Celebrity Roast of Steve Jobs at MW
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17199
Think about that people. Steve Jobs tried to kill the one product that made Apple. That's a scary thought. Steve was never a highly technical person. Reading Apple Confidential it became clear that Wozniak was the "brains" of Apple but Jobs was the "mouthpiece".
Even to this day nothing much has changed. Steve is still a mouthpiece who looks good because of the talent surrounding him.
The perfect CEO in my opinion for Apple is someone who can move the crowds but also has a bit more of a technical acumen which can be parlayed into good strategy. I've heard statements from Steve that lead me to believe he still doesn't understand the "commoner" and what he/she wants in computing.
Quote:
Draping a black turtleneck and jeans over a chair on the stage to stand in the CEO's place they said that if Steve Jobs had his way the Mac would have been a non-Mac. Jef Raskin, one of the so-called fathers of the Mac, said that Jobs killed the project three times and the team had to carry on in secret.
Draping a black turtleneck and jeans over a chair on the stage to stand in the CEO's place they said that if Steve Jobs had his way the Mac would have been a non-Mac. Jef Raskin, one of the so-called fathers of the Mac, said that Jobs killed the project three times and the team had to carry on in secret.
Think about that people. Steve Jobs tried to kill the one product that made Apple. That's a scary thought. Steve was never a highly technical person. Reading Apple Confidential it became clear that Wozniak was the "brains" of Apple but Jobs was the "mouthpiece".
Even to this day nothing much has changed. Steve is still a mouthpiece who looks good because of the talent surrounding him.
The perfect CEO in my opinion for Apple is someone who can move the crowds but also has a bit more of a technical acumen which can be parlayed into good strategy. I've heard statements from Steve that lead me to believe he still doesn't understand the "commoner" and what he/she wants in computing.
Comments
"Ultimately," Hertzfeld wrote elsewhere in the post, "if any single individual deserves the honor (of being called the Father of the Macintosh), I would have to cast my vote for the obvious choice, Steve Jobs, because the Macintosh never would have happened without him, in anything like the form it did."
Not that Steve can do no harm, but to just point out one thing is not an entire picture, but an attack...So, while there are many that don't like him, there are many others that view him as the savior of Apple and the track record of Apple since his return has improved, and the new technologies have increased...So, I have to give credit where credit is due.
apple with steve -very cool mac is born (boom years)
apple without steve- not so good (first down cycle and shakeout)
apple with steve v2. -not too shabby and getting better (mature industry)
However.
Steve has been a millionaire since what, like 23 years of age. He doesn't know what it's like to see a bank acount in the negative. To make the tough financial decisions that millions of Americans make daily. He is preoccupied with making things beautiful. Steve micromanaged Pixars new building down to the tile literally. He's very hands on and that's good in some case but bad in other.
He's smart to avoid the PDA trap and is likely correct that the PDA is being replaced by the cell phone. Ok. Where's the Apple option here? Ok maybe it's not time but it's something that Apple should be open to and investigating(I'm sure they are).
Steve must change his views on TV. I'm tired of the "your brain shuts off in front of a TV" BS line. TV is every bit as good as computers in teaching. Had his statement carried weight colleges around the country would be TV less. Apple's strength is multimedia. They have to parlay this strength into outstanding products. This involves audio(iPod) and finding out how to integrate video into the equation.
Apple needs funding for these future endeavours. Making iMacs cute is one thing but shipping boxes is quite another. Apple's approach to the consumer line needs to be bottom line. Apple's whole lineup shouldn't be sexy. the eMac should be very basic. The iMac should have slightly better trim and specs. The Powermacs should represent the coup de crace of Apple design internally and externally.
Apple is doing well when you consider that they almost died in the late 90's. Apples OS advantage in 1995 was HUGE ...in 2004 XP is far closer to OSX than 95 every was to MacOS 8
I like Tiger as well but Longhorn is a very ambitious OS for MS and even if only %66 of the features work ..users will wait and let MS get it right over time.
The iPod is great but the amount of press that it has received is overblown relatively compared to the revenue it generates. Apple needs to ride this pony well. Each new mac sold is another potential iTMS customer or .mac customer. We're just asking Apple the throttle back on the sizzle and give us more steak.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I've heard statements from Steve that lead me to believe he still doesn't understand the "commoner" and what he/she wants in computing.
I think the billions went right to his head, STEVES GOLDEN RULE: He with the gold(steve) not only makes the rules, but controls the whole universe.
Originally posted by hmurchison
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17199
Think about that people. Steve Jobs tried to kill the one product that made Apple.
