yeah. and don't forget the time he told Aunt Betty that he didn't steal that pie cooling on the windowsill.
In my original post I did not elaborate much but your reply is just too condescending to leave unaddressed.
First Tallest's statement that Gates lied about acquiring DOS is completely revisionist history. Gates sent IBM reps to both Gary Kildall and Tim Paterson but neither deal worked out until Gates purchased DOS for $50K. Later he paid even more money as a bonus without even needing to.
There were no lies. But in the case of Jobs, lying to your business partner about the work that Woz did all by himself, was only worth $500 when Jobs actually collected $5,000 and pocketed the difference by deception is really low. Then to deprive his own child of financial support by saying he was not the father because he was sterile is about as low as one can go. Those are despicable lies not just white lies.
So your comparison of it being like stealing a pie just demonstrates your total lack of knowledge as well as ethics. Your remarks seem to be an attempt to dismiss a very serious character flaw in a very public figure not to mention that many of us loyal Mac fans feel that he has lied to us repeatedly. For example IE was not the best browser for the Mac although he claimed it was. There are many more examples which I will leave to another post.
For the record I am not making Gates to be a saint. He did lie to Ross Perot in 1979 when he told him that every elevator in town was running DOS, That was an absolute lie.
Neither of these guys were Boy Scouts. They were shrewd, brilliant businessmen with different (and in most cases complimentary) visions of computing. They are really the yin and the yang. One could not have been sucessful without the other. As much as I've always detested Gates, for his business tactics, I admire his philanthropy. Jobs single-minded focus on perfection rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, but he certainly cared about end users and showed drove Apple to build insanely great products...
Let's take a vote: repeating this exhausted, endlessly refuted chestnut should be sufficient grounds for immediate, permanent ban, in that it suggests the kind of profound and willful ignorance that can only lead to tears.
Hypocrite much? So people should be banned for saying apple copied xerox but praised for saying microsoft copied apple?
Gates also revealed that he wrote a letter to Jobs when his death was imminent, in which he told the Apple co founder "he should feel great about what he had done and the company he had built." Gates also wrote about Jobs's kids, who he had gotten to know.
What reason would Steve have to not feel great about the company he had built? If that's the most amicable thing that Bill had to say in this letter to Steve, then who gives a hoot? Stupid article, in my opinion.
Hypocrite much? So people should be banned for saying apple copied xerox but praised for saying microsoft copied apple?
Not actually calling for praise. However, since you want to go there, this is an Apple-centric discussion board, and the "Apple just copied Xerox" canard has been one of those smug, sniggering little "Apple sux, losers" internet gems that's been getting traded around since way back in the original Mac OS days. Pretty much on par with "Macs are toys" and "Apple only sells to style conscious posers."
Since, as I say, this is an Apple-centric board, and since you can get absolutely giant heaping helpings of every Apple bashing myth, cliché, distortion, random bullshit, and general ass-hattery on pretty much every other tech site on the fucking internet, I don't think it's particularly outlandish to ask that this particular site maintain at least minimal standards of giving it a fucking rest already.
You don't like people saying mean things about Microsoft? Might I suggest Gizmodo, Engadget, Electronista, ZDNet, or the comments on any given tech review from any given online publication.
Xerox bought exactly $1M worth of Apple shares before the IPO - 100k shares at $10 ea. They sold almost immediately after the IPO and made $16M profit.
This transaction did not grant Apple rights to any IP. Instead, what Xerox gave Apple was access to the technology - see it work and, to the extent Xerox engineers were willing, see the underpinnings. What many people have forgotten is that Xerox sued Apple, claiming that the Mac stole the look and feel of the Star.
Where did you get the information about how much stock Xerox bought and how much they made? To my knowledge this information has alway been confidential and was never disclosed. Not that the scenario isn't plausible.
I don't think Apple could have been accused of stealing the look and feel of the Xerox Star. The computer they saw in action at PARC was the Alto. The Star was still a couple of years off.
Where did you get the information about how much stock Xerox bought and how much they made? To my knowledge this information has alway been confidential and was never disclosed. Not that the scenario isn't plausible.
I don't think Apple could have been accused of stealing the look and feel of the Xerox Star. The computer they saw in action at PARC was the Alto. The Star was still a couple of years off.
The amount of stock bought by Xerox is widely documented. How much they made is a matter of speculation, ASAIK. The speculation is based on reasonable rationalization - Xerox is reported to have sold the stock some time soon after Apple's IPO. Based on the IPO price, many pundits have assumed that Xerox sold at ~$17/share. But, as I said, this is at best a reasonable speculation because I don't think anyone has found an official record of when the sale took place.
