Anyone who does not think he looks bad is in denial. It's a beautifil California day- and he's swimming in a black long sleeve almost -turtleneck (mockneck) shirt and regular cut jeans look baggy on him???? I hope to god (if there is indeed one) he's doing better than he looks.
He looks about the same as he did for the last keynote we saw him do. Even though TMZ say they got the photo on Wednesday, that doesn't mean it was taken then. It could have been taken long before he took leave.
Why the heck would Apple (much less Jobs) want to keynote CES?! First off, it is in Las Vegas-- that alone seems like enough to keep SJ away, and it doesn't really seem like a great Apple marketplace. Trade shows do two things: give big companies a chance to create an ecosystem with smaller companies; and give small companies a chance at exposure where potential clients are in high density.
It doesn't benefit Apple at this point, and I'm not so sure it can do much for case manufacturers and the like.
I agree with those who think he doesn't look that good.
Even thought he's a vegetarian, he always was heavier. Here, he still looks anorexic.
I would have thought that by now, he would have gained a noticeable amount of weight. After the transplant, his weight should normally have started to pop back up.
As for the CES, I said in an earlier thread about the tablet that if it were introduced in the January-March timeframe, and if he were asked, he might give a keynote, if there was time, and he felt well enough. January is still quite a ways off, and it could happen, even if the tablet appears earlier (assuming that there will even be one this time).
He had responded about two years ago to a question about attending. He said that if they didn't schedule CES during Macworld, he would attend. Now there is no Macworld for Apple.
The main question is whether they would want to snub what is remaining from it to attend CES next year, or whether they would wait for it to completely disappear.
The main question is whether they would want to snub what is remaining from it to attend CES next year, or whether they would wait for it to completely disappear.
They're already 'snubbing' Macworld by not attending. Apple's presence at CES would put more attention on the Mac, iPhone, iPod, etc. than can be attained at Macworld, which is good for third party Mac, iPhone, iPod accessory makers and software developers.
Some of the TMZ comments on this photo were pretty funny. Somebody said it looked like half of the Abby Road cover. Another said the guy walking with him is Phil Collins.
Anyway, good to see His Steveness in a vertical state. Don't expect him to look like Vin Diesel anytime soon. He's been through a hell of a lot.
I wish he'd (visibly, as he does anonymously), do more for mankind like Gates does with his foundation.
Gates foundation is
1) A tax fiddle. They still spend the money, no one else can. They can't take out profits but they can take out expenses. Legally they don't own the money but legally they have 100% control over it.
2) Medicine is the IP battleground of the future, Gates is in it to do the same trick, steal, patent, license, when they get caught out argue about it forever. Gates heritage is legal, see Preston, Gates & Ellis for some juicy scandals.*
3) A marketing machine for Microsoft, here's a taster:
On the alarm front, I heard specific confirmation of a storyline I've been following, which is that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is basically telling governments: if you want contributions/investments from us, then you'll give Microsoft cabinet-level access to inform policy, and you'll use Microsoft products. For example, donations to educational initiatives require installing and teaching Microsoft products. It is similar to another story line reported by Roy Shestowitz. My informant told me that she was fortunately able to point out to the President that this was against Brazil's sovereignty and interest, and is one of the reasons that President Lula came to FISL, to show is support for the freedoms that "software livre" (aka free software, aka open source) mean to Brazil.
* The AIDS test for Africans etc is rather different to that used in the west, it isn't a test as you would know it, more a survey, a checkbox survey, which identifies malnutrition. So they are sold expensive drugs whilst they grow monoculture foods for western markets and can't grow there own.
I'm no fan of Bill Gates, nor am I always a fan of the Gates Foundation. However I happen to know that the Gates Foundation has committed $355 million toward Rotary International's worldwide polio eradication project, without any strings attached AFAIK. I am a huge fan of this very important project, so this is a big deal, in my book.
They're already 'snubbing' Macworld by not attending. Apple's presence at CES would put more attention on the Mac, iPhone, iPod, etc. than can be attained at Macworld, which is good for third party Mac, iPhone, iPod accessory makers and software developers.
Of course. but it would really be bad if they went to CES as well, and Jobs gave the keynote.
It's one thing to not attend. It's worse if you exhibit and give a speech at a rival show at about the same time.
We now see that CES is denying that Jobs is giving a keynote this year, or that Apple is even exhibiting. I thought that might be the case.
I'm no fan of Bill Gates, nor am I always a fan of the Gates Foundation. However I happen to know that the Gates Foundation has committed $355 million toward Rotary International's worldwide polio eradication project, without any strings attached AFAIK. I am a huge fan of this very important project, so this is a big deal, in my book.
We do know, from what Bill's father had said, that it was the father, not the son, who came up with the idea of the foundation. Some of the implication has made was that not only was this a good thing to do, but it would also deflect some of the criticism from his son's failing reputation.
I think that as Bill got further into this, after having a non interest in philanthropy earlier, he found that it satisfied something in him that he didn't have from his lifelong business pursuits. It's not surprising.