What they don't tell you in that article, is that Jeff "snotty bastard who knows less than he thinks" Raskin stated that, insisted he was the father of the macintosh, and did all the Steve bashing, the others, while saying he could be tough, said he was good to work with and pretty fun sometimes. this article quotes Raskin then tries to say everyone bashed him when its not the case.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I like Tiger as well but Longhorn is a very ambitious OS for MS and even if only %66 of the features work ..users will wait and let MS get it right over time.
Longhorn is only ambitious if you beleive microsofts BS. WHy do I say this, I used to work for them, you called MS for support ya got me.. they do this with every os "rebuilt from ground up" "new groundbreaking features!", 95,98,ME,2000,XP, all of them. I remember how before XP was out they were talking about their cool new interface but not showing it just like Longhorn.. then they showed it, big deal, ugly colors.
they did the same thing with 2000(NT5 supposed to be out by 1997 btw). and NT4.. same thing, they blow tons of smoke and then release an OS that isnt that much different.
Were you surprised to find out that Jobs wasn't technically inclined?
Were you surprised to find out that Jobs wasn't technically inclined?
Years ago when I read Apple Confidential. I came out more impressed with Wozniak. But he doesn't really like the limelight.
I think Jef Raskin is a very bitter old man.
Definitely. Everytime I hear a Raskin quote it's negative. I definitely don't agree with his views on OS development today. His ideas are "out there".
Longhorn is only ambitious if you beleive microsofts BS
General, normally I'd agree with you but in Longhorn Microsoft is suprisingly focused. They have lots of information and sample code for developers and the OS isn't due to ship for 2 years! I'm afraid that MS seems to more focused than I've seen them. This isn't like Apple and Copland where Apple was already a pathetic company devoid of the good talent they burned out. This is Microsoft going for the quick kill. Longhorn locks content down in such a way that businesses have to buy into the whole concept. Apple's extent in the Enterprise is going to be limited to clusters, certian biz niches like biotechnology and peripheral markets. Can they make money here? Likely but the corporate desktop on a large scale is unobtainable for Apple. Steve knows, Billy Gates knows it and a couple of years after Longhorn ships..we'll all know it.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Steve must change his views on TV. I'm tired of the "your brain shuts off in front of a TV" BS line. TV is every bit as good as computers in teaching. Had his statement carried weight colleges around the country would be TV less.
You're misreading his statement. When he says "TV," he means the physical TV + broadcast TV + cable TV. He's not talking about screens used for remote teaching, because there it's not important that a television is the vehicle. It could just as easily be an iMac running iChat AV full screen.
When he says "you go to TV to turn your brain off," that is not a derogatory statement. He's saying that it's not interactive (in the sense that you can't interact with the content, it's just streamed unconditionally), that it's mostly entertainment, and he's right. And there's nothing wrong with that. All he has ever meant by that statement is that computers are apples (heh) and televisions are oranges, and there's no compelling reason to integrate them.
Add to that the current legal climate, and you'd have the major broadcasters and producers going apoplectic if Apple allowed their material to be composited into a window on a computer that ships standard with iMovie and iDVD. If you think the music industry's paranoid, the broadcast and movie industries make the RIAA look like Kazaa.
So, for any number of reasons that have everything to do with differing roles and nothing to do with any notion that "TV sucks!", Steve doesn't see any point in convergence between Macs and TV.
Nor has he ever said that this is true by definition until the end of time. HDTV is a completely different beast, and the ground rules are still being set (and you can be damn sure that Steve is up to his eyeballs trying to set them). For the first time since the '80s, a TV will have enough resolution to pass for a computer monitor. For the first time ever, content will be purely digital. There are a great many possibilities here. The main obstacle is that the content industries are busily trying to lock the content down absolutely, and Microsoft and Intel are busily accomodating their every wish. This is probably the main thing Steve's trying to lobby against, although given the stance he took about recordable HD-DVDs in his role as Pixar's CEO, it's hard to say.
But the bottom line is: Steve has given no indication that he hates TV, only that it plays a different role. He's talking about TV as almost everyone understands it: Cable and broadcast television, played through a television set. He's talking about TV now, not into the foreseeable future. He's only ever used the present tense when talking about this, so what he's said doesn't automatically apply to emerging, and radically different, technologies.
Apple's strength is multimedia. They have to parlay this strength into outstanding products. This involves audio(iPod) and finding out how to integrate video into the equation.
Apple's strength is multimedia creation, and they've done a fantastic job of integrating video there. The iPod is a relatively new phenomenon for them, and it's not too hard to see how to integrate video into that: Name the videos, select them from a menu exactly as you'd select a song, and play it out through the dock connector to a television. You might even be able to do playlists of music videos and photos, for example. But the iPod interface remains essentially unchanged.
