Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
My point is that as Jobs took ideas from people working for other companies[;] it is quite clear that without Jobs (and by extension Apple) the devices would have still existed. It is the creative people that are indispensable, not Jobs.
Jobs is the reason why during his life the iPhone didn't get a bigger screen. That definitely simplified concepts, and it might have been the best idea for the company, but it wasn't the best idea for consumers.
|
Here's the problem, Sil_liS: At this point, most of us were already aware of the examples you're offering (fixed iPhone screen size; Jobs' appropriation of ideas from Xerox/Parc and others; iDevices not having been created in a vacuum, etc.).
The difference is that you and I form antipodal conclusions about the trajectory of the data overall.
I could try to convince you of my POV and you mine, but each of us is still going to leave with his own opinion of Jobs' role. I think it will be much easier to discuss his contribution in 50 years when his personality and the dominance of Apple aren't deterrents to objectivity. We do the same thing now with similar catalysts and can be dispassionate (Coco Chanel, Henry Ford, Robert Moses, Louis Comfort Tiffany).
In other news:
I happened to notice that a producer friend of mine was quoted in an article about NASDAQ's delisting AVID on the stock exchange. The relevance of the story is tangential, but it does have a bearing on our discussion as to whether professional use of Apple computers by the music and film industries has any effect on its stock value.
What the NASDAQ Delisting of Avid Really Means to ProTools Users
Quote:
|
“My guess,” Bowler continues, “is if they don’t do something fairly quickly they could be forced to sell assets. As I wasn’t a big fan of Avid’s purchase of Pro Tools to begin with, spinning it off might be the healthiest move they could make for the future of the product.”
|