His revenue and market share stats are of little meaning, since the company had huge momentum and no credible competition in the GUI OS space till Windows 3.0 showed up in 1990. It was then that the lack of innovation and vision under Sculley was gradually exposed, and the 90's proceeded to be a big bag of hurt for Apple till Jobs returned.
Not so. After a moderately good start in 1984, Mac sales took a tumble the following year. The company in fact had no momentum, more like negative momentum. The Apple II was an end-of-life product, the Apple III and Lisa flopped, and the Mac didn't look like it could sustain the company. The disagreement between Jobs and Sculley was over what to do about this. The competition from IBM-PC clones was more than credible. A PC running MS-DOS was considered to be the "standard" long before Windows arrived in any usable form. Apple was hard up against this concept from the very start.
The problems of the '90s can perhaps be laid at Sculley's door in part, but let's not try to reinvent history here. If Sculley had not been hired to run Apple in 1985, the company would have likely ceased to exist before many more years went by, rendering all this talk about how the '90s were so bad for Apple moot. Without Sculley, Apple probably doesn't even have the '90s.
If that is what you understood or got out of NomadMac's comments, I don't think that anyone is bright enough to convince you of anything.
Good one, and Woodlink could be forgiven for not getting it, even in spite of NomadMac's heroic reply.
Many people now using computers, having grown up with them, can only see things from the point of view of the environment they are immersed in. Like fish who don't know the first thing about water, people born into the computer age don't necessarily see the break with the past that the computer, especially the Jobsian computer, represents.
The computer's arrival should be compared to the appearance of the printed book, though history will judge the Internet-connected computer to be many times more powerful than the printed book. Still, it was the portable book invented by printers like Aldus that freed thinkers like Copernicus, or clerics like Luther, or philosophers like Erasmus, to create the Enlightenment and the Reformation.
What Jobs did was insist on humanizing the connected computer, making it portable, and most important, making it desirable, then recognize a brother designer in Jony Ive, who could pull it off as an engineered product, and who had been toiling away in the basement for managers with no vision, as it were.
As a shift in human culture, having an enjoyable connected computer in your pocket is a 500-year event. But we've been living under the spell of print so long that some have lost the art of seeing big pictures through pattern recognition, which was one of the main features of Job's genius. He was an art guy, not a print guy, in his vision.
So Woodlink is quite a contradiction. A guy using pattern-recognizing tools -- computers connected around the world -- while trapped in his print-derived left hemisphere. But it's very common among computer users, maybe because of the lingering keyboard focus of our relations with these machines at this point, maybe because of the binary logic that drives the digital process attracts Aspergerish hemisphere lockup.
It will change for the small-picture people when they start following Jobs's course of study, if they have to: turn on, tune in, drop out, and come back stronger and more visionary than ever. Wooodlink, see you at the next Woodstock . . .
The computer's arrival should be compared to the appearance of the printed book, though history will judge the Internet-connected computer to be many times more powerful than the printed book.
You've argued yourself right out of your own premise with this statement, by thinking so much from within your own frame of reference. The printing press was one of the most important factors leading to the end of the Dark Ages and the sparking of the Renaissance, very probably the single most important leap in the history of human culture. The internet-connected computer has a long way to go before it can be shown to have equal importance.
You've argued yourself right out of your own premise with this statement, by thinking so much from within your own frame of reference. The printing press was one of the most important factors leading to the end of the Dark Ages and the sparking of the Renaissance, very probably the single most important leap in the history of human culture. The internet-connected computer has a long way to go before it can be shown to have equal importance.
Shockingly bounded vision exhibited here by yourself, Dr. M., though I agree about the Renaissance.
Simple logic should let you see that each connected computer is not only a printing press but a library that encompasses, or will encompass, all the world's printed materials. Then add sound and picture and moving picture. Then add instant search and indexing. Do I need to go on?
The computer is to the printed book as the printed book is to the hand-lettered papyrus scroll. To think otherwise is perhaps to betray a sentimental over-attachment to a venerable ancestral technology?
We can use another Renaissance, since we're still saddled with the main Creation myths that belonged to the Dark Ages. I think Steve Jobs had a new Enlightenment in mind when he talked about changing the world.
Ps. I'm not one to short sell the effects of the Gutenberg revolution. The book and other forms of print created individualism, authorship, readership, democracy 2.0, along with the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, and the scientific revolution. But we ain't seen nothing yet. The next revolution, based on having essentially all the world's knowledge past and present in your pocket, could be called the Jobsian revolution in times to come. That's why I think comparisons with Walt Disney, Edison or Ford are too slight and cheap toward what Jobs accomplished.
