What Did Steve Jobs Do For You?

Steve Jobs has resigned, I see, and while I have never owned an Apple computer, I do have an iPod Shuffle.

So what has Steve Jobs done for me, and you, besides provide a convenient and exceptionally portable means to carry around alot of music to listen to?  My friend Greg Swann has a few thoughts on what Steve Jobs has done for me and you, and shares these thoughts in a post titled Reifying Steve Jobs: Think different. Do better. And thrive.  Here’s a short excerpt.

So let’s cut to the chase: Here is what actually matters about the working life of Steve Jobs:

With one incredible product after the next, with one brilliant strategic move after the next, with one astounding financial milestone after the next, the most wonderful thing Steve Jobs made in his working life was:

You.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/25 at 05:08 AM
  1. Steve Jobs never really did anything for me, but I will say that the Mac operating system is so far superior to anything Microsoft has put out it’s not even funny. The Mac OS is just the best GUI built on top of UNIX, while MS OS’s use a Registry for configuration. HUGE difference.

    Posted by Yabu  on  08/25  at  06:38 AM
  2. I cannot afford Apple products and I’m a little incensed that all their products are made overseas and yet Apple is the richest corporation in the world.  How does someone who rapes his customers rate even a second look.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/25  at  10:17 AM
  3. @ GoneWithTheWind,

    Where do you think your PC was made? Just curious. I agree, Apple’s are pricy, but you get what you pay for. Sad but true. It is what it is.

    It’s not really about the hardware, but it is about the OS. Something to consider.

    Posted by Yabu  on  08/25  at  12:55 PM
  4. My history with Mac products dates back to 1987, when my mentor and I were the only two engineers at our Sohio office who would touch the funny little box with a keyboard and rainbow colored apple insignia. All the other engineers depended on the drafting room and steno pool.

    Since then, I’ve spent a disgusting amount of dollars on Mac products. I will not bore Mr. Venlet’s esteemed readership with further details and I have no comment on Jobs—professionally or otherwise.

    I do, however, have an opinion of some of his employees.

    Posted by Erin O'Brien  on  08/25  at  01:31 PM
  5. Yes indeed my PC was made overseas, but it cost me $399.  What did your Aplle cost???  The point is making something overseas lowers the cost and most manufacturers pass that savings on to the buyer, but not Apple.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/26  at  12:03 PM
  6. I never knowingly paid a cent to apple.

    But I did briefly put my hands on one of their early machines about 1981 or so and it caused me to go by a more affordable Commodore which unleashed an addiction within me that still has not quelled. 

    Quite frankly, I just don’t get the whole mp3 thru earbuds thing.

    I’m more of a 70lbs of solid wood 4 ways sitting in all 4 corners delivering 200 real watts of raw power and art kinda person.

    Don’t listen to music much anymore but when I do it wide open and generally of the 70’s classic or southern rock genre.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/26  at  04:32 PM
  7. @GWTW, that is an assumption on your part. You are comparing apples to oranges, pun intended.

    My understanding is that apples cost more because they are better all the way around and just because all computers are made overseas has nothing to do with it. A business won’t stay in business very long if they continuously stick it to the customer as you suggest.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/26  at  04:36 PM
  8. @ GoneWithTheWind,

    You are hereby outsourced. You missed the point…you just got outsourced for less than 400 bucks. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I paid for an Apple, but it has a lot to do with the way you think. I like fresh fruit, but I have to pay more for it. Give and take? You get what you pay for. That is a fact! If you want to pay less for products made overseas…fine, but you will pay more in the long run. Fact!

    Actually, I was talking about Operating Systems…but have at it. Like I said…You get what you pay for. It is the way it is. I can’t change that, but I do understand it.

    It’s all about stability…one way or the other.

    Posted by Yabu  on  08/26  at  06:27 PM
  9. Operating systems: Unix is the bomb. But then, it mostly has been.

