Sure. Pick up anything that discusses the history of computers for the past 40 years.
If you really think that building a computer today is exactly the same as building a computer circa 1980, you have a LOT of learning to do.
I wouldn't say exactly, but it's pretty much the same basic principles, only smaller and more standardized. Every computer still uses circuits, chips, and slots, just like the Apple II did, and those components are still very similar to those from that era, only more advanced. It's sort of like they were using carbureted pushrod engines in the systems of that era and direct fuel injected DOHC engines now. The internal combustion engine still primarily functions the same, only it's using a higher tech and has become much more efficient. However, it still uses pistons, valves, crankshaft...
Good lord. NOTHING is the same now. He had to solder CPUs to home-built circuit boards. Programming was done in machine code. There were no tools to use.
Today, building a computer is very much a plug and play situation. There is a standard design which you work from. Programming involves very high level object oriented programming - which wasn't even dreamed of in the 1970's..
you really have no idea at all what you're talking about. Seriously.
The object oriented language SmallTalk was developed in the early 70s. It was developed at Xerox PARC by Alan Kay and others as part of a larger effort to build personal computers with bitmapped displays, mice, menus, windows, scroll bars, etc. They used smalltalk to build machines that looked like this
Apple saw what they were doing and turned it into Macintosh (and hired Alan Kay - specifically Steve Jobs hired him). The goal was to use smalltalk to build computers that looked like this sketch Alan Kay made in 1968:
Computes simple enough for children to use, small enough to carry around. Other than the fixed keyboard, look anything like an iPad? Again there is no coincidence. Even the weight meets the specs Alan Kay had in 68.
When they built the mac, they only did half of the job. They got the UI part, but missed the smalltalk part. When Steve Jobs formed Next, they fixed that by using Objective-C. Objective C was designed to extend C with the power of SmallTalk. NeXT using Objective-C instead of C++ is probably the main reason why Apple is where it is today.
Want to know how you did something like close a window in smalltalk? The code looks like this
[window close]
want to know how you close a window in cocoa on the state of the art, objected oriented MacOS? The code looks like this
[window close]
it's looks and works exactly the same by design. The last 35 years of the computer industry has been pretty much catching up to 1976. We're still not quite there because smalltalk was designed so that machines were user programmable. At any time you could look at the code behind an object and modify it. That aspect was optimized away with Objective-C. Alan Kay's goal wasn't simply to make them easy enough for young children to use, but rather simple enough for even young children to program.
Again, the only thing that has really changed in 35 years is speed and scale (and the lost of easily accessible programability).
And Dick Applebaum knows everything I just wrote (and what Alan Kay is up to these days), he asked you for links to see if you'd discover it yourself. I about fell out of my chair reading his last his post. Your followup shows it went right over your head. And you quite clearly aren't qualified to criticize Woz.
footnote: Steve Jobs invited Alan Kay to the unveiling of the iPhone. Afterwards
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Kay
Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you?ll rule the world.?
1 - Build an object oriented app in XCode, going through countless iterations to test and debug it until you get it running correctly?
2 - write a Basic interpreter in 6502 assembly language on paper, hand assembling it to machine code, hand keying it it in an instruction at a time, and having it run perfectly on the first try. That's what Woz did.
Object oriented programming isn't harder than assembly language, it's easier. That's the whole point. Woz used assembly language because of the constraints of the machine. Apple I basic had to fit in 4096 bytes. The only way to do that is assembly language.
1 - Build an object oriented app in XCode, going through countless iterations to test and debug it until you get it running correctly?
2 - write a Basic interpreter in 6502 assembly language on paper, hand assembling it to machine code, hand keying it it in an instruction at a time, and having it run perfectly on the first try. That's what Woz did.
Object oriented programming isn't harder than assembly language, it's easier. That's the whole point. Woz used assembly language because of the constraints of the machine. Apple I basic had to fit in 4096 bytes. The only way to do that is assembly language.
Woz also wrote the mini-assembler in the Apple in machine language.
