MK-2 Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 To save cluttering up the RIP thread, I thought it easier to start this here so the RIP thread doesn't get too far distracted (partly because of me I admit) from the original topic that a man had died of pancreatic cancer and may he rest in peace (that, I can't disagree with). So, if you type into google "Steve Jobs visionary" you get page after page of results from news sites saying how a visionary has died and he changed the way the world works, his ideas have scuplted our society, etc etc. I came across a Daily Mail article which offered up some interesting points, and had it been on any tech site would probably have been taken seriously. The points made are valid I feel, and if people can look past the source of it, and actually read the article and see what they think: Steve Jobs dead: Brilliant, yes, but he wasn't an Einstein | Mail Online I also found this article offering info on the history of the iPod too: Steve Jobs is NOT a Visionary; Get Off the Bandwagon Cultists - Forbes Personally the way I see it, he took what was already there, polished it and made changes. The tech was already there, he just added to it and changed the way things happened. What do people see as more groundbreaking, the very first commercial fuel propelled aeroplane, or the one five years later that went a little bit faster and had comfier seats inside? You could argue the plane 5 years later set the standards for air travel comfort, etc....but does it make it a visionary tale? I know people will disagree with me, fair enough, I'm hoping this can actually lead to some sort of proper discussion, not just another "apple r rubbish/i heart apple" argument. Discuss....
Oaktech Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 as i've said previously, what he did with apple, stimulated competition like very little else. Without Jobs and the IPhone, we would not have the competition/playing catchup from HTC and the like. Without Apple's aggressive marketing (and lets not be mistaken here, Apple IS mainly marketing) we would not have the choice NOT to use apple.
RabbieBurns Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 He didnt even design the ipod, which was what sparked the whole apple back from the dead.. It was some english guy called Jon Ives Jonathan Ive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia who was the main reason apple did so well.. 1
MK-2 Posted October 7, 2011 Author Posted October 7, 2011 as i've said previously, what he did with apple, stimulated competition like very little else. Without Jobs and the IPhone, we would not have the competition/playing catchup from HTC and the like. Without Apple's aggressive marketing (and lets not be mistaken here, Apple IS mainly marketing) we would not have the choice NOT to use apple. But this is the point I'm making. Read the Forbes article. Jobs himself did not create the iPod/Pad/Phone himself, others done that. I'm not saying their products didn't change certain aspects of the game, but to proclaim one man as a visionary when all he done was own the company is a bit much. Some of the images being shown on the BBC etc are as if the second coming of Jesus has just ended with his death. @RabbieBurns : according to the Forbes article it is also attributed to Tony Fadell Fadell worked for Philips’ (NYSE: PHG) Strategy and Ventures Division and attempted to develop ‘digital audio strategies.’ After his time at Philips, he started his own company called Fuse to further develop his vision: the iPod.
Oaktech Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 (edited) it's never the indians that get the credit, always the chiefs. Nobody argues that brunel was a great engineer, but he didn't rivet anything in his life... if the guy owns the company, essentially he is the company and everything that happens below him allows him to bask in the reflected glory of his unseen minions. He was a figurehead with the worlds attention focussed on him. he sold the world an ideal. I don't agree with it, i don't like the product, but as a business model it's pretty bloody good! Edited October 7, 2011 by Oaktech
LosOjos Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 I'm not a fan of Apple, but I will say that whether or not Jobs was a visionary depends what perspective you look at it. No, he wasn't a visionary based on developing ground breaking technology, however from a marketing point of view I'd say he may well have been. The fact is, yes, anybody could have made the iPod/iPhone/iWhatever as the tech was already there to do so, but they didn't. It has to start with someone and in this case, it started with Apple under Jobs' command. Aside from anything else, we're talking about a guy who managed to convince a large proportion of society to spend thousands of pounds on a PC that was often underpowered, under supported [in terms of software availability] and way over priced; now tell me he wasn't a marketing genius!
MK-2 Posted October 7, 2011 Author Posted October 7, 2011 it's never the indians that get the credit, always the chiefs. Nobody argues that brunel was a great engineer, but he didn't rivet anything in his life... True, but there's no outpouring of near sainthood for Brunel. Aside from anything else, we're talking about a guy who managed to convince a large proportion of society to spend thousands of pounds on a PC that was often underpowered, under supported [in terms of software availability] and way over priced; now tell me he wasn't a marketing genius! He wasn't a genius, he could quite as easily have got a job in politics with the amount of spin he put on things in his keynotes. Things that bend the truth so wildly in favour of Apple in the same way governments will bend any statistic to suit them. So by that definition Alistair Campbell and Tony Blair are visionaries for the way they marketed the UK
NikChillin Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 I think Bill Gates was more of a visionary..... then the fight started....
gmj Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Hmmmm....I would yes.....yes he was. Along with others, but a visionary chap none the less.
LosOjos Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 He wasn't a genius, he could quite as easily have got a job in politics with the amount of spin he put on things in his keynotes. Things that bend the truth so wildly in favour of Apple in the same way governments will bend any statistic to suit them. So by that definition Alistair Campbell and Tony Blair are visionaries for the way they marketed the UK I should point out now that I'm using words like "visionary" and "genius" slightly tongue-in-cheek. Was he a genius by Einstein's standards? No, of course he wasn't! But he was damned well good at marketing a product - he had to be to sell the numbers he did! As an anti-Apple kind of person, it still amazes me how people rush out to buy every new "i" product, despite them rarely being more than a minor upgrade from the last iProduct - can you imagine if we did that every time HTC released a new phone?! No, Steve Jobs didn't have much to do with developing the hardware and in truth he probably didn't have much to do with the marketing either, but whichever way you look at it, the hype he managed to create in his keynote speeches have managed to create a huge community of die hard Apple fanboys - what more could any company want? I do agree that the press on his death is way over hyped, but I do think there is a little more to it than first meets the eye. Yes, there is a lot of hype around Apple products which means that rarely a day goes by without something being mentioned (BBC are particularly guilty of this) even if it's an unrelated story, but also we're talking about a guy who was very much in the public eye who died at a relatively young age of cancer. Lots of people can relate to losing someone to this vile disease and I think that has had a lot to do with the coverage (and the fact that the bad Apple press that usually goes hand in hand with any Apple press has been swept under the carpet for now).