I am referring to the relative importance to humankind. Nothing you've said makes even a remotely convincing argument that internet connected computers have had or will have the same impact on human culture as the printing press -- which made nothing less than science itself possible. That should stir your thinking some I hope. In fact the ironic flaw in your argument is that it's precisely the one you criticized in others. Neither of our frames of reference includes the 15th century, but I can assure you that if it wasn't for fundamental advances that occurred then we would not be talking about this now.
To me it is screamingly obvious that a machine that "contains" a billion or so dynamically searchable pieces or volumes of information and/or knowledge, in the hands of hundreds of millions at all times of the day is going to be a quantum leap in both our intellect and sensorium as a species.
Maybe we should try to imagine what is beyond science, which I agree was a very big deal among many other big deals produced by print.
How about global cultural ecumenicalism? World virtual exploration? World social nirvana? The revival of the archaic nature "religions" (they weren't really religions; Robert Graves called them "festal systems")? The end of the Indo-European system of dominance by conquest? The demotion of the Indo-European "Abrahamic" god? The thirteen-moon calendar?
I leave it to your imagination how we build on the galaxy of changes wrought by Gutenberg. I take it you've read the work of the sage of Toronto, Marshall McLuhan. He has a lot to say about the creation of the global village created by electronic media.
I just would like to see the Jobsian contribution framed in a serious way. It's being missed by a wide margin. Almost dismissed, and it's basic media theory
To me it is screamingly obvious that a machine that "contains" a billion or so dynamically searchable pieces or volumes of information and/or knowledge, in the hands of hundreds of millions at all times of the day is going to be a quantum leap in both our intellect and sensorium as a species.
Maybe we should try to imagine what is beyond science, which I agree was a very big deal among many other big deals produced by print.
How about global cultural ecumenicalism? World virtual exploration? World social nirvana? The revival of the archaic nature "religions" (they weren't really religions; Robert Graves called them "festal systems")? The end of the Indo-European system of dominance by conquest? The demotion of the Indo-European "Abrahamic" god? The thirteen-moon calendar?
I leave it to your imagination how we build on the galaxy of changes wrought by Gutenberg. I take it you've read the work of the sage of Toronto, Marshall McLuhan. He has a lot to say about the creation of the global village created by electronic media.
I just would like to see the Jobsian contribution framed in a serious way. It's being missed by a wide margin. Almost dismissed, and it's basic media theory
we are in the midst of writing revisionist history about Jobs and his contributions to society (what those are deemed to be sans a market cap > Exxon). So, as I posted earlier, the jury is still out on what societal impact is worthy of discussion.
It is a fascinating debate....history in the making.
we are in the midst of writing revisionist history about Jobs and his contributions to society (what those are deemed to be sans a market cap > Exxon). So, as I posted earlier, the jury is still out on what societal impact is worthy of discussion.
It is a fascinating debate....history in the making.
And the jury will remain out for centuries, quite probably. Assessing the importance of historical events after the fact is difficult enough. Predicting them beforehand is essentially pure guesswork.
we are in the midst of writing revisionist history about Jobs and his contributions to society (what those are deemed to be sans a market cap > Exxon). So, as I posted earlier, the jury is still out on what societal impact is worthy of discussion.
It is a fascinating debate....history in the making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
And the jury will remain out for centuries, quite probably. Assessing the importance of historical events after the fact is difficult enough. Predicting them beforehand is essentially pure guesswork.
There is no beforehand. There is nothing to be unsure about. Steve Jobs heavily impacted personal computing and consumer electronics. The impact is known, it's been known. If you can't see that Steve Jobs has contributed to society with everything he's done then obviously there is nothing I can say that will mind in a paragraph.
There is no beforehand. There is nothing to be unsure about. Steve Jobs heavily impacted personal computing and consumer electronics. The impact is known, it's been known. If you can't see that Steve Jobs has contributed to society with everything he's done then obviously there is nothing I can say that will mind in a paragraph.
No need. Just go back and read what I wrote, to the argument to which I was responding. It was not the one you refer to here.
No need. Just go back and read what I wrote, to the argument to which I was responding. It was not the one you refer to here.
I'm not following. I see you made comments about whether the computer age was more important than the printing press, but Woodlink's comments are about Steve Jobs contributions not having any known or measurable level of social contributions.