The "PC" with CPU, keyboard and monitor has just been a 35-year diversion. Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle should have copyrighted the term "personal computer" that everybody had in The Mote in God's Eye. This concept seemed so outrageous in 1974, but they were recognizably iPads. Wireless access to all the information available in the world, everybody slapped their computer down on the conference table, it wirelessly synced with all the background information for the meeting?sure, they scribbled notes on them with styli, but no prophecy is perfect.
I wouldn't say exactly, but it's pretty much the same basic principles, only smaller and more standardized. Every computer still uses circuits, chips, and slots, just like the Apple II did, and those components are still very similar to those from that era, only more advanced. It's sort of like they were using carbureted pushrod engines in the systems of that era and direct fuel injected DOHC engines now. The internal combustion engine still primarily functions the same, only it's using a higher tech and has become much more efficient. However, it still uses pistons, valves, crankshaft...
So if Henry Ford came back to life today, we should put him in charge of designing cars for Mercedes or BMW?
Who said he was going to be put in charge of anything?
Why would he be a designer?
I bet he would have some integration ideas.
So would you hire Henry Ford as a designer for a modern car? Not if you have any sense.
And computers have changed more since Woz than cars have changed since Ford
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHOBIZ
The read from you is if they are older than you they are washed up.
Give it some time and then you can hear this garbage said about you.
Bull. I never said or implied any such thing. An older person who stays on top of his field and continues to be involved is a great asset. The fact that I wouldn't hire someone whose knowledge is 30 years out of date doesn't imply anything like what you're saying. So please stop making stupid, unsupported statements.
So would you hire Henry Ford as a designer for a modern car? Not if you have any sense.
And computers have changed more since Woz than cars have changed since Ford
In the post you haven't responded to I quite clearly demonstrated that all computers have really done is catch up to the 70s. All that has replay changed is speed and scale.
If Einstein were alive today, you'd make him the janitor.
The fact that I wouldn't hire someone whose knowledge is 30 years out of date doesn't imply anything like what you're saying. So please stop making stupid, unsupported statements.
He has been out of the business for a long time. It is tough to keep up to date even when you are in the business. Woz doesn't give us the impression that he is particularly motivated or driven to succeed in the industry and he is only a couple years away from typical retirement age. To make him a milk monitor at Apple would just be offensive, but to have him start up a new project which would take longer to develop than the arrival of his retirement date, doesn't make sense either. The best case scenario for Woz is status quo.
... Woz is an inventor. Jobs had the business acumen to recognize that if he properly packaged and marketed his best friends inventions would make them both (including those around him) rich beyond their wildest dreams. ....
I think you're making a good characterisation of Woz here, but coupling it with a really bad one of Steve Jobs.
To characterise Woz as the "inventor" and Steve Jobs as the "marketer" is to do injustice to both, but mostly to Steve Jobs. You make it sound like Jobs' just in it for the money and has no talents beyond pulling the wool over peoples eyes.
Steve Jobs is a designer. He is the head designer at Apple and that speaks volumes right there. He's the guy designing the products, by guiding and controlling the people like Woz who work as a team, but basically under his supervision. Woz would not have succeeded without Steve Jobs.
Woz was one of the smartest chip guys around at the time, but he wasn't the only one. For that matter, the famous "Home Brew" club was far from the only similar venue either in the US or elsewhere. There were similar "clubs" in England for instance, full of all the geniuses that made the Osbourne, the Acorn and many other computers that were just as fantastic as the early Apple's. The reason these computers didn't make it in the real world had nothing to do with the talents of the people involved, but again were more down to design, marketing and business concerns. Sophie Wilson comes to mind as someone who was around at the time, with similar talents, who could have been "swapped in" for Woz (if she lived in the same country and if Steve was aware of her.) I'm sure there were many others.
Apple's early success came almost entirely from the drive, the design talents (and yes the marketing acumen), of Steve Jobs. Take away Woz and you have some problems, but the Mac would still have happened. Take away Steve Jobs and the whole enterprise would have fallen apart.