Why couldn't Apple have been accused of stealing the look and feel of the Star? The Star was introduced in 1981, 3 years before the Mac. The lawsuit was for copyright infringement, and specifically named both computers.
Well, no is has been utterly refuted, just as it is incontrovertably established that Android is a cheap, cheesy knockoff of iOS, and that Samsung is copying Apple's phone and tablet designs, just as they copied others designs before that. But, there will always be people like you who will claim that things that are proven aren't.
Do me a favor. Shut the f*ck up and don't quote me again. You are now the first person on my ignore list. You bring nothing to any discussion even on the pro-Apple-always side. You're an annoying rodent of a man who really needs to work on his anger issues.
Do me a favor. Shut the f*ck up and don't quote me again. You are now the first person on my ignore list. You bring nothing to any discussion even on the pro-Apple-always side. You're an annoying rodent of a man who really needs to work on his anger issues.
Again. Shut the f*ck up.
Chill, dude. You add a reasonable, centrist voice here. Losing your cool will dampen your contributions.
Steve Jobs inspired MILLIONS to make a difference.
Bill Gates is making a difference to MILLIONS.
I like that, although I don't think millions have truly been inspired to make a difference by Jobs. Admiring his body of work is not going make that many people get off their butts to do things differently.
Also, there are many, many people inspired by what Gates is doing, and are taking steps to support and emulate. We know that he has inspired a few dozen billionaires to commit billions to charity that they previously had not.
Still, your way of presenting it is kinda cool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FriedLobster
I admire both of them, but I think in the long run (20+ years) Steve will have a bigger impact.
Eradicating polio and malaria will have a smaller impact than iPads and iPhones? Sorry, dude, I cannot fathom the logic.
I think the bottom line is that Gates and Jobs had a strong mutual respect and disrespect for each other.
Jobs was a genius who has truly left his mark on the world. But then so is Gates.
It's all very well accusing Gates of plagiarism, but wasn't it Jobs who said good artists copy, great artists steal? If anyone was guilt of theft, perhaps Jobs visit to Xerox park in the early days can be classified as that?
If we really want to compare Apple and Microsoft, then does anyone remember System 7? it was cool. It really set the bar. But it also crashed frequently and Apple's hardware wasn't as reliable as it has now become. The real problem with Apple back then, however, was price. A decent machine set you back around $3,000. It was priced way beyond the reach of most people, certainly in Europe.
Windows 95 was not as elegant or intuitive to use as System 7, but what it did was to democratise computing. Anyone could use a computer and the price of entry fell by 50%. My first computer was a Windows machine not a Mac, simply because of price.
Gates made the power of the PC accessible and relevant to ordinary people. That was a hell of an achievement.
Personally, I would like to see Gates return to computing and do something equally new and revolutionary. Whatever he does, it won't detract from Steve Jobs' amazing vision, contribution and the sheer passion of the man. Equally, Both Gates and Jobs are giants of modern computing. We owe them both a massive debt.
I like that, although I don't think millions have truly been inspired to make a difference by Jobs. Admiring his body of work is not going make that many people get off their butts to do things differently.
Also, there are many, many people inspired by what Gates is doing, and are taking steps to support and emulate. We know that he has inspired a few dozen billionaires to commit billions to charity that they previously had not.
Still, your way of presenting it is kinda cool.
Eradicating polio and malaria will have a smaller impact than iPads and iPhones? Sorry, dude, I cannot fathom the logic.
Steve will inspire alot of people like doctor/scientist to start his own medicla/biotech company (it could be the next Genentech or Pfizer).
Bill Gates has done more for humanity with his foundation than practically any man alive.
I love Apple stuff but can't help but think looking back on Jobs life that as has been mentioned cheating his best mate, denying paternity tests, stopping the charity stuff with Apple ( which Tim Cook reversed as soon as the last wow wow wow was uttered). Thats all pretty unforgivable stuff.
Jonny Ive was reported about being really hacked off for Jobs taking the credit for his work.
Thats not to mention Apple not wanting to pay taxes on its overseas earnings which means that someone ( joe public ) has to make up the difference.
We all buy Apple gadgets and cheer when the results come out, but with the 45% margins it shows how shafted we all are. And the devices are built in China which affects US employment and the trade balance.
The bottom line is that having a boss like Jobs is bad for the employees health. The best that could be said is about his personal life was that he was a bully and nasty bit of work.