I can't agree or disagree about the level of important significance something has affected the world but the printing press v computer can easily be argued if you take either side. Taking a position opposite of yours the computer got us to the moon, put giant machines in orbit, and all sorts of other things that connected us to the rest of the world. It's taken what the printing press could do and then made it easier and faster than it ever could been. The point is that it allowed for the automation of the written word (and ideas), which is why you choose this over writing in general, but the computer and internet allow for all this, too, just better and easier.
Sculley is your average born in advantage, cruised the high places of corporate world, made some money whilst not doing much more than any other idiot would have done in his place... He should at least be thankful that his name will go down in history as the villain of a great success story such as apple.... Now let's all move along.
I'm not following. I see you made comments about whether the computer age was more important than the printing press, but Woodlink's comments are about Steve Jobs contributions not having any known or measurable level of social contributions.
I can't agree or disagree about the level of important significance something has affected the world but the printing press v computer can easily be argued if you take either side. Taking a position opposite of yours the computer got us to the moon, put giant machines in orbit, and all sorts of other things that connected us to the rest of the world. It's taken what the printing press could do and then made it easier and faster than it ever could been. The point is that it allowed for the automation of the written word (and ideas), which is why you choose this over writing in general, but the computer and internet allow for all this, too, just better and easier.
I questioned whether networked computers can be called as important historically as the invention of the printing press. The significance of Steve Jobs was added by Woodlink. I can't be expected to defend that part of the argument since I didn't make it.
Again, I was addressing specifically the networked computers vs. the printing press argument. Even if the argument was broadened to computers in general, I'd say it is still too soon in the evolution of digital computing to evaluate its relative historical importance to the development of human culture. Nobody with any sense would argue that they haven't been important, but what I'm saying is it's a far leap to compare it to the printing press at this very early stage.
Keep in mind, the printed word has been around for more than 500 years, and is still very much with us, and we can readily examine human culture before and after, and measure the impact the changes the printed word had on culture. In short, the printed word made just about everything we now take for granted possible, not just easier and better. It will be long past any of our lives before people know if computing will have that sort of impact.
I questioned whether networked computers can be called as important historically as the invention of the printing press. The significance of Steve Jobs was added by Woodlink. I can't be expected to defend that part of the argument since I didn't make it.
Again, I was addressing specifically the networked computers vs. the printing press argument. Even if the argument was broadened to computers in general, I'd say it is still too soon in the evolution of digital computing to evaluate its relative historical importance to the development of human culture. Nobody with any sense would argue that they haven't been important, but what I'm saying is it's a far leap to compare it to the printing press at this very early stage.
Keep in mind, the printed word has been around for more than 500 years, and is still very much with us, and we can readily examine human culture before and after, and measure the impact the changes the printed word had on culture. In short, the printed word made just about everything we now take for granted possible, not just easier and better. It will be long past any of our lives before people know if computing will have that sort of impact.
I would say digital age over networked computers. That is what sparked everything. It's what led to the transistor and microchip that allowed for these machines to be in our homes and connected to each other.
I wonder how many computers I interact per day. I mean, how many do my computing devices interact with when I do basic tasks like using my phone, doing a google search, reading a Wikipedia page (which includes all that have attributed to the page), and even participating on this forum.
What you ask is hard because the printing press allowed for printed materials about the digital age, so do you count the foundational invention as higher or the newer one if it led to a lot more rapid changes in many more ways?
Admittedly I know very little about the printing press. I don't know if it causes a huge change in metal alloys being created for the press. If it sparked new paper and ink creation, etc. Yet with the digital age I know of many other areas of technology that were directly affected by it in ways that have changed this world forever. We can sequence DNA!
If you want specifically go with networked computers over the digital age because we're going with printing press over writing then I present to artificial satellites. We have giant clocks in space (GPS) that can tell us where we are in long., lat., and height above sea level in seconds. We have others with cameras and sensors that read the earth to detect changes. The idea that we can get images from a camera high above Earth and send them to your TV is impressive and has changed the world.
I would say digital age over networked computers. That is what sparked everything. It's what led to the transistor and microchip that allowed for these machines to be in our homes and connected to each other.
I wonder how many computers I interact per day. I mean, how many do my computing devices interact with when I do basic tasks like using my phone, doing a google search, reading a Wikipedia page (which includes all that have attributed to the page), and even participating on this forum.
