Steve Jobs steps down as Apple’s CEO

Yep, you read that right. As of this afternoon, Steve Jobs is no longer Apple’s Chief Executive Officer. Jobs submitted his resignation to the Apple board today, asking that he be allowed to serve as Chairman and that Tim Cook take over as CEO. The board acquiesced.

Here is Jobs’ letter in full:

I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO, I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come.
I hereby resign as CEO of Apple. I would like to serve, if the Board sees fit, as Chairman of the Board, director and Apple employee.

As far as my successor goes, I strongly recommend that we execute our succession plan and name Tim Cook as CEO of Apple.

I believe Apple’s brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it. And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role.

I have made some of the best friends of my life at Apple, and I thank you all for the many years of being able to work alongside you.

Steve

It’s hard to imagine Apple today without Steve Jobs in the driver’s seat. He co-founded the company in 1976 and, after he was ousted by John Sculley in 1985, Apple slowly devolved into irrelevance—and financial distress. Jobs took back the reins in 1997 and subsequently reshaped Apple from a nigh-irrelevant has-been into the second highest-valued corporation in the United States, behind ExxonMobil.

This time, too, circumstances beyond his control might have forced an early departure. Jobs has officially been on medical leave since January 17—the second time in two years—and, after seeing his emaciated appearance at the WWDC keynote, some speculated that he was losing his long battle against cancer. Today’s news suggests that may indeed be the case.

Of course, unlike in 1985, Jobs isn’t being disowned by his company. This time, Apple is left with an executive team of Jobs’ choosing and the clear validation of his management philosophy. Jobs may no longer be CEO, but I expect Apple’s glory days are far from over.

Comments closed
    • Firestar
    • 8 years ago

    One of my favorite tech CEOs. *Respect*

    • crabjokeman
    • 8 years ago

    Sweatshop laborers all over China shed a tear at the news, and then started crying even harder after the overseer whipped them for taking their focus off the line for a second.

      • sweatshopking
      • 8 years ago

      my people don’t get breaks. in my sweatshop, it was 12 hours, with a 15 minute pee/eat break. otherwise, it was get your a to work.

    • oldog
    • 8 years ago

    I think Jobs is stepping down when Apple is at the top of its game. It’s all downhill from here but Mr. Job’s status as the ultimate “visionary” will remain intact forever.

    Another brilliant marketing move Mr. Jobs! Dare I say, its magical?

    • dashbarron
    • 8 years ago

    I expect a blog soon Fox!

    • Jigar
    • 8 years ago

    Can’t believe God resigned…

      • smilingcrow
      • 8 years ago

      He’s gone to work for Samsung.

      • Jigar
      • 8 years ago

      Did god -1 me ? 🙁

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        The first -1 came from calling Jobs God.

        The second -1 came from spelling God with a lower-case letter.

          • willyolio
          • 8 years ago

          spelling god with a capital letter implies there’s only one.

            • ronch
            • 8 years ago

            Or you know how to use your Shift key.

            • mutarasector
            • 8 years ago

            *Close*, but not quite… it is a convention that implies there is only one (A)lmighty God that rules over all other gods.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 8 years ago

    Steve jobs was apple. His products reflected his attitude(for better and for worse) I don’t expect apple to be in the same position it is now 5 years down the line.

    I think his stubborn bullish approach propelled their product design and marketing to the forefront of consumer electronics. I don’t expect apple as we know them today will continue to exist. Not to demean the talented team he had assembled but realistically the brand and why people bought it and paid their premium prices was pretty much all job’s doing.

    • smilingcrow
    • 8 years ago

    My iPod Classic actually died yesterday (not joking) and I’m wondering now if it was some kind of pre-emptive suicide! It’s so magical it just knew that its maker was departing. I’m just glad it didn’t jump off the balcony as it is still under warranty. There is a faint smell of almonds on the scroll wheel.

    • yogibbear
    • 8 years ago

    Wait, is this the first time there’s proof that apple has contracted iCancer?

    • smilingcrow
    • 8 years ago

    Bill Gates resigns and now Steve Jobs resigns!
    I foresee The Gates Foundation suing Jobs for theft of intellectual property (the act of resignation) or did Apple patent the idea of resignation long before? Oh no, he was fired last time.

      • crabjokeman
      • 8 years ago

      I’m pretty sure someone at Xerox patented a crude form of resignation first.

