Then both of you completely misunderstand why Apple is so wildly successful and has such high custsat scores...the techie is not a market compared to who Apple is focused on, and there is no benefit trying to cater to such an obtuse segment.
And I'm technical.
Do I? I just say Woz is right in his own point of view - he never wanted to change the world, he was interested in toys for himself.
Woz was a hardware genius in his early days. Apple would not exist without his remarkable designs for the Apple I and II, which were light years ahead of the competition.
Jobs was not technically fired, but his ego was so big and his humiliation was so complete that there was no way he could continue to work at Apple.
Well, that would be Apple II then. Apple I did not really sell that many (something 50 or 100) at all, while the Altair 8800 had a couple of thousand orders in just a few days. It was an unexpected/unforeseen success which opened the possibility for other companies like apple.
Apple II on the other hand would be the iPhone to the blackberries before, but the key difference is that Commodore PET, Radio Shack's TRS-80 and Apple II were all similar in many ways and released pretty much at the same time. But Apple II was the one that succeeded.
It's not important how many they sold to be considered the first. I guess you're right, the Apple II is closer to a real PC than the I. As a product, at least. I don't know what came out first, the PET or the Apple II or the TRS-80, if it hasn't been the Apple II then it's clear why they want to call the Apple I the first PC . IIRC the others used monochrome graphics, that might me a reason why the Apple II was such a huge hit. My first computer was a C64 some years later and if you compare basic etc. with the other machines around, it was clearly inferior. But it had relatively nice graphics and sound, that's why they sold so many. (my next computer was an Amiga 1000 - I only became really interested in Apple after the release of OS X, even as my first job was programming the Newton)
Do I? I just say Woz is right in his own point of view - he never wanted to change the world, he was interested in toys for himself.
To say you understand why the iPhone should be more open, as you state Woz has, and praising competing systems for their "flexibility", yes you do misunderstand.
Tweaking techies is a market, but it is infinitesimally small and unprofitable compared to the need Apple fills.
Jobs left when Apple's management had ideas to make Apple more open and allow Mac clones like PCs. All those ideas executed poorly turned Apple into a small player. I see similar trends within Apple right now but the company is in much different shape those years.
To say you understand why the iPhone should be more open, as you state Woz has, and praising competing systems for their "flexibility", yes you do misunderstand.
Tweaking techies is a market, but it is infinitesimally small and unprofitable compared to the need Apple fills.
Hell no, I don't say that, I just understand why Woz would wish it to be more open. I don't say Apple should do it. I have shares
Likeability has little to do with -- and can often be contrary to -- business savvy, and attributes required to build a value-creating business for the long haul.
There are several comments above about the Macintosh being a failure. I was buying computers in the '80 and don't remember it that way. Macs didn't crack the enterprise market but that wasn't the customer Apple was going for when it was introduced. Every artist, designer, publisher, writer, photographer wanted a Mac. Many major players in the industry today were born creating software for the original Mac. Why was the Mac considered a failure? Wonder what Apple would look like today if Jobs never left...
There are several comments above about the Macintosh being a failure. I was buying computers in the '80 and don't remember it that way. Macs didn't crack the enterprise market but that wasn't the customer Apple was going for when it was introduced. Every artist, designer, publisher, writer, photographer wanted a Mac. Many major players in the industry today were born creating software for the original Mac. Why was the Mac considered a failure? Wonder what Apple would look like today if Jobs never left...
If i was Steve Jobs business partner i would it accomplish more than that loser..even a monkey could create a computer if he has great teacher, and i'm pretty sure the first real modern computers were Macintosh I and II (the original iMac and Mac Pro)
After 30 years in corporate america I have know doubt that Steve was fired or as the corporate world calls it "put on a special project". The corporate world never fires managers at a certain level or above. They put you on a special project or give you know direct reports. This is a way of saying you have six months to find a new job without looking like you've been fired. This is only semantics, make no mistake about it, Steve was fired.
