# Steve Jobs Steps Down



## snowleopard (Aug 24, 2011)

Not a huge shock really. Tim Cook has been running the show for a while there, and quite well. The question wasn't so much "if" but "when". Jobs will remain as chairman of the board. 

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/08/ ... ?iid=HP_LN


----------



## madbulk (Aug 24, 2011)

To me, even though it was a matter of when, that "that day has come," today, is plenty jolting.
I just turned on my computer, up popped that headline, and I thought, "Damn, that's right. Today sucks!"


----------



## David Story (Aug 24, 2011)

Steve Jobs is today's Edison. A high tech inventor and salesman, this time with a flair for design. Few have done as much as he has. 

He can't step down from being a great inventor, the world is already changed forever. I wish him well.

And I hope Apple learned a lesson from when they pushed out Jobs in the 80's. You have to take chances and be unpredictable, not play it safe.


----------



## Udo (Aug 24, 2011)

He's primarily a salesman. His "inventiveness" is highly debatable!


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 24, 2011)

Udo @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> He's primarily a salesman. His "inventiveness" is highly debatable!



You're kidding, right? Is this the start of an old style PC vs Mac flame war? (not that the Mac has that much to do with Apple anymore).


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 24, 2011)

Depends on how you define "inventive". As in sitting down at a desk and drawing things up from scratch, perhaps not. But if you look at the big picture, regarding knowledge, seeing the future, decision making, he's possibly the most brilliant mind in our lifetimes.

I think the Edison comparison is an interesting one. Edison was both inventive, driven, brilliant at times, and a salesman and businessman that ruffled more than a few feathers, while being admired by the masses.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 24, 2011)

As was Marconi.


----------



## Udo (Aug 24, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> Udo @ Thu Aug 25 said:
> 
> 
> > He's primarily a salesman. His "inventiveness" is highly debatable!
> ...


Many Apple "inventions" are based on acquired technology (or ideas by others), facts which are usually not acknowledged. Many of the patents Apple holds are not originally theirs. It's true that Apple makes innovative products available to the masses.


----------



## jamwerks (Aug 24, 2011)

Didn’t Jobs invent the mouse, among "other things"


----------



## Udo (Aug 25, 2011)

jamwerks @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> Didn’t Jobs invent the mouse, among "other things"


No, the "innovative" ideas in early Apple products came from XEROX PARC labs.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Aug 25, 2011)

Udo @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> He's primarily a salesman. His "inventiveness" is highly debatable!



Actually I kind of agree - perhaps not salesman exactly, but not an inventor. Like Zuckerberg and Facebook, he didn't "invent", but he packages the right things together and makes them work in the way people want. That's a helluva gift, so I'm not seeking to denigrate. He is a visionary, no doubt about it. And the eventual phenomenal rise of Apple will be studied for many, many years to come - it was received wisdom for so many years that they were the elitist / nerd also rans, that closed proprietary systems were inevitably doomed to fail next to open ones. For better or worse, he proved that was false.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 25, 2011)

I understand the distinction and know about the Xerox thing, but please. Let's see. He completely changed the music business, the publishing business, the animation business, the video editing business, information technology, personal computing, etc etc etc. Forever. Not an inventor? Ok. How about "monster innovator, total visionary with a hell of an eye for design-oh, and a great businessman and salesman".


----------



## Udo (Aug 25, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> I understand the distinction and know about the Xerox thing, but please. Let's see. He completely changed the music business, the publishing business, the animation business, the video editing business, information technology, personal computing, etc etc etc. Forever. Not an inventor? Ok. How about "monster innovator, total visionary with a hell of an eye for design-oh, and a great businessman and salesman".


He didn't change those businesses/industries, that was mainly done by 3rd party developers, that used Apple computers.

BTW, "the Xerox thing" was only in the early days, but "acquired" technology and ideas have always been a very significant part of Apple developments.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Aug 25, 2011)

Udo @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> He didn't change those businesses/industries, that was mainly done by 3rd party developers, that used Apple computers.



Yeah, that's the thing. So for example I know a lot about the history of Pixar - Jobs had zero input into that revolution in terms of the actual work. But a visionary - absolutely, he bankrolled them and kept doing so when they were losing crate-loads of money and trying to pay their bills doing medical work. Pixar wouldn't exist now if it wasn't for him, who knows how that revolution would have unfolded. But it's near-certain that the world would be without Toy Story, and that's the whole point. The surprise of Toy Story was that it was a superb STORY. That revolution was supposed to come with mediocre but technically impressive films. Jobs saw in John Lasseter a true genius (and more just wearer of an "inventor" crown imho, as well as - highly unusually - a supremely gifted storyteller) and his only role was to support him when no-one else would. And without that role, we wouldn't have Pixar now.

That's how I see Jobs - he is brilliant, very canny, he knows what people want and he'll give to them in the most amazing package they've ever seen. He deserves the praise and plaudits. But he's not - afaik - a true inventor.


----------



## jamwerks (Aug 25, 2011)

So you guys don’t see the original Mac, Mac OS, Ipod, etc. as examples of extreme inventiveness?


----------



## nikolas (Aug 25, 2011)

Do you think that NOW iphone/ipad will work with Adobe/flash? :D


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 25, 2011)

Udo @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Aug 25 said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the distinction and know about the Xerox thing, but please. Let's see. He completely changed the music business, the publishing business, the animation business, the video editing business, information technology, personal computing, etc etc etc. Forever. Not an inventor? Ok. How about "monster innovator, total visionary with a hell of an eye for design-oh, and a great businessman and salesman".
> ...



As to the first part, I completely disagree. If you have a vision and are indefatigable as to the achievement of your goals, you can always find many people to get you there. No vision, no Mac Plus, no developers. No vision, no ability to see the mp3 player as a game changer, and a way to finally monetize online music no vision, no Pixar and the artistic revolution in animation that Toy Story contributed so heavily to. There as dozens of other examples. 

