As a switcher, I am coming over from having Bill Gates owner of the company to this Steve Jobs. Why do people hold him in such high regard when really he is just a CEO? I don't understand this love people seem to have for him
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.
The Passion of the Steve Jobs
- Thread starter wowser
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Steve Jobs is co-founder of Apple Computer, and creator of Macintosh. While Steve is not single-handedly responsible, Apple work relentlessly to produce an enabling platform that is consistent with, and meets the high standards of, his vision.
Steve is a brilliant marketeer and salesman whose critical understanding of design and technology allows for the creation of a computing experience that is unrivaled in reliability, stability, aesthetics, easy of use and simple enjoyment. Very few other corporations retain products that are so keenly aligned to the values of their creators.
The man is a living God....
Steve is a brilliant marketeer and salesman whose critical understanding of design and technology allows for the creation of a computing experience that is unrivaled in reliability, stability, aesthetics, easy of use and simple enjoyment. Very few other corporations retain products that are so keenly aligned to the values of their creators.
The man is a living God....
His personal investment in the company is pretty darn large. $1 a year salary (admitedly taking stock options in recompense) shows this.
Interiority said:
This is a bit dubious. The origin vision was not his and he basically muscled his way into control of the project: Jef Raskin
OK - My previous post does sound a little over the top doesn't it?
I am aware of the Mac's history and Jef Raskin's involvement. I do believe that Steve's personality is stamped all over the Mac and that it wouldn't be close to what it is today without him. Whether this is entirely a good thing or not is for others to debate... the story about Apple engineers having to go behind his back to allow for memory expansion ability on the original Mac springs to mind.
Clearly Steve has a 'dark side' too... Allegedly difficult to work with, refusal to compromise leading to high prices and infrequent updates / delays being the most obvious manifestations.
I still think he's a living God though...
I am aware of the Mac's history and Jef Raskin's involvement. I do believe that Steve's personality is stamped all over the Mac and that it wouldn't be close to what it is today without him. Whether this is entirely a good thing or not is for others to debate... the story about Apple engineers having to go behind his back to allow for memory expansion ability on the original Mac springs to mind.
Clearly Steve has a 'dark side' too... Allegedly difficult to work with, refusal to compromise leading to high prices and infrequent updates / delays being the most obvious manifestations.
I still think he's a living God though...
steve introduced the way of thinking that computers should be used to create things and not just crunch numbers. this is why he is so great.
I see it like this...
Bill Gates = Computer Nerd
Steve Jobs = Marketing/Sales Genius
Therefore Steve is a better people person than Bill. I think Steve tries to keep his computers simple enough for anyone to use, but strives for ones powerful enough to be sold and used for scientists too. Also, Steve didn't help build the computers did he? I always thought of him as the visionary and had techy people under him to build the things. Gates and Torvalds seem more 'withdrawn' from society much like that one kid that was in the back of your class that smelled weird, played to much D&D, and had too much Star Trek knowledge.
Overall, Jobs prolly is just one of those people everyone likes for no apparent reason. Noone knows why, but they like him.
Bill Gates = Computer Nerd
Steve Jobs = Marketing/Sales Genius
Therefore Steve is a better people person than Bill. I think Steve tries to keep his computers simple enough for anyone to use, but strives for ones powerful enough to be sold and used for scientists too. Also, Steve didn't help build the computers did he? I always thought of him as the visionary and had techy people under him to build the things. Gates and Torvalds seem more 'withdrawn' from society much like that one kid that was in the back of your class that smelled weird, played to much D&D, and had too much Star Trek knowledge.
Overall, Jobs prolly is just one of those people everyone likes for no apparent reason. Noone knows why, but they like him.
The two associations I like to bring are the performance of the person (as you say they are merely CEO) when it really[/counts] for the company.
Gates: giving evidence in the whole IE / Netscape furore was childlike in the way he dealt with the accusations and evidence when he sat in the stand.
Jobs: released the Mac and changed the world on the strength of his vision and personality.
There are alternatives and flipsides, but those comparisions are the 2 which stick with me.
Gates: giving evidence in the whole IE / Netscape furore was childlike in the way he dealt with the accusations and evidence when he sat in the stand.
Jobs: released the Mac and changed the world on the strength of his vision and personality.
There are alternatives and flipsides, but those comparisions are the 2 which stick with me.
I think that Steve Jobs is great.
Why?
