or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Former Apple CEO John Sculley says he never fired co-founder Steve Jobs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Former Apple CEO John Sculley says he never fired co-founder Steve Jobs - Page 2

post #41 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

California is an at-will employment state. Sculley couldn't fire Steve outright

Why not?
At-will employment does not mean you can't get fired. It means either side can terminate employment, even if there is no reason.
post #42 of 123
First, I will ask a question. Did Steve and Sculley ever talk since 1985? I don't believe so. I think that says a lot.

I wasn't in the room to know what went down in May 1985.

I do know that Steve was stripped of any power with the Macintosh or Apple, so for a normal human being, when that happens, they leave. That, my friends, is as close to being fired as you can get. Who said it was semantics, I agree. Reminds me of Obi Wan Kenobi's line that he mentions more than once in the Star Wars movies "depends on your particular point of view". Was what happened to Steve demoralizing, yes! For God Sakes, any decent human being - yes, he was, he had his moments, we all know this - would be seriously depressed and Steve was.

Then they wouldn't even let him run AppleLabs. And they wanted him around as a figure head. I will say the board had balls. I don't recall who, if anyone, sided with Steve. I loved the resignation in the paper and thanking Chiat/Day in the paper when Sculley dumped them for BBDO. Classic Steve. Loved it. I would say Steve has always been WYSIWYG. He was one of a kind.

Was it "Revenge Of The Nerds" that Steve said that Sculley tried to destroy Apple, starting with him? Melodramatic? Perhaps. He was hurt. Had reason to be hurt. While what was going down at Apple and with Steve was on a course to get this result, Sculley was orchestrating. My God he was with freakin Pepsi, he knew the political maneuvers. So Sculley, I'm sure, had his hand in this more than he wants to admit, Steve did too. But don't tell me "I didn't fire Steve", he did everything but say "you're fired'. But what about "you're out" doesn't imply being fired, though?

What is interesting and I didn't fully digest all the posts to see, it doesn't end there. Remember the lawsuit that Apple had with NeXT?!!
post #43 of 123
It's weasel behavior to rehab your image like this after the primary person you're speaking about is no longer around to rebut. It is also large corporate politics in spades.

Portfolio Magazine (and Business Insider) rank CEOs according to their effectiveness at their jobs and the value they brought to (or took away from) their companies.

Mr. Sculley is currently ranked as the sixth worst American CEO in history, three ahead of luminary Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide. Steve Jobs is ranked as the best CEO of the last 20 years.

Article link, Worst CEOs: http://j.mp/wHPXo3
Article link, Best CEOs of last 20 years: http://j.mp/yJ2bor
post #44 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbarchetta View Post

Uhh, what? Being an "at will" state means the opposite. Sculley (or the company) could fire Steve, just as Steve would be free to quit at any time. Hence "at will."

Technically that's true, but there are many, many lawsuits out here for "wrongful termination", even though it's an "at-will" state, which indicates "at-will" isn't as cut and dried as many would like to believe.
post #45 of 123
Of course he's going to say this after Steve dies so it can't be refuted.
post #46 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaurav_1711 View Post

Even Apple's most fierce competitor (copycat) SAMSUNG, delayed their product launch for sometime after Steve passed in show of some respect.......is it because Koreans Businessmen have some ethics and American Capitalists don't?

That's possible. It's also a given that they would not have competed w/all the news about Jobs death. Their spotlight was stolen.
post #47 of 123
Just because I'm reading this section in Isaccson's book now, I have to chime in.

I'm relying on Isaccson's journalistic integrity and he quite clearly states that Scully said he wanted Jobs out. Steve was given an office on the outskirts of the campus and he was stripped of all power and responsibilities. He was made into a "chairman" with no power. That came about because of the collusion of the board and Sculley. As everyone else here stated previously, he's splitting hairs when he says "I didn't fire him."

Second, Steve was out of control and probably deserved to be ousted. The Macintosh wasn't profitable, Steve was all over the place and fighting with everyone. While he had the concept for the iPhone and the iPad in his head ("Macintosh in a book"), technology wasn't ready for him. There was no way of knowing what was to come. I understand where the board was coming from. At the time, the cost was too great.

But as noted in the Stanford speech, Steve ultimately turned his humiliation into success and this of us "fanbois" and shareholders are better off for it.
post #48 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psych_guy View Post

Just because I'm reading this section in Isaccson's book now, I have to chime in.