As to the second part of your assertion, I agree. So? Once upon a time, there was popcorn, and there were microwaves, then suddenly......I mean, c'mon. At PARC, Xerox had no vision for the technology they had in front of them. JObs' eyes practically popped out of his head when they showed it to him.

edit-btw, are you the Udo who worked on the latest N.I. drum product?


----------



## Udo (Aug 25, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> Udo @ Thu Aug 25 said:
> 
> 
> > NYC Composer @ Thu Aug 25 said:
> ...


There were other people already working on those ideas before Steve had his "vision". Steve, the salesman, managed to convince them to use his platform for their developments (largely because it was a bit more established, not because it was better).



NYC Composer @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> As to the second part of your assertion, I agree. So? Once upon a time, there was popcorn, and there were microwaves, then suddenly......I mean, c'mon. At PARC, Xerox had no vision for the technology they had in front of them. JObs' eyes practically popped out of his head when they showed it to him.


The people at PARC (and others) had those visions long before Jobs. The problem with XEROX was that top management didn't catch on (a typical problem in large companies).



NYC Composer @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> edit-btw, are you the Udo who worked on the latest N.I. drum product?


No (I'm the Udo you mistakenly accused of having an anti-American attitude :wink: )


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 25, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> edit-btw, are you the Udo who worked on the latest N.I. drum product?


No (I'm the Udo you mistakenly accused of having an anti-American attitude :wink: )[/quote]

Darn. I'm afraid you're wrong about that (too). I did remember, and I am firm in my belief that you do have an anti-American bias. I didn't get that impression in a vacuum, I got it from your statements at the time.


----------



## rgames (Aug 25, 2011)

I've never viewed Jobs as an innovator but rather as a marketer. He takes ideas that emerge elsewhere and markets the hell out of them to generate demand.

So sure, you can give him credit for doing the capitalism piece. But the innovation piece? I'm not so sure on that one.

Everything that comes out of Apple (or any of the large tech comanies) was born in similar form by someone else. Apple just tweaks those ideas and markets the crap out of them to get them into the hands of consumers.

Most innovation happens in small shops but is marketed by the big dogs because the inventor seldom has the capital necessary to get his ideas out to the mass market.

rgames


----------



## George Caplan (Aug 25, 2011)

steve jobs is a business genius. its a shame that at only 56 he now becomes chairman. a great innovator. an enormous amount of personal grief to put up with.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 25, 2011)

Question: why has no other tech company been able to do what Apple has done?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011 ... ts.html?hp


----------



## rgames (Aug 25, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> Question: why has no other tech company been able to do what Apple has done?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011 ... ts.html?hp



I already answered that question - the inventors seldom have the money to do the marketing.

Regarding patents, it's perfectly legal to take someone else's idea and make a *miniscule* change to it and call it your own. It happens all the time. The trick with patents is to try to define them broadly enough to cover all those miniscule changes. Usually, though, someone else finds one that you didn't think of and makes his own patent from it.

Patents are an indication of the desire to make money by protecting IP. They can be an indication of innovation but the vast majority are not.

Think about it: touch-screen devices like the iPhone and iPad have been around for at least 25 years. Of course, the early versions were less sleek than Apple's versions. Apple refined those concepts and brought them to the mass market.

That's not a denonuncement of Apple of Jobs - all big tech companies do the same thing.

rgames


----------



## spectrum (Aug 25, 2011)

Let me state the obvious: It's ludicrous to say that Steve Jobs never innovated or invented anything.

He did both and there's ample evidence to easily prove both....especially considering that the digital age has some unique considerations.

When you study ANY inventor/innovator and their time period, you will find that they built on the successes/discoveries of others in the same field. 

This reality does not change or diminish their status as innovators/inventors.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Aug 25, 2011)

spectrum @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> Let me state the obvious: It's ludicrous to say that Steve Jobs never innovated or invented anything.
> 
> He did both and there's ample evidence to easily prove both....especially considering that the digital age has some unique considerations.
> 
> ...



Maybe I have a different definition of inventor, or maybe there's stuff about Steve Jobs of which I'm ignorant (highly likely!) I totally he agree he's an amazing innovator, that seems a good label for what he does, but just scanning the huge list of patents that are his... laptops for example, this pertains to him making a super-thin one. See, that doesn't sound like an invention to me, but does sound like an innovation. Can anyone point to an unambiguous invention, in the classically understood meaning of the word?

Either which way, I totally respect his extraordinary talents. And greatest headline ever on this story (this might be a UK-only reference, not sure): "Cook aims to improve Apple Turnover"


----------



## José Herring (Aug 25, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> I've never viewed Jobs as an innovator but rather as a marketer. He takes ideas that emerge elsewhere and markets the hell out of them to generate demand.
> 
> So sure, you can give him credit for doing the capitalism piece. But the innovation piece? I'm not so sure on that one.
> 
> ...



Totally not true. Sometimes I wonder what planet you live on Richard. Look, if you take ideas from others then combine them into something new, that's innovation. Jobs and Wozniac(sp) took the idea of the personal computer and made something that could be used by everybody. Did they invent the personal computer? No. Did they even invent the operating system that the Mac uses? No. But did they have the creative genius to combine several ideas that existed at the time and turn them into a person computer than anybody could use? Yes!

At the time the personal computer was a pos. You had either crappy game computers like Commodore or Atari or you had the dos based crappy computers like the Tandy TRS80. Then came the Macintosh and that changed everything. Changed the course of computing. Changed what a personal computer can do. And at that point lesser talented people (like Bill Gates) were playing catch up. And it took them a Decade (windows 95) to even come close to a Macintosh. If that's not innovation then I don't know what is.

Saying that Jobs wasn't an innovator would be like saying Henry Ford wasn't an innovator because after all we had the horse and buggy before Ford developed the Model T :roll:


----------



## madbulk (Aug 25, 2011)

This conversation is bizarre, and fascinating.

Tweaks?
What do you have there? A touchpad? A Galaxy? A nook? Yeah, good luck with that.

You guys are concentrating on the base similarities and pretending that marketing makes the difference because you frankly are a certain make up and you don't get it. You never have. It drives you nuts. 
Or possibly I'm a different make up and I imagine it. But I'm thinking it's you.