What you ask is hard because the printing press allowed for printed materials about the digital age, so do you count the foundational invention as higher or the newer one if it led to a lot more rapid changes in many more ways?
Admittedly I know very little about the printing press. I don't know if it causes a huge change in metal alloys being created for the press. If it sparked new paper and ink creation, etc. Yet with the digital age I know of many other areas of technology that were directly affected by it in ways that have changed this world forever. We can sequence DNA!
If you want specifically go with networked computers over the digital age because we're going with printing press over writing then I present to artificial satellites. We have giant clocks in space (GPS) that can tell us where we are in long., lat., and height above sea level in seconds. We have others with cameras and sensors that read the earth to detect changes. The idea that we can get images from a camera high above Earth and send them to your TV is impressive and has changed the world.
The printing press essentially made learning possible. It's difficult to imagine any single event in human history more significant than that. Science, as we know it, started with the ability to share knowledge. Even the invention of the wheel arguably isn't as singular in importance, because the wheel didn't make it possible to move things around, only easier. The printed word was far more enabling, and revolutionary in its impact.
You can argue this many ways, and I'm not saying any one way is right and the others are wrong. But I will say again that historical change is difficult enough to measure looking back over events that have already occurred. It is bloody near impossible to predict the future, and so much of the impact of the technology we're creating today is unknown and yet to be evaluated. It's interesting to ponder, though!
I questioned whether networked computers can be called as important historically as the invention of the printing press. The significance of Steve Jobs was added by Woodlink. I can't be expected to defend that part of the argument since I didn't make it.
Again, I was addressing specifically the networked computers vs. the printing press argument. Even if the argument was broadened to computers in general, I'd say it is still too soon in the evolution of digital computing to evaluate its relative historical importance to the development of human culture. Nobody with any sense would argue that they haven't been important, but what I'm saying is it's a far leap to compare it to the printing press at this very early stage.
.
I believe that networked computers have had exactly the same impact as the printing press. The printing press made books available to a much wider audience. It took 3 to 4 centuries before books became available to everyone.
Now it is more than books, Networked computers make video, audio, the performing arts, scientific papers etc. etc. that is available to everyone. It is available instantly, is searchable, and at a cost that is an order of magnitude less than printed material. It has taken only a couple of decades to accomplish this.
Jobs' greatest contribution to all of this was his vision of everyone having a computer. It was his vision of a computer for everyone that started the PC revolution. Without the PC networked computers would probably just belong to Universities and the Military.
The printing press essentially made learning possible. It's difficult to imagine any single event in human history more significant than that. Science, as we know it, started with the ability to share knowledge. Even the invention of the wheel arguably isn't as singular in importance, because the wheel didn't make it possible to move things around, only easier. The printed word was far more enabling, and revolutionary in its impact.
You can argue this many ways, and I'm not saying any one way is right and the others are wrong. But I will say again that historical change is difficult enough to measure looking back over events that have already occurred. It is bloody near impossible to predict the future, and so much of the impact of the technology we're creating today is unknown and yet to be evaluated. It's interesting to ponder, though!
1) Printing existed before the printing press.
2) The wheel is essential to every printing press I've seen. Gears are wheels.
3) You can learn from computers. Inarguably you can learn more from computers than from the printed word due to the many ways in which information can be presented, including being able to interact and get direct feedback, like in this conversation I'm having with someone I've chatted with for years on this site yet no very little about. I don't even know what country you live in.
I honestly don't see how any one can be compared to the other in any real sense as they all build each other.
edit: Yet another way to look at it would be from it's future utility. While I don't think it will go away the printing press is certainly obsolecing due to networked computers which are still increasing. We have bathroom scales that are networked! Until we can talk to each other with our minds I think networked computers will continue, while the printing press seems to be less used each year.
Now take wheel. Certainly used less as digital technology moves to less moving parts, but still used, at least for the cooling fan of this powered technology. We also haw more and more automobiles which are a plethora of wheels, not just on the ones on the ground. Yet I can see how even the wheel in automobiles could become less used as we move to engines with less moving parts, something we have the digital age to thank for.
Who cares what Sculley has to say? He's just polishing his own apple!
" I didn't really fire jobs."? Sculley got this line spin from the Wizard of Oz "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!". He's promoting his work on revisionist history to those naive enough to believe it.
True, the real invention was moveable type. So in that sense, it compares to the invention of digital ways of parsing reality, which you raise above as maybe the real revolution, not the singular application of networked computer.