I'm relying on Isaccson's journalistic integrity and he quite clearly states that Scully said he wanted Jobs out. Steve was given an office on the outskirts of the campus and he was stripped of all power and responsibilities. He was made into a "chairman" with no power. That came about because of the collusion of the board and Sculley. As everyone else here stated previously, he's splitting hairs when he says "I didn't fire him."

Second, Steve was out of control and probably deserved to be ousted. The Macintosh wasn't profitable, Steve was all over the place and fighting with everyone. While he had the concept for the iPhone and the iPad in his head ("Macintosh in a book"), technology wasn't ready for him. There was no way of knowing what was to come. I understand where the board was coming from. At the time, the cost was too great.

But as noted in the Stanford speech, Steve ultimately turned his humiliation into success and this of us "fanbois" and shareholders are better off for it.

Not arguing with your general evaluation....

But:

"That came about because of the collusion of the board and Sculley. "

How does a CEO collude with the BOD -- isn't that their jobs?
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #49 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

I just now realized that by buying an Apple ][c I helped Sculley fire (sort-of) Jobs. I had been saving for and dreaming of owning an Apple for so long, I didn't even consider a Mac. Besides Macs had that silly "mouse" and hid the power of the computer behind a constraining "graphical user interface".

I had the same limited view of a fast moving technological field at 16 as that talented sugar water salesman...

Dint be so hard on yourself. Remember that Steve later said getting fired helped him was one of the best things that ever happened to him.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #50 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

We're not firing you, we're just moving your office to the fifth stall of the men's bathroom...

That never stopped George Costanza from working at the company...
post #51 of 123
I remember this pretty well from back then. First of all, understand that it was Jobs himself who hired Scully, not the board, though they approved, of course.

But Jobs was hard to work with, and people under him didn't like him very much. This was from people I knew, from Apple. He also made a number of mistakes. The Apple III was the first major one. This was their first machine specifically designed for business. It was rushed out, and had many problems. That was laid at Jobs's door. It was his project to a great extent.

Then the failure of the Lisa was thought his mistake. The later failure of the Mac to take off was also his doing. Many of us were surprised at what it looked like, and it
s closed nature. I knew a lot of business people who were intrigued, but lost interest when they saw the small monitor screen, and the closed hardware. This was also his decision.

So it wasn't just one thing that caused his problems, it was a number of them. Let's face it, he had never run large teams before. That's tough for anyone new. And this was a hard, fast moving industry. Once IBM got involved, it became almost impossible, and almost all other thriving computer makers from that time went out of business.

So being removed of the power he did have was frustrating for him, at the time. It was likely the proper thing to do. Jobs was not the same man he was when he returned to Apple. We can't predict the future. No one knew how things would turn out when he came back. In fact, many of us were frustrated those first few years after he did.

People might have noticed that the first new product was harkening back to the first closed Mac, with the iMac. This is what we thought: Jobs is back, and we get the same ol'. He even made the PowerMacs smaller, with fewer slots, which was frustrating.

You've got to know that professionals were much happier with Apple AFTER he left, and the first open Mac came out. Would that have happened with him there? Probably not. That saved the Mac, and Apple along with it. So not everything was bad.

Scully did make some bad decisions. One was in raising the price of Macs after he turned down MS's offer to license the OS. The other was to release the Newton before it was completely ready. So he left. But developing the ARM chip was done on his watch as well, a pretty forward looking thing.

But the real damage was done by Michael Spindler, who was brought in as CEO after Scully. He was, I believe, the head financial guy for Apple in Europe. Shortly after he took over, he was asked in an interview that after Jobs, who was a visionary, and Scully who was, whether Apple needed a visionary to run it. His reply was that it didn't.

He was right, he wasn't a visionary, and ran Apple right into the ground! The one decision that almost destroyed Apple, was made on his watch. Does anyone here remember it? I mentioned it several times over the years.
post #52 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I remember this pretty well from back then. First of all, understand that it was Jobs himself who hired Scully, not the board, though they approved, of course.

But Jobs was hard to work with, and people under him didn't like him very much. This was from people I knew, from Apple. He also made a number of mistakes. The Apple III was the first major one. This was their first machine specifically designed for business. It was rushed out, and had many problems. That was laid at Jobs's door. It was his project to a great extent.

Then the failure of the Lisa was thought his mistake. The later failure of the Mac to take off was also his doing. Many of us were surprised at what it looked like, and it
s closed nature. I knew a lot of business people who were intrigued, but lost interest when they saw the small monitor screen, and the closed hardware. This was also his decision.

