Steve jobs is dead

[backbreaker]

CNN CNN



CNN BREAKING NEWS: Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple, has died, according to the company. He was 56.

 

[Deep Dish]

For everyone who have never watched his commencement speech at Stanford:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

The best, most inspiring, motivational, and truthful speech I have ever watched. I suggest everyone do the same.

 

[Gaucho]

For everyone who have never watched his commencement speech at Stanford:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

The best, most inspiring, motivational, and truthful speech I have ever watched. I suggest everyone do the same.

Thx for link. Is this the speech where he talks about being fired from Apple? I remember watching a speech of his ages back and it was very good. I'll watch this one anyways, got some spare time and feel like a bit of inspiration!

 

[st_99]

whats amazing is throughout his diagnosis and transplant and
various medical treatments he still had the drive to work hard as
hell running a huge very demanding company.

He could have easily just stepped back and lived an 'easier' life
but nope, he just kept going up till the very end.

 

[Deep Dish]

Thx for link. Is this the speech where he talks about being fired from Apple?

Yes, it is. He talks about how you can't know ahead of time how the dots will connect in your life and so you must follow your heart. "I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life."

 

[Gaucho]

Yes, it is. He talks about how you can't know ahead of time how the dots will connect in your life and so you must follow your heart. "I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me. The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life."

Yeh, it was the one I've watched previously but still a good watch. It's funny when you watch it years later, you take different messages from it. The older you get, the more you can relate to what his talking about. When you first finish University/College, that speech probably wouldn't mean much to you, but as you go on persuing a career and a living and meaning, you begin to understand what his talking about.

 

[HoneyHitter]

Yeh, it was the one I've watched previously but still a good watch. It's funny when you watch it years later, you take different messages from it. The older you get, the more you can relate to what his talking about. When you first finish University/College, that speech probably wouldn't mean much to you, but as you go on persuing a career and a living and meaning, you begin to understand what his talking about.

Agreed.

 

[Gaucho]

Anyway I was biking to my weed dealer's place today and next to the sign for the apple building on de anza boulevard there were flowers.

LOL. Or was there?

 

[Alle_Gory]

Fired from apple? Didn't that guy invent apple?

That's because when a company goes public you have to staff it with a bunch of useless suits called the "Board of Directors".

Anyway I was biking to my weed dealer's place today and next to the sign for the apple building on de anza boulevard there were flowers.

Yeah, that's ****ed up. The guy made a product, to sell to you. He wasn't Ghandi, he made profit and popularized some nice gadgets. What the hell people?

 

[ArcBound]

That's because when a company goes public you have to staff it with a bunch of useless suits called the "Board of Directors".



Yeah, that's ****ed up. The guy made a product, to sell to you. He wasn't Ghandi, he made profit and popularized some nice gadgets. What the hell people?

That is what most people don't seem to understand. Steve Jobs took the same hardware in PC computers and existing mp3 players, put them in apple products, marketed features, almost all of which already existed in other products, and sold it for a gigantic markup price making huge profit while his overseas workers were committing suicide all the time (serious they even had a Time magazine feature on it). Then Apple has become a bigger company than Microsoft, and Steve Jobs has donated almost no money to charity than Bill Gates.

Now before people come into the thread saying Steve Jobs didn't have to donate any of his money, I agree with you. But the thing is people act like Steve Jobs is some magical saint who changed the world, and that Microsoft and Bill Gates is some giant monopoly, when Steve was just a master of marketing that sold you overhyped, and overpriced products with old features rebranded as new.

 

[Reyaj]

That is what most people don't seem to understand. Steve Jobs took the same hardware in PC computers and existing mp3 players, put them in apple products, marketed features, almost all of which already existed in other products, and sold it for a gigantic markup price making huge profit while his overseas workers were committing suicide all the time (serious they even had a Time magazine feature on it). Then Apple has become a bigger company than Microsoft, and Steve Jobs has donated almost no money to charity than Bill Gates.

Now before people come into the thread saying Steve Jobs didn't have to donate any of his money, I agree with you. But the thing is people act like Steve Jobs is some magical saint who changed the world, and that Microsoft and Bill Gates is some giant monopoly, when Steve was just a master of marketing that sold you overhyped, and overpriced products with old features rebranded as new.

I totally concur with you. Not to step on a man's grave, RIP but we aren't talking about Ghandi or MLK here.

 

[Reyaj]

That is what most people don't seem to understand. Steve Jobs took the same hardware in PC computers and existing mp3 players, put them in apple products, marketed features, almost all of which already existed in other products, and sold it for a gigantic markup price making huge profit while his overseas workers were committing suicide all the time (serious they even had a Time magazine feature on it). Then Apple has become a bigger company than Microsoft, and Steve Jobs has donated almost no money to charity than Bill Gates.

Now before people come into the thread saying Steve Jobs didn't have to donate any of his money, I agree with you. But the thing is people act like Steve Jobs is some magical saint who changed the world, and that Microsoft and Bill Gates is some giant monopoly, when Steve was just a master of marketing that sold you overhyped, and overpriced products with old features rebranded as new.

I totally concur with you. Not to step on a man's grave, RIP but we aren't talking about Ghandi or MLK here.

 

[Burroughs]

How Jobs 'gamed' the healthcare system to buy a new liver.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/26577

Casts the 'godlike' image of steve in a different light. Yet who among us wouldn't do the same assuming we had the cash?

