Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Time Magazine Names Steve Jobs Among 20 Most Influential Americans of All Time

Wow ... if the whole Gates vs Jobs debate is so contentious, people must have really loved Joel Steins 100 of All Time on the Time website ... he chose neither Jobs nor Gates but Mark Zuckerberg :D

I think that Gates foundation deserves some credit ... people can argue all they want about being too money focused but money is how our world operates right now and if you have a lot of it then you have a lot of influence ... the Gates foundation because of its availability to funds can actually guide research in ways that used to be in the purview of governments only ... that is a lot of power and I don't think we can fully evaluate the Gates legacy yet ... it is too early for that

However, if he uses his resources effectively and he makes appropriate provisions after his death I think 100 years from now the 2 most influential businessmen of all time will be Alfred Nobel and Bill Gates ;)
 
Hmmmm

A list like this is always going to be driven by those who compile it and their own biases and politics.

But I do agree with Jobs being on list. But PLEASE replace Edison with Tesla. Edison was a pale imitation of Tesla, who single-handedly invented our modern electrical infrastructure and much more. In fact I would rate him the #1 most influential person in American history. Modern society literally runs on the devices/concepts he engineered/pioneered and brought to market. I don't understand why he is always passed over in these type of lists.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Important in the latter stages of the campaign, but not essential. Hundreds of millions had already been raised over the twenty years before he became involved, and polio had already been defeated in all but three countries. The Gates contributions were challenge grants, incidentally. He was matching contributions made by the relatively small donors who were already actively involved. But we can see how this works now, can't we? One rich person is automatically more essential than millions of not rich people.
Click to expand...

Whatever the case he put his money where his mouth is so even though I understand your argument I don't understand why your going to such great length to sort of discredit what has been done. Ppl on this forum ( and I'm not referring to you ) praise SJ with reckless abandon for what he has done with Apple and I don't have a problem with that. To each his own. But what has he actually done to help anyone besides himself and Apple?

----------
IJ Reilly said:
Important in the latter stages of the campaign, but not essential. Hundreds of millions had already been raised over the twenty years before he became involved, and polio had already been defeated in all but three countries. The Gates contributions were challenge grants, incidentally. He was matching contributions made by the relatively small donors who were already actively involved. But we can see how this works now, can't we? One rich person is automatically more essential than millions of not rich people.
Click to expand...

Whatever the case he put his money where his mouth is so even though I understand your argument I don't understand why your going to such great length to sort of discredit what has been done. Ppl on this forum ( and I'm not referring to you ) praise SJ with reckless abandon for what he has done with Apple and I don't have a problem with that. To each his own. But what has he actually done to help anyone besides himself and Apple? I bought into Apple 10 years ago when I got my clamshell and was sold even though I still owned a PC bcuz it was still a less expensive option. I've had the clamshell, PowerBook,2 ibooks and the MBP since then and truly love them and OSX even though love is probably too strong a word.
 
Muhammad Ali in the Top 20 is just embarrassing...

Where are Tesla and Oppenheimer? Steve in the Top 50? Definitely. Top 20 is a stretch.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Important in the latter stages of the campaign, but not essential. Hundreds of millions had already been raised over the twenty years before he became involved, and polio had already been defeated in all but three countries. The Gates contributions were challenge grants, incidentally. He was matching contributions made by the relatively small donors who were already actively involved. But we can see how this works now, can't we? One rich person is automatically more essential than millions of not rich people.
Click to expand...

Whatever the case he put his money where his mouth is so even though I understand your argument I don't understand why your going to such great length to sort of discredit what has been done. Ppl on this forum ( and I'm not referring to you ) praise SJ with reckless abandon for what he has done with Apple and I don't have a problem with that. To each his own. But what has he actually done to help anyone besides himself and Apple? I bought into Apple 10 years ago when I got my clamshell and was sold even though I still owned a PC bcuz it was still a less expensive option. I've had the clamshell, PowerBook,2 ibooks and the MBP since then and truly love them and OSX even though love is probably too strong a word. Anyway I think both are influential in their own right but if I had to choose I would go with Gates. I'm not trying to discount your opinion I'm just genuinely interested in why you feel that way. For the record I read the forums slot and you are one of the more recognizable and informed posters IMO even though I don't always agree so I'm not challenging your wealth of knowledge on such matters. Thx
 
Bezetos said:
IMO Gates achieved even more than Jobs, however I agree that he wasn't as influential as Jobs was impeccable at marketing himself.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. When Gates presented Windows, he could let the audience wait for years until Windows 3 came out - finally - halfway doing what Gates promised. He saved the IBM compatible PC with that hat trick. Gates might keep very private, but in self marketing, he was not bad either. Especially in getting Microsoft to where it is now, his personal marketing was the key.
 
Time magazine once named Earth, "planet of the year". I would like to know which other planets they considered for this honor and why they were even considered.

I would have Carl Sagan on that list before Steve Jobs (and maybe others).
 
Last edited:
kenbrickley said:
However, if he uses his resources effectively and he makes appropriate provisions after his death I think 100 years from now the 2 most influential businessmen of all time will be Alfred Nobel and Bill Gates ;)
Click to expand...
What does charity have to do with whether you were a good businessman or not? Where is it required that someone who rightfully earns a fortune has to give it away? To me that's just feel-good PC crap.
 
kdarling said:
Unbelievable. Clearly a bone thrown to today's kids.

Jobs belongs in an influential list for sure, but not within the top 20 of all time.

