# Jobs dead @ 56.



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Apple says the company's co-founder Steve Jobs has died. He was 56.

In a brief statement the company said Mr Jobs died on Wednesday. He had been battling pancreatic cancer.

"We are deeply saddened to announce that Steve Jobs passed away," the company said in a brief statement.

"Steve's brilliance, passion and energy were the source of countless innovations that enrich and improve all of our lives. The world is immeasurably better because of Steve."


----------



## CraigW (Mar 19, 2009)

Very sad  Regardless of whether you liked Apple products or not you would have to admit the guy was a genius. Steve Jobs RIP

---


----------



## bluush (Feb 24, 2010)

+1 on above.

not keen on the way apple does business, but Steve was a game changer, has made everyone else up their game and products.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Perhaps you could have given a bit more thought to the title of this thread? It seems less than respectful. He wasn't a commodity.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

My brother worked on some advertising ideas with Apple years ago and couldn't believe what a "cool dude" Jobs was.

I think he's achieved many things very few of us could ever hope or dream to. R.I.P.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

rustyintegrale said:


> Perhaps you could have given a bit more thought to the title of this thread? It seems less than respectful. He wasn't a commodity.


 :roll: The title and the whole words are a CNTRL-C from the websites last night. 
Feel free to complain to the press complaints commission.

Its no different to any other headline title for other mortals.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you could have given a bit more thought to the title of this thread? It seems less than respectful. He wasn't a commodity.
> ...


It looks like it too. :roll:

CNTRL-C says all I need to know. Why bother at all if you're not an Apple fan? :?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

I don't think it's disrespectful. It's short, pithy and crucially, tells me all I needs to know.

A title like 'Rest in Peace Steve' could be about a forum member. And in actual fact, if you buy into the Jobs' philosophy of Think Different, then using a conformist title would be against everything he stands/stood for. [smiley=freak.gif]


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Kell said:


> I don't think it's disrespectful. It's short, pithy and crucially, tells me all I needs to know.


Fair enough, but you're not an Apple fan either.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Why is it apple most fanboys are a bunch of nobs?
They act like brain washed cult members and see nothing else in the world.

You don't have to be an apple "fan" or a linux "fan" or a "windows" fan to see the news and post it on here do you?
Lets also get some other things in context since you are being Mr arsey, Jobs did NOT invent the ipod, that was a British guy called Jonathan Ive who is now the SVP of design or something. He got a knighthood for his efforts about 5 years ago. The iphone was done by Jon Rubinstein and Ives. The ipod interface apple claim so much credit for was done by two external companies PIXO and Portalplayers. Jobs contribution was the linking of a failing piece of apple software to the new device - that software is what is not itunes. The real stroke of genius was getting the music/mdeia industries on board. 
OSX came from ONSTEP, (cocoa as it is now if you understand macs correctly) which in turn was derived from a MACH kernel and BSD - later released after repackaging by apple as DARWIN. Aive Tevanian was the person leading the OSX project (code name copeland or something like that)

Jobs could be a great leader and saw the potential of the technical visions of the teams under him.
He was also extremely destructive with episodes like the Mac Vs Lisa that tore apple apart in the 80s.
He was extremely difficult person at times and would sack people in elevators for no reason.

He is or was one of the greats of the valley, along with Wozz, Ellison, Gates, Torvalds and he should be rightly remembered as such. He understood business and marketing/packaging and brand imagery.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> Why is it apple most fanboys are a bunch of nobs?


I don't know, but you plainly have a lot of personal experience to draw from. :lol:

It doesn't matter who exactly designed the rotary control on an iPod or who developed it first. The first MP3 player I had was the size of a Pro Walkman, cost about £550 and to me it was the greatest thing in the world. The fact that it used some really clunky Windows UI completely passed me by until the iPod came along. By contrast that was the size of a cigarette packet, simple to operate and still managed a bigger hard drive. That was a huge turning point for me and the beginning of a renaissance for Apple. Let's not forget that the company was close to bankruptcy just before that point and Jobs put together a team (yes team) of people to innovate new products that have undeniably changed the world.

Jonathan Ive was hidden away in a separate building from the main Apple offices and it wasn't until Steve Jobs recognised his British talent and saw some of his off-the-wall prototypes that he realised he had a hugely talented designer on his hands.

This was one of Steve's main strengths. He saw an opportunity, seized it and developed it. As you imply he was a great marketer too. No-one is claiming he singly-handedly turned Apple around, but without his leadership the company would not be what it is worth today and we would not have the well designed, well-built and simple to operate electronics we all seem to take for granted.

I wonder how far that original MP3 player would have come had Apple not raised the bar so high?

