I l use Apple products all the time, and I was very sad to hear of his passing, but even I have to admit that Jobs was a colossal dick throughout most of his career.
The thing is, though... I'm reading his biography at the moment, and he's certainly a very flawed, complex character, but he was also incredibly driven and passionate about his work, and I doubt anyone else could have achieved what he did with his life.
The further I get with the book, the more I see Jobs as kind of a real-life, Silicon Valley equivalent of Dr House: He was a brash, obnoxious, arrogant, manipulative, narcissistic, selfish little brat of a man, but people mostly put up with his personality because like him or loathe him, he got results, and in his case those results changed the world.
Having said that, my already considerable respect for Wozniak has gone through the roof since I started reading Jobs' biography. He was selfless almost to a fault, which is probably why he's the lesser-known Steve of the two...
Of course the difference (other than ones a fictional character) is that House saves lives and you can put up with a douche if he's incredibly heroic but a douche who's just incredibly greedy, well that's not endearing in the slightest. Even if he was good at it.
Forget House. Lots of successful people are like this. One example is Gordon Ramsey. You may not want to work for him if you suck but most do respect him and appreciate his tastes.
As for Jobs, he views himself as a true artist and acts like one. Most of them aren't fun to be around but if you understand the art, you learn to appreciate the man.
The most difficult part to swallow is the "never invented anything." As other commenters have pointed out, Bill actually wrote code and created software. Jobs is the one who, literally, never invented anything. He did, however, create and fill a very significant niche by steering his companys' computer design efforts towards art and beauty and usability in a way that no other tech company could match.
As for Bill being more comfortable in philanthropy than technology... f**k you, Steve Jobs, seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? You and Bill both changed world through technology, it's just a shame that you passed away before evolving to someone who steered all that wealth towards also changing the world through humanitarian efforts.
Anyway, Steve was always a jerk and Bill was always a nice guy, that was known since the beginning.
Well that was my point(that they both did some ruthless things). Running huge companies like this isn't really all that different from being king or emperor or any other sort of position of power. You have a ton of people who want that power and you have to be ruthless to keep control. Basically, nice guys don't usually end up at the top.
The last line says it all. It is so very rare that someone really nice finishes at the top. Most of these honchos are all smiles as they crush people along their way to the top. And they don't care who they hurt as long as their sucking up, and trashing people get them ahead. Once on top......then they are such great human beings! Just an observation from many years in the rat race.
There is a theory I have heard and discussed with a few wealthy folks I know. They all say essentially the same thing. These guys start out like any other businessperson, relying on their charisma and sales ability to get going, then becoming ruthless along the way. In the end, it's that turn to ruthlessness and guilt for who they have harmed along the way that often leads to philanthropy. Gates and Buffet get the headlines because of the vast quantity of wealth, but apparently, it's not so uncommon for successful businesspeople to turn to philanthropy of some sort.
The cynic in me always cries shenanigans, though. If so many turned to philanthropy, the OWS movement likely would have never come about.
I've followed and patronized MS and Apple since they were both relatively unknown companies. My perception is that MS and Windows software just got so valuable so fast that it caused an overreaction. The lawsuits against them and accusations of theft and unethical business practices seemed like a lot of bullying for the most part. First-hand accounts, including people I've talked to at MS who worked with him, have always been positive of him and his business ethics. Opposite is so of Jobs.
Here's the thing. You almost can't get to be as successful and dominating as those two by being a nice guy. To win as big as those two did, you have to play to win.
I disagree. I think you can be ruthless in business while still being a nice guy. You don't have to be a dick about it. Business is business, and personal life is personal life. You can separate the two.
By all reports Jobs was a ruthless businessman AND a dick. I don't think BillG is a dick - his philanthropic actions certainly show him to be a fundamentally decent human being.
He was narcissistic and deserving. He was brilliant and most people couldn't comprehend his intelligence. He wasn't a dick or he wouldn't be doing what he's doing. He is a genuine guy. I've never met such a modest billionaire. And I have met a few.
? Was or is? From what I gather he can be defensive and passionate about the company and business, but in person he seems to be an OK guy.
I mean look at that famous Movie Maker e-mail that he sent internally. He wasn't a dick about it, wasn't assigning blame to anybody, didn't go on a witch hung - he was just complaining and critiquing.
I do know that he used to show up to the 20-25 year parties of MS employees (all employees that have worked at MS for 20+ years get periodic parties) and get completely trashed. The fact that he was willing to go hang out with them, drink, and let his guard down buys him a lot of leeway in my book. There are a bunch of stories about him not being stuck up and just being a regular guy.
Not to mention all his charitable work, of course.
From what I have heard of him he is a driven individual who can get emotional about his work, but who deeply understands his business. He treats the employees with respect. When outside of work he is a cool guy to hang out with and is not pretensions. And oh yes, he is also working on donating many billions of dollars to various charities, is working in his own charity, and is trying to get other billionaires to donate more.
So it's more than "good to have a beer with".
As for Bush, I the impression I have of him is that he is a narrow minded individual of limited intelligence, but he is not a dick by himself. He simply has really stupid ideas about what the country should be run as, and about what is acceptable. Personally, now that he is out of power, I would have a beer with him but only in passing. I would have a beer with him at an airport or something - the problem is that I wouldn't have anything to talk to with him, since I figure he is into sports and doesn't talk about computer games much.
I would NOT have drinks with Chaney or Jobs. Both of them appeared to be simply nasty individuals that I just don't want to hang out with.
Many articles on autism put Bill in the spectrum. He is a very high functioning autistic, but there are many small weird things about his actions, and personality that put up red flags. No one is perfect for sure.....and certainly not myself.....but I do think it is amazing how he has turned towards helping others. A great use of such wealth.
And before you start braying about him putting his name on other people’s patents, adding the name of a person who was not a significant contributor would invalidate the patent.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
i work in the patent industry. you have no idea how it works. generally within a company, a controlling figurehead is written on the patent application and given credit despite not being the inventor. This is to keep the resources within a corporation without risk of losing a high cost and high return invention(inventor) from leaving and taking everything with him.
