Page News.

 

[HamishInsanish]

You got me there Though I just wanted to express the remote possibility of it happening, though another compelling question sort of venturing off this thread is how might the computer industry have developed (surely it must have any way in some form or another, though not nearly as good) if Woz had been in a car accident or something when he was ten years old? Just food for thought... though I'll stop there so to not deflect the topic nemore!

-Hamish

Whoa, I just went back and read it:


In all seriousness, I ask: what is the basis for this statement? If one looks, I mean really looks, at the level of his accomplishment (see my first post above), this contention looks very, very unlikely, to put it mildly. One must remember the context of late '70s technology, and the type of engineering that was taking place at the time in both personal and corporate environments, to understand the improbability and significance of what he did. Plus, "inevitably" implies a gradual process, and speed was everything in those days of the fledgling market.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

You got me there Though I just wanted to express the remote possibility of it happening, though another compelling question sort of venturing off this thread is how might the computer industry have developed (surely it must have any way in some form or another, though not nearly as good) if Woz had been in a car accident or something when he was ten years old? Just food for thought... though I'll stop there so to not deflect the topic nemore!

-Hamish

Your question would never be hypothesized as the world would have no history of him being in the Computing Industry.

 

[coffey7]

Without Woz would Apple even be around today?
Why does Steve Jobs have 6 Billion and Woz only 45 million?
All the microsoft guys all have Billions. Gates didn't screw over his sidekicks.

 

[XENOR]

RE:leopard

Woz very cool
leopard uncool
Tiger and Ubuntu 7.10 only used in my world!-Xe.