Steve Jobs left Apple on his own, wasn't forced out, Wozniak says

135678

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 142
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post





    Don't forget that regardless of what they both showed, almost no one believed in the Apple I.



    Steve Jobs' persistence (and a whole host of negative qualities) is what made him essential to the the success of Apple... including being a smelly assh0le hippy.



    You can't mix and match ingredients here like a cake. He was who he was and that's a large part of what made him special, and of course despised and hated.



    It's something that many geniuses have in common unfortunately.



    As I said, it needed them both, they are equally important. One couldn't have succeeded without the other. I can't see any contradiction to my point here.

     

    Maybe one difference: Woz would have been happy as a simple engineer, Jobs really wanted to change the world, and together with Woz, he ended up doing so. 

    MacsAlways
  • Reply 42 of 142
    I always understand that he left of his own accord but it was just that the Apple board moved him into a position at Apple with no real power. So in essence, he felt he'd been "fired."

    This is pretty much it. Moreover, hadn't Wozniak left Apple by then? If so, how would he know what actually went down?
    MacsAlways
  • Reply 43 of 142
    appexappex Posts: 687member
    This is not recent news. I remember reading it decades ago. Apparently, Steve was relegated to some visionary department, bored himself to death and left and created NeXT. As said, already known.
    MacsAlways
  • Reply 44 of 142
    sirdir wrote: »
    This is no either... or. They needed each other. Woz wouldn't have marketed any computer and without Woz, Jobs wouldn't have had anything to sell. There would simply be no Apple. 

    I don't necessarily believe that. Surely it may look like something different than it is today, but the name "Apple" was a creation from the mind of SJ for different and differing reasons.

    Also, you could go on in the history of Apple an easily make the claim that without SJ coming back to Apple, it would surely have ceased to exist. At that point, who knows whether SJ would have resurrected it from the dumpster and kept the name Apple rather than going with something different, even going so far as to rename NeXt or Pixar to Apple.

    Because we can't change the past and while surely is fun to speculate, fact is without SJ Apple would not exist at all. Also in fact since Woz was against the name "Apple", if someone else would've stumbled upon HIS genius, the company would've been called something completely different.
  • Reply 45 of 142
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post





    I don't necessarily believe that. Surely it may look like something different than it is today, but the name "Apple" was a creation from the mind of SJ for different and differing reasons.



    Also, you could go on in the history of Apple an easily make the claim that without SJ coming back to Apple, it would surely have ceased to exist. At that point, who knows whether SJ would have resurrected it from the dumpster and kept the name Apple rather than going with something different, even going so far as to rename NeXt or Pixar to Apple.



    Because we can't change the past and while surely is fun to speculate, fact is without SJ Apple would not exist at all. Also in fact since Woz was against the name "Apple", if someone else would've stumbled upon HIS genius, the company would've been called something completely different.

    OK, if you believe so. Surely another engineering genius would have stumbled over Steve showed him the computer he created and Steve would have sold it for him. Very probable.

     

    As I said, it needed them both. And of course Apple wouldn't exist if Steve hadn't come back in ~97. But it wouldn't exist if he hadn't left in '85 either.

  • Reply 46 of 142
    thrangthrang Posts: 1,012member
    Woz is historically significant but can contemporaneously superflous (seemingly his choice)

    Even so, he was closer to a bathroom than the boardroom at that time, and when a founder is relegated to pushing paper, it's fair to say he was, in essence, terminated
    MacsAlways
  • Reply 47 of 142
    sirdir wrote: »
    As far as I remeber, even the official biography tells the same story: Jobs was never fired, he left because he was relieved of most of his resposabilities.

    In corporate America, "relieved of responsibilities" is a euphemism for "you're effectively fired". You're expected to do the decent thing and leave, or if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you'll go.

    This whole debate -- and one about which Wozniak has no business commenting (although that has never stopped him from mouthing off before) -- is of the how-many-Angels-on-a-head-of-a-pin variety.
  • Reply 48 of 142
    This guy has something to say about everything, but does NOTHING.
    MacsAlways
  • Reply 49 of 142
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    In corporate America, "relieved of responsibilities" is a euphemism for "you're effectively fired". You're expected to do the decent thing and leave, or if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you'll go.



    This whole debate -- and one about which Wozniak has no business commenting (although that has never stopped him from mouthing off before) -- is of the how-many-Angels-on-a-head-of-a-pin variety.



    You may be right in general, but I don't think the Apple board actually wanted to get rid of Jobs. They just wanted him out of the way, in a way like his time at Atari, when they put him in the night shift. Of course they should have known that Jobs wasn't going to accept that (but what choices did they have? Steve was fighting against the Apple II which was the milk cow etc...), but still I think he hasn't been fired.

     

    BTW regarding Woz, I agree he hasn't done many 'great things' in the last 30 years. But if he's happy with that, why not. I mostly stopped working when I earned enough, too. 

    And about his 'big mouth': if press wouldn't always ask for his opinion, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't hear a lot of him. 

     

    And of course he's still doing a lot more than most people here that are saying he isn't doing anything. 

  • Reply 50 of 142
    haarhaar Posts: 563member
    Yes Steve Jobs left on his own... They gave him a desk, and a "place-holder" title. He effectively had no power after that... thus he felt that he was going to waste his life away. Then the Pixar deal came along, and Steve Jobs wanting a change of pace, sold his stock and went "PIXAR"...