If you've ever worked in a high tech industry (i worked at a weapons development facility), you will know before employment that you will probably sign a waiver that everything you invent belongs to the company if you used company time and//or resources.
basically, stop stroking and giving yourself a stevejob.
unfortunately you are wrong. even if the inventor signs a contract that assigns all future invention rights to the corporation that person must still be named as an inventor on the face of the patent (under US law) or the patent can be invalidated for failure to name the true inventor. however, in europe it is allowed to name an assignee as opposed to the inventor.
rhit06 is 100% correct. I am inventor and co-inventor on a number of patents. It is well understood anything developed while you worked there belongs to them. The same was when I worked at a university.
My company pays us (very well) for patents (#1 for the idea, #2 for the filing, and finally #3 for the assigning). Ultimately, my company is the assignee.
sounds like your relationship with the company is exceptional. It seems you invent stuff and sell your ideas to the company. The standard setting is not like that. If you are filing yourself, then you are not acting on behalf of the company you work for.
I don't file at all. We just fill out invention disclosures and the get vetted.
As a coincidence, I just got an email today about about 21 disclosures that were just filed. I am essentially getting about $350 for each. When/if the USPTO grants the patent, I will get about $1,000 for each. If I was the sole inventor on these, I would get $11,000 per patent.
Ultimately, I do sign over all rights, but I remain the inventor on file.
As placed aptly, Steve Jobs name only appears on 313 patents, he is not necessarily the true inventor. Steve Jobs, however, has 33 under his name as the primary inventor.
It's probably, and rightfully so, an Apple policy that any inventor under the employment of Apple must allow Steve Jobs to be a joint inventor when filing a patent.
I don't think you fully understand what is happening. The true inventor can be anyone, but the filing can always state a different inventor. In companies, this will most like be your CEO or the Research and Technology Officer. Basically, the officers who will least likely leave the company. This is a standard measurement for any companies practicing in technology.
Your anecdotal evidence is meaningless. Steve Jobs made the world a better place, while you and your weapons made it worse. Go stroke yourself while you think of all the lives you've ruined.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hmmm I think our US troops would disagree with your comment. But I understand why you would think that, after all, you aren't the one fighting the terrorists.
I bet now you're going to claim that you were in the military and all that. I won't believe you though.
However, my brother is, and I take pride that the weapons we have developed has helped our troops survive.
No, it is well known that he simply added his name to actual engineering invention patents. I don't really have a problem with that given his role, but it doesn't make him an inventor. I do have a problem with all the patents he filed on style elements, like having a magnifying glass in the dock, or swipe to unlock, or whatever. Such things are wholly contrary to the idea of patents, they are fashion and style, not invention, and should never have been allowed as patents.
Funny how
If that wasn't enough, Jobs also called Gates "fundamentally odd" and "weirdly flawed as a human being"
That pretty much can be said about any of the geniuses throughout history from Socrates, Da Vinci, and Newton all the way to Einstein.
Ant wtf is a "perfect human being" anyway (given that Gates is "flawed")?
I know that when he returned to Apple, he cancelled all of the company's charitable efforts. I know that one of that last things he accomplished in his life was that he finally won persmission to demolish a historic home that he'd been using as a garage for 10 years and had let fall into disrepair. Too bad he never got to see the demolition finish and his new house built.
A lot of dickholes claim to be Buddhists. Jobs also said that there are things about him that even his own wife could never understand, because she hasn't done acid like he has. As someone who's done a lot of acid, I say he's full of crap.
Rockefeller gave away almost all his money, but after all the damage he made with his anti competitive practices, I think maybe he didn't do enough, in the other side Steve Jobs gave the world all this amazing devices.
There's exist computers before the Apple II and before the original Mac also smartphones and tablets before iPhone and iPad, and CGI animations, but no one can make this things work as it should, just Steve Jobs.
All this things were just casualty? I don't think so.
You and 12 other people. How was the battery life?
The idea for a tablet ISN'T a flat, small desktop computer running a desktop system. You have to reimagine the medium. Apps, not applications. Sandboxing? Good.
Pff...HAHAHAHA.... Dude what do you think "Apps" stands for? BTW for 1992 that tablet was a f**king miracle. Battery life? Give me a break. It was expected. Back then you could barely play a CD player for a bunch of hours with fresh batteries.
Apple did play by the rules, from a legal point of view, in using the PARC innovations in creating the Macintosh. So too did Microsoft play by the rules in using the Apple licensed, PARC innovations, in creating Windows. So, from a legal standpoint then, Jobs accusation that Gates "...just shamelessly ripped off other people's ideas" doesn't make sense.
If, however, you're talking about who stole from who, in terms of technical innovation, it would be fair to accuse Gates of ripping off other people's ideas, but then it would also be fair to accuse Jobs of the same.
In other words, as the op said, the pot calling the kettle black.
The guy was a great marketer for a company that defined how we listen to music and how we use handhelds today. He wasn't a major contributor. He was at times in charge of people who were. In the eighties his best friend, Steve Wozniac created the apple in a garage. Jobs marketed that as well. He didn't create anything.
People who make this argument don't understand what they're talking about. Read the biography. Wozniak wrote some great code and did some terrific engineering, acting like a true genius at times. But he didn't do much at Apple after about 1978. He's child-like and a wonderful guy, but if you think Wozniak would have created a computer company, you're just wrong. Jobs was the one with the idea of where computing was going, and he was a mean enough S.O.B. to make it happen.
Was Jobs as good an engineer as Wozniak? No way. But the engineers only do some of what's necessary.
Gates wrote 4K BASIC in a single pass. It was used as the default language on both CBM and Apple hardware for many years and was what made home computing successful. If Bill Gates didn't write 4K basic, the hardware and DOS were both useless to hobbyists and amateur programmers, which is what built the industry. Otherwise we would still only have IBM mainframes. And no CP/M would not have done the same thing.
Bull. Chuck Peddle designed the cost effective 6502 which went into the Apple ][, commodore 64, BBC micro, etc putting computing within reach of the personal computing market which provided true critical mass.
Of these, the BBC micro (1982) stood out because it had a great non-Microsoft basic which went as far as providing inline assembly and domain style network logins. The Tandy Coco (1980) actually had a better processor but was let down by the Microsoft Basic.
There were others on the IBM PC compatible side like the Tandy 4P (1983) which my father had for the business. It included features like error trapping (as did the BBC micro) which Microsoft's basic Basics didn't.