So it wasn't just one thing that caused his problems, it was a number of them. Let's face it, he had never run large teams before. That's tough for anyone new. And this was a hard, fast moving industry. Once IBM got involved, it became almost impossible, and almost all other thriving computer makers from that time went out of business.

So being removed of the power he did have was frustrating for him, at the time. It was likely the proper thing to do. Jobs was not the same man he was when he returned to Apple. We can't predict the future. No one knew how things would turn out when he came back. In fact, many of us were frustrated those first few years after he did.

People might have noticed that the first new product was harkening back to the first closed Mac, with the iMac. This is what we thought: Jobs is back, and we get the same ol'. He even made the PowerMacs smaller, with fewer slots, which was frustrating.

You've got to know that professionals were much happier with Apple AFTER he left, and the first open Mac came out. Would that have happened with him there? Probably not. That saved the Mac, and Apple along with it. So not everything was bad.

Scully did make some bad decisions. One was in raising the price of Macs after he turned down MS's offer to license the OS. The other was to release the Newton before it was completely ready. So he left. But developing the ARM chip was done on his watch as well, a pretty forward looking thing.

But the real damage was done by Michael Spindler, who was brought in as CEO after Scully. He was, I believe, the head financial guy for Apple in Europe. Shortly after he took over, he was asked in an interview that after Jobs, who was a visionary, and Scully who was, whether Apple needed a visionary to run it. His reply was that it didn't.

He was right, he wasn't a visionary, and ran Apple right into the ground! The one decision that almost destroyed Apple, was made on his watch. Does anyone here remember it? I mentioned it several times over the years.

Ahhh....

Das Diesel... Brings back lots of bad memories...
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #53 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmadave View Post

Jobs wasn't technically fired, but he was effectively fired when the Apple board relived him of any operating responsibility. I worked at Apple, from 1987-1992, and Scully was actually quite popular. In fact, compared to Michael Spindler, Scully was a god

He comes across as being intelligent and thoughtful, which is exactly what you'd expect from someone Steve Jobs recruited. The fact that they clashed over the direction the company should take does not make one of them wrong or evil, but we know that in such situations, someone is going to prevail and the other is going to be out.

In the end, it could hardly have worked out better.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #54 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

He comes across as being intelligent and thoughtful, which is exactly what you'd expect from someone Steve Jobs recruited. The fact that they clashed over the direction the company should take does not make one of them wrong or evil, but we know that in such situations, someone is going to prevail and the other is going to be out.

In the end, it could hardly have worked out better.

Yeah...

That's karma!

Steve jobs accomplishments, IMO:

-- returning to Apple
-- leaving Apple
-- founding Apple

Apple == Steve Job == Apple ---> Repeat
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #55 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodlink View Post

Umm, if anything Jobs made some of the above convenient, and profitable. But don't try and convince me he cured a disease, or died in a war.

If that is what you understood or got out of NomadMac's comments, I don't think that anyone is bright enough to convince you of anything.
post #56 of 123
never mind
post #57 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

He comes across as being intelligent and thoughtful, which is exactly what you'd expect from someone Steve Jobs recruited. The fact that they clashed over the direction the company should take does not make one of them wrong or evil, but we know that in such situations, someone is going to prevail and the other is going to be out.

In the end, it could hardly have worked out better.

He was intelligent and thoughtful, but he still almost killed Apple. During his tenure (and after, until Jobs returned), Apple had a number of serious problems:

- during the early part of Sculley's tenure, they released very few machines in the Mac line: Jobs left in October of 1985, so let's not blame Sculley for 1986. But in 1987, Apple released only an updated version of the Apple IIe and three Macs: a II, II/40MBHD and an SE. In 1988, they released a very slightly enhanced version of the IIc, called the IIc+, which was the very last model in the Apple II line and three new variations on the Mac: a Mac II 40MB with 4MB of memory, an SE with a hard disk and the IIx. In 1989, four more insubstantial variations: SE30, IIcx, IIci and another SE variant. Etc.

- One of the supposed big bone of contentions between Sculley and Jobs was that Jobs wanted to de-emphasize the Apple II line in favor of the Mac. But even under Sculley, the Apple II line only lasted another year.

