Forum menu
And apparently you DO get to be the most valuable by making niche high end products. Cos that's what they do.
Are you suggesting that the ipod is a niche product?
Hmm.. perhaps, perhaps not. Apple didn't invent the graphical user interface
True, Xerox PARC did, Apple refined it. As they do.
Jobs and several Apple employees including Jef Raskin visited Xerox PARC in December 1979 to see the Xerox Alto. Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 shares (800,000 split-adjusted shares) of Apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share. Jobs was immediately convinced that all future computers would use a graphical user interface (GUI), and development of a GUI began for the Apple Lisa.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_IncFollowing PARC the first GUI-centric computer operating model was the Xerox 8010 Star Information System in 1981, followed by the Apple Lisa (which presented the concept of menu bar as well as window controls) in 1983, the Apple Macintosh 128K in 1984, and the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga in 1985.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_user_interface
Can I argue that my mum is older than yours!
[img] 
[/img]
and nothing of value was lost.
Controversial. Next you'll mention the various suicides at Apple's Chinese manufacturers.
[img] 
[/img]
Are you suggesting that the ipod is a niche product?
It ought to be, being more expensive than all the other options (when it came out at least); but Macs in general and iPads are.
Controversial. Next you'll mention the various suicides at Apple's Chinese manufacturers.
Already covered. As said before, Foxconn are the world's largest supplier of electronic circuit boards. Every phone, gizmo and gadget you own is likely to have some Foxconn bits in it, regardless of brand.
But it's all Apple's fault. Clearly. And Steve deserved to die. Nice.
i-100
i-100
You could say that Intel changed the modern world, but would someone else have invented the microprocessor later? Or how about Bell Labs and the transistor?
What he did was make normal, non-techy/geeky people want computer or tech type gadgets because they were perceived to be cool/fun/easy to use/useful.
Maybe, but I think the massive increase in workplace PCs has probably had a far greater impact. That's not to say that Windows isn't massively better for having MacOS as competition, though.
This is a clever man who manufactured electronic gizmos. I can't believe the "Diana-esque" wailing that's going on about him.
Apple didn't invent the graphical user interface, nor were they the only people to make one in the early days
It doesn't work like that. A persons great work stands on the shoulders of other giants. That doesn't lessen their value.
Jobs' genius was to realize and popularize computers as home, personal and business appliances. No-one lusts after a Dell. Look around at the market alternatives; everyone else has followed his lead. So who will lead now he has gone?
Good job Jobs. I salute you.
I can't believe the "Diana-esque" wailing that's going on about him.
Where exactly is this happening??
I don't see anyone calling for his sainthood, or a national memorial garden fountainy thing, or piling up thousands of wreaths in the streets or appearing on telly weeping uncontrollably.
I just see some folk who are a bit sad that one of the true pioneers of the tech/information/computer age has died before his time.
He invented Apples?!
Wow. that's pretty impressive. One of my favourite fruits as well.
the user interface you are using, that is so commonplace and mainstream now, to communicate your thoughts and feelings is down to Steve Jobs. It's his idea to popularise it. Technological advances are just that, but what to do with them to make people connect with the technology and each other is gonna be his legacy I think.
I was always under the impression that one of the big breakthroughs in the popularity of the home / work PC was the advent of the Mouse, and the GUI.
OK so Xerox had the workings tucked away somewhere, but Apple wandered along, got the thing working at a reasonable price point and wallah, no more gosub commands required.
That was a bit of a game changer ...
molgrips
It ought to be, being more expensive than all the other options (when it came out at least); but Macs in general and iPads are.
Ha, ha, ha. So your argument is that the ipod OUGHT to be a niche device?
So all those hundreds of millions of people who chose to buy them were duped into doing so by clever marketing?
Maybe YOU think it ought to be, BUT IT'S NOT IS IT?
On account of the fact that it has 70-80% of the world market share in mp3 players.
Your abject refusal to come to terms with reality in order to protect your fragile ego from admitting that YOU ARE WRONG is pitiful.
ipads also have about 70% of the growing tablet market too.
Jesus, there are some right miserable sods on here.
Some bloke starts a company in his garage. The company creates some amazing products, enriches the lives of many and becomes phenomenally successful, All within the space of 30 odd years! Driven by one man's vision .
Lionel Martin and Robert Bamford didn't invent the car, but instead they made a beautiful car. Jobs and Apple made technology beautiful.
Fair F@%king play to the guy, nothing but respect for Steve Jobs. I've been running my own business for 15 years and when I die my legacy will be my kids and a tree in woodland burial ground.
Your abject refusal to come to terms with reality in order to protect your fragile ego from admitting that YOU ARE WRONG is pitiful.
