I didn't agree with all of the marketing and wish Mac pros and creative would be a bit stronger but I still can't believe it. I can't. Hes the only one that did the keynotes TGE best.
You ARE MISSED STEVE!!!
As is my Dad ABD Wifes Dad.
Bummer.
So sad. Life stinks, rather death does but apparently we go somewhere better.
Some industry watchers suggested Apple should appoint an independent chairman from outside the company to take charge.
Ha ha ha. Sure, let's get an "industry leader" from outside the company to take charge. Er, let's see... HP, Google, Dell, Microsoft, Nokia, Moto, Samsung, Sony, RIM. What's that? They are all getting their asses handed to them by Apple?
I agree with Gore. I strongly believe that Steve was not about getting his successors to narrow their agendas to what someone thought he would do (which, btw, led me to also question the whole meme about Apple U and its supposed acculturation mandate/crusade post-Steve). ...
Apple U makes sense if you don't think of it as an MBA-like educational system, but instead as a graduate/post-doctoral program in the sciences. I doubt very much if it's about teaching rules and cases, but more about learning to Think Different, which would not involve asking, "What would Steve do?"
Whenever a visionary dies, technology gets stuck. Henry Ford died - we are still driving essentially the same cars made 110 years ago. Thomas Edison died - we are still stringing electrical lines across poles 130 years later. Alexander Graham Bell died and we are still holding phones up to our ears 100 years later.
Each of those men revolutionized existing technology. No one has made it revolutionary since. Unless someone revolutionizes holograms, I don't think we will be seeing anything but thinner iPad's for the next 100 years.
Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile, his impact is more along the lines of revolutionizing the manufacturing process, although, he was mainly implementing existing ideas and gets credit for it largely because he was in the right industry at the right time.
I completely disagree. You can't just train someone to think the way Jobs did. ...
Of course you can. The military and scientific communities have been doing this for years and years. What you can't do is give someone someone else's particular gifts and insights, but you can certainly teach them to think in a way that allows them to most productively apply their own gifts and insights to the subject at hand.
Apple U makes sense if you don't think of it as an MBA-like educational system, but instead as a graduate/post-doctoral program in the sciences. I doubt very much if it's about teaching rules and cases, but more about learning to Think Different, which would not involve asking, "What would Steve do?"
That's not what the (major) previous story and thread on this in AI suggested. (I am too lazy to try and find the link now).
That's not what the (major) previous story and thread on this in AI suggested. (I am too lazy to try and find the link now).
That article was pretty vague about exactly what Apple U was all about or how it worked. But, which do you think is more likely, that SJ created an internal MBA program, or a system to foster independent, creative, focused thinking within a particular paradigm?
Apple U makes sense if you don't think of it as an MBA-like educational system, but instead as a graduate/post-doctoral program in the sciences. I doubt very much if it's about teaching rules and cases, but more about learning to Think Different, which would not involve asking, "What would Steve do?"
A place to consider a meeting of liberal arts and technology ...
I was reminded by someone on NPR the other day about how a young Steve insisted on Macintosh having lovely fonts when no one had ever even thought about a computer using typography before. Steve sat in on a course on type faces after he dropped out of his main subject at college and fell in love with kerning, ligatures and leading. His brilliance at melding art and design with technology in so many ways is the SJ hallmark IMHO.
Always remember... "industry watchers" are brought to you by the same folks who brought us leveraged buyouts, the mortgage crisis and too big to fail. What they've done to their industry speaks volumes of what they can do for yours.
I think its funny how some folks surround themeselves with crap all over their office. Symbolically justifying themesleves as intellectuals.
Al's carbon footprint is as big as___________?
Clean up your office, dude.
Go and read the 'High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991' Then claim you are intellectually superior to Al.
I guess you would have been one of those stating that the 'Information Super Highway' was a waste of tax dollars.
From Wikipedia: "A few days after winning the election in November 1992 in The New York Times article "Clinton to Promote High Technology, With Gore in Charge."They planned to finance research "that will flood the economy with innovative goods and services, lifting the general level of prosperity and strengthening American industry." Specifically, they were aiming to fund the development of "robotics, smart roads, biotechnology, machine tools, magnetic-levitation trains, fiber-optic communications, and national computer networks. Also earmarked are a raft of basic technologies like digital imaging and data storage." These initiatives were met with some skepticism from critics who claimed that "the initiative is likely to backfire, bloating Congressional pork, and creating whole new categories of Federal waste."
Again from Wikipedia: "President George H. W. Bush was on board. He predicted that the bill would help "unlock the secrets of DNA," open up foreign markets to free trade, and a promise of cooperation between government, academia, and industry.
p.s. Sadly there seems no such initiatives with teeth anymore in tyne USA from either party and the rest of the World is passing us by.