- In 1993, Sculley's last year, Apple released an incredibly confusing lineup of 26 desktop Macs across five product lines (Mac, LC, Centris, Quadra, Performa) and 6 laptops. This was a huge marketing mistake as the product line was so confusing, even informed consumers had no idea what to buy and what the differences were. It was also Apple's "grey box" era where most of the computers comprised of clunky looking odd shapes.

- Sculley initiated the development of a next-gen operating system, but could never get the team to pull it off, although Sculley's replacements (Spindler, et al) were no better and it wasn't until Apple purchased NeXT that they were able to accomplish OS X. But during this period, Apple kept changing their approach to the next OS, which severely alienated developers and program producers and turned them away from the Mac.

-The Newton was developed under Sculley's tenure. And we all know what a great device that was.

- By the time Steve returned in July of 1997, Apple's finances were in such distress that the company was close to going under. Sculley can't take all the blame because he left four years earlier, but he certainly was part of the problem.

So while most historians of the era praise Jobs for recognizing that he needed an outside, experienced executive to run Apple, they criticized him (in retrospect) for hiring the wrong person and making the hiring decision based upon personality.

As for Sculley, Condé Nast Portfolio ranked Sculley as the 14th worst American CEO of all time. I've met executives like Sculley and they do very well when companies pretty much run themselves and have strong executive teams who actually manage the company, so they can simply act as the figurehead. They don't do well when they have to take an active role and/or when companies have severe strategic problems.
post #58 of 123
You omit one or two crucial items: First, that Apple was more profitable during the Scully years than it had ever been before, and into the early '90s was more profitable than it would be for many more years after Jobs returned. The Mac's market share peaked near 12% in this timeframe. Twenty years later the Mac share is almost back to where it was with Scully wrecking the company.

Another convenient omission is that Apple was a financial and administrative train wreck when Jobs recruited Scully. The company had no budget and was divided into competing duchies. Jobs could not create order from the chaos, in fact he was one of the creators of the chaos. Jobs recognized at least that Apple needed "adult supervision" if it was going to survive. He recruited Scully because of his management reputation.

It's too simple to bash Scully for all of Apple's problems during the '90s. A lot of them stemmed from a clueless board of directors. In retrospect the board blew it back in '85 when they could not find a way to mediate between Scully and Jobs and keep both of them in their best roles. Faced with the choice between management and vision they chose management. That gave the company many good years of profitability, at the expense of technological vision. We know the rest.

The Newton was a great device. A lot of us saw that then, and more should understand it now.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #59 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodlink View Post

The debate over whether or not Sculley fired Jobs or not is stupid.

So are people who waste their time posting forums that they think are a waste of time.
post #60 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

So are people who waste their time posting forums that they think are a waste of time.

And it's less stupid than arguing about what the next iPhone will be named. (I have no idea what you're talking about¡)

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #61 of 123
I work in the corporate world and what he says is half true, people get "moved around" all the time.

What he does not mention is that some moves are disguised firings, even though the person is not actually terminated. This is common practice in upper management. The message comes precisely in the form Sculley sent it: the executive is removed from their role, perhaps given some token role with a big name. It's done this way because the overt firing of major executives is an embarrassment to the organization and it looks bad on their CV. Companies (in other words, other executives) give those fired this way the valuable ability to say that they left on their own.

Most executives thus marginalized will leave quietly within a few months, ideally to a job elsewhere. This may have been what Sculley expected, but Jobs was no corporate soldier. He was self-made and full of ideas. He understood he had no future at Apple, and not being one to waste time he left and went to form NeXT.

Sculley is a liar because he understands corporate language perfectly and knows full well what he did to Jobs. Now that this is a liability to him, he uses a technicality to try weasel away from it.

His revenue and market share stats are of little meaning, since the company had huge momentum and no credible competition in the GUI OS space till Windows 3.0 showed up in 1990. It was then that the lack of innovation and vision under Sculley was gradually exposed, and the 90's proceeded to be a big bag of hurt for Apple till Jobs returned.
post #62 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez View Post

His revenue and market share stats are of little meaning, since the company had huge momentum and no credible competition in the GUI OS space till Windows 3.0 showed up in 1990. It was then that the lack of innovation and vision under Sculley was gradually exposed, and the 90's proceeded to be a big bag of hurt for Apple till Jobs returned.

Not so. After a moderately good start in 1984, Mac sales took a tumble the following year. The company in fact had no momentum, more like negative momentum. The Apple II was an end-of-life product, the Apple III and Lisa flopped, and the Mac didn't look like it could sustain the company. The disagreement between Jobs and Sculley was over what to do about this. The competition from IBM-PC clones was more than credible. A PC running MS-DOS was considered to be the "standard" long before Windows arrived in any usable form. Apple was hard up against this concept from the very start.