Whoah, stand down soldier. This is not meant to be a bitter argument. I was simply making an observation about the products and the marketplace. I think you've mis-read the tone of this discussion.
My point is that it would appear on paper to be a niche product, but it outstripped all the other competitors by miles, which is an interesting phenomenon, do you not think?
iPads are indeed dominant in the tablet market, but tablets in general are a niche I feel. I suspect that the likes of Kindle Fire being very cheap could begin to realise the coffee-table browsing thing more easily - but we shall see.
I'm full of respect for Jobs and Apple. I just don't like midlesss fanbois - of anything! Note I am not accusing you of fanboi-ism, rprt.
the user interface you are using, that is so commonplace and mainstream now, to communicate your thoughts and feelings is down to Steve Jobs
Disagree, really. There were many GUIs around, and there still are. If it weren't for Apple it would still have happened, clearly. Maybe differntly, but still would have happened.
I'd argue that Gates and IBM did FAR more to popularise home and business computers than Apple did. PCs have outstripped Apples by a huge factor since forever, I'm sure. Because of the licensing model.
The reason no-one lusts after a bog standard Dell is that most people have one or something similar. You don't even notice that they are around - that should tell you something pretty important.
I have alot of respect for what the man was capable of business wise, but as for technology? All he did was take other companies products and sell them well. Apple: not always the best product, just the best marketed product. In the 12 years or so I've had in IT I've watched him change apple from the good guys into the bad guys. 10 years ago I hated MS for their business ethos, apple were always the plucky underdog fighting against monopoly and championing individualism.
[url=
early days[/url]
Now Microsoft are almost in the same position Apple were then. What is individual about a product that is purchased through a desire to achieve social standing and ties you to use it only as the manufacturer intended?
I am heart felt sorry for his family and a shiver ran through my spine when I heard he was gone because undoubtedly an inspiring and admirable man is no longer with us but lets face it, his crowning achievement was to sell the same kit as everyone else at a 30% markup by making it shiny.
My point is that it would appear on paper to be a niche product, but it outstripped all the other competitors by miles, which is an interesting phenomenon, do you not think?
Things don't "appear on paper" to be niche products when no one knows how big the market is going to be.
It would only have "appeared to be a niche product" if they hadn't sold many, but they sold shed loads and basically built the company off the back of that.
Apple basically launched a product into the unknown, and after the ipod was successful it would have been really easy just to milk that product, but they didn't do that. Instead they came up with itunes and smashed the entire music industry to bits. After that they could have just milked itunes, but they didn't do that either. Instead they made another massive investment in another completely new product and new market segment with the iphone. Which of course has turned out to be another non-niche product.
There are companies out there of course that do set out to exploit niches in markets, but Apple isn't one of them. Apple sets out to try and create new markets with the potential for massive growth and frankly I think you would be hard pressed to find a company of a similar size and structure that is prepared to take anywhere near the number of risks or make the amount of investment in its business that Apple does.
(and BTW, for the record, I don't have and ipod, an iphone or an ipad)
his crowning achievement was to sell the same kit as everyone else at a 30% markup by making it shiny
This kind of implies that everyone who buys Apple kit is an idiot and has been duped.
I think you are wrong because clearly the people who buy Apple stuff feel there is some added value in it.
Some people eat hamburgers whilst other people eat steak and are prepared to pay much more for it - but it's all just cow, right?
you would be hard pressed to find a company of a similar size and structure that is prepared to take anywhere near the number of risks or make the amount of investment in its business that Apple does.
That level of investment is easy when its on the back of profits made from cheap labour.
Since 2008 Apple have launched over 350 legal suits including one against a fruit seller; at the moment they are in court with Samsung for innovative infringement.
At the same time the University of Indiana keeps a record of all philanthropic donations over $1000000 in the US, Jobs name has never appeared, Bill gates has given £28 billion.
Jobs has actively tried to stifle the innovation of others while doing nothing of worth with his wealth.
THE THINGS YOU OWN WILL END UP OWNING YOU, and the ongoing defence of a man/corporation who make shiney stuff makes this very evident.
At the same thime the University of Indiana keepa record of all philanthropic donations over $1000000 in the US, Jobs name has never appeared, Bill gates ahs given £28 billion.
Which one of them lives/lived in the biggest house?
I've got no idea about Jobs' philanthropic activities, or his personal wealth, but until Gates got married and set up the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation with his wife, you might well have been able to be equally scathing about him.
Lets wait and see if Jobs' left any money to charity.
This kind of implies that everyone who buys Apple kit is an idiot and has been duped.
You said it, not me.
it doesn't matter who lives in the biggest house.
"Some people eat hamburgers whilst other people eat steak and are prepared to pay much more for it - but it's all just cow, right?" but I want to see that fly and bustin all fat a cow, I'm up for a meal mate.haha".