Interesting angle, have to think about that one for a while.
McLuhan's formulation was that print created the individual, while electronic media creates the connected member of a group. He called it retribalizing, but now with social networking he might choose a slightly different term, if he were still with us. His insight that a Global Village would be created by electronic media stands as an example of how predictions can be pulled out of signals in the middle of chaotic change. So far, his record is favorable. The future can be intuited.
Comments
His revenue and market share stats are of little meaning, since the company had huge momentum and no credible competition in the GUI OS space till Windows 3.0 showed up in 1990. It was then that the lack of innovation and vision under Sculley was gradually exposed, and the 90's proceeded to be a big bag of hurt for Apple till Jobs returned.
Not so. After a moderately good start in 1984, Mac sales took a tumble the following year. The company in fact had no momentum, more like negative momentum. The Apple II was an end-of-life product, the Apple III and Lisa flopped, and the Mac didn't look like it could sustain the company. The disagreement between Jobs and Sculley was over what to do about this. The competition from IBM-PC clones was more than credible. A PC running MS-DOS was considered to be the "standard" long before Windows arrived in any usable form. Apple was hard up against this concept from the very start.
The problems of the '90s can perhaps be laid at Sculley's door in part, but let's not try to reinvent history here. If Sculley had not been hired to run Apple in 1985, the company would have likely ceased to exist before many more years went by, rendering all this talk about how the '90s were so bad for Apple moot. Without Sculley, Apple probably doesn't even have the '90s.
If that is what you understood or got out of NomadMac's comments, I don't think that anyone is bright enough to convince you of anything.
Good one, and Woodlink could be forgiven for not getting it, even in spite of NomadMac's heroic reply.
Many people now using computers, having grown up with them, can only see things from the point of view of the environment they are immersed in. Like fish who don't know the first thing about water, people born into the computer age don't necessarily see the break with the past that the computer, especially the Jobsian computer, represents.
The computer's arrival should be compared to the appearance of the printed book, though history will judge the Internet-connected computer to be many times more powerful than the printed book. Still, it was the portable book invented by printers like Aldus that freed thinkers like Copernicus, or clerics like Luther, or philosophers like Erasmus, to create the Enlightenment and the Reformation.
What Jobs did was insist on humanizing the connected computer, making it portable, and most important, making it desirable, then recognize a brother designer in Jony Ive, who could pull it off as an engineered product, and who had been toiling away in the basement for managers with no vision, as it were.
As a shift in human culture, having an enjoyable connected computer in your pocket is a 500-year event. But we've been living under the spell of print so long that some have lost the art of seeing big pictures through pattern recognition, which was one of the main features of Job's genius. He was an art guy, not a print guy, in his vision.
So Woodlink is quite a contradiction. A guy using pattern-recognizing tools -- computers connected around the world -- while trapped in his print-derived left hemisphere. But it's very common among computer users, maybe because of the lingering keyboard focus of our relations with these machines at this point, maybe because of the binary logic that drives the digital process attracts Aspergerish hemisphere lockup.
It will change for the small-picture people when they start following Jobs's course of study, if they have to: turn on, tune in, drop out, and come back stronger and more visionary than ever. Wooodlink, see you at the next Woodstock . . .
The computer's arrival should be compared to the appearance of the printed book, though history will judge the Internet-connected computer to be many times more powerful than the printed book.
You've argued yourself right out of your own premise with this statement, by thinking so much from within your own frame of reference. The printing press was one of the most important factors leading to the end of the Dark Ages and the sparking of the Renaissance, very probably the single most important leap in the history of human culture. The internet-connected computer has a long way to go before it can be shown to have equal importance.
You've argued yourself right out of your own premise with this statement, by thinking so much from within your own frame of reference. The printing press was one of the most important factors leading to the end of the Dark Ages and the sparking of the Renaissance, very probably the single most important leap in the history of human culture. The internet-connected computer has a long way to go before it can be shown to have equal importance.
Shockingly bounded vision exhibited here by yourself, Dr. M., though I agree about the Renaissance.
Simple logic should let you see that each connected computer is not only a printing press but a library that encompasses, or will encompass, all the world's printed materials. Then add sound and picture and moving picture. Then add instant search and indexing. Do I need to go on?
The computer is to the printed book as the printed book is to the hand-lettered papyrus scroll. To think otherwise is perhaps to betray a sentimental over-attachment to a venerable ancestral technology?