Microsoft did get onto a lot of systems though. They even wrote the (2nd) Amiga (1985) Basic which was likely their worst effort. It was dismal and showed a complete like of understanding of pre-emptive multitasking and pseudo object orientated design.
It would later become clear that Microsoft did learn a few things though when a decade later they came out with a pre-emptive multitasking version of Windows that touted such "innovations" as Amiga style GUI shortcut keys, long filenames, OS integrated hardware gfx acceleration, etc.
I'm pretty sure Bill Gates would be the first person to say he isn't artistically creative, which is what Jobs is talking about here. Steve Jobs valued art over pretty much everything else in the world. Bill Gates doesn't.
There's nothing to like, he's dead now. Evil or divine, his legacy is not something to disregard - I absolutely hate most Apple products, but I have to admit that.
The quote is somewhat taken out of context. Of course Gates "invented" he literally wrote lines of code, something Jobs never did, but then Gates became CEO and leader of what became the largest market cap company in the world at the time.
I have to respect that as an incredible achievement. Also, I really respect Gates for stepping down and dedicating his time and money to charity and improving the world.
Jobs on the other hand, while not a coder or an engineer (at least never any good at either), was an artist, visionary, and leader. He had tons of flaws, but was able to lead teams the introduced products that changed the industry and our lives, also resulting in what became the largest market cap company in the world.
I have to respect that as an incredible achievement.
Now take a look at the two pictures. Gates is holding a tablet that was built by other companies using hacked versions of Windows. Nobody bought them and they failed to get any traction until Apple introduced the iPad almost a decade later.
Apple could've produced a tablet that few people wanted in 2001, heck they did it years earlier with the Newton and it was one of the first things Jobs killed when he returned to Apple, along with starting a long development process which lead to the iPhone/iPad.
That is the essence of the quote in a greater context.
Jobs imagined what a successful tablet should be and lead a team to produce it (read the article about the Courier guy who wouldn't shut up) . Jobs did this with a number of things, not always with him having the idea first, but ultimately guiding what the finished product should be. Kudos for that.
I'm having a hard time coming up with any similar example for Gates. However, I could come up with countless examples where Gates saw a product/service opportunity, and lead a team to build a better or more successful product/service. Kudos for that.
Didn't the Apple Newton come out in 1993? Neither Steve or Bill claims to have invented the tablet computer. I'm not sure what those pictures have to do with anything.
People often attribute to much to the ideology behind Steve Jobs. People need to understand that he was not a god, and that humans are fallible. Steve Jobs made mistakes and Gates made mistakes too.
I'm not trying to be a douche bag and start any "internet fights," but I think it's a little bit ridiculous how people argue over whether or not a celebrity was an assh**e... I'm pretty sure no one on here personally knew either Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, so what's the point in saying f**k YOU STEVE JOBS... Everyone knows that people say stupid s**t... and that people are usually ass h**es by nature... To be as successful as Jobs or Gates, you have to be pretty agressive and step on some toes.... I'm sure Steve Jobs and Bill Gates both have been huge assh**es at some point in their life, but who hasn't?
There is good and bad in almost everyone (except no good in sociopaths or psychopaths). Also, of course people often romanticize the dead. However, I generally like to remember people for the good they did and not the not so good they did, and I like to forget about the personality flaws they have.
I have liked Bill Gates less and less, the more I've seen him stunt innovation and growth through his unethical, anti-competitive monopoly he maintained with bribes to the government for decades.
In the bio about Jobs, there are several stories about lessons Steve learned from adopted father. It's eerily reminiscent of the lessons Dexter learned from his adopted father.
Thank goodness; I thought I was the only one that would get really pissed about that comment! In the biography, Steve Jobs says he gets really pissed when people steal other people's ideas, but he does it twice! The Tablet (OMG) and the Mac! Seriously??
But yes, he had focus and he had great creativity and at least he had his focus on making good products versus finding the loopholes in the system to make money. I still think he's amazing, but I wouldn't say he's my idol. If I wanted to make the best products, then yes, he's my idol, but I also care about fairness and how to make everyone feel like they are/can be part of the team (which he does not care about)
oohhh... this is sooo...ohh.. manipulative. some people made a hero out of Jobs,so now others just can't live without making him an evil ... it's so stupid
the thing is that this article is completely manipulative, because it compares some quotes completely out of context... one is said in the heat of competition,the other basically at the funeral of a person. of course Gates would be insane if he at such a moment say anything different than what he said.
and after all, is not a soap opera with always happy ending: if somebody said something nice, it is not "MUST" to do the same hypocritically .It doesn't forbid to have an opinion,which is not ,positive about what that person does as a professional. there are differences between personal and professional.
and the other thing: this is a book.a story told by someone. with someone's point of view. with somebody editing that. If you want to have a glimpse of realistic watch interviews, watch people talking themselves. I would recommend to watch the interview with Jobs and Gates together. And Steve contrary to the popular opinion shows a lot respect to Gates, and the way the interviewers ask it's pretty visible that most of the time it is the other people that provoke and tries to make a war between them.
And in the end, basically... this discussion is quite pointless - who invented what and who not.
They both are remarkable in their own ways, but they had completely different visions and values but Jobs was more defensive ,and to make what he made he absolutely had to be.
Gates - belongs to different era, different mindset - technology oriented point of view, his results lies there.
Jobs field - human centered technology. He innovated different way, coming from social point of view. His main point of working, dedication was people,human beings that's way he gets such a response from them.
what confuse me is that it was not really a secret that Jobs was kinda a jerk.
it's as if when he dies and his biograph is released, people go hey what was he
not a big hearted freedom fighter, who only charged for apple products so his
coworkers would not go hungry to bed.
A flawed guy, no doubt. But most of the really weird and mean stuff was from his '20s. He toned down the weirder ideas he had.
But here's the story from the biography about how he "stole" the Mac from Jeff Raskin: Raskin was an academic. He never built anything. He wanted the Mac to cost $1000. Jobs wanted to make the best machine possible as cheap as they could make it. One of the first things Raskin's machine would not have been able to do was to have a beautiful screen like the Macintosh. It would have been a little utility computer, underpowered, and probably wouldn't have sold much.