Cheers

rich


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

I don't know how you can say I'm not an Apple fan. I don't use a Mac at work, and therefore didn't buy one for the house, but I've had them in the past and, as well you know, our industry is littered with them. But the home computer was going to be for both of us and my missus needed a PC more than I needed a Mac.

That said, I still claim my original iPod was the single best gadget I've ever had. I always said that if it had a phone, it would be perfect as I could carry one less thing - so when the iPhone came out, for me it was even better.

The fact that it could then function as a camera and mobile computer was the cherry on the icing on the cake.

But that doesn't mean that I have to have everything that Apple produces on the day it comes out. I didn't bother with the original iPhone at all, but once the iPhone 4 had a decent camera, I wanted one. As it happens, I got one within the first day or two of launch - but that's because it coincided with my previous contract coming to an end and my birthday, not because I felt a need to queue outside a store with hundreds of other idiots.

I say idiots because I know for a fact that people were queuing outside the flagship stores in London for hours when stores just streets away had no queues and availability.

Anyway, I digress. Steve Jobs was a visionary but his real talent was not in his ability to design, but in his ability to think like an end user.

The following article - written before his death - illustrates this beautifully.

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1664863/wha ... s-so-great

It's testimony to his brilliance that the ex-CEO of a company can die and people are laying floral tributes outside Apple stores. Imagine what little difference it would make to people's lives if the chairman of, say, Shell died tomorrow. Would people go into petrol stations and start crying?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

This is not very good way to respect jobs now is it.... fanboy rusty 

Jobs didn't appoint Ives to VP :wink:

but last point, HanGo were using 2.5" laptop drives in 1998, that's 3 years before the release of the first brick, i mean ipod.
Capacity was the same for both devices - 5GB. by then 1.8" drives had become popular as they fitted directly into the PC expansion slot. Surprise is why they went with 1.8 and not 1" drives that came out in 1999.










Lets hope he gets to work on the pearly gates soon, they need an update.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Kell said:


> Imagine what little difference it would make to people's lives if the chairman of, say, Shell died tomorrow. Would people go into petrol stations and start crying?


No. I couldn't give a toss. :lol:

Petrol is petrol, the same as it's always been. Expensive, bloody boring and pretty much the same no matter who you buy it from.

You hit the nail on the head there mate!


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Toshiba said:


> This is not very good way to respect jobs now is it.... fanboy rusty
> 
> Jobs didn't appoint Ives to VP :wink:
> 
> ...


That's the very MP3 player I had Tosh. Clunky interface as you can see, but the sound quality was great. 

I can't imagine why I sold it to buy this...


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Drifting off topic somewhat, but the first MP3 player I had when people were rushing out 8-10 years ago to buy large, heavy iPods with hard drives, was the size of a lighter, had a battery life of 14 hours, weighed about 40 grams, had a USB connector, standard headphone jack, played most formats apart from OGG, no vendor lock-in and came with decent headphones. It just wasn't what everyone was having to buy their brats for Christmas, and wasn't what the BBC was treating as the only way to play music as part of their overall mandate to be impartial :roll: I was puzzled then why people wanted a big iPod - the only plus point (if it mattered to you) was storage capacity.

And I'm still puzzled, though the little nanos look quite snappy though I gather they're not quite as nice as previous versions, some say.

Ah well. A sad day nonetheless.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

ScoobyTT said:


> I was puzzled then why people wanted a big iPod - the only plus point (if it mattered to you) was storage capacity.


That's exactly what I wanted and the original iPod provided the same or more in a smaller package. To be able to take all your music wherever you went was extraordinary at the time.

I have a Shuffle now too because it was so cheap and is easier in the gym. At home my music is all stored on a Drobo backed up to another drive and can be played all around the house controlled remotely by iTunes. No CDs or big boxes anywhere and over 50 days worth of music available without playing the same track twice!

It's quite magical really!


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

rustyintegrale said:


> At home my music is all stored on a Drobo backed up to another drive and can be played all around the house controlled remotely by iTunes. No CDs or big boxes anywhere and over 50 days worth of music available without playing the same track twice!
> 
> It's quite magical really!


  
Is there ever any peace and quiet in your house? :?


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

A3DFU said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > At home my music is all stored on a Drobo backed up to another drive and can be played all around the house controlled remotely by iTunes. No CDs or big boxes anywhere and over 50 days worth of music available without playing the same track twice!
> ...


Oh yeah! I still have an on/off button, but music in the house brings it alive!


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

I used to have clients in who's house 5 (yes5!!!) televisions were on constantly, including their kitchen.
To me it didn't bring life into their home; it was sheer horrible :roll:


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

A3DFU said:


> I used to have clients in who's house 5 (yes5!!!) televisions were on constantly, including their kitchen.
> To me it didn't bring life into their home; it was sheer horrible :roll:


You're talking about televisions like they were music?! Are you mad? :roll:


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

My first MP3 player was one of these:








3 years before the iPod was launched.