And that still has nothing to do with TV.
Apple's whole lineup shouldn't be sexy. the eMac should be very basic. The iMac should have slightly better trim and specs. The Powermacs should represent the coup de crace of Apple design internally and externally.
Why? The PowerMac is the most constrained machine in Apple's lineup from a design point of view, because the need for arbitrary internal expansion necessarily reduces it to a big rectangular box.
Besides, proportions are free. It's entirely possible to design something sexy without pricing it into the stratosphere.
Apple is doing well when you consider that they almost died in the late 90's. Apples OS advantage in 1995 was HUGE ...in 2004 XP is far closer to OSX than 95 every was to MacOS 8
Mileage varies. I think Panther is leagues ahead of XP, and I use both daily. OS 8 had its strengths, but there were far more obvious disadvantages relative to 95, like cooperative multitasking and a complete lack of memory protection.
So, for any number of reasons that have everything to do with differing roles and nothing to do with any notion that "TV sucks!", Steve doesn't see any point in convergence between Macs and TV.
Exactly! And that what worries me because despite Steve's attempted RDF he's flat out wrong. HDTV will and is the best opportunity for computers and TV to meld. A HD Tuner box is nothing more than a computer bolted to a ATSC tuner. Copy Protection has been fleshed out in the Broadcast realm with HDCP requirements for full rez display. HD-DVD and Blu Ray will have very tough encryption. I would like to see Apple embrace TV and protect the IP of the authors. To simply write off Computer/TV convergence and its possiblible benefits is the most egregious of naivete.
He's only ever used the present tense when talking about this, so what he's said doesn't automatically apply to emerging, and radically different, technologies.
Honestly I think his intentions have been mistaken. I don't think he hates TV but he's playing Apple's intentions close to the vest. The Microsoft/Intel DRM policy is sure to be too draconian IMO. It should be fun to watch this play out.
I see a HDTV future where users will have self functioning Set Top Boxes that receive and manage broadcast/cable data. These STB will also be connected via computers via a wired or wireless network. Thus the family HDTV Monitor will easily adapt from watching Shrek6 over cable/broadcast or viewing the latest HD edited home video from a computer on the home network to even playing the latest and hottest HD 3D Game.
The computer and TV may not merge but they will be on a peer level. I like that Longhorn has DRM is a business sense infused thoughout the whole system. I would love to see Apple become the "Longhorn" of media. With trust comes partnerships. Apple could then truly consider an iTunes Media Store once the OSX has been architected around protecting IP and delivering a great user experience. The pieces are falling into line one by one.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Exactly! And that what worries me because despite Steve's attempted RDF he's flat out wrong. HDTV will and is the best opportunity for computers and TV to meld.
Did you stop reading my post there? As I said, he's talking about TV now, not in the future. HDTV does in fact change everything, and Apple is if anything telegraphing their interest in HD content.
When he made that comment, HDTV was still in infancy. It applied to what everyone understood when you said "TV" at the time: Broadcast and cable NTSC/PAL TV. Period.
A HD Tuner box is nothing more than a computer bolted to a ATSC tuner. Copy Protection has been fleshed out in the Broadcast realm with HDCP requirements for full rez display. HD-DVD and Blu Ray will have very tough encryption. I would like to see Apple embrace TV and protect the IP of the authors. To simply write off Computer/TV convergence and its possiblible benefits is the most egregious of naivete.
How do you do both? You didn't answer this question: How do you display TV content on a current PC with iMovie and iDVD on it, and protect anything? Answer: You don't. Not to the standards of the industry. The content providers want absolute, unconditional control, and that means either a dedicated, locked-down client (HDTV) or an MS/Intel collaboration on Palladium, whose philosophy goes against everything Steve has ever said about copy protection.
The fact that the Mac is a great content creation platform is a strike against it as a content receiving platform, because the industry doesn't want you doing anything with their content but sitting on your ass and watching it. Until you resolve that problem, the Mac cannot be integrated with HDTV either.
Honestly I think his intentions have been mistaken. I don't think he hates TV but he's playing Apple's intentions close to the vest. The Microsoft/Intel DRM policy is sure to be too draconian IMO. It should be fun to watch this play out.
The MS/Intel DRM policy is exactly what the industry wants.
That's the problem.
Unless and until Steve convinces the industry — including himself, as CEO of Pixar — that copy protection should only try to keep honest people honest, the Mac will be locked out of any attempt at convergence with HDTV. The same content providers who flock to it to create content will do everything they can to prevent it from being used as a playback device — exactly the way that the same music industry that embraced digital early on for content creation did (and do) everything they could think of cripple it as a playback medium.