Woz is a great guy and definitely someone you'd want on your team back in the day, but he didn't "design the Mac" or anything close to it as I'm sure he would tell you himself. he was a large part of the early successes, but there were lots of other people involved too.
I think you're making a good characterisation of Woz here, but coupling it with a really bad one of Steve Jobs.
To characterise Woz as the "inventor" and Steve Jobs as the "marketer" is to do injustice to both, but mostly to Steve Jobs. You make it sound like Jobs' just in it for the money and has no talents beyond pulling the wool over peoples eyes.
Steve Jobs is a designer. He is the head designer at Apple and that speaks volumes right there. He's the guy designing the products, by guiding and controlling the people like Woz who work as a team, but basically under his supervision. Woz would not have succeeded without Steve Jobs.
I believe that much of what you say, above, is true! Though, to me "marketing" has a positive connotation: creating and communicating or exposing of the need or desire for a beneficial product or service.
Let me see if I can give you a simple example of the difference in the two Steves' approach to something:
Consider any Apple device that holds 2 side-by-side replaceable batteries -- like the wireless mice or battery chargers. Have you ever noticed that:
1) In an Apple device, you put both batteries in with pos ends pointing in the same direction -- That has "Jobs" written all over it -- Design Form dominates.
To connect the batteries in series, inside the case, you must run a wire from the pos (top) of one battery to the neg (bottom) of the other -- the wire must be as long as the batteries plus the distance between the batteries -- approximately 2 1/4 inches.
2) The way most companies design their devices -- one battery points up, the other down. The wire to connect the batteries in series runs side-to-side and is 1/2 inch long -- That has "Woz" written all over it -- Design Efficiency dominates.
I disagree with the following part of your post if only for the reason that I believe without Woz, Jobs would have had no entré onto HomwBrew (or the like) and no means to attract engineering talent to guide. Apple was a serendipity!
Quote:
Woz was one of the smartest chip guys around at the time, but he wasn't the only one. For that matter, the famous "Home Brew" club was far from the only similar venue either in the US or elsewhere. There were similar "clubs" in England for instance, full of all the geniuses that made the Osbourne, the Acorn and many other computers that were just as fantastic as the early Apple's. The reason these computers didn't make it in the real world had nothing to do with the talents of the people involved, but again were more down to design, marketing and business concerns. Sophie Wilson comes to mind as someone who was around at the time, with similar talents, who could have been "swapped in" for Woz (if she lived in the same country and if Steve was aware of her.) I'm sure there were many others.
Apple's early success came almost entirely from the drive, the design talents (and yes the marketing acumen), of Steve Jobs. Take away Woz and you have some problems, but the Mac would still have happened. Take away Steve Jobs and the whole enterprise would have fallen apart.
Woz is a great guy and definitely someone you'd want on your team back in the day, but he didn't "design the Mac" or anything close to it as I'm sure he would tell you himself. he was a large part of the early successes, but there were lots of other people involved too.
He has been out of the business for a long time. It is tough to keep up to date even when you are in the business. Woz doesn't give us the impression that he is particularly motivated or driven to succeed in the industry and he is only a couple years away from typical retirement age. To make him a milk monitor at Apple would just be offensive, but to have him start up a new project which would take longer to develop than the arrival of his retirement date, doesn't make sense either. The best case scenario for Woz is status quo.
I believe that Woz is a year, and change, older than Jobs and, likely, in better health.
could not have put that better myself. seriously, wtf is wrong with you people?
i loved my apple //c and i have woz to thank for that. whoever believes that WOZ couldn't make a valuable contribution to the company HE helped build, has a negative IQ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman
What is with the nasty comments about Woz?
1) There would have been no iDevice, mac or anything else without Woz
2) The guy was in plane crash and got injured
3) As for Segway and a few non starters... ah hem, Jobs doesn't always get it right
Show some freakin respect for your tech elders.
Regardless of what meaningful role he was "asked to fill" it would be a soulful move for Apple. I could see him heading up a skunkworks type thing, exploring new frontiers of tech (would need a tight budget cap). Or more practically championing Apple's opened source projects into the broader OpenSource community. Or heading up an Apple philanthropy program with an engineering education focus.