The problems of the '90s can perhaps be laid at Sculley's door in part, but let's not try to reinvent history here. If Sculley had not been hired to run Apple in 1985, the company would have likely ceased to exist before many more years went by, rendering all this talk about how the '90s were so bad for Apple moot. Without Sculley, Apple probably doesn't even have the '90s.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #63 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

If that is what you understood or got out of NomadMac's comments, I don't think that anyone is bright enough to convince you of anything.

Good one, and Woodlink could be forgiven for not getting it, even in spite of NomadMac's heroic reply.

Many people now using computers, having grown up with them, can only see things from the point of view of the environment they are immersed in. Like fish who don't know the first thing about water, people born into the computer age don't necessarily see the break with the past that the computer, especially the Jobsian computer, represents.

The computer's arrival should be compared to the appearance of the printed book, though history will judge the Internet-connected computer to be many times more powerful than the printed book. Still, it was the portable book invented by printers like Aldus that freed thinkers like Copernicus, or clerics like Luther, or philosophers like Erasmus, to create the Enlightenment and the Reformation.

What Jobs did was insist on humanizing the connected computer, making it portable, and most important, making it desirable, then recognize a brother designer in Jony Ive, who could pull it off as an engineered product, and who had been toiling away in the basement for managers with no vision, as it were.

As a shift in human culture, having an enjoyable connected computer in your pocket is a 500-year event. But we've been living under the spell of print so long that some have lost the art of seeing big pictures through pattern recognition, which was one of the main features of Job's genius. He was an art guy, not a print guy, in his vision.

So Woodlink is quite a contradiction. A guy using pattern-recognizing tools -- computers connected around the world -- while trapped in his print-derived left hemisphere. But it's very common among computer users, maybe because of the lingering keyboard focus of our relations with these machines at this point, maybe because of the binary logic that drives the digital process attracts Aspergerish hemisphere lockup.

It will change for the small-picture people when they start following Jobs's course of study, if they have to: turn on, tune in, drop out, and come back stronger and more visionary than ever. Wooodlink, see you at the next Woodstock . . .
post #64 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

The computer's arrival should be compared to the appearance of the printed book, though history will judge the Internet-connected computer to be many times more powerful than the printed book.

You've argued yourself right out of your own premise with this statement, by thinking so much from within your own frame of reference. The printing press was one of the most important factors leading to the end of the Dark Ages and the sparking of the Renaissance, very probably the single most important leap in the history of human culture. The internet-connected computer has a long way to go before it can be shown to have equal importance.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #65 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

You've argued yourself right out of your own premise with this statement, by thinking so much from within your own frame of reference. The printing press was one of the most important factors leading to the end of the Dark Ages and the sparking of the Renaissance, very probably the single most important leap in the history of human culture. The internet-connected computer has a long way to go before it can be shown to have equal importance.

Shockingly bounded vision exhibited here by yourself, Dr. M., though I agree about the Renaissance.

Simple logic should let you see that each connected computer is not only a printing press but a library that encompasses, or will encompass, all the world's printed materials. Then add sound and picture and moving picture. Then add instant search and indexing. Do I need to go on?

The computer is to the printed book as the printed book is to the hand-lettered papyrus scroll. To think otherwise is perhaps to betray a sentimental over-attachment to a venerable ancestral technology?

We can use another Renaissance, since we're still saddled with the main Creation myths that belonged to the Dark Ages. I think Steve Jobs had a new Enlightenment in mind when he talked about changing the world.

Ps. I'm not one to short sell the effects of the Gutenberg revolution. The book and other forms of print created individualism, authorship, readership, democracy 2.0, along with the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, and the scientific revolution. But we ain't seen nothing yet. The next revolution, based on having essentially all the world's knowledge past and present in your pocket, could be called the Jobsian revolution in times to come. That's why I think comparisons with Walt Disney, Edison or Ford are too slight and cheap toward what Jobs accomplished.
post #66 of 123
I am referring to the relative importance to humankind. Nothing you've said makes even a remotely convincing argument that internet connected computers have had or will have the same impact on human culture as the printing press -- which made nothing less than science itself possible. That should stir your thinking some I hope. In fact the ironic flaw in your argument is that it's precisely the one you criticized in others. Neither of our frames of reference includes the 15th century, but I can assure you that if it wasn't for fundamental advances that occurred then we would not be talking about this now.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #67 of 123
To me it is screamingly obvious that a machine that "contains" a billion or so dynamically searchable pieces or volumes of information and/or knowledge, in the hands of hundreds of millions at all times of the day is going to be a quantum leap in both our intellect and sensorium as a species.