MK-2 Posted October 7, 2011 Author Posted October 7, 2011 I do agree that the press on his death is way over hyped, but I do think there is a little more to it than first meets the eye. Yes, there is a lot of hype around Apple products which means that rarely a day goes by without something being mentioned (BBC are particularly guilty of this) even if it's an unrelated story, but also we're talking about a guy who was very much in the public eye who died at a relatively young age of cancer. Lots of people can relate to losing someone to this vile disease and I think that has had a lot to do with the coverage (and the fact that the bad Apple press that usually goes hand in hand with any Apple press has been swept under the carpet for now). I do completely agree on that. Not sure how this sounds, but it's somewhat akin to Jade Goody. She died and all the press could do was show her funniest clips, show all the trashy pics etc. It was only months later someone thought "hang on, we should be concentrating on raising awareness for this type of cancer". It's a shame more isn't being done to raise awareness for pancreatic cancer and using Steve Jobs as a sort of headline for it. A successful person who died young because of it.
localzuk Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Yup, he was definitely a visionary. No-one is claiming that he designed and built the devices Apple made. But he did take the scraps of technology that was available, and ensure that the outcome was a groundbreaking, game changing product. He did this time and time again. Why else would there be so many people who admire him so much? Your argument would also claim that Henry Ford wasn't a visionary. Or Rockefeller. Or Brunel. They all didn't do the work themselves, they were the people in control, they saw the whole picture and ensured the end result fitted the vision. Claiming otherwise makes me question what you think a visionary is. 2
mthomas08 Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 as i've said previously, what he did with apple, stimulated competition like very little else. Without Jobs and the IPhone, we would not have the competition/playing catchup from HTC and the like. Without Apple's aggressive marketing (and lets not be mistaken here, Apple IS mainly marketing) we would not have the choice NOT to use apple. I did read a nice discussion on another forum, many things pointed out that the designs that Apple actually came up with MP3 players (ITunes) already existed but Apple created something accessible. They took something that already existed and made it brilliant. I am no Apple fan but my IPhone (last I checked portable phones have existed well before IPhone) and the same for ITunes - just IPOD/IPHONE mixed it all together and made it work and work well. Again they took something that existed and made it work, MP3 players were already being made but Apple released their kit at a time when everyone was getting involved in gadgets. So to me the choices would already exist, maybe not as cheap or accessible (or as good?) but they still would. On the other hand you really do not know how much things would be different without the existance of Steve Jobs. A lot of ideas for the past 100 years have usually existed and some one had just come along and made something better/different. And you also have to remember that Apple is not just Steve Jobs it's 1000's of employees contributing to the company.
MK-2 Posted October 7, 2011 Author Posted October 7, 2011 Yup, he was definitely a visionary. No-one is claiming that he designed and built the devices Apple made. But he did take the scraps of technology that was available, and ensure that the outcome was a groundbreaking, game changing product. He did this time and time again. Why else would there be so many people who admire him so much? There seems to always be a difficulty in separating Steve Jobs and Apple. You have just said he didn't do X Y or Z yet then say "he did this time and time again". Apple did this time and time again, not Steve Jobs. And feel free to question what I think a visionary is, I'm allowed to have a different idea and viewpoint to others
Hightower Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 I don't think he was a visionary, in the same way that I don't believe fashion designers are visionaries (that's all he was to me, a fashion designer). The products that came out of Apple might have been 'cutting edge', especially in the appearance area, but to me Apple haven't done anything ground breaking. If he cured cancer, discovered the meaning of life, introduced world peace - then yes, he would be a visionary. For creating a bit of eye candy that millions seem helpless without, I think of him as nothing more than a shrewd businessman. @localzuk - I could quite easily ask you the same question, "what do you think a visionary is", and that question will be closely followed by a second question, "are you living on this planet?" 1
aerospacemango Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 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! 1
JoeBloggs Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Visionary: adjective Thinking about or planning the future with imagination or wisdom: a visionary leader http://oxforddictionaries.com
Oaktech Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 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.
Butters Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 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.
Oaktech Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 turd polisher... aka marketing. making you want something you didn't know you wanted for reasons you can't really explain.
Butters Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 turd polisher... aka marketing. making you want something you didn't know you wanted for reasons you can't really explain. It's....SHINY!!11!
mthomas08 Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Visionary: adjective Thinking about or planning the future with imagination or wisdom: a visionary leader http://oxforddictionaries.com 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?) 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.
localzuk Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 @localzuk - I could quite easily ask you the same question, "what do you think a visionary is", and that question will be closely followed by a second question, "are you living on this planet?" I'm not going to answer the first question, as your second one is incredibly rude and childish. Grow up.
localzuk Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 There seems to always be a difficulty in separating Steve Jobs and Apple. You have just said he didn't do X Y or Z yet then say "he did this time and time again". Apple did this time and time again, not Steve Jobs. And feel free to question what I think a visionary is, I'm allowed to have a different idea and viewpoint to others 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. 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. 1
Hightower Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 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.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now