    • ClickClick5
    • 8 years ago

    [url<]http://forexnewsnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Leonardo-DiCaprio-Inception-AUD-USD-FX-news.jpg[/url<]

    • ronch
    • 8 years ago

    It’s also a bit ironic that according to the movie Pirates of Silicon Valley, Steve saw IBM as the enemy, and is now recommending Tim Cook, an ex-iBM guy (source: Wikipedia), to succeed him.

      • esterhasz
      • 8 years ago

      If Tim Cook was a Fratelli brother and Apple the Goonies, it would be, yes. As things stand in the adult world, no, it isn’t.

    • krazyredboy
    • 8 years ago

    I wonder if the letter said “iQuit,” on the top?

      • cheapFreeAgent
      • 8 years ago

      one guy suggested it as “iResign” at engadget

        • Mourmain
        • 8 years ago

        Oh, the creativity…

          • derFunkenstein
          • 8 years ago

          Come on, man. That joke never gets old.

          …oh, wait. Yes, yes it did.

    • ronch
    • 8 years ago

    This is sad news. Steve is one of those Silicon Valley legends I admire and I have always thought that he’d make it through. Thing is, even if you have everything, life sometimes has a way of cutting itself short, if you know what I mean. The moral here is that whatever your walk in life may be, don’t concentrate too much on money. Instead, try to enjoy each moment you have with the people you care for. Steve had everything but all that can’t save him now. And that’s just sad. I wish him all the best.

    I’m not particularly an Apple fan but I respect their company and products. I hope they continue to innovate the way they do now.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 8 years ago

      The more details I learn about Jobs the less I respect him as a person. And if I can’t on the whole respect someone as a person their acheivements mean less as well. The story, which seems to be corroborated, about him screwing Wozniak out of the proper half of the reward for simplifying the design of a board at Atari exemplifies to me the sleaziness of Jobs’ modus operandi.

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        This. I got the impression that he was a major a-hole. Didn’t he fire people in elevators unless they had magical ideas on the spot?

        Why should a CEO of a multi-billion-dollar company choose the color of their shuttle bus?

          • Anonymous Coward
          • 8 years ago

          The world is entirely full of lazy unmotivated uncreative undemanding people.

          (Well at least once they have food on the table, I’m not talking about people who actually have to work to avoid starvation.)

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]The world is entirely full of lazy unmotivated uncreative undemanding people.[/quote<] Yeah, but somehow I doubt they would be riding elevators in a building on Infinite Loop.

          • Decelerate
          • 8 years ago

          About the shuttle bus: why wouldn’t he?

          He may be CEO, but he’s also (Co)Founder of the company. It’s his baby.

          Same can be said about Gates, Zuckerberg, and any other individuals founding their companies. “They get emotional” should be expected…

          About the screwing Wozniak part, I have no idea. However it sounds similar to the Bill Gates/Paul Allen dispute.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 8 years ago

    Two words: buying opportunity.

    • calvindog717
    • 8 years ago

    there are times when I’ve really hated Jobs, but I’ve lost family members to cancer, and I really hope he makes it through.

    • 5150
    • 8 years ago

    Jobs wanted to buy HP and Apple execs didn’t want to so they took away his CEO title.

    • albundy
    • 8 years ago

    acquiesced? accepted is a shorter word. really, who invents this bs?

    Kinda expected jobs to eventually back down. He’d never relinquish the executive cash and lifestyle that easily. As chairman, he can sit back and collect a paycheck without being in the spotlight.

      • nagashi
      • 8 years ago

      Yes… his legendarily enormous paycheck 😛 You realize his salary has been $1 for years now, right? Not saying he’s not compensated (oh he is, for sure). but not via paycheck.

        • KoolAidMan
        • 8 years ago

        Michael Dell and Steve Ballmer both have net worth about double that of Jobs, and this is with Jobs also having a large stake in Disney.

        In Dell’s case his net worth is almost half that of his company, a company that does not innovate and that has lost shareholders tremendous amounts of money over the last decade, so yeah…

        • Farting Bob
        • 8 years ago

        A billionaire who officially earns $1 a year is what we call a marketing gimmick.

          • mattthemuppet
          • 8 years ago

          exactly. Most of the very rich obtain their income from investments, not salary, which is why they pay a fraction of the tax on their income that people earning <500k do (or, more accurately <100k). Warren Buffet is an interesting example.

          Either way, Jobs not wanting to resign before now has everything to do with not wanting to relinquish control and very little to do with money

      • derFunkenstein
      • 8 years ago

      WORDS IS HARD!

        • Krogoth
        • 8 years ago

        U mad bro?