Lets wait and see if Jobs' left any money to charity.
I don't imagine he'll leave £28 billion, it's how you behave in life that matters
Disagree, really. There were many GUIs around, and there still are. If it weren't for Apple it would still have happened, clearly. Maybe differntly, but still would have happened.
Same could be said for any innovation - as I think you were saying earlier. Sooner or later someone will figure it out. That doesn't mean the ones that do deserve less credit.
Jobs saw the embryonic GUI at Xerox PARC, immediately understood the importance of it and began developing Lisa and Macintosh, which expanded the ideas of that GUI (with "windows" and "menu bars") and was the first home computer to present these ideas to the general public. Microsoft were still in MS-DOS land at this point.
Aside from the GUI stuff, the web itself owes something to Jobs and Apple. Tim Berners Lee developed the concept of HTML and the web with a fair amount of inspiration from Apple HyperCard (a language for displaying pages of text and graphics that could link to other pages. Sound familiar?)
This NeXT terminal was used by Tim Berners Lee at CERN to write the first web browser and was the worlds first "web server":
[img] 
[/img]
NeXT: that would the company founded by Steve Jobs then?
That level of investment is easy when its on the back of profits made from cheap labour.
Surely a $150 million investment from Microsoft who was worried that a bankrupt Apple would expose them to US anti-monopoly legislation helped ?
It must be hard to fail when your competitors are determined to see you succeed.
it doesn't matter who lives in the biggest house.
Why not?
My understanding is that Gates lives in a huge purpose built place on a large estate, whilst jobs just lives in a nice house much inline with those that people in middle management in his company might own.
But it wouldn't fit in with your prejudicial views to take that into consideration would it?
I don't imagine he'll leave £28 billion, it's how you behave in life that matters
I'm sure your sainthood is in the post.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/20/apple-profits-up-iphone-sales
£150 million is lip service, Apple turned £7 billion profit in a quarter, that's more than my company, which is global, does in 4 years.
Lets wait and see if Jobs' left any money to charity.
Who GAF? Really?
I admire Gates for his charitable contributions. Amazing and incredibly generous they are.
But I'm not about to dismiss the influence Jobs had or worse, celebrate his death, just because he wasn't a great philanthropist. Is monetary contribution really the only thing that matters?
£150 million is lip service
Even when you're facing bankruptcy ? I would have thought it would be quite useful.
Why not?My understanding is that Gates lives in a huge purpose built place on a large estate, whilst jobs just lives in a nice house much inline with those that people in middle management in his company might own.
But it wouldn't fit in with your prejudicial views to take that into consideration would it?
These guys are operating at levels of wealth that we can't comprehend, Bill gates home is innovation and I'd expect nothing else
What is important is that when you start developing wealth beyond that which is of use to your family, loved ones and company that you choose to do something worth while with ti.
One guy did , one guy didn't.
£150 million is lip service, Apple turned £7 billion profit in a quarter, that's more than my company, which is global, does in 4 years.
Ben, you clearly know NOTHING worth knowing about Jobs or Apple.
At the time that microsoft bought $150 million in shares Apple was near bankruptcy.
Why don't you go and gen up a bit before you show yourself up any further?
Well I apologise for not knowing the financial history of a computer company, I must have missed that while I was having a life.
My whole point is that a guy is being beatified when, as far as I can see, his only contribution is marketeering s**t we don't really need.
Two guys set out together, both generated wealth greater than the GDP of countries, one visibly has chosen to forsake it and the other didn't, which I don't like.
These threads are for opinions and if we are choosing to elevate a guy for his shiny shit rather than the things he did for the greater good then we obviously have a different take on how the world should operate.
but lets face it, his crowning achievement was to sell the same kit as everyone else at a 30% markup by making it shiny.
Hard to imagine that anybody could be so wrong. For every product that Apple launched, there WAS no everyone else making the same kit, no Apple 1, no Mac, no iPod, no iPhone. Jobs understood that what was important was not the technology itself, but how people interact with technology, and how to optimise that interaction. So you can say that there were mp3 players before the iPod, but it was the interface and mode of use that was the game changer, not the technical ability to store sound files on a small gadget.
marketeering sh*t we don't really need
I refer my honourable friend to [url= http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/10/steve-jobs-disability/ ]the link posted earlier[/url]
There is absolutely no point arguing with brain washed cult members.
How sad is it that consumer society has become dominant enough that the strongest brands are now cults? 😐
So a woman posts that her autistic kid can slide his finger across a flat suface and access stuff she put on there and chose for him means that Jobs saved the world?
The fact she chose to blog about it suggests she's bought into the BS, doesn't it?
There is absolutely no point arguing with brain washed cult members.
Certainly no point arguing with a position that nobody has actually taken, and still less when you haven't got your facts straight.