Always remember... "industry watchers" are brought to you by the same folks who brought us leveraged buyouts, the mortgage crisis and too big to fail. What they've done to their industry speaks volumes of what they can do for yours.
So that means the market for my WWSJD bracelets went out the window.
No keep at least one for yourself . I suspect it's a good idea for all of us to stop and ask ourselves exactly that now and then even, if we are not running Apple.
Whenever a visionary dies, technology gets stuck. Henry Ford died - we are still driving essentially the same cars made 110 years ago. Thomas Edison died - we are still stringing electrical lines across poles 130 years later. Alexander Graham Bell died and we are still holding phones up to our ears 100 years later.
Each of those men revolutionized existing technology. No one has made it revolutionary since. Unless someone revolutionizes holograms, I don't think we will be seeing anything but thinner iPad's for the next 100 years.
All technology follows a predictable development curve - even Apple's. You start with the concept, test it, refine it and then execute on it. Once established, the rest of the industry follows behind by filling in the niches, expanding to fill the logical (and sometimes silly) uses of the technology until the concept has saturated the industry. Then it becomes time for a new concept to develop - not necessarily related or supporting existing technology - you shift the paradigm and repeat the process.
Until a given technology expands and fills its given range of application there will be no effective new concept that will revolutionize a given technology. Cool ideas are certainly cool (like holography for example), but they do not meet the standard of revolutionizing technology. Therefore, you still have handsets and electrical lines running hither and yon. That being said, you can transmit energy via other means, but those concepts occur within a field of technology that is not yet ripe for a new concept. Evolution is what happens during the maturing phases of a given technology leading up to and following the introduction of a new concept or revolution.
Each one of these phases is necessary to allow the others to happen. You cannot have constant revolution, nor can you have constant evolution. They depend on the other for creating the environment to fuel the process.
Of course you can. The military and scientific communities have been doing this for years and years. What you can't do is give someone someone else's particular gifts and insights, but you can certainly teach them to think in a way that allows them to most productively apply their own gifts and insights to the subject at hand.
Very fine insight. Is true. What is known about psychology and the mind will make it very possible that we get a future Apple that may dare to be as good, maybe better than it was before.
Comments
Some industry watchers suggested Apple should appoint an independent chairman from outside the company to take charge.
Some industry watchers are dumb.
You ARE MISSED STEVE!!!
As is my Dad ABD Wifes Dad.
Bummer.
So sad. Life stinks, rather death does but apparently we go somewhere better.
Peace.
Some industry watchers suggested Apple should appoint an independent chairman from outside the company to take charge.
Ha ha ha. Sure, let's get an "industry leader" from outside the company to take charge. Er, let's see... HP, Google, Dell, Microsoft, Nokia, Moto, Samsung, Sony, RIM. What's that? They are all getting their asses handed to them by Apple?
Google maybe. If you wanted to destroy Apple.
...But apparently we go somewhere better...
If you only knew, brother...
I agree with Gore. I strongly believe that Steve was not about getting his successors to narrow their agendas to what someone thought he would do (which, btw, led me to also question the whole meme about Apple U and its supposed acculturation mandate/crusade post-Steve). ...
Apple U makes sense if you don't think of it as an MBA-like educational system, but instead as a graduate/post-doctoral program in the sciences. I doubt very much if it's about teaching rules and cases, but more about learning to Think Different, which would not involve asking, "What would Steve do?"
Whenever a visionary dies, technology gets stuck. Henry Ford died - we are still driving essentially the same cars made 110 years ago. Thomas Edison died - we are still stringing electrical lines across poles 130 years later. Alexander Graham Bell died and we are still holding phones up to our ears 100 years later.
Each of those men revolutionized existing technology. No one has made it revolutionary since. Unless someone revolutionizes holograms, I don't think we will be seeing anything but thinner iPad's for the next 100 years.
Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile, his impact is more along the lines of revolutionizing the manufacturing process, although, he was mainly implementing existing ideas and gets credit for it largely because he was in the right industry at the right time.
Sorry, I forgot the TV monitor he views from the right side of his head.
I think its funny how some folks surround themeselves with crap all over their office. Symbolically justifying themesleves as intellectuals.
Al's carbon footprint is as big as___________?
Clean up your office, dude.
I completely disagree. You can't just train someone to think the way Jobs did. ...
Of course you can. The military and scientific communities have been doing this for years and years. What you can't do is give someone someone else's particular gifts and insights, but you can certainly teach them to think in a way that allows them to most productively apply their own gifts and insights to the subject at hand.
Apple U makes sense if you don't think of it as an MBA-like educational system, but instead as a graduate/post-doctoral program in the sciences. I doubt very much if it's about teaching rules and cases, but more about learning to Think Different, which would not involve asking, "What would Steve do?"