    • ssidbroadcast
    • 8 years ago

    Wow. The end of an era. Truly one of the greatest men of modern times. A real-life Howard Roark.

    Question: Is Tim Cook that briitish guy that was in some of the iPad2 trailers? I liked that dude.

      • sweatshopking
      • 8 years ago

      no. that’s the design dude.

        • LoneWolf15
        • 8 years ago

        Jonathan Ive?

      • cheapFreeAgent
      • 8 years ago

      i believe [url=http://media.zenfs.com/id-ID/News/ghiboo.com/ceoapple-4e55973cf13a3.jpg<]Tim Cook[/url<] was the one in 2009 when Jobs was sick ?

    • jstern
    • 8 years ago

    I think that the main thing that brought so much success to Apple is that Steve Jobs has really powerful media friends. If he’s sick and eventually can’t do anything at Apple, then that means no more breaking all day news on so many tv channels, even Spanish ones like Telemundo and Univision. Or breaking news on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc, with headlines like “The biggest technology news since color televison,” for a simple firmware upgrade that allowed the old ipod to play videos on a one inch screen, when for years I had been wanting these video mp3 like players with beautiful screens. If you can get such incredible media hype for free, for things that others did before, then you’re set.

      • no51
      • 8 years ago

      It was amazing how disproportionately fixated the media was on apple products. It’s kinda like the NY Times’ fixation with hipsters.

        • mutarasector
        • 8 years ago

        … or the media being in the tank for Obama.

        • KoolAidMan
        • 8 years ago

        Why? Whatever Apple does is generally followed by every other tech company. Those products almost always provide the template for them to emulate or iterate upon. This goes back almost 30 years, nothing new.

        The shift that they caused with the tablet market eating into the low end consumer space literally drove HP, the #1 seller of PCs, out of that arena as the narrow profit margins from consumer laptops and netbooks just weren’t worth it to them anymore.

        I dunno, Apple [i<]might[/i<] be kind of worth the media attention that they get

          • jstern
          • 8 years ago

          For years the computer industry had been talking about slates. In 2008 Microsoft even showed a demo of an ipad like slate. Then 3 weeks before the ipad was shown a few pc companies show slates that looked like the paid and not a peep from the media, and the the ipad was introduced and it was covered like the 2nd coming of christ. All so that sheep can later say that everybody copies Apple. The hype is is a huge advantage and its not cause because they showed something new.

            • KoolAidMan
            • 8 years ago

            Windows slates existed for nearly a decade, everyone knows that. It was one of the chief arguments people used when talking about how an Apple tablet would fail, and this was back when an Apple tablet was merely a rumor.

            [i<]Execution matters.[/i<] An OS and applications purpose-built towards a touch interface with hardware designed for light weight and very long battery life is [i<]very different[/i<] from tablet PCs which use x86 laptop components that add weight and have low battery life, use a stylus (or sometimes resistive touch) for input, and shoehorn a desktop operating system and applications that aren't at all designed for an all-touch interface. You are talking about two very different things like they're the same. They are very different beasts, and in the case of PC tablets there was no reason to use them when you could get a much better PC laptop (using a Windows targeted keyboard and trackpad) for less money. There are practical reasons why consumers rejected PC tablets for a decade. Tablets weren't logically designed from top to bottom beforehand, and now everyone is copying the iPad's execution with low power SoCs, capacitive touch input, and purpose-built operating systems and applications. Haters should be thankful for Apple, without them they wouldn't be fighting over $100 TouchPads or rooting Android onto Nooks.

            • ludi
            • 8 years ago

            Agreed. WP7 mostly “gets it” now, but WP7 wouldn’t exist without Apple. And ironically, the design of the next major Windows release is now following the WP7 template.

            • jstern
            • 8 years ago

            Didn’t read the whole thing because im in my phone, but no im not talking about tablet pcs im talking about slates that looked just like the ipad, before the ipad and some that were introduced before that didn’t get a peep mentioned. Only by fanboys who even think that the hp slate was an ipad copy.

          • Oem
          • 8 years ago

          You contradict your own better point below, that execution matters. I’d revise that to:

          [i<]Execution is the only thing Apple's got.[/i<] I'm not criticizing Apple, actually paying them a complement and criticizing their competitors. Apple got where they are not by inventing anything but by taking the ideas of others and doing them right. Kinda like the Japanese in the '80s. The original post was about the press hyping Apple's refinements as innovations, and that's a valid critique.