 

[Alle_Gory]

That is what most people don't seem to understand. Steve Jobs took the same hardware in PC computers and existing mp3 players, put them in apple products, marketed features, almost all of which already existed in other products, and sold it for a gigantic markup price making huge profit while his overseas workers were committing suicide all the time (serious they even had a Time magazine feature on it). Then Apple has become a bigger company than Microsoft, and Steve Jobs has donated almost no money to charity than Bill Gates.

Yes and no. Jobs had attention to detail and very high standards, so much so that he was seen as a tyrant and a major a*hole in his company and among his peers. He screwed his partner our of thousands of dollars when they were starting out by lying to him about how much they were getting paid. He abandoned his wife and daughter leaving them to seek welfare while he was making millions. Real piece of **** human being. However in the computer world he was able to add the much needed polish that these devices we use every day really needed.

If you look at Windows Mobile and Windows CE and Mac and iOS the difference is staggering. Under the hood Windows is really solid but it looks ugly and it's not that user friendly.

Hardware wise the difference is again staggering. Mac had the nice sealed uni-body design and fancy materials meanwhile all the other PC makers were struggling to glue their cheap plastic parts together and call it "hardware".

 

[3countriesPlan]

Well in that case its good hes dead (if he was screwing people over to get rich)

 

[ArcBound]

Yes and no. Jobs had attention to detail and very high standards, so much so that he was seen as a tyrant and a major a*hole in his company and among his peers. He screwed his partner our of thousands of dollars when they were starting out by lying to him about how much they were getting paid. He abandoned his wife and daughter leaving them to seek welfare while he was making millions. Real piece of **** human being. However in the computer world he was able to add the much needed polish that these devices we use every day really needed.

If you look at Windows Mobile and Windows CE and Mac and iOS the difference is staggering. Under the hood Windows is really solid but it looks ugly and it's not that user friendly.

Hardware wise the difference is again staggering. Mac had the nice sealed uni-body design and fancy materials meanwhile all the other PC makers were struggling to glue their cheap plastic parts together and call it "hardware".

Apple only had better hardware in the sense of the chasis. Not the processor, memory, ram, harddrives, motherboards, power supplies or pretty much everything important. And for desktops, you can change the chasis of the PC to one as high a quality as you want if it concerns you that much.

But you are right though, the macOS's are very easy to use. But easy doesn't mean the best. I can do a lot more things on my Windows than someone can on their Mac, just like someone can have a greater degree of control using Linux than with Windows. It depends on your computer experience and what you want to do, so the software is very subjective. Not to mention most games, and a lot of industry standard software don't run on macOs's.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Apple only had better hardware in the sense of the chasis. Not the processor, memory, ram, harddrives, motherboards, power supplies or pretty much everything important. And for desktops, you can change the chasis of the PC to one as high a quality as you want if it concerns you that much.

I don't know the PowerPC G4 processors were pretty amazing and that technology has been recycled and used in the Xbox 360 console, the cell processor for the PS3 which is a little monster although the PS3 has a **** GPU and little RAM which limits, and it's also being used in industry applications like banking.

This was developed by Apple, IBM and Motorola. Damn good technology which Apple abandoned for off the shelf Intel parts.

But you are right though, the macOS's are very easy to use. But easy doesn't mean the best. I can do a lot more things on my Windows than someone can on their Mac, just like someone can have a greater degree of control using Linux than with Windows.

If it wasn't for the Mac and iPhone platforms we may not have had the competition to develop nice and easy to use interfaces, nice hardware shells, and we might not have the tech in the PS3 and the 360. Considering how old these consoles are, they are very powerful.

 

[Burroughs]

Damn good technology which Apple abandoned for off the shelf Intel parts.


.

very true.

I run protools off a G4 that still works PERFECT.

allegory do you know why the change was made to intel parts? Was it a cost issue?

 

[Alle_Gory]

allegory do you know why the change was made to intel parts? Was it a cost issue?

Probably money and an inability to produce chips that met their needs. All Intel does is CPUs (and related microchips) and they are very good at it. Architectures aside, there's more to a CPU than that. There's also the size and complexity and the process to burn the CPU into the silicon.

Hard to compete with Chipzilla.

 

[ArcBound]

I don't know the PowerPC G4 processors were pretty amazing and that technology has been recycled and used in the Xbox 360 console, the cell processor for the PS3 which is a little monster although the PS3 has a **** GPU and little RAM which limits, and it's also being used in industry applications like banking.

This was developed by Apple, IBM and Motorola. Damn good technology which Apple abandoned for off the shelf Intel parts.



If it wasn't for the Mac and iPhone platforms we may not have had the competition to develop nice and easy to use interfaces, nice hardware shells, and we might not have the tech in the PS3 and the 360. Considering how old these consoles are, they are very powerful.

1) The cell processor was not made by Apple. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

Using similar technology does not mean that Apple suddenly developed the chip and in fact they had no hand in developing the chip. So you can't give Apple credit for that AT ALL for the cell chip/PS3 hardware. And on top of that Linux is the OS best used for Cell development. "IBM provides a comprehensive Linux-based Cell development platform to assist developers in confronting these challenges.[5]" The cell processor had nothing to do in any shape way or form with Apple; it was partly made by IBM which used to make old Apple microprocessors.

2) Secondly, your competition argument can go both ways. I can also point out that without Microsoft and Linux being in the market it gives Apple competition and forces everyone to make better products.

3) You also throw in 360 for some reason. Yes it has a PowerPC chip. Which was made by IBM. Has nothing to do with Apple.