Do me a favor. Shut the f*ck up and don't quote me again. You are now the first person on my ignore list. You bring nothing to any discussion even on the pro-Apple-always side. You're an annoying rodent of a man who really needs to work on his anger issues.
Again. Shut the f*ck up.
Since he's ignoring me now, I'll address him in the 3rd-person...
If he didn't say stupid things, I wouldn't have to point it out. If that upsets him, then so be it, but these constant posts by him where reality is denied are a bit tedious, and a distraction to have to constantly contradict. It's a bit like dealing with people who deny that evolution is a fact, a necessary waste of time that could better be spent on more meaningful discussion.
The amount of stock bought by Xerox is widely documented. How much they made is a matter of speculation, ASAIK. The speculation is based on reasonable rationalization - Xerox is reported to have sold the stock some time soon after Apple's IPO. Based on the IPO price, many pundits have assumed that Xerox sold at ~$17/share. But, as I said, this is at best a reasonable speculation because I don't think anyone has found an official record of when the sale took place.
Why couldn't Apple have been accused of stealing the look and feel of the Star? The Star was introduced in 1981, 3 years before the Mac. The lawsuit was for copyright infringement, and specifically named both computers.
I've been a student of this history for a long time, and I've never seen it documented anywhere. Speculated about yes, but not documented. What really made me scratch my head was the numbers you provided. If they bought $1m worth at $10 and sold at $17 then they made $700,000 on the deal, not $16m.
As for the Star vs. the Alto being the subject of the Xerox suit against Apple, I am going to look that up and see what I can find. I thought the Alto had to be the prime suspect because that's the computer the Apple team saw when they visited PARC in 1979, and the Mac project was already underway at Apple at that point. So I don't honestly know, but the argument for Apple "ripping off Xerox" is always made in the context of the 1979 visit to PARC.
In any event, you have to be careful about what you read on the 'net about this history. A lot of it is the repeating of hearsay.
Comments
Gates = Great person,
Jobs = Despicable person,
I believe the phrase you are looking for in both cases is 'human being'
no one is perfect. We all have moments of being awesome people and moments of being raging asshats. Even Gates. Even Jobs when he was alive
Bill Gates is making a difference to MILLIONS.
I admire both of them, but I think in the long run (20+ years) Steve will have a bigger impact.
yeah. and don't forget the time he told Aunt Betty that he didn't steal that pie cooling on the windowsill.
In my original post I did not elaborate much but your reply is just too condescending to leave unaddressed.
First Tallest's statement that Gates lied about acquiring DOS is completely revisionist history. Gates sent IBM reps to both Gary Kildall and Tim Paterson but neither deal worked out until Gates purchased DOS for $50K. Later he paid even more money as a bonus without even needing to.
There were no lies. But in the case of Jobs, lying to your business partner about the work that Woz did all by himself, was only worth $500 when Jobs actually collected $5,000 and pocketed the difference by deception is really low. Then to deprive his own child of financial support by saying he was not the father because he was sterile is about as low as one can go. Those are despicable lies not just white lies.
So your comparison of it being like stealing a pie just demonstrates your total lack of knowledge as well as ethics. Your remarks seem to be an attempt to dismiss a very serious character flaw in a very public figure not to mention that many of us loyal Mac fans feel that he has lied to us repeatedly. For example IE was not the best browser for the Mac although he claimed it was. There are many more examples which I will leave to another post.
For the record I am not making Gates to be a saint. He did lie to Ross Perot in 1979 when he told him that every elevator in town was running DOS, That was an absolute lie.
Let's take a vote: repeating this exhausted, endlessly refuted chestnut should be sufficient grounds for immediate, permanent ban, in that it suggests the kind of profound and willful ignorance that can only lead to tears.
Hypocrite much? So people should be banned for saying apple copied xerox but praised for saying microsoft copied apple?
Gates also revealed that he wrote a letter to Jobs when his death was imminent, in which he told the Apple co founder "he should feel great about what he had done and the company he had built." Gates also wrote about Jobs's kids, who he had gotten to know.
What reason would Steve have to not feel great about the company he had built? If that's the most amicable thing that Bill had to say in this letter to Steve, then who gives a hoot? Stupid article, in my opinion.
Hypocrite much? So people should be banned for saying apple copied xerox but praised for saying microsoft copied apple?