The engineers wanted Jobs, hard as he was to work with. Bill Atkinson, who came up with the bitmapping and regions on the GUI screen, wanted Jobs to run it too.
Was Jobs a real jerk at times? Wow, yes. It's important to know that he lessened the pure sadistic cruelty as he got older. The pressure he put on people was to get them to do the impossible. It worked a lot.
How arrogant. What has mortal man to be proud of, he is only dust and ashes.
Jesus said, "Everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, and he who humbles himself shall be exalted." Luke 14:11
How true is this, for even in spite of technological advancements, those who take pride because of them are abased nonetheless.
I guess Steve Jobs never heard of THE FALL OF MANKIND in the book of Genesis.
Both guys were smart and great at what they do. Bill Gates was more genuine and Steve Jobs a better marketer and sales person. There is a bunch of stuff going around about how much of a dick Jobs was. If anyone on my list is dumb enough to fall for it just realize his strategies worked. You wouldn't have iPhones or Androids if it wasn't because of his insane marketing. Gates was too nice to be so persuasive. I've seen a bunch of things saying how both of them are assh**es and it's frustrating that people can't tell the difference between a marketing genius and an ass.
It's competition and marketing wtf. He meant no honest harm. Bill Gates was more genuine yes. But, Jobs was a very smart person and he had a method to his madness. But honestly it's all apart of sales and promotion. Sometimes you have to bash your competition AND convey your innovation and superiority to make it.
hes talking about how microsoft stole the idea of a GUI (windows). and i dont like him any less because the more i read thought i do think he has some severe psychological problems
bullshotNov 9, 2011
I l use Apple products all the time, and I was very sad to hear of his passing, but even I have to admit that Jobs was a colossal dick throughout most of his career.
The thing is, though... I'm reading his biography at the moment, and he's certainly a very flawed, complex character, but he was also incredibly driven and passionate about his work, and I doubt anyone else could have achieved what he did with his life.
The further I get with the book, the more I see Jobs as kind of a real-life, Silicon Valley equivalent of Dr House: He was a brash, obnoxious, arrogant, manipulative, narcissistic, selfish little brat of a man, but people mostly put up with his personality because like him or loathe him, he got results, and in his case those results changed the world.
Having said that, my already considerable respect for Wozniak has gone through the roof since I started reading Jobs' biography. He was selfless almost to a fault, which is probably why he's the lesser-known Steve of the two...
dandoniaNov 9, 2011
Of course the difference (other than ones a fictional character) is that House saves lives and you can put up with a douche if he's incredibly heroic but a douche who's just incredibly greedy, well that's not endearing in the slightest. Even if he was good at it.
umdweiNov 9, 2011
Forget House. Lots of successful people are like this. One example is Gordon Ramsey. You may not want to work for him if you suck but most do respect him and appreciate his tastes.
As for Jobs, he views himself as a true artist and acts like one. Most of them aren't fun to be around but if you understand the art, you learn to appreciate the man.
theyarNov 8, 2011
The most difficult part to swallow is the "never invented anything." As other commenters have pointed out, Bill actually wrote code and created software. Jobs is the one who, literally, never invented anything. He did, however, create and fill a very significant niche by steering his companys' computer design efforts towards art and beauty and usability in a way that no other tech company could match.
As for Bill being more comfortable in philanthropy than technology... f**k you, Steve Jobs, seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? You and Bill both changed world through technology, it's just a shame that you passed away before evolving to someone who steered all that wealth towards also changing the world through humanitarian efforts.
Anyway, Steve was always a jerk and Bill was always a nice guy, that was known since the beginning.
ErikHaNov 8, 2011
Yin.... Yang....
Closed AccountNov 9, 2011
penis.... vagina....
antialiasNov 8, 2011
Steve was a jerk, but Bill gates was pretty well known for being ruthless in business and cutting partners out of deals.
microfootNov 9, 2011
Same goes for Jobs.
antialiasNov 9, 2011
Well that was my point(that they both did some ruthless things). Running huge companies like this isn't really all that different from being king or emperor or any other sort of position of power. You have a ton of people who want that power and you have to be ruthless to keep control. Basically, nice guys don't usually end up at the top.
EdgestarNov 9, 2011
The last line says it all. It is so very rare that someone really nice finishes at the top. Most of these honchos are all smiles as they crush people along their way to the top. And they don't care who they hurt as long as their sucking up, and trashing people get them ahead. Once on top......then they are such great human beings! Just an observation from many years in the rat race.
tuberbobNov 9, 2011
There is a theory I have heard and discussed with a few wealthy folks I know. They all say essentially the same thing. These guys start out like any other businessperson, relying on their charisma and sales ability to get going, then becoming ruthless along the way. In the end, it's that turn to ruthlessness and guilt for who they have harmed along the way that often leads to philanthropy. Gates and Buffet get the headlines because of the vast quantity of wealth, but apparently, it's not so uncommon for successful businesspeople to turn to philanthropy of some sort.
The cynic in me always cries shenanigans, though. If so many turned to philanthropy, the OWS movement likely would have never come about.
theyarNov 9, 2011
I've followed and patronized MS and Apple since they were both relatively unknown companies. My perception is that MS and Windows software just got so valuable so fast that it caused an overreaction. The lawsuits against them and accusations of theft and unethical business practices seemed like a lot of bullying for the most part. First-hand accounts, including people I've talked to at MS who worked with him, have always been positive of him and his business ethics. Opposite is so of Jobs.
bosskeyNov 8, 2011
Here's the thing. You almost can't get to be as successful and dominating as those two by being a nice guy. To win as big as those two did, you have to play to win.
Joe down the street is a nice guy, but he never did anything to change the world and he's up to his eyeballs in credit card debt.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakNov 9, 2011
I disagree. I think you can be ruthless in business while still being a nice guy. You don't have to be a dick about it. Business is business, and personal life is personal life. You can separate the two.
By all reports Jobs was a ruthless businessman AND a dick. I don't think BillG is a dick - his philanthropic actions certainly show him to be a fundamentally decent human being.
clanksterNov 9, 2011
By all reports Bill was, in fact, a dick - just a socially inept one.
hercules71185Nov 9, 2011
He was narcissistic and deserving. He was brilliant and most people couldn't comprehend his intelligence. He wasn't a dick or he wouldn't be doing what he's doing. He is a genuine guy. I've never met such a modest billionaire. And I have met a few.
elimgarakNov 9, 2011
? Was or is? From what I gather he can be defensive and passionate about the company and business, but in person he seems to be an OK guy.