    No apple product exists capable of running any of the hard engineering software I have to use to do my job. All the better cad/cam is written for PC or at the high end, Unix. No apple product- until they started using PC hardware- ever had the graphics acceleration to do the stuff I do, even if it could run the software, which, aghain, it can’t. I’d love to see Cadra or Catia or Deneb or some similar high end product fully ported to the Imac, but not because it is an apple, because it is a PC, and not because it’s Apple software, because it’s Unix. You get what you pay for, indeed, and no amount of money can buy an Apple capable of the engineering work I do every day.

    My issue with Apple has always been the fact that it is sold as religion, and not hardware. And all the faithful step right up and defend the product, but you can’t make an apple into anything but an apple.

    Posted by og  on  08/26  at  07:02 PM
  10. @og, and then there’s that. I’ve been using AutoCAD since the early 90’s and as far as I know it won’t run on Mac stuff, not even with the PC adaptability.
    That alone leaves me out of the equation. I’ve heard Mac excels primarily at high end graphics and cgi stuff but I’m outta of the loop anymore.

    But I do like the *look* of the Mac hardware for the most part.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/26  at  08:28 PM
  11. You have been snookered.  What can an Apple computer do that a PC cannot?  What does that “great” operating system do that Windows does not?  Whatever that is do you think it is worth five times as much?  That old saying “you get what you paid for” was invented by someone overcharging for their product.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/27  at  11:32 PM
  12. @ GoneWithTheWind,

    I assume your last comment was directed to me.

    Look, I’m not trying to start a war here. I’ve been using Windows since 3.0, and DOS since there was DOS.

    I have 7 machines, 2 running Linux, 1 running OS-X, and 4 running Windows.

    All I’m saying is that I prefer a Mac to Windows. Having said that, Unix and Linux are at the top of the food chain.  Boots faster, better and more efficient remote connectivity, no crashes or system hangs, better SQL database connectivity (remote and local), no viruses to speak of, better everything, and more stable. You can also run Windows, or Linux on a Mac in a virtual machine, or dual boot it.

    The Mac OS gives you so many more options than Windows in configuring it to your personal taste.

    A Mac can do more than a Windows machine, and it does what they both do, better. A Mac is more stable. Fact.

    If it’s about money, buy a Windows machine. If it’s about stability and advanced applications, buy a Mac.

    I use ‘em both, I just prefer a Mac. That is all I was saying.

    I have not been snookered. I could write a book on why OS-X is more efficient than Windows, but this is not the place.

    Like I said, you get what you pay for. You should take one for a test drive, you’ll like it. Then you’ll understand what I’m talking about. Kinda like the difference between a Mercedes and a battery powered green car.

    Like I said, I don’t dislike Windows PC’s, I just prefer a Mac. Just my opinion, is all.

    Posted by Yabu  on  08/28  at  08:07 AM
  13. While I don’t dispute Yabu’s experience, the last Mac I used at work was considerably *less* stable than the Dell running NT 4.0, and no more stable than Windows 98. There are, of course, a host of potential confounding variables there, and it was 1999. Apple is great as a business case example: a demonstration that there’s more than one way to do things, and as well as an example of the good things that can happen when one develops and executes a consistent strategy.

    Posted by Ken  on  08/28  at  10:24 AM
  14. Not really aimed at anyone, my point is it is normal and common to be “brand” biased.  some people like Chevys and hate Fords or vice versa.  There is a certain naivete that goes with blind committment to a brand.  I have a good friend who loves Macs has worked for Apple and was yet suprised that I had 12 windows open at once and working just fine in XP.  He was under the impression because of what he read and heard from his fellow Mac users that only Macs could do that.  I used the apple II when I was getting my computer science degree.  I went to a seminar where the first Mac was released.  A good friend and co-worker bought one of the first Macs and indeed I was impressed.  Mac/Apple has been an inovator and a boon to the industry.  But it’s hard to beat a PC and Windows laptop for under $400.  By the way I use my PC about 8 hours a day and I have had this Windows 7 version for a little over a year and have yet to see a crash.  My Vista did crash once or twice in the 5 years I used it.  XP gave me one blue screen of death but otherwise was a great computer system.  Windows 2000 was a lot more trouble but still no big deal.  I think the problems are exaggerated by people who feel the need to pump up their favorite system.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/28  at  11:15 AM
  15. @ GoneWithTheWind,