Then, of course, he gets praised for it rather than denigrated.
Much more satisfying having people stand up and applaud than walk out or throw things.
We do know, from what Bill's father had said, that it was the father, not the son, who came up with the idea of the foundation. Some of the implication has made was that not only was this a good thing to do, but it would also deflect some of the criticism from his son's failing reputation.
I think that as Bill got further into this, after having a non interest in philanthropy earlier, he found that it satisfied something in him that he didn't have from his lifelong business pursuits. It's not surprising.
Then, of course, he gets praised for it rather than denigrated.
Much more satisfying having people stand up and applaud than walk out or throw things.
Yes, shades of Andrew Carnegie.
One of the reasons I was not impressed by the Gates Foundation was that he seemed to be displaying some of the same control freak tendencies that served him so well (one could argue) building the Microsoft empire. I hope he has learned that charity is not a control business. His big assist to Rotary International is sign that maybe that message got through.
I've read a lot of what Carnegie wrote, and a lot written about him. Interesting man, More complex a character than Gates.
Carnegie really believed that the common working person couldn't be trusted with money. He really believed that. He writes about how they get their pay, spend it on drink, beat their wives and children etc. He felt that by giving just a bit of money, and supplying the needs of his workers in mostly non monetary form, that that wouldn't happen.
People were much less educated and much cruder. He may have been right to a certain extent back then.
But I don't think Gates has any philosophy guiding him.
Quote:
One of the reasons I was not impressed by the Gates Foundation was that he seemed to be displaying some of the same control freak tendencies that served him so well (one could argue) building the Microsoft empire. I hope he has learned that charity is not a control business. His big assist to Rotary International is sign that maybe that message got through.
Well, it seems that he is much more comfortable in his new role than he was in the beginning.
What is so interesting about Carnegie is that he spent decades ruthlessly cornering markets and generally playing the part of the ultimate robber baron, then spent the last couple of decades giving most of his money away.
What is so interesting about Carnegie is that he spent decades ruthlessly cornering markets and generally playing the part of the ultimate robber baron, then spent the last couple of decades giving most of his money away.
There were so few regulations on business in those days, that almost anything could be done. If you weren't ruthless, you would be buried. There was no choice.
But he observed his workers, and didn't like what he saw.
I've read a lot of what Carnegie wrote, and a lot written about him. Interesting man, More complex a character than Gates.
Carnegie really believed that the common working person couldn't be trusted with money. He really believed that. He writes about how they get their pay, spend it on drink, beat their wives and children etc. He felt that by giving just a bit of money, and supplying the needs of his workers in mostly non monetary form, that that wouldn't happen.
People were much less educated and much cruder. He may have been right to a certain extent back then.
If Shakespeare teaches us anything, its that the human condition doesn't change.
If Carnegie was right back then, it would still hold true today. I suspect he was spouting platitudes to justify his earlier treatment of his fellow man. He almost would've had to, in order to sleep nights.
Comments
That's just not fair!
Anyone photographed beside Jon Ive will look frail in comparison.
That's just not fair!
he looks no different than he did a year or so ago at the MW. It's wishful thinking on anyones part who sees him having more weight than before.
He doesn't look quite as thin in that photo, but I could be wrong.
It doesn't benefit Apple at this point, and I'm not so sure it can do much for case manufacturers and the like.
Even thought he's a vegetarian, he always was heavier. Here, he still looks anorexic.
I would have thought that by now, he would have gained a noticeable amount of weight. After the transplant, his weight should normally have started to pop back up.
As for the CES, I said in an earlier thread about the tablet that if it were introduced in the January-March timeframe, and if he were asked, he might give a keynote, if there was time, and he felt well enough. January is still quite a ways off, and it could happen, even if the tablet appears earlier (assuming that there will even be one this time).
He had responded about two years ago to a question about attending. He said that if they didn't schedule CES during Macworld, he would attend. Now there is no Macworld for Apple.
The main question is whether they would want to snub what is remaining from it to attend CES next year, or whether they would wait for it to completely disappear.
The main question is whether they would want to snub what is remaining from it to attend CES next year, or whether they would wait for it to completely disappear.
They're already 'snubbing' Macworld by not attending. Apple's presence at CES would put more attention on the Mac, iPhone, iPod, etc. than can be attained at Macworld, which is good for third party Mac, iPhone, iPod accessory makers and software developers.
Anyway, good to see His Steveness in a vertical state. Don't expect him to look like Vin Diesel anytime soon. He's been through a hell of a lot.
I wish he'd (visibly, as he does anonymously), do more for mankind like Gates does with his foundation.
Gates foundation is
1) A tax fiddle. They still spend the money, no one else can. They can't take out profits but they can take out expenses. Legally they don't own the money but legally they have 100% control over it.
