Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

R.I.P. Steve Jobs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Luke_Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by Kalessian View Post
    Here's a fun exercise... right now, what would be worse, if all of the linux machines suddenly died or all of the macOS/iOS devices suddenly died? Toys.
    This +1

    Although my personal approach along those lines is "How many apple products directly or indirectly effect you personally in the standard day?" and then "How many Linux Systems directly or indirectly effect you personally in the standard day?". to which one will receive bluster about how Apple is a consumer electronics company, as they try to dismiss the comparison.

    And really now, If all the Linux machines were down, their iToys would be rather useless now wouldn't they?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kalessian
    replied
    Originally posted by kgonzales View Post
    It's not personal. You call a technology innovator a "dictator" and said mankind was better of with him dead. I really makes you a stupid, ignorant, and terrible person. Mankind will be better of with you dead.

    Linux is far from perfect, and useless ideological blindness will ensure that it won't improve. Linux rots from "good enough" disease. Your idiocy is of no help.

    So, I repeat, mankind would probably be better off without you. Linux certainly would.

    However, it is NOT better off without someone who could advance technology like Jobs did.
    So because he convinced some OTHER people to design and make some expensive toys FOR him he's someone who is better than an idealist who believes in freedom in the technology world?

    That's all Apple really is, toys. Completely useless, except to make Jobs rich enough to not have to care about parking in handicapped parking spots illegally. Here's a fun exercise... right now, what would be worse, if all of the linux machines suddenly died or all of the macOS/iOS devices suddenly died? Toys.

    EDIT: As for me, I'll leave the crass consumerism icons to people like you. Leave me to worship the actual researchers doing the dirty work (turns out they're not famous).
    Last edited by Kalessian; 10-07-2011, 01:56 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • squirrl
    replied
    basic

    The dark secret nobody wanted to admit to.,
    Microsoft Basic:
    Vic 20, C64
    Apple
    Tandy
    Atari
    ...

    I think Steve should have focused on IOrgans rather than IGadgets.
    Seriously. Jonathan Ive and Steve Jobs could jive out a better life for us all; at a price.

    I found it funny Apple never admitted to offering premium products.
    Truth is they did, IPOD 8GB 16GB 32GB. Mac Mini.

    Nothings changed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke_Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    OK so you are really going to believe someone that more then likely had absolutely no reason to doubt an "ex-IBM employee". Guess what being an "ex-IBM employee" means sweet squat. Unless he was an ex board member / executive / legal at the time there is next to zero chance that he would have access to such information. And again any such acquirement would have had to be shown in the financial statements not to mention would have been under ftc scrutiny. Sorry but your "source" was bullshitting and you fell for it.
    Perhaps, however I again find it very doubtful that he'd be lying, and there is some suspect stuff such as Apple going with PPC as opposed to other RISC architectures of the time. Plus it doesn't necessarily have to be buy out in terms of actually buying out Apple as potentially gaining a majority share, the same way that Blizzard took over Sierra and killed them without there being that much in the way of news about it back then.

    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    It's no secret that the inspiration for the Lisa/Mac came from the close relationship Apple had with Xerox, not IBM, who later asked MS to develop their GUI OS, OS/2.
    It was not my intention to imply IBM having Apple develop the GUI, it is however meant to imply the hand of IBM being in the Apple II pie, while Jobs was steering in the other direction.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    I don't see any reason for the guy to have lied.
    Because there is one born every minute.

    I may have yet to find supporting documentation for what he said, but I have no reason to doubt his word.
    OK so you are really going to believe someone that more then likely had absolutely no reason to doubt an "ex-IBM employee". Guess what being an "ex-IBM employee" means sweet squat. Unless he was an ex board member / executive / legal at the time there is next to zero chance that he would have access to such information. And again any such acquirement would have had to be shown in the financial statements not to mention would have been under ftc scrutiny. Sorry but your "source" was bullshitting and you fell for it.

    Well that depends upon if you're just counting the Apple II or if you're willing to consider the whole lifespan up to the Apple IIc Plus which came out in 1988. Note that while the original Apple II may have launched in 1977 the Lisa was being worked on starting in 1978, and then the Macintosh was introduced in 1984, which was within the lifespan of the series. The Lisa and Macintosh being Job's Personal Pet Project if you'll remember..
    It's no secret that the inspiration for the Lisa/Mac came from the close relationship Apple had with Xerox, not IBM, who later asked MS to develop their GUI OS, OS/2.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke_Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    So in other words, bullshit. IBM being a publicly traded company would have had to disclose such investment.
    I don't see any reason for the guy to have lied. I may have yet to find supporting documentation for what he said, but I have no reason to doubt his word.


    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Other product? During the Apple II it was Apples ONLY product which was a upgraded model of their previous product, the Apple I.
    Well that depends upon if you're just counting the Apple II or if you're willing to consider the whole lifespan up to the Apple IIc Plus which came out in 1988. Note that while the original Apple II may have launched in 1977 the Lisa was being worked on starting in 1978, and then the Macintosh was introduced in 1984, which was within the lifespan of the series. The Lisa and Macintosh being Job's Personal Pet Project if you'll remember..

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    An ex-IBM employee told me about IBM having owned apple during this time period even though they kept it quiet.
    So in other words, bullshit. IBM being a publicly traded company would have had to disclose such investment.

    I inferred based upon this and the fact that the Apple II is so different from everything else that apple was pushing during that time period that this was most likely IBM's doing.
    Other product? During the Apple II it was Apples ONLY product which was a upgraded model of their previous product, the Apple I.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke_Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Where do you get the idea that IBM controlled Apple or that Apple was a product of it?
    An ex-IBM employee told me about IBM having owned apple during this time period even though they kept it quiet. I inferred based upon this and the fact that the Apple II is so different from everything else that apple was pushing during that time period that this was most likely IBM's doing. The thing is the Apple II is a business machine whereas the Lisa and Macintosh were largely designed as a discussion piece and for manager types who couldn't be bothered to learn how to use the command line.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    And Actually I'm pretty sure that the Apple II was a product of IBM given that IBM controlled Apple during that time period and the Apple II was vastly different from any of Apple's other products of the time, and was killed on Job's request.
    Where do you get the idea that IBM controlled Apple or that Apple was a product of it?
    Last edited by deanjo; 10-06-2011, 08:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke_Wolf
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Absolutely Woz deserves credit, never said he didn't, as do many other pioneers of the industry. IBM however had zero interest at the time at the home market. Even the first IBM PC was aimed at business and it wasn't really until the IBM PC jr that they started targeting the home market for anything. Steve Jobs however saw the potential of a computer being marketed to the average man, not a techie, not a home brew hacker, not a science major, etc. Just the average person. Ya there was the Tandy Trash 80's at the time targeted at small business (anybody remember the Tandy Computer stores?) and the Vic/C64/PET but those were seen more as gaming platforms then anything else. Steve however did something none of them did, he marketed to the educational systems (and in the Jobs 80's years they dominated that market) as well at the same times as businesses (VisiCalc) and the home market. I don't think IBM would have would have even remotely thought of catering to a central home based system. At the time it the technology just wasn't there to be had yet, even p2p networking didn't really catch on until the 90's.
    C64 May have been seen as a gaming platform but it's also one of, if not the most popular personal computers of all time(and of course it still has a large following today via emulation), later on of course having Commodore buy out Amiga (which was THE gaming and multimedia creation computer)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X