Steve Jobs Resigns as CEO of Apple

[Dintiradan]

As I understand it, the condemnation of Steve Jobs doesn't contradict the WBC's logic (Insane Troll Logic though it may be). The tweet says that "[h]e had a huge platform" and he "gave God no glory". Apparently, it is the responsibility of anyone with a media presence to actively promote God. Anyone who does not do so is, by omission, "[teaching] sin".

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

As I understand it, the condemnation of Steve Jobs doesn't contradict the WBC's logic (Insane Troll Logic though it may be). The tweet says that "[h]e had a huge platform" and he "gave God no glory". Apparently, it is the responsibility of anyone with a media presence to actively promote God. Anyone who does not do so is, by omission, "[teaching] sin".

also he recommended a gay dude as his successor as Apple CEO so i guess that's something

at this point the WBC are basically just professional self-publicists anyway though

[Duck in a Top Hat]

The WBC once protested at my high school. Apparently because we're "too diverse" or something. They called us worthless brats. Not my favorite group of people.

[Dintiradan]

Quote:

also he recommended a gay dude as his successor as Apple CEO so i guess that's something

Huh, didn't know Tim Cook was gay. Shows how much I pay attention. Okay, so ignore my previous post.

[Callie]

I think Steve Jobs was also Buddhist.

 

His family held a private funeral today at an undisclosed location.

[Alorael at Large]

Tim Cook is speculated to be gay. The evidence isn't great, and he's not out. I'd say he's a long way from being a gay role model.

 

—Alorael, who would think he'd be a great one if he were. He'd be the kind of gay figure that's needed now: famous for something else and not particularly engaged with being gay. It's important to have people who loudly and proudly show that you can be gay and successful, but it's now also important to have people who show that you can be gay and have it not be a big deal at all.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: The Memes of Yesteryear

but it's now also important to have people who show that you can be gay and have it not be a big deal at all.

So like J. Edgar Hoover, then?

[Alorael at Large]

There has only been wide-ranging speculation, from no intimate relationships at all to heterosexual to homosexual to bisexual. And the cross-dressing rumor is, as far as I know, even less well substantiated.

 

But then, Hoover was a very public official who may have been carefully obfuscating his sexuality, or just habitually secretive. Tim Cook may just not want to air his sexuality, it's not clear anyone is probing very closely, and while Hoover is speculated to have had any number of lovers, Cook is currently suspected of being too much of a workaholic to have any.

 

—Alorael, who wasn't saying Tim Cook is a good role model. Cook could be if he came out as gay. Hoover could have been as well if he had admitted to being gay, except he was too controversial a figure to be an unambiguous role model.

[Cairo Jim]

Originally Posted By: The Memes of Yesteryear

—Alorael, who would think he'd be a great one if he were. He'd be the kind of gay figure that's needed now: famous for something else and not particularly engaged with being gay. It's important to have people who loudly and proudly show that you can be gay and successful, but it's now also important to have people who show that you can be gay and have it not be a big deal at all.

Mind you, he got the position to get a job done, not to be a "gay role model".

[Sudanna]

I think Alo was saying, and supporting, exactly that.

[Alorael at Large]

Are you familiar with the It Gets Better Project? It's good to know you can live a happy, successful gay life, but it's better to know you can live a happy, successful life that has nothing to do with being gay even if you are. There are LGBT rights activists, and they're necessary, but they're not all that's necessary.

 

—Alorael, who imagines most people, even gay people, don't want to grow up to be gay, explicitly. They want to grow up to be happy.

[ex post slarto]

On Steve Jobs again:

 

Here's the other side of the story.

 

http://gawker.com/5847344/what-everyone-is-too-polite-to-say-about-steve-jobs

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

On Steve Jobs again:

Here's the other side of the story.

http://gawker.com/5847344/what-everyone-is-too-polite-to-say-about-steve-jobs

He also parked his car in handicapped spots before he even got sick. There are plenty of examples of Jobs generally being a terrible human being, up to and including criminal activity- securities fraud to be precise (his board backdated stock options and he made some of them take the fall for him). He pretty much winds up getting a free pass for all of it, though- which is ridiculous.