Who would you prefer picked him up, the Google spam machine?
could not have put that better myself. seriously, wtf is wrong with you people?
i loved my apple //c and i have woz to thank for that. whoever believes that WOZ couldn't make a valuable contribution to the company HE helped build, has a negative IQ.
So anyone who disagrees with you has a negative IQ? What do you call a person who doesn't even comprehend that it's impossible for an IQ number to be negative?
What you're suggesting is the equivalent of hiring Henry Ford to assist Mercedes or Ferrari with engine design today. The fact that he was once an innovator doesn't mean that he's able to contribute anything a few dozen generations later.
So anyone who disagrees with you has a negative IQ? What do you call a person who doesn't even comprehend that it's impossible for an IQ number to be negative?
What you're suggesting is the equivalent of hiring Henry Ford to assist Mercedes or Ferrari with engine design today. The fact that he was once an innovator doesn't mean that he's able to contribute anything a few dozen generations later.
you still haven't responded to my post on objected oriented programming where I clearly showed not all that much has really changed since the 70s.
Who is the INSANE MORON behind this idea? The Wuz? I'm sorry but you pathetic idiots don't seem to have noticed that while Jobs went off and started Next and Pixar when given the axe by Apple..... what did "The Wuz" do????
NOTHING IDIOTS!
Suggesting "bringing him back" is insane! The Wuz would replace Jobs about as well as Obama would replace Ronald Reagan. Want to know a sure fire way to shit can Apple into the annals of history (kill the company)... put The Wuz in charge of it.
Gee.... I wonder what would happen if I took this loaded gun and put it against my temple and pulled this funny little thing called a trigger... I think.
You're a freaking MORON if you think this is a good idea. Also... isn't he still drawing a paycheck from Apple... so in essence... he's already still there.... DOING NOTHING!!!!
Comments
Sure. Pick up anything that discusses the history of computers for the past 40 years.
If you really think that building a computer today is exactly the same as building a computer circa 1980, you have a LOT of learning to do.
I wouldn't say exactly, but it's pretty much the same basic principles, only smaller and more standardized. Every computer still uses circuits, chips, and slots, just like the Apple II did, and those components are still very similar to those from that era, only more advanced. It's sort of like they were using carbureted pushrod engines in the systems of that era and direct fuel injected DOHC engines now. The internal combustion engine still primarily functions the same, only it's using a higher tech and has become much more efficient. However, it still uses pistons, valves, crankshaft...
Good lord. NOTHING is the same now. He had to solder CPUs to home-built circuit boards. Programming was done in machine code. There were no tools to use.
Today, building a computer is very much a plug and play situation. There is a standard design which you work from. Programming involves very high level object oriented programming - which wasn't even dreamed of in the 1970's..
you really have no idea at all what you're talking about. Seriously.
The object oriented language SmallTalk was developed in the early 70s. It was developed at Xerox PARC by Alan Kay and others as part of a larger effort to build personal computers with bitmapped displays, mice, menus, windows, scroll bars, etc. They used smalltalk to build machines that looked like this
Apple saw what they were doing and turned it into Macintosh (and hired Alan Kay - specifically Steve Jobs hired him). The goal was to use smalltalk to build computers that looked like this sketch Alan Kay made in 1968:
Computes simple enough for children to use, small enough to carry around. Other than the fixed keyboard, look anything like an iPad? Again there is no coincidence. Even the weight meets the specs Alan Kay had in 68.
When they built the mac, they only did half of the job. They got the UI part, but missed the smalltalk part. When Steve Jobs formed Next, they fixed that by using Objective-C. Objective C was designed to extend C with the power of SmallTalk. NeXT using Objective-C instead of C++ is probably the main reason why Apple is where it is today.