I mean look at that famous Movie Maker e-mail that he sent internally. He wasn't a dick about it, wasn't assigning blame to anybody, didn't go on a witch hung - he was just complaining and critiquing.
I do know that he used to show up to the 20-25 year parties of MS employees (all employees that have worked at MS for 20+ years get periodic parties) and get completely trashed. The fact that he was willing to go hang out with them, drink, and let his guard down buys him a lot of leeway in my book. There are a bunch of stories about him not being stuck up and just being a regular guy.
Not to mention all his charitable work, of course.
brickbatNov 9, 2011
Sorry, the "He is good to have a beer with" argument died with George W. Bush.
elimgarakNov 9, 2011
@brickbat
Let me sum up:
From what I have heard of him he is a driven individual who can get emotional about his work, but who deeply understands his business. He treats the employees with respect. When outside of work he is a cool guy to hang out with and is not pretensions. And oh yes, he is also working on donating many billions of dollars to various charities, is working in his own charity, and is trying to get other billionaires to donate more.
So it's more than "good to have a beer with".
As for Bush, I the impression I have of him is that he is a narrow minded individual of limited intelligence, but he is not a dick by himself. He simply has really stupid ideas about what the country should be run as, and about what is acceptable. Personally, now that he is out of power, I would have a beer with him but only in passing. I would have a beer with him at an airport or something - the problem is that I wouldn't have anything to talk to with him, since I figure he is into sports and doesn't talk about computer games much.
I would NOT have drinks with Chaney or Jobs. Both of them appeared to be simply nasty individuals that I just don't want to hang out with.
EdgestarNov 9, 2011
Many articles on autism put Bill in the spectrum. He is a very high functioning autistic, but there are many small weird things about his actions, and personality that put up red flags. No one is perfect for sure.....and certainly not myself.....but I do think it is amazing how he has turned towards helping others. A great use of such wealth.
clitniblr036Nov 9, 2011
Exactly.
buddhistmonkeyNov 9, 2011
((( "Jobs is the one who, literally, never invented anything." )))
You're ridiculously ignorant. Steve Jobs had over 300 patents to his name:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/24/technology/steve-jobs-patents.html
And before you start braying about him putting his name on other people’s patents, adding the name of a person who was not a significant contributor would invalidate the patent.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sattireattireNov 9, 2011
i work in the patent industry. you have no idea how it works. generally within a company, a controlling figurehead is written on the patent application and given credit despite not being the inventor. This is to keep the resources within a corporation without risk of losing a high cost and high return invention(inventor) from leaving and taking everything with him.
If you've ever worked in a high tech industry (i worked at a weapons development facility), you will know before employment that you will probably sign a waiver that everything you invent belongs to the company if you used company time and//or resources.
basically, stop stroking and giving yourself a stevejob.
rhit06Nov 9, 2011
unfortunately you are wrong. even if the inventor signs a contract that assigns all future invention rights to the corporation that person must still be named as an inventor on the face of the patent (under US law) or the patent can be invalidated for failure to name the true inventor. however, in europe it is allowed to name an assignee as opposed to the inventor.
Mark7ANov 9, 2011
rhit06 is 100% correct. I am inventor and co-inventor on a number of patents. It is well understood anything developed while you worked there belongs to them. The same was when I worked at a university.
My company pays us (very well) for patents (#1 for the idea, #2 for the filing, and finally #3 for the assigning). Ultimately, my company is the assignee.
sattireattireNov 9, 2011
sounds like your relationship with the company is exceptional. It seems you invent stuff and sell your ideas to the company. The standard setting is not like that. If you are filing yourself, then you are not acting on behalf of the company you work for.
Your relationship is the exception, not the norm.
Mark7ANov 10, 2011
I don't file at all. We just fill out invention disclosures and the get vetted.
As a coincidence, I just got an email today about about 21 disclosures that were just filed. I am essentially getting about $350 for each. When/if the USPTO grants the patent, I will get about $1,000 for each. If I was the sole inventor on these, I would get $11,000 per patent.
Ultimately, I do sign over all rights, but I remain the inventor on file.
sattireattireNov 9, 2011
As placed aptly, Steve Jobs name only appears on 313 patents, he is not necessarily the true inventor. Steve Jobs, however, has 33 under his name as the primary inventor.
It's probably, and rightfully so, an Apple policy that any inventor under the employment of Apple must allow Steve Jobs to be a joint inventor when filing a patent.
I don't think you fully understand what is happening. The true inventor can be anyone, but the filing can always state a different inventor. In companies, this will most like be your CEO or the Research and Technology Officer. Basically, the officers who will least likely leave the company. This is a standard measurement for any companies practicing in technology.
implosionNov 9, 2011
all good up until the snarky comment. lol ugh
EdgestarNov 9, 2011
Sometimes those snarky comments are fun though....hehe
buddhistmonkeyNov 9, 2011
Your anecdotal evidence is meaningless. Steve Jobs made the world a better place, while you and your weapons made it worse. Go stroke yourself while you think of all the lives you've ruined.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sattireattireNov 9, 2011
hmmm I think our US troops would disagree with your comment. But I understand why you would think that, after all, you aren't the one fighting the terrorists.
I bet now you're going to claim that you were in the military and all that. I won't believe you though.
However, my brother is, and I take pride that the weapons we have developed has helped our troops survive.
theyarNov 9, 2011
No, it is well known that he simply added his name to actual engineering invention patents. I don't really have a problem with that given his role, but it doesn't make him an inventor. I do have a problem with all the patents he filed on style elements, like having a magnifying glass in the dock, or swipe to unlock, or whatever. Such things are wholly contrary to the idea of patents, they are fashion and style, not invention, and should never have been allowed as patents.
sattireattireNov 9, 2011
Those are design patents. I think those should be allowed.
theyarNov 9, 2011
No, they are elements of style. They don't represent any capabaility that didn't already exist. Look-and-feel is not invention.
pgpetersonNov 9, 2011
Funny how
If that wasn't enough, Jobs also called Gates "fundamentally odd" and "weirdly flawed as a human being"
That pretty much can be said about any of the geniuses throughout history from Socrates, Da Vinci, and Newton all the way to Einstein.