On the more humorous side, we might get flash now. Or, even better, dividends. I might pick up some AAPL after it stops its current nosedive, and that would just be fantastic.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

On Steve Jobs again:

Here's the other side of the story.

http://gawker.com/5847344/what-everyone-is-too-polite-to-say-about-steve-jobs

being a good marketer and being a good human being seem to be anticorrelated

[Alorael at Large]

Bill Gates built an evil empire, seems to be a pretty okay guy, and used the proceeds to do good. Steve Jobs upheld the struggling underdog until it became an authoritarian state with very good publicity, was a tyrant who inspired extreme loyalty, and may not have cared excessively about his fellow man.

 

—Alorael, who doesn't think Jobs is really best described as a marketer, magnetic presence at keynotes or no. He wasn't exactly a designer either. He was a director.

[Doctor Albert Halfmann]

Anyone who insists on celebrating individuals solely for their accomplishments fuels a culture in which he who aspires to greatness feels justified in breaking as many eggs as it takes to make the perfect omelet.

 

I can only respect a man who consistently treats all those around him with fairness and respect, regardless of their places in company or social hierarchies.

 

That said, Jobs has died, and at quite a young age to boot. Let's not go too far with the hatchet jobs.

[Dintiradan]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

He also parked his car in handicapped spots before he even got sick.

Heh, right. For those who are interested, you can find a bunch of articles on folklore.org tagged with Steve Jobs. Favourites are the Reality Distortion Field (and how to deal with it), his lack of technical knowledge, and odd interviewing techniques. The best is him getting shot down by none other than Donald Knuth.

I don't want to be seen as dancing on his grave: he helped bring the next generation of microcomputers to the masses (in fact, he was a big opponent to Apple inflating the Macintosh's price by ~$500), and he ensured that those computers did get released by directing a ragtag group of engineers and reminding them that real artists ship. An influential person in my field, just not someone I'd want to work for.

EDIT: Gah! Big mistake, meant to say ~$500, not ~%500.

[Enraged Slith]

That job interview story has got me picturing Steve Jobs as the bully from all those 80s teen movies staring John Cusack.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

On Steve Jobs again:

Here's the other side of the story.

http://gawker.com/5847344/what-everyone-is-too-polite-to-say-about-steve-jobs

Actually, Gawker paints that story as part of the story and not as the other side of the story. Jobs as accomplished but imperfect man, if you will. My take is that Jobs should not be compared to a retired Bill Gates. I may do many things as a retired man that I would never do while leading a massive company. You know, like give away a significant portion of my personal wealth.

Gawker was no fan of Steve Jobs, and this "too soon" article underscores this.

[ex post slarto]

I called it the other side of the story because everything posted in this thread thus far had been positive, and at times bordering on the hyperbolic.

 

I don't think comparisons are necessary at all. Apple's stock, and Dintiradan's links, speak for themselves. Jobs was an inordinately capable executive, inordinately accomplished, and inordinately mean.

[*i]

Quote:

Jobs was an inordinately capable executive, inordinately accomplished, and inordinately mean.

Basically, the Walt Disney of our time. He was definitely brilliant, but quite exploitive as well.

Although, as Soul of Wit says, comparisons to people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are not quite fair either. First, while Jobs has a ridiculous amount of wealth compared to you (I suspect) and I, he was still in a personal wealth tier below those two philanthropists despite having an incredibly profitable company. Second, his personal life situation was quite different than those other two in that he never really retired as Bill Gates did (I suspect he felt his work at Apple was not done) nor did he have a chance to become old like Warren Buffet. In other words, he did not really have time to become a philanthropist.

So yeah, Steve Jobs was a flawed person; however, he did quite a bit to bring computing into the hands of the average guy. That, despite his flaws, is a significant contribution.

[Alorael at Large]

Warren Buffett made money. Bill Gates made Microsoft, which made MS-DOS, Windows, Office, and an immense market share. Steve Jobs kept making more things longer. Microsoft isn't Bill Gates and hasn't been for a very long time: it was more than his personal fief before he retired from CEO. Apple was, significantly, Steve Jobs.

 

Buffett is a philanthropist in that he donates his money, but most of it is donated to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Jobs didn't, but he wasn't in the business of handling money like Buffett and he wasn't running a foundation full time like Gates. He may have had no intention of donating ever, but it's still not quite the same. Remember, he was a driven perfectionist. He set up the Steven P. Jobs Foundation when he was done with Apple, but then closed it when he went to work full-time on NeXT. Buffett became such a notable philanthropist late in life, and Gates started the bulk of his work after stepping down from Microsoft.