    • anotherengineer
    • 8 years ago

    “He co-founded the company in 1976 and, after he was ousted by John Sculley in 1985, Apple slowly devolved into irrelevance—and financial distress. Jobs took back the reins in 1997 and subsequently reshaped Apple from a nigh-irrelevant has-been into the second highest-valued corporation in the United States, behind ExxonMobil.”

    I thought Microsoft bailed them out? Not to say Jobs hasn’t done a great thing with Apple from where they used to be.

    Interesting times ahead. And R.I.P. Jack you done good.

      • sweatshopking
      • 8 years ago

      gates did bail them out. but that’s better left forgotten i guess

      “At the 1997 Macworld Expo, Steve Jobs announced that Apple would join Microsoft to release new versions of Microsoft Office for the Macintosh, and that Microsoft made a $150 million investment in non-voting Apple stock.”

        • bthylafh
        • 8 years ago

        At the time it was widely seen as MS trying to placate the anti-trust investigators. “See? We have competition. Even if we do have to prop them up!”

        • End User
        • 8 years ago

        [quote<]gates did bail them out[/quote<] Yikes. The classic myth rises again! You really should look into things in more detail. At the time of the investment Apple had over $1.2 billion in cash and $3.4 billion in assets. Apple was threatening "a several billion dollar patent lawsuit against Microsoft in multimedia patents." Microsoft settled before it went to court. At the time of the 1997 announcement "The investment was just an initial payment for other “substantial balancing payments” that would be spread out over then next few years." [url<]http://goo.gl/Dbcnd[/url<] [url<]http://goo.gl/pOFmZ[/url<] Steve Jobs bailed out Apple.

          • sweatshopking
          • 8 years ago

          interesting read! information i was not aware of!

          as for the you really should look into things in more detail, people have only so much time. If i looked into EVERYTHING in more detail. i’d be the smartest man alive. sadly i have to settle for the top 10.

          • KoolAidMan
          • 8 years ago

          Correct. They were $150 million of non-voting shares that were created by diluting existing shares. Those shares were sold by Microsoft only a few years later. In terms of practical value they were worthless, cooked up out of thin air.

          So why did Jobs and Gates do this? Jobs wanted to give people confidence in Apple as a company going forward (look, IE and Office is still going to be on the Mac!) and Gates wanted to deflect continuing lawsuits over the Windows UI.

          This was a symbolic gesture done to save face. Simple. As far as Microsoft bailing Apple out with cash, that is something only ignorant people believe.

            • ludi
            • 8 years ago

            To be fair, Apple had lost $816 million in the prior year, according to End User’s second link. With that kind of burn rate, $1.2b in the bank doesn’t look so big. While Apple did not technically need or achieve any significant value from the Microsoft investment, they certainly did need the partnership in order to clarify Apple’s viability going forward — and Microsoft, as noted, needed Apple in order to keep the DoJ off Microsoft’s back.

            • KoolAidMan
            • 8 years ago

            [quote<]While Apple did not technically need or achieve any significant value from the Microsoft investment, they certainly did need the partnership in order to clarify Apple's viability going forward -- and Microsoft, as noted, needed Apple in order to keep the DoJ off Microsoft's back.[/quote<] That is the point of what I posted. The $150 million in stock was a symbolic gesture, the real significance was to instill confidence in Apple (the Mac gets continued Office support) and to keep the DOJ off of Microsoft's back. It was mutual help and saving face for both parties at the same time. The money was inconsequential in comparison, but it is something that uninformed people keep bringing up as if it actually meant anything. Glad we agree. 🙂 As for the cash burn, that was stemmed by the following year after Jobs cut product line after product line, the end result going from about a dozen computers (plus printers, the Newton, and other non-Mac products) to just two laptops and two desktops. Then there was the outsourcing of production, etc etc. Again, the stock thing, as practically inconsequential as it already was, is so secondary compared to Microsoft continuing Mac software support while Apple dropped their lawsuits.

            • End User
            • 8 years ago

            There is no question that Apple was in big trouble. They lost $816 million in 1996 and $1 billion in 1997. Apple turned it around in 1998. The iMac came out in August of 1998 and stopped the fall in sales. Apple generated a profit for the year ending in 1998 (due, in large part, to $1.2 billion is cost cutting). Apple ended 1998 with $2.3 billion in the bank. By the end of 2000 Apple had $4 billion in its war chest.

          • lilbuddhaman
          • 8 years ago

          Oh look, Apple and patent suits. How original.

    • Bensam123
    • 8 years ago

    It’s not the first person who forms a monarchy that is worrisome, it’s all the ones that follow after that can’t fill their shoes.