After 30+ years in corporate america I have know doubt that Steve was fired or as the corporate world calls it "put on a special project". The corporate world never fires managers at a certain level or above. They put you on a special project or give you no direct reports. This is a way of saying you have six months to find a new job without looking like you've been fired. This is only semantics, make no mistake about it, Steve was fired.
After 30 years in corporate america I have know doubt that Steve was fired or as the corporate world calls it "put on a special project". The corporate world never fires managers at a certain level or above. They put you on a special project or give you know direct reports. This is a way of saying you have six months to find a new job without looking like you've been fired. This is only semantics, make no mistake about it, Steve was fired.
So the takeaway of this thread, basically, is that both Steves are correct, one in a literal sense and the other in a practical sense, and thus there's no more reason for people to throw around insults insulting the intelligence (and making Hitler comparisons) of a person whose IQ is probably an order of magnitude higher than the person's who's writing the comment.
The guy who invented the freaking personal computer itself is far from a "moron."
What have you accomplished to compare to that?
If i was Steve Jobs business partner i would it accomplish more than that loser..even a monkey could create a computer if he has great teacher, and i'm pretty sure the first real modern computers were Macintosh I and II (the original iMac and Mac Pro)
Gosh, 12 year olds speaking.
Apple I and Apple II have nothing to do with Mac I & II; it's the Apple II which let Apple grow and made Apple enough cash that pursuing a Project like the Lisa and then the inferior, but cheaper Mac were even an option.
Woz WAS THE TEACHER, if anything, Jobs was the student; jobs was a little electronics tinkerer, WOZ designed entire circuit boards and chips.
Even the Mac's floppy controller board/chip were designed by Woz...
Woz understands more of the value of open systems, Jobs understands there's more money to be made holding customers data hostage in a closed system.
Closed iPhones are so "great" you can't get rid of zombie apps without starting from scratch, rearranging hundreds of apps manually again, and loosing years of call history and messages.
In an open system one could nuke some ill behaved files, fix some preference files, etc. and carry on with life.
The idea that a real computing platform like the iPad Pro aspires to be, is fully closed and is based on the idea of "trust us (Apple), but don't verify", and the concept that everything always works as designed, or else the only solution is to set up the entire system from scratch again, that is what I call scary, and it's Jobs' ideas of toaster-like computers taken ad absurdum.
I much rather have Woz more say and have systems that are empowering their users.
So the takeaway of this thread, basically, is that both Steves are correct, one in a literal sense and the other in a practical sense, and thus there's no more reason for people to throw around insults insulting the intelligence (and making Hitler comparisons) of a person whose IQ is probably an order of magnitude higher than the person's who's writing the comment.
Right?
Agreement? This is the internet. We don't agree on anything.
Others have replied well about whether SJ Iffy or was fired. It's an old story. Nobody would know who Wozniak is if not for Jobs and Apple. Wozniak takes every opportunity he can to diminish both Apple and Jobs. I believe it is because he knows this is the very reason he has a voice and every time he mentions either pundits will publish what he says. If only he knew that his comments are met with derision and distrust. He stopped being relevant decades ago. Who cares what he says?
Comments
Then both of you completely misunderstand why Apple is so wildly successful and has such high custsat scores...the techie is not a market compared to who Apple is focused on, and there is no benefit trying to cater to such an obtuse segment.
And I'm technical.
Do I? I just say Woz is right in his own point of view - he never wanted to change the world, he was interested in toys for himself.
I would highly recommend Cringely's "Triumph of the Nerds" as a good summary of the history. It contains interviews with all the major players. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Nerds
Andy Hertzfeld's "folklore.org" is also very good: http://www.folklore.org
Woz was a hardware genius in his early days. Apple would not exist without his remarkable designs for the Apple I and II, which were light years ahead of the competition.
Jobs was not technically fired, but his ego was so big and his humiliation was so complete that there was no way he could continue to work at Apple.
Well, that would be Apple II then. Apple I did not really sell that many (something 50 or 100) at all, while the Altair 8800 had a couple of thousand orders in just a few days. It was an unexpected/unforeseen success which opened the possibility for other companies like apple.