Then pretty quickly went to this:









And by the time the 40GB 3rd gen iPod came out with it's vendor lock-in and sealed battery, I got 60GB in one of these for £100 less. Of course, the Creative device had been around for a while, and in true Apple form they copied the menu system and flogged it off as their own great idea.









It's still sat in my office as due to the battery replacement it had a few years ago it's still going strong. But I generally use my Android phone now for music; as with my expandable memory card slot, I've been able to just chuck in some more memory getting me to 48GB of storage, which is enough for my favourite songs


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Ah, but Dash, I still have the original 5GB iPod I bought way back when, it still communicates with my Mac, still has the original battery and is still worth something!


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Impressive, battery lasting that long!


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

That's because he didn't use it much because it was so heavy :wink:


----------



## mikeat45 (May 9, 2009)

i love my Ipod best thing ive bought for years i use nothing else for music away from home (i own nor want to own any other Apple stuff). there is always music in my house...... i have a wall full of vinyl albums, boxes of 45's, and as many cd's...

but just to lighten this thread up.....apologies if it offends but i smiled....


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

lol very apt.............think the man would appreciate that one


----------



## hope88 (Mar 25, 2011)

I have to admit not really appreciating Apple products much until recent years when I have a family and young kids. Saying that RIP Steve Job - a truly innovative man that strives in what he believes in.

I still have a Gen1 60GB iPod which I am using today in my TTS. It's really been bashed hard and almost died on me few times esp once when I left it outside in -2 temps for the whole night but eventually sprang back to live just seconds before going into the recycling bin


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> And by the time the 40GB 3rd gen iPod came out with it's vendor lock-in and sealed battery, I got 60GB in one of these for £100 less. Of course, the Creative device had been around for a while, and in true Apple form they copied the menu system and flogged it off as their own great idea


I just noticed this post. A slightly misleading description of what actually happened. In the same year that the iPod was introduced, Creative Labs filed a patent for a hierarchical menu structure for portable music players which covered any UI which allowed a user to select content in hierarchy, such as sorting by artist, then album, then song title (a pretty broad and loose patent, bearing in mind this method was available in software players like Winamp long before Creative used it). Apple had actually applied for a similar patent in 2001 as well, but they were beaten to it by about 6 months, although the patent wasn't granted to Creative till 2005. Creative Labs didn't actually claim Apple had copied their menu system in general, and certainly not their UI - they just infringed a very broad patent on how to sort music. In fact, Apple will almost certainly have already created their whole menu system before Creative Even filed the patent, so the idea that they copied anything is completely inaccurate.

The iPod's menus combined with the amazing navigation wheel is what made it stand out to me. I'd used a few MP3 players before I got my first iPod (the 3rd gen with the all-tough interface and glowing red backlight - Still my favourite iPod design and still working well) and the simplicity of the iPod was a revelation. It's also the reason i decided to give OS X a try, after spending years refusing to use Apple computers (and mocking people who did).


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

The only point I can be arsed to make on that is that hierarchical folders of music is a bloody obvious idea given hierarchical file systems in general. The patent system is FUBAR.

I wonder though if Creative called up their lawyers toute suite though and tried to block sales of the iPod even though the idea itself was bloody obvious, uninnovative, and with oodles of prior art. A bit like rounded corners on devices and icons. :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ScoobyTT said:


> The only point I can be arsed to make on that is that hierarchical folders of music is a bloody obvious idea given hierarchical file systems in general. The patent system is FUBAR.
> 
> I wonder though if Creative called up their lawyers toute suite though and tried to block sales of the iPod even though the idea itself was bloody obvious, uninnovative, and with oodles of prior art. A bit like rounded corners on devices and icons. :wink:


Creative knew that the most financially sensible option was to get money from licensing, not to stop iPod sales.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

I agree with Scooby, some things are too obvious to be patented. Still, that's not how it works in America.

But I do believe that if Apple were able to prove prior art the patent wouldn't stand.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Dash said:


> I agree with Scooby, some things are too obvious to be patented. Still, that's not how it works in America.
> 
> But I do believe that if Apple were able to prove prior art the patent wouldn't stand.


Apple couldn't prove prior art in their own work because the Creative Labs patent was filed months before they released the first iPod and before they filed their own patent. As for whether or not there was prior art in the numerous software players which already used this hierarchical menus system, well that's down to the patent system itself. Patents don't have to be for new technology or completely original inventions - you can patent a new _application_ of a current technology. In this case they applied a well known content structure to the menu system of a portable player and this was considered innovative enough to grant a patent. I don't agree with it, but that's the way it works.