      • l33t-g4m3r
      • 8 years ago

      It would be nice if this weakens the RDF, now that their religious leader is gone. Even better if the company totally crashes and burns.

        • Wirko
        • 8 years ago

        I’d give you +1 if you only wrote the first sentence. For the whole post I’m giving you half of that, which is -1.

        • Bensam123
        • 8 years ago

        lol silly leet… I’ll give you -1 as well to properly reward that effort.

        • Fighterpilot
        • 8 years ago

        WTF?
        Why would you want Apple to crash and burn.
        That is seriously fuc*ked up…even for you.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 8 years ago

          No, actually, that’s pretty normal for him.

            • dashbarron
            • 8 years ago

            It’s all a conspiracy led by the government!!!

            • derFunkenstein
            • 8 years ago

            You, sir, have been paying attention. +1.

    • Decelerate
    • 8 years ago

    Man, August 2011 is due for the history books in tech events!

    I would’ve be a formidable individual if I had a tenth of Jobs’ insight. The amount of industries he caused tremors in is nothing short of impressive.

    This is a leader I would see succeed in almost any condition. This guy doesn’t need Lady Luck. Hope he roams on the Apple grounds for a long time (I hope he doesn’t mirror another great man here in Canada… talk about timing.).

      • adisor19
      • 8 years ago

      Seriously, we lost Jack a few days ago to cancer and everything is pointing to Steve losing against cancer as well :s

      It just shows that no matter how rich or successful you are, if you’re not healthy, it’s all in vain.

      Adi

        • riviera74
        • 8 years ago

        Adisor19, who is this Jack that you speak of?

          • End User
          • 8 years ago

          Jack Layton

          [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Layton[/url<]

        • sweatshopking
        • 8 years ago

        “we”? you’re a canadian?

    • Krogoth
    • 8 years ago

    Apple will be fine without Steve at the helm.

    They already got enough momentum behind them.

      • Bensam123
      • 8 years ago

      They’ll still be alright financially or they’ll still be as pivotal as they are today?

        • A_Pickle
        • 8 years ago

        I don’t know, and I don’t think Apple will be quite the same without Steve Jobs. It wasn’t before. It took a decade and a half for Apple sans Steve to get into real trouble — I don’t doubt something similar will happen today. Unless Apple just has the most mind-blowing candidate selection process known to man, they will eventually get someone at the helm that doesn’t “get it.”

        Which, frankly, might not be a bad thing. I’m not sure how comfortable I am with tech companies being in power as huge influencing entities.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 8 years ago

          they didn’t even go a decade and a half without Jobs. They were “in trouble” at the dawn of the PPC era, and it was really evident in 1995 – only 10 years after he left. He was also replaced by incompetents; this time around he’s replaced by a board of his own choosing.

      • Deanjo
      • 8 years ago

      Steve over the last few years has been essentially a poster boy for apple making public appearances. Most of the day to day duties have been already designated out to compentent others in the company. Sure there will be a dip in stock prices from investor nervousness right up until the next quarter reports when the investors realize that Steve is gone and the company is still steadily bringing in record revenues. I expect the stock to jump drastically after that because then the “Steve’s health issue” won’t be an issue at all.

    • blitzy
    • 8 years ago

    Hope your health gets better Steve Jobs

      • BiffStroganoffsky
      • 8 years ago

      Unfortunately, that is a Flash app and won’t run on Apple ‘soft’-ware and is problematic on other systems. Prognosis is not good for the app or the systems that would use it.

    • Kamisaki
    • 8 years ago

    I’m not the hugest Apple fan myself, but there’s no denying the impact Steve Jobs has had on the technology world during his career. Hope Steve gets to relax some now, and I wish the best to Tim Cook. He certainly has some big shoes to fill.

      • Geistbar
      • 8 years ago

      Basically the same response on my end. I don’t like Apple or their products, but I won’t be silly and deny the impact that Apple has had in recent years.

      I am curious as to the affect that it will have on Apple going forward, though. It should take a few years for the effects to be felt. Just look at Microsoft; the first truly post-Gates products did not start appearing for over 5 years, and it would be a fair assessment to say that they did not achieve that with operating systems until Windows 7, as Vista was started under Gates. Perhaps not the best comparison, since Apple’s most popular products now appear to have annual refreshes. All the same, I expect it will still take some time before anyone knows how well Cook fills the shoes handed to him.