Want to know how you did something like close a window in smalltalk? The code looks like this
[window close]
want to know how you close a window in cocoa on the state of the art, objected oriented MacOS? The code looks like this
[window close]
it's looks and works exactly the same by design. The last 35 years of the computer industry has been pretty much catching up to 1976. We're still not quite there because smalltalk was designed so that machines were user programmable. At any time you could look at the code behind an object and modify it. That aspect was optimized away with Objective-C. Alan Kay's goal wasn't simply to make them easy enough for young children to use, but rather simple enough for even young children to program.
Again, the only thing that has really changed in 35 years is speed and scale (and the lost of easily accessible programability).
And Dick Applebaum knows everything I just wrote (and what Alan Kay is up to these days), he asked you for links to see if you'd discover it yourself. I about fell out of my chair reading his last his post. Your followup shows it went right over your head. And you quite clearly aren't qualified to criticize Woz.
footnote: Steve Jobs invited Alan Kay to the unveiling of the iPhone. Afterwards
Steve came up to me and said: Is the iPhone worth criticizing? And I said: Make the screen five inches by eight inches, and you?ll rule the world.?
What do you think is the harder skill?
1 - Build an object oriented app in XCode, going through countless iterations to test and debug it until you get it running correctly?
2 - write a Basic interpreter in 6502 assembly language on paper, hand assembling it to machine code, hand keying it it in an instruction at a time, and having it run perfectly on the first try. That's what Woz did.
Object oriented programming isn't harder than assembly language, it's easier. That's the whole point. Woz used assembly language because of the constraints of the machine. Apple I basic had to fit in 4096 bytes. The only way to do that is assembly language.
one more thing.
What do you think is the harder skill?
1 - Build an object oriented app in XCode, going through countless iterations to test and debug it until you get it running correctly?
2 - write a Basic interpreter in 6502 assembly language on paper, hand assembling it to machine code, hand keying it it in an instruction at a time, and having it run perfectly on the first try. That's what Woz did.
Object oriented programming isn't harder than assembly language, it's easier. That's the whole point. Woz used assembly language because of the constraints of the machine. Apple I basic had to fit in 4096 bytes. The only way to do that is assembly language.
Woz also wrote the mini-assembler in the Apple in machine language.
Thanks for posting that.
His resume is pretty lackluster...
I'd be curious to see your resume....
Let's see.... The Woz: invented apple computers.
Seems like a pretty impressive resume to me!
I wouldn't say exactly, but it's pretty much the same basic principles, only smaller and more standardized. Every computer still uses circuits, chips, and slots, just like the Apple II did, and those components are still very similar to those from that era, only more advanced. It's sort of like they were using carbureted pushrod engines in the systems of that era and direct fuel injected DOHC engines now. The internal combustion engine still primarily functions the same, only it's using a higher tech and has become much more efficient. However, it still uses pistons, valves, crankshaft...
So if Henry Ford came back to life today, we should put him in charge of designing cars for Mercedes or BMW?
So if Henry Ford came back to life today, we should put him in charge of designing cars for Mercedes or BMW?
Who said he was going to be put in charge of anything?
Why would he be a designer?
I bet he would have some integration ideas.
The read from you is if they are older than you they are washed up.
Give it some time and then you can hear this garbage said about you.
Who said he was going to be put in charge of anything?
Why would he be a designer?
I bet he would have some integration ideas.
So would you hire Henry Ford as a designer for a modern car? Not if you have any sense.
And computers have changed more since Woz than cars have changed since Ford
The read from you is if they are older than you they are washed up.
Give it some time and then you can hear this garbage said about you.
Bull. I never said or implied any such thing. An older person who stays on top of his field and continues to be involved is a great asset. The fact that I wouldn't hire someone whose knowledge is 30 years out of date doesn't imply anything like what you're saying. So please stop making stupid, unsupported statements.
So would you hire Henry Ford as a designer for a modern car? Not if you have any sense.
And computers have changed more since Woz than cars have changed since Ford
In the post you haven't responded to I quite clearly demonstrated that all computers have really done is catch up to the 70s. All that has replay changed is speed and scale.
If Einstein were alive today, you'd make him the janitor.