Ant wtf is a "perfect human being" anyway (given that Gates is "flawed")?
superkendallNov 9, 2011
You have no idea what Steve did in terms of philanthropy, he just wasn't a glory-hog about it. Why does that make him WORSE?
I'd say that bringing more happiness to people's lives than Bill ever did automatically places Steve way ahead.
EdgestarNov 9, 2011
Must be an Apple man.
theyarNov 9, 2011
I know that when he returned to Apple, he cancelled all of the company's charitable efforts. I know that one of that last things he accomplished in his life was that he finally won persmission to demolish a historic home that he'd been using as a garage for 10 years and had let fall into disrepair. Too bad he never got to see the demolition finish and his new house built.
sattireattireNov 9, 2011
Wow. Billy Gates is donating 90% of his fortune when he dies and spending the majority of what he has now on helping others.
Steve Jobs stated that he wanted to destroy Google and it's widely known for his hate on MS. Yet, he claims that he's a Buddhist....
Steve is a genius, but as a human being? cmon man, there's no comparison.
theyarNov 9, 2011
A lot of dickholes claim to be Buddhists. Jobs also said that there are things about him that even his own wife could never understand, because she hasn't done acid like he has. As someone who's done a lot of acid, I say he's full of crap.
dmora_Nov 10, 2011
Rockefeller gave away almost all his money, but after all the damage he made with his anti competitive practices, I think maybe he didn't do enough, in the other side Steve Jobs gave the world all this amazing devices.
There's exist computers before the Apple II and before the original Mac also smartphones and tablets before iPhone and iPad, and CGI animations, but no one can make this things work as it should, just Steve Jobs.
All this things were just casualty? I don't think so.
KittyKaetzchenNov 8, 2011
Steve Jobs was so full of himself he literally thought he could just will away his own cancer. Delusional.
ljseinfeldNov 9, 2011
Just so I can get a level on your cognitive process: Do you believe in a religion, or go to church?
vfredNov 9, 2011
church (christianity) is a religion. No need to make a distinction.
norman619Nov 8, 2011
That's because he was a horrible person.
bulletwitchNov 8, 2011
All you apple zealots need to get some serious help- sent from an iPhone..
KittyKaetzchenNov 9, 2011
Haha.. a lot of good that will do. A phone that can't NOT drop calls?
eschercubeNov 8, 2011
I was using a tablet PC running Windows for Pen Computing in 1992.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_for_Pen_Computing
swift2Nov 9, 2011
You and 12 other people. How was the battery life?
The idea for a tablet ISN'T a flat, small desktop computer running a desktop system. You have to reimagine the medium. Apps, not applications. Sandboxing? Good.
sandman979Nov 9, 2011
Pff...HAHAHAHA.... Dude what do you think "Apps" stands for? BTW for 1992 that tablet was a f**king miracle. Battery life? Give me a break. It was expected. Back then you could barely play a CD player for a bunch of hours with fresh batteries.
razorsfuryNov 8, 2011
"He just shamelessly ripped off other people's ideas"... Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.
cousarNov 8, 2011
No.
cousarNov 8, 2011
Apple paid Xerox for the PARC tech.
rogue100Nov 8, 2011
Apple did play by the rules, from a legal point of view, in using the PARC innovations in creating the Macintosh. So too did Microsoft play by the rules in using the Apple licensed, PARC innovations, in creating Windows. So, from a legal standpoint then, Jobs accusation that Gates "...just shamelessly ripped off other people's ideas" doesn't make sense.
If, however, you're talking about who stole from who, in terms of technical innovation, it would be fair to accuse Gates of ripping off other people's ideas, but then it would also be fair to accuse Jobs of the same.
In other words, as the op said, the pot calling the kettle black.
lucasrayNov 8, 2011
even as an self-styled apple fanboy I agree that they stole great ideas from each other.
and we've all benefitted from it.
PipBoy4000Nov 8, 2011
The truest record Jobs holds is most ideas stolen.
analogassassinNov 7, 2011
Y'know, enough with Steve Gates, or Bill Jobs, or whatever.
gvoakesNov 8, 2011
Agreed my sir
smiley09Nov 8, 2011
Steve Gates isn't a bad name at all. Bill Jobs... that's not as good.
FearTheTachikomaNov 9, 2011
Now if he was named Jobs Bill...
HTTP4O4Nov 9, 2011
Cause of Death: Republican Congressmen
nutmeganNov 8, 2011
What an odd article. Gates actually called Jobs "fundamentally odd" and "weirdly flawed as a human being"—not the other way around like this article says. There are, of course, thousands of links showing this, but here's one anyway: http://www.nationalpost.com/Bill+Gates+thought+Steve+Jobs+weirdly+flawed+fundamentally/5587667/story.html
christophlaNov 8, 2011
I noticed that too... can't imaging why they would flip it.. hardly a mistake.
haxxagonNov 8, 2011
The guy was a great marketer for a company that defined how we listen to music and how we use handhelds today. He wasn't a major contributor. He was at times in charge of people who were. In the eighties his best friend, Steve Wozniac created the apple in a garage. Jobs marketed that as well. He didn't create anything.
swift2Nov 9, 2011
People who make this argument don't understand what they're talking about. Read the biography. Wozniak wrote some great code and did some terrific engineering, acting like a true genius at times. But he didn't do much at Apple after about 1978. He's child-like and a wonderful guy, but if you think Wozniak would have created a computer company, you're just wrong. Jobs was the one with the idea of where computing was going, and he was a mean enough S.O.B. to make it happen.
