Posted on 01/19/2015 11:18:56 AM PST by martin_fierro
It’s not exactly going out on a limb to predict that eventually Apple will fall from the top. Even the best companies go through down cycles. At various points, Fortune 500 icons such as IBM, Xerox, Ford, Coca-Cola, etc., were written off for dead but they all bounced back. Even Apple was on death watch for a while by the mid 1990s. And no doubt, at some point in the future, Apple will fall from their pedestal. Might be tomorrow. Might be 20 years from now. But that won’t make you right. It will just make you obvious.
That would be his willingness to go up against the likes of the big telecommunications companies and wrest control of the design and functionality of the phone away from them ... and give us a new paradigm for the “phone” and how it should be ... for the consumer ... one that isn’t exclusively and solely dedicated to the whims of these big telecommunications companies.
It’s getting quite “lively” over here ... :-) ...
Yes, this is what they say, but what are they seeing that escapes me? I would have thought the movie would have presented his best case for being respected, but if there was any genius to him, the movie did a poor job of presenting it.
What did he do that was so "genius"? He seems to get credit for being a "genius" in the same way that Clinton got credit for everything good that happened on his watch (tech boom, etc.) while not having actually contributed anything to the good fortune for which he was being credited.
In the movie, he just comes off as a petty and demanding micro-manager that contributes mostly trivial "cheesy" ideas to the product after all the real work has been mostly accomplished by others.
What he did was akin to hacking into Sony and releasing their movies. Those "blue boxes" recreated proprietary phone signalling and equipment control signals to give the hacker operator/technician tools which they misused to steal long distance service from the phone company. It was deliberate "hacking."
For a company that jealously guards it's proprietary technology and intellectual property rights, don't you think it is hypocritical to be deliberately undermining those rights for other companies?
I think Steve Jobs would have shrieked a lung out at anyone who did to him what he did to others. There is no nice way to spin this. Steve Jobs was at heart a "thief." At least at this point in his life.
Looking at your posts to others, you don’t seem to be a very friendly person.
You haven’t been here long. You’d enjoy your time here much more if you would be a little less confrontational. Don’t be so quick to get nasty with other folks.
We should all be friends really, unless someone is here with other motives.
How do 13nm processors hurt Android?
You aren’t being very friendly now.
Can you not have a calm discussion? lol
Do you have anger issues? :^p
You didn’t join until 2013.
You lurked here for 14 years? ROFL
Just to add to the discussion ... :-) ... I only “just signed up” in 1999, but I wanted you to know that I was lurking here on Free Republic TEN YEARS EARLIER ... :-) ... [ yes ... even before there were any “websites” ... ]
Not defending the other poster, but I lurked for almost for years lol. I still mostly read.
Should read four, instead of for. Yay autocorrect!
Or maybe he was heading for the hot place, and he was saying "Ow. Ow. Ow."
I personally wouldn’t worry about what Wozniak and Jobs did back before they formed Apple, because I know a whole lot of people from my early years that did things in college years that they would have nothing to do with now, and are now upstanding people. That would be a lot of conservatives, too!
As far as what Jobs did with Apple ... that’s just way beyond the ordinary and norm for companies.
Another example ... I drive a Ford now, but I would have nothing to do with anyone today that distributed the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” ... BUT that doesn’t affect me having a Ford right now, even though Ford did that very thing!
In another example ... I understand that Martin Luther contributed greatly to the Protestant Reformation, and I respect that, even though I would have nothing to do with anyone today who is a rabid ANTI-SEMITE ... which Martin Luther was - perhaps even contributing to Hitler’s Holocaust of the Jews!
You’ll find that EVERY SINGLE PERSON you come in contact with or know about in history is quite a MIXED BAG on different issues!
That’s the way I look at it.
That so many people seem to think so makes me believe that perhaps it is so, but whatever it is he did has simply not been explained in a manner that I could grasp. Like Bill Gates, he appears to be more of a person who happened to be in the right place at the right time.
That being said, I have always thought that the Apple machines were far superior to the PCs. Less built in kludge.
I don’t know about you, but I like that term ‘skeuomorphism’, even if I don’t know what it means.
Gosh, on that one ... it’s flabbergasting, because I wouldn’t know where to begin or even where to stop.
I could wear myself out on this one, but perhaps “Swordmaker” can do a better job than me ... yes, I’m punting ... :-) ...
Since when has the analysis of an ANAL-lyst, who pulls ideas out his navel, mean that Apple is going to release the idea? Apple has not even announced the "widely expected 12.9-inch iPad Pro" much less announced it will include a stylus. There are styli being made by third-party makers since at least 2010 for the iPad that work quite nicely. This makes no sense to make this as an claim.
If I had a dollar for every Analyst's claim that "X" Apple product would be released with "Y" feature that never saw the light of day, I could buy quite a few shares of AAPL stock.
Apple was prominently involved with Bono's (RED) charity for AIDS research, but Jobs himself was not a large donor.
In actual fact, Steve Jobs WAS a large donor. . . but he did not promote that he donated to "X." He kept it quiet. His wife and he made some very large donations privately. He chose NOT to have Apple donate except to education and science. AND Apple was the largest single donor to "Project Red." Apple did not give to political causes because as he stated when asked why Apple did not give to Democrat causes, "Around half of our customers are Republicans and it would be stupid to anger half of our customers."
The claim that "Project Red" was not a major philanthropy of Steve Jobs is also false. . . it just was not in his name. It was given through his and his wife's foundation.
For the rest, "The king is dead, Long live the king!" A ghost cannot run a company.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.