[Cengaeas]

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.

[soonahonsefalh]

People that have an idea, and then create first-order technology that spawns entire industries, and completely change society are at a different plane than people like Jobs.

What exactly is a "first order technology".

Edison nor Tesla discovered electricity. They were not the first people to conduct electricity. They were the most influential in making electricity useful and accessible to everyone.

Alexander Graham Bell was not the first person to work with capturing audio waves or the first to send/receive communication over wired electrical pulses. He was the most influential in making it usable and accessible to everyone.

George Eastman was not the first person to use photochemical photography. He was the most influential in making photography usable and accessible to everyone.


He didn't invent the mouse. He didn't develop software. The components for his devices were developed elsewhere. No Steve Jobs did not invent the idea of the personal computer, the graphical user interface, or the mouse.

But he did invent the Macintosh. The Macintosh was very different from any other PC at the time. Under Jobs guidance the Maciontosh team developed their own graphical user interface, they developed their own mouse. Everything about the Macintosh was custom designed.

When the original Macintosh launched it was the first computer to come standard with a mouse. At the time there were people who criticized the mouse as a useless toy.

The Macintosh changed the way everyone developed personal computers and what they were able to do.

Technology was driving society in the direction to where we are now, Jobs or not. This is not true. At all.

Prior to the Macintosh, computers interfaces were primarily command line driven. After the Macintosh everyone quickly adopted graphical user interfaces we use today.

Windows is a direct copy of Mac OS.

The same thing with handheld devices. They've been around for decades, but were called car-phones, because they were too big to carry around. Advances in battery design, processors, transmission networks, and display screens are what put them in our pockets. The irony of your statement is in the fact that the company that marketed the first usable handheld general computing device was Apple.



The Apple Newton 1993


Apple co-developed a mobile processor for the Newton called the Advanced RISC Machine. Today ARM processors power every mobile device we use.

Prior to the iPhone. The Blackberry was the most popular mobile device. Everyone made phones that looked like Blackberry phones. Now everyone copies the iPhone.



The original Android Phone.

[beenBinybelia]

Edison nor Tesla discovered electricity. They were not the first people to conduct electricity. They were the most influential in making electricity useful and accessible to everyone.

No Steve Jobs did not invent the idea of the personal computer, the graphical user interface, or the mouse.

But he did invent the Macintosh. The Macintosh was very different from any other PC at the time. Electricity changed the world of the 19th century.

The Macintosh didn't change the world. If it wasn't developed, the modern age of electronics may have taken a different course, but would be essentially the same. . If you tried to equate electricity and the Mac 100 years from now, it would be ridiculous.

The two things most responsible for our modern age, not just computers, but just about everything are this leading to this.


How did George Eastman get into this? He's closer to Steve Jobs, but neither of them are in the same ballpark as Edison.

[Klavalala]

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.

Steve's skill was in taking concepts that already existed. He had the skill to polish and refine them and make them usable and accessible to everyone.

No one else in the consumer electronics industry has his eye for aethictic design and usability.

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. Of course he did not do it all by himself. The point is that all of these people worked to create what was ultimately Steve's vision.


I think once the dust has settled, I think Apple can achieve even more without the borderline masochistic managerial approach of Jobs. Apple did not have Steve Jobs for about 13 years (1985-1998). Over that time Apple almost went out of business. Becasue the people who ran Apple, ran it much like how every other computer company is run.

During Steve's absense he went on to found a company called Next Step and another comapny called Pixar.

At Next he created an entirely new graphical user interface that was so advanced that in 1989 it required a nearly $10,000 computer to run it.

Later when Steve Jobs returned to Apple the Next OS he developed became the basis of OS X. Literally what Jobs envisioned in 1989 is the basis of what powers today's Mac's, iPhone, and iPad.

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.
That is your opinion. I think the people who were closest to him and knew him best would be of better authority to say.

The general consensus is that Jobs was a hard task master. He pushed everyone beyond their limits. In his younger years it can be argued that his ego and attitude were out of control and is the reason he was fired from Apple.

After his return to Apple. He went on a slash and burn to trim Apple down and get it back to the company he envisioned. That slashing and burning pissed a lot of people off. Was this the right thing to do? We see the results.


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. I don't think that is an inidicator of anything other than Jobs didn't give the majority of his money away.

Jobs personal fortune has never approached anywhere near that of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.

He hasn't taken a direct salary from Apple since the mid 80's.

I posted that article because Bono has been very adament on imploring the rich to help the less fortunate.He praised Jobs efforts.

Simply because we don't fully understand what he may have done, does not automatically mean he did nothing.

[nilliraq]

The two things most responsible for our modern age, not just computers, but just about everything are this leading to this.

Oops. I left out Jack Kilby and the Integrated Circuit, which fits in between the two.

[prearpaccew]

The two things most responsible for our modern age, not just computers, but just about everything are this leading to this.

Those are extremely important parts that have made modern computers possible. If the average person has:


This


This



and this sitting on their desk. How are they going to use them to get any work done?


How did George Eastman get into this? He's closer to Steve Jobs, but neither of them are in the same ballpark as Edison. You are right they did not electrocute animals to help discrete their competitors.

[CenICrerflind]

So you think those two devices only had an effect on how we sit at a desk and work with computers?

[ArraryTauTDew]

I wasn't the one who even brought this up, but you should keep track of your contradictions.

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

Of course followed by.....

You are right they did not electrocute animals to help discrete their competitors.

[strongjannabiz]

Electricity changed the world of the 19th century.

Today anyone with a connection to the internet has more access to information than any human has had in our history. I cannot see that being any less revolutionary.

This couldn't be done with hardware alone. The reason Apple is where it is today is because of its software design.

The Macintosh didn't change the world. If it wasn't developed, the modern age of electronics may have taken a different course, but would be essentially the same. If you tried to equate electricity and the Mac 100 years from now, it would be ridiculous.

This is what the average computer interface looked like before the popularity of the Macintosh. This was designed by engineers and mostly used by hobbyists and tech geeks. Most people would not be able to understand or use this. Computers at this point had no artistry, no design aesthetic, no human connection.




The original Mac OS did change the world,

This was the beginning of desktop publishing.

This was the beginning of computer digital imaging.

This was the beginning of digital audio workstations.

This was the beginning of nonlinear video editing.

This is the start of over a billion people having access to each other as well as limitless access to information.

[Endatrybeeddy]

I wasn't the one who even brought this up, but you should keep track of your contradictions.

I'm not sure what you mean. That statement wasn't addressing you.



Of course followed by..... Well I said being an innovative genius doesn't mean you were a nice person.