Because he is able to look forward and see the bigger picture in business. What do consumers want? What does society demand? He's given us the answers to these questions throughout his career. As an example, people wanted a machine to use for the internet that was cheap, easy to use and fun = imac. A simple concept but excellently executed.
I reckon that his quest for perfect is admirable- he is never complacent, always seeking to innovate. That is what we need today!!!!
long live steve!!
Why?
Because he is able to look forward and see the bigger picture in business. What do consumers want? What does society demand? He's given us the answers to these questions throughout his career. As an example, people wanted a machine to use for the internet that was cheap, easy to use and fun = imac. A simple concept but excellently executed.
I reckon that his quest for perfect is admirable- he is never complacent, always seeking to innovate. That is what we need today!!!!
long live steve!!
I guess the question that springs to mind for me is this:
If Steve is a God, marketing genius, guru from the land of all that is good- which seems to be universally accepted-at least in here- why does Apple currently have around 3% of the personal computer market?
Yeah, Bill is a weird guy and you can make fun of him all you want, but he commands a fortune that could buy Apple many many times over.
?
Note: I am not a Gates fan, nor a Jobs fan. Just trying to flesh this thing out a little.
If Steve is a God, marketing genius, guru from the land of all that is good- which seems to be universally accepted-at least in here- why does Apple currently have around 3% of the personal computer market?
Yeah, Bill is a weird guy and you can make fun of him all you want, but he commands a fortune that could buy Apple many many times over.
?
Note: I am not a Gates fan, nor a Jobs fan. Just trying to flesh this thing out a little.
Just like Gates, Jobs is filthy rich too. However, Jobs sees himself as just another guy that works at Apple. His office isn't extravegant. He wears the same clothes we all do (jeans, tennis shoes). He understands the consumer and what we demand in a product.
The 5% thing is a bit misleading. In the arena's in which they compete, Apple is more like 75%. Analogy: Hummer is hands down best SUV, but only has 1% market share in SUV market. Why? Most people don't care about turbo-offroad capabilities, but everyone acknowledge's the hummer's surperiority. In hummer's market, though, they have 100% market share (Army).
Bottom line: Gates wants your money, Jobs wants your business. Without gaming, the wintel platform would die quickly. Without gaming, the mac platform is thriving.
The 5% thing is a bit misleading. In the arena's in which they compete, Apple is more like 75%. Analogy: Hummer is hands down best SUV, but only has 1% market share in SUV market. Why? Most people don't care about turbo-offroad capabilities, but everyone acknowledge's the hummer's surperiority. In hummer's market, though, they have 100% market share (Army).
Bottom line: Gates wants your money, Jobs wants your business. Without gaming, the wintel platform would die quickly. Without gaming, the mac platform is thriving.
Gates is #1 on Forbes Jobs is #262.
The question still stands though, why does Apple command so little market share (less than 3% according to most sources) when Job's claimed marketing skills are so far superior?
And um, please, the car analogies are killing me.
Also, it's not all games on the Windows platform. Office Apps make up about 35% of MS's PC software sales. In fact, I'm a support consultant and very seldom does a business have me come in to fix a game.
The question still stands though, why does Apple command so little market share (less than 3% according to most sources) when Job's claimed marketing skills are so far superior?
And um, please, the car analogies are killing me.
Also, it's not all games on the Windows platform. Office Apps make up about 35% of MS's PC software sales. In fact, I'm a support consultant and very seldom does a business have me come in to fix a game.
In 1975, Bill Gates wrote a letter to BYTE magazine. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak also wrote a letter to the magazine. In his letter, Gates complained about piracy of his BASIC software. In their letter, the two Steves explained why they chose the 6502 over the Z80 as the CPU for their new computer. (The Z80 was too expensive.) Those 1975 letters don't tell you everything about the two men, but they tell you a lot.wowser said:
Actually the 1984 macinstosh that we know has nothing to do with Raskin. Steve took over the project in it's EARLY infancy, and while he kept (to his dislike at first) the name Macintosh because everybody was used to it, it is completely his vision. The Macintosh Raskin wanted to make was WAY different... I think he was even against the mouse if my memory serves me right.robbieduncan said:
FistfulofAngst said:like Christians Mac fanatics weird me out, don't get me wrong but those MacExpo keynote speeches look like secret cult meeting to me.
no hate pms please?
Nah. I've been to loads of those kinds of conferences and fundamentally there is nothing special in the way those meetings are conducted from any other big business promotional meetings. It's just at Apple the attendees seem to listen to the speaker, unlike the dismal ones I attend.