Apple II on the other hand would be the iPhone to the blackberries before, but the key difference is that Commodore PET, Radio Shack's TRS-80 and Apple II were all similar in many ways and released pretty much at the same time. But Apple II was the one that succeeded.
It's not important how many they sold to be considered the first. I guess you're right, the Apple II is closer to a real PC than the I. As a product, at least. I don't know what came out first, the PET or the Apple II or the TRS-80, if it hasn't been the Apple II then it's clear why they want to call the Apple I the first PC
. IIRC the others used monochrome graphics, that might me a reason why the Apple II was such a huge hit. My first computer was a C64 some years later and if you compare basic etc. with the other machines around, it was clearly inferior. But it had relatively nice graphics and sound, that's why they sold so many. (my next computer was an Amiga 1000 - I only became really interested in Apple after the release of OS X, even as my first job was programming the Newton)
To say you understand why the iPhone should be more open, as you state Woz has, and praising competing systems for their "flexibility", yes you do misunderstand.
Tweaking techies is a market, but it is infinitesimally small and unprofitable compared to the need Apple fills.
Jobs left when Apple's management had ideas to make Apple more open and allow Mac clones like PCs. All those ideas executed poorly turned Apple into a small player. I see similar trends within Apple right now but the company is in much different shape those years.
Companies give stock to people to induce future performance, not just reward past performance.
Also, the way stocks were given at that time was VERY different than it is now, where everyone and their aunts gets some.
To say you understand why the iPhone should be more open, as you state Woz has, and praising competing systems for their "flexibility", yes you do misunderstand.
Tweaking techies is a market, but it is infinitesimally small and unprofitable compared to the need Apple fills.
Hell no, I don't say that, I just understand why Woz would wish it to be more open. I don't say Apple should do it. I have shares
Also, the way stocks were given at that time was VERY different than it is now, where everyone and their aunts gets some.
Well, then, this makes Woz even more likeable.
http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-wozniak-gave-early-apple-employees-10-million-in-stock-2014-9
Well, then, this makes Woz even more likeable.
http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-wozniak-gave-early-apple-employees-10-million-in-stock-2014-9
Likeability has little to do with -- and can often be contrary to -- business savvy, and attributes required to build a value-creating business for the long haul.
Yes, I'm sure Jobs was the better businessman. Still, it was probably 'business savvy' to have him out in 1985.
After 30+ years in corporate america I have know doubt that Steve was fired or as the corporate world calls it "put on a special project". The corporate world never fires managers at a certain level or above. They put you on a special project or give you no direct reports. This is a way of saying you have six months to find a new job without looking like you've been fired. This is only semantics, make no mistake about it, Steve was fired.
Right?
In the end he actually believes Jobs was Woz' teacher...
Gosh, 12 year olds speaking.
Apple I and Apple II have nothing to do with Mac I & II; it's the Apple II which let Apple grow and made Apple enough cash that pursuing a Project like the Lisa and then the inferior, but cheaper Mac were even an option.
Woz WAS THE TEACHER, if anything, Jobs was the student; jobs was a little electronics tinkerer, WOZ designed entire circuit boards and chips.
Even the Mac's floppy controller board/chip were designed by Woz...
Woz understands more of the value of open systems, Jobs understands there's more money to be made holding customers data hostage in a closed system.
Closed iPhones are so "great" you can't get rid of zombie apps without starting from scratch, rearranging hundreds of apps manually again, and loosing years of call history and messages.
In an open system one could nuke some ill behaved files, fix some preference files, etc. and carry on with life.
The idea that a real computing platform like the iPad Pro aspires to be, is fully closed and is based on the idea of "trust us (Apple), but don't verify", and the concept that everything always works as designed, or else the only solution is to set up the entire system from scratch again, that is what I call scary, and it's Jobs' ideas of toaster-like computers taken ad absurdum.
I much rather have Woz more say and have systems that are empowering their users.