We can use another Renaissance, since we're still saddled with the main Creation myths that belonged to the Dark Ages. I think Steve Jobs had a new Enlightenment in mind when he talked about changing the world.
Ps. I'm not one to short sell the effects of the Gutenberg revolution. The book and other forms of print created individualism, authorship, readership, democracy 2.0, along with the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Renaissance, and the scientific revolution. But we ain't seen nothing yet. The next revolution, based on having essentially all the world's knowledge past and present in your pocket, could be called the Jobsian revolution in times to come. That's why I think comparisons with Walt Disney, Edison or Ford are too slight and cheap toward what Jobs accomplished.
Maybe we should try to imagine what is beyond science, which I agree was a very big deal among many other big deals produced by print.
How about global cultural ecumenicalism? World virtual exploration? World social nirvana? The revival of the archaic nature "religions" (they weren't really religions; Robert Graves called them "festal systems")? The end of the Indo-European system of dominance by conquest? The demotion of the Indo-European "Abrahamic" god? The thirteen-moon calendar?
I leave it to your imagination how we build on the galaxy of changes wrought by Gutenberg. I take it you've read the work of the sage of Toronto, Marshall McLuhan. He has a lot to say about the creation of the global village created by electronic media.
I just would like to see the Jobsian contribution framed in a serious way. It's being missed by a wide margin. Almost dismissed, and it's basic media theory
To me it is screamingly obvious that a machine that "contains" a billion or so dynamically searchable pieces or volumes of information and/or knowledge, in the hands of hundreds of millions at all times of the day is going to be a quantum leap in both our intellect and sensorium as a species.
Maybe we should try to imagine what is beyond science, which I agree was a very big deal among many other big deals produced by print.
How about global cultural ecumenicalism? World virtual exploration? World social nirvana? The revival of the archaic nature "religions" (they weren't really religions; Robert Graves called them "festal systems")? The end of the Indo-European system of dominance by conquest? The demotion of the Indo-European "Abrahamic" god? The thirteen-moon calendar?
I leave it to your imagination how we build on the galaxy of changes wrought by Gutenberg. I take it you've read the work of the sage of Toronto, Marshall McLuhan. He has a lot to say about the creation of the global village created by electronic media.
I just would like to see the Jobsian contribution framed in a serious way. It's being missed by a wide margin. Almost dismissed, and it's basic media theory
we are in the midst of writing revisionist history about Jobs and his contributions to society (what those are deemed to be sans a market cap > Exxon). So, as I posted earlier, the jury is still out on what societal impact is worthy of discussion.
It is a fascinating debate....history in the making.
we are in the midst of writing revisionist history about Jobs and his contributions to society (what those are deemed to be sans a market cap > Exxon). So, as I posted earlier, the jury is still out on what societal impact is worthy of discussion.
It is a fascinating debate....history in the making.
And the jury will remain out for centuries, quite probably. Assessing the importance of historical events after the fact is difficult enough. Predicting them beforehand is essentially pure guesswork.
we are in the midst of writing revisionist history about Jobs and his contributions to society (what those are deemed to be sans a market cap > Exxon). So, as I posted earlier, the jury is still out on what societal impact is worthy of discussion.
It is a fascinating debate....history in the making.
And the jury will remain out for centuries, quite probably. Assessing the importance of historical events after the fact is difficult enough. Predicting them beforehand is essentially pure guesswork.
There is no beforehand. There is nothing to be unsure about. Steve Jobs heavily impacted personal computing and consumer electronics. The impact is known, it's been known. If you can't see that Steve Jobs has contributed to society with everything he's done then obviously there is nothing I can say that will mind in a paragraph.
There is no beforehand. There is nothing to be unsure about. Steve Jobs heavily impacted personal computing and consumer electronics. The impact is known, it's been known. If you can't see that Steve Jobs has contributed to society with everything he's done then obviously there is nothing I can say that will mind in a paragraph.
No need. Just go back and read what I wrote, to the argument to which I was responding. It was not the one you refer to here.
No need. Just go back and read what I wrote, to the argument to which I was responding. It was not the one you refer to here.
I'm not following. I see you made comments about whether the computer age was more important than the printing press, but Woodlink's comments are about Steve Jobs contributions not having any known or measurable level of social contributions.