2) Medicine is the IP battleground of the future, Gates is in it to do the same trick, steal, patent, license, when they get caught out argue about it forever. Gates heritage is legal, see Preston, Gates & Ellis for some juicy scandals.*
3) A marketing machine for Microsoft, here's a taster:
On the alarm front, I heard specific confirmation of a storyline I've been following, which is that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is basically telling governments: if you want contributions/investments from us, then you'll give Microsoft cabinet-level access to inform policy, and you'll use Microsoft products. For example, donations to educational initiatives require installing and teaching Microsoft products. It is similar to another story line reported by Roy Shestowitz. My informant told me that she was fortunately able to point out to the President that this was against Brazil's sovereignty and interest, and is one of the reasons that President Lula came to FISL, to show is support for the freedoms that "software livre" (aka free software, aka open source) mean to Brazil.
http://opensource.org/node/445
* The AIDS test for Africans etc is rather different to that used in the west, it isn't a test as you would know it, more a survey, a checkbox survey, which identifies malnutrition. So they are sold expensive drugs whilst they grow monoculture foods for western markets and can't grow there own.
They're already 'snubbing' Macworld by not attending. Apple's presence at CES would put more attention on the Mac, iPhone, iPod, etc. than can be attained at Macworld, which is good for third party Mac, iPhone, iPod accessory makers and software developers.
Of course. but it would really be bad if they went to CES as well, and Jobs gave the keynote.
It's one thing to not attend. It's worse if you exhibit and give a speech at a rival show at about the same time.
We now see that CES is denying that Jobs is giving a keynote this year, or that Apple is even exhibiting. I thought that might be the case.
I'm no fan of Bill Gates, nor am I always a fan of the Gates Foundation. However I happen to know that the Gates Foundation has committed $355 million toward Rotary International's worldwide polio eradication project, without any strings attached AFAIK. I am a huge fan of this very important project, so this is a big deal, in my book.
We do know, from what Bill's father had said, that it was the father, not the son, who came up with the idea of the foundation. Some of the implication has made was that not only was this a good thing to do, but it would also deflect some of the criticism from his son's failing reputation.
I think that as Bill got further into this, after having a non interest in philanthropy earlier, he found that it satisfied something in him that he didn't have from his lifelong business pursuits. It's not surprising.
Then, of course, he gets praised for it rather than denigrated.
Much more satisfying having people stand up and applaud than walk out or throw things.
We do know, from what Bill's father had said, that it was the father, not the son, who came up with the idea of the foundation. Some of the implication has made was that not only was this a good thing to do, but it would also deflect some of the criticism from his son's failing reputation.
I think that as Bill got further into this, after having a non interest in philanthropy earlier, he found that it satisfied something in him that he didn't have from his lifelong business pursuits. It's not surprising.
Then, of course, he gets praised for it rather than denigrated.
Much more satisfying having people stand up and applaud than walk out or throw things.
Yes, shades of Andrew Carnegie.
One of the reasons I was not impressed by the Gates Foundation was that he seemed to be displaying some of the same control freak tendencies that served him so well (one could argue) building the Microsoft empire. I hope he has learned that charity is not a control business. His big assist to Rotary International is sign that maybe that message got through.
Yes, shades of Andrew Carnegie.
I've read a lot of what Carnegie wrote, and a lot written about him. Interesting man, More complex a character than Gates.
Carnegie really believed that the common working person couldn't be trusted with money. He really believed that. He writes about how they get their pay, spend it on drink, beat their wives and children etc. He felt that by giving just a bit of money, and supplying the needs of his workers in mostly non monetary form, that that wouldn't happen.
People were much less educated and much cruder. He may have been right to a certain extent back then.
But I don't think Gates has any philosophy guiding him.
One of the reasons I was not impressed by the Gates Foundation was that he seemed to be displaying some of the same control freak tendencies that served him so well (one could argue) building the Microsoft empire. I hope he has learned that charity is not a control business. His big assist to Rotary International is sign that maybe that message got through.
Well, it seems that he is much more comfortable in his new role than he was in the beginning.
What is so interesting about Carnegie is that he spent decades ruthlessly cornering markets and generally playing the part of the ultimate robber baron, then spent the last couple of decades giving most of his money away.
There were so few regulations on business in those days, that almost anything could be done. If you weren't ruthless, you would be buried. There was no choice.
But he observed his workers, and didn't like what he saw.
I've read a lot of what Carnegie wrote, and a lot written about him. Interesting man, More complex a character than Gates.
Carnegie really believed that the common working person couldn't be trusted with money. He really believed that. He writes about how they get their pay, spend it on drink, beat their wives and children etc. He felt that by giving just a bit of money, and supplying the needs of his workers in mostly non monetary form, that that wouldn't happen.
People were much less educated and much cruder. He may have been right to a certain extent back then.
If Shakespeare teaches us anything, its that the human condition doesn't change.
If Carnegie was right back then, it would still hold true today. I suspect he was spouting platitudes to justify his earlier treatment of his fellow man. He almost would've had to, in order to sleep nights.