    Frankly, my * “I don’t give a damn” about which platform people choose. They all work, but they work in different ways. Depends on what you’re doing, and how you want to do it. That’s all, I’m outta this thread.

    Posted by Yabu  on  08/29  at  09:27 AM
  16. Fair enough.  I pretty much feel the same.  I don’t care what kind of care people choose either.  So I guess that only leaves guns to argue about.  How about those 9mm semi-autos?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/29  at  11:13 AM
  17. @ GoneWithTheWind,

    I guess I’m not out of it yet. Personally, I believe a 9mm round is too small for a serious handgun. I prefer a .45 or a .357 for a sidearm, but that is just me. But I’ll take a Schmeisser if need be.

    Posted by Yabu  on  08/29  at  12:17 PM
  18. I likes my stainless/black Beretta 92FS 9mm.

    3 in the face will take out just about anything that breaths air.

    When the 45 is empty I’ll still have 10 more.

    I’d like to have a Colt Python .357 but unfortunately they are now priced beyond my practical limit.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/29  at  12:36 PM
  19. @ Don,

    I have no problem with 9mm’s. I just prefer something with a little more knockdown. Also, if you need more than 7 or 8, you are already dead. Glock makes a sweet double-stacker. Here we go again…I just prefer a larger caliber. Just me.

    Whatever, I can drop an empty clip, and ram one home…pretty fast. To each their own.

    A .45 is a big slow moving round, while the 9mm is much smaller, but has more velocity. Someone once asked me how I would shut a bank vault door…hit it as hard and fast as I could, or give it a good shove. I chose the shove.

    No matter, my six inch .357 is my pack gun. Probably do a bear with it, if need be.

    Anyway, I have nothing against 9mm’s. I have one, but if it came time to slow dance, I would choose something else.

    Most of the people in the military want their .45’s back. The only reason the U.S. moved to a nine, was because Clinton cut a deal with NATO. Research it.

    I’m not arguing with you here…I’m just saying that a .45 is far superior to a 9mm when it comes to stopping power. Has nothing to do with how many bullets fit in the clip.

    Posted by Yabu  on  08/29  at  02:03 PM
  20. @yabu
    I understand the diff in bullet mass.
    I did payroll guard in the army at times and was trained with the .45.

    A friend had a Beretta and I liked it, went to the gun store and as soon as I wrapped my fingers around it I was smitten, as I think anyone would. It is a very well designed gun. It came with 10 rounders so I went to a gun show and bought 10 18 rounders. Then I bought its little brother the Bobcat .22 for my pocket. Both silver/black. Nice.

    I took a Ruger Blackhawk 357 with me to alaska intending to carry in on my trap lines. I figured if a bear attacked I’d hold off til it was inches away then speed shoot all 6 into its head at very close range then run like hell while reloading. I was young and dumb in those days. LOL

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/29  at  04:34 PM
  21. @Don

    Like someone once said “It’s better to have one and not need it, than need one and not have it”. Don’t get me wrong…nines are cool with me.

    Posted by Yabu  on  08/30  at  09:15 AM
  22. HA! True.
    Reminds me of another one I read recently pertaining to Flash Sight by Jack Weaver.
    “a pretty quick hit was better than a lightning-fast miss.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Technique_of_the_Pistol

    I ain’t getting rid of my Beretta anytime soon but I may add a .45 and others as the urge hits. You can’t have too many.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  08/30  at  09:23 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

<< Back to main