Was Jobs as good an engineer as Wozniak? No way. But the engineers only do some of what's necessary.
berobreoNov 9, 2011
Really ? I think you are the one who hadn't understand the previous article. In fact what you are arguing doesn't invalidate anything haxxagon said.
haxxagonNov 10, 2011
Jobs wasn't an engineer at all. Not even a little.
schrutefanNov 9, 2011
Steve Jobs was a great man but he wasn't a good man.
meccaydnaNov 9, 2011
http://tinyurl.com/4q39zuz
app3g3qsielvrev65fb8dbd7f6b325Nov 8, 2011
Gates wrote 4K BASIC in a single pass. It was used as the default language on both CBM and Apple hardware for many years and was what made home computing successful. If Bill Gates didn't write 4K basic, the hardware and DOS were both useless to hobbyists and amateur programmers, which is what built the industry. Otherwise we would still only have IBM mainframes. And no CP/M would not have done the same thing.
myztryNov 9, 2011
Bull. Chuck Peddle designed the cost effective 6502 which went into the Apple ][, commodore 64, BBC micro, etc putting computing within reach of the personal computing market which provided true critical mass.
Of these, the BBC micro (1982) stood out because it had a great non-Microsoft basic which went as far as providing inline assembly and domain style network logins. The Tandy Coco (1980) actually had a better processor but was let down by the Microsoft Basic.
There were others on the IBM PC compatible side like the Tandy 4P (1983) which my father had for the business. It included features like error trapping (as did the BBC micro) which Microsoft's basic Basics didn't.
Microsoft did get onto a lot of systems though. They even wrote the (2nd) Amiga (1985) Basic which was likely their worst effort. It was dismal and showed a complete like of understanding of pre-emptive multitasking and pseudo object orientated design.
It would later become clear that Microsoft did learn a few things though when a decade later they came out with a pre-emptive multitasking version of Windows that touted such "innovations" as Amiga style GUI shortcut keys, long filenames, OS integrated hardware gfx acceleration, etc.
aronwyrthNov 8, 2011
"I wish I had Steve's taste. In people and product. It's magical." - Bill Gates, All Things D Conference, 2007.
berobreoNov 9, 2011
Come on, with all his millions he couldn't even stop looking like a turtle
melthornalNov 8, 2011
I'm pretty sure Bill Gates would be the first person to say he isn't artistically creative, which is what Jobs is talking about here. Steve Jobs valued art over pretty much everything else in the world. Bill Gates doesn't.
myztryNov 8, 2011
"Embrace and extend" is another way of saying copy and mass produce
Now known as the China model.
erisNov 8, 2011
No it isn't.
razorsfuryNov 8, 2011
"Steve Jobs valued art over pretty much everything else in the world"
thats what people do when they cant do anything else.
lucasrayNov 8, 2011
you mean like change the way that business and western society work and communicate...
They can't do things like that.
Aesthetic sense is not mutually exclusive from a utilitarian sense.
Good design is useful and beautiful.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cyberdactylNov 8, 2011
The incessant fanboy submissions are getting old as hell.
First it was never-ending when Jobs stepped down. Now since his death it has continued for a straight month.
I suggest the fanboys all meet similar to a OWS crowd, get the Apple logo tattooed on your c**k and baptize each other with the symbol.
kodrutzNov 8, 2011
There's nothing to like, he's dead now. Evil or divine, his legacy is not something to disregard - I absolutely hate most Apple products, but I have to admit that.
neekorissNov 9, 2011
aren't they forgetting the Newton?? 1987??
swift2Nov 9, 2011
Not under Jobs. He was running next at the time.
mredofcourseNov 8, 2011
The quote is somewhat taken out of context. Of course Gates "invented" he literally wrote lines of code, something Jobs never did, but then Gates became CEO and leader of what became the largest market cap company in the world at the time.
I have to respect that as an incredible achievement. Also, I really respect Gates for stepping down and dedicating his time and money to charity and improving the world.
Jobs on the other hand, while not a coder or an engineer (at least never any good at either), was an artist, visionary, and leader. He had tons of flaws, but was able to lead teams the introduced products that changed the industry and our lives, also resulting in what became the largest market cap company in the world.
I have to respect that as an incredible achievement.
Now take a look at the two pictures. Gates is holding a tablet that was built by other companies using hacked versions of Windows. Nobody bought them and they failed to get any traction until Apple introduced the iPad almost a decade later.
Apple could've produced a tablet that few people wanted in 2001, heck they did it years earlier with the Newton and it was one of the first things Jobs killed when he returned to Apple, along with starting a long development process which lead to the iPhone/iPad.
That is the essence of the quote in a greater context.
Jobs imagined what a successful tablet should be and lead a team to produce it (read the article about the Courier guy who wouldn't shut up) . Jobs did this with a number of things, not always with him having the idea first, but ultimately guiding what the finished product should be. Kudos for that.
I'm having a hard time coming up with any similar example for Gates. However, I could come up with countless examples where Gates saw a product/service opportunity, and lead a team to build a better or more successful product/service. Kudos for that.
xrobocobNov 9, 2011
Steve Jobs wanted to change the world, "put a dent in the universe." And he did.
razorsfuryNov 9, 2011
no he didn't.
tymmzNov 9, 2011
a bit OT but since there is a lot of talk about tablets and iOS...
i think a lot of people here are too young to remember what so called mobile operating systems looked like before 2007.
without the iPhone things would look very different and worse today.
or what do others think?
multipas5Nov 9, 2011
fk steve jorbs
rkstarNov 8, 2011
Didn't the Apple Newton come out in 1993? Neither Steve or Bill claims to have invented the tablet computer. I'm not sure what those pictures have to do with anything.
dmora_Nov 10, 2011
Do you hear about Moses?
tehcommunistNov 9, 2011
People often attribute to much to the ideology behind Steve Jobs. People need to understand that he was not a god, and that humans are fallible. Steve Jobs made mistakes and Gates made mistakes too.
gnrubleNov 9, 2011
I'm not trying to be a douche bag and start any "internet fights," but I think it's a little bit ridiculous how people argue over whether or not a celebrity was an assh**e... I'm pretty sure no one on here personally knew either Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, so what's the point in saying f**k YOU STEVE JOBS... Everyone knows that people say stupid s**t... and that people are usually ass h**es by nature... To be as successful as Jobs or Gates, you have to be pretty agressive and step on some toes.... I'm sure Steve Jobs and Bill Gates both have been huge assh**es at some point in their life, but who hasn't?
armandomNov 9, 2011
Because the dick moves they make directly affect our lives.
jabsfreelanceNov 8, 2011
There is good and bad in almost everyone (except no good in sociopaths or psychopaths). Also, of course people often romanticize the dead. However, I generally like to remember people for the good they did and not the not so good they did, and I like to forget about the personality flaws they have.
cowicideNov 8, 2011
I have liked Bill Gates less and less, the more I've seen him stunt innovation and growth through his unethical, anti-competitive monopoly he maintained with bribes to the government for decades.