Not actually calling for praise. However, since you want to go there, this is an Apple-centric discussion board, and the "Apple just copied Xerox" canard has been one of those smug, sniggering little "Apple sux, losers" internet gems that's been getting traded around since way back in the original Mac OS days. Pretty much on par with "Macs are toys" and "Apple only sells to style conscious posers."
Since, as I say, this is an Apple-centric board, and since you can get absolutely giant heaping helpings of every Apple bashing myth, cliché, distortion, random bullshit, and general ass-hattery on pretty much every other tech site on the fucking internet, I don't think it's particularly outlandish to ask that this particular site maintain at least minimal standards of giving it a fucking rest already.
You don't like people saying mean things about Microsoft? Might I suggest Gizmodo, Engadget, Electronista, ZDNet, or the comments on any given tech review from any given online publication.
Xerox bought exactly $1M worth of Apple shares before the IPO - 100k shares at $10 ea. They sold almost immediately after the IPO and made $16M profit.
This transaction did not grant Apple rights to any IP. Instead, what Xerox gave Apple was access to the technology - see it work and, to the extent Xerox engineers were willing, see the underpinnings. What many people have forgotten is that Xerox sued Apple, claiming that the Mac stole the look and feel of the Star.
Where did you get the information about how much stock Xerox bought and how much they made? To my knowledge this information has alway been confidential and was never disclosed. Not that the scenario isn't plausible.
I don't think Apple could have been accused of stealing the look and feel of the Xerox Star. The computer they saw in action at PARC was the Alto. The Star was still a couple of years off.
strange |strānj|
adjective
1 unusual or surprising in a way that is unsettling or hard to understand.
Gates' use of the word is absolutely apt.
What's also strange is how little the judgments for/against Apple/MS/SJ/BG matter.
Life keeps going on, contraindications and all.
I don't know what the word 'apocryphal' means, but I'm sure that it can be used to describe this story.
"Apocryphal" = made up; fictitious.
I agree, sounds too much aimed to show Bill Gates in a good light, with the story told by himself!!!!
Where did you get the information about how much stock Xerox bought and how much they made? To my knowledge this information has alway been confidential and was never disclosed. Not that the scenario isn't plausible.
I don't think Apple could have been accused of stealing the look and feel of the Xerox Star. The computer they saw in action at PARC was the Alto. The Star was still a couple of years off.
The amount of stock bought by Xerox is widely documented. How much they made is a matter of speculation, ASAIK. The speculation is based on reasonable rationalization - Xerox is reported to have sold the stock some time soon after Apple's IPO. Based on the IPO price, many pundits have assumed that Xerox sold at ~$17/share. But, as I said, this is at best a reasonable speculation because I don't think anyone has found an official record of when the sale took place.
Why couldn't Apple have been accused of stealing the look and feel of the Star? The Star was introduced in 1981, 3 years before the Mac. The lawsuit was for copyright infringement, and specifically named both computers.
"Apocryphal" = made up; fictitious.
I agree, sounds too much aimed to show Bill Gates in a good light, with the story told by himself!!!!
Why would Gates fabricate something about what Laurene Powell told him?
Well, no is has been utterly refuted, just as it is incontrovertably established that Android is a cheap, cheesy knockoff of iOS, and that Samsung is copying Apple's phone and tablet designs, just as they copied others designs before that. But, there will always be people like you who will claim that things that are proven aren't.
Do me a favor. Shut the f*ck up and don't quote me again. You are now the first person on my ignore list. You bring nothing to any discussion even on the pro-Apple-always side. You're an annoying rodent of a man who really needs to work on his anger issues.
Again. Shut the f*ck up.
Do me a favor. Shut the f*ck up and don't quote me again. You are now the first person on my ignore list. You bring nothing to any discussion even on the pro-Apple-always side. You're an annoying rodent of a man who really needs to work on his anger issues.
Again. Shut the f*ck up.
Chill, dude. You add a reasonable, centrist voice here. Losing your cool will dampen your contributions.
Steve Jobs inspired MILLIONS to make a difference.
Bill Gates is making a difference to MILLIONS.
I like that, although I don't think millions have truly been inspired to make a difference by Jobs. Admiring his body of work is not going make that many people get off their butts to do things differently.
Also, there are many, many people inspired by what Gates is doing, and are taking steps to support and emulate. We know that he has inspired a few dozen billionaires to commit billions to charity that they previously had not.
Still, your way of presenting it is kinda cool.
I admire both of them, but I think in the long run (20+ years) Steve will have a bigger impact.
Eradicating polio and malaria will have a smaller impact than iPads and iPhones? Sorry, dude, I cannot fathom the logic.