 

—Alorael, who also wouldn't say he was in a different bracket. Billions are billions. There's not quite an order of magnitude difference. Jobs could also have donated inconceivably vast personal sums, and he didn't. Or rather, he didn't publicly; there's no way to assess his private charity. And while he didn't give billions, he did give millions.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

I called it the other side of the story because everything posted in this thread thus far had been positive, and at times bordering on the hyperbolic.

I don't think comparisons are necessary at all. Apple's stock, and Dintiradan's links, speak for themselves. Jobs was an inordinately capable executive, inordinately accomplished, and inordinately mean.

Positive, you say? Yes, people usually speak well of the recently deceased or stay silent. It's the respectful thing to do. We can all point out what a mean bastard that he was when the biography comes out.

[Kelandon]

I'm a little late, but...

 

Steve Jobs was incredible, even when he butted heads. Jef Raskin was a family friend of mine, and while I never really asked for the details, there was apparently not a lot of love lost between the two men. It is true that Steve Jobs could be arrogant, dismissive, and all those other things that smart, influential people often are. Even so, it was clear that both of them stood for the same thing, and always had, since the late '70s: making computers accessible and intuitive. Apple has always worked to make interfaces so good that you don't even notice that you're using an interface. And it has done that spectacularly.

 

I've owned Macs since the beginning (the Mac came out around when I was born, and that's when my family started buying them) and more or less every iThing that has come out in the past decade, and I've never had to spend more than a minute or two getting started. I've always never fought with them, the way that I have to fight with Microsoft Word to get it to do what I want. I've never skipped an update because I don't want to have to learn a new set of arbitrary workarounds to get the damned thing to do what I want, the way that I did with Vista and am doing with Word 2010/2011. Apple products just work, and they do what I want them to.

 

Steve Jobs, Jef Raskin, and the many other greats who worked for Apple at one point or another did a lot of work trying to figure out what makes a system intuitive in the first place. What do we expect computers to do? Why do we expect that? These are not simple questions to answer, but the answers make all the difference.

 

I'll be getting a new iPhone in a week or two, and when I do, I'll give a moment of silence for Steve Jobs. I normally don't care much about CEOs, but he was something else.

[Student of Trinity]

I have an idea that what Jobs got Apple to do is to make it out of the annoying valley. In computer graphic representations of people, there's the so-called 'uncanny valley'. Crudely cartoonish figures are cute, and sufficiently realistic ones are accepted as real, but not-quite-realistic-enough representations of people are disturbing. Well, I think that smart tools have an annoying valley.

 

Dumb tools like hammers and hairdryers are like stick figures. Somewhat more complicated tools, like cars or microwave ovens, are like cartoons. Nobody minds that cartoons don't look real, because they're obviously not supposed to look real. Nobody minds learning to cope with dumb tools' little quirks, because they're obviously not supposed to be smart enough to be really natural and effortless to use.

 

But a smart enough gadget somehow crosses a line, where it becomes really annoying when the gadget is trying to be smarter than it can quite pull off. It does enough things well that it obviously could do much better. Somehow there's a range of gadget sophistication levels where small improvements only raise expectations even higher, and so if you can't make a big jump in improvement, to get past this 'annoying valley' range, your customers will be happier if you leave them with a simpler product.

 

The problem I see is that a lot of gadget producers don't recognize the annoying valley. They produce tools that are much smarter than hammers, and seem to consider that good enough. But the difference between a trackpad, and a really good trackpad, for instance, is really dramatic. You don't necessarily need the perfect trackpad, but there's a threshold you really want to get above, and it's considerably higher than one might naively think.

 

Apple may not always succeed in getting past the annoying valley, but sometimes they do, and when they do, people will happily pay them quite a premium for products that may be only slightly better than others, and no better at all in many ways. As long as they're past the annoying valley, failing to go too much further isn't a big deal; whereas if a slight improvement pushes them out of the valley, it's worth a lot.

[ex post slarto]

The return of Student of Trinity's elegance function.

[keira]

[Actaeon]

I'm not sure why I find post-mortem jokes in poor taste. It's not like the butt's around to be offended.

[Death Knight]

Its too bad about jobs, seemed like such a cool guy.