The fact that I wouldn't hire someone whose knowledge is 30 years out of date doesn't imply anything like what you're saying. So please stop making stupid, unsupported statements.
He has been out of the business for a long time. It is tough to keep up to date even when you are in the business. Woz doesn't give us the impression that he is particularly motivated or driven to succeed in the industry and he is only a couple years away from typical retirement age. To make him a milk monitor at Apple would just be offensive, but to have him start up a new project which would take longer to develop than the arrival of his retirement date, doesn't make sense either. The best case scenario for Woz is status quo.
And computers have changed more since Woz than cars have changed since Ford.
So Woz is permanently stuck in 8-bit land?
... Woz is an inventor. Jobs had the business acumen to recognize that if he properly packaged and marketed his best friends inventions would make them both (including those around him) rich beyond their wildest dreams. ....
I think you're making a good characterisation of Woz here, but coupling it with a really bad one of Steve Jobs.
To characterise Woz as the "inventor" and Steve Jobs as the "marketer" is to do injustice to both, but mostly to Steve Jobs. You make it sound like Jobs' just in it for the money and has no talents beyond pulling the wool over peoples eyes.
Steve Jobs is a designer. He is the head designer at Apple and that speaks volumes right there. He's the guy designing the products, by guiding and controlling the people like Woz who work as a team, but basically under his supervision. Woz would not have succeeded without Steve Jobs.
Woz was one of the smartest chip guys around at the time, but he wasn't the only one. For that matter, the famous "Home Brew" club was far from the only similar venue either in the US or elsewhere. There were similar "clubs" in England for instance, full of all the geniuses that made the Osbourne, the Acorn and many other computers that were just as fantastic as the early Apple's. The reason these computers didn't make it in the real world had nothing to do with the talents of the people involved, but again were more down to design, marketing and business concerns. Sophie Wilson comes to mind as someone who was around at the time, with similar talents, who could have been "swapped in" for Woz (if she lived in the same country and if Steve was aware of her.) I'm sure there were many others.
Apple's early success came almost entirely from the drive, the design talents (and yes the marketing acumen), of Steve Jobs. Take away Woz and you have some problems, but the Mac would still have happened. Take away Steve Jobs and the whole enterprise would have fallen apart.
Woz is a great guy and definitely someone you'd want on your team back in the day, but he didn't "design the Mac" or anything close to it as I'm sure he would tell you himself. he was a large part of the early successes, but there were lots of other people involved too.
I think you're making a good characterisation of Woz here, but coupling it with a really bad one of Steve Jobs.
To characterise Woz as the "inventor" and Steve Jobs as the "marketer" is to do injustice to both, but mostly to Steve Jobs. You make it sound like Jobs' just in it for the money and has no talents beyond pulling the wool over peoples eyes.
Steve Jobs is a designer. He is the head designer at Apple and that speaks volumes right there. He's the guy designing the products, by guiding and controlling the people like Woz who work as a team, but basically under his supervision. Woz would not have succeeded without Steve Jobs.
I believe that much of what you say, above, is true! Though, to me "marketing" has a positive connotation: creating and communicating or exposing of the need or desire for a beneficial product or service.
Let me see if I can give you a simple example of the difference in the two Steves' approach to something:
Consider any Apple device that holds 2 side-by-side replaceable batteries -- like the wireless mice or battery chargers. Have you ever noticed that:
1) In an Apple device, you put both batteries in with pos ends pointing in the same direction -- That has "Jobs" written all over it -- Design Form dominates.
To connect the batteries in series, inside the case, you must run a wire from the pos (top) of one battery to the neg (bottom) of the other -- the wire must be as long as the batteries plus the distance between the batteries -- approximately 2 1/4 inches.
2) The way most companies design their devices -- one battery points up, the other down. The wire to connect the batteries in series runs side-to-side and is 1/2 inch long -- That has "Woz" written all over it -- Design Efficiency dominates.
I disagree with the following part of your post if only for the reason that I believe without Woz, Jobs would have had no entré onto HomwBrew (or the like) and no means to attract engineering talent to guide. Apple was a serendipity!
