In the discussion thread: Steve Jobs colluded with other tech co's to keep US employee compensation low [View all]
Response to brentspeak (Original post)
Sun Jan 29, 2012, 03:30 PM
hyphenate (12,496 posts)
12. Okay, so I don't get it, and I know I'm probably a bit dense on this
Last edited Sun Jan 29, 2012, 03:34 PM - Edit history (2)
And before I start, I want to apologize before I make any unkind remarks--it's just my opinion on the subject, that's all.
I don't give a rat's ass about Steve Jobs. I don't give a fuck about Apple. I think their equipment is overrated, expensive and utterly without redemption.
The popularity of their machines is elitest and arrogant, just like Jobs. And yet, when I was younger, as a geek, we often sneered at Apple buyers (and still do, at times) because they were the computers people bought when they didn't know diddly about REAL computers. Those of us who purchased PC clones and built our own machines knew more about the insides of a computer than almost anyone who worked on or bought them (Macs).
While at one time Apple might have "superior" graphics, PCs caught up with them. I would challenge almost any Mac owner to a graphix contest, and I believe I would win.
PCs flourished because there were cheaper alternatives to the expensive Macs, and thus, clones and the MS system were there to give the masses an "in" to the internet. If it weren't for PCs, there is a likelihood that this would have been a 99% circumstance, where only those with lots of dollars could afford a computer.
PCs aren't perfect, but if we look at the whole internet/PC equation, it's obvious that Apple can't cut it when it comes to a wide disbursement of available software, popularity, peripherals, availibility, and cost.
Steve Jobs was an arrogant SOB. And allegedly he created new equipment to "dazzle" the world, because the products from Apple, while often inovative, were matched easily by PC makers in a short period of time. If it comes down to whiz-bang novelty, Jobs was a winner. But he easily became a whiner instead, as he was matched, nearly 1-1, on everything that Apple created.
Perhaps some praise him for being a paradigm smashing force, but in this geek's brain, there is very little I can see which was not derivative in some way, in some other situation. Hip? Perhaps. Ahead of his time? Hardly. Before Apple, before Jobs, going back over a few centuries, we should think about Leonardi da Vinci, who predicted marvels that his peers could never imagine. Jules Verne, HG Wells, and almost any science fiction authors from the 1920's and on. Innovative? Perhaps to some extent. But again, there have been precedents to almost any of his products.
Here, with this article, his ability to cut throats is visiblse. That puts him on par with almost any other CEO of a company, regardless of the product they sell. But there are still innovators out there who defy conventional practices, like Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream, which has an outstanding record, Costco, which offers decent wages and employee benefits, and Zappos.
I know this is all my own opinion, and that's fine. We all have an opinion, and someone, maybe many of you are more keen on Apple, and that's okay. I've been part of the PC vs Mac ongoing discussion for about 20 years now, and many of those I argue with on the topic were huge Mac fans. I'm just not one of them.
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
|we can do it||Jan 2012||#8|
|we can do it||Jan 2012||#37|
|we can do it||Jan 2012||#35|
|Dorian Gray||Jan 2012||#59|
|we can do it||Jan 2012||#69|
|Neue Regel||Jan 2012||#7|
|we can do it||Jan 2012||#39|
|Starry Messenger||Jan 2012||#58|
Okay, so I don't get it, and I know I'm probably a bit dense on this
|Ruby the Liberal||Jan 2012||#16|
Please login to view edit histories.