    After (known that Apple would flounder under the then CEO) he just waited until "Apple learn the errors of its ways" ... But never forgot the past. (He was still at pixel while saving Apple...)
    One might say that saving Apple was a labour of love, because he passed away fixing Apple Inc.
    MacsAlways
  • Reply 51 of 142
    rob55rob55 Posts: 1,291member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sirdir View Post

     



    You may be right in general, but I don't think the Apple board actually wanted to get rid of Jobs. They just wanted him out of the way, in a way like his time at Atari, when they put him in the night shift. Of course they should have known that Jobs wasn't going to accept that (but what choices did they have? Steve was fighting against the Apple II which was the milk cow etc...), but still I think he hasn't been fired.

     


     

    In my opinion, they knew full well that Jobs wouldn't accept it. As others have stated, it's tantamount to firing someone without actually firing them.

    MacsAlways
  • Reply 52 of 142
    sirdir wrote: »

    And about his 'big mouth': if press wouldn't always ask for his opinion, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't hear a lot of him. 

    That's a complete and utter windbag, in my view.
  • Reply 53 of 142
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    That's a complete and utter windbag, in my view.



    Well, as I said, if he gets constantly asked for his opinion, I wouldn't blame him too much for actually giving it. And if he gets paid as a consultant... 

    I have read his biography and I agree that he has a holier-than-thou side, but I still think he also deserves some respect, as I am perfectly sure our world would be completely different without him. And not for the better. 

  • Reply 54 of 142
    sirdir wrote: »
    That's a complete and utter windbag, in my view.


    Well, as I said, if he gets constantly asked for his opinion, I wouldn't blame him too much for actually giving it. And if he gets paid as a consultant... 

    And, as I said, windbaggery.
  • Reply 55 of 142
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    And, as I said, windbaggery.



    if you say so. Still there must be a reason he get's paid for that ;)

  • Reply 56 of 142
    sirdir wrote: »

    If you had been Steve Jobs business partner you'd be sobbing in a corner. Jobs became a marketing genius and he had a feeling for 'taste' but without Woz' engineering genius he could have ended up selling refrigerators. 

    I would like you to answer me a question, which do you think was more revolutionary: Apple I and II or the Macintosh?
    100% agree...
    100% DISAGREE.

    No. Steve Jobs would've found something or someone else to further his ambitions in tech and changing the world. While it's possible to change the world with a new efficient, allways-on, AI refrigerator... I just don't believe SJ would've stuck to that, even if it was a stepping stone to greatness.

    I always thought Steve was fired in the year 89 not 85, i had not idea, so he was fired year later after Macintosh and year before the Macintosh II..wow just wow, if i was Steve Jobs and looked back i would be really pissed.
    Steve Jobs didn't lied about getting fired and there's your proof.
    Why would someone trust a corporate dushbag (after firing someone who reinvented computer a year earlier) over Steve Jobs? is beyond me
  • Reply 57 of 142

    While Steve may not have technically been "fired", it seems "forced out" would be a pretty accurate description in my opinion. 

     

    As far as Woz's comments go, I have no reason to not take him at his word. I've heard some say that Woz is just jealous of the myth that surrounds Steve. Maybe he is. Maybe he's not.

  • Reply 58 of 142
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iMember View Post





    I would like you to answer me a question, which do you think was more revolutionary: Apple I and II or the Macintosh?

    The Mac, of course. But there would never have been a Mac if Apple hadn't made many, many millions of the Apple II. And without the Apple I no Apple II - in fact, no Apple at all. BTW, acutally in it's way the Apple I was just as revolutionary back then. Compare the Altair with the Apple I. Just as big a difference in the Userinterface as Apple II <-> Mac.

    I always thought Steve was fired in the year 89 not 85, i had not idea, so he was fired year later after Macintosh and year before the Macintosh II..wow just wow, if was Steve Jobs and looked back i would be really pissed.

    Steve Jobs didn't lied about getting fired and there's your proof.

    Why would someone trust a corporate dushbag (after firing someone who reinvented computer a year earlier) over Steve Jobs? is beyond me

    You seem to have missed Steve's personality back then. He made a lot of stupid decisions on the original Mac. His team changed some of them behind his back, otherwise it would even have been the bigger flop than it actually was. Then even as the Apple II was making all the money he burned creating the Macintosh he was constantly fighting it. He was acting like a little brat at that time and the decision to constrain him somehow was certainly right. Even at Next this continued - read the books, it's well documented. Ruined the robots because he wanted them painted white etc. With Pixar he learned that not interfering might be actually a good thing. And with Next he learned that even a good product won't sell without proper support from the industry and without a competitive price. Without that lesson he would never have been able to run Apple as a CEO.

  • Reply 59 of 142
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member

    Both stories are true, from both points of view.

     

    He was of course not "fired" in the literal sense.

     

    But they took everything he did, and everything he controlled...and removed it from him. They essentially fired him from working on the Mac, which as far as he was concerned, was the worse thing they could have done. From Steve's point of view, they did fire him.

  • Reply 60 of 142
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    Jobs may not have had a "you're fired" moment but he was marginalized and demoted and that is like a firing.
Sign In or Register to comment.