Might as well also put Ron Popeil in the top 20 list (at least he actually invented some of the stuff he sold).
Click to expand...

Since when did Influenctial list become the Inventor list? :confused:
 
Really?:confused: He made pretty consumer products. Consumers are ridiculously fickled. They will continue to move on to newer and prettier things. In a few decades, who'd even remember what an iphone is or what it looked liked. Not knocking Steve Jobs as much as I am knocking the importance of consumer products, and in particular, one brand that happens to be popular at that time.
 
Rogifan said:
What does charity have to do with whether you were a good businessman or not? Where is it required that someone who rightfully earns a fortune has to give it away? To me that's just feel-good PC crap.
Click to expand...

I didn't say "good" businessman ... I said "influential" ... Steve Jobs was an exceptional businessman and an extraordinary marketer (if I could make presentations at even 10% of Jobs ability I could be a great presenter) ... however, Alfred Nobel is still affecting business, science, and art more than 100 years after his death (through the prizes his foundation awards yearly) ... that is VERY "influential" ... Gates could very well end up in the same mode depending on what he does with his foundation

I tend to view Jobs in kind of the same category as Frank Lloyd Wright or Gaudi ... they made design interesting and practical ... Since Gates was briefly the richest man on the planet and nearly the richest man in history I think one could arguably say he was as "good" a businessman as there is going to be for the near future. Of course that also assumes that one doesn't take the approach of "A Christmas Carol" where Scrooge is admonished by Marley's ghost that "mankind should have been my business". Although I don't think charity is mandatory I have no problem giving a person props for engaging in it (full disclaimer I work in corporate sustainability ;) )

Personally I think that anyone who receives the most influential of all time moniker should have been dead for at least 20 years ... if someone is still considered "influential" 20 years after they are not around to personally influence then that is pretty "influential" ;)
 
Last edited:
I'm a Jobs fanboy, but c'mon, no Gates? And Ali? Maybe it's because I wasn't alive, but I honestly don't think Ali belongs on the list. If we're talking about African American athletes, how about Jackie Robinson?

The admission of Tesla (unless we're talking about US born only, later citizenship excluded) is sickening.
 
Flood123 said:
Helped lead the united states to victory over the brits and was the first president of the united states. Freed the slaves. Built and flew the first airplane. Created the first assembly line. Developed the iPod .
Click to expand...

Having not read what they say about Jobs, I'm guessing the iPod is not the reason.

Jobs was one of the first people to say that computers should be a consumer product, that kids and parents should use, not just big business. That was the goal of Aple in the early years, to produce machines that were not only useful in the house, but were affordable in the house. THAT is visionary, AND he pushed to make it happen, and it did. Surely we would have ended up with computers in the home, but credit should go to the first person to stand up and actually make it happen.

Also, Henry Ford didn't invent the Assembly line. He was the first person to use it to produce cars though, and he improved upon the idea. Not "Revolutionary", but the first man to do it, and thus change people's lives from that point on.

Edison wasn't the first one to create a light bulb, he was the first to make it feasible to produce and use in ones home. And Abe Lincon didn't free the slaves. History shows that it's an awesome thing to remember him by, but his motivation was as much or more about other political aspects and issues as it was slavery.

The same can be said of Jobs. Did he dream up everything that we associate with him? No. Did he do it alone? Of course not. But did he dream big and spend his life trying to make his dream come true? Yes. And his dream coming true, regardless of how many people it took to make it happen, has changed the way we live and interact with the world.

----------
G51989 said:
But wasn't a designer, or an engineer, or even a programmer, he was a user. And a good marketer.
Click to expand...

He was a dreamer. Those are the people we celebrate, people who dream bigger and encourage other people to make it happen. Few of the people on that list actually used their own hands, and only their hands, to enact the things they are associated with. But its arguably true that without those dreamers, things would have turned out very different.
 
smoledman said:
But dreamers like Jobs need hard-core engineers like Woz.
Click to expand...

The opposite is also true though ... there is a reason that the inventor of Jello died poor where the marketer that bought his invention died a millionaire ;) ... sometimes the engineers are too practical for their own good ... they need a dreamer to inspire them to true greatness or find the greatness in their invention :)
 
smoledman said:
But dreamers like Jobs need hard-core engineers like Woz.
Click to expand...

Quite right. But realized dreams create change and influence, not solid work. There a thousands of amazing engineers out there without dreams. You need a dreamer to come along and push a great worker to produce something amazing. Woz has admitted as much, no matter the finally state of their relationship. Woz has said that Steve pushed him to do things that he at the time thought and told Jobs were impossible. Jobs believed in the dream enough to tell Woz it needed to happen anyway, and to try. It worked.

Also, this is a ranking of influential people, right? Not "great people"?
I don't understand the Gates v. Jobs debate here. Giving money, even to a good cause, does not equal influence. I think few people, as powerful and good as Gates is, would consider him a dreamer or idea man.
 
Rogifan said:
What does charity have to do with whether you were a good businessman or not? Where is it required that someone who rightfully earns a fortune has to give it away? To me that's just feel-good PC crap.
Click to expand...

You don't have to give it all away. If you don't, however, and the other guy does, you will be less respected. Gates has given 28 billion to charity and is still filthy rich. He's just a good dude. Job, on the other hand, was a bully to the industry and an *******. Does that make him a bad business man? Absolutely not. In fact, he was probably a better one because of it.

All that said, Jobs is on the list because he is a popular name right now and dead. Time is out to make money, and the people of MR and the Apple fans will buy this addition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back