Apple get a lot of stick for their ridiculous patents (there's always better sport in attacking the big, popular companies) but they're no worse than anyone else. They just do what companies have to do in order to make money... You can't be the only company being sensible about patents, because no one else is going to, so you'll end up losing all your profits to licensing deals. It makes financial sense to try to patent everything, on the off-chance it gets granted and on the off-chance you actually want to use it.


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

The whole patent system needs reform in my view. Look at the state of things: many patents granted are so blindingly obvious that they're patenting common sense, others are so woolly as to be little more than a catch-all minefield with which to snare anyone who does something vaguely like it. The real shame is that law suits fought over patents are decided by people who know feck-all about the technology and thus can't make an informed decision as to whether it's a waste of everyone's time or not.

Further, patents are no longer about protecting current inventions. In another field of woolliness many are about obscure ideas for future devices that (assuming they don't fall into the categories above) are little more than patenting the idea of a Back to the Future style hoverboard and sticking in a few numbered diagrams. The technology isn't there, the physics may not be there, but a idea that someone once had has been snared ready to reap the licensing costs from whoever does the actual work to implement it.

I'd argue that no-one benefits from patents except for the cottage industry with a genuine innovation that they want to protect. Oh and the lawyers who get to weasel their way around debating them as Company A sues Company B for the umpteenth time. The state of play with large corporate patents is that producing products seems to be more about avoiding stepping on someone's stupid patent, or licensing it. Who benefits? Not the consumer - someone has to pay the licensing costs.

And if you're a company that's lawsuit-happy over patents that are really crass, then don't claim to be innovative. If your products were that innovative you wouldn't need to defend petty features so vigorously. [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

The sentiment of protecting your idea from somebody else stealing it after you've put in all the development costs does make sense. But yes, it is a little extreme - but then, we can't patent ideas in the UK so it's a little more sensible. Plain old copyright law provides most the protection required under UK law.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I think the biggest problem is that the patent system has lost it's way. It was originally supposed to be a mechanism to *encourage* innovation - Company A can justify the R&D expense when it knows it's inventions will be protected and Company B are forced to innovate if they want to compete with Company A. That idea seems to have been lost, and now patents are often used as a means of preventing your competitors from innovating, or forcing companies to pay licensing for obvious ideas (i.e. all the patent troll companies in the US).

The problem is, it's hard to reform the system so it stops this kind of behaviour from the bigger companies, without impacting the ability of 'garden shed' inventors to gain genuine patents.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

Perhaps making it more like copyright - if you can prove you brought a product to market before somebody else then there is a case for infringement - no need to grant any patents or such, dealt with post-event on a case-by-case basis.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Dash said:


> Perhaps making it more like copyright - if you can prove you brought a product to market before somebody else then there is a case for infringement - no need to grant any patents or such, dealt with post-event on a case-by-case basis.


So that would mean that brilliant person A has a great idea for a product, which Corporation X steals. But because Corporation X has a massive R&D and product management budget, they get it to market first - and brilliant person A has no rights because Corp X got it to market first?!


----------



## bluush (Feb 24, 2010)

big problem with the patents is that it is one thing to gain your patent, its another kettle of fish to defend it.

The little man in the street gets the patent, however if big company A decides to stick 2 fingers up and just ignore it then the little man in the street has to take them on legally. Now it might be do-able when both parties are in the UK, however if you have a patent in the UK and the offending company is in the US then you are going to have to take your legal fight to the US and engage a US legal team and that is mucho dinero!!

Its fine if you have big pockets to do the legal fighting but otherwise it might not be possbile. Sometimes its just better to get your idea out quick, capitalise on the product and move on.

The real big companies have people just watching what is coming through the Patent office, if it smells good, they send the idea back to the back office team to see if they can acheive a similar product but bending/beating the patent content.

Dont even start off down this route without checking the contents of your wallet, and as for getting imparital advice from laywers /patent agents just think how many turkeys would vote for xmas!!!


----------



## ScoobyTT (Aug 24, 2009)

Good points there... Ironic then that while the system when used properly can benefit the small company, inventor or entrepreneur the most, it can also benefit them the least because they won't have the loot to throw at the lawyers. All in all then, it's a big mess that favours big companies :? And they've got money to burn on some really daft-sounding cases. See Apple vs. Samsung for example.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

clived said:


> So that would mean that brilliant person A has a great idea for a product, which Corporation X steals. But because Corporation X has a massive R&D and product management budget, they get it to market first - and brilliant person A has no rights because Corp X got it to market first?!


Brilliant person A can't afford to patent idea. Brilliant person A doesn't have the resources to jump through the patent hoops. Brilliant person A can't afford to defend said patent. Brilliant person A can't patent idea in all territories. Company X steals the idea anyway and ignores patent.

It just seems futile.


----------