That's not what the (major) previous story and thread on this in AI suggested. (I am too lazy to try and find the link now).
That's not what the (major) previous story and thread on this in AI suggested. (I am too lazy to try and find the link now).
That article was pretty vague about exactly what Apple U was all about or how it worked. But, which do you think is more likely, that SJ created an internal MBA program, or a system to foster independent, creative, focused thinking within a particular paradigm?
Apple U makes sense if you don't think of it as an MBA-like educational system, but instead as a graduate/post-doctoral program in the sciences. I doubt very much if it's about teaching rules and cases, but more about learning to Think Different, which would not involve asking, "What would Steve do?"
A place to consider a meeting of liberal arts and technology ...
I was reminded by someone on NPR the other day about how a young Steve insisted on Macintosh having lovely fonts when no one had ever even thought about a computer using typography before. Steve sat in on a course on type faces after he dropped out of his main subject at college and fell in love with kerning, ligatures and leading. His brilliance at melding art and design with technology in so many ways is the SJ hallmark IMHO.
Some industry watchers are dumb.
Always remember... "industry watchers" are brought to you by the same folks who brought us leveraged buyouts, the mortgage crisis and too big to fail. What they've done to their industry speaks volumes of what they can do for yours.
Apple is wise to ignore them.
I think its funny how some folks surround themeselves with crap all over their office. Symbolically justifying themesleves as intellectuals.
Al's carbon footprint is as big as___________?
Clean up your office, dude.
Go and read the 'High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991' Then claim you are intellectually superior to Al.
I guess you would have been one of those stating that the 'Information Super Highway' was a waste of tax dollars.
From Wikipedia: "A few days after winning the election in November 1992 in The New York Times article "Clinton to Promote High Technology, With Gore in Charge."They planned to finance research "that will flood the economy with innovative goods and services, lifting the general level of prosperity and strengthening American industry." Specifically, they were aiming to fund the development of "robotics, smart roads, biotechnology, machine tools, magnetic-levitation trains, fiber-optic communications, and national computer networks. Also earmarked are a raft of basic technologies like digital imaging and data storage." These initiatives were met with some skepticism from critics who claimed that "the initiative is likely to backfire, bloating Congressional pork, and creating whole new categories of Federal waste."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore...ion_technology
Again from Wikipedia: "President George H. W. Bush was on board. He predicted that the bill would help "unlock the secrets of DNA," open up foreign markets to free trade, and a promise of cooperation between government, academia, and industry.
p.s. Sadly there seems no such initiatives with teeth anymore in tyne USA from either party and the rest of the World is passing us by.
Always remember... "industry watchers" are brought to you by the same folks who brought us leveraged buyouts, the mortgage crisis and too big to fail. What they've done to their industry speaks volumes of what they can do for yours.
Apple is wise to ignore them.
Amen to that!
So that means the market for my WWSJD bracelets went out the window.
No keep at least one for yourself
Whenever a visionary dies, technology gets stuck. Henry Ford died - we are still driving essentially the same cars made 110 years ago. Thomas Edison died - we are still stringing electrical lines across poles 130 years later. Alexander Graham Bell died and we are still holding phones up to our ears 100 years later.
Each of those men revolutionized existing technology. No one has made it revolutionary since. Unless someone revolutionizes holograms, I don't think we will be seeing anything but thinner iPad's for the next 100 years.
All technology follows a predictable development curve - even Apple's. You start with the concept, test it, refine it and then execute on it. Once established, the rest of the industry follows behind by filling in the niches, expanding to fill the logical (and sometimes silly) uses of the technology until the concept has saturated the industry. Then it becomes time for a new concept to develop - not necessarily related or supporting existing technology - you shift the paradigm and repeat the process.
Until a given technology expands and fills its given range of application there will be no effective new concept that will revolutionize a given technology. Cool ideas are certainly cool (like holography for example), but they do not meet the standard of revolutionizing technology. Therefore, you still have handsets and electrical lines running hither and yon. That being said, you can transmit energy via other means, but those concepts occur within a field of technology that is not yet ripe for a new concept. Evolution is what happens during the maturing phases of a given technology leading up to and following the introduction of a new concept or revolution.
Each one of these phases is necessary to allow the others to happen. You cannot have constant revolution, nor can you have constant evolution. They depend on the other for creating the environment to fuel the process.
p.s. Sadly there seems no such initiatives with teeth anymore in tyne USA from either party and the rest of the World is passing us by.
Well said.
Of course you can. The military and scientific communities have been doing this for years and years. What you can't do is give someone someone else's particular gifts and insights, but you can certainly teach them to think in a way that allows them to most productively apply their own gifts and insights to the subject at hand.
Very fine insight. Is true. What is known about psychology and the mind will make it very possible that we get a future Apple that may dare to be as good, maybe better than it was before.