I can't agree or disagree about the level of important significance something has affected the world but the printing press v computer can easily be argued if you take either side. Taking a position opposite of yours the computer got us to the moon, put giant machines in orbit, and all sorts of other things that connected us to the rest of the world. It's taken what the printing press could do and then made it easier and faster than it ever could been. The point is that it allowed for the automation of the written word (and ideas), which is why you choose this over writing in general, but the computer and internet allow for all this, too, just better and easier.
I'm not following. I see you made comments about whether the computer age was more important than the printing press, but Woodlink's comments are about Steve Jobs contributions not having any known or measurable level of social contributions.
I can't agree or disagree about the level of important significance something has affected the world but the printing press v computer can easily be argued if you take either side. Taking a position opposite of yours the computer got us to the moon, put giant machines in orbit, and all sorts of other things that connected us to the rest of the world. It's taken what the printing press could do and then made it easier and faster than it ever could been. The point is that it allowed for the automation of the written word (and ideas), which is why you choose this over writing in general, but the computer and internet allow for all this, too, just better and easier.
I questioned whether networked computers can be called as important historically as the invention of the printing press. The significance of Steve Jobs was added by Woodlink. I can't be expected to defend that part of the argument since I didn't make it.
Again, I was addressing specifically the networked computers vs. the printing press argument. Even if the argument was broadened to computers in general, I'd say it is still too soon in the evolution of digital computing to evaluate its relative historical importance to the development of human culture. Nobody with any sense would argue that they haven't been important, but what I'm saying is it's a far leap to compare it to the printing press at this very early stage.
Keep in mind, the printed word has been around for more than 500 years, and is still very much with us, and we can readily examine human culture before and after, and measure the impact the changes the printed word had on culture. In short, the printed word made just about everything we now take for granted possible, not just easier and better. It will be long past any of our lives before people know if computing will have that sort of impact.
Two things I've taken away from the book so far:
- Steve was a world class A-hole
- All these Execs tended to cry a lot
I questioned whether networked computers can be called as important historically as the invention of the printing press. The significance of Steve Jobs was added by Woodlink. I can't be expected to defend that part of the argument since I didn't make it.
Again, I was addressing specifically the networked computers vs. the printing press argument. Even if the argument was broadened to computers in general, I'd say it is still too soon in the evolution of digital computing to evaluate its relative historical importance to the development of human culture. Nobody with any sense would argue that they haven't been important, but what I'm saying is it's a far leap to compare it to the printing press at this very early stage.
Keep in mind, the printed word has been around for more than 500 years, and is still very much with us, and we can readily examine human culture before and after, and measure the impact the changes the printed word had on culture. In short, the printed word made just about everything we now take for granted possible, not just easier and better. It will be long past any of our lives before people know if computing will have that sort of impact.
I would say digital age over networked computers. That is what sparked everything. It's what led to the transistor and microchip that allowed for these machines to be in our homes and connected to each other.
I wonder how many computers I interact per day. I mean, how many do my computing devices interact with when I do basic tasks like using my phone, doing a google search, reading a Wikipedia page (which includes all that have attributed to the page), and even participating on this forum.
What you ask is hard because the printing press allowed for printed materials about the digital age, so do you count the foundational invention as higher or the newer one if it led to a lot more rapid changes in many more ways?
Admittedly I know very little about the printing press. I don't know if it causes a huge change in metal alloys being created for the press. If it sparked new paper and ink creation, etc. Yet with the digital age I know of many other areas of technology that were directly affected by it in ways that have changed this world forever. We can sequence DNA!
If you want specifically go with networked computers over the digital age because we're going with printing press over writing then I present to artificial satellites. We have giant clocks in space (GPS) that can tell us where we are in long., lat., and height above sea level in seconds. We have others with cameras and sensors that read the earth to detect changes. The idea that we can get images from a camera high above Earth and send them to your TV is impressive and has changed the world.
I would say digital age over networked computers. That is what sparked everything. It's what led to the transistor and microchip that allowed for these machines to be in our homes and connected to each other.
I wonder how many computers I interact per day. I mean, how many do my computing devices interact with when I do basic tasks like using my phone, doing a google search, reading a Wikipedia page (which includes all that have attributed to the page), and even participating on this forum.
What you ask is hard because the printing press allowed for printed materials about the digital age, so do you count the foundational invention as higher or the newer one if it led to a lot more rapid changes in many more ways?
Admittedly I know very little about the printing press. I don't know if it causes a huge change in metal alloys being created for the press. If it sparked new paper and ink creation, etc. Yet with the digital age I know of many other areas of technology that were directly affected by it in ways that have changed this world forever. We can sequence DNA!