Let's face it, both Bill and Steve are/were megalomaniacs and not the greatest people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
omargootnessNov 8, 2011
In the bio about Jobs, there are several stories about lessons Steve learned from adopted father. It's eerily reminiscent of the lessons Dexter learned from his adopted father.
norman619Nov 8, 2011
But Jobs wasn't as cool and wasn't taking out the trash like Dexter does. So no.
greendaytonaNov 21, 2011
Thank goodness; I thought I was the only one that would get really pissed about that comment! In the biography, Steve Jobs says he gets really pissed when people steal other people's ideas, but he does it twice! The Tablet (OMG) and the Mac! Seriously??
But yes, he had focus and he had great creativity and at least he had his focus on making good products versus finding the loopholes in the system to make money. I still think he's amazing, but I wouldn't say he's my idol. If I wanted to make the best products, then yes, he's my idol, but I also care about fairness and how to make everyone feel like they are/can be part of the team (which he does not care about)
wrambroNov 20, 2011
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Apple_Newton-IMG_0454.jpg
eglejaiNov 11, 2011
oohhh... this is sooo...ohh.. manipulative. some people made a hero out of Jobs,so now others just can't live without making him an evil ... it's so stupid
the thing is that this article is completely manipulative, because it compares some quotes completely out of context... one is said in the heat of competition,the other basically at the funeral of a person. of course Gates would be insane if he at such a moment say anything different than what he said.
and after all, is not a soap opera with always happy ending: if somebody said something nice, it is not "MUST" to do the same hypocritically .It doesn't forbid to have an opinion,which is not ,positive about what that person does as a professional. there are differences between personal and professional.
and the other thing: this is a book.a story told by someone. with someone's point of view. with somebody editing that. If you want to have a glimpse of realistic watch interviews, watch people talking themselves. I would recommend to watch the interview with Jobs and Gates together. And Steve contrary to the popular opinion shows a lot respect to Gates, and the way the interviewers ask it's pretty visible that most of the time it is the other people that provoke and tries to make a war between them.
And in the end, basically... this discussion is quite pointless - who invented what and who not.
They both are remarkable in their own ways, but they had completely different visions and values but Jobs was more defensive ,and to make what he made he absolutely had to be.
Gates - belongs to different era, different mindset - technology oriented point of view, his results lies there.
Jobs field - human centered technology. He innovated different way, coming from social point of view. His main point of working, dedication was people,human beings that's way he gets such a response from them.
travelhouseukNov 9, 2011
Both are Awesome in there domains
travelhouseukNov 9, 2011
both are genius. Jobs is a great marketer how know what people need and Bill is a great inventor
risemediaNov 9, 2011
Jobs is simply not a nice guy. Smart but not nice. Accept it people.
rudegarNov 9, 2011
what confuse me is that it was not really a secret that Jobs was kinda a jerk.
it's as if when he dies and his biograph is released, people go hey what was he
not a big hearted freedom fighter, who only charged for apple products so his
coworkers would not go hungry to bed.
swift2Nov 9, 2011
A flawed guy, no doubt. But most of the really weird and mean stuff was from his '20s. He toned down the weirder ideas he had.
But here's the story from the biography about how he "stole" the Mac from Jeff Raskin: Raskin was an academic. He never built anything. He wanted the Mac to cost $1000. Jobs wanted to make the best machine possible as cheap as they could make it. One of the first things Raskin's machine would not have been able to do was to have a beautiful screen like the Macintosh. It would have been a little utility computer, underpowered, and probably wouldn't have sold much.
The engineers wanted Jobs, hard as he was to work with. Bill Atkinson, who came up with the bitmapping and regions on the GUI screen, wanted Jobs to run it too.
Was Jobs a real jerk at times? Wow, yes. It's important to know that he lessened the pure sadistic cruelty as he got older. The pressure he put on people was to get them to do the impossible. It worked a lot.
vedard_alarmsNov 9, 2011
The words are too strict. Everyone has his own profession. But it is not good to have own merit to compare to other's shortage.
lxcidNov 9, 2011
http://youtu.be/3LEXae1j6EY?t=17m0s
At 17 minutes. Watch for at least 2-3 minutes.
He talk about something like iPad/iPhone at 1997.
Lets play the game who said it first, shall we?
ophelloNov 9, 2011
How is that tablet anywhere close to the convenience, simplicity, interoperability, market penetration, style, cost, and capability of the iPad?
Doing something first doesn't mean doing it the best.
VoteForJesusNov 9, 2011
How arrogant. What has mortal man to be proud of, he is only dust and ashes.
Jesus said, "Everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, and he who humbles himself shall be exalted." Luke 14:11
How true is this, for even in spite of technological advancements, those who take pride because of them are abased nonetheless.
I guess Steve Jobs never heard of THE FALL OF MANKIND in the book of Genesis.
hercules71185Nov 9, 2011
Both guys were smart and great at what they do. Bill Gates was more genuine and Steve Jobs a better marketer and sales person. There is a bunch of stuff going around about how much of a dick Jobs was. If anyone on my list is dumb enough to fall for it just realize his strategies worked. You wouldn't have iPhones or Androids if it wasn't because of his insane marketing. Gates was too nice to be so persuasive. I've seen a bunch of things saying how both of them are assh**es and it's frustrating that people can't tell the difference between a marketing genius and an ass.
hercules71185Nov 9, 2011
It's competition and marketing wtf. He meant no honest harm. Bill Gates was more genuine yes. But, Jobs was a very smart person and he had a method to his madness. But honestly it's all apart of sales and promotion. Sometimes you have to bash your competition AND convey your innovation and superiority to make it.
tomgfromcanadaNov 9, 2011
thats how it is
robmil29Nov 9, 2011
I don't understand why this is such a shocker.
edwardr3073Nov 9, 2011
hes talking about how microsoft stole the idea of a GUI (windows). and i dont like him any less because the more i read thought i do think he has some severe psychological problems