      • A_Pickle
      • 8 years ago

      Agreed. I hate, [i<]hate[/i<] to give Apple the credit... but in a lot of cases, they deserve it. Despite being in a position somewhat shielded from competition, Apple has continued to push the non-Apple tech industry forward. It aggravates me to no end to admit that the "PC industry" wouldn't have devised these incredible technologies on their own, but the fact is... they really wouldn't have. The PC industry as a whole only began giving a shit about the user experience because that began to sell via Apple's business model. The iPhone catapulted mobile device technology by leaps and bounds, and when it came out, no phone was even in the same league as far as hardware performance, ease-of-use, and functionality goes. It burns admitting all of that, because I worry that their app distribution model on the iOS platform will become popular by the non-Apple folks, and then we're all screwed.

        • xeridea
        • 8 years ago

        They was a bit ahead of the curve, but that’s not to say we wouldn’t phones like we do now, it may have taken another year or so but they would still come. You can’t say that hardware wouldn’t move forward without them, it has been moving forward for 50 years.

          • Decelerate
          • 8 years ago

          Smartphones would [i<][b<]STILL[/b<][/i<] look like blackberries had it not been for Apple. Eventually looking like the iPhone? Probably. Within the ~5 years between the iPhone's introduction and now? Probably not.

        • mutarasector
        • 8 years ago

        “It aggravates me to no end to admit that the “PC industry” wouldn’t have devised these incredible technologies on their own, but the fact is… they really wouldn’t have.”

        Really? I can only really think of one: Firewire. Even that never really became dominate on the PC. Conversely, USB, SATA, PCI, PCIe, heterogeneous processors, all first appeared on PCs. Even tablets started out on the PC side…

        Now if you were to say ‘popularize’, I might agree with you to some extent, but even then, they didn’t popularize USB as is often claimed in deconstructionist/revisionist historical recountings – at least not with >consumers<. They did ‘popularize’ it with the original peripheral vendors thus being a tipping point to help those mfgs. to get over their skiddishness about embracing the standard. PC Motherboard makers had a USB port on motherboards almost two full years before Apple dropped legacy ports from the iMac, however, and consumers embraced the standard by buying those USB peripherals pretty much as fast as they came out. No ‘help’ was really needed from Apple to ‘popularize’ them with PC users.

          • KoolAidMan
          • 8 years ago

          I think it is safe to say that popularizing the GUI, the current form factor of laptops with the keyboard pushed to the back of the laptop case, and the current touchscreen paradigm with modern smartphones wouldn’t have happened as quickly as without Apple. The fact that they own the entire hardware/software stack means that they can push out certain, sometimes painful things in the short term (ie – killing legacy ports and software without warning), which in turn drives faster advancement in certain areas. This is particularly true when it comes to physical and software interfaces.

          Given the fact that Microsoft took seven years after MacOS came out to finally reach feature parity with Windows, and that Android still lags in several areas and literally wouldn’t have the push as an iOS alternative if it wasn’t for the iPhone, yeah, Apple’s importance has partly been pushing their own competition forward.

            • mutarasector
            • 8 years ago

            You make several valid/good points. I certainly don’t mean to minimize Apple’s significance in pushing its competitors forward.

            Unfortunately, this was not the flawed point I was addressing – specifically:

            “the “PC industry” wouldn’t have devised these incredible technologies on their own”

            … when in fact, just about >every< major (and even minor) technological ‘devising’ occurred on the PC side >first<, not the other way around.

            I’m simply trying to shoot down the fanboys’ deconstructionist/revisionist history as they try to build on the RDF into a full blown mythos, that’s all.

            If one wants to credit Jobs/Apple for pushing austerity in form factor designs, fine – that’s properly deserved, If they want to praise Apple for not just one, but two robust OS’s, that’s fine too. If they even want to take credit for pushing competitors, I don’t have a problem with that either.

            I would, however, also “credit” them for questionable and unethical litigation practices/tendencies that also tend to >stifle< industry innovation, and their media manipulating & monopolization of esoteric design ideology, when in fact they’re simply a boutique turn-key system vendor, and one of the pioneering & premiere patent trolls of all time as well…

            Furthermore, I’m sick of the overblown “Edison-esq” corrollary. Until I see the *wealth* of scribbled drawings, notes, and personal letters actually penned by Mr. Jobs >himself< showing him to be anything close to Thomas Edison, Mr. Jobs true ‘inventiveness’ remains purely pop-mythos, AFAIC, and still doesn’t compare to Edison.

            Innovativeness, >maybe<. – inventive? >Definitely not<…

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This