DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Steve Jobs Dead: Apple Co-Founder Dies At 56

**Cengaeas** · 10-11-2011, 12:46 AM

Edison, Bell, nor Tesla were the first people to think of their ideas. There were other people working on the same technologies at the same time. All of these men were standing on the shoulders and on the ideas of the accumulated knowledge before them.

You are very naive if you think that Edison, Bell, and Tesla were literally the only people working on what they invented. And that there was literally no one else working with them.

Edison and Bell were also businessmen and industrialists. Edison built the largest energy company in the world at the time. Bell created the largest telecommunications company in the world at the time.

Steve Jobs was not an engineer or software designer. He was a man who had the vision to harness these disciplines and put all of the pieces together in a way that created powerful tools that were accessible to average every day people.

What does being a nice person have to do with being an innovative genius?

Jobs was a very private man, he didn't want to be a public philanthropist. So his own philanthropic activity really is unknown.

History is littered by claims to inventions by others; some being credible others less so. Yet what has Steve Jobs innovated? His claim to fame should be reflected by his role as a CEO, and having a team that extracted exceptional returns for shareholders; there is nothing innovative in doing that.

As mentioned previously, the true powerhouses behind the emergence of Apple as one of the world's most successful corporate entities is principally down to individuals such as Schiller, Ive, Forstall and Mansfield. Indeed, many employees of Apple have made contributions that we may never know about.

I think once the dust has settled, I think Apple can achieve even more without the borderline masochistic managerial approach of Jobs.

I believe that a true innovative genius not only makes innovative/new products, processes or services but does so in the process of being a good person. Jobs was neither of those. Swearing at employees, public humiliation, and generally being a tool to family and close friends is not what I would call being a good person.

Jobs closed his short-lived charity foundation, on the basis that he was busy with his business interests. He also axed Apple's philanthropic programmes, which have only just begun to be reintroduced by Cook (the new CEO).

I also quote this interesting line from your 'Irish Central' website: 'Through the sale of (RED) products'. I see no mention of Apple making a donation, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if its actually the royalties that U2 would have received for the association, going directly to their charitable efforts. We also would have seen something in the financial reports to illustrate such charitable donations in the tens of millions.

The principle reason we know he wasn't a philanthropist over the last few years (anomalous or otherwise) is that there hasn't been a deterioration of his net worth as you would expect, as has been the case with Buffett and Gates. Hopefully posthumously the case will change, but then he did try to claim in court that he was sterile to avoid contributing for the upbringing of his own daughter so who knows.

10-11-2011, 12:46 AM	#41
Cengaeas Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 344 Senior Member	Edison, Bell, nor Tesla were the first people to think of their ideas. There were other people working on the same technologies at the same time. All of these men were standing on the shoulders and on the ideas of the accumulated knowledge before them. You are very naive if you think that Edison, Bell, and Tesla were literally the only people working on what they invented. And that there was literally no one else working with them. Edison and Bell were also businessmen and industrialists. Edison built the largest energy company in the world at the time. Bell created the largest telecommunications company in the world at the time. Steve Jobs was not an engineer or software designer. He was a man who had the vision to harness these disciplines and put all of the pieces together in a way that created powerful tools that were accessible to average every day people. What does being a nice person have to do with being an innovative genius? Jobs was a very private man, he didn't want to be a public philanthropist. So his own philanthropic activity really is unknown. History is littered by claims to inventions by others; some being credible others less so. Yet what has Steve Jobs innovated? His claim to fame should be reflected by his role as a CEO, and having a team that extracted exceptional returns for shareholders; there is nothing innovative in doing that. As mentioned previously, the true powerhouses behind the emergence of Apple as one of the world's most successful corporate entities is principally down to individuals such as Schiller, Ive, Forstall and Mansfield. Indeed, many employees of Apple have made contributions that we may never know about. I think once the dust has settled, I think Apple can achieve even more without the borderline masochistic managerial approach of Jobs. I believe that a true innovative genius not only makes innovative/new products, processes or services but does so in the process of being a good person. Jobs was neither of those. Swearing at employees, public humiliation, and generally being a tool to family and close friends is not what I would call being a good person. Jobs closed his short-lived charity foundation, on the basis that he was busy with his business interests. He also axed Apple's philanthropic programmes, which have only just begun to be reintroduced by Cook (the new CEO). I also quote this interesting line from your 'Irish Central' website: 'Through the sale of (RED) products'. I see no mention of Apple making a donation, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if its actually the royalties that U2 would have received for the association, going directly to their charitable efforts. We also would have seen something in the financial reports to illustrate such charitable donations in the tens of millions. The principle reason we know he wasn't a philanthropist over the last few years (anomalous or otherwise) is that there hasn't been a deterioration of his net worth as you would expect, as has been the case with Buffett and Gates. Hopefully posthumously the case will change, but then he did try to claim in court that he was sterile to avoid contributing for the upbringing of his own daughter so who knows.
	Quote