Jobs was a genius who has truly left his mark on the world. But then so is Gates.
It's all very well accusing Gates of plagiarism, but wasn't it Jobs who said good artists copy, great artists steal? If anyone was guilt of theft, perhaps Jobs visit to Xerox park in the early days can be classified as that?
If we really want to compare Apple and Microsoft, then does anyone remember System 7? it was cool. It really set the bar. But it also crashed frequently and Apple's hardware wasn't as reliable as it has now become. The real problem with Apple back then, however, was price. A decent machine set you back around $3,000. It was priced way beyond the reach of most people, certainly in Europe.
Windows 95 was not as elegant or intuitive to use as System 7, but what it did was to democratise computing. Anyone could use a computer and the price of entry fell by 50%. My first computer was a Windows machine not a Mac, simply because of price.
Gates made the power of the PC accessible and relevant to ordinary people. That was a hell of an achievement.
Personally, I would like to see Gates return to computing and do something equally new and revolutionary. Whatever he does, it won't detract from Steve Jobs' amazing vision, contribution and the sheer passion of the man. Equally, Both Gates and Jobs are giants of modern computing. We owe them both a massive debt.
I like that, although I don't think millions have truly been inspired to make a difference by Jobs. Admiring his body of work is not going make that many people get off their butts to do things differently.
Also, there are many, many people inspired by what Gates is doing, and are taking steps to support and emulate. We know that he has inspired a few dozen billionaires to commit billions to charity that they previously had not.
Still, your way of presenting it is kinda cool.
Eradicating polio and malaria will have a smaller impact than iPads and iPhones? Sorry, dude, I cannot fathom the logic.
Steve will inspire alot of people like doctor/scientist to start his own medicla/biotech company (it could be the next Genentech or Pfizer).
I love Apple stuff but can't help but think looking back on Jobs life that as has been mentioned cheating his best mate, denying paternity tests, stopping the charity stuff with Apple ( which Tim Cook reversed as soon as the last wow wow wow was uttered). Thats all pretty unforgivable stuff.
Jonny Ive was reported about being really hacked off for Jobs taking the credit for his work.
Thats not to mention Apple not wanting to pay taxes on its overseas earnings which means that someone ( joe public ) has to make up the difference.
We all buy Apple gadgets and cheer when the results come out, but with the 45% margins it shows how shafted we all are. And the devices are built in China which affects US employment and the trade balance.
The bottom line is that having a boss like Jobs is bad for the employees health. The best that could be said is about his personal life was that he was a bully and nasty bit of work.
Do me a favor. Shut the f*ck up and don't quote me again. You are now the first person on my ignore list. You bring nothing to any discussion even on the pro-Apple-always side. You're an annoying rodent of a man who really needs to work on his anger issues.
Again. Shut the f*ck up.
Since he's ignoring me now, I'll address him in the 3rd-person...
If he didn't say stupid things, I wouldn't have to point it out. If that upsets him, then so be it, but these constant posts by him where reality is denied are a bit tedious, and a distraction to have to constantly contradict. It's a bit like dealing with people who deny that evolution is a fact, a necessary waste of time that could better be spent on more meaningful discussion.
The amount of stock bought by Xerox is widely documented. How much they made is a matter of speculation, ASAIK. The speculation is based on reasonable rationalization - Xerox is reported to have sold the stock some time soon after Apple's IPO. Based on the IPO price, many pundits have assumed that Xerox sold at ~$17/share. But, as I said, this is at best a reasonable speculation because I don't think anyone has found an official record of when the sale took place.
Why couldn't Apple have been accused of stealing the look and feel of the Star? The Star was introduced in 1981, 3 years before the Mac. The lawsuit was for copyright infringement, and specifically named both computers.
I've been a student of this history for a long time, and I've never seen it documented anywhere. Speculated about yes, but not documented. What really made me scratch my head was the numbers you provided. If they bought $1m worth at $10 and sold at $17 then they made $700,000 on the deal, not $16m.
As for the Star vs. the Alto being the subject of the Xerox suit against Apple, I am going to look that up and see what I can find. I thought the Alto had to be the prime suspect because that's the computer the Apple team saw when they visited PARC in 1979, and the Mac project was already underway at Apple at that point. So I don't honestly know, but the argument for Apple "ripping off Xerox" is always made in the context of the 1979 visit to PARC.
In any event, you have to be careful about what you read on the 'net about this history. A lot of it is the repeating of hearsay.