I'm under the impression that Samsung provide the screens for Apple products?
This surely rules out the argument that without Apple, we'd still be walking along with bricks for phones. Development was already underway, and as pointed out, Apple brought it all together, but it is a lie to say that we would not have had smartphones WITHOUT Apple.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'm not a fan, but when my brother got an iPhone, I was all for having a look at it, and was generally impressed. I still believe that Apple appeal to the masses because of clever advertising, but those who know, and want some control over their gadgets, would rather go with a different OS. I've always thought that Apple are leasing their phone to you.... You cannot do anything to it without jailbreaking it, and for a techie I find that rather too controlling!
Just my two'penneth!
Thinking about or planning the future with imagination or wisdom:
a visionary leader
the choices would not be the same...
I had a pre-ipod media player, and quite frankly it was crap, 3 line screen, poor battery life... and then the standard by which others got judged changed and suddenly the market place was very different and consumers got a much better, more usuable product from most manufacturers. You just have to be independant enough of thought to decide to weigh up the apple marketing spin and decide if it's for you or not.
I think in the most basic of levels that he was essentially a very good 'turd polisher'.
Apple take the turd techie stuff out there that we all know and love, make it accessible and whack an apple badge on it.
This then makes it acceptable for a majority of the consumer population.
turd polisher... aka marketing. making you want something you didn't know you wanted for reasons you can't really explain.
Originally Posted by Oaktech
Not really what I would call him.. Perhaps an Idealist? it was his ideas that helped Apple (but then again do we know exactly what was his ideas and no one elses?)
Originally Posted by JoeBloggs
Problem is there are many people who are going over board with top words, I saw one comment on another forum that described him as the 2nd Jesus - I could be here all day on the words that made him sound like History couldnt survive without him and thats where the frustration probably lies. I use the Ipod for my car and have the Iphone4 and love them, but I wouldnt say the creator of Apple changed my life by making it easier to have music and a phone all in one.
Influenced technology? I would say yes to that, but how much I dont think we will ever know.
I'm not going to answer the first question, as your second one is incredibly rude and childish. Grow up.
Originally Posted by Hightower
His vision was one of changing the world with game changing devices that were high quality and worked end to end. Look at most companies. Their goal is to shift boxes. HP/Compaq when they just did PC boxes? They just sold grey boxes. Acer? Same. Samsung? Same, but in many many industries.
Originally Posted by MK-2
Steve Jobs set up Apple in a very different way, with a very clear goal - to produce systems that people would use and love to use. He succeeded in that.
In the time that he wasn't at Apple, Apple sold more boxes, sure, but their profits plummeted, the quality tumbled, the company basically didn't work right.
When he set up NeXT, he continued his vision, with new things, and when NeXT ended up back in Apple, that same vision ended up producing OS X - an OS that was years ahead of the competition.
As I said, he didn't, as an individual, build an ipod. He headed the company that did. He decided that Apple were going to take over the portable music industry. He had an idea that he wanted to happen, and it did, under his management.
By many people's standards here, Winston Churchill was not a great man either - he wasn't out there in battle. He wasn't doing these things, he had a plan, he delivered his plan well and he is remembered for it.
Brilliant. You've taken comparing a fashion designer against a leader through a world war. That said, I wouldn't call Churchill a visionary either.
Originally Posted by localzuk
I am by no means an Apple fan - anything but, tbh, and I find it a little hypocritical that a company famous for an anti-establishment advert (the 1984 one) has grown into the most controlling technology empire of the modern day - as bad, if not worse than, Microsoft of ten years ago.
I've not, and likely never will, own an Apple product. They are not for me.
But a visionary? Oh lords yes. No, he didn't design the iPod entirely on his own, nor the iPhone, nor anything else - let us not forget that the genius at the heart of Apple's genesis was Woz, after all. But Jobs always had a vision, and always pushed for that vision. His defining characteristic, above all else, was his stubborn control and drive over Every. Little. Detail. Possibly apocryphal, but afaik iPods are slightly louder than other portable music players - because Jobs was slightly deaf so requested it be boosted.
He wasn't Edison, firing ideas off randomly, spotting the simple solution to problems everyone else had long accepted. He was Steve Jobs, and he saw technology from the consumer's point of view, saw how they needed it packaging, and what they would demand, and he delivered it without compromise. For every product, he had a vision and he followed it through; what else do you need to define a visionary?
Everything floating around now is overblown hyperbole, but it always is - from Amy Winehouse through Michael Jackson to Princess Diana, the recently deceased are forgiven all sins and praised above all others. It will settle down in time to more reasonable opinions on both sides, because right now it is too emotional for everyone - for the fans, because someone they admired has left us, and for the detractors, because they can see other people sanctifying a man who was flawed, and are riled by the whitewashing going on. So getting angry at each other and drawing up lines in the sand is pointless - in a week, we'll all be more reasonable people, and that will be the time to discuss it, instead of shout about it all.
(sorry, that went a bit off topic... had avoided the other thread up till now, for obvious reasons)
Oh , yes: Smartphone article @ Wikipedia
Originally Posted by aerospacemango
Yet through superlative marketing, the average punter thinks that any smartphone must be an iPhone, and that they need an iPad.
I keep getting the most technologically inept/ignorant members of staff suggesting that their laptop is replaced by an iPad, the mother-in-law has bought one (but hasn't quite worked out what she's going to use it for - or even how to use it) and Mme LeMarchand's girls both have iPhones that they use solely as phones/music players/for Angry Birds, but wouldn't dream of getting a cheaper phone that could do all that as "it wouldn't be as good as an iPhone".
The over-dominance of Apple in certain areas means that other manufacturers rarely get the publicity and certainly not the 3rd-party support (try getting a non-iDevice dock).
Whilst "visionary" may well fit, there's other descriptions that I'd offer - but as, unfortunately, even Edugeek isn't immune to the ridiculous "shared grief" thing that seems to be increasingly common these days, I'll refrain for fear of upsetting those wishing to mourn.
Kind of thinking the same, I wouldnt make him sound like Jesus either. He said the right things and lead our country during war which is by far more important than leading a company in creating fancy gadgets from ideas that already exist. Lets face it most people form companies for cash, if it wasnt a money driven world would Apple still exist?
Originally Posted by Hightower
Visionary is a word used too often, even Churchill had a vision - to win the war - does that make him a visionary?...
Steve Jobs helped build Pixar with vision, cash - NDTVGadgets.com
$50 million of his own money to keep a company going in an industry that no-one else believed in, computer animated films.
Now one of the biggest studios going. Seems fairly visionary.....
His success is born out of the fact that Apple let him do what he wanted, how he wanted, without any politics. Any artist or person good at product design like he was could achieve exactly the same thing if you have a board of directors and an entire company willing to let you interfere and micro-manage every last detail.
Sadly people in other companies don't get that opportunity. He knew marketing mattered, he knew secrecy mattered and he knew aesthetics mattered, he was a magician and Apple bent over backwards to let him do exactly as he pleased because that was there last chance. Thank god they chose someone so adept at what he did.
The actual technology isn't worth bragging about though (iPod and original iPhone aside), it's got a 70% margin on it and as we get further on they are struggling to revolutionize in the same way.