Maybe we should try to imagine what is beyond science, which I agree was a very big deal among many other big deals produced by print.

How about global cultural ecumenicalism? World virtual exploration? World social nirvana? The revival of the archaic nature "religions" (they weren't really religions; Robert Graves called them "festal systems")? The end of the Indo-European system of dominance by conquest? The demotion of the Indo-European "Abrahamic" god? The thirteen-moon calendar?

I leave it to your imagination how we build on the galaxy of changes wrought by Gutenberg. I take it you've read the work of the sage of Toronto, Marshall McLuhan. He has a lot to say about the creation of the global village created by electronic media.

I just would like to see the Jobsian contribution framed in a serious way. It's being missed by a wide margin. Almost dismissed, and it's basic media theory
post #68 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

To me it is screamingly obvious that a machine that "contains" a billion or so dynamically searchable pieces or volumes of information and/or knowledge, in the hands of hundreds of millions at all times of the day is going to be a quantum leap in both our intellect and sensorium as a species.

Maybe we should try to imagine what is beyond science, which I agree was a very big deal among many other big deals produced by print.

How about global cultural ecumenicalism? World virtual exploration? World social nirvana? The revival of the archaic nature "religions" (they weren't really religions; Robert Graves called them "festal systems")? The end of the Indo-European system of dominance by conquest? The demotion of the Indo-European "Abrahamic" god? The thirteen-moon calendar?

I leave it to your imagination how we build on the galaxy of changes wrought by Gutenberg. I take it you've read the work of the sage of Toronto, Marshall McLuhan. He has a lot to say about the creation of the global village created by electronic media.

I just would like to see the Jobsian contribution framed in a serious way. It's being missed by a wide margin. Almost dismissed, and it's basic media theory

we are in the midst of writing revisionist history about Jobs and his contributions to society (what those are deemed to be sans a market cap > Exxon). So, as I posted earlier, the jury is still out on what societal impact is worthy of discussion.

It is a fascinating debate....history in the making.

   I am long on my shares of AAPL at $37.00

Reply

   I am long on my shares of AAPL at $37.00

Reply
post #69 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodlink View Post

we are in the midst of writing revisionist history about Jobs and his contributions to society (what those are deemed to be sans a market cap > Exxon). So, as I posted earlier, the jury is still out on what societal impact is worthy of discussion.

It is a fascinating debate....history in the making.

And the jury will remain out for centuries, quite probably. Assessing the importance of historical events after the fact is difficult enough. Predicting them beforehand is essentially pure guesswork.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #70 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodlink View Post

we are in the midst of writing revisionist history about Jobs and his contributions to society (what those are deemed to be sans a market cap > Exxon). So, as I posted earlier, the jury is still out on what societal impact is worthy of discussion.

It is a fascinating debate....history in the making.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

And the jury will remain out for centuries, quite probably. Assessing the importance of historical events after the fact is difficult enough. Predicting them beforehand is essentially pure guesswork.

There is no beforehand. There is nothing to be unsure about. Steve Jobs heavily impacted personal computing and consumer electronics. The impact is known, it's been known. If you can't see that Steve Jobs has contributed to society with everything he's done then obviously there is nothing I can say that will mind in a paragraph.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #71 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

There is no beforehand. There is nothing to be unsure about. Steve Jobs heavily impacted personal computing and consumer electronics. The impact is known, it's been known. If you can't see that Steve Jobs has contributed to society with everything he's done then obviously there is nothing I can say that will mind in a paragraph.

No need. Just go back and read what I wrote, to the argument to which I was responding. It was not the one you refer to here.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #72 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

No need. Just go back and read what I wrote, to the argument to which I was responding. It was not the one you refer to here.

I'm not following. I see you made comments about whether the computer age was more important than the printing press, but Woodlink's comments are about Steve Jobs contributions not having any known or measurable level of social contributions.