Will a million channels bloom?
Will these channels be streamed over the net using Quicktime or something else?
Will the cable/broadcast industries try to shut this playing field down to protect their empires?
Apple has a lot to think about here. I hope they get it right.
Originally posted by hmurchison
A HD Tuner box is nothing more than a computer bolted to a ATSC tuner.
But this is not convergence in the classical sense. It is merely the application of similar technologies to different devices and usages. An iPod is a computer. A TiVO is a computer. Half the cars sold today are computers.
I agree with Amorph that Steve's comment is a statement of fact about how people happen to use TV vs. computer. And , at least for me, it is true. When I turn on the TV I generally turn off my brain. It has a different purpose in my life than a computer does.
This doesn't mean Apple doesn't have a role to play...but it seems unlikely to be a TV crammed into a Mac...or a Mac crammed into a TV. It is more likely Apple will do an iPod...figure out a problem that needs to be solved and apply some set of technologies, along with their skill for design and ease of use to solve this problem. Surely it will play well with the Mac and, more likely these days, with Wintel as well.
Did you stop reading my post there? As I said, he's talking about TV now, not in the future. HDTV does in fact change everything, and Apple is if anything telegraphing their interest in HD content.
No I heard you loud and clear. I cannot comment with any veracity. I can only hope that Apple will be in the mix. Perhaps in light of Jobs' past comments I'm taking more of a pessimistic view.
How do you do both? You didn't answer this question: How do you display TV content on a current PC with iMovie and iDVD on it, and protect anything? Answer: You don't. Not to the standards of the industry.
The FCC mandates that OTA broadcasts cannot be copy protected which makes sense because they are "free" in natures. Any subscriber based shows can have copy prohibit flags in the HDCP signal. If Apple makes every multimedia app HDCP aware and savvy there should be no fear about elicit copying. This would likely take Apple some time but the results would be worth it.
The fact that the Mac is a great content creation platform is a strike against it as a content receiving platform, because the industry doesn't want you doing anything with their content but sitting on your ass and watching it. Until you resolve that problem, the Mac cannot be integrated with HDTV either.
I know Amorph, I'm seeing the writing on the wall. DRM is mandatory and it must be fused with the OS. OSX needs to become just another HDCP enabled device in the chain and there can be no slip ups. Sony has some very interesting cryptographic features in Blu Ray. No one and I mean no one is going to crack it. Frankly I don't care about the whining of bootlegers anymore. Once we have adequate protections in place it will, quite honestly, be a boon for the small studios that cannot afford to be hurt by piracy but also have issues licensing expensive DRM options.
You've always said (and I agree) that Apple is about bringing previously expensive technology down to affordable levels. Well MS is looking to make a killing on DRM. Apple should pull the rug from underneath them by bringing capable DRM to OSX at very affordable pricing for content authors.
The other angle is the availability of IP TV.
Will a million channels bloom?
Will these channels be streamed over the net using Quicktime or something else?
Will the cable/broadcast industries try to shut this playing field down to protect their empires?
Apple has a lot to think about here. I hope they get it right.
Frank777- This is where the fun begins check Time Warners offensive agains Cable Cards
You're going to see Cable Providers do one of two things.
Comcast- Will hide the fact that Cable Cards exist hoping consumers don't know.
Time Warner - is more proactive and trying to convince consumers that renting a two-way STB is the smarter choice because of the VoD, Guide and other $pecial features.
The FCC mandating the use of Cable Cards for HDTV broadcasting breaks wide open the market for STBs. The days of struggling with IR repeartes and hooking a Tivo like device up to the cable companies STB are going bye bye. Let me put on my "dreamer" hat again and proffer supposition.
Apple "could" theoretically create a Cable Card STB that
1. Access all premium content that your cable provides.
2. Offers its own Guide Channel data
3. Offers any unique data. iTMS music,video downloads
4. DVR functionality
I don't think they will quite honestly but for Tivo Cable Card is a godsend because people care more about recording what's on rather than tacking on expensive features from your cable provider. Tivo's Guide Data is superior to any Guide Data interface I've seen from the large Cable operators.
5 years from now when even the lowliest of Macs can playback 1080i AVC in real time, imagine the effects of this FCC decision. The operators cannot stop it, they can only compete by offering more functionality but that functionality may already be available from other soures. For instance you might have a STB that can access VoD providers like Akimbo Systems or others yet still retain full functionality for standard HDTV signals.
Let the competition begin!!!