Woz was one of the smartest chip guys around at the time, but he wasn't the only one. For that matter, the famous "Home Brew" club was far from the only similar venue either in the US or elsewhere. There were similar "clubs" in England for instance, full of all the geniuses that made the Osbourne, the Acorn and many other computers that were just as fantastic as the early Apple's. The reason these computers didn't make it in the real world had nothing to do with the talents of the people involved, but again were more down to design, marketing and business concerns. Sophie Wilson comes to mind as someone who was around at the time, with similar talents, who could have been "swapped in" for Woz (if she lived in the same country and if Steve was aware of her.) I'm sure there were many others.
Apple's early success came almost entirely from the drive, the design talents (and yes the marketing acumen), of Steve Jobs. Take away Woz and you have some problems, but the Mac would still have happened. Take away Steve Jobs and the whole enterprise would have fallen apart.
Woz is a great guy and definitely someone you'd want on your team back in the day, but he didn't "design the Mac" or anything close to it as I'm sure he would tell you himself. he was a large part of the early successes, but there were lots of other people involved too.
He has been out of the business for a long time. It is tough to keep up to date even when you are in the business. Woz doesn't give us the impression that he is particularly motivated or driven to succeed in the industry and he is only a couple years away from typical retirement age. To make him a milk monitor at Apple would just be offensive, but to have him start up a new project which would take longer to develop than the arrival of his retirement date, doesn't make sense either. The best case scenario for Woz is status quo.
I believe that Woz is a year, and change, older than Jobs and, likely, in better health.
Edit: I looked it up:
Woz age 60 -- born Aug 11, 1950
Jobs age 56 -- born Feb 24, 1955
i loved my apple //c and i have woz to thank for that. whoever believes that WOZ couldn't make a valuable contribution to the company HE helped build, has a negative IQ.
What is with the nasty comments about Woz?
1) There would have been no iDevice, mac or anything else without Woz
2) The guy was in plane crash and got injured
3) As for Segway and a few non starters... ah hem, Jobs doesn't always get it right
Show some freakin respect for your tech elders.
Regardless of what meaningful role he was "asked to fill" it would be a soulful move for Apple. I could see him heading up a skunkworks type thing, exploring new frontiers of tech (would need a tight budget cap). Or more practically championing Apple's opened source projects into the broader OpenSource community. Or heading up an Apple philanthropy program with an engineering education focus.
Who would you prefer picked him up, the Google spam machine?
could not have put that better myself. seriously, wtf is wrong with you people?
i loved my apple //c and i have woz to thank for that. whoever believes that WOZ couldn't make a valuable contribution to the company HE helped build, has a negative IQ.
So anyone who disagrees with you has a negative IQ? What do you call a person who doesn't even comprehend that it's impossible for an IQ number to be negative?
What you're suggesting is the equivalent of hiring Henry Ford to assist Mercedes or Ferrari with engine design today. The fact that he was once an innovator doesn't mean that he's able to contribute anything a few dozen generations later.
So anyone who disagrees with you has a negative IQ? What do you call a person who doesn't even comprehend that it's impossible for an IQ number to be negative?
What you're suggesting is the equivalent of hiring Henry Ford to assist Mercedes or Ferrari with engine design today. The fact that he was once an innovator doesn't mean that he's able to contribute anything a few dozen generations later.
you still haven't responded to my post on objected oriented programming where I clearly showed not all that much has really changed since the 70s.
NOTHING IDIOTS!
Suggesting "bringing him back" is insane! The Wuz would replace Jobs about as well as Obama would replace Ronald Reagan. Want to know a sure fire way to shit can Apple into the annals of history (kill the company)... put The Wuz in charge of it.
Gee.... I wonder what would happen if I took this loaded gun and put it against my temple and pulled this funny little thing called a trigger... I think.
You're a freaking MORON if you think this is a good idea. Also... isn't he still drawing a paycheck from Apple... so in essence... he's already still there.... DOING NOTHING!!!!