I can't agree or disagree about the level of important significance something has affected the world but the printing press v computer can easily be argued if you take either side. Taking a position opposite of yours the computer got us to the moon, put giant machines in orbit, and all sorts of other things that connected us to the rest of the world. It's taken what the printing press could do and then made it easier and faster than it ever could been. The point is that it allowed for the automation of the written word (and ideas), which is why you choose this over writing in general, but the computer and internet allow for all this, too, just better and easier.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #73 of 123
Sculley is your average born in advantage, cruised the high places of corporate world, made some money whilst not doing much more than any other idiot would have done in his place... He should at least be thankful that his name will go down in history as the villain of a great success story such as apple.... Now let's all move along.
post #74 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm not following. I see you made comments about whether the computer age was more important than the printing press, but Woodlink's comments are about Steve Jobs contributions not having any known or measurable level of social contributions.

I can't agree or disagree about the level of important significance something has affected the world but the printing press v computer can easily be argued if you take either side. Taking a position opposite of yours the computer got us to the moon, put giant machines in orbit, and all sorts of other things that connected us to the rest of the world. It's taken what the printing press could do and then made it easier and faster than it ever could been. The point is that it allowed for the automation of the written word (and ideas), which is why you choose this over writing in general, but the computer and internet allow for all this, too, just better and easier.

I questioned whether networked computers can be called as important historically as the invention of the printing press. The significance of Steve Jobs was added by Woodlink. I can't be expected to defend that part of the argument since I didn't make it.

Again, I was addressing specifically the networked computers vs. the printing press argument. Even if the argument was broadened to computers in general, I'd say it is still too soon in the evolution of digital computing to evaluate its relative historical importance to the development of human culture. Nobody with any sense would argue that they haven't been important, but what I'm saying is it's a far leap to compare it to the printing press at this very early stage.

Keep in mind, the printed word has been around for more than 500 years, and is still very much with us, and we can readily examine human culture before and after, and measure the impact the changes the printed word had on culture. In short, the printed word made just about everything we now take for granted possible, not just easier and better. It will be long past any of our lives before people know if computing will have that sort of impact.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #75 of 123
I'm currently reading Isaacson's book, and am at the chapter where Steve founds NeXT.

Two things I've taken away from the book so far:

- Steve was a world class A-hole
- All these Execs tended to cry a lot
post #76 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I questioned whether networked computers can be called as important historically as the invention of the printing press. The significance of Steve Jobs was added by Woodlink. I can't be expected to defend that part of the argument since I didn't make it.

Again, I was addressing specifically the networked computers vs. the printing press argument. Even if the argument was broadened to computers in general, I'd say it is still too soon in the evolution of digital computing to evaluate its relative historical importance to the development of human culture. Nobody with any sense would argue that they haven't been important, but what I'm saying is it's a far leap to compare it to the printing press at this very early stage.

Keep in mind, the printed word has been around for more than 500 years, and is still very much with us, and we can readily examine human culture before and after, and measure the impact the changes the printed word had on culture. In short, the printed word made just about everything we now take for granted possible, not just easier and better. It will be long past any of our lives before people know if computing will have that sort of impact.

I would say digital age over networked computers. That is what sparked everything. It's what led to the transistor and microchip that allowed for these machines to be in our homes and connected to each other.

I wonder how many computers I interact per day. I mean, how many do my computing devices interact with when I do basic tasks like using my phone, doing a google search, reading a Wikipedia page (which includes all that have attributed to the page), and even participating on this forum.

What you ask is hard because the printing press allowed for printed materials about the digital age, so do you count the foundational invention as higher or the newer one if it led to a lot more rapid changes in many more ways?

Admittedly I know very little about the printing press. I don't know if it causes a huge change in metal alloys being created for the press. If it sparked new paper and ink creation, etc. Yet with the digital age I know of many other areas of technology that were directly affected by it in ways that have changed this world forever. We can sequence DNA!

If you want specifically go with networked computers over the digital age because we're going with printing press over writing then I present to artificial satellites. We have giant clocks in space (GPS) that can tell us where we are in long., lat., and height above sea level in seconds. We have others with cameras and sensors that read the earth to detect changes. The idea that we can get images from a camera high above Earth and send them to your TV is impressive and has changed the world.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #77 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I would say digital age over networked computers. That is what sparked everything. It's what led to the transistor and microchip that allowed for these machines to be in our homes and connected to each other.

I wonder how many computers I interact per day. I mean, how many do my computing devices interact with when I do basic tasks like using my phone, doing a google search, reading a Wikipedia page (which includes all that have attributed to the page), and even participating on this forum.