If you want specifically go with networked computers over the digital age because we're going with printing press over writing then I present to artificial satellites. We have giant clocks in space (GPS) that can tell us where we are in long., lat., and height above sea level in seconds. We have others with cameras and sensors that read the earth to detect changes. The idea that we can get images from a camera high above Earth and send them to your TV is impressive and has changed the world.
The printing press essentially made learning possible. It's difficult to imagine any single event in human history more significant than that. Science, as we know it, started with the ability to share knowledge. Even the invention of the wheel arguably isn't as singular in importance, because the wheel didn't make it possible to move things around, only easier. The printed word was far more enabling, and revolutionary in its impact.
You can argue this many ways, and I'm not saying any one way is right and the others are wrong. But I will say again that historical change is difficult enough to measure looking back over events that have already occurred. It is bloody near impossible to predict the future, and so much of the impact of the technology we're creating today is unknown and yet to be evaluated. It's interesting to ponder, though!
I questioned whether networked computers can be called as important historically as the invention of the printing press. The significance of Steve Jobs was added by Woodlink. I can't be expected to defend that part of the argument since I didn't make it.
Again, I was addressing specifically the networked computers vs. the printing press argument. Even if the argument was broadened to computers in general, I'd say it is still too soon in the evolution of digital computing to evaluate its relative historical importance to the development of human culture. Nobody with any sense would argue that they haven't been important, but what I'm saying is it's a far leap to compare it to the printing press at this very early stage.
.
I believe that networked computers have had exactly the same impact as the printing press. The printing press made books available to a much wider audience. It took 3 to 4 centuries before books became available to everyone.
Now it is more than books, Networked computers make video, audio, the performing arts, scientific papers etc. etc. that is available to everyone. It is available instantly, is searchable, and at a cost that is an order of magnitude less than printed material. It has taken only a couple of decades to accomplish this.
Jobs' greatest contribution to all of this was his vision of everyone having a computer. It was his vision of a computer for everyone that started the PC revolution. Without the PC networked computers would probably just belong to Universities and the Military.
The printing press essentially made learning possible. It's difficult to imagine any single event in human history more significant than that. Science, as we know it, started with the ability to share knowledge. Even the invention of the wheel arguably isn't as singular in importance, because the wheel didn't make it possible to move things around, only easier. The printed word was far more enabling, and revolutionary in its impact.
You can argue this many ways, and I'm not saying any one way is right and the others are wrong. But I will say again that historical change is difficult enough to measure looking back over events that have already occurred. It is bloody near impossible to predict the future, and so much of the impact of the technology we're creating today is unknown and yet to be evaluated. It's interesting to ponder, though!
1) Printing existed before the printing press.
2) The wheel is essential to every printing press I've seen. Gears are wheels.
3) You can learn from computers. Inarguably you can learn more from computers than from the printed word due to the many ways in which information can be presented, including being able to interact and get direct feedback, like in this conversation I'm having with someone I've chatted with for years on this site yet no very little about. I don't even know what country you live in.
I honestly don't see how any one can be compared to the other in any real sense as they all build each other.
edit: Yet another way to look at it would be from it's future utility. While I don't think it will go away the printing press is certainly obsolecing due to networked computers which are still increasing. We have bathroom scales that are networked! Until we can talk to each other with our minds I think networked computers will continue, while the printing press seems to be less used each year.
Now take wheel. Certainly used less as digital technology moves to less moving parts, but still used, at least for the cooling fan of this powered technology. We also haw more and more automobiles which are a plethora of wheels, not just on the ones on the ground. Yet I can see how even the wheel in automobiles could become less used as we move to engines with less moving parts, something we have the digital age to thank for.
" I didn't really fire jobs."? Sculley got this line spin from the Wizard of Oz "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!". He's promoting his work on revisionist history to those naive enough to believe it.
1) Printing existed before the printing press.
True, the real invention was moveable type. So in that sense, it compares to the invention of digital ways of parsing reality, which you raise above as maybe the real revolution, not the singular application of networked computer.
Interesting angle, have to think about that one for a while.
McLuhan's formulation was that print created the individual, while electronic media creates the connected member of a group. He called it retribalizing, but now with social networking he might choose a slightly different term, if he were still with us. His insight that a Global Village would be created by electronic media stands as an example of how predictions can be pulled out of signals in the middle of chaotic change. So far, his record is favorable. The future can be intuited.