The similarities to existing technology aren't what matters and the whole case your making is ultimately silly. 
The enormous, immeasurably more important chasm is in the iterations, the details and the use case -- the tremendous weight of the "tweaks" as you call them.
Technology itself is relatively worthless until you give it meaning. That's the innovation. The invented utility. Not the damn touch screen itself.

The copycat products, now those are tweaks.


----------



## rgames (Aug 25, 2011)

spectrum @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> Let me state the obvious: It's ludicrous to say that Steve Jobs never innovated or invented anything. He did both and there's ample evidence to easily prove both


Like what?

I really can't think of anything that's come out of any of the big computer/gadget companies (Apple, Microsoft, etc.) that I didn't see 10 - 15 years earlier in prototype form at a university or tech expo or something like that. For example, the first time I saw a demo of an iPhone-type touchscreen was in '92 or '93 - one of the applications they mentioned was cell phones. Well, 10 - 12 years later, there it was.

Again, of course Apple, Microsoft, etc. make more refined versions of those products and they put the marketing muscle behind them to get them out to the masses. But the basic ideas are almost always born somewhere else.

I am surprised that, of all people, a group of musicians are confusing commercial success with innovation. Really?!?!?!

People who innovate are almost never the people who make the commercial successes from those innovations becuase the innovators are driven by the ideas, not the dollars. As soon as an innovation is realized, it becomes boring: the innovator seldom has the desire to market the idea to make it a commercial success.

Same thing in the music world, right?

rgames


----------



## rgames (Aug 25, 2011)

madbulk @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> The enormous, immeasurably more important chasm is in the iterations, the details and the use case -- the tremendous weight of the "tweaks" as you call them.


The process you are describing is refinement, not innovation. The idea is the innovation, and Apple doesn't really have many of its own "ideas".

As another example, take the iPod. I seem to recall that Apple have admitted that the iPod (and even digital music ditribution like iTunes) was not their idea. In fact, both of those ideas were first written down in a patent in 1980 or something like that. I also seem to recall that the drawings that accompanied those patents looked a heck of a lot like the iPod...

You are correct that there is tremenodus work in moving from the idea to a device purchased by masses of people. However, the ideas usually start outside of places like Apple. Companies like Apple do the work to market and distribute them but they seldom generate the ideas.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 25, 2011)

Shockley and the other people who invented the transistor weren't innovators. They just took existing research in quantum mechanics and packaged it for the masses.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 25, 2011)

Sorry, refined it.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 25, 2011)

The mp3 player and the Internet did not change the face of the music business forever.
The iPod and iTunes did.

Many pundits business people scoffed at the idea that there was a market for tablet computing. Many mentioned the Newton. After all, that tanked. iPad, however, changed the market for tablet computing virtually overnight.

I don't think it's necessary to have conceptualized and built the first LCD screen or the first microprocessor to be able to say you changed technology through innovation and created a market where there wasn't one before. That's not just 'business' or 'marketing'-that's vision and an indefatigable will and as i said before, a great design sense.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Aug 25, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> The mp3 player and the Internet did not change the face of the music business forever.
> The iPod and iTunes did.



Actually I do disagree with that. What changed the music business was piracy, like it or lump it. The industry had to respond to a legal version of what was then commonly used - mp3s were not only free, they were also much more convenient to use. The iPod and iTunes helped as part of that process and they have increasingly dominated. Again, I have to say that's a good argument for showing that Jobs is canny businessman and innovator rather than an inventor, as classically understood.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 25, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Aug 25 said:
> 
> 
> > The mp3 player and the Internet did not change the face of the music business forever.
> ...



Who was using mp3 players before the ipod? Who was legally paying for music on the internet before itunes? Who was selling it?

Apple came up with a beautifully designed hardware product, an easy way to dl and pay, and a generalized ecosystem that offered multiple models and worked from multiple platforms and stationary or mobile devices-who had done any of that?

(btw-mp3s weren't "free", they were stolen.)


----------



## LFO (Aug 25, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> spectrum @ Thu Aug 25 said:
> 
> 
> > Let me state the obvious: It's ludicrous to say that Steve Jobs never innovated or invented anything. He did both and there's ample evidence to easily prove both
> ...



So what you are saying is that a Palm or a Windows Mobile phone is the same as an iPhone. Or a Galaxy is the same as an iPad. I think you are missing the point here. Read a biography of Steve Jobs. He knew exactly what he wanted to deliver, be it a computer, operating system, mp3 player, etc. He designed much of it. And by design I mean everything from workflow to functionality to appearance. For instance, no Apple products would look like they do without Steve Jobs. He would send prototypes back because he wanted screw holes to disappear! Complete redesigns to remove them resulted. He would have parts, like iPod wheels changed in look feel and size down to the millimeter.

Look where Apple was before he came back. No where. The difference? Steve Jobs. His influence is monstrously monumental. He has influenced everyone of our lives in hundreds of ways. How can you do that and not be an innovator, let alone an inventor? Edison invented the telephone, but he didn't invent plastic, wire, electricity. All those things came first. Does that mean he wasn't an innovator or inventor?

For the record, I'm not a fan boy. Personality wise the guy seems like a real prick. But I have to respect the enormous influence he has had on this world. There's no way to get around it.

Kevin


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 25, 2011)

madbulk @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> The similarities to existing technology aren't what matters and the whole case your making is ultimately silly.


+!. 
+1

I'm following the Jobs story on several boards, this is the only place where this is even discussed. It's strange, and yes I agree, silly to an extent, considering how enormous of an impact Apple has had, and the admiration he's had across the planet for the last decade and beyond, that we're even having this hair splitting discussion and missing seeing the forest through the trees.


----------



## rgames (Aug 25, 2011)

LFO @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> He would send prototypes back because he wanted screw holes to disappear!


That's exactly my point: that's not innovation, that's refinement based on a desired image.