What you ask is hard because the printing press allowed for printed materials about the digital age, so do you count the foundational invention as higher or the newer one if it led to a lot more rapid changes in many more ways?

Admittedly I know very little about the printing press. I don't know if it causes a huge change in metal alloys being created for the press. If it sparked new paper and ink creation, etc. Yet with the digital age I know of many other areas of technology that were directly affected by it in ways that have changed this world forever. We can sequence DNA!

If you want specifically go with networked computers over the digital age because we're going with printing press over writing then I present to artificial satellites. We have giant clocks in space (GPS) that can tell us where we are in long., lat., and height above sea level in seconds. We have others with cameras and sensors that read the earth to detect changes. The idea that we can get images from a camera high above Earth and send them to your TV is impressive and has changed the world.

The printing press essentially made learning possible. It's difficult to imagine any single event in human history more significant than that. Science, as we know it, started with the ability to share knowledge. Even the invention of the wheel arguably isn't as singular in importance, because the wheel didn't make it possible to move things around, only easier. The printed word was far more enabling, and revolutionary in its impact.

You can argue this many ways, and I'm not saying any one way is right and the others are wrong. But I will say again that historical change is difficult enough to measure looking back over events that have already occurred. It is bloody near impossible to predict the future, and so much of the impact of the technology we're creating today is unknown and yet to be evaluated. It's interesting to ponder, though!
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #78 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

I questioned whether networked computers can be called as important historically as the invention of the printing press. The significance of Steve Jobs was added by Woodlink. I can't be expected to defend that part of the argument since I didn't make it.

Again, I was addressing specifically the networked computers vs. the printing press argument. Even if the argument was broadened to computers in general, I'd say it is still too soon in the evolution of digital computing to evaluate its relative historical importance to the development of human culture. Nobody with any sense would argue that they haven't been important, but what I'm saying is it's a far leap to compare it to the printing press at this very early stage.

.

I believe that networked computers have had exactly the same impact as the printing press. The printing press made books available to a much wider audience. It took 3 to 4 centuries before books became available to everyone.

Now it is more than books, Networked computers make video, audio, the performing arts, scientific papers etc. etc. that is available to everyone. It is available instantly, is searchable, and at a cost that is an order of magnitude less than printed material. It has taken only a couple of decades to accomplish this.

Jobs' greatest contribution to all of this was his vision of everyone having a computer. It was his vision of a computer for everyone that started the PC revolution. Without the PC networked computers would probably just belong to Universities and the Military.
post #79 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

The printing press essentially made learning possible. It's difficult to imagine any single event in human history more significant than that. Science, as we know it, started with the ability to share knowledge. Even the invention of the wheel arguably isn't as singular in importance, because the wheel didn't make it possible to move things around, only easier. The printed word was far more enabling, and revolutionary in its impact.

You can argue this many ways, and I'm not saying any one way is right and the others are wrong. But I will say again that historical change is difficult enough to measure looking back over events that have already occurred. It is bloody near impossible to predict the future, and so much of the impact of the technology we're creating today is unknown and yet to be evaluated. It's interesting to ponder, though!

1) Printing existed before the printing press.

2) The wheel is essential to every printing press I've seen. Gears are wheels.

3) You can learn from computers. Inarguably you can learn more from computers than from the printed word due to the many ways in which information can be presented, including being able to interact and get direct feedback, like in this conversation I'm having with someone I've chatted with for years on this site yet no very little about. I don't even know what country you live in.


I honestly don't see how any one can be compared to the other in any real sense as they all build each other.

edit: Yet another way to look at it would be from it's future utility. While I don't think it will go away the printing press is certainly obsolecing due to networked computers which are still increasing. We have bathroom scales that are networked! Until we can talk to each other with our minds I think networked computers will continue, while the printing press seems to be less used each year.

Now take wheel. Certainly used less as digital technology moves to less moving parts, but still used, at least for the cooling fan of this powered technology. We also haw more and more automobiles which are a plethora of wheels, not just on the ones on the ground. Yet I can see how even the wheel in automobiles could become less used as we move to engines with less moving parts, something we have the digital age to thank for.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #80 of 123
Who cares what Sculley has to say? He's just polishing his own apple!

" I didn't really fire jobs."? Sculley got this line spin from the Wizard of Oz "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!". He's promoting his work on revisionist history to those naive enough to believe it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Former Apple CEO John Sculley says he never fired co-founder Steve Jobs