As for
arsebanned said:
If you can't recognise a superior product then stop asking for explanations. By your ratitionale, a football team with more money than every other team would always win everything ever and ever for they are biggest and therefore best. Sadly that is not true. Biggest does not equal best.
But like car accidents, we can't look away. At least I can't. Easy there, Henry. I'm using a Mac, don't shoot me or anything.
The discussion is covering personalities, not really the product. The reason I asked the question is because I'm curious.
Relax. Note that no where did I claim Gate's product is better. If anything, I would say the opposite is true. But I don't think that is the topic of discussion at the moment.
re (trying) to discuss the persona marketing prowess
To a certain extent, I think the whole marketshare problem started with a fateful decision made very early in the game:
Apple flooded the schools with computers and educational programs/games, hoping that the kiddies would go home and convince their parental units to buy a computer - and that computer would be an Apple. (yea! Logo at home!)
The dark side flooded buisnesses with computers and office applications; Daddy stopped by the computer store on the way home and bought a PC junior.
Yes, that's way oversimplified, but it was certainly a factor early on.
Apple flooded the schools with computers and educational programs/games, hoping that the kiddies would go home and convince their parental units to buy a computer - and that computer would be an Apple. (yea! Logo at home!)
The dark side flooded buisnesses with computers and office applications; Daddy stopped by the computer store on the way home and bought a PC junior.
Yes, that's way oversimplified, but it was certainly a factor early on.
Oh Hell. I just like Macs because it just "feels" better than windows. Those who know will agree.
I also appreciate the design engineers efforts in their machines. Only Sony comes close in that regard.
I also appreciate the design engineers efforts in their machines. Only Sony comes close in that regard.
arsbanned said:
Easy there, Henry. I'm using a Mac, don't shoot me or anything.
The discussion is covering personalities, not really the product. The reason I asked the question is because I'm curious.
Relax. Note that no where did I claim Gate's product is better. If anything, I would say the opposite is true. But I don't think that is the topic of discussion at the moment.
re (trying) to discuss the persona marketing prowess
Sorry squire, I retract my impulsive response. I just felt you implied, by using the Forbes list, the superiority of the product which put Gates on top of it. I totally agree with you re the BMW analogies!
Persona-wise, I've not met either so I can't really say. I very much doubt they are any different to other CEOs. But as much as it's easy to slag Gates off, at least he's not Steve Bulmer. Jobs puts across a more confident style.
Making a difference.
Apple's vision: Don't make a computer more complicated then strictly necessary, so that none IT people won't have any (if possible) headaches.
Microsoft: being controlled by the OS by making the OS as complicated as possible, so only nerds are able to maintain the OS at an 'acceptable' level.
Steve assures the difference ( 'Think Different' ) vision.
Apple's vision: Don't make a computer more complicated then strictly necessary, so that none IT people won't have any (if possible) headaches.
Microsoft: being controlled by the OS by making the OS as complicated as possible, so only nerds are able to maintain the OS at an 'acceptable' level.
Steve assures the difference ( 'Think Different' ) vision.
FistfulofAngst said:like Christians Mac fanatics weird me out, don't get me wrong but those MacExpo keynote speeches look like secret cult meeting to me.
no hate pms please?
Those people are just fans of the Mac. Using your logic, people who scream and cheer at sporting events are in cults too. Hmm. Maybe there's some merit in that...
The really really weird ones are just fans with nothing better in their life. Kinda sad really.
FistfulofAngst said:like Christians Mac fanatics weird me out, don't get me wrong but those MacExpo keynote speeches look like secret cult meeting to me.
no hate pms please?
I dunno...when they're webcast, archived in QuickTime, shown at every Apple Store theatre, and reported on by most major tech press outlets, I'd scarcely call them "secret".
Apple in general, and Steve Jobs in particular, has the ability to get people truly excited about Apple products. In years of Windows use, I've viewed all the various Office and OS upgrades as "Oh God, what are they going to do to us now?", but every new release of OS X contains new stuff that I'd love to have and use....more of a "Wow, what cool new stuff does Apple have for us this time?"
It's generally agreed that without Steve Jobs, Apple as we know it would not exist...in fact, if they hadn't got him back, Apple's share would probably be 0% and the company long since defunct. Instead of looking at it as a question of "If Jobs is so great, why isn't Apple's marketshare higher?" think of it as quite likely that it's due to Jobs that Apple still has any marketshare at all, in the face of Microsoft's monopoly tactics.