No one denies that Apple has a strong focus on image. In fact, the majority of Apple's brand is wrapped up in image.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 25, 2011)

Richard, you're just winding people up, right?


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 25, 2011)

Damn those Apple imagemakers. They convinced me to buy their Mac Plus, which was obviously stolen from some OTHER idea, THEN some other dweeb wrote that crappy DR T sequencer which HE probably just re-worked, next thing I know I got my first tv gig, so then I'm HOOKED. DAMN them for their infernal marketing genius and lack of true innovation. They played me like a trout.


----------



## rgames (Aug 25, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> Who was using mp3 players before the ipod? Who was legally paying for music on the internet before itunes? Who was selling it?
> 
> Apple came up with a beautifully designed hardware product, an easy way to dl and pay, and a generalized ecosystem that offered multiple models and worked from multiple platforms and stationary or mobile devices-who had done any of that?



There were several commercially available MP3 players before the iPod.

And yes, the Apple product was very good. But it was a refinement on concepts that had existed for a long time prior to their entrance into the market. Apple's success included two parts: a great product and a massive marketing campaign. Their success was not, however, a result of their own innovation.

As I already said, Apple, themselves, have made it clear that they don't consider themselves the originators of this technology. There's some guy who has the original patent that included the idea for downloadable media - can't think of his name - but he pre-empted Apple by a good 20 years or so.

You are correct, of course, that Apple did the media blitz and other groundwork required to get the products into the hands of huge numbers of consumers. But they didn't invent the technology.

Again, they made the most money off of the idea. But they didn't invent it. Don't confuse the two!

rgames


----------



## rgames (Aug 25, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> Richard, you're just winding people up, right?


No - I'm just trying to explain the difference between innovation and marketing


----------



## madbulk (Aug 25, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> madbulk @ Thu Aug 25 said:
> 
> 
> > The enormous, immeasurably more important chasm is in the iterations, the details and the use case -- the tremendous weight of the "tweaks" as you call them.
> ...



Nah. You're thinking refinement maybe, but I"m not. And you're implying a value around it, as in, put a bevel on it, or made it lighter, or didn't invent it from dust. But you don't place the same weight as I do on the innovation that is the existing technologies' utility. You practically ignore it. Skipping straight to the marketing phase dismissively as though tantamount to snake oil hooey powered by enormous resources for gullible sheep.
Again, the technology isn't the value, it's the usefulness, the experience. And that is the idea that counts most. That's the innovation and maybe even invention.

The words aren't what matters here. It's the value system. And it's polarizing. 
We may disagree about some facts too. But I think it's more that we're just differently predisposed in this respect, Richard. You think not?


----------



## Nick Phoenix (Aug 25, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> I've never viewed Jobs as an innovator but rather as a marketer. He takes ideas that emerge elsewhere and markets the hell out of them to generate demand.
> 
> So sure, you can give him credit for doing the capitalism piece. But the innovation piece? I'm not so sure on that one.
> 
> ...



This is crap. Sorry. What Apple has done is see the big picture and create an operating system that today is unparalleled in its connection to the user and all the fun and important crap they use everyday like email, music, movies, address books, calenders, not to mention creative software and they connected this to the leading mobile devices which now every company in the world is copying. Apple brought style and sophistication to the computer world. But most importantly they cleaned up the mess that is the PC legacy. In the end, the way that people can connect with their computer or mobile device is paramount and Jobs gets this. The mac versus pc ads are kind of on the mark. I personally have no time to screw around with a PC. I have one. It is very powerful and runs HS really well. But it goes haywire every few months and the tech guys come and fix it. I wouldn't use it for anything else. Apple understands people and they are good businessmen/women. Thats why they are number one. Its no accident. Every big company runs on the backs of a bunch of hard working unsung heroes, but few have the vision to bring it all together in a way that is greater than its parts.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 25, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> There were several commercially available MP3 players before the iPod
> 
> rgames



Yes there were. Who was using them? What was their base? Where did they buy music for them? Why wasn't the Zune a smashing success with all of Microsoft's money and design people behind it?

Anyway, I think Nick's probably right-you're being purposefully obtuse by not admitting Jobs is a visionary-or maybe you're just anti- Apple world domination, which is understandable. Let's try one other(last) example, though.

The CEO calls in his design and programming teams. "I've done a few sketches, here they are" he says. "I want a tablet computer that has this form factor, this thick and not a millimeter thicker.Iwant it to have this sort of high res screen. I want some limited included software and the ability to run Safari. I want thousands of applications (we'll call them apps just to make it cuter). I want the programming to be open source so that many developers can come on board and write for it, and i want a piece of that action, so I want an 'app store', but I also want people to be able to dl the apps on the fly.It should mirror the iPhone look we already set up, but-more so. I've also envisioned an enclosed stand (see drawing 4), but we'll make it optional. Okay. Go. Do. It has to be beautiful and ergonomically pleasing. It has to be ready yesterday. Make it so".

If that scenario existed, did Jobs "invent" the iPad? Not the TABLET, mind you-just the iPad.


----------



## José Herring (Aug 25, 2011)

Nick Phoenix @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> rgames @ Thu Aug 25 said:
> 
> 
> > I've never viewed Jobs as an innovator but rather as a marketer. He takes ideas that emerge elsewhere and markets the hell out of them to generate demand.
> ...



A shit Nick! Don't turn this in to a mac vs. pc thread. There are plenty of us that have no problems what so ever with a PC. Of course, ya know, I ain't using many Play libraries yet so that may change now that I have HB :mrgreen: 

(*disclaimer, I'm am not a developer and haven't received any free products from any developer in the past 3 years, and I'd probably refuse if ever offered free products, so I can feel free to make wise cracks like the one above)


----------



## rgames (Aug 25, 2011)

Nick Phoenix @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> This is crap. Sorry. What Apple has done is see the big picture and create an operating system that today is unparalleled in its connection to the user


Obviously that depends on the user's preference, which is, of course, exactly what Apple manipulates with their marketing efforts.

I agree that Apple products are sleek and stylish. They're functionally very good, as well (usually). But the innovations that drive those products have originated mostly outside the company. Apple is not unique in this regard - all the big tech companies do the same.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Aug 25, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> Yes there were. Who was using them? What was their base? Where did they buy music for them?


It seems like you feel as though you're disagreeing with me some how. But I'm not disagreeing with anything you wrote and implied there. So I'm confused.

Yes, there was no prior mp3 player with the commercial success of the iPod. Didn't I already say that Apple did all the marketing work to get it out to the masses?

But having the first major commercial success of a product does not equate to having the first of that type of product. Further, it certainly doesn't have anything to do with originating the idea for the product.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Aug 25, 2011)

Nick Phoenix @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> Thats why they are number one. Its no accident. Every big company runs on the backs of a bunch of hard working unsung heroes, but few have the vision to bring it all together in a way that is greater than its parts.




I agree with Nick. In many cases Apple has bought some obscure company which was probably destined to fizzle out, adopted their technology and made it better.

It's not much different than when a director edits his own film and can only take it so far, but then a really good editor comes on board and turns it into something amazing.

I think Jobs and co need to be given credit beyond just being great at marketing.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 25, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Aug 25 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes there were. Who was using them? What was their base? Where did they buy music for them?
> ...



Richard, it's the oldest trick in every debater's book-you cherry pick the one sentence that you want to debate out of a 20 paragraph statement, and ignore everything else.


----------



## midphase (Aug 25, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> And yes, the Apple product was very good. But it was a refinement on concepts that had existed for a long time prior to their entrance into the market. Apple's success included two parts: a great product and a massive marketing campaign. Their success was not, however, a result of their own innovation.



Richard,

By your own logic, I suppose one could say that Bob Moog simply refined the design of a piano and applied great marketing skills to sell his non-innovative synths.


----------



## germancomponist (Aug 25, 2011)

In 1, 2 or 3 years all composers are on PC. :-D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 25, 2011)

> Obviously that depends on the user's preference, which is, of course, exactly what Apple manipulates with their marketing efforts



...the implication being that everyone who buys anything they make is a stupid chump.


----------



## madbulk (Aug 25, 2011)

Anytime you try to take any luster off the apple, people go nuts, there's little denying that. We are a devoted lot.


----------



## PhJ (Aug 25, 2011)

madbulk @ Fri Aug 26 said:


> Anytime you try to take any luster off the apple, people go nuts, there's little denying that. We are a devoted lot.


Apple triggers 'religious' reaction in fans' brains, report says
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-19/tech/apple.religion_1_apple-store-apple-employees-brains?_s=PM:TECH

don't blame me, i'm just the messenger


----------



## stonzthro (Aug 25, 2011)

Nick B - now that's funny!


----------



## rgames (Aug 25, 2011)

madbulk @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> Anytime you try to take any luster off the apple, people go nuts, there's little denying that. We are a devoted lot.



True, I've said in every post that I think Apple makes great products. But even that's not enough for the Apple zealots - apparently you must acknowledge Steve Jobs as some kind of demi-God. Or maybe full-on God, I'm not sure.

But I'm sure the requirement is at least demi-God...

rgames


----------



## rgames (Aug 25, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Aug 25 said:


> rgames @ Thu Aug 25 said:
> 
> 
> > And yes, the Apple product was very good. But it was a refinement on concepts that had existed for a long time prior to their entrance into the market. Apple's success included two parts: a great product and a massive marketing campaign. Their success was not, however, a result of their own innovation.
> ...



Honestly, I don't know enough about synths to make that call. But it sounds possible 

Look, I'm not saying anything about Apple that they don't say about themselves. I think they've been pretty honest about their role in the development of their products. If you don't believe what I say about Apple, then why don't you check in to what Apple says about Apple?

I looked up the iPod info I couldn't recall - the guy's name was Kane Kramer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kane_Kramer

Apparently Apple has said several times that they consider him to be the innovator and they retain him as a consultant. The Apple patents are derived from his patents (like I said, anyone can take someone else's idea, tweak it, and patent it).

So THERE! 

rgames


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 25, 2011)

What I like about Jobs is the way he came up. the way he failed over and over but in the end succeeded.
Edison also failed many times before he succeeded.
I admire that in any person.

On the other hand, I never bought Macs because I let my friends do that, then I could record on thier Logic/PT rigs while performing on my own designs. But I always looked at the Macs to see what they were using...

And as far as the iPhone stuff, again I never bought one. My reasons were simple, I like phones that work in tunnels, since I was often working at Yucca Mountain, Hoover Dam and massive footers we poured concrete in on the strip.
So I prefer buying a phone based on it's antenna, and using Fractal Math based antennas I never have dropped calls, can recieve calls in Casinos where many folks would have trouble.
Security even asked me how I was transmitting and recieving in backstage and gaming areas where communications were supposedly blocked.
Now days they can monitor the calls, and I guarantee you that's exactly what they do too.

Anyways, Steve Jobs is admired even though he pissed me off by not letting Apple do more with Logic, like they promised.
I waited for years for the OS made for music, and someday will buy a Mac, but not unitl Logic has it's own OS.


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 25, 2011)

Meanwhile here's a very inspiring speech he gave at Stanford back in 2005.


----------



## LFO (Aug 25, 2011)

*Portfolio of over 300 patents underscores Steve Jobs' attention to detail*
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11 ... etail.html

Included in the article:
Of those 313 patents awarded to Apple, Jobs has been credited as the principal inventor in the following cases:

*Personal computer*

Filed in Nov., 1980, and awarded in Apr., 1983, the “Personal computer” U.S. Patent No. D268,584 describes a “personal computer, substantially as shown” and it reveals a device similar to the Apple III, launched by the company in 1981 without a monitor.

*Highly portable media device*

U.S. Patent No. 7,593,782 contains a “detailed description of the design and workings of the first iPod shuffle,” Apple’s first iPod that didn’t feature a display. The patent filed in Aug. 2005 was awarded in Sept., 2009. Steve Jobs’ name appears in 85 iPod-related patents.

*Touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics*

This U.S. Patent No. 7,479,949, awarded in Jan., 2009, describes “a computer-implemented method for use in conjunction with a computing device with a touch screen display comprises: detecting one or more finger contacts with the touch screen display, applying one or more heuristics to the one or more finger contacts to determine a command for the device, and processing the command." More generally speaking, the filing covers how touchscreen-based iOS devices such as the iPhone or iPod touch work.

*Laptop Computer*

Awarded in Oct., 2002, U.S. Patent No. D464,344 covers “the ornamental design for a laptop computer, as shown and described” and the images it contains resemble Apple’s Powerbook G4 laptop, the Titanium PowerBook, launched by the company in 2001.

*Telephone interface for a portable communication device
*
Awarded in Dec., 2010, U.S. Patent No. 7,860,536 describes “a method of using a portable communications device” which “includes displaying a first image of a rotary dial in a display of the portable communications device in response to a first contact by a user with a click wheel.”

*Computer Keyboard*

The United States Patent and Trademark office awarded Apple Patent No. D421,976, which describes “the ornamental design for a computer keyboard,” in Mar., 2000.
*
Computer interface having a single window mode of operation*

Filed in Jan., 2000 and awarded more than five years later, in Oct., 2005, U.S. Patent No. 6,957,395 describes a system to “manage the available space of a computer display in a manner which reduces clutter and confusion caused by multiple open windows.”

*Staircase*

U.S. Patent No. D478,999 was awarded to Apple in Aug., 2003 and it describes the “ornamental design for a staircase” which has been related to the glass staircases currently found in several of the company's retail stores.

I'm really not a Jobs fan-boy, but for some reason it rubs me wrong that he doesn't get credit where credit is due. I mean, without Jobs Apple would be nothing. Not just because of his business sense, but because of his ability to innovate new products (many based on previous technology) that took on a complete life of their own. Many of Apples products kick a$$ because he made them kick a$$. It would be like saying Bill Gates wasn't an innovator or inventor, or Lee Iokoka (sp?) or even Larry Ellison. Jobs simply has the distinction of being the grand high pooh bah. 

Kevin


----------



## stonzthro (Aug 25, 2011)

Patents...

I've worked in the tech industry for the several years and I can tell you that a LOT of people who had nothing to do with ideas other than they were in charge of the people who came up with the ideas, ended up with their names on patents. It was always a bit of a joke that one guy was on something like 40 patents but had come up with none of them (nor contributed to them in any way). So long as Apple's culture doesn't change, we should see more new ideas and designs coming out.

That being said, I think Steve's a smart guy and I use 'his' products and I'm sure he will still advise the company from time to time. I look forward to see what he'll be doing with his time. 

That's a great talk BTW - thanks for posting!


----------



## dedersen (Aug 26, 2011)

I'm with Richard on this. I've always been amazed at the efficiency of the Apple marketing machine. And while they do make some nice products, they are certainly evolutionary rather than evolutionary. At least as far as the technology goes, you could argue that in the case of the ipod, the combination of it all (marketing, ease of use, timing) was revolutionary.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 26, 2011)

I so agree. Let's make that the thread mantra: " Apple is and has always been evolutionary rather than evolutionary" :wink:


----------



## dedersen (Aug 26, 2011)

Lovely typo. That is what i get for trying to type on this crappy, evolutionary ipad.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Aug 26, 2011)

dedersen @ Fri Aug 26 said:


> Lovely typo. That is what i get for trying to type on this crappy, evolutionary ipad.



THAT is hilarious!

Broadly I'm with Richard really, I have to say, but I'm not sure why people are so worked up. I for one totally acknowledge Jobs' genius and his role in changing the industry, it's pretty unarguable. I think the only debate is what label you can put on what he did. I personally don't think inventor is right, and I don't think it matters a great deal either in terms of apple's huge and largely deserved success, or is a slight on his amazing reputation.

Tim Berners Lee, for example - that's an inventor. (now there'll be a post proving me wrong!)


----------



## madbulk (Aug 26, 2011)

I'll speak for myself. I didn't get worked up with Udo. Inventiveness was a semantic battle I didn't care about. 
I got worked up, if you like, because Richard is fighting two other battles -- the one where Apple not only didn't invent, but barely innovated. I take issue with this because I'm insisting that innovation not only doesn't end with the technology, but more that the technology is meaningless without the creation of a business case and this is your utility, the usability, the stuff that is minimized in his argument and maximized in mine.
And his other, that the marketing is the force, which I also dismiss, because the implication is that the products aren't superior. 
And they are. 
At which point I agree to disagree, because we reach Apple vs Anti Apple quickly. And in my mind that's just two kinds of people.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 26, 2011)

> What I like about Jobs is the way he came up. the way he failed over and over but in the end succeeded.



And that right there is the lesson, i'n it. Someone's grandma always said that it doesn't matter how many times you fail - what counts is the successes.

(Patton also had a memorable quote, at least that's how the movie ends: "Victory is fleeting." That grandma also said that you have to keep reaching for the next success.  )


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 26, 2011)

Patton Quote.......

Chaplain: Why General Sir, I noticed a Bible by your bedside...
Do actually get the time to read it...?

Patton: Every God Damn day........ :lol: 

I was also hoping before Jobs stepped down that he would get Macs to sound as good as PC's.
Maybe his replacement will address that often overlooked fact...


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 26, 2011)

Although I admire what Apple has done as a company and have used their computers for many years, I am far from a Jobs fan. I have a hard time with the kind of personality traits generally associated with him. However, I think anyone who opines that Jobs has not been innovative (note I do not say INVENTIVE) has an obvious anti-Apple or Jobs bias- or just likes to argue. Full disclosure, other than owning Apple computers, I have:

1. No iPod-never owned one
2. No iPad
3. I use iTunes, though I sorta hate it-it does make some tasks easier.
4. okok, I bought the iPhone 3G. It drops calls like mad in NYC, but it's the coolest toy I ever bought.
5, No Apple tv
6. Never bought Apple peripherals when something cheaper would do the job just as well, which was, like, always. 

So the 'ecosystem' really doesn't involve me much-but when I look how it's changed the world of tech, it really amazes me, and Jobs envisioned it all. I'be always admired people who looked into the future and saw things I would never think of. I admire Ray Kurzweil, nutty though he is. Hell, I admire Mark Zuckerberg.The people who saw video tv being viable, like MTV- I was, like, "who would ever want to WATCH people play music on video??" (turns out Mike Nesmith of the Monkees was involved in that!). 

Anyway, I'm not worked up at all. I just enjoy a good scrum about dumb stuff.


----------



## rgames (Aug 26, 2011)

I think what the two sides disagree on is the definition of innovation (or invention).

Innovation means demonstrating something new. Clearly all of Apple's products had been demonstrated (in some form) by someone else before Apple brought their versions to the market.

What Apple did was *stylize* those products in a way that gives a very strong brand image. I guess you could say that was their innovation: adding style to technology. Prior to Apple, most tech gadgets were fairly bland.

Does Apple create products with a strongly branded style? Absolutely.

Does Apple create products that have not been demonstrated before? Absolutely not.

And again, this is not just the opinion of those on this side of the argument: Apple says the same thing about themselves!

Regarding Jobs, I, too, am not a big fan of the man. Where's the Steve Jobs foundation? We have a Bill Gates foundation that spends billions on health care for the world - what does Steve Jobs do? A person with such massive wealth really should be a bit more giving. That's one of Apple's dirty little secrets: they accrue huge amounts of wealth for relatively few people - they really don't create many jobs. So all you folks who complain about unfair distribution of wealth, take a peek at Apple and see if you like what you see.

rgames


----------



## madbulk (Aug 26, 2011)

Nope. If that was it, I'd just give in. Keeps coming back to value, Richard, not semantics, and not whether the original patent is someone else's. I don't care about your definition of innovation. You don't value what Apple users value, so you assign to it spit and polish instead of substance. But it's not about the word, it's about you not liking their stuff. And it's about me liking it.


----------



## rgames (Aug 26, 2011)

madbulk @ Fri Aug 26 said:


> it's about you not liking their stuff.


Where did you get that? I've said all along I think they make great products.

???

It seems that every person on this board who sits in the middle on some issue is forced to one side by the people on the extremes. How about you let me decide what I think? Newsflash: it *is* possible to think that Apple makes great products AND not be emotionally attached to the company.

Seriously - it's a cell phone. Or a computer. It's not some type of sacred object to be worshipped by all to whom it is presented... sheesh... come on guys...

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 26, 2011)

Larry, I had a Linksys router for years. It worked fine. But every time I needed to make a simple set-up change I had to access it through a browser, and everything was hidden behind a tab and given a cryptic name. So I had to learn the fricking software all over every single time.

When it finally broke I bought an Apple Airport Extreme Base Station. It was a few bucks more than the equivalent dual-band Linksys...but what a difference. This is just a wireless router, for heaven's sake - probably the most boring piece of equipment in the house. But I swear it was almost fun setting it up. And then when I added an Airport Express to extend the network it was just as easy: you select "extend a network" and you're basically done.

That's why Apple is the most successful technology company: they put themselves in the place of the user when they design things, and they get all the details right.

But Richard thinks I'm a zombie who's been seduced by the commercials with the fat dork and the guy who thinks he's really cool.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 26, 2011)

And yes, they are really good at marketing. Reducing a complicated device like the iPod down to dancing silhouettes is very clever, I think.


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 26, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Aug 26 said:


> Larry, I had a Linksys router for years...When it finally broke I bought an Apple Airport Extreme Base Station... I swear it was almost fun setting it up.


Same here. But you can also apply this to computer, laptop, mp3 player, phone, software, etc. 

Then again, I'm just a sucker for good advertising I guess.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Aug 27, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Aug 27 said:


> That's why Apple is the most successful technology company: they put themselves in the place of the user when they design things, and they get all the details right.



Yes, absolutely. I totally agree with this, even though the only Apple products I own are the iPhone and iTunes. Needless to say this is an argument against the invention attribute though.

I wanna pick up on something else Richard said which - uncomfortably - he's right on. Not only is there no Steve Jobs foundation, their record on employment and conditions in the 3rd world is shocking. Their environmental record is equally bad. Weirdly, people assume there is something eco-positive about Apple - beautifully elegant and, well, it's an apple after all - but they are about the worst offenders of any tech company out there.

A friend of mine got an electricity bill one day that was so absurd that he assumed an administrative error. He checked, and to his alarm discovered the figures were right. What can have caused such a sudden spike? After much tracking down, the answer - his new Apple. It was consuming a breathtaking 1,500w, and he (stupidly) had it on 24/7. Furthermore, he discovered that this figure was by design, not an error. 1,500w is somewhere in the realm of an electric fire, toaster or kettle, in another realm from a mere computer. As we both said to each other, we couldn't fathom how a computer could be designed to be that power-hungry - does it contain a black box whose only job is to consume electricity with a low hum? - it's still a mystery to me. My new Sandy Bridge i7 PC, which goes like greased lightning, consumes approx 250w I think.

I think my iPhone is great, but I strongly dislike that I have to charge both it and a skin battery every single night - and occasionally once more during the day. While other companies are working towards greater efficiency with every new model, it is abundantly clear that Apple simply Could Not Care Less.

So it's another question to ask. Apple are a staggeringly impressive company - but at what cost to the wider world?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 27, 2011)

1500W? Wow. My Mac Pro (Harpertown) is nowhere near that.

In any case, Apple files interesting patents all the time. Not all of them make it into products, but you see stuff like this every day. Steve Jobs isn't an engineer, of course, but to me that's not the point.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/08/ ... projector/


----------



## Simon Ravn (Aug 27, 2011)

He must have 700 harddrives connected, or 5 huge monitors that are always on. Or he just measure it wrong, that is obvious - a computer using that much power is impossible - the PSU isn't even capable of that...

My 6-core Mac Pro (on its own) uses about the same figure as you are listing - 200-250w. That's with a DSP card, a soundcard, a gfx card and an Intensity video card + 3 harddrives and an SSD.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 27, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Aug 27 said:


> Larry, I had a Linksys router for years. It worked fine. But every time I needed to make a simple set-up change I had to access it through a browser, and everything was hidden behind a tab and given a cryptic name. So I had to learn the fricking software all over every single time.
> 
> When it finally broke I bought an Apple Airport Extreme Base Station. It was a few bucks more than the equivalent dual-band Linksys...but what a difference. This is just a wireless router, for heaven's sake - probably the most boring piece of equipment in the house. But I swear it was almost fun setting it up. And then when I added an Airport Express to extend the network it was just as easy: you select "extend a network" and you're basically done.
> 
> ...



I hear you, Nick-and I know you have that big lovely Apple display as well-but I bought Dell monitors because I thought they looked excellent and were scads cheaper. Have you purchased any additional drives from Apple over the years? How about extra RAM? I think you knew what I was talking about, and I agree about the way Apple has made things easier for the dumber users (like me). Those of us who weren't already technologically savvy have been forced into becoming nerds, some more willingly than others-so I like it when things are made easier. I miss the days when my engineers did the wiring and mixing and most of the button twiddling, but that's over. 

Yep, Richard thinks you've drunk the Kool-Aid. As have all of us, religious zealots blinded by the deathless Apple iconography. The indisputable fact that most of the world computes differently, listens to music differently, telecommunicates differently,edits differently, creates differently- yep, Apple just borrowed some nifty ideas, put them in pretty packages and marched us all into the church. Nothing to see here. Certainly no innovation. Move on. :wink:


----------



## rgames (Aug 27, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sat Aug 27 said:


> I bought Dell monitors because I thought they looked excellent and were scads cheaper.


Good call - the Apple and Dell panels are exactly the same. Only the plastic around the edges is different. The massive price difference leads me to conclude that Apple uses some really exotic plastic... 

Apple's success is not only because of their marketing machine. They do make great products. Both are crucial elements of Apple's success. And, as I already said, most of the big tech companies work the same way: they scan the tech development world for ideas and act on what they think is "the next big thing".

Apple's focus on branding is the same approach used by a lot of other companies in a lot of other markets. Did Nike invent the shoe? Of course not, but they tweaked it and branded the heck out of it to the point that people began beating the crap out of each other in order to steal footwear.

Did Coke invent the cola? Of course not, they tweaked it and branded the heck out of it. Remember New Coke? New Coke came about because the company did taste tests and found out that in blind tests people actually preferred other products more than Coke. But when they made the change, their loyal customers revolted. Why? Because people loved the brand image - the characteristics of the product were a secondary concern.

As I said earlier, Apple's true innovation was to apply that branding process to computers and related gadgets. And, to date, they've done the best job of it.

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 27, 2011)

Once again, Richard,, you have retreated to the debater's best friend-the cherry picking of one small bit of a position, the bit you want to discuss, while ignoring the remainder which rationally disputes your position. I'll leave you victorious in the field.

No innovation, just slick salesmanship. Okaythen! Leave your iPod at the door. :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 27, 2011)

At the time I bought the Cinema Display the Dell one was different - it was more than just the raw display part - and also it wasn't really cheaper. Later that definitely changed, and I would have done the same thing you did.

Hard drives and RAM from Apple? No thanks!

But...lots of things they sell are really innovative. Their current keyboard is the best one I've ever used, for another example. It has a much lower profile and travel than anything else, and nobody else thought to do that. That's not a new invention, but it's a unique take on an existing one, and the brand image is irrelevant (in fact the previous model completely sucked whale dingus).

Now, I'm not saying that Steve Jobs is personally responsible for this keyboard. But he did lead the company.


----------



## snowleopard (Aug 27, 2011)

I have an 8-core Penryn, with dual (HP) monitors, and it gobbles up nowhere near that power. Something else must be going on. 

I can understand why there is no Steve Jobs foundation, the guy has been battling one illness or another for over five years. But the fact that Apple as an employer and steward to the rest of the world is not much different than a company like Sears is definitely troubling. Most shameful is that a company making that much money cannot share more and reward it's employees as such. Google does it, Adobe does it, SAS does it. All have huge perks for their employees. Cicso, Intel, Oracle Qualcom are all companies that if not in the tip top often make the Fortune 500 list of best employers. Apple should be at the top of the list, and yet, nowhere to be found. 

I realize this isn't the time with Jobs stepping down, but if Apple's profits and size continues to grow, and little more is done for the employees, in a year or so someone like 60 Minutes needs to do a segment on this. 

Best companies to work for list: 

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ ... full_list/

Here is SAS from several years back, still #1 on the list:


----------



## madbulk (Aug 28, 2011)

My monitors are Dells.

Richard, and all, understand now and always that if I say, "Richard or Nick, you think "this" way," that I don't claim to really know. It's just a "j'accuse." I'd have thought that pretty obvious.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Aug 30, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Aug 27 said:


> 1500W? Wow. My Mac Pro (Harpertown) is nowhere near that.
> 
> In any case, Apple files interesting patents all the time. Not all of them make it into products, but you see stuff like this every day. Steve Jobs isn't an engineer, of course, but to me that's not the point.
> 
> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/08/ ... projector/



I emailed my friend to ask what his system is, and in the interests of factual accuracy I should report that what he has apparently is a 1.5kw power supply in there, not power consumption. Which is still gobsmacking, but I'd expect half that amount in use. He says he has an "off the shelf Mac Pro".


----------



## dpasdernick (Sep 6, 2011)

This book is an interesting read. Jobs was no inventor in the beginning. He piggybacked on Wasniak (sp?). What Jobs has is a gift for "seeing the future" which is probably more valuable than writing software or hooking up some wires.

Check it out if you can find a copy.



http://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Millionaire-Steve-Apple-Computer/dp/1557781435/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315355921&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Millio ... 921&amp;sr=8-1)


----------

