Steve Jobs Official Trailer

delahaya said:
I like seeing Jobs portrayed as the asshole he really was. I would like to see something covering the later Apple years, instead of the start. We've gotten the start several times already.

Did his "glass yacht" ever get finished by the way?
Click to expand...

There was a big finacial mess/law suit about it and now it sits unused under basically repo
 
HeadRusch said:
You can watch this, and chase it with THERE WILL BE BLOOD for a true "Assholes R' Us" double feature.....
Click to expand...

Spot on. This is actually a perfect comparison. If you've seen There Will Be Blood, you've seen Steve Jobs ' biopic about his life.

Only thing you would've missed was the many reports about how bad Jobs stank because he didn't shower and didn't believe in deodorant because of the "chemicals".
 
Nytegard said:
It's about creators and the marketers though. Many "geniuses" really got where they were because they were able to market themselves and the ideas of others as their ideas.

Creators though, in this case, engineers, tend not to be great with people. They're passionate about their ideas, but it costs them their personal life. Unfortunately, we revere the marketers and associate the ideas with them, and the genius inventors get left behind in the annals of history books at best.
Click to expand...

Which is actually an argument for Gates, because in the 90's he did a lot of marketing/selling of Windows/Office and he's also a programmer/architect.
 
nilepez said:
Which is actually an argument for Gates, because in the 90's he did a lot of marketing/selling of Windows/Office and he's also a programmer/architect.
Click to expand...

There's a slight difference between him and Jobs though.

And I totally agree about Gates. Genius though is a terrible term. Hollywood portrays genius as someone who can do anything. But it doesn't work that way in real life. There are geniuses, but they tend to be specialized. Think of it like a D&D campaign, only with a million abilities, and you're only given 1000 points to divide amongst those million abilities, and some points need to be allocated to certain abilities no matter what. A genius though might be given 1500 points to work with though. They could still spread out and appear dumb, but just be a little better at everything than most people, or be specialized in a few fields.

Gates has some programming ability, and some marketing ability, but is a genius business person. The reason I say some, is that he bought the rights to DOS and had other people help with the programming, and up until recently, he was despised by the world for monopolistic practices. His foundation though was useful though towards his image. But he certainly was a ruthless and cunning business person.

Jobs on the other hand was not an engineer. Until later in his life, he was not even a good leader (and that's still debatable). But he certainly was able to sell people on him being a genius.

And there's the key difference in my opinion. It's Microsoft and then Gates. It's Jobs and then Apple.
 
Nytegard said:
And there's the key difference in my opinion. It's Microsoft and then Gates. It's Jobs and then Apple.
Click to expand...

We'll see. AFAICT, Apple is more successful now than it was when Gates was alive. We'll see how this watch goes. My gut says we're 2 generations away from a good product...maybe 3...but inthat respect, Apple is a lot like MSFT...they take a while to get it right...nevertheless, the reviews I've read indicate it's the best smart watch out there....still isn't enough to get me to byte or even nibble.
 
Gates is no angel either. Back in the beginning, he was just big an asshole as Jobs. And he stole the "gui" idea from Xerox/Apple.
 
Youn said:
It's all relative and we always remember the "top" in whatever emerging industry. Maybe it would've been a few years later, but technology would've improved and someone would've been in charge to get the credit and one of those people would've been egotastical.
Click to expand...

I don't recall any company back then that was even working towards a SYSTEM to be used as a portable or personal computing device.


Chas said:
Correction, Jobs' EMPLOYEES were innovators.
Jobs was a jumped up used car salesman.
Click to expand...

You must be speaking about the APPLE today, which is ran mostly by psychopathic attorneys. Jobs' employees are not innovators, but only spokes on a wheel, if these "employees" were innovative they'd have their own business.
 
valis1 said:
I don't recall any company back then that was even working towards a SYSTEM to be used as a portable or personal computing device.
Click to expand...
There were others, HP being one of the more popular ones.

It's more about timing than innovation.

Steve came at just the right time to help push it through though to a wider audience though, and that does take a good amount of foresight and skill, no doubt about that. John Carmack did something similar with 3D games. He didn't "invent" it, he just knew when it would be good enough to be really useful. You could say Palmer Lucky is doing the same with VR... but I guess time will tell on that one.
 
Jobs' employees are not innovators, but only spokes on a wheel, if these "employees" were innovative they'd have their own business.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Being innovative != being an entrepreneur. Wozniak was innovative, but he wasn't looking to start his own company. A lot of innovative people enjoy the dirty end of the business, that is, actually creating things, and not the business end.

Youn said:
Steve came at just the right time to help push it through though to a wider audience though, and that does take a good amount of foresight and skill, no doubt about that. John Carmack did something similar with 3D games. He didn't "invent" it, he just knew when it would be good enough to be really useful. You could say Palmer Lucky is doing the same with VR... but I guess time will tell on that one.
Click to expand...

I think part of the problem with your argument is that while Carmack is remembered for 3D games, id was more important in the concept of shareware, which is a major reason why their products took off in the first place. They didn't have the best 3D game (by quite a bit honestly), but they had the best distributable form.


And neither Microsoft nor Apple stole the GUI from Xerox. You can blame Xerox management for not thinking too highly of PARC, and practically giving away all their ideas.

That's where Jobs excelled. He was able to take ideas that other people had, but for one reason or another didn't view them worthy of selling, and he sold them to the public.

I guess the best way to describe him, is that he was an excellent scout of talent, and a brilliant self promoter.
 
Of course it wasn't just John Carmack, that wasn't my point. It's that one person tends to be remembered for the success when in most cases it's a group effort and whoever gets there first. I would never say Steve Jobs "stole" anything, he just took advantage of the opportunity, and if he didn't then then someone likely would've at a later time. That person would probably not have been the same combination of tech/art/business that Steve was, but someone would've been remember for it.
 
Nytegard said:
Nonsense. Being innovative != being an entrepreneur. Wozniak was innovative, but he wasn't looking to start his own company. A lot of innovative people enjoy the dirty end of the business, that is, actually creating things, and not the business end.
Click to expand...

WOZ wasn't an "employee" either... he was Apple, just as much as JOBS was Apple. Without either one of them Apple wouldn't been Apple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top