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

[kdarling]

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.

Affordable? Jobs' goal was to make money, and that's why Apple products were so much more expensive from the very beginning.

Only the more affluent households in the late 70s and early 80s could afford an Apple II or Mac, with their thousand to several thousand dollar prices.

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.

Jobs and Apple did not do that. Not even close.

Tandy, Commodore and Atari did, at least in the USA... the UK had their own inexpensive devices as well... with home computers that mass consumers could actually afford:

 

[IJ Reilly]

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

Just so it's clear, I'm not discrediting anyone. The purpose of my remarks is to answer the argument that Bill Gates should be on this list due to his humanitarian efforts. Pretty quickly this morphs into the argument that he was the man responsible for the worldwide polio eradication project. This seems to be what most people believe, because his is the only name anyone is likely to hear in connection with it. The millions of people who been having pulling smaller but significant (to them) sums from their own pockets for decades before, you don't hear about. And they, not Bill Gates, are also the people who put their boots on the ground in polio hotspots like India and Nigeria. I know quite a few of these people personally, and to me they are far more "influential" than Bill Gates.

 

[Earendil]

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.

...which would also make him and what he produces influential. But this Time Magazine isn't about being Influential, it's about being a good person, right? Oh...

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.

Or because the man has influenced a lot of things.

 

[rendevouspoo]

Or because the man has influenced a lot of things.

What are 'all the things'? I'll give him the iPod.

 

[Earendil]

What are 'all the things'? I'll give him the iPod.

While the iPod certainly has helped transform the entire music industry, I wouldn't count that. How about the idea that powerful $20,000 computers used for corporate calculations had a practical use in the home, and that one should be built cheaply enough that little Jimmy could use one in his home? Yeah, Apple made that happen, and it was a relatively novel idea.

Ken Olsen in 1977, founder of DEC:
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home"

That same year Apple released the Apple II.

 

[mankar4]

If steve were to deserve being on this list, it would be for his early pioneering of GUI, not for his more recent work. While is more recent work (iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc) is incredible and game changing, its not top 20 americans ever stuff.

 

[MacDav]

It's Simple

I agree, but if he is on the list..how is Gates

Bill Gates is still alive.

 

[Earendil]

If steve were to deserve being on this list, it would be for his early pioneering of GUI, not for his more recent work. While is more recent work (iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc) is incredible and game changing, its not top 20 americans ever stuff.

I'm not so sure that's true. The people on that list were "Game Changers". What they did in and of themselves isn't all that amazing, but the incredible ripples it had through industry and consumer life is huge. Henry FOrd didn't invent the automobile, or the Assembly line. But he believed that he could make vehicles cheaper and get them into the average persons hands, and he did. The turning point in vehicles was thus what Ford did.

You can not study personal computers without seeing the impact of Apple in the early years. Additionally, I doubt you could write a paper in 50 years on the history of the Music industry, the cell phone industry, or the computer industry, without mentioning what Apple did.

If I look at the way I navigate my life today vs 15 years ago, it's vastly different. And it's different in large part because of what Apple has done. I'll leave you with a few good Steve Jobs quotes, and importantly, their year.

"You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new." Jobs 1989

"The most compelling reason for most people to buy a computer for the home will be to link it to a nationwide communications network. We're just in the beginning stages of what will be a truly remarkable breakthrough for most people -- as remarkable as the telephone" Jobs 1985

"We're gambling on our vision, and we would rather do that than make "me too" products. Let some other companies do that. For us, it's always the next dream." Jobs 1984

 

[Flood123]

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.

I stand corrected.

 

[TallGuy1970]

Hold on, Time, I'm gonna let you finish, but Beyoncé is one of the most influential Americans of all time... OF ALL TIME!

Ha! A pop singer? Most influential? Ha!

 

[rendevouspoo]

While the iPod certainly has helped transform the entire music industry, I wouldn't count that. How about the idea that powerful $20,000 computers used for corporate calculations had a practical use in the home, and that one should be built cheaply enough that little Jimmy could use one in his home? Yeah, Apple made that happen, and it was a relatively novel idea.

Ken Olsen in 1977, founder of DEC:
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home"

That same year Apple released the Apple II.

Post #151 on this page pretty much debunks your theory.

 

[Kr00]

Why do you want Gates dead? He did brilliant work at Microsoft and is now trying to make the world a better place.

I think he might be mistaking Gates for Ballmer. Nobody would give a crap if that douche waddled off this planet.

 

[Earendil]

Affordable? Jobs' goal was to make money, and that's why Apple products were so much more expensive from the very beginning.

Only the more affluent households in the late 70s and early 80s could afford an Apple II or Mac, with their thousand to several thousand dollar prices.

Citation needed for what you're smoking?
Based on limited knowledge of events, 1977 was the turning point for personal computers in the home. They went from having "kit" included in the name, to being fully functional machines that didn't require an engineer to maintain or make use of. The 3 biggest computers in the revolution were the Apple II, The Commodore PET, and the Tandy TRS-80.

Do you know when Apple was founded? 1976. Steve Jobs was all of 22 years old in 1977, and Apple was competing against companies MUCH larger than them. Can you honestly sit there and tell me that these hippy kids with a passion for computers and ideas were out there to make a cheap quick buck of of rich people? HONESTLY?! Because if you know that little about the computer revolution, than this discussion is basically over

Jobs and Apple did not do that. Not even close.

Tandy, Commodore and Atari did, at least in the USA... the UK had their own inexpensive devices as well... with home computers that mass consumers could actually afford:

Your graph does not show who the computers were sold to, or what kind of computers they were. And again with the Apple started with a couple kids in 1976, not as established electronic companies. What they pulled off then, and continued to pull off for the next decade was nothing short of amazing. The fact that we are here even discussing something that took place 35 years ago is amazing.

----------

Post #151 on this page pretty much debunks your theory.

No it doesn't. It shows a graph that starts about the time Apple was founded as a company, and doesn't show who the sales were too. And the difference is, while other large companies might have tried to jump in there, they are now all dead, or exited the business in the next 10 years. Quote me someone at Trendy that had half the passion for consumers that Apple did in the early years. No doubt others were there, but Apple pulled it off and had a HUGE amount of influence. And it's influence that we're talking about here, right?

 

[Doctor Q]

TIME needs another proofreader.

A masterly politician, Lincoln held the Union cause together through a long and bloody conflict. ... He was slain just after the Confederacy urrendered, but his mighty task was done.​

 

[kenbrickley]

As an aside, Henry Ford was also somewhat disdainful of the concept of giving the customer what they wanted judging by his famous quote, "If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse" ... consumers didn't know they wanted a computer until they became cheap enough to put one in your house (and Steve Jobs helped there) ...

although I used a TRS 80 at a friend's house before we got our Apple II+ there was a world of difference between the Apple and the IBM PC (the only comparable product available at the time) both in terms of price and performance ... the color screen was a very cool feature at the time and we had the additional benefit of a 10 MB hard drive (also a cool and uncommon feature at the time in the home environment)

It is a valid debate as to whether Jobs is the in the top 20 "influential" of all time because history does tend to change ones position. But I would definitely agree that he was very influential at the start of true "home" computing ... don't discount all the Apple Computers that they gave to schools in those days either ... there is a reason that alot of kids in the late 70's and early 80' had only seen Apples (or the cheaper alternatives their parents bought) ... the PC dominance only came later when Intel and MS got their act together and started pushing the Wintel platform forward to become the dominant PC platform

Another measure of influence is that when I worked for Intel in the 90's they didn't care about AMD then but they tracked Apple, even with their 5% of the market ... one could argue you have a fair amount of influence if the person who owns 90% of the market (which Intel was close to back then) is monitoring you (the holder of only 5%)

 

[AidenShaw]

Interesting - Sitting Bull and Cassius Clay are ranked up there with Jobs.

But in 50 years, Sitting Bull and Cassius Clay will still be on the list, and it will be "Jobs who?" - and probably Ellen Degeneres will be on the list instead.

 

[AFDoc]

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).

Agreed. I can name 10 from the medical field right now and I can roll off 10 other non medical field people. I wouldn't put SJ in the top 50 of all time. He did some cool stuff but didn't cure polio, fly, make the car, go to space, ect ect.

 

[kdarling]

Based on limited knowledge of events, 1977 was the turning point for personal computers in the home.

My own knowledge isn't limited. I homebrewed (as in, designed and wired each chip by hand) my own personal computer in 1979. I had complete sets of Byte, Kilobaud and Dr Dobbs. (People who were there, know what those are.)

They went from having "kit" included in the name, to being fully functional machines that didn't require an engineer to maintain or make use of. The 3 biggest computers in the revolution were the Apple II, The Commodore PET, and the Tandy TRS-80.

The PET didn't sell so well. The Apple II even less for a long time, and it was never a majority seller.

• The Apple II with 4K cost $1300 and didn't include a monitor.
• The TRS-80 cost $600 with monitor.
• Later home computers from Atari and Commodore dropped even lower.
• Guess which ones kickstarted the mass consumer home computer revolution?

1977:

• Apple sold 600 Apple IIs.
• Tandy sold 100,000 TRS-80s.

1978:

• Apple sold 7,600 Apple IIs.
• Tandy sold 150,000 TRS-80s.

1979:

• Apple sold 35,000 Apple IIs.
• Tandy sold 200,000 TRS-80s.
• Atari sold 100,000 of their 400/800 models.

1980:

• Apple sold 78,000 Apple IIs
• Tandy sold 225,000 TRS-80s.
• Atari sold 200,000 of theirs.

By 1981, the IBM PCs were arriving, and they sold in overwhelming numbers. (Out of all the original home computers, the Commodore 64 sold best, hitting 17 million units.)

By the end of 1985, Steve Jobs was kicked out of Apple, and had no direct home computer influence for a decade.

Your graph does not show who the computers were sold to, or what kind of computers they were.

Not sure what you're thinking, but anyone who was in the hobby at the time knows that they were all personal computers.

And again with the Apple started with a couple kids in 1976, not as established electronic companies.

A lot of people did that, including me and my friends. Computer startups were a dime a dozen. I grant you that Jobs outlasted us

The fact that we are here even discussing something that took place 35 years ago is amazing.

The fact that people have such a warped view of computer history is amazing, and a big reason why oldtimers like me who lived through it stick around.

Before newcomers who haven't read the thread jump in, btw, I'm not saying Jobs didn't have a large overall influence. This is only about the myth that he and Apple single-handedly started the home computer revolution.

 

[AidenShaw]

to include Jobs is unbelievable

Agreed. I can name 10 from the medical field right now and I can roll off 10 other non medical field people. I wouldn't put SJ in the top 50 of all time. He did some cool stuff but didn't cure polio, fly, make the car, go to space, ect ect.

If Jobs hadn't been an egotistical billionaire, he would have died in 2009 when his spreading cancer collapsed his liver and other systems.

But, he "gamed" the system and bought a new liver in Tennessee, and lived for a couple of more years. (Read how_did_steve_jobs_get_his_liver)

I wonder what family lost a husband or wife because Steve Jobs bought a liver that would have saved them.

IMHO, Jobs should be banned from any "greatest" list because of that shameless use of money over common sense.

And seriously, why would making shiny toys put anyone on the "greatest" list? Why not include the 1950's auto designers who decided that "tail fins" were the greatest?

 

[sha4000]

Just so it's clear, I'm not discrediting anyone. The purpose of my remarks is to answer the argument that Bill Gates should be on this list due to his humanitarian efforts. Pretty quickly this morphs into the argument that he was the man responsible for the worldwide polio eradication project. This seems to be what most people believe, because his is the only name anyone is likely to hear in connection with it. The millions of people who been having pulling smaller but significant (to them) sums from their own pockets for decades before, you don't hear about. And they, not Bill Gates, are also the people who put their boots on the ground in polio hotspots like India and Nigeria. I know quite a few of these people personally, and to me they are far more "influential" than Bill Gates.

ok I can better understand where you're coming from seeing as though you know some of the Ppl that laid the ground work and definitely did the dirty work. These Ppl should get their names mentioned every time the subject is brought up. Thx for the insight.

 

[fitshaced]

I'm confused by the title of this list. Influential seems to mean positively influential to Time magazine. If that's why they wanted, they should have called it that. Plenty of Americans have been far more influential than Steve Jobs. Albeit for the wrong reasons. I'll leave off names that come to mind.

 

[AidenShaw]

huh?

ok I can better understand where your coming from seeing as though your know some of the Ppl that laid the ground work and definitely did the dirty work. These Ppl should get their names mentioned every time the subject is brought up. Thx for the insight.

Would you mind restating this in English? It's hard to understand what you're (yes, "you are" is abbreviated to "you're") saying with all the mistakes.

 

[sha4000]

Would you mind restating this in English? It's hard to understand what you're (yes, "you are" is abbreviated to "you're") saying with all the mistakes.

Are you really trying to chastise me about my grammar? Obviously it's supposed to say "you're" and "you" and I wouldn't consider that unreadable. For Christ sake I posted from my phone and didn't pay attention to what Swype inserted. Fixed it for you.

 

[AidenShaw]

Are you really trying to chastise me about my grammar? Obviously it's supposed to say "you're" and "you" and I wouldn't consider that unreadable. For Christ sake I posted from my phone and didn't pay attention to what Swype inserted. Fixed it for you.

It's "Christ's sake" if you're religious.

And who is "Swype"?

If you can't pay attention to what you post, why should we?

 

[oBMTo]

